Resting the green dragon/the dangers of radical environmentalism.

[total relism]

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

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

Ajax

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

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


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

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

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


Lindzen's Iris Effect. You quoted it.


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

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


Hmm...

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


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

clear by know your dodging.



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




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


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




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



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



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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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

My original post



Your reply




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

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






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

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



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

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



WHO Webite Number of malaria deaths

been through this before already.


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


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


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


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


[QUOTE=ajaxfetish;2053521441]

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

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