Mns wrote:
Jubbergun wrote:
I didn't bother reading it
lol
Jubbergun wrote:
I got a little farther than "journalism is hard because..." when I realized the only person that bit of fluff was granting grace to was the author, and stopped reading.
Looks like I'm in good company.
...........................................................
No one is arguing against not littering, or not dumping crap in the environment, or against not using the world as our own personal cesspool. No one is arguing against responsible conservation, or against improving efficiencies.
They are arguing that some of the measure taken or proposed are excessive. They are arguing that there should be some doubt as to the nature of the warming (anthropogenic or not). They are arguing that if the standards set for the industrialized world are proper that they should also be adhered to in developing nations. They are arguing that regardless of the any of the above the issue shouldn't be a justification for industrial nations giving pay-offs to developing countries. They are arguing that the issue is being abused to justify pay-offs to lobbies like ethanol.
When those arguments are constantly met with "SCIENCE!!!!!!" there is a reason the science gets attacked and is met with extreme skepticism...especially when there is more than a little evidence of dishonesty and foul play in regards to how it is generated.
Your Pal,
Jubber
