KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Dude accepting global warming isn't the same as accepting a carbon-credit market. Why can't you seperate the two?
Because it is impossible. You have the Dems on the one hand accepting the worst case scenario for climate change and wanting to use that worst case to push through their agenda, and you have the Reps on the other hand denying that climate change occurs at all. There's no rational middle ground. Hell, the only scientists you ever hear from are the ones that agree with one of the two hyperbolic political agendas. The science of climate change stopped mattering as soon as Gore released An Inconvenient Truth. Now it's about money and who can profit off of scientific
perception rather than
reality. Science is being used as a cover for money grabs.
I happen to believe in climate change. I don't think it will be as dramatic as people imagine, and I don't believe that
any of the currently proposed solutions will have any impact at all. Transferring funds to poor countries won't help them. Installing more solar panels won't help. Wind farms? Nope. Electric vehicles? Nope. Those are pushed as alternatives, but they're so hopelessly crap that the only way people can make any money at all investing in them is if, again, they convince an ignorant public that subsidizing them, and imposing protectionist tariffs, and putting skyhigh taxes on their competition, is
for the greater good. Raise the cost, and lower the standard, of living, for zero gain except to the charlatans profiting off of shoving it down our throats.
The whole 'green movement' is predicated on exploiting peoples emotions and shouting down anyone as heartless that tries to argue using reason.
Last edited by Jay (2012-03-01 10:13:31)