[MtnGoat]

Gore's refusal got me thinking. I cannot, will not, and would not require anyone to pledge something. However, I can self define using the principles of open declaration...and those who don't will necessarily, objectively,and provably be on the other side of a divide in ideas which they cannot uncreate, because I cannot be required to stand with them, nor they with me. This is open and free choice of association...with rational, objective, ideological consequences. After all by my actions and those who may follow, create an objectively definable divide by choosing to stand on a point. When others don't...they don't. And there is the difference to be discussed. ****************************************************** I pledge to not be a climate hypocrite. I pledge to act in word and deed in accordance with my position on global warming and the necessary social action and changes I support imposing on anyone will be lived and followed by my own free will. I will live my stated beliefs today, now and forever, effective immediately. I proudly, clearly, explicitly, and without reservation pledge belief in the ideas and arguments I espouse. I agree to openly and clearly be known as a 'believer' in these beliefs. I hereby give my public, free, and express consent to excoriation over failure to live up to this pledge, and further pledge no action or rancor over anyone correctly pointing out my failures during debates or discussions. I will not consider it a personal attack, I will consider it fact. I will pursue no action on use of this fact here on this board, and freely give full permission for use of these comments. No comments on my climate hypocrasy should be considered personal attacks on me by the moderators or readers. Human life is far too important for me to argue something be imposed on others I am not willing to engage in immediately for the good of the human race. After all, since my beliefs are intended to better the human condition, and each person matters, surely it is better to begin soonest, with myself. Otherwise I would be engaging in continuing action I know is wrong, even after I realize it is wrong, and argue that it is wrong. Is it morally defensible to continue doing what you know to be wrong? I pledge to apply the same standard to every human being identical to myself and my climate actions and those I espouse. I freely and happily undertake this pledge, because I am not afraid of declaring allegiance to ideas I espouse...I intend to live them no matter who else does, because I am responsible for me. I have no need to not live this pledge publicly, because I intend to live what I say and say what I live proudly and openly. I will not need to make excuses why this isn't happening. I intend to show my arguments are rational and honest, and prove it by living them rationally and honestly. Without having to explain how it is rational and honest....to not follow exactly what I espouse. Anyone else in?

[Prince of Happiness]

Hell, that's what I was hoping people would do, take responsibility for their own actions. That and the U.S. take the lead in developing "climate friendly" technologies and processes, patent them, sell them overseas and create jobs here. But I guess everyone's still arguing about all the other stuff. :|

[RayD]

MtnGoat, There are times when joint action is needed. While I agree with your list, how would it apply to, say, war? The ones that agree that there is a threat go fight? The rest stay home? The difference here is that one uses science or uses hopes and wishes. This situation is one in which the threat isn't visible to the eye and so, unfortunately, is denied to exist by some. Gore refused because that "pledge" was a bit of political theater that attempted to drag the focus from the issue. Since when did shooting the messenger become a valid way to address the message? edit: Watching the Republican responses (on C-Span. Gore in front of the committee), I was surprised by the almost religious nature of the opposition. Very little address as to the science but what seemed to me to be a visceral attack. What about the guy who brought up the poor girl with the two coats who suffered because the heating bill was too high? It had me shaking my head.

[Malachai Constant]

Classic ad hom attack

[Mtn Dog]

RayD, if anything the Republicans are on the side of science. The ~1,500 year climate cycle has been verified through independent research of ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, through sediment layers found on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and European Lakes, through algae levels that bloomed off the west coast of Africa, and through additional verification of historic sun activity and earth's corresponding orbital oscillations. The Human-induced warming followers have yet to explain why the greatest amount of warming in the last 150 years has been between 1920 and 1940 even though CO2 emissions have increased greatly since then. And sadly, Gore's response was anything but scientific.

[Allison]

I'm with Mal on this one. This lind of thing was definitely not what I had in mind when I suggested that a Stewardship forum be created. Let's hope the thread gets nuked in the bud.

[MtnGoat]

[MtnGoat]

[#19]

[Allison]

This is not the time or place for yet more name-calling. Just. No.

[whistlingmarmot]

If an argument is about whether someone is a hypocrite, how is it and ad hom attack to show someone is a hypocrite? Anyway...I'm not in. I don't usually tell people how to use energy unless it comes down to my $. EG: does the heat need to be on AND the window open?

[RayD]

[MtnGoat]

[MtnGoat]

[Allison]

This thread sucks.