RE: [OT] : Great Global Warming Swindle

["Kenneth Watt" <kwatt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>You are, I'm afraid, as philosophically 'rational' as any creationist.

Actually you are totally and utterly wrong. You have jumped, totally
incorrectly to the wrong conclusion and absolutely underestimated my
ability
to weigh up the facts in a logical and rational debate and I would thank
you
kindly for not making such assumptions about me personally. You have no
concept of what I believe or am involved in.

Had you not taken the typical stereotypical attitude of tree hugging,
bearded hippies then I may have actually taken the time to explain that.
But
no, you're off on an offensive before we even start a reasonable
conversation, simply insulting the opinion and treating it as the view of a
heretic because it doesn't conform to your interpretation of the facts as
presented by a few supposedly knowledgeable people.

I'm afraid that many of the "environmentalists" these days are
just like the
creationists and just as zealous in their beliefs. The difference is that
their beliefs can be used to levy taxation.

>If you approached the question differently then I'd have more respect;
eg:
Given
>that we are changing the composition of the atmosphere and the albedo
of
the
>planet's surface and are likely to be affecting the climate; is the
correct

>ethical course of action to minimise this impact or to accept that we
are
>natural organisms and have the right to impact our environment and
simply
plan
>to deal with the changes?

That's a bit of a laugh given the tone in which you replied.

Go study the data and not just the stupid "hockey stick" graph,
then read
papers from both sides of the fence before offering your
"enlightened"
opinion.

>The problem is when people like GW Bush take advantage of you to boost
profit in
>their oil companies...

Another problem with the over-zealous "environmentalists" these
days, they
also tend to be anti-capitalists.

However it's not HA so I suggest it's dropped now.

K.