JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 10th April 2013, 03:59 AM   #321
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,894
The idea that because a word is used in one phrase (even if it's a particularly emotive one) it can no longer be used in any other phrase, despite being clearly applicable, just seems bizarre to me.
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 04:37 AM   #322
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
I think that as long as the vast majority of scientific opinion says that AGW is happening and is a threat then denier is an appropriate term. If scientific opinion swung the other way and anyone stuck doggedly to that opinion then I would expect them to be called deniers.
Wouldnt they be 'affirmers' bearing in mind they would be claiming something is happening as opposed to something that isnt?
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 04:50 AM   #323
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 1,826
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
It's about mitigation. I can't put an exact figure on it, but I can tell you that if we don't mitigate CO2 emissions a lot more people will die than if we do mitigate CO2 emissions.
This isn't particularly accurate. The effects of global warming will be felt over the next 50-100 years, so the total number of deaths with mitigation may be higher than without.
What I think is a better way to phrase it is that many more people will die unnecessarily in severe weather events (floods, droughts, heat waves, storms etc) without mitigation of CO2 emissions or prepartion for the impact of AGW.
Guybrush Threepwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 05:13 AM   #324
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Global Warming Denialism is a label taken from the term Holocaust Denialism, and thus is an ad hominem attack attributing those with rational arguments against man made global warming by smearing them with the racist attributes of the Holocaust Denier. It is a shameful term, and has no place in rational discourse.
Not at all. On the contrary, denialist is in fact a pretty positive term to apply here or in many other Internet venues like this one when the supposed "denialist" is mainly speaking of conspiracies and evil-like forces which achieve beneficial treats by deceiving and harming vast social sectors.

X-denialism is just a body of ideas about X that are held by permanently fighting the massive evidence and intellectual knowledge that substantiate X. Figures devoted to X-denialism try to excel in that body of ideas, while amateur X-deniers become easily anxious and frustrated as they fail, and fail, and fail, and fail when they confront the knowledge about X and people who is knowledgeable about X. It's the why-don't-they-wake-up-and-accept-what-I-am-telling-them approach that translates into howls and insults that, like any loud communication, most rather stun and deafen the very emitter than the receptor of the message.

The fact that some Xs in X-denialism are ridiculous, like Holocaust denialism, as people share basic information and methods to easily dig out the truth about that, doesn't make other Xs less ridiculous, like (A)GW-denialism; it just makes it more difficult to sort out to the common indifferent fellow.

Don't let us get distracted by interesting denialists. No matter I associate people using their first illegal drug and moving into harder drugs with pluri-denialism in certain people, like several blokes here that have denied GW and Holocaust, or GW and 911 at the same time, I have to remind myself that's just a matter of psychology and not a matter of climate science, history and forensics.
__________________
si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO
[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2013, 05:29 AM   #325
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Wouldnt they be 'affirmers' bearing in mind they would be claiming something is happening as opposed to something that isnt?
That'd be a "normal climate denialist". Interesting enough, GW denialists could have called "normal climate denialists" all the people they called GW proponents when they were not using names. But terms like "normal climate denialist" would require a working definition of "normal climate" and the patient education and the constant supply of information and methods to the "denialists". Ain't gonna happen, as that's not their reason of being.
__________________
si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO
[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2013, 01:11 PM   #326
r-j
Often found wandering in a fog of confusion
 
r-j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: the warm and sunny south
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Isn't it?
It's a tax that companies didn't have to pay but now do in order to maintain their businesses due to it being implemented by a government pretending to be concerned about the environment.
If you pay the tax you can carry on polluting if you cant pay or reduce emissions you go out of business.

Its exactly like a breathing tax.
The unscientific notion that CO2 is pollution, labels every living animal a source of pollution. The notion that tax will solve the problem is nonsense, and dangerous. The smog problem and acid rain problem didn't get solved by taxing. Taxing CO2 is a total scam.

Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Oh and another thing

I hope you are not one of the thousands of people who may become unemployed because the company you work for has to cut costs to pay the said tax.
I hope every last person who is so stupid they believe in the great global warming hoax starves slowly to death in the dark.

lol just joshing you. But it is despicable at how unscientific people are trying to run the world.
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Things are not as simple as they first appear.
To the hysterical global warming crowd, it's all very simple. You should stop breathing, and they should fly around the world telling people how bad they are for breathing.

Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Emissions taxation is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't eliminate the problem, it just hits business in the pocket short term.
It fills the pocket of the crooks in charge, which is always the real goal of taxes.

(this is the CT forum, right?)
__________________
"If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target."

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keyne
r-j is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2013, 04:18 PM   #327
bobwtfomg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by r-j View Post
The unscientific notion that CO2 is pollution, labels every living animal a source of pollution. The notion that tax will solve the problem is nonsense, and dangerous. The smog problem and acid rain problem didn't get solved by taxing. Taxing CO2 is a total scam.

I hope every last person who is so stupid they believe in the great global warming hoax starves slowly to death in the dark.

lol just joshing you. But it is despicable at how unscientific people are trying to run the world.
To the hysterical global warming crowd, it's all very simple. You should stop breathing, and they should fly around the world telling people how bad they are for breathing.



It fills the pocket of the crooks in charge, which is always the real goal of taxes.

(this is the CT forum, right?)
This is a joke/poe, right? I mean you don't actually believe this gish gallop of nonsense, do you?

If not, you're in the wrong thread, this is a thread about the motives behind those who do not understand the evidence which has lead to, and yet also reject, the scientific consensus that rising CO2 levels* in the atmosphere are leading to global warming.

*animals/people breathing doesn't lead to increase in atmospheric Co2 levels as it's part of short term carbon cycle i.e. only recently photsynthesised by plants whereas CO2 from FFs has been in ground for tens/hundreds of miillions of years.
bobwtfomg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2013, 02:40 AM   #328
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,174
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Isn't it?
It's a tax that companies didn't have to pay but now do in order to maintain their businesses due to it being implemented by a government pretending to be concerned about the environment.
If you pay the tax you can carry on polluting if you cant pay or reduce emissions you go out of business.
It's analogous to other anti-pollution measures; when it was discovered that a particular process (coal burning, PCB dumping,TEL doped petrol, CFC aerosol propellants) had a negative effect on the environment then measures were introduced to reduce this effect, by requiring remediative measures or the elimination of the process.

Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Its exactly like a breathing tax.
No it's not even remotely like one.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2013, 02:46 AM   #329
DC
dedicated aphilatelist
 
DC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 22,949
Originally Posted by r-j View Post
The unscientific notion that CO2 is pollution, labels every living animal a source of pollution. The notion that tax will solve the problem is nonsense, and dangerous. The smog problem and acid rain problem didn't get solved by taxing. Taxing CO2 is a total scam.

I hope every last person who is so stupid they believe in the great global warming hoax starves slowly to death in the dark.

lol just joshing you. But it is despicable at how unscientific people are trying to run the world.
To the hysterical global warming crowd, it's all very simple. You should stop breathing, and they should fly around the world telling people how bad they are for breathing.



It fills the pocket of the crooks in charge, which is always the real goal of taxes.

(this is the CT forum, right?)
acid rain Problem got solved by cap and trade

what would your solution be to the CO2 Problem?

Last edited by DC; 15th April 2013 at 02:47 AM.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2013, 04:26 AM   #330
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Zeph View Post
...

So how do the conspiracy theorists deal with these aspects? I'm not an expert on their thinking, but I've read some of their blogs, and I've never seen the points I mention here addressed there. Why do most scientists who will not benefit and may lose funding nevertheless endorse AGW, and what factor would drive a near seamless conspiracy to falsely and unnecessarily attribute the cause to humans?
There are hints about they dealing with such contradictions sometimes. The response is a new element that allow them keep the structure of their thoughts unchanged: the global Socialism, forces trying to bring America to her knees (with America being a misnomer for a country that is in America), or a public driven to mass hysteria that unscrupulous politicians try to please using public funds in order to keep their share of power. Whatever it is for every individual case, don't try to reason with them explaining that or discussing their contradictions because they don't do that.

You have succeeded as many of us in depicting the lack of common sense behind the notion of a climatic conspiracy, but that won't dishearten them. It's enough for you to know that AGW comes from science and its denialism comes from epistemological hedonism, the same force that drives a person to believe in horoscopes, visits of ancient aliens or a god that has arranged a special place for people to be rewarded or punished after death. This last example is provided not to mock or belittle those who hold such notions but to explain how the bearers of such notions can perfectly think it is a legitimate idea, which is exactly what denialists do.

About that, what you can do is to watch and share your observations. You can describe how we take the reasoning of our fellow posters and continue to build on top and enrich that reasoning while denialists behave in a way they may celebrate a retort by one of their "colleagues" -that human tendency to endorse a good piece of speech by saying "I'd have replied exactly the same"-, but they can't build on top of their colleagues' reasoning, climate-related one, I mean. They are basically unsympathetic from an intellectual point of view.

Basically, don't try to change them, it's not your job. You may detect denialists in their early stage of formation and try to show them a path of sound reasoning. But don't try to bring with you a hardened denialist in order to "redeem" him, not because they are beyond redemption but because it's not your place to do that. Otherwise you may found yourself in this situation: "...knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp «Why?»"
__________________
si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO
[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2013, 09:59 AM   #331
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,678
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
But some of the taxes that have been introduced seem to be unavoidable without the companies themselves suffering heavy losses or going out of business.
What makes you think this is a problem? There are very real costs to CO2 emissions and these cost are not being paid by the people producing or using the fossil fuels. Instead these costs are socialized and paid for by society in general meaning the people emitting the CO2 are receiving enormously valuable concessions for free.
If a company can’t stay in business if it’s forced to pay the costs associated with it’s activity should we really be concerned?
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Let companies pollute as much as they like, as long as they pay the tax.
Market theory says that for a market to function properly/efficiently the costs all have to be paid for by the people involved in the transaction. Without some form of Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade this isn’t the case

Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
Pretty much like the government introducing a "breathing tax" TBH.
It really isn’t
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2013, 04:00 AM   #332
bobtaftfan
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 250
It is amazing to see the posturing of AGW defenders. You discredit yourselves badly when you pretend that all scientists agree with you and that only kooks dispute AGW.

So I take it you folks aren't the least bit moved by the Hadley CRU e-mail scandal, where AGW scientists were caught red handed in very unscientific behavior regarding evidence and critics? Do you know how many thousands of scientists have gone on record questioning AGW?

The sun, not human activity, is the main driver of climate change.
bobtaftfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2013, 04:26 AM   #333
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
It is amazing to see the posturing of AGW defenders. You discredit yourselves badly when you pretend that all scientists agree with you and that only kooks dispute AGW.

So I take it you folks aren't the least bit moved by the Hadley CRU e-mail scandal, where AGW scientists were caught red handed in very unscientific behavior regarding evidence and critics? Do you know how many thousands of scientists have gone on record questioning AGW?

The sun, not human activity, is the main driver of climate change.
Thank you for your practical example of global warming denialism in action. I'll tell you how to follow this now: There's a thread here where you can repost your message above -if you were serious writing it- and you were answered as you deserve. Take some time to look for previous answers among some 75,000 posts in that and other threads where those subjects were discussed. If your intention was sarcastic, there's no need to do that.

There's no need for you to explain yourself further in this thread about the specifics in your post. In fact, we'll be forced to report that fact in such case. You are welcome to post here about what is global warming denialism.
__________________
si razona el caballO ¡se acabó la equitacióN! - césaR brutO
[English student. Plees, forgibb my misteakes!]
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
"Ego sum cucurbita magna" -Guyus Qualunque
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2013, 05:57 AM   #334
bobwtfomg
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 361
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
It is amazing to see the posturing of AGW defenders. You discredit yourselves badly when you pretend that all scientists agree with you and that only kooks dispute AGW.

So I take it you folks aren't the least bit moved by the Hadley CRU e-mail scandal, where AGW scientists were caught red handed in very unscientific behavior regarding evidence and critics? Do you know how many thousands of scientists have gone on record questioning AGW?

The sun, not human activity, is the main driver of climate change.
I take it you do not accept the scientific consensus on the role of CO2 in the climate, If you have any scientific reason for rejecting something which has now been accepted by every major scientific institution, there is a thread on the science sub-forum where people would be very interested, in fact if you are one of these "thousands" of scientists who question AGW I suggest you publish, I'm sure there's a nobel waiting for anyone who can show there's no link between CO2 levels and climate.

As for the CRU hacked e-mail "scandal". Have you seen any of the many reports that cleared the scientists of any scientific fraud?
Here's one http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Quote:
1.3 Findings
13.
Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards
of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific
allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists,
we find that their
rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt
.
14.
In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of
advice given to policy makers. In particular,
we did not find any evidence of
behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments
.
though they've been criticised for their lack of transparency

Quote:
15.
But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display
the proper degree of openness
, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the
part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory
requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to
the credibility of UK climate science.

Of course if climate scientists are all part of a hoax, and all major scientific, academic and governmental institutions are all in on it/been bought off/useful idiots, then it follows that all these reports are part of the cover up orchestrated by THEM, who can be any one or more of the following (NWO/Alien lizards/illuminati/satanic freemasons/evil eugeneticists/Jewish bankers/evil corporations/big guvmunt)
bobwtfomg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2013, 07:12 PM   #335
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 7,614
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
So I take it you folks aren't the least bit moved by the Hadley CRU e-mail scandal
Nope. A tempest in a teapot.
Quote:
...where AGW scientists were caught red handed in very unscientific behavior regarding evidence and critics?
Bogus characterization.

Quote:
Do you know how many thousands of scientists have gone on record questioning AGW?
Yeah most of us are familiar with those highly inane surveys I assume you're referring to.

Quote:
The sun, not human activity, is the main driver of climate change.
How very 1990.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2013, 08:15 PM   #336
crescent
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 439
The Irrelevance of Climate Skeptics

This thread seems as appropriate as any for this, given that the premise of the article is a bit more philosophy focused rather than science focused:

The Irrelevance of Climate Skeptics

Quote:
The battle over public opinion on climate change has long been won, and not by the skeptics. But simply by virtue of their continued existence, the climate skeptics may have the last laugh, because many climate campaigners seem to be able to see nothing else in the debate. Climate skeptics are not all powerful and may not even be much relevant to efforts to decarbonise the global economy. They have, however, cast a spell upon their opponents.
crescent is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2013, 04:58 AM   #337
uke2se
Philosopher
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,034
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
This thread seems as appropriate as any for this, given that the premise of the article is a bit more philosophy focused rather than science focused:

The Irrelevance of Climate Skeptics
As long as climate deniers hold important offices it is relevant to oppose them. When the likes of Inhofe et al finally get voted out of congress and the senate, we can stop focusing on the deniers.

Trust me, many people will be very relieved when we can finally stop this ridiculous rear-guard action against science deniers and focus on moving forwards. That time isn't here yet, though.
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2013, 04:59 PM   #338
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,456
Originally Posted by bobtaftfan View Post
It is amazing to see the posturing of AGW defenders. You discredit yourselves badly when you pretend that all scientists agree with you and that only kooks dispute AGW.
Well, you have to admit that AGW cause the severe weather which resulted in the Kido Butai sending messages despite being ordered not to do so.


Oh, wait...
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.