Papal indulgences are as horsepucky as your hair shirt.
Carbon offsets are real ,,,,just because you can't or won't pay - no need to diss those that do.
Your comparison is 100% fallacious and meant to demean.....

It's a shame you weren't so concerned about comments meant to demean when you called another member slime of the earth and a bully, isn't it.

Macdoc wrote:Papal indulgences are as horsepucky as your hair shirt.
Carbon offsets are real ,,,,just because you can't or won't pay - no need to diss those that do.
Your comparison is 100% fallacious and meant to demean.....

The good people of Bangaladesh will surely applaud your Catholic approach to things: do the damage first and repair later at your leisure. Btw, is that the coffee you are driving 70 miles for to get it? Every day, if I remember correctly?

Yes and my offsets and other aspects of how I run home and business I reduce my footprint more than offset a motorcycle footprint for 40 Km a few times a week in warm months.
Otherwise I have no commuting cost at all and my province has eliminated coal as an energy source in a single decade under the leadership of the party I support.

Eliminating coal use is well on the way globally and remaining fossil fuels the horizon line is there for first world ...on a global scale, it is national efforts that count most to lead to a lower carbon economy.

If you want to take the hair shirt - huddling in the dark - route by all means I applaud your efforts..that is not my approach..don't diss what you don't know.

This is the kind of combined carbon and clean water project I prefer to support. A single purchase of 12 tons brings cleaner water and carbon offset for $144 dollars....I can't parse efficiency of carbon offset with anywhere near the efficacy of organizations like this where both goals are covered off.....carbon and clean water.
I CAN afford to neutralize my carbon footprint.
https://www.goldstandard.org/projects/t ... ilies-laos

Qantas has programs for individuals as well
https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/ ... /global/en

88888

You seem to have a new found crusading spirit over climate .....in other words you are just shit disturbing on the forum ...careful of the company you keep.
A search of your posts regarding the topic reveals ....well zilch.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/member/Regina/posts/

Here you go since you pronounced a deep concern for Bangladesh

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/susta ... evelopment

Buy your yearly credits

I’ve been pleased for years at the footprint reduction we’ve achieved by diet change.


Sent from my completely solar powered iPad using Tapatalk

Macdoc wrote:Yes and my offsets and other aspects of how I run home and business I reduce my footprint more than offset a motorcycle footprint for 40 Km a few times a week in warm months.
Otherwise I have no commuting cost at all and my province has eliminated coal as an energy source in a single decade under the leadership of the party I support.

Eliminating coal use is well on the way globally and remaining fossil fuels the horizon line is there for first world ...on a global scale, it is national efforts that count most to lead to a lower carbon economy.

If you want to take the hair shirt - huddling in the dark - route by all means I applaud your efforts..that is not my approach..don't diss what you don't know.

This is the kind of combined carbon and clean water project I prefer to support. A single purchase of 12 tons brings cleaner water and carbon offset for $144 dollars....I can't parse efficiency of carbon offset with anywhere near the efficacy of organizations like this where both goals are covered off.....carbon and clean water.
I CAN afford to neutralize my carbon footprint.
https://www.goldstandard.org/projects/t ... ilies-laos

Qantas has programs for individuals as well
https://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/ ... /global/en

88888

You seem to have a new found crusading spirit over climate .....in other words you are just shit disturbing on the forum ...careful of the company you keep.
A search of your posts regarding the topic reveals ....well zilch.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/member/Regina/posts/

Here you go since you pronounced a deep concern for Bangladesh

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/susta ... evelopment

Buy your yearly credits

Oh Macdoc, you got me completely wrong, it appears. I find your contributions to this forum highly informative, and I wonder why
I shouldn't be able to offer my views after having been educated by experts like yourself.
It's quite hurtful that you think my newfound confidence to contribute to this sub-forum is "shit disturbing". And what or who is the company I should avoid? Can you elaborate? Do you think anyone posting on this forum can hurt me in any way?

But back to the topic at hand.
If your brag threads on this forum are to be believed ( and why should they not? ), you single-handedly increased the Earth's temperature by one degree (Celsius) through your lifestyle choices. (At least it feels that way).
It's a relief to learn that your buying of indulgences easily offsets the damage you do in the first place. At some unspecified point in the future, at least. I'll bear that in mind when it comes to my lifestyle choices.
Also, you are quite right in travelling as much as you can right now, because an increasing number of people in an increasing number of places are taking a rather dim view of certain kinds of tourism. Those ingrates need to be educated by people who know what they are doing when they roam the planet. So keep up the good work! And thanks for your truly illuminating posts here.

lol

Regina ....how utterly pathetic.

You got one thing correct

Also, you are quite right in travelling as much as you can right now, because an increasing number of people in an increasing number of places are taking a rather dim view of certain kinds of tourism.

We do bear that in mind ....Galapagos as much as we would like to go we will not for pressure reasons and likely not do Iceland again in prime tourist season as they are in overload....that said many economies are very dependent on tourism.....so we balance where and how we spend our travel dollars. It's not "bragging" - another rather pathetic attempt given the evidence in my signature....it's what my partner and I do - we live half a planet apart and travel for a couple months together - I have no strings where I run my business from so why ever should I not travel.
It's also part of my marketing as clients take interest and many travel far more than I.

You can have a serious discussion on the pros and cons of tourism or continue the pathetic "indulgences" horsepucky you are parroting.

You've contributed zilch to the climate change threads on this forum so your sudden "interest" is utterly disingenous and...yes.. shit disturbing.
Since this is in the Debunking forum well .......all's fair i'nnit

Heh. I was just telling the queen how I really hate namedropping.

Then perhaps playing sycophant is not for you.

Damn. Cross another one off my list I guess.

There is always Community Theatre ....

Really? You think so? I am good looking - and have definite charisma. Maybe you're right. Thanks.

Macdoc wrote:Regina ....how utterly pathetic.

You got one thing correct

Also, you are quite right in travelling as much as you can right now, because an increasing number of people in an increasing number of places are taking a rather dim view of certain kinds of tourism.

We do bear that in mind ....Galapagos as much as we would like to go we will not for pressure reasons and likely not do Iceland again in prime tourist season as they are in overload....that said many economies are very dependent on tourism.....so we balance where and how we spend our travel dollars. It's not "bragging" - another rather pathetic attempt given the evidence in my signature....it's what my partner and I do - we live half a planet apart and travel for a couple months together - I have no strings where I run my business from so why ever should I not travel.
It's also part of my marketing as clients take interest and many travel far more than I.

You can have a serious discussion on the pros and cons of tourism or continue the pathetic "indulgences" horsepucky you are parroting.

You've contributed zilch to the climate change threads on this forum so your sudden "interest" is utterly disingenous and...yes.. shit disturbing.
Since this is in the Debunking forum well .......all's fair i'nnit

Two things, dearest. First, it's not up to you to decide when a member is allowed to join a thread.
Second, I really appreciate how you describe your travels. In your own words: you "do" a country.
Do you have reason to believe it enjoyed it?
Have a good day.

I apologise if the concern I’m venting here has already been discussed. With such a long thread I haven't the patience to read through all of it to ascertain if this has been previously handled here.
My dim memory informs me somewhere on the early part of this thread we were warned to keep discussion to matters of science. Here, from my perspective, we have a big problem. To understand climate change denial we need to go beyond a clear analysis and critique of the denialists irrationality and rejection of scientific evidence. I suggest if we accept psychology as a science ( albeit an academically somewhat immature one) we need to study the psychological motivations of denialists themselves.
To place that in a wider context those features of human nature, instincts, tribalisms etc we might suggest are at work in this denial are so significant they themselves can be regarded as the largest threat to the survival of our species. My personal perspective in this is informed by Arthur Koestler’s “The Ghost in The Machine” whose central thesis is yet to be effectively disproven many decades after it’s publication. To express his view as succintly as I can I want to suggest our species, by and large, is an altogether too clever monkey equiped with a powerful brain but ancient, intact drives and tribal instincts that if not addressed as serious science will destroy us.

It was the climate change science thread we were told to keep purely based on science and not to get into the politics or denial of it. This thread was created to keep those type of discussions off the other.

My problem isn’t with moderators or others establishing rules for discussion. My concern with any discussion of the mess we find ourselves in the exclusion of human nature ( for want of a better term) from such dialogue burying the most promising approach to solving the question of our (deserved or un-deserved?) extinction.
My apologies if I’ve simply mistaken one thread for another.

I need a rebuttal to this that my "FRIEND" is taking as truth
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/ ... 5-degrees/

You don't rebutt outright idiocy. Waste of electrons.

Either he listens and understands from actual working scientists,,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tart-here/

or he has hopelessly swallowed the denier koolaid. There is no cure for stupid.

The other useful site is this

https://www.skepticalscience.com

Two other possible lines of response are to note the page you linked is all about US climate, not global climate, and also to direct him to the work of skeptic Richard Muller's BEST study, which sought to establish whether such adjustments were valid, and whether handling them the way skeptics suggest they should be handled would lead to different conclusions about whether warming was occurring and whether it was anthropogenic (spoiler: it actually convinced Muller that those doubting mainstream climate science on these grounds were wrong.)