Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

Show me the peer-reviewed literature that debunks the hockey stick. Oh wait, that's right, there is none. It's been confimed dozens of times since Mann's original work in 1998.

My posts have content. You do nothing but mindlessly copypaste from the same lame 'skeptic' website.

Show me where you've tried to debunk it Mr. Objective Scientist.

 

[BartW]

Show me where you've tried to debunk it Mr. Objective Scientist.

I don't need to go on a wild goose chase debunking crap you copypasted from your little 'skeptic' website misrepresenting papers you did not read. I've done plenty of that already. You never respond to my rebuttals anyway. Now it's your turn to answer my questions.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

God man!! I can't believe BartW is still in this thread trying his dearest to make a point. Give it up dude....you ain't going to win this argument about climate change. It's all a bunch of whoeee & BS. It's just something the liberals try & make money on is all. Climate change is a big lie. It's really called "season change" in nature.

 

[BartW]

It’s still baffling how you folks deny the spectroscopic proof that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. I mean, really. Those of you that went to college (if any) would have learned about spectroscopy in your 100 level chemistry or physics course. Let’s review:

A spectrum is a graph showing the intensity of radiation vs. wavelength. For example, here’s the spectrum of our sun:

Notice its shape is approximately that of a 5500 K blackbody (the surface temperature of our sun)

But the solar spectrum is not exactly a blackbody spectrum - it has those little dips. Those are called absorption lines (in the specific case of the sun, they’ve been named the Frauenhoffer Lines). They exist because gases in the solar atmosphere absorb energy at those specific wavelengths. Absorption lines are how we know the composition of the sun and other stars.

In geology 104 my professor introduced spectroscopy via a really cool demonstration. Using his UAV he flew a spectrometer over Neyland on game day against UF. What did the spectrum show? A huge peak at 600 nm – the wavelength corresponding to ORANGE!

Now just like my example with the sun, we can take a spectrum from the top of our atmosphere. What you see is a blackbody corresponding to Earth’s temperature (~300K), minus the energy trapped by greenhouse gases.

Integrating over wavelength, we can calculate how much energy is being trapped by each individual gas. According to AR4, the net radiative forcing due to human activities is 1.6 W/m^2, give or take.

Let’s assume the extreme lowest value, 0.6 W/m^2. Earth’s total insolation is about 250 W/m^2, so 0.6 doesn’t sound like much does it? But if you multiply that flux by earth’s surface area (surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2):

(0.6 W/m^2)*(4*3.14*6370000m^2) = 3x10^14 W

The amount of energy in the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3x10^13 J. This means Earth’s climate is accumulating heat at a rate of MORE THAN 4 HIROSHIMA ATOMIC BOMBS PER SECOND. Pretty incredible isn’t it? I didn't believe it until I crunched the numbers myself.

Spectroscopy has a wide range of applications outside of climate science. Spectroscopy is not a conspiracy. Get a spectrometer and play around with it for yourself. Point it at the night sky. You’ll see peaks of IR radiation precisely where we saw the absorption bands above.

Now you can no longer claim ignorance. Either try to refute this basic science or accept that you're a science denialist, just like Thabo Mbeke who's denial of HIV-AIDS directly led to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and Philip Morris who’s tobacco denial industry continues to.kill thousands around the world.

Class dismissed

 

[Sandvol]

I don't need to go on a wild goose chase debunking crap you copypasted from your little 'skeptic' website misrepresenting papers you did not read. I've done plenty of that already. You never respond to my rebuttals anyway. Now it's your turn to answer my questions.

I'll try to be more plain for you. Show me where you've tried to debunk Mann's Hockey Stick.

 

[BartW]

I'll try to be more plain for you. Show me where you've tried to debunk Mann's Hockey Stick.

Why would I? I'm not the one slandering Mann. The hockey stick has been independently reproduced dozens of times via several methods. You stated there are numerous peer-reviewed studies that disprove the hockey stick. Provide them.

God man!! I can't believe BartW is still in this thread trying his dearest to make a point. Give it up dude....you ain't going to win this argument about climate change.

Don’t fret; I’ve long given up actually trying to convince you people. I realize that crazy train left the station decades ago.

I came here to talk about politics. There is no “argument about climate change” to win. The thing about science is, it’s real whether you accept it or not. I’ve done my duty debunking all the usual myths. When y’all ran out of myths to throw at me you resorted to personal attacks. Typical denialism

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

What is denialism?

"The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none"

What are the characteristics of denialism?

1. Conspiracy Theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.

2. Fake Experts
These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were supportive of the industry’s position.

The use of fake experts is often complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and who has made a great contribution to exposing tobacco industry tactics, is a frequent target for tobacco denialists. He is described on the Forces website as infamous for being the boldest of liars in ‘‘tobacco control’’ that most ethically challenged gang of con artists.

3. Cherrypicking
The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.

4. Impossible Expectations
The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.

5. Logical fallacies
The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. Logical fallacies include the use of red herrings, or deliberate attempts to change the argument and straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented to makeit easier to refute.

Other fallacies used by denialists are false analogy, exemplified by the argument against evolution that, as the universe and a watch are both extremely complex, the universe must have been created by the equivalent of a watchmaker and the excluded middle fallacy (either passive smoking causes a wide range of specified diseases or causes none at all, so doubt about an association with one disease, such as breast cancer, is regarded as sufficient to reject an association with any disease).

How should one respond to denialism?

Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists from having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are.

I’m going to keep pointing out your tactics (and complete lack of substance) until you attempt to engage in thoughtful discussion. I’m also going to keep bumping this:

What is at the root of denial?

In a recent study of climate blog readers, Lewandowksy and his colleagues found that the strongest predictor of being a climate change denier is having a libertarian, free market world view. Or as Lewandowsky put it in our interview, “the overwhelming factor that determined whether or not people rejected climate science is their worldview or their ideology.” This naturally lends support to the “motivated reasoning” theory—a conservative view about the efficiency of markets impels rejection of climate science because if climate science were true, markets would very clearly have failed in an very important instance.

But separately, the same study also found a second factor that was a weaker, but still real, predictor of climate change denial—and also of the denial of other scientific findings such as the proven link between HIV and AIDS. And that factor was conspiracy theorizing. Thus, people who think, say, that the Moon landings were staged by Hollywood, or that Lee Harvey Oswald had help, are also more likely to be climate deniers and HIV-AIDS deniers.

This is similar to what we’ve been saying for years. Ideology is at the heart of antiscience, (yes even liberal ideology) and when in conflict with science will render the ideologue incapable of rational evaluation of facts. The more extreme the ideology, the more likely and more severe the divergence from science. Then there is the separate issue of cranks who have a generalized defect in their reasoning abilities, are generally incompetent at recognizing bad ideas, often believing conflicting theories simultaneously, and are given to support any other crank who they feel is showing science is somehow fundamentally wrong. This is the “paranoid style”, it’s well-described, and likely, irreversible.

Because it’s painfully obvious that you have no legitimate scientific reason to deny AGW. You deny it because of your political ideaology. Well guess what? Reality doesn’t care if you’re libertarian, democrat, bull-moose, whatever. The universe doesn't pander to us. You can deny reality all you want, just know members of your tin foil hat club include AIDS denialists, tobacco denialists, vaccine denialists, holocaust denialists, moon-landing denialists, flat-earthers, young-earth creationists, ...

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Why would I? I'm not the one slandering Mann. The hockey stick has been independently reproduced dozens of times via several methods. You stated there are numerous peer-reviewed studies that disprove the hockey stick. Provide them.



Don’t fret; I’ve long given up actually trying to convince you people. I realize that crazy train left the station decades ago.

I came here to talk about politics. There is no “argument about climate change” to win. The thing about science is, it’s real whether you accept it or not. I’ve done my duty debunking all the usual myths. When y’all ran out of myths to throw at me you resorted to personal attacks. Typical denialism



I’m going to keep pointing out your tactics (and complete lack of substance) until you attempt to engage in thoughtful discussion. I’m also going to keep bumping this:



Because it’s painfully obvious that you have no legitimate scientific reason to deny AGW. You deny it because of your political ideaology. Well guess what? Reality doesn’t care if you’re libertarian, democrat, bull-moose, whatever. The universe doesn't pander to us. You can deny reality all you want, just know members of your tin foil hat club include AIDS denialists, tobacco denialists, vaccine denialists, holocaust denialists, moon-landing denialists, flat-earthers, young-earth creationists, ...

:snoring: You could've said blah blah blah & it would've made the same sense as typing all this out. Have a nice day. :hi:

 

[Gramps]

If there is such a thing as global warming, I don't God allows earth to last long enough to see any effects of it, therefore I am not worried about it. I have more pressing matters to worry about.

Flame away, the old man has tough skin.

 

[Sandvol]

Why would I? I'm not the one slandering Mann. The hockey stick has been independently reproduced dozens of times via several methods. You stated there are numerous peer-reviewed studies that disprove the hockey stick. Provide them.



Don’t fret; I’ve long given up actually trying to convince you people. I realize that crazy train left the station decades ago.

I came here to talk about politics. There is no “argument about climate change” to win. The thing about science is, it’s real whether you accept it or not. I’ve done my duty debunking all the usual myths. When y’all ran out of myths to throw at me you resorted to personal attacks. Typical denialism



I’m going to keep pointing out your tactics (and complete lack of substance) until you attempt to engage in thoughtful discussion. I’m also going to keep bumping this:



Because it’s painfully obvious that you have no legitimate scientific reason to deny AGW. You deny it because of your political ideaology. Well guess what? Reality doesn’t care if you’re libertarian, democrat, bull-moose, whatever. The universe doesn't pander to us. You can deny reality all you want, just know members of your tin foil hat club include AIDS denialists, tobacco denialists, vaccine denialists, holocaust denialists, moon-landing denialists, flat-earthers, young-earth creationists, ...

Why would you? Because you're an objective scientist right?

 

[BartW]

:snoring: You could've said blah blah blah & it would've made the same sense as typing all this out. Have a nice day. :hi:

Why would you? Because you're an objective scientist right?

Yes.

If there is such a thing as global warming, I don't God allows earth to last long enough to see any effects of it, therefore I am not worried about it. I have more pressing matters to worry about.

Flame away, the old man has tough skin.

This school of thought is called Dominionism. While you certainly have the right to believe whatever you want, it would be unwise to base policy on such speculation.

There's a christian counter-movement born out of an alternative interpretation of that same piece of scripture called Stewardship or Evangelical Environmentalism. I think you'd be interested in hearing these perspectives. This very relevant post is worth a read too:

Christian Evangelicalism and Climate Change Denial

I have no flames for you Gramps, I suspect you're merely dropping by. My flames are reserved for the regulars who refuse to participate in civil and honest discourse.

Cheerio :hi:

 

[MG1968]

Bart, there's no way you're a libertarian. Not with the faith you put in government to provide the solutions to the problems that could arise as a result of an ever changing climate.

 

[BartW]

Bart, there's no way you're a libertarian. Not with the faith you put in government to provide the solutions to the problems that could arise as a result of an ever changing climate.

The carbon tax is the small government solution, I've pointed to several notable high ranking conservative economists and politicians that agree. What I find far more incredible is your belief that governments are competent enough to pull off a global conspiracy. 9/11 times a thousand!

 

[BartW]

Bart, what predictions of doom and gloom have the alarmist like yourself been correct on?
every year we're treated to predictions of frequent strong and damaging hurricanes due to global warming, hasn't happened
even this year's train of strong winter storms is nothing unprecedented, yet there are those on your side who want to claim that any extreme weather event is a result of AGW

I guess you missed where Australia broke every temperature record in the books last year? And the massive flooding in the UK? Crazy drought in Asia? Heck we're experiencing pretty severe drought here in the western US (predicted by climatoligists 10 years ago, btw). Of course you can't tie any single weather event to global warming.

I'd like to return to this post, because I don't think I did it justice.

Australia’s hottest year
The most extreme heat was in Australia, which suffered its hottest year on record (1.20°C above the 1961-1990 average), frequent heatwaves, and warmer than average temperatures throughout the year. Again, the Australian heat occurred despite the neutral Southern Oscillation. Australia broke all of the following records in 2013:

• Hottest national average daily maximum temperature (40.30°C on 7 January)
• Seven consecutive days of national average maximum temperature over 39°C (2–8 January)
• Hottest January
• Hottest month ever (January)
• Hottest January sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Hottest February sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Hottest summer (December 2012–February 2013)
• Record-breaking March heatwave in Melbourne
• Tasmania’s hottest March
• Hottest northern wet season (October 2012–April 2013)
• South Australia’s 3rd warmest autumn (March–May)
• 2nd hottest first half of a calendar year (January–June)
• 3rd warmest winter (June–August)
• Warmest winter day (29.92°C on 31 August)
• Warmest September
• Warmest month after removing the seasonal cycle (2.75°C above average in September)
• South Australia’s previous record warm September exceeded by an unprecedented almost 2°C (5.39°C above average)
• Hottest 12-month period (record broken three times: September 2012–August 2013, then October 2012–September 2013, then November 2012–October 2013)
• 2nd hottest November sea surface temperature in surrounding seas
• Warmest spring (September–November)

Yet another Australian heatwave began on 27 December, continuing into January 2014 and breaking records in many places. It was soon followed by one of southeast Australia’s most significant heatwaves (13–18 January 2014), killing almost 400 Australians and rivalling the 2009 heatwave that caused the Black Saturday bushfires.

Beyond Australia
Parts of central Asia, Ethiopia, and Tanzania suffered record heat. Greenland recorded its warmest air temperature (25.9°C on 30 July). In August, China saw one of its worst ever heatwaves, killing over 40 people. Russia experienced its hottest November and December (with Siberia 9°C above average in December). Few parts of the world were cooler than average, and nowhere experienced record cold.

Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, and western Pacific surface temperatures were all warmer than average. The warm oceans helped fuel an above-average North Pacific typhoon season. Typhoon Haiyan was the strongest tropical cyclone ever to make landfall, killing over 5,700. Although global precipitation was near-average, extreme flooding and drought occurred in many parts of the world.

The most notable cold weather that occurred in 2013 was actually a side effect of global warming. The unusual Arctic warmth led to a record negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation in which cold Arctic air moved south (like a freezer door being left open). This in turn caused a cold northern spring in the US and Europe. This “warm Arctic, cold continents” phenomenon has occurred in several recent years and may be a permanent shift in weather patterns. Unfortunately this means North America, the hub of climate change denial, is experiencing consistently cold winters while the rest of the Earth’s surface cooks.

Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up

 

[MG1968]

and there you have it, global warming causes it to be colder in the winter

and this is all the result of AGW, there's no way this can be natural, right Blart?

 

[BartW]

and there you have it, global warming causes it to be colder in the winter

I know it isn’t worth trying to explain to you people, but this is the difference between “global warming” and “climate change”. Overall, Earth is warming. But it doesn’t warm uniformly. Some places cool, while most places warm. Just because the jet stream moved further south over the eastern US this winter doesn’t mean the planet as a whole was cold. You may not realize this, but the world is bigger than Tennessee.

"Because the last decade was the hottest on record (and just a year ago, the U.S. saw its warmest year ever) Americans have grown accustomed to warmer winters that make normal cold feel extreme.

Some then wonder why this winter has been so (normally) cold and why temperatures in Peoria this winter have not been warmed by climate chang eto, say, a balmy 60 degrees F. The climate denial bubble claims that the cold winter weather means that surely CO2 cannot be warming the atmosphere. How can there be global warming if it's snowing outside, after all?

Well, the short answer is that cold winters still happen even in a warmed world, but that doesn't mean it's cold everywhere. In fact, we don't even have to leave the U.S. to find a very striking image of warming. We just have to shift our attention from the East to the West Coast. Alaska, usually snowy and frigid, has had two weeks of record high temperatures. Amazingly, the second half of January has averaged 40 degrees F above normal during some days in the central and western parts of the state."

"The persistently jagged jet stream we have witnessed in recent weeks has led most recently to what some have termed a "Drunken Arctic." Stumbling south with polar winds and snow, this unexpected meteorological event seems to have caught our collective attention... Perfectly encapsulating the upside-down, hung-over Arctic is this remarkable observation, courtesy of Jeff Masters of the popular Weather Underground blog: At 10 p.m. on Jan. 26 the temperature in Homer, Alaska (54 degrees F) was warmer than any other place in the contiguous U.S. except southern Florida and southern California."

Go home arctic you're drunk

"Continuing the nearly 29-year streak of above-average global monthly temperatures, January came in as the fourth-warmest such month on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This makes it the warmest January since 2007, NOAA said, and was the 38th-straight January with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

The global warmth came in stark contrast to the “polar vortex” induced conditions the eastern U.S. and Canada experienced, as well as the cold and stormy conditions in the UK and parts of Russia. Unusually high temperatures elsewhere more than compensated for these cold regions. For example, Southern Hemisphere land temperatures were the highest on record for the month. In other words, it may have been cold where you were, but globally, the planet’s hot streak continues unabated. If February's global average temperature comes in above the 20th century average, it would make 29 years since the last below average month."

"January was also marked by a worsening drought in the Western U.S., where parts of California reached “exceptional drought” status for the first time in the 15-year history of the U.S. Drought Monitor. “It’s becoming very clear that Western drought is becoming a major issue that’s going to face the nation in 2014,” said Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. on a conference call with reporters.

In contrast, a sopping wet UK, where flooding engulfed large portions of south-central England after a series of storms pummeled the region. It was the third-wettest January for the U.K. as a whole, NOAA said."

What cold?

In a Rutgers University paper published last year, researchers Jennifer Francis and Stephen Vavrus wrote that the melting of Arctic ice was weakening the jet stream, the band of fast-moving wind that separates colder northern air from warmer air further south. As it weakens, it dips southward for longer periods than in the past, bringing icy-cold air with it for increasingly long stays. The weaker winds “may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells and heat waves,” says the article, published in Geophysical Research Letters.

That means that while the climate (or average global temperature) of the Earth heats up, the weather in every region won’t necessarily follow suit. Places prone to warm weather will see extended droughts, while much of Canada may experience more extended cold snaps. In other words, a warmer Arctic may be affecting the length of time the polar vortex dips down south, but not necessarily the temperatures themselves. Further, as the Arctic continues to heat up, so may the temperature of the “cold snaps,” reflecting the warming northern air.

Experts quiet climate-change skeptics: Warming leads to longer cold snaps

 

[MG1968]

I know it isn’t worth trying to explain to you people, but this is the difference between “global warming” and “climate change”. Overall, Earth is warming. But it doesn’t warm uniformly. Some places cool, while most places warm. Just because the jet stream moved further south over the eastern US this winter doesn’t mean the planet as a whole was cold. You may not realize this, but the world is bigger than Tennessee.

Keep up the condescension, Bart. I know you just graduated and have only just begun considering the need to shave, but you don't know everything. The world is also a lot bigger than what you experienced in the classroom being lectured to by people who have a financial stake in AGW.

 

[BartW]

Keep up the condescension, Bart. I know you just graduated and have only just begun considering the need to shave, but you don't know everything. The world is also a lot bigger than what you experienced in the classroom being lectured to by people who have a financial stake in AGW.

More innuendo, zero substance. You don't try to (and can't) refute any of my points. You can't even explain your conspiracy theory. Your close-minded anthropist poppycock deserves to be mocked.

 

[MG1968]

More innuendo, zero substance. You don't try to (and can't) refute any of my points. You can't even explain your conspiracy theory. Your close-minded anthropist poppycock deserves to be mocked.

Why try to debate when you view the other side as a bunch of close-minded Luddites?

Debating you is like trying to get Fred Phelps to understand that homosexuality is biological. You fall back into your dogmatic absolutism and declare that anybody who disagrees with you is part of some vast conspiracy.

 

[BartW]

Why try to debate when you view the other side as a bunch of close-minded Luddites?

Debating you is like trying to get Fred Phelps to understand that homosexuality is biological. You fall back into your dogmatic absolutism and declare that anybody who disagrees with you is part of some vast conspiracy.

Hahahaha I'm the conspiracy theorist? I've tried rational discussion for weeks, but there is little to be had here. If anyone posts something thoughtful I'll reply without being a jacka$$.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

BartW is writing books & putting graphs & putting all kinds of stupid pictures in here trying to prove a point or something about the global warming climate change thing that he has no ability to do anything about to stop it's natural course that's going to do what it wants to do. I say don't worry about it my man & live your life like today's your last.

 

[MG1968]

Hahahaha I'm the conspiracy theorist? I've tried rational discussion for weeks, but there is little to be had here. If anyone posts something thoughtful I'll reply without being a jacka$$.

I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist, professor.

However, if the shoe fits.

 

[BartW]

BartW is writing books & putting graphs & putting all kinds of stupid pictures in here trying to prove a point or something about the global warming climate change thing that he has no ability to do anything about to stop it's natural course that's going to do what it wants to do. I say don't worry about it my man & live your life like today's your last.

I proved my point a long time ago. You folks continue to prove my point. Now I'm just here for the schadenfreude.

I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist, professor.

However, if the shoe fits.

:birgits_giggle:

Let's see, so far people in this thread have admitted to believing DDT, acid rain, evolution, ozone depletion, and global warming are conspiracies. I've asked repeatedly what other conspiracy theories y'all believe in, but it seems the 'skeptics' are too embarassed to respond to my poll.

 

[MG1968]

Let's see, so far people in this thread have admitted to believing DDT, acid rain, evolution, ozone depletion, and global warming are conspiracies. I've asked repeatedly what other conspiracy theories y'all believe in, but it seems the 'skeptics' are too embarassed to respond to my poll.

^^^

that's just pure idiotic drivel on your part

It's kind of sad that your professors didn't allow you to think for yourself, had you been able to, you would have learned that the ban on DDT was unfounded and that millions have died needlessly of malaria.

None of the others you mentioned are conspiracy theories.

 

[BartW]

^^^

that's just pure idiotic drivel on your part

It's kind of sad that your professors didn't allow you to think for yourself, had you been able to, you would have learned that the ban on DDT was unfounded and that millions have died needlessly of malaria.

None of the others you mentioned are conspiracy theories.

DDT was never banned for use against malaria. DDT was banned for agricultral use under the Stockholm Convention. DDT is still used for disease vector control around the world today. It's lost popularity in fighting malaria because (a) mosquitos have developed widespread resistance to DDT and (b) there are more cost-effective alternatives. In fact it was the indiscriminate overuse of DDT in agriculture that caused widespread resistance in mosquitos - if it weren't for the agricultural bans, we wouldn't be able to use DDT against malaria at all.

I'm glad you don't deny the other scientific facts though. But it's odd that you find a DDT conspiracy theorist that believes in evolution. You'll have to take that up with your 'skeptic' pals.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I proved my point a long time ago. You folks continue to prove my point. Now I'm just here for the schadenfreude.



:birgits_giggle:

Let's see, so far people in this thread have admitted to believing DDT, acid rain, evolution, ozone depletion, and global warming are conspiracies. I've asked repeatedly what other conspiracy theories y'all believe in, but it seems the 'skeptics' are too embarassed to respond to my poll.

If you "had" proved your point a long time ago then why stick around & continue to act like a fool with your graphs & silly little pictures that we care nothing about to see & it proves nothing? You are what's called "redundant" in the answers you give & it really gets old seeing you say those answers over & over. Okay, we get it.