There is plenty of evidence SUPPORTING global warming, and physicists are NOT qualified to make statements on climatological matters, their business is atoms and particles, not clouds and winds.
Finally, even if man-made global warming didn't exist, what man is doing to the environment is NOT HELPING MATTERS, therefore we have to react and do our best to minimise our aid to them.
@Lyinginbedmon "There is plenty of evidence SUPPORTING global warming"
Like what? Melting glaciers? Big deal. The earths temperature has gone down over the last 8000 years and has gone down since the mideval ages. Hence why the climatologists in climate gate where flabbergasted at how to explain the mideval warming period.
@Poole1Dan The temperature fluctuates, yes, this is true. It does not fluctuate by nearly as much as it has since the industrial revolution. Also, 8000 years is a damn long timeline with damn long integers, the past couple centuries is much different.
@Lyinginbedmon "It does not fluctuate by nearly as much as it has since the industrial revolution"
I wasn't talking about fluctuations, I was talking about the pure raw temperature increases, which have been non-existant in the last 800 years and the last 8000 years despite unchecked human "exploitation" of the earth. In fact, even IPCC charts show that the temperature increase seen since the industrial revolution is almost flat even though the CO2 increase has gone straight up
@Lyinginbedmon Put it another way, there's no correlation between increased Co2 by humans and increased temperature. Massive increases in CO2 emissions (which are dwarfed by that of earths natural production anyways) have not resulted in a massive increase in temperature. Instead, they've "resulted" in an almost non-existent increase of less than 2 degrees. Ergo, there is no need whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions, which would destroy the standard of living for everyone
@Lyinginbedmon "8000 years is a damn long timeline with damn long integers"
You missed the point, which I will explain in detail: according to the IPCC, over the last 160,000 years there has been a direct correlation between the earths temperature and CO2 levels. As CO2 levels go up, the earths temperature goes up at the same rate, and as CO2 levels go down, the temperature goes down at the same rate.
@Lyinginbedmon There are virtually no exceptions to this correlation from 160,000 years BPD (before present day) to about 10,000 years BPD. Now as anybody reading this should know from history, the human population has expanded exponentially in the last 10,000 years, and especially in the last 200 years, when we started the 19th century with about a billion people and now have 6.5 billion today.
@Lyinginbedmon During the last 10,000 years, we have harvested the earth endlessly, using it to our advantage. We have industrialized and agriculturilized previously green lands, created all sorts of toxic gases, have settled across the entire planet, and breathed billions of tons of C02 into the air every year. We have also breeded numerous cows and sheep and chickens and other farm animals, all of whom spew tons and tons of methane into the air every year.
@Lyinginbedmon Planet Earth had never dealt with this kind of force before from any species, and environmentalists/eco-terrorists have gone nuclear over it. Well guess what: despite the fact that we humans have 'savaged the planet' over the last 10,000 years and spewed our own man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global temperature has gone DOWN from 1 degrees celcius 10,000 years ago...
@Lyinginbedmon to a hair over 0 degrees celcius today, even though CO2 levels have sharply RISEN from 250 PPM's to 370 PPM's! By the IPCC's own data, there IS no 'overall trend' of 'man made' global warming! There's not even an 'overall trend' of global warming! The eco-terrorists were LYING about man made global cooling in the 70's and are LYING about man made global warming today! 'Climate change' (a fallacious tautology if there ever was one) was natural back then, and its natural today.
@Lyinginbedmon "didn't you just state very clearly that Earth's temperature rises and falls in correlation with CO2 levels?"
Yes I did, but that doesn't change the fact that the massive increase of CO2 output from humans does not correlate with a massive increase in temperature. The reason the correlations were consistent with over 10,000 years ago is because nature produces the overhwleming majority of CO2, and the same is true today. Humans could halt artificial carbon emissions and...
@Lyinginbedmon ...it wouldn't make a difference. Hence why human emissions basically failed to raise the temperature the last 200 years whereas natural emissions were coorelated with similar increases in the IPCC chart I talked about covering the BC era. Its simple stuff to understand, really
@Poole1Dan You're not making any sense. You say CO2 does cause heating, but even though humans have created a massive amount of CO2 in recent centuries, it hasn't changed the temperature at all? You're contradicting yourself, we've not only increased our CO2 output but we've also cut back the Earth's resources that scale it back.
@Lyinginbedmon "You say CO2 does cause heating, but even though humans have created a massive amount of CO2 in recent centuries"
But the CO2 emissions from humans, not to mention all greenhouse gases, are dwarfed by that which is produced by nature. Obviously 10,000 years ago, all CO2 was natural, hence the correlation. But because humans don't produce enough CO2, the correlation is so weak that its non-existent. The stats from the IPCC prove this
No I'm not. I clearly explained human CO2 emissions don't and can't cause an increase in global temperature because human output is so miniscule, and you simply fail to understand it cause you're a blind eco-terrorist ideologue
@Lyinginbedmon "we've also cut back the Earth's resources that scale it back"
No we haven't, or else the temperature would have exploded to venus like proportions. Like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and...
@Lyinginbedmon ...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
@Lyinginbedmon "the past couple centuries is much different."
FALSE. It was warmer during the mideval ages than it is right now, and it was warmer even 8000 years ago than it is now. In the last 200 years, the temperature increase has been negligible, and as Phil Jones admitted, there has been no global warming for the last 15 (now 16) years.
Man made global warming? Its a myth. There isn't long term global warming period much less man made global warming
@Poole1Dan Based on your information, global warming may be false, but you're doing a lot of work supporting the notion of global cooling. Ice Age, anyone?
@Lyinginbedmon "Based on your information, global warming may be false"
Hmm. A 1 degree decrease over 8000 years despite unchecked human activity. Yeah, global warming IS false!
"you're doing a lot of work supporting the notion of global cooling"
Meh, not really. I'm saying humans have no control whatsoever over the earths temperature, and therefore, we must continue living how we're living and unleash the forces of capitalism that way everyone in the world prospers.
@Poole1Dan Again, Capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming, you just think it is, I can only assume, due to propaganda from various political parties. No global issue is inherently tied to any political ideology, they can be tackled in a number of ways to suit whatever idea you want to idolise.
@Lyinginbedmon "Capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming, you just think it is"
You're right, capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming. Now tell that to all the environmentalists and climatologists who claim it is! Also, I'm never said capitalism is linked to GW. This entire time I've been demonstrating how that's false. Pay attention!
@Lyinginbedmon "No global issue is inherently tied to any political ideology"
You haven't been following the news then. The myth of man made global warming is only believed by Progressives and other left wing pieces of shit who call themselves human beings. Nobody on the right or center believes in global warming, and even if they do, they aren't saying we should implement destructive policies like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax in order to fix it.
@Lyinginbedmon " they can be tackled in a number of ways to suit whatever idea you want to idolise"
apparently the environmentalists/eco-terrorists beg to differ: "it is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
@Lyinginbedmon "their business is atoms and particles, not clouds and winds."
Actually, physicists do indeed study clouds and winds. How do you think physicists discover why the sky is blue and wjy rainbows exist? By studying the physics of the weather and climate. Not that they are the same as climatologists, but they are perfectly qualified to speak on matters of climate science.
@Poole1Dan A climatologist is far more qualified than a physicist, because whilst physicists may touch on climatological issues tangentally in their research, climatological issues ARE the research of climatologists, therefore they are far more qualified. You don't go to a family doctor to see about specialised cancer treatment and you don't go to a physicist about the weather.
@Lyinginbedmon "because whilst physicists may touch on climatological issues tangentally in their research"
Watch 1:41 to 2:11 again in this here video. You're repeating an argument that was already addressed
"climatological issues ARE the research of climatologists, therefore they are far more qualified"
As was explained in the video, a QB's coach specialized with, well, the quarterbacks, and he may or may not be more qualified than the head coach. In the case of climatology, its not a...
@Lyinginbedmon ...matter of who has specific credentials, its a matter of evidence, and the physicist in Varney's video has evidence on his side, unlike the climatologists who are paid off by tyranical monsters in the government to promote the myth of man made global warming.
@Poole1Dan Evidence isn't the only variable in a scientific view. Two scientists can get the same results and take different perspectives on them, this is why it pays to listen to those who specialise in dealing with them rather than those who maybe had a few classes or a semester on them a few years back. Always take statements with a grain of salt when they are made by someone who is not deeply involved in the area being studied.
@Lyinginbedmon "Evidence isn't the only variable in a scientific view"
Oh so now science is a Democracy and is not based on facts and non-facts? Go ahead and defend consensus if it pelases you, but as my youtube channel says:
"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humbling of a single individual"-Galileo
and he's not the only one who was smeared by the consensus of foolish scientists.
@Lyinginbedmon "Two scientists can get the same results and take different perspectives on them"
But we're talking about an issue thats very black and white. Either the earth's temperature has raised or it has not, and either humans are causing said raise or we are not. Let the evidence presented in this video and plenty of other sources show that the answer is no, the earths temperature is not rising long term, and no, humans aren't doing anything wrong
@Poole1Dan You've repeatedly stated that the temperature has risen, that it is linked with CO2, and that humans are creating a lot of CO2. Whether we started the temperature rise or not, our current path is not going to resolve the matter. As for science being a democracy, it isn't, it's peer reviewed, which means you get data and make your opinion about it, everyone else without bias makes sure you're looking at it right and did things properly.
@Lyinginbedmon "You've repeatedly stated that the temperature has risen, that it is linked with CO2"
You've missed the forest for the trees. FACT: the earths temperature has decreased the last 8000 years despite unchecked human activity. Long term global warming? Nope. FACT: an increase in CO2 emissions did not result in a similariarly sharp increase in global temperature since the mid-19th century because there wasn't enough of it produced to effect the temperature.
@Lyinginbedmon "which means you get data and make your opinion about it, everyone else without bias makes sure you're looking at it right and did things properly"
In theory that's how its supposed to work. In practice it only works if everyone is being honest, which is not the case at all with climatology (see: climategate)
@Lyinginbedmon "this is why it pays to listen to those who specialise in dealing with them"
If a head coach tells me interceptions are bad and a QB coach tells me interceptions are good, am I to believe the QB coach just because he has more "expertise" on quarterbacks than the head coach? Nope.
Such as is the case with climatologists vs. physicists on the issue of mythological global warming
@Lyinginbedmon "Always take statements with a grain of salt when they are made by someone who is not deeply involved in the area being studied"
Fuck that. No expert can tell me up is down and night is day. The fact that 98% of climatologists say global warming is real and is caused by man is a damning indictment on the religion that is climatology. You can't trust any large group of people that spews lies and falsehoods and misinterprets their own fucking data.
@Lyinginbedmon "You don't go to a family doctor to see about specialised cancer treatment and you don't go to a physicist about the weather"
But a family doctor likely doesn't know much about cancer treatment, unlike a physicist, who actually does study climatology along with everything else.
@Lyinginbedmon No I'm not. You're saying a physicist has no qualifications to speak on matters of climatology, and as I've explained ad nauseam, you're dead wrong
@Poole1Dan No, I'm not saying they have no qualifications, I'm saying they are UNDERqualified to speak on a specialist subject. I can tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but even if I actually did understand it all I'm not remotely qualified to explain the formulae for calculating the energy in a beam of light through a vaccum. That is why climatologists are superior to physicists when talking about climatology.
@Lyinginbedmon "I'm saying they are UNDERqualified to speak on a specialist subject. "
Even so, how does that disprove anything Stuart Varney's physicist said? Ad hominem, much? Why are you and Ed Begley attacking his credentials and now his evidence?
@Lyinginbedmon "Finally, even if man-made global warming didn't exist, what man is doing to the environment is NOT HELPING MATTERS"
Marvelous. You would destroy capitalism and send the entire human race back to the agrarian age even if man wasn't causing global warming. Not that I'm surprised by this. Its all about global misery and the unholy redistribution of wealth with you eco-terrorists. Humans must not only continue down the capitalist path in order to better our own lives...
@Lyinginbedmon ...but we should also exploit every natural resource and grow our standard of living to ever greater heights until we run out of room in a few hundred or thousand years. By then we'll have the technology to move to other planets. Capitalism is a human made miracle that must be allowed to thrive that way everybody prospers, and there's no justification for stopping it with eco-terrorist policies that breed totalitarianism.
@Poole1Dan ...wow, just...WOW, did you ever miss my point entirely. I'm not any sort of eco-terrorist, I don't support any kind of political party or combined political ideology, I'm a scientist plain and simple. If a lightning bolt starts a forest fire, you don't light more trees on fire, is my simple statement. We don't need totalitarianism to resolve it, we don't need to tear down capitalism to fix things, we just need to stop polluting so much.
@Lyinginbedmon "I don't support any kind of political party or combined political ideology"
You don't need to. You said mankind should do "do our best to minimise our aid to them" when there's absolutely no need to do that. And don't pretend like you don't know the ramifications of "doing something" about global warming. The miracle that is capitalism and increased energy consumption go hand in hand. To reduce one is to reduce the other, and thus to hurt humans in the process
than stick to science instead of this dehumanizing pagan religion that calls itself environmentalism
"If a lightning bolt starts a forest fire, you don't light more trees on fire"
But what if you need to light those trees on fire in order for humanity to prosper and thrive? Besides, you're painting a false reality. Capitalist, 1st world nations are much more environmentally clean than undeveloped nations that are "eco-friendly."
@Poole1Dan I'm an atheist scientist. You on the other hand seem to have an almost god-like view of capitalism. Either way, whilst I'm willing to grant there are problems with it (as there are of any one-size-fits-all political structure), I've got no beef against capitalism. As for the (oddly theological...) burning trees, there isn't much point in thriving at Earth's expense if it will come back to bite us, whether we started the problem or not.
Doesn't change the fact that you clearly worship (figuratively speaking) at the alter of environmentalism. You want humans to at least alter our heretofor unknown standards of living just because you incorrectly think the environment is being destroyed by our way of life? You might as well order me to take communion lest I go to hell. What eco-terrorists like you do is no different than what Catholics did 500 years ago and what Muslims still do today
@Poole1Dan I don't worship at anyone's altar, I am simply stating that we need to make a couple changes, not necessarily ones that degrade our standard of living, to allow ourselves to continue it later down the road, be it by growing a few more trees or finding materials that don't pollute as much in their manufacture, or both.
And again, I am NOT an eco-terrorist, or else by now I imagine I'd be linking videos and cursing your name as well.
@Lyinginbedmon "I am simply stating that we need to make a couple changes"
But you're making those statements in the complete absence of facts. You want humans to "do something" about global warming even though it is not happening and even though humans have no power to change the earths temperature. You're an ideologue who is trying to foist you're anti-human, unjustified beliefs about global warming onto the rest of us, hence why i said you worship at the altar of environmentalism.
@Lyinginbedmon "growing a few more trees or finding materials that don't pollute as much."
If you want to grow more trees, start planting! Moreover, growing trees is now what environmentalists ahve in mind, Cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or worse, is what they have in mind.Also, countries with advanced economies that consume lots of oil and coal have cleaner environments and healthier citizens. Like poverty, true pollution only exists in non-industrialized countries
@Lyinginbedmon "And again, I am NOT an eco-terrorist, or else by now I imagine I'd be linking videos and cursing your name as well."
You don't have to do any of those things to be an eco-terrorist. See an article I wrote called "The EPA's abominable war on the American people" for details.
@Lyinginbedmon "You on the other hand seem to have an almost god-like view of capitalism"
Damn straight! Why do you think Feudalism and every economic system thats been around beforew 1800 is classified by even leftist historians as the "Dark Ages"? Because until capitalism/free market, technology development was basically non-existant, and the standard of living for everyone except the aristocratic 1% was like that of people in Africa today.
@Poole1Dan It was not called the Dark Ages because of a lack of capitalism. It was called the Dark Ages due to the very low standard of literacy and education and the all-but-stalled progression of scientific inquiry. Capitalism had nothing to do with it, the world was still very much buy/sell even through the Dark Ages.
@Lyinginbedmon "It was not called the Dark Ages because of a lack of capitalism"
Yes it was. During the dark ages, technological growth was non-existent. Capitalism changed all that. Ergo, the Dark Ages was called so because capitalism did not exist. If that's false, then I was lied to by my left wing professor in my "Philosophy of Economics" class.
@Lyinginbedmon "It was called the Dark Ages due to the very low standard of literacy and education and the all-but-stalled progression of scientific inquiry"
All of which changed for the better when capitalism came into existence. QED
@Lyinginbedmon Capitalism had nothing to do with it, the world was still very much buy/sell even through the Dark Ages"
You're not even trying now. Buying and selling goes on even in North Korea. The difference with capitalism is that for the first time in human history, the profit motive and investment in, well, capital, become the engine of economic growth. This first started in Britain and America until it eventually spread across the entire western world. Hence the Dark Ages no longer exist
@Lyinginbedmon But today, everybody who lives in nations that embraced capitalism lives better than aristocrats did even 200 years ago. Capitalism makes everyone aristocrats, with an abundance of food, medicine, and supplies far beyond that needed to survive. Even 98% the so-called poor in America always have enough food, on top of all sorts of other material wealth ranging from refrigerators to washing machines to HDTV's.
Those who don't live capitalism are either ignorant about it or hate it
Yes you do, hence why you want something like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade in order to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist
"there isn't much point in thriving at Earth's expense"
1. We DON'T thrive at earths expense. Google an article by the Heritage Foundation called "Economic Freedom Will Save the Earth" and see for yourself.
2. Even if we did live at earths expense, we've only cultivated 5.2% of all the land in the USA, to say nothing..
@Lyinginbedmon ...of the rest of the world (where its probably less than 1%). In other words, we will never ever ever run out of land, water, or natural resources in our lifetime. Living at the expense of the earth - which, again, is a myth anyways - will never ever comeback to bite us until we've already developed the technology to inhabit other planets.
NO WE DON'T!! Google this article I wrote called "EPA exacerbates unemployment with eco-terrorist regulations" and tell me that a large-scale effort to reduce carbon emissions wouldn't destroy capitalism and replace it with an old fashioned, totalitarian, top-down government run economy ala North Korea and Soviet Russia
"If you actually read the facts"
I have, and I've been giving them to you and every other eco-terrorist vermin
@Poole1Dan No, you have not. You have presented statements, and made wild conjectures on what a resolution would cost.
You've linked to papers that are old, unreferenced, uncited, and in some cases not peer reviewed, the information contained in them could be specks of gold from the eye of God, but without those elements it is unwise to take them at face value.
Simply put, you are behaving like a creationist, ignoring evidence to the contrary and shrieking "fool!" at your detractors.
@Lyinginbedmon "You have presented statements, and made wild conjectures on what a resolution would cost"
I've actually made specific statements and given you specific facts over and over in regards to temperature changes. As for the ramifications of "solving" global warming, I don't have the space on youtube comments to give you the full details, but to give you a taste of what I'm talking about...
@Lyinginbedmon ...google an amazing article called "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." Or better yet, read comments from environmentalists themselves saying how humans are cancer on the earth, and that capitalism and a healthy earth cannot co-exist
"You've linked to papers that are old, unreferenced, uncited, and in some cases not peer reviewed"
Well of course they are old. They're from the 1970s, when the...
@Lyinginbedmon ...global cooling craze was at a fever pitch. The Time Magazine article and the Washington Post article both demonstrate how a consensus of scientists said global cooling was real and was going to destroy the earth if humans didn't change their capitalist ways. moreover, climatologists claim that coal emissions cause both global cooling and global warming, a contradiction if there ever was one.
Furthermore, facts are facts regardless if they are peer reviewed or not
@Poole1Dan No, they are not. More precisely, we cannot know what is fact or not if we cannot be certain of the credibility of the information and how it is presented. That is why peer review exists. Simply assuming that something is true regardless of peer review is belief and is more tangibly associated with religious fervour than scientific endeavour.
@Lyinginbedmon "More precisely, we cannot know what is fact or not if we cannot be certain of the credibility of the information and how it is presented"
FACT: If you jump off a 10 story building, you're dead. No scientific inquiry is needed to prove that. Shall I continue? Didn't think so. There's objective and subjective facts in this world, and you as a scientist should know that
But when the peer-review process conflicts with the objective facts like it does with the mythological theory of man made global warming, then the facts always win out unless you're an ideologue who is trying to push an agenda at any cost
@Lyinginbedmon And the peer review process is usually nothing more than a rubber stamp process with no credibility, hence the field of climatology that falsely claims humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Peer review looks nice on an application but doesn't mean shit when faced against facts and evidence, which are supposedly the cornerstones of science in the post-Enlightenment era (but I understand how pagan religions like environmentalism always hated facts and evidence)
Aether physics & scalar waves may be scientifically prevented by Einstein's theories.
ZPE forms would halt fossil fuels--that, regardless of carbon emissions, has some additives that are toxic, are rising in cost, & are under Rockefeller control.
But if you Google (Einstein +"engineering school" Poincare Planck Maxwell Thompson Hertz Faraday Lorentz), --says Einstein plagiarized almost everything. His wife did all his math, & published the '05 papers.
Link 6 from the heritage foundation, they do get some of their funding from oil companies, while it may be as little as 2-3% that still represents a massive conflict on interest. Also about the 2 peer reviewed articles you posted, links 4 and 5, they don't site any previous work? ALL peer reviewed journals cite other peers work ad nauseam ( Oreskes paper on the climate consensus that link 6 refers to cites 10 things even with its extremely short length) i was just wondering why those don't?
@hokieknights81 "while it may be as little as 2-3% that still represents a massive conflict on interest"
1. If there is a conflict of interest between the Heritage Foundation and oil companies who are against greenhouse gas regulations that hurt their bottom line, then almost all of climatology is a farce. Wanna know why? Because the government-which so desperately wants to control the gas we breath out of their mouths-funds almost all the climatologists who are screaming about climate change
@hokieknights81 Thus there is a much bigger conflict of interest between climatologists and the government then there is between the Heritage Foundation and oil companies. Indeed, climatologists are pressured to produce results the government WANTS that they they continue to receive federal funding.
I for one believe in looking at the substance, and that brings me to my second point.
@hokieknights81 2. Regardless of who funds Heritage, its your job to discredit their research with your own evidence. Just because Heritage is publishing research that might be favorable to some oil company doesn't mean their research is wrong. As a matter of fact, Henry Waxman asked Heritage a series of 33 questions about their methodology in analyzing his cap-and-trade bill, and Hertiage answered all 33 of them in smashing style.
@hokieknights81 "Also about the 2 peer reviewed articles you posted, links 4 and 5, they don't site any previous work?"
The reason there aren't any links to other sites is apparently because there doesn't need to be. Bottom line is both sites were published on a .edu domain, which means it wasn't read and reviewed by mutiple peers, likely within the scientific department. You can't just publish stuff on a .edu domain without it being approved first.
@Poole1Dan I think you misunderstand the concept of peer review. Peer reviewed articles are published in some sort of journal with the prerequisite of major internal vetting by other random scholars, in this case scientists, in the same field. I don't think either of your sources are from journals
@hokieknights81 "I don't think either of your sources are from journals"
probably not, and they probably haven't been vetted by dozens of other scientists from the same field. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that nothing gets published on a .edu domain-especially on matters involving science-without approval by several peers, in all liklihood from the same field. Make sense?
This video lost all credibility when it started defending Sarah Palin's irresponsible and disgusting "Death Panel" claims. If you really buy into scum bags like Sarah Palin, then you sir are a moron.
@seanstrnad My take on Sarah Palin is that she is a pretty strong conservative who is a really annoying speaker and who has done really stupid things before (such as claiming support for some type of cap-and-trade bill and supporting John McCain over J.D Hayworth in the Arizona Senate race). I'm not a religious follower of Palin. She's clearly imperfect. but she's also right on the money sometimes, and the death panels are one of those times.
By the way, why refute Ed Begley? He's just an actor. Why don't you go refute the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed and published climate scientists who accept the REALITY of global warming?
cause it took me all of an 2 hours to download this clip and respond to it point by point
"go refute the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed"
1. again with the phony consensus argument. you just can't help yourself!
2. given all the lies that have been debunked coming from the AGW mob, the so called peer-reviewed process is in fact a rubber stamp process, which makes sense given that AGW research is funded by......the federal government
@Poole1Dan Again, you're not a scientist. I think I'll trust the scientific method, the same process that has given us countless medicinal advances, super-computers, nanotechnology, clean water, large amounts of food, etc, etc. You dismiss some of the scientists' papers because the research was funded by the government? The government funds lots of other things that you seem to have no problem with: the FDA, USDA. Of course, you have no objection to the science involved there.
1. Neither are you, and yet, here you are arguing for the catastrophic falsehood that is anthropogenic global warming'
2. I don't need to be a scientist to do my own research on the myths and facts of global warming (or in this case, the lack thereof). All the facts and stats I've provided, from cap-and-trade to the numbers I've given you on global temperatures, are backed up by reliable sources, which I'll provide for you if you want
@Poole1Dan "I don't need to be a scientist to do my own research on the myths and facts of global warming"
Again, you aren't a scientist, more specifically a climate scientist, so your own personal interpretation of isolated pieces of data is worthless. MY interpretation is worthless. You and I do not have the expertise to look at data and put it all together into a meaningful theory. That's why we have colleges where people can go to be scientists. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid here
@intriguedgorilla "your own personal interpretation of isolated pieces of data is worthless"
No its not. Any person with an average IQ like me can look at facts and stats and come up with the deductively correct conclusion, and thats exactly what I've done here. But you ignore it cause it doesn't fit your eco-terrorist agenda. Sucks to be you!
"MY interpretation is worthless"
No need to worry about that. You proved it along time ago
@Poole1Dan Oh, ok. So anybody with an "average" IQ can look at and interpret data from a specific field of science into a cohesive theory. Gotcha. Well I encourage you to take your "theory" to the big boys (people with science degrees in relative fields i.e. climatology) and see how it holds up. Go on. That should be pretty funny. Hilarious actually.
@intriguedgorilla "can look at and interpret data from a specific field of science into a cohesive theory."
This isn't fucking rocket science of advanced algebra. Its simploy looking at temperature numbers and comparing them with carbon emissions. The actul collection of those numbers is something that only a scientisist could do, but studying those numbers themselves? Dude, thats grade school shit.
@Poole1Dan well, the numbers you like to talk about clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the past 3 decades, that the amount of carbon has significantly risen in the past 3 decades, that in the 80's we begin to see the end of any kind of correlation between sun-spots and temperature that we've seen for thousands of years. We also see the earth warm more in the winter months (lack of carbon-eating tree leaves). I don't see how the data lines up with your climate change denialism.
@intriguedgorilla "the numbers you like to talk about clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the past 3 decades"
the global temperature went down by 0.7 degrees C in 2007 and 0.6 in 2008. This dwarfs the gain we had throughout most of the 20th century. Phil Jones: no global warming in last 15 years. The temperature of the earth has NOT warmed significantly in the past 3 decades or in the past 200 years even though there's been a sharp increase in carbon emissions
@intriguedgorilla "that in the 80's we begin to see the end of any kind of correlation between sun-spots and temperature that we've seen for thousands of years"
Theodor Landscheidt at Nova Scotia's Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, has shown quite conclusively that the sun waxes and wanes on quite predictable 11-year cycles, which can be moderated or intensified by longer-range, but more irregular cycles.
@intriguedgorilla Landscheidt, as a result, is unpopular with the UN scientists in charge of pushing the manmade global warming theory. In 1995, they wrote that the sun's effect on climate in the 20th century "has been considerably smaller than the anthropogenic (manmade effect)." But Landscheidt has demonstrated that "a change of 0.1 per cent (in solar energy) effective during a very long interval can release a real ice age."
@intriguedgorilla For some reason, despite all this research, most climate scientists have clung to the "solar constant," the notion that the sun more or less shone steadily and that its variations had little impact on climate change.
Now, that may be about to change. Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, along with nine other experts on oceans, environmental physics, tree-ring formation and glaciation from around the world,
@intriguedgorilla have examined the rates of deposit of tiny particles from melting icebergs in the North Atlantic. And what have they found? Why, lo and behold, during periods of increased sun strength, the oceans have warmed and the bergs have melted more rapidly. The correlation is so strong, that one scientist who formerly blamed man's industrial activity for global warming told Science magazine, the solar theory "is now the leading hypothesis."
@intriguedgorilla "We also see the earth warm more in the winter months (lack of carbon-eating tree leaves)"
There's also a lack of tree leaves that absord any and all CO2 from humans or nature, so how does this prove your argument that humkans cause global warming?
"I don't see how the data lines up with your climate change denialism"
then you haven't read any of the numbers I've provided and are ignoring my arguments, which is why you are now blocked.
@intriguedgorilla " I encourage you to take your "theory" to the big boys (people with science degrees in relative fields i.e. climatology) and see how it holds up"
If a climatologist ever gets in my face about his eco-terrorist religion, I will certainly give him the same facts and stats that I gave you, but like Mufassa once said to Simba: "when trouble comes, I'm ready for it, but why go looking for it?"
@Poole1Dan . So I guess the peer-review process that we've used for so long is worthless then because some non-scientist guy like you thinks he can interpret climate data better than a climate scientist. 1000's of peer-reviewed papers by climatologists proving the reality of climate change is rendered worthless by the opinion of one obnoxious ass who doesn't know anything about climatology let alone science. Dude, I mean this in a nice way (because you need to seek help), but you're an idiot.
@intriguedgorilla "So I guess the peer-review process that we've used for so long is worthless"
Its not worthless in ALL cases, its worthless in this particular case cause you've got all these radical eco-terrorists saying their research proves AGW is real even though all the facts say otherwise. Its self-evidence that the peer-reveiwed process in regards to 'climate change' is an illegitimate rubber stamp process. end of story
@Poole1Dan The ad hominem shit is getting kind of old. You call call me an "eco-terrorist" all you want, but it doesn't prove a thing. So basically the peer-reviewed process used in pretty much all first world countries is okay except in situations where you personally don't like their conclusion. Gotcha. Again, it's demonstrated that the majority of climate change deniers are non-scientists and this is no exception. You don't even admit the earth has warmed, which the majority of deniers do.
I didn't launch any ad hominem attacks. I called the climatologists who claim GGW is real "eco-terrorists" and then proceeded to explain why their peer-review shit is wrong. Thats called substance. Not ad hominem. An ad hominem attack would be if I responded to a point of substance with a personal attack and had no substance. This was not the case and has never been the case in any argument I make
@intriguedgorilla "You call call me an "eco-terrorist" all you want, but it doesn't prove a thing"
again you've proven that yopu haven't read what I've wrote. I've explained in graphic detail to you how environmentalist policies are destructive to the economy and destructive of human life. Anybody who comes across this video can read what I've said and make their own conclusions. I for one have more then proven how you and your climatologist friends are eco-terrorists
@intriguedgorilla "is okay except in situations where you personally don't like their conclusion"
its not just that i don't like their conclusion, its also that their conclusion is in direct contriction to the stats on temperature and carbon emissions. If their conclusions had facts behind it, I'd be forced to except it. This is not the case. So seeing as they are publishing lies and falsehoods, the peer-review process they used must by logical extension be a rubber stamp.
@intriguedgorilla "it's demonstrated that the majority of climate change deniers are non-scientists and this is no exception. "
the majority of climate change scaremongerers are non-scientists as well. There are way more "ordinary" citizens like running around like headless chickens howling about climate change then there are scientists who say climate change is real. you've proven nothing here
You are asking me to not believe what my eyes see, and I refuse to do that. I've got a brain and a basic understaning of numbers, and I'm simply using it here. The stats I've presented in previous days clearly show there is no global warming short or long term and that its certainly not caused by humans
@intriguedgorilla "1000's of peer-reviewed papers by climatologists proving the reality of climate change is rendered worthless by the opinion of one obnoxious ass"
As far as this argument between me and you is concerned, YES. Although I should mention there's millions of others like me who also have made the conclusion that that AGW is a farce. Poijt being, that fallacious 'scientific consensus' of yours is not just challenged by me
@intriguedgorilla "who doesn't know anything about climatology let alone science"
alright than faggot. Tell me where I'm wrong.
" I mean this in a nice way (because you need to seek help), but you're an idiot.
Cry cry cry scream scream scream waaa waaa waaaa fucking waaaa!!!! I've beaten the shit out of all your arguments buddy with facts and stats and plain old logic. Get the fuck over it and move on.
@intriguedgorilla " That's why we have colleges where people can go to be scientists. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid here"
Climatologists, scientisis, nor ANY group of human beings has a patent on the study of numbers and stats, nor does any group of humans have a patent on deductive reasoning. I have looked at the numbers and stats before me and come to the conclusions I've come to. And I dare you to tell me where I'm wrong
dude, your idea of the 'scientific method' is this: something is true if a consensus of scientists say its true. Under this 'scientific method,' the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe. afterall, this was the scientific consensus for hundreds of years. (=
@intriguedgorilla " the same process that has given us countless medicinal advances, super-computers, nanotechnology, clean water, large amounts of food"
wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. CAPITALISTS and ENNTREPRENUERS like John Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Andrew Cranegie, and Bill gates gave us all that stuff, NOT scientists (certainly not scientidid funded by the government). It was the free market that created all the new technoloy and abundance of food and medicine. Those are the FACTS
@Poole1Dan These are businessmen who paid people (scientists) to work for them. Many businessmen who don't know dick about science fund research projects, etc. For example pharmaceutical executives. So regardless of where the money comes from (the government or capitalists) the real meat of the work is done by scientists.
@intriguedgorilla "These are businessmen who paid people (scientists) to work for them"
In the case of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Colonel Sanders, Walt Disney, and others, they didn't hire any scientits but were responsible for their OWN inventions, be it computers, vehicles, food, or amusement parks. Now granted, sometimes scientists (and other specialized workers) are hired to do the "dirty work" but this doesn't detract from the fact that its the free market that is
@intriguedgorilla responsible for proividing us all that we have, NOT the government or whoever is funded by the government. NONE of the things you mentioned were founded by government or government funded workers. It was all from the free market/the private sector. The government has a conflict of interest and is looknig for a specific result, whereas the free market is always looknig for inovation and discovery. Therefore, private scientists are always more trustworthy then gov. scientists
@intriguedgorilla "You dismiss some of the scientists' papers because the research was funded by the government?"
Yes. And here's why: its a conflict of interest. The scientists that have published research showing global warming is a fraud are mostly private scientists who have no interest in publishing research which the government wants so that way theyc an pass tyranical legidlation such as cap-and-trade. But the so-called scientists who claim global warming is real and is man made are
@intriguedgorilla funded by the gov. and therefore are under pressure to publish results which will increase power that the federal government has over the people. This is nothing new. Research showing whites are inherently better then blacks was also funded by a racist federal government (on a side note, all racist laws in the USA were a result of the federal governments own policy makers, NOT the free market). Research showing the earth was flat was funded by the likes of the Catholic church
@intriguedgorilla Historically, the government has always funded "scientists" that produce the results they WANT to see, whereas private scientisis actually using the scientific process have made all the important discoveries, whether its Newton, Galileo, or Einstein. This is because there is no conflict of interest with private scientisis. They simply discover what exists. Not what the government WANTS them to discover. Global warming is the lastest example of this inherent conflict of interest
@intriguedgorilla "The government funds lots of other things that you seem to have no problem with: the FDA, USDA."
Can I get an Amen? AMEN! I fucking hate the FDA and USDA. Those two bureaucracies have increased the price of food and farming while decreasing the quality of food produced ever since they were created as a direct result of Upton Sinclairs "The Jungle." The FDA and USDA pressured the private sector into using genetically processed food,
@intriguedgorilla and those two industries also make it PROFITABLE to use genetically processed food. And then the so-called progressives turna round and claim that it was the free market that came up with genetically processed food when, infact, the free market never had an interest in such food and instead always used natural, organic food up until the FDA and USDA stepped in and distorted the entire market. Thus the USDA and FDA must be abolished.
@intriguedgorilla "you have no objection to the science involved there."
Scientists didn't create all those things you mentioned, but I'll admit that there was indeed "science" involved increating some of those things. that said, you have once again stated that there is "science" involved with global warming even though i've debunked that as a lie multiple times. Because there is no science behind AGW, I don't need to pick and choose what science I like and don't like. Give it up already!
@Poole1Dan Global warming is a reality dude. It's caused by us. The amount of PEER-REVIEWED papers that prove this is staggering. It's time to act on it, so if you oppose a cap-and-trade bill, you need to propose something different. Check out Amory Lovins, he proposes an incentives-based approach to solving global warming, which would not raise energy costs or cost jobs. Either way, it would be very unwise to do nothing simply because it would be inconvenient. It's a hard pill to swallow.
FALSE. there is no global warming, much less man made. The earth has cooled in the last 10 years as well as the last 8,000 years. we have only used 3.4-5.2% of natural land in the USA. people are living longer lives despite industrial pollution. these are all FACTS! the global temperature went down by 0.7 degrees C in 2007 and 0.6 in 2008. This dwarfs the gain we had throughout most of the 20th century.
FALSE. if you look at the IPCC charts, the increase in global temperature in the last 200 years is extremely flat relative to the radically SHARP increase in carbon emissions from humans. Thus the correlation between human emissions and global warming is so weak thats its an irrelevant correlation. Furthermore, the earth has indeed cooled in the last 10-15 years, as Phil Jones himself admits.
@intriguedgorilla Thus the idea that we need to act now on climate legislation, as Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore both claim, is completely debunked.The earth has also cooled by 1 degree in the last 8000 years despitr all the human industrialization and manipulation of the earth, thus the idea that there is a long term trend in global warming caused by humans is also completely debunked.
@intriguedgorilla "The amount of PEER-REVIEWED papers that prove this is staggering"
"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humbling of a single individual"-Galileo
This means that consensus is NOT a scientific argument in any way, shape, or form. And yet, there you go using the consensus card! You have no respect or interest in science or else you wouldn't use such a rediculous argument. Thus the so-called "peer-review" process is a rubber stamp.
NOPE. There is no man-made GW short term or long term. what little GW we've seen over the last 200 years does not strongly correlate with the huge increase in carbon emissions from humans. We need to do NOTHING to stop global warming. We Americans have the full-fledged right to keep on living as an industrialized, 1st world nation.
@intriguedgorilla "Check out Amory Lovins, he proposes an incentives-based approach to solving global warming"
There's no such thing as an 'incentives based' approach when its the government creating the incentive and thus distorting the market, which artifically inflates the price of a particular good and service and also decreases the quality. We need more Rockefellers, Morgans, and Carnegies, not more big daddy government
@intriguedgorilla "it would be very unwise to do nothing simply because it would be inconvenient"
inconvienient? No. Ho about totalitarian and genocidal? Like I explained to you before: environmentalist policies have resulted in more innocent human beings being killed then policies from any other group of people in human history. This is genocide. And those policies also control what people can do and what theyc an buy. thus they are totalitarian in nature. end of story
@intriguedgorilla and unwise? That, sir, is you trying to push your enviornmentalist religion down our throats despite such a relgion causing genocide and totalitarianism and being contrary to all scientific facts. We have a seperation of church and state in this country. I suggest you follow it.
@Poole1Dan What about the research in other countries (the countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia, aka every industrialized first world country in the world)? I guess they're all in on some sinister global conspiracy to make people drive hybrid cars and use wind power. How evil! By the way, the private sector is motivated almost exclusively by profit, so tell me, what would motivate the private sector to research global warming? Government is to protect the people and set standards.
@intriguedgorilla "What about the research in other countries (the countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia, aka every industrialized first world country in the world)?"
what about em? The governments in those countries are more tyranical then the United States government. They not only make it illegal for poor 3rd world nations to industrialize just like the U.S government, but they also murderer their own citizens via single payer healthcare and soft laws on violent criminals
@intriguedgorilla Tens of thousands of citizens in european countries needlessly die per year because of Single payer healthcare and the havoc that the violent criminals and murderers who were relased early on parole all cause. Australia and Japan are not much better.
Now do I beleive these countries are conspiring with eachother? No, not really. I simply think that in each and every one of those nations, there are thugs in the federal government who want totalitarianism
@intriguedgorilla And the thing is, governments that want totalitarianism tend to use the same means of acheiving it, so even though they don't actually work together, they noentheless all use similar methods, in this case, fearmongering about anthropogenic global warming.
@intriguedgorilla "to make people drive hybrid cars and use wind power."
Hybrid cars are practically made of fucking plastic. Like I said before: over 100,000 Americans (and europeans for that matter) have died as a reuslt of the motherfucking shitty cares their government forces them to drive. Cars made of steel like my old 1997 Ford SUV are a thing of the past. This is a bloody disgrace (no pun intended)
and wind power? thats been a disaster everywhere its been tried.
@intriguedgorilla wind power is extremely inefficient and expensive, and it sounds like a warzone when you use your wind power. Hence why NO entreprenuers are currently investing in windpower. Right now,oil, patroleum, natural gas, and nuclear energy are the way to go.
@intriguedgorilla "the private sector is motivated almost exclusively by profit, so tell me, what would motivate the private sector to research global warming?"
How very fitting that an eco-terrorist like you would not know a damned thing about how the free market works, so let me educate you: the Free Market is never staganant. there are always new innovations and technologies being developed in the Free Market. Its been that way for 200 years even with more and more government
@intriguedgorilla For example, 50 years ago, computers were only used by the Pentagon, and it was inconceivable that regular Americans like me and you would use them for home purposes. Well, along came Bill Gates in the 1970's, and Abra-fucking Kadabra, we got home computers!
So right now, there is no private sector investment in "green" technologies, but in 50 years, oil might be a thing of the past. No matter what happens, we just let the FREE MARKET decide, not the government
@intriguedgorilla why? Because the free market does nothing but create, innovate, and produce. The abundance of food, shelter, medicine, clothing, technology, and all essentials of modern life in America are a result of the free market. But the government? All it does it tax, spend, regulate, and distort, and destroy. The American standard andf quality of living is probably 150 years behind what it would ahve been had Keneysian economics never been embraced and all these bureaucracies never
@intriguedgorilla established, especially the Department of Sickness and Human Destruction (IE, the department of health and human services) and the EPA. All these bureaucracies and regulations are not here to help the people, they are here to control the people and steal their individuality and worth away from them. the standards they set destroy jobs, destroy wealth, choke innovation, and often outright kill innocent people.
@Poole1Dan Oh by individuality you mean the right to fuck up the planet without any immediate consequences. Save your drama for someone who cares, because people losing jobs in destructive industries sounds a lot better than people dying of thirst in countries that will be hit hard by climate change, not to mention the droughts that will devastate crops. I'm more concerned with people being able to eat or drink clean water than some guy having to look for a new job.
@intriguedgorilla "by individuality you mean the right to fuck up the planet without any immediate consequences"
Unfortunately for you, we are NOT fucking up the planet and we are NOT faced with any immediate or long term environmental consequences. If anything, we in the First World are HELPING the environment, as nations with free market advanced economies have environments that are much cleaner and less polluted then 3rd world impoverished countries like Africa.
Thanks for (indirectly) admitting you don't give 2 shits about individuality. This is yet another reason why i call enviro-pukes like you eco-terrorists: you don't care about individuals. Its all group think for you. Its all collectivism for you. The "common welfare" always trumps the individual no matter how devestating collectivist policies are to the individual. we saw this in Nazi germany, the USSR, North Korea, and so many others
you know, I wish Obama, the entore Democrat Party, and the moderate repugnicans like Lindsey graham were as candid as you, cause if that was the case, we'd have nothing but conservative and libertarian Republicans running our elected branches of government. You just admitted that you'd destroy the coal industry, the trucking industry, manufacturing industry, the auto industry, the steel industry, and virtually every other
@intriguedgorilla industry that is populated by the very union members and blue collar workers who you claim to support, all in the name of a genocidal religion in environmentalism. How very compassionate and understanding of you!
"people dying of thirst in countries"
People are already dying of thirst in 3rd world nations because you eco-terrorists make it illegal for them to industrialize and modernize their economies! You motherfucknig two-faced hypocrite!
@intriguedgorilla Furthermore, there has been no decrease on the volume of H2O from either the oceans, lakes, or rivers. The Amazon and Nile Rivers, the Great lakes, and the 5 oceans are still going strong last I checked and are in no danger of losing water. You are just making shit up, as all scaremongers do
@intriguedgorilla "not to mention the droughts that will devastate crops"
More lies and falsehoods. Do you see famines and droughts going on in `st world nations? No. why? Cause we are INDUSTRIALIZED and MODERNIZED. If we would allow 2nd and 3rd world nations to do the same, we would never have any droughts or famines, as there would be an endless supply of food, water, and medine for everyone beyond whats needed to stay alive. Thats the miracle of the free market
@intriguedgorilla "I'm more concerned with people being able to eat or drink clean water than some guy having to look for a new job"
You frame this like its a dichotomy. Its not! First world nations are able to provide both jobs AND an abundance of food and water! But you would destroy the free market in the name of your religion, as you yourself admitted. Fuck yourself you piece of shit!
@Poole1Dan If this will destroy wealth, why do we see billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson supporting climate legislation? They're the poster boys for capitalist success you love to talk about and yet they realize the danger climate change poses for the environment, the economy, and the world. They support government action to solve this problem. So what, are they in on the government conspiracy to control your life? I think you know better. Climate change is your enemy dude.
@intriguedgorilla "why do we see billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson supporting climate legislation?"
Because as magnificantly successful as they've become, they obviously don't realize how they are the engineers of the free market, hence why they have both been giving all these campaign contributions to democrats. If you ask me, they are walking contradictions, and thats because they have become corporatists, which is something anti-thetical to the free market
There is plenty of evidence SUPPORTING global warming, and physicists are NOT qualified to make statements on climatological matters, their business is atoms and particles, not clouds and winds.
Finally, even if man-made global warming didn't exist, what man is doing to the environment is NOT HELPING MATTERS, therefore we have to react and do our best to minimise our aid to them.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "There is plenty of evidence SUPPORTING global warming"
Like what? Melting glaciers? Big deal. The earths temperature has gone down over the last 8000 years and has gone down since the mideval ages. Hence why the climatologists in climate gate where flabbergasted at how to explain the mideval warming period.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan The temperature fluctuates, yes, this is true. It does not fluctuate by nearly as much as it has since the industrial revolution. Also, 8000 years is a damn long timeline with damn long integers, the past couple centuries is much different.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "It does not fluctuate by nearly as much as it has since the industrial revolution"
I wasn't talking about fluctuations, I was talking about the pure raw temperature increases, which have been non-existant in the last 800 years and the last 8000 years despite unchecked human "exploitation" of the earth. In fact, even IPCC charts show that the temperature increase seen since the industrial revolution is almost flat even though the CO2 increase has gone straight up
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon Put it another way, there's no correlation between increased Co2 by humans and increased temperature. Massive increases in CO2 emissions (which are dwarfed by that of earths natural production anyways) have not resulted in a massive increase in temperature. Instead, they've "resulted" in an almost non-existent increase of less than 2 degrees. Ergo, there is no need whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions, which would destroy the standard of living for everyone
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "8000 years is a damn long timeline with damn long integers"
You missed the point, which I will explain in detail: according to the IPCC, over the last 160,000 years there has been a direct correlation between the earths temperature and CO2 levels. As CO2 levels go up, the earths temperature goes up at the same rate, and as CO2 levels go down, the temperature goes down at the same rate.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon There are virtually no exceptions to this correlation from 160,000 years BPD (before present day) to about 10,000 years BPD. Now as anybody reading this should know from history, the human population has expanded exponentially in the last 10,000 years, and especially in the last 200 years, when we started the 19th century with about a billion people and now have 6.5 billion today.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon During the last 10,000 years, we have harvested the earth endlessly, using it to our advantage. We have industrialized and agriculturilized previously green lands, created all sorts of toxic gases, have settled across the entire planet, and breathed billions of tons of C02 into the air every year. We have also breeded numerous cows and sheep and chickens and other farm animals, all of whom spew tons and tons of methane into the air every year.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon Planet Earth had never dealt with this kind of force before from any species, and environmentalists/eco-terrorists have gone nuclear over it. Well guess what: despite the fact that we humans have 'savaged the planet' over the last 10,000 years and spewed our own man made CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the global temperature has gone DOWN from 1 degrees celcius 10,000 years ago...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon to a hair over 0 degrees celcius today, even though CO2 levels have sharply RISEN from 250 PPM's to 370 PPM's! By the IPCC's own data, there IS no 'overall trend' of 'man made' global warming! There's not even an 'overall trend' of global warming! The eco-terrorists were LYING about man made global cooling in the 70's and are LYING about man made global warming today! 'Climate change' (a fallacious tautology if there ever was one) was natural back then, and its natural today.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan Wait, didn't you just state very clearly that Earth's temperature rises and falls in correlation with CO2 levels?
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "didn't you just state very clearly that Earth's temperature rises and falls in correlation with CO2 levels?"
Yes I did, but that doesn't change the fact that the massive increase of CO2 output from humans does not correlate with a massive increase in temperature. The reason the correlations were consistent with over 10,000 years ago is because nature produces the overhwleming majority of CO2, and the same is true today. Humans could halt artificial carbon emissions and...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...it wouldn't make a difference. Hence why human emissions basically failed to raise the temperature the last 200 years whereas natural emissions were coorelated with similar increases in the IPCC chart I talked about covering the BC era. Its simple stuff to understand, really
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan You're not making any sense. You say CO2 does cause heating, but even though humans have created a massive amount of CO2 in recent centuries, it hasn't changed the temperature at all? You're contradicting yourself, we've not only increased our CO2 output but we've also cut back the Earth's resources that scale it back.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You say CO2 does cause heating, but even though humans have created a massive amount of CO2 in recent centuries"
But the CO2 emissions from humans, not to mention all greenhouse gases, are dwarfed by that which is produced by nature. Obviously 10,000 years ago, all CO2 was natural, hence the correlation. But because humans don't produce enough CO2, the correlation is so weak that its non-existent. The stats from the IPCC prove this
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You're contradicting yourself"
No I'm not. I clearly explained human CO2 emissions don't and can't cause an increase in global temperature because human output is so miniscule, and you simply fail to understand it cause you're a blind eco-terrorist ideologue
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "we've also cut back the Earth's resources that scale it back"
No we haven't, or else the temperature would have exploded to venus like proportions. Like MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said: "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and...
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "the past couple centuries is much different."
FALSE. It was warmer during the mideval ages than it is right now, and it was warmer even 8000 years ago than it is now. In the last 200 years, the temperature increase has been negligible, and as Phil Jones admitted, there has been no global warming for the last 15 (now 16) years.
Man made global warming? Its a myth. There isn't long term global warming period much less man made global warming
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan Based on your information, global warming may be false, but you're doing a lot of work supporting the notion of global cooling. Ice Age, anyone?
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Based on your information, global warming may be false"
Hmm. A 1 degree decrease over 8000 years despite unchecked human activity. Yeah, global warming IS false!
"you're doing a lot of work supporting the notion of global cooling"
Meh, not really. I'm saying humans have no control whatsoever over the earths temperature, and therefore, we must continue living how we're living and unleash the forces of capitalism that way everyone in the world prospers.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan Again, Capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming, you just think it is, I can only assume, due to propaganda from various political parties. No global issue is inherently tied to any political ideology, they can be tackled in a number of ways to suit whatever idea you want to idolise.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming, you just think it is"
You're right, capitalism is not inherently linked to global warming. Now tell that to all the environmentalists and climatologists who claim it is! Also, I'm never said capitalism is linked to GW. This entire time I've been demonstrating how that's false. Pay attention!
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "No global issue is inherently tied to any political ideology"
You haven't been following the news then. The myth of man made global warming is only believed by Progressives and other left wing pieces of shit who call themselves human beings. Nobody on the right or center believes in global warming, and even if they do, they aren't saying we should implement destructive policies like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax in order to fix it.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon " they can be tackled in a number of ways to suit whatever idea you want to idolise"
apparently the environmentalists/eco-terrorists beg to differ: "it is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "their business is atoms and particles, not clouds and winds."
Actually, physicists do indeed study clouds and winds. How do you think physicists discover why the sky is blue and wjy rainbows exist? By studying the physics of the weather and climate. Not that they are the same as climatologists, but they are perfectly qualified to speak on matters of climate science.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan A climatologist is far more qualified than a physicist, because whilst physicists may touch on climatological issues tangentally in their research, climatological issues ARE the research of climatologists, therefore they are far more qualified. You don't go to a family doctor to see about specialised cancer treatment and you don't go to a physicist about the weather.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "because whilst physicists may touch on climatological issues tangentally in their research"
Watch 1:41 to 2:11 again in this here video. You're repeating an argument that was already addressed
"climatological issues ARE the research of climatologists, therefore they are far more qualified"
As was explained in the video, a QB's coach specialized with, well, the quarterbacks, and he may or may not be more qualified than the head coach. In the case of climatology, its not a...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...matter of who has specific credentials, its a matter of evidence, and the physicist in Varney's video has evidence on his side, unlike the climatologists who are paid off by tyranical monsters in the government to promote the myth of man made global warming.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan Evidence isn't the only variable in a scientific view. Two scientists can get the same results and take different perspectives on them, this is why it pays to listen to those who specialise in dealing with them rather than those who maybe had a few classes or a semester on them a few years back. Always take statements with a grain of salt when they are made by someone who is not deeply involved in the area being studied.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Evidence isn't the only variable in a scientific view"
Oh so now science is a Democracy and is not based on facts and non-facts? Go ahead and defend consensus if it pelases you, but as my youtube channel says:
"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humbling of a single individual"-Galileo
and he's not the only one who was smeared by the consensus of foolish scientists.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Two scientists can get the same results and take different perspectives on them"
But we're talking about an issue thats very black and white. Either the earth's temperature has raised or it has not, and either humans are causing said raise or we are not. Let the evidence presented in this video and plenty of other sources show that the answer is no, the earths temperature is not rising long term, and no, humans aren't doing anything wrong
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan You've repeatedly stated that the temperature has risen, that it is linked with CO2, and that humans are creating a lot of CO2. Whether we started the temperature rise or not, our current path is not going to resolve the matter. As for science being a democracy, it isn't, it's peer reviewed, which means you get data and make your opinion about it, everyone else without bias makes sure you're looking at it right and did things properly.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You've repeatedly stated that the temperature has risen, that it is linked with CO2"
You've missed the forest for the trees. FACT: the earths temperature has decreased the last 8000 years despite unchecked human activity. Long term global warming? Nope. FACT: an increase in CO2 emissions did not result in a similariarly sharp increase in global temperature since the mid-19th century because there wasn't enough of it produced to effect the temperature.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Whether we started the temperature rise or not, our current path is not going to resolve the matter"
But if we didn't start it, then what the fuck makes you think we're going to stop it?
"As for science being a democracy, it isn't"
Correct. Ergo you're consensus argument is useless and void
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "which means you get data and make your opinion about it, everyone else without bias makes sure you're looking at it right and did things properly"
In theory that's how its supposed to work. In practice it only works if everyone is being honest, which is not the case at all with climatology (see: climategate)
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "this is why it pays to listen to those who specialise in dealing with them"
If a head coach tells me interceptions are bad and a QB coach tells me interceptions are good, am I to believe the QB coach just because he has more "expertise" on quarterbacks than the head coach? Nope.
Such as is the case with climatologists vs. physicists on the issue of mythological global warming
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Always take statements with a grain of salt when they are made by someone who is not deeply involved in the area being studied"
Fuck that. No expert can tell me up is down and night is day. The fact that 98% of climatologists say global warming is real and is caused by man is a damning indictment on the religion that is climatology. You can't trust any large group of people that spews lies and falsehoods and misinterprets their own fucking data.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You don't go to a family doctor to see about specialised cancer treatment and you don't go to a physicist about the weather"
But a family doctor likely doesn't know much about cancer treatment, unlike a physicist, who actually does study climatology along with everything else.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan You miss the point again.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon No I'm not. You're saying a physicist has no qualifications to speak on matters of climatology, and as I've explained ad nauseam, you're dead wrong
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan No, I'm not saying they have no qualifications, I'm saying they are UNDERqualified to speak on a specialist subject. I can tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but even if I actually did understand it all I'm not remotely qualified to explain the formulae for calculating the energy in a beam of light through a vaccum. That is why climatologists are superior to physicists when talking about climatology.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I'm saying they are UNDERqualified to speak on a specialist subject. "
Even so, how does that disprove anything Stuart Varney's physicist said? Ad hominem, much? Why are you and Ed Begley attacking his credentials and now his evidence?
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Finally, even if man-made global warming didn't exist, what man is doing to the environment is NOT HELPING MATTERS"
Marvelous. You would destroy capitalism and send the entire human race back to the agrarian age even if man wasn't causing global warming. Not that I'm surprised by this. Its all about global misery and the unholy redistribution of wealth with you eco-terrorists. Humans must not only continue down the capitalist path in order to better our own lives...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...but we should also exploit every natural resource and grow our standard of living to ever greater heights until we run out of room in a few hundred or thousand years. By then we'll have the technology to move to other planets. Capitalism is a human made miracle that must be allowed to thrive that way everybody prospers, and there's no justification for stopping it with eco-terrorist policies that breed totalitarianism.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan ...wow, just...WOW, did you ever miss my point entirely. I'm not any sort of eco-terrorist, I don't support any kind of political party or combined political ideology, I'm a scientist plain and simple. If a lightning bolt starts a forest fire, you don't light more trees on fire, is my simple statement. We don't need totalitarianism to resolve it, we don't need to tear down capitalism to fix things, we just need to stop polluting so much.
If you actually read the facts, this is simple
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I don't support any kind of political party or combined political ideology"
You don't need to. You said mankind should do "do our best to minimise our aid to them" when there's absolutely no need to do that. And don't pretend like you don't know the ramifications of "doing something" about global warming. The miracle that is capitalism and increased energy consumption go hand in hand. To reduce one is to reduce the other, and thus to hurt humans in the process
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I'm a scientist plain and simple."
than stick to science instead of this dehumanizing pagan religion that calls itself environmentalism
"If a lightning bolt starts a forest fire, you don't light more trees on fire"
But what if you need to light those trees on fire in order for humanity to prosper and thrive? Besides, you're painting a false reality. Capitalist, 1st world nations are much more environmentally clean than undeveloped nations that are "eco-friendly."
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan I'm an atheist scientist. You on the other hand seem to have an almost god-like view of capitalism. Either way, whilst I'm willing to grant there are problems with it (as there are of any one-size-fits-all political structure), I've got no beef against capitalism. As for the (oddly theological...) burning trees, there isn't much point in thriving at Earth's expense if it will come back to bite us, whether we started the problem or not.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I'm an atheist scientist"
Doesn't change the fact that you clearly worship (figuratively speaking) at the alter of environmentalism. You want humans to at least alter our heretofor unknown standards of living just because you incorrectly think the environment is being destroyed by our way of life? You might as well order me to take communion lest I go to hell. What eco-terrorists like you do is no different than what Catholics did 500 years ago and what Muslims still do today
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan I don't worship at anyone's altar, I am simply stating that we need to make a couple changes, not necessarily ones that degrade our standard of living, to allow ourselves to continue it later down the road, be it by growing a few more trees or finding materials that don't pollute as much in their manufacture, or both.
And again, I am NOT an eco-terrorist, or else by now I imagine I'd be linking videos and cursing your name as well.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I am simply stating that we need to make a couple changes"
But you're making those statements in the complete absence of facts. You want humans to "do something" about global warming even though it is not happening and even though humans have no power to change the earths temperature. You're an ideologue who is trying to foist you're anti-human, unjustified beliefs about global warming onto the rest of us, hence why i said you worship at the altar of environmentalism.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon " not necessarily ones that degrade our standard of living"
Again, you're fellow eco-terrorists beg to differ. They outright want humans to die (see my quote above).
"to allow ourselves to continue it later down the road"
But there's no need to worry about that!
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "growing a few more trees or finding materials that don't pollute as much."
If you want to grow more trees, start planting! Moreover, growing trees is now what environmentalists ahve in mind, Cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or worse, is what they have in mind.Also, countries with advanced economies that consume lots of oil and coal have cleaner environments and healthier citizens. Like poverty, true pollution only exists in non-industrialized countries
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "And again, I am NOT an eco-terrorist, or else by now I imagine I'd be linking videos and cursing your name as well."
You don't have to do any of those things to be an eco-terrorist. See an article I wrote called "The EPA's abominable war on the American people" for details.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You on the other hand seem to have an almost god-like view of capitalism"
Damn straight! Why do you think Feudalism and every economic system thats been around beforew 1800 is classified by even leftist historians as the "Dark Ages"? Because until capitalism/free market, technology development was basically non-existant, and the standard of living for everyone except the aristocratic 1% was like that of people in Africa today.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan It was not called the Dark Ages because of a lack of capitalism. It was called the Dark Ages due to the very low standard of literacy and education and the all-but-stalled progression of scientific inquiry. Capitalism had nothing to do with it, the world was still very much buy/sell even through the Dark Ages.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "It was not called the Dark Ages because of a lack of capitalism"
Yes it was. During the dark ages, technological growth was non-existent. Capitalism changed all that. Ergo, the Dark Ages was called so because capitalism did not exist. If that's false, then I was lied to by my left wing professor in my "Philosophy of Economics" class.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "It was called the Dark Ages due to the very low standard of literacy and education and the all-but-stalled progression of scientific inquiry"
All of which changed for the better when capitalism came into existence. QED
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon Capitalism had nothing to do with it, the world was still very much buy/sell even through the Dark Ages"
You're not even trying now. Buying and selling goes on even in North Korea. The difference with capitalism is that for the first time in human history, the profit motive and investment in, well, capital, become the engine of economic growth. This first started in Britain and America until it eventually spread across the entire western world. Hence the Dark Ages no longer exist
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon But today, everybody who lives in nations that embraced capitalism lives better than aristocrats did even 200 years ago. Capitalism makes everyone aristocrats, with an abundance of food, medicine, and supplies far beyond that needed to survive. Even 98% the so-called poor in America always have enough food, on top of all sorts of other material wealth ranging from refrigerators to washing machines to HDTV's.
Those who don't live capitalism are either ignorant about it or hate it
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "I've got no beef against capitalism"
Yes you do, hence why you want something like a carbon tax or cap-and-trade in order to "fix" a problem that doesn't exist
"there isn't much point in thriving at Earth's expense"
1. We DON'T thrive at earths expense. Google an article by the Heritage Foundation called "Economic Freedom Will Save the Earth" and see for yourself.
2. Even if we did live at earths expense, we've only cultivated 5.2% of all the land in the USA, to say nothing..
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...of the rest of the world (where its probably less than 1%). In other words, we will never ever ever run out of land, water, or natural resources in our lifetime. Living at the expense of the earth - which, again, is a myth anyways - will never ever comeback to bite us until we've already developed the technology to inhabit other planets.
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "we just need to stop polluting so much"
NO WE DON'T!! Google this article I wrote called "EPA exacerbates unemployment with eco-terrorist regulations" and tell me that a large-scale effort to reduce carbon emissions wouldn't destroy capitalism and replace it with an old fashioned, totalitarian, top-down government run economy ala North Korea and Soviet Russia
"If you actually read the facts"
I have, and I've been giving them to you and every other eco-terrorist vermin
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan No, you have not. You have presented statements, and made wild conjectures on what a resolution would cost.
You've linked to papers that are old, unreferenced, uncited, and in some cases not peer reviewed, the information contained in them could be specks of gold from the eye of God, but without those elements it is unwise to take them at face value.
Simply put, you are behaving like a creationist, ignoring evidence to the contrary and shrieking "fool!" at your detractors.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "You have presented statements, and made wild conjectures on what a resolution would cost"
I've actually made specific statements and given you specific facts over and over in regards to temperature changes. As for the ramifications of "solving" global warming, I don't have the space on youtube comments to give you the full details, but to give you a taste of what I'm talking about...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...google an amazing article called "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." Or better yet, read comments from environmentalists themselves saying how humans are cancer on the earth, and that capitalism and a healthy earth cannot co-exist
"You've linked to papers that are old, unreferenced, uncited, and in some cases not peer reviewed"
Well of course they are old. They're from the 1970s, when the...
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon ...global cooling craze was at a fever pitch. The Time Magazine article and the Washington Post article both demonstrate how a consensus of scientists said global cooling was real and was going to destroy the earth if humans didn't change their capitalist ways. moreover, climatologists claim that coal emissions cause both global cooling and global warming, a contradiction if there ever was one.
Furthermore, facts are facts regardless if they are peer reviewed or not
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan No, they are not. More precisely, we cannot know what is fact or not if we cannot be certain of the credibility of the information and how it is presented. That is why peer review exists. Simply assuming that something is true regardless of peer review is belief and is more tangibly associated with religious fervour than scientific endeavour.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "More precisely, we cannot know what is fact or not if we cannot be certain of the credibility of the information and how it is presented"
FACT: If you jump off a 10 story building, you're dead. No scientific inquiry is needed to prove that. Shall I continue? Didn't think so. There's objective and subjective facts in this world, and you as a scientist should know that
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon
"Simply assuming that something is true regardless of peer review is belief"
A 3 year old could provide 1000 counterexamples against that argument, starting with the fact that if you don't eat food, than you die.
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "That is why peer review exists"
But when the peer-review process conflicts with the objective facts like it does with the mythological theory of man made global warming, then the facts always win out unless you're an ideologue who is trying to push an agenda at any cost
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon And the peer review process is usually nothing more than a rubber stamp process with no credibility, hence the field of climatology that falsely claims humans are causing catastrophic global warming. Peer review looks nice on an application but doesn't mean shit when faced against facts and evidence, which are supposedly the cornerstones of science in the post-Enlightenment era (but I understand how pagan religions like environmentalism always hated facts and evidence)
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "you are behaving like a creationist, ignoring evidence to the contrary and shrieking "fool!" at your detractors."
This statement has more irony than any play Shakespear could write. I'll leave it at that
Poole1Dan 6 months ago
@Poole1Dan Pot, kettle.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
@Lyinginbedmon "Pot, kettle"
I've got evidence. You don't. End of story
Poole1Dan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Poole1Dan The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, you are failing at this.
Lyinginbedmon 6 months ago
Warming could be caused by weather weaponry.
Aether physics & scalar waves may be scientifically prevented by Einstein's theories.
ZPE forms would halt fossil fuels--that, regardless of carbon emissions, has some additives that are toxic, are rising in cost, & are under Rockefeller control.
But if you Google (Einstein +"engineering school" Poincare Planck Maxwell Thompson Hertz Faraday Lorentz), --says Einstein plagiarized almost everything. His wife did all his math, & published the '05 papers.
oldspammer 7 months ago
Link 6 from the heritage foundation, they do get some of their funding from oil companies, while it may be as little as 2-3% that still represents a massive conflict on interest. Also about the 2 peer reviewed articles you posted, links 4 and 5, they don't site any previous work? ALL peer reviewed journals cite other peers work ad nauseam ( Oreskes paper on the climate consensus that link 6 refers to cites 10 things even with its extremely short length) i was just wondering why those don't?
hokieknights81 1 year ago
@hokieknights81 "while it may be as little as 2-3% that still represents a massive conflict on interest"
1. If there is a conflict of interest between the Heritage Foundation and oil companies who are against greenhouse gas regulations that hurt their bottom line, then almost all of climatology is a farce. Wanna know why? Because the government-which so desperately wants to control the gas we breath out of their mouths-funds almost all the climatologists who are screaming about climate change
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@hokieknights81 Thus there is a much bigger conflict of interest between climatologists and the government then there is between the Heritage Foundation and oil companies. Indeed, climatologists are pressured to produce results the government WANTS that they they continue to receive federal funding.
I for one believe in looking at the substance, and that brings me to my second point.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@hokieknights81 2. Regardless of who funds Heritage, its your job to discredit their research with your own evidence. Just because Heritage is publishing research that might be favorable to some oil company doesn't mean their research is wrong. As a matter of fact, Henry Waxman asked Heritage a series of 33 questions about their methodology in analyzing his cap-and-trade bill, and Hertiage answered all 33 of them in smashing style.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@hokieknights81 "Also about the 2 peer reviewed articles you posted, links 4 and 5, they don't site any previous work?"
The reason there aren't any links to other sites is apparently because there doesn't need to be. Bottom line is both sites were published on a .edu domain, which means it wasn't read and reviewed by mutiple peers, likely within the scientific department. You can't just publish stuff on a .edu domain without it being approved first.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan I think you misunderstand the concept of peer review. Peer reviewed articles are published in some sort of journal with the prerequisite of major internal vetting by other random scholars, in this case scientists, in the same field. I don't think either of your sources are from journals
hokieknights81 1 year ago
@hokieknights81 "I don't think either of your sources are from journals"
probably not, and they probably haven't been vetted by dozens of other scientists from the same field. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that nothing gets published on a .edu domain-especially on matters involving science-without approval by several peers, in all liklihood from the same field. Make sense?
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
If being "Green," makes you look and act like like Ed Begley, jr, I'm going to go suck on the nearest tail pipe untill I pass out!! WOW!
todddurlin 1 year ago
This video lost all credibility when it started defending Sarah Palin's irresponsible and disgusting "Death Panel" claims. If you really buy into scum bags like Sarah Palin, then you sir are a moron.
seanstrnad 1 year ago
@seanstrnad My take on Sarah Palin is that she is a pretty strong conservative who is a really annoying speaker and who has done really stupid things before (such as claiming support for some type of cap-and-trade bill and supporting John McCain over J.D Hayworth in the Arizona Senate race). I'm not a religious follower of Palin. She's clearly imperfect. but she's also right on the money sometimes, and the death panels are one of those times.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
By the way, why refute Ed Begley? He's just an actor. Why don't you go refute the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed and published climate scientists who accept the REALITY of global warming?
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla " why refute Ed Begley?"
cause it took me all of an 2 hours to download this clip and respond to it point by point
"go refute the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed"
1. again with the phony consensus argument. you just can't help yourself!
2. given all the lies that have been debunked coming from the AGW mob, the so called peer-reviewed process is in fact a rubber stamp process, which makes sense given that AGW research is funded by......the federal government
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan Again, you're not a scientist. I think I'll trust the scientific method, the same process that has given us countless medicinal advances, super-computers, nanotechnology, clean water, large amounts of food, etc, etc. You dismiss some of the scientists' papers because the research was funded by the government? The government funds lots of other things that you seem to have no problem with: the FDA, USDA. Of course, you have no objection to the science involved there.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "you're not a scientist"
1. Neither are you, and yet, here you are arguing for the catastrophic falsehood that is anthropogenic global warming'
2. I don't need to be a scientist to do my own research on the myths and facts of global warming (or in this case, the lack thereof). All the facts and stats I've provided, from cap-and-trade to the numbers I've given you on global temperatures, are backed up by reliable sources, which I'll provide for you if you want
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan "I don't need to be a scientist to do my own research on the myths and facts of global warming"
Again, you aren't a scientist, more specifically a climate scientist, so your own personal interpretation of isolated pieces of data is worthless. MY interpretation is worthless. You and I do not have the expertise to look at data and put it all together into a meaningful theory. That's why we have colleges where people can go to be scientists. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid here
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "your own personal interpretation of isolated pieces of data is worthless"
No its not. Any person with an average IQ like me can look at facts and stats and come up with the deductively correct conclusion, and thats exactly what I've done here. But you ignore it cause it doesn't fit your eco-terrorist agenda. Sucks to be you!
"MY interpretation is worthless"
No need to worry about that. You proved it along time ago
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan Oh, ok. So anybody with an "average" IQ can look at and interpret data from a specific field of science into a cohesive theory. Gotcha. Well I encourage you to take your "theory" to the big boys (people with science degrees in relative fields i.e. climatology) and see how it holds up. Go on. That should be pretty funny. Hilarious actually.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "can look at and interpret data from a specific field of science into a cohesive theory."
This isn't fucking rocket science of advanced algebra. Its simploy looking at temperature numbers and comparing them with carbon emissions. The actul collection of those numbers is something that only a scientisist could do, but studying those numbers themselves? Dude, thats grade school shit.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan well, the numbers you like to talk about clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the past 3 decades, that the amount of carbon has significantly risen in the past 3 decades, that in the 80's we begin to see the end of any kind of correlation between sun-spots and temperature that we've seen for thousands of years. We also see the earth warm more in the winter months (lack of carbon-eating tree leaves). I don't see how the data lines up with your climate change denialism.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "the numbers you like to talk about clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the past 3 decades"
the global temperature went down by 0.7 degrees C in 2007 and 0.6 in 2008. This dwarfs the gain we had throughout most of the 20th century. Phil Jones: no global warming in last 15 years. The temperature of the earth has NOT warmed significantly in the past 3 decades or in the past 200 years even though there's been a sharp increase in carbon emissions
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "that in the 80's we begin to see the end of any kind of correlation between sun-spots and temperature that we've seen for thousands of years"
Theodor Landscheidt at Nova Scotia's Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, has shown quite conclusively that the sun waxes and wanes on quite predictable 11-year cycles, which can be moderated or intensified by longer-range, but more irregular cycles.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla Landscheidt, as a result, is unpopular with the UN scientists in charge of pushing the manmade global warming theory. In 1995, they wrote that the sun's effect on climate in the 20th century "has been considerably smaller than the anthropogenic (manmade effect)." But Landscheidt has demonstrated that "a change of 0.1 per cent (in solar energy) effective during a very long interval can release a real ice age."
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla For some reason, despite all this research, most climate scientists have clung to the "solar constant," the notion that the sun more or less shone steadily and that its variations had little impact on climate change.
Now, that may be about to change. Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, along with nine other experts on oceans, environmental physics, tree-ring formation and glaciation from around the world,
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla have examined the rates of deposit of tiny particles from melting icebergs in the North Atlantic. And what have they found? Why, lo and behold, during periods of increased sun strength, the oceans have warmed and the bergs have melted more rapidly. The correlation is so strong, that one scientist who formerly blamed man's industrial activity for global warming told Science magazine, the solar theory "is now the leading hypothesis."
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "We also see the earth warm more in the winter months (lack of carbon-eating tree leaves)"
There's also a lack of tree leaves that absord any and all CO2 from humans or nature, so how does this prove your argument that humkans cause global warming?
"I don't see how the data lines up with your climate change denialism"
then you haven't read any of the numbers I've provided and are ignoring my arguments, which is why you are now blocked.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla " I encourage you to take your "theory" to the big boys (people with science degrees in relative fields i.e. climatology) and see how it holds up"
If a climatologist ever gets in my face about his eco-terrorist religion, I will certainly give him the same facts and stats that I gave you, but like Mufassa once said to Simba: "when trouble comes, I'm ready for it, but why go looking for it?"
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan . So I guess the peer-review process that we've used for so long is worthless then because some non-scientist guy like you thinks he can interpret climate data better than a climate scientist. 1000's of peer-reviewed papers by climatologists proving the reality of climate change is rendered worthless by the opinion of one obnoxious ass who doesn't know anything about climatology let alone science. Dude, I mean this in a nice way (because you need to seek help), but you're an idiot.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "So I guess the peer-review process that we've used for so long is worthless"
Its not worthless in ALL cases, its worthless in this particular case cause you've got all these radical eco-terrorists saying their research proves AGW is real even though all the facts say otherwise. Its self-evidence that the peer-reveiwed process in regards to 'climate change' is an illegitimate rubber stamp process. end of story
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan The ad hominem shit is getting kind of old. You call call me an "eco-terrorist" all you want, but it doesn't prove a thing. So basically the peer-reviewed process used in pretty much all first world countries is okay except in situations where you personally don't like their conclusion. Gotcha. Again, it's demonstrated that the majority of climate change deniers are non-scientists and this is no exception. You don't even admit the earth has warmed, which the majority of deniers do.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "The ad hominem shit is getting kind of old"
I didn't launch any ad hominem attacks. I called the climatologists who claim GGW is real "eco-terrorists" and then proceeded to explain why their peer-review shit is wrong. Thats called substance. Not ad hominem. An ad hominem attack would be if I responded to a point of substance with a personal attack and had no substance. This was not the case and has never been the case in any argument I make
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "You call call me an "eco-terrorist" all you want, but it doesn't prove a thing"
again you've proven that yopu haven't read what I've wrote. I've explained in graphic detail to you how environmentalist policies are destructive to the economy and destructive of human life. Anybody who comes across this video can read what I've said and make their own conclusions. I for one have more then proven how you and your climatologist friends are eco-terrorists
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "is okay except in situations where you personally don't like their conclusion"
its not just that i don't like their conclusion, its also that their conclusion is in direct contriction to the stats on temperature and carbon emissions. If their conclusions had facts behind it, I'd be forced to except it. This is not the case. So seeing as they are publishing lies and falsehoods, the peer-review process they used must by logical extension be a rubber stamp.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "it's demonstrated that the majority of climate change deniers are non-scientists and this is no exception. "
the majority of climate change scaremongerers are non-scientists as well. There are way more "ordinary" citizens like running around like headless chickens howling about climate change then there are scientists who say climate change is real. you've proven nothing here
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla " You don't even admit the earth has warmed"
You are asking me to not believe what my eyes see, and I refuse to do that. I've got a brain and a basic understaning of numbers, and I'm simply using it here. The stats I've presented in previous days clearly show there is no global warming short or long term and that its certainly not caused by humans
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "1000's of peer-reviewed papers by climatologists proving the reality of climate change is rendered worthless by the opinion of one obnoxious ass"
As far as this argument between me and you is concerned, YES. Although I should mention there's millions of others like me who also have made the conclusion that that AGW is a farce. Poijt being, that fallacious 'scientific consensus' of yours is not just challenged by me
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "who doesn't know anything about climatology let alone science"
alright than faggot. Tell me where I'm wrong.
" I mean this in a nice way (because you need to seek help), but you're an idiot.
Cry cry cry scream scream scream waaa waaa waaaa fucking waaaa!!!! I've beaten the shit out of all your arguments buddy with facts and stats and plain old logic. Get the fuck over it and move on.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla " That's why we have colleges where people can go to be scientists. I feel like I'm talking to a little kid here"
Climatologists, scientisis, nor ANY group of human beings has a patent on the study of numbers and stats, nor does any group of humans have a patent on deductive reasoning. I have looked at the numbers and stats before me and come to the conclusions I've come to. And I dare you to tell me where I'm wrong
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "I think I'll trust the scientific method"
dude, your idea of the 'scientific method' is this: something is true if a consensus of scientists say its true. Under this 'scientific method,' the earth is flat and is at the center of the universe. afterall, this was the scientific consensus for hundreds of years. (=
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla " the same process that has given us countless medicinal advances, super-computers, nanotechnology, clean water, large amounts of food"
wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. CAPITALISTS and ENNTREPRENUERS like John Rockefeller, J.P Morgan, Andrew Cranegie, and Bill gates gave us all that stuff, NOT scientists (certainly not scientidid funded by the government). It was the free market that created all the new technoloy and abundance of food and medicine. Those are the FACTS
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan These are businessmen who paid people (scientists) to work for them. Many businessmen who don't know dick about science fund research projects, etc. For example pharmaceutical executives. So regardless of where the money comes from (the government or capitalists) the real meat of the work is done by scientists.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "These are businessmen who paid people (scientists) to work for them"
In the case of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Colonel Sanders, Walt Disney, and others, they didn't hire any scientits but were responsible for their OWN inventions, be it computers, vehicles, food, or amusement parks. Now granted, sometimes scientists (and other specialized workers) are hired to do the "dirty work" but this doesn't detract from the fact that its the free market that is
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla responsible for proividing us all that we have, NOT the government or whoever is funded by the government. NONE of the things you mentioned were founded by government or government funded workers. It was all from the free market/the private sector. The government has a conflict of interest and is looknig for a specific result, whereas the free market is always looknig for inovation and discovery. Therefore, private scientists are always more trustworthy then gov. scientists
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "You dismiss some of the scientists' papers because the research was funded by the government?"
Yes. And here's why: its a conflict of interest. The scientists that have published research showing global warming is a fraud are mostly private scientists who have no interest in publishing research which the government wants so that way theyc an pass tyranical legidlation such as cap-and-trade. But the so-called scientists who claim global warming is real and is man made are
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla funded by the gov. and therefore are under pressure to publish results which will increase power that the federal government has over the people. This is nothing new. Research showing whites are inherently better then blacks was also funded by a racist federal government (on a side note, all racist laws in the USA were a result of the federal governments own policy makers, NOT the free market). Research showing the earth was flat was funded by the likes of the Catholic church
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla Historically, the government has always funded "scientists" that produce the results they WANT to see, whereas private scientisis actually using the scientific process have made all the important discoveries, whether its Newton, Galileo, or Einstein. This is because there is no conflict of interest with private scientisis. They simply discover what exists. Not what the government WANTS them to discover. Global warming is the lastest example of this inherent conflict of interest
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "The government funds lots of other things that you seem to have no problem with: the FDA, USDA."
Can I get an Amen? AMEN! I fucking hate the FDA and USDA. Those two bureaucracies have increased the price of food and farming while decreasing the quality of food produced ever since they were created as a direct result of Upton Sinclairs "The Jungle." The FDA and USDA pressured the private sector into using genetically processed food,
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla and those two industries also make it PROFITABLE to use genetically processed food. And then the so-called progressives turna round and claim that it was the free market that came up with genetically processed food when, infact, the free market never had an interest in such food and instead always used natural, organic food up until the FDA and USDA stepped in and distorted the entire market. Thus the USDA and FDA must be abolished.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "you have no objection to the science involved there."
Scientists didn't create all those things you mentioned, but I'll admit that there was indeed "science" involved increating some of those things. that said, you have once again stated that there is "science" involved with global warming even though i've debunked that as a lie multiple times. Because there is no science behind AGW, I don't need to pick and choose what science I like and don't like. Give it up already!
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan Global warming is a reality dude. It's caused by us. The amount of PEER-REVIEWED papers that prove this is staggering. It's time to act on it, so if you oppose a cap-and-trade bill, you need to propose something different. Check out Amory Lovins, he proposes an incentives-based approach to solving global warming, which would not raise energy costs or cost jobs. Either way, it would be very unwise to do nothing simply because it would be inconvenient. It's a hard pill to swallow.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago 3
@intriguedgorilla "Global warming is a reality dude"
FALSE. there is no global warming, much less man made. The earth has cooled in the last 10 years as well as the last 8,000 years. we have only used 3.4-5.2% of natural land in the USA. people are living longer lives despite industrial pollution. these are all FACTS! the global temperature went down by 0.7 degrees C in 2007 and 0.6 in 2008. This dwarfs the gain we had throughout most of the 20th century.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "caused by us"
FALSE. if you look at the IPCC charts, the increase in global temperature in the last 200 years is extremely flat relative to the radically SHARP increase in carbon emissions from humans. Thus the correlation between human emissions and global warming is so weak thats its an irrelevant correlation. Furthermore, the earth has indeed cooled in the last 10-15 years, as Phil Jones himself admits.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla Thus the idea that we need to act now on climate legislation, as Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore both claim, is completely debunked.The earth has also cooled by 1 degree in the last 8000 years despitr all the human industrialization and manipulation of the earth, thus the idea that there is a long term trend in global warming caused by humans is also completely debunked.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "The amount of PEER-REVIEWED papers that prove this is staggering"
"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humbling of a single individual"-Galileo
This means that consensus is NOT a scientific argument in any way, shape, or form. And yet, there you go using the consensus card! You have no respect or interest in science or else you wouldn't use such a rediculous argument. Thus the so-called "peer-review" process is a rubber stamp.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "It's time to act on it"
NOPE. There is no man-made GW short term or long term. what little GW we've seen over the last 200 years does not strongly correlate with the huge increase in carbon emissions from humans. We need to do NOTHING to stop global warming. We Americans have the full-fledged right to keep on living as an industrialized, 1st world nation.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "Check out Amory Lovins, he proposes an incentives-based approach to solving global warming"
There's no such thing as an 'incentives based' approach when its the government creating the incentive and thus distorting the market, which artifically inflates the price of a particular good and service and also decreases the quality. We need more Rockefellers, Morgans, and Carnegies, not more big daddy government
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "it would be very unwise to do nothing simply because it would be inconvenient"
inconvienient? No. Ho about totalitarian and genocidal? Like I explained to you before: environmentalist policies have resulted in more innocent human beings being killed then policies from any other group of people in human history. This is genocide. And those policies also control what people can do and what theyc an buy. thus they are totalitarian in nature. end of story
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla and unwise? That, sir, is you trying to push your enviornmentalist religion down our throats despite such a relgion causing genocide and totalitarianism and being contrary to all scientific facts. We have a seperation of church and state in this country. I suggest you follow it.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan What about the research in other countries (the countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia, aka every industrialized first world country in the world)? I guess they're all in on some sinister global conspiracy to make people drive hybrid cars and use wind power. How evil! By the way, the private sector is motivated almost exclusively by profit, so tell me, what would motivate the private sector to research global warming? Government is to protect the people and set standards.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "What about the research in other countries (the countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia, aka every industrialized first world country in the world)?"
what about em? The governments in those countries are more tyranical then the United States government. They not only make it illegal for poor 3rd world nations to industrialize just like the U.S government, but they also murderer their own citizens via single payer healthcare and soft laws on violent criminals
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla Tens of thousands of citizens in european countries needlessly die per year because of Single payer healthcare and the havoc that the violent criminals and murderers who were relased early on parole all cause. Australia and Japan are not much better.
Now do I beleive these countries are conspiring with eachother? No, not really. I simply think that in each and every one of those nations, there are thugs in the federal government who want totalitarianism
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla And the thing is, governments that want totalitarianism tend to use the same means of acheiving it, so even though they don't actually work together, they noentheless all use similar methods, in this case, fearmongering about anthropogenic global warming.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "to make people drive hybrid cars and use wind power."
Hybrid cars are practically made of fucking plastic. Like I said before: over 100,000 Americans (and europeans for that matter) have died as a reuslt of the motherfucking shitty cares their government forces them to drive. Cars made of steel like my old 1997 Ford SUV are a thing of the past. This is a bloody disgrace (no pun intended)
and wind power? thats been a disaster everywhere its been tried.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla wind power is extremely inefficient and expensive, and it sounds like a warzone when you use your wind power. Hence why NO entreprenuers are currently investing in windpower. Right now,oil, patroleum, natural gas, and nuclear energy are the way to go.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "the private sector is motivated almost exclusively by profit, so tell me, what would motivate the private sector to research global warming?"
How very fitting that an eco-terrorist like you would not know a damned thing about how the free market works, so let me educate you: the Free Market is never staganant. there are always new innovations and technologies being developed in the Free Market. Its been that way for 200 years even with more and more government
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla For example, 50 years ago, computers were only used by the Pentagon, and it was inconceivable that regular Americans like me and you would use them for home purposes. Well, along came Bill Gates in the 1970's, and Abra-fucking Kadabra, we got home computers!
So right now, there is no private sector investment in "green" technologies, but in 50 years, oil might be a thing of the past. No matter what happens, we just let the FREE MARKET decide, not the government
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla why? Because the free market does nothing but create, innovate, and produce. The abundance of food, shelter, medicine, clothing, technology, and all essentials of modern life in America are a result of the free market. But the government? All it does it tax, spend, regulate, and distort, and destroy. The American standard andf quality of living is probably 150 years behind what it would ahve been had Keneysian economics never been embraced and all these bureaucracies never
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla established, especially the Department of Sickness and Human Destruction (IE, the department of health and human services) and the EPA. All these bureaucracies and regulations are not here to help the people, they are here to control the people and steal their individuality and worth away from them. the standards they set destroy jobs, destroy wealth, choke innovation, and often outright kill innocent people.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan Oh by individuality you mean the right to fuck up the planet without any immediate consequences. Save your drama for someone who cares, because people losing jobs in destructive industries sounds a lot better than people dying of thirst in countries that will be hit hard by climate change, not to mention the droughts that will devastate crops. I'm more concerned with people being able to eat or drink clean water than some guy having to look for a new job.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "by individuality you mean the right to fuck up the planet without any immediate consequences"
Unfortunately for you, we are NOT fucking up the planet and we are NOT faced with any immediate or long term environmental consequences. If anything, we in the First World are HELPING the environment, as nations with free market advanced economies have environments that are much cleaner and less polluted then 3rd world impoverished countries like Africa.
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "Save your drama for someone who cares"
Thanks for (indirectly) admitting you don't give 2 shits about individuality. This is yet another reason why i call enviro-pukes like you eco-terrorists: you don't care about individuals. Its all group think for you. Its all collectivism for you. The "common welfare" always trumps the individual no matter how devestating collectivist policies are to the individual. we saw this in Nazi germany, the USSR, North Korea, and so many others
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "people losing jobs in destructive industries"
you know, I wish Obama, the entore Democrat Party, and the moderate repugnicans like Lindsey graham were as candid as you, cause if that was the case, we'd have nothing but conservative and libertarian Republicans running our elected branches of government. You just admitted that you'd destroy the coal industry, the trucking industry, manufacturing industry, the auto industry, the steel industry, and virtually every other
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla industry that is populated by the very union members and blue collar workers who you claim to support, all in the name of a genocidal religion in environmentalism. How very compassionate and understanding of you!
"people dying of thirst in countries"
People are already dying of thirst in 3rd world nations because you eco-terrorists make it illegal for them to industrialize and modernize their economies! You motherfucknig two-faced hypocrite!
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla Furthermore, there has been no decrease on the volume of H2O from either the oceans, lakes, or rivers. The Amazon and Nile Rivers, the Great lakes, and the 5 oceans are still going strong last I checked and are in no danger of losing water. You are just making shit up, as all scaremongers do
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "not to mention the droughts that will devastate crops"
More lies and falsehoods. Do you see famines and droughts going on in `st world nations? No. why? Cause we are INDUSTRIALIZED and MODERNIZED. If we would allow 2nd and 3rd world nations to do the same, we would never have any droughts or famines, as there would be an endless supply of food, water, and medine for everyone beyond whats needed to stay alive. Thats the miracle of the free market
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "I'm more concerned with people being able to eat or drink clean water than some guy having to look for a new job"
You frame this like its a dichotomy. Its not! First world nations are able to provide both jobs AND an abundance of food and water! But you would destroy the free market in the name of your religion, as you yourself admitted. Fuck yourself you piece of shit!
Poole1Dan 1 year ago
@Poole1Dan If this will destroy wealth, why do we see billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson supporting climate legislation? They're the poster boys for capitalist success you love to talk about and yet they realize the danger climate change poses for the environment, the economy, and the world. They support government action to solve this problem. So what, are they in on the government conspiracy to control your life? I think you know better. Climate change is your enemy dude.
intriguedgorilla 1 year ago
@intriguedgorilla "why do we see billionaires like Bill Gates and Richard Branson supporting climate legislation?"
Because as magnificantly successful as they've become, they obviously don't realize how they are the engineers of the free market, hence why they have both been giving all these campaign contributions to democrats. If you ask me, they are walking contradictions, and thats because they have become corporatists, which is something anti-thetical to the free market
Poole1Dan 1 year ago