On Jul 8, 1:48 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jul 8, 1:33 pm, "z0n0b" wrote:



"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jul 8, 10:50 am, "z0n0b" wrote:

"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Jul 7, 7:39 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote: Fran wrote:

They save on oil (more as it inclreases in price as the
recession ends), get CDM funds and can attract low carbon tourists.
And they get these benefits regardless of whether they believe in AGW
======================================

Huh?
"low carbon tourists"?????????????????
I presume they'll be rowing themelves out to the Maldives then!

Why would you presume that?
======================================

EVIL CO2!

You must have proponents of mitigation confused with someone who
thinks CO2 is evil. I appreciate that you rightwingers find moving
beyond manichean categorisation intellectually challenging. Maybe it's
the curse you religionists suffer, but give it a try. "The devil's gas"

As I don't believe in the devil or his MO "evil" you can only be
raising this to vent your angst, or perhaps to project it onto others.
======================================

I was taking my cue from Greenpeace!


No, actually you were taking your cue from the polluters' lobby
activist Patrick Moore who attributed the claim that "Chlorine is the
devil's element" to non-specific people. Here's the claim reduxed by
rightwing radio-host Michael Duffy:

|||
Moore, who has an honours degree in forest biology and a PhD in
ecology, says he left Greenpeace when "I was an international
director, one of five. My fellow international directors had no
science education. Most of them were political activists or
entrepreneur environmentalists, for want of a better word, and they
decided we should start a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. I said,
'Chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. I don't think
that's in our jurisdiction.' And they said, 'No, this is a good
campaign. Chlorine is the devil's element, and it works really well
for fund-raising and media and everything.'
|||

There's no corroboration from Greenpeace that such a claim was ever
made by them, and yet, if Moore's account had been right -- "it works
really well for fund-raising and media and everything" one would
expect that Greenpeace would have emblazoned this on their T-shirts.

Moore is of course these days, simply a mouthpiece for the polluters
so one cannot believe anything he says.

It is telling that you pretend the claim is properly attested *and
hide the source* so you can persist in this lie. Nothing new there,
but if you have to hide the source, that is a clear admission of
mendacity on your part.

Noted also, you aren't a "skeptic" when outlandish and unattested
claims come from the polluters!


To quote ...

"Chlorine is the devil's element" Greenpeace

Actually:

"Chlorine is the devil's element" Bonzo, quoting Patrick Moore
verballing non-specific people implicitly connected with Greenpeace.

Bonzo, you are amongst usenet's most incompetent liars.

Fran

PS Note also that the initial claim related not to chlorine, but to
CO2, so Bonzo wanted to use a bogus claim about Greenpeace's attitude
to CHLORINE to parody their position on CO2.

You filth merchant spruikers have no scruples at all.