Philosophy Discussion Forums

Logicus wrote:This is the most insane thread I have ever seen. Of course, this is exactly what happened at the World Climate Conference-3, where every scientific crackpot on Earth showed up to argue in favor of his own theory. They spent so much time trying to decide what they should discuss first, they never got around to discussing much at all.

Also, they have had all the climate conferences in Geneva. One of them said maybe they should have it in Mexico City in Summer to make their point. Apparently, said individual was unaware that Mexico City sits at 7,943 feet, and is quite comfortable in summer.

You guys can argue this stuff forever, post your little movies that no one watches, call each other names, and disagree til death do you part, but do any of you live near the coast? Have any of you actually seen any signs of increased sea levels? I have seen estimates from 40 -100 foot rises in sea level if all the ice on Earth melts. This will be mostly a coastal problem, and some low lying areas will be uninhabitable. It isn't the end of the world, and it isn't going to happen all at once. We will adjust and move on. It will be a footnote in human history. Get over it.

To whoever it was, way back there, who said the variations in the Sun's output were more important to climate change than most anything else: You are correct. A fraction of a percent fluctuation in the output of the Sun can cause dramatic changes on Earth.

When Jimmy Carter was president, there was talk of covering the ice areas of the world with carbon dust to absorb more heat from the Sun to combat the perceived global cooling at the time. No comments on that? No similarities to the global warming stuff going on now? Are you guys actually discussing anything except your own beliefs?

The problem of the thread is that it is agenda driven. You pointed that out spot-on.

Then you added your beliefs at the end, which kind of detracted from the original point.

Disabusing climate change so as to call it a "footnote" left no doubt about where your own beliefs lie, which almost nose-dived your point to rock bottom and then kept drilling.

Climate change as a scientific theory isn't perfect, but no science is perfect. Which brings your point back. If climate change by humans is true, how should we react? Should we react? Do we owe it to the future generations? If it isn't true, then why has provided climatologists with such a compelling view to the future which foresees this non-existent doom? Have we the capabilities to judge what will occur if it is true or if it isn't? What are the political outcomes and economic outcomes of those on both sides of the debate?

I know I'm a hypocrite. I can't deny it. Past posts prove this. I personally think, though, that rather than a discussion about what can or can't be proven, and whose scientist has the most damning arguments, we should discussing the questions I put above.

Point: Logicus has re-iterated what a few other posters have mentioned, a very important point. What are the most pressing philosophical issues that this topic raises, not a slug-fest of opinion vs. opinion.

Sorry, Logicus, I didn't mean to be as curt as I was, I meant no offence. Your point is the salient point that gets cast aside.

-- Updated 03 Sep 2013, 08:42 to add the following --

Logicus wrote:This is the most insane thread I have ever seen. Of course, this is exactly what happened at the World Climate Conference-3, where every scientific crackpot on Earth showed up to argue in favor of his own theory. They spent so much time trying to decide what they should discuss first, they never got around to discussing much at all.

Also, they have had all the climate conferences in Geneva. One of them said maybe they should have it in Mexico City in Summer to make their point. Apparently, said individual was unaware that Mexico City sits at 7,943 feet, and is quite comfortable in summer.

You guys can argue this stuff forever, post your little movies that no one watches, call each other names, and disagree til death do you part, but do any of you live near the coast? Have any of you actually seen any signs of increased sea levels? I have seen estimates from 40 -100 foot rises in sea level if all the ice on Earth melts. This will be mostly a coastal problem, and some low lying areas will be uninhabitable. It isn't the end of the world, and it isn't going to happen all at once. We will adjust and move on. It will be a footnote in human history. Get over it.

To whoever it was, way back there, who said the variations in the Sun's output were more important to climate change than most anything else: You are correct. A fraction of a percent fluctuation in the output of the Sun can cause dramatic changes on Earth.

When Jimmy Carter was president, there was talk of covering the ice areas of the world with carbon dust to absorb more heat from the Sun to combat the perceived global cooling at the time. No comments on that? No similarities to the global warming stuff going on now? Are you guys actually discussing anything except your own beliefs?

The problem of the thread is that it is agenda driven. You pointed that out spot-on.

Then you added your beliefs at the end, which kind of detracted from the original point.

Disabusing climate change so as to call it a "footnote" left no doubt about where your own beliefs lie, which almost nose-dived your point to rock bottom and then kept drilling.

Climate change as a scientific theory isn't perfect, but no science is perfect. Which brings your point back. If climate change by humans is true, how should we react? Should we react? Do we owe it to the future generations? If it isn't true, then why has provided climatologists with such a compelling view to the future which foresees this non-existent doom? Have we the capabilities to judge what will occur if it is true or if it isn't? What are the political outcomes and economic outcomes of those on both sides of the debate?

I know I'm a hypocrite. I can't deny it. Past posts prove this. I personally think, though, that rather than a discussion about what can or can't be proven, and whose scientist has the most damning arguments, we should discussing the questions I put above.

Point: Logicus has re-iterated what a few other posters have mentioned, a very important point. What are the most pressing philosophical issues that this topic raises, not a slug-fest of opinion vs. opinion.

Sorry, Logicus, I didn't mean to be as curt as I was, I meant no offence. Your point is the salient point that gets cast aside.

I honestly believe our ability to adapt, although very adaptable as a species, may not be quite as good as I would hope.

And we could be talking about a major extinction event. I'm sure not the end of life and I'm still hoping science will save us.

But my beliefs are reflected in my enthusiasm for the subject.

Perhaps major extinction event sounds melodramatic but I know what happens to animals when their temperature fluctuates, a little fluctuation one way or the other means death. I consider the current ecosystem to be the same.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see any reason to risk it just so a few multibillionaires can make more money.

Aemun wrote:I honestly believe our ability to adapt, although very adaptable as a species, may not be quite as good as I would hope.

And we could be talking about a major extinction event. I'm sure not the end of life and I'm still hoping science will save us.

But my beliefs are reflected in my enthusiasm for the subject.

Perhaps major extinction event sounds melodramatic but I know what happens to animals when their temperature fluctuates, a little fluctuation one way or the other means death. I consider the current ecosystem to be the same.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't see any reason to risk it just so a few multibillionaires can make more money.

Science will kill you, long before it "saves you".

DarwinX wrote: Science will kill you, long before it "saves you".

Yeah, that whole penicillin thing was well-marketed, and since correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's efficacy against infection is highly dubious. It just LOOKED like infections went away when penicillin was used. It only SEEMED to have saved more lives than probably any other scientific discovery. WAY OVER-RATED.

DarwinX, did you seriously just type that sentence? I am confounded, utterly.

The Quirkster wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Yeah, that whole penicillin thing was well-marketed, and since correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it's efficacy against infection is highly dubious. It just LOOKED like infections went away when penicillin was used. It only SEEMED to have saved more lives than probably any other scientific discovery. WAY OVER-RATED.

DarwinX, did you seriously just type that sentence? I am confounded, utterly.

Refer to my other posts regards - 'Germ theory is a fraud.'

DarwinX wrote:
Refer to my other posts regards - 'Germ theory is a fraud.'

Fair enough. I'll have a read. I would be a fool to not try to understand your point of view first before making up my own mind. To learn is to push through boundaries that can be painful, but necessary, at every step in life.

-- Updated 03 Sep 2013, 13:07 to add the following --

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.

Basically, the problem I have with this thread is not the ideas raised, but the relevant philosophical context that is discarded when a topic is driven by agenda, instead of an attempt to find mutual ground to discourse and flesh out a more well-intentioned end, like a reasonable agreement to leave subjectivity aside and argue the topic without the interjection of staunch opinion.

What I believe in these areas probably matters little to you, but given a topic that is flexible in its reach for ideas and understanding, say, like: Assume climate change is a false. We can then ask why so many scientists are supporting it. We can also ask why we are assuming so much about the climate based on sensationalist media predictions and records that may be normal for the Earth, or may just be one of those times when a Heat Age explodes for a few centuries, and then all goes back to normal.

My point is, if we can leave agendas at the door, we may find out how much we can all learn from each other. That's why I joined this forum, to learn, to try and find points of view that conflicted with mine, some that are painful, but give me a different perspective and help to make up my own mind. Believing in something that you are attached to, then learning that all may not be as it seemed is a painful process, but if I wish to learn, that's a process I must endure. To me, if I'm not trying to do that, which drives me every moment of the day, then I would lose so much of the joy I find in life.

This is my goal, basically, as inarticulate and muddled as it might sound. The reason I've become more rude and terse over the last couple of months is finding these discussions getting bogged down in ego-driven pursuits, of which I do and have done plenty, and so I just started being a condescending bugger. My fault, no-one else's, I know this.

I just want you guys to post ideas that literally make my head explode, that my flaccid imagination and meandering couldn't produce, which could also be interpreted as, "You, posters there, entertain me."

I'm sorry, I'm tired. Forgive the rambling.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Their (NASA's) records only go back 40 years which is a pathetically short period of time in which to decide that the Earth is doing anything peculiar. Thus, it is not credible or scientific at this stage to say anything that would suggest that a catastrophic or disastrous occurrence has occurred.

So their records go back long enough to justify your interpretation, but not long enough to justify anyone else's, including their own?

DarwinX wrote:Note - A similar scenario occurred in the 70's when the scientists created a scare that we were entering an ice age because of CFC's and a hole in the ozone layer. It was later found out that CFC's had nothing to do with the climate change and the matter dropped off the radar soon after.

Confused as ever.

The danger of CFCs and the depletion of the ozone layer was about UV radiation. If anything, CFCs contribute slightly to the warming effect. Google 'ozone depletion', or for a straightforward response:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what- ... ate-change

What do you know about the exponential refractive qualities of CO2 in relation to its density using a laser beam?

If you are going to bluff, then you need to avoid making a series of clunkers about the basics. We have learnt enough from your posts to know that you have no idea what that sentence means, if anything.

(If you want to try this bluff again and want to be a bit more convincing, you can leave out the 'laser beam' bit, but need to mention wavelength.)

For those who believe sea levels have not risen... http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/oce ... evel-rise/ When the evidence is overwhelming, I find it strange that any would question.

I think this thread has started to come to its fitful end.

What can I say, it has certainly been an emotional time for me. Thank you to all participants. Certainly, some people considered the majority of the thread to be pointless. For me it was educational. Mainly because I did so much research on the evidence in the posts and further research on other areas. I have a far better idea for the ground that the climate change debate is based now. I possibly am more hopeful and conservative in my estimates but probably still am a catastrophist.

One area that this thread has avoided completely is the proliferation of cyanobacteria. They produce a lot of the oxygen on the planet and their populations are shifting. There have been problems with them and global warming in lakes in France, Germany and Canada that I know of, probably many more. The problems are due to their toxic effects on humans and other species.

But as well as residing in water, some types also reside in soil and so the changing climate will affect soil fertility. I suggest anyone interested in global warming to familiarise yourself with some of the research done on this subject, if anything I think the cyanobacteria will be the most dangerous change. The planet is going to look a lot different in a hundred years and the more we can prepare for the change, the better our chance of survivial.

But as always check it out for yourself.

-- Updated September 3rd, 2013, 10:12 am to add the following --

http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.co ... n_v-t.html

This is a link which talks about the problem of declining oxygen levels. I don't think it is scare mongering, I think it gives a fairly balanced view of the various factors we need to consider.

Don't wanna go W.O.O. for too long.

Londoner wrote: If you are going to bluff, then you need to avoid making a series of clunkers about the basics. We have learnt enough from your posts to know that you have no idea what that sentence means, if anything.

(If you want to try this bluff again and want to be a bit more convincing, you can leave out the 'laser beam' bit, but need to mention wavelength.)

Sorry, it’s no bluff. When CO2 reaches its saturation point, its refractive qualities diminish exponentially. Thus, even if CO2 affected the climate, it would stop reflecting the infra-red spectrum wave length after it reached its saturation point. Sorry, if I am flooding you with inconvenient facts which are destroying your illusions. You should know by now that I don't bluff.

Evidence below

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

-- Updated September 4th, 2013, 2:41 am to add the following --

Xris wrote:For those who believe sea levels have not risen... http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/oce ... evel-rise/ When the evidence is overwhelming, I find it strange that any would question.

That's pathetic, Venice has been flooded thousands of times before. It was built on a swamp, what would you expect. The Mediterranean tides are notorious for being extra high at times due the the locked in nature of the sea.

Note - The land can sink too. Its not always the ocean rising. Notice how they never discuss the land movement aspects of rising oceans. Its always the oceans fault.

Wait a minute, who the **** gave DarwinX the option to re-enter this debate!

We are all still waiting for you to admit you were wrong, not more of your endless, mindless ********.

To all other people, you saw what occurred earlier on in the debate, don't give this liar a platform if they can't admit they were wrong.

Aemun wrote:
One area that this thread has avoided completely is the proliferation of cyanobacteria. They produce a lot of the oxygen on the planet and their populations are shifting. There have been problems with them and global warming in lakes in France, Germany and Canada that I know of, probably many more. The problems are due to their toxic effects on humans and other species.

But as well as residing in water, some types also reside in soil and so the changing climate will affect soil fertility. I suggest anyone interested in global warming to familiarise yourself with some of the research done on this subject, if anything I think the cyanobacteria will be the most dangerous change. The planet is going to look a lot different in a hundred years and the more we can prepare for the change, the better our chance of survivial.

http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.co ... n_v-t.html

This is a link which talks about the problem of declining oxygen levels. I don't think it is scare mongering, I think it gives a fairly balanced view of the various factors we need to consider.

Don't wanna go W.O.O. for too long.

Sorry to see you go. I will miss making a monkey out of you. Sorry that you didn't see my reference to the 800 year temperature and CO2 delay graph, that was going to be my parting present for you. Its was going to be a beautiful coup de grace to send you on your way and now your leaving without even commenting on its simplicity and how devastatingly factual it is.

Oh, well. I cant let you leave just yet, until we sort out this last outburst of doomsday predictions. Now, if CO2 is in such abundance that it is using up all the oxygen, then the plants will be just loving this, because that's just the stuff they like to breath in. In the ocean, there is this funny stuff they call coral, which is made mostly out of CO2 and other elements. Eventually, this coral becomes compacted and turns into limestone. Problem solved. Nature cleaned up all of that extra CO2 all by itself and no IPCC scientists even had to get involved to help poor old mother nature do its job properly.

Some more annoying references that totally destroy all your illusions that you can read while you are in your retirement village.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category ... easurement

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming ... ore-graph/

It states in the reference I gave you that plants liking CO2 is probably a factor in the smaller drop on oxygen levels around the globe than would be expected from the chemical combustion of fossil fuels - you frustrating blemish on humanity.

I have already seen the charts about lag. Funny enough **** wrapper I have heard much more coherent claims against the idea of AGW than the **** that dribbles from every one of your orifices like air from a punctured balloon.

You are not only a disgrace to humanity, Australians, the English-speaking world and people in this forum, but you are in fact a disgrace to the sensible climate deniers out there who can form a sentence without resorting to facial faecal matter excretion.

I apologise for my language everyone but I am from a working class English family and we swear alot and I cannot stand it when people refuse to admit they are wrong given such irrefutable evidence.

-- Updated September 3rd, 2013, 12:36 pm to add the following --

I will take back all my insults the moment DarwinX admits they were wrong about the arctic ice melting.

DarwinX

Evidence below

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

Its wonderful that you have found the skepticalscience website and that you think it is reliable enough to quote as evidence for your opinions.

There is only one tiny little problem. You have only read the bit at the top of your link ('The Skeptic Argument') but not attempted to read the rest - which consists of the reply to that argument!

But this is great. In case the others contributors can't be bothered to respond for themselves, I'll use the same website to deal with some of the stuff in your other posts.

Now, if CO2 is in such abundance that it is using up all the oxygen, then the plants will be just loving this, because that's just the stuff they like to breath in.

Go to the skepticalscience website again and this time click the sidebar for 3. (It's not bad) and 8. (Animals and plants can adapt)

Sorry that you didn't see my reference to the 800 year temperature and CO2 delay graph, that was going to be my parting present for you.

This old chestnut is on the website too but it is a bit more difficult to find. You have to click the sidebar 'View all arguments' then click 12. (CO2 lags temperature).

This is going to save a lot of work; we can all just reply to your arguments by quoting a number and leaving you to look up the answers yourself!

When a denier uses a web sight that opposes his view and contradicts his claim. What can you say? I'm not sure there is an answer to such stupidity.