Atheistic morality: Is harm to animals on a continuum with harm to humans?

[Tassman]

I'll deal with this separately.... A farmer or rancher being a good steward of the earth - because that's the right thing to do - does FAR less harm to the earth's atmosphere than your superhero Al Gore, your filthy rich televangelist of climate alarmism.

This is not a debate re your good farmer steward vs the evil Al Gore. The good or bad "stewardship” of individuals has little effect upon the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the vast majority of climate scientists agree is due to human activities at the industrial level. These activities need to be modified or curtailed. National and International action is urgently required, but instead we get a president who is reopening the coal mines, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and dismantling the Environment Protection Agency. And the likes of you support him. Shame on you, do you not care about our children?

[Cow Poke]

This is not a debate re your good farmer steward vs the evil Al Gore.

Those are simply examples that blow your nutty opinion out of the water.

The good or bad "stewardship” of individuals has little effect upon the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the vast majority of climate scientists agree is due to human activities at the industrial level.

So, let's all just pollute all over the place!!!

These activities need to be modified or curtailed. National and International action is urgently required, but instead we get a president who is reopening the coal mines, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and dismantling the Environment Protection Agency. And the likes of you support him. Shame on you, do you not care about our children?

This has nothing to do with your goofy claim I'm opposing --- Is this smoke screen an indication that you're FINALLY backing down from that nuttery, and just don't have the personal integrity to admit you misspoke?

[Cow Poke]

Here is your original nutty claim, from which you appear to be backpeddling without admitting you were wrong...

One cannot be a good steward of the planet if one ignores the warnings of ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, who agree that climate-change trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. Especially when the USA has a president who has signed an order at the EPA to dismantle environmental protections.

And THIS appears to be your weak attempt at distancing yourself from your nuttery...

This is not a debate re your good farmer steward vs the evil Al Gore. The good or bad "stewardship” of individuals has little effect upon the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

Then you step into the pulpit of the Church of Climatology, and preach your same old sermon for the umpteeth zillion time...

that the vast majority of climate scientists agree is due to human activities at the industrial level. These activities need to be modified or curtailed. National and International action is urgently required, but instead we get a president who is reopening the coal mines, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and dismantling the Environment Protection Agency. And the likes of you support him.

Finally, you show what a crackpot you really are...

Shame on you, do you not care about our children?

That's just beyond goofy.

[Doug Shaver]

Shame on you, do you not care about our children?

Is that the test of caring now? Whether we agree with you about climate change?

[Tassman]

Those are simply examples that blow your nutty opinion out of the water.



So, let's all just pollute all over the place!!!



This has nothing to do with your goofy claim I'm opposing --- Is this smoke screen an indication that you're FINALLY backing down from that nuttery, and just don't have the personal integrity to admit you misspoke?

My initial response to Kings Gambit, which you queried, was:

"The billionaire who spends a lot of time complaining about global warming” may be setting a poor example and the family that recycles and composts (including mine) sets a good example. But the real damage is being done on a massively larger scale. This is what the vast majority of scientists are warning about. And this is what Trump is deliberately ignoring in his dismantling of the EPA under the odious Scott Pruitt, and his unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Please explain the “goofiness” and “nuttery” of this statement.

[Tassman]

Is that the test of caring now? Whether we agree with you about climate change?

That’s not what I said nor implied. The “test of caring” is whether or not we take seriously what the ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, who consider that climate-change is likely due to human activities, are saying.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Even in the unlikely event they are wrong it behooves us to take their warning seriously if we care about the future of our children.

[Cow Poke]

My initial response to Kings Gambit, which you queried, was:

"The billionaire who spends a lot of time complaining about global warming” may be setting a poor example and the family that recycles and composts (including mine) sets a good example. But the real damage is being done on a massively larger scale. This is what the vast majority of scientists are warning about. And this is what Trump is deliberately ignoring in his dismantling of the EPA under the odious Scott Pruitt, and his unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

Please explain the “goofiness” and “nuttery” of this statement.

That wasn't the statement I was calling goofy and nutty. I provided your actual quote - using the quote function (which you rarely do) - but you appear to be too dense to follow that.

[Cow Poke]

That’s not what I said nor implied.

Actually, it is, and you're about to double down on it without even realizing it....

3, 2, 1.....

The “test of caring” is whether or not we take seriously what the ninety-seven percent of climate scientists, who consider that climate-change is likely due to human activities, are saying.

And, there's yet ANOTHER goofy and nutty statement! Tass, you're EXCELLING at goofiness and nuttery!

I can (and do) care very deeply for my children (and children in general) and that does NOT require me to even KNOW about climate science, let alone subscribe to that theory and become a preacher of its religion!

[Doug Shaver]

Is that the test of caring now?

That’s not what I said nor implied.

Your argument was, in effect, "If you cared, you would believe."

Even in the unlikely event they are wrong it behooves us to take their warning seriously if we care about the future of our children.

Whether the threat is real is one issue. What we should do about it if it is real is a different issue.

[KingsGambit]

Isn't the general consensus of climate scientists that we're screwed no matter what we do anyway?

[Doug Shaver]

Isn't the general consensus of climate scientists that we're screwed no matter what we do anyway?

The consensus is that it's too late to reverse the trend. That doesn't mean there is nothing we can do to reduce its potential severity.

It's sort of like the Casey Jones train wreck. His train was going to hit the other one no matter what he did, but because he did something rather than nothing, nobody else died.

[Tassman]

Your argument was, in effect, "If you cared, you would believe."

That may be the way you read it, but the argument was that "if you cared" you would not dismiss the professional opinion of the majority of climate scientists as coming from “the pulpit of the Church of Climatology” and “Global Warming hype”, as per CP.

Whether the threat is real is one issue. What we should do about it if it is real is a different issue.

Given the evidence it is reasonable to accept the threat of climate change as real as you acknowledge and it behoves us to do something about it, is the argument.

[Cow Poke]

That may be the way you read it, but the argument was that "if you cared" you would not dismiss the professional opinion of the majority of climate scientists as coming from “the pulpit of the Church of Climatology” and “Global Warming hype”, as per CP.

It's really obvious why you don't use the quote function. It gives you the leeway to distort the truth. Doug Shaver read it correctly.

[Cow Poke]

That may be the way you read it, but the argument was that "if you cared" you would not dismiss the professional opinion of the majority of climate scientists as coming from “the pulpit of the Church of Climatology” and “Global Warming hype”, as per CP.

Here is the relative portion of my actual quote...

Then you step into the pulpit of the Church of Climatology, and preach your same old sermon for the umpteeth zillion time...

This wasn't about "the majority of climate scientists", it's about you and your nuttery.

[Tassman]

And, there's yet ANOTHER goofy and nutty statement! Tass, you're EXCELLING at goofiness and nuttery!

Please explain the "goofiness and nuttery" of accepting the professional opinion of 97% of climate scientists that climate-change is due to human activities, and being sufficiently concerned to do something about it.

I can (and do) care very deeply for my children (and children in general) and that does NOT require me to even KNOW about climate science, let alone subscribe to that theory and become a preacher of its religion!

Until we accept what climate science is telling us about the damage we are doing to our planet then we cannot take the necessary steps to try and rectify the problem. Clearly, with your sarcastic refusal to “subscribe to that theory and become a preacher of its religion” (to quote you) you do not recognise the problem and it is the children you profess to love who will pay the price.