Let's not forget that this is the plan when ANY conservative gets elected.
If Donald Trump chokes to death on a McDonald's Hamberder tonight they won't abandon their plans to gut the legislation.
Any red vote is a vote against the climate
Yes, as with many aspects of the so-called MAGA agenda, he is merely intensifying decades-long trends, in this case Republican attempts to gag scientists and destroy the administrative state required to enforce environmental laws. DeSantis also was putting forward similar policy positions on climate stuff. But there's no doubt the Trump administration was the most anti-science in US history, making what we saw in the Bush years look like child's play. We still haven't recovered from what they did, and in some ways the environmental crimes of those years have only recently borne fruit, such as in the Supreme Court rulings against wetland protection, CO2 regulations, and the potential upcoming decision to require Congress to explicitly set all environmental criteria in the laws (an intentionally impossible task)
And they said "Don't Look Up " was over the top...
"Don't Look Up" was about a giant metor, not climate change.
Do you know what an analogy is?
I'm not sure if this counts as a new type of logical fallacy, or if it's just a general tactic. I call it 'micro specificity' where someone takes a commnet and uses specific facts to undermine the actual idea.
For instance, I wrote that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House circa 1976, and Ronald Reagan removed them when he got elected. I got a long reply that ignored everything about Carter's attempts to rein in Big Oil and instead gave a lot of details about 1970s solar tech.
It's a variation of gish gallop. If you negate their point they'll just ignore you and hope nobody else engages with the correction. It's less spectacular and more secure from an infosec POV because with prime gish gallop the operator has to keep somewhere between many and dozens of premises oriented around the argument they're trying to push.
It’s an allegory.
Is that anything like a metaphor?
Found the Trump supporter.
Lol, no try again
Well no fucking shit.
They've already done the job of practically removing climate change as an actual discussion point, it's why you don't hear enough of it through America.
They have already defanged every agency that had jurisdiction over the environment. This is just the next step.
And Democrats will compromise to only reduce it to 15% of its current levels.
The article is about Republicans and Trump, but you bring up Democrats to blame.
Better than going full throttle on hydrocarbons. Democrats are far from perfect, but we at least buy time with them vs stomping on the accelerator.
Let's not forget that this is the plan when ANY conservative gets elected.
If Donald Trump chokes to death on a McDonald's Hamberder tonight they won't abandon their plans to gut the legislation.
Any red vote is a vote against the climate
Yes, as with many aspects of the so-called MAGA agenda, he is merely intensifying decades-long trends, in this case Republican attempts to gag scientists and destroy the administrative state required to enforce environmental laws. DeSantis also was putting forward similar policy positions on climate stuff. But there's no doubt the Trump administration was the most anti-science in US history, making what we saw in the Bush years look like child's play. We still haven't recovered from what they did, and in some ways the environmental crimes of those years have only recently borne fruit, such as in the Supreme Court rulings against wetland protection, CO2 regulations, and the potential upcoming decision to require Congress to explicitly set all environmental criteria in the laws (an intentionally impossible task)
And they said "Don't Look Up " was over the top...
"Don't Look Up" was about a giant metor, not climate change.
Do you know what an analogy is?
I'm not sure if this counts as a new type of logical fallacy, or if it's just a general tactic. I call it 'micro specificity' where someone takes a commnet and uses specific facts to undermine the actual idea.
For instance, I wrote that Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House circa 1976, and Ronald Reagan removed them when he got elected. I got a long reply that ignored everything about Carter's attempts to rein in Big Oil and instead gave a lot of details about 1970s solar tech.
The card says "Moops"
Maybe this can help explain it https://youtu.be/FK4RHzNHZXY?si=f8lGXy11J7ID6Sll
Thanks
It's a variation of gish gallop. If you negate their point they'll just ignore you and hope nobody else engages with the correction. It's less spectacular and more secure from an infosec POV because with prime gish gallop the operator has to keep somewhere between many and dozens of premises oriented around the argument they're trying to push.
It’s an allegory.
Is that anything like a metaphor?
Found the Trump supporter.
Lol, no try again
Well no fucking shit.
They've already done the job of practically removing climate change as an actual discussion point, it's why you don't hear enough of it through America.
They have already defanged every agency that had jurisdiction over the environment. This is just the next step.
And Democrats will compromise to only reduce it to 15% of its current levels.
The article is about Republicans and Trump, but you bring up Democrats to blame.
Better than going full throttle on hydrocarbons. Democrats are far from perfect, but we at least buy time with them vs stomping on the accelerator.