Jump to content

Bill Gates: Rich nations should shift entirely to synthetic beef


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Or better yet, let information dictate your politics rather than trying to have your politics dictate information.

Wow, it's like you don't even care to read what I say and respond honestly. 

I gave you an example of how I let information dictate my decision-making instead of politics. Let me guess: you listened to Dr. Fauci, the WHO, and all the "experts" when they told you that you didn't need a mask, and then the next day when they said you needed one and told you to fold up a T-Shrit to wear that over your face, you thought wearing a piece of cloth over your face would save you?

Nowhere have I said anything here to indicate I put politics first. 

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

And, again, relying on actual authority is not fallacious. Since you apparently refuse to educate yourself, here comes the airplane...

Did you spend all night trying to find the one source you could that was narrow enough to fit your use?

"Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at their opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased."

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Based on the past few pages, I have my guess, but every now and then someone surprises me by being decent.

Based on how you have run away from several bad arguments you have pushed in other threads... especially the one where you tried to act like you had some moral high ground on "basic courtesy" when you offer none yourself, just as you continue to do here.... you have no room to talk about being decent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's nonsense. Studying the climate is the job, whatever it's doing and whyever it's happening. 

Do geologists need a crisis? Nope. Biologists? Nope. Archaeologists? Nope. The same is true of climatologists. The study is the job, not the findings.

Are you not aware that climate scientists, like most other scientists, require funding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Legato said:

Empirical date provided by "scientists" who provide only the data that their benefactors want to hear.

Climate change is a perpetual phenomena. You should be extremely worried if the climate stopped changing.

First, the implication that there is no such thing as objective science--that all science is driven by delivering sponsored outcomes--is both wrong and incredibly rude. And stupid.

Second, it's demonstrably untrue. When AGW was initially identified over 40 years ago, there was no politics attached to it, no dedicated funding, and no controversy. The studies clawed their way through conventional thinking the same way that most truths inevitably force their way to the top. And to get there the ideas had to fight through massively moneyed, vested interests.

It's actually a beat-for-beat remake of the tobacco industry. Scientists who had no financial stake and no vested interests discovered an inconvenient truth about an incredibly powerful industry. Time after time and study after study independent scientists confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer (or fossil fuels and warming) and at each step they were met with well funded disinformation campaigns from greedy industries--industries who sometimes actually funded pet scientists to muddy the waters. And still the science persevered. 

And the whole time, both the tobacco companies and the oil companies had their own scientists confirm the harmful effects. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and still tried to convince people to keep consuming. 

Were you even aware that companies like Exxon and BP did their own climate research and confirmed AGW ages ago?

Scientific American

Quote

They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.

...

“There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”

 

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Are you not aware that climate scientists, like most other scientists, require funding?

Yes, science requires funding. No, science does not require a crisis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, User said:

Wow, it's like you don't even care to read what I say and respond honestly. 

I gave you an example of how I let information dictate my decision-making instead of politics. Let me guess: you listened to Dr. Fauci, the WHO, and all the "experts" when they told you that you didn't need a mask, and then the next day when they said you needed one and told you to fold up a T-Shrit to wear that over your face, you thought wearing a piece of cloth over your face would save you?

Nowhere have I said anything here to indicate I put politics first. 

Did you spend all night trying to find the one source you could that was narrow enough to fit your use?

"Tip: There are two easy ways to avoid committing appeal to authority: First, make sure that the authorities you cite are experts on the subject you’re discussing. Second, rather than just saying “Dr. Authority believes X, so we should believe it, too,” try to explain the reasoning or evidence that the authority used to arrive at their opinion. That way, your readers have more to go on than a person’s reputation. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased."

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/

Based on how you have run away from several bad arguments you have pushed in other threads... especially the one where you tried to act like you had some moral high ground on "basic courtesy" when you offer none yourself, just as you continue to do here.... you have no room to talk about being decent. 

Lol. So I'll take that as a hard yes from you on refusing to learn and quadrupling down. 

In no way, shape or form does pointing out an overwhelming--nearly unanimous--scientific consensus constitute an appeal to authority fallacy. In no way does pointing out that 99.9% of published research acknowledges AGW constitute an appeal to authority. This a "fact" as much as evolution and gravity. And there is nothing fallacious about pointing it out. Internet kooks who say "Nah, this is a hoax," are as ignorant and unqualified to contradict the scientific consensus as ridiculous as children who think they disappear when they cover their own eyes. 

 I don't "run away" from your bad arguments. They simply run their course. As this one has. I provided you multiple authoritative sources for a definition and you can't manage to acknowledge a straightforward definition? Not really anywhere to go from here. If you're going to create your own  "alternative facts" there's not much point in debating matters of opinion or policy.

Your true colors are showing, and they aren't pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Goddess said:

This is very naive.

Lol. Despite many examples of science not needing a crisis to exist. Entomologists are just entomologists. They don't exist because of the pollinator collapse crisis, and there is no non-industry buying their conclusions. I suppose you think they're funded by "big honey" taking a run at "big sugar."🙄

Again, as to the other poster, your premise is demonstrably false. There was never any money to follow. AGW was a purely scientific discovery that became mainstream in spite of moneyed opposition. There is no "anti-oil" industry set up to oppose "big oil." Nobody was positioned to profit by getting off fossil fuels. Businesses (small by comparison) have spun up around it now that the science is settled, but there was no green energy industry at the time. They're abundant and relatively cheap and we all wish they weren't a problem so we didn't have to change our lifestyles, but alas, facts are facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Lol. So I'll take that as a hard yes from you on refusing to learn and quadrupling down. 

Yet again, you ignore almost everything I say and come up with some strawman this time to argue against. My criticism was not that you merely provided a fact, it is how you are doing it. 

You are throwing it around to absolve yourself from having to, you know, actually argue the issue on any substance. Hence, why it is an appeal to authority. You have repeatedly gone on to prove that is what you were doing as you have demanded and mocked me for not merely trusting the authorities, like your 10 doctors example. You have repeatedly insisted not merely presenting this as some abstract fact you are citing, no, you are saying I must believe the 10 doctors... well, because there are 10 of them! They are the experts! 

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If you're going to create your own  "alternative facts" there's not much point in debating matters of opinion or policy.

what alternative facts did I create here? 

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Your true colors are showing, and they aren't pretty.

My colors are just fine Mr so called tolerance and basic courtesy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

There was never any money to follow.

You think there's no money in climate science??? 🙄

That's like saying money had no bearing on anything "covid". 🤣

Edited by Goddess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You think there's no money in climate science??? 🙄

That's like saying money had no bearing on anything "covid". 🤣

We invest more in research after a crisis is established, not for the sake of establishing a crisis.

In the 1970s and '80s --and even the '90s-- there was no galvanized response to climate change. There was just research, the same as every other field of science. That they discovered and proved out a crisis is as accidental as entomologists discovering the pollinator collapse. The science proved out in spite of not having any funding focus and in spite of being opposed by moneyed interests. Facts are stubborn things that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

First, the implication that there is no such thing as objective science--that all science is driven by delivering sponsored outcomes--is both wrong and incredibly rude. And stupid.

Second, it's demonstrably untrue. When AGW was initially identified over 40 years ago, there was no politics attached to it, no dedicated funding, and no controversy. The studies clawed their way through conventional thinking the same way that most truths inevitably force their way to the top. And to get there the ideas had to fight through massively moneyed, vested interests.

It's actually a beat-for-beat remake of the tobacco industry. Scientists who had no financial stake and no vested interests discovered an inconvenient truth about an incredibly powerful industry. Time after time and study after study independent scientists confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer (or fossil fuels and warming) and at each step they were met with well funded disinformation campaigns from greedy industries--industries who sometimes actually funded pet scientists to muddy the waters. And still the science persevered. 

And the whole time, both the tobacco companies and the oil companies had their own scientists confirm the harmful effects. They knew the consequences of what they were doing, and still tried to convince people to keep consuming. 

Were you even aware that companies like Exxon and BP did their own climate research and confirmed AGW ages ago?

Scientific American

 

Yes, science requires funding. No, science does not require a crisis. 

If all that straw your flinging about contains phlogiston. please be careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Green Up Slows Warming (nasa.gov)

Among the key results, the authors noted that on a global scale greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising levels of carbon dioxide increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.

There is an interesting consequence of this global green up: as vegetation consumes some of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide it also performs evapotranspiration—a function similar to human sweating—which can have a cooling effect on the air. Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius (0.36° to 0.45° Fahrenheit). In other words, the world would be even warmer than it is if not for the surge in plant growth.

“It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” said co-author Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, “which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming.”

Further, related reading:

The effect of carbon fertilization on naturally regenerated and planted US forests | Nature Communications

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I have friends here in SK who have a GIANT greenhouse they built themselves - there's even banana trees growing in there.  You know what they pump into the greenhouse to make the plants grow?

CO2.

Sure.  Soon they can move the banana trees outdoors...

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This weekend tried out an "impossible" burger. While not the worst, there was a subtle difference. If it was the only option, I would eat it and probably be ok. In general, my family and I have decreased (not eliminated) our meat intake with beef being the major item subtracted. It is not a political stance.. just simply a matter of health and preference. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2024 at 10:23 AM, Aristides said:

The beef thing is just a small part of the Gates interview. But you wouldn't know that unless you read it.

If that cultist wants to take beef away from everyone, why would anyone that isn't a left-wing psychopath want to hear another word?

The answer is they wouldn't. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...