Subscribe via RSS Feed

2 Degrees

[ 225 ] March 6, 2016 |

For the first time, the Northern Hemisphere averaged 2 degrees Celsius above average on March 3, blasting through a long-held limit of what acceptable climate change would look like. But no one really cares. Let’s just talk of nothing but Trump.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (225)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ProgressiveLiberal says:

    Everyone go have another steak. It’s someone else’s problem.

    • Malaclypse says:

      I had bean burritos, but I forgot the extra order of smug self-righteousness.

      In the meantime, I bike to work. How do you get around?

      • Lee Rudolph says:

        In a palanquin.

      • Erik Loomis says:

        I am reminded that in my bleg asking for advice on visiting Europe (which I returned from today), PL recommended, of all things, a strip club of some kind. I’m wondering what carbon neutral way he traveled there.

        • N__B says:

          Floated across the Atlantic in a balloon kept aloft by a self-superiority.

        • JonH says:

          He flew on Leonardo DiCaprio’s jet?

        • Thirtyish says:

          PL recommended, of all things, a strip club of some kind

          Wait, did he really recommend that? Unironically?

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              I am not understanding what the argument being made here is. Maybe y’all could be more clear.

              • Hogan says:

                Nah, it’s pretty clear.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  We sure do have a lot of conservatives here.

                • DrDick says:

                  We sure do have a lot of conservatives here.

                  Looking in the mirror again?

                • jben says:

                  We sure do have a lot of conservatives here.

                  Look, disliking strip clubs/finding a moral problem with them does not make one conservative. Or if it does, than the vast majority of the American population-including a good number of liberals, are conservative.

                  For clarity, I would not support making these places illegal or anything like that, and think that those who work in them deserve respect and safety. I am even libertarian enough to believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with either taking ones’ clothes off for money, or paying to watch people take their clothes off. And yet even I have to admit that strip clubs, like the sex industry in general, have numerous issues. Quite apart from the generally skeevy nature of most of them, many of them also underpay thier workers, or use the “independent contractor” status of their workers to screw them over. And I’m not even getting into objectification or similar questions of that nature. This is not to say that visiting a strip club is automatically or inherently wrong. But in my opinion (and probably that of many other people) it is, to say the least, more problematic than eating meat. If you are going to sneer at people who eat meat, and feel superior to them, then you really shouldn’t visit strip clubs. Or at least you shouldn’t mention that you do if you don’t want people to mock you.

                  Moreover, why on earth would you include a strip club on a list of recommended places to visit in Europe? I live in a major metropolitan area. There are probably at least 3 or 4 strip clubs within a few miles of my house. If I wanted to visit a strip club, I would do it here rather than going all the way to Europe-and I imagine that is true of many other people!

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  It is pretty insane to me that I live in a world where people are subjected to degrading, both psychologically and physically dangerous conditions, torturing and killing animals, and that is seen as better than people (both men and women, btw) choosing to engage in erotic dance or even prostitution.

                  I would rather every person visit a strip club than eat another animal tortured/killed for their enjoyment. I would rather my daughter work in a strip club than a slaughter house. If you want to be all conservative on me – that’s fine. But pretending that something you disapprove of is worse than another alternative when it objectively is not, is straight out of the conservative playbook.

                  My wife and I have several friends who are ex-exotic dancers (and I actually know the one girl who saved to put herself through law school, from my college day) and I don’t discriminate against them or look down on them for any reason.

                  I support unionizing them, by the way. And maybe you should visit one in portland and ask the employees how they feel about it. Maybe the liberals there feel differently than you do.

                  This is all just classic conservative moralizing – nothing more, nothing less. Quit pretending its anything but that. My wife makes 6 figures and puts up with sexual harassment on a daily basis, and she’s fully clothed working at a large company. Let’s not pretend that any problems in strip clubs are intrinsic to the industry. Next you’ll be telling me we have to shut down all abortion clinics cause most people feel “skeevy” about them and that one in philly…

                  But I want to thank you for admitting this was just all ad hominem on y’alls part.

                  PS Maybe we should impeach a president for a blow job from NOT HIS WIFE????

                • Moondog says:

                  it is, to say the least, more problematic than eating meat

                  Our major systems of meat production exploit human workers, do significant damage to the environment, and are cruel to animals. It’s worse than strip clubs, and on a much bigger scale to boot.

                • DrDick says:

                  It is pretty insane to me that I live in a world where people are subjected to degrading, both psychologically and physically dangerous conditions, torturing and killing animals, and that is seen as better than people (both men and women, btw) choosing to engage in erotic dance or even prostitution.

                  That you do not see the contradictions in that sentence speaks volumes and confirms everything I have ever said about you.

                • DrDick says:

                  It’s worse than strip clubs, and on a much bigger scale to boot.

                  You need to:
                  a) visit reality some day
                  b) get better priorities.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  DrDick, maybe its you who needs to visit reality.

                  Let’s take a look at the BLS website…I pulled up the link…and BOOM, right there at NUMBER ONE:

                  “Rendering and meat byproduct processing”

                  Huh.

                  Couldn’t find “exotic dancing” on the list, but I’ll keep looking!

                  What we have is a case of “objective reality” vs. “moralizing.” And you’re losing.

                • DrDick says:

                  DrDick, maybe its you who needs to visit reality.

                  As I said. I care a lot more about this than eating animals.

        • eh says:

          To be fair, it was at the end of a long, otherwise-helpful comment, which you noted, but the initial callout was pretty square.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            Again, when did we become conservatives? And it’s clear what his intention was here…he does this all the time, like when he accused PETA of fabrication/exaggeration, when it was a meat industry number that EVERYONE had repeated previously.

            When Loomis doesn’t agree with something personally, out goes all logical thought…in comes ad hominem. It’s getting pretty predictable at this point.

            • DrDick says:

              Again, when did we become conservatives?

              We did not, but you are clearly a sexist pig, in addition to being a self righteous prig.

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                Like I said, the conservatives are out in full force.

                I’m not sure how you can come to that conclusion simply because my wife and I went to a strip club in Germany.

                But ad hominem, instead of reasoning and logic, seems to be the play around here…

                • mikeSchilling says:

                  A real liberal would go to a strip club in Sweden.

                • jben says:

                  Again, disliking strip clubs does not make one a conservative!

                  I do not believe that visiting a strip club is inherently immoral, or makes one automatically a sexist. This belief may differ from that of some commentors here, but that’s by the by-and does not make those who disagree conservative. But as I said earlier many strip clubs as they actually exist have numerous issues. In my opinion, that makes visiting these establishments- while not automatically immoral-more morally problematic than eating meat does. It also brings your supposed “progressivism”-which term usually implies at least some committment to feminism-into question. Which is ironic since you blast those who eat meat as not being progressive enough.

                  Look, it’s not so much that you visited a strip club. To be honest, I wouldn’t really care much about that in isolation. It’s that you visited a strip club and then have the gall to call us immoral bastards and torturers of animals for eating meat! If you yourself engage in behavior that many see as immoral, than you really shouldn’t lob accusations of immorality at others unless you want to be mercilessly mocked.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  No one was harmed at the strip club.

                  A animal was tortured/killed for your enjoyment, and it put the worker at risk to do so, both psychologically and physically.

                  You have this exactly backwards. And those are the facts.

                  For example, a slaughterhouse worker is more likely to beat their wife than the average person. WHERE’S YOUR COMMITMENT TO FEMINISM NOW?

                  “You silly women, you shouldn’t be stripping, its morally wrong!” – sounds like equality to me! Unlike you, I feel that women as the best agents to make decisions as to what employment they choose and what they do with their bodies. And I have no problem going into establishments where they do so, and neither does my wife. But again, we’re extremely liberal…so…

                  PS. You keep forgetting to address male strip clubs in your sexist tirades. And I LOVE how no one on this blog has EVER looked at porn!

                • sharculese says:

                  For example, a slaughterhouse worker is more likely to beat their wife than the average person. WHERE’S YOUR COMMITMENT TO FEMINISM NOW?

                  “You silly women, you shouldn’t be stripping, its morally wrong!” – sounds like equality to me! Unlike you, I feel that women as the best agents to make decisions as to what employment they choose and what they do with their bodies. And I have no problem going into establishments where they do so, and neither does my wife. But again, we’re extremely liberal…so…

                  we are getting to MeanMisterMustard levels of crazy here.

                  PL, how do you feel about me having a female avatar despite being a dude?

                • DrDick says:

                  No one was harmed at the strip club.

                  Really?! You do want to visit reality some day. Of course we already know you do not give a damn about actual people.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  Buddy, I said strip club, not brothel. But nice try.

                  AGAIN, no one was harmed at the strip club. Do you have any idea how many people are hurt and killed producing dinner for all the animal eaters?

                  This is conservative level stupid – concentrating on muslims, when you’re more likely to die from a gun.

                • jben says:

                  No one was harmed at the strip club.

                  This strongly depends on your definition of “harm”. Yes, you can find the archetypical person stripping there to pay for college, but there are also any number of strippers who are for eg, addicted to drugs, and dance to feed their habit. Moreover, as I said earlier, strippers are often underpaid and exploited by thier bosses, who use their “independent contractor” status to deny them various benefits. And many clubs charge “dancing fees”, so while stripping can sometimes be lucrative, on a slow enough day, dancers can actually lose money. Many strippers themselves complain about this!

                  For example, a slaughterhouse worker is more likely to beat their wife than the average person. WHERE’S YOUR COMMITMENT TO FEMINISM NOW?

                  This is a massive non-sequitur. The fact that slaughterhouse workers are more likely to beat thier wives does not automatically make eating meat wrong. BTW, both strippers and prostitutes/sex workers are more likely to experience domestic violence as well-so if you’re going to play that card…

                  “You silly women, you shouldn’t be stripping, its morally wrong!” – sounds like equality to me! Unlike you, I feel that women as the best agents to make decisions as to what employment they choose and what they do with their bodies. And I have no problem going into establishments where they do so, and neither does my wife.

                  I never disagreed with any of this! I myself said that banning strip clubs would be a very bad idea and that the people (women and sometimes men) who work there deserve safety and respect! If a woman (or man) wants to earn money by taking off her clothes, then well, more power to her! I was just pointing out that strip clubs are not exactly a bed of roses either, and that many people-many of them not conservatives-consider them morally suspect, as suspect as you consider eating meat. I also never said that the problems were inherent to the industry, merely that they were widespread, which only a damn fool would deny.

                  PS. You keep forgetting to address male strip clubs in your sexist tirades.

                  Yeah, all five of them.
                  Look, while it is absolutely true that male strippers exist and that they are often overlooked, the ratio of women to men in stripping is at least 4 or 5 to one. In stripping- as in the sex industry in general- it is overwhelmingly the case that women are selling and men are buying.

                  And I LOVE how no one on this blog has EVER looked at porn!

                  Another non-sequitur.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  It just occurred to me that The Liberal Position on strip clubs seems to be the same as abortion: safe, rare, and legal.

                  I dated a stripper once. Maybe I shouldn’t have treated her as a normal human? I mean, she WAS a stripper, and that makes her work in that immoral place. When she asked me to stop by her work, maybe I shouldn’t have?

                  You people are weird. And not very liberal.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  Jben,

                  I live in miami. Half the people I know are working to support their drug habits – including the ones making 6 figures in finance.

                  So now we’re against the legalization of drugs?

                  I quit reading at that point.

                  PS. Someone ought to break it to you, but one of the writers on this blog does drugs. Its called “alcohol” and its extremely dangerous. And he speaks openly about it!

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  Maybe the owners of this blog should start a post on strippers so y’all can beat on them some more. Cause no one else does drugs, has a shitty boss, ever worked for nothing, etc, etc, etc.

                  Holy shit when did I get redirected to redstate.

                • sonamib says:

                  I dated a stripper once. Maybe I shouldn’t have treated her as a normal human? I mean, she WAS a stripper, and that makes her work in that immoral place. When she asked me to stop by her work, maybe I shouldn’t have?

                  WTF, why are even saying this? Do you even read what other blog commenters write? Here’s jben :

                  For clarity, I would not support making these places illegal or anything like that, and think that those who work in them deserve respect and safety. I am even libertarian enough to believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with either taking ones’ clothes off for money, or paying to watch people take their clothes off.

                  (emphasis mine)

                  Just because you think that slaughterhouse workers are immoral bastards doesn’t mean that the people you accuse of being “conservative” consider strippers immoral. Apparently, it’s projection all the way down with you.

                • DrDick says:

                  Buddy, I said strip club, not brothel. But nice try.

                  I cannot say the same for you. You have no idea what you are talking about and do not care about the exploitation of women in the sex industry (which includes strip clubs).

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        Woo hoo! A real ol fashioned smug off!

        I walk in my walkable community (chinese food is ~50ft out the front door of my high density 239 unit apartment building where the 3 of us share 812 sqft and our *total* combined utility bills avg ~$60/mo, and the grocery store is ~400ft) and other than we share a prius C, like when my wife is going to work ( which is 25 blocks away – we moved as close as we could afford) and when she isn’t carpooling on the way home.

        PS. Emissions are reduced more by switching to a plant based diet than they are switching from a hummer to a prius. And I put my money where my mouth is.

        • Malaclypse says:

          Woo hoo! A real ol fashioned smug off!

          I concede your superiority, as the rest of us remain Objectively Despicable People. I agree that you should hijack the thread to tell us how much better a person you are. Not, obviously, that you felt the need to wait for my permission.

          • dr. hilarius says:

            Someone was smug on the Internet, therefore sustainable living be damned! We truly are so much smarter than republicans aren’t we?

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              That’s always my second point.

              Asking a liberal to give up animals is like asking conservatives to give up guns. You get the same terrible reasoning, but no one seems to care when its “our side” making the bad argument.

              At least now y’all can stop pretending that conservatives are some special breed of monster. Their shit is actually stuff to them.

              • rhino says:

                This evening I am preparing chicken fried steak with a mushroom enhanced version of classic black pepper milk gravy.

                The best part about this dish is it makes excellent use of tough and even under-aged beef. So perfect for turning a supermarket chunk of sirloin tip, raised by factory farming not just edible but delicious.

                Step one is to slice the beef as thinly as you can reasonably manage, across the grain. 3/8″ thick works great, or buy sirloin tip ‘fast fry’ steaks at the grocery store. Now sprinkle it liberally with salt and black pepper, place between two layers of plastic wrap and pound the living shit out of it with a meat tenderizer. It helps to picture smug vegans while you do it. when you’ve pounded them all thinner than Progressive Liberal’s lips while reading this, stack them to one side, and mix up a seasoned flour: 4 cups AP flour, 3tsp table salt, 4tsp mild paprika, 4tsp freshly ground black pepper, 3tsp garlic powder, 3tsp onion powder, 2tsp baking powder, and a full tsp of cayenne pepper. whisk this until well combined, and place in a large flat pan, like say a lasagna pan.

                To emphasize: Seriously pound the meat thin. 3/16″ is not too thin, this dish depends on mechanical rending of the meat fibers to make it tender and delicious. If you pound a few holes right through it, don’t worry. Do not underpound.

                now take 2/3 cup of buttermilk, and sprinkle it across the flour and work it in with your hands until the mixture feels a bit like coarse wet sand. This is your breading, and comes courtesy of the cooking website Serious Eats, which I endorse heartily. This whole recipe is a minor tweak of theirs, which is the best I have found. I just add a little wine, a little mushrooms, and some hostility.

                Now in another pan mix 1.5 cups of buttermilk with two eggs, and beat till smooth, and in a third put 2 cups of cornstarch.

                At this point, you should preheat a deep fryer to 375. I suggest good quality pork lard for frying, because it has better texture than vegetable oils, tastes better, and Progressive Liberal is a vegan.

                Now you want to bread the steak. One at a time take each pounded morsel and dredge it in the cornstarch. Make sure it’s well coated, no wet spots remaining, and yet all excess is shaken away. Then dip in the buttermilk and egg again ensuring coverage without excess, and then roll it in the seasoned flour, pressing the breading onto the wet meat so a craggy coating forms. In the last stage there is no such thing as excess, if it will stick, stick it. Shake free any loose particle though. Place each steak on a wire cooling rack and let sit for at least ten minutes before frying, and up to three hours (in the fridge if you hold longer than say 15 minutes).

                Prepare milk gravy: Take 1/2 cup of hot lard from the fryer and put it in a hot 12″ skillet. sprinkle in 1/2 cup of AP flour and stir and scrape constantly with a wooden spoon until the roux is pale yellow and smells toasty. Takes around a minute. slowly whisk in first a cup of white wine or coffee (white wine makes it elitist and west coast, coffee makes a blue collar ‘redeye’ gravy, both are delicious) and 4.5 cups of whole milk. Stir in 1 tbs of coarse cracked pepper, bring up to a boil, then reduce to a simmer for 15 minutes. Add 2 cups of sauteed mushrooms, preferably crimini, sliced thin and well browned. Salt lightly, but remember the steak is pretty salty.

                Deep fry the steaks, serving them straight from the fryer with a ladle of gravy on them and a salad which should contain iceberg lettuce as a nod to diner culture, and sliced roast beef as a spite to Progresssive Liberal.

                Yours in omnivourous example, I remain

                Rhino.

                • Denverite says:

                  My grandmother (born in Gladewater, died in Terrell, spent most of the rest or her life between the two) would go out to my grandfather’s shop to borrow his ball peen hammer to tenderize her steak before chicken frying.

                • rhino says:

                  Mine is an aluminum monster with a 12″ chestnut handle, a three inch cube for a head, two flat sides, and two sides with horrifyingly jagged pyramidal stud patterns on them, one large, one smaller. You could tenderize a live ox with it. I’ve had it for decades, never seen another quite like it, bought it used from a restaurant supply outlet and kept it when the owner of the kitchen I was running never reimbursed me for it. 2$.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  I rolled coal down to the gun range before I stopped by the abortion clinic to protest, you stupid lib.

                  I keep getting told there’s more than a dime’s worth of difference…maybe in outcomes, but not reasoning.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            My point is, as always, that liberals/progressives ignore the fact that our livestock consumption is incompatible with a world held under 2 degrees. An “inconvenient truth” if you will.

            But that would require people to give up something that is objectively horrible, yet loved by millions.

            We need to reduce GHG emissions by 50% MINIMUM (arguably 80%) by 2050, yet worldwide livestock lifecycle GHG emissions are ~20% and are set to double in that same time. So someone explain to me why liberals are ignoring the fact that if we don’t do so, we have to cut ALL other emissions, worldwide, by 88% to 133%. What’s the plan to do that exactly?

            Which is why I have no hope for a solution. We can’t even get liberals on board.

            • Hogan says:

              We can’t even get liberals on board.

              And if you could, what’s your path to victory?

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                Do you believe in animal torture? It’s not hard to figure out what policies would apply. We could even get all neoliberal here if you’d prefer.

                • Arouet says:

                  Do you believe in animal torture?

                  Only the delicious ones. Next question?

                • DrDick says:

                  Do you believe in animal torture?

                  Nope, but I do believe in killing, butchering, and eating the tasty little beasties (all of which I have done without any apologies to anyone). Unlike you, I recognize that humans are omnivores, as are our closest relatives, and that eating more meat was an important factor in our evolution. Modern humans can live adequately on a vegan diet, owing to human modification of a variety of plants and manipulating their environments to make them more productive. Pretending that is our natural diet, however, is horseshit.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  You sound live a 19th century slaveholder…or 21st century fossil fuel exec.

                  Holy shit is the argumentation poor around here. I mean, that’s the best you got? We did it in the past, so we should continue to do so, regardless of the consequences?

                  Like I said…there doesn’t seem to be a dime’s worth of difference when it comes to “reasoning” and “logic” – only outcomes.

                  Oh – and “killing and butchering is different from animal torture” (ignoring the “raising” part btw) is as dumb and rove-ian as “waterboarding is different from torture.”

                  Seriously…can y’all stop with the conservative arguments?

                • DrDick says:

                  Holy shit is the argumentation poor around here.

                  Well, we are trying hard not to go over your head, mostly because it is so far up your ass and the stench is suffocating.

              • sharculese says:

                what’s your path to victory?

                Trolling, trolling, and more trolling.

            • Brett says:

              Eh, most of that is cows. I can live with much less beef production.

          • DrDick says:

            Now can he please just piss off?

        • DrDick says:

          My community is also quite walkable and is one of the most bike friendly in the country, which is how I get to work when the weather permits. Being that I am in the northern Rockies 150 miles from the Canadian border those are not real practical in the winter. I also cook almost everything I eat from scratch. Unlike you, I do not go around bragging about it or pretending this somehow makes me better than other people.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            I don’t brag – I am asked and I respond. I point out when others are making dumb arguments, and the first thing they inevitably ask me is what *I* do.

            Frankly, I could eat more meat than all of you combined, and it STILL wouldn’t change whether the arguments I put forth are correct. THIS ISN’T ABOUT ME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH Y’ALL WISH IT WAS – cause its easier to hate me, the dick, then it is to actually have to confront the evidence and use logic to determine if what you are doing is good for the environment, workers, and animals, is compatible with liberalism, etc.

            • DrDick says:

              No, it really is all about you and how righteous and superior to us mere mortals you are, as everyone here has pointed out. Not everyone is or needs to be a vegan. We have plenty of bigger problems than livestock production. You never put forth actual arguments or evidence, but just issue unsupported moral edicts. Maybe if you got down off your high horse, stopped acting like a pompous prick, and made logical arguments somebody might actually care what you have to say. As it is, even people who might be sympathetic to your views are disgusted by you being a vainglorious, pompous prick.

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                I put forth more evidence than anyone here – its all ignored because its inconvenient.

                For example, I just linked to the BLS site showing how dangerous it is. I pointed out that its 20% of GHG emissions. What responses have I gotten to EITHER OF THESE POINTS? None. Ignored.

                Because it would cause you to confront some inconvenient truths.

              • DrDick says:

                I put forth more evidence than anyone here – its all ignored because its inconvenient.

                Really? Your bold, unsupported assertions are not evidence of anything except the size of your ego. No links, no actual data, just bullshit.

          • marduk says:

            Oh FFS, of course avoiding meat makes you a better person. The production of meat as actually practiced is terribly cruel. It’s also environmentally damaging.

            I’m not a vegetarian myself but I certainly recognize that as a small moral failure on my part. One I can live with, but nevertheless.

      • dr. hilarius says:

        A true argument stopper! He’s sanctimonious and therefore wrong!

        • sharculese says:

          Are… you familiar with PL and his history of “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!” temper tantrums?

          There’s no reason to treat him like an adult.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            It’s not about me – its about the millions who will be harmed by climate change, along with the laborers suffering in this industry, and also the animals being tortured for your enjoyment. But it would be more convenient for y’all to make it about me instead of the issue, because you have no logical and/or coherent arguments.

            Some people like guns. Others like meat. Neither of these groups give a shit about the consequences. They like what they like, to hell with the rest of you.

          • DrDick says:

            Frankly there is little reason to treat him like a human being, rather than a huge, disembodied anus.

        • DrDick says:

          He is a sanctimonious prick, which means we have no obligation to listen to or tolerate him.

    • That Guy says:

      Only if it comes from Sharper Image. Those are the BEST steaks. The most TREMENDOUS steaks.

    • sharculese says:

      Serious question dude:

      This is a pretty liberal blog. You could probably get few flies with honey here. But you never seem interested in that. You always have to be absolutely as aggressive as you possibly can be, and make it as clear as possible that anyone who disagrees with you is morally compromised. What exactly drives you to think this is a good way to promote an issue you care about?

      When I say that I think you’re more concerned with announcing how morally pure you are than with getting things done, this is the nonsense I’m talking about.

      • sharculese says:

        Shit like this:

        You sound live a 19th century slaveholder…or 21st century fossil fuel exec.

        Holy shit is the argumentation poor around here. I mean, that’s the best you got? We did it in the past, so we should continue to do so, regardless of the consequences?

        Like I said…there doesn’t seem to be a dime’s worth of difference when it comes to “reasoning” and “logic” – only outcomes.

        Oh – and “killing and butchering is different from animal torture” (ignoring the “raising” part btw) is as dumb and rove-ian as “waterboarding is different from torture.”

        Seriously…can y’all stop with the conservative arguments?

        This straight up sounds insane. If your explanation is that you were drunk and let your emotions get away from you, I’ll be like ‘cool, I get it; I’m drunk now too.’

        But if you’re not drunk and think this weird mix of false equivalency and yelling at people for not engaging you exactly as you define (when you know fair-well you’re getting counter-trolled fwiw) is going to be convincing to anyone ever…. you really need to reconsider the idea of arguing about anything on the internet ever.

      • Thirtyish says:

        Well put. As an animal-lover, and as someone who doesn’t eat a whole lot of meat–I love a good burger every now and then, but I generally find most meats disgusting–I am probably more inclined than many on this blog to be sympathetic to PL’s arguments on their merits. But PL is such a dick about making his points, and so averse to actually engaging with the people he’s presumably trying to persuade, that he becomes imminently mockable and proceeds to accomplish the precise opposite of what I presume is his goal here.

        • sharculese says:

          Yeah, I have a super low meat intake, and while I did it for health reasons, the environmental aspect of it is not lost to me. But when I see PL post, I’m not shocked that someone like rhino is going to troll him with what he posted (and it was fascinating to read the craft in that post, even if it was something I will probably never eat.)

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            Imagine you were a woman, and instead of responding to your arguments, you got “that’s just a silly bitch, she gets all shrill, everyone knows that its silly to think that men and women are equal, when its apparent to any sane person they’re not.”

            Welcome to being vegan. Maybe you dispense with the niceties and go right to rational arguments instead?

            I see how y’all treat PETA – especially Loomis – even though they’ve done more for animals and laborers than all of you combined.

            Stop acting like conservatives and getting butt hurt. Respond to arguments with logical reasoning. Again – it isn’t about me. It’s about the poor people who suffer, along with the animals. Maybe some of you self-professed liberals should pretend to give a shit.

            • sharculese says:

              What… the fuck?

              • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                I take it you missed the point.

                The reason many vegans skip niceties (when they’re even willing to admit they’re vegan, considering how we’re judged by society writ large) and get straight to the arguments, is because we’ve been down this road before. It is ridiculous that vegans have to convince people to like them in order to get them to accept their arguments. I was under the impression that we should evaluate arguments and their merits…silly me.

                We’ve all been down the road of trying to get people to like us and take our arguments seriously because of that, when inevitably you get, “that’s cool, but imma still eat meat.” So I’m not here to make friends, and I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, unless you’re willing to evaluate evidence as it stands and change your own damn mind. I am not a fucking politician or a preacher. I’m just pointing out when my fellow liberals say some dumb shit.

                It’s funny though, that y’all admit you know deep down what you’re engaging in is wrong – as evidenced by your admitted reductions in consumption – but don’t have the self control to say “enough.” Do you need big government to make it illegal to do the right thing?

                • sharculese says:

                  So I’m not here to make friends, and I’m not going to change anyone’s mind,

                  Then why the fuck are you here, dude?

                  Why are you acting like an insane misogynist creep in a space that might be open to you message if you chilled the fuck out?

                • Brett says:

                  I don’t admit that meat-eating is wrong. Depending on the kind of meat and quantity consumed, it can be unhealthy for you, but I don’t consider it morally wrong to consume meat.

                • sharculese says:

                  I’ll say one thing in response to your last huff, even though I shouldn’t: You’re right, I do say ‘enough.’ But I say ‘enough’ to a small portion of meat weekly, and you can’t scream at me loud enough to make that change my definition of ‘enough,’ so don’t try.

                • jben says:

                  misogynist

                  See, as I said earlier, I don’t think visiting a strip club automatically makes one a misogynist, so I don’t think we can conclude that. (Though some of the other stuff he’s said makes me wonder). “Insane creep” on the other hand, is perfectly apt.

                • DrDick says:

                  I was under the impression that we should evaluate arguments and their merits

                  The fundamental problem is that your primary argument, that eating meat is wrong, is bullshit. As I have said before, human beings are omnivores and meat has been a significant part of our diet for millions of years (our closest relatives, the chimps and bonobos, are as well). The point at which the genus Homo emerges is marked by a significant increase in the amount of meat in the diet about 3 million years ago. At about 1.8 million years ago, hunting became a major part of our subsistence strategy and would remain so until 12,000 years ago. Increased meat consumption was a vital element in the evolution of the large human brain, which jumped from 650 CCS to 1250 CCs as a result. This is because only meat provides the protein and fats necessary to maintain our massive and demanding brains (which consume 25% of our total energy budget). Wild plants simply cannot do that. It is only after 12,000 years ago, when we massively modify the genetic structures of domesticated plants, that being a vegan becomes a viable strategy. You can certainly survive adequately on a vegan diet in a wealthy first world country like the US today (it is quite a bit more problematic in many parts of the developing world). Pretending that this is our “natural state”, however, is horseshit. FWIW, I am an anthropologist who has been studying this stuff for more than forty years and teaches it every semester.

                • DrDick says:

                  See, as I said earlier, I don’t think visiting a strip club automatically makes one a misogynist, so I don’t think we can conclude that.

                  That is hardly the only misogynist thing he has said, particularly in the exchange with Sharculese here.

              • DrDick says:

                And he proves our point once again.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  I said nothing misogynistic to anyone. Nice try though.

                  If you can’t follow along…

              • sharculese says:

                I don’t think the strip club thing necessarily makes him a misogynist either (although it is warying) but, given the totality of the circumstances…

                • DrDick says:

                  Yep.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  It’s funny how y’all are trying your damnedest to ad hominem…instead of engaging my arguments.

                  Is my wife misogynistic btw? What if she attends male and female strip clubs? What about men that attend male strip clubs?

                  Try to keep your story straight. This ought to be good.

                • DrDick says:

                  It’s funny how y’all are trying your damnedest to ad hominem…instead of engaging my arguments.

                  You do not make arguments, you issue edicts.

        • Bruce B. says:

          I’m in the same situation. I would eat a purely vegetarian diet if I could, but overlapping medical issues mean I need to have some meat in my diet. I’m all on board with efforts to promote the safety and well-being of animals – and of the people who handle them! – and with efforts to promote awareness of yummy yummy meals that don’t require meat, and the whole deal.

          It, um, it would not occur to me as an obviously good idea to proceed as PL does, given an audience including a lot of folks actually interested in the general welfare.

      • Jeremy W says:

        For some reason, it seems to just be on Erik’s posts. Which is just weird, especially as Erik’s stated that he mostly doesn’t eat meat to begin with.

        • ProgressiveLiberal says:

          It started a long time ago…well before we had assigned names. I pointed out his hypocrisy and poor arguments when he said something flippant, he got mad and deleted all my comments and banned me. I can’t find that first post cause he deleted the comments…so I can’t recall exactly what silliness he said. I used to just read the blog in silence but got tired of his repeated silliness and finally broke down and commented.

          Considering his disingenuous attack on PETA the other week, I’m pretty sure I’ve been vindicated.

          • Brett says:

            So you deliberately returned despite being banned?

            In the case, Erik, you probably should just ban him again. Otherwise he’ll just be another Jennie.

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              I take offense to shitting on poor people, the environment, and animals, which far too many of my fellow liberals do when it comes to what they ingest. If that’s “trolling” than that’s fine. Ban anyone who disagrees with you.

              I love that none of you will engage any of the arguments. It took me a while in my life to do so, and it was hard to change because that’s all I had ever known. But the point of being a progressive was to evaluate ALL the evidence and change your mind if you were wrong.

              • sharculese says:

                I take offense on how you still haven’t addressed any of the questions I asked of you, fwiw…

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  I did respond, you didn’t understand (or accept?) my response.

                • DrDick says:

                  I did respond, you didn’t understand (or accept?) my response.

                  You made no coherent response which did not dig that hole even deeper, which would be his point.

              • Brett says:

                I told you straight up that I don’t consider meat consumption immoral as long as the animals are kept in reasonably habitable conditions and executed with minimal pain. We kill non-sentient animals all the time, ranging from insects to larger pests, so there’s no “no kill” ethical principle at work here – it’s just deciding whether or not the particular animals deserves more protections than others.

                I recognize that livestock consumption represents a high percentage of methane emissions (about 26% in the US), but since most of that is cows I’m fine with taxing cow ownership and requiring efforts to mitigate it (apparently mixing garlic in with their feed helps, along with better manure management). I don’t particularly consume a large amount of beef anyways – my meat consumption is largely chicken with occasional pork ribs and hamburgers.

                • sharculese says:

                  I don’t wan’t to exactly say ‘this’ because I’m not sure we’re on the same point regarding meat consumption, but this is a thing that dudes like PL can’t process: the idea that someone might find killing animals for food less than completely immoral.

                • DrDick says:

                  I frankly have no moral problems with killing and eating animals at all. It is part of our human heritage. I do, as does Erik and others here, have issues with the way much livestock is raised. I also could personally live with a massive reduction in beef production, since I do not eat that much of it. On the other hand, it would decimate the economy of my state and many others which can produce little else (other than oil, gas, and coal).

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  “…the idea that someone might find killing animals for food less than completely immoral.”

                  People have rationalized worse, I’ll give you that.

                  That you don’t realize what you’re doing gives me no hope to ever change your mind.

                  You have to love the irony of a comment section calling attendance at a strip club immoral but the torture and killing of animals, and the devastation to the laborers involved (and their families) “morally acceptable.”

                  This country is a complete fucking mess – and if THESE are the liberals, we’re up a creek without a paddle.

                • DrDick says:

                  People have rationalized worse, I’ll give you that.

                  You remain totally obtuse and self absorbed. Eating meat is normal and natural for human beings. If you do not want to eat meat, fine. Go for it. Your embrace of a minority morality is just that and no one is obliged to agree with you. You are not god or the pope and you do not get to issue moral edicts for the rest of us. Now piss off.

          • DrDick says:

            Dude, if Erik banned you, it was for being a flaming asshole and an idiot, as that is the only thing that will get you banned. Not much has change, I see.

          • sharculese says:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG4hOjJ9tEs

            You need to accept the possibility that your problems are of your own making.

    • Manny Kant says:

      Is this the most intolerably awful LGM thread of all time? I’m leaning towards yes. Everyone comes off like an asshole.

    • Ahuitzotl says:

      please DNFTT

  2. Denverite says:

    BORING

    MAKE ME A BICYCLE, CLOWN.

  3. ThrottleJockey says:

    Hopefully someone scientifically oriented can help me out here. Given the fact that the temperature fluctuates by 10-20 degrees each day, and by 40-80 degrees over the course of a year, why is 2 degrees such a big deal?

    In a tangibleway, what’s the practical impact of a *mere* 2 degree increase in temperature?

    • Malaclypse says:

      Well, 4 degrees in the other direction triggered the Ice Ages.

    • Denverite says:

      Just point of fact. It’s two degrees Celsius, so times 1.8 for Fahrenheit.

      But if you need a tangible for instance, the 3-5 degree temperature increase means it’s not cold enough to kill the beetles for good on the western side of the continental divide, so currently about 1 in 5 pine trees are dead?

      Also, the fact that the low last night was 34 degrees and not 29 degrees (F), meant skiing today sucked ass. Like turning on a slushy. But I had three more days we had to use this season.

      • ThrottleJockey says:

        I like love to snowboard, so yeah, that’s a problem.

        • Denverite says:

          The places that go up to 12,000 feet plus still have good skiing, but where we go outside of Boulder (we avoid I-70 traffic, which SUCKS), you’re looking at crappy snow, especially under 10,000 feet. I almost bit it on a gladed run when my tip caught a blob of slush. I had time to think “god, I’m a moron for not wearing a helmet” before I caught my balance.

          And the kicker is it’s the first week of March. This is when the skiing is supposed to be awesome. You can definitely see the effects of global warming.

          • Lee Rudolph says:

            “Is this the bit where my whole life passes in front of my eyes?,” he said.

            NO, THAT WAS THE BIT JUST NOW.

            “Which bit?”

            THE BIT, said Death, BETWEEN YOU BEING BORN AND YOU DYING.

          • DrDick says:

            Yeah. It has been in the upper forties and low fifties for highs here in western Montana for the last couple of weeks. Our lows have been closer to our usual highs.

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              I used to go to Glacier National Park with my grandparents and play in the snow at the continental divide on going to the sun road – in July. But keep calling me an asshole for calling out the hypocrisy of my fellow liberals…seems like you can’t get out of your own way.

              Next you’ll be telling me that eating animals is part of the culture….like guns.

              • DrDick says:

                No, I will just tell you to go play in the traffic, which is far more rational than what you are doing now. As for being a liberal, I have never seen any evidence of that. The only thing you seem to care about is not eating meat. Starving people, bombing civilians, police brutality, crippling poverty, inadequate healthcare blighting the lives of millions has no meaning to you. I would say you are a moral monster.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  Are you slow?

                  The difference is, I don’t see the blog owners coming out in favor of starving people, bombing civilians, police brutality, crippling poverty or inadequate healthcare. Just torturing animals and ignoring the effects on the environment – which is why I continually call them out on their hypocrisy.

                  Nice try though.

                • DrDick says:

                  don’t see the blog owners coming out in favor of starving people, bombing civilians, police brutality, crippling poverty or inadequate healthcare. Just torturing animals and ignoring the effects on the environment

                  I have yet to see anyone here advocate that. Erik for one has advocated for more humane treatment of farm animals. There is no hypocrisy here, except on your part, since the only time you comment is with horseshit like this. You have never comment about the atrocities committed against actual human beings. The reality is that many of us here do not share your priorities and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

                • ProgressiveLiberal says:

                  ….annnnnnd you’re wrong. I pointed out in that first flippant post of his that there are actual workers that were suffering to make that food. So you can stop pretending I don’t give a shit about people.

                  You’re missing it still. I agree with 99% of the shit on this blog, cause I’m extremely liberal. I don’t spend my time commenting, “I AGREE.” I spend my time pointing out that 1% where you couldn’t be more wrong.

                  So if I’m “doing it wrong” – so be it. This is how I do it.

        • Hogan says:

          I like love to snowboard, so yeah, that’s a problem.

          Oh my. How can I . . . oh my.

          • N__B says:

            My advice is to remove your hands from the keyboard, wrap them around an alcoholic drink – preferably one wrapped in steak and bacon – and then continue reading.

          • brewmn says:

            Gotta say this for the TJ: at least he presents the most morally disgusting arguments possible in a folksy, kinda friendly, manner.

          • Ahuitzotl says:

            there is a problem with snowboarding? I mean, I dont myself because it requires moving more than six foot from my keyboard, but as I understood it, it was and is a sport developed by people who cant afford the enormous expense of skiing gear?

      • Philip says:

        I had 3 feet dumped on me last night with another foot on the way today. El Nino is a beautiful thing for California skiing.

        This is my third year running skiing at Mammoth, though, and it’s the first time with decent snow. The other two times half the ground was nearly bare.

      • Major Kong says:

        I’ve had my x-country skis out exactly once this year in Ohio.

        I’ve already had my bicycle out a couple of times.

    • BiloSagdiyev says:

      2 degrees celsius more in Minnesota is quite nice. If you live on the edge of the Sahara, you’ve got a problem. If you live in Syria and the drought is bad and long, your whole country might have a big fucking problem.

      Agriculture around the world is built around a certain climate. Some places will adapt. (Right wing dicks who want to think this is all about ‘Merica, and also, just want to kick up dust, say, Yay! Shorter winter in Minnesota! Longer growing season for farmers.) But a lot of spots on the planet could wind up going in a direction where the land becomes useless. Well, if it’s still land. Consult the imagery re. the north pole ice pack and the vast, vast majorith of the world’s glacier’s shrinking, a lot of good land is going to no longer be… land.

      • ThrottleJockey says:

        So people on the edge of the Sahara can’t adapt, through technology and economics, to a permanent increase of 5 degrees Farenheit? I’m not being pedantic here, I’m genuinely curious as to how what seems to be a small change can have profound consequences. I’m NOT disputing that global warming is a thing, I’m trying to understand how relatively small changes have outsize impacts.

        • BiloSagdiyev says:

          Well, I guess it’s a matter of how close to the edge of the Sahara you are. It’s been growing for a lonnng time,and being right on the edge of it blowwws. I guess what I’m trying to say is, folks living on the edge are going get crushed.

          Well, their way of life will be. They’ll be coming to a refugee camp near you (unless Trump wins) or some other first world nation, if they can.

          I’m sorry I’m not up on enough of this to be more educational. Your question made me realize how much I had just listened but not sat down and studied on this subject over the years.

        • Malaclypse says:

          It’s quite likely that the cornfields of the Midwest can’t adapt to 5 degrees. Not without massive irrigation, which wont work in the face of drought. 5 degrees is sufficient to turn Boston into Philly, Philly into Richmond, Richmond into Miami, and Miami into Atlantis.

        • JonH says:

          Think of how much more energy was added to the atmosphere and oceans to raise the global average temperature by 2 degrees C.

          Where’s that energy going to go?

          • Ahuitzotl says:

            Um, its stored as heat in the atmosphere and oceans. Not that it isn’t an awesome amount of energy, but if we could find somewhere to go*, the atmosphere and ocean wouldnt be heating up.
            .
            .
            * no, not advocating this as an approach. I cant even imagine how you could start doing that.

        • Grumpy says:

          How much would it take for you to adapt, through technology and economics, to a permanent increase of 5 degrees in your internal temperature?

          • Jhoosier says:

            That’s a good analogy, and one I’d never thought of before. I’m sure it’s not perfect, but for a reason for people to think about supposedly small numbers, it’s valuable.

        • Yankee says:

          2 degrees is 5% of 40 (yearly variation you said above). 5% is small in some contexts, but a lot of the environment exists in only marginally favorable conditions. Consider your savings rate: going from +2% to -3% will not work out for you long term, no matter how much you have stashed. Not to mention non-linear effects, such as the accelerated dessication of North Africa.

        • medrawt says:

          First understand that we’re talking about an increase in the average. Consider our current average temperatures, and then the wide temperature swings which happen day to day.

          Many humans – presumably in and around the Sahara, definitely in the American South and Southwest – live in places where the upper extremes of temperature/humidity brush against what would be lethal for humans not in climate controlled conditions. A five degree F increase in the average temperature would mean that those places would spike well into the lethal range much more frequently. Right now when we have serious heat waves in the US a lot of poor/old people die. We should expect that to get much more common. Any activity that requires people to be outside, including productive economic activity, would have to halt for the day, potentially becoming so erratic as to be unreliable.

        • Bruce B. says:

          One thing is that averages seldom move peacefully. This is a horrendous simplification, but….

          Imagine a bell curve with its peak at 0, tailing off to -2 on one side and +2 on the other. I’m keeping the numbers really small here for simplicity’s sake. That’s the baseline temperature and typical variation, as measured on the LGM scale.

          Now there’s a general rise in temperature. We redraw the bell curve. Now the peak is at +1. But boosting things a point on the LGM scale also increases the volatility of the weather. Instead of having a range of -1 to +3, it’s more likely to be -3 to +5.

          You can see this in real life in lots of places. We have more hurricanes now, and more extreme ones, than we used to. We get those bouts of ultra-intense cold weather where the jet stream shifts significantly to the east thanks to changes in Pacific currents and it descends right down the middle of North America. Desert areas get more droughts, and more floods.

          Think of it a bit like bringing a pan of water to the boil. Well before it actually starts boiling, you get more bubbles and more convection. The overall weather is like that, too. Adding heat adds volatility, and it’s very hard to deal with that.

          (Also, as others have noted above, a lot of plants and animals are temperature-sensitive in ways we can’t fix.)

      • BiloSagdiyev says:

        Also, in a practical way, well, are you talking impacts on humans, immediate? Then we’re talking drought and crop failures and ranchers (the kind with their own land! har) going out of business, major disruption, in _some_ places… but long term, we’re talking about disurpting a lot of ecosystems (the pine beetle mentioned is a good example.) We can runaround the planet moving seeds for crops from warm zones to newly-warmish zones, but all the trees and other foliage can’t move.

        Also, if the black bears dont’ hibernate, they just get bigger and bigger! They’re 600 pounds in eastern North Carolina now! RUNFERYERLIVES!

    • rea says:

      And of course, higher average temperature = more energetic weather systems.

      • Denverite says:

        It’s important to note that this manifests itself in more than just hurricanes and typhoons. For me, for example, more energetic weather systems means more Pacific coast fronts reach where I live, which means a lot more rain than our river systems can handle, which means flooding and housing losses and people dying.

        I passed maybe four washed out bridges today from the 2013 floods. No need to rebuild the bridge if the house washed away.

      • Brad Nailer says:

        And let’s not forget that these are averages, meaning, it’s not like “This time last year it was 62 degrees and today it’s 67, so what’s the big deal?” which is the Fox News version of the story. It’s that you start counting back for a hundred years and 67 degrees today versus whatever it was over that last century is a big deal. Humans might not understand it, but bugs and trees do.

        The one I can’t figure out is sea-level rise. How do they even measure that, since it’s measured in inches?

    • Bill Murray says:

      underwater coastal cities, bigger, stronger storms

    • tsam says:

      The 14th Century had an overall 1C drop in temperature, which caused mass starvations due to crop damage. That’s about when the Plague hit too. (not sure if there’s a connection there, but the two of them wiped out 1/3 of Europe’s population)

    • Rob in CT says:

      Oh for fucks’s sake. And all the responses this got…

    • SIS1 says:

      Ah, Erick is talking about the average over an entire hemisphere.

      So, imagine you took the temperature of every spot in the Northern Hemisphere, all 98.47 million mi² of it, and then you took the min. and the max. and came up with that days daily average, and then you took all those averages and averaged them. That is the temperature that happened to be an entire 2 degrees Celsius higher than the average of all those averages over the period of 1981 to 2010.

      You have to think it as a “small” gain over the entirety of half the Earth, so the actual increase of total energy in the climactic system is truly vast.

    • Stag Party Palin says:

      In a tangible way, what’s the practical impact of a *mere* 2 degree increase in temperature?

      Is your real name Otto Gershwitz?

  4. BiloSagdiyev says:

    2 degrees Celsius? I thought everybody was talking about not talking about it in that funny moon man measuring system in the USA, because it doesn’t sound like much to people who live in a Fahrenheit world?

    Well, unless you’re a defeatist. My inner defeatist says the RealMurkins aren’t listening anyway, so fergit it.

  5. steeleweed says:

    I just finished reading Hot Earth Dreams, by Frank Landis.

    A look at the worst-case scenario perhaps, but he’s right about one thing: we’re not going to stop at a mere 2 degrees.

  6. Hells Littlest Angel says:

    Note to self: do not comment on climate change or vegetarianism threads on this blog.

  7. ProgressiveLiberal says:

    The presumptive democratic nominee just came out for fracking in a democratic primary.

    I just can’t even…

    I literally had never even given it a thought that she could possibly be for it. I mean, this is a total unforced error, and for a terrible policy at that. And the defense of “I’m for it, except for all the intrinsically horrible parts” is a farce.

    Who are the people that are voting for her? Ridiculous. Every day I think she can’t get worse…

    • BiloSagdiyev says:

      Gotta prove she’s not anti-business! Not a crazy weirdo!

      (You know, if hippies or California nihilists were going around injecting chemicals into water tables just for yuks, they’d be called crazy weirdos and there would be hell to pay…)

    • AMK says:

      Fracked natural gas produces something like half the carbon emissions of coal. Fracked oil might be slightly better than imported oil when you factor in the emissions associated with transporting it.

      • ProgressiveLiberal says:

        You should shill for the industry.

        1) Nice substitution – “carbon emission” for “greenhouse gas emission” – when its the latter that is important. You’re pretending methane doesn’t exist.

        2) By making GHG producing sources cheaper, it is not reducing GHG emissions at all, and is in fact delaying the transition to clean fuel sources.

        Again…shouldn’t liberal blogs have liberals?

        • mikeSchilling says:

          Umm, methane is CH4. When you burn it (which is the point), you get CO2. What non-carbon greenhouse gas are you talking about?

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            Ummm, its released without being burned from many of these wells – not all of it is captured. And its over 25x worse for climate change, pound for pound. So its not just “carbon emissions” from buying the fuel – its GHG emissions from drilling the wells, leaks, etc, and burning the fuel.

            I just love that we have people defending this shit on here. Who needs conservatives when liberals will carry that water all day and night?

            • Brad Nailer says:

              You need to can the attitude, dude. Persuasive arguments will speak for themselves, although I have to admit you yourself seem to be impervious to other points of view.

        • AMK says:

          I’ve read that natural gas is better even when you account for the accidental methane emissions, which are in any case far less persistent in the atmosphere than carbon and can be reduced substantially by sealing leaks where they occur, which is a pretty straightforward process.

          And natural gas isn’t crowding out real renewables like wind or solar, which are still very cost competitive in the right places. It’s just crowding out coal, which is a good thing.

          If I was going to shill for an energy industry, I would shill for nuclear power, which hasn’t produced a fart’s worth of GHGs in 60 years and could meet our energy needs for enternity if the tofu crowd didn’t scream bloody murder every time it’s brought up.

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            Source please.

            And the problem with nuclear is the cost to contain the waste for (effectively) forever. But no one wants to include that in the LCOE.

        • wjts says:

          Again…shouldn’t liberal blogs have liberals?

          A couple of years ago, I set a up an entire blog just for you so you wouldn’t have to sully yourself by consorting with people who dislike strip clubs, meat-eaters, Clinton voters, and various other scums of the earth. Do you think you might avail yourself of my generosity?

          • ProgressiveLiberal says:

            OMG thank you for finding that! I can copy paste now, cause nothing has changed!

            And I found the post that started it with loomis – it was when we got called “morally bankrupt” for wearing clothes, yet he has no problem with eating meat…

  8. M. Bouffant says:

    I only wish I’ll be alive to watch us all drown/stew in our own effluvia, when I could really score some self-righteous smug points; that being said, if you’re still breathing your carbon footprint is too large, & if you’re typing here rather than running a hose from your car’s exhaust into the passenger compartment you’re part of the population problem, not the solution, & shame on you!

    Go on and poison all the water, use up all the air
    Blow your stupid heads off, see if I could care
    Put me down but don’t blame me for what you did

    • ProgressiveLiberal says:

      I prefer to call for half solutions that won’t work, and more importantly, won’t disrupt parts of my life that I don’t want disrupted.

      People who eat animals and people who like guns are two groups that put their preferences first. One group doesn’t give a shit about the consequences of their preference, nor about the innocent people who will undeniably be killed. The other group likes things that go bang.

      • sharculese says:

        Straight up man, non-human animals aren’t people. If you want to have this debate, you have to be able to talk to people who distinguish between humans and non-human animals. If you’re not willing to to do that, just go home, this won’t work.

        Also, please, if you’re going to paraphrase one of the most beloved quotes of liberal blog commenters, don’t do an obviously bad job of it.

        • ProgressiveLiberal says:

          Bad for bad. I’ll stop when y’all do.

          Do you think animal torture should be made legal? Yes or no. If they’re not humans and they don’t count, then there is NO REASON why I shouldn’t be able to skin a cat alive, engage in dog fighting, etc. I mean, I get just as happy watching a good dog fight as I do eating a good piece of veal. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on what forms of entertainment we prefer. And do you think if I poison your pet so they suffer an agonizing death, I should owe you just what they cost to replace with a similar new pet, in the same way I have to buy you a new window if I break yours?

          You can’t CONSISTENTLY argue that animal torture/abuse/fighting should be illegal and that doing so should be legal if you’re going to eat the corpse afterwards. To get free range eggs, they grind up 50% of the chicks (males) alive, and only breed the females. Have you seen where milk comes from? Veal? Foie gras? You do not consider that torture? (Do you think the animals kill themselves by the way?) The conditions at Mike Vick’s kennels were no worse than you see in the average factory farm. And an average animal has more feelings and thoughts than a comatose human, so let’s be careful what we’re arguing here…

          Seems like we’re ok with waterboarding when it makes us happy. I just don’t see how that’s any different than the other party. Sounds like a lot of rationalizing, not much rational thought.

          • sharculese says:

            Bad for bad. I’ll stop when y’all do.

            But we didn’t start. You did. And I’ll note you still haven’t answered me above on what you think you’re accomplishing by being all aggressive here.

            I’d like to engage with what you’re talking about when you say torture, but I realize you’ve never really defined it and I suspect you’re deliberately trying to be lascivious in how you you use it, so I’m going to ask you: what do you mean by torture? What is torture, by your definition?

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              Food for thought.

              I have no goal. I got tired of being called morally bankrupt for wearing clothes, coming from a hypocrite who kills animals for his enjoyment, and insults those who try to make this world a better place. So I commented.

              Maybe y’all are better commenters than me. Ain’t gonna change my life.

              “Inflict severe pain on.” That’s literally the dictionary definition.

              Are you contesting that their lives aren’t shit and aren’t spent in misery?

              Does ANYONE here give a shit about the workers? You realize that it is FUNDAMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE for these workers to work in safe conditions? They are working with animals trying to save their own lives. Humans get hurt – but none of you seem to care who got fucked up at work today to make your dinner.

              And I’m the one who doesn’t care about humans…

          • AMK says:

            OK I’ll wade into this.

            You asked if animals “kill themselves this way.” They don’t. You want to know how they do it? Watch yourself some Discovery Channel. Unless you’re a true apex predator (like .001% of the animal population) you’re probably going to die a horribly gruesome, torturous death. The same was true before modern factory farms; we humans would just spear the animals, or shoot them with arrows, or (after domestication) take the steer behind the shed and slit its throat. There is no utopia where animal suffering would not exist if only we could put an end the machinations of Big Food.

            Now obviously, we should have animal cruelty laws, and they should be enforced. Dogfighting should be illegal because the suffering inflicted is completely needless, and we should do what we can to minimize the suffering of livestock raised for food….but the bottom line is, they’re still food.

            i do think laws should be especially strict where scientific evidence shows the animals have a capacity for self-awareness and complex cognition/emotion. But this list is very short (great apes, elephants, certain cetaceans) and we don’t use these animals for food anyway.

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              What if we eat the dog afterwords? Then its not “needless” right? Making it “not at all obvious” that we need animal cruelty laws. What is the difference if I slit a chickens throat or put two of them in the ring, if I am going to cook at eat the dead ones in either case?

              Your argument is transparently silly and clearly a rationalization to anyone who doesn’t have a vested interest.

              “They’re still food” – you realize that “they” can be changed with a vote, rather quickly? It’s not like I can come up with any historical examples where “some” were on par with “animals” if certain people got their way…or civilizations that ate humans…sacrificed them…etc. You might want to go a different direction than “but they’re still food.” I believe this is called “begging the question.”

              I’d love to continue this, but I have a kid and need to get sleep. Some other time.

              • Arouet says:

                So… your argument against animal torture is that death is torture and so it doesn’t matter if we inflict needless pain and suffering as long as we’re going to kill them anyways?

                Considering you’re definitely going to lose the argument about ultimately killing animals for food, the better part of valor for your principles is probably to take a bit more of a nuanced stand on animal mistreatment.

        • Brett says:

          This. I kill non-sentient animals all the time – insects, pests, etc. I frankly don’t see what’s wrong with killing non-sentient animals we’ve also bred and raised for our use, as long as we make it as quick and painless as possible.

          • Moondog says:

            Quick and painless death, that’s important, but what about how the animals are treated while they are being raised? Do you know how the feedlot system works? How meat packing workers are treated, what those jobs are like? It’s not currently a humane system, I don’t think. And that’s just beef. Chickens, pigs — worse.
            And that’s in addition to the many forms of environmental damage.

            • Brett says:

              Oh, I’m aware of it. My belief that it’s morally acceptable to raise and slaughter animals for meat consumption is not the same thing as condoning the appalling existing system for conventionally produced meat (especially beef and chicken).

              I try to buy organic when I can afford it.

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              Notice how he didn’t even mention the human beings that get hurt/killed to make him dinner?

              They get dismissed in their world as quickly as the animals. Just another casualty I guess.

              • Dr. Acula says:

                Notice how he didn’t even mention the human beings that get hurt/killed to make him dinner?

                That applies to people who harvest vegetables just as much as it does meat.

                Human beings also get hurt/killed providing the electricity that allows you to make your holier-than-thou comments on the Internet.

              • Arouet says:

                Have you ever picked strawberries for a living? I think you should stop eating fruits and vegetables, too.

            • Brett says:

              I was using sentience as a shorthand for a couple things, like intelligence, self-awareness, conventional sentience as described in the article, etc. I’m obviously aware that cows, pigs, chickens, etc can feel joy, fear, and pleasure.

              • Moondog says:

                I would just add — pigs are pretty damn smart.

                I don’t really understand how “self awareness” is a meaningful standard. But I do know what you mean. I’m almost agnostic on this issue. I might eat beef or poultry that came from, say, Joel Salatin’s farm. But the reality of our food is so, so far from that.

  9. Matt McIrvin says:

    And Trump? Trump asserts that climate science is a Chinese plot.

  10. Brett says:

    Another reminder of why it’s important for Democrats to come out on top in November. Clinton’s not a saint on environmentalism, but the Republicans are so much worse – if Trump or Cruz wins in November, you can forget just about any action on climate change for the next 4-8 years.

    Actually, it’s worse than that. Remember how the Republicans completely eviscerated any federally funded research into gun violence and potential gun control policies? Imagine that turned on NOAA and the other science agencies, sort of like how Lamar Alexander is trying to harass them in the Senate. Imagine NASA’s earth science research completely defunded. Not just inaction on climate change, but destructive action that actively hinders our ability to deal with it, culminating in some major disasters in the early 2020s.

    Also, ProgressiveLiberal, I just had some absolutely delicious teriyaki chicken for dinner. Just the best chicken thighs, with rice and salad.

    • ProgressiveLiberal says:

      Yes: Vote for the person who voted for Iraq, sucks on the environment and trade/jobs, cause it could be worse, 2016!

      I just changed the oil on my SUV and dumped that shit down the drain.

      (How stupid is it that liberals are using the conservative playbook on vegans? Do y’all clowns get upset when they do this to you? I thought we laughed at them for thinking they’re pissing off a liberal. Should we be laughing at you too?)

      • Brett says:

        Yes: Vote for the person who voted for Iraq, sucks on the environment and trade/jobs, cause it could be worse, 2016!

        Yes, vote for said person so that someone who still supports Iraq (and possibly an Iran war), really sucks on the environment and jobs, etc will lose because yes, it could be worse.

        Should we be laughing at you too?

        I’m laughing at you.

        • ProgressiveLiberal says:

          No one is saying not to in November. I just wanted to help her with a winning campaign slogan.

          I heard there were votes going on now though. Any idea what those are about?

          • Brett says:

            Nope, because it really doesn’t matter who wins the Democratic primary to me out of those two – I’ll vote in November for them over the Republican.

            • ProgressiveLiberal says:

              I’m glad that you don’t care if more workers get their jobs sent overseas to be completed by what are functionally slaves. I do. I’m glad you don’t care about people who get sick, cancer, etc, from fracking. I do.

              Oh, and all those dead brown people in that desert. Oops.

              Each and every person matters. I wish everyone saw it that way.

      • Arouet says:

        Yes: Vote for the person who voted for Iraq, sucks on the environment and trade/jobs, cause it could be worse, 2016!

        I think you’re trying to be witty, but that’s a perfectly sane reason to choose between two candidates.

        I just changed the oil on my SUV and dumped that shit down the drain.

        You should probably stop doing that. It doesn’t seem very liberal. How stupid is it that we’re letting this conservative who dumps oil down his drain lecture us on what’s supposed to be a LIBERAL blog?!

  11. Dr. Acula says:

    I have occasionally wondered what it’s like to think you’re morally superior to everyone else on the planet. Turns out it makes you an insufferable asshole.

  12. Brad Nailer says:

    I–maybe we all–have “hijacked” threads on conservative websites. After a while it just gets exhausting (try arguing the 2nd Amendment with true believers). I’m good for 10 or 20 comments and then I’m just fucking done. Progressive Liberal might be an ass–and why? We’re all on the same team here–but I have to commend his/her fortitude.

    • Ahuitzotl says:

      Fortitude of that sort isnt commendable.
      .
      And I have to say, Ive never hijacked a thread on a conservative website, I never comment on them at all – I’ve never seen the point.

    • ProgressiveLiberal says:

      Thank you.

      I’ve spent a lot of time in my life reflecting on the shit that I’ve done and the shit that I do, and it has profoundly changed me as a person. I question all of my assumptions and when I find out I’m wrong, I change my damn mind, no matter how inconvenient it is, or for how long I’ve been doing it.

      If everyone lived like this in all ways, the world would be a better place.

  13. C.V. Danes says:

    Guess it’s time to roll out the orbital solar mirrors or CO2 guzzling rock or whatever else our tech worshipers have queued up to save the planet instead of just, you know, using less stuff.

  14. Rob in CT says:

    Well, some things don’t change.

    I’ve been as guilty as anybody else when it comes to responding to ProgLib’s self-righteousness in the past. It should be clear at this point, however, that people just shouldn’t engage w/him.

    Re: global warming – we’re obviously fouling our nest. Some positive things have been happening, but there’s a strong case that it’s too little too late.

    We needed a carbon tax of some kind a decade ago. Two decades ago would’ve been better. We don’t have one, and aren’t going to get one in the near future either. Note that a half-way intelligent carbon tax would hit meat (particularly beef) hard. And loooong commutes in gas guzzlers. And burning coal, and more besides. That’s the point: it doesn’t hit one pet issue (your MORAL DEPRAVITY FOR EATING ANIMALS). A carbon tax would involve everyone (or rather everyone who is impure, which is basically everyone) taking the hit together.

    We need this to become part of the Democratic party platform. Which is a reason to prefer Bernie to Hillary:

    https://berniesanders.com/people-before-polluters/

    [looking at it quickly, even this is probably not enough even though it’s more aggressive than anything remotely politically possible at this time]

    • ProgressiveLiberal says:

      Except much like in the case of groundwater, a tax isn’t always the solution. I obviously support the simple first step of a carbon tax, but you explain to me how we’re going to have 10 billion people eating meat at a level that is sustainable. I’ll be right here.

      Sure is easy for us first worlders to defend our diets cause that’s what we like…F the rest of em amirite?

  15. […] temperature is 2 degrees C above average, and how that represents a huge climatic tipping point. Lawyers Guns and Money Since we have passed it, we get all most of the sea level rise, ice cap melting major climate shift […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.