My position is crystal clear. I believe that man made global warming is a huge pile of crap. And, enough of the Al Gore thing. All I know about him is that he lost to Bush and he can't stand it.
well, that is crazy and terrible. if we shift taxes from payroll based to emissions, the guy who works as a pipe fitter for exxon would get destroyed by taxes while the millionaire financial advisor pays almost nothing. great. oh yes of course! wheeee! you should oppose it red. it is "extreme" you hate extreme! red, i just want a balance. a pragmatic solution. not some extreme al gore plan. we have to be able to understand that real and wise answer is an arbitrary and meaningless point between two arbitrarily defined extremes. the means we never have to think or analyze anything. who pays for the incentives? the taxpayers who are not "forced" to pay for them? of course. i told you a million times i advocate doing nothing. that means i want to allow private industry to do whatever they choose. i actually advocate allowing progress, instead of stunting it with government management. oh yes of course. you are so very wise. which is what i advocated all along. letting people do what they want. you didnt need to be told to reforest? wow! you didnt need government incentives or a beaurocrat telling you what is pragmatic or how you could find a "balance"? you are a bad reader. you genuinely do not understand what i have been saying along, you are just looking for another chance to inject a sentence about how pragmatic and balanced you are. do you think humankind is at risk, as the science indicates, or is that a position that you deem to appear to extreme and therefore you cannot admit to? i am aware that the science is mainstream enough that you feel like the "prudent" thing to do is accept it. but have you the cajones to admit that you accept what the science means for humankind? too extreme? i like to ask you what you think instead of putting words in your mouth. do you think the future of human civilization is at risk? people who can read can see what is happening.
it isnt about al gore, bros. it is about acknowledging the science is real but then failing to accept what the science means for humans. my position is that you accept the science, then you accept what a grave threat warming is to our species, and you accept that big changes have to be made. or else you simply do not accept the science. gore does say that warming is a threat to the future of civilization. but he is pretty much just repeating the practical implications of the IPCC. now if we accept that it is true that our civilization is actually under threat, that would justify drastic action, wouldnt it? basically i am saying that i think our inaction indicates that people simply dont believe the science, which i think is a good thing. even people who claim they accept the science, (because to refuse to accept it would seem extreme and unreasonable) dont really favor doing much of anything about it.
How exactly does that work? Typical smart-ass, off topic, non-answers because you, at long last, have nothing left as far as a proper debate. You just want to toss off not-particularly-clever cynicisms. What a load of cynical martin bullcrap! It's just another diversion from the debate you are losing. Your inability to recognize anything but your extreme position and some exact opposite one is not my problem. The rest of the world can see the shades of gray, that there moderate positions, or that people can have . . . {gasp} no position at all. Do I sound like I never think or analyze anything. Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound? I'll let you keep making a fool of yourself for as long as you wish. If you say so. I haven't said so. I said a triad of public, private, and industry contributions, just as it works right now. I'm smarter than you. Not exactly, it is the converse that I spotlight. Please phrase a question without also trying to characterize my answer and I'll consider answering it. Will you just drop the schoolhouse taunting? It only makes you look foolish. At last. Human civilization has always been at risk. Until recently, mostly from forces beyond our control, like epidemics and comet strikes. There are still these threats and there is still nothing to be done about comet strikes . . . yet. But there have been vast changes in how we can affect our fate. Research has provided information so that medical science has eradicated many potential epidemics and plagues. We are no longer helpless. Likewise our industrial capacity has grown along with our overpopulation and added human pollution to our environmental issues. We have the capacity to remedy much of this. Now . . . Listen carefully . . . it doesn't matter what Al Gore says or what you imagine that I should think. Here is what I believe: Humans have the ability to fix some of the problems that we created and an human efforts should be made to address them. There also exist some problems for which humans have no solutions, so no efforts should be made to address these except for research to continue to find a solution. A prudent balance between preserving the environment and exploiting our resources must always be exercised. That's it. Thats what I have to say about the topic. I really don't care that much about the politics of it. When people understand the issue, they will do the right thing. I care that people understand the issue. Now, if you want to conduct an adult discussion of something new on this topic, feel free. If you only want to endlessly keep repeating the same arguments, try to form my positions for me, and criticize moderates, then I'm done with you. If you want to keep up the schoolyard taunts, and cynically point me as a person that thinks moderate positions are usually the best positions, that proper balance is the key to all endeavors, and that pragmatism is a virtue, then go right ahead. That's exactly what I want people to see. You are a champion of the extremes, the childish, and the absurd. They'll see that, too.
See what I mean? :lol::lol::lol: Your position is to demand that my position must be what you imagine it to be. So I must defend it, "else" . . . I do not support my OWN position. How completely daft! :insane: Sorry, Charlie. You don't speak for me. I've already made my position clear.
rearding the carbon tax, that would work on emissions, not earnings. so like i said, some industries would pay massive taxes and others would pay very little, based on emissions. that of course means life gets alo worse for the guy doing construction down at the plant, but the office chump in a non-emitting industry is unaffected. plus there is the question of how the taxes are assessed. is the car industry an emitter, or the oil industry? the car burns oil, but the oil is doing the emitting. this would all be worked out in typical government nonsensical fashion. yes, but you are totally unwilling to discuss the politics of the solutions because you are justifiably terrified that i will label your solutions as big government boondoggles. oh yes of course not. who would ever discuss such a crazy thing. this is neither the time nor the place for such things. the prudent and balanced man cannot take a stand. which of course you cannot discuss.
Which is why the detailed plan needs to be set out. There are a lot of variables that could be changed to give better or worse results. It is not apparent on the face that this is workable or unworkable. Got some numbers to show that construction workers suffer more than office workers. What if they work for the same company? I will not address comments to me that you answer yourself. Grow up. Of course he can. I stand in the middle, sometimes to the right, sometimes to the left, never on the extremes. It ain't my problem if you haven't figured that out yet. I've discussed it all that I care to. I've said all I want to say. If you are waiting for me to say what you want me to say, it is awfully naive, amigo.