50 replies to this topic

[kvnchrist]

 

 

I was speaking about the results of the occurances. Falling off a building as opposed to the effects of global warming. It is these comapisons that I truly believe push people from the realm of listener to skeptic and some even off the fence.  There is a logical falacy that could easily be implimented here.

 

I see...

 

please then, feel free to come up with a better analogy to reinforce my point that won't turn listeners into skeptics j/k

 

Drunk driving, Tobacco use. ect. Falling off a building is terminal. From what I've understood about where global warming is supposedly leading us, it would severly effect the environment, but it wouldn't be terminal.  You've got to understand that when you are debaiting on these forums you are not just talking to those who are debaiting you, but those who meerly come across these topics from the other areas and what to see what they are about.

 

You will hardly influence the people who have pretty much formed their opinion on this issue, but you can peak the interests of those who read without posting. Take for instance the hits for this individual topic. The last time I looked it was  around 200 hits. Do you really think that those who've posted here have returned here that many times? No.

 

Debaiting is a performance skill that deals more with relating issues to individuals. When you go out on a limb, you might just find out the majority has left you there. That's never a good thing, since you will be branded and discarded. AKA ignored.

 

To quote a good friend of mine. Debait is a game of chess, not checkers. It doesn't matter how many pices you have on the table, which is what people do when they throw everything against the wall in hopes that something stick.  What matters is where you leave your opponient in the end. The best place is without options, which is infact check and mate.

[HeyYou]

If I found out I had lung cancer, why then, would I quit smoking at that point, the proverbial horse is already out of the barn. If I am going to die, might just as well be from something I enjoy.

 

Aside from the minor detail of being diagnosed with cancer is pretty much fact, meanwhile, back at the ranch, global warming is still just a theory, and a rather controversial one at that. If someone put forth a theory that the sun may explode in the next century, would you advise us all to start digging shelters?

 

Now, I will grant you that reducing our CO2 output wouldn't be a bad thing, IF it was approached logically, and we took steps that actually made sense, and wouldn't destroy our economy...... but, the terms "Logically" and "makes sense" have absolutely no business in politics....... and this IS a political issue. Plain and simple.

[kvnchrist]

Well, Cancer is a relatively good example of what the Global Warming enthusiasts deem is instore for the Earth, since it is progressive and in time will overcome what they suppose is the normal activity of the weather. The real debate seems to concentrate on the term normal or natural.

 

In this analalogy, If you already had Cancer then the world would already be in the throws of the results of Global Wrming. Either way, would stopping what we were doing do any good at all for those who existed at the time?

 

I think Tobacco use and driving drunk would be much better to use than falling off a building because the outcome wouldn't be so absolute. There is a risk in everything we do as we walk though this thing called life. Some are more certain than others and in this political environment, the use of extreams are more often deligated to the spam section of life.

 

These people who are pushing this so hard, might just find the ground of debate much shorter than the length of their rhetoric and push themselves right off into the same status as Peta.

[colourwheel]

 

Drunk driving, Tobacco use. ect. Falling off a building is terminal. From what I've understood about where global warming is supposedly leading us, it would severly effect the environment, but it wouldn't be terminal.

 

If the planet became inhabitable to live on it would be terminal for us. maybe not terminal for the planet itself, it would still be here but most likely we wouldn't be. Regardless at the rate the average global temperature is rising the planet will eventually become inhabitable to live on. For those who don't believe this, feel free to share credible research that proves this wrong. 

 

 

.... global warming is still just a theory, and a rather controversial one at that.

 

 

One fact remains. The climate changes. We can adapt, or we can die. Those are the choices.

 

"Global warming" isn't just a theory, you said it yourself earlier that the climate is changing. I was only stressing that the climate is changing at an accelerated rate because of an enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 which has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence.

 

 

Now, I will grant you that reducing our CO2 output wouldn't be a bad thing, IF it was approached logically, and we took steps that actually made sense, and wouldn't destroy our economy...... but, the terms "Logically" and "makes sense" have absolutely no business in politics....... and this IS a political issue. Plain and simple.

 

So keeping the" Economy" alive is some how more important to you than the actual planet we inhabit. Last time I checked we only have one planet to live on. an economy can be destroyed and rebuilt unlike a planet..... and here you are making claims in terms of "logic" and "making sense"?

Edited by colourwheel, 28 November 2014 - 01:29 AM.

[HeyYou]

How does it make sense to trash our economy, in order to 'save the planet', when we know very well what the results would be? Do you think resource wars, and things of that nature would be 'better' than the climate changing?

 

My point is, yes, the climate DOES change. It WILL change, regardless of what we do. Oceans rise and fall regardless of the activities of man. Ice ages come and go regardless of even the presence of man. The climate changing may make it uncomfortable, and reduce the amount of population that the earth will support, but, a nuclear war would have FAR more drastic effects than even another ice age.

 

Also, it doesn't really matter much what we here in the states do. Unless EVERYONE makes an effort, no one elses effort will amount to a hill of beans. Given the current state of international affairs, you are going to have zero luck getting places like China, Russia, and India on board. Especially if it is going to have even the slightest negative effect on THEIR economy. So, should the US 'go it alone', and have even more of our jobs flee the country? Let China continue their double digit economic growth, which they sink into their military? What do you think is going to happen when China no longer fears the US military? Or Russia? Our government is surviving on borrowed money NOW. Reduce the economy even a little bit, and that gets MUCH worse. Shall we cut social programs in order to continue to fund our military? (and if you do, you are going to NEED the military right here at home.....)

 

The climate HAS gone thru rapid shifts in the past as well, due to a variety of causes. (orbital cycles, tectonic activity, etc.) It has also been shown in certain studies that CO2 content FOLLOWED temp change, not led it. (an effect, not a cause.) For the last 15 years, temp has not appreciably increased, even though CO2 content has continued to rise at a pretty respectable rate. Kinda shoots holes in the cause and effect theory there, now doesn't it.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Drunk driving, Tobacco use. ect. Falling off a building is terminal. From what I've understood about where global warming is supposedly leading us, it would severly effect the environment, but it wouldn't be terminal.

 

If the planet became inhabitable to live on it would be terminal for us. maybe not terminal for the planet itself, it would still be here but most likely we wouldn't be. Regardless at the rate the average global temperature is rising the planet will eventually become inhabitable to live on. For those who don't believe this, feel free to share credible research that proves this wrong. 

Here you go again jumping to the nether regions with rhetoric. The word credble has always been a larger target when it comes to those trying to proving someing than that which will refute it.

 

The issue is not what is happening, but to what reality it is leading us, that tweeks my interest.  That, I seriously doubt can be answered by anyone.  Fear is the mortal enemy of reason and those who wish to force it on others seldom are far from their own self interest. I doubt that this is the case with you, but the script you follow is well known to me. I've heard this before.

[colourwheel]

 

How does it make sense to trash our economy, in order to 'save the planet', when we know very well what the results would be? Do you think resource wars, and things of that nature would be 'better' than the climate changing?

 

Was never advocating to destroy our economy. Was just pointing out where it seemed your logic falls with what seems more important to you.... Obviously the economy seems more important to you than living on an actual inhabitable planet. Seriously what do you think would eventually happen to the "economy" once the planet is no longer fit for us to live on anyways? 

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't really matter much what we here in the states do. Unless EVERYONE makes an effort, no one elses effort will amount to a hill of beans. Given the current state of international affairs, you are going to have zero luck getting places like China, Russia, and India on board. Especially if it is going to have even the slightest negative effect on THEIR economy. So, should the US 'go it alone', and have even more of our jobs flee the country? Let China continue their double digit economic growth, which they sink into their military? What do you think is going to happen when China no longer fears the US military? Or Russia? Our government is surviving on borrowed money NOW. Reduce the economy even a little bit, and that gets MUCH worse. Shall we cut social programs in order to continue to fund our military? (and if you do, you are going to NEED the military right here at home.....)

 

There you go, fear of what would "could" happen... You realize you are putting forth more of a theory that has absolutely no empirical data to backing it up. You know for a fact that other countries won't get on board in changing their energy policies when faced with the earth becoming inhabitable? Does China, Russia, India, etc ... really scare you that much that you think the world would some how come to some end if their economies become better than ours? Is this what you really fear?

 

 

The issue is not what is happening or not, but to what reality it is leading us, that tweeks my interest.  That, I doubt can be answered by anyone.  Fear is the mortal enemy of reason and those who wish to force it on others seldom are far from their own self interest. I doubt that this is the case with you, but the script you follow is well known to me. I've heard this before.

 

Just as I have heard the script about the fear of what would happen if we try to reduce CO2 emissions....

[HeyYou]

The earth is currently inhabitable. Our mere presence here proves that. The word you are looking for is UNinhabitable. You know, no one can live here. And on that note, you seriously overestimate the effects of climate change. Many species survived an ice age. Granted, with a seriously depleted population, but, in all reality, would that REALLY be such a bad thing? The biggest part of our problem here is excess population. Trimming off a few billions would solve several problems at one, including CO2 production.

 

China's economy is already on track to exceed ours in the next few years. (if it hasn't already) My concern is making that gap MUCH larger. Do you think that carbon controls are going to HELP our economy? Do you think our economy is currently 'in good shape'? What effects do you think a carbon tax is going to have on the jobs situation here, when there will be many third world countries (which we have free trade agreements with...) that have none, and would be happy to have the jobs? Have a very close look at what China is doing NOW, when they are still at somewhat of a military disadvantage to us. Do you think they will become less aggressive with their expansionist policies once they have the upper hand, and see us basically on our knees, due to lack of funding? Do you think they would pass up that opportunity to gobble up some more territory, and better their position on the world stage, if they know the US isn't really in a position to stop them?

 

But, all that aside. Have you noticed the scientists stating flatly that even if we stopped producing CO2 COMPLETELY TODAY, the temp would still continue to rise? Self-perpetuating cycle anyone? The climate is a gigantic system, that has a momentum all its own. Once it starts down a path, it is extremely difficult to get it to change. (which is why most glacial periods are measured in thousands of years......) Even if we COULD make a difference, a fair few folks in the global warming crowd feel it is already 'too late'. Personally, I find it absolutely hilarious that some people actually believe we can "stop" global warming. If the climate decides it wants to change, there is not a damn thing we can do, that will make the slightest difference. In the overall scheme of things, we simply do not matter that much.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

Just as I have heard the script about the fear of what would happen if we try to reduce CO2 emissions....

 

And just where does one fear feeding off another leave us? Does it make us more rational on just more vulnerable to the next scare, like aids, Ebola and one of a myriad of others from our past which was, at one time going to end society as we know it.   Fear is fear. It's a responce, a reaction. It is the way we deal with such things that defines us. Theocracies have used fearful images of the future since the dawn of man. Why should this new belief be any more credible at divining the future?

 

It's the doom of those holding fearful images of the future  to be perpetually fearful, since the future never arrives to prove them right or wrong. It is their's to bear. Why should others subscribe to their vissions or be burdened by it?

[Aurielius]

 

 

This being a classic Nexus debate....a slight time saver.