[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I see 2 choices too. Kyoto and a better option to Kyoto (whether it currently exists or not is irrelevant). I choose the better option. It must be nice to not want to strive for improvements and just choose the "best available". I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you, as we would not have computers as fast as we have (or at all), cars as efficient as they are (with improvement yet to come), etc.

So... you choose the non-existant option. Ok. I guess I find the 'best available' solutions to be the ones I support. If a better one comes along (perhaps your, again, non-existant option?) I'll take a look at it.

Are you currently working on this new alternative to Kyoto? (oops, I forgot.. its MY job to find the alternative to the strategy I support... I'm still pretty confused about that)

Experts, while having an increased knowledge base to work from, should not get a free pass from questioning. While they can address most issues that the common person would question, they are not immune to overlooks or to focussing too much on one aspect and ignoring the rest. They are not the end-all be-all. If you think they are, you'd better not ever question anybody - including Flames management or players.

No... at the same time though, their opinion is probably more valid than yours or mine. I figure the best people to refute experts... are other experts. Not CalPuckers shooting from the hip.

The best inventions in the world do not come from experts. They come from someone who came up with an idea and then found experts to help bring that idea to fruition.

Well... I guess I believe that Global Comprehensive Environmental Management is something that several 'experts' are going to be involved in. 100's, if not 1000's.

I take my car to a mechanic, I get taught by a professor, and I leave environmental policy to environmental experts. I just see the work they've done and try my best to choose the right way. I don't have the thousands of hours required to fully understand global warming, let alone solutions to it.

Apparently you can dismiss Kyoto in 1/1000th of the time it took to create it. I'm not so bold.

[quoteI'm definitely getting the sense that instead of coming up with better ideas, you're happy with letting others do ALL the work instead.[/quote]
Uh... finding global comprehensive environmental strategies isn't my job. Its not yours either. Its the 'experts'. How much time have you put into coming up with a better idea? About the same as me?

You make it sound like all these organizations are just begging for my input and I'm not making the effort. I didn't create Kyoto, and I didn't create Global Warming. I support the best current initiative because thats exactly what it is.

It's the only plan available, so it's the best plan? WOW!

Well... by necessity, its obviously the best. Since its the only one, its also the worst, the biggest, the smallest, and the most likely to both succeed and fail. Whats your point?

I'm not saying that you have to come up with an entire solution. Just give the 15,000 ft version. Give an overview. Surely you can even do that. How would you improve on Kyoto?

I'm the Kyoto supporter. You're not. YOU provide an alternative.

This is the crux of this whole debate. I see a strategy, I see no others, I assume that this is the one to follow. If another strategy comes out (which I fervently hope) then maybe that one will be better.

How would you improve on Kyoto? I've chosen my side, what's yours? You've nimbly side-stepped on multiple occassions the fact that you don't have an answer. You don't know whats right to do, but you do know whats wrong?

so... "If we don't have to do it today, why not do it tomorrow" is a bad attitude... but "The first idea is the best idea and how dare you criticize it" isn't?

The first idea, currently, is the only idea.

For some reason you seem to imply that I am not open to any other strategy other than Kyoto. I am. Present one. Anything. I want to believe there is a better way.

If it comes in a month, year, decade, fair enough. When it comes, I'll take a look.

Believe it or not, there is something worse than spending more time to come up with alternate solutions... it's jumping in with both feet to a bad and obviously flawed solution. Sure it's a solution, and in an ideal world it might get to the same end point.. but the chances of it getting there are slim and the expenses incurred along the way are great. Give people time to come up with another solution, instead of hammering them on not believing in the only current proposal.

Sure, but I don't see anyone coming up with alternative solutions (seriously, is there a global forum on climate change/pollution that will be rivalling Kyoto that I'm unaware of?). Some people also believe that time is of the essence when dealing with the environment, and think that if you spend a penny now you save a pound later. Maybe thats true, maybe we have 1000 years until we have to start looking at our actions and the way they affect the planet.

Who says I'm not 'giving people time'? Jeez, all I'm doing is supporting a theory that I think is the best (only) one. If another comes in a couple years, I'll look at that. You could _always_ wait for a better solution just like you could always wait for a better computer... I'm sure technology will always be advancing, better ways will always be found. Why not start today with something, and, as we learn more, augment/change it as necessary, or scrap it if thats deemed best at that pont.

I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you

Uncalled for in a civil debate. I haven't personally commented on you.