Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ottrose who wrote (108098)	8/29/2008 12:27:18 PM
From: Bruce L	Respond to of 206323

MOTIVATION IN THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE You previously argued that we shouldn't ascribe words such as "cult" or "religion" to proponents of the global warming hypothesis; that it did not add anything to the debate. The thrust of my response was that MOTIVE -both for the proponents and "deniers" - is relevant to the debate. Is it relevant to the credibilty of a scientist that he receives funding from oil companies? If so, why is it not relevant to the credibility of another scientist that he has a world view (weltanschauung) with an attached AGENDA that would be justified were the GW hypothesis acknowledged to BE true? Population control, "protection" of the environment, a stronger United Nations, higher taxation through "cap and trade" and even "world peace" can all arguably be facilitated if "global warming" is accepted. These kinds of goals are often related to the "thymotic" side of the human personality. Thus, I concluded that words such as cult and "green religion" were in fact relevant and appropriate to the Global Warming debate. Though not to your taste. It is not accidental that the word "deniers", a word with a long religious history, has been applied to those who oppose the GW hypothesis You never responded to this part of my argument.