News is reporting Jim (James) Hansen is now facing ethics charges for possible funds / briberies to skew results , he received these funds from the likes of Soros and environmentalist groups.
Safe reduction of the global Human population ensures that carbon emissions are also reduced. Excising the UN's proposed 'life-tax' as part of its larger Global Governance Initiative, is a necessary evil that's critical to the re-greening of Earth and the cessation of Climate Change now destroying our planet.
We applaud all those involved in the establishing and underwriting of the new Cap & Trade schema and thank everyone involved from both Private investment and Federal Govt sectors.
Rafting, Fishing, Cabins, Outdoor Store Rentals Glacier National Park
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Glacier National Park has lost two more of its glaciers to climate change and many of the rest may be gone by the end of the decade, a US government researcher says.
Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25...
Gore has set up carbon trading companies & clean & green companies with Goldman Sachs shysters all set to corner the market if Cap & Trade legislation is passed. Gore & pals created & promoted Global Warming to make a bundle. With the climategate emails, & malfeasance of the IPCC, you are showing a criminal intent to create the results you want. Add in $300+ million dollar ad campaign to promote it
GW is a racketeering operation that needs a congressional/criminal investigation
Al Gore and his investors have created a crisis called human caused global warming. They have created a product, literally out of thin air, called the carbon credit. This is essentially a license to pollute. And as experience in Europe has already shown, polluters will simply buy the license, and pass the cost on to consumers. The pollution will continue, has continued; the only real change is that goods and services cost more than they did before.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Slight problem with accusing Jim Hansen of getting $250,000 from the Kerry Foundation. He is a government employee and cannot accept personnally any money or in kind award from a private citizen or organization.
The award money went to Columbia University's climate group not Hansen.
Listen, Al gore and the liberal Democratic nutt jobs are trying to move the Republican based oil money into the hands of the Democrats by eliminating fossil fuels. They used the same technique they claimed Bush used on the war on terror. Scare people to quickly mobilize. The difference is that Bush was right. We should move to cleaner forms of energy. Who argues that? Nobody. But the BS gores spouts out is an embarrassment. Nobel Piece Prize. Are you kidding me. two Undeserving in a row.
Even if global warming is complete political BS it doesn't mean we should disrespect our Mother Earth. We are her children, every last one of us. So listen to her, not to these lying evil bastards we call leaders. Nature is the the True authority!
When a famous arsonist member of a community of arsonists wants to play firefighter role it will be a Zionist because Christians and Muslims are too stupid !!!
I have been hearing that it is actually the sun spots that are causing the changes..
Look at what God PROMISED...
Revelation 16.
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
The only thing Al Gored has proven is thet all his followers are gullable for his and his cronies profit. Check them out.
You gore lovers probably voted for Obama, who will be proven even worse than Carter. Bush? Oh, you fell for that too. Go look at the stats, and Carter was so bad he couldn't buy a 2nd term.
Go do some independent research, you ignorant fucks.
You really can not realistically think cow flatulations and car fumes causes global warming. The Al Gore Global warming theory is no different than the Al Gore contrived Y2K theory. It is another way to pave the road for more government spending. The increasing rumble of the Earth and geological events is a sign. More so2 and co2 is released in one volcanic event than we have produced since the gas engine was invented. Wake up and smell the fraud of Global warming. God is in control, not Exxon.
Gore's assertion that the Chinese expression for "crisis" is made up for "danger" and "opportunity" is a fallacy to begin with--like many other points in his movie. Google "How a misunderstanding about Chinese characters has led many astray" for a detailed explanation of how this mistaken notion came about (they conclude that it indicates "a type of muddled thinking that is a danger to society, for it lulls people into welcoming crises as unstable situations from which they can benefit").
Al Bore goes to washington in the middle of a major snow storm. ROTFL just to funny. Maybe Al meant "Little Ice Age" . I think Al should come shovel some of my global warming for me and no cocoa for him
Tune brings back memories ! Gores a propogandist Reaserch "Blood and Gore" the company he set up to sell carbon credits to us all, thats a good idea lets profit off it too even more! Nice vid
"...we have learned that the Russian data in NOAAs GHCN v2. mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS "
This is a video trying to establish a conspiracy theory association with Global Warming. Global Warming was not established by the people in the video.
Being skeptical is important and should not be swept under the rug. But this supposed conspiracy in the video does not discredit Global Warming, even if it were 100% accurate.
For instance, if Isaac Newton had accepted money from John Kerry, would that mean gravity is false?
The purpose of this video is to deflect attention from the profits of companies such as Exxon.
Did I just mention Exxon? I did. Exxon is now studying how to add lime to the oceans to reduce acidity. "Cleaning up CO2 with a twist of lime" Aug 06 2008, Cosmos Magazine.
adding lime ...hmm, not a bad idea. Sounds like a solution. You must think it is better to do nothing and provide no real solutions, like Al Bore. I know people like you. You bitch about global warming and then condemn the Pickens Plan. At least it is a plan, it's a start. What's your solution...lower the thermostat? Telecommute?
I'm not sure what the point of this video is. So these are the bad guys? They are certainly making money. Is that the bad part? Making money destroys their credibility? So, I'm not supposed to believe someone who is paid? Does this make the science inaccurate?
Realize the flip-side is true. Any global warming skeptic who has ever had any tie to oil, the establish energy business, or even just right-wing publications or groups get slandered as being bought. The fact is that there is far more money available for the pro-warming side every year than there has been for skeptics in the past 20 years.
Your point is good--we should listen to scientists based on the merits of their research.
I listen to private scientists that receive no funding. Generally they make theories based on data, instead of altering data to fit their theories. However, some of the "skeptic" groups that receive funding from oil companies actually receive ridiculously low amounts of money and have had the same stance long before receiving funding. You just have to look at the history of the organization and all possibilities as to why they have a certain stance on this subject.
The truth can be found simply by looking at history and current events. When there is money to be made in politics it becomes corrupted. When unions are involved there is corruption. Corporate scandals for money, kick backs in business are illegal, and the nature of money following fear is another. Money corrupts absolutely this is a fact. How can anyone trust a scientist that is motivated by large grants and money follows fear, sounds like MMGW. If it walks like, quacks like, it must be a duck.
Al Gore's sci advisor; James Hanson, JPL's highly recognized MMGW expert was documented in 1971 as being highly active in the Global Ice age movement, a flip in his highly educated opinion. He can B bought 4 a $250,000 grant 2 say just about anything. Embarrassed NASA having recently revised historical temperature data downward that Hansen himself compiled as a fraudulent report is further proof that MMGW is a con job. example of conflict of interest. Follow the lies, follow the money trail.
Actually, the original scientists that came forward and questioned man's possible impact on the Earth's climate had begun the AGW theories, but they have changed their own theories to fit the data they were collecting. When they started research in the late 60's, they didn't have the technology that we have today, and newer technology shows that man is not likely the cause of global warming. I think that many organizations and governments are worried about their reputations.
In case you have any doubts about the reality of human-caused climate change, this should help:
HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC
gristmill. grist. org/skeptics
There's also this website from a top British scientific academy. They provide responses to the misleading arguments "put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change."
I did see that the temperature, world wide has risen almost one degree (.8)
So, you win. I can not dispute the facts. The world is getting warmer. Maybe by the time my great grandchildren are dead in in 120 years, it will almost a TWO degree increase. WOW, how will we ever survive.
AL Gore, why not revise the 'lock box"
He SOOO wants more natural disasters...then he can nail down the Presidency. Hell, he's going to run any way.
The two degrees was MY hypothetical...not from the NASA chart. the NASA chart number is .8 degrees, over 50 years.
Are you just trying to be coy with the numbers to blindly leading the "teachings" of a man who refuses, flat out refuses, to live by what he preaches.
Is his house in Nashiville new (ten years or less) Is it heated with geothermal, powered by wind (not purchase, but produced on site) or photovoltaics??? ED Bagly Jr. Now I would listen to him
>What would happen if your body temperature rose 3.6 degrees?
>How would you survive?
OMG, how did I ever manage to ski in Mammoth during the winter and vacation in Las Vegas in the summer? In fact, how can we tolerate the horrific temperature swings of much more than 3.6 F over the course of a single day! Amazing that mankind has survived, huh?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
nancidrew4:
Animals are highly adaptive creatures, and can learn to survive and wide ranges of environments. I've had a high body temperature of 115 and a low body temperature of 68. I think I could survive if my core body temperature rose to 102. I find it fascinating how AGW believers are actually producing websites and spreading lies in an attempt to eliminate any debate. Can you actually think for yourself?
I find it fascinating how having a body temperature of 115 degrees would make me a nutcase. Yes, I did exaggerate slightly. My actual core temperature was just under 115 degrees. I ended up going to the hospital for the fever. However, the record is 115.7 degrees.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
nancidrew4:
Have you done any actual research yourself? I went to your websites. The first site simply belittles all "skeptics" and makes AGW believers out to be intelligent people, but the data on the website isn't even accurate. It looks as though the information was taken from a blog. You are following a man that has no scientific background, and all he teaches you is how to repeat his comments. The second website is produced by an exclusive group that doesn't speak for all scientists.
Creating jobs by making things less efficeint amd more costly is the opposit of progress. All human progress has come by eliminating jobs, not creating them. When you eliminate jobs, you free people up to do other jobs. For example, miners eliminated the job of the guy who held the spike that the other guy hit with a hammer to drill holes in rocks. Now both guys are free to run power hammers.
Well, I guess the reason they know they can make money off of this is because HAARP(hardening/heating the ionisphere)it was originally funded by our elected officials because they thought it would be used for missle defense(scrambling missles aimed at U.S.). Apparently they found another use for it.
My video "Global Warming - Sun" is now up in its permanent position at acutemania(dot)net for anyone who wants to embed it. Follow the link in the video description on "Global Warming - Sun" to get the correct URL. Don't use the main page as the videos there will change.
"Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future."
John K. Carlisle, Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force
"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector [Khabibullo Abdusamatov]
And if Exxon is doing such a great job at covering up Global warming, WTF does EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER THINK IT'S REAL?!
If you actually ask the question "Does CO2 cause a SIGNIFICANT portion of the warming?" there's not a clear answer on it, yet EVERYBODY thinks this is true. Look at the polls! If anything, "skeptics" are the ones being suppressed. The debate is not over, yet everyone thinks it is. Not every skeptic is in the pocket of big oil. If you think so, you're a moron like.
"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
"All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."
"Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for SLOW and INACCURATE MONITORING. He was also criticized for ALLOWING AIR POLLUTION THROUGHOUT THE USSR TO REACH UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS."
ohhhh nice, yah like we should trust him, THOSE CRITICISMS SAYS IT ALL, imo!
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
globalwarmingisreal--How many times are you going to post this pointless nonsense? I suppose as many times as is necessary to cover up the fact that you have no evidence.
"How many times are you going to post this pointless nonsense? I suppose as many times as is necessary to cover up the fact that you have no evidence."
LOL! who do you work for? so you're saying it's not true?
"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
The tobacco companies were SUCCESSFUL at covering that up? Uh tobacco has been linked to illness since the freakin spanish came here and tried it back in the 1400's. They TRIED to cover it up, but success? yeah right, like those huge labels saying "BAD FOR YOU" on the side of the packs could be misinterpreted. Give me a fuckin break.
Ask any mid aged to old aged russian about "how to read the Pravda" and you are on your way to learn how to interprete all the bullshit being spread by the "high up's".
I loved how Al Gore was caught flying from talk to talk in his own private jet... with him as the sole passenger. Not very environmentally friendly that one Al.
I'm with you there. I mean I'm 100% behind things being made super efficient. But most people who argue against me in this forum are driving cars in the US that only get about 20 mpg. It seems somewhat hypocritical of them.
But how efficient is a jet engine. Well, modern airline turbofan engines are very efficient. NASA has a quick page on this. Look up Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET)
Actually. I let this pass yesterday. But... are you really suggesting that it's OK for Al Gore to use a highly inefficient jet because "he's in a hurry". We're ALL in a hurry.
Doesn't that go completely against the understanding of a one world protection ideal. Why can't he telecast from one of his GIGANTIC CO2 emitting houses around the states. Or perhaps get in this 14mpg Maserati and drive over to an suitable office. Surely... it's the message that's important. Not his presence.
Now that you mention it, yes, Al Gore should not be doing that stuff but it does not justify that we should not believe that man isn't a factor. I'm not defending him but all I can say is if he wants to accomplish his passion even more, he's got to walk the walk more.
I totally agree. It's all right telling us all to drive efficient cars (which I have) but then to sneak off and blast away in his jet. Hmmm. It just makes me not believe his lack of sincerity.
Personally, I think all the other pollution that's pumped into the biosphere (from industry) is of more concern. At least CO2 is helpful to plants! They breath it!! :-) Not that plants convert the largest amount of CO2 to O. 2/3 of it is done in the oceans.
I guess this is why Lexus has hybrids, and Mercedes and Ferrari will. I'm for alternative energy so people like Gore can keep those unnecessary mansions. I really don't see the need for a mansion since it's harder to maintain and things like computers and cell phones are getting smaller so they take less space yet have more features.
Don't laugh. But I always wanted a house under the ground. It's naturally protected from the elements and hardly needs any heating or cooling. We are talking kW per year!
According to the Washington Post, he's not even got a solar panel! Did I mention we heat our water using solar heating.
First, it has been said that James Hansen would have voted for John McCain in the 2004 election but went for Kerry b/c of his environmental stance. If this is the case, then Hansen wouldn't be basing his research on his politics. Second, what it boils down to is it really DOESN'T MATTER who right on this issue because we need to get out of gas, ANYWAY.
I am in the pay of neither oil or nuclear power. THe 0.00037% CIO2 tracks the weather, it does not make it. Only the stupid thin kotherwise. AOr are you a nuclear stooge?
I mean it sounds like an insane questions I know and about a year ago I was totally on your side of the fence. Then I started reading scientific journals.
You see while the media is telling us that cars are bad... they don't point out that it only contributes to about 10% of CO2 pollution. The majority of the rest is created by industry and power generation. That's electricity... you know, the 'green' fuel of the future.
... Because if we are to run cars etc on electricity we have to generate it. But, we are told, that electricity generation is more 'efficient' than the car. Well, that might be the case. But it's NOT cleaner.
Cars 10% versus Energy Production 30-40-50% (depending on estimates). So clearly cleaning up energy production would pay massive dividends.
So why isn't CO2 being capped on energy production? Why isn't the media talking about that?
But it's based upon research that is not only out of date, it's wrong. Trouble is.. everybody is listening to Al Gore and their Government... who wish to tax them.
Finally, are you aware that we are just returning to temperatures last seen in Medieval times? Did they drive SUVs?
And despite all the rhetoric, the last last six years have seen global temperatures DROP, not rise, but DROP.
TheNextTurn, it's easy to paint everybody who says there is more to understand as being ANTI-ENVIRONMENT. But I'm pro-environment. I think we should have super efficient cars and planes... AND electricity production.
But the science isn't fact, it's theory.
But Governments are taking this theory and using it to increase taxes on people. Not oil companies, not energy companies (who create the majority of CO2 companies)... but you and me.
Actually, I'm a Fellow of the Physics Department of the University of Salford (UK). So I suspect you're a bit wrong.
My point is that if you could possible get your head out of Al Gore's arse long enough. you could read alternative (but still scholarly) opinion that differs from the media driven 'doom and gloom' predictions.
But nobody is bothering to answer why it is that the biggest polluters of CO2 i.e. Big Industry and Energy Production ARE NOT BEING TAXED. WHY does that make sense to you?
Also... Al Gore. This would be the same man who the Washington Post pointed out....
"The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year."
The fact that objects are attracted to the Earth is an empirical fact. It's the understanding of how and why that occurs that's the theory. Which now PROVES to me that you simply haven't a single clue what the hell you're talking about and this has been a complete waste of time.
Oh, and it's EvOlution. Unless you talking about the theory of 'elevators'... which I believe was fully proven by a Mr Otis.
Actually, here is the thing. You prove it to me. You tell me exactly how it's working.
Clearly, you're an expert. So please do explain. Give ME the links. Not ABC or MSNC or the Discovery channel. I want the actual scientific papers that prove that not only is Global Warming 100% man made, but that all other forms of warming are disproved.
Ta....
.. Actually, it's 10.45pm over here. So don't rush.. I'm going to hit the sack.
"No scientific thoery is 100%" tell me about it! :-)
Bit busy this week. But I will read any papers you send me too. Non of your links actually appear to be scientific papers. They're all policy statements. I'd rather have papers, which can be validated.
Do you have any of those? I mean actual knowledge of research rather than what you've sent me.
As for my links. Already posted them. But I presume you posted this comment before I posted them.
"I dint know how to interpret scientific studies, neither does 99% of the population so we are reliant on what we consider reliable sources" - AKA can't learn, won't learn.
"I do not think you are are scientist at all because of you lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is." - Whatever. What's the point in continuing this?
You've completely failed to understand my point and you constantly avoid answering my questions while criticising, without reviewing, my answers.
Is that your argument? You don't know shit, but I have to come up with a list of organisations! As opposed to what? Scientific facts that don't fit the hypothesis you have been spoon fed. And I'm useless!
If I felt there was any point debating this with you, I would. But you can neither explain the facts you claim to support nor have the capacity to understand those propositions I've sent you to read. ALL from 'credible scientific organisations'. A fact that seems to escape you. I pity you.
The reason I dont post any scientific organizations is becuase they are all getting paid too much from thier extra GW research.
Thus implying that all scientific organizations are corrupt. Then I will indicate how you sound like a creationist, trying to DENY evalution, and thus suggesting that all biologist are corrupt.
Here is a superb paper from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that addresses and dispells most of the myths that surround the whole Global Warming hoax.
"There is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming. But even then, just because all the experts agree doesn't make them right -- it just makes them extremely unlikely to be wrong. That in turn means that if someone begs to disagree, they need to have some very strong grounds for doing so."
Algore and his partner Maurice Strong have a history of fraudulent schemes designed to get money from the government. Now the two of them are trying to hit it big, make billions, using this global warming scheme and trading carbon credits. It has been investigated. Read the article for yourself.
Did you bother the check who backed Gore's Presidential campaign all those years back. It was to the tune of millions of oil companies.
Why would they back him? Oil is bad. Prices rise. Record profits. Ever notice that year in year out the oil companies post record profits. Now you know why.
Interesting if not intentional question. Well, if you check Shell, BP and Exxon you'll see they are all spending millions on research into alternative energy. Of course, that's usually based around replacing food crops with ethanol rich crops which aren't necessarily edible. Not too clever.
But look at the timeline. They support him. He, along with nearly all other media outlets, campaign on global warning. Result. Fuel prices rise. Profits increase.
My other point would be, look how he lives. He's got several huge and NOT green houses around America and he travels to all his seminars IN HIS OWN PRIVATE JET.
How green is that? Not green at all.
It's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'. Which really does affect his credibility in my eyes. Why not yours?
I am a PhD sceintist, and I found global warming is fictiopn from nuclear power. CO2 reacts to weather, ti does ont cause it! It goes up in an ice age - explain!
I respect your views, and I am not looking for an argument or to offend anybody. You have a right to your ideas, but just remember - before 1964 smoking was considered healthy, and then people started getting cancer. When we start seeing the effects of hazards it is often too late.
See my blog fro how to do nuclear fusion, power with no CO2, or toxic death. And cheap, safe adn clean. Globla WArming was onyl ever phantom science, and so more risky than smoking!
There's this vid by this dude RichardTrekkerTheII (4Htbx_VG58E)who is a Belgian research scientist who got banned from the scientific community for speaking his mind on this stuff and it really made me think different and get off my ass and do something. I highly recommend it.
"They call it pollution, we call it life" - from Advertisement of Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from such companies as ExxonMobil.
Nuclear power dropped on CO2, as a vilan to get more power palnts. Only problem is, the liberate so much cO2, which just inc reases life on Earth: Life they profit from killing! Use your brain.
Flying with Al Gore on his private jet it's fun and uses tons of fuel. Good thing he is on the global warming thing. While in the air he talks about the ice man was found in the GROUND then covered, deep under the snow and ice, then thousands of years later the ice man is discovered "in the ground". "PLANET EARTH" wobbles on its axis and about every 22,000 years the angle changes causing the global temp to change. He also mentions that it is global warming not American warming.
I'm an Asian guy, who'd just been in American for 4 years. I don't wanna say this, but who posted this video at first must had an empty brain. And the ones who reposted this video were just those dumb guys with little knowledge in this topic. Totally stupid.
What's the difference? Yes, Gore & company are money hungry and are using the Global Warming debate to get rich. BUT, the corporations that pollute this planet are also money hungry and are using doubts about Global Warming to protect their empires.
I, for one, rather have companies that care about our planet get wealthy - and not the ones that are responsible for the pollution in the first place.
no, we've actually gotten cleaner if you look at charts from the 60's to now you'll see what I'm talking about and C02 is more or less a water vapor and don't rise till after the temperature rises GOOGLE IT
Don't fret Martin Durkin, Tim Ball, Freddy Singer, Piers Corbyn, Glenn Beck, Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, Chris Horner, Michael Crichton and the other manure spreaders. I am sure the Nobel Committee will someday learn to better appreciate your efforts to spread disinformation, swift boat the messnegers and pad your resumes.
I challenge anyone to discredit this statement. You hit the nail on the head. (Although I don't think Glenn Beck is making any money from his ignorance in this matter.)
In its citation, the Nobel committee lauded Gore's "strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
oh yea, and to have america sent troops around the world would be helpful towards those poor children w/o food in africa. and it might even "stop terroism"...
Gore charges $300,000 for a talk now.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
When Gore left politics he was worth just $2m, now he is worth $ 200m. He has made this from his AGW scare, and plans to make a lot more.
He is ready to destroy the US/world economy just to make some cash; he is nothing but a rat.
That other bullshitter, Hansen should be sacked from NASA immidiately for spreding fear and lies in the community.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
News is reporting Jim (James) Hansen is now facing ethics charges for possible funds / briberies to skew results , he received these funds from the likes of Soros and environmentalist groups.
SupremeAmerican 7 months ago
We agree!
Safe reduction of the global Human population ensures that carbon emissions are also reduced. Excising the UN's proposed 'life-tax' as part of its larger Global Governance Initiative, is a necessary evil that's critical to the re-greening of Earth and the cessation of Climate Change now destroying our planet.
We applaud all those involved in the establishing and underwriting of the new Cap & Trade schema and thank everyone involved from both Private investment and Federal Govt sectors.
CorporateRule 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep in touch with naughty women mworld5.info
LisesiHeath 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here! The Oil companies are doing everything they can to stop these
information. If you want a Free energy machine do a search in youtube for the LT MAGNET MOTOR , Join the
revolution!
offertorycardiacml 1 year ago
Breaking climate news...
GLACIERS GONE FROM GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
MATTHEW BROWN
April 8, 2010 - 9:59AM
Ads by Google
Glacier Outdoor Center
Rafting, Fishing, Cabins, Outdoor Store Rentals Glacier National Park
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Glacier National Park has lost two more of its glaciers to climate change and many of the rest may be gone by the end of the decade, a US government researcher says.
Warmer temperatures have reduced the number of named glaciers in the northwestern Montana park to 25...
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Gore has set up carbon trading companies & clean & green companies with Goldman Sachs shysters all set to corner the market if Cap & Trade legislation is passed. Gore & pals created & promoted Global Warming to make a bundle. With the climategate emails, & malfeasance of the IPCC, you are showing a criminal intent to create the results you want. Add in $300+ million dollar ad campaign to promote it
GW is a racketeering operation that needs a congressional/criminal investigation
"RICO"
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Al Gore and his investors have created a crisis called human caused global warming. They have created a product, literally out of thin air, called the carbon credit. This is essentially a license to pollute. And as experience in Europe has already shown, polluters will simply buy the license, and pass the cost on to consumers. The pollution will continue, has continued; the only real change is that goods and services cost more than they did before.
Wake up & rise!
Thisawareness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
Slight problem with accusing Jim Hansen of getting $250,000 from the Kerry Foundation. He is a government employee and cannot accept personnally any money or in kind award from a private citizen or organization.
The award money went to Columbia University's climate group not Hansen.
drkstrong 1 year ago
BS.. red necks... Believe a you tube video,, lol
msb19652000 1 year ago
Listen, Al gore and the liberal Democratic nutt jobs are trying to move the Republican based oil money into the hands of the Democrats by eliminating fossil fuels. They used the same technique they claimed Bush used on the war on terror. Scare people to quickly mobilize. The difference is that Bush was right. We should move to cleaner forms of energy. Who argues that? Nobody. But the BS gores spouts out is an embarrassment. Nobel Piece Prize. Are you kidding me. two Undeserving in a row.
grayhuze 2 years ago
Even if global warming is complete political BS it doesn't mean we should disrespect our Mother Earth. We are her children, every last one of us. So listen to her, not to these lying evil bastards we call leaders. Nature is the the True authority!
Peace on Earth
PeaceIsRad 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
Unbelievable !
When a famous arsonist member of a community of arsonists wants to play firefighter role it will be a Zionist because Christians and Muslims are too stupid !!!
innssann 2 years ago
The sun is getting hotter, thats it, just part of its regular life cycle. All the other planets in our solar system are also getting warmer....HMMM.
Instead of wasting more time and resources on this corporate/government SCAM, let us as people prepare to live on a warmer planet now.
Semper Fi
tbgallien 2 years ago
I live in northern Canada, and spend several months of the year dealing with -40, I'm waiting patiently for palm trees and flamingos.
quuaa1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have been hearing that it is actually the sun spots that are causing the changes..
Look at what God PROMISED...
Revelation 16.
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
All making sense now huh?!
sharons813 2 years ago
The only thing Al Gored has proven is thet all his followers are gullable for his and his cronies profit. Check them out.
You gore lovers probably voted for Obama, who will be proven even worse than Carter. Bush? Oh, you fell for that too. Go look at the stats, and Carter was so bad he couldn't buy a 2nd term.
Go do some independent research, you ignorant fucks.
TheRealSonny 2 years ago 7
You really can not realistically think cow flatulations and car fumes causes global warming. The Al Gore Global warming theory is no different than the Al Gore contrived Y2K theory. It is another way to pave the road for more government spending. The increasing rumble of the Earth and geological events is a sign. More so2 and co2 is released in one volcanic event than we have produced since the gas engine was invented. Wake up and smell the fraud of Global warming. God is in control, not Exxon.
TheRealSonny 2 years ago 3
Gore's assertion that the Chinese expression for "crisis" is made up for "danger" and "opportunity" is a fallacy to begin with--like many other points in his movie. Google "How a misunderstanding about Chinese characters has led many astray" for a detailed explanation of how this mistaken notion came about (they conclude that it indicates "a type of muddled thinking that is a danger to society, for it lulls people into welcoming crises as unstable situations from which they can benefit").
codehead1 2 years ago
Al Bore goes to washington in the middle of a major snow storm. ROTFL just to funny. Maybe Al meant "Little Ice Age" . I think Al should come shovel some of my global warming for me and no cocoa for him
NHMntnHIGH 3 years ago 4
Al gore needs to go climb back under his rock!
99minerkc 3 years ago 4
Tune brings back memories ! Gores a propogandist Reaserch "Blood and Gore" the company he set up to sell carbon credits to us all, thats a good idea lets profit off it too even more! Nice vid
zzharrispgzz 3 years ago 2
i am SUPER SERIAL
crankthetoto 3 years ago
ROTFL
NHMntnHIGH 2 years ago
global warming is shit !!!!
pethead87 3 years ago
11/10/08 WattsUpWithThat:
"...we have learned that the Russian data in NOAAs GHCN v2. mean dataset is corrupted. For most (if not all) stations in Russia, the September data has been replicated as October data, artificially raising the October temperature many degrees. The data from NOAA is used by GISS to calculate the global temperature. Thus the record-setting anomaly for October 2008 is invalid and we await the highly-publicised corrections from NOAA and GISS "
icecreamdose 3 years ago 4
madehero2007,
This is a video trying to establish a conspiracy theory association with Global Warming. Global Warming was not established by the people in the video.
Being skeptical is important and should not be swept under the rug. But this supposed conspiracy in the video does not discredit Global Warming, even if it were 100% accurate.
For instance, if Isaac Newton had accepted money from John Kerry, would that mean gravity is false?
earthpet 3 years ago
The purpose of this video is to deflect attention from the profits of companies such as Exxon.
Did I just mention Exxon? I did. Exxon is now studying how to add lime to the oceans to reduce acidity. "Cleaning up CO2 with a twist of lime" Aug 06 2008, Cosmos Magazine.
TRUMPHENT 3 years ago
adding lime ...hmm, not a bad idea. Sounds like a solution. You must think it is better to do nothing and provide no real solutions, like Al Bore. I know people like you. You bitch about global warming and then condemn the Pickens Plan. At least it is a plan, it's a start. What's your solution...lower the thermostat? Telecommute?
angrydog1295 3 years ago
I'm not sure what the point of this video is. So these are the bad guys? They are certainly making money. Is that the bad part? Making money destroys their credibility? So, I'm not supposed to believe someone who is paid? Does this make the science inaccurate?
Death to paid people!!!!
Am I doing this right?
earthpet 3 years ago
>Does this make the science inaccurate?
Realize the flip-side is true. Any global warming skeptic who has ever had any tie to oil, the establish energy business, or even just right-wing publications or groups get slandered as being bought. The fact is that there is far more money available for the pro-warming side every year than there has been for skeptics in the past 20 years.
Your point is good--we should listen to scientists based on the merits of their research.
codehead1 3 years ago 2
earthpet:
I listen to private scientists that receive no funding. Generally they make theories based on data, instead of altering data to fit their theories. However, some of the "skeptic" groups that receive funding from oil companies actually receive ridiculously low amounts of money and have had the same stance long before receiving funding. You just have to look at the history of the organization and all possibilities as to why they have a certain stance on this subject.
madehero2007 3 years ago
The truth can be found simply by looking at history and current events. When there is money to be made in politics it becomes corrupted. When unions are involved there is corruption. Corporate scandals for money, kick backs in business are illegal, and the nature of money following fear is another. Money corrupts absolutely this is a fact. How can anyone trust a scientist that is motivated by large grants and money follows fear, sounds like MMGW. If it walks like, quacks like, it must be a duck.
questioneverything2 3 years ago
Al Gore's sci advisor; James Hanson, JPL's highly recognized MMGW expert was documented in 1971 as being highly active in the Global Ice age movement, a flip in his highly educated opinion. He can B bought 4 a $250,000 grant 2 say just about anything. Embarrassed NASA having recently revised historical temperature data downward that Hansen himself compiled as a fraudulent report is further proof that MMGW is a con job. example of conflict of interest. Follow the lies, follow the money trail.
questioneverything2 3 years ago
questioneverything:
Actually, the original scientists that came forward and questioned man's possible impact on the Earth's climate had begun the AGW theories, but they have changed their own theories to fit the data they were collecting. When they started research in the late 60's, they didn't have the technology that we have today, and newer technology shows that man is not likely the cause of global warming. I think that many organizations and governments are worried about their reputations.
madehero2007 3 years ago
In case you have any doubts about the reality of human-caused climate change, this should help:
HOW TO TALK TO A CLIMATE SKEPTIC
gristmill. grist. org/skeptics
There's also this website from a top British scientific academy. They provide responses to the misleading arguments "put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change."
royalsociety. org/page. asp?id=6229
nancidrew4 3 years ago
went to the site....
I did see that the temperature, world wide has risen almost one degree (.8)
So, you win. I can not dispute the facts. The world is getting warmer. Maybe by the time my great grandchildren are dead in in 120 years, it will almost a TWO degree increase. WOW, how will we ever survive.
AL Gore, why not revise the 'lock box"
He SOOO wants more natural disasters...then he can nail down the Presidency. Hell, he's going to run any way.
angrydog1295 3 years ago
That's two degrees CELSIUS -- which is equivalent to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
The biosphere behaves like a living being as a whole. So small temperature increases can have profound effects.
What would happen if your body temperature rose 3.6 degrees? That would bring it up to 102 degrees.
How would you survive?
By denying reality? By blaming a politician?
nancidrew4 3 years ago
The two degrees was MY hypothetical...not from the NASA chart. the NASA chart number is .8 degrees, over 50 years.
Are you just trying to be coy with the numbers to blindly leading the "teachings" of a man who refuses, flat out refuses, to live by what he preaches.
Is his house in Nashiville new (ten years or less) Is it heated with geothermal, powered by wind (not purchase, but produced on site) or photovoltaics??? ED Bagly Jr. Now I would listen to him
angrydog1295 3 years ago
>What would happen if your body temperature rose 3.6 degrees?
>How would you survive?
OMG, how did I ever manage to ski in Mammoth during the winter and vacation in Las Vegas in the summer? In fact, how can we tolerate the horrific temperature swings of much more than 3.6 F over the course of a single day! Amazing that mankind has survived, huh?
codehead1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nancidrew4:
Animals are highly adaptive creatures, and can learn to survive and wide ranges of environments. I've had a high body temperature of 115 and a low body temperature of 68. I think I could survive if my core body temperature rose to 102. I find it fascinating how AGW believers are actually producing websites and spreading lies in an attempt to eliminate any debate. Can you actually think for yourself?
madehero2007 3 years ago
Madehero2007, You're a nutcase plain and Simple if you think your body temp went to 115 before!!
99minerkc 3 years ago
99minerkc:
I find it fascinating how having a body temperature of 115 degrees would make me a nutcase. Yes, I did exaggerate slightly. My actual core temperature was just under 115 degrees. I ended up going to the hospital for the fever. However, the record is 115.7 degrees.
madehero2007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nancidrew4:
Have you done any actual research yourself? I went to your websites. The first site simply belittles all "skeptics" and makes AGW believers out to be intelligent people, but the data on the website isn't even accurate. It looks as though the information was taken from a blog. You are following a man that has no scientific background, and all he teaches you is how to repeat his comments. The second website is produced by an exclusive group that doesn't speak for all scientists.
madehero2007 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CO2 is life, and its level follows plant growth cycles, whic hfollows the weahter: It does not make the climate.
JonThm 3 years ago
Why the hell is bush refutable while hansen isn't? I don't get it.
iwishiwasagenius 3 years ago
Creating jobs by making things less efficeint amd more costly is the opposit of progress. All human progress has come by eliminating jobs, not creating them. When you eliminate jobs, you free people up to do other jobs. For example, miners eliminated the job of the guy who held the spike that the other guy hit with a hammer to drill holes in rocks. Now both guys are free to run power hammers.
goose1077 3 years ago
Well, I guess the reason they know they can make money off of this is because HAARP(hardening/heating the ionisphere)it was originally funded by our elected officials because they thought it would be used for missle defense(scrambling missles aimed at U.S.). Apparently they found another use for it.
ColectvIndvidulism1 3 years ago
gore thinks you can make money out of thin air, like our stupid government, like you i guess
XanatharEye 3 years ago
There is nothing to save. Global warming is a scam based on NO scientific fact. Educate yourself so you can stop sounding stupid.
eddie01YT 3 years ago
My video "Global Warming - Sun" is now up in its permanent position at acutemania(dot)net for anyone who wants to embed it. Follow the link in the video description on "Global Warming - Sun" to get the correct URL. Don't use the main page as the videos there will change.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
"Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future."
John K. Carlisle, Director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Environmental Policy Task Force
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector [Khabibullo Abdusamatov]
Mosnews, August 25, 2006
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
And if Exxon is doing such a great job at covering up Global warming, WTF does EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER THINK IT'S REAL?!
If you actually ask the question "Does CO2 cause a SIGNIFICANT portion of the warming?" there's not a clear answer on it, yet EVERYBODY thinks this is true. Look at the polls! If anything, "skeptics" are the ones being suppressed. The debate is not over, yet everyone thinks it is. Not every skeptic is in the pocket of big oil. If you think so, you're a moron like.
tenthousandpercent 3 years ago
eh MORON, becuz it is REAL!
the reputable SCIENTISTS say so! not the BS scientists!
good! they should shut up, cuz its LIES! IDIOT!
if you think that, then YOURE the IDIOT!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
LOL!!! is he connected to EXXON in any way...let me know!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"All the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science."
Yuri A. Izrael, Vice-Chair of the IPCC
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
LOL! & we should trust him!
this is what i got(there's more):
"Izrael was chairman of the State Committee on Hydrometeorology (Goskomgidromet) at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Following the accident he was widely criticized for SLOW and INACCURATE MONITORING. He was also criticized for ALLOWING AIR POLLUTION THROUGHOUT THE USSR TO REACH UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS."
ohhhh nice, yah like we should trust him, THOSE CRITICISMS SAYS IT ALL, imo!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
what about EXXON?
"In an effort to deceive the public about the reality of global warming, ExxonMobil has underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry misled the public about the scientific evidence linking smoking to lung cancer and heart disease."
UCS
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
globalwarmingisreal--How many times are you going to post this pointless nonsense? I suppose as many times as is necessary to cover up the fact that you have no evidence.
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
you said:
"How many times are you going to post this pointless nonsense? I suppose as many times as is necessary to cover up the fact that you have no evidence."
LOL! who do you work for? so you're saying it's not true?
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
are you saying it's not based on FACT!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
"So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
iloveemo1984 3 years ago
The tobacco companies were SUCCESSFUL at covering that up? Uh tobacco has been linked to illness since the freakin spanish came here and tried it back in the 1400's. They TRIED to cover it up, but success? yeah right, like those huge labels saying "BAD FOR YOU" on the side of the packs could be misinterpreted. Give me a fuckin break.
tenthousandpercent 3 years ago
um yah they were! MORON! go do your research!
globalwarmingisreal 3 years ago
Awesome!!!
Glowwriter 4 years ago
Ask any mid aged to old aged russian about "how to read the Pravda" and you are on your way to learn how to interprete all the bullshit being spread by the "high up's".
Kenzofeis 4 years ago
I loved how Al Gore was caught flying from talk to talk in his own private jet... with him as the sole passenger. Not very environmentally friendly that one Al.
ascolti 4 years ago
I hope he's just using it to be in a hurry to get to his next speech. Anyway, that's why we need to make all planes more fuel efficient.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
I'm with you there. I mean I'm 100% behind things being made super efficient. But most people who argue against me in this forum are driving cars in the US that only get about 20 mpg. It seems somewhat hypocritical of them.
But how efficient is a jet engine. Well, modern airline turbofan engines are very efficient. NASA has a quick page on this. Look up Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET)
ascolti 4 years ago
Actually. I let this pass yesterday. But... are you really suggesting that it's OK for Al Gore to use a highly inefficient jet because "he's in a hurry". We're ALL in a hurry.
Doesn't that go completely against the understanding of a one world protection ideal. Why can't he telecast from one of his GIGANTIC CO2 emitting houses around the states. Or perhaps get in this 14mpg Maserati and drive over to an suitable office. Surely... it's the message that's important. Not his presence.
ascolti 4 years ago
Now that you mention it, yes, Al Gore should not be doing that stuff but it does not justify that we should not believe that man isn't a factor. I'm not defending him but all I can say is if he wants to accomplish his passion even more, he's got to walk the walk more.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
I totally agree. It's all right telling us all to drive efficient cars (which I have) but then to sneak off and blast away in his jet. Hmmm. It just makes me not believe his lack of sincerity.
Personally, I think all the other pollution that's pumped into the biosphere (from industry) is of more concern. At least CO2 is helpful to plants! They breath it!! :-) Not that plants convert the largest amount of CO2 to O. 2/3 of it is done in the oceans.
ascolti 4 years ago
I guess this is why Lexus has hybrids, and Mercedes and Ferrari will. I'm for alternative energy so people like Gore can keep those unnecessary mansions. I really don't see the need for a mansion since it's harder to maintain and things like computers and cell phones are getting smaller so they take less space yet have more features.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
Don't laugh. But I always wanted a house under the ground. It's naturally protected from the elements and hardly needs any heating or cooling. We are talking kW per year!
According to the Washington Post, he's not even got a solar panel! Did I mention we heat our water using solar heating.
ascolti 4 years ago
As I said if Gore wants even more support, he's has to walk the walk.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
Global WArming/Climate change are phantom sciecne dreamed by by nuclear power to kill us!
JonThm 4 years ago
First, it has been said that James Hansen would have voted for John McCain in the 2004 election but went for Kerry b/c of his environmental stance. If this is the case, then Hansen wouldn't be basing his research on his politics. Second, what it boils down to is it really DOESN'T MATTER who right on this issue because we need to get out of gas, ANYWAY.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
i did a search on exxon and global warming!!!
woke me up!!!
all you $%$#^ trying to discredit global warming deserve to burn in hell!!!
this my opinion!!
globalwarmingisreal 4 years ago
Global WArming is fiction from the nuclear industry - so much more dangerosu than oil: And I ain't funded by either!
JonThm 4 years ago
You still at it Jon.
You are near the only one now still dening GW...
Give it up and get out from uder Exxons influence.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
I am in the pay of neither oil or nuclear power. THe 0.00037% CIO2 tracks the weather, it does not make it. Only the stupid thin kotherwise. AOr are you a nuclear stooge?
JonThm 4 years ago
Bla bla bla ..Jon claims to know exactly how CO2 efects the atmosphere...
Again he avoids his sources... gee couldnt see that coming.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
We do not make the weather, we live with it, or we are mentally unstable: Still don't affect the weather, just deserve to be locked up!
JonThm 4 years ago
Ever heard of acid rain.. the ozone.
Of course humans effect the weather.
you are a complete loser
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Did you also hear that the ozone layer is in fact replenishing itself and will be back to its old self in about 30 years time.....
... sorry, did that news miss that fact out? Wonder why....
ascolti 4 years ago
Even if it is, it doesn't matter because we should be getting out of oil.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
Why?
I mean it sounds like an insane questions I know and about a year ago I was totally on your side of the fence. Then I started reading scientific journals.
You see while the media is telling us that cars are bad... they don't point out that it only contributes to about 10% of CO2 pollution. The majority of the rest is created by industry and power generation. That's electricity... you know, the 'green' fuel of the future.
All of which makes no sense.........
ascolti 4 years ago
... Because if we are to run cars etc on electricity we have to generate it. But, we are told, that electricity generation is more 'efficient' than the car. Well, that might be the case. But it's NOT cleaner.
Cars 10% versus Energy Production 30-40-50% (depending on estimates). So clearly cleaning up energy production would pay massive dividends.
So why isn't CO2 being capped on energy production? Why isn't the media talking about that?
ascolti 4 years ago
Yes The ozone is getting better because CFCs are no longer used because of the Montreal Protocol.
That exactly what the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali protocol is, they fix the mistakes of man.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
But it's based upon research that is not only out of date, it's wrong. Trouble is.. everybody is listening to Al Gore and their Government... who wish to tax them.
Finally, are you aware that we are just returning to temperatures last seen in Medieval times? Did they drive SUVs?
And despite all the rhetoric, the last last six years have seen global temperatures DROP, not rise, but DROP.
ascolti 4 years ago
TheNextTurn, it's easy to paint everybody who says there is more to understand as being ANTI-ENVIRONMENT. But I'm pro-environment. I think we should have super efficient cars and planes... AND electricity production.
But the science isn't fact, it's theory.
But Governments are taking this theory and using it to increase taxes on people. Not oil companies, not energy companies (who create the majority of CO2 companies)... but you and me.
If they are sincere. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
ascolti 4 years ago
"But the science isn't fact, it's theory."
Now you sound like a young earth creationist.
Gravity, evalution are thoeries also.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh and Yes the Cap and trade system will cost everyone more money...get use to it.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Actually, I'm a Fellow of the Physics Department of the University of Salford (UK). So I suspect you're a bit wrong.
My point is that if you could possible get your head out of Al Gore's arse long enough. you could read alternative (but still scholarly) opinion that differs from the media driven 'doom and gloom' predictions.
But nobody is bothering to answer why it is that the biggest polluters of CO2 i.e. Big Industry and Energy Production ARE NOT BEING TAXED. WHY does that make sense to you?
ascolti 4 years ago
LOL
You are a scientist and you resort to personally bashing Al Gore... thats just fucking hilarious.
"But the science isn't fact, it's theory."
This quote shows that you have no idea what a scientific theory is.
Would you like a link that explains what a scientific theory is, Mr. Physicist?
(Thus showing how brainless your statement is.)
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Actually, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist... and to be clear, it was YOU I was bashing.
Yeah, please send me a link. Because that would be lovely. :-)
You might even learn something of the nature of theory. How evidence that refutes a theory is meant to falsify it.
But in the case of popular, readings that sit outside the model are rejected.
Or perhaps you mean 'theory' as basically a conjecture, where the model has to be proven in all cases to therefore become a theorem.
ascolti 4 years ago
Also... Al Gore. This would be the same man who the Washington Post pointed out....
"The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year."
So.. not exactly a genius then.
ascolti 4 years ago
Had to reply to your 'Gravity... ' comment.
The fact that objects are attracted to the Earth is an empirical fact. It's the understanding of how and why that occurs that's the theory. Which now PROVES to me that you simply haven't a single clue what the hell you're talking about and this has been a complete waste of time.
Oh, and it's EvOlution. Unless you talking about the theory of 'elevators'... which I believe was fully proven by a Mr Otis.
ascolti 4 years ago
Actually gravity is not a fact.
NO scientific theory even the one about things falling to larger mases is still theory.
Science never claim absolute truth on any theory including gravity.
So yes if objects stopped falling towards larger masses many would be surprised but science allows for this possibility.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
I dont believe you, what are your sources?
I know no sources are coming, and if you get some organization that agress with you it will not be scietific one.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Oh really.
Unfortunately YouTube doesn't allow URL's in my comments. But try these in google
2005 Moberg stanford (University) (top hit)
2005 Esper climate past ranges and future changes
EVIDENCE FOR INFLUENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC SURFACE PROCESSES
Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data von von Storch
Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900--2000 Scafetta and West (Harvard)
I'll compile a bigger list when I can find the papers online in complete form.
ascolti 4 years ago
Actually, here is the thing. You prove it to me. You tell me exactly how it's working.
Clearly, you're an expert. So please do explain. Give ME the links. Not ABC or MSNC or the Discovery channel. I want the actual scientific papers that prove that not only is Global Warming 100% man made, but that all other forms of warming are disproved.
Ta....
.. Actually, it's 10.45pm over here. So don't rush.. I'm going to hit the sack.
ascolti 4 years ago
No scientific thoery is 100%, you should know that MR Physicists.
NASA (Est. 1958)
w w w(.)nasa(.)gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook(.)html
American Association for the Adv. of Science (est 1848)
aaas(.)org/news/press_room/climate_change/
Geological Society of America (Est 1888)
geosociety(.)org/positions/position10(.)htm
American Meteorological Society (Est 1919)
ametsoc(.)org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003(.)html
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
American Geophysical Union (Est 1919)
agu(.)org/sci_soc/everyonecl(.)html
American Institute of Physics (Est 1931)
aip(.)org/gov/policy12(.)html
Ill be waiting for your links
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
"No scientific thoery is 100%" tell me about it! :-)
Bit busy this week. But I will read any papers you send me too. Non of your links actually appear to be scientific papers. They're all policy statements. I'd rather have papers, which can be validated.
Do you have any of those? I mean actual knowledge of research rather than what you've sent me.
As for my links. Already posted them. But I presume you posted this comment before I posted them.
ascolti 4 years ago
I'm no scientists like you *snicker*.
I dint know how to interpret scientific studies, neither does 99% of the population so we are reliant on what we consider reliable sources.
I do not think you are are scientist at all because of you lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is.
Please post a link to scientific organization that publicly states GW is not caused by humans.
If you cant even produce ONE, it shows a serious lack of credibility for your views.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
"I dint know how to interpret scientific studies, neither does 99% of the population so we are reliant on what we consider reliable sources" - AKA can't learn, won't learn.
"I do not think you are are scientist at all because of you lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is." - Whatever. What's the point in continuing this?
You've completely failed to understand my point and you constantly avoid answering my questions while criticising, without reviewing, my answers.
ascolti 4 years ago
I put forward serious scientific papers that highlight issues with the 'popular theory' and in return you direct me towards policy documents.
You say I'm not scientific, but completely fail to TELL me what you understanding of what 'scientific theory' is.
When I ask for you're understanding, you don't have one.
So why bother eh?
I'm sure you'll think of something devastatingly witty and damning in return. Just imagine me having a little cry after I read it. boo hoo :-)
ascolti 4 years ago
This is about GW and who we trust to get the most accurate information about it.
I trust long standing and credible orgainzations... you are the one that fails to produce and backing by credible organization...
Again you will try to spin it away from my credible sources and from your non-credible studies.
DO any credible scientific organizations agree with you?
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
"DO any credible scientific organizations agree with you?" - Yep.
You know what. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I have no understanding of anything. You are like a god to me. I bow down to your superior intellect.
ascolti 4 years ago
From a preivous post...
Actually gravity is not a fact.
NO scientific theory even the one about things falling to larger mases is still theory.
"Science never claim absolute truth on any theory including gravity.
So yes... if objects stopped falling towards larger masses many would be surprised but science allows for this possibility."
Do you have touble reading now?
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
No... No TOUBLE at all mate. he he he he :-)
ascolti 4 years ago
DO you have any credible scientific organizations agree with you?
Fuck you are useless
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Is that your argument? You don't know shit, but I have to come up with a list of organisations! As opposed to what? Scientific facts that don't fit the hypothesis you have been spoon fed. And I'm useless!
If I felt there was any point debating this with you, I would. But you can neither explain the facts you claim to support nor have the capacity to understand those propositions I've sent you to read. ALL from 'credible scientific organisations'. A fact that seems to escape you. I pity you.
ascolti 4 years ago
Yes credible scientific organizations..LOL
I still waiting for you to say something like:
The reason I dont post any scientific organizations is becuase they are all getting paid too much from thier extra GW research.
Thus implying that all scientific organizations are corrupt. Then I will indicate how you sound like a creationist, trying to DENY evalution, and thus suggesting that all biologist are corrupt.
scientific organizations
scientific organizations
scientific organizations
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
Here is a superb paper from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that addresses and dispells most of the myths that surround the whole Global Warming hoax.
tinyurl com/yo97ax
vsaluki 4 years ago
we are living in a sci-fi movie with a bitter end..no more need to watch 24.. look at the matrix you live in
ENJOYOURMATRIX 4 years ago
"There is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming. But even then, just because all the experts agree doesn't make them right -- it just makes them extremely unlikely to be wrong. That in turn means that if someone begs to disagree, they need to have some very strong grounds for doing so."
14 January 2008, New Statesman:
tinyurl . com / 39fw7h
Read more in The Royal Society:
tinyurl . com / 3a9efq
sergejsh 4 years ago
Algore and his partner Maurice Strong have a history of fraudulent schemes designed to get money from the government. Now the two of them are trying to hit it big, make billions, using this global warming scheme and trading carbon credits. It has been investigated. Read the article for yourself.
tinyurl com/374kou
vsaluki 4 years ago
I don't care if Gore and his pals make money, so long as they're taking action.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
No m,an, not even Gore can change the weather. Yuo driving, that juast increases life on Earth!
JonThm 4 years ago
You mind typing properly because I don't understand your point. It really doesn't matter because we should be getting out of gas anyway.
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
Did you bother the check who backed Gore's Presidential campaign all those years back. It was to the tune of millions of oil companies.
Why would they back him? Oil is bad. Prices rise. Record profits. Ever notice that year in year out the oil companies post record profits. Now you know why.
ascolti 4 years ago
So Gore had connections with oil companies. That's why we need alternative energy to weaken them and Gore. Does he still have connections?
unknownunknowns 4 years ago
Interesting if not intentional question. Well, if you check Shell, BP and Exxon you'll see they are all spending millions on research into alternative energy. Of course, that's usually based around replacing food crops with ethanol rich crops which aren't necessarily edible. Not too clever.
But look at the timeline. They support him. He, along with nearly all other media outlets, campaign on global warning. Result. Fuel prices rise. Profits increase.
ascolti 4 years ago
My other point would be, look how he lives. He's got several huge and NOT green houses around America and he travels to all his seminars IN HIS OWN PRIVATE JET.
How green is that? Not green at all.
It's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'. Which really does affect his credibility in my eyes. Why not yours?
ascolti 4 years ago
Nuclear power produces as much CO2, as burnngio fossil feuls! THey made u pthe global warming ficiton, to get more plants of death built.
JonThm 4 years ago
I am a PhD sceintist, and I found global warming is fictiopn from nuclear power. CO2 reacts to weather, ti does ont cause it! It goes up in an ice age - explain!
JonThm 4 years ago
Maybe if you knew how to spell I'd be more convinced.
gerrysong 4 years ago
What do you want? My ideas, or my computer's spell check? What is important to you? Obviously not global warming, which is such ficiton!
JonThm 4 years ago
I respect your views, and I am not looking for an argument or to offend anybody. You have a right to your ideas, but just remember - before 1964 smoking was considered healthy, and then people started getting cancer. When we start seeing the effects of hazards it is often too late.
gerrysong 4 years ago
See my blog fro how to do nuclear fusion, power with no CO2, or toxic death. And cheap, safe adn clean. Globla WArming was onyl ever phantom science, and so more risky than smoking!
JonThm 4 years ago
Sources John,
where ar you getting your informaiton.
As always jon you will not priovide them.
TheNextTurn 4 years ago
CO2 is life on Earth. Nuclear power wants ot turn a profit while killing it!
JonThm 4 years ago
There's this vid by this dude RichardTrekkerTheII (4Htbx_VG58E)who is a Belgian research scientist who got banned from the scientific community for speaking his mind on this stuff and it really made me think different and get off my ass and do something. I highly recommend it.
dickenine 4 years ago
Global Warming is fiction from the nucleaer industry, who want you dead!
JonThm 4 years ago
That Global Warming is fiction from the nucleaer industry, this IS fiction from oil industry :)
sergejsh 4 years ago
I have no oil link. Animals breath in O2, and out CO2: CO2 increases life on Earth, nuclear kills it! stooge.
JonThm 4 years ago
Thank you for emitting :)
"They call it pollution, we call it life" - from Advertisement of Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets some of its funding from such companies as ExxonMobil.
tinyurl . com / ltb9w
sergejsh 4 years ago
I get no funding! I am a real sceintist. And the nuclear power inductry doe not bung me!
JonThm 4 years ago
I believe you. You are good guy. But not another "big guys" who emitting much much more than you. Be cool :)
sergejsh 4 years ago
Nuclear release as much CO2 as conventional power!
JonThm 4 years ago
Global warming was fiction to get new nuclear plants built, btu they release as much CO2 as burning fossil fuels!
JonThm 4 years ago
Global warming was fiction? How do you know? Maybe somebody told you? Then how do you know, that they are telling the truth?
sergejsh 4 years ago
Nuclear power dropped on CO2, as a vilan to get more power palnts. Only problem is, the liberate so much cO2, which just inc reases life on Earth: Life they profit from killing! Use your brain.
JonThm 4 years ago
I am not talking about power plants. You are saying that Global warming is fiction. It is not true. Use your brain.
sergejsh 4 years ago
"If one can't attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."
sergejsh 4 years ago
Gore is Gore.
But how about Climate Change facts?
sergejsh 4 years ago
Flying with Al Gore on his private jet it's fun and uses tons of fuel. Good thing he is on the global warming thing. While in the air he talks about the ice man was found in the GROUND then covered, deep under the snow and ice, then thousands of years later the ice man is discovered "in the ground". "PLANET EARTH" wobbles on its axis and about every 22,000 years the angle changes causing the global temp to change. He also mentions that it is global warming not American warming.
browntroutandhorses 4 years ago
Great creation! Al Gore is such a hypocritical, loudmouth jerk.
MontereyDave 4 years ago
I'm an Asian guy, who'd just been in American for 4 years. I don't wanna say this, but who posted this video at first must had an empty brain. And the ones who reposted this video were just those dumb guys with little knowledge in this topic. Totally stupid.
seulkionline 4 years ago
Agreed.
mv4455 3 years ago
There IS money to be made AND help our climate which is in crisis already. WE MUST ACT NOW
kenjams 4 years ago
What's the difference? Yes, Gore & company are money hungry and are using the Global Warming debate to get rich. BUT, the corporations that pollute this planet are also money hungry and are using doubts about Global Warming to protect their empires.
I, for one, rather have companies that care about our planet get wealthy - and not the ones that are responsible for the pollution in the first place.
sirpaulj7 4 years ago
no, we've actually gotten cleaner if you look at charts from the 60's to now you'll see what I'm talking about and C02 is more or less a water vapor and don't rise till after the temperature rises GOOGLE IT
Isaiah402831 4 years ago
I take that back it's greenhouse gases that are no more than water vapor C02 is carbon monoxide I was just tired last night
Isaiah402831 4 years ago
lol
ys big dif.........
MagWolf11 4 years ago
yeah, I was really tired that night i think it was like 1am
Isaiah402831 4 years ago
lol
im trying to get ready for finals in college so 1 AM is now nothing haha.....dam
i want more sleep now!!!
MagWolf11 4 years ago
oil US 86 Who is making money here?????
tijana3 4 years ago
they don't make money hyping up some "global warming" disaster that isn't happening.
Isaiah402831 4 years ago
Don't fret Martin Durkin, Tim Ball, Freddy Singer, Piers Corbyn, Glenn Beck, Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, Chris Horner, Michael Crichton and the other manure spreaders. I am sure the Nobel Committee will someday learn to better appreciate your efforts to spread disinformation, swift boat the messnegers and pad your resumes.
beninmv 4 years ago
I challenge anyone to discredit this statement. You hit the nail on the head. (Although I don't think Glenn Beck is making any money from his ignorance in this matter.)
jffryfnt 4 years ago
In its citation, the Nobel committee lauded Gore's "strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
beninmv 4 years ago
oh yea, and to have america sent troops around the world would be helpful towards those poor children w/o food in africa. and it might even "stop terroism"...
gw2005 4 years ago
I just saw this in Google News:
Billionaire leftist George Soros's foundations gave $720,000 in 2006 to Dr James Hansen.
Also did you know in 1971 Hansen predicted that the earth would cool down 6 degrees by 1981? And what would be the cause? Carbon particles..
x00p3 4 years ago
Good stuff
taxman1011 4 years ago
ha! still better than the bushs
gw2005 4 years ago
Awesome!, good job.
rafaeljimenezbuendia 4 years ago