Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I forgot this thread existed until halfway through February.
Is there a name or a phrase for arguments of convenience crafted to reach a desired conclusion? My canonical example is the argument against doing anything about climate change from the Right, which goes something like: climate change isn't happening. But even if it is, it's not caused by humans. But even if it is, it will actually be a net positive. But even if it won't be, there's nothing we can do about it. But even if there is, it's too late anyway. At every step along the road, if you refute the arguments of the denier, another argument is recruited to take its place. While the denier frequently genuinely believes that they subscribe to these arguments, it's obvious from the way they are jettisoned and replaced by an entirely new argument that they are arguments of convenience. In this case, the real reason deniers don't believe in global warming is that it clashes with their deeply held beliefs that government is useless and liberals are hippy whingers.
Yeah, I have just been in the Mason thread actually, why you ask?
I read an article on Ars Technica the other day that the government wants to stop a program where we have been using satellites to track carbon dioxide levels and correlate them to various events.
They have been doing this for a while and I believe the current satellite is the second one so they would literally be stopping something where the majority of money is already spent. Of course the jumbo jumbo about private industry doing it better.
There is zero incentive for any private company to pick up the slack by canceling that project.