The risk of "action" isn't only about economic harm. All action is not equal. This is like pascal's wager - assuming there's only one God, or that the God in the wager is the one that matches some set of specific qualities. Aware of that smuggled assumption, the wager fails as an argument.
I'm not against any and all "action", but actions proposed by "our leaders" are written by and benefit giant corps like ENRON and GE. Today, Action likely spells greater oligarchy.
Its nice to know there are scientists that aren't people who woke up to the bible,to then abandon Spirituality all together (I don't mean u)
& if u have no idea what I'm saying then,as someone who used the "scientific method" (which is the natural process of logic that has coexisted with Humanity a very long time before a scientist decided to claim it as [by its title] their own),that is:
There might be Spirit in Religion but there's no Religion in Spirit,because Spirit is the only Religion.
You should also take into risk that there are many other contributers to climate change. There are volcanoes, water vapor, and the sun growing more hot. If we attempted to stop what we were doing to help stop global warming, it would be near pointless. The best we'd do is slow down the rate, (which is good.) But climate change is unavoidable and our actions against it are majorly limited.
the biggest problem with a global warning debate is that we only look at a temperature on a graph over the last 50-100yrs,the earth has been through many ice ages....8 in the last 800,000yrs...and has been so hot that nothing we know of would survive. if we looked at a big enough graph u would be looking at a sine wave. we get to see a zoomed in section that shows a rise but we r still in a cool period that some consider part of an ice age.
Imbalanced question/answers. What if it were False, but we took action, the action we took so dramatically affected our economy, which in turn affected the global economy causing famine and poverty and death the same as the True/No scenario. I have to agree with another comment someone made about being able to make a chart about aliens and imbalance it to one choice, then the "right" choice is "obvious" huh? The logic behind this "math" is flawed and biased.
@xKillerClownx any economy comes from creating poverty,starve ppl if they dnt do as u want,ie work and pay ur taxes to keep the rich... rich. if the economy collapses eventually we all become equal,all as poor as each other or as rich,depends if ur glass is half empty or half full.
@666neo2012 That really has nothing to do with the point I was making. Yes powerful rich elite run 'most' of the world, while the masses blindly fumble around like drones. My point was that his math/chart is imbalanced, with the "worst" happening only in one scenario, where it is fully possible to happen in 2 scenarios, he's just balancing the equation to fit his opinion.
here's a starting point: a group is misleading others to be ignorant. so? using the same technique we turn everyone back. How? well... when did humanity ever changed so brutally from bad to better? at every crisis. So simulate an ending to make everyone change over the night.
@stopglobalwarming08 Your beyond delusional if you think the Democrats will do anything to stop drastic climate changes, let alone anything that promotes public health.
The thing not mentioned here is the possibility that choosing column A actually prevents us from solving the problem. If we allow Moore's law to do its work, we allow free folks to continue solving humanities problems in parallel, we will eventually arrive at technologies (something akin to nano tech, maybe with some weak AI) that can solve the problem via direct atmospheric manipulation. If governments take over, Moore's law stops, and we sit around and wait for inevitable catastrophe.
Pay Al Gore big taxes. Ignore the sun it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Climate gate and false data could never happen from The U.S. gooberment. Fight the new world order that will kill you!
Woah! History is full of such bodies crushing dissent to maintain the status quo. As for challenging debate, you present a dumb box, then argue against yourself that the box is dumb and simplistic, so how exactly would you like us to debate? "there's a lot of reasons to believe we can fix this..without reducing our standard of living"? BS and you know it. We're debating if 100% of our activities even affect it but we'll cure it (if even real) by cutting back by X amount in some countries? BS!
@ManardGCrebs I never knocked religion or the bible, and I have studied bible prophecy extensivly I simply had not presented my point from the religios perspective. As you point out it does make some people disregard the validity of an aguement simply because they instantly reject it based upon their lack of faith in religion. I can present truth from many perspectives. Once one begins chasing truth eventually the Light will be found.
you also must take into account that if the activist were wrong and and sceptics were right there would 99% chance that you would have people out there that would start a whole controversy that they were right. then there would be an outrage.
Cont. In fact, it's less likely in the case of GW being true since there'll be less people around to start it. Anyone else kinda on GWs side now? So, since nuclear holocaust is more possible and imminent AND WORSE, let's all rush out and buy bunkers and radiation suits. That sound silly? Does to me too. I win, method fails, can I have my gold star/cookie/pat on the back now? Don't patronise me.
Lets give this method a good hard kick in the nuts and see if it stands up. Since we're talking worst case scenario, lets go ahead and stick 'war' and 'subsequent nuclear holocaust' to both the 'sad face' (ha ha) boxes . Nuclear holocaust trumps GW seeing as it's instant and could happen at any time. Who cares if it's cold up North when peoples' skin is falling off down South?
Lol this is sooo flawed.. So not choosing to act means total destruction of society as we no it ?? lol u clearly support the Climate argument.. Dont lie..
@kattastroffee planes fall out of the sky. THEORIES don't tend to pan out. If you want to throw your life and money away on a theory (which also happens to be a multi billion international business- shock horror!) that's your choice. Don't let the fact that you're an idiot put you off.
@kattastroffee For a start, it's not about 'total world destruction', the world will carry on just fine whatever happens. It's about collapse of civilization as it stands today, which according to this fool, could happen in both cases presented here. The fact is that it's an unproven THEORY. 500 years ago, it was theory that if the world turned everybody would fall off. In the 1800s it was thought that if a person travelled over 50mph, they would die. in 1999, the millenium bug was going to make
@kattastroffee For a start, it's not about 'total world destruction', the world will carry on just fine whatever happens. It's about collapse of civilization as it stands today, which according to this fool, could happen in both cases presented here. The fact is that it's an unproven THEORY. 500 years ago, it was theory that if the world turned everybody would fall off. In the 1800s it was thought that if a person travelled over 50mph, they would die. in 1999, the millenium bug was going to make
Man cannot control or cause global warming. The only way to secure the funding and jobs for the people who are propagating this myth is to keep propagating it.
Global warming Hoax. Watch those videos and stop feeding people of your bullshitness.
Whiny bet hedging that completely fails. You're employing Pascal's Wager (a take on whether or not to be a Christian, and designed to display the sheer lack of evidence) to a situation for which there are real consequences. It was your flimsy approach to perceived risk that led to witch burnings, superstitious belief, and, more relevant to us, the 'WMDs' sham. Perhaps it would be more fitting to call GW a religion, as what you are asking for is blind faith. Wait for hard evidence, you fool.
@IamSpydaMic your logic is flawed. This may seem like Pascal's Wager, but in that case you are only dealing with your own individual future (ie burning in hell or not) and not the future of the entire planet. Lets face it, no one cares now whether someone 400 years ago when Pascal was alive, who debated on whether to be Christian or not and decided not to be and is now burning in hell because he (lets suppose) turned out to be wrong. No one cares about that persons individual fate.
@IamSpydaMic No one cares about that persons individual fate because it doesn't affect anyone else. But global warming DOES affect EVERYONE ELSE!!! And again, the weapons of mass destruction sham only affected a fraction of people, compared to the rest of the world who really didn't give a sh*t and thats over now, but TOTAL WORLD DESTRUCTION IS FOREVER!!! DUMB ASS!
Using the logic of the video we would not have any of the technology today that we have or hardly any scientific progress we have made. There are fear mongers and alarmists throughout the progression in history screaming danger. The real danger would be to let irrational fear control your mind as this video promotes. By the way wiki leaks already showed man made global worming bull shit. If you are worried about heating from gasses you should look at water vaper. Guess we should get rid of H2O
The hole in this that you say no one has found is that man made GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE LIE!!!!! The eath is getting hotter, just like every other planet in our solar system because our sun is getting hotter in a natural cycle that we have virtually zero effect upon. In fact we barely affect co2 levels because volcanoes propduce at least 150 times the co2 than man produces by all sources combined. WAKE UP SHEEPLE, WE ARE BEING SCAMMED!
@truthseeker911david you are also a dumb ass. Saying that the hole here is that "global warming is a complete lie" is your own (stupid) opinion. It's YOUR OPINION. Why are you putting it out there like its a fact? WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??? For every argument you have that it's not caused by man, there is an alternative argument that it is. That's exactly what this video is about. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about RISK ASSESSMENT!!
@kattastroffee You cant presentt any arguments supporting man-made global warming theory or refute the evidence I gave to support the truth so you resort to name calling. I think it is clear here who won this little arguement. Please explain why all the the other planets which are not affected by man made co2 are also warming? And when the earth itself generates 150 times the amount of co2 produced by man, therefore a 100% ellimination of man-made co2 would result in less than 1% co2 reduction.
@kattastroffee cont. Global warming is real it's just not affected by man in any significant way. Not until man learns to control the sun or the amount of its heat energy that penetrates our atmosphere will we effect global warming.
Why has this lie been perpetrated and the answer is as expected for greed, profit, and control. It is about the destruction of the American way of life and impoverishing our middle class with all the wealth and power being left in the hands of a few.
@truthseeker911david In the case of your stance being the correct, I'd like to point out that in an economy based on a finite resource (fossil fuels), it would make sense to usher in a smooth transition from said resource and into one based on SUSTAINABLE (green buzzword!) resources. Therefore, rather than destruction of the American way, I'd say it's more about maintaining the equilibrium throughout the transition.
@truthseeker911david 'We've ran out of oil today, you'll be using this tomorrow guys'? Nope, much better to use a handy 'threat to mankind' to get them to think they did it through their own choice, and in a controlled, gradual manner.
@IamSpydaMic I am all for seeking alternative energy and eventually free energy for all. I do not believe that oil resources are as limited as we are led to believe nor do I believe that the oil is old dinosaurs theory. Oil companies have found oil at shallow depths drilling over old landfills. There are now facilities in opperation that convert garbage directly into gas, diesel, and natural gas, with the natural gas feeding power plants and fuel used to operate support vehicles.
@IamSpydaMic cont. I also see promise in the emerging algae to biodiesel market. I do not support diverting food products to bio-fuel as long as there is hunger in the world. I also believe that a great many technolgies have been suppressed by the energy industry to maintain dependance upon them. Elite thinktanks came up with the idea of global warming as a means to redistribute wealth and consolodate power while eliminating the middle class in America.
@IamSpydaMic cont, When you start putting the pieses together you can see that there has been a well devised and implemented plan to destroy this nation ecconomically by moving virtually all manufacturing capabilities to other countries. They scare us into giving up all our freedoms and privacy with events like 9/11 and fake underwear bombers. Since we no longer export goods we have gone from the richest nation to the greatest debtor nation. Now we come to the endgame when those at the top,,,,,,
@IamSpydaMic are slowly colapsing the ecconomy as controlled as the demolition of WTC building 7, with those at the top consolidating their wealth stealing it from the suckers that they tricked into investing in their fake markets as their retirement. This at a time when social security is in doubt and a quickly aging population ready to retire. Soon there will be a few haves and a majority of have nots. Many will die as others submit to a tyranical oligachy to survive. Welcome to the NWO
@truthseeker911david Can't say I buy into the NWO theory any more than GW, to be honest. What is described as 'moving manufacturing to other countries' seems more like a natural trend. If the working classes of a country become more powerful and therefore ask for more money, it just makes sense to move your business to a place where labour is cheap. I don't deny there are suspicious goings on, I just think they're far less, or at least more tenuously connected than the NWO theory has deduced.
@IamSpydaMic You pbvoiusly have not spent much time studying the workings of the elite throughout history or their own writings which detail their plan for a NWO distopia. It's real alright! I suggest you watch Invisible Empire, and Endgame both available on my channel..
@truthseeker911david Actually I've looked into it quite a bit. I like conspiracy theories in the same way I like ghost stories - they're fun, but that's it. Any evidence provided is circumstantial, with a lot of speculation thrown in. I would ask you the same question that I'd ask of scientists - WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?
@IamSpydaMic It surrounds us but you do have to open your eyes to see. If you choose not to see that is your choice. Obviously you did not view the films I suggested which clearly define the NWO and detail their known agendas and the methods used to achieve their objectives. Not just speculation but fully documented proof with a complete minute by minute bibliography of all information given is available online. I am not gonna hold your hand and walk you into the light you must open your eyes.
@truthseeker911david I watched the Endgame documentary, and found it to be a bit far reaching. Let's be fair here, a set of people present some evidence for GW and a whole group of people accept it and act on it. Similarly, a set of people present some evidence for NWO and a group of people accept it and act on it. How, in all honesty, can you deny one but believe the other?
@IamSpydaMic google endgame bibliography Because research showed before anyone had heard of GW that the NWO had planned to employ it as a means of futher controling the ecconomy of this nation. This nation as we know it MUST be destroyed in order to implement their plans. As you can see they are well on their way towards causing that colapse. No industry, restricted by by trade agreements, hoplessly in debt, shrinking dollar, bill of rights gutted, with a police state ready to rule by fear.
@IamSpydaMic cont. Belief that a NWO exists has nothing to do with belief in man made globale warming. The presence of such psuedoscience being perpetrated through propaganda verifies that prior reports of their agenda were indeed true. The fact that it is so easily debunked as are so many other propaganda attempts to mask their operations show what little regard they have for your intelligence level. They either suck at details or want you to know subconciously That its all an inside job
@truthseeker911david They suck at details, but have managed to hoodwink the entire human race? I don't think so. As for wanting us to know, why exactly? For that matter, what's the point? If 'they' exist, 'they' already have the power, so why all the buggering about? If the ideal is a low population, why let it grow in the first place? who exactly are 'they'?
@IamSpydaMic No I believe as do others that the reason they often leave evidence of their crimes is a kind of "code of honor" that says they must reveal the truth about all their doings but they dont come right out and tell you. Only the illuminated ones are supposed to be inteligent enough to see the clues. As for who are they for a specific answer watch invisible empire but in general we are talking bout the richest assholes on earth. CFR members, Bildergerg, club of rome council of 500 etc,
@truthseeker911david CFR? So that'll be people like Angelina Jolie then? By the way, I looked at the bibliography, you do realise that most of them are from sites/sources that HE owns or has input in, and the rest are taken completely out of context, have no source stated, or just have absolutely nothing to do with his claims in the slightest don't you? PLEASE, try to keep in mind that this man is making a living from this rubbish!
Maybe its just me. but id rather read this. the acting is really corny and kind of distracting from the actual info. you should write a book. Id read it.
The other unmentioned risk of taking action is totalitarianism taking root to implement such changes. To people who minimize this risk, reference the tens of millions of people killed by totalitarian governments in the 1900s.
@Nightversionn IF by address it you mean give my freedom and money over to the feds, no that will not be doing anything about climate change. Want to do something about climate change,. buy some shorts because according to science we just came out of an Ice Age and the ice has been melting for thousands of years. Of course I don't think the dinosaurs were zooming around in there giant SUVs but thats just me I guess.
@Nightversionn Proof? Even a shred of evidence? I watched most of this series, and the closest he comes to "proving" the risk is using a microphone to create feedback in a spectacle which reminds me of a Monty Python sketch trying to convict an accused witch. The honest answer is that he doesn't freaking know, but he's scared. OK, fair enough, but that isn't actually the scientific method.
planet now, and that given current reproduction rates even a simple agrarian life style completely free of pollution will not be possible as there is simply not enough fertile top soil in the world.
as far fetched as it may seem, the most cost effective solution to this problem in the ultra long run would be to move all heavy industry to space, along with a lot of people as well...you'd be solving both the problem of pollution and it's root cause overpopulation at the same time.
the issue with your video is the implication that first world nations need to lead the way. while that's not necessarily a bad or particularly demanding, you have to bear in mind that chinese and other non western countries haven taken up the bulk of highly pollutive heavy industry now, and they make western nations look like angels when to comes to laws regarding pollution.
and you completely ignore the whole argument that stems from the fact that there are simply far too many people on the
please just let people see this video and think toyourself" ok! what if it is right and we are destroyng our planet? and what if we could start to fix it right now? but what about the cost if we were wrong? well!!! jacques fresco has had a plan since the 60's called the venus project. please check this out then watch zietgiest!!! then show it all to eveyone you know and even if you dont agree TALK ABOUT IT what is it gonna hurt if your just talking???? please for my childrens children and yours
LIBYA: From 17.06 - 19.07.11, 5 Million demonstrated against NATO and its rebels = 80 percent of libyans - that is why NATO does not accept Libyan offer of democratic elections supervised by UN and AU ! green Pro-Gadddafi demonstrations: Tripolis: watch?v=Q0XsF03fNM4 watch?v=1-UauWzcAkg watch?v=q4o2O2zePL4 watch?v=0p4MlvFGbao&NR=1 watch?v=MO_2LoKkajM watch?v=WCKM-A9Cryc watch?v=2kksYhNYuQs watch?v=XB97HznH4n4 watch?v=CEidZcZJ6AI watch?v=lx0YJz1ukYs watch?v=aX1DijkPgZ0&NR=1
The flaw in your logic is cap & trade and a carbon tax is the same as doing nothing, if you want to help, make videos showing people how to lower there carbon footprint , like buying a solar battery charger & rechargeable battery's for all there small things like computer mouse , flashlights , radio, ipod etc, and fluorescent or led lighting, bring your own boxes when you buy food, don't use throw away shit, etc
The scientists offten dont really use science they just say what is expected of them. The reason they r prestigiouse is because they say what there political/social party wants them 2. NOT ALL SCIENTISTS R LIKE THIS. But a lot of them r.
its not just global warming the whole solar system is warming up . its natural just like the earth comming out of the little ice age back in the 1400 to 1800 its normal and has been happning for a long time . remeber the mamoth they found with food still it its mouth when it was frozen , that was natural and happend fast . befor the ice age the earth was a little bit warmer then it is now . its a normal for the earth and our solar system to go throu warming up and colling down periods .
@dawala1000 No. Solar output has actually been decreasing over the last decades. It's just that some people insist that this should be a decrease within a larger scale increase because they want to say "its all because the sun is becoming warmer". Of course this is illogical because if it would be the sun that's making the earth warmer, the sun should simply be getting warmer. Which, as I pointed out, it isnt.
What is evolved in his solution? Carbon taxes? These would not do any thing but line the pockets of greed politicians and reap huge wind falls for companies such as GE who are in bed with the government. How does this save the planet? It doesn't. But it will save your back cause you wallet will be a lot lighter.
the choice he did not factor in along with the global depression in a world where there is already a global depression in the middle for massive violent revolution the inevitable global war that ensues. With war you have famine, plagues , and the total break down in the social structure. So both worse cases turn out the same for the people, regardless of where the water lands. Now there is another how much control does the system gain over the the everyday person? Thoughts anyone?
@lagwagonjohnny It's not pascal's wager, the ods are as obvious as the stakes.
In pascal's wager you know only the stakes.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, if you care to read about it, instead of simply choosing to take other peoples word for it or not, so I think the ods are pretty much in this guys favour. And so are the stakes, of course.
@wishcraft4u2 It's EXACTLY Pascal's wager. Just as wonderingmind42 explains in the video, it is still controversial as to the cause of global warming, however it is inconclusive as to the cause of it (astronomical shifts, solar patterns, not to mention a gigantic emission of C02 from the human population doubling in less than 100 years). There is a lot of evidence that God exists, therefore Pascal's wager exists. There is no difference.
@lagwagonjohnny I really dont think I'm wrong about this. Check out the Wikipedia page on Pascal's wager. It seems to assume the ods to be unknowable, it even quotes Pascal.
By the way, the claim that global warming is due to CO2 emissions is really not that controversial on the scientific plane as some would like to pretend. Global warming itself is pretty obvious and even the premises of most contexting explanations are manifestly wrong.
Some other things need to be included in this discussion. There is a strong political theory that eco-laws are a step on the road to complete tyranny, leaving us with worse case scenarios of slavery or death. Taking international ecological action would cause lots of death in the 3rd & even 2nd world today, this claim is quite more soundly grounded than Climate Change in either direction. Finally, many of the same scientists predicting doom years ago told us the rainforests would be gone by now.
@BillyJoe1305 By "a strong political theory" what do you mean exactly? The tea party ideology?
If you have a point to make simply make your point, dont say that "there is a strong theory". You see, some people would wonder why ecological measures would necessarily lead to tyranny... They might even think thats completely batshit insane. So I'm not sure who you are trying to convince here.
Especially since you disqualify like half the scientific community over something they never said.
@wishcraft4u2 Theory supported by books like: How the EPA’s Green Tyranny is Stifling America by Rich Trzupek, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Articles like: Greener Than Thou: The Tyranny Of Eco-Sanctimony by
Larry Bell from Forbes. Now books & articles don't make it true, but they give credence to my statement that it is a strong theory.
@wishcraft4u2 It probably sounds, "batshit crazy," because when you hear people say things will lead to tyranny its usually followed by a conspiracy theory. When it is much simpler, a belief that telling someone what light bulb & toilet to use, or that they can't drive their car to work because of emissions (none of the old laws applying retroactively) is a very slippery slope. Most government actions are not a conspiracy, but if not restricted things tend to grow.
@wishcraft4u2 Back in the late 90s everyone was told the rainforest would be gone in ten years, now, depending on who you ask, it will be gone between 2020-2040. I'm not really trying to make a point, only lay out the other side of an argument. Yes it's my side & which is quite obvious, but I just want people to think. Judge what they think is best, maybe discuss it with someone. Do rainforest survive because things changed, or were they wrong, is global warming people, or natural earth cycles.
@wishcraft4u2 It's also worth noting that many prolific scientists in the 70s predicted an ice age, as well as the exact opposite being true. As usual the less disastrous & sensational report was true.
@BillyJoe1305 Oh, did they really? Many prolific scientists? :)
I challenge you to find more than 10 peer reviewed scientific papers published throughout the entire 70s decade. I bet I can find 4 times as many papers from that time that predict global warming. Yes, that's right, the vast majority of scientists back then predicted global warming.
Peer reviewed science papers, that is. Not popular media articles.
Allow me to tell you why these scientists predicted global cooling. It might shed some light on your "political theory"! ;)
The reason was due to rapidly increasing SO2 emissions. Now this SO2 also caused the infamous "acid rain" issue, and for this reason governments took measures reducing its output. Ironically, governments might actually have prevented global cooling! And hey, without becoming the dystopian tyrannies that apparently fill your daydreams!
@wishcraft4u2 So your argument is that no real scientist predicted cooling, but it was coming & the government stopped it with the help of I'm guessing fake scientists. You can't have that argument both ways. Now if you're saying that cooling was real & never happened because we stopped it, ok. I disagree, but ok. If you're saying that telling people what light bulbs & toilets to have doesn't start you on a slippery slope towards more intervention ok, again I disagree but thats your conclusion.
@BillyJoe1305 It might have come if SO2 emissions would have followed the same trend, but they didnt. The theory makes sense. No they didnt curb it to stop global cooling, but because it was acidifying the environment. And society hardly became totalitarian.
It was *you* who claimed these scientists should be discredited because you supposed they made a mistake in the past (bit harsh, maybe?). you remember? It's when you claimed they are same people as those predicting global warming today.
@wishcraft4u2 You said that scientist were predicting warming, but somehow the government caught wind of cooling & then stopped it. What I said about cooling is some scientists predicted an ice age, while others said it was just a phase & it would get warmer. I used it as an example of the less sensational answer likely being correct, horses not zebras. What I said about modern environmental scientists is that they're the same people who in the 90s told us the rainforest would be gone in 10years
@BillyJoe1305 Maybe the most scientifically grounded answer would be most likely to be correct?
It's ironic that you think of yourself as making some counterpoint to "the passionate argument" when you actually believe a judgement about this planet's climate should be based on how sensational the answer sounds, what reputation the scientists have, ...
Is simple scientific research too "passionate" for you? Hardly more "passionate" than your "strong political theories", I'd say.
@wishcraft4u2 The video brought into question the reputation of the scientists, I merely gave a rebuttal. Did you even watch the video to apply my comments before replying to me?
@BillyJoe1305 I did but the "rebuttal" doesnt make any sense.
Extensive ecological legislation has existed before and hasnt lead to tyranny.
There were not "many prolific scientists" who predicted an ice age.
Looking at what is the least sensational answer is isnt a better estimator for climate change than the climate models used in peer reviewed scientific papers.
Predicting a disaster (e.g. rainforest disappearing) leading to its prevention hardly makes it a bad prediction.
@wishcraft4u2 It has caused death in the third world. Laws that make a person's method of survival illegal are tyrannous. They still hack burn and farm the rainforest at approximately the same rate they used to. And you can't decide whether no one predicted cooling or the government stopped it.
@BillyJoe1305 You are expanding the scope of the concept tyranny so drastically it becomes meaningless. Tyranny is the rule of tyrants. Its not as if every time a person dies of povery its because a secret magical sithlord willed them to die... By your concept *not* having ecological legislation would be "tyrannous" if it could save lives, which is exactly their intention.
There are people literally fighting every day to defend the rainforest, since now there is political will to preserve it.
@wishcraft4u2 If you outlaw the cheapest fuel available for an impoverished person to heat their house, cook food & boil unsanitary water it is your fault when they die. There are people right now fighting not to turn their farms over to the government so they can be turned back into rainforest. Because they need to eat. In the 90s there were already people fighting for the rainforest. DDT almost wiped out malaria, but now it kills 1-2 million people worldwide yearly.
@BillyJoe1305 You want to know what is so grotesquely stupid about this?
It's that this is already perfectly captured by the video.
*IF* global warming is the problem science seems to predict it will be, *THEN* ecological measures will save lives. So it all boils down to wether or not it will come down to that, doesnt it?
Gee, it almost seems as if someone's political ideology is acting up and they just will not stand for government intervention even if it literally saves lives!
@wishcraft4u2 That is what it boils down to. But I'm stating that the risks are different than what he said. I'm saying that intervention will definitely kill people. It has happened.
@BillyJoe1305 Ok so maybe it would be possible to have a form of intervention where the costs arent directly diverted unto the backs of poor people in Africa? I dont think they are the worst pollutors anyways... In any case, if global warming would be a problem, these interventions would easily save many times more of anything than they would cost, including human lives.
Also, somehow it seems that government intervention is not exactly the biggest killer in the 3rd world...
@wishcraft4u2 Or maybe it is, but that would be the kind of "government intervention" that doesnt really care much for the well-being of its addressees to begin with, like warfare, repressions, etc...
@wishcraft4u2 When the US banned DDT it became less available in the third world causing Malaria to come back & in Africa infection is second only to Aids with 1-2 million deaths a year worldwide 90% in Africa. What we do here is felt everywhere. Also regulations would kill the poor in the second world, places like Mexico. Places that are the worst polluters because of incomplete industrialization. This is just an even more loaded question than it already looked to be.
@BillyJoe1305 The DDT issue is a completely different problem... Im sorry this is kind of perplexing really... What are you suggesting really? What is the principle behind this? God is going to punish us for committing the sin of government intervention? So we should just sit back and if global warming is happening just accept that we are doomed?
@BillyJoe1305 By the way, wouldnt large scale use of DDT be a kind of ecological measure? Actually I dont think Malaria can be effectively combated in this way without it being organized by governments, since it takes that kind of coordination. So again you are making a completely false comparison.
Also, it is kind of offensive to compare morally the people who would take away someones defense against malaria to someone who would protect them from the effects of global warming.
@wishcraft4u2 First what I'm saying is we better be damn sure of what we do before we do it, because people's lives are at stake in both directions. Our entire way of life could be changed here, others lives could be lost. Second, no DDT was mostly used by charities & it was also cheap & widely available for those poor who lived in cities. Third government use of DDT would not harm anyone, environmental regulations have a high likelihood of causing harm.
@BillyJoe1305 Ecological measures do have a cost, a very grave cost maybe, but only to make up for it by preventing damage that is way more serious.
You say using DDT wouldnt harm anyone? Its a highly poisonous substance that causes cancer! Why you think they (misguidedly) banned anyways? Just like ecological policies it would have done way more good than harm.
So the question remains: why do you claim we shouldnt worry when so much scientific evidence points to the necessity to take action?
@wishcraft4u2 The only study to link DDT to cancer was extremely flawed, They published that the mice fed DDT were shown to have a high risk of liver cancer, but when the WHO investigated the # of control mice with cancer was just as high. Honestly when I see the so called overwhelming global warming evidence it is among similar accusations of falsified data. Albeit not from the WHO
@wishcraft4u2 Flighty, panicky decisions are the reason we still use so much coal in the first place. If we'd been allowed to switch to nuclear power it'd almost be a mute point. But people were convinced nuclear power plants were bombs waiting to go off & would leak lethal amounts of radiation. So we haven't built any plants since the early 60s, because the government said no. We don't have the safest form of energy, because people are scared. Fear, not science drives these things.
@BillyJoe1305 So any measure taken to solve ecological problems is a "flighty, panicky decision"? Is that the point you are making?
So if carbon emissions were indeed the threat *scientists* make it out to be we should just sit back and take it... Because for some magical reason revealed in your "political theories" human beings would be literally incapable of doing anything about it without making matters worse? Even though physically its just a matter of reducing carbon emissions?
@wishcraft4u2 I believe what I said was that with the evidence we have today it would be a flighty panicky decision. I'm pretty sure I gave 2 reasons I don't think there is enough evidence to warrant action. Why is it you don't attack those & just go the easy route to attack me personally, pretending I'm some form of extremist. Is everybody who has looked at the information & come to a conclusion different than you an extremist.
Dismissing valid research on such grounds as "they are probably the same people who said the rainforest would be gone by now"? Sounds almost like trying to discredit someone to divert attention from what they have to say!
And what other "reason" was there? Your completely anecdotal accounts of "how all government intervention fails, forever" and politicians who would curb CO2 emissions are really "tyrants" killing innocent people in Africa?
@wishcraft4u2 Beyond that I have not seen any strong evidence denying that in a centuries long weather cycles we are right on par with history. From the mini ice age of the middle ages to the warming period of the Renaissance. There is also very little evidence to support that human CO2 emissions are anything but completely negligible. It is also worth noting that if we allow things to happen on their own tech gets cleaner over time. So this seems like a flighty panicky decision to me.
@BillyJoe1305 As I just replied to someone else, the sun has actually been cooling off again since a few decades. And no other factors than human CO2 emissions can actually be found, really. The warming is also quite abrupt as a trend.
And there is evidence to support it... What else do you suggest these scientists whom you insisted noone should take seriously because "they all predicted the amazon forest would be gone by now" have been producing all this time? :)
@wishcraft4u2 I don't see how the decrease in radiation from the sun supports your arguments, because the average yearly temperature fell after 1998, which is why they changed the term from global warming to man made climate change.
@BillyJoe1305 Actually, if its the same "no global warming since 1998" claim I have in mind: no it isnt.
First of all, 1998 simply was a very hot year. Even if you start right from 1998 so you get all that heat at the early side of your regression line, its still an upward trend. Which we shouldnt, of course, because its not objective to pick the sample most in favor of a particular hypothesis.
Maybe you should just tell us what your sources are, because its just one absurd claim after another.
@wishcraft4u2 That is a direct quote of the first response I mentioned a flighty panicky decision, so it would be those reasons. You know it came right after I pointed out the only study to link DDT to cancer was essentially found to be fraudulent by the world health organization. & once again the thing about the rainforest was in response to the video poster's assertion that because these scientific groups bet their reputation on global warming, it meant we should listen to them.
@BillyJoe1305 What is your problem, you dont know how science works? Or are you really just this dishonest?
It's about the evidence, not about who provides it.
If scientific evidence isnt objective, it isnt evidence at all. So it doesnt matter who says it! Otherwise it would be subjective. Do I really have to explain this to you? All you are doing is discouraging people from taking evidence into account.
And what has DDT even have to do with this? It's an anecdote and anecdotes prove nothing.
@wishcraft4u2 So when someone says that the current climate is due to the CO2 emissions of man & only backs it with correlation from the last hundred years that's objective, but to challenge it & compare the data to historical records that's sloppy science?
As for the DDT, once again it is useful to show how "green" laws have killed people. The reason I brought the cancer thing back up is because it shows how deep you investigate something before blindly agreeing with it, falsified or not.
@BillyJoe1305 Where does it say you cant compare it to historical records? Did I say that? I didnt call anything sloppy science, I called science science. If you think you can provide actual scientific counter-evidence, be my guest. Although I think you will have a hard time finding any "evidence" that hasnt already been debunked.
You have done little more than avoiding the science by discrediting the scientists.
Also, the problem is there is no general principle behind your DDT anecdote...
@wishcraft4u2 Beyond that I have not seen any strong evidence denying that in a centuries long weather cycles we are right on par with history. From the mini ice age of the middle ages to the warming period of the Renaissance. There is also very little evidence to support that human CO2 emissions are anything but completely negligible. It is also worth noting that if we allow things to happen on their own tech gets cleaner over time. So this seems like a flighty panicky decision to me.
@BillyJoe1305 Last but not least (although its the 3rd time I explain this):
There were a small number of scientists that predicted global cooling during the 60s and 70s. Likely no more than 7 peer reviewed papers were written based on this assumption during that time. Their ground was the increasing trend in SO2 emissions. These emissions were curbed by international agreements for *other reasons* i.e. acid rain. This changed the trend, which wasnt part of their prediction.
@wishcraft4u2 All I've done is give the opposing argument to the passionate one on the subject. I think having 2 opposing arguments before a decision is the better option. This video was about thought & I wished to help in the promotion of that. Yet again you talk as though I am bringing up some giant conspiracy. Starting down a dangerous road is not a deliberate action. If you disagree with me, ok. However for future reference it helps your argument when you agree with yourself.
global warming is BULLSHIT another nice way for the luciferian governments to keep people FROM READING THE WORD OF GOD and knowing that JESUS IS GOD he is coming back to put down all RULE and AUTHORITY wake THE FUCK UP end the fed END THE FRAUD END THE WARS global warming my ass HOW ABOUT THE DUMPING OF depleted uranium on other countries of the world how about reactors BLOWING UP ALL OVER THE WORLD how about NUKES BLOWING UP IN GROUND during EARTH QUAKES
Regardless, I LIKE the idea of a cleaner, greener planet. I like the idea of reigning in the transnational corporations (read: parasites).
But I don't think a change for the better, for the safer risk management scenario is going to happen. Greed, stupidity, hatred, laziness - all the standard human hallmarks will act to prevent us from saving ourselves and our future.
Flawed Assumption - "the effects of global warming will be worse that cost of preparing for it."
your argument only works IF your WORST CASE SCENARIO prediction is correct. and there have been so many wrong exagerated climate predictions in the past.
wine in sunny yorkshire to ice skating on thames in 400 years all before the combustion engine hmmm.
Is this guy a climate scientist or does he just follow whatever scientists tell him ( no matter how politicised or unprovable their subject is )
Humans are just another phase of the worlds evolution, we are not expected to last as long as the earth has to exist, but if we treat out existence like that and attack global warming as a future "possible" fate then we might as well worry about what we're gonna do when the Sun's fuel starts to run out. My point is humans won't be around forever and its a matter of time and scenario that humans meet their fate of existence. Moral of the story? Live for today and don't worry about tomorrow!
Our government is made up of a bunch of racketeers and war is a racket. They make money in death and war what with the vaccines, guns/weapons and bank takeovers as well as any other theft that can be done. The question is how many lives do the NWO types want dead and where? We're all losers on this bus. If an economy tanks, they make money. If an economy takes off, they make money. Their concern is whether their control will remain intact. They have their bunkers and stockpiles. We have squat.
Thats like saying, look, what if 2012 is really going to happen, the risk of action is: harm to the economy, and the risk of inaction is end of the world. But obviously, 2012 isn't going to happen. Neither is 20 feet of sea level rise, malaria epidemic, 5 degrees of warming, or any of that garbage.
I personally think we should be preparing for the zombie apocalypse, I mean, if we do prepare and it doesn't happen we'll only have a damaged economy, right?
as i stated in your other video if u think the worst that can happen is just economic harm if GW is false but we do something about it anyway your way off....as an extreme over the top example..what would america do if countries that control oil outside the US charged 15k for a barrel of oil...would america pay it? or goto war? As i said a very extreme example but you catch my drift....
Simple reason why your whole thing is wrong to alot of people... if we took action there are 2 out comes =[ or =| where as if we sit around and do nothing we have the chance to be =]
My theory is this; if im going to live my life, id rather risk my life and take the pursuit of happiness but if not i might as well be dead anyway. Either way its better than wasting my life making youtube videos that feed people complete bullshit. Just sayin
@Rick258442 - the population growth is not the problem...the world is not over-populated...the developed countries of the world destroy enough food every year to feed everyone...as well corrupt politicians prevent food and medical supplies from getting to their people...as well, this bonehead just passes by this, trying to fight the non-existent human caused global warming will guarantee that poverty stricken Africa will remain poor and cause millions more deaths.
▬▬▬▬»▬▬▬▬
Ron Paul 2012
▬▬▬▬»▬▬▬▬
botaflo 2 days ago
The risk of "action" isn't only about economic harm. All action is not equal. This is like pascal's wager - assuming there's only one God, or that the God in the wager is the one that matches some set of specific qualities. Aware of that smuggled assumption, the wager fails as an argument.
I'm not against any and all "action", but actions proposed by "our leaders" are written by and benefit giant corps like ENRON and GE. Today, Action likely spells greater oligarchy.
Saiphes 2 weeks ago
Nice vid
SweATYmAnNIPPLeS91 4 weeks ago
Its nice to know there are scientists that aren't people who woke up to the bible,to then abandon Spirituality all together (I don't mean u)
& if u have no idea what I'm saying then,as someone who used the "scientific method" (which is the natural process of logic that has coexisted with Humanity a very long time before a scientist decided to claim it as [by its title] their own),that is:
There might be Spirit in Religion but there's no Religion in Spirit,because Spirit is the only Religion.
the26thhour 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
the26thhour 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
the26thhour 4 weeks ago
The only thing terrifying about this is an educational system that would produce a nitwit making videos based on a fallacy of a false dichotomy.
How do you correct that?
BrianGValentine 1 month ago
You should also take into risk that there are many other contributers to climate change. There are volcanoes, water vapor, and the sun growing more hot. If we attempted to stop what we were doing to help stop global warming, it would be near pointless. The best we'd do is slow down the rate, (which is good.) But climate change is unavoidable and our actions against it are majorly limited.
JukeB0xHero8996 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ehm Feeling like having a little fun
joannaduke2658598888 2 months ago
I love this man
lemonanlime9 2 months ago
lol i can bend to your needs
TReedAnchorage 2 months ago
I WANNA SEE WHAT HAPPENS IF TRUE B HAPPENS :D Please say there will be zombies >:D
JamesCamberTV 2 months ago
the biggest problem with a global warning debate is that we only look at a temperature on a graph over the last 50-100yrs,the earth has been through many ice ages....8 in the last 800,000yrs...and has been so hot that nothing we know of would survive. if we looked at a big enough graph u would be looking at a sine wave. we get to see a zoomed in section that shows a rise but we r still in a cool period that some consider part of an ice age.
666neo2012 3 months ago
Imbalanced question/answers. What if it were False, but we took action, the action we took so dramatically affected our economy, which in turn affected the global economy causing famine and poverty and death the same as the True/No scenario. I have to agree with another comment someone made about being able to make a chart about aliens and imbalance it to one choice, then the "right" choice is "obvious" huh? The logic behind this "math" is flawed and biased.
xKillerClownx 3 months ago
@xKillerClownx any economy comes from creating poverty,starve ppl if they dnt do as u want,ie work and pay ur taxes to keep the rich... rich. if the economy collapses eventually we all become equal,all as poor as each other or as rich,depends if ur glass is half empty or half full.
666neo2012 3 months ago
@666neo2012 That really has nothing to do with the point I was making. Yes powerful rich elite run 'most' of the world, while the masses blindly fumble around like drones. My point was that his math/chart is imbalanced, with the "worst" happening only in one scenario, where it is fully possible to happen in 2 scenarios, he's just balancing the equation to fit his opinion.
xKillerClownx 3 months ago
good arguement!!
occams2008 3 months ago
here's a starting point: a group is misleading others to be ignorant. so? using the same technique we turn everyone back. How? well... when did humanity ever changed so brutally from bad to better? at every crisis. So simulate an ending to make everyone change over the night.
blaqoD 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ey sharing fantasies and if possible put them into practice
tomchesanek 3 months ago
well for one, vote for politicians who are for green energy! i.e DEMOCRATS
stopglobalwarming08 4 months ago
@stopglobalwarming08 Your beyond delusional if you think the Democrats will do anything to stop drastic climate changes, let alone anything that promotes public health.
BrixSnBs 2 months ago
what exactly should this "action" be?
isaacopedal 4 months ago
thumbs up if you vote for C(i don't care)
roboticmehdi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thumbs up if you vote for B(no, don't take action)
roboticmehdi 4 months ago
thumbs up if you vote for A(yes, take action)
roboticmehdi 4 months ago 18
The thing not mentioned here is the possibility that choosing column A actually prevents us from solving the problem. If we allow Moore's law to do its work, we allow free folks to continue solving humanities problems in parallel, we will eventually arrive at technologies (something akin to nano tech, maybe with some weak AI) that can solve the problem via direct atmospheric manipulation. If governments take over, Moore's law stops, and we sit around and wait for inevitable catastrophe.
nofxmeosker1 4 months ago
Pay Al Gore big taxes. Ignore the sun it has nothing to do with the atmosphere. Climate gate and false data could never happen from The U.S. gooberment. Fight the new world order that will kill you!
calrenman 4 months ago
dudes below me are gay
willem01 4 months ago
Woah! History is full of such bodies crushing dissent to maintain the status quo. As for challenging debate, you present a dumb box, then argue against yourself that the box is dumb and simplistic, so how exactly would you like us to debate? "there's a lot of reasons to believe we can fix this..without reducing our standard of living"? BS and you know it. We're debating if 100% of our activities even affect it but we'll cure it (if even real) by cutting back by X amount in some countries? BS!
bigglyguy 4 months ago
@ManardGCrebs I never knocked religion or the bible, and I have studied bible prophecy extensivly I simply had not presented my point from the religios perspective. As you point out it does make some people disregard the validity of an aguement simply because they instantly reject it based upon their lack of faith in religion. I can present truth from many perspectives. Once one begins chasing truth eventually the Light will be found.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
you also must take into account that if the activist were wrong and and sceptics were right there would 99% chance that you would have people out there that would start a whole controversy that they were right. then there would be an outrage.
reillycainful 4 months ago
@ManardGCrebs without getting too religous about it yes
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
You still around op?
elTiburon1971 4 months ago
Cont. In fact, it's less likely in the case of GW being true since there'll be less people around to start it. Anyone else kinda on GWs side now? So, since nuclear holocaust is more possible and imminent AND WORSE, let's all rush out and buy bunkers and radiation suits. That sound silly? Does to me too. I win, method fails, can I have my gold star/cookie/pat on the back now? Don't patronise me.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
Lets give this method a good hard kick in the nuts and see if it stands up. Since we're talking worst case scenario, lets go ahead and stick 'war' and 'subsequent nuclear holocaust' to both the 'sad face' (ha ha) boxes . Nuclear holocaust trumps GW seeing as it's instant and could happen at any time. Who cares if it's cold up North when peoples' skin is falling off down South?
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
Lol this is sooo flawed.. So not choosing to act means total destruction of society as we no it ?? lol u clearly support the Climate argument.. Dont lie..
mustbebored21 4 months ago
please run for congress.
OberonTheGoat 4 months ago
@kattastroffee planes fall out of the sky. THEORIES don't tend to pan out. If you want to throw your life and money away on a theory (which also happens to be a multi billion international business- shock horror!) that's your choice. Don't let the fact that you're an idiot put you off.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@kattastroffee For a start, it's not about 'total world destruction', the world will carry on just fine whatever happens. It's about collapse of civilization as it stands today, which according to this fool, could happen in both cases presented here. The fact is that it's an unproven THEORY. 500 years ago, it was theory that if the world turned everybody would fall off. In the 1800s it was thought that if a person travelled over 50mph, they would die. in 1999, the millenium bug was going to make
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@kattastroffee For a start, it's not about 'total world destruction', the world will carry on just fine whatever happens. It's about collapse of civilization as it stands today, which according to this fool, could happen in both cases presented here. The fact is that it's an unproven THEORY. 500 years ago, it was theory that if the world turned everybody would fall off. In the 1800s it was thought that if a person travelled over 50mph, they would die. in 1999, the millenium bug was going to make
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
Booooooriiinnnnggg Zzzzzz get to the point pal (yawn)
erfansvideos 4 months ago
prattt
TheSpearos 4 months ago
Man cannot control or cause global warming. The only way to secure the funding and jobs for the people who are propagating this myth is to keep propagating it.
Global warming Hoax. Watch those videos and stop feeding people of your bullshitness.
HussamStands 4 months ago
Whiny bet hedging that completely fails. You're employing Pascal's Wager (a take on whether or not to be a Christian, and designed to display the sheer lack of evidence) to a situation for which there are real consequences. It was your flimsy approach to perceived risk that led to witch burnings, superstitious belief, and, more relevant to us, the 'WMDs' sham. Perhaps it would be more fitting to call GW a religion, as what you are asking for is blind faith. Wait for hard evidence, you fool.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic your logic is flawed. This may seem like Pascal's Wager, but in that case you are only dealing with your own individual future (ie burning in hell or not) and not the future of the entire planet. Lets face it, no one cares now whether someone 400 years ago when Pascal was alive, who debated on whether to be Christian or not and decided not to be and is now burning in hell because he (lets suppose) turned out to be wrong. No one cares about that persons individual fate.
kattastroffee 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic No one cares about that persons individual fate because it doesn't affect anyone else. But global warming DOES affect EVERYONE ELSE!!! And again, the weapons of mass destruction sham only affected a fraction of people, compared to the rest of the world who really didn't give a sh*t and thats over now, but TOTAL WORLD DESTRUCTION IS FOREVER!!! DUMB ASS!
kattastroffee 4 months ago
Using the logic of the video we would not have any of the technology today that we have or hardly any scientific progress we have made. There are fear mongers and alarmists throughout the progression in history screaming danger. The real danger would be to let irrational fear control your mind as this video promotes. By the way wiki leaks already showed man made global worming bull shit. If you are worried about heating from gasses you should look at water vaper. Guess we should get rid of H2O
TheGeneralOfWar 4 months ago
The hole in this that you say no one has found is that man made GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE LIE!!!!! The eath is getting hotter, just like every other planet in our solar system because our sun is getting hotter in a natural cycle that we have virtually zero effect upon. In fact we barely affect co2 levels because volcanoes propduce at least 150 times the co2 than man produces by all sources combined. WAKE UP SHEEPLE, WE ARE BEING SCAMMED!
truthseeker911david 5 months ago
@truthseeker911david you are also a dumb ass. Saying that the hole here is that "global warming is a complete lie" is your own (stupid) opinion. It's YOUR OPINION. Why are you putting it out there like its a fact? WHERE'S YOUR PROOF??? For every argument you have that it's not caused by man, there is an alternative argument that it is. That's exactly what this video is about. It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about RISK ASSESSMENT!!
kattastroffee 4 months ago
@kattastroffee You cant presentt any arguments supporting man-made global warming theory or refute the evidence I gave to support the truth so you resort to name calling. I think it is clear here who won this little arguement. Please explain why all the the other planets which are not affected by man made co2 are also warming? And when the earth itself generates 150 times the amount of co2 produced by man, therefore a 100% ellimination of man-made co2 would result in less than 1% co2 reduction.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@kattastroffee cont. Global warming is real it's just not affected by man in any significant way. Not until man learns to control the sun or the amount of its heat energy that penetrates our atmosphere will we effect global warming.
Why has this lie been perpetrated and the answer is as expected for greed, profit, and control. It is about the destruction of the American way of life and impoverishing our middle class with all the wealth and power being left in the hands of a few.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david In the case of your stance being the correct, I'd like to point out that in an economy based on a finite resource (fossil fuels), it would make sense to usher in a smooth transition from said resource and into one based on SUSTAINABLE (green buzzword!) resources. Therefore, rather than destruction of the American way, I'd say it's more about maintaining the equilibrium throughout the transition.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david 'We've ran out of oil today, you'll be using this tomorrow guys'? Nope, much better to use a handy 'threat to mankind' to get them to think they did it through their own choice, and in a controlled, gradual manner.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic I am all for seeking alternative energy and eventually free energy for all. I do not believe that oil resources are as limited as we are led to believe nor do I believe that the oil is old dinosaurs theory. Oil companies have found oil at shallow depths drilling over old landfills. There are now facilities in opperation that convert garbage directly into gas, diesel, and natural gas, with the natural gas feeding power plants and fuel used to operate support vehicles.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic cont. I also see promise in the emerging algae to biodiesel market. I do not support diverting food products to bio-fuel as long as there is hunger in the world. I also believe that a great many technolgies have been suppressed by the energy industry to maintain dependance upon them. Elite thinktanks came up with the idea of global warming as a means to redistribute wealth and consolodate power while eliminating the middle class in America.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
Comment removed
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic cont, When you start putting the pieses together you can see that there has been a well devised and implemented plan to destroy this nation ecconomically by moving virtually all manufacturing capabilities to other countries. They scare us into giving up all our freedoms and privacy with events like 9/11 and fake underwear bombers. Since we no longer export goods we have gone from the richest nation to the greatest debtor nation. Now we come to the endgame when those at the top,,,,,,
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic are slowly colapsing the ecconomy as controlled as the demolition of WTC building 7, with those at the top consolidating their wealth stealing it from the suckers that they tricked into investing in their fake markets as their retirement. This at a time when social security is in doubt and a quickly aging population ready to retire. Soon there will be a few haves and a majority of have nots. Many will die as others submit to a tyranical oligachy to survive. Welcome to the NWO
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david Can't say I buy into the NWO theory any more than GW, to be honest. What is described as 'moving manufacturing to other countries' seems more like a natural trend. If the working classes of a country become more powerful and therefore ask for more money, it just makes sense to move your business to a place where labour is cheap. I don't deny there are suspicious goings on, I just think they're far less, or at least more tenuously connected than the NWO theory has deduced.
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic You pbvoiusly have not spent much time studying the workings of the elite throughout history or their own writings which detail their plan for a NWO distopia. It's real alright! I suggest you watch Invisible Empire, and Endgame both available on my channel..
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david Actually I've looked into it quite a bit. I like conspiracy theories in the same way I like ghost stories - they're fun, but that's it. Any evidence provided is circumstantial, with a lot of speculation thrown in. I would ask you the same question that I'd ask of scientists - WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic It surrounds us but you do have to open your eyes to see. If you choose not to see that is your choice. Obviously you did not view the films I suggested which clearly define the NWO and detail their known agendas and the methods used to achieve their objectives. Not just speculation but fully documented proof with a complete minute by minute bibliography of all information given is available online. I am not gonna hold your hand and walk you into the light you must open your eyes.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david I watched the Endgame documentary, and found it to be a bit far reaching. Let's be fair here, a set of people present some evidence for GW and a whole group of people accept it and act on it. Similarly, a set of people present some evidence for NWO and a group of people accept it and act on it. How, in all honesty, can you deny one but believe the other?
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic google endgame bibliography Because research showed before anyone had heard of GW that the NWO had planned to employ it as a means of futher controling the ecconomy of this nation. This nation as we know it MUST be destroyed in order to implement their plans. As you can see they are well on their way towards causing that colapse. No industry, restricted by by trade agreements, hoplessly in debt, shrinking dollar, bill of rights gutted, with a police state ready to rule by fear.
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic cont. Belief that a NWO exists has nothing to do with belief in man made globale warming. The presence of such psuedoscience being perpetrated through propaganda verifies that prior reports of their agenda were indeed true. The fact that it is so easily debunked as are so many other propaganda attempts to mask their operations show what little regard they have for your intelligence level. They either suck at details or want you to know subconciously That its all an inside job
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david They suck at details, but have managed to hoodwink the entire human race? I don't think so. As for wanting us to know, why exactly? For that matter, what's the point? If 'they' exist, 'they' already have the power, so why all the buggering about? If the ideal is a low population, why let it grow in the first place? who exactly are 'they'?
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
@IamSpydaMic No I believe as do others that the reason they often leave evidence of their crimes is a kind of "code of honor" that says they must reveal the truth about all their doings but they dont come right out and tell you. Only the illuminated ones are supposed to be inteligent enough to see the clues. As for who are they for a specific answer watch invisible empire but in general we are talking bout the richest assholes on earth. CFR members, Bildergerg, club of rome council of 500 etc,
truthseeker911david 4 months ago
@truthseeker911david CFR? So that'll be people like Angelina Jolie then? By the way, I looked at the bibliography, you do realise that most of them are from sites/sources that HE owns or has input in, and the rest are taken completely out of context, have no source stated, or just have absolutely nothing to do with his claims in the slightest don't you? PLEASE, try to keep in mind that this man is making a living from this rubbish!
IamSpydaMic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was a excuse to take over Middle East oil. click Justice party UK.
justicepartyuk 5 months ago
youtube.com/user/Bushvision
check out this channel, GW is comeplete bullshit, i think its just precedent to start taxing us more and further regulate the world
rickyx1 5 months ago
I was expecting michael jackson :o
CuboidCraft 5 months ago
Maybe its just me. but id rather read this. the acting is really corny and kind of distracting from the actual info. you should write a book. Id read it.
ImJustEternity 5 months ago
The other unmentioned risk of taking action is totalitarianism taking root to implement such changes. To people who minimize this risk, reference the tens of millions of people killed by totalitarian governments in the 1900s.
SSedmak 5 months ago
@SSedmak taking action on climate change doesn't mean totalitarianism. That's what we will have if we don't address it.
Also, the reverse risk of doing nothing on climate change is worse under any socio-political scenario
Nightversionn 5 months ago
@Nightversionn IF by address it you mean give my freedom and money over to the feds, no that will not be doing anything about climate change. Want to do something about climate change,. buy some shorts because according to science we just came out of an Ice Age and the ice has been melting for thousands of years. Of course I don't think the dinosaurs were zooming around in there giant SUVs but thats just me I guess.
TheGeneralOfWar 4 months ago
@Nightversionn Proof? Even a shred of evidence? I watched most of this series, and the closest he comes to "proving" the risk is using a microphone to create feedback in a spectacle which reminds me of a Monty Python sketch trying to convict an accused witch. The honest answer is that he doesn't freaking know, but he's scared. OK, fair enough, but that isn't actually the scientific method.
SSedmak 3 months ago
Since 2007, I think many people realize that economic problems are not something to trivialize either.
SSedmak 5 months ago
planet now, and that given current reproduction rates even a simple agrarian life style completely free of pollution will not be possible as there is simply not enough fertile top soil in the world.
as far fetched as it may seem, the most cost effective solution to this problem in the ultra long run would be to move all heavy industry to space, along with a lot of people as well...you'd be solving both the problem of pollution and it's root cause overpopulation at the same time.
fyckthissht 5 months ago
the issue with your video is the implication that first world nations need to lead the way. while that's not necessarily a bad or particularly demanding, you have to bear in mind that chinese and other non western countries haven taken up the bulk of highly pollutive heavy industry now, and they make western nations look like angels when to comes to laws regarding pollution.
and you completely ignore the whole argument that stems from the fact that there are simply far too many people on the
fyckthissht 5 months ago
please just let people see this video and think toyourself" ok! what if it is right and we are destroyng our planet? and what if we could start to fix it right now? but what about the cost if we were wrong? well!!! jacques fresco has had a plan since the 60's called the venus project. please check this out then watch zietgiest!!! then show it all to eveyone you know and even if you dont agree TALK ABOUT IT what is it gonna hurt if your just talking???? please for my childrens children and yours
BigGav666 5 months ago
Bro learn about the Illuminati and carbon tax.
workingforworldpeace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
edgar0001 5 months ago
The flaw in your logic is cap & trade and a carbon tax is the same as doing nothing, if you want to help, make videos showing people how to lower there carbon footprint , like buying a solar battery charger & rechargeable battery's for all there small things like computer mouse , flashlights , radio, ipod etc, and fluorescent or led lighting, bring your own boxes when you buy food, don't use throw away shit, etc
breadyforthenwo 5 months ago
The scientists offten dont really use science they just say what is expected of them. The reason they r prestigiouse is because they say what there political/social party wants them 2. NOT ALL SCIENTISTS R LIKE THIS. But a lot of them r.
44SCB 5 months ago
Because the only true smiley face is the top right one.
allmanboat 5 months ago
its not just global warming the whole solar system is warming up . its natural just like the earth comming out of the little ice age back in the 1400 to 1800 its normal and has been happning for a long time . remeber the mamoth they found with food still it its mouth when it was frozen , that was natural and happend fast . befor the ice age the earth was a little bit warmer then it is now . its a normal for the earth and our solar system to go throu warming up and colling down periods .
dawala1000 5 months ago
@dawala1000 No. Solar output has actually been decreasing over the last decades. It's just that some people insist that this should be a decrease within a larger scale increase because they want to say "its all because the sun is becoming warmer". Of course this is illogical because if it would be the sun that's making the earth warmer, the sun should simply be getting warmer. Which, as I pointed out, it isnt.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
What is evolved in his solution? Carbon taxes? These would not do any thing but line the pockets of greed politicians and reap huge wind falls for companies such as GE who are in bed with the government. How does this save the planet? It doesn't. But it will save your back cause you wallet will be a lot lighter.
cache21k 5 months ago
the choice he did not factor in along with the global depression in a world where there is already a global depression in the middle for massive violent revolution the inevitable global war that ensues. With war you have famine, plagues , and the total break down in the social structure. So both worse cases turn out the same for the people, regardless of where the water lands. Now there is another how much control does the system gain over the the everyday person? Thoughts anyone?
cache21k 5 months ago
Pascal's Wager
lagwagonjohnny 5 months ago
@lagwagonjohnny It's not pascal's wager, the ods are as obvious as the stakes.
In pascal's wager you know only the stakes.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming, if you care to read about it, instead of simply choosing to take other peoples word for it or not, so I think the ods are pretty much in this guys favour. And so are the stakes, of course.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 It's EXACTLY Pascal's wager. Just as wonderingmind42 explains in the video, it is still controversial as to the cause of global warming, however it is inconclusive as to the cause of it (astronomical shifts, solar patterns, not to mention a gigantic emission of C02 from the human population doubling in less than 100 years). There is a lot of evidence that God exists, therefore Pascal's wager exists. There is no difference.
lagwagonjohnny 5 months ago
@lagwagonjohnny I really dont think I'm wrong about this. Check out the Wikipedia page on Pascal's wager. It seems to assume the ods to be unknowable, it even quotes Pascal.
By the way, the claim that global warming is due to CO2 emissions is really not that controversial on the scientific plane as some would like to pretend. Global warming itself is pretty obvious and even the premises of most contexting explanations are manifestly wrong.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
I agree something bad could happen. What's sad is not enough people care.
thecubegeek 5 months ago
Nibiru?
CardinalSinga 5 months ago
nerdy fag
get a life u stupid old man thing
TheChrist1997 5 months ago
This bloke just LOVES the sound of his own voice,,,,,tell us something we DON'T know!!!!!!!
arcadia4819 5 months ago
Some other things need to be included in this discussion. There is a strong political theory that eco-laws are a step on the road to complete tyranny, leaving us with worse case scenarios of slavery or death. Taking international ecological action would cause lots of death in the 3rd & even 2nd world today, this claim is quite more soundly grounded than Climate Change in either direction. Finally, many of the same scientists predicting doom years ago told us the rainforests would be gone by now.
BillyJoe1305 6 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 By "a strong political theory" what do you mean exactly? The tea party ideology?
If you have a point to make simply make your point, dont say that "there is a strong theory". You see, some people would wonder why ecological measures would necessarily lead to tyranny... They might even think thats completely batshit insane. So I'm not sure who you are trying to convince here.
Especially since you disqualify like half the scientific community over something they never said.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Theory supported by books like: How the EPA’s Green Tyranny is Stifling America by Rich Trzupek, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Articles like: Greener Than Thou: The Tyranny Of Eco-Sanctimony by
Larry Bell from Forbes. Now books & articles don't make it true, but they give credence to my statement that it is a strong theory.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 It probably sounds, "batshit crazy," because when you hear people say things will lead to tyranny its usually followed by a conspiracy theory. When it is much simpler, a belief that telling someone what light bulb & toilet to use, or that they can't drive their car to work because of emissions (none of the old laws applying retroactively) is a very slippery slope. Most government actions are not a conspiracy, but if not restricted things tend to grow.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Back in the late 90s everyone was told the rainforest would be gone in ten years, now, depending on who you ask, it will be gone between 2020-2040. I'm not really trying to make a point, only lay out the other side of an argument. Yes it's my side & which is quite obvious, but I just want people to think. Judge what they think is best, maybe discuss it with someone. Do rainforest survive because things changed, or were they wrong, is global warming people, or natural earth cycles.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 It's also worth noting that many prolific scientists in the 70s predicted an ice age, as well as the exact opposite being true. As usual the less disastrous & sensational report was true.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Oh, did they really? Many prolific scientists? :)
I challenge you to find more than 10 peer reviewed scientific papers published throughout the entire 70s decade. I bet I can find 4 times as many papers from that time that predict global warming. Yes, that's right, the vast majority of scientists back then predicted global warming.
Peer reviewed science papers, that is. Not popular media articles.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 But there's more!
Allow me to tell you why these scientists predicted global cooling. It might shed some light on your "political theory"! ;)
The reason was due to rapidly increasing SO2 emissions. Now this SO2 also caused the infamous "acid rain" issue, and for this reason governments took measures reducing its output. Ironically, governments might actually have prevented global cooling! And hey, without becoming the dystopian tyrannies that apparently fill your daydreams!
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 So your argument is that no real scientist predicted cooling, but it was coming & the government stopped it with the help of I'm guessing fake scientists. You can't have that argument both ways. Now if you're saying that cooling was real & never happened because we stopped it, ok. I disagree, but ok. If you're saying that telling people what light bulbs & toilets to have doesn't start you on a slippery slope towards more intervention ok, again I disagree but thats your conclusion.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 It might have come if SO2 emissions would have followed the same trend, but they didnt. The theory makes sense. No they didnt curb it to stop global cooling, but because it was acidifying the environment. And society hardly became totalitarian.
It was *you* who claimed these scientists should be discredited because you supposed they made a mistake in the past (bit harsh, maybe?). you remember? It's when you claimed they are same people as those predicting global warming today.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 You said that scientist were predicting warming, but somehow the government caught wind of cooling & then stopped it. What I said about cooling is some scientists predicted an ice age, while others said it was just a phase & it would get warmer. I used it as an example of the less sensational answer likely being correct, horses not zebras. What I said about modern environmental scientists is that they're the same people who in the 90s told us the rainforest would be gone in 10years
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Maybe the most scientifically grounded answer would be most likely to be correct?
It's ironic that you think of yourself as making some counterpoint to "the passionate argument" when you actually believe a judgement about this planet's climate should be based on how sensational the answer sounds, what reputation the scientists have, ...
Is simple scientific research too "passionate" for you? Hardly more "passionate" than your "strong political theories", I'd say.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 The video brought into question the reputation of the scientists, I merely gave a rebuttal. Did you even watch the video to apply my comments before replying to me?
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 I did but the "rebuttal" doesnt make any sense.
Extensive ecological legislation has existed before and hasnt lead to tyranny.
There were not "many prolific scientists" who predicted an ice age.
Looking at what is the least sensational answer is isnt a better estimator for climate change than the climate models used in peer reviewed scientific papers.
Predicting a disaster (e.g. rainforest disappearing) leading to its prevention hardly makes it a bad prediction.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 It has caused death in the third world. Laws that make a person's method of survival illegal are tyrannous. They still hack burn and farm the rainforest at approximately the same rate they used to. And you can't decide whether no one predicted cooling or the government stopped it.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 You are expanding the scope of the concept tyranny so drastically it becomes meaningless. Tyranny is the rule of tyrants. Its not as if every time a person dies of povery its because a secret magical sithlord willed them to die... By your concept *not* having ecological legislation would be "tyrannous" if it could save lives, which is exactly their intention.
There are people literally fighting every day to defend the rainforest, since now there is political will to preserve it.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 If you outlaw the cheapest fuel available for an impoverished person to heat their house, cook food & boil unsanitary water it is your fault when they die. There are people right now fighting not to turn their farms over to the government so they can be turned back into rainforest. Because they need to eat. In the 90s there were already people fighting for the rainforest. DDT almost wiped out malaria, but now it kills 1-2 million people worldwide yearly.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 You want to know what is so grotesquely stupid about this?
It's that this is already perfectly captured by the video.
*IF* global warming is the problem science seems to predict it will be, *THEN* ecological measures will save lives. So it all boils down to wether or not it will come down to that, doesnt it?
Gee, it almost seems as if someone's political ideology is acting up and they just will not stand for government intervention even if it literally saves lives!
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 That is what it boils down to. But I'm stating that the risks are different than what he said. I'm saying that intervention will definitely kill people. It has happened.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Ok so maybe it would be possible to have a form of intervention where the costs arent directly diverted unto the backs of poor people in Africa? I dont think they are the worst pollutors anyways... In any case, if global warming would be a problem, these interventions would easily save many times more of anything than they would cost, including human lives.
Also, somehow it seems that government intervention is not exactly the biggest killer in the 3rd world...
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Or maybe it is, but that would be the
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Or maybe it is, but that would be the kind of "government intervention" that doesnt really care much for the well-being of its addressees to begin with, like warfare, repressions, etc...
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 When the US banned DDT it became less available in the third world causing Malaria to come back & in Africa infection is second only to Aids with 1-2 million deaths a year worldwide 90% in Africa. What we do here is felt everywhere. Also regulations would kill the poor in the second world, places like Mexico. Places that are the worst polluters because of incomplete industrialization. This is just an even more loaded question than it already looked to be.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 The DDT issue is a completely different problem... Im sorry this is kind of perplexing really... What are you suggesting really? What is the principle behind this? God is going to punish us for committing the sin of government intervention? So we should just sit back and if global warming is happening just accept that we are doomed?
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 By the way, wouldnt large scale use of DDT be a kind of ecological measure? Actually I dont think Malaria can be effectively combated in this way without it being organized by governments, since it takes that kind of coordination. So again you are making a completely false comparison.
Also, it is kind of offensive to compare morally the people who would take away someones defense against malaria to someone who would protect them from the effects of global warming.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 First what I'm saying is we better be damn sure of what we do before we do it, because people's lives are at stake in both directions. Our entire way of life could be changed here, others lives could be lost. Second, no DDT was mostly used by charities & it was also cheap & widely available for those poor who lived in cities. Third government use of DDT would not harm anyone, environmental regulations have a high likelihood of causing harm.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Ecological measures do have a cost, a very grave cost maybe, but only to make up for it by preventing damage that is way more serious.
You say using DDT wouldnt harm anyone? Its a highly poisonous substance that causes cancer! Why you think they (misguidedly) banned anyways? Just like ecological policies it would have done way more good than harm.
So the question remains: why do you claim we shouldnt worry when so much scientific evidence points to the necessity to take action?
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 The only study to link DDT to cancer was extremely flawed, They published that the mice fed DDT were shown to have a high risk of liver cancer, but when the WHO investigated the # of control mice with cancer was just as high. Honestly when I see the so called overwhelming global warming evidence it is among similar accusations of falsified data. Albeit not from the WHO
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Flighty, panicky decisions are the reason we still use so much coal in the first place. If we'd been allowed to switch to nuclear power it'd almost be a mute point. But people were convinced nuclear power plants were bombs waiting to go off & would leak lethal amounts of radiation. So we haven't built any plants since the early 60s, because the government said no. We don't have the safest form of energy, because people are scared. Fear, not science drives these things.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 So any measure taken to solve ecological problems is a "flighty, panicky decision"? Is that the point you are making?
So if carbon emissions were indeed the threat *scientists* make it out to be we should just sit back and take it... Because for some magical reason revealed in your "political theories" human beings would be literally incapable of doing anything about it without making matters worse? Even though physically its just a matter of reducing carbon emissions?
Really?
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 I believe what I said was that with the evidence we have today it would be a flighty panicky decision. I'm pretty sure I gave 2 reasons I don't think there is enough evidence to warrant action. Why is it you don't attack those & just go the easy route to attack me personally, pretending I'm some form of extremist. Is everybody who has looked at the information & come to a conclusion different than you an extremist.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Which "reasons" did you give?
Dismissing valid research on such grounds as "they are probably the same people who said the rainforest would be gone by now"? Sounds almost like trying to discredit someone to divert attention from what they have to say!
And what other "reason" was there? Your completely anecdotal accounts of "how all government intervention fails, forever" and politicians who would curb CO2 emissions are really "tyrants" killing innocent people in Africa?
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Beyond that I have not seen any strong evidence denying that in a centuries long weather cycles we are right on par with history. From the mini ice age of the middle ages to the warming period of the Renaissance. There is also very little evidence to support that human CO2 emissions are anything but completely negligible. It is also worth noting that if we allow things to happen on their own tech gets cleaner over time. So this seems like a flighty panicky decision to me.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 As I just replied to someone else, the sun has actually been cooling off again since a few decades. And no other factors than human CO2 emissions can actually be found, really. The warming is also quite abrupt as a trend.
And there is evidence to support it... What else do you suggest these scientists whom you insisted noone should take seriously because "they all predicted the amazon forest would be gone by now" have been producing all this time? :)
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 I don't see how the decrease in radiation from the sun supports your arguments, because the average yearly temperature fell after 1998, which is why they changed the term from global warming to man made climate change.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Actually, if its the same "no global warming since 1998" claim I have in mind: no it isnt.
First of all, 1998 simply was a very hot year. Even if you start right from 1998 so you get all that heat at the early side of your regression line, its still an upward trend. Which we shouldnt, of course, because its not objective to pick the sample most in favor of a particular hypothesis.
Maybe you should just tell us what your sources are, because its just one absurd claim after another.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 That is a direct quote of the first response I mentioned a flighty panicky decision, so it would be those reasons. You know it came right after I pointed out the only study to link DDT to cancer was essentially found to be fraudulent by the world health organization. & once again the thing about the rainforest was in response to the video poster's assertion that because these scientific groups bet their reputation on global warming, it meant we should listen to them.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 What is your problem, you dont know how science works? Or are you really just this dishonest?
It's about the evidence, not about who provides it.
If scientific evidence isnt objective, it isnt evidence at all. So it doesnt matter who says it! Otherwise it would be subjective. Do I really have to explain this to you? All you are doing is discouraging people from taking evidence into account.
And what has DDT even have to do with this? It's an anecdote and anecdotes prove nothing.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 So when someone says that the current climate is due to the CO2 emissions of man & only backs it with correlation from the last hundred years that's objective, but to challenge it & compare the data to historical records that's sloppy science?
As for the DDT, once again it is useful to show how "green" laws have killed people. The reason I brought the cancer thing back up is because it shows how deep you investigate something before blindly agreeing with it, falsified or not.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Where does it say you cant compare it to historical records? Did I say that? I didnt call anything sloppy science, I called science science. If you think you can provide actual scientific counter-evidence, be my guest. Although I think you will have a hard time finding any "evidence" that hasnt already been debunked.
You have done little more than avoiding the science by discrediting the scientists.
Also, the problem is there is no general principle behind your DDT anecdote...
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 I don't think you're getting all my replies when I send you multiple ones.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 Beyond that I have not seen any strong evidence denying that in a centuries long weather cycles we are right on par with history. From the mini ice age of the middle ages to the warming period of the Renaissance. There is also very little evidence to support that human CO2 emissions are anything but completely negligible. It is also worth noting that if we allow things to happen on their own tech gets cleaner over time. So this seems like a flighty panicky decision to me.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
@BillyJoe1305 Last but not least (although its the 3rd time I explain this):
There were a small number of scientists that predicted global cooling during the 60s and 70s. Likely no more than 7 peer reviewed papers were written based on this assumption during that time. Their ground was the increasing trend in SO2 emissions. These emissions were curbed by international agreements for *other reasons* i.e. acid rain. This changed the trend, which wasnt part of their prediction.
wishcraft4u2 5 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 All I've done is give the opposing argument to the passionate one on the subject. I think having 2 opposing arguments before a decision is the better option. This video was about thought & I wished to help in the promotion of that. Yet again you talk as though I am bringing up some giant conspiracy. Starting down a dangerous road is not a deliberate action. If you disagree with me, ok. However for future reference it helps your argument when you agree with yourself.
BillyJoe1305 5 months ago
funny shit
a23b23 6 months ago
singledad1234 6 months ago
This is Pascal's Wager all over again.
Regardless, I LIKE the idea of a cleaner, greener planet. I like the idea of reigning in the transnational corporations (read: parasites).
But I don't think a change for the better, for the safer risk management scenario is going to happen. Greed, stupidity, hatred, laziness - all the standard human hallmarks will act to prevent us from saving ourselves and our future.
SororThothma 6 months ago
Flawed Assumption - "the effects of global warming will be worse that cost of preparing for it."
your argument only works IF your WORST CASE SCENARIO prediction is correct. and there have been so many wrong exagerated climate predictions in the past.
wine in sunny yorkshire to ice skating on thames in 400 years all before the combustion engine hmmm.
Is this guy a climate scientist or does he just follow whatever scientists tell him ( no matter how politicised or unprovable their subject is )
fridgelawless 6 months ago
I'm not scared
JOjoway001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
notreenvironnement.blogspot.com
MrAvildy 6 months ago
i like the way this guy talks he says simple things make him sound smart. sweet.
susyyyrdz 6 months ago
I think we already ARE taking action.
PsexyPsychopath 6 months ago
Economy....vs...the end of the world.... -.-"
Escapingdestiny22 6 months ago
eisai megals malakas
miitsaras7 6 months ago
What a crock of shit.
jwillas4297 6 months ago
I thought I was a geek! :D I'm in love ^^ <3
But for real- this is very wise...
Thank you for putting this out!
JakeremWillEatYou 6 months ago
Every president says they "Promise" to stop, this or help that...But they can only do so much for us.....
juventinorocks 6 months ago
I thought Obama was gonna fix this!!!
09geauxtigers 6 months ago
i saw your video and now i feel stupid. XD
to smart for me
poiizui 6 months ago
These disasters you name, they are happening now.
bvssvni 6 months ago
George W. Bush
martin101jc 6 months ago
The sociopaths that control 80% of the worlds wealth are the real problem. GLWT.
1Magron 6 months ago
Humans are just another phase of the worlds evolution, we are not expected to last as long as the earth has to exist, but if we treat out existence like that and attack global warming as a future "possible" fate then we might as well worry about what we're gonna do when the Sun's fuel starts to run out. My point is humans won't be around forever and its a matter of time and scenario that humans meet their fate of existence. Moral of the story? Live for today and don't worry about tomorrow!
GMisurdaddy 6 months ago
Our government is made up of a bunch of racketeers and war is a racket. They make money in death and war what with the vaccines, guns/weapons and bank takeovers as well as any other theft that can be done. The question is how many lives do the NWO types want dead and where? We're all losers on this bus. If an economy tanks, they make money. If an economy takes off, they make money. Their concern is whether their control will remain intact. They have their bunkers and stockpiles. We have squat.
LibertyTreeBud 6 months ago
Thats like saying, look, what if 2012 is really going to happen, the risk of action is: harm to the economy, and the risk of inaction is end of the world. But obviously, 2012 isn't going to happen. Neither is 20 feet of sea level rise, malaria epidemic, 5 degrees of warming, or any of that garbage.
ZIONISTMAN1 6 months ago
I personally think we should be preparing for the zombie apocalypse, I mean, if we do prepare and it doesn't happen we'll only have a damaged economy, right?
WrathOfFlame 6 months ago
as i stated in your other video if u think the worst that can happen is just economic harm if GW is false but we do something about it anyway your way off....as an extreme over the top example..what would america do if countries that control oil outside the US charged 15k for a barrel of oil...would america pay it? or goto war? As i said a very extreme example but you catch my drift....
hoonz97 6 months ago
Simple reason why your whole thing is wrong to alot of people... if we took action there are 2 out comes =[ or =| where as if we sit around and do nothing we have the chance to be =]
My theory is this; if im going to live my life, id rather risk my life and take the pursuit of happiness but if not i might as well be dead anyway. Either way its better than wasting my life making youtube videos that feed people complete bullshit. Just sayin
Scourgy 6 months ago
Comment removed
Scourgy 6 months ago
People who look at this video and think it isn't agenda driven (Al Gore's carbon credit trade exchange literally named Blood and Gore), are pathetic.
You are WRONG! The biggest threat to humanity IS humanity and the exponential growth rate of the global population.
Where do you derive your motivation for such a useless video? Could it be that you are being paid? Hmmm I wonder.
I see through you. Just a bit too polished to be some slap-shot science geek.
I see you.
Rick258442 6 months ago
@Rick258442 - the population growth is not the problem...the world is not over-populated...the developed countries of the world destroy enough food every year to feed everyone...as well corrupt politicians prevent food and medical supplies from getting to their people...as well, this bonehead just passes by this, trying to fight the non-existent human caused global warming will guarantee that poverty stricken Africa will remain poor and cause millions more deaths.
fowzie777 6 months ago