Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes
- Thread starter skookumchuck
- Start date
As for halal and kosher meats, I actually like that idea too, whereby there are strict rules as to how to kill the animal. The following scientific study on the topic is quite enlightening concerning how much an animal suffers via the Islamic method (very similar to the Jewish method) compared to the Western method, showing that in fact the animals suffers less via the ritual methods:
Why Islamic method of Slaughtering animals is better? A scientific reason
Why Islamic method of Slaughtering animals is better? A scientific reason
That's the central reason I laugh at those that balk or rant against Halal and Kosher methods. Simply out of some unreasonable position against religion.
Exsanguination is one of the most compassionate forms of dispatching life. Especially in the manner prescribed for Halal and Kosher meats.
I don't speak Cow.No one bothered to ask the animal, eh?
I do remember a video (well, yes, on PETA's website I must confess a long time ago, so I guess they do serve a purpose) showing how some Kosher industries are so in name only. There might be a similar problem with Halal, I don't know.
But yes, I suppose I could agree to laws ensuring that any Kosher or Halal laber meet the strictest laws of their own religions.
Then it's about time you learn, eh?
"Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes" Yeah, well, there are nutbars everywhere.
Climate researchers have had death threats and such as well.
AFP: Australian scientists threatened in carbon tax row
Climate researchers have had death threats and such as well.
AFP: Australian scientists threatened in carbon tax row
That's arguable. Some did, but it was not really comparable to the popular support among scientists today of anthropogenic climate change. From the beginning, there were experiments that conflicted with the Eugenics movement, which was less science than a social movement. Even in the early 1900's there were experiments providing data that showed random mutations The understanding of inheritance, genetics, molecular biology, was very rudimentary by today's standards. By the same token, consider that the anthropogenic influence on climate change has survived far longer than Eugenics ever did. The first papers on the influence of carbon dioxide on our planet's climate go back to the early 1800's, while the first eugenics experiments were taking place in the early 1900's.
Since then, much has been learned, and one of those early theories has survived the test of time, and become stronger. Folks like captain morgan and Coldstream say it's a scam and a fraud and is falling by the way side, but the data is in and each year the body of literature grows larger and stronger. It's a mixture of denial and ignorance that leads people to say such things.
I was lucky enough to hear a guest lecture by Temple Grandin. She has been involved with many breakthroughs in animal handling -particularly in slaughter facilities- that reduce stress and animal suffering. The major caveat with the religious slaughter is that the equipment is properly maintained, but yes overall it is one of the best methods as far as animal welfare concerns go.
Popular, not consensus. The hyperbole, rhetoric and nonsense spewed by proponents, detracts from the science, and the over all message.
Which is how I see the whole AGW crowd...
No offense dude, but I've been pushing environmental protection far longer than you've been tending fish. Certainly longer than AGW has been a catch term for the evening news.
Suddenly we have progressives latched onto one aspect of the environment, and the rest be damned. While schemes, punitive taxation and wealth redistribution, become part of the common cause, and nothing actually gets done.
Eugenics used an assumption of social elitism to make a claim. There was no real science in the step from DNA to ethnic cleansing. AGW is pretty solid and it is understood that there is disagreement as to the actual degree of severity. But while there can be disagreement on severity, there is no confusion about rising temperatures due to human involvement.
And of course, policy, while it should reflect the science - is not the responsibility of the scientists themselves even if they do (and should) have the freedom to make political remarks.
That's irrelevant. It was supported by scientists. They claimed they had the data to back it up. And for 400 years, blacks were considered subhuman because of it.
Degree of severity? There are scientists that state that man has little to do with it, and that nature is always in flux.
There isn't?
Like I said, I've been pushing for environmental protection for years. There is no doubt about the negative impact of pollution. From the Pacific gyre to Chernobyl, to the garbage that infest our creeks and streams.
There's only one environmental concern that gets attention now, and there is doubt about it's legitimacy in some sectors of science.
Not all scientists held that view - I doubt that the majority did and I don't think that there was ever data or evidence to support the belief.
I have yet to hear of a researching scientist with any peer reviewed study who says that man has little to do with the present warming. Nature is always in flux but that is a different question.
I would agree that there is no confusion about rising temperatures due to man's involvement outside of a laity that listens only to the deniers and not the science.
Who doubts the legitimacy of the concern about Climate Change? Not even those scientists funded by the Fossil Fuel industry deny. They may make other claims, unsupported claims but there are none that I can think of who doubt it.
Ya, there's whole archives on the subject because it was a flash in the pan.
Likely because it isn't something that interests you.
LOL.
Ya, that's it...:roll:
And you mention that why?
Don't lose track of the fact that i posted this as a tongue in cheek poke at the usual suspects ;-)