 egoldstein says: Oh yeah....this is huge! Bigger than the internet and telecommunications revolution...the energy revolution seems poised to be the defining innovation of this century. In addition to creating a much more stable source of energy and helping the environment, the opportunity for investment and new jobs makes this the most exciting opportunity i've ever seen. I believe that halving the GHG emissions should take place much earlier, and I do believe that it will. I suggest that if you casually believe you can get your mind around the figure of 45,000,000,000,000 and force yourself to believe the greed is on the side of those opposed to such initiatives, then I suppose you can force yourself to believe just about anything. 63 billion seconds have passed since the birth of Christ. If you spent 500 dollars PER SECOND since the birth of Christ, you would only make it about two-thirds of the way to 45 trillion. Another thing you could do with that amount of money is buy every poor family of 4-plus in the world a decent home, a lifetime of medical care, and a lifetime worth of food stamps and plenty left over to do it all again in 10 years, since that seems to always be the need. wilhelm, not sure how you're connecting energy revolution to feeding the poor. May be you think people follow you all over clipmarks where ever you comment, I don't. . May be you think people follow you all over clipmarks where ever you comment, I don't.Talk about connecting. I was just talking about the proposed 45 trillion dollar "investment", so they call it. Arifsali, I'm not sure why you felt the personal attack was necessay, but I hope you got something from it. There is no personal attack, and there is no connection between the energy revolution, the trillion dollars and the feeding of poor. I still do not understand why you're linking feeding the poor to the investment in energy revolution. May be you can clarify. I did clarify in my last comment. Sorry if you cannot see the connection, while you casually dismiss the "need" for a 45 Trillion dollar investment (That, however, doesn't raise your eyebrows?). There is an interesting comment refreshed in my mind by egoldstein - It is - "Follow the money!". And, by the way, the reference of "revolution" also pertains to my point. There are no revolutions in technological advancements. It is a misnomer. But, it is an interesting word to use. So it's a study by someone which suggest "world needs to" invest. The world also needs to invest in "self-sustaining" the poor regardless of energy revolution or not. Your above comment on poor is implying something else, you are implying that this Trillion dollars is as same as handing out money to poor, that is two different things in my mind. That's not my point. Arifsali, what you say is my point is not even remotely in the ballpark of my point. I can just say, though, that your focus on the reference to the poor and casual dismissal of the "45 trillion figure" suggests that you are not willing to see my point. I'm willing to see your point hence I've asked you twice already. Let me be very clear and put words into your mouth, I think you're mixing apples and oranges by connecting this supposed investment of some trillion dollars to feeding the poor. You think this investment and study is just another liberal environmental paranoia. I'm fine with this point of yours but you are generalizing all the liberal efforts to reduce the poverty as handouts without self-sustaining models. I obviously disagree with that notion of yours but this is not the appropriate clip for that particular point hence my initial query, where is the connection? In fact, why even bring out the point of feeding the po... Oh, so you miss the point because of your need to obsessively focus on a sarcastic afterthought? That doesn't bode very well for you, arifsali. If anything I was saying that would be a better way to spend the money. However, the context of the amount of money seems to be casual to you as if it is just a typical little number. Yet, you seem to miss the fact that the money is intended to come from somewhere and go somewhere else. It just happens you support the redistribution on political grounds. I guess you would justify taking from the poor and giving to the rich if you felt some personal benefit? Why are you so content with your tinted lenses, Arifsali? Take them off for a bit. okay, now that I think you have gotten my point, let me clarify why I didn't care for the amount (however ridiculous it may seem), the point is, that it is a ridiculous amount. The story - as reported by one particular journalist (his name is on the original source - also appears to be half baked. Here's my point, do we really think that the world is going to wake up in shock over this one story and the amount? Some Paris based agency thinks world needs 45 Trillion dollars and you go gaga over politics of it already? I won't repeat your implied sarcasm again because I have already covered it. I recommend you also take your tinted lenses off some time, it doesn't hurt. Furthermore, what is the point of coming onto a thread, making a personal attack, saying you aren't clear on my point, then telling me the intent of the point after saying you aren't clear. Then after the entire discussion, you come to this conclusion... Here's my point, do we really think that the world is going to wake upSo, in a nutshell, you render the discussion on ANY clip as an exercise in GAGA? So, I am to maintain silence about an opinion for that reason? You first! So, I am to maintain silence about an opinion for that reason?No, you risk being a troller with your 24/7 sarcasm, and you risk being ignored for any substantive arguments, and you risk being biased all the time. Look, you know i don't get myself engage all the time on all the issues but I care for keeping things (conversations) in proper context particularly when you know there are technical limitations on the internet in general. Anyway, I have said what I wanted to say on the topic of clip itself and your first and initial comments. Actually, you've done nothing but make ( and continue to make) personal attacks against me for my opinion. Now you say that the very nature of my good-humored sarcasm is "trolling"? Typical of you Arifsali. Next you'll be saying something about some perceived "attitude". Grow up. Do I have a right to express my opinion on someone's comments/opinion/sarcasm or does this strictly belongs to you? I would never say you do not have that right, Arifsali. You even have the right to your personal attacks. I do not understand the point of the question. You are the one that made the personal attack, mis-characterized my comments, called me a troll, insinuated that my form of expression that mixes seriousness, sarcasm, bluntness, opinion, humor and skeptical questioning, etc risks, in your judgement, the need to be "ignored". Not once did I say you did not have the right to your comment or expression of it (in any way you so choose) and never have I said anyone should be ignored, or risks being ignored because I had a distaste for one's expression. That was ALL you, Arifsali. There was not... you've done nothing but make ( and continue to make) personal attacks against me for my opinion.This is your quote, you used the term "personal attack". I have only indicated your mixing apples and oranges and being out of context (that is my opinion which has been proven correct above, and not personal attack). I think the discussion ended couple of comments ago. If you were to say I were ignorant on a certain subject that would not be a personal attack. This... May be you think people follow you all over clipmarks where ever you comment, I don't.is a personal attack. I have only indicated your mixing apples and oranges and being out of contextNo, that is actually you mischaracterizing my comments, as I stated. I think the discussion ended couple of comments ago.Judging by the intent of your remarks and the course you have set this thread, I think it ended with this one: [i]"I suggest that if you casually believe you can get your mind around the figure of 45,000,000,000,000 and force yourself to... A $45T Clean Energy Revolution The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build someHow is the world supposed to be cleaner with the additional 1,400 nuclear power plants? nuclear power plants aren't a bad ideaAsk the milions of people who survived Chernobyl. Is the risk of a new catostrophy less now? |
View the Top Clips from June 6, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
