Using molasses for bio-remediation makes sense in most areas where pump and treat methods will take too long to bring the property to health code. The naturally-occurring bacteria in the ground feed on the diluted molasses solution and multiply rapidly. The microbes in turn break down various contaminants into harmless byproducts, like carbon dioxide.
Also, when you try to form an argument, try using scholarly sources developed by scientists who study in that field. Using "wickipedia" (nice spelling by the way) is a joke, it is nothing but a bunch of mostly incorrect facts thrown together by people who think they know it all like you. I see you made one reference to Henrik Svensmark by quoting him: He studies solar activity and its contributions to global temperatures, not CO2! He wouldnt have the place to say that. You fail.
Does anyone here actually have any clue what they are talking about? What an amusing video. I see a lot of arguments being made, however I see no facts. You present graphs that any moron could make on excel, with again no references. Why was this video released in 2008, but all the what you call "facts" date to maximum 1990s. Also, dating flaws in proxy data that has since been modified is not a fact arguing that recent warming is not cause by anthropogenic sources.
in the 40s we were afraid of nazis, in the 50s we were afraid of communismn, in the 60s we were afraid of being nuked by communists, in the 70s we were afraid of global cooling!, now global warming, i think the human race just needs something to be afraid of
NO MATTER what scientists exaggerated their findings NO MATTER why politicians lie... CO2 is still an infrared absorber... Most deniers are afraid of the boogy man. Most believers don't want to trash the Earth. I "use" it as an excuse... To build the next energy economy... Go closed cycle nuclear fission of THORium in a molten salt reactor for unlimited and (almost) clean energy. Search LFTR Robotic solar by GIANT corporations might help too. (Cool background music though!)
The atmosphere scatters incoming solar energy and warms the air. More IR is reflected only when there is a + change in surface albedo. The bulk of the IR energy hitting the surface joins the huge heat sink of the earth which is always emitting IR back into space. The day/night temps of the moon was warmer than calculated due to this IR warming the mass below the surface and radiating it at night. This same surface glow effect on earth is regarded as the GHE!
The global human induced warming evidence is either tainted or unverified . Recent warming is a natural variation due to the + PDO and strong solar cycles. Both have become negative or tuned downward with follow-on global cooling. CO2's heat capacity is less than nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor, and is less abundant. The GHE is based on flawed science. More GHGs causes much less warming under these conditions. The IPCC peer review is flawed as is their consensus. Most are not scientists.
Please, please, please do not believe the message in this video. I'm sure its maker has good intentions, but the truth is the vast majority of the scientific community are agreed that man-made global warming is real. There is a small chance that they are mistaken - and I really hope they are - but given the weight of evidence, you've got to believe that this is a real problem that we really need to do something about.
Now that you think about it; the green house effect makes little sense; It some how stop solar rays from reflecting off earth and not the opposite which would be stop extra solar rays from entering the planet?
They don't want to change their selfish little consumption habits, such as going vegan. Pure and simple.
AGW-deniers = global hypocrites.
Do and say nothing about trillions of dollars for corporate welfare and unlimited CEO salaries, but whine about a relatively trivial amount of $ going towards important pollution control.
I always thought it was funny how during chemistry and physics in high school, we as a class thought we could figure out how CO2 could cause an increase of heat in the atmosphere yet we could not do it. There didn't seem any physical way for the earth to get hotter because of the presence of a naturally ocurring gas like carbon dioxide.
I believe the earth is going through a normal patern where the earth is heating up then soon it will begin to get cold. Possibly because the earth may be moving closer to the sun?
In the midevil ages the earth was WAY hotter than it is now, was that because of global warming? NO.
no global warming isn't a scam nor is global cooling- its all a cycle ;) & those who can't handle the cycle, well they die.90% of the world's species have already died out & we didn't do a damn thing so what makes those idiot AGW freaks think we can do a darn thing for this
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
The real problem, is science education. Anyone with a deeply grounded science education is smart enough to know what's happening, and that AGW is real.
Good informations, and the music as well. Nature's way is infinitely powerful than people. Nature has the power to balance ITSELF; and people have the power to put things in chaos; and so, people must think more of their chaotic tendencies to correct through SELFLESS SOCIAL SERVICES. Thanks for posting this video. Have a nice day!!!
The only real correlation is the demograph of those who do & do not support GW.
NON GW - Upper middle class / semi-professional / self-employed / Republican / selfish people who think taxation is the singularly most vile thing in the universe / Exxon boardroom/ Ford boardroom / people who think Iraq is about freedom and democracy and not Halliburton and oil / mid-west
GW - the rest of us 'free' thinking individuals who make up 99.9% of the planet
opinions are like rectums,EVERYBODY has them, and they all stink!!! or should i say baahh baahhh! your obviously a sheep for the government! AND WHAT ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RECENTLY HACKED FROM TOP SCIENTIST??? IT PROVES EVERYTHING! SEE, ITS AMAZING HOW MUCH INFO IS RIGHT IN YOUR FACE BUT YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT TOO WANNA BELIEVE!!!!
politics is driving the global warming scare, not science.
young people are being used as a tool to change the economic reality of the world. it is a matter of 'thesis,synthesis, antithesis' or as some like to say 'problem, reaction, solution'.
young people are so easy to manipulate. they clamour for the solution and dive in full speed without question. science is not neutral. funding relies on results, and if the results don't match the politics, the funding dries up.
The usual global cooling since 1998 and the CO2 lags temperature arguments. Why don't people just look beyond these misleading arguments from the Heartland and Marshall Institute propaganda machines. Of course CO2 lags temperature in a interglacial cycle. But eventually it drives most of it. 1998 may have one very hot year. But you have to look at overall trends, not one year.
an ice age is coming but the CO2 is baloney, the OCEAN is the biggest producer of CO2 and has always been, this earth has been in & out of many ice ages & not because of CO2
@KittenKoder Yep, but these natural sources were always there. We were not. so a (not existing) global warming on the scale we hear on our controlled media is defenitly our fault WOULD it even exist.
@Stinkie11 We were not always here, but there has always been something here as big and populated as we are. Also, CO2 is actually not a true greenhouse gas, so on "global warming" it is not really part of the reason it exists, but more of a symptom of a lack of plantlife such as mold and algae.
I do not understand why everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, I honestly dont, it is not hard i told people how to do it, im not a fake,im not looking to get rich off this, and i do not want or care about what people think... nore do i want publicity, nore do i claim the only person who did this..im NOT well know and documented you can do this .
Yea uhmm most of the Global warming is made by Al Gore (Dumb guy) but i also have heard that because in the 70's they were afraid of a global cooling and then a Swedish guy said "Hey lets send CO2 into the atmos' it will make it warmer. And then it became to become warmer and people blamed CO2 and that guy was Al Gore... Dunno how he won the Nobel Price :O (did you know he have a privat Jumbo Jet and 3 Houses?)
how about replacing a 450$ injector? 3000$ fuel tank?all the stainless steel tubing with special connectors of about 2000$ plus the modified engine computer 1200$. these are rounded numbers used from a police interceptor police car made by Ford. you cannot substitute none of it. It is government regulated. and must be inspected by government every 6 months.
comparatively to a normal gas vehicle. 500$ for a tank 150$ for injector $200 for fuel neck. $750 for computer. yearly inspection max.
200$ for a fuel line 250$ for fuel pump
$7350 for natural gas system
$2050 for gas
$5300 instant savings. and who would make the money? the oil companies. still wanna go natural gas? go ahead and be my guest either way your the loser. the oil company wins.
no it is not, look take a batt , get some salt water, shove both wire down a bottle, and watch the hydrogen come from the the negative or back wire.. the hydrogen must go into the carb,or straight into the fuil injector, it really is not differcult.
problem is, you are burning water, and that is one resource we can not mess with
you can make hydrogen, but not fast enough to power and engine. and the weight of the water, plus everything else needed, would be too much for a lawn mower. try again.
obvious you dont know much,even though it has been proven you can.. look it up, google it , you will see many people have done this.. you are ignorent.
then prove it, this is youtube, take a video, post it up, send a link to me. ive seen lots of people try, and yes, an engine will run on hydrogen, but the setup wont make hydrogen fast enough, and its too heavy to strap to a lawn mower and cut your yard.
oh fuck off !! abassett "take a vidio and PROVE IT " what sort of small minded world do you live in , I tell you what you prove it, you buy an engine you rip it apart you do all the wireing... Im not sure what you beef is with me, all i did was split water and have an old lawn mower engine ,,, i have moved scince then, i got rid of all my crap because of the move.,...
Agreed. I didn't see any proof in there at all. Every time he said something it was twisted. When he said "There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases..." That statement is relative to the person's point of view. To me, it's convincing, so me saying that the evidence is convincing just disproved his statement. This video is very flawed. Just like the fact that the graphs are more than 10 years out of date. And who knows where he got those quotes
it would be alot cheeper and better to use solor, wind, geotermol,and tide energy to power things and like solor power and batterys or conpressed air cars then natral gass, that way were not taking stuff outt of the ground thats been there for a longer time then we have even been on this earth.
what if the "Myth" is just to hide the panic of peak oil?
because less CO2 would mean less energy consumption and more energy efficiency at the same time.
Also the rise of energy costs through shortages could be met if most nations would start the transition to other energies much earlier and in time befor the acual decline fluid energies would actually kick in.
Fuel shortages are a myth largely promoted by oil companies and associated refineries to boost profit.
The fact is we have ample supplies. We haven't even reached half oil yet and wont for at least 100 years. Current estimates put world oil supply based on currently running reserves until about 2100. Estimates of all other known but untapped reserves is about 400 years supply.
Available oil both tapped an untapped reserves (all) including shale oil. Minimum supply years is around 400 years but more likely to be over 600 years.
To put this in perspective - Canadian shale oil alone is expected to supply oil for the next 200 years. That's just one source.
Oil is not as rare as most think - it is very common and abundant.
I can't be bothered to rip every line apart, you sir, have made only one thing clear .... you have no fucking Idea or will live long enough to actually feel or see your irrisponcible BS claims.
7% decline on rising demand. What you don't understand is not finding the oil is the problem, but to get it out of the ground fast enough at the right energy & cost factor input fucking well is ... this will result into price height spiral that will make fossil energy unaffordable for the next Generations ... you will be dead and forgotten by that time, thats why u talk absolute crap
you don't go 70'0000 feet deep drilling if cheap fossil oil is easy and accessible .... or use shale oil needing more energy so liquefy the tar then you actually get out of the oil in the end ..... your just blind to simple facts and would rather hope & deny then actually see the things as they are
Yes - everything you said is sort of correct. Obviously if the oil is inaccessible it will probably stay in the ground for ever or until new methods are devised to extract it.
But you are wrong about shale - it is already a reality and its profitable. I've seen estimates for shale oil alone of over 1000 yrs supply.
Either way - we are not going to run out oil for a very very long time.
Do your research - everything I said is fact and the numbers quoted are very conservative.
the last to supergau I read was that they are planing to divert rivers to wash tar-sands and even trying to get local nuclear power station online just to have the energy to heat the crap up. If that energy would be induced into electrified cars you would drive faster cleaner and longer at lesser cost or environmental homicide. shale oil is a energy loss calculation, and only high prices and oil demand have and will ever justify your 1000 year dream of ignorance to basic physics
Why are you arguing with me about this - I've already told you that its already being done - IT IS A REALITY.
In fact if you've traveled through Canada lately you may even have filled your tank with it.
Do your research...
Shale oil commonly known as tar sand or oil sand currently represent 40% of Alberta's total oil production and about one-third of all the oil produced by Canada
Stop telling me that it can't be done - IT IS BEING DONE and being done very successfully.
your stupid in a way, because ur supporting what is being done instead of acknowledging the fact that it's a waste of energy and resources .. making gas and burning it so you can move your fat ass around is about as pathetic as the entire situation is. It's caused by people like you that are to ignorant to support alternatives. I'm not saying it can't be done dummy I saying it's stupid and pure desperation and shortsightedness that the US relies on these imports is proof enough
and just to explain that if you need more energy to make oil from tar-sands than energy is provided from the resulting fuels, you can recalculate your 1000 year MSM propaganda fantasy. they are talking far less time once the major crude oil field decline and 1000 years will become 30 years over night ...
The fact is it does. ... you'd better do you homework on that matter considering the tar sands .... and own up to your mistake .... it's only possible to wash out tar sands by generating more energy from other fuels. more carbon is wasted burning Gas & coal to get that oil. Only the energy price justifies it but not the energy input, it's at about 1,2 to 1. FACT
Ok, Regardless of the insignificant detail the simple fact is shale oil, tar sand, oil sands what every you like to call it IS in production weather you like it or not.
As far as the the energy in energy out is concerned I'll concede that extracting the oil is energy intensive but this can only better and is already approaching 1:1.
Shale oil combined with the other huge reserves as I said will supply for at least 400 to 600 yrs.
This is a good thing it leaves ample time to develop alt fuels
so from 1000 years we down to 400 to 600 years ... honestly .. "c02lies" and in 2012 15% oilimports of mexico will be missing, so your 600 becomes 250 450 years, ... it goes on 60 out of 80 of the largest fields are in proven decline ..... if tar sands were to replace that your talking 40 years max .... not only have you no clue, your numbers will drop from fantasy to facts .... the more you get into it! do yourself a favor and stop spreading bullshit about 1000 year reserves
As I said tar sands are abundant - Canada ALONE has a minimum of 200 years possibly 300 years supply. This and other tar sands world wide combined with the other tapped and untapped reserves CAN supply the world for 600 to 1000 years. This is very conservative - do your research.
Peak oil will be in about 300-400 yrs. Anything else is oil company propergander to boost profits. Let me put it this way - oil will see you and me dead - oil IS NOT a rare resource it is everywhere.
I don't even know why your arguing with me about this. Its pretty simple - oil sands are a reality and are already in operation - PERIOD. This is a foregone conclusion so stop the BS - IT IS A REALITY!
Vast reserves left untapped - why? Money.
Here are just 4 KNOWN untapped reserves,
Falklands - huge reserve.
Southern Australia - HUGE dwarfs Saudi oil.
Alaska - HUGE.
Iran - HUGE.
Remember the manufactured oil crisis of the 1980's? oil is cheaper now some 30 years later - WAKE UP!
Iran is 5,5 bd/day it's only MEDIUM and they are in DECLINE ..... Read the IEA reports ffs.
like I said your talking shit and know nothing.
Hope and blind faith is just a lack of info and knowledge. Modern easy crude needs a price of 70$ a barrel minimum to be profitable to that extent that investments can be made.
You don't understand the difference between available profitable supply and unprofitable demand. tar-sands at the moment are making a loss. they need 70$ a barrel to break even.
CANT MEET DEMAND AT PROFIT, in the first stages of decline. At present supply trends we're talking 230$ per barrel by 2013. There will be oil available yes, but you and I will have a tough job paying for Oil products and energy in the process. The stuff will just get more and more expensive until it won't be widly available for mr joe average. by march 2009 the prices will climb again
This is once again YOUR fantasy world and is no way near reality.
Oil prices can go up and down for all manor of reasons but NOT because of shortages.
The only way oil could ever get that expensive is if fools in gov hyke prices up with C02 taxes. Which of course is just another line of bullshit which has no scientific of real world basis at all.
Wake up YOU are being had - you are being fed a line of bullshit and you are lapping it up like candy.
you're video is too true... i know that global warming is fake, but i also think that these scients who say its true and show us their "facts" on their computers are rigged to tell them what they want to hear so they can pass it onto us
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is stupid all your graffs are ether rong or incompleat, why dose the graff stop at 1950 or 1990 becose if thay would show that the tempiture has risen above the medievil worm period. oh and saving indagerd animals, poluting is going to kill them any way fuck head. also fixing world poverty, saving animals all sound very like this socialism you hate so much. your consevitive nazi dick head govenment has had the power to fix these problems for the past decade.
Does anyone sense a conspiracy on Global Warming, especially when NO-ONE is talking about taking into account the atmospheric effects the Stratospheric Welsbach seeding spraying of toxins including aluminum, barium -see US Patent 5003186- or the Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin - US Patent 5286979, that have been dumped into the ionosphere since the 1990's to engineer the 'warming' aspect!!
"why dose the graff stop at 1950 or 1990" To answer your question the graph that ends at 1950 is making corrections to the "hockey stick graph". The "Hockey stick graph" was AGW greatest weapon but is now a joke among scientists in fact its not even spoken of anymore. One of the graphs although simple is very close to the truth which shows the MWP being much warmer then even 1998. In fact since 1998 we are on a cooling trend which is very closly related to solar activity.
that question was rhetorical, i know why they end its because, fact: ALL CURENT 2008 GRAFFS SHOW THAT THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN ABOVE THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD.
liquefiedbutter - that's an impressive fact considering all scientific data has shown a steady decrease in global temperature since 1998. I know in Florida they are experiencing one of the coldest Nov/Dec on record. Also its important to note that Ice core samples show that the MWP was warmer then peek temperatures in 1998. It was the "hockey stick graph" that claimed 1998 was warmer then the MWP which has been proven to be false.
So your saying that polluting is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it, but that's no excuse to pollute. Pollution effects other things in the world. So don't pollute just because you don't think it will cause global warming!!!
i think the point is if money was not wasted on reducing CO2 it could be used to reduce pollution. in australia diesel cars get a tax break because they are more efficient and make less CO2. however the black smoke they make is made of fine particles like cigarette smoke that cause lung cancer. CO2 does not cause lung cancer. also energy efficient bulbs are full of mercury. yay, more lung cancer and more mercury, is this what you really want? CO2 on the other hand is necessary for life.
mecury is used in power stations fuck tard so if you factor in the amount of electricity used incandecent light bolbs creat about 4 time the the amount of murcury dick head
Why should I believe anything Al Gore says? Remember the "bird flu" he yacked about? We're all supposed to be dead and infected right now. But are we? No.
like saying that a given car with 4 blown-out tires is undriveable because of the left-front tire, and that we shouldn't bother to change the other 3 tires because even if we did, the left-front tire would still be bad. Indeed there are many effects occurring simultaneously. There's even an effect called global dimming caused by pollution, which is opposing global warming. And if it were a stronger effect, we'd have global cooling to be worried about instead.
I didn't say anything about evolution. But if you are a Christian fundamentalist who lumps global warming, atomic theory, evolution and probably cosmology all together and refers to them as myths and those who accept the theories about them (scientists) to explain the facts as cultists, then that's your problem lightfoot AND skyrish. The people who deny one tend to be the people who deny all of them together. Science is not a cult.
For the record I believe in both evolution and atoms because science has generated results which prove these, global warming on the other hand has not. Few things are less scientific than global warming because a huge portion of a enviromentalists argument is to avoid debate and the scientific method.
Well that's good. Although I would contend that debate has very little place in the scientific method. The idea behind the scientific method is that the experiments do most of the talking, and hopefully imply a theory which leaves all the others outspoken enough that no one could really even try to argue in their favor.
Indeed few scientists doubt that solar activity has an impact on global temperature, but to say that is the cause of what humans have mistaken to be their own doing is a bit...
The believers fall into 2 categories: mentally retarded and corrupt.
This happened back in the 60s and 70s, except it was "global cooling"! pmsl You believers need to wake up to WHY this myth is being propagated. Surely you have the capability to think for yourselves?
I don't care about giving up my playstation, my TV, my car, my old lightbulbs; in fact, I don't care about giving up anything material. What I do care about is being fed LIES! The global warming movement is a myth. Real scientists who object to this theory are shunned and regarded as heathens, even though they have more science to back up their theories than the ecofascists that advocate the CO2 = climate change theory. There is no link between CO2 and climate change.
Look, the science and logic behind the theory of man made global warming is seriously flawed(and by that I mean nonexistant). By saying I'm a thug for big oil you are simply killing the scientific process by claiming consensus and avoiding debate, this isn't scientific or enviromental, it's political. If you ignore CNN and do your own research you'll see some very interesting patterns, like how the alarmist american media smothers opposing views on climate change. There is no Global Warming.
No..global warming is fake. Its about time you believers stop believing in it because that stupid Al Gore came up with the wrong answers and literally lied to the whole world about it. Once again, another stupid global scare all about nothing, just like that Ice Age scare in the 70s. Channel 4 in the UK even made a TV program about it being fake called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
@StopClimateCrisis Think about it for a moment, Co2, a natural gas that's good for the plants on the planet that produce oxygen that we breath is destroying the earth?
yeap - feed the starving - plenty of food to go around the world twice over - not that im saying humans are more impotant than animals - but - omg we feed cows and pigs better than the 3rd world - just so we can feed our selfish selves - and as humans we should know better because we actually DO HAVE A CHOICE - but its true what they say - money makes the WORLD GO ROUND - and theres always a catch whatever the goverment says to us - imagine our planet - now think of GW and think of money!!!!!!!!
I hate idiots that ignore the facts because they don't wanna stop playing their playstation's and take time to recycle, or shut off their ac's sot hey can feel cool now while polar bears are becoming extinct because their homes are becoming water. Wake up people! It's time to go green and live smart for the future generations.
Buying a paper bag and prius doesnt make you smart, it only makes you LOOK SMART in narrow-minded people eyes who does not give a flying crap about science and believe in that global warming hoax ('proven' by nbc).
Wow, I didn't know there were actually people who still don't accept global warming as a fact. Tell me, do you believe in atoms? Evolution? The heliocentric theory?
If you want the truth, I suspect you go to the physics department of the nearest university, they will give you empirical facts about the opacity of carbon dioxide to long wave infrared and how it affects the equilibrium temperature of Earth. The author of this video doesn't even realize he's got his hands in his own pockets.
look "Genius" a huge portion of the scientific community disagrees with the theory of man made global warming hence the mass signing of the oregon petition. Also there is this nifty little thing called solar activity which may account for periods of changing climates.
Does having a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering count WooferWegrow?
skyrish99, I would be surprised if ANYONE in the scientific community denies the theory that global warming is caused at the very least almost exclusively by man. Carbon dioxide absorbs far-infrared. That's a fact. Deal with it. The people in this community you speak of are probably same ones who claim the invention of a perpetual motion machine is just around the corner or that the bible is supported by science.
well let me think, theres the seventeen thousand who signed the Oregon petition which include people like bjorn lomborg a danish statitician and enviromentally scientist who was kicked out of Greenpeace for discrediting Global warming. Have you heard of TED? They have tons of lectures by him and others for cult like belivers like you who watch too much CNN and follow the liberal politicians blindly.
Terrible music. Some interesting facts, but source all facts to put together a convincing argument. I do beleive the global warming debate has been exaggerated for increased taxes, especially for domestic ultilities and filling stations.
The author of this video says we should feed the starving I agree! Consider this: If we move third world economies towards self sufficiency, then we have a dilemma. A)There will be fewer starving people but B) The new economies will consume more energy and release more CO2. Starving people create less CO2 so starving people are "GREEN". So I say "SAVE THE WORLD! KEEP THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IN POVERTY!" Of course I am only being sarcastic - kinda scary how much sense that makes tho?????
This has been flagged as spam show
Using molasses for bio-remediation makes sense in most areas where pump and treat methods will take too long to bring the property to health code. The naturally-occurring bacteria in the ground feed on the diluted molasses solution and multiply rapidly. The microbes in turn break down various contaminants into harmless byproducts, like carbon dioxide.
LordMonckton78 1 month ago
Also, when you try to form an argument, try using scholarly sources developed by scientists who study in that field. Using "wickipedia" (nice spelling by the way) is a joke, it is nothing but a bunch of mostly incorrect facts thrown together by people who think they know it all like you. I see you made one reference to Henrik Svensmark by quoting him: He studies solar activity and its contributions to global temperatures, not CO2! He wouldnt have the place to say that. You fail.
XaVieRGaMeRs 2 months ago
Does anyone here actually have any clue what they are talking about? What an amusing video. I see a lot of arguments being made, however I see no facts. You present graphs that any moron could make on excel, with again no references. Why was this video released in 2008, but all the what you call "facts" date to maximum 1990s. Also, dating flaws in proxy data that has since been modified is not a fact arguing that recent warming is not cause by anthropogenic sources.
XaVieRGaMeRs 2 months ago
in the 40s we were afraid of nazis, in the 50s we were afraid of communismn, in the 60s we were afraid of being nuked by communists, in the 70s we were afraid of global cooling!, now global warming, i think the human race just needs something to be afraid of
NOTARUSSIANSPY1 10 months ago
fireofenergy 1 year ago
NO MATTER what scientists exaggerated their findings
NO MATTER why politicians lie...
CO2 is still an infrared absorber (like duh)...
Most deniers are afraid of the boogy man!
Quit trying to ban the obvious truth that CO2 is an infrared absorber!
Go closed cycle nuclear fission of THORium in a molten salt reactor for unlimited and (almost) clean energy.
Search LFTR
fireofenergy 1 year ago
Global Warming is 10000000% natural but all statistics beliveable or not are wrong and Belivingin this is crazier than being a democrat
jpta162 1 year ago
Global warming is not real. I don't think people actually understand what they're believing in... Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
xxmegbabeiloveyouxx 1 year ago
The atmosphere scatters incoming solar energy and warms the air. More IR is reflected only when there is a + change in surface albedo. The bulk of the IR energy hitting the surface joins the huge heat sink of the earth which is always emitting IR back into space. The day/night temps of the moon was warmer than calculated due to this IR warming the mass below the surface and radiating it at night. This same surface glow effect on earth is regarded as the GHE!
wayne487msc 1 year ago
The global human induced warming evidence is either tainted or unverified . Recent warming is a natural variation due to the + PDO and strong solar cycles. Both have become negative or tuned downward with follow-on global cooling. CO2's heat capacity is less than nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor, and is less abundant. The GHE is based on flawed science. More GHGs causes much less warming under these conditions. The IPCC peer review is flawed as is their consensus. Most are not scientists.
wayne487msc 1 year ago
Please, please, please do not believe the message in this video. I'm sure its maker has good intentions, but the truth is the vast majority of the scientific community are agreed that man-made global warming is real. There is a small chance that they are mistaken - and I really hope they are - but given the weight of evidence, you've got to believe that this is a real problem that we really need to do something about.
danielsanderson49 1 year ago
Al Gore invented the internet
caganb 1 year ago
Now that you think about it; the green house effect makes little sense; It some how stop solar rays from reflecting off earth and not the opposite which would be stop extra solar rays from entering the planet?
ballerinnyc 1 year ago
AGW-deniers = Holocaust deniers = flat-earthers.
They don't want to change their selfish little consumption habits, such as going vegan. Pure and simple.
AGW-deniers = global hypocrites.
Do and say nothing about trillions of dollars for corporate welfare and unlimited CEO salaries, but whine about a relatively trivial amount of $ going towards important pollution control.
duck24x 2 years ago
All planets are heating up in our solar system CO2 is not the cause Doh... Think you might want search for another cause.
Exception Uranus spin is different.
HGSpaceTime 2 years ago
I know the USA is hurting inside but don't watch so much CNN or Fox news. Global warming isn't imaginary ok...
gillendaniel 2 years ago
The reason 1st world governments are going to increase taxes is so the gap between 3rd world and 1st world increases and will continue to do so.
dancansss 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9 Out of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record.
2009 2nd HOTTEST year on record.
See: Graphs & Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years)
Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
See also the latest on YouTube:
It's Cold, so there is no Global Warming
/watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub
goog2k 2 years ago
I always thought it was funny how during chemistry and physics in high school, we as a class thought we could figure out how CO2 could cause an increase of heat in the atmosphere yet we could not do it. There didn't seem any physical way for the earth to get hotter because of the presence of a naturally ocurring gas like carbon dioxide.
hateterrorists 2 years ago
Great video.
I believe the earth is going through a normal patern where the earth is heating up then soon it will begin to get cold. Possibly because the earth may be moving closer to the sun?
In the midevil ages the earth was WAY hotter than it is now, was that because of global warming? NO.
Global Warming is a SCAM.
iRyaan 2 years ago
no global warming isn't a scam nor is global cooling- its all a cycle ;) & those who can't handle the cycle, well they die.90% of the world's species have already died out & we didn't do a damn thing so what makes those idiot AGW freaks think we can do a darn thing for this
imbrd 2 years ago
Good WORK Lord Monckton.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Cheers to you Monckton
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
The real problem, is science education. Anyone with a deeply grounded science education is smart enough to know what's happening, and that AGW is real.
jffryfnt 2 years ago
Good informations, and the music as well. Nature's way is infinitely powerful than people. Nature has the power to balance ITSELF; and people have the power to put things in chaos; and so, people must think more of their chaotic tendencies to correct through SELFLESS SOCIAL SERVICES. Thanks for posting this video. Have a nice day!!!
virajelix 2 years ago
wow, the graph at 2:27 was helpful
glint20 2 years ago
Non gw= people who do not fear the future and have taken control of their own destiny.
gw= people who fear the future and willingly put their lives in the hand of some "saviour"
RonaldKovacs 2 years ago
Sigh 1. climate is the weather patterens over an area over the whole year not a heat wave or a bad snow storm
2. Not a single 1 of your graphs show where they were taken i can make false graphs.
3. it was a few year shift in the 1400's not a few 100 years
4. taking information out of context weakens your topic stick to the sun spot cycle to make the 2012 people right
5. Shara plain, rush Limbaugh, and John McCain believe in global warming
sincitygurl28 2 years ago
The only real correlation is the demograph of those who do & do not support GW.
NON GW - Upper middle class / semi-professional / self-employed / Republican / selfish people who think taxation is the singularly most vile thing in the universe / Exxon boardroom/ Ford boardroom / people who think Iraq is about freedom and democracy and not Halliburton and oil / mid-west
GW - the rest of us 'free' thinking individuals who make up 99.9% of the planet
ProphetOfSpoon 2 years ago
opinions are like rectums,EVERYBODY has them, and they all stink!!! or should i say baahh baahhh! your obviously a sheep for the government! AND WHAT ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RECENTLY HACKED FROM TOP SCIENTIST??? IT PROVES EVERYTHING! SEE, ITS AMAZING HOW MUCH INFO IS RIGHT IN YOUR FACE BUT YOU ARE TOO IGNORANT TOO WANNA BELIEVE!!!!
sstx44 2 years ago
politics is driving the global warming scare, not science.
young people are being used as a tool to change the economic reality of the world. it is a matter of 'thesis,synthesis, antithesis' or as some like to say 'problem, reaction, solution'.
young people are so easy to manipulate. they clamour for the solution and dive in full speed without question. science is not neutral. funding relies on results, and if the results don't match the politics, the funding dries up.
question everything
lITheEmissarylI 2 years ago
The usual global cooling since 1998 and the CO2 lags temperature arguments. Why don't people just look beyond these misleading arguments from the Heartland and Marshall Institute propaganda machines. Of course CO2 lags temperature in a interglacial cycle. But eventually it drives most of it. 1998 may have one very hot year. But you have to look at overall trends, not one year.
meercatdotcom 2 years ago
an ice age is coming but the CO2 is baloney, the OCEAN is the biggest producer of CO2 and has always been, this earth has been in & out of many ice ages & not because of CO2
MrAubery 2 years ago
about 0,43& CO2 is from humans...
wow energy saving lights are going to save the world NOT!
Stinkie11 2 years ago 4
@Stinkie11 Actually, CO2 is from a LOT of natural sources. Almost all animal life, volcanic activity, etc. contribute as well. :p
KittenKoder 1 month ago
@KittenKoder Yep, but these natural sources were always there. We were not. so a (not existing) global warming on the scale we hear on our controlled media is defenitly our fault WOULD it even exist.
Stinkie11 1 month ago
@Stinkie11 We were not always here, but there has always been something here as big and populated as we are. Also, CO2 is actually not a true greenhouse gas, so on "global warming" it is not really part of the reason it exists, but more of a symptom of a lack of plantlife such as mold and algae.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
@KittenKoder We should kill all the cows becuase their farting releases CH4. CH4 is worse than CO2. I totally agree with you.
Stinkie11 1 month ago
wow, those graphs really look convincing, not.
togaroc345 2 years ago
Just Google co2 geocraft
camcheck 2 years ago
I do not understand why everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, I honestly dont, it is not hard i told people how to do it, im not a fake,im not looking to get rich off this, and i do not want or care about what people think... nore do i want publicity, nore do i claim the only person who did this..im NOT well know and documented you can do this .
bikersrule07 2 years ago
Yea uhmm most of the Global warming is made by Al Gore (Dumb guy) but i also have heard that because in the 70's they were afraid of a global cooling and then a Swedish guy said "Hey lets send CO2 into the atmos' it will make it warmer. And then it became to become warmer and people blamed CO2 and that guy was Al Gore... Dunno how he won the Nobel Price :O (did you know he have a privat Jumbo Jet and 3 Houses?)
ssstttoooppp 3 years ago 3
There is one other real alternative,we can use natral gas,most fork lifts use natral gas,why not cars,and hopefully motorbikes
bikersrule07 3 years ago
natural gas releases C02 just like coal and petrol
feedmytube 2 years ago
yes i know, that comment as i remember was for when middle east oil runs out, and we can use other stuff like natral gas
bikersrule07 2 years ago
wanna pay the 700$ for the refuel nozzle?
how about replacing a 450$ injector? 3000$ fuel tank?all the stainless steel tubing with special connectors of about 2000$ plus the modified engine computer 1200$. these are rounded numbers used from a police interceptor police car made by Ford. you cannot substitute none of it. It is government regulated. and must be inspected by government every 6 months.
juggernautxtr 2 years ago
comparatively to a normal gas vehicle. 500$ for a tank 150$ for injector $200 for fuel neck. $750 for computer. yearly inspection max.
200$ for a fuel line 250$ for fuel pump
$7350 for natural gas system
$2050 for gas
$5300 instant savings. and who would make the money? the oil companies. still wanna go natural gas? go ahead and be my guest either way your the loser. the oil company wins.
juggernautxtr 2 years ago
i converted my lawn mower to run on water, for about $10-20 :)
bikersrule07 2 years ago
and you arnt rich because?>???
coolesthockeyplayer 2 years ago
not sure what you mean ? why do you think i would be rich... ?? im not poor and i am not rich.
bikersrule07 2 years ago
if you made a lawn mower that runs on water. youd be REALLY rich. its impossible
coolesthockeyplayer 2 years ago
no it is not, look take a batt , get some salt water, shove both wire down a bottle, and watch the hydrogen come from the the negative or back wire.. the hydrogen must go into the carb,or straight into the fuil injector, it really is not differcult.
problem is, you are burning water, and that is one resource we can not mess with
bikersrule07 2 years ago
Oh.. i thought u ment just pure water. but ok yeah thats pretty cool.
coolesthockeyplayer 2 years ago
you can make hydrogen, but not fast enough to power and engine. and the weight of the water, plus everything else needed, would be too much for a lawn mower. try again.
abassett22 2 years ago
I dunno what to say, yes you can, you try again.
obvious you dont know much,even though it has been proven you can.. look it up, google it , you will see many people have done this.. you are ignorent.
bikersrule07 2 years ago
then prove it, this is youtube, take a video, post it up, send a link to me. ive seen lots of people try, and yes, an engine will run on hydrogen, but the setup wont make hydrogen fast enough, and its too heavy to strap to a lawn mower and cut your yard.
abassett22 2 years ago
oh fuck off !! abassett "take a vidio and PROVE IT " what sort of small minded world do you live in , I tell you what you prove it, you buy an engine you rip it apart you do all the wireing... Im not sure what you beef is with me, all i did was split water and have an old lawn mower engine ,,, i have moved scince then, i got rid of all my crap because of the move.,...
bikersrule07 2 years ago
It hasnt been proved 100% so stfu.
Stinkie11 2 years ago
stinkie,,, what hasnt been prooved??
bikersrule07 2 years ago
That Co2 is the cause of all this "global warming"
Stinkie11 2 years ago
your lying. otherwise you would be a millionaire...
i say prove it. im calling your out.
abassett22 2 years ago
Agreed. I didn't see any proof in there at all. Every time he said something it was twisted. When he said "There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases..." That statement is relative to the person's point of view. To me, it's convincing, so me saying that the evidence is convincing just disproved his statement. This video is very flawed. Just like the fact that the graphs are more than 10 years out of date. And who knows where he got those quotes
gabrielabrams 2 years ago
it would be alot cheeper and better to use solor, wind, geotermol,and tide energy to power things and like solor power and batterys or conpressed air cars then natral gass, that way were not taking stuff outt of the ground thats been there for a longer time then we have even been on this earth.
smokensk8 2 years ago
what if the "Myth" is just to hide the panic of peak oil?
because less CO2 would mean less energy consumption and more energy efficiency at the same time.
Also the rise of energy costs through shortages could be met if most nations would start the transition to other energies much earlier and in time befor the acual decline fluid energies would actually kick in.
think about it.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Fuel shortages are a myth largely promoted by oil companies and associated refineries to boost profit.
The fact is we have ample supplies. We haven't even reached half oil yet and wont for at least 100 years. Current estimates put world oil supply based on currently running reserves until about 2100. Estimates of all other known but untapped reserves is about 400 years supply.
It's not likely that we'll run out anytime soon.
c02lies 3 years ago
understand the difference between available OIL and possible supply .... then but only then things may dawn on you.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
I thought I'd made that pretty clear.
Available oil both tapped an untapped reserves (all) including shale oil. Minimum supply years is around 400 years but more likely to be over 600 years.
To put this in perspective - Canadian shale oil alone is expected to supply oil for the next 200 years. That's just one source.
Oil is not as rare as most think - it is very common and abundant.
c02lies 3 years ago
I can't be bothered to rip every line apart, you sir, have made only one thing clear .... you have no fucking Idea or will live long enough to actually feel or see your irrisponcible BS claims.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Well ok - seeing how your response is well articulated and thoughtful let me just say this.
I care not weather you like the facts or not.
The facts are the facts and no matter what your opinion you can't change the facts.
This is a typical response from someone who cannot defend their belief/opinion. Rather than accepting the facts you simply reject them out of hand.
That's fine - believe what you will.
c02lies 3 years ago
IEA report is fact enough for me:
7% decline on rising demand. What you don't understand is not finding the oil is the problem, but to get it out of the ground fast enough at the right energy & cost factor input fucking well is ... this will result into price height spiral that will make fossil energy unaffordable for the next Generations ... you will be dead and forgotten by that time, thats why u talk absolute crap
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
you don't go 70'0000 feet deep drilling if cheap fossil oil is easy and accessible .... or use shale oil needing more energy so liquefy the tar then you actually get out of the oil in the end ..... your just blind to simple facts and would rather hope & deny then actually see the things as they are
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Yes - everything you said is sort of correct. Obviously if the oil is inaccessible it will probably stay in the ground for ever or until new methods are devised to extract it.
But you are wrong about shale - it is already a reality and its profitable. I've seen estimates for shale oil alone of over 1000 yrs supply.
Either way - we are not going to run out oil for a very very long time.
Do your research - everything I said is fact and the numbers quoted are very conservative.
c02lies 3 years ago
the last to supergau I read was that they are planing to divert rivers to wash tar-sands and even trying to get local nuclear power station online just to have the energy to heat the crap up. If that energy would be induced into electrified cars you would drive faster cleaner and longer at lesser cost or environmental homicide. shale oil is a energy loss calculation, and only high prices and oil demand have and will ever justify your 1000 year dream of ignorance to basic physics
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Why are you arguing with me about this - I've already told you that its already being done - IT IS A REALITY.
In fact if you've traveled through Canada lately you may even have filled your tank with it.
Do your research...
Shale oil commonly known as tar sand or oil sand currently represent 40% of Alberta's total oil production and about one-third of all the oil produced by Canada
Stop telling me that it can't be done - IT IS BEING DONE and being done very successfully.
Do your research!
c02lies 3 years ago
your stupid in a way, because ur supporting what is being done instead of acknowledging the fact that it's a waste of energy and resources .. making gas and burning it so you can move your fat ass around is about as pathetic as the entire situation is. It's caused by people like you that are to ignorant to support alternatives. I'm not saying it can't be done dummy I saying it's stupid and pure desperation and shortsightedness that the US relies on these imports is proof enough
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
and just to explain that if you need more energy to make oil from tar-sands than energy is provided from the resulting fuels, you can recalculate your 1000 year MSM propaganda fantasy. they are talking far less time once the major crude oil field decline and 1000 years will become 30 years over night ...
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
LastReplaySC,
Its obvious you have your mind made up and no matter what is put to you - you wont accept it.
The fact is it does NOT take more energy to produce than what is recovered - that would be stupid.
Fuel produced from oil is used in far more ways than just cars. Everything we do, eat, medical, all industry everything needs energy.
Only 12% of ALL man made C02 is produced from transport.
The bulk of C02 is from the building industry and the manufacture of cement.
Do your research!
c02lies 3 years ago
The fact is it does. ... you'd better do you homework on that matter considering the tar sands .... and own up to your mistake .... it's only possible to wash out tar sands by generating more energy from other fuels. more carbon is wasted burning Gas & coal to get that oil. Only the energy price justifies it but not the energy input, it's at about 1,2 to 1. FACT
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
Ok, Regardless of the insignificant detail the simple fact is shale oil, tar sand, oil sands what every you like to call it IS in production weather you like it or not.
As far as the the energy in energy out is concerned I'll concede that extracting the oil is energy intensive but this can only better and is already approaching 1:1.
Shale oil combined with the other huge reserves as I said will supply for at least 400 to 600 yrs.
This is a good thing it leaves ample time to develop alt fuels
c02lies 3 years ago
so from 1000 years we down to 400 to 600 years ... honestly .. "c02lies" and in 2012 15% oilimports of mexico will be missing, so your 600 becomes 250 450 years, ... it goes on 60 out of 80 of the largest fields are in proven decline ..... if tar sands were to replace that your talking 40 years max .... not only have you no clue, your numbers will drop from fantasy to facts .... the more you get into it! do yourself a favor and stop spreading bullshit about 1000 year reserves
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
As I said tar sands are abundant - Canada ALONE has a minimum of 200 years possibly 300 years supply. This and other tar sands world wide combined with the other tapped and untapped reserves CAN supply the world for 600 to 1000 years. This is very conservative - do your research.
Peak oil will be in about 300-400 yrs. Anything else is oil company propergander to boost profits. Let me put it this way - oil will see you and me dead - oil IS NOT a rare resource it is everywhere.
Do your research!
c02lies 3 years ago
I don't even know why your arguing with me about this. Its pretty simple - oil sands are a reality and are already in operation - PERIOD. This is a foregone conclusion so stop the BS - IT IS A REALITY!
Vast reserves left untapped - why? Money.
Here are just 4 KNOWN untapped reserves,
Falklands - huge reserve.
Southern Australia - HUGE dwarfs Saudi oil.
Alaska - HUGE.
Iran - HUGE.
Remember the manufactured oil crisis of the 1980's? oil is cheaper now some 30 years later - WAKE UP!
c02lies 3 years ago
Iran is 5,5 bd/day it's only MEDIUM and they are in DECLINE ..... Read the IEA reports ffs.
like I said your talking shit and know nothing.
Hope and blind faith is just a lack of info and knowledge. Modern easy crude needs a price of 70$ a barrel minimum to be profitable to that extent that investments can be made.
You don't understand the difference between available profitable supply and unprofitable demand. tar-sands at the moment are making a loss. they need 70$ a barrel to break even.
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
peak oil does not mean NO MORE OIL, it means:
CANT MEET DEMAND AT PROFIT, in the first stages of decline. At present supply trends we're talking 230$ per barrel by 2013. There will be oil available yes, but you and I will have a tough job paying for Oil products and energy in the process. The stuff will just get more and more expensive until it won't be widly available for mr joe average. by march 2009 the prices will climb again
LastReplaySC 3 years ago
This is once again YOUR fantasy world and is no way near reality.
Oil prices can go up and down for all manor of reasons but NOT because of shortages.
The only way oil could ever get that expensive is if fools in gov hyke prices up with C02 taxes. Which of course is just another line of bullshit which has no scientific of real world basis at all.
Wake up YOU are being had - you are being fed a line of bullshit and you are lapping it up like candy.
Wake up!
Good bye...
c02lies 3 years ago
Yeah - what ever.
I have no interest in talking to someone who is just to pig ignorant to even acknowledge the reality of whats actually happening in the world today.
You know the facts yet refuse to even acknowledge them.
If you don't want to use oil then don't - but if you think the world is gonna stop using it anytime soon then think again.
If you think that the world is gonna be running from solar and wind power anytime soon than you need to wake up.
On this planet Oil = life!
Wake up!
c02lies 3 years ago
Please, please, your both just, terrible...
EXEveryNote 3 years ago
It wouldnt hurt to save urself a few Quid by recyclein or puttin in enerjy savers
sorry im a cack speller!lol
JustMe2008yh 3 years ago
you're video is too true... i know that global warming is fake, but i also think that these scients who say its true and show us their "facts" on their computers are rigged to tell them what they want to hear so they can pass it onto us
lprinm 3 years ago
global warming is scam
jsut like 911
mariduru 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is stupid all your graffs are ether rong or incompleat, why dose the graff stop at 1950 or 1990 becose if thay would show that the tempiture has risen above the medievil worm period. oh and saving indagerd animals, poluting is going to kill them any way fuck head. also fixing world poverty, saving animals all sound very like this socialism you hate so much. your consevitive nazi dick head govenment has had the power to fix these problems for the past decade.
so fuck you.
liquefiedbutter 3 years ago
Does anyone sense a conspiracy on Global Warming, especially when NO-ONE is talking about taking into account the atmospheric effects the Stratospheric Welsbach seeding spraying of toxins including aluminum, barium -see US Patent 5003186- or the Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin - US Patent 5286979, that have been dumped into the ionosphere since the 1990's to engineer the 'warming' aspect!!
cowinyourface 3 years ago 2
"why dose the graff stop at 1950 or 1990" To answer your question the graph that ends at 1950 is making corrections to the "hockey stick graph". The "Hockey stick graph" was AGW greatest weapon but is now a joke among scientists in fact its not even spoken of anymore. One of the graphs although simple is very close to the truth which shows the MWP being much warmer then even 1998. In fact since 1998 we are on a cooling trend which is very closly related to solar activity.
SevenPatch 3 years ago
that question was rhetorical, i know why they end its because, fact: ALL CURENT 2008 GRAFFS SHOW THAT THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HAS RISEN ABOVE THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD.
liquefiedbutter 3 years ago
liquefiedbutter - that's an impressive fact considering all scientific data has shown a steady decrease in global temperature since 1998. I know in Florida they are experiencing one of the coldest Nov/Dec on record. Also its important to note that Ice core samples show that the MWP was warmer then peek temperatures in 1998. It was the "hockey stick graph" that claimed 1998 was warmer then the MWP which has been proven to be false.
SevenPatch 3 years ago
Good video , awful music. Change it!!!
alphaboy79 3 years ago
So your saying that polluting is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it, but that's no excuse to pollute. Pollution effects other things in the world. So don't pollute just because you don't think it will cause global warming!!!
foodonface 3 years ago
i think the point is if money was not wasted on reducing CO2 it could be used to reduce pollution. in australia diesel cars get a tax break because they are more efficient and make less CO2. however the black smoke they make is made of fine particles like cigarette smoke that cause lung cancer. CO2 does not cause lung cancer. also energy efficient bulbs are full of mercury. yay, more lung cancer and more mercury, is this what you really want? CO2 on the other hand is necessary for life.
earthisok 3 years ago
mecury is used in power stations fuck tard so if you factor in the amount of electricity used incandecent light bolbs creat about 4 time the the amount of murcury dick head
liquefiedbutter 3 years ago
yes man someone is brave enough to say global warming is not real man 2 thumbs up for video maker
EminemJr1 3 years ago
yea global warming is propoganda
ldrancer 3 years ago
great song selection!
princehidalgo 3 years ago 3
youre all stupid, die!
Chisuz 3 years ago
Why should I believe anything Al Gore says? Remember the "bird flu" he yacked about? We're all supposed to be dead and infected right now. But are we? No.
XtremeKane 3 years ago
like saying that a given car with 4 blown-out tires is undriveable because of the left-front tire, and that we shouldn't bother to change the other 3 tires because even if we did, the left-front tire would still be bad. Indeed there are many effects occurring simultaneously. There's even an effect called global dimming caused by pollution, which is opposing global warming. And if it were a stronger effect, we'd have global cooling to be worried about instead.
supersandor 3 years ago
lmao at supersandor
Comparing global warming theory to evolution and atoms. Are you for real? What a ballbag.
Lightf00t1 3 years ago
I didn't say anything about evolution. But if you are a Christian fundamentalist who lumps global warming, atomic theory, evolution and probably cosmology all together and refers to them as myths and those who accept the theories about them (scientists) to explain the facts as cultists, then that's your problem lightfoot AND skyrish. The people who deny one tend to be the people who deny all of them together. Science is not a cult.
supersandor 3 years ago
For the record I believe in both evolution and atoms because science has generated results which prove these, global warming on the other hand has not. Few things are less scientific than global warming because a huge portion of a enviromentalists argument is to avoid debate and the scientific method.
skyrish99 3 years ago
Well that's good. Although I would contend that debate has very little place in the scientific method. The idea behind the scientific method is that the experiments do most of the talking, and hopefully imply a theory which leaves all the others outspoken enough that no one could really even try to argue in their favor.
Indeed few scientists doubt that solar activity has an impact on global temperature, but to say that is the cause of what humans have mistaken to be their own doing is a bit...
supersandor 3 years ago
The believers fall into 2 categories: mentally retarded and corrupt.
This happened back in the 60s and 70s, except it was "global cooling"! pmsl You believers need to wake up to WHY this myth is being propagated. Surely you have the capability to think for yourselves?
FOOLS.
Lightf00t1 3 years ago
HAHA! I love it. Do your research. And the "oil-dummy" card is as old as the "racist" card.
Lightf00t1 3 years ago
I don't care about giving up my playstation, my TV, my car, my old lightbulbs; in fact, I don't care about giving up anything material. What I do care about is being fed LIES! The global warming movement is a myth. Real scientists who object to this theory are shunned and regarded as heathens, even though they have more science to back up their theories than the ecofascists that advocate the CO2 = climate change theory. There is no link between CO2 and climate change.
Lightf00t1 3 years ago
Don't listen to these oil-dummies! Global warming is real, watch my channel.
StopClimateCrisis 3 years ago
Look, the science and logic behind the theory of man made global warming is seriously flawed(and by that I mean nonexistant). By saying I'm a thug for big oil you are simply killing the scientific process by claiming consensus and avoiding debate, this isn't scientific or enviromental, it's political. If you ignore CNN and do your own research you'll see some very interesting patterns, like how the alarmist american media smothers opposing views on climate change. There is no Global Warming.
skyrish99 3 years ago
No..global warming is fake. Its about time you believers stop believing in it because that stupid Al Gore came up with the wrong answers and literally lied to the whole world about it. Once again, another stupid global scare all about nothing, just like that Ice Age scare in the 70s. Channel 4 in the UK even made a TV program about it being fake called The Great Global Warming Swindle.
StapledNote 3 years ago
@StopClimateCrisis Think about it for a moment, Co2, a natural gas that's good for the plants on the planet that produce oxygen that we breath is destroying the earth?
ballerinnyc 1 year ago
yeap - feed the starving - plenty of food to go around the world twice over - not that im saying humans are more impotant than animals - but - omg we feed cows and pigs better than the 3rd world - just so we can feed our selfish selves - and as humans we should know better because we actually DO HAVE A CHOICE - but its true what they say - money makes the WORLD GO ROUND - and theres always a catch whatever the goverment says to us - imagine our planet - now think of GW and think of money!!!!!!!!
angeltherapy4 3 years ago
I hate idiots that ignore the facts because they don't wanna stop playing their playstation's and take time to recycle, or shut off their ac's sot hey can feel cool now while polar bears are becoming extinct because their homes are becoming water. Wake up people! It's time to go green and live smart for the future generations.
xMoonxofxLostxSoulsx 3 years ago
Lol pathetic.
Buying a paper bag and prius doesnt make you smart, it only makes you LOOK SMART in narrow-minded people eyes who does not give a flying crap about science and believe in that global warming hoax ('proven' by nbc).
WooferWegrow 3 years ago
amazing
puppetmaster1a2b3c 3 years ago
Wow, I didn't know there were actually people who still don't accept global warming as a fact. Tell me, do you believe in atoms? Evolution? The heliocentric theory?
If you want the truth, I suspect you go to the physics department of the nearest university, they will give you empirical facts about the opacity of carbon dioxide to long wave infrared and how it affects the equilibrium temperature of Earth. The author of this video doesn't even realize he's got his hands in his own pockets.
supersandor 3 years ago
look "Genius" a huge portion of the scientific community disagrees with the theory of man made global warming hence the mass signing of the oregon petition. Also there is this nifty little thing called solar activity which may account for periods of changing climates.
skyrish99 3 years ago
Are you a scientist ?
WooferWegrow 3 years ago
Does having a Master of Science in Electrical Engineering count WooferWegrow?
skyrish99, I would be surprised if ANYONE in the scientific community denies the theory that global warming is caused at the very least almost exclusively by man. Carbon dioxide absorbs far-infrared. That's a fact. Deal with it. The people in this community you speak of are probably same ones who claim the invention of a perpetual motion machine is just around the corner or that the bible is supported by science.
supersandor 3 years ago
well let me think, theres the seventeen thousand who signed the Oregon petition which include people like bjorn lomborg a danish statitician and enviromentally scientist who was kicked out of Greenpeace for discrediting Global warming. Have you heard of TED? They have tons of lectures by him and others for cult like belivers like you who watch too much CNN and follow the liberal politicians blindly.
skyrish99 3 years ago
hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
your the man
liquefiedbutter 3 years ago
wooferwegrow is gay
liquefiedbutter 3 years ago
We had this subject in Chemistry this year, only for a few periods, but still, our teacher said the same as you've shown in this video.
Every real scientist who ist a scientist not a lawyer or politican says that too.
JulieReye 3 years ago 5
Terrible music. Some interesting facts, but source all facts to put together a convincing argument. I do beleive the global warming debate has been exaggerated for increased taxes, especially for domestic ultilities and filling stations.
Cleevetrix 3 years ago 4
you are so right.. your facts are correct and everything. thank you for sharing this with the world.
kresky110 3 years ago 7
The author of this video says we should feed the starving I agree! Consider this: If we move third world economies towards self sufficiency, then we have a dilemma. A)There will be fewer starving people but B) The new economies will consume more energy and release more CO2. Starving people create less CO2 so starving people are "GREEN". So I say "SAVE THE WORLD! KEEP THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES IN POVERTY!" Of course I am only being sarcastic - kinda scary how much sense that makes tho?????
hometownterror 3 years ago 6
You're damn right.
JulieReye 3 years ago 3
totally cool
md1314 3 years ago 4
awesome
skyrish69 3 years ago 2
nice vid shag. very convincing!
hehedrugs 3 years ago 2
Very interesting. Kenny agreed with many poinst you made. I like the music too! Nice job.
wag412 3 years ago 2
odd music andy
md1314 3 years ago 2
A delightful slideshow dedicated to discrediting Al Gore and Global Warming.
skyrish99 3 years ago