Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Ah the Ole Lanny ad hominem attack.
|
That's not an ad hominem attack. Calling you a horse's ass with the IQ of a can of peas unable to comprehend the subject matter is an ad hominem attack. Disclosing the interests who paid the individuals to do their research, and who they have written position papers for, is extremely relevant to the discussion. Just as anyone who works for Greepeace would be considered bias, and their opinion wide open to criticism and second guessing, anyone who works for an organization that would benefit greatly from the generation of such an opinion as those produced by these individuals, comes into question. The fact that these individuals have received funding either directly, or indirectly through the "think tanks" they work for, is extremely important. Cato and AEI are well known for their willingness to pay substantial amounts for opinions that will support their ideologocal position, which brings said reseach into question.
Quote:
Any affiliation with big oil will discount any facts of figures or thoughts you may have. As we know big oil his all hell bent on the distruction of the earth. No one in big oil would ever choose this option;
Produce oil in a way that is enviromentally sound.
Nope. Nada. NOT.
|
To date there has been no way devised to produce oil in an environmentally sound fashion. None. Nada. And big oil shows no indiciations of wishing to find a way either. They would prefer to grease the political mechanism to bend or ammend the rules which would allow them to exploit sensitive areas or not clean up those areas they spoil with their exploration or extraction.
Quote:
Only rational enviromentalists please. i.e. Only those that adhere to dogma!
YOU ARE DOOMED!!! 
|
Is there a chance that you will grow up at any time in the future? Is there a chance you will ever answer the content of the post rather that run into a stream of rhetoric that is close to incomprehensible? Focus on the content of the post and do your best to ATTEMPT to poke holes in it. Seriously, if these "experts" are so credible you should have no problem in lining up a plethora of supporting documents that would prove they have not been tainted through a relationship and do not create biased opinion for profit.
I think the fact that you refuse to try is more than enough proof that you know deep down that these guys are dirty and their opinions are indeed biased and invalid. If not, I'm looking forward to a well thought out and supported rebutal. Something tells me you'll disappear from this thread completely now, or come back with more rhetoric or an ad hominem attack (your normal modus operandi).