ELLSSUU

Kit_Chris

Bowlingforcolumbine (I haven't seen this one yet, I heard it's a good one! Wag the Dog is supposed to be good too! The Twin Towers will come first, however! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), I fully agree with you, we are all responsible for the environmental damage our cars do. Once we've accepted our responsibility though, I think we should blame disinformation rather than intentional wrongs. Our ignorance is due to poor education and instruction, not a lack of good faith. Increased awareness is the only way out.

We do not inherit our parents land, we borrow our children's. Seen this way, can we risk to enhance our lifestyle at the expense of the next generation? Sadly, few of us are willing to change the habits we've learned to consider indispensable.

I still believe oil consumption fuels terrorism..

Regards,
Chris

ELLSSUU

Kit_Chris

Great! Some meat to pick on!

Your first argument implies an acceptance of preemptive strikes. As I mentioned earlier, civilized nations have accepted the notion of sovereignty, where only aggression can justify war. I believe this principle is reasonable and necessary to ensure fairness and good conduct. The notion of preemptive strikes is new and, I think, highly dangerous. Your concerns about Hussein's bad intentions are surely founded, but for the sake of reasonable governance and justice, we should seek other solutions and stick to our original standard of conduct, where aggression must precede war. To find out the probability of Iraq making a significant strike and prepare in advance, we must rely on arms inspectors. There is no other way.

Your second argument regards human rights. You're right, Saddam is not helping his people. This said, if it were just about human rights, we would have killed Saddam long ago. We don't need a war for that.

During the Gulf War, water treatment plants were targeted and destroyed. Official US documents requested by Bush father in 1991 quantified the estimate number of deaths per month associated with the ban on all imports of parts necessary to get the water treatment plants fixed and running. We knew it all. We let it happen. And yet we're the civilized people.

Do we have the credibility and honesty to lead a war in the name of human rights? I can not believe this will ever be true.

Good night,
Regards,
Chris

Kit_Chris

Quickly, about your comparaison of the ozone and eggs. The difference lies in the consequences. Where the worst consequence of eating eggs would be to kill you, the worst consequence of destroying our planet is the end of humanity as we know it. Perhaps environmentalists are excessively pessimistic, but can we afford to ignore them?

Even if there's just 1% chance that global warming is actually happening because of our pollution, it's enough to justify a complete change in lifestyle. Except getting rid of our Porsches.. we'll just keep them for weekend drives!

Regards,
Chris

bowlingforcolumbine

Don't need to go digital on fossil fuel consumption.
I know in a P-car its a forbidden zone but theres places between idle and WOT. (-:
I justify my thirst for pcar motorsport in this context as follows:
I choose to live close to where I work so I can ride my bike. If its raining I catch public transport. I am recycling by having a used car also. I don't bypass my catalytic converter.
I vote for politicians that put forward a balanced vision of environmental management and economic issues.
I invest in some companies that are enviromentally progressive & responsible.
I try not to waste energy and pay a littlebit more for clean electricity.
Could do more I know but its a start.

bowlingforcolumbine

Geez, where do you start...

ozone depletion and global warming are too largely separate issues. (It just happens that the chemicals which cause ozone depletion such as CFC's once used as a propellant in deoderant cans etc (yes even the US govenment acknowledged and acted on this problem (-: ) are also greenhouse gasses.
The ozone layer reduces the amount of high energy radiation reaching the earths surface (causing genetic mutations, skin cancer, evolution (-: etc)

Global warming is related to greenhouse gasses such as Carbon-dioxide which ya get when you burn carbon based stuff like fossil fuels, trees & people. Greenhouse gasses reduce the amount of heat that escapes out into space from our beautiful blue planet.

All the independant evidence is there (note CNN is not the best place to look for scientific data (-: ) from both a theretical and empirical point of view to justify beyond reasonable doubt that humans are cooking the goose. This does not conflict with the sun-cycle or volcanic based models).

This is why the Kyoto agreement needs to be urgently ratified. Unfortunately the big business money 'sponsoring' American democracy doesn't like the impact that would have on their stock options.
Australia just does whatever the US wants us to do in the hope that it will get a free trade agreement and that you'll save our *** if we get invaded by Tahiti. (-:
The rest of the world is standing there speachless with a facial expression saying 'you selfish bastards have you no morality?"

ELLSSUU

guardsred951S

Wow! There's lots of good stuff here. Everyone has made some great points!

First off, I agree with bowlingforcolumbine. The Kyoto accord urgently needs ratification. On his way out, our Prime Minister has signed the papers that Canada needs to reduce it's greenhouse gas emmissions to well below 1991 levels or something to that effect. This was done much to the chagrin of several of the provinces, partly because they're economy is based on fossil fuels. As a 951 driver, I will soon be paying more than a buck a litre for the 94 octane fuel I pump into my car. I don't care though, I too ride my bike to work rain or shine, and save the car for longer trips. I fill it up once a month.

ELLSSUU, so why exactly are you trying to figure out what credentials it takes to be a scientist and discredit or prove that global warming does or does not in fact exist? This argument could be approached from either side, saying that jo-scientist over there is a wacko because he says global warming exists yet jo-scientist over here gets a nobel prize because of his work in developing methods to discredit those who say global warming is a big deal.

It doesn't matter what the 'scientists' say, the proof is right in front of us. The polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, and animals who occupy certain niche's in the Canadien arctic - polar bears for example - are dying like flies. Has anyone noticed the more extreme weather condiditons? - lots more storms, tornados, floods etc. in the last few decades. Global warming doesn't neccesarily mean the planet turns tropical. I personally live 175 ft. above sea level and can't wait until I have waterfront property when the north pole is 1000 ft below sea level. I remember talking to a elderly gentlemen whose father in the 1930's used to run an ice shack that kept ice blocks that were 2ft square for people ice boxes. This ice was harvested on a local lake that forze solid in the winter and now, nobody goes outside when it's 25F outside (Except me, I like the cold weather and so does my 951 ) If this isn't evidence, I dont' know what is. I can think of several other examples but I believe my point has been made:

GLOBAL WARMING IS A PROBLEM AND WE GOTTA FIX IT!

<img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" />

hally

I would suggest that you don't put your trust in information based on the number of letters after the authors name.
Eg Einstein flunked school cause he was bored or too busy being a scientist in the back shed.
Instead I'd look at the credibility of the journal etc where the info is published which basically reflects the rigour in which the material was reviewed from leaders in that field around the globe.
Don't expect to be spoon fed the answers by the media on any topic that doesn't make the ratings soar, they arn't an independant body anyway, do some research, don't need a degree to do this.
try doing a search on climate change or global warming here
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/DynaSearch/App/dynasearch.taf" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/DynaSearch/App/dynasearch.taf</a>

or at a magazine covering what gets published like
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/search/dosearch.jsp?advsearch=climate+change&searchtype=all&x=22&y=7" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/news/search/dosearch.jsp?advsearch=climate+ch ange&searchtype=all&x=22&y=7</a>

PrerYDoG

It is all going to boil down, in this argument, as well as arguments about climate change, fuel usage, etc. etc., that some people have proof and believe one thing, while others have proof and believe in another. As people of the world we can choose who we want to believe, or formulate our own opinions. My opinion is to think that anyone who tries to tell me how to live my life is a pompous ***. But them be fightin words . While I do see merits in the argument for there being a climate change, I am not completely convinced, and I am CERTAINLY not convinced that my SUV (which just got me to work through the snow and ice) is contributing any significant amount of harm to the environment. The fact of the matter is NO ONE REALLY KNOWS. Could the hole in the ozone layer have always been there? Maybe our climate shift is what has been happening on earth since the dawn of time (and you certainly can't argue that it has or hasn't, since no one, and I do mean no one, has been alive and collecting climate data for billions of years so that we can analyze over time the earths environment).

At any rate, I choose to believe that while the burning of fossil fuels isn't good, it isn't bad either. I do however, STAUNCHLY support the right to burn fosil fuels, in an SUV, or in a hybrid electric.

Speaking of hybrid electrics and such: It is nice to know that some people can live close enough to work and town where they can get public transportation, ride bikes, or walk, and that's great, more power to you; not everyone can do this. I live a 30 minute drive (at 60) from where I go to school, where I work, where I have to shop..etc, and I don't have that choice. Couldn't move closer if I wanted to, and I certainly WOULDN'T want to, as I like privacy, a large yard, trees..., my choice, don't take away my SUV and say "you can walk to work," that's bull****.

As far as war with Iraq:

Quote: "During the Gulf War, water treatment plants were targeted and destroyed. "

All is fair during war. We target lots of structures, especially critical infrastructure pieces (water, power, communications) to quickly end a conflict, after war is over we help rebuild. A calculated strike at infrastructure that can quickly break the enemy and cause them to give up or give in faster is a well played move, if you do not understand military tactics I can suggest a few books to you.

Quote: "Do we have the credibility and honesty to lead a war in the name of human rights? I can not believe this will ever be true."

Sure we do. Because we have chosen to help some and not others does not mean that we have lost the right to help people in need. You can't help everyone. We lost our asses in Somalia and other places trying to help, that doesn't mean we can't go try and help someone else. America gets derrided when we try and be the guy who steps in and helps out (Israel), then we get bashed again when we decide NOT to step in and help out (Israel). The fact of the matter is, America is like Microsoft: No matter what you do, no matter how good the out come or the intentions, everyone hates you. I'm sick and tired of feeling resented by other people in other parts of the world, especially from those with "hollier than thou" attitudes who want to say our policies are wrong, and that I have serious issues for not protesting against them.

Quote: "Even if there's just 1% chance that global warming is actually happening because of our pollution, it's enough to justify a complete change in lifestyle. Except getting rid of our Porsches.. we'll just keep them for weekend drives! "

Here you've introduced fallacies into your argument. "What fallacy" you may say, it's called arguing from the heap. Is one grain of sand a heap of sand? No?, how 'bout 2 grains of sand? 3?, at what point is it a heap? ... Not catching the analogy? Is driving the Porsche on the weekends hurting the environment? No?, how bout 3 days a week?, 4?, all the time?, how 'bout a chevy v8?, dodge v12? You get the picture by now. You say if there's even a 1% chance we need to "completely change our lifestyles." Sounds to me you want to change everyone else's lifestyle and keep what you have. I'll refer back to my earlier pompous statement.

Quote: "I am recycling by having a used car also" That's a pretty long friggin stretch. But from everything else you've said I'd imagince you also recycle aluminum, plastics and glass (as do I, and consider that a start), and I will thank you for that. There are some things that can be done to help out, that are reasonable even to the average person. Those are a good start.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be environmentally concious, because I do think we should. But we shouldn't be mandating it on people. People ARE starting to see this the same way, and while it is a SLOW process (think glacier movement), companies are coming around too, offering things like clean electricity, spending money on R&D for hydrogen fuel cells (which GM showed at the Detriot Autoshow), solar cars, hybrid-electric... making more things out of recycled parts etc. You may not know this, but for the past 30 years 95% of all cars that were scrapped were recycled or re-used in some way. The Europeans had to mandate this by law in the past 10 years. We did this without law, and have done it for awhile. We get it, we just get lambasted by those who are "mis-informed."

Quote: "This is why the Kyoto agreement needs to be urgently ratified. Unfortunately the big business money 'sponsoring' American democracy doesn't like the impact that would have on their stock options. "

If I recall correctly (and I do, so you can't question that), America had many reasons they didn't want to sign, but one main reason was that it was TOO WEAK. It went soft on many other countries, and would NOT have fixed the problem. Aside from America's stance I had my own stance on Kyoto. Though I think it may have been a step in the right direction for us to have signed it, I think it could have set us back. We sign Kyoto, we go forward with implementing its accords and we think everything is hunky-dorey (sp?). Great, but it's not. I think by not signing Kyoto we have opened the door for more discussion, deeper discussion with more facts on the matter. Kyoto was a pissant accord anyway. I read the thing, it was weak.

Quote: "The rest of the world is standing there speachless with a facial expression saying 'you selfish bastards have you no morality?" "

Not going to comment on this, just letting it fuel my anger...

Anyway: I know this message jumps around and lacks any cohesion to it at all. But I've been REAL busy with wedding plans, contracting to build a new house, work, etc., and wanted to respond to everything (and even nothing as I told myself I wouldn't continue - that failed). I've been reading this every day (multiple times a day), and have finally gotten a few minutes here to respond.

And Chris: I don't remember ever personally attacking you in my past message, and I do not feel I did it here (well, maybe the part about the pompous thing), but in all cases, I have addresed your issues.

Kit_Chris

PrerYDoG, fair enough. I've posted quite a few messages over the last few days. I suggest you read all of them and I'll be glad to read your response!

About the water treatment plants. While such war targets may be fair, destroying water treatment plants during the Gulf War was not justified because the stated aim of the war was to disarm the Hussein regime. Countless claims of a 'clean war' were heard all over US media, where smart weapons targeted only military facilities, effectively pin pointing and destroying the potentially dangerous areas. Water treatment plants do not fall within this category. What's worse, and I'm repeating myself, is that we did not allow their reconstruction, hoping the Iraqi people would attribute their suffering to Saddam, weakening his regime. The opposite happened. Yet in the end, the UN has documented over a million Iraqi deaths associated with the sanctions. Is that your definition of helping?

And we even had the ***** to introduce the 'Food for oil' concept! We let you starve, but give us your valued resources and we may allow some food to get in. This is simply wrong.

Because we chose to help some and not others? Did we help anyone in Iraq so far? The issue of 'help' is totally irrelevant because the genuine reasons for war in Iraq have nothing to do with 'helping'. We want to invade Iraq, create and control a US sponsored government to gain access to oil resources; use Iraq as a large military base to take down Iran, the single largest source of unexploited oil in the middle east (Iran is conveniently located between Afghanistan, which is already occupied, and Iraq). The pattern is clear. Even the propaganda machine has started to construct a case against Saudi Arabia (the media made big stories out of a Saudi prince who got caught with drugs, and the famous collective mega-suit by 9/11 victims against Saudi interests; strengtening the link between Saudi Arabia and the fear of terrorism, manufacturing conscent from the US population to eventually take down the 'evil' Saudis). Washington wants to completely re-design its control of the Middle East, which will provide for decades of cheap oil.

As for my fallacies, you should re-read and understand my intentions: lighten up a pretty serious sounding message. My point regarding pollution remains: whether scientists are right or not doesn't matter. The consequences are so grave we can not afford to ignore our actions. We have not right to take such a risk for future generations.

Regards,
Chris

PrerYDoG

Chris - I re-read your message and I get the distinct feeling that you're quite a conspiracy theorist, with the big bad wolf (U.S.) trying to gobble up all the sheep (Middle Eastern Countries). Fact of the matter is that any government that sets itself back up in Iraq will most likely be U.S. tolerant at BEST, and certainly a member of OPEC (which is NOT friendly to the U.S.). There are very few governments in this world that the US "controls" (I'd list 50 states, Puerto Rico and a few smaller islands), and I dare say Iraq would ever become one of those. We are on a mission against terrorism, and we are targeting terrorists. Everyone wants to put our intentions elsewhere, FINE. Doing the right thing for more reasons than one doesn't make it the WRONG thing.

Quote: "About the water treatment plants. While such war targets may be fair, destroying water treatment plants during the Gulf War was not justified because the stated aim of the war was to disarm the Hussein regime. "

Yes it was fair, and yes our claim was to disarm the Hussein regime, but it has been US policy for quite some time (I'm thinking the 70's) to help those who will help themselves. Hence backing the Northern Alliance in Afganistan. Let the people there do it. Destroying water treatment plants was a way to hopefully (and because it didn't work out how we wanted it sucks, doesn't make us WRONG for trying it) cause an uprising that would force Hussein from power. It didn't work, fine, we're trying again!

Quote: "And we even had the ***** to introduce the 'Food for oil' concept! We let you starve, but give us your valued resources and we may allow some food to get in."

I'll repeat myself this time. We don't need Iraq's oil. Period.

Remember when the US used to live in a vacuum? WW1, later WW2? People were furious we could be so obtuse. Now look as we play apart of world affairs? People are STILL furious with us. But the important part is, we've committed ourselves to helping prevent similar events from happening as did in the late 30s and 40s. With Russia becoming more of an ally than a foe we have the ability to make the world less "stand-offish" and make the dream of freedom from fear that much more a reality. That can NOT happen with Saddam in power. It can't happen with global terrorist organizations that are free to attack civilian targets at will. And it certainly can't happen without short term losses. Removing Saddam from power is the RIGHT thing to do, just as following the Constitution, giving people freedoms and allowing citizens to make their own choices is the RIGHT thing to do. We go to war with Saddam I'll agree with it 100%. We continue selling SUV's and I'll agree 100%. The future is always coming, and things are constantly changing. GM hopes to sell 1 mil. hybrid vehicles in the coming year. UN Inspectors hope to wrap up a good preliminary analysis soon. These could change the way things are heading. These could change our lives. Legislating consumer choice and responsibility is not the answer. Allowing those people who threaten to harm the world is not the answer. Activism has to come from those with the right to have the power. We have the right to invade Iraq, we do NOT have the right to force vehicles to not use oil.

Kit_Chris

Conspiracy theorist?! Wow! My intervention must have hit a sensitive string! Look, being anti-american is one thing, being critical of US foreign policy is another.

You first insisted I am not american, a clever way to discredit my points. And now, more scary words, the conspiracy theorist. What's next? Will you call me a terrorist, to further challenge my credibility?! Rather than relying on such dishonest means of debate, why don't you focus on the arguments put forward?

Perhaps I'm wrong on the Iraqi issue. That's fine! Again, all we need is a reasonable debate. And you beautifully proved why: any alternative view is considered to be a 'conspiracy'.

Regards,
Chris

PrerYDoG

Chris - Please stop trying to confuse my messages with personal attacks. While I may have labeled you as having anti-american sentiment (you do), and that I have the distinct feeling that you are a consipiracy theorist (I do), I have NOT (and I need no repeat myself I hope) personally attacked you. Instead of floundering around for something to say, why don't you instead READ what it is I have written and respond to the issues and responses I have posted. We can have much more meaningful dialect by you doing that, than by attempting to point fingers and yell "cheater!"