Myths about climate change: Answered!

There’s a lot of misinformation about climate change and movements set out to willfully disrupt progress in combating climate change because of it. I’m not a scientist but I’ve followed this topic for many years and have compiled a list answering some of the must ardent objections.

Polar ice caps aren’t melting and sea levels are not rising?

No, the polar ice caps are melting causing sea levels to rise. To understand this it’s important to note the differences between polar ice: sea ice and land ice.

Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing.
Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, a 30 billion ton decrease through 2003-2008.
Arctic sea ice extent is pretty much staying consistent.
Arctic land ice mass is decreasing, 13.2% per decade.…/loss-of-land…/…/nasa-study-mass-gains-of

But its cold where I live?

Weather and climate change are completely separate sciences.

What is the ideal temperature for the earth?

The Earth doesn’t care what temperature it is… A better question might be: “What is the optimum temperature for life on Earth?”.

The problem with climate change is that humans are burning more fossil fuels than nature does, which are especially dangerous for sea life since it causes the oceans to become more acidic. The rises in sea levels and c02 could have a positive effect on plant life but may severely damage our agriculture and cultivation, and eventually our health.

Rises in C02 are NOT human-caused! 

Yes, they are! This is a well-known myth amongst climate deniers. Increases in c02 are human-caused; this is settled science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released a detailed report on global warming confirming that 95% of the change in the global climate is caused by humans. Rises in c02 have increased due to human activity mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels, oils, and gases more than what nature can absorb. These increases in greenhouse gases have caused a major shift in the global climate since the industrial revolution in the 19th century. The IPCC reports a warming trend of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 between the periods of 1880 to 2012:

Here is a graph from NASA showing the rise in global temperature from 1884 -2016. 


Sentence usage.

A concise sentence contains only the words necessary to make its point. Because it is free of unnecessary words and convoluted constructions, a concise sentence is also clear and emphatic.

A good way to find out which words are essential in a sentence is to underline key words. Then, decide which of the remaining words are unnecessary, and delete them.

In English sentences, the most common word order is subject-verb-object (or subject-verb-complement). When you depart from this expected word order, you call attention to the word, phrase, or clause that you have relocated.

“More modest and less inventive than Turner’s technical writing are Sam Miller’s landscapes.”

As you write, you can construct sentences that emphasize more important ideas and deemphasize less important ones.

A cumulative sentence begins with an independent clause, followed by additional words, phrases, or clauses that expand or develop it.

“He holds me in strong arms, arms that have chopped cotton, dismembered trees, scattered corn for chickens, cradled infants, shaken the daylights out of half-grown upstart teenagers.” (Blue Rise)

Because it presents its main idea first, a cumulative sentence tends to be clear and straightforward. (Most English sentences are cumulative.)

A periodic sentence moves from supporting details, expressed in modifying phrases and dependent clauses, to the key idea, which is placed in the independent clause.

“Unlike World Wars I and II, which ended decisively with the unconditional surrender of the United States’s enemies, the war in Vietnam did not end when American troops withdrew.”

In some periodic sentences, the modifying phrase or dependent clause comes between subject and predicate.

By reinforcing the correspondence between grammatical elements, parallelism adds emphasis to a sentence.

“Do not pass go; do not collect $200.”

A balanced sentence is neatly divided between two parallel structures – for example, two independent clauses in a compound sentence. The symmetrical structure of a balanced sentence adds emphasis by highlighting correspondences or contrasts between clauses.

“Alive, the elephant was worth at least a hundred pounds; dead, he would only be worth the value of his tusks, five pounds, possibly.” (George Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”)

Why are there 7 days in a week?


Many Christians and Muslims would have you believe the 7 calendar days were brought on by the creation of the universe brought about by their God in genesis. Others more enlightened would say it was popularize by the Roman’s with the Julian calendar and what followed the Georgian calendar. While this is somewhat true, the concept of a 7 day week existed and was popularized long before that of the Roman state by the Jewish state; and even long before that with the Mesopotamian empires. Sargon of Akkad was known to conquer cities and establish 7 day calendar weeks.

The real answer is simple and it lays in the cycle of the moon phases. The early Babylonians-Mesopotamian astronomers observed the moon life cycles to be approximately 29.5 calendar days, which they rounded down to 28, and then divided that by 4 periods of 7 days even calculating leap days. The name of each day was after the 7 classical planets. The leap years were more so established and popularized by the Romans. So now you know. 😉




There are many reasons we already do limit speech and regulate it to some degree. Speaking specifically here in the America’s, we already have laws that limit speech for issues like breech of privacy, by court order, and of course for inciting violence. But here are 7 philosophical reasons that we ought limit freedom of speech even further,

1) Because we all fall under the social contract. (No, it’s not a piece of paper. It means when you live amongst a society then it is necessary to relinquish certain freedoms in order to peacefully co-exist. I would argue this is a logical absolute. In order to have a free society or ANY society you must relinquish certain freedoms as to not breach the freedoms and rights of another). Thank Thomas Hobbs for that one.

2) Because hate speech is harmful and abusive, which should be rightfully limited by the government. (The old platitude “sticks and stones may break my bones but words don’t hurt”, is both silly and wrong. Words do hurt! Words can have a positive and negative effect on others. This goes into Mill’s no harm principle, that the only times a government can/ought to exercise power is when it harms others).

3) Because it appeals to our civil liberties, (Let’s remember in civics limiting rights is part and parcel of having civil rights because there are positive and negative rights. Yes, you have the freedom to things but also from things).

4) Because within a Republic everything is self-correcting. (The beauty of a republic is that we are always able to revisit old statues and amend them at any time. So if we were to limit freedom of speech nothing would be absolute. So even if we struggle to understand what is harmful and abusive speech we can always go back and revisit old statutes and discuss them in a ceremonious way).

5) Limiting free speech doesn’t limit speech, (There’s an argument to be made that constraints lead to creativity. You may have heard of the term flash-fiction in literature, stories with extreme brevity. One of the most famous being the 6-word story often attributed to Ernest Hemingway. Or probably an even more famous version of flash-fiction Haiku. So it could be argued that limiting free speech and certain types of words could create more meaningful dialog).

6) Because free-speech cannot be avoided. (There’s an argument by the late legal philosopher Joel Feinberg called the offensive principle. But the name is very misleading, it should rather be called the avoidance principle. Feinberg argues that limiting speech that is heinous and offensive is necessary because it has an adverse effect on our daily lives. Feinberg would argue that things like publications, artistic works, and even certain public spheres would be protected given that they can easily be avoided and have no greater effect on any person’s daily life).

7) Free-speech silences others? (This plays into the concept of tyranny of the majority but as J.S. Mill wrote tyranny of decided opinion or the deep slumber of decided opinion. J.S. Mill criticized the conformist society as suppressing dissenting – unpopular opinions; however, it should be noted Mill’s conclusion was in favor of the modern day concept of free-speech. But it should also be noted that this was not his argument. His argument raises the question as to the nature of conformist societies and whether they foster such environments where views and opinions of minorities can be expressed fully.)

Explanation: Let’s not fall into a perfect solution fallacy. I’m not saying that limiting free-speech will solve everything but it will definitely deter people from using abusive speech to hurt others. Now I don’t care what you agree or disagree with, this isn’t 1984 thought policing, but I would argue that it’s more in terms of how you say something. Even the densest of people and my most ardent detractors can spot the difference between the writings of St. Jerome vs the West Borough Baptist Church. The former is tolerable, even though I disagree, but the later is purely intolerable and should rightfully be suppressed because that type of speech is abusive and harmful to others.

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they seldom use” – Soren Kierkegaard

– Jubilee Nunnallee 6/11/2017


p02pkxlyArgument from Inconsistent Revelation (AIR), although this is my own version.

P1 – Internally inconsistent claims are always false.
P2 – All epistemological claims to a God are through divine revelation.
P3 – Given (P1&P2) Any divine revelatory statement, that makes a claim to a God, is internally inconsistent.
Conclusion – Given (P1&P3) God does not exist as a consequence.

Explanation: This is a deductive argument so I make no assumptions about the conclusion, I’m stating that all of the premises are true making the conclusion true. When I speak of inconsistency I’m specifically speaking of ‘internal’ inconsistency. One should note the difference between logical inconsistency and internal inconsistency. Although not mutually exclusive, an internally inconsistent claim is necessarily false, logical inconsistent claims are simply invalid. Take the statement, for example, “King Charles I was both beheaded and not beheaded”, would be an internally inconsistent statement and needs no other premise to prove it. Revelatory claims of a God or supreme being(s) are always inconsistent because the appeal to the ineffability of language, stating that a supreme being is divinely caused and the beliefs surrounding that supreme being are divinely inspired is completely tautological. To make a claim about a divinely supreme being cannot be grounded into any set of concrete definitions and is therefore internally inconsistent.

–  Jubilee Nunnallee 6/9/2017

Gender Dysphoria vs Transgenderism | The Disorder vs the Condition?

There’s been an ongoing debate happening, a lot of deliberation as to validly of transgenderism as a rational position. The first issue I hear come up a lot in these debates is the assertion that Transgenderism is a mental illness? And I’m here to say that is completely false. This is a manipulative/fallacious tactic called gaslighting. Gaslighting is a form of an ad hominem (i.e. attacking the person, not the argument). Gaslighting is usually done by manipulative people who may attack others by calling into question their sanity. But its been proven that transgenderism is no more a mental disorder than drapetomania, but genderist would still say otherwise.    

People who normally use this argument equivocate the use of the term’s transgenderism with gender dysphoria and treat the two terms as if there synonymous, they’ll usually quote old, now defunct, studies or rehash well-known misnomers from the DSM series or the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in support of this claim. But what they don’t understand is that the two terms are indifferent, and regardless of the political-climate surrounding the current stigmata, the APA does not treat Transgenderism as a mental psychosis.

The truth is not all Transgender people have gender dysphoria, gender dysphoria is a mental illness when it becomes dysphoric – a distress for the person who may be struggling with accepting or understanding their gender identity. This definition is reflected in the official term “Gender Dysphoria” which gives emphases on dysphoria – a distress for the individual. This is distinction is clearly stated in the DSM5 fact sheet which states the following,

“It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”

And if you go through the APA classification of Transgenderism vs Gender Dysphoria fact sheet it states quote.

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder.

This is also reflected in the APA standard treatment for Transgender individuals helping them cope and accept who they are, it is in no way treated as a mental psychosis! And now psychologist are accepting the fact that gender dyshporia may not necessarily present in a person who is transgender.

In fact, clinical psychologist Dr. Robin Rosenberg is quoted as saying it does not cause the individual distress! For instance, many transgender people, those who identify with a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth, are not distressed by their cross-gender identification and should not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

If you think this is some wild supposition or conspiratorial theory tell me if this sounds familiar. When the APA struggled to update the DSM2 in 1973 with newer progressive views on homosexuality. An updated was made to the DSM3 in 1980 which replaced homosexuality with “ego-dystonic homosexuality”—homosexuality that causes distress for the person; that diagnosis, however, was completely removed in 1987 and now homosexuality is obviously no longer considered a mental disorder.

You see this is the same playbook we see here with gender dysphoria. Call me Nostradamus, but its likely gender dysphoria is going to be phased out in much the same way. But for now let’s treat the term as it’s officially used and practiced by the APA and by the British Psychological Society, that Gender Dysphoria happens when you’re distressed over being Transgender not that fact that you are Transgender.

– Jubilee Nunnallee


Epydemic2020| Euthyphro Dilemma

  • This is going to be a response to an old friend of mine Epydemic2020 and the Euthyphro Dilemma, a theologian and an assistant professor of philosophy.

    Video link here:

    Now as you watch this video notice how Epidemic simply dismiss the Euthyphro Dilemma as a false dilemma-dichotomy by claiming a 3rd option, and this ‘3rd option’ is what is in question. The classical version of the argument can be found in Plato’s dialog and appeals to the pious of the Gods, but the modern version raises the question as to the validity of God and morality, and it goes as such.

    “Is an action good because it is good or is an action good because God commands it to be?”

    – Plato

    Now this dilemma is meant to be a counter rebuttal to the argument of divine command theory, in that moral law is commanded by a divine being (God). So since it’s inception this argument has often presented a vexing problem for theist because no matter how you answer it’s still going to run contrary to divine command theory. If you answer the first proposition, an action is good because it’s good, then we can reason that actions are inherently good within themselves and we would not need a God or divine being to determine them. If you answer proposition two, God commands moral acts, then morality is simply subjective and arbitrary to God’s will; if God commands it to be moral so shall it be.

    But the common theistic response to this argument is to claim that God can command what is moral because it’s consistent with his own moral nature, with this theists may claim victory and say at the very least they’ve shown it to be a false dichotomy by claiming a third option; but the problem may still remain. Let’s take a closer look at this response. Epidemic says if it is even possible that there is a 3rd option then the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.

    “God’s nature, aka his essential properties, is the standard of Goodness”.

    – Epydemic2020

    So what Epydemic is saying here is that God can command moral acts because it’s consistent and/or essential to his own moral nature, so let’s consider that assertion for a moment – that being God’s moral nature. Now does this escape the problem or is this even a possible 3rd option; no, not at all! What Epydemic has done here, as well as many others who uses this argument, is what’s known as a fallacy of suppressed-correlative. A fallacy of suppressed-correlative is committed when given a dichotomy of X or Y one makes a definitional argument to which includes both X & Y thereby avoiding any mutually exclusive option from being made, similar to the fallacy Loki’s wager.

    The theistic response of God commanding what is moral because it is consistent with his moral nature, is just proposition one & two thrown together. So God both commands and is the embodiment of morality. But If God commands what is moral because he is moral by his very nature then this is not only fallacious but also reaffirms the same problem of how we judge moral claims. Remember proposition one, an action is good because it’s good? To say that God can command what is moral because he acts morally means that moral acts are still the basis in how we judge moral claims. A good follow up question to this response would be, well how do you know that God is moral? The answer is obvious, well it’s because God acts morally. Bam! fallen right back into proposition one. So we can see that even if we try and avert the problem by making an entirely new claim by including both proposition one & two together, the problem of proposition one still remains. If God’s ‘nature’ is to mean that it is simply consistent with moral acts then moral acts are still inherently good in and of themselves, God is simply consistent with them. But even if a Theist tries to obfuscating the use of the term nature and its meaning, as to say it is not how God acts but what God is… then this is just a semantic word salad that just creates more problems for the theist because I would then ask what God’s moral nature is and if they even try to use terms like virtue-moral characteristics then they’ve again fallen right back into proposition one or the problem of proposition one, moral acts being the basis of how we judge moral claims.

    So you can say this 3rd option doesn’t exist; so if anyone who uses this argument hasn’t escaped Euthyphro at all they’ve just simply reworded it.