Philosophy Now Forum

Well, that was as uneducational as I expected.

The IPCC is a body funded and designed to prove AGW.
The CFACT is a body funded and designed to dispel the myth of AGW.

I see no reason to accept one over the other, but I ma a little more skeptical about the IPCC given the political circumstance of its birth.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee ... e_Tomorrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergove ... ate_Change

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
"You can skream, skream, skream until you're blue in the face but it still won't make your thread title assertion true."

And what assertion is that, dumbass?

The one implicit in your title, now for sure you wish to mask it with a question mark and let's say you meant it, so no global warming is not a hoax and the evidence quoted in it does not make this claim as all it claims is that parts of an(unspecified) climate model my have faults and as such the future forecasting made with it could be out with respect to CO2 by a fair margin. However none of this, if true, which given the nature of the 'publication' I doubt, affect the claim that the world is getting warmer as that claim is based upon the much simpler method of measuring the temperatures and comparing them with the records and everything points to the world getting warmer. With respect to the CO2 point its pretty much moot as we also know that methane is a bigger greenhouse gas and is likely to be a much bigger contributor.

Next we have:

"Nothing to explain as it's obvious that you trawl the weeb exactly to find such 'evidence' to support your godbothering creationist anti-scientific stance."

Again you're speaking for everybody when you could only speak for yourself. Bad assumption from one whose brain is smaller than a peanut.

I'm not speaking for everyone fuckwit, I'm exactly speaking for myself.

Last we have:

"My apologies as I was using English, 'That you then inflict them and your poor reasoning upon me is another issue. And one that causes me great anguish as I joined this Philosophy forum in the hope of not hearing such misuse of language and reason'."

I've never seen you use English, just American. ...

Then you are colour blind.

As far as misuse of language and reason, just look at Hex. Can't spell to save his life and the only thing he likes to do is name calling and hates classic philosophy on this forum. Also hates any discussion as he's made abundantly clear (why? since this is a forum)

I have no idea why you are bringing your boyfriend into this conversation? But you are on sticky ground if you are using language ability to question Hex's intelligence as he is speaking an writing in a non-native language, which means he can speak two languages, can you speak Danish? If not then he has one up on you in the language intelligence argument.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
"You can skream, skream, skream until you're blue in the face but it still won't make your thread title assertion true."

And what assertion is that, dumbass?

The one implicit in your title, now for sure you wish to mask it with a question mark and let's say you meant it, so no global warming is not a hoax and the evidence quoted in it does not make this claim as all it claims is that parts of an(unspecified) climate model my have faults and as such the future forecasting made with it could be out with respect to CO2 by a fair margin. However none of this, if true, which given the nature of the 'publication' I doubt, affect the claim that the world is getting warmer as that claim is based upon the much simpler method of measuring the temperatures and comparing them with the records and everything points to the world getting warmer. With respect to the CO2 point its pretty much moot as we also know that methane is a bigger greenhouse gas and is likely to be a much bigger contributor.

Next we have:

"Nothing to explain as it's obvious that you trawl the weeb exactly to find such 'evidence' to support your godbothering creationist anti-scientific stance."

Again you're speaking for everybody when you could only speak for yourself. Bad assumption from one whose brain is smaller than a peanut.

I'm not speaking for everyone fuckwit, I'm exactly speaking for myself.

Last we have:

"My apologies as I was using English, 'That you then inflict them and your poor reasoning upon me is another issue. And one that causes me great anguish as I joined this Philosophy forum in the hope of not hearing such misuse of language and reason'."

I've never seen you use English, just American. ...

Then you are colour blind.

As far as misuse of language and reason, just look at Hex. Can't spell to save his life and the only thing he likes to do is name calling and hates classic philosophy on this forum. Also hates any discussion as he's made abundantly clear (why? since this is a forum)

I have no idea why you are bringing your boyfriend into this conversation? But you are on sticky ground if you are using language ability to question Hex's intelligence as he is speaking an writing in a non-native language, which means he can speak two languages, can you speak Danish? If not then he has one up on you in the language intelligence argument.

Your pathetic, wimpy arguments aren't even worth my time. But I did get amusement when you referred to your boyfriend (the pain in the arse as you like to put it) by saying "...speaking an[d] writing" which means you both can't spell LOL.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Your pathetic, wimpy arguments aren't even worth my time. ...

Of course they aren't as one, it'd involve you thinking philosophically and two, would cut into your obsessive link spamming.

But I did get amusement when you referred to your boyfriend (the pain in the arse as you like to put it) by saying "...speaking an[d] writing" which means you both can't spell LOL.

PhilX

Car to say that in Danish?

Spotting typos and grammar, the last refuge of the hard of thought.

Chicken man said:

"Car to say that in Danish?"

You can't even say it in English! (care to say that in Danish) You better go back to school

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Chicken man said:

"Car to say that in Danish?"

You can't even say it in English! (care to say that in Danish) You better go back to school

PhilX

Pointing out typos and grammar, the last refuge of the hard of thought and I thank you for proving it.

Shouldn't you be trawling the weeb for more pointless links to spam this forum with?

It seems Denmark isn't fully aboard with global warming:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10 ... subsidies/

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Chicken man said:

"Car to say that in Danish?"

You can't even say it in English! (care to say that in Danish) You better go back to school

PhilX

Pointing out typos and grammar, the last refuge of the hard of thought and I thank you for proving it.

Shouldn't you be trawling the weeb for more pointless links to spam this forum with?

Telling me what to do? You do enough spamming with your abusive nonsense, scatterbrain.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Telling me what to do?

Did you see the question mark? Although I admit it was a rhetorical question as link spamming is your raison d'etre.

You do enough spamming with your abusive nonsense, scatterbrain.

PhilX

Looking forward to the day you actually respond to critique rather than have an emotional tantrum but I won't be holding my breath.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Telling me what to do?

Did you see the question mark? Although I admit it was a rhetorical question as link spamming is your raison d'etre.

You do enough spamming with your abusive nonsense, scatterbrain.

PhilX

Looking forward to the day you actually respond to critique rather than have an emotional tantrum but I won't be holding my breath.

You do a poor job of covering your bird tracks. You must be in love with my threads to be stalking me.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You do a poor job of covering your bird tracks. ...

Then explain where! I know it's hard for you but this is a PHILOSOPHY forum.

You must be in love with my threads to be stalking me.

In your dreams, it's that you post such poor thoughts.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:You do a poor job of covering your bird tracks. ...

Then explain where! I know it's hard for you but this is a PHILOSOPHY forum.

You must be in love with my threads to be stalking me.

In your dreams, it's that you post such poor thoughts.

And you're one to judge? It's you who post such poor thoughts loser. What's going to be your next attempted retort, birdbrain? No wonder why they call you a troll.

PhilX

There is no doubt that the finding of the IPCC are not settled or certain.
http://www.weatheraction.com
Piers Corbyn has made lots on money predicting the weather by observing sunspots and beating more conventional means of prediction.
His website has much to commend it.

Here's why the "hockey stick" is bullshit

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... _stick.pdf