[
Canvas, as you have pointed out, words are important. I have not once suggested you hold your beliefs on climate changed based on your politics. I did point out that you seem to be judging me based on my posts not only on this thread but in what I have posted on threads concerning politics. I am unaware of similar behavior on my part directed towards you, here or in any other thread.
I think my point is clear and sound. As a whole, we cant even start a discussion on how to solve the issue, because an entrenched opposition to the science of climate change as manipulated by man made activities. The discussion does not even get off the ground, because of established talking points about the burden this would create on world economies and overregulation.
I will point out though that your skepticism seems to end with the IPCC science without questioning the motives of the "science" of the opposition. Who has the most to loose with addressing climate change? Its not governments, its the energy industry, whom as a whole is not beyond buying scientific results to keep their interests intact.
I understood your comment to be directly pointed at my politics. If I misunderstood I apologize.
I have made judgements about you based on posts other than in this thread, although not as a result of any comments directed at me. And those comments I refer to involved ad hominem attacks. The person, not the message. I'm not saying you are the only one but I will say it hasn't simply been instances of defending yourself. I like these kinds of discussions, for the simple reason is they provide an opportunity to learn. However, when they go sideways, they become less interesting. This has been a pretty good one so far. Hope it stays that way.
You are right, the broader subject can't even get off the ground. But I have a different explanation for why not.
The hysteria surrounding Kyoto and the IPCC machinations have made it difficult. What's the difference you might ask? It's usually pretty easy to determine a shill for the coal and oil companies. The IPCC took the scientific subterfuge to a whole new level.
For many years now, the public face of the advocates of Kyoto and the IPCC have had a public stance of either you believe everything we say or you are dead to us. What kind of scientific examination does that allow for? What's with that? Then they get caught by irrefutable evidence of lying and information suppression and distortion.
My question to you would be why aren't you suspicious?
