130 environmental groups call for ened of capitalism

[homersapien 11,387]

You don't understand the difference between a making a mistake (such as inadverdently propagating a typo) and deliberately falsifying data?

I do, and I would have thought you knew that. I just wanted to see it explained. More importantly, you already know you will end up having to anyway.

Yeah, I was surprised. I know you know better. I thought perhaps you mistakenly assumed the "UN" did it deliberately, but even that is too ridiculous for you.

Anyway, why don't you explain it? Why should I have to do all the work educating Blue? It's a huge job!

[AUtiger98 24]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

[Strychnine 1,802]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

I do not think anyone would dispute that, as the political beliefs of all members of the environmental movement are not known. The environmental movement itself does not generally involve itself in political discussions beyond environmental issues. The problem is the OP, where the goal is to equate the environmental movement with ending capitalism.

[homersapien 11,387]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

Well, that covers an awful lot of individuals so I suspect you could find one somewhere. But then, you could also say there are some in the Republican party who would do away with the EPA and everything that preceded it.

It's hardly relevant to the present discussion.

[AUtiger98 24]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

Well, that covers an awful lot of individuals so I suspect you could find one somewhere. But then, you could also say there are some in the Republican party who would do away with the EPA and everything that preceded it.

It's hardly relevant to the present discussion.

Just trying to find the middle ground. Carry on with the present discussion.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Just trying to find the middle ground. Carry on with the present discussion.

And that is admirable.

[Tigermike 3,035]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

Well, that covers an awful lot of individuals so I suspect you could find one somewhere.

So you think you could find one,,,,,,, even though the article title is "130 environmental GROUPS,,,,". Point being groups would be more than one. To be accurate 130 x more than one. At minimum 260 wouldn't you agree?

[homersapien 11,387]

Can't we all just agree that some people in the environmental movement want to end capitalism?

Well, that covers an awful lot of individuals so I suspect you could find one somewhere.

So you think you could find one,,,,,,, even though the article title is "130 environmental GROUPS,,,,". Point being groups would be more than one. To be accurate 130 x more than one. At minimum 260 wouldn't you agree?

Well, it wasn't revealed how many of those 130 groups signed on to that one paper, so we can't assume it was unanimous. Heck, we can't even assume even one did, since we don't know if the person who presented the paper was representing one of the groups.

But that headline sounds great, doesn't it?

[Tigermike 3,035]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

[homersapien 11,387]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it’s unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the “green economy” solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

[Kassc22 0]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it’s unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the “green economy” solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

[AURaptor 1,125]

Gibbs Rule # 39

There is no such thing as coincidence.

No, there's no conspiracy by " science " because they all buy into , unabashedly and in the open. Now, more than ever.

[AUDub 11,153]

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical.

It is. Can you read Spanish or did you have to rely on Google translate like me?

I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

[Kassc22 0]

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical.

It is. Can you read Spanish or did you have to rely on Google translate like me?

I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

I could read the greeting...two semesters of Spanish in college and thats about all I retained. I used google translate for the rest. I have no doubt it was dismissed by most. Every group has at least one extremist in it in my opinion so I'm sure the UN is no different. I'm not much of a fan of the UN in general.

[Tigermike 3,035]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it’s unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the “green economy” solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

Thanks Kassc, it's hard to get homer to admit anything that might not be positive on the AGL folks.

[homersapien 11,387]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it’s unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the “green economy” solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

"It wasn't hard to find the list" (says the Librarian)

To be truthful, I didn't look. I get tired of doing all the research in "denier threads".

Anyway, like I said, I didn't recognize a single one. (Not to say there aren't some important representative groups on the list.)

And no, I didn't read the declaration as I don't understand Spanish. Do you have links to an English translation?

[homersapien 11,387]

Gibbs Rule # 39

There is no such thing as coincidence.

No, there's no conspiracy by " science " because they all buy into , unabashedly and in the open. Now, more than ever.

OK......

[homersapien 11,387]

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical.

It is. Can you read Spanish or did you have to rely on Google translate like me?

I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

I could read the greeting...two semesters of Spanish in college and thats about all I retained. I used google translate for the rest. I have no doubt it was dismissed by most. Every group has at least one extremist in it in my opinion so I'm sure the UN is no different. I'm not much of a fan of the UN in general.

That is probably true in a general sense, but in this case, the extremist wasn't in the UN, he/she merely attended the UN-sponsored conference. Even the OP article pointed out how surprised the UN was about it.

[homersapien 11,387]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it's unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the "green economy" solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN's main round of talks in Lima this year."

Thanks Kassc, it's hard to get homer to admit anything that might not be positive on the AGL folks.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my position.

You do this frequently enough to make me suspect it's deliberate. And deliberate misrepresentation is morally equivalent to just plain lying.

[homersapien 11,387]

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

LOL! no kidding.

That'll go right into "round" file immediately. Hope it's printed on recycled paper!

[Tigermike 3,035]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it's unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the "green economy" solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN's main round of talks in Lima this year."

Thanks Kassc, it's hard to get homer to admit anything that might not be positive on the AGL folks.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my position.

You do this frequently enough to make me suspect it's deliberate. And deliberate misrepresentation is morally equivalent to just plain lying.

Pot meet kettle.

[Kassc22 0]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it’s unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the “green economy” solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

"It wasn't hard to find the list" (says the Librarian)

To be truthful, I didn't look. I get tired of doing all the research in "denier threads".

Anyway, like I said, I didn't recognize a single one. (Not to say there aren't some important representative groups on the list.)

And no, I didn't read the declaration as I don't understand Spanish. Do you have links to an English translation?

lol...I don't know any of the groups but that could be because I don't keep up with the movement. I saved a copy after I used google translate. The formatting is messed up a little. How do you attach a file on here?

[Kassc22 0]

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical.

It is. Can you read Spanish or did you have to rely on Google translate like me?

I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

I could read the greeting...two semesters of Spanish in college and thats about all I retained. I used google translate for the rest. I have no doubt it was dismissed by most. Every group has at least one extremist in it in my opinion so I'm sure the UN is no different. I'm not much of a fan of the UN in general.

That is probably true in a general sense, but in this case, the extremist wasn't in the UN, he/she merely attended the UN-sponsored conference. Even the OP article pointed out how surprised the UN was about it.

No, I know. What I meant was there is probably one UN member who believes the way the radicals at the conference do. Not that the UN as a whole was taking it seriously.

[homersapien 11,387]

It says 130 groups signed on. It goes on to say that those 130 groups surprised even the U.N. delegates.

Not exactly. Sixth paragraph of OP reference:

"Climate-change news analysis site RTCC reports that it's unclear which groups signed onto the declaration, adding that it runs in the face of the "green economy" solutions to global warming backed by rich nations."

Again, this was clearly a "backwater" conference. Really, 130 environmental groups?!

I'd like to see the list. Probably included neighborhood "groups". I doubt there would be one recognizable name.

In fact, one of the main points of the article is about how such a declaration bucks the policy of larger environmental organizations. (Thus the surprise by the UN delegates)

This is much do do about nothing. It's the result of denier groups searching for anything to trump, no matter how trivial.

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical. I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN's main round of talks in Lima this year."

Thanks Kassc, it's hard to get homer to admit anything that might not be positive on the AGL folks.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my position.

You do this frequently enough to make me suspect it's deliberate. And deliberate misrepresentation is morally equivalent to just plain lying.

Pot meet kettle.

If you are implying I misrepresent your position please point it out when I do it. I don't recall such a post.

And don't confuse that with my clarifying your position by stating it in my own words. That's always followed by a question.

You - on the other hand - often make definitive statements of what my position is without even asking first.

[homersapien 11,387]

It wasn't that hard to find the list. http://www.precopsoc...s-participantes

Also have any of you bothered to read the actual declaration? Its very radical.

It is. Can you read Spanish or did you have to rely on Google translate like me?

I don't know if its a backwater conference or not but it was backed by the UN. "The declaration will be handed to environment ministers when they meet ahead of the UN’s main round of talks in Lima this year."

...and promptly dismissed without consideration, I'd imagine.

I could read the greeting...two semesters of Spanish in college and thats about all I retained. I used google translate for the rest. I have no doubt it was dismissed by most. Every group has at least one extremist in it in my opinion so I'm sure the UN is no different. I'm not much of a fan of the UN in general.

That is probably true in a general sense, but in this case, the extremist wasn't in the UN, he/she merely attended the UN-sponsored conference. Even the OP article pointed out how surprised the UN was about it.

No, I know. What I meant was there is probably one UN member who believes the way the radicals at the conference do. Not that the UN as a whole was taking it seriously.

Not to pick, but why do you say that?