Who says the left is not as racist as the white? Where the fuck where you when Bush did noting for eight years about global warming. Now you expect Obama to fix all those problems in less than one year? Hey fuck Greenpeace, if you had any balls, you would have done this five years ago.
@unferth69 Bush did nothing about global warming because he was uncertain about the science. Now we know that man-made global warming is a hoax and all the lies given by Gore and the IPCC has been debunked.
As a citizen of this country, I found it appropriate to bring to the Obama administrations attention the urgency of climate change by using Mt. Rushmore, a national monument that belongs to all citizens.
HAHAHA YOU CAN'T STOP GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST - AT LEAST MAN-MADE DOESN'T EXIST.
Please get a life and get a job. quit worrying about the environment you kooks. Even if there was a case that Global warming existed, we can't cause it. God made this planet and he knows how to balance it to make everything work. Us using gas guzzlers are not harming the environment.
I challenge Greenpeace to show any credible evidence that global warming is anything other than a scam perpetrated by tax-hungry politicians, and bad "scientists" whose research is tainted by their liberal agenda. Wake up, idiots, we have been in a cooling trend for the last decade which has entirely erased the 1 degree temperature increase of the previous 100 years. The Antarctic, which holds 80% of the world's ice is growing. The ice caps on Mars, however, ARE melting. SOLAR RADIATION!
EXACTLY. Al Gore got this movement all hyped up on "Green" but he himself doesn't lead the way. Why not? Oh, I'd say because he's too busy enjoying his mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
Hola soy esteban de tilisarao san luis argentina y estoy difundiendo mi musica en you tube la cuenta es : esteban21022 espero que les guste busca el video planeta pafi ojala pudieramos vivir en el planeta pafi con los marcianos pero seguro nos llevariamos re mal
Restoring industrial hemp to its rightful place in agriculture today will return much control to our farmers, and away from the multinational corporations that dominate our political process and destroy our environment. These capital-intensive, non-sustainable industries have usurped our economic resources and clear-cut huge tracts of the world's forests, given us massive oil spills, wars, toxic waste, massive worldwide pollution, global warming and the destruction of entire ecosystems.
The National Science Board (in) 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end,... followed by ...colder temperatures...(but continued)...However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[17]
It was during this time temperatures were feared to be going down, and it was discovered it was more than likely due to aerosol particulates that were reducing solar insolation.
LOLO, they dont know what it is about. You act like Al Gore, oh please we have it all figured out, LMAO. (love these terms "more likely due to" LMAO, ROTF all the doom and gloom articles use these terms.
Has your argument degenerated to the point of picking out common linguistic phrasings and loosely associating them with something Al Gore might say, like Al and I are the only 2 who have ever used such words?! Man, I hope you learn to apply some of that cognition towards something a bit more constructive, like research and discernment.
You know I send out several emails to these global warming doom and gloom sites every morning including people like Al Gore and Green Peace who say on their web sites they are happy to answer any questions, but I have yet to receive a single email from a single one of these organizations addressing my basic questions on past drastic temp changes and models. I get nothing but please donate emails, LMAO.
Found a good site: real climate . org (I have no affiliation) for very detailed explanations of the arguments of GW: discussing lag of temp w CO2, Hockey Stick controversy, Gore's Movie, water vapor-feedback or forcing, ipcc 4th assessment. it claims to be honored by Scientific American's 2005 Sci and Tech Web Awards and looks to have author bios. Some are very thick, like the data analysis of Hockey Stick, some more lucid for me. Worth checking out by all.
Yes I know, this web site has been spreading propaganda for a long time, but even that site has no proof a 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect on temp. The claim like everyone models show an amplying effect. Let me know if you find anything interesting on the site as they try to twist crap to the extra step. I have sent them many questions over the years without a singe response. Did you read R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate, too get a better understandingofReal'sBS?
Anything interesting? They go into far more detail to explain much of the questions you've brought up. I've read a bit of Carter and it seems like you mainly repeat his assertions, which is ok, except he says stuff like (to paraphrase) 'we don't know how this happens' when in fact it's been fairly well understood decades ago. I'll be working most of the upcoming week, but when I've some free time I'll try to break down some of his false assertions in detail.
Come on you did not even read the Carter paper. He has so much more there than this qoute you give at the end funny. And no he does not go much into people like Al Gore picking and choosing from ice core data to try to prove a constant temp is the norm when it is not, Carter does not talk about Vostok data much for example but he does address models, politics, etc. It is a good article.
For example get this on their explanation of lag of temp w CO2, they say. --The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming COULD IN FACT have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. Is this funny as hell and typical of what they say, it is always like this
You don't seem to understand what they're saying, then. There's a few different processes going on but essentially, certain periodic events, mainly earth's changing path around the sun, creates regular heating and cooling patterns. The heating patterns release CO2 which further heats. They, in detail, explain the reasons for the lag time. In part it's because CO2 takes so long to get cycled out from the oceans during heating periods. The irregular CO2 increase now is manmade! get it?
Right the earth's orbit changes and they think this is what cause those ice ages that happen every 15,000 or so years and last for about 80,000 years. Now the question is is it because the earth has moved to an eliptical orbit or the earth's tilt has increased. We know we have these ice ages and we know one is do in about 3k years or so but really what causes themlike everything else who knows at this point in human knowledge. Again pleaseprove a few 100 ppm increase in CO2hasany effect in temp?
Hay did you know there is even debate on past CO2 measurements in ice cores? Did you know if you take 20 samples of CO2 for a particular year in the ice cores you get 20 differnt answers? Now the final answer is how you average it together, do you throw out the highs and lows or not? Today they throw out the highs and lows getting the smallest past CO2 number possible, go figure. They say CO2 is effected by time, acid, pressure, chlorine and etc in ice cores and it is probaly not reliable.
Kinda, but there is more too it. There are ice experts how say you cant measure CO2 in ice at all because time, chlorine, acid, etc makes it a bad place to get data from and thats why the data varies so much. And It does matter because are we talking about CO2 going up 25ppm or 100 ppm? Huge difference. Look I am ok with CO2 going up 100ppm and I am ok with man made global warming because
I will support the idea layers in 50,000 feet in the atmosphere cause a few tenths of one degree F increase in temp but the temp varies 3 degree Celsius in little as 200 years and has since the last ice age. I am not ok with incomplete positive loopback biased models saying CO2 has amplifying effects. Look if you want to believe in these models that is fine because the fact is you have no other proof a 100ppm increase in CO2 has any more effect than a few tenths of one degree F.
Again, real climate org and all the others know there is no direct proof a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect in temp, none. And these are the past levels you are talking about. Again the only thing they have are incomplete positive loopbacked biased models that try to say this small increase in CO2 has an amplyfying effect on temp, now you can believe in these models all you want but understand what you are believing in. U have to increse CO2 to 200,000 ppm to get a 3 degree C increase.
It is always like this with them or "damn it it it really could" With ZERO proof! They go on to say this crap, lolol process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a feedback, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
So now it is the same old crap right, incomplere positive loopback biased models shows an amplifying effect, but these models are the only crap them or the IPCC has to tie CO2 to a massive temp rise with no other proof but this virtual crap that cant predict next year or even what happen last year. Real Climate just takes the same old crap and buts another alyer of crap on it. One time they were much more famous for this, they have kinda went away.
I gotta admit I find it hard to figure out what the hell you're talking about...I wish instead of just a thumbs up and thumbs down option, we had a 'meh' option...
Every global warming doomer article I have seen for 30 years always uses terms like we think, our guess, could be the case, in the future. Funny then it is people like Al Gore that say "we have it all figured out," wierd I have yet to see a global warming doc that say we are 100% sure of this or that, but some how Al and others have it all figured out.
on 'global dimming": The main cause of (reduction of direct irradiance) is aerosols produced by volcanic activity and emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. These aerosols exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
--I do not take claim for this quote, and a few others as well. For the sake of passing on info I come across I cut and paste, parenthetically adjusting to meet character restrictions. That doesn't leave room to cite sources. many from wikipedia, which includes its own citations.
There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998, and global cooling for the past few years. The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth's temperature ... Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006
Absolutely wrong. The "no warming since 1998" disregards very basic statistical trend analysis. 1998 was an outlier, unusually warm, yet the trend is a general, steady increase since the 80s (and actually, since the 1900s) thru till at least 2005. search:
noaa jan-jun land ocean surface mean temp anomalies smith reynolds
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's a very silly argument. Fine that you don't believe in conclusions presented or don't approve of tactics used by an environmental group, but implying a lack of patriotism is a cliche, irrelevant conservative tactic.
Good news as all these electric cars need lithium batteries guess who controls most the Lithium? Well, Bolivia and other countries hostile to USA. Bolivia says the crap will cost big.
Ok, but Lithium is the future, I see and article saying, many industry observers had expected the next generation plug-less Prius, due in 2009, to use lithium batteries. But Toyota announced in May 2007 that the companys flagship hybrid would continue using nickel metal hydride batteries. The decision reflects Toyotas strategy to protect its lead in the hybrid market, rather than taking chances with lithium batteries that carry greater cost and safety concerns. Lithuim has no memory issues.
When the CIA stops trying to remove leaders of countries who decide to nationalize their resources, the US will make fewer adversaries in South America and the rest of the world.
Yes there have been a couple of case of this (I wish it would happen in Venz today), if you are refering the Shah he he was put back into power after Mosaddeq took power and tried to take over the English oil company on Iran, the English said hell no and the CIA helped, go figure in height of the cold war.
On Peru also a cold war event the USA did have a lot of hope for Pinochet and did help him to over throw the full fledge Marxist Salvador Allende who brought communism to S America and all on heels of Cuba and in height of cold war. PS the USA won the cold war an 18 East EU countries free, that terrible USA.
But do not confuse America with past world powers who did nothing for world peace. You want to steal resources, do what the French do fir example , 1)give best land to fellow Frenchman 2) Form a monopoly on all their resources 3) provide no infrastructure in return not even schools, that way the local population has nothing to stop you with, pass a law school books have to put a good spin on it all. The USA builds strong Biz partners, so it is a win, justtry to build country without investment
US, like other world powers, has played the power game, starting with taking over Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, after the Spanish-American war. couldn't annex Cuba legally, so kept influence till Castro's revolution. It's still Imperialism. But yes, US has better track record of treatment of indiginous, but look at poverty in Philippines after decades of strong US influence. I'm not dissing the US, but honoring its democracy by insisting that foreign policy support democracy abroad.
I sent Greenpeace my simple global warming questions again today (their webs says they have it all figured out and will answer questions) but all I got is another email asking for money? Maybe their banner should just say "SEND US MONEY, AND DONT WORRY ABOUT IT"
It's hilarious how people believe Obama has the power to stop things like global warming. Like he can snap his fingers and instantly change things. Every thing he does has to be approved by congress. Congressmen get a lot of campaign money from corporations that pollute.
yes, lets STOP cap and trade. Yes, that will protect american families. All that uncontrolled carbon dioxide pumping across our landscape, into the lungs of our children and families, increasing lung and other cancer rates, polluting our ground water. Absolutely a great idea. Forget about the jobs we could create with alternative energy industries, and forget about the cleaner, safer, atmosphere we could be having.
You have no idea what CO2 is. Don't worry about CO2 filling your lungs because CO2 is created in the human body (and all animals) and is exhaled from the lungs. So every breath you take you are exhaling CO2. The only way you can't be exposed to it is to stop breathing.
It really is great to see this many comments AGAINST Greenpeace on a video posted by them.
This shows that we are making great progress in stopping extreme environmentalists like this.
Now is the time to stand up to against extreme environmental policies that Greenpeace and most current Democrats stand for.
Think of how many American jobs will be saved by stopping things like cap and trade/tax. Stop extreme environmentalism and protect US working families.
Any of you negative thumbers remember the carbon tax? Gravel, Kucinich, and Dodd (heck, even conservative David Frum) all advocated for it over cap-and-trade. If republicans and other conservatives would've bothered to debate the environment we could have heard more criticism about cap-trade back then.
I wonder if the envirotards walked to Rushmore or drove, thereby contributing to the 'global warming' (oooohhhhh aaahhhh something more to harass WORKING people).
Global warming is the greatest challege of our generation and Obama needs to step up and lead the world toward an international agreement that is based on scientific recommendations. As for the action, the climbers were all trained and experienced. They had top-notch equipment. The message from this action to Obama was effective in that it garnered international media attention while he was meeting with the G8 in Italy and put global warming at the top of the agenda.
Countless scientists are proving that global warming is NOT happening. In fact, many scientists that once believed global warming are now changing their minds based on their research.
Moreover, I thought the term "global warming" was out as the world hasn't seen warming since 2001? Even environmentalists can't keep up with themselves.
Stop cap and trade and save American jobs. Get off YouTube and call your US Senators NOW! Tell them cap and trade is terrible for American families.
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, is the party in a law suit. He's not actually a scientist, but a former weatherman with a BA in Juournalism. The 30,000, from what I've gathered, have signed some petition but as far as I've seen are not party to the suit. In a Faux news broadcast he makes a very simpletonian, unscientific explanation.
I personally welcome a debate but haven't heard anything that debunks the GW theory.
all science is based on theory. Einstein's theory of relativity led to the atomic bomb, so we can't discount it because it's considered a theory.
Many argue the false assumption that because certain natural occurances effect climate, that somehow discredits any evidence of man-made factors. Why is it so hard to understand that both can be happening?!
Gore being in it for the money only shows he's not a communist. It's smart to invest in eco-friendly technologies.
He's being sued by 1 guy, a weatherman with a Journalism degree. The 30,000 is the Oregon Petition I believe. It had a cover letter made to resemble an official finding. Scientific American did a study on this. about 9000 were Phds, but most weren't in science. Lots of fake names. After rough sampling,some of the scientists polled had reversed their view after reviewing more data (it used 1990s data), some didn't remember the petition. ~ 200 were actual skeptics within sci community.
Dr. Ming Cai, Peter F. Almasi, Dr. James P. Berry, Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Dr. David Sugden, Dr. Gregory Cutter, Dr. Robert Whittaker, Dr. Svante Bjorck, Dr. John Clague
lovehaightorg sent me a list of names that came from Heartland Institute's Dennis Avery. study is a sham--45 scientists demanded their names be removed. 3 of them stated:
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced... remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.""Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
Name me 10 scientists that support global warming that aren't in it for continued funding for there university departments or personal gain. Prove they haven't come to their conclusions because they've worked their whole life to prove global warming but now can't.
When Al Gore says those against global warming shoud be put in prison it isn't about the science any more. Evidence s growing that shows global warming is false and environmentalists refuse to listen.
I researched "climate change history" and found CO2 was studied as far back as the 1930s for potential climatic effects. The point is that these studies were going on far before Gore popularized it, when there was no financial advantage to taking one side over the other. I frankly can't prove a lack of bias on either side, one way or another, but am still yet to see a convincing argument that puts doubt on GW. Many refer to this "growing evidence" against GW but don't site anything credible.
Again, this is erroneous and based on a statistical outlier from an exceptionally warm 1997-8. 2004 was just as warm as that el Nino year, and the trend line from the 80's to 2009 is a steady increase. search:
noaa jan-jun land ocean surface mean temp anomalies smith reynolds
Here is some questions I like to ask.What are they to do if one falls and gets crippled or killed?Sue the Feds?Or they get trapped in their ropes dangling from tall heights and rescue workers refuse to help?Or a sudden storm traps them up there,mainly a lightning storm?Or,one of them have a heart attack or diabetic shock and needs help?And the authorities said no?
Here is the problem for nuts, there is no direct proof several 100 ppm (parts per million) increase in CO2 has any effect of temperature. Lets be clear here is how the argument goes. A 100ppm increase in CO2 in the lab has NO effect on temperature, none! So the warming nuts say this is not fair because CO2 is in 50,000 feet of atmosphere so there are theories based on layers and reflection that raises temp a few tenths of 1 degree F, not much.
I've read that the greenhouse effect was caused by the increase in CO2 resulting in the atmosphere absorbing more infrared radiation reflected off the earth from the sun. Of course you won't see the increase in the lab if there's no solar irradiance involved. Please clarify the study you're talking about, for the information as you give it appears to be a deceptive half-truth.
I believe you are referring to the ideal layers in the atmosphere cause reflection as I mentioned above. OK but this theory that cant be proven but I agree it says a 100ppm increase in CO2 raises temp a couple tenths of 1 degree F, not much buy hay I can except this, what I cannot expect is models then saying this slight increase cause an Amplifying effect.
For example a few tenths of 1 degree F melts more snow exposing more land, the darker land warms things even more causing a positive lookback, the problem is they are quick to add positive loopbacks to these models while ignoring many negative loopbacks like storms and solar effects, things they cant predict it makes these models incomplete and positive loop backed biased, of course they will show an amplifying effect, but that has nothing to do with reality.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
changes in solar irradiance and other natural patterns are irrespective of any positive loopbacks. Anything that might be man-made are summed onto them. But any warming, whether natural or man-made, melts ice and contributes to less reflectivity of the earth's surface, trapping in more heat. I'm not talking about atmospheric reflection, rather surface reflection. Less surface reflection, more absorbed heat; more CO2 in atmosphere, more scattered infrared radiation trapped.
Ok, then why is it the ice core temperature records shows the temperature oscillates 3 degrees C and can happen in very short time period or 200 years? Temp change has happened 1000s times for the last 10,000 years, after that we enter our normal ice age that usually last about 80,000 years where the temp still oscillates 3 degrees C but 9 degrees C lower over all.
They think changes in the earths orbit creates the ice ages, but get this they are not even sure of that. So how did all these past temp changes occur without man? How is it the world survived them? Heck 3300 years ago it was 3 degree C higher, just yesterday. Oh and mankind was starting to thrive around then.
Really what part of the science convinces you a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect on temp? Now the IPCC say it has an amplifying effect but no proofs but models that have not been able to predict the near future and cant even redo the past. Look if you want to believe in the models that is great I get it, me I dont.
Are not solar cycles predictable? Also, other + feedback loops include water vapor holding more heat at higher temperatures. I don't think storms have much to do with atmospheric insulation, do they?
Sure to some level, there are known cycles. Last year there were no sun spots and the scientist were starting to freak out because it took so long to start up again. It is like saying can't they predict there will be storms next year, sure but the question is the number and intensity which cant be predicted. The studies I have seen show the sun's output can very as much as 7%, but then again the IPCC in each report tries to take solar effects our of the equation more and more, last report cut1/2
Again, you can measure solar irradiance, and as it decreased fairly predictably, temperatures still went up, as CO2 levels escalated sharply during the decade. Correlation isn't proof of cause, sure, but if other factors don't explain it, the correlation makes for stronger evidence.
You mean Chile, and again, cold-war aside, this was eliminating an elected president. He planned on appropriating their copper mines, reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors, redistributing land to the poor, free milk to children, etc. Believe it or not, some prefer Marxism to starvation. Hope for Pinochet? 1000s murdered or tortured?!-but hey, good for business. Allende had denounced Hitler in 30s; Prescott Bush's Union Bank funded Hitler &Nazis.
I have no problem with the USA fighting Marxism around the world during the cold war, nor do I have a problem with the USA fighting marxism or evil around the world today. It does not matter if it is the elected Chavez, Hamas or in Iran. I just wish we had a magic wand to make it all perfect but we dont so I will take the good with the bad. What I have a problem with is Obama turning off the light to the hill on the city and wanting to legitimize every repressor on the man made warming planet
I have been to Central and South America and I know what is going on. The discrimination between the natives and those of Spanish descent is horrible. The Spanish have the nice jobs, houses, malls, stores etc (Nicest mall I ever seen was in Guatemala) If you look at todays Marxist in that part of the world you will see they are of native descent. This has nothing to do about the USA or wonders of Marxism, this is about the poor clinging onto anything to get a fair chance.
I agree entirely and appreciate your incite, but back to mentioning US vs. France (and Europe) in treatment of colonies, how is European colonialism and its results qualitatively different from the US's manifest destiny and its displacement and decimation of native americans? Is pure Marxist ideology is any worse or better than pure corporate Capitalism? our Constitution is based on representative government, not capitalism. Communism's problem isn't so much Marxism, but totalitarianism.
Hay dude, here is my answer. I think you have to remember France, England, Spain and crew had all of the Indians land divided up before the USA was a twinkle in the eye. Did you know back then the Indians thought England and France had the power and kept siding with them against the Americans, by the time Andrew Jackson came a long Americans had had it with the Indians.
how Eng and France did with other colonies do you think American Indians would have been any better? (I know Catholics did horrible things as well) oh and my great grand dad was a Baptist priest who worked with the Indians and he married a full Cherokee my Great grand mom.
Yeah, I agree that with respect to the natives, there are no benevolent colonists. The europeans have a lot to answer for--the Spaniards in America, the French in Africa, etc.
I am a the smallest gov governs the best, now Government should be helping where private industry cannot, roads, NASA, ects, but it should not compete with private industry even when it is not perfect. Lets say all the hospitals went broke and closed, then ok nationalize health care until capital market can come back. Other than that it is best to get out of the way. Government is a tool to help when no other answer is left.
My opinion is that industrial development necessitated some regulation, and greater complexities result in broader legislation. I think Teddy Roosevelt suggested certain regulations are necessary to combat the overreaching power of corporations.
I think a government healthcare can supplement private care and bring down some cost--there is so much administrative overhead and price markup in private systems. Some say ~30% overhead compared to europe's <10%.
For the history of the world man has been controlled by tyranny, USA has been an exception lets not make the government so powerful we lose that so let us not go back to what 99% of mankind has had for its history of goverments.
US's relative geographic isolation has insulated its citizens from many historic power struggles between dictators with competing objectives. We have an unparalleled degree of peace here at home, and a system that allows a great deal of free expression that we should be thankful for. I'm only saying that we shouldn't be blind to the excesses, historical and contemporary, of the entities, whether in govt or corporations, that exploit others abroad.
The Wall Street Journal online 01-02-09 states that 2008 was "a year that ran slightly less than one degree warmer than the 20th century mean," the "9th or 10th warmest since reliable record-keeping began in 1850, and the coldest since the turn of the 21st century." Most reports I see show about a 1.3 degree increase over the last 100 years.
Trying to calc the worlds average temp is like trying to calc the worlds average phone number. Did you know for accurate data you would need temp reading from every location on earth, including the oceans and at every layer through out the atmosphere? That past data simply does not exist, now recently satellites have helped with this endeavor but it is far from perfect.
The NOAA will admit they really cant say temp is at this high because they lack the historical data from every point on earth, they will say surface temp measurements in USA that parts of the USA have seen higher temps in last 20 years while others part in USA are lower. Then they conclude temp must be going up because the glaciers are melting but that has been going on for 10,000 years.
I do agree the temp is changing just like it has the last 10,000+ years as the ice cores show us it can swing 3 degree CELCUIS in a short of time as 200 years. The question is what part is man adding to this and from the current theories not counting models that try to prove an amplifying effect it seems to be a few tenths of one degree F, not C.
Great maybe you can provide some study that directly proves a 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any more effect than maybe a few tenths of one degree F other than models. I have looked for years asked many like yourself yet to find a thing. The fact is there is no direct proof. None, I challenge you to find something.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is cited on wiki as showing that on Earth, CO2 is estimated to cause 9-26% of the greenhouse effect (less so for methane and ozone at a few %). If one accepts that, figure a 30% increase in CO2 would have to cause some increase. Again, this is due to its property of absorbing infrared energy that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. O2 and N2 don't absorb IR. CO2 values this high (380ppm) were last seen approximately 20 million years ago.
Right a few tenths of one degree F, but it cant be proven it is just a theory. But ok I except Man has raised temps a couple of tenths of one degree F at the most. But these models saying it has an amplifying effect are not science. And there is the rub, drastic global warming and cooling are the norm as much a 3 degree C in 200 years despite man and man made global warming is real at the most a few tenths of 1 degree F, not C.
Then the warming nuts then claim incomplete positive loopback biased models that cant even predict the past say this slight raise in temp has an AMPLIFYING effect. The IPCC gets from a .5 degree C to a bit less than a 3 degree C increase depending on which of the 7 models you look at. This is unproven virtual proof, there is NO direct proof a few 100 ppm CO2 increase has any effect on temp, none! Models are their primary proof as their old proof of the hockey stick has mostly been destroyed
Really ask a warming nut what part of the global warming science convinces them, the typical answer is they have no clue, never thought about and just say 99% scientist say it is true, which is another lie. "
If you look at Scientific American's conclusions upon studying the Oregon Petition, you'll find that they estimate only about 200 of those 30000 you mention are actually legitimate real climate scientists. Sure, that's significant, but no where near 1% of the scientific community.
Oh really, funny there is no thing as a climate scientist. Now there are people that study solar, some study oceans, some study thermal dynamics, some study core reefs, some study storms, some study ice cores, some study gases, some study models, on and on. Check out the excellent paper by R M Carter titled entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate note it says,
I'll give 1 example of how bad Carter's study is. He cites Kouwenberg's CO2 mixing ratio chart as evidence of a CO2 increase between 400-700AD. This study is on line as pdf. p65:
"The extremely low number of stomata per mm needle length in the Tsuga heterophylla
record at Jay Bath between 300 and 700 AD does not appear to result from extremely high
atmospheric CO2 levels at the time, but coincides with the establishment of the species
during a period of major disturbance at the site."
Kouwenberg shows that studying CO2 in fossil pine needles is a way to measure CO2 level FROM year 800 on, BUT NOT between 3-700 because "highly stressed growth conditions" (from less H2O uptake) resulted in less stomata/needle length, so the calculated mixing ratio from chart (behind dotted line) is faulty data, shown by its deviation from ice core data. Carter misread the study, assuming they "reached...380 ppm". search:
So basically, Carter uses calculated data derived from pine needle samples, but not actually measured CO2 levels, yet he uses it as data as if it actually was the CO2 count, making a point on data which is described as being erroneous in the source material!
Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program, a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181, and is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, which gets funding from oil companies.
No one scientist, however brilliant, understands climate change, and there is no general theory of climate nor likely to be one in the near future. In effect, there are nearly as many sides to the climate change debate as there are expert scientists who consider it.
Al Gore and Greenpeaces web site say man made global warming is a fact and they will answer questions but they never respond to my questions and have nothing on their web sites addressing my questions. I have been asking Al Gore at info @ carthagegroup. com and Greenpeace at info @wdc. greenpeace. org to explain 1000s of past temp chances the ice cores show and what their proof is for man made global warming.
I have been asking Al Gore why he picks and chooses from the temperature records. For example Al Gore does not bother to show us that the GISP ice core beyond 1000 years, maybe because after 1000 years it shows the temp in Northern hemisphere was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees C 3300 years ago. Not only does Al Gore ignore this data he makes no attempt to explain why the polar bears did not die or the world did not flood back then.
Funny Al Gore ignores the recent Vostok ice core data that shows 3 major temp swings the last 800 years over 2.5 degree C in the southern hemisphere all while the north was relatively flat. So I have been asking Al how it is CO2 only affects the Northern Hemisphere? Then there are all the other 1000s of sudden temp changes the last 10,000 years up to 3 degrees Celsius. The fact is the ice cores show temp change is the norm not the exception as Al Gore and others portray. Why does he do this?
More interesting is there is no proof a 100ppm has any effect on temp but here is how the argument goes. An increase of 100 ppm CO2 has no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Warming nuts say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of reflective layers in atmosphere that try to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one
...degree F because of layers, but this cannot be proven.
Now lets say this is true but a few tenths of one degree F by man but this is not a significant increase so then the global warming nuts say well CO2 also has an AMPLIFYING effect and then they relay on grossly positive loopback bias models that of course they are going to show an amplifying effect as that is what happens when you build models that dont consider negative loopbacks that keeps temp down.
For example these models admit they dont account for things like storms or solar activity as they cant predict them but kinda important for example storms take a tremendous amount of energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind and waves. In Al Gore movie he made it clear his proof is to pick and choose from temp records and believes in incomplete models, but if Greenpeace relying on incomplete biased models as their proof then they should say it on their site.
Funny Greenpeace says they are happy to answer questions on their web site but the only thing they send back to me is asking for me to donate. I would love to donate if they can answer some basic questions on man made global warming that Al Gores also ignores.
So after the puppet-Shah's agreement screwed Iran out of future oil proceeds (the Shah extended APOC (BP's) claim an extra 30+ years), the climate for nationalization, well, heated up! (couldn't resist the pun here sorry). Cold-war politics or not, overthrowing democracy for a pro-business dictatorship backfired bigtime. It was less about Communism and more about profit at the Iranian's expense. & don't think they haven't tried w Chavez.
The "cooling" claim is unfounded. Any basis analysis of trend lines from the 80s to today shows a steady increase in temp. You are being deceived by a clever trick that cites the one outlier in dec 1997 to early 1998 during el Nino that was unusually hotter than the rest of the trend line. Thus it was said that temperature has cooled since '98. It was actually AS HOT in 2004; most of 10 hottest days since 1880 have been in this past decade. search
I like how people are calling these folks clueless and stupid. Sitting at home watching tv with no cause of your own. They were smart enough to plan and carry out this "stunt". Make it past all of that "top notch" security to the top of a treasured monument. They could've been terrorist and destroyed the monument. But, as long as our people are focused on political bickering we are fucking doomed.
isn't defacing a national monument a federal crime? perhaps these CRIMINALS need to spend a few years in a federal prison, then they'll have plenty of time to plan their next illegal stunt.
I never realized Greenpeace was so militant perhaps they should take "peace" out of their name. They can already take me out of their contribution list.
actually, i don't give a shit about greenpeace, and i doubt this stunt will affect global warming. but at least they're trying to make a difference, although arguably misguided tactics. how many of you losers try to make a change u believe in?
Pheeel17-Once no more money is to be made off of Global Warming..it will magically fade into oblivion. I work..pay taxes..recycle and occasionally donate to charity. Hell...I even spent some cash on oddly shaped light bulbs in the name of energy conservation. What I don't do is deface a national monument because I am an unemployed hippy with no direction in life. And i think your "You're a hoax" comment wins the dumbest comment award.
how boring must your life be to get that worked up over this? you act like they blew up Lincoln's face or something. some guys hung up a sign, big deal. don't get your panties too ruffled man, you'll forget about it in a week and find something else to get pissy about
Why is it that when I talk to these hippies, many of them have not read anything meaningful on the subject. Yet, when I try to discuss the issues I have with their theory, they try and shout me down and are not open minded at all about my thinking, but I am expected to just except what they say. Hypocrites.
I'd say, anyone must be blind who fails to notice circus clowns hanging from street light poles, ofcourse someone will get noticed doing weird s-h-i-t lol
oooo look at me im a feakin hippies oo global warming, well i drive a for f-350 with a long bed and a crew cab. i like to eat meat and other little animals, suck on that
This has been flagged as spam show
Amazing video. Check out our upcoming documentary showing how you can get off your arse and change the world. Just do it!
JustDoItFilm 11 months ago
greenpeace peta are terorists (those who use threats to get their views in effect)
naraku578 1 year ago
@naraku578 Did the banner scare you?
TheTradingOutpost 9 months ago
@naraku578 this is not a threat. It's just something visual and perceived.
24thingstodo 8 months ago
Who says the left is not as racist as the white? Where the fuck where you when Bush did noting for eight years about global warming. Now you expect Obama to fix all those problems in less than one year? Hey fuck Greenpeace, if you had any balls, you would have done this five years ago.
unferth69 2 years ago
Don't you mean "wacist as the white," you wasca-wee wabbit?
substanti8 1 year ago
@unferth69 Bush did nothing about global warming because he was uncertain about the science. Now we know that man-made global warming is a hoax and all the lies given by Gore and the IPCC has been debunked.
oomblikkies 1 year ago
LoL@2010revolutionusa's lifestyle
paladude 2 years ago
As a citizen of this country, I found it appropriate to bring to the Obama administrations attention the urgency of climate change by using Mt. Rushmore, a national monument that belongs to all citizens.
79avery 2 years ago 4
HAHAHA YOU CAN'T STOP GLOBAL WARMING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST - AT LEAST MAN-MADE DOESN'T EXIST.
Please get a life and get a job. quit worrying about the environment you kooks. Even if there was a case that Global warming existed, we can't cause it. God made this planet and he knows how to balance it to make everything work. Us using gas guzzlers are not harming the environment.
2010revolutionusa 2 years ago
That's amazing! Great Job everyone!
nyactionnetwork 2 years ago 3
defacing a national monument
if i could get my hands on the fucks who did that, id rip their heads off...
DANEo2o2 2 years ago
Can I ask 1 equation please. who made those faces and when??
raed3373 2 years ago
At least it's nice to see that Greenpeace still feels they're above the law.
Kris246zl 2 years ago
What the hell are some people talking about in here. "french and natives and england"
the clima changes.
werwolfisddoof 2 years ago
I challenge Greenpeace to show any credible evidence that global warming is anything other than a scam perpetrated by tax-hungry politicians, and bad "scientists" whose research is tainted by their liberal agenda. Wake up, idiots, we have been in a cooling trend for the last decade which has entirely erased the 1 degree temperature increase of the previous 100 years. The Antarctic, which holds 80% of the world's ice is growing. The ice caps on Mars, however, ARE melting. SOLAR RADIATION!
voiceofintelligence 2 years ago
EXACTLY. Al Gore got this movement all hyped up on "Green" but he himself doesn't lead the way. Why not? Oh, I'd say because he's too busy enjoying his mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
2010revolutionusa 2 years ago
Holy ad hominem, Batman! Do you think much?
substanti8 1 year ago
Hola soy esteban de tilisarao san luis argentina y estoy difundiendo mi musica en you tube la cuenta es : esteban21022 espero que les guste busca el video planeta pafi ojala pudieramos vivir en el planeta pafi con los marcianos pero seguro nos llevariamos re mal
esteban21022 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Restoring industrial hemp to its rightful place in agriculture today will return much control to our farmers, and away from the multinational corporations that dominate our political process and destroy our environment. These capital-intensive, non-sustainable industries have usurped our economic resources and clear-cut huge tracts of the world's forests, given us massive oil spills, wars, toxic waste, massive worldwide pollution, global warming and the destruction of entire ecosystems.
industrialhemprocks 2 years ago
This is incredible and this kind of action is desperately needed to enourage Obama to be the leader we want him to be. Way to go, Greenpeace.
Mary0019 2 years ago 2
What caused the Medieval Warm Period?
The Knights all traded their horses for SUVs.
TKDJimi 2 years ago
The National Science Board (in) 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end,... followed by ...colder temperatures...(but continued)...However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[17]
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
It was during this time temperatures were feared to be going down, and it was discovered it was more than likely due to aerosol particulates that were reducing solar insolation.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
LOLO, they dont know what it is about. You act like Al Gore, oh please we have it all figured out, LMAO. (love these terms "more likely due to" LMAO, ROTF all the doom and gloom articles use these terms.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Has your argument degenerated to the point of picking out common linguistic phrasings and loosely associating them with something Al Gore might say, like Al and I are the only 2 who have ever used such words?! Man, I hope you learn to apply some of that cognition towards something a bit more constructive, like research and discernment.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
You know I send out several emails to these global warming doom and gloom sites every morning including people like Al Gore and Green Peace who say on their web sites they are happy to answer any questions, but I have yet to receive a single email from a single one of these organizations addressing my basic questions on past drastic temp changes and models. I get nothing but please donate emails, LMAO.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Found a good site: real climate . org (I have no affiliation) for very detailed explanations of the arguments of GW: discussing lag of temp w CO2, Hockey Stick controversy, Gore's Movie, water vapor-feedback or forcing, ipcc 4th assessment. it claims to be honored by Scientific American's 2005 Sci and Tech Web Awards and looks to have author bios. Some are very thick, like the data analysis of Hockey Stick, some more lucid for me. Worth checking out by all.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Yes I know, this web site has been spreading propaganda for a long time, but even that site has no proof a 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect on temp. The claim like everyone models show an amplying effect. Let me know if you find anything interesting on the site as they try to twist crap to the extra step. I have sent them many questions over the years without a singe response. Did you read R M Carter entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate, too get a better understandingofReal'sBS?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Anything interesting? They go into far more detail to explain much of the questions you've brought up. I've read a bit of Carter and it seems like you mainly repeat his assertions, which is ok, except he says stuff like (to paraphrase) 'we don't know how this happens' when in fact it's been fairly well understood decades ago. I'll be working most of the upcoming week, but when I've some free time I'll try to break down some of his false assertions in detail.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Come on you did not even read the Carter paper. He has so much more there than this qoute you give at the end funny. And no he does not go much into people like Al Gore picking and choosing from ice core data to try to prove a constant temp is the norm when it is not, Carter does not talk about Vostok data much for example but he does address models, politics, etc. It is a good article.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
For example get this on their explanation of lag of temp w CO2, they say. --The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming COULD IN FACT have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. Is this funny as hell and typical of what they say, it is always like this
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
You don't seem to understand what they're saying, then. There's a few different processes going on but essentially, certain periodic events, mainly earth's changing path around the sun, creates regular heating and cooling patterns. The heating patterns release CO2 which further heats. They, in detail, explain the reasons for the lag time. In part it's because CO2 takes so long to get cycled out from the oceans during heating periods. The irregular CO2 increase now is manmade! get it?
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Right the earth's orbit changes and they think this is what cause those ice ages that happen every 15,000 or so years and last for about 80,000 years. Now the question is is it because the earth has moved to an eliptical orbit or the earth's tilt has increased. We know we have these ice ages and we know one is do in about 3k years or so but really what causes themlike everything else who knows at this point in human knowledge. Again pleaseprove a few 100 ppm increase in CO2hasany effect in temp?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Hay did you know there is even debate on past CO2 measurements in ice cores? Did you know if you take 20 samples of CO2 for a particular year in the ice cores you get 20 differnt answers? Now the final answer is how you average it together, do you throw out the highs and lows or not? Today they throw out the highs and lows getting the smallest past CO2 number possible, go figure. They say CO2 is effected by time, acid, pressure, chlorine and etc in ice cores and it is probaly not reliable.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
But they all show the same basic trend.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Kinda, but there is more too it. There are ice experts how say you cant measure CO2 in ice at all because time, chlorine, acid, etc makes it a bad place to get data from and thats why the data varies so much. And It does matter because are we talking about CO2 going up 25ppm or 100 ppm? Huge difference. Look I am ok with CO2 going up 100ppm and I am ok with man made global warming because
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I will support the idea layers in 50,000 feet in the atmosphere cause a few tenths of one degree F increase in temp but the temp varies 3 degree Celsius in little as 200 years and has since the last ice age. I am not ok with incomplete positive loopback biased models saying CO2 has amplifying effects. Look if you want to believe in these models that is fine because the fact is you have no other proof a 100ppm increase in CO2 has any more effect than a few tenths of one degree F.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Again, real climate org and all the others know there is no direct proof a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect in temp, none. And these are the past levels you are talking about. Again the only thing they have are incomplete positive loopbacked biased models that try to say this small increase in CO2 has an amplyfying effect on temp, now you can believe in these models all you want but understand what you are believing in. U have to increse CO2 to 200,000 ppm to get a 3 degree C increase.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
It is always like this with them or "damn it it it really could" With ZERO proof! They go on to say this crap, lolol process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a feedback, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
So now it is the same old crap right, incomplere positive loopback biased models shows an amplifying effect, but these models are the only crap them or the IPCC has to tie CO2 to a massive temp rise with no other proof but this virtual crap that cant predict next year or even what happen last year. Real Climate just takes the same old crap and buts another alyer of crap on it. One time they were much more famous for this, they have kinda went away.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I gotta admit I find it hard to figure out what the hell you're talking about...I wish instead of just a thumbs up and thumbs down option, we had a 'meh' option...
bayoudog22 2 years ago
Every global warming doomer article I have seen for 30 years always uses terms like we think, our guess, could be the case, in the future. Funny then it is people like Al Gore that say "we have it all figured out," wierd I have yet to see a global warming doc that say we are 100% sure of this or that, but some how Al and others have it all figured out.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
on 'global dimming": The main cause of (reduction of direct irradiance) is aerosols produced by volcanic activity and emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. These aerosols exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
--I do not take claim for this quote, and a few others as well. For the sake of passing on info I come across I cut and paste, parenthetically adjusting to meet character restrictions. That doesn't leave room to cite sources. many from wikipedia, which includes its own citations.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998, and global cooling for the past few years. The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveal yet another drop in Earth's temperature ... Despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 degrees F since former Vice President Al Gore released 'An Inconvenient Truth' in 2006
creeperreefer 2 years ago 3
Absolutely wrong. The "no warming since 1998" disregards very basic statistical trend analysis. 1998 was an outlier, unusually warm, yet the trend is a general, steady increase since the 80s (and actually, since the 1900s) thru till at least 2005. search:
noaa jan-jun land ocean surface mean temp anomalies smith reynolds
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it?
creeperreefer 2 years ago 2
screw u guys
snosterbla 2 years ago 2
Fucking hippies.
0bamasecrets 2 years ago 4
way to desecrate one of our most beloved monuments for this fairy tale, proves you people dont give a flying fuck about america
nphec 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's a very silly argument. Fine that you don't believe in conclusions presented or don't approve of tactics used by an environmental group, but implying a lack of patriotism is a cliche, irrelevant conservative tactic.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Good news as all these electric cars need lithium batteries guess who controls most the Lithium? Well, Bolivia and other countries hostile to USA. Bolivia says the crap will cost big.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
in the mean time, the Prius hybrid uses NiMH (made w nickel) batteries.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Ok, but Lithium is the future, I see and article saying, many industry observers had expected the next generation plug-less Prius, due in 2009, to use lithium batteries. But Toyota announced in May 2007 that the companys flagship hybrid would continue using nickel metal hydride batteries. The decision reflects Toyotas strategy to protect its lead in the hybrid market, rather than taking chances with lithium batteries that carry greater cost and safety concerns. Lithuim has no memory issues.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
When the CIA stops trying to remove leaders of countries who decide to nationalize their resources, the US will make fewer adversaries in South America and the rest of the world.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Yes there have been a couple of case of this (I wish it would happen in Venz today), if you are refering the Shah he he was put back into power after Mosaddeq took power and tried to take over the English oil company on Iran, the English said hell no and the CIA helped, go figure in height of the cold war.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
On Peru also a cold war event the USA did have a lot of hope for Pinochet and did help him to over throw the full fledge Marxist Salvador Allende who brought communism to S America and all on heels of Cuba and in height of cold war. PS the USA won the cold war an 18 East EU countries free, that terrible USA.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
But do not confuse America with past world powers who did nothing for world peace. You want to steal resources, do what the French do fir example , 1)give best land to fellow Frenchman 2) Form a monopoly on all their resources 3) provide no infrastructure in return not even schools, that way the local population has nothing to stop you with, pass a law school books have to put a good spin on it all. The USA builds strong Biz partners, so it is a win, justtry to build country without investment
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
US, like other world powers, has played the power game, starting with taking over Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, after the Spanish-American war. couldn't annex Cuba legally, so kept influence till Castro's revolution. It's still Imperialism. But yes, US has better track record of treatment of indiginous, but look at poverty in Philippines after decades of strong US influence. I'm not dissing the US, but honoring its democracy by insisting that foreign policy support democracy abroad.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
I sent Greenpeace my simple global warming questions again today (their webs says they have it all figured out and will answer questions) but all I got is another email asking for money? Maybe their banner should just say "SEND US MONEY, AND DONT WORRY ABOUT IT"
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 2
It's hilarious how people believe Obama has the power to stop things like global warming. Like he can snap his fingers and instantly change things. Every thing he does has to be approved by congress. Congressmen get a lot of campaign money from corporations that pollute.
Morgansaur 2 years ago
Also, regardless of whether or not global warming exists, the measures that we would take to "stop it" are good for us all.
abenepe86 2 years ago
yes, lets STOP cap and trade. Yes, that will protect american families. All that uncontrolled carbon dioxide pumping across our landscape, into the lungs of our children and families, increasing lung and other cancer rates, polluting our ground water. Absolutely a great idea. Forget about the jobs we could create with alternative energy industries, and forget about the cleaner, safer, atmosphere we could be having.
Yes, let's stop environmentalism.
abenepe86 2 years ago
You have no idea what CO2 is. Don't worry about CO2 filling your lungs because CO2 is created in the human body (and all animals) and is exhaled from the lungs. So every breath you take you are exhaling CO2. The only way you can't be exposed to it is to stop breathing.
robertg222 2 years ago
so hanging a poster changes what?
jon1151 2 years ago
To all (well most),
It really is great to see this many comments AGAINST Greenpeace on a video posted by them.
This shows that we are making great progress in stopping extreme environmentalists like this.
Now is the time to stand up to against extreme environmental policies that Greenpeace and most current Democrats stand for.
Think of how many American jobs will be saved by stopping things like cap and trade/tax. Stop extreme environmentalism and protect US working families.
Gillz17 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually, most "extreme" environmentalists and progressive Democrats didn't favor "cap-and-trade." It was the centrists that advocated it.
American jobs were lost decades years ago when corporations started exporting manufacturing jobs overseas.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Any of you negative thumbers remember the carbon tax? Gravel, Kucinich, and Dodd (heck, even conservative David Frum) all advocated for it over cap-and-trade. If republicans and other conservatives would've bothered to debate the environment we could have heard more criticism about cap-trade back then.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
I wonder if the envirotards walked to Rushmore or drove, thereby contributing to the 'global warming' (oooohhhhh aaahhhh something more to harass WORKING people).
mahammadabba 2 years ago
I remember when GP did the same thing to the Statue of Liberty. It didn't work then either.
samdon815 2 years ago 5
Global warming is the greatest challege of our generation and Obama needs to step up and lead the world toward an international agreement that is based on scientific recommendations. As for the action, the climbers were all trained and experienced. They had top-notch equipment. The message from this action to Obama was effective in that it garnered international media attention while he was meeting with the G8 in Italy and put global warming at the top of the agenda.
Mary0019 2 years ago
Global warming: the greatest deception to the american public since One Hour Martenizing.
hanleyfallsmn56245 2 years ago 5
Countless scientists are proving that global warming is NOT happening. In fact, many scientists that once believed global warming are now changing their minds based on their research.
Moreover, I thought the term "global warming" was out as the world hasn't seen warming since 2001? Even environmentalists can't keep up with themselves.
Stop cap and trade and save American jobs. Get off YouTube and call your US Senators NOW! Tell them cap and trade is terrible for American families.
Gillz17 2 years ago
Countless? name 10 of them please. It would be helpful to check that they don't work for the petroleum industry.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
the liar gore is being sued by 30 thousand SCIENTISTS. YES 30 THOUSAND. FOR LYING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
1kel40b 2 years ago 2
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, is the party in a law suit. He's not actually a scientist, but a former weatherman with a BA in Juournalism. The 30,000, from what I've gathered, have signed some petition but as far as I've seen are not party to the suit. In a Faux news broadcast he makes a very simpletonian, unscientific explanation.
I personally welcome a debate but haven't heard anything that debunks the GW theory.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
theory is right. climate change is a natural occurance. stop listening to gore.he is a criminal. he is in it for the money
1kel40b 2 years ago 4
all science is based on theory. Einstein's theory of relativity led to the atomic bomb, so we can't discount it because it's considered a theory.
Many argue the false assumption that because certain natural occurances effect climate, that somehow discredits any evidence of man-made factors. Why is it so hard to understand that both can be happening?!
Gore being in it for the money only shows he's not a communist. It's smart to invest in eco-friendly technologies.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
He's being sued by 1 guy, a weatherman with a Journalism degree. The 30,000 is the Oregon Petition I believe. It had a cover letter made to resemble an official finding. Scientific American did a study on this. about 9000 were Phds, but most weren't in science. Lots of fake names. After rough sampling,some of the scientists polled had reversed their view after reviewing more data (it used 1990s data), some didn't remember the petition. ~ 200 were actual skeptics within sci community.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Comment removed
lovehaightorg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Ming Cai, Peter F. Almasi, Dr. James P. Berry, Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Dr. David Sugden, Dr. Gregory Cutter, Dr. Robert Whittaker, Dr. Svante Bjorck, Dr. John Clague
None Work For Petrol Industry
lovehaightorg 2 years ago
lovehaightorg sent me a list of names that came from Heartland Institute's Dennis Avery. study is a sham--45 scientists demanded their names be removed. 3 of them stated:
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced... remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.""Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
postrealitysyndrome...
Name me 10 scientists that support global warming that aren't in it for continued funding for there university departments or personal gain. Prove they haven't come to their conclusions because they've worked their whole life to prove global warming but now can't.
When Al Gore says those against global warming shoud be put in prison it isn't about the science any more. Evidence s growing that shows global warming is false and environmentalists refuse to listen.
Gillz17 2 years ago
I researched "climate change history" and found CO2 was studied as far back as the 1930s for potential climatic effects. The point is that these studies were going on far before Gore popularized it, when there was no financial advantage to taking one side over the other. I frankly can't prove a lack of bias on either side, one way or another, but am still yet to see a convincing argument that puts doubt on GW. Many refer to this "growing evidence" against GW but don't site anything credible.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Again, this is erroneous and based on a statistical outlier from an exceptionally warm 1997-8. 2004 was just as warm as that el Nino year, and the trend line from the 80's to 2009 is a steady increase. search:
noaa jan-jun land ocean surface mean temp anomalies smith reynolds
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Here is some questions I like to ask.What are they to do if one falls and gets crippled or killed?Sue the Feds?Or they get trapped in their ropes dangling from tall heights and rescue workers refuse to help?Or a sudden storm traps them up there,mainly a lightning storm?Or,one of them have a heart attack or diabetic shock and needs help?And the authorities said no?
quarqill 2 years ago
The suspense is killing me-- how does it end?!
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
the liberals voted down all the good comments while the conservatives had gone to work
kevinthewid 2 years ago
Comments can be posted after 5 pm you know!
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Here is the problem for nuts, there is no direct proof several 100 ppm (parts per million) increase in CO2 has any effect of temperature. Lets be clear here is how the argument goes. A 100ppm increase in CO2 in the lab has NO effect on temperature, none! So the warming nuts say this is not fair because CO2 is in 50,000 feet of atmosphere so there are theories based on layers and reflection that raises temp a few tenths of 1 degree F, not much.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I've read that the greenhouse effect was caused by the increase in CO2 resulting in the atmosphere absorbing more infrared radiation reflected off the earth from the sun. Of course you won't see the increase in the lab if there's no solar irradiance involved. Please clarify the study you're talking about, for the information as you give it appears to be a deceptive half-truth.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Comment removed
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I believe you are referring to the ideal layers in the atmosphere cause reflection as I mentioned above. OK but this theory that cant be proven but I agree it says a 100ppm increase in CO2 raises temp a couple tenths of 1 degree F, not much buy hay I can except this, what I cannot expect is models then saying this slight increase cause an Amplifying effect.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
For example a few tenths of 1 degree F melts more snow exposing more land, the darker land warms things even more causing a positive lookback, the problem is they are quick to add positive loopbacks to these models while ignoring many negative loopbacks like storms and solar effects, things they cant predict it makes these models incomplete and positive loop backed biased, of course they will show an amplifying effect, but that has nothing to do with reality.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
changes in solar irradiance and other natural patterns are irrespective of any positive loopbacks. Anything that might be man-made are summed onto them. But any warming, whether natural or man-made, melts ice and contributes to less reflectivity of the earth's surface, trapping in more heat. I'm not talking about atmospheric reflection, rather surface reflection. Less surface reflection, more absorbed heat; more CO2 in atmosphere, more scattered infrared radiation trapped.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Ok, then why is it the ice core temperature records shows the temperature oscillates 3 degrees C and can happen in very short time period or 200 years? Temp change has happened 1000s times for the last 10,000 years, after that we enter our normal ice age that usually last about 80,000 years where the temp still oscillates 3 degrees C but 9 degrees C lower over all.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 3
They think changes in the earths orbit creates the ice ages, but get this they are not even sure of that. So how did all these past temp changes occur without man? How is it the world survived them? Heck 3300 years ago it was 3 degree C higher, just yesterday. Oh and mankind was starting to thrive around then.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Really what part of the science convinces you a few 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any effect on temp? Now the IPCC say it has an amplifying effect but no proofs but models that have not been able to predict the near future and cant even redo the past. Look if you want to believe in the models that is great I get it, me I dont.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Are not solar cycles predictable? Also, other + feedback loops include water vapor holding more heat at higher temperatures. I don't think storms have much to do with atmospheric insulation, do they?
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Sure to some level, there are known cycles. Last year there were no sun spots and the scientist were starting to freak out because it took so long to start up again. It is like saying can't they predict there will be storms next year, sure but the question is the number and intensity which cant be predicted. The studies I have seen show the sun's output can very as much as 7%, but then again the IPCC in each report tries to take solar effects our of the equation more and more, last report cut1/2
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Again, you can measure solar irradiance, and as it decreased fairly predictably, temperatures still went up, as CO2 levels escalated sharply during the decade. Correlation isn't proof of cause, sure, but if other factors don't explain it, the correlation makes for stronger evidence.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
You mean Chile, and again, cold-war aside, this was eliminating an elected president. He planned on appropriating their copper mines, reorganization of the national economy into socialized, mixed, and private sectors, redistributing land to the poor, free milk to children, etc. Believe it or not, some prefer Marxism to starvation. Hope for Pinochet? 1000s murdered or tortured?!-but hey, good for business. Allende had denounced Hitler in 30s; Prescott Bush's Union Bank funded Hitler &Nazis.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
I have no problem with the USA fighting Marxism around the world during the cold war, nor do I have a problem with the USA fighting marxism or evil around the world today. It does not matter if it is the elected Chavez, Hamas or in Iran. I just wish we had a magic wand to make it all perfect but we dont so I will take the good with the bad. What I have a problem with is Obama turning off the light to the hill on the city and wanting to legitimize every repressor on the man made warming planet
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I have been to Central and South America and I know what is going on. The discrimination between the natives and those of Spanish descent is horrible. The Spanish have the nice jobs, houses, malls, stores etc (Nicest mall I ever seen was in Guatemala) If you look at todays Marxist in that part of the world you will see they are of native descent. This has nothing to do about the USA or wonders of Marxism, this is about the poor clinging onto anything to get a fair chance.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I agree entirely and appreciate your incite, but back to mentioning US vs. France (and Europe) in treatment of colonies, how is European colonialism and its results qualitatively different from the US's manifest destiny and its displacement and decimation of native americans? Is pure Marxist ideology is any worse or better than pure corporate Capitalism? our Constitution is based on representative government, not capitalism. Communism's problem isn't so much Marxism, but totalitarianism.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Hay dude, here is my answer. I think you have to remember France, England, Spain and crew had all of the Indians land divided up before the USA was a twinkle in the eye. Did you know back then the Indians thought England and France had the power and kept siding with them against the Americans, by the time Andrew Jackson came a long Americans had had it with the Indians.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
how Eng and France did with other colonies do you think American Indians would have been any better? (I know Catholics did horrible things as well) oh and my great grand dad was a Baptist priest who worked with the Indians and he married a full Cherokee my Great grand mom.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree that with respect to the natives, there are no benevolent colonists. The europeans have a lot to answer for--the Spaniards in America, the French in Africa, etc.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
I am a the smallest gov governs the best, now Government should be helping where private industry cannot, roads, NASA, ects, but it should not compete with private industry even when it is not perfect. Lets say all the hospitals went broke and closed, then ok nationalize health care until capital market can come back. Other than that it is best to get out of the way. Government is a tool to help when no other answer is left.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
My opinion is that industrial development necessitated some regulation, and greater complexities result in broader legislation. I think Teddy Roosevelt suggested certain regulations are necessary to combat the overreaching power of corporations.
I think a government healthcare can supplement private care and bring down some cost--there is so much administrative overhead and price markup in private systems. Some say ~30% overhead compared to europe's <10%.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
For the history of the world man has been controlled by tyranny, USA has been an exception lets not make the government so powerful we lose that so let us not go back to what 99% of mankind has had for its history of goverments.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
US's relative geographic isolation has insulated its citizens from many historic power struggles between dictators with competing objectives. We have an unparalleled degree of peace here at home, and a system that allows a great deal of free expression that we should be thankful for. I'm only saying that we shouldn't be blind to the excesses, historical and contemporary, of the entities, whether in govt or corporations, that exploit others abroad.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
The Wall Street Journal online 01-02-09 states that 2008 was "a year that ran slightly less than one degree warmer than the 20th century mean," the "9th or 10th warmest since reliable record-keeping began in 1850, and the coldest since the turn of the 21st century." Most reports I see show about a 1.3 degree increase over the last 100 years.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Trying to calc the worlds average temp is like trying to calc the worlds average phone number. Did you know for accurate data you would need temp reading from every location on earth, including the oceans and at every layer through out the atmosphere? That past data simply does not exist, now recently satellites have helped with this endeavor but it is far from perfect.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
The NOAA will admit they really cant say temp is at this high because they lack the historical data from every point on earth, they will say surface temp measurements in USA that parts of the USA have seen higher temps in last 20 years while others part in USA are lower. Then they conclude temp must be going up because the glaciers are melting but that has been going on for 10,000 years.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I do agree the temp is changing just like it has the last 10,000+ years as the ice cores show us it can swing 3 degree CELCUIS in a short of time as 200 years. The question is what part is man adding to this and from the current theories not counting models that try to prove an amplifying effect it seems to be a few tenths of one degree F, not C.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Great maybe you can provide some study that directly proves a 100 ppm increase in CO2 has any more effect than maybe a few tenths of one degree F other than models. I have looked for years asked many like yourself yet to find a thing. The fact is there is no direct proof. None, I challenge you to find something.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is cited on wiki as showing that on Earth, CO2 is estimated to cause 9-26% of the greenhouse effect (less so for methane and ozone at a few %). If one accepts that, figure a 30% increase in CO2 would have to cause some increase. Again, this is due to its property of absorbing infrared energy that would otherwise escape the atmosphere. O2 and N2 don't absorb IR. CO2 values this high (380ppm) were last seen approximately 20 million years ago.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Right a few tenths of one degree F, but it cant be proven it is just a theory. But ok I except Man has raised temps a couple of tenths of one degree F at the most. But these models saying it has an amplifying effect are not science. And there is the rub, drastic global warming and cooling are the norm as much a 3 degree C in 200 years despite man and man made global warming is real at the most a few tenths of 1 degree F, not C.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Then the warming nuts then claim incomplete positive loopback biased models that cant even predict the past say this slight raise in temp has an AMPLIFYING effect. The IPCC gets from a .5 degree C to a bit less than a 3 degree C increase depending on which of the 7 models you look at. This is unproven virtual proof, there is NO direct proof a few 100 ppm CO2 increase has any effect on temp, none! Models are their primary proof as their old proof of the hockey stick has mostly been destroyed
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 2
Really ask a warming nut what part of the global warming science convinces them, the typical answer is they have no clue, never thought about and just say 99% scientist say it is true, which is another lie. "
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 2
If you look at Scientific American's conclusions upon studying the Oregon Petition, you'll find that they estimate only about 200 of those 30000 you mention are actually legitimate real climate scientists. Sure, that's significant, but no where near 1% of the scientific community.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Oh really, funny there is no thing as a climate scientist. Now there are people that study solar, some study oceans, some study thermal dynamics, some study core reefs, some study storms, some study ice cores, some study gases, some study models, on and on. Check out the excellent paper by R M Carter titled entitled Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate note it says,
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I'll give 1 example of how bad Carter's study is. He cites Kouwenberg's CO2 mixing ratio chart as evidence of a CO2 increase between 400-700AD. This study is on line as pdf. p65:
"The extremely low number of stomata per mm needle length in the Tsuga heterophylla
record at Jay Bath between 300 and 700 AD does not appear to result from extremely high
atmospheric CO2 levels at the time, but coincides with the establishment of the species
during a period of major disturbance at the site."
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
Kouwenberg shows that studying CO2 in fossil pine needles is a way to measure CO2 level FROM year 800 on, BUT NOT between 3-700 because "highly stressed growth conditions" (from less H2O uptake) resulted in less stomata/needle length, so the calculated mixing ratio from chart (behind dotted line) is faulty data, shown by its deviation from ice core data. Carter misread the study, assuming they "reached...380 ppm". search:
APPLICATION CONIFER NEEDLES RECONSTRUCTION
HOLOCENE CO2 LEVELS chapter5
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
So basically, Carter uses calculated data derived from pine needle samples, but not actually measured CO2 levels, yet he uses it as data as if it actually was the CO2 count, making a point on data which is described as being erroneous in the source material!
Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program, a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181, and is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, which gets funding from oil companies.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
No one scientist, however brilliant, understands climate change, and there is no general theory of climate nor likely to be one in the near future. In effect, there are nearly as many sides to the climate change debate as there are expert scientists who consider it.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Support me, Ill plant some trees.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago 2
Support Greenpeace.
19caribou61 2 years ago
Al Gore and Greenpeaces web site say man made global warming is a fact and they will answer questions but they never respond to my questions and have nothing on their web sites addressing my questions. I have been asking Al Gore at info @ carthagegroup. com and Greenpeace at info @wdc. greenpeace. org to explain 1000s of past temp chances the ice cores show and what their proof is for man made global warming.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
I have been asking Al Gore why he picks and chooses from the temperature records. For example Al Gore does not bother to show us that the GISP ice core beyond 1000 years, maybe because after 1000 years it shows the temp in Northern hemisphere was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 years ago and 3 degrees C 3300 years ago. Not only does Al Gore ignore this data he makes no attempt to explain why the polar bears did not die or the world did not flood back then.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Funny Al Gore ignores the recent Vostok ice core data that shows 3 major temp swings the last 800 years over 2.5 degree C in the southern hemisphere all while the north was relatively flat. So I have been asking Al how it is CO2 only affects the Northern Hemisphere? Then there are all the other 1000s of sudden temp changes the last 10,000 years up to 3 degrees Celsius. The fact is the ice cores show temp change is the norm not the exception as Al Gore and others portray. Why does he do this?
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
More interesting is there is no proof a 100ppm has any effect on temp but here is how the argument goes. An increase of 100 ppm CO2 has no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm to see a 3 degree C change. Warming nuts say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere. So there are some theories based on an idea of reflective layers in atmosphere that try to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temperature a few tenths of one
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
...degree F because of layers, but this cannot be proven.
Now lets say this is true but a few tenths of one degree F by man but this is not a significant increase so then the global warming nuts say well CO2 also has an AMPLIFYING effect and then they relay on grossly positive loopback bias models that of course they are going to show an amplifying effect as that is what happens when you build models that dont consider negative loopbacks that keeps temp down.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
For example these models admit they dont account for things like storms or solar activity as they cant predict them but kinda important for example storms take a tremendous amount of energy out of the atmosphere in the form of wind and waves. In Al Gore movie he made it clear his proof is to pick and choose from temp records and believes in incomplete models, but if Greenpeace relying on incomplete biased models as their proof then they should say it on their site.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Funny Greenpeace says they are happy to answer questions on their web site but the only thing they send back to me is asking for me to donate. I would love to donate if they can answer some basic questions on man made global warming that Al Gores also ignores.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
Were still calling it 'global warming'? I thought we'd all switched over to 'climate change' seeing as how the earth is actually cooling.
YamabushiX 2 years ago 2
funny how the rate of heating decreasing slightly is interpreted as "cooling."
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
(not sure my previous comments posted on this)
So after the puppet-Shah's agreement screwed Iran out of future oil proceeds (the Shah extended APOC (BP's) claim an extra 30+ years), the climate for nationalization, well, heated up! (couldn't resist the pun here sorry). Cold-war politics or not, overthrowing democracy for a pro-business dictatorship backfired bigtime. It was less about Communism and more about profit at the Iranian's expense. & don't think they haven't tried w Chavez.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
correction--the extension of claim appears to be by Shah's son; older Shah died...
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
The "cooling" claim is unfounded. Any basis analysis of trend lines from the 80s to today shows a steady increase in temp. You are being deceived by a clever trick that cites the one outlier in dec 1997 to early 1998 during el Nino that was unusually hotter than the rest of the trend line. Thus it was said that temperature has cooled since '98. It was actually AS HOT in 2004; most of 10 hottest days since 1880 have been in this past decade. search
"jan jun land ocean temp anomalies smith"
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
I like how people are calling these folks clueless and stupid. Sitting at home watching tv with no cause of your own. They were smart enough to plan and carry out this "stunt". Make it past all of that "top notch" security to the top of a treasured monument. They could've been terrorist and destroyed the monument. But, as long as our people are focused on political bickering we are fucking doomed.
tadpole2919 2 years ago
Green'peace', your tactics don't help your cause. They just make you look like clueless fascist assholes with too much free time.
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago 4
getting a president to stop global warming, yeah
apollosfury 2 years ago 2
isn't defacing a national monument a federal crime? perhaps these CRIMINALS need to spend a few years in a federal prison, then they'll have plenty of time to plan their next illegal stunt.
mdjbm 2 years ago 5
I never realized Greenpeace was so militant perhaps they should take "peace" out of their name. They can already take me out of their contribution list.
ejw63 2 years ago 6
they still have my contribution.
postrealitysyndrome 2 years ago
actually, i don't give a shit about greenpeace, and i doubt this stunt will affect global warming. but at least they're trying to make a difference, although arguably misguided tactics. how many of you losers try to make a change u believe in?
pheeeel17 2 years ago
Pheeel17-Once no more money is to be made off of Global Warming..it will magically fade into oblivion. I work..pay taxes..recycle and occasionally donate to charity. Hell...I even spent some cash on oddly shaped light bulbs in the name of energy conservation. What I don't do is deface a national monument because I am an unemployed hippy with no direction in life. And i think your "You're a hoax" comment wins the dumbest comment award.
mal7999 2 years ago
how boring must your life be to get that worked up over this? you act like they blew up Lincoln's face or something. some guys hung up a sign, big deal. don't get your panties too ruffled man, you'll forget about it in a week and find something else to get pissy about
pheeeel17 2 years ago
that's awesome
it was a worth while act because they definitely
were heard..seen
man, that banner is huge
a related video on youtube
Letter to the future president #147
TheStoicAgnostic 2 years ago
Comments that are simply critical of this stunt have been flagged as spam. Typical hippie hypocrisy.
if you censor the opposition you must be correct, isn't that right?
IFknHateUTube 2 years ago 3
greenpeace is a bunch of publicity whores. they'd stuff bundles of poison ivy up their twats if they thought it would get them some attention
IFknHateUTube 2 years ago 2
keep it up- we need more of this sort of thing to get the policy makers to wake the fuck up and do something.
you can't stop greenpeace
ss713 2 years ago
And these stunts do not make a difference one way or the other. I guess it just gives them something to do and to feel like they matter.
ladylordess 2 years ago
why hasn't youtube removed the video of this crime yet?
kevinthewid 2 years ago
free speech prick
pheeeel17 2 years ago
Would have loved to been there . . . with a sniper rifle.
hanleyfallsmn56245 2 years ago 2
Why is it that when I talk to these hippies, many of them have not read anything meaningful on the subject. Yet, when I try to discuss the issues I have with their theory, they try and shout me down and are not open minded at all about my thinking, but I am expected to just except what they say. Hypocrites.
duqpimp 2 years ago
probably they have an other theory about the subject.
envanje 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I sure hope that big banner of yours was made of 100% post consumer product...Oh, and did the park officials recycle that when they tore it down?
iJasonp 2 years ago 2
quite effetive - it got them noticed.
shedininja001 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd say, anyone must be blind who fails to notice circus clowns hanging from street light poles, ofcourse someone will get noticed doing weird s-h-i-t lol
KARStarla 2 years ago
Why are there so many angry comments getting upvoted and the supportive ones are hugely downvoted? This must have been posted on some right wing site.
I think that what you did was great. Keep up the good work., you all!
ratherconfused 2 years ago
uh no it was on the news and most americans don't like people messing with our national monuments
kevinthewid 2 years ago
You tube is now a right wing site? You're an idiot.
ejw63 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
oooo look at me im a feakin hippies oo global warming, well i drive a for f-350 with a long bed and a crew cab. i like to eat meat and other little animals, suck on that
southerndipper78 2 years ago
This is a phenomenal action. Keep up the great work!!
crazylawstudent 2 years ago