Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Viros Debate Here

Rate this topic


Juxtys
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think my confusion stems from not understanding what things would not fall under this concept.
Probably nothing. BTW I think the notion of "natural balance" is useless exactly because it doesn't clearly identify anything that needs to be identified. "Natural balance" can't be distinguished from "Unnatural balance" and there is no contrast between balance versus imbalance. It's a word-construction that you can put together having in mind the idea of an equation, and equations are quite important in describing the universe. I think maybe the idea of "balance" presupposes "system", so that you can't talk about the balance of my chair, a tree in Spain, and Alpha Centauri.

I don't think that we're talking about a real concept, we're talking about an expression which points nebulously to the idea that the state of e.g. the Earth is describable in terms of lots of interactions of things on the Earth, which can even vary over time. Many aspects of nature affect the Earth, such as the sun, the number of horses, spiders, men, indeed all aspects of nature. It seems to me that the expression points to the hope of being able to relate the facts of Earth to equations like the Law of Gravity, Charles' Law, Boyle's Law, laws of thermodynamics and so on. Each of these equations implies "balance".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What don't you people understand about the fact that we, as a species, are KILLING the earth.

There are no "facts" that prove we are "killing the Earth". This is a derivative argument of Resource Economics that is embraced at the heart of the Environmentalist movement. Here's a fact that disproves what you just said: E=mc2.

Now...what is it about THAT fact that YOU don't understand that we, as a species, are not "killing the Earth"?

And no, environmentalists are not demanding that we put the welfare of plants and sea otters before the needs of an ever-progressing society, They are demanding that we fucking THINK, give a little scope to our actions.

B.S. Earth First! EXPLICITLY demands that we do exactly that. And if we don't, they destroy an individual's (or Corporation's) private property. They were created by inspiration from people like Rachel Carson. You would never see the Audubon Society do the types of things these folks do, but they were born of the same ideology: Holistic Biology and Resource Economics.

Not every environmentalist is a crazy loon, but the ideology itself IS looney.

It's the same as any other religion. You have those who are fundamentalist and then those who have adopted reason (at least to some extent) over their faith.

No one is asking people to revert back to the dark ages.

Maybe not explicitly, but that is what is implied. From Al Gore's never ending crusade the save the planet from Global warming to our political leader's calls for "conservation", to the subsidizing of ethanol and other sources of "renewable energy"...to eco-terrorist groups like Earth First!. Actually, I think Earth First! is explicit in their hatred of human life and openly says that it wants to halt technology and progress if it means that the planet can be "saved".

Do yourself a favor, go borrow or buy the book Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns...and read over www.environmentalism.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Earth survive humanity? Yep. I can honestly say I cannot see mankind doing -anything- that will destroy the earth. Even launching a barrage of nuclear missiles and blanketing the crust in radiation will not destroy the earth, and natural things such as plants and animals will survive. Not all of them, but hey, action -> reaction. Even if all life on Earth ceased immediately, it would begin again, as it did before. Earth is fine, it is not angry at us. Do I think it is a good idea to cause mass extinctions? No, probably not. We are getting tons of health improvements based on research into animals and plants, and while I agree that eating spinach or a mint leaf isn't going to cure your cancer, some herbs and plants do have components which may be used in such a process in the future. On the other hand, human progress should not be stymied in the interest of preserving 'the environment.'

Human progress should -include- preserving ecosystems. Ecological preserves could make -tons- of money as resorts and vacation destinations, -especially- as people populate the planet. Contrary to what Wall-E is trying to tell you, it's going to take a -long- time before even the most reckless polluting tendencies turn the Earth into a wasteland. But the larger point is, we aren't even using such practices. Global markets in educated countries have proven that people will buy green happily. Even for selfish reasions, I feel better buying the shower cleaner that says 'made from plant stuff' over a harsh odorous chemical.

The original poster did get something right in that it is in modern companies' best interest to work on polluting less. The reason I think some people are so resistant to that ideal is precisely because those practices are enforced by the government. In a lassiez-faire Capitalism, an educated buyer with an interest in ecology will buy 'greener' products. This will encourage companies to produce using 'greener' practices.

There also seems to be some debate on power. Here is my stance on the energy problems (if you can call them problems). Is it in our interest to find renewable sources of energy? Yep, that'd be pretty nice. Is it in our interest to COMPLETELY HALT or even reduce usage of 'more polluting' sources of energy such as coal and oil BEFORE we have such a source of energy, that can be viably marketed to a large group of individuals? Nope. Makes no sense. I don't think we should use foreign oil, and I don't think setting up drilling platforms in alaska will kill as many polar bears as some environmentalists want you to believe. I think of an oil spill this way: You have a machine that dispenses gatorade for you, so that when you run every day, you can fill up your bottle with gatorade to get the most power (sugar and electrolytes) to be able to run without dehydrating and feel better. Now, left unchecked, this machine is so new that there is a chance that it may explode, or spill gatorade all over the place. Do you say 'F*ck it, I'll just dehydrate and die' or do you work on creating safety prevention systems, and perfect means of containing the damage should it occur? I choose the latter.

I realize my metaphor has holes, but it successfully describes my stance as someone who is interested in ecological preservation -and- a capitalist. We need to use oil until we find something better, we currently have no evidence that we are actually -running out- of oil to use, so there is no reason to ration its usage at all.

As for coal, I don't believe carbon dioxide is harmful to the natural environment, as it is a byproduct of every living animal on this planet. I think the 'ozone' and its depletion is a myth, and global warming is a symptom of a cyclical geologic change that has occured since Earth began and will continue to occur, and may be caused by cosmic forces, as the caps of Mars are also melting. (we are not mining coal on Mars.) Coal is however, smelly, and having a coal refinery near your house, probably won't be too good for your lungs. There is a free market solution to this and -any- problem a modern, educated, civilized society may face. Government does not need to be involved, to say so is to agree with Hobbes that man cannot govern himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth has a natural balance and we can't live like we don't do anything to it. We must act as we are a part of it, not the other way around. If birth regulations would exist in whole world, the problem wouldn't be so big. If in the future people woun't turn into greedy bastards who think about only their welfare and screw how their children and grandchildren will live, then there clearly isn't any good future for humankind.

<=== that way for the Marxist forums. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not every environmentalist is a crazy loon, but the ideology itself IS looney.

It's the same as any other religion. You have those who are fundamentalist and then those who have adopted reason (at least to some extent) over their faith.

What ideology? What connection is there between environmentalists who believe that the Earth have value in itself which takes precedence over human life, and scientists who honestly believe that the available evidence shows that current human modes of living are going to result in catastrophe somewhere in the near future? Theres no underlying shared belief system here, and trying to group these people under the same label seems almost dishonest - one may be labelled as a commitment to an 'anti-human' ideology, but the other is an attempt at a value-free position based on the scientific analysis of data. Climate scientists may turn out to be right or wrong, but trying to smear them as being 'anti-human' or brainwashed by some inherently irrational belief system is just silly.

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What connection is there between environmentalists who believe that the Earth have value in itself which takes precedence over human life, and scientists who honestly believe that the available evidence shows that current human modes of living are going to result in catastrophe somewhere in the near future?

There is no evidence that shows this, so the thing they have in common is either dishonesty or ignorance. And these dishonest or ignorant "scientists" are the ones providing what is seen as legitimate support to the man-haters who wouldn't have a leg to stand on otherwise.

Theres no underlying shared belief system here, and trying to group these people under the same label seems almost dishonest - one may be labelled as a commitment to an 'anti-human' ideology, but the other is an attempt at a value-free position based on the scientific analysis of data. Climate scientists may turn out to be right or wrong, but trying to smear them as being 'anti-human' or brainwashed by some inherently irrational belief system is just silly.

Oh I think you are being naive, there is no honest way for such a large group of supposed professionals to misinterpret the data so consistently. I would bet that a large proportion of these hacks share the ideology of the ludites and most of the rest are either ignoramuses or tax dollar leeches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ideology? What connection is there between environmentalists who believe that the Earth have value in itself which takes precedence over human life, and scientists who honestly believe that the available evidence shows that current human modes of living are going to result in catastrophe somewhere in the near future? Theres no underlying shared belief system here, and trying to group these people under the same label seems almost dishonest - one may be labelled as a commitment to an 'anti-human' ideology, but the other is an attempt at a value-free position based on the scientific analysis of data. Climate scientists may turn out to be right or wrong, but trying to smear them as being 'anti-human' or brainwashed by some inherently irrational belief system is just silly.

When I see respected and highly credentialed Global Warming advocates like Dr. James Hansen (a NASA scientist and professor at Columbia University) do things as disgusting as testifying in favor of the English Greenpeace thugs who recently vandalized a power plant, I have serious doubts about the honesty of these individuals. There is clearly an underlying shared belief system among these people and it's irrational to ignore that fact.

http://world.the-environmentalist.org/2008...snorth-six.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I think you are being naive, there is no honest way for such a large group of supposed professionals to misinterpret the data so consistently. I would bet that a large proportion of these hacks share the ideology of the ludites and most of the rest are either ignoramuses or tax dollar leeches.

The burden is on you to provide evidence for such a widespread conspiracy, a conspiracy so far-reaching that it transcends borders and languages. You would have to believe that it would be the norm, not the exception, for scientists to doctor their own research to predetermined conclusions, and no one breaks the wall of silence. And for what gain? Most climate scientists don't make a lot of money. On the other hand, getting into the GW skeptic business can be quite profitable. Recently a survey found 84 percent of US climate scientists believe human activity contributes to global warming. That's a significant number of scientists to accuse of fraud.

Don't you think if there was any real evidence for such a conspiracy someone would have filed a lawsuit by now, and present this fraud in court? Surely Exxon would bankroll it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden is on you to provide evidence for such a widespread conspiracy, a conspiracy so far-reaching that it transcends borders and languages.

It doesn't take a conspiracy for people around the world to believe the same fallacy. There are a lot of people, for example, who believe that Jesus was the son of God and got resurrected three days after he died. Lots of respectable people, too.

You would have to believe that it would be the norm, not the exception, for scientists to doctor their own research to predetermined conclusions, and no one breaks the wall of silence.

There are many scientists speaking out, and you know it. And they do so in spite of the enormous threat it means to their careers.

And for what gain? Most climate scientists don't make a lot of money.

Nor do most preachers.

On the other hand, getting into the GW skeptic business can be quite profitable.

In what way? And how much do I need to invest? I've always wanted to be rich!

Recently a survey found 84 percent of US climate scientists believe human activity contributes to global warming.

And I just conducted a survey that found 95% of the people reading your post find it a bunch of hooey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden is on you to provide evidence for such a widespread conspiracy, a conspiracy so far-reaching that it transcends borders and languages. You would have to believe that it would be the norm, not the exception, for scientists to doctor their own research to predetermined conclusions, and no one breaks the wall of silence. And for what gain? Most climate scientists don't make a lot of money. On the other hand, getting into the GW skeptic business can be quite profitable. Recently a survey found 84 percent of US climate scientists believe human activity contributes to global warming. That's a significant number of scientists to accuse of fraud.

Don't you think if there was any real evidence for such a conspiracy someone would have filed a lawsuit by now, and present this fraud in court? Surely Exxon would bankroll it.

Sometimes I think these "consensus" arguments are a joke...sometimes I think they constitute gross negligence...sometimes I think they are some kind of perverse intellectual dishonesty.

It's easy to find counterbalancing points:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ty.SenateReport

Now...the nice thing about science is that it doesn't require a consensus, and REAL scientists know that. Only one individual needs to be correct for the scientific theory to be valid. Just one.

Fortunately, we are provided ample common sense evidence that man-made Global Warming is not what it is made out to be. For example, part of the popular "Globull Warming" theory uses General Circulation Models which are based off of the same GCMs that get our weekly weather forecast wrong twice a week :o if you can't see the problem with using these models for long-term forecasting, we have another problem on our hands.

Unfortunately, there are enough people who don't understand how to discern truth from falsehood and enough dishonest twits that take advantage of that. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the issue of GW, consensus counts for something - not as a pooling of 'Yes's and 'No's, but as a matter of the scale of such a study. To study such a hypothesis as global warming, or cooling, or global, trend-effective climate change of any kind, you need a co-ordinated group of scientists working around the world, using a large variety of different measurements, calibrated and corrected for a thousand different effects and counter-effects, some at sea level, above, it below it, in the various different atmospheric levels... to put it shortly, to prove global warming requires a global study. In that case, one does need a consensus, that in the vast majority of fields, a corrolating trend has been found that not only is there a significant definite trend towards a certain climactic condition, but that this condition has a specific, identifiable cause.

The reality of the situation is that no such consensus exists, and that the IPCC flat out ignores dissent and disagreement to further its own political goals. When there is doubt and skepticism about a study, or when two studies contradict one another, or when there needs to be further study done or a counter-effect needs to counted for - all of this gets counted as 'a point that could be raised, but is dealt with later in the report' and then never actually dealt with, later in the report.

Furthermore, 'climate change', like God, is never-defined. There is no consensus on whether we have a general hot trend, a cool trend, a suspension of a usual meteorological phenomenon (such as the Atlantic jet stream), a shift towards a hot and cool trend, more rain, less rain, higher pressures or lower pressures.

Frankly, all that has ever been proven to me by all this global warming study is that the Earth is an incredibly complex machine - not just her biosystem, but all the billions upon billions of various things going on with the weather - not to mention the relation of all this to extra-terrestrial (read: the Sun, not E.T) effects. There is no consensus on what is happening or is going to happen in the near or later future.

All that seems to come out of these global studies is this: the Earth is changing; she always has done and will continue to do so. Man has had to adapt all the way through his history to these various changes. Some he has not been able to conquer, some he has; none of which have actually seen TEOTWAWKI. As someone aptly put it: all predictions of a global apocalypse have always been proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the issue of GW, consensus counts for something - not as a pooling of 'Yes's and 'No's, but as a matter of the scale of such a study. To study such a hypothesis as global warming, or cooling, or global, trend-effective climate change of any kind, you need a co-ordinated group of scientists working around the world, using a large variety of different measurements, calibrated and corrected for a thousand different effects and counter-effects, some at sea level, above, it below it, in the various different atmospheric levels... to put it shortly, to prove global warming requires a global study. In that case, one does need a consensus, that in the vast majority of fields, a corrolating trend has been found that not only is there a significant definite trend towards a certain climactic condition, but that this condition has a specific, identifiable cause.

The reality of the situation is that no such consensus exists, and that the IPCC flat out ignores dissent and disagreement to further its own political goals. When there is doubt and skepticism about a study, or when two studies contradict one another, or when there needs to be further study done or a counter-effect needs to counted for - all of this gets counted as 'a point that could be raised, but is dealt with later in the report' and then never actually dealt with, later in the report.

Furthermore, 'climate change', like God, is never-defined. There is no consensus on whether we have a general hot trend, a cool trend, a suspension of a usual meteorological phenomenon (such as the Atlantic jet stream), a shift towards a hot and cool trend, more rain, less rain, higher pressures or lower pressures.

Frankly, all that has ever been proven to me by all this global warming study is that the Earth is an incredibly complex machine - not just her biosystem, but all the billions upon billions of various things going on with the weather - not to mention the relation of all this to extra-terrestrial (read: the Sun, not E.T) effects. There is no consensus on what is happening or is going to happen in the near or later future.

All that seems to come out of these global studies is this: the Earth is changing; she always has done and will continue to do so. Man has had to adapt all the way through his history to these various changes. Some he has not been able to conquer, some he has; none of which have actually seen TEOTWAWKI. As someone aptly put it: all predictions of a global apocalypse have always been proven wrong.

Perhaps I should have put "the popular vision of what a consensus means". Because, the "debate" by most of the folks I know goes something like this: "X number of scientists say that man is causing Global Warming. There is a consensus in the scientific community to prove that it is true. Therefore, Global Warming is a threat and we must do something about it".

In other words, it's not the science that is being asked to be accepted as proof, it's the alleged consensus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

windyfellow

<=== that way for the Marxist forums. smile.gif

I am not a marxist. My parents lived in the USSR, so I know what marxism leads to.

So does enviromentalists. People in this forum gave me the neccesary kick and I thank them for that.

Lithuania would have had a three times more powerful Nuclear baby than it has now.

If one remaining units satisfies 70 percent of our energy demands, all free of them would have produced two times the energy we needed. Thanks to enviromentalists, we don't have such a luxury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take a conspiracy for people around the world to believe the same fallacy.

I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that contradicts AGW theory that hasn't been debunked on www.realclimate.org. or elsewhere. What's stupefying is the amount of misinformation GW skeptics throw out there that gets debunked, but they blithely continue on, never once acknowledging the misinformation they were peddling just got shot to pieces.

Don't get me wrong, there are good scientists I'm sure who disagree with the consensus opinion for valid reasons and I respect them. There are few even among this group who would say the evidence hasn't gotten much stronger.

There are many scientists speaking out, and you know it. And they do so in spite of the enormous threat it means to their careers.

Oh yes, like all those medical doctors who signed that petition against GW to give it the veneer of credible authority, because they too are "scientists."

Sometimes I think these "consensus" arguments are a joke...sometimes I think they constitute gross negligence...sometimes I think they are some kind of perverse intellectual dishonesty.

It's easy to find counterbalancing points:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ty.SenateReport

I don't think you want to post anything from Senator Inhofe as some kind of scientific refutation. This man is a Creationist and thinks dinosaurs only died out after Noah's flood a few thousand years ago. But you reinforce my point. The man is a complete lunatic and any Objectivist should recognize this to be true, yet here you hold it up as some sort of evidence to be taken seriously.

Fortunately, we are provided ample common sense evidence that man-made Global Warming is not what it is made out to be. For example, part of the popular "Globull Warming" theory uses General Circulation Models which are based off of the same GCMs that get our weekly weather forecast wrong twice a week :lol: if you can't see the problem with using these models for long-term forecasting, we have another problem on our hands.

The use of the term "common sense" always sends up a red flag with me. It's like saying you shouldn't have to think too much, because all truths are so simple and self-evident. You speak of GCM's as if you have done extensive studying of them. Weather forecasting is an inexact science and is based on probabilities. And the weather forecasts are usually right. I believe the IPCC states that there is a 90 percent probability that man is affecting the climate. So they haven't stated that it is proven, only that it is statistically likely that it is happening.

And by the way GCM's are only one of a whole host of indicators for GW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that contradicts AGW theory that hasn't been debunked on www.realclimate.org. or elsewhere.

Well then you haven't been looking hard enough.

The single biggest piece of evidence that viros site, the organizing theory of what causes global warming has been thoroughly eliminated as a possibility: their assertion that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature. This assertion is completely false. All one need do is look at the viros own graphs to see that they have cause and effect reversed. It is the rise in temperature which causes a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.

Once this fallacy has been recognized the entire theory falls apart as their identification of the cause of GW is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, there are good scientists I'm sure who disagree with the consensus opinion for valid reasons and I respect them. There are few even among this group who would say the evidence hasn't gotten much stronger.

Not that I really care about the consensus opinion but I believe that consensus has changed and there are actually more scientists who now disagree with AGW than agree with it.

The fact is that the viros evidence has decreased to nearly zero as all of it has either been explained by real scientists or exposed as lies by researchers. Some of these liars have been exposed in court and others have admitted their mistakes and deceptions.

The use of the term "common sense" always sends up a red flag with me. It's like saying you shouldn't have to think too much, because all truths are so simple and self-evident.

Why? You would think with such a wide ranging theory, affecting so many aspects of life on earth that certain things would be evident just by looking.

Two simple pieces of evidence that I knew about in the 80's told me that this AGW was probably bunk. First, if CO2 is causing GW then where does most of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere come from? The vast majority comes from the earth itself and most of the rest comes from other animals. Man contributes less than one percent. Second, about 12,000 years ago the polar ice caps extended as far south as NYC. There was no industrial society which caused the glacial recession after the last ice age.

Weather forecasting is an inexact science and is based on probabilities.

Yes and the viros "science" is so inexact that they are even able to attribute global cooling to global warming.

I believe the IPCC states [...]

You realize that these people aren't scientists right?

And by the way GCM's are only one of a whole host of indicators for GW.

I don't know much about these but I don't believe that they are "indicators". I believe they models used to predict GW given a certain theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, if CO2 is causing GW then where does most of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere come from? The vast majority comes from the earth itself and most of the rest comes from other animals. Man contributes less than one percent.

Do you really think that a climatologist confronted with this "fact", that the human net contribution to the atmospheric CO2-concentraion is less than 1%, wouldn't have an answer to it? If your objection is true, then it would be a very powerful argument against AGW that could be understood by a 5-year old. The implication is that those scientists who believe in AGW despite of your objection must be either stupid, massively uninformed about their own area of study or they must be part of an international conspiracy where they are told to avoid or deny the existence of this powerful "fact". But why would you expect any of this?

There is also the possibilty that If you did confront a climatologist with this devestating "fact", maybe he would give you an answer that would make you realise that your objection is silly. And indeed he would. The interesting question is why you haven't bothered to seek out his answer. This is true of all your objections, they are in fact quite lame, which you would know if you took some time to study the other side. In the sense your objections are true, they consist of facts well known to every climatologist, and they are all taken into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddy, do you know any Climatologists or are you assuming everything you just said is true out of faith in those scientists?

Why is it that people who believe in MGW come here and make baseless assertions on things they heard or read without citing them? You can easily try to derail counter-citings but provide few of your own.

My favorite argument for MGW is 'Haven't you noticed it getting hotter?'

As far as global conspiracies involving people across language barriers, you are assuming that a conspiracy requires contact with other people. Any corrupt scientist worth his unearned salt knows that his money comes from people being interested in his area of work. Since the MGW craze companies across the world have adopted slogans, practices, and commercials to indicate their participation in Al Gore's sham. They can effectively now charge whatever they like for 'cleaner' this 'greener' that, and if McCain's Cap and Trade bill passes, they'll get government breaks for doing it as well. There is more money to be made for the scientists lying and saying it's definitely manmade, than to oppose it. All one must do is follow the money trail.

Can millions of people agree on something completely false? That is one of the most basic concepts of Objectivism, my friends. That essentially consensus means nothing, that one man has the ability to discover and learn reality on his own without help, and that most people who are not Objectivists completely refuse to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting question is why you haven't bothered to seek out his answer.

I too have noticed that so many skeptics pose very elementary objections to the theory of man-made GW without even having the intellectual curiosity to investigate on their own what a climatologist would say in response. It's like they're afraid of testing their own level of understanding by approaching the subject honestly from every side. Mark K's assertions about CO2 forcing give me the impression he hasn't followed the science on global warming since the 1980's. Everyone who cares to find out knows that scientists universally acknowledge CO2's relation to temperature change is indirect but still relative.

And Jackethan's post is actually quite disturbing in its level of paranoia of worldwide conspiracy. It's one thing thinking that scientists have gotten into a mass groupthink on the science of GW, but to actually assert that its an intentional manipulation by not only these scientists, but now also captains of industry, is quite the leap of imagination.

Finally, comparing belief in religion to a theory in science disrespects science as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is one of the most basic concepts of Objectivism, my friends. That essentially consensus means nothing, that one man has the ability to discover and learn reality on his own without help, and that most people who are not Objectivists completely refuse to do so.

What I say is this: the objection that the man-made contribution to the net increase of atmospehric CO2 is less than 1 % is, objectively, a joke; the correct figure is slightly higher, namely 100%. The 1% figure is the human addition in relation to the natural exchange between the earth and the atmosphere, but this exchange is a zero sum exchange and countributes nothing to the net increase (over the year). In the sense that the 1% figure is true, it has no implications for AGW, it's an argument that sounds powerful but is really worthless, and you would know it was worthless if you had taken the time to investigate what a climatolgist confronted with this fact would answer. Wouldn't that also be the objective approach, that driven by curiosity you would seek out the counterarguments from the other side until it was either obvious who was right or until you couldn't decide? This simple approach would weed out silly arguments like the one above (an argument that would be destroyed in the first round), and it requires no more than that you are able and willing to challange your preconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

The remark above was made by none other than John Coleman, the FOUNDER OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL. But what the hell would the FOUNDER OF THE WEATHER CHANNEL know about anything related to WEATHER?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/co...global_warming/

For the complete doc,

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many ages ago the Catholic church had a claim, their claim was that the universe revolves around the Earth, including the Sun. Astronomers agreed with this postulation, and this was widely accepted as the truth. A scientist named Galilieo made the theory that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun. He dared to challenge the accepted, and the church was quick to try and silence him, as this represented a hole in the dogma. This would mean that it is possible that the Church can be wrong, that man can discover things about the universe on his own, and thus, why would anyone need the church?

Now, the Environmentalist church has a claim that it's our fault that the Earth is getting hotter. Some scientists are coming out and saying 'well hold on, the evidence needs to support this theory'. But the wheels are already spinning. People are buying hybrid cars, the government is spending billions on going 'green', people's moral worth is measured inverse to their carbon footprint, and Al Gore tells you 'you don't need to cut back, so long as you buy some trees in a rainforest.' Buy some trees, spend money on environmentalism. The one thing that Manmade Global Warming has accomplished is that the average joe will spend extra money on Environmentalism out of guilt, guilt because he drives his car to work, guilt because he takes a bag full of trash to the dumpster every day. Environmentalism is furthered by propagating this myth, and skeptical scientists threaten this growth. So, we get the same reaction. Anyone who dissents shall be burned, in the name of our New Almighty God, Global Warming.

The Earth gets hot sometimes and cold other times, this is proven by Geologic history, 12,000 years ago there was an ice age, and when it ended forests grew in places that had been covered in ice. Since then they have been covered by glaciers once more, and now the ice is melting again, but THIS TIME IT'S OUR FAULT.

If the scientists take all this data into account, where is the answer? What do they say to that? Don't tell me, 'go ask a Climatologist' Go ask one yourself, come here, and give me a reasonable response to why we know it's happened before, but this time we're the cause. If you can give me a reasonable response, then maybe I will be curious and find out some more, until then all you have done is prove you're another zealous acolyte of the Global Warming Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good essay:

Environmentalism as Religion

-------------

Notice how both environmentalism and religion deal in guilt, fear and redemption. In both cases, the idea is to sell forgiveness to sinners. In medieval Europe, clergy made money through the sale of what they called indulgences. These were certificates of forgiveness sold to sinners as an alternative to eternal damnation. The beauty of it was that eternal damnation was promoted by the same people who sold the indulgences. Deja Vu, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...