[Don Salmon]

well, Daniel, one thing you could try is not to have your first post be an attack on everyone in a discussion.

Did you see where I asked you about my comment on human caused climate change?

Did you see that, as of 2007, there was still no way to determine if a person who accepted the science on human contributions to climate change was of one political orientation or another?

So I’ll ask you a question or two and see if we can listen to and respect each other.

1. Tell me how one’s view of the science related to climate change is associated with one or another political view.

2. My understanding is that the climate change issue has been purposely politicized because there is an assumption that any way to address it involves government overreach and undemocratic manipulation of markets. So my question is, given that over the past 4 to 5 years, a majority of conservative politicians now accept the science regarding human contributions to climate change, if I think that government, market AND personal responsibility are all needed for a solution, does that mark me as a close minded, bigoted person unable to see the “other” side? If you think so, what “other” side are you referring to?

By the way, if you want to put a label on me, I don’t consider myself Left or Right (I am of the opinion that at best, those terms were already useless when I was close to your age, in the 1970s). Contemplative anarchist (a la Gustav Landauer and Aurobindo Ghose) is the closest I’ve ever found to something I resonate with, though the Catholic view of subsidiarity comes fairly close as well.