Quote Originally Posted by HoreTore View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.