He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
All you're doing is switching the emphasis to peer review; but as we all know, papers that challenge a status quo are much more likely to be rejected, whereas those that support it are often published after little criticism. Peer review often functions to filter out dissidents, rather than to genuinely foster novel ideas.

You say "we all know" that happens, but I don't know that. What's it based on?
 
A copy of my last reply to the Moderator - for those who do not know I was banned for a week without any recourse. I was not even able to reply to the notice I was given that I was banned until the ban was lifted. I was given no warning. I was given no opportunity to defend myself against the accusations of those who "reported me". And yet Vargas can lie, insult, curse and abuse others with impunity it seems. His disgusting OFF-TOPIC posts have not been deleted. Why is that? Could it be because the principles of the Totalitarian State are alive and well right here on Skeptico. :)

PTEHA said: re being accused of "swearing"
Really? That's an opinion. Depending on the situation/context it can be the most rational thing in the world. But do you have a quote david?

Oh please .. Imagine I;m at a dinner party the rest of the guests who did not know me start making all kinds of assertions about me just because I say one should look at the scientific evidence on agw/cc for themselves????

I am not going to argue about it. believe whatever you wish. I have nothing to defend here, nothing.

MODERATORs reply:
I'd just like to point out that I used to assume CAGW was just a fact, and the world should be doing something about it. This is just as I used to take a totally materialist view of the world - possibly you did too.

My conversion on CAGW was gradual, and began when the famous emails were released from the Climate Research Unit. They lead me down a path that I won't describe again, but it is pretty clear to me that this isn't real science. I suspect you don't have a science background (that is not meant as an insult of any sort, and correct me if I am wrong) and it probably isn't worth prolonging the discussion. However, you might at least like to ponder why it is that you take the word of scientists on CAGW, but (I think) dismiss their views of psi and consciousness.

Anyway, if you avoid insulting anyone, you are welcome to contribute to our forum. David


[edited for grammar, typos, and clarity] Hi David.

RE "a totally materialist view of the world" ...
if it matters I have never held a totally materialist view. But more to the point here I do not even accept your limiting semantics as used on the site about that. It's a misnomer that is being unjustifiably labeled onto all of "science" and every "scientist" as if it fits when it does not. It's banging on trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. It's a gross generalization that excludes the actual reality - all the specifics (and the individual people) that make up that reality - and then asserts it's the reality. It is not.

Neither Charles Darwin or Einstein nor anyone else worth their salt in science from biology to physics held to "a totally materialist view of the world" - however when a science is focused upon the material aspects of this world they have no other choice available than to investigate, study and report on their research BUT from a materialist point of view. If they didn't then it would not be called "science" in the first place.

Research into PSI and Consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with Climate science and the physical world - nothing. Absolutely NOTHING! (just wanted to be very clear here) - BOTH topics can quite adequately co-exist in the real world and in our minds and in our world views without one field of interest denying the other. Psychologists do not study climate science or astrophysics David. Like how obvious and easy is this truth to grasp? Humanity is capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time you know. Gosh I hope you know that. But if you and others cannot see this with clarity then it is no surprise to me why there is all this bleeding of boundaries and category errors going on here about Climate Science and what it means and why it is very credible hard science that needs to be taken as such. I mentioned category errors yesterday for a reason - it fits the problems that beset those who continue to deny the validity and important of what THE SCIENCE is telling humanity about global warming and climate change and it's likely ongoing effects if not addressed.

Knowledge is Power - to ignore and default to self-deluded beliefs is insane. The only species on this earth that becomes insane are the Human Beings. After 100,000 plus years you'd think we could learn from humanity's past dumb errors and not repeat them in 2016 - especially where Climate Science is concerned.

Now to AGW - For a start David it is not "CAGW", that is an hyperbolic emotive button pusher that does not represent the reality - it is sophist construction by the denier movement and is not something the climate scientists nor the evidence speaks about. They talk about "consequences" of the known facts - if this then that based on maths physics etc and past knowledge of change - at all kinds of levels and over different time frames and dependent all kinds of hard to track variables including "natural variation" which is unpredictable - the scientists say as much - and then David they the scientists and the since papers and the IPCC summaries of those Papers and latest "credible" knowledge always qualify those "comments" (which puts the data/facts into words the average person can understand easier ) of degrees in uncertainty, levels of confidence in the existing data, and then into graphs of ranges of probability.

The IPCC, the scientists, the scientific papers DO NOT do Prophesy David ... they have outputs based on the evidence and possible future but UNKNOWN scenarios - They do NOT offer guarantees - they do not swear under oath that their forecasts, or future scenarios will come true - these are their best estimates "all things being equal" but David in the complex world of global climate and the vagaries of known and unknown aspects of the dynamics of global and regional climates nothing is equal, nothing is fully known - and the climate scientists and the outputs NEVER say otherwise. They call it "dangerous" - it's an issue about Risk and they say that from a "hypothetical point of view" .....if...... what the science tells them becomes the reality.

The science knowledge also speaks to the as yet UNKNOWN POTENTIAL for runaway positive forcings that MIGHT kick in should the climate (regional or global) move past hypothetical "Tipping Points" which suggests irreversible instability of the climate centuries into the future. The scientists also say repeatedly that they just do not know when or what might come - they repeatedly say they cannot be certain given the their current knowledge.

How bad could it be? Well it could far worse than only being "catastrophic" - that word denotes sudden and unexpected - there is nothing sudden nor unexpected in the warnings being given about Climate Change. But for the people living in various locations at different times the effects might well be seen as "catastrophic" if they are flooded out for 3 months, hit by a Cat 6 cyclone, or their crops fail for 3 years in a row.

Now people should always remember that this "best available advice" has been specifically asked for by every national government who signed up to the UNFCCC. Rule #1 - if you think you might not like the answer, then do not ask the question!!! The climate scientists are not playing 'chicken littles' here making wild unjustifiable or delusional claims that the sky is falling.

In fact the IPCC reports are very CONSERVATIVE in their future scenarios
- they do NOT make predictions like a weather forecaster that it will be raining tomorrow. The IPCC provided all the evidence needed in the AR5 to see how the past IPCC future "scenarios" and "expectations" of xyz happening by a particular time were predominantly WRONG ........

In that almost EVERY POSSIBLE BAD THING HAS HAPPENED FAR SOONER and FAR WORSE THAN ANYONE IN SCIENCE EXPECTED WAS POSSIBLE back in 1990, or 2000, or even in 2005. The story that IPCC predictions have failed to materialize is a total MYTH put out by deniers and "fruit cakes."

The evidence for this is everywhere in front of our eyes and not only in the scientific papers or IPCC reports or the never-ending media releases by various scientific bodies globally that have kept alerting the public what is really occurring right now.

If people actually paid heed to the actual facts and the words used in the tens of thousands of science papers and the IPCC reports they would already know this. Like the "97% of scientists...." mis-wording of that paper from "abstracts" into "scientists" - the details the words really matter in such complex and large overwhelming piles of reports and studies across multiple fields of science ... the details get lost in hyperbole poor memories and all too often "myopic dyslexia" - both the denier world and the greenie world do this - and then outlier scientists pro or con also do the same and MISREPRESENT what was actually produced in a paper and the conclusions the authors drew from that evidence.

Let's talk about "insults" - no I am not a practicing scientist and no your comment is not insulting nor offensive even if I was an active climate scientist. My ego does not depend on such things as that. However I do have the capability of understanding what the science is telling us - I can tell the difference between the credible words of scientists in their papers and public speaking and the NOT Credible conclusions and words used by "flaky scientists" plus and more importantly I have the skills and experience to pick up on the "marketing, advertising, word games, psychology, misrepresentations, lying, distortions, sophistry, and the mythology" that goes on about climate science from BOTH of the extreme sides to this raging public "debate". I have a range of high quality skills and an attitude that affords me an edge when comes to spotlighting BS when I see it. I am very intelligent and if I wanted to I could have been a scientist in various fields. The details don't matter, the only thing that matters today is am I right or wrong when I point out the various errors and distortions made by less intelligent people, and when I point others to the credible and valid science on climate science that exists, or not. My status and my opinions and personal beliefs are totally irrelevant on those matters. People can make their own OBJECTIVE judgments about the information and material that point other to look at.

In an prior response you alluded to me being "overly emotional" - that's not true. I know I am not. I used to be somewhat passionate, frustrated and emotional about the issue of agw/cc and the politics of it but I dropped that years ago now. Frankly I do not care what is done nor do I engage in this topic for a couple of years now. I have stopped looking at bar the odd thing that floats past my eyes via the media now and then. I did my own work over 15 years looking at everything I had time to look at. There is not one "argument": or link to so called smoking guns that has been presented by the deniers on skeptico that I have not seen before many times, had already investigated for myself (in detail) and came to judgment about it. Then there is all the other matters that have NOT be raised that I also already know about and have already looked at. I am not going to apologise for being in a million people who have actually DONE THE WORK THEMSELVES ALREADY. I am not going to apologise for being intelligent or for knowing what I already know and can prove, have proven to myself adequately and beyond a reasonable doubt. That is NOT "certainty" either. But I am certain that people like Monckton, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Bob Carter, David Icke, and many others like them are proven liars, proven manipulators, plum wrong, paid shills and utter incompetents when it comes to climate science. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind as there is no doubt in my mind that Clinton got a few hj from Lewinsky. I did not need to be there and see wiht my own eyes to now know it is true. Follow what I am saying here about a frame of mind and process that leads me to state what I state? I have done the work needed already. Facts are facts David, and people's beliefs about them are all irrelevant.

But if people insist to throwing mud at me, of insulting and belittling me based on nothing but their own delusions and lack of knowledge then I am going to defend myself and call a spade a spade. And when it comes to people like Hurmaneatar falsely accusing me of supporting some kind of "certainty" about climate science as if that's a major problem, when I have consistently QUALIFIED MY COMMENTS CAREFULLY that proves the opposite of his false claim - then I call that INSULTING and ABUSIVE RHETORIC and SOPHISTRY and I will not tolerate that from anyone. I do not get "upset about it, I do not take it personally, for the issue to me is his (and others) intentional DISINFORMATION he is selling to all the readers .. and this is AGW/CC Denial:101. This kid of BS is the basis for ALL AGW/CC Denierosphere -- pure sophistry and word games and under all that are rank LIES!

The foundation behind all of the Climate Science denial are Lies. Then people chose to believe in those Lies through use of really clever Marketing being conveyed to the public by fraudulent shills and egotistical narcissists and sociopaths.

There is nothing credible about climate science denial or the mythology of grand conspiracies being involved. It's all BS from start to finish. What is credible is the SCIENCE in and of itself. It doesn't need a guru or an apologist. It stands on it's own over decades of research and data collection. PSI and Conscious studies has nothing to do with it. Polcial view nothing. Capitalism and communism nothing. It's called SCIENCE David, and it stands or falls on it's own. And right now it is a tower of strength that is unassailable by ignorant people who do not know the facts and constantly choose to not look at the facts with reason and common sense.

Climate science denial is NOT real skepticism - it is the complete opposite of genuine skepticism based on evidence. Climate science denial does not evidence - it uses manipulation lies distortions and word games that push people's emotional buttons - people who actual want their buttons pressed so that their beliefs and their worldviews are REINFORCED. That ain't smart David, it's just plain dumb. That is NOT an insult. It's a fact. If people "feel" insulted or offended then that is tough for them. Deal with it.

If I said "David you are just dumb" - then that would be an insult. If I said David you are a big shit!" then that would be an insult. But I DO NOT speak like that on skeptico - go check. I say X information is BULLSHIT. There's a difference and it is a rally big one. If people happen to believe in that bullshit, that is not my problem how they feel about it when I call a spade a spade. That's all their responsibility to deal with their own emotional buttons being pushed. I didn't push them the problem is that they are so INVESTED in their own emotions and buttons and beliefs that they offend themselves and take what I say as a personal insult - when it wasn't and never will be.

I know I am right here for many reasons. I have been on the other side and know what it feels like and WHY it happens. I have over 17 years experience arguing about politics and religion on internet forums. I have the scars to prove it. I am an expet in this field, in fact I was a early explorer into the cyber world of social media. I have learnt a lot and can see what goes on here and why, and what happens on WUWT and why, and all the garbage being spewed on newspaper comments sections. The topic is irrelevant, people's beliefs are irrelevant the outcome is the same -- the garbage that has been posted to skeptico because I stood and other have to argue against the MYTH of AGW/CC denial and all the BS unfounded untrue conspiracy theories about it.

Fact is most people cannot discuss in real life or online without getting their buttons pushed and then carrying on like right jackasses. I am not one of those people. I am here to TEACH and SHOW and TELL. That's it. The really wise will heed what I say and how I say it here .... and it will serve them well to learn from me. That's not me ego talking, it is just the way it is. I have confidence NOT arrogance. I know that for certain, because I know me, who I am and what I will and won't stand for. My principles are very sound. I am like George Carlin in the last interview he that I shared on the thread yesterday.

I am not playing this game, I am not invested in it, what happens with CC doesn't affect me, I am detached from all the emotional drams over it, and I have no investment in the outcome - what will be will be. I am simply a dispassionate observer. What I care about is only one thing .. sharing good and helpful ideas and practices that other people might benefit from. It's up to them to accept or reject that. Either way I am simply happy to share the few things I have learned in my life and what I know has worked for me IN GOOD FAITH.

So I am not the one who is emotionally bent out of shape over this issue, it is you, it is Alex, it is Hurmanetar, it is Vargas, it is Michael Harris, it is Michael Larkin, it is Trancestate, it is Vortex, and all there rest who cannot control their own emotional reactions over what I (and the others who are sensible about it too) state plainly and clearly on the thread started by Alex. This isn't some cheap opinion I have or that I am not qualified to judge, for it is a fact.

But how dare someone actually stand up and be willing to argue the point when the Prevailing CONSENSUS of the MAJORITY of members on this site totally disagree? Amazing.

You did notice the word "consensus" there?

I thought holding to a consensus was like, you know, really bad David, and a clear sign of proof that there is no consensus but instead a huge conspiracy going on? <big smile>

Thanks for the chat.

PS Climate Research Unit. It's all a storm in a tea cup - there is nothing to it, not one thing. The same assertions were made about NASA/GISS re manipulating the raw data. It's all total bullshit. Why are you so NOT skeptical David about what people have said to you about that issue? Why do you TRUST those who claim there was a conspiracy and lies going on? I did the work, I took an unbiased approach and looked at these "stories" and the purported evidence of a serious fraud crime, and frankly David it is just crap. But I am not asking you to just believe me either. More than that David I am not even going to discuss it let alone attempt to prove to you that you are wrong on this as well.

Why?

Because you cannot tell people things they do not want to know. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
best placed to judge
That deserved repeating.

eg Alex's non-evidence in AMS survey and Curry's misuse of that survey in Congress.
The Percentage of the actual Respondents [1800] who have published 50% or more of their papers on the subject of Climate Change in the last 5 years was 231 of 1792 or only 13%.
That's 231 people in the American Meteorological Society (AMS) with ~7800 total members.

Members of the AMS are not best placed to judge the efficacy of climate science, nor qualified to judge the validity of a consensus among working climate scientists in the numerous fields from paleo-climate scientists to GCM statisticians to RSS satellite operators. The opinions of 1800 or 25% of the AMS members is totally irrelevant to the repeated overwhelming consensus of climate research regarding agw/cc over the last ~50 years and especially over the last 10 years in which the output has exploded in quality and quantity.

It is a gross distortion and a manipulation of the public and politicians for anyone to assert their opinions at the AMSwho did answer the "survey" carry any weight whatsoever. And yet Judith Curry and Alex dare use that as if it means something of value when it does not.

There is a overwhelming consensus in the data drawn from multi-disciplinary scientific fields.
There is a overwhelming consensus in the analysis of that data drawn from multi-disciplinary scientific fields.
There is a overwhelming consensus in the Literature published by climate research Scientists drawn from multi-disciplinary scientific fields.
There is a overwhelming consensus in the educated opinions about agw/cc of the 30,000 plus climate related researchers and analysts data drawn from multi-disciplinary scientific fields.
There is a overwhelming consensus in the educated opinions about agw/cc of all Scientists outside the Climate science field as well.
There is a overwhelming consensus in the joint educated opinions of Scientific Institutions and Universities across the entire world.

Some people on Skeptico, in the media, in business, in politics and across the tens of thousands of websites and blogs in cyberspace disagree.

Why anyone would prefer to Trust the latter group is a mystery!!!

Why are those in that group so immune to rational skepticism and proper investigating the "facts" behind their claims and assertions? :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In most cases, people employ arguments from authority, whether or not that authority holds the whip hand or not. Exceptions occur in some cases where people rely only on personal experience, but apart from that, there's no recourse but to authority.

As far as I know, no one here is a climate scientist, but even if someone were, and put forward only arguments based on their own experience, that wouldn't be sufficient to persuade everyone. That's why scientific papers quote other scientific papers, why PhD theses quote references, why even in non-scientific discussions, people will call on authority.

So: scientists rely heavily on authority, just like laypersons: on authority that can as well be wrong as right. As far as I know, there's only one discipline where one can have some hope of definitely proving one is right without appealing to authority, and that is pure mathematics--though even there, I believe there can be exceptions, according to Kurt Goedel at any rate. Outside pure mathematics, the whole edifice of science rests on authority: more so than even data; history is replete with examples of data being ignored on the basis of authority.

One can find authority figures for or against any proposition. Not unnaturally, CAGW proponents find their authorities in one place, and CAGW skeptics in another. This says nothing about the truth of CAGW either way, regardless of whether the person offering an opinion is or is not a climate scientist.

That some climate scientists are devious bastards doesn't mean they are wrong; the fact that millions bask in their reflected glory doesn't make them wrong, either. Despite all the lying and manipulation of data, they could still conceivably be right.

But you know what? We can all argue till the cows come home, but in the end, nature will provide the verdict. Until and unless that verdict comes out in favour of CAGW, I'll remain sceptical about it--especially the "C" or catastrophic bit.
re: CAGW proponents is a falsehood. CAGW is a misnomer designed by the denialist marketing/promotion gurus to undermine the hard science. The science of AGW/CC has nothing to do with the term CAGW. It's an emotive provocative term intended to push people's buttons and manipulate them. CAGW is a term utilized by argumentative TROLLS across cyberspace. That's a fact, not an opinion.

re: "Despite all the lying and manipulation of data," Prove that assertion is more than your own personal opinion and belief founded solely upon distortions and disinformation put out by CAGW [pseudo] skeptics and incompetent shills who do not understand the actual science or the data - where most of them (like Larkin) have not even bothered to look at it wiht an open mind after putting their own ideological biases on the shelf for 10 minutes.

Nature bats last. Yes it does. In the meantime Knowledge is Power. Ignore that accumulated human knowledge at your and everyone else's peril.
 
, papers that challenge a status quo are much more likely to be rejected
Totally false. Provably so. The peer-review process does NOT evaluate such matters. It is totally outside their purview. That people who do have their papers rejected argue such things does not make it true.

Please stop making up your own facts about reality when they are palpably not true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
A copy of my last reply to the Moderator -
PPS - as an aside regarding my own personal "political orientated views" and research into agw/cc science and my very flexible evidence based changing of my conclusions and opinions about it and what if anything to do to mitigate the effects of CC - I have never and will never support anything close to an ETS or a Carbon Tax. My view has always been the only effective approach is for rational evidence based Regulation by National Governments inside an international accord that takes into consideration each nation's specific situation based firstly on each nations Historical contribution to AGW from the mid-1800s to today, and then upon equity and fairness and capacity where the supreme guiding value is in the best long term interests of all people (not just some nations and some people with the power to hijack the process) and taking responsibility for what we as a global community of People's leave to the next generations - 7 generations ahead.

Of course I have never expected this to be done, for I am not delusional about reality. History has proven me right yet again. :)

As Nuclear weapons and nuclear safety is Regulated across the planet despite some obvious outliers and despite the inability to yet achieve a nuclear weapons free world, it is still a good analogy of how agw/cc needs to be approached if and when people of the world choose to get really serious it. Until then the world will continue to be infested with mindless chatter and endless lies and hysterical BS about this topic from every possible side of this topic and it's consequences. imo. That's why I let it go and no longer care what people think do or say about it. Nor waste my time 'arguing' about it either. I also stopped writing my politicians about the topic years ago as well. No point bashing one's head into a brick wall.

So I do other things now that are far more a joy in my life. A short detour here doesn't change any of that. I'm here to "teach" and not to prove anything to anyone. :-)

Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIVE NATIONS - ARTHUR C PARKER 1916
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

Native American Elders speak about life, learning, common sense and spirituality. (and 7 generations) Featuring Iroquois Elder Oren R. Lyons.



The tip of an iceberg of similar refs I could provide here. I have read or watched every single ref I provide here. It's all part of my agw/cc related research across 15 years. It's a web of disparate information that when all put together has informed me greatly and creates a self-sustaining Synergy of Wisdom. imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A seven day ban without warning for PTEHA's "IQ-lowering" jibe at Hurmanetar and Enrique seems overly harsh to me (I'm assuming that's the reason for the ban, since that's the post Hurmanetar said he reported). A warning would have sufficed. Emotions have been high on both sides. I also think that all bans, their duration, and the reasons for them ought to be announced publicly.

David's response which PTEHA quoted contains a fascinating bolded line:

However, you might at least like to ponder why it is that you take the word of scientists on CAGW, but (I think) dismiss their views of psi and consciousness.

The question is just as applicable to David in reverse! This ties in nicely with my earlier exchange with Enrique, and it seems that David implicitly accepts the analogy. Enrique's latest response to it was:

Nope. Not at all denying the existance of parpsychologists, it's total nonsense, I just don't subscribe to your false analogy, with which you are trying to justify your pro-AWG advocacy.

But if you recognise the existence of parapsychologists, then you have no reason to reject the analogy. Clearly, yours is less apt, because where mine compares apples with apples, yours compares apples not just with oranges, but with not-apples: its comparison of dissidents is of exactly opposite groups! It compares the mainstream of parapsychology with the skeptics of climate science. Mine compares properly corresponding groups: skeptics (of the science of parapsychology) with skeptics (of the science of climate).

So, the question to both you and David, and really any "proponent of psi" who is also a "climate skeptic" in this thread is: why the double standard? Why side with the mainstream of one scientific discipline, yet with the skeptics of another, when there is a clear expert consensus within the mainstream of both disciplines?

Also, Enrique, I'm not sure you read carefully enough the post of mine that you "like"d. It's pretty hypocritical of you to accuse others of supporting totalitarianism when you yourself keep slaves for your personal pleasure.
 
A
Also, Enrique, I'm not sure you read carefully enough the post of mine that you "like"d. It's pretty hypocritical of you to accuse others of supporting totalitarianism when you yourself keep slaves for your personal pleasure.

No matter how hard you try, your analogy doesn't work. AGW mainstream science attacks dissidents, avoids debates with them and tries to silence them. .Materialist mainstream science attacks dissidents, avoids debates with them and tries to silence them. Case closed.

As to slaves? Are you nuts? What "slaves" do I keep? Y are you comparing riding horses with your defense of totalitarian regimes? So, my horses and my dog are my "slaves"?! Something is seriously wrong with you, man. In any case, I'm getting fed up with the nasty tone you took with me and your personal unprovoked attacks. I was trying to be friendly. Apparently, it didn't work with you. I'm done talking to you, pal. Go f... yourself.

These are my "slaves", you........:13007173_1152958124728045_1644804875251321311_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Stop playing innocent. And stop trying to troll me.

Well, I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about, if that's the way you respond. I have worked in academic research myself, and I don't remotely recognise what you posted as a description of how peer review works.

Of course if people start from the assumption that there's a large-scale conspiracy among climate scientists to conceal evidence and mislead the public, then they can construct from that assumption a self-consistent excuse for ignoring the scientific evidence. Whatever argument is put to them, they can say it's a result of the conspiracy.

What depresses me about this discussion is that so many people, having quite rightly criticised psi "sceptics" for prejudice and a refusal to look at the evidence, behave in just the same way when they adopt the guise of climate "sceptics". And with much less justification, because most of them understand far less about climate science than psi "sceptics" understand about psi research.
 
That's the thing, Roberta. Establishment, be it political, scientific or media, tends to practice character assassination against dissidents, rather than let ideas do the battle.

But they're not qualified on the subject of psi - the difference is there aren't many well qualified Scientists of different disciplines publicly denying evidence for AGW.
 
But they're not qualified on the subject of psi - the difference is there aren't many well qualified Scientists of different disciplines publicly denying evidence for AGW.
Not every non-materialist in science works in the area of psy. The thing is that all non-materialist scientists are being badmouthed, discriminated against and silenced by the establishment science, just like the scientists who oppose the AGW theory.
 
Not every non-materialist in science works in the area of psy. The thing is that all non-materialist scientists are being badmouthed, discriminated against and silenced by the establishment science, just like the scientists who oppose the AGW theory.

I think the issue is you're trying to make an equivalence that isn't there. Yes the mainstream consensus can be bad and silence dissenters, but I don't think that's the case here. Especially when you look at those driving the denial - they have much to gain from it being denied.
 
I think the issue is you're trying to make an equivalence that isn't there. Yes the mainstream consensus can be bad and silence dissenters, but I don't think that's the case here. Especially when you look at those driving the denial - they have much to gain from it being denied.
The people who promote AGW have made billions on it, starting with Al Gore, so, they certainly do have a lot to lose if the scam falls apart. Than, the NWO-pushing Governments and politicians, , the UN, the EU.... No, the world powers are definitely behind this AGW construct, this is why they try to silince the dissidence, via threats and ostracism.
 
The people who promote AGW have made billions on it, starting with Al Gore, so, they certainly do have a lot to lose if the scam falls apart. Than, the NWO-pushing Governments and politicians, , the UN, the EU.... No, the world powers are definitely behind this AGW construct, this is why they try to silince the dissidence, via threats and ostracism.

Gore has made billions? Yeah what about the oil companies, the fossil fuel companies, businesses like Fox who's the owner makes money from denying climate change. The fossil fuel industry is way bigger then the green industry. I think a pattern I'm seeing with climate deniers is conspiracy type thinking. This means anything seen as establishment automatically = bad.
 
Yep, Gore made shitload on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#20090c237502

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hange-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/

I'm not a fan of Fox, still, I doubt very much that " the owner makes money from denying (man made) climate change"
I'm not bothered by the term "conspiracy theory", given that the term was invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who would question the official versions of events:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

The oil companies, whether you like them or not, sell you - not a conjecture or a myth, but the fuel your car runs on.
I'm all for alternative energy research, but for the moment, my car runs on gas.

The establishment holds the power, and will do anything to hold on to it, and has and will perpetrate wars and other atrocities to retain and expand that power, so, yea, to me, estblishment IS bad.
 
Last edited:
I'm not bothered by the term "conspiracy theory", given that the term was invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who would question the official versions of events:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

There really seems to be no limit to your credulity. Yes, the website you link to asserts that the term was "coined" by the CIA in 1967, but the document quoted shows only that the term was used in a memo then.

Two minutes Googling shows the phrase is known from 1909, nearly 40 years before the CIA existed.
 
Wow, the defender of AWG calling me credulous. You guys can't live without desparaging statements directed at your opponent, can you? Says a lot about you.
Whether it was coined by the CIA or just used by itis irrelevant, the fact that the term is being used to discredit those who question the power is pretty well known.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ci...mear-campaign-to-discredit-dissenters/5403876

https://memoryholeblog.com/2013/01/20/cia-document-1035-960-foundation-of-a-weaponized-term/

Bilderberg Group, until recently, was declared by the media "conspiracy theory". Some "conspiracy theory" that turned out to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top