Comedian Dan Antopolski plays on ethical dilemma

[tory888]

Climate change is undeniably happening, yes, and human development is certainly accelerating it. However, people proclaiming the world's doom are getting a few steps ahead of themselves. Truth is, this event has never occurred at this pace before, so we don't know the effects. There is a strong possibility that the Earth's natural cycle will sort itself out. (cont)

[tory888]

@tory888 (cont) However, if we really want to kick our oil habit (for reasons of dependency, climate change or something else) then we need to fully embrace nuclear power. It is a travesty that in the UK the junior coalition partners (lib-dems) are the most green minded party of the big three and yet have an outdated, ill-informed opposition to nuclear power, which is the only reliable alternative to oil and coal feasible for the UK.

[gerryboy3699]

pure scum

[efekt1303]

My favourite bit? The illiterate nature of the flat earthers commenting on this post. I see you haven't quite evolved from being apes, or else you spelling might just be a bit better.

[justmeattome]

*your

[gerryboy3699]

Dan Antopolski one to avoid. The games up fuckers. We all know that global warming is a scam, you wicked cunts.

[hewhosits]

@gerryboy3699 Charming. I suppose you can provide links to peer-reviewed science suporting your claim.

[DeniseAshurstUK]

Looks to me like people commenting here have not done their homework. And as for opinions on God, there are more religions than just the Judeo Christian traditions. Go learn People.

[ComeHomeCatholics]

The earth is not to be worshipped. Some in the enviromental movement are trying to replace God with the earth. The whole climate change debate is influenced more by politics than by scientific facts. Notice how the new term is "climate change" instead of "global warming", that because the earth has actually been cooling. Don't be fooled by sceintists who read their own perspective into the data. We must respect Gods creation, but only God is to be worshipped.

[HumanSayNo]

What a twat...whats with all the swearing???

[TheUrbanSurvivalistS]

"If you broke something in someone's house, would you offer to pay for it?

If someone is caught lying should they be held accountable?

This channel is clearly ignoring the facts and spreading propaganda!

[hibwibhibwibdibby]

Look up solar flares over the last 20 years and all heating cooling and natural disasters are explained. If you believe emissions damage the planet (which is rubbish) then remove the ppl who benifit from this scam, i.e fossil fuel owners and bankers. 1 volcano produces as much carboon as 6 billion humans over 100 years

[HumanSayNo]

Eugenicist scumbags!!

[poochiepooch94]

hahahahahhah this video is so funny xD

[ager74]

I will say again in order to arrive at the truth, the scientific process must be able to be recreated and criticised by everyone. If the process and the data is unavailable, how the hell can it be recreated. And this is the problem and this is why AWG dosent stand up to criticism, the scientists know this and that is why the data has been surpressed, this is an absolute scandle and an outrage, and the public will never buy it.

[ager74]

In actual fact i used to beleive in global warming before i read the otherside, and your display of words and namecalling is exactly the doctorine that the AWG has installed in its followers, to put on the rest of the world when AWG is questioned people r paranoid, deniers, conspiracy, looool, if this isnt brainwashing then what is, all the people want is the truth that science should by its very process deliver, that process has been hijacked and the hypothesis is crumbling just read the treaty

[ager74]

I like the rest of the world wish to know how the temperature rises that all this is based on were created, but without all the raw data, as you said that is not available to third parties, tell me how can we know, AWG is telling us, who the hell do they think we are, the data belongs to the people we paid for it, it is this arrogant beleif, that is causing the AWG religeon and "theory" to fall flat on its face, nothing more. If it is true make the data available allow science to speak

[hewhosits]

If the science doesn't support your position, claim it is rigged. If the International community and every National and International scientific body of standing disagrees with you, claim it's a conspiracy. If your pet hypotheses fail to add up, claim it's censorship. If the physical data show rising temperatures, claim they're doctored. There's a word for this - paranoia. Either that or you're a troll out to stir things up.

[hibwibhibwibdibby]

YOU STUPID, STUPID MUG

[gerryboy3699]

@hewhosits Hang on ! Is it climate change or global warming your on about? Maybe all the Aluminium and Barium salts being sprayed into the atmosphere will give you the warming effect you desire in a few years, then we can all pay our Carbon Taxes to the Rothchilds , fuckin woop de doo. Your either a shill or a muppet , either way bog off!

[ager74]

You say its not about proof, this is the same things we were told prior to going to war," the evidence" when at best the evidence is biased and appears fudged, whats the problem with waiting to resolve the science, whats the rush?same story. Get the proof then construct a treaty, otherwise we are screwed

[hewhosits]

You don't understand. There is no such thing as scientific proof, there is only the balance of evidence. There is lots of research being conducted into alternative hypotheses. These hypotheses just don't add up to a challenge to the prevailing theory. You can wait for 'proof' if you want, back in the real world temperatures and sea-levels are rising, ice is thinning, climate change marches on inexorably and people are dying. The rest of your recent comments are just paranoid conspiracy nonsense.

[ager74]

Ok temps r rising according to the accused fraudulant data of the IPCC, and the fudged sea temps of niwi, ice is thinning in the north and growing in the south poles. So i presume u havent read the Copenhagen treaty by your response, i ask you again read the treaty and wake up, or the science is nothing more than faith based. And that my freind is a religeon, and the public are not stupid,read the treaty as that is the end result of the science. I always allow the truth to decide myself.

[hibwibhibwibdibby]

You should look into the ppl trying to implement this treaty and weather it helps your global warming lie. You actually have no idea really do you. WAKE UP

[ager74]

Then to add insult to injury, once the cop is formed they are empowered under the treaty to elect what experts they choose too, they are self governing and answerable to themselves, on matters of funding enforcement and policy, this is one very dangerous treaty

[doktorfootball]

Great video! What a great comedian.

[kstarr123]

Great clip!

Spot on politics and so funny!

Anyone fancyies an analysis of "rap styles"? I can definitely hear Vanila Ice and E17 in there.

He is so right.

Rich countries that have had the biggest part in destroying the climate should pay for fixing it.

It's called justice.

[ager74]

I presume the 5 or 6 degrees where did u get that figure? is that from the ipcc computers? and if it is, as a scientist how can you rely on a computer, the code of the ipcc computers under scrutiny is also found to have serious problems with it, any good scientist absent of ego should explore all arguments and allow the truth and only the truth to decide as in the end that is the only thing that stands up to the public scrutiny

[ager74]

So we agree that the definition of the truth is a fact that stands up to the process of scrutiny. Now what happens when the the deniers if you want to call them that ie the ones that get to pull the work apart, are not given the chance to test or pull apart the theory because of supression or non acess to data. Therefor similar to a witness in a trial without a prosecution, the whole process falls apart instantly. This is what climate science is facing here. If it is true it will stand up

[hewhosits]

It is the scientific community that scrutinises reports, not the deniers alone. The papers are published and the data are available. Nothing is being suppressed. You must be referring to the leaked FOI requests. The CRU used data supplied by other agencies on condition that it didn't pass the data on to third parties. The CRU was legally obliged to withhold the data. The people making the FOI requests were simply asking the wrong organisation. They should have asked NASA et al.

[ager74]

It is my understanding that the majority of the Data, held at the cru was applied for many times under the foi requests, the applicants were told to source the data else where, as they only held a percentage of it. This being the case then it is fair to say that the scientific community that are not of the AGW beleif have never had acess to it, as you stated the data was to never be passed onto a third party. So therefor the theory has never been tested outside of the AGW beleif.

[ager74]

If the science is proved correct then great, but then you have the next step of the policy that the science produces, which is the Copenhagen Treaty, it should be read by all, after reading the treaty you will find that a carbon tax does absolutley nothing to benefit the planet in the slightest, and the formation of a global government it proposes with enforcement is frightening. The science has been politically hijacked, and the people are waking up.

[hewhosits]

It's not about proof, it's about evidence. The balance of evidence overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. You're right that the policy response is key. However, there is no Copenhagen Treaty yet, it is yet to be negotiated. There is no mention of a global government. That's just reds under the bed paranoia. The International community agreed action to tackle ozone depletion - no New World Order, no communist take over. The same sort of response is required now.

[ager74]

But this is the problem the money for grants based on research is only given to people doing AWG research no grants are given for people to disprove it, so of course the evidence is overwhelmingly for AWG. Have you read the treaty? the word government does appear in it, i specifically draw ur attention to page 18 para 38(a) where it states "the government will be ruled by the COP" then see para b and C, dont believe everything you are told my freind.

[gerryboy3699]

@hewhosits yeah they decided to tackle the middle east also. Result = millions dead. Great guys these, wanted us all to get embalmed before we were dead courtesy of their swine flu vaccine. So trustworthy these rulers you speak so highly of! Ya fuckin troll supporting the Rothchilds and Al gore the rapist scumbag. Go back under the rock you slithered out from.

[sunstarrrs]

livestock was a great evening and this was brilliant!

if only we had a cupboard of spare beautiful blue planets...

[ager74]

I will use the same analogy, if your car broke and you took it to the mechanic, and he told you it would cost loads to fix, would you just beleive him or would you get a second opinion, exactly you would get a second opinion, well we arnt getting a second opinion here, we are being "told" the climate is screwed, there is a second opinion but we are not being allowed to hear it, absolute con

[hewhosits]

The problem with your 'second opinion' is that the evdience supporting it is sketchy at best, full of holes, based on cherry-picked data and is incoherent, while the evidence supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change is coherent, robust and supported by the physical evidence and every National and International scientific body of standing. If you have a coherent theory explaining the warming trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution then let's hear it.

[ager74]

The evidence that all climate science is deriving its figures from, appears to have holes in it. And the peer reveiw process seems to be biased, and the computer models that predict warming the code seems to have been corrupted, given this, how can awg stand up to scrutiny, the simple truth is it dosent and that is why the freedom of information acts have been ignored, the sceptics are a natural part of science not partof communism tell me how the copenhagen treaty solves climate change loooool

[ager74]

Additionally if you could explain why the medievil warm period has not been accounted for in the figures, did it not occur?, and the warm period of the romans? maybee the science is best left to nature, as that is all it appears to be. I used to nievly believe in it until i researched the sceptical side looool.

[hewhosits]

The MWP has not been ignored. It's simply that on a paleoclimatic scale it doesn't show up because it's pretty insignificant. Beside, what is the relevence of the MWP or the Little Ice-Age, or any other natural climate fluctuation, to the current warming period? No-one has ever said the climate doesn't have natural variability. The really worrying thing is the cumulative effect of natural temperature rise on top of anthropogenic temperature rise. We can't adapt to a 5C or 6C rise.

[hewhosits]

All science has holes in it, but the theory of anthropogenic climate change remains robust and coherent, unlike any of the hypotheses put forward by the deniers. Your other assertions are simply wrong. The latest report from the IPPC, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, paints a pretty stark picture and shows the instrument readings, temperature, sea-levels and other indicators are in line with predictions. Again, I ask you how do you account for the current warming period? Show me the evidence.

[ager74]

you also left out the 600 years of warming in the romano period. Correct me if i am wrong but science works like a court of law, someone makes a claim, the other scientists then get to pull apart that claim and rebuild it in the methodology presented. If it works then the conclusion of the findings is paramount to proof. The claim then becomes peer reveiwed independantly to finalise and tweek, this is the age old system that the public trusts, and never questions.

[hewhosits]

Not quite. Peer review is like a filter. Those papers with scientific merit are published and receive further scrutiny, those that have no scientific merit are not published. The vast majority of peer reviewed science on climate change supports the anthropogenic theory. Some papers on alternative hypotheses do get published, but haven't stood the test of time. In contrast, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is robust and coherent, and is supported by real world observations.