AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?


Tonington
#211
Ahh, more rhetoric. The computer you're typing on was made using the same scientific principles. Seems to work just fine.

So if you're not using science, what are you using?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

This is a straw man argument. If you're by a stove and wearing a sweater it isn't the sweater making you warm.


No it's not! It's a question!
 
Scott Free
#212
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Ahh, more rhetoric. The computer you're typing on was made using the same scientific principles. Seems to work just fine.

So if you're not using science, what are you using?

By your logic then GW was made by science? Seriously!?!

I'm not talking about anything made by science. AGW is inductive correlations and staged experiments (and computer models) fine tuned over time to give specific results a.k.a. "cooked."



Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No it's not! It's a question!

Seriously!?!

It was a conclusion phrased like a question and you know it.

What benefit are you deriving from this AGW stuff anyway? Is it reassuring insecurities or are you making a buck off of it?
 
Tonington
#213
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

By your logic then GW was made by science? Seriously!?!

No, GW is just a phenomenon. Science gives us methods to test what causes the phenomenon.

Quote:

It was a conclusion phrased like a question and you know it.

SCIENCE has tested different climate forcings, using KNOWN physics, and the outcome is that no other climate forcing resembles what is happening in our climate system. Then you say it's a belief, not something supported by evidence in other words. So I asked you if you deny that different climate perturbations will be associated with differing responses in our climate.

It's a question, a valid one based on your response.

So, do you deny that different forcings will manifest differently, or do you accept that?
 
Scott Free
#214
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, GW is just a phenomenon. Science gives us methods to test what causes the phenomenon.

Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better?

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

SCIENCE has tested different climate forcings, using KNOWN physics, and the outcome is that no other climate forcing resembles what is happening in our climate system. Then you say it's a belief, not something supported by evidence in other words. So I asked you if you deny that different climate perturbations will be associated with differing responses in our climate.

It's a question, a valid one based on your response.

I already answered your question.

But if I really have to spell my position out: I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said). Your science is studying the sweater worn by someone sitting beside a heater (to use a metaphor) (as I already said). It therefore doesn't explain GW but explains sweaters.

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

So, do you deny that different forcings will manifest differently, or do you accept that?

This is a pointed question. I do not accept that man made carbon is contributing to current forcings. The amount is too small and the atmosphere is already saturated by natural carbon, which, when the sun warms up, as it has evidently done, will result in warmer planets. The planet will retain heat naturally when the sun warms. It is a natural cycle of nature. Some planets and moons warm and stay warmer for longer than others.

But you never answered my question: how are you benefiting from all this misinformation (hysteria/apocalypse mongering)?
 
Tonington
#215
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better?

Because when you're pressed, you start making excuses about science being this or that. Your computer is made possible by advances in science. Our understanding of the climate is made possible by advances in science.

Quote:

I already answered your question.

No, you didn't. You can't ever shoot straight. Are you a politician?

Quote:

But if I really have to spell my position out:

Yes, you really do. Because it's not even clear what you think is happening.

Quote:

I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said).

Except that the amount of energy coming in has been flat/decreasing for the last half century. And, the energy coming in is greater than the energy leaving. If you understand conservation of energy, adding more heat would mean that the Earth must emit more heat back out, thermodynamics. Except that's not happening. Energy is being trapped, and the upper atmosphere is cooling. If more energy was coming in, then the upper atmosphere should warm as the energy passes through.

You sun worshipers are out of touch with reality. Increasing solar does heat the Earth, but solar hasn't been a major contributor since the beginning half of the 20th century.

Quote:

Your science is studying the sweater worn by someone sitting beside a heater (to use a metaphor) (as I already said). It therefore doesn't explain GW but explains sweaters.

No, it isn't. See if you actually read the links I posted, you wouldn't say such false things, that is if you can understand what they are saying. We can differentiate between a sweater and the element on the stove. You're just plain ridiculous if you believe that is the case.

You ought to examine where that belief comes from, because it's certainly not from a reading of the primary science.

Quote:

This is a pointed question. I do not accept that man made carbon is contributing to current forcings.

Yes, we know. You're a denier.

Quote:

The amount is too small and the atmosphere is already saturated by natural carbon,

How do you know it is too small? Source? The atmosphere is not saturated, you can't saturate the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. I think you meant something else, like the infrared bands where carbon dioxide absorbs, but that is wrong as well. Bands can widen due to collisions between molecules. It's called pressure broadening.

Quote:

But you never answered my question: how are you benefiting from all this misinformation (hysteria/apocalypse mongering)?

I don't benefit from your misinformation, nobody does. In fact it's very frustrating to converse with people so ignorant about science in general, and who think they somehow have the answers that people who have devoted a life of study towards have missed.

The only reason I continue to challenge folks like you, captain morgan, slim chance, extrafire and others is because some people might come across this discussion. They might be genuine skeptics. So my hope is that when they see the evidence I post, that they will come away at least with a better understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy of the climate denial movement.
 
Scott Free
#216
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Because it's not even clear what you think is happening.

wow.... really!?!... OK Tonkahead
 
captain morgan
#217
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I don't benefit from your misinformation, nobody does. In fact it's very frustrating to converse with people so ignorant about science in general, and who think they somehow have the answers that people who have devoted a life of study towards have missed.


I see that you've childishly morphed "misinformation" (I believe employed by Scott Free as a comment in general) from a broad statement into a convenient weapon with which to question the opinion of any and all those that don't maintain a parallel attitude as yourself.

Of course, the next step in the Orwellian playbook is to condemn all representatives of opposing positions as uneducated or non-authorities (the exact term you employed was "ignorant") while directly (or via insinuation) declaring you - yourself - as the definitive source from which all knowledge flows.

Dear Leader and all his cohorts must be laughing their balls off at how you've swallowed this bilge and are willing to defend it with what is nothing short of a sickening display of rabid enthusiasm, devoid of reality.



Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The only reason I continue to challenge folks like you, captain morgan, slim chance, extrafire and others is because some people might come across this discussion. They might be genuine skeptics. So my hope is that when they see the evidence I post, that they will come away at least with a better understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy of the climate denial movement.


Wrong... You don't challenge anyone - you attack and insult.

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.
 
Tonington
#218
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I see that you've childishly morphed "misinformation" (I believe employed by Scott Free as a comment in general)

And not substantiated. He does employ misinformation. The greenhouse effect is not saturated. I call a spade a spade. Maybe that's childish to you.

Quote:

Of course, the next step in the Orwellian playbook is to condemn all representatives of opposing positions as uneducated or non-authorities (the exact term you employed was "ignorant") while directly (or via insinuation) declaring you - yourself - as the definitive source from which all knowledge flows.

I never said I was the definitive source. See, that is an actual strawman. I posted scientific studies that refute his position. He doesn't address them, and makes statements which can be shown to be wrong. That is, he chooses to remain ignorant. I fully accept that the science I am posting may be incorrect, and is entirely falsifiable. But none of you ever try. That is because you just choose to deny it.

Quote:

Wrong... You don't challenge anyone - you attack and insult.

No, I attack ideas, and when people are willing to carry on without acknowledgment of what scientists have actually shown, I call them ignorant. That's not an insult, and in my field-which is a scientific field-you have to be willing to take criticism if your ideas don't hold up. Maybe I shouldn't expect that from you fellows, it seems clear that you're not only ignorant about what the science foundations are for anthropogenic induced climate change, but you're also ignorant about how scientific debates take place. If you're unprepared and make obviously incorrect statements, and then refuse to even acknowledge countervailing evidence, then you're going to be called exactly what you are, willingly ignorant.

Science is not for those who get offended when they are asked to support their statements. If you don't want to be called ignorant, then you should avoid making definitive statements like Scott Free does when it can be shown that they are not in fact definitive at all.

Or you can just admit that it isn't the science that guides your position. This is in the science sub-forum after all.

Quote:

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.

Sure, whatever you say. I'll continue to post science, and continue to make resources available for those who are willing to try to make an educated appraisal of what is what.

That's what separates a skeptic from a denier. A skeptic actually looks at the evidence, and makes an informed judgment. A denier repeats falsehoods even when they are given information that outright contradicts their hypothesis. You guys are not skeptics. Scientists are skeptics. Many non-scientists are skeptics as well. The test is how you handle information.

AGW denial is a scam. I wouldn't call it the greatest scam, because most people haven't actually bought into the lies.
 
captain morgan
#219
This wonderful quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

And not substantiated. He does employ misinformation.

Followed immediately by:

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I never said I was the definitive source.... I posted scientific studies that refute his position. He doesn't address them, he chooses to remain ignorant....


The above necessitates that all adopt your "science", assumptions and generous belief system.

There is nothing compelling about that position.




Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

... I fully accept that the science I am posting may be incorrect, and is entirely falsifiable. But none of you ever try. That is because you just choose to deny it.

I see no suggestion (from you) that the science you employ may be incorrect, quite the opposite really. From a scientific perspective; your position offers no form of "testing" in which hypotheses can be examined and repeated... Kinda deflates the notion that there is a hard and fast scientific answer, doesn't it?

On that note, What I have observed is that you point to components that, while they may be accurate on an individual basis, there is no evidence provided that connects them to the opportunity that AGW is in any form the straw that broke the camels back.

You have assumed a position of absolutes and as far as this discussion goes, there is no such thing.


Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

No, I attack ideas, and when people are willing to carry on without acknowledgment of what scientists have actually shown, I call them ignorant.

Sure... Keep telling yourself that.



Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Or you can just admit that it isn't the science that guides your position. This is in the science sub-forum after all.


I see that the only scientific opinion that counts are ones that meet your individual approval.



Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

AGW denial is a scam.


This statement is almost accurate; eliminate one pivotal word and you'll have it correct.
 
Tonington
#220
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


The above necessitates that all adopt your "science", assumptions and generous belief system.

No, and this is the part you and he both seem to have problems with. Science is falsifiable. You can post a link to a study which finds contradicting evidence to that I posted, or that refutes a portion of the study which renders it's conclusions in err. If you can't, well then in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is misinformation to continue to state such things...

I wouldn't think that this even needs explaining.
 
petros
#221
Quote:

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.

Oh no no no no. This isn't fully fascism, it's all the Marxist idealisms combined. This is a global liquidation of billions of people all in the name of " I don't giive a ****, I want more and I'm not going to share with anyone not the right colour AND class".

Pollution and alleged resource shortages stops in it's tracks with 80% of the people gone.

Greenocide

Tired of Red or Blue? Try NEW Soylent Green!!!
 
L Gilbert
#222
Logic is not always correct. However, it is logical that the heat Earth contains by itself is entropic; it is breaking down. That means that if Earth is warming, the other source must be why. If the sun cycles then it is perfectly reasonable to think Earth's warmth cycles similarly. However, the latest warming cycle has had a faster onset than previous others. It is also lasting longer than the previous ones. Now, with that in mind, what has changed? The sun's output? No. What's left is that Earth is retaining more of the heat faster than it used to. Why? What has changed? The content of the atmosphere has changed.
Think of some other occurrences. EG, pH balances in the ocean are dropping. Why? Crap from the atmosphere is why.
If one follows the evidence, it is pretty clear and does not take faith of any sort.
 
petros
#223
In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.
 
Tonington
#224
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.

So:

1. What type of energy is in flux here?
2. What is the magnitude and direction the flux changed in? Can we estimate the forcing it imposes on our climate?
3. What kinds of predictions does this allow you to make, about the trajectory of our climate over the next few decades, and out to one century?
 
L Gilbert
#225
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.

Lots less ice means lots less reflection. Lots more particulates in the atmosphere means lots more retention. Like I said, though, Earth's self-contained heat is entropic. When Earth was young there was lots more volcanic activity than now even, yet the cycle persisted and Earth cooled. Earth warmed slower and then cooled slower than it has been the last century or so.
 
petros
#226
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Lots less ice means lots less reflection. Lots more particulates in the atmosphere means lots more retention. Like I said, though, Earth's self-contained heat is entropic. When Earth was young there was lots more volcanic activity than now even, yet the cycle persisted and Earth cooled. Earth warmed slower and then cooled slower than it has been the last century or so.

For sure. It's all about displacement if you follow the magnetic poles through time then you see that the ice caps follow those constantly varying magnet poles. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed it is how our magnetosphere distrubutes it that has changed drastically in the past 100 years.
Last edited by petros; Jul 4th, 2010 at 02:28 PM..
 
L Gilbert
#227
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

For sure. It's all about displacement if you follow the magnetic poles through time the you see that the ice caps follow those constantly varying magnet poles. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed it is how our magnetosphere distrubutes it that has changed drastically in the past 100 years.

Redistribution is not warming. We are warming, whether an area is cooling from a warmer period while another area warms from a cooler period is irrelevant.
If my house has an average temp of 21, and it is increasing at a rate of a degree a week, it is warming. If I drop the temp in a warm room to a cooler room at the same time as warming the temp in another room, the average temp of the house still increases at the same rate it was.
 
Scott Free
#228
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Logic is not always correct.

Well, it is certainly better than its alternative; of that any rational person must be certain.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

However, it is logical that the heat Earth contains by itself is entropic; it is breaking down.

So some internal mechanism is causing us to over heat?

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

That means that if Earth is warming, the other source must be why. If the sun cycles then it is perfectly reasonable to think Earth's warmth cycles similarly. However, the latest warming cycle has had a faster onset than previous others. It is also lasting longer than the previous ones. Now, with that in mind, what has changed? The sun's output? No.

The earth isn't the only solar body that is heating up, so yes! the sun must be heating up. You're right too, it is a natural cycle.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

What's left is that Earth is retaining more of the heat faster than it used to. Why? What has changed? The content of the atmosphere has changed.
Think of some other occurrences. EG, pH balances in the ocean are dropping. Why? Crap from the atmosphere is why.
If one follows the evidence, it is pretty clear and does not take faith of any sort.

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.

What is in doubt is that they, in and of themselves, are the reason for planetary warming. That mankind's paltry 0.24% contribution to global carbon or Al Gores retarded conclusion that if carbon saturation continues planatary warming will too (a big fail), or, THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER BODIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING UP!!!

So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute. The sun is our source of heat therefore the warming energy comes from the sun. If that is true then we could expect other solar bodies too would be warming up - oh wait, they are!!!

It is both absurd and ridiculous to think what we drive could possibly affect the sun. The whole AGW debate is simply preposterous. It is asinine, it is a scam, it is irrational and it is foolishness.

The whole AGW debate has proved to me that the age of reason is over. We have gone back to the "science" of the middle-ages whereby people try and rationalize their beliefs.
 
L Gilbert
#229
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

Well, it is certainly better than its alternative; of that any rational person must be certain.

Usually. Logic depends upon previous knowledge a lot. If there is no previous knowledge to provide landmarks for the logic. Logic is no better than guesswork.

Quote:

So some internal mechanism is causing us to over heat?

rofl No.

Quote:

The earth isn't the only solar body that is heating up, so yes! the sun must be heating up. You're right too, it is a natural cycle.

That's been unnaturally modified by something. Yep.

Quote:

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.

Quote:

What is in doubt is that they, in and of themselves, are the reason for planetary warming. That mankind's paltry 0.24% contribution to global carbon or Al Gores retarded conclusion that if carbon saturation continues planatary warming will too (a big fail), or, THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER BODIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING UP!!!

Perhaps you doubt what scientists have been saying about Earth warming, but some people even doubt the warming part. I don't think anyone is disputing that we haven't been in anatural warming cycle, what I do think is that people are doubting that that there's any influence by humans on the cycle. In which case, no-one's been able to explain why this particular cycle has had a faster onset than the others in the past and why it is lasting longer than the past ones.

Quote:

So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute. The sun is our source of heat therefore the warming energy comes from the sun. If that is true then we could expect other solar bodies too would be warming up - oh wait, they are!!!

Why must the answer be "no"? Any effort I've seen trying to prove this "no" has been trounced by the science.
Like I said the natural cycle is occurring. BUT, Earth's is protracted. There's a reason.

Quote:

It is both absurd and ridiculous to think what we drive could possibly affect the sun.

Right. We don't affect the sun. We affect what we live on.
Quote:

The whole AGW debate is simply preposterous. It is asinine, it is a scam, it is irrational and it is foolishness.

That's is exactly what the debate is. If people had good sense, made an attempt to understand the science, left their pet prejudices behind, there'd be no debate. But, people are people, and the deniers of AGW also deny the science, so we get debate.

Quote:

The whole AGW debate has proved to me that the age of reason is over. We have gone back to the "science" of middle-ages where by people try and rationalize their beliefs.

Yep. That's exactly what deniers are doing.
 
Scott Free
#230
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post


Why must the answer be "no"? Any effort I've seen trying to prove this "no" has been trounced by the science.

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

I'm not going to explain logic to you. There are plenty of books you could read on the subject if you're interested, but I don't think that you are.
 
Tonington
#231
Spot the contradiction:

Quote:

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.



So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute.

See it?

Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

Where does one find this black list?
 
Scott Free
#232
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Spot the contradiction:

There is no contradiction because I am talking about cause not effect
 
Tonington
#233
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

There is no contradiction because I am talking about cause not effect

You said carbon traps heat, that is a cause, and an effect...
 
L Gilbert
#234
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

Sceptics are one thing. It's good to be sceptical. Outright denying something without the having knowledge about it is just plain bias and stupid.

Quote:

I'm not going to explain logic to you. There are plenty of books you could read on the subject if you're interested, but I don't think that you are.

So a while back you said carbon traps heat but then you say does car exhaust cause warming and answered yourself with, "no". You do know that burning petroleum releases carbon into the air don't you? If you do then you are contradicting yourself. And you attempt to explain to me that my logic is faulty? roflmao
 
petros
#235
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Redistribution is not warming. We are warming, whether an area is cooling from a warmer period while another area warms from a cooler period is irrelevant.
If my house has an average temp of 21, and it is increasing at a rate of a degree a week, it is warming. If I drop the temp in a warm room to a cooler room at the same time as warming the temp in another room, the average temp of the house still increases at the same rate it was.

A good example is the previous (Wisconsonian) ice age. Magnetic north and the ice cap sat in the middle of James Bay (as far south in comparisson to Edmonton on the lateral) while Siberia was lush and green enough to support mammoths year round.

That cannot be coincidence.
 
Scott Free
#236
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Where does one find this black list?

Where one finds anything these days: google.

But here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you (again).


List

There are probably more but I expect they're driving taxis.

More
 
L Gilbert
#237
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A good example is the previous (Wisconsonian) ice age. Magnetic north and the ice cap sat in the middle of James Bay (as far south in comparisson to Edmonton on the lateral) while Siberia was lush and green enough to support mammoths year round.

That cannot be coincidence.

lol No, but I never said it was. Either way, it has nothing to do with the average temp of the planet other than to maybe make the average temp fluctuate in those regions. Earth's average temp was either warming, cooling or staying static regardless of which regions' temps were fluctuating.

Whining about people being blacklisted is not refuting AGW. Neither is contradicting oneself.
 
Tonington
#238
Quote: Originally Posted by Scott FreeView Post

List

So your contention is that they are losing funding? How does Roger Pielke Sr. get 460 citations, the 68th most cited climatologist if he has no funding?

He doesn't seem to have any hardship publishing.
 
Scott Free
#239
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Sceptics are one thing. It's good to be sceptical. Outright denying something without the having knowledge about it is just plain bias and stupid.

Any argument must be logical to be valid. No knowledge whatever is needed to check the logic of an argument (except the knowledge of how to test the logic).

If an argument is logical it doesn't follow that it is correct, but only that it could be.

If an argument is not logical it does follow that its conclusion was arrived at improperly. That doesn't mean the conclusion is false (though it likely is) but that the conclusion was arrived at by some other means than logic.


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

So a while back you said carbon traps heat but then you say does car exhaust cause warming and answered yourself with, "no". You do know that burning petroleum releases carbon into the air don't you? If you do then you are contradicting yourself. And you attempt to explain to me that my logic is faulty? roflmao

1) Humans have contributed a tiny fraction of the carbon in the atmosphere (0.24%)

2) The atmosphere is already saturated. More carbon does not equal more heat.

3) The atmospheric carbon isn't a heat source. The sun is the heat source. Therefore it is the sun that causes warming.
 
petros
#240
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol No, but I never said it was. Either way, it has nothing to do with the average temp of the planet other than to maybe make the average temp fluctuate in those regions. Earth's average temp was either warming, cooling or staying static regardless of which regions' temps were fluctuating.

Whining about people being blacklisted is not refuting AGW. Neither is contradicting oneself.

If extreme regions that didn't recieve as much energy as before warm up the whole planet will warm up until the regions that used to get the energy cool off which takes time. At that point they will claim our carbon tax scheme is a success.
 

Similar Threads

2910
19
The biggest scam in history
by Stretch | Dec 2nd, 2008
12
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Jan 24th, 2008
no new posts