Conservative answer to Global Warming

[Mountain Man]

There is no way to reasonably deny the warming of the world. The cause would be more debatable, but not significantly so. MM is not a person capable of evaluating science, he was not even able to process some very simple principles of optics and perspective and overcome his own personal prejudices. So while others may not be experts, most arguing here for Global Warming are more qualified that MM to evaluate the science behind it, and far less likely to be bamboozled by pseudo science trying to deny it. MM is against AGW because that's what his ultra conservative sources tell him to believe, and that's about as far as it goes.


Jim

This is, of course, your entirely charitable and unbiased evaluation.

[oxmixmudd]

What do a few scientists and their fraud have to do with the overwhelming agreement that there is a problem and that humans are the main cause? If some conservatives cheat on their taxes, do you then agree that all conservatives are cheating? I don't.

"The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

The second issue is that you're not an expert, you lack the faculty to make the judgement you entitle yourself to. You're just some man with an opinion. Do you tell your doctor how to do their job - because you read some stuff on the internet - and that you know better than them about the diagnosis?

It is virtually impossible at this point to deny that the world is warming and has warmed significantly. But there are some stragglers that are not keeping up with the current research that still try to say it's all imagined.

How much, how fast, primary cause, what is the effect of an abnormally quiet sun? These are places where legitimate debate is possible. Primary cause (human production of greenhouse gases, CO2 being the main focus) has some interesting caveats, in that methane produced by livestock is no small contributor, and yet the GND gets mocked for talking about reducing meat consumption and therefore reducing livestock populations.

Source: https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

... the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. ...
World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector).

© Copyright Original Source

I am of the opinion that almost all the push back against trying to do something about the problem comes from those affected by the potential impact on their business profits. And while I do not think it makes sense to react in a way that causes some sort of massive economic implosion, putting off doing something meaningful could very likely have a worse long term impact. Unfortunately, and as usual, polarized entities concerned about their own personal interests are driving the conversation, rather than rational people willing to find meaningful compromises with a view to the long term good.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, It's kinda silly to have MM on "permanent ignore", and still be debating him by proxy, no?

At this point I'm debating the permanent ignore status. However, for the time being the following applies:

1) Up to now I had been avoiding the 'proxy' debate thing, though I suspected MM was probably slamming me knowing I had him on ignore and could not respond or defend myself from it. Hey, that is just who MM is.

2) It is very hypocritical to target me 'proxy debating MM' if you are not also rebuking MM for lying about me or speaking poorly of me in his posts knowing I have him on ignore.

I don't have you or anyone else on ignore ... but I've not noticed you doing that CP? So why are you calling me out?

3) Since I have seen some posts where MM is snorting at me or is flat out lying about me quoted by others, I see no reason not to point out obvious idiocies from him that show up quoted in other people's posts.

4) One of the reasons I put MM on ignore was because there was a rising chorus from Sparko and others about the caustic nature of our interactions. Since I was trying to help that dynamic - at my own expense I might add* - it seems really mean, very unfriendly even - for you to now be on my case over 'proxy debating' MM. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Jim

*publically putting someone, especially someone of MM's character, on ignore means that one can be maligned, publicly mocked even, behind ones back.

[Mountain Man]

At this point I'm debating the permanent ignore status. However, for the time being the following applies:

1) Up to now I had been avoiding the 'proxy' debate thing, though I suspected MM was probably slamming me knowing I had him on ignore and could not respond or defend myself from it. Hey, that is just who MM is.

2) It is very hypocritical to target me 'proxy debating MM' if you are not also rebuking MM for lying about me or speaking poorly of me in his posts knowing I have him on ignore.

I don't have you or anyone else on ignore ... but I've not noticed you doing that CP? So why are you calling me out?

3) Since I have seen some posts where MM is snorting at me or is flat out lying about me quoted by others, I see no reason not to point out obvious idiocies from him that show up quoted in other people's posts.

Jim

I don't suppose it bothers you that none of this is true.

[Cow Poke]

At this point I'm debating the permanent ignore status. However, for the time being the following applies:

1) Up to now I had been avoiding the 'proxy' debate thing, though I suspected MM was probably slamming me knowing I had him on ignore and could not respond or defend myself from it. Hey, that is just who MM is.

That's usually how this goes, Jim. Person A puts person B on ignore, so person B continues the debate knowing person A is still seeing the responses to other people, and Person A will still respond. To me, it's kind of a silly game.

2) It is very hypocritical to target me 'proxy debating MM' if you are not also rebuking MM for lying about me or speaking poorly of me in his posts knowing I have him on ignore.

Actually, I think your accusations of lying against MM are bogus - he expressed an opinion, with which others may actually agree. It's only a lie if you say something you know to be false.

I don't have you or anyone else on ignore ... but I've not noticed you doing that CP? So why are you calling me out?

You're not noticed me doing what? Jumping on MM for "lying" when he was merely expressing his opinion?

3) Since I have seen some posts where MM is snorting at me or is flat out lying about me quoted by others, I see no reason not to point out obvious idiocies from him that show up quoted in other people's posts.



Jim

Steady yourself, brother. You're a bigger man than that.


Clovis

[oxmixmudd]

That's usually how this goes, Jim. Person A puts person B on ignore, so person B continues the debate knowing person A is still seeing the responses to other people. To me, it's kind of a silly game.



Actually, I think your accusations of lying against MM are bogus - he expressed an opinion, with which others may actually agree. It's only a lie if you say something you know to be false.



You're not noticed me doing what? Jumping on MM for "lying" when he was merely expressing his opinion?




Steady yourself, brother. You're a bigger man than that.


Clovis

His comment about what I believe was not expressed as an opinion. It was expressed as fact to another person. When you say something false and negative about someone to another person, you are maligning them, coloring the opinion of others against that person. So now you will defend that?


see my sig. apply it to yourself.

Jim

[rogue06]

His comment about what I believe was not expressed as an opinin. It was expressed as fact to another person. When you say something false about someone to another person, you are maligning them, coloring the opinion of others against that person. So now you will defend that?


see my sig. apply it to yourself.

Jim

A sad sentiment indeed

[Cow Poke]

At this point I'm debating the permanent ignore status. However, for the time being the following applies:

1) Up to now I had been avoiding the 'proxy' debate thing, though I suspected MM was probably slamming me knowing I had him on ignore and could not respond or defend myself from it. Hey, that is just who MM is.

2) It is very hypocritical to target me 'proxy debating MM' if you are not also rebuking MM for lying about me or speaking poorly of me in his posts knowing I have him on ignore.

I don't have you or anyone else on ignore ... but I've not noticed you doing that CP? So why are you calling me out?

3) Since I have seen some posts where MM is snorting at me or is flat out lying about me quoted by others, I see no reason not to point out obvious idiocies from him that show up quoted in other people's posts.

4) One of the reasons I put MM on ignore was because there was a rising chorus from Sparko and others about the caustic nature of our interactions. Since I was trying to help that dynamic - at my own expense I might add* - it seems really mean, very unfriendly even - for you to now be on my case over 'proxy debating' MM. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

Jim

*publically putting someone, especially someone of MM's character, on ignore means that one can be maligned, publicly mocked even, behind ones back.

I see you've continue to add to this "defense". It appears MM is living rent-free in your head, Jim. And, "a rising chorus"?


Elvis

[Mountain Man]

see my sig. apply it to yourself.

You're a nasty, vindictive little man, Jim.

And, no, that's not a lie.

[Cow Poke]

His comment about what I believe was not expressed as an opinin. It was expressed as fact to another person. When you say something false and negative about someone to another person, you are maligning them, coloring the opinion of others against that person. So now you will defend that?


see my sig. apply it to yourself.

Jim

I'll see myself out. Thanks, Jim



Hugo

[oxmixmudd]

I see you've continue to add to this "defense". It appears MM is living rent-free in your head, Jim. And, "a rising chorus"?


Elvis

CP - are you a pastor, a representative of Christ? And are you now going to continue to mock me and tear me down? And you quote Jesus that he is saying He wants to call us his friends?

[Cow Poke]

CP - are you a pastor, a representative of Christ? And are you now going to continue to mock me and tear me down? You quote Jesus that he is saying He wants to call us his friends?

I'm amazed, Jim, that you, a grown man, are being so overly sensitive. I apologize that you see that as "tearing you down", and would encourage you to consider why it is that you think that "everybody is against you".

And, yes, I quote Jesus --- perhaps I should rot in Hell for that?

I will, sadly, leave you to your pity party.


One last thing.....

In a deacon meeting many years ago, one of the deacons told me that I was overly sensitive and thin-skinned. On the way home, I was furious - how DARE he say that I'm overly sensitive and thin-skinned.....

and it hit me. He was absolutely right, as demonstrated by my reaction.

NOW, I will leave you to your pity party. Please feel free to continue your outrage - I'll be disengaging.

[Teallaura]

No - you are correct. I missed the part where you were talking out trying to get trees growing in deserts - my bad.


Jim

Fair enough.

[Teallaura]

My comments aren't questioning the diagnosis, his are.

Again, models developed by the world's scientific community - that agrees those models are sufficient for this task. Your opinion is that they are not, you're entitled to the opinion, but not to the judgement of fact that they are not. If the scientific community comes out and says that, then fine.

The international community is in agreement about the risks related to those models, and the need to act (an upper bound of 2.0C). So are major business players - ironically actually. It continues to be a small contingent of people that tend to have a vested economic interest in denying the models, or calling the scientists as frauds, or whatever else.

Your comment was basically 'sit down, shut up, you're too stupid to understand' - and the idea that only experts can comment on things that affect public policy is just false.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm amazed, Jim, that you, a grown man, are being so overly sensitive. I apologize that you see that as "tearing you down", and would encourage you to consider why it is that you think that "everybody is against you".

CP - go look at the tone and character of your posts. Forget about me. Look at how you treat JimL. Over and over again mocking him. Spitting (figuratively) on him every chance you get. I don't care how 'stupid' his posts might be in your eyes - quoting Jesus wanting to be peoples friends and then acting like that is just ... well it's just hard to figure how anyone can realistically think that makes any sense at all.


Jim