Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Skeptics claim stolen emails prove global warming a hoax (35 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    christs4sale, thanks for the video. I watched the whole thing and highly recommend it.

    What is the crux of people like ObiWan's inability to see this logic?

    I think it comes down to three things:

    • They don't really know how to use or follow abstract, rational thinking. All the charts and figures are just the same as any other charts and figures to them. They can't follow a logical path of reasoning because they do not have either enough background knowledge or the discipline for factual critical thinking. Subconsciously, they probably do not believe reason is possible because it's never been a significant part of their way of thinking. Notice that these people constantly appeal to "common sense" and indirect reasoning.

    • Their minds are so subject to the whims of emotional influence and rhetoric, that they mistake their own programmed responses for truth.

    • They have a deeply repressed guilt/shame/hate that can only be expressed through moral indignation at external forces. They have no real ability to look inward to question themselves or their belief system. They have thoroughly absorbed the dominant paradigm (greed, lack of compassion) but also feel alienated from the mainstream culture. They express their indignation in a form that is essentially about "saving the existing (or idealized past) order" rather than challenging its fundamental assumptions. Thus "9/11 was an inside job" falls within their mode of pointing fingers at a cabal and expressing indignation, while facing the fact that our entire way of life is based upon faulty logic that we are all complicit in, to some degree, is not an option. Actually, this way of thinking must be actively challenged because it threatens the paradigm they have absorbed. It threatens their own self-image and the person they have been constructed as.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    Can a mod fix those images for me, I cannot for the life of me know how to work that out :)

    @JohnA

    do you have any specific research you want to present that counters the very substantial and diverse scientific evidence that seems to overwhelmingly support the man-made thesis? or is this something you just feel in your gut? ----- here's a graph showing atmospheric co2 since 1955 ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon ------- The longest such record exists at Mauna Loa, but these measurements have been independently confirmed at many other sites around the world. -------- so - clearly CO2 is rising.

    Can you show me where Co2 directly dictates temperature, a linear correlation of such. I can't:

    CO2 green line derived from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC - http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html). CO2 blue line measured at Mauna Loa (NOAA). Global temperature anomaly (GISS - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...)

    Atmospheric CO2 (parts per million, NOAA) and Global Temperature Anomaly (°C GISS) from 1964 to 2008: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

    Therefore if the temperature is fluctuating as the Co2 levels are rising then is Co2 the driver of climate change? If it is not then man's output of Co2 is irrelevant. It does not however give us carte blanche to continue our polluting ways.

    and then you have this:

    Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 40 percent from an estimated 280 to more than 380 ppmv percent. This increase in CO2’s share of the atmosphere is mostly due to anthropogenic (man-induced) factors, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial production.

    do you dispute this? how?

    No I do not dispute this.

    *looks around to see a stunned courtroom.

    where do you think all of the TONS of CO2 we have been pumping in to the atmosphere is going? is the atmosphere infinite or finite?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

    Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria, but not in Archaea. Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows them to create their own food. In plants, algae and cyanobacteria photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product. Photosynthesis is vital for life on Earth. As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.

    its really a simple question. is man adding co2 to the atmosphere?

    I would believe by exhaling Co2 we are; transport, lifestyles, resources.

    *Woman faints in the courtroom

    at what levels?

    Around 380ppm

    can you demonstrate that the levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution are negligable amounts?

    Ah since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I do hope that the Earth isn't less than 300 years old or some Christians will have you lol

    Well no of course you couldn't state with a straight face that Co2 levels since the beginning of that period are negligible, it's obvious they would of increased.

    Perhaps we could look further back into Earths historical Co2 levels via Ice Cores?

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-g...

    and lastly - do you dispute that global temperatures and CO2 are directly related? i think the science is pretty iron-clad there too - although (giggle) some of the kooks out there appear to want to dispute that one also.

    Of course the kooks.. hur hur

    Science is either consensus based or conspiratorially backed by a powerful vast right-wing network of sceptical scientists & corporations with stand-over men to intimidate corporate-backed government grant funded advocates.

    See the merry-go round we sit on? This transcends political ideology... It doesn't matter what "side" you sit on, you'll get screwed and conditioned to believe the other "side" is wrong as demonstrated with the environmental disinformation page. It's a gaggle of right-wing conspiracies.... the left could do no wrong. Screw the left & right.

    The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK) - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI - A Message to the Environmental Movement: Your Movement Has Been Hijacked

    The question you should be asking is 'do you dispute that Co2 drives temperature rather than you proposed theory: temperature drives co2 levels'

    By my own admission in my belief that temperature drives co2 levels it was plainly obvious I saw a relation between the two.

    exactly WHERE does your doubt reside? in what nook or cranny of the scientific evidence are you hanging your hat?

    I believe the above link said it best, Jo Nova:

    "In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."

    That's where my doubt resides. The relationship Co2 & Temperature have. If that is brought into question then man-made Co2 should also be brought into question.

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth http://rapidshare.com/files/322905041/DouglasChris...

    To assume that I rebel against positive environmental changes is silly. It may not be on the level wanted here but a balance between nature and humanity needs to be reached rather than putting nature wholly above the value of human life.

    I have no expertise in the field concerning climate change so it'd be widely agreed that you'd source advocate research and myself sceptical.

    I do hope however we have gotten past sticking point that ALL sceptics and ALL advocates have vested interests. Scepticism = corrupted, likewise for advocates.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    @Truthmod

    Well, we're not getting anywhere with you and you're not getting anywhere with us. But thanks for your extra inspiration to finally start writing the Environmental Disinformation page.

    Well hopefully it'll be a bit less politically bias to include the propaganda and distortions of the left and of some environmental NGOs. I say that not as a conservative, libertarian, liberal or anarchist.

    Your attitude and mode of communication calls for severe sarcasm. You don't respond to logic. There are a lot of very obvious solutions to overpopulation that only the most brainwashed people can't see: 1. EDUCATION 2. AVAILABILITY OF CONTRACEPTION AND ACCESS TO ABORTION 3. ENCOURAGEMENT TO HAVE LESS CHILDREN THROUGH TAX CREDITS, ETC.

    No .1 is definately a given. I would add modernisation too. People with more disposable income are more educated and on average have 1 to 2 kids. Look in Africa - Education and health is low and the population is exploding. That tells me that moderinise a society with the aid of technology helps manage the population without resorting to #3.

    No. 2. At least it's an availability issue and not a mandatory proposal.

    No. 3 is a cute way of saying one / two child policy. It's clear that anymore than 2/3 children for you would be detrimental?

    Do you believe that corporations and governments should continue to be able to spew pollution into the atmosphere without any cost or drawbacks?

    No, I don't believe I advocate at any stage such things. Please show me where I have.

    I'm sceptical of the science of man-made climate change "You capitalist wingnut useless eating virus, Alex Jones, Alex Jones, Alex Jones". I hear more about Alex Jones here than I would if I lived in Texas.

    Like it or not, but you're spouting Alex Jones talking points and if you can't admit it, you're being dishonest with yourself.

    Your the compulsive obsessive when it comes to Alex Jones, not me.

    I'm not concerned on where I think your talking points derive from, I'm interested in understanding why you embrace them and although I disagree with them, I understand them now.

    Good night and good luck.....

    Merry Xmas and New Year :)

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. ObiWanKenobi
    Member

    @Christsforsale

    This is the best video that I have found that explains how overpopulation is a very legitimate and natural problem:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

    (this is the first of eight parts)

    You have to admit that any closed environmental system, earth included, has a carrying capacity for humans or any species. The human population cannot grow infinitely and reaching carrying capacity is simply a question of when rather than if.

    Thankyou, I'll watch it when I get the chance.

    I'd like to pose a question:

    Isn't human population growth directly linked to the available resources on the planet?

    I would believe that there will come a point, if not already, when a) Resource availability dictates growth and b) The advancement and modernising of nations levels out the growth rate through education and wealth.

    Africa has a population explosion, most Western countries are levelling or have a negligible increase... coincidence?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. JohnA
    Member

    I am glad that ObiWan has not abandoned us. This is gives is a wonderful opportunity to directly respond to much of the disinformation being employed by 'skeptics' - despite repeated debunking and lengthy responses provided by the scientific community.

    one is forced to wonder why posters such as ObiWan would continue to repeat such stuff.

    Lets start by looking at his sources. He quotes "Jo Nova" disputing ice core data. For those of you who do not know, "Jo Nova" is Joanne Nova who wrote 'The Skeptics Handbook'

    I do not know anyone in the legitimate world of science who takes The Skeptics Handbook seriously. lol One need only google this seminal work to find more than enough scholarly examinations of her claims - and explanations of why her works is DEEPLY flawed. IMHO it is enough to essentially dismiss her work.

    So the question remains - why do people continue to source her - and how many times should one scientific charlatan's work be debunked - over and over again - before it becomes legitimate to question the motives of those who continue to espouse it?

    should we really take up time and space here reproducing the rather thorough body of work debunking her crap - yet again?

    From Skeptico.blogs.com:

    I recently received an email from Joanne Nova, who writes a blog where she claims global warming isn’t caused by human created greenhouse gas emissions. In her first email to me she wrote “there is no empirical evidence left that supports the theory that man made CO2 makes much difference to the climate.” Note, “no empirical evidence”, not “I disagree with the evidence”, or “there is contrary evidence” – but there is no evidence. None!

    lol

    and with one stroke of the pen Jo Nova denies the existence of virtually THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers.

    this is the 'expert' you present here ObiWan? i'm not sure if i should be angry - or feel sorry for you.

    and then there is this:

    So who does Nova write about excitedly on her blog? John Theon, who was supposedly James Hansen’s supervisor at NASA but who now disagrees that global warming is man made. Of course we know that Theon wasn’t actually Hansen’s “boss”, and that he retired from NASA in 1994. Theon seems like the archetypal fake expert – someone with credentials but who hasn’t worked in the field for a long while – too long to be taken seriously over current experts to be sure. Nova adopts standard denialist tactics by writing about this as though it is meaningful, just as she also appeals to this list of 650 supposed experts who dispute AGW, although we know this list is padded with TV weathermen, economists, non-climate experts, and a number who are actually not AGW “skeptics” anyway. In fact 58% of the "experts" quoted have no credentials in climate research and only 16% have top-notch credentials. Also see another debunking of this list. Compare these 650 (really less than 100) "skeptics" with the American Geophysical Union (AGU) which has 50,000 members, most of whom really are earth scientists. Only a few dozen AGU members are on this latest denier list. Again, standard denier techniques from Nova.

    oh gee whiz. must we REALLY have this debate ObiWan?

    if we go back to ObiWan's post we see he attempts to hang his hat on a few scientific concepts that have readily been debunked as well. and once again we are forced to ask - should we waste time and space here debating science that has already been debunked? or should we instead simply point out the shady nature of presenting already debunked science from illegitimate sources?

    i say no

    if anyone is actually INTERESTED in why arctic core data indicates that CO2 accumulation lags behind temperatures - you can find very precise answers to this question - as well as many other 'skeptics' arguments here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

    just scroll down and look for: Responses to common contrarian arguments

    of course - some people will simply ignore the evidence. they will allow their hearts to dictate what the truth is - instead of depending on that oft underestimated organ - their brains.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. truthmover
    Administrator

    Someone should write a book, if they haven't already, about the psychology of people who defend mainstream fallacies. It's a really sad bunch of nerds. Many AJ fans among them. Mostly pent up white men who maintain a sense of control over their lives by defending the mainstream in ways that are designed to feel contradictory. It's really one of the most groveling brown nose jobs in all of whiteness. The house negro of modern mental slavery.

    I consider it possible that ObiWan here is a genuine Capitalist and hopes our system will work out well for everyone. But denial is at the core of the Capitalism world view, and he very obviously doesn't have a clear view of what's happening.

    Arguing with "skeptics" is generally a waste of time, and this guy isn't even very good at it.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    Especially if they are merely internet personas hiding behind a screen name taken from goofy Hollywood movies.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. truthmod
    Administrator

    Again, great company for all those "skeptics" out there:

    http://rawstory.com/2009/12/palin-contradicts-ille...

    On Friday just before 3 a.m., Palin unleashed a Twitter volley at reality, slamming anyone who believes mass emissions of greenhouse gasses can have an effect on Earth's atmosphere and climate.

    "Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature", she quipped (direct quote). Story continues below...

    Thirteen minutes later, she treated the Internet to another dose. "Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng" the one-time governor confusingly opined.

    Illegible as the posts may be, they reflect a common refrain among deniers: Earth's climate is unaffected by human activity.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. truthmod
    Administrator

    Well, I hope ObiWan is gone finally, but I'd like to add a couple final words to this frustrating but enlightening thread.

    1. EDUCATION
    2. AVAILABILITY OF CONTRACEPTION AND ACCESS TO ABORTION
    3. ENCOURAGEMENT TO HAVE LESS CHILDREN THROUGH TAX CREDITS, ETC.

    No .1 is definately a given. I would add modernisation too. People with more disposable income are more educated and on average have 1 to 2 kids. Look in Africa - Education and health is low and the population is exploding. That tells me that moderinise a society with the aid of technology helps manage the population without resorting to #3.

    Actually, once again your blindness is painfully obvious. We in the modern world are the problem, not the exploding populations in the third world (does that make you upset, indignant?). Those people don't waste and exploit on the scale that we do. But for some reason you are fearful of the teeming hordes of Africans/Indians/Asians, etc.?? I would dare to say that there is an inherent racism in your outlook (which you probably can't be blamed for because it has been inculcated in you since birth).

    "The US consumes 25% of the world's energy with a share of global GDP at 22% and a share of the world population at 5%."

    Get that through your thick skull.

    No. 2. At least it's an availability issue and not a mandatory proposal.

    Thanks.

    No. 3 is a cute way of saying one / two child policy. It's clear that anymore than 2/3 children for you would be detrimental?

    It's not a cute way of saying anything; it's a simple and accurate statement. After you educate people on why it makes sense to voluntarily limit the number of children they have, you may also want to offer some incentive for them to do so. A significant tax credit for having less children rather than a tax increase for having more would probably be a more effective solution, and one people would not feel controlled by. Of course rich people who had lots of children would be taxed much more than poor people who had lots of children (does that make you upset?).

    From your statements, one might logically deduce that you do not believe we have a population problem.

    Strange you had to twist my statement to make it say what you wanted it to say.

    You know what I think it comes down to? People like you don't believe in Equality or Fairness. You believe in self-interest, hierarchy, advantage, self-preservation. You can't stand the idea of sacrificing some of your own advantages/options for the "greater good." You also don't believe in compassion; you can't imagine that through education, people would voluntarily restrict their own greed and waste to benefit others (which of course, you don't understand means benefiting themselves in the long run).

    You just don't get it.

    Contraception is 'greenest' technology
    http://www.greentechnologydaily.com/tips/566-contr...

    Are condoms and birth control pills more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming?

    Yes, and by a wide margin, contends a recent study from the London School of Economics asserting that family planning is nearly five times more cost effective in mitigating global warming emissions than green energy technologies like wind and solar power.

    Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32. The UN estimates that 40 percent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    You know what I think it comes down to? People like you don't believe in Equality or Fairness. You believe in self-interest, hierarchy, advantage, self-preservation. You can't stand the idea of sacrificing some of your own advantages/options for the "greater good." You also don't believe in compassion; you can't imagine that through education, people would voluntarily restrict their own greed and waste to benefit others (which of course, you don't understand means benefiting themselves in the long run).

    Nailed it.

    Posted 7 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.