Absolutely
Dave Tahija
location: Butte, Montana, en route from San Francisco to Juneau
listening to: Train - Save me, San Francisco
registered: 1999.12.27
posts: 261
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
Certainly it was a gratuitous smear and remains one.Imprimus: Your original post consisted of a link to an article about the carbon trade business along with a sneering mention of Gore and the Weather Channel. That's an smear. Your second post attempts to drag in a completely different set of references not mentioned in the first post. That's intellectual dishonesty.Secundus: The investment firm Gore is part of makes no mention of carbon trading: that is entirely your interjection. Even if they do become involved in carbon trading, there is nothing wrong with that. The article linked in your first post reported on some scams in carbon trading. This does not mean that all carbon trading transactions are unethical. Carbon trading can be and often is a perfectly honest business.The article linked in your second post is a sober announcement of a legitimate business. There is nothing whatsoever unethical whatsoever about Gore, or anybody else, looking to make money from a business which performs a service he believes in.Tertius: The smear on the poor Weather Channel still stands.Let's face the real issue. You despise Gore; you apparently despise anyone who is seriously concerned about man-made climate change. These are prejudices which you are willing to defend with half-truths and untruths. You are not prepared to be swayed by facts or reasoned argument.Why should we prolong a discussion which can lead nowhere?
D
Dave Tahija
(view)
Certainly it was a gratuitous smear and remains one.Imprimus: Your original post consisted of a link to an article about the carbon trade business along with a sneering mention of Gore and the Weather Channel. That's an smear. Your second post attempts to drag in a completely different set of references not mentioned in the first post. That's intellectual dishonesty.Secundus: The investment firm Gore is part of makes no mention of carbon trading: that is entirely your interjection. Even if they do become involved in carbon trading, there is nothing wrong with that. The article linked in your first post reported on some scams in carbon trading. This does not mean that all carbon trading transactions are unethical. Carbon trading can be and often is a perfectly honest business.The article linked in your second post is a sober announcement of a legitimate business. There is nothing whatsoever unethical whatsoever about Gore, or anybody else, looking to make money from a business which performs a service he believes in.Tertius: The smear on the poor Weather Channel still stands.Let's face the real issue. You despise Gore; you apparently despise anyone who is seriously concerned about man-made climate change. These are prejudices which you are willing to defend with half-truths and untruths. You are not prepared to be swayed by facts or reasoned argument.Why should we prolong a discussion which can lead nowhere?
