I just don't think the way to win any argument is to start out accepting a false premise put forth by your opponent, that is the whole reason for the discussion in the first place..
It doesn’t work politically. It has been proven politically across the world. Opposition parties let scientists argue the climate change evidence, politicians should argue economic impacts. As more scientific evidence emerges, the political game plan can change, and has somewhat. Its no use taking a stand against climate change if you never get elected. She is a politician not a scientist.
We are in tough economic times.
Sarah, by avoiding the “climate change” 800 lb. gorilla in the room, is FORCING the other side to bring it up -—
And, Sarah has said what the cost of cap and tax will be -—
So, just like when the public is asked to buy ANY product or service -—
If you tell me the hamburger will cost $10.00 I am not likely to ask you about the ingredients, I will more than likely NOT BUY IT!
Try thinking like a sheeple for a change instead of a FReeper.
There's no need for her to scream that global warming is a hoax right now, otherwise she'll just be portrayed as a lunatic.
Read what she's doing and it makes perfect sense. If the environmental wackos care about the planet, then why do they support us importing our energy instead of getting it here, when we can do it much more environmentally sounder? The reader will see the contrast and say, "Yeah, it makes sense just to get it here rather than importing tankers over the oceans to our shores."
Once you change people's minds about energy and how it's best to get it here, the "global warming is a hoax!" argument will take care of itself.
She didn’t accept the premise; she bypassed it.
The point she made here is that regardless of what you think about “climate change,” cap and tax is not the answer; taking advantage of our domestic resources is the solution.
She could have spent time trying to convince people that her understanding of the problem is correct, and then secondarily trying to convince them that her solution is right. But that’s a complex, multi-step argument.
Instead, she cut out the first step, and went directly to her proposed solution. If she convinces people that her proposed solution is correct, does it really matter people’s understanding of the problem differ from hers?
True if you want to win an “argument” with people who already agree with you. However, to win an argument with people who disagree (ie idependent voters who buy into AGW), you cannot attack their core beliefs. Instead, you have to at least leave those on the side and then still prove your point, here that Cap and Trade is bad. It’s part of the art of rhetoric...
I just don’t think the way to win any argument is to start out accepting a false premise put forth by your opponent, that is the whole reason for the discussion in the first place..
**********
I agree and immediately had the same problem with her article. No matter what the argument is about, I am one who will not move beyond a false premise. What sense does that make? Her article was great in a world where gw/climate change is proven with any degree of certainty. She seems to assume that it has been proven, or at the least she ignores the issue. Until gw/climate change is dealt with, all energy plans relying on “brown” technology are subject to climate change, and by logical extension, “necessary” cap and trade, type arguments.
However, given the issues with questioning climate change (political and media backlash), she may intend to use the claims made in her article as an end-around to eventually get to the core issue - gw/climate change. I hope so. I would love to see her and others in the spotlight call for an honest debate on the issue. Perhaps as Techno suggested should could pen an article dealing with that issue.
Cap and trade in one form or another will exist if we continue to operate under the same faulty premise.
BTW, Al Gore was a politician who helped make the BS claims stick. There is no reason Palin can’t help tear it down.