Philosophy Discussion Forums

DarwinX.When I could not convince my children there was no boggy man under their bed I simply comforted them.Never mind Darwinx global warming is just an illusion.Go to sleep now, be a good boy.

Xris wrote:DarwinX.When I could not convince my children there was no boggy man under their bed I simply comforted them.Never mind Darwinx global warming is just an illusion.Go to sleep now, be a good boy.

Why don't you explain to your children that there are evil people in this world who want to take away their future by telling them they can't have the things their parents had. That these evil people want them to live horrible and miserable lives without cars, property, roads, planes, freedom and air-conditioning.

Why don't you explain to your children that these evil people tell lies about the temperature so that they can gain power and destroy their democratic world and turn it into a totalitarian nightmare. Good night now children, sleep tight! Hope the bed bugs don't bite.

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You haven't read the agenda 21 protocols. It states that because of climate change all of the above luxury items will be eliminated in the new world order. Note - Electric cars cost 3 times that of a petrol or gas car, yet they only last 3 years maximum. How is that saving the environment? The amount of energy that goes into making an electric car would be 10 times the energy required to make a normal car. You are living in an illusion. Get real.

You have ignored all my temperature fraud information which shows that the IPCC is corrupt.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You haven't read the agenda 21 protocols. It states that because of climate change all of the above luxury items will be eliminated in the new world order. Note - Electric cars cost 3 times that of a petrol or gas car, yet they only last 3 years maximum. How is that saving the environment? The amount of energy that goes into making an electric car would be 10 times the energy required to make a normal car. You are living in an illusion. Get real.

You have ignored all my temperature fraud information which shows that the IPCC is corrupt.

Are you word blind?The production of electric cars are driven by the cost of fuel. Not, do you hear, not because of global warming. Do you understand? The majority of alternative energy projects are driven by the need to protect fuel reserves. No one has stopped oil exploitation or the use of coal. Gas in the UK comes from a political enemy Russia.We are blackmailed by them. Air conditioning can be powered by the same sun that creates the need for it. It is simple economics. The future shortages will drive us not the fear of global warming. We are creatures of necessity and our selfishness is not going to stop us driving gas guzzlers. Even if you do not believe in our efforts, do you agree with us loosing our rain forests? Do you object to wave generation.Do you object to renewable energy?

Xris wrote:
Are you word blind?The production of electric cars are driven by the cost of fuel. Not, do you hear, not because of global warming. Do you understand? The majority of alternative energy projects are driven by the need to protect fuel reserves. No one has stopped oil exploitation or the use of coal. Gas in the UK comes from a political enemy Russia.We are blackmailed by them. Air conditioning can be powered by the same sun that creates the need for it. It is simple economics. The future shortages will drive us not the fear of global warming. We are creatures of necessity and our selfishness is not going to stop us driving gas guzzlers. Even if you do not believe in our efforts, do you agree with us loosing our rain forests? Do you object to wave generation.Do you object to renewable energy?

Are you reality blind? Global warming is the result of fossil fuel consumption, according to the IPCC. These two subjects are bound together in an obvious and unmistakable bind, so I don't know how anybody could think otherwise. You must be living in a cave in the mountains or something.

It is a waste of time trying to protect fuel reserves. It is population growth that is the main culprit. The only way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce the global population. All other methods of fuel reduction are a waste of time. What do you do when the sun doesn't shine? Where is your power source, if the weather is cloudy? Where is your power source, if there is no wind?

The world is overpopulated and we need to start reducing global population before the fossil fuels start to run out. Wave generation is a waste of time. Do you know that the salt water will rust any metallic objects very quickly.

Morality question - Who deserves to get the last litre of fuel? (a) Our generation (b) Our children's generation (c) Our children's children? You see, It doesn't matter who gets the last litre of fuel, does it. When the last litre of fuel is finally used up, the human game of survival will resume where it left off, as before, when there were no fossil fuels. Let the 'Hunger Games' begin!

It is a waste of time trying to protect fuel reserves. It is population growth that is the main culprit. The only way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce the global population.

This makes a change, although it's still not quite thought through.

For example, I don't quite see how reducing population would solve the problem. Even the reduced number would still be getting through that finite amount of fossil fuels. It would not even slow the process, since the increased demand for resources comes not from a growth in the number of poor peasants, but from a growth in the number of middle-class types who aspire to first-world living standards.

So the only way to regulate our resource use is to regulate our living standards. But doesn't that sound a bit...communist! Are we sure DarwinX doesn't have a secret agenda?

Londoner wrote: This makes a change, although it's still not quite thought through.

For example, I don't quite see how reducing population would solve the problem. Even the reduced number would still be getting through that finite amount of fossil fuels. It would not even slow the process, since the increased demand for resources comes not from a growth in the number of poor peasants, but from a growth in the number of middle-class types who aspire to first-world living standards.

So the only way to regulate our resource use is to regulate our living standards. But doesn't that sound a bit...communist! Are we sure DarwinX doesn't have a secret agenda?

There's no secret to the fact that the world is overpopulated. It's those third worlders who are entering the first world that we need to be worried about.

So, who deserves to get the last litre of oil?

(a) Our generation (b) Our children's generation (c) Our children's children?

or let's hope that the fusion reactor works?

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

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



There's no secret to the fact that the world is overpopulated. It's those third worlders who are entering the first world that we need to be worried about.

So, who deserves to get the last litre of oil?

(a) Our generation (b) Our children's generation (c) Our children's children?

or let's hope that the fusion reactor works?

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

I don't disagree with your view that population needs to be reduced.You have to accept that even if global warming is not occuring it would be beneficial if we reduced our dependence on fossile fuels.

Aemun wrote:DarwinX, you are a confused little boy. I hope one day you will grow up. I've just read your recent argument and it is flawed as ever. It seems that no matter what the issue is, you are unable to have a rational debate.

Since this is a philosophy debate, I suggest you learn formal logic, it may help you in forming valid arguments.

Here's modus ponens:

1. If A, then B 2. A 3. Therefore B

Once you learn the basics maybe come back and try again. We honestly will only congratulate you once you show signs of reason. And maybe consider not reading the Australian for a couple of weeks or going to any right wing Amercan websites. Maybe even read Noam Chomski's 'Manufacturing Consent' to learn about the corruption of the media.

Good Luck.

Thanks for the insight. I will call my next post - 'Noam Chomsky was a fraud'

Note - You should take your own advice as I have never seen you use any "then's" or "therefore's" in any of your posts.

Noam Chomsky was a communist,who supported the North Vietnamese and Chinese during the Vietnam war. Communism is a totalitarian dictatorship. Chomsky is against all ruling class elites, therefore, Chomsky is against his own beliefs. Therefore, Chomsky is a numskull.

See my other post ' Communism is a capitalist concept'.

If Chomsky is your hero, you could at least learn to spell his name correctly!

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

DarwinX wrote:
There's no secret to the fact that the world is overpopulated. It's those third worlders who are entering the first world that we need to be worried about.

Why?

Surely the immediate problem is the people who are already in the resource-gobbling first world?

After all, you can hardly expect the up-and-coming nations to volunteer to remain poor in order to allow westerners to consume more than their fair share.

So, who deserves to get the last litre of oil?

What's this word: 'deserves'?

'Deserves' suggests that resources should be allocated on a basis other than money. Just as your concern with population suggests a need to interfere with individual choices about family because of some 'greater good'. This all smacks of state interference and social planning.

You are definitely a communist. Welcome comrade!

Aemun wrote: Come on, if you admitted to being a troll, I would laugh and instantly respect your honesty. I'd think ha, he had me wound up along with a load of other people. I mean surely no one believes all these dumb videos you post with some american talking really slowly about how if you put an ice cube in a glass of water no water spills when the icecube melts.

Come on, the gags up. Admit it.

The science is correct. If you melt an ice cube in a glass of water, the level of the water will remain the same. Therefore, if all the ice in the Arctic melts, it will have absolutely no effect on the worlds ocean level. This is because ice is less dense than that of water, so when it melts, it just replaces its underwater volume only, and doesn't add any extra volume. Any 15 year old would know this, which means that your intellectual age must be less than that of a 15 year old.

Only a communist would believe that melting floating ice adds extra to the water volume.

Aemun wrote:Ha, you silly silly child.

The point is more to do with landlocked ice and the swelling of the oceans due to heat. It is also to do with the fact that sea levels ARE rising.

I put that point in as a joke, I know that the water doesn't spill. The joke was that people like you think that this is important science. You grabbed the bait in both teeth and swallowed it right down, burping afterwards and saying thank you sir, can I have some more. I thought you would realise it was a joke.

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.

The sea level rises every day, its called a tide. If only the ocean would keep still for a moment, then someone could measure it. Unfortunately, the ocean constantly moves, so its next to impossible to measure it. Damn ocean!!!

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.

I refer to an old post.

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I refer to an old post.

You keep referring to Venice as being your only evidence of oceans rising. Yet, everybody knows that Venice is sinking. It was built on a swamp using wooden pillions. It only floods during high rainfall, stormy weather and high tides.

Here are some recent tidal measurements. Note - Records of flooding in Venice go as far back as 589 AD.

194 cm on November 4, 1966 166 cm on December 22, 1979 158 cm on February 1, 1986 156 cm on December 1, 2008 151 cm on November 12, 1951 149 cm on November 11, 2012 147 cm on April 16, 1936 147 cm on November 16, 2002 145 cm on December 25, 2009 145 cm on October 15, 1960 144 cm on December 23, 2009 144 cm on November 3, 1968 144 cm on November 6, 2000 143 cm on February 12, 2013 143 cm on November 1, 2012 142 cm on December 8, 1992 140 cm on February 17, 1979

Note - The flooding heights are completely random and show no signs of increasing over time.

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

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You keep referring to Venice as being your only evidence of oceans rising. Yet, everybody knows that Venice is sinking. It was built on a swamp using wooden pillions. It only floods during high rainfall, stormy weather and high tides.

Here are some recent tidal measurements. Note - Records of flooding in Venice go as far back as 589 AD.

194 cm on November 4, 1966 166 cm on December 22, 1979 158 cm on February 1, 1986 156 cm on December 1, 2008 151 cm on November 12, 1951 149 cm on November 11, 2012 147 cm on April 16, 1936 147 cm on November 16, 2002 145 cm on December 25, 2009 145 cm on October 15, 1960 144 cm on December 23, 2009 144 cm on November 3, 1968 144 cm on November 6, 2000 143 cm on February 12, 2013 143 cm on November 1, 2012 142 cm on December 8, 1992 140 cm on February 17, 1979

Note - The flooding heights are completely random and show no signs of increasing over time.

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

You are the limit.National geographic are more than simply refering to Venice you knob.