Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Aemun]

I think rather than this link be a platform for frustrating dialogue - between those that are up for reasoned debate and those who simply wish to post links to incite some sort of negative reaction amongst the other followers – we should use it as a forum to examine the main questions that are being asked within the debate.

The first most obvious question that seems to be asked is:

Is human activity relevant in the wider natural arena of CO2 emission and absorption?

I believe this question has been answered by many research papers on the subject but I am only here to list the questions right now.

The second question, and a fairly obvious one is:

Is the greenhouse effect actual, or perhaps more simply – does the extra CO2 emitted from human activity cause global heating?

This I believe is where the deniers propose that the scientists to offer a direct link, and I believe it strongly correlates with the 'smoking causes cancer' debate. What constitutes proof in this theory?

A third question, might be:

Is global warming (if indeed it is anthropogenic) to be considered a more salient issue than economic concerns?

Here we may have to look at the predicted costs (in human lives) of a rising global temperature compared to the cost of economic legislation (again maybe to keep things fair we should consider the cost in human lives – even if we have to begin with a figure in dollars). This I suppose would open up into a debate about whether there is any scientific link between economic downturn and mortality rates, where perhaps we may see the deniers arguments used against them.

A fourth question that keeps popping up is:

Can we trust the science? And perhaps what value should we allocate the science based on what it is telling us?

This might lead to questions like: can we trust science as a source of knowledge? Is there a better source of knowledge? And if there is any doubt, how much value can we assign to this doubt? This links into the previous question regarding the outcome if the scientists are right and if they are wrong.

A question that has come up once or twice is:

What is the scientific consensus on the issue?

It would be good to see some hard evidence regarding the actual consensus. And also maybe we should ask – which scientists should we be trusting to give us our answers (climatologists, physicists, astronomers etc.)?


I offer above just a few questions in which to frame the debate. Perhaps each one could be the basis of a new thread. I would love to hear anyone else's views regarding the major questions asked of the debate as well as any appropriate evidence (preferably peer-reviewed and published in a respectable release) which can be offered as answer to any of the questions.

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 10:35 am to add the following --

Another question that has just occurred to me that is pertinent to this debate as well as many others is:

What constitutes corruption of research source?

The proclamation of unreliability has been made about evidence on both sides of the debate but what should we take as our measure? With any change in economic climate (or indeed ecological ones) there are financial winners and losers. So how can we tell if evidence is tainted? Direct financial funding perhaps? Being on the company payroll? I'm not sure so I pass the question over.

[Newme]

When you examine any claim to the contrary they can be dismissed as easily as creationism.

Then what are you waiting for?

Dismiss away... logically and specifically.

Instead of calling "you're wrong! na na na na!"... explain WHY they are wrong, point by point.

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 10:10 am to add the following --

I think rather than this link be a platform for frustrating dialogue - between those that are up for reasoned debate and those who simply wish to post links to incite some sort of negative reaction amongst the other followers...

You mean, you are frustrated because you have been presented with FACTUAL evidence contrary to the cult-mentality beliefs you've blindly accepted?

You are right in your use of the term "followers."

I am all for creating and utilizing renewable energy, but that is a different issue. The main concern is whether or not the "climate change" campaign and expenditures is based on fraud or not. Please, if you want to have a reasonable discussion based on REALITY not just our opinions, let's start by addressing the following...

"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature. The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%." http://www.thegwpf.org/how-much-money-a ... ion-a-day/

"Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

There has and always will be climate change... "•1880-1940: A prolonged rise in temperature in spite of modest global carbon dioxide outputs •1940-1970: A decline in temperature, in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels •1970-2000: A rise in temperature which follows carbon dioxide levels •2000-2005: A levelling-out of the temperature rise •2005-2011: A slight decline in temperature, in spite of still-rising carbon dioxide levels

So, over a period of more than a century, only the data from one thirty-year slot actually fits the human-induced global warming theory. The rest does not. In this situation it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the discrepancy. With the bulk of the data not fitting the theory, this is indeed an onerous task." http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Chang ... id=6849578

[Geordie Ross]

4 billion looks like loose change compared to the money lost in commerce due to co2 caps, alternative energy, green policies and and sustainable sources.

[Aemun]

When I said 'followers', I was referring to followers of this thread - people on both sides of the debate, including yourself, newme. I have a slight objection to your use of the term 'cult-mentality', surely this is a term that could be applied to any group of people who hold an opinion contrary your own and therefore is just an empty insult.

I was in someway perhaps onesided in terms of my phrasing but that was only the case because I have blocked the main proponent of this thread due to a lack of the ability to actually engage in intelligent debate.

Ok, so we've got that out the way. Let's pick through your stuff, intelligently hopefully, in an engaged way - starting with the first sentence of your post. Apparently New Scientist has condemned the idea that there has been no global warming since '98 as a myth. Do you have any answer to this claim? I am genuinely interested in your reply so please lets leave name calling aside, I don't think this is what this forum is about.

[Newme]

4 billion looks like loose change compared to the money lost in commerce due to co2 caps, alternative energy, green policies and and sustainable sources.

Maybe, however, what specific improvements have the billions of dollars done?

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 10:47 am to add the following --

When I said 'followers', I was referring to followers of this thread - people on both sides of the debate, including yourself, newme. I have a slight objection to your use of the term 'cult-mentality', surely this is a term that could be applied to any group of people who hold an opinion contrary your own and therefore is just an empty insult.

I consider cult-mentality as a type of bigotry - that refuses to consider alternate perspectives, even when associated facts are clear as day.

Apparently New Scientist has condemned the idea that there has been no global warming since '98 as a myth. Do you have any answer to this claim? I am genuinely interested in your reply so please lets leave name calling aside, I don't think this is what this forum is about.

I never called you any names, but simply pointed out the inability to consider and respond to facts that are unfavorable to your perspective, by defining it as bigotry or cult-mentality. Maybe that is a strong term, but I find it so prevelant, even among those who bash on OTHER cult mentalities.

"The dire predictions about global warming are a complete fallacy. This is what 20,000 scientists have recently said, and among them are 2660 climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. Here is their statement:

“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” This Petition was sponsored by Dr. Frederisk Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (The full paper debunking the global warming hypothesis is found on http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

(And it is "peer reviewed." )

[Geordie Ross]

(Nested quote removed.)

Maybe, however, what specific improvements have the billions of dollars done?

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 10:47 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

I consider cult-mentality as a type of bigotry - that refuses to consider alternate perspectives, even when associated facts are clear as day.


(Nested quote removed.)

I never called you any names, but simply pointed out the inability to consider and respond to facts that are unfavorable to your perspective, by defining it as bigotry or cult-mentality. Maybe that is a strong term, but I find it so prevelant, even among those who bash on OTHER cult mentalities.

"The dire predictions about global warming are a complete fallacy. This is what 20,000 scientists have recently said, and among them are 2660 climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. Here is their statement:

“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” This Petition was sponsored by Dr. Frederisk Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (The full paper debunking the global warming hypothesis is found on http://www.oism.org/pproject ).

They're about to crack nuclear fusion, 10 years ago, people believed that was a far fetched dream, but the strive for clean sustainable energy has progressed that by decades. I'd say that's a pretty big damn step in the right direction.

[Newme]

They're about to crack nuclear fusion, 10 years ago, people believed that was a far fetched dream, but the strive for clean sustainable energy has progressed that by decades. I'd say that's a pretty big damn step in the right direction.

Please provide proof that the money to fund that was from the money generated by the climate change campaign.

And please explain exactly how tens of billions for being "about to crack nuclear fusion" is worth every penny of the BILLION$ spent in the fearful cry of "climate change."


Question for those who believe in the "climate change crisis"...

Are you walking or riding a manual bicycle instead of riding any vehicle that uses fossil fuel and did you stop using utilities that consume fossil fuels?

[Geordie Ross]

I never mentioned anything about monetary funding between nuclear fusion and climate change, I said the strive for clean energy has progressed the estimated time frame for cracking fusion.

So how about you stop making unrealistic demands for "proof" of things you incorrectly assumed I was saying? Its very disingenuous.

[Aemun]

Did a quick search on your paper, Newme, and first and foremost I thank you for supplying something that looks at least like an actual science paper - graphs, charts, references. This is definitely a step up in the game for the deniers.

However, I googled the authors of the paper in order to find where abouts it was published. Guess what came up - an article going over all the false claims within the article. Now I'm really just a layperson when it comes to climatology- my degree is in Philosophy and Psychology - but even I could see that the fallacies in the paper that were getting pointed out made perfect sense. I was already dubious about wasting my time as the link led me to the petition project website which has such a ridiculous record of posting spurious articles, but this has been the nail in that websites coffin for me. It just hasn't got any integrity.

As for your continued comments on cult-mentality (I wanted to move on from that), I actually want the deniers to be right. I don't want my children growing up in a world with no future. If anything, I would consider myself very persuadable to the deniers cause - but only if they can actually give a shred of evidence from a reputable source that backs their claims. I actually watch your videos and bother to research the claims but every time I come against a barrage of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now please,Newme, your reasoned reply is most welcome, .

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 12:22 pm to add the following --

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM - hey looks like I can finally post links. Try this one.

And this one was highly interesting, I suggest anyone interested in the debate look at it: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fox-new ... enial.html

-- Updated August 19th, 2013, 12:46 pm to add the following --

'Are you walking or riding a manual bicycle instead of riding any vehicle that uses fossil fuel and did you stop using utilities that consume fossil fuels?'

I think it's a shame that the deniers seem to have a tendency to try and take the debate away from the scientific/philosophical level and take it to the personal level. Making out that the people that believe the science to be bigotted, communist cultists. But at least this last attempt seems open up some questions.

I myself do in fact use public transport and generally walk to where I want to get, but I am one person. So lets phrase the question better:

Are the people who believe in anthropogenic change more conscientious in their actions than the deniers? Does anyone have any research on this?

Certainly one could theorise that a big reason for people being deniers is that they don't want to feel guilty and responsible - to be made to feel they should alter their lifestyles which probably if anything they want to be more luxurious. Just a theory though.

[Xris]

Newme. You select your very best link that you believe contradicts the science.

[Logicus]

The constant yammering about it is because of all the environmental studies majors. Finding no market for their "skills" they have invented a science: climate change. It is a science of the obvious: it is the continuing evolution of the Earth.
I will spell it out for you: It doesn't matter if the climate is changing or not.
There is nothing that can or should be done about it.
These arguments are pointless.

[Xris]

The constant yammering about it is because of all the environmental studies majors. Finding no market for their "skills" they have invented a science: climate change. It is a science of the obvious: it is the continuing evolution of the Earth.
I will spell it out for you: It doesn't matter if the climate is changing or not.
There is nothing that can or should be done about it.
These arguments are pointless.

So you believe it is changing but it has nothing to do with us? The Earths temperature has never risen as fast as it is now so how is it part of the Earths natural evolution? Whether we are capable of changing our ways before it is too late is not the question.We will be driven to find alternative forms of energy at some stage so why not now?

[Aemun]

It's funny now that we have a new denier enter the debate, because we are starting to see patterns emerging. Let's look at the first 3 words of Logicus's statement:

"The constant yammering..."

Now the term 'yammering' can be applied to any debate/discussion/argument which is annoying you. It is in fact a subjective term. But the context with which Logicus has used it is one with the intention of debasing the debate we are currently having - specifically they have used the term for the portion of the debate the non-deniers are adding.

The funny thing about this is that, for a start this is a philosophy forum - a platform designed for debate, and secondly the thread was started by a denier. We are simply reacting appropriately.

It is very common of the deniers - I have noticed since joining this debate - to try and use empty insults to gain the moral higher ground. Hmmm.

But come on, lets try to give some credit here, we have a new question being asked, which is:

Is the climate crisis made up to give out of work climatologists a way of making money?

Ok, lets try and take this question seriously. Let's imagine they are. This would mean that the thousands (and there are thousands) of papers that have been released on the subject are fraudulent or fallacious. Now, we've already seen plenty of fallacious sources posted by the deniers - can the same be said about the non-deniers?

Well the problem with this theory is that there are reviewable, retestable studies done all the time by climatologists and the rest of the science world doesn't seem to be saying that they are fraudulent. I mean true there are scientists who disagree with what the results predict, but the evidence is there.

I mean, we would be talking about a big conspiracy here, massive cover ups done by practically every university in the world.

Maybe science is really just one big con to make money. Maybe i-phones really just fall out of trees and run on magic.

Just a quick question Logicus - you don't by chance watch Fox News do you? Just wondering was all.

[Logicus]

Apparently, neither of you can read. I said it does not matter if climate change is real or not. I did not say it does not exist. The climate of the Earth has been changing continually since its creation. I see no reason why it shouldn't continue to do so. It has been both warmer and colder in the past than it is now. It is irrelevant if man is the current cause. Man is a product of this planet and is, therefore, part of its nature.

Man is not something separate like some sort of parasite. We have risen in numbers and power and represent a new force in nature, but natural we are. The world will not end because of our activities. We might eventually die out, but the Earth will continue. Life will continue. The only difference between us and past extinct species is that we talk a lot about ourselves. It is a neurotic preoccupation.

If you are so concerned with the boogey-man of climate change, why don't you think more about how to adapt to it? The law of evolution is "adapt or die". I doubt talking about it will make any difference.

[EMTe]

Rarely I encounter posts that I could have written myself, Logicus, but I just want to add one thing that will probably cool your emotions down. The personal stance on climate change depends on one's general worldviews. Basically, either you consider humans (together with everything we created, including toxic waste) part of nature or not. You and me are probably holists, at least I consider myself to be one. People who don't agree with us belong to the second party. They will always exist, so there's no need to heavily argue with them, because you won't change their stance on climate change without changing their general worldviews. And the latter, in turn, depend on so many factors that it's impossible to change them with webforum posts.