Re: Global Warming Is Greatest Hoax Ever

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:31:52 -0600, The Watcher <Don'tgo@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:33:45 -0500, LiRM <LiRM@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:15:02 +0100, "Just1" <nosp@xxxxx> wrote:

"There is no global warming. Period."

"Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends -- be
they teachers, newscasters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents, or
Presidents -- is wrong," writes Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center in
a recent issue of his DeWeese Report. "There is," he insists, "no global
warming."


I tend to agree with this article.

I was pro-environment for years (which in itself is kind of a
ridiculous statement - after all - who would really set out to
purposely just destroy the earth).

I had some limited involvement in a local Sierra club group for a
while. I frequently wrote letters to the NRC against the building of
more nuclear reactors (this was pre three mile island and Chernobyl).

But then a funny thing happened.

I began to take a look at some of the groups that were a bit more
proactive - if that's the right word - then the Sierra club. I looked
into Earth First! and then some of the literature from the ELF.

It was then that I realized how off the wall fucking nuts these groups
are. ELF had a document on its web site that was probably one of the
best written pamphlets I've ever read about forming what amounts to a
terror cell to conduct activities that are nothing more then a few
notches under what we see Islamic terror groups doing.

I had read this pamphlet well before 9/11, but its similarities to
parts of the al-queda manual that I've seen are almost a dead on
match.

While they don't come out and say kill those who oppose our doctrine,
many of the activities they suggest could easily result in human
casualties (and have). Destroying property of others is a given.

And this is almost indicative of what has happened with the democratic
party and why so many don't want anything to do with it anymore.

These liberal whack jobs have taken it over - or taken over some of
its causes to be sure.

Being one that believes you don't make your point by burning down ski
lodges, rigging trees so that when they are cut down they are designed
to destroy logging equipment and probably killing those who operate
it, I wanted nothing to do with these groups, their cause and wanted
as far away from their side as I could.

But it's almost as if the democrats embrace them simply because they
remain mute. They should be screaming the message that "these fucking
idiots are NOT on our side".

So here I sit as an example. I was strongly pro-environment and now I
want nothing to do with them in any way, shape or form. I write an
occasional letter if I feel strongly about a particular environmental
issue, but that's about it. And since I don't trust much of what I
read coming from that side, these types of letters are few and far
between.

Regarding the point of this article, it's also why I would be leery of
anything the pro-environmental cause says is an absolute truth.

They are radical fundamentalists and it's a rarity to get truth from
any such group - no matter what the issue.

So I'll simply continue to follow the issue closely and read a wide
variety of material from both sides.

But having seen what some of the these pro-environment groups espouse
and what they are capable and willing to do for their "cause", I'm
leery of anything coming out of their mouths.

Regards,

LiRM

So, are you saying you changed your opinion on the environmental
issues because of the behavior of some nutcases on one side? Seems
like a weird reason to do that.
I try to base my opinions about the issues on the issues.

Let me phrase it like this:

So here I sit as an example. I was strongly pro-environment and now I
want nothing to do with them in any way, shape or form. I write an
occasional letter if I feel strongly about a particular environmental
issue, but that's about it. And since I don't trust much of what I
read coming from that side, these types of letters are few and far
between.

Regarding the point of this article, it's also why I would be leery of
anything the pro-environmental cause says is an absolute truth.

They are radical fundamentalists and it's a rarity to get truth from
any such group - no matter what the issue.

So I'll simply continue to follow the issue closely and read a wide
variety of material from both sides.

But having seen what some of the these pro-environment groups espouse
and what they are capable and willing to do for their "cause", I'm
leery of anything coming out of their mouths.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I think I answered your question
and addressed your comments first go around.
.

Quantcast