Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Great! you've proved Australia's hot and always has been. So what was the point you're trying to make here? Surely not cherry-picking a conspiratorial slant so that any concern over current high temperatures, bushfires and lack of water is somehow undermined? Or just to advertise your priveledged place as favoured child of the Universe? What about this actually makes you happy?

Surely instead of picking on Lone Shaman, what the vid should surely be getting us asking questions such as:

1) If this type of thing (heat, fires,etc) has happened many times in the past, how can the cause be man made? I heard a guy this morning say at the time of the Cambrian evolution period, CO2 levels were 15 times the present level.

2) Why are graphs being manipulated?

I see this starting to become personal, when there really is no need.
 
Surely instead of picking on Lone Shaman, what the vid should surely be getting us asking questions such as:

1) If this type of thing (heat, fires,etc) has happened many times in the past, how can the cause be man made? I heard a guy this morning say at the time of the Cambrian evolution period, CO2 levels were 15 times the present level.

2) Why are graphs being manipulated?

I see this starting to become personal, when there really is no need.

I don't mind Steve, my 11 year old son understood the point. He is still giggling his ass off. LOL
 
I see this starting to become personal, when there really is no need.

Yes indeed, as I keep on stressing, we should approach this problem not as a moral question but as a factual question.

I mean it would be immoral to dismiss CAGW knowing it to be true.

Just as it would be immoral to endorse CAGW knowing it to be false.

I sometimes wonder if anyone here has any psychically derived data that bears on this issue - this would be the perfect forum to discuss it. I mean why are some people passionately commited to the idea of CAGW?

David
 
Sheesh Alice, you really don't get it? You got to be kidding me. Try just thinking about it. It's really not that hard.
What is your point in posting this that I'm not getting? That we should now refute any data indicating human influence? Your guy implies data on high temperatures in Australia has been hidden, which he is really using as a speculation of conspiracy to conceal information for the purpose of proving that because it was hot in the past, we should not believe in human influence now. This is a self-approbatory conclusion stated in a blandly conceited tone to convey I suppose, that he has proved a point beyond debate.

Look, I'm sorry to argue with you, but you assume that you're right and inevitably find evidence to support your beliefs, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, doesn't get it, is being manipulated and/or joking. How does this progress the issue of whether there is human responsibility for climate change, pollution and species decimation? Humans have been influential on the planet for 1,000s of years, so the late 1800s/early 1900s is quite late in the game.
 
This is where I heard it, all interesting stuff, from min 57.
Yet another incredible synchronicity. I responded to Laird about this only just this morning. I swear the universe just serves this up right into my lap.

Tony Heller is the same guy that made your synchronistic video, I only heard of him this morning, although he was a guest on the Richie Allen show earlier this week, I hadn’t looked till this morning. Another synchronicity?
 
This is where I heard it, all interesting stuff, from min 57. (You see why I wanted to learn how I could clip YouTube vids LS)

Yeah, Tony Heller is the author of that video I just posted, as well as a several of the others I have posted. He's a power house when it comes to slaying the myths being jammed down our throats from the media and IPCC. I thoroughly recommend his channel.

The bottom line is, it was hotter in the past before any possible effects of industrial age, heatwaves, droughts, fires etc... all of it. Nothing that we are experiencing is new, nothing! When you are exposed to this information, the spell that is being cast on the population becomes powerless against you.

People go mad in herds, but only come to there senses individually and slowly.

Edit. You beat me to it :)

I guess we were synchronized!
 
Last edited:
We all have a special place in the universe, we are it. I am not special as a individual, not at all. Special things happen to me. The more I believe it the more it happens. They happen to everyone, some just don't recognize them or are not open to them. When you listen the Gods will speak.

I normally wouldn't quote Wikipedia but when you are right you are right.

Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

The earliest documentation of critical thinking are the teachings of Socrates recorded by Plato. Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in "authority" to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief.
 
Is it?

There’s nothing moralistic about it Alice, it’s simply how I’d probably feel if your post had been directed at me.
Describing my comments as "picking on LoneShaman" is moralistic.
Describing the discovery of information to support ones views as having the universe on your side is hard to contend.
I might as well say god told me I'm right.
 
They happen to everyone, some just don't recognize them or are not open to them.
Certainly. But I know they are only true for me, not that I can use them to prove the error of another's perception. It's very personal.
 
Yes indeed, as I keep on stressing, we should approach this problem not as a moral question but as a factual question.
The thing is David, there are moral issues in this climate question. Facts only deal with objective data, and neglect the inevitable emotional content. This is where Science fails us, trying to deny, ignore, refute the subjective experience. And yet enjoys the higher moral ground in this unreal detachment, given that emotions currently have social-pariah status.
 
Certainly. But I know they are only true for me, not that I can use them to prove the error of another's perception. It's very personal.

It's not like that, for example after Lairds post I went digging for Australian temperature records, I wanted to know for myself. I was asking the question. So it was personal. I couldn't find anything and gave up. A couple hours later it just appears. This happens to me all the time.

Maybe I could have kept it to myself. But why should I? Laird's post was not polite, it was cynical and derogatory. Perhaps it was for his benefit and not mine. Who am I to say.
 
It's not like that, for example after Lairds post I went digging for Australian temperature records, I wanted to know for myself. I was asking the question. So it was personal. I couldn't find anything and gave up. A couple hours later it just appears. This happens to me all the time.

Maybe I could have kept it to myself. But why should I? Laird's post was not polite, it was cynical and derogatory. Perhaps it was for his benefit and not mine. Who am I to say.
Can't you see that you'd already evaluated what you wanted to find? This happens often, say when you get a red car, then see red cars everywhere.
I'm not dissing it, I'm just saying question your motives. And your evaluations. You say Laird was cynical and derogatory, but I didn't think so. Perhaps because it's not personal, but that just means we have to be wary of our own self-oriented conclusions.
 
You do the same Alice. I posted that video of that young lady. She's clearly intelligent, articulate, politically and socially aware. She shows true critical thinking abilities. Her English is fantastic. She is quite a remarkable girl. She is not scowling and condemning. Her parents should be very proud.

And all you say is....

Yay the pro-fossils have a poster-girl too! Not forgetting that the Germans have a deeply-entrenched cultural guilt-complex, which she now appears to be channeling into a backlash against 'feeling bad', although she is clearly speaking from a comfy middle-class upbringing based on oil.

No one's objecting to human achievements in technology, but I hope she remembers to commend German success in alternative energy projects, and continues to prefer paper bags to plastic.

How smooth and wealthy the Heartland Institute looks.

I think that is disgusting. But hey that is just me.
 
You do the same Alice. I posted that video of that young lady. She's clearly intelligent, articulate, politically and socially aware. She shows true critical thinking abilities. Her English is fantastic. She is quite a remarkable girl. She is not scowling and condemning. Her parents should be very proud.

And all you say is....



I think that is disgusting. But hey that is just me.
Yes, and I was repeating the condemnation that has been levelled at Greta. That's up to you to think me disgusting. I think I am cynical. Naomi could have equally been 'groomed' to represent an agenda.
 
Ok. I’m relatively content with embracing that, though I disagree. :)
Perhaps I mean morally judgemental? I don't think I'm the one taking this personally but if LoneShaman feels picked upon, I will take that into account.
 
Back
Top