Added: 2 years ago
From: jerepah
Views: 1,819
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (57)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Even if you could get a new independent study and it revealed climate change was real, those scientist would now be part of the conspiracy. Then you could get another independent study of that study, and so on. These idiots still wouldnt believe it. And the reason is they are not rational people. The same people reject all evidence of evolution. I'm surprised they don't still believe the earth is flat.

  • global warming is to important to play politics with! WTF

  • @krazyjo12 Checkout, Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth. Thanks.

  • I think Fielding thinks the Earth is ten thousand years old.

  • @seamuswarren :) Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth 

  • Pretty good politician, because he seems be looking at both sides and facts. The interviewer seems to lack of scientifical thinking though... of course opposite sides must be PROPERLY go though.

  • Fielding is a gullible creationist!

    Also he admits he has learning difficulties that's why he became an engineer, (like an amputee that decides to become a para-olympian)

    Engineers are NOT good at science... they are good at APPLYING science

    they view electrons as particles rather than wave interactions

    they don't go all the way down the rabbit hole, they see a child like version of reality... like christians

    That's why so many christians are engineers

    thinking they have all knowledge

  • Wow, he is a chritian.. no wondor he speaks like want to find the real facts :). See my other commend, i did not know he is a christian, but i did recognize that he has good spirit in finding the real truth (he is looking both sides). Glad to be christian myself... ;)

  • "Wow, he is a chritian.. no wondor he speaks like want to find the real facts :)"-jpkfox

    Yep, and he can't spell like you, remember that debacle? That's when he had to admit he had learning disabilities.

    No problem there, but this guy goes to a convention run by 'The Heartland Institute' and comes back with the revelation that AGW isn't real, gullible like you too!

    However, I do admire his social policy but fear it would change the next time someone gets his attention,

    His god is unreliable

  • Oh you from Australia? so you know this man? Is he a good politician otherwise? He seems like humble hearted.....

  • He is pretty good apart from being a little naive.

    Our government is a little that way anyhow, most recently embroiled in a roof insulation controversy where dodgy operators installed foil in ceilings that killed people.

    I guess that's why politicians turn cynic, everything they do, some dodgy bastard will exploit.

    And then the dogs of opposition attack and we lose sight of the issues.

    Anthropogenic climate change is real and is denied by very few scientists... the deniers get too much air time

  • Climate change is real, but I dont think its has to do with co2 really. Think about it: the fact is that water (clouds) is the biggest greenhouse gas and more than 90% of the greenhouse gases is because of the water! And what causes water to increase? the sun of course. So co2 has very little effect overall. Its a small greenhouse gas.

  • Yes water vapor is the dominant GHG (contributing 75Wm2) but it is also the dominant feedback mechanism. The GG's have been in near perfect balance for thousands of years, then we come along and increase the effect by adding CO2 (contributing 32Wm2) to a balanced system.

    Check this out, a demonstration visually showing the extent of the effect.

    watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA

    Also keep in mind that water vapor stops a small band of IR, CO2 plugs the gap that water vapor misses.. all things are not equal

  • @bernzeppi Check: Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • You could say that God created a very carefully balanced garden for us to live in.

    To corrupt this garden is to be reckless with our duty of stewardship and that is tantamount to sin.

    I believe it is the duty of all christians to be leaders in this field... sadly many have been diverted by organizations such as the Heartland institute who pervert the truth and convince believers of their untruths.

    I know some christians who have woken up to this, much respect is due to them!

  • @bernzeppi Check out: Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • @jpkfox See, Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • @bernzeppi See, Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • @jpkfox Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth 

  • @jpkfox Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • "Are you going to go in to the WHITE HOUSE and uhh and actually have a Devil's Advocate debate uh with the White House experts with the uh, with the scientists who are advising BARRACK OBAMA? Putting to... THEM what you've heard at this skeptical conference... and arguing the toss with them - is that the way you're going to handle this!?"

    Ahaha, come on Tony, don't be like that.

  • Science says there is is no man made global warming.

  • Rubbish!

  • @bernzeppi Pt. 1/2 Catastrophe - Snowball Earth

  • want a media whore

  • MEDIA MAN mentions hot days. The past 47 yrs at min, weather's been manipulated. In short timespan, 4 or 5 tsunamis? It's all a big CONPLAN. Nilcola Tesla was the clever man who first discovered how to cause thunder etc. he died (?), his works stolen, We're so PROGRAMMED to believe anything! History (when truth's out -& many try, against great EVIL), should teach us 2 DOUBT what our GOVT's tell us- first.! then question to find the Truth. After all, being CORPORATIST is not altruism.

  • Now that the Hadley climate research unit has been hacked and the the scam exposed, the interviewer looks pretty dumb in retrospect huh!

  • Jockalatta-strap

    now we know that "hide the decline" referred to replacing faulty tree ring proxies (calculations based on unproven assumptions) with actual thermometer measurements (which are accurate to millionths of a degree) YOU look pretty dumb don't you?

    No honest reading of those emails can conclude a conspiracy... but we are dealing with christians here aren't we?... the embodiment of dishonesty

    Why don't you actually read one of those emails?

    I did... or try this:

    watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

  • ClimateGate

  • good luck to you at the white house!! just remember that the scientists in the 1800's thought the world was flat and how wrong were they. Good on you for questioning this whole "climate change" theory that has the world in a scare state.

  • The belief that the Earth was flat was almost universal until about the 4th century BC when the Ancient Greek scientists and philosophers proposed that the Earth was a sphere, or at least rounded in shape. Aristotle was one of the first thinkers to provide evidence of a spherical Earth in 330 BC. By the early Middle Ages it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that the Earth was a sphere. But then along came English inventor Samuel Rowbotham with his flat earth hypotheses.

  • Totally agreed. He got 2% of the vote in Victoria and only got into the senate because of Labor preferences. If that is not the definition of irony i don't know what is

  • YES there is global warming, YES it would be great if Australia could reduce it, but no, we can't.

    Come on people! Lets move on to issues we MAY be able to control.

    For example: getting our brightest minds to develop systems to help more than 1 billion who starve whilst i sit here on my watching youtube videos.

  • Our emissions internally are relatively small by the World's standards but we have the largest per capita carbon emissions in the world. Coal is our major exporter and most of it goes to China. We are responsible for China's dirty energy as much as they are

  • hey JC - why cant we? is GW a problem or not?

  • This senator has an engineering background. And good on him for looking at both sides in a rational way. Most people don't know the first thing about science, and just accept the political propaganda on global warming, meanwhile mocking people who know 10 times more than they do!

  • Prof Ian Plimer's interview with Lateline is very interesting as is his interview with Brian Wilshire. Yes good on Fielding for questioning Al Gore's Oscar winning hypothesis. You know the ALP brought Al out here to promote his acting performance in, what's it called, that film of his...? Seems the ALP bought it hook, line and sinker.

  • the guy believes in creationism and rejects global warming? I think its game over for this loser

  • The fact is global warming and cooling are real, they have happened 10,000xs before and will 10,000xs again. Ice cores show us the temp can rapidly change a couple of degrees C in as short as time as 200 years. The fact is temperature change is the norm not the exception and unlike popular myth it does not always bring doom and gloom.

  • The other fact is there is some scientific theory proving man has contribute a few tenths of 1 degree F to the current warming but even this is disputable as it is all theory based on the idea of layers of CO2 in 50,000 feet of atmosphere, so there is no way to prove or disprove it. However the IPCC primary proof of man global warming based on incomplete virtual positive loopback biased models are a joke.

  • There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming nuts then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one degree F.

  • so waht causing the warming Professor?

  • (.037% of the atmosphere) which means the total increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of .009% over the last 10,000+ years.

    Do the following thought experiment, if you were lock in a room 10 meters by 10 meters and the light was increased 3000 watts or 7% and the CO2 level was increased .009% the total CO2 level in the room which do you believe would effect you more, the CO2 increase or the light increase?

  • I would like a direct answer from you - what exactly is the forcing agent for the warming that is being observed and measured?

  • Funny, like we have this all figured out. That is might point we know very little. What we do know is in the lab a 100ppm increase of CO2 has no effect on temp and the IPCC proof for a 100ppm increase to have any effect on temp are based on these virtual incomplete positive loopback baised models that claims CO2 has an amplfying effect. Sorry that is not proof. It is also a shame we cannot fully explain the past 10,000xs of massive temp changes the ice cores show the last 700,000 years beforeman

  • So then from your reaseach laboratory what conc increase of CO2 will result in a a greenhouse effect Professor?

  • Well, if you increase CO2 to about 20% or 200,000 ppm in the lab you can get a 3 degree C increase. I have no extensive lab just some simple high school experiments to show this. I can send you the details. Still the fact is a 100ppm increase of .01% has no effect in the lab, so the argument is that is not fair because CO2 is in 50,000 feet of atmoshpere, so there is a theory based on layers that shows 100ppm CO2 increases a few tenths of 1 degree F, not C, the rest is models say an amplifing ef

  • The primary reasons seem to be subtle changes in the earths orbit (more responsible for long term changes like ice ages) and solar activity. I think there is more like all of this we understand little.

    Now the sun can increase 3000 watt over a 100 square meters in just 5000 year period which is close to a 7% change. Now CO2 levels have changed from 280ppm (.028% of the total atmosphere) to 370ppm

  • Great. Could you please provide me with the source for your stated belief.

  • my previous posts was directed to missinggwdotcom

  • Comment removed

  • This is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the global warming nuts say well CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do this but note flawed models are not proof much less science.

  • Warmer temperatures do not mean the end of the world. If you take a look at the GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) ice core the temp was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago then the Anasazis Indians thrived in Americas southwest from 850 ad to 1250 ad as the southwest was much wetter and the Vikings were able to plant crops, then 2000 years ago it was 2 degree C higher where the Roman empire was doing pretty good. Last it was 3 degree C higher 3300 years ago but this did not stop the Jewish exodus

  • Also note the polar bears survived all these warming periods as well. It is true in the last 800 years the northern hemisphere temperature has been relatively flat with an upward turn the last 100 years but the last 800 years have been the exception as the other 9000 years of records show 100s of temperature changes varying as much a 3 degrees C in a couple 100 years.

  • Comment removed

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more