while this shouldn't be political . . .

Posted by: sean

while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 07:06 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We are using the Earth to improve our lives, but our children and grandchildren will live in a worsening environment that endangers their existence, more than 1,300 scientists warn.<br>. . .<br>“At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning,” the board overseeing the report wrote. “Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystem to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11262213.htm">link to KC Star</a><br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 07:18 AM

Sounds like an overpopulation problem. Blame it on too many children and grandchildren <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 08:52 AM

ahh, sounds like you're advocating a preemptive war on china and india?<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 09:30 AM

sounds like you're saying they have an over population problem? [double] [back] [at] [ya] <br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 11:05 AM

they do have overpopulation problems and they both recognize it. china is <a href="http://countrystudies.us/china/34.htm">trying to do something</a> about it, from what i've read. and, india <a href="http://www.country-studies.com/india/population-and-family-planning-policy.html">appears to be making a half-hearted attempt</a>.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 11:20 AM

So how did you come about thinking I was advocating a pre-emptive war against china and india?<br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 11:30 AM

because you appeared to be saying that overpopulation is an eminent threat (eminent in that the threat endangers the existence of our children) . . . the threat was explained in the article i linked and you blamed it on overpopulation (and, china and india qualify as being overpopulated). and yes, you had a winky -- apparently, i forgot mine.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: sean

pleasant surprise - 03/30/05 11:48 AM

like i said, this shouldn't be political, so it's nice to see this headline on drudge's website today:<br><br><img src="http://homepage.mac.com/jayhawk/.Pictures/drudge_environment.jpg" width="450" height="371"/><br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:01 PM

ahh, sounds like you are advocating abortion. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:05 PM

Okay, here's to convo for you again - <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We are using the Earth to improve our lives, but our children and grandchildren will live in a worsening environment that endangers their existence, more than 1,300 scientists warn.<br>. . .<br>“At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning,” the board overseeing the report wrote. “Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystem to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”<p><hr></blockquote><p>and my reply - <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Sounds like an overpopulation problem. Blame it on too many children and grandchildren <p><hr></blockquote><p>And then you went off to war with China and India? I've bolded the parts to highlight for the sense of humor challenged.<br><br>Makes me think you've lost your marbles thinking everything has to be about pre-emptive war and eminent threats. Even hunting down links to show that India and China think they have overpopulation problems.<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:06 PM

I see the winky now <br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:27 PM

or perhaps I should explain my [winky] this way - <br><br>People that complain there will be worsening environment left for their children are in an ironic way contributing to the problem by having children in the first place. Considering it's Human activity that's causing the problem in the first place.<br><br><br>I wasn't advocating anything, I don't have children to be left with the worsening environment. At the same time, I'm not contributing the problem. Interesting how that works.<br><br>So really this is a problem for the parents to figure out themselves and advocate a solution.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:48 PM

i knew you were kidding and i knew i was kidding. obviously, without the winky, you likely thought i was serious even though the writing itself didn't need a winky to see it was obviously outrageous. that being said, i don't get the humor of your bolded parts other than you were attempting to be funny.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Makes me think you've lost your marbles thinking everything has to be about pre-emptive war and eminent threats. Even hunting down links to show that India and China think they have overpopulation problems.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>i was taking a shot at the dubya administration for their pre-emptive war and i think you're smart enough to know it . . . but you support the president and you'd never admit that you could find humor in his big mistake in the middle east because you've spent far too many hours defending it over the years. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 12:54 PM

here are the recommendations in the article from the thousands of scientists:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>• Remove subsidies to agriculture, fisheries and energy sources (such as fossil fuels) that harm the environment.<br><br>• Pay landowners to manage property in ways that help the environment, such as storing carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.<br><br>• Use free-market incentives to reduce farm pollution and global-warming gas emissions.<br><br>• Protect more areas from development, especially in the oceans.<br><br>• Invest in cleaner technology for agriculture and energy use.<p><hr></blockquote><p>no recommendation for decreasing populations. population growth is unstoppable. it's how the current populations are treating the earth that can be altered to help fix the threat.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 02:27 PM

Of course, over 20,000 qualified scientists, physicists, geologists and the like signed petitions against Kyoto stating dire predictions like these were false, but who's counting right? :)<br><br>Are these thousands of scientists like those "500" Al Gore used.. many of whom werent even qualified to make such assessments, and most of those who were actually went and signed the above petition? :D<br><br>I wonder what Bjorn Lumborg will be able to discern with this data...<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/30/05 06:13 PM

i am not sure about the previous scientists, but i'd guess that they chose to join together out of similar interests (thus, the ease with which they are criticized). this current study was commissioned by the UN and some other groups. more on the report can be found here: <a href="http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58">http://www.maweb.org/en/Article.aspx?id=58</a><br><br>funny, but one of the key funders of this study was the world bank (that's what paul wolfowitz is taking over). here's a snippet if you don't feel like clicking the link:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report is the first in a series of seven synthesis and summary reports and four technical volumes that assess the state of global ecosystems and their impact on human well-being. This report is being released together with a statement by the MA board of directors entitled “Living beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being.”<br><br>The four-year assessment was designed by a partnership of UN agencies, international scientific organizations, and development agencies, with guidance from the private sector and civil society groups. Major funding is provided by the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and The World Bank. The MA Secretariat is coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).<br><br>The MA is recognized by governments as a mechanism to meet part of the assessment needs of four international environmental treaties – the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Convention on Migratory Species. It is supported by 22 of the world’s leading scientific bodies, including The Royal Society of the U.K. and the Third World Academy of Sciences. <br><br>The MA’s work is overseen by a 45-member board of directors, co-chaired by Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientist of The World Bank, and Dr. A. H. Zakri, director of the United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies. The Assessment Panel, which oversees the technical work of the MA, includes 13 of the world’s leading social and natural scientists. It is co-chaired by Angela Cropper of the Cropper Foundation, and Dr. Harold Mooney of Stanford University. Dr. Walter Reid is the director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.<p><hr></blockquote><p>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/31/05 07:32 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i was taking a shot at the dubya administration for their pre-emptive war and i think you're smart enough to know it . . . but you support the president and you'd never admit that you could find humor in his big mistake in the middle east because you've spent far too many hours defending it over the years. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I guess I just don't get your sense of humor. Big mistake in the middle east? I guess we don't share the same opinion either.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/31/05 11:49 AM

the fact that you don't get the humor is probably for the better . . . my original intent was for serious discussion on a topic that is serious. sorry it deteriorated.<br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/31/05 12:29 PM

ok,<br><br>all joking aside<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>here are the recommendations in the article from the thousands of scientists:<br><br>• Remove subsidies to agriculture, fisheries and energy sources (such as fossil fuels) that harm the environment.<br><br>• Pay landowners to manage property in ways that help the environment, such as storing carbon dioxide, which causes global warming.<br><br>• Use free-market incentives to reduce farm pollution and global-warming gas emissions.<br><br>• Protect more areas from development, especially in the oceans.<br><br>• Invest in cleaner technology for agriculture and energy use.<br><br><br>no recommendation for decreasing populations. population growth is unstoppable. it's how the current populations are treating the earth that can be altered to help fix the threat. <br><p><hr></blockquote><p>there will come a time when no matter what the population does, the population is just way to high to make a difference. Plus everybody wants to live forever so the bigger population will require more resources per person.<br><br>Oh the irony of humanity. To evolve to become the top of the food chain only to become it's own worst enemy by it's own behavior.<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/31/05 12:41 PM

i don't think there is any doubt that we'll be our own worst enemy if we aren't already. i look at the list of recommendations provided by the scientists and it just seems like a band-aid more than a solution. eventually, overpopulation is going to really start creating havoc for all. we'll just continue to have better and better technologies for better living yet the state of the planet will be slowly growing sour. ohhh, the humanity. <br><br>--<br>Straw-man rhetorical techniques are the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents offer. 2 "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is 2 create a position easily refuted, then attribute that position to your opponent.
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: while this shouldn't be political . . . - 03/31/05 03:06 PM

Sean if you haven't, you really need to read Bjorn Lumborgs The Skeptical Environmentalist. He takes studies like this head on, and uses their own data against them to show how they'll cherry pick it to overstate the problem.<br><br>The reason I like him is because he was a member of Greenpeace (and still is afaik) who started the project to prove wrong a University of Maryland scientist who stated the state of the world is not nearly as bad as members of these panels would like you to believe. This really pissed Lumborg off, who was a real "tree hugging nut" you might say. But as he did his research - which is quite exhaustive, for a 500 page book he's got around 3900 detailed footnotes - he found out the guy from UM was actually correct.<br><br>The problem I find with any panel put together by the UN is that it's going to be political and have an agenda that the UN wishes to push from the very start. Scientists on these panels have openly admitted after Lumborgs book that they cherry pick data to massage the results to seem worse than the overall data would show. They do it not only to bring attention to their cause, but to also salvage and increase their funding. Sounds like Bush and WMD's :)<br><br>But perhaps the thing I like best about Lumborg is that nowhere in his book does he state that things are honky dory. He only asks people to take this stuff with a huge grain of salt because there is so much division between scientists over the severity of the problem and nobody seems to care to intelligently discuss things. Indeed he was crucified by the Danish science ministry and sued him for the book.. but later courts vindicated him.<br><br>Anyway he takes their data which they claim show the Earth is about to die and shows how the environment has acutally been slightly improving over the last decade or so, and how our current society is sustainable for the forseeable future. He also continuously states how he thinks it's a mistake to throw our resources at global warming, instead he thinks it'd be better to slightly retool our ways and prepare the poorer countries of the world for what's going to happen anyway. <br><br>I must say I think his approach is logical and well thought out. The Kyoto treaty is flawed, and at it's best only hopes to push effects of global warming back a scant 5 to 6 years. The money Kyoto will cost the countries of the world could be better spent preparing the poorer countries of the world to deal with the problems they'll face in the future.<br><br>