On May 14, 2:45*pm, "00ZNB" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On May 13, 6:34 pm, Christian Williamson wrote: Roger Coppock wrote:
First, Global Warming won the science battle.

We're still waiting to hear from you about what you personally do to
stop global climate change.

I'm not really interested in
hearing of Roger's personal contribution to mitigation.
He might be doing a lot, or very little or anything in between, but it
would hardly be germane to the case he puts here.
**********************

ROTFLMAO
Oh, so it's OK to preach one thing and then continue to do the exact
opposite then?
Just like Gore, Travolta, DiCaprio etc, etc.
Yep, follow the leader!!!!!

As usual, your post reveals an obvious contradiction. On the one
hand,
the people you quote say it ought to be about the science rather than
the politics or what feels good. Roger's posts are overwhelmingly
about *the science*. *In your opinion* his own lifestyle should be
moot. His posts should should stand or fail on the basis of the
scientific case he makes.

It's a figment of your fevered imagination that he is 'preaching'.
It's your assertion that AGW is a religion. It isn't. It is a
persuasive scientific hypothesis that is adequate to found mitigation
policy.


Finally, advocacy of mitigation policy entails a framework that puts
a
price on emitting CO2. That someone supports such a policy does not
entail that person reducing their own CO2 emissions. Providing they
follow the regime that they support, there's no hypocrisy.


Fran