Concensus on MMGW

[Magda Hassan]

No. The article was posted as is. I made no edits and would have noted so if I had. I try to post things that are of interest to most of the people here and those that read. Not everyone is interested in each and every subject. For off topic posts there is the 'Lounge' area. I don't think there are any off area topic though some, like 'The Jews killed JFK', will probably get short shift and end up in the Bear Pit. I am pleased you are interested in climate change as a deep political subject. I'm not interested in the ad homs that article writers make about whom ever but about keeping a venue that is conducive to ongoing civil communication between its members. Those members will be at various stages of expertise and education. And as you say while one person may be an expert in one area that doesn't make it so that they are in all others. My interest does not lie with the science so much, I accept the science is in that there is climate change occurring, so much as with the money backing the climate change denial. That, for me, is the deep political interest. That may not be your interest.

Magda,

This is YOUR forum, not mine. You are free to post whatever you desire. In the spirit of free speech I would imagine that I am free to comment as I see fit so long as I don't break forum rules. However, I perhaps wrongly assumed that you were responsible for adding emphasis to the article even though you didn't indicate you did so. In which case I again wrongly assumed that that was a statement of endorsement of those portions. The article itself is rife with ad hominem in the form of labeling dissenters as "Climate Science Denialists" and the like. Your having posted that article sure "felt" like you agreed with it since you didn't state otherwise. I take exception to that because the article is actually an attack on those, like me, who question and challenge the party line.

Just to be clear, what constitutes "topics members are allowed to post to" these days? Am I on moderation? Is Lauren allowed to post about Global Warming, a subject in which he has demonstrated interest, but without any particular expertise, but I am not? I know his opinions are perhaps more in line with those who believe in man-made Global Warming than are mine, but where do you draw the line? I'm just wanting to be clear on the rules of engagement.

Thanks--

I posted one article without comment. This in a thread where others including yourself have commented. You are the one who likes to to pop up and make comments about climate change and what bs it is. Something you admit you are unqualified for. But it doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off does it? Deal with the article and its content and not me please. Leave the ad homs out. You comprehension skills seem to also be lacking if you think I am the one to reply to and not the article. Which then creates doubt about the validity of any thing you might have to say on this subject able to be taken seriously. As I said best stick to what you are better at. This is not your area of expertise.

Greg you really should stick to JFK the same way Jeffery Orling should stick to building houses. This subject is not your strong point.

Magda,

This subject is not YOUR strong point--by your own admission! I have never made such an admission as to do so would be untrue.