Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I agree with TR that Malaria is a very real threat to humans in warm climates.
I am not opposing that, I am not even discussing that - all I'm doing is pointing out that claiming the DDT-bans caused 1 to 2 million deaths each year from the 70's up until today is a ridiculously overblown and unsupported claim.
04-11-2013, 22:56
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
I'm just showing that the consequences for spreading Malaria makes mitigating global warming an important thing.
However I'd focus on clean water, blankets and vaccines first and moving beach houses last.
04-11-2013, 23:11
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Your bad knowledge of English, and the fact that you mainly read information in english, may explain why you make error after error. Your last two bolded sentences shows this; my sentence means the reverse of what you think it means. Anyhoo, over to the malaria deaths again:
First off, the number of sources do not matter, it is the quality of sources that matter. For example, quoting a hundred tv-stars has far less weight when discussing psychology than a single quote from Freud, for example. When it comes to world statistics, we have two sources who rank far above the others, that's the CIA and the UN. If you didn't know, the WHO is a part of the UN.
First of all, two of your sources are one and the same, and the figure comes from a WHO (meta)study in 2001. I have already noted the spike in the years around 2000, that's where that number comes from. The guardian article refers to a brand new study, and we will have to see in the next WHO report how credible it is. You should've read it more carefully, however, as it in no way supports your 1-2 million figure. The last is a study which only mentions death toll as a spice in the intro, and is about something other than death toll(it's about pregnancies). Thus, it's not a source for this purpose.
DDT was never used in tropical areas(on the same scale as in countries like the US) before the ban, as it was considered ineffective in such areas. It worked wonders in temperate zones, but there's a huge differences in the climate for mosquitoes in tropical and temperate areas. What works one place may not work in another. DDT was not found to work in tropical zones, and so was rarely used. Probably because of its limited use, the governments in many tropical nations saw no need to ban it, and so it has remained legal. I see no reason for me to write more on this, however, since this is something one should expect you to find out on your own, given the certainty with which you present your (poor) arguments.
AND STOP YOUR DAMNED BOLDING
It does not clarify. It does not highlight. It obscures, and makes your posts even harder to understand than they already are.
I disagree, source after source all say including from who, peer reviewed papers,john hopkins etc that the death tool is over 1 million including low estimates. You want to count your one source at one time estimate as accurate and all others false, THAT COLA BERATE WITH ALL OTHER SOURCES.
You claim you already showed " I have already noted the spike in the years around 2000, that's where that number comes from."
yet you did not read your own source as it stated
"a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region."
not to mention i sourced numbers post 2000 even from who in 2004 showing you did not read my links as well.
you than claim death in pregnancies does not count,question, assuming your radical, if i go kill a bald eagle in a egg, will the environmentalist fine me for it?why is a bald eagle egg a bald eagle, yet human is not?.
the rest sounds good and thank you.
DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especi.
but this does not change that environmental policies, had much to do with ddt being banned, that could fight against a disease that kills over a million a year.
here is what my op said
In the 1960s,environmental scientists similarly claimed that DDT harmed humans and caused cancer, thus resulting in a near worldwide ban on the use of that pesticide. Now, four decades later, the scientific community has found no harm to humans from DDT,30 so it has been reintroduced to fight the mosquitoes that carry malaria. .31 Regrettably, in the intervening years, between one and two million persons each year needlessly died each year from malaria because DDT had been banned.32
Africa Fighting Malaria, “Dr. Conyers, I Presume” (at http://www.fightingmalaria.org/article.aspx?id=785); Spiked, “Without DDT, malaria bites back” (at http://www.spiked-online.com/Article...htm).HYPERLINK \l "R30"(Return)
just wondering, what do you think of the millions in africa dying because environmentalism policies besides ddt?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I agree with TR that Malaria is a very real threat to humans in warm climates.
It makes the threat of global warming spreading malaria around the world.
That and wheat rust are two of the known issues with a warmer and more humid world.
ddt is our friend, my friend.
04-11-2013, 23:27
gaelic cowboy
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
04-12-2013, 01:46
ajaxfetish
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
multiple topics are brought up so i must respond to multiple topics. You claim i use "untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements" i wont wait for specific examples as you have shown unable to follow the same posts you criticize. Do you not think you could be doing as you have before and have been misrepresentation of others' positions and statements, my own?.
you claimed no source when a few were given so not sure what you mean here.
please provide specific example.
All right, here's your specific example.
Exhibit 1: Posts by HoreTore
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
To which the answer is: yes it [carbon dioxide] bloody is [a pollutant]. Laughable mistake when the subject is natural science. In fact, if co2 isn't counted as a pollutant, nothing can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oxygen is indeed a poison. It's also a pollutant. So is co2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No one has ever claimed that co2 is not a fundamental component in the world. That's absurd. You're arguing a strawman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, co2 is a pollutant.
How on earth you come to the conclusion that co2 being a pollutant is in opposition to co2 being a fundamental natural resource is quite frankly beyond me. It's both, and which term you use depends on the context.
Just like it is with every other pollutant out there. Again, I point to the possibility that you do not understand what a pollutant is as the most reasonable explanation.
EDIT: Barring the possibility of some whacko religious schools in hillbillystan, photosynthesis is taught to all school children. Calling co2 a pollutant while teaching photosynthesis is absurd. Photosynthesis is also one of the first chemical reactions a pupil is exposed to, way before co2 is discussed as a pollutant.
Exhibit 2: Post by total relism
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
how quickly you over and over change your own opinion to try to find any fault in me,know you say c02 is a pollutant when just last post you said it was starwman as none says it is pollutant lol. But as shown to you many times over i posted what a pollutant is despite your claims, and you still cant find fault in what my op said was a lie, that any c02 release is a pollutant.
HoreTore states consistently that CO2 is both a pollutant and a fundamental resource, and the relevant aspect will vary depending on the context. total relism claims that HoreTore claimed that no one says it is a pollutant (HoreTore never says this), and now is changing his tune (there is no change of tune). total relism's paraphrase of HoreTore's claims completely misrepresents HoreTore's position. This is quote-fail. If total relism apologizes to HoreTore for misrepresenting his position, I will consider giving attention to more of his arguments. Until then, I cannot trust him to be arguing from an ethical or accurate basis.
Specific enough for you?
Ajax
04-12-2013, 03:18
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
By the late sixties Mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT.
In the amounts needed to control mosquitoes DDT will cause human health issues such as diabetes and birth defects.
04-12-2013, 04:36
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
Please give me list of scientist and how many, that would agree with this statement or similar. Man made causes will cause global warming and destructive consequences in the near future and imitate care should be taken to stop c02 emisons.
I doubt many are talking about "destructive consequences in the near future" but I guess you should define what "near future" is in years/decades first. Why a lot of scientists think we need to act fast is because it takes time for us to change and we are already witnessing positive feedback.
Quote:
Not to mention watch my video on op to show how they conducted their polling to make it look like global warming was the majority opinion. free online
You gave links to several videos. BTW, the "Al Gore sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud" is hilarious. It never happened and John Coleman has no basis for his claims in that video.
Quote:
Global Warming:#A Scientific and Biblical Expose' of Climate Change free online
gives many alternative reasons for global warming, shows recent sun activity is more likely cause of warming, that increase temperature is cause of increase c02 not other way around well as pointing out, a warmer climate overall is better than a cooler climate throughout human history. Shows how global warming polices kill over 1,000,000 in Africa every year. goes into death threats and other things made at those who “deny” man made climate change. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics
The video does go through most of the standard objections. If you want to do a lot of reading then this list is good start http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It has answers of up to three levels of complexity(basic, intermediate, and advanced) so most people should be able to understand what is being said. It also comes with links to the studies for further reading.
I think there are several good series on YouTube. But my favorite is Potholer54 who has made 28 episode series explaining climate change, and he also goes through the skeptical arguments. He will generally provide links for further reading too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I notice you like videos and links with biblical stuff in it, so maybe you will hate Potholer for also making videos showing the fallacies of creationists. But then you will love Skeptical Science because the guy who created it, John Cook, is into evangelical stuff.
It is a bit difficult to figure out what the remaining is a response too. So I'll guess.
Quote:
did you expect no one to fight back? many people have, if their is issue you see wrong that he did let me know. I ask that you at least watch it before goggling a internet "response", i browsed it saw nothing of importance substance.
I guess that is about Bjørn Lomborg.
Look I have watched it, and, as I said, Lomborg is full of half truths. We have the usual foundation of how it is a fear industry (OMG the kids) then "experts" talking about how it is not gonna be a big problem, and then, the best part of documentary, alternative energies and stuff. It is funny how he can use James Hansen, but only for stuff about IPCC and nuclear power, and not about his very pessimistic views of global warming. But at least he had him in, to have some big name alarmist climatologist involved, I guess. Nothing about ocean acidification, nothing about permafrost melting that means increasing amounts of methane being released, nor does he touch upon increasing droughts in certain areas. White paint and some dikes and we are all set.
Spending more on R&D is obviously a great idea, yet the political will have generally not been there because too many still think it isn't bad or that we are not the cause. How can Cool It convince politicians to spend more money, when he makes it look like it's something that easily can be fixed in the far future? duh.
04-12-2013, 06:24
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Allright.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
04-12-2013, 16:05
drone
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
I have no idea what your refering to as nowere does it say 600,000. In fact it sources both the Centers for Disease Control and The Global Fund Web site, authors. Malaria. [Accessed August 1, 2009]. As why they say it kills over 1 million than goes on to say it really kills more. Read again. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/#B1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
All right, here's your specific example.
Exhibit 1: Posts by HoreTore
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Exhibit 2: Post by total relism
HoreTore states consistently that CO2 is both a pollutant and a fundamental resource, and the relevant aspect will vary depending on the context. total relism claims that HoreTore claimed that no one says it is a pollutant (HoreTore never says this), and now is changing his tune (there is no change of tune). total relism's paraphrase of HoreTore's claims completely misrepresents HoreTore's position. This is quote-fail. If total relism apologizes to HoreTore for misrepresenting his position, I will consider giving attention to more of his arguments. Until then, I cannot trust him to be arguing from an ethical or accurate basis.
Specific enough for you?
Ajax
nice editing, as i said, you only read part of my response [if any] than set up a strawman. The reason you see a problem is you did not read my other posts, he is fully right, it can be both good and bad as i even said oxygen could be as well on post 13. That is why what i said is important, i said when teaching climate change environmental issues, c02 is referred to as a pollutant, and any release of c02 as polluting the environment. This topic is on global warming false teaching etc not the importance of c02 and if that is taught separate of these issues.
so i ask again
multiple topics are brought up so i must respond to multiple topics. You claim i use "untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements" i wont wait for specific examples as you have shown unable to follow the same posts you criticize
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
I doubt many are talking about "destructive consequences in the near future" but I guess you should define what "near future" is in years/decades first. Why a lot of scientists think we need to act fast is because it takes time for us to change and we are already witnessing positive feedback.
You gave links to several videos. BTW, the "Al Gore sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud" is hilarious. It never happened and John Coleman has no basis for his claims in that video.
The video does go through most of the standard objections. If you want to do a lot of reading then this list is good start http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It has answers of up to three levels of complexity(basic, intermediate, and advanced) so most people should be able to understand what is being said. It also comes with links to the studies for further reading.
I think there are several good series on YouTube. But my favorite is Potholer54 who has made 28 episode series explaining climate change, and he also goes through the skeptical arguments. He will generally provide links for further reading too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I notice you like videos and links with biblical stuff in it, so maybe you will hate Potholer for also making videos showing the fallacies of creationists. But then you will love Skeptical Science because the guy who created it, John Cook, is into evangelical stuff.
It is a bit difficult to figure out what the remaining is a response too. So I'll guess.
I guess that is about Bjørn Lomborg.
Look I have watched it, and, as I said, Lomborg is full of half truths. We have the usual foundation of how it is a fear industry (OMG the kids) then "experts" talking about how it is not gonna be a big problem, and then, the best part of documentary, alternative energies and stuff. It is funny how he can use James Hansen, but only for stuff about IPCC and nuclear power, and not about his very pessimistic views of global warming. But at least he had him in, to have some big name alarmist climatologist involved, I guess. Nothing about ocean acidification, nothing about permafrost melting that means increasing amounts of methane being released, nor does he touch upon increasing droughts in certain areas. White paint and some dikes and we are all set.
Spending more on R&D is obviously a great idea, yet the political will have generally not been there because too many still think it isn't bad or that we are not the cause. How can Cool It convince politicians to spend more money, when he makes it look like it's something that easily can be fixed in the far future? duh.
how about just give me a list of scientist matching the amount that reject global warming, that agree with your position, i think its clear your dodging to me.Hopefully realizing that their is not this great majority that your article claimed [using false logic as well,your article].
and that somehow makes it go away?thanks for link but i see false info right off, debates are good my friend you can find some on my op.
thanks for youtube video, i will look when i get more time, would you also see the other side and objections?
I would not hat anyone for arguing their point, in fact i hope you bring up his videos when i do creation/evolution.
you said
so your upset that in a doc he did not cover everything? i think you have missed the whole idea of his doc.
as far as political spending more money look under agendas on op.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Allright.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
or we could all go to source to see what it says, i like that idea best.
04-13-2013, 17:30
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
how about just give me a list of scientist matching the amount that reject global warming, that agree with your position, i think its clear your dodging to me.Hopefully realizing that their is not this great majority that your article claimed [using false logic as well,your article].
Me dodging? The consensus among the scientists that study this is pretty clear. You are now attempting a majority=truth, except the apparent majority you cling on to has little knowledge about it in the first place!
You seem to refuse looking at the science, and keep yourself locked in an endless loop of your favorite articles and videos. The proper term for that is Motivated Reasoning.
I watched that already! That was the reason I gave you links that addressed their objections. It is all there for you to check out, and it is backed up with the actual studies.
Quote:
and that somehow makes it go away?thanks for link but i see false info right off, debates are good my friend you can find some on my op.
Makes what go away? Use better quoting in the future please. If it is about death threats, then I will try to clear: death threats are never OK, but since everyone gets them they don't tell anything about the other side. But it sure does feel good to be a victim while the other side are all evil.
And of course my links are false info (more Motivated Reasoning) Anything that ruins your black and white view of the two opposite sides simply cannot be right!
Quote:
thanks for youtube video, i will look when i get more time, would you also see the other side and objections?
Since I have watched all the videos that were available in your OP (several I had already seen before) I already have gone through the other side and their objections. They belong to a minority view, and some of the stuff is actually so obvious, that you don't even need to be a scientist to see where they go wrong.
Quote:
...in fact i hope you bring up his videos when i do creation/evolution.
You can easily find them yourself, as I have no interest in participating in something that undoubtedly will feel more futile than this debate.
Quote:
so your upset that in a doc he did not cover everything? i think you have missed the whole idea of his doc.
Then please tell me what the whole idea of his movie is.
Quote:
as far as political spending more money look under agendas on op.
Agenda 21 and NWO? Or did I miss a more devious conspiracy somewhere? Anyway, I don't have much time: I would already have located the second shooter, if it hadn't been for those black vans blocking me on the way to Area 51.
Trust no one.
04-13-2013, 19:52
ajaxfetish
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
nice editing, as i said, you only read part of my response [if any] than set up a strawman. The reason you see a problem is you did not read my other posts, he is fully right, it can be both good and bad as i even said oxygen could be as well on post 13. That is why what i said is important, i said when teaching climate change environmental issues, c02 is referred to as a pollutant, and any release of c02 as polluting the environment. This topic is on global warming false teaching etc not the importance of c02 and if that is taught separate of these issues.
All irrelevant. You misquoted HoreTore. Own it or remain disreputable.
Ajax
04-13-2013, 20:35
CrossLOPER
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
WoT
I'm going to be as brief and polite as possible.
Your argument is really weak, resulting from your sources. Your sources really suck, containing almost entirely unverified material. Browsing over them, I do not see a single peer-reviewed article. I do see a lot of Al Gore hate and things done from "a Christian perspective", which is fine, but that's not at all scientific. A lot of the quotes appear to be false or out of context. There also seems to be a large amount of effort to link environmentalism to communism.
Your main source appears to be Youtube, which flushes your argument down pretty much immediately.
You should try to find more valid sources, and not sensationalist, agenda-fueled ones.
04-14-2013, 08:46
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
All irrelevant. You misquoted HoreTore. Own it or remain disreputable.
Ajax
^
Most orgahs know I am not buying that global warming crap, but if you play a poor game you lose
04-15-2013, 05:49
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Me dodging? The consensus among the scientists that study this is pretty clear. You are now attempting a majority=truth, except the apparent majority you cling on to has little knowledge about it in the first place!
You seem to refuse looking at the science, and keep yourself locked in an endless loop of your favorite articles and videos. The proper term for that is Motivated Reasoning.
I watched that already! That was the reason I gave you links that addressed their objections. It is all there for you to check out, and it is backed up with the actual studies.
Makes what go away? Use better quoting in the future please. If it is about death threats, then I will try to clear: death threats are never OK, but since everyone gets them they don't tell anything about the other side. But it sure does feel good to be a victim while the other side are all evil.
And of course my links are false info (more Motivated Reasoning) Anything that ruins your black and white view of the two opposite sides simply cannot be right!
Since I have watched all the videos that were available in your OP (several I had already seen before) I already have gone through the other side and their objections. They belong to a minority view, and some of the stuff is actually so obvious, that you don't even need to be a scientist to see where they go wrong.
You can easily find them yourself, as I have no interest in participating in something that undoubtedly will feel more futile than this debate.
Then please tell me what the whole idea of his movie is.
Agenda 21 and NWO? Or did I miss a more devious conspiracy somewhere? Anyway, I don't have much time: I would already have located the second shooter, if it hadn't been for those black vans blocking me on the way to Area 51.
Trust no one.
I disagree fully, we were talking on majority opinion, i was the one that originally said to you majority opinion does not=truth. You than claimed something like 97-99% of all scientist believe in man made global warming [as your reference claimed]. That is what i am replying to,that claim. That is why i said show me list of scientist, i showed 31,000 and over 1,000 on two lists, that reject. You cant show me your list. That you cant see the faulty logic/asumtions in your article i pointed out is not my fault.
you gave me youtube videos and a website called http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php that has false info on front page. Not to mention you did not address anything specific besides that someone on other side was given death threats as well, as if that makes death threats towards global warming skeptics go away.
you said
"And of course my links are false info (more Motivated Reasoning) Anything that ruins your black and white view of the two opposite sides simply cannot be right!"
i would apply this to you,but no i dont think anything that goes against what i think is likely true is false, just false info is false, that is why debates are good, you get both sides.
would you mind giving some specific examples for me? you claim to have watched all the videos,could you give me some info on each that i cant find with a quick Google than? also i would love for you to tell me the reasons you reject/disagree with them. Starting say with video number one posted as you have said you watched them all lol.
so we could start with http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/
or if you missed that one, sorry 12, than we can start with the fraud of all gore being sued, as you said last post.
np, i will likely not look at them unless you bring them up in debate im very busy otherwise.
I see no conspiracy here, this is well known and a official un document, i think it is you who needs to allow things besides what you want to hear in,before calling them a conspiracy to protect your worldview.
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
- excerpt,#UN Agenda 21 http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
1]radical environmentalist are after population control, trying to emulate china's one child policy [if the government deems you fit].
2] relocate people from rual areas to cities
3] higher gas prices
4] manipulate transportation patterns.
5] forbid human access to land
6] seizure of private property
7]restrict water use
8]additional taxes
9]restrict amount of waste
10]forced community involvement
11]many more.
All irrelevant. You misquoted HoreTore. Own it or remain disreputable.
Ajax
as i showed, you only think so because you ignored most all my post and did not follow, so you did just what you claim i did, that is why you cant respond to post 90 that clearly shows this, if their is someone to own up to something me thinks its you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I'm going to be as brief and polite as possible.
Your argument is really weak, resulting from your sources. Your sources really suck, containing almost entirely unverified material. Browsing over them, I do not see a single peer-reviewed article. I do see a lot of Al Gore hate and things done from "a Christian perspective", which is fine, but that's not at all scientific. A lot of the quotes appear to be false or out of context. There also seems to be a large amount of effort to link environmentalism to communism.
Your main source appears to be Youtube, which flushes your argument down pretty much immediately.
You should try to find more valid sources, and not sensationalist, agenda-fueled ones.
I think you should reread,youtube is not major source at all. What " entirely unverified material" are you referring to, maybe i can help. You said " A lot of the quotes appear to be false or out of context." could you provide anyone that is?. You said " link environmentalism to communism. " that is true, why is that considered bad or false? Other than your original beliefs might tell you otherwise? sources agenda-fueled ones, what agenda is that? are they oil companies? are not the environmentalist agenda driven?
I believe your post comes more from your bias/worldview than any deficiency in my op, or you would show examples.
04-15-2013, 06:48
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
thought these were relevant
As Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, noted, those who toe the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them, but scientists:
‘who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
Lindzen, R., Climate of Fear,#OpinionJournal, 12 April 2006
indzen has also noted the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. The editors of leading journals#Science#and#Nature, commonly refused such papers (without review) as being without interest. However, Lindzen adds that
‘ … even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I [Lindzen], with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an “Iris Effect,” wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2#. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as “discredited.”’
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?
Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, which opposes the conventional view, says, “In the peer-reviewed literature we're finding hundreds of factors influence global temperature, everything from ocean cycles to the tilt of the earth's axis to water vapor, methane, cloud feedback, volcanic dust, all of these factors are coming together. They're now realizing it wasn't the simple story we've been told of your SUV is creating a dangerously warm planet.” http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-note-04132013
Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
I said the end wasn't nigh... and it cost me my BBC career says TV's first environmentalist, David Bellamy
But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
:hide:
:crazy:
04-15-2013, 07:40
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
So this doesn't end in tears lets just peel back one layer of the onion at a time.
2) Relocate people from rural to urban areas.
People choose to migrate to cities. More then 50% of the worlds population lives in cities. Most governments provide more services to city populations as the money goes further per capita.
China is 51% urbanised and climbing. That climb is contributing to its thirst for rebar for apartments, which in turn is helping Australia's economy as we export so much iron ore. The richest woman in the world is rich because the world is urbanising and we are doing it faster then ever.
There is no first world country trying to surpress urbanisation or rural populations. Most are trying to figure out how to make jobs outside cities and increase satellite city popularity.
04-15-2013, 07:42
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
India [many people starve to death, high population] according to UN grew enough food to feed whole population and export. But rats eat large amounts of food, that they will not kill because they view man= to rats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzpk7X4veM
also in india local village is wiped out with many deaths loos of house crop because of overflowing river, Americans went there to help and to try and divert the river around the village to prevent death/financial loss. But locals would not as they viewed river as god like and not to me touched/messed with.
04-15-2013, 07:44
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So this doesn't end in tears lets just peel back one layer of the onion at a time.
2) Relocate people from rural to urban areas.
People choose to migrate to cities. More then 50% of the worlds population lives in cities. Most governments provide more services to city populations as the money goes further per capita.
China is 51% urbanised and climbing. That climb is contributing to its thirst for rebar for apartments, which in turn is helping Australia's economy as we export so much iron ore. The richest woman in the world is rich because the world is urbanising and we are doing it faster then ever.
There is no first world country trying to surpress urbanisation.
what does this have to do with the agenda of radicals to get people to move to cities? you are simply mentioning what you see as a few benefits of the move.
04-15-2013, 07:54
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Just because radicals want people to move to the cities and people are moving to the cities is not because of a consipracy.
The people are choosing to do this.
Capitalism is supportive of this, in fact it's a positive feedback.
Mining companies who are potentially some of the most politically opposite to greenies are benefitting from this.
I do not see a consipracy of the environmentalists. I see the invisible hand at work and as such urbanisation should be removed from the list of bullet points.
04-15-2013, 08:05
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Just because radicals want people to move to the cities and people are moving to the cities is not because of a consipracy.
The people are choosing to do this.
Capitalism is supportive of this, in fact it's a positive feedback.
Mining companies who are potentially some of the most politically opposite to greenies are benefitting from this.
I do not see a consipracy of the environmentalists. I see the invisible hand at work and as such urbanisation should be removed from the list of bullet points.
what conspiracy? i was referring to a un document they are trying to implement. But again your paying attentions to wrong points, it matters not if it helps Capitalism, it matters that it is part of the radicals agenda to do.
04-15-2013, 08:17
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
UN has their own environmentalism ark of the covenant,temple,and 10 comadments
A. Ark of Hope—Secular Ark of the Covenant
Let’s not forget that the UN’s religious pretensions are a mask for socialism, as both are revealed in Agenda 21, the environmental platform meant to force the world to accept “sustainable development.” It is with this background that the importance of dispensing of biblical religions becomes paramount—since the Bible is the source book which released freedom into the modern world. The Ark of Hope is embraced by the UN:
Recognizing that the United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems which challenge humanity, the Ark of Hope carrying the Earth Charter and the Temenos Books was exhibited at the United Nations during the World Summit PrepComII in January-February 2002. The Ark of Hope is a cheesy and presumptuous copy of the original Israeli Ark of the Covenant which housed the Ten Commandments that Moses received from God and carried down from Mt Sinai. This is meant to disrespect the original and also wipe out biblical religion.
The Ark of Hope, a 49” x 32” wooden chest, was created as a place of refuge for the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. The Ark of Hope also provides refuge for the Temenos Books, Images and Words for Global Healing, Peace, and Gratitude. The Earth Charter’s 16 principles are the guiding vision behind the creation of these books. The Ark of Hope was created for a celebration of the Earth Charter held at Shelburne Farms, Vermont on September 9, 2001.
Compare this with the Old Testament’s description of the original Ark of the Covenant, from Exodus 25:10-16
“Have them make an ark of acacia wood—wo and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you.
B. Earth Charter—Humanist Ten Commandments
According to one site the Earth Charter started this way:
In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development issued a call for the creation of a charter that would set forth fundamental principles for sustainable development. An attempt to draft such a charter failed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Beginning in 1994 and working outside the United Nations, several of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men crafted their own document, which they named the Earth Charter. This initiative was directed by Maurice Strong, oil/gas/hydro energy billionaire, president of the Earth Council Alliance, avowed socialist, and former member of the Commission on Global Governance; Mikhail Gorbachev, former communist dictator, president of Green Cross International, and outspoken advocate for a new world government; and Steven Rockefeller, heir to the Rockefeller oil fortune, head of the Earth Charter Commission, USA, and another outspoken advocate for new global governance.
The Earth Charter history begins with this:
Preamble: We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.
The Earth Charter contains these chapters:
I. RESPECT AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF LIFE; II. ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY; III. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE; IV. DEMOCRACY, NONVIOLENCE, AND PEACE.
The subheadings are quite revealing as to the tenor of the entire Charter. The text reveals a poisonous bias against capitalism and humanity itself. In other words, it’s pure Marxism. For example, here are a few excerpts…
5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach….
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harmeven when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
C. GAIA & Temple of Understanding, NYC Gaia is the pagan idea that the earth is itself a living organism. The Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City is actually a shrine of many non-Christian religions. One author states:
One of most influential NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) allied closely with the U.N. and intimately involved in their creation of agenda is the Temple of Understanding (TOU), located in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. This organization’s objectives are, according to its website, “developing an appreciation of religious and cultural diversity, educating for global citizenship and sustainability, expanding public discourse on faith and ecology, and creating just and peaceful communities”. Most importantly, although not explicitly stated by the TOU, the cathedral is the center of cosmology, or the worship of Gaia. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is not only home to the TOU, but has also previously housed the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, theLindesfarne Association and the Gaia Institute, which are all proponents of the gaia hypothesis.
Strong hates capitalism, saying: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48749
The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself. http://archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution
04-15-2013, 08:23
Conradus
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
India [many people starve to death, high population] according to UN grew enough food to feed whole population and export. But rats eat large amounts of food, that they will not kill because they view man= to rats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWzpk7X4veM
also in india local village is wiped out with many deaths loos of house crop because of overflowing river, Americans went there to help and to try and divert the river around the village to prevent death/financial loss. But locals would not as they viewed river as god like and not to me touched/messed with.
Shouldn't this be an argument against religion? Which you're always so willing to defend. This has nothing to do with environmentalists.
04-15-2013, 08:33
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
Shouldn't this be an argument against religion? Which you're always so willing to defend. This has nothing to do with environmentalists.
it has to do with what i view as a false worldview radical environmentalism that puts human life below that of animals rivers etc. I hate religion, i am for god/bible, religon is man made.
04-15-2013, 08:42
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Southern Poverty Law Center writes about the "importance" of Agenda 21.
04-15-2013, 08:55
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Southern Poverty Law Center writes about the "importance" of Agenda 21.
sure its important as is all the agenda ideas under op for radicals, if your a radical and belive as they do. Its not hard to see this is a apologetic for the radicals.
" of a unified field theory for the antigovernment movement. On its face, Agenda 21 does nothing but provide countries and communities with a set of principles to grow smartly — a plan, in short, to fight overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion."
than it says
"While there is some opposition to Agenda 21 from the left — from groups like Democrats Against Agenda 21 — it’s on the radical right that the UN plan has become a touchstone of a larger theme that equates environmentalism with totalitarianism and the loss of individual freedom."
so would it loose freedom? well yes.
all one has to do is watch what happens today with politics and what these agendas do, and what they want to do, to see they effect freedom. They say it might not, yet admit they want population control, so how does that work?.
04-15-2013, 09:00
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Organizations like the UN and EU produces an extreme amount of documents. Most of those end up having the same effect on the world as toilet paper. Agenda 21 is one of those.
Gro Harlem Brundtland's work on sustainable development, on the other hand, has had an impact on world politics. I suggest you look there instead. I saw a documentary on GodTV once about how sustainable development was a UN plan to kill off 85% of the population and let Satan, disguised as the pope, rule the world unopposed.
You should check it out, it sounds like it's right up your alley.
04-15-2013, 09:25
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Organizations like the UN and EU produces an extreme amount of documents. Most of those end up having the same effect on the world as toilet paper. Agenda 21 is one of those.
Gro Harlem Brundtland's work on sustainable development, on the other hand, has had an impact on world politics. I suggest you look there instead. I saw a documentary on GodTV once about how sustainable development was a UN plan to kill off 85% of the population and let Satan, disguised as the pope, rule the world unopposed.
You should check it out, it sounds like it's right up your alley.
I think i will stick with what the environmentalist say they want/plan to do on this topic. Obama signed onto it,gerge bush did, so i think its alitlle more than toilet paper.
as far as poulation control, yes as i showed earlier many want it to get to 500,000 to be in harmony with thir goddess mother earth. so 7 billion to 500,000. not very nice of them.
04-15-2013, 09:28
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I think i will stick with what the environmentalist say they want/plan to do on this topic.
I take it you've never heard about sustainable development, then? I am not surprised.
04-15-2013, 09:30
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I take it you've never heard about sustainable development, then? I am not surprised.
radical environmentalism that wants world poluation to change and force were people can and cannot live, stop making strwmans., and yes i disagree we are running out of resources, if you mean more effective ways to conserve energy,use of food,land etc who could be against that?.
04-15-2013, 09:37
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
radical environmentalism that wants world poluation to change and force were people can and cannot live, stop making strwmans., and yes i disagree we are running out of resources, if you mean more effective ways to conserve energy,use of food,land etc who could be against that?.
Because it' the rallying call of environmentalists and socialists all over the world? And produced by Brundtland, an enviromentalist, feminist and socialist? And unlike Agenda 21, it's an actual UN agenda.
The wiki-page is pretty long and probably informative. I haven't read it since I'm norwegian, which means I've been breast-fed sustainable development propaganda my entire life.
04-15-2013, 10:12
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Because it' the rallying call of environmentalists and socialists all over the world? And produced by Brundtland, an enviromentalist, feminist and socialist? And unlike Agenda 21, it's an actual UN agenda.
The wiki-page is pretty long and probably informative. I haven't read it since I'm norwegian, which means I've been breast-fed sustainable development propaganda my entire life.
strawman. If you wish to talk on topic title i am all in.
04-15-2013, 11:05
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Won't a bone just do. Our house-commie may be an idiot but I know better than underestimating his intelligence
04-15-2013, 11:15
Kadagar_AV
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
strawman. If you wish to talk on topic title i am all in.
Tunnel vision, much?
Tunnel comprehension, extraordinair!
04-15-2013, 16:10
CBR
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I disagree fully, we were talking on majority opinion, i was the one that originally said to you majority opinion does not=truth. You than claimed something like 97-99% of all scientist believe in man made global warming [as your reference claimed]. That is what i am replying to,that claim. That is why i said show me list of scientist, i showed 31,000 and over 1,000 on two lists, that reject. You cant show me your list. That you cant see the faulty logic/asumtions in your article i pointed out is not my fault.
Fact 1: only an tiny amount of peer reviewed studies go against the consensus that global warming is primarily caused by man.
Fact 2: polls show that a clear majority of scientists, in the relevant areas, thinks global warming is primarily caused by man. And the polls also show that the scientists who actively publish are even more convinced.
Apparently you want all opinions to count as long as they have a fancy academic title. I would not expect a brain surgeon to know much about dentistry even though both the dentist and brain surgeon work somewhere on the human head.
you gave me youtube videos and a website called http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php that has false info on front page. Not to mention you did not address anything specific besides that someone on other side was given death threats as well, as if that makes death threats towards global warming skeptics go away.
That list does address all the stuff from the videos you posted. If you are capable of watching the videos in your OP then you should also be capable of watching and reading what is in my links. If you reject that then you are rejecting the scientific consensus. And then there is not much more to debate.
Quote:
would you mind giving some specific examples for me? you claim to have watched all the videos,could you give me some info on each that i cant find with a quick Google than? also i would love for you to tell me the reasons you reject/disagree with them. Starting say with video number one posted as you have said you watched them all lol.
I did not watch the resisting the green dragon videos. The titles alone did not seem to address anything about global warming nor were the videos available for free. One thing is wasting time on the same old arguments, another thing is spending time and money on something that does not seem relevant to the debate.
But at least you come with some specific claims now. Of course I have to do the work with all my false info:
Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
And using quotes from people who have no qualifications at all (Morano) or one who might have a fancy title like a PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse) but no actual research, is the usual appeal to authority.
04-15-2013, 16:33
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
strawman. If you wish to talk on topic title i am all in.
A strawman is a false argument. I'm not arguing anymore, as your mind is completely closed to reason.
Now I've switched to providing you with more things that'll make your paranoia alarm go off. I thought sustainable development would fit the bill neatly.
04-15-2013, 18:41
Kadagar_AV
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
WE DO YOUTUBE VIDEOS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"
04-15-2013, 19:04
ajaxfetish
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
as i showed, you only think so because you ignored most all my post and did not follow, so you did just what you claim i did, that is why you cant respond to post 90 that clearly shows this, if their is someone to own up to something me thinks its you.
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a small child here? You showed nothing of the kind. Your other posts do nothing to alter the fact that you misquoted another poster.
Ajax
04-15-2013, 22:41
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
WE DO YOUTUBE VIDEOS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????
Video can be quite useful in delivering certain types of information, so nothing wrong with YouTube per se.
04-16-2013, 15:20
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Fact 1: only an tiny amount of peer reviewed studies go against the consensus that global warming is primarily caused by man.
Fact 2: polls show that a clear majority of scientists, in the relevant areas, thinks global warming is primarily caused by man. And the polls also show that the scientists who actively publish are even more convinced.
Apparently you want all opinions to count as long as they have a fancy academic title. I would not expect a brain surgeon to know much about dentistry even though both the dentist and brain surgeon work somewhere on the human head.
That list does address all the stuff from the videos you posted. If you are capable of watching the videos in your OP then you should also be capable of watching and reading what is in my links. If you reject that then you are rejecting the scientific consensus. And then there is not much more to debate.
I did not watch the resisting the green dragon videos. The titles alone did not seem to address anything about global warming nor were the videos available for free. One thing is wasting time on the same old arguments, another thing is spending time and money on something that does not seem relevant to the debate.
But at least you come with some specific claims now. Of course I have to do the work with all my false info:
And using quotes from people who have no qualifications at all (Morano) or one who might have a fancy title like a PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse) but no actual research, is the usual appeal to authority.
fact one-already responded to many times
fact 2 this is what i want you to back up, you have claimed this many times, please show me list of scientist who would say as you claim. As i said is showed 31,000 and 1,000. Can you show me your list?
I fullt understand that they should be degree in area, that is why a certain well know list used to promote your belief is misleading as well. That me thinks is reason you wont post any list, as you already attacked my list for that. Notice my op did not say 31,000 phd qualified in area scientist. Simple fact is so far i showed 32,000 to your 0.
so on one side you admit to not watching the videos, than yet make the amazing claim your link [with false info] answered all on the links i provided that you did not watch lol. I will say the same to you, if you have time to read all your links you should do the same for mine. I like debates, you have any i will watch, as i said im busy at current time to see these links at the moment,unless you make a direct claim. Given you have not watched anything i posted and offered no direct claims, i see no reason to read.
thanks for admitting you lied about watching the videos on op that is not common online. Putting the green dragons fire out on global warming was the main one addressing global warming. I have no idea what your referring to with specific claim,iris.
link a little outdated,that is why my link had present graph. Also i think you missed meaning of article, you likely did not read but just goggled your webpage or you would have known what was meant by article. Also who said the earth is not curentley getting warmer?
thanks for links with Allen Myles, but even that does not change what he said or was responding to, it just put his other opinions in perspective. Not what was meant by the graph/new evidence. Did not watch video sorry. i think your asumtion that "PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse" has nothing to do with global warming is a large part of problem, radicals can only see humans as the cause of evil. Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a small child here? You showed nothing of the kind. Your other posts do nothing to alter the fact that you misquoted another poster.
Ajax
as i showed my last response to you, you only think i did so ,when it was in fact you who did so to me, that is reason i wrote on it you wont be able to respond, and you cant as it shows you just did not read from beginning and only read one of my responses than created your own meaning, notice he has no problem understanding.
i will copy paste
nice editing, as i said, you only read part of my response [if any] than set up a strawman. The reason you see a problem is you did not read my other posts, he is fully right, it can be both good and bad as i even said oxygen could be as well on post 13. That is why what i said is important, i said when teaching climate change environmental issues, c02 is referred to as a pollutant, and any release of c02 as polluting the environment. This topic is on global warming false teaching etc not the importance of c02 and if that is taught separate of these issues.
so i ask again
multiple topics are brought up so i must respond to multiple topics. You claim i use "untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements" i wont wait for specific examples as you have shown unable to follow the same posts you criticize
04-16-2013, 16:03
ajaxfetish
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
as i showed my last response to you, you only think i did so ,when it was in fact you who did so to me, that is reason i wrote on it you wont be able to respond, and you cant as it shows you just did not read from beginning and only read one of my responses than created your own meaning, notice he has no problem understanding.
i will copy paste
nice editing, as i said, you only read part of my response [if any] than set up a strawman. The reason you see a problem is you did not read my other posts, he is fully right, it can be both good and bad as i even said oxygen could be as well on post 13. That is why what i said is important, i said when teaching climate change environmental issues, c02 is referred to as a pollutant, and any release of c02 as polluting the environment. This topic is on global warming false teaching etc not the importance of c02 and if that is taught separate of these issues.
so i ask again
multiple topics are brought up so i must respond to multiple topics. You claim i use "untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements" i wont wait for specific examples as you have shown unable to follow the same posts you criticize
If you were to murder a man, the other actions you performed before and after would not alter that fact. Perhaps if he was abusing your sister and threatening her family, or some such, you might be able to justify the action, but it wouldn't change that fact that you had murdered him. While you might argue that you had reasons for misquoting HoreTore, and your other posts make clear those reasons, maintaining that you did not in fact misquote him is patently ridiculous.
I'll consider addressing other topics once this is settled, but stop trying to deflect me beforehand. That's your go-to argumentation strategy, and I'm not interested.
Ajax
04-16-2013, 18:25
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I fullt understand that they should be degree in area, that is why a certain well know list used to promote your belief is misleading as well. That me thinks is reason you wont post any list, as you already attacked my list for that. Notice my op did not say 31,000 phd qualified in area scientist. Simple fact is so far i showed 32,000 to your 0.
You can compile a list of authors of all the studies yourself. After that you should compile a list of what precisely your 32,000 scientists have studied that makes them qualified to argue over global warming.
Quote:
so on one side you admit to not watching the videos, than yet make the amazing claim your link [with false info] answered all on the links i provided that you did not watch lol.
Then make a list of all the claims regarding the science of global warming that you spotted in the videos. After that you compare with the rest of videos to see if there really was anything new. Then go through the links I gave you that explains what the science says. It is not that difficult.
Quote:
Putting the green dragons fire out on global warming was the main one addressing global warming
Then you can easily go through whatever was said in your videos and check what science is saying in the links I provided. Since it apparently convinced you so easily then please enlighten us all with some of the specific claims they make. Maybe it would be stuff like: it's the sun, CO2 lagged behind in earlier times, cosmic rays, water vapor is more important than CO2, the models are wrong, scientists were wrong before, it's been hotter before, CO2 is good for plants, it's only parts per million and therefore unimportant. I'm sure I forgot some more claims but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks from your videos. The thing is that the answers are already there but it requires some reading.
I have provided you direction to the springs of clean water, but it is up to you drink it. But apparently you are so good at spotting liars and poisoned wells, so whatever.
Quote:
I have no idea what your referring to with specific claim,iris.
Lindzen's Iris Effect. You quoted it.
Quote:
link a little outdated,that is why my link had present graph. Also i think you missed meaning of article, you likely did not read but just goggled your webpage or you would have known what was meant by article.
What link is outdated? It says last updated Jan 2013 and there is no new groundbreaking science that has come out since that shows otherwise. And we will keep hearing the same drivel from the same journalists until the ENSO starts throwing out a few El Ninos. Heck, then they will simply focus on other years because they just don't like the reality.
If you want as recent as possible then there is this http://www.skepticalscience.com/guem...to-oceans.html. That is from a paper that was published early April. Seems like the debate right now is more about if the extra heat is all in the top 700 meter layer or if the deeper oceans also has taken in extra heat.
Quote:
Also who said the earth is not curentley getting warmer?
Hmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed)
Quote:
I think your asumtion that "PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse" has nothing to do with global warming is a large part of problem, radicals can only see humans as the cause of evil.
His PhD has very little to do with Global Warming but more importantly where is his research on Global Warming. That is what matter the most. From this "false info" website we can see that he has problems understand James Hansen http://www.desmogblog.com/david-whitehouse PhD or not, he does not strike me as a big authority.
Quote:
Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens.
Earth would become a freezing snowball with a bit of life left at hotspots in the deep ocean. Nothing to do with our current situation though.
04-16-2013, 23:01
gaelic cowboy
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
My original post
Quote:
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
Your reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
I have no idea what your refering to as nowere does it say 600,000. In fact it sources both the Centers for Disease Control and The Global Fund Web site, authors. Malaria. [Accessed August 1, 2009]. As why they say it kills over 1 million than goes on to say it really kills more. Read again. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/#B1
actually it does say the incorrect figure of 1-3 million an I have copypasted and highlighted it from the website.
when you click the actual source your link used to verify the amount written down as malaria deaths the link is broken and when you check the actual WHO or CDC websites as supposedly used by the link the numbers are vastly less.
The reason for the difference between the CDC and WHO is probably the age of the CDC data but it's still waaaaayyyyy more accurate than your links
Quote:
Malaria is the second most common cause of infectious disease-related death in the world, after tuberculosis. It is estimated to affect between 350 to 500 million people annually and accounts for 1 to 3 million deaths per year.1,2 Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest burden of malarial disease, with over 90% of the world’s malaria-related deaths occurring in this region. Twenty-five million pregnant women are currently at risk for malaria, and, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria accounts for over 10,000 maternal and 200,000 neonatal deaths per year.3
now if we click on the little tiny numbers after the 1-3 million were directed to the source website for this figure they say is malaria deaths
but I will save you the trouble here is the info from the CDC copypasted below
Quote:
Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease caused by a parasite. People with malaria often experience fever, chills, and flu-like illness. Left untreated, they may develop severe complications and die. In 2010 an estimated 216 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide and 655,000 people died, most (91%) in the African Region.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
You claim i use "untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements" i wont wait for specific examples as you have shown unable to follow the same posts you criticize
In addition to the specific example I gave of you misrepresenting another's statement, here gaelic cowboy demonstrates your use of an untrustworthy source. Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.
Ajax
04-17-2013, 07:59
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
The hottest planet in the solar system is Venus.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
04-17-2013, 08:07
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The hottest planet in the solar system is Venus.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
Apropiate that Venus is the hottest. But not all planets have an atmosphere some are just rocks, says nothing about CO2
04-17-2013, 09:45
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Says that having an atmosphere will act as a blanket. Something that is noticeable on a cloudy night is less of a temperature drop as the clouds help retain the heat.
Venus has a lot of atmosphere and the majority gas is CO2.
So yes by adding more carbon dioxide the retention of heat increases.
04-17-2013, 10:23
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Of course there is less decrease in heat on a cloudy night, that has nothing to do with CO2
04-17-2013, 10:38
jirisys
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Of course there is less decrease in heat on a cloudy night, that has nothing to do with CO2
He never said that. He said the clouds helped retain heat. And that CO2 also retains heat. Two unrelated sentences.
~Jirisys ()
04-17-2013, 11:11
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
He never said that. He said the clouds helped retain heat. And that CO2 also retains heat. Two unrelated sentences.
~Jirisys ()
Than don't say that the CO2 theory has already been proven in said context mia muca, it isn't
04-17-2013, 11:40
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Than don't say that the CO2 theory has already been proven in said context mia muca, it isn't
Are you claiming that CO2 is not proven to be a greenhouse gas...?
04-17-2013, 11:58
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Are you claiming that CO2 is not proven to be a greenhouse gas...?
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
04-17-2013, 12:47
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
....And what is an atmosphere, in this regard, if not a collection of various greenhouse gases?
04-17-2013, 13:10
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
....And what is an atmosphere, in this regard, if not a collection of various greenhouse gases?
Did you really just say various
04-17-2013, 13:23
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Did you really just say various
Uhm..... Yes?
04-17-2013, 13:26
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Uhm..... Yes?
Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory
04-17-2013, 13:29
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory
What?
Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?
04-17-2013, 13:41
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What?
Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?
It think it's the only one that has become a religion, as well as the trade in emmision-rights is being a billion-dollar/euro scam
04-17-2013, 13:57
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Since we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it is also the only thing we really can restrict. Methane is an issue too but is not directly related to our fossil fuel energy consumption.
04-17-2013, 14:01
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
If you were to murder a man, the other actions you performed before and after would not alter that fact. Perhaps if he was abusing your sister and threatening her family, or some such, you might be able to justify the action, but it wouldn't change that fact that you had murdered him. While you might argue that you had reasons for misquoting HoreTore, and your other posts make clear those reasons, maintaining that you did not in fact misquote him is patently ridiculous.
I'll consider addressing other topics once this is settled, but stop trying to deflect me beforehand. That's your go-to argumentation strategy, and I'm not interested.
Ajax
the problem is with the assumption i misquoted him,as i showed i did not, notice he never said anything himself, the reason is we had talked back and fourth on subject and understood what we meant. You come in over half way trough, dont read my posts ignore mt first few with him, than claim i take him out of context. I dont care to continue this as you clearly have nothing of the op to discuss,nor can you back up claim, without making your own strawman. That is why as i said twice, you must ignore my post that shows this clearly and cannot respond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
You can compile a list of authors of all the studies yourself. After that you should compile a list of what precisely your 32,000 scientists have studied that makes them qualified to argue over global warming.
Then make a list of all the claims regarding the science of global warming that you spotted in the videos. After that you compare with the rest of videos to see if there really was anything new. Then go through the links I gave you that explains what the science says. It is not that difficult.
Then you can easily go through whatever was said in your videos and check what science is saying in the links I provided. Since it apparently convinced you so easily then please enlighten us all with some of the specific claims they make. Maybe it would be stuff like: it's the sun, CO2 lagged behind in earlier times, cosmic rays, water vapor is more important than CO2, the models are wrong, scientists were wrong before, it's been hotter before, CO2 is good for plants, it's only parts per million and therefore unimportant. I'm sure I forgot some more claims but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks from your videos. The thing is that the answers are already there but it requires some reading.
I have provided you direction to the springs of clean water, but it is up to you drink it. But apparently you are so good at spotting liars and poisoned wells, so whatever.
Lindzen's Iris Effect. You quoted it.
What link is outdated? It says last updated Jan 2013 and there is no new groundbreaking science that has come out since that shows otherwise. And we will keep hearing the same drivel from the same journalists until the ENSO starts throwing out a few El Ninos. Heck, then they will simply focus on other years because they just don't like the reality.
If you want as recent as possible then there is this http://www.skepticalscience.com/guem...to-oceans.html. That is from a paper that was published early April. Seems like the debate right now is more about if the extra heat is all in the top 700 meter layer or if the deeper oceans also has taken in extra heat.
Hmm...
His PhD has very little to do with Global Warming but more importantly where is his research on Global Warming. That is what matter the most. From this "false info" website we can see that he has problems understand James Hansen http://www.desmogblog.com/david-whitehouse PhD or not, he does not strike me as a big authority.
Earth would become a freezing snowball with a bit of life left at hotspots in the deep ocean. Nothing to do with our current situation though.
clear by know your dodging.
not understanding, you claimed you watched them all and their false, than you admit you did not watch them, than assure me based on your faith they are false. See why im not so willing to follow?
like this
"I have provided you direction to the springs of clean water, but it is up to you drink it. But apparently you are so good at spotting liars and poisoned wells, so whatever."
just be sure your not drinking the dirty water my friend. You believe anything from that site,even enough to claim things you have not heard [water you have not seen] is dirty and false. I should have time Thursday/Friday to re watch the video, could post info than. But your faith in your site is truly admirable, i wish i could get christian to have such faith.
when were,for what reason, than what was your objection, im lost here sorry.
but i think you missed the point of article, that the worming compared to predictions made, was the subject,not is it warming.
warmer?
that was one sentence in a link not from op,.
again, it is false asumtion to say sun or anything outside earth has effect on our weather patters, this should be exstremley clear.
He has since criticized the BBC's climate change reporting as "evangelical" and "inconsistent," and claimed their reporting on scientific issues was "shallow and sparse."[3]
Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post. His connection to the skeptical GWPF is not mentioned on his Huffington Post profile.
Whitehouse is described as the "Science Editor," of The Observatory, a publication of the Global Warming Policy Foundation of which Whitehouse is a regular contributor.
as i said
"Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens."
you than amaz even me, and say the sun has nothing to do with current weather,even your sites admit it has at least 25% cause of global warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
My original post
Your reply
actually it does say the incorrect figure of 1-3 million an I have copypasted and highlighted it from the website.
when you click the actual source your link used to verify the amount written down as malaria deaths the link is broken and when you check the actual WHO or CDC websites as supposedly used by the link the numbers are vastly less.
The reason for the difference between the CDC and WHO is probably the age of the CDC data but it's still waaaaayyyyy more accurate than your links
now if we click on the little tiny numbers after the 1-3 million were directed to the source website for this figure they say is malaria deaths
but I will save you the trouble here is the info from the CDC copypasted below
global fund site
In the same year, malaria killed more than 1 million people, mostly children in Africa. http://www.globalfundatm.org/
you than assume the cdc is off because of age, yet it is from 2002, not to mention recent drop of around 20-30% of deaths may very well bring age down today to 600,00-700,000. Also ignoring the many,many reports that all say they most likely underestimate number. Than amazing claim your number is more accurate, with no reason to believe so. We have multiple places including who and cdc that all say over 1 million. Remember my op is not about how many die today, with a 20-30% reduction. Your last links miss this point.
consider this
About 3.3 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2010, there were about 219 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 154 million to 289 million) and an estimated 660 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region.
[QUOTE=ajaxfetish;2053521441]
Quote:
In addition to the specific example I gave of you misrepresenting another's statement, here gaelic cowboy demonstrates your use of an untrustworthy source. Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.
as sated is clear i never did misrepresent,only you believe this not even him,that is why your cant respond to when i point this out. Also i asked you to show something false, you cannot. My sources were never untrustworthy as he even used them lol,just understanding with when, estimates etc.
04-17-2013, 14:06
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.
04-17-2013, 14:23
total relism
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.
agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.
04-17-2013, 14:30
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
clear by know your dodging.
Why am I supposed to do the work. There are more than 34,000 authors of the more than 14,000 studies, so I don't need to do anything.
Quote:
you claimed you watched them all and their false, than you admit you did not watch them, than assure me based on your faith they are false. See why im not so willing to follow?
I said I had watched all that were available. I also still don't know what the other videos are about because you keep stalling about their actual content regarding the science of global warming. Why are you dodging? Just tell me what their specific claims are. I have also given you links to explanations of all the common arguments. I have faith in the scientific method because it works.
Quote:
just be sure your not drinking the dirty water my friend. You believe anything from that site,even enough to claim things you have not heard [water you have not seen] is dirty and false. I should have time Thursday/Friday to re watch the video, could post info than. But your faith in your site is truly admirable, i wish i could get christian to have such faith.
I don't actually have faith in that site per se, nor is that site the only site I check. What I have faith in is the science behind it. It only strengthens my "faith" that "skeptics" have been caught in one manipulation and fabrication after another. I have also seen enough to spot the usual rhetorical fallacies, at least most of times as I'm only human, and skeptics are full of them.
Quote:
Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
It is a think tank. Academic advisory does not mean he knows anything about global warming.
Quote:
He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post.
you than amaz even me, and say the sun has nothing to do with current weather,even your sites admit it has at least 25% cause of global warming
Oh, I guess we should be alright then because the sun is doing all the work...oh wait. Attachment 9025
04-17-2013, 15:14
Fragony
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Nice wallpost, but fact is that the concencus believers in the CO2 apocalypse just doesn't exist except in their own cathedrals. These cathedrals are bigger of course. No denying that.
04-17-2013, 15:26
Papewaio
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
What it does do is show that CO2 can be a much larger contributor to planet temperature then just the contribution of the sun.
Mercury gets approximately four times the sun energy per square meter then Venus (Venus is on average about twice the distance from the sun).
Despite Venus getting only a quarter of the energy it is hotter then Mercury.
Venus majority gas is CO2.
Venus is warmer because of its CO2 content.
04-17-2013, 15:27
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.
You do realize that warm and cold periods happen for a reason and the reasons are something climatology has a pretty good understanding of?
04-17-2013, 20:30
ajaxfetish
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
the problem is with the assumption i misquoted him,as i showed i did not, notice he never said anything himself, the reason is we had talked back and fourth on subject and understood what we meant. You come in over half way trough, dont read my posts ignore mt first few with him, than claim i take him out of context. I dont care to continue this as you clearly have nothing of the op to discuss,nor can you back up claim, without making your own strawman. That is why as i said twice, you must ignore my post that shows this clearly and cannot respond.
Are you seriously changing your argument to "it's not a misquotation because HoreTore didn't call you on it"? Care to go back and see what posts HoreTore has thanked? He didn't call you on it because I did it for him, and he likely wouldn't have anyhow due to the futility of arguing with a brick wall. If you want certainty, though, we could always ask him. Do you agree to admit your error and apologize if HoreTore comes on to state that it was a misquotation? Once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by total relism
My sources were never untrustworthy as he even used them lol,just understanding with when, estimates etc.
Wait. They were never untrustworthy, they just had the times and estimates wrong? That's exactly what makes them untrustworthy, dude.
Ajax
04-17-2013, 21:03
Beskar
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Since we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it is also the only thing we really can restrict. Methane is an issue too but is not directly related to our fossil fuel energy consumption.
That one is more to do with cows and volcano's.
04-17-2013, 23:14
CBR
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
That one is more to do with cows and volcano's.
Melting permafrost is where the big worry is. And it seems like the next IPCC report won't even be modeling the permafrost carbon feedback. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLCgybStZ4g
04-17-2013, 23:47
HopAlongBunny
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
The scary thing about it is, once it gets going it can become a self-perpetuating cycle. Where that point is? no one knows; ya' feeling lucky?
04-18-2013, 00:15
gaelic cowboy
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
I got it from the actual CDC website and not an incorrect secondhand source like yourself
Quote:
global fund site
In the same year, malaria killed more than 1 million people, mostly children in Africa. http://www.globalfundatm.org/
This website your posting is using 11yr old data for it's malarial deaths while the CDC data is from 2010
Also this website is actively touting for money which means it probably would be in it's interests to beef up the numbers ( it also gives no sources on it figures)
Quote:
you than assume the cdc is off because of age, yet it is from 2002, not to mention recent drop of around 20-30% of deaths may very well bring age down today to 600,00-700,000. Also ignoring the many,many reports that all say they most likely underestimate number. Than amazing claim your number is more accurate, with no reason to believe so. We have multiple places including who and cdc that all say over 1 million. Remember my op is not about how many die today, with a 20-30% reduction. Your last links miss this point.
the CDC numbers are from 2010
All the reports your using are misquoting both the WHO and CDC, therefore i naturally have to discard these websites your posting.
As to my assumptions on accuracy well lets just say I trust the CDC and WHO more than some fundraising .org site using data from 2002
your linking to sites that misquote there own sources, therefore you links are WRONG
Quote:
consider this
About 3.3 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2010, there were about 219 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 154 million to 289 million) and an estimated 660 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region.
that's only + or - around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever
04-18-2013, 03:29
CBR
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
I don't know what they are high on, but temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are now. That graph is nothing like the other graphs I've seen that show absolute consistancy in temperature cycles
04-18-2013, 10:19
jirisys
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
That graph shows temperature anomaly. Not temperature.
I'm not sure how reliable those temperature reconstructions are, but here's one which was updated in '04, which shows (coincidentally) the temperature anomaly at 0.4 K, much like the one CBR showed here.
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't know what they are high on, but temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are now. That graph is nothing like the other graphs I've seen that show absolute consistancy in temperature cycles
I think some regions might have been hotter then today but globally it looks like we surpassed the max medieval temperature.
04-18-2013, 13:38
HoreTore
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I don't know what they are high on, but temperatures were higher in the medieval period than they are now. That graph is nothing like the other graphs I've seen that show absolute consistancy in temperature cycles
If you're thinking about Greenland:
A green Greenland has nothing to do with a warmer globe. Making the globe hot enough to have a normally green Greenland would mean a huge increase, much, much more than MWP. The same goes for Norway too. It's a warm day today, it's 14 degrees and I'm wearing my shorts. Based on the earths temperature and my location in the North, that's impossible.
Why is it hot here then? Ocean currents is the answer. Norway is heated by the heat in the Caribbean, brought here by the gulf current. If that current suddenly decided to go someplace else, a 5 degree increase in earth temperature wouldn't be enough to keep Norway from icing over. The same goes for Greenland.
04-18-2013, 14:02
gaelic cowboy
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
after 3 years of middling to bad weather (mostly very wet but still warm) I'm gonna use some completely anecdotal evidence and say the seasons are banjaxed.
we didnt get a spring and it looks like we aint gonna get one now, the weather just keeps alternating between extremely dry but cold weather and extremely wet but cold weather. The big laugh is that often all this cold weather is still warm on an annual scale.
the grass is not growing due to the cold but were also not getting hard frosts
we lucked out due to a low stocking rate here, but more intensive dairy men must be thinking some very dark thoughts since the co-op's and banks started stopping feed credit
04-18-2013, 14:15
Rhyfelwyr
Re: Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.
I've noticed that as well, it seems like we don't really have seasons anymore. I'm probably just seeing something that isn't there, or maybe it's just the power of suggestion, but that's what it feels like.
I remember there was a bit of hot, sunny weather late last spring, at that time this year there was really deep snow. So most of the time there is no variation, and when there is the timing makes no sense.
