Obama Announces New Climate Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael_Mayo said:
I quoted you directly.
Click to expand...
You quoted me directly, I do not question that. I do question your ability to say what I meant and a little judgmental on your part to say I am criticizing bishops and the Vatican. You don’t have that ability or right. The diversity again, of ideas, is what you cannot accept. Anyone who disagrees with your opinions must be corrupt or misinformed.

If you truly want a new tone and a cordial conversation, apologize for your mistakes and let’s move on. If you choose to not see a reason for that, I respectfully accept that and I will shake the sand from my sandals and move on.
 
Lapey said:
You quoted me directly, I do not question that. I do question your ability to say what I meant and a little judgmental on your part to say I am criticizing bishops and the Vatican. You don’t have that ability or right. The diversity again, of ideas, is what you cannot accept. Anyone who disagrees with your opinions must be corrupt or misinformed.

If you truly want a new tone and a cordial conversation, apologize for your mistakes and let’s move on. If you choose to not see a reason for that, I respectfully accept that and I will shake the sand from my sandals and move on.
Click to expand...
I can accept the diversity of opinion on this suubject and it actually has nothing to do with one’s loyalty to the Church since it does not involve Church teaching. But, if we say something like, " And every ‘think tank’ or institution in favor of MMGW hoax can be traced to the left, in money and influence" while the Church and its leaders are part of an “institution” advocating action to counter global warming… .well, how else can such a statement be interpreted? So I questioned you.

Why should I apologize for asking clarification? Your statements seem contradictory to me so I questioned you. But you do no tollerate being questioned or challenged very well.

You may know what you think and mean but you cannot expect others to follow if you are not willing to clarify.

So if the Pope “was and is lead by scientists who are very questionable” and that would be the curent Pope as well as Benedict, how are they not complicit in the “hoax”?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I can accept the diversity of opinion on this subject and it actually has nothing to do with one’s loyalty to the Church since it does not involve Church teaching. But, if we say something like, " And every ‘think tank’ or institution in favor of MMGW hoax can be traced to the left, in money and influence" while the Church and its leaders are part of an “institution” advocating action to counter global warming… .well, how else can such a statement be interpreted? So I questioned you.
Click to expand...
This is the part you miss!!! The Church is following these think tanks and scientific bodies and all the other organizations and people, Al Gore etc., in order to make Her statements. The Church does Her best to lead, but the Church does not research climate change on a scientific level; She does not develop data. She decides based on data provided, I question the data and the motives of the providers of that data. You continue to say my words encompass criticizing the leaders of the Church and the Church Herself, this is very disingenuous on your part.

If you continue to say I question the Church or Her bishops, you will begin to see me much more aggravated than I appear now.
Michael_Mayo said:
Why should I apologize for asking clarification? Your statements seem contradictory to me so I questioned you. But you do no tolerate being questioned or challenged very well.
Click to expand...
Apologize is what a gentleman does when he senses that he offended someone, even though he doesn’t understand why. I have tolerated your questioning, but at what point do I stop with tolerating and insist you listen?
Michael_Mayo said:
You may know what you think and mean but you cannot expect others to follow if you are not willing to clarify.
Click to expand...
I have in several posts illustrated what I meant by my words but you refuse to accept it. Then as in your last statement on this post you put me at odds with two popes, therefore you see my displeasure!
Michael_Mayo said:
So if the Pope “was and is lead by scientists who are very questionable” and that would be the current Pope as well as Benedict, how are they not complicit in the “hoax”?
Click to expand...
This is your statement that the two popes are involved in the hoax, not mine. I continue to be accused of criticizing the two Holy fathers and this is not my words, but yours.

It is very telling that I have to repeat myself so many times to you and yet you still change the meaning of my words. Hopefully I have made it simple enough for you to understand now.
 
Lapey said:
It is very telling that I have to repeat myself so many times to you and yet you still change the meaning of my words. Hopefully I have made it simple enough for you to understand now.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but you have not.

I am sorry I have offended you. But you have very thin skin and become aggravated easily.

Now you say, and I am not rephrasing. I am using your very words,
“The Church is following these think tanks and scientific bodies and all the other organizations and people, Al Gore etc., in order to make Her statements.”

If that is not a criticism, what is?

And why do you think the Church is doing this?

I agree with the Church statements. Why are we arguing?
 
I apologize for any offense.

Can we simply agree to disagree lest we fall into a “morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, and mutual friction…”.1 Timothy 6:4-5
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I am sorry but you have not.

I am sorry I have offended you. But you have very thin skin and become aggravated easily.

Now you say, and I am not rephrasing. I am using your very words,
“The Church is following these think tanks and scientific bodies and all the other organizations and people, Al Gore etc., in order to make Her statements.”

If that is not a criticism, what is?

And why do you think the Church is doing this?

I agree with the Church statements. Why are we arguing?
Click to expand...
Again you add meaning to my statements to make me appear against the Church and Her leaders. This is not charitable. I wrote my statement with meaning in context, you added your interpretation to it.

Not criticism, it is being misled. It is doing this because the Church will always follow the “evidence” presented; I question the evidence not the Church. We are arguing because you accept the evidence the Church uses to make the statements and I do not. Catholics are not bound to believe the evidence nor have any dogmatic or even doctrinal statements been made by the Church; besides we should be good stewards of the resources. We differ on how to do that.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I apologize for any offense.

Can we simply agree to disagree lest we fall into a “morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, and mutual friction…”.1 Timothy 6:4-5
Click to expand...
Apology accepted with the caveat that you don’t do the same thing again with my response to your last post. The arguing is up to you; you misrepresent my words, I will call you out.

Sooner or later we will have to accept difference in opinions, what we are accustomed to seeing lately is silencing, not debating. I’m not good at being silent!
 
Lapey said:
Not criticism, it is being misled. It is doing this because the Church will always follow the “evidence” presented; I question the evidence not the Church. We are arguing because you accept the evidence the Church uses to make the statements and I do not.
.
Click to expand...
Nothing new here:

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

news.yahoo.com/u-n-climate-panel-takes-step-blame-mankind-044459472.html

What contrary evidence do you accept?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Nothing new here:

Leading climate scientists said on Friday they were more convinced than ever that humans are the main culprits for global warming, and predicted the impact from greenhouse gas emissions could linger for centuries.

news.yahoo.com/u-n-climate-panel-takes-step-blame-mankind-044459472.html

What contrary evidence do you accept?
Click to expand...
Problem is they are not very good at predicting. The hoax is falling apart and the damage it does to the credibility of so called climatologists will linger for years
 
Threads over 1,000 posts are closed for technical reasons. Thank you for participating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top