“Reasonable people can disagree about whether the only planet we have available should remain hospitable to human life”?
I mean, reasonably, we should all be hair-on-fire focused on this issue.
I had no idea there were so many immigrants on Duke’s campus…/s
thisX 11 million
At least we can comfort ourselves on being right while the world burns =/
I went in & did a search on climate and reading about 5-6 articles in the past 6 months, nothing jumped out at me other than they don’t like the new green deal. They admit it’s a problem, but are not embracing that solution.
So, I’m not seeing anything recent. It very well may be that in 2016 when Sheldon Whitehouse and other senators brought attention to this, it might have worked to tone them down.
In any regards, thanks for the heads up. I’ll be abit more scrutinizing in the future knowing past events.
I don’t really think that’s a good way to think about climate change. If Reason was e.g. pro-slavery, I wouldn’t say it’s misguided to discount them over one policy position. Would you?
Again, Reason isn’t a person. It’s a whole bunch of different writers and academics.
Granted, but if the reasonable ones don’t boot the other ones, they all get the same fleas. Association is free, but not free of consequence.
-xtien
So is Trump getting opinions from a source other than Fox, now?
It’s not “just*” climate change. As I said.
*just in quotes because if they deny climate change, then why trust anyone else they pay to write opinions or ‘research’?
Edit to add: People can certainly disagree on which policies to implement to mitigate climate change. That it exists is not up for debate.
As I said in my reply to Timex, I don’t trust any source tied with the Koch brothers. Others of course are free to disagree. To be fair, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ gives them a decent rating (center/right bias but with high ratings for factual reporting.)
If it’s well written and sourced, then that would be why.
That’s short sighted and misguided.
As an example, Reason writes about things like drug legalization, and reduction of police abuse. These aren’t Koch talking points.
I think it’s reasonable to be wary of some sources, but that doesn’t mean you discount them out of hand.
Well, unless it’s something like Info Wars or Breitbart where they blatantly lie and peddle conspiracy theories, then it would have to be extraordinary, with strong evidence to even consider them.
Reason is mostly reasonable even if I don’t agree with them all the time. In my head they’re a generally right-leaning HuffPost, though I could be wrong. I tend to have the same reaction and similar wariness to both.
And two whole people clicked on that link I provided that showed other examples.
But whatever.
Edit: I should start finishing my posts before clicking save. Derp.
Anyway, I’m not going to justify my opinion of the Koch brothers and anything they support.
As I stated earlier, others can disagree.
Both of those issues are Koch talking points. They also commit money to support their stance on those issues.
If the Koch brothers want to legalize drugs and reduce police abuse, then maybe they aren’t that bad.
This is where the narrator tells the audience “They are”.
Hitler could have opened an animal rescue and he’d still be hitler.
Social policies like drugs and gay rights I consider too easy to accept, they mean fuck all. The hard ones are economic. People aren’t gonna let go of their money and power.
I mean, could someone really be that bad if the trains ran on time?