Global Warming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Israel shares the world’s concern for the global problem of the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas emissions. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since May 1996 and to the Kyoto Protocol since March 2004, Israel is committed to fulfilling its obligations for reducing _greenhosuegas emissions into the atmosphere

greenhoushttp://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Zone&enDispWho=clim_change&enZone=clim
 
Valke2 said:
Israel shares the world’s concern for the global problem of the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas emissions. As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since May 1996 and to the Kyoto Protocol since March 2004, Israel is committed to fulfilling its obligations for reducing _greenhosuegas emissions into the atmosphere

greenhoushttp://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=Zone&enDispWho=clim_change&enZone=clim
Click to expand...
You are a lawyer. Your public profile says so. Do you have anything to gain personally by promoting your agenda? I am trying to figure out if your posts are misguided altruism or blatant self-interest.

Your public profile says you are Jewish. Is there anything going on with your Rabbi, or in your temple, that it has such a pro-regulate CO2 mentality?
 
mpi said:
You are a lawyer. Your public profile says so. Do you have anything to gain personally by promoting your agenda? I am trying to figure out if your posts are misguided altruism or blatant self-interest.

Your public profile says you are Jewish. Is there anything going on with your Rabbi, or in your temple, that it has such a pro-regulate CO2 mentality?
Click to expand...
I have a lot to gain. Not because I am a lawyer. Because I am a father. My views are not part of my shul’s agenda, although they have influenced that agenda. Not the other way around. My altruism is not misguided and certainly has nothing to do with the information provided in the links I posted.
 
Valke2 said:
I have a lot to gain. Not because I am a lawyer. Because I am a father. My views are not part of my shul’s agenda, although they have influenced that agenda. Not the other way around. My altruism is not misguided and certainly has nothing to do with the information provided in the links I posted.
Click to expand...
If I read your post correctly, then you have influence over your “shul”'s agenda. Does this mean you help determine your “shul’s” agenda?
 
mpi said:
If I read your post correctly, then you have influence over your “shul”'s agenda. Does this mean you help determine your “shul’s” agenda?
Click to expand...
My shul promotes certain energy efficiency issues and a strong interest in the events in Darfur in part because of my influence.
 
Valke2 said:
relax denier. I gave a ridiculous response to a ridiculous question.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to my question regarding when the budding religion of environmental purity will gain enough support to begin taking direct, punitive action against non-believers?

Are you familiar with the concept of the “gun in the room?”

It has to do with the tendency of civilized people living in civilized societies to distance themselves emotionally and intellectually from the violence they perpetrate on others vis a vis democratic and legislative actions by contracting the enforcement of their values, laws, etc out to individuals working for the State, such as the police and the military. This tendency becomes so pronounced over time that individuals living in such societies typically regard accusations that they perpetrate violence against others as “ridiculous.”

Here’s a good explanation of the principle…
In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do…We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on – endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.
Click to expand...
It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about “the welfare state helping the poor,” we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room – even if one bullet has been taken out.
Click to expand...
So much political language is designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence that libertarianism sometimes has to sound like a broken record. We must, however, continue to peel back the euphemisms to reveal the socially-sanctioned brutality at the root of some of our most embedded social institutions.
Click to expand...
Source: The Gun in the Room, Stefan Molyneux
Click to expand...
So, I ask again- at what point are you advocate violence against me in your quest to save me from myself?
 
Valke2 said:
relax denier. I gave a ridiculous response to a ridiculous question.
Click to expand...
Correction.
You gave a ridiculous response to a perfectly valid question.

Does this mean your going to break the said promise concerning August 16th?
 
Valke2 said:
what lies?? The US government recognizes it. The UN recognizes it. China, Britian, Germany, France, Poland, the Vatican, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Japan… These are the ones I remember. Feel free to google for the rest. Oh yeah, Australia

So go retract yourself.
Click to expand...
I don’t do my kids homework, why should I do yours.

Simply put up the facts, or retract your statements.
 
Oscarthecat said:
Are you referring to my question regarding when the budding religion of environmental purity will gain enough support to begin taking direct, punitive action against non-believers?

Are you familiar with the concept of the “gun in the room?”

It has to do with the tendency of civilized people living in civilized societies to distance themselves emotionally and intellectually from the violence they perpetrate on others vis a vis democratic and legislative actions by contracting the enforcement of their values, laws, etc out to individuals working for the State, such as the police and the military. This tendency becomes so pronounced over time that individuals living in such societies typically regard accusations that they perpetrate violence against others as “ridiculous.”

Here’s a good explanation of the principle…

So, I ask again- at what point are you advocate violence against me in your quest to save me from myself?
Click to expand...
Are we still talking about global warming? I get the feeling that this is about to turn into a discussion on psychosis.
 
Valke2 said:
Are we still talking about global warming? I get the feeling that this is about to turn into a discussion on psychosis.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting defense…

Let’s examine it a little bit…
psychosis |sīˈkōsəs|
noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|)
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Are you saying that it is psychotic to believe that global warming enthusiasts will eventually attempt to propagate their values and beliefs through the enforcement of laws and regulation? I was under the assumption that you had already made the point that numerous governments had already taken this step.

So, it seems external reality is consistent with my assertion that, regardless of one’s beliefs about global warming, the desired end of global warming proponents is to shape policy at the level of multi-national politics.

And it logically follows that these policies will have to be enforced on everyone somehow, including those of us who believe those policies to range anywhere from silly, ignorant, dangerous, and even morally objectionable.

History shows that violence commonly occurs when public policy becomes incompatible with individual conscience.

So, despite your attempts to call me ridiculous and crazy, my question still stands.

Why not just answer it this time.
 
Oscarthecat said:
That’s an interesting defense…

Let’s examine it a little bit…
psychosis |sīˈkōsəs|
noun ( pl. -ses |-ˌsēz|)
a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

Are you saying that it is psychotic to believe that global warming enthusiasts will eventually attempt to propagate their values and beliefs through the enforcement of laws and regulation? I was under the assumption that you had already made the point that numerous governments had already taken this step.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that there needs to be an element of paranoia involved if you read anything I’ve posted here and conclude that I am somehow advocating violence.

I don’t think you are crazy for denying that man is responsible in part for climate change. I just think you are wrong and that following your opinion would be disasterous.
 
And all this, btw, ignores the issue that I have been questioned about here. Whether the world’s governments recognize that we are responsible for climate change.
 
vz71 said:
Of course, you are in fact wrong.
I want you to list all of the governments in the world as well as actions they have taken that prove they believe as you have said.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how you can say that - just take the example of Canada. It signed the Kyoto accords and its greenhouse gas emissions are now 35% above its 1990 base levels—under Kyoto, its target is to be 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Gee, there’s no telling how high they’d be if they hadn’t at least talked about doing something.

greencarcongress.com/2006/05/report_canada_w.html

Well, OK, maybe Canada’s not a good example, I’ll look for another one.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Well, OK, maybe Canada’s not a good example, I’ll look for another one.
Click to expand...
I was a little surprised that China was mentioned as a country that was concerned about CO2 emissions so I searched for something on their activities and found this on a National Geographic site:

according to new research led by Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley…* The study calculated that for the period from 2004 to 2010, China’s CO2 emissions will have grown by at least 11 percent a year. *

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html

Given that China has now surpassed the US in terms of total CO2 emissions and has been building coal fired electric generating plants at a rate of two a week for the last several years I have to express some skepticism that they are serious about actually doing anything to lower their emissions … but isn’t it comforting that they say they believe in AGW?

I’ll keep looking.

Ender
 
Ender said:
I was a little surprised that China was mentioned as a country that was concerned about CO2 emissions so I searched for something on their activities and found this on a National Geographic site:

according to new research led by Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley…* The study calculated that for the period from 2004 to 2010, China’s CO2 emissions will have grown by at least 11 percent a year. *

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080318-china-warming.html

Given that China has now surpassed the US in terms of total CO2 emissions and has been building coal fired electric generating plants at a rate of two a week for the last several years I have to express some skepticism that they are serious about actually doing anything to lower their emissions … but isn’t it comforting that they say they believe in AGW?

I’ll keep looking.

Ender
Click to expand...
The country with the most people is contriubting the most to Co2 emissions? No surprise there. My original post on this specifically said most countries acknowledge man made climatge change, although what they have done about it is another matter. For ease of dicusion, my post:

I’ll define “whole world” as every country that is making the curbing of greenhouse gases a priority. That would include China, Europe, North America, much of South America, Much of Africa, Indonesia, Australia, Japan, England, and the Vatican. While some of these countries may be doing very little, they have all acknowledged the reality and the problem of climate change.

chinausclimate.org/en/ A link to a webcast on a forum on China/US policy regarding climate change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top