If I wanted America to Fail...

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Once again - I comprehend that you are against a video's ideas on energy that holds the same conceptual ideas on energy as the candidate you support.

show me the hypocrisy

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Once again - I comprehend that you are against a video's ideas on energy that holds the same conceptual ideas on energy as the candidate you support.

show me the hypocrisy

In a simplified form - You are outwardly displaying disgust regarding polices you are, in fact, supporting ...albeit, in a indirect way.

Ironic is probably the better choice of words though because I do understand that platforms contain numerous issues. So, sometimes one may disagree here, and agree there and choose that candidate based on that. But, for you - in particular, I think hypocritical fits ever-so-slightly because you speak constantly about energy issues. In that sense - that issue, at least from what I read here, is your pinnacle issue. It's almost as if, none of the other issues are even close to as relevant to you (this is my opinion from what I've read here - so, who knows if that opinion is correct or not). So, when you come in here blasting the video for it's points on energy, I can't help but think it's slightly hypocritical that you're giving your support to a guy who fundamentally agrees with the energy concepts in the video. That is your number one issue after all.

I do know that you'll try to say that Ron Paul would get at the energy issue from another angle. I know that you believe that. But, I still think you're being hypocritical here because his energy platform is pretty much inline with the videos underlying tenants.

satansbed

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Once again - I comprehend that you are against a video's ideas on energy that holds the same conceptual ideas on energy as the candidate you support.

show me the hypocrisy

In a simplified form - You are outwardly displaying disgust regarding polices you are, in fact, supporting ...albeit, in a indirect way.

Ironic is probably the better choice of words though because I do understand that platforms contain numerous issues. So, sometimes one may disagree here, and agree there and choose that candidate based on that. But, for you - in particular, I think hypocritical fits ever-so-slightly because you speak constantly about energy issues. In that sense - that issue, at least from what I read here, is your pinnacle issue. It's almost as if, none of the other issues are even close to as relevant to you (this is my opinion from what I've read here - so, who knows if that opinion is correct or not). So, when you come in here blasting the video for it's points on energy, I can't help but think it's slightly hypocritical that you're giving your support to a guy who fundamentally agrees with the energy concepts in the video. That is your number one issue after all.

I do know that you'll try to say that Ron Paul would get at the energy issue from another angle. I know that you believe that. But, I still think you're being hypocritical here because his energy platform is pretty much inline with the videos underlying tenants.

she has said she disagrees with ron paul on energy but on the whole thinks he is the best candidate, whats hypocritical about that? play the ball and not the 'man'

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

In a simplified form - You are outwardly displaying disgust regarding polices you are, in fact, supporting ...albeit, in a indirect way.

Ironic is probably the better choice of words though because I do understand that platforms contain numerous issues. So, sometimes one may disagree here, and agree there and choose that candidate based on that. But, for you - in particular, I think hypocritical fits ever-so-slightly because you speak constantly about energy issues. In that sense - that issue, at least from what I read here, is your pinnacle issue. It's almost as if, none of the other issues are even close to as relevant to you (this is my opinion from what I've read here - so, who knows if that opinion is correct or not). So, when you come in here blasting the video for it's points on energy, I can't help but think it's slightly hypocritical that you're giving your support to a guy who fundamentally agrees with the energy concepts in the video. That is your number one issue after all.

I do know that you'll try to say that Ron Paul would get at the energy issue from another angle. I know that you believe that. But, I still think you're being hypocritical here because his energy platform is pretty much inline with the videos underlying tenants.

so, i am a hypocrite because i support a candidate who does not share my belief on an issue even tho i explained my reason!?? ... :?

if there is a better candidate for the environment - i fail to see one ... if i remotely believed that for one second that any existing candidate could make a slight improvement on that issue - he would get my support ... but alas, they are all cut from the same cloth ... at least maybe ron paul can stop the senseless killing overseas? ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

so, i am a hypocrite because i support a candidate who does not share my belief on an issue even tho i explained my reason!?? ... :?

I've already explained this.

But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:

a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue

polaris_x wrote:

if there is a better candidate for the environment - i fail to see one ... if i remotely believed that for one second that any existing candidate could make a slight improvement on that issue - he would get my support ... but alas, they are all cut from the same cloth ... at least maybe ron paul can stop the senseless killing overseas? ...

This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?

inlet13

satansbed wrote:

she has said she disagrees with ron paul on energy but on the whole thinks he is the best candidate, whats hypocritical about that? play the ball and not the 'man'

I already covered this in what you quoted, but let me reiterate...

Under normal circumstances, for individuals who value a multitude of subjects, it wouldn't be even remotely hypocritical. From my personal perspective, this particular individual values energy aspects incredibly high (abnormally high) - as seen by their incredibly frequent posts on the issue. Therefore, circumstances are not normal. Given what I've seen, that's their number 1 issue, and they are supporting a candidate with an opposing viewpoint on their number 1 issue. Fair enough, that's fine even under abnormal circumstances. But, the part where I deem it odd is when they freak out when anyone (article, video or person) has a similar point of view to the candidate they support. That part, right there, seems incredibly odd, if not borderline hypocritical, to say the least.

mickeyrat

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

she has said she disagrees with ron paul on energy but on the whole thinks he is the best candidate, whats hypocritical about that? play the ball and not the 'man'

I already covered this in what you quoted, but let me reiterate...

Under normal circumstances, for individuals who value a multitude of subjects, it wouldn't be even remotely hypocritical. From my personal perspective, this particular individual values energy aspects incredibly high (abnormally high) - as seen by their incredibly frequent posts on the issue. Therefore, circumstances are not normal. Given what I've seen, that's their number 1 issue, and they are supporting a candidate with an opposing viewpoint on their number 1 issue. Fair enough, that's fine even under abnormal circumstances. But, the part where I deem it odd is when they freak out when anyone (article, video or person) has a similar point of view to the candidate they support. That part, right there, seems incredibly odd, if not borderline hypocritical, to say the least.

giving a shit about someone's views who is not eligible to even vote in this election is just plain silly to me.

MotoDC

satansbed wrote:

]she has said she disagrees with ron paul on energy but on the whole thinks he is the best candidate, whats hypocritical about that? play the ball and not the 'man'

Wait, hold the phone, Polaris is a girl? Man I've been posting/lurking here for a loooong time and somehow never picked up on that. :fp:

Anyhow, carry on...

inlet13

mickeyrat wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

she has said she disagrees with ron paul on energy but on the whole thinks he is the best candidate, whats hypocritical about that? play the ball and not the 'man'

I already covered this in what you quoted, but let me reiterate...

Under normal circumstances, for individuals who value a multitude of subjects, it wouldn't be even remotely hypocritical. From my personal perspective, this particular individual values energy aspects incredibly high (abnormally high) - as seen by their incredibly frequent posts on the issue. Therefore, circumstances are not normal. Given what I've seen, that's their number 1 issue, and they are supporting a candidate with an opposing viewpoint on their number 1 issue. Fair enough, that's fine even under abnormal circumstances. But, the part where I deem it odd is when they freak out when anyone (article, video or person) has a similar point of view to the candidate they support. That part, right there, seems incredibly odd, if not borderline hypocritical, to say the least.

giving a shit about someone's views who is not eligible to even vote in this election is just plain silly to me.

Truth is - I don't really "give a shit" about anyone's views, whether they can vote or not. As I said earlier, everyone's entitled to their opinions. I think I'm in the minority here with that sort of thought process - the response to this thread is evidence. All that said, when someone calls my viewpoints into question (which you would have seen if you read the thread from top to bottom) first, I often feel compelled to respond on the oddities of their own viewpoints.

But, your point is a good one.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

I've already explained this.

But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:

a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue

This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?

... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...

a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...

there is not even a hint of hypocrisy

and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?

and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I've already explained this.

But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:

a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue

This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?

... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...

a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...

there is not even a hint of hypocrisy

and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?

and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...

Since, none of the politicians distinguish themselves on the topic of energy, let me just clarify a few things:

Polaris would be OK with doing away with all environmental-related subsidies, correct?
Polaris would be OK with more drilling at home, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing the federal tax on gas, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing any roadblocks for nuclear fuel or coal, correct?
Polaris would be OK with eliminating the EPA, correct?

Basically, you're fine with moving more and more to a free-market ideology when it comes to energy and the environment, correct?

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

Since, none of the politicians distinguish themselves on the topic of energy, let me just clarify a few things:

Polaris would be OK with doing away with all environmental-related subsidies, correct?
Polaris would be OK with more drilling at home, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing the federal tax on gas, correct?
Polaris would be OK with removing any roadblocks for nuclear fuel or coal, correct?
Polaris would be OK with eliminating the EPA, correct?

Basically, you're fine with moving more and more to a free-market ideology when it comes to energy and the environment, correct?

:fp: ... really!?? ... this absurdity has gone too far ... it is no wonder you still think global warming is a hoax ... :(

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I've already explained this.

But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:

a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue

This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?

... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...

a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...

there is not even a hint of hypocrisy

and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?

and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...

you pee sitting down?

well we have gotten off topic considerably I suppose here.

Back on topic,

the video could have gone about it in a different way...I think it may have been motivated by the paul harvey speech from 1965 about the devil and america...but the point should be the same.

Unfortunately it seems both sides have just taken their ball and gone home in this argument.

I did find it interesting that Lovelock has admitted to being a bit of an alarmist.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite
I think unfortunately the alarmist talk and the unfortunate original title of Global Warming has created an environment ripe for skepticism. Couple that with the notion that it is awfully arrogant of mankind to think we can destroy the planet...we certainly can destroy ourselves, of this I have no doubt. But the planet will reject us long before we are able to damage it that badly.
The video attempts to equate working to preserve the environment or what is best for the planet to wanting America to fail. I don't see it that way. People always assume motivations that just aren't the way. Couldn't this video simply have discussed the idea that an open energy market is best of the country and here is x,y, and z as reasons?
I just think this video serves to reinforce those that agree, but I don't think it will do anything to convert people to their side.

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I've already explained this.

But, to recap, here's the chain of events in a very simplified form:

a) Polaris, at least from what I've read, believes energy policy is #1 issue
b) Ron Paul supports energy policy X
c) Video supports energy policy X
d) Polaris supports Ron Paul
e) Polaris gets riled up about a video on energy policy X
f) inlet points out that Polaris supports Ron Paul who supports energy policy X
g) inlet explains that he wouldn't see this as hypocritical if Polaris wasn't so outspoken about energy policy X, making it seem as if that was Polaris' #1 issue

This portion basically says you don't think energy policy is really relevant and other matters are more important. Fair enough - I agree and so does the video. Another reason why you're upsetment on the video's take on energy policy makes little sense here. Not only do you support a candidate with the same take, but you say energy policy doesn't really matter. So, why get upset?

... i really can't believe you are arguing this ...

a) polaris has stated numerous times he does not agree with energy policy X
b) polaris also explains his choice for presidency despite the candidates energy policy ...

there is not even a hint of hypocrisy

and my position is that environmental issues are number 1 but everything works in conjunction ... nothing works in isolation ... and my point is simply that no candidate distinguishes themselves on this topic ... not that i don't care ... the fact you could come to that conclusion based on the words i wrote ... read it again ... i said that if there was one candidate that could move on that issue i would change my support ... how in earth do you read that i don't think it's a priority?

and for the record - despite the flowers in my avatar and my interest in feminist theory ... i am indeed a man ... not sure what would make satansbed think otherwise ...

you pee sitting down?

well we have gotten off topic considerably I suppose here.

Back on topic,

the video could have gone about it in a different way...I think it may have been motivated by the paul harvey speech from 1965 about the devil and america...but the point should be the same.

Unfortunately it seems both sides have just taken their ball and gone home in this argument.

I did find it interesting that Lovelock has admitted to being a bit of an alarmist.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite
I think unfortunately the alarmist talk and the unfortunate original title of Global Warming has created an environment ripe for skepticism. Couple that with the notion that it is awfully arrogant of mankind to think we can destroy the planet...we certainly can destroy ourselves, of this I have no doubt. But the planet will reject us long before we are able to damage it that badly.
The video attempts to equate working to preserve the environment or what is best for the planet to wanting America to fail. I don't see it that way. People always assume motivations that just aren't the way. Couldn't this video simply have discussed the idea that an open energy market is best of the country and here is x,y, and z as reasons?
I just think this video serves to reinforce those that agree, but I don't think it will do anything to convert people to their side.

I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.

Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.

I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.

Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.

polaris_x

i've been studying global warming/climate change since 1993 and i would have never made the predictions lovelock made ... in any case - many believe that we we are experiencing now in terms of the impact of global warming as it relates to climate change is based on actions 30 years ago ... and that is the length of time it takes for the impacts to occur ... so, based on our influence 30 years ago we are seeing significant changes - it lends itself to the notion that it will only get worse ...

global warming is only an unfortunate title in so much as that people think less critically and are more ignorant now ... possibly more ignorant is wrong term but in so much as information now has many filters and not all of them are genuine ... it makes it harder to come to conclusions on topic ... is it any wonder that the US is pretty much the only country where there is a large populace still does not understand the concept of global warming!? ... a place where PR companies and money rule!? ... not a shock to me ...

Jeanwah

I didn't even watch the video, but judging from the first page discussion, I know I wouldn't agree with it. Thanks Polaris!

mikepegg44

inlet13 wrote:

I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.

Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.

I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.

Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.

You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.

I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.

I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.

if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.

I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.

if we truly went to the free market ... we definitely wouldn't be using oil ...

I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree with you.

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'm for "preserving" the environment and I don't want America to fail. So, yeh, I don't think all of those who are hoping to preserve the environment are hoping for America to fail. But, I do think, in most cases, those who enact government policies to "save the environment" often help to slow economic growth. Yet, they guilt people into it, which the video pointed out. There's certainly a trade-off, and who knows if these "pro-environment" policies actually do a lot of good for the environment, let alone "net good" (economic included). If you want both, what's the right mix? Further some could argue that more economic growth increases technological innovation, which will be the eventual cure for environmental problems anyway. So, in a sense, we could be doing a longterm disservice by focusing on policies that restrict economic growth.

Personally, I saw the video suggesting that "if" one wanted to have America (more concretely the vision of a free-market, capitalistic America) fail, energy would be a good place to start. The video was a way of opening eyes to the reality of TRADE-OFFS, and the reality that there's motivation for those who want big government in the environmental framework. When you decide to enact policies that seem good for the environment, you cost a little growth. Moreover, there are incentives for certain people - particularly, those of the socialist mindset - to embrace these environmental energy policies so that the government slowly gains more and more power to regulate (and control) private industries. That's just a reality - and certainly that's anti-free market, anti-capitalist... and to some... Anti-American.

I understand your point on no one "converting" based on this video. But, completely disagree about the target. The reality is - we, here, are people who may have thought about these issues a bit more than the average American. That video was targeting them, not us. It was targeting those who don't typically think about politics or the impacts of environmentalism.

Ironically, those opposed to the video will probably do more to increase views of these targeted people (who would otherwise not see it) than those supporting.

You are probably right about those that hate or discount the video, they probably will do more to get it viewed.

I understand what they were attempting to do, and sometimes do forget that most people don't pay close attention...I just didn't like the tone. I thought the tone was too confrontational. that's all. There are points it made that will be missed by some simply because of the tone that is all. I want people to believe in the free market for energy and hopefully it gets some to think about it.

I think the tone was a direct response to the global warming community's tone - hence, why it was released on Earth Day. I'm sure you've seen that harsh tone by the global warming community here. I have - particularly, when I disagree with their take on certain issues. Their "tone" is typically not pleasant. If you respectfully disagree, you are a called a "denier", or worse. Condescension is the name of the game and it's evident in pretty much every thread on the subject at this forum. At least from what I've seen, the crowd is not even slightly open-minded. Yet, science, by definition, should be open-minded. To use your words - those in that community are "confrontational", and at least from my perspective their tone is often reminiscent of Evangelical Christians, except it's not religion (at least to me).

So, yeh, I think this might be a bit confrontational, but it's fighting fire with fire.