Same propaganda.....different name

[Xavier_Onassis]

I bet Obama could outclimb you. Not that this has a thing to do with the argument.

The fact is that President Obama said that EVERYONE needed to cut pollution. And yet you continue to blame him for ...what?

[sirs]

Exactly...has nothing to do with this arguement...and yet there you were, ignoring everything substantive to the discussion, and instead launching into yet another grammar school neener neener "argument"     
 
The FACT is that regardless what Obama says, he has no control over the largest so-called "polluters" on the globe, and without their actions, nothing we do would have any effect what-so-ever, on altering mother nature's temperature changes, but would severely impact our country economically......and for what?  To make folks like you feel better?....that you're giddy at the idea of "sticking it to Big *insert whatever politically incorrect business/corporation here*??

Nor am I blaming him for anything.  I'm citing the rank hypocrisy from uber-rich, think they know--it-alls leftists, lecturing the rest of us lesser finanical folks on how much we need reduce/cut/cattle-up, while they jet set in their private jets, collosal RV's, mega-million dollar yachts, and stay in one of their multiple mega-mansions

[Plane]

   I think the role of the US should be proactive.
   But the amount that we reduce CO2 emission is secondary to the potential we have to find ways to subtract CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Or perhaps develop a "smart rocks " solution in space.

     It is far to late to recall the industrial revolution, or to deny the benefit of industrialization to India , China or all the resty of the developing world , they just want to do the same as we have done .

      China does build windmills , but there is  no hope for Beijing to have clean air in this generation.

     There is a lot of potential for us to develop control of the weather and control of the composition of the atmosphere, and the USA is well placed to lead such an effort.

[sirs]

Technological advancements are great.  Incentives to be better stewards are also widely accepted.  But you also can't legislate progress.  To proclaim that certain Co2 levels will be reduced by x-% by y-date, or else, places an incredible financial hardship on businesses large and small

But once again, man thinks they're so superior to not only be able to increase the temperature, despite eons of history that provide examples of where temperatures rose significantly with not a shread of man made assist, but to think they can actually mobilize and control future temperature.  Mother nature unfortunately is far superior to anything man thinks they can accomplishes, without nuking the planet

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again. by banning Freon 12, the problem with the holes in the Ozone Layer was at least diminished.

People legislate progress all the time. Ending slavery was legislating progress. It could have been done better without the Civil War.
The 8 hour day, The end of child labor, women's rights are ALL examples of legislating progress.

[sirs]

I'm referring to technological progress, which requires objective parameters & is science driven, not social progress, which is largely subjective, and literally ethic/moral driven     

[Xavier_Onassis]

Oh, yeah, of course you were.

[sirs]

Yea, that's exactly what I was referring to.  You have any facts to the contrary??

[Xavier_Onassis]

Facts about what were referring to?

About when you clearly say something idiotic,m it turns out that this is not at all what you meant, it was this other thing?

[sirs]

FACT is when I was referencing progress, I was specifically referencing technology.

"Technological advancements are great.  Incentives to be better stewards are also widely accepted.  But you also can't legislate progress"  (as in can't legislate technological progress)

Apparently linguistics professors actually have problems with basic grammar.  Who'd a thunk   

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have no clue as to what progress actually is.

[sirs]

And you apparently have no clue as to what debating actually is, in this, a debate forum.  Go figure

[sirs]

....so again, we return to our regularly scheduled debating, in that despite the best of intentions, we can not leglsiate technological progress.  It happens when it happens  We can incentivize, we can be supportive of better habits, we can encourage all of us to be better stewards to this globe.  But the so-called global warming, as supposedly caused by man, has no concensus, despite the endless claims that there is. 

The earth warms, the earth cools....its called climate, and it changes all the damn time.  And no amount of 1 country is going to make even the smallest dent of a difference, in trying to alter the natural cycles of climate........not without nuking the planet

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is a difference between climate and weather.

[sirs]

Not really.... climate is simply what the weather is over a pediod of time