Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

I know his cause. I don't know about his political proposals because that ain't what I advocate. I don't require that you defend someone that you haven't even spoken of, you know.

In general, I believe that humans need to limit carbon emissions. I do not really know how Al Gore proposes to go about this. Do you? Why won't you cite an actual Al Gore proposal? Afraid that it might make sense?

Well, good for you! You are no longer challenging the existence of global warming, but only the way it should be handled. I have no problem with that.

 

It was a qualified no. You offer no parameters, no details of the idea to work on. You have not yet actually spelled out an actual Al Gore proposal. Why is that?

The exact same triad that currently funds petroleum and other modern energy research will pay for the next generation of energy production and technology leaps--a mix of public, industry, and private dollars.

1. Calls for speculation, how should I know?
2. I don't give a rat's ass about their politics if their science is sound.
3. You are still trying to draw political inference from scientific statement

Well, I'm not a democrat. And Gore is not even a politician anymore. Frankly, I put him in the same category with Limburger, Gingrich, and Rove--mouths with an agenda who are not elected officials and who aren't concerned with being re-elected. They do it for acclaim (Gore), top ratings (Limbaugh), notoriety (Rove), or relevance (Gingrich), not for their parties who are often left doing damage control.

Only when Hillary lost out. She was more moderate and pragmatic than Obama. More savvy, more cajones--you might have liked her.

Already asked and answered pages ago.

You call that details? I'm still waiting for a Mr. Gore proposal to evaluate. I've already addressed all of mr. martin's. Admit that you have no idea what Al Gore proposes.

 

Too vague. Cite or link to an actual Al Gore proposal that has some details a person can evaluate. If you can't find one, then WTF are you talking about?

In this case, it is over-powerful and influential lobbies to blame. The agriculture lobby fought hard for this one and their opponents did not. End result--higher corn prices. Good for the farm industry but with more problems than it solves for the country.

Two common nouns. Get real, damn it and post the actual proposed carbon tax that you are referring to. How am I supposed to evaluate two words.

I'm very opinionated. Get used to it.

Smoke and mirrors. Why are you afraid to present any actual proposals with the real numbers and the proposed results? You toss around catch phrases that you have heard, like "cap and trade", or "carbon tax" like I'm supposed to have them memorized.

You steered the topic away from scientific investigation because you couldn't capably address them. So here we are addressing political issues and you don't seem to know what they are either. This is your derailment. Show me you actually can produce an Obama or Gore proposal--in context, cited, with the details and I'll be happy to tell you what I think of it.

 

Do your own work, i don't care about Al Gore. I knew that you couldn't actually produce an Al Gore proposal, word for word, for me to address. You just want me to defend or deny policies that I don't know about and apparently you don't either.

I know what the words mean, but you want me to comment on the policies that you have neither cited nor commented on yourself. I don't think you know what Gore advocates.

Subjective nonsense. Science is important to understand things. Policy is important to adopt a principle or course of action. The two are not synonymous.

Concerned, yes; hysterical, no.

Good for you. My position is that there is a prudent balance to be achieved between addressing global warming and maintaining economic prosperity.

I know what the idea is, but what are the details of the actual proposal? How high are the caps? How are the credits traded? Who qualifies to trade? Will credit "dealers" exist? How about credit "banks". What benchmarks does the proposal plan to meet? Are they reasonable? How has this worked in test studies or overseas applications?

You operate in vague notions and avoid actual hard proposals and the details that must be considered in order to come to an opinion. I don't blame you. It's hard for me to shoot down something that you won't put up for consideration. I have not studied this--I am not an economist, and I'm interested in other things. Post a link to a cap and tax proposal that has some details and we can evaluate it. I say "we" because it is obvious that you have not studied it either. You should.

You post the actual cap and trade proposal and I'll tell you what I think.

 

Well, he's speaking very generally with Larry King and doesn't provide any details. But in concept I have no problem with dollar-for-dollar tax swaps that benefit the environment. But it would have to be a pragmatic plan, one whose positive benefits would exceed its negative impacts. These need to be studied and addressed and probably have. But he hasn't address all of this in that clip and neither have you in you vague suggestions that carbon tax is "bad". Has a study been conducted to determine that carbon taxes cannot possibly have benefits that exceed impacts? Cite it then.

Gore didn't actually say that in this quote you provided, so I don't know what evidence he cites, if he believes this. It may or may not be valid prediction.

You have also not cited any evidence to support his conclusion. You are guessing.

Gore did not say that in the quote you provided.

Who says? That's your paranoia at work. For example, offering incentives is not forcing anything. I've already given you examples of industry incentives. Private investment money and industry money is also being spent on greener technology. Money is being made on it. It is an absolute fallacy that everything environmental is "Big Government" waste.

Horses were great to get around on and provide energy, but technological advances moved us on to fossil-fuel transportation and energy. Some societies clung tenaciously to the animals, while other evolved, modernized, and stayed on the cutting edge. Technology moves on and greener technologies are coming on line that should be embraced and utilized so that we stay on the cutting edge.

Al Gore seems to want to rush the process of advance and you seem to want to cling tenaciously to the past. I advocate a more pragmatic balance between the two extremes. We should adopt these technologies and policies as they become feasible, affordable, and practical--neither rushing the issue not denying its existence.

It's not magic! What childish delusions! I reforested my land and government pressure had nothing to do with it. Nobody forced me to do anything. It was my decision based on my own best interests and my own environmental concerns. Incentives were provided by industry and the costs were borne by me. Incentives were also provided by the IRS which gives a small tax credit for reforestation expenses. But the decision was mine alone. The notion that any action to improve the environment is anti-industry, big-government "forcing" adherence is simply ridiculous.

Having failed to support such your absurd claims, you now are trying to tell me what I "must" think. Stop arguing with yourself, you begin to bore me.

What you refuse to acknowledge, is that I CAN have strong feeling about the science of global warming yet NOT advocate the entire political agenda of GreenPeace.

I've stated quite clearly what I think, but instead of just telling me what YOU think, you feel that you must put words into my mouth. Not a chance, buster. I'll debate you until the cows come home, but STOP trying to tell me what my position is, understand. You cant argue both sides of the issue.

And now, having failed to convince anybody of anything, you resort to a lame attempt to discredit me personally. But it is your own discredit that is revealed.