Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

In article <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] says...
> 
> On May 27, 2026 at 8:53:58 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <[email protected]>:
> 
> > On 5/26/26 10:05 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> >> Liberals want evidence-based regulation and oversight to help ensure clean air
> >> and water, safe food, and human rights. This includes following the scientific
> >> evidence about climate change and food safety, and things like
> > 
> > Like THIS:
> > 
> > https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
> > 
> > How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no
> > one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few
> > years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated
> > about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy
> > subsidies during President Obama?s first term.
> > 
> > That didn?t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax
> > credit for wind and solar power ? so add to those numbers about $8
> > billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs
> > attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that
> > require utilities to buy expensive ?green? energy.
> > 
> > 
> > Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group
> > called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that
> > ?Global investment in climate change? reached $359 billion that year.
> > Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are,
> > the CPI moaned that this spending ?falls far short of what?s needed? a
> > number estimated at $5 trillion.
> > 
> > For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and
> > provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in
> > Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure
> > for cancer and Alzheimers.
> 
> The post reads less like an evidence-based argument and more like a familiar
> style of ideological grievance rhetoric: selective statistics, emotionally
> loaded framing, and a shift from the original topic (trans inmates and hormone
> therapy) into a generalized attack on climate science and public spending.
> 
> Psychological/profile observations (not a diagnosis):
> 
> * Strong in-group/out-group framing (?leftist group?, ?planet-saviors?)
> * High distrust of institutions and expert consensus
> * Preference for rhetorical contrast over direct evidence
> * Uses financial magnitudes to provoke emotional reaction without contextual
> comparison
> * Employs ?whataboutism? ? redirecting from climate policy to malaria, cancer,
> African electrification, etc.
> * Shows signs of motivated reasoning: the conclusion (?climate policy is
> corrupt/wasteful?) appears to precede the evidence selection
> * The writing style suggests someone more interested in ideological signaling
> and provoking opponents than careful policy analysis
> 
> Fact and logic check:
> 
> 1. Climate spending figures
>     The cited Heritage Foundation article is opinion/commentary, not primary
> research. Heritage is a conservative advocacy organization, not a neutral
> scientific or budgetary body. The Forbes estimate and CPI figures are likely
> broadly based on real categories of spending/investment, but the framing is
> misleading.
> 
> Key omissions:
> 
> * Much of the spending is infrastructure, energy transition investment,
> research, grid modernization, disaster mitigation, and private-sector capital
> ? not simply ?handouts.?
> * Fossil fuel industries also receive massive direct and indirect subsidies
> worldwide.
> * Climate damages themselves cost trillions through fires, floods, crop
> losses, health impacts, and infrastructure destruction.
> 
> 2. ?$5 trillion could feed everyone, end malaria, provide clean water??
>     This is rhetorically powerful but economically simplistic bordering on
> meaningless.
>     Problems:
> 
> * These are long-term recurring global problems, not one-time purchases.
> * Spending categories are not interchangeable.
> * Much climate investment itself includes electrification, water
> infrastructure, resilience, and public health improvements.
> * Preventing climate destabilization is directly related to food security,
> disease spread, drought, and infrastructure reliability.
> 
> 3. Implicit claim that climate concern is mainly profit-driven
>     This ignores:
> 
> * The overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
> * Independent evidence from atmospheric physics, temperature records, ice
> cores, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, etc.
> * The fact that fossil fuel industries themselves represent a vastly larger
> and historically entrenched economic complex
> 
> 4. Logical structure
>     The post never actually refutes climate science.
>     Instead it argues:
>     ?Large amounts of money are involved -> therefore climate concern is
> suspect.?
> 
> That is not a valid logical inference. By that logic, military spending,
> medicine, agriculture, or road construction would all become inherently
> fraudulent.
> 
> Is anything worthy of reply?
> Possibly, but only if the audience is persuadable. The post itself is mostly
> ideological performance.
> 
> The only potentially productive reply angle:
> 
> * Distinguish between whether climate change is real versus debates over
> optimal policy responses.
> * Point out that criticizing spending priorities does not invalidate the
> underlying science.
> * Note that climate damages themselves already impose enormous economic costs.
> 
> A long rebuttal is unlikely to change the author?s views. A concise response
> focusing on the core logical flaw would probably work best.
> 
> Suitable short Usenet summary:
> 
> Post is mostly ideological rhetoric rather than a scientific argument. It
> never actually disputes the evidence for anthropogenic climate change ? it
> argues that because large sums of money are involved, climate policy must be
> suspect. That is not evidence against the science.
> 
> The Heritage link is an opinion piece, not primary research. The ?$5 trillion
> could solve everything else? claim is also a false tradeoff: climate
> mitigation, infrastructure, energy systems, food security, and public health
> are interconnected, not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Main takeaway: criticism of specific climate policies or spending priorities
> can be legitimate, but it does not invalidate the underlying climate science.

You do try, you fail but you do try.