[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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)

I choose the option to refuse Kyoto because another, better, solution is coming. If Kyoto is the only solution anyone ever puts any effort into, then of course there will be no more solutions.

I've put forth some ideas on how things could be improved. You, on the other hand, think there are problems with Kyoto yet choose to ignore them.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

I'll keep that in mind the next time that you decide to comment on a topic. "It didn't come from the mouth of an expert, so it means nothing".

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

I'm not any where close to dismissing it. I don't know what profession you're in, but I'm not arrogant enough to think that some non-expert can't look at my work and suggest an improvement, or ask a critical question which may lead to an improvement.

Take your car mechanic example. If the "expert" recommends that you need a new engine, are you going to take that at face value or are you going to question it? Are you going to ask questions? Look for a second opinion?

Perhaps they've already thought of the criticisms that are being levied upon Kyoto. Perhaps they haven't. Criticism and evaluation of an expert's work should still happen.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

Obviously I've put more time into it, as it doesn't look as though you've devoted one second into coming up with a better idea.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

If we have a flying car that can only fly for 5 minutes before needing recharging, it's gotta be obviously the best since it's the only one. Who cares if we can make one that will fly for 10 minutes. Let's just promote this one and come down on anyone who criticizes it.

Is that what you're saying?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

You're obviously confusing me with someone else. I've put forth ideas on how to improve it. Incentives to create cleaner technology, not paying another country for polution credits. Gee. That took a whole 20 seconds to type.

You, on the other hand, acknowledge that there are problems and yet choose to ignore them. You also, obviously, have failed to even look for alternatives. All I did was look up the Kyoto protocol on wikipedia, and I found that other link.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

Most people obviously did wait for a better solution where computers were involved. They did not buy one until it was smaller and much more affordable. How many people bought computers that were the size of rooms? Only the most wealthy. Until the technology matured and became more affordable, the general public looked at computes with awe but remained on the sidelines.

I'm saying, and I think others are too, that the same approach should be taken with the environment. One idea is not enough. One idea, the first idea, is not going to be anywhere as efficient, affordable or effective enough.

I have ideas (and have mentioned some) that I think would improve things. I'm willing to have these ideas examined, criticized, possibly rebuked or accepted.

I want to see your evaluation of the problems of Kyoto (even at a high and simple level) and possible or alternate solutions to those problems. From your developing track record, I doubt I'll see anything.