It's unfortunate that they would provide a platform for this author to present on "Climategate" without a cross-examination of the facts. There were thousands of emails involved, and only a very few *looked* suspicious. Those were investigated and addressed by several inquiries whose products are available to the public.
More importantly, though, the results of these scientists have been reviewed, reproduced, and corroborated by other scientists and even skeptics.
@grantcivyt You're right. The video is an example of extremist histrionics. The science denialists realize they don't need to win; they only have to create confusion.
@Joe11Blue Not at all. Climategate was a manufactured pseudo-event. Some emails were misinterpreted and taken out of context and convinced a lot of non-scientific people that something was amiss. Much like other science denialists, the AGW deniers just repost nonsense over and over and over so long as it agrees with their preconceptions.
@TheFallibleFiend I simply do not accept AGW. I've been following this topic since the mid-95's and have a degree in Physics. The Math doesn't work out in my mind, and the figures they use for the CO^2 levels seem to be partially manufactured. CO^2 distribution in the atmosphere is not complete, it tend's to stay near the ground and in pockets. They've also never fully explained their calculations on solar cycle interference, as the math is wrong in their models.
@TheFallibleFiend Whenever someone is called out for saying something that reveals their true colors they inevitably claim it was taken out of context.
@dubified89 Yes. And sometimes people exaggerate and repeat stuff they don't know anything about, because they have already reached their conclusion based on their political or religious preconceptions.
whaaat? What a sick commercial with the exploding people, I thought it was meant sarcastic. Wow green people are really sick to create something like that, just disgusting!
"A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint." in Wikipedia
"Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable..."
"A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature. (...)"
I literally had to peel my hands off my face at the end of this clip...
I'd love to see some graphs to illustrate the amount of rivers that have been cleaned with increased economic growth. What does he think made them dirty on the first place? Communism? But of course we can't keep cleaning rivers with all those Marxist lefties attempting to preserve scarce resources for the future, those damn fascists!
UNFA: If you looked at the EPA website (see my "mccainisthroughx refutation station part II" for the screenshots & links) you'd see that over the past 20+ years, mercury levels & most toxic emissions have declined. But those were good talking points.
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool.
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
High school biology teaches the great shortage in the air is available CO2-it is the limit to life on earth. There has been no increase in this gas in the air over last 200 years
The school biology teaches that green plants convert all the available carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No builder of carbon dioxide in the air is even possible. That was fiction from nuclear power. The agents of our death!
Very interesting! Looking at the comments here; I notice that the alarmists allways attack the person, instead of debating the scientific facts. This is what makes me recognise the Global Warming hysteria as a religion, not Science. CO2 is good for plants. The Greenies should love CO2.
I thought that "blow-up" people ad was a conservative, global-warming denialist stunt. I thought the clear message was that environmentalists are evil, dogmatic, two-faced scumbags. Was it really put out by environmentalists?
Highly school biology teaches that green plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. Man has increased life on earth, but he's carbon dioxide can have no conceivable effect on the weather. As the level of that gas in the air has been constant since the little ice age ended. Carbon dioxide goes up in an ice ages. So obviously does not cause global warming.
"Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now. (...)"
ibtimes(dot)com - Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN
@Chatlein Have you read the article? As it doesn't say that at all.
To quote the writer of the paper itself: "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step".
@CollinMaessen Yes, I've read the article and also other articles and I agree with you that it's an important first step. Some examples: ww(dot)nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504. html
@Chatlein So don't you think it's a bit of a stretch, if you agree with me, to claim it said anything along the lines of "cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming"?
As the paper itself never makes those kinds of claims.
@Chatlein So you agree with "it's a very important step", but what about "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate"?
Are you implying that you disagree with that part?
@CollinMaessen I suggest once more that you go and read again the texts and also the charts / tables that are published about this subject. Then you'll understand for sure what I mean. If not, it's not my fault... :)
From my part our talk about this "subject" ends here. Antropogenic global warming is a subject that I do not discuss anymore, since I saw what it is all about. And I must tell you that I'm well informed on the subject.
@Chatlein In other words you refuse to answer a simple question. And stick with your sources that this paper confirms that there is a link between global warming and cosmic rays.
While the author of the paper very specifically said: "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate"
@Chatlein If the author says it's a conclusion you cannot draw from the paper, it does not leave it open for other interpretation. That's not narrow-minded.
What you are doing, by disagreeing with what the author said, is just choosing to believe otherwise despite the available facts.
@CollinMaessen What I call narroww-mindedness is the fact that you are taking ONE sentence from the text to pursue your goal. Why don't you quote, for example, one sentence which shows that their investigation creates a large uncertainty in atmospheric models and climate predictions? That behaviour is what I call a dishonest one, that reveals narrow-mindedness.
Consciousness and knowledge are personal responsibilities.. I'm not here to sell my fish. Bye bye :)))
@Chatlein I wasn't quoting the paper, I was quoting a statement released by the author released after, sources like you used, claimed something the paper doesn't say. It's a direct response to those claims.
The paper also doesn't show the level of nucleation proponents of the theory need, they can't even seed clouds. And neither does it negate the fact that cosmic ray flux has been flat and that the IPCC acknowledges this cosmic ray uncertainty.
@Chatlein Youtube has a 500 character limit, that poses restrictions on me in the amount of information I can convey. If it's not clear, and you can't identify my source, just ask for it.
And again, you're not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the author of the paper on what it actually says. As he said, very clearly, that it says absolutely nothing on a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate
You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
Comparing these Libertarian journalists (whose conspiracy theory is incoherent fear-mongering) and a few crazy scientists to Galileo is a bit ridiculous. Galileo's nemesis was the Catholic Church, not other scientists. Galileo, Einstein, and others are famous because they convinced others that they were correct through the "peer-review" process, where as a few scientists are infamous (like cold fusion) guys because they made claims without subjecting them to peer-review.
Comparing these Libertarian journalists (whose conspiracy theory is incoherent fear-mongering) and a few crazy scientists to Galileo is a bit ridiculous. Galileo's nemesis was the Catholic Church, not other scientists. Galileo, Einstein, and others are famous because they convinced others that they were correct through the "peer-review" process, where as a few scientists are infamous (like cold fusion) guys because they made claims without subjecting them to peer-review.
I will say though, that interviewing somebody is not the same as agreeing with them. Reason Magazine has had a few articles condemning the death threats against climate scientists. However, the scientist that Koch Industries hired to testified that global warming was fake, Richard Muller, came to the conslusion of other scientists that AGW was real and even recommended an ARPA style crashlike program to prevent it, LOL.
_
Don't you hate it when things go wrong for Koch Industries?
en [dot] wikipedia [dot] org / wiki / List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
_
As you can see, the vast majority of published climate scientists, about 98%, support the AGW hypothesis. The others are few cranks with an ax to grind. In much the same way, quite a few scientists, mostly retired, question evolution. Climate change is real.
"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world's warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998."
A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño's warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.
"Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the "noise" of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend."
@surrealnumber See even after you have quite CLEARLY shown you are a disingenuous scum bag you STILL are acting like a prick - WHICH CONTRARY TO YOUR DISINGENUOUS CLAIM PROVES ME RIGHT...
Dont worry, am used to it - Machiavellianism goes so completely through right wing umwelts that it is completely invisible to them....
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and AGAIN you dismiss an average of a MILLION people a week dying for 90 YEARS. You have quite clearly go ZERO empathy or compassion (ironically) and a complete disregard for science. Now we should establish ARE YOU A PSYCHOPATH? Do you feel pangs of guilt or conscience? Are you capable of loving anyone else but yourself? Can you harm others/animals without feeling anything? Do you think yourself superior to everyone else? I bet I am steering in the right direction...
@StunnedByStupidity you cant make a post without attacking a person, that means you dont care to debate, you dont care about the truth, you only care to insult, that brutish stance means you lose. once you grow up a little and can talk to someone without attacking them your opinion might start to matter. i have not taken a single argument on this topic and all you have done is slander me repeatedly and i am not a special case here. trolls dont win arguments they lose by default.
sorry but i have listed about half of your logical fallicies before running out of characters, only admiting to making personal attacks still does not cover the fact that you have made the rest of the previously pointed out errors. even now you are saying billions will die with no proof strining together a slew of nonsequitors to try to make your point. you are doing no justice to your cause here.
@surrealnumber No you made loads of errors oh and you smell of poo - I have no evidence in specifics 'cos like you am an irrational lunatic that cannot get in the ring and instead (and HILARIOUSLY HYPOCRITICALLY) hurl insults from the side lines... And yes that is known as irony - right wingers can do it (as the video above) CLEARLY shows.
Now SCUM BAG answer the fucking questions or prove me right AGAIN...
@StunnedByStupidity BTW Am more than happy to supply peer reviewed evidence of my claims - ALL OF THEM - but we will be expecting you to do likewise and not claim (like ALL right wing scum bags do) that peer reviewed evidence is useless...
@StunnedByStupidity See you have run away - THATS why I didn't initially run off for lots of peer reviewed proof.
'4 degrees hotter: an adaptation trap?' google it. A quote:
'Half of the world would be uninhabitable. Likely population capacity: under one billion people. Whilst the loss will be exponential and bunch towards the end of the century, on average that is a million human global warming deaths every week, every year for the next 90 years. The security implications need no discussion'
Global Climate Warming man-made disruption thingy. What ever it's called this week is about political domination, Google Water Despotism to see how it will work.
Let's just say that man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they call it now is 100% true. Rather than set a realistic timetable for making a smooth transition to a viable alternative energy source, the "solution" is a global tax on carbon. Oh, of course, other nations will get to pollute as much as they want, while Americans get to deindustrialize even further. This plan sounds like it's more about dominating people than "saving the environment."
@augustandjune You're exactly right. The "movement" has even ditched environmentalists(not that most of them realize it) and has become it's own multi-billion dollar industry with little regard for actual environmental issues.
The big winners are companies like BP, but the environmentalists still whine about "industry" funded research.
The best part of argueing on this thread about smoking is that Al Gore made his money by investing in tobacco. He claims that he sold his father's tobacco holdings when he found out that smoking was harmful, but all he did was sell the stock in that company and invest it in other tobacco companies. More of a diversification of funds than a moral decision I would say.
If you listen to Eisenhower's farewell speech, he actually warns against a type of "scientific industrial complex" much like he warned about the military industrial complex. It's not at all unthinkable. You are talking about trillions of dollars and massive power and control over society. No group deserves that type of authority. Sorry. If the ship goes down it goes down.
The modern green movement is about collectivism and anti-capitalism. A junk science cult as bad as Islam when it comes to persecution of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
Look at all the 'Sciences'. You cannot contest any part of Evolution without being labeled 'Non-Science'. They all want us to believe them as unrefutable and they get their money from the governments. I am all for renewable energy but NOT because of global warming but because as humans we think and move forward. They don't want questions.
@NewFrambian Of coarse people can contest any part of Evolution without being labeled 'Non-Science'. Scientists do it all the time. Maybe when you do it, you simply fail to understand the subject of which you are contesting and simply sound anti-science. There is no question the earth is warming and the CO2 is playing a role, but there is a reasonable large about of room to question the amount of change expected from man made CO2.
Being associated with those who deny basic science is the main reason I am often embarrassed to admit to being a libertarian... honestly, you may as well have put a creationist video up.
Anthropogenic climate change denial is not a libertarian position.
@jadcott "Anthropogenic climate change denial is not a libertarian position." No its a completely valid opinion based on scientific facts. You betray your own mindless collectivism by framing the argument as political in the first place.
@Huboons Exactly, it isn't political. People seem to take a contrary position due to it being a cause championed by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Just because "collectivists" and "anti-capitalists" talk about it doesn't make it false.
@jadcott Actually, it is political because it is imposing a solution upon an alleged problem. And their solution is global central planning and socialism. Which is worse than the alleged problem. No thanks!
@TrippingTheTube I completely agree. The solutions proposed are probably wrong. But climate change sceptics are not rallying against the proposals, they're arguing that there is no problem to begin with... It's akin to arguing against proposed solutions to the global financial crisis by saying that there is no crisis and it's all being made up by economists to justify their jobs. It's simply incorrect.
@jadcott Nothing makes it false. Scientific fact makes it in question. AGW cultists hurt their own cause stating it is settled science when it is not. Having said that, the average person is going to ignore them in the future when they do things like lie and hide data to protect their positions.
@Huboons I honestly think most think it is settled but only because they have never once read an alternative point of view. Either because the editors of journals and professors across the globe have done a great job making it hard to get the alternative information, or simply because they are afraid to have their beliefs questioned. If these people actually read both sides it would be hard for them to actually say the debate is settled. I was one of those that was converted.
@Huboons No, it is not. Even the leading scientific skeptics all agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. What makes a scientific skeptics, who are often used to claim AGW is not happening, is those scientist who believe the effect of AGW are far less the most scientist in the field. So, there is some valid opinion based on scientific facts that the earth will only increase 1'C from AGW, but at the same time so it 10'C. Both are on the fringes, but both are within "valid opinions"
@jadcott Do you see the danger in the 'Cllmate Change' mantra. I am a Libertarian. I also consider myself an environmentalist. I was onboard completely with climate change until I saw the money and the players involved. Something stinks. Here's the big reason I'm a skeptic. When's the last time we heard about Mercury levels in the Ocean, or the oil spill in the Gulf. MTBSE? By design or coincidence, Climate Change has put every other environmental issue behind the curtain. Think about it.
@jadcott The earth is 0.6 degrees warmer than it was a century ago. I don't see any libertarians seriously arguing against that. There are legitimate arguments that nobody knows what our impact has been as we still can't produce a viable climate model. The argument can also be made and surely must be, that the fear mongering we see regarding climate change is very disingenuous.
I don't see many people denying the actual data, rather the interpretations of the data such as the IPCC report.
sorry, but you didnt examine the point I made. in, at least, 500 years we will have long run out of fossil fuels. We have the choice to engaged in renewable energy our we will face the mass exctintion of mankind. forget the "politics" of what you are talking about. So please tell me of what you want, the killing of the masses of people due to natural law or embracing the "green" philosophy? and your theories on communists-green conspiricies are just plain stupid.
Either we will have to embrace renewable energies and technologies or population reduction will happen automatically as a result. Think about what the world will look like in 500 years when basically no fossil fuels are left. Such a stupid argument this guy makes for the long term.
@AlternativeRightWing And you know fuck all about anything - YOU BIGOT... Oh and you smell of poo poo ne ne nene ne... (childish enough for you or am I STILL aiming too high?)
@AlternativeRightWing AGAIN you wont touch it (and am ready for you AGAIN). See the book PREDICTS you will look at NOTHING that will make you think!. The book has some of the BEST results in the social science - is widely accepted by the psychology community (and backed by other research). It is written BY A CONSERVATIVE. And was used by John Dean - when he and BARRY FUCKING GOLDWATER (that's Mr CONSERVATIVE) wanted to explain the FAR RIGHTWARD shift in the conservative movement - YOU BIGOT!
@AlternativeRightWing So how the fuck do you know whats on the videos? You fucking bigot... Now go google 'The Authoritarians' and read the fucking book - its 4 DECADES of research into bigoted scum like you....
@AlternativeRightWing So how the fuck do you know whats on the videos? You fucking bigot... Now go google 'The Authoritarians' and read the fucking book - its 4 DECADES of research into bigoted scum like you....
@AlternativeRightWing LOOK MORON - follow the fucking argument. The whole fucking point of this SHIT mindless effort to drag you fucking around by your fucking ignorant fucking nose is THE DEATH FUCKING TOTALS... UNDERSTAND you fucking half wit. The Russina/Chinese 'communisms' are used by right wing SCUM to TRY to win a fucking idiotic argument about death totals that left wing policies lead to - doing the same for right wingers SUDDENLY leads to hair splitting - FOR FUCK SAKE...
@Diatonic5th And eerily, the data doesn't disagree with them. And by the way, all the new green energy companies have piled quite formidable sums of money into research as well.
This is also why peer review is important. It doesn't matter who funded you if you're wrong. Very little of the supporting data for your side is actually in support when viewed in journals. It's only in policy reports that it becomes so supportive...this is called a clue.
@bighitter42 "Very little of the supporting data for your side is actually in support when viewed in journals" I'm assuming that you referencing Ian Pilmer and his pseudo-scientific attempts to discredit current journals. You should check out Real Climate dot org. They do a good job of debunking false claims. This is a blog where actual climate scientists expose the logical fallacies of the deniers.
@AlternativeRightWing There's a good right winger - it is the CLASSIC reply - we BOTH know why you wont watch the videos - and this level of bigotry has been documented for MANY decades in the SCIENCE - in relation to the nasty, bigoted, draconian, totalitarian right wing mind - but I bet a BILLION science doen't count eh?
@AlternativeRightWing And there are many kind of communism/socialism YOUR FUCKING LUNATIC RETARD WHO CANT FOLLOW A FUCKING ARGUMENT TO SAVE ITS FUCKING LIFE. Capitalism (chasing you on YET ANOTHER fucking goal post move) is based on growth and WE CANNOT GROW ANYMORE - you ignorant fucking halfwit.. And the CIGARETTE MANUFACTURES (sheez) lied their fucking tits off in order to kill people - FOR FUCKING PROFIT!
And the SCIENCE of GW is SETTLED - you are ignorant if you think otherwise...
@AlternativeRightWing Wow you watched those videos quickly? 3 Hours worth in like 5 minutes... wow you got a time machine? Look IDIOT you have no fucking idea what is going on - all you have is your ignorant bigotry...
@AlternativeRightWing And as I said ONLY CAPITALISM would kill 10's of millions of its population for profit! See there is fuck all chance of getting through your fucking bigotry...
And passive smoking? Advertising? Denying the science - this I have to hear...
@AlternativeRightWing Sorry, but over the GOP presidential candidates, Rick Perry, Santorum, Bachmann all are global warming denial, Ron Paul partly denies it and only Romney firmly believe in the science. With the exception of the stimulus, the US government spends $5 billion a year on energy research and development, some green and some still oil based. While at the same time giving the oil industry ~$20 Billion a year in tax brakes.
@AlternativeRightWing Classical liberalism is NOT the same as libertarianism - look I aint leading you around by the fucking nose you pig ignorant moron. The slaughter was CLASSIC right wing ideology, stealing land, resources and the stunning racism...
And Russia was totally fucked up by neoliberalism excess deaths at the start of the change over 700,000 PER FUCKING YEAR and 10's of MILLION potentially dead within decades from what the US FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY has done to it! Sheez
@StunnedByStupidity And you JAW DROPPING fucking ignorance about the third world just defies belief - get some fucking book on the fucking subject you fucking lunatic:
'DemocracyNow with John Perkins part1' on you tube
'WHAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY' on google video
'The War On Democracy by John Pilger' on google video
@AlternativeRightWing Classical liberalism is NOT the same as libertarianism - look I aint leading you around by the fucking nose you pig ignorant moron. The slaughter was CLASSIC right wing ideology, stealing land, resources and the stunning racism...
And Russia was totally fucked up by neoliberalism excess deaths at the start of the change over 700,000 PER FUCKING YEAR and 10's of MILLION potentially dead within decades from what the US FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY has done to it! Sheez
@AlternativeRightWing Oh and I just know you libertarian fucking lunatic you harbour delusions about free markets - well ready?....
FREE MARKETS NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL EXIST 'COS NO ONE - NO ONE - WANTS THEM - that are a childs dream - a pig ignorant pathetic delusion...
Government CREATED and SUSTAINS the middle class - that's why the fascists want to get rid of it - and ignorant morons like you go along for the fucking ride - YOU ARE A DANGER TO DEMOCRACY...
@StunnedByStupidity And smoking is a choice? So 'communism' was a choice therefore all those deaths have to be taken off the body count - dont worry the hypocrisy of the right hold no surprises anymore... and suggest you read lots of Chomsky on the 3rd world - you should be ashamed of your ignorance..
@Brajabu74 What on global warming? My favorites so far are 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas (40 pages of SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES in the back), Requiem for a species by Clive Hamilton (more to do with the psychology of why right wing scum wont act), Climate Wars (policy papers published by the military that show that wars - including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES - could easily break out because of the pressure exerted by global warming). Under a Green Sky - with truly TERRIFYING predictions for hydrogen sulphide...
STUN: "Climate Wars... including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS!!) could easily break out because of... global warming." Channeling Hsiang? Actually, peer-reviewed research indicates that the periods of greatest social unrest in China occurred during cooling phases, not warm ones. nipccreport(dot)org/reports/2011/pdf/10PolicyImplications(dot)pdf
@UTubekookdetector MORON. Now you lot are claiming more knowledge, not just of the scientific community but the military community- your fucking egos stun the imagination...
With 1/3 of the planet covered in DESERT, half in net water shortage, 90% of humility displaced/dead and 40-70% of all species wiped out (with a recovery time of 10-100 MILLION years) you are telling me a) a cold period is worse? and b) a cold period is on the way? FUCKING MORON...Oh and Perter Ward's HYDROGEN SULFIDE?Sheez
@StunnedByStupidity holy hell, 70% of the planet is covered by water, and now an additional 33.333% is desert!? i can see why you are so worried, 103% of the world being unable to be cultivated for human use is quite worrisome
@surrealnumber Dont be willfully thick you know full well what was meant by that statement - and AGAIN the psychopathic right winger dismisses the evidence (BILLIONS DEAD) and focuses in on some stupid misinterpretation - suggest you seek help...
@StunnedByStupidity Discourse is meant to replace thuggery and here you are using lies and slander to convey tour point. If you wish to use numbers make sure they are right or don’t use them, if you wish to argue a point argue that point. In the four posts I have read of yours you have committed at least the following fallacies: base rate, conjunction, necessity, masked man, existential, continuum, misleading vividness, ad hominem, argumentum ad baculum, association, appeal to emotion and others
@surrealnumber Discourse is IMPOSSIBLE with these scum. YOU have CLEARLY shown this, the psychological EMPIRICAL evidence has shown this and my experience has shown this. See there becomes a problem- THE BIGGEST TREAT TO LIFE ON EARTH for AT LEAST 65 MILLION YEARS v's the most bigoted scum in the universe. I go with a large dollop of contemn and the latest facts - you on the other hand go with corporate propaganda, hatred of humanity and stunning disingenuousness...I think on balance I'm BETTER!
@StunnedByStupidity point out where i have gone with anything other than pointing out your embellishments and argumentative errors. it seems to me, a third party to the present debate, that you dont have an argument so you are lashing out wildly in every direction trying to find anything you can latch onto
@surrealnumber I have made NO errors (you claiming so is NOT evidence). YOU ignored the FACTS - in a totally disingenuous fashion (BTW am well versed with rationalism obsessed lunatics when dealing with libertarians). Ad hominem is THE ONLY point I'm vulnerable on ( and frankly with all my experience of people like you I'm happy to shoulder the criticism). However I am NOT vulnerable to this as ad hominem is a way of AVOIDING THE ARGUMENT by attacking the person - I have NOT avoided the
@StunnedByStupidity aruments and have had (as is fucking usual) constant fucking goal post movement from people like you (see RIGHT NOW I'm talking aboujt logical constructs and not about the reality of global warming!). See you CANNOT PLAY FAIR BY THE RULES you cheat, condemn BILLIONS to death and non of this matters because I use a sear word - you are fucked in the fucking heads...
But I'll play along, lets test you nobleness in this debate - what WITH PEER REVIEWED evidence
STUN: I'm stunned by your ignorance and anger. You never bothered to refute Idso et al's research indicating periods of unrest in China were worse during cold phases. The rest of your post sounds like an angry kid. "covered in desert" Much of the desertification problem can be attributed to poor farming practices. Then you channel Paul Ehrlich. Next...
STUN: Now that's no way for an envirokook to talk. Even TIME recognizes that the LIA caused social unrest, famine, etc. You're engaging in fearmongering. ecocentric(dot)blogs(dot)time(dot)com/2011/10/03/climate-change-caused-crises-half-a-millenium-ago-too
@truefictions What on global warming? My favorites so far are 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas (40 pages of SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES in the back), Requiem for a species by Clive Hamilton (more to do with the psychology of why right wing scum wont act), Climate Wars (policy papers published by the military that show that wars - including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES - could easily break out because of the pressure exerted by global warming). Under a Green Sky - with truly TERRIFYING predictions for hydrogen sulphide...
@AlternativeRightWing Murder of the indiginous population is CLASSIC right wing ideology - crusing the weak and helpless (or are you going to fucking TRY to say this was a left wing crime - this I HAVE to see fucking justified)... And you have got no fucking idea what happened to Russia after the wall came down (1989) have you? Sheez you people are on another fucking planet...
And the 3rd world has been ruined by colonialism, over exploitation and IMF/World bank policies - WAKE THE FUCK UP!
@AlternativeRightWing: Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Nazis' economic policies were socialist or even meaningfully left-wing. Or meaningfully right-wing, for that matter, if you take rght-wing to mean laissez-faire capitalism.
Germany in the 30's (anything after '39 doesen't really count, what with Total War) was a centralized capitalistic economy, run by an elite of politicians and industry captains. Sure, there was some meassure of social security, but that alone doesen't make "leftism".
@AlternativeRightWing Why are there more reason for proponents to exaggerate than opponents? And there are far more right wingers say AGW is completely false and all the sciences are lies then there are left wingers saying NYC will be 50 ft under water and the world will be 10'C hotter in 50 years. As for reasons to deny, ExxonMobil has near 400 billion reasons, Coal power 150 billion, Royal Dutch Shell near 400 billion, Chevron 200B, ConocoPhillips 200B. With over $1.5T/year in the status quo.
Under the pressure of the mass which is our planet, the center is so hot and dense nuclear reactions occur without our intervention. Our landmasses are akin to a crust forming on the surface of a ladel full of molten steel. The magnetic field resulting from the boiling orb beneath our feet bends and flexes as it partially deflects the energetic winds that blow over us as they wash through the space our planet moves in.
I believe the science is settled, and only moon landing deniers would think differently, because ex-railroad engineer Rajendra Pauchauri and politician Al Gore assure us this is true.
@jwielmak Rajendra Pauchauri was a mechanical engineering working for the railroads, which is not the same thing as a railroad engineer, which would be a train driver. Though you could believe the 98% of the people working in the field that agree with the IPCC's outline of AGW, but trying to poke fun at thousands of PhD that have a life time of knowledge on the subject is hard then a politicians.
My loads of greenish screamers on here hmm lots of use of abusive terms and your not a scientist smears [like gore is] shows the level of the heaters debating skills mind at least they cannot ban comments or block those who do not agree with them off here like the 'free speech' greens do on all their sites !
I'm super duper cereal guys MANBEARPIG created global warming! I'm cereal!!!
PAPerTURKeY 1 week ago
They really weren't. Its explained quite simply by GreenMan.
Keeban3 3 weeks ago
I love Reason.
It's unfortunate that they would provide a platform for this author to present on "Climategate" without a cross-examination of the facts. There were thousands of emails involved, and only a very few *looked* suspicious. Those were investigated and addressed by several inquiries whose products are available to the public.
More importantly, though, the results of these scientists have been reviewed, reproduced, and corroborated by other scientists and even skeptics.
grantcivyt 3 weeks ago
@grantcivyt You're right. The video is an example of extremist histrionics. The science denialists realize they don't need to win; they only have to create confusion.
TheFallibleFiend 3 weeks ago
@TheFallibleFiend So you deny the whole Climategate thing?
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
@Joe11Blue Not at all. Climategate was a manufactured pseudo-event. Some emails were misinterpreted and taken out of context and convinced a lot of non-scientific people that something was amiss. Much like other science denialists, the AGW deniers just repost nonsense over and over and over so long as it agrees with their preconceptions.
TheFallibleFiend 2 weeks ago
@TheFallibleFiend I simply do not accept AGW. I've been following this topic since the mid-95's and have a degree in Physics. The Math doesn't work out in my mind, and the figures they use for the CO^2 levels seem to be partially manufactured. CO^2 distribution in the atmosphere is not complete, it tend's to stay near the ground and in pockets. They've also never fully explained their calculations on solar cycle interference, as the math is wrong in their models.
Joe11Blue 2 weeks ago
@TheFallibleFiend Whenever someone is called out for saying something that reveals their true colors they inevitably claim it was taken out of context.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
@dubified89 Yes. And sometimes people exaggerate and repeat stuff they don't know anything about, because they have already reached their conclusion based on their political or religious preconceptions.
TheFallibleFiend 2 weeks ago
whaaat? What a sick commercial with the exploding people, I thought it was meant sarcastic. Wow green people are really sick to create something like that, just disgusting!
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reason TV? That's rich.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend Arrogant but no arguments even richer.
TWSceptic 3 weeks ago
cripes, first I heard of the "no pressure" vid. what a bunch of self righteous bunch. VIVA the combustion engine!!!
spa6ng009 4 months ago
That's the Left in a nutshell: Justify Murder for all who you disagree with...
constitutionfst 5 months ago 2
"A carbon credit is a generic term for any tradable certificate representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. There are also many companies that sell carbon credits to commercial and individual customers who are interested in lowering their carbon footprint." in Wikipedia
So, we can sell the right to polute!
Chatlein 5 months ago
"Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable..."
The complete article by the authors with graphs:
nature(dot)com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
Chatlein 5 months ago
"A graph they'd prefer you not to notice. Tucked away near the end of online supplementary material, and omitted from the printed CLOUD paper in Nature. (...)"
calderup.wordpress(dot)com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Chatlein 5 months ago
I literally had to peel my hands off my face at the end of this clip...
I'd love to see some graphs to illustrate the amount of rivers that have been cleaned with increased economic growth. What does he think made them dirty on the first place? Communism? But of course we can't keep cleaning rivers with all those Marxist lefties attempting to preserve scarce resources for the future, those damn fascists!
unfathomablebo 5 months ago
UNFA: If you looked at the EPA website (see my "mccainisthroughx refutation station part II" for the screenshots & links) you'd see that over the past 20+ years, mercury levels & most toxic emissions have declined. But those were good talking points.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool.
unfathomablebo 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
unfathomablebo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
unfathomablebo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UTubekookdetector I think that you're giving him a bit too much credit here. It would be fair enough if he said that economic growth has allowed breakthrough which reduce toxic emissions, but what he in fact said was that increased economic growth generates "more money to clean rivers and make the environment more beautiful." This, along with the whole grand communist conspiracy, the complete dismissal of human population/resource depletion as any kind of problem makes the man a dangerous fool
unfathomablebo 5 months ago
High school biology teaches the great shortage in the air is available CO2-it is the limit to life on earth. There has been no increase in this gas in the air over last 200 years
JonThm 5 months ago
The school biology teaches that green plants convert all the available carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No builder of carbon dioxide in the air is even possible. That was fiction from nuclear power. The agents of our death!
JonThm 5 months ago
Very interesting! Looking at the comments here; I notice that the alarmists allways attack the person, instead of debating the scientific facts. This is what makes me recognise the Global Warming hysteria as a religion, not Science. CO2 is good for plants. The Greenies should love CO2.
wikeroy 5 months ago
I thought that "blow-up" people ad was a conservative, global-warming denialist stunt. I thought the clear message was that environmentalists are evil, dogmatic, two-faced scumbags. Was it really put out by environmentalists?
ghuegel 5 months ago
Highly school biology teaches that green plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide. Man has increased life on earth, but he's carbon dioxide can have no conceivable effect on the weather. As the level of that gas in the air has been constant since the little ice age ended. Carbon dioxide goes up in an ice ages. So obviously does not cause global warming.
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm: BULLSHIT OVERFLOW!
Seriously, though: You are are obviously deluded. Care to share your diagnosis?
InnerPartisan 5 months ago
"Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now. (...)"
ibtimes(dot)com - Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN
Chatlein 5 months ago
@Chatlein Have you read the article? As it doesn't say that at all.
To quote the writer of the paper itself: "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step".
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen Yes, I've read the article and also other articles and I agree with you that it's an important first step. Some examples: ww(dot)nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504. html
calderup(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/
Chatlein 5 months ago
@Chatlein So don't you think it's a bit of a stretch, if you agree with me, to claim it said anything along the lines of "cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming"?
As the paper itself never makes those kinds of claims.
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen In fact I agree with that part of the text that you quote: "it's a very important step".
I suggest that you get more information about the subject. For example the links that I've left.
Human activities responsible for global warming, **if** there are any, are not developed by the common citizen, IMHO.
Besides, the CO2 emissions subject became a big business; not an environment protection action.
Chatlein 5 months ago
@Chatlein So you agree with "it's a very important step", but what about "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate"?
Are you implying that you disagree with that part?
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen I suggest once more that you go and read again the texts and also the charts / tables that are published about this subject. Then you'll understand for sure what I mean. If not, it's not my fault... :)
From my part our talk about this "subject" ends here. Antropogenic global warming is a subject that I do not discuss anymore, since I saw what it is all about. And I must tell you that I'm well informed on the subject.
So, good luck for your investigations! ;)
Chatlein 5 months ago
@Chatlein In other words you refuse to answer a simple question. And stick with your sources that this paper confirms that there is a link between global warming and cosmic rays.
While the author of the paper very specifically said: "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate"
That's just dishonest behaviour.
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen And this is what I call a brilliant narrow-minded judge! :)
Chatlein 5 months ago in playlist Chatlein's Favorited Videos
@Chatlein If the author says it's a conclusion you cannot draw from the paper, it does not leave it open for other interpretation. That's not narrow-minded.
What you are doing, by disagreeing with what the author said, is just choosing to believe otherwise despite the available facts.
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen What I call narroww-mindedness is the fact that you are taking ONE sentence from the text to pursue your goal. Why don't you quote, for example, one sentence which shows that their investigation creates a large uncertainty in atmospheric models and climate predictions? That behaviour is what I call a dishonest one, that reveals narrow-mindedness.
Consciousness and knowledge are personal responsibilities.. I'm not here to sell my fish. Bye bye :)))
Chatlein 5 months ago
@Chatlein I wasn't quoting the paper, I was quoting a statement released by the author released after, sources like you used, claimed something the paper doesn't say. It's a direct response to those claims.
The paper also doesn't show the level of nucleation proponents of the theory need, they can't even seed clouds. And neither does it negate the fact that cosmic ray flux has been flat and that the IPCC acknowledges this cosmic ray uncertainty.
So again, your position isn't based on facts.
CollinMaessen 5 months ago
@CollinMaessen If you don't know, you must learn that quoting isn't just a copy/paste action; we have to mention **from where** we are copying!!
So, let's say I've been losing my time just to come to the conclusion, that in fact I simply desagree with you in everything.
But don't worry, because agreeing that we disagree is the real evidence of civilization! ;)
Have a nice day!
Chatlein 4 months ago
@Chatlein Youtube has a 500 character limit, that poses restrictions on me in the amount of information I can convey. If it's not clear, and you can't identify my source, just ask for it.
And again, you're not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the author of the paper on what it actually says. As he said, very clearly, that it says absolutely nothing on a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate
You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
CollinMaessen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comparing these Libertarian journalists (whose conspiracy theory is incoherent fear-mongering) and a few crazy scientists to Galileo is a bit ridiculous. Galileo's nemesis was the Catholic Church, not other scientists. Galileo, Einstein, and others are famous because they convinced others that they were correct through the "peer-review" process, where as a few scientists are infamous (like cold fusion) guys because they made claims without subjecting them to peer-review.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
Comparing these Libertarian journalists (whose conspiracy theory is incoherent fear-mongering) and a few crazy scientists to Galileo is a bit ridiculous. Galileo's nemesis was the Catholic Church, not other scientists. Galileo, Einstein, and others are famous because they convinced others that they were correct through the "peer-review" process, where as a few scientists are infamous (like cold fusion) guys because they made claims without subjecting them to peer-review.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
I will say though, that interviewing somebody is not the same as agreeing with them. Reason Magazine has had a few articles condemning the death threats against climate scientists. However, the scientist that Koch Industries hired to testified that global warming was fake, Richard Muller, came to the conslusion of other scientists that AGW was real and even recommended an ARPA style crashlike program to prevent it, LOL.
_
Don't you hate it when things go wrong for Koch Industries?
successfulbuild 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. Look at what a pathetic state Libertarianism is in. Even on Youtube people like StunnedbyStupidity and Loathomar are taking them to task.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. Look at what a pathetic state Libertarianism is in. Even on Youtube people like StunnedbyStupidity and Loathomar are taking them to task.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
LOL. Look at what a pathetic state Libertarianism is in. Even on Youtube people like StunnedbyStupidity and Loathomar are taking them to task.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
en [dot] wikipedia [dot] org / wiki / List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
_
As you can see, the vast majority of published climate scientists, about 98%, support the AGW hypothesis. The others are few cranks with an ax to grind. In much the same way, quite a few scientists, mostly retired, question evolution. Climate change is real.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
Also see:
skepticalscience [d]t com / global-warming-stopped-in-1998 [dot] htm
successfulbuild 5 months ago
"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world's warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998."
successfulbuild 5 months ago
A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño's warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
"Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying trend to emerge from the "noise" of those year-to-year fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling trend."
_
Further info at scienceblogs [dot] com / deltoid
_
Yeah, global warming really stopped in 1998 LOL.
successfulbuild 5 months ago
i have made no attack and your actions have only concreted my earlier theory about your arguing strategy, thank you for vetting my theory.
surrealnumber 5 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
@surrealnumber COWARD
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity keep proving me right i love it.
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber See even after you have quite CLEARLY shown you are a disingenuous scum bag you STILL are acting like a prick - WHICH CONTRARY TO YOUR DISINGENUOUS CLAIM PROVES ME RIGHT...
Dont worry, am used to it - Machiavellianism goes so completely through right wing umwelts that it is completely invisible to them....
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and AGAIN you dismiss an average of a MILLION people a week dying for 90 YEARS. You have quite clearly go ZERO empathy or compassion (ironically) and a complete disregard for science. Now we should establish ARE YOU A PSYCHOPATH? Do you feel pangs of guilt or conscience? Are you capable of loving anyone else but yourself? Can you harm others/animals without feeling anything? Do you think yourself superior to everyone else? I bet I am steering in the right direction...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity you cant make a post without attacking a person, that means you dont care to debate, you dont care about the truth, you only care to insult, that brutish stance means you lose. once you grow up a little and can talk to someone without attacking them your opinion might start to matter. i have not taken a single argument on this topic and all you have done is slander me repeatedly and i am not a special case here. trolls dont win arguments they lose by default.
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber Look up 'irony' then FUCK OFF - you mindless retard...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity LOOK UP CIVILITY and maybe people will start taking you seriously, all the attacks dont help your argument.
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber Look up disingenuous MORON - the cure is at your local library - BTW you are total fucking coward LIKE I PREDICTED...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
sorry but i have listed about half of your logical fallicies before running out of characters, only admiting to making personal attacks still does not cover the fact that you have made the rest of the previously pointed out errors. even now you are saying billions will die with no proof strining together a slew of nonsequitors to try to make your point. you are doing no justice to your cause here.
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber No you made loads of errors oh and you smell of poo - I have no evidence in specifics 'cos like you am an irrational lunatic that cannot get in the ring and instead (and HILARIOUSLY HYPOCRITICALLY) hurl insults from the side lines... And yes that is known as irony - right wingers can do it (as the video above) CLEARLY shows.
Now SCUM BAG answer the fucking questions or prove me right AGAIN...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity BTW Am more than happy to supply peer reviewed evidence of my claims - ALL OF THEM - but we will be expecting you to do likewise and not claim (like ALL right wing scum bags do) that peer reviewed evidence is useless...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity See you have run away - THATS why I didn't initially run off for lots of peer reviewed proof.
'4 degrees hotter: an adaptation trap?' google it. A quote:
'Half of the world would be uninhabitable. Likely population capacity: under one billion people. Whilst the loss will be exponential and bunch towards the end of the century, on average that is a million human global warming deaths every week, every year for the next 90 years. The security implications need no discussion'
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And if you (as you LYINGLY claim) are interested I can get tons more - and way way way way worse than this!
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
+7500 pledges so far! (Official page&Facebook!)
Please spread the word!!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
Global Climate Warming man-made disruption thingy. What ever it's called this week is about political domination, Google Water Despotism to see how it will work.
Aelfrith1 5 months ago
Let's just say that man-made global warming/climate change/whatever they call it now is 100% true. Rather than set a realistic timetable for making a smooth transition to a viable alternative energy source, the "solution" is a global tax on carbon. Oh, of course, other nations will get to pollute as much as they want, while Americans get to deindustrialize even further. This plan sounds like it's more about dominating people than "saving the environment."
augustandjune 5 months ago
@augustandjune You're exactly right. The "movement" has even ditched environmentalists(not that most of them realize it) and has become it's own multi-billion dollar industry with little regard for actual environmental issues.
The big winners are companies like BP, but the environmentalists still whine about "industry" funded research.
bighitter42 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing
The best part of argueing on this thread about smoking is that Al Gore made his money by investing in tobacco. He claims that he sold his father's tobacco holdings when he found out that smoking was harmful, but all he did was sell the stock in that company and invest it in other tobacco companies. More of a diversification of funds than a moral decision I would say.
07clk350 5 months ago
If you listen to Eisenhower's farewell speech, he actually warns against a type of "scientific industrial complex" much like he warned about the military industrial complex. It's not at all unthinkable. You are talking about trillions of dollars and massive power and control over society. No group deserves that type of authority. Sorry. If the ship goes down it goes down.
TrippingTheTube 5 months ago
The modern green movement is about collectivism and anti-capitalism. A junk science cult as bad as Islam when it comes to persecution of anyone who doesn't believe as they do.
Huboons 5 months ago
Look at all the 'Sciences'. You cannot contest any part of Evolution without being labeled 'Non-Science'. They all want us to believe them as unrefutable and they get their money from the governments. I am all for renewable energy but NOT because of global warming but because as humans we think and move forward. They don't want questions.
NewFrambian 5 months ago
@NewFrambian Of coarse people can contest any part of Evolution without being labeled 'Non-Science'. Scientists do it all the time. Maybe when you do it, you simply fail to understand the subject of which you are contesting and simply sound anti-science. There is no question the earth is warming and the CO2 is playing a role, but there is a reasonable large about of room to question the amount of change expected from man made CO2.
Loathomar 5 months ago
Being associated with those who deny basic science is the main reason I am often embarrassed to admit to being a libertarian... honestly, you may as well have put a creationist video up.
Anthropogenic climate change denial is not a libertarian position.
jadcott 5 months ago
@jadcott "Anthropogenic climate change denial is not a libertarian position." No its a completely valid opinion based on scientific facts. You betray your own mindless collectivism by framing the argument as political in the first place.
Huboons 5 months ago
@Huboons Exactly, it isn't political. People seem to take a contrary position due to it being a cause championed by those on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Just because "collectivists" and "anti-capitalists" talk about it doesn't make it false.
jadcott 5 months ago
@jadcott Actually, it is political because it is imposing a solution upon an alleged problem. And their solution is global central planning and socialism. Which is worse than the alleged problem. No thanks!
TrippingTheTube 5 months ago
@TrippingTheTube I completely agree. The solutions proposed are probably wrong. But climate change sceptics are not rallying against the proposals, they're arguing that there is no problem to begin with... It's akin to arguing against proposed solutions to the global financial crisis by saying that there is no crisis and it's all being made up by economists to justify their jobs. It's simply incorrect.
jadcott 5 months ago
@jadcott Nothing makes it false. Scientific fact makes it in question. AGW cultists hurt their own cause stating it is settled science when it is not. Having said that, the average person is going to ignore them in the future when they do things like lie and hide data to protect their positions.
Huboons 5 months ago
@Huboons I honestly think most think it is settled but only because they have never once read an alternative point of view. Either because the editors of journals and professors across the globe have done a great job making it hard to get the alternative information, or simply because they are afraid to have their beliefs questioned. If these people actually read both sides it would be hard for them to actually say the debate is settled. I was one of those that was converted.
tfboyle 5 months ago
@Huboons No, it is not. Even the leading scientific skeptics all agree that anthropogenic climate change is real. What makes a scientific skeptics, who are often used to claim AGW is not happening, is those scientist who believe the effect of AGW are far less the most scientist in the field. So, there is some valid opinion based on scientific facts that the earth will only increase 1'C from AGW, but at the same time so it 10'C. Both are on the fringes, but both are within "valid opinions"
Loathomar 5 months ago
@jadcott Do you see the danger in the 'Cllmate Change' mantra. I am a Libertarian. I also consider myself an environmentalist. I was onboard completely with climate change until I saw the money and the players involved. Something stinks. Here's the big reason I'm a skeptic. When's the last time we heard about Mercury levels in the Ocean, or the oil spill in the Gulf. MTBSE? By design or coincidence, Climate Change has put every other environmental issue behind the curtain. Think about it.
Brajabu74 5 months ago
@jadcott The earth is 0.6 degrees warmer than it was a century ago. I don't see any libertarians seriously arguing against that. There are legitimate arguments that nobody knows what our impact has been as we still can't produce a viable climate model. The argument can also be made and surely must be, that the fear mongering we see regarding climate change is very disingenuous.
I don't see many people denying the actual data, rather the interpretations of the data such as the IPCC report.
bighitter42 5 months ago
sorry, but you didnt examine the point I made. in, at least, 500 years we will have long run out of fossil fuels. We have the choice to engaged in renewable energy our we will face the mass exctintion of mankind. forget the "politics" of what you are talking about. So please tell me of what you want, the killing of the masses of people due to natural law or embracing the "green" philosophy? and your theories on communists-green conspiricies are just plain stupid.
razornet1 5 months ago
I think communists and green people are a cancer.
TrippingTheTube 5 months ago
Excellent. I'm right with ya!
TrippingTheTube 5 months ago
"Either we will have to embrace renewable energies and technologies or population reduction will happen automatically"
You thought through that comment about as well as you understood this video.
ALonDonThinG 5 months ago
@ALonDonThinG You quote mined a comment on the same page the comment was on. It takes serious levels of retard to do that.
rgmztxy 5 months ago
Either we will have to embrace renewable energies and technologies or population reduction will happen automatically as a result. Think about what the world will look like in 500 years when basically no fossil fuels are left. Such a stupid argument this guy makes for the long term.
razornet1 5 months ago
Comment removed
danmcdonald22 5 months ago
@razornet1 As I said: climate change may be happening. Whether it is or not the government should not be involved
justinrixx 5 months ago
Dealing with a small version of climate change fighting the UN Agenda 21 Lake Maumelle Watershed Plan in Little Rock.
keeparkansaslegal 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing FUCK OFF...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlternativeRightWing FUCK OFF NOW - am done with you...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and here's John Dean:
'John W. Dean - Conservatives Without Conscience - Part 1' - on youtube
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing And you know fuck all about anything - YOU BIGOT... Oh and you smell of poo poo ne ne nene ne... (childish enough for you or am I STILL aiming too high?)
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing AGAIN you wont touch it (and am ready for you AGAIN). See the book PREDICTS you will look at NOTHING that will make you think!. The book has some of the BEST results in the social science - is widely accepted by the psychology community (and backed by other research). It is written BY A CONSERVATIVE. And was used by John Dean - when he and BARRY FUCKING GOLDWATER (that's Mr CONSERVATIVE) wanted to explain the FAR RIGHTWARD shift in the conservative movement - YOU BIGOT!
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing You are an idiot - just fuck off am fed up of you stunning bigotry...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
will this be investigated by the Justice Dept? fat chance
ieodksnw787 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlternativeRightWing So how the fuck do you know whats on the videos? You fucking bigot... Now go google 'The Authoritarians' and read the fucking book - its 4 DECADES of research into bigoted scum like you....
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing So how the fuck do you know whats on the videos? You fucking bigot... Now go google 'The Authoritarians' and read the fucking book - its 4 DECADES of research into bigoted scum like you....
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing LOOK MORON - follow the fucking argument. The whole fucking point of this SHIT mindless effort to drag you fucking around by your fucking ignorant fucking nose is THE DEATH FUCKING TOTALS... UNDERSTAND you fucking half wit. The Russina/Chinese 'communisms' are used by right wing SCUM to TRY to win a fucking idiotic argument about death totals that left wing policies lead to - doing the same for right wingers SUDDENLY leads to hair splitting - FOR FUCK SAKE...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
More corporatist funded misinformation... the Friedmanites are waging their war against science.
Diatonic5th 5 months ago
@Diatonic5th And eerily, the data doesn't disagree with them. And by the way, all the new green energy companies have piled quite formidable sums of money into research as well.
This is also why peer review is important. It doesn't matter who funded you if you're wrong. Very little of the supporting data for your side is actually in support when viewed in journals. It's only in policy reports that it becomes so supportive...this is called a clue.
bighitter42 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bighitter42 "Very little of the supporting data for your side is actually in support when viewed in journals" I'm assuming that you referencing Ian Pilmer and his pseudo-scientific attempts to discredit current journals. You should check out Real Climate dot org. They do a good job of debunking false claims. This is a blog where actual climate scientists expose the logical fallacies of the deniers.
Diatonic5th 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing There's a good right winger - it is the CLASSIC reply - we BOTH know why you wont watch the videos - and this level of bigotry has been documented for MANY decades in the SCIENCE - in relation to the nasty, bigoted, draconian, totalitarian right wing mind - but I bet a BILLION science doen't count eh?
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing And there are many kind of communism/socialism YOUR FUCKING LUNATIC RETARD WHO CANT FOLLOW A FUCKING ARGUMENT TO SAVE ITS FUCKING LIFE. Capitalism (chasing you on YET ANOTHER fucking goal post move) is based on growth and WE CANNOT GROW ANYMORE - you ignorant fucking halfwit.. And the CIGARETTE MANUFACTURES (sheez) lied their fucking tits off in order to kill people - FOR FUCKING PROFIT!
And the SCIENCE of GW is SETTLED - you are ignorant if you think otherwise...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Wow you watched those videos quickly? 3 Hours worth in like 5 minutes... wow you got a time machine? Look IDIOT you have no fucking idea what is going on - all you have is your ignorant bigotry...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlternativeRightWing And you are wrong about EVERYTHING...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing And as I said ONLY CAPITALISM would kill 10's of millions of its population for profit! See there is fuck all chance of getting through your fucking bigotry...
And passive smoking? Advertising? Denying the science - this I have to hear...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing MORON
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Sorry, but over the GOP presidential candidates, Rick Perry, Santorum, Bachmann all are global warming denial, Ron Paul partly denies it and only Romney firmly believe in the science. With the exception of the stimulus, the US government spends $5 billion a year on energy research and development, some green and some still oil based. While at the same time giving the oil industry ~$20 Billion a year in tax brakes.
Loathomar 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Classical liberalism is NOT the same as libertarianism - look I aint leading you around by the fucking nose you pig ignorant moron. The slaughter was CLASSIC right wing ideology, stealing land, resources and the stunning racism...
And Russia was totally fucked up by neoliberalism excess deaths at the start of the change over 700,000 PER FUCKING YEAR and 10's of MILLION potentially dead within decades from what the US FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY has done to it! Sheez
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And you JAW DROPPING fucking ignorance about the third world just defies belief - get some fucking book on the fucking subject you fucking lunatic:
'DemocracyNow with John Perkins part1' on you tube
'WHAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY' on google video
'The War On Democracy by John Pilger' on google video
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Classical liberalism is NOT the same as libertarianism - look I aint leading you around by the fucking nose you pig ignorant moron. The slaughter was CLASSIC right wing ideology, stealing land, resources and the stunning racism...
And Russia was totally fucked up by neoliberalism excess deaths at the start of the change over 700,000 PER FUCKING YEAR and 10's of MILLION potentially dead within decades from what the US FREE MARKET IDEOLOGY has done to it! Sheez
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Oh and I just know you libertarian fucking lunatic you harbour delusions about free markets - well ready?....
FREE MARKETS NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL EXIST 'COS NO ONE - NO ONE - WANTS THEM - that are a childs dream - a pig ignorant pathetic delusion...
Government CREATED and SUSTAINS the middle class - that's why the fascists want to get rid of it - and ignorant morons like you go along for the fucking ride - YOU ARE A DANGER TO DEMOCRACY...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And smoking is a choice? So 'communism' was a choice therefore all those deaths have to be taken off the body count - dont worry the hypocrisy of the right hold no surprises anymore... and suggest you read lots of Chomsky on the 3rd world - you should be ashamed of your ignorance..
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
5 star video. Thank you.
truefictions 5 months ago
@truefictions READ BOOKS - only a moron could be so gullible
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
LMAO
truefictions 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Who's gullibility; yours or his? Which books? Ours or theirs?
-stupid is as stupid does.
Brajabu74 5 months ago
@Brajabu74 What on global warming? My favorites so far are 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas (40 pages of SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES in the back), Requiem for a species by Clive Hamilton (more to do with the psychology of why right wing scum wont act), Climate Wars (policy papers published by the military that show that wars - including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES - could easily break out because of the pressure exerted by global warming). Under a Green Sky - with truly TERRIFYING predictions for hydrogen sulphide...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
STUN: "Climate Wars... including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES (CAPS FOR EMPHASIS!!) could easily break out because of... global warming." Channeling Hsiang? Actually, peer-reviewed research indicates that the periods of greatest social unrest in China occurred during cooling phases, not warm ones. nipccreport(dot)org/reports/2011/pdf/10PolicyImplications(dot)pdf
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector MORON. Now you lot are claiming more knowledge, not just of the scientific community but the military community- your fucking egos stun the imagination...
With 1/3 of the planet covered in DESERT, half in net water shortage, 90% of humility displaced/dead and 40-70% of all species wiped out (with a recovery time of 10-100 MILLION years) you are telling me a) a cold period is worse? and b) a cold period is on the way? FUCKING MORON...Oh and Perter Ward's HYDROGEN SULFIDE?Sheez
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity BTW link doesn't work and China is NOT the world - you fucking halfwit...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity holy hell, 70% of the planet is covered by water, and now an additional 33.333% is desert!? i can see why you are so worried, 103% of the world being unable to be cultivated for human use is quite worrisome
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber Dont be willfully thick you know full well what was meant by that statement - and AGAIN the psychopathic right winger dismisses the evidence (BILLIONS DEAD) and focuses in on some stupid misinterpretation - suggest you seek help...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Discourse is meant to replace thuggery and here you are using lies and slander to convey tour point. If you wish to use numbers make sure they are right or don’t use them, if you wish to argue a point argue that point. In the four posts I have read of yours you have committed at least the following fallacies: base rate, conjunction, necessity, masked man, existential, continuum, misleading vividness, ad hominem, argumentum ad baculum, association, appeal to emotion and others
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber Discourse is IMPOSSIBLE with these scum. YOU have CLEARLY shown this, the psychological EMPIRICAL evidence has shown this and my experience has shown this. See there becomes a problem- THE BIGGEST TREAT TO LIFE ON EARTH for AT LEAST 65 MILLION YEARS v's the most bigoted scum in the universe. I go with a large dollop of contemn and the latest facts - you on the other hand go with corporate propaganda, hatred of humanity and stunning disingenuousness...I think on balance I'm BETTER!
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity point out where i have gone with anything other than pointing out your embellishments and argumentative errors. it seems to me, a third party to the present debate, that you dont have an argument so you are lashing out wildly in every direction trying to find anything you can latch onto
surrealnumber 5 months ago
@surrealnumber I have made NO errors (you claiming so is NOT evidence). YOU ignored the FACTS - in a totally disingenuous fashion (BTW am well versed with rationalism obsessed lunatics when dealing with libertarians). Ad hominem is THE ONLY point I'm vulnerable on ( and frankly with all my experience of people like you I'm happy to shoulder the criticism). However I am NOT vulnerable to this as ad hominem is a way of AVOIDING THE ARGUMENT by attacking the person - I have NOT avoided the
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity aruments and have had (as is fucking usual) constant fucking goal post movement from people like you (see RIGHT NOW I'm talking aboujt logical constructs and not about the reality of global warming!). See you CANNOT PLAY FAIR BY THE RULES you cheat, condemn BILLIONS to death and non of this matters because I use a sear word - you are fucked in the fucking heads...
But I'll play along, lets test you nobleness in this debate - what WITH PEER REVIEWED evidence
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity has caused the majoprity olf the warming over the last 30 years...
What caused the palocene eocene thermal maximum?
Why is Peter Wards theories on hydrogen sulfied wrong? And if they are right tell me on what fucking planet could you let that happen?
How many CLIMATOLOGISTS are on the side of the deniers?
How many WORLD CLASS scientific institutions?
200,000 a year are presently dying from the effects if it was your family - would that be ok?
And I have LOTS more...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
STUN: I'm stunned by your ignorance and anger. You never bothered to refute Idso et al's research indicating periods of unrest in China were worse during cold phases. The rest of your post sounds like an angry kid. "covered in desert" Much of the desertification problem can be attributed to poor farming practices. Then you channel Paul Ehrlich. Next...
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector IDIOT...
StunnedByStupidity 4 months ago
STUN: Now that's no way for an envirokook to talk. Even TIME recognizes that the LIA caused social unrest, famine, etc. You're engaging in fearmongering. ecocentric(dot)blogs(dot)time(dot)com/2011/10/03/climate-change-caused-crises-half-a-millenium-ago-too
UTubekookdetector 4 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Please humor me.. what books do you recommend?
The Communist Manifesto?
truefictions 5 months ago
@truefictions What on global warming? My favorites so far are 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas (40 pages of SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES in the back), Requiem for a species by Clive Hamilton (more to do with the psychology of why right wing scum wont act), Climate Wars (policy papers published by the military that show that wars - including NUCLEAR EXCHANGES - could easily break out because of the pressure exerted by global warming). Under a Green Sky - with truly TERRIFYING predictions for hydrogen sulphide...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Murder of the indiginous population is CLASSIC right wing ideology - crusing the weak and helpless (or are you going to fucking TRY to say this was a left wing crime - this I HAVE to see fucking justified)... And you have got no fucking idea what happened to Russia after the wall came down (1989) have you? Sheez you people are on another fucking planet...
And the 3rd world has been ruined by colonialism, over exploitation and IMF/World bank policies - WAKE THE FUCK UP!
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlternativeRightWing: Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Nazis' economic policies were socialist or even meaningfully left-wing. Or meaningfully right-wing, for that matter, if you take rght-wing to mean laissez-faire capitalism.
Germany in the 30's (anything after '39 doesen't really count, what with Total War) was a centralized capitalistic economy, run by an elite of politicians and industry captains. Sure, there was some meassure of social security, but that alone doesen't make "leftism".
InnerPartisan 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Why are there more reason for proponents to exaggerate than opponents? And there are far more right wingers say AGW is completely false and all the sciences are lies then there are left wingers saying NYC will be 50 ft under water and the world will be 10'C hotter in 50 years. As for reasons to deny, ExxonMobil has near 400 billion reasons, Coal power 150 billion, Royal Dutch Shell near 400 billion, Chevron 200B, ConocoPhillips 200B. With over $1.5T/year in the status quo.
Loathomar 5 months ago
Comment removed
InnerPartisan 5 months ago
@AlternativeRightWing Yes dear and the democratic republic of Germany was democratic...
Now go here and tell me how many are right wing and how many left?
'14 signs of fascism-The USA turning into a fascist country' on youtube
Don't worry its called evidence - its your job as a lunatic right winger to deny/ignore it...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
Under the pressure of the mass which is our planet, the center is so hot and dense nuclear reactions occur without our intervention. Our landmasses are akin to a crust forming on the surface of a ladel full of molten steel. The magnetic field resulting from the boiling orb beneath our feet bends and flexes as it partially deflects the energetic winds that blow over us as they wash through the space our planet moves in.
Hubris.
356pla 5 months ago
@356pla Humans live on the crust temporarily, along with some other unique lifeforms. We are all a product of this chemical stew.
356pla 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@356pla And your point being?
InnerPartisan 5 months ago
Reason free zone..
eurogoldexchange 5 months ago
@5:33 lol what a brown noser
Krogoth04 5 months ago
>"Climategate" What a bunch of bullshit<
faith manages
escobari 5 months ago
James Delingpole is an idiot.
Task5003 5 months ago
"The urge to save the world it really is the urge to rule it." --H.L. Mencken, American journalist and thinker of the 1920s. A brilliant mind.
Achuara 5 months ago
I believe the science is settled, and only moon landing deniers would think differently, because ex-railroad engineer Rajendra Pauchauri and politician Al Gore assure us this is true.
jwielmak 5 months ago 3
@jwielmak Rajendra Pauchauri was a mechanical engineering working for the railroads, which is not the same thing as a railroad engineer, which would be a train driver. Though you could believe the 98% of the people working in the field that agree with the IPCC's outline of AGW, but trying to poke fun at thousands of PhD that have a life time of knowledge on the subject is hard then a politicians.
Loathomar 5 months ago
I have to read his book. I'm very grateful for Delingpole's efforts.
pinegrove33 5 months ago
Man made climate change his latest PR fiction of nuclear power. There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air for two centuries
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm: "There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide in the air for two centuries"
That is a very..... *interesting* theory. Care to cite some sources?
InnerPartisan 5 months ago
Jep. watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s
remcovanek2 5 months ago
My loads of greenish screamers on here hmm lots of use of abusive terms and your not a scientist smears [like gore is] shows the level of the heaters debating skills mind at least they cannot ban comments or block those who do not agree with them off here like the 'free speech' greens do on all their sites !
xjboy550 5 months ago