--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks to Rick Archer, I've now been able to see the video. > > > > > > > > I have several impressions that I'd like to convey, but I'll > only > > > > give one: > > > > > > > > Do the exact same exercise for Iran and Nuclear Weapons. > > > > > > > > See what course of action you come up with. > > > > > > You can't do the same exercise with Iran. What are > > > your two choices along the side of the chart? > > > > In the video, the premise (upper left of grid where the "GCC" is > > written) is that there will be catastrophic man-made global warming. > > > > Instead, the premise is: Nuclear holocaust initiated by Iran as a > > result of Iran developing nuclear weapons. > > > > You ask, Judy, what are the choices along the side of the chart: > > they would be the same: "False" first and then "True" below it. > > But you have two premises for each choice: (a) whether > Iran is developing nuclear weapons; and (b) whether > Iran will initiate a nuclear holocaust. Obviously if > (a) is false, (b) is also false. But if (a) is true, > (b) might be true *or* false. > > In fact, the global warming chart has a similar problem: > there should be two premises for each choice, but he's > conflated them. So neither would be conclusive in terms > of end results.
Well, then, you were incorrect when you said, above, that "you can't do the same exercise with Iran" because, apparently, you can. They would just be two wrong exercises, according to you. > > There isn't much disagreement that we want to keep Iran > from developing nuclear weapons. The issue is how we go > about it if Iran is in fact trying to develop them, not > whether we want to take action or not. > > <snip> > > Now discuss...oh, and remember to ask yourself: what's more > > likely to actually happen: catastrophic global warming (man- > > made or otherwise) or Iran actually getting nuclear weapons. > > Oh, gracious, clearly the former. We have no evidence > that Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons (see > John's post); but we have quite a bit for catastrophic > global warming. I would disagree with you profoundly on that, Judy, as you can well imagine. I can't believe that you actually believe that Iran, left to its own devices, won't get its hands on nuclear weapons. I find that both sad and bizarre that you are in denial about that. As for predicting weather -- something no one in the history of mankind has successfully done to any great degree -- there is zero evidence of catastrophic man-made global warming. I haven't seen it, nor has anyone. Here's an exercise for ya'. You know those video tapes of recently melting polar ice caps and the side of Greenland that proponents use as evidence of catastrophic global warming? Well, look at the video tapes of polar ice caps and Greenland from 6 or 7 hundred years ago and you'll see that they melted to just the same degree.
