Nice try, but this is BS. Its the continued consolidation and centralization of power on a global scale that is causing the serfdom, via too big to fail banks socializing their loses to the taxpayer while keeping their gains to the shareholders and bonuses to banking executives.
Climategate? Ahahaha. No wrongdoing was found and almost all raw data (expect Poland) has been released, that is this, fox news?
There was a time when there was a threat that ozone layer was thinning to dangerous level, response was action, banning CFCs, and the situation is slowly improving. Why not same thing can't be done with AGW.
The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man. - Lovely. As a former physician, I can tell you what to do with a cancer - you excise it, you destroy it. Man is a cancer, let monkeys and sea urchins inherit the earth once we're done eliminating all men. I'm sure they'll be wonderful custodians of the earth - until the next asteroid strikes it, that is.God! I've never seen a more self-hating, pompous bunch of self-important twats as white Western liberals!
That's exactly what children do... attack the person and NOT the point, that's liberals. Yet again more evidence to refute these warmist.. NASA as released data AKA FACTS , that refute their theory..
If the free marked can make Cellphones, iPods, Laptops and Plasma Screens dirt-cheap,,, dont you think that same system can make Solar Panels dirt cheap as well???
@bjarnet3 Sure, they could make solar panels dirt cheap if enough people bought them. The problem is no one wants them. Without government subsidies, they make no economic sense and they are many storage problems associated with them. The free market responds to customer demands, not government dictates. For example, Obama can order as many hybrids as he wants, but he cannot make customers prefer them.
@fzqlcs I agree, and other government programs like farm subsidies undermines the free marked from the real price for things. The government also subsidize petrol. High prices for energy is the best solution to the demand for solar panels. The government need to unsubsidize energy.
Chris Mathews is such an Idiot.....THe Owner of the weather Channel has stated that there is no evidence in historical temps to indicate Global Warming..
@christo930 Scientists signed petition denying man-made global warming. More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment. The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz. If you believe in Global warming..you should be angry..because you have been lied to.
@doobersmanster Nearly all of which are not climatologists or any related field. Potholer54 on yt did a great video on that list. Furthermore, IIRC, the petition said it needed further study, which no scientist would be against. What IS up for debate is the extent and time scale of the changes that are already baked into the pie from previous emissions. CO2 is beneficial to life, so is water, but did you know you will die if you drink too much water too quickly?
@christo930 I never knew that about Water..hmmmmm that must be what they mean by drowning..thanks for that insight..and we have had RECORD snow and cold temps in the last four years here where I live, but of course that is caused by Global warming...RIGHT? I remember when I was a child and the hype was a NEW ICE AGE by the Marxists..Bottom line Global warming =Higher taxes (perhaps a world tax) and grant money for Leftist Scientists..it's all about control (power) and money.
@doobersmanster NO, not drowning. You can overdose on water, look it up. What is happening in your neck of the woods isn't a good indication of how the global climate is doing. You have to look at the global climate. My particular area is getting hotter, but that doesn't mean the globe is rising. But the global temperature is rising. The fact that energy costs will increase, at least in the short run, doesn't make AGW not true.
CO2 raises the temperature of the atmosphere, that is 19th century science. That science is in and that debate is over. It's funny, climate deniers admit that the earth would be too cold if there was no co2, but think we can emit as much of it as we want and it won't make the world any warmer.
@christo930 Wow. CO2 does not warm the earth. It does not CREATE energy. Heat comes from the sun. The suns rays are then absorbed by the various elements of the planet including CO2. If I touch a hot stone in my room, I feel warmer because the heat from the stone TRANSFERS from it to me. I am now warmer and the stone is now cooler. The total amount of heat in my room does not change. Whether the CO2 is on the ground or in the air, the total amount of heat on the planet does not change.
@TracyII77 You are simply wrong. CO2 traps escaping IR heat that is reflected from the ground and this basic idea has been known since at least the late 19th century. While it does not in itself create energy, it prevents energy from leaving the atmosphere and going off into space. It is analogous to a lid on a pot. All of the energy in the pot is coming from the flame, but putting a lid on the pot raises the temperature in the pot by trapping heat.
@christo930 If CO2 "traps"energy than they would be analogous to black holes and would in fact be removing heat from the environment. CO2 in fact TRANSFERS heat, it both absorbs AND releases heat. And once again, it does not matter if the CO2 is on the ground or in the air. The total amount of heat on the planet would still be the same. The reason a lid raises the temperature inside of the pot is that the rate of absorption for metal is less than that of water, thereby slowing the effects
of the cool air in its competition with the flame. This is why if you turn down or outright turn off the flame, the water eventually returns to being cold with or without the lid. The very fact that we have colder nights and winter is a reminder that our planet is a drop in the bucket compared to the vast expanses of the cold outer space. Our planet is constantly losing heat to outer space, including CO2 molecules. It reheats from the sun. This is basic science.
@TracyII77 Analogies always eventually break down. Co2 reacts to certain wave lengths of EMS and vibrate and release energy when i comes into contact with them. In other words, CO2 blocks certain IR radiation from being emitted back into space thus the planet retains more heat for a longer time. This is basic stuff and is why the moon is much colder than the Earth despite the fact that they are same distance from the sun. Water vapor and Methane do the same thing, but at different wavelengths.
@christo930 Radiation and heat are BOTH energy and BOTH get released into outer space. Of course water vapor is filled with heat. It is water at a saturated stage. Ice on the other hand removes heat. When two molecules at different energy levels come in contact with each other, energy (in this case heat) is transferred until equilibrium is reached. This is why clouds form from vapor and release as cooled liquid. If CO2 and water vapor trapped heat, as you suggest, we would not have cool
nights or winter ever. The earth would just progressively become warmer. What in fact happens is that a heat TRANSFER occurs. And yes there is a time differential, which is why we have seasons. In winter, the sun is not out long enough to replace the heat lost during the night. In summer, the sun often times saturates the area faster than heat is lost. This is why many deserts (which have little to no greenhouse gases) can be so hot. The moon doesn't have the same rate of exposure to the sun.
@TracyII77 Greenhouse gases don't permanently trap heat. Think of a sine wave that gets shifted to the right (or forward). The earth is always losing heat back to space, which is why the earth doesn't just get hotter in perpetuity. Deserts are hot because of the lack of moisture, but that is the same reason they drop so rapidly in the evening. This is 19th century science, why don't you just look it up? Check out potholer54 and potholer54debunks for an excellent explanation.
@Dursty87 Exactly. If the amount of heat on earth were inherently determined by the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere, deserts should only ever be cold.
I would encourage everyone interested in getting free take a look at photovoltaic panels. You will hear in the media that they are not economically viable due to price point. Even a google search turn up results with companies trying to convince you that it would cost $30,000 and up to provide power for your family. This is FALSE. I have recently priced a system for my family of 5 that will run between $6,000 and $9,000. Global warming or not. Get free.
I do support the notion that upsetting the balance of the biosphere of Earth can be a suicidal endeavor(provided we are limited to settling only planet.), but the more I see about this modern green movement, the more it feels like a ruse. If we care for our environment, we treat religion, and simply dump whatever we feel we should into organizations out of our own free will.
Now there is some arguement for limited enviromental protection. limited.
For instance, it is common sense that i do noty have a right to walk out on my back portch on a windy day and through my wast paper in the air, letting the wind just blow it away. so it stands to reason that i should not be able to release mass amounts a toxic chemical into the air. but the problem with the greenies is that they are "earth" first not humans first.
@Felhaven Private property rights trump everything else. You throwing trash on a windy day would violate someone else's property rights because they most likely don't want your trash on their lawn. Now put this in perspective of a factory. If they dump in a lake that they don't own, then yes, they should be punished, but telling someone they can't do something with their own property is not only stupid, but it's very facist.
@xtremejohnny69 How toxic must the cloud of gas im releasing be before i am vilating the rights of others?You have the right to do whatever you wish with your property so long as you dont impinge on anyone elses rights, correct?Causing polutants to seep into groundwater or causing hazardes levels of smog to develope violates other peoples rights.I think they should be minimal but it is self evident that some laws need to exist which govern activities that can't help but cross property lines.
@xtremejohnny69 You do understand how aquifers get charged right?? No that isn't fascist to stop or punish when the water you damage on your land in turn damages everyone through the natural processes of nature.
"the cancer is man" so sad, we have gone from anything is possible because we human outlook from the enlightement to "humanity is cancer" outlook in post communist world :/
INTERESTING, BUT JUST LIKE MAN CAN HAS ADVANTAGE OF THE BIBLE TO SCAM AND ENSLAVE MEN SO COULD GREEN ENERGY. MY QUESTION TO YOU GUYS ARE DO YOU WANT TO BE A SERF I DON'T AND IF A BUSINESS IS TRYING TECHNIQUES THEN WE COULD TAKE A PAGE OUT OF THE LIBERTY PARTY.
I see the Green Movement as a faction of the Democratic Socialist Movement. If you look at the policy's of the Green Movement and the Democratic Socialist Party and its allies. They are very similar, tax more, higher regulations, big Welfare State to protect society as a whole which is their goal.
@FRSFreeStateNow That isn't entirely true. Take Ron Paul, while not a green party person, he would hold companies who pollute responsible to pay for said damages. We know for a fact, people who live in the center of cities get more cancer than people who don't like in smog dense areas. So shouldn't that increase of health costs be paid by someone? That is damages to my health and life, by someone else. You can have a free market green movement, you just hold pollution / eco damage to the corp.
Actually I nailed it, the Green Movement, the Green Party and others. Are part of the Democratic Socialist Movement in America and the World. But you make a good point that regulation could be used to prevent and to punish others. So innocent people don't have to pay for the bad behavior of others.
@FRSFreeStateNow You are correct in many ways. I would say that my idea of thinking, libertarian / green, is maybe 20% of the green party. Most want regulations that somehow "stop" companies from doing it, but we know that won't ever happen. I think personally, as a libertarian, it is our freedom to have good quality air. My air shouldn't come polluted by city smog if I don't drive. I should be paid X dollars by my city for polluting my air. They can figure out how to come up with the money.
I am a libertarian. As such I think that the government should protect our rights to life and property. There is a "virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming" (from wikipedia). Since I have not studied it myself I will defer to the experts. This is kind of like the tragedy of the commons where we have a common resource (air) and some people are abusing it which causes harm to others, which the government should protect us from.
The lesson here is that anyone can post virtually anything on Wikipedia. Global warmists are no better at predicting the future than the psychic friends network. It just satisfies the requirements of their socialist template like Delingpole suggests.
@fzqlcs It's not true that anyone can just post anything on Wikipedia. There are 4 citations for that one quote alone and every submission needs to be approved by a trusted moderator and then is constantly peer reviewed. We can always test your theory though: go ahead and try and submit spurious information and see what happens. Attacking wikipedia is a little off topic since the the "virtually unanimous agreement" is heavily reported on in newspapers and other sources as well.
@manor1730 If wiki says the science is settled it deserves no respect, even with its 4 citations for a quote. I know you choose to believe there is "virtually unanimous agreement" among scientists, but just google "50,000 Scientists Disbelieve Global Warming" just for the heck of it. You might discover your own "inconvenient truth."
@fzqlcs " I know you choose to believe there is "virtually unanimous agreement" among scientists, but just google "50,000 Scientists Disbelieve Global Warming" just for the heck of it. You might discover your own "inconvenient truth." "
That's the same argument that 9/11 Truthers site and people pretend as if it is not a valid point. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, etc.
@CaseyJones1979 So I guess your use of "virtually unanimous agreement" simply means you want to be excused from thinking, since you admit to plenty of disagreement. Got it!
@fzqlcs The point I was trying to make was that our ideological differences prevent us from making progress in many debates. I think arguing about the effects of "man made global warming" with folks who have no intention of even considering it as a legitimate science, is counterproductive. There are a plenty of benefits of alt. and clean energy that don't have anything to do with global warming, and they are much much more difficult to discredit. Self determination, energy independence, etc.
@fzqlcs People are prone to FINDING science to support their ideas. If we assert and reassert the OTHER benefits of clean/alt energy instead of debating the validity of "man made global warming" we will be much much harder to ignore. Good luck convincing these people that man made global warming is real. I prefer to discuss all of the benefits of alt energy, because it keep the dialogue inclusive vs wasting time debating things people refuse to believe, regardless of it making sense.
@CaseyJones1979 The important thing to realize here is the tradeoff factor. How much of a cleaner environment and at what cost? All of us want cleaner air and water. However, many of us are not willing to significantly lower the standard of living for ourselves and our fellow man in order to attain what quite likely will be negligible benefits. Warmists must pretend manmade global warming is settled science and that a global catastrophe is looming in order to advance their statist aims.
@fzqlcs What makes you say the benefits would be "quite negligible"? My electric bill is currently $260 a month and our household spends about $700 a month in gas. What is negligible about investing $12,000 into solar, wind, or electric vehicle. As it stands, the payment on an electric vehicle could be made at a net zero cost, for me. A solar and wind hybrid system would pay for itself in 6 years for me. No petrol, no coal...no net cost.
@CaseyJones1979 talking about the benefits versus costs of subsidies and taxes. if people find it in their interest to purchase alternative energy systems without subsidy that is great. It is far more preferable for the individual to make the choices on tradeoffs rather than the government.
@manor1730 completely agree with you. We can easily have a green movement if we actually went after companies for toxic waste. Pollution right now is like 2,000 max a day. For a big company, that is fine, even profitable. You take pollution / eco damage and put it on the backs of those using said resources.
Rise in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS warming...not the other way around!! That one fact DESTROYS the AGW fear mongers!! And why is the sun's activity, which is consistant in our solar system discounted... especially since every planet in it has experienced the warming (and cooling) concurrently!! Because it doesn't fit the Socialist narrative! "Climate change" has been going on for 6 billion years and to state that the science is settled after 100 years of data is arrogant and dangerous!!
@ImAznnn Here it goes. Even if the green movement is correct. Science has only truly advanced in a free market. & as science advances things tend to become cleaner. The steam engine train to the diesel locomotive, into the modern subway train. The early automobile smoked more than that of the 50s & 60s, although I have to admit that unleaded gas & catalytic converters of the 70s go to gov intervention. Coal to Nuclear power. things get better naturally.
@BillyJoe1305 I'm talking about how regular people are being too irresponsible; I'm not talking about the means of advancing technology to fight it. I agree with you that government intervention does little to advance technology and that it's best to leave it up to the people.
@BillyJoe1305 you make a valid point. The key thing to remember though is that each advance, requires less time to impliment, and less time to invent the next objective before a collapse. TED just covered this. So while you have 100 years of say steam, the next invention will only last about half that time, so about 75 years. Enter the age of oil. Now we are entering the game of renewable energy, so we have about 56 years for green. Each epoch lasts shorter, if you fail, society collapses.
@bluefootedpig Steam became commercially successful in 1712. It did not bow to the internal combustion engine until Ford. Although they had been becoming less popular since the late 1860s. We entered a new era with nuclear power, but the alarmists stole that from us, because they never bothered to learn how it worked. Although it would not be safe for travel it could power the rest of our world. I agree that inventors & thinkers should research new energy & ways of doing things.
@BillyJoe1305 Not safe for travel? ever hear of a nuclear submarine? how often do they explode? We have thousands of them roaming the world without a single disaster. I think we could build small enough ones that nothing bad happens.
@BillyJoe1305 Very true, but cell phones were practical for the average person when they first came out, but through investment and demand, they got innovations and got better. I believe the same will happen with solar / wind / tital and geothermal energy sources.
@bluefootedpig Nuclear subs only work because of their relationship to water.
Yes, cell phones are an example of why we should continue to research new methods, but they're also a prime example of why we shouldn't try to force them to happen now. Think about it, you would not have given up your home phone because of your 1980s brick cell phone. It would be stupid. Yet that's essentially what we're told to do with green technologies.
@BillyJoe1305 Well, i think the main difference is that energy is seen as common as oxygen. So if you "needed" to call someone everyday, and you found out that a normal phone was built using baby seals, would you still want it? I know it sounds crazy, but coal is damaging land (look at the earth movers), polluting air, causing cancers STILL... So yes, there is more of a push, but I would say the push is equal to say... forcing everyone to wear a seat belt which saved thousands of lives.
@bluefootedpig Seat belt laws are horrible, they completely remove your ability to be responsible for your own life. By the way, they normally apply on frozen lakes too. Which causes people to die, no law is as good as what decisions a man makes for himself based on his values. It also has little bearing on the subject because the argument here is weather or not it affects other people. So what coal companies do to land they own is also completely unimportant.
@bluefootedpig Beyond that every claim you make is unproven & massively disputed. The only health problems that are mostly undisputed with coal only affect miners & people directly involved in the process. Willful participants, who make a decision to do so knowing this full well & determine it worth the risk. Beyond that the answer for safe clean energy is nuclear. But scared flighty people who decided not to learn about something they feared stole that from us.
@pfizzbones You have the right to do it. I'm not going against that. I'm saying there is too little being done to promote reasonable actions and people are unaware that there is no point to idling your car. If people were to keep that at the back of their head, they wouldnt do it at all. Again I'm not saying that they don't have the right to idle their car.
@ImAznnn what if its my car on my land and i like idling it. are you suggesting the collective decides? and if so, will they also decide what trips are necessary and what ones are not?
@fzqlcs Of course not. If you somehow get an intrinsic satisfaction from idling your car I can't stop you from doing that. But majority of people don't so that's why we must promote reasonable actions so they would understand not to idle their car.
@ImAznnn why is it not enough for the majority to simply not idle their own cars rather than use collective force (tax, fine, etc) against their neighbors? liberty requires tolerance. Of course, if individual liberty is unimportant ......
@fzqlcs The media could promote it to build influence. Once the media promotes it, people will take action building more influence. Also, school is another place where reasonable actions could be promoted to educate people.
Of course none of this could happen until a socialist society is established.
You preface or prefix every argument you've forwarded that the general population engages in unreasonable behaviour and you consistently ask why they won't be reasonable.
Sorry to burst you bubble but they ARE being reasonable. Your goals, however laudable and lofty you believe them to be, are not our goals. We trust people to make rational decisions for themselves and from that we can consistently formulate valid goals of our own to partake or avoid other's actions
@maskedphrogg Most people are committing unreasonable acts because I have yet to hear one person who gets pleasure out of idling. If people realize that idling does not benefit themselves nor society they wouldnt do it; society is uninformed
If people do see some sort of intrinsic satisfaction like I said before then they would ignore the messages and just continue idling. It is up to the people to decide whether or not their actions are unreasonable.
What you fail to take account of is that the rest of us aren't here to engage in your theory, it's hardly a definition, of reasonable behaviour.
Of course you have already convinced yourself of the validity of your view so I am not likely to further engage your demagoguery. You are more at home in an environment we saw little more than a year ago in TV ads where the children that didn't accept global warming fear mongering had their heads exploded.
@maskedphrogg Have you read my entire comment? I clearly stated that people decide for themselves what actions are reasonable because I don't know them better than they do. I'm only saying that we should promote ads that tell people to think twice about actions like idling so that people who do not find intrinsic satisfaction in idling and other environmentally harmful actions would stop what they're doing.
@ImAznnn are you going to destroy free will in an ATTEMPT to save it. are you going to use the violence and coercion of government? Are you going to use mob democracy to overthrow human rights of political, and social minorities?
or are you going to let free people deliberate and innovate a way to PEACEFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY address the problem in a way that doesn't necessitate world arrest.
@Ravengaurd6 Why do people never look beyond the primitive version of democracy. You are aware that it is possible to have a democracy and still allow society to function properly right?
It will be interesting to see how much time Mr Delingpole gets with the MSM. They either ridicule or ignore. This book is so truthful that my guess is they will ignore so as not to bring attention. It is the same with Ron Pauls campaign which neocon Fox ignores
Look up Agenda 21. The Green movement is just one of the tools towards that end.
Americans are fools if they determine to remain in ignorance of what is really going on which is a very long term strategy for pigeon holing everyone into predetermined areas. Why do you people think that the federal government has bought so much land...
I've not associated radical environmentalists too much with socialists per say. Certainly they are socialist, but I've always felt that their motives were not at all social, certainly not for the 'betterment' of humanity which is most socialists (ignorant) motive. Rather I have always seen them as possessing a deep seated hatred of humanity, seeing us as that "cancer", and simply 'using' socialism as the best way to destroy the very humanity (more the human ambition) that they hate so much.
The new green movement is the old red movement. Intead of allowing freemarkets to innovate and allow the creation of products that allow us to do more with less, these ppl use propaganda and fear to push burdensome regualtions, legislation and taxes that will require us to do less with less. The higher energy prices go, the less energy ppl can afford to use. That makes the "greenies" happy.
Wow, Stossel seriously didn't immediately get the watermelon metaphor? He never struck me as the brightest person or one of Liberty's stronger advocates. Just watching him cave to O'Reilly whenever he's on that show is enough for me to rank him as one of the least influential figureheads we have.
@selfrealizedexile - I think he did get it, but plays along for the story. I don't care either way, but I never thought of Stossel as a "figurehead." He's more like the nosey guy with a whistle and a bullhorn. You may not like something about him or his delivery, but he's not running for office, but even still he's providing a valuable service we don't want to be without.
True, but Stossel has been this way since I started watching him. Not usually so daft as to miss something on the level of that watermelon joke, but he's light years away from being an original thinker or a skilled debater. He's one of the neocons' favorite punching bags for this reason. Why wouldn't people like O'Reilly want to put on Stossel over a more principled, learned individual so he can portray the libertarian position as something easily defeated?
@selfrealizedexile I agree, he's no intellectual giant. But he does have an effective soap box and he's good at presenting ideas simply, or at least his production crew is.
I believe it was a tongue in cheek question to get the author to clarify the metaphor for the viewers who may or may not have caught the reference. Similar to Stossel's question "Come on, they just want to help us, right?"
Leave it alone. UnoRaza is a collectivist who partakes regularly in denigrating anything or anyone that seeks genuine liberty. Much like the caricatures depicted in this vid he will enjoin you to promote ideas alongside him because he and you should "care so much" while in reality what he seeks is privilege for the groups he is a member of. The very antithesis of individual liberty. He is quite adept at twisting the meaning of words to appear to be their opposite.
@UnoRaza Left out the part where companies who outsource also hire more within the US because the cheaper labor frees up resources, allowing them to expand. A mere oversight on your part I'm sure...
And crash your econ? What? The government stooges who tax the shit out of you and spend it like drunk teenagers get a free pass? Why am I not surprised?
@UnoRaza - Why would Stossel want to crash our economy? Could you point me to a link of Stossel saying that? I may have seen something like it, but I don't remember that statement. Stossel seems to have a decent understanding of what makes America work (although I hear Obama and Al Gore are both extremely intelligent, possibly even geniuses).
@UnoRaza Ah yes, Stossel is actually a diabolically evil man who delights in doing and saying whatever he can to spread misery and destruction. No doubt you also think that all people who are not staunch anti-trade protectionists are all either utterly ignorant brainwashed fools, or also malevolently evil assholes who not just don't care about anyone other than themselves, but also delight in spreading misery.
@selfrealizedexile maybe it takes time to get to 100%? It's probably still processing for 1080p. It's a pretty new video. But I thought the same thing :)
James Delingpole hereby wins our Reactionary Twit of the Year Award for 2011
VillageHampden 2 months ago
Nice try, but this is BS. Its the continued consolidation and centralization of power on a global scale that is causing the serfdom, via too big to fail banks socializing their loses to the taxpayer while keeping their gains to the shareholders and bonuses to banking executives.
Gizziiusa 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL'BIRTHDAY' MONEYBOMB IS ON SATURDAY, AUG 20, PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN ON - AUG 20, 2011
theleemeister 6 months ago
I just bought the kindle version of Delingpole's book because of this interview. It's pretty good so far.
meade18 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"U.S. liberals - really - are the dumbest creatures on the planet." Couldn't agree more...
AlexNOSAM 7 months ago
There was no "climategate". That was nonsense. No cover up.
216trixie 7 months ago
Climategate? Ahahaha. No wrongdoing was found and almost all raw data (expect Poland) has been released, that is this, fox news?
There was a time when there was a threat that ozone layer was thinning to dangerous level, response was action, banning CFCs, and the situation is slowly improving. Why not same thing can't be done with AGW.
Saukko31 7 months ago
The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man. - Lovely. As a former physician, I can tell you what to do with a cancer - you excise it, you destroy it. Man is a cancer, let monkeys and sea urchins inherit the earth once we're done eliminating all men. I'm sure they'll be wonderful custodians of the earth - until the next asteroid strikes it, that is.God! I've never seen a more self-hating, pompous bunch of self-important twats as white Western liberals!
allenlobo 7 months ago
That's exactly what children do... attack the person and NOT the point, that's liberals. Yet again more evidence to refute these warmist.. NASA as released data AKA FACTS , that refute their theory..
carlindelco 7 months ago
If the free marked can make Cellphones, iPods, Laptops and Plasma Screens dirt-cheap,,, dont you think that same system can make Solar Panels dirt cheap as well???
bjarnet3 7 months ago
@bjarnet3 Sure, they could make solar panels dirt cheap if enough people bought them. The problem is no one wants them. Without government subsidies, they make no economic sense and they are many storage problems associated with them. The free market responds to customer demands, not government dictates. For example, Obama can order as many hybrids as he wants, but he cannot make customers prefer them.
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs I agree, and other government programs like farm subsidies undermines the free marked from the real price for things. The government also subsidize petrol. High prices for energy is the best solution to the demand for solar panels. The government need to unsubsidize energy.
bjarnet3 7 months ago
@bjarnet3 They need to be WANTED... they're not... so that's why they will not be able to be made cheaper..
carlindelco 7 months ago
Chris Mathews is such an Idiot.....THe Owner of the weather Channel has stated that there is no evidence in historical temps to indicate Global Warming..
doobersmanster 7 months ago
@doobersmanster Because owning a broadcasting company certainly makes you an expert in climatology.
christo930 7 months ago
@christo930 Scientists signed petition denying man-made global warming. More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment. The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz. If you believe in Global warming..you should be angry..because you have been lied to.
doobersmanster 7 months ago
@doobersmanster Nearly all of which are not climatologists or any related field. Potholer54 on yt did a great video on that list. Furthermore, IIRC, the petition said it needed further study, which no scientist would be against. What IS up for debate is the extent and time scale of the changes that are already baked into the pie from previous emissions. CO2 is beneficial to life, so is water, but did you know you will die if you drink too much water too quickly?
christo930 7 months ago
@christo930 I never knew that about Water..hmmmmm that must be what they mean by drowning..thanks for that insight..and we have had RECORD snow and cold temps in the last four years here where I live, but of course that is caused by Global warming...RIGHT? I remember when I was a child and the hype was a NEW ICE AGE by the Marxists..Bottom line Global warming =Higher taxes (perhaps a world tax) and grant money for Leftist Scientists..it's all about control (power) and money.
doobersmanster 7 months ago
@doobersmanster NO, not drowning. You can overdose on water, look it up. What is happening in your neck of the woods isn't a good indication of how the global climate is doing. You have to look at the global climate. My particular area is getting hotter, but that doesn't mean the globe is rising. But the global temperature is rising. The fact that energy costs will increase, at least in the short run, doesn't make AGW not true.
christo930 7 months ago
CO2 raises the temperature of the atmosphere, that is 19th century science. That science is in and that debate is over. It's funny, climate deniers admit that the earth would be too cold if there was no co2, but think we can emit as much of it as we want and it won't make the world any warmer.
christo930 7 months ago
@christo930 Wow. CO2 does not warm the earth. It does not CREATE energy. Heat comes from the sun. The suns rays are then absorbed by the various elements of the planet including CO2. If I touch a hot stone in my room, I feel warmer because the heat from the stone TRANSFERS from it to me. I am now warmer and the stone is now cooler. The total amount of heat in my room does not change. Whether the CO2 is on the ground or in the air, the total amount of heat on the planet does not change.
TracyII77 7 months ago
@TracyII77 You are simply wrong. CO2 traps escaping IR heat that is reflected from the ground and this basic idea has been known since at least the late 19th century. While it does not in itself create energy, it prevents energy from leaving the atmosphere and going off into space. It is analogous to a lid on a pot. All of the energy in the pot is coming from the flame, but putting a lid on the pot raises the temperature in the pot by trapping heat.
christo930 7 months ago
@christo930 If CO2 "traps"energy than they would be analogous to black holes and would in fact be removing heat from the environment. CO2 in fact TRANSFERS heat, it both absorbs AND releases heat. And once again, it does not matter if the CO2 is on the ground or in the air. The total amount of heat on the planet would still be the same. The reason a lid raises the temperature inside of the pot is that the rate of absorption for metal is less than that of water, thereby slowing the effects
TracyII77 7 months ago
of the cool air in its competition with the flame. This is why if you turn down or outright turn off the flame, the water eventually returns to being cold with or without the lid. The very fact that we have colder nights and winter is a reminder that our planet is a drop in the bucket compared to the vast expanses of the cold outer space. Our planet is constantly losing heat to outer space, including CO2 molecules. It reheats from the sun. This is basic science.
TracyII77 7 months ago
@TracyII77 Analogies always eventually break down. Co2 reacts to certain wave lengths of EMS and vibrate and release energy when i comes into contact with them. In other words, CO2 blocks certain IR radiation from being emitted back into space thus the planet retains more heat for a longer time. This is basic stuff and is why the moon is much colder than the Earth despite the fact that they are same distance from the sun. Water vapor and Methane do the same thing, but at different wavelengths.
christo930 7 months ago
@christo930 Radiation and heat are BOTH energy and BOTH get released into outer space. Of course water vapor is filled with heat. It is water at a saturated stage. Ice on the other hand removes heat. When two molecules at different energy levels come in contact with each other, energy (in this case heat) is transferred until equilibrium is reached. This is why clouds form from vapor and release as cooled liquid. If CO2 and water vapor trapped heat, as you suggest, we would not have cool
TracyII77 7 months ago
nights or winter ever. The earth would just progressively become warmer. What in fact happens is that a heat TRANSFER occurs. And yes there is a time differential, which is why we have seasons. In winter, the sun is not out long enough to replace the heat lost during the night. In summer, the sun often times saturates the area faster than heat is lost. This is why many deserts (which have little to no greenhouse gases) can be so hot. The moon doesn't have the same rate of exposure to the sun.
TracyII77 7 months ago
Comment removed
christo930 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TracyII77 Greenhouse gases don't permanently trap heat. Think of a sine wave that gets shifted to the right (or forward). The earth is always losing heat back to space, which is why the earth doesn't just get hotter in perpetuity. Deserts are hot because of the lack of moisture, but that is the same reason they drop so rapidly in the evening. This is 19th century science, why don't you just look it up? Check out potholer54 and potholer54debunks for an excellent explanation.
christo930 7 months ago
@TracyII77 Deserts are characterized by the amount of persipitaion the receive, not the temperture.
Dursty87 6 months ago
@Dursty87 Exactly. If the amount of heat on earth were inherently determined by the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere, deserts should only ever be cold.
TracyII77 5 months ago
"polar bear hugging" DISCLAIMER: Hugging polar bears is not recommended and may result in serious injury.
newperve 7 months ago
I would encourage everyone interested in getting free take a look at photovoltaic panels. You will hear in the media that they are not economically viable due to price point. Even a google search turn up results with companies trying to convince you that it would cost $30,000 and up to provide power for your family. This is FALSE. I have recently priced a system for my family of 5 that will run between $6,000 and $9,000. Global warming or not. Get free.
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@CaseyJones1979 Cheapest I found was $365.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69
My family uses 3,000KwH per month. Is that for a DIY system?
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@CaseyJones1979 Yeah it is. It's only 135W though.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago
I do support the notion that upsetting the balance of the biosphere of Earth can be a suicidal endeavor(provided we are limited to settling only planet.), but the more I see about this modern green movement, the more it feels like a ruse. If we care for our environment, we treat religion, and simply dump whatever we feel we should into organizations out of our own free will.
justicetrooper 7 months ago
Now there is some arguement for limited enviromental protection. limited.
For instance, it is common sense that i do noty have a right to walk out on my back portch on a windy day and through my wast paper in the air, letting the wind just blow it away. so it stands to reason that i should not be able to release mass amounts a toxic chemical into the air. but the problem with the greenies is that they are "earth" first not humans first.
Felhaven 7 months ago
@Felhaven Private property rights trump everything else. You throwing trash on a windy day would violate someone else's property rights because they most likely don't want your trash on their lawn. Now put this in perspective of a factory. If they dump in a lake that they don't own, then yes, they should be punished, but telling someone they can't do something with their own property is not only stupid, but it's very facist.
xtremejohnny69 7 months ago 7
@xtremejohnny69 How toxic must the cloud of gas im releasing be before i am vilating the rights of others?You have the right to do whatever you wish with your property so long as you dont impinge on anyone elses rights, correct?Causing polutants to seep into groundwater or causing hazardes levels of smog to develope violates other peoples rights.I think they should be minimal but it is self evident that some laws need to exist which govern activities that can't help but cross property lines.
Felhaven 7 months ago
@xtremejohnny69 You do understand how aquifers get charged right?? No that isn't fascist to stop or punish when the water you damage on your land in turn damages everyone through the natural processes of nature.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
"the cancer is man" so sad, we have gone from anything is possible because we human outlook from the enlightement to "humanity is cancer" outlook in post communist world :/
killerbee2k 7 months ago
watermelons make good batteries too.
darkwhitedirewolf 7 months ago
The possibility for SERFDOM could be real, but you can install different kinds of green energy to your home.
KEVLANEW80 7 months ago
INTERESTING, BUT JUST LIKE MAN CAN HAS ADVANTAGE OF THE BIBLE TO SCAM AND ENSLAVE MEN SO COULD GREEN ENERGY. MY QUESTION TO YOU GUYS ARE DO YOU WANT TO BE A SERF I DON'T AND IF A BUSINESS IS TRYING TECHNIQUES THEN WE COULD TAKE A PAGE OUT OF THE LIBERTY PARTY.
KEVLANEW80 7 months ago
Simply put, anthropogenic global warming is a theory (hoax) by which some are going to get rich.
oilhammer04 7 months ago
Comment removed
oilhammer04 7 months ago
I see the Green Movement as a faction of the Democratic Socialist Movement. If you look at the policy's of the Green Movement and the Democratic Socialist Party and its allies. They are very similar, tax more, higher regulations, big Welfare State to protect society as a whole which is their goal.
FRSFreeStateNow 7 months ago
@FRSFreeStateNow That isn't entirely true. Take Ron Paul, while not a green party person, he would hold companies who pollute responsible to pay for said damages. We know for a fact, people who live in the center of cities get more cancer than people who don't like in smog dense areas. So shouldn't that increase of health costs be paid by someone? That is damages to my health and life, by someone else. You can have a free market green movement, you just hold pollution / eco damage to the corp.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig
Actually I nailed it, the Green Movement, the Green Party and others. Are part of the Democratic Socialist Movement in America and the World. But you make a good point that regulation could be used to prevent and to punish others. So innocent people don't have to pay for the bad behavior of others.
FRSFreeStateNow 7 months ago
@FRSFreeStateNow You are correct in many ways. I would say that my idea of thinking, libertarian / green, is maybe 20% of the green party. Most want regulations that somehow "stop" companies from doing it, but we know that won't ever happen. I think personally, as a libertarian, it is our freedom to have good quality air. My air shouldn't come polluted by city smog if I don't drive. I should be paid X dollars by my city for polluting my air. They can figure out how to come up with the money.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig
Your reply is the first intelligent replies to me on YouTube I've seen in days, not just because you agree with me.
FRSFreeStateNow 7 months ago
I am a libertarian. As such I think that the government should protect our rights to life and property. There is a "virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming" (from wikipedia). Since I have not studied it myself I will defer to the experts. This is kind of like the tragedy of the commons where we have a common resource (air) and some people are abusing it which causes harm to others, which the government should protect us from.
manor1730 7 months ago
@manor1730
The lesson here is that anyone can post virtually anything on Wikipedia. Global warmists are no better at predicting the future than the psychic friends network. It just satisfies the requirements of their socialist template like Delingpole suggests.
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs It's not true that anyone can just post anything on Wikipedia. There are 4 citations for that one quote alone and every submission needs to be approved by a trusted moderator and then is constantly peer reviewed. We can always test your theory though: go ahead and try and submit spurious information and see what happens. Attacking wikipedia is a little off topic since the the "virtually unanimous agreement" is heavily reported on in newspapers and other sources as well.
manor1730 7 months ago
@manor1730 If wiki says the science is settled it deserves no respect, even with its 4 citations for a quote. I know you choose to believe there is "virtually unanimous agreement" among scientists, but just google "50,000 Scientists Disbelieve Global Warming" just for the heck of it. You might discover your own "inconvenient truth."
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs " I know you choose to believe there is "virtually unanimous agreement" among scientists, but just google "50,000 Scientists Disbelieve Global Warming" just for the heck of it. You might discover your own "inconvenient truth." "
That's the same argument that 9/11 Truthers site and people pretend as if it is not a valid point. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, etc.
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@CaseyJones1979 So I guess your use of "virtually unanimous agreement" simply means you want to be excused from thinking, since you admit to plenty of disagreement. Got it!
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs The point I was trying to make was that our ideological differences prevent us from making progress in many debates. I think arguing about the effects of "man made global warming" with folks who have no intention of even considering it as a legitimate science, is counterproductive. There are a plenty of benefits of alt. and clean energy that don't have anything to do with global warming, and they are much much more difficult to discredit. Self determination, energy independence, etc.
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@fzqlcs People are prone to FINDING science to support their ideas. If we assert and reassert the OTHER benefits of clean/alt energy instead of debating the validity of "man made global warming" we will be much much harder to ignore. Good luck convincing these people that man made global warming is real. I prefer to discuss all of the benefits of alt energy, because it keep the dialogue inclusive vs wasting time debating things people refuse to believe, regardless of it making sense.
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@CaseyJones1979 The important thing to realize here is the tradeoff factor. How much of a cleaner environment and at what cost? All of us want cleaner air and water. However, many of us are not willing to significantly lower the standard of living for ourselves and our fellow man in order to attain what quite likely will be negligible benefits. Warmists must pretend manmade global warming is settled science and that a global catastrophe is looming in order to advance their statist aims.
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs What makes you say the benefits would be "quite negligible"? My electric bill is currently $260 a month and our household spends about $700 a month in gas. What is negligible about investing $12,000 into solar, wind, or electric vehicle. As it stands, the payment on an electric vehicle could be made at a net zero cost, for me. A solar and wind hybrid system would pay for itself in 6 years for me. No petrol, no coal...no net cost.
CaseyJones1979 7 months ago
@CaseyJones1979 talking about the benefits versus costs of subsidies and taxes. if people find it in their interest to purchase alternative energy systems without subsidy that is great. It is far more preferable for the individual to make the choices on tradeoffs rather than the government.
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@manor1730 completely agree with you. We can easily have a green movement if we actually went after companies for toxic waste. Pollution right now is like 2,000 max a day. For a big company, that is fine, even profitable. You take pollution / eco damage and put it on the backs of those using said resources.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
Rise in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOWS warming...not the other way around!! That one fact DESTROYS the AGW fear mongers!! And why is the sun's activity, which is consistant in our solar system discounted... especially since every planet in it has experienced the warming (and cooling) concurrently!! Because it doesn't fit the Socialist narrative! "Climate change" has been going on for 6 billion years and to state that the science is settled after 100 years of data is arrogant and dangerous!!
plang527 7 months ago
My question is are you really going to risk the world to so you could be irresponsible and release tons of unnecessary greenhouse gases?
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn Sounds like Pascal's Wager (the green remix).
goingalt 7 months ago
@ImAznnn Here it goes. Even if the green movement is correct. Science has only truly advanced in a free market. & as science advances things tend to become cleaner. The steam engine train to the diesel locomotive, into the modern subway train. The early automobile smoked more than that of the 50s & 60s, although I have to admit that unleaded gas & catalytic converters of the 70s go to gov intervention. Coal to Nuclear power. things get better naturally.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 I'm talking about how regular people are being too irresponsible; I'm not talking about the means of advancing technology to fight it. I agree with you that government intervention does little to advance technology and that it's best to leave it up to the people.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 you make a valid point. The key thing to remember though is that each advance, requires less time to impliment, and less time to invent the next objective before a collapse. TED just covered this. So while you have 100 years of say steam, the next invention will only last about half that time, so about 75 years. Enter the age of oil. Now we are entering the game of renewable energy, so we have about 56 years for green. Each epoch lasts shorter, if you fail, society collapses.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig Steam became commercially successful in 1712. It did not bow to the internal combustion engine until Ford. Although they had been becoming less popular since the late 1860s. We entered a new era with nuclear power, but the alarmists stole that from us, because they never bothered to learn how it worked. Although it would not be safe for travel it could power the rest of our world. I agree that inventors & thinkers should research new energy & ways of doing things.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Not safe for travel? ever hear of a nuclear submarine? how often do they explode? We have thousands of them roaming the world without a single disaster. I think we could build small enough ones that nothing bad happens.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig also explosions are not a danger of nuclear power.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig However none of the current green methods of doing things are truly efficient & viable.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Very true, but cell phones were practical for the average person when they first came out, but through investment and demand, they got innovations and got better. I believe the same will happen with solar / wind / tital and geothermal energy sources.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig Nuclear subs only work because of their relationship to water.
Yes, cell phones are an example of why we should continue to research new methods, but they're also a prime example of why we shouldn't try to force them to happen now. Think about it, you would not have given up your home phone because of your 1980s brick cell phone. It would be stupid. Yet that's essentially what we're told to do with green technologies.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Well, i think the main difference is that energy is seen as common as oxygen. So if you "needed" to call someone everyday, and you found out that a normal phone was built using baby seals, would you still want it? I know it sounds crazy, but coal is damaging land (look at the earth movers), polluting air, causing cancers STILL... So yes, there is more of a push, but I would say the push is equal to say... forcing everyone to wear a seat belt which saved thousands of lives.
bluefootedpig 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig Seat belt laws are horrible, they completely remove your ability to be responsible for your own life. By the way, they normally apply on frozen lakes too. Which causes people to die, no law is as good as what decisions a man makes for himself based on his values. It also has little bearing on the subject because the argument here is weather or not it affects other people. So what coal companies do to land they own is also completely unimportant.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@bluefootedpig Beyond that every claim you make is unproven & massively disputed. The only health problems that are mostly undisputed with coal only affect miners & people directly involved in the process. Willful participants, who make a decision to do so knowing this full well & determine it worth the risk. Beyond that the answer for safe clean energy is nuclear. But scared flighty people who decided not to learn about something they feared stole that from us.
BillyJoe1305 7 months ago
@ImAznnn so tell me, who would you have decide what is unnecessary?
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs Reason decides what is unnecessary. Something like idling your car is unnecessary as it doesn't benefit you nor society.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn So who is Reason? Someone telling me I can't do something legal in a free society?
pfizzbones 7 months ago
@pfizzbones You have the right to do it. I'm not going against that. I'm saying there is too little being done to promote reasonable actions and people are unaware that there is no point to idling your car. If people were to keep that at the back of their head, they wouldnt do it at all. Again I'm not saying that they don't have the right to idle their car.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn what if its my car on my land and i like idling it. are you suggesting the collective decides? and if so, will they also decide what trips are necessary and what ones are not?
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs Of course not. If you somehow get an intrinsic satisfaction from idling your car I can't stop you from doing that. But majority of people don't so that's why we must promote reasonable actions so they would understand not to idle their car.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn why is it not enough for the majority to simply not idle their own cars rather than use collective force (tax, fine, etc) against their neighbors? liberty requires tolerance. Of course, if individual liberty is unimportant ......
fzqlcs 7 months ago
@fzqlcs When have I ever said that I was for taxes and other coercive schemes?
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn okay, if not coercive schemes, what devices do you propose in order to "promote reasonable actions?"
fzqlcs 7 months ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fzqlcs The media could promote it to build influence. Once the media promotes it, people will take action building more influence. Also, school is another place where reasonable actions could be promoted to educate people.
Of course none of this could happen until a socialist society is established.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn
You didn't have to.
You preface or prefix every argument you've forwarded that the general population engages in unreasonable behaviour and you consistently ask why they won't be reasonable.
Sorry to burst you bubble but they ARE being reasonable. Your goals, however laudable and lofty you believe them to be, are not our goals. We trust people to make rational decisions for themselves and from that we can consistently formulate valid goals of our own to partake or avoid other's actions
maskedphrogg 7 months ago
@maskedphrogg Most people are committing unreasonable acts because I have yet to hear one person who gets pleasure out of idling. If people realize that idling does not benefit themselves nor society they wouldnt do it; society is uninformed
If people do see some sort of intrinsic satisfaction like I said before then they would ignore the messages and just continue idling. It is up to the people to decide whether or not their actions are unreasonable.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn
It's only unreasonable to *you*
What you fail to take account of is that the rest of us aren't here to engage in your theory, it's hardly a definition, of reasonable behaviour.
Of course you have already convinced yourself of the validity of your view so I am not likely to further engage your demagoguery. You are more at home in an environment we saw little more than a year ago in TV ads where the children that didn't accept global warming fear mongering had their heads exploded.
maskedphrogg 7 months ago
@maskedphrogg Have you read my entire comment? I clearly stated that people decide for themselves what actions are reasonable because I don't know them better than they do. I'm only saying that we should promote ads that tell people to think twice about actions like idling so that people who do not find intrinsic satisfaction in idling and other environmentally harmful actions would stop what they're doing.
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn are you going to destroy free will in an ATTEMPT to save it. are you going to use the violence and coercion of government? Are you going to use mob democracy to overthrow human rights of political, and social minorities?
or are you going to let free people deliberate and innovate a way to PEACEFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY address the problem in a way that doesn't necessitate world arrest.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Why do people never look beyond the primitive version of democracy. You are aware that it is possible to have a democracy and still allow society to function properly right?
ImAznnn 7 months ago
@ImAznnn I believe in something beyond democracy. I believe in voluntarism.
Ravengaurd6 7 months ago
It will be interesting to see how much time Mr Delingpole gets with the MSM. They either ridicule or ignore. This book is so truthful that my guess is they will ignore so as not to bring attention. It is the same with Ron Pauls campaign which neocon Fox ignores
norm741 7 months ago
I never, never liked the Greens.
manoman0 7 months ago
Carbon tax = get rid of humans we are made out lof Carbon Alan Watts
PolakFury 7 months ago
Look up Agenda 21. The Green movement is just one of the tools towards that end.
Americans are fools if they determine to remain in ignorance of what is really going on which is a very long term strategy for pigeon holing everyone into predetermined areas. Why do you people think that the federal government has bought so much land...
-
kmg501 7 months ago
Green the new Red.
chewbaca1989 7 months ago
I've not associated radical environmentalists too much with socialists per say. Certainly they are socialist, but I've always felt that their motives were not at all social, certainly not for the 'betterment' of humanity which is most socialists (ignorant) motive. Rather I have always seen them as possessing a deep seated hatred of humanity, seeing us as that "cancer", and simply 'using' socialism as the best way to destroy the very humanity (more the human ambition) that they hate so much.
Panpiper 7 months ago
The new green movement is the old red movement. Intead of allowing freemarkets to innovate and allow the creation of products that allow us to do more with less, these ppl use propaganda and fear to push burdensome regualtions, legislation and taxes that will require us to do less with less. The higher energy prices go, the less energy ppl can afford to use. That makes the "greenies" happy.
EchoMike03 7 months ago 28
i can't wait to read this book! Delingpole's great
pinegrove33 7 months ago
Wow, Stossel seriously didn't immediately get the watermelon metaphor? He never struck me as the brightest person or one of Liberty's stronger advocates. Just watching him cave to O'Reilly whenever he's on that show is enough for me to rank him as one of the least influential figureheads we have.
selfrealizedexile 7 months ago
@selfrealizedexile - I think he did get it, but plays along for the story. I don't care either way, but I never thought of Stossel as a "figurehead." He's more like the nosey guy with a whistle and a bullhorn. You may not like something about him or his delivery, but he's not running for office, but even still he's providing a valuable service we don't want to be without.
HomelessOnline 7 months ago
@selfrealizedexile Even the best of us can get brain freeze once in a while.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@Panpiper
True, but Stossel has been this way since I started watching him. Not usually so daft as to miss something on the level of that watermelon joke, but he's light years away from being an original thinker or a skilled debater. He's one of the neocons' favorite punching bags for this reason. Why wouldn't people like O'Reilly want to put on Stossel over a more principled, learned individual so he can portray the libertarian position as something easily defeated?
selfrealizedexile 7 months ago
@selfrealizedexile I agree, he's no intellectual giant. But he does have an effective soap box and he's good at presenting ideas simply, or at least his production crew is.
Panpiper 7 months ago
@selfrealizedexile Stossel got it.That is just his technique. He is highlighting the question so his audience gets it.
justintempler 7 months ago 4
@justintempler
That'd be what I'd have thought until he said "I don't get it."
selfrealizedexile 7 months ago
I believe it was a tongue in cheek question to get the author to clarify the metaphor for the viewers who may or may not have caught the reference. Similar to Stossel's question "Come on, they just want to help us, right?"
lwp03a 7 months ago
I dislike Chris Matthews SO MUCH. Ugh.
Itugen88 7 months ago 14
@Itugen88 You should look up Chris matthews vs Ari Fletchier. It is Hilarious.
mixmastermeeks 7 months ago
How apropos.
Stossel was the WHORE pushing so-called "Free Trade".
Stossell, "If we send our jobs away we will get even MORE jobs."
(I swear he actually said this and it was all CRAP to CRASH our econ.)
UnoRaza 7 months ago
@UnoRaza What is the context of that quote? Without context it's meaningless.
666or999 7 months ago
@666or999 Here's the source of UnoRaza's argument that comes from his other channel where he has disabled comments. watch?v=AyeHdD4FOfc
He is economically illiterate, he doesn't understand comparative advantage
Comparative Advantage and Gains From Trade (Part 1)
watch?v=sFvX5dt8ufs
justintempler 7 months ago
@666or999
Leave it alone. UnoRaza is a collectivist who partakes regularly in denigrating anything or anyone that seeks genuine liberty. Much like the caricatures depicted in this vid he will enjoin you to promote ideas alongside him because he and you should "care so much" while in reality what he seeks is privilege for the groups he is a member of. The very antithesis of individual liberty. He is quite adept at twisting the meaning of words to appear to be their opposite.
maskedphrogg 7 months ago
@UnoRaza Left out the part where companies who outsource also hire more within the US because the cheaper labor frees up resources, allowing them to expand. A mere oversight on your part I'm sure...
And crash your econ? What? The government stooges who tax the shit out of you and spend it like drunk teenagers get a free pass? Why am I not surprised?
lordthawkeye 7 months ago
@UnoRaza - Why would Stossel want to crash our economy? Could you point me to a link of Stossel saying that? I may have seen something like it, but I don't remember that statement. Stossel seems to have a decent understanding of what makes America work (although I hear Obama and Al Gore are both extremely intelligent, possibly even geniuses).
HomelessOnline 7 months ago
@UnoRaza Ah yes, Stossel is actually a diabolically evil man who delights in doing and saying whatever he can to spread misery and destruction. No doubt you also think that all people who are not staunch anti-trade protectionists are all either utterly ignorant brainwashed fools, or also malevolently evil assholes who not just don't care about anyone other than themselves, but also delight in spreading misery.
Am I right?
Panpiper 7 months ago
It is no longer open for debate. Progressive liberals have been poisoning the USA and the planet for at least 100 years.
nachodaddy 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nachodaddy Everything is always open for debate. But we have strong evidence to support your claim. ;)
scepticsteve 7 months ago
1080p, eh?
selfrealizedexile 7 months ago
@selfrealizedexile maybe it takes time to get to 100%? It's probably still processing for 1080p. It's a pretty new video. But I thought the same thing :)
ironclad452 7 months ago
1st...prolly not.
adulby 7 months ago