http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41570&page=11
-------
the last couple of post follow.
from Kandor Red
Okay, I'm going to give this one last shot for now:
1) The Nazism thing goes over the top, and makes it hard to feel like we're in an honest debate. Calling people Nazis is not a way to influence them, or to indicate your openness to dialogue. This is especially true when we're discussing things that are not, for example, genocide or murder.
The Pastor Niemoller quotation you cite doesn't quite fit. Niemoller's point is that a crime against any person is a crime against everybody. His list isn't a mounting series of increasingly worse crimes, but a changing cast of victims that were horrible from the outset.
If you're trying to work the Niemoller quotation around to mean, "Don't accept regulation of industrial emissions, because next thing you know it will be a Maoist one-child policy," then I find that spectacularly unpersuasive.
2) Why are you telling me that CO2 "only makes up 4%" of greenhouse gases? I didn't say it was the majority of greenhouse gases. (It is the usual textbook example used when teaching the greenhouse effect; I remember that from childhood.)
I was attempting to rebut your claim that "CO2 is not pollution" by pointing out that, pollution or not, it is a greenhouse gas.
The exchange, as I saw it, went like this:
1peace: "CO2 is not pollution"
Kandor: "But it is a greenhouse gas."
1peace: "Yes, but it's only 4% of greenhouse gases."
Can you see why I'm not feeling convinced? Or even why I'm not feeling like this is really a conversation? (Even though I've enjoyed other conversations with you.)
3. I don't doubt that you can find selected studies or specific individuals who dispute global warming. Science works through dispute and debate: there will always be scientists in a minority position, especially in minority positions that are favorable to big industry. (Think about those medical doctors whose studies proved tobacco wasn't bad for you.)
The fact that a few scientists dispute a model that most scientists have come to accept does not invalidate the model.
3a. While we're at it, the "global warming, now it's global cooling" line is not the strongest. The global warming model does predict that some regions get cooler (often with bad effects) when
How could such a thing be? Well, let's use a simple but important example: global warming melts more and more ice at the polar caps, so that cold melt water gets into the oceans. Evidently, if enough ice melts, the new supply of cold water will form a layer in the Atlantic that prevents the Gulf Stream from rising to the surface anymore. Think about Western Europe (or Hilton Head) with no Gulf Stream.
"For all things there is a season...."
Kandor Red
--------------------------------------
from 1peace
Kandor,
Let me say on and off the record. I never intended to imply that you or anyone else on the bloc are Nazis or Nazi like. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. Let me state this in the clearest terms. I do not consider ANYONE on the bloc past or present in any way Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I hope we can put that aside at this point and again please accept my apology if I've given that impression with my quick comments.
Now about the Niemoller quote, what I was trying to say is that those population control/Man made climate change advocates mentioned very specifically that the U.K.s population needed to be cut back by half of todays population. They didn't give a method or but one of them in the article did mention 2050 as a date for near extinction. And Kandor I can't think of any benign ways of halving a population by 2050. can you? Or even slowing population growth to near zero till then without heavy handed liberty busting measures.
So these people are in the U.K. so my Niemoller reference could have read something like "1st they came for 30 million in the U.K. but i didn't live in the U.K..." I hope that contextualizes it better. again I'm not saying that it's your view. or the view of a majority of man man climate change supporters but is the clear and disturbing view of some. And one that has the ear of the Prime Minister of the U.K. on the issue. So i don't think it's something that we should just disregard out of hand. Or disregard at all.
As far the comparison of them being Nazis being over the top, well for everyones sake, I hope it is. And again my sorry if my compassion seemed to put a shadow on your position. Part of 1 or 2 of my political positions may partially put me in the company of outright KKK members but i'm not a klan member or sympathetic in anyway. But if the head of the KKK was an adviser to the President and that grand pobas advocated ideas on the issue that i partly agree with him on. i'd want the clear strictest separation as well.
So, anyway, I understand and acknowledge your stance. I gather you believe in man made climate change (as long as the scientific majority promote it.) And are completely against population control and those that promote it.
Sorry for rambling just wanted so long about that just wanted to be clear maybe we can "just move on" from here. But I do reserve the option to Bring those Population Control folks again up if they get more and more news play.
To your second point.
You remember a lot more than I do from school. Everything i think i know about this subject I've mostly picked up in the last few years.
but the exchange as you saw it and what i was responding too was probably off target from the beginning. Pollutant or greenhouse gas it is seen as a threat but if the idea that man made climate change is a wrong then CO2 would cease to be looked upon as a problem. But the alt energy-reduce-reuse-recycle idea would still be valid and bring benefits.
As far as the 4% goes you seem too see CO2 some how as a primary effect or catalyst rather than a small percentage of the whole effect as i understand it. I guess that difference probably hits on why my point didn't move you. i was responding honestly, but from your POV it missed the mark.
And from what i see, human activity is not even able to raise it in any significant way in the foreseeable future. Other natural variables are much more significant factors as far as greenhouse gases are concerned based on my understanding. But if we're concerned about greenhouses gases i've read other alarmist point to methane as a horrible greenhouse gas as well. Much worse than CO2 and rising faster. The bad guys there are cows and termites, bogs and marshes and natural earth seepage. Recycling won't help us there. Kill some cows and then ????. If the alarmist are right we are in a no win situation with Global warming/climate change. If it's true it seems we'd be better off trying to accommodate for it rather than waste time, money and energy(in every sense) in trying to stop it. In other words if the tide is rising then it doesn't make much sense to yell at, beat up and collect a fine from lil jimmy for peeing in the ocean. It's really not his fault, though he did do his part. You'd better just move your blanket and sand castles further inland and hope its far enough....
-------
the last couple of post follow.
from Kandor Red
Okay, I'm going to give this one last shot for now:
1) The Nazism thing goes over the top, and makes it hard to feel like we're in an honest debate. Calling people Nazis is not a way to influence them, or to indicate your openness to dialogue. This is especially true when we're discussing things that are not, for example, genocide or murder.
The Pastor Niemoller quotation you cite doesn't quite fit. Niemoller's point is that a crime against any person is a crime against everybody. His list isn't a mounting series of increasingly worse crimes, but a changing cast of victims that were horrible from the outset.
If you're trying to work the Niemoller quotation around to mean, "Don't accept regulation of industrial emissions, because next thing you know it will be a Maoist one-child policy," then I find that spectacularly unpersuasive.
2) Why are you telling me that CO2 "only makes up 4%" of greenhouse gases? I didn't say it was the majority of greenhouse gases. (It is the usual textbook example used when teaching the greenhouse effect; I remember that from childhood.)
I was attempting to rebut your claim that "CO2 is not pollution" by pointing out that, pollution or not, it is a greenhouse gas.
The exchange, as I saw it, went like this:
1peace: "CO2 is not pollution"
Kandor: "But it is a greenhouse gas."
1peace: "Yes, but it's only 4% of greenhouse gases."
Can you see why I'm not feeling convinced? Or even why I'm not feeling like this is really a conversation? (Even though I've enjoyed other conversations with you.)
3. I don't doubt that you can find selected studies or specific individuals who dispute global warming. Science works through dispute and debate: there will always be scientists in a minority position, especially in minority positions that are favorable to big industry. (Think about those medical doctors whose studies proved tobacco wasn't bad for you.)
The fact that a few scientists dispute a model that most scientists have come to accept does not invalidate the model.
3a. While we're at it, the "global warming, now it's global cooling" line is not the strongest. The global warming model does predict that some regions get cooler (often with bad effects) when
How could such a thing be? Well, let's use a simple but important example: global warming melts more and more ice at the polar caps, so that cold melt water gets into the oceans. Evidently, if enough ice melts, the new supply of cold water will form a layer in the Atlantic that prevents the Gulf Stream from rising to the surface anymore. Think about Western Europe (or Hilton Head) with no Gulf Stream.
"For all things there is a season...."
Kandor Red
--------------------------------------
from 1peace
Kandor,
Let me say on and off the record. I never intended to imply that you or anyone else on the bloc are Nazis or Nazi like. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. Let me state this in the clearest terms. I do not consider ANYONE on the bloc past or present in any way Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. I hope we can put that aside at this point and again please accept my apology if I've given that impression with my quick comments.
Now about the Niemoller quote, what I was trying to say is that those population control/Man made climate change advocates mentioned very specifically that the U.K.s population needed to be cut back by half of todays population. They didn't give a method or but one of them in the article did mention 2050 as a date for near extinction. And Kandor I can't think of any benign ways of halving a population by 2050. can you? Or even slowing population growth to near zero till then without heavy handed liberty busting measures.
So these people are in the U.K. so my Niemoller reference could have read something like "1st they came for 30 million in the U.K. but i didn't live in the U.K..." I hope that contextualizes it better. again I'm not saying that it's your view. or the view of a majority of man man climate change supporters but is the clear and disturbing view of some. And one that has the ear of the Prime Minister of the U.K. on the issue. So i don't think it's something that we should just disregard out of hand. Or disregard at all.
As far the comparison of them being Nazis being over the top, well for everyones sake, I hope it is. And again my sorry if my compassion seemed to put a shadow on your position. Part of 1 or 2 of my political positions may partially put me in the company of outright KKK members but i'm not a klan member or sympathetic in anyway. But if the head of the KKK was an adviser to the President and that grand pobas advocated ideas on the issue that i partly agree with him on. i'd want the clear strictest separation as well.
So, anyway, I understand and acknowledge your stance. I gather you believe in man made climate change (as long as the scientific majority promote it.) And are completely against population control and those that promote it.
Sorry for rambling just wanted so long about that just wanted to be clear maybe we can "just move on" from here. But I do reserve the option to Bring those Population Control folks again up if they get more and more news play.
To your second point.
You remember a lot more than I do from school. Everything i think i know about this subject I've mostly picked up in the last few years.
but the exchange as you saw it and what i was responding too was probably off target from the beginning. Pollutant or greenhouse gas it is seen as a threat but if the idea that man made climate change is a wrong then CO2 would cease to be looked upon as a problem. But the alt energy-reduce-reuse-recycle idea would still be valid and bring benefits.
As far as the 4% goes you seem too see CO2 some how as a primary effect or catalyst rather than a small percentage of the whole effect as i understand it. I guess that difference probably hits on why my point didn't move you. i was responding honestly, but from your POV it missed the mark.
And from what i see, human activity is not even able to raise it in any significant way in the foreseeable future. Other natural variables are much more significant factors as far as greenhouse gases are concerned based on my understanding. But if we're concerned about greenhouses gases i've read other alarmist point to methane as a horrible greenhouse gas as well. Much worse than CO2 and rising faster. The bad guys there are cows and termites, bogs and marshes and natural earth seepage. Recycling won't help us there. Kill some cows and then ????. If the alarmist are right we are in a no win situation with Global warming/climate change. If it's true it seems we'd be better off trying to accommodate for it rather than waste time, money and energy(in every sense) in trying to stop it. In other words if the tide is rising then it doesn't make much sense to yell at, beat up and collect a fine from lil jimmy for peeing in the ocean. It's really not his fault, though he did do his part. You'd better just move your blanket and sand castles further inland and hope its far enough....