Climate change is a fraud

[DarwinX]

(Nested quote removed.)


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.

By "reasonable opinion" I bet you are referring to "your own opinion".

[Alias]

That, plus all the other sane, reasonable, well-informed people.

I realize that still leaves us in the minority....

[DarwinX]

That, plus all the other sane, reasonable, well-informed people.

I realize that still leaves us in the minority....

It is just an example of Christian like fanaticism. It has no logical base and its proponents always dodge and weave any serious criticism.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)



It is just an example of Christian like fanaticism. It has no logical base and its proponents always dodge and weave any serious criticism.

Serious criticism. Whats serious about a guy who has been found to be lying and works for the oil business.

[Altaire]

The climate is always changing. There is a balance between calm nature and chaotic. We are in a calm state right now. We can not assume that our contribution to global gasses has no effect. But its really moot now. Point of no return. Has been here for awhile. Adaptation is the way now. And yes, we really messed things up. The science of ice cores and atmospheric gasses, algae growth etc. have proven that. Enough for me anyway.

Thanks, Guy

[DarwinX]

That, plus all the other sane, reasonable, well-informed people.

I realize that still leaves us in the minority....

You admit that you don't know much about the subject but rely on scientists who are experts to inform you. Now, you claim that you are well informed but until you do your own research you will be in the dark on this issue.

Note - Scientists have many hidden agendas to protect. They have to make a living by creating artificial disasters which they can fix for us. If they can't fool the government and general population into thinking that scientists are important and necessary, then, their science grants will quickly dry up and they will be out of work. Thus, science is an over-rated profession which is full of shonky operators and charlatans. Although we may owe much to science for our current lifestyle, there are other more sinister aspects to science which have been overlooked by over optimistic and gullible individuals.

[Newme]

By "reasonable opinion" I bet you are referring to "your own opinion".

^ Post of the day! Beautiful, Darwinx!

Even if I didn't agree with you, Darwin, I'd still love that post! But I do agree with you & am glad to know someone else realizes this BILLION DOLLARS climate change nonsense for what it is!

"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 •2009-2005: 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

[Aemun]

I thought that the fact global warming hasn't happened since 1998 was a myth. That's what I read in New Scientist.

The rest are just the same arguments we've been going over rehashed.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:30 pm to add the following --

No ones been denying you can't find a wealth of arguments online against global warming. We just want to see one from a respectable source. Peer reviewed if at all possible. Until then we'll remain climate sceptic sceptical.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:43 pm to add the following --

... And again, just a miniscule amount of research into the sources starts throwing doubt on them.

Same old story. People paid to muddy the water. The more you look the more you think we as a species are just not gonna survive this. Too busy worrying about our wallets.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:47 pm to add the following --

I real worry about the people who are paid to allocate funding to bodies with the specific intent of making anthropogenic global warming look like a hoax. You would endanger your species for an extra yacht or plane or whatever else their bonuses get them. I couldn't sleep at night, absolutely no way.

[Alias]

You admit that you don't know much about the subject but rely on scientists who are experts to inform you. Now, you claim that you are well informed but until you do your own research you will be in the dark on this issue.

None of the above.

Note - Scientists have many hidden agendas to protect.

Most people may have agendas, hidden or overt, to protect. And...?

=They have to make a living by creating artificial disasters which they can fix for us.

Scientists are employed to create computer programs to spy on our communications, instruments to diagnose illness, pills to grow hair and dissolve fat, spacecraft to take pictures of planets, biological weapons, financial scams, counting stuff and finding things and blowing **** up. They create machines to make money for their bosses. They create chemicals to make money for their bosses. They create whatever the bosses require.

If they can't fool the government and general population into thinking that scientists are important and necessary,

I'd like to see you go 24 hours without using any product of science.

[DarwinX]

I thought that the fact global warming hasn't happened since 1998 was a myth. That's what I read in New Scientist.

The rest are just the same arguments we've been going over rehashed.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:30 pm to add the following --

No ones been denying you can't find a wealth of arguments online against global warming. We just want to see one from a respectable source. Peer reviewed if at all possible. Until then we'll remain climate sceptic sceptical.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:43 pm to add the following --

... And again, just a miniscule amount of research into the sources starts throwing doubt on them.

Same old story. People paid to muddy the water. The more you look the more you think we as a species are just not gonna survive this. Too busy worrying about our wallets.

-- Updated August 16th, 2013, 8:47 pm to add the following --

I real worry about the people who are paid to allocate funding to bodies with the specific intent of making anthropogenic global warming look like a hoax. You would endanger your species for an extra yacht or plane or whatever else their bonuses get them. I couldn't sleep at night, absolutely no way.

The peer review system is designed to protect a corrupt science community from scrutiny. If you rely solely on the peer review system for your information, you will never know what is really going on in the world. The world is full of illusion and false roads leading to nowhere. The ruling classes decide what the general public should and shouldn't know. It is only a small select group of individuals who take the time to look behind the curtain, who will know what is really going on in the world. If you choose to let others decide things for you, you will always be in the dark. Knowledge requires effort and time. Ignorance requires no effort, and is a path taken by most people.

[Xris]

You give us one corrupt scientist to support your view and nothing else.If there is to be an honest debate then give a credible reference to start with, not some fraud employed by the oil industry.

[Aemun]

"The peer review system is designed to protect a corrupt science community from scrutiny."

Start of a new thread, anyone game? I don't honestly think you can debate with some one who will not accept any standard other than their own as the basis of fact. Do you?

I suggest anyone who is considering writing anything else in regards to this topic read the above quote and reconsider if it is really worth their time and effort. So I could do my own experiment and he could just say I have my own corrupt agenda. It really is impossible. I'm stuck. The peer review system is actually a standard of this forum so I really don't know why this person is here.

[DarwinX]

"The peer review system is designed to protect a corrupt science community from scrutiny."

Start of a new thread, anyone game? I don't honestly think you can debate with some one who will not accept any standard other than their own as the basis of fact. Do you?

I suggest anyone who is considering writing anything else in regards to this topic read the above quote and reconsider if it is really worth their time and effort. So I could do my own experiment and he could just say I have my own corrupt agenda. It really is impossible. I'm stuck. The peer review system is actually a standard of this forum so I really don't know why this person is here.

I can't remember seeing any statements "that the peer review system was the standard of this forum"? On which page did you see it?

Is this part of your illusion?

Here is a list of 31,487 scientists that disagree with anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Note: Still waiting for you to answer post number 3.

[Xris]

(Nested quote removed.)


I can't remember seeing any statements "that the peer review system was the standard of this forum"? On which page did you see it?

Is this part of your illusion?

Here is a list of 31,487 scientists that disagree with anthropogenic climate change.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

You are dragging up a list that has been conclusively proven to be a load of crap. Some don't exist, some are not scientists and many have never disagreed with climate change. This is typical of the deniers. When scientific facts do not conform lies and deceit become the norm. Give us a proven scientific study from reputable academic background that seriously questions global warming.

[Aemun]

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