When the truth is inconvenient . . .

[BJean 16]

If you don't believe that this debate has much to do with Democratic vs. Republican alignment, why don't we take a poll here and see exactly who of us believes that global warming is a non-issue vs. those who believe it potentially an important issue?

You Republicans here sure do hate me don't you? Or is it still not personal? I can't believe little ole' me can rile some of you up so much. I say what I think because we aren't in the same room. If we were across the table from each other, I wouldn't dare.

[L8BloomR 1]

I really don't think that anybody here is trying to post political propaganda and pass them off as the gospel.... I very much disagree with that, I believe that we are all adults here and with at least some decent degree of intelligence that gets us debating on important issues, so why would anybody think that they are going to fool others with "political propaganda" I find that absurd...

Republicans are experts at misdirecting our attention to a person or behavior that is not relevant to the real question. That's why they're so good at winning political races - in spite of their performance in office.

The above comment is just plain funny to me... it seems as a desperate attempt to defend your views by attacking the other party...? wth?

Thank you, Elenation, for saying what I was trying to convey: the idea that no one on this side of the debate is saying that there is no global warming or anything like that at all....We are just debating various aspects of the issue, and there is plenty to debate and plenty of people on both sides to debate with (or against :biggrin:), without making it into a political battle. There is too much of that here already!!

P.S. and thank you for the "Welcome Back"... I appreciate it so much! :biggrin:

[L8BloomR 1]

If you don't believe that this debate has much to do with Democratic vs. Republican alignment, why don't we take a poll here and see exactly who of us believes that global warming is a non-issue vs. those who believe it potentially an important issue?

You Republicans here sure do hate me don't you? Or is it still not personal? I can't believe little ole' me can rile some of you up so much. I say what I think because we aren't in the same room. If we were across the table from each other, I wouldn't dare.

Uh... who are you directing this to? Which people here hate you? Why would you take a response to your post as "hatred" ? You respond to other people's posts all the time, with strong disagreement. Can't others do the same thing without being called haters? I, for one, don't hate you at all. And if we were sitting across the table, I think we would have a very passionate and spirited conversation but also a very fun time! I know it is easy to take things personal here; believe me I have felt more than my share of attacks leveled at me, but try to remember we are here to challange and learn... and sometimes that doesn't come easy!!

[WestCoastFatGuy 3]

I don't know Mr. Moore and I doubt you do, either. So neither one of us can know his motives... what made him change his views. I think that the argument can be made that he learned more info and did more research and that made him favor a different way than he did earlier. You have obviously decided he "sold out", but that sounds like sour grapes to me. It is human nature for one side to deride and belittle someone who leaves their side to go to another; it happens in politics all the time. So just as you have decided that you don't want to be fooled again and want to look at all sides of the issues (which I admire and try to do myself), you have to give the other person (like Mr. Moore) the same respect to do the same...even if that person's research leads him in an opposite direction than yours. If Mr. Moore was applauded as a great thinker when he started Greenpeace, did he suddenly turn stupid and ignorant when he changed his mind?

I apologize for an error I made while making my post. I should have put the parts of the sentence of being a "sell-out" in quotes. Those are the words used and the views of his former Greenpeace colleagues.. and I failed to make that clear.

You are correct that I don't know Mr. Moore. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a little research and learn about what now makes him tick. I would love to believe that he changed his views because he "did more research and that made him favor a different way." Unfortunately, the research and his current assertions don't seem to bear that out. In fact, he doesn't even say, himself, that that is the case. I thought for sure that if I researched enough that I would find evidence that he had changed his views as the result of x or y or z; that he had taken a larger view and was balancing the good against the bad. Nope. Not there. He now just writes copy and parrots the views of the corporations that he represents. BTW, I'm not belittling him because he chose to do so. It's his perrogative. He has the right to make money as a result of his past affiliations with Greenpeace, even if he now espouses views that are completely contrary to those he once did.

And finally, telling me to respect him because his reserach led him in a different direction would be extremely well-taken by me if only he would provide it. I, personally, looked forward to finding out what he had to say about global-warming when I learned that he, as one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, thought it was all hogwash. I actually believed that someone of his past reputation would be providing hard evidence and science to back up his claims and that I would finally be able to chalk all this "man-made-global-warming" hoopla up to political correctness gone amok. I was sorely and sincerely disappointed to find out that that was not to be the case.

He is, as I stated above, completely within his rights to do what he is doing. As a result, I am also completely within my rights to not respect him for doing so. I wouldn't call him a sell-out, personally. I'd call him an opportunist.

[ELENATION 0]

The problem with global-warming proponents and environmentalists is they are so frothing at the mouth to further their cause, they often propose "solutions" that have their own problems.

Mercury leaks found as new bulbs break - The Boston Globe

I don't know, I think I'd rather be less "environmentally conscious" and safeguard my children from mercury poisoning. But that's just me. I'm sure there are many others who care more about mother earth than they do their children.

Gadget, that is the truth, it amazes me how some people seem to care about mother earth more than anything else...or anybody else...

[Kat817 19]

Kat: Your Dad sounds like my dad!! I used to hear that all the time when growing up. Still is great advice. Thanks for the memories....

My Dad lives by that to this day. He runs solar panels on his home---he drives economical, older cars....can he afford a new car? Yes, but ask him if he needs one, and the answer will be No, his is working just fine. When he built his larger shed, he reused all the lumber from the old shed first---he is just of a generation that lives in that manner. He had a very successful career---but he has always been conservative with his money, and with the resources available to him. Our thermostat was always set, and left alone, clothes handed down...as little as possible was wasted.

This is not done in our current generations.

That was the main purpose of my post---is that in my opinion---this is NOT something we know enough about. The rate we are making advances, the number of cars on the road, the amount of waste dumped into our oceans, the number of satellites orbiting our earth, are changing SOOOOO fast, it makes learning what we are doing to our planet all but impossible. By the time you gather enough information to get a good idea of how things are---things have changed so drastically the information is obsolete. So they "esitmate" and "predict". Not just the Republicans, and not just the Democrats, everyone...

Yes our resources will likely last our lifetimes...so we can refuse to give up our goodies and let the next generation deal with it. Or we can suck it up, and do what we can to try to help salvage some of the mess we have obviously helped to create.

Kat

I am going to go ahead and post this....not sure what has been posted since I began---my brother showed up....and I got sidelined visiting face to face with a real person!!!! LOL

[ELENATION 0]

If you don't believe that this debate has much to do with Democratic vs. Republican alignment, why don't we take a poll here and see exactly who of us believes that global warming is a non-issue vs. those who believe it potentially an important issue?

You Republicans here sure do hate me don't you? Or is it still not personal? I can't believe little ole' me can rile some of you up so much. I say what I think because we aren't in the same room. If we were across the table from each other, I wouldn't dare.

Take a poll, again, it will be made of opinions, that's it, it doesn't prove anything really... but you are more than welcome...

"Us" republicans? LOL!!!!!!! I personally don't hate you... I hate Osama Bin Laden, used to hate Sadam Hussein, not anymore thank God and to our president he is so gone!, I hate Castro... you see the pattern..? you are someone that I don't agree with, you haven't committed no crime, at least I hope so....:biggrin: and do you really think little ole you is the only one that riles things up here? LOL!!! many of us do! don't take all the credit now.... again, not personal....

And if we were across the table from each other, I would tell you exactly the same and would tell you exactly how I feel, you'd be proud of me if you heard me debating with my co-workers... it gets freaking hot here!:biggrin:

I'm curious as to why wouldn't you say how you feel or what you think if we were in the same room? please tell me you haven't picked up those democrats's bad habits....:thumbup:

[Kat817 19]

We don't even have to go into how, and why we are at war--------but in reality-----our president was sitting in a warm home, not being shot at.....HE did not get Sadam.......any more than he has been able to get Bin Ladin. Our military got Sadam....and lots of them have died in the process.

Bush was at home stuttering and stumbling, same as usual.

Kat

[ELENATION 0]

We don't even have to go into how, and why we are at war--------but in reality-----our president was sitting in a warm home, not being shot at.....HE did not get Sadam.......any more than he has been able to get Bin Ladin. Our military got Sadam....and lots of them have died in the process.

Bush was at home stuttering and stumbling, same as usual.

Kat

Frankly I could go into it, and I guarantee you that I have some good material, .... but I don't even see ourselves having a civil argument about it, so I'm not sure that it's worth it... at least not right now, it's late and I'm tired... but maybe later.... I don't want to say never... you know, I can get "riled up" quickly...:biggrin:

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, that is the truth, it amazes me how some people seem to care about mother earth more than anything else...or anybody else...

I read an article once about a well-known environmentalist. I can't remember his name. The article was in a mainstream magazine (just in case anyone accuses me of listening to conservative propaganda). There was a quote in there from him about how he basically doesn't like the human race and values animals over people.

I suspect many environmentalists feel this way (not all), but he was one of the ones who's at least honest about it.

If anyone wants me to try to find the article / reference / quote, let me know and I will try to find the time to hunt it down.

[ELENATION 0]

I read an article once about a well-known environmentalist. I can't remember his name. The article was in a mainstream magazine (just in case anyone accuses me of listening to conservative propaganda). There was a quote in there from him about how he basically doesn't like the human race and values animals over people.

I suspect many environmentalists feel this way (not all), but he was one of the ones who's at least honest about it.

If anyone wants me to try to find the article / reference / quote, let me know and I will try to find the time to hunt it down.

Yes I believe it, it doesn't surprise me one bit....

[L8BloomR 1]

I apologize for an error I made while making my post. I should have put the parts of the sentence of being a "sell-out" in quotes. Those are the words used and the views of his former Greenpeace colleagues.. and I failed to make that clear.

You are correct that I don't know Mr. Moore. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a little research and learn about what now makes him tick. I would love to believe that he changed his views because he "did more research and that made him favor a different way." Unfortunately, the research and his current assertions don't seem to bear that out. In fact, he doesn't even say, himself, that that is the case. I thought for sure that if I researched enough that I would find evidence that he had changed his views as the result of x or y or z; that he had taken a larger view and was balancing the good against the bad. Nope. Not there. He now just writes copy and parrots the views of the corporations that he represents. BTW, I'm not belittling him because he chose to do so. It's his prerogative. He has the right to make money as a result of his past affiliations with Greenpeace, even if he now espouses views that are completely contrary to those he once did.......

I wouldn't call him a sell-out, personally. I'd call him an opportunist.

Well, I did see a couple of interviews with him on TV. He sounded thoughtful and was very candid and he did explain his reasons for change. It was last year but I remember he talked quite a bit about how he came to the conclusion that nuclear power could be a positive thing. And, after all, France has been using it for years and gets 80% of its energy from that source. It has been proven clean and safe. So I think Mr. Moore should not just be written off as an opportunist....I think he came to some conclusions that made sense and were workable for the now. It may be a good strategy to dismiss him and his ideas in order to get more extreme measures on the table, but what I got from the interviews was that he looked anew at things that had been considered taboo but thanks to new technology could now be made safe and less drastic. I don't see anything wrong with that.

In any case, I am done discussing Mr. Moore; I only brought him up as an example of people who don't whole-heartedly buy into the "man-made" part of global warming. There is a lot of noise in this debate and I am trying to decipher the truth. Let me repeat, just because I am debating doesn't mean I am convinced on either side. That is why I am debating and discussing. I do appreciate all the info I get here from both sides.

[BJean 16]

*** I really do appreciate your post L8RBloom. I think you are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt when I sound mean. You can't imagine how much your post meant to me.****

I am very, very impressed with the tone and content of West Coast Fat Guy's posts! You are one cool cat as Green would say!

[Kat817 19]

No, the arguement would likely not be civil, and no amount of good material will convince me differently. I have lost someone I loved over there. Nothing will ever convince me it was worthwhile.

It is not an arguement I would even participate in. Besides the fact it is off topic from the thread---sorry 'bout that!

Kat

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm just astounded. I decided to research a bit to see if I could find that quote. What I found was amazing:

Excerpted from ESR | January 28, 2002 | Do animal rights activists care more about animals than human beings? (emphasis mine)

* Lee Ryan, a member of the British boy band Blue, put the comparison in stark and crude language. Ryan, who styles himself an animal rights activist, asked the British tabloid The Sun, "What about whales? They are ignoring animals that are more important. Animals need saving and that's more important . . . Who gives a f--- about New York when elephants are being killed."

* To his credit, animal rights philosopher Peter Singer did criticize the idea of comparing the victims of the September 11 attacks to animals killed for food, but United Poultry Concerns' Karen Davis vigorously denounced Singer for this. According to Davis, "For 35 million chickens in the United States alone, every single night is a terrorist attack." Davis went on to suggest that since most of those who died in the terrorist attacks were likely meat eaters, the attacks may have actually resulted in a net reduction in suffering.

:biggrin: