I can separate a scientific issue from a political one easily. Why can't you? It's not hard unless you are hard headed. Once again. Stop trying to misstate my position! I speak at length about my viewpoints, Don't try to characterize me to suit your peculiar need to steer every topic to "big government". Did bureaucrats haunt your closet as a child? Or are you just . . . peculiar? :huh:
Red will have us believe that the "experts" or "scientists" or "climatologists" will draw whatever conclusions that the data leads to. I don't believe that is the case. The conclusions are foregone. If they determine that man cannot control climate they will have outlived their alleged usefulness.
i see, you are in your part of the waffling cycle where you deny you favor the carbon cap and trade. its ok i can wait.
Repeat it all you want, imperfect doesn't equal right either. All of these crisis is what is :insane: What did Ron Emanual mean when he said they never let a good crisis go to waste. What went through your mind at the time.?:insane: Your inability to comprehend that the UN and people who do this kind of stuff don't always do things in the best interest of the United States or the world. Or that the models are imperfect so you might have a totally different outcome or the model may not predict something all together like the article stated. Actually if I could give your side some advice I would say forget the man made hoax for a minute and lets just talk about breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water. No one can be against a cleaner planet but there are some trade offs. Sacrifice the economy and freedom versus green movement. I have no problems with some green alternatives but I'm not willing to give up some of my lifestyle or freedoms. I'm just as hard headed as you btw.:lol: Peace!
:lol::lol: You simply don't know what you are talking about. People have made this silly accusation before and they can't prove it with one single bit of information. And we know that you won't even try. I wouldn't be foolish enough to argue insurance audits with you, either.
Then consider what I'm saying. They are not mutually exclusive goals! Sorry, I'll use small words. :wink: We can have our cake and we can eat it too. What we must do is quit listening to the extreme left who demand that we do everything and quit listening to the extreme right who demand that we do nothing. There are things that we can do that conserve our resources and our environment that will not collapse industry and offer net benefits to us. Affordable, pragmatic solutions that we should seriously consider. There are also impractical, expensive, pie-in-the-sky things that we should disregard. It's all a matter of finding the right balance, be pragmatic, and to quit listening to extremist crackpots on both sides.
not a fan of specifics are you? you fail to understand what politics is. this is a question about policy, not vague proclamations of how "we" should act. what "we" should do, according to you, is entirely irrelevant unless you are favoring actual policy. but you dont like to admit to that. you might as well be the right wing crackpot if you simply favor voluntary ations by people. because nobody opposes that or cares what other people do voluntarily. by favoring voluntary actions you are effectively favoring nothing. do you have any specific policies you favor to combat this warming problem, or do you plan to revert you your strategy of congratulating yourself for being "pragmatic and balanced"?
Biomimicry. It's new, sorta. It isn't sexy nor does it hold any political value, yet. It is coming and certainly worth a listen. Already new solar technology is being derived from the same photosynthesis that comes naturally for plant growth. If not for anything else, it sure is good for some interesting reading.
Look who is talking . . . Everybody knows what politics are. I just stated my personal philosophy about what's wrong with the politics of global warming. I've already stated at length why the science of global warming is valid and correct. Stop right there. Why just you just tell us what you believe is the right policy and quit trying to imagine what I'm thinking. I've already stated my position. If you don't like it, stick it in your ear. Quit trying to dispute the science unless you are willing to put up some evidence or I will continue to shoot you down in humiliating fashion.
