Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Nov 19, 2009 18:34:43 GMT -8
Brendan - "Look, Craig, you're obviously very adept at using the copy-paste function on your computer and if I wanted to spam this board with a stream of articles directly refuting yours I could. I simply don't care if you want to believe man has that much ability to impact our climate. (though here's an example of how absurd I think the 'consensus' position is: "Global Warming Causes Everything")"
Craig- We differ sir, I always care and reflect upon the views of my debating partner.
Absurd? Regarding the validity of the current consensus scientific theory that global warming is a man-made phenomenon; 137 nations were signatory of the Kyoto treaty (138 now that we have a President intelligent enough to understand science), every nation that has an Academy of Science agrees, esteemed universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford etc agree.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
[glow=red,2,300]Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. [/glow]
So Brendan, time for a reality check. Is any of the information stated above registering? As a veteran of debate, I have met my burden and the merits of my argument prevail. I have the science, the consensus of respected scientists, of universities and scientific organizations. The facts support my position.
Brendan - "What's most troubling is that governments around the world are capitalizing on the momentum of the global warming crowd and using it to increase the cost of energy, raise taxes, and exercise more and more control over citizens. This is a problem when the momentum they are capitalizing on may or may not be on a false premise!"
Craig - This is a most cynical view! I view the motives of governments and scientists as altruistic - motivated from a genuine desire to save humanity.
As for increasing the cost of energy, of course! Transition is costly but as life teaches us, short term pain for long term gain! Raising taxes, perhaps, but large collective and transformative efforts require sacrifice. More control over citizens? Develop solar, battery, wind and other green technology liberates people! The new technology will restore good paying jobs Bush let hemorrhage out of the country! Green industry will be the 21st century's "industrial revolution." Embrace change! Embrace innovation! Embrace our future.
Brendan - The politicization of this issue is dangerous on so many levels. Where will your compassion be when John Q. Public lower-middle-class can't afford to heat his home next winter because the 'carbon tax' levied by the government on his gas company has caused his energy prices to skyrocket?
Craig - My experience has been that it is too often neo-con conservatives (not all conservatives) that politicize the issue by again rejecting science whenever it conflicts with political ideology or religious dogma. Given your statements above - you seem to fear that this is all a liberal conspiracy to grow government and to create the 'socialist dream.' I believe government has a role as a facilitator, of fostering development and research, and as the European Union did with Air Bus, funding a new industry.
Brendan - "Stepping away from the political side, I'm with Jon philosophically. I hate the fact that we've spent 100 years driving around internal combustion engines - we should be Way beyond that technology. Oil companies have been happy to lure money away from tech that doesn't focus on fuel-burning engines, and that sucks. There is nothing good about harmful pollution that causes disease, cancer and the like. Everyone should do their part individually to be good stewards of their own environment. At the same time, I believe Chris should have the freedom to buy two Hummers, tie them together and drive them both simultaneously as long as he's willing to spend the money to buy gas for them both."
Craig - I agree! Well spoken Brendan. But I would add that this battle cannot be won by efforts of the individual. We need to mobilize and unite in a collective effort for the welfare of our posterity. As was the case in WWII we face as a people a threat to our way of life. As Darwin correctly reasoned, "it is not strength or even intelligence that allows a species to thrive and survive, what ensures survival is the ability to adapt to a changing environment. Darwin was a genius.
In closing Brendan, we must transcend politics, accept scientific consensus, unite in common cause and take bold and decisive action to safeguard our posterity.
Ah, the Salmon is ready. Bye!
p.s. We have a mega signing here in LA Saturday. If you have a Tyler CD cover you want signed, let me know. I'll do the same thing I am doing with Kuhni - he will sign mine, I'll mail it and you mail me yours! How cool is that.
Craig- We differ sir, I always care and reflect upon the views of my debating partner.
Absurd? Regarding the validity of the current consensus scientific theory that global warming is a man-made phenomenon; 137 nations were signatory of the Kyoto treaty (138 now that we have a President intelligent enough to understand science), every nation that has an Academy of Science agrees, esteemed universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford etc agree.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
[glow=red,2,300]Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. [/glow]
So Brendan, time for a reality check. Is any of the information stated above registering? As a veteran of debate, I have met my burden and the merits of my argument prevail. I have the science, the consensus of respected scientists, of universities and scientific organizations. The facts support my position.
Brendan - "What's most troubling is that governments around the world are capitalizing on the momentum of the global warming crowd and using it to increase the cost of energy, raise taxes, and exercise more and more control over citizens. This is a problem when the momentum they are capitalizing on may or may not be on a false premise!"
Craig - This is a most cynical view! I view the motives of governments and scientists as altruistic - motivated from a genuine desire to save humanity.
As for increasing the cost of energy, of course! Transition is costly but as life teaches us, short term pain for long term gain! Raising taxes, perhaps, but large collective and transformative efforts require sacrifice. More control over citizens? Develop solar, battery, wind and other green technology liberates people! The new technology will restore good paying jobs Bush let hemorrhage out of the country! Green industry will be the 21st century's "industrial revolution." Embrace change! Embrace innovation! Embrace our future.
Brendan - The politicization of this issue is dangerous on so many levels. Where will your compassion be when John Q. Public lower-middle-class can't afford to heat his home next winter because the 'carbon tax' levied by the government on his gas company has caused his energy prices to skyrocket?
Craig - My experience has been that it is too often neo-con conservatives (not all conservatives) that politicize the issue by again rejecting science whenever it conflicts with political ideology or religious dogma. Given your statements above - you seem to fear that this is all a liberal conspiracy to grow government and to create the 'socialist dream.' I believe government has a role as a facilitator, of fostering development and research, and as the European Union did with Air Bus, funding a new industry.
Brendan - "Stepping away from the political side, I'm with Jon philosophically. I hate the fact that we've spent 100 years driving around internal combustion engines - we should be Way beyond that technology. Oil companies have been happy to lure money away from tech that doesn't focus on fuel-burning engines, and that sucks. There is nothing good about harmful pollution that causes disease, cancer and the like. Everyone should do their part individually to be good stewards of their own environment. At the same time, I believe Chris should have the freedom to buy two Hummers, tie them together and drive them both simultaneously as long as he's willing to spend the money to buy gas for them both."
Craig - I agree! Well spoken Brendan. But I would add that this battle cannot be won by efforts of the individual. We need to mobilize and unite in a collective effort for the welfare of our posterity. As was the case in WWII we face as a people a threat to our way of life. As Darwin correctly reasoned, "it is not strength or even intelligence that allows a species to thrive and survive, what ensures survival is the ability to adapt to a changing environment. Darwin was a genius.
In closing Brendan, we must transcend politics, accept scientific consensus, unite in common cause and take bold and decisive action to safeguard our posterity.
Ah, the Salmon is ready. Bye!
p.s. We have a mega signing here in LA Saturday. If you have a Tyler CD cover you want signed, let me know. I'll do the same thing I am doing with Kuhni - he will sign mine, I'll mail it and you mail me yours! How cool is that.