Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[HoreTore]

Did you really just say various

Uhm..... Yes?

[Fragony]

Uhm..... Yes?

Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory

[HoreTore]

Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory

What?

Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?

[Fragony]

What?

Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?

It think it's the only one that has become a religion, as well as the trade in emmision-rights is being a billion-dollar/euro scam

[CBR]

Since we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it is also the only thing we really can restrict. Methane is an issue too but is not directly related to our fossil fuel energy consumption.

[Fragony]

That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.

[total relism]

That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.

agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.

[CBR]

That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.

You do realize that warm and cold periods happen for a reason and the reasons are something climatology has a pretty good understanding of?

[CBR]

That graph you posted earlier, take it over 10thousands of years and you will see that is has the precision of a rolex watch, warm and cold periods just happen.

Here is one for the last 11,300 years.


From http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/...e-big-picture/

[Beskar]

Since we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it is also the only thing we really can restrict. Methane is an issue too but is not directly related to our fossil fuel energy consumption.

That one is more to do with cows and volcano's.

[CBR]

That one is more to do with cows and volcano's.

Melting permafrost is where the big worry is. And it seems like the next IPCC report won't even be modeling the permafrost carbon feedback.

[total relism]

i am getting ready for a 1v1 so tonight will likely be my last night posting on this thread.Maybe someone else can bring up the cause lol.

[total relism]

Why am I supposed to do the work. There are more than 34,000 authors of the more than 14,000 studies, so I don't need to do anything.


I said I had watched all that were available. I also still don't know what the other videos are about because you keep stalling about their actual content regarding the science of global warming. Why are you dodging? Just tell me what their specific claims are. I have also given you links to explanations of all the common arguments. I have faith in the scientific method because it works.


I don't actually have faith in that site per se, nor is that site the only site I check. What I have faith in is the science behind it. It only strengthens my "faith" that "skeptics" have been caught in one manipulation and fabrication after another. I have also seen enough to spot the usual rhetorical fallacies, at least most of times as I'm only human, and skeptics are full of them.


It is a think tank. Academic advisory does not mean he knows anything about global warming.

http://www.davidwhitehouse.com/Academic.html Please show me his relevant research.

Oh, I guess we should be alright then because the sun is doing all the work...oh wait.

I said provide a list of supporters of your belief,qualified,you cant/have not.




I have faith in science as well, that is why i said why should i trust you? and a website with false info on front page?it was also clear you did not watch what was free online,as you missed the whole point of the one video you claimed to watch. Instead goggling a response.



ok fair enough,maybe i have misjudged you,but it seems you just google a response from there and assume its true.I have to say its clear you did with one doc that you claimed to have watched.



you would think he must, or they would get a new guy no?.



you just referenced 4 articles, again despite what you believe,changes regarding the sun astronomy etc have effects even here on earth lol.


recent sun spots/activity

here is graph
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content...of-science.gif

notice it matches the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1350 and the Little Ice Age, 1350-1850, not to mention todays temp changes. Even your reference before said it accounted for 25-30% of warming.

Are you seriously changing your argument to "it's not a misquotation because HoreTore didn't call you on it"? Care to go back and see what posts HoreTore has thanked? He didn't call you on it because I did it for him, and he likely wouldn't have anyhow due to the futility of arguing with a brick wall. If you want certainty, though, we could always ask him. Do you agree to admit your error and apologize if HoreTore comes on to state that it was a misquotation? Once again:




Wait. They were never untrustworthy, they just had the times and estimates wrong? That's exactly what makes them untrustworthy, dude.

Ajax

maybe its me but you seem to not be able to understand anything i type,that i think is reason you and noone else seems to think what your claiming is true.
as far as quote,i have shown over and over you have misunderstood,that is why HoreTore had no objections, i showed with my other post you did not read i never misquoted, the fact you carry it on this long shows either you cant admit when wrong [as i show over and over with it in context] or more likley, you want to object to me and my op but cannot yourself, so must try and create anything to write about. I suggest you pull up your big boy boots, and come up with a actual objection on your own.

I got it from the actual CDC website and not an incorrect secondhand source like yourself




This website your posting is using 11yr old data for it's malarial deaths while the CDC data is from 2010

Also this website is actively touting for money which means it probably would be in it's interests to beef up the numbers ( it also gives no sources on it figures)




the CDC numbers are from 2010

All the reports your using are misquoting both the WHO and CDC, therefore i naturally have to discard these websites your posting.

As to my assumptions on accuracy well lets just say I trust the CDC and WHO more than some fundraising .org site using data from 2002

your linking to sites that misquote there own sources, therefore you links are WRONG




that's only + or - around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever

i posted from cdc c? [get it i said c not see,im so damn funny].
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo...el/malaria.htm



indeed,that is why numbers were before reduction, not arguing death's today at all sir, i think that is were we mess up.



i can agree with most all that, but what do you do with the links to cdc and who that agree with me?I posted many.



you said
" around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever"

first off it said 666,000 a year,not 170,000. that you call that hardly groundbreaking or bad is amazing to me,god sent isreal to destroy cannan killing all the remaining people in 3 villages. This causes many [check out this site http://www.twcenter.net/] to completely say god is evil and bible bad worse thing on earth etc. yet 170,000 killed by the green dragon is ok? not to mention millions more die from their polices in africa alone and more around the world, as stated in op.

but even after all this, i may reword op because of your persistence, and instead of saying 1-3 million a year [from ddp alone not other causes] to killed millions.

[total relism]

If you were to murder a man, the other actions you performed before and after would not alter that fact. Perhaps if he was abusing your sister and threatening her family, or some such, you might be able to justify the action, but it wouldn't change that fact that you had murdered him. While you might argue that you had reasons for misquoting HoreTore, and your other posts make clear those reasons, maintaining that you did not in fact misquote him is patently ridiculous.

I'll consider addressing other topics once this is settled, but stop trying to deflect me beforehand. That's your go-to argumentation strategy, and I'm not interested.

Ajax

the problem is with the assumption i misquoted him,as i showed i did not, notice he never said anything himself, the reason is we had talked back and fourth on subject and understood what we meant. You come in over half way trough, dont read my posts ignore mt first few with him, than claim i take him out of context. I dont care to continue this as you clearly have nothing of the op to discuss,nor can you back up claim, without making your own strawman. That is why as i said twice, you must ignore my post that shows this clearly and cannot respond.

You can compile a list of authors of all the studies yourself. After that you should compile a list of what precisely your 32,000 scientists have studied that makes them qualified to argue over global warming.


Then make a list of all the claims regarding the science of global warming that you spotted in the videos. After that you compare with the rest of videos to see if there really was anything new. Then go through the links I gave you that explains what the science says. It is not that difficult.

Then you can easily go through whatever was said in your videos and check what science is saying in the links I provided. Since it apparently convinced you so easily then please enlighten us all with some of the specific claims they make. Maybe it would be stuff like: it's the sun, CO2 lagged behind in earlier times, cosmic rays, water vapor is more important than CO2, the models are wrong, scientists were wrong before, it's been hotter before, CO2 is good for plants, it's only parts per million and therefore unimportant. I'm sure I forgot some more claims but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks from your videos. The thing is that the answers are already there but it requires some reading.

I have provided you direction to the springs of clean water, but it is up to you drink it. But apparently you are so good at spotting liars and poisoned wells, so whatever.


Lindzen's Iris Effect. You quoted it.


What link is outdated? It says last updated Jan 2013 and there is no new groundbreaking science that has come out since that shows otherwise. And we will keep hearing the same drivel from the same journalists until the ENSO starts throwing out a few El Ninos. Heck, then they will simply focus on other years because they just don't like the reality.

If you want as recent as possible then there is this http://www.skepticalscience.com/guem...to-oceans.html. That is from a paper that was published early April. Seems like the debate right now is more about if the extra heat is all in the top 700 meter layer or if the deeper oceans also has taken in extra heat.


Hmm...

His PhD has very little to do with Global Warming but more importantly where is his research on Global Warming. That is what matter the most. From this "false info" website we can see that he has problems understand James Hansen http://www.desmogblog.com/david-whitehouse PhD or not, he does not strike me as a big authority.


Earth would become a freezing snowball with a bit of life left at hotspots in the deep ocean. Nothing to do with our current situation though.

clear by know your dodging.



not understanding, you claimed you watched them all and their false, than you admit you did not watch them, than assure me based on your faith they are false. See why im not so willing to follow?




like this
"I have provided you direction to the springs of clean water, but it is up to you drink it. But apparently you are so good at spotting liars and poisoned wells, so whatever."


just be sure your not drinking the dirty water my friend. You believe anything from that site,even enough to claim things you have not heard [water you have not seen] is dirty and false. I should have time Thursday/Friday to re watch the video, could post info than. But your faith in your site is truly admirable, i wish i could get christian to have such faith.




when were,for what reason, than what was your objection, im lost here sorry.



but i think you missed the point of article, that the worming compared to predictions made, was the subject,not is it warming.



warmer?
that was one sentence in a link not from op,.



again, it is false asumtion to say sun or anything outside earth has effect on our weather patters, this should be exstremley clear.


He has since criticized the BBC's climate change reporting as "evangelical" and "inconsistent," and claimed their reporting on scientific issues was "shallow and sparse."[3]

Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post. His connection to the skeptical GWPF is not mentioned on his Huffington Post profile.

Whitehouse is described as the "Science Editor," of The Observatory, a publication of the Global Warming Policy Foundation of which Whitehouse is a regular contributor.


as i said
"Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens."


you than amaz even me, and say the sun has nothing to do with current weather,even your sites admit it has at least 25% cause of global warming

My original post



Your reply




actually it does say the incorrect figure of 1-3 million an I have copypasted and highlighted it from the website.
when you click the actual source your link used to verify the amount written down as malaria deaths the link is broken and when you check the actual WHO or CDC websites as supposedly used by the link the numbers are vastly less.

The reason for the difference between the CDC and WHO is probably the age of the CDC data but it's still waaaaayyyyy more accurate than your links






now if we click on the little tiny numbers after the 1-3 million were directed to the source website for this figure they say is malaria deaths

but I will save you the trouble here is the info from the CDC copypasted below



http://www.cdc.gov/MALARIA/

see that bolded word there 655,000 people died so the original website claims a source that refutes its own arguement



WHO Webite Number of malaria deaths

been through this before already.


cdc 1 million
worldwide and approximately 1 million deaths annually.were do you get 660,000?
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo...el/malaria.htm


global fund site
In the same year, malaria killed more than 1 million people, mostly children in Africa.
http://www.globalfundatm.org/


you than assume the cdc is off because of age, yet it is from 2002, not to mention recent drop of around 20-30% of deaths may very well bring age down today to 600,00-700,000. Also ignoring the many,many reports that all say they most likely underestimate number. Than amazing claim your number is more accurate, with no reason to believe so. We have multiple places including who and cdc that all say over 1 million. Remember my op is not about how many die today, with a 20-30% reduction. Your last links miss this point.


consider this
About 3.3 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2010, there were about 219 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 154 million to 289 million) and an estimated 660 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region.


[QUOTE=ajaxfetish;2053521441]

In addition to the specific example I gave of you misrepresenting another's statement, here gaelic cowboy demonstrates your use of an untrustworthy source. Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.

as sated is clear i never did misrepresent,only you believe this not even him,that is why your cant respond to when i point this out. Also i asked you to show something false, you cannot. My sources were never untrustworthy as he even used them lol,just understanding with when, estimates etc.

[CBR]

clear by know your dodging.

Why am I supposed to do the work. There are more than 34,000 authors of the more than 14,000 studies, so I don't need to do anything.

you claimed you watched them all and their false, than you admit you did not watch them, than assure me based on your faith they are false. See why im not so willing to follow?

I said I had watched all that were available. I also still don't know what the other videos are about because you keep stalling about their actual content regarding the science of global warming. Why are you dodging? Just tell me what their specific claims are. I have also given you links to explanations of all the common arguments. I have faith in the scientific method because it works.

just be sure your not drinking the dirty water my friend. You believe anything from that site,even enough to claim things you have not heard [water you have not seen] is dirty and false. I should have time Thursday/Friday to re watch the video, could post info than. But your faith in your site is truly admirable, i wish i could get christian to have such faith.

I don't actually have faith in that site per se, nor is that site the only site I check. What I have faith in is the science behind it. It only strengthens my "faith" that "skeptics" have been caught in one manipulation and fabrication after another. I have also seen enough to spot the usual rhetorical fallacies, at least most of times as I'm only human, and skeptics are full of them.

Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

It is a think tank. Academic advisory does not mean he knows anything about global warming.

He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post.

http://www.davidwhitehouse.com/Academic.html Please show me his relevant research.

you than amaz even me, and say the sun has nothing to do with current weather,even your sites admit it has at least 25% cause of global warming

Oh, I guess we should be alright then because the sun is doing all the work...oh wait.

[Fragony]

Nice wallpost, but fact is that the concencus believers in the CO2 apocalypse just doesn't exist except in their own cathedrals. These cathedrals are bigger of course. No denying that.

[ajaxfetish]

the problem is with the assumption i misquoted him,as i showed i did not, notice he never said anything himself, the reason is we had talked back and fourth on subject and understood what we meant. You come in over half way trough, dont read my posts ignore mt first few with him, than claim i take him out of context. I dont care to continue this as you clearly have nothing of the op to discuss,nor can you back up claim, without making your own strawman. That is why as i said twice, you must ignore my post that shows this clearly and cannot respond.

Are you seriously changing your argument to "it's not a misquotation because HoreTore didn't call you on it"? Care to go back and see what posts HoreTore has thanked? He didn't call you on it because I did it for him, and he likely wouldn't have anyhow due to the futility of arguing with a brick wall. If you want certainty, though, we could always ask him. Do you agree to admit your error and apologize if HoreTore comes on to state that it was a misquotation? Once again:

Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.

My sources were never untrustworthy as he even used them lol,just understanding with when, estimates etc.

Wait. They were never untrustworthy, they just had the times and estimates wrong? That's exactly what makes them untrustworthy, dude.

Ajax

[gaelic cowboy]

been through this before already.


cdc 1 million
worldwide and approximately 1 million deaths annually.were do you get 660,000?
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo...el/malaria.htm

I got it from the actual CDC website and not an incorrect secondhand source like yourself

global fund site
In the same year, malaria killed more than 1 million people, mostly children in Africa.
http://www.globalfundatm.org/

This website your posting is using 11yr old data for it's malarial deaths while the CDC data is from 2010

Also this website is actively touting for money which means it probably would be in it's interests to beef up the numbers ( it also gives no sources on it figures)

you than assume the cdc is off because of age, yet it is from 2002, not to mention recent drop of around 20-30% of deaths may very well bring age down today to 600,00-700,000. Also ignoring the many,many reports that all say they most likely underestimate number. Than amazing claim your number is more accurate, with no reason to believe so. We have multiple places including who and cdc that all say over 1 million. Remember my op is not about how many die today, with a 20-30% reduction. Your last links miss this point.

the CDC numbers are from 2010

All the reports your using are misquoting both the WHO and CDC, therefore i naturally have to discard these websites your posting.

As to my assumptions on accuracy well lets just say I trust the CDC and WHO more than some fundraising .org site using data from 2002

your linking to sites that misquote there own sources, therefore you links are WRONG

consider this
About 3.3 billion people – half of the world's population – are at risk of malaria. In 2010, there were about 219 million malaria cases (with an uncertainty range of 154 million to 289 million) and an estimated 660 000 malaria deaths (with an uncertainty range of 490 000 to 836 000). Increased prevention and control measures have led to a reduction in malaria mortality rates by more than 25% globally since 2000 and by 33% in the WHO African Region.

that's only + or - around 170,000 deaths worldwide out 3.3billion at risk people hardly a groundbreaking destruction of the Green whatever