Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Chris Deckrow
Recent Activity
-
Chris commented on the article |You are fooling only yourself if you think these grandparents and middle class people that are showing up with handmade signs are ignorant. They have read your bill, and do not agree with it. or the underlying grab for control of our lives. This centralized control will end up as it ALWAYS does, in misery for the very people you claim to champion.
The history of socialism and all of the other big government schemes that have ever been tried throughout the entire history of man is inescapable. They fail. Only the concept of a limited government has allowed us to excel for these 200+ years. Your attempt to shift the argument and fool yourself about your own true goals, and the quality and size of your true opposition only shows your desperation and willingness to take any tactic, and twist any truth, just so you can reach your goal.
This is mean and cruel, and perhaps even evil. You have reached to far to fast, and have tipped you hand. The real owners of this country have seen you for what you are, and are not pleased.
-
Chris commented on the article |
This automatic dismissal of real grassroots protesters, in the face of a lifetime of paid liberal protestors that are supposed to be considered legitimate is the epitome of Liberal Hypocrisy. To have a real difference of opinion is healthy, but when you take the argument that the other side are all paid and not real, it just proves that you have no real argument for your side, and must reduce yourself to ridiculing your opposition. I just hope that those of us who are against an ever growing centralized government do not succumb to this disingenuous, mean, and unethical attempt to silence and belittle us.
-
Chris commented on the article |I just realized another conclusion based on your provided logic paths:
The only honest opinion that an unqualified person can affirm, is that they do not know. Since the person pushing their opinion knows they are not qualified, offering any other conclusion is dishonest. -
Chris commented on the article |
Hmmm,
Emily, your re-posting of your prior response just reinforces my objection to the word "liar". Let me try again to express why there is no appreciation for its use in this context.
Your group breakdown logic:
Truth Tellers;
1)"ones who acknowledge that global warming is a present danger"
2)"a very, very few [who] have valid observations about the data that differ from other valid observations" that are "qualified to interpret the data."
Liars:
1) "the rest of the people who say global warming isn't a problem."
Conclusions from your logic:
1) Sincere unqualified people that believe in AGW; Honest
2) Sincere qualified people that believe in AGW; Honest
3) Sincere qualified people that don't believe in AGW; Honest
4) Sincere unqualified people that don't believe in AGW; Liars
So, apparently, in your mind, just because someone is unqualified to make a knowledgeable decision, AND they don't believe in AGW, that makes them a liar. That is cruel logic, that leaves those that honestly disagree with you automatically insulted, and your conclusions about their integrity incorrect.
In fact, the only real liars would be those that are qualified and still forwarding conclusions that are not backed by science. The rest honestly believe the conclusions they have made, based on their ability to understand the data.
P.S. It's no semantic ploy to point out that, by your own admissions, you are not qualified to decide if man is or isn't responsible for GW. You have been quite clear about that. -
Chris commented on the article |
Great answer Emily. To bad is only addresses the supposed lack of qualifications of the people that have signed the petition. The real issue here is that you call them liars. Whether or not they are qualified, or have changed their mind, does not in any way, shape, or form make them insincere or liars. Your automatic dismissal of all descent as "liars" shows your lack on sincerity in this discussion.
And following your own logic: The bulk of the people on this web site that agree with AGW are not "qualified to interpret the data", including yourself. -
Chris commented on the article |
How is a simply written statement, with such clear meaning, signed by many scientists, "hokum"? How can you discredit a petition? You may choose to disagree with their beliefs. But, again you call them insincere, when their only dereliction is that they disagree with you, and not that they are unqualified to interpret the data.
-
Chris commented on the article |
Emily,
Also, you said: "And probably a very, very few have valid observations about the data that differ from other valid observations; their ideas warrant further study."
The following petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists. I guess by very, very few you meant more than 30 thousand?
-----------------------------
Global warming petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
http://www.petitionproject.org/[This petition is a thoroughly discredited piece of hokum. - Emily]
-
Chris commented on the article |
Emily,
Does it really serve your purposes to call those that do not believe in AGW, but do believe in GW liers? It is an automatically inflamitory term. And, it is not very scientific. Some scientists were preaching global cooling when I was in high school, and now some are just as convinced that we are responsable for global warming. This debate is healthy. To stifle the debate by calling the theories that do do agree with yours lies indicates that you are not interested in the facts. And instead, you are just caught up in the heat of the moment, and not willing to change your opinion based on silly things like facts. -
Chris commented on the article |Global Warming effects again proven exagerated!
According to the Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica".
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html -
Chris commented on the article |
Clearly they are just here to support their existing agenda. The proof of that is found in their rabid denial of any science that disgrees with their radicall agenda.
Impact
1 Action
0 Recruits