Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by CBR:
Fact 1: only an tiny amount of peer reviewed studies go against the consensus that global warming is primarily caused by man.
Fact 2: polls show that a clear majority of scientists, in the relevant areas, thinks global warming is primarily caused by man. And the polls also show that the scientists who actively publish are even more convinced.
Apparently you want all opinions to count as long as they have a fancy academic title. I would not expect a brain surgeon to know much about dentistry even though both the dentist and brain surgeon work somewhere on the human head.
Youtube Video
That list does address all the stuff from the videos you posted. If you are capable of watching the videos in your OP then you should also be capable of watching and reading what is in my links. If you reject that then you are rejecting the scientific consensus. And then there is not much more to debate.
I did not watch the resisting the green dragon videos. The titles alone did not seem to address anything about global warming nor were the videos available for free. One thing is wasting time on the same old arguments, another thing is spending time and money on something that does not seem relevant to the debate.
But at least you come with some specific claims now. Of course I have to do the work with all my false info:
On Iris http://www.skepticalscience.com/lind...ion-part1.html
It is still getting warmer. http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm
Attachment 9019
Youtube Video
The five degree estimate is one of the higher estimates. But why not let Allen Myles speak for himself without being misrepresented by journalists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change
David Rose (Daily Mail) is not a good source when to comes to climate science. Examples:
Youtube Video
or http://www.skepticalscience.com/media_v_reality.html And I could find a lot more.
And using quotes from people who have no qualifications at all (Morano) or one who might have a fancy title like a PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse) but no actual research, is the usual appeal to authority.
Fact 1: only an tiny amount of peer reviewed studies go against the consensus that global warming is primarily caused by man.
Fact 2: polls show that a clear majority of scientists, in the relevant areas, thinks global warming is primarily caused by man. And the polls also show that the scientists who actively publish are even more convinced.
Apparently you want all opinions to count as long as they have a fancy academic title. I would not expect a brain surgeon to know much about dentistry even though both the dentist and brain surgeon work somewhere on the human head.
Youtube Video
That list does address all the stuff from the videos you posted. If you are capable of watching the videos in your OP then you should also be capable of watching and reading what is in my links. If you reject that then you are rejecting the scientific consensus. And then there is not much more to debate.
I did not watch the resisting the green dragon videos. The titles alone did not seem to address anything about global warming nor were the videos available for free. One thing is wasting time on the same old arguments, another thing is spending time and money on something that does not seem relevant to the debate.
But at least you come with some specific claims now. Of course I have to do the work with all my false info:
On Iris http://www.skepticalscience.com/lind...ion-part1.html
It is still getting warmer. http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ed-in-1998.htm
Attachment 9019
Youtube Video
The five degree estimate is one of the higher estimates. But why not let Allen Myles speak for himself without being misrepresented by journalists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change
David Rose (Daily Mail) is not a good source when to comes to climate science. Examples:
Youtube Video
or http://www.skepticalscience.com/media_v_reality.html And I could find a lot more.
And using quotes from people who have no qualifications at all (Morano) or one who might have a fancy title like a PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse) but no actual research, is the usual appeal to authority.
fact one-already responded to many times
fact 2 this is what i want you to back up, you have claimed this many times, please show me list of scientist who would say as you claim. As i said is showed 31,000 and 1,000. Can you show me your list?
I fullt understand that they should be degree in area, that is why a certain well know list used to promote your belief is misleading as well. That me thinks is reason you wont post any list, as you already attacked my list for that. Notice my op did not say 31,000 phd qualified in area scientist. Simple fact is so far i showed 32,000 to your 0.
so on one side you admit to not watching the videos, than yet make the amazing claim your link [with false info] answered all on the links i provided that you did not watch lol. I will say the same to you, if you have time to read all your links you should do the same for mine. I like debates, you have any i will watch, as i said im busy at current time to see these links at the moment,unless you make a direct claim. Given you have not watched anything i posted and offered no direct claims, i see no reason to read.
thanks for admitting you lied about watching the videos on op that is not common online. Putting the green dragons fire out on global warming was the main one addressing global warming. I have no idea what your referring to with specific claim,iris.
link a little outdated,that is why my link had present graph. Also i think you missed meaning of article, you likely did not read but just goggled your webpage or you would have known what was meant by article. Also who said the earth is not curentley getting warmer?
thanks for links with Allen Myles, but even that does not change what he said or was responding to, it just put his other opinions in perspective. Not what was meant by the graph/new evidence. Did not watch video sorry. i think your asumtion that "PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse" has nothing to do with global warming is a large part of problem, radicals can only see humans as the cause of evil. Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens.
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a small child here? You showed nothing of the kind. Your other posts do nothing to alter the fact that you misquoted another poster.
Ajax
Why do I feel like I'm talking to a small child here? You showed nothing of the kind. Your other posts do nothing to alter the fact that you misquoted another poster.
Ajax
as i showed my last response to you, you only think i did so ,when it was in fact you who did so to me, that is reason i wrote on it you wont be able to respond, and you cant as it shows you just did not read from beginning and only read one of my responses than created your own meaning, notice he has no problem understanding.
i will copy paste
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 total relism:
as i showed my last response to you, you only think i did so ,when it was in fact you who did so to me, that is reason i wrote on it you wont be able to respond, and you cant as it shows you just did not read from beginning and only read one of my responses than created your own meaning, notice he has no problem understanding.
i will copy paste
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
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. as i showed my last response to you, you only think i did so ,when it was in fact you who did so to me, that is reason i wrote on it you wont be able to respond, and you cant as it shows you just did not read from beginning and only read one of my responses than created your own meaning, notice he has no problem understanding.
i will copy paste
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
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
Originally Posted by total relism:
I fullt understand that they should be degree in area, that is why a certain well know list used to promote your belief is misleading as well. That me thinks is reason you wont post any list, as you already attacked my list for that. Notice my op did not say 31,000 phd qualified in area scientist. Simple fact is so far i showed 32,000 to your 0.
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.I fullt understand that they should be degree in area, that is why a certain well know list used to promote your belief is misleading as well. That me thinks is reason you wont post any list, as you already attacked my list for that. Notice my op did not say 31,000 phd qualified in area scientist. Simple fact is so far i showed 32,000 to your 0.
Originally Posted by :
so on one side you admit to not watching the videos, than yet make the amazing claim your link [with false info] answered all on the links i provided that you did not watch lol.
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.so on one side you admit to not watching the videos, than yet make the amazing claim your link [with false info] answered all on the links i provided that you did not watch lol.
Originally Posted by :
Putting the green dragons fire out on global warming was the main one addressing global warming
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. Putting the green dragons fire out on global warming was the main one addressing global warming
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.
Originally Posted by :
I have no idea what your referring to with specific claim,iris.
Lindzen's Iris Effect. You quoted it.I have no idea what your referring to with specific claim,iris.
Originally Posted by :
link a little outdated,that is why my link had present graph. Also i think you missed meaning of article, you likely did not read but just goggled your webpage or you would have known what was meant by article.
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.link a little outdated,that is why my link had present graph. Also i think you missed meaning of article, you likely did not read but just goggled your webpage or you would have known what was meant by article.
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.
Originally Posted by :
Also who said the earth is not curentley getting warmer?
Hmm...Also who said the earth is not curentley getting warmer?
Originally Posted by total relism:
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed)
No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed)
Originally Posted by :
I think your asumtion that "PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse" has nothing to do with global warming is a large part of problem, radicals can only see humans as the cause of evil.
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. I think your asumtion that "PhD in Astrophysics (Whitehouse" has nothing to do with global warming is a large part of problem, radicals can only see humans as the cause of evil.
Originally Posted by :
Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens.
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.Take the sun away, release all the c02 you want and see what happens.
My original post
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
but I will save you the trouble here is the info from the CDC copypasted below
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
Originally Posted by :
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
Your replyif 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
Originally Posted by total relism:
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
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
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
Originally Posted by :
Malaria is the second most common cause of infectious disease-related death in the world, after tuberculosis. It is estimated to affect between 350 to 500 million people annually and accounts for 1 to 3 million deaths per year.1,2 Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest burden of malarial disease, with over 90% of the world’s malaria-related deaths occurring in this region. Twenty-five million pregnant women are currently at risk for malaria, and, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria accounts for over 10,000 maternal and 200,000 neonatal deaths per year.3
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 deathsMalaria is the second most common cause of infectious disease-related death in the world, after tuberculosis. It is estimated to affect between 350 to 500 million people annually and accounts for 1 to 3 million deaths per year.1,2 Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest burden of malarial disease, with over 90% of the world’s malaria-related deaths occurring in this region. Twenty-five million pregnant women are currently at risk for malaria, and, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria accounts for over 10,000 maternal and 200,000 neonatal deaths per year.3
but I will save you the trouble here is the info from the CDC copypasted below
Originally Posted by :
Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease caused by a parasite. People with malaria often experience fever, chills, and flu-like illness. Left untreated, they may develop severe complications and die. In 2010 an estimated 216 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide and 655,000 people died, most (91%) in the African Region.
http://www.cdc.gov/MALARIA/Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease caused by a parasite. People with malaria often experience fever, chills, and flu-like illness. Left untreated, they may develop severe complications and die. In 2010 an estimated 216 million cases of malaria occurred worldwide and 655,000 people died, most (91%) in the African Region.
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
Originally Posted by total relism:
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
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. 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
Ajax
The hottest planet in the solar system is Venus.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The hottest planet in the solar system is Venus.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
Apropiate that Venus is the hottest. But not all planets have an atmosphere some are just rocks, says nothing about CO2The hottest planet in the solar system is Venus.
Mercury is the closest to the Sun.
Venus has the most CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is already a proven greenhouse gas in the solar system.
Says that having an atmosphere will act as a blanket. Something that is noticeable on a cloudy night is less of a temperature drop as the clouds help retain the heat.
Venus has a lot of atmosphere and the majority gas is CO2.
So yes by adding more carbon dioxide the retention of heat increases.
Venus has a lot of atmosphere and the majority gas is CO2.
So yes by adding more carbon dioxide the retention of heat increases.
Of course there is less decrease in heat on a cloudy night, that has nothing to do with CO2
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Of course there is less decrease in heat on a cloudy night, that has nothing to do with CO2
He never said that. He said the clouds helped retain heat. And that CO2 also retains heat. Two unrelated sentences.Of course there is less decrease in heat on a cloudy night, that has nothing to do with CO2
~Jirisys ()
Originally Posted by jirisys:
He never said that. He said the clouds helped retain heat. And that CO2 also retains heat. Two unrelated sentences.
~Jirisys ()
Than don't say that the CO2 theory has already been proven in said context mia muca, it isn'tHe never said that. He said the clouds helped retain heat. And that CO2 also retains heat. Two unrelated sentences.
~Jirisys ()
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Than don't say that the CO2 theory has already been proven in said context mia muca, it isn't
Are you claiming that CO2 is not proven to be a greenhouse gas...?Than don't say that the CO2 theory has already been proven in said context mia muca, it isn't
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Are you claiming that CO2 is not proven to be a greenhouse gas...?
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda isAre you claiming that CO2 is not proven to be a greenhouse gas...?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
....And what is an atmosphere, in this regard, if not a collection of various greenhouse gases?Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
....And what is an atmosphere, in this regard, if not a collection of various greenhouse gases?
Did you really just say various....And what is an atmosphere, in this regard, if not a collection of various greenhouse gases?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Did you really just say various
Uhm..... Yes?Did you really just say various
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm..... Yes?
Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theoryUhm..... Yes?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory
What?Then why are you carrotmunchers so sure of the CO2-theory
Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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 scamWhat?
Do you believe that there are peple who thinks that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?
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.
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
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
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.
Originally Posted by CBR:
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.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.
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
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
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.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
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]
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.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.
Originally Posted by total relism:
agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.
Yes the medieval warmth.agreed,we have had much warmer times with no human c02 input, in recent history as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Originally Posted by total relism:
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.clear by know your dodging.
Originally Posted by :
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.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?
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.Whitehouse serves on the Academic Advisory Committee for the contrarian Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).
Originally Posted by :
He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post.
http://www.davidwhitehouse.com/Academic.html Please show me his relevant research.He has written for many publications, including the Huffington Post.
Originally Posted by :
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.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
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.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
What it does do is show that CO2 can be a much larger contributor to planet temperature then just the contribution of the sun.Nope, that would be a rather silly thing to do. But comparing a planet that has no atmosphere with one that does also kinda is
Mercury gets approximately four times the sun energy per square meter then Venus (Venus is on average about twice the distance from the sun).
Despite Venus getting only a quarter of the energy it is hotter then Mercury.
Venus majority gas is CO2.
Venus is warmer because of its CO2 content.
Originally Posted by 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.
You do realize that warm and cold periods happen for a reason and the reasons are something climatology has a pretty good understanding of?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.
Originally Posted by total relism:
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: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.
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish:
Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.
Specific examples are not hard to come by, you just refuse to acknowledge them when they are presented to you.
Originally Posted by total relism:
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. My sources were never untrustworthy as he even used them lol,just understanding with when, estimates etc.
Ajax
Originally Posted by 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.
That one is more to do with cows and volcano's.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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO