This is how environmentalists die

On Aug 11, 11:26*am, Rich > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 10:55 am, Kruse > wrote:
>
> >> Read my previous posts. I have been very clear about my motives.
> >> FWIW, I like to breath clean air and drink pure water as much as
> >> anybody.
>
> > I think you're being a big hypocrite here, aren't you?
>
> > If you're part of the AGW Denier lobby, committed to defending fossil
> > fuels, you should HATE clean air and pure water. *You're not living up
> > to your ideals.
>
> John, have you ever been certified insane? Or of reduced mental
> capacity?

Not down to your level yet, no. Sorry.
>
> If not the sheer idiocy of your post is hard to explain.
>
> Perhaps you've seen too many episodes of Captain Planet?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich

It was mostly a joke, Rich. Not entirely a joke -- I think it was in
response to Peter accusing Greens of hypocrisy for some foolish reason
that I've forgotten about by now.

But in fact, it is BS for Peter to go on about how he likes clean air
and water so much, when he's apparently dedicated to a way of
producing energy that helps to wreck both of them.

It's also totally hypocritical for Gore to give lectures on AGW and
then drive around in an SUV, of course. Hypocrisy comes in many
flavors.

BTW - what is "Captain Planet"? Sounds like a TV show.

I have a small BW television, use it to watch Bill Moyers on Friday
nights. I also used to watch "PBS Mystery Theater" with all of the
oil company image ads -- I love that Inspector Morse, and I'm
beginning to enjoy Havers and Inspector Lynley, too, when they're
showing.

But normally I don't see TV much, and I'm not familiar with "Captain
Planet" as a program. One of your faves, Rich?

Fran wrote:
> The real questions are 'how many lives have you pollution advocates
> shortened, made more costly in time and money terms or less
> pleasant?'. 'How much of first world obesity or family stress are you
> responsible for?
>
> That would be a huge figure.
>

What crap. How many lives have been saved and improved because of
availability of cheap electricity and cheap motor fuels? Think back to only
150 years ago and how horribly hazardous simple travel was, and all the
lives lost due to inadequate heating and cooling. Go live in the woods
without any of the advantages of industrialized society and see how long
your life lasts.

Pollution advocates?? Sheesh. Fran constantly implies that the POINT of
energy companies is to pollute; as if that's their goal every morning when
they wake up. Pollution is a technical problem, not a political one. A
technical problem that has been mainly solved in a huge way through the
ingenuity of CORPORATE scientists and technician working for this self-same
'Global Polluting Cartel'.

And 'first world obesity and family stress'?? How the hell did emotional
problems and free choices in eating get involved?

Do you really think about what you say? Your hatred of corporations (that
make the life you lead even possible) constantly blinds you to reason and
logic.

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:

>
> laughing, of course people like you need to think so, but reality is a
> little different from your delusional statements as you are quite
> lazy, your weaknesses obvious and easily exploitable which makes your
> replies quite predictable and easy to rebut, so any time you want to
> debate lets go, but chances are you understand your limited capacities
> cannot back your words, and you will either run or use the same
> crutches of rhetoric and illogic as usual. (laughing even more)

Can you mix in a punctuation mark now and then? CAI and the run-on
sentences are nearly unreadable. Also, in most countries sentences begin
with CAPITAL letters.

Fran wrote:
> As I understand it, Al advocates a system in which people pat a
> suitable premium (i.e. one reflecting the true cost to the commons of
> various consumption choices) on various human activities. So even if
> this story were true, it wouldn't imply hypocrisy.

It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

If he cared about the environment, he'd stop personally emitting all that
CO2. Buying indulgences doesn't change the fact that his activities spew
all that CO2 to begin with. These 'carbon credit' schemes are the most
idoitic idea to come down the pike in a long time. They result in ZERO
reductions in emissions, and just transfer money from polluters to
non-polluters. Some of these 'carbon credits' go to entities that merely
promise not to cut down trees on land they own (that they had no inkling to
cut down to start with).

(Not that I think CO2 has anything more that a trivial effect on earth
temperatures, however. Just temporarily assuming the premise of the green
whackos.)

Fran wrote:
>>> I didn't read this in the news, I saw the entire film clip. So, yes,
>> it was true. Google it and you'll find it.
>> And yes, it was hypocrisy.
>> It's okay for Al to have an electricity bill 20 times higher than the
>> national home average. (Hey, he's
>> got a huge swimming pool that he has to heat)
>> It's okay for Al to leave his limo idling so that the interior is
>> nice and cool when he and his family
>> get in. But coming out of his mouth, it's not okay for everybody else
>> to do it.
>>
>> Once again, DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!
>
>
> Let's separate two essentially separate issues.
>
> Al Gore is a representative of a section of the US ruling class. He is
> committed to capitalism and all that goes with it. Inequality is an
> intrinsic part of capitalism -- one can scarcely imagine capitalism
> with out it. Please correct me if I'm mistaken on this matter, but I
> suspect that you too are a supporter of capitalism,

Capitalism is about trading values for values. 'Carbon Credits' are not
values; they are bogus taxes signifying nothing.

> and if so, whether
> Al Gore or any other capitalist can better bear the consequences of a
> high price on carbon than your average person is not something you
> have any business bothering about.
>
> For Al Gore, doing something about carbon emissions amounts to
> ensuring that everyone who emits pays a suitable price.

Can't you SEE how stupid this is?? 'Paying a sutiable price' doesn't reduce
emissions!

> Contrary to
> the hysterical squealing of some in here, this is an approach that is
> utterly consonant with capitalism. Instead of the state saying who can
> emit and how much a price is attached and people can make their own
> choices. So what Gore's limo is doing or how he heats his pool is
> really none of your business. If we who support carbon dioxide
> emission mitigation

Buying 'indulgences' doesn't mitigate a damn thing.

> were to start advocating rations and government
> permits and CO2 inspectors at every household and business the "it's
> all a socialist/big government conspiracy to rob us of our freedom to
> pollute" crowd would have a field day. So unless you're about to say
> you want CO2 emissions regulated so everyone including Gore does their
> bit, it is you who are being hypocritical.

We advocate that all this nonsense about CO2 ends now! The point about
AlGore is that his sincerity is for ****. He just sees a power grab and
money grab and wants to be part of it. You CO2-nutcases give real
environmentalist a bad name.

On Aug 15, 12:23*pm, "Cat_in_awe" > wrote:
> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
> > laughing, of course people like you need to think so, but reality is a
> > little different from your delusional statements as you are quite
> > lazy, your weaknesses obvious and easily exploitable which makes your
> > replies quite predictable and easy to rebut, so any time you want to
> > debate lets go, but chances are you understand your limited capacities
> > cannot back your words, and you will either run or use the same
> > crutches of rhetoric and illogic as usual. *(laughing even more)
>
> Can you mix in a punctuation mark now and then? *CAI and the run-on
> sentences are nearly unreadable. *Also, in most countries sentences begin
> with CAPITAL letters.

thanks, but you can only touch my syntax, and not my content, so would
you like to take up where he could not, or are you just acting like a
grammar checker....

columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:23 pm, "Cat_in_awe" > wrote:
>> columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> laughing, of course people like you need to think so, but reality is a
>>> little different from your delusional statements as you are quite
>>> lazy, your weaknesses obvious and easily exploitable which makes your
>>> replies quite predictable and easy to rebut, so any time you want to
>>> debate lets go, but chances are you understand your limited capacities
>>> cannot back your words, and you will either run or use the same
>>> crutches of rhetoric and illogic as usual. (laughing even more)
>> Can you mix in a punctuation mark now and then? CAI and the run-on
>> sentences are nearly unreadable. Also, in most countries sentences begin
>> with CAPITAL letters.
>
> thanks, but you can only touch my syntax, and not my content, so would
> you like to take up where he could not, or are you just acting like a
> grammar checker....

How about you take up removing the Mustang froup from your cross
post of bunny hugging crap....

--


"While the fringe on one side hurl epithets at the fringe
on the other side, the vast bulk of us sit here somewhere
in between asking the eternal question, "What the ****?" - TFrog93

"Cat_in_awe" > wrote:

>columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>
>>
>> laughing, of course people like you need to think so, but reality is a
>> little different from your delusional statements as you are quite
>> lazy, your weaknesses obvious and easily exploitable which makes your
>> replies quite predictable and easy to rebut, so any time you want to
>> debate lets go, but chances are you understand your limited capacities
>> cannot back your words, and you will either run or use the same
>> crutches of rhetoric and illogic as usual. (laughing even more)
>
>Can you mix in a punctuation mark now and then? CAI and the run-on
>sentences are nearly unreadable. Also, in most countries sentences begin
>with CAPITAL letters.


You must not be aware of the high technology people that
expect a text editor to do everything, including line feeds,
carriage returns, and blank lines.

Don't holler at her, just explain that "Enter" will place
both a line feed and carriage return character at the end of
each line, but if he is linux or windows oriented, she may
prefer soft carriage returns so the text reader can format
the text to any number of characters per line.


This is just an example of why there is so much controversy
about climate change, many fat people prefer colder temperatures,
while normal build and skinny people may like it warmer.