On Jul 27, 9:15*am, Steve wrote:
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.

If it appears that way to you, then it's your problem, due to your
lack of understanding and lack of intelligence.

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.

A warmingista would be viewed less unfavorably were he to practice
that which he preaches. He could even avoid being labeled as such.

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..

Yet you have a larger CO2 foot print than the world average. If you
truly believe that there is a problem, then you should stop to
consider that you are not helping to solve it.

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

Your understanding wrt conservatism is very poor. "Neocons," which
some call RINOs, are liberals who pretend to be conservatives. Neocons
like strong, repressive, centralized governments, as do other
liberals. You "anti-federalist" label makes no sense.

A true conservative supports rule of law, natural rights, low taxes
and limited government. He sees the main purposes of the federal
government to be the protection of the States and their citizens from
foreign enemies, and the protection of those citizens' natural rights
from violations by the federal, state and local governments. Those are
simple concepts that nevertheless elude you.

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.

Not necessarily. Rest assured, there are skeptics who consistently
have smaller footprints than you do.

But,
rather than acknowledge that, you used my exposure as a point of attack.

A faux-green celeb would get media coverage (think photo-op of an
actor sitting in a hybrid vehicle) but the truth (about his limos,
jets, mansions, pools, etc.) usually is found out, eventually. Your
habits are cloaked in obscurity, but you still have much in common
with the eco-celebs wrt green hypocrisy.

None of you do anything on your own to solve the perceived problem,
and want to use the power of government to make others do what you
will not. Warmingista is an apt description of all of you.