Originally Posted By vbdad55 Just that it requires a pretty major change in the way the country is run.. States rights would start and stop where ? Lots to work out. insurmountable , maybe not, but a quick resolution - doubtful unless faced with a crisis of major proportions.
Originally Posted By jonvn State's rights are subordinate to the federal government's. I know government messes things up. Just look at how messed up HDTV is. But, something on a scale this large simply requires the intervention of the government, and it is actually their responsibility in that they are charged with keeping us safe and secure, which at the very least is also part of the issue. The thing is, we simply have to do it. Even if you don't believe a shred about global warming at all, simply to get off of foreign energy. And the thing is this will actually be good for our economy, as the government would have to pump billions into construction and research projects all around the nation. That is money that will go into people's hands, and perhaps industries that will be created in this country.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 and those billions paid out will likely come from increased taxes.. yes some industries will prosper which is good... there is a cost for everything....that is why I say selling it will be key.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << and those billions paid out will likely come from increased taxes.. >> Or we could just borrow all the money and pass the costs along via the hidden tax of inflation -- which seems to be the scheme on how to pay for the war in Iraq. The American consumer is paying a high price in inflation right now that they never got back in their "tax cuts."
Originally Posted By jonvn Maybe it will come from increased taxes, or we'll just borrow it like we did for this stupid war. Which will eventually require new taxes, I think. But if it is something that must be done, it is something that must be done. Additionally, things could be done through tax CUTS, or credits, which would go to people and industries that did the most to convert. How else?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 jonvn, you are right about our need to get off foreign energy. Although I doubt the need for global warming hysteria, I do completely and totally support finding new energy sources. We do need to find a cleaner, more efficient power source for personal automobiles. We do need to find a more efficient type of power plant. Hey, I even support the idea of a "manhattan project" for energy. After seeing what happens when we fund jihad everytime we buy gas, I think most Americans are coming around to this way of thinking. America led the way into the Age of Steam, Age of Oil and the Nuclear Age. Each time we benefited economically by having the most efficient energy system tied to our industrial capacity. We must find and enter the next age of energy if for no other reason than the economical benefits. But do you really think that this action alone will stop global warming? Like I have been discussing with Dabob, I'm not sure this is enough if you really believe in the need to stop anthropogenic global warming. Even the recommendations put forth by the latest UN position paper call for more than that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But do you really think that this action alone will stop global warming?" We need to do what we can and have to. And you can do anything unless you actually start doing something. And if you try to say "This alone won't do it" to every single proposal, then you'll never do anything at all.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Then I'm not sure what you think your point is.> My point is that a concern is not a crisis.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not whether he personally believes it or not, it's what science is telling us.> Science is not telling us "sea-level is going to drastically increase". A few millimeters a year is not drastic.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's an interesting way of putting the fact that it is stated the potential is several feet.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Several feet is the worst case scenario Jonvn as is the 110 degree summers being talked about. For the record, those numbers are not concrete unless weather science has increased to where they can predict the future with certainty. They barely can do that a week in advance. What they can give is a range from best case to worst case with the greatest probability lying somewhere in the middle. A couple of feet is at the edge of the range.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's an interesting way of putting the fact that it is stated the potential is several feet.> Which peer-reviewed scientific journal stated that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Then I'm not sure what you think your point is.>> <My point is that a concern is not a crisis.> Really? Because you haven't articulated much in the way of either. Like jonvn, I prefer to listen to what the great majority (not all) of the world's experts on this issue are saying - and also listen to those who are saying something different, but understanding that they represent a distinct minority at this point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because you haven't articulated much in the way of either.> I've acknowledged several times that global warming is a concern, and that it's prudent to take reasonable steps to decrease it. I just don't believe it's a crisis. <I prefer to listen to what the great majority (not all) of the world's experts on this issue are saying - and also listen to those who are saying something different, but understanding that they represent a distinct minority at this point.> This is no different than what I do, except that I don't present the minority alarmist view as if it was the majority.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Several feet is the worst case scenario Jonvn as is the 110 degree summers being talked about." Let us assume that it is even the worst case scenario. Actually, the worst case scenario is like 40 feet, but we'll ignore that. So what? This means we're still not supposed to do anything until that happens? What kind of ridiculous attitude is that? Let's just wait until Florida is under water before we make an effort? That's a really great plan.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Because you haven't articulated much in the way of either.>> <I've acknowledged several times that global warming is a concern, and that it's prudent to take reasonable steps to decrease it. I just don't believe it's a crisis.> Depends how one defines "crisis," I suppose. Some of the worst effects won't be seen until some of us are dead and buried, but I still see that as something requiring action. Perhaps we're not as far apart as you think if you really believe in "prudent steps." But of course, that depends on how one defines "prudent steps." <<I prefer to listen to what the great majority (not all) of the world's experts on this issue are saying - and also listen to those who are saying something different, but understanding that they represent a distinct minority at this point.>> <This is no different than what I do, except that I don't present the minority alarmist view as if it was the majority.> I think you're attempting to define "alarmist view" as though that were what the rest of us were defending or holding ourselves. Not so, at least in my case. I DO see you positing the minority view (even if, as in your posting of the "Science" article, it's clear you don't quite understand it) as though it had equal weight with the majority view. It's a subtle technique, but not as subtle as you think.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I DO see you positing the minority view (even if, as in your posting of the "Science" article, it's clear you don't quite understand it) as though it had equal weight with the majority view.> What I did was post actual science, rather than parrot the alarmists. Just because you chose to ignore all of what I posted to focus on the one point doesn't mean they weren't there.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What you did was post a few articles held by people with the minority view, and that's fine. But plenty of other people have posted articles held by scientists holding the majority view, that were not alarmist at all. Sure, a minority of legit scientists hold this minority view. But to pretend that they hold equal weight with the non-alarmist majority view is to be intentionally misleading.
