Your fundamental problem, TA, is in believing that this isn't an issue that needs to be addressed. If you'd admit that, then I would take your arguments on the effectiveness/appropriateness of certain plans to combat the issue a little seriously. But you don't believe it's an issue, and the main reason I can gather you don't is because it means that all this glorious progress we've made in the past couple hundred years or so has had negative side effects, AND THAT JUST WON'T DO!
Well, maybe I am not making myself clear. Of course, we need to be more responsible with our energy use. Of course we need to do whatever we can to recycle, renew and replant what we destroy. It's the path we have been on WELL BEFORE this even became an issue. We are a global leader in environmental technologies.
Like I said in my opening rant, we are on the verge of creating a new sector in our economy .. new high paying jobs that are not dependent on resources or geography. There is no downside to this change.
My beef is with the speed to where we get there. For a smooth transition, you need ease these laws/taxes in. You can not just destroy what is left of our manufacturing base to meet some global deadlines that no one else in the world can meet.
My beef is with the "10 years left" crowd .. not environmentalism in general. Because, as it stands right now, we do not have perfect methods of recording global temperature ... and we don't not have perfect methods of measuring global rainfall. Two fundamental aspects of the issue at hand. More time is still needed before we start hitting the panic button.
It's not an "arguement" and it's not an argument either. You're a fucking loon, and there's no way to have a decent intellectual discussion with a loon.
Wow. Speling corrections and more personal attacks ... I'm amazed at you're cunning skills.
