"Here's a foolish man making foolish claims" indeed. That sums up your post RG.
Did you actually listen to what he said? Nowhere in the interview did the spokesperson deny climate change. But then that doesn't fit your anti Fed bias does it.
It seemed curious to me, Paranormal, that an organisation that had no opinion on an issue, because that organisation had decided the issue was irrelevant, would go to the effort of appointing a spokesperson for that issue. With such an unsophisticated approach, surely any member could recall the position and repeat it ad nauseum, when required.
AC it seems a shrewd political move to me. Given that climate change is a political movement it requires a political response. Their response in providing an answer if it's true or if it's not seems well calculated.
Certainly the interview shows how foolish RG's assertions are about what he believes was said.
Appointing a spokesperson on an issue you think is irrelevant is hardly shrewd. The adjective I think fits best is "ridiculous". I'd follow that up with wasteful and pointless.
But Mr Rolleston does know that AGW is here and developing into a huge issue for the farmers he represents. He should speak with an un-forked tongue on the issue, if he's to be the next president of the farmers' union.
RG is Mr Rolleston on record saying he believes in AGW? If not then it is you putting words in his mouth.
AC are you calling RG on his credibility? As you should question the credibility of those pushing their political agenda.
All that aside, with the AGW myth falling apart and former devout members of the AGW congregation coming out against it, it is credible for an organisation to say what their response is for either situation.
7 comments:
"Here's a foolish man making foolish claims" indeed. That sums up your post RG.
Did you actually listen to what he said? Nowhere in the interview did the spokesperson deny climate change. But then that doesn't fit your anti Fed bias does it.
It seemed curious to me, Paranormal, that an organisation that had no opinion on an issue, because that organisation had decided the issue was irrelevant, would go to the effort of appointing a spokesperson for that issue. With such an unsophisticated approach, surely any member could recall the position and repeat it ad nauseum, when required.
AC it seems a shrewd political move to me. Given that climate change is a political movement it requires a political response. Their response in providing an answer if it's true or if it's not seems well calculated.
Certainly the interview shows how foolish RG's assertions are about what he believes was said.
Appointing a spokesperson on an issue you think is irrelevant is hardly shrewd. The adjective I think fits best is "ridiculous". I'd follow that up with wasteful and pointless.
But Mr Rolleston does know that AGW is here and developing into a huge issue for the farmers he represents. He should speak with an un-forked tongue on the issue, if he's to be the next president of the farmers' union.
I'm pleased you got that far, Robert. When the messenger has no credibility, what chance is there that the message will be credible?
RG is Mr Rolleston on record saying he believes in AGW? If not then it is you putting words in his mouth.
AC are you calling RG on his credibility? As you should question the credibility of those pushing their political agenda.
All that aside, with the AGW myth falling apart and former devout members of the AGW congregation coming out against it, it is credible for an organisation to say what their response is for either situation.
Post a Comment