Originally Posted by Ender
On what point do you think I am wrong? Please don't respond with some vague phrase like "climate change", be specific. Let's assume that additional warming will hurt the poor: what is the moral choice before me? Helping the poor? No one is suggesting that we shouldn't. Are you saying that it is immoral to disbelieve that man has caused the warming? Is it now a sin to be mistaken on the science involved?
I went to the source you suggested and found this:
The president and Congress are making similar proposals at the national level, setting off a major debate over how best to respond to the complexities of climate change.
So, which is the immoral side of the debate? I appear to be on a different side of the debate on how best to respond from you ... is it a sin for me to hold my position? It appears to be you who believes that no debate is necessary.
In a debate dominated by environmental groups, scientists and alternative energy entrepreneurs on the one hand, and by utilities, agribusiness, coal and oil companies and others with vested interests on the other hand ...
This is an intellectually dishonest statement that implies that those who dispute the theory of AGW are dishonest, greedy, and selfish while those pushing the theory all wear white hats and love puppies. Your source is not very impressive.
Dear Ender - I disagree with you. You disagree with me - I have tried very hard to be appropriate in all my responses with you and others - I don't think we are going to move each other so I will respectfully refrain from responding to your posts any more - you don't like my sources - so we'll leave it at that - peace