Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Threshold · 04-26-2006, 10:02 PM

NOTE TO VALG: PLEASE ACTUALLY READ MY POST INSTEAD OF SKIMMING IT. THANKS. CARRY ON.

----------------------------------------

Thanks for the links, but guess what: there is at least as much reputable scientific research that points in the opposite direction as well. There is both good and junk science on both sides because the issue is so enormously politicised.

I'm not saying which side is right, I'm saying that this is NOT a question that has been definitively answered by science. Acting like it is a totally settled fact because you can post a few links is irresponsible and overly simplistic.

Furthermore, TMS is not the appropriate place for such a debate. Proof of that is the existence of grossly immature statements like the following from you:

Hmmmm. What an odd attack. I said in my own post that I:

1) Want CAFE standards doubled
2) Our consumption of oil/gas is excessive and needs to be curbed.
3) The oil lobby is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, hindrances to addressing the problem.
4) The internal combustion engine needs to go.

Every single one of those positions is anathema to the current administration. How then am I some kind of Fox News/Scott McClellan zombie?

Just because I am well read enough to know that this is not a decided question does not mean I claim it does not exist. It also does not mean I am opposed to conservation, environmental regulation, and such efforts (in fact, I support many of them - as I said in my original post).

The fact that you still can't help but trot out the "Fox News/Bush Suckup" card just proves how irrational you are on the issue. It also proves you skimmed my post rather than actually read it.

Perhaps you also skim science articles and that is why you think it is a decided question when it simply is not. Actually, it seems like you do just that. The very first link of yours that I clicked on specifically notes that it is not a decided question and that the issue of the sun getting hotter is still being studied:

This is not a decided question of science. It is still being heavily researched and there is data on both sides of the issue. Whether global warming exists or not doesn't matter all that much to me, because I still agree with most of the actions global warming believers want to take. I am different from the zealots in that I am keeping an open mind while the scientific issue continues to be studied.

04-26-2006, 10:02 PM	#22
Threshold Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Threshold RPG Posts: 1,260	NOTE TO VALG: PLEASE ACTUALLY READ MY POST INSTEAD OF SKIMMING IT. THANKS. CARRY ON. ---------------------------------------- Thanks for the links, but guess what: there is at least as much reputable scientific research that points in the opposite direction as well. There is both good and junk science on both sides because the issue is so enormously politicised. I'm not saying which side is right, I'm saying that this is NOT a question that has been definitively answered by science. Acting like it is a totally settled fact because you can post a few links is irresponsible and overly simplistic. Furthermore, TMS is not the appropriate place for such a debate. Proof of that is the existence of grossly immature statements like the following from you: Hmmmm. What an odd attack. I said in my own post that I: 1) Want CAFE standards doubled 2) Our consumption of oil/gas is excessive and needs to be curbed. 3) The oil lobby is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, hindrances to addressing the problem. 4) The internal combustion engine needs to go. Every single one of those positions is anathema to the current administration. How then am I some kind of Fox News/Scott McClellan zombie? Just because I am well read enough to know that this is not a decided question does not mean I claim it does not exist. It also does not mean I am opposed to conservation, environmental regulation, and such efforts (in fact, I support many of them - as I said in my original post). The fact that you still can't help but trot out the "Fox News/Bush Suckup" card just proves how irrational you are on the issue. It also proves you skimmed my post rather than actually read it. Perhaps you also skim science articles and that is why you think it is a decided question when it simply is not. Actually, it seems like you do just that. The very first link of yours that I clicked on specifically notes that it is not a decided question and that the issue of the sun getting hotter is still being studied: This is not a decided question of science. It is still being heavily researched and there is data on both sides of the issue. Whether global warming exists or not doesn't matter all that much to me, because I still agree with most of the actions global warming believers want to take. I am different from the zealots in that I am keeping an open mind while the scientific issue continues to be studied.