3 ms·

It is especially absurd in the case of Schellenberger. So yes it's absurd. Look him up.

by ThomPete 8y ago

baybal2 8y ago
Please point to the point where it makes the argument absurd.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I already did. You try to use lobbyist to mean that he can't be trusted. That's absurd if you know who he is and how he works and what he works for. He isn't a lobbyist in any meaningful way any more than you are in this thread or the environmental organizations or the IPCC or the oil companies etc. If you think your argument can stand on its own you wouldn't need to put that in yet you did and that's absurd and provides no further context and doesn't add to the discussion.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    He would not need to register as a registered lobbyist if he was not legally obliged to do so. What so absurd in this point???
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I already explained to you why it's absurd. If you don't understand that there isn't much to do about it, however I would urge you to look up Environmental Progress his group and to learn a little about him. Again he is no more lobbyist than you or the environmental organisations that's why it's absurd to use it as part of an argument.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        I looked him up. He used to be a paid lobbyist for Venezuela.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        in 2004 when he was against nuclear. There are so much more about him that you haven't included. You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o It's pretty obvious that him being a registered lobbyist means absolutely nothing in this context. But again that's how this whole thing work. Shaming and fingers in ear.
        starbeast 8y ago
        You told me to look him up and that he wasn't a lobbyist. So I put his name and lobbyist into google and almost immediately found that he used to get paid by Venezuela as a lobbyist. I have no real idea who this guy is until you said to look him up. And somehow this is my fault?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I said that it was absurd to use that as an argument against him when you actually know what he DO not what he did in 2004 which isn't really interesting for what he is doing and writing about today. So again. Show a concrete problem with him being a registered lobbyist otherwise it's just a cheap shot which is why you would have to go back to 2004 when he was against nuclear to find anything related. You can simply google Michael Shellenberger and you will learn who he is today. You can check out this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o as that gives you a pretty good idea of his stance.

It is especially absurd in the case of Schellenberger. So yes it's absurd. Look him up.

baybal2 8y ago

Please point to the point where it makes the argument absurd.

ThomPete 8y ago
I already did. You try to use lobbyist to mean that he can't be trusted. That's absurd if you know who he is and how he works and what he works for. He isn't a lobbyist in any meaningful way any more than you are in this thread or the environmental organizations or the IPCC or the oil companies etc. If you think your argument can stand on its own you wouldn't need to put that in yet you did and that's absurd and provides no further context and doesn't add to the discussion.
- baybal2 8y ago
  He would not need to register as a registered lobbyist if he was not legally obliged to do so. What so absurd in this point???
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I already explained to you why it's absurd. If you don't understand that there isn't much to do about it, however I would urge you to look up Environmental Progress his group and to learn a little about him. Again he is no more lobbyist than you or the environmental organisations that's why it's absurd to use it as part of an argument.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      I looked him up. He used to be a paid lobbyist for Venezuela.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        in 2004 when he was against nuclear. There are so much more about him that you haven't included. You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o It's pretty obvious that him being a registered lobbyist means absolutely nothing in this context. But again that's how this whole thing work. Shaming and fingers in ear.
        starbeast 8y ago
        You told me to look him up and that he wasn't a lobbyist. So I put his name and lobbyist into google and almost immediately found that he used to get paid by Venezuela as a lobbyist. I have no real idea who this guy is until you said to look him up. And somehow this is my fault?
        ThomPete 8y ago
        I said that it was absurd to use that as an argument against him when you actually know what he DO not what he did in 2004 which isn't really interesting for what he is doing and writing about today. So again. Show a concrete problem with him being a registered lobbyist otherwise it's just a cheap shot which is why you would have to go back to 2004 when he was against nuclear to find anything related. You can simply google Michael Shellenberger and you will learn who he is today. You can check out this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o as that gives you a pretty good idea of his stance.