|
Post by stevec on Feb 26, 2014 22:51:25 GMT -6
Here you go, Ken, from Greenspirit Strategies Ltd, Moore's company website. Can you read between the lines? greenspiritstrategies.com/Yeesh. I can. Tell me about it, Moore figured out he could make a ton of money sitting on the opposite side of the table from Greenpeace. Politics my ass, he wanted to grab a peace of green for himself.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 12:17:30 GMT -6
Ken, you were so close to a eureka moment. You have, on several occasions, presented information from "climate change deniers" . Clearly, you seem to favor their opinions. Again, why? This time, please don't tell us that it's because you've studied all the information from both sides and you find the "nay" side more compelling. Don't worry--I've already given you cover by saying that I haven't either and that you're not an eco-monster. Reach deep inside...why do you favor arguments against climate change? I really don't know how to take this. First I acknowledged that my opinion is based on limited information on what I have found on the internet... yet you say that I would consider saying "it's because you've studied all the information from both sides...". Next you tell tell me to reach deep inside. Apparently you know more about me that I do myself. Would it be easier for you to just tell me what I believe, why I believe that way and what exactly I'm supposed to say? It would be so much easier for me. That way I will know what I believe.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 12:19:05 GMT -6
Tell me about it, Moore figured out he could make a ton of money sitting on the opposite side of the table from Greenpeace. Politics my ass, he wanted to grab a peace of green for himself. Steve... would you please reach down deep inside and really find out you favor the "money" argument as the reason why?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 27, 2014 13:28:02 GMT -6
Are you serious, Ken? Are you that blind?
Do you know what PR companies do? They will do anything, say anything, and spin anything for $$$$$$$. You might as well categorize PR firms as advertising companies. He is all about $$$$, perhaps that's why he left Greenpeace. Did it ever occur to you that he was forced out or fired from Greenpeace, and he's resentful? Look at the road he's taken since leaving Greenpeace, it could not be more diametrically opposed to Greenpeace's cause.
You can try to make this story about me and a deep seated preoccupation with wealth, but I'm not the one with a skin in this game. I'm not the one who owns a PR firm advocating for mining, logging, and energy interests. What do feel is the root cause for my money argument? I believe your new strategy is nothing more than another red herring to deflect another misguided argument from blowing up in your face. One post of mine, from your hero's own website, completely dismantled the reasoning behind your starting this thread.
How many times have we told you to research your cause? Countless times your heroes have turned out to be losers. You're entertainingly wrong all the time.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 13:32:47 GMT -6
Are you serious, Ken? Are you that blind? You didn't get it... why am I not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 27, 2014 13:38:23 GMT -6
Ken,
Why are you recasting my question to Steve when you're unwilling to answer it yourself?
FB
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 27, 2014 13:49:53 GMT -6
Are you serious, Ken? Are you that blind? You didn't get it... why am I not surprised. Okay, were you referencing FB's similar post to you. I didn't make the connection. Alright, I'm living comfortably and enjoying retirement as a consequence of investment decisions my wife and I have made over the course of several decades. Do you have a problem with that? How does that affect my ability to judge a PR firm founder's commemts on global warming, in which he has a financial stake, before a legislative body?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 15:59:12 GMT -6
Ken, Why are you recasting my question to Steve when you're unwilling to answer it yourself? FB Because both were totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 16:05:20 GMT -6
You didn't get it... why am I not surprised. Okay, were you referencing FB's similar post to you. I didn't make the connection. Alright, I'm living comfortably and enjoying retirement as a consequence of investment decisions my wife and I have made over the course of several decades. Do you have a problem with that? How does that affect my ability to judge a PR firm founder's commemts on global warming, in which he has a financial stake, before a legislative body? I just want you to notice how fast you go off. If you want good dialogue, it is best accomplished by calm dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 16:21:34 GMT -6
Tell me about it, Moore figured out he could make a ton of money sitting on the opposite side of the table from Greenpeace. Politics my ass, he wanted to grab a peace of green for himself. Let's look at this statement and what it suggests: If you are with Greepeace, it is because you are noble hearted and money is not even a consideration and definitely no politics is involved. However, if you sit opposite of Greenpeace, it is because you are an opportunist and all you think about is the green for oneself. Therefore, somewhere between Greenpeace to Greenspirit, he had to have had a heart change. It couldn't be true that when he said he didn't agree anymore with their position, that he was actually honest. Any bias?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 27, 2014 19:27:27 GMT -6
Okay, were you referencing FB's similar post to you. I didn't make the connection. Alright, I'm living comfortably and enjoying retirement as a consequence of investment decisions my wife and I have made over the course of several decades. Do you have a problem with that? How does that affect my ability to judge a PR firm founder's commemts on global warming, in which he has a financial stake, before a legislative body? I just want you to notice how fast you go off. If you want good dialogue, it is best accomplished by calm dialogue. My dialogue was with FB, not you.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 27, 2014 19:44:26 GMT -6
Let's look at this statement and what it suggests: If you are with Greepeace, it is because you are noble hearted and money is not even a consideration and definitely no politics is involved. However, if you sit opposite of Greenpeace, it is because you are an opportunist and all you think about is the green for oneself. Therefore, somewhere between Greenpeace to Greenspirit, he had to have had a heart change. It couldn't be true that when he said he didn't agree anymore with their position, that he was actually honest. Any bias? Oh really, have I made any statements in support of Greenpeace? There's no doubt in my mind that Greenpeace executives are paying themselves quite well from the donations they receive. If you want me to admit that I believe Greenpeace is more noble, the answer is - yes. I will pick Greenpeace all day long when compared to Patrick Moore and his polluting big business associates.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 20:24:49 GMT -6
Let's look at this statement and what it suggests: If you are with Greepeace, it is because you are noble hearted and money is not even a consideration and definitely no politics is involved. However, if you sit opposite of Greenpeace, it is because you are an opportunist and all you think about is the green for oneself. Therefore, somewhere between Greenpeace to Greenspirit, he had to have had a heart change. It couldn't be true that when he said he didn't agree anymore with their position, that he was actually honest. Any bias? Oh really, have I made any statements in support of Greenpeace? There's no doubt in my mind that Greenpeace executives are paying themselves quite well from the donations they receive. If you want me to admit that I believe Greenpeace is more noble, the answer is - yes. I will pick Greenpeace all day long when compared to Patrick Moore and his polluting big business associates. By default according to your statements... yes. Seeing Greenspirit for the first time I find the following quote: "Natural resource development is central to meeting the world’s needs for food, energy and materials but environmental stewardship is also paramount. Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. helps companies create effective sustainability strategies that minimize and mitigate the environmental footprint of essential industrial activity. It’s not always easy, but it can be very satisfying!". Sounds like he is trying to keep ecological balance without bringing us back to the stone age by eliminating completely those evil polluting big businesses. You just assume that he just became an evil money hungry person with no regard to his PhD and heart effort that he lent to Greenpeace that you so lovingly refer to. Not that I take it for face value just because he said it... but at the same time, I can't just automatically assume that he ditched his convictions as a Greenpeace participator.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 27, 2014 20:47:08 GMT -6
Ken, Why are you recasting my question to Steve when you're unwilling to answer it yourself? FB Because both were totally irrelevant. No, they aren't at all. Your question to Steve was perfectly legit as was mine to you. Remember the old line about there being no such thing as a stupid question?* Jesus, Ken--I'm actually trying to help you here, and given how infrequently that occurs, you might want to take advantage. Let me try to put it together here: I think we can all concede together that none of us has studied climate data so thoroughly and with the necessary expertise to form an independent conclusion on the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change. Quite a few posts back, you stated that your position on the issue was more or less just your opinion, which is an uncharacteristically fabulous answer for you. My opinion, opposite yours, that there is probably adequate reason to suspect that carbon consumption underlies climate change is also more or less just my opinion, and for exactly the same reason (underlined above). Got me so far? I then asked why it was your opinion, hoping to generate some more cognitive grooviness on your part, specifically circumspection and self-awareness. Without intending to speak for you, and extrapolating from my own experience, allow me to offer three reasons why you might form the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is not real. Please note that none of them have to do with a scientific argument, and that all of them apply to the rest of us as much as they do to you: 1. Your most trusted information sources deny climate change 2. The people you hang with tend, more so than not, to deny climate change 3. You have pre-existing beliefs which clash with climate change or the implications thereof Let's take them in reverse order. You have said, and we have no reason to disbelieve, that you aren't generally in favor of needless environmental exploitation. Discard #3. The second proposition is an open question. It is quite true that Evangelicals disproportionately doubt climate change, but not knowing enough about your immediate social circle, it is impossible for me to guess the extent to which this is true for you. The first proposition is related to the second, in that often our most trusted sources of information are close social contacts--we are, as a species, a trusting lot. Beyond that, our news sources potentially influence our conclusions. I'll mention that, once again, you quoted a Fox News source--not wrong in and of itself--but we have covered fairly thoroughly the dangers of leaning too heavily on a single partisan source. So here's the bottom line, Ken. The self-evident answer to my question about why you held the position that you do boils down to some combination of 1 and 2. The same line of reasoning could be applied o your question to Steve, balancing the answer among the three possibilities. I am not advocating solipsism. Some answers really are better than others. The point is to be able to recognize and articulate the nature and origins of one's thought process. Too often, when we ask you a question, you seem to be closed, denying to us and possibly yourself the thinking behind your position. This is not, in my opinion, the best you can do. * there are, in fact, some, but not many
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 27, 2014 21:25:59 GMT -6
Because both were totally irrelevant. Ok... it seems like below we are going somewhere... however, I will maintain that "would you please reach down deep inside " is still irrelevant. Absolutely... it is what we had concurred on. These are valid questions that can be directed to both of us. I'm OK here... with a caveat--I generally double check news sources to find both viewpoints as we all know that whoever reports can have bias. In other words, if I see a news report from Fox saying that "NASA CONFIRMS THAT CO2 ACTUALLY COOLS THE EARTH"--I will then look for the opposing viewpoint of "MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CLAIM THAT NASA CONFIRMS THAT CO2 ACTUALLY COOLS THE EARTH". I guess its perception... so many times I have felt that it was you that were closed--so I guess we are both guilty? For an example (however wrong my position may have been)... you asked the question as to why I believed what I believed... your reply was "Aw, bummer. Your first answer was so much better. Oh well...one in a row." Let's just say, for discussion sake, my answers were shallow and superficial (which I don't believe they were)... your answer projected a closed position which isn't conducive to open discussion. (in my perception) Maybe we both can learn.
|
|