Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

resiting the green dragon
Here is a great documentary exposing the religious and spiritual beliefs and worldview of the radical environmental movement, watch and see how the leaders of the moments call on pagan deities of earth moon sun etc and worship "mother earth" among other things of nature. Learn who there high priest are, there rules that must be followed, and how they treat decanting or heretical views.[/B] Also included are the facts of science they do not tell you, the illogical and unfounded conclusions based on the science and knowledge we do have, and facts to reply to all there [B]scare tactic doomsday scenarios they will tell of what will happen if we dont follow them know. As well as how theyindoctrinate,the lies they spreed to help there agenda, and there history going back over 100 years of false predictions [prophecies] etc doomsday scenarios such as today's global warming warnings, these are not new these have been around all along and all there predictions have been false so far, watch in the leaders owns words there real purpose [its not to save trees].
Overall very good very informative and very scary to know people have power and intentions that they have and there view of human life. Watch the videos pro death agenda etc millions die a year because of environmentalism policy who have power in poor countries to control the people.
done from a christian perspective, but if you are atheist there will be more than enough facts to respond with next time a radical environmental starts making claims that will make this worth it.


promo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAA2sLtzXJM

topics of dvd
The False World View of the Green Movement Dr. E. Calvin Belsner
Rescuing People from the Cult of the Green Dragon Dr. Peter Jones
Logos vs. Mysticism: Environmentalism's Flight from Reason Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi
From Captain Planet to Avatar: The Seduction of Our Youth Dr. Michael Farris
A Brief History of Environmental Exaggerations, Myths and Downright Lies Dr. Steven Hayward
Putting Out the Dragon's Fire on Global Warming Dr. David Legates
How "Going Green" Impoverishes You, Your Church, and Your Society Hon. Becky Dunlop
Ravaging the World's Poor Dr. James Tonkowich
The Green Face of the Pro-Death Agenda: Population Control, Abortion and Euthanasia Dr. Charmaine Yoest
Threats to Liberty and the Move Toward a Global Government Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
A Biblical Guide to Genuine Creation Stewardship Dr. James Tonkowich
Go Therefore and Make Disciples: Advancing the Gospel in a World Permeated by Environmentalism Dr. Peter Jones
http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/


31,000 scientist reject global warming
http://www.petitionproject.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qZHkvtV5rAHYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qZHkvtV5rA&feature=player_embedded"&HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qZHkvtV5rA&feature=player_embedded"feature=player_embedded


great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. Shows hoe cap and trade is big time corruption, talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children.Why alternative solutions are not considered.
http://coolit-themovie.com/

25 free videos, titled 25 videos al gore does not want you to see.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/25-anti...ant-you-to-see


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

A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af



global Warming—When Politics and Science Collide gives alternative reasons for global warming.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics

1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/...n-ipcc-gore-2/






false prophecy of radical environmentalist/Scare tactic’s lies.

threats/scare tactic’s of famine,plagues,floods etc come right out of the OT. If we dont follow these certain rules, or if we sin against mother nature, she will punish us with famine floods etc.

Doomsday scenarios [al gore] straight out of book of revaluations.



some predictions of radical environmentalist from 1970,they have being trying scare tactics for decades and even started in late 1800's all have been wrong and way off.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist


“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

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)


Today, we are told by many—scientists, economists and politicians—that the great environmental challenge of the present age is climate change. Thirty years ago, scientists were certain that the world was rapidly cooling, and the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amid fears of a new ice age. Fortune magazine cited a number of leading climatologists who had concluded that global cooling was “the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world”, and that “it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude”.1
Peter Gwynne wrote that there were ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns had begun to change dramatically and that these changes would result in a “drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”2#He added:


“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it … The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

some of the kind of lies

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

greenhouse gas
95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor.


any co2 released is a pollutant, .

carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is like calling clouds pollutants, they are naturally forming and essential to life.
an appeal to reason a cool look at global warming Nigel Lawson.
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6

without c02 there is no life on earth. Plants/trees grow a lot better with added c02 in autmospher.


great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children. Why alternative solutions are not considered.
http://coolit-themovie.com/

threats/scare tactic’s of famine,plagues,floods etc come right out of the OT. If we dont follow these certain rules, or if we sin against mother nature, she will punish us with famine floods etc.

Modern endangered species is a modern day noahs ark. Doomsday scenarios [al gore] straight out of book of revaluations.

claim world is falling apart
we have more trees know than a decade before,and decade before that etc.
cleaner water cleaner air, both are improving all the time.
More food production with far less farm space used.
Estimated sea level rise by un 1 foot over next 100 years, in last 100 years it rose 1 foot. No one noticed.

Polar bears- 1960 estimated 5,000 today 2012 22,000.

the world is overpopulated
if texas were populated with the density of new york city it would have more than enough room to fit entire worlds poulation.
http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-E...d-Fit-In/55348

the#world#population#could fit in#Texas#with a density of new#York#city.
Did you know…everyone on the planet (7 billion) could fit in the state of Texas (area of 268,820 square miles) at a density 26,040 people per sq. mile. Thats a 1000 less people per square mile than in New York City!

If you put all 7 billion people in Alaska (663,268 square miles) there would only be 10554 people per square mile. Rather roomy. And if all of the planets people were put in the united states (3.79 million miles) there would only be 1846 people per square mile.

Bottom line…there is plenty of room on this planet and there are plenty of resources, and when resources become constrained man will use his creativity and resourcefulness to solve any problems that may arise
http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-E...d-Fit-In/55348

the entire world#population#could fit in#Jacksonville#Florida#twice [standing room.]


Would water be a problem, though? It's calculated that we need 350 billion liters of water per day to properly hydrate 6.8 billion people. It seems like a lot, but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. By the way, the Columbia River is the U.S.’s fourth largest river. So, again, that leaves the rest of the world’s water supply open and ready to serve. So, we’re not really overpopulated. We just need to be better at managing our resources
Read more at#http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-E...HEguTgX8lv.99#
http://www.omg-facts.com/Other/The-E...d-Fit-In/55348

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smar...ity-8230/17896


We are running out of resources
#virtually all environmentalists, including some Christian ones, believe that resources are limited and are rapidly running out due to increased demand. The reality, however, is that such claims have been circulating since the time of Tertullian in the second century#ad, and we have still yet to run out of any significant resource, nor are we likely to in the foreseeable future. In truth, we have an abundance of natural resources
http://creation.com/creation-preserv...ominion-part-2

Cyprian, writing in the third century, stated:
“You must know that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigor. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun’s warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted#
St. Cyprian,#ad Demetrium;#in: Jones, W.T.,#A History of Western Philosophy,#2nd#ed., Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, vol.#2:6, 1969

George Reisman points out,
“ … the fact is that the world is made out of natural resources—out of solidly packed natural resources, extending from the upper limits of its atmosphere to its very center, four thousand miles down. This is so because the entire mass of the earth is made of nothing but chemical elements, all of which are natural resources … Even the sands of the Sahara desert are composed of nothing but various compounds of silicon, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, aluminum, iron, and so on, all of them having who knows what potential uses that science may someday unlock.”
Reisman, G.,#Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics,#Jameson Books, Ottawa, IL, p. 71, 1998.

In reality, resources are becoming more abundant, not less.
http://creation.com/creation-preserv...ominion-part-2


for responses to increase floods/rainfall,stronger/more hurricanes,sea level rising fast or slow? Greenland melting?c02 cause of most of the warming?climate models
watch Putting Out the Dragon's Fire on Global Warming Dr. David Legates

How they view mankind

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."
SaveThePlanetProtest.com
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/jame...covery_gunman/

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“we are so bad,so polluting,so exploitative,so violent,so destructive that we owe it to the world not to be born in the first place”
steyn M america alone regenery new yorkp7-8 2002

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing….This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
—Lamont Cole

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

Humans, it claimed, are planetary parasites. We are an infection, a “disease [that] has spread and is still spreading.” The editorial discusses “swarming human masses” and says that we, the food we produce, and the artifacts we manufacture all amount to waste products that make no ecological sense and serve no ecological purpose. As the last line of that 1970 editorial reveals, The Ecologist believes that halting “the spread of the disease with which [man] is afflicting the biosphere” is an admirable goal.
The Ecologist
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/...ans-parasites/


Much like The Ecologist, he believes human civilization should cease expanding and should be “reversed.” He thinks television shows should “stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility” should be aired. He believes humans to be “the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and [that we] are wrecking what’s left of the planet.”
radical environmentalist James J. Lee

Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.
The Ecologist


At a UN summit on global warming the USA offered with the money to be spend to reduce global warming by 20%. to end hunger and famine disease and allow clean drinking water to all of Africa, the UN rejected.

Global Warming:#A Scientific and Biblical Expose' of Climate Change gives many alternative reasons for global warming, as 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. They keep people in poverty leaving them without energy availability.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics

polices such as with ddt, kill millions of humans in asia to protect a higher rate of bird eggs being prayed apone because of thinner shells..
Ravaging the World's Poor Dr. James Tonkowich resiting the green dragon.

In practice, however, animal-righters usually regard man as#lower#than the animals. After the#Valdez#oil spill which killed 30,000 birds (about 0.1% of the area’s population), some called it a worse tragedy than the 1984 chemical leak in Bhopal, India. But this killed more than 3,000people#and injured 200,000 others.8#Many animal liberationists have said it is acceptable to use ‘defective’ humans in scientific tests as opposed to testing things on healthy animals.

rey, R. & G.,#Journal of Medical Ethics#9:94–97, 1983


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




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



Nietzsche claims that religion has fostered guilt to such neurotic levels that some people feel culpable and apologetic about their very existence. Compare this with extreme conservationists who want to sacrifice themselves for trees and whales. And teachers, like myself, will attest to significant numbers of their students who feel that their cats or whatever are equal to human beings. And not only are members of the next generation egalitarian about all life, but they often feel positively awful about the way that their species has corrupted and defiled the whole beautiful symphony of nature. The planet, they feel, would be better off without us. We are not worthy. In this extreme form, one does not seek to reduce one's carbon footprint so much as eliminate one's very being.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/11...#ixzz2JwZucyHx

Radical environmentalism a religion modern version of ancient pagan religions worshiping creation of mother earth, trees etc. popularization of Pantheism

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“Western society is in a dramatic shift away from monotheism, notes Dr. Taylor, professor of religion at the University of Florida. And in many cases, he says, former believers are turning to Mother Earth to fill the spiritual void. He cites findings that large numbers of people in Europe and the United States express "deep trust in nature as inherently spiritual or sacred." “
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...rticle1443672/


“a new religion of Eco-fundamentalism”
p 104 http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6

#“Environmentalism, as a substitute for religion, has come to the rescue.# “
http://chronicle.com/article/Green-Guilt/63447/


“I suspect that it is no accident that in Europe Eco fundamentalism in general and global warming absolutiam in particular, has found it's most fertile soil. For it is in europe that has become the most secular society in the world, were the traditional religions have the weakest hold. Yet people, still feel the need for comfort and higher values that religion can provide, and it is the quasi-religon of green alarmism and what has been well described as global salvationism....which has filled the vacuum with the reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilegious”
p102 http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6

“The PC [political correctness] at the ipcs as it were, is the most oppressive and intolerant form of political correctness in the western world”
p 105 http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6


In this innovative and deeply felt work, Bron Taylor examines the evolution of "green religions" in North America and beyond: spiritual practices that hold nature as sacred and have in many cases replaced traditional religions.
Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future
http://www.brontaylor.com/environmen..._religion.html

Unlike faiths that promise heaven in the afterlife, eco-spirituality calls upon adherents to treat the biosphere as paradise on earth, he explains. Figures such as Al Gore have called environmental destruction a "spiritual crisis."
The movement has latter-day prophets, including naturalist Henry David Thoreau and Sierra Club founder John Muir, and its own sacred texts, notably Charles Darwin's#On the Origin of Species, in which the theory of evolution suggests a kinship between humans and all living things.
It has modern-day crusaders, such as Jane Goodall and David Suzuki, who wage campaigns to protect nature's "sacred balance."
Although there is no central organizing body, devotees celebrate their own holidays - equinoxes, solstices and Earth Day - and make mass pilgrimages to sites such as the Carmanah Valley on Vancouver Island and Walden Pond in Massachusetts.#
For others, the practice of eco-spirituality is ritualized in "mindful" walks in nature each day, or giving praise to the Earth as they consume their vegan meals.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...article1443672

Instead of religious sins plaguing our conscience, we now have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper. In addition, the righteous pleasures of being more orthodox than your neighbor (in this case being more green) can still be had—the new heresies include failure to compost, or refusal to go organic. Vitriol that used to be reserved for Satan can now be discharged against evil corporate chief executives and drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles. Apocalyptic fear-mongering previously took the shape of repent or burn in hell, but now it is recycle or burn in the ozone hole. In fact, it is interesting the way environmentalism takes on the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional religious narrative. The idea that the end is nigh is quite central to traditional Christianity—it is a jolting wake-up call to get on the righteous path. And we find many environmentalists in a similarly earnest panic about climate change and global warming. There are also high priests of the new religion, with Al Gore ("the Goracle") playing an especially prophetic role.

We even find parallels in environmentalism of the most extreme, self-flagellating forms of religious guilt. Nietzsche claims that religion has fostered guilt to such neurotic levels that some people feel culpable and apologetic about their very existence. Compare this with extreme conservationists who want to sacrifice themselves for trees and whales. And teachers, like myself, will attest to significant numbers of their students who feel that their cats or whatever are equal to human beings. And not only are members of the next generation egalitarian about all life, but they often feel positively awful about the way that their species has corrupted and defiled the whole beautiful symphony of nature. The planet, they feel, would be better off without us. We are not worthy. In this extreme form, one does not seek to reduce one's carbon footprint so much as eliminate one's very being.

The same demographic group for whom religion has little or no hold (namely white liberals) turns out to be the most virulent champions of all things green. Is it possible that these folks must vent their moral spleen on environmentalism because they don't have all the theological campaigns (e.g., opposing gay marriage, opposing abortion, etc.) on which social conservatives exercisetheir#indignation?


Recently while I was brushing my teeth, my 6-year-old son scolded me for running the water too long. He severely reprimanded me, and at the end of his censure asked me, with real outrage, "Don't you love the earth?" And lately he has taken up the energy cause, scampering virtuously around the house turning off lights, even while I'm using them. He seems as stressed and anxious about the sins of environmentalism as I was about masturbation in the days of my Roman Catholic childhood.

Environmentalism should be regarded on the same level with religion "as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity," according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world's would-be environmental watchdog.

Read more:#http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/11...#ixzz2JwZucyHx

In the documentary called “cool it”,shows it has become the “moral” issue of the day.
http://coolit-themovie.com/

With the decline of Christianity in the face of the evolutionary onslaught, environmentalism seems like a substitute religion, with an established dogma; ‘plastic is bad, recycling is virtuous, forests are sacred sites, developers are satanical’.3

Hugh Mackay,#The Adelaide Advertiser, 2 May 1990

#And much environmentalism is fanned by evolutionary pantheism. ‘Mother Earth’ is the creative goddess, who must be protected and pacified.

Many modern environmentalists hold to a highly romanticized, virtually pantheistic view of nature. Images and stories of simple, yet idyllic, tribal life reinforce the erroneous “noble savage” stereotype—mankind living in glorious harmony with nature without pollution or overcrowding. These environmentalists, therefore, oppose any development that involves any alteration to nature. Such alteration is inherently bad, amounting to a moral violation

Destruction of Religious Beliefs
In order to bring about their desired complete reordering of society, the elite have engaged in a systematic effort over many decades to destroy the current religious and moral structures that have dominated for centuries. This requirement does demonstrate that there are real morals and values worth holding onto taught by the major religions even if their stories are largely fabricated. By promoting a do as you please culture via movies, television and other means the elite are creating a cultural climate of moral relativism. In such a climate there are no boundaries and the public can be led to accept any standard no matter how degrading.
New Religion Based on Earth Worship
Today, the elite are seeking to destroy the old religious belief systems and replace them with a "new age" religion based on a form of earth worship. Doing so will accomplish multiple objectives - to get people to accept lower standards of living; to accept voluntary sterilization to save mother earth thus helping to depopulate the planet; and to accept restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of saving the environment.
Scientists/Experts are the New Priesthood
As we move into a more advanced form of scientific dictatorship based on earth worship, the new priests are the scientists and related experts. These experts will serve as the technocracy, or the middle man holders of knowledge, as they have throughout history.


in india local village is wiped out with many deaths loss of house, crops 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.
Logos vs. Mysticism: Environmentalism's Flight from Reason Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi#


"because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological,ethical, and spiritual needs"
Dr mike hulme director of Tyndall center u of east anglia uk.


celebrate the high holy day of this religion as they pay homage to the earth God. Of Earth Day, evolutionary anthropologist Margaret Meade once explained that:
EARTH DAY is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space. EARTH DAY draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way — which is also the most ancient way — by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another.



their own ark of the coveneant
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.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48749
http://www.arkofhope.org/


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.


there own temple
C. GAIA & Temple of Understanding, NYC the
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.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48749


10 commandments in gergiaeorgia_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.

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


Modern endangered species is a modern day noahs ark. Doomsday scenarios [al gore] straight out of book of revelations.

threats/scare tactic’s of famine,plagues,floods etc come right out of the OT. If we dont follow these certain rules, or if we sin against mother nature, she will punish us with famine floods etc.

modern day cap and trade is same as medevil catholic church indulgence.

Global warming radical environmentalism agendas.

"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution."
#Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals http://www.scribd.com/doc/60422138/Rules-for-Radicals-1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"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


communist goals 1958

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
communist wanted to take over and get behind the environmental movement as they thought it was only way to get enough regulation to control business, destroy the free market system and give more control to the government.


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.


Agenda 21: How Will It Affect You?


The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
3. Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry.#

What is the way to destroy economy? Have the major producers and resources [coal oil etc] have so many fines payments they cannot afford anymore and scare public with disasters [global warming] if they use products.
http://www.amazon.com/Agenda-Grindin.../dp/B003Z3CZGG


great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. Shows how cap and trade is big time corruption, talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children.Why alternative solutions are not considered.
http://coolit-themovie.com/


great article great quotes
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/S...-UN-IPCC--Gore
http://globalistagenda.org/




a better economy and standard of living always leads to better protection and care of environment, yet this is not allowed in poor countries such as in africa/india by environmentalist. Why?.


Global Warming:#A Scientific and Biblical Expose' of Climate Change gives many alternative reasons for global warming, as 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

federal money has spent 100's of billions of dollars trying to prove man made global warming, and ignores and does not fund other explanations data that contradict it.

Some in politics environmentalist that are anti capitalism,political freedom,wealth,industrialization that use promotion of fears of global warming as way to serve there own agenda.

Alternative solutions that dont change policy or help progressive agenda but just solve solution are outright rejected.
great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. Shows hoe cap and trade is big time corruption, talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children.Why alternative solutions are not considered.
http://coolit-themovie.com/
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics


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



Destruction of Religious Beliefs
In order to bring about their desired complete reordering of society, the elite have engaged in a systematic effort over many decades to destroy the current religious and moral structures that have dominated for centuries. This requirement does demonstrate that there are real morals and values worth holding onto taught by the major religions even if their stories are largely fabricated. By promoting a do as you please culture via movies, television and other means the elite are creating a cultural climate of moral relativism. In such a climate there are no boundaries and the public can be led to accept any standard no matter how degrading.
New Religion Based on Earth Worship
Today, the elite are seeking to destroy the old religious belief systems and replace them with a "new age" religion based on a form of earth worship. Doing so will accomplish multiple objectives - to get people to accept lower standards of living; to accept voluntary sterilization to save mother earth thus helping to depopulate the planet; and to accept restrictions on rights and freedoms in the name of saving the environment.
Scientists/Experts are the New Priesthood
As we move into a more advanced form of scientific dictatorship based on earth worship, the new priests are the scientists and related experts. These experts will serve as the technocracy, or the middle man holders of knowledge, as they have throughout history.


http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm
http://agendadocumentary.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Resisting-Corn...ref=pd_sim_b_1

In a CSPAN interview, Van Jones#admits#that "environmentalists" only care about the environment when it helps advance their political cause:
You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil#
spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been President, with that oil
spill, or George Bush had been President with that oil spill, I’d have#
been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the#
President was.
http://thecitysquare.blogspot.com/20...is-always.html

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


this is not surprising to any christian, as the bible said people would reject there creator and worship nature.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
romans 1

Ahahahahahahahaha.

Also, I'm rather intrigued by this "Great book of revaluations"... Is that the book of the bible where all of its values are changed?

Don't need a bible to call the Green-Khmer ideolgy bullcrap, just another doomsday religion clever businessmen make lots of money with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't need a bible to call the Green-Kmer ideolgy bullcrap

---

i agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't need a bible to call the Green-Khmer ideolgy bullcrap, just another doomsday religion clever businessmen make lots of money with

---

Still, it's usually best done with accurate arguments, something the OP doesn't have. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Still, it's usually best done with accurate arguments, something the OP doesn't have. At all.

---

could you please give a example of a inaccurate argument i made? i would love to fix my op if you can show it contained any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

could you please give a example of a inaccurate argument i made? i would love to fix my op if you can show it contained any.

---

Simple:

All of it. Including the general tone. And the false quotations. A quick tip in that regard: when re-using a quote someone else has made, always check the original source to confirm its validity. Common mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Simple:

All of it. Including the general tone. And the false quotations. A quick tip in that regard: when re-using a quote someone else has made, always check the original source to confirm its validity. Common mistake.

---

i will take that as you not being able to point out even one specific example of "a inaccurate argument" you claimed of my op. Please back up if you can, show any quote taken out of context etc A quick tip when making claims about quotes being out of context, always check the original source to confirm its validity. Common mistake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i will take that as you not being able to point out even one specific example of "a inaccurate argument" you claimed of my op.

---

I lol'd.

This is an informal place, but when all one offers is a wall of text with a dozen quotes, the least one can demand of you is that you actually check the validity of the quotes you give. For a starter, try finding your quote from savetheplanetprotest.com on the website given. Also, look up the definition of the term "poison", and check how that fits with the way you have used it.

I don't really see the need to give you more, as you have obviously given no effort whatsoever to present your argument.

Come back when you've put some effort into this, and I'll respond. The OP is no basis of a discussion, it's a great wall of errors.

With the commie. There are plenty of studies that question the theory, bring that instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

With the commie. There are plenty of studies that question the theory, bring that instead.

---

The further one ventures from "mainstream science"(and climate change is definitely mainstream), the greater is the risk of running into hacks and pseudoscience. That of course does not mean that non-mainstream is wrong, but it does mean that you have to be more careful and mindful of errors. The OP is a brilliant example of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The further one ventures from "mainstream science"(and climate change is definitely mainstream), the greater is the risk of running into hacks and pseudoscience. That of course does not mean that non-mainstream is wrong, but it does mean that you have to be more careful and mindful of errors. The OP is a brilliant example of this.

---

Kiss->forhead, why can't we just get along :sweetheart:

It's still bull by the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I lol'd.

This is an informal place, but when all one offers is a wall of text with a dozen quotes, the least one can demand of you is that you actually check the validity of the quotes you give. For a starter, try finding your quote from savetheplanetprotest.com on the website given. Also, look up the definition of the term "poison", and check how that fits with the way you have used it.

I don't really see the need to give you more, as you have obviously given no effort whatsoever to present your argument.

Come back when you've put some effort into this, and I'll respond. The OP is no basis of a discussion, it's a great wall of errors.

---

as stated, please give one example were you think any quote i have used is out of context, you assume so for some reason, yet cant show were. Than claim others have done what you do, assume a quote is out of context without checking. Hypocritical at its greatest. I checked out the website savetheplanetprotest.com, i see no reason to have to make radical environmentalism confirm to some random obscure website that look not well run at all. My op with poison was that the claim its "bad" is false. Oxygen could be considered a poison if to much.


edit
wow just noticed, thanks, i did not mean poison but pollutant, as the context clearly shows the mistake as i used pollutant in same sentace and the one before refereeing to same thing c02. Thank you.


The rest i will ask, what would you like me to do, what effort etc would you like me to put into it? as far as your claim of errors, i ask once more, please show where you think there are errors instead of assuming and not as you say should be done, going to original source. This is on radical environmentalism, not just any environmentalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The further one ventures from "mainstream science"(and climate change is definitely mainstream), the greater is the risk of running into hacks and pseudoscience. That of course does not mean that non-mainstream is wrong, but it does mean that you have to be more careful and mindful of errors. The OP is a brilliant example of this.

---

i agree that "climate change" is mainstream, anyone who thinks climate does not change is rejecting science,but i think you missed the point. Assuming your referring to global warming, than the debate is is man made emissions causing a drastic change in climate. Would you say al gore is a media hit? won a Nobel prize? and would be called mainstream [man made causes will cause global warming natural disasters etc] yet his documentary cannot show as a better example of pseudoscience, yet he is mainstream. really in today's age, mainstream means what the mainstream media/indoctrination sorry education system tells you is mainstream. Many examples of how kids are indoctrinated in false info on global warming on my op video links.


The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
3. Only the relatively elderly can remember the cynical haste with which the scaremongers dropped the “coming ice age” and embraced exactly the opposite prediction, but aimed at the same culprit – industry.#



you keep claiming
careful and mindful of errors. The OP is a brilliant example of this.


yet over and over dont show these and only assume them, that is why no specifics. So i have to ask, just what are you objecting to? what do you disagree with, what do you see as false?

you originally claimed as being false from op
general tone.
And the false quotations


how the tone can be false i have no idea, but could you back up original claim of false quotes please? you said i must refer to some random website, why must I? as you even said, original context is what matters, not if a quote can be found on some obscure random website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Kiss->forhead, why can't we just get along :sweetheart:

It's still bull by the way

---

The New Age movement has embraced enviromentalism, and it's no surprise that anything coming from the new age movement is complete and utter bull, just like any other spiritual and/or religious movement. In addition to that, the nature of science is such that a lot of what we consider proven today is in fact false, which is shown by how many times we have realigned our knowledge in the past. Claiming that our current knowledge of the enviroment cannot be one of those is ridiculous and just plain un-scientific. It needs to be disproved before it can be rejected though(as its current status is "proven"), and that hasn't happened yet. There's a continuous realignment going on, of course, like with any subject.

An additional comment is that the political side of those who reject man-made climate change has attracted countless hordes of hacks, frauds, retards and idiots. They've done more to discredit alternate scientific theories than the Vatican could ever dream of back in the days of Galileo.

@TR:

Your OP contains this quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."
SaveThePlanetProtest.com

---

This quote is downright false. It simply does not exist. It's a false quote. If you had put any effort into your post, and checked its existence, you would've known this. As for changing "poison" to "pollutant", it's still a huge miss. Check up the definition of "pollutant". This is a fundamental error, one which tells me that you haven't the faintest bit of knowledge of natural science. It's like writing a paper on grammatical errors and having consistent a/an errors.

I see no effort on your part to make a coherent argument, and so I don't really see the need for me to counter your wall of errors. The best argument against the OP, is the OP itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

An additional comment is that the political side of those who reject man-made climate change has attracted countless hordes of hacks, frauds, retards and idiots. They've done more to discredit alternate scientific theories than the Vatican could ever dream of back in the days of Galileo.

---

if anyone wants to see who the political "countless hordes of hacks, frauds, retards and idiots" that this issue bring in, just watch the links on the op, its not thoes who "reject man-made climate change".

concerning Galileo, we should make sure its true history we tell.
http://creation.com/the-galileo-affa...ic-hagiography
shows that ‘Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@TR:

Your OP contains this quote:



This quote is downright false. It simply does not exist. It's a false quote. If you had put any effort into your post, and checked its existence, you would've known this. As for changing "poison" to "pollutant", it's still a huge miss. Check up the definition of "pollutant". This is a fundamental error, one which tells me that you haven't the faintest bit of knowledge of natural science. It's like writing a paper on grammatical errors and having consistent a/an errors.

I see no effort on your part to make a coherent argument, and so I don't really see the need for me to counter your wall of errors. The best argument against the OP, is the OP itself.

---

it does contain that quote true, as it should.James lee is original creator of the website, How you can claim its false i have no idea.
http://grist.org/childfree/2010-09-0...ing-eco-wacko/
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...rld&id=7644553
http://publicintelligence.net/james-...how-treatment/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2581733/posts
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2010/james...age-situation/


so your most recent claim of
" It simply does not exist. It's a false quote. If you had put any effort into your post, and checked its existence, you would've known this."

applies 100% to yourself as i sated before, hypocritical self contradictory and down right false.


Not to mention we all clearly see your claim of multiple quotes out of context has show all of 0 out of context quotes. Showing again you assume things without tacking your own advice of checking original source.


pollutant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.


I think you misunderstand my op so i wont charge you with be false/lying here.
tell me know how its a big miss as you claim, as my op says

"
lie told
co2 is a pollutant.

carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is like calling clouds pollutants, they are naturally forming and essential to life.
an appeal to reason a cool look at global warming Nigel Lawson.
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6"


effort
as i asked before what would you like of me? this thread does not end in op, what arguments do you wish me to make? what are you asking for?

I am fully aware you have assumed "counter your wall of errors" and if you can show anyone i would love to fix, but so far you have not clearly, only assumed a out of context quote never happened, when it did.

The quote was given as from the website savetheplanetprotest.com. It does not appear on that site. Your inability to understand that this makes the quote false astounds me.

You still haven't shown you known what a pollutant is. Your usage is still utterly wrong, and your sentences makes no sense because of it. I see no effort, and thus see no need to raise additional objections.

Go through your OP. Remove the errors and clean it up. Come back again, and you'll have your discussion. Until then: no dice.

A study from 2008 http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf showed that peer reviewed literature (1965-1979) mainly focused on warming.
Attachment 8975

The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate change" have both been used for quite some time http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Quote:

---

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

---

Quote:

---

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:
Attachment 8976

---

Of all the "scientists" who doesn't believe in it, it is amazing how they don't produce anything.
Attachment 8977


Science vs. the Feelies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The quote was given as from the website savetheplanetprotest.com. It does not appear on that site. Your inability to understand that this makes the quote false astounds me.

You still haven't shown you known what a pollutant is. Your usage is still utterly wrong, and your sentences makes no sense because of it. I see no effort, and thus see no need to raise additional objections.

Go through you OP. Remove the errors and clean it up. Come back again, and you'll have your discussion. Until then: no dice.

---

it was originally on the site please read up sir, he is know dead.

"His list of demands, posted at savetheplanetprotest.com, is a teabagger’s wet dream of enviro idiocy."

the original quote is from his list of demands,from his site savetheplanet that he created.

polutent
you are desperate fro sure know,i give example in op as it being false claim, i give definition, all you ever have is claims its false. or it could be you still dont get what i said in op. I said c02 is not a polutant.

you said
" Remove the errors and clean it up"
I would if you could show me any, all you have given is claim of a quote you have been shown is legit over and over, and what apears to be a misunderstanding of c02 and pollutants. I think me and you both know your running because you still cant back up your original claims of errors and false quotes. Sometimes it ok to admit if you jumped the gun.

To add to CBR's post: the "31,000 scientists reject climate change"-claim has been debunked so utterly so many times I'm astounded to still see it used as fact, anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

it was originally on the site please read up sir

---

That's not an issue, use Wayback Machine and find the original quote.

Alternatively:

1. Admit it's a fabrication, or
2. Declare that you can't be bothered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

it was originally on the site please read up sir, he is know dead.

"His list of demands, posted at savetheplanetprotest.com, is a teabagger’s wet dream of enviro idiocy."

the original quote is from his list of demands,from his site savetheplanet that he created.

polutent
you are desperate fro sure know,i give example in op as it being false claim, i give definition, all you ever have is claims its false. or it could be you still dont get what i said in op. I said c02 is not a polutant.

you said
" Remove the errors and clean it up"
I would if you could show me any, all you have given is claim of a quote you have been shown is legit over and over, and what apears to be a misunderstanding of c02 and pollutants. I think me and you both know your running because you still cant back up your original claims of errors and false quotes. Sometimes it ok to admit if you jumped the gun.

---

lol.

You wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by You

carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

---

To which the answer is: yes it bloody is. Laughable mistake when the subject is natural science. In fact, if co2 isn't counted as a pollutant, nothing can be.

The definition of poison fourth graders learn(the poison is in the dosage) is well worth to keep in mind.

As for the false quote:

It still astounds me that you cannot understand how to quote. A quote which cannot be checked is worthless, and the one who gives a quote must include the information the reader needs to check the validity of the quote. Failure to do so results in a false quote. The quote, as you have given it, simply does not exist. If you are sure of its existence and validity, you must give the reader the resources needed to confirm it.

Basic academia 101.

And as I've said previously, the OP is so full of errors that I simply can't bother pointing them all out. A little effort on your part to iron out the worst ones is the minimum one can expect, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

A study from 2008 http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf showed that peer reviewed literature (1965-1979) mainly focused on warming.
Attachment 8975

The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate change" have both been used for quite some time http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326





Of all the "scientists" who doesn't believe in it, it is amazing how they don't produce anything.
Attachment 8977


Science vs. the Feelies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjD0e1d6GgQ

---

climate change/global warming
i think you misunderstand here,none says that they have not talked of climate change, read my quotes from 1970's, they go far before that as well. Thay always claim climate change, often media al gore type know refer to anything that involves a change in climate [no one disagrees climate does not change] is do to global warming.


second part, none really disagrees that the earth is not experiencing a warming trend, well maybe some,none i am aware of i posted on op.


you claim that scientist who reject the man made idea and scare tactics don't produce anything,than base that on a youstube video instead of what they say produce, do you see the circularity in that?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's not an issue, use Wayback Machine and find the original quote.

Alternatively:

1. Admit it's a fabrication, or
2. Declare that you can't be bothered.

---

so let me see if i am right, i need to go to a webpage,that appears to be not run anymore [as the creator id dead] that is constaley confirmed to have a quote from a person ,show in multiple media reporting, to convince you? I could than edit my op, and say it never said anything about global warming. than multiple people would quote from my original op [used later] showing it did, but i kill myself so it cant be reedited. Than you would have to claim i never said it as it can be produced from my original op.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

lol.

You wrote:



To which the answer is: yes it bloody is. Laughable mistake when the subject is natural science. In fact, if co2 isn't counted as a pollutant, nothing can be.

The definition of poison fourth graders learn(the poison is in the dosage) is well worth to keep in mind.

As for the false quote:

It still astounds me that you cannot understand how to quote. A quote which cannot be checked is worthless, and the one who gives a quote must include the information the reader needs to check the validity of the quote. Failure to do so results in a false quote. The quote, as you have given it, simply does not exist. If you are sure of its existence and validity, you must give the reader the resources needed to confirm it.

Basic academia 101.

---

posion
as i said in post 13
" Oxygen could be considered a poison if to much."

but the lie/false info that is given is,no matter how much, any released c02 is a pollutant. Hopefully you know understand,that is why it was labeled under the lies section.

I thought you may have been misunderstanding it.


as i said,hes dead,lol. But you can deny what everyone else knows [maybe big conspiracy against radicals, maybe he never held people hostage,maybe he never wrote down his demands].

im going to copy paste my response above
so let me see if i am right, i need to go to a webpage,that appears to be not run anymore [as the creator id dead] that is constaley confirmed to have a quote from a person ,show in multiple media reporting, to convince you? I could than edit my op, and say it never said anything about global warming. than multiple people would quote from my original op [used later] showing it did, but i kill myself so it cant be reedited. Than you would have to claim i never said it as it can be produced from my original op.


and they say there are climate change deniers,i wish this type of skeptical thinking was applied to their theory of man made global warming. Anyone who is not in denial, google James J. Lee radical environmentalist.

here is further info on website qoute

ccording to WHOIS record, SaveThePlanetProtest.com was first registered on January 7, 2008 under registrant James Lee.[1] The domain was registered with a private registration service, which hid the registrant’s information. The WHOIS record only displayed a PO Box address located in Burnaby, Canada, in the contact info.
The registrant James Lee, a Korean-American, was an environmental protester. On September 1, 2010, he entered the Discovery Communications headquarters building in Silver Spring, Maryland, with a gun and several bombs strapped to his body and took three hostages.[2]
Lee made his manifesto on his website SaveThePlanetProtest.com (currently defunct) with several demands, including "daily programs based on Daniel Quinn's Ishmael in game show formats broadcasted through Discovery Channel." The manifesto expressed Lee’s disapproval of Discovery Channel promoting global overpopulation. After nearly a four-hour standoff, he was shot and killed by police, and the three hostages were immediately freed.[3]
The website SaveThePlanetProtest.com was hosted by Doteasy Technology Inc.. The spokesman of this Canadian web hosting firm announced that they had provided information to Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for further investigation. RCMP Insp. Tim Shields stated that the RCMP was aware of the website situation and was in touch with US law enforcement officials in the investigation.[4]




i think its clear the radicals on this site are simply trying to hide the truth as well as try to find anything wrong with my op to try to get it ignored. Not to mention even if this one quote was false [it clearly is not] that would not change the worldview of those and how they view human life.


here is link to his manifesto
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/jame...covery_gunman/

Oxygen is indeed a poison. It's also a pollutant. So is co2. The problem with your sentences in the P is not that they are inherently wrong, it's that they simply don't make sense.

The dosage is the poison, and the same goes for pollutants. Although it's more common to say "placement" instead of "dosage". But that's just to give a clarification to the most common scenarios, in all cases it's a matter of dosage. Some co2 in the air is not a pollutant, more co2 in the air is a pollutant.

While your statement on the quote is almost unreadable, if I got the gist of it I'd say it's accurate. When you quote, you absolutely need to give the reader the information needed to verify it. A dead host isn't an excuse, sorry. If you don't you might as well leave it out, it adds nothing to a discussion.

EDIT: now this is an example of how you source. Was that really so hard? Now the quote is good instead of being false as it is in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

so let me see if i am right, i need to go to a webpage,that appears to be not run anymore [as the creator id dead] that is constaley confirmed to have a quote from a person ,show in multiple media reporting, to convince you?

---

Since you can't be bothered with Wayback Machine to substantiate your own quote, how about you just Google it? Turns out this line: "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution," is a direct reference to a 1997 novel titled My Ishmael. It was referenced by crazed gunman James J. Lee. Here's his manifesto (PDF warning).

So ... how, exactly, does a crazed gunman's misinterpretation of a 1997 novel have any bearing on anything? And why couldn't you be bothered to check and link easily available sources?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Since you can't be bothered with Wayback Machine to substantiate your own quote, how about you just Google it? Turns out this line: "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution," is a direct reference to a 1997 novel titled My Ishmael. It was referenced by crazed gunman James J. Lee. Here's his manifesto (PDF warning).

So ... how, exactly, does a crazed gunman's misinterpretation of a 1997 novel have any bearing on anything? And why couldn't you be bothered to check and link easily available sources?

Inquiring minds want to know.

---

great post thank for original, know will you admit its not a false quote?please tell hore tore you can ask hows it relevant, but can no longer say its false as you claimed. I am glad you posted and the author made his position known, not surprising he distanced himself from the crazy. How is it relevant? because it was to him James Lee as he understood it. how he used it what he taught of people was point of my whole section of op, not weather someone else holds same view he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oxygen is indeed a poison. It's also a pollutant. So is co2. The problem with your sentences in the P is not that they are inherently wrong, it's that they simply don't make sense.

The dosage is the poison, and the same goes for pollutants. Although it's more common to say "placement" instead of "dosage". But that's just to give a clarification to the most common scenarios, in all cases it's a matter of dosage. Some co2 in the air is not a pollutant, more co2 in the air is a pollutant.

While your statement on the quote is almost unreadable, if I got the gist of it I'd say it's accurate. When you quote, you absolutely need to give the reader the information needed to verify it. A dead host isn't an excuse, sorry. If you don't you might as well leave it out, it adds nothing to a discussion.

EDIT: now this is an example of how you source. Was that really so hard? Now the quote is good instead of being false as it is in the OP.

---

notice what i boleded in your post.

[B]first[/B]second
in the amount, i will clarify in op that the lie is no matter how much any release of c02 is pollutant. Thank you, i thought it was more ovius.

third
still good original source in op as when it was first posted when website was running. But i shall post both i guess.


edit
just edited op

know includes any relased
any co2 released is a pollutant, .

carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is like calling clouds pollutants, they are naturally forming and essential to life.
an appeal to reason a cool look at global warming Nigel Lawson.
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6


know includes second refence
"how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."
SaveThePlanetProtest.com
http://www.salon.com/2010/09/01/jame...covery_gunman/

No one has ever claimed that co2 is not a fundamental component in the world. That's absurd. You're arguing a strawman.

....And you still don't get how the quote as it stands in your OP is false? I'm lost for words.

EDIT: I see you've changed your OP. Good, your quote is now useable.

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.

....And you still don't get how the quote as it stands in your OP is false? I'm lost for words.

---

because as i showed many times int not false, its original.

pollutant
you in fact are arguing straw man and very desperate to find anything indeed, i said c02 is not a pollutant only.

, in many schools it is called poultant, my kids homework. This book gives many examples.

AN Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming
http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-.../dp/B008SLKRA6

watch the dvd and documentaries on op many are free, many interview kids see how they see c02, its a pollutant.

why if you goggle do so many articles come up defending that c02 is not a pollutant if that is never claimed?just google it.


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-co2-a-dangerous-pollutant/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/12/1037/
http://www.expresswaysonline.com/expwys/ourselves.html
Why is carbon dioxide considered as a pollutant?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/<b>Why_is_..._pollutant</b>


etc etc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

To add to CBR's post: the "31,000 scientists reject climate change"-claim has been debunked so utterly so many times I'm astounded to still see it used as fact, anywhere.

---

Another thing is, out of a few million plus scientists in the world, only 31k apparently reject?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

you claim that scientist who reject the man made idea and scare tactics don't produce anything,than base that on a youstube video instead of what they say produce, do you see the circularity in that?.

---

I did not base it on the video (16 minute long and you responding in just 13 minutes...) It is based on: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

If they don't produce peer reviewed stuff then they don't really produce anything. Or it is a global conspiracy, where all the major journals and thousands of scientists keep out the "real" science, and they have managed to do it for many decades.

Instead of cherry-picking from the media or radical comments, you should focus on the science. Using guilt by association, in an attempt to discredit the science, is a wee bit simpleminded.

Welcome back TR.

Total Relism in the Hizzu keepin it Rel!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Another thing is, out of a few million plus scientists in the world, only 31k apparently reject?

---

For more details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

Quote:

---

In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.
13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

---

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Another thing is, out of a few million plus scientists in the world, only 31k apparently reject?

---

please show me were all these scientist agree with man made global warming? than tell me why majority opinion = truth.

show me your list of scientist who accept man made global warming than to what extent.

A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I did not base it on the video (16 minute long and you responding in just 13 minutes...) It is based on: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

If they don't produce peer reviewed stuff then they don't really produce anything. Or it is a global conspiracy, where all the major journals and thousands of scientists keep out the "real" science, and they have managed to do it for many decades.

Instead of cherry-picking from the media or radical comments, you should focus on the science. Using guilt by association, in an attempt to discredit the science, is a wee bit simpleminded.

---

I agree with you actually, that is why my thread is titled radical environmentalism, not those who believe in man made global warming, as i even referenced a few people who do.

as far as peer review, i would say the evidence counts not what is allowed published agreed? read the published stuff from radicals in the 60's-70's you will see the same type of scare tactic peer reviewed. Please watch the documentaries were it shows how funding only goes to support, and when contrary evidence starts coming in it is unfunded. But than you must realize how worldviews effect people and their conclusions, some people view man as all that is evil and nature to be worshiped,so any thing humans do is "bad".

“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur

“A chilling true life story of how free speech and free inquiry rights have simply vanished in a large swath of the academic community. This story would be depressing in a 1950’s Iron Curtain country. Unfortunately, it’s a contemporary American story and far more upsetting for that reason. This shutdown of the search for truth is not something that could happen. It DID happen.”
A review of#Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters#by Dr Caroline Crocker#
Leafcutter Press, Southworth, WA, 2010


great movie on libral bias at universities nothing to do with creation vs evolution but bias and discrimination to certain views
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. Shows hoe cap and trade is big time corruption, talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children.Why alternative solutions are not considered or funded.
http://coolit-themovie.com/


What happens to a professor who does everything right but has wrong ideas? |

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19818

goes into death threats and other things made at those who “deny” man made climate change.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics



peer review
how good is peer review?
http://www.icr.org/article/6497/

Some note that peer-review “inhibits the rapid, free exchange of scientific information” and blocks dissemination of scientific ideas which deviate from traditionally held positions
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...d-journals.ars

Because the publish-or-perish philosophy reigns over careers and funding, scientists are under pressure to conform. Peer-review can bless that which conforms and screen out that which does not. Creation scientists and others who hold non-mainstream positions understand that scientific facts are always interpreted in accordance with the presuppositions of the observer. Therein lies the value of peer-review journals such as Answer Research Journal. Check it out at www.AnswersInGenesis.org/ARJ

Despite all this effort, there are worries that the process doesn't#work any better than chance. A common criticism is that peer review is biased towards well-established research groups and the scientific status quo.
Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0010072
Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/s think is interesting and will gain greater readership

evolutionist admit to peer review bias
http://creation.com/how-scientific-is-our-science

evolutionist admits to problem called "human aspects" of research what is published such as selective reporting of results publication bias of journal editors.

"The peer review process is titled towards positive results"

"they only wanted confirming data, it was to existing a idea to disprove"
lehrer J the truth wears off is there something wrong the scientific method? 13 dec 2010

The problem of publication bias—in which manuscripts are only accepted for publication if they align with the reviewers' predisposed ideologies—has a long history
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9083596


scientists, just like any other people, have biases and are subject to complicated personal motivations
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117697

Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:
‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.’


have you herd of climate gate? were editors and others bragged about not letting contrary papers go trow?.

I could link many more examples, but i hope this is enough.

A weed is a plant in a location where it isn't wanted. It is still a plant.

Pollutants can be naturally occuring such as volcanic ash or man made such as car exhaust. Pollutants are generally a chemical in a location where it isn't wanted.

A lot of pollutants may be toxic to some animals whilst beneficial to others. For instance Diclofenac is great for cattle, fatal for vultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Welcome back TR.

Total Relism in the Hizzu keepin it Rel!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

For more details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

---

notice this assumes all degree people agree with them, that man made global warming is going to cause great disasters. Show me your list of scientist who accept the doomsday scenario taught by media etc than we can compare total numbers. but majority opinion does not decide truth, many claim all scientist accept man made global warming or the debate is done/over.

how did this get on only global warming? when that is only one aspect of op?. Lets diversify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

how did this get on only global warming? when that is only one aspect of op?. Lets diversify.

---

Yes, lets. This whole thread has been stagnating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The best argument against the OP, is the OP itself.

---

This is literally one of the very few times I have legitimately laughed at my computer while I read a thread on the org.

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.

---

I'm done with this thread.

You have no idea of what the terms you use actually mean, like what a pollutant is and isn't. And it seems you're not even aware of your lack of knowledge. Discussion is thus impossible. I suggest you find a natural science book from primary school, and read it. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but that's the level you're at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm done with this thread.

You have no idea of what the terms you use actually mean, like what a pollutant is and isn't. And it seems you're not even aware of your lack of knowledge. Discussion is thus impossible. I suggest you find a natural science book from primary school, and read it. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but that's the level you're at.

---

questions, why did you not disagree with my definition i posted from wiki? why when i said even oxygen can be seen as a pollutant did you seem to ignore?why do you because you want to find fault with my op, not understand what my op said, that is that any c02 release is a pollutant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

questions, why did you not disagree with my definition i posted from wiki?

---

Because you do not seem to understand what it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

why when i said even oxygen can be seen as a pollutant did you seem to ignore?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

why do you because you want to find fault with my op, not understand what my op said, that is that any c02 release is a pollutant?

---

Because noone on earth, especially not any teacher, has ever claimed that co2's only function is to pollute. Such a statement is absurd in the extreme. It's like claiming someone is saying 3 times 3 is 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because you do not seem to understand what it means.



See above.



Because noone on earth, especially not any teacher, has ever claimed that co2's only function is to pollute. Such a statement is absurd in the extreme. It's like claiming someone is saying 3 times 3 is 8.

---

all i will say is go back to my post as it is clear to all but yourself.

and yes teachers and school present c02 as a pollutant, i gave you multiple references saying so. They simply dont mention the positives of c02. Only that it pollut the air and environment, i cant believe you reject this. But since you do you should be on my side against propaganda and lies spread by radicals, are you with me?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

and yes teachers and school present c02 as a pollutant, i gave you multiple references saying so. They simply dont mention the positives of c02. Only that it pollut the air and environment

---

That is utterly false, and another sign that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Show me one single school who does not teach photosynthesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That is utterly false, and another sign that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Show me one single school who does not teach photosynthesis.

---

i am sorry but your know even getting off topic to try to find fault, i said schools [with multiple references in earlier post] teach that c02 release in air is a pollutant, deny all you will but you just look silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i am sorry but your know even getting off topic to try to find fault, i said schools [with multiple references in earlier post] teach that c02 release in air is a pollutant, deny all you will but you just look silly.

---

You have to be a troll, or there is something wrong that makes me feel very sad for you.

You said schools don't mention the positives of carbon dioxide, that they only call it a pollutant. HoreTore says that that statement is not true because schools teach photosynthesis which involves carbon dioxide. You then claim that he is saying something else entirely different. That somehow he made the claim that schools don't call carbon dioxide a pollutant. But that wasn't what he said, he said schools do show how vital it is to the environment as well.

And this is all from three posts within an hour of each other. I'm sorry moderators, but you want civil discourse towards a conspiracy-tard with a memory of a goldfish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i said schools [with multiple references in earlier post] teach that c02 release in air is a pollutant

---

As they should, seeing as co2 is a pollutant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

As they should, seeing as co2 is a pollutant.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You have to be a troll, or there is something wrong that makes me feel very sad for you.

You said schools don't mention the positives of carbon dioxide, that they only call it a pollutant. HoreTore says that that statement is not true because schools teach photosynthesis which involves carbon dioxide. You then claim that he is saying something else entirely different. That somehow he made the claim that schools don't call carbon dioxide a pollutant. But that wasn't what he said, he said schools do show how vital it is to the environment as well.

And this is all from three posts within an hour of each other. I'm sorry moderators, but you want civil discourse towards a conspiracy-tard with a memory of a goldfish?

---

when referring to global warming and environmental issues they dont teach photosynthesis, there are many examples given before, if people deny this i dont care, i am referring to radical environmentalist only. So apretley it is your memory of my post/op/position that is in need of some fixing. Or you could show were i said schools dont teach photosynthesis, of course than you would just follow in the straw man HoreTore has created to try and find any fault in my op.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

lol

---

That response is the best way I can think of to show off your ignorance. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

all i will say is go back to my post as it is clear to all but yourself.

and yes teachers and school present c02 as a pollutant, i gave you multiple references saying so. They simply dont mention the positives of c02. Only that it pollut the air and environment, i cant believe you reject this. But since you do you should be on my side against propaganda and lies spread by radicals, are you with me?.

---

Not in my experience, I was tought that it was vital for photosynthesis. I don't really know what counts for being poisinous mind you, as far as I know CO2 isn't poisenous, maybe they mean CO which clamps onto your red-blood cells depriving you of oxygin. Total layman here. In my time it was acid rain and the whole in the ozon-layer that was going to kill us all.

If we don't act right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not in my experience, I was tought that it was vital for photosynthesis. I don't really know what counts for being poisinous mind you, as far as I know CO2 isn't poisenous, maybe they mean CO which clamps onto your red-blood cells depriving you of oxygin. Total layman here. In my time it was acid rain and the whole in the ozon-layer that was going to kill us all.

If we don't act right now

---

Whether something is poison or polluting isn't a description of a substance itself, rather it's a description of that substance in a given quantity and at a given place(ie. reacting with certain other substances). If the effect of the amount and place is positive or neutral, all is well. If the effect is negative, we call it pollution. Thus, every substance in existence is a pollutant, as it will be polluting in at least a few situations. As for everyday usage, it's usual to call something a "pollutant" when the substance commonly finds itself in a situation where it causes negatives effects(it pollutes).

CO2 fits neatly with the everyday usage of the term as well. Ever been in a poorly ventilated room over a period of time? The air starts feeling heavy, and thinking becomes harder. Why? Among a few other things, it's because the amount of co2 in the room has increased. The air has been polluted and co2 is the pollutant.

The "layman term" for co2 in Norwegian is kvælstoff, which means "strangulation substance". A rather neat description of its qualities.


As for having to bring up photosynthesis when describing polluting effects of co2.... That's like demanding to describe morphine while discussing heroin. Ridiculous. The schools teach the vital effects of CO2 many years before they start discussing its polluting effects, however, and it should be assumed that any student who discusses CO2 pollution is already aware of photosynthesis. And if they're not, I'd say there's no chance of them understanding why and how it pollutes anyway.

Photosynthesis is taught around the 3. grade, while co2 pollution isn't a subject until secondary school(8.-10. grade). Pollution in the first years of school is centered mostly around waste management(don't throw your trash on the streets!) and for some weird reason, water contamination(weird because Norway has one of the cleanest water supplies in the world).

Not arguing against you. But if you are in a badly ventilated room isn't it the lack of oxygine rather than the abundance of CO2, as you breath oxygine-levels lower after all and you get CO2 back. Not sure if I would call it a polutement, but I don't have my definitions in order

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not arguing against you.

---

Neither am I, but I always appreciate my opportunities to enlighten the Dutch ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But if you are in a badly ventilated room isn't it the lack of oxygine rather than the abundance of CO2, as you breath oxygine-levels lower after all and you get CO2 back. Not sure if I would call it a polutement, but I don't have my definitions in order

---

True. What you're doing is absorbing the oxygen, while leaving the co2. So you're not exactly polluting the air, but the air remaining in the room is definitely polluted. Shrink the room and remove some of the co2, and the air will be fine to breath again, as the level of co2 will have gone down. You would feel the same way if you introduced more co2 in the room, though, but that doesn't happen as often(though light a fire in the room, and it will).

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

---

Both gases will more or less result in the same type of poisoning. Edit: having checked, they do differ in type of poisoning.

CO will kill you as low as 700 ml/m³ while CO₂ needs 80 000 ml/m³ ​to be lethal.
So don't try to kill yourself in a garage with a running motor if you have a car with a catalytic converter (CO ->CO₂)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

---

Nope, CO₂ is starting to become dangerous around 3% and lethal at about 7-10%. That will still happen even if you have normal oxygen levels or higher.
It's a weak acid in water solutions, so it'll mess up the pH in your blood (it's part of the blood's pH buffer as well).

CO works pretty much as you described and is a much stronger poison.

CO is formed when there's not enough oxygen to form the CO2 produced by fire under normal conditions. So you're absolutely correct that CO forms in an enclosed space, however that space needs to be small, like a combustion engine. In a room where humans are able to be and breath, it's safe to assume that there's enough oxygen around to form CO2.

Fire is made by combing Carbon(the wood you're burning), C, with Oxygen(from the air around it), O2. When you combine those two, you end up with CO2(C+O2=CO2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Nope, CO₂ is starting to become dangerous around 3% and lethal at about 7-10%. That will still happen even if you have normal oxygen levels or higher.
It's a weak acid in water solutions, so it'll mess up the pH in your blood (it's part of the blood's pH buffer as well).

CO works pretty much as you described and is a much stronger poison.

---

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

---

Well, that's the end of my knowledge for sure. I know where the dirty parts are, but that's about all I know about the human body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

---

Being honest, I am no expert in the effects of CO2 poisoning, but it is called hypercapnia. It is usually occurs in artifical environments such as Scuba Driving or on a Spaceship (Apollo 13 has issues). Apparently via google, it can happen in rare natural environments such as when sleeping and access gets blocked, which is one of the big suspected causes of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

please show me were all these scientist agree with man made global warming? than tell me why majority opinion = truth.
...
show me your list of scientist who accept man made global warming than to what extent.
...
Show me your list of scientist who accept the doomsday scenario taught by media etc than we can compare total numbers. but majority opinion does not decide truth, many claim all scientist accept man made global warming or the debate is done/over.

---

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

What media are we even talking about? Fox News apparently have the highest number of viewers, yet their climate coverage appears to be about 93% wrong/bad http://www.livescience.com/23448-fox...age-wrong.html

If you think the media is all about doomsday (however you define doomsday) and that the science is not supporting that, then that is up to you to show it. Look at the science. If you don't want to look it up yourself, then you have to find someone you trust to describe what is being said. Based on the references you have shown so far, you have picked the wrong ones.

Quote:

---

A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren't sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn't think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...1-5c755457a8af

---

That Gallup poll is from 1992 and was misrepresented by George Will. http://fair.org/extra-online-article...f-george-will/:

Quote:

---

Will confronted Gore on the issue of global warming: "Gore knows, or should know before pontificating, that a recent Gallup Poll of scientists concerned with global climate research shows that 53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain."
It was Will, however, who should have read the poll more carefully "before pontificating." Gallup actually reported that 66 percent of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with only 10 percent disagreeing and the rest undecided. Gallup took the unusual step of issuing a written correction to Will's column (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92): "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now." Will never noted the error in his column.

---

There is AFAIK no consensus on a potential runaway greenhouse effect, so no wonder that a lot of scientists did not think it is imminent.

Quote:

---

I agree with you actually, that is why my thread is titled radical environmentalism, not those who believe in man made global warming, as i even referenced a few people who do.

---

And yet you threw in several links trying to discredit the whole thing.

Quote:

---

great movie on libral bias at universities nothing to do with creation vs evolution but bias and discrimination to certain views
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

---

And therefore there is "liberal" bias on all universities across the globe and it kills off the truth in the Natural Sciences...or something.

Quote:

---

great documentary called cool it. By a professor who believes in man made global warming. Shows hoe cap and trade is big time corruption, talks of the scare tactics used to gain votes. Shows the indoctrination and scare tactic’s used on school children.Why alternative solutions are not considered or funded.
http://coolit-themovie.com/

---

A professor in Political Science. He is good at getting his message through. It is unfortunate that the message is based mainly on half-truths. http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Coolitfilm.htm

Quote:

---

What happens to a professor who does everything right but has wrong ideas? |

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19818

---

It might show that sociology have issues with either political correctness or maybe they are all commie atheists who just hate Christians! Either way, the guy found employment in Singapore, which goes to show that not all universities have been hit by this terrible "liberal disease"

Quote:

---

goes into death threats and other things made at those who “deny” man made climate change.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics

---

Nothing about death threats there. But I have heard about it in other places. Of course you should also do a quick web search on death threats and climatologists. These days everyone can receive death threats, so that unfortunately only tells us that there are idiots everywhere, but not that all who oppose your viewpoint must be bad.

Quote:

---

have you herd of climate gate? were editors and others bragged about not letting contrary papers go trow?.

---

Yeah yeah I got it, peer review is not perfect. It still does not change the fact that papers do get retracted because problem do get noticed, which actually show us the system is still more or less self-correcting. Nothing stops the thousands of suppressed scientists from creating their own journals and get stuff released. Nothing stops current skeptical scientists from releasing studies. The problem is that their science just isn't very convincing and they can't make better models and predictions.

Climategate has gone through several investigations that all cleared them. And a bit of research on your own, to understand the context, will show it was just easy soundbites that skeptics have kept clinging on to. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=315:

Quote:

---

The Review’s conclusion on the peer review allegations was as follows (its emphasis):

On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication. [1.3.3]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not in my experience, I was tought that it was vital for photosynthesis. I don't really know what counts for being poisinous mind you, as far as I know CO2 isn't poisenous, maybe they mean CO which clamps onto your red-blood cells depriving you of oxygin. Total layman here. In my time it was acid rain and the whole in the ozon-layer that was going to kill us all.

If we don't act right now

---

CO2 is toxic for the same reason HCN is (albeit that HCN is far, far more toxic): it binds to hemoglobin, and it does so significantly more readily than O2 does. Therefore prolonged exposure to high concentrations of the stuff, especially in environments which are relatively low on O2 will result in asphyxiation.

CO is particularly toxic because it will readily react with O2 (2CO + O2 -> 2CO2). That means that O2 bound to hemoglobin may wind up being converted to CO2 due to reaction with CO even before it reaches the muscles which were supposed to use it. However, CO2 does most definitely bind to hemoglobin; and this property of hemoglobin facilitates transportation back to the lungs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

know you say c02 is a pollutant when just last post you said it was starwman as none says it is pollutant lol. [/B]

---

First you give unsourced quotes. Now you give quotes with sources ("just last post"), but the source says something completely different than your paraphrase. Total Relism fails at quoting. :no: :shame:

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

CO is formed when there's not enough oxygen to form the CO2 produced by fire under normal conditions. So you're absolutely correct that CO forms in an enclosed space, however that space needs to be small, like a combustion engine. In a room where humans are able to be and breath, it's safe to assume that there's enough oxygen around to form CO2.

Fire is made by combing Carbon(the wood you're burning), C, with Oxygen(from the air around it), O2. When you combine those two, you end up with CO2(C+O2=CO2).

---

You don't even need to start a fire in the room. Simply sitting there yourself will do it, because in order to stay alive you *have* to produce CO2 as a byproduct of normal 'aerobic' production of energy which your body needs to keep itself going. (You also have a limited capacity for anaerobic production of energy in emergency situations but that won't maintain your body.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

True. What you're doing is absorbing the oxygen, while leaving the co2. So you're not exactly polluting the air, but the air remaining in the room is definitely polluted. Shrink the room and remove some of the co2, and the air will be fine to breath again, as the level of co2 will have gone down. You would feel the same way if you introduced more co2 in the room, though, but that doesn't happen as often(though light a fire in the room, and it will).

---

This is not really true. Animal respiration will use oxygen from the air, and releases CO2 from the blood stream to the air. The CO2 is a byproduct of metabolism. So if you are in an enclosed room, not only are you reducing the amount of oxygen present but you are also expelling more CO2, thereby polluting the air in the room.

The circle of life: Plants use energy (sunlight) + CO2 + H2O to create carbohydrates (sugars/starches) + O2. Animals use O2 + carbohydrates to get energy + CO2 (as waste) + H2O.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

---

CO₂ desolves in water to form carbonic acid (like in soda) so it's slighly acidic.
Water is pH sensitive as heck and since chemical reactions are heavily affected by pH you want blood to have stable pH (blood need to stay between 7.35 to 7.45). Two drops (0,1 mL) of concentrated HCl will drop a liter pure water (pH 7) to pH 3.

To have stable pH you use a buffer. It's basically a weak acid (or base) that's in equilibrium, aka 50% is in acid (or basic) form, while 50% is in neutral form (simplified). To get a pH change of 1 here, you'll need to convert it to a 5%-95% solution. IIRC 0,1 change is 45%-55%.

Basically, too much CO₂ and you overwhelm the buffer, causing "acid" blood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

CO2 is toxic for the same reason HCN is (albeit that HCN is far, far more toxic): it binds to hemoglobin, and it does so significantly more readily than O2 does. Therefore prolonged exposure to high concentrations of the stuff, especially in environments which are relatively low on O2 will result in asphyxiation.

CO is particularly toxic because it will readily react with O2 (2CO + O2 -> 2CO2). That means that O2 bound to hemoglobin may wind up being converted to CO2 due to reaction with CO even before it reaches the muscles which were supposed to use it. However, CO2 does most definitely bind to hemoglobin; and this property of hemoglobin facilitates transportation back to the lungs.

---

CO is toxic because the body can't unbind it properly from hemoglobin, unlike O₂ and CO₂. Pure oxygen is used to treat CO poisoning, by flushing out the CO faster.
That conversion thing is bull.

It certainly doesn't help to be low on oxygen, but the blood pH thing is why CO₂ can be lethal, no matter the oxygen levels, instead of being dependent on the O₂ levels.

Edit: Appearently, it's better to have 3-4% CO₂ in low oxygen environments. And it's possible to adapt to a 3% level in about 4 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

CO is toxic because the body can't unbind it properly from hemoglobin, unlike O₂ and CO₂. Pure oxygen is used to treat CO poisoning, by flushing out the CO faster.
That conversion thing is bull.

---

That sentence of mine about CO is a trainwreck, yes. But there are quite clearly two things at work here. One of those is that CO will react with O2 if given the chance, which is not good for your survival prospects (at it lowers the concentration of O2 still further and increase the concentration of CO2). The other is the issue with CO not getting "released" from hemoglobin in a timely fashion.

Now I don't have the numbers to hand, but there are clearly at least two ways for CO2 to kill you: that it binds to hemoglobin and does so more efficiently than O2; and that it will convert to H2CO3 in aqueous environments which in sufficient concentrations will upset the pH buffer of blood. Mind you, the buffer effect is precisely why humans can tolerate acidic conditions a bit better than some other organisms. I am assuming a "normal" habitat here, not the effects you get when you are under water, or subject to low air pressure environments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

That sentence of mine about CO is a trainwreck, yes. But there are quite clearly two things at work here. One of those is that CO will react with O2 if given the chance, which is not good for your survival prospects (at it lowers the concentration of O2 still further and increase the concentration of CO2). The other is the issue with CO not getting "released" from hemoglobin in a timely fashion.

---

No, CO reacting with O2 doesn't happen on a significant level at body temperature or inside the body. It happens barely at all (on a long time scale it happens often enough to remove it from the atmosphere though), that's why they use catalysators on cars to remove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Now I don't have the numbers to hand, but there are clearly at least two ways for CO2 to kill you: that it binds to hemoglobin and does so more efficiently than O2; and that it will convert to H2CO3 in aqueous environments which in sufficient concentrations will upset the pH buffer of blood. Mind you, the buffer effect is precisely why humans can tolerate acidic conditions a bit better than some other organisms. I am assuming a "normal" habitat here, not the effects you get when you are under water, or subject to low air pressure environments.

---

I did read a few of the old studies (they did most of this stuff before the 70-ties appearently). Having a 6% O2, 4% CO2 solution is appearently better than a pure 6% O2 solution. Both will make you unconcious after a while though. So the body doesn't seem to have any problems with too much CO2 bindings, compared to O2 bindings.

I don't know if it's curiosity or masochism which drives me, but I had another look at the OP. Unsurprisingly, I immediately found a number of outright lies, half-truths, misconceptions and errors. I know now that pointing out misconceptions serves no purpose(the receiver just won't understand it), so I'll highlight two glaring errors instead:

1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OP

Regrettably, in the intervening years, between one and two million persons each year needlessly died each year from malaria because DDT had been banned

---

This is completely false. The WHO gives the total number of annual deaths from malaria as an estimated 660.000, with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000. 40% of what the OP states. Further, the OP makes the claim that those 1 to 2 million deaths are just the ones that could've been saved by DDT. If we assume that widespread use of DDT would not wipe out malaria completely, the total number of malaria deaths the OP claims is even bigger.

EDIT: Just in case you want to argue that the WHO stat refers to the present day, while the OP talks about malaria deaths from DDT was regulated in the 70's, here is the number of deaths at different times last century. DDT was banned(in the west) in the 70's and 80's, and the number of deaths were 578.000 in 1970 and 897.000 in 1990.

2.

Quote:

---

we have more trees know than a decade before,and decade before that etc.

---

Also wrong, of course. We have less forest now than we did yesterday, and will have even less tomorrow. This UN-report gives the following numbers for the forested area in the world for 1990, 2000 and 2005:

1990: 4 077 291
2000: 3 988 610
2005: 3 952 025

In other words, a steady decline in the last decades.



This is the kind of nonsense the TR really should check out properly before he parrots nonsense spewed by clueless idiots and demagogues. With a minimum of effort and access to google, you could fix these errors in no time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That response is the best way I can think of to show off your ignorance. Thank you.

---

funny, i felt the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not in my experience, I was tought that it was vital for photosynthesis. I don't really know what counts for being poisinous mind you, as far as I know CO2 isn't poisenous, maybe they mean CO which clamps onto your red-blood cells depriving you of oxygin. Total layman here. In my time it was acid rain and the whole in the ozon-layer that was going to kill us all.

If we don't act right now

---

mine either, but what they say in video etc is that releasing c02 in the air is releasing pollutants that are harmful for the environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

What media are we even talking about? Fox News apparently have the highest number of viewers, yet their climate coverage appears to be about 93% wrong/bad http://www.livescience.com/23448-fox...age-wrong.html

If you think the media is all about doomsday (however you define doomsday) and that the science is not supporting that, then that is up to you to show it. Look at the science. If you don't want to look it up yourself, then you have to find someone you trust to describe what is being said. Based on the references you have shown so far, you have picked the wrong ones.


That Gallup poll is from 1992 and was misrepresented by George Will. http://fair.org/extra-online-article...f-george-will/:

There is AFAIK no consensus on a potential runaway greenhouse effect, so no wonder that a lot of scientists did not think it is imminent.

And yet you threw in several links trying to discredit the whole thing.


And therefore there is "liberal" bias on all universities across the globe and it kills off the truth in the Natural Sciences...or something.


A professor in Political Science. He is good at getting his message through. It is unfortunate that the message is based mainly on half-truths. http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Coolitfilm.htm



It might show that sociology have issues with either political correctness or maybe they are all commie atheists who just hate Christians! Either way, the guy found employment in Singapore, which goes to show that not all universities have been hit by this terrible "liberal disease"


Nothing about death threats there. But I have heard about it in other places. Of course you should also do a quick web search on death threats and climatologists. These days everyone can receive death threats, so that unfortunately only tells us that there are idiots everywhere, but not that all who oppose your viewpoint must be bad.


Yeah yeah I got it, peer review is not perfect. It still does not change the fact that papers do get retracted because problem do get noticed, which actually show us the system is still more or less self-correcting. Nothing stops the thousands of suppressed scientists from creating their own journals and get stuff released. Nothing stops current skeptical scientists from releasing studies. The problem is that their science just isn't very convincing and they can't make better models and predictions.

Climategate has gone through several investigations that all cleared them. And a bit of research on your own, to understand the context, will show it was just easy soundbites that skeptics have kept clinging on to. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=315:

---

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.

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

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


thank you i will look into it,lol. But as pointed out in doc above, those that even reject the scenario given, would agree we have a effect, how can we not with c02 released?just how much and to what extent.



agreed



part of thread, i think it not decided and most likely not true, but that is only small part of op, i care of the other stuff more.




no, just to show bias exist.



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.




agreed




true good point, i like you.



what do you expect them to say? i would read up alittle more on it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-climategate/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...teacup-tempest
http://www.dailytech.com/Editorial+F...ticle23370.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

First you give unsourced quotes. Now you give quotes with sources ("just last post"), but the source says something completely different than your paraphrase. Total Relism fails at quoting. :no: :shame:

Ajax

---

i think you should reread our discsuion from beginning, you have misunderstood, hard to if you pick up midway through, also reason you said i gave no reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't know if it's curiosity or masochism which drives me, but I had another look at the OP. Unsurprisingly, I immediately found a number of outright lies, half-truths, misconceptions and errors. I know now that pointing out misconceptions serves no purpose(the receiver just won't understand it), so I'll highlight two glaring errors instead:

1.



This is completely false. The WHO gives the total number of annual deaths from malaria as an estimated 660.000, with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000. 40% of what the OP states. Further, the OP makes the claim that those 1 to 2 million deaths are just the ones that could've been saved by DDT. If we assume that widespread use of DDT would not wipe out malaria completely, the total number of malaria deaths the OP claims is even bigger.

EDIT: Just in case you want to argue that the WHO stat refers to the present day, while the OP talks about malaria deaths from DDT was regulated in the 70's, here is the number of deaths at different times last century. DDT was banned(in the west) in the 70's and 80's, and the number of deaths were 578.000 in 1970 and 897.000 in 1990.

2.



Also wrong, of course. We have less forest now than we did yesterday, and will have even less tomorrow. This UN-report gives the following numbers for the forested area in the world for 1990, 2000 and 2005:

1990: 4 077 291
2000: 3 988 610
2005: 3 952 025

In other words, a steady decline in the last decades.



This is the kind of nonsense the TR really should check out properly before he parrots nonsense spewed by clueless idiots and demagogues. With a minimum of effort and access to google, you could fix these errors in no time.

---

thank you for response to op

first acording to this source, the one from video perr reviwed jounral [also wiki]
Nayyar GML, Breman JG, Newton PN, Herrington J (2012). "Poor-quality antimalarial drugs in southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa". Lancet Infectious Diseases 12 (6): 488–96

1.2 million died in 2010 notice what else wiki says " The actual number of deaths is not known with certainty, as accurate data is unavailable in many rural areas, and many cases are undocumented"


also look here
WHO places at about 1.272 million deaths per year world wide in 2002, according to the WHO World Health Report 2004.
Due to various under reporting and malaria related complications the actual number is estimated to be as high as 3 million deaths per year. "Conquering The Intolerable Burden Of Malaria: What's New, What's Needed: A Summary" Joel G. Breman, Martin S. Alilio, And Anne Mills.


“The numbers are staggering: there are 300 to 500 million cases every year; and
between one to three million deaths, mostly of children, attributed to this disease
[malaria]. Every 40 seconds a child dies of malaria, resulting in a daily loss of more
than 2000 young lives worldwide. These estimates render malaria the pre-eminent Estimate of world deforestation
Increasing Deforestation Ratestropical parasitic disease and one of the top three killers among communicable
diseases.” (Sachs and Malaney, 2002; p 680)
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/solutio...or-poverty.pdf



Beyond mortality, malaria causes morbidity through fever, weakness, malnutrition, anemia, spleen
diseases and vulnerability to other diseases. According to Bremen (2001), malarious patients
experience asymptomatic parasitemia, acute febrile, chronic debilitation, and complications of
pregnancy. The health consequences of malaria vary in terms of severity, but the global impact of
malaria on human health, productivity, and general well-being is profound. The joint mortality
and morbidity impacts of malaria are estimated to be 45 million DALYs (disability adjusted life
years) in 2000 or nearly 11% of all infectious diseases (Guerin et al., 2002).




also notice what your own link said
a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region.



but you than ask
" If we assume that widespread use of DDT would not wipe out malaria completely, the total number of malaria deaths the OP claims is even bigger"


that is why you should listen to my op material, we did and have wiped out ddt and can, this is why it is no place that used ddt.


but really think what your arguing here, we only let hundreds of thousands die a year, so those bird dont have higher mortality rate from week egg shells.



trees
I am willing to be wrong, it may have been referring to america onlyi will go back and check. But please provide link with total forest area i could not find. But i said trees not forested are. for example for every one tree cut down [in america and many countries] you must plant six, yet forested are is the same. Not to mention tree harvesting areas, just replant more trees so area same/trees more. Than there is selective cutting witch keeps more trees than clear-cut and area same. But even assuming area= amount of trees it doesent, we are getting right even worldwide.

"Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.


notice in bold,average wood per acre double, so that would put worldwide as almost double total, not less than


"That said, we’re happy to have learned that the United States–which has an estimated 300 million hectares of forests–has more trees now than it did 100 years ago.

Today, trees are being harvested less than they were in the 1900s,"
http://www.wendmag.com/greenery/2011...100-years-ago/

Lot's of confused rambling, no coherent argument.

I am not surprised.

Quote:

---

but really think what your arguing here, we only let hundreds of thousands die a year, so those bird dont have higher mortality rate from week egg shells.

---

No, that's not my argument. As I've said, I do not believe you to be competent enough to understand such things, so I have kept myself to pointing out straight factual errors only. Thus, I make no argument at all. Just the numbers. If I see that you re able to understand such things, I may move on to actual arguments later. Considering this post, I won't hold my breath, however.

I don't believe in the green lies and you aren't exactly helping me out, underestimating intelligence, it's never smart. You make me look dumb because we agree on some things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, that's not my argument. As I've said, I do not believe you to be competent enough to understand such things, so I have kept myself to pointing out straight factual errors only. Thus, I make no argument at all. Just the numbers. If I see that you re able to understand such things, I may move on to actual arguments later. Considering this post, I won't hold my breath, however.

---

I don't think you understand TR's point. Passion, rhetoric and walls of text can defeat facts. Pray hard enough and you can get a rocket to the moon. It's nothing to do with science and the accumulation of knowledge using the scientific method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Lot's of confused rambling, no coherent argument.

I am not surprised.



No, that's not my argument. As I've said, I do not believe you to be competent enough to understand such things, so I have kept myself to pointing out straight factual errors only. Thus, I make no argument at all. Just the numbers. If I see that you re able to understand such things, I may move on to actual arguments later. Considering this post, I won't hold my breath, however.

---

i fully understood, but as anyone can see you ignored why your facts were wrong and pick one thing to take out and ignore facts proving you wrong. You seemed to understand that part hmmm. Ye cant understand were i copy pasted numbers so you cant blame grammar lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I don't think you understand TR's point. Passion, rhetoric and walls of text can defeat facts. Pray hard enough and you can get a rocket to the moon. It's nothing to do with science and the accumulation of knowledge using the scientific method.

---

notice the facts he ignored, that is why he did not quote them. In case you missed thew numbers here they are

1.2 million died in 2010


WHO places at about 1.272 million deaths per year world wide in 2002, according to the WHO World Health Report 2004.
Due to various under reporting and malaria related complications the actual number is estimated to be as high as 3 million deaths per year.


“The numbers are staggering: there are 300 to 500 million cases every year; and
between one to three million deaths, mostly of children, attributed to this disease


The joint mortality
and morbidity impacts of malaria are estimated to be 45 million DALYs


[malaria]. Every 40 seconds a child dies of malaria, resulting in a daily loss of more
than 2000 young lives worldwide.


most these also say these are low estimates
so if your a example of the scientific method, not reading post ignoring all contrary numbers making baseless claims, please dont say i use your method.

You claim another source reports 1.2 million deaths in 2010.

WHO claims 660.000 deaths. WHO is the superior source for this kind of thing, sorry. 660.000 deaths is the correct figure.

EDIT: Also note that DDT is not banned in sub-saharan Africa today, where 90%-ish of the deaths come from. Also note that the spike in the years around 2000 has little to do with not spraying DDT. I suggest you read up on that. The article you yourself provided is a good start, and it's only 19 pages long(including literature). It highlights the need for more research on the links between malaria, deforestation and poverty, and lists a number of factors explaining the continued existance of malaria. Lo and behold, not using DDT isn't one of the factors listed. Also note that the 1-3 million deaths quote you take isn't used in the article as a fact, it's used to set the mood; ie. the literary qualities of the quote is what the authors pay attention to, not the figures it provides. When they showed the extent of malaria they used numbers from, you guessed it, the WHO. The ones I used.

Total fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

i think you should reread our discsuion from beginning, you have misunderstood, hard to if you pick up midway through, also reason you said i gave no reference.

---

A few things:

First of all, it would be a lot easier to follow your 'discussions' if they had focus, and coherent logic, rather than rambling from topic to topic, held together only by a glut of untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements.

Second, I did follow the discussion related to sourcing, which is the only part I responded to, so following the pointless and meandering remainder was unnecessary anyway.

Third, even following the sourcing discussion was superfluous. The only relevant point was that your attempt to paraphrase a particular post by HoreTore resulted in something that in no way resembled the point or the content of his original. Such blatant failures of quotation make all your other sources and quotations suspect, and I refuse to wade through the mire until you amend your methods and make it at least slightly feasible that I'll get something worthwhile out of reading your manifestos.

Fourth, running a spellchecker, and adhering to the norms of English capitalization, would do wonders in improving the readability of your prose. Sure, I can deduce that 'discsuion' was supposed to be 'discussion', but it slows me down when I'm already staring at way more words than necessary.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You claim another source reports 1.2 million deaths in 2010.

WHO claims 660.000 deaths. WHO is the superior source for this kind of thing, sorry. 660.000 deaths is the correct figure.

EDIT: Also note that DDT is not banned in sub-saharan Africa today, where 90%-ish of the deaths come from. Also note that the spike in the years around 2000 has little to do with not spraying DDT. I suggest you read up on that. The article you yourself provided is a good start, and it's only 19 pages long(including literature). It highlights the need for more research on the links between malaria, deforestation and poverty, and lists a number of factors explaining the continued existance of malaria. Lo and behold, not using DDT isn't one of the factors listed. Also note that the 1-3 million deaths quote you take isn't used in the article as a fact, it's used to set the mood; ie. the literary qualities of the quote is what the authors pay attention to, not the figures it provides. When they showed the extent of malaria they used numbers from, you guessed it, the WHO. The ones I used.

Total fail.

---

you found one source that says 660,000, i found multiple, all saying over 1 million and that is low estimate including who.


WHO estimates 300-500 million cases of malaria, with over one million deaths each year.
The main burden of malaria (more than 90%) is in Africa south of the Sahara with an estimated annual number of deaths over 1 million.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...es/malaria/en/




infections and over 1 million deaths each year.
john hopkins malaria research institute
http://malaria.jhsph.edu/about_malaria/


killing more than 1 million people annually.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/



Malaria kills 1.2 million people every year, a finding that has implications for global efforts to eliminate the disease
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...eaths-research


etc etc combine with the many i posted on last post.



you said
"Also note that DDT is not banned in sub-saharan Africa today, where 90%-ish of the deaths come from. Also note that the spike in the years around 2000 has little to do with not spraying DDT"


please provide were you see that, than show me were ddt is used and not effective? why was ddt able to eliminate malaria in so many countries before?.


your own site
ndoor spraying with residual insecticides
Indoor residual spraying (IRS) with insecticides is a powerful way to rapidly reduce malaria transmission. Its full potential is realized when at least 80% of houses in targeted areas are sprayed. Indoor spraying is effective for 3–6 months, depending on the insecticide used and the type of surface on which it is sprayed. DDT can be effective for 9–12 months in some cases. Longer-lasting forms of existing IRS insecticides, as well as new classes of insecticides for use in IRS programmes, are under development.




you said
"It highlights the need for more research on the links between malaria, deforestation and poverty, and lists a number of factors explaining the continued existance of malaria. Lo and behold, not using DDT isn't one of the factors listed."


that is terrible logic,its like saying how do we lose wight,well its listed here on how we gain weight as overeating,not enough exersize etc but it says nothing of lowering amount of calorie intake as cause of overweight. No-one said not using ddt will cause malaria lol. I said not using ddt in areas that have malaria causes deaths, it could be taken out as we did before,but for green dragon policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

A few things:

First of all, it would be a lot easier to follow your 'discussions' if they had focus, and coherent logic, rather than rambling from topic to topic, held together only by a glut of untrustworthy sources, poor logic, and misrepresentation of others' positions and statements.

Second, I did follow the discussion related to sourcing, which is the only part I responded to, so following the pointless and meandering remainder was unnecessary anyway.

Third, even following the sourcing discussion was superfluous. The only relevant point was that your attempt to paraphrase a particular post by HoreTore resulted in something that in no way resembled the point or the content of his original. Such blatant failures of quotation make all your other sources and quotations suspect, and I refuse to wade through the mire until you amend your methods and make it at least slightly feasible that I'll get something worthwhile out of reading your manifestos.

Fourth, running a spellchecker, and adhering to the norms of English capitalization, would do wonders in improving the readability of your prose. Sure, I can deduce that 'discsuion' was supposed to be 'discussion', but it slows me down when I'm already staring at way more words than necessary.

Ajax

---

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.

ty for advice.

Olny srmat poelpe can raed this. I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a word are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is that the first and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed this psas it on!!

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 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.