Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[DarwinX]

The link below by David Archibald shows that the climate is not warming or changing any more than it has done in the past. I believe that the climate change agenda is a communist plot to undermine democratic processes and to introduce a world communist government. This will be achieved by using the threat of climate change to scare people into submitting to an authoritarian communist government. This system will attempt to by-pass normal governmental democratic processes by using local governments directly, thus, by-passing the federal government system, which normally checks and verifies all global government agendas before allowing these agendas to become law.

http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/P ... limate.pdf

[Aemun]

Please can you tell me which University he is affiliated and whether he's a doctor, professor, phd student. I'm sure he must be highly credible to convince you. Also can you tell me a list of counter papers that have been written against this paper. And also which peer reviewed publication/s this paper can be found in.

Cheers.

-- Updated August 13th, 2013, 5:36 pm to add the following --

Please can you tell me which University he is affiliated and whether he's a doctor, professor, phd student. I'm sure he must be highly credible to convince you. Also can you tell me a list of counter papers that have been written against this paper. And also which peer reviewed publication/s this paper can be found in.

Cheers.

[DarwinX]

Please can you tell me which University he is affiliated and whether he's a doctor, professor, phd student. I'm sure he must be highly credible to convince you. Also can you tell me a list of counter papers that have been written against this paper. And also which peer reviewed publication/s this paper can be found in.

Cheers.

-- Updated August 13th, 2013, 5:36 pm to add the following --

Please can you tell me which University he is affiliated and whether he's a doctor, professor, phd student. I'm sure he must be highly credible to convince you. Also can you tell me a list of counter papers that have been written against this paper. And also which peer reviewed publication/s this paper can be found in.

Cheers.

If you can disprove any of David Archibald's claims, feel free to submit your views.

1. Please prove that the sun doesn't cause changes in climate conditions.

2. Please prove that scientists that agree with climate change gain no monetary or career benefits from having this belief.

3. Prove that climate change isn't a political devise used by global communists to deceive people into giving up their freedom and human rights for dubious reasons.

[Aemun]

I am not an ecologist nor solar expert. I rely on the opinions of experts to guide me in these areas. I was simply trying to ascertain whether or not your man was an expert.

We could get philosophical about the meaning of 'proof', as this is a philosophy forum - but I suggest we get our first questions out of the way. So I refer you to my previous post.

What publication did he publish his ideas in? Have there been counter arguments? How much research have you done in this area?

[Bemore]

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that throughout earths history the climate has changed drastically, is always changing. Whilst I think that what we put in the environment does have some impact, I have to rely on the word of experts who look at what our actions are doing to the planet.

Whilst there are people who in are agreement in the scientific community that our actions are causing a direct impact on the climate, there are a lot of other scientists who do not.

In 2008 the ISCS (International science climate coalition http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) wrote a letter to to letter to Ban Ki Moon, the United Nations secretary general saying....

Dear Secretary-General,

Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries; Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate; Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate; Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities; The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes; Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past; Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions; Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes; Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency; Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

It is signed by a long list of scientists all in different climate fields of which I can list if requested. Ban Ki Moon never replied back allegedly.

Call me biased but I think there will be a monopoly and individuals/group entity's/organisations that will either profit, or attempt to from Carbon Taxing, the cost of which wont be absorbed by business but passed on to the consumer. I wouldn't actually mind paying for this if I believed that all the money would be used to prevent and look into new ways of preventing and absorbing the pollution we put out. Also there is a huge amount of money in energy and our economies are somewhat driven by these, which leads me to believe that "Free, clean, unmeterable " energy could potentially be suppressed in favor of finding something which can be profited off, that however is in the realms of conspiracy (not in the derogatory term)

[Alias]

There is evidence linking cigarette smoking to cancer, but it is disputed by some researchers on the basis that other factors are also linked to cancer. Doctors profit from the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, so it's in their interest to say that smoking is bad for me, while the researchers at Philip Morris Laboratories profit from selling tobacco, so it's in their interest to say it's all a government con. Therefore, I won't quit until it's been absolutely, unquestionably proven that smoking causes cancer.

The science won't be "settled" until the last proof is dead. Whoever performs the autopsy on Earth will be able to document, finally and without contradiction, how much human activity contributed to its demise.

[Geordie Ross]

Humans aren't solely responsible for climate change, it isn't known how much of an impact we are having on the naturally occurring change in climate, but if you look at the "great oxygenation event" its clear that small organisms can have vast affects on the climate and composition of our atmosphere.

There's no "communist conspiracy" or "scientific conspiracy" etc, but there is a changing climate, we shouldn't be wasting time pointing fingers and playing blame games while there is a world to save.

[Xris]

Global temperatures are rising at a faster rate than any other period of the Earths history. It is most definitely caused by mans excessive use of fossil fuels. The only opposition to this well accepted scientific fact originates from the oil industry.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-a ... hange.html Funny I just found this.

[DarwinX]

I am not an ecologist nor solar expert. I rely on the opinions of experts to guide me in these areas. I was simply trying to ascertain whether or not your man was an expert.

We could get philosophical about the meaning of 'proof', as this is a philosophy forum - but I suggest we get our first questions out of the way. So I refer you to my previous post.

What publication did he publish his ideas in? Have there been counter arguments? How much research have you done in this area?

1. I have already given you the link to his publication - The Past and Future of Climate, which has a foreword by Professor David Bellamy.

2. There are always counter arguments, that's what this forum is for.

3. I have read dozens of books on the subject and have read most of the IPCCC climate reports.

4. Experts aren't always right, especially if they have hidden agendas to protect.

Even if the climate was changing due to our pollution, the concept of reducing CO2 is faulty both scientifically and sociologically. Scientifically speaking, plants need CO2 to breathe, therefore, reducing CO2 will reduce plants ability to photosynthesize and thus reduce oxygen production. 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.

[Xris]

But he works for an oil company and it has been proven he is a liar. Did you read my link.

[Syamsu]

4. Experts aren't always right, especially if they have hidden agendas to protect.

You aren't always right either. I believe you are yourself a fraud, in the sense of that you have no honesty on the issue. To be honest I consider mainly is to put all arguments and evidence side by side, and choose what you think is best. Yet you argue like, I have 1 idea against climate change, and another, and another idea against, and you come up with no idea that climate change is true.

When you argue: reducing co2 is a bad idea because plants use co2 to make oxygen , then I can see just by the way that you write it, that it is just a flippant idea, and that there will be no change whatever in your opinion if this particular argument is found to be wrong. I know this by experience of arguing many who argue like that. Once you take them seriously for any statement they make, they then simply drop the argument, and go find another argument in favor of their preconceived position. When they get pressured on an issue, they jump to another issue. Playing games, tactics, nonsense.

You are just combative, the Darwinian idea of reaching the best conclusion by fighting tooth and nail for the idea you prejudicially favor, and somehow magically the best idea will then win out in this fight. Unfortunately, it is just prejudice that wins out, and reasonable opinion loses.

[Dolphin42]

Aemun:

I am not an ecologist nor solar expert. I rely on the opinions of experts to guide me in these areas. I was simply trying to ascertain whether or not your man was an expert.

We could get philosophical about the meaning of 'proof', as this is a philosophy forum - but I suggest we get our first questions out of the way. So I refer you to my previous post.

What publication did he publish his ideas in? Have there been counter arguments? How much research have you done in this area?

I very much like this and your previous post. I think they are entirely the right kind of measured response to the kinds of meaningless assertions of which the OP of this thread is an example. Climate change is one of those interesting subjects which you would think, on the face of it, would be simply about scientific evidence but which strangely becomes a blank canvas onto which people paint their political views.

I am a reasonably well educated member of a reasonably advanced society, but I still do not have the expert knowledge to know the extent to which man-made climate change is a real threat. I suspect that is true of almost everybody else in my society too. Yet there are very few people who don't have a strong opinion on that subject one way or the other. And those opinions tend to be based on their personal political views.

Strange.

[Xris]

But you are refusing to accept that this guy is a fraud and works for an oil company. The Earth is warming and we are using fossil fuel at an alarming rate, so what is your point? The only opposition to the scientific facts are from self interested groups such as the oil companies this guy represents. We are experiencing enormous changes in weather patterns. The arctic is melting and what do we hear? It is a communist plot.

[Aemun]

Yeah, as soon as I started doing just a little bit of research on Darwinx's coalition, I found that they had spurious funding, that they published through a dodgy publication and their arguments fulfilled most of the criteria of simply clouding the water without actually adding to the debate. It is not a surprise they did not receive an answer - they have no credibility.

Experts may not always be right but when you have a majority of experts telling you something it is called a 'scientific consensus'. That is what we have. And we are not talking about something trivial here, we are talking about the erosion of the ecosytem and ultimately the possible extinction of our species.

I think if we had to order things in terms of importance, the ecosphere should come before the economy. Who's gonna buy oil if there are no people to drill for it?

The smoking and lung cancer debate just about sums up the level of the debate going on here but unfortunately for the person who initially made the post, the notion goes for people who believe in anthropogenic climate change. All this majority of experts in the field may be wrong but is it really worth the risk to ignore them?

Philosophy question, say we have 90% of experts say they believe that we are causing climate change - what predicted amount of human deaths would make it worth ignoring? A billion? 3 billion? 500 million?

-- Updated August 15th, 2013, 9:04 am to add the following --

"Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled."

Great opening line, the same could no doubt be said about economics,neuroscience, quantum physics or astronomy or probably a host of other subjects.

Love this muddying of the water. 'Negative discovery' - is this term a real scientific term or a phrase used by spin doctors? - ask yourself that.

[Alias]

Even if you can shelve the question of unseasonable and extreme weather patterns, and treat each bigger, more destructive flood, hurricane and grass-fire as an anomaly (After the federal government coughs up the $millions in repair, everything goes back to normal.... and when the next one hits, we'll be astonished all over again.), the use of fossil fuel carries undeniable negative consequences.

Unless oil-spills and plastic-garbage islands can be attributed to sun-spot activity?