Climate activists want Biden to fire the head of the World Bank. Here's why

[ThatRobGuy]

Climate activists want Biden to fire the head of the World Bank. Here's why

Climate activists are calling on President Biden to take steps to fire David Malpass, the head of the World Bank, after he publicly waffled on whether he believes that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are causing climate change, saying "I'm not a scientist."

Malpass made the comments after former vice president and noted climate activist Al Gore called him a "climate denier" at a New York Times event on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week.


So, if we're keeping score...

When being asked loaded questions that have the very transparent intent of giving a person the choices of

A) Saying something that will make them alienate part of their own base
or
B) Saying something that will make it look like they're giving lipservice to a "radical stance"
or
C) A non-committal answer that make one look like a waffler

"I'm not a biologist" is a perfectly acceptable dodge
"I'm not a climate scientist" is termination-worthy

 

[Nithavela]

I don't think this is a loaded question.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think this is a loaded question.

How would it not be a loaded question?

It's a climate reporter (and climate activist) for the NY Times grilling the conservative-leaning head of an economic institution.

It's not really any different than a Senator (with a pre-established bias) asking a judicial nominee the "what is a woman?" question.

It's a no-win question for the respondent.

When asked your position on a hotly debated issue (that only minorly indirectly relates to your position), your choices are...
- own your position (tick off the other side)
- partially distance yourself from the position of your side (tick off your own side)
- give a vague answer (give the other side fodder to use against you)

If "I'm not an expert in that field" is an acceptable answer for one person to give in that situation, then those same rules should apply for the opposing side.

 

[Nithavela]

How would it not be a loaded question?

It's a climate reporter (and climate activist) for the NY Times grilling the conservative-leaning head of an economic institution.

It's not really any different than a Senator (with a pre-established bias) asking a judicial nominee the "what is a woman?" question.

It's a no-win question for the respondent.

When asked your position on a hotly debated issue (that only minorly indirectly relates to your position), your choices are...
- own your position (tick off the other side)
- partially distance yourself from the position of your side (tick off your own side)
- give a vague answer (give the other side fodder to use against you)

If "I'm not an expert in that field" is an acceptable answer for one person to give in that situation, then those same rules should apply for the opposing side.

A loaded question is a question that contains an assumption that is detrimental to the person questioned, like "have you stopped beating your wife?".

There is no such assumption in the question in your OP.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A loaded question is a question that contains an assumption that is detrimental to the person questioned, like "have you stopped beating your wife?".

There is no such assumption in the question in your OP.

I was operating off of the more broad definition:
-. a question that attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

...but if there's a better descriptor, perhaps "no-win question" or "leading question", I'm willing to make the edits to my post lol.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Climate activists want Biden to fire the head of the World Bank. Here's why

Climate activists are calling on President Biden to take steps to fire David Malpass, the head of the World Bank, after he publicly waffled on whether he believes that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are causing climate change, saying "I'm not a scientist."

Malpass made the comments after former vice president and noted climate activist Al Gore called him a "climate denier" at a New York Times event on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week.


So, if we're keeping score...

When being asked loaded questions that have the very transparent intent of giving a person the choices of

A) Saying something that will make them alienate part of their own base
or
B) Saying something that will make it look like they're giving lipservice to a "radical stance"
or
C) A non-committal answer that make one look like a waffler

"I'm not a biologist" is a perfectly acceptable dodge
"I'm not a climate scientist" is termination-worthy

The era that people were allowed to think for themselves is well and truly over. Group think is king and any dissent is intolerable. The world system is preparing the way for the Antichrist.

 

[disciple Clint]

Climate activists want Biden to fire the head of the World Bank. Here's why

Climate activists are calling on President Biden to take steps to fire David Malpass, the head of the World Bank, after he publicly waffled on whether he believes that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are causing climate change, saying "I'm not a scientist."

Malpass made the comments after former vice president and noted climate activist Al Gore called him a "climate denier" at a New York Times event on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly earlier this week.


So, if we're keeping score...

When being asked loaded questions that have the very transparent intent of giving a person the choices of

A) Saying something that will make them alienate part of their own base
or
B) Saying something that will make it look like they're giving lipservice to a "radical stance"
or
C) A non-committal answer that make one look like a waffler

"I'm not a biologist" is a perfectly acceptable dodge
"I'm not a climate scientist" is termination-worthy

any question that some liberal people consistently display their double standards

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The era that people were allowed to think for themselves is well and truly over. Group think is king and any dissent is intolerable. The world system is preparing the way for the Antichrist.

Well, I won't delve into the "antichrist" aspect, that's not my area of interest or expertise.

But with regard to "group think", I would agree...but that group think is by no means one sided.

Within the institutions of entertainment and academia, the left are certainly the bigger offenders. However, in the realm of politics, the right tend to be bigger offenders.

The existence and common usage of the term "RINO" is adequate evidence of that.

Look at how certain republican governors were treated by Trump and his supporters... guys who are conservative, and have 95%+ overlap with core republican agenda were basically labelled sellouts and Trump (and his acolytes) encouraged people to try to primary them and declare them persona non grata over disagreement on one or two issues.

My home state governor Mike DeWine got that treatment from them (despite being very conservative)

 

[durangodawood]

I was operating off of the more broad definition:
-. a question that attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

...but if there's a better descriptor, perhaps "no-win question" or "leading question", I'm willing to make the edits to my post lol.

Human caused climate change isnt "agenda". Its just a basic scientific fact.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Human caused climate change isnt "agenda". Its just a basic scientific fact.

Correct, but there are certainly agendas that can be built around a scientific fact that aren't nearly as grounded in fact as the science itself. For instance, one can be against the "Green New Deal" and still believe in the reality of man-made climate change.

As an example: There's ample scientific evidence that suggests that red meat consumption isn't exactly good for people. Just because PETA cites those studies as part of their larger agenda & talking points, that doesn't mean that anyone who opposes PETA (and some of their other tactics and approaches) is a "science denier".

But my point was more about the dodge and the line of questioning surrounding it.

Much like Jackson dodged the question (that was almost certain to ruffle feathers no matter how she answered) "Can you define a woman?" by answering "I'm not a biologist".

This guy did something similar by answering with "I'm not a climate scientist".

What's good for the goose is good for gander was my point.