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.

Quote:

---

this video free online
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...global-warming

---

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.

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

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.

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

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.


http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...n-un-agenda-21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

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.

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?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVXuIYND
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...en-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html


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’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVY5Uqar
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYYwUqs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


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

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYkbCnG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVYYwUqs
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2QVZZVtO9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

:hide:

:crazy:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This just keeps getting better


10 commandments for environmentalism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones


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

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.

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.

Southern Poverty Law Center writes about the "importance" of Agenda 21.

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?.

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.

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.


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama...ting-agenda-21
http://nwri.org/2012/01/obama-signs-...rural-council/
http://www.dickmorris.com/agenda-21-...s-for-america/


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.

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.

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?.

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.

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.

Won't a bone just do. Our house-commie may be an idiot but I know better than underestimating his intelligence

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!

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

Quote:

---

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:

On Iris http://www.skepticalscience.com/lind...ion-part1.html

Quote:

---

No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed)

---

It is still getting warmer. http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm

Attachment 9019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4

Quote:

---

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’.

---

The five degree estimate is one of the higher estimates. But why not let Allen Myles speak for himself without being misrepresented by journalists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

David Rose (Daily Mail) is not a good source when to comes to climate science. Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow

or http://www.skepticalscience.com/media_v_reality.html And I could find a lot more.

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.

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.

WE DO YOUTUBE VIDEOS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

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

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.