@akdraw3 [...] The most famous "cooling" paper was "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Rasool / Schneider, 1971) which predicted a cooling DESPITE CO2 emissions, based on the presumption that the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere will steadily grow, which finally did not happen.
Don't believe the "self-proclaimed géophysicien", download and read it yourself:
"THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS", Peterson, 2008
@akdraw3 "In the late 1970's scientist were touting "The Coming Global Ice Age" was imminent."--
That was merely a media hype, caused by articles in Newsweek and Time, and never supported by a significant number of climate scientists. Between 1965 and 1979, merely 7 peer-reviewed papers predicted a global cooling due to aerosols (air pollution), not a single one predicted a 'coming Ice Age'. During the same time, already 42 publications predicted a global warming due to CO2 emissions. [...]
@akdraw3 "from a self-proclaimed "Géophysicien""--
I never mentioned that in a discussion, I never claimed that the facts and arguments I use in my comments are my personal expertise and I never wanted someone simply to accept or believe what I say. Every argument I present comes from scientific papers or science organisations, and I usually give proper references. I don't care if you believe the information at the description of my channel, and I never wanted you or someone else to believe me.
Monckton was not a science advisor, he was a minor political advisor. He's been exposed as a liar and a fraud over and again. He's not a scientist, he's never published scientific papers (yet claims he has). He's not an expert (yet he claims he is) He's not even a member of the House of Lords (yet he claims he is by using the Portcullis emblem, and in other ways). He's a liar and his arguments are misleading, invalid and weak. Liar, liar- pants on fire!
Who cares about Al Gore? He has got a lot of things wrong on GW, and he's no expert. That shouldn't take away from the 98% of scientists who say that GW is happening. This clown does not have a science degree (he studied journalism).
He seems well qualified with a DSc technique (Denegration of Scientists - with relevant quals & experience)..belittles their hard work without much scientific backing ...not sure he even has a BSc. A Lord title does not entitle you to a BSc or equate to relevant quals! As predicted more storms coming - one has to wonder about the recent hurricane in East USA. MEDIEVAL WARM period proven to be not global - recent global warming greater than that period.
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste, it is completely safe, NO Fukushima here.
If you care about the cost of your energy you will want this: "..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" see blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post
website "Star Scientific Limited"
youtube blog "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
@MaluronLurette Obvious lies? Prove it. Bring science to the table. Do not refer me to a link. Show me contradictions in his data. Disprove his mathematical calculations on the IGPCC figures. Bring me science and not an attack a messenger. Science is about examination and logic; not claims nor attack. Wanting proof is not naiveté and nor is denialism. Take away your religious style language or persuasion and bring me science.
Hello and thankyou for your comment. I became aware some time ago that Mr Monkton wasn't Thatcher's science advisor. The description was a mere copy and paste from another person whom I aquired the video from. From memory, at the time of uploading I don't think I was aware of what capacity he served under Thatcher, but thankyou for pointing it out none the less.
As for the rest of your comment, you are welcome to beleive whatever you wish.
Oh great, a voice of "reason" on the subject of global warming and anti-atheism has to pop into it. Seriously, is whining about the Big Bad Atheist Conspiracy (TM) going to be entering the ice cream industry's marketing reports soon? What a dick.
@Internetwanker i have no idea what you are talking about. i mean, i understand the words and sentences but have no idea why you are writing them or why you are writing them to me. and i have no idea what you believe. you're crackers. good luck.
@Internetwanker i don't see any argument from you. it's drivel. and worse still you've spent time giving yourself thumbs-up. it's a little sad. i'm no troll - many months ago i posted on here that monckton is a fool, and this has been shown to be true time and again. if you are arguing (and it's not really clear) that the scientists are all in on some paid conspiracy to back global warming then find some evidence. or at least say something that's worth arguing against.
@Internetwanker "enough motifs like always nothing new". was this post translated out of a foreign language? they are two of the more pointless posts i've had the pleasure to read on youtube - and that's really saying something. but i get the feeling it's probably a good thing you get all your rants out here rather than standing on a street corner with a placard. nice job giving yourself all those "thumbs-ups" too. disturbing.
The only reason they want to control carbon-dioxide is so they [whoever they are] can control the life cycle of every living being on earth; Humans, made up of about 75% carbon, we exhale carbon dioxide. Animals, like humans made of a lot of carbon, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, pretty sure they're made of a bunch of carbon too, they inhale carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Besides carbon dioxide is such a minor greehouse gas that it's effects on climate are neglegible at best.
The only place where global warming is going on is the planet Venus which has what is called a run-away green house effect. Most of the atmosphere on Venus is Carbon dioxide.
By contrast, most of the Earth's atmopshere is Nitrogen, then Oxygen, then water vapor. The total amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is negligibly small.
The primary green house gas on the Earth is water vapor.
"Science Advisor to Margret Thatcher" is bit of a stretch. He's a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. He worked for Margret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit as a political advisor. He was recruited as a domestic specialist with responsibilities for housing and parliamentary affairs, working alongside Mount and Peter Shipley on projects such as the phasing out of council housing. Never once was he a 'science advisor' and he doesn't even have a science background.
Lord Monckton is a climate expert? On which university has he studied Climate? The University of Big Oil Paycheck?
Every journalist who says "do your own research" is not a real journalist! Because thats what jounalists are for, to do the research for you and tell you, what they found out!
@TengoInfo Enron (oil company) was one of the first to create a carbon trading scheme. Can't you see that man made global warming theory is just a big scam to transfer wealth and power to a select few individuals and companies??
No, because its simply not! Carbon trade is just an economic based solution to deal with the CO2 problem. It aim is to give something a price so anyone has a goal to reduce the CO2 polution. And believe, CO2 trade is something big oil does not want. For example, Lord Monckton gets paid by "americans for prosperity", which is funded by Koch Industries, one of the largest cooperation in the Oil business.
@partyhouse88 Yes, and the problem concerning how information is packaged and delivered to the consumer is also largely steered by the intelligence network keeping a lid on 'sensitive' information i.e. sensitive to the cause of globalists. So, its a done deal by the time the public listen to and read 'the news'; it is news/PR that has already been sanitised before it reaches the desk of hack journalists. So, none of us can be sure how much is info and how much disinfo and how much misinfo.
I dont see anything wrong with refusing a debate with someone you think is a moron. I mean, you wouldnt say 'yes, id debate bill oriely', because he is loud and stupid.
@Tradd9 yeah but Gore will not debate anyone, ever, under any circumstances! He does not take anything save for prepared/prescreened questions, and he will not even reply to anyone who questions the underpinning science of his "global warming/cooling/climate change" theory. thats not because he thinks critics are "morons", rather it is because he is terrified that his very, very, very profitable (now in excess of $500 million) lie will be exposed for the fraud that it (and he) is!
@thelawguy666 Partially agree. Global warming is not a lie. Climate scientists dont sit round a circular table in an undergound bunker and discuss how they can pull the wool over the eyes of the world. Thats just rediculous. What possible purpose could that serve to the scientists?
Gore refuses to debate because he is not an expert on climate change. He is just a popularizer. He hasnt said anything that scientists havent known for decades. But people dont listent when scientists speak.
@Tradd9 partial agree and partial disagree.. many scientists share the profits from the global warming/cooling/climate change situation. grants for studies, programs, research are up for grabs and give scientists a strong incentive to, not lie, but continue the "threat" posed by the supposed looming disaster.
Gore is a poor spokesman not only due to his poor oratory skills but also the hypocrisy by which he lives his life. A good spokesman practices what he preaches.
Shut up America! Go back to sleep! But not until you drink 8 glasses of water. Get your damned vaccinations! Now!! Here! Watch American Idol, and eat potato Chips! Just remember, we are your Gods........ I mean your Gov't. We are here to help. We couldn't possibly do anything to hurt you.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Interesting. I wouldn't call Monckton an expert though. This guy claimed he won a Nobel Peace prize and then when confronted with it said "It was just a joke."
“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable – human-induced CO2 – is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”
Calm rational people are indeed those best suited for debate, those who don't write back scathing replies which include the terms "prawn-faced".
No, I'd suggest looking up the gaurdian dot "co" dot "uk" and typing in their search bar "Monckton's climate denial is a gift to those who take the science seriously" and reading that article.
This man has no respect for those he would be "debating", therefore I can not respect him in any way. He is irrational.
@eldrak21 i'm not sure where people get the arrogance to look at the evidence and then conclude differently to the trained specialists in the field. monckton stands there sounding like he knows things. have you looked at his actual calculations? why are they better than the experts? because he says they are? he doesn't even give you the details let alone a paper. moreover, have you read the emails? the whole emails? i watched yours, so for fairness:
"i'm just a journalist" he says. correct. "what you will hear is someone who is an expert". incorrect. monckton is nothing of the sort. "do your own homework!" what? get a four year degree and a phd and a data set and analyse it over a year or two? nah.. much easier to listen to this dill bang on about what a groundbreaker he is. any hard text? who needs any of that - he sounds sciency.
I became even more entrenched in my belief that human intervention in global warming is a myth when I learned about climate gate. As I said in my video, it is really appalling. The Earth is on natural cycles....
absolutely laughable. this goon has no expertise.. why believe this man? the only reason can be because he says what you want to hear. he's a classics major and not a member of the house of lords. a liar with a huge ego who has no training in climate science - but why not spend an hour listening to his supercilious drivel so you can claim this clown is on your side. the person he attempts to get credibility from, margaret thatcher, believed strongly in gw and recommended change.
Hello and thankyou for commenting. Have you had a look at the 'evidence' yourself regarding AGW? Have you also read through the emails/documents about the ClimateGate scandal?
Re. your comment 'why believe this man?' please see.. watch?v=ZaYX6KoAIw0
It is very interesting and he also remarks to be as skeptical about his version of events as that of others. He tells you to do your OWN homework not just believe someone, but please watch and decide 4 yourself. Also read ClimateGate!
@eldrak21 did you ever watch the link i sent? what have been the results of your investigations into whether monckton's calculations are correct - or even what they are? how many of the thousands of scientific journals have you read while doing your own homework? having an open mind doesn't mean believing in an outcome and then finding conspiracy nut (alex jones) or bonehead like this bloke who supports it. being in the minority doesn't mean you are right or that you are fighting the good fight.
@batteries76 Hi, I started watching it but had to give up due to time, I shall finish when I get the chance. Regarding climategate emails, I have just finished reading a long analysis of it, when I get the chance I shall match up all the emails to this analysis to check for accuracy. As for your 'believing in an outcome' comment, I have never said Monckton is right or wrong, merely pointing you in that direction to look/listen to the info yourself.
@batteries76 One of the reasons why I pointed you towards the other video was because I found your post to be quite 'attacking' without any real information provided. It is not my intention to argue/offend and so forth with people, I have no desire to do so, it is pointless! You pointed out that I am believing this man because he tells me something I want to hear... having not looked at any of the real information yourself and going by what a video suggests, are you not doing the same?
@batteries76 I am a firm believer in the following.. 'peoples minds are made up based upon the information they receive, because of this our minds should be open to new ideas and information'. It is for this reason and more that I try to keep an open mind about things, many times I have had my belief structure shattered by new information, different perspectives and epiphanies. If you wish to share info/ideas then please do so in a curteous manner, I think it will help attract more people :)
@eldrak21 i'm a big believer in being open to new ideas but i disagree that that is how most people's minds are made up - too often people will have a visceral reaction and choose an outcome before they know the facts. also there is simply too much information out there for people to sift through and that's why someone must look at the source of the information. your channel is clogged with monckton and jones - people with no relevant credentials and who show almost none of their workings.
@eldrak21 in the end people can do so much better than watch an interview by michael coren. there are the thousands of scientific journals that have the information - the problem for some people is they don't like what they say so seek an untrained egomaniac like monckton or a conspiracy nut like jones and then believe them. then these people will claim that those who believe the scientists (often here "the elites") are fools. unlike scientists, these people are not fact checked at all.
@eldrak21 i DO want to argue this. these things are important. people's minds do change depending on the information even if it is harder to get through to some. and the end result is a political one - it's the unfortunate nature of the beast. i appreciate you trying to watch that link, and it will be there for you whenever you feel like it. the bloke who made it also does a good job with other areas of this issue. again, up to you. ultimately, these alternative perspectives require some facts.
heres my argument. If we are to tax the air we breath which used to be a joke years ago about all taxing authorities, then i say dam the earth to hell before i ever pay a freaking carbon tax. Because all this global warming bull is leading us all to, world air tax period nothing else.
@altops it's not a tax on air - it's a tax on people who burn things and produce carbon dioxide. and because you don't want to pay a carbon tax doesn't mean that global warming is not real. i don't particularly want a carbon tax either but i want to world to warm even less. take your pick. (and it seems you have, with that wonderfully ludicrous american thing of freaking out over paying any tax. and given your homepage i expect to hear all about guns and freedom too.)
This tax on the atmosphere is reminiscent of the movie "Total Recall" where the president of Mars was taxing the population into the grave. We simply can't allow those in control to step one foot down this path!
@CokeSupply again, it's not a "tax on the atmosphere" as much as a fine imposed on a company for polluting a stream is not a fine on a stream. the tax would simply represent the true cost of the carbon - one that isn't able to be provided only by market forces. and i'm sure if you have severe trouble paying your bills then you may even be given money to help you out (from said tax - although i'm guessing this might freak you out). you might need a stronger set of ideas than "total recall".
@batteries76 Why tax people for producing carbon dioxide? Mankind has changed the atmosphere by one thousandth of one percent in the last 100 years, and methane is over 20 times more effective as a "greenhouse gas". Water, much more so. Why is water and methane hardly ever considered as contributing factors? That's right - because water is the source of all life and they can't tax that, and taxing methane is a tax on farting. So they choose carbon dioxide... plant food. You couldn't make it up!
@CokeSupply they choose it because it contributes to global warming and because we would prefer the earth not to warm. methane will also be an issue, but that does not mean the co2 isn't. your calculations as to how much the earth has been changed by man are incorrect and i doubt can be backed up. water contributes to the greenhouse effect but we do not add it to the atmosphere - its concentration increases relative to temperature. these are the answers, take them or leave them.
@batteries76 Mankind outputs 3 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.035 percent. Water is the primary motivator of global temperature. A doubling of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature by less than one degree, and it would take a hell of a lot of infrastructure to output double of what we are outputting right now.
@CokeSupply the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is largely irrelevant (oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases). in terms of the yearly co2 cycle, yes, we produce only around 3%, however, the other producing mechanisms (the ocean etc) is countered by the absorption (again, ocean, trees). we add on top of that and build on that yearly. look at a graph. in terms of the last 100,000+ years we have added 30% to the baseline. and that is being generous. do you disagree with any of this?
@CokeSupply you've been told that co2 is plant food and so you think that they will just eat as much co2 as we produce. but it's not that simple. besides, along with producing co2 we have cleared trees. there simply isn't the capacity in the natural world for the absorption of the co2 that we produce and it's clear from the measurements. it's not about a type of carbon - you are right, trees don't care - but it's about the total and the capacity for absorption. we have raised the co2 level.
@CokeSupply i completely agree with planting more trees, but we also need to cut down on emissions. but what is this strong aversion to tax? of course too much tax is no good, but tax is also the cost of living in a society. you get good health care for it and so on (in the uk). besides, it's not a tax on every adult - it will affect companies and that will be passed on to some degree, but that's why the form of the tax and the legislation is important. why so stressed over this particular tax?
@batteries76 "you've been told that co2 is plant food and so you think..." How sure are you that I was thinking what you said I was thinking? Could you put it into a percentage figure for me? (I'm curious)
@CokeSupply the carbon tax will be spent on whatever the government you voted for say that it will be. it could mean lowering income taxes. it could be hospitals. it's just money like other money, but in this case the tax is designed to create a change in behaviour as the market is not able to properly address the issues of carbon pollution. i don't see it as sinister. if the government spends that money poorly, then vote in a new government.
@CokeSupply re: co2 and plant food, i'm only going off what you have said. it's a clumsy phrase, that "co2 is plant food" and seeks to make it look silly that we'd want to take co2 out of the atmosphere. i don't know if that's the argument that you were making - i was generalising from arguments i've had about this in the past. there are three issues here: is it warming or not? are we causing it or not? and what sort of steps can be taken if the first two answers are (as i believe) "yes".
A BIG 'thankyou' to you for uploading this ! What a refreshing change to hear TWO intelligent men discussing the reality bechind what is clearly one of the biggest frauds in history - and one which will lead to the untold suffering of millions if not exposed.
Don't t worry too much about goons like 'Batteries 76': they're the price you pay for using Youtube.
Most haven't even HEARD of Dick Lindzen (et al) - which undermines THEIR authority somewhat !
@batteries76 Magaret Thatcher pushed Global Warming because she wanted to move England from Coal to Nuclear. It was never because of her deep concern for the warming of the planet.
@batteries76 And yet he has never lost a debate on this issue including at the famed Oxford Union in which he demonstated obvious knowledge, skill and aptitude (ie expert). What about the renowned Richard Lindsen of MIT he references. Lindsen very calmly dismantles the apthropological global warming agruement and befudled the arrogant Bill Nye on live TV. The only scientists that have been caught fudging data have been the ones pushing the alarmists agenda. 30000>scientists on record oppose AGW.
@bcbobbie my faith in the knowledge base of someone who can't spell "lindzen" is not great. i'm going to take a wild stab and guess that, as with all deniers who i've tangled with who love monckton, you are a free-market and "liberty" maniac who has an ideology that never changes to meet the facts. but seeing as you are pretending to be informed, perhaps you can answer these simple questions: 1. does lindzen say the earth is warming or cooling? 2. does lindzen say humans have caused warming?
@batteries76 You have no idea what you are talking about. You could not be more wrong. Climategate proved they were making up all there numbers. Don't supposed you actually did any research yourself.. oh no you just watched mainstream news like a sheeple..
@trevorwozny go on then, show me where the evidence from "climategate" is that proved they were making up the numbers. i love smug fools like you who like to whine about the mainstream media and doing your own research. does that research involve looking up clips of monckton? have you ever looked into the research he says he's done? have you looked into climategate beyond the rubbish spouted in by the conspiracy nuts? whenever you are ready, bring forth the evidence. i don't hold out much hope.
@trevorwozny silence is golden. i love these claims doing of your own independent research and banal use of the word "sheeple" (usually a sign of a conspiracy nut). almost always it comes as a shock to the person suggesting these things that their foundations are so poor and that they don't know what they are talking about - that perhaps listening to alex jones or whoever wasn't the most reliable "research" they could have done. any time you are ready..
@PissedFechtmeister - Because, as he specifically sates, he lumps all people he considers against him in the "left" and then thumbs his nose at them by not even having the consideration to concede the possibility that not all of those people may agree with each other. He doesn't care, because we wants to clone the monkey. (Cloning the monkey is believing privately that other people think EXACTLY as "You" do.)
My personal opinion, is that it is also, because he is an ignorant, and rude, fool.
The opening line of this video is just plain stupid. "Don´t believe everything you here. Do research yourself and then make up your own conclusion." Wow. That's a load of BS. So people who have devoted their lives to research and are expert on a field are not an athority? Im glad that an opinion of a scientist still counts for more than that of a layman...
@anderso84 Funny because there are scientists who don't agree. Consensus is a load used to silence debate. It is actually a good thing he told you to do the research yourself. He was basically saying "Ok you may not believe me, but at least look into the facts yourself." but you are too lazy and ignorant to do that. Instead you want to be spoon fed political science. Scientists say things all the time that other scientists disagree with. Stop treating them like some holy priesthood of truth.
It's totally amazing that people still believe the gloabl warming nonsense.
After Toto pulled away the curtain even the scarecrow didn't say,
"Hey, where's the wizard?...the Wizard is still real and you better beieve it. I have scientific proof from the horse of a diffrent colour and 2400 flying monkeys!"
Well, iovandrake: if you blindly dogmatically believe your economic-capitalism religion, your unscientific global-cooling theories, & madeup stories about jesus & buddha & the Roman god Zeus, then you had damned well better accept & listen to my theories that terrorism does not exist, because it doesn't. It's just a plot by gov'ts to take away freedom when freedom fighter fight back against big corporations & fascist dictatorships & theocracies.
@duck24x I have been reading your other posts! We do want Global Warming so u are forced to turn on your air conditioner and use more fossil fueled energy! I was okay with you knowing that, but now u reveal your knowledge of the New World Order, the staging of 911!
I have made the call, we are coming for you, don't try to run, you will only make it worse for yourself! If you don't believe me, then how would I know you are typing from your Mother's basement! :-)
@duck24x We are coming to get you late tonight, you should protect your Mother and have her stay at friends house, or we will for to make her disappear too! :-)
@aurex73 You want to fight a truly dangerous myth? Stop the myth that most animal testing and experimentation in any way helps humans. This Holocaust in government & company labs is responsible for the torture & murder of millions of innocent animals every year, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Total waste. THAT'S a dangerous myth. NOT GW.
I'm a Global Warming skeptic...but I'm also an Atheist. I'm skeptical about these subjects because they are hypotheses (although 'God' can barely be called a 'hypothesis' because it is an untestable postulation) without predictive models to elevate them to theory. You're not doing any favors to your reputation as a skeptic when you throw out that you believe in Deities, Lord Monckton.
@jcantlie About as much difference as believing that life put itself together over millions of years or that the universe exploded from a singularity of unknown origin. Neither can be tested and therefore are beliefs based on interpretations of data. Both also happen to have quite a number of problems wrong with them. Yet they seem to be accepted beliefs by a large number of scientists. Yes atheistic positions are so intelligent with their lack of belief, even though they are based on belief.
@iovandrake Evolution is a fact supported by insurmountable heaps of data across many disciplines of science....besides which - there is no competing theory or hypothesis - though I would be pleased to see one. To compare belief in a theory with mounds of incontrovertible evidence to belief in the self-contradictory rantings of an ancient text is simply absurd. Its like saying that belief in fairies is as valid as belief in chemistry.
@jcantlie Evolution is not a fact regardless of the fact you and others try to present it as such. Your claiming it is supported by mounds of insurmountable evidence means either you are ignorant of it or biased beyond belief. However you will notice I didn't argue the evidence with you. I pointed out you are taking it on faith handed down by other human beings that the theory of macro evolution is correct.
@iovandrake Oh my FUCKING GOD, you are a FUCKNUT RELIGION SHITHEAD! LOL! This PROVES that all evolution-deniers are GW-deniers & vice versa! There is infinitely more proof that Bush & Cheney caused 911 and should be tried & executed for murder & terrorism than your wackjob economic theories, (un)intelligent design, everything-is-ok-with-the-climate, & some magical "god" thing exists!
@duck24x Who appears to be the bigger wacko you or me? Well of course you but that was your goal. Your thinly veiled trolling is boring and way too common. You just look like a complete poser. No one can espouse the things you do and be intelligent enough to operate a computer. No one as against capitalism as you would be using personal computers and feeding the capitalistic machine by patronizing websites who make money through such visits. You are a troll and a failtastic one at that.
@iovandrake You are just a kook who never learned to read a book or study history. You have no idea what hard work is all about. The only reason YOU have computers & things AND have the money to pay for them is because unions & socialists fought for you to have any money left to pay for hem & the WORKERS who built the computers, not the CEOs & corporate-welfarists. NAMBLA is 100X more respectable than you.
@duck24x You fail at trolling like I said. I will humor your ignorance though. Profit is the mother of technology. Gain. When there is no gain there is no progress. Is there excess? Yes. However no matter how you try and alter it the fact remains that the computer you use was made possible by capitalism. The fact that you privately own it instead of just governments is from capitalism. Your using it feeds capitalism.
@duck24x Let's use Soviet Russia for an example. Their private sector technology lagged far behind. Most of their private technologies that citizens could own were knock-offs of western made devices developed in the capitalist society. Why were these devices developed in the first place? To make profit. A motivation Soviet Russia lacked. Freedom of information as well as freedom of will (enforced partly by money) are void in a socialist model. The state controls and you follow. That's crap.
@jcantlie Belief in fairies isn't the same as the belief in chemistry. That is another telling sign of your ignorance. Chemistry is a field of study. That's another error brought about by hubris that your belief is more intelligent than other beliefs. That other beliefs are anti-science which you assert with ridiculous claims like comparing it to belief in chemistry. I believe in chemistry but I may not believe in a particular theory put forth by a chemist.
@jcantlie Also isn't it ironic that you can't believe in religious texts (of whatever origin) because of the claim of being originated from man (in most cases that's true) yet you feel it perfectly intelligent and noble to believe in the theories put forth by other men who happen to hold degrees bestowed by other men teaching from universities and colleges founded by other men. Theories that are altered, "improved", or replaced every 10-20 years. That's a lot of faith.
@iovandrake I have never (nor do I need to) make a claim of 'dismissal by human origin' to see that some written works are more valid than others. Our methods of inspecting and analyzing our world have vastly improved over the last 4000 years. We no longer consider 'a burning bush told me' to be a credible argument.
@jcantlie Nice bit of ridicule there. As I expected you are incapable of intellectual honesty. How sad. For if you did have some intellectual honest you might realize the ridiculous stance of believing in unproven theories that are changed over time, often invalidated by future scientific discovery (or altered to fit them), and which start from the outset excluding one possible medium (super-natural) and only accepting another (natural). Regardless of scientific ability to investigate the former
@jcantlie Lastly before you bombard me with your great "intelligent" atheistic arguments, positions, or claims just don't. I have heard them all and I don't care to change your mind on atheism. It is just galling the amount of ignorance it takes for someone to slander one group of people as moronic for religious beliefs while believing in something as unprovable yourself. I mean really have some intellectual honesty.
@iovandrake There is very good evidence for the things I believe in. You are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, of course...but if you really put your faith any 'holy' text and followed its dictates to the letter you would be in jail (hopefully)...while I would not for subscribing to Evolution. Thus I have no qualms about claiming superior morality and judgement :)
@jcantlie So we are going down the morale road are we? I figured you might try to stay away from that, but alright then. Why would my being jailed do anything to prove the moral backing of what I believe or don't believe in any way? Are political prisoners in a totalitarian country morally inferior because they were jailed for their political beliefs? Do you not even see the ridiculousness of your assertion? While your moral backbone is dictated by the mood of society and is therefore changeable
@iovandrake I have no dictates to order me against my socially evolved gut feeling that murder is wrong - and the legal system of every country on Earth (save those enslaved by religion) agrees with me. If you follow the Bible - your moral code condones stoning people to death for working on a certain day, and putting disobedient children to the sword. It seems pretty evident which is more socially functional - and thus - superior.
@jcantlie Your right that murder is wrong beyond laws but if evolution were true that would not be so. Murder wouldn't even exist as a concept. You can try and explain it away as social evolution, but that doesn't change the facts. The evolutionary mindset has influenced the deaths of millions of people in the past century. If people and all life are accidents then there is no value to life. That thought has driven those like Hitler and Stalin to kill millions to "better" the human race.
@iovandrake Well...we are getting a little philosophical debating the merits of truth over fantasy...but I would argue that it is Evolution which gives value to life, and God that takes it away. If an afterlife exists, then it is okay to murder when commanded by God. Mortal life only serves as a passage to the afterlife - and we should live in fear and obedience to His will (however absurd or cruel). If there is nothing after death, then we should value what we have and coexist peacefully.
@jcantlie When murder is prohibited then it isn't okay to murder. Evolution does not give value to life. Life is an accident by evolutionary standards and no life holds any more value than another. There being nothing after death makes it peaceful for those who do whatever they want. You could not kill anyone and die or you can kill a million people and die. There would be no difference. That's how nihilism springs from evolutionary thought.
@jcantlie Just look at abortion. Whether you assign value to that life depends on your outlook. Evolutionary viewpoints in countries have led to the killing of "lesser" races and handicapped people. Your claim that a law doesn't keep you from murdering is only applicable where you have that inclination yourself. If more people thought you should be killed for the good of "society" then your person morals are nullified. It has no concrete backing. It is relative and therefor unreliable.
@iovandrake Morals are adaptive, yes. And its a good thing, too - otherwise we'd still be living under the yoke of feudal lords and brutal clergy, as some unfortunate countries so remain. It is the laws of their holy books, from Qu'Ran to Bible to Talmud that gives them right. It is our evolved moral adaptations, now, and through the eons, which has vaulted us from the darkness. It is inquiry over obedience, science over myth that makes us truly Great Apes.
@jcantlie Adaptive morals are unreliable. Look at the examples I gave you far more horrific than anything religion has done. A lot of what you ascribe to religion was done by greedy people with their own motives. Brutal clergy (at least christian) were not following the edicts of their own religion. That is a failing of man not the religion. Feudal lords have nothing to do with religion. As far as science over myth that depends on your outlook.
@iovandrake So - when it comes to the examples you state of human atrocities - its okay because you think those people were Atheists. But when I state examples of similar atrocities by the religious its because they were 'greedy people'. I assure you that they WERE following the edicts of their religions. Adaptive morality has drawn us away from stoning children and the other horrors prescribed by the 'Holy' books of the world. I'd rather an unreliable system than brutal stone-age barbarism.
@jcantlie I didn't say it was because those people were atheists I said the evolutionary view excuses their actions (at least in their minds) because they could define what was good for the species. Morality was in the hands of those in power. It was liquid and changeable. Brutal clergy (at least christian ones) were not following the edicts of their religion. They are not called to stone anyone or force anything on anyone. Read the New Testament if you doubt that.
@jcantlie My main point is your attacks against religions are generalized and spring from your ignorance. Your giving evolution and atheism a free ride simply because you agree with them is dishonest and highlights your ignorance. I don't feel this discussion is going anywhere but in my job I have spare time to check and reply often and I do not fear that I will have an answer. So you can keep this in comments, stop all together, or take it to PMs. I'm ready for more any way you shake it.
@iovandrake So you're going with self-contradiction, then when that becomes transparent you're moving to Ad Hominem attacks, and threats of reporting to PMs? I guess when your side of the debate becomes fragile, screaming and shouting is the last resort of the faithful? Wouldn't it be easier to change your mind and open your eyes to the ever unfolding truths of our Universe, and the glorious history of our ancestors and social development? I'm sorry if all that sounds ignorant to you...
@jcantlie Reporting to PMs? PMs are private messages. Perhaps you should be less sensitive. Ad-hominem attacks? I characterized you as ignorant and dishonest. Ignorant means lack of knowledge. Which you have demonstrated about the topic of religion. You are intellectually dishonest because you refused to evaluate your own possible errors. I didn't insult either your intelligence or your personal character. I made an observation. Please learn the meaning of ad-hominem.
@iovandrake Sorry - I AM ignorant about net lingo...spend too much time reading books. Ad-Hominem: 'is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise'. Ignorance and dishonesty are characteristics. Characteristics, I might add, which you are projecting.If you were educated about Evolution, for example - you would have to be insane to deny it. If you were a learned Theocrat, you would have to be insane to believe.
@jcantlie I was saying you were ignorant about religion, specifically Christianity. I wasn't attempting to persuade based on your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. That was my point. I was speaking to you about your approach to the argument. I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else of the validity of my point vs your's based on your ignorance. Your assertion about evolution is an example of ad-hominem attack ironicly. I am actually quite educated on evolution and its problems.
@iovandrake I was raised a Roman Catholic. I used to be an altar boy and I know much of the Bible by heart. I am familiar with the methods, rituals, tenants, and philosophies of several religions. Your assertion of my ignorance is completely without foundation, and I can hardly laud your repeated restating of it as a debate point. I can, however, assure you that simply by stating your familiarity with Evolution and subsequently dismissing it you are clearly displaying your lack of knowledge.
@jcantlie You mean you were familiar with the views of the Roman Catholic church on the bible. That hardly means you were familiar with the bible in context. My stating my familiarity with evolution and dismissing it has no bearing on my knowledge of it other than my assertion that I am quite familiar with it. Now you can assert that by some magic of your desire that evolution is fact and therefore I am wrong but that doesn't change anything and I find it unexpected you would go down such a path
@jcantlie The reason I bring up PMs is because I am getting slightly fed up with the character limit. It turns reasoned and well written responses (for either party) into chopped up shadows of what they could have been. I have had to strain grammar on occasion just to fit a thought into the ends of more than a few replies.
@iovandrake Supporting Evolution theory: Geology, Fossil Records, Plate Tectonics, Micro and Macro Biology, Sociology, Gene Theory, Carbon Dating (now in a highly accurate flavor!), and various forms of Physics. If there still unanswered questions in the field, they are akin to Astrophysicist not yet having counted all the Stars.
>
Supporting the 'God Did It' sub-hypothesis: A cobbled together series of ancient and self-contradictory scribblings written in a time when people WERE ignorant.
@jcantlie Geology? Irrelevant aside from what you mentioned next. The fossil "record" is an interpretation of past events based on presupposition (that of extremely old ages) which springs from the evolutionary need for old ages to even work. It's circular and unscientific. Macro biology as well is based on presupposition and unproven theory and changes about every 10 years in meaningful ways. Gene "theory"? Do I need to address that? Carbon dating assumes a starting carbon amount, not reliable
@iovandrake So - geology is irrelevant, the fossil record smacks of conspiracy, Biologist are still learning stuff (how dare they), and Carbon Dating assumes we know stuff. Gene "theory" doesn't even need to be addressed, right?
>
But, oh hey! Check out this book! It's the word of God, I'm told...so it must be 100% accurate! Never mind what all the data indicates, then...let's slay the heathens, disobedient children, and gays 'cause invisible sky daddy says to!
@jcantlie Geology is irrelevant to this discussion. That's like pointing our aerodynamics like it being science makes it anti-religion. The fossil record is interpreted based on presupposition. I never said conspiracy and it is dishonest of you to imply I did. Your oversimplification of Carbon Dating is ridiculous. Assuming a constant isn't knowing. Gene "theory" is irrelevant to the discussion. Lastly your mockery just shows how weak your argument is. You build up a strawman argument to fight.
@jcantlie I feel the need to point out now that people are still ignorant. Particularly on this very subject. They make hypothesis and they test the hypothesis, but that is as far as it goes. You take it on faith as do many other scientists who base their research on the very same premise. You can't repeatedly test most of it and therefor it fails the scientific method. It is accepted on faith. Actually read the other side for a change. There are ID and creationist scientists with real degrees.
@iovandrake You need to read up on the scientific method. 'They' make a hypothesis, test it and then - this is important - they create a predictive model. When this model is tested over an over against the data and continues to fit, hypotheses are elevated to Theory - science talk for 'fact'. There is no competing theory for evolution, nor is there even a competing hypothesis. ID is an idea (an argument from incredulity, really) that is completely untestable, thus sub-hypothetical.
@jcantlie I know about the scientific method and that is why I brought it up. You claim evolution as fact when it can't be falsified through repeated tests. It doesn't matter if there is one or a million theories of evolution. You can't test it repeatedly so it rests outside of science on faith. The only difference is instead of "God says its so" you fall back on "Man with degree says so". While at the same time ignoring the issues other men with degrees raise about evolution.
@iovandrake Not only can evolution not be falsified through repeated test, but it's models have made accurate predictions. It IS tested repeatedly, and continues to shine as one of the most solid theories ever devised by man. It rests firmly within the field of science, and is confirmed by many other sciences. The difference between Evolutionary scientists and 'ID (swallow hard) scientists' is that one of these has the courage to publish their work for peer review...can you guess which?
@jcantlie Obviously you don't understand what I meant by falsified. It doesn't mean it is "so true it can't be dis-proven" or anything like that you may have in your head. It means it can't be tested TO be falsified which means it is out of the realm of science. It is conjecture. Just because you have scientists who agree on the same presupposition (approaching the evidence from the point of view that evolution is true from the start) doesn't make it true.
@iovandrake Evolution is tested every time a sequence of DNA is decoded, or a new fossil found. You might as well assert that Quantum Mechanics can't be tested. Absurd. I am not making an argument by popular belief. As for your conspiracy theory (hypothesis, really) regarding the peer review process, I suggest you devise a test to confirm your postulation and put it to model :)
@jcantlie Lol. No. Decoding a sequence of DNA does not explain how the information the DNA holds came to be. You are confusing operational science with historical science. A new fossil is just a bone. You can analyze its features but you can't say how those features came about by just looking at the fossil. It's the presuppositions of the scientist that dictates what they claim about the fossil. You can't test evolution because what needs tested is removed by vast amounts of time.
@iovandrake You're confusing origin hypotheses (abiogenesis) with Evolution. Evolution does not have any say as to how life came to be - simply how it propagated and became more sophisticated (adaptation). DNA clearly shows the relationships and common ancestry of all living things, thus reinforcing Evolution beyond a doubt. When you find a transition fossil, you can clearly see how it fits in to earlier and later stages of Evolution. Learn your science before preaching.
@jcantlie I am not confusing the two. I didn't even talk about the problem aethists have with life coming to be from the start. You can not witness macro evolution today or test it. You can test micro (which is adaption) and doesn't prove macro evolution one bit. You list off a bunch of operational science fields and studies like they prove evolution but they have nothing to do with it. Transitional fossils are based on presupposition and imagination. There have not been any credible lines.
@iovandrake Look...when you say 'Decoding a sequence of DNA does not explain how the information the DNA holds came to be' - you are clearly confusing our argument about evolution with an origins argument. Macro evolution is just a pile of micro-evolutions. I really think you'd be best off studying the material (not written by ID proponents) at a reputable secular establishment which isn't biased to religious agendas...if you're honestly interested and think you could muster an open mind...
@jcantlie As far as peer review the peer review process has been corrupted by those who refuse to accept ID or creationist material from the start. There is much evidence of this bias. How can you have proper scientific study if you disqualify a premise from the start? You can't which is what makes your assertions ridiculous. You just keep parroting them though. The same tired dis-proven attacks like a stubborn mule.
@iovandrake Can you not see how the subject might seem even absurd to discuss? Do you think in some way that you can pick and choose from Peer Reviewed Theories like you pick and choose from your Holy book? Because 'Theories' are as close to 'Facts' as you can possibly get, and we have precious few really exciting ones...Evolution is the one that tells us our amazing history. Why deny yourself or others the privilege of being a part of it?
@jcantlie No. I am not prejudiced beyond reason as you seem to be. I do not swallow what is presented to me without a thought as to its veracity. Pick and choose from my holy book? I don't do that. I simply understand the context better. You pick and choose so that you may attack. Also it is ironic for an atheist to capitalize holy as if it matters. What are you paying respect to? What's holy if we are all a bunch of accidents who killed and maimed our way to the top?
@iovandrake I am merely prejudiced in favour of reason. When you say 'I do not swallow what is presented to me without a thought as to its veracity' yet present unverified, non-peer reviewed, and evidence-free literature as a basis for your world view - while rejecting properly documented, tested, reviewed cross-discipline science - it doesn't do much to bolster your assertion. How am I 'capitalizing on Holy' (whatever that means), and who is to say we need it?
@jcantlie When you exclude a possibility from the outset you are not in favor of reason. That is what naturalism, and mostly atheism, presuppose, that there is no supernatural. Actually I haven't presented anything because it would be futile to argue the evidence in 500 characters or less. Your assertions about the nature of the evidence are another example of your ignorance. Also I said you capitalized the WORD holy as if it was due some sort of respect. It is contradictory for you to do.
@jcantlie For why would you treat the word holy any differently if it holds no meaning? If we are all a bunch of accidents who managed to scale up the chain of life by killing and maiming our way to the top. It's contradictory for you to hold to a naturalist view and still pay homage to something that should be superstitious at best (in your view). That is ironic and should be a point for you to ponder.
@duck24x Are you typing from a mental hospital computer? I have heard from many insane fruitloops on YouTube, but you win the blue ribbon! BTW, stop with the kill meat eaters and legalize drugs crap. You don't need drugs, you need shock treatment and a straight jacket!
@hawkermustang Just because you've never done a hard day of work in your life and don't understand the concepts of sacrifice or loyalty, don't take it out on me or the animals. You're not only a psychotic, you're an unpatriotic coward who has no mental capability of determining cause & effect.
@duck24x I wish I never did a hard days work so my back wouldn't be hurting right now. I also do like animals very much and have pets. What is funny is my favorite sport is hunting ducks. I should take you duck hunting with me. Can you quack? lol
@hawkermustang And my favorite sport is putting scum like you behind bars for duck hunting. And making it more and more illegal for guys like you to own guns - although I am STRONGLY in favor of Peta & environmentalists owning guns.
@duck24x You say I am 1000x worse than a child molester because I hunt and you want to burn my face off!! Do you know how crazy you sound? You need to keep your insanity in the closet! Ted Bundy didn't run around bragging that he liked to kill women and have sex with rotten corpses, but you probably would!
@hawkermustang And child molestors think YOU (and I) are crazy for wanting to put them in prison. And many people think YOU are crazy because you want to hunt & murder animals. Do you know how crazy that sounds? Killing animals who are not attacking you? You obviously do not comprehend the concept of "difference of opinions" & "freedom of speech".
Hendrick Svendmark has it right, CO2 is not the driver of our climate old AL GORE needs it to be. Pity for him, but whats with guys like dick24x, are they just so brainwashed they are beyond reason? I doubt dick24x has any money so he can't be invested in the CO2 tax system, must just be a little sheep of AL's flock that refuses to open his eyes to the truth. I guess pity for dick24x too.
Duck you should learn it is better to remain silent and be though a fool, than to say what you've said here and remove all doubt. I hope you can find some peace in your life, you obviously have some issues.
Poor, poor Christopher Monckton - the unfortunate fellow who got stabbed in the eye with Pinnochio serum.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 week ago
@akdraw3 [...] The most famous "cooling" paper was "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Rasool / Schneider, 1971) which predicted a cooling DESPITE CO2 emissions, based on the presumption that the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere will steadily grow, which finally did not happen.
Don't believe the "self-proclaimed géophysicien", download and read it yourself:
"THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS", Peterson, 2008
MaluronLurette 1 month ago
@akdraw3 "In the late 1970's scientist were touting "The Coming Global Ice Age" was imminent."--
That was merely a media hype, caused by articles in Newsweek and Time, and never supported by a significant number of climate scientists. Between 1965 and 1979, merely 7 peer-reviewed papers predicted a global cooling due to aerosols (air pollution), not a single one predicted a 'coming Ice Age'. During the same time, already 42 publications predicted a global warming due to CO2 emissions. [...]
MaluronLurette 1 month ago
@akdraw3 "from a self-proclaimed "Géophysicien""--
I never mentioned that in a discussion, I never claimed that the facts and arguments I use in my comments are my personal expertise and I never wanted someone simply to accept or believe what I say. Every argument I present comes from scientific papers or science organisations, and I usually give proper references. I don't care if you believe the information at the description of my channel, and I never wanted you or someone else to believe me.
MaluronLurette 1 month ago
Comment removed
akdraw3 1 month ago
Outstanding intelligence on the matter of debating the falacy of 'Global Warming'!
scoobydoobytoob 1 month ago
Monckton was not a science advisor, he was a minor political advisor. He's been exposed as a liar and a fraud over and again. He's not a scientist, he's never published scientific papers (yet claims he has). He's not an expert (yet he claims he is) He's not even a member of the House of Lords (yet he claims he is by using the Portcullis emblem, and in other ways). He's a liar and his arguments are misleading, invalid and weak. Liar, liar- pants on fire!
TheMogulmonster 3 months ago
Who cares about Al Gore? He has got a lot of things wrong on GW, and he's no expert. That shouldn't take away from the 98% of scientists who say that GW is happening. This clown does not have a science degree (he studied journalism).
ollywatkins 3 months ago
I like a global warming. It's very nice.....not!
15hmael 3 months ago
Oh man...Michael Coren got had! How so? Hmm... You may want to watch Borat. I like!
briancoops 3 months ago
He seems well qualified with a DSc technique (Denegration of Scientists - with relevant quals & experience)..belittles their hard work without much scientific backing ...not sure he even has a BSc. A Lord title does not entitle you to a BSc or equate to relevant quals! As predicted more storms coming - one has to wonder about the recent hurricane in East USA. MEDIEVAL WARM period proven to be not global - recent global warming greater than that period.
dmlt12 5 months ago
How the fuck is Lord Christopher Monckton and expert lol
Titankilla1982 5 months ago
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste, it is completely safe, NO Fukushima here.
If you care about the cost of your energy you will want this: "..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" see blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post
website "Star Scientific Limited"
youtube blog "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
2110kop 6 months ago
@MaluronLurette Obvious lies? Prove it. Bring science to the table. Do not refer me to a link. Show me contradictions in his data. Disprove his mathematical calculations on the IGPCC figures. Bring me science and not an attack a messenger. Science is about examination and logic; not claims nor attack. Wanting proof is not naiveté and nor is denialism. Take away your religious style language or persuasion and bring me science.
dangoat2009 6 months ago
@dangoat2009 Why? I have no ambition to convince you of something, and your opinion is absolutely irrelevant to me.
MaluronLurette 6 months ago
@MaluronLurette
Hello and thankyou for your comment. I became aware some time ago that Mr Monkton wasn't Thatcher's science advisor. The description was a mere copy and paste from another person whom I aquired the video from. From memory, at the time of uploading I don't think I was aware of what capacity he served under Thatcher, but thankyou for pointing it out none the less.
As for the rest of your comment, you are welcome to beleive whatever you wish.
Peace and Love :)
eldrak21 7 months ago
@eldrak21 Alright.
"you are welcome to beleive whatever you wish." -
Well, it's not always a matter of belief. In this case, it's rationality and knowledge.
MaluronLurette 7 months ago
Oh great, a voice of "reason" on the subject of global warming and anti-atheism has to pop into it. Seriously, is whining about the Big Bad Atheist Conspiracy (TM) going to be entering the ice cream industry's marketing reports soon? What a dick.
SpellboundSolution 8 months ago
Here's another video about Christopher Monckton:
/watch?v=QRbyvxr3Ib8
cristop5 11 months ago
@Internetwanker i have no idea what you are talking about. i mean, i understand the words and sentences but have no idea why you are writing them or why you are writing them to me. and i have no idea what you believe. you're crackers. good luck.
batteries76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Internetwanker i don't see any argument from you. it's drivel. and worse still you've spent time giving yourself thumbs-up. it's a little sad. i'm no troll - many months ago i posted on here that monckton is a fool, and this has been shown to be true time and again. if you are arguing (and it's not really clear) that the scientists are all in on some paid conspiracy to back global warming then find some evidence. or at least say something that's worth arguing against.
batteries76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Internetwanker "enough motifs like always nothing new". was this post translated out of a foreign language? they are two of the more pointless posts i've had the pleasure to read on youtube - and that's really saying something. but i get the feeling it's probably a good thing you get all your rants out here rather than standing on a street corner with a placard. nice job giving yourself all those "thumbs-ups" too. disturbing.
batteries76 1 year ago
The only reason they want to control carbon-dioxide is so they [whoever they are] can control the life cycle of every living being on earth; Humans, made up of about 75% carbon, we exhale carbon dioxide. Animals, like humans made of a lot of carbon, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, pretty sure they're made of a bunch of carbon too, they inhale carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Besides carbon dioxide is such a minor greehouse gas that it's effects on climate are neglegible at best.
bkglamb 1 year ago
The only place where global warming is going on is the planet Venus which has what is called a run-away green house effect. Most of the atmosphere on Venus is Carbon dioxide.
By contrast, most of the Earth's atmopshere is Nitrogen, then Oxygen, then water vapor. The total amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is negligibly small.
The primary green house gas on the Earth is water vapor.
ziggy577 1 year ago
Lord? NOT! would you buy a used car from this guy? worse for you!
fewmetsiam4u 1 year ago
"Science Advisor to Margret Thatcher" is bit of a stretch. He's a British politician, journalist, and hereditary peer. He worked for Margret Thatcher's Number 10 Policy Unit as a political advisor. He was recruited as a domestic specialist with responsibilities for housing and parliamentary affairs, working alongside Mount and Peter Shipley on projects such as the phasing out of council housing. Never once was he a 'science advisor' and he doesn't even have a science background.
Kogoshii 1 year ago
Lord Monckton is a climate expert? On which university has he studied Climate? The University of Big Oil Paycheck?
Every journalist who says "do your own research" is not a real journalist! Because thats what jounalists are for, to do the research for you and tell you, what they found out!
TengoInfo 1 year ago
@TengoInfo Enron (oil company) was one of the first to create a carbon trading scheme. Can't you see that man made global warming theory is just a big scam to transfer wealth and power to a select few individuals and companies??
partyhouse88 1 year ago
Comment removed
TengoInfo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@partyhouse88
No, because its simply not! Carbon trade is just an economic based solution to deal with the CO2 problem. It aim is to give something a price so anyone has a goal to reduce the CO2 polution. And believe, CO2 trade is something big oil does not want. For example, Lord Monckton gets paid by "americans for prosperity", which is funded by Koch Industries, one of the largest cooperation in the Oil business.
TengoInfo 1 year ago
@partyhouse88 Yes, and the problem concerning how information is packaged and delivered to the consumer is also largely steered by the intelligence network keeping a lid on 'sensitive' information i.e. sensitive to the cause of globalists. So, its a done deal by the time the public listen to and read 'the news'; it is news/PR that has already been sanitised before it reaches the desk of hack journalists. So, none of us can be sure how much is info and how much disinfo and how much misinfo.
christvbible 1 year ago
I dont see anything wrong with refusing a debate with someone you think is a moron. I mean, you wouldnt say 'yes, id debate bill oriely', because he is loud and stupid.
Tradd9 1 year ago
@Tradd9 yeah but Gore will not debate anyone, ever, under any circumstances! He does not take anything save for prepared/prescreened questions, and he will not even reply to anyone who questions the underpinning science of his "global warming/cooling/climate change" theory. thats not because he thinks critics are "morons", rather it is because he is terrified that his very, very, very profitable (now in excess of $500 million) lie will be exposed for the fraud that it (and he) is!
thelawguy666 1 year ago
@thelawguy666 Partially agree. Global warming is not a lie. Climate scientists dont sit round a circular table in an undergound bunker and discuss how they can pull the wool over the eyes of the world. Thats just rediculous. What possible purpose could that serve to the scientists?
Gore refuses to debate because he is not an expert on climate change. He is just a popularizer. He hasnt said anything that scientists havent known for decades. But people dont listent when scientists speak.
Tradd9 1 year ago
@Tradd9 partial agree and partial disagree.. many scientists share the profits from the global warming/cooling/climate change situation. grants for studies, programs, research are up for grabs and give scientists a strong incentive to, not lie, but continue the "threat" posed by the supposed looming disaster.
Gore is a poor spokesman not only due to his poor oratory skills but also the hypocrisy by which he lives his life. A good spokesman practices what he preaches.
thelawguy666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shut up America! Go back to sleep! But not until you drink 8 glasses of water. Get your damned vaccinations! Now!! Here! Watch American Idol, and eat potato Chips! Just remember, we are your Gods........ I mean your Gov't. We are here to help. We couldn't possibly do anything to hurt you.
matrigne 1 year ago
WOW....this HAS really got me thinking
snuggles03 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
oh shit moncktons eyes
myztic123 1 year ago
Check out my angle of the climate change conspiracy in my film.
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
Interesting. I wouldn't call Monckton an expert though. This guy claimed he won a Nobel Peace prize and then when confronted with it said "It was just a joke."
MeketoaI 1 year ago
Whenever Mockton challenges an intellectual to a Global Warming debate they run like chicken shit little.
Bilderbergz 1 year ago
Lord crappy phony lozer christopher ass monckton moron.
cypress1337 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable – human-induced CO2 – is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science.”
Dayversion 1 year ago
His Lordship isn't an expert either. However, if I ever need help in classical liturature, I'll make a note to look him up.
upsilon054 1 year ago
"Very strong, non-emotional" He says ...
Calm rational people are indeed those best suited for debate, those who don't write back scathing replies which include the terms "prawn-faced".
No, I'd suggest looking up the gaurdian dot "co" dot "uk" and typing in their search bar "Monckton's climate denial is a gift to those who take the science seriously" and reading that article.
This man has no respect for those he would be "debating", therefore I can not respect him in any way. He is irrational.
PurpleGhost 1 year ago
Monckton has no science training or degree, and was policy adviser, not science adviser, to Thatcher.
dalemillssydney 1 year ago
dfghjkl;
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
truth= watch?v=YctV731kS8I
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
@eldrak21 i'm not sure where people get the arrogance to look at the evidence and then conclude differently to the trained specialists in the field. monckton stands there sounding like he knows things. have you looked at his actual calculations? why are they better than the experts? because he says they are? he doesn't even give you the details let alone a paper. moreover, have you read the emails? the whole emails? i watched yours, so for fairness:
watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
batteries76 1 year ago
"i'm just a journalist" he says. correct. "what you will hear is someone who is an expert". incorrect. monckton is nothing of the sort. "do your own homework!" what? get a four year degree and a phd and a data set and analyse it over a year or two? nah.. much easier to listen to this dill bang on about what a groundbreaker he is. any hard text? who needs any of that - he sounds sciency.
batteries76 1 year ago
I became even more entrenched in my belief that human intervention in global warming is a myth when I learned about climate gate. As I said in my video, it is really appalling. The Earth is on natural cycles....
electio538politicus 1 year ago
absolutely laughable. this goon has no expertise.. why believe this man? the only reason can be because he says what you want to hear. he's a classics major and not a member of the house of lords. a liar with a huge ego who has no training in climate science - but why not spend an hour listening to his supercilious drivel so you can claim this clown is on your side. the person he attempts to get credibility from, margaret thatcher, believed strongly in gw and recommended change.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76
Hello and thankyou for commenting. Have you had a look at the 'evidence' yourself regarding AGW? Have you also read through the emails/documents about the ClimateGate scandal?
Re. your comment 'why believe this man?' please see.. watch?v=ZaYX6KoAIw0
It is very interesting and he also remarks to be as skeptical about his version of events as that of others. He tells you to do your OWN homework not just believe someone, but please watch and decide 4 yourself. Also read ClimateGate!
eldrak21 1 year ago 8
@eldrak21 did you ever watch the link i sent? what have been the results of your investigations into whether monckton's calculations are correct - or even what they are? how many of the thousands of scientific journals have you read while doing your own homework? having an open mind doesn't mean believing in an outcome and then finding conspiracy nut (alex jones) or bonehead like this bloke who supports it. being in the minority doesn't mean you are right or that you are fighting the good fight.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Hi, I started watching it but had to give up due to time, I shall finish when I get the chance. Regarding climategate emails, I have just finished reading a long analysis of it, when I get the chance I shall match up all the emails to this analysis to check for accuracy. As for your 'believing in an outcome' comment, I have never said Monckton is right or wrong, merely pointing you in that direction to look/listen to the info yourself.
eldrak21 1 year ago
@batteries76 One of the reasons why I pointed you towards the other video was because I found your post to be quite 'attacking' without any real information provided. It is not my intention to argue/offend and so forth with people, I have no desire to do so, it is pointless! You pointed out that I am believing this man because he tells me something I want to hear... having not looked at any of the real information yourself and going by what a video suggests, are you not doing the same?
eldrak21 1 year ago 4
@batteries76 I am a firm believer in the following.. 'peoples minds are made up based upon the information they receive, because of this our minds should be open to new ideas and information'. It is for this reason and more that I try to keep an open mind about things, many times I have had my belief structure shattered by new information, different perspectives and epiphanies. If you wish to share info/ideas then please do so in a curteous manner, I think it will help attract more people :)
eldrak21 1 year ago 6
@eldrak21 i'm a big believer in being open to new ideas but i disagree that that is how most people's minds are made up - too often people will have a visceral reaction and choose an outcome before they know the facts. also there is simply too much information out there for people to sift through and that's why someone must look at the source of the information. your channel is clogged with monckton and jones - people with no relevant credentials and who show almost none of their workings.
batteries76 1 year ago
@eldrak21 in the end people can do so much better than watch an interview by michael coren. there are the thousands of scientific journals that have the information - the problem for some people is they don't like what they say so seek an untrained egomaniac like monckton or a conspiracy nut like jones and then believe them. then these people will claim that those who believe the scientists (often here "the elites") are fools. unlike scientists, these people are not fact checked at all.
batteries76 1 year ago
@eldrak21 i DO want to argue this. these things are important. people's minds do change depending on the information even if it is harder to get through to some. and the end result is a political one - it's the unfortunate nature of the beast. i appreciate you trying to watch that link, and it will be there for you whenever you feel like it. the bloke who made it also does a good job with other areas of this issue. again, up to you. ultimately, these alternative perspectives require some facts.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76
heres my argument. If we are to tax the air we breath which used to be a joke years ago about all taxing authorities, then i say dam the earth to hell before i ever pay a freaking carbon tax. Because all this global warming bull is leading us all to, world air tax period nothing else.
altops 1 year ago
@altops it's not a tax on air - it's a tax on people who burn things and produce carbon dioxide. and because you don't want to pay a carbon tax doesn't mean that global warming is not real. i don't particularly want a carbon tax either but i want to world to warm even less. take your pick. (and it seems you have, with that wonderfully ludicrous american thing of freaking out over paying any tax. and given your homepage i expect to hear all about guns and freedom too.)
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76
This tax on the atmosphere is reminiscent of the movie "Total Recall" where the president of Mars was taxing the population into the grave. We simply can't allow those in control to step one foot down this path!
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply again, it's not a "tax on the atmosphere" as much as a fine imposed on a company for polluting a stream is not a fine on a stream. the tax would simply represent the true cost of the carbon - one that isn't able to be provided only by market forces. and i'm sure if you have severe trouble paying your bills then you may even be given money to help you out (from said tax - although i'm guessing this might freak you out). you might need a stronger set of ideas than "total recall".
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Why tax people for producing carbon dioxide? Mankind has changed the atmosphere by one thousandth of one percent in the last 100 years, and methane is over 20 times more effective as a "greenhouse gas". Water, much more so. Why is water and methane hardly ever considered as contributing factors? That's right - because water is the source of all life and they can't tax that, and taxing methane is a tax on farting. So they choose carbon dioxide... plant food. You couldn't make it up!
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply they choose it because it contributes to global warming and because we would prefer the earth not to warm. methane will also be an issue, but that does not mean the co2 isn't. your calculations as to how much the earth has been changed by man are incorrect and i doubt can be backed up. water contributes to the greenhouse effect but we do not add it to the atmosphere - its concentration increases relative to temperature. these are the answers, take them or leave them.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Mankind outputs 3 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.035 percent. Water is the primary motivator of global temperature. A doubling of carbon dioxide would raise the temperature by less than one degree, and it would take a hell of a lot of infrastructure to output double of what we are outputting right now.
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is largely irrelevant (oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases). in terms of the yearly co2 cycle, yes, we produce only around 3%, however, the other producing mechanisms (the ocean etc) is countered by the absorption (again, ocean, trees). we add on top of that and build on that yearly. look at a graph. in terms of the last 100,000+ years we have added 30% to the baseline. and that is being generous. do you disagree with any of this?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76
So by what mechanism do those trees say "hey we will have some of that carbon there... but we reject that other carbon there, because humans made it"?
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply you've been told that co2 is plant food and so you think that they will just eat as much co2 as we produce. but it's not that simple. besides, along with producing co2 we have cleared trees. there simply isn't the capacity in the natural world for the absorption of the co2 that we produce and it's clear from the measurements. it's not about a type of carbon - you are right, trees don't care - but it's about the total and the capacity for absorption. we have raised the co2 level.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 So how does taxing every adult in the deveoped world trump the planting of more trees?
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply i completely agree with planting more trees, but we also need to cut down on emissions. but what is this strong aversion to tax? of course too much tax is no good, but tax is also the cost of living in a society. you get good health care for it and so on (in the uk). besides, it's not a tax on every adult - it will affect companies and that will be passed on to some degree, but that's why the form of the tax and the legislation is important. why so stressed over this particular tax?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Will the carbon tax be spent on health care?
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@batteries76 "you've been told that co2 is plant food and so you think..." How sure are you that I was thinking what you said I was thinking? Could you put it into a percentage figure for me? (I'm curious)
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply the carbon tax will be spent on whatever the government you voted for say that it will be. it could mean lowering income taxes. it could be hospitals. it's just money like other money, but in this case the tax is designed to create a change in behaviour as the market is not able to properly address the issues of carbon pollution. i don't see it as sinister. if the government spends that money poorly, then vote in a new government.
batteries76 1 year ago
@CokeSupply re: co2 and plant food, i'm only going off what you have said. it's a clumsy phrase, that "co2 is plant food" and seeks to make it look silly that we'd want to take co2 out of the atmosphere. i don't know if that's the argument that you were making - i was generalising from arguments i've had about this in the past. there are three issues here: is it warming or not? are we causing it or not? and what sort of steps can be taken if the first two answers are (as i believe) "yes".
batteries76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batteries76
You're a tool...
If you want to cut CO2, stop breathing--the world will be a better place.
ashane77 1 year ago
@eldrak21
A BIG 'thankyou' to you for uploading this ! What a refreshing change to hear TWO intelligent men discussing the reality bechind what is clearly one of the biggest frauds in history - and one which will lead to the untold suffering of millions if not exposed.
Don't t worry too much about goons like 'Batteries 76': they're the price you pay for using Youtube.
Most haven't even HEARD of Dick Lindzen (et al) - which undermines THEIR authority somewhat !
Like the look of Coren, too.
marvinc999 11 months ago
@batteries76 Magaret Thatcher pushed Global Warming because she wanted to move England from Coal to Nuclear. It was never because of her deep concern for the warming of the planet.
dadeyis1 1 year ago
@batteries76 And yet he has never lost a debate on this issue including at the famed Oxford Union in which he demonstated obvious knowledge, skill and aptitude (ie expert). What about the renowned Richard Lindsen of MIT he references. Lindsen very calmly dismantles the apthropological global warming agruement and befudled the arrogant Bill Nye on live TV. The only scientists that have been caught fudging data have been the ones pushing the alarmists agenda. 30000>scientists on record oppose AGW.
bcbobbie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bcbobbie my faith in the knowledge base of someone who can't spell "lindzen" is not great. i'm going to take a wild stab and guess that, as with all deniers who i've tangled with who love monckton, you are a free-market and "liberty" maniac who has an ideology that never changes to meet the facts. but seeing as you are pretending to be informed, perhaps you can answer these simple questions: 1. does lindzen say the earth is warming or cooling? 2. does lindzen say humans have caused warming?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 You have no idea what you are talking about. You could not be more wrong. Climategate proved they were making up all there numbers. Don't supposed you actually did any research yourself.. oh no you just watched mainstream news like a sheeple..
trevorwozny 9 months ago
@trevorwozny go on then, show me where the evidence from "climategate" is that proved they were making up the numbers. i love smug fools like you who like to whine about the mainstream media and doing your own research. does that research involve looking up clips of monckton? have you ever looked into the research he says he's done? have you looked into climategate beyond the rubbish spouted in by the conspiracy nuts? whenever you are ready, bring forth the evidence. i don't hold out much hope.
batteries76 9 months ago
@trevorwozny silence is golden. i love these claims doing of your own independent research and banal use of the word "sheeple" (usually a sign of a conspiracy nut). almost always it comes as a shock to the person suggesting these things that their foundations are so poor and that they don't know what they are talking about - that perhaps listening to alex jones or whoever wasn't the most reliable "research" they could have done. any time you are ready..
batteries76 9 months ago
I have no idea why he brings up Atheism. I'm an Atheist and an AGW skeptic.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister - Because, as he specifically sates, he lumps all people he considers against him in the "left" and then thumbs his nose at them by not even having the consideration to concede the possibility that not all of those people may agree with each other. He doesn't care, because we wants to clone the monkey. (Cloning the monkey is believing privately that other people think EXACTLY as "You" do.)
My personal opinion, is that it is also, because he is an ignorant, and rude, fool.
PurpleGhost 1 year ago
The opening line of this video is just plain stupid. "Don´t believe everything you here. Do research yourself and then make up your own conclusion." Wow. That's a load of BS. So people who have devoted their lives to research and are expert on a field are not an athority? Im glad that an opinion of a scientist still counts for more than that of a layman...
anderso84 1 year ago
@anderso84 Funny because there are scientists who don't agree. Consensus is a load used to silence debate. It is actually a good thing he told you to do the research yourself. He was basically saying "Ok you may not believe me, but at least look into the facts yourself." but you are too lazy and ignorant to do that. Instead you want to be spoon fed political science. Scientists say things all the time that other scientists disagree with. Stop treating them like some holy priesthood of truth.
iovandrake 1 year ago
It's totally amazing that people still believe the gloabl warming nonsense.
After Toto pulled away the curtain even the scarecrow didn't say,
"Hey, where's the wizard?...the Wizard is still real and you better beieve it. I have scientific proof from the horse of a diffrent colour and 2400 flying monkeys!"
co2isgoodal 1 year ago
Christopher baby, you rock..
mrgbennet 1 year ago
Well, iovandrake: if you blindly dogmatically believe your economic-capitalism religion, your unscientific global-cooling theories, & madeup stories about jesus & buddha & the Roman god Zeus, then you had damned well better accept & listen to my theories that terrorism does not exist, because it doesn't. It's just a plot by gov'ts to take away freedom when freedom fighter fight back against big corporations & fascist dictatorships & theocracies.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x I think you PETA guys should dress up in a deer costume and prance around in the woods during deer season. lol
hawkermustang 1 year ago
@duck24x Like I told you before. You fail at trolling. *yawn*
iovandrake 1 year ago
@duck24x I have been reading your other posts! We do want Global Warming so u are forced to turn on your air conditioner and use more fossil fueled energy! I was okay with you knowing that, but now u reveal your knowledge of the New World Order, the staging of 911!
I have made the call, we are coming for you, don't try to run, you will only make it worse for yourself! If you don't believe me, then how would I know you are typing from your Mother's basement! :-)
aurex73 1 year ago
@aurex73 Wow! You can read? Congrats on passing kindergarten!
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x We are coming to get you late tonight, you should protect your Mother and have her stay at friends house, or we will for to make her disappear too! :-)
NWO
aurex73 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aurex73 You want to fight a truly dangerous myth? Stop the myth that most animal testing and experimentation in any way helps humans. This Holocaust in government & company labs is responsible for the torture & murder of millions of innocent animals every year, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Total waste. THAT'S a dangerous myth. NOT GW.
duck24x 1 year ago
I'm a Global Warming skeptic...but I'm also an Atheist. I'm skeptical about these subjects because they are hypotheses (although 'God' can barely be called a 'hypothesis' because it is an untestable postulation) without predictive models to elevate them to theory. You're not doing any favors to your reputation as a skeptic when you throw out that you believe in Deities, Lord Monckton.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie About as much difference as believing that life put itself together over millions of years or that the universe exploded from a singularity of unknown origin. Neither can be tested and therefore are beliefs based on interpretations of data. Both also happen to have quite a number of problems wrong with them. Yet they seem to be accepted beliefs by a large number of scientists. Yes atheistic positions are so intelligent with their lack of belief, even though they are based on belief.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Evolution is a fact supported by insurmountable heaps of data across many disciplines of science....besides which - there is no competing theory or hypothesis - though I would be pleased to see one. To compare belief in a theory with mounds of incontrovertible evidence to belief in the self-contradictory rantings of an ancient text is simply absurd. Its like saying that belief in fairies is as valid as belief in chemistry.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Evolution is not a fact regardless of the fact you and others try to present it as such. Your claiming it is supported by mounds of insurmountable evidence means either you are ignorant of it or biased beyond belief. However you will notice I didn't argue the evidence with you. I pointed out you are taking it on faith handed down by other human beings that the theory of macro evolution is correct.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Oh my FUCKING GOD, you are a FUCKNUT RELIGION SHITHEAD! LOL! This PROVES that all evolution-deniers are GW-deniers & vice versa! There is infinitely more proof that Bush & Cheney caused 911 and should be tried & executed for murder & terrorism than your wackjob economic theories, (un)intelligent design, everything-is-ok-with-the-climate, & some magical "god" thing exists!
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Who appears to be the bigger wacko you or me? Well of course you but that was your goal. Your thinly veiled trolling is boring and way too common. You just look like a complete poser. No one can espouse the things you do and be intelligent enough to operate a computer. No one as against capitalism as you would be using personal computers and feeding the capitalistic machine by patronizing websites who make money through such visits. You are a troll and a failtastic one at that.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake You are just a kook who never learned to read a book or study history. You have no idea what hard work is all about. The only reason YOU have computers & things AND have the money to pay for them is because unions & socialists fought for you to have any money left to pay for hem & the WORKERS who built the computers, not the CEOs & corporate-welfarists. NAMBLA is 100X more respectable than you.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x You fail at trolling like I said. I will humor your ignorance though. Profit is the mother of technology. Gain. When there is no gain there is no progress. Is there excess? Yes. However no matter how you try and alter it the fact remains that the computer you use was made possible by capitalism. The fact that you privately own it instead of just governments is from capitalism. Your using it feeds capitalism.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@duck24x Let's use Soviet Russia for an example. Their private sector technology lagged far behind. Most of their private technologies that citizens could own were knock-offs of western made devices developed in the capitalist society. Why were these devices developed in the first place? To make profit. A motivation Soviet Russia lacked. Freedom of information as well as freedom of will (enforced partly by money) are void in a socialist model. The state controls and you follow. That's crap.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie Belief in fairies isn't the same as the belief in chemistry. That is another telling sign of your ignorance. Chemistry is a field of study. That's another error brought about by hubris that your belief is more intelligent than other beliefs. That other beliefs are anti-science which you assert with ridiculous claims like comparing it to belief in chemistry. I believe in chemistry but I may not believe in a particular theory put forth by a chemist.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie Also isn't it ironic that you can't believe in religious texts (of whatever origin) because of the claim of being originated from man (in most cases that's true) yet you feel it perfectly intelligent and noble to believe in the theories put forth by other men who happen to hold degrees bestowed by other men teaching from universities and colleges founded by other men. Theories that are altered, "improved", or replaced every 10-20 years. That's a lot of faith.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake I have never (nor do I need to) make a claim of 'dismissal by human origin' to see that some written works are more valid than others. Our methods of inspecting and analyzing our world have vastly improved over the last 4000 years. We no longer consider 'a burning bush told me' to be a credible argument.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Nice bit of ridicule there. As I expected you are incapable of intellectual honesty. How sad. For if you did have some intellectual honest you might realize the ridiculous stance of believing in unproven theories that are changed over time, often invalidated by future scientific discovery (or altered to fit them), and which start from the outset excluding one possible medium (super-natural) and only accepting another (natural). Regardless of scientific ability to investigate the former
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie Lastly before you bombard me with your great "intelligent" atheistic arguments, positions, or claims just don't. I have heard them all and I don't care to change your mind on atheism. It is just galling the amount of ignorance it takes for someone to slander one group of people as moronic for religious beliefs while believing in something as unprovable yourself. I mean really have some intellectual honesty.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake There is very good evidence for the things I believe in. You are free to hold whatever beliefs you want, of course...but if you really put your faith any 'holy' text and followed its dictates to the letter you would be in jail (hopefully)...while I would not for subscribing to Evolution. Thus I have no qualms about claiming superior morality and judgement :)
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie So we are going down the morale road are we? I figured you might try to stay away from that, but alright then. Why would my being jailed do anything to prove the moral backing of what I believe or don't believe in any way? Are political prisoners in a totalitarian country morally inferior because they were jailed for their political beliefs? Do you not even see the ridiculousness of your assertion? While your moral backbone is dictated by the mood of society and is therefore changeable
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake I have no dictates to order me against my socially evolved gut feeling that murder is wrong - and the legal system of every country on Earth (save those enslaved by religion) agrees with me. If you follow the Bible - your moral code condones stoning people to death for working on a certain day, and putting disobedient children to the sword. It seems pretty evident which is more socially functional - and thus - superior.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Your right that murder is wrong beyond laws but if evolution were true that would not be so. Murder wouldn't even exist as a concept. You can try and explain it away as social evolution, but that doesn't change the facts. The evolutionary mindset has influenced the deaths of millions of people in the past century. If people and all life are accidents then there is no value to life. That thought has driven those like Hitler and Stalin to kill millions to "better" the human race.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Well...we are getting a little philosophical debating the merits of truth over fantasy...but I would argue that it is Evolution which gives value to life, and God that takes it away. If an afterlife exists, then it is okay to murder when commanded by God. Mortal life only serves as a passage to the afterlife - and we should live in fear and obedience to His will (however absurd or cruel). If there is nothing after death, then we should value what we have and coexist peacefully.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie When murder is prohibited then it isn't okay to murder. Evolution does not give value to life. Life is an accident by evolutionary standards and no life holds any more value than another. There being nothing after death makes it peaceful for those who do whatever they want. You could not kill anyone and die or you can kill a million people and die. There would be no difference. That's how nihilism springs from evolutionary thought.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie Just look at abortion. Whether you assign value to that life depends on your outlook. Evolutionary viewpoints in countries have led to the killing of "lesser" races and handicapped people. Your claim that a law doesn't keep you from murdering is only applicable where you have that inclination yourself. If more people thought you should be killed for the good of "society" then your person morals are nullified. It has no concrete backing. It is relative and therefor unreliable.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Morals are adaptive, yes. And its a good thing, too - otherwise we'd still be living under the yoke of feudal lords and brutal clergy, as some unfortunate countries so remain. It is the laws of their holy books, from Qu'Ran to Bible to Talmud that gives them right. It is our evolved moral adaptations, now, and through the eons, which has vaulted us from the darkness. It is inquiry over obedience, science over myth that makes us truly Great Apes.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Adaptive morals are unreliable. Look at the examples I gave you far more horrific than anything religion has done. A lot of what you ascribe to religion was done by greedy people with their own motives. Brutal clergy (at least christian) were not following the edicts of their own religion. That is a failing of man not the religion. Feudal lords have nothing to do with religion. As far as science over myth that depends on your outlook.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake So - when it comes to the examples you state of human atrocities - its okay because you think those people were Atheists. But when I state examples of similar atrocities by the religious its because they were 'greedy people'. I assure you that they WERE following the edicts of their religions. Adaptive morality has drawn us away from stoning children and the other horrors prescribed by the 'Holy' books of the world. I'd rather an unreliable system than brutal stone-age barbarism.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie I didn't say it was because those people were atheists I said the evolutionary view excuses their actions (at least in their minds) because they could define what was good for the species. Morality was in the hands of those in power. It was liquid and changeable. Brutal clergy (at least christian ones) were not following the edicts of their religion. They are not called to stone anyone or force anything on anyone. Read the New Testament if you doubt that.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie My main point is your attacks against religions are generalized and spring from your ignorance. Your giving evolution and atheism a free ride simply because you agree with them is dishonest and highlights your ignorance. I don't feel this discussion is going anywhere but in my job I have spare time to check and reply often and I do not fear that I will have an answer. So you can keep this in comments, stop all together, or take it to PMs. I'm ready for more any way you shake it.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake So you're going with self-contradiction, then when that becomes transparent you're moving to Ad Hominem attacks, and threats of reporting to PMs? I guess when your side of the debate becomes fragile, screaming and shouting is the last resort of the faithful? Wouldn't it be easier to change your mind and open your eyes to the ever unfolding truths of our Universe, and the glorious history of our ancestors and social development? I'm sorry if all that sounds ignorant to you...
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Reporting to PMs? PMs are private messages. Perhaps you should be less sensitive. Ad-hominem attacks? I characterized you as ignorant and dishonest. Ignorant means lack of knowledge. Which you have demonstrated about the topic of religion. You are intellectually dishonest because you refused to evaluate your own possible errors. I didn't insult either your intelligence or your personal character. I made an observation. Please learn the meaning of ad-hominem.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Sorry - I AM ignorant about net lingo...spend too much time reading books. Ad-Hominem: 'is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise'. Ignorance and dishonesty are characteristics. Characteristics, I might add, which you are projecting.If you were educated about Evolution, for example - you would have to be insane to deny it. If you were a learned Theocrat, you would have to be insane to believe.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie I was saying you were ignorant about religion, specifically Christianity. I wasn't attempting to persuade based on your ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. That was my point. I was speaking to you about your approach to the argument. I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else of the validity of my point vs your's based on your ignorance. Your assertion about evolution is an example of ad-hominem attack ironicly. I am actually quite educated on evolution and its problems.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake I was raised a Roman Catholic. I used to be an altar boy and I know much of the Bible by heart. I am familiar with the methods, rituals, tenants, and philosophies of several religions. Your assertion of my ignorance is completely without foundation, and I can hardly laud your repeated restating of it as a debate point. I can, however, assure you that simply by stating your familiarity with Evolution and subsequently dismissing it you are clearly displaying your lack of knowledge.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie You mean you were familiar with the views of the Roman Catholic church on the bible. That hardly means you were familiar with the bible in context. My stating my familiarity with evolution and dismissing it has no bearing on my knowledge of it other than my assertion that I am quite familiar with it. Now you can assert that by some magic of your desire that evolution is fact and therefore I am wrong but that doesn't change anything and I find it unexpected you would go down such a path
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie The reason I bring up PMs is because I am getting slightly fed up with the character limit. It turns reasoned and well written responses (for either party) into chopped up shadows of what they could have been. I have had to strain grammar on occasion just to fit a thought into the ends of more than a few replies.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Supporting Evolution theory: Geology, Fossil Records, Plate Tectonics, Micro and Macro Biology, Sociology, Gene Theory, Carbon Dating (now in a highly accurate flavor!), and various forms of Physics. If there still unanswered questions in the field, they are akin to Astrophysicist not yet having counted all the Stars.
>
Supporting the 'God Did It' sub-hypothesis: A cobbled together series of ancient and self-contradictory scribblings written in a time when people WERE ignorant.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Geology? Irrelevant aside from what you mentioned next. The fossil "record" is an interpretation of past events based on presupposition (that of extremely old ages) which springs from the evolutionary need for old ages to even work. It's circular and unscientific. Macro biology as well is based on presupposition and unproven theory and changes about every 10 years in meaningful ways. Gene "theory"? Do I need to address that? Carbon dating assumes a starting carbon amount, not reliable
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake So - geology is irrelevant, the fossil record smacks of conspiracy, Biologist are still learning stuff (how dare they), and Carbon Dating assumes we know stuff. Gene "theory" doesn't even need to be addressed, right?
>
But, oh hey! Check out this book! It's the word of God, I'm told...so it must be 100% accurate! Never mind what all the data indicates, then...let's slay the heathens, disobedient children, and gays 'cause invisible sky daddy says to!
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Geology is irrelevant to this discussion. That's like pointing our aerodynamics like it being science makes it anti-religion. The fossil record is interpreted based on presupposition. I never said conspiracy and it is dishonest of you to imply I did. Your oversimplification of Carbon Dating is ridiculous. Assuming a constant isn't knowing. Gene "theory" is irrelevant to the discussion. Lastly your mockery just shows how weak your argument is. You build up a strawman argument to fight.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie I feel the need to point out now that people are still ignorant. Particularly on this very subject. They make hypothesis and they test the hypothesis, but that is as far as it goes. You take it on faith as do many other scientists who base their research on the very same premise. You can't repeatedly test most of it and therefor it fails the scientific method. It is accepted on faith. Actually read the other side for a change. There are ID and creationist scientists with real degrees.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake You need to read up on the scientific method. 'They' make a hypothesis, test it and then - this is important - they create a predictive model. When this model is tested over an over against the data and continues to fit, hypotheses are elevated to Theory - science talk for 'fact'. There is no competing theory for evolution, nor is there even a competing hypothesis. ID is an idea (an argument from incredulity, really) that is completely untestable, thus sub-hypothetical.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie I know about the scientific method and that is why I brought it up. You claim evolution as fact when it can't be falsified through repeated tests. It doesn't matter if there is one or a million theories of evolution. You can't test it repeatedly so it rests outside of science on faith. The only difference is instead of "God says its so" you fall back on "Man with degree says so". While at the same time ignoring the issues other men with degrees raise about evolution.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Not only can evolution not be falsified through repeated test, but it's models have made accurate predictions. It IS tested repeatedly, and continues to shine as one of the most solid theories ever devised by man. It rests firmly within the field of science, and is confirmed by many other sciences. The difference between Evolutionary scientists and 'ID (swallow hard) scientists' is that one of these has the courage to publish their work for peer review...can you guess which?
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Obviously you don't understand what I meant by falsified. It doesn't mean it is "so true it can't be dis-proven" or anything like that you may have in your head. It means it can't be tested TO be falsified which means it is out of the realm of science. It is conjecture. Just because you have scientists who agree on the same presupposition (approaching the evidence from the point of view that evolution is true from the start) doesn't make it true.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Evolution is tested every time a sequence of DNA is decoded, or a new fossil found. You might as well assert that Quantum Mechanics can't be tested. Absurd. I am not making an argument by popular belief. As for your conspiracy theory (hypothesis, really) regarding the peer review process, I suggest you devise a test to confirm your postulation and put it to model :)
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie Lol. No. Decoding a sequence of DNA does not explain how the information the DNA holds came to be. You are confusing operational science with historical science. A new fossil is just a bone. You can analyze its features but you can't say how those features came about by just looking at the fossil. It's the presuppositions of the scientist that dictates what they claim about the fossil. You can't test evolution because what needs tested is removed by vast amounts of time.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake You're confusing origin hypotheses (abiogenesis) with Evolution. Evolution does not have any say as to how life came to be - simply how it propagated and became more sophisticated (adaptation). DNA clearly shows the relationships and common ancestry of all living things, thus reinforcing Evolution beyond a doubt. When you find a transition fossil, you can clearly see how it fits in to earlier and later stages of Evolution. Learn your science before preaching.
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie I am not confusing the two. I didn't even talk about the problem aethists have with life coming to be from the start. You can not witness macro evolution today or test it. You can test micro (which is adaption) and doesn't prove macro evolution one bit. You list off a bunch of operational science fields and studies like they prove evolution but they have nothing to do with it. Transitional fossils are based on presupposition and imagination. There have not been any credible lines.
iovandrake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iovandrake Look...when you say 'Decoding a sequence of DNA does not explain how the information the DNA holds came to be' - you are clearly confusing our argument about evolution with an origins argument. Macro evolution is just a pile of micro-evolutions. I really think you'd be best off studying the material (not written by ID proponents) at a reputable secular establishment which isn't biased to religious agendas...if you're honestly interested and think you could muster an open mind...
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie As far as peer review the peer review process has been corrupted by those who refuse to accept ID or creationist material from the start. There is much evidence of this bias. How can you have proper scientific study if you disqualify a premise from the start? You can't which is what makes your assertions ridiculous. You just keep parroting them though. The same tired dis-proven attacks like a stubborn mule.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake Can you not see how the subject might seem even absurd to discuss? Do you think in some way that you can pick and choose from Peer Reviewed Theories like you pick and choose from your Holy book? Because 'Theories' are as close to 'Facts' as you can possibly get, and we have precious few really exciting ones...Evolution is the one that tells us our amazing history. Why deny yourself or others the privilege of being a part of it?
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie No. I am not prejudiced beyond reason as you seem to be. I do not swallow what is presented to me without a thought as to its veracity. Pick and choose from my holy book? I don't do that. I simply understand the context better. You pick and choose so that you may attack. Also it is ironic for an atheist to capitalize holy as if it matters. What are you paying respect to? What's holy if we are all a bunch of accidents who killed and maimed our way to the top?
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake I am merely prejudiced in favour of reason. When you say 'I do not swallow what is presented to me without a thought as to its veracity' yet present unverified, non-peer reviewed, and evidence-free literature as a basis for your world view - while rejecting properly documented, tested, reviewed cross-discipline science - it doesn't do much to bolster your assertion. How am I 'capitalizing on Holy' (whatever that means), and who is to say we need it?
jcantlie 1 year ago
@jcantlie When you exclude a possibility from the outset you are not in favor of reason. That is what naturalism, and mostly atheism, presuppose, that there is no supernatural. Actually I haven't presented anything because it would be futile to argue the evidence in 500 characters or less. Your assertions about the nature of the evidence are another example of your ignorance. Also I said you capitalized the WORD holy as if it was due some sort of respect. It is contradictory for you to do.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@jcantlie For why would you treat the word holy any differently if it holds no meaning? If we are all a bunch of accidents who managed to scale up the chain of life by killing and maiming our way to the top. It's contradictory for you to hold to a naturalist view and still pay homage to something that should be superstitious at best (in your view). That is ironic and should be a point for you to ponder.
iovandrake 1 year ago
Global warming is a hoax, and cap and trade is a big government money making scam!
hawkermustang 1 year ago
@duck24x Are you typing from a mental hospital computer? I have heard from many insane fruitloops on YouTube, but you win the blue ribbon! BTW, stop with the kill meat eaters and legalize drugs crap. You don't need drugs, you need shock treatment and a straight jacket!
hawkermustang 1 year ago
@hawkermustang Just because you've never done a hard day of work in your life and don't understand the concepts of sacrifice or loyalty, don't take it out on me or the animals. You're not only a psychotic, you're an unpatriotic coward who has no mental capability of determining cause & effect.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x I wish I never did a hard days work so my back wouldn't be hurting right now. I also do like animals very much and have pets. What is funny is my favorite sport is hunting ducks. I should take you duck hunting with me. Can you quack? lol
hawkermustang 1 year ago
@hawkermustang And my favorite sport is putting scum like you behind bars for duck hunting. And making it more and more illegal for guys like you to own guns - although I am STRONGLY in favor of Peta & environmentalists owning guns.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x When a fox catches and eats a duck do you want to imprison or kill the fox?
iovandrake 1 year ago
@iovandrake I'll do whatever the fuck I want... just like you do.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x What is that? Making idle threats your flimsy vegan body could never back up? Okay.
iovandrake 1 year ago
@duck24x You say I am 1000x worse than a child molester because I hunt and you want to burn my face off!! Do you know how crazy you sound? You need to keep your insanity in the closet! Ted Bundy didn't run around bragging that he liked to kill women and have sex with rotten corpses, but you probably would!
hawkermustang 1 year ago
@hawkermustang And child molestors think YOU (and I) are crazy for wanting to put them in prison. And many people think YOU are crazy because you want to hunt & murder animals. Do you know how crazy that sounds? Killing animals who are not attacking you? You obviously do not comprehend the concept of "difference of opinions" & "freedom of speech".
duck24x 1 year ago
Hendrick Svendmark five part series on the real climate creator, our sun, watch it.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Hendrick Svendmark has it right, CO2 is not the driver of our climate old AL GORE needs it to be. Pity for him, but whats with guys like dick24x, are they just so brainwashed they are beyond reason? I doubt dick24x has any money so he can't be invested in the CO2 tax system, must just be a little sheep of AL's flock that refuses to open his eyes to the truth. I guess pity for dick24x too.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
Duck you should learn it is better to remain silent and be though a fool, than to say what you've said here and remove all doubt. I hope you can find some peace in your life, you obviously have some issues.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago