Rowe regularly replies to cranks on his Facebook page, and this is just one more. I still like what he does in regards to the Trades through his charity, and his letter to Eagle Scouts is one of my favorites.
I swear to Christ, if I have to listen to one more lecture about composting I’m going to garrote him with his own love beads.
I did, in fact post a description of what it was, but I also did not want to spoil it. I had to put a small disclaimer about it angering some folks because I know and knew it would anger some but I had to post it anyway because the way he explores, with contempt, the subject at hand is typically what we conservative types actually consider a great argument. It was the type of argument that pretty much typifies the arguments we get from many on left and how they are properly dealt with.
I am quite sure the liberals on this board do exercise better and more substantiated arguments, there is no question of that and I am not questioning that. I apologize for my Pit insulting yesterday, was having a recent meltdown. I have no excuse for that, but we all have opinions, we don’t necessarily have to respect them, but they are all important nonetheless. Mike Rowe’s post and reply, whether it was to a troll or not is what should be expected from all conservatives, myself included, when dealing with the barrage of nonsensical insults we have to deal with because the vast majority of us do not retain some cohesive group-think despite what some may have you believe, and not all liberals do either. I am referencing the extreme types. If you don’t agree, that is fine, it is your right. It is quite pleasant when others share our values though.
Thanks for reading it!
To the above; I am not sure what you mean by return to my other ‘93’ posts? I do sometimes post and forget to check back, if that is what you mean.
Also, GIGObuster, I thank you again for your well thought out rebuttal, this is what debate is supposed to be. I do not think he is outright denying science or the scientific method though, more of a “keep your eyes open, you never know” attitude.
**
Wesley Clark** ,
Also a very good and very mature, civil response. I thank you and appreciate that. I do however see it as him (Rowe)
not denying global warming, but rather, accepting that it exists, as well as the human impact but the human impact may or may not be as large as we think, in fact, it may slightly be impacted/ascertained by erroneous correlations.
Clothahump No problem. Glad someone else found it enlightening, his view is really thought out and shies away from the typical “bad troll is bad” attitude and gives a great argument.
My apologies for the long read here as well as the linked article. I thought the Printer friendly page would be easier for all to read, less advertisement and all.
Thanks for sharing this! 
Hey, I have an opinion just as you do. Lay off with the insults, please. By acting/typing that way you are becoming no better than your interpretation of me. Thanks.
I placed it here, because I had the foresight to know that it would get nasty, because he (Rowe) is conservative and this is a left leaning board, with very few of us conservative types. Easy on the insults, even though it is mildly amusing imaging someone calling another a ‘fart’.
Well, that was for starters, I have to let you know that just by plenty of past experience I had before, that many of the recent “heroes” of the conservatives that seem to support them about their climate change denials are not so heroic.
There are many examples of right wing sources misunderstanding or just plain twisting around what the scientists were saying.
Of course in the example of the OP, I think that there is a lot of straw grasping from the likes of The Daily Caller and The Federalist papers. A nice narrator of science shows is not really a go to guy for the ones that want to pretend that they know about it, or misunderstand what a popularizer of science is about, and so they mislead a lot of their viewers or readers.
And now you know why it is so frustrating for the political right, in reality is not only the left but even scientists who are/were conservative who find it really frustrating to deal with the current ignorant GOP crop and media.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS334109598520120222
It is no wonder that sources like The Daily Caller and The Federalist have to reach for the “bottom of the science barrel” and “improve” on what a narrator of a science show is saying. Who, as far as I know, may be conservative but not so much of a climate change denier as the right wing media wants it.
He seemed to be very calm and polite. So where’s the part that s supposed to piss us off?
And this too. LOL
93 other threads, numbnuts. Cut-and-paste if you have trouble copying from memory next time, okey dokey? :rolleyes:
Thats possible, but to me that is like if a bunch of doctors say you have a serious cancer and you say ‘maybe it won’t be so bad’ and assume that it may just be a benign lump that will only cause mild problems.
Climate change could be really bad. Endless trillions in property damage, trillions in lost GDP growth, mass refugee crisis, imbalances in the food chain, etc. Its not something we should just be hoping will only be mild. It may not be that bad, but the world could easily be looking at tens, maybe hundreds of trillions of dollars in property damage and lost GDP growth due to it.
The worst case scenario for climate change is bad enough that taking the view that we should assume it may not be so bad is a dangerous risk. That is like if a variety of doctors all say you have a serious form of cancer, but you just want to wait it out.
There are times when waiting something out is a good idea, or assuming the worst won’t happen (picking a new restaurant to try for example). But with the worst effects of climate change (combined with all the benefits of switching to renewables) it would be best to assume the worst about climate change and plan accordingly.
Absolutely, Wesley Clark I am one of the few conservatives that actually agree that it is real and it does exist. One cannot ignore all the evidence. I am in no way refuting that. In fact, what Rowe wrote was not either, but using it as an easily graspable example, I suppose.
I am curious, since you are giving really succinct replies,
The argument I hear a lot (ad nauseum) is something along the lines of this;
“200 some odd years of heavy industry and massive fossil fuel use, out of 4.5 Billion, and it is going to have that much of an effect?”
I don’t really agree or disagree with it, it is just one I’ve seen quite a bit.
What is your opinion of that argument?
Thanks!
Yes, the effect is huge as it dwarfs the one coming from volcanoes as an example, and overall that argument and many others have been debunked here.
YOU knowingly placed a thread in the Pit, then whine about people insulting you? Are you a newer, dumber Clothahump?
Yeah, my wife almost doesn’t want to fuck him anymore.
I had never heard of Mike Rowe before. This statement of his raises red flags:
“Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting.”
Wooists commonly say things like this. “Science wuz wrong before, so you must respect my crackpot theories!”
The trouble is that these people typically cite beliefs that were debunked (by solid science) a very long time ago. And they utterly fail to provide good evidence to support their nonsense, which typically has been repeatedly debunked by the same kind of good science that took down flat-earth theory. So I’m not encouraged by Rowe proclaiming he’s a “skeptic”, when true skeptics challenge beliefs on the basis of evidence (or lack of it).
I don’t care whether he’s an “ultra right wing conservative” or not. He hasn’t enhanced his credibility with that response to his Facebook critic.
I’m old and I’m smart. Deal with it.
Half right.
Being smart is like being handsome - if you have to tell people you are, you ain’t.