Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

Funny. You know what you did: You may either delete the "Global Warming is epistemological hedonism" part (or attribute to yourself, if that's your opinion, as it seems to be) or keep the sentence in its original meaning "90% of what's behind Global Warming is epistemological hedonism". Changing the subject on the sentence (both Grammar and Logic) is "the fake".

In spite of the outcome of the preceding, I'd like to confirm the end of post #228

90% of what's behind Global Warming is epistemological hedonism.
99.5% of what's behind denying Global Warming is epistemological hedonism.

That is, my experience is that the reality about this subject is hidden under uncountable layers of coarse and thick epistemological hedonism, and interests that promote and use it. The subject itself it's impossible to gather and analyze within a mind, not even by a group of minds. Then, we have to rely on the internal control system of Science, the only system of human beliefs that contains the seed of its own criticism. In this proper level, when you skim all the verbal noise that covers it (or better, dynamite it, as so thick it is; by the way, this thread is a part of it), the number of voices that argue against a human caused Global Warming and its negative effects in the future are clearly a minority, no matter how many pseudo-research institutes they made up and how many "30 Helens agree" campaigns they undertook.

In a future post, I'll comment on this concerning to "The Global Warming Swindle" commented in other posts, being #232 the newest one.

[You're welcome to correct my English -not my thinking-]

 

So between the two schools of thought there is only 09.5% difference, really compelling evidence to follow one over the other. NOT!

Hey and drop the epistemological hedonism crap, it means we want what we want, when we want it. And I would question who has determined which camp rates a higher rating. Have some stats on where you data came from? If both camps are 90% whatever culpible, why should we believe either one? It seems each is after their own ends.

I'd rather see some stats on what the decreased use of vehicles since the raise in gas has done beneficially for the environment. I am sure someone is keeping tack. How about some figures on how it's affected the environment?

 

1) I haven't seen corrected yet the fake quote of my words you made in post #234. I think now this wasn't accidental: it was your deliberate intention to twist my words and put them under the title "Originally Posted by aleCcowaN". There's no debate under such conditions. You mixed up you are entitled an opinion with some vicious supposed right to the truth and to tailor other's opinions in front of their noses to reach your objective.

2) Your words are a proof of the quality of the debate. I'm pretty sure you never heard about "epistemological hedonism" (both words together) until a few hours ago -if it is, scarcely in some other posts, weeks ago, o now and then and the words just rang a bell to you-, but you argue as if you knew it. In fact, sometimes you speak about "wanting" and some times about something like "hedonism", but the part "epistemological" seems to be unreachable to you. To prove you got the faintest idea about epistemology, the second paragraph in your post #242 will suffice: " Hey and drop the epistemological hedonism crap, it means we want what we want, when we want it."

3) You play with numbers in post #242, including 0 on the left (amazing!), but simply it was and is my opinion, implicitly stated in post #228, and explicit in #241, and you disagree, what a novelty! Your answer it typically argumentative, the schema "this is not A, also A doesn't exist". What I said and it's my experience and opinion up to the date is that almost all what is said about the subject is crud; also, within the part that is not crud the proportion of deniers on Global Warming caused or heavily aided by humans is minimal.

4) The part about determining what is crud and what is not, is what makes epistemology (this was not the definition at all, just to prevent anyone started arguing about what he or her doesn't know). It's clear that when a person's opinion is just the way he or she disagrees with others, that person is just in the pursuit of a verbal alley fight, and not trying to build any valid argumentation.

5) My participation here is not to contribute to make clear the degree of GW and humankind liabilities, if any. My involvement is to contribute in the fight against the plague of the modern era: people with a great deal of individual autonomy and plenty of rights and options that try to extend the dominion of such liberties beyond the boundaries of their individual and social lives determining what is true and what is not, as if they were in a restaurant choosing their favorite meal, and by this option, compromising the lives of others located thousand of miles away. The GW debate is the poster boy of what happens when people let and dare themselves to trespass the frontier of individual autonomy and become demiurges (look it up in Encarta or wherever): they compromise the future of nations, regions, species, etc. by choosing the state of truth they find it pleases them.

I also practice my English a bit.

6) Particularly, I dislike the fact that you, gardener, being a mature person, with thousands and thousands of posts, you dared to quote other forum members an cut their sentences in the middle to tailor them to your narcissist needs or arguing. You made it again in post #242, applying the very same techniques of disinformation used by KGB, Gestapo and so many agencies all around the World. This fact is particularly disgusting and frightening. In post #234, it may have been random, but now you're doing it systematically.

The technique consist in highlighting the part of the sentence you want to seed in the public. Suppose the folowing:

"Beware of the telemarketers that sell their stuff with sweet words", said Jack, "and by the way Josh Brolin has a resemblance of Bush" [Now, read again only the bold typeface parts, and you'll know how they make their hideous propaganda]

Imagine sentences like:

"NN is a good person and hates the Devil."

This individual quotes me and edits the texts making something similar.

Suppose my quote:

"That is, my experience is that the reality about this subject is hidden under uncountable layers of coarse and thick epistemological hedonism, and interests that promote and use it."

Here, the whole sentence says that they have made difficult to reach the truth (the "they" includes John Q. Public and his epistemological hedonism, and the people who know and manipulate it). The bold part means that the truth is unreachable, then distorting the meaning of the sentence. In post #242 this person gardener has made the same: only the bold typeface part is written -a rough version of the same technique-, to distort the meaning.

One forum member has an image of a Nazi-like man with the phrase "we are not Fascist because it is us" (or something similar). I caught the concept.

 

Perhaps you would like to outline your exact problems with my posts, you are all over the place, Josh Brolin who I remember from Dr. Marcus Welby M.D tv series now faded from most memories and being married to Barbara Streisand and no where else, NN hates the devil???

And again with John Q. Public and his epistemological hedonism...really sad. Last I checked 90 vs 99.5 is 09.5 difference.


KGB, no where close. Never even met a Russian. Want to throw shit around learn first what can and can't be used. Gestapo, don't think so. Try again. Name calling only works with the backing of big marketing firms. Why not label me a terrorist and be done.


You hold an interest in carbon offsets?

You're Chinese aren't you? I only say that because most Chinese apologists cite old movies and tv shows. Afraid your factories will lose business?

 

I like The Great Global Warming Swindle as an example of "swindle". This documentary, along with An Inconvenient Truth and Penn & Teller's Bulls***: Environmental Hysteria are a very good departure of what you won't do if you want to know something about Global Warming. All is plausible, well presented, but it all depends on the menu the authors had in mind. They offered Neapolitan pizza, pepperoni pizza, mushroom pizza, clam pizza and pineapple pizza: they are all different and you can chose whatever you like, but no matter what you have chosen you'll always got pizza.

Environmental Hysteria is well done and valuable (I like the DHMO part. I am also against DHMO and all the interests behind it, as you can deduct by my posts' content), but they chose the controversial Danish Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, who promote good practices that sometimes he doesn't use.

This leads me to The Global Warming Swindle, as James Randi, who promotes skeptical and critical thinking and is the master or many colleagues, like Penn Jilette and NFN Teller, cited this documentary as a source of skepticism on An Inconvenient Truth (which he had previously endorsed) in the JREF newsletter of March 30, 2007 under the title Mea Somewhat Culpa . Read carefully the well stated arguments but reserve a while to read also the next newsletter, dated on April 6, 2007 with title That Persistent Film. He says in the last one "From what I've discovered in the last two weeks, I've had to conclude that my original endorsement is probably validated. " (endorsement of An Inconvenient Truth).

These two newsletters and the links on them (mainly badscience.net website and all the story of Durkin) are worth to be read and the sites browsed. Also, there is a very good article in Wikipedia about The Global Warming Swindle, with many links to follow and a very interesting discussion page within Wikipedia.

If you like to watch The Global Warming Swindle, try to get the original version. I'm sure you'll (not) be deceived.

By the way, Fred Singer, the scientist who wrote the article borrowed by Elijah, is an Austrian-American scientist who had 82 when he wrote that article. He has emphasized natural causes over human activities as the cause of GW, and was heavily criticized -not always in good faith- because he conducted the panel who found that there is no risk for passive smokers and attacked the 1993 EPA report on this matter (Junking Science to Promote Tobacco).

 

How very typical. I've read through all your post on this thread, and my God.

It's very typical to see these people posting long and "well thought" post, with lots of condescension and "references" - but in the end it's all to make someone feel stupid and not know how to respond while actually saying nothing.

Ever seen Thank You For Smoking? If you have, there's a scene in which the tobacco lobbyist is trying to explain to his son how his job works by example. They begin to debate whether or not Chocolate or Vanilla is better. They end with the boy having lost, but as the boy observers so did his dad.
His dad then points out that this doesn't matter, because he proved that the other side was wrong first.

In your first paragraph you dissolved your own argument by saying all the arguments were fuzzy.

AHHH

Lets leave the movies alone and get back to the fact that the world is not getting hotter.

 

Speaking of fuzzy things, if you say who is the person you are talking to (by using the editing features of the forums) and/ or addressing -being the same person-, perhaps that person might answer what you say to him or her.

 

Yeah.

Again, this isn't addressing what we're arguing about - you're pointing out something to the side lines to make it look like I'm an idiot.

Yes, I'm talking to you. Idiot.

 

btw, I didn't quote you because I wasn't addressing one thing in particular (given there's nothing in particular of much substance to address), and you happen to write a lot that didn't need to be repeated right under the last time it was stated.

It's just unnecessary and people address other people like that all the time.

 

When you don't say whom you're talking to in a forum, you're answering the person who opened the thread. You're answering the last sentence in a chat. I you haven't noticed yet, a forum thread contains postings from many participants, sometimes added years ago, that are kept permanently. A chat is just it, words are brought out by the cathodic wind; although the content can be kept, it's not the intention. Be sure you understand the difference before you spill your spleen here.

If this is what you can say when you leave the movies, we'd better go back to them and you to school. I'm sure you can be the quintessential something, I'm not interested in the know of what, but the last phrase of your sentence is the quintessence of GW denial. And denial is the word here, as you can be a GW skeptic, as Dr. Singer -mentioned a few post earlier- who's arguments are to be taken in account -though that's not proof he, or anybody, is right-. It's good to be skeptic about things.

I don't reason on denial or under the shadow cast by tormented souls: there's no need to prove wrong one and depart of the manufactured fact the other proposes. This thread is about anti-global warming propaganda (not advocacy), you made your propaganda, you get the answer on your methods.

You don't quote others because you have to proof that the others meant what you assert they meant. That's a very convenient -and protective- laziness, covered under "...(given there's nothing in particular of much substance to address)...".

Here is the dialogue:

You said "the boy lost" and "so did his dad" (Is that your interpretation of "you still didn't convince me"?). Maybe to win and to lose, as a power strife, is all the time under the limelights in your mind, that's why you easily find the others wandering in a sea of words and hiding obscure interest to win something.

You lost the essence of the dialogue: it is his job to be right and all his arguments are meant to be heard from the outside of the ring. The boy asked about the moral considerations of his daddy being wrong -what makes to the plot in a much deeper way than a rumination about the quality of the debate-; the father says that, like the adversarial system of justice, he's playing for the jury to watch, not to convince the counterpart. He's like the defendant's counsel.

This dialogue, kept in your mind in an imperfect way, just rang a bell to you because you was urged to answer something, and incapable and not willing to examine my words and motivations, you simply tried to brand me the role of lobbyist, no clear of what, maybe the selling of carbon bonds or something like that, the "perverse hidden interest" you feel like this week to expose.

[I'm going to continue later in newer posts]

 

aleCcowaN (just so we're not confused here),

This is just as aggravating post as your previous ones. Again, you attack the statement instead of addressing the premise. How I said what I said is relativity irreverent to what I said. Quoting the dialogue is just a cute way of you to have a longer post and make it look more "legitimate". Oops, was that period supposed to be one the inside of those quotes? Oh wait - who gives a damn??

I'm not going to explain myself on anything but the subject of this forum from here on out, and I'd rather wait for anyone else to make a comment.

 

Did you mean irrespective? You certainly are irreverent (pert and shameless).

And certainly the way you said it is irrespective to the significance of what you said. But the mental and moral frame from where you said it, is not irrespective at all.

By making fantastic assertions like:

which first part "Lets leave the movies alone..." contradict your previous post where you were trying to brainwash a friend with your innuendos about Al Gore and his movie, but as I seem here to be harder for that task and you can't address anything, then you decided to gallop your favorite horse and say that I and anybody that don't fit your limited mind scope said nonsense, contradict, an so on, without even saying where.

The second part "...get back to the fact that the world is not getting hotter" (bold typeface was your choice, not mine), is the example of fantastic assertion on the side of GW deniers. One of many answers I can think about was given before in the thread: 1 year of cooling wipes out 100 years of "global warming". In that thread one of these forums team moderator repeated a fantastic assertion the very graph shown denies. My answers are posts #24 and #27.

By experience, I avoid (or try to avoid) giving answers that match the argumentation level of a High School debate team from the USA. They had there the unfortunate idea of using Global Warming as a subject of "controversy" and debate for educational and training purposes, and countless teen age manipulators are trying to get material, get trained and tune their arguments by posting a lot of silly things under false pretenses in any forum where this subject is discussed. I suppose there are many prizes and other incentives given by Greenpeace, the oil lobby, and countless organizations that foster a debate in English language that is spoiled, as far as I know. Besides, the proper state of the debate about GW is clearly beyond the reach of any High School, and I prefer to focus in people awareness about their personal position.

This brings me back to you, yellowlyric, and your mental an moral frame: by the mental angle, you think that you can manage information and methods enough to get a definitive conclusion on the subject: not even a bunch of Nobel prizes would dare! Even worse, you think in a shamanistic way that you can say the thermometer is even when it clearly raises. By the moral angle, you, as so many, don't accept the responsibilities of your assertions. Global Warming is a matter that compromises the whole planet, and your denial, be it angry or be it playful, put everyone and everything in peril. You and others have mixed up personal choices and community choices with the Russian roulette of inaction on the GW subject. You have mistaken your freedom to drink all the alcohol you can get, with your right to support a law inside your community that lets 7 years old kids to drink alcohol, with an inexistent right you are not entitled to get yourself drunk, drive a car, kill a group of people and later plea sobbing that it was not your intention. As you are aware of this, you don't say "I don't care a tiddly twat", you say "GW doesn't exist" as it must not exist, otherwise, you would be automatically categorized as a mean person. This seems to be the source of the certainty that so many fellows have on their dreadfully reasoned argumentations.

[and this will go on and on]

 

I actually think the word you're searching for is irrelevant.

 

Couldn't we just simply state that there is no evidence in favor of global warming and much against and leave it at that? Even if there was the tiniest sliver of evidence it would do us no good at all as we have no way of changing it. If we were somehow able to change something as huge as our environment it would all be vanity. In only a few years your little game will be over. It seems a bit silly doesn't it?

Ants can lift 20 times their own weight. Big deal. Eventually they just get squished and their little castle washes away.

 

That would be too simple for some of us.

 

That's what YOU are trying to state. Though is not a matter of state something (you can state you're Martian but that doesn't make you one), it would be nice that forum members who like to back your statement say clearly they do.

By the way, if you didn't notice, this thread in The Environment Forum is called "anti-global propaganda goes here". The default "stated" in these forums seems to be Global Warming is here.

Oh, nothing original but nice trying, it doesn't exist but if it existed we can't do something about it. All under control: Not only a statement about the way the World is but what happened exactly if it was the other way.

All your speculation about what we do, we don't, we can do or we can't do lacks the basic knowledge about control structures. You seem not be aware that one thing is an American 5 megatons H-bomb blast and other thing is the finger pressing the key that triggers the explosion. In a simplistic way, the finger is the control structure and the bomb is the physical phenomenon controlled by that finger. The rate between energies involved is at least a trillion to one.

Your own example of the ant and your remark about vanity are proof that you don't understand these simple things. That's what the anti global warming propaganda use to say amazing things like "being the water vapor the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, a little more CO2, methane or whatever don't change much the situation; besides, the heat comes from the Sun, not the Earth and least of all from Humans". This amazing statement may make sense for the undereducated, but you scratch it a little and it falls: no matter how much energy the Earth gets, it lose almost the same amount each hour (generally it loses a tiny bit more because it produces large amounts of heat in its inside). The main regulator are greenhouse gases: you got a lot, like Venus, and you got 450°C, you got almost none, and you got -60°C like Mars.

Greenhouse gases are the control structure. But water vapor is the main GHG, why do we care about other gases? Because water vapor is self-regulated, as atmosphere lose it as rain, heal and snow. More temperature, more water vapor, more frequent showers and storms (as an average around the planet). Even the dangerous methane has a mean life of 12 years, because it combines with atmospheric oxygen. But CO2 is chemically stable, and the use of it by nature is extremely slow, specially if we continue to lose forests and promote soil deterioration.

But enough for a single post, I will constantly add information and explanations about this subject in this thread and other ones in HipForums, not because the subject is nice or I like it, but because the planet is a closed system: I have to live, and also my progeny, the consequences of actions driven by people who think like you do.

I want to believe, like many of you, that Global Warming doesn't exist. But unlike many of you, for me it's not a matter of my wishes or what I'd prefer to be the truth. It's a matter of what can be proved, and no matter how intensely I try to be every day in favor of the arguments that deny GW, they massively prove wrong and inconclusive, while their counterparts have more and better logical and scientific arguments (not involving ants and vanity, better let to Aesop fables than to an epistemology)

 

So simply put the (Near to none) CO2 that everyone cries about diminishes every hour or so.
[sarcasm]
Also tell me more about Venus. Is this to say that humans once lived on Venus, but destroyed it with our vile existance? Amazing...
[/sarcasm]
Now please do explain the warming on other planets such as Mars, or Saturn. I truely am curious as to how "science" explains that. Secret government space exploration no doubt!

A typical example of the Liberal way. The freedom to take ones freedoms, no? Thank you for informing me that I can no longer be metaphorical. Please though, do not get your information from the latest Hollywood disaster movie.

 

Chist! Chist!

Hey, hacker.pizza, I think everybody will enjoy your comments in other thread:

As you can see, your freedom to say silly things remains untouched. You wrote the post that contains your second quote here less than an hour later you wrote the post above this one. Luckily for mankind, you're extremely slow at typing, otherwise we'd "enjoy" more of your spiritual prose. But luckily enough you wrote mutually incoherent posts within a short time frame. That's no normal to a sound person.

Also sarcasm doesn't become you. You're pretty bad at it as sarcasm requires seeing things just alike most of the people see them, but putting them together in a witty manner. You simply mixed up plain mockery with sarcasm.

What underlies all your statements here is you hating some groups. You accidentally chose the side of anti-global-warming, surely because it matched better your predating "depictions of the enemy".

The same way I discussed here about epistemological hedonism and continue to do, I'll discuss here, the proper thread, some much more primitive structures like "depicting the enemy", as there are here many "instances" of such thing. Hackers.pizza, you're one of them.

 

Hacker.pizza, about that water temperature thing, the northern ices are melting to a greater extent than ever. That is what makes the water rise, it's not that water '' takes more space '' there's just more water.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/18/a-bad-day-for-the-red-hots/

Al Gore picked a bad day to tout his global-warming scam. Just as he was telling an easily conned columnist for the Associated Press that Earthlings have just 10 years to get in line behind him to save the world from the frying pan, a consortium of 50,000 physicists conceded that maybe Al's evidence of man-made warming isn't so hot, after all.
Al, who confuses the hot air of flatulent cows, forgetting to turn out the lights and fumes from cars and trucks with the hot air he contributes himself, now wants to abandon coal-fired generation of electricity and turn to the impractical, the fanciful and the harebrained. It won't cost but $3 trillion, lot of could be, possibly and maybe for a lot of zeroes.
Al is green down to his skivvies. But most of his advice is for everyone else. He likes the extravagant life of the grasshopper, and if the ants will only work harder he can continue to burn through enough energy at his Nashville mansion to light six typical homes of worker ants. You have to wonder what Al and Tipper are doing behind those closed doors to use up so much energy, and at their age, too.
The American Physical Society, which represents those 50,000 physicists, is actually showing a little humility in the face of accumulating evidence that they've been wrong about global warming. The society not so long ago said the evidence of man as wastrel abuser of Earth was "incontrovertible." Now the evidence is beginning to look "controvertible" after all. Al and his friends have sold fearful politicians, including both Barack Obama and John McCain, the notion that society as we know it must be sacrificed to a severe and joyless life for everyone else. They argue that the debate over global warming - or "climate change," in the new euphemism - is over and some of the global-warming red-hots even want to make skepticism illegal. Skepticism is immoral, some of the loudest preachers now say, and Al looks as if indulging profligacy may be fattening, too.
But the times, they are a-changing. "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the conclusion that anthropogenic C02 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution," Jeffrey Marque, editor of a forum of the physicists' society, says. Shorn of euphemy, that means that Al's a fraud and the skeptics were right.
Al and his friends dread public acknowledgment that the "debate" over global warming has been a sham. Al's only effort to actually debate anyone is hardly willingness to argue: "Shut up," he explained.
The physicists are trying to open the debate with the publication of a learned paper that concludes that "climate sensitivity," a measurement of the rate of change caused by greenhouse gas, has been greatly exaggerated. The author of the paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, makes the commonsensical argument that nature is the villain, if we must have a villain. "In the past 70 years," told the online journal DailyTech, "the sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years." Lord Monckton, who was science adviser to the British administrations of Margaret Thatcher, notes that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon and Pluto warmed over this period in the same way as Earth. So why is Al Gore making so much noise about Earth? Why hasn't he inquired how Pluto is going to the dogs, or who's spoiling Neptune's moon?
Al identifies with moons. He cites John F. Kennedy's pledge in 1961 - which JFK redeemed even if he didn't live to see it - to send a man to the moon within a decade as the inspiration to make the America safe for windmills and ocean waves within 10 years. If we don't do as Al says, and cut out the consumption of oil, we'll continue to be hostages of hostile Arabs and mad mullahs. But like most green fanatics, he has nothing nice to say about nuclear energy, the obvious way to reduce consumption of oil, foreign or domestic. Al prefers pie in the sky: solar, wind and geothermal generation of energy, which is nice but not yet practical.
Sen. Voinovich

Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican, is not impressed. "We could put windmills from the Atlantic to the Pacific and it will increase the production of carbon-free energy production, but the fact of the matter is it's not going to get the job done." But Al Gore is living proof that talking about it is a nice living.
Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Times.