Philosophy Discussion Forums

In other words yes.

Michaelpearson wrote:In other words yes.

Yes, Climate Change "crisis" is a fraud (worth billions every year - & how has every cent helped?). However climate change is undeniably happening, every day, as it has since the beginning of this world...

"Over the course of a year, Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. During the course of a day, it rotates on its axis (which basically means it spins around in a circle). Since the axis is tilted, one half of planet Earth is always closesr to the sun. When the Northern Hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the south. When the southern hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the north. The closest parts of Earth to the sun have the longest days and shortest nights. Near the equator, day length doesn't change very much, but at the North and South poles, the sun doesn't set in summor or rise in winter - at all."

What a shame it is that simple things like this and human anatomy have to be explained these days.

Newme wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Yes, Climate Change "crisis" is a fraud (worth billions every year - & how has every cent helped?). However climate change is undeniably happening, every day, as it has since the beginning of this world...

"Over the course of a year, Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. During the course of a day, it rotates on its axis (which basically means it spins around in a circle). Since the axis is tilted, one half of planet Earth is always closesr to the sun. When the Northern Hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the south. When the southern hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the north. The closest parts of Earth to the sun have the longest days and shortest nights. Near the equator, day length doesn't change very much, but at the North and South poles, the sun doesn't set in summor or rise in winter - at all."

What a shame it is that simple things like this and human anatomy have to be explained these days.

Is that supposed to convince us or simply annoy us? It has done neither. It simply re-enforces the idea that deniers have very little of interest to contribute.

Further observations.

I am astounded that Xris, who spends most of his time denying scientific pronouncements, took this one as the gospel truth. Why, Xris, do you believe this and practically nothing else? You say that the current measurements are accurate, and we can discount the idea that any of the past measurements were faulty. Why? They didn't have space based measurements in the past, so there is no data to which current data can be compared. Not even a century ago, let alone hundreds of thousands of years. Or millions. So why do you accept the current assessments of past temperatures? Why do you assume that the current trend is not a natural part of the evolution of the Earth?

My argument, of course, is that Man is natural, so changes wrought by Man are part of the natural evolution of the planet. As I said, it does not matter whether there is climate change or not. Even if there is, and Man is the cause, the only difference we could make, now, is to stop all industrialization and progress and go back to a simple agrarian existence, and, because there isn't enough land for everyone to do this, drastically reduce the numbers of humans on the Earth. I assume both of these ideas are not attractive to anyone. Therefore, there is nothing we can do about. Denial is not the issue.

The only philosophical points to made in such an argument would be the ethical considerations over what we have done, or might do, and whether we should change our behavior because of these ethical considerations. When these conflict with necessity, though, ethics will go out the window. I suspect, in the end, whether real or not, climate change will be used as a political football to leverage squabbles between nations. That is, until they all realize they are not going to do what any other nations tell them to do based on climate concerns. Then it will be business as usual as the funding dries up for climate studies.

Not exactly sure what your beliefs are on this subject.Do you believe we have global warming.Do you believe it is causing climate change. Do you know the ice in the arctic summer will not exist within the next 5 years? Do you believe we are responsible? Till we really know your beliefs, your views are suspect. We do have a chance of accelerating the search for alternative energy supplies if we maintain our efforts.

As for my belief in science, I have never doubted its ability. My only opposition is the stupid insistence of certain concepts that do not comply with scientific endeavour. Reading temperatures over a period of time and comparing them with historic records. Observing ice cores that go back thousands of years. These are not concepts they are in my opinion conclusive proof that temp's. are rising at an alarming rate.

There is no evidence that contradicts the evidence. Not one denier on this thread has produced one shred of evidence that seriously questions the science.

My argument, of course, is that Man is natural, so changes wrought by Man are part of the natural evolution of the planet. As I said, it does not matter whether there is climate change or not. Even if there is, and Man is the cause, the only difference we could make, now, is to stop all industrialization and progress and go back to a simple agrarian existence, and, because there isn't enough land for everyone to do this, drastically reduce the numbers of humans on the Earth. I assume both of these ideas are not attractive to anyone. Therefore, there is nothing we can do about. Denial is not the issue.

The only philosophical points to made in such an argument would be the ethical considerations over what we have done, or might do, and whether we should change our behavior because of these ethical considerations. When these conflict with necessity, though, ethics will go out the window. I suspect, in the end, whether real or not, climate change will be used as a political football to leverage squabbles between nations. That is, until they all realize they are not going to do what any other nations tell them to do based on climate concerns. Then it will be business as usual as the funding dries up for climate studies.

We have considered your argument before Logicus and you failed to defend my rebuttal. I will formulate it into premise, premise, conclusion form so that we can see more clearly.

p1) anthropogenic global warming is inevitable p2) anything that is inevitable should be considered natural c) therefore, a.g.w. should be considered natural

Now, as I have already told you, the people on our side of the debate generally consider premise one to be fallacious. There are alternative energy sources out there that do not endanger life as we know it as much. Therefore a.g.w. can be avoided. Therefore, it is not inevitable. Therefore we do not have to consider it natural. I hope this is plainer.

Logicus wrote: So why do you accept the current assessments of past temperatures? Why do you assume that the current trend is not a natural part of the evolution of the Earth?

Because physics tells us that an increase in CO2 etc. is likely to make temperatures rise. We can see CO2 levels are rising sharply and by looking at the type of carbon we can tell that the CO2 originates from fossil fuels.

So even if we had no information at all about historic temperatures, we would still know that the cause in the rise of CO2 was us and expect that rise to result in higher temperatures. (I note you accept that temperatures are indeed rising).

If you disagree, it is really for you to (a) give this alternative 'natural' explanation for increased temperatures and (b) explain why increasing CO2 will not have the expected effect.

Yes, Climate Change "crisis" is a fraud (worth billions every year - & how has every cent helped?). However climate change is undeniably happening, every day, as it has since the beginning of this world...

"Over the course of a year, Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit. During the course of a day, it rotates on its axis (which basically means it spins around in a circle). Since the axis is tilted, one half of planet Earth is always closesr to the sun. When the Northern Hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the south. When the southern hemisphere is closer, it's summer there and winter in the north. The closest parts of Earth to the sun have the longest days and shortest nights. Near the equator, day length doesn't change very much, but at the North and South poles, the sun doesn't set in summor or rise in winter - at all."

What a shame it is that simple things like this and human anatomy have to be explained these days.

This has to win the prize for the most ridiculous argument regarding this topic brought to the table so far. Considering the standard, that's impressive.

On the other hand, I'm happy that at least the dissenters are attempting to engage with science.

[quote="Xris]
Once again you have failed..Grenpeace does not receive money from oil companies. The vague string of links does not lead to greenpeace. The money they do donate has nothing to do with promoting climate change.

As for Maurice Strong.Why not read a reputable report on him rather than your denier weekly. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... government[/quote]


Well, you might as well go ask Adolf Hitler if he thought what he did was evil. Of course, they will say that what they did was "in the best interests of humanity". All socialists think that you have to trade freedom for social justice and the rights of the individual fro the rights of the collective. Its called communism or collectivism. Note - Each unit of the collective is usually totally unaware of its role in the operation of the collective. The collective uses anonimity and segregation of tasks as its main tool of deception. So, even its most senior members are totally unaware of what they are doing and why they are doing it. They just do it because they think they are helping humanity, but they are unknowingly, causing more harm than good.

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'

Look, I think arguing about this when not a single person here is an accredited scientist is pointless.

Personally? I'm skeptical, but only because lies have been perpetrated in the past of larger measure than this. And yet I am not a denier either, because certainly the believers in a flat-earth had their reasons as well -- and yet they were so terribly wrong.

Of course, in this instance, even if a majority believe something, who indeed are the flat-earthers of this argument?

What should we all do, then? I say let the scientists sort it out. Give it another, say, thirty years. Why that amount of time? Because approximately that amount of time ago, there was a global cooling scare. Now it's all about rising temperatures. Let's not jump onto any bandwagons, be they pro or con; if in a few decades the temperatures continue to gradually climb, then there's your proof. If the temperatures dip however, then I think the climate theory remains highly suspect.

Can we all agree on this?

Leonodas wrote:Look, I think arguing about this when not a single person here is an accredited scientist is pointless.

Personally? I'm skeptical, but only because lies have been perpetrated in the past of larger measure than this. And yet I am not a denier either, because certainly the believers in a flat-earth had their reasons as well -- and yet they were so terribly wrong.

Of course, in this instance, even if a majority believe something, who indeed are the flat-earthers of this argument?

What should we all do, then? I say let the scientists sort it out. Give it another, say, thirty years. Why that amount of time? Because approximately that amount of time ago, there was a global cooling scare. Now it's all about rising temperatures. Let's not jump onto any bandwagons, be they pro or con; if in a few decades the temperatures continue to gradually climb, then there's your proof. If the temperatures dip however, then I think the climate theory remains highly suspect.

Can we all agree on this?

97% of scientists (this is a peer-reviewed-retestable-through-various-means-statistic) of scientists working within climate science believe man is causing global warming. It's not a fad. It's been going on for over ten years, with the only revelations being proof of the initial hypothesis.

The vast majority of every university with a science department in the world is on board with this idea. It's not engineered by media. Look it up. This is what the scientists are saying.

The oil industry (the largest industry in the world) funds conservative (generally U.S) think-tanks (not science departments for this) to come up with any idea whatsoever to make the scientists look like scammers. This particular thread is fallout from that.

The general public who generally get all their information from tv and the papers think there is some sort of controversy over the issue, most of the time this controversy is engineered to make it seem like there's an interesting debate going on in the area. The truth is that there is no real debate. There is a worldwide scientific consensus on the issue. Don't get me wrong, there is a negligable minority of scientist who disagree (massively inflated by good media funding), but we are talking about potentially billions of people dying in a relatively short time span if man cannot reverse the effect or come up with a way of dealing with it.

It is arguably the most important problem man has ever had to face. This is why so much legislation is coming into place.

Yes, the media are always overinflating what can be read in science papers to sell news, but in this instance the opposite is going on.

There is a necessity for debates such as this one because the conservative think tanks are gaining ground to the point where people are distrusting global scientific opinion.

P.S. No population as far as I am aware ever considered the world to be flat. This is a myth perpetuated by people who don't want to believe consensus. I think some people thought it was egg-shaped. But we are talking pre-enlightenment. Man has been through the dark ages - then we invented science and the internet.

-- Updated August 28th, 2013, 4:33 am to add the following --

And, yes my degree is in Philosophy and Psychology not climate related, but I did learn at university about the peer-review system and about the philosophical implications about when 97 out of every 100 scientists start saying 'the Earth has got a temperature and we are causing it and we don't know what's gonna happen but we're guessing it's bad.'

DarwinX wrote:[quote="Xris]
Once again you have failed..Grenpeace does not receive money from oil companies. The vague string of links does not lead to greenpeace. The money they do donate has nothing to do with promoting climate change.

As for Maurice Strong.Why not read a reputable report on him rather than your denier weekly. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... government

Well, you might as well go ask Adolf Hitler if he thought what he did was evil. Of course, they will say that what they did was "in the best interests of humanity". All socialists think that you have to trade freedom for social justice and the rights of the individual fro the rights of the collective. Its called communism or collectivism. Note - Each unit of the collective is usually totally unaware of its role in the operation of the collective. The collective uses anonimity and segregation of tasks as its main tool of deception. So, even its most senior members are totally unaware of what they are doing and why they are doing it. They just do it because they think they are helping humanity, but they are unknowingly, causing more harm than good.

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote][/quote]
Go ask Hitler? What an insulting comment. You make unsubstantiated stupid comments about a man whose name has been smeared by right wing liars and when I present you with the facts you simply resort to more of the same. He is not in north Korea and he is not guilty as you have attempted to infer. Green peace have not had funding from the oil companies. So you have failed yet again to prove that climate change is fraud. How many times have you presented us with false allegations now.

Leonodas wrote:
What should we all do, then? I say let the scientists sort it out. Give it another, say, thirty years. Why that amount of time? Because approximately that amount of time ago, there was a global cooling scare. Now it's all about rising temperatures. Let's not jump onto any bandwagons, be they pro or con; if in a few decades the temperatures continue to gradually climb, then there's your proof. If the temperatures dip however, then I think the climate theory remains highly suspect.

Can we all agree on this?

This gives the impression that there has been some major U-turn in scientific opinion since the 1970s. It isn't so.

The Wicki article on 'Global Cooling' gives a more balanced picture. As ever, although you may not trust Wicki you can follow up the references it quotes.

I think that's why the debate suffers. How many times will we have to research things that are totally false? But to the point where it's not even hard to find an alternate source that put's things into perspective.

I'd never heard about Maurice Strong, until DarwinX introduced me to him but just a quick read through of the article shows that he suffers from the same problem we are having right now - ideologically promoted trash.

I mean hitler was a facist not a communist wasn't he? The word 'communism' has become a rallying cry for the right wingers in America and it's worrying that such an ideological base is out there. That was the cause of the problem in Nazi Germany wasn't it? An ideological base that had normal people gassing families as their day job.

Whether it is Christianity, Socialism, Islam, White-supremacy, free-market economy or whatever, these are just concepts designed to make the world seem Black and White (quite an appropriate metaphor), to promote prejudice.

'Communism' is now being utilised to ensure oil companies can continue to profit at the expense of the ecosystem.

Stop using these words and talk about specific details. Specific legislation.

The world is a community. This does not make it communist. Helping people and working together is fundamental to living a healthy and happy life. Dog eat dog is not that much fun.

How can money be such a rallying cry for humanity? How can this idea of a perfect free-market economy become so religious? To the point where we have zealots.

This is where the psychology of man becomes interesting.

-- Updated August 28th, 2013, 5:53 am to add the following --

I can understand that the U.S.A was founded upon people running around sticking flags everywhere and shooting anything with a feather sticking out of it's head but it's time to stop now.

Rein it in. The U.S.A is the richest nation, that doesn't mean humanity needs to be wiped out to maintain that status, just get clever with it and invest in alternative energy.

The rest of the world has already said yes America you are quite scary, we don't want a war with you because you're willing to use nukes and carpet bomb our towns. Going to war with America is not profitable.

But that shouldn't mean that we can't come to an agreement over climate issues. Targets have to be made and everyone has a responsibility to meet them. Everyone.

According to our experts, the people that go to school, then University, then do post graduate courses, then become doctors and professors, according to these people who have got together and argued for ages, years, they have come to an almost unanimous agreement that we need to stop pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere, seriously.

It's not about secret pagan communists, whether there actually are any secret pagan communists I don't know, it's about the nerdy ones at school who loved science.

Xris wrote: Go ask Hitler? What an insulting comment. You make unsubstantiated stupid comments about a man whose name has been smeared by right wing liars and when I present you with the facts you simply resort to more of the same. He is not in north Korea and he is not guilty as you have attempted to infer. Green peace have not had funding from the oil companies. So you have failed yet again to prove that climate change is fraud. How many times have you presented us with false allegations now.

You keep failing to see the obvious. What kind of a nut case would choose to retire in China? China has an appalling human rights record which hasn't improved a great deal over the years. Even today, there are reports of body parts harvesting, millions of political prisoners and draconian laws which are designed to make life a misery. Who in there right mind would choose to live in this country when most sane persons are trying to get out of the place. Well, there's Maurice Strong and there's ummmmmmmmmmm? That's it. Only Maurice Strong is nutty enough to leave the free world of luxury and convience to live in a country that has severe laws that restrict and choke the life out of normal people. Only Maurice Strong would feel at home in such a country, surrounded by corruption and communist dictatorship, he is in his element and feels at home.

Or was he forced into an early retirement due to his involvement in the Oil-for-Food scandal?

No, hes not in North Korea, he was the UN's envoy to North Korea.

Article - Maurice Strong, the Father of America's Destruction

http://www.unitypublishing.com/Governme ... Strong.htm

-- Updated August 29th, 2013, 2:34 am to add the following --

Aemun wrote:I think that's why the debate suffers. How many times will we have to research things that are totally false? But to the point where it's not even hard to find an alternate source that put's things into perspective.

I'd never heard about Maurice Strong, until DarwinX introduced me to him but just a quick read through of the article shows that he suffers from the same problem we are having right now - ideologically promoted trash.

Hitler was a national socialist, which is related to communism. Fascism is a term that was used by Westerners to differentiate Hitler from Stalin. Fascism is industry funded dictatorship, while communism is state funded dictatorship. Essentially, there is no difference. They are just two branches of totalitarianism. The word fascism comes from Roman times which describes the rods that were used to punish slaves.