Johnny Storm Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 You can predict the future climate using common sense? I'd give MIT admissions a call, you might be the saviour of mankind. I believe the question was "How do you determine the real science from the psuedo science?" the answer being common sense. As you dont seem to have any, ill give you a clue. Science policy that links into taxation with no actual benefit to the suggested problem would be pseudo. I was trying to find some other science policies as examples and stumbled upon this for you. Understanding Global Warming Brain Washing 1.Assault on identity -You are not who you think you are. This is a systematic attack on a target’s sense of self (also called his identity or ego) and his core belief system. 2.Guilt - You are bad. While the identity crisis is setting in, the agent is simultaneously creating an overwhelming sense of guilt in the target. He repeatedly and mercilessly attacks the subject for any “sin†the target has committed, large or small. (In this case the sin is not believing in Man-Made Global Warming) 3.Self-betrayal - Agree with me that you are bad. Once the subject is disoriented and drowning in guilt, the agent forces him to denounce his family, friends and peers who share the same “wrong†belief system that he holds. 4.Breaking point-When the target reaches his breaking point, his sense of self is pretty much up for grabs — he has no clear understanding of who he is or what is happening to him. At this point, the agent sets up the temptation to convert to another belief system that will save the target from his misery. 5.Leniency- I can help you! 6.Compulsion to confess -You can help yourself. 7.Channeling of guilt- The target comes to believe it is his belief system that is the cause of his shame. The contrast between old and new has been established: The old belief system is associated with psychological (and usually physical) agony; and the new belief system is associated with the possibility of escaping that agony. 8.Releasing of guilt - The embattled target is relieved to learn there is an external cause of his wrongness, that it is not he himself that is inescapably bad — this means he can escape his wrongness by escaping the wrong belief system. All he has to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system, and he won’t be in pain anymore. 9.Progress and harmony -If you want, you can choose good. The agent introduces a new belief system as the path to “good.†10.Final confession and rebirth- I choose good. Contrasting the agony of the old with the peacefulness of the new, the target chooses the new identity, clinging to it like a life preserver. He rejects his old belief system and pledges allegiance to the new one that is going to make his life better. http://climatechange-globalwarming.com/tag...arming-taxation I like this bit too:- The same principal explains why the Global Warming believers refuse to acknowledge there is anything but a CONSENSUS. If they keep saying there is a CONSENSUS and the media keeps reinforcing the position then a large part of the population will take this statement as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 There are a hell of a lot of mortgage payments and salaries that depend on man made climate change being true. That's a good enough reason to be sceptical about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I believe the question was "How do you determine the real science from the psuedo science?"the answer being common sense. As you dont seem to have any, ill give you a clue. Science policy that links into taxation with no actual benefit to the suggested problem would be pseudo. Ad hom insults...the first sign of losing the argument. Forget taxation issues, that's another subject completely. I want to know how you are so wise as to be able to use just common sense to differentiate between the masses of complex peer reviewed climatology data, and good old fashioned psuedo science. I mean, you must be at least as equally qualified as the experts, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I must have lost the argument as im not interested in replying to you, you and your opinion just arent that important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I must have lost the argument as im not interested in replying to you, you and your opinion just arent that important to me. Oh dear, and I thought you cared deeply. This is a debating forum, go to MSE if you need hugs to get through your browsing session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Ad hom insults...the first sign of losing the argument. Forget taxation issues, that's another subject completely. I want to know how you are so wise as to be able to use just common sense to differentiate between the masses of complex peer reviewed climatology data, and good old fashioned psuedo science. I mean, you must be at least as equally qualified as the experts, right? How can it be? That has been the whole end result of this global warming sh1te. The only thing it's produced is taxes and other expenses. The single greatest threat to man kind (so we're told) and the only way anyone has thought to counter it is by making people give up more of their earnings. How come we haven't seen bans on large engined cars, for instance? This would seem to be a no brainer, it wouldn't affect the car industry if they were all made to do it at once so why can I still go out and buy a huge f*ckin Range Rover which does 9mpg in town but I just have to pay more to run it? If it's damaging the planet then why isn't it just banned? The reason is, of course, that no one really believes it is harming the planet. It's all just a bandwagon which most of the world has jumped on to get their snouts in the trough. Making people pay more isn't going to make the world cool down. On the subject of it being peer reviewed - so what? You can't automatically remove something from suspicion just because it's been peer reviewed because peer reviewed isn't the same independently reviewed. The peers of a climate scientist are other climate scientists who all depend on the theory of global warming being advanced and upheld to pay their mortgages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 How come we haven't seen bans on large engined cars, for instance? This would seem to be a no brainer, it wouldn't affect the car industry if they were all made to do it at once so why can I still go out and buy a huge f*ckin Range Rover which does 9mpg in town but I just have to pay more to run it? If it's damaging the planet then why isn't it just banned? The reason is, of course, that no one really believes it is harming the planet. It's all just a bandwagon which most of the world has jumped on to get their snouts in the trough.Making people pay more isn't going to make the world cool down. Believe me, I'd love to see large engined vehicles banned for anything other than proper utility purposes, but any government which tried to implement such a decision would be out on its ****. Hence phasing in increased road taxes for the gas guzzlers. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Making people pay more will change behaviour, most only have finite resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Believe me, I'd love to see large engined vehicles banned for anything other than proper utility purposes, but any government which tried to implement such a decision would be out on its ****. Hence phasing in increased road taxes for the gas guzzlers. It's not perfect, but it's a start.Making people pay more will change behaviour, most only have finite resources. You're missing the point though. There are hundreds of thousands of people on this bandwagon, including lots of the worlds most powerful political names. As has been pointed out, it's called the Inter-governmental panel and most governments seem to be on it. Most of the worlds most powerful people are telling us all that big engined cars are damaging the planet to such a degree that it is the single most important potential disaster in human history. Given that there is massive support (apparently) for this then it should be piece of p1ss for the worlds governments simply to ban the manufacture of private vehicles over a certain engine size, surely? Just do it next week - job done! It would have no effect on individual governments if the majority of the world did it all at once - why would it, they all believe the same thing as do most of the opposition parties - don't they? The taxing to change behavior argument is bogus as well. £400 to tax a new £60K 4x4 is f*ck all - it's four or five tanks of fuel. In fact, it's even more ****** because it will hammer the resale value so those things will end up being scrapped earlier because no one futher down the chain will buy them meaning that even more will be produced for those willing to buy new. Hardly very green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 We should double the price of fuel. Not for the environment but for my driving pleasure. Id be happy to pay that to reduce the number of cars on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Not to many years ago, 50 of the top Climate Scientists (American Metereological Society) compiled an Open Letter - which they all signed - debunking the growing cause of man's activities changing climate. http://www.john-daly.com/scientism.htm The BMJ site carries the original letter, but since I am not a doc I am not a member! I'm sure that with sufficient assiduity one could find it on the Net. That said the analytical comments of John Daly are well worth reading: in particular, his comments reagrding peer pressure. In reality what we seem to have is one group of scientists fervently supporting Climate Change: and perhaps a larger group disagreeing! Now since the very word "Science" means the study of not knowing - i.e. seeking logical and wholly provable explanations for apparent phenomena - then as normal human beings, we must deservedly treat science with considerable skepticism. Until and unless hypotheses are proven beyond doubt. In my fairly rational mind, what we currently have, are a set of circumstances of change; to which change a number of reputation seeking scientists and quasi-scientists have leapt onto the bandwaggon and succeeded in promoting paranoia. What must clearly be done, is once and for all establish whether certain climatic changes are indeed caused by excess CO2, which itself results from human activity: or whether such measurable and quantifiable changes might be due to another effect. A typical Earth cycle, e.g., as has been experienced since both observation and event measurement (which includes historic event measurement using soil core sampling and etc) experienced over hundreds and thousands of years in Earth's history. Otherwise we risk creating the wrong solution for the wrong problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Stromba Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 There is no global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houses_Burning Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I like many others on here, am concerned about climate change, so very interested in looking at each of the party's policies on this issue.I was shocked to learn UKIPs view: http://www.ukip.org/content/features/552-c...ant-you-to-hear Their views come directly from The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. By the International Climate Science Coalition. This organisation lists all the people on their Science and Policy board: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org...5&Itemid=28 All of these people listed again by Exxonsrcrets. You can click on each of their names and see other organisations they are involved with. They ALL are funded by EXXONMOBIL http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147 I was just shocked to see this view from the party, and didn't want anyone else to make the mistake of voting for a party who might have extremely conflicting views to yourself. This post isn't meant to be another argument, just an awareness thing. Kara Gee I think the whole manmade climate change theory is made up, i will therefore consider voting UKIP tommorow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I have read this thread with great interest and followed many of the links posted. What i found concerned me greatly. Many of the websites linked too and the trail i followed looking for origins of the 'data' proclaimed as scientific fact all ended up at one site... www.exxonsecrets.org. For example. The petition supposedly signed by over 30,000 scientists is the brainchild of one frederick seitz - a once director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power stations. He has been disassociated from a number of scientific academies for fraudulent behaviour (in 1998 he produced a very dubious 15 000 name petition that claimed carbon dioxide poses no threat to global climate stability and advocated the abandonment of the kyoto protocol. I also refer you to this article http://www.rachel.org/en/node/3839 Mr Seitz is associated with a number of organisations that acquire funding from exxon mobile and other energy companies. I could go on but will leave you to do further research yourselves http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=6 My point is this. If you are goint to say something as fact, be very sure of your sources. If you are saying that environmentalists are having their strings pulled by governments... (it's not just governments now... its also some of the energy giants http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3814607.stm... (though i have grave doubts about CCS)) ... is it not possible you are having your strings pulled by the energy giants like exxon mobil, all their cronies and anyone greedy enough to say anything for a few units of their chosen currency? I have been proved time and time again that some energy giant and self interested parties are behind global warming denial... their philosophy is to create confusion and thus innaction. For it is only when people feel certain that they are willing to change. And if you do not believe this all i ask you to do is research the very well documented history of cigarette advertising and the campeigns of so called grass route organisations and pseudo scientific establishments that proclaimed that smoking was benificial to health. Believe me i can keep going ad infinitum on this The Husband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 i would also like to add that the leader of UKIP is on the list of ten most un transparant politicians in government today see the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/ma...ip-nigel-farage i trust this will put you of this damnable party for good As for the BNP... they are nothing but criminals http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg07.htm The Husband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prescience Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Now let's see if I have this right......... Michael Crichton, The American Metreological Society et al were/are all running dogs for Exxon-Mobil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 hang on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/154...with-Nigel.html There's one http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle1466713.ece there's another... http://ukipwatch.org/2008_09_01_ukipwatch_archive.html and another... though this blog does stop sept 2008...it did go for 4 years! Do you want me to carry on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hence phasing in increased road taxes for the gas guzzlers. It's not perfect, but it's a start. Some of you guys are really into this increasing tax bit, I guess that is the UK totalaraian state values at their best. If you want to change behaviour you reward good behaviour which in the case above would be to reduce taxes for those that dont gaz guzzle. Not that I believe any of this AGW Phlogiston though. But I do belive in tax reduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 There is no global warming. That is why they prefer the term Climate Change these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 hang on...Do you want me to carry on? Yes this is all good stuff, I am getting to like this guy now, especially when the UK left wing media put him down, it increases my respect for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 Yeap, definately a plant. Even worse a leftie carbon eating plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 As to your question, does it put me of (I suspect you mean off), no, why should it?UKIP are alright by me thanks, infact, I might go so far as to say any of the fringe parties are worth voting for than the current shower of shite, would n't you say? But perhaps you are a main party plant, put here to try and help one of them? Surprising that you should become a member of HPC so recently, I (think) I smell a possible rat. You insult me ) I am one of these sad people who looks over the shoulder of his spouse while she rabbits on this 'ere forum, procaliming that everyone is WRONG and not sticking my ten penneth in... so now i am And i am most definitely NOT a lefty plant and neither am i a right winger. I actually believe (as you may see from my footer) that i believe the REAL power is with us. We are after all the ones spending our money on things and companies who do not give a rats ass about anything but making a tidy profit... at the expense of peoples human rights and the environment. I dont know what i am but i hate the system as much as the rest of you. however in some respects you are all completely WRONG! ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 On this website you gotta declare your stance, no use hiding, come on, out with it.So, you'll be voting for.......................? my card will be green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 So you are voting for a fringe, excellent. there's no other option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Husband Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 For you.But for me: UKIP Did you get that? You are utterly mad... their as bad as the main stream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non frog Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 I don't see the problem. UKIP are worthless scum. Global warming deniers are worthless scum. Natural bedfellows. Liars stick together. Where's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.