Quote:
Originally Posted by TexaninVA
I'm afraid you totally missed the point of my post. I am not talking about bonafide ecological issues, clean water and such. No one that I know is opposed to that. I would also disagree that corporations are inherently the bad guys as you seem to imply. State it more clearly if I have misconstrued what you said.
What I am saying is there is a certain faddishness, largely on the left, to "climate change" ... it was originally global cooling years ago, then global warming and now climate change. That word seems to sell better. Do you deny that "fixing" climate change will require a much more intrusive government intervention? Do you deny that there is a huge political agenda that goes with it?
I also note that the latest technique is to dismiss all counter arguments by saying climate change is now settled science. It is not.
The hypocrisy also is bothersome. The leading proponents (well know politicians) of this movement tend to live in huge mansions, burn electricity by the bundle, fly around the world in private jets, make gazillions off the credulous, and then lecture the common man/woman about how they should cut back. It's beyond a joke ... it's a racket.
|
Methinks your political slip is showing. I never said or implied that corporations are the "bad guys". Corporations are in the business of making profit for their shareholders and are not charged with an interest in the greater good of mankind. Democracies have elected and appointed representatives that are charged with the authority and responsibility to look after the greater good of the people they represent. When corporations use their resources to influence those representatives in their favor it is not the corporations that are the bad guys - they are simply doing what they are chartered to do, it is the representatives who allow themselves to be bought who are the "bad guys".