Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

those with no lives like you and me-- its understood.

i clearly agree with martin thus far. red has no position or is simply scared to take a definitive stance, yet i dont think even realizes it.

whats your take on the duel?

i think we should do this more. it will be like the comments below an article or blog where the readers post their comments. we can just chime in in the thread with our great observations.

to recap:

martin hates anything al gore stands for as well as global warming mandates in general.

let the private sector fix it if at all.

red favors the science that global warming is a threat--enough to do something about it only if the science deems it necessary. i think that really means doing whatever they tell us.
red doesnt know anything specific about al gore's book, cap and trade nor carbon tax.

 

you claim you do not know enough about the carbon tax to discuss it. you favor various alternative energies but you not favor government mandates, so presumably you will cross your fingers and hope they are funded. in general you are not interested in the politics of global warming, only the science. that means you have nothing to add whatsoever.

any position is fine with me, if you were to take one. do you favor cap and trade as outlined by obama? what about carbon limits for developing countries? no position? got it. i have a position, i oppose those things. see how easy that was?

sounds good, i can go endlessly. and my argument is quite sound and cogent. i believe that the globe is warming slightly, but i am not convinced we are causing it or can stop it. i believe that if we are to do anything, it should be managed my private industry. i believe the mainstream democrat position is terrible and does far more damage humans than the warming will.

i also believe that the earth has always warmed and cooled and to expect anything else would be stupid.

for the sake of argument, lets concede that global warming is real, and dangerous, as the scientists say it is. this is your position, i believe (but who the F could know what you think). given that, wouldnt it be reasonable and prudent for the government to enact things like cap and trade, because we are dealing with a very serious problem? if not, what should the government do, if anything?

no answer? thought so. you simply do not have the stones to discuss the politics of global warming, for fear it will put you outside your silly "moderate" comfort zone, which is pretty cool.

 

For the record, I have been reading this thread with enjoyment.

 

right. if the scientists pass the word along to politicians, and they have with the "guide to policy makers" or whatever from the ipcc, what should politicians do? there are clearly two separate questions here, one scientific, one political. now, i majored in political science at a fine university in baton rouge, so i like to consider the politics of this. yunno, what should we do, how will what we do work, what will happen, who will be helped and hurt, that kinda thing.

but our pal red, he has concocted for himself a political belief system without any principles. he simply stands on the sidelines, waits for the masses to determine what is considered extreme, then steps into the center and attempts to look thoughtful by opposing the loudest voices from either side. if you find the loudest and crazies person, red opposes him, regardless of what he is loud and crazy about. al gore, even though he is saying what really would be not unreasonable (dude has a nobel prize) if the science were true, is thought of as a loon by many american. so red cannot align himself with him. because for red, it is never about principles. it is about perception.

 

At least you know where I stand.

It's simple because I make it simple. All of that scientific BS is just that. It's their raison d'etre. Without GW research, they'd be coming up with new products for Proctor and Gamble.

 

I think that I named it quite appropriately, don't you?

 

Evil scientists are making it all up so they can keep their lunch money. We'd be better off as a human race turning the planet into a cesspool. In fact, we should encourage the third world to make pollution a priority so they can trade their health for money. Of course, the free market demands that they get less money and concludes that their lives are less valuable. It is a very efficient system. Isn't Africa a result of the free market, to some extent?

On the other hand, can we afford to save the world? Hell, we can't fund schools and other domestic problems properly. Our imaginary financial system has seriously contracted because faith in the buck has lessened. But we're probably still living richer than we would have with real money.

...I should go read Ron Paul's book again to wipe this blasphemy from my mind.

I am also reading this thread with interest, though it has mostly consisted of name calling and chest thumping.

opcorn:

 

Its hard to really know whos for what. Both have valid points(Riding the fence here:hihi Martin is the master of saying one thing 2 million ways, but the problem is neither will admit to being right on different points. Red has some validity in his argument, but no clear solution, which no one really has either. For Martin to just outright not believe that the problem exist is a little incoherent to me. Martin is right on the expense of it and who should be involved in the solutions, but Red is right on the short-term low cost solutions. Just go to cities where you can damn breathe and then you will agree that some of the problems exist. I just want to sit back and keep reading. opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

 

This is not a thread about pollution. No one here, from what I've read, is for polluting the earth.

 

no its not. just red who is for everything which means for nothing.

not having a point is not a point.

such as?

i think hes aware there may be a problem just nothing we can really do about it. and if so let the private sector make a fortune off it or better yet not let the government worsen everything under the guise of protecting us.

such as?

the issue is global warming not smog.

more people need to chime in but they are scared.