Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

This Winter-Spring was more due to disruption in the Gulf Stream. Part of the ongoing climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

---

It's much more general than that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Fair play, in some regions it also got colder. Currents sound like a good explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

This Winter-Spring was more due to disruption in the Gulf Stream. Part of the ongoing climate change.

---

Must be jet streams you are thinking about? We are seeing more erratic behaviour and it seems like global warming is the cause of it.
http://youtu.be/_nzwJg4Ebzo

indeed it has been part of the discussion in farming circles that this jet stream is moving further south a lot lately

apparently it is looping more in a more pronounced W shape so it goes wet dry wet dry wet dry and when it's either it's extreme

i am getting ready for a 1v1 so tonight will likely be my last night posting on this thread.Maybe someone else can bring up the cause lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

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.


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.


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.


It is a think tank. Academic advisory does not mean he knows anything about global warming.

http://www.davidwhitehouse.com/Academic.html Please show me his relevant research.

Oh, I guess we should be alright then because the sun is doing all the work...oh wait.
Attachment 9025

---

I said provide a list of supporters of your belief,qualified,you cant/have not.




I have faith in science as well, that is why i said why should i trust you? and a website with false info on front page?it was also clear you did not watch what was free online,as you missed the whole point of the one video you claimed to watch. Instead goggling a response.



ok fair enough,maybe i have misjudged you,but it seems you just google a response from there and assume its true.I have to say its clear you did with one doc that you claimed to have watched.



you would think he must, or they would get a new guy no?.



you just referenced 4 articles, again despite what you believe,changes regarding the sun astronomy etc have effects even here on earth lol.


recent sun spots/activity

here is graph
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content...of-science.gif

notice it matches the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1350 and the Little Ice Age, 1350-1850, not to mention todays temp changes. Even your reference before said it accounted for 25-30% of warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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:




Wait. They were never untrustworthy, they just had the times and estimates wrong? That's exactly what makes them untrustworthy, dude.

Ajax

---

maybe its me but you seem to not be able to understand anything i type,that i think is reason you and noone else seems to think what your claiming is true.
as far as quote,i have shown over and over you have misunderstood,that is why HoreTore had no objections, i showed with my other post you did not read i never misquoted, the fact you carry it on this long shows either you cant admit when wrong [as i show over and over with it in context] or more likley, you want to object to me and my op but cannot yourself, so must try and create anything to write about. I suggest you pull up your big boy boots, and come up with a actual objection on your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I got it from the actual CDC website and not an incorrect secondhand source like yourself




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)




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




that's only + or - around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever

---

i posted from cdc c? [get it i said c not see,im so damn funny].
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo...el/malaria.htm



indeed,that is why numbers were before reduction, not arguing death's today at all sir, i think that is were we mess up.



i can agree with most all that, but what do you do with the links to cdc and who that agree with me?I posted many.



you said
" around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever"

first off it said 666,000 a year,not 170,000. that you call that hardly groundbreaking or bad is amazing to me,god sent isreal to destroy cannan killing all the remaining people in 3 villages. This causes many [check out this site http://www.twcenter.net/] to completely say god is evil and bible bad worse thing on earth etc. yet 170,000 killed by the green dragon is ok? not to mention millions more die from their polices in africa alone and more around the world, as stated in op.

but even after all this, i may reword op because of your persistence, and instead of saying 1-3 million a year [from ddp alone not other causes] to killed millions.

Quote:

---

that's why HoreTore had no objections

---

HoreTore does object, but has no need to say anything since ajaxfetish handles his objections perfectly.

(that's the last time I refer to myself in third person, promise!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

HoreTore does object, but has no need to say anything since ajaxfetish handles his objections perfectly.

(that's the last time I refer to myself in third person, promise!)

---

not objections overall,objections to me supposed misquoting you.hes still going on about c02 being a pollutant or not.

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.

I fully support ajaxfetish' claims of misquotations, which is why I didn't see the need for me to say something.

Although I'm not fully convinced it was a misquotation, I'm not ruling out incompetence as an explanation yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fully support ajaxfetish' claims of misquotations, which is why I didn't see the need for me to say something.

Although I'm not fully convinced it was a misquotation, I'm not ruling out incompetence as an explanation yet.

---

i think you just want to disagree wit me, if you do think i misquoted you here than please provide were and why? me thinks you wont.But just put out some claim why not to show directly were please give post numbers as well.

Never attribute to malice, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I fully support ajaxfetish' claims of misquotations, which is why I didn't see the need for me to say something.

Although I'm not fully convinced it was a misquotation, I'm not ruling out incompetence as an explanation yet.

---

i think you just want to disagree wit me, if you do think i misquoted you here than please provide were and why? me thinks you wont.But just put out some claim why not to show directly were please give post numbers as well.

It's kind of hard to run one of them AI answer devices without proper post numbers... Wouldn't want him to do any thinking of his own, would You?

if he really is a bot that would be one epic troll :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

if he really is a bot that would be one epic troll :P

---

Or worse http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOFZ5fv_pb8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I said provide a list of supporters of your belief,qualified,you cant/have not.

---

I have no interest in compiling a list of names from more than 14,000 studies. You go against the scientific consensus and then it is up to you to show why that consensus is wrong. Persisting in focusing on people who have done no research on the subject just shows you don't understand the scientific method, or simply refuse its conclusions when they become inconvenient for you.

The few relevant scientist that you can find represents a tiny majority. Why have they convinced you? It can't be their science because you don't really want to focus much on the actual claims.

Quote:

---

I have faith in science as well, that is why i said why should i trust you? and a website with false info on front page?it was also clear you did not watch what was free online,as you missed the whole point of the one video you claimed to watch. Instead goggling a response.

---

It is funny how you demand me to write down a long list of names, yet you can't even tell me, in your own words, what the Cool It movie was about and where I got it wrong. Or what about the specific claims in the "resisting the green dragon", what are they and in which of the 12 segments.

Your words on having faith in science appears to be empty words. Science does not mean handpicking a few scientists (especially the ones that have done no research) who says what you like to hear and then forget about the scientific consensus. It also strikes me as pretty amazing how you easily dismiss the site because it has "false info" That false info (whatever that is) represents the scientific consensus.

Quote:

---

ok fair enough,maybe i have misjudged you,but it seems you just google a response from there and assume its true.I have to say its clear you did with one doc that you claimed to have watched.

---

As I said, I go by the scientific consensus. The reason I regularly use Skeptical Science is because it is, AFAIK, the only site that has such a nice long list of answers to the standard arguments made by "skeptics". As it also has references to the actual studies and it also follows what I have read other places, then I don't see many problems with it. Yes, I saw Cool It, and I wrote, in my own words, a short summary of what I thought about it. I see no reason as to why I have to somehow prove to you that I have seen it nor do I want to spend more time on that movie.

I'm wondering if you have watched all the videos in your OP because you should have noticed the same arguments (and scientists) being used over and over. Arguments that are so easy to get answers to, yet you keep refusing to check them out.

Quote:

---

you would think he must, or they would get a new guy no?.

---

If the GWPF was interested in the actual science, then yes they should pick someone else than Whitehouse. But GWPF goes against the consensus...

Quote:

---

you just referenced 4 articles, again despite what you believe,changes regarding the sun astronomy etc have effects even here on earth lol.

---

Have you even bothered to check them?? None of his papers have anything to do with climate change.

Quote:

---

recent sun spots/activity

here is graph
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content...of-science.gif

notice it matches the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1350 and the Little Ice Age, 1350-1850, not to mention todays temp changes. Even your reference before said it accounted for 25-30% of warming.

---

The graph shows 1860-1990. Sun spots are only an indication of solar activity. Actual cosmic rays and solar radiance is something that has been measured for a few decades now. But did you not notice the similarities between your graph and mine, apart from mine including more recent years? That is typical tactics from "skeptics" as they only deliver half-truths.

here is another one:

Attachment 9053
And to be clear: The graph does not show everything as there is an effect from the El Nino/La Nina (ENSO), volcanic activity and aerosols.

Attachment 9055
Here you can clearly see the effect on year to year temperature variability from ENSO and volcanic activity.

So,yes, the sun was obviously one of the prime drivers of climate in earlier times. It just does not explain what is happening now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...g-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...termediate.htm

Quote:

---

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

---

There are a lot of graphs to check out there, as well as a multitude of links to the scientific studies that the answers are based on. A lot of the papers are freely available for you to check out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i think you just want to disagree wit me, if you do think i misquoted you here than please provide were and why? me thinks you wont.But just put out some claim why not to show directly were please give post numbers as well.

---

I can help with that one. Here you go: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053520469

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

maybe its me but you seem to not be able to understand anything i type,that i think is reason you and noone else seems to think what your claiming is true.
as far as quote,i have shown over and over you have misunderstood,that is why HoreTore had no objections, i showed with my other post you did not read i never misquoted, the fact you carry it on this long shows either you cant admit when wrong [as i show over and over with it in context] or more likley, you want to object to me and my op but cannot yourself, so must try and create anything to write about. I suggest you pull up your big boy boots, and come up with a actual objection on your own. [bolds added]

---

You've had this problem in previous threads as well. Claim does not equal Show. You make many claims, but showing things is something you do rarely if ever.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i posted from cdc c? [get it i said c not see,im so damn funny].
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo...el/malaria.htm

---

no you didnt post from the CDC what you did was post a link that claimed to use CDC data

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/

This is the link you posted from and it's still wrong

Quote:

---

indeed,that is why numbers were before reduction, not arguing death's today at all sir, i think that is were we mess up.




i can agree with most all that, but what do you do with the links to cdc and who that agree with me?I posted many.

---

As I pointed out already if the data is wrong or missquoted as was in you links then your arguement is faulty. The links that agree with your position pretend to use data from relevant sources but as I showed the data contridicted you.

Quote:

---

you said
" around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever"


first off it said 666,000 a year,not 170,000. that you call that hardly groundbreaking or bad is amazing to me,god sent isreal to destroy cannan killing all the remaining people in 3 villages. This causes many [check out this site http://www.twcenter.net/] to completely say god is evil and bible bad worse thing on earth etc. yet 170,000 killed by the green dragon is ok? not to mention millions more die from their polices in africa alone and more around the world, as stated in op.

---

there is a crucial part missing from that sentence you quoted from my earlier post, it should read more like this

Quote:

---

that's only + or - around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever"

---

You yourself introduced the 170,000 into the discussion by stating that there was an acceptable allowance for the figure of malarial deaths of between 490,000 and 836,000 when using a figure 660,000 annual deaths.

What this means is that there was an allowance/tolerance in the figures of 170,000 which means you can either ADD or MINUS the number 170,000 to the number 660,000.

660,000 + 170,000 = 836,000
660,000 - 170,000 = 490,000

Therefore malarial deaths can be as low as 490,000 or as high as 836,000 but is generally agreed to be 660,000.

My assertion is that amounts involved are low compared to the at risk number of 3.3 billion, therefore we must conclude that banging drums about greens gone mad does not apply to malarial death tolls.

It is far more likely that poverty is the main cause of malarial deaths and not the lack of suitable alternatives to DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

It is far more likely that poverty is the main cause of malarial deaths and not the lack of suitable alternatives to DDT

---

Besides the bugs are quickly becoming resistant to pretty much all of them. Yeah, you could try things as toxic Agent Orange or similar. The greens definitely won't like it (nor will the bugs). Trouble is, neither will your children. Ask the Vietnamese.