[MtnGoat]

There's not much more nauseating than enduring endless lectures from folks bent on controlling you over behavior they won't even control in themselves. If it's so damn important, then you first and prove it. The continual, never ending evasion of this very basic principle says all that needs to be said. And the higher up the social strata you go, the worse the difference between claims and choices. The globe trotting activists at the COP's, the rich folks lecturing about the dangers and using private jets.

[Randito]

[MtnGoat]

I don't think it's overly sensitive to reject and resist controlling innocent people. Straight talk isn't sensitivity, it's straight talk. Particularly when the proponents of same won't even choose to live their ideals because hard, expensive, difficult, and no fun. The Amish don't try to make other people live their hard ideals...they choose it and then live it, including all the drawbacks. And never attempt to claim others should be forced to. They have more respect for other people's rights than climate warriors, in spite of their choice of a harder life. ************* Oh, the lead, forgot about that. So... Well assuming the case of empirical/objective demonstration of the violation of rights, you then have a basis for legislation or legal action against producers/consumers violating those rights. This isn't so much 'voluntary' as a recognition of the correct, and limited role of the State as defending folks negative rights.

[Randito]

[MtnGoat]

[Randito]

You still haven't explained how voluntary measures could work for something known to cause harm. You just keep whining that you don't want to be forced to do anything different.

[neek]

So many fun distractions, it's hard to keep focus. No not everyone in the world wants an F150, as other developed countries demonstrate. Yes arguing can be fun and instructive, I'm glad you appreciate that. Yes there are more immediate concerns than addressing GW, but that assessment changes the further down the road you look. Yes there's a correlation between personal wealth and carbon footprint; it doesn't mean rich people can't care, and the curve can be shaped through policy. But I don't see the point in discussing potential solutions with someone who thinks the whole thing is manufactured. Cycling back to old posts would be boring, and I'm obviously not going to produce anything in the way of new evidence that proves that despite uncertainty around the rate of sea level rise, etc., there is indeed a scientific consensus around some core principles. So that leaves me at a loss as to how to proceed, unless someone more creative decides to step in and bring this trainwreck of a conversation around in a more positive direction.

[neek]

[Ski]

[neek]

[gb]

Lancet Climate Change and Health Effects Report 2019. Lancet is produced in concert with 35 Research Contributors (like Universities). Lancet Climate Change and Helathcare Effects Report 2019 The biggies are an increase in deaths, increase in illness factors, decreases in crop yields with warming, and health effects from heatwaves, fire smoke and other factors.

[Malachai Constant]

Well you guys can all untie your panties Greta says she’s going to see a movie with a friend.

[catsp]

What to say when you hear a sexist comment.

[RayD]

A little no-account teen manages to trigger Trump, Bolsonaro and a pack of keyboard warriors. I say, you go girl!!

[Bernardo]

What do you all think about China?