Ultimate online climate tool. No, I'm not talking about myself.

ib1yysguy said:
Your side of this debate is as clear as your side of any debate. You pretend to ride the fence, but you make it very clear where you stand. Then when someone calls you out on it you say something like, "I've never said such a thing!" Of course you haven't, but you've sided with those who have enough times to erase any doubt pertaining to your position.
Click to expand...
I was very clear on my position, very. Your inane and disingenuous suggestions notwithstanding.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to religiously preach only one reason to clean the environment. I think that if it is shown to be specious (and it could be regardless of 'consensus') it will set back work towards such a goal by a long mile and solely because of the dogmatic approach where one of the largest promoters has even stated that "exaggeration and other falsehoods are okay" so long as it was towards that goal.

Pretending that you have some cypher to my mind because I point out how stupid it is to put all your eggs in one basket full of exaggeration while using the exact 'fear mongering' that almost everyone was up in arms with Bush and his Iraq war is just sad and dishonest self-aggrandizing idiocy of the highest order.

To leave you no doubt.

I believe that:

1. We need to work toward emissionless energy.
2. That we should not use fear and dishonesty to get us there.
3. That if we do use exaggeration and dishonesty to get us there we create the group that will fight against us every step of the way.
4. That there are myriad reasons, not the least of which is our own economy, to work towards this goal.
5. That if we do this right, the US can become the source rather than the net user of the next generation of energy.

While working towards that goal I believe the US should:

1. Aggressively implement a bridge program using local sources for energy first including nuclear, and natural gas (of which the US has an abundant supply) rather than foreign sources in every opportunity to do so.

2. Set goals to produce the next generation of devices using this source to "not suck". If you make it cool, fun, and exciting Americans will use it joyfully rather than by force of law.

Is this clear enough for you? Can you dispense with your idiotic assumptive and inaccurate "cypher" into my mind or will you clutch your fists and insist that you constantly be wrong and disingenuous?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top