|
List Info Thread: Re: Re:Response to Win's questions
[1-2]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Re:Response to Win's questions |
|
List Info Thread: Re: Re:Response to Win's questions
[1-2]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics ) |
||||||||||||||||||||
yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greenpeace is one of many special interests
(some corporate, some
>activists) that have a stake in taking one side or the
other.
Greenpeace is a mojor funder of a lot of the propaganda that
you see, but hardly the only and not the biggest. Just my
own
personal boogyman. But is a great example.
>Is that an actual job title, or a label you slap on
people who
>disagree with you about global warming?
Social scientists are mostly anthropologists and study in
that
field. Social Engineers are out of Orwell, (Sorry, oppinion
here).
But the job has been around as long as governments have
opperated
and controlled populations. The mass starvations in the
Ukrain, was
an example of social engineering on Stalins part as was
Cambodia
under Pol Pot.
>
> --I haven't made any civilization-altering decisions.
I was under the impression that you supported the Kyoto
Accords, a major and terrible example of social engineering.
If not,
I appologize, my bad.
> --So far, I've seen two kinds of argument against
anthropogenic
>global warming here: one, the use of a strawman tactic
>(Greenpeace, "Gore-ophobia", etc) and the
other, a deluge of
information
Since Al Gore and orginizations like Greenpeace are some of
the
biggest purveyors of false information and lies on the
issue, they
must be scourced, and the "deluge of information",
well
bibliographed thanks to Ron, needed as evidence to refute
their
claims.
> which don't address the human component at all (some
variation
>of "warming and cooling happens naturally, don't
those stupid
>scientists realize that?" Yes, they do).
It addresses the huge, gigantic, enormous,
humongous...natural
sources of greenhouse gasses and causes of global warming as
compared to the massive, "I don't know how much, but it
must be
something", against the side of man. Because man
exists, breaths,
and has waste products does not mean he is worsening the
global
warming.
It shows the real causes of global warming, past, present,
and
future against no actual evidence blaming us.
>I haven't seen much discussion about the facts and
research
>presented by scientists, only the political
implications, which
>have nothing to do with whether the science is accurate
or not.
Yes we have, or have you just dumped Rons postings into the
circular file for convenience sake. It was the "deluge
of
information", you were just complaining about.
> So we need to decide if this conversation is about
science or
>about politics, or we'll get muddled between the two.
It is junk science used to engineer society and has become a
poitical football. Of course it is muddled. What in life
isn't and
why didn't I get the memo.
> --Which facts have you checked, and how were they
erroneous?
If you are going to ignore the previous postings made by
others
then please Google it yourself. If you won't, how can we
debate it?
>In this case, whether Greenpeace or the Bush
Administration or any
>other political group lies or not has nothing to do with
science,
>and it would be extremely misleading to imply that only
>environmentalist groups lie or mislead the public, you'd
have to
>have at least one eye closed to make that kind of claim.
It has plenty to do with science. They are using science, or
rather Junk-Science to make their argument. The fact that
they are
lying now is hopefully coroborated by the fact that they
lied then
and have almost always lied when it suits them.
>I've met former conservatives and Christians who said
they were
>lied to by political organizers or pastors. Are
conservatism and
>Christianity discredited by that fact?
That is a non-sequiter at best. It does however mean that
you
shouldn't trust political organizers and certain pastors.
Conservatism and Christianity are a group of ieals and
beliefs. They
can be right or wrong but they can't lie. A belief doesn't
lie, but
their proponents can.
> If the KKK advocates tax cuts, are tax cuts necessarily
a bad
idea? >
Certainly not, but if I had to guess, I would say that you
could find some bed sheets under the seat of his pick-up.
And while
he could probably speak as an expert on the burning
properties of
certain wood products when in the configuration of a cross,
I would
not, as a rule take his pronouncements on String Theory very
seriously.
>
> --If facts are left out of scientific research, let's
talk about
>those facts. If it's a political issue for you, you may
not believe
>research that is valid, if it goes against your grain.
It's best
>not to confuse politics, which has to do with what
people DO with
>science, with science itself.
We have been talking the research. If it is being acted on
by
the government it is a political issue, whatever you or I
believe. I
would have to guess that anyone on this site has an open
mind,
closed against only those things that are evidenced to be
false. The
earth is not flat. If the science is being used or missused
by the
government and political orginizations, the people trying to
correct
the situation, with the truth, are confused??? I guess I
must be.
> --If someone says, "Greenpeace lies, therefore the
research is
>wrong", it makes sense to point out that it's not
just liberal
>groups that suppress information that goes against their
grain. If
>both sides are doing it, the strawman argument can't be
used, and
>I'd like to go beyond strawmen and into science.
>
Greenpeace lied AND the research is wrong. I don't care if
they are
liberal or conservative or Martians, just this time they are
the far
left. And unless you are going to burn him to cook hotdogs
leave
your "strawman" out of this. It is all part and
parcell to the
arguement.
> --I'm wondering: in your mind, is recognition of
anthropogenic
>global warming necessarily tied to the notion that
government will
>force people to make sacrifices? If so, you're
conflating two
>issues together.
If the government forces me to do aything because of global
warming then the issues are fairly well tied together in my
book.
> --How do you know that? Do you have an incredibly
powerful
>alternate-historical-scenario generator handy? You could
make a lot
>of money with one of those.
Hitler wrote in his letters and the German Armey had
contingency plans in case England proved obstreperous over
the
Sudetenlands. They were to back off. Germany was not ready
for a
global war yet. He also had not yet cemented his political
power in
Germany and feared being kicked out for causing one then.
> It would have made more sense to me if we'd stopped
with the
>removal of the Taliban, and then demanded that other
nations work
>with us to marginalize and dry up funding for terrorist
groups. We
>could have done more about the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and we
>could eventually have removed Saddam with greater
backing and
>cooperation from other nations, with a plan for Arab
troops to step
>in if the occupation lasted longer than planned.
As long as Saddam continued purchasing the governments of
France, Germany, and Russia we would have been able to do
nothing to
him. We have been trying to bring in Arab troops, with
limited
success.
> No way to deal with that by invading every nation on
the brink of
>nuclear power. We're going to need global cooperation
for that, and
>we've lost our credibility to such a degree that the
global effort
>may have to be led by someone else, trusted by more of
the world to
>do the right thing for the right reasons.
I am all for bombing, burning, or even invading anyone who
we
are certain is crazy enough to use them against us. Saddam
has used
chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians, and would
most
certainly have handed one or more to anyone who could
smuggle one
into the US. Do you doubt he would have launched a missile
if he
could have?
> --True. But even the USSR was undermined in some places
by
>nonviolent resistance movements. Nonviolent resistance
was used in
>Denmark against the Nazis, successfully.
They were embarrassed at worst in both cases. The Danes were
brave in their resistance to "The Final Solution",
but it didn't
save Ann Frank. Alexander Solsenitzen was a brave man but
hardly
caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There is no way Denmark or any of Europe would have been
freed
without the use or threatened use of force.
>We ASSUME violent solutions are necessary and won't
backfire more
>badly than it's worth, but that may be a cultural
mythology, a
>product of cowboy movies and fear of appearing weak.
"Sometimes you have to fight when you're a man".
Kenny Rogers--
Coward Of The County
Not very many cars with NRA stickers are car-jacked and
oddly
enough, American Rifleman subscribers don't seem to get
their houses
broken into as much as your average American. It must be
because
they are nice people. University of Chicago study circa
1990's.
We have gone off into a tangent. Other forums ae better for
the
merrits of gun control and world history.
Jim
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank e-mail from the
address you subscribed under to:
imagestream-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: