All Things Environment

[MDlaxfan76]

Humans are wired to survive (thrive even).

As liberals decide to have fewer babies (science supports this theory) and conservatives keep producing, there will be a natural darwinian devolution of liberals' impact on society writ large (not either-or, but a slow-at-first reduction then a tsunami in about 50 years).

The tipping point is today, hence the daily histrionics (free speech suppression, physically assaulting conservatives, etc...) and societal hail-mary's (the rise of socialism by the Democratic Party). The America election in 2020 is so critical to the continued greatness of America and helps explain why some embrace Trump who would ordinarily not care for the man. There can be no doubt how critical this election is to your children and grandchildren; it has zero to do with Trump and everything to do with whether you get to live in a free country or not with them. They will be fine; darwinism assures that. It's the next 20 years that's at stake.

Please provide the 'science' behind that claim.

Birth rate is driven by economics.
Poor people with high early death rates have more children. When economies, standards of living, and educational opportunities improve, birth rates decline.

The demographics in the US, a very wealthy nation, will continue to rapidly move from those identifying as "White Christian" to a far more diverse population than when we were kids. Likewise, this population will have more and more access to education, and educational attainment will continue to be disproportionately rewarded.

If "conservatives" want to compete ideologically it needs to be on the basis of the attractiveness of their ideas, not their demographic fears and bigotries.

Right now, the Trumpist GOP is competing on the latter, a death rattle IMO.

The only path for them to maintain a dominant, demographic position in the US is some form of authoritarian fascism. The opposite of what you profess as a goal "a free country".

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'. But I don't buy for a moment that we need to hate Dems and be knee jerk afraid of 'socialism' (Social Security, Medicare, free public education, etc).

I want to see Trumpism thoroughly, even ignominiously, defeated, so that actual "conservatives" can again compete rationally on the basis of their ideas, not their fears and bigotries. Sooner the better.

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'.

Ya know for a lifelong republican you have never once ever mentioned any of your idols in the republican party. I would hazard a guess that a lifelong Rockefeller RINO such as yourself would have SOME actual republican that you may have supported at some time in your life. Since you never speak of any such admiration for any republican I can only guess that outside of Abe Lincoln you have no republicans you admire. I am disgusted by all republicans but I can think of 3 that I respect... Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. What say you there our resident RINO suckup? Be honest now, some of your suckup friends here might even hurt your feelings and criticize you for being honest.

Funny, those 3: Reagan, Kemp, Dole, were certainly among those who I, on net, admired and supported. Certainly HW Bush as well.
Here in my state, Senator Mac Mathias would fit my definition of someone I was very enthusiastic about in his day.

None were "idols". I'm just not the idolatry sort.

I was in the stands for Reagan's two Inaugurations, right across from them...pretty cool. I didn't vote for either major party's candidate in '80 (like '16), Reagan's rhetoric worried me, but I warmed up to him with time. Personality was a big plus, his love and respect of his wife was palpable, his love of country unquestionable. But not an idol, not someone to be put on a pedestal.

I never met Dole or Reagan in person, but Jack Kemp's son was a fraternity brother, QB of our college team, and I met Jack a bunch of times. I liked his policy views a lot, felt he was willing to think outside of the standard box, a more cerebral guy than one might expect from the typical ex football star. On the other hand, he had the way of some politicians of seeming to always being looking past you to the next person who might be more important. That was unsettling, but I liked his policy ideas. And his son.

I hear from friends who know W that he was quite the opposite in small groups, you felt you had his undivided attention. Smarter guy than many gave him credit for being, they say. Certainly not perfect, though. I did very much like his instinct around "compassionate conservatism" and I liked very much how he handled 9-11, but I think he over-trusted his VP...

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney's '12 campaign as he and my wife worked at Bain in the same era and I'd followed his career closely as a result. I'm frustrated with him right now.

Today, I strongly support our GOP Governor, Larry Hogan, who enjoys a 75% approval rating in very blue Maryland (Trump is at 37%). I've met him a few times, but can't say that I know him well...but he's hired significantly better than his predecessors and they've done a good job. I don't agree with every policy position, but I do think he's done a good job of managing the state restraining a very D legislature, yet managing to keep the population enthusiastic. A lot of that is personal style, just not being a jerk. His dad, btw, was the first GOP Congressman on the Judiciary Committee who called for impeachment of Nixon.

I know our prior GOP Governor and former Congressman Bob Ehrlich better as he was a class ahead of me in HS. I've always enjoyed Bobby, haven't always 100% agreed with his policy views, but fundamentally a good guy. Unlike Hogan, however, Bobby was more directly confrontational, and as result, actually accomplished less.

Of the current GOP crew in Congress I hold out some hope for a few souls, but most of those who I felt were first class folks have been pushed out of the party by Trumpism, or in McCain's case, deceased. Same for those who were less 'politicians' than public servants ala Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice or intellectuals like George Will, etc.

Some (like some Dems, IMO) are 'deplorable' in their degree of partisanship, putting their partisan interest over country. And a few are flat out evil folks, period. I'd have said the same for some of the southern Dems in my youth.

You realize of course that Mac Mathias was a liberal. I voted for him.

I'm fine with Mac Mathias being called a "liberal", and indeed he was such on the spectrum of R's.
I wouldn't put him the same box as George McGovern, though, would you?

In 1968, Republican Mathias defeated Brewster who had doubled down on support for the Vietnam War and then was caught up in a campaign bribery charge that ultimately led to his being fined.

Small world, Brewster's son Gerry (a liberal Dem) and Bob Ehrlich were in the same class in my HS, a year ahead of me. Both went on to Princeton. Gerry actually went to work for Mac Mathias, who had defeated his dad. He and Ehrlich faced off for the Congressional seat that Bobby won.

[3rdPersonPlural]

It's apparent that things are warming up.

[jhu72]

Humans are wired to survive (thrive even).

As liberals decide to have fewer babies (science supports this theory) and conservatives keep producing, there will be a natural darwinian devolution of liberals' impact on society writ large (not either-or, but a slow-at-first reduction then a tsunami in about 50 years).

The tipping point is today, hence the daily histrionics (free speech suppression, physically assaulting conservatives, etc...) and societal hail-mary's (the rise of socialism by the Democratic Party). The America election in 2020 is so critical to the continued greatness of America and helps explain why some embrace Trump who would ordinarily not care for the man. There can be no doubt how critical this election is to your children and grandchildren; it has zero to do with Trump and everything to do with whether you get to live in a free country or not with them. They will be fine; darwinism assures that. It's the next 20 years that's at stake.

Please provide the 'science' behind that claim.

Birth rate is driven by economics.
Poor people with high early death rates have more children. When economies, standards of living, and educational opportunities improve, birth rates decline.

The demographics in the US, a very wealthy nation, will continue to rapidly move from those identifying as "White Christian" to a far more diverse population than when we were kids. Likewise, this population will have more and more access to education, and educational attainment will continue to be disproportionately rewarded.

If "conservatives" want to compete ideologically it needs to be on the basis of the attractiveness of their ideas, not their demographic fears and bigotries.

Right now, the Trumpist GOP is competing on the latter, a death rattle IMO.

The only path for them to maintain a dominant, demographic position in the US is some form of authoritarian fascism. The opposite of what you profess as a goal "a free country".

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'. But I don't buy for a moment that we need to hate Dems and be knee jerk afraid of 'socialism' (Social Security, Medicare, free public education, etc).

I want to see Trumpism thoroughly, even ignominiously, defeated, so that actual "conservatives" can again compete rationally on the basis of their ideas, not their fears and bigotries. Sooner the better.

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'.

Ya know for a lifelong republican you have never once ever mentioned any of your idols in the republican party. I would hazard a guess that a lifelong Rockefeller RINO such as yourself would have SOME actual republican that you may have supported at some time in your life. Since you never speak of any such admiration for any republican I can only guess that outside of Abe Lincoln you have no republicans you admire. I am disgusted by all republicans but I can think of 3 that I respect... Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. What say you there our resident RINO suckup? Be honest now, some of your suckup friends here might even hurt your feelings and criticize you for being honest.

Funny, those 3: Reagan, Kemp, Dole, were certainly among those who I, on net, admired and supported. Certainly HW Bush as well.
Here in my state, Senator Mac Mathias would fit my definition of someone I was very enthusiastic about in his day.

None were "idols". I'm just not the idolatry sort.

I was in the stands for Reagan's two Inaugurations, right across from them...pretty cool. I didn't vote for either major party's candidate in '80 (like '16), Reagan's rhetoric worried me, but I warmed up to him with time. Personality was a big plus, his love and respect of his wife was palpable, his love of country unquestionable. But not an idol, not someone to be put on a pedestal.

I never met Dole or Reagan in person, but Jack Kemp's son was a fraternity brother, QB of our college team, and I met Jack a bunch of times. I liked his policy views a lot, felt he was willing to think outside of the standard box, a more cerebral guy than one might expect from the typical ex football star. On the other hand, he had the way of some politicians of seeming to always being looking past you to the next person who might be more important. That was unsettling, but I liked his policy ideas. And his son.

I hear from friends who know W that he was quite the opposite in small groups, you felt you had his undivided attention. Smarter guy than many gave him credit for being, they say. Certainly not perfect, though. I did very much like his instinct around "compassionate conservatism" and I liked very much how he handled 9-11, but I think he over-trusted his VP...

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney's '12 campaign as he and my wife worked at Bain in the same era and I'd followed his career closely as a result. I'm frustrated with him right now.

Today, I strongly support our GOP Governor, Larry Hogan, who enjoys a 75% approval rating in very blue Maryland (Trump is at 37%). I've met him a few times, but can't say that I know him well...but he's hired significantly better than his predecessors and they've done a good job. I don't agree with every policy position, but I do think he's done a good job of managing the state restraining a very D legislature, yet managing to keep the population enthusiastic. A lot of that is personal style, just not being a jerk. His dad, btw, was the first GOP Congressman on the Judiciary Committee who called for impeachment of Nixon.

I know our prior GOP Governor and former Congressman Bob Ehrlich better as he was a class ahead of me in HS. I've always enjoyed Bobby, haven't always 100% agreed with his policy views, but fundamentally a good guy. Unlike Hogan, however, Bobby was more directly confrontational, and as result, actually accomplished less.

Of the current GOP crew in Congress I hold out some hope for a few souls, but most of those who I felt were first class folks have been pushed out of the party by Trumpism, or in McCain's case, deceased. Same for those who were less 'politicians' than public servants ala Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice or intellectuals like George Will, etc.

Some (like some Dems, IMO) are 'deplorable' in their degree of partisanship, putting their partisan interest over country. And a few are flat out evil folks, period. I'd have said the same for some of the southern Dems in my youth.

You realize of course that Mac Mathias was a liberal. I voted for him.

I'm fine with Mac Mathias being called a "liberal", and indeed he was such on the spectrum of R's.
I wouldn't put him the same box as George McGovern, though, would you?

In 1968, Republican Mathias defeated Brewster who had doubled down on support for the Vietnam War and then was caught up in a campaign bribery charge that ultimately led to his being fined.

Small world, Brewster's son Gerry (a liberal Dem) and Bob Ehrlich were in the same class in my HS, a year ahead of me. Both went on to Princeton. Gerry actually went to work for Mac Mathias, who had defeated his dad. He and Ehrlich faced off for the Congressional seat that Bobby won.

So you can understand why I voted for Mathias. He certainly wasn't a McGovern, but he questioned that dumb ass war.

[MDlaxfan76]

Humans are wired to survive (thrive even).

As liberals decide to have fewer babies (science supports this theory) and conservatives keep producing, there will be a natural darwinian devolution of liberals' impact on society writ large (not either-or, but a slow-at-first reduction then a tsunami in about 50 years).

The tipping point is today, hence the daily histrionics (free speech suppression, physically assaulting conservatives, etc...) and societal hail-mary's (the rise of socialism by the Democratic Party). The America election in 2020 is so critical to the continued greatness of America and helps explain why some embrace Trump who would ordinarily not care for the man. There can be no doubt how critical this election is to your children and grandchildren; it has zero to do with Trump and everything to do with whether you get to live in a free country or not with them. They will be fine; darwinism assures that. It's the next 20 years that's at stake.

Please provide the 'science' behind that claim.

Birth rate is driven by economics.
Poor people with high early death rates have more children. When economies, standards of living, and educational opportunities improve, birth rates decline.

The demographics in the US, a very wealthy nation, will continue to rapidly move from those identifying as "White Christian" to a far more diverse population than when we were kids. Likewise, this population will have more and more access to education, and educational attainment will continue to be disproportionately rewarded.

If "conservatives" want to compete ideologically it needs to be on the basis of the attractiveness of their ideas, not their demographic fears and bigotries.

Right now, the Trumpist GOP is competing on the latter, a death rattle IMO.

The only path for them to maintain a dominant, demographic position in the US is some form of authoritarian fascism. The opposite of what you profess as a goal "a free country".

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'. But I don't buy for a moment that we need to hate Dems and be knee jerk afraid of 'socialism' (Social Security, Medicare, free public education, etc).

I want to see Trumpism thoroughly, even ignominiously, defeated, so that actual "conservatives" can again compete rationally on the basis of their ideas, not their fears and bigotries. Sooner the better.

I'm a lifelong R, a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in checks and balances, individual rights, etc. I favor slow, careful progress not populism and 'revolution'.

Ya know for a lifelong republican you have never once ever mentioned any of your idols in the republican party. I would hazard a guess that a lifelong Rockefeller RINO such as yourself would have SOME actual republican that you may have supported at some time in your life. Since you never speak of any such admiration for any republican I can only guess that outside of Abe Lincoln you have no republicans you admire. I am disgusted by all republicans but I can think of 3 that I respect... Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. What say you there our resident RINO suckup? Be honest now, some of your suckup friends here might even hurt your feelings and criticize you for being honest.

Funny, those 3: Reagan, Kemp, Dole, were certainly among those who I, on net, admired and supported. Certainly HW Bush as well.
Here in my state, Senator Mac Mathias would fit my definition of someone I was very enthusiastic about in his day.

None were "idols". I'm just not the idolatry sort.

I was in the stands for Reagan's two Inaugurations, right across from them...pretty cool. I didn't vote for either major party's candidate in '80 (like '16), Reagan's rhetoric worried me, but I warmed up to him with time. Personality was a big plus, his love and respect of his wife was palpable, his love of country unquestionable. But not an idol, not someone to be put on a pedestal.

I never met Dole or Reagan in person, but Jack Kemp's son was a fraternity brother, QB of our college team, and I met Jack a bunch of times. I liked his policy views a lot, felt he was willing to think outside of the standard box, a more cerebral guy than one might expect from the typical ex football star. On the other hand, he had the way of some politicians of seeming to always being looking past you to the next person who might be more important. That was unsettling, but I liked his policy ideas. And his son.

I hear from friends who know W that he was quite the opposite in small groups, you felt you had his undivided attention. Smarter guy than many gave him credit for being, they say. Certainly not perfect, though. I did very much like his instinct around "compassionate conservatism" and I liked very much how he handled 9-11, but I think he over-trusted his VP...

I was an enthusiastic supporter of Mitt Romney's '12 campaign as he and my wife worked at Bain in the same era and I'd followed his career closely as a result. I'm frustrated with him right now.

Today, I strongly support our GOP Governor, Larry Hogan, who enjoys a 75% approval rating in very blue Maryland (Trump is at 37%). I've met him a few times, but can't say that I know him well...but he's hired significantly better than his predecessors and they've done a good job. I don't agree with every policy position, but I do think he's done a good job of managing the state restraining a very D legislature, yet managing to keep the population enthusiastic. A lot of that is personal style, just not being a jerk. His dad, btw, was the first GOP Congressman on the Judiciary Committee who called for impeachment of Nixon.

I know our prior GOP Governor and former Congressman Bob Ehrlich better as he was a class ahead of me in HS. I've always enjoyed Bobby, haven't always 100% agreed with his policy views, but fundamentally a good guy. Unlike Hogan, however, Bobby was more directly confrontational, and as result, actually accomplished less.

Of the current GOP crew in Congress I hold out some hope for a few souls, but most of those who I felt were first class folks have been pushed out of the party by Trumpism, or in McCain's case, deceased. Same for those who were less 'politicians' than public servants ala Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice or intellectuals like George Will, etc.

Some (like some Dems, IMO) are 'deplorable' in their degree of partisanship, putting their partisan interest over country. And a few are flat out evil folks, period. I'd have said the same for some of the southern Dems in my youth.

You realize of course that Mac Mathias was a liberal. I voted for him.

I'm fine with Mac Mathias being called a "liberal", and indeed he was such on the spectrum of R's.
I wouldn't put him the same box as George McGovern, though, would you?

In 1968, Republican Mathias defeated Brewster who had doubled down on support for the Vietnam War and then was caught up in a campaign bribery charge that ultimately led to his being fined.

Small world, Brewster's son Gerry (a liberal Dem) and Bob Ehrlich were in the same class in my HS, a year ahead of me. Both went on to Princeton. Gerry actually went to work for Mac Mathias, who had defeated his dad. He and Ehrlich faced off for the Congressional seat that Bobby won.

So you can understand why I voted for Mathias. He certainly wasn't a McGovern, but he questioned that dumb ass war.

Yes, he was out front in the recognition that Vietnam was a tragic mistake.
Vietnam divided both Dems from Dems and R's from R's.
I was only 11 in 1968, so was just beginning to absorb the politics around that one.

[jhu72]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

[youthathletics]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

Did God or Mother Earth build those dams?

[jhu72]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

There was no claim made by me or the article that this had anything to do with climate change. Man drove the fish to extinction.

[youthathletics]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

There was no claim made by me or the article that this had anything to do with climate change. Man drove the fish to extinction.

My assumption since it was in this thread and your stance on CC.

[jhu72]

Maryland sues Pennsylvania and the EPA over the Chesapeake Bay.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Finishing the book Demon In The Freezer. While reading it at the gym, I found out a guy that works out there, from time to time, helped write the national defense strategy for a smallpox outbreak .... Next on my list is a Christmas gift from my daughter:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Six ... al_History

[MDlaxfan76]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

There was no claim made by me or the article that this had anything to do with climate change. Man drove the fish to extinction.

My assumption since it was in this thread and your stance on CC.

The point obviously is that man can and does impact outcomes. Our efforts to benefit ourselves can and do have unintended consequences on other species' survival and the ecosystem on which we too depend.

By extension, yes, the argument on this thread is that man can indeed influence climate, potentially irreversibly and catastrophically. The 'earth' itself may 'survive' over the long term, it's less clear whether man will, at least as we know the world and environment of today.

What disturbs me, as a conservative who believes in accountability, is this knee jerk resistance to mankind holding itself accountable at all for the impacts we have on the world around us.

Whether our species' gifts come from God or not, I see them as creating a responsibility to be good stewards, using our full capacities to do so.

If we start from that position, we can rationally and ethically debate the cost-benefit projections of various actions and investments we can, and possibly should, take to fulfill this responsibility to be good stewards of our world.

That's a worthy debate.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

There was no claim made by me or the article that this had anything to do with climate change. Man drove the fish to extinction.

My assumption since it was in this thread and your stance on CC.

The point obviously is that man can and does impact outcomes. Our efforts to benefit ourselves can and do have unintended consequences on other species' survival and the ecosystem on which we too depend.

By extension, yes, the argument on this thread is that man can indeed influence climate, potentially irreversibly and catastrophically. The 'earth' itself may 'survive' over the long term, it's less clear whether man will, at least as we know the world and environment of today.

What disturbs me, as a conservative who believes in accountability, is this knee jerk resistance to mankind holding itself accountable at all for the impacts we have on the world around us.

Whether our species' gifts come from God or not, I see them as creating a responsibility to be good stewards, using our full capacities to do so.

If we start from that position, we can rationally and ethically debate the cost-benefit projections of various actions and investments we can, and possibly should, take to fulfill this responsibility to be good stewards of our world.

That's a worthy debate.

" The human species contributes to this disruption – even without intending to – because of our innate capabilities to alter the planet at this stage of our cultural evolution; for instance, we now have the ability to harness energy from beneath the Earth's surface. Homo sapiens also have the ability to adapt relatively quickly to almost any environment on this planet's surface. Other species, however, have a hard time relocating to new, suitable habitats. They are unable to migrate ahead of current rapid ecological changes, or are hampered by artificial barriers such as roadways, cityscapes, and suburban sprawl, which increase discontinuity between viable habitats throughout the world.[2][3][4][5][6]"

[cradleandshoot]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

[youthathletics]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

[jhu72]

The earth will do what the earth will do.

Gotta read past the past the headline.

But what really did it in, the scientists conclude, were dams—specifically the Gezhouba Dam, built on the main stem of the Yangtze, a little over a thousand miles from the sea. This dam, which was constructed without a fish ladder or bypass, cut off the paddlefish from their only spawning grounds upstream, which had only been discovered in the late 1970s.

There was no claim made by me or the article that this had anything to do with climate change. Man drove the fish to extinction.

My assumption since it was in this thread and your stance on CC.

The point obviously is that man can and does impact outcomes. Our efforts to benefit ourselves can and do have unintended consequences on other species' survival and the ecosystem on which we too depend.

By extension, yes, the argument on this thread is that man can indeed influence climate, potentially irreversibly and catastrophically. The 'earth' itself may 'survive' over the long term, it's less clear whether man will, at least as we know the world and environment of today.

What disturbs me, as a conservative who believes in accountability, is this knee jerk resistance to mankind holding itself accountable at all for the impacts we have on the world around us.

Whether our species' gifts come from God or not, I see them as creating a responsibility to be good stewards, using our full capacities to do so.

If we start from that position, we can rationally and ethically debate the cost-benefit projections of various actions and investments we can, and possibly should, take to fulfill this responsibility to be good stewards of our world.

That's a worthy debate.

You immediately run up against the dominionist arguments. Man can do whatever he wants because god gave the earth to man. Men can do with women whatever they like, because god made women subservient to men. They will old testament you to death. It is not surprising that a number of the so called denier scientists subscribe to dominionism. Spencer is a prime example.

[cradleandshoot]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

Are you willing to put your $5 grand large down and debate Syukuro Manabe?

[youthathletics]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

Are you willing to put your $5 grand large down and debate Syukuro Manabe?

Here we go. And like clock work, change the subject and ask questions to change the subject.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/06/ ... 0-signs-2/ the author is offering an interesting 5000 dollar wager. I would expect a number of the faithful here will be anxious to pony up their 5 grand and make the bet.

Even man screws up signs.

I am just interested to see if some of the folks that post here regularly are willing to put their money where their mouths are. If they are so sure of what they believe they have a chance to make 5 grand large. I know it would be painful for them to extract their wallets from their back pockets, blow of the dust, wipe off the cobb webs and dole out that cold hard cash they have been saving since college... Lecturing people here is free, backing up what you lecture about with your own money... well we are talking here for the most part about folks that are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. I just call em chicken chits.

Are you willing to put your $5 grand large down and debate Syukuro Manabe?

Here we go. And like clock work, change the subject and ask questions to change the subject.

Like clockwork.....Did he not ask someone to put up $5k to debate his hero?