Sorry, I don't see a contradiction in anything I said.

This is fair criticism. However, based on my subjective experience observing various environmentalism causes I am simply unwilling to extend such courtesy. I am not going to try to look for unstated meanings and alternative interpretations. I do try to resist categorically dismissing them as green-washing rent seekers, but that is the extend of my mental effort.

Reputation destruction only works if your target cares what others think about them.

I thought Pokémon cards died out a long time ago. Who knew they were still a thing? I didn't

I guess they are just printing money with those things.

Hookers and blow availability would definitely influence me in a variety of ways.

Seek some therapy for that anger you carry around.

My view is that cattle has minimal deleterious environmental effects, none if they are pasture raised. Steel industry has minimal and it is acceptable considering how necessary steel is.

Car culture does have harmful effects that are getting reduced with improved technology. Cars are necessary for a free society to exist. Without cars, government would have much bigger role and say in our lives.

Yes it is, but effects of warming are not as dire and not as immediate as predicted. Also, climate change is a net of natural systems (Milankovitch cycles, etc.) and anthoropogenic, what percentage which is not settled science. It is also certainly not 100% anthropogenic.

No, we need environmental groups with better values. Human-centric. Capable of cost vs. benefit analysis.

One of the view pieces of software I have that almost never crashes and almost always does what I want.

One of the core applications I require on a computer to be minimally useful . The others being a mail client, a web browse and a word processor.

You misunderstood. I am opposed to all these environmental groups because I disagree with how they frame problems. My desire for clean environment is of "no smog or toxins" kind and not at all of "unspoiled mother earth" kind they have.

This retraction makes it easier to litigate, because expert witnesses no longer can cite this paper and have ironclad defense.

Now, it has been some years since I left (and never looked back) research, I have not seen ANY evidence that there is any effort to address study replication problem. Just a lot of hand wringing.

Scientific journals, especially in the age of AI, need to rethink reluctance of publishing duplication/confirmation studies. Currently, it is almost impossible to publish such work, but it is much needed.

Narcc's behaviour can only be understood as heckler's veto.

Also mining, like potash in Canada. Most people won't get your point unless you immediately connect food and fertilizer.

Can you be more specific? What exactly do you see as bad faith argument?

UK is free to fine UK citizens for visiting 4chan.