Philosophy Discussion Forums

It only indicates how desperate are the deniers when they have to cheat and lie.

Aemun wrote:I am actually ashamed of myself for conflating two statements I read regarding this websites and another websites policy regarding peer reviewed papers and credible sourcing. So given that I like to be found wrong - it means I have learnt something and have become more knowledgable - I will allow you that the last line of my last post is fallacious.

That said I still stand by everything else I said in the last post - the main thrust of it in fact. I have not done enough posts yet to be allowed links. However, I implore any readers of the link with regards to the petition project to spend one tenth of the time you spend reading it on researching its credibility.

Try typing in 'petition project debunked'. Then maybe look at some other research that shows that 97% of climate scientists (that's right - not just any old psychology student or whoever else they could get to sign the petition) believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Again we are back to my old argument - the originator of this post will believe any research, of any credibility, if it backs up their beliefs. No standards other than their own. Don't waste your time on this petty and utter tripe, like I am.

-- Updated August 17th, 2013, 11:07 am to add the following --

I can already imagine they're thinking 'well ofcourse climate scientists agree with it because they are all corrupt and make millions a year out of creating the myth'. The biggest cartel in the world - climate scientists. Ha

Your inability at being able to create a link, is a good example of how you have failed to do any research. If you had bothered to look, you would have found instructions on how to do it. Your inability to research has left you completely helpless and at the mercy of corrupt scientists. You have chosen the easy path, which is to accept the authorities of science without question or doubt. You are hoping to deceive me by quoting some no-existent authoritarian rule that only peer reviewed information is allowed on this website.

Note: It is only on science based websites that this draconian rule applies. Luckily, these draconian rules haven't reached this website yet. Science websites, do not allow any dissension of scientific theories, which runs totally against the spirit of scientific investigation. I would suggest that you sign up with one of the science forums so that you can spend your time agreeing with all the current theories and pat each other on the back for being such agreeable little bunnies.

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

I tried using links - it's pretty much the same as any other platform - but a message informed me I needed to make ten posts before I was allowed. I took this at its word. If there is another way, in the spirit of sharing you should have told me.

I fully believe in the peer review system as it would've stopped me wasting too much time with your posts.

We're talking about the climate - what would a business professor know about that. I am going to figure out how to block you because you are not worth anyones time and for some reason I feel compelled to reply. I clearly lead a boring life.

It's not you, Aemun. Some subjects just can't be let ride without at least some attempt to bring truth to them. Climate change is one that's so important, we can't give deniers a free ride.

Aemun wrote:I tried using links - it's pretty much the same as any other platform - but a message informed me I needed to make ten posts before I was allowed. I took this at its word. If there is another way, in the spirit of sharing you should have told me.

I fully believe in the peer review system as it would've stopped me wasting too much time with your posts.

We're talking about the climate - what would a business professor know about that. I am going to figure out how to block you because you are not worth anyones time and for some reason I feel compelled to reply. I clearly lead a boring life.

Its not a matter of being boring. If you choose to follow the lemmings over the cliff, then, that is your choice. I hope you are satisfied when all the plants start dying due to your support of carbon dioxide reduction. When you take your last gasp of oxygen, remember this post, and you might finally see my point.

Here's some inconvenient facts about Maurice Strong the director of the UNEP. Besides working for Petro-Canada, Maurice strong is a convicted criminal hiding under the protection of the Chinese Government.

Wikipedia reference - Maurice Strong - originator of environmental movement. 2005 Oil-for-Food scandal and hiring practice criticisms In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food Program, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to "Mr. M. Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing. During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until the cloud was removed." Shortly after this, Strong moved to an apartment he owned in Beijing. He said that his departure from the U.N. was motivated not by the Oil-for-Food investigations, but by his sense at the time, as Mr. Annan's special adviser on North Korea, that the U.N. had reached an impasse. "It just happened to coincide with the publicity surrounding my so-called nefarious activities," he insists. "I had no involvement at all in Oil-for-Food ... I just stayed out of it."

If he is not guilty, why is he hiding in China?

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

Every time you produce so called evidence that turns out to be a fallacy you simply move on to another lie.You do not even comprehend the argument. If you had a decent argument to question climate change we might have a debate.

Xris wrote:Every time you produce so called evidence that turns out to be a fallacy you simply move on to another lie.You do not even comprehend the argument. If you had a decent argument to question climate change we might have a debate.

Maurice Strong is real. Deal with it, reality denier. He's your number one boy. A living charlatan, shyster, thief and a conman. Hiding in communist China, where he is regarded as a hero. Tell me that the environment movement isn't a cover for global communism now!

Would you like to donate some money to the North Korean government as well?

If we are to discuss man-made climate change, let's start by using basic common sense.

Ask yourself this: Who stands to benefit most -- those who believe in human-induced climate change, be they individuals, corporations or governments, who are then forced by ethics/morals to drastically reconstruct their way of life, which will mean less money

OR

skeptics, who are then free of the ethical/moral burden to change their lives, and can continue to pursue profits as normal.

Try to be as honest as any human can be with how you answer this.

As for proof of our impact on the environment, I can provide this for you.

Here's a nice one you might like:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

If you still feel unconvinced, I'm including the link which you can find on the site itself, just in case you looked at the page for a second before dismissing it as rubbish. It might seem incidental and ridiculous to skeptics, but it does provide 174 (YES, 174) scientific answers to skeptical claims:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you got to 174 and just still couldn't quite agree, then I'm sorry, the time spent reading it may have seemed like a waste. But then, if you reached 174 and still couldn't give the notion the benefit of the doubt considering what its consequences are, I'm guessing you probably have plenty of time to waste, and your ability to translate Pascal's Wager into a connection to climate change is either really poor, or you just don't care.

I'm not a fundamentalist environmentalist. But I try to look at it as logically as possible. The idea of the Kyoto treaty was completely nonsensical, as it allows developing countries to keep on churning out money while soaking the globe with toxic fumes, while first-world countries agree to "limit" their carbon output. To develop environmentally safe energy, so much coal and carbon must be used to discover the most efficient way, and then use more to construct whatever is found to be most environmentally friendly.

And electricity prices will hit the roof, at first anyway. The problem cannot be solved now, but will take many years and more carbon output. But if we don't act in at least some degree now, imagine what it will be like for future generations.

Oh, and the amount of trees that have been cut down for the world to profit directly affects the climate. Trees store carbon. Less trees, more carbon.

Enjoy the links.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Maurice Strong is real. Deal with it, reality denier. He's your number one boy. A living charlatan, shyster, thief and a conman. Hiding in communist China, where he is regarded as a hero. Tell me that the environment movement isn't a cover for global communism now!

Would you like to donate some money to the North Korean government as well?

Maurice Strong was exonerated from any involvement and your so called lord is another proven charlatan. If you read any unbiased report it makes it quite clear but your not interested in anything that speaks the truth. You are just another denier who will twist the facts to fit your unscientific beliefs.Three times you have produced false claims and false accusations. You are endemic of the pathetic deniers who when challenged about the facts of their claims, ignore the challenge and move on to more fallacious examples.

The Quirkster wrote:If we are to discuss man-made climate change, let's start by using basic common sense.

Ask yourself this: Who stands to benefit most -- those who believe in human-induced climate change, be they individuals, corporations or governments, who are then forced by ethics/morals to drastically reconstruct their way of life, which will mean less money

OR

skeptics, who are then free of the ethical/moral burden to change their lives, and can continue to pursue profits as normal.

Firstly, your supposed to respond to other posts first, before you start rambling on about your own interests. Secondly, in regards to commonsense - the concept of 'greenhouse' in relation to the Earth is faulty, right from the start. A greenhouse is a closed system, which has very little to zero air flow, this is what creates the warmer interior climate of a greenhouse. The Earth, on the other-hand, is an open system, which has no barriers to stop the air circulating. Therefore, it is erroneous to refer to the Earth as a greenhouse. The Earth acts like a large thermostat, which self regulates its temperature. It wouldn't make any difference if a little CO2 did reflect some infra-red radiation. The extra heat would be dissipated by cold air from the polar regions by the circular air and ocean flow of the Earth.

Note: When a large volcano erupts the CO2 output generally has a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

The article below reveals that the Gulf of Mexico froze over in 1784 due to to volcanic activity.

http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2526154.ece

-- Updated August 18th, 2013, 11:47 pm to add the following --

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Maurice Strong was exonerated from any involvement and your so called lord is another proven charlatan. If you read any unbiased report it makes it quite clear but your not interested in anything that speaks the truth. You are just another denier who will twist the facts to fit your unscientific beliefs.Three times you have produced false claims and false accusations. You are endemic of the pathetic deniers who when challenged about the facts of their claims, ignore the challenge and move on to more fallacious examples.

Why doesn't your 'golden boy' come out of China? What is he afraid of? Why didn't he stay around to face the music after the Oil-For-Food debacle?

Darwinx, your confirmation bias is absurd and fallacious. First it was germ theory and vaccination, then the big bang, then the standard model, then general relativity and push graviry, then plate tectonics and expanding earth, and now global warming. Is there anything in science that you don't think is a global conspiracy by corporations and governments?

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Firstly, your supposed to respond to other posts first, before you start rambling on about your own interests. Secondly, in regards to commonsense - the concept of 'greenhouse' in relation to the Earth is faulty, right from the start. A greenhouse is a closed system, which has very little to zero air flow, this is what creates the warmer interior climate of a greenhouse. The Earth, on the other-hand, is an open system, which has no barriers to stop the air circulating. Therefore, it is erroneous to refer to the Earth as a greenhouse. The Earth acts like a large thermostat, which self regulates its temperature. It wouldn't make any difference if a little CO2 did reflect some infra-red radiation. The extra heat would be dissipated by cold air from the polar regions by the circular air and ocean flow of the Earth.

Note: When a large volcano erupts the CO2 output generally has a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

The article below reveals that the Gulf of Mexico froze over in 1784 due to to volcanic activity.

http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2526154.ece

-- Updated August 18th, 2013, 11:47 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


Why doesn't your 'golden boy' come out of China? What is he afraid of? Why didn't he stay around to face the music after the Oil-For-Food debacle?

Sorry friend but you are talking nonsense. Clouds of anything block out sun light. That has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere.Do you understand why tempertures are rising or don't you believe that either?

He is not in north Korea. You are starting to believe your own propaganda.He is not guilty, it is all a load of crap. Just because you have vid of lord nonsense talking .... does not indicate it is true. The facts are available to anyone who cares to search.

DarwinX wrote:
Firstly, your supposed to respond to other posts first, before you start rambling on about your own interests. Secondly, in regards to commonsense - the concept of 'greenhouse' in relation to the Earth is faulty, right from the start. A greenhouse is a closed system, which has very little to zero air flow, this is what creates the warmer interior climate of a greenhouse. The Earth, on the other-hand, is an open system, which has no barriers to stop the air circulating. Therefore, it is erroneous to refer to the Earth as a greenhouse. The Earth acts like a large thermostat, which self regulates its temperature. It wouldn't make any difference if a little CO2 did reflect some infra-red radiation. The extra heat would be dissipated by cold air from the polar regions by the circular air and ocean flow of the Earth.

Note: When a large volcano erupts the CO2 output generally has a cooling effect, not a warming effect.

The article below reveals that the Gulf of Mexico froze over in 1784 due to to volcanic activity.

http://vorige.nrc.nl/article2526154.ece

My sincerest apologies for not addressing your rambling posts that concern your interests. I have caused egregious costs to you and your specious claims, as well as to your faith in baseless conspiracy theories and the dearth of facts that you have squeezed out of the dank, underground "think-tanks" that you use to support your arguments, and I can imagine that it must be so frustrating for you to see the vicious propaganda spread by the overwhelming number of scientists who are trying to stifle the truth. I can understand that you would hate it when facts get in the way of your own agenda.

I took one look at your link and have become an instant skeptic. Wow, I didn't realise that the Earth could have climate change that wasn't human-induced! If a volcanic eruption did that to Mexico City, then one can only imagine what froze the polar caps. It doesn't bear thinking about!

I think that covers it. Moving on --

You know that the air circulating relies on trees, and that less trees means less breathable air, right? Because you didn't answer that in my post. Nor did you comment on any of the questions I posed to you.

We also notice that considering that you didn't respond to my post with any substance, you have broken the form of posting etiquette that you proposed in your first sentence.

Rage, dear friend, rage against the living of the planet.

"This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature. The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%." http://www.thegwpf.org/how-much-money-a ... ion-a-day/

"Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21366.html

There has and always will be climate change... "•1880-1940: A prolonged rise in temperature in spite of modest global carbon dioxide outputs •1940-1970: A decline in temperature, in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels •1970-2000: A rise in temperature which follows carbon dioxide levels •2000-2005: A levelling-out of the temperature rise •2005-2011: A slight decline in temperature, in spite of still-rising carbon dioxide levels

So, over a period of more than a century, only the data from one thirty-year slot actually fits the human-induced global warming theory. The rest does not. In this situation it is up to the proponents of the theory to explain the discrepancy. With the bulk of the data not fitting the theory, this is indeed an onerous task."
http://ezinearticles.com/?Climate-Chang ... id=6849578

As mentioned - think it through yourself. And as mentioned, who benefits most from making up this whole climate change scam that brings in billions of dollars every year????

Note that those who don't buy into the climate change scam, STILL support environmentally friendly practices.

Most of the comments illogically attempting to argue for the need to spend money on climate change, remind me of cult-mentality - bigotry - the refusal to consider any alternative perspectives.

Vague references to scientists who have no knowledge of the subject and whose remarks are taken out of context and are exaggerated by the deniers. When you examine any claim to the contrary they can be dismissed as easily as creationism. Even more importantly look at the press and money that is attempting to undermine the science that has proven climate change. The strange thing about the deniers is that they can't make their mind up what their position is. One minute there is no temp. rise, the next it is nothing to do with human activity.All we see is a string of claims that never stand scrutiny.