Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

then what is the point? why in a political forum? why are we not arguing whether string theory is valid? the whole point is this is that global warming is ostensibly a call to action, collective political action. actions that for the most part i think to greater damage than good.

 

I probably have a far greater understanding of the constitution than you and you are much quicker with a label than I. I could be called a strict constitutional constructionist but not an anarchist. Your use of socialist style demagoguery to slander those that you disagree with, shows your less than moderate roots and your roots are red comrade.

Is your GW research a money making business or is it funded by tax dollars?

How much federal money does LSU, Alabama or any other college get? How much of the federal government exists contrary to the constitution?

You may be a GW expert, but you obviously don't know S-Q-U-A-T about the constitution or the way that this country's government should be ran. If the country ran according to the constitution you would not have a job in the GW pseudo business.

 

you name it, it is terrible. cap and trade, carbon tax, subsidy for green tech, investment in most alternative fuels (and specifically ethanol, a massive fraud and waste). virtually any government action to manage global warming will hurt almost everyone involved except the people the money goes to.

 

Dang............someone else gets it. You are obviously not a pin headed intellectual.:thumb:

 

According to the Great leader El Douche's own Energy Secretary , GW can be solved tomorrow and then there wouldn't be any further need to pour money down the drain..

Steven Chu

 

Is your research into GW paid for with tax dollars?

 

I understand what you are saying, but unbridled pollution leads to destruction of an ecosystem, a drop in the quality of life where said pollution lingers, and a myriad of health conditions for those enjoying the boon of excessive pollution. There is a balance, but you are arguing the more pollution the better.

Three-eyed fish, black skies, and lung cancer aren't indicative of a high quality of life.

 

To me that is an interesting question. I was a strong supporter of Ron Paul, but I do have doubts that the free market will always lead to what is best for society. I do like the idea of having stronger states and trying to streamline the federal government, but I think federal funding of R&D can be quite beneficial to a nation. Things that aren't necessarily practical now may be the wave of the future, but companies mostly worried about turning a profit aren't going to embrace that R&D as readily.