Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 4:17 am**

Impenitent wrote:
thedoc wrote:I believe it was the church that asserted that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth. The few Scientists that there were tried to tell them otherwise, and history tells us how that turned out.
have faith in your global warming "scientists" and obey
-Imp

If you are a global warming scientist, state your case. If not, how do you know what you think you know?

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 6:07 am**

I believe it was the church that asserted that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth. The few Scientists that there were tried to tell them otherwise, and history tells us how that turned out.

This would be one reason why today's scientists are kept on such short leashes.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 6:21 am**

But to claim that the entire scientific community is composed of liars is silly.

Yes, it is. No one has made such a claim. It's more complex than tell the truth or lie.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 9:32 am**

raw_thought wrote:I agree that to say that all scientists are independent and conscientious is false.
But to claim that the entire scientific community is composed of liars is silly.

No one is saying that.

All science depends on grants from interest groups wishing to prove something.
By and large a more careful reading of the reports of science is required, and a critical mind to uncover what they are trying to say, underneath the glitzy headlines, of the gutter press and the politicos wishing to ride the shit-tide of public opinion.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 9:37 am**

thedoc wrote:
Impenitent wrote:rhetorical query: how many millions of "scientists" were convinced at one time that the world was flat?

-Imp
Rhetorical question, How many "Millions" of scientists were there, when it was believed that the world was flat? And what does this have to do with the current debate?

I believe it was the church that asserted that the world was flat and the Sun went around the Earth. The few Scientists that there were tried to tell them otherwise, and history tells us how that turned out.

Not really. At some point in history the church decided to adopt the wisdom of Ptolemy and Aristotle. God told them to do that. Once they had done that the "science" of Aristotle was made Dogma.

The mistake at any time in history is to make ANY science doctrine.
For it is the case that for 90% of history 80% of all science was been proved wrong. Science is not religion; it is a process.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 1:26 pm**

Science is under the control of corporations and so is Art. Two disciplines of enlightened enquiry have been put into a straight-jacket of sorts. I claim this is deliberate. What is produced in both camps ought to be treated with scepticism.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 2:40 pm**

Pluto wrote:Science is under the control of corporations and so is Art. Two disciplines of enlightened enquiry have been put into a straight-jacket of sorts. I claim this is deliberate. What is produced in both camps ought to be treated with scepticism.

There is a thin veneer of corporation controlled art. But for the most part art is free of influence.
The addition of large sums of cash in relation to art is not a good indicator of the aesthetic values of art. Good art can be cheap, bad art can be expensive.

For science it is not only corporate control but government control and the vested ideological interests of the academic system which is so often mobilised against change and in the interests of pharma-corps.

Posted: **Sat May 09, 2015 5:47 pm**

Pluto wrote:
the real evidenc
The world no longer works this way according to the superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

Excerpt from the link above:

"The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ...

"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."" --wikipedia--

The facts are that those that say and believe what our red man above is saying, are scared far beyond the average human, such that they are consumed with self, beyond all others, even going so far as to expend others, for their selfish wants and desires. To such a degree that they are literally insane relative to those that 'know,' not believe, 'that in fact solutions emerge from ones judicious study of discernible reality.'
Translated, it means that their lies have successfully obfuscated their implementation, thus knowing, of the upcoming, other than immediately discernible reality; such that the cure is lagged far behind their disease, so as to ensure, their insane wants and desires are met. So lying to the populace, they're serving, their ill-informed wants and desires, probably because deep down they suspect somethings amiss, though they can't quite put their finger on it. These people of this degree of confusion, are indeed quite insane, (NPD candidates, though I prefer, "megalomaniacs")!

This type of nutter always can only see a preemptive strike as their only solution, thus becoming that which they fear, so driven by it. Chasing their tail, incapable of understanding the bigger picture, the truth of it 'all.'

Philosophers, not!! Of the type: "Don't know that they don't know," yet merely 'believe' otherwise, lost in their vortex of fear, of what childhood tragic event, we can only imagine.

A knee-jerk half baked mentality that can only spell out disaster.

There should be a law that forbids that type personality from ever obtaining a seat of power, a seat that holds the lives of the honest and innocent, that were lied to, in the manic care, of one destined to destroy 'everyones' future.

Of course, as i see it, all the above honest critique is due, because of their own admission, clearly contained in the aides quote.

Believed by who??? Please sign your name below.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:19 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:I agree that to say that all scientists are independent and conscientious is false.
But to claim that the entire scientific community is composed of liars is silly.
No one is saying that.

All science depends on grants from interest groups wishing to prove something.
By and large a more careful reading of the reports of science is required, and a critical mind to uncover what they are trying to say, underneath the glitzy headlines, of the gutter press and the politicos wishing to ride the shit-tide of public opinion.

???
You say that no one is saying that and then you imply that the entire scientific community is falsifying data (lying) because they want grants .
Follow the money!! There is vastly more money available from the oil industry then the solar and/or wind energy corporations. If one wants to get bigger bribes one would go to the oil industry.
Actually, the oil industry hired eesearchers and they gave them the answers the oil industry did not want.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:22 pm**

raw_thought wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
raw_thought wrote:I agree that to say that all scientists are independent and conscientious is false.
But to claim that the entire scientific community is composed of liars is silly.
No one is saying that.

All science depends on grants from interest groups wishing to prove something.
By and large a more careful reading of the reports of science is required, and a critical mind to uncover what they are trying to say, underneath the glitzy headlines, of the gutter press and the politicos wishing to ride the shit-tide of public opinion.
???
You say that no one is saying that and then you imply that the entire scientific community is falsifying data (lying) because they want grants .
Follow the money!! There is vastly more money available from the oil industry then the solar and/or wind energy corporations. If one wants to get bigger bribes one would go to the oil industry.
Actually, the oil industry hired eesearchers and they gave them the answers the oil industry did not want.

I find your black and white thinking quite disappointing.
Please read what I actually said rather than what you want me to have said.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 3:35 pm**

The ENTIRE world's scientific community agrees with AGW.
They are right or they are wrong.
If they are wrong,there can be only two reasons they are wrong.
1. They are liars and are falsifying data.
2. They are stupid and understand less about science then some guy's blog.
1 and 2 are silly. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly likely that AGW is true.
Note that I did not say 100% certainty. Science is not 100% anything. The world is not flat? 99.999999999999999999999999% likely.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 9:36 pm**

raw_thought wrote:The ENTIRE world's scientific community agrees with AGW..

There is a technical term for this idea: BOLLOCKS.

See last post.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 9:40 pm**

Do some research!!! I will send the sites but I am on a tablet now. EVERY scientific organization in the world endorses AGW.

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 9:40 pm**

raw_thought wrote:Is NASA falsifying evidence and part of the conspiracy/hoax?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... /page2.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Is the American Meteorological Society part of the conspiracy/hoax?
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking.”
FROM
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
Are ALL the following liars and part of a conspiracy?
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society ( of the United Kingdom)
European Science Foundation
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
African Academy of Sciences
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
American Chemical Society[49]
American Institute of Physics[50]
American Physical Society[51]
Australian Institute of Physics[52]
European Physical Society[53]
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society[92]
American Statistical Association[93]
The Institution of Engineers Australia[94]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[95]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[96]
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)
the American Institute of Professional Geologists
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

Dissenting?
NONE!! !
All those organizations are falsifying data?
Here is Scientific American”s refutation of all the junk science coming from the AGW denier cult.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -nonsense/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scienti ... rians.html
The argument "global warming stopped in 1998" still enjoys popularity. There is a simpler response to the argument that 1998 is the hottest year on record. It's not true. 1998 is not the hottest year on record. GISS and NOAA both find 2005 is the hottest year on record!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1998-is ... ecord.html
and that site is from 2009, it has gotten hotter since then!! !
2010 beat 2005! And now,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2 ... 02cy800dth
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/g ... s-globally
http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWith ... icle_id=53
The Oregon petition?
“Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe"
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Climategate?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm
Climategate was a hoax perpetrated by hackers that wanted to discredit AGW by any means possible. So they illegally broke into computers and then twisted what they found into a conspiracy. Actually, when the scientists said that they had found a neat trick it was similar to saying, " I found a neat trick to do this calculus problem quicker." There was nothing nefarious about it.
In short ALL of science agrees with AGW.
If you do not believe in AGW then you must believe that there is a conspiracy that involves the entire scientific community. Who is behind this conspiracy? Bigfoot, Elvis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_%28character%29

Posted: **Sun May 10, 2015 9:44 pm**

You are a fanatic AGW denier,so I am sure,that you will always want more. But I will continue to prove that EVERY legitimate scientific (I am not including Rush Limbaugh,Glen Beck, or Brietbart as scientific organizations for obvious reasons). organization endorses AGW.

Philosophy Now Forum

Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change

Re: Climate Change