Philosophy Discussion Forums

Actually, I ended up getting sucked into DarwinX's delusional paranoia again. But the results were quite interesting because I'd never heard about Agenda 21 before. So I started reading a few papers on it. So far from what I can see, the paranoia seems to be restricted to the U.S. - it didn't travel to the U.K. Perhaps the lobbyist groups are not as persuasive over here.

I started reading the actual document but it's over 300 pages long so I tried a few reviews, on both sides. I found the conspiracy theorist ones difficult because they're always worded like the reader/listener is dumb. And the pattern of paranoia fits other conspiracy theories that I've read. I'd have to do about a week of research to get to the major issues. But on the face of it, I'd say that the people that suggest the conspiracy has been made up to suit private interests sound entirely plausible. Rather like the climate denier conspiracy.

It scares me the level of people's paranoia that exists out there. I think the worst parts are the Orwellian tactics that are used to turn everything into a global communist conspiracy. I think people that fall for it probably don't have a lot of conceptual difference in their heads between Communism and Satan. I was reading the other day there is a demographic of people that agree with socialist policies when questioned without labelling them as socialist but as soon as they hear them labelled socialist they disagree with them - so it has become literally Orwellian Doublethink. The same is also true now of people and climate issues, who actually are less likely to believe them if they think the information comes from climatologists. George Orwell was clearly well ahead of his time.

Regardless of the motivations underlying Agenda 21, the topic that this forum is attempting to resolve is the evidence to support or refute the claim of climate change being a reality ( resulting from predominantly human activity) or a "fraud". Agenda 21 seems to be irrelevant here but may be worth considering as a separate philosophical discussion.

Schaps wrote:Regardless of the motivations underlying Agenda 21, the topic that this forum is attempting to resolve is the evidence to support or refute the claim of climate change being a reality ( resulting from predominantly human activity) or a "fraud". Agenda 21 seems to be irrelevant here but may be worth considering as a separate philosophical discussion.

I can see what you're saying. But actually I believe Area 51... sorry I mean Agenda 21... to be relevant to the point at hand.

Essentially, on the face of it we have the same issue, repeated. Environmentalists vs. Private Industry. The environmentalists go 'oh no we are destroying the planet and everything in it including ourselves, lets lobby.' They win a change in legislation and some private industry goes 'oh no we are gonna lose money because of this legislation. It would be more profitable to fund anti -legislation lobbyists to come up with anything they can to stop the legislation rather than sit back and accept it.' Then the anti-legislation lobbyists go 'thank you for your funding private industry – hey everyone, don't you know that the environmentalists are secret pagan-communists and are part of a global conspiracy.' And people like DarwinX read this and go 'America! I love you.'

Hey, that's just what it looks like to me and that general pattern repeats itself in many forms. But of course the conspiracy theorists would claim that the pattern repeats in a different way, more like 'oh no things are changing I hate change, let's read about it on the internet.' The first thing that pops up is about a secret pagan-communist conspiracy and they think 'It's those secret pagan-communists again. It's always those secret pagan-communists.'And then they think 'I love my country and I will fight.'

So for me the Agenda 21 thing is perfectly relevant because it involves the same issues. I accept a certain amount of deficit in my knowledge but when it comes to believing the first pattern or the second, I just find the first one much easier to relate to. And I find it interesting how people's views are slowly changed by repeated phrases etc. in popular media such as Fox News and indeed most other media channels to the point where they find it easier to accept the second pattern.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


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

What the hell are you on about.You quote some fiction writer as if it is the word of god but refuse reputable scientific data.Then you wander of onto another subject as I predicted. You have not produced one ounce of evidence to suggest global warming is fraud. You simply produce one load of nonsense after another.

I read something interesting yesterday that said we are actually somehow going backwards in terms of our progression of knowledge, as a side effect of the climate debate.

The tactic the industrialists are using is to use their media channels to make people distrust scientists. So it is like we are reverting back to the pre-enlightenment era where Galileo was put under house arrest for agreeing with the heliocentric theory proposed by Copernicus. I mean, how long will it be before using scientific evidence will be considered a crime in certain states of America?

DarwinX's mentality is just a manifested symptom of this. I am definitely glad I bothered to get involved in this thread, simply because I didn't know the depth of the problem humanity faces until I began getting involved in this.

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 11:52 am to add the following --

Ha, Xris I don't know why you bother, use the block function. Nothing's changed in the last week. I checked out Robert Felix's credentials (the guy on the radio show), and guess what - the only credential he has is that he runs a website.

Being on the internet is the only credential DarwinX requires of a source, you cannot debate with someone of that nature. DarwinX has proved one thing though - that if you want to talk about climate denial, there is almost an endless source of fictional tirades on the internet. I think maybe they create more of this nonsense than there is time in the day to go though so you will be stuck in this debate forever unless you use the block function.

Aemun wrote:I read something interesting yesterday that said we are actually somehow going backwards in terms of our progression of knowledge, as a side effect of the climate debate.

The tactic the industrialists are using is to use their media channels to make people distrust scientists. So it is like we are reverting back to the pre-enlightenment era where Galileo was put under house arrest for agreeing with the heliocentric theory proposed by Copernicus. I mean, how long will it be before using scientific evidence will be considered a crime in certain states of America?

DarwinX's mentality is just a manifested symptom of this. I am definitely glad I bothered to get involved in this thread, simply because I didn't know the depth of the problem humanity faces until I began getting involved in this.

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 11:52 am to add the following --

Ha, Xris I don't know why you bother, use the block function. Nothing's changed in the last week. I checked out Robert Felix's credentials (the guy on the radio show), and guess what - the only credential he has is that he runs a website.

Being on the internet is the only credential DarwinX requires of a source, you cannot debate with someone of that nature. DarwinX has proved one thing though - that if you want to talk about climate denial, there is almost an endless source of fictional tirades on the internet. I think maybe they create more of this nonsense than there is time in the day to go though so you will be stuck in this debate forever unless you use the block function.

I feel compelled.It is type of sickness. If you examine most of the propaganda it originates from self interested corporate interests. The oil companies must spend thousands funding such nonsense. I think they represent a real danger to solving the problem. They need to be confronted at any opportunity. I question science but questioning the concept of the big bang or the concept of light is not going to endanger the world.

The oil companies must spend thousands funding such nonsense.

Well greenpeace believe the figure more like millions upon millions - and that's just one oil company.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... ndustries/

-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 12:26 pm to add the following --

Also, I liked this video of the above link. More fun than the normal denier ramble:
-- Updated August 25th, 2013, 12:36 pm to add the following --

I've just watched a video that says it's more respectful to call deniers the more subtle term of climate dissenters. Ha. I will do this from now on.

I think Schaps' point, if I have understood it correctly, regards the form of the discussion, rather than the topic. The objective of joining a philosophy forum, from my opinion, is to learn from each other, through dialogue and the pursuit of answers that, despite eluding some of the greatest minds in human history, may very well be found here.

I joined this forum with the aim of, through discourse with others, to learn as much as I can, to sate my thirst for knowledge. I wholeheartedly enjoy arguments that stretch the boundaries of my belief systems, the areas where minds can fear to tread. I feel that if I'm not challenging myself to learn and not trying to bridge the voids that my mind has constructed out of fear, that I will lapse into utter apathy.

Every subject will evoke some emotions and meet with those who find it distasteful, find themselves hurt by the topic, and others who see the thread as possibly dangerous (words can trigger harmful reactions in some). It is impossible to remain completely objective about any subject. As humans, we cannot help but let our experiences pervade into heads when we think about these subjects.

However, I firmly believe that all discourse should try to be as objective and as free from personal agenda as possible. I, for one, am one of the guiltiest parties here as regards my conduct concerning how I reply. I am quick to judge, faster to condemn, heavy, condescending and utterly offensive when I am at my worst. I know my wealth of flaws, and even though I try to change my habits, I find myself at times filled with anger when I see that other posters' seem to be promoting an agenda, responding with the most venomous tongue, which serves only to further de-rail the point of discussion.

If I have understood Schaps correctly, then I agree completely.

As regards this topic, there have been two opposing ideas set forth, but have somehow been twisted into a "my scientist can beat up your scientist"/conspiracy-wrought slug-fest. Further to this, whatever one believes is subject to "confirmation bias", a psychological process that your brain does automatically. Finding any information that proves one's argument strengthens their belief in the argument, whilst any opposing views are more likely to be ignored as specious.

My point is, I can only give my point of view, and my replies reflect my opinion, so how I respond mirrors the faults I have in abundance. Yes, I can be spiteful and nasty, and I find myself replying in this fashion if I feel that the discourse has resorted into aforesaid slug-fest. It doesn't help, I know, and so I am trying to curtail this nasty bit of bastardry.

Just thought I throw that bit of perspective in.

Cheers

I think the problem with this is that it kind of suggests the debate is two sided and both sides have their merits.

I think this is part of the problem that climate scientists are up against, because this is simply the view espoused by the media to engineer interesting programs.

The truth is that there is no real substantial debate in the scientific community, just a handful of climate dissenters making a lot of noise and an overwhelming majority of about 97% of scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change.

This is where it is interesting, it involves the science of persuasion and the influence of mass media as well as a host of ideas about what constitutes creditiable information.

It is more about deceit than dialogue. The DENIERS are endlessly putting out false information and claiming that there are respected scientists opposing climate change. A simple search will soon put an end to their pathetic arguments. The problem I have found with many of my friends is that simply accept the deniers claims without bothering to check their validity. It is a constant drip drip effect that the general public are exposed to. If we do not actively oppose them they will gain credibility.

Aemun wrote: Well greenpeace believe the figure more like millions upon millions - and that's just one oil company.

Also, I liked this video of the above link. More fun than the normal denier ramble:


I've just watched a video that says it's more respectful to call deniers the more subtle term of climate dissenters. Ha. I will do this from now on.

Who funds Greenpeace? Oh Noooooooooooooooo NOT BP!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/t ... reenpeace/

If your argument consists of 'who funds who', then you have lost this round of argument. lol

-- Updated August 26th, 2013, 11:22 am to add the following --

Xris wrote:It is more about deceit than dialogue. The DENIERS are endlessly putting out false information and claiming that there are respected scientists opposing climate change. A simple search will soon put an end to their pathetic arguments. The problem I have found with many of my friends is that simply accept the deniers claims without bothering to check their validity. It is a constant drip drip effect that the general public are exposed to. If we do not actively oppose them they will gain credibility.

It appears that you are quite happy that the environment movement is a front for global communism. I suggest that you go live in China with your pin-up boy Maurice Strong who started the environment movement.

Note 1 : Maurice Strong is hiding in China because of the repercussions of the Food for Oil scandal.

Note 2 : Maurice Strong used to work for Petro-Canada, so don't use the trick of saying that anti-global warming is funded by big oil.

Who funds Greenpeace? Oh Noooooooooooooooo NOT BP!!!!!

I don't know if you even read your source material properly, it doesn't actually claim anywhere that greenpeace were funded by BP. It's a bit of a more obscure point regarding BP chucking money about everywhere.

According to Greenpeace, they will not accept corporate sponsorship. But with such a large organisation, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of corruption when it came to accepting money. That's besides the point, my only point was that millions goes into the climate dissent movement from the oil companies, not thousands. If you want me to find another source then give me a decent reply to this post and I will.

I don't really understand your previous point, but I'd be happy for you to elaborate. If you can stick to the point at hand, I'll have a discussion with you.

Ok, so the point is BP giving money to the green movement - expand...

Aemun wrote:I think the problem with this is that it kind of suggests the debate is two sided and both sides have their merits.

I think this is part of the problem that climate scientists are up against, because this is simply the view espoused by the media to engineer interesting programs.

The truth is that there is no real substantial debate in the scientific community, just a handful of climate dissenters making a lot of noise and an overwhelming majority of about 97% of scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change.

This is where it is interesting, it involves the science of persuasion and the influence of mass media as well as a host of ideas about what constitutes creditiable information.

I suppose there are also two ways to look at the mode of the subject:

One could say, in reference to this last sentence, that the debate over climate change is an EXAMPLE of how humans can be persuaded, what influences us, why, what do we credit as factual or pseudo-scientific. This harks back to what we might expect of the Ancient Grecian philosophical pursuit of underpinning the origin that brings such debates to a head.

The other would be to treat it, as I understand you probably mean, as an examination of the subject itself (climate change), which would represent a more modernist philosophical approach. I do see your point.

It may well be best if future threads included the discourse that they desire in the OP, by stating the intent of the poster's objective. One thread looking for the origin of human psychology and how we respond to it as the point of the discussion, while another might be looking for the origins for why set subject "X", or climate change if you will, simmers with the tension that it currently does in a modern context.

Thanks for your really helpful response!

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Who funds Greenpeace? Oh Noooooooooooooooo NOT BP!!!!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/t ... reenpeace/

If your argument consists of 'who funds who', then you have lost this round of argument. lol

-- Updated August 26th, 2013, 11:22 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


It appears that you are quite happy that the environment movement is a front for global communism. I suggest that you go live in China with your pin-up boy Maurice Strong who started the environment movement.

Note 1 : Maurice Strong is hiding in China because of the repercussions of the Food for Oil scandal.

Note 2 : Maurice Strong used to work for Petro-Canada, so don't use the trick of saying that anti-global warming is funded by big oil.

Once again you have failed..Grenpeace does not receive money from oil companies. The vague string of links does not lead to greenpeace. The money they do donate has nothing to do with promoting climate change.

As for Maurice Strong.Why not read a reputable report on him rather than your denier weekly. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... government

Darwin X Sociologically, if some countries reduce their manufacturing, while other countries such as China do nothing, this will create unfair advantages for China. If we are forced to go back to the stone-age by environmentalists, those countries that don't comply with IPCCC regulations will just take over those countries that do comply. Therefore, the logic of climate change only benefits the communist based counties that don't comply.

In other words, because climate change might have some political and economic effects you don't like, it can't be real.