From what I understand, the proposed? TransAfghanistan Pipeline is being stalled by the Taliban. Would the gas transported through this pipeline end up creating more global warming?
1.Weather is far to complex, thus impossible for us to make long term predictions.(even the short term predictions are often wrong)
2.Even if we are causing the global warming, why spend millions to prevent it? we could spend those money to be prepared for it because we now change will come even if we do nothing wrong - it seems more reasonable to me.
3.If it will happen, i can`t agree with IPCC on the consequences. they are simply beyond logic and come in contradiction with nr.1
@andreiuta171 You might might not be able to predict the weather long term, but you are confusing it with climate. Weather = the things we see right now and the changes of it that happen is a short time frame (short term), Climate = the overall condition over a longer time frame. So while weather might be highly individual and to complex to predict long term, science is able to have models that predict the most probable outcome, based on the data we have right now.
@andreiuta171 Of course none of this is bound to be happen but again there are multiple possible outcomes predicted, partially different because human behaviour was assumed to be different for these models. Those where we do not act at all pretty much paint a dark picture. And even if it doesn't come that bad climate wise, wouldn't you all rather live in a world where a lot of the environment is still intact as opposed to one where we can barely survive because we destroyed the environment?
@Podimann there is a big difference in what you are saying here. i am against pollution (not because i care about the planet but because i care about me - the planet is fine with all the pollution we can create - we are not). sure i want big forests, clean world, etc, but i`m against AGW. we are not the cause of global temperature change. it happened in the past and it will happen in the future with or without our help. the forces involved in temperature change are far beyond our capabilities.
Don't forget to pay the your yearly tribute to pharma corporations -- human-made global Swine Flu Hoax is coming! And stop talking, idiot, you're emitting CO2!
Strangly enaugh there is some reasearch saying that we are not entering a global warming but a new ice age. it is being said that ther will not be any solar maximum after all. so you should be adding a row. global warmin true false and new ice age true or false. what happend if you get ready for heat and you get cold? and who is lying to us and why? any way one solution is not good for the other possible event. ice = no food heat = no food? WTF?
reoreason..... wow. you sound like a really intense person, and I'm sure I am speaking for all of the millions of people who are very interested in this video here when I tell you that I will lose sleep wondering just what amazing thing)(s) that reoreason has "seen" that global warming seems petty., and that you indeed, must be wildly adventurous and fascinating. thanks for the valuable warning.
You seem like a nice guy. But I'll say it similarly as I have said it on your original video:
The grid argument is only valid if one has NO IDEA / NO CLUE / NO EVIDENCE to look at. But since evidence points contrary to man-made-warmth-belief, we can dismiss the row entitled "True". And then choose "No". It is that simple.
@MajSmJz I don't see how you can make that conclusion when every scientific body that studies AGW comes to the opposite conclusion that you do. Here are some facts that you need to consider. Neither you or I have the technical background to make an intelligent and informed decision if AGW is real. If you remove politics and individuals with PHDs making claims and instead focus on peer reviewed scientific bodies and their consensus, you will find the opposite conclusion as yours.
@MajSmJz If you have the data to show AGW to be false, present that to the peer review process. If you are right, the consensus will change, Until that happens, the only responsible conclusion of us outside the scientific debate is to accept the scientific consensus and mitigate the ramifications of AGW. Otherwise we are all being played by the hyper partisans for political gain. I'm not willing to pay that game.
@coolgreyoneabby The Earth could be warming today and cooling in a couple of years. Or continue warming. I do not debate that. I am pointing out that man's influence on it is very small. So even if we change laws and corner people's rights from all sides, we won't significantly change the course.
@MajSmJz What you said was "... since evidence points contrary to man-made-warmth-belief..." That is false. There is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to man made global warming. The real debate is how much and what should be done about it. For some reason, Republicans have chosen to adopted several science denial positions, this being one of them. Fox News and conservative radio are notoriously unreliable places to get good information on any science. Look elsewhere.
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not a US (or better said: USA) citizen, so I didn't get my info on FN.
If you say GW is man-made, you have to prove it to then justify further restraining of man's individual rights in order to minimize man's effect. So if there is a scientific consensus that clearly shows how GW is our fault, I'd like to see it. On the contrary, I've seen scientists argue against man-made GW for years now.
@MajSmJz Every scientific body that studies the subject supports the AGW hypothesis around the globe. There are exactly zero scientific bodies that study global warming that conclude that human introduced carbon is not affecting the climate. You need to understand the difference between individual scientists making claims and what is accepted by scientific bodies after the peer review process. But I did NOT say a word about restraining anyone's rights. I see as free market opportunity.
@coolgreyoneabby I agree that human introduced carbon affects the climate, but that is not a major factor. What humans contribute could reach up to 1%. The Earth expirienced much higher average temperatures in the middle ages, yet there wasn't any industry.
In what way do you see this as a free market opportunity?
@MajSmJz Climate changes naturally over time, but that does not negate adding man made forcers in the atmosphere. Same logic would say: "Water table goes up and down naturally, therefore pumping water out will have very little effect" That is false reasoning. Also, if ALL the scientific bodies worldwide that study this tell us that it is a problem, then I do not understand conservative denial of the science. Reminds me of Catholic church and Galileo.
@coolgreyoneabby Yes it is exactly like that, they feel threatened in their politics (which largely benefit the big companies in their short term ambition to get as much money as possible), so they choose to deny it completely. There is no debate about the human made nature of climate chance in real science, because it is happening way to fast to be of the same kind as the climate changes of the past (were talking thousands and more years there for comparable changes).
There actually have been some "scientists" who probably just accidentally happened to be paid (and yes this was uncovered) by the bush administration or big companies that would have been made responsible for their ginormous CO2 footprint (and maybe also the other environmental crimes they conducted). But for some reason their "data" would just not withstand peer review. Probably just a coincidence...
@MajSmJz Free markets have historically been the best ways to solve large scale problems. Instead if denying the science, free marketeers could look at ways to reduce, sequester and/or replace, carbon forcers in our atmosphere. You can deny that smoking cigarettes is harmful or you can invent and sell patches to help people cut the habit. I prefer the latter. To solve a problem you first need to understand it.
@coolgreyoneabby haha...every little bit helps. but u know, i heard a quote the other day, it referred to our problem solving skills in the past with serious global issues, its something like, "often the solutions that we come up with end up being more harmful than the original problem"..i think it may have been in reference to nuclear power, i'm not sure ...Now, nicotine patches, would they be biodegradable, or r they going to sit in landfills for centuries???? haha, just kiddin
htt p://voiceth read.c om/share/1962144/ please comment on all my cartoons, there is 8, it is a school project. Comment on what the cartoon means to you! thanks!
@sgtpetersen. If Al Gore actually did buy water front property, then he has many reasons. One reason could be to witness the waters rising, slowly. He/We will probably be dead by the time the 20 ft or more rise in the water level occurs.
Good heavens people...this is nothing more than a restatement of the precautionary principle. It's been pushed as a policy decision model (often by environmentalists) because it "seems" rational. But it isn't. If you want to see how it doesn't work, try substituting "I might have cancer" for global warming.
@nairb10k There are inconsistencies, but that is how it is with all principles- there are extremes of its usage. Christians are meant to "turn the other cheek" when faced with adversity from others, but that doesn't mean you should let yourself be controlled by others. The meaning of the principle is "within reason, prepare for the worst". There is no argument against that.
@nairb10k If you feel you might have cancer, you go to the doctor. Sure it will cost a bit to see them, but getting tested for abnormalities could be the thing that stops you being here one day and gone the next. What is wrong with that? How can you argue noticing signs and not making some action on it? The precautionary principle works almost every time when the argument for harm is plausible. It is in fact used by many countries when deciding policies.
@nairb10k See, though, you give a poor example. Replacing global warming with you having cancer is not an equal replacement. You having cancer is a wild speculation with no evidence behind it. The possibility that global warming could be a gigantic problem (or that it even exists in the first place) has been studied - and verified - by scientists more than it has been refuted by scientists.
Say man-made GW is real. What have you concluded are the odds that spending could make the difference between column A livable, and column B worst case scenario? You would have us forgo the row 1 column 2 smiley face thus ensuring one of the other 3 terrible outcomes. If the R2C2 disaster turns out to be a real possible GW consequence, what are the odds economic disaster (but "livable," for a few of us I presume) now could fix it?
I don't care if man made global warming is real or not, I do know that we're screwing up the planet and, for the sake of ALL its inhabitants (man and beast), I want to do something about it rather than leave it up to politicians.
Until the sceptics can come up with a good reason NOT to reduce pollution, habitat (and species) loss, prepare for Peak Oil, etc. I'm with Mr Craven!
" Climate is changing NOT BECACUSE OF SUN & CO2. NASA announced that 2008 & 2009 were MINIMUM SOLAR YEARS. Jones & Wilkins ICESHELVES COLLAPED during 2008, moreover WILKINS during WINTER. In the name of CO2 MANY PEOPLE MAKING MONY. If we capture DE-ICERS AT EMISSION POINTS THE CLIMATE PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVE. DO'NT TERRIFY PEOPLE. Visit Sarva Kala Vallabhan Group in facebook "
Hi, just seen this, This is incredible! I would like to use it (the grid) in my essay on climate change (environmental law). I will of course credit and after the exams are over i'll be interested to read your book. will order it this week when i'm ordering other books :)
Thanks and keep up the good work hopefully for many many years!!!
Global warming is just a big scam to tax the middle and poor class to divert the money to the wealthy elite and there banks for a one world government, but we're on to them. Start by not consuming so much. Then wake up to the signs around you about our political advisers.
I think your arguements are valid, but the problem I find with the "Column A and the Column B" theory is that by your logic, EVERY SINGLE issue, no one will EVER tell us, we will have to fight against it, if someone argues, that a great boo boo-tree is controlling the world, and only by destroying all the airplanes we can avoid great catastrophe we would have to take action, to avoid the greatest doom. And my logic is telling me global warming isn't gonna happen.
@wonderingmind42 I'm pretty sure you have been lessoned and educated from Psychology, you are constant requesting and comparing with the worst thing that an ever happen, yet you want a valid value to be taken as action. also>= Hypocrite.
mate,i dont know about the book,but i saw the first video,and it seems to me like it doesnt matter wheter it is false or true,if we choose "ticket" A(or the yes collumn) it would cost just as much either way,true or false,and it would resualt in the same thing. But if we had a resource based economy it would be a no brainer,but then again,then we would not have the question in the first place,cause there is no way it could be humans causing the climatechange. I go with ticket B(no actions)
Yeah, I'm still not clear on what we're supposed to actually DO about global warming. Buy an electric car? I take public trans anyway. Use less toilet paper? Try not to fart? I mean seriously, how is this our burden to figure out? Besides, whatever the government wants the government gets. Looks like there's more effort being put into scaring us about global warming then actually doing anything about it.
Ok.. this might sound silly, I would if I could, but we need to get this guy on the Daily Show, or interviewed on a highly watched television show. You could be going somewhere with this. and I support you all the way man :)
Basic Idea: Action is better than idleness. A bad decision is better than no decision. Putting effort into staying clean is far better than just hoping that nothing will happen. When it comes to worse case scenarios, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
The real problem is the fact that all the money goes into the lobyists pockets and not to fix the problem. But that's another debate.....
ok man in video, the earth is going to change no matter what. you or i either can prevent this. we are just a cycle of nature that is confused and scared. earth will change with or with out us. the human is just a protein for our planet as were the previous livings here on earth. time will tell and then do not worry cause you can not stop nature, cause nature is you.
@123ninjapower you are using circular/faulty logic... and your apparent thesis is that we should do nothing to stop our self-destruction even though it is completely within our power to do so, because the Earth changes. Of course the Earth will change (usually on geologic timescales of thousands of years) and we would do well to plan for those eventualities instead of digging our own graves. Get it?
@123ninjapower A population of reindeer might overgraze and overbreed until their population crashes (St. Matthew Island study, 1944), and may thereby be victims that "cannot stop nature", but of all species mankind is uniquely conscious and able to act to avoid such catastrophes. I've read postings that reflect various Kübler-Ross stages of grief before (denial, anger, etc.), but I think yours may be the first I've seen that celebrates acceptance so vigorously. I hope that's a little premature!
@EnergeticRob976 and @everyone who's watched this guys videos. NIce videos and great message, but you are seriously trying to get rich off of people for their own ideas? Don't buy the books, this guy is a fraud.
Oh no no no, this is not true. We've got an endless supply of oil and if the earth gets too hot, we'll just all have a/c. No problems with all those cfcs and pollution. Go ahead drive your suv's, have a few more babies, make more waist. I am sure the ocean enjoys the extra pollution. If ever man did have a "purpose" for being on Earth, then surely man was assigned to care for her, mother Earth. Man should be ashamed.
I actually just saw this video and enjoyed it! Yeah, as some have said, the planet can take care of itself, but that's when it has time to regulate and NOT when we are pouring who knows what into the water, atmosphere, soil, etc. faster than what it could recover from. I mean, we've screwed with enough other things so meh.
@xtremetvfan he reminds me of a rabbit too! Too bad the world's going to end and we're all going to die before we all know if global warming is true or not.
Is that your kid in the picture in the backround? cuz shes cute :) but really, your smart. really smart for a science teacher. And whats even more sweet, you actually made me interested in global warming! (which is pretty hard, since i hate nearly everything politicians talk about....)
...The book should be one page only. It should say, " Go and do productive things with your life, this is a scam ". This is a scam by the UN to get more control and make more money than they could possibly spend. Period, The End.
you are awesome , you are one of my faveorite people now. the world needs people like you. people are afraid of the truth and because they are afraid of the truth , they wont stop to listen or understand what the truth is. there will be a revolution. i am spreading the word about your video , and that's a promise. i truly believe that we are on a fast train to hell , no one stops to see where the train is headed or when it will stop. they just keep going....until we crash and burn. we're fucked.
For everything there is a season....Dont give up or give in, your message is logical and reasonable. @godmachine1000 Key word here "Baffles the brains" Who's brain does logic baffle? He is saying think about it, lets debate it, study it and come to a (and the spelling is) conclusion....Are U afraid to talk about it?
the logic of his original video can be applied to any argument proposing a global catastrophe. (Terrorism, hostile UFO takeovers, Spontaneous combustion etc...)
The question isnt whether global warming will happen or not, the question is why humans have this obsessive need to fix stuff that isnt broken. Yes, this includes reversing global warming.
If for once humanity just shut up for a moment, just one fucking split second of a moment, and not try to fix ANYTHING..... nah...
@psychojewboy Fix stuff that isn't broken? Well, it's not broken YET. Not quite. We fix stuff before it breaks all the time, because it's MORE EFFICIENT than waiting until after it breaks. Do you ever do maintenance on your car, change the oil, change the tires, whatever? Or do you wait until your oil becomes so "broken" that the engine seizes up, or the tires have so little tread left that you crash your car? We don't always get a second chance, so I'd rather change my tires. How about you?
having just watched the video , it bull s---- baffles brains ,if you take action or not , its like do you believe in god , A friend once said to me , I don't believe in god but I go to church because I might be wrong . Most people believe in protecting the planet but wear it goes wrong , its not caused by c02. Fact ever time man has played with nature it has gone wrong. concussion don't play with things you know nothing about. and you can put that in any box on your grid.
The earth will take care of its self... nothing you write will empower people to answer questions there are no answers to. Sure, pollution is not good for anything, but not anything that can be directly attached to GCC. The people at the grocery store trying to save the whales, or enlightening us about plastic recycling are all good ideas in theory, but again, not a solution. Telling me that this book can give anyone hope is like telling me a dwarf in the backseat of a jet will slow it down.
@sickdrummerdotcom I think you miss the point. 'The earth will take care of its self...' doesn't include humankind well being or the high standard of living we have now.
@sickdrummerdotcom Uh, do you know how greenhouse gasses work? Yes, pollution can directly influence GCC. They teach this shit to like first graders. Haha, you don't have the equivalent of a first grade education.
"The bottom line" There's too many people on this planet and sooner or later something is gonna give. It certainly won't be the wealthy that do the giving either. It will most likely be the snapping of mankind's already thin tolerance towards itself. (K)
I read about global warming in New Scientist about 30 years ago and that was one of the reasons I didn't get a car. Too little too late is being done now and governments are panicking and arriving at scary New World Order 'Final Solutions' that are nothing less than high tech Nazism that would wipe out at least 80% of world’s population. Now scientists are saying the sun is cooling and we are moving towards another Ice Age. How does all that fit into the Carroll Diagrams?
Well man, whatever the outcome of the world, you'll sure be profiting from our couple of bucks for your book, amirite?
Here's an idea. Sky Wizards will eventually attack our land! What's the worst that can happen? Our end, right? Well, man, we sure gotta build defenses for those Sky Wizards.
@EnergeticRob976 Yeah, I thought the book was bound to be interesting too. While I was writing it, I thought "My god, some of this stuff is incredible! No one has done this before! I'm bound for the NYT bestseller list!" Buuuuuut, judging from the sales, it wasn't that interesting. Oh well. At least I can look at my little girls when they grow up and say "I am so sorry, sweethearts, but I did all I could." You might still enjoy the book. Some people did.
@wonderingmind42 at least u tried and that is more than most. and if u influenced anyone (which by the way u did) then u achieved something. we can only hope more people take notice before its too late!
@wonderingmind42 You should take it to schools and see if they'll add it to curriculum. I think it has a standing chance as a good debate solver in the youth. You should make a video or article, asking people to give copies of the book to teachers and school boards.
@wonderingmind42 I think you should pursue getting something like this made into a movie or movie sereis, movies after all have a way of stimulating viewers. Just an idea.
Most people agree with the fact that action should be taken to provide a pristine environment to generations yet to come. However, I believe in PEOPLE and capitalistic approaches which encourage competition and rewards innovation to ensure the pursuit of better technology. Government regulation does not has not ever worked. America has over 1,100 years of natural gas that we are not allowed to use because of impertinent government regulation. Let the PEOPLE take care of their environment.
@getdjman Yes, as we learned with BP, clearly letting companies regulate their own shit is a great idea. After all, all those pelicans where actually HAPPY about the oil. Now they can drive cars!
@MrShayneOneill Aaaaahahahaha. This comment made me laugh :)
I am in favor of PEOPLE making the change happen, because depending on our government would be foolish due to the fact the US government is "of the people, BY the people" to begin with... or at least is supposed to be. However, I dissagree with the capitalistic approach, because fighting global warming is NOT going to be financially profitable. In fact, most companies now claiming to "Be green", just slapped on a sticker.
@vampirateprincess Glad you got a laugh out if :) I think it can be "profitable" , but we have to redefine what we mean by profitable. If we mean profitable in terms of companies shareholder money blah, then it probably wont be for those outside of renewable energy. But as a source of happiness and satisfaction, and community capital, then fighting for the earth is very profitable. However I think theres a lot of jobs/wealth to be created in rebuilding dirty parts of the economy.
Hi Greg, Congratulations on getting published. That, alone, is a major accomplishment. Well done. But I should say up front I that I believe global warming -- uh, I mean "climate change" -- is a thoroughly dubious proposition devised to empower leftists and disempower people. In this video, you praise "the power of the people", but in your pink slip video, you complain how selfish individuals spend money that would be more wisely spent by the government. It's a contradiction. Thanks.
@GraemeStone falsifying information is how global climate change has been "proven".. the argument is indeed good, but it doesn't take into account that GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT OCCURING
@usabispingfan I think you miss his point. which is, even if we're wrong, there are benefits to being conservative in regards to safe-guarding the environment. His argument is pretty narrow, and focused, and yet you pick it apart on the very points that make the argument solid. Not to mention his first question: is it possible that you're wrong?
Climategate.....only a handful of scientists endorse global warming. These handful get tons of "grant" money (a.k.a. bribes). Look it up and do the research.
it always ends in profit... why?? i refuse to believe greed is a "natural" thing. Am I the only one that does not think for profit???? if you really wanted to spread the word you would have put it up for free.
@bboydee you do realize that he had to chip in for publishing the book as well as the tremendous amount of paper needed, you have to spend money anyway to make money so he's just doing anything anyone would do to promote their product or whatever.
@kylem1112 Like I said, put it up ONLINE for free. the most money he would need if he'd want to make it professional looking would be a domain name which is cheap, but could easily be replaced by a free blog. Books, specially today are definitely not the fastest and most shared medium. By publishing it as a book he wants to make money in order to regain some of the things he lost while doing extensive research and stuff. this man is brave, but only as brave as we all should be.
REGARDLESS of whether the planet is hitting global climate change or not, what's the worst that can happen? We stop using up all of the fossil fuels, we find of more energy, cost efficient methods to live our lives comfortably. Hey. no one said you need to wear burlap underpants and live in trees.
everyone knows that global warming is happening the thing is that no one wants to believe it its so easy to make a difference, and helps you and your family such as home built wind turbines home built solar panels and even if global warming is false think how much money you could save sorry if ders any spelling mistakes
govt should do for people only the things that people cannot do for themselves. govt needs to tax carbon. people will not voluntarily switch to more expensive alt energies when fossil fuels are cheaper. not enough to make any difference. govt needs to tax & cap carbon.
sounds like good ol commen sents. we had better wake up this guy is right, and the resseon he is right is we cant afford to take a chance on something like this.
I like the question "what actions do we, the people take". In theory, we hired our government and our job is to let them know loud and clear what WE want. Maybe it's time to turn off our TV's, computers, WII"s and other technology and get outside, meet your neighbors, grow a garden, identify core values and figure out how to achieve them! Wake up! Get off our booty's and get busy talking to people and standing up for our country and constitution. Its up to us. Its up to us. Its up to us!
What people should do is support the Venus Project. Watcj Zeitgeist Addendum and understand what the root of controversy is and how a Resource Based Economy advocates unadulterated information as well as clean holistic living.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
From most people on here showing a total lack of rationality and easy acceptance of scaremongering by this fool. I must assume that you people treat global warming like a religion and you believe that the world is definitely going to end if we don't stop using carbon completely right now.
There is no way to hold a rational discussion with such dogma.
Dear Moron, Scare Mongering (I think you meant fear mongering) is not the intention of the this guy. It's providing a logical means for figuring out the best course of action giving a set of possible outcomes. There are alternatives to fossil fuels that allow for transportation of food, but the reality is our current global system of food distribution is completely inefficient to begin with. Shipping beans from Malaysia to climates that can grow them on their own is pure lunacy.
@nathantruant i know this was a year ago, but i'm still commenting lol. i agree with everything except the last sentence. comparative advantage says that if malaysia is trading beans for something those climates are better at producing (comparatively), then it makes economic sense to grow beans in malaysia. although maybe that argument is moot considering this guy's is more about playing the safe card when it comes to global warming, now what is economically most beneficial. cheers!
You are completely missing the point, the rate and amount of change have all occurred before, and we are still here.
If a nuclear family can only reduce there CO2 footprint by 20% by having 1 car, no plane trips, own wind turbine and growing own food how exactly are we supposed to 'save the planet' and not reduce living standards dramatically? Impossible
Spend £4 bln now and provide clean drinking water for all or £40bln in 10yrs on preventing a scenario that is based on very questionable data
Eh???? Exactly, before the industrial age!! That goes to show that the factors, known and unknown, were occurring prior to the industrial age to change climate. There is know way of knowing therefore how much we do influence the climate.
I reiterate the fact that the rate and amount of change have occurred before more dramatically than at present,so its not unusual.
worse for who???? humankind? tens of thousands of species have become extinct because of climate change in the earths history....
- that is an 'Appeal to Ignorance' logical fallacy... along with just a hint of 'Post hoc'.
Sorry, but that's just negative evidence... you should look up Ice Core research... also, of course we have no way of knowing... that's why educated predictions and calculation simulations are used...
As for the 'worse for who' ... worse for all, that tens of thousands may end up as hundreds of thousands... that's who it's worse for.
My point is to spend trillions of $ on CO2 reduction is lunacy. If you do not consider it to be you are putting preserving western lifestyle above clean water&food for all etc. turn fields growing crops for green cars when there is a lack of food in the world?
it has to be about rigorous sustainability, and at present the planet cannot sustain the level of population we have.
Its a question of priorities, save millions of lives now or maybe thousands in the future
- in some ways, yes... however, there are other options as well... spending money on CO2 reduction TECHNOLOGY research and etc... is useful in many ways, because it will be useful for reducing CO2 and will bring about new technologies to follow it that may good for other uses.
As for the biofuel, that was an unforseeable mistake... the next step is to learn from that mistake... look up Oilgae.
Also, you're using the 'Oversimplified cause' and 'False dichotomy' logic fallacies.
The way I see it is this, CO2 isnt the problem its been blown upto be, for what ever reason. The whole debate is based on very questionable temperature data, past and present. I plead with you and anyone else to watch this:
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? on youtube.
Why hasn't the IPCC countered these issues? It cant! It just 'slates' anyone with any other interpretation.
The west will never reduce standard of living, we are the problem, all the world want what we have,why do we deserve it?
- ... tell that to the poor of America... their standard of living isn't exactly 'all that great' or anything.
However, the majority of temperature data from the majority of the scientific community seems to point towards global warming... the thing is, some data may be questionable... but if you think the majority of the scientific community is questionable... then I wonder about your paranoia.
Seriously, you mean the worldwide scientific community is all in on it?
Seriously, if this guy cant spell it out to you in these simple and logical terms, nothing will. Ur better off rotting in a ditch somwhere while the rest of us who actually care about our futures and the futures of our children, do what we can to save our planet from the potential risk that it faces.
If it comes down to living with someone like this and dying. I would rather die. WITF are you getting your info? You need to relearn the fact's. Global warming is a crock of shit all to a manfrom the UN named Maurice Strong trying to get rich and control all. Look up the story behind him. The show Conspiricy Theory is good to watch. So far everything Jesse Ventura speaks of stands up. It's all here, you simply just have to pull your head out of your ass and look.
Substitute "alien invasion" for "catastrophic climate change" and see how much sense his logic makes. Unless you include realistic probabilities this sort of argument is silly.
Why would you substitute total science fiction with natural occurance? There's evidence of a catastrophic climate change right in front of you.....not some invasion
No, his logic is pretty sound. There is no scaremongering going on here. Regardless if the planet is warming or not, we are polluting our environment and causing mass extinctions.
His logic is only sound if you assume a worst possible scenario, therefore you must postulate his extinction level global warming event as an actual occurrences that needs to be actively prevented.
This is his argument and it is scare mongering at its worst.
Rationality and logic are excluded from a scenario that has only speculation of catastrophe as an only possible outcome.
! Assumption that global warming will not have natural remedies that stop it being so devastating
2, Assumption that global warming is irreversible and there is a tipping point that suddenly sends us over the edge. Venus is not a comparison to earth.
3, Assumption that Global warming cannot be remedied by measures like cloud seeding through aerosol dispersion into the atmosphere above the oceans, therefore blocking sunlight warming.,
And this then boils down to the fact that a good policy (both in regards to peak oil and global warming) is to narrow the gap between the time durable alternatives will be cheaper by subsidizing the development of such promising alternatives.
It could help to restore the financial catastrophy also, since we are investing in something which has a sure return on investment.
I completely agree with investment in alternatives to enable cheaper and more sustainable energy, but not in taxing existing energy at very high rates to artificially make alternatives look cheaper. Especially when taxing is to begin almost immediately with no viable alternatives in site (wind is unpredictable, solar is daytime, nuclear is not liked due to waste, etc). Looks more like urgent desire to enact global economic government.
There are a LOT of alternatives, and many of them have the promise to become a cheaper source of energy as existing fossil fuels at some point. Alternatives will become cheaper, fossiles will become more expensive
Wind is pretty predictable (in comparision with say a breakdown of a conventional powerplant) and when used in combination with other sources (which can be varied in power depending on demand) and using long range electric connections, does not compromise continued electricity delivery
You mean, you absolutely disagree with government intervention in the market. At least in this field. But remember, the governments do continually interfere with the global markets, and in most occasions in favour of their own economies and in disfavour of third world economies.
Second. The subsidy is only used to overcome a period when alternatives are more expensive as fossil fuels. See it as a long time investment (very similar to what oil companies themselves do over long periods of time).
And lastly, if we leave the issue of climate change and fuel prices completely unregulated (like you advocating), we will never find a way to solve the problems, and especially the developing countries pay the price (both on climate change and on peakoil prices) We could learn from the Chinese which continually take drastic measures to raise energy efficiency and promote durable energy, and are a front player on the automobile market by introducing the latest developments in car/motor efficiency
From what I understand, the proposed? TransAfghanistan Pipeline is being stalled by the Taliban. Would the gas transported through this pipeline end up creating more global warming?
HealthyPlanet 5 days ago
has anyone else noticed he wears the same tshirt in all his vids?
codycorreia 1 month ago
No wonder humans focused on you instead of the actual issue,also...no need for a book,your first video was enough.
Humans are apes,when they look at you,all they think is-"how can I poke it?"or"ME SMASH"
Don't expect anything out of Humans,since humans are just idiotic beasts that even a mushroom can look at and say "Shish...no wonder they need me"
Just let the world explode,let fallout come...and relax =D
why is that?A new world option =D(well,if humans will exist at all by then,better if wont)
Wharwulif 2 months ago
The man has a SEE THROUGH head!!!!!!!
voivod616 3 months ago
It really needs a better cover, lol.
miketh2005 3 months ago
The world will end before i buy this trash.
rpgrove21 3 months ago
Might have to read this then :D
Joshua001A 4 months ago
IM GOING TO PRE-ORDER IT RIGHT NOW...wait its 2011 DAMIN IT
snoodxxx 4 months ago
Dude might wanna lay of the red bull
broadcastallsongs 5 months ago
damn you are sexy.
epicmackey 6 months ago
1.Weather is far to complex, thus impossible for us to make long term predictions.(even the short term predictions are often wrong)
2.Even if we are causing the global warming, why spend millions to prevent it? we could spend those money to be prepared for it because we now change will come even if we do nothing wrong - it seems more reasonable to me.
3.If it will happen, i can`t agree with IPCC on the consequences. they are simply beyond logic and come in contradiction with nr.1
andreiuta171 6 months ago
@andreiuta171 You might might not be able to predict the weather long term, but you are confusing it with climate. Weather = the things we see right now and the changes of it that happen is a short time frame (short term), Climate = the overall condition over a longer time frame. So while weather might be highly individual and to complex to predict long term, science is able to have models that predict the most probable outcome, based on the data we have right now.
Podimann 6 months ago
@andreiuta171 Of course none of this is bound to be happen but again there are multiple possible outcomes predicted, partially different because human behaviour was assumed to be different for these models. Those where we do not act at all pretty much paint a dark picture. And even if it doesn't come that bad climate wise, wouldn't you all rather live in a world where a lot of the environment is still intact as opposed to one where we can barely survive because we destroyed the environment?
Podimann 6 months ago
@Podimann there is a big difference in what you are saying here. i am against pollution (not because i care about the planet but because i care about me - the planet is fine with all the pollution we can create - we are not). sure i want big forests, clean world, etc, but i`m against AGW. we are not the cause of global temperature change. it happened in the past and it will happen in the future with or without our help. the forces involved in temperature change are far beyond our capabilities.
andreiuta171 5 months ago
Don't forget to pay the your yearly tribute to pharma corporations -- human-made global Swine Flu Hoax is coming! And stop talking, idiot, you're emitting CO2!
Axxess7777 7 months ago
Global warming money-making clown strikes back! Alarm!
Axxess7777 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,
spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,
Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.
no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,
unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,
on LEAVING,,,
lars008 7 months ago
Strangly enaugh there is some reasearch saying that we are not entering a global warming but a new ice age. it is being said that ther will not be any solar maximum after all. so you should be adding a row. global warmin true false and new ice age true or false. what happend if you get ready for heat and you get cold? and who is lying to us and why? any way one solution is not good for the other possible event. ice = no food heat = no food? WTF?
wawashkashi 7 months ago
reoreason..... wow. you sound like a really intense person, and I'm sure I am speaking for all of the millions of people who are very interested in this video here when I tell you that I will lose sleep wondering just what amazing thing)(s) that reoreason has "seen" that global warming seems petty., and that you indeed, must be wildly adventurous and fascinating. thanks for the valuable warning.
roygump 7 months ago
If you had seen what i have seen you would not be writing a book about Global Warming.
reoreason 7 months ago
I'm impressed with your passion....The power of ONE!
mark1952able 8 months ago
You seem like a nice guy. But I'll say it similarly as I have said it on your original video:
The grid argument is only valid if one has NO IDEA / NO CLUE / NO EVIDENCE to look at. But since evidence points contrary to man-made-warmth-belief, we can dismiss the row entitled "True". And then choose "No". It is that simple.
MajSmJz 8 months ago
@MajSmJz I don't see how you can make that conclusion when every scientific body that studies AGW comes to the opposite conclusion that you do. Here are some facts that you need to consider. Neither you or I have the technical background to make an intelligent and informed decision if AGW is real. If you remove politics and individuals with PHDs making claims and instead focus on peer reviewed scientific bodies and their consensus, you will find the opposite conclusion as yours.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@MajSmJz If you have the data to show AGW to be false, present that to the peer review process. If you are right, the consensus will change, Until that happens, the only responsible conclusion of us outside the scientific debate is to accept the scientific consensus and mitigate the ramifications of AGW. Otherwise we are all being played by the hyper partisans for political gain. I'm not willing to pay that game.
coolgreyoneabby 8 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby The Earth could be warming today and cooling in a couple of years. Or continue warming. I do not debate that. I am pointing out that man's influence on it is very small. So even if we change laws and corner people's rights from all sides, we won't significantly change the course.
MajSmJz 7 months ago
@MajSmJz What you said was "... since evidence points contrary to man-made-warmth-belief..." That is false. There is plenty of scientific evidence pointing to man made global warming. The real debate is how much and what should be done about it. For some reason, Republicans have chosen to adopted several science denial positions, this being one of them. Fox News and conservative radio are notoriously unreliable places to get good information on any science. Look elsewhere.
coolgreyoneabby 7 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I'm not a US (or better said: USA) citizen, so I didn't get my info on FN.
If you say GW is man-made, you have to prove it to then justify further restraining of man's individual rights in order to minimize man's effect. So if there is a scientific consensus that clearly shows how GW is our fault, I'd like to see it. On the contrary, I've seen scientists argue against man-made GW for years now.
MajSmJz 7 months ago
@MajSmJz Every scientific body that studies the subject supports the AGW hypothesis around the globe. There are exactly zero scientific bodies that study global warming that conclude that human introduced carbon is not affecting the climate. You need to understand the difference between individual scientists making claims and what is accepted by scientific bodies after the peer review process. But I did NOT say a word about restraining anyone's rights. I see as free market opportunity.
coolgreyoneabby 7 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby I agree that human introduced carbon affects the climate, but that is not a major factor. What humans contribute could reach up to 1%. The Earth expirienced much higher average temperatures in the middle ages, yet there wasn't any industry.
In what way do you see this as a free market opportunity?
MajSmJz 7 months ago
@MajSmJz Climate changes naturally over time, but that does not negate adding man made forcers in the atmosphere. Same logic would say: "Water table goes up and down naturally, therefore pumping water out will have very little effect" That is false reasoning. Also, if ALL the scientific bodies worldwide that study this tell us that it is a problem, then I do not understand conservative denial of the science. Reminds me of Catholic church and Galileo.
coolgreyoneabby 7 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby Yes it is exactly like that, they feel threatened in their politics (which largely benefit the big companies in their short term ambition to get as much money as possible), so they choose to deny it completely. There is no debate about the human made nature of climate chance in real science, because it is happening way to fast to be of the same kind as the climate changes of the past (were talking thousands and more years there for comparable changes).
Podimann 6 months ago
There actually have been some "scientists" who probably just accidentally happened to be paid (and yes this was uncovered) by the bush administration or big companies that would have been made responsible for their ginormous CO2 footprint (and maybe also the other environmental crimes they conducted). But for some reason their "data" would just not withstand peer review. Probably just a coincidence...
Podimann 6 months ago
@MajSmJz Free markets have historically been the best ways to solve large scale problems. Instead if denying the science, free marketeers could look at ways to reduce, sequester and/or replace, carbon forcers in our atmosphere. You can deny that smoking cigarettes is harmful or you can invent and sell patches to help people cut the habit. I prefer the latter. To solve a problem you first need to understand it.
coolgreyoneabby 7 months ago
@coolgreyoneabby haha...every little bit helps. but u know, i heard a quote the other day, it referred to our problem solving skills in the past with serious global issues, its something like, "often the solutions that we come up with end up being more harmful than the original problem"..i think it may have been in reference to nuclear power, i'm not sure ...Now, nicotine patches, would they be biodegradable, or r they going to sit in landfills for centuries???? haha, just kiddin
eleptheria1 2 months ago
This guy is making a LOT of money with these videos.
A LOT, I tell you.
A LOT.
StefanWijnja 8 months ago
@StefanWijnja he probably fucking deserves it more than anyone else "working on the climate problem"
giannaluva65 8 months ago
cute retainer
TheOreoGuru 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
htt p://voiceth read.c om/share/1962144/ please comment on all my cartoons, there is 8, it is a school project. Comment on what the cartoon means to you! thanks!
CroatianKing9 9 months ago
Don't fight it. this guy is a sham. Why did Al Gore buy oceane front property during his global warming campain?
sgtpetersen 9 months ago
@sgtpetersen. If Al Gore actually did buy water front property, then he has many reasons. One reason could be to witness the waters rising, slowly. He/We will probably be dead by the time the 20 ft or more rise in the water level occurs.
HealthyPlanet 5 days ago
Good heavens people...this is nothing more than a restatement of the precautionary principle. It's been pushed as a policy decision model (often by environmentalists) because it "seems" rational. But it isn't. If you want to see how it doesn't work, try substituting "I might have cancer" for global warming.
nairb10k 9 months ago 2
@nairb10k There are inconsistencies, but that is how it is with all principles- there are extremes of its usage. Christians are meant to "turn the other cheek" when faced with adversity from others, but that doesn't mean you should let yourself be controlled by others. The meaning of the principle is "within reason, prepare for the worst". There is no argument against that.
chesterinoaussie 8 months ago
@nairb10k If you feel you might have cancer, you go to the doctor. Sure it will cost a bit to see them, but getting tested for abnormalities could be the thing that stops you being here one day and gone the next. What is wrong with that? How can you argue noticing signs and not making some action on it? The precautionary principle works almost every time when the argument for harm is plausible. It is in fact used by many countries when deciding policies.
chesterinoaussie 8 months ago
@nairb10k See, though, you give a poor example. Replacing global warming with you having cancer is not an equal replacement. You having cancer is a wild speculation with no evidence behind it. The possibility that global warming could be a gigantic problem (or that it even exists in the first place) has been studied - and verified - by scientists more than it has been refuted by scientists.
SuddenlyBees1000 2 months ago
Say man-made GW is real. What have you concluded are the odds that spending could make the difference between column A livable, and column B worst case scenario? You would have us forgo the row 1 column 2 smiley face thus ensuring one of the other 3 terrible outcomes. If the R2C2 disaster turns out to be a real possible GW consequence, what are the odds economic disaster (but "livable," for a few of us I presume) now could fix it?
skidancin 9 months ago
Ordered the book via Amazon in the UK :-)
I don't care if man made global warming is real or not, I do know that we're screwing up the planet and, for the sake of ALL its inhabitants (man and beast), I want to do something about it rather than leave it up to politicians.
Until the sceptics can come up with a good reason NOT to reduce pollution, habitat (and species) loss, prepare for Peak Oil, etc. I'm with Mr Craven!
RichDMoly 10 months ago 3
" Climate is changing NOT BECACUSE OF SUN & CO2. NASA announced that 2008 & 2009 were MINIMUM SOLAR YEARS. Jones & Wilkins ICESHELVES COLLAPED during 2008, moreover WILKINS during WINTER. In the name of CO2 MANY PEOPLE MAKING MONY. If we capture DE-ICERS AT EMISSION POINTS THE CLIMATE PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVE. DO'NT TERRIFY PEOPLE. Visit Sarva Kala Vallabhan Group in facebook "
narayananraveen 10 months ago
Hi, just seen this, This is incredible! I would like to use it (the grid) in my essay on climate change (environmental law). I will of course credit and after the exams are over i'll be interested to read your book. will order it this week when i'm ordering other books :)
Thanks and keep up the good work hopefully for many many years!!!
dandylyonz 10 months ago
and your awesome too
Deerwithshotgun 10 months ago
thanks! i want bacon now :<
Deerwithshotgun 10 months ago
Ur a genius.
WIKILeaksIT 10 months ago
I totally agree with 1:19. I couldn't live without bacon...
KojiruZekida50 10 months ago
this is brilliant. i cannot believe this hasn't been a huge success. definitely buying your book
mccornhead 10 months ago
Global warming is just a big scam to tax the middle and poor class to divert the money to the wealthy elite and there banks for a one world government, but we're on to them. Start by not consuming so much. Then wake up to the signs around you about our political advisers.
jlonich 11 months ago
So, has anyone made the dance mix, yet?
NecroEX083 11 months ago 2
:\ daaaaaamn. we'ze gonna die.
capnjizzy 11 months ago
I think your arguements are valid, but the problem I find with the "Column A and the Column B" theory is that by your logic, EVERY SINGLE issue, no one will EVER tell us, we will have to fight against it, if someone argues, that a great boo boo-tree is controlling the world, and only by destroying all the airplanes we can avoid great catastrophe we would have to take action, to avoid the greatest doom. And my logic is telling me global warming isn't gonna happen.
SlipAllCityToy 11 months ago
you, sir, are amazing... and i wish more people thought like you and I. definately spreading the word.
LimePink177 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
To be, or not to be: that is the question to be asked.
AiDz0r 1 year ago
@wonderingmind42 I'm pretty sure you have been lessoned and educated from Psychology, you are constant requesting and comparing with the worst thing that an ever happen, yet you want a valid value to be taken as action. also>= Hypocrite.
AiDz0r 1 year ago
mate,i dont know about the book,but i saw the first video,and it seems to me like it doesnt matter wheter it is false or true,if we choose "ticket" A(or the yes collumn) it would cost just as much either way,true or false,and it would resualt in the same thing. But if we had a resource based economy it would be a no brainer,but then again,then we would not have the question in the first place,cause there is no way it could be humans causing the climatechange. I go with ticket B(no actions)
CoffeShopLife 1 year ago
Yeah, I'm still not clear on what we're supposed to actually DO about global warming. Buy an electric car? I take public trans anyway. Use less toilet paper? Try not to fart? I mean seriously, how is this our burden to figure out? Besides, whatever the government wants the government gets. Looks like there's more effort being put into scaring us about global warming then actually doing anything about it.
marce11o 1 year ago
Ok.. this might sound silly, I would if I could, but we need to get this guy on the Daily Show, or interviewed on a highly watched television show. You could be going somewhere with this. and I support you all the way man :)
flyguymetalforce 1 year ago 25
ohh man, wife, and kids? What a shame! He's not only smart, but cute!!!
hanlansboy 1 year ago
he's using a mac - he got to be sound..
mixxmexx 1 year ago
Basic Idea: Action is better than idleness. A bad decision is better than no decision. Putting effort into staying clean is far better than just hoping that nothing will happen. When it comes to worse case scenarios, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
The real problem is the fact that all the money goes into the lobyists pockets and not to fix the problem. But that's another debate.....
helidelorean 1 year ago
Shared and forwarded both "The most terrifying video you'll ever see" and this vid, and I'm ordering the book. Let's do this :D
Tryfing94 1 year ago
ok man in video, the earth is going to change no matter what. you or i either can prevent this. we are just a cycle of nature that is confused and scared. earth will change with or with out us. the human is just a protein for our planet as were the previous livings here on earth. time will tell and then do not worry cause you can not stop nature, cause nature is you.
123ninjapower 1 year ago
@123ninjapower you are using circular/faulty logic... and your apparent thesis is that we should do nothing to stop our self-destruction even though it is completely within our power to do so, because the Earth changes. Of course the Earth will change (usually on geologic timescales of thousands of years) and we would do well to plan for those eventualities instead of digging our own graves. Get it?
feralcamero 1 year ago
@123ninjapower A population of reindeer might overgraze and overbreed until their population crashes (St. Matthew Island study, 1944), and may thereby be victims that "cannot stop nature", but of all species mankind is uniquely conscious and able to act to avoid such catastrophes. I've read postings that reflect various Kübler-Ross stages of grief before (denial, anger, etc.), but I think yours may be the first I've seen that celebrates acceptance so vigorously. I hope that's a little premature!
shadezofgrayfulness 1 year ago
@EnergeticRob976 and @everyone who's watched this guys videos. NIce videos and great message, but you are seriously trying to get rich off of people for their own ideas? Don't buy the books, this guy is a fraud.
K1LL4FORN14 1 year ago
Oh no no no, this is not true. We've got an endless supply of oil and if the earth gets too hot, we'll just all have a/c. No problems with all those cfcs and pollution. Go ahead drive your suv's, have a few more babies, make more waist. I am sure the ocean enjoys the extra pollution. If ever man did have a "purpose" for being on Earth, then surely man was assigned to care for her, mother Earth. Man should be ashamed.
Thinkify1 1 year ago
I actually just saw this video and enjoyed it! Yeah, as some have said, the planet can take care of itself, but that's when it has time to regulate and NOT when we are pouring who knows what into the water, atmosphere, soil, etc. faster than what it could recover from. I mean, we've screwed with enough other things so meh.
lakebeauty17 1 year ago
@xtremetvfan he reminds me of a rabbit too! Too bad the world's going to end and we're all going to die before we all know if global warming is true or not.
taoaoal 1 year ago
i like your arguments and the fact you remind me of a rabbit
xtremetvfan 1 year ago
Is that your kid in the picture in the backround? cuz shes cute :) but really, your smart. really smart for a science teacher. And whats even more sweet, you actually made me interested in global warming! (which is pretty hard, since i hate nearly everything politicians talk about....)
alison14141 1 year ago
...The book should be one page only. It should say, " Go and do productive things with your life, this is a scam ". This is a scam by the UN to get more control and make more money than they could possibly spend. Period, The End.
thomas43ification 1 year ago
TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THIS VIDEO- sir, is the illuminati for real?
MOHITMASTIWALA 1 year ago
you are awesome , you are one of my faveorite people now. the world needs people like you. people are afraid of the truth and because they are afraid of the truth , they wont stop to listen or understand what the truth is. there will be a revolution. i am spreading the word about your video , and that's a promise. i truly believe that we are on a fast train to hell , no one stops to see where the train is headed or when it will stop. they just keep going....until we crash and burn. we're fucked.
northsidegirls420 1 year ago
Loving them end bit! :D
zandaiscool2008 1 year ago
I hope this guys dreams come true I smell bacon
millerjason 1 year ago
For everything there is a season....Dont give up or give in, your message is logical and reasonable. @godmachine1000 Key word here "Baffles the brains" Who's brain does logic baffle? He is saying think about it, lets debate it, study it and come to a (and the spelling is) conclusion....Are U afraid to talk about it?
reddeb92503 1 year ago
Comment removed
reddeb92503 1 year ago
It's risk assessment. not fear mongering. It's a common practice in weighing pros and cons.
citrusl33t 1 year ago
was that book made in a facility using renewable energy and recycled paper w/o bleached pages?
hellojacob 1 year ago
the logic of his original video can be applied to any argument proposing a global catastrophe. (Terrorism, hostile UFO takeovers, Spontaneous combustion etc...)
The question isnt whether global warming will happen or not, the question is why humans have this obsessive need to fix stuff that isnt broken. Yes, this includes reversing global warming.
If for once humanity just shut up for a moment, just one fucking split second of a moment, and not try to fix ANYTHING..... nah...
psychojewboy 1 year ago
@psychojewboy Fix stuff that isn't broken? Well, it's not broken YET. Not quite. We fix stuff before it breaks all the time, because it's MORE EFFICIENT than waiting until after it breaks. Do you ever do maintenance on your car, change the oil, change the tires, whatever? Or do you wait until your oil becomes so "broken" that the engine seizes up, or the tires have so little tread left that you crash your car? We don't always get a second chance, so I'd rather change my tires. How about you?
swagmonkey 1 year ago
this entire thing is amazing and inspiring. ill be getting your book, thank you!
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
3,000,000+ views on the 1st video and 18,000 on this one.
OMG...lazy planet...oops. I mean lazy humans.
LOL
Thanks my friend.
covellz 1 year ago
having just watched the video , it bull s---- baffles brains ,if you take action or not , its like do you believe in god , A friend once said to me , I don't believe in god but I go to church because I might be wrong . Most people believe in protecting the planet but wear it goes wrong , its not caused by c02. Fact ever time man has played with nature it has gone wrong. concussion don't play with things you know nothing about. and you can put that in any box on your grid.
godmachine1000 1 year ago
hahaha you look like Daniel Jackson oh god AND YOU ACT LIKE HIM
01234V43210 1 year ago
pussy
LarrttaPantalones 1 year ago
The earth will take care of its self... nothing you write will empower people to answer questions there are no answers to. Sure, pollution is not good for anything, but not anything that can be directly attached to GCC. The people at the grocery store trying to save the whales, or enlightening us about plastic recycling are all good ideas in theory, but again, not a solution. Telling me that this book can give anyone hope is like telling me a dwarf in the backseat of a jet will slow it down.
sickdrummerdotcom 1 year ago
@sickdrummerdotcom I think you miss the point. 'The earth will take care of its self...' doesn't include humankind well being or the high standard of living we have now.
Infloresence 1 year ago
@sickdrummerdotcom Uh, do you know how greenhouse gasses work? Yes, pollution can directly influence GCC. They teach this shit to like first graders. Haha, you don't have the equivalent of a first grade education.
01234V43210 1 year ago
"The bottom line" There's too many people on this planet and sooner or later something is gonna give. It certainly won't be the wealthy that do the giving either. It will most likely be the snapping of mankind's already thin tolerance towards itself. (K)
happyoke13 1 year ago
I read about global warming in New Scientist about 30 years ago and that was one of the reasons I didn't get a car. Too little too late is being done now and governments are panicking and arriving at scary New World Order 'Final Solutions' that are nothing less than high tech Nazism that would wipe out at least 80% of world’s population. Now scientists are saying the sun is cooling and we are moving towards another Ice Age. How does all that fit into the Carroll Diagrams?
greedycrook 1 year ago
Well man, whatever the outcome of the world, you'll sure be profiting from our couple of bucks for your book, amirite?
Here's an idea. Sky Wizards will eventually attack our land! What's the worst that can happen? Our end, right? Well, man, we sure gotta build defenses for those Sky Wizards.
MartyMD 1 year ago
@MartyMD Read the book, or watch the video. Whichever, because he's already shot your argument down.
privateye9111 1 year ago
@EnergeticRob976 Yeah, I thought the book was bound to be interesting too. While I was writing it, I thought "My god, some of this stuff is incredible! No one has done this before! I'm bound for the NYT bestseller list!" Buuuuuut, judging from the sales, it wasn't that interesting. Oh well. At least I can look at my little girls when they grow up and say "I am so sorry, sweethearts, but I did all I could." You might still enjoy the book. Some people did.
wonderingmind42 1 year ago 32
@wonderingmind42 That is the problem, no one wants to spend money on a debate book. Or a normal book...
jona4176 1 year ago
@wonderingmind42 at least u tried and that is more than most. and if u influenced anyone (which by the way u did) then u achieved something. we can only hope more people take notice before its too late!
PeteMcD923 10 months ago
@wonderingmind42 You should take it to schools and see if they'll add it to curriculum. I think it has a standing chance as a good debate solver in the youth. You should make a video or article, asking people to give copies of the book to teachers and school boards.
MidnightMetro 9 months ago
@wonderingmind42 I think you should pursue getting something like this made into a movie or movie sereis, movies after all have a way of stimulating viewers. Just an idea.
thedevastator888 9 months ago
Most people agree with the fact that action should be taken to provide a pristine environment to generations yet to come. However, I believe in PEOPLE and capitalistic approaches which encourage competition and rewards innovation to ensure the pursuit of better technology. Government regulation does not has not ever worked. America has over 1,100 years of natural gas that we are not allowed to use because of impertinent government regulation. Let the PEOPLE take care of their environment.
getdjman 1 year ago
@getdjman Yes, as we learned with BP, clearly letting companies regulate their own shit is a great idea. After all, all those pelicans where actually HAPPY about the oil. Now they can drive cars!
MrShayneOneill 1 year ago 2
@MrShayneOneill Aaaaahahahaha. This comment made me laugh :)
I am in favor of PEOPLE making the change happen, because depending on our government would be foolish due to the fact the US government is "of the people, BY the people" to begin with... or at least is supposed to be. However, I dissagree with the capitalistic approach, because fighting global warming is NOT going to be financially profitable. In fact, most companies now claiming to "Be green", just slapped on a sticker.
vampirateprincess 1 year ago
@vampirateprincess Glad you got a laugh out if :) I think it can be "profitable" , but we have to redefine what we mean by profitable. If we mean profitable in terms of companies shareholder money blah, then it probably wont be for those outside of renewable energy. But as a source of happiness and satisfaction, and community capital, then fighting for the earth is very profitable. However I think theres a lot of jobs/wealth to be created in rebuilding dirty parts of the economy.
MrShayneOneill 1 year ago
@terracottapie: please explain what it is the correct term silly, the suspense is killing me
SheCallsMePanda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the ant iterrorest disproves this ... dont believe
lithcause 1 year ago
the ant iterrorest disproves this ... dont believe
lithcause 1 year ago
Hi Greg, Congratulations on getting published. That, alone, is a major accomplishment. Well done. But I should say up front I that I believe global warming -- uh, I mean "climate change" -- is a thoroughly dubious proposition devised to empower leftists and disempower people. In this video, you praise "the power of the people", but in your pink slip video, you complain how selfish individuals spend money that would be more wisely spent by the government. It's a contradiction. Thanks.
stuntbaby63 1 year ago
??????????
MalcolmGCurrie 1 year ago
This is the best-articulated argument I've ever seen. Debate and inaction are killing an opportunity to make the world better.
GraemeStone 1 year ago
@GraemeStone falsifying information is how global climate change has been "proven".. the argument is indeed good, but it doesn't take into account that GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT OCCURING
usabispingfan 1 year ago
@usabispingfan I think you miss his point. which is, even if we're wrong, there are benefits to being conservative in regards to safe-guarding the environment. His argument is pretty narrow, and focused, and yet you pick it apart on the very points that make the argument solid. Not to mention his first question: is it possible that you're wrong?
GraemeStone 1 year ago
Climategate.....only a handful of scientists endorse global warming. These handful get tons of "grant" money (a.k.a. bribes). Look it up and do the research.
SheCallsMePanda 1 year ago
@SheCallsMePanda
"Only a handful of scientists endorse global warming"
LOL!
Nobody "endorses" global warming, silly.
terracottapie 1 year ago
it always ends in profit... why?? i refuse to believe greed is a "natural" thing. Am I the only one that does not think for profit???? if you really wanted to spread the word you would have put it up for free.
bboydee 1 year ago
@bboydee you do realize that he had to chip in for publishing the book as well as the tremendous amount of paper needed, you have to spend money anyway to make money so he's just doing anything anyone would do to promote their product or whatever.
kylem1112 1 year ago
@kylem1112 Like I said, put it up ONLINE for free. the most money he would need if he'd want to make it professional looking would be a domain name which is cheap, but could easily be replaced by a free blog. Books, specially today are definitely not the fastest and most shared medium. By publishing it as a book he wants to make money in order to regain some of the things he lost while doing extensive research and stuff. this man is brave, but only as brave as we all should be.
bboydee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your a fucking fag
samuraibabe81 1 year ago
@samuraibabe81 your a asshole
danzman69 1 year ago
REGARDLESS of whether the planet is hitting global climate change or not, what's the worst that can happen? We stop using up all of the fossil fuels, we find of more energy, cost efficient methods to live our lives comfortably. Hey. no one said you need to wear burlap underpants and live in trees.
kaisaris25 1 year ago
I love this nerd.
wassworth 1 year ago
right. very entertaining. What's your insight into the Climategate conspiracy and the NWO agenda?
superdiza 1 year ago
CONGRATULATIONS!! :) hopefully I'll get a copy here in Mexico
JaniceChaos 1 year ago
everyone knows that global warming is happening the thing is that no one wants to believe it its so easy to make a difference, and helps you and your family such as home built wind turbines home built solar panels and even if global warming is false think how much money you could save sorry if ders any spelling mistakes
stifflaaaaaaa2007 1 year ago
@ gameboob
the same actions we expect of ourselves.
why should they do things if its not for the best of our interest.
thelocofocos 1 year ago
govt should do for people only the things that people cannot do for themselves. govt needs to tax carbon. people will not voluntarily switch to more expensive alt energies when fossil fuels are cheaper. not enough to make any difference. govt needs to tax & cap carbon.
jffryh 1 year ago
lol and I thought he was just kidding about his red bull bills
koolman280 1 year ago
sounds like good ol commen sents. we had better wake up this guy is right, and the resseon he is right is we cant afford to take a chance on something like this.
van12348 2 years ago
OK, so what actions do our governments take?
Gameboob 2 years ago
I like the question "what actions do we, the people take". In theory, we hired our government and our job is to let them know loud and clear what WE want. Maybe it's time to turn off our TV's, computers, WII"s and other technology and get outside, meet your neighbors, grow a garden, identify core values and figure out how to achieve them! Wake up! Get off our booty's and get busy talking to people and standing up for our country and constitution. Its up to us. Its up to us. Its up to us!
ammasdaughter1008 1 year ago
govt needs to tax & cap carbon. write your congressperson & senators a letter or something. I don't really know what might get them to listen tho.
jffryh 1 year ago
What people should do is support the Venus Project. Watcj Zeitgeist Addendum and understand what the root of controversy is and how a Resource Based Economy advocates unadulterated information as well as clean holistic living.
knivlac 2 years ago
shit... i wouldn't have droped school if i would have had a teacher like you...
RainyDayWolf 2 years ago 5
@RainyDayWolf why hes only trying to help the earth and you and i
stifflaaaaaaa2007 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
From most people on here showing a total lack of rationality and easy acceptance of scaremongering by this fool. I must assume that you people treat global warming like a religion and you believe that the world is definitely going to end if we don't stop using carbon completely right now.
There is no way to hold a rational discussion with such dogma.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Footnote.
If we stop using fossil fuels then there is no mass transportation of food.
5 billion people will starve to death, this will start with the population of western cities as we are the furthest from our food supplies.
PS, listen to this guy talk, if you cant see he's a pompous twit whose scaring people for cash then you are an idiot.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Dear Moron, Scare Mongering (I think you meant fear mongering) is not the intention of the this guy. It's providing a logical means for figuring out the best course of action giving a set of possible outcomes. There are alternatives to fossil fuels that allow for transportation of food, but the reality is our current global system of food distribution is completely inefficient to begin with. Shipping beans from Malaysia to climates that can grow them on their own is pure lunacy.
nathantruant 2 years ago 28
@nathantruant i know this was a year ago, but i'm still commenting lol. i agree with everything except the last sentence. comparative advantage says that if malaysia is trading beans for something those climates are better at producing (comparatively), then it makes economic sense to grow beans in malaysia. although maybe that argument is moot considering this guy's is more about playing the safe card when it comes to global warming, now what is economically most beneficial. cheers!
yotube123454321 1 year ago
You are completely missing the point, the rate and amount of change have all occurred before, and we are still here.
If a nuclear family can only reduce there CO2 footprint by 20% by having 1 car, no plane trips, own wind turbine and growing own food how exactly are we supposed to 'save the planet' and not reduce living standards dramatically? Impossible
Spend £4 bln now and provide clean drinking water for all or £40bln in 10yrs on preventing a scenario that is based on very questionable data
tris76UK 2 years ago
@tris76UK
- I think you missed a point as well... yes, it has happened before... difference is, last time it happened... was BEFORE the industrial age.
We're not the cause, we're the aggravators.
Sure it's happened all before, but this time it will be THAT MUCH WORSE.
... take an example from the Nature vs. Nurture debate, what was the result? ... that both Nature and Nurture have their impacts.
Same goes for Global Warming.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
Eh???? Exactly, before the industrial age!! That goes to show that the factors, known and unknown, were occurring prior to the industrial age to change climate. There is know way of knowing therefore how much we do influence the climate.
I reiterate the fact that the rate and amount of change have occurred before more dramatically than at present,so its not unusual.
worse for who???? humankind? tens of thousands of species have become extinct because of climate change in the earths history....
tris76UK 2 years ago
@tris76UK
- that is an 'Appeal to Ignorance' logical fallacy... along with just a hint of 'Post hoc'.
Sorry, but that's just negative evidence... you should look up Ice Core research... also, of course we have no way of knowing... that's why educated predictions and calculation simulations are used...
As for the 'worse for who' ... worse for all, that tens of thousands may end up as hundreds of thousands... that's who it's worse for.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
..we may become one of them.
My point is to spend trillions of $ on CO2 reduction is lunacy. If you do not consider it to be you are putting preserving western lifestyle above clean water&food for all etc. turn fields growing crops for green cars when there is a lack of food in the world?
it has to be about rigorous sustainability, and at present the planet cannot sustain the level of population we have.
Its a question of priorities, save millions of lives now or maybe thousands in the future
tris76UK 2 years ago
@tris76UK
- in some ways, yes... however, there are other options as well... spending money on CO2 reduction TECHNOLOGY research and etc... is useful in many ways, because it will be useful for reducing CO2 and will bring about new technologies to follow it that may good for other uses.
As for the biofuel, that was an unforseeable mistake... the next step is to learn from that mistake... look up Oilgae.
Also, you're using the 'Oversimplified cause' and 'False dichotomy' logic fallacies.
HypnoPants 2 years ago
The way I see it is this, CO2 isnt the problem its been blown upto be, for what ever reason. The whole debate is based on very questionable temperature data, past and present. I plead with you and anyone else to watch this:
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? on youtube.
Why hasn't the IPCC countered these issues? It cant! It just 'slates' anyone with any other interpretation.
The west will never reduce standard of living, we are the problem, all the world want what we have,why do we deserve it?
tris76UK 2 years ago
@tris76UK
- ... tell that to the poor of America... their standard of living isn't exactly 'all that great' or anything.
However, the majority of temperature data from the majority of the scientific community seems to point towards global warming... the thing is, some data may be questionable... but if you think the majority of the scientific community is questionable... then I wonder about your paranoia.
Seriously, you mean the worldwide scientific community is all in on it?
Illuminati!?
HypnoPants 2 years ago
I don't smoke.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
Seriously, if this guy cant spell it out to you in these simple and logical terms, nothing will. Ur better off rotting in a ditch somwhere while the rest of us who actually care about our futures and the futures of our children, do what we can to save our planet from the potential risk that it faces.
OxyDemonic 2 years ago 4
If it comes down to living with someone like this and dying. I would rather die. WITF are you getting your info? You need to relearn the fact's. Global warming is a crock of shit all to a manfrom the UN named Maurice Strong trying to get rich and control all. Look up the story behind him. The show Conspiricy Theory is good to watch. So far everything Jesse Ventura speaks of stands up. It's all here, you simply just have to pull your head out of your ass and look.
Primalpsycho4574 2 years ago
Substitute "alien invasion" for "catastrophic climate change" and see how much sense his logic makes. Unless you include realistic probabilities this sort of argument is silly.
PetroniusTheArbiter 2 years ago
Why would you substitute total science fiction with natural occurance? There's evidence of a catastrophic climate change right in front of you.....not some invasion
AhmedBabarX 2 years ago
at least he got of his butt and did something .
mobiuslad 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PS your so called logic doesn't make sense.
All you are doing is scaremongering, that makes you quite a sad and desperate man who is exploiting peoples fears for monitary gain.
Sen. McCarthy would be so proud.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
No, his logic is pretty sound. There is no scaremongering going on here. Regardless if the planet is warming or not, we are polluting our environment and causing mass extinctions.
TJMonster51 2 years ago 30
His logic is only sound if you assume a worst possible scenario, therefore you must postulate his extinction level global warming event as an actual occurrences that needs to be actively prevented.
This is his argument and it is scare mongering at its worst.
Rationality and logic are excluded from a scenario that has only speculation of catastrophe as an only possible outcome.
He fails on three major points.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
! Assumption that global warming will not have natural remedies that stop it being so devastating
2, Assumption that global warming is irreversible and there is a tipping point that suddenly sends us over the edge. Venus is not a comparison to earth.
3, Assumption that Global warming cannot be remedied by measures like cloud seeding through aerosol dispersion into the atmosphere above the oceans, therefore blocking sunlight warming.,
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
4, Assumption that we scare mongering sells books and makes this freak money.
This guy is ranting for cash, he pretends that all the answers have been debated, he also says he is totally biiased,
He is an arrogant fool who scares and I pity the poor kids that he frightenes like a mad cult leader.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
@MarcusCardiff
- hmm... the tobacco debates way back when were very similar...
From your reaction, you'd be on the side of the smokers...
(scare mongering... I pity those who think smoking is actually bad for you)
... yeah, it's not like scientists use empirical evidence or anything. *cough*
HypnoPants 2 years ago
@TJMonster51 and the fact that over 90% of all the species are dead now and we didnt kill them all means nothing?
sure we pollute this planet but planet can easly take it. ba! she took a lot more in the past than just our garbage.
like george carlin once said : the planet is fine... the ppl are fucked.
utar88utar 1 year ago
Looks like it's gone to your head,
Arrogance isn't an admirable quality.
For someone keen on debate I wonder why you have the comments disabled on that film.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
you look like a smarter stephen colbert
swaGa1nRz 2 years ago
Stephen Colbert is a genius!
Shvingter88 2 years ago
(continue)
And this then boils down to the fact that a good policy (both in regards to peak oil and global warming) is to narrow the gap between the time durable alternatives will be cheaper by subsidizing the development of such promising alternatives.
It could help to restore the financial catastrophy also, since we are investing in something which has a sure return on investment.
robheus123 2 years ago
I completely agree with investment in alternatives to enable cheaper and more sustainable energy, but not in taxing existing energy at very high rates to artificially make alternatives look cheaper. Especially when taxing is to begin almost immediately with no viable alternatives in site (wind is unpredictable, solar is daytime, nuclear is not liked due to waste, etc). Looks more like urgent desire to enact global economic government.
MrDB427 2 years ago 2
There are a LOT of alternatives, and many of them have the promise to become a cheaper source of energy as existing fossil fuels at some point. Alternatives will become cheaper, fossiles will become more expensive
Wind is pretty predictable (in comparision with say a breakdown of a conventional powerplant) and when used in combination with other sources (which can be varied in power depending on demand) and using long range electric connections, does not compromise continued electricity delivery
robheus123 2 years ago
You mean, you absolutely disagree with government intervention in the market. At least in this field. But remember, the governments do continually interfere with the global markets, and in most occasions in favour of their own economies and in disfavour of third world economies.
Second. The subsidy is only used to overcome a period when alternatives are more expensive as fossil fuels. See it as a long time investment (very similar to what oil companies themselves do over long periods of time).
robheus123 2 years ago
And lastly, if we leave the issue of climate change and fuel prices completely unregulated (like you advocating), we will never find a way to solve the problems, and especially the developing countries pay the price (both on climate change and on peakoil prices) We could learn from the Chinese which continually take drastic measures to raise energy efficiency and promote durable energy, and are a front player on the automobile market by introducing the latest developments in car/motor efficiency
robheus123 2 years ago