moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
One thing about this vidieo. He says warming has stopped but will resume in about 30 years. Ok will the rest of the planets in our solar system also resume warming then as well? Just like they have been warming in previous years?
Hahaha. Bullshit start to end. It's a TV for republican congressmen. This video is rather old. Recent events disapprove it completely. However it did its purpose. Gulf Oil slick is out there, and it is the one of achievements of this TV. Bravo. The whole world laughs at this..
All i have to say is that if 10,000 of the smartest scientists, researchers and academics are wrong, then we are fucked. I tend to side with those who actually work in the field of climatology rather than those who post pseudo-intellectual comments and hyperbole videos on youtube. Yes we do need debate, but reasoned and evidence based debate, not smear campaigns and gossip media shows such as this.
@jemmre its political not scientific. MMGW is a theory just like the world is flat. The problem with proving this theory is money and government structure. Those ten thousand scientists, researchers and academics are now running and distancing themselves from this (the smart ones any way some are too invested). Fraud is ugly and yes we are in trouble when people in those communities whom we rely on will form corrupted (alarming) theory for the purposes of, in the end, money and structure.
Typical conservative douche-wad believes in privatizing everything so corporations can grow rich raping the environment. Corporations care little about wealth they can't remove and sell.
Typical conservative douche-wad believes in privatizing everything so corporations can grow rich raping the environment. Corporations care little about wealth they can't remove and sell.
what scientific background does al gore have. or are u a typical eviro hypocrite who only cares about scientific background when it is not al gore(who stands to make a ton of money through his carbon trading co.)dumbass
@j0hnwi11iams So, you want science? Dont think so but let's give it a go.............................................Bing SCIENCESKEPTICAL MWP . More than 45 Peer-Review studies show the Earth was warmer before Fossil fuel use . But let me guess, THAT Peer-Review is no good!
Google WattsUpWithThat, search here for Lord Monckton, and look into the Carbon Credit Exchange that Al Gore built with David Blood and Ken Lay (!?!), and which he stands to make TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM!!!
The Science of Global Warming is settled. The next time you hear this, reply "YAD061".
Google YAD061
Link Al Gore & Global Warming charade with the economic destruction of NAFTA, GATT, & WTO creation, which all happened under the Clinton/Gore presidency
Also remind people that the People's Democracy of China is sending its slave labor made junk back to us that have toxic chemicals in them that are making us & our children sick & dying!
Remind them of the environmental damage of Free Trade
I am an environmentalist and my course work has been on geology,environment, biology, policy making, politics, government, geography, meteorology, economics, and even anthropology...just for the record
Might be useful to ALSO study solar radiation, sunspot cycles, the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Otherwise "climate scientists" will always be at a loss to explain politically-incorrect facts like declining temperatures since 1998 or why there was the medieval warm period before cars and Chinese factories. At some point we hope "climate scientists" will stop violating the scientific method and censoring data which conflicts with their political agendas.
I say again. study the data your self. take a course in geology. turn off the tv. oppose big government intrusion or kiss the america our father died to protect goodbye
a course of geology is not enough or even relevant to understand climate change, i see what your saying but there are flaws to your argument, to undestand climate change you need to understand preatty much how everything works, geology,environment,biology,meteorology, once you take this courses then you will have a better idea
big oil companies have embraced climate change (AGW). the ceos of shell, exxon, bp and conoco have come our in favor of a carbon tax/credits. why you should ask?? the reason is they see the way the political wind is blowing and a carbon tax can be passed on to the consumer (you and me). other measures could be destructive to their bottom line whereas a pass through will not. so mike, your conspiracy theory re: big oil is off base. they are inside the AGW fraud tent. feel better now??
people need to educate themselves on the issues and not look for "brains" in government or government sponsored "scientists." when science is for sale because they depend on government grants, science is compromised via human nature. when Al Gore quate scripture - "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" -- remind him of "thou salt not lie" and remove the beam from you own eye before the speck from your brother's" he is a liar and hypocite
Gee Mark, I've never heard of "Climate Depot".... I think I will continue to get my news from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation if you don't mind. You guys are so stupid.
isnt it possible that things are more complicated then that. ocean temperature was the highest its been since 130 years ago in 06, i know this is not proof beyond a doubt but but wouldnt it be better to be prepared just in case? from here on out im going to try and stay polite i just would like some answers filled in.
Where did you get your temperature data? Where in the ocean? What were the major currents doing at the time? Whose thermometer were you using in 1879? What were the GPS coordinates where the record was taken? What did GPS mean in 1879? Wkae up dude!
your questions are very good but they go both ways. this is basically what i was trying to point out to patriotest1. it is a massive question that no one can fully answer or understand right now but the fact is that it is much easier to disprove something then to prove it, as it should be. i believe this is why there is so much garbage most likely on both sides of the issue. for the record as long as i can read it misspelled words dont bother me.
Climate gate indicates that many of the so called warming trends were fabricated numbers. The temperatures were actually cooler then what was stated and given out to the public. We have been lied too by scientist who were supposed to look into global warming with honest non biased opinion. Instead they have been pushing political issues like Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax. Both of which screw everyone and make a few people rich.
i removed my earlier posts because people on this page seem so anal about things as trivile as grammar and linguistic ability. Lastly you should NEVER use only one source for your place for your information, as they would like you to do. Thinking for yourself exactly the opposite of what they want you to do.
Not only that but it would benefit every persons health on earth, if you don't believe me go suck a cars exhaust pipe, then let me know weather or not Co2 is bad for us carbon based life forms.
A car's exhaust is primarily CO AKA Carbon MONOxide (Not CO2) and water vapor.
I realize why you are flamed here. Your logic is simplistic and you clutch to things you have been spoonfed for most of your life. All corporate media is corrupt and the left/right issues are mostly BS and are intended to keep people confused so they cannot tell reality from fiction.
the geologic record. the geologic record is full of warming and cooling cycles. some driven by the sun and some driven by cataclismic events. one thing is very clear from the geologic record as well - man was either missing or insignificant and primitive. it is arogant and naive to assume we are causing the change Al Gore is selling. AGW panic is about making money and redistributing wealth. politicians-profiteers have hijacted what should be an environment concern to further their agenda
conservation & environmental protection are good. limiting polution is good. we do not know from the dtat avaiable if generating CO2 helps the environment, hurts the environment or does neither. we do know that other forms of emissions and polutants are harmful. our focus should be on those. also, we should not allow politicians to use our desire to be good shepards of the earth God gave use to use as an excuse to take more of our resources via tax or our jobs via meaningless regulation
even if what you are saying is true, how about the lobbyists working for the oil, coal, car, and other companies that create a lot of pollution. is it not possible that they are spending millions if not more to put a stop to the idea of climate change. i have a feeling they have a lot more to lose than any scientist. to me this agenda seems a lot more likely. Thank You for Smoking was a great movie and pointed out to me how easily people can disturb the facts.
Why do people even trust conservatives anymore with things like the birthers, teabaggers, and lobbyists against the public options. these people will do anything to break down the Liberal side of things because they see it as know more than a business but the sad thing is if we don't act and the oceans do rise it will be our fault 1billion+ lose their lives.
Anyone calculate the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen Luxury Conference? The private jets, the exotic food flown in from around the world, Al Gore's personal carbon 'big-foot' print, and all that?
While we peons need a government that dictates what lightbulbs we can use and how long our showers can be, the superior enlightened elites don't need to be hindered with such complicated rules.
Anyone else noticing that the Modern Left acts a lot like the Catholic Church from the days of Copernicus?
How long until they ban the reading of scientific texts without their blessing? Maybe that's too obvious... Guess that's why they've designed our schools to promote illiteracy.
Scuba Steve aligns himself with the young-earth creationist idiot Senator Inhofe and he claims that the scientific consensus represents some sort of religion.
How ironic. How idiotic. The Glenn Beck audience has earned its reputation for sheer hypocritical stupidity.
Thank you for conceding. Your mindless drivel proves you are incapable of intelligent debate, while your strong opinions implies that you are a gullible individual who has simply consumed decades of Hollywood propaganda.
Or you are being a parody of a stereotypical uninformed, intolerant leftist. If that's the case your posts are freaking hilarious! (Your posts are a bit over the top ;) )
Scuba Steve ... you must be a parody of a scientifically illiterate teabagger dittohead drone.
Anyone who is gullible enough to believe Glenn Beck is gullible enough to believe anything ... even if it means becoming a flat-earth young-earth creationist.
There's no lie that the pollution industry tells that you aren't willing to swallow whole. If they told you that the sky is green, you'd believe them and reject your own eyesight.
I'm offended that you have consistently failed to include Neal Boortz in your list of idiots! That poor guy is always ignored by leftwing fundamentalists.
BTW, he has a website called Nealz Nuze (updated daily) where people can post comments. Trust me, the people on that board would love your comments!
You are only using the ad homenim attack and poisoning the well. Actually, a teacher could use your posts to demonstrate a wide variety of logical fallacies.
Dragknuckle, a sole dmathew1024 does more harm to his cause than 1000 skeptics. Could you imagine him getting onto his soapbox at a Thanksgiving dinner and going off on a rant about Global Warming deniers and how Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest are idiots because he read it in Us Weekly?
His kind of "logic" only works in an ideological echo chamber and I'm sure it works great with the MTV generation. I bet he has no clue how ridiculous he sounds around more sophisticated people.
The sort of "logic" scuba steve advocates is on display at fundamentalist churches and teabagger rallies all of the time ... it is one reason why your side is a politically irrelevant extremist minority.
dmathew1024, you're almost correct on this post! BRAVO! Yes if you go to a Tea Party you'll see lots of people advocating logic, protecting the US constitution, promoting sound economic policies, and sharing details on actual history. Tea Parties are basically filled with grownups! Unfortunately this is why we're in the minority. If you look at the last election you can see people are more interested in mindless slogans and celebrity endorsements!
This Copenhagen meeting is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the CO2 zealots.
If these people had integrity, they'd turn this into the world's biggest teleconferencing event instead of a big party. They'd use it as an chance to show the world how major things can get done with a minimal energy use. If CO2 is really their boogeyman they could use this to show international business how they do not need to shuttle people across the world to get things done.
Of all the environmentalist lies, the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest is the easiest to disprove because it's basic simple math. If you take the rate of deforestation claimed by the supporters and apply that to a time frame of 23 or 24 years (the length of time I specifically remember this issue being around) then the entire rainforest should have been deforested years ago.
The Amazon Rain Forest is the size the continental United States. To deny deforestation simply because it hasn't yet been competely eradicated is just silly.
There's only 22% of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans but the political party hasn't collapsed until there aren't any ....
dmathew1024 said: "To deny deforestation simply because it hasn't yet been competely eradicated is just silly. "
How the hell did you get that from what I wrote? If humanity results in the loss of one tree then deforestation has occurred, but if your side presents numbers that mathematically should have cleared the entire forest years ago then that means your side is lying.
The numbers don't work, but then your lack of understanding of mathematics might be why your a leftist.
ScubaSteve continues to spout off ignorant nonsense regarding the Amazon Rain Forest. I'm certain that ScubaSteve doesn't actually know anything about the subject and he'd rathr not learn.
Conservatives and science don't mix. Conservatives and ignorant Christian fundamentalism mix very well, though.
The claimed deforestation rate since the early 80s was all over the map (a sure sign of solid science), but generally sites still claim the same several acres a second numbers.
883,612,800 - Roughly the number of seconds that have elapsed since 1980 (as of 2/2008)
1,200,000,000 - Size in acres of the entire Amazon basin (the forest is smaller)
At 1.36 acres per sec the forest would have been totally cleared, yet well over 90% remains!
But you guys use sound science when you fearmonger, huh?
AcubaSteve's engaged in some sort of mathematical argumetn that must make sense only within the confines of his own uneducated teabagger brain.
SxubaSteve isn't an expert on science or the Amazon Rain Forest or anything.
I'm afraid ScubaSteve has received his education from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. This sort of education makes a person dogmatic in his ignorance.
ScubaSteve is in favor of Amazon deforestation, too. ScubaSteve is pro-pollution, too.
If my argument is so ridiculous it should be trivially easy for you to blow holes in it, yet instead of discrediting actual numbers (i.e. science) you go off on some emotional character assassination quest like a religious fundamentalist being challenged on the benefits of snake charming.
Your leaps in logic are so absurd that your post must either be a parody or the ramblings of someone without a clue.
ScubaSteve ... you aren't even making an argument. Your comments regarding the Amazon Rain Forest are simply wrong ... wrong at the beginning, wrong at the end, and wrong in between.
You would need at least a rudimentary science education if you wished to engage in a scientific argument. Otherwise you come across as an ignorant know-nothing.
dmathew1024, if I am wrong at the beginning, middle, and end then you should enlighten us ignorant conservatives with the truth! It was a simple post, so it would be trivially easy for you to prove just how right you are!
So if 883,612,800 seconds haven't elapsed between 1980 and 2/2008 then how many have?
If 1,200,000,000 is not the size of SA's Amazon basin then how big is it?
If fearmongers haven't cited stats like 3,4,5 acres a second, how many have they cited?
ScubaSteve is operating under the false impression that he is engaged in a scientific argument when he is not. The Amazon deforestation problem doesn't become irrelevant simply because the Amazon Rain Forest hasn't become completely eradicated yet.
Bjorn Lomborg is a full-time BS artist, an economist, not a scientist, and ... he has conceded that global warming is real, is happening, and is a major problem.
So I wouldn't encourage dittohead drones to lean too heavily upon him because he doesn't represent you.
Why is the rain forest of value to the atmosphere? I really am engaged in an argument with a scientific illiterate who is in favor of deforestation and pollution.
Such is the nature of conservativism ... they love toxins, pollution and cancer.
If you want to say something about the rainforest, Scuba Steve, you might as well say it so that we might argue ... if it merits an argument rather than merely reveals your own astonishing ignorance of science.
Why would saying something about the rainforest actually cause you to respond? You ignored my other two posts that did exactly that. That's why I had to change course and speak to you the same way an adult speaks to a child.
Maybe you can't see the other posts I've made. Did you scribble on your monitor with crayons in your earlier replies before you were told to use a keyboard?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I ignored your other two posts because they were embarrassingly stupid, a perfect illustration of a teabagger failing to comprehend science, and otherwise pure nonsense.
If you want to continue talking nonsense I'm going to have to assume that you are suffering from uneducated conservative syndrome.
You ignored those because you know you cannot defeat it. It's math. If the size of the Amazon Rainforest is X and the number of seconds that have elapsed since issue was fabricated is Y, and the number of acres being destroyed a second is Z then the number of remaining acres better damn well to close to what those numbers say it should be.
You've created a nonsense argument which illustrates why conservatives are often regarded as scientific illiterates and uneducated.
I'm certain that you don't comprehend the deforestation problem ... especially if you imagine that deforestation isn't a problem until the last tree is cut down.
I was about to point out that you don't know the first thing about logical debate, but then I realized that you don't even know the first thing about dialogue! If you look at your statements without regard to the politics you can't even follow a discussion. It's bizarre. I'm honestly impressed that you can operate a computer because but you really about as dumb as a pile of rocks. I am SO INCREDIBLY GLAD that you are an outspoken advocate for the left. Keep being a stereotype!
dmathew1024: Most recently I was a senior research scientist for the Air Force Reserach Labs... I am a real scientist, working in hard space science and engineering, where if we get any tiny detail wrong we find out (as in "crash and burn" or equivalent).
If Inhofe believes earth is 6000 years old, he is a total moron. However, you cannot assume on that basis that every single idea he holds is insane, which is what you imply.
When politicians fund scientists, the "science" is unreliable.
There are so many scientists on the internet they must compose the vast majority of the population ... or perhaps you are just lying.
Senator Inhofe is a young-earth creationist and Marc Morano is drawn from the same clothe. These two scientifically illiterate shills for the oil industry slander scientists for the sake of defending polluters and pollution.
When politicians fund science ... you sure as hell aren't a scientists speaking in such a stupid manner.
I know exactly what I say, from first hand observation. When you sign their "confidentiality agreement" you give them unlimited arbitrary permission to release all information about you to anyone, anywhere, including the media and general public". That's a quote out of their documents. Talk about threats and "identity theft" in spades!
The practical result of this and other unmistakable examples? You say nothing against their desired conclusions, or they destroy your life. That is fact.
You slander scientists so easy. I suspect that you are a liar.
In fact, I can prove it ... remember the government was run by George W. Bush until very recently. If scientists were obligated to agree with the government they would have agreed with his idiotic pro-pollution pro-oil addiction policies.
Stop claiming that you are a scientist. You aren't intelligent enough to be a scientist. You sound more like a teabagger.
You can't even read! My criticism is against government and other large organizations that force scientists to lie under threat and application of force, money, funding, positions, etc. I said scientists are just as manipulatable as other humans, since they too need jobs and income, and do not wish to be targets. So scientists are no worse than average in this regard, and quite possibly slightly better - but not massively so. If you doubt that, go learn what percentage worked FOR the nazis.
You are slandering all of science and you are also lying like a full-time teabagger. Conservatives hate science and refuse to accept the conclusions of science because of political, economic and religious reasons.
It is a sad world indeed when conservatives place their faith in oil industry shills, coal lobbyists, and young earth creationists like Senator Inhofe.
Conservatives are engaged in a war with reality and they do so for very stupid, irrational reasons.
Where do I slander science? I don't see it. Why would I be a scientist if I hate science? Huh?
Yes, many religious conservatives do hate science... and I hate them. So what?
I am not a fan of Inhofe, and never said I was. However, that doesn't mean he can't accidentally be on the correct side of an issue once in a blue moon. Does it?
Every politician I know of in the government of the USSA is at war with reality and humanity, except RonPaul - maybe.
Wow! You are bonkers! You have everything backwards, and self-contradict constantly. I must conclude you do this intentionally to make yourself look insane.
#1: I am an honest scientist.
#2: I do not like Inhofe or any other religious nut. I am an atheist, consider creationism insane, know the earth is billions of years old, etc. You are wrong.
#3: You proved you are 100% anti-scientific. If an moron like Inhofe declares water is wet, he is still correct.
How can you be an honest scientists when you have already claimed that all scientists are dishonest?
So you've caught yourself in a contradiction and you cannot be trusted.
Senator Inhofe would deny that water is wet if that would benefit a polluting industry. Senator Inhofe is a fundamentalist idiot and pollution defender.
If you don't know how John Galt is you haven't paid enough attention to the lunatic Ron Paul.
Show me where I say "all scientists are dishonest". Go ahead, show me. You just make these claims up! Therefore, it is YOU, not ME who contradicts myself.
Yes, Inhofe is a moron, and he might lie about water being wet if it serves his insane purposes. BUT, if he happens to say something true (by accident perhaps), that specific statement is true nonetheless.
Consider what you say. Just because someone is a moron, stupid, corrupt or insane does not mean *everything* they say is untrue.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are slandering scientists but suggesting that all climatologists are liars and that the scientific consensus is one big fraud meant to deprive you of your SUV and your money.
Senator Inhofe is a moran, stupid, corrupt, insane and also a lying shill for the oil industry.
That such a person and Marc Morano, another liar for pollution, would accuse scientists of being dishonest is pure hypocrisy. These people would go to hell for their lies if hell actually existed.
I did not slander scientists, I said many of them bend to pressure and enticements provided by government and organizations that provide funding. That is simple fact, and does not slander any scientist.
I never said "all climatologists are liars"! You seem to presume that ALL of them support human-CO2 is causing catastrophic damage that requires enslavement of mankind. FACT: Many or most climatologists disagree.
I am anti-pollution. CO2 is not pollution. Worldwide slavery is horrible.
You say I "slander scientists" because I claim what no honest person on earth could possibly disagree with - that *some* scientists have manipulated their data and/or conclusions to please or comply with the organization who funds them. Do you *honestly* believe that a grand total of ZERO scientists has fudged data and conclusions? If so, you are insane.
Then you turn around and call me a "teabagger" and "liar" without any evidence whatsoever... and you are NOT slandering me (a scientists)?
I am finished with you. You have proven you are a blatant baldface liar.
Your methods are from nazi playbooks from the 1940s, and the new world order climate-totalitarian playbook of today. Pure unadulterated mindless BS. You have left a record of your intellectual perversion for everyone to see. Nothing I could say would demonstrate your intellectual corruption more than your own words, so continue to slander yourself ad infinitum, right in front of all to see, sir intellectual cretin.
honestann is suffering a full-scale Glenn Beck style breakdown. honestann has spent all of this time puffing up his credentials (I'm a scientist!) while slandering all scientists (Scientists lie for money!).
honestann demonstrates that conservative intellectually is dead and all that is left now is the paranoid conspiracy theories of an extremist politically irrelevant secessionist minority.
Conservatives abandoned the real world a long time ago.
Hahaha! You're so funny, because you get almost everything totally backwards! You're an utter moron, proven positive by your messages.
Yes, what passes for conservatism today most certainly is intellectual insanity and corruption. Also, what passes for liberalism today is equally insane. Both groups abandoned the real world long ago, and both groups are PREDATORS, fighting with each other over the power to be totalitarian dictators of all mankind --- the global warming liars most of all.
You have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that your primary mental process is to invent, then assume notions that have zero basis in reality, but merely spew forth from your Mao/Aloph/Stalin playbooks. Good grief, you've labeled me a conservative (false), fan of Inhof (false), fan of GlennBeck (false), non-scientist (false), not concerned about environment (false)... ad infinitum. Clearly you can deal with evidence, or you would have presented evidence my original 3 statements are false.
All Mathew can do is attack, he can't defend anything. It's part of his play book to call you a 'Beck Fan', in his mind this makes you a stupid neanderthal. This makes him feel superior, all the while he hasn't offered any constructive arguments only name calling and 'Get and education'. He (Mathew) has no argument, only speculations of another who doesn't agree with his opinion/beliefs. If you don't agree with him, then you're a racist bible thumping gay bashing republican. Prejudice party of 1
You can't engage in scientific argument, you haven't at all. And I highly doubt you can. Let me get this straight... so in your liberal mind I'm a conservative solely because my ideas and thoughts don't jive with your own? So anyone different from you is stupid and conservative. There is a word for this, it's called prejudice. Thought you libs were against prejudice, Oh that's right... it's OK if you (libs) do it. Typical of an elitist like yourself. HAHA!
Shaokem's status as a conservative is verified easily enough by his own words. It is not prejudice to note that you are an anti-science conservative conspiracy theorist inspired by the lowest common denominator idiots in the conservative movement.
Get an education and get back to me once you know what it is that you are talking about.
I'm starting to think you're a joke. Perhaps someone part of who posted this video on youtube. Because you're so stereotypical when it comes to being a liberal. You're following the mantra way to plainly. You never discuss the science, you only attack the man and you repeat this again and again. This is why I think you're a joke.
Shaokem demands a scientific discussion when you has outright rejected science ... this really is a sad comment on conservativism and the ulimate joke.
Conservatives won't even begin to listen to science. But you'll believe an oil shill on youtube.
I dont know who is in this video, never heard of him before. I came to this video in search of debate on the subject of Climate change or this whole climate gate situation. I saw your comments and couldn't resist making a small joke. Which you took much too personally and attacked me for it. It's plain to see how prejudice you are.
"Climate Gate" is a Fox News - Pollution Shill Industry term meant to confuse the ignorant and uneducated into doubting and denying the conclusions of science to their own harm.
Mathew, this is why I've looked into it using other avenues that FOX. I'm well aware that Fox is biased, and MSNBC is biased. And CNN can't figure out what they are. Cable news is nothing more than a late night soap opera. ClimateGate is a isolated incident which did happen. How will it play I don't know. I'm only looking for factual information on who found it, who wrote it. If it was planted, of if it is a real concern. If anything you're only aiding that it is real with your attacks and BS.
Stolen e-mails from a decade ago don't amount to a conspiracy except on the part of those criminals who stole the e-mails and the pollution shills who are spreading slanderous lies in order to defeat any progress on climate change negotiations.
But if conservatives want to engage in e-mail stealing perhaps the e-mails of conservative organizations might suffer the same fate. I'd love to read Exxon's e-mails to denalist organizations.
Hey Mathew... I'm curious as to your opinion on Nuclear Power plants. And their effectiveness in creating a real domestic energy source to free us from obligations overseas, and create jobs here in America.
Oh... is that so. So that's your opinion. And how did you come up with this opinion? Why is nuclear not the answer? Or even part of the answer. I was only trying to start a debate on the subject with you in a civil way, and once again you stick to your mantra, calling me deluded. For what reason am I delusional for thinking nuclear power is a great alternative. Nuclear power and domestic energy sources are the answer.
Nuclear power is a non-starter? So basically powering our nation has become political too? And us that support Nuclear Power are left without a voice, because it's either Coal Power (conservative) or Solar Panels (liberal)? That's pretty stupid. I'm for it all, Coal/Nuclear/Wind/Sun/Water/Gas.
Mathew, here is another video about Climate Gate and it's not from Fox News. It's actually from Russia-Today. /watch?v=-_bFthzGQ0Q&feature=rec-HM-r2 Tell me is Russia-Today part of a huge conspiracy against Energy reform that Fox is also apart of?
Well shaokem, we have allowed dmathew1024 to utterly destroy his own veracity and prove his utter intellectual corruption.
I too suspect he might be taking his positions just to make trouble because he has no life whatsoever. Unfortunately, I have run into people who appear to actually be as insane, self-deluded and psychopathic as he is... sooo, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he might be as insane, corrupt and religious (faith-driven) as he appears to be.
honestann isn't a scientist and yet he pretends to be a psychologist.
Needless to say, honestann, you stand with the lunatics who claim that there is a conspiracy involving all of the world's scientists trying to take away your SUV and polluting lifestyle.
Hey honestann, I agree dmathew1024 is a bit off his rocker. He has offered not a single bit of constructive factual information. I've read every comment he's posted, and each of them is exactly the same as the last. His mantra is 'Never discuss the science, attack the man, repeat the mantra'. And when he is confronted on this he only repeats the mantra, attacks the man and doesn't discuss the science.
Or, perhaps he is a junior high school student and this kind of intellectual chaos and corruption is what they teach in government controlled education these days. His "no facts, no logic, no evidence, blatant-assertion and endless slander-babble" approach is rather infantile. But it is also very much the pattern of fascist-commie-totalitarian dictators throughout history, so he could be either - or just totally insane. Either that or an FBI, NSA or UN plant who gets paid by the word. :-)
dmathew1024: Reading this thread is an amazing education in how completely clueless some humans (you) can be.
honestann is clear, coherent, sensible, reasonable, rational, logical, honest and scientific. Your replies are incoherent assaults that ignore facts, logic, reason and the posts you are responding to. honestann clearly disagrees with everything he stands for except one position he holds (for the wrong reasons), yet you try to pretend she supports him and creationism. Get a life.
Considering that the audience for this YouTube clip is the uneducated, scientifcally illiterate, and otherwise ignorant know-nothings ... your praise for the slanderer and liar makes a whole lot of sense.
There's a reason why the climatologists are scientists and you are not.
Every scientist on earth believes in global warming, global cooling and global climate change. The simple observation that the average temperatures last year do not equal the year before is sufficient evidence of this for any honest human.
And #everyone# agrees that temperatures have been substantially warmer and cooler in previous centuries.
But the #majority# of scientists with degrees in climatology do NOT believe human-caused CO2 is substantial or will harm the ecosphere. Get real.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Maxgpgpu illustrates again the tremendous amount of scientific illiteracy among the conservative teabagger crowd. Look. you people represent the lunatic fringe, the creationists, the flat earthers, the pollution advocates.
It is perhaps a bit much to expect that you would honestly represent the conclusions of science. When your side is losing you cannot help but lie all the time, right?
If you want to see similar disinformation from the anti-science crowd, consumt the creationists.
Shaokem's comment the abhorrent amount of scientiific illiteracy present among the anti-science teabagger brigade.
Given this level of ignorance and stupidity, I'm amazed that shaokem remembers to breathe.
With conservatives parading their ignorance for the whole world to see it is easy to understand why the Republican party has become a politically irrelevent extremist minority.
It was a joke. But feel free to call names and lump everyone who disagrees with you into a pile. 'Elitist, party of one.' Get up, get get get down GHG is a joke in your town. HAHA! Sorry Mathew, but I'm not buying the propaganda. It has nothing to do with republicans. As I don't honestly see many these days. Therefore I'm not sure what party I'm apart of, but I do like parties!!!
There is only one problem heat produces more CO2, not the other way around.
Were you picked on much when you were a kid? We're all suggesting the science being viewed as correct isn't correct. All you can do is start name calling and bashing someone else's opinion or belief. You're following the mantra to the T 'Never discuss the Science - Attack the Man - Repeat the mantra'.
Shaokem doesn't discuss science and the rest of you confuse your own ignorance and lack of education for skepticism.
If you wanted to discuss science you'd need to actually know science. The Foxbots don't spend any time learning but they spend all of their time talking and slandering scientists and imagining conspiries where none exist.
Until you people gain a rudimentary knowledge of science you should avoid making fools of yourself by talking without knowing anything.
Seems all you do is attack the man and never discuss the science. Here is a bit of science for you. The rise of temp causes the rise of CO2, not the other way around. As Gore would have you believe the rise of CO2 causes the rise of temp. That one flaw is enough to discount anything you have to say. Yes in our daily lives we release more CO2 than cow farts. We drive cars, hear our homes and charge our cell phones each night. (continued...)
(cont'...) I believe we need to move forward and find new alternative fuels. The problem is HR2454 wants to punish us towards this goal. When the technology doesn't at the moment to allow for a quick change. This will take decades or longer to change from petroleum and coal to alternative methods. Yet the energy bill (cap and trade) wants tax carbon as long as it takes. (continues...)
You seem to confuse cause with effect, shaokem, when you claim that the rise in temperature causes carbon dioxide rise.
Perhaps you need to take a college class on physics and greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide's role as a greenhouse gas is well known and objectively verified.
This is not a matter of scientific speculation. Please do educate yourself.
Yeah the cause is our sun. A simple study would be to subject a carcass to a low temp of 70-80degrees. Take a measurement of gases being released from the decaying carcass. Then raise the temp. This would cause the decay of the carcass to accelerate, releasing more CO2. That's simple science. The rise in temp causes accelerated release of CO2 from most all organic material.
This has been flagged as spam show
moron, did you see the record heat in texas and the rest of the country the last two years, look up texas drought, new mexico wilfires, geogia drought with 2010 2011 in the search terms, fools!
livingproofof 5 days ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 5 days ago
One thing about this vidieo. He says warming has stopped but will resume in about 30 years. Ok will the rest of the planets in our solar system also resume warming then as well? Just like they have been warming in previous years?
yajneslo 1 year ago
Hahaha. Bullshit start to end. It's a TV for republican congressmen. This video is rather old. Recent events disapprove it completely. However it did its purpose. Gulf Oil slick is out there, and it is the one of achievements of this TV. Bravo. The whole world laughs at this..
th3dig1tal0n3 1 year ago
Read-
IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”
h t t p : // thegwpf . org/ipcc- news/1877-ipcc- official-climate-policy-is- redistributing-the-worlds-wealth . html
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'
h t t p : // newsbusters . org/blogs/noel-sheppard /2010/11/18/breaking-un-ipcc- official-admits-we-redistribute- worlds-wealth-climat
This is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth
Searching4Truth1 1 year ago
You can tell who the shills are - they all start their comments with "every scientist in the whole world believe..."
CokeSupply 1 year ago
All i have to say is that if 10,000 of the smartest scientists, researchers and academics are wrong, then we are fucked. I tend to side with those who actually work in the field of climatology rather than those who post pseudo-intellectual comments and hyperbole videos on youtube. Yes we do need debate, but reasoned and evidence based debate, not smear campaigns and gossip media shows such as this.
jemmre 1 year ago
@jemmre its political not scientific. MMGW is a theory just like the world is flat. The problem with proving this theory is money and government structure. Those ten thousand scientists, researchers and academics are now running and distancing themselves from this (the smart ones any way some are too invested). Fraud is ugly and yes we are in trouble when people in those communities whom we rely on will form corrupted (alarming) theory for the purposes of, in the end, money and structure.
GuamTippedOver 1 year ago
blah bla blah blah blah ... leading expert on global warming.. (WTF??? Morano is the number one spinner on cc denial!) blah blah blah blah BARF!
remcovanek2 1 year ago
@remcovanek2 He is just agreeing with the PEER REVIEWED studies like this one from Harvard,,,,,,,,,,,,, Google - CFA HARVARD EDU 0310 .
camcheck 1 year ago
LOL! 2 of the biggest jokers I have ever seen. Thanks for the great entertainment. I pissed my pants listening to these fools.
tombeardman 1 year ago
The matter of survival or death of millions of people should not be a form of popular entertainment for profit.
pntrend 1 year ago
Climate Depot is a joke
penfifteen666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Typical conservative douche-wad believes in privatizing everything so corporations can grow rich raping the environment. Corporations care little about wealth they can't remove and sell.
matticusstupendicus 1 year ago
Typical conservative douche-wad believes in privatizing everything so corporations can grow rich raping the environment. Corporations care little about wealth they can't remove and sell.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
fuck ya.
matticusstupendicus 1 year ago
Check out how badly the eastern bloc governments raped the environment.
Privatization generates wealth and only a wealthy society will bother to care about the environment. You think the government cares about you?
westcoast1965 1 year ago
No science background. Ignoramus.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams
what scientific background does al gore have. or are u a typical eviro hypocrite who only cares about scientific background when it is not al gore(who stands to make a ton of money through his carbon trading co.)dumbass
mebe84 1 year ago 3
Rajenda Pachauri is a railroad engineer not a scientist. Al Gore is a politician not a scientist. Sure you want to resort to that simple argument?
westcoast1965 1 year ago 3
@j0hnwi11iams So, you want science? Dont think so but let's give it a go.............................................Bing SCIENCESKEPTICAL MWP . More than 45 Peer-Review studies show the Earth was warmer before Fossil fuel use . But let me guess, THAT Peer-Review is no good!
camcheck 10 months ago
Where is Al Gore hiding? Why did he cancel all his book signing dates? Why won't he debate Lord Monckton?
maximusdecimus888 2 years ago
Google WattsUpWithThat, search here for Lord Monckton, and look into the Carbon Credit Exchange that Al Gore built with David Blood and Ken Lay (!?!), and which he stands to make TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM!!!
Do the math, it isn't hard.
beggarz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Science of Global Warming is settled. The next time you hear this, reply "YAD061".
Google YAD061
Link Al Gore & Global Warming charade with the economic destruction of NAFTA, GATT, & WTO creation, which all happened under the Clinton/Gore presidency
Also remind people that the People's Democracy of China is sending its slave labor made junk back to us that have toxic chemicals in them that are making us & our children sick & dying!
Remind them of the environmental damage of Free Trade
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Totally agree with ur comment! Watch Al Gore get hammered in under 30 seconds flat, by Marcus Brooks.
Just type the following on youtube: Marcus Brooks sends a message to Al Gore.
carbonc02 2 years ago
google lord monckton
koch46 2 years ago 3
I've died and gone back to high school.
airboat4477 2 years ago
I am an environmentalist and my course work has been on geology,environment, biology, policy making, politics, government, geography, meteorology, economics, and even anthropology...just for the record
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
Might be useful to ALSO study solar radiation, sunspot cycles, the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Otherwise "climate scientists" will always be at a loss to explain politically-incorrect facts like declining temperatures since 1998 or why there was the medieval warm period before cars and Chinese factories. At some point we hope "climate scientists" will stop violating the scientific method and censoring data which conflicts with their political agendas.
NoTyranny 2 years ago
I'm sure a PHYSICIST would beat you....
TheCD28 2 years ago
I say again. study the data your self. take a course in geology. turn off the tv. oppose big government intrusion or kiss the america our father died to protect goodbye
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago 11
a course of geology is not enough or even relevant to understand climate change, i see what your saying but there are flaws to your argument, to undestand climate change you need to understand preatty much how everything works, geology,environment,biology,meteorology, once you take this courses then you will have a better idea
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
and yes, politics,the economy, corporations and policy making procedures also apply
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
like that would be possible. obviously you have absolutely no idea how complex climate is.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
@gertomaniac don't know what you are talking about be more specific..
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
nope, i made myself absolutely clear.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
@gertomaniac you can't argue against something you are ignorant about...i understand, smart choice of words...
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
i'm not ignorant about anything. climate is too complex even for climate scientists to make meaningful predicitions.
gertomaniac 2 years ago 3
I rather try to understand its complexity and make assumptions rather than sit around an do nothing...
Guatemalanfatkid 2 years ago
You're free to do that.I wish you good luck. climate science surely has use for someone who at least tries to understand the complexity.
gertomaniac 2 years ago
big oil companies have embraced climate change (AGW). the ceos of shell, exxon, bp and conoco have come our in favor of a carbon tax/credits. why you should ask?? the reason is they see the way the political wind is blowing and a carbon tax can be passed on to the consumer (you and me). other measures could be destructive to their bottom line whereas a pass through will not. so mike, your conspiracy theory re: big oil is off base. they are inside the AGW fraud tent. feel better now??
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago 3
people need to educate themselves on the issues and not look for "brains" in government or government sponsored "scientists." when science is for sale because they depend on government grants, science is compromised via human nature. when Al Gore quate scripture - "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" -- remind him of "thou salt not lie" and remove the beam from you own eye before the speck from your brother's" he is a liar and hypocite
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago 4
man I wish I could type - quotes-
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago
Gee Mark, I've never heard of "Climate Depot".... I think I will continue to get my news from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation if you don't mind. You guys are so stupid.
wolfheinl 2 years ago
Read Climate Gate on the internet. The Emails point to the fact the current scientist responsible are frauds.
Ignoring fraud is stupid.
NoogLeader 2 years ago 3
Global warming alarmists are afraid of their own carbon footprint.
xxramblingsxx 2 years ago
isnt it possible that things are more complicated then that. ocean temperature was the highest its been since 130 years ago in 06, i know this is not proof beyond a doubt but but wouldnt it be better to be prepared just in case? from here on out im going to try and stay polite i just would like some answers filled in.
mike5368 2 years ago
Mike,
Where did you get your temperature data? Where in the ocean? What were the major currents doing at the time? Whose thermometer were you using in 1879? What were the GPS coordinates where the record was taken? What did GPS mean in 1879? Wkae up dude!
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago
Whoops! I mean WAKE UP DUDE!!
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago
your questions are very good but they go both ways. this is basically what i was trying to point out to patriotest1. it is a massive question that no one can fully answer or understand right now but the fact is that it is much easier to disprove something then to prove it, as it should be. i believe this is why there is so much garbage most likely on both sides of the issue. for the record as long as i can read it misspelled words dont bother me.
mike5368 2 years ago
The problem is now we can't trust the data.
Climate gate indicates that many of the so called warming trends were fabricated numbers. The temperatures were actually cooler then what was stated and given out to the public. We have been lied too by scientist who were supposed to look into global warming with honest non biased opinion. Instead they have been pushing political issues like Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax. Both of which screw everyone and make a few people rich.
NoogLeader 2 years ago
i removed my earlier posts because people on this page seem so anal about things as trivile as grammar and linguistic ability. Lastly you should NEVER use only one source for your place for your information, as they would like you to do. Thinking for yourself exactly the opposite of what they want you to do.
mike5368 2 years ago
Not only that but it would benefit every persons health on earth, if you don't believe me go suck a cars exhaust pipe, then let me know weather or not Co2 is bad for us carbon based life forms.
mike5368 2 years ago
LOL. "Go suck a car's exhaust pipe...."
A car's exhaust is primarily CO AKA Carbon MONOxide (Not CO2) and water vapor.
I realize why you are flamed here. Your logic is simplistic and you clutch to things you have been spoonfed for most of your life. All corporate media is corrupt and the left/right issues are mostly BS and are intended to keep people confused so they cannot tell reality from fiction.
purechaos2000 2 years ago
im just curious what makes people so sure it doesnt exist
mike5368 2 years ago
the geologic record. the geologic record is full of warming and cooling cycles. some driven by the sun and some driven by cataclismic events. one thing is very clear from the geologic record as well - man was either missing or insignificant and primitive. it is arogant and naive to assume we are causing the change Al Gore is selling. AGW panic is about making money and redistributing wealth. politicians-profiteers have hijacted what should be an environment concern to further their agenda
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago 3
conservation & environmental protection are good. limiting polution is good. we do not know from the dtat avaiable if generating CO2 helps the environment, hurts the environment or does neither. we do know that other forms of emissions and polutants are harmful. our focus should be on those. also, we should not allow politicians to use our desire to be good shepards of the earth God gave use to use as an excuse to take more of our resources via tax or our jobs via meaningless regulation
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago 2
even if what you are saying is true, how about the lobbyists working for the oil, coal, car, and other companies that create a lot of pollution. is it not possible that they are spending millions if not more to put a stop to the idea of climate change. i have a feeling they have a lot more to lose than any scientist. to me this agenda seems a lot more likely. Thank You for Smoking was a great movie and pointed out to me how easily people can disturb the facts.
mike5368 2 years ago
it is absolutely possible that the issue is being blown out of proportion but the scientists have much less to gain
mike5368 2 years ago
Why do people even trust conservatives anymore with things like the birthers, teabaggers, and lobbyists against the public options. these people will do anything to break down the Liberal side of things because they see it as know more than a business but the sad thing is if we don't act and the oceans do rise it will be our fault 1billion+ lose their lives.
mike5368 2 years ago
Comment removed
mike5368 2 years ago
Comment removed
mike5368 2 years ago
Anyone calculate the carbon footprint of the Copenhagen Luxury Conference? The private jets, the exotic food flown in from around the world, Al Gore's personal carbon 'big-foot' print, and all that?
Stay home and you'd better help the planet!
NoTyranny 2 years ago
While we peons need a government that dictates what lightbulbs we can use and how long our showers can be, the superior enlightened elites don't need to be hindered with such complicated rules.
Anyone else noticing that the Modern Left acts a lot like the Catholic Church from the days of Copernicus?
How long until they ban the reading of scientific texts without their blessing? Maybe that's too obvious... Guess that's why they've designed our schools to promote illiteracy.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
Scuba Steve aligns himself with the young-earth creationist idiot Senator Inhofe and he claims that the scientific consensus represents some sort of religion.
How ironic. How idiotic. The Glenn Beck audience has earned its reputation for sheer hypocritical stupidity.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Thank you for conceding. Your mindless drivel proves you are incapable of intelligent debate, while your strong opinions implies that you are a gullible individual who has simply consumed decades of Hollywood propaganda.
Or you are being a parody of a stereotypical uninformed, intolerant leftist. If that's the case your posts are freaking hilarious! (Your posts are a bit over the top ;) )
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
Scuba Steve ... you must be a parody of a scientifically illiterate teabagger dittohead drone.
Anyone who is gullible enough to believe Glenn Beck is gullible enough to believe anything ... even if it means becoming a flat-earth young-earth creationist.
There's no lie that the pollution industry tells that you aren't willing to swallow whole. If they told you that the sky is green, you'd believe them and reject your own eyesight.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I'm offended that you have consistently failed to include Neal Boortz in your list of idiots! That poor guy is always ignored by leftwing fundamentalists.
BTW, he has a website called Nealz Nuze (updated daily) where people can post comments. Trust me, the people on that board would love your comments!
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
You listen to Neal Boortz? God, you really are a teabagger.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You are only using the ad homenim attack and poisoning the well. Actually, a teacher could use your posts to demonstrate a wide variety of logical fallacies.
dragknuckle 2 years ago
Those making slanderous accusations against scientists are irrational and those who imagine a conspiracy theory are insane ...
But the conservatives would rather live in the 19th century than the 21st century.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Dragknuckle, a sole dmathew1024 does more harm to his cause than 1000 skeptics. Could you imagine him getting onto his soapbox at a Thanksgiving dinner and going off on a rant about Global Warming deniers and how Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest are idiots because he read it in Us Weekly?
His kind of "logic" only works in an ideological echo chamber and I'm sure it works great with the MTV generation. I bet he has no clue how ridiculous he sounds around more sophisticated people.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
The sort of "logic" scuba steve advocates is on display at fundamentalist churches and teabagger rallies all of the time ... it is one reason why your side is a politically irrelevant extremist minority.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
dmathew1024, you're almost correct on this post! BRAVO! Yes if you go to a Tea Party you'll see lots of people advocating logic, protecting the US constitution, promoting sound economic policies, and sharing details on actual history. Tea Parties are basically filled with grownups! Unfortunately this is why we're in the minority. If you look at the last election you can see people are more interested in mindless slogans and celebrity endorsements!
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tea parties are filled with Angry White Uneducated Ditthohead Drones who are upset about having a non-white person in the White House.
But thanks for conceding that you are a teabagger. I thought so all along.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
This Copenhagen meeting is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of the CO2 zealots.
If these people had integrity, they'd turn this into the world's biggest teleconferencing event instead of a big party. They'd use it as an chance to show the world how major things can get done with a minimal energy use. If CO2 is really their boogeyman they could use this to show international business how they do not need to shuttle people across the world to get things done.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
blah blah blah ... more evidence of conservative stupidity and conservative hypocrisy.
One thing is for certain ... conservatives are too busy teabagging to learn any science.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Of all the environmentalist lies, the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest is the easiest to disprove because it's basic simple math. If you take the rate of deforestation claimed by the supporters and apply that to a time frame of 23 or 24 years (the length of time I specifically remember this issue being around) then the entire rainforest should have been deforested years ago.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
The Amazon Rain Forest is the size the continental United States. To deny deforestation simply because it hasn't yet been competely eradicated is just silly.
There's only 22% of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans but the political party hasn't collapsed until there aren't any ....
dmathew1024 2 years ago
dmathew1024 said: "To deny deforestation simply because it hasn't yet been competely eradicated is just silly. "
How the hell did you get that from what I wrote? If humanity results in the loss of one tree then deforestation has occurred, but if your side presents numbers that mathematically should have cleared the entire forest years ago then that means your side is lying.
The numbers don't work, but then your lack of understanding of mathematics might be why your a leftist.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
ScubaSteve continues to spout off ignorant nonsense regarding the Amazon Rain Forest. I'm certain that ScubaSteve doesn't actually know anything about the subject and he'd rathr not learn.
Conservatives and science don't mix. Conservatives and ignorant Christian fundamentalism mix very well, though.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
The claimed deforestation rate since the early 80s was all over the map (a sure sign of solid science), but generally sites still claim the same several acres a second numbers.
883,612,800 - Roughly the number of seconds that have elapsed since 1980 (as of 2/2008)
1,200,000,000 - Size in acres of the entire Amazon basin (the forest is smaller)
At 1.36 acres per sec the forest would have been totally cleared, yet well over 90% remains!
But you guys use sound science when you fearmonger, huh?
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago 2
AcubaSteve's engaged in some sort of mathematical argumetn that must make sense only within the confines of his own uneducated teabagger brain.
SxubaSteve isn't an expert on science or the Amazon Rain Forest or anything.
I'm afraid ScubaSteve has received his education from Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Fox News. This sort of education makes a person dogmatic in his ignorance.
ScubaSteve is in favor of Amazon deforestation, too. ScubaSteve is pro-pollution, too.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
If my argument is so ridiculous it should be trivially easy for you to blow holes in it, yet instead of discrediting actual numbers (i.e. science) you go off on some emotional character assassination quest like a religious fundamentalist being challenged on the benefits of snake charming.
Your leaps in logic are so absurd that your post must either be a parody or the ramblings of someone without a clue.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
ScubaSteve ... you aren't even making an argument. Your comments regarding the Amazon Rain Forest are simply wrong ... wrong at the beginning, wrong at the end, and wrong in between.
You would need at least a rudimentary science education if you wished to engage in a scientific argument. Otherwise you come across as an ignorant know-nothing.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
dmathew1024, if I am wrong at the beginning, middle, and end then you should enlighten us ignorant conservatives with the truth! It was a simple post, so it would be trivially easy for you to prove just how right you are!
So if 883,612,800 seconds haven't elapsed between 1980 and 2/2008 then how many have?
If 1,200,000,000 is not the size of SA's Amazon basin then how big is it?
If fearmongers haven't cited stats like 3,4,5 acres a second, how many have they cited?
Have there not been
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
ScubaSteve is operating under the false impression that he is engaged in a scientific argument when he is not. The Amazon deforestation problem doesn't become irrelevant simply because the Amazon Rain Forest hasn't become completely eradicated yet.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Have you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg? It debunks a lot of the environmental litany of doom.
dragknuckle 2 years ago
Bjorn Lomborg is a full-time BS artist, an economist, not a scientist, and ... he has conceded that global warming is real, is happening, and is a major problem.
So I wouldn't encourage dittohead drones to lean too heavily upon him because he doesn't represent you.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
No, I've seen him interviewed but never really got the desire to read his book.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
Also, perhaps you can explain to me the specifics on why a rainforest is of such value to the atmosphere. No, seriously, I want you to enlighten us.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
Why is the rain forest of value to the atmosphere? I really am engaged in an argument with a scientific illiterate who is in favor of deforestation and pollution.
Such is the nature of conservativism ... they love toxins, pollution and cancer.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
No, dmathew1024, seriously. I need to see if you understand the value of the rainforest.
And why wasn't this comment reported to me by YouTube as a response?
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago
If you want to say something about the rainforest, Scuba Steve, you might as well say it so that we might argue ... if it merits an argument rather than merely reveals your own astonishing ignorance of science.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Why would saying something about the rainforest actually cause you to respond? You ignored my other two posts that did exactly that. That's why I had to change course and speak to you the same way an adult speaks to a child.
Maybe you can't see the other posts I've made. Did you scribble on your monitor with crayons in your earlier replies before you were told to use a keyboard?
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I ignored your other two posts because they were embarrassingly stupid, a perfect illustration of a teabagger failing to comprehend science, and otherwise pure nonsense.
If you want to continue talking nonsense I'm going to have to assume that you are suffering from uneducated conservative syndrome.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You ignored those because you know you cannot defeat it. It's math. If the size of the Amazon Rainforest is X and the number of seconds that have elapsed since issue was fabricated is Y, and the number of acres being destroyed a second is Z then the number of remaining acres better damn well to close to what those numbers say it should be.
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago 2
You've created a nonsense argument which illustrates why conservatives are often regarded as scientific illiterates and uneducated.
I'm certain that you don't comprehend the deforestation problem ... especially if you imagine that deforestation isn't a problem until the last tree is cut down.
Please get an education ...
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I was about to point out that you don't know the first thing about logical debate, but then I realized that you don't even know the first thing about dialogue! If you look at your statements without regard to the politics you can't even follow a discussion. It's bizarre. I'm honestly impressed that you can operate a computer because but you really about as dumb as a pile of rocks. I am SO INCREDIBLY GLAD that you are an outspoken advocate for the left. Keep being a stereotype!
ScubaSteve1974 2 years ago 3
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago 2
Marc Morano looks a little like Jay Leno
Jspeterson 2 years ago 3
DEPO? lol was that on purpose?
Ventorez 2 years ago
We know higher temperatures cause an increase of CO2, not the opposite.
We know many peroids of warmer and? colder weather (and higher and lower CO2) have happened for thousands of years.
We know the Mars polar ice caps grow and shrink with the Earth polar ice caps, which means warming and cooling is primarily caused by sun changes.
Hang the climate totalitarians!
We need 100% separation of science and state.
Government funded science == fraud.
End lies and pollution, not CO2.
honestann 2 years ago 8
Are you a product of home schooling or are you just scientifically illiterate?
Senator Inhofe thinks that the planet is 6000 years old. He is about as scientific as the Pope.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
dmathew1024: Most recently I was a senior research scientist for the Air Force Reserach Labs... I am a real scientist, working in hard space science and engineering, where if we get any tiny detail wrong we find out (as in "crash and burn" or equivalent).
If Inhofe believes earth is 6000 years old, he is a total moron. However, you cannot assume on that basis that every single idea he holds is insane, which is what you imply.
When politicians fund scientists, the "science" is unreliable.
honestann 2 years ago
There are so many scientists on the internet they must compose the vast majority of the population ... or perhaps you are just lying.
Senator Inhofe is a young-earth creationist and Marc Morano is drawn from the same clothe. These two scientifically illiterate shills for the oil industry slander scientists for the sake of defending polluters and pollution.
When politicians fund science ... you sure as hell aren't a scientists speaking in such a stupid manner.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I know exactly what I say, from first hand observation. When you sign their "confidentiality agreement" you give them unlimited arbitrary permission to release all information about you to anyone, anywhere, including the media and general public". That's a quote out of their documents. Talk about threats and "identity theft" in spades!
The practical result of this and other unmistakable examples? You say nothing against their desired conclusions, or they destroy your life. That is fact.
honestann 2 years ago 2
You slander scientists so easy. I suspect that you are a liar.
In fact, I can prove it ... remember the government was run by George W. Bush until very recently. If scientists were obligated to agree with the government they would have agreed with his idiotic pro-pollution pro-oil addiction policies.
Stop claiming that you are a scientist. You aren't intelligent enough to be a scientist. You sound more like a teabagger.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You can't even read! My criticism is against government and other large organizations that force scientists to lie under threat and application of force, money, funding, positions, etc. I said scientists are just as manipulatable as other humans, since they too need jobs and income, and do not wish to be targets. So scientists are no worse than average in this regard, and quite possibly slightly better - but not massively so. If you doubt that, go learn what percentage worked FOR the nazis.
honestann 2 years ago 2
You are slandering all of science and you are also lying like a full-time teabagger. Conservatives hate science and refuse to accept the conclusions of science because of political, economic and religious reasons.
It is a sad world indeed when conservatives place their faith in oil industry shills, coal lobbyists, and young earth creationists like Senator Inhofe.
Conservatives are engaged in a war with reality and they do so for very stupid, irrational reasons.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Where do I slander science? I don't see it. Why would I be a scientist if I hate science? Huh?
Yes, many religious conservatives do hate science... and I hate them. So what?
I am not a fan of Inhofe, and never said I was. However, that doesn't mean he can't accidentally be on the correct side of an issue once in a blue moon. Does it?
Every politician I know of in the government of the USSA is at war with reality and humanity, except RonPaul - maybe.
It seems you cannot read !!!
honestann 2 years ago 2
1. You are not a scientist. You are a liar and not even a good one.
2. If you like Senator Inhofe, you like a young-earth creationist Christian fundamentalist.
3. Senator Inhofe isn't ever correct on any scientific issue. He's a nut just as you are a teabagging nut.
4. Ron Paul is a lunatic. I can see why you would favor a lunatic.
Where is John Galt? Why haven't you gone John Galt?
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Wow! You are bonkers! You have everything backwards, and self-contradict constantly. I must conclude you do this intentionally to make yourself look insane.
#1: I am an honest scientist.
#2: I do not like Inhofe or any other religious nut. I am an atheist, consider creationism insane, know the earth is billions of years old, etc. You are wrong.
#3: You proved you are 100% anti-scientific. If an moron like Inhofe declares water is wet, he is still correct.
Who is John Galt?
honestann 2 years ago 2
How can you be an honest scientists when you have already claimed that all scientists are dishonest?
So you've caught yourself in a contradiction and you cannot be trusted.
Senator Inhofe would deny that water is wet if that would benefit a polluting industry. Senator Inhofe is a fundamentalist idiot and pollution defender.
If you don't know how John Galt is you haven't paid enough attention to the lunatic Ron Paul.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Show me where I say "all scientists are dishonest". Go ahead, show me. You just make these claims up! Therefore, it is YOU, not ME who contradicts myself.
Yes, Inhofe is a moron, and he might lie about water being wet if it serves his insane purposes. BUT, if he happens to say something true (by accident perhaps), that specific statement is true nonetheless.
Consider what you say. Just because someone is a moron, stupid, corrupt or insane does not mean *everything* they say is untrue.
honestann 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are slandering scientists but suggesting that all climatologists are liars and that the scientific consensus is one big fraud meant to deprive you of your SUV and your money.
Senator Inhofe is a moran, stupid, corrupt, insane and also a lying shill for the oil industry.
That such a person and Marc Morano, another liar for pollution, would accuse scientists of being dishonest is pure hypocrisy. These people would go to hell for their lies if hell actually existed.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I did not slander scientists, I said many of them bend to pressure and enticements provided by government and organizations that provide funding. That is simple fact, and does not slander any scientist.
I never said "all climatologists are liars"! You seem to presume that ALL of them support human-CO2 is causing catastrophic damage that requires enslavement of mankind. FACT: Many or most climatologists disagree.
I am anti-pollution. CO2 is not pollution. Worldwide slavery is horrible.
honestann 2 years ago 3
You contine to slander scientists while denying that you are doing so ... this is the behavior I would associate with a semi-literate Fox News viewer.
To claim that carbon dioxide is not a pollution is simply to exclude yourself from rational discussion of this issue.
Needless to say, I'll trust the scientists before I trust any teabagging slanderer and liar.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You say I "slander scientists" because I claim what no honest person on earth could possibly disagree with - that *some* scientists have manipulated their data and/or conclusions to please or comply with the organization who funds them. Do you *honestly* believe that a grand total of ZERO scientists has fudged data and conclusions? If so, you are insane.
Then you turn around and call me a "teabagger" and "liar" without any evidence whatsoever... and you are NOT slandering me (a scientists)?
honestann 2 years ago
Honestann continues to make slanderous accusations against unnamed scientists in an effort to deny the conclusions of science.
Honestann isn't a scientist and he's a full-time teabagger and probably a 9/12er and a member of the Sarah Palin fan club.
There's one thing honsestann is not ... a scientist. That much is evident from his stupid, uneducated comments.
But he loves Senator Inhofe, though ... oh, yes, he does!
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I am finished with you. You have proven you are a blatant baldface liar.
Your methods are from nazi playbooks from the 1940s, and the new world order climate-totalitarian playbook of today. Pure unadulterated mindless BS. You have left a record of your intellectual perversion for everyone to see. Nothing I could say would demonstrate your intellectual corruption more than your own words, so continue to slander yourself ad infinitum, right in front of all to see, sir intellectual cretin.
honestann 2 years ago
honestann is suffering a full-scale Glenn Beck style breakdown. honestann has spent all of this time puffing up his credentials (I'm a scientist!) while slandering all scientists (Scientists lie for money!).
honestann demonstrates that conservative intellectually is dead and all that is left now is the paranoid conspiracy theories of an extremist politically irrelevant secessionist minority.
Conservatives abandoned the real world a long time ago.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Hahaha! You're so funny, because you get almost everything totally backwards! You're an utter moron, proven positive by your messages.
Yes, what passes for conservatism today most certainly is intellectual insanity and corruption. Also, what passes for liberalism today is equally insane. Both groups abandoned the real world long ago, and both groups are PREDATORS, fighting with each other over the power to be totalitarian dictators of all mankind --- the global warming liars most of all.
honestann 2 years ago
honestann ... you continue to slander scientists and make baseless accusations against climatologists.
I'm going to have to assume that you are a Glenn Beck scale consiracy nut.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that your primary mental process is to invent, then assume notions that have zero basis in reality, but merely spew forth from your Mao/Aloph/Stalin playbooks. Good grief, you've labeled me a conservative (false), fan of Inhof (false), fan of GlennBeck (false), non-scientist (false), not concerned about environment (false)... ad infinitum. Clearly you can deal with evidence, or you would have presented evidence my original 3 statements are false.
honestann 2 years ago
All Mathew can do is attack, he can't defend anything. It's part of his play book to call you a 'Beck Fan', in his mind this makes you a stupid neanderthal. This makes him feel superior, all the while he hasn't offered any constructive arguments only name calling and 'Get and education'. He (Mathew) has no argument, only speculations of another who doesn't agree with his opinion/beliefs. If you don't agree with him, then you're a racist bible thumping gay bashing republican. Prejudice party of 1
shaokem 2 years ago
shaokem is upset because I've pretty much identified exactly who he is and what he represents.
To engage in a scientific argument with a conservative is an exercise in futility. Conservatives are anti-science, anti-knowledge and anti-education.
Who will rescue these conservatives from their dogmatic ignorance?
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You can't engage in scientific argument, you haven't at all. And I highly doubt you can. Let me get this straight... so in your liberal mind I'm a conservative solely because my ideas and thoughts don't jive with your own? So anyone different from you is stupid and conservative. There is a word for this, it's called prejudice. Thought you libs were against prejudice, Oh that's right... it's OK if you (libs) do it. Typical of an elitist like yourself. HAHA!
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem's status as a conservative is verified easily enough by his own words. It is not prejudice to note that you are an anti-science conservative conspiracy theorist inspired by the lowest common denominator idiots in the conservative movement.
Get an education and get back to me once you know what it is that you are talking about.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
You've shown no proof of your education, only rhetoric and name calling, assumptions and prejudice. You're a joke Mathew.
shaokem 2 years ago
I'm starting to think you're a joke. Perhaps someone part of who posted this video on youtube. Because you're so stereotypical when it comes to being a liberal. You're following the mantra way to plainly. You never discuss the science, you only attack the man and you repeat this again and again. This is why I think you're a joke.
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem demands a scientific discussion when you has outright rejected science ... this really is a sad comment on conservativism and the ulimate joke.
Conservatives won't even begin to listen to science. But you'll believe an oil shill on youtube.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I dont know who is in this video, never heard of him before. I came to this video in search of debate on the subject of Climate change or this whole climate gate situation. I saw your comments and couldn't resist making a small joke. Which you took much too personally and attacked me for it. It's plain to see how prejudice you are.
shaokem 2 years ago
When you say "climate gate" you reveal yourself as a Foxbot dittohead Glenn Beck nutter.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
I'm only looking for information on the 'climate gate' term other than fox news.
shaokem 2 years ago
"Climate Gate" is a Fox News - Pollution Shill Industry term meant to confuse the ignorant and uneducated into doubting and denying the conclusions of science to their own harm.
Stop being a dittohead and educate yourself.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Mathew, this is why I've looked into it using other avenues that FOX. I'm well aware that Fox is biased, and MSNBC is biased. And CNN can't figure out what they are. Cable news is nothing more than a late night soap opera. ClimateGate is a isolated incident which did happen. How will it play I don't know. I'm only looking for factual information on who found it, who wrote it. If it was planted, of if it is a real concern. If anything you're only aiding that it is real with your attacks and BS.
shaokem 2 years ago
Stolen e-mails from a decade ago don't amount to a conspiracy except on the part of those criminals who stole the e-mails and the pollution shills who are spreading slanderous lies in order to defeat any progress on climate change negotiations.
But if conservatives want to engage in e-mail stealing perhaps the e-mails of conservative organizations might suffer the same fate. I'd love to read Exxon's e-mails to denalist organizations.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
See we're having debate without the name calling and BS!!! This is good! I like it. I'd have to agree I'd love to get all the info on the table!
shaokem 2 years ago
Hey Mathew... I'm curious as to your opinion on Nuclear Power plants. And their effectiveness in creating a real domestic energy source to free us from obligations overseas, and create jobs here in America.
shaokem 2 years ago
Nuclear power plants aren't the answer ... you might as well stop deluding yourself otherwise.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Oh... is that so. So that's your opinion. And how did you come up with this opinion? Why is nuclear not the answer? Or even part of the answer. I was only trying to start a debate on the subject with you in a civil way, and once again you stick to your mantra, calling me deluded. For what reason am I delusional for thinking nuclear power is a great alternative. Nuclear power and domestic energy sources are the answer.
shaokem 2 years ago
Nuclear Power is a non-starter. It isn't going to happen under any circumstance. So if that's your answer you just plain out of luck.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Nuclear power is a non-starter? So basically powering our nation has become political too? And us that support Nuclear Power are left without a voice, because it's either Coal Power (conservative) or Solar Panels (liberal)? That's pretty stupid. I'm for it all, Coal/Nuclear/Wind/Sun/Water/Gas.
shaokem 2 years ago
Nuclear power isn't going to happen so you might as well stop wishing.
Solar panels are a good idea but they aren't going to scale up to supply civilization with power.
Coal is a good answer for anyone who prefers extinction to survival.
Hydroelectric is tapped out already.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel subject to depletion, to lean upon it is to lean upon a bent reed.
Our civilization isn't going to survive. That much is certain.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Mathew, here is another video about Climate Gate and it's not from Fox News. It's actually from Russia-Today. /watch?v=-_bFthzGQ0Q&feature=rec-HM-r2 Tell me is Russia-Today part of a huge conspiracy against Energy reform that Fox is also apart of?
shaokem 2 years ago
honestann ... it is your own words which you identify you as all of these things (and none of them complimentary).
If you were a scientist you'd need to at least be intelligent and you aren't even that ...
I really don't know what you are or what you represent but whatever it is ... it is not a scientist.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Well shaokem, we have allowed dmathew1024 to utterly destroy his own veracity and prove his utter intellectual corruption.
I too suspect he might be taking his positions just to make trouble because he has no life whatsoever. Unfortunately, I have run into people who appear to actually be as insane, self-deluded and psychopathic as he is... sooo, maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he might be as insane, corrupt and religious (faith-driven) as he appears to be.
honestann 2 years ago
honestann isn't a scientist and yet he pretends to be a psychologist.
Needless to say, honestann, you stand with the lunatics who claim that there is a conspiracy involving all of the world's scientists trying to take away your SUV and polluting lifestyle.
Glenn Beck and Oxycontin Rush agree with you ...
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Hey honestann, I agree dmathew1024 is a bit off his rocker. He has offered not a single bit of constructive factual information. I've read every comment he's posted, and each of them is exactly the same as the last. His mantra is 'Never discuss the science, attack the man, repeat the mantra'. And when he is confronted on this he only repeats the mantra, attacks the man and doesn't discuss the science.
shaokem 2 years ago
Or, perhaps he is a junior high school student and this kind of intellectual chaos and corruption is what they teach in government controlled education these days. His "no facts, no logic, no evidence, blatant-assertion and endless slander-babble" approach is rather infantile. But it is also very much the pattern of fascist-commie-totalitarian dictators throughout history, so he could be either - or just totally insane. Either that or an FBI, NSA or UN plant who gets paid by the word. :-)
honestann 2 years ago
Hello honestann,
That's so sad that you are fully immersed in Glenn Beck style breakdown. Reality is harsh for conservatives ... must be a conspiracy.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
dmathew1024: Reading this thread is an amazing education in how completely clueless some humans (you) can be.
honestann is clear, coherent, sensible, reasonable, rational, logical, honest and scientific. Your replies are incoherent assaults that ignore facts, logic, reason and the posts you are responding to. honestann clearly disagrees with everything he stands for except one position he holds (for the wrong reasons), yet you try to pretend she supports him and creationism. Get a life.
maxgpgpu 2 years ago 2
Considering that the audience for this YouTube clip is the uneducated, scientifcally illiterate, and otherwise ignorant know-nothings ... your praise for the slanderer and liar makes a whole lot of sense.
There's a reason why the climatologists are scientists and you are not.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Every scientist on earth believes in global warming, global cooling and global climate change. The simple observation that the average temperatures last year do not equal the year before is sufficient evidence of this for any honest human.
And #everyone# agrees that temperatures have been substantially warmer and cooler in previous centuries.
But the #majority# of scientists with degrees in climatology do NOT believe human-caused CO2 is substantial or will harm the ecosphere. Get real.
maxgpgpu 2 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maxgpgpu illustrates again the tremendous amount of scientific illiteracy among the conservative teabagger crowd. Look. you people represent the lunatic fringe, the creationists, the flat earthers, the pollution advocates.
It is perhaps a bit much to expect that you would honestly represent the conclusions of science. When your side is losing you cannot help but lie all the time, right?
If you want to see similar disinformation from the anti-science crowd, consumt the creationists.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
@maxgpgpu only a sith lord speaks in absolutes... #everyone#
virgojeep1 1 year ago
@virgojeep1
lmao I knew someone would make that analogy sooner or later !!
CokeSupply 1 year ago
If we're at fault of Global Warming, and our weapon is CO2. Then just stop breathing! Problem solved!
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem's comment the abhorrent amount of scientiific illiteracy present among the anti-science teabagger brigade.
Given this level of ignorance and stupidity, I'm amazed that shaokem remembers to breathe.
With conservatives parading their ignorance for the whole world to see it is easy to understand why the Republican party has become a politically irrelevent extremist minority.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
It was a joke. But feel free to call names and lump everyone who disagrees with you into a pile. 'Elitist, party of one.' Get up, get get get down GHG is a joke in your town. HAHA! Sorry Mathew, but I'm not buying the propaganda. It has nothing to do with republicans. As I don't honestly see many these days. Therefore I'm not sure what party I'm apart of, but I do like parties!!!
There is only one problem heat produces more CO2, not the other way around.
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem, I'm certain that you are buying into any form of science whatsoever.
There's no conservative like an ignorant conservative!
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Were you picked on much when you were a kid? We're all suggesting the science being viewed as correct isn't correct. All you can do is start name calling and bashing someone else's opinion or belief. You're following the mantra to the T 'Never discuss the Science - Attack the Man - Repeat the mantra'.
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem doesn't discuss science and the rest of you confuse your own ignorance and lack of education for skepticism.
If you wanted to discuss science you'd need to actually know science. The Foxbots don't spend any time learning but they spend all of their time talking and slandering scientists and imagining conspiries where none exist.
Until you people gain a rudimentary knowledge of science you should avoid making fools of yourself by talking without knowing anything.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Seems all you do is attack the man and never discuss the science. Here is a bit of science for you. The rise of temp causes the rise of CO2, not the other way around. As Gore would have you believe the rise of CO2 causes the rise of temp. That one flaw is enough to discount anything you have to say. Yes in our daily lives we release more CO2 than cow farts. We drive cars, hear our homes and charge our cell phones each night. (continued...)
shaokem 2 years ago
(cont'...) I believe we need to move forward and find new alternative fuels. The problem is HR2454 wants to punish us towards this goal. When the technology doesn't at the moment to allow for a quick change. This will take decades or longer to change from petroleum and coal to alternative methods. Yet the energy bill (cap and trade) wants tax carbon as long as it takes. (continues...)
shaokem 2 years ago
You seem to confuse cause with effect, shaokem, when you claim that the rise in temperature causes carbon dioxide rise.
Perhaps you need to take a college class on physics and greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide's role as a greenhouse gas is well known and objectively verified.
This is not a matter of scientific speculation. Please do educate yourself.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Yeah the cause is our sun. A simple study would be to subject a carcass to a low temp of 70-80degrees. Take a measurement of gases being released from the decaying carcass. Then raise the temp. This would cause the decay of the carcass to accelerate, releasing more CO2. That's simple science. The rise in temp causes accelerated release of CO2 from most all organic material.
shaokem 2 years ago
Shaokem ... I take it for granted that you are scientifically illiterate and this is the reason why your CO2 argument sounds like so much nonsense.
Next ....
dmathew1024 2 years ago