Glad nothing like this has shown up since.

As far as policy goes, I don’t think anyone should deny that manmade global warming occurs for the above reasons. What they should do is assess the situation. If this is occurring, what are the long term effects? How can we prevent them in a way that ensures the best future for ourselves and our posterity? Are there reasons besides global warming to reduce or eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels? And finally, if this is not occurring, what are the costs of taking action? How can we minimize those?

I’ve been on the John Muir trail, and I’ve spent a great deal of my time outdoors. We are not running out of resources, although a great deal of people would like you to believe that so they can push their own political agendas.

However, it is a man’s duty to conserve, protect and treat nature with respect, something that is missing.

Unfortunately, separating agenda from education is often a hard thing.

Truth is dangerous and adding an ounce of it to anything will make it appealing and seem genuine to anyone non the wiser.

God Bless!

And if you are going to enjoy meat at least take the trouble to eat meat that tastes like meat, factory farmed has never tasted as nice as local grass fed beef to me, it costs more but then again meat is meant to be a treat, there’s a reason it’s served at celebrations and cooked with respect in other countries who haven’t got the resources to devote to mass production. At least be (”(hu)manly” enough to demand something quality for yourself.

“Real men” or at least anyone with half a brain, knows how to listen and learn from experts in the field – you know, people who got the education and are doing the work? Not every biologist is a bleeding heart vegan human-hater, but biologists are shown the massive diversity of life and how humans as a relatively small but massively impactful species (at least compared to bacteria) have a big place in the web of life and a much greater chance of screwing it up than say, a lion or a deer.

And as for “land owners” who don’t want to be told what they can/can’t do with “their land…” You should be ashamed of yourself. You may own a swatch of land but you’re still part of the earth, last time I checked, and being equitable and making sure your actions aren’t destroying something that needs to be there. Granted bacteria, snails, and insects aren’t as cuddly or glam as panda and polar bears, but they’re still quite necessary.

And admirable men are capable of making sacrifices, and doing research. it’s easy to just buy whatever you see at the supermarket that is “eco friendly plant based cleaners”

But what’s in your plant based cleaner? Palm oil? Hey did you know the demand for cleaning products that use palm oil leads to increased demand for raw palm oil, which leads to a greater level of deforestation in areas like Malysia and Indonesia – displacing people and huge swatsh of the natural environment and ecosystem because you want to give yourself a big old pat on the back for buying “environmentally friendly” because a corporation which produces these products, not out of the goodness of their warm fuzzy hearts, but because they have identified a market demand for it, has told you it is (and sweet lord how profitable it is from them that no one does the math)? I’m all for responsible capitalism, but that means responsible on both ends – the consumer and the producer. Sustainable palm oil is possible, but not if no one asks for it because no one knows it’s not sustainable in its current status – because no one did the research, and when someone did no one bothered listening to them because it was inconvenient.

Our grandparents sacrficed during the second world war, and that wasn’t even necessarily for the livable future for centuries – it was to help win a war (which my Jewish grandparents are very thankful for)! Is it so much to ask that men and women of this generation, who aren’t being asked to lay their lives on the line, could find extra time to make responsible choices?

It’s a pity how Ameri-centric males in this country can be – tofu and meat substitutes are eaten virgorously in half the world, and still this steak chomping “real red blooded amurican!” thing is king? And if you are going to eat meat at least take the trouble to eat meat that tastes like meat, factory farmed has never tasted as nice as local grass fed beef to me, it costs more but then again meat is meant to be a treat, there’s a reason it’s served at celebrations and cooked with respect in other countries who haven’t got the resources to devote to mass production. At least be (”(hu)manly” enough to demand something quality for yourself (hint – Kobe beef isn’t the only quality out there, shortribs off a cow who got to live a fairly pleasant cow life devoid of hormones and full of grass and good care is as good as it gets for me)

“Real men” or at least anyone with half a brain, knows how to listen and learn from experts in the field – you know, people who got the education and are doing the work? Or…do you really think C Student George Bush and Beauty Queen Sarah Palin know more about science than…a scientist? Not every biologist is a bleeding heart vegan human-hater, but biologists are shown the massive diversity of life and how humans as a relatively small but massively impactful species (at least compared to bacteria) have a big place in the web of life and a much greater chance of screwing it up than say, a lion or a deer. Thus…we have more responsibility because we’re virtually the only species that can *actively* screw things up.

And as for “land owners” who don’t want to be told what they can/can’t do with “their land…” You should be ashamed of yourself. You may own a swatch of land but you’re still part of the earth, last time I checked, and being equitable and making sure your actions aren’t destroying

And admirable men are capable of making sacrifices, and doing research. it’s easy to just buy whatever you see at the supermarket that is “eco friendly plant based cleaners”

But what’s in your plant based cleaner? Palm oil? Hey did you know the demand for cleaning products that use palm oil leads to increased demand for raw palm oil, which leads to a greater level of deforestation in areas like Malysia and Indonesia – displacing people and orangutangs because you want to give yourself a big old pat on the back for buying “environmentally friendly” because a corporation has told you it is?

I agree with most of your points, except number ten.

Real men eat tofu? Real men don’t allow themselves to be poisoned by estrogen-like substances and grow man-boobs…and then call it being green.

Why don’t you drop the vegetarian nonsense and supplement your plant-based diet with some natural-raised and grazed meat?

It’s worth discussing. It’s worth debating (yes, debating, as in “the extent to which human activity may or may not contribute to climate change). Enough with the notion of “the debate is over.” That’s not real science.

You do your readers a disservice by succumbing to this sort of overly emotional, overtly manipulative approach to the topic (i.e. a “link” to a Nat Geo article that doesn’t even carry a byline or, in turn, link to credible scientific data? Not much heft to that, is there?).

“Articles” such as this undermine the credibility of the rest of your site.

The author correctly lists “Intellectual Rigor” as a manly quality. One of the defining aspects of intellectual rigor is that through this prudent study of evidence men will come to different opinions, even when drawing from the same body of evidence. In the very same passage on intellectual rigor, the author states:

“Global warming is real. Climate change is affected by man’s actions, ”

Even the addition of two small qualifying words “many believe” would have changed the statement on climate change from intellectual imposition (my belief is fact) to intellectual discourse (I believe this is fact, but I recognize my colleagues’ right to come to their own conclusions). There is a growing body of scientists and meteorologists who doubt that global warming is effected by human activity. Not least among them is the American Physical Society, a secular society representing fifty thousand physicists (@Chris W: not right-wing blowhards). I write this, not in an attempt to convince any readers of this post to any position, only to say that, even without this “official” recognition of that position, it would be a basic requirement of proper political discourse to recognize the validity of the position of the opposing side.

To the editors of AoM: Please do not hesitate to publish articles of a political, even controversial, nature, but I call upon you to do so making sure that the authors of future essays maintain a fitting respect for the opposing position.

Conservation makes sense, but not to “save the planet” – it makes sense from a stewardship point of view. The planet doesn’t need saving, but mankind does – from government scams.

Best,
RGW