I think what Tvee is trying to say H@ts is to stop tearing everyones posts apart line by line. That's a little excessive. Your not the editor it chief here. A lot of the folks don't have time to sit and go through each and every item.
Edward, isn't it obvious that H@ts has a habit of thinking aloud? It is a problem when a person like H@ts has been mesmerized-hypnotized and must conform to a public sentimentality. There would be a lot of resistance when ideas have been cemented into the soul and especially if the person is already taking orders from the movement to eliminate its rivals - *for free*. He has become a soldier of the political movement to protect the environment despite his confession of not understanding enough science.
We are not in argument with each other. Rather, H@ts is trying to intellectualize his past decision that initiated his transformation into the brave soldier we now observe; following orders from those whom he completely trusts as having an expert opinion on the matter. H@ts calls his superiors the majority of scientists, whoever they are. Their wish is H@ts command.
I'm not going to go there. I'm just tiired of the nit picking apart of everyone elses posts. Just say what you want to say and let others opinions alone. Sure it's a discussion forum but it's justs that, a place to discuss not a place to pick apart.
Tvee said this in post #77 :
H@ts has been mesmerized-hypnotized and must conform to a public sentimentality.
I'm not sure I'd call it "mesmerized-hypnotized". I keep my eye on the news, read magazines, surf the net etc. What is it that you've read or heard that has made you come to your point of view?
quote:
He has become a soldier of the political movement to protect the environment despite his confession of not understanding enough science.
If you undertand the science then post it. I'm interested in the enviroment and our place in it and how what we do effects that enviroment and us. I live near a very busy main road. Petrol used to contain lead. Now it doesn't.
Edward Teach said this in post #76 : I think what Tvee is trying to say H@ts is to stop tearing everyones posts apart line by line. That's a little excessive. Your not the editor it chief here. A lot of the folks don't have time to sit and go through each and every item.
I don’t think discussion precludes debate, and debate requires picking apart what somebody else says. We are not supposed to insult each other by personal attack, but attacking each other’s ideas is fair game. Picking apart somebody’s written sentences point by point, in writing, is actually a quite well organized and accurate way of debating. During conversation in person these days, far too many people cannot differ over a point they care about without going to war personally with each other.
In the end, whether MMGW is a threat to humanity or whether the remedy to MMGW is a threat to humanity will never be proven. How humanity reacts to the controversy will only be based on the combination of individual beliefs about it. Forums like this are valuable assets for the challenging of those beliefs. Otherwise, all schools, TV, and newspapers are putting out the message that the side of the debate that believes in MMGW is correct, that the opposition is incorrect, and that the debate is therefore over. And because these media believe there is no longer a debate, they refuse to represent a contrary viewpoint because they regard that as bias.
Inner City Blues said this in post #72 :
How are you a hypocrite if you purchase carbon credits? The idea is to lower emissions overall.
It is true that the objective is to reduce the total carbon footprint, but the general thrust is to focus the reduction on the largest contributors. After all, that is where the largest reductions can be made. Every increment of reduction becomes more difficult to achieve, the smaller your footprint gets. Al Gore and his ilk are always demonizing the U.S. for having too large of a footprint. I really doubt they would be satisfied if the U.S. just used its wealth to transfer its obligation to smaller countries by purchasing carbon offsets while continuing on its merry way with the biggest footprint.
Besides that inconsistency, there is the problem with the basic lack of accountability and vague computation inherent with carbon trading. Now we hear that Gore has purchased his carbon offsets from a company he owns, and stands to profit from, as it goes about its business of applying carbon offset revenue.
Since Gore as a lot of money, if he really wanted to put it where is mouth is, he would set an example by actually reducing his footprint, and then giving money to those who need help reducing their footprint. You might call that a "hypocrisy offset."
Edward Teach said this in post #78 : I'm not going to go there. I'm just tiired of the nit picking apart of everyone elses posts. Just say what you want to say and let others opinions alone. Sure it's a discussion forum but it's justs that, a place to discuss not a place to pick apart.
I owe you an apology. You started this thread & want an ordered response.
Perhaps the issue is being drowned by dishonest comments so that it would remain unheard. That is how propaganda is achieved. Of course, the lies would come to nothing. It self destructs. Whenever there is false prophesy, after one thing is declared, the OPPOSITE happens.
Someone warns of Global WARMING.... then the opposite is experienced; now it’s Global COOLING.
Someone out there is speaking to us in a manner of events and experience... I interpret it as, "Don't listen to them. What they say is FALSE, tabloid!"
03-03-2007 12:50 PM
