The calendar is WRONG

[Kasz216]

theprof00 said:

Kasz216 said:

Because people want reasonable arguements for why we should do things, not rampant fear mongering?

So because one group in a large group says one thing, we shouldn't go along with the ideals of the whole simply because of a demographic within? 

Also, it's not a choice energy independence or not.

It's a choice of energy independence in 10-30 years...

or energy independence in 10-30 years with higher carbon credit taxes on everyone, possibly paying into a international tax that hurts the economy and everyone living a worse standard of life.

I don't know why you chose to represent green society in such a way. I want to say that your example is a gross exaggeration focusing on taxes and lowered SoL as simple "fear mongering". But I honestly don't know what your standpoint is. 

Do you think that green technology and carbon credits go hand in hand? Can they not exist independently? Certainly, you must know something I do not, because nowhere have I seen a citizen carbon credit (if that's indeed what you are implying by 'everyone') co-dependent with with the push for green power sources.

You also have a complete wrong focus on conserving that may or may not save us... when you COULD be working on Geoengineering.  It doesn't have the added benefit of energy independence, but Geoengineering allows you to prevent global warming both manmade and natural. (Which DOES happen afterall)   Additionally it gives you the knowledge to prevent global cooling both manmade and natural.

Most of the global warming advocates are against geoengineering... because, I don't know why exactly, I imagine because it gets in the way of more  taxes on the big nations.

source for this? Which global warming advocates are against this? Because this seems to go hand in hand with the global warming solution. In fact, when I took geosci in university, the global warming solution was presented as many small solutions that end up as one large conglomeration of solutions, and one of those semi-solutions was geological engineering.

How do you take them seriously when they are ignoring the MAIN soulution in favour of a "don't touch it and it'll go away" mentality.

Who supports "don't touch it and it will go away?????" This seems to be the complete opposite! It's the people who are against GW who are saying to ignore it!

1)  Yes?  When their solutions aren't helpful.

2) I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up with the climate control panels.  You can't get to the wanted levels without either gutting all your buisness or greatly reducing consumption, look at europe where they already have a lot of enviromental taxes.

3) See the IPCC and pretty much MOST global warming advocates.  They aren't fans of geoengineering mostly because of political worries.  Look at how Super Freaknomics got trashed by even bringing UP the issue.  It's taken kicking and screaming to barely get any attention when in reality, that's where all the money for global warming should go.  It doesn't take money to get government action, and spending money will probably cause a larger carbon footpring on the adds then it will replace.   It's all rarely talked about though for political reasons.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/geoengineering/

4)  Not at all.  By  "don't touch it" i mean, avoid an actual solution and let whatever problem is there stays there.  People who are against global warming are saying "How about showing me some real science".  

It's one thing to believe a problem and pick an assbackwords way to deal with it.

It's another to ask for a little proof before you act.