Bill Gates just purchased a 43 Million dollar beach home (one of multiple large homes Gates owns).
P-BO just purchased a beach house in HI to go along with his beach house in Martha's Vinyard.
One wonders why these folx who are adamant about climate change, and pushing others to limit their "carbon footprint", are in such a rush to buy property that they claim will be under water in the near future?
Maybe one of the reasons normal folks don't take the liberal elites seriously about climate change is that we don't see the elites living out the values they claim to hold. Mega yachts, private jets, multiple mansions, fleets of cars and trucks, maybe I'll think about dialing back my average suburban lifestyle after these frauds stop with their "Do as I say, not as I do." attitudes and lifestyles.
91 comments:
Because they know the whole "climate change" ideology is a lie and only useful for controlling the masses.
The only people who believe in that stuff are the chumps who believe these liars and hypocrites.
Forget the wealthy elites, why not listen to the countless every day scientists and progressives who are living their lives as environmentally soundly as possible? It would be foolish to say, "I'm not going to listen to the experts because there are some very few who agree with the scientists who are not living in a way that I find consistent with that message," if the science is sound, wouldn't it?
And why is it anyone needs to even say this?
It's because the modern conservative movement has largely opted to do a widescale rejection of expert opinion, scientific insight and data and that, mainly because it conflicts with their hyper-consumptive-defense, hedonistic ideology and not because of any contradictory scientific evidence.
Is any of that rational?
As to WHY even progressive minded people who are rich might not live in a manner consistent with their ideals (assuming the information in your stories are factually correct)? Well, the Bible regularly warns about the entrapping nature of wealth, that it blinds those who seek it and can be corrupting. I'd say that's probably right. The wealthier we are, the more we are able to defend our extravagances.
That would be at least one reason.
"Forget the wealthy elites,"
Why? They're the ones who use private jets to haul themselves to bullshit climate change conferences, and lecture us lesser mortals on how we should live. Why should anyone ignore the loudest, most public voices on the topic? Because it's inconvenient? Hell, the patron saint of global warming, Al Gore, owns multiple mansions and has a huge carbon footprint, but y'all don't criticize him.
Again, it's all the other guys fault. Obscenely rich, liberal, elitist, climate change spokesmen/women flaunt their hypocrisy on this issue, and it's "conservatives" who are at fault.
Why would anyone spend millions on multiple beach front mansions, if they really believed that they were in danger of immanent destruction because the sea levels are going to rise? Maybe because they don't really believe their own bullshit. Maybe because they're stupid. More likely because they think the rest of us are too stupid to catch on.
What's not rational is the fact that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge and even mildly criticize this hypocrisy.
Ahhhhhhh, the "assuming the stories are factually correct" dodge.
It's always refreshing to see what happens when two of the narratives you're committed to come in conflict. Especially when you try to blame everyone except the rich, liberal, elites. Hell, you know as well as I do that if y'all piss them off y'all will lose billions in political and other donations.
The real question is why should ANYONE listen to people who's lifestyle contradicts what they claim they believe?
Craig... "Why? They're the ones who use private jets to haul themselves to bullshit climate change conferences, and lecture us lesser mortals on how we should live. Why should anyone ignore the loudest, most public voices on the topic?"
Again, DON'T listen to the rich (whether it's Trump or the Obamas). Listen to the experts, the scientists. Look at the data and trust that. Look to the regular folks and scientists who are living their lives in smaller more sustainable circles. Listen to the Bible and its regular refrain of living with "enough" and not in a hedonistic lifestyle.
Listen to all of those.
And if the Obamas or other wealthy progressives are echoing the message of the experts, then good on them for that much.
And no dodge ("Assuming the stories are factual dodge"). I allowed that it may well be true that the Obamas have a more consumptive lifestyle than you or I. I'm saying it's irrelevant. It's not about what the Obamas or Al Gore is saying. It's whether or not what they're saying lines up with what the experts are saying.
And it does.
So, once again: WHY would you choose to ignore the experts just because some wealthy progressives may be more consumptive than the message of the experts would warrant?
Craig... "The real question is why should ANYONE listen to people who's lifestyle contradicts what they claim they believe?"
You should listen to THE EXPERTS regardless of what the Obamas or Gores have to say. Of course. SO, to the degree that they're telling you what the experts are saying, you should listen to them BECAUSE they're repeating the experts' messages.
Of course. Why wouldn't you? is the question.
Craig... "owns multiple mansions and has a huge carbon footprint, but y'all don't criticize him."
Because it's not about what any ONE person does. It's about what EVERYONE does. Those of us who live by grace aren't so much critiquing what any one person does. We listen to the experts and try to align our lives and promote policies that are sustainable. Because why wouldn't we?
Craig... " Especially when you try to blame everyone except the rich, liberal, elites."
I've never blamed any one individual rich person, have I? NOT ONE DAMNED TIME.
If you want to blame the Obamas for living more consumptively than what they suggest is good, knock yerself out. As noted, I'm not criticizing individuals. I'm suggesting we create national and international policies that are sustainable, given expert opinion about sustainability. I'm criticizing the GOP for blocking greener, more sustainable policies and the Democrats for not finding a way to win them over. But mostly, I'm saying that the US citizenry needs to stop electing those (Dem or GOP) who won't work for sustainable, greener solutions.
Because that's rational and data-driven.
So, the question returns to you: Why would you NOT listen to the experts and the data?
The experts say climate change is not a problem, that there is no abnormal warming or cooling. The whole climate change agenda is just for government control.
Yes, listen to the real climate experts and not the ones being paid by LEFTIST politicians for grabbing control.
"Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise,
have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between
90% and 100% agreement
on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on
97% agreement."
"We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high
(91% to 100%)
and generally increases with expertise.
Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts,
98.7% of those scientists
indicated that the Earth is getting warmer
mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.
Among those with the highest level of expertise
(independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019)
there was 100% agreement
that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity."
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
Also...
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
...and I could go on and on.
Again, the question is: GIVEN THE INSURMOUNTABLE evidence reported by an overwhelming, near total majority of experts, WHY would anyone be so foolish as to not support greener, more sustainable energy policies simply because those advocating for it have been their political opponents?
That would take a good bit of stupidity and not a bit of insanity and arrogance, wouldn't it?
"And if the Obamas or other wealthy progressives are echoing the message of the experts, then good on them for that much."
Really, are "the experts" really advocating buying/building multi-million dollar beach front mansions on islands as the best way to fight/avoid the effects of global warming?
"It's not about what the Obamas or Al Gore is saying. It's whether or not what they're saying lines up with what the experts are saying."
No, it's about whether their actions align with their words. Some call that integrity.
Of course, you could adopt the approach that as long as these shills say the "right" things that they can do whatever they want regardless of whether or not they live out their alleged beliefs.
"So, once again: WHY would you choose to ignore the experts just because some wealthy progressives may be more consumptive than the message of the experts would warrant?"
My pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of integrity on the part of these rich, liberal, elites, has nothing to do with how I deal with the "experts". My pointing out their lack of integrity is also pointing out how their actions undercut the credibility of the "experts" they claim to believe. Further, those who make excuses for the hyper-consumptive, hypocritical, lifestyle that lacks integrity are just reinforcing the hypocrisy and lack of integrity.
"Because it's not about what any ONE person does. It's about what EVERYONE does."
How facile and simplistic. The notion that it's reasonable to expect the rest of us to subsidize the out sized carbon footprint, by sacrificing even more is laughable. Are you really suggesting that these rich, liberal, elitists, aren't part of "EVERYONE"? Are you suggesting that you choose not to drive for a few weeks, so they can cruise around on their yachts or private jets? What an absolutely insane notion. Just ignore those hypocrites and their lack of integrity, they're spouting the "right" things so their hyper consumption doesn't really matter. We'll make the rest of you suffer for our lifestyles.
But damn, it's funny as hell listening to you try to defend/excuse/minimize/rationalize hypocrisy and lack of integrity on the part of a bunch of rich, liberal, elites, who live out everything you claim to despise.
Nope, you just blame "conservatives", "the GOP", "Trump", "Trump supporters", "NAZI's", and all the rest. But nice try.
Once again, in your rush to defend those who display such hypocrisy and lack of integrity, you miss the point.
I'm all for these hypocrites living the lifestyle they choose. I support people's freedom to choose to live a lifestyle that is within their means. I support people's freedom to buy real estate wherever they choose. I'm not the one telling other people how they should live, or how much they should consume. I'm not the one trying to tell folx that Jesus wants them to live a "simple life".
I'm the one who thinks that this "Do as I say, not as I do." hypocritical bullshit from a bunch of rich, liberal, elite, hypocrites, who lack integrity and the sheep that make excuses for them, makes a lot of people look like idiots.
Craig... "Really, are "the experts" really advocating buying/building multi-million dollar beach front mansions on islands as the best way to fight/avoid the effects of global warming?"
No. This is literally NOTHING like ANYTHING I've said.
Read for understanding, Craig. Do better.
Craig... "Of course, you could adopt the approach that as long as these shills say the "right" things that they can do whatever they want regardless of whether or not they live out their alleged beliefs."
?? When Trump (on rare occasions) supported doing the right thing, I was glad for him to do it. I didn't point out his hypocrisy or errors in his life when I found a point I could agree upon. It's NOT about the messengers. It's about the message and the facts and the Truths.
Humans - all of us - will always be imperfect and hypocritical to some degree. The point is not the individual. It's about the message. What are you failing to understand?
Would I wish that the Obamas lived lighter on the earth? Yes, of course. And I wish I lived more lightly upon the earth, as well. But the point is we need to work to have sustainable policies in place that help push all of us, collectively, to live more consistently and sustainably.
Craig... "Nope, you just blame "conservatives", "the GOP", "Trump", "Trump supporters", "NAZI's", and all the rest. But nice try."
When THE GOP doesn't support or actively opposes more sustainable policies, I criticize them. When Democrats (like Manchin, for instance) don't support more sustainable policies, I criticize them. IF some one or group is blocking reasonable, data-driven, sustainable policies, why WOULDN'T we blame them?
This doesn't make any sense.
And STILL, you dodge the pertinent question: WHY would any rational, moral adults actively oppose the policies advocated by experts?
"Again, the question is: GIVEN THE INSURMOUNTABLE evidence reported by an overwhelming, near total majority of experts, WHY would anyone be so foolish as to not support greener, more sustainable energy policies simply because those advocating for it have been their political opponents?"
1. My issue isn't a political issue, it's an integrity issue.
2. I see that you're trying to shift away from the topic and I'm pointing it out.
3. If, as you claim, the rich, liberal, elites, that I've pointed out are ignoring all of the things you've pointed out, why would you not be critical of their hypocrisy and lack of integrity?
4. Why would you suggest that these hypocrites without integrity be put in positions of speaking for the entire movement?
5. Doesn't their hypocrisy and lack of integrity hurt the message you're trying to send?
6. Why would you expect those who aren't rich, liberal, elites, to be willing to further lower our lifestyles and consumption in order to allow these rich, liberal, elite, hypocrites to continue to live without integrity?
"That would take a good bit of stupidity and not a bit of insanity and arrogance, wouldn't it?"
As if choosing to live a hyper consumptive lifestyle that is completely incongruous with ones stated belief system isn't "insane and arrogant"? As if choosing to excuse/rationalize for/defend/ these hypocrites and their lack of integrity isn't "insane and arrogant"? As if espousing a "Do as I say, not as I do." philosophy isn't "insane and arrogant".
It's damn funny watching you try to shill for folks that you'd despise if they weren't liberal icons.
Glenn,
Clearly you aren't listening to the "right", "approved", "experts". Therefore it doesn't matter what any other experts say. C'mon, you know better than to question the "experts".
I could post many links to experts showing no such thing as abnormal climate change but instead I will give you ONE link which is a page with links to dozens of articles refuting the "climate change" lie.
But Dan won't bother with it because facts aren't interesting to him.
I forgot the link:
https://agotoblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/global-climate-change-nonsense.html
"No. This is literally NOTHING like ANYTHING I've said."
You're correct. Unfortunately the actual topic of this post, is the rich, liberal, elites, whose lifestyles contradict their claims about global warming and the like. That's what's being discussed here. Since the question I asked is germane to the actual topic of the post (not your attempted hijacking) answer the question.
"Read for understanding, Craig. Do better."
You don't, but demand that I do. Pathetic.
As for the rest, just more of the same excuses for folks on your side being hypocrites and lacking integrity.
Please post one example, direct quote and link ONLY of any time you have praised Trump for doing ANYTHING.
You still can't acknowledge the extreme hypocrisy and lack of integrity on the part of the folx I've mentioned and others of their ilk. Just more of the bland, "We can all do a little better.", "If only the GOP would just...", pablum you spew when you don;t want to treat folx on your side the way you treat your political enemies.
An old report, but nothing new has rebutted it's realities:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/
And then there's more:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/
Michael Crichton shreds Dan's appeal to consensus, which is one of Dan's favorite logical fallacies:
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
There's just all manner of disagreement about climate change:
https://therealtruthnetworkcom.wordpress.com/2021/03/07/the-big-climate-change-lie-hoax/
...but there's very little disagreement about the buffoonish Dan Trabue. He won't disparage any lefty, and his "we all have to do better" dodge isn't surprising. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks living in crap is a societal good...even those who live in crap (because they don't see their own crap). Thus, to suggest anyone is actively working against a cleaner earth requires evidence. Yet not doing "better" as the twisted mind of Dan perceives "better" in no indication of ambivalence or disinterest. More than likely, it's an indication of a more reasoned, adult outlook.
But since Dan likes consensus, there's a consensus around here that Dan's a low character buffoon.
Working for ACTUAL policy-based solutions based upon the science and data is "pablum," but worrying about what some individuals may or may not do is rational? And IGNORING what the science says is rational?
You're just wrong.
Craig: "Please post one example, direct quote and link ONLY of any time you have praised Trump for doing ANYTHING."
Dan: "But he [Trump] is quite a genius when it comes to conning a certain subset of people..."
Objectively factual and I've made that point multiple times.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=trump&updated-max=2016-11-28T21:20:00-08:00&max-results=20&start=10&by-date=false
Also, I have NEVER spent any time finding the "good points" of Adolph Hitler or other dangerous leaders. I'm sure they exist, but I have limited time... why would I waste time writing about a few good points of dangerous, perverted, over-the-top bad leaders?
Having said that, I have noted that Trump did not mess up the Obama recovery for three years. Another way I've praised Trump, giving him credit for not messing up the recovery for nearly three years and only after the pandemic.
I've given him credit for wanting to get out of Afghanistan, but then, he never followed through on that.
Trump did not start any wars. Good for him.
Just fyi.
Glenn links to a bunch of nutty sounding conspiracists with nary a scientist in the bunch (at least on the first 8 or so I looked at). That list is a joke and I'm just embarrassed for you.
Interesting that you think that "conning" people is a "good" thing.
"WHY would any rational, moral adults actively oppose the policies advocated by experts?"
1. I guess you'd have to ask the P-BO's, Gore's, Gates, and the rest of the rich, liberal, elite class of folks that choose to live in ways that don't agree with the ways they tell others they should live.
2. More importantly, because that's not to topic of the post.
The reality is that when people are so blatantly hypocritical and lack integrity, it's completely reasonable to explore why they choose to do so.
In the cases of the multiple beachfront mansions, I suspect that they realize that the notion of the massive sea level rise they prate about isn't going to happen, or that they figure they can sell for a profit before the deluge and screw the next owner.
There were a lot of scientists and lots of data which could be found on those links by Dan stays in denial because facts upset his apple cart. What a stupid person he proves to be.
"..why would I waste time writing about a few good points of dangerous, perverted, over-the-top bad leaders?"
Because when you support them, saying they improved the economy when they didn't, or would be better for America than the president whose policies did, you should at least have some reason.
"And IGNORING what the science says is rational?"
You ignore science all the time. We've shown that repeatedly.
"Glenn links to a bunch of nutty sounding conspiracists with nary a scientist in the bunch (at least on the first 8 or so I looked at). That list is a joke and I'm just embarrassed for you."
The joke accuses Glenn's list of being a joke, yet he didn't review any of them. If Dan actually looked at them, he'd know that the first video featured a life-long meteorologist. Apparently to Dan, that's not "scientist enough" for him.
One needn't be an "expert" to be able to review what Dan's "experts" say and observe nothing which supports them. This is what Glenn's first link in his list does. Two others are experts in their own fields in the same way John Coleman is, by their being involved in the fields as their career choices. And this is evident in actually reviewing just the first four links of Glenn's list. That is, I didn't even have to pretend I looked at "eight or so". Few would be concerned if Dan, a lying, morally bankrupt fraud who falsely claims to be a Christian, might be embarrassed for them.
In the meantime, while Dan criticizes the legit debunking of the "science" about which Dan pretends the really, really smart people are all in perfect agreement, he can't muster the least bit of concern for all his political and celebrity heroes who ignore that "settled science" in their very public actions.
Yeah. The joke is the likes of Dan daring to condescend.
"..why would I waste time writing about a few good points of dangerous, perverted, over-the-top bad leaders?"
Interesting. Dan was just congratulating himself for his magnanimous take on the first 3 years of the Trump presidency. But, if Trump's handling of the economy was worthy of being "praised", then wouldn't calling Trump's presidency a "train wreck" be inaccurate? Especially given the unprecedented nature of COVID and the extreme measures recommended by the "experts"? Based on what we now know about COVID, it's likely that the "experts" recommendations made the economic problem significantly worse, while not significantly improving the handling of COVID.
I don't think Trump get's enough credit for NOT imposing draconian, nationwide, restrictions, instead allowing the states to implement the restrictions that made sense on a more local level.
The flip side, of that is the fact that Trump got blamed for a lot which was actually the responsibility of governors.
I also think that (despite the flaws in the "vaccine") Trump does not get nearly enough credit for doing what was necessary to fast track the vaccine. Unfortunately this allowed Biden to claim credit for the "vaccine" when all he really did was reap the benefits of Trump's decisive actions.
Trump's biggest COVID failure (in hindsight) was listening to and giving Fauci much more credibility than seems warranted.
Glenn,
Based on my experience, Dan rarely looks at the links embedded in an article or post, if he decides that whoever aggregated the data doesn't meet his standards for an "expert".
Glenn... ", if Trump's handling of the economy was worthy of being "praised", then wouldn't calling Trump's presidency a "train wreck" be inaccurate?"
Good God in heaven, what's wrong with you all? No. The answer is no.
If a president is a corrupt, dishonest, dangerous lunatic who is in way over his head and he has one or two good elements about him, that doesn't make him a good president! Of course, it doesn't!
You all should know this.
In fact, if he was awful in every other way, he would be a train wreck, amongst the worst presidents ever... As experts have told us, then he is an awful president.
Glenn... "There were a lot of scientists and lots of data which could be found on those links by Dan stays in denial because facts..."
Then CITE ONE. Cite a climatologist with their credentials. I'm not going to read some half-wit tin-foil wearing conspiracy theorist because why would I?
I went to about seven of your links without finding anyone identified as a climatologist or even a scientist. That's on you. You can't cite conspiracy theorists non-experts and expect anyone to waste their time thusly.
Craig... "Trump's biggest COVID failure (in hindsight) was listening to and giving Fauci much more credibility than seems warranted."
Says Craig, entirely apart from what the CDC, WHO or any experts are saying.
And again, why should anyone care about a non-expert's hunches?
That is another area where Trump gets some credit, though: in spite of his attacks on expert and undercutting the seriousness of Covid and his outright lying about it, he DID do enough (and stayed out of the way enough) to get the vaccine completed quickly. For what it's worth.
Having two areas where he wasn't a total imbecile, however, doesn't make one a good or even middling president.
Craig... "Dan rarely looks at the links embedded in an article or post"
Fact: Dan looks at links from experts or citing experts. I don't care what some far right non-expert THINKS the actual experts are saying. Because, reason.
Craig... "Interesting that you think that "conning" people is a "good" thing."
Not what I said. This is precisely why we can't trust far right conservatives interpretation of what experts say... they so often don't rightly understand words in sentences.
"Experts" is a subjective term when used by Dan.
"Dan looks at links from experts or citing experts."
Excellent. Dan eliminates links and exerts based on his hunches about their "expert" status based on his hidden criteria, not based on the data. Again we're back to Dan choosing to ignore reports/data based on the source, not based on the actual data presented.
So you calling Trump a "genius" when it comes to "conning" people was NOT a positive, although you presented it as one.
I'm acknowledging that Trump WAS/IS good at something. Unfortunately, what he's good at is conning people, living in an overtly corrupt/corrupting/dishonest/perverse manner and getting away with it.
I don't know what you're having a hard time understanding. One can be very good at a bad behavior. Noting that reality is not commending the bad behavior. I'm NOT saying it's positive, it's dangerous and awful. But he IS good at it.
Understand?
Marshal... ""Experts" is a subjective term when used by Dan."
Experts: People who have researched and studied a topic/topics in an indepth manner over a good bit of time and whose conclusions can withstand peer review.
That, as opposed to Marshal, who appears to think that experts are people who agree with Marshal's presuppositions based upon ignorance, not information.
Tell us true, Marshal (or Craig): Did you all actually research Climate Change, Gender, Human Sexuality before you formed your opinions? OR, were you aware that liberals acknowledged climate change and supported LGBTQ people and your religious traditions suggested that LGBTQ folk were wrong and THEN looked for "experts" who agreed with your presuppositions?
When you put that backhanded compliment in the context of your claim that you "praised" trump for the successes in his presidency, your desire to take the passive aggressive shot at him made things more confusing than necessary.
The problem I see with your definition of "experts", is that I've offered "experts" (by your current definition on numerous topics and you've dismissed them as inadequate for various reasons. I think that the problem is that Art believes that there are people (by your definition) who are "experts" across the spectrum of any issue. You tend to dismiss "experts" that have reached conclusions that don't fit your narrative.
To answer your first question, yes. To answer your second, no.
And just as Dan's devotion to his "experts" is compelled by their conclusions rather than the quality of the work put in to arrive at those conclusions, so too will he disparage any who dare question those conclusions without regard to the quality of the rebuttal. The conclusion comes first for Dan...it must validate whatever it is he wants to believe...then he looks for credentials. Fine. The dude is a "doctor" of...whatever...so all else must shut up and accept the conclusions of the "doctor" of whatever, or else be a doctor of whatever, too. If one finds a doctor of whatever with an opposing conclusion, Dan will find another way to disparage that person, perhaps based on years of experience being less, the school where he graduated or maybe finding the person is one of faith and thus, how can the person be trusted, because he's an extremist looking to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us.
It's always something with Dan, but that something is never honest and once more, truth suffers, because it isn't about the truth, but about the ideology pleasing to Dan. Thus, that religious expert who rebuts Dan's position is not expert as much as theocrat and the "theocrat's" position is beneath consideration. Never mind that Dan's "expert" might be a lesbian. Her work on the brains of lesbians has not a shred of ideological influence. And it's just not possible that a "cis"-gendered man who is not a neurological scientist could review her work and find a flaw in her methodology or such. Oh no. Not to Dan. Because it's the conclusion which supports the ideology which counts and is thus sacrosanct.
At my blog, I posted two articles:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/
https://clarion.causeaction.com/2022/03/26/my-dads-left-hand-and-the-insanity-of-transgenderism/
The first is from an actual doctor, but not the right kind for Dan. It doesn't matter to Dan the point of Kinney's article doesn't require "expertise" in LGBT "science" in order to find clear fault in that which was, at that time, put forth as "evidence" by those Dan worships. People in scientific fields know how studies and research are supposed to be done, and thus, his criticisms of the "science" used as the foundation for the LGBT agenda are sound based on that.
The second is from a journalist who begins with noting his father's birth defect and in a sense assaults the "experts" whose studies would regard that defect as "normal" if they were honest and consistent. Thus, it shows how Dan and his "experts" abuse science to support their preconceived notions. One needn't be a graduate of the same schools in the exact same fields of study as Dan demands they must be in order to find fault in their work, and thus their conclusions. All that matters to Dan is the conclusions because of his devotion to the cause he needs the conclusions to support. For any objection, Dan will find the easiest means to dismiss and reject it, without any serious and prayerful study with truth as his goal. Note:
"Fact: Dan looks at links from experts or citing experts. I don't care what some far right non-expert THINKS the actual experts are saying. Because, reason."
The actual fact is Dan looks at links from experts which support what he needs supported without regard to the quality of that support. It's the conclusion which matters. And "expert" is a weapon. If your guy ain't the "expert" Dan's guy is in Dan's opinion, Dan doesn't even have to give your guy the time of day. Because "reason"??? No. It's because the cause demands it. Dan's cause demands that all countervailing evidence and arguments must be roundly rejected simply because it's countervailing evidence and arguments. This makes Dan the liar we've long known him to be. Thus, we get this:
"If a president is a corrupt, dishonest, dangerous lunatic who is in way over his head and he has one or two good elements about him, that doesn't make him a good president! Of course, it doesn't!"
He applies this, not to Joe Biden, whose corruption is being investigated, whose dishonesty is blatant as well as documented and, given how near we are to war with a nuclear power, confirmed as dangerous. Nor does it apply to Obama despite his clearly moral corruption and dishonesty, as well as the danger to our nation due to a marxist president like him. No. Dan applies it to Trump because it fits his ideology. There's no regard for truth in Dan's position on Trump. Hatred is all that matters.
The reverse, of course, is that he ignores the crimes of his own, as your post clearly suggests. Dan's "experts" would require an Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio be punished for their lifestyles. Obama should be strung up for ignoring the "truth" of rising sea levels. Hypocrisy and a wanton disregard for truth are the hallmarks of the modern "progressive".
Marshal... "The first is from an actual doctor..."
His doctorate is in Pharmacology, not sexuality or gender studies... so, no. He's literally NOT an expert in these areas. Having DR in front of your name means nothing if we're needing a truck repaired.
Of course, it's important to listen to actual experts in the actual field of study.
You know this, right? Tell me you understand that. It's important that you understand that.
Dan:
Then CITE ONE. Cite a climatologist with their credentials. I'm not going to read some half-wit tin-foil wearing conspiracy theorist because why would I?
Well, I'm not doing your work for you. There were dozens of bonafide climate experts that I linked to. But you'd have to actually want to learn the facts to research. There is no such thing as human-caused climate change; never was, never will be. it's all about politics and you know it. You are just denying the truth because it would upset you foolish applecart mentality.
Glenn... ", if Trump's handling of the economy was worthy of being "praised", then wouldn't calling Trump's presidency a "train wreck" be inaccurate?"
SORRY BUB, but you got the wrong guy.
Apparently Dan is unaware that many areas of study cross specialties. Give the mental health aspects and the increasing prevalence of chemical castration in minor children, it seems reasonable that a Pharmacologist would have some degree of expertise in a number of other disciplines.
FYI, is there really an official area of studies for "sexuality or gender". Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that folks who specialize in those areas might have done so in order to further an agenda? Or that they might not be willing to look outside of their narrow specialization at all possible answers or solutions?
Glenn,
Dan is attempting the "Ridicule it and it'll go away." argument. Instead of doing his due diligence, he'll choose to ridicule every person you cited because he found one that didn't meet his strict and objective criteria for "expert" status.
Dan,
IF, as you claim, the "science" is so overwhelmingly accurate about climate change and the sea level rise, then what does that say about these rich, liberal, elites, who ignore what is blatantly obvious? Are Gates, P-BO, and the like too stupid to understand what they've done? Are they so rich that they don't care if their multi-million dollar beachfront mansion goes underwater soon? Shouldn't they be investing in oil powered mega yachts so that they can easily accommodate themselves to the coming deluge? Or do they know that it's all bullshit and their monetary investments show how they really feel?
Is anyone else wondering how P-BO managed to go from "poor" prior to his election to rich enough to afford multiple beachfront mansions?
I think Truman warned us against politicians who get rich in and because of their office, didn't he?
It's always amusing when Dan makes excuses or comes up with these bland "criticisms" of the folks he's venerated, when they engage in this sort of conspicuous consumption. He tries, but he just can't gin up the vitriol for the rich, liberal, elites, as he does for everyone else who doesn't advocate for a "simple" lifestyle.
Craig... "IF, as you claim, the "science" is so overwhelmingly accurate about climate change and the sea level rise, then what does that say about these rich, liberal, elites, who ignore what is blatantly obvious? Are Gates, P-BO, and the like too stupid to understand what they've done? Are they so rich that they don't care if their multi-million dollar beachfront mansion goes underwater soon? Shouldn't they be investing in oil powered mega yachts so that they can easily accommodate themselves to the coming deluge?"
You'd have to ask them. Unlike you conservatives, I don't pretend to know what people's motivations are. I will just reiterate the obvious points/facts:
1. Scientists are nearly all in agreement on the data and that changes need to be made in policy.
2. The more directly the scientists are involved with climate science, the more agreement there is.
3. The Democrats, in setting policy, come much closer to heeding the experts' opinions/consensus than the GOP.
4. The GOP tends to be either outright hostile towards the experts, referencing the sorts of nonsense conspiracy theories that we see from useful idiots like Glenn and Marshal OR, at best, they're vaguely indifferent to the science, not willing to take stands on policies in alignment with the data and expert opinion.
5. All of us - all of humanity - has a problem with justifying our wealth and overconsumption and bad decisions. Part of this is because there are NO precise literal answers when it comes to climate policy. Should I only drive five miles a day? Keep it under 100 miles a week? Can everyone survive if we all lived that way? What is the precisely "right" size of a home, type of car, number of miles, type of mass transit, source of energy...? At the individual level, these are difficult answers to give ONE authoritative answer to and that's not really the point.
The point is what do we need to do collectively? Can we all drive a 5 mpg $100,000 vehicle 200 miles a day and live sustainably on God's good earth? No, we just can't. Can we keep polluting in the same amount as we have been and still not impact the climate and have costly results? No, we can't. So, the question is: What policies do we need to put in place, what incentives do we need to have, what education and enlightenment do we need to try to put out there? And then, do that, the best we can.
Individual actions - either living more sustainably or less sustainably - won't make a difference at the size of our population and amount of pollution and consumption we have currently. We need smart policies.
So, again, I can't emphasize enough that I don't know what any of the extremely wealthy's reasoning is for how they live - WHY does anyone need $1 million/year salary? for instance - and while I would very much like for the Obamas and Trumps of the world not to be as consumptive as they are or to do things like living in wealthy beach enclaves - I'm more concerned about policy decisions.
On that front, there is no contest when it comes to the GOP or the Democrats... although it should be clear that the Democrats aren't doing enough either. It's just they're the best option we have (in this nation) for this global problem.
Craig stupidly, falsely said... "the folks he's venerated"
I don't venerate the Obamas, certainly not the Clintons, nor the Bidens. They have good points and bad points and each and every one of them are more decent and smarter and classier than Trump or the Neandertals leading the GOP currently. But recognizing them as the better option between the choices is not venerating them. Of course. But don't let reality stop you from making more stupidly false claims. It's become the GOP/conservative way. Much to your collective shame.
Obama - the best of the recent Dems - did not close Guantanamo, did not end Bush's unending war in Afghanistan, continued use of drones to kill in what seems to be an illegal manner, did not do nearly enough for refugees and immigrants... Trust me. We on the progressive side of things were greatly disappointed in Obama's capitulation to GOP methods and ideals. But if he was only a 5 out of 10 star president, it sure beats the Reagan, Bushes and Trump debacles when it comes to some level of intelligence and morality and decency and honoring of the poor and God's good creation.
"His doctorate is in Pharmacology, not sexuality or gender studies."
Ah...I see...so you're saying that a doctorate in a different scientific discipline engages in studies is a different way than the rest, or with different standards of methodology than the rest, that such a person with a doctorate in a different scientific discipline can't see a study supporting a premise submitted by one from another discipline was poorly conducted or leaves more questions than answers? That's patently absurd...par for the course with you as you seek to find any means to disparage that which exposes the bullshit you endorse for reasons related to your own moral bankruptcy. We're again dealing with a situation in which a premise is put forth as scientific evidence intended to legitimize a disorder as not disordered...the abnormal as being normal...yet failing to understand how that line of reasoning means there are no behaviors of any kind, no desires and urges of any kind which can be regarded by anyone as abnormal, disordered or dysfunction. But to you, simply because he's not of the same discipline, he's somehow unqualified to comment on the shoddy nature of a study, or more precisely, the intent to present the data of the study as evidence which proves the claims of the LGBT activists, be they "scientific experts" or just rank provocateurs.
Your desperation is thus exposed again, Danny-boy. You assault the person rather than address the arguments, presume authority to dismiss those arguments on the grounds his specific area of expertise somehow disqualifies him from having the ability, intelligence and wisdom to critique the "evidence" submitted by those of other disciplines. A more petulant and Dan-like line of bullshit would be impossible to find. That you dare suggest such a thing with a virtually straight face does no less than lend credence to the notion you're a rank liar, and worse, an obvious moron. To dare suggest you have an open mind, a desire for truth and compassion for the afflicted is laughable.
"Apparently Dan is unaware that many areas of study cross specialties."
Oh, it's far worse than that, Craig. Dan doesn't care about such realities, particularly when they expose the falsehood of his position, and the falsehood of the agenda he promotes as legitimate. Any discipline of science deals in studies and research of some kind. They all follow the same basic rules of doing so. It's adherence to the rules which matter when considering the criticisms of a person of one discipline of science reviewing the work of someone from another discipline. What it comes down to is one of the first arguments by people of character and integrity when first faced with the claims of the activists which have never been resolved by them:
---If it's true that LGBT people are born that way, and because of that they should be regarded as no different than normal people, then why isn't it true for the polygamist, pedophile and the bestial?
In short, there's no argument perpetuated by the LGBT crowd which can't be used by proponents of any other behavior or desire. Not one argument, nor any other desire or behavior.
And of course, it isn't a fraud related only to issues of human sexuality and perversions. Dan does the same with pretty much every issue we've ever discussed. For the purpose of this post's topic, it manifests again in his penchant for ignoring the crimes of leftists he'd never forgive if perpetrated by conservatives or the GOP. If it wasn't for double standards, Dan would have no standards at all.
Craug...
"It's always amusing when Dan makes excuses or comes up with these bland "criticisms" of the folks he's venerated..."
I suspect this points to one of the differences between conservative and progressive types. We're not looking to blame individuals for societal problems. We're looking for societal, communal solutions that are mutually beneficial and sustainable.
We recognize that none of us live fully up to our ideals, and because we're operating under a way of life-giving grace and not death-dealing rule-following, We have no reason to criticize a fellow flawed human member of the beloved community.
We will condemn anyone and any group that is actively causing harm but otherwise we tend to live by grace.
That seems like it's hard for many conservatives to understand and they're looking for us to tear down and attack those who don't live up to our ideals. That's just not the way of grace we live under.
"We're not looking to blame individuals for societal problems. We're looking for societal, communal solutions that are mutually beneficial and sustainable."
Strangely enough, when it comes to folks like Trump, you find ways to blame him individually. Strangely enough, "society" is comprised of "individuals". Strangely enough when individuals you've supported (or politically agree with, or respect, or whatever) transgress your vague, subjective standards you somehow manage to NOT apply the same standards to them that you do to your political enemies. The reality is that if the O's, the C's, the B's, the G's and the like were conservatives you'd have no problem compiling a litany of individual transgressions that they'd committed. But since they're eon your side, you retreat behind "society" and absolve them of individual blame. The reality is that these rich, liberal, elites, have a huge effect on society. People follow them, use them as examples, believe what they say. You're acceptance of their lack of integrity and hypocrisy shows how little integrity you have when it comes to judging those on your side, the way you judge you political enemies.
"venerate", it's hyperbole. It sounded better than "voted for/supported/campaigned for/shilled for".
Just more of the "Do as I say, not as I do." philosophy.
Marshal...
"In short, there's no argument perpetuated by the LGBT crowd which can't be used by proponents of any other behavior or desire."
Not one argument.... EXCEPT the most obvious arguments:
1. HARM
2. CONSENT
When the rapists or pedophiles or other actual deviants (many of which you support) follow their deviant desires, they cause harm to unwilling victims.
That's a gigantic difference. The difference between heaven and hell.
Craig... "Strangely enough, when it comes to folks like Trump, you find ways to blame him individually."
Oh? In spite of his grotesquely hedonistic material extravagance, how many times specifically have I condemned his personal spending practices? A dozen? A handful?
One?
Isn't it the case that I've never criticized his over-the-top personal spending?
I'll wait there for you to admit you are wrong, when comparing apples to apples.
As to criticism I have had of Trump, I've critized Trump, the president, for his unending false claims because that's dangerous for our leaders to do that AS our leader. I never criticized, Trump, the citizen, for his personal lies prior to him being in office.
I criticized his relentless attacks on the free press because our leaders doing that is dangerous. If he did that back prior to being in the public eye, I never had anything to say about it.
Of course I criticize our leaders when they engage in wrong, potentially dangerous actions as our leaders because of course I do. We should.
But private citizens? Unless they're actively causing direct harm (sexual assault, spreading anti-LGBTQ or immigrant, etc attacks, child abuse, etc) I don't usually/ever comment on private life indiscretions or failures.
See the significant difference?
While I have a moment:
"You'd have to ask them. Unlike you conservatives, I don't pretend to know what people's motivations are."
Dan loves making me laugh. He asserts what he "knows" the motivations are of anybody as the situation dictates. Here, he feigns ignorance because they're people he...yes...venerated. If they were all Republicans, the story would be much different. He'd absolutely "know" what their motivations were.
"I will just reiterate the obvious points/facts:"
More comedy. No actual facts are presented.
1. Not true. Dan continues to run that totally false claim that consensus affirming what's now called "climate change" (because the world isn't warming according to crappy computer models) is 97%.
2. This Dan pulls from deep out the space where his head resides. He couldn't possibly confirm a nonsensical, made-up claim such as this.
3. This isn't a plus for determining the intelligence of Dems. Crafting policy on bad science simply is detrimental, if not out right disastrous, for the nation.
4. This is what morons tell themselves because the GOP is far less likely to act on bad science which titillates the typical leftist sheep. Dan, being one of them, thinks using the term "experts" has more value than it possibly could, as there are "experts" with opposing points of view than those Dan worships as beyond questioning. As with the issue of LGBT behaviors, Dan's "experts" are routinely exposed as less than worthy of such reverence by better experts Dan will dismiss simply for having done so, not because he can bring a legitimate response.
5. How arrogant for Dan to presume anyone must justify anything while demanding those on the right must mind their own business.
The point is, the Dems have no idea if the climate can at all be impacted by human behavior as they demand we must believe, or what to do about...if anything really can be...if it can.
But honest and intelligent people can easily presume the whole thing is crap if their most influential advocates of that narrative behave in a manner which indicates it is indeed all crap.
Dan expects us to believe he has no idea of their motivations. It's pretty damned obvious. They've been lying about the "threat" the whole time.
Craig...
"Strangely enough when individuals you've supported (or politically agree with, or respect, or whatever) transgress your vague, subjective standards..."
A stupidly false claim. If a president who was a Democrat, for instance, had sex with a 21 year old intern, you can bet I would call for him to step down from office or be removed.. Because, of course I did.
If a Democrat president was caught in a video laughing and boasting about grabbing a woman by her crotch, you can bet I would call for him to step down or be removed.
If a Democrat lied on a daily basis, stupidly false claim after stupidly false claim about matters great and unimportant, that's sick and I would call for that president to step down.
If a Democrat president cheated on his charity, I would call for him to be held accountable and step down.
If a Democrat regularly attacked and undermined the free press and our election process, I would call for him or them to be held accountable and step down. These are serious things. Dangerous actions.
If a Democrat president mocked openly a man with a disability, I would want to punch him in the face and I would expect for him to apologize. If he didn't, I would want him to step down or be removed.
And I can forgive one or two mistakes of this nature, if there's an apology, but when it just keeps on happening, day after day after day after day... with no apologies or acknowledgment of the wrong, that's just sick.
These are way beyond acceptable and crossing a line(s) that should not be crossed. It's just the reality that Democrat presidents have never been that overtly corrupt, dishonest and openly dangerous towards our free Republic and human rights.
So, just another false and unsupported claim from you.
"I don't venerate the Obamas, certainly not the Clintons, nor the Bidens. They have good points and bad points and each and every one of them are more decent and smarter and classier than Trump or the Neandertals leading the GOP currently."
That's hilarious!
"But don't let reality stop you from making more stupidly false claims. It's become the GOP/conservative way."
You're right Dan. I'm going to write letters telling GOP politicians to stop saying there are more than two genders; to stop with all that goofy climate change nonsense and that we've only got twelve years to fix it; to stop saying the wealthy aren't paying their fair share in taxes; to stop making up crap like "white privilege"; that Ketanji Brown-Jackson is qualified for a seat on the SCOTUS without knowing what a woman is, or without knowing our rights are endowed in us by our Creator, which is kind of Constitution 101.
Oh, those GOP/conservative ways!!
"Obama - the best of the recent Dems"
Given the incredibly low bar, that's still not true. What a stupid thing to say!
"But if he was only a 5 out of 10 star president, it sure beats the Reagan, Bushes and Trump debacles when it comes to some level of intelligence and morality and decency and honoring of the poor and God's good creation."
My bad. This was even stupider than his previous quote!
"Oh? In spite of his grotesquely hedonistic material extravagance, how many times specifically have I condemned his personal spending practices? A dozen? A handful? One?
Isn't it the case that I've never criticized his over-the-top personal spending?"
!. I've never limited your criticism if Trump as an individual to one aspect of his life. As happens with you, you feel the need to shift the focus away from the point being made, in order to protect your self esteem or whatever it is that drives you to respond to something I didn't actually say.
2. The topic ISN'T the fact that these liberals are rich, and have "spending practices" that I disagree with, it's their hypocrisy and the fact that their actions don't align with their words or with what they expect others to do. Hypocrisy and lack of integrity is the point of the post.
"Of course I criticize our leaders when they engage in wrong"
Of course you criticize individuals when they transgress your subjective moral standards.
"But private citizens?"
Interesting that our dodge here is that people like Gore, P-BO, Gates, and the like aren't "leaders" because they don't currently hold elective office ( I could add folx Like Pelosi if that helps), as if elective office is the only possible way to lead. How absurd.
"Unless they're actively causing direct harm"
I'm confused, isn't excessive consumption, and having a high "carbon footprint" "direct harm"?
"See the significant difference?"
No, because I acknowledge the reality that "leader" and "currently holding elective office" aren't synonymous. Because I realize the reality that when people engage in this sort of public hypocrisy and show such a lack of integrity, that they are causing harm.
As to your list of vacuous claims, I'll simply point out that you making a claim without proof, is meaningless. Especially when the claims are so blatantly self serving.
Craig...
"I'm confused, isn't excessive consumption, and having a high "carbon footprint" "direct harm"?"
Yes. You ARE confused.
The factually correct answer is, No. ONE PERSON over-consuming and having a high carbon footprint is NOT a problem. It's ALL of us over-consuming that becomes a deadly problem.
B****, again, is why I'm not criticizing the individual. It's a matter of systemic policy planning where we discourage billions of people from over consuming and over polluting and encourage sustainable living.
Understand?
Craig...
"As to your list of vacuous claims, I'll simply point out that you making a claim without proof, is meaningless. Especially when the claims are so blatantly self serving."
Marshal... "This Dan pulls from deep out the space where his head resides. He couldn't possibly confirm a nonsensical, made-up claim such as this."
What precisely is it I have failed to support? I do give you all some benefit of the doubt that, given how important oh important the topic of climate change is, that you're not unaware with the science and the data behind it.. But if you're not, here's some of that data.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.[5][4] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
"The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50-plus years."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/causes.amp
Cont'd...
And More...
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
Hell... even this critique of the 90-100% consensus numbers (and not by a climatologist, but by a geophysicist who spent much of his life working for the fossil fuel industry) allows that a huge majority (80-85%, +) affirms anthropogenic climate change. And where he messes up is, at best, his are, his argument might be that the 97 to 100% claim is disputable. But he doesn't say that... he says it's false, even though his actual argument is only that it's disputable. In other words, he overstates his own argument, he provides no data that says 97% is wrong and, at best, that the near total agreement is disputable.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/amp/
But as I pointed out, I don't think you care. If it was proven true to you that 99.9% of scientists and climatologists agreed the climate change was real and human caused, then caused, you would support the 0.01% of scientist, (perhaps not climate experts...) who disagree. Am I mistaken?
Interesting take. This notion that one (and it really isn't one person, it's a lot of people) person who consumes more than 20 "average" people isn't harming anyone. It's almost like you're going out of your way to absolve those who are hyper consumptive and to disproportionately blame the masses who can't simply live relatively normal lives.
"A stupidly false claim. If a president who was a Democrat, for instance, had sex with a 21 year old intern, you can bet I would call for him to step down from office or be removed.. Because, of course I did.
If a Democrat president was caught in a video laughing and boasting about grabbing a woman by her crotch, you can bet I would call for him to step down or be removed.
If a Democrat lied on a daily basis, stupidly false claim after stupidly false claim about matters great and unimportant, that's sick and I would call for that president to step down.
If a Democrat president cheated on his charity, I would call for him to be held accountable and step down.
If a Democrat regularly attacked and undermined the free press and our election process, I would call for him or them to be held accountable and step down. These are serious things. Dangerous actions.
If a Democrat president mocked openly a man with a disability, I would want to punch him in the face and I would expect for him to apologize. If he didn't, I would want him to step down or be removed.
And I can forgive one or two mistakes of this nature, if there's an apology, but when it just keeps on happening, day after day after day after day... with no apologies or acknowledgment of the wrong, that's just sick.
These are way beyond acceptable and crossing a line(s) that should not be crossed. It's just the reality that Democrat presidents have never been that overtly corrupt, dishonest and openly dangerous towards our free Republic and human rights."
These are the vacuous, self serving claims I'm talking about.
Craig...
"Of course you criticize individuals when they transgress your subjective moral standards."
?? Trump boasted about sexually assaulting women. He daily and regularly attacked the free press and made unprecedented numbers of false claims. He attacked our election system relentlessly and undermined trust in it.
OF COURSE, I criticized that! why wouldn't I? I... I don't understand. Are you suggesting such vulgar and dangerous wrongdoing should go ignored?
Do you recognize that neither Biden nor Obama have done anything like any of this?
I have to admire your tenacity in trying to excuse/defend/mitigate/minimize the hypocrisy and lack of integrity shown by these sorts of rich, liberal, elites, and your tolerance of their hyper consumptive lifestyle while expecting "billions" of folks who aren't rich liberals to live "simple" lives so these frauds can continue to hyper consume.
If a Democrat president was caught in a video laughing and boasting about grabbing a woman by her crotch, you can bet I would call for him to step down or be removed.
Dan is just as bad as the media. Trump never bragged about doing this, rather he was joking that due to who he was, i.e. a rich guy, etc, he COULD do such a thing and get away with it, not that he did such a thing.
Craig...
"It's almost like you're going out of your way to absolve those who are hyper consumptive and to disproportionately blame..."
I don't know how else to explain it to you. I consistently don't pick out any one of us..., me, you, Obama, Trump, as private citizens - or even as public citizens - for consuming more than we should. What's the point in that?
You see, that's sort of the conservative/pharasaical way of dealing with things.. Pile guilt upon people's shoulders for living less than perfectly.
I don't think it's a helpful way of doing things, this guilt model so long favored by pharisee types.
I have had these sorts of conversations with friends and colleagues, thinking through how we can individually and collectively in small groups can live more sustainably. And in that context it's not a guilt/criticism model, but let's work on this together model.
But criticizing and attacking wealthy people on the individual level, when I don't know there's specific situation or circumstances? I don't see it as helpful.
Craig...
"who aren't rich liberals to live "simple" lives so these frauds can continue to hyper consume."
It would be easier to take you seriously if I thought you really cared about over consumption. But you don't, do you? Isn't this just a way for you to attack and demonize those on the other side?
It would be hypocrisy on the Obama's part, if they had chastised others for living on a beach or having two homes. But they haven't done that, have they? This is just a made up attack from someone who doesn't know their situation to to try to gracelessly demonize the other side for something that you don't even care about. About.
Petty partisan politics are not helpful.
Craig... "These are the vacuous, self serving claims I'm talking about."
How? How is it vacuous or self serving that I will call on, president Clinton, for instance, to step down for doing what he did?? How's that self serving? I mean? I was standing up with and for women who have been often been misused and harassed by rich powerful men. How is that self serving? Vacuous?
Same for the rest of that list? These are basic standards... standards about how we treat one another decently, especially those who've been often marginalized and attacked. How is that self serving or vacuous?
??
That's a rather astounding claim you're making there.
What do you mean by those words in this context? Standing up for others is vacuous? Self serving? It literally isn't.
31,487 scientists, 9029 of which have Ph.Ds, have signed a petition rejecting the man-caused climate change claim:
https://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2018/01/movie-review-passion-of-christ.html
Re: Vacuous and self serving to take a stand against serious harm from our leaders:
I'm wondering if you can acknowledge that - other than Bill Clinton's misdeeds with Monica Lewinsky - that there simply are no other comparable "Democrats behaving in an awful manner" that compare to Trump's litany of over-the-top/crossing-the-lines misdeeds and so, of course, I haven't criticized Dems as much as I did Trump. Rotten apples and oranges.
Or, conversely, do you think there are misdeeds from the last four Democrats that DO compare in seriousness to Trump's and that I should have spoken out against that I didn't? (noting that I roundly criticized Clinton and called for his removal)
Craig... " This notion that one (and it really isn't one person, it's a lot of people) person who consumes more than 20 "average" people isn't harming anyone."
Look, in the case of the Obamas, I do not know what they do and don't own. There are differing reports saying they own two, three or four homes. Or does he rent some of them? Or is he considering the Hawaii house? Or will that be a rental arrangement?
I don't know and I don't see the data that says definitively.
But let's assume that he owns three homes because he travels and stays in multiple places for extended periods of time. Given that he's earned his money legitimately (mainly through book sales of books he's actually written, it appears)... real estate is one way of investing one's money... while also presumably a reasonable way of not throwing away money on rent... is that wrong?
I don't know.
I have ethical problems with the idea of investing, but I seem to be an outlier on that, and most of the wealthy world - left and right - has no problems with investing. I suspect you don't have a problem with it.
So, is it wrong to invest in real estate and save money on renting while you're at it? I simply have no definitive answer on that and am certainly not prepared to criticize someone for that.
Okay, but is it morally/rationally/environmentally wrong to have three relatively expensive homes in relatively exclusive places? Again, I don't have an authoritative answer on that question. It would not be what I would do, I don't think, but I'm not deciding for everyone else.
Okay, but is it morally/rationally/environmentally wrong to have three relatively expensive homes in relatively exclusive places IF one is an environmentalist or concerned about climate change?
Once again, I don't have an authoritative answer on that, other than it wouldn't be what I'd do. And what of the notion that it's in a place near the ocean that may eventually flood... does that make one a hypocrite for owning it? I don't see why it would.
What environmental ethicists can you cite or what environmental reasoning can you cite that says it's hypocritical to own land near the ocean?
Look, as someone who leans Amish, the Obamas' choices would not be mine, but as one who leans towards Grace, neither do I tend to say someone is wrong for how they spend their money as long as it's not hurting anyone. And while these homes are, I'm guessing, quite luxurious for those of us living on under $100,000, they don't appear to beyond the scope of how millionaires live, are they?
It's just odd...
1. that you probably don't care how millionaires spend their money, generally, and
2. that you think you can decide what is and isn't hypocritical for environmentalists to live WHILE not generally criticizing how other millionaires live and
3. that you want me to criticize someone for how they spend their money they earned on their own... and find it odd that I don't.
Strange.
Again, I suspect this comes down to thinking that a more "legalistic" and "guilt" approach is the best philosophy to hold when dealing with those who disagree with us vs a more grace-centered beloved community orientation.
And with the caveat that if and when someone is causing active harm - especially to traditionally oppressed people - then a grace-centered approach will involve standing against those causing the harm and rebuking the harm being done. And with a welcome to the oppressors/harmers when they stop the harming, repent and apologize.
Craig... "I've never limited your criticism if Trump as an individual to one aspect of his life. As happens with you, you feel the need to shift the focus away from the point being made"
Well, it IS true that I've never criticized Jimmy Carter for being abusive towards women and I DID criticize Trump for that... but then, Carter was not abusive towards women.
I never criticized Carter for being in the Navy but I DID criticize Trump for mocking a disabled man... but those are not the same thing.
The point I'm making is IF a progressive person did ANY of the atrocious things that Trump did as leader, I'd criticize them for that or ANY OTHER atrocious behavior. That simply hasn't happened with the Democrat presidents with the singular exception of Clinton's behavior with Lewinsky. And I criticized him for that.
Your point was that I was only criticizing conservatives and not liberals and MY response directly to your direct criticism is I certainly WOULD criticize liberals if they behaved in such reprehensible ways and I DID with Clinton. I'm not shifting the focus away from anything... I'm keeping it focused on serious bad, harmful behavior.
Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Trump, Gingrich, Andrew Cuomo, Roy Moore, etc, etc... all these men from both parties behaved badly (or were credibly charged with behaving badly). They all were wrong.
NOT ONE SINGLE president - Dem or GOP - has attacked the press and our election and basic facts the way Trump has. There's no comparison to other presidents on that front.
I can only criticize serious misbehavior where it happens and it just hasn't happened much or at all with our last four Democrat presidents. And by all accounts, at least Obama and Carter were angelic saints/boy scouts, compared to any presidents in our lifetime. Biden, too, relatively speaking.
What legitimate comparable criticism do you think I've missed for Obama, for instance?
Craig... "Of course you criticize individuals when they transgress your subjective moral standards."
When they cause intentional serious harm, yes. But why wouldn't I?
I don't/haven't criticized any conservatives or liberals for spending their money differently than I would have... why would I?
But I have criticized presidential candidate Trump when he started his campaign with his xenophobic attacks/smears on the press and immigrants and women. They were beyond the pale... why wouldn't rational, decent, moral people criticize such a deviant?
What individuals outside of politics do you think I've criticized...? That may be helpful.
For instance, I can imagine I've probably (maybe?) criticized some ultra-conservative preachers over the years for their "faith healing" cons or other acts of harm and oppression (of women or gay folks, for instance). I've mocked Robert Tilton (the Farting preacher/con man), for instance. But why wouldn't I?
I can't think of too many individual citizens I have criticized on my blog or in comments over the years. Maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to enlighten me as to what conservative citizens I've unfairly criticized.
I'm willing to bet that you can't find even one.
Marshal... "This Dan pulls from deep out the space where his head resides. He couldn't possibly confirm a nonsensical, made-up claim such as this."
It was in one of the links I referenced. I'm not making up anything. The research shows that scientists generally agree that anthropogenic climate change is real and serious... and climate scientists especially agree, and climate scientists who've studied and written and are amongst the most-informed on the topic are nearly 100% in agreement.
You don't have to like the data to acknowledge its reality.
"A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from
non-climate disciplines
shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise..."
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2015/Q3/purdue-study-climate-change-consensus-extends-beyond-climate-scientists.html
"More than
99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers
agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies...
They found only found
four out of the 3,000 papers
were skeptical of human-caused climate change."
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
"As this NASA page points out,
200 global scientific organizations,
11 international science academies, and
18 American science associations
have released statements in alignment with this consensus."
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/02/scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-people/
Now, some people (especially non-scientists) may read this and think, "But what about..." and ask questions about how reliable these multiple studies and surveys are and maybe there is some debate about the specifics ("Is it truly 97-99.9% of climate experts?? Or is it really closer to JUST 94-96%?! Aha! Gotcha!"), but there is no serious data out there that disputes that the vast majority of scientists in general and field-specific experts especially are convinced that the data is beyond a known at this point. Can you acknowledge that? Or, contrariwise, WHERE are the crowds of climatologists speaking out in disagreement? Where are the hundreds of scientists and science organizations speaking out against it?
You have nothing, Marshal.
And as noted (yet again), it could be proven to you that definitely 100% of scientists of all types agree AND STILL, you wouldn't care. Right?
For whatever irrational reason, you have blinded yourself on the altar of your anti-science/anti-expert gods and goddesses.
"Do you recognize that neither Biden nor Obama have done anything like any of this?"
Do you recognize that all of the rich, liberal, elites, I mentioned have transgressed other vague, undefined, subjective standards in terms of their lifestyle? Do you recognize that, "Thrump did X." is rarely a compelling argument?
I'm ignoring the multiple off topic comments. Except to point out that when rich, liberal, elites, spout the propaganda of the climate change crowd, while actually living lifestyles that contradict their professed beliefs is where we get to the hypocrisy and lack of integrity.
"I'm wondering if you can acknowledge that - other than Bill Clinton's misdeeds with Monica Lewinsky..."
Other than the reality that this is off topic and misses the point, there's nothing of substance to mention.
What a bunch of contortions to excuse the hyper consumption by these rich, liberal, elites.
"1. that you probably don't care how millionaires spend their money, generally, and"
This is quite the assumption. Unproven and everything. As a general rule, I don't care how people spend their money as long as it's legal. The problem is that I'm not the one demanding/advocating for people to live "simple" lives, nor have I ever criticized anyone for "hyper-consumption". It's called being consistent.
"2. that you think you can decide what is and isn't hypocritical for environmentalists to live WHILE not generally criticizing how other millionaires live and"
Yes, I think that it it completely reasonable to point out when people (in this case rich. liberal, elites) say one thing, and live in a way that is contrary to their stated standards. It's simply pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of integrity between what they say, and what they do. It's pointing out the "do as I say, not as I do." bullshit of folx like you.
"3. that you want me to criticize someone for how they spend their money they earned on their own... and find it odd that I don't."
Again, 100% wrong. I don't want to to do anything. I am pointing out your hypocrisy in how you make excuses for these rich. liberal, elites. Despite your frequent diatribes on the evils/dangers of wealth, and your attacks on those who "hyper-consume", except these hypocrites, these folx you'll make excuses for.
Craig... "The problem is that I'm not the one demanding/advocating for people to live "simple" lives, nor have I ever criticized anyone for "hyper-consumption". It's called being consistent."
Where specifically have democrats demanded that people live simple lives? From a policy point of view, all that most democrats have done is said that we need to find ways to live sustainably so that we don't cause ourselves harm, especially the poor and marginalized who are the first
and most seriously harmed by climate problems.
Craig... " I think that it it completely reasonable to point out when people (in this case rich. liberal, elites) say one thing, and live in a way that is contrary to their stated standards."
Where's specifically have the Obama's said that people should not own 2 or 3 homes?? Where specifically have the Obamas indicated how much anyone person should consume?
You are assuming that they are advocating something that the data does not support. It's like you're generally aware of what they support, but that, to you, means something way more and different than what they are actually calling for and you're criticizing them for this straw man that they haven't argued for.
Craig... "Despite your frequent diatribes on the evils/dangers of wealth, and your attacks on those who "hyper-consume", except these hypocrites, these folx you'll make excuses for."
What specifically have I said that is an attack on those who hyper-consume?
It's like you have in your head all these arguments that you think that we've made, that we've never made.
Just to help, here is some of what I've actually said about simplicity...
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+simplicity+&m=1
"Where specifically have democrats demanded that people live simple lives?"
Two answers to this question.
1. You are the only democrat in this conversation, and you advocate for simple living. The reality is that you are advocating for "simple living" while simultaneously making excuses for those who are hyper consumptive.
2. The DFL is general advocates for various environmental/global warming/green causes and platforms.
"all that most democrats have done is said that we need to find ways to live sustainably so that we don't cause ourselves harm,"
Yet many of those in leadership/influence positions in the DFL or on the left in general advocate this sort of thing FOR OTHERS, while not living up to what they advocate. It's this sort of hypocrisy and lack of integrity that I'm addressing.
"Where's specifically have the Obama's said that people should not own 2 or 3 homes?? Where specifically have the Obamas indicated how much anyone person should consume?"
What a crock of shit. The notion that the O's (or any of the rest of the rich, liberal, elites) are exempt from criticism if they haven't made the specific statements above. One could conclude that the O's are included in the group of "most democrats" who advocate "that we need to find ways to live sustainably so that we don't cause ourselves harm,". Surely owning multiple mansions, flying private jets, and the rest of their lifestyle isn't what you'd consider sustainable. Is it?
"It's like you're generally aware of what they support, but that, to you, means something way more and different than what they are actually calling for and you're criticizing them for this straw man that they haven't argued for."
No, it's not. It's like I'm pointing out the lack of integrity between their lifestyle and their stated beliefs.
But your attempt to avoid even your usual level of vague, bland, general, faux criticism of these rich, liberal, elites, is quite impressive. It's almost like you've chosen to give up your convictions to shill for the rich, liberal, elites.
"What specifically have I said that is an attack on those who hyper-consume?"
Are you suggesting that you support those who "hyper-consume"? That your hunches about "simple living" are consistent with a lifestyle of "hyper-consumption"?
I've read your crap about simple living, and again note that you are inconsistent at best on how you apply your hunches to yourself and others.
Craig... "It's like I'm pointing out the lack of integrity between their lifestyle and their stated beliefs."
Okay, where specifically have they stated a belief that it is wrong to own multiple homes?
Look, you've been caught making objectively false claims based on strawman fallacies. Quit digging yourself a deeper hole and just admit your error.
Craig...
"Are you suggesting that you support those who "hyper-consume"? That your hunches about "simple living" are consistent with a lifestyle of "hyper-consumption"?"
Look, you've been caught making objectively false claims based on strawman fallacies. Quit digging yourself a deeper hole and just admit your error.
"Crap about simple living..."? Are you suggesting you don't see the reason and moral soundness in living a relatively simple life?
The things you all find worthy of attacking is astounding. I'd be willing to bet you can't find a single idea about simple living I've espoused that you'd be willing to criticize in the specifics.
It's easier to build vague strawmen and attempt to molest them.
It's a common dishonest tactic of Dan's to insist he or his kind are not guilty of some advocacy simply because something "specific" wasn't said. If something wasn't said in a particular way, then it apparently couldn't have been said at all. This I'd similar to what was seen in an exchange between Peter Doucy and Joe Biden, where Doucy listed several comments made by Biden...graciously portraying Biden as having "appeared to be saying" XYZ. Honest people can't dispute what Biden's actual, specific words implied, and it's unlikely Biden's response would have been different had Doucy quoted him exactly. The point is the same message can be, and often is, conveyed in multiple ways. Not being quoted exactly doesn't mean the message isn't accurately reported. A paraphrase can certainly be an accurate representation. But not to Dan. He hides behind this "specificity" canard.
"Okay, where specifically have they stated a belief that it is wrong to own multiple homes?"
Who said that they had ever said anything about "owning multiple houses"? Do you even read what people write or just stick to your narrative, no matter what?
If these folx really believe that global warming is going to cause a catastrophic rise in sea levels in the near future, why would they be spending tens of millions of dollars on houses that will be under water soon. It's almost like you are unaware of the concept that what people do, tells us more about their beliefs than what they say.
"Look, you've been caught making objectively false claims based on strawman fallacies. Quit digging yourself a deeper hole and just admit your error."
Shocking, more claims with no proof even offered.
"Look, you've been caught making objectively false claims based on strawman fallacies. Quit digging yourself a deeper hole and just admit your error."
Do you realize that simply repeating this bullshit doesn't make it True, and that you didn't even attempt to answer the questions asked.
"Are you suggesting you don't see the reason and moral soundness in living a relatively simple life?"
Given your insistance that morality is relative, I don't see that you have any basis to assert that "living simply" can morally sound. Are you suggesting that living a lifestyle that involves multiple beachfront mansions, frequent travel on private jets, multiple cars, and the like is "moral soundness"? I see reason and moral soundness in not trying to impose living standards on other people, if one refuses to live up to the standards they demand of others.
"The things you all find worthy of attacking is astounding. I'd be willing to bet you can't find a single idea about simple living I've espoused that you'd be willing to criticize in the specifics."
I'm not attacking anything. Merely pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of integrity displayed by these rich, liberal, elites, who say one hing, and do another. As well as the hypocrisy of those who make nexuses for their excesses. I'm not suggesting that they are doing anything against my standards, I'm suggesting that they are living contrary to their own stated standards.
"It's easier to build vague strawmen and attempt to molest them."
You should know, you're so damn good at it.
Once again we see that Dan is unwilling to call out those of his ilk when they act contrary to their stated beliefs. I've no doubt it would be easier for Dan to list those on the left who don't espouse the anthropogenic global climate change. Thus, for these liars you've listed to spend the money Dan views as the opposite of simple living on massive homes built on property precariously close to the rising oceans about which they've warned us and not be criticized for doing so by Dan is clearly hypocritical at the very least.
As to finding flaws in Dan's simple living philosophy, the main one is how pretentious it is...as if he's reflecting Scriptural teaching in a manner those who live more...shall we say..."extravagantly" are not. Dan cannot separate material things from Christ's teaching. His covetousness is unaffected by the teachings of Christ. And since he covets, then by golly, so does everyone else and he's just trying to lead by example to save the lost. Dan is convinced that the wealthy cannot possibly be right with God...unless they're Barrack Obama or Al Gore, perhaps.
Craig... "If these folx really believe that global warming is going to cause a catastrophic rise in sea levels in the near future, why would they be spending tens of millions of dollars on houses that will be under water soon."
1. I don't know that the Obamas have bought coastal property. It's been suggested that someone they know has done so on their behalf. It remains to be seen if they're actually purchasing anything.
2. Where have they said that Hawaii's coast will be "under water soon..."?
You've been caught making dubious claims that the data doesn't support. Quit digging your hole and filling it with water.
Craig... " I see reason and moral soundness in not trying to impose living standards on other people, if one refuses to live up to the standards they demand of others."
Then STEP UP AND PROVE YOUR DUMB ASS CLAIM. IF the Obamas have said it's wrong to own beach front property, SHOW ME THE QUOTES.
You've been caught making dubious claims that the data doesn't support. Quit digging your hole and filling it with water.
PROVIDE THE QUOTES where the Obamas have advocated something that they're not living up to or ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.
Where is the humility in modern conservatives. EVEN WHEN they've been caught in a stupidly false lie, they just double down with the false and empty accusations as if truth doesn't matter. Stop acting like the pervert you boys put in office and admit you misspoke.
Damn.
1. If you "don't know", then it's because you've decided that ignorance of reality benefits you in this conversation. That's on you. It's not my job to feed you readily available reality.
2. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. The "They haven't used these specific words" dodge. Are you really suggesting that liberals/democrats in general, and the O's in particular do not believe that "man made global warming" will cause rising sea levels?
3. "Sea levels are rising due to #climate change, potentially threatening U.S. cities: http://OFA.BO/sacMyb We have to #ActOnClimate." Just the first of many instances where P-BO pr edicts sea level rise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is HI exempt from global sea level changes?
Where have I claimed that these rich, liberal, elites, have said anything about "owning beachfront property"?
Your bizarre attempt to derail this even further by going into these semantic weeds of absurd specificity, is pathetic.
The fact that you are so obsessed with excusing/defending these rich, liberal, elites who embody everything you claim is bad (wealth, hyper consumption, etc) is simply pathetic.
https://www.dailyjolt.net/obama-building-scandalous-new-mansion-in-hawaii-worth-at-least-9-million/
I chose the above link because it refers both to two Obama properties referred to as "beachfront", as well as a reference or two to climate change.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/president-obama-climate-action-plan
The above link clearly indicates Obama at least pretended to believe the climate change narrative.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-record/climate
"President Obama believes that no challenge poses a greater threat to our children, our planet, and future generations than climate change..."
"“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."~~Barack Obama upon winning the Democratic nomination for presidency conveys his thinking of what that means ....for the world, Tuesday, JUNE 03, 2008”"
"2. Where have they said that Hawaii's coast will be "under water soon..."?"
Apparently, Dan doesn't believe the oceans of the world aren't connected. I guess only some coastlines will be under water at some point generations into the future. Until then, Obama can purchase as many "beachfront" properties as he is able, thereby not proving himself a hypocrite OR an over-consumer unconcerned with not living simply.
"1. I don't know that the Obamas have bought coastal property. It's been suggested that someone they know has done so on their behalf. It remains to be seen if they're actually purchasing anything."
Apparently The One is victimized by people buying him beachfront properties without his consent and now he's stuck with them. It's so sad he has absolutely no say in the matter.
It seems that once again, the real liar here is Dan.
Damn.
Post a Comment