Like I said three years ago ... I'll say it again now (though now it appears I'm not quite so alone)
Global science seems to be in a real rush to reach a conclusion that can't be reached in 100 years. That worries me. Comments like "meteorologists that don't agree should be decertified" worreis me. Comments like "the science is in" worries me. Comments like "holocaust deniers" worries me.
Whenever those on the majority don't want to even hear dissent you have to wonder where things are heading. If you have that much "right" on your side you should welcome the opportunity to prove it over and over again and not run from it.
Why is it that whenever someone questions this stuff they are lackeys of the oil industry while there is rarely any mention of who funds the other side? Grants are just as dangerous as industry money for swaying opinion, and numerous scientists have pointed this out.
Me? I don't have a clue ... I just read what I can. I'm certainly not pro pollution so there should be some benefits over this hysteria, but you sure hate to see so much money going to something that might slide off the table in a decade.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald
He's connected with TWO bodies who recieve money from oil. His cronies from those same bodies receive money from oil. He presents at oil symposiums. He writes for oil journals. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck... I guess that isn't enough?
Yep...he has talked for and written for Oil based groups.
Is that a surprise when he is saying that CO2 levels are NOT what is causing global warming? That simply does NOT make him a lackey in any way. It makes him a scientist...that happens to be saying something the other side and their followers dont want to hear.
It looks like (from everything i have been able to google and read) that he has never accepted a dollar from anyone other than his employer and the Canadian gov't....but if he has and someone could link it, I would really like to read it. All these guys are open to scrutiny on both sides IMO.
Quote:
Now, back to reading your highly scientific data... bought and paid for by those bastions of balance and reasons, the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.
Global science seems to be in a real rush to reach a conclusion that can't be reached in 100 years. That worries me. Comments like "meteorologists that don't agree should be decertified" worreis me. Comments like "the science is in" worries me. Comments like "holocaust deniers" worries me.
Are they in a rush? Some of these scientists have been doing these studies for 40-50 years (amazing when you consider that). This isn't something that has come mainstream of late.
I completely agree with you about the "threats". That's BS. This is a very important issue and should not be triffled with. No voice should be silenced because of their scientific position.
Quote:
Whenever those on the majority don't want to even hear dissent you have to wonder where things are heading. If you have that much "right" on your side you should welcome the opportunity to prove it over and over again and not run from it.
Ironic, since this subject matter started out on the fringe as a dissenting voice and required further study and proof to be accepted by that majority of the scientific community. Again, this is not a subject that just developed over night. There is a history behind it, and a substantial amount of abuse was heaped on those who worked hard to prove their theory held water.
Quote:
Why is it that whenever someone questions this stuff they are lackeys of the oil industry while there is rarely any mention of who funds the other side? Grants are just as dangerous as industry money for swaying opinion, and numerous scientists have pointed this out.
Says the lackey from the oil industry! How are those futures selling today? Just kidding Bingo, we know you're no lackey, except to Bingles.
The only science worthy of listening to is pure science. That where observation, experimentation, and repeatable results define the findings. The science that takes place because someone is paying you to look for a pre-determined finding is junk science and is indeed laughable. That's where we stand today, as certain bodies are PAYING for results that support their position. It puts every scientist under the microscope and calls into account their methods and findings, as well as their motivations and benefactors.
Grants can be dangerous, but only to those who abuse the system. For those who have written a grant proposal in the past they can say just how much work goes into proving the viablity and importance of your study. There is the difference. You are the one selling the importance of your work and findings and doing this work based on research ideas of your own or your research groups'. No one is approaching you and telling you that you need to produce data that supports this finding.
Quote:
Me? I don't have a clue ... I just read what I can. I'm certainly not pro pollution so there should be some benefits over this hysteria, but you sure hate to see so much money going to something that might slide off the table in a decade.
I'm the same way, but I guess I'm more of a visionary. I can see where a shift from dirty finite fuels to renewable energies will make the world a better (and safer) place. It also allows us to use our remaining pertoleum stores for the hundreds and thousands of other purposes founded in the past 100 years, and not just convert them to gasoline. There are so many things that we take for granted that come from petro-chemicals, and reserving our inventory of oil will sustain these products, and others developing, that much longer. The petro-chemical industry is not going to disappear like some of the fear mongers are suggesting, it is just going to be shifted and used in cleaner and more efficient ways.
Yep...he has talked for and written for Oil based groups.
Walks like a duck, talks like a duck...
Quote:
Is that a surprise when he is saying that CO2 levels are NOT what is causing global warming? That simply does NOT make him a lackey in any way. It makes him a scientist...that happens to be saying something the other side and their followers dont want to hear.
It looks like (from everything i have been able to google and read) that he has never accepted a dollar from anyone other than his employer and the Canadian gov't....but if he has and someone could link it, I would really like to read it. All these guys are open to scrutiny on both sides IMO.
You're right, no checks can be found in his name. Unfortunately, they can be found in the name of the two bodies he helped found and the umbrella from which he is doing a good chunk of his work.
When this article was posted, TCS Daily was published by the DCI Group, a lobbying firm in Washington, DC. Formly run by AmericanEnterprise Institute fellow, James K. Glassman. TCS Daily was funded by AT&T, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, General Motors, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq and PhRMA.
I think that Microsoft and AT&T are now part of the anti-global warming consortium.
I thought I would include all the siginficant contributors or feared being called out for showing just those that fit the story. As it turns out, I wasn't that far off. Still showed how flawed your source was though, didn't it. I mean how much worse could it get? AEI has not only been caught paying for skewed data, but has advertised for scientists that would give them data to support their claims. Really sucks when you think your source is clean and it sneaks up and bites you in the ass hard.
Quote:
But much more to the point...do you disagree with his findings? And if so, why?
I'm not sure I can say I disagree with his findings, as I'm not sure there is enough data there to say anything is close to be conclusive. I do have some problems with his research and what he attempts to say about other's theories. Patterson restricts his research to a very small section of the planet (heck, of the continent) and makes his conclusions based on that. He doesn't take his research to other parts of the world that would have similar or dissimilar conditions to prove his thesis corect. He has essentially used one petry dish to prove his theory, and that is flawed. Conversely, ice core samples have been taken from both polar caps and glaciers all over the globe, and the findings have been consistent.
Something in the theory that has produced that I wonder if he thought about was the period of the great depression and the great wars. These are periods when the industrial might of the planet slumbered, reducing the gases in question. This could very well be why the temperature takes a dive in the period immediately after these events. As industry slowed, so did the production of gases and the impacts of that could be felt in the floowing 5-10 years after the fact. That theory (one of my own) would actually support the concept that the problem is indeed reversible and that we can help the planet heal itself.
There are definitely some interesting theories in the work of Patterson and others. Do I completely dismiss the work? No, not at all. I completely dismiss Patterson and HIS findings though. What is required now is another scientist to go and complete the same study and see if he ends up with the same findings. If that should happen, then the science is sound. But that is the problem. No one is doing similar research which makes his findings hard to verify as reliable. If someone would take this up, and attempt it in other parts of the world as well, the findings would be much more credible.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Still showed how flawed your source was though, didn't it
No...not at all actually. He just writes what he finds...doesnt matter who picks it up and publishes it IMO. Unless there is puposely a flaw in his science, nothing is bought and paid for.
Doesnt mean he is right and everyone else is wrong, just that his work is still above board no matter who finances some non-profit corporation.
Here is a fascinating article i just found...maybe others have seen it before.
No...not at all actually. He just writes what he finds...doesnt matter who picks it up and publishes it IMO. Unless there is puposely a flaw in his science, nothing is bought and paid for.
A site run by AEI, who openly pays for research that supports their political agenda, happens to publish the research of a scientist who has been accused of taking money from special interest in the past, and you don't see a connection? Okay, if you insist.
BTW, interesting article. I wonder how he knew that this was the first time of this magnetic field change? I would have like to have read more about his methods and how he came to these findings. The ICC should definitely get kicked in the cubs for the treatment of this fellow and his research. Any pure science should be examined to help find solutions.
Grants can be dangerous, but only to those who abuse the system. For those who have written a grant proposal in the past they can say just how much work goes into proving the viablity and importance of your study. There is the difference. You are the one selling the importance of your work and findings and doing this work based on research ideas of your own or your research groups'. No one is approaching you and telling you that you need to produce data that supports this finding.
I'm the same way, but I guess I'm more of a visionary. I can see where a shift from dirty finite fuels to renewable energies will make the world a better (and safer) place. It also allows us to use our remaining pertoleum stores for the hundreds and thousands of other purposes founded in the past 100 years, and not just convert them to gasoline. There are so many things that we take for granted that come from petro-chemicals, and reserving our inventory of oil will sustain these products, and others developing, that much longer. The petro-chemical industry is not going to disappear like some of the fear mongers are suggesting, it is just going to be shifted and used in cleaner and more efficient ways.
First off I appreciate the civility in your argument, seriously.
The first thing I notice is that you are willing to separate grants into abuse and non abuse, but not those that getting funding from industry. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you>
Second ... Your not Hale Berry, don't call yourself a visionary, much better to take a compliment from others than flatter yourself. Seriously though, I don't think anyone is pro pollution, but the bottom line is the science of alternate fuels just isn't there yet. The Spark Spread on most alternates burn more fossils at the entry point than they save on exit. That has to change, and until it does no point in cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
First off I appreciate the civility in your argument, seriously.
Like wise.
Quote:
The first thing I notice is that you are willing to separate grants into abuse and non abuse, but not those that getting funding from industry. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you>
Having worked on both sides of that fence, no it doesn't. My observation was that private sector was always more directed/results oriented, where the test was to use your method to deliver the expected result. There was very little doubt of what information you were investigating and what results you were to find. What methods you used to get there was more important than the information you discovered, as the results were pretty much prefab and outlined in any RFP you got. You were paid to deliver exactly what was expected and provide a methodology that would support the expected result. In the public sector you are asking for financial support of your idea and the ability to test your method, reporting the unknown data of an untested methodology. Through this research would hopefully develop a new methodology and with it a verifiable dataset. The goal was more proof of concept independent of data rather than proof of data itself. I think that is the biggest difference between the two sides of the fence.
Consider it Calgary fans mentality versus Oiler fans mentality. Calgary fans (public sector) look at statistics to find patterns that define levels of play. Edmonton fans (private sector) have a predetermined result and manufacture statistics to make their level of play look more impressive. "Hard minutes" are invented to show that the end result is not as brutal as it may first appear. Whether you like the results depends on your methodology or approach to crunching the numbers.
Quote:
Second ... Your not Hale Berry, don't call yourself a visionary, much better to take a compliment from others than flatter yourself. Seriously though, I don't think anyone is pro pollution, but the bottom line is the science of alternate fuels just isn't there yet. The Spark Spread on most alternates burn more fossils at the entry point than they save on exit. That has to change, and until it does no point in cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
Visionary is probably a bad term. How about visioneer. What I was trying to say was that I tend to be more of an ideas guy (something pointed out in another thread) and able to visualize the interconnects between things. I been told I see how things fit together long before others do, which is probably why I am good at what I do. I just wish I could turn that into some cold hard cash and be able to stop working for the man!
On the alternative fuel thing, I think we are sometimes constricted by the box in which we live. We are used to doing things a certain way and sometimes don't see the solutions right in front of our faces. Fuels is one area where I think we hit that wall and box ourselves in. I think we dismiss the energy source most obvious, that being electricity. I hope to see the change to this standard in my lifetime, but I'm not confident that will happen.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Having worked on both sides of that fence, no it doesn't. My observation was that private sector was always more directed/results oriented, where the test was to use your method to deliver the expected result. There was very little doubt of what information you were investigating and what results you were to find. What methods you used to get there was more important than the information you discovered, as the results were pretty much prefab and outlined in any RFP you got. You were paid to deliver exactly what was expected and provide a methodology that would support the expected result. In the public sector you are asking for financial support of your idea and the ability to test your method, reporting the unknown data of an untested methodology. Through this research would hopefully develop a new methodology and with it a verifiable dataset. The goal was more proof of concept independent of data rather than proof of data itself. I think that is the biggest difference between the two sides of the fence.
Consider it Calgary fans mentality versus Oiler fans mentality. Calgary fans (public sector) look at statistics to find patterns that define levels of play. Edmonton fans (private sector) have a predetermined result and manufacture statistics to make their level of play look more impressive. "Hard minutes" are invented to show that the end result is not as brutal as it may first appear. Whether you like the results depends on your methodology or approach to crunching the numbers.
Visionary is probably a bad term. How about visioneer. What I was trying to say was that I tend to be more of an ideas guy (something pointed out in another thread) and able to visualize the interconnects between things. I been told I see how things fit together long before others do, which is probably why I am good at what I do. I just wish I could turn that into some cold hard cash and be able to stop working for the man!
On the alternative fuel thing, I think we are sometimes constricted by the box in which we live. We are used to doing things a certain way and sometimes don't see the solutions right in front of our faces. Fuels is one area where I think we hit that wall and box ourselves in. I think we dismiss the energy source most obvious, that being electricity. I hope to see the change to this standard in my lifetime, but I'm not confident that will happen.
Electricity is primarily driven by the burning of the cleanest of the fossil fuels ... natural gas.
There are wind and water driven electrical sources, but to this day the primary driver is still natural gas.
So you can envision all you like, but invention is the key to make this clean, and until that happens people are seriously whistling in the wind (bad pun) when it comes to alternate fuels for energy.
The best alternative available is nukes, but the NIMBY (not in my back yard) crowd keeps that on the outskirts and without a great deal of opportunity to take a foot hold.
Beyond that ... don't fool yourself, there have been plenty of sources citing a huge amount of pressure on the grant side to come up with man made causes for global warming. That in itself doen't make the science itself wrong, I myself am far from deciding at all what the cause is, but there are plenty of insidious angles on both sides of the fence.
Electricity is primarily driven by the burning of the cleanest of the fossil fuels ... natural gas.
Not true. It is dependent on where you are as to what the primary driver for power generation is. Even in natural gas rich In Alberta, coal is still the primary driver (48.3% of electricity generated comes from goal). In Manitoba it is hydro (91%), Ontario it is nuclear (51%), in Quebec it is hydro (96.7%), and in Newfoundland it is hydro (87%). Same thing here in the US. Coal is the primary fuel in the east, and hydro is the primary source in the west. It is dependent upon what resources you have available, and which ones are cheapest to invest in. It is the development and construction costs of infrastructure to develop other generation methods that scare people off of other methods. Expectations are a quick ROI, which is not always possible. Sometimes you have to invest long term and wait for the payoff. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Quote:
There are wind and water driven electrical sources, but to this day the primary driver is still natural gas.
Not true, but I can understand why you would think that. You're imbedded in the O&G sector and probably hear that all day.
Quote:
So you can envision all you like, but invention is the key to make this clean, and until that happens people are seriously whistling in the wind (bad pun) when it comes to alternate fuels for energy.
That is actually incorrect again. Implementation is the key. The technologies already exist, it is just a matter of finding the intestinal fortitude to implementing them. But with the shortsightedness of most people, and the demands of instant ROI, it is unlikely that anything happens without the government mandating it. With lobbiests running Washington, and having a much greater impact on Canadian politics, it is unlikely we will see the political pressure to fund and implement these types of projects any time soon. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Quote:
The best alternative available is nukes, but the NIMBY (not in my back yard) crowd keeps that on the outskirts and without a great deal of opportunity to take a foot hold.
When you consider the expanses of North America, and the isolated locations that could be used for nuclear power generation, NIMBY goes out the window. There are plenty of options available, but the problem is still cost and implementation. The reason there are not more nuclear plants in the United States is not fear, it is red tape. The application and approval process takes 20 years to complete. That is before construction, which can take as long as 8 years. Who in their right mind is going to get involved in that? Bureacracy holds that back more than anything, and that scares off the investors required to make those plants spring to life. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Quote:
Beyond that ... don't fool yourself, there have been plenty of sources citing a huge amount of pressure on the grant side to come up with man made causes for global warming. That in itself doen't make the science itself wrong, I myself am far from deciding at all what the cause is, but there are plenty of insidious angles on both sides of the fence.
To only see it one way is foolish.
Yes, of course, you have the only unobstructed view on all of of this, and the rest of us are just foolish people who really don't have any idea as to what is going on. We are incapable of seeing both sides of arguments because of our biases, but you don't have those to clog the filter; you are bias free. For anyone to consider the information they have researched to be accurate is simply foolish. We should all continue to be skeptics with a right leaning fence post jammed in our butts and never make a decision, no matter how hot Rome gets and how close those flames come to the bottom of out togas.
All kidding aside, you are right, that we should keep an open mind to all sides of an argument, but only to a point. The comes a time when further discussion becomes useless and waiting becomes an exercise in futility. You know, kind of like the Iginla apologists who continually tell you that the real Iginla is about to show up... and its been two years of waiting. Sometimes you have to make a hard decision and take a stand on an issue, choosing a side. It doesn't mean you stop listening to the other side of the argument, it just takes more evidence for that argument to become convincing.
This is where we are in the global warming debate IMO. There is just so much more imperical evidence to suggest that we humans are impacting our environment that I think it is foolish to ignore that data. Sure, there are some interesting theories from the other side of the fence that we should continue to study, but that does not mean we should not act now on what we already know. Seriously, what have we got to lose if we clean up our act and clean up our environment? Money? Oh no, what are we going to do if we lose money!?!?! Make more of it.
Now what happens if we don't clean up our environment? At minium, the air quality continues to deteriorate and we expose ourselves to dangerous polutants which cause health problems (which is 100% proven). At worst we set in action an series of actions that could destroy our biosphere and make it inhabitable for not only our species, but the majority of living organisms on the planet. Which is more important? Rich guys losing money, or leaving a clean environment for your children and grand children to inherit and hopefully have a long and healthy life of their own? I think the answer is obvious, and to see it any other way is foolish.
Lanny ... you just can't keep going back to that arguing style.
I'm exposed to O and G so I'm biased and you're not. Showing hydro stats from Ontario doesn't change the fact that there is a serious inefficiency issue with electrical power right now and though it sounds nice, the in vs out ratio just doesn't provide enough energy if you take nat gas and coal out of the mix.
That has to change, and personally I think it will. But we can't turn off the lights and freeze to death in the meantime.
Nukes take up to 20 years true, but NIMBY is one of the main factors in why they take so long. Why do you think there is so much red tape? Because it's a safety issue for municipalities and a political issue for senators and governors. They all hang their hat on it.
Look at the silly gouging bill passed in the house this week (gasoline) politicians butter their bread by taking on energy companies, and that's why nukes don't get built.
I can't even comment on your final paragraph because it's all hysteria. If that was actually happening I'd be scared to death, and if it is as proven as you say I'll be on board completely. I work in energy trading but that doesn't mean I'm big on pollution.
As for the rest ... don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that anyone that believes the Al Gore Pulpit is stupid or foolish, I'm saying only looking at one side is foolish. And I don't even think people on either sides are necessarily biased, they are concerned. Some are out and out concerned about the environment, while others like me are concerned that it's being over stated and this over statement might hurt economies and funnel vast amounts of money away from areas that have more need.
As much as the Gore Camp says the "science is in" or "there is no more need for debate" I just keep seeing more and more scientists step forward with alternate theories or different numbers to ignore the fact that people might be putting the cart before the horse.
So don't label me bought and paid for because of where I work and I won't call you an open toed sandled hemp trading Suzuki lover.
No matter how this shakes out it's too important to limit discussion by just labeling.
I just don't get how anyone can make an argument against reducing GHG emissions in the current environment. The argument boils down to reducing emissions slows growth, hurts the economy and the negative impact is not 100% proven. So, if even if we accept all of these negative things, reducing emissions accomplishes at least the following:
1. Reduced use of fossil fuels (potential geopolitical benefits by reducing imports from OPEC, air quality benefits, extend life of a finite resource.)
2. Spur investment in alternative fuels
3. Helps developing countries advance in a clean(er) fashion to the extent that offset trading occurs
4. Put a price on pollution, something that clearly has negative impacts that are not reflected in the current economy.
5. Lower health care costs (seen various studies suggesting this is a large potential benefit)
All of these things occur with a price tag less than the Iraq war, even at the high end of estimates from what I've seen. Perhaps there is a net cost to the economy, perhaps not. It depends on your bias, I imagine. I personally suspect a short-lived adjustment (5 to 10 years) of lower economic growth, then back to business as usual as people, firms and governments adapt to the new reality.
Now, if you add to these benefits the risk adjusted possibility the global warming fearmongers are correct, it is not even a question of whether to act or whether to twiddle our thumbs and wait for THE PROOF. As a very simple example, suppose lowering GHG emissions reduces severe hurricanes by 1 hurricane per year (many have suggested severe weather will be amplified by global warming). Katrina caused $25b damage in the southern US alone. If there is a 10% likelihood that the severe weather theory is right and just one less severe hurricane per year is the only benefit, you are looking at a $2.5 billion risk adjusted benefit every year.
Obviously, above is a simplistic example. However, unless you believe there is basically a 0% chance that reducing GHG emissions can impact global warming and any/all of the associated damages, there is an expected net benefit to acting now. Even the downside has some benefits, and IMO arguing against action mathematically requires you to take an extreme position that there is 0% chance we are having an impact and/or there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
Lanny ... you just can't keep going back to that arguing style.
I guess you missed how tongue in cheek my response was. I was trying to poke a little fun at you, since I'm so foolish to believe what I do.
Quote:
I'm exposed to O and G so I'm biased and you're not. Showing hydro stats from Ontario doesn't change the fact that there is a serious inefficiency issue with electrical power right now and though it sounds nice, the in vs out ratio just doesn't provide enough energy if you take nat gas and coal out of the mix.
At no point did I say I was not biased. It is human nature to be biased to some extent, especially through the lens of others. Based on the information I have read I formulated an opinion, and it is biased to the information I have at my disposal. Your opinion is biased based on the information you that you have digested. We're all biased. It's a fact of life, so get over it.
Showing the energy production stats showed the errors in your stance that "natural gas" is the end-all-be-all to energy production. Heck, its not even the biggest source of electricity in Alberta, and that was your stance, which was proven to be false. You firmly believed that this was the fact and it was an error, so maybe the other information is suspect as well? Now we're talking about efficencies, which is a completely different topic all together. I'm not sure how much more efficient burning natural gas can be versus hydro power when they are both used to turn a turbine? I would like you to explain this as I find this interesting.
Quote:
That has to change, and personally I think it will. But we can't turn off the lights and freeze to death in the meantime.
Nice hyperbole. Ironic since you chastize me for "scare mongering". I still want to know where people get this idea that we're going to stop "using" fossil fuels? We're not. We are still going to burn natural gas, oil, and coal, but in much more efficient and clean manners. If we use these fuels in closed systems we can increase the efficiency of their use, and decrease the release of polutants that we release into the atmosphere. You will still have your job in the same industry, you will still be making gobs of money, but the customer will be different and the use will be different.
Quote:
Nukes take up to 20 years true, but NIMBY is one of the main factors in why they take so long. Why do you think there is so much red tape? Because it's a safety issue for municipalities and a political issue for senators and governors. They all hang their hat on it.
Nukes are a political issue, but only because WE let them be that way. We live in fear (the saftey issue is really overbown) because of the media reaction to two events. Again, this is really stupid when you consider the vast expanses of land we have at our disposal. These plants do not have to be in anyone's backyard. They can be out in the middle of no where, generating massive amounts of clean energy, and no one need worry. But we do worry, because we've been trained to react that way. We really have to work on changing our mindset if we hope tomove forward.
Quote:
Look at the silly gouging bill passed in the house this week (gasoline) politicians butter their bread by taking on energy companies, and that's why nukes don't get built.
Let's not get started on that, because it will lead down a path that is certain to piss both of us off. Can we just agree that its a bunch of navel gazing and solves zero problems?
Quote:
I can't even comment on your final paragraph because it's all hysteria. If that was actually happening I'd be scared to death, and if it is as proven as you say I'll be on board completely. I work in energy trading but that doesn't mean I'm big on pollution.
Hysteria? After saying, "But we can't turn off the lights and freeze to death in the meantime." Come on, seems like the hyperbole can flow both ways big fella.
Quote:
So don't label me bought and paid for because of where I work and I won't call you an open toed sandled hemp trading Suzuki lover.
F you! I drive a Nissan and wear golf sandles!!!
I didn't try to label you as anything. I simply stated that you viewed things through a particular lens that could possibly make you see things differently than I. That's me framing my perspective of where your information comes from than making an accusation.
Quote:
No matter how this shakes out it's too important to limit discussion by just labeling.
Here, here. Unfortunately motivations come into play, and those must be explored when topics like this are discussed. That has to be fair game. I think as long as it is civil, as we have attempted to keep it, its all good.
