Our government should support the SOLAR ROADWAYS project, which can provide all the energy we need and fix our aging roadway info-structure at the same time. Solar roadways is the answer to our energy, as well as many other, problems.
@jason94519There are many more list just like yours with reputable scientist! That disagree with your version of science! Your not impressing anyone with your lies and propaganda! Everyone knows how to Google!
@shazizz Many more huh? Where are they? Propaganda? Is that what you call anything that refutes your talking points you got from Fox?
The kite was just an example. What about O3?
Yes, I know about the carbon cycle. What is your point again? Did I ever say I knew how to do something...that God does...I'm confused. You're not making any sense. Just throwing around natural processes and attributing them to a god is not making a point.
@Jason94519 Give me a break? Your kidding right? Ozone is diamagnetic, which means that its electrons are all paired. In contrast, O2 is paramagnetic, containing two unpaired electrons. Since the tops of clouds are positively charged! Oh screw it just get out your magnets and play around until you figure it out! You can make ozone in your garage! O3 only has a half life of about half an hour in atmospheric conditions! Radiation and Lightning would be a good course of study! Im through with you!
When you people sit by and suck up the lie of man made Global Warming/Climate Change remember this! If you get your way and a bill is passed that taxes Co2 destroying coal and oil industries and working families, your going to lose everything you hold dear when you spark off the biggest civil war in the history of the world! You think your helping but your not! If this is your way of saving the planet by starting a "War That Will Destroy It All!"Watch what you wish for, You might just get it!
Curious as to why folks keep thinking this clean air and water act is supposed to do any good when in 2005 Bush passed a bill that makes the oil and gas industry exempt.
The root of all that's wrong in the world is corruption. Until people are willing to stand against that and stop supporting it, things will continue to deteriorate.
They call the destruction of stuff made by man VANDALISM, and the destruction of stuff made by God; PROGRESS?
The same people spreading the Climate Change/ Global warming lie! Use everything they complain about and thier only solution is to CHARGE YOU TAXES JUST TO BREATH? AND COWS TO FART OR BURP? Are you kidding me??? Al Gore??? Mansion/Jet/Limousine Why not a Grass Hut and Take a Walk?
@Jason94519 Co2 comes out of your mouth everytime you exhale! How in the **** is that a lie? And as far as the fear thing, All you chicken little's screaming the sky is falling and the polar bears are drowning if thats true why did your God Al Gore buy a big mansion right next to the shore? Dose he want a front row seat when the sea rise's? Get your head out of the sand and learn some real science before you call someone a lier! IDIOT!
@shazizz No one is talking about taxing breathing. That's how its a lie.
If by "Chicken Littles" you mean the vast majority of scientists, then are you arguing telling the truth is fear-mongering?
And saying Climate Change isn't real because "our God" Al Gore is a hypocrite is like saying anti-semitism isn't real because Hitler might have Jewish ancestors.
Again I ask where is this scientific proof you are talking about?
@Jason94519 What do you think the carbon tax is? Co2 falls not rises! that's fact. Co2 is heavier than Oxygen,thats why you can find it in Ice Core's! If your theory was correct and Co2 could be in both places from the ground all the way up into the atmosphere we would all sufficate! Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. "Plant Food" for the idiot's! STOP USING OLD HAT!
@shazizz Carbon tax is a tax on industrial emitters, not breathing. That would be ridiculous. Show me one example of someone actually proposing that. Its a lie.
Have you ever flown a kite? Do you think a kite is lighter than air? The atmo is dynamic - always mixing. Look at Ozone, which is much heavier than even CO2, yet it sits at 20km above the surface.
I know what photosynthesis is...and it seems you do too...but what is your point?
@Jason94519 You are simply ludicrous! Carbon tax on industries paid for by the consumer! higher gas/lights/food etc. all based on false science! Your example about a kite? thats just plane stupid. Im not going to sit here and teach you Aerodynamic lifting force of a kite, produced by deflecting the air downward. Your magical Co2 defying the law of graivity to boldy go where Oygen can not is just ridiculous! Plants scrub off the carbon and release fresh Oxygen! God knew what he was doing! not you
@Jason94519 The vast majority of scientists? That's rich! Just like they are, milking tax payer money to keep the lie going! You people are a joke and those hack scientist will say what ever it takes to keep thier funding! What is really scary is the simple fact that you have the notion in your little heads that we are tougher than mother nature! Let me tell you when mother nature decides to clean house there is nothing you crybabies can do about it! It dose not take 20 years to heat the planet.
@shazizz It is the vast majority of scientists. As close to a consensus as science usually gets - in fact, its much closer than usual. If climate skeptics can't get funding or publishing, its because their theories are not fit enough.
We are not tougher than nature. We can agree on that. What we're trying to do is save us, people, humans, homo-sapiens. The planet has existed for 5 billion years and will continue to do so no matter how much co2 we put in the atmo.
@Jason94519 It's funny how you say a vast majority of scientist! NAME THEM! Who do they work for? Where do they get thier funding? And why won't they debate the scientist that do not agree? Save the Whale's that's a noble cause! But Global Warming is not a noble cause it's a fraud period! So we agree to disagree. I'll vote for a climate change bill if Co2 is left out! And CH4 is left out! If there was enough CH4 to reach the atomphere, first time some hippy lit a joint outside we'd be screwed.
@shazizz * Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) * Royal Society of Canada * Chinese Academy of Sciences * Academié des Sciences (France) * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) * Indian National Science Academy * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) * Science Council of Japan * Russian Academy of Sciences * Royal Society (United Kingdom) * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) * Australian Academy of Sciences
@shazizz # Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
# Caribbean Academy of Sciences
# Indonesian Academy of Sciences
# Royal Irish Academy
# Academy of Sciences Malaysia
# Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
# Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) * National Academy of Sciences (NAS) * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
@shazizz Funny, either there is an international collusion and conspiracy among scientists to shut out deniers, or the deniers' science is JUST NOT WORTHY OF PUBLISHING. What are the denier's funding? Exxon and BP and Duke Energy and PGE no doubt. And the funding for the Academies? Gov't. I choose democracy over oil and coal companies.
I apologize for 4 posts in a row...But I'm tired of deniers posting whatever they want in these videos without being held accountable.
If you want clean air AND cheap, reliable energy the answer is nuclear reactors. Preferably the 4th-generation designs as they are a lot more efficient, safe and proliferation-resistant. However, they do still require a bit more development before reaching the commercial stage. In the meantime, 3rd-generation designs will do the job quite nicely. The question is: are we mature and rational enough as a society to go full-scale nuclear? I'm at all not confident that the answer is yes.
@cragwolf Nuclear power is one definite route, no doubt about it. Only problem is it takes decades to get one built in the USA (regulations, etc). Climate change is immediate and we are approaching the threshold too soon to rely on nuclear power. What is necessary is immediate efficiency gains, wind and solar power, and a whole lot of it.
Its time to stop playing by the rules of the Republican party. The burden of proving Climate Change is real & man-made should not be on our shoulders. Why have we been tricked into doing this for so long?
"The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."
@Jason94519 Why dose it allways come down to the republican party and the Tea Party! Blame Game is only a one way street for liberals! Liberals drive Cars/Ride in Trains/Plains,Use electricity and want all the luxuries but still continue to complain about the Climate Change Fraud! I'll Give you the fact that we do polute at a ground level! But you sound stupid when you try to push the Global Warming/Climate Change Lie! It's Hypacrytical to say Second hand smoke kills then drive off in an SUV!
@shazizz The republican party is the party of climate change deniers such as yourself. That's why it "always come down to" them. And yes, Democrats drive cars and use electricity, one must in this modern era. We are not pushing an agenda of Stone Age proportion. We are trying to derive the energy we use from clean and renewable sources that do not add to global warming. We are trying to convince people that being modern doesn't have to mean being addicted to oil and coal.
@Jason94519 Are you listening to yourself? I can prove 150 Thousand% beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man made Climate change according to your religion and false science is a fraud! I have offered clean energy idea's to so many politicians that it is not even remotely fun yet I get no response not even from Al Gore himself! Hypacrytical?
@shazizz Hypacrytical? Let's talk about it for a minute! a lady say's to you while your enjoying a smoke,"SECOUND HAND SMOKE KILLS! YOU SHOULD PUT THAT OUT!" Then she gets into a Huge SUV and drives off! "WTF? Im going to die faster sucking in her exhaust fumes than she is smelling my smoke you say!
@MrCcrunch With each impotent, profanity-laced epithet, each perverse sexual insult you leave in this forum, you shame your forefathers. You are at the bottom of a rather mediocre class of plebeian insult hurlers.
@benscoot also, I suggest you look more critically at those e-mails you keep referencing. Some of the more publicized sections have been shown to be misrepresented in the mass-media, where they mistake 'trick' for 'deception', instead of 'method', and are in the context of questioning whether tree-ring data was permissible evidence (where post-war growth was stunted, but prior to 1950's strongly correlated with temp. records and core data)... and the same group has published dissenting views...
@FrankisEcoHarper I haven't red the whole debate, just about the right questions, well mine are: can my child inherate a clean world? How come the polar ice is melting, What about the disappearence of the rainforrest, why not spent more efforts on development of clean energy etc. And you know what is the thing that amazes me the most? Koch brothers and other Teaparty members have to breath the same polluted air, at least their money makes no difference there
@benscoot the Koch brothers inherited an oil fortune (inherited not earned) and are major contributors to tea party efforts, presumably because that serves their interests... what are those interests? probably to prevent environmental regulations from forcing oil out of america. CO2 regs are only one of those that affect oil production.
But, there are stronger arguments for clean energy than global warming. the prevailing trade deficit or smog or flue ash all are more proven issues.
@benscoot Moreover, its pretty naive to presume that you are communicating with a blind follower of an alternative political faction, whose opinions all exactly correspond to some stereotype. You've assumed that I automatically agree with everything Al Gore says without qualification, and even that the only 'facts' involved in the debate are those from his "Inconvenient Truth", when that is only a recent episode in a bigger story.
@repoweramerica ya'll really need to consider what I've said about providing specific information... feel good/bad propaganda helps motivate, but we need an informed public... it is easy to acknowledge the importance of air, but what's the threat? this video is vague, doesn't present a clear issue at stake. Is it the carbon-credit/tax scheme? then, create media which addresses the questions of critics. For example, how Europe's carbon market has not destroyed their economy... or to the science.
@benscoot just so we're clear, I do agree that the global warming debate may not be the most important piece of the environmental pie today. I mean, with the giant mass of plastic trash spiraling in the pacific gyre, and a nigerian coastline coated in petrol waste, maybe there are some more pressing concerns? I think so, especially when there are so many questions to be answered... (not really my place to answer them tho.)
* or, alternatively, elaborate on how the fossil fuels industry is trying to gut the Clean Air bill, as the newsletters say... It does little good for us to just petition after petition after petition, we need to expose the tactics and schemes the 'bad guys' are using... break their lobbying power by empowering the intellectual heart of the environmental movement... in short, the propaganda needs to provide both motivation *and * information.
* or, alternatively, elaborate on how the fossil fuels industry is trying to gut the Clean Air bill, as the newsletters say... It does little good for us to just petition after petition after petition, we need to expose the tactics and schemes the 'bad guys' are using... break their lobbying power, by empowering the intellectual heart of the environmental movement... in short, we need both motivation *and* information!
Thanks for the motivation, now please put your resources to actually providing information!!!
says, 'They're spending 1.5 million dollars every day to block the truth', but this video only tells us that 'Now they are working on congress'.
How? Oh, to stop the clean air act from reducing carbon pollution.... Did the Clean Air Act ever achieve this? (no?) Should the video really say ... something about the Carbon Trade Scheme from the Waxman-Markey Energy Bill? (plz context your propaganda)
@swvsnick Saying we dislike this video is saying we aren't big fans of propaganda or big corporate giants behind this video using peoples genuine desire for clean air to emotionally extort us into thinking we should promote their cap and trade bill that is based off the fear generated by science fiction.
Will all the patsies untie room who swallowed the man made global warming lie please raise your hands. Then please show me this scientific proof that man made CO2 causes global warming.
What's funny, is that you guys think that Cap and Trade (this video's ultimate goal) will just drive manufacturers away from America to China where they have little to no environmental standards and the CO2 & Carbon Monoxide going into the air would be much worse.
+ America would lose millions of stable jobs in the energy industry only to be replaced by fewer green jobs for green wind power that has no chance of replacing the amount of power we currently get from coal. Pay attention people.
For those of you who are so sure that Global Warming and Climate Change is due to mans activities, would you mind explaining...in your own words (not some random link) what proof you have that this is true? And please please please don't quote scifi movies like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
Perhaps you can explain to me how CO2 is causing the climate change when the records gore uses show CO2 levels rising & falling some 800 years AFTER the rise and fall of global climate. Just doesn't add up
"we" don't own the air anymore then "polluters" own the air. Maybe if a people were allowed to own the air, then we could have the power to protect it from from carbon polution. we could sue polluters in court for property damage. Are there any lawyers out in youtube land that would represent me in court in a lawsuit against the coal and oil industries?
the problem is coercive government, and the assumption that government is the best answer to promote a fundamental change in peoples economic choices I do not believe for a nanosecond that a coercive taxation scheme coupled to a massive bureaucracy is the best way to promote and advance independence from hydrocarbon fuels.
The way to advance transition toward self empowerment is to enable individuals self generated electric power for all personal uses, home, business and transportation
this video is sponsored by Al Gore becuse it is saying that since the air is in trouble the government must regulate it by restricting your behavior for your own good.
And when Al Gore says: “your behavior” he does not mean: “the activity of the polluters”, he means: "solely your (average Joe’s) behavior- life”
@benscoot Actually, I have not watched Al Gore's movie (didn't get around to it). However, I have actually gone to northern climates and have seen receding glaciers and decreased snowfall myself- but whatever, that obviously won't make a difference to you. Regardless of what may or may not cause global warming, don't you think we owe it to our future generations to clean up after ourselves? And in calling me an alarmist, how did I alarm you (maybe you should talk to someone about this)?
@benscoot Actually, I have not watched Al Gore's movie (didn't get around to it). However, I have actually gone to northern climates and have seen receding glaciers and decreased snowfall myself- but whatever, that obviously won't make a difference to you. Regardless of what may or may not cause global warming, don't you think we owe it to our future generations to clean up after ourselves? And in calling me an alarmist, how did I alarm you (maybe you should talk to someone about this)?
@stormovik Going to the north and seeing melting ice is hardly proof...let alone scientific. The north & south poles grow ice and then melt and recede every year in an annual cycle. Show me some real proof and don't bring any of this anecdotal crap to the table. And yes...I want to take care of our air...that is why we need to stop wasting time on global warming since it's a natural cycle as well and not caused by man. CO2 is not pollution. Stop casing ghosts and fight smog instead.
So yes...stop wasting time,money, and resources on imaginary pollution (CO2), and focus on *real* pollution. Being an Al Gore lemming won't save the environment. It will just make Al Gore & Co. Much much richer. The only green he cares about is the green in his bank account.
P.s. If you didn't watch his video, then where did you get your non existent "proof" that man made CO2 causes global warming? Please share it...I'd love to see it.
@benscoot quote "if you didn't watch his video, then where did you get your "proof"?"
hahahahaha, from the rest of the world man... how recent is that film??? five or six years??? the debate's been raging since the seventies... Al Gore didn't just decide, he was inspired by the other citizens who've been concerned about it for a long time.
Besides, what makes you think I accept his "proof"?
@FrankisEcoHarper I said I did watch swindle, but that I had those questions long before I watched the video. They are basic logical questions that someone should ask when faced with the info. As for the proof that I have...well...I just used the info, studies, research that Al Gore used...except I read it correctly. As for how recent the film is, I have no clue...but that doesn't change it's legitimacy or validity. Truth doesn't have an expiration date or shelf life. Truth is truth.
The thing that makes me think you accept his proof is the fact that you're unwilling to ask logical basic questions (like Why is CO2 the culprit when it seems to follow the rise and fall of temperature by some 800 years instead of preceding it...or why does methane follow the exact same levels as CO2 does on the ice core samples? Does that mean that Methane and CO2 are magically aligned in causing global warming? Or is the earth's warming from other natural causes making the earth release gases?
You still haven't shown me any proof that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming or Climate Change. And you won't be able to, because it's a farce. There's nothing in the evidence that would logically lead someone to find CO2 guilty for the crime of Global Warming. But CO2 is easily regulated and taxed and was selected because of this.
Hmmm ... so you say you're an environmentalist (sure it's not a lobbyist)?
An environmentalist who has no problem with countless tons of carbon pollution in our air?!?!
Um, most environmentalists that I know (in the world) believe that high concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere contributes to global warming (climate change). Did you watch the weather this year?!?!?!
@stormovik You are a Anthropogenic Climate Change alarmist, and you don't even have any proof. Al Gore's own graph proves him wrong, but you're too distracted by his lies to realize what the graph actually shows. All you need to believe is a skillfully edited movie and you're all Al Gore's. How does it feel to be a lemming. How about you do some research for yourself and find out what's really happening...and what's not happening.
@drumimator You have no clue what you're talking about. Carbon is not pollution. I am an environmentalist, and I want to fight pollution..that's why I don't want to waste money and legislation fighting carbon that isn't causing Global warming or cooling.
@benscoot -- Even if you don't think that carbon contributes to global climate change (a view that disagrees with those of the vast majority of scientists), claiming that carbon is not pollution is pretty ludicrous. I'm assuming that you're referring only to carbon dioxide (since carbon monoxide is fatally toxic), but CO2 quantities that exceed naturally-occurring levels would certainly qualify as "pollution."
@iamthebyron Vast majority of the scientists? Perhaps you can tell me exactly what percentage of scientists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming...what's that? You don't know? You were relying on Gore's bogus statement that there was a consensus? Are you his patsy? Are you referring to the 2000 IPCC scientists? Did you know they weren't all scientists, and some of those scientists don't approve or agree with the IPCC report? How can you not know that? Didn't you do the research?
97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant factor in global climate change (Doran & Zimmerman, UIC 2009).
There are individual scientists who disagree, but they are clearly in the minority. Not one scientific body of national or international standing maintains a dissenting position from the IPCC's findings.
There is a scientific consensus, even if there's not a media or public consensus....and your condescension is not appreciated.
@iamthebyron 97% huh? Wow...that's convenient. Have you considered that the journals that you consider to be legit aren't accepting studies that contradict global warming dogma? The leaked emails have examples of top scientists pressuring top scientific journals into not publishing scientists who oppose their views.
So that statistic you cooked up doesn't really show that the majority of true scientists agree with it. Look up "petition project global warming" in google for more info.
@benscoot -- I didn't cook anything up. That's a study done by a Ph.D. and a grad student at the University of Illinois, Chicago. More info about that study and others like it is at this impartial source:
tiny [dot] cc/frqcs
I'm sure I'm wasting my time, though. You can deny, deny, deny all you like and no amount of evidence will convince you. I pointed out that excessive CO2 (like excessive anything) is a pollutant, yet you ignored the qualification to misrepresent what I said.
@iamthebyron I didn't say you cooked anything up. I just think you're not considering the possibility that those in control of publishing may not like publishing people with dissenting views. Did you look up the petition project? I'm sure you'll find that there are a significant majority of scientists with problems with Global Warming.
@benscoot -- Your exact words: "that statistic you cooked up"...."I didn't say you cooked anything up."
Yes, I looked up the petition. While it's quite a few signatories, since a B.S. in a science-related field is to be the only requirement to sign I definitely wouldn't call 30k "a significant majority." Once again I must point out that not one single scientific body of national or international standing holds a dissenting position from the IPCC's basic findings.
@iamthebyron My bad...Freudian slip perhaps. The main point is that the stat is misleading. It ignores the thousands of other scientists that dissent from the consensus. But science isn't even about consensus...it's about questioning and testing and answering the hard questions...all of which the IPCC doesn't do.
Have you been paying attention to all the "findings" from the IPCC that are being found out to be based on speculation instead of science? (i.e. Himalayas ice melt).
@benscoot -- It's not at all misleading; it's a survey of thousands. What's misleading is trying to compare numbers from a petition with those from statistical surveys. The website, again, where you can get information about that study and many others like it:
tiny [dot] cc/frqcs
I understand well the scientific method and its limitations concerning climate change. No, I can't prove it's man-made....but can you prove it's not?
I also understand when I'm wasting my time, and I'm done now.
@iamthebyron The study you're so hot & bothered about only draws it's info off of published articles automatically excluding the thousands of legitimate climatologists who oppose the idea of man made Global Warming but who can't get journals to accept their papers. Your study only speaks to the scientists who have played the political game necessary to get published in journals. But thousands of other scientists aren't interested in the political game & are thus excluded from the journals.
@benscoot -- That's not true at all. The survey was sent to a sample built from "all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities."
97% does refer to published climate scientists, but > 80% of the overall respondents still agreed with the basic IPCC holding of human activity being a significant factor in climate change.
And I'm glad you admit that it's not possible to prove that Global Warming is man made. That's the whole problem. Al Gore and co are pushing for legislation that will strangle our economy based on the fear of Global Warming. Not only is it not possible to prove than Man is causing it...and therefore shouldn't have CO2 regulated...but the predicted negative consequences of Global Warming have been severely overstated and are not substantiated by anything but speculation and passion.
@benscoot -- Nearly anything is impossible to prove to someone with a high enough level of skepticism. Prove to me that you're a real person. There's no way for you to do it! You could just be a computer program designed to give climate change-denying responses to random comments; you could be a figment of my imagination; I could be plugged into the Matrix right now and be imagining all of this. The scientific method encourages reasonable skepticism. Yours goes beyond that.
@iamthebyron If it was vital that you know that I was a real person, I'd fly to your location and meet you face to face. There ARE ways to prove things that are true. It just gets complicated when it's NOT true.
Lets just say that Al Gore's graph showed CO2 Levels rising and falling BEFORE the rise and fall in Global Temperature. That would convince me. lets also say that Methane gas wasn't magically identical in levels to the CO2. That would convince me. But this isn't so.
The fact is that Gore and his lemmings have put CO2 on trial for causing Global Warming. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, they have gone straight to the guilty verdict without even a defense. Gore refuses to debate the issues with some of the leading skeptics, because he knows his ruse can only work on the gullible.
Until Science can prove...or even make a compelling argument, then Gore and Co have no business pushing legislation to "fix" global warming.
And back to proving things...if Global Warming was man made, then it would be easy to prove. But like I said, they can't prove it because it's based off of assumptions, speculation, and misinterpretation of data. But because many in the scientific community have rallied behind Gore (like lemmings), they've been able to trick the general public. But if you truly care about science, you should be willing to take an honest look at what I'm saying along with so many others.
As for majority rules, that doesn't really apply to science. The important thing that you should be objective enough to appreciate is that there is a significant number of scientists who are skeptical. Heck...if majority rule was true, then we'd still think the world was flat & think that the sun rotated around the world. We'd think that bleeding someone out was a good cure for disease.
But it was that significant number of skeptics who are willing to question that allow for truth to come out.
@benscoot you know, i truly respect your right to dissent, but its totally rude that you keep insisting that anyone who opposes your view here is just Al Gore's 'lemming' (you've repeated over and over). It's not only harmful to open debate, but is absurd when every question of asked is the same I've heard from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other tea party type figures. I mean, have you considered the implications of Koch Bros influencing major tea party views? what are their interests?
@FrankisEcoHarper I apologize for the Lemming comments. I resort to that, because over the last 2 years of researching, and discussions with Global Warming Alarmists, when I ask people to tell me where they get their info, the majority of them finally admit after resisting for a long time, that they are basing their understanding and belief on Al Gore's movie or the media fallout from that.
Few actually have read the studies that Al Gore and the IPCC use, and can't see the error.
The questions I ask do not lose their validity merely by being repeated by other conservative public figures. Can I help it if I'm not the only person willing to ask these basic and logical questions? You should be more concerned with why you and others on the left aren't asking these questions. Did we stop asking questions when Gore said the debate was over?
As for Koch Bros...never heard of them. I don't deny that there are forces on both side of this debate, but the questions still remain. There will always be people like George Soros and Al Gore on the left and I'm assuming (though I've never heard of them) that Koch Bros are on the right? That is irrelevant to what is actually true. There will always be opportunists, but we can't let that keep up from the truth.
The cold or warm hard truth is that GW is not man made, & thus any legislation to stop global warming by regulating man's activities would be a farce and an intrusion on all that is good and right. I am an environmentalist, and am outraged that Gore & his cronies have hijacked good intentioned people & fed them lies about how Global Warming is going to destroy us all if we keep driving Suburbans. We need a rational approach to pollution and stop getting distracted by CO2 (not pollution).
Gore and the scientists who are bought and paid for by Gore are putting CO2 on trial and are giving the guilty verdict before the defense has even had a chance to talk. Gore proclaims that the debate is over so that we can stop focusing on those pesky details like facts and things like that. He'd much rather us just believe him and ignore the fact that there is no proof...so that he can push forward crippling legislation.
I don't care if people believe in Santa, The Easter Bunny, or man made Global Warming. If that helps them live better and behave during December, then great. I just don't want them trying to push forward legislation that is based on the fear of a crisis that isn't even proven, and with all available info, is not even close to being true.
As for the petition project, if you start with the 30K signatures, and take out the 2K that aren't even scientists, and the 5K that aren't actual scientists, and the 10K of whatever else, you're still left with a lot more than the 2000K scientist "consensus". That number has been analyzed leaving only a few who actually stand behind the myth.
But then we're back to not having any proof that it's man made. Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence? I'm waiting.
Not denying. Just looking for real evidence; not just some basic & incomplete understanding of the green house effect. You say no amount of evidence will convince me, but you've failed to show me 1 piece of evidence proving Man made CO2 is responsible for Global Warming.
Saying that excessive CO2 is bad, doesn't addressing the Global Warming issues. Take some time to study how much CO2 is in the atmosphere...and how much of that is man made. Then look at the historic levels of CO2. You might learn something. When all you look at is CO2, then yeah...it might look like an excessive amount of CO2, but when you look at it with the rest of the world, you'll realize it's not excessive. Lets stop fighting CO2 and fight real pollution.
You should research the IPCC and the people in it. The supposed 2000 scientists consensus is made up of a lot of people that don't know the first thing about science or the scientific method. Not to mention that some of the scientists on the IPCC consensus list have said that they don't agree with the conclusion and didn't want their name on the list. Also, check out the findings of the IPCC, and how many of the core findings are being found to have been false. It's a charade...don't be a patsy.
Carbon is one of life's building blocks. When people look for life on other planets, they search for carbon. Carbon Monoxide is not carbon and is definitely not Carbon Monoxide. If it's Carbon Monoxide you're worried about, then you can breath easy about CO2. The earth needs CO2, and has needed it...in large quantities way before industrial smoke stacks.
@benscoot -- I'm quite aware of the element's basic properties, thanks. Yes, the Earth needs CO2. How much, though? The human body needs water, but drinking too much water can kill you. And it's not really the planet that I'm concerned about. George Carlin put it well: "The planet is fine! The PEOPLE are fucked!"
@iamthebyron If you are quite aware of the element's basic properties, then stop saying that CO2 is a pollutant. The earth's atmosphere regulated and needs CO2. CO2 makes up less than 1% of the earth's green house gases, and the man made CO2 makes up less than 3% of the total CO2. If you look at Gore's graphs on levels of CO2, then it seems like a lot...but if you look at it in context of the rest of the world, you'll realize there's nothing wrong.
p.s. You should be concerned for the planet. You should be fighting pollution and trying to keep our air and water and land clean. Because of that, I say you should stop being distracted by the boogie man of CO2 and fight actual real life pollution...like Carbon Monoxide, water dumping, etc etc etc.
The people are only F'd, as you said, if they don't stop following every man made crisis off the cliff of bigger government and higher regulations to the point where it kills the economy.
I'm a Tea Party member. The movie is made really well. But it's not accurate. Carbon isn't pollution. Instead of wasting money from the government to fight Carbon, we should be using our money and resources and time to fight real pollution.
This video makes you hate air pollution (which is bad) and then lies by saying that Carbon is pollution. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke...and I'd happily discuss that with anyone interested.
Lets fight REAL pollution and stop chasing hoaxes.
@MissionaryVisionary I can't tell if you're just off the rails or trying to be sarcastic. If you are trying to be sarcastic, I'd love to hear the physical facts and research from original sources that has given you such confidence in following Gore and the other alarmists like a lemming.
@benscoot In 200 to 400 years from now, average temperatures will be 6 to 14 degrees warmer then today. There will be massive drought. we will be unable to grow food. fossil fuels will be used up & gone. We'll be unable to produce synthetic fertilizer. unable to cool & heat our homes or cook our food. Animals we depended on for survival before the industrial revolution will be extinct.
@jffryh Wow! You seem to have pretty accurate information about the future. I'm guessing that you've found some way to time travel so you know. Or are you sadly basing this off of what you learned in Al Gore's Sci Fi "An Inconvenient Truth"? If so, you should rethink. Most of that has been shown to be false.
Did you know about the medieval warming period where agriculture thrived because it was warmer than it is now? What? didn't know about it? Hmmm...that's strange...you sounded so smart.
@jffryh What proof do you have that it was local to Europe? Are you 100% sure that it didn't affect Mesopotamia? Plus, Europe is not what I would call local. It's pretty big. Also what evidence are you using to prove that it's hotter today than in the medieval warming period. Admitting it's existence contradicts the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming..
Can you give me one solid argument, with proof, that Global Warming is man made? Or is the only hot air what's coming from your mouth?
@benscoot We will cut down trees for fuel. Trees will go extinct. We will be extinct. There will never again evolve an inteligent sentient species like us in the universe. There is no god. he won't save us. maybe we'll develop warp speed interstellar space travel technology by then so we can escape! I don't think so.
@jffryh Again...with the time travel stuff...I want what you are smoking. I'd love to find what you're basing your insanely specific predictions off of. Please please please tell me that it's not from An Inconvenient Truth, or "The Day After Tomorrow".
@cypresspuz If you like the video, then great...you have great taste...it was made really well. But were you smart enough to catch the part where they try to pass carbon off as pollution? Carbon isn't pollution...if you believe it is, then you're a patsy.
The people in Congress trying to stop the Cap and Trade bill are fighting against the myth that man's CO2 is causing Global Warming. They aren't fighting against cleaning up our environment.
@benscoot "They try to pass?" Man if you dont know physical facts then im really sorry for you you are one ignorant person who needs to study the subject and im not here to educate you go educate yourself and then go ahead with your life.
@cypresspuz Since you're so smart, perhaps you can point me to the physical facts that you're referring to that prove that Global Warming and Climate Change are due to man's activities. What's that? You can't find any? What? You're referring to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Hmmm...that's inconvenient since most of that info has been shown to be false. So what physical facts are you referring to. Because I've spent months researching this and haven't found 1 piece of evidence that proves this.
@repoweramerica This is a shameless video. You guys should focus your time and energy on real pollution and stop chasing ghosts that Al Gore keeps screaming about like a raving lunatic. The debate in science is NEVER over...thank goodness. We still have a ton of scientists who aren't bought and paid for by Gore who are willing to ask real questions and be objective instead of being a patsy and lemming and buy into the hoax.
@benscoot they're not only talking about Global Warming here, the allegation is that fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing to gut the Clean Air Act, which doesn't cover CO2 (this particular video fails to make the distinction)... besides, Al Gore certainly didn't invent global warming, he certainly couldn't hoax the mountains of scientific literature behind the argument (and yes, that literature should be critically analyzed)... but, 'lets do nothing' is not an option, when the stakes are so high...
* unless they are talking about the Waxman-Markey bill, being considered by the Senate, as amendments to the Clean Air Act... i wish this video made sense!!!
@FrankisEcoHarper My guess is that clarity wasn't the end goal for the people behind this video. Clarity and propaganda are kinda like oil and water.
I love & want to take care of the environment, but even the initiatives in the clean air act are muddled with hidden agendas that cripple the economy. Saving the environment but destroying the economy makes about as much sense as saving the economy & destroying the environment. Despite appearances, Repower america is NOT interested w/ the economy
@FrankisEcoHarper They may not be only talking about global warming here, but Global Warming is the vehicle of crisis that they are using to push forward legislation that would cripple our economy further and drive manufacturing jobs and companies to China (where they couldn't care less about clean air).
As for the mountains of scientific evidence, I'd love it if you shared some of it with me. It's not about quantity, but quality. Mountains of bad evidence makes for a lot of garbage to clean.
@benscoot do you know what's really crippling our economy? lack of domestic productivity... but, we've also learned that industrial production can have hazardous side effects (like slow death from toxic byproducts [see camera film manufactures])... so, do we want to be a prosperous nation? yeah... but, do we want our children to suffer for our greed? no. Hence, Clean Air Act, and other bits, to regulate the other pollutions... but, meanwhile, whe could be building a longterm sustainable future..
@FrankisEcoHarper Our domestic productivity would be a lot better if all our manufacturing jobs weren't leaving the country. Like I said, lets not screw the economy to "save" the environment, and lets also not screw the environment to save the economy. We need a compromise, but your type won't be happy unless the oil companies are out of business and America is a 3rd world country and controlled by China.
p.s. Companies have been improving environmental standards as tech. improves...even without legislation. You speak of a sustainable future...but choking our companies and taxing them so much that they can't operate is NOT sustainable. You fail to see that there is another side to the argument. You are Gore's lemming and you don't even know it.
p.s. I'm still waiting for proof that man made co2 is causing Global Warming.
@FrankisEcoHarper p.s. Show me one of these bills (Clean Air Act included) that doesn't lean on the farce that CO2 is a pollution that is going to cause Global Warming. I doubt that you can find 1 piece of evidence in that mountain of evidence that can prove that Global Warming is due to man's activities. I mean...if you rely on movies like Al Gore's, and you think that is evidence, then yeah...it sounds scary, but look behind the curtain and you'll find that the "facts" aren't what they seem.
If you read anything other than repower america's literature, you'll find that the supposed mountains of evidence/facts/studies that are the fulcrum of the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth and the IPCC report are crumbling. Just look at the report on the so called Himalayan ice melt that was supposedly based on a study predicting further melting. Turns out it was not based on study, but on a guess or supposition...but it made it to the IPCC report looking like the result of a serious study.
@benscoot try not to pretend that you know what I read. also, I'm not going to lead you like a child to the journal, 'Climate Research', or any of the hundreds of other scientific publications.
Here's an equation, CO2 + sunlight = heat retained by greenhouse effect. Here's another, heat + ice = water... put them together, heat, absorbed in atmosphere melts water... hence, alarm, panic, action. It's not very difficult to see why this became an issue, but there are other factors... like idiots
@FrankisEcoHarper Finding the journal isn't the part I need help with. I need help finding how rising & falling CO2 levels that *follow* the rise & fall of global temperatures somehow indicates that co2 is the catalyst. The original research also shows methane following exactly with CO2 levels. Basic logic would suggest that a warming earth (from solar activity) was causing the earth to release gases into the environment.
0:20 ALEC BALDWIN
D3K1N9 11 months ago 3
What song is that?
surfingsaboteur 1 year ago
0:49 top left IT'S MARK FROM KEY OF AWESOME HOLY CRAP
Ianbrown1120 1 year ago
Our government should support the SOLAR ROADWAYS project, which can provide all the energy we need and fix our aging roadway info-structure at the same time. Solar roadways is the answer to our energy, as well as many other, problems.
wwwDOTsolarroadwaysDOTcom/mainDOThtml
kanelalee 1 year ago
@jason94519There are many more list just like yours with reputable scientist! That disagree with your version of science! Your not impressing anyone with your lies and propaganda! Everyone knows how to Google!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz Many more huh? Where are they? Propaganda? Is that what you call anything that refutes your talking points you got from Fox?
The kite was just an example. What about O3?
Yes, I know about the carbon cycle. What is your point again? Did I ever say I knew how to do something...that God does...I'm confused. You're not making any sense. Just throwing around natural processes and attributing them to a god is not making a point.
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 Give me a break? Your kidding right? Ozone is diamagnetic, which means that its electrons are all paired. In contrast, O2 is paramagnetic, containing two unpaired electrons. Since the tops of clouds are positively charged! Oh screw it just get out your magnets and play around until you figure it out! You can make ozone in your garage! O3 only has a half life of about half an hour in atmospheric conditions! Radiation and Lightning would be a good course of study! Im through with you!
shazizz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't handle the truth! Get your head out of the sand!
shazizz 1 year ago
When you people sit by and suck up the lie of man made Global Warming/Climate Change remember this! If you get your way and a bill is passed that taxes Co2 destroying coal and oil industries and working families, your going to lose everything you hold dear when you spark off the biggest civil war in the history of the world! You think your helping but your not! If this is your way of saving the planet by starting a "War That Will Destroy It All!"Watch what you wish for, You might just get it!
shazizz 1 year ago
Blessings:
Curious as to why folks keep thinking this clean air and water act is supposed to do any good when in 2005 Bush passed a bill that makes the oil and gas industry exempt.
The root of all that's wrong in the world is corruption. Until people are willing to stand against that and stop supporting it, things will continue to deteriorate.
They call the destruction of stuff made by man VANDALISM, and the destruction of stuff made by God; PROGRESS?
I call that reasoning, GREEDY STUPIDITY!!!
ancientclown 1 year ago
The same people spreading the Climate Change/ Global warming lie! Use everything they complain about and thier only solution is to CHARGE YOU TAXES JUST TO BREATH? AND COWS TO FART OR BURP? Are you kidding me??? Al Gore??? Mansion/Jet/Limousine Why not a Grass Hut and Take a Walk?
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz Taxes to breathe? Quit spreading your lies that garner fear and hate. Another tactic straight out of Rove's playbook.
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 Co2 comes out of your mouth everytime you exhale! How in the **** is that a lie? And as far as the fear thing, All you chicken little's screaming the sky is falling and the polar bears are drowning if thats true why did your God Al Gore buy a big mansion right next to the shore? Dose he want a front row seat when the sea rise's? Get your head out of the sand and learn some real science before you call someone a lier! IDIOT!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz No one is talking about taxing breathing. That's how its a lie.
If by "Chicken Littles" you mean the vast majority of scientists, then are you arguing telling the truth is fear-mongering?
And saying Climate Change isn't real because "our God" Al Gore is a hypocrite is like saying anti-semitism isn't real because Hitler might have Jewish ancestors.
Again I ask where is this scientific proof you are talking about?
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 What do you think the carbon tax is? Co2 falls not rises! that's fact. Co2 is heavier than Oxygen,thats why you can find it in Ice Core's! If your theory was correct and Co2 could be in both places from the ground all the way up into the atmosphere we would all sufficate! Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight. "Plant Food" for the idiot's! STOP USING OLD HAT!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz Carbon tax is a tax on industrial emitters, not breathing. That would be ridiculous. Show me one example of someone actually proposing that. Its a lie.
Have you ever flown a kite? Do you think a kite is lighter than air? The atmo is dynamic - always mixing. Look at Ozone, which is much heavier than even CO2, yet it sits at 20km above the surface.
I know what photosynthesis is...and it seems you do too...but what is your point?
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 You are simply ludicrous! Carbon tax on industries paid for by the consumer! higher gas/lights/food etc. all based on false science! Your example about a kite? thats just plane stupid. Im not going to sit here and teach you Aerodynamic lifting force of a kite, produced by deflecting the air downward. Your magical Co2 defying the law of graivity to boldy go where Oygen can not is just ridiculous! Plants scrub off the carbon and release fresh Oxygen! God knew what he was doing! not you
shazizz 1 year ago
@Jason94519 The vast majority of scientists? That's rich! Just like they are, milking tax payer money to keep the lie going! You people are a joke and those hack scientist will say what ever it takes to keep thier funding! What is really scary is the simple fact that you have the notion in your little heads that we are tougher than mother nature! Let me tell you when mother nature decides to clean house there is nothing you crybabies can do about it! It dose not take 20 years to heat the planet.
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz It is the vast majority of scientists. As close to a consensus as science usually gets - in fact, its much closer than usual. If climate skeptics can't get funding or publishing, its because their theories are not fit enough.
We are not tougher than nature. We can agree on that. What we're trying to do is save us, people, humans, homo-sapiens. The planet has existed for 5 billion years and will continue to do so no matter how much co2 we put in the atmo.
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 It's funny how you say a vast majority of scientist! NAME THEM! Who do they work for? Where do they get thier funding? And why won't they debate the scientist that do not agree? Save the Whale's that's a noble cause! But Global Warming is not a noble cause it's a fraud period! So we agree to disagree. I'll vote for a climate change bill if Co2 is left out! And CH4 is left out! If there was enough CH4 to reach the atomphere, first time some hippy lit a joint outside we'd be screwed.
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz * Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil) * Royal Society of Canada * Chinese Academy of Sciences * Academié des Sciences (France) * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) * Indian National Science Academy * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) * Science Council of Japan * Russian Academy of Sciences * Royal Society (United Kingdom) * National Academy of Sciences (United States of America) * Australian Academy of Sciences
Jason94519 1 year ago
@shazizz # Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
# Caribbean Academy of Sciences
# Indonesian Academy of Sciences
# Royal Irish Academy
# Academy of Sciences Malaysia
# Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
# Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) * National Academy of Sciences (NAS) * State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Jason94519 1 year ago
@shazizz # Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
# Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
# American Geophysical Union (AGU)
# American Institute of Physics (AIP)
# National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
# American Meteorological Society (AMS)
# Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Jason94519 1 year ago
@shazizz Funny, either there is an international collusion and conspiracy among scientists to shut out deniers, or the deniers' science is JUST NOT WORTHY OF PUBLISHING. What are the denier's funding? Exxon and BP and Duke Energy and PGE no doubt. And the funding for the Academies? Gov't. I choose democracy over oil and coal companies.
I apologize for 4 posts in a row...But I'm tired of deniers posting whatever they want in these videos without being held accountable.
Jason94519 1 year ago
Terrible Video!
shazizz 1 year ago
If you want clean air AND cheap, reliable energy the answer is nuclear reactors. Preferably the 4th-generation designs as they are a lot more efficient, safe and proliferation-resistant. However, they do still require a bit more development before reaching the commercial stage. In the meantime, 3rd-generation designs will do the job quite nicely. The question is: are we mature and rational enough as a society to go full-scale nuclear? I'm at all not confident that the answer is yes.
cragwolf 1 year ago
@cragwolf Nuclear power is one definite route, no doubt about it. Only problem is it takes decades to get one built in the USA (regulations, etc). Climate change is immediate and we are approaching the threshold too soon to rely on nuclear power. What is necessary is immediate efficiency gains, wind and solar power, and a whole lot of it.
Jason94519 1 year ago
It say across the nation at 0.41, shouldnot that be across the world???
I live in Holland, but pollution has no border has it? At least I will pass this vid and hope that more people in Europe will do too.
DirkjeA 1 year ago
Its time to stop playing by the rules of the Republican party. The burden of proving Climate Change is real & man-made should not be on our shoulders. Why have we been tricked into doing this for so long?
"The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action."
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 Why dose it allways come down to the republican party and the Tea Party! Blame Game is only a one way street for liberals! Liberals drive Cars/Ride in Trains/Plains,Use electricity and want all the luxuries but still continue to complain about the Climate Change Fraud! I'll Give you the fact that we do polute at a ground level! But you sound stupid when you try to push the Global Warming/Climate Change Lie! It's Hypacrytical to say Second hand smoke kills then drive off in an SUV!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz The republican party is the party of climate change deniers such as yourself. That's why it "always come down to" them. And yes, Democrats drive cars and use electricity, one must in this modern era. We are not pushing an agenda of Stone Age proportion. We are trying to derive the energy we use from clean and renewable sources that do not add to global warming. We are trying to convince people that being modern doesn't have to mean being addicted to oil and coal.
Jason94519 1 year ago
@Jason94519 Are you listening to yourself? I can prove 150 Thousand% beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man made Climate change according to your religion and false science is a fraud! I have offered clean energy idea's to so many politicians that it is not even remotely fun yet I get no response not even from Al Gore himself! Hypacrytical?
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz Your proof is?
Jason94519 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shazizz Hypacrytical? Let's talk about it for a minute! a lady say's to you while your enjoying a smoke,"SECOUND HAND SMOKE KILLS! YOU SHOULD PUT THAT OUT!" Then she gets into a Huge SUV and drives off! "WTF? Im going to die faster sucking in her exhaust fumes than she is smelling my smoke you say!
shazizz 1 year ago
gente acabei de por um video do luan santana quando ele tinha anos de idade,copie e cole na pesquisa do you tube ( /watch?v=SLAv7e8Ii3c )
gregorio7989 1 year ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God, i hate stupid fucking tree hugging lib fags.
MrCcrunch 1 year ago
@MrCcrunch With each impotent, profanity-laced epithet, each perverse sexual insult you leave in this forum, you shame your forefathers. You are at the bottom of a rather mediocre class of plebeian insult hurlers.
modernhumor 1 year ago
@modernhumor You deserve a medal, fine sir/madam.
asharathehailer 1 year ago
Found Brandi at 1:05!
SHUTMEUPriot 1 year ago
FAKE
p3r1c0 1 year ago
@benscoot potholer54 is a good critic of the climate change question, you should look at his series (he asks questions)
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@benscoot also, I suggest you look more critically at those e-mails you keep referencing. Some of the more publicized sections have been shown to be misrepresented in the mass-media, where they mistake 'trick' for 'deception', instead of 'method', and are in the context of questioning whether tree-ring data was permissible evidence (where post-war growth was stunted, but prior to 1950's strongly correlated with temp. records and core data)... and the same group has published dissenting views...
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper I haven't red the whole debate, just about the right questions, well mine are: can my child inherate a clean world? How come the polar ice is melting, What about the disappearence of the rainforrest, why not spent more efforts on development of clean energy etc. And you know what is the thing that amazes me the most? Koch brothers and other Teaparty members have to breath the same polluted air, at least their money makes no difference there
DirkjeA 1 year ago
@benscoot the Koch brothers inherited an oil fortune (inherited not earned) and are major contributors to tea party efforts, presumably because that serves their interests... what are those interests? probably to prevent environmental regulations from forcing oil out of america. CO2 regs are only one of those that affect oil production.
But, there are stronger arguments for clean energy than global warming. the prevailing trade deficit or smog or flue ash all are more proven issues.
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@benscoot Moreover, its pretty naive to presume that you are communicating with a blind follower of an alternative political faction, whose opinions all exactly correspond to some stereotype. You've assumed that I automatically agree with everything Al Gore says without qualification, and even that the only 'facts' involved in the debate are those from his "Inconvenient Truth", when that is only a recent episode in a bigger story.
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@repoweramerica ya'll really need to consider what I've said about providing specific information... feel good/bad propaganda helps motivate, but we need an informed public... it is easy to acknowledge the importance of air, but what's the threat? this video is vague, doesn't present a clear issue at stake. Is it the carbon-credit/tax scheme? then, create media which addresses the questions of critics. For example, how Europe's carbon market has not destroyed their economy... or to the science.
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@benscoot just so we're clear, I do agree that the global warming debate may not be the most important piece of the environmental pie today. I mean, with the giant mass of plastic trash spiraling in the pacific gyre, and a nigerian coastline coated in petrol waste, maybe there are some more pressing concerns? I think so, especially when there are so many questions to be answered... (not really my place to answer them tho.)
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
1:04 JOHN POPPER .... best man!
DeanHeuke 1 year ago
* or, alternatively, elaborate on how the fossil fuels industry is trying to gut the Clean Air bill, as the newsletters say... It does little good for us to just petition after petition after petition, we need to expose the tactics and schemes the 'bad guys' are using... break their lobbying power by empowering the intellectual heart of the environmental movement... in short, the propaganda needs to provide both motivation *and * information.
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
Comment removed
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
* or, alternatively, elaborate on how the fossil fuels industry is trying to gut the Clean Air bill, as the newsletters say... It does little good for us to just petition after petition after petition, we need to expose the tactics and schemes the 'bad guys' are using... break their lobbying power, by empowering the intellectual heart of the environmental movement... in short, we need both motivation *and* information!
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
Comment removed
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
Thanks for the motivation, now please put your resources to actually providing information!!!
says, 'They're spending 1.5 million dollars every day to block the truth', but this video only tells us that 'Now they are working on congress'.
How? Oh, to stop the clean air act from reducing carbon pollution.... Did the Clean Air Act ever achieve this? (no?) Should the video really say ... something about the Carbon Trade Scheme from the Waxman-Markey Energy Bill? (plz context your propaganda)
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
Whoever you six haters of this video you should sufficate yourself because saying you "dislike this " is saying you disliike air.
swvsnick 1 year ago
@swvsnick Saying we dislike this video is saying we aren't big fans of propaganda or big corporate giants behind this video using peoples genuine desire for clean air to emotionally extort us into thinking we should promote their cap and trade bill that is based off the fear generated by science fiction.
Will all the patsies untie room who swallowed the man made global warming lie please raise your hands. Then please show me this scientific proof that man made CO2 causes global warming.
benscoot 1 year ago
What's funny, is that you guys think that Cap and Trade (this video's ultimate goal) will just drive manufacturers away from America to China where they have little to no environmental standards and the CO2 & Carbon Monoxide going into the air would be much worse.
+ America would lose millions of stable jobs in the energy industry only to be replaced by fewer green jobs for green wind power that has no chance of replacing the amount of power we currently get from coal. Pay attention people.
benscoot 1 year ago
For those of you who are so sure that Global Warming and Climate Change is due to mans activities, would you mind explaining...in your own words (not some random link) what proof you have that this is true? And please please please don't quote scifi movies like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
Perhaps you can explain to me how CO2 is causing the climate change when the records gore uses show CO2 levels rising & falling some 800 years AFTER the rise and fall of global climate. Just doesn't add up
benscoot 1 year ago
Thumbs up if Cassidy Freeman sent you!
rebecavaldez 1 year ago 7
@rebecavaldez Oh, darn! It was Maggie Fox that sent me....I wish I were cool...
killerkatfilms 1 year ago
Haha Destorm at 0:07 and thewillofdc at 0:56
musicfreak291 1 year ago
"we" don't own the air anymore then "polluters" own the air. Maybe if a people were allowed to own the air, then we could have the power to protect it from from carbon polution. we could sue polluters in court for property damage. Are there any lawyers out in youtube land that would represent me in court in a lawsuit against the coal and oil industries?
jffryh 1 year ago
awesome! so happy to have been apart of this!
TheWillofDC 1 year ago 2
0:56 thewillofdc !!!!! =)
nickvas 1 year ago 3
Being born with asthma, I love what you are doing. Thank you. Keep up the Great work.
iammattstarkey 1 year ago
thewillofdc sent me here
zachmanZM 1 year ago 2
@zachmanZM Same!
mebejannettefan101 1 year ago
The air belongs to us! God gave us air!
nellie2581 1 year ago
Did I just see the WillofDC haha
cwohlf1 1 year ago
the lady at the 11 second mark is my new favorite person! so hot!
mrhackcomic 1 year ago
they can buy me for 1.5 million
lightless6885 1 year ago
Cool I'm in one of the pictures at 1:14
therobinator5000 1 year ago
the problem is coercive government, and the assumption that government is the best answer to promote a fundamental change in peoples economic choices I do not believe for a nanosecond that a coercive taxation scheme coupled to a massive bureaucracy is the best way to promote and advance independence from hydrocarbon fuels.
The way to advance transition toward self empowerment is to enable individuals self generated electric power for all personal uses, home, business and transportation
skyfreak909 1 year ago
this video is sponsored by Al Gore becuse it is saying that since the air is in trouble the government must regulate it by restricting your behavior for your own good.
And when Al Gore says: “your behavior” he does not mean: “the activity of the polluters”, he means: "solely your (average Joe’s) behavior- life”
Armando7654 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benscoot Actually, I have not watched Al Gore's movie (didn't get around to it). However, I have actually gone to northern climates and have seen receding glaciers and decreased snowfall myself- but whatever, that obviously won't make a difference to you. Regardless of what may or may not cause global warming, don't you think we owe it to our future generations to clean up after ourselves? And in calling me an alarmist, how did I alarm you (maybe you should talk to someone about this)?
stormovik 1 year ago
@benscoot Actually, I have not watched Al Gore's movie (didn't get around to it). However, I have actually gone to northern climates and have seen receding glaciers and decreased snowfall myself- but whatever, that obviously won't make a difference to you. Regardless of what may or may not cause global warming, don't you think we owe it to our future generations to clean up after ourselves? And in calling me an alarmist, how did I alarm you (maybe you should talk to someone about this)?
stormovik 1 year ago
@stormovik Going to the north and seeing melting ice is hardly proof...let alone scientific. The north & south poles grow ice and then melt and recede every year in an annual cycle. Show me some real proof and don't bring any of this anecdotal crap to the table. And yes...I want to take care of our air...that is why we need to stop wasting time on global warming since it's a natural cycle as well and not caused by man. CO2 is not pollution. Stop casing ghosts and fight smog instead.
benscoot 1 year ago
So yes...stop wasting time,money, and resources on imaginary pollution (CO2), and focus on *real* pollution. Being an Al Gore lemming won't save the environment. It will just make Al Gore & Co. Much much richer. The only green he cares about is the green in his bank account.
benscoot 1 year ago
P.s. If you didn't watch his video, then where did you get your non existent "proof" that man made CO2 causes global warming? Please share it...I'd love to see it.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot quote "if you didn't watch his video, then where did you get your "proof"?"
hahahahaha, from the rest of the world man... how recent is that film??? five or six years??? the debate's been raging since the seventies... Al Gore didn't just decide, he was inspired by the other citizens who've been concerned about it for a long time.
Besides, what makes you think I accept his "proof"?
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper I said I did watch swindle, but that I had those questions long before I watched the video. They are basic logical questions that someone should ask when faced with the info. As for the proof that I have...well...I just used the info, studies, research that Al Gore used...except I read it correctly. As for how recent the film is, I have no clue...but that doesn't change it's legitimacy or validity. Truth doesn't have an expiration date or shelf life. Truth is truth.
benscoot 1 year ago
The thing that makes me think you accept his proof is the fact that you're unwilling to ask logical basic questions (like Why is CO2 the culprit when it seems to follow the rise and fall of temperature by some 800 years instead of preceding it...or why does methane follow the exact same levels as CO2 does on the ice core samples? Does that mean that Methane and CO2 are magically aligned in causing global warming? Or is the earth's warming from other natural causes making the earth release gases?
benscoot 1 year ago
You still haven't shown me any proof that CO2 is the cause of Global Warming or Climate Change. And you won't be able to, because it's a farce. There's nothing in the evidence that would logically lead someone to find CO2 guilty for the crime of Global Warming. But CO2 is easily regulated and taxed and was selected because of this.
benscoot 1 year ago
Comment removed
stormovik 1 year ago
very fancy ad. but very deceiving, this clean air act will just be another thing the government fucks up.
mciarleglio 1 year ago
@mciarleglio -- The Clean Air Act has been working quite well for decades already.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron until they start taxing you to breathe.
mciarleglio 1 year ago
Hmmm ... so you say you're an environmentalist (sure it's not a lobbyist)?
An environmentalist who has no problem with countless tons of carbon pollution in our air?!?!
Um, most environmentalists that I know (in the world) believe that high concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere contributes to global warming (climate change). Did you watch the weather this year?!?!?!
drumimator 1 year ago 3
Climate change deniers' main form of communication is through farts (hence the denial). We need to invest in corks.
stormovik 1 year ago
@stormovik You are a Anthropogenic Climate Change alarmist, and you don't even have any proof. Al Gore's own graph proves him wrong, but you're too distracted by his lies to realize what the graph actually shows. All you need to believe is a skillfully edited movie and you're all Al Gore's. How does it feel to be a lemming. How about you do some research for yourself and find out what's really happening...and what's not happening.
benscoot 1 year ago
Thank God some organization is getting the truth out there.
Esp. w/ FOX constantly spewing "big corporation's interests" lies.
Screw these fat cats.
If they had it their way, developers would be carving up our national parks system too.
ps We live daily (accepted as life?) without true clean water in our rivers & lakes.
drumimator 1 year ago 5
@drumimator You have no clue what you're talking about. Carbon is not pollution. I am an environmentalist, and I want to fight pollution..that's why I don't want to waste money and legislation fighting carbon that isn't causing Global warming or cooling.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- Even if you don't think that carbon contributes to global climate change (a view that disagrees with those of the vast majority of scientists), claiming that carbon is not pollution is pretty ludicrous. I'm assuming that you're referring only to carbon dioxide (since carbon monoxide is fatally toxic), but CO2 quantities that exceed naturally-occurring levels would certainly qualify as "pollution."
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron Vast majority of the scientists? Perhaps you can tell me exactly what percentage of scientists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming...what's that? You don't know? You were relying on Gore's bogus statement that there was a consensus? Are you his patsy? Are you referring to the 2000 IPCC scientists? Did you know they weren't all scientists, and some of those scientists don't approve or agree with the IPCC report? How can you not know that? Didn't you do the research?
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot --
97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity is a significant factor in global climate change (Doran & Zimmerman, UIC 2009).
There are individual scientists who disagree, but they are clearly in the minority. Not one scientific body of national or international standing maintains a dissenting position from the IPCC's findings.
There is a scientific consensus, even if there's not a media or public consensus....and your condescension is not appreciated.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron 97% huh? Wow...that's convenient. Have you considered that the journals that you consider to be legit aren't accepting studies that contradict global warming dogma? The leaked emails have examples of top scientists pressuring top scientific journals into not publishing scientists who oppose their views.
So that statistic you cooked up doesn't really show that the majority of true scientists agree with it. Look up "petition project global warming" in google for more info.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- I didn't cook anything up. That's a study done by a Ph.D. and a grad student at the University of Illinois, Chicago. More info about that study and others like it is at this impartial source:
tiny [dot] cc/frqcs
I'm sure I'm wasting my time, though. You can deny, deny, deny all you like and no amount of evidence will convince you. I pointed out that excessive CO2 (like excessive anything) is a pollutant, yet you ignored the qualification to misrepresent what I said.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron I didn't say you cooked anything up. I just think you're not considering the possibility that those in control of publishing may not like publishing people with dissenting views. Did you look up the petition project? I'm sure you'll find that there are a significant majority of scientists with problems with Global Warming.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- Your exact words: "that statistic you cooked up"...."I didn't say you cooked anything up."
Yes, I looked up the petition. While it's quite a few signatories, since a B.S. in a science-related field is to be the only requirement to sign I definitely wouldn't call 30k "a significant majority." Once again I must point out that not one single scientific body of national or international standing holds a dissenting position from the IPCC's basic findings.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron My bad...Freudian slip perhaps. The main point is that the stat is misleading. It ignores the thousands of other scientists that dissent from the consensus. But science isn't even about consensus...it's about questioning and testing and answering the hard questions...all of which the IPCC doesn't do.
Have you been paying attention to all the "findings" from the IPCC that are being found out to be based on speculation instead of science? (i.e. Himalayas ice melt).
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- It's not at all misleading; it's a survey of thousands. What's misleading is trying to compare numbers from a petition with those from statistical surveys. The website, again, where you can get information about that study and many others like it:
tiny [dot] cc/frqcs
I understand well the scientific method and its limitations concerning climate change. No, I can't prove it's man-made....but can you prove it's not?
I also understand when I'm wasting my time, and I'm done now.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron The study you're so hot & bothered about only draws it's info off of published articles automatically excluding the thousands of legitimate climatologists who oppose the idea of man made Global Warming but who can't get journals to accept their papers. Your study only speaks to the scientists who have played the political game necessary to get published in journals. But thousands of other scientists aren't interested in the political game & are thus excluded from the journals.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- That's not true at all. The survey was sent to a sample built from "all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities."
97% does refer to published climate scientists, but > 80% of the overall respondents still agreed with the basic IPCC holding of human activity being a significant factor in climate change.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
And I'm glad you admit that it's not possible to prove that Global Warming is man made. That's the whole problem. Al Gore and co are pushing for legislation that will strangle our economy based on the fear of Global Warming. Not only is it not possible to prove than Man is causing it...and therefore shouldn't have CO2 regulated...but the predicted negative consequences of Global Warming have been severely overstated and are not substantiated by anything but speculation and passion.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- Nearly anything is impossible to prove to someone with a high enough level of skepticism. Prove to me that you're a real person. There's no way for you to do it! You could just be a computer program designed to give climate change-denying responses to random comments; you could be a figment of my imagination; I could be plugged into the Matrix right now and be imagining all of this. The scientific method encourages reasonable skepticism. Yours goes beyond that.
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron If it was vital that you know that I was a real person, I'd fly to your location and meet you face to face. There ARE ways to prove things that are true. It just gets complicated when it's NOT true.
Lets just say that Al Gore's graph showed CO2 Levels rising and falling BEFORE the rise and fall in Global Temperature. That would convince me. lets also say that Methane gas wasn't magically identical in levels to the CO2. That would convince me. But this isn't so.
benscoot 1 year ago
The fact is that Gore and his lemmings have put CO2 on trial for causing Global Warming. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, they have gone straight to the guilty verdict without even a defense. Gore refuses to debate the issues with some of the leading skeptics, because he knows his ruse can only work on the gullible.
Until Science can prove...or even make a compelling argument, then Gore and Co have no business pushing legislation to "fix" global warming.
benscoot 1 year ago
And back to proving things...if Global Warming was man made, then it would be easy to prove. But like I said, they can't prove it because it's based off of assumptions, speculation, and misinterpretation of data. But because many in the scientific community have rallied behind Gore (like lemmings), they've been able to trick the general public. But if you truly care about science, you should be willing to take an honest look at what I'm saying along with so many others.
benscoot 1 year ago
As for majority rules, that doesn't really apply to science. The important thing that you should be objective enough to appreciate is that there is a significant number of scientists who are skeptical. Heck...if majority rule was true, then we'd still think the world was flat & think that the sun rotated around the world. We'd think that bleeding someone out was a good cure for disease.
But it was that significant number of skeptics who are willing to question that allow for truth to come out.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot you know, i truly respect your right to dissent, but its totally rude that you keep insisting that anyone who opposes your view here is just Al Gore's 'lemming' (you've repeated over and over). It's not only harmful to open debate, but is absurd when every question of asked is the same I've heard from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other tea party type figures. I mean, have you considered the implications of Koch Bros influencing major tea party views? what are their interests?
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper I apologize for the Lemming comments. I resort to that, because over the last 2 years of researching, and discussions with Global Warming Alarmists, when I ask people to tell me where they get their info, the majority of them finally admit after resisting for a long time, that they are basing their understanding and belief on Al Gore's movie or the media fallout from that.
Few actually have read the studies that Al Gore and the IPCC use, and can't see the error.
benscoot 1 year ago
The questions I ask do not lose their validity merely by being repeated by other conservative public figures. Can I help it if I'm not the only person willing to ask these basic and logical questions? You should be more concerned with why you and others on the left aren't asking these questions. Did we stop asking questions when Gore said the debate was over?
benscoot 1 year ago
As for Koch Bros...never heard of them. I don't deny that there are forces on both side of this debate, but the questions still remain. There will always be people like George Soros and Al Gore on the left and I'm assuming (though I've never heard of them) that Koch Bros are on the right? That is irrelevant to what is actually true. There will always be opportunists, but we can't let that keep up from the truth.
benscoot 1 year ago
The cold or warm hard truth is that GW is not man made, & thus any legislation to stop global warming by regulating man's activities would be a farce and an intrusion on all that is good and right. I am an environmentalist, and am outraged that Gore & his cronies have hijacked good intentioned people & fed them lies about how Global Warming is going to destroy us all if we keep driving Suburbans. We need a rational approach to pollution and stop getting distracted by CO2 (not pollution).
benscoot 1 year ago
Gore and the scientists who are bought and paid for by Gore are putting CO2 on trial and are giving the guilty verdict before the defense has even had a chance to talk. Gore proclaims that the debate is over so that we can stop focusing on those pesky details like facts and things like that. He'd much rather us just believe him and ignore the fact that there is no proof...so that he can push forward crippling legislation.
benscoot 1 year ago
I don't care if people believe in Santa, The Easter Bunny, or man made Global Warming. If that helps them live better and behave during December, then great. I just don't want them trying to push forward legislation that is based on the fear of a crisis that isn't even proven, and with all available info, is not even close to being true.
benscoot 1 year ago
As for the petition project, if you start with the 30K signatures, and take out the 2K that aren't even scientists, and the 5K that aren't actual scientists, and the 10K of whatever else, you're still left with a lot more than the 2000K scientist "consensus". That number has been analyzed leaving only a few who actually stand behind the myth.
But then we're back to not having any proof that it's man made. Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence? I'm waiting.
benscoot 1 year ago
Not denying. Just looking for real evidence; not just some basic & incomplete understanding of the green house effect. You say no amount of evidence will convince me, but you've failed to show me 1 piece of evidence proving Man made CO2 is responsible for Global Warming.
benscoot 1 year ago
Saying that excessive CO2 is bad, doesn't addressing the Global Warming issues. Take some time to study how much CO2 is in the atmosphere...and how much of that is man made. Then look at the historic levels of CO2. You might learn something. When all you look at is CO2, then yeah...it might look like an excessive amount of CO2, but when you look at it with the rest of the world, you'll realize it's not excessive. Lets stop fighting CO2 and fight real pollution.
benscoot 1 year ago
You should research the IPCC and the people in it. The supposed 2000 scientists consensus is made up of a lot of people that don't know the first thing about science or the scientific method. Not to mention that some of the scientists on the IPCC consensus list have said that they don't agree with the conclusion and didn't want their name on the list. Also, check out the findings of the IPCC, and how many of the core findings are being found to have been false. It's a charade...don't be a patsy.
benscoot 1 year ago
Carbon is one of life's building blocks. When people look for life on other planets, they search for carbon. Carbon Monoxide is not carbon and is definitely not Carbon Monoxide. If it's Carbon Monoxide you're worried about, then you can breath easy about CO2. The earth needs CO2, and has needed it...in large quantities way before industrial smoke stacks.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot -- I'm quite aware of the element's basic properties, thanks. Yes, the Earth needs CO2. How much, though? The human body needs water, but drinking too much water can kill you. And it's not really the planet that I'm concerned about. George Carlin put it well: "The planet is fine! The PEOPLE are fucked!"
iamthebyron 1 year ago
@iamthebyron If you are quite aware of the element's basic properties, then stop saying that CO2 is a pollutant. The earth's atmosphere regulated and needs CO2. CO2 makes up less than 1% of the earth's green house gases, and the man made CO2 makes up less than 3% of the total CO2. If you look at Gore's graphs on levels of CO2, then it seems like a lot...but if you look at it in context of the rest of the world, you'll realize there's nothing wrong.
benscoot 1 year ago
p.s. You should be concerned for the planet. You should be fighting pollution and trying to keep our air and water and land clean. Because of that, I say you should stop being distracted by the boogie man of CO2 and fight actual real life pollution...like Carbon Monoxide, water dumping, etc etc etc.
The people are only F'd, as you said, if they don't stop following every man made crisis off the cliff of bigger government and higher regulations to the point where it kills the economy.
benscoot 1 year ago
Comment removed
stormovik 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a Tea Party member. The movie is made really well. But it's not accurate. Carbon isn't pollution. Instead of wasting money from the government to fight Carbon, we should be using our money and resources and time to fight real pollution.
This video makes you hate air pollution (which is bad) and then lies by saying that Carbon is pollution. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a joke...and I'd happily discuss that with anyone interested.
Lets fight REAL pollution and stop chasing hoaxes.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot This one knows his stuff! Take him out! Next thing you know he will be exposing Christianity
MissionaryVisionary 1 year ago
@MissionaryVisionary I can't tell if you're just off the rails or trying to be sarcastic. If you are trying to be sarcastic, I'd love to hear the physical facts and research from original sources that has given you such confidence in following Gore and the other alarmists like a lemming.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot In 200 to 400 years from now, average temperatures will be 6 to 14 degrees warmer then today. There will be massive drought. we will be unable to grow food. fossil fuels will be used up & gone. We'll be unable to produce synthetic fertilizer. unable to cool & heat our homes or cook our food. Animals we depended on for survival before the industrial revolution will be extinct.
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh Wow! You seem to have pretty accurate information about the future. I'm guessing that you've found some way to time travel so you know. Or are you sadly basing this off of what you learned in Al Gore's Sci Fi "An Inconvenient Truth"? If so, you should rethink. Most of that has been shown to be false.
Did you know about the medieval warming period where agriculture thrived because it was warmer than it is now? What? didn't know about it? Hmmm...that's strange...you sounded so smart.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot medieval warm period was localized to europe, not global, and was nothing compared to what is happening now, much less what's coming.
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh What proof do you have that it was local to Europe? Are you 100% sure that it didn't affect Mesopotamia? Plus, Europe is not what I would call local. It's pretty big. Also what evidence are you using to prove that it's hotter today than in the medieval warming period. Admitting it's existence contradicts the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming..
Can you give me one solid argument, with proof, that Global Warming is man made? Or is the only hot air what's coming from your mouth?
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot We will cut down trees for fuel. Trees will go extinct. We will be extinct. There will never again evolve an inteligent sentient species like us in the universe. There is no god. he won't save us. maybe we'll develop warp speed interstellar space travel technology by then so we can escape! I don't think so.
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh Again...with the time travel stuff...I want what you are smoking. I'd love to find what you're basing your insanely specific predictions off of. Please please please tell me that it's not from An Inconvenient Truth, or "The Day After Tomorrow".
benscoot 1 year ago
does this mean i cant fart?
QuiggleLo 1 year ago
Cant believe there are two faggets who didnt like the video...i bet they are "TEA PARTY"
cypresspuz 1 year ago
@cypresspuz If you like the video, then great...you have great taste...it was made really well. But were you smart enough to catch the part where they try to pass carbon off as pollution? Carbon isn't pollution...if you believe it is, then you're a patsy.
The people in Congress trying to stop the Cap and Trade bill are fighting against the myth that man's CO2 is causing Global Warming. They aren't fighting against cleaning up our environment.
But you don't care about the truth. You patsy!
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot "They try to pass?" Man if you dont know physical facts then im really sorry for you you are one ignorant person who needs to study the subject and im not here to educate you go educate yourself and then go ahead with your life.
cypresspuz 1 year ago
@cypresspuz Since you're so smart, perhaps you can point me to the physical facts that you're referring to that prove that Global Warming and Climate Change are due to man's activities. What's that? You can't find any? What? You're referring to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Hmmm...that's inconvenient since most of that info has been shown to be false. So what physical facts are you referring to. Because I've spent months researching this and haven't found 1 piece of evidence that proves this.
benscoot 1 year ago
everyoes wrong the air belongs to me
distortme09 1 year ago
this video better not get any thumbs down
JackisJolly 1 year ago
fart air is a form of pollution :D
LordElfarium 1 year ago 7
@LordElfarium :L You better stop farting or our clothes will turn black from the smoke!!! (Does happen in parts of China)
Seashepherdfan 1 year ago
@Seashepherdfan
Sorry,I have to stop eating chili,I go to Arizona to avoid eating heavy latin food..LMAO
LordElfarium 1 year ago
Oooooh there's tons of Youtubers :O
Lukasbeer 1 year ago
DeStorm at 00:07? O.o
Lukasbeer 1 year ago
@Lukasbeer yeah thats destorm
ADD1P 1 year ago
XD nice song??
MrSkarz19 1 year ago
NICE- whats the song*
MrSkarz19 1 year ago
@MrSkarz19 "Restriction" by BlueBrain
repoweramerica 1 year ago
@repoweramerica This is a shameless video. You guys should focus your time and energy on real pollution and stop chasing ghosts that Al Gore keeps screaming about like a raving lunatic. The debate in science is NEVER over...thank goodness. We still have a ton of scientists who aren't bought and paid for by Gore who are willing to ask real questions and be objective instead of being a patsy and lemming and buy into the hoax.
It is a nice song though. ;)
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot they're not only talking about Global Warming here, the allegation is that fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing to gut the Clean Air Act, which doesn't cover CO2 (this particular video fails to make the distinction)... besides, Al Gore certainly didn't invent global warming, he certainly couldn't hoax the mountains of scientific literature behind the argument (and yes, that literature should be critically analyzed)... but, 'lets do nothing' is not an option, when the stakes are so high...
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
* unless they are talking about the Waxman-Markey bill, being considered by the Senate, as amendments to the Clean Air Act... i wish this video made sense!!!
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper My guess is that clarity wasn't the end goal for the people behind this video. Clarity and propaganda are kinda like oil and water.
I love & want to take care of the environment, but even the initiatives in the clean air act are muddled with hidden agendas that cripple the economy. Saving the environment but destroying the economy makes about as much sense as saving the economy & destroying the environment. Despite appearances, Repower america is NOT interested w/ the economy
benscoot 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper They may not be only talking about global warming here, but Global Warming is the vehicle of crisis that they are using to push forward legislation that would cripple our economy further and drive manufacturing jobs and companies to China (where they couldn't care less about clean air).
As for the mountains of scientific evidence, I'd love it if you shared some of it with me. It's not about quantity, but quality. Mountains of bad evidence makes for a lot of garbage to clean.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot do you know what's really crippling our economy? lack of domestic productivity... but, we've also learned that industrial production can have hazardous side effects (like slow death from toxic byproducts [see camera film manufactures])... so, do we want to be a prosperous nation? yeah... but, do we want our children to suffer for our greed? no. Hence, Clean Air Act, and other bits, to regulate the other pollutions... but, meanwhile, whe could be building a longterm sustainable future..
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper Our domestic productivity would be a lot better if all our manufacturing jobs weren't leaving the country. Like I said, lets not screw the economy to "save" the environment, and lets also not screw the environment to save the economy. We need a compromise, but your type won't be happy unless the oil companies are out of business and America is a 3rd world country and controlled by China.
benscoot 1 year ago
p.s. Companies have been improving environmental standards as tech. improves...even without legislation. You speak of a sustainable future...but choking our companies and taxing them so much that they can't operate is NOT sustainable. You fail to see that there is another side to the argument. You are Gore's lemming and you don't even know it.
p.s. I'm still waiting for proof that man made co2 is causing Global Warming.
benscoot 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper p.s. Show me one of these bills (Clean Air Act included) that doesn't lean on the farce that CO2 is a pollution that is going to cause Global Warming. I doubt that you can find 1 piece of evidence in that mountain of evidence that can prove that Global Warming is due to man's activities. I mean...if you rely on movies like Al Gore's, and you think that is evidence, then yeah...it sounds scary, but look behind the curtain and you'll find that the "facts" aren't what they seem.
benscoot 1 year ago
If you read anything other than repower america's literature, you'll find that the supposed mountains of evidence/facts/studies that are the fulcrum of the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth and the IPCC report are crumbling. Just look at the report on the so called Himalayan ice melt that was supposedly based on a study predicting further melting. Turns out it was not based on study, but on a guess or supposition...but it made it to the IPCC report looking like the result of a serious study.
benscoot 1 year ago
@benscoot try not to pretend that you know what I read. also, I'm not going to lead you like a child to the journal, 'Climate Research', or any of the hundreds of other scientific publications.
Here's an equation, CO2 + sunlight = heat retained by greenhouse effect. Here's another, heat + ice = water... put them together, heat, absorbed in atmosphere melts water... hence, alarm, panic, action. It's not very difficult to see why this became an issue, but there are other factors... like idiots
FrankisEcoHarper 1 year ago
@FrankisEcoHarper Finding the journal isn't the part I need help with. I need help finding how rising & falling CO2 levels that *follow* the rise & fall of global temperatures somehow indicates that co2 is the catalyst. The original research also shows methane following exactly with CO2 levels. Basic logic would suggest that a warming earth (from solar activity) was causing the earth to release gases into the environment.
benscoot 1 year ago