Olivia Newton-Gunn, shortly after she graduated as an engineer
and released her hit single: "Let's Get Technical!"
(Source)
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics
Note: This page doesn't make sense if you haven't first read Vicki Skywalker Vs. Darth Jetchick (Kyoto: Good Or Bad?).
1) S. Jetchick (2007-April-10)
2) V. Gunn (2007-April-10)
3) S. Jetchick (2007-April-12)
4) S. Jetchick (2007-April-17)
5) V. Gunn (2007-April-17)
6) V. Gunn (2007-April-19)
7) V. Gunn (2007-April-20)
8) S. Jetchick (2007-April-20)
9) S. Jetchick (2007-April-24)
10) V. Gunn (2007-April-25)
11) S. Jetchick (2007-May-07)
12) V. Gunn (2007-May-08)
13) S. Jetchick (2007-May-14)
14) V. Gunn (2007-May-21)
15) S. Jetchick (2007-July-11)
Hello Vicki Skywalker, So, does the "framework" of this debate suit you? If so, my suggestion for "Step 1" is to make sure we both agree on the rules of engagement. I would offer: Concedo, Nego, Distinguo Darth
-----Original Message----- From: Vicki Gunn Sent: 2007-April-10 16:51 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Re: First cut at the "framework" for the debate Hello Darth The rules of engagement are acceptable to me. I was unable to duplicate your most colourful table. I concede that you are more webpage literate than I am :D I believe that we also agreed that as I have written a number of articles on my website, you would decide (after concedo, of course) where we would start. Prepare the light sabres! Vicki Skywalker
Hello Vicki, >> as I have written a number of articles on my >> website [on Kyoto] Yes, so in order to keep my finger out of my nose, I think the onus is on me to start this debate by reading all your articles, and extracting from them what I agree and disagree with. So unless you chop my head off with your light saber, I'll take a few days to "fill up" the "Concedo Chart" here above, based on your articles called: R1) How Does Kyoto affect National Sovereignty? R2) Who wins in Canada with Kyoto? R3) How to Reach Kyoto Targets May the Force NOT be with you! ;-) Stefan
Hello Vicki, Sorry about the delay. I tried to extract things I agreed with in your articles (see Statements #2.1 to 2.8). Do you Concedo them? (Of course, you can modify them too, or add more details.) Stefan
Hi Stefan I concedo the points you've put up. Let the battle begin. While you prepare your next point, I'll dash out for some batteries for my light sabre. :-) Vicki
Hi Stefan Here's my response to your points so far. I've labelled my answers with an (a) to show they are answers. The ball is in your court now. :-) Vicki For Kyoto Canada's National Sovereignty 9a) While our country, or any country, is not an absolute value , it does have absolute borders. The people in that country have determined among themselves that these are the values which they agree upon. (Likewise the values which they cannot agree upon but in spite of them are prepared to remain united within those borders anyway.) Poisoning the water supply and destroying soil in farmlands, were acceptable practices in Biblical times. They have not been the practice for a very, very long time. The recognition that our countries do maintain a symbiotic relationship in stewardship of the environment has long been recognised. Although Canada would be within her sovereign rights to destroy the environment maliciously, the affect of such an action would be devastating to Canada as well other countries. Such an act would be similar to one spouse burning down the marital home simply because they can. The illegality of the act aside, the end result would be both would have no home. Canada would be acting contrary to her own interests to deliberately destroy the environment. 10a) While Christians pray for the Lord's Kingdom to come, this is not the same as an earthly kingdom. There is only one Ruler who has the wisdom to guide a united earth. We need only visit the conditions of the Tower of Babel to recognise that the Lord Himself did not see 'one world government' as desirable. Genesis 11:6-7. The Lord recognised borders between countries in his assigning of the lands initially in Genesis but continuing in the taking and division of the Promised Land. 11a) I'm not sure how this point supports Kyoto. Seeing the description of Satanic which you've given the UN and the destructive behaviours you've mentioned, why would you assume that their forcing of Kyoto is in the best interests of the world? 12a) I refer back to the Tower of Babel again. It is also beyond the scope of someone in Greenland to fully appreciate the problems facing those living in the Sahara Desert. The issues of extreme cold are considerably different from extreme heat. The only similarity would be the acknowledgement of an inhospitable environment. Similarly someone raised in a tropical rain forest could not fully comprehend the challenges of living in Death Valley. Keeping government close to the people is environmentally more friendly. ie. People living on the shores of Lake Simcoe better appreciate the challenges of keeping the lake environment healthy. Their livelihood depends on the health of the lake for both summer and winter fishing; balancing the interests of swimmers in the Lake with boat use on the lake. Somebody who has never lived along the shores cannot appreciate the peculiar challenges of keeping Lake Simcoe healthy. The same could be said of living along the St. Laurence Seaway. Section 13 of Pacem in Terris also acknowledges the right to share in the benefit of culture. We cannot share in the benefit of culture if we try to eliminate the peculiarities of each culture. The problem of granting one unelected body supremacy over governing the world is seen in the pressures brought upon the 3rd World to adopt the principals of abortion on demand and homo-sexual marriages which are part of the culture of the 1st World. Global warming and climate change 13-15a There is a worrying proportion of doctors who think that abortion is acceptable. This argument falls within the boundaries of argumentum ad numerum. 16a ) This can go in the concedo section then. 17a) To discount past relationship between temperature and CO2 because there is more human activity would be forcing the data to meet with the conclusion. In other words, you've already decided human activity has affected climate change so therefore years of science showing a relationship between sunspots, temperature, CO2, etc must be discounted because there's something which MIGHT be a variable which you believe, without examining the science, is the cause. 18a) People have been dying from droughts, floods, earthquakes etc since the beginning of time. We cannot, nor will we ever be able to, stop people from dying of natural disasters. If global warming is a natural event, to take the grandiose position that we can control the weather is to usurp the position of God. 19a) Scientists must retain an open mind in order to avoid the mistake of the conclusion being determined by their opinion. Scientists admit that they do not know for certain the cause of global warming. They are divided as a community. Thus by drawing a premature conclusion they are only stating what they believe. 20a) However, scientists who reject the report as poor science do have the knowledge to fully understand it. Which IPCC report are you referring to which nobody of a political party has read? The Kyoto Protocol 21a) To decide how to react to something which we don't even know is a catalyst for global warming is to react prematurely. Surely it makes more sense to work in areas that we can have an impact on while allowing climatologists to research without requiring that their findings support the UN's position. 22a) Buying carbon credits from any country is a drain to the Canadian economy. It neither decreases ghg, any other form of pollution or contributes to our economy. It is simply money spent which achieves no purpose. Can we agree that to pour billions of dollars into something which scientists cannot agree is a problem is a waste of money? 23a) A plan to deal with decreasing poisons we are pumping into our air would be of major benefit to every country, as would a plan to decrease ground and water pollution. We can DEFINITELY offer a higher standard of living to all people if we deal with these. We MIGHT be able to offer a better standard of life, should the disputed science of global warming have any validity. I'd rather go with the definite than the maybe. The earth has a history of global fluctuations which include temperatures higher than we experience now along with ice ages. We don't know enough about why. Although a direct correlation between sunspots and temperature has been found.
Hi Stefan If I can just turn the direction a bit to CO2 and temperature ... These are some facts presented by: Dr. Jan Vizer, Professor Ian Clark, Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Murty along with others. You can view their opinions in the movie "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled". Graphs show there is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature. CO2 levels were higher 450 million years ago and our planet was in the middle of an ice age. Professor Ian Clark has said that ice core records show that CO2 and temperature move together in a non detailed graph. However, when you move to a more detailed graph it is easily seen that temperature increases precede CO2 increases by about 800 years. IOW CO2 acts as a result of a temperature rise. Even in the 20th Century, temperature has not followed CO2 levels. We have experienced world cooling, 1940-1980, and since 1998, despite CO2 levels continuing to rise. Prior to 1980 we were concerned about global cooling. CO2 is not the major ghg. On a 1-5 scale, H2O is the first 4 major ghg and CO2 is a distant 5. Regarding Severity of Weather According to Dr. Tim Ball, droughts are cyclical. Dr. Murty says there is no evidence of increased frequency of severity of extreme weather due to warmer weather. During the 'Little Ice Age' (appr 1400 AD) weather was more dramatic than today. Including coastal villages being wiped out and floods in western Europe. Dr Murty also says that although the reason why is not understood "evidence shows more cyclones when the atmosphere is colder". Since 1918 not a single record has been set in global cyclones. Professor Tim Patterson said that over the last few thousand years sea level has risen by about 20 cm per century. There is no scientific evidence of an increase in that rate. Regarding the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC.... Research is selected to support their point of view without proper audit. Dr. Murty and Dr. Gray were official reviewers of the information however, none of their input is included in the IPCC report. Stephen McIntyre, analyst, has called for research to be audited and calculations checked prior to publication. For most organisations this would be common sense! Media reports that the IPCC have concluded that men are the cause of climate change are the result of reading only the summaries for policy makers. Government reps have agreed on these, line by line. The government reps are not scientists. A statement in Chapter 1 of the IPCC report states that climate change is natural. The IPCC is a political organisation set up by the UN to provide evidence to support climate change. This is a conflict of interest when your job requires you to prove something rather than seek the truth which is what science is about. Governments put their faith in computer models. However, There are over 5 million variables. There is not a computer around with the capacity to handle the data calculation with such complex variables and interaction. This statement comes from scientists. Governments must not commit to policies on science over which there is considerable doubt and controversy. Policies must be changeable to prevent them from becoming costly white elephants. Scientists cannot be scientists and seek the truth if they are being paid to find a specific conclusion. It's over to you again! Batteries are weakening in my light sabre. Will be replacing them. :-) Vicki
Olivia Newton-Gunn, shortly after she graduated as an engineer
and released her hit single: "Let's Get Technical!"
(Source)
Hi Vicki, I have nothing against getting into technical details! On the contrary! Give me some time to translate your replies and add them to the summary above. Then I'll check out your more technical arguments. Cheers! Stefan
Hi Vicki, I've added your replies and translated them. Here is my suggestion for the next steps: - I've colored in green all the parts of your replies I agree with. Now, if you give the OK, I'll "promote" them to the Concedo section here above. After all, one of our goals is to see just how small we can make our disagreement. - Ideally, we would debate everything, and debate everything down to the last detail. But since we have limited resources, I suggest we try to avoid "adding rows" for now. (Each specific disagreement is located in a row of the table here above. Each row is a kind of individual "light saber clash".) Once we've "processed" each row and made sure it didn't contain anything we both agreed on, or contained ambiguous terms (or ambiguous sentences!), then we could agree to add more "light saber clashes". - We also continue to improve our debating method. This includes defining our terms. I would like to reiterate that this exercise is very important, not only because the Kyoto issue is serious, but also because we're doing something that is very rare these days: an intelligent, methodical debate. If we can encourage all Canadians to participate in more intelligent debates, we will be doing our country a great service. Now, some details: I've changed the numbering. Sorry. I'm trying to make it clear that a #1 is a "Concedo", a #2 is "For Kyoto", and #3 is "Against Kyoto". The following number indicates the matching arguments, so for example #3.3 is the rebuttal to #2.3. I took the liberty of adding one little "IF" to your #2.3.9, because I could then "Concedo" the whole thing. Same with #2.3.15, I added a "CETERIS PARIBUS". I colored in yellow a few sentences I wasn't sure I understood. It's just a matter of you re-phrasing them. #2.2.8 was added because it seems to be an argument used in the official CHP position. There is nothing wrong with you and me giving it a Concedo, but then that means we apparently disagree with the CHP. #2.3.12: I'm referring to any of the "AR"s published by the IPCC. The Third AR is available on their web site. Thanks! Stefan
Hi Stefan I have a couple of questions. May we then change the National Sovereignty section to an agreement that: Kyoto should not be allowed to obligate it's member countries by way of charging Carbon Credits or determining carbon emission amounts as these infringe upon national sovereignty. Each country should be free to set it's own target with a recommended ghg decrease from the IPCC and a 'gentleman's agreement' to take positive action to direct our nation towards less ghg emissions. (An example of directing action.... In my town we all used to be on well water. We switched to a town well which left many open wells able to cause surface pollution to affect the underground water table. Before any building permits were issued, our town required the homeowner's well to be filled in and the top 3 tiles removed. Thus we made positive steps forward protecting our water supply) 2.1.4 (in the concedo section) As I pondered again it occurred to me that to make a policy on an assumption is not good policy. I think that it should read.... "Should proof become available that climate change is significantly anthropogenic, the burden of reducing....." 2.3.1 You've highlighted in green a portion of the first sentence, does that mean you agree with the full sentence or only the highlighted part. I ask this because each country should have absolute control over what happens within her borders. This flows into the thoughts contained in the yellow portion. I recognise that as inhabitants of one planet, it is very important that as we all: breathe the same air; drink shared water; and farm adjoining lands; we all promote and commit to good stewardship of these vital resources. The survival of life on this planet depends upon our cooperation with this principle of combined good stewardship of our individual countries. An example could be... Dumping substances, such as DDT, in 3rd world countries when it has been recognised as harmful to the environment of 1st world countries is wrong. The onus should be on 1st world countries to enact laws which prohibit the export of substances banned in their own country. This is working together to protect the environment while maintaining sovereignty of our own country and allowing others to maintain sovereignty in their country. We have stopped the exporting of an environmentally dangerous chemical at the source. 2.2.8 Perhaps I missed something somewhere. I fail to see how this is contrary to the CHP position. Regarding IPCC 4th Assessment 2 Section 1 - "Exploring confidence in methods and results" This is the very thing which is under discussion by scientists such as.... Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Jan Vizer and many others. By excluding their feedback from the report, it allows for no dissenting opinion and thus any challenge to the method or results goes unheard. This is a problem also with the "Conference of the Parties" (COP) (COP 4&5 in particular) The discussion is about Kyoto, good or bad. The IPCC 4th Assessment shows how massive the problem of addressing climate on a global scale is. To take all those variables put them together shake them up, dump them out and say, "We are going to deal with Green House Gases because that little thing there is the problem." is a little bit like ignoring the elephant in your living room and saying the room is crowded because of the spider on the wall. Just a couple of thoughts I had as we're tidying up the loose ends. I think I'm going to need a new set of eye glasses. Best be off to visit my optometrist. Vicki
Hi Vicki, Boy, have I been slow to respond! Sorry! To begin with, I've committed "anti-debating sins" because I touched text on your side of the chart. I should never do that. See #A1.4 of Who Speaks Truly? The "maintainer" of the debate should receive e-mails like: "cell X.Y.Z: New contents cell A.B.C: New contents cell 1.2.3: New contents" That way, he or she can't be accused of fiddling around with what the other person wants to say. (Of course, you can say anything you want on top of that, but I need to know what to put in the cells.) >> May we then change the National Sovereignty section to an agreement >> that: Kyoto should not be allowed to obligate it's member countries >> [etc...] Well, we could change that section, except I don't agree with your statement. But that's OK: That is why there is a "Nego" Section, and not only a "Concedo" section! :-) I think we can agree to disagree on "2.2.1". Anyway, I added some stuff to "2.2.1", but I'm not sure what you want to put in "2.3.1". I did my best. Just holler and send me your corrections if I screwed up. >> 2.1.4 I think that it should read.... "Should proof become available >> that climate change is significantly anthropogenic, the burden of >> reducing....." Well, I thought that was clear with "[Assuming of course climate change is anthropogenic, bad and at least partially under our control]" But your wording is acceptable to me. I'll use your wording, roughly. Tell me if that's OK. >> 2.3.1 You've highlighted in green a portion of the first sentence, >> does that mean you agree with the full sentence or only the >> highlighted part. Just the highlighted part. >> 2.3.4: I removed everything you said and put it in the "Concedo" section under 2.1.10 (you're just describing, very accurately, what is known in technical terms as "The Principle of Subsidiarity"). Tell me if that's OK for you. >> 2.2.8 Perhaps I missed something somewhere. I fail to see how this is >> contrary to the CHP position. I tried to clarify my 2.2.8. >> Regarding IPCC 4th Assessment 2 Section 1 - "Exploring confidence in >> methods and results" This is the very thing which is under discussion >> by scientists such as.... Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Jan Vizer and many others. Well, that is why we also need to dig into the actual scientific arguments (I haven't started yet). >> To take all those variables put them together shake them up, dump >> them out and say, "We are going to deal with Green House Gases because >> that little thing there is the problem." is a little bit like ignoring >> the elephant in your living room and saying the room is crowded >> because of the spider on the wall. ... if their scientific arguments are wrong. If their scientific arguments are well-founded, then it's anti-Kyoto persons who are ignoring the elephant in the room. So this once again leads to the necessity of actually digging into the scientific arguments (which we haven't done yet). Anyway, please tell me if I screwed anything up in your arguments. From now on, I'll either totally replace the contents of a cell on your side of the chart, or avoid touching it at all. Cheers! Stefan
Hi Stefan Your position on 2.2.1 indicates that an unelected body may require one country to abide by the decisions of another country. Where are the checks and controls of power? The UN has issued support for abortion. Why should that issue, which destroys human life, be a matter we can object to while we should not be able to object to the UN position of deciding how much ghg's we should be allowed to create. Who gets to decide on which issues the unelected members of the UN are superior to our elected governments. GHG's do not fall within the definition of good and evil. We are called on to be good stewards of this earth, but I do not find anywhere in the Laws reference to it being evil to create certain environmental situations. We know that contamination of the water supply and damage to farmlands was used as a 'weapon' in Biblical times. Yet, we do not find a Biblical prohibition against the practice. However, we all recognise the need to care for our environment. The question becomes... who's the boss? Again, an unelected body or an elected body? If we forgo our national sovereignty on this issue, what's to stop the same unelected representatives from deciding that killing unborn babies is in the best interests of people. We have the group "Optimum Population Trust" who encourage people to think of the environmental effects of having a family, increased ghg's. Should the UN decide that this strategy of people having one less child is a good one, what stops them from deciding that this is an issue over which their decision surpasses national sovereignty because it's good for the environment? The state which Trudeau referred to was at least an elected body and not someone appointed to override the decisions of the majority in a country. The road to a dictatorship begins with taking the power from the people and placing it in the hands of someone to whom the people have not agreed should lead them. Regarding 2.2.2 - I must respectfully disagree with you. While I agree that personal sin is the source of social ills, we must remember that we are still living in a world broken by sin. God declares that it is not good that the people unite and build the tower. They are seeking to make a name for themselves. It is not done to God's glory. Similarly the UN does not seek to govern under Godly principles rather it seeks to make a name for man. Thus the conditions of Babel do apply to the UN, the tower is different but the motive is the same. I would therefore, for clarity, amend 2.3.2 to read: 2.3.2) We need only visit the conditions of the Tower of Babel to recognise that the Lord Himself did not see 'one world government' as desirable. Man, in his sinful state, seeks to achieve world peace to his own glory. God has declared that His glory is the ultimate goal. In Genesis 11:6-7 God disciplines this act of idolatry. Regarding 2.2.3 - Again I must ask how a group which you have described as "quite Satanic" can be trusted to be doing what is best for the world. Satan is described as 'the father of lies'. Thus an organisation which is "quite Satanic" is an organisation built in lies. Therefore, to expect truth from such an organisation would be rather like expecting a pork chop from a cow. To say we should fix or replace the UN, but none-the-less accept the edict of that organisation as good, is faulty reasoning. I would not accept Henry Morgentaler's position as good on an unprovable matter simply because it might be good. Regarding 2.2.4 - While mankind does need one world government there is no sinless person who can achieve that for good purposes. We are all tainted by the fall as you point out in 2.2.2 "the result of sin is the shattering of the human family," There is only One who can achieve "world peace, just distribution etc" Our human condition is aptly described in Romans 3:10-18. People in this condition cannot (denoting ability) bring to fruition "one good world government". 2.3.4 could then be clarified to read... With the fallen condition of mankind, the creation for good of one world government remains the 'impossible dream'. Thus we must work together, within our imperfect systems, to ensure that power remains broad based for those matters not covered by the moral codes contained within the 2nd Table of the Law. That covers my comments on Sovereignty. It's a good place to take a brain break! I've turned off my light sabre for the night. Thanks for keeping this organised. I think I'll have to simply post the link to your site on cv.forumer.com. G'night Vicki
Hi Vicki, >> I would therefore, for clarity, amend 2.3.2 to read: Updated. >> 2.3.4 could then be clarified to read... Updated. >> Your position on 2.2.1 indicates that an unelected body may require >> one country to abide by the decisions of another country. There are potentially many misunderstandings here. Let's try to eliminate a few of them: - I don't claim we should let other countries control Canada. See #2.1.1 - 2.1.17) Any Government not based on "Biblical Principles" (i.e. Natural Law) is a bad Government - 2.1.18) Any Government that is not accountable to its constituents, is a bad Government. - 2.1.19) Any Government that seeks the glory of sinful men instead of God's glory, is a bad Government - 2.1.20) The "current version" of the United Nations is a bad Government. - 2.1.21) The fact the UN supports something doesn't automatically mean that thing is bad. For example, the UN supports clean drinking water and sufficient food for children, which is clearly a very good thing! - 2.1.22) Reality is real. We can't change reality by killing the messenger, or by listening to a charlatan. If global warming is a problem, getting rid of the UN won't eliminate that problem. Conversely, if global warming is not a problem, all the UN doomsaying won't change a thing. >> The UN has issued support for >> abortion. Why should that issue, which destroys human life, be a >> matter we can object to, while we should not be able to object to the >> UN position of deciding how much GHG's we should be allowed to >> create? Once again, you're raising the issue of "Where are the limits of a Government's authority?" For abortion, this is clearly an issue that pertains to Natural Law, i.e. it's something that is neither in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada, nor in the jurisdiction of the United Nations, etc. Hence, when we complain about unjust laws on abortion, we are not saying that the goodness or evil of abortion is something that is decided by us! Not at all! We are just saying that this human Government is overstepping its authority. For pollution, reality is real. See suggested Concedo #2.1.22. If global warming really is a problem, then even if the United Nations didn't exist, we would still have to reduce our GHG emissions to a safe level. Assuming for the sake of the argument that global warming is a problem, and that reducing our GHG emissions would mitigate that problem, then we would still need to decide whether such a reduction should be on a voluntary basis, or enforced. And if enforced, by whom. For both those questions, I stand by my #2.2.1. >> Who gets to decide on which issues the unelected members of >> the UN are superior to our elected governments. See suggested Concedos #2.1.17 to #2.1.22. >> GHG's do not fall within the definition of good and evil. Water is not evil, yet you can drown. Air is not evil, yet if it enters a can of food, a child can eat that spoiled food and die of botulism or something. If (and I repeat if) excessive GHG emissions really can cause bad things (see #2.2.7), then not reducing them is evil. >> I do not find >> anywhere in the Laws reference to it being evil to create certain >> environmental situations. Do you find any mention of canned food in the Bible? Yet a canning factory that doesn't maintain its machinery correctly is guilty of evil. Do you find any mention of cloning human embryos for stem cell harvesting in the Bible? Yet that's evil too. If men produce environmental conditions that cause harm, that is evil. >> Yet, we do not find a Biblical prohibition against the >> practice [of contamination of the water supply and damage >> to farmlands]. The Bible doesn't condemn shooting people with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, does that mean that going on a rampage in a schoolyard is acceptable? "Thou shalt not kill" [Ex 20:13] The means used to kill innocent people (or destroy their property, etc.) can change, but the end result remains evil. >> The question becomes... who's the boss? Again, an >> unelected body or an elected body? See suggested Concedos #2.1.17 to #2.1.22. >> If we forgo our national sovereignty on this issue, what's to stop >> the same unelected representatives from deciding that killing unborn >> babies is in the best interests of people. Strange argument! Currently, right here in Canada, our elected representatives have already decided that preborn children were target practice! Unfortunately, whether a Government is elected or not isn't a guarantee of its goodness or evil. Bad Governments are bad, and must be eliminated. Wherever they may be. (Using morally-acceptable means, of course.) >> Should the UN decide >> that this strategy of people having one less child is a good one, >> what stops them from deciding that this is an issue over which their >> decision surpasses national sovereignty because it's good for the >> environment? See suggested Concedos #2.1.17 to #2.1.22. You keep kicking down open doors. I know and proclaim to the world that the UN is a bad Government. God knows where bad Governments will stop. Actually, everybody knows where bad Governments stop: nowhere! They are bad, and will stop nowhere. They must be stopped, otherwise they will just continue being bad. But once again, Concedo #2.1.22. If global warming is a problem, then we have to fix it, and if we fix it, then the solution will be on a voluntary basis, or imposed. And if imposed, by whom? Back to my #2.2.1! >> The road to a dictatorship begins with taking the power from >> the people and placing it in the hands of someone to whom the people >> have not agreed should lead them. I agree, of course! But I'm not arguing in favor of a bad Government. >> Similarly the UN does not seek to govern under Godly >> principles rather it seeks to make a name for man. Thus the >> conditions of Babel do apply to the UN, the tower is different but >> the motive is the same. Amen. I totally Concedo #2.1.20. >> I must ask how a group which you have >> described as "quite Satanic" can be trusted to be doing what is best >> for the world. I'm not asking that we trust the UN on this. I'm asking that we look at the facts. The existence or non-existence of the UN won't change the reality of climate change. If climate change is a problem, we have to deal with it, regardless of the UN. >> Therefore, to expect truth from such an organisation would be >> rather like expecting a pork chop from a cow. :-) I got a giggle out of that! But I repeat once again: Concedo #2.1.22. Global warming and climate change are not intrinsically connected to the UN. I treat them as separate problems. >> To say we should fix or replace the UN, but none-the-less accept the >> edict of that organisation as good, is faulty reasoning. Not necessarily. I don't say we should reduce our GHG emissions because the UN is evil. I say we should reduce the GHG emissions because the facts show us if we don't, we might make a global mess. >> I would not >> accept Henry Morgentaler's position as good on an unprovable matter >> simply because it might be good. Well of course! If a matter is "unprovable", then I'm wasting my time! But I don't claim GHG emissions and climate change are unprovable. I claim we can look at the facts and decide from there. >> People in this condition cannot >> (denoting ability) bring to fruition "one good world government". There are many clarifications that need to be made here, because your objection is very important. Offhand, I'd Concedo things like: - No human Goverment can be perfect, because of Original Sin. - Because of this, no human Government should be trusted 100%, and no human Government should be without appropriate checks and balances. - etc. Anyway, sorry about the delay. Also, once again, I think we are proving that a serious debate about anything is: 1) hard; 2) interesting (for those who have kicked the TV habit and have developed their intellectual muscles!) 3) necessary for all serious problems in a democratic society. Cheers! Stefan
Hi Stefan I hope you're enjoying this long weekend. (I'm assuming it's long for you also) Looks like we are narrowing the field on the sovereignty issue but I would suggest these need further consideration. >> Suggested "Concedos" by SJJ 2007-May-14 2.1.17 - There can never be peace on earth until the Lord returns. The earth will suffer the effects of original sin because you cannot undo that act of disobedience or its effect on us. The most we can do is build governments based in "Natural Law", limit the ability of sinful leaders to attempt to usurp the power of God and have appropriate discipline for those who break the laws. We seem to agree on this but have a problem with the practical issues. 2.1.21 - I see this particular one as redundant because it goes without saying that anyone/group can support some good things. ie. even Hitler likely loved someone like his wife or mother. It does not make them any more likely to make correct decisions or incorrect decisions in any area. 2.1.21 - I have a problem with your results of that observation. Just because the UN supports some good stuff does not mean that allowing them to administer control over all of our countries is either good or safe. Having acknowledged in 2.1.20 (above) that the UN is a bad government then to allow them any form of authority over our elected governments would be imprudent. Kyoto grants them that authority. Therefore, to allow a group, which we've acknowledged is bad, authority in any sphere over our elected government is wrong. Rather like putting the fox in charge of the chicken house. 2.1.22 - I agree with the sentiment however, for this discussion, it is based in an "IF" which leaves it open to any form of twisting and manipulating. 2.1.22 - I would again question what you do with that observation. The problem is that "IF". To commit billions of dollars to an action based on "IF" would be imprudent. Spend our money on definites... ie air, land and water pollution. Do something concrete for them. It's okay to invest a few thousand dollars on speculation, if you can afford it, but to risk serious damage to our national economy on an "IF" is unacceptable. >> For pollution, reality is real. See suggested Concedo #2.1.22. >> If globalwarming really is a problem We keep getting hung up on the "IF". To use the alternate. If the increase in GHG's are caused by natural cycles of the earth then all the money and effort we put in are wasted. Therefore, any reduction effort is wasted along with all the resources we pour into it. We simply do NOT know enough about this planet to make a definitive statement on global warming. Therefore, we don't know enough to begin treatment for a problem which we don't know exists. We have seen global fluctuations throughout recorded history and prior. Thus we can see it is naturally occurring. We have no concrete evidence and no unity in the scientific community that man produced ghg's has an effect. Thus, the preponderance of evidence is that global warming is part of natural cycles of our solar system. To send us again to the chicken coop with the fox in charge.... Simply because the fox will consume the chickens which are causing problems within the chicken coop does not make it a good plan for the civil problems within the coop. The fox will eventually eat ALL the chickens. >> See suggested Concedos #2.1.17 to #2.1.22. This would not be acceptable to me because they are unelected. This is how we leave ourselves under the authority of tyrants. Democracy deals with the problem of tyrants. Giving an unelected official power above our elected authorities leaves us vulnerable to tyrannical rule which cannot be easily removed because it is not voted in. >> If (and I repeat if) excessive GHG emissions really can >> cause bad things (see #2.2.7), then not reducing them is evil. It's that "IF" which is the problem. IF man's contribution to GHGs is not a problem then to devastate world economies trying to treat that which isn't, is evil! >> If men produce environmental conditions that cause harm, that >> is evil." You have missed my point in the excerpt which you quoted. I've put the whole section together. Part of being good stewards of this earth is to stop doing that which damages the earth. Ie. Past practice of contaminating water supply and farmlands. We have recognised that this is a bad practice therefore we don't approve it. Should global warming be the result of human produced ghg's then certainly we would need to deal with it. However, we do not know! Therefore, we should focus our efforts on what men do which is environmentally a problem. We agree with the end result of this, as you say "If men produce environmental conditions that cause harm, that is evil". What we are tangled up on is "IF". ... We don't know what causes global temperature fluctuation. We are concerned about the present increase of global temperature over the past 30 years in the same way we were concerned about global cooling 30 years ago. Some scientists think this increase is man produced ghgs BUT other scientists think its caused by natural fluctuations of the earth and solar system. Should we throw all of our resources, risk our national economies, allow one organisation supremacy over our elected governments on the basis of this POSSIBILITY? >> Bad Governments are bad, and must be eliminated. Wherever >> they maybe. (Using morally-acceptable means, of course.) But not all country's support abortion. The UN does and is quite zealous in pushing the issue within those countries which do not. We should be doing all we can to ensure that these countries do not fall under the control of despotic 'governments' such as the UN seeks to be. >> You keep kicking down open doors. I know and proclaim >> to the world that the UN is a bad Government. I keep kicking down open doors because you affirm that the UN is bad government but you wish to give them authority over our elected government. When they get their foot in the door, similarly to any despotic person/organisation, they will push their whole body in the door. You want to put the fox in charge of the chicken coop. A very, very dangerous practice! You said, "I'm not arguing in favour of a bad government." We both acknowledge that the UN is bad government. Yet you would put them in a position of authority over the world. That is arguing in favour of a bad government. Either you want to allow bad government in authority or you protect us all from such a possibility. To protect ourselves and the rest of the world we MUST NOT allow them to attain supremacy in any area of our country! >> I'm not asking that we trust the UN on this. I'm asking that we >> look at the facts. Again your argument is based in "IF" and acting as if "IF" were "fact". It is not. I am proposing that we deal in the areas of pollution which are fact... not speculation! >> Global warming and climate change are not intrinsically connected >> to the UN. I treat them as separate problems. Kyoto, however, is intrinsically connected to the UN. Kyoto grants the UN authority over national sovereignty on the matters of ghg emissions! Thus they are not separate problems. >> There are many clarifications that need to be made here, >> because We agree on imperfect human government but that is not reflected in your proposed 2.1.17 >> I think we are proving that a serious debate about anything is: Now that you mention the TV, maybe I'd better go and check on my old buddy. TV probably misses me :-( I'm enjoying the debate. Sorry, I was delayed this week. Life does tend to happen! O_O Have a good long weekend. Vicki
Hi Vicki, Wow. Almost 2 months to answer your previous e-mail! Pretty soon, I'll be slow enough to work as a civil servant! ;-) Seriously, how about we take a break for Summer? In September we can assess whether we want to pick it up again (I really need to read up on the actual Science around global warming.) Now, for the actual details of my answer. First, I'm sorry, I did it again. I violated one of the basic rules of debating: "Don't debate in the tripartite grid" I never should have "suggested some Concedos" by putting them in the Concedo Section. I should have suggested them down here, in the e-mails, and only promoted what we agreed on. So I'll demote my infringing "Suggested Concedos" back down. Don't let me do things like that anymore! >> 2.1.17 - There can never be peace on earth until the Lord >> returns. The earth will suffer the effects of original sin OK, I "demoted" that to 2.2.5 and 2.3.5. We are close, and probably could get closer on this one. Since you didn't say anything about #2.1.18, #2.1.19, or #2.1.20, I assumed you Concedo'ed them. Hope I'm not mistaken. >> 2.1.21 - I see this particular one as redundant OK, demoted to 2.2.6 and 2.3.6. >> 2.1.22 - I agree with the sentiment however, for this discussion, it >> is based in an "IF" which leaves it open to any form of twisting and >> manipulating. OK, demoted to 2.2.7 and 2.3.7. >> We simply do NOT know enough about this planet to make >> a definitive statement on global warming. That assertion is part of the debate. We both need to read the AR4, then have a serious debate on what we actually know on global warming. (By the way, we should both read that. It looks like several megs of PDF documents. If one of my buddies downloads them and burns them on a CD, I'll send you a copy, and one copy for the CHP Headquarters. It will look better if we know what the AR4 is and we at least have a copy on our bookshelf!) >> This would not be acceptable to me because they are unelected. Well, of course I agree with #2.1.18! That being said, the goodness or badness of a political decision is not entirely determined by its "democracy quotient". There is such a thing as a good king, who can make good decisions. Same thing with aristocracy (especially since, technically speaking, Canada is not really a democracy. The Prime Minister has almost kingly powers, and the actual people don't vote on laws, but a kind of "aristocracy" of MPs.) >> Should global warming be the result of human produced ghg's >> then certainly we would need to deal with it. However, we do not know! OK, I repeat: That assertion is part of the debate. We both need to read the AR4, then have a serious debate on what we actually know on global warming. >> We both acknowledge that the UN is bad government. Yet you would >> put them in a position of authority over the world. No, I would give them restricted obedience, insofar as they make good laws, while simultaneously fighting them in order to replace them with a good governement. This is not silly. It is exactly what all CHP members do with the current Canadian government (which is bad, since it promotes abortion, sodomy, etc.). >> Kyoto, however, is intrinsically connected to the UN. Nego. If the UN disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow morning, we could still implement Kyoto. >> We agree on imperfect human government but that is not reflected in >> your proposed 2.1.17 Yes, that was my mistake of trying to stick it in the "Concedo" section before your written approval. Sorry again! Finally, can I make a special request? Please don't use HTML in your e-mails! (See "6) Why do you dislike HTML in e-mails?") But it's not critical, just a "nice to have" for me. Well, twiddly-doo, and tell me if you want to take a Summer break, so your light saber can catch some Sun by the poolside. Cheers! Stefan
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Politics