[FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Nah. I reject the dichotomy. I consider myself both D and an A, but in different domains. And I think it might be reasonable to time slice between A & D. My sister's ex used to say "We play hard and we work hard" ... indicating that they were both D & A, maybe even simultaneously, depending on how you interpret that.

The more interesting thing about AGW is whether or not one *must* be a believer or a "skeptic" [†], and nothing in between. As a dyed in the wool agnostic, I neither believe nor am I a "skeptic", from gun control to abortion to AGW. I also don't like Britney Spears' music. But if she showed up at my door and asked me to ... oh, I don't know ... create a visualization package for her music, I would definitely do it, which would mean listening to her music a LOT for days on end. You don't have to agree with a mission in order to contribute to the mission.

So, it seems to me to be *unreasonable* to run around complaining about how so many people are AGW believers. So what? If you don't want to work on the problem, go work on something else. It's just weird how the "skeptics" are so obsessed. E.g.

  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg


[†] In quotes to indicate that many people abuse the term. I am a skeptic, but not a "skeptic" ... if you grok the gist.

On 1/21/20 12:17 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> While I am "in", it seems to me that a distinction is beginning to evolve here between whether a reasonable person CAN doubt Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and whether such a person SHOULD doubt AGW.   I think reasonable people could argue whether we are in a period of AGW (400yrs), a period of global cooling (11,000 yrs) or a spectacularly fragile and geologically unprecedented period of climate stability (also about 11kyrs).  So, in these sorts of situations, people tend to sort themselves out into Dionysians and Apollonians, the former declaring that we're probably  fucked and we might as well stay warm, run around in our cars, and burn all the coal we can, and the later declaring that we have a chance to get it right and we should take our best shot.  I am, as you all know, with the Apollonians.  We are, after all, the choosing species, the species that can knowingly chart it's own path.  So we “should” choose; in fact, we /will/ chose, even if we only do so by
> choosing not to choose. 
> 
>  
> 
> But it's clear, now why the debate is so intractable.  The debate between Dionysians and Apollonians has been in progress for centuries, so it's no surprise that we are struggling with it now. 
> 
>  
> 
> I hear some of you formulating an argument that whether we are D’s or A’s should be determined by the shape of the hazard space.  As a collective, I think we FRIAMMERS are particularly well positioned and qualified to have that discussion, and I hope it will continue. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ