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

[Aemun]

Here's a freeby. A paper that questions the basis of your climate change discourse analysis.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 11:18 am to add the following --

What I want to ask you now is DarwinX:

Do you believe that the media reporting on the scientific community is ever completely distorted?

Do you believe that there was any scientific consensus about global cooling?

Do you believe that 'global cooling' was run away with by the press to sell papers?

Do you believe that a phenomenon completely made up by the media is now being used as evidence to further besmirch the science community?

Do you believe they are doing this to sell more news?

Ultimately, do you not believe that these lies about the science community made up by journalists to perpetuate more lies is morally wrong and shameful?

[DarwinX]

You actually know not a thing about how the science world operates.

All you do is believe the so called science that you see on dodgy news channels and whenever actual science from university research departments is used against you, you complain that science isn't fair.

You again failed to properly engage.

I ask you:

Do you believe in actual science? Or just the idea that if it is on T.V. it must be true?

The politicians are the ones who have changed their terminology. The science community advises politicians on what to say to the public. Its a long chain of command that leads back to the scientists. The scientists hide from the media and only use their political muscle to influence politicians to do their dirty work for them. They don't leave any direct evidence that you can accuse them of, so they cover their tracks for later inspections. The diversion continues.

You still have not responded to the following questions and statements -


1. Infra-red radiation does not cause global warming. Experimental evidence provided previously. (ignored)

2. 30 years NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

3. Global average temperatures has decreased in last 17 years. Graphs included. (ignored)

4. North Pole ice has returned to is average norm this year 2013. (ignored)

Now, tell me, who is guilty of not properly engaging in this debate?

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 10:31 am to add the following --

Here's a freeby. A paper that questions the basis of your climate change discourse analysis.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... BAMS2370.1

This is further evidence that scientists are getting out of their depth when they think that they can predict the weather. The climate is always going to be the winner in the prediction stakes. There are too many factors which contribute to the climate. You can't use science or computer modeling to predict it in any shape or form. CFC's were blamed for ozone holes - nonsense. The Earth is a magnet which attracts charged particles from the sun. These charged particles have to enter the Earth via the North and South Poles which creates a hole - it is a natural occurrence.

Scientists try to convince us that we need them for their expertise. But, is is becoming more and more evident that scientists are corruptible and create false disaster scenarios to create a fear in the community of which only they have a answer for. Don't get sucked into this deception.

[Aemun]

My word, you are an exceptionally frustrating human being DarwinX and I will be ignoring you again because it is simply not worth my time.

I have engaged with you on many of the subjects that you have put forward. You clearly have not been reading my replies, it is you who has failed to engage. I have shown that every one of your posts that I have read is fallacious information sourced from discredited sources. I have given specific examples of the problems in your thinking. I have missed certain sources but only because I have only so much time in my day for someone who is so unreliable at coming out with anything intelligent,and every source I have checked was absolute ********.

I do not give a **** what language politicians use. They are just as distrustworthy as media channels. What information is given by either of these is to be checked against science. Your sources generally do not constitute science, they constitute media reporting of science or worse, media reporting of politicians reporting science. Or worse media reporting of media reporting of science like your last effort.

Folllow the source material to the original.

I care what the scientists say and 97% are saying global warming is happening and it is caused significantly by man. CO2 emissions should be addressed because we have too much invested in the current ecosystem and global warming may lead to catastrophe. Economic catastrophe is likely either way.

This is a philosophy forum and there is no room for someone for such a disdain for the academic community as yourself. If you want to post such trash, go on some right wing religious extremist forum, they'll eat it up.

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 8:42 pm to add the following --

The politicians sometimes take advice off scientists. The moment a scientist orders a politician on policy, then they are acting in a role which is other than a scientist, they would be acting as policy maker.

To suggest that scientists are at the top of our political system is so misinformed that it sounds like mental disease.

The consensus in the scientific community at the moment does not just include those in advisory roles.

[DarwinX]

The politicians sometimes take advice off scientists. The moment a scientist orders a politician on policy, then they are acting in a role which is other than a scientist, they would be acting as policy maker.

To suggest that scientists are at the top of our political system is so misinformed that it sounds like mental disease.

The consensus in the scientific community at the moment does not just include those in advisory roles.

Your posts are all bluff and posturing. You are supporting a corrupt system which involves scientists and politicians. The scientists rely on governments for their funding so they have to come up with reasons for their existence. Climate change is just one of many of those fabricated excuses to get more government funding. The government also benefits from these scams. They get more tax from CO2 emissions, thus, it is a matter of 'you rub my back and I'll rub yours'. Thus, the politicians and scientist are in it together as a team, so you can't blame just one group as being the villains.

[Londoner]

3. The term 'climate change' was not used before about 2 years ago.

The IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change) was formed a long time ago (in 1988).

Everyone knows this.

The interesting question here is whether he really believes what he is saying - or really believes that writing stuff that everyone can see to be absurd will have some effect. Assuming he does, I can only guess that this is some sort of testosterone thing; a 'Fight Club'; the fight is not a means to an end, in the sense of trying to convince other people through reason.

On other threads we often discuss religion; the need for it and what is involved in a belief in God. I would suggest that DarwinX's conspiracy theory is effectively a religion. He has made the 'leap of faith'; he knows 'the truth'.

Because doesn't this discussion resemble the sort of argument you might have with a 'creationist'? You ask: What about fossils? Reply: Fossils must have been created by God. You: How do we know this? Them: Because we know God created the earth in 6000 BC.

So it is useless to argue facts about the ostensible subject. Rather, I think this thread should be remembered as evidence on other threads, when we are discussing how much our picture of the external world (if it exists) is subservient to our internal mental landscape.

[Aemun]

I think DarwinX generally believes the things they are saying because they have been indoctrinated by the right wing American media. This is a known phenomenon in the problem of global warming. They have been taught to distrust scientists, and any form of legislation, and will sing that song like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm until the day that they are taught to sing a different song.

As long as we can educate people to think using the tools of logic and scientific thinking, and how to do effective research then we have a chance of stopping this religion or social disease which hinders progress for mankind. I always think that it is amazing how Orwell managed to gain his ideas. Like the idea of doublethink, where someone can hold a contradictory view. In this case DarwinX distrusts all scientists, but listens to the scientists when they come out of the right wing TV. It involves an inability to use ones brain for oneself. I think first they must really mess their heads up in school so that they are ready for the TV to do the rest.

Yes, DarwinX is probably too far down the line at the moment for it to be worth the time and effort to try and help them. But they have been a good test case for me to understand the extent of the problem. It is the people that have received a little bit of information off the TV but are not totally indoctrinated that we need to be convincing about the urgency of the problem mankind faces.

Next time someone says 'they changed it to climate change' I can explain reasonably why 'they' never.

Next time someone says 'a new thing came out that disproves global warming' I can say that I have spent weeks looking at source material and never once did I find any evidence for this.

It's not going to be easy but I like to think there is still hope.

[DarwinX]

3. The term 'climate change' was not used before about 2 years ago.

The IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change) was formed a long time ago (in 1988).

Everyone knows this.

It was not used by governments and the media until about 2 years ago. The IPCC may have used it very sparingly in the past maybe once or twice. They didn't start using the term 'climate change' until it was becoming apparent that the climate was not warming, so they had to change their game plan from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Prior to 2011, you never heard news reports about 'climate change', it was always 'global warming'.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


It was not used by governments and the media until about 2 years ago. The IPCC may have used it very sparingly in the past maybe once or twice. They didn't start using the term 'climate change' until it was becoming apparent that the climate was not warming, so they had to change their game plan from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Prior to 2011, you never heard news reports about 'climate change', it was always 'global warming'.

So what exactly are you claiming.There is no warming or there is no climate change?

[Aemun]

And this reasoning is based on the false report by Rupert Murdoch's 'the Australian' that the IPCC have even agreed that there is no warming.

Did they actually ever say that? Other than in the Australian?

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 9:19 am to add the following --

DarwinX if you can supply me a link to a report made by any official of the IPCC that says that global warming has stopped I would be happy to read it and it would be the most convincing thing you have ever come out with.

This 'climate change' thing sounds like rubbish because they are called the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE.

Can you supply DarwinX? please I need this from you.

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 9:56 am to add the following --

Just realised that DarwinX is Australian, this makes a lot of sense.

[DarwinX]

This 'climate change' thing sounds like rubbish because they are called the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE.

Can you supply DarwinX? please I need this from you.

-- Updated September 1st, 2013, 9:56 am to add the following --

Just realised that DarwinX is Australian, this makes a lot of sense.

You are trying to trivialize the debate with misconstrued side issues. I am referring to the government and the media. I never stated that the IPCC didn't acknowledge climate change. I am referring to the media and governments use of these terms which has changed since 2011. Please read the posts as written, and not as you want me to write it. You are so desperate for me to make a slip-up, that you starting to hallucinate in your blind frenzy.

Please reply to the main issues and don't try your communist tricks on me.

The main issues are -


1. Infra-red radiation does not cause global warming. Experimental evidence provided previously. (ignored)

2. 30 years NASA satellite images of North Pole show no sign of significant change. (ignored)

3. Global average temperatures has decreased in last 17 years. Graphs included. (ignored)

4. North Pole ice has returned to is average norm this year 2013. (ignored)

Still ignoring these big holes in your precious IPCC based theories.

[Xris]

I can see you are getting desperate repeating what has already been shown as false. Answer my question.Do you believe in global warming or not? Simple question.

[DarwinX]

I can see you are getting desperate repeating what has already been shown as false. Answer my question.Do you believe in global warming or not? Simple question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

[Londoner]

It was not used by governments and the media until about 2 years ago. The IPCC may have used it very sparingly in the past maybe once or twice. They didn't start using the term 'climate change' until it was becoming apparent that the climate was not warming, so they had to change their game plan from 'global warming' to 'climate change'. Prior to 2011, you never heard news reports about 'climate change', it was always 'global warming'.

So an organisation whose name includes the words 'climate change' and whose stated aims was to investigate 'climate change' and has issued a string of reports over the last 25 years on 'climate change' has managed all this while only using the term 'climate change' 'maybe once or twice'?

Seriously, how long do you think it takes to check-out your claims? Aren't you even a tiny bit embarrassed to assert such nonsense?

If anyone is interested, here is an article by NASA that discusses the terminology and its history:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... _name.html

One amusing point not mentioned in the NASA article is that in 2002 it was Republican campaigners who were being advised to switch to saying 'Climate Change' because it was less frightening than 'global warming'.

Incidentally, it isn't true either that the surface climate isn't warming any more. It is still warming, just not as fast.

I hope you understand that I don't for a moment imagine that you will take any notice of my points - if you were interested in the facts you could have found it all out for yourself, easily enough. What I am curious about is how you will bluff it out; I want clues as to whether you are self-aware that you are talking nonsense. For example, there is a slight hint that you do, since you have now started a subtle shift into talking about 'news reports' of the science, rather than the actual science. This shift suggests that even you realise your position isn't defensible.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v

Something you should try now and again.You have given links that accept global warming but try to say its not our fault. So I ask you again, do you accept global warming? If not why are you telling us it has nothing to do with us?

[Aemun]

DarwinX, you seem to be coming under a lot of pressure here.

I wish to make a suggestion.

First tell us what you think makes the difference between a creditable science source and a non-creditable science source.

Then maybe we can see where our views fundamentally disagree. I would avoid sounding ideological, just tell us what you think would be sensible measures to take when researching sources.

OK