Philosophy Discussion Forums

Schaps wrote:This kind of to and fro rant is not a valuable philosophical exercise but merely an irresolvable and risk- free waste of time. I'm surprised that Scott tolerates this nonsense..

This is probably the most important philosophical issue which faces humanity at present. The deception that lies behind it needs to be exposed. If philosophy has no purpose or currency, then it is worthless. Only negative and defeatist individuals would feel that any problem is unsolvable or a waste of time. Note - There is no such word as irresolvable. I have notified Scott of your poor grammar

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 7:07 pm to add the following --

The Quirkster wrote:
I must say that these are quite persuasive arguments against human-induced climate change, and they lay a bedrock in which it is almost impossible to find any cracks in its foundation.

Just before you die of a heart attack from eating your sticky pizza; I would like to add, that consensus is not a scientific method of finding the solution to any problem. The same pie graph could have been used 200 years ago to see how many scientists thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth. There would have only been a small one percent who thought that the Earth revolved around the sun and they would have been labeled as crackpots.

I have not only found cracks in the foundations, but I have found that the foundations were put in crooked as well. The tall building of climate change science is tilting over it's point of stability and is about to collapse.

The Chinese will not be reducing their carbon output, whereas, the Western countries will be. Result, economic collapse of the Western economies. Communist takeover of Western countries by communist countries. Communist objective achieved. Agenda 21 realized.

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

http://i.word.com/idictionary/irresolvable I maintain that the question posed is not a philosophical one. The issue is merely one of establishing fact vs fiction. Philosophy encompasses far more than that!

Schaps wrote:http://i.word.com/idictionary/irresolvable I maintain that the question posed is not a philosophical one. The issue is merely one of establishing fact vs fiction. Philosophy encompasses far more than that!

Philosophy must include all knowledge and all facts, if it is to be of any use or have a constructive purpose. If you leave out any knowledge or facts then your philosophical outlook will be the poorer because of it. Exclusivism is not a philosophically friendly concept.

Ok, at the same level of discourse that this "discussion" exemplifies, I state categorically that my detailed research and evidence- based analysis reveals that climate change due to humanity's activities effecting change - is an actuality and not a "fraud". Prove me wrong. End of "discussion", end of entertainment...,

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Philosophy must include all knowledge and all facts, if it is to be of any use or have a constructive purpose. If you leave out any knowledge or facts then your philosophical outlook will be the poorer because of it. Exclusivism is not a philosophically friendly concept.

But you have not given one credible link. You constantly give links that have no value. Let me ask you to give me one link that you are totally sure will prove your views. There is philosophical question that arises here.Why do the deniers cling to any suspect evidence that opposes climate change no matter how easy it is to contradict?

Xris wrote: But you have not given one credible link. You constantly give links that have no value. Let me ask you to give me one link that you are totally sure will prove your views. There is philosophical question that arises here.Why do the deniers cling to any suspect evidence that opposes climate change no matter how easy it is to contradict?

I have given you evidence which clearly shows that climate change is a fraud. Why don't you address the evidence that I have given. If you think the evidence is faulty, please advise, which piece of evidence or fact is false. Please give reasons why this information is false. Why is the link not creditable? Is the satellite which took the 30 years worth of continuous photos of the North Pole a faulty satellite? Were the photos doctored? Did they use computer or digital technology to falsify the images?

If this is true, then I will have to inform NASA that their cameras weren't working properly.

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 8:24 pm to add the following --

Schaps wrote:Ok, at the same level of discourse that this "discussion" exemplifies, I state categorically that my detailed research and evidence- based analysis reveals that climate change due to humanity's activities effecting change - is an actuality and not a "fraud". Prove me wrong. End of "discussion", end of entertainment...,

Ah ha, so you were hoping to use the authority of the science community as your guarantor on this issue. Detailed analysis? I haven't seen any evidence of it? Please come back. I need a good laugh, every now and then.

I have responded but all you constantly do is produce more and more false claims. How many do I have to confront? When I do confront them you do not respond, you simply produce another stupid link.Why do you find it necessary to look for any link not matter how invalid they are to prove your views? As I said give me one link you are certain will prove conclusively climate change is a fraud.

Xris wrote:I have responded but all you constantly do is produce more and more false claims. How many do I have to confront? When I do confront them you do not respond, you simply produce another stupid link.Why do you find it necessary to look for any link not matter how invalid they are to prove your views? As I said give me one link you are certain will prove conclusively climate change is a fraud.

Your hoping to out maneuver me with constant complaints about my links being unworthy of your consideration, but your psychological trickery will not work on me. Please feel free to use your superior knowledge to refute just one of my links. You can pick any one, I don't care. The end result will be just as humiliating............ for you.

Note : Please feel free to prove that Agenda 21 doesn't exist

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



Your hoping to out maneuver me with constant complaints about my links being unworthy of your consideration, but your psychological trickery will not work on me. Please feel free to use your superior knowledge to refute just one of my links. You can pick any one, I don't care. The end result will be just as humiliating............ for you.

Note : Please feel free to prove that Agenda 21 doesn't exist

Have you forgotten already that I have done so on more than one occasion? Let me ask you.If I disprove one of your links will you accept that there is no fraud or will you refer to another.It is up to you.

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Have you forgotten already that I have done so on more than one occasion? Let me ask you.If I disprove one of your links will you accept that there is no fraud or will you refer to another.It is up to you.

Go ahead, make my day, reality denier!

Lets start with the real facts about the antarctic. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=46 This is the truth not your link that fails to mention the reality of the situation.

After that you please explain how the arctic is expected to be ice free in Summer in 20 years?

Schaps wrote:This kind of to and fro rant is not a valuable philosophical exercise but merely an irresolvable and risk- free waste of time. I'm surprised that Scott tolerates this nonsense..

How is philosophical debate ever risky? It's not exactly UFC. What's the worst that can happen - oh no he made me change my mind, the horror, horror...

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 9:18 am to add the following --

Actually, if you just block DarwinX as I have done then the debate becomes slightly more intelligent. Plus you get to read everyone elses frustration and feel relieved that you are no longer involved in it.

From reading other people's posts, I'm pretty sure the situation hasn't changed, DarwinX puts some spurious claim up, which probably got refuted ten years ago, someone states exactly this so DarwinX posts some other equally dodgy claim without any defence, ad infinitum.

True this does not amount to philosophical discussion. It simply gives someone proven to be a fraud (ironic given the OS) a platform.

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 9:21 am to add the following --

But some people would say that the issue is actually the most important one humanity must face today so there is some kind of obligation to suffer a bit I think.

Xris wrote:Lets start with the real facts about the antarctic. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=46 This is the truth not your link that fails to mention the reality of the situation.

After that you please explain how the arctic is expected to be ice free in Summer in 20 years?

1. Your reference is hardly a refutation. It confirms that the Earth acts like a thermostat. If there is any variation in the temperature the Earth immediately compensates by creating a rush of cold air which cools the anomaly. In this case, the ozone layer becomes thinner, thus allowing cooler upper atmosphere air to come down and create more ice. Thus, some areas increase in ice and some areas decrease in ice formation. Essentially, the balance is maintained. Note: The hole in the ozone layer is a result of the Earth's geomagnetic nature and has nothing to do with CFC's. It is controlled by the Sun's output of solar of wind which consists of charged particles. The size of the ozone hole is dependent on seasonal aspects as well as solar activity. Refer to the solar cycle for more information.

2. The Chinese have records of the Arctic being ice free which date back hundreds of years. The Western imperialists prefer not to accept information from ancient Chinese transcripts because it conflicts with their preconceived and arrogant ideas about how climate works. I bet all the money in China that this never eventuates, because I understand how the solar cycles operate and I know that in 20 years time we will be in the middle of a cooling trend which will last 10 years or more. You had better order some extra jackets, you are going to be needing them soon.

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

In my brief review of the manuscript by Archibald, it is obvious that the vast majority of his statements are unsupported (lack of any direct reference sources) by any reliable source. He himself admits that many figures and table referenced in his (non peer-reviewed) article were "developed for this publication". The only reason virtual conversation ( not meriting the title of "debate" or "discussion") is worthwhile is because of the entertainment value as I ( and everyone else) can deride any participant in private with the security of anonymity! That is the difference in safety between the real world and a cyber existence. This would not be tolerated in any group of reputable reporters, climatologists, social scientists or politicians! Excuse me while I head for the bathroom - I will read the next entertaining fabrication ( e.g., YouTube link) with a modicum of pleasure. Thanks for the laugh!

Schaps wrote:In my brief review of the manuscript by Archibald, it is obvious that the vast majority of his statements are unsupported (lack of any direct reference sources) by any reliable source. He himself admits that many figures and table referenced in his (non peer-reviewed) article were "developed for this publication". The only reason virtual conversation ( not meriting the title of "debate" or "discussion") is worthwhile is because of the entertainment value as I ( and everyone else) can deride any participant in private with the security of anonymity! That is the difference in safety between the real world and a cyber existence. This would not be tolerated in any group of reputable reporters, climatologists, social scientists or politicians! Excuse me while I head for the bathroom - I will read the next entertaining fabrication ( e.g., YouTube link) with a modicum of pleasure. Thanks for the laugh!

Why don't you address the questions and refrain from adopting the consensus view 'as your own'. Reputation means nothing if you are corrupt and evil in your intent.

Do you deny that Agenda 21 exists?