Stopped.
What's the difference between what you're 'saying', and what Gore is saying?
Gore is also saying it must be "stopped". Amusing that you both insist that we must somehow 'stop' an overwhelmingly natural process.
It's not [natural]. Even Lindzen agrees. Unless, of course, industrialization is considered to be a natural process.
Rising and falling levels of co2 are not a natural process? Bull.
-- Aren't you both advocating global government controls because you have ~debatable~ belief that '-- atmospheric co2 levels are likely to result in severe unpleasantness --'?
Nope. I don't share Gore's belief in the effectiveness of government controls on this and related issues.
Neat way of inferring that you don't share his ~debatable~ belief that '-- atmospheric co2 levels are likely to result in severe unpleasantness.
But I do.
You boldly said "Nope" just above. --- Which is it?
That's what I've been arguing from the beginning. Just as my first post (or maybe it was my first post on another similar thread) made clear that I don't believe government can stop it.
Yet you advocate it be "stopped". -- How would you have it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not at this stage...and perhaps not at any stage.
You support his beliefs about stopping "garbage" co2, but not on controlling it. -- Sure..
Why is that so difficult to understand? I can agree with a doctor that my friend has cancer but disagree as to the efficacy of a proposed cure.
Paraphrased: --- I can agree with Gore that our world has a 'co2 cancer' that must be stopped but disagree as to the efficacy of a proposed cure, -- as long as it is stopped in some way...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It seems that preserving the environment requires people to restrict their propensity to breed, their desire to get rich, and their dependence on the status quo to stay alive. No government has the power to impose those things. Not now.
"Not now", but people's propensities must be stopped. Ominous.
Things will have to get bad enough so that far more people see the need for collective action
Ah yes, collective action..
Yes, you know. It's what groups of people do when they share a common goal and think it's best to work together to achieve it.
I applaud it when done in a Constitutional manner. -- When its done to correct subjectively "bad" things, -- well, you know.
and, even then, war is far more likely than cooperation. Maybe some technological break-through will save us.
Or maybe a 'collective' return to rational political discourse will save us from Gore-ism.
Ah yes, the fabled, ever-popular, return to Eden.
You see an effort to restore rational constitutional discourse as a "fable"? -- How telling..
Yes, isn't it. When was this period of rational constitutional discourse that we are going to restore? Was it before or after the flood?
Paraphrased: --- I can agree with Gore that our world has a 'co2 cancer' that must be stopped but disagree as to the efficacy of a proposed cure, -- as long as it is stopped in some way...
It's even worse than that. It's going to be stopped in some way - either by human design or by natural processes (the four horsemen).
That's assuming I'm right. I'm only human and could easily be wrong. But the same applies to all of us, doesn't it?