Thats kind of an end around. The private sector will forcefully push back on anything that will change the scope of their profits, legislation has to almost be passed for a private sector company with the ability to clean it up and address the issue to have incentive enough to get in the game. I thought smog had some to do with Global Warming, maybe i'm wrong. But doesnt the smog have an impact on the ozone layer which warms the earth? (Thats a real question) i disagree that we cant do much about it, thats copping out. Its like saying we will just leave it to future generations. i thought righties were against things like that.:hihi:
It's not an issue of being scared; it's an issue of having studied the "science". When we debated whether or not Seagate was an American company and whether or not computer technology was measured in metric units, I was happy to get involved.
Uninformed, which makes for better entertainment. Frankly, I do not know where all of this global warming is as the temp in San Diego has yet to rise above 78 degrees in well over a month. Water is cold too.
I stated my position clearly several times. WTF are you talking about? You are half right. I acknowledge that global warming is a global problem and the science supports this. But I have said nothing about science "telling" us what to do. In general I advocate doing those things that are practical and affordable to address the issue and NOT doing those things that are impractical or impossible. That's it as simple as I can state it. Not exactly. Red doesn't CARE about Al Gore's book and proposals much. Gore is a politician and one I'm not a huge fan of. I've never cited him as evidence for anything. martin is the one bringing Al Gore into this because he can't really attack the science of it. Then he demands that I defend Al Gore. Look, I'm not a global warming activist like martin wants me to be. I have not advocated Kyoto or "big government" or any particular political action. I'm an advocate of recognizing the scientific evidence for the problem that exists. That's my bag. martin's latest derailment is the absurd notion that if I recognize the scientific global warming problem then I MUST support the entire agenda of Green Peace, Al Gore, PETA, and The United Envinonmental Kooks of America. ESLE, I'm incapable of taking a stand. What hogwash! The only stands he recognizes is his own and the one he imagines to be opposite to it. Any positions between them or even no position at all, he cannot fathom. Not my problem. He's just trying to change the issue from global warming (which he can't argue effectively) to environmental politics (Which I have no strong feelings about) to "moderates are incapable of making decisions". A particularly ridiculous notion.
exactly what martin keeps asking. specifics. your position is basically in the middle of whatever so you dont really know what you think should be done. its an irrelevant position. you say you support the science, correct? which include what exactly? whatever all 3 camps agree? federal govt, ipcc and the public? id say thats saying much of nothing. thats ironic being he is at the forefront of everything green in this country, ran for president and won a nobel prize. yet you are unaware, uninformed or uninterested in his position. so you dont favor a carbon tax? lets leave al gore out of it and say we all agree carbon taxes are good. you'll go along? no i think there just he needs a starting point of an actual position and given al gore's kooky ideas are at the forefront of mandates, it is an absolute must to have an opinion if you're going to discuss where you stand and what should be done. it just so happens al gore is in the middle of it regardless if you simply favor the science and not the politics. right. i know you think this but you need to declare what you think should done--fed govt, state govt or no govt. i assume you will want a bit of everything since that really doesnt choose a side. i understand your reluctancy to be pigeonholed into the entire greenpeace position though i think his motivation-(my guess since i felt the same)--is your position is so vague its unclear. Maybe its because you dont have enough facts yet and likely never will. which i agree is why you tax nothing in the name of saving the earth. . once again, kinda agreeing with everything or just the science is unclear what that means. not really. if you claim to be moderate on everything you let others decide where you stand before you can choose where the middle lies.
Stop asking me questions and answering them yourself. It's stupid when you know I'm going to speak for myself. I've already stated several times that new energies will be funded the same way that current energies have been funded-- by private, public and industry investments and income from energy sales. How many times can you just keep stating the same old already-answered questions? Move on or give it up. That's what I've said from the beginning, chief. I'm particularly interested in the science of it, not particularly interested in the politics. Live with it. I know what your position is. I've already responded every one of those notions already. This thread drags on because YOU can't seem to accept my position that I've laid out several times and repeated for tirk just above. You keep trying to tell me that I must also defend AL Gore and Obama political agenda's. Well, I'm not. I defend science here. Go find someone else to defend Al Gore. Childish taunting. My position on that has been clearly stated many times. Depending on how is would be handled, it might be reasonable and prudent or not. How is it going to be handled? what are the caps? Are there middlemen traders? How strict is the mandate? What loopholes exist? I've asked you these questions before and you just keep refusing to answer them. You just wave your hands and cry "big government waste" without actually identifying any. Try to understand, I don't study economics and don't care much about it. Perhaps someone here does. If not, just talk to yourself. I've already stated that the government should do what it is doing right now. It subsidizes dirty industries like the oil companies with billions of tax dollars. Over time that should shift to offering incentives for wind power and alternate energy producers. Private sector producers as always. I do not accept your notion that all attempts to move forward instead of maintaining the status quo must be "big government" mandates. Governments, industries, and private investors will all spend money on potential new energy technologies, just as they spend it on current energies. I have no doubt much money will be made. New corporations will be built. That's my "political policy" philosophy. I haven't studied all of the specific political proposals because it just ain't my bag. Perhaps it is your bag , yet you appaently haven't studied it either or you would be able to actually cite one. More childish taunting. Grow up.
Martin is all for pollution. Specifically addressing global warming, Martin has said he disagrees it is a problem, which many here agree with. Therefore, many seem to think scientists are in league to pull a fast one and that there is no real threat associated with global warming. I suppose Martin et al are backing this up with scientific research... or perhaps not, since science is a big scam after all. I wonder, is the argument against global warming simply based on "academia is worried about global warming, academia is liberal, and liberals are f'in nuts." Of course there are natural cycles, but that doesn't mean we aren't contributing or making it worse. And yes, you may not see global warming in San Francisco or wherever it is you live, but as I understand it, global warming is affecting the planet closer to the poles first. I saw where the Canadian tundra is melting, therefore releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, and I've seen graphs showing an exponential curve representing CO2 that corresponds with the industrial revolution. This is causing a change in the chemical makeup of seawater, which is threatening food low on the food chain, which would eventually make its way up to us. I'm confused how so many intelligent people simply want to blow of science. I'm not sure to what degree global warming is a threat, but to simply say, "Nah, those scientists are full of sh#t," is irresponsible, in my opinion.
I thought Martin was an atheist? So he should be in favor of science over the fallacies of spirituality, from what I have read of his postings. Maybe he is for science when it coincides with his "beliefs" or positions. Dont want to use the word beliefs with Martin, he may think I am trying to baptize his soul:hihi: Maybe he doesnt believe in global warming because it has to do with this theological sense of "Nature" And there is no such thing?
