Dr. David Evans, Carbon Modeler, Says, "You've been had" At Perth "Carbon Tax" Protest

[Trickie2007]

History tells the truth, and if we looked back we can see how this planet has always and will continue changing.

I agree with @indraBlade77.

So collecting money is pointless - unless they have plans to throw it upwards into the sky to soak up those extra molecules.

[indulis1]

PS Most of David Evans' "proof of conspiracy" claims evaporate once you look at the facts behind the claims. Ocean data from Argo not available? untrue the data is available on the web. A conspiracy of temperature stations put in hot places deliberately? disproved by a fellow climate change skeptic (but real scientist not a spreadsheet modeller). Folks, this is why they are called deniers, because they deny the facts and just make stuff up to support their conpiracy theories.

[indulis1]

"Globalists who don't give a stuff about you or the climate", so you are basically saying that all of the climate science is wrong. That the changes we are seeing are imaginary, despite the best evidence. That there is conspiracy of scientist who are so keen on a world govt that they were willing to risk being sacked (thats right the scientists were gagged and threatened by govts during the 80s and 90s). That really makes sense. NOT.

[mixmastermeeks]

@indulis1 Well if you look into it scientists are pretty split about man made global warming. It is the politicians that are not split. And I think conspiracy is a strong word but there are definately groups who try to silence critics of man made global warming. CERN came out with a study in Nature that contains evidence that strongly suggests that cosmic rays cause our climate to change. But the director of CERN told his scientists to stay "politically correct".

[indulis1]

@mixmastermeeks "Scientists are split" is not factual. A small handful of denier scientists exist, usually commenting well outside their own field with simplistic and scientifically discredited views. Just because you see a TV program which has one person saying global warming is not happening, and the other side of the split screen on your TV is a climate scientist who has spend 20 years becoming an expert does NOT mean there is a 50/50 split.Check out skeptical science . com for facts on this

[leartiste2001]

@indulis1 You miss the point..climate change science is actually "science for hire" Scientists now have an opportunity to experience fame and fortune by becoming more and more alarmist - particularly in the media..further the climate change science is good for politics and business generated by this false industry.

[indulis1]

@mixmastermeeks And your claim that the CERN scientists were told to stay "politically correct" is not accurate. Climate science is about the interrelationships (complex ones) between water, CO2, oceans, clouds, vegetation, and yes cosmic rays.Just because cosmic rays seed clouds does not mean the clouds stay around (eg vapour trail behind jet vanishes most of the time pretty quickly it does not "seed" the sky). The CERN scientists were advised not to draw conclusions outside their experiment.

[mixmastermeeks]

@indulis1 He was quoted in the NYT as telling his scientist to not to draw conclusions (as most scientists do) in order to stay politically correct. And when the theory that cosmic rays may actually have the biggest impact on climate was talked about in 1996 the head of the IPCC called it "irresponsible" and cut the funding off to those scientists. It is a political issue. And those people who push co2 don't want other ideas put out there.

[chotaboy66]

Follow the money when one comes to a conclusion they will uncover a carbon tax is just a mere symptom or consequence of a far greater crime & theft of not only national wealth but it all stems from a theft of circulation that all banks NO EXCEPTIONS steal from our promissory obligations to each other.They don't want you to know WE are the true creditors & WE actually create the money in a purported loan & the BANK well they intervene on our commerce by fraud thus stealing from our pool of wealth

[genesisauctions]

Follow the money and you will see the real motives in the CARBON TAX.

[Reginaldesq]

@genesisauctions Follow the Money? Look at the BRW top ten richest. No politicians or climate scientists there But plenty of minning executives

[mixmastermeeks]

@Reginaldesq haha. It is funny that every time someone speaks up and questions global warming you hear the "follow the money" speech. You may want to follow the money behind those who support the idea of man made global warming.

[Reginaldesq]

@mixmastermeeks . Thats my point, there isnt any big money going to scientists. The scientists are not getting rich. Show me who is getting as rich as the Fossil energy company executives who deny man made climate change. Its like tabacco all over again

[mixmastermeeks]

@Reginaldesq General electric payed no taxes last year. NO TAXES. Why? Because of "green" tax credits. And you should check into "big oil". They love climate change. They are making tons of money from it. Al Gore has made something like 400 million. Politicians get elected by pushing it. And they threaten to pull funding from scientific institutions that do research that could prove that it is either wrong or not nearly as serious as it is made out to be.

[Reginaldesq]

@mixmastermeeks OK so it looks like the only person you can find is Al Gore who was rich b4 he made his successfull doco. I would be amazed if any of the big power companies paid any tax ever. Do you know how much tax GE paid b4 they were getting tax credits?  I dont know what country you are living in but in Australia politicians get thrown out by backing measures to reduce climate change.

[mixmastermeeks]

@Reginaldesq Al Gore was just who I mentioned. Here in America lots of private companies get government money to produce "green" products. We spent 2 million dollars per job on a "green" company that recently went out of business in California. You can follow the money to climate scientists. They more doom and gloom they predict the more funding they get. And whether politicians get thrown out for reducing measures really doesn't prove the validity of the theory does it?

[indulis1]

@Reginaldesq In fact it is not just *like* tobacco all over again. in many cases it is the same people doing the denying again (guns for hire scientists, think-tanks, policy institutes) Nothing to do with whether the science is right or not, these are "free market radicals" who believe in NO regulation (tobacco, acid rain, CFCs, CO2), and the way they want to stop regulation is by besmirching the science/scientists, because once the public see the truth is it game over like it was for tobacco

[Reginaldesq]

@indulis1 Umm...err...you do realise that you opened by saying "In fact it is not just *like* tobacco all over again" and finished by saying "because once the public see the truth is it game over like it was for tobacco"

[genesisauctions]

Do people know that this tax will be handed over to the free market to speculate on in 2014 so we are handing over our tax sovereignty over to the big banks and what do banks do screw the people over. A lot of money to be made in a new currency, are you prepared to hand over your hard earned dollars to globalist who don't give a stuff about you or the climate, it's not capped it's an open ended tax starting at 23% then in 2014 who knows, the government will have no control over it.

[indulis1]

"Socialistic ideologies", "fascist world government", catch-cries of the extreme free marketists who start with a premise that there should be NO regulation, & go on to attack any group that proposes it (in this case climate scientists). Nice bit of recycling there. Read Naomi Oreskes book Merchants of Doubt so you understand where your phrases are from (hint: the same people who opposed tobacco, acid rain, ozone legislation). Did legislation about CFCs bring about a "socialist world govt"?

[indulis1]

David Evans' qualifications to speak with authority on climate change are also inflated (as judged by the over-the-top introduction in this video) . He has implemented a carbon *accounting* system for a govt dept. He is not , an expert on climate change (provably, based on the errors he makes), any more than someone who writes a score tracking system for the AIS is an elite athlete. He has NO publications in the climate field. Search for David Evans Rocket Scientist, you'll see what I mean.

[indulis1]

Dr Evans does not bother to check the science on some of his key "facts". For example, the claim that temp stations were poorly placed to "fudge" the science. Climate skeptics including the Koch brothers funded a review of the temp stations by Dr Richard Muller- analysis both with and without the "suspect" stations. But Dr Muller testified to the US Congress "the poor stations in the

U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations". Not the only error in Dr Evans' talk.

[mmattjanet]

Why are there no programs to control the most abundant greenhouse gas by far, dihydrogen oxide?

Also an interesting GHG is ozone. What are the feedbacks with ozone? Does less ozone in the atmosphere cause warming or cooling?

[IndrasBlade77]

@mmattjanet There are Government programs to control dihydrogen monoxide, well it's mainly foreign mega-corporations owned by the bankers operating through the government that they own, that seek to control our water supply, but it's not to fight an imaginary global warming boogeyman....:) Good on Dr Evans, it's good to see some scientists with courage and integrity.

[IndrasBlade77]

@mmattjanet You mean dihydrogen Monoxide water. They are actually moving to control it in order to control all our resources claiming falsely that droughts are caused by global warming as opposed to Solar blocking effects and other oceanic oscillatory cyclic phenomena. Ozone does contribute to negative feedbacks, Sulphur dioxide merges with and ozone molecule and a water molecule to form clusters that attract water vapour forming clouds which create an albedo effect and cool the planet.

[Adrianlunnon]

Also. Since when did rising pollution only effect global temperatures. Look at Bejing and their pollution problems. On a clear day visibility is down to 1km. 1/8 people have to wear masks because their bodies can't deal with the pollution. If anyone thinks this is OK then they need to check again. I don't want my kids growing up not being able to see the Harbor bridge from the Opera house because we emmit to much crap into the air.... WE BREATH!

[zoltanapril42]

@Adrianlunnon And the Labour position is to keep selling them our cheap coal. The carbon tax is not about "pollution" why dont you think about it and resolve in your mind what its about.

If coal burning is soooo dangerous why is Labour and the Greens still pimping tax free coal to China and India.

Follow the money and you will see the real motives in the CARBON TAX.

[Adrianlunnon]

@zoltanapril42 Are you suggesting we should stop selling coal as well? I don't think the public is going to like that. The carbon tax will pay for several billion dollars of research and develop jobs into renewable energy. If you this that's not going to help with pollution then maybe you don't understand. This country isn't ran by the mob, all taxes go back into making Australia better. 30 other country have it already & where falling behind. It's a small first step in the right direction.

[zoltanapril42]

@Adrianlunnon Adrian you miss the point, Gillard and the Greens are claiming that Coal is a POLLUTANT ! it is fundamentally dangerous to burn, as it will melt the ice caps and warm up the world and needs to be stopped. Yet we have proponents like yourself happy to PIMP this pollutant to the rest of the world in order for Australian to develop "clean" energy free of this pollution which we are the main wholesale supplier. When you see this logical inconsistancy you start to think.

[Adrianlunnon]

@zoltanapril42 As I said. We can't stop selling coal over night. It would put to many people out of the job all at once, the fact your suggesting it is crazy. With several billion dollars we will be creating new technology's that China will eventually buy instead of coal. China has 27 nuclear reactors being built right now all of which emit NO co2. China are trying to move away from coal and it will eventually happen. We still use 5x as much power per person compared to people in China.

[zoltanapril42]

@Adrianlunnon Adrian you just cannot bring yourself to admit that Australia is a massive exporter of the greenhouse problem. According to Adam Band we will soon be passing Saudi Arabia as the worlds largest exporter of CO2. This is hypocracy, the atmosphere does not recognise borders. Now if you are an advocate of harmfull man made Global Warming you cannot avoid the logic. The Greens and Labour are clearly using this issue to further their socialistic ideoalogies and not CO2 reductions.

[Adrianlunnon]

The very last words in the video spoiled the whole thing. "Yes c02 is a cause of global warming but it's so minor, it's not worth doing much about".... I do agree but where do you draw the line? If you don't draw a line now then what happens in 150 years when it's not only first world countries who are major emitters. Will the earth be able to cope with a 100x increase? 1000x increase? 10,000x increase? No one knows & no one seems to care.

[llamatomdizle]

The thing is carbon isnt the only way to make power. There are other forms which need money to be developed. Those who are against this tax are not only helping to continue the CO2 emission trend but also retarding the innovation of alternative energy sources. Think about the repercussions of your inability to deal with change. Scared people aren't useful when it comes to deciding a nations future.

[llamatomdizle]

The whole problem is that civilization since the industrial era has been so carbon intensive.. If you ignorant people who say this is simple a way for the government to make money actually looked at the billions of dollars which are spent on global warming initiatives your whole argument is flawed.. And again that a large proportion of this money is going into programs such as RED++ which prevents underdeveloped nations from mass land clearing

[Alfdehombre24]

As a possibility;

1. Could our governments be wanting to supplement the potential reduction of main revenue (petrol tax) if alternative energies became popular?

2. Could it be added revenue to support the "W-a-r against Te rror"?

3. I am not alone feeling that we are really being fed a record-breaking and increasing amount of crap through our mainstream media & politicians mainly serving the world mega wealthy and mega corporations?

Please just answer 1, 2, 3 or AOTA (all of the above)

Alf =]

[PertSnergleman]

@Alfdehombre24 3. The biggest "mega wealthy mega corporations" are the most carbon intensive.

[llamatomdizle]

from the past 1000 years.. So where in all these direct causes do people get lost? The truth is people don't get lost.. People believe what they are told by the media and bored housewives and ignorant laborers want something to argue against.. and a tax to these people regardless of what it's for is a great thing to whinge about.. The fact that these people had time in the middle of the day to go and complain about something they don't understand is indicative of an Evans supporter..

[llamatomdizle]

The fact is CO2 concentrations have been exponentially rising since the 1800s which is driven by emissions from industrialization.. That's a fact.. Ice core samples say it.. Modern CO2 instruments say it.. CO2 is a prominent GHG.. It's a fact CO2 is a GHG.. It's a fact the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 100 years.. It's a fact that on average since the 1950s the WORLD has increased in temperature on average by 1 degree which is significantly different to historical trends.....

[PertSnergleman]

@llamatomdizle RIGHT ON!

[llamatomdizle]

There is no evidence that warmer air will hold more moisture?! This is what happens when you have an engineer talking about environmental issues.. Here's a fact we've known for about 200 years.. Without water vapor in that atmosphere the earth would be about 30 degrees colder and for the most part uninhabitable.. The reason you probably haven't heard about it isn't some major conspiracy.. It's generally because the average Australian is uneducated about anything past last weeks footy results..

[llamatomdizle]

You wanna save some money?! How about the fact that mitigation measures now will cost about 3% of GDP and in 50 years adapting to climate change will cost about around 30% of GDP.. Go wikipedia those words and give me your retort you ignorant fools.. It's your children who will have to pay the cost of you saving about 1/5 of what most australians spend on alcohol each year.. Idiots..

[llamatomdizle]

Bahahaha you idiots amaze me.. This is what happens when someone has 6 degrees.. You become an academic.. When he was saying CO2 warming the planet everyone stopped clapping as thought OMG he admitted it.. It just goes to show how skeptics actually know absolutely fucking nothing and need some excitement in their day so they argue with educated scientists. Billions are spent on climate change.. International agreements have been created including the major international one by the United Nations

[robreiken]

Truth is we need more Carbon (6times More) carbon currently at 387 Parts Per Million . Long ago it was at 10,000 PPM , it don't become a problem to us till it hits 8,000 PPM while the true healthy level for it to be is 2,000 PPM. So will the retarded UN Elite government demand a vocanoe to pay up for Carbon Tax when it errupts & spews out more Carbon in a week than what man could spew out in a whole year. Go google > Agenda 21 Sustainable Development < to learn of this Carbon depopulation Plan.

[MoreAnonymous]

Carbon tax? Why don't we just have a 'zero emission policy' instead? (Like Californian Air Board developed in the 90's)

[servicebroker]

Dr David says it well, everything he speaks about can be verified from several sources and the Climate Alarmists do not have anything real to counter him with. Keep up the fight. From a fellow scientist, skeptic and climate realist.

[llamatomdizle]

@servicebroker say one thing that can't be countered..

[Rashon6]

I noticed where someone was saying how a certain expert remark that another mans speech was good. That doesn`t mean it was correct. Adolp Hitler was a good speaker but much of what he said was not.

[mmattjanet]

LOL Snergleman

Umm, I hate to disturb your idyllic veiw of things. However, the fact is you can't have art, medicine, farming, cities, or speech without carbon dioxide emmissions. Indeed, if you want to remove carbon from our economy, you want to remove life from our planet.

[PertSnergleman]

@mmattjanet First of all, life on our planet does not depend on our economy, as you claim. Secondly, humans only began using oil and coal 200 years ago, so what's your explanation of civilisation prior to this? We are exploiting the planets resources at an unsustainable rate. Just because something is ingrained in our "economy" doesn't make it right.

[mmattjanet]

@PertSnergleman

Well Snergleman. In case you weren't aware. Most carbon dioxide emmissions come from the oceans and from decaying vegetation in our forrests. Carbon dioxide, methane, Nitrous Oxide, etc etc. emmissions did not begin with the internal combustion engine.

Also, perhaps you don't understand the word economy. Indeed, human life depended on economy three thousand years ago, just as it does now.

[PertSnergleman]

@mmattjanet It seems you are mistaking 'life" for "lifestyle".

3000 years ago we did not have 6 billion people burning coal, oils, natural gas and wood, we had 200 thousand people burning wood only... dork!

If you are afraid of a carbon tax because your daddy's mining company will only make 9 billion in profits and not 12 billion, then I can't help you... I only wish you would just say that and quit with the nonsensical drama.

[mmattjanet]

@PertSnergleman

LOL As it turns out, my daddy does not have a mining company that will only earn him $9 billion. In fact, he is a retired University scientist living on a pension. Skeptics are not in the pay of big oil. These massive multinational oil companies wouldn't touch us with a ten foot pole. They won't come near us, much less give us money. At the end of the day it is not the wealthy elitist lobbyist that will pay the price of this, but normal average pensioners like "my daddy".

[mmattjanet]

@PertSnergleman

Also Snergleman. The truth is that wealth elitists love the idea of high priced energy. That way only they can enjoy the benefits of modern technology and transportion.

[PertSnergleman]

@mmattjanet If no one wants to use coal, no one can profit from it, no matter how high the price. You pay tax on your petrol, but don't complain. This tax will REDUCE fossil fuel use... and that is a good thing. I can afford the extra $500 a year, if your dad can't, then he's screwed...(it's only $9.60 a week).

I love solar energy and wind energy and tidal energy and geothermal energy and wave energy and all the other non-polluting sources that are just in their infancy. I hate fossil fuels.

[PertSnergleman]

@mmattjanet Petrol prices have been rising rapidly, I don't see any complaints or youtube video's condemning oil companies and their profit margins (and I don't mean the service station owners but OPEC and the gang)... but if a government tries to manage a country and actually govern, people like you chuck a wobbly. It's not right.

[PertSnergleman]

@mmattjanet If the Carbon Tax costs me $500 a year that is $9.60 a week... I think I can manage.

[PertSnergleman]

C'mon man, address my point if you wanna have a discussion. 6 billion and counting, we gotta get off the carbon dioxide teat.

[PertSnergleman]

@TheAliBanjanShow Nice way to hold discussion man. Your comment adds nothing but credence to your perspective. This is a debate on ways to foster alternative forms of energy generation, as perhaps a carbon tax might. It is also a way in which we can debate others' point of view with examples supporting either stand point. Is your suggestion some form of discriminatory genocide?

[PertSnergleman]

There is only 1 gravy train in full effect in this country... mining and the export of carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels.

Remove carbon from our economy we "go back to the stone age" he says...

What, no more art? medicine? farming? cities? language?

Carbon Dioxide + Atmosphere = Warming.

Cigarette Smoke + Lungs = Cancer.

A time when doctors recommended smoking to patients like a "sauna for the lungs".

I recommend having forethought (and intuition).

Play Safe, Reduce Carbon Dioxide.

[mugwump1234]

All claims made by Evans repudiated by peer reviewed science - google - skepticalscience david evans understandin goes cold

[mugwump1234]

The people applauding at evidence against the carbon tax are happy because it means they'll have more money to spend at Supercheap Auto and Harvey Norman.

[wazza33racer]

Carbon tax.........another scam from the people you cant trust........remember WMD in Iraq?

[jacmunbong]

finally a man that gave up the gravy train to do whats right.my hero!

[beckweth]

Look up: Heat drives Carbon Dioxide. NOT the other way round.

[Richard482]

@beckweth Kind of but there's more to it than that.

watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[SuperTruthMaster]

Good clip!!!

[Chilililabombwe]

Is this true - why has this not been reported widely?

[marsoups]

Just because you're a sceptic scientist doesn't make you right!! you're all idiots following incorrect propaganda.

[garith21]

Why would I ask an electrical engineer about global climate when it comes to an issue about the climate? I wouldn't ask a geologist to perform heart surgery likewise I'd consider a climatologist to be more reputable than an electrical engineer on this topic.

[spikeyman000]

Great video, global warming is the greatest con ever invented, time the idiots that believe in it woke up. Global warming con = trillions and that's the only reason. If the government was so worried about it, we'd all be driving around in Hydrogen cars, if they didn't keep killing the inventors

[leeroy358]

Ah yes.  The stolen and cherry picked emails....

[sugarcanegray]

bravenewclimate [.] com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-­born-again-alarmist/

plus dozens of other articles refuting this man's view point. A degree in electrical engineering makes you about as good at climate science as a plumber.

[mmattjanet]

Ah yes. The BOM and CSIRO. Would these be the "Australian Institutions" refered to in the climate gate emails that were willing to provide discredited scientific quack Dr. Mann with data saying whatever he wanted it to say in time for the "silly season"?

[leeroy358]

For my science I'll refer to BoM and CSIRO's State of the Climate 2010 report. Keep to the science - leave the 'one world gov't' stuff to Mockton and other entertainers

[ozithortitan]

@leeroy358 Keep watching master chef of course CSIRO is an "independant" reasearch body case in point Dr Maarten Stapper

[leeroy358]

df

[mmattjanet]

Richard,

You still seem to be throwing around the names of many prominent sceptics claiming they disagree with Dr. Evans when they don't. I am not studied in this particular area of science but my understanding is that both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Evans believe the feedback is negative, not positive. You keep trying to denigrate Dr. Evans, by claiming all these other prominent sceptics disagree with him, why? Its not true. Dr. Lindzen said that David's speech at the rally was very good!

[Richard482]

@mmattjanet Well as you don't know alot about this area of science then watch the three videos series' that I recommended on my first post.

[IndrasBlade77]

@mmattjanet Just ignore the ignorant alarmist, religious zealot shill. He like the rest of his ilk have nothing to work with, the science is completely against Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[mmattjanet]

Richard482. You should be more careful about putting words in Richard Lindzen's mouth, if you don't know what he said about David's speech.

[Richard482]

LIke Christopher Monckton he is just telling the people in the audience what they want to hear. I could correct him on several points and other climate skeptics such as John Christy and Richard Lindzen would disagree with him.

[mmattjanet]

@Richard482 Ad homs will not be tolerated on here. If you would like to be specific, please feel free.

[Richard482]

@mmattjanet Firstly I haven't insulted Dr. Evans. Dr Evans doesn't seem to think that the climate system amplifies any warming due to CO2 whereas Richard Lindzen has said that a doubling of CO2 causes a 3.5 watt temperature increase per square metre, as so do the IPCC. Dr Evans mentions the 'global warming stopped in 1998 argument. Climate skeptic Pat Michaels could have told him why this is an invalid argument.

watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

[Richard482]

@Richard482 The answer to his 'lack of a troposheric hot spot' argument can be found at the Skeptical Science website. Find the arguments '44. "Satellites show no warming in the troposphere" ' and number 52. "There's no tropospheric hot spot". These articles include a link to a report co-authored by John Christy which debunks Dr. Evans' claim.

A video debunking Dr Evans' claim on the placement of surface temperature stations

watch?v=N_JngnDGkOM&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[tothemax01]

@Richard482 Are you in favour then of a carbon tax? Do you feel that human CO2 emission is high enough to warrant emission limits, and that Australia limiting its CO2 emissions would yield a tangible effect on the earth?

[Richard482]

@tothemax01 Human CO2 emmisions are definately high enough to warrant limits. If anything CO2 needs to be taken out the atmosphere to take the concentrations back to pre-industrial levels. You can keep telling people to 'be greener', there are dozens of ways to do this. Putting solar panels on your roof, taking the train, avoiding air travel, using LED lightbulbs etc. But the truth is some people just can't be arsed. That's when you need regulation.

[Richard482]

@Richard482 far as I know, at present the fossil fuel industry receives subsidies worth 10 times what the renewable sector receives. I'm pretty sure it should be the other way around. Australia limiting its CO2 emmisions would definately help but global waming is certainly a global problem.

[tothemax01]

@Richard482 But isn't that the whole point of electricity? People 'not being arsed'? The whole purpose of wholesale electricity generation at the lowest cost is to improve production efficiency and to reduce labour burdens.

You speak of large scale CO2 scrubbing and 'needing regulation' (group X forces group Y to do what group X wants). You are not personally going to pay for this scrubbing equipment, you don't care if you heavily reduce peoples quality of life in the name of climate change.

[Richard482]

@tothemax01 Peoples quality of life is already being reduced because of climate change. Africa is getting drier every year. Global warming is causing an increase the the number of both droughts and floods leading to crop failures (ask me if u don't know why). We've already seen this in countries like Pakistan and Australia. Plenty of things can be done without reducing people quality of life. Although I imagine forcing the fat Americans out of their cars wud increase their quality of life :)

[realgal71]

@Richard482 so your saying if it was at a Pro Carbon Tax rally they wouldn't have someone (scientist) up there telling the audience what they wanted to hear?? That's just a lame arse comment to make with no valid arguments to back it up. You appear to have fallen off this list after you were called on it..... hmmm were we just trolling the internet looking for something to debunk, even if it was a dismal attempt at it?

[Richard482]

@realgal71 What I am saying is he is incorrect on several of the points he is making. If you or anyone else wants to know more watch:

Potholer54

watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Drkstrong:

watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=ch­annel_video_title

FreshAirScentOfPine

watch?v=QL3ED6aXrks&feature=re­lated

And Greenman3610:

watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[IndrasBlade77]

@Richard482 Haha! YAWN. Lies, lies and more lies. You have no facts to back up your ludicrous claims. Lindzen agrees with him. Your shilling for the alarmist, religious, evil scumbag globalist zealots makes you a worthless crook. Face facts. All the evidence proves Anthropogenic Global Warming wrong.

physics is a bitch huh?

[IndrasBlade77]

@Richard482 Haha! YAWN. Lies, lies and more lies. You have no facts to back up your ludicrous claims. Lindzen agrees with him. Your shilling for the alarmist, religious, evil scumbag globalist zealots makes you a worthless crook. Face facts. All the evidence proves Anthropogenic Global Warming wrong.

physics is a b#*ch huh?

[Richard482]

@IndrasBlade77 "All the evidence proves Anthropogenic Global Warming wrong." Nope, your wrong on that. Again, watch the video series' that I listed and then get back to me.

[Richard482]

@IndrasBlade77 However if that is too much for you in one go as I imagine it might be, watch these two. They both include Richard Lindzen.

watch?v=FBMDwwTdMfs

watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[Richard482]

If anyone here wants to learn about the science behind climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one

watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Drkstrong:

watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=ch­annel_video_title

And Greenman3610:

watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[mmattjanet]

I do not understand the comments from people offended by the clapping. This speech was given to a rally to oppose the Carbon tax in Australia. The purpose of the rally was not only to disseminate information, but also to show politicians and media that people are waking up and are supportive of what they are hearing from people like JoAnne Nova and David Evans.

[ed11561]

Shut up & let him talk.....assholes.

Why do people feel they have a fucking NEED to clap-SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[mmattjanet]

@ed11561 I'm sorry you found the applause frustrating. But the reason Dr. Evans was speaking was a protest against an out-of-control government. The people were there to express themselves. Since everyone could not take the podium, applause was one way they could do that.

I'm glad you found the talk so compelling that you couldn't wait to hear what he said next! Good sign.... :-)

(Have you watched Joanne Nova's from the same day?)

Cheers,

Janet

[ed11561]

@mmattjanet The people were there to express themselves

THE PEOPLE should have been there TO LISTEN not to clap &interrupt every time he stops talking.That gets me sick with the dumb politicians in the US-who say nothing at all.-all nonsense.

Glad to see this guy woke up.But it looks like out-of-control governments are EVERYWHERE. The US makes u folks look like an advanced race. lol

I hate these lying bastards in politics-in banking-in control of everything.Carbon was a tax scheme. Peace

[WeAreChangeEire]

Awesome.  So well said.!

[mmattjanet]

Sabretoothed69, you should'a been there! Both Evans' and Nova's speeches were exceptional. Of course, they get better each time I watch them... there is just sooo much in each of them!

Thanks for watching...and for commenting. Please share the links around if you can. :-)

[sabretoothed69]

Great talk!