Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, December 26, 2005 at about 11pm CST - Segment 1
Master CraftsMon - Aired Monday, December 26, 2005 at about 11pm CST - Segment 1
Have you ever heard of talking points? In a political debate, one side or another comes up with what they believe to be the truth, so they write it down and distribute it to the faithful. In short, talking points are the method whereby all the members of a faction can say the same thing. The idea is that if you get your message out to the public in the same format over and over again, then you will prevail. If you get into a political debate with someone on the other side of an argument, talking points allow you to prevail in the debate, because normally talking points have been written by very clever and intelligent people. A normal human cannot marshal the wherewithal to think for themselves and come up with something close to original ideas. Inevitably, when you are having a debate, you cannot at the moment come up with arguments that can counter an opponent, so talking points take the place of considered thought on your part. If you are a member of a faction, whether on the Left or the Right, you get into the habit of assuming that the pundits you respect have the One True Word. Plus... for most people, it's just too much trouble to do their own research.
Let me show something interesting about global warming as an issue. I covered this one on my first show over a month ago, but I wanted to revisit the topic in the context of the topic of "talking points". The talking points on the Left make out that global warming is the fault of us evil humans, because we have spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since about 1900. It thus follows that humans are a plague upon the Earth. It also means that we have to stop doing that... somehow. The Kyoto Treaty was supposed to fix global warming. Evil Americans have made it impossible for the virtuous Kyoto Treaty to kick in and save us from global warming. We need to go to wind power and solar power and hydrogen power.
I think I've covered all the talking points on the Left. I may be mistaken.
The Right on the other hand appears to take the position that the pro-Kyoto Treaty people are environmentalist wackos or unreconstructed Communists or various other central control freaks who want to see the economy planned by good hearted "special people". Another talking point on the Right is that the world economy will collapse if we throttle back on so-called green house gases. The Right also says that this a deep... dark... plot by... "fill in the blank subversive group" bent on destroying the American economy.
The Right goes on and on about how silly global warming is in the context of what can we do about it? I mean, the absolute best guess for the effects of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming is that $300B per year in lost productivity, we can lower the average world temperature by less than half a degree Fahrenheit. Why does that make sense?
Now, here is what I wanted to get to as far as "talking points". In a discussion dealing with a physical event, there should be a way of telling using science who has the better argument. The problem: The science has been politicized.
There was this guy named Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Lomborg is an extreme left wing radical. His positions mirror the Left on almost all issues except the environment. In his book he set out to discredit the Right. Lomborg used his statistics training to disprove the talking points of the Right. To his horror, he discovered that the Right was correct in that the environment has improved massively since 1970 and global warming has happened but most of the heating occurred before 1940. What he had done is attack the conventional wisdom of the Left using the scientific method. Science should be able to settle the argument as to whether global warming exists, is caused by humans and can be fixed by humans.
And that is the real statement of the problem of global warming. Does global warming exist, did humans cause it AND can humans reasonablely be expected to fix global warming?
Lomborg's use of the scientific method did not go unchallenged. He has been assailed much like a heretic would be assailed. No one doubts that his data are correct. No one can dispute the data. They just do not want to stray from their talking points and have to think about the issue.
As near as I can tell some people WANT humans to have been responsible for global warming because it means that humans are all powerful. That humans are God-like. That humans can do anything, if we but have the will to try.
Me, I've looked at global warming and have decided that the pro-Kyoto Treaty people are nuts. Over the last 5 million years. Let me say that time period again. Over the last 5 million years, there has been a 100000 year cycle of 80000 years of ice ages and 20000 years of warming. The last ice age ended 10000 years ago. If I were a reasonable person, I would ask myself this question, hmmm... 10000 divided by 20000 is one half. We are half way through the warming period, shouldn't the temperature be at its highest about now? That's a quick and dirty way of looking at it. We could go into sun spots and the earth's orbit around the sun, but it's easier to just do the division and let it go at that.
I know, too logical. Your talking points won't let you think I might be right. That's what irritates me about talking points. They blind both sides to the fact that the other side might be doing what they are doing for honorable reasons. If you accept talking points from your faction without thinking about them and researching them yourself, then you allow others to do your thinking. Don't do that. It's a bad idea.
Have you ever heard of talking points? In a political debate, one side or another comes up with what they believe to be the truth, so they write it down and distribute it to the faithful. In short, talking points are the method whereby all the members of a faction can say the same thing. The idea is that if you get your message out to the public in the same format over and over again, then you will prevail. If you get into a political debate with someone on the other side of an argument, talking points allow you to prevail in the debate, because normally talking points have been written by very clever and intelligent people. A normal human cannot marshal the wherewithal to think for themselves and come up with something close to original ideas. Inevitably, when you are having a debate, you cannot at the moment come up with arguments that can counter an opponent, so talking points take the place of considered thought on your part. If you are a member of a faction, whether on the Left or the Right, you get into the habit of assuming that the pundits you respect have the One True Word. Plus... for most people, it's just too much trouble to do their own research.
Let me show something interesting about global warming as an issue. I covered this one on my first show over a month ago, but I wanted to revisit the topic in the context of the topic of "talking points". The talking points on the Left make out that global warming is the fault of us evil humans, because we have spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since about 1900. It thus follows that humans are a plague upon the Earth. It also means that we have to stop doing that... somehow. The Kyoto Treaty was supposed to fix global warming. Evil Americans have made it impossible for the virtuous Kyoto Treaty to kick in and save us from global warming. We need to go to wind power and solar power and hydrogen power.
I think I've covered all the talking points on the Left. I may be mistaken.
The Right on the other hand appears to take the position that the pro-Kyoto Treaty people are environmentalist wackos or unreconstructed Communists or various other central control freaks who want to see the economy planned by good hearted "special people". Another talking point on the Right is that the world economy will collapse if we throttle back on so-called green house gases. The Right also says that this a deep... dark... plot by... "fill in the blank subversive group" bent on destroying the American economy.
The Right goes on and on about how silly global warming is in the context of what can we do about it? I mean, the absolute best guess for the effects of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming is that $300B per year in lost productivity, we can lower the average world temperature by less than half a degree Fahrenheit. Why does that make sense?
Now, here is what I wanted to get to as far as "talking points". In a discussion dealing with a physical event, there should be a way of telling using science who has the better argument. The problem: The science has been politicized.
There was this guy named Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book called "The Skeptical Environmentalist". Lomborg is an extreme left wing radical. His positions mirror the Left on almost all issues except the environment. In his book he set out to discredit the Right. Lomborg used his statistics training to disprove the talking points of the Right. To his horror, he discovered that the Right was correct in that the environment has improved massively since 1970 and global warming has happened but most of the heating occurred before 1940. What he had done is attack the conventional wisdom of the Left using the scientific method. Science should be able to settle the argument as to whether global warming exists, is caused by humans and can be fixed by humans.
And that is the real statement of the problem of global warming. Does global warming exist, did humans cause it AND can humans reasonablely be expected to fix global warming?
Lomborg's use of the scientific method did not go unchallenged. He has been assailed much like a heretic would be assailed. No one doubts that his data are correct. No one can dispute the data. They just do not want to stray from their talking points and have to think about the issue.
As near as I can tell some people WANT humans to have been responsible for global warming because it means that humans are all powerful. That humans are God-like. That humans can do anything, if we but have the will to try.
Me, I've looked at global warming and have decided that the pro-Kyoto Treaty people are nuts. Over the last 5 million years. Let me say that time period again. Over the last 5 million years, there has been a 100000 year cycle of 80000 years of ice ages and 20000 years of warming. The last ice age ended 10000 years ago. If I were a reasonable person, I would ask myself this question, hmmm... 10000 divided by 20000 is one half. We are half way through the warming period, shouldn't the temperature be at its highest about now? That's a quick and dirty way of looking at it. We could go into sun spots and the earth's orbit around the sun, but it's easier to just do the division and let it go at that.
I know, too logical. Your talking points won't let you think I might be right. That's what irritates me about talking points. They blind both sides to the fact that the other side might be doing what they are doing for honorable reasons. If you accept talking points from your faction without thinking about them and researching them yourself, then you allow others to do your thinking. Don't do that. It's a bad idea.
posted by aRandomTexan at
11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home