At this point, it would be better for you to acknowledge it is nonsense, rather than give the impression that you still cannot figure out that it is.
Are you uncomfortable supporting your position?
Unlike you, I am not. It simply comes back to an issue that you have been avoiding for quite a while:
All of today's grids started with smaller, less-connected entities. That is not an adequate justification for the current situation. The idea that Texas alone is somehow constrained, by forces beyond its control, from changing with the times, is absurd.
A lot of people have focused on Texas's separate grid policy.
And do I really need to explain to you how it shows that your comment is irrelevant? I suppose I do, given that we are here. It is just this: since the beginning of Texas' grid (as you say, decades ago - almost a century) there has been plenty of opportunity for Texas to make not just its grid, but its entire energy infrastructure, more resilient. Far from my case being one of recency bias, the reality is that your reply to it suffers from the opposite fallacy - a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/led-lead/
The reason you "untroduced [sic]" it, of course, was "that that [sic]" it distracts from your backwards projection of current events, which is why your post is is utterly irrelevant to an analysis of what has recently happened, and, more specifically, is utterly irrelevant to the article you were commenting on.
And do I really need to explain to you why your points are irrelevant? I suppose that I do, given that we are here. It is just this: the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days. Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
You are now attempting to argue against, not what I posted, but an entirely imaginary reply.
At least it seems that it has finally dawned on you that the argument you presented in your first reply to me, which, in its entirety, was "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing. It doesn't have anything to do with climate-change denial or the current governor" is utterly irrelevant, both to the energy infrastructure / climate problem in general, and my specific post - though it took ten exchanges in which it was explained to you, multiple times, why it is irrelevant, for you to get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
It seems like you still don't get it. We will see if you will have the integrity to acknowledge how utterly mistaken your original reply was.
Well, it is certainly possible that they are irrelevant, but I see that you have given up any pretense of justifying that claim.
On the one hand, given how badly your earlier attempts to make that case went, I can see why you would want to avoid another try. On the other, as the person making the claims has demonstrated such a poor record on critical thinking here, why would anyone just accept it?
And these are claims, I may add, that you recently doubled-down on once again, as in this statement:
>Far from my case being based on a fallacy so obviously wrong that it may not occur often enough to have a recognized name, the reality is that your reply suffers from one that is well known and quite common among your ilk: recency bias.
The thing about parody is that it doesn't work if the premise is false! And what premise was behind this version of your claim of recency bias? Explicitly this: "the article actually discusses national winterization standards versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days."
For one thing, I had only just before pointed out that the fact that multiple states were unprepared does not excuse any one of them. Secondly, what sort of claim could both be an example of recency bias, and be refuted by the statement of yours that I have just quoted? For example, if someone said "only Texas was affected", it would be refuted by that statement of yours, but it would simply have been a false statement about a recent event. That would not be recency bias!
Your other basis for claiming recency bias is "Texas's separate grid dates back decades, and was driven by a conscious desire to optimize for the needs of manufacturing", but as Texas was free to respond to more recent warnings about the inadequacy of its energy infrastructure, its failure to do so at that time is, of course, more relevant than the facts you quote about a much earlier time. This is not recency bias!
As for calling this a "dishonest, cowardly act", that's the sort of rhetoric that most people give up after childhood. It is that, rather than the substantive issues that many knowledgeable people have been raising, which does not belong in public dialogue. You seem to be annoyed that this thread has demonstrated a complete failure of critical analysis on your part (a situation that your latest reply has done nothing to repair), but it is entirely of your own doing.
There are northern states with better winterization, but that is easily explainable with reference to the obvious difference in weather. Even given that, significant blackouts -- like the northeast blackout of 2003 -- have occurred in areas with quite a different political climate than Texas. The US grid has overall shown a low level of preparedness.
And when politicians start saying things like the debacle being preferable to federal regulation, it absolutely is reasonable to ask whether Texas' failure to heed the warnings of experts was overly influenced by ideological concerns...
The only winterization recommendations that would have made a difference for Texas came from within the Texas energy sector itself. What are you talking about, here?
It is, of course, irrelevant where the criticism of the existing infrastructure came from, what is relevant is that it was not acted on, and therefore, the question of why it was not acted on is very pertinent, just as I have been saying from the beginning. And, for the third or fourth time, you are trying a slightly different version of the nonsensical notion that if other jurisdictions' infrastructure is not perfect, then what led to Texas' debacle is a question that should not be asked.
Furthermore, your newly-found claim that Texas' infrastructure was criticized from within can only raise additional questions of why such recommendations were ignored - was the Texas energy sector prevented from implementing its own recommendations?
>Dishonesty is the sort of rhetoric...
This is just a continuation of the childish outburst in your previous post, which does nothing to rehabilitate your reputation for critical thinking, which has been thoroughly trashed, by your own hand, in this thread.
Furthermore, your newly-found claim that Texas' infrastructure was criticized from within...
You are not being truthful, here. Consider the comment of mine that you first replied to, where I wrote:
...the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days.
Of course the question of why these warnings were ignored needs to be asked, and to anyone who understands anything about human nature, it is obvious that your insistence that certain questions should not be asked is the purely political position here.
The problem here is not with asking the question, but how you chose to answer it: by bringing up partisan irrelevancies, in order to tell a divisive fable.
The full text of that comment is "This is not a fair reading of the article. It actually discusses national winterization versus those of Texas, and points out both that other southern states have experienced power disruptions due to the cold, and that the national winterization standards are neither stricter than those of Texas nor strict enough to address the events of recent days", and I would be interested to see how you can find "the only winterization recommendations that would have made a difference for Texas came from within the Texas energy sector itself" in there (it does, of course, contain the seeds of one of your absurd ideas - that other entities' failings excuse those of Texas - but that unshakeable non-sequitur is a separate issue.)
- And even if that was somehow what you intended to say, then it would merely mean that you have been flying with no visible means of support for longer than I thought. Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that fact in your recent post, as otherwise I would never have guessed that you recognize it as being so!
I do see that, in another thread, you wrote "there's no solution that works if we don't hold regulators accountable and the regulators don't hold the industry accountable." Yes, indeed - recognizing, of course, that the state executive and legislature have considerable control over the regulatory process, and a corresponding responsibility in the debacle.
The comment I replied to was not a fair reading of the article, and left out both a lot of what the article said and a lot of what was important to understanding the situation.
If you are tempted to post further (I am sure you are), I suggest that you first read what I actually wrote in my original post in this thread.