Climate Change Report

[cwolff]

But you have no problem with the journalist turned global warming expert/activist who has written two books on the subject and is making money by shouting about the end times due to global warming?

I'm not familiar with this journalist and don't understand what this has to do with climate change reports. I'll grant you that there are probably plenty of a-hole journalists writing about ACC. They are bathwater, the science is the baby.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought of a more concise explanation, and I am all about concision:

That's the dumbest m*****f***ing G****** piece of s*** idea ever. J**** C*****! What a s***** idea. ********************* idea, a real *******.
IS NOT ad hominem

My opponent is a good man and I respect him, but he has been known to not refill the ice cube tray. In light of this, can we take his ideas seriously? Respectfully, I say no.
IS ad hominem

[Tgo01]

You dismiss cwolff's claims as ignorant because he sounded like an alarmist - ad hominem

cwolff made no claim; he basically insinuated we shouldn't listen to the Greenpeace guy because now he's a shill for energy companies. Isn't that an ad hominem?

Face it, Latrin, you're out of your league here. Your terrible fashion sense says it all.

I'm not familiar with this journalist and don't understand what this has to do with climate change reports.

I'm not sure you understood the point of the show. It wasn't necessarily that climate change is fake or that environmentalists are crazy, it was more about a lot of so called environmentalists have no idea what they are even fighting for and how political groups have taken over these movements and how the movement is mostly "anti corporation" instead of "pro environment."

And my point is you have a problem with someone being a "shill" for energy companies yet don't seem to have problems with this journalist or people like Al Gore who make money off of their alarmist rhetoric. So it's okay for people to make money off of this movement, just as long as they agree with you.

Am I right? Am I right?

[cwolff]

cwolff made no claim; he basically insinuated we shouldn't listen to the Greenpeace guy because now he's a shill for energy companies. Isn't that an ad hominem?

Face it, Latrin, you're out of your league here. Your terrible fashion sense says it all.

I'm not sure you understood the point of the show. It wasn't necessarily that climate change is fake or that environmentalists are crazy, it was more about a lot of so called environmentalists have no idea what they are even fighting for and how political groups have taken over these movements and how the movement is mostly "anti corporation" instead of "pro environment."

And my point is you have a problem with someone being a "shill" for energy companies yet don't seem to have problems with this journalist or people like Al Gore who make money off of their alarmist rhetoric. So it's okay for people to make money off of this movement, just as long as they agree with you.

Am I right? Am I right?

I didn't watch the whole program though I'm more than willing to admit that the overall quality of it's journalism was low. Kind of like JayWalking with an anti-ACC agenda?

Moore's not a great source. Being a shill is his job. Would you want Jay Carney to be the go to guy for an in-depth piece on integrity in Obama's white house? I'm not begrudging Moore his career, but he's not a very good source.

[waywardgs]

It wasn't anti-ACC, it was anti-dumbass rainbow children who don't have any idea what they're fighting for. That said, you can pick any topic you want and find people who passionately believe in it and have no clue wtf they're talking about. Idiots abound.

You can also edit anything to make someone look stupid. That happens all the time too. The vid was more or less a call for rationality about climate change. It was a fluff piece, but I didn't mind it- I also happen to dig penn and teller.

[cwolff]

It wasn't anti-ACC, it was anti-dumbass rainbow children who don't have any idea what they're fighting for. That said, you can pick any topic you want and find people who passionately believe in it and have no clue wtf they're talking about. Idiots abound.

The Dude Abounds. Right on.

[Tgo01]

Moore's not a great source. Being a shill is his job. ... I'm not begrudging Moore his career, but he's not a very good source.

Which energy companies is he a shill for, exactly?

[cwolff]

Which energy companies is he a shill for, exactly?

Anyone who hires him. He's been doing it for 22 years. Unfortunately they don't talk about that when they introduce him on Fox. They just highlight that he was a co-founder of Greenpeace, which he wasn't.

[Tgo01]

Anyone who hires him.

I had a feeling your answer was basically going to amount to "all of them!"

How can you call him a "shill" for energy companies yet not name one energy company he is a shill for?

Your tie is bad therefore your arguments are all bad!

[cwolff]

I had a feeling your answer was basically going to amount to "all of them!"

How can you call him a "shill" for energy companies yet not name one energy company he is a shill for?

Your tie is bad therefore your arguments are all bad!

Words with Tg again? PC should make an app for that.