Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[Beskar]

To add to CBR's post: the "31,000 scientists reject climate change"-claim has been debunked so utterly so many times I'm astounded to still see it used as fact, anywhere.

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

[CBR]

you claim that scientist who reject the man made idea and scare tactics don't produce anything,than base that on a youstube video instead of what they say produce, do you see the circularity in that?.

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.

[Major Robert Dump]

Welcome back TR.

Total Relism in the Hizzu keepin it Rel!!

[CBR]

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

For more details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

However, as mentioned above, it’s entirely reasonable to ask whether a veterinarian or forestry manager or electrical engineer should qualify as a scientist. If we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 “scientists” turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM’s expansive definition. Of course, not all of them are working in science, but since some medical professionals and statisticians do work in science, it’s still a reasonable quick estimate.

However, it’s not reasonable to expect that all of those actual scientists are working in climate sciences. Certainly the 39 climatologists, but after that, it gets much murkier. Most geologists don’t work as climate scientists, although some certainly do. Most meteorologists do weather forecasting, but understanding the weather is radically different than understanding climate. So we can’t be sure beyond the 39 climatologists, although we can reasonably assume that the number is far less than the 13,245 actual scientists claimed by the OISM.
13,245 scientists is only 0.1% of the scientists graduated in the U.S. since the 1970-71 school year.

[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.

[Papewaio]

A weed is a plant in a location where it isn't wanted. It is still a plant.

Pollutants can be naturally occuring such as volcanic ash or man made such as car exhaust. Pollutants are generally a chemical in a location where it isn't wanted.

A lot of pollutants may be toxic to some animals whilst beneficial to others. For instance Diclofenac is great for cattle, fatal for vultures.

[total relism]

Welcome back TR.

Total Relism in the Hizzu keepin it Rel!!

For more details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

notice this assumes all degree people agree with them, that man made global warming is going to cause great disasters. 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.

[total relism]

how did this get on only global warming? when that is only one aspect of op?. Lets diversify.

[a completely inoffensive name]

how did this get on only global warming? when that is only one aspect of op?. Lets diversify.

Yes, lets. This whole thread has been stagnating.

The best argument against the OP, is the OP itself.

This is literally one of the very few times I have legitimately laughed at my computer while I read a thread on the org.

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

You have to be a troll, or there is something wrong that makes me feel very sad for you.

You said schools don't mention the positives of carbon dioxide, that they only call it a pollutant. HoreTore says that that statement is not true because schools teach photosynthesis which involves carbon dioxide. You then claim that he is saying something else entirely different. That somehow he made the claim that schools don't call carbon dioxide a pollutant. But that wasn't what he said, he said schools do show how vital it is to the environment as well.

And this is all from three posts within an hour of each other. I'm sorry moderators, but you want civil discourse towards a conspiracy-tard with a memory of a goldfish?

[HoreTore]

i said schools [with multiple references in earlier post] teach that c02 release in air is a pollutant

As they should, seeing as co2 is a pollutant.

[total relism]

As they should, seeing as co2 is a pollutant.

lol

You have to be a troll, or there is something wrong that makes me feel very sad for you.

You said schools don't mention the positives of carbon dioxide, that they only call it a pollutant. HoreTore says that that statement is not true because schools teach photosynthesis which involves carbon dioxide. You then claim that he is saying something else entirely different. That somehow he made the claim that schools don't call carbon dioxide a pollutant. But that wasn't what he said, he said schools do show how vital it is to the environment as well.

And this is all from three posts within an hour of each other. I'm sorry moderators, but you want civil discourse towards a conspiracy-tard with a memory of a goldfish?

when referring to global warming and environmental issues they dont teach photosynthesis, there are many examples given before, if people deny this i dont care, i am referring to radical environmentalist only. So apretley it is your memory of my post/op/position that is in need of some fixing. Or you could show were i said schools dont teach photosynthesis, of course than you would just follow in the straw man HoreTore has created to try and find any fault in my op.

[HoreTore]

lol

That response is the best way I can think of to show off your ignorance. Thank you.

[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).

[Fragony]

Not arguing against you. But if you are in a badly ventilated room isn't it the lack of oxygine rather than the abundance of CO2, as you breath oxygine-levels lower after all and you get CO2 back. Not sure if I would call it a polutement, but I don't have my definitions in order

[HoreTore]

Not arguing against you.

Neither am I, but I always appreciate my opportunities to enlighten the Dutch

But if you are in a badly ventilated room isn't it the lack of oxygine rather than the abundance of CO2, as you breath oxygine-levels lower after all and you get CO2 back. Not sure if I would call it a polutement, but I don't have my definitions in order

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).

[Fragony]

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

[Sigurd]

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

Both gases will more or less result in the same type of poisoning. Edit: having checked, they do differ in type of poisoning.

CO will kill you as low as 700 ml/m³ while CO₂ needs 80 000 ml/m³ ​to be lethal.
So don't try to kill yourself in a garage with a running motor if you have a car with a catalytic converter (CO ->CO₂)

[Ironside]

Don't hurt me if I am wrong, but doesn't burning a fire in a closed enviroment produce a whole different substance than breathing, CO, a monoxide, not CO2 which is a dioxide. CO will merge with red-blood cells depriving your vital organs of oxygine while CO2 is just less oxygine. Been a while, get that axe away from me. Not the axe please

Nope, CO₂ is starting to become dangerous around 3% and lethal at about 7-10%. That will still happen even if you have normal oxygen levels or higher.
It's a weak acid in water solutions, so it'll mess up the pH in your blood (it's part of the blood's pH buffer as well).

CO works pretty much as you described and is a much stronger poison.

[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).

[Fragony]

Nope, CO₂ is starting to become dangerous around 3% and lethal at about 7-10%. That will still happen even if you have normal oxygen levels or higher.
It's a weak acid in water solutions, so it'll mess up the pH in your blood (it's part of the blood's pH buffer as well).

CO works pretty much as you described and is a much stronger poison.

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

[HoreTore]

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

Well, that's the end of my knowledge for sure. I know where the dirty parts are, but that's about all I know about the human body.

[Beskar]

I don't really see why a stable molecule would do anything other than floating around. Less oxygin, sure, but blood-poisining?

Being honest, I am no expert in the effects of CO2 poisoning, but it is called hypercapnia. It is usually occurs in artifical environments such as Scuba Driving or on a Spaceship (Apollo 13 has issues). Apparently via google, it can happen in rare natural environments such as when sleeping and access gets blocked, which is one of the big suspected causes of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.