Torero

That's always the question, in any situation, right? Of course in the case of the late stage pregnancy the OP is talking about the mother is the first person to take seriously (i.e. her rationality). But what if she becomes irrational in the later stages of the pregnancy and others with relevant knowledge -the case is on an honest doctor, which you have clearly argumented is rare as there's financial incentives involved- and the other person whose rationality is important for the newborn (the father) are rational? The mother is always right, no matter what? If the answer to the first question is yes, then I don't understand your position here... The big difference between the C-section/no C-section of the OP and abortion is the stage the pregnancy is in. In the OP case the baby is fetal viable; it is a living being. In the case of abortion (up to a certain week) that's not the case; the choice is between continuing a life to be developed or halting that process. How can you morally dislike the mother who chooses abortion (so doesn't want the life to develop; she's not killing life) yet seem to stand behind her in case it really is a question between life or death?

I don't know the person or more background and have no degree whatsoever in psychology so my opinion is an amateur one, but the 12 year age difference is quite extreme. That the 28-year old is the child of teenage parents may have to do with it; compensation? His own parents are then just a bit older than his girlfriend, that's quite strange in relationships. But what if he just likes to care for children, but doesn't like the baby stage? Or just has a good connection with this 40 year old lady which he hasn't with the single non-moms "available" on the dating market to him?

Of course you're right that not every danger is the same. And that there are religious people of different religions who use their beliefs as sticks, not as mere guidelines, is also true. That it's not black and white and religious people can behave as scare-mongerers and loving at the same time as well. That is contradictory of course; if you use one hand to love and tender and the other hand to slap and scare it's not love and tender anymore. My point is that that isn't the case for all religious people. There are litterally billions of people who hold religious beliefs in the world. Generalising all of them is a bit difficult, especially without knowing them. "If you don't believe in [my] God, you will go to Hell" "If you do not do X, God will punish you" etc. are examples of what you describe as "scaring children into conclusions without investigation". But what about: "God cares about you, he loves you" "May God bless you" "God's ways give you strength in life" etc. In my direct experience with religious people in the past years it was definitely the last category and not the first. When I was still living in Holland, with many more Reformed/Calvinist christians than here in Catholic Latin America, the first category was more abundant. So the key word in your post is "scare". If the irrational concept of (a) God is used to scare people, indeed I agree with you that it's dangerous. But if that same irrational God is used as a tool in life to handle coincidence (neutral) or blessing (positive) I don't see a danger in that and the topic title question "Can't we just get along?" would be answered to those people with a "yes, we can".

Thanks and my pleasure. Updated the OP with the two latest FDR podcasts/videos/topics on "Climate Change" (8-01-2016 call-in show and 17-01-2016 video put under forum topics). And added the GOLD File of the 14-02-2015 show.

A fair question to ask, if "climate change" were a real scientific theory. The Climate Change idea, reframed from AGW (= Antropogenic Global Warming) is far from that. What rosencrantz said earlier isn't true; Arrhenius did not research AGW, yet the greenhouse effect. Even if a greenhouse effect could be applied globally (which I suspect not to be the case; extrapolating closed system analysis on a global scale with an open boundary to the top -atmosphere-space- is not possible), then still the human factor is not part of that. That's my whole problem with this scam; the premise is that humans are "responsible", the question "only" is; 'how much'? That is completely anti-natural scientific. The natural causes of CO2 production are far more important than us, humans. Natural outgassings of the ocean floor (oceans are covering about 70% of the whole Earth's surface), e.g. black smokers, far outweigh any effect we humans could possible have on the production of CO2. I've linked to them many times, but again because they are so important to understand which scales we are talking about, there have been 2 drastic (yet short-lived; showing how nature itself copes with changes; re-equilibration) climate changes in the past 420 years. Both were caused by natural factors; volcanic eruptions. We humans were (and will not be) able to be stronger than those: 1 - The eruption of Huaynaputina, a volcano in Peru (!) in 1600 and the resulting Russian famine of the following years 2 - The eruption of Tambora, a volcano in Indonesia in 1815 and the resulting Year without Summer (an interesting book collecting the evidence for this drastic climate change I have and is really recommended to understand the scale of those events) If the Climate Change "theory" (it's a hypothesis, not more) were a fair and balanced analysis taking into account the natural factors and not focusing uniquely on human influence, your question would be a fair one to ask and answer. As that is not the case and the natural effects are downplayed to even not taken into account, that question is impossible to answer as the premise is intrinsically wrong.

You're right, it's impossible to know if a baby would come out ok with a vaginal birth as opposed to the thought experiment of the C-section in the example. We do not have a parallel universe to check the results of the other choice. Forgot to mention it when I posted. Also indeed the case imagined relies on the professionality of the doctors. In real life there are many incentives to go for C-sections, as linked by Susana and mellomama (25,000 dollars; craziness!). That may well be the most important reason why these gynaecologists proposed this very thing. The fetus has to come out somehow. If it's not by C-section, it's by vaginal birth; hours of hard work, unimaginable to me, mere man. But that no one is forcing the man to have a handicapped child, I don't agree with. The case presented does it. That the risk is always there is true, but in case the risk would be avoidable and it is willingly made handicapped by irrationality, I consider that force. The intention is not to make the child handicapped, but that is the same with heavy smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Also that I see as an act of aggression to a living thing (first fetus, then baby). It may not be intended to make the baby suffer, but that doesn't make it less aggressive. That cutting the woman open against her will is a violation of NAP is undisputable, of course. Is the choice made that leads to aggression not intentional? If the choice would have been made otherwise (the woman chooses the C-section) the harm wouldn't have been done. In the case presented; in real life we don't have parallel unverses to say this with certainty in hindsight. And risks to C-sected women are widely reported, also those medical professionals I take seriously. It's the philosophy I am interested in unveiling, not the real life examples. I've read the links provided by Susana and RoseCodex and the link on Florida by Susana shows that even the medical institutions regret to have C-sected so much... I see your comparison, but there's a difference. If Sam doesn't stab Martha (so avoiding the initiation of force), there still is a possiblity that there are ill effects to Martha (cf.: vaginal delivery leading to life-threatening complications to the mother). It's not: stabbing = putting risks on Martha while not stabbing = not putting any risks. The analogy uses "stabbing" (although you mentioned "as careful as possible"). Stabbing is an act of aggression (I don't dispute that a forced C-section is that, see my post and agreement with mellomama above) without positives included in the word. At least not for the victim of the stabbing (a criminal stabbing someone to steal his money is of course profitable for him). "Stabbing as careful as possible" sounds like "raping as careful as possible". An oxymoron. A surgical operation may or may not be positive for the victim of it. So here there's no guaranteed winner and loser. The woman may even live due to the operation while die when the operation wasn't performed. If rationality is the basis of philosophy, then what about irrational situations; the mother reacting irrationally to her belly being cut open. How does that relate to a philosophical response? If someone goes completely crazy and is a danger to his surroundings (someone walking on the highway trying to save his dog that ran away, risking the lives of car and motor drivers for instance), is it appropriate to hold such a person behaving irrationally captive preventing him to do this? Or would that also be a violation of the NAP; the person should not be hindered in walking on the highway, as that would be the "initiation of force"? Or should be talked out of it; the rational non-violent response to a possibly violent irrational action. Because in the case presented; the woman is pictured irrational. Please, I am nowhere saying that women refusing C-sections are irrational and of course I agree that in most cases she knows her own body best and makes the right choice for herself and the baby. But to me it's not a case of black and white here; there are more nuances in this picture. No guaranteed winners and losers.

Stefan uses the rabbit example for the r's, yet rabbit are not rodents. Beavers are. Just wanted to make the remark. It's a good point you make; how is stress related to r vs K? Rodents as preyed animals should have quite some stress, you'd say. But looking at the largest one, I don't know, looks pretty relaxed...

Nature, I love you.

Having 5 fingers and use their full potential is just as "engineered" as having two legs, having no tail hindering our movement or having a toolkit with a hammer, screwdriver and drilling device if those are the only tools invented. It's what we have, born with, so it looks perfectly fit for the job. Is having 2 fixed frontal eyes the "ideal case" because we have them and can see 3D? Spiders, or chameleons (amazing animals), if they could talk, would disagree... Octopuses and monkeys that have a "5th arm" using their flexible tails also may very well disagree with our "perfectly designed" limbs.... It's our toolkit, so we use it. I am glad this site is the toolkit for our brains to use more potential of it then staring at stupid series, engineered for easliy brainwashable minds.

Interesting becomes if the non-aggression principle is introduced in the discussion. I searched for a definition on the forum and found this recent topic but I missed an FDR-definition (Mike, an idea to have a "glossary section"/topic on terms and definitions used in the discussions; UPB, NAP, r vs K, and some thousands others?), so I will use the one on Wikipedia: Let's take the (not so?) hypothetical case as follows: Decent moral not-led-by-religion loving pair of parents Woman is pregnant, a wanted pregnancy by both parties Complications in the latest stage of pregnancy arise Doctors are advising to have a C-section if not the unborn child will have severe physical handicaps in life Man follows the advice of the doctors and urges his wife/girlfriend to have a C-section Woman decides she does not want to risk a C-section Obviously the physical action of forcing the woman to have a C-section is a violation of NAP. But what about the action to the child, which is evenly so physical in nature by refusing the C-section and the child suffering from handicaps? And what about forcing the father to have a child that suffers from those handicaps? Whose violation of the NAP is correct? According to dsayers the question is simple; the unborn child is the woman's property and so violating her rights is the initiation of force thus a violation of NAP. Doctors, child and father all are irrelevant until the baby is delivered. According to me it is not so simple; there are multiple parties and each party suffers from a violation of NAP in this case: A - the woman decides; no C-section and the child is born the natural way but suffers from severe life-long complications - the father is forced to see also his child suffer from handicaps - violation of NAP (property) - the mother is forcing herself a painful vaginal delivery - no violation of NAP on her own, yet on the other parties (person & property) - the child is forced to live with handicaps - violation of NAP (person) B - the man and doctors decide: a C-section and the child does not suffer from handicaps - the father is forcing his partner to have a C-section - violation of NAP (person) - the mother is forced to have her belly cut open - violation of NAP (person) - the child's physical health is forcing his mother to suffer from a heavy operation - violation of NAP (person), yet does not suffer from handicaps If it would all be a simple 1+1+1 "game", then stance A would "gain"; only 2 persons NAP are violated and 2 properties. But I don't see it that simple or black and white. Also because the vaginal delivery may well be as "aggressive"/physically damaging on the mother herself or on her future abilities to ever have children again...

I guess in that case the excellent r/K-theory series would have been presented reversed.

Mellomama, thank you for the clarification and I understand now better where this request is coming from. 25,000 dollars?? In Holland childbirth at home is very normal and I remember when I lived and worked there in a multinational company that foreign colleagues were shocked by that. I guess they forgot that children being born "at home" was the standard for some 150.000-millions of years... (depending on where you draw the line in the species Homo) Always knew "we" should never have 'traded' New Amsterdam for Suriname + 1 dollar... Brr, I am not very comfortable then... Maybe better let a future baby be born in Holland then...

I think that's not a very good comparison as there are not three parties involved who have a say on a new life, like there is in case of father, mother and child. I do not dispute that at all. But just in that case a set of knowledgeable doctors can give a sound advice to the mother. And my objection is around the situation that father says "Please, let our child come in this world" while the mother says "I do not want anyone to cut open my belly, so let this fetus be unborn". If both parents agree to not have the baby, it should not be forced upon them by doctors and less judges. That's a funny definition of property rights. That would mean an inseminated mother with the fetus of two other people (in case the woman cannot hold her pregnancy or in case of gay couples or so) is the property owner of a child which is not hers in the first place and can decide what to do with it whatever she wants. Also this I don't dispute but there may well be situations that a decent, loving woman during (and because of) her pregnancy starts to make irresponsible and irrational decisions that hurt two other people who cannot be disregarded; the voiceless fetal viable (so willing to live!) upcoming child and the father. Especially considering the hormonal effects of pregnancy. See my example of the surrogate mother. In your definition of property rights, you say that she (and only she!) is the "owner" of the unborn child and (thus) may decide what to do with it, no matter what the two biological parents have to say. I have a different position on property rights and do not agree with your claim on "the philosophically 'consistent' position". My stance is that both father and mother have property rights in case of childbirth, not only after the baby is born. I would not ad hominem a "white knight" to you, as you explain where you're coming from. I just see property rights differently. Yes, the judge part I disagree with too. It would give horrible situations if judges and not doctors in collaboration with one of the property holders (the father) would have the right to decide on life or non-life. Really?? I am shocked. I am not someone who asks for sources and links as then a discussion end up in talking about links (which in my experience seldom lead to rational outcomes), so I take your word for it. But that's definitely an amazingly large number. It may have to do with the obscene obesity that is widespread among certain social classes in the US? From first hand I do not know the country that well, but Texas (the fattest state at the time I was there, 10 years ago) was shocking. I agree that the idea that judges should decide is philosophically (voluntaryism, property rights, etc.) a horrible thing, apart from the practical impossibilities (hence the smiley I added to the article), but indeed wanted to make the case for when mom says "NO!" and dad says "Yes, please!". Are there "larger fees" for cesareans? Really? That's terrible. And doctors convenience? Is an hours long operation done by doctors not less convenient than if the woman does the job in the natural way? Again this may be a difference between US and Holland...?

There was a news item in the Dutch news that surfaced today and even when reading the title of it I was thinking of an important forgotten factor. There is of course another point of discussion, especially considering voluntaryism; if judges may intervene in personal choices, but that is for this topic a secondary point. I was discussing this on a Dutch forum and I was the first one to bring up the factor "father" (vader in Dutch, as in "Darth Vader", see Stefans review of the recent Star Wars movie). In a parallel topic there was just 1 person who had the same idea, a woman actually . Both my and her reactions were regarded with disbelief and taunt. The fiercest "defenders" of the "unique right of the mother to decide over what's in her belly" were... men. Both surprising (in my opinion) and not (considering the fierce feministic fantasy that has been propagandised in the country for decades). My argument for the right of the father to have an equal say in the decision for incision is that a child is the result of the choice of two people together, not only the mother has the right to decide over life or death of the unborn (in case of cesareans we talk about fetal viability, other than abortion which is far earlier in the pregnancy). I have brought up that if this inequality of rights is to be advocated, then the father is double (or triple) fucked (no pun intended) by 1) the hopelessly archaic system of alimony (installed in times when women were not gaining household incomes like they are perfectly capable of today) and 2) the skewed allocation of the child(ren)'s custody in case of a divorce (mostly to the mother, not the father). ============================= What's your view on this sensitive topic?

Sorry for your pain, but I had a good laugh reading it, so thanks. Exactly; the effect would be that prices will fluctuate much more. If people work less or not anymore and if this BIG would be implemented the prices of goods and services would go nuts (or bananas, or any other fruit). For just that reason in a global economy (or in the EU-crapitalist* version of it) it would already be impossible if 1 country introduced this BIGS**. Also with open borders it's impossible; when does someone get this BIG? Immediately upon arrival? That will boost the immigration to Europe even more and make the whole system even more impossible to maintain (less people paying into it, more people "profiting" from it). * kudos to Stefan in his recent video on the FED and Welfare: "crony-capitalist, let's call it crapitalist" ** Blatantly Immoral Government Slavery

So to answer my point about "media propaganda" you bring up some "Ben Shapiro" clown who reacts with "bla bla terrorists" (he probably forgot to include the CIA-Mossad clowns either sparking or fabricating that "terrorism"...) to two media puppets (Ben Affleck and Barack Obama) and then calls "143 million people in Indonesia radicals". Only because also they are brainwashed by their own politicians, media and education... Who is this "Ben Shapiro"? Later he "changed his views", but he held these very anti-libertarian views... So, why do you bring this character up?

RoseCodex, great post again. Apart from that, just 1 click away from the page Thomasio mentioned: Daddy working for two of the fiercest totalitarian statist horrors of the 20th century...

Are you calling "Antropogenic Global Warming" a "theory"? A scientific theory (which AGW is not; it's a politicized hypothesis, a scam) should have been "backed up by evidence" long before it even made it to the theory stage. Moreover, it needs to be predictive; the essential characteristic of a decent scientific theory. Also there, it fails. How many is "few"? Who do you call upon to be "scientifically literate"? It feels like you're somehow 'defending' this scamdalous politics, if not, please elaborate on your position.

The idea that the vast majority of muslims "hate you" is completely the result of media propaganda. Muslims in general just want to live their lives, raise their children and all other things non-muslims want. It's because we are bombarded (hihi) by media hoaxes that people started to think that way. I myself was culpable of the same indoctrination by the media for sone 12 years. Politicians drive, live and strive on irrational fears; tge whole idea behind the "rationwl" (=pseudo) state (+ mass media).

Yes, that's what I noticed so many times already. You are generalizing people, religious people (the other discussion we met), businesses, "thieves" (like someone who is "rich" -compared to whom?- is automatically a thief or a "taker") and even on a discussion platform where clearly many different individuals are voicing their thoughts "a common point of view" or "common ground"... People are all different.

Just like the Antropogenic Global Warming topic, a similar OP for the not less "hot" topics immigration, (forced) multiculturalism and related subjects. Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies) Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest) Topic highlighted in blue contains scientific studies Forum topics on Immigration et al. The European "Migrant" Crisis - 02-09-2015 - 51 replies White People - 09-07-2015 - 42 r The Truth About Immigration and Welfare - 20-10-2015 - 35 r My Problem with Immigrants - Tolerating Intolerance - 01-10-2015 - 19 r The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy - Bill Whittle & Stefan Molyneux - 09-12-2015 - 17 r Female Worker Stabbed to Death in Swedish Refugee Center - 26-01-2016 - 15 r What Pisses Me Off About the European Migrant Crisis - 02-09-2015 - 14 r How Multiculturalism Enriches Europe - 29-08-2015 - 14 r Temporary Foreign Workers - 22-04-2014 - 14 r White Genocide Theory in a Nutshell - 29-11-2015 - 9 r Operational Sex Ratio & Islamic Rape Jihad - 29-01-2016 - 8 r The Great Freedoms That Come From Immigrants Outside the Freedom Club - 20-08-2014 - 8 r Immigration & Native Americans - 18-11-2015 - 7 r Donald Trump's Immigration Plan - An Honest Conversation - 18-08-2015 - 7 r Donald Trump: Stop Muslim Immigration - True News - 08-12-2015 - 6 r The Truth About Illegal Immigrants - Was Donald Trump Right? - 17-10-2015 - 6 r What Outcome Will Multiculturalism Have? - 06-10-2015 - 6 r The Truth About Immigration - What They Won't Tell You! - 20-07-2014 - 6 r Shareable Anti-Immigration Video? - 03-01-2016 - 5 r Border Controls & Anarcholibertarian Ethics - 28-12-2015 - 5 r Mises & Immigration - 13-01-2015 - 3 r Trying to Understand the Refugee Migrant Situation - 20-11-2015 - 2 r The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship - 24-08-2015 - 2 r Obama's Executive Order - Immigration, Amnesty & Contradictions - 22-11-2014 - 2 r The Immigration Crisis - Propaganda Decoded - 29-07-2014 - 2 r The High Cost of Middle-Eastern Refugees - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 14-12-2015 - 0 r 62 % of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare - 02-11-2015 - 0 r IQ and Immigration - Jason Richwine & Stefan Molyneux - 05-10-2015 - 0 r FDR podcasts on Immigration Is the European Migrant Crisis Leading to War? - Paul Joseph & Stefan Molyneux - 04-02-2016 - 1:01:44 The High Cost of Middle-Eastern Refugees - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 14-12-2015 - 46:47 The Donald Trump Immigration Controversy - Bill Whittle & Stefan Molyneux - 09-12-2015 - 1:15:47 Donald Trump: Stop Muslim Immigration - True News - 08-12-2015 - 28:39 62 % of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare - Steven Camarota & Stefan Molyneux - 02-11-2015 - 1:03:47 The Truth About Immigration & Welfare - 20-10-2015 - 35:19 The Truth About Illegal Immigrants - Was Donald Trump Right? - 17-10-2015 - 54:36 IQ & Immigration - Jason Richwine & Stefan Molyneux - 05-10-2015 - 1:02:07 Death By Multiculturalism - Call-in Show - 09-09-2015 - 3:30:26 Donald Trump's Immigration Plan - An Honest Conversation - 18-08-2015 - 1:53:36 An Honest Conversation About Donald Trump - 05-08-2015 - 1:32:28 Obama's Executive Order - Immigration, Amnesty & Contradictions - 22-11-2014 - 20:35 The Immigration Crisis Propaganda Decoded - with Monica Perez - 29-07-2014 - 36:10 The Truth About Immigration - What They Won't Tell You! - 21-07-2014 - 1:45:35 Unions, Immigration & Foreign Trade - 19-11-2012 - 1:04:11 Call-in Show - Why Doesn't the Free Market Work in Immigration? - 05-06-2011 - 1:55:15 The Immigration Roundtable - Stephan Kinsella, Wilt Alston & Stefan Molyneux - 09-05-2010 - 1:57:12 Immigration - Part 2 - 25-01-2007 - 31:03 Immigration & Empathy - 24-01-2007 - 38:25 Immigration, History & Genocide - 02-05-2006 - 42:04 Immigration Part 2 - The Predatory Escalation of Immigration Policies - 04-04-2006 - 9:58 Immigration Part 1 - 04-04-2006 - 34:10 FDR videos on Immigration & YouTube Playlist ===================================== External video Interesting & Effectively Simple Video on the Uselessness of Immigration into the Western World - Roy Beck

I see a lot of left-wing propaganda mambo-jambo, Thomasio. Some points highlighted: - you jump from "the super rich" (I'd call them the Elites; the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Romanovs, etc. etc.; the families with a lot of background influence) to "the rich". That is a common trick from left-wing professional liars to make people who gain a bit less than others start to attack people who work hard/have good educations. Like the Hartz IV-Spießer criticizing the doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs who actually did something more with their lives than watching crap on TV and drinking cheap beers.... - you state that "the rich" always ("eternal"; another absolutism) "exploits" "the poor". First of all; the poor in the past were people without reading or writing skills, very little means of defense or travel/emigration options and very importantly; no knowledge of or access to philosophy. The world has changed dramatically since then and anyone now who is labeled "poor" can have those things. Education used to be """for free""" in Germany, is that still the case? So also money-wise it's not like all the centuries before. Second point; what do you mean by "exploitation"? Is offering a job and a salary exploitation? Is doing business exploitation? What is exploitation is the crony-"capitalist" system; if you fail in your business (like banks), you run to the state to help you out exploiting other people who have to pay for those bail-outs, corruption and other madness. And you stay blind for arguments. You keep saying "abolishing the state" like it's some world-wide utopian idea to live peacefully based on negotiation and not force. That shows you're just repeating propaganda tactics and are not interested in a real debate. I've watched the video you posted by the way. Mildly interesting slides (unreadable from the distance) and some good comments and some very bad comments (advocating more statism, wanting to "manage" the monetary "union" and not dismantling it and more). But I don't understand why you posted this fragment? Is there really nothing else in English of this guy? Then post a good video in German please. At least one that supports your statements about the man. And especially on the "we have to take the savings of people to pay for the debt [not created by those people]" part (I am paraphrasing, but according those lines you started the conflict in your very own topic). That is; if you want a real debate and not just repetitive returns to rhetoric responses.

TheRobin, I reply in the most popular of the climate topics (which is even started by you I see) to not spoil the information-driven Central topic. "An actual talk with a climate scientist"? Who do you propose? A corrupted one, politicized, or an independent researcher not part of the game? Stefan has interviewed multiple experts, the links are presented in the OP of the central topic, just for that reason so you (or anyone else) can check it out. The rebuttal of the "models" has been done by various people and can be found in the links in the OP of the Central topic. Also the video (in Dutch) in the 3rd post shows you that, if you have trouble understanding, let me know. I have modeled for many years myself. My work involved not climate (only), yet System Earth (sedimentary basins all around the world). First of all: a model is an approximation of reality. A model can never ever be 100% correct. It is impossible to know all the parameters 100% and thus model them in such a way that your model describes exactly how the system works. That's a given, a reality any modeler has to live with. Earth sciences are very complex, not only due to the thousands of factors themselves, but mainly because of the dynamics; changes through time. For any model (climate, geological, financial or any other) to be taken seriously it needs to fit calibration data. That data needs to be external and is used as a "blind" test; as long as the model doesn't fit the calibration data, it is by definition not a good model. And that's exactly where this IPCC crap goes wrong. The predictions/projections made by the report (a distortion of the serious science of serious scientists) ALL have failed. They ALL projected ongoing warming in the 2000s/2010s which was not what was observed; the global temperatures (if you can even group them) have been more or less constant while CO2 was rising all the time (I am suspicious about that curve; looks far too neat to be a natural scientific factor). If you make a financial model of the stock market (and this is even talking "global stock markets"; cf. "global climate") and your predictions are completely off, you would be out of business very fast; nobody would take your models seriously. In the IPCC's scam that is not the case because it is a political organization. Politicians do not care about truth; they are professional liars, So, in short, anyone can see that the IPCC's projections cannot be taken seriously. That's not a "misunderstanding" as you call it. It directly follows from the bad models themselves. Who do you call the "accused"? What is there to "defend"? I am defending sound science and that's the whole problem here; those IPCC "models" are not sound science (even when the climatologists working in the back office are or may be sound scientists). It is political propaganda. A climatologist would never ever claim that "sea level will have risen by 7 meters by 2100". A typical way of publishing a projection would be "Our research shows that there's an x% probability that A will happen, but only based on factors P, Q and R. AT the same time there's a y% that scenarios W, V or Z will happen" Earth sciences are not like law, where things may be black and white. It is intrinsically impossible to claim things with certainty and any climatologist doing that makes a fool out of himself. It is also not the climatologists who are the culprit (that's how the propagandists frame it; "you are anti-science"), because their wording is much more sensical. It's the politicians distorting the research, cherry-picking and even corrupting. No surprise quite some climatologists who are moral people have left that scamdalous IPCC a long time ago. Which "debate"? I understand the scam pretty well and can point out flaws. If you think I am mistaken in that, please try to give arguments for that. This statement of you is empty. You're using words like "ignorance"? I am not ignorant at all, having worked in Earth science modeling and research (which is even harder than climatology because of the huge time spans we have to deal with) for some 15 years. How can you call me "ignorant"? Have you worked in similar sciences yourself? Where are your arguments?

Thank you Mike. I like to gather information and make things accessible and presentable (earlier forum experiences...). For other topics I may do similar things, but this is the closest to me professionally. Will remove the lines below from the OP, so it's only information collection. I think what would help the debate (especially outside the safe walls of reason here; so as tools for others on other forums or in (online) discussions elsewhere) is to have a list of arguments and counter-arguments and intelligent reasonable responses to those. But that would take some more time and effort... The video I wanted to add is unfortunately in Dutch (subtitles are only available in Dutch). It is a very nice presentation by a great geologist, Salomon Kroonenberg. He wrote a book The Human Scale: The Earth Ten Thousand Years from Now, that I have and it is very entertaining and informative on the longer term thinking we geologists are used to. The presentation is in Dutch but very graphic and funny (looks like my own professional presentations) so the information from it should be not too difficult for non-Dutch speakers to grasp: There is still nothing wrong with the climate - Salomon Kroonenberg In summary: - he explains the flaws in the IPCC models - he explains the factors of System Earth contributing to climate (not only CO2, far more parameters) - he goes on the fun tour explaining how the Earth will look like in 10,000 years and beyond, due to the geological forces - at the end he talks about what "measures" should (not) be "taken" even if "Climate Change" would be real If anyone has any questions about translation or the geology in the presentation, just ask. I am happy to help out.

This Opening Post (OP) intends to summarize earlier topics, FDR podcats and FDR videos on the subject of "Antropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) or, as it is framed more recently due to the absence of that supposed warming for over a decade, "Climate Change". I will use the abbreviation AGW to make the text more compact. Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies) Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest) Forum topics on AGW Richard Muller, Converted Climate Skeptic - 04-12-2015 - 38 replies Climate Change Series, Thoughts? - 18-05-2014 - 25 r Global Warming Hoax - 16-11-2015 - 24 r Greenpeace Co-founder is an Anthro-Climate Change Skeptic - 24-03-2015 - 24 r Is a Mini Ice Age on the Way? - 10-07-2015 - 18 r Please Review My AGW Global Warming Argument For Soundness and Offer Critique - 11-11-2015 - 10 r CO2, the Good News - a Scientific Report by Past-IPCC Member - 12-10-2015 - 7 r Climatologists Admit Modelling Not So Great - 12-04-2015 - 7 r Antarcticas Ice Growth Contradicts Climate Change Model - 24-11-2014 - 5 r Climate Fraud Updates - 29-01-2015 - 4 r Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change - 03-11-2015 - 3 r Climatist Hysteria Attacked by Schiller Institute Conference - 12-09-2015 - 3 r The Climate Change Solution No-one Will Talk About - 10-02-2015 - 3 r America's Energy War: Fossil Fuels, Ethanol & Industrial Progress - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-01-2016 - 2 r The Psychology of Climate Hysteria - 17-01-2016 - 2 r Ongoing Climate Engineering for SRM - 14-09-2015 - 2 r Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-11-2015 - 1 r Statistical Analysis of IPCC - 30-11-2015 - 1 r Climate Alarmist Caught in Largest Science Scandal in US History - 05-10-2015 - 1 r FDR podcasts on AGW America's Energy War: Fossil Fuels, Ethanol & Industrial Progress - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-01-2016 - 1:01:11 A Fetish for Conspiracy - 08-01-2016 - 2:40:32 - last part (2:15:20 onwards) is about AGW Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming - Alex Epstein & Stefan Molyneux - 30-11-2015 - 48:03 Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change - 03-11-2015 - 25:09 The 97% "Consensus" - Global Warming Unmasked - 20-06-2015 - 33:18 Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming - 14-02-2015 - GOLD File The Climate Change Solution No-one Will Talk About - 10-02-2015 - 10:50 The Science of Climate Change - a Conversation with Dr. Patrick Moore - 26-09-2014 - 46:26 Climategate - What They Aren't Telling You - 17-05-2014 - 15:11 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? - 22-02-2013 - 8:46 Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case - 22-02-2013 - 12:42 Global Warming Skepticism - the FDR Interview with Warren Meyer - 15-01-2010 - 1:10:44 True News: Ecohypocrisy! - 11-12-2009 - 9:32 True News: The Case Against Climate Change - 29-11-2009 - 21:59 FDR videos on AGW & YouTube Playlist