Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

ok, so basically you advocate doing nothing collectively, just hoping businesses and individuals and academia manage things on their own. i am glad we agree. although i would have assumed that you think the problem is big enough that we would need to mandate some changes.

 

i think its one of those deals if you demand specifics, there could be a problem. in the meantime, we can just hope everyone does whats in the best interest of the living rock so it stops acting out at us.

 

of course it is.

you seem to have a rather elusive position. you do favor "investment", but not when it is called by its proper name, "taxes". you favor all sorts of action for alternative fuel, but mysteriously none of them involve big government. presumably you are simply offering advice for folks, which they can take or leave.

right. red cant be specific about what his solutions are because there inevitably oppressive big government strategies. everything else is just a happy little suggestion that means nothing.

we can all hold hands ans say "detroit should make ultra low emissions cars from hydrogen cells or electricity or whatever." but that doesnt mean anything unless the market demands it or the government forces it. red likes to list solutions to globwal warming and then pretend he doesnt mean to actually enact any of those solutions.

 

aha. what would you have the big government do?

well, bully for them. some companies care about global warming, other do not. perhaps we should force the rest to care by enacting big government legislation.

that is nice of you to give everyone advice. but it doesnt mean much. it is like if we ask for solutions to the smoking issues in the other thread and i just offer up my solution "people should quit smoking". hey that is great and i am correct but it doesn't mean anything and nobody cares. the question is about collective action. al gore and pretty much all the scientists you agree with believe we need big time action. the kind of action that is collective and manged by government. still not sure if you agree with these folks.

I

well, i thought you agreed that we have a problem on our hands and it mattered that we work towards a solution.

public policy? that means government yunno.

of course i have solutions. do nothing. there is either not a problem, or not a problem we can fix, or not a problem we can fix without doing ourselves more harm that the problem itself. or maybe there is not a problem but a happy warming that helps us live better and any effort to stop it hurts us. i dont presume to know the future. the earth changes all the time, i have not been convinced that the reasons it changes are understood well enough to be managed or predicted.

so that is my stance on it. your stance apparently is that you favor big government management of the problem in the form of taxes and subsidy for various things, like alternative fuels or whatever, excpet when you stance is questioned, in which case these things are volutary unddertakings of capitalists and industry, unless they are not, which sometimes you claim they are, or are not, in an effort to be as vague as possible and then blame me for not knowing where you stand.

sweet.

oh, ok, my mistake

ok gotcha, government will help us out

you lost me.

 

yes, lets not mention specifics. that would be way too clear. you like to keep it vague and not have a stance to defend.

what if the citizens determine that big government solutions are reasonable and proper?

how do the scientists think we should "address" the issue?

yes, you refuse to take a stance on it. do you agree with his findings? ( i do not expect an answer)

clear as mud. you favor something, perhaps nothing, funded by taxpayers, or maybe not, volutary, or maybe not. a desperate to attempt to not take a side because both sides seem too extreme for your manufactured "moderate" position.

 

I really must come up with a topic just for red and martin. A steel cage topic winner take all kinda thing.