Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

The tea baggers are probably paying for this kind of misinformation.They ain't getting much for their money.You have to totally blinkered to believe that 99% of the scientific establishment, who are expert in this field, are somehow lying or in the pay of China.

What's wrong with the tea baggers? Are they violent? No. Are they racist? Opposition tries to paint them that way, but I believe (as a whole) this answer is an emphatic no, or at least no more than any other group out there. There should be no problem with a group standing up for what they believe in, just as I would expect liberals and conservatives and communists to stand up for their beliefs. Do I have to agree with them? Yes, but dismissing the tea party establishment (or any political group outside of Scientology) as some sort of conspiracy and/or sham is intellectually dishonest.

More like somewhere around 90 to 95% of the scientific establishment, but your point still stands; I'm just fickle about statistics.

Aemun, if you honestly believe that DarwinX is being paid, then you are as bad as he is. I don't think his argument is coherent or complete; if he were being paid, I do think that logic dictates he would be more thorough in his research. He's just throwing his beliefs out there, which is fine because that is what this forum is intended to debate.

Climate change is happening, sure, but our reaction to it? It's been ineffective. It's been politicized, and I mean this in the sense that it's an excellent opportunity to exploit fear. We shouldn't be into that business, we should be into facts and actual solutions. Do you think that wind and solar are viable? I certainly don't think so. But as far as big conspiracies go, I would say that every corner of the political spectrum has thrown it's load of crap on the misinformation pile, so to speak.

The solutions are often where the problem lies. What we have now is expensive and does more harm than good. Now, as for researching (safer) nuclear and hydrogen, as well as other undiscovered technologies -- let's go for it.

Xris wrote: But if you read your own propaganda it claimed he was in north korea. What corner am I in exactly? You have simply repeatedly given us links to nutters or right wing deniers. You are not contributing any independent scientific evidence to support your claim that climate change is fraud. The idea that there is no rise in global temperature is simply not true.Every scientific study has indicated as much.The arctic ice is melting, sea temperatures have risen.Give me one scientific study that questions these facts?

I previously showed you a NASA time lapse video of the North Pole which shows the annual 100 day melt ice retreat and subsequent advance. This video clearly shows that there has been no significant change in the seasonal ebb and flow of ice in the last 30 years.

I will leave these two science community recommennded links which prove my point.

The video concerning cosmic rays is by the scientists at CERN which shows that cosmic rays cause weather changes, not CO2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-arctic-is-not-melting

Leonodas wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


What's wrong with the tea baggers? Are they violent? No. Are they racist? Opposition tries to paint them that way, but I believe (as a whole) this answer is an emphatic no, or at least no more than any other group out there. There should be no problem with a group standing up for what they believe in, just as I would expect liberals and conservatives and communists to stand up for their beliefs. Do I have to agree with them? Yes, but dismissing the tea party establishment (or any political group outside of Scientology) as some sort of conspiracy and/or sham is intellectually dishonest.

More like somewhere around 90 to 95% of the scientific establishment, but your point still stands; I'm just fickle about statistics.

Aemun, if you honestly believe that DarwinX is being paid, then you are as bad as he is. I don't think his argument is coherent or complete; if he were being paid, I do think that logic dictates he would be more thorough in his research. He's just throwing his beliefs out there, which is fine because that is what this forum is intended to debate.

Climate change is happening, sure, but our reaction to it? It's been ineffective. It's been politicized, and I mean this in the sense that it's an excellent opportunity to exploit fear. We shouldn't be into that business, we should be into facts and actual solutions. Do you think that wind and solar are viable? I certainly don't think so. But as far as big conspiracies go, I would say that every corner of the political spectrum has thrown it's load of crap on the misinformation pile, so to speak.

The solutions are often where the problem lies. What we have now is expensive and does more harm than good. Now, as for researching (safer) nuclear and hydrogen, as well as other undiscovered technologies -- let's go for it.

It is being politicised because the tea party is making it so. They are actively putting out information that is either not true or grossly misrepresents the information. They are investing large amounts of money to news agencies to lie for them. You have to look at their finacial base.Who is backing them.It is not a grass roots party. It originates from self interested corporate greed. You may believe DarwinX is not very capable but if you approach it from a skeptics you will understand they have no real science to support their views. They have to lie and exaggerate. They have no alternative.

-- Updated Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:25 am to add the following --

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



I previously showed you a NASA time lapse video of the North Pole which shows the annual 100 day melt ice retreat and subsequent advance. This video clearly shows that there has been no significant change in the seasonal ebb and flow of ice in the last 30 years.

I will leave these two science community recommennded links which prove my point.

The video concerning cosmic rays is by the scientists at CERN which shows that cosmic rays cause weather changes, not CO2

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

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-arctic-is-not-melting

I am not sure if it is really worth bothering. You have admitted global warming in one link and then denied it another. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... eed-clouds That should indicate to you that can not trust your tea party broadcasting net works.

As for your link claiming the north pole ice is not disappearing..Do you really want me to point you to the scientific facts not some stupid link? You never cease to amaze me.

Perhaps DarwinX does this job out of the goodness in their heart. Someone has been paid somewhere along the line but yes, it is impossible to know.

I don't think that the arguments get any better off the deniers because there just isn't any real evidence to disprove global warming. The scientists have reached their consensus and that is that. All that's left is to pay thinktanks to throw as much crap out as they can.

I think there is a job to battle the DarwinX's of the world because how can the population believe something if we let the propoganda go untempered?

What is also needed is the countries to work together to try and reduce emissions. It's a case of doing as much as we can as soon as possible. We need to at least slow things down to give the scientists a chance to save us.

The U.S.A is going to have to do a lot because how can we get the large Asian countries to reduce emissions when the U.S. is emitting three times as much per head? The attitude cannot be one of you first.

Whether or not there will be a living planet at the end of all this is unknown, yes it has been hotter but then the Earth used to be further from the Sun so the conditions have changed. Maybe life will continue if there is an extinction event or maybe it will begin its dying period. We have wiped out a great deal of biodiversity which I believe may just be like taking out a lung and a kidney out of an organism and then giving it flu.

There is so much work to do that I will still be posting on here and will still be debating with people

I believe climate change caused by humans may be a fraud. Only because the existence of mankind in comparison to the earth's age is somewhat limited. Too limited to say that humans have been causing the fluctuation independently.

[quote="Xris]
I am not sure if it is really worth bothering. You have admitted global warming in one link and then denied it another. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... eed-clouds That should indicate to you that can not trust your tea party broadcasting net works.

As for your link claiming the north pole ice is not disappearing..Do you really want me to point you to the scientific facts not some stupid link? You never cease to amaze me.[/quote]


1. I have not admitted global warming anywhere. I think you are becoming increasingly delusional in your comments. Please advise of the post number where I have admited global warming exists?

Note - The CERN video shows conclusively that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. This is peer reviewed research from qualified scientists. I have thus met all your stringent demands and have proved beyond any doubt that climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions. 2. You have seen the 30 year time lapse photos of the North Pole. In which year did the ice not return? I couldn't find it, even though I watched it several times. Please advise which year the ice doesn't return as normal. Please advise - if the climate is getting hotter; why hasn't the 100 day melt period changed in 30 years?


http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

Perhaps DarwinX might point out the part on the Cloud website where there is any suggestion of the suns rays causing THIS PERIOD of global warming. Because I checked out their publications and couldn't find any.

Perhaps DarwinX might also point to the time in that video where they have any scientist from CERN suggesting that is what they have discovered. Because I watched it and didn't see that particular bit.

Is this yet another occurrence of a media outlet (CBN news) making news out of scientific opinion that doesn't exist?

I look forward to your quick response.

In the mean time I shall check out a few of your other sources.

-- Updated August 30th, 2013, 2:04 pm to add the following --

Consensus is not a scientific method of determining anything.

No, the scientists do the science and determine the things, then they turn around and ask each other whether their results agree and if the vast majority of them do (97% in this case) well that constitutes a consensus.

Your foolish arguments might get you re-ignored because I'm getting wound up again.

Answer my previous questions with any display of intelligence and you may redeem yourself.

Aemun wrote:Perhaps DarwinX might point out the part on the Cloud website where there is any suggestion of the suns rays causing THIS PERIOD of global warming. Because I checked out their publications and couldn't find any.

Perhaps DarwinX might also point to the time in that video where they have any scientist from CERN suggesting that is what they have discovered. Because I watched it and didn't see that particular bit.

Is this yet another occurrence of a media outlet (CBN news) making news out of scientific opinion that doesn't exist?

I look forward to your quick response.

In the mean time I shall check out a few of your other sources.

-- Updated August 30th, 2013, 2:04 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

No, the scientists do the science and determine the things, then they turn around and ask each other whether their results agree and if the vast majority of them do (97% in this case) well that constitutes a consensus.

Your foolish arguments might get you re-ignored because I'm getting wound up again.

Answer my previous questions with any display of intelligence and you may redeem yourself.

1. This article clearly demonstates that there has been no global warming in the last 17 years despite the fact that the CO2 levels have risen in that period. Conclusion - CO2 does not cause climate change.

- http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/category/solar-cycle-25/


2. Oh Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!! It looks like the sea ice is returning to its average level this year. How bloody inconvenient of it. It looks like all those thousands of scientist are wrong after all, and all those billions of dollars in climate change bullsh*t have been wasted. Who would have guessed it? Gee golly gosh! Somebody had better go up to the North Pole straight away, and tell that naughty ice to stop expanding so much, its embarrassing a lot of important people.

http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2013/08/2 ... d-warming/

So, this is just one paragraph that I read through from your link:

The following results will surely be controversial, and the reader should remember that what follows is not peer reviewed, and is only a preliminary estimate

Ok, so very non-committal.

Let's look at another bit:

CERN has been working to prove or disprove this theory since 2011. So far they have demonstrated that clouds are formed, but their results suggest that not enough to have a real impact on Global temperatures.

Right, ok, this kind of suggests the absolute opposite to your previous post.

Ok, where do we go from here.

Oh, yes I was reading the wrong bit, the bit that totally disagreed with things you have been saying. But what was your point? It was that IPCC chairperson alledgedly claimed there had been no global warming for 17 years - WRONG!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/austral ... rming.html

You do realise Rupert Murdoch's publications have been disgraced. I suggest you get your information from something a little more official. Your sources are laughable, they make a mockery of anyone with intelligence on this site. It is disgusting and shameful. You refuse to defend them or apologise once we show them for their what they are.

You are a disgrace to mankind for spreading this propganda and need to stop it now. If people are to make their minds up about global warming show them an official report that is peer-reviewed. Show them something with credibility, from a University Institution perhaps. Something with sources clearly marked.

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 7:43 am to add the following --

To anyone who is reading this, I urge that even if you cannot be bothered to go to the original sources, I can clearly state that global warming caused by man is accepted as true by the super majority of anyone working in or around the field. Even in DarwinX's previous source there was a doctor who agrees it is happening but just downplays its effect.

It is a problem for mankind that we must address now. DarwinX is the only fraud here for spreading lies and misinformation.

Aemun wrote: You are a disgrace to mankind for spreading this propganda and need to stop it now. If people are to make their minds up about global warming show them an official report that is peer-reviewed. Show them something with credibility, from a University Institution perhaps. Something with sources clearly marked.

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 7:43 am to add the following --

To anyone who is reading this, I urge that even if you cannot be bothered to go to the original sources, I can clearly state that global warming caused by man is accepted as true by the super majority of anyone working in or around the field. Even in DarwinX's previous source there was a doctor who agrees it is happening but just downplays its effect.

It is a problem for mankind that we must address now. DarwinX is the only fraud here for spreading lies and misinformation.

Oh, so now that I have exposed the falsity of global warming, you have come up with a different game plan. Now, the heat is hiding in the deep, deep ocean, where nobody can see it. Global warming is just playing hide and seek with those numbskull scientists. First it was in the air and called global warming............ that didn't work. Secondly, it became climate change because the weather suddenly cooled. Now, thirdly it is hiding in the deep, deep ocean and playing peek-a-boo with the scientists. Oh boy! This is incredible. I didn't know that this climate change stuff was so versatile. You reality deniers are a laugh a minute. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with next.

More embarrassing factoids - Greenhouses don't operate by trapping infra-red rays, instead, they trap hot air which is created when sunlight strikes the ground and other objects near the surface.

reference - http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -response/

Your behaviour is getting beyond a joke.

I will ignore everything you say until you answer me any of these questions:

Why when we point out inconsistencies in your source material do you not try to address the inconsistencies?

Why do you not apologise for this disgusting behaviour?

I want you to stop posting anything else until you can address these problems. It is not a civilised way to have a debate to simply ignore the other party. You MUST engage.

Answer the questions.

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 10:18 am to add the following --

Ok, I'll give you another chance to add some sort of credibility to what you say. Another set of questions that you can choose to answer:

Can you show me any study that shows that there is a preference by research scientist to publish papers using the terminology 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'?

Can you show me another peer reviewed study that predicts 'global cooling'?

Can you show me any evidence that there is a preference for scientists to use the term 'climate change' in the light of this?

I ask you these questions because I believe it is a myth that has been created by the media. I just read a study from a couple of years ago and it used 'global warming' as frequently as 'climate change'. It just sounds like more of your lies.

Shadowfax wrote:I believe climate change caused by humans may be a fraud. Only because the existence of mankind in comparison to the earth's age is somewhat limited. Too limited to say that humans have been causing the fluctuation independently.

What do mean by "I believe" how did you arrive at this belief? Have you considered the science that has indicated the opposite to your beliefs or do you read the same trash as all the other deniers?

It appears to me that there are no deniers capable of giving a valid scientific response.

-- Updated Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:30 am to add the following --

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Oh, so now that I have exposed the falsity of global warming, you have come up with a different game plan. Now, the heat is hiding in the deep, deep ocean, where nobody can see it. Global warming is just playing hide and seek with those numbskull scientists. First it was in the air and called global warming............ that didn't work. Secondly, it became climate change because the weather suddenly cooled. Now, thirdly it is hiding in the deep, deep ocean and playing peek-a-boo with the scientists. Oh boy! This is incredible. I didn't know that this climate change stuff was so versatile. You reality deniers are a laugh a minute. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with next.

More embarrassing factoids - Greenhouses don't operate by trapping infra-red rays, instead, they trap hot air which is created when sunlight strikes the ground and other objects near the surface.

reference - http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -response/

You are talking absolute bollo my friend. You are simply posting one blatant lie after another. You have not the slightest idea on how to confront the issues or the scientific facts. Give me one peer reviewed paper from a reputable science that contradicts global warming? Just one out of hundreds that confirmed it.JUST ONE?

Aemun wrote: Can you show me any study that shows that there is a preference by research scientist to publish papers using the terminology 'climate change' instead of 'global warming'?

Can you show me another peer reviewed study that predicts 'global cooling'?

Can you show me any evidence that there is a preference for scientists to use the term 'climate change' in the light of this?

I ask you these questions because I believe it is a myth that has been created by the media. I just read a study from a couple of years ago and it used 'global warming' as frequently as 'climate change'. It just sounds like more of your lies.

1. No. There is no study that shows this. It is just an observed fact, you can't miss it, if you keep your eyes and ears open.

2. The peer review system is corrupt and won't allow any real science to get in the way of the global warming juggernaut. Note - My previous reference showed a graph of the global temperature which shows a small decline in average temperature over the last 17 years.

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

http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=42&s=ga

Note : You think you can put me off the scent, by firing rapid fire questions at me and acting as if you are morally indignant at my posts. But, unfortunately I am experienced at dealing with global communists and I know all of their tricks. It hasn't escaped my notice that you didn't acknowledge one point that I made in my last 2 posts.

1. No. There is no study that shows this. It is just an observed fact, you can't miss it, if you keep your eyes and ears open.

Studies on these things are done. It's relatively uncomplicated to take every scientific paper written on the subject and count how many times the words come up. What you're now saying is something is a fact because you said it.


Anyone reading this, is that not what DarwinX just said? They basically said there is no study on it, but it is obviously true.

Why, because it is true in the dodgy material where DarwinX has their 'eyes and ears open'.

It's a joke is what it is.

-- Updated August 31st, 2013, 10:54 am to add the following --

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?

So you do not accept the scientific process but you will accept any unproven science that denies global warming? You can not even decide if there is global warming or not. You at one moment deny it is happening at all but then give reference to global warming being accepted but it's not mans fault. You need to start working out what you believe and give suitable evidence or you will loose the last vestige of credibility.