nuclear: the green solution, page-30

Olive,

I think you might be reading a bit too much into my posts.

When I have more time, and am in need of some light entertainment, I might resurrect the discussion but seems to me to be developing into a kind of circular disscussion rather than focussing on the issue.

To clarify, I would descibe my feeling at the time as more surprise, rather than being unnerved.

The tactic greenpeace employed to attract my attention to biotech foods, backfired for them with regard to me, and a quite a few other people at the time who became involved with the discussion with greenpeace at the time. They attracted my attention to their questionable credibility rather than to any danger from biotech foods. Which is a pity, since I went to see if they had some interesting information on biotech foods. I am not too likely to seek it from greenpeace again.

For cash sources, whether the cash comes from tax or from charity, it is all from the same pool in the final analysis, in some ways getting cash from charity makes them less accountable... witness the cash from islamic charities used to fund terrorism... and might actually takes needed cash away from more deserving causes. (I'm sure that statement will rile you up)


But to keep the reply short,
As you might guess, from this and other experiences, I tend these days to be quite suspicious of both the motives and also the scholarship of these greenpeace type people. I wouldnt descibe it as a bias, but just a healthy scepticism.

Their motiviations seem often to be mixed at best and seem in some cases to be more about just expedient shock tactics and misinformation in order to enable them to direct the agenda rather than actually thinking things through and presenting their ideas to reach a sensible outcome , expecially if it doesnt fit their agenda of the moment.

As you might guess, I am more in favour more of thinking things through, expecially when it is do to with things that tend to have a very long term impact.

I expect more from greenpeace and groups like that, so in many ways it is a disappointment in some ways.

I am not so surpised when governments use tactics that might be in some ways similar, I guess I expect it from them, and I could say that they dont dissapoint me too often.

I would hope that groups like greenpeace would be holding themselves to a higher standard than most governments.

Just in passing before I finosh this longer than intended post:

Do an internet search for information on the famous hockey-stick temperature profile that has been used to justify every global warming model for the past few years.
This is one link, but there are many others at is still an issue in process as far as I can tell.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The jist is that a reprocessing of the original data used shows some very different results.
It is an interesting read mainly since the original analysis seems to have some dubiuous processing applied that results in the hockey stick shape. The reprocessed shape is more like a bathtub rather than a hockey stick.

If you have time, find the links and and read through them.

We can continue your examination of the many faults in my character and how they are upsetting you at a later time.