TrueTomHarley

You also may have noticed, @James Thomas Rook Jr., that Scott Adams is not so monolithic on this issue as his work suggests. Or perhaps he is doing some reexamination. On Twitter, he has been playing Devil's advocate with his followers lately (some of whom have told him to knock it off), advancing many of the ideas that @JW Insider is advancing.

What impressed me was that he wrote more about God than about math and science combined. I don't know why this would be so. Nor do I think this is among the things that you have proved with your FACTS. You may have proved other things, but not this one. This is opinion. JWI produces different facts to go toe to toe with you. Is he wrong? He may well be, but please don't tell me he is uninformed. The reason that I only weigh in mildly is that I see that people I respect fall both ways on this. It is irrelevant to me since there is nothing I can do about it, and I live frugally enough that were climate change an indisputable fact, I would still be more part of the solution than part of the problem. It is not the core issue for Christians. God will fix it. To that extent, @Srecko Sostar's objection about JWs is right. Where it is wrong is in his assumption that "involved" Jehovah's Witnesses would all come down on his side. They would not. They would divide, and the net effect would be no different that what is now. In fact, (here is another scenario that works against his argument--not entirely consistent with the first one I offered) since JWs are largely the "uneducated," they will not trust the harangue's of the "elite"on this matter, since they have learned from experience that such harangues are rarely in their own interests and usually benefits those elites that issue them.

Because you behaved and said good things and not bad things to me and have never shared pointers on how to construct a nuclear bomb on the theory that the public has the right to know, unlike some partipants here, I will even throw you a bone: Someone on Twitter was grumbling about how they kept interrupting golf yesterday with the results of the Mueller investigation. “Golf is too important to be continually interrupted with this rubbish!” he said. I replied: “You are looking at this all wrong. It was golf. It was a huge “FORE!’ to accusers of the POTUS.” Some things are going your way, aren’t they?

Hey, you old blockhead @James Thomas Rook Jr., you with a mind of concrete: "All mixed up and firmly set."

He probably just yielded to your intransigence. At any rate, despite all of your proof, you failed to convince him. Actually, I tend to fall into your camp on this and would fall into it more firmly were it the core issue today. But it's not. People on both sides pound each other relentlessly over the issue and fail to convince. So I stop short of going the extra mile required to affirm in my own mind that it is as you say. I put my eggs in another basket. It is certainly is a political issue, as you say, and as JWI says it is not. Rephrase it slightly, and even he will agree: it is certainly an issue that is politicized. Yes, I know of the sneaky globalist statements that they are using it to drive idealogical change. That makes sense to me. But it is not my main cause. I already have a main cause. If humans are not ruining the earth by climate change, it is not as though they are too responsible ever to ruin it. It is also not as though they are not ruining it, just by other means. These days, I must restrain myself from being a full-time zealot, not against climate change views, but against vaccine ones. I think it very likely that there are a host of ills to be laid at their feet and when those ills occur, they are more catastrophic and more immediate than climate change. It is the same story of demonization and misportrayal as with other contentious issues. Follow it via Twitter or somewhere else and you find that the "anti-vax" side - (they hate that label and charge, I think correctly, that it is deliberately assigned so as to portray them as loonies, since very few of them are anti ALL vaccines) come off as exceedingly well-informed and reasonable, not at all as the hysterical nuts portrayed by the other side. Don't go against me on this, you calcified blockhead. I will not yield so readily on this one as I will on the climate. You do not keep up, do you? No need to insult, "forcing" me to follow suit, We are now soul brothers, according to Billy. Act like it, please .

He does not know more about it than you. He knows things about it that you do not. And you do not know more about it than he. You know things about it that he does not. It is due to the reality of news sources that do not cover the same facts, each ignoring what does not fit into its prevailing narrative. I can best explain it by referring to a topic I have stronger feelings about. I am undecided about climate change. As stated, the biggest factor for it, in my view, is that the organization has said it is devoting so much more to disaster relief. Not surprisingly, when a white police officer shoots a black suspect, the event is widely covered. Other shootings are not so widely covered. Sometimes they are barely mentioned. Thus comes the perception that white officers are racist and hostile to blacks. Yet a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration found the statistics revealed no significant aberrations with regard to race. In fact, the stats revealed that black officers were slightly more likely to shoot black suspects than were white officers. They were slightly more likely to experience "threat misperception," was the phrase. So a picture emerges via media that does not reflect the whole truth. It even serves to create a wrong impression. Does such a thing happen with regard to climate change? That recent year when major hurricanes hit Florida and Texas? It was pronounced significant evidence of global warming. Yet the total number of hurricanes that year was abnormally low. Do we see a weather version of "If it bleeds, it leads?" Everyone must do something to sort through the polarized information streams. My own strategy is that, whenever I follow anything on Twitter, I make it a point to also follow its polar opposite. In this way, there are two or three things popularly regarded as almost conspiracy theories that I have come to regard as quite likely. It is not the case that all the scientists are on the side of climate change. What happens is the same as what happens during physical warfare: efforts to dehumanize the enemy. The climate change scientists declare the other scientists not scientists at all, because if they were scientists they would come on board with climate change. If you follow both sides on Twitter you find the 'conspiracy' side well argued, well researched, with abundant studies, data, facts to support statements made. They do not at all come across as the unhinged crackpots they are portrayed as. The pro side tends to be more like.....like....well, like Billy, who froths that the matter is "settled" and that only a science apostate would contradict "established science." I don't think that it is settled at all. Recently a disheartening Pew report related that today's reality goes beyond people not agreeing on the facts. Today's reality is that people do not agree on what the facts are. With no common starting point they can be no agreement. It is very different to get to the bottom of anything, and usually one can identify a person's primary opinions by the news sources he takes in. They report on different things.

I regretted it almost the moment I sent it. Who am I to interject myself? Maybe I should have taken it back, but I usually do not delete things once I've put them out there. I try to dig myself out of the mess I've made later. Ideally, I think it through first. In this case, I shot myself in the foot. It is what it is. No one is saying that anyone is proud about it. That being said: Well, they're people too. Maybe if you "probably would not accept anyway" they somehow had a clue that would be the case. It isn't easy stepping into a situation that you know will be unpleasant, especially if you have many other things that are pleasant that you can occupy yourself with. It may not be wrong to look at it that way, but that does not mean it is helpful. It might be that if you do "make trouble" for her, she will go your way. Or it might be that she will break and/or that your marriage will blow up. Would you prefer that? Take it as real concern for her on their part, and even for you that you do not make what would have to have been a strained marital relationship 10 times worse. OK. It is a good word, I think. If you notice, my word to you was also a good word. I said that she probably loves you "with good reason." Don't misunderstand. Spiritually speaking, I think you have traded in the diamonds for the turds, but that does not mean that I dislike you personally (though - I admit it - at times I have).

Well, don’t give her a hard time, whatever you do. Outside of spiritual things, she probably loves you, and I suspect with good reason.

From the photos I see, much work gets done. Whereas the meme in the US is that of a “Men Working” sign that spotlights 1 man digging a ditch and 5 leaning on their shovels. How is it out there where you are?

Here you are, Srecko. You’ll be heralding this in no time at all, perhaps already. The point is that your people divide up readily with regard to every new thing. Our people don’t. It would b the same with regard to climate change if our people were to join your people.

It Russia, congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses do perform cleanups of public areas. They do it all the time. Often they ask city or town authorities for territories most in need of it. If you remember, there was publicity regarding Dennis Christensen that one of the last things he did as a free man was take part in such a cleanup. Photos were supplied, one a group photo and one of he alone hauling a bag of trash out of the river. In ‘Dear Mr. Putin.....’ I floated the idea that if such ever caught on in the US, it would be exactly the opposite of what the Russian government alleges. It would be an example of Russian Witnesses telling Americans Witnesses what to do rather than the reverse. It does sort of dovetail with the core mission, doesn’t it? And it is hard to believe that such activity would not provide the setting for some explanation of the good news.

Did @The Librarian (that old hen) forget to pay her light bill?

I scored a point, pleasantly surprising even myself, but it is not be to seen as a rebuke across the board. Time in the penalty box is okay, but it is not time imposed by me. Besides, I only did it to court Billy's approval, and you saw how that went.

I will go further to suggest to Srecko that if he succeeded in his goal of getting Witnesses off their Kingdom script, he would be hurting his own cause. So. All scientists believe it. Most other persons say "I don't know." In other words, they're not buying it. Why? Can it be that it is not pushed enough? The average media outlet is 100% behind it and does not miss an opportunity to educate. Yet still they say "I don't know." I suggest that many of these who say "I don't know" actually would say "Hogwash" but for fear of taking a stand against scientists and risk being called stupid. Many say it anyhow. Now, for the most part, I think that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in climate change. Why? Because the organization has said it is spending several times the amount for disaster relief as it did a few years ago. Though Srecko is right that Witnesses are not activists, they will still, in their ministry, help out his cause by educating people about it. When the topic comes up, they will agree with global warming, and are likely to even bring it up themselves as the prime example of "man's ruining the earth." But if Srecko's dream came true and they stopped being Witnesses, they would lose this "proof" of climate change. They would divide into some camps that support and some that say "I don't know" and some that say "Hogwash." But wouldn't the example of non-Witness charities also pleading for more money take the place of the Witness organization saying is spends more on disaster relief? No, because they always plead for more money, irrespective of need, at least such is the popular perception. So Srecko hurts his cause by pulling Witnesses away. You should be able to see this. In the world that I belong to, no one believes it. In the enlightened world you belong to, some do. Since it is being pushed mightily in the US by those most respected - media and educators - more and more in your world will come to believe it. Of course, I mean gender fluidity in general, and take the 57 genders as only the most extreme example, seen as ridiculous by most people. But it is seen ridiculous by ALL people trained by Bible principles, whereas the world you have chosen will warm to it more and more. Transfer the principle to climate change, and it means that our people are united and your people are not. JWs are now a monolithic block. They will not remain so if you sever them from their God. Some will think that you are right and help you. Some will think that you are wrong and work against you. In short, our people can work on goals effectively because we are not fighting others of our people. That cannot be said of your people. You're just huffy that they are no part of the world and you read that separation as judgement of you. As pointed out above, their stand regarding your cause is a mildly supportive factor and best and a non-factor at worst.

If it is pretentious and arrogant, it certainly is no less so than your position. You assume with your newfound air of enlightened wisdom that if Jehovah's Witnesses "got involved" as you think they should, they would all say: "You know, that Srecko is right! Let's roll up our sleeves, pitch in and help him save the planet!" In fact, they would simple divide roughly 50/50 on the issue and fight each other to a standstill. Do you think that you have stepped into an arena where there is unity? You haven't. We have. Do you think you are in a place where what you want done will be done? You're not. We are. Don't come here lecturing people about pretentiousness and arrogance. Your people are the ones who cannot agree on how many genders there are. The world splits down the middle on climate change. The very reason it is called 'climate change' rather than the old term 'global warming' is because is because proponents got frustrated with the data not coming in as they thought it would. There have been several instances of fraud on that account so as to present a picture that the data does not back up. Europe is real keen on the climate change. Also Australia and Canada. But everyone else is lukewarm at best and some are opposed, including the current administrations of both the US and Russia. Just ask @James Thomas Rook Jr. about it. (But tell @JW Insiderto stay away) They fought like cats and dogs over it once on this forum. So do you think that if they abandoned the Witness position to hold hands with you they would suddenly do a Kumbaya? No! They would fight like cats and dogs just on a bigger forum.