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

[DarwinX]

All three of you reality deniers have failed to address my questions and statements in a scientific manner. You just hurl unsubstantiated abuse at me without any scientific proof to validate your claims.

The questions and statements that I have given you still remain unopposed, no evidence has been offered to refute my claims. Therefore, if you don't supply any refuting evidence I will have to claim victory by default. One of you has seen defeat looming up ahead and has decided to pull out just before the coup de grace was delivered. I expect the other two reality deniers will soon retire (defeated) as well.

I will post the unanswered questions one more time.

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

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

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

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

5. Graph shows that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase by 800 years.(ignored)

6. Coral absorbs CO2 and creates limestone.(ignored)

7. Bacteria is created by chemical pollution (fertilizer), not by CO2(still waiting)

8. CO2 doesn't refract infra-red after its saturation point has been reached.(ignored)

Until you can refute all these issues in a scientific manner I will be claiming victory on this matter.

[DarwinX]

DarwinX, I went through the thread and the discussion was highly interesting. I personally disagree with your ideas on germ theory, the medical industry built on conspiratorial bedrock, and the resulting consequences this entire proposition would necessitate for the myth to be carried.

I went through provided links and have researched in this field in the past. Despite all the links that you and Creative supplied, I still find myself more persuaded by the well-acquainted studies and journals that I have studied over the years.

You are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine. It is futile to continue to follow the path of opinion-based arguments in this particular area, as germ theory cannot be proven infallible, but neither can "miasmas" or the four humours.

In terms of vaccination, I've found graphs that show a closer link between the rise of autism and other arbitrary ideas, such as the growth in wheat production. I believe in vaccination, but such is my wont. One might equally find even closer graphs that show correlations between any ideas, that may actually be true.

Please explain - which part of the historical graphs; which reveal that vaccination was mostly introduced after improvements in hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, didn't you understand? (on the vaccination liberation website)

1. Please answer this question via the post titled - 'Germ Theory is a fraud'.

2. Please explain where I referred to "miasmas" or "the four humours" in any of my posts?

3. Please explain how wheat production graphs are similar to disease death rate graphs?

Note - Although I didn't mention the term 'miasma' in any of my posts, I find the general idea of 'miasma' to be more accurate, than what 'germ theory' proposes in describing the infection process. Although, the invisible mist aspects of miasma are inaccurate, the general concept of how disease generates from rotting animals, is spot on.

The "invisible mist" part should be replace with - mosquitoes, rats, fleas, flies and other parasitic life forms that are capable of transferring the diseased cells to humans.

[The Quirkster]

DarwinX, the spirit of philosophical pursuit is one of mutual discourse towards truth, based not on agenda or personal bias. I offered you this olive branch in my previous post because I thought that perhaps you, in this spirit, might prefer to find truth even if it doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Unfortunately, you have turned down the chance for healthy discussion, preferring to preach from the Mount, proselytising your own beliefs as if they were somehow enlightened beyond the scope of any dissenter's capabilities.

Quite why you joined a philosophy forum as a medium to voice your staunch, unrelenting beliefs is the most pressing question in this thread.

If you feel that you were victorious in this thread, that's wonderful. Congratulations. Whatever you feel you've achieved, I hope it brings you joy.

[The Quirkster]

DarwinX, the spirit of philosophical pursuit is one of mutual discourse towards truth, based not on agenda or personal bias. I offered you this olive branch in my previous post because I thought that perhaps you, in this spirit, might prefer to find truth even if it doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Unfortunately, you have turned down the chance for healthy discussion, preferring to preach from the Mount, proselytising your own beliefs as if they were somehow enlightened beyond the scope of any dissenter's capabilities.

Quite why you joined a philosophy forum as a medium to voice your staunch, unrelenting beliefs is the most pressing question in this thread.

If you feel that you were victorious in this thread, that's wonderful. Congratulations. Whatever you feel you've achieved, I hope it brings you joy.

-- Updated 04 Sep 2013, 13:51 to add the following --

DarwinX, the spirit of philosophical pursuit is one of mutual discourse towards truth, based not on agenda or personal bias. I offered you this olive branch in my previous post because I thought that perhaps you, in this spirit, might prefer to find truth even if it doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Unfortunately, you have turned down the chance for healthy discussion, preferring to preach from the Mount, proselytising your own beliefs as if they were somehow enlightened beyond the scope of any dissenter's capabilities.

Quite why you joined a philosophy forum as a medium to voice your staunch, unrelenting beliefs is the most pressing question in this thread.

If you feel that you were victorious in this thread, that's wonderful. Congratulations. Whatever you feel you've achieved, I hope it brings you joy.

[Londoner]

DarwinX

I will post the unanswered questions one more time.

And I will provide links to the answers one more time, except 7 as I can't be bothered following you down that new avenue of lunacy.

1. Infra-red radiation does not cause global warming.(ignored)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

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

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -2012.html

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

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

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

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -2012.html

5. Graph shows that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase by 800 years.(ignored)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

6. Coral absorbs CO2 and creates limestone.(ignored)

http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teachi ... ral_reefs/

8. CO2 doesn't refract infra-red after its saturation point has been reached.(ignored)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturat ... effect.htm

I assume your response will be to yet again repeat your 'ignored' questions. In which case, just refer yourself back to this post, and repeat the process to your heart's content.

[Xris]

Ad infinitum.

[Aemun]

Thank you Londoner,

I myself was planning to do such a thing. I think we owe quite a lot to your efforts in this thread. I believe DarwinX to be like the child who rather than feel the full effects of embarrassment, represses their emotion and unfortunately their rational capabilities along with it by putting their fingers in their ears and bawling 'NO!,NO!,NO!'. Personally if it was my child, I'd feel justified in spanking the little blighter before they shamed me in front of the other parents.

May, I suggest you would be well in your rights to simply cut and paste your last post in answer to DarwinX who will not have the intellectual capacities to do anything else. If it comes down to it, I suggest we involve the moderator as I believe DarwinX's actions constitute 'trolling'.

I wonder whether DarwinX's actions have maybe made Quirkster move a little bit over to the climate change camp...

Quirkster, unfortunately I worry people like DarwinX form quite a large majority of the side of the deniers who think their views are based on research.

[DarwinX]

Studies have revealed that rural thermometers average one third less increase than that of urban and city thermometers. This is due to the heat island effect. This means that the average temperature rise in the last 100 years is only one third of what the IPCC states it is. This also doesn't take into consideration other faulty equipment, such as using ancient thermometers that only have an accuracy of plus or minus one degree. The digital thermometer was only invented in 1970, therefore, all measurements that we taken prior to 1970 are invalid due to the inherent inaccuracy. Thus, the so called 100 years test period, is a sham and should only be 40 years of reliable temperature records. Measurements with an accuracy of 0.6 are not possible using thermometers which only have an accuracy of plus or minus one.

The following video demonstrates that the IPCC's calculations are faulty concerning climate feedback.


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

[Xris]

I think you have had your day in court. You have failed dismally. No one is going to respond to you now friend. Find a childish right wing tea baggers forum to sell your nonsense.

[DarwinX]

I think you have had your day in court. You have failed dismally. No one is going to respond to you now friend. Find a childish right wing tea baggers forum to sell your nonsense.

I have just finished assessing the Skeptical Science getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.

1. This reference quotes the global warming as .8 degrees which is .2 degrees more than the IPCC's own assessment. So, we can immediately discredit this reference.

2. The photo in this reference is for 2012. I am quoting that in 2013, the ice has returned to normal. Thus, this reference didn't address the question.

3. They have just cherry picked the two hottest years and forgot about the other 8 really cold years. Its the average that has decreased. During this period, Baghdad experienced a snow storm!!!!! Baghdad is in a tropical region.

4. In this reference they have used deception. They are comparing 30 year maximum winter ice with 30 year minimum summer ice. Naughty!!!!!!!

5. Here, they suggest CO2 amplifies the warming. WRONG!!! Current data shows that there is NO run-away feed-back on Earth. This only occurs on other planets, such as Venus or Jupiter. The Earth acts like a thermostat, which subdues any greenhouse effect by generating more clouds, which reduce temperature back to an average.

6. Coral transforms CO2 in limestone. (still not addressed) Instead, they talk about bleaching and acidification of the ocean. This is bullsh*t, the ocean can never be acidified, its way, way too alkaline. Besides, the CO2 is coming out of the ocean, not into it. Dummies! (Remember the 800 year delay effect.)

8. Its technically true that the CO2 Saturation point can never be reached, as stated by the IPCC. But, its the increase amount, which diminishes exponentially. This amount becomes so minute, that it shouldn't even be discussed by logical individuals who understand physics and science.


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

Don't you just love youtube! Yeah! 2008, one of the hottest years of the decade according to IPPC

[Londoner]

I have just finished assessing the Skeptical Science getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.

You gave skepticalscience you approval in an earlier post...turned out you hadn't read it properly.

You still haven't.

[Aemun]

Exactly, you discredit the IPCC but then use their results to discredit skeptical science - a website you have used for previouse arguments. So if you are using the IPCC as your benchmark, then I presume you have decided to trust the IPCC now? And I guess your two earlier claims that used skeptical science must be discreditted?

Here's a link for you GenesisX anyway, I think it will be helpful:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcome ... -Here.html

[DarwinX]

Exactly, you discredit the IPCC but then use their results to discredit skeptical science - a website you have used for previouse arguments. So if you are using the IPCC as your benchmark, then I presume you have decided to trust the IPCC now? And I guess your two earlier claims that used skeptical science must be discreditted?

Here's a link for you GenesisX anyway, I think it will be helpful:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Newcome ... -Here.html

You have to understand that the IPCC is a communist organisation and that they will use deception, lies, duplicity and whatever else they can to maintain their power base. I am sorry that I once used the Skeptical Science website as a reference, but I was short of time that day and didn't check the source thoroughly enough. My apologies, it’s not my fault that they put both sides of the argument on their website. I have the right to use their own information as a weapon, against them.

More to the point, it looks like you have found another distraction to avoid answering my questions, and you have grabbed the opportunity with both hands. You must be learning from the IPCC and adopting their techniques.

Cutting and pasting quotes from the Skeptical Science website won’t get you anywhere. The information they provide is faulty, as I have shown in my last post which you have ignored.

More embarrassing information for you to digest.

Even though the digital thermometer was invented in 1970, that doesn't mean that all global temperature gauges were immediately replaced in 1970. No, no, no. It wasn't until about 1998 that all the old mercury based thermometers were replaced. Now, how difficult is it to read a mercury based thermometer?

Well, it must be very difficult, because it depends on the height of the person taking the reading. A tall person will get a different reading to a short person. The angle of observation can change the reading by up to 2 degrees.

Here is a reference to highlight the problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/30/w ... right-one/

Watch and weep, reality deniers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v

[DarwinX]

It's saying things like the IPCC is a communist organisation that make you sound like a total crank. The worst thing is, your not even American. You can forgive such nonsense with Americans because they are indoctrinated from birth. You sir are Australian, what is your excuse?

I can engage with you in your mindless ****, but we have collectively shown you to be a total hypocrit and full of any lies you can come out with to try to sound like you're winning. So what's the point?

Personally, I'm happy to take the piss out of you - you sad,sad little man.

Your getting desperate now.

You are avoiding the subject matter of the discussion by trying to turn it into a personal brawl. Just try to keep your objectivity and answer the questions. It's not my fault that the world is corrupt. I am trying to fix it by exposing it to the public. I am presenting you with real factual evidence. Can you handle the truth?

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

[Londoner]

Well, it must be very difficult, because it depends on the height of the person taking the reading. A tall person will get a different reading to a short person.

Quite. And it's well known that many short people are communists.

Yes. You win. I'm convinced.