Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[total relism]

Me dodging? The consensus among the scientists that study this is pretty clear. You are now attempting a majority=truth, except the apparent majority you cling on to has little knowledge about it in the first place!

You seem to refuse looking at the science, and keep yourself locked in an endless loop of your favorite articles and videos. The proper term for that is Motivated Reasoning.


I watched that already! That was the reason I gave you links that addressed their objections. It is all there for you to check out, and it is backed up with the actual studies.


Makes what go away? Use better quoting in the future please. If it is about death threats, then I will try to clear: death threats are never OK, but since everyone gets them they don't tell anything about the other side. But it sure does feel good to be a victim while the other side are all evil.

And of course my links are false info (more Motivated Reasoning) Anything that ruins your black and white view of the two opposite sides simply cannot be right!


Since I have watched all the videos that were available in your OP (several I had already seen before) I already have gone through the other side and their objections. They belong to a minority view, and some of the stuff is actually so obvious, that you don't even need to be a scientist to see where they go wrong.

You can easily find them yourself, as I have no interest in participating in something that undoubtedly will feel more futile than this debate.

Then please tell me what the whole idea of his movie is.

Agenda 21 and NWO? Or did I miss a more devious conspiracy somewhere? Anyway, I don't have much time: I would already have located the second shooter, if it hadn't been for those black vans blocking me on the way to Area 51.

Trust no one.

I disagree fully, we were talking on majority opinion, i was the one that originally said to you majority opinion does not=truth. You than claimed something like 97-99% of all scientist believe in man made global warming [as your reference claimed]. That is what i am replying to,that claim. That is why i said show me list of scientist, i showed 31,000 and over 1,000 on two lists, that reject. You cant show me your list. That you cant see the faulty logic/asumtions in your article i pointed out is not my fault.


you gave me youtube videos and a website called http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php that has false info on front page. Not to mention you did not address anything specific besides that someone on other side was given death threats as well, as if that makes death threats towards global warming skeptics go away.



you said
"And of course my links are false info (more Motivated Reasoning) Anything that ruins your black and white view of the two opposite sides simply cannot be right!"


i would apply this to you,but no i dont think anything that goes against what i think is likely true is false, just false info is false, that is why debates are good, you get both sides.



would you mind giving some specific examples for me? you claim to have watched all the videos,could you give me some info on each that i cant find with a quick Google than? also i would love for you to tell me the reasons you reject/disagree with them. Starting say with video number one posted as you have said you watched them all lol.
so we could start with
http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/

or if you missed that one, sorry 12, than we can start with the fraud of all gore being sued, as you said last post.


np, i will likely not look at them unless you bring them up in debate im very busy otherwise.


I see no conspiracy here, this is well known and a official un document, i think it is you who needs to allow things besides what you want to hear in,before calling them a conspiracy to protect your worldview.




"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
- excerpt,#UN Agenda 21
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html



1]radical environmentalist are after population control, trying to emulate china's one child policy [if the government deems you fit].
2] relocate people from rual areas to cities
3] higher gas prices
4] manipulate transportation patterns.
5] forbid human access to land
6] seizure of private property
7]restrict water use
8]additional taxes
9]restrict amount of waste
10]forced community involvement
11]many more.


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

All irrelevant. You misquoted HoreTore. Own it or remain disreputable.

Ajax

as i showed, you only think so because you ignored most all my post and did not follow, so you did just what you claim i did, that is why you cant respond to post 90 that clearly shows this, if their is someone to own up to something me thinks its you.

I'm going to be as brief and polite as possible.

Your argument is really weak, resulting from your sources. Your sources really suck, containing almost entirely unverified material. Browsing over them, I do not see a single peer-reviewed article. I do see a lot of Al Gore hate and things done from "a Christian perspective", which is fine, but that's not at all scientific. A lot of the quotes appear to be false or out of context. There also seems to be a large amount of effort to link environmentalism to communism.

Your main source appears to be Youtube, which flushes your argument down pretty much immediately.

You should try to find more valid sources, and not sensationalist, agenda-fueled ones.

I think you should reread,youtube is not major source at all. What " entirely unverified material" are you referring to, maybe i can help. You said " A lot of the quotes appear to be false or out of context." could you provide anyone that is?. You said " link environmentalism to communism. " that is true, why is that considered bad or false? Other than your original beliefs might tell you otherwise? sources agenda-fueled ones, what agenda is that? are they oil companies? are not the environmentalist agenda driven?

I believe your post comes more from your bias/worldview than any deficiency in my op, or you would show examples.