i didnt say that. liberals want to save the earth. both parties want to pour massive money into farms. i am talking about priorities. instead of correcting our food policy, we have idiots (liberals) driving the debate about what matters towards stupid warming nonsense. i am objective. the republican party is run by religious kooks that dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. i am not a republican flag-waver. read what i say more closely and you wouldnt say such stupid things.
But evidence does exist documenting a trend in global warming paralleling human impact that must be accounted for. Trends can be extrapolated into future scenarios that have a very high degree of scientific and statistical validity. I'm not asking anybody to prove a negative, global warming already caused the worst mass extinction in history at the P-T boundary. There is no doubt that global warming can exterminate our species. That doesn't mean that it must or that we are helpless to determine our own future.. I'm only asking people to accept that there is a high degree of confidence that humans have added to the problem and that they also have the ability to prudently remediate their own contributions over time, which would be a good thing and postpone climatic disaster. We don't have to be rash. We don't have to destroy our industrial base, we just need to take some smart , informed steps toward evolving into the next phase of energy technology. Fair enough. And many scientists, especially geologists and paleontologists that are accustomed to the geologic time scale, once agreed. But enough evidence is becoming available to suggest that human impact is far greater than once imagined on the environment in which we live and in the time that we are allotted here. In 65 million years, there will be little trace of us except curious fossils and artifacts buried in the stone layers of the Holocene Period. But we can make things much better or much worse for ourselves, in our time. Human impact is very significant on the fragile ecology around us, even if insignificant in the 6 billion year history of the earth. We have the power to alter our environment like no species ever has. We just need to be smart about it.
smart and informed? who could disagree with that? by all means lets do these smart and informed things. what are these things again? do you think we can make things better in red's time? red's kids time? grandkids? how soon will we be destroyed by the wrath of mother earth's revenge? just how immediate is this? how badly have we hurt the garden of eden?
I am the frontrunner on saying stupid things, you are just trying to take my title according to your last few post.
Human impact on the environment that we occupy is significant in terms of things leaching into the soil, solid and liquid waste accumulations and concentrated emissions darkening the skies above us. No question. Over billions of years, the planet will cleanse itself of all the trash. In the meantime, we should find ways to make our space more comfortable by controlling emissions, not pouring chemicals into the ground and disposing of wastes in an efficient manner. All worthy endeavors, indeed. The motivation is to make ourselves more comfortable but the planet ain't worried. Humans are not even a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things. And we're not the cause of a few glaciers calving in the Arctic.
see this is rational, there are plenty of non partisan scientists who have shown evidence towards man induced climate change, and there are ones who refute. You could probably go sleep with a bunch of people without protection and not catch a disease, but do you want to take that risk? For the sake of our children, and our children's children, and so on, why not strive for alternative fuels, and energy saving ideas. What does it hurt? Your pocket? We will give millions to Ronald McDonald, and Pepsico, and corporations who have us addicted to sugar at birth, but god forbid paying an extra 10 bucks a month to save the planet. how does it not make sense to at least look at alternatives when there might be a chance that WE are destroying the environment? There is an island of trash in the pacific ocean the size of texas, how is that good for us? We are destroying this planet, and it may not be at the rate Al Gore is saying, and it very well may be, we just dont know. I dont see this as a political issue, i see this as a human being issue.
Well, you missed my point entirely, but I somewhat agree with your point. But there is something to be said for a country to be able to produce its own food. We probably aren't much to blame for Africa, but we do affect Central America. Aren't we trying to agree to NAFTA? Not that that's ideal, but you must be happy about that. I'm with Ron Paul, very suspicious. But I do doubt the ability of the free market to always operate in the interest of society. Ron Paul would smack my knuckles for that. Even little ole you? It isn't beyond the realm of belief that science could be dead wrong, but I'd think you'd have to be pretty well versed scientifically to argue that. Instead you are using your imagination again, it would seem. That, or the word of "republican" scientists.
But I was actually claiming "don't really give a chit" about the political sideshow.. It's not. I stand quite a ways to the left and the right on certain issues. I'm a broad moderate, not a centrist, really. I was making a general point. If done properly, it discourages, dirty, uncompetitve 19th century industries for cleaner, greener, more efficient 21st century industries. I've been selling stock in rustbelt industries for years because their days are numbered. I've been buying stock in new wind-power industries because that is where the growth market is. Government incentives, to keep us competitive with the rest of the world, should be encouraging new cutting edge technology and industries, not elephants industries dying of their own waste. The business involved are all private and will have their own business models. Carbon incentives just encourage evolving old models to ones better suited for American progress in the 21st century. It's a competitive free market, no different than the billions in tax incentive the oil companies get now. See my post above to martin and SF and see if it explains that for you. Where do you get the strange idea that I have no principles when I state them over and over on many threads? Or that I can't frame mine until two extremes first define theirs. It just ain't anywhere close to fact and neithe of you can support it with facts. This is a martin-think non-issue you have bought where there are only two positions on any topic--martin and anti-martin. Any other positions are dismissed as unprincipled or an inability to decide. Life ain't that simple, boys and issue are often complex. The notion is so preposterous that I'm embarrassed for him. Principles don't exist only at the extremes, in fact I think there is little logical principle out there at all, just blind ideology. Inaccurate. I'm in favor of the prudent and the pragmatic, therefore I advocate it in the hope that the citizens agree and elect prudent and pragmatic representatives. Enlightened omniscience works for me. Come on, just like any other decision from building levee's to funding NASA. Decisions have to be made, discussions have to be held, cost has to be considered, benefits determined, and most importantly the cost/benefit ratio must be greater than 1:1. Hopefully far greater. Crushing private industry for sure. But government and taxes do play a role in energy policy just as industry and private individuals do. Like the free market mortgage industry? No, wait. That was private industry unencumbered by federal regulations. The Post Office privatized of course. The former strict financial regulation of the FED went away and the banks and lenders went balllistic greedy and collapsed their playhouse . . . and ours. i disagree, think of the issue as a tree with left and right branches. The stability, the equilibrium, the strength, the permanence and thus the obvious datum is in the middle--at the trunk. There is no trouble finding it. The further you go out on the limb towards the extremes, the shakier, weaker and unbalanced the issue becomes. At the far extremes, it is impossible to "set" a position because it regularly breaks off and drops away. The datum is at the center, it is the extremes that are ephemeral and uncertain. You don't have to witness an extreme position to be pragmatic. This is a logical fallacy. Why do you imagine this? I can set my position near the trunk without considering the fools hanging onto the ends of the branches. furthermore I can also recognize positions on other branches. Issues are often complex and people have to move around the the position tree. All positions are based on principles and fundamentals. I believe the moderate principles are logic and pragmatism, while extreme principles are ideology and dogma. Well, it's a general philosophy. But the same principles apply to specific issues. The bell curve puts most of the certainties nearer the center.
Already stated above. Yes. 2012. December 21st. 7:20. You do the math. Humans have not damaged Hebrew mythology at all. In fact, they have promoted it for millenia.
if you want to buy a hybrid, fine. if you want to invest in solar, great. but when the government manages it, they screw it up. ethanol is the perfect example. if you push for government management, it iwll be hamfisted, counterproductive and expensive. you should move to the city and ride a bike to work and eat oragnic local produce and recycle your urine only eat foods from your garden and change your life. why not? if there is any chance you could help! how is it bad for us? by "destroy" do you mean we are making the planet unlivable? do you consider mars to be "destroyed"? isnt the planet more "livable" now than it ever has been because of economic development?
