Follow the (Climate Change) Money

[Mountain Man]

If you can't argue against the science...

What science? The dozens of wildly inaccurate computer models? The countless failed predictions? The "adjusted" data? The phony "consensus"?

[Mountain Man]

Why are you so reluctant to accept global warming when the consequences if true, as seems likely, are so harmful?

As soon as I see solutions that are practical, economical, and don't run roughshod over basic liberties then I'll be all in favor.

[Cow Poke]

And yet you openly resist the scientific consensus for global warming with such cynical OP's as this one and sneering comments such as “climate preachers".

That would be the Drama Queen version. What I actually did was post an article without comment for discussion. And I don't see why you're so triggered by "climate preachers" -- I'm certainly not triggered by "Gospel preachers". There's actually a very good parallel.

Why, when the consequences are predicted to be so dire?

OK, for the umpteenzillionth time.... what do you think I should be doing that I'm not already doing?

It was because of your beliefs and those of your ilk, that Trump precipitously withdrew from the Paris Agreement, so as to appease those that comprise his base.

Yes, I personally called Trump and demanded he withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Do you deny that you are "preaching" Climate?

[Cow Poke]

This level of skepticism, after all that you have learned, simply means that you hate your grandchildren.

See, it's jackass comments like this that reinforce the idea that you guys are "climate preachers" of the extreme televangelist flavor. It would be like me saying if you don't accept Christ, you hate your grandchildren.

You people are just nuttier than fruitcakes, which makes your message incredibly distasteful.

[Cow Poke]

As soon as I see solutions that are practical, economical, and don't run roughshod over basic liberties then I'll be all in favor.

I'd love to see "solutions" that actually come with some degree of confidence that they will do anything meaningful.

[Cow Poke]

So, again.... the analogy....

I believe that Jesus is the answer to man's sin problem, and that acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation. I preach that unapologetically.
When I encounter unbelievers, I know it's my job to win their heart and mind with the Gospel.
I know that calling them idiots or treating them with hostility does nothing to win them over, and only drives them away.
If somebody mocks me for being a "preacher" or "pastor" (as a number of liberals have here on Tweb) I don't take that as an insult, because it's my calling.

Those who believe that bad things will happen because of climate change.... well, here's where the analogy breaks down.
They preach doom and gloom without a sure solution.
They make prophecies that often fail.
They get really triggered when you label them "climate preachers".
They double down with insults and really wild and crazy statements -- like you'd expect from an old fashioned hellfire preacher, or, better yet, from the folks at Westboro.

Come to think of it -- the climate preachers here on Tweb seem more like the folks from Westboro than....

Interesting.

[Cow Poke]

...sneering comments such as “climate preachers".

So why is this a "sneering" comment? Because you and your ilk frequently sneeringly call me "pastor" or "preacher"?

One of the jobs I've held in a couple of companies for whom I've done consulting was actually titled "technology evangelist".

Look at this definition from Wiki (seems compatible with what I knew the job to be, and what I actually did)...

A technology evangelist is a person who builds a critical mass of support for a given technology, and then establishes it as a technical standard in a market that is subject to network effects.[1] The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism due to the similarity of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs with the intention of converting the recipient. There is some element of this although some would argue it's more of showcasing the potential of a technology to lead someone to want to adopt it for themselves.

So, let's adapt that to Climate....

A Climate evangelist (preacher) is a person who builds a critical mass of support for Climate Change, and then establishes it as a technical standard in a market that is subject to Climate effects. The word evangelism is taken from the context of religious evangelism due to the similarity of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs with the intention of converting the recipient. There is some element of this although some would argue it's more of showcasing the dangers of Climate Change to lead someone to want to accept it for themselves.

So why are not climate advocates "climate preachers", and why do you find this term so offensive.

[firstfloor]

See, it's jackass comments like this that reinforce the idea that you guys are "climate preachers" of the extreme televangelist flavor. It would be like me saying if you don't accept Christ, you hate your grandchildren.

You people are just nuttier than fruitcakes, which makes your message incredibly distasteful.

Firstly, it’s not OUR message. Climate science provides politically neutral facts about the world.
In Romans 1:20 we read the people are without excuse. The same applies to climate change. The question for each of us concerns our legacy because we will be fortunate enough to miss the collapse.

[Cow Poke]

Firstly, it’s not OUR message.

Yes, it is. To the same extent that the Gospel is MY message, though I'm not the one who established it.

Climate science provides politically neutral facts about the world.

Except, of course, those "facts" are mixed with a whole bunch of propaganda and false preachers, such as Al Gore, who pervert the "gospel" of climate change, and some of those "facts" have been doctored.

In Romans 1:20 we read the people are without excuse.

But that doesn't require me to call unbelievers idiots and insult them at every turn - it requires me to show them the Truth.

The same applies to climate change.

So, you're accepting this concept that climate change supporters like you are "climate preachers"? You don't take offense at that term?

The question for each of us concerns our legacy because we will be fortunate enough to miss the collapse.

You appear to be accepting, and even supporting, my analogy.

[Mountain Man]

Why are you so reluctant to accept global warming when the consequences if true, as seems likely, are so harmful?

This is basically Pascal's Wager applied to global warming.

Yet you don't accept this line of reasoning as sufficient to take Christianity seriously.

Curious.

[Sparko]

Why would it do so? Let's say the federal government is paying for the costs of the building of the new solar and wind power stations out of general taxes that might otherwise be spend somewhere else (e.g. military-industrial complex), what the average person with their energy bill is then paying for is the running costs of the power stations. If those are coal power stations they are paying for buying the coal each year that is burned to provide the power. If those are wind or solar power stations they are paying for no fuel. It would seem likely to be cheaper then for them?

If it were more economical and profitable to use renewable energy then that is what energy suppliers would be using, Starlight. Businesses are driven by profit. Consumers are driven by prices. If you provide them with cheaper energy they will flock to it. There is no need for government subsidies and all that if it is a good deal. The only reason you need government subsidies is when you need to hide expenses or force people into doing something unpopular.

Solar and wind farms take up a LOT of real estate and infrastructure. That ain't cheap. Or even doable in many parts of the country. That is why most solar farms are out in the west where land is plentiful. Hydroelectric is a good renewable energy source but it too is dependent on geography.

[Sparko]

This is basically Pascal's Wager applied to global warming.

Yet you don't accept this line of reasoning as sufficient to take Christianity seriously.

Curious.

Good observation.

[Mountain Man]

Good observation.

Watch, he's going to come back preaching his unshakable faith in the scientific method with a circular argument that can be summarized as "We know it works because we know it works."

(Poor kid still hasn't figured out that insisting that the scientific method is the only valid means of testing truth claims is a self-defeating assertion.)

[Roy]

This is basically Pascal's Wager applied to global warming.

Yet you don't accept this line of reasoning as sufficient to take Christianity seriously.

Curious.

Good observation.

It is a surprisingly good observation.

It fails in practice because one premise of Pascal's wager is that there is no way to determine whether or not there is a god.
We can try to determine whether climate change is occurring, and whether our actions are affecting it. There is no need for a blind wager because we can make informed decisions.

[Sparko]

It is a surprisingly good observation.

It fails in practice because one premise of Pascal's wager is that there is no way to determine whether or not there is a god.
We can try to determine whether climate change is occurring, and whether our actions are affecting it. There is no need for a blind wager because we can make informed decisions.

Wrong. Both depend on being able to find out the truth in the future but making the choice now. A bet.

There is good evidence for God now if you want to look. It is not a blind wager.