1. <<In effect you are saying, decide IT on the basis of "science" and empirical observation. Yes?>>
No. I'm saying--in this arena--there should a focus not on some existential search for truth but on what it means for energy production, use, taxation, etc. There are plenty of places to espouse one's beliefs and opinions on this and other issues of contention, I'm suggesting this not be one of those fora.
2. <<What, after all, shall we say of all the CONFLICTING empirical observations cited by the advocates.>>
Shit happens? Lies, damned lies and statistics? In this forum, the most direct answer to that question is "we should nothing, unless it adds value to the discussion of energy."
3. <<Why shouldn't the MOTIVATIONS of the global warmers likewise be questioned?>>
The question is Why shouldn't; the question is why HERE, and what does it mean to the market.
4. <<Many Global Warmeers have advocated that CEOs of corporations who question "global warming" be criminally tried by an international tribunals for 'crimes against humanity.'>>
So that's good for a chuckle and to underscore rabidity on the both extremes, I guess.
All in all, if the discussion doesn't directly address the issue of energy markets, I'd rather it be about beer. But that's just me.
[And apologies for continuing a discussion about the discussion of an issue. No mas.] |
