Org Mobile Site
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.pdfplease 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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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/: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
Originally Posted by :
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. 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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.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/
Originally Posted by :
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.htmgreat 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/
Originally Posted by :
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" What happens to a professor who does everything right but has wrong ideas? |
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19818
Originally Posted by :
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.goes into death threats and other things made at those who “deny” man made climate change.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rming-politics
Originally Posted by :
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.have you herd of climate gate? were editors and others bragged about not letting contrary papers go trow?.
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:
Originally Posted by :
The Review’s conclusion on the peer review allegations was as follows (its emphasis):
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]
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.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
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.
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. know you say c02 is a pollutant when just last post you said it was starwman as none says it is pollutant lol. [/B]
Ajax
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.)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).
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.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).
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.
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. I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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. 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.
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.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 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.
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.
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.
1.
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.Regrettably, in the intervening years, between one and two million persons each year needlessly died each year from malaria because DDT had been banned
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.
Originally Posted by :
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:we have more trees know than a decade before,and decade before that etc.
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
That response is the best way I can think of to show off your ignorance. Thank you.
That response is the best way I can think of to show off your ignorance. Thank you.
funny, i felt the same way.
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.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
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:
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
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.
Ajax
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not surprised.
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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
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.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.
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.
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
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 areI 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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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
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 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.
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?.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
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
I agree with TR that Malaria is a very real threat to humans in warm climates.
I am not opposing that, I am not even discussing that - all I'm doing is pointing out that claiming the DDT-bans caused 1 to 2 million deaths each year from the 70's up until today is a ridiculously overblown and unsupported claim.I agree with TR that Malaria is a very real threat to humans in warm climates.
I'm just showing that the consequences for spreading Malaria makes mitigating global warming an important thing.
However I'd focus on clean water, blankets and vaccines first and moving beach houses last.
However I'd focus on clean water, blankets and vaccines first and moving beach houses last.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.
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 disagree, source after source all say including from who, peer reviewed papers,john hopkins etc that the death tool is over 1 million including low estimates. You want to count your one source at one time estimate as accurate and all others false, THAT COLA BERATE WITH ALL OTHER SOURCES.
You claim you already showed " I have already noted the spike in the years around 2000, that's where that number comes from."
yet you did not read your own source as it stated
"a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region."
not to mention i sourced numbers post 2000 even from who in 2004 showing you did not read my links as well.
you than claim death in pregnancies does not count,question, assuming your radical, if i go kill a bald eagle in a egg, will the environmentalist fine me for it?why is a bald eagle egg a bald eagle, yet human is not?.
the rest sounds good and thank you.
DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especi.
but this does not change that environmental policies, had much to do with ddt being banned, that could fight against a disease that kills over a million a year.
here is what my op said
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)
just wondering, what do you think of the millions in africa dying because environmentalism policies besides ddt?.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
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.
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.
ddt is our friend, my friend.
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
Originally Posted by total relism:
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.
All right, here's your specific example. 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.
Exhibit 1: Posts by HoreTore
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Exhibit 2: Post by total relism
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
HoreTore states consistently that CO2 is both a pollutant and a fundamental resource, and the relevant aspect will vary depending on the context. total relism claims that HoreTore claimed that no one says it is a pollutant (HoreTore never says this), and now is changing his tune (there is no change of tune). total relism's paraphrase of HoreTore's claims completely misrepresents HoreTore's position. This is quote-fail. If total relism apologizes to HoreTore for misrepresenting his position, I will consider giving attention to more of his arguments. Until then, I cannot trust him to be arguing from an ethical or accurate basis.
Specific enough for you?
Ajax
By the late sixties Mosquitoes were becoming immune to DDT.
In the amounts needed to control mosquitoes DDT will cause human health issues such as diabetes and birth defects.
In the amounts needed to control mosquitoes DDT will cause human health issues such as diabetes and birth defects.
Originally Posted by total relism:
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.
I doubt many are talking about "destructive consequences in the near future" but I guess you should define what "near future" is in years/decades first. Why a lot of scientists think we need to act fast is because it takes time for us to change and we are already witnessing positive feedback.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.
Originally Posted by :
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
You gave links to several videos. BTW, the "Al Gore sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud" is hilarious. It never happened and John Coleman has no basis for his claims in that video.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
Originally Posted by :
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
I already have commented on why deaths threats are silly to focus on. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...change-deniers or http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...parisons-video It goes both ways.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
The video does go through most of the standard objections. If you want to do a lot of reading then this list is good start http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It has answers of up to three levels of complexity(basic, intermediate, and advanced) so most people should be able to understand what is being said. It also comes with links to the studies for further reading.
I think there are several good series on YouTube. But my favorite is Potholer54 who has made 28 episode series explaining climate change, and he also goes through the skeptical arguments. He will generally provide links for further reading too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I notice you like videos and links with biblical stuff in it, so maybe you will hate Potholer for also making videos showing the fallacies of creationists. But then you will love Skeptical Science because the guy who created it, John Cook, is into evangelical stuff.
There is also the two-part Climate Change Misconceptions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3bgEIZ-mPQ
It is a bit difficult to figure out what the remaining is a response too. So I'll guess.
Originally Posted by :
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.
I guess that is about Bjørn Lomborg.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.
Look I have watched it, and, as I said, Lomborg is full of half truths. We have the usual foundation of how it is a fear industry (OMG the kids) then "experts" talking about how it is not gonna be a big problem, and then, the best part of documentary, alternative energies and stuff. It is funny how he can use James Hansen, but only for stuff about IPCC and nuclear power, and not about his very pessimistic views of global warming. But at least he had him in, to have some big name
Spending more on R&D is obviously a great idea, yet the political will have generally not been there because too many still think it isn't bad or that we are not the cause. How can Cool It convince politicians to spend more money, when he makes it look like it's something that easily can be fixed in the far future? duh.
Allright.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
Youtube Video
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
if you had checked the sources on these claims of 1-2 million deaths you would find there all using the same sources and documents.
this website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/ that you posted basically says the CDC rekons 1 million deaths, but when you check the CDC website thats qouted as a source it says 650000 mark for deaths
I have no idea what your refering to as nowere does it say 600,000. In fact it sources both the Centers for Disease Control and The Global Fund Web site, authors. Malaria. [Accessed August 1, 2009]. As why they say it kills over 1 million than goes on to say it really kills more. Read again.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2760896/#B1
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
All right, here's your specific example.
Exhibit 1: Posts by HoreTore
Exhibit 2: Post by total relism
HoreTore states consistently that CO2 is both a pollutant and a fundamental resource, and the relevant aspect will vary depending on the context. total relism claims that HoreTore claimed that no one says it is a pollutant (HoreTore never says this), and now is changing his tune (there is no change of tune). total relism's paraphrase of HoreTore's claims completely misrepresents HoreTore's position. This is quote-fail. If total relism apologizes to HoreTore for misrepresenting his position, I will consider giving attention to more of his arguments. Until then, I cannot trust him to be arguing from an ethical or accurate basis.
Specific enough for you?
Ajax
All right, here's your specific example.
Exhibit 1: Posts by HoreTore
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Exhibit 2: Post by total relism
HoreTore states consistently that CO2 is both a pollutant and a fundamental resource, and the relevant aspect will vary depending on the context. total relism claims that HoreTore claimed that no one says it is a pollutant (HoreTore never says this), and now is changing his tune (there is no change of tune). total relism's paraphrase of HoreTore's claims completely misrepresents HoreTore's position. This is quote-fail. If total relism apologizes to HoreTore for misrepresenting his position, I will consider giving attention to more of his arguments. Until then, I cannot trust him to be arguing from an ethical or accurate basis.
Specific enough for you?
Ajax
nice editing, as i said, you only read part of my response [if any] than set up a strawman. The reason you see a problem is you did not read my other posts, he is fully right, it can be both good and bad as i even said oxygen could be as well on post 13. That is why what i said is important, i said when teaching climate change environmental issues, c02 is referred to as a pollutant, and any release of c02 as polluting the environment. This topic is on global warming false teaching etc not the importance of c02 and if that is taught separate of these issues.
so i ask again
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
Originally Posted by CBR:
I doubt many are talking about "destructive consequences in the near future" but I guess you should define what "near future" is in years/decades first. Why a lot of scientists think we need to act fast is because it takes time for us to change and we are already witnessing positive feedback.
You gave links to several videos. BTW, the "Al Gore sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud" is hilarious. It never happened and John Coleman has no basis for his claims in that video.
I already have commented on why deaths threats are silly to focus on. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...change-deniers or http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...parisons-video It goes both ways.
The video does go through most of the standard objections. If you want to do a lot of reading then this list is good start http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It has answers of up to three levels of complexity(basic, intermediate, and advanced) so most people should be able to understand what is being said. It also comes with links to the studies for further reading.
I think there are several good series on YouTube. But my favorite is Potholer54 who has made 28 episode series explaining climate change, and he also goes through the skeptical arguments. He will generally provide links for further reading too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I notice you like videos and links with biblical stuff in it, so maybe you will hate Potholer for also making videos showing the fallacies of creationists. But then you will love Skeptical Science because the guy who created it, John Cook, is into evangelical stuff.
There is also the two-part Climate Change Misconceptions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3bgEIZ-mPQ
It is a bit difficult to figure out what the remaining is a response too. So I'll guess.
I guess that is about Bjørn Lomborg.
Look I have watched it, and, as I said, Lomborg is full of half truths. We have the usual foundation of how it is a fear industry (OMG the kids) then "experts" talking about how it is not gonna be a big problem, and then, the best part of documentary, alternative energies and stuff. It is funny how he can use James Hansen, but only for stuff about IPCC and nuclear power, and not about his very pessimistic views of global warming. But at least he had him in, to have some big namealarmist climatologist involved, I guess. Nothing about ocean acidification, nothing about permafrost melting that means increasing amounts of methane being released, nor does he touch upon increasing droughts in certain areas. White paint and some dikes and we are all set.
Spending more on R&D is obviously a great idea, yet the political will have generally not been there because too many still think it isn't bad or that we are not the cause. How can Cool It convince politicians to spend more money, when he makes it look like it's something that easily can be fixed in the far future? duh.
I doubt many are talking about "destructive consequences in the near future" but I guess you should define what "near future" is in years/decades first. Why a lot of scientists think we need to act fast is because it takes time for us to change and we are already witnessing positive feedback.
You gave links to several videos. BTW, the "Al Gore sued by over 30,000 scientists for fraud" is hilarious. It never happened and John Coleman has no basis for his claims in that video.
I already have commented on why deaths threats are silly to focus on. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...change-deniers or http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...parisons-video It goes both ways.
The video does go through most of the standard objections. If you want to do a lot of reading then this list is good start http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php It has answers of up to three levels of complexity(basic, intermediate, and advanced) so most people should be able to understand what is being said. It also comes with links to the studies for further reading.
I think there are several good series on YouTube. But my favorite is Potholer54 who has made 28 episode series explaining climate change, and he also goes through the skeptical arguments. He will generally provide links for further reading too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KL...fHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I notice you like videos and links with biblical stuff in it, so maybe you will hate Potholer for also making videos showing the fallacies of creationists. But then you will love Skeptical Science because the guy who created it, John Cook, is into evangelical stuff.
There is also the two-part Climate Change Misconceptions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3bgEIZ-mPQ
It is a bit difficult to figure out what the remaining is a response too. So I'll guess.
I guess that is about Bjørn Lomborg.
Look I have watched it, and, as I said, Lomborg is full of half truths. We have the usual foundation of how it is a fear industry (OMG the kids) then "experts" talking about how it is not gonna be a big problem, and then, the best part of documentary, alternative energies and stuff. It is funny how he can use James Hansen, but only for stuff about IPCC and nuclear power, and not about his very pessimistic views of global warming. But at least he had him in, to have some big name
Spending more on R&D is obviously a great idea, yet the political will have generally not been there because too many still think it isn't bad or that we are not the cause. How can Cool It convince politicians to spend more money, when he makes it look like it's something that easily can be fixed in the far future? duh.
how about just give me a list of scientist matching the amount that reject global warming, that agree with your position, i think its clear your dodging to me.Hopefully realizing that their is not this great majority that your article claimed [using false logic as well,your article].
this video free online
http://www.answersingenesis.org/medi...global-warming
and that somehow makes it go away?thanks for link but i see false info right off, debates are good my friend you can find some on my op.
thanks for youtube video, i will look when i get more time, would you also see the other side and objections?
I would not hat anyone for arguing their point, in fact i hope you bring up his videos when i do creation/evolution.
you said
so your upset that in a doc he did not cover everything? i think you have missed the whole idea of his doc.
as far as political spending more money look under agendas on op.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Allright.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
or we could all go to source to see what it says, i like that idea best.Allright.
I say the paper is irrelevant as a source because the paper is about pregnancies, not death toll. In TR's head, this is read as if I'm saying pregnancy deaths are irrelevant. This explains so much about TR.
No wonder he always "wins" his debates - it's kinda hard to lose when you can't understand other peoples arguments.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO