Greenpeace Says Fossil Fuel Industry Misleads On Climate Science

Meh, you set this whole argument up to pretend you are focusing on illegal practices by the government and corporations to "cover each other" and generate false flags of climate science and denial, but really this is an anti investigation anti greenpeace thread just like your position against the abortion videos.

You attack from a government and corporate lobby.

a reply to: intrptr

More deflections I see. Way to keep proving my point. Keep at it. I can't get enough of this.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Claiming deflection is because you can't make a point of argument. Whats the topic, Greenpeace bad, climate change good…

originally posted by: Ghost147
Personally, I don't see how human kind cannot be effecting the speed at which climate change occurs. However, whomever really is in charge of the whole conspiracy about it occurring, or not occurring, is doing a tremendous job at making the entire subject confusing for both sides.

I agree, although I disagree vehemently concerning the "settled science" that claims that we are the main driver of contemporary climate change.

Even if you do deny man-made climate change, exactly what is so bad about being conservative with resources, aiming to be environmentally friendly, and reducing your ecological footprint? Obviously there is clear economic benefits (energy saving, less waste, so on and so forth), but what is so bad about just keeping global ecosystems as healthy as possible anyway?

There's nothing bad at all about what you mention here--the "bad" rears its ugly head when it is forced by an oppressive government and paid for by taking more and more out of the pockets of individuals. Not to mention the unwarranted and dirty tactic (IMO) of trying to guilt people into believing that we are the main cause of everything that some people determine as 'bad' in the world, like changing ecosystems and weather patterns and *gasp* temperatures.

That's where the bad comes in. But, companies who want to create clean-energy products (w/o tax dollars, please [that article is more than 3 years old...more have failed since]) and individuals who want to use them are perfect examples of what should be happening--I for one have a goal to live nearly completely off-grid within the next decade, but not because I think I'm killing the planet with my current habits.

My point being that taking personal responsibility as individuals and companies who, to quote the Bigweld from "Robots," see a need, fill a need, are doing great things. But I don't think that the underlying motivator should be guilt-induced action that is forced by the hand of Big Government and subsidized by the same.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That good enough of an answer for you? Or does that not fall under your definition of "real?"

As for the MMCC (which is shorter to abbreviate than man-made climate change) in this post, I'm not even going to get into this again. You, though, seem to be a sucker for punishment

a reply to: intrptr

The topic we were discussing, in case you forgot and aren't being deliberately obtuse right now, was you proving that there is money problem with buying out scientists to support climate change. I've also widened my request for evidence by asking for examples of lobbyist groups that are putting money into supporting climate change on par with the Koch brothers, who are donating something close to $1 billion.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That good enough of an answer for you? Or does that not fall under your definition of "real?"

Meh.

As for the MMCC (which is shorter to abbreviate than man-made climate change) in this post, I'm not even going to get into this again. You, though, seem to be a sucker for punishment

Yea I must be, otherwise I would have written this whole forum off a LONG time ago as hopeless. Luckily I still get U2U's encouraging me that I'm on the right track so I know I'm at least reaching SOME people.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You should ask why Greenpeace doesn't acknowledge that animal agriculture is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

a reply to: Anosognosia

You know that's a good thing to ask them. I'm not opposed to holding them accountable for their own dubious actions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's because they have an agenda, they all do...unfortunately.

a reply to: Anosognosia

Naturally, that is why you have to learn to be able to read between the lines. Agendas are everyone, but having agenda doesn't necessarily make you bad nor good. Nor does having an agenda disprove the information you may be providing at any given time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Anosognosia

Naturally, that is why you have to learn to be able to read between the lines. Agendas are everyone, but having agenda doesn't necessarily make you bad nor good. Nor does having an agenda disprove the information you may be providing at any given time.

No that's okay. When your organization does nothing but try and prevent climate change, yet you refuse to acknowledge the leading factor in said change, your organization is complete BS.

Keep on sheepin!

a reply to: Anosognosia

So you don't think the claims in the OP are true? Care to talk about Dr. Soon then?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Anosognosia

So you don't think the claims in the OP are true? Care to talk about Dr. Soon then?

Dude, he is the AGW scapegoat. I have seen you talk about him in 100's of threads. Get over it already.

Greenpeace is a joke.

a reply to: Anosognosia

Ok good bye then. I thought we were going to have a rational discussion where we exchange evidence of our positions, but if you are just going to naively write off evidence just because you don't want to believe it is true, I have better things to do.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I get U2Us saying the same. But, of course, they're all just opinions.

If I send you U2Us saying you're on the wrong track, will it dissuade your opinion?



As for the other issue of a "real answer," is it only "real" if it agrees with your opinion, then?

Well well greenpeace. As if THEY ARENT BIASED or anything.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, I get U2Us saying the same. But, of course, they're all just opinions.

If I send you U2Us saying you're on the wrong track, will it dissuade your opinion?

True opinions are just opinions. That's why I'm so evidence focused.

As for the other issue of a "real answer," is it only "real" if it agrees with your opinion, then?

I more or less read that as a bait line. You were trying to bait me so I didn't engage.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Having a rational discussion regarding the climate change agenda and Greenpeace is an oxymoron.

originally posted by: yuppa
Well well greenpeace. As if THEY ARENT BIASED or anything.

Is their bias preventing them from speaking the truth here?

originally posted by: Anosognosia
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Having a rational discussion regarding the climate change agenda and Greenpeace is an oxymoron.

Yea, I guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up that people steeped in rhetoric and echo chambers would actually bring a real discussion to the table. Thanks for proving this is the case.