Unfortunately in today society we must have a reasonably turned BS detector.
The fact that she can't answer a simple question about a problem that she is claiming is a severe threat and demands that drastic action be taken to address it, means that she wasn't convinced to that standpoint by logic or reason.
She was propagandized into believing it at best, ir at worst is just hijacking a trendy cause to get votes and manipulate people.
Also, in a televised debate, it's best to have the some of the basic facts with you.
She could have spun her reply in many ways.
Addressing the amount produced, or something else. Or stating the effect by tonne or something. Not just percent composition.
It doesn't matter what she knows or doesn't know, or how she came to believe it. The thing (global warming in this case) is true or it's false regardless of any of those things. The tactic isn't rational debate. It's a subtle ad hominem. "This person here is an idiot, therefore their position cannot be true." Unfortunately that's a non-sequitur.
From the clip he doesn't deny climate change.
He was asking how much co2 is in the atmosphere currently, how much man made, and how much is Australia's share of manmade co2 emissions.
His point, that she was unable to address, seems to have been that Australias contribution to current co2 levels is immeasurable on a global scale and curtailing it would not cause any difference so why
His point, that she was unable to address, seems to have been that Australias contribution to current co2 levels is immeasurable on a global scale and curtailing it would not cause any difference so why
That's an invalid point. Every individual's contribution to any kind of pollution is tiny, and then why stop littering if my contribution is so tiny? The reason is because you can't have everyone reducing their share if nobody is reducing their share. That's a tautology, by the way.
Perhaps an ad hominem, but since the clip is cut part way through.
I have the impression that he was tring to make a point about Australians net contribution globally of CO2 vs how much of an impact the effort of reducing it would be on the population.
The fact that she didn't know, seems to have shut down a point she was trying to make and then became an attack on her later while he wss trying to finish his point.
(post is archived)