• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Global Environmental protection-fact /fiction or foolish?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Algona

Well-Known Member
spnnr, yo didn't say what your answer to your question was. Throw it out and let's chew on it a bit?
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Oh where to begin to chronicle the deliberate dishonesty of the academicians and governments who foist this AGW claptrap on the ignorant.

Ever hear of East Anglia University and "hide the decline"? No? Not surprised a bit as you strike me as someone who doesn't take having his precious convictions challenged by fact.

Ever hear of a peer-reviewed climate change article that relied on a single article- proven false- that the Himalayan glaciers were all melting to further AGW theory? No? You really need to get out of your bubble more often.

Ever hear of the 'Nobel laurate' Michael Mann- creator of the infamous (and discredited) "hockey stick" graph of climate change? He deliberately used fudged data and ignored data that inconveniently disproved his contention and drew up a graph that showed atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature rise in tandem...only that wasn't true. CO2 levels did rise...but temperature remained flat. Or even occasionally decreased. Mann ignored that data entirely.

Are you aware that "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore's AGW fantasy, was found by a British judge to have so many factual errors and exaggerations that he ordered a disclaimer be added to any showing pointing out the lies? Didn't know that one either? I'm shocked....not.

It is said that the modern environmental movement is populated largely by the discredited and failed socialist movement. Having ruined every country that embraced- usually at the point of a gun- socialist/communist economic/governmental systems, the socialists had to find another movement with just the slightest tinge of legitimacy in order to advance socialist theory. Global warming provided just that slightly legitimate tool.

We see that Progressive politicians in New York are in the process of seeing if the laws used to prosecute tobacco companies might also be used to prosecute fossil fuel companies, and the NY AG is attempting to subpoena any and all communications between scientists who dispute AGW and their (supposed) backers in the fossil fuel industry. Progressives hail this as a proper exercise of oversight.

President Trump has called for the EPA- which is under the control of the executive branch of our government- to produce any and all communications between EPA bureaucrats and scientists who support AGW theory. Progressives howl that this is an abuse of power and silences dissent. Rank and blatant hypocrisy.

I note that weather reports ten days out tend to be accurate only about 60% of the time...and yet you believe that weather forecasts for 25, 50 even 75 years in the future are 100% accurate? Are you >THAT< gullible? It appears that you are.

If you dare to escape your confirmation bias bubble, here are a couple of excellent websites which challenge, very strongly, AGW theory:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I yield to ignorant dishonest hypocritical garbage. At least I knew enough to write the above for my own amusement, knowing that trash would not read it and would mischaracterize it. Goodbye.
To this point, you've certainly spouted "ignorant dishonest hypocritical garbage".
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Mustapha00, since zotbot is a newcomer to the forums, there is a little latitude for understanding why they act like a spoiled rude angry adolescent breaking the rules. You've been around long enough to know better.

Thanks for crapping more off topic spam in this thread.

And yeah, I know the rules also say not to post a response to rules breaking, but the mods seem to be in no hurry to enforce the off topic violations in this thread.
 

DeletedUser28015

Oh where to begin to chronicle the deliberate dishonesty of the academicians and governments who foist this AGW claptrap on the ignorant.

Ever hear of East Anglia University and "hide the decline"?

Yes, and I know what it means, which deniers like you don't because you never ever read any science, only denier web sites like the ones you posted. ClimateDepot is run by Marc Morano, a far right ideologue and industry lobbyist who was Rush Limbaugh's reporter and producer and helped tobacco companies deny that tobacco causes cancer. You swallow the rubbish at those denier sites, not because they are "excellent", but because they say what you want to hear. You talk about me being in a bubble, but I have probably spent more time reading your sites than you have, plus Joanne Nova, Judith Curry, and a host of others. You, OTOH, spend no time reading actual climate science.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.hidethedecline.asp
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15538845

Ever hear of a peer-reviewed climate change article that relied on a single article- proven false- that the Himalayan glaciers were all melting to further AGW theory? No? You really need to get out of your bubble more often.

What ignorant climate science deniers don't grasp is that climate scientists have heard all your talking points a thousand times. It is you, not we, who are in a bubble. Usually you folks can't even get your talking points right because you know nothing about the subject other than what you hear from other deniers in your game of telephone. It was not a "a peer-reviewed climate change article", it was one paragraph in the 2007 IPCC report, which among many many other things contained a statement that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 (they are all melting away, but not that quickly). The statement was not from a peer-reviewed article, but rather from a media interview with a climate scientist. The IPCC withdrew the statement, saying the claim was poorly substantiated and didn't meet the standards of evidence required by IPCC procedures. It was one mistake out of thousands upon thousands of valid points in a 3000 page report but climate science deniers, lacking any scruples, never mention any of the other points, just the one mistake, and they can't be bothered to even remotely get the details right.

Every single one of your points has been repeatedly refuted but you are unaware of and uninterested in the refutation. All you have is denier talking points, just as Creationists will ask "Ever heard of Piltdown Man?" or quote a passage out of context of Darwin saying how unprobable it is for an eye to evolve, or claiming that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or other ignorant rot. Climate science deniers use the exact same strategy ... and some of them are the same people, for instance Roy Spencer, who is a Young Earth Creationist. Climate science deniers will take everything Spencer says on faith because it agrees with their views, while dismissing the thousands of climate scientists who say what they don't want to hear.


I note that weather reports ten days out tend to be accurate only about 60% of the time...and yet you believe that weather forecasts for 25, 50 even 75 years in the future are 100% accurate? Are you >THAT< gullible? It appears that you are.

It should be, but isn't, remarkable, that climate science deniers so blatantly and obviously lie. I of course do not think that weather forecasts years in the future are 100% accurate and nothing I said suggests that, but you have no trouble saying that I do because you have no scruples, and because you are completely lacking in understanding of climate science. Your statement is akin to Ray Comfort asserting that people who believe in evolution think that dogs can turn into cats. Of course they don't think that, but it "appears" to Comfort that they do because of his complete misunderstanding of actual evolution.

The most basic fact about climate science is that weather is not climate. Anyone who mixes them up like that clearly knows zero climate science and has no interest in knowing any. We know that it's colder in Antarctica than in the Sahara, because of their different climates; we don't have to know anything about what their weather will be like next week to know that. Likewise, we know that it is generally hotter during the summer than the winter, without needing 100% accurate weather forecasts. Duh. Basic logic, which you completely fail at. And basic intellectual honesty, which you fail at even worse. But according to you, someone has to be gullible to think that we can expect summer to be warmer than winter, because weather forecasts aren't reliable. No, sorry, one has to be extremely gullible to swallow the absurd denier logic you're peddling.

Greenhouse gases slow the escape of heat from the planet's surface; with enough greenhouse gases, the net flow of energy into the earth's system is positive. That makes the globe slowly warm over time ... basic physics and logic. We don't need to know the fine details to understand this obvious point. Put a pot of water on a burner and the water will heat and eventually boil. The exact location of each bubble, which we cannot predict, is analogous to weather. The overall heating and eventual boiling of the water is analogous to climate. Understanding this is not being gullible, it's being intelligent, and intellectually honest. Climate science deniers completely fail at that, and so cannot be swayed by reason or facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser8152

So if you all want this to turn into another climate change thread, that is OK with me. But as noted, we already did one of those:
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/global-warming-is-a-hoax.8957/

Or you could, as has been suggested, assume for the sake of argument that global warming as portrayed is real, and discuss how that impacts questions of sovereignty. That would mean refraining from arguments both for and against.

ALSO, remember that the #1 Debate Forum rule is
Rule #1 --- RESPECT (No personal insults or ad hominems)

Too little awareness of that and I'll have to shut the thread down.
 

DeletedUser28015

That's fine, I'm done here, after clearly winning this "debate" ... which is not a real debate at all, any more than there's a real debate about whether evolution occurs or tobacco causes cancer or we landed on the moon or Obama (isn't) a Muslim.

And the other "debate" thread is pointless because very few participants have much knowledge or understanding of climate science, and the few who do, like Lemur, can make no headway against willful ignorance and denial ... for the most part it's just people tossing uninformed preconceptions at each other. There are numerous false assertions, readily debunked denier talking points about predictions in the 1970's of global cooling (this was a minority opinion that never had scientific support) or that "they" changed "global warming" to "climate change" (these are different things and scientists have always used both terms; the CC in IPCC, founded in 1988, refers to climate change; the shift in language was largely result of a memo from GOP operative Frank Luntz to the Bush administration -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/luntz.html) and very poor reasoning ... like this absurd notion that, because we can't predict next week's weather, we can't know that the earth's global temperature will increase; these are two totally different things. And the claims that "we just don't know" ... yes, random people posting on the internet don't know, just as they don't know the temperatures at which various metals melt or the distances to the planets, but that doesn't mean that these things are unknown; they aren't. We have direct readings from satellites of the amount of energy leaving the earth's system, and we can calculate the amount entering from the sun ... there is more energy coming in than going out ... this is simply a fact. And the comments are full of strawmen, like "the earth has been hotter before" and "there's been more CO2 before" ... these are true and no climate scientist denies it. But at those times, millions of years ago, there not only weren't any humans, but no human could have survived. And the rapidity of the increase of heat is destroying ocean ecosystems -- 93% of the energy goes into the oceans -- and is disrupting the plant/insect/bird balance at a rate far beyond what evolutionary adaptation can address. We aren't "destroying the earth", but we are destroying the delicate support system that has allowed human civilization to flourish over the last 12,000 years. This isn't a bunch of scientists raking in loot from government grants, it's a serious threat to our children and future generations.

Best of luck to them and all of us. Over and out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I'm perfectly fine leaving this thread as it is now, since the AGW hysteric has been so thoroughly discredited that even his own post contradicts what he said earlier.

A very wise man said, When you see someone committing (rhetorical) suicide, stand back and let them proceed. As that is what has happened to our hopeless AGW hysteric, I'll gladly stand aside.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Mustapha00, since zotbot is a newcomer to the forums, there is a little latitude for understanding why they act like a spoiled rude angry adolescent breaking the rules. You've been around long enough to know better.

Thanks for crapping more off topic spam in this thread.

And yeah, I know the rules also say not to post a response to rules breaking, but the mods seem to be in no hurry to enforce the off topic violations in this thread.

You know that I respond only in kind.

If someone disagrees with me and makes a cogent argument for the difference, I'll engage in the exact same way. But if someone is going to come here and spout utter nonsense, I will not stand idly by without responding. If someone goes personal, I won't start the fight but I will end it.

He crossed the line. He got slapped down. Hard. But he'll be the better for it in the long run.
 

DeletedUser28015

I'm perfectly fine leaving this thread as it is now, since the AGW hysteric has been so thoroughly discredited that even his own post contradicts what he said earlier.

This is a lie (actually there are at least four lies in that sentence). I did not contradict myself, but like Ray Comfort and his view of evolution, it might seem that way to someone so blindly ignorant of the subject at hand that they don't even understand the difference between weather and climate (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html), even after explaining it in terms that an eight year old could understand. And leaving the thread alone does not mean coming back here and calling me "hysteric", claiming that I've been "thoroughly discredited" (when nothing of the sort is evident), or claiming that I contradicted myself when I didn't. Leaving it alone means leaving it alone. Obviously neither of us is doing that, but I'm not the one lying and claiming that I did. The fact is that you can't touch my arguments so you just pretend that they've been "discredited", without ever actually offering anything remotely like a rebuttal.

You know that I respond only in kind.

We know that you don't tell the truth.

If someone disagrees with me and makes a cogent argument for the difference, I'll engage in the exact same way.

Obviously not true. You have not in fact addressed a single point I've made. Nor for that matter did you offer any "cogent argument" in the climate change debate thread, where your claims and arguments were demolished because they are so flimsy and ill-informed. Of course, being so ill-informed, you think you came out on top in that thread.

He crossed the line. He got slapped down. Hard.

You didn't lay a finger on me or my arguments, you silly thing. I'm a real person, not some spearfighter glyph in your fantasies of conquest. OTOH, all you offered was dishonest sputtering about me being in a bubble, which I shot down because I know your sources -- and everything else about climate science -- far far better than you do. You're completely out of your league. End of story. You have nothing intelligent or "cogent" to offer, so there's really little more for me to do here other than to lob your insults back at you, so consider all possible insults lobbed. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum, little one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algona

Well-Known Member
So if you all want this to turn into another climate change thread, that is OK with me.

Uh. Hmmm. What? The OP repeatedly asked nicely to stay on topic. I asked to stay on topic. Two people perform a threadjack. And not only do those two count as 'you all', but it's OK? Rules 2 and 8 don't apply anymore?
 

DeletedUser8152

No they still apply. But I'm not going to try to police the line between "debating the impact of climate change on sovereignty" and "debating the impact of climate change." Not paid enough!
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
No they still apply. But I'm not going to try to police the line between "debating the impact of climate change on sovereignty" and "debating the impact of climate change." Not paid enough!

Fair enough. In which case I abandon this thread to those who are determined to take over this thread for the purposes of espousing their fanaticism. I do reserve the right to mock them for their delightful foibles.
 

DeletedUser28015

There is much that deserves mockery here, but your aim is off .. e.g., one could mock the hypocrisy of calling people "fanatics" while blabbering with great certainty about rudeness and certainty.

Mustapha00, in his most sensible comment here, wrote "For the purpose of this discussion, I will stipulate that climate change is real and that humans are responsible for most of the change." Then spnnr hijacked his own discussion by writing "I agree , I do believe climate change is real -the other part of that sentence I am agnostic about." And you took it even further by writing "since we don't have a frigggin' idea what the heck is going on re weather / coming ice age./ global warming / climate change that maybe instead of spending trillions on doing stuff and making others do stuff, we should spend the money on understanding what the heck is going on?" -- there you made the answer to the initial question hinge on the answer to the global warming / climate change question, completely changing the subject, and now you whine about the change in subject. And your formulation is based on woeful ignorance -- we, in the sense of the collected wisdom of humanity as manifested by science and not ignorant internet keyboarders, do know what's going on. As for spending money on it, we've got people here whining about government grants (people who have no idea how the process works) that fund science so we can figure out "what the heck is going on". They should be happy that Trump is planning on killing all funding of climate science, not just grants to universities but even funding of NASA climate research. That's the road to making sure that everyone is just like you -- not having a clue what the heck is going on. But for now, you can know what's going on if you bother to read the scientific research.

As for me, I pointed out that Mustapha00 had never said that he believes climate change is real or that humans are responsible, so spnnr's "I agree" makes no sense, and I provided science-based links showing why agnosticism about humans as the cause is not warranted. spnnr dismissed these with a classic ad hominem fallacy, baselessly claiming that "those guys you linked to arent the best ppl to claim unbiased representation" (apparently, the only people who are unbiased are those who share spnnr's misconceptions and ignorance), and then Mustapha00 went completely off the rails. Yes, there's a great deal to mock here, but silly people displaying the Dunning-Kruger effect on the internet are a common occurrence. The real issue is the resulting great tragedy of all this ignorance and intellectual dishonesty: http://nofibs.com.au/heatwave-is-nothing-short-of-horrifying-says-climate-scientist-reports-takvera/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Algona

Well-Known Member
Seems like a fine place to start the mocking.

We know that you don't tell the truth.

Pot/kettle much? To wit:

Over and out.
I'm done here
Over and out.

It you can't be truthful about something simple that you can easily control, like not leaving this thread after repeatedly saying you would, why should anyone believe anything else you post or link?
 

DeletedUser28015

We know that you don't tell the truth.
Pot/kettle much?


Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is? Because you just committed one. And as in most cases of people resorting to tu quoque fallacies, the charge is not only logically irrelevant to the original claim, but the charge is factually bogus. My saying "over and out" or "goodbye" aren't claims at all, and my "I'm done here", while premature and thus false, is not on a par with the actual lies that I referred to, so while this pot is a little tarnished, the kettle is pitch black.

You wrote about mocking foibles, but you should turn your mockery toward your own, which are not at all "delightful" ... your appeal to fallacies, your pettiness and hypocrisy after claiming to "abandon the thread". You have no argument or the ability to present one, so you resort to silly games that you pretend discredit me, when they just reflect badly on you. Rather than address any substance of anything I have written, you resort to something that you imagine to be clever ... another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You have written more than once that no one knows what the heck is going on with the climate ... I responded substantively that your own ignorance of what is going on is not indicative of the sum total of human knowledge. An honest person would address that point. You do something different. But I compliment you on a little bit of variety ... dismissing me by calling me "fanatical" was getting a little stale (for me, but probably not for you; I imagine you have used it hundreds of times in "debates").

Fanatical or not, I'm an adherent to intellectual honesty and scientific ethics as expressed by Willard Quine: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.ai.philosophy/yrILXSu1Wcc[101-125]

Why should anyone believe anything else you post or link?

Seriously, people who are honest and reasonably intelligent understand that that's a bogus argument. I mean, you're suggesting that neither my arguments nor the information at my links can be believed simply because I posted after saying "over and out". Do you really want to hang your hat on that? This whole "believe" framework is logically inept ... I'm not making statements that depend on my believability, like that I saw a UFO, or Muslims celebrating on roof tops, or some other claim to personal observation, I'm making arguments that can be evaluated. No belief is necessary, just intelligence and intellectual honesty.

It's not very long ago that you wrote "In which case I abandon this thread" ... perhaps you have forgotten, or you simply don't apply the same criteria to yourself as you do to others ... that's intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. By your lights, nothing you say can be believed either. But only children and dishonest fools play that game.

If you have anything intelligent, rational, and informed to say about any of my substantial statements, then you should post that, and redeem yourself as a decent person. Otherwise, your character stands and I have no need to say anything further. (Of course, if you continue to launch your feeble dishonest attacks at me, I may respond with further rebuttal.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top