On 7/27/2012 6:48 AM, wrote:
On Jul 26, 12:43 pm, Steve wrote:
On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 6:19:01 AM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:12 pm, Steve > wrote:

I joined this thread with:
"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control."

No, you better go back and look again! You wrote:

"I find this argument both compelling and bothersome. Compelling in
its
truth, bothersome in its apparent ideological bias. By using "pet"
terms, one appears to grind their axe on the ideologies of others,
and
automatically loses some credibility."

"Better to be (or at least appear) neutral, where actual science is
concerned."

"The problem with the warming theories, IMO, is the convincing proof
may
come too late. It's a gamble to ignore or dismiss _any_ potential
factors over which we have some control."


In response to my statement:

"It is far more difficult to argue with hypocrites, especially
warmingistas whose careers, pastimes and lifestyles require so much
fossil fuel to maintain."

Which of course is perfectly valid and not in the least ideological.


I suggested that using pet terms (like "warmingsta") made "ones"
statements appear ideologically charged. That response was indeed fueled
by your post, but it was a general disdain for derogatory terms used in
dialog. Derogatory pet terms are almost always used as an intent to inflame.

I then pointed out that "convincing proof" _may_ come too late for
deniers. A truth that concerns me, since the consequences are global and
potentially catastrophically irreversible once a tipping point is reached.

Interestingly enough, from that point on, you proved that you were in
fact an ideological neoconservative (or anti-federalist if you prefer).

As for me, I got lost in your charge, and obviously said too much about
how my "concern" over AGW has affected some of my decisions about fuel
economy. My decisions would be a lot worse, if I were a denier. But,
rather than acknowledge that, you used my exposure as a point of attack.

You went on the offensive. I went on the defensive. Until this post that
is. What you wrote below (snipped) is the _first_ time you have been on
the defensive. It almost makes you seem capable of civility.