Re: Thread for discussing climate change
Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:18 am
He literally hasn’t watched the cartoon.
-_-
-_-
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Dude, I watched the cartoon when you posted it 3 or 4 weeks ago.
Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 amHoly fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?
Your “common sense” is not sense at all. Common sense works only if you have the knowledge and experience to intuitively understand what you are talking about. Neither of us has that. The only difference is that I know enough to know that I don’t know, while your arrogance blinds you to your own ignorance.Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 amHoly fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 pm
It's all addressed in the paper. Learn to read. You're just talking out of your ass, which doesn't cut it.
Self reliance doesn't necessarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Like the analysis shows, if you stop buying eggs at the store and raise chickens for eggs in your backyard, you're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per oz of protein from the eggs. You're taking into account only the cost of doing things at scale, not the efficiencies of doing things at scale.
As for your rant, why not make the investment necessary to avoid passing on a greatly impoverished world to our children and grandchildren? Your way is to run up the balance on the CO2 credit card as fast as possible and then leave the bill to your daughters and their children. Why not show them how to be environmentally responsible as well as financially responsible?
Unless you've taken your family off grid (which you haven't, as you are able to post through the internet), you're not teaching your kids to be "self-reliant." You and your kids are reliant on literally millions of other people in living your lives. Growing some birds and veggies is self-reliance cosplay. In today's world, it's just a denial of your dependence on the efforts of others. You want to teach your kids skills that have value in today's world? Teach them the skills they need to work with others to get things done and solve problems that cannot be solved by individuals. Otherwise, congratulations! You've taught your kids the skills they needed to survive in the 1800s. Well done!
Once again, you have no idea what steps I have taken to reduce my own energy consumption.
He literally hasn’t done anything other than run his mouth.
I'm sorry, but listening to you try to justify the practices of the global chicken industry is one of the reasons we need to get rid of all the lawyers in Congress. You guys have no common sense but yet we let you make laws that affect our daily lives.Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:17 amYour “common sense” is not sense at all. Common sense works only if you have the knowledge and experience to intuitively understand what you are talking about. Neither of us has that. The only difference is that I know enough to know that I don’t know, while your arrogance blinds you to your own ignorance.Atlanticmike wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:08 am
Holy fxxxin sxxt!! Here we go again!! You say, it's all addressed in the paper it's all addressed in the paper!! Fxxx the paper. I understand you're a lawyer and you find it hard to use common sense, but good god man, this is just pure common sense. My backyard chickens never see a mile of roadway during their short life while commercial chickens can see 100s of miles which means it takes tons of fuel to transport them when they're alive and even after they're dead. The raising of commercial chickens or any livestock isn't the main problem, it's the transportation. I find it funny you're telling me none of this matters because it's all "small potatoes" and we need to address the bigger more global issues when it comes to climate change. Almost as if we have to choose to do one and we can't do both at the same time. Is that what you're saying ? That an individuals carbon footprint doesn't matter because the problem is way bigger than we can even handle? That our only hope is government mandates and laws,?
Yes, it’s in the paper. The people who have knowledge and experience at determining life cycle carbon emissions are far more likely to get the right answer than a random roofer or lawyer. But this is great example of where your anti-intellectual, anti-science cult has brought us. You reject evidence and make crap up motivated solely by your political prejudices. Your political prejudices won’t let you admit that there are some problems that require governmental action to fix, so you simply reject the facts.
Grow up, man. Admit that you have no idea how to analyze backyard v. Commercial chickens from the stand point of greenhouse gases per gram of protein and consult someone who does. You have access to incredible amounts of specialized knowledge through your phone, for God’s sake. Use it!
And we don’t have to choose between individual and collective action. We can do both. But if we want to fix the problem, collective action is required. Greenhouse gas emissions are a spectacular example of market failure. And relying on individual action presents a massive free rider problem.
I’m a pragmatist. When there’s a significant problem, I’m in favor of finding and implementing effective solutions. I care more about finding solutions that work as opposed to the tenets of political dogma.
I’ve done quite a bit to reduce my own carbon footprint because I think it’s the ethical thing to do. But I also don’t Kid myself into believing that my actions will fix the problem.