User:Woozle/LwaC/2015-04-01

So, this seems like a good venue for resuming discussion of #lunchWithAConservative. I'll try to give it more of a Miranda treatment.

<recap>

A brief recap for those who haven't been following along (click on the hashtag for previous episodes) -- and some more details for those who weren't in the confidential circle to which I posted when the crisis (i.e. his reaction) happened:

Approximately once a week, I meet with my dad for lunch. (Harena sometimes comes along.) Unfortunately, he often chooses to repeat what we both view as being little better than partially-chewed right-wing talking-points.

Also unfortunately, I can't just write off his position as wingnuttery. First off, he's well-educated -- a retired emeritus prof in experimental psychology with a string of publications and various other encomia -- and second, I'm pretty sure he's not just trolling me (although he may be taking a bit of pleasure in throwing me off-kilter, or in disagreement for the sake of starting a discussion).

Also, I should make it clear that he's not "conservative" (at least, not in the American sense) about _everything._ For instance, I learned about evolution from him before I learned it in school; he supports universal healthcare and a better public transit system, recognizes the problem of extreme wealth disparity and the way that "market forces" sometimes create this problem etc. (He has published a book about this... I'll try to post more details on the private Miranda wiki at some point.)

Basically, we have here a live, confirmed example of genuine conservative views combined with an advanced education, available for study under -laboratory- buffet conditions. Science seems called for.

</recap>

So, this week at LWaC, we learned two things:

1. Liberals don't like it when black conservatives speak publicly because they're "going off the plantation" (I think that was the phrase). At first I thought this was synonymous with "rising above their station", which is something I can't imagine a liberal objecting to (or even failing to support strongly), but it turns out that it means something more like "failing to support the liberal view despite being a minority".

I could react to this but I think I should focus on the second item, which is something we've been battling about for the better part of a decade now...

1. When people get passionate about global warming, it's really just a form of superstition. People (liberals) primarily believe that GW is a severe problem because of their (liberal) tribal alliances, not because of the evidence available. The evidence available is inconclusive at best, there are many competing models, etc. (I'm repeating some arguments from previous discussions here; the "superstition" talking-point has been the focus of late.)

In the absence of a proper debate mapper tool, I've come up with a list of statements to which I don't think any reasonable person could possibly disagree (no matter how biased they might be towards denial) and I'm planning to ask him which of them he actually disputes:

1. Major climate changes are taking place right now.
2. These changes are likely to result in trillions of dollars of damage, at a minimum.
3. There are actions we can take to minimize the damage (even if we can't affect the change itself).
4. The sooner we begin taking such actions (#3), the less costly the damage will be in the long run.
5. There are actions we can take to reduce the severity of the climate change itself.
6. The sooner we begin taking such actions (#5), the less severe the climate change will be in the long run.
7. The climate changes taking place right now are unprecedented within human history.
8. The climate changes taking place right now are probably (though not certainly) caused by human activity.
9. The conclusions of climate scientists are the most reliable guide to how the climate is likely to change in the future.
10. If the consensus among climate scientists is biased, it is just as likely to be biased in the direction of being too conservative as it is to be biased in the direction of being too extreme.

I'm open to suggestions for additional statements to check.

Footnotes

*...despite the fact (discovered yesterday) that he apparently didn't know I post a lot on G+, which now makes me wonder exactly how that post came to his attention... there's history behind this, but it's Drama, and Miranda is not a place for Drama. Anyway, he may have just forgotten.