Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[total relism]

Yes, co2 is a pollutant.

How on earth you come to the conclusion that co2 being a pollutant is in opposition to co2 being a fundamental natural resource is quite frankly beyond me. It's both, and which term you use depends on the context.

Just like it is with every other pollutant out there. Again, I point to the possibility that you do not understand what a pollutant is as the most reasonable explanation.

EDIT: Barring the possibility of some whacko religious schools in hillbillystan, photosynthesis is taught to all school children. Calling co2 a pollutant while teaching photosynthesis is absurd. Photosynthesis is also one of the first chemical reactions a pupil is exposed to, way before co2 is discussed as a pollutant.

how quickly you over and over change your own opinion to try to find any fault in me,know you say c02 is a pollutant when just last post you said it was starwman as none says it is pollutant lol. But as shown to you many times over i posted what a pollutant is despite your claims, and you still cant find fault in what my op said was a lie, that any c02 release is a pollutant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

"The peer review process is titled towards positive results"

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

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


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

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


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

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

[HoreTore]

how quickly you over and over change your own opinion to try to find any fault in me,know you say c02 is a pollutant when just last post you said it was starwman as none says it is pollutant lol. But as shown to you many times over i posted what a pollutant is despite your claims, and you still cant find fault in what my op said was a lie, that any c02 release is a pollutant.

I'm done with this thread.

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

[total relism]

I'm done with this thread.

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

Because you do not seem to understand what it means.

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

See above.

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

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

[total relism]

Because you do not seem to understand what it means.



See above.



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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

Show me one single school who does not teach photosynthesis.

[total relism]

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

Show me one single school who does not teach photosynthesis.

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

[Fragony]

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

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

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

If we don't act right now

[HoreTore]

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

If we don't act right now

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

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

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


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

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

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

If we don't act right now

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

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

[CBR]

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

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

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

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

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/:

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.

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.

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

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

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"

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.

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

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

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

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]

[ajaxfetish]

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.

Ajax