Maybe he's really pissed off at science because of the rise of the church of Scientology. They took a good thing and ruined it for him.
Martin is the one running from specifics. He hasn't cited an actual proposed polocy in writing yet. He make generalized assumptions and then demands detailed answers. It don't work that way. What an absurd notion. I know a great deal about a great many things and there is no correlation between moderate positions and ability to make decisions. A moderate position is as valid a choice as an extreme one. And far more pragmatic Correct. What camps? If you are talking about what the United States should do about it, then the IPCC has no stake. It must be decided by The People and their representatives like all other matters. Some proposed remedies (reforestation, smokestack scrubbers, wind power,etc) will be reasonable and prudent and should be enacted, while others (shutting down heavy industries, corn ethanol subsidies, rich countries paying for third world pollurtion, etc) should not be enacted. Government by The People, as always. Then lets hear your details, philosophies, and solutions. Do you have any original ideas on this or are you just martin's boy? He's a politician, not a scientist and I've never liked him and didn't vote for him. How naive is it to make such an assumption. I'm defending the science here. Al Gore is promoting the public policy. Two different things. I can believe in global warming without buying Al Gore's political philosphy. Not until I hear more about it. But I don't reject it on the basis of martin's hysteria. He still hasn't provided evidence of why it is so horrible that it can't be considered. Neither have you, tirk. Nope. I agree that carbon cap and trade has potential to help if it is done right. I'm not at all sure if the proposal is being done right. Perhaps you can link the proposal for us, martin seems incapable of doing this. That's OK. He can be in the middle of it if he wants to. I choose not to. I think the science is sound. I'm not so sure of many of the proposed solutions. What's wrong with that? If the solution is unsound, it doesn't make the scientific problem imaginary. I don't recognize that there are only two "sides" to a complex issue. You clearly live in martin's black and white world and the shades of gray are invisible to you. How do expect to ever perceive the color of a situation? I don't need to declare what should be done if I'm not certain and I'm not an economist and neither are you or martin. Nevertheless I've already stated for you in the last post what my position is. Practical solutions should be considered and impractical ones should be dropped. If Al Gore offers both practical and impractical solutions, then I can neither support him nor oppose him. It's not inability to make a decision--it's consciously differentiating between good and bad proposals on their merits. Something martin avoids like the plague. If you can't understand my position or don't like it . . . I really don't give a rat's ass. I've clarified every point that you asked me about. I speak for Red55, not Al Gore, not Greenpeace or any other bogieman that you fear in your dreams. I speak with confidence where I have the facts. But I can still have mixed feelings about the entire range of political solutions. Is that so hard to understand? I've shot down this logical fallacy before, too. The extremes do not define the middle, nor do they have to be set before a moderate can choose a position. Furthermore the moderate position is a broad band that includes the center, but also great swaths of right and left. One does not have to be an absolute centrist to be a moderate. Finally one who is philosophically moderate does not have to be temperamentally moderate. I can feel very strongly about some issues and not really care about others. Extremists like martin recognize only two extreme positions and one must be right and the other must be wrong. I believe that both extremes are usually wrong and the answer lies somewhere in the middle, not necessarily dead center.
no, africa is athe opposite. most african countries have a new warlord every weekend that crushes everyone, takes their free UN food rations, sell them, and then buys guns to shoot them with. africa sucks because of a lack of the free market. this is a legit question. we rich first world folks can afford to make an effort, but without the help of the developig countries, can we really stop the warming? and can we really expect the the third world to care? sweet. american cities are like that? new york isnt. incidentally, i like what bloomberg is doing about pollution in new york. he is shutting down highways and makine them pedestrian thoroughfares. times square is shut down completely to cars sometimes. last week there were lawn chairs in the middle of the street. myself, i like to save the earth and ride a bike. i have two of those fixed gear hipster bikes and i save the **** out of the earth with them. i am for polluting the earth when it economically smart, which in many places, is pretty much all the time. no so much in america. i dont think pollution is a very big problem. certainly not when compared to, for example, primitive beliefs and backward politics that dominate parts of the world and cause wars and poverty. you have a good memory and should be commended.
correct. stop taunting my boys. thats cool broseph. lets talk about public policy whynot. well since none of this stuff is actual public policy or as far i can tell, an actuall bill or anything, just ideas coming out of the mouth of holier than thou liberals, it is hard to nail down exactly the policies that would be involved with the carbon tax. but we should be abe to agree that whatever policy, if any, is ever presented to our leaders for real consideration will be terrible. true, there are generally 4 positions. the goofy conservative one, the goofy liberal one, the correct martin one, and the red non-stance. oh snap we should chill out before we set red off
So a free market is not an unregulated market? Because a lack of regulation led to the current situation in Africa. That and rich first world folks pilfering pilfering pilfering. Do you think it is the case that a free market can only occur in rich, first world countries, where there are sufficient resources to sufficiently police corruption? Something to be factored into the equation.
sabanfan said it quite well earlier. these folks need a raison d'etre or whatever (i cant keep up with all this french). they need to justify their existence. imagine you have some unknown malady. you go to a bunch of doctors. the allergist thinks you need to stop eating peanuts. the oncologist thinks it is throat cancer. the shrink thinks your relationship with your parents is causing your pain. the psyciatrist thinks you have problems with seratonin re-uptake in yer brain. they see what they want, even though they are scientists. they interpret. and now we have a bunch of climate dude convincing us they know what is important regarding a topic that is incredibly hard to predict and understand. there are roughly 87 billion factors at work in the climate, including us. but we like to blame ourlseves for whatever we can, any chance we get.
obviously yes. chaos isnt the same as capitalism. if i can punch you in the face, take your car and pay off or shoot anyone who would stop me, that doesnt count as capitalism. it is anarchy. the whole reason government exists is to provide a peaceful framework for us to peacefully and voluntarily exchange ideas and goods and whatever. the government does not exist to take from some and give to others or to manage every detail of everything.
Why even bother with analyzing anything regarding your malady allegory . The fact and findinds of science are good, but the interpretation of it is bad? Thats the purpose of science to predict and understand, you just discredit their findings or dont believe in the interpretation.
