Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 11 (Proposed - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1670 - 23/8/21)

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it,we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons:

Greening of the Earth and its drivers


Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.


https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Opposition Challenge Reasons

CO2 is a major component of the greenhouse gas canopy around Earth. This canopy (Methane is actually the more serious component however) is causing heat to be trapped in the Earth's air/atmosphere, and is raising the temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere, oceans and seas, soil, etc. this is the greatest threat to his existence that man has ever faced.

Humans cannot handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" is not due to "physical exercise".....it is due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Even if Humans are able to go underground, the technology for inside air quality and temperature control will brake down under the stress on the energy system.

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s

So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

Processing: Statement # 11 has been open to "Opposition Challenge"; deadline: Mon., Aug. 28 @ 11:59 PM EDT (one week). It finally has now been challenged. But under our protocol, the deadline for the Group Secretary to reach a Conclusion on Statement # 11 still applies.

Request of Challenger

At the moment, one CT'er supports the Statement # 11 (Sid Belzberg, the Proposer). One CT'er has launched an opposition challenge (Me), arguing the Statement is not true, and so should NOT be generally accepted by this group.

Under our current protocol, this Statement # 10 is going to be ruled by the Group Secretary, to be "generally accepted" unless one other CT'er comes forward with "Supplementary Challenge Reasons". I would ask all CT'ers here to take a second look at the proposed Statement # 10, and the arguments, and if you decide the Statement is not true, then please post so that the Challenge is supported by at least one other CT'er in the group, other than just me (A tie in voting, as exists at this moment, makes Sid the winner [sigh]).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

[Part II (Of 2); Part I above]

Proposer's Supplementary Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1686 - 23/8/25

"Originally posted by Bob Armstrong}

Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO[SUB

2[/SUB] has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)"

This statement fails to refute Dr Happer et al analysis that despite the higher warming power, the percentage is not high enough to be a significant factor.

"Originally posted by Bob Armstrong}. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years, where it can be converted into nitrogen oxides that

deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and expose the Earth to more solar radiation, thereby damaging crops and human health."

This statement fails to refute the fact again as per Dr. Happer et al that the rate of increase rate of increase of N2O molecules which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. Hence again is not a significant driver of climate change or damage to the ozone layer nor will it be in the foreseeable future.

Further information about why the Ozone layer hysteria is long ago debunked fraudulent junk science, a particular genre of "science" that BobA seems to be a great fan of.

The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?
Additional material August 2006.
Major 'Oops!' September 2007: Chemists poke holes in ozone theory: Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.
The Montreal Protocol and nasty countries (read: the U.S.) wishing to retain use of critical chemicals alleged to harm the "ozone layer" continue to generate considerable press. What is it all about?
As every schoolboy should by now have read, total columnar ozone (the amount over a given point) would only amount to a paltry couple of millimetres if brought down to sea level. So, does this mean that our defence, our critical solar shield we call the ozone layer, is a thin and fragile membrane about the atmosphere, finite and being worn threadbare by assault from anthropogenic (human produced) chemicals? Hardly, although one could be forgiven for having such an impression given the hysteria generated by various chemophobes and misanthropes. Stratospheric ozone is not a fixed and finite resource but is constantly created - and destroyed - by solar radiation.
The table below contains thumbnail graphics of global monthly average ozone levels derived from Earth Probe TOMS. Click on the thumbnail to load a copy of NASA's original 640 x 480 image in .gif format. The date range covers all available EP-TOMS data and the months highlighted here are arbitrarily chosen as quarterly from September (greatest Antarctic Ozone Anomaly, incorrectly described as "the ozone hole" by the press, actually a localised seasonal reduction).
So, what are we looking at?
September, and spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when returning sunlight powers significantly increased ozone destructive reactions in the super-cold polar stratosphere and winter-strengthened circumpolar winds reduce atmospheric mixing from the currently ozone-overloaded temperate zone (lowest South Polar and highest southern temperate zone levels are recorded in this season). Tropical levels are typically at their highest and Arctic levels about their most moderate at this time of year.
December: South Polar vortex has largely collapsed and southern temperate and polar regions are ozone replete. Southern tropical levels are moderate while northern tropical regions demonstrate some depletion as Arctic levels rise dramatically.
March: massive North Polar and Northern Temperate ozone levels are observed along with low-moderate levels in the Southern Hemisphere. Note that there is no Arctic ozone anomaly. This is not because so-called ODS (Ozone Depleting Substances) are "map-heavy" and all fall to the South Pole. In fact, anthropogenic emissions of these alleged nasties is significantly higher in the land- and population-dense Northern Hemisphere. The difference between the poles is temperature - or rather, the lack of it. Ozone-destructive reactions are facilitated by Polar Stratospheric Clouds which are rare in the more moderate North and seasonal in the super-cold South.
http://junksciencearchive.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

Processing

There has been given one week for CT'ers to weigh in. You can either post "Support Reasons", supporting Sid's proposal, or, "Supplemental Challenge Reasons", supporting Bob A's Challenge (Deadline: Friday, 23/9/1 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Request of Challenger

At the moment, one CT'er supports the Statement # 9 (Sid Belzberg, the Proposer). One CT'er has launched an opposition challenge (Me), arguing the Statement is not true, and so should NOT be generally accepted by this group.

Under our current protocol, this Statement # 9 is going to be ruled by the Group Secretary, to be "generally accepted" unless one other CT'er comes forward with "Supplementary Challenge Reasons". I would ask all CT'ers here to take a second look at the proposed Statement # 9, and the arguments, and if you decide the Statement is not true, then please post so that the Challenge is supported by at least one other CT'er in the group, other than just me (A tie in voting, as exists at this moment, makes Sid the winner [sigh]).

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Part I (Of 2)

Statement 9 (Proposed by Sid Belzberg – See Post # 1646 – 23/8/15)

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support Reasons 1: Sid Belzberg – Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Methane and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts


Nitrous Oxide and Climate

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O.

Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.

---

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]


Opposition Challenge - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1685 - 23/8/25

Methane & Negative Climate Change

Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO₂ has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

Methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate fight (https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-...-climate-fight)

Nitrous Oxide & Negative Climate Change

a. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years, where it can be converted into nitrogen oxides that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and expose the Earth to more solar radiation, thereby damaging crops and human health.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/l...greenhouse-gas

b. Despite its increasing role in global warming and effect on the ozone layer, little has been done to rein in this climate pollutant. One big reason: agriculture.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...ure-livestock/

Conclusion

The production of methane, and the use of Nitrous Oxide fertilizers, in farming, contributes to humanity's most pressing problem of negative climate change. Farming must adapt so as to lessen its contribution to negative climate change.

[See Part 2 below]

Bob A (As Participant)

[Pargat Perrer]

Can you imagine how pathetic your life would have to be to devote your energies to being a troll on a low volume, low impact discussion board like chesstalk. The only thing more pathetic would be to invent chess variants that no one plays and to take yourself seriously and think that others should do so as well.

As I've said before, I don't "devote energies" much into CT at all. It has been child's play to destruct Dilip's LIbertarian viewpoints. I come here, spend half an hour, and am done. Easy peasy.

Pathetic indeed is calling oneself a philosopher king while resorting to name calling as a main tactic against opponents.

Inventing chess variants, whether or not anyone plays them, is fun and creative. And that's the only reason I do it. I don't seek or need recognition like some people.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Can you imagine how pathetic your life would have to be to devote your energies to being a troll on a low volume, low impact discussion board like chesstalk. The only thing more pathetic would be to invent chess variants that no one plays and to take yourself seriously and think that others should do so as well.

So true, Vlad!

[Vlad Drkulec]

O no, Bob, I never implied that you are a troll.... on the contrary, your effort at having a meaningful discussion with me is being disrupted by a troll, PP...
You are a sincere poster, the opposite of a troll. Trolls should be made to compensate you.

Can you imagine how pathetic your life would have to be to devote your energies to being a troll on a low volume, low impact discussion board like chesstalk. The only thing more pathetic would be to invent chess variants that no one plays and to take yourself seriously and think that others should do so as well.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Everyone on chesstalk realizes and many have even stated it that your comments, almost always silly, are not welcome on chesstalk.

Careful, Bonham may metastasize into a new personality requiring five minutes to identify him again.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The Outlier

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1700 - 23/8/26

"In Libertarianism all what a troll would end up with is paying an appropriate compensation to those whose 'process' (like your statements-building effort) they disrupt with deliberately non-sensical (hence called trolling) arguments..."

My Response

I am a Democratic Marxist. I like to believe I am not a troll, but a contributor to my society.

I have very many detractors in society........I have been called "The Scourge of the Earth". I have been accused of being unnecessarily disruptive by making both Statements of Fact and Statements of Opinion. I have been told talking to me is a waste of time......I am a waste of space . My Statements have on occasion been deemed "deliberately nonsensical" (I come within your definition of a "troll").

In the current Capitalist society of Canada, fortunately, I do have free speech, and I am entitled to march to my own drummer. I have never had a court case launched against me for my speech or writing (No Libel [Published]; No Slander [Oral]).....not yet anyway..........though my Fb page just got a warning from Mark that somehow my TRN group is breaching Fb Standards ????

It sounds like under a Libertarian government, I am going to be making all kinds of "compensation payments" to my peers (sigh) who believe that I am harming them, somehow, and that the Natural Law is not going to protect me.

Bob A

O no, Bob, I never implied that you are a troll.... on the contrary, your effort at having a meaningful discussion with me is being disrupted by a troll, PP...
You are a sincere poster, the opposite of a troll. Trolls should be made to compensate you.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!

ROFLMAO




Says the guy who cannot spell "whether" (post 1699 in this thread).

But I, unlike Dilip, do not ascribe magical powers to correct spelling. We all know languages are difficult at best.

As for "argues irrelevantly", is it really irrelevant to argue how Natural Law is AGREED UPON? Especially when it is going to be the the one thing that guides everyone's lives under a hypothetical Libertarian regime?

Come on, Dilip, can you be any more ridiculous? You already said Natural Law is a consensus of Judges and police. But then in another post responding to Bob A., you say there can be NO CONSENSUS!

(Your post #1703 in this thread)

Again .... ROFLMAO

Just admit it Dilip .... you are steamrolled! You are the laughingstock of this thread! LOL

Everyone on chesstalk realizes and many have even stated it that your comments, almost always silly, are not welcome on chesstalk.

[Bob Armstrong]

Whether a Statement is True?



Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1703 - 23/8/26

"opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person...."

Response

Statements of Fact - these may be true, in the sense that the majority accepts them as such in the present. But they must be always open to challenge (Scientists are clear on this.......a statement of fact is always "tentative" - evidence may come up tomorrow that disproves the statement - as happened when we all were sure of the Statement: The Earth is flat). So in this sense, a Statement of Fact may indeed be FALSE........but the universe must unfold further for this to be established.

Statements of Opinion - this is where the majority does not agree that the person's statement is sufficiently defended as fact by the evidence then being marshalled. So we say "S/he is entitled to his/her opinion (Even though it is as of yet "unproven", and most likely is wrong, based on the majority's view of what is needed in evidence to agree to it). But it may be by serendipity that the Statement is in fact TRUE, but the evidence still has to come forward in the future, to be sufficient for the majority to accept it as true. It is true that some people have very good intuition - they instinctively know that something is true, but they just can't get the evidence together to prove it to the majority. But until they do so, theirs is not a Statement of Fact, but a Statement of opinion.

The Conversation Format

If two people "agree" that some Statement is true (A Statement of Fact), we do not have an open "consensus" when the group numbers 40 people, as here.

"Consensus" - Definition - Wikipedia

What consensus is Not

"1. Not a majority vote

Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus.

A vote may help to organize discussion around specific proposals, but this can sometimes breed conflict and division. One problem with a yes-or-no vote on a proposal is that there may be a consensus for a middle option. Even a "middle ground" option can be insufficient, as forcing people to choose between options may prevent new ideas from coming forward that would gain more support. Another problem with voting is that it might prevent a real discussion, as voters do not have to justify their position. This prevents people from evaluating the underlying reasons for a vote, and criticizing weak or inaccurate reasoning for a vote. It also prevents people from coming up with alternative ways to satisfy the voter's concern, with a less divisive course of action.

The best way to determine consensus is to actually read and understand each person's arguments, even if they are divided on the surface. A consensus can be found by looking for common ground and synthesizing the best solution that the group can achieve at that time.

2. Not unanimity

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. However, after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process.

Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action.
Not all or nothing


If the group can identify areas of agreement, they should move forward where the group shares the same view. A complicated dispute might involve several issues, and some issues may be more controversial than others. But a disagreement on one issue should not prevent consensus on another issue. It is not helpful to expect complete and total agreement on every aspect of the dispute. Work with the issues where there is common ground, and revisit the lingering issues later if necessary.

3. Not permanent

Consensus can change. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable. When challenging an old consensus, it may help to explain what you think has changed in that time.

What "Consensus" IS!

Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, even if only barely."

Our CT'er Group

Consensus is NOT what we are trying to achieve........we almost always have one person, at least, for whom no Statement on the issue is acceptable [Or the "Consensus" Statement is such an obvious no-brainer that the effort to get consensus has been a waste of time.]

We want to produce a Statement that is "generally accepted", that is accepted by majority vote. But we do have the problem of non-participation (Some only wish to view and learn; they do not want to engage in public discussion, which is forever archived). So if only 3 out of 40 vote, what do we do? We use the principle that if you object, BUT SAY NOTHING, the group is entitled to assume that you DO AGREE with the majority of those who voted [If you don't speak up, the problem is of your own making].

I hope this clears up that "Consensus" is not what I want, or what the group wants, to achieve.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Nature of "Opinion"

We are having definitional cross-discussions I fear, Dilip. I think that we may actually be rather close in our views on this, but we're having trouble communicating. OR maybe we just have here some fundamental disagreement. Let's try again........

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1703 - 23/8/26 - "There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling)."

"Opinion" - Definition -
noun

• a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
• https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

"Reasons" (My use) - a set of sentences that marshal "evidence/facts" in support of some Statement someone is asserting (As we do here under The Conversation Format Protocol [TCFP])

You say that "Opinions" always have "Reasons" behind them. Using the two definitions above, this is an impossible position. Someone with evidence and someone without evidence declare something. If there are Reasons given that marshal the evidence supporting the Statement, then it is a "fact" (Of course, always open to future Challenge). But what is the case for the one without evidence. We examine the Reasons looking for clear facts in support......BUT the "Reasons" clearly do not give sufficient evidence to support the Statement! We say then that the person is "entitled to their opinion".......in other words........you don't convince me that you are making a factual/true statement on the evidence you are providing. What you have put forward is merely your opinion, not a "Generally Accepted Statement.

In our Conversation Format, the whole goal is to see whether the majority in a group accept that the Reasons given (The Evidence) do indeed, support the Statement sufficiently to designate it a "Statement of Fact", not just one of opinion.

Does this help in our understanding each other, Dilip?

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Originally posted by Pargat Perrer
And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!

ROFLMAO

And this troll argues irrelevantly just for the sake of arguing, and cannot even spell consensus.
Maybe he is the only one who does not agree with the Natural Law... not surprising, as he is simply trolling...

Says the guy who cannot spell "whether" (post 1699 in this thread).

But I, unlike Dilip, do not ascribe magical powers to correct spelling. We all know languages are difficult at best.

As for "argues irrelevantly", is it really irrelevant to argue how Natural Law is AGREED UPON? Especially when it is going to be the the one thing that guides everyone's lives under a hypothetical Libertarian regime?

Come on, Dilip, can you be any more ridiculous? You already said Natural Law is a consensus of Judges and police. But then in another post responding to Bob A., you say there can be NO CONSENSUS!

(Your post #1703 in this thread)

Again .... ROFLMAO

Just admit it Dilip .... you are steamrolled! You are the laughingstock of this thread! LOL

[Sid Belzberg]

https://twitter.com/Trudeaus_Ego/status/1693968902089282027

[Dilip Panjwani]

And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!

ROFLMAO

And this troll argues irrelevantly just for the sake of arguing, and cannot even spell consensus.
Maybe he is the only one who does not agree with the Natural Law... not surprising, as he is simply trolling...

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob,
There are always reasons behind opinions (unless one is trolling). But still opinions could be wrong or non-determinable. So you cannot say that two persons having some opinion should be 'accepted' as an 'agreement' (consensus, in your terms), ignoring the possibly correct opinion of the minority of one person....
This is why Sid also wishes to step back... despite your truly sincere efforts on this process.

And this guy wants us to have a single Natural Law! The application of which would require ..... concensus? But Lordy Lordy, we cannot HAVE concensus!

ROFLMAO