Why I dislike the AGW cult

Imagine how many local pollution problems you'd be able to solve if you reduced your whinge about people caring about global threat?

 

This made me laugh at least. You've managed to refer to media stories that suggest we have to amend our expectations. They're of course based on analysis that ultimately indicate that we need to be more radical.

 

Normal people can have a problem with Monsanto's business practices. That's totally different from anti-Monsanto conspiracy theories.

I agree, one definitely should not drink a cup of glyphosate. I've never said it's harmless. I say its use has vastly increased food output, and that it is much less toxic than the herbicides it replaced, so therefore it has saved many lives.

 

And again you dodge the question. What do you do about this "horrible threat to the planet" besides attack anyone who doesn't believe it is a horrible threat? Your answer seems to be nothing.

 

Your question is nonsensical. An individual cannot solve a global threat. That's the point!

 

https://www.cp24.com/weather/record...as-canada-day-weekend-gets-underway-1.3995511

I don't know, but things seem a little fishy to me. Aliens may be causing global warming.

 

So as I suspected you do nothing to combat this horrible end of Earth scenario except to believe it's true and berate anyone who doesn't believe it's true.
"Be the change you want to see in the world"

 

Let's repeat the obvious: it needs global action and therefore solidarity. Why's that a struggle for you?

 

So everyone must believe before anything can be done thus your evangelism and your lack of personal responsibility. LOL

 

The consensus is already there. Didn't you know?

It's weird that you're not aware of global problems. Where you been?

 

So if you have the concensus you supposedly need why are you doing nothing about this issue other than attacking those who are not true believers?

 

I'm not attacking. You're doing all that. Perhaps you feel left out?

 

So I'm attacking you by pointing out that you do nothing about this belief of yours that man's C02 is the primary driver of climate change except evangelize? I guess your theory is if we all believe then the problem magically goes away.

 

Again, you seen to struggle with the notion that global problems require global solutions. I've never had a problem with obviousness myself.

 

Interesting way to get yourself off the hook. "I can't do anything until everybody else does it too" LMAO

 

You don't seem to know how solidarity works. Hey ho, I love the idea that you can solve the global warming crisis by pottering in your back shed mind you!

 

You don't seem to know the meaning of personal responsibility. If you think man is destroying the planet with his C02 contribution you should make every effort to minimize yours. You yourself said the concensus is the problem is real so if the majority of people are true believer they have the power to solve the problem by changing their lives but I guess it's easier for you to do nothing and blame people like me who live their lives exactly as you do but don't "believe".

 

One problem here is that people work to maximize their own individual position among a group. That desire is often at odds with maximizing the position of the entire group as a whole. And it's natural for individuals to necessarily prefer a short term gain in their own position over a long term gain in position of the group. Someone who lobbies for a set of rules that encourages the long term gain in position of everyone will still be playing by the old rules as not to be left out on his own opportunity for individual gain. So the question is...is someone who lobbies for new rules and continues to follow the old rules until the new rules are enacted considered to be a hypocrite? I think what you're saying here is that your answer is yes to this question.

Similar scenarios pop up all of the time in public policy. For example, if you were to lobby for a tax levy for your school district so that everyone's kids (including your own) will have a better education are you a hypocrite if you don't immediately and voluntarily start paying the tax before it is enacted?

The feeling I get from your post is that you either 1) don't think global warming is a problem that will have consequences for everyone or 2) you want those lobbying for a new set rules (for the betterment of everyone) to abide by those new rules before they are enacted so that you necessarily get to enjoy a period of advantaged position. Which one best describes your worldview?

 

Here's another question to ponder.

Does Al Gore's AGW cultist position negate the fact that the Earth is warming, humans are responsible, and that the warming will have consequences?

In other words, does Al Gore's individual hypocritical behavior necessarily disprove AGW?

 

You're coming across like a foot stamper here. Are you seriously telling me that climate change can be solved through one man and his shed?

 

And the truth comes out. What you guys want is rules and laws that we all must live by based on what you believe. If you think man is responsible for climate change with his C02 contribution then it is incumbent on you to do everything possible to lessen yours. If all you true believers stopped using planes trains and automobiles and wore a coat instead of turning up the heat and sweat in summer instead of turning on the AC etc etc etc, our C02 output would drop dramatically but you won't do these things until you get a law passed saying we all must do these things. It's much like a Christian saying he won't follow the ten commandments unil there's a law saying everyone has to follow the ten commandments.

"Be the change you want to see in the world"

 

So there's only one man that believes in AGW? If that was the case you'd have a point but as you said the concensus is AGW is real so if all you true believers changed your ways it's no longer one man it's millions or even billions of men. See how that works?

 

Wrong again! Individual action cannot be aggregated to find solution. It needs more radical changes which can only occur through global action.

 

Yes.

Yes. And to be fair everyone should lessen their impact by the same amount. In other words, everyone should follow the same set of rules. To grant absolution to some but not others is unfair.

Correct; at least in principal. I don't think banning cars, plains, trains, and HVAC is reasonable. In fact an outright ban on those would be worse than keeping with the status-quo. As is the case in many scenarios there is an optimal balance that usually falls somewhere in the middle of two extremes. But, the principal that everyone follows the same rules is what I agree with.

All Christians are required to abide by the ten commandments. It's already a law in the sense that it is mandated for all Christians. In other words, all Christians must follow the same set of rules.

It's a good motto to live by. Rules might be optional if everyone lived their lives this way.

 

In other words you will live your life as if the AGW hypothesis was false just as I do.