Nice video on hypocrisy. It doesn't mean global warming is wrong in any way, just that most humans are idiots that think stuff only applies to other, so actually we probably deserve to become just another failed mutation. Nature will adapt to whatever we throw at it of course, just it will have to exclude us from this future.
I've seen an interview with Sting&Trudie where they mocked Tea Parties and called for a "Green Tea Party" to promote BIG GOVERNMENT to solve "our Big Problems with environment". How more fascist can you get? The hypocrisy of this schmock and his wife is striking, especially considering his overtly leftist lyrics and idiotic statements.
Over a year old and still JUICY! Great shelf life on this one!
Actions speak louder than words is my favorite sayings.
I have been using it more and more with people in my life ' here's what you say, here's what you do' is now a standard when dealing with miscreant behavior. Some have reformed or are trying and most have opted for ' the distance lends enchantment to view' option which is fine since I'm pretty busy.
What's rough is when I have to do it to myself. I still cut up sometimes.
Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux provides some of the clearest, logical analysis and critique of our contemporary world I've ever come across in my 45 years on this forsaken rock in space. Thank you. Please join me in voting for Freedomain Radio at podcastawards com. under two categories 1) People Choice Award and 2) Education. Be sure to check your email address to validate your vote. (Voting ends Tuesday December 15th 2010)
Al and ol'Tipster bought a 10,070-square-foot mansion here in Nashville in '03. It has 8 baths (for all his bullshit). The local news did an expose on his Nashville Electric Service bills... they averaged $1,350 a month. That's about most peoples' 12- to 14-month usage. He flies around in private jets and gets driven all over in armored SUV's that weigh about 8,000 lbs. and get 5 miles per gallon. He's the biggest damn hypocrite around, and let me tell ya, most Southerners can't stand him!
@cowboytim98 What I can't understand is why the people of Tennessee ever voted Al Gore into office to begin with....I can see why they didn't vote for him for President, even though he was their native son.
An Incovenient Film by Al Whore was such a waste of time! Not only did he back up his claims with such lack-luster "evidence", but the whole movie was basically about his incredibly boring personal life! Somebody just needs to silence him.
No, Sheryl is one of the chosen few who is entitled to use as much toilet paper as she wants...its just the rest of us non-millionaire peons who have to suffer...
So we need to wake up and realise that climate change is dangerous.
The celebrities in the campaing? we can very much ignore them. They can atrack people who knows the world through watching CNN to get concious about climate change and we that are aware of they hipocrisy should criticate them if we want to do it but still pay attencion to the problem.
Sorry for my english, I'm from argentina y hablo mejor el español.
Thanks for the videos and keep fighting the goverment! Someday we'll wake up
I didn't need to watch this video to know of the hypocrisy of the people who make campaings. They are most of the time telling lies about climate change. They think that's the only way people will undestand the risks and try to do something. All celebrities are invited to that porpose. Truth is that haven't been climate change in the last eleven years, not even 1/4 of a degree, but that's only for now, temperature will go up maybe half, maybe a degree and we don't know for shure the outcome.
Is the conclusion to this video that the Climate Change attendees don't practice what they preach, therefore they don't believe in Climate Change, therefore Climate Change is a bogus theory?
Surely it's more simply explained by the fact that celebrities generally don't give a fuck about anything but their image, and politicians do what is most politically and commercially expedient, such as talking but not doing.
The $650 a night hotel rates are probably more an indication of supply and demand than how many resources it took to build them.
Any town that has a large short term swell of visitors will show hotel prices rise considerably during that period -- the more people, the higher the prices. A low carbon footprint hotel in Copenhagen would also be charging $650 a night at this conference.
As soon as the conference is over, the prices will drop to whatever the market conditions are at that time.
Look at u, genius! The the price of resources is determined by supply and demand! Hotel rooms in this instance are the resource and their supply is low vs demand hence the price. But you miss the point, the point is about how much resources were spent and I can betcha those 650$ rooms use up a whole lot more energy than a youth hostel bunk which is what these climate quacks would use if they were serious in anyway about what they spoke about.
Lol That is an insult to every climatologists if you are talking about Al Gore. He actually has a Bachelor of the Arts degree in Government. That is all.
He is nothing much more than a highend lobbyist. A recognizable face speaking a memorized msg. Would many people really take notice/pay attention if the lead climatologist got on TV and started talking. No ppl would change the channel to watch something else. Once any issue has been assigned a "Political Party" that is when ppl get interested
So much gets lost when you can only write comments. Emphasis, emotion, context, humor, seriousness. It is very easy at times to misinterpret someones meaning. Thank god for emoticons = P
You said many important things, Stef, but yet again, there is a slight flaw in your logic. First of all just because Al Gore doesn't want to change how he lives doesn't mean that Global Warming doesn't exist. Its only relevance is to the character of Al Gore. You said that the presidents have had more research on the topic, and they still waste. How do you know? You just said it. And anyway, you believe that the government is almost always wrong anyway, so then why do you care what they say?
I'm not worried about losing freedom to what's going on in Denmark. "World leaders gathering to discuss _________" is a wordy way of saying "nothing is going to happen". Relax, the world might end because of Global Warming (I only said that to get a reaction), but it won't end because of Copenhagen. Their credibility won't end either, since it never had any.
Do as I say, not as I do....very inefficient way to get things done...then again preaching by example doesn't work very well in the propaganda machine...
Also, not defending Jefferson here, but its possible that he didn't consider slaves to be wholly human. In this way he could claim "men" should be free while also owning "men" (who, in his opinion, weren't proper "men"). The institution of slavery pre-dated him, and was not an easy one to reconcile/reform. If a huge portion of one's net worth was composed of slaves (esp. if inherited over generations) it would've been hard to free them.
Alright Stef, I don't like what you're saying here. Just because these people are doing something that does create CO2 admissions doesn't mean that their argument is completely invalid. And despite being somewhat hypocritical, they are still are to a certain extent helping the enviornment more than perhaps someone else. With all due respect, just beacuse there's a contradiction doesn't mean that you can immedietly through out their argument stef.
Agreed. As an example of this kind of reasoning, Stef himself is an anti-statist, yet he's probably used OHIP several times in his life.
Now, I totally don't buy the whole global warming thing, and I can see what he's saying here, BUT, this video will not convince anyone that's not already on our side.
Just to clarify my previous comment for those who don't know me: I gave the OHIP example to show what a corrupt statist would be thinking watching this video. I do understand that it is flawed reasoning, and there's a difference between using forced government services and flying in private jets. But a flaming liberal will not see the difference.
Haha I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But if you aren't, then are you serious? Just because I don't like Stef means taht I'm immedietly a member of the Green Church? In all honesty, you really need to rebuttle my point if you want to not look like an idiot. I pointed out a flaw in Stef's argument therefore that means I'm a member of the Green Church isn't logical at all.
@ video time 6:15 It sounds like he says 140 jets and 12,000 limos but I thought it was 1,200 limos, I thought this was TRUE news not spin word news:-(
These people are such pig slob, wasters. They have the gall to tell us what to do???? Have you ever seen the slop that these kind of people leave behind? Look at the inauguration!!!! Foie Gras, REALLY?? I am a major carnivore, but even I know how CRUEL the preparation for that is. This is just tip of the iceberg stuff, but that simple act speaks volumes!
the only disagreement I have is about the world leaders (Obama et all). yes, they could teleconference, but it's not as strong as meeting personally. plus, they can't fly with average folk since it's an absolutely *gigantic* security risk.
about the movie stars however, fuck them. they're douchebags who think their shit doesn't stink. Al Gore is lumped in with this crew.
I enjoyed the first half of the video and I think it's worth pointing out but not as a method of refutation...
But then you change the topic to a criticism of people... The validity of an idea is not dependent on it's origin is it? You seem to profess that and much worse than that. You seem to profess that the origin of the ideas is the bulk of the relevance. It's ad-hominem sorry.
Of course there are those who will profit if AGW is the case. That has no relevance to the actual state of affairs.
There are those who benefited from Katrina, and 9/11. Does it follow that neither happened? No, there's data, the data empirically says that it happened, so it happened.
If you looked up the actually scientists, those with enough experience in the field to truly grasp what the numbers and data mean, you'll see them reducing their carbon foot print.
No one ever said the people going to Copenhagen were real environmentalists. They're world leaders. And these celebrities are obviously bourgeois capitalists.
But the more important point to make is that we're not trying to decrease our quality of life. We're just trying to neutralize its bad effects. World leaders and industries have to change our civilization institutionally. The onus is on them; the people who create these policies and these products, not the ones who use them or follow them
If they were just Bougeois Capitalists, they probably wouldnt go..These media types are MUCH worse, they are State Mercantile Power Worshipping Toadies. They stay rich by supporting STATE solutions- uber alles- we are the peasants who are pressured to fly economy.
False dichotomy. Just because you're a bourgeois capitalist doesn't mean you're not a state mercantile power-worshiping toady. Bourgeois capitalists have often been very fond of state power, when it benefits them. So have non-bourgeois non-capitalists. The state is the medium of their expression of their disagreement; both of these entities. And it will continue to be. It has to be.
I only posit that capitalist state is unjust because it is hierarchical and dictatorial. The socialist one isn't.
It doesn't aim to be. A capitalist state does aim to be hierarchical.
Soviet means "worker's council". A worker's council was, by definition, less hierarchical than a business in that it represented the interests of the people. Think of the USA as the opposite of the Soviet Union. It is a union of businesses. You could call it the Business Union.
All you're doing is replacing the nation-state with the business-state. You're still a statist. You still support absolute power.
Well, for starters, socialist states usually have popular support. So you can't dictate something to someone who is asking for that thing. It may be hierarchical in that it is representative government, but it eliminates private hierarchies. So just by that alone it is already less hierarchical than state capitalism. In other words, capitalist statism = many little hierarchies and one big hierarchy. Socialist statism = just one big hierarchy. And it's this only exists out of necessity...
If one person doesn't want it, and it's forced upon them, is that wrong? Don't call it popular support, it's Tyranny of the Majority, with freedom people can CHOOSE socialism and the rest of us can CHOOSE charity. Eliminating Private "hierachy" is limiting freedom (that's CHOSEN hierachy and it's not universal) So no, it's entirley different. No private hierachy can enter into contracts with people who don't agree you authoratarian fuck.
If one person doesn't agree that the law against murder is wrong and it's enforced upon them, is that wrong? Democracy isn't tyranny because every majority decision is not an infringement upon inalienable rights. Capitalism is not an inalienable right. If you disagree with the right of democratic self-governance then YOU are an authoritarian fuck. You're the kind of guy who would help overthrow popular leaders like Salvador Allende and install a capitalist dictator and claim to be a liberator.
I don't understand the question... it's never wrong to disagree with a law. It's never right to murder, the question is contradictary and you ignore the immoral parts of statism, especially as you were talking about socialism, which is entirely immoral, hence you didnt ask a question about it. Freedom is an inalienable right, of course it is, don't be silly. If i disagree with freedom, then I'm authoratarian? Get a dictionary... How could their be a dictator without government? Gibberish!
You misunderstand the question because you intentionally dodged its meaning. Of course you know that I meant that the person who disagrees with the law against murder actually behaves as though this is the case. In other words, they murder.
You ignore the moral parts of statism, especially as you were talking about capitalism, which is entirely immoral. Democracy is an inalienable right, of course it is, don't be silly.
There are all kinds of non-governmental dictators. The line is arbitrary.
I disagree with the law on murder... and as I said, they are still wrong to murder, I did not avoid the question, it is morally wrong to murder, I question you making the assumption that the state is the only solution.
If a thief beats you up and takes everything you have and gives it to charity, it is the thief I question, not the charity. The state is entirely immoral, that some of it's actions pretend to be moral is meaningless. Democracy is not an inalienable right, what are you on?
If murder is sanctioned, ever, then it is illegal. It's called primitive law. The state is not a thief because one could argue that the state is someone's property that you're living on. They set conditions for living on it, but never in those conditions does it say that you can take that property from them by way of paying currency for it.
I'm confused. If murder is sanctioned then it's illegal? I don't care what you call it, you're mixing statism and non-statism again. The state is a thief, you can't argue that, I don't touch it's property. Democracy isn't an inalienable right, it didn't exist from 99% of human history... and it's violent Tyranny against me, I don't agree, I don't have poor communication, and my concern (the state) is no addressed. Youre talking gibberish
There is no such thing as a non-governmental dictator in the sense that you use dictator, don't talk gibberish. If democracy was an inalienable right, then why are their 200 odd countries? What would be wrong with 6 billion? What's the difference?
Democracy is not an end. It is a means to an end. The end is agreement. Democracy exists only where there is poor communication. Where there is not, there is no need for democracy, only consensus decision-making processes. In this climate, all minority concerns are addressed.
First, cut out the moral thinking. There are no morals, they are just subjective intellectual constructs. They are meaningless for anyone except the individual who constructs them.
Rights likewise don't exist, where is a right? Show me one. You can't. They don't exist except in your mind.
If you institutionalize the provision of services by forcing people to buy them from a violently enforced monopoly, you will be undermining the structure of society.
It is beneficial to construct them detrimental not to construct them. Since morality is the law of the living, morals do exist intersubjectively. Same goes for rights.
If you craft an incendiary narrative, you remove yourself from dialogue with everyone else, therefore making violence the only recourse. If you do not, then there are others. There is no separating yourself from the group. Not humanity and not nature.
No, morals do not exist. Present me a moral, I will measure it for you.
Anarchism does not disintegrate social order, anymore than evolution disintegrates biology. It's not about progressive, voluntary, order, rather than unsustainable compulsory order.
Perhaps if the government formed was structured as a democratic one, then people like me wouldn't have a bitch, we'd have to go somewhere else or accept our fate.
However, in the US, the government is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. If it were a true democracy, there would be no states, just majority rule, and under those circumstances, people like me are in the majority. If this ever happens, people like you need to be very afraid.
Really? That's why the largest group of Americans view themselves as conservative...45% at last count. If it was up to me, I'd simply declare open warfare and fight this out till the end. You Socialists represent a horrible system, responsible to the death of hundreds of millions. Deny this all you want. We may have a socialist government, but it's not a "lawful" government.
The Constitution denys the collective and recognizes the Individual. It's worth saving.
Its all about the transfer of wealth from the poor & middle-class to the Elite. Business as usual for these guys.
We have no heroes! Bono, Tom Cruise, etc. they're all puppets.
Bottom line: this is a Kabal of nations united in one mind to Socially Program the masses (peasants) to accept Global Taxes (also referred to as Green Taxes) without a fight.
So If you run across someone who says "..I agree with Global Taxes to save our planet.." just scratch that person as another Brainwashed Zombie.
This post is fantastic, it shows the hypocracy of those who try to impose their will on (he said it) us peasants. He speaks in a way that everyone can or should understand. To the point, down to earth and real.
Can't wait to check out more of your vids. 5 Stars! Fav'd, and gonna pass this on.
the problem with the climate gate scandal, is that it isn't actually a scandal, have you noticed how it seems to be only sceptics who are scientifically illiterate are focusing on it, and how out of hundreds of lengthy emails they focus on two quote mines in particular.
the real issue the scientifically literate have is not with these "secret" emails, its that at very best the evidence appears to indicate a link but its inconclusive as to the proportion responsibility that's on CO2
Majority of CO2 comes from one place: The Ocean; this is directly related to Sun Spot maximum & minimum cycles. Today man only contributes 3% of all CO2 emissions.
So what's going on? 1st recognized the "End Result", then the "Means to accomplish their agenda". Think backwards if you will.
End Result: new (Global) taxes on the masses (sheep following its shepherds).
Means to accomplish agenda: Fear mongering.
Be afraid of the environmental boogieman & turn to government too SAVE YOU/US!
@ yo1dude1man. You need to stop spouting the same lies over and over. Stop watching 'the great global warming swindle' as if it's an honest documentary.
Watch this instead.
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
The rest of your comment, the conclusion, is invalid and unsound.
Regardless of the hair-splitting on how CO2 is generated; wither it should be called "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"; the END RESULT is a new form of TAXATION.
The elite want us distracted with idiotic debates on the "How & Why" of increase CO2 (the Fake punch) while their puppet politicians write up legislation to implement Global/Green TAXES (the Knock-out blow).
When was the last time a TAX truly benefited the whole? Never!
3 taxes are an inescapable necessity in the event that 1 is true.
4. taxes are not a solution to AGW (human-Accelerated Global Warming) even IF 1 is true.
Now I'm going to go ahead and assume you think 4 is true. Then I'll put myself in your shoes and try to act wisely. I'll see what the best option is for me (you) to avoid new taxes.
ok so, It's fairly easy to show that taxes never benifit the whole. So there are free-market solutions to any problem. This isn't complicated stuff - at least magnitudes less complicated than climate science. So should I argue climate science, a peer-reviewed empirical process that I have no real credentials on, or... should I just show that taxes won't help, they never help, and even the empirical peer-reviewed publications agree on that. I'll go with arguing AGW!
If you believed 4 and were smart, you'd start by arguing taxes as a solution, not AGW. And you'd spend most of you effort (at least) arguing that 4 is the case.
But you don't. I don't think you're dumb.. I don't want to assume you have no integrity either. So.. could you let me know which one it is?
He apologized for the misunderstanding not his point and he CLARIFIED it, not a fallacy.
A) Its not man made
B) Earth is not the only planet affected
C) Climates never stay the same and by trend this fear campaign is a fallacy nor the solutions by Gov't change anything worthwhile but jack up energy costs absent of the barrier to entry, inflation/dollar collapse problems..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A) It is man-made.
B) This is a lie and propaganda. Refuted here
watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
C) It doesn't matter that there exist people trying to take advantage of this problem. It doesn't matter that there exist not-so-well-informed celebrities who are hypocrites. If these things matter you'd have to deny 9/11 for the same reasons.
It does matter that there are people trying to take advantage of the problem. They are using a disaster to try justify theft and control. And much of the creditability is virtually zero when it comes from sources that receive State Funding. Why? Because the Solutions that are proposed are just to make Government bigger. And if you know anything about history, that isn't a solution, just a problem.
It does matter that there are stupid celebs spinning the truth and adding fear.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You clearly did not read my chain of posts that outline my argument against this sort of reasoning. I'd like to not have to type it again.
YES, it DOES matter that people are trying to use the problem as an excuse for violence, coercion, and an increase in authoritative power. NO, it does NOT matter in so far as what the case actually is. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.
So you are saying that all the data on Global Warming is solid; and that just because its funded by the State, supported by the State, and promoted by the State; has absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever.
Let me make this clear for you. I will not accept State related Research as a foundation to anything empirical as solid evidence for the case of Global Warming, because its very nature is funded by theft, and has the reputation of shit. Outside of Statism is another story.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are proposing that claims made as a result of funding by the state (or other violence) will not be accepted by you as solid evidence for X.
Then you ought to deny, more often than not, claims made in the field of mathematics, astronomy, physics, geology, history, linguistics, chemistry, and many many more for the sake of consistency. But do you? If not, I think stefbot and I are going to have to question your integrity because it will seem as thought you don't actually beleive that.
Global Warming is a tax scheme, Climate Change has been happening for millions of years. This is a fact. When you have the State scaring everybody based on data proposed by Scientists who are funded by the State, that creates a conflict of interest and I question all integrity in the matter.
The more I see your post defend this crap, the more you are backing the Statist mantra. If you truly are making a empirical case for Global Warming, stay out of the State box.
Second, except for Economics and History, mathematics, astronomy, physics, linguistics, chemistry... I don't see a conflict of interest; however, Keynesian Ecomnomics is soley based to legimaze Central Planning in the market where Government can do what they want and claim its "Standard Economics".
And History is very corrupted because what better way to keep the slave class in line than to rewrite history in order to make them think this is how society functions. You are very naive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The vast majority (95%+)of the data on global warming is solid. Yes. The last < 5% is human and instrument error, not coercive intent.
Perhaps there is reason for the state to prefer AGW but ,as it happens, the actual state of affairs are such that the government has no need to tamper with data as AGW is an empirical fact.
Coupled with my argument you still haven't read, I'd say I have a strong case against your integrity.
You question my integrity, but turn a blind eye to the damaging empirical fact that Statism is to use whatever resource it can, to maintain its control and continue to expand its power; which is why I have no trust on Scientists being paid off by the State especially when the only solution is more State. This shouldn't even be an argument, let alone the emails hacked. Again, how is my integrity questioned when I said there is a conflict of interest here.
Now you are trolling. I never said I agree that the only solution should be more state. I said that this is what all this agenda is about, learn to read carefully. If you are an anarchist, then you need to immediately oppose the Government involvement in Science Research, particularly the area of Global Warming; because from your posts you make an all out leap as to claim there is no conflict of interest especially while gathering data for the case of Global Warming.
So you agree that AGW may be the case? But you claim that the truth of AGW is not within our reach because the empirical data-gatherers are funded by un-trust-able sources (states).
How would you distinguish between the two cases empirically.
AGW is happening, dangerous, avoidable and discovered by state scientists.
AGW is not happening, a fabrication by 100's of conspiring governments but still asserted by 10's of thousands of scientists across the globe (99%+).
Ignoring time and cost, what are some of the ways one might go about figuring out what the case truly is? All I hear from you is that the 2nd case is likely, therefor the first case unlikely (a fallacy).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no pollution.
The seas are not dying from poison.
The air is not becoming poisonous, due to poisonous gases.
The soil is not becoming poisoned, the water table neither.
Everything is fine. Keep believing that YOU STUPID FUCCING SHEEEEP !
The corporations are funding the pro-pollution propoganda.
You sheep will be the first to be poisoned and die from pollution. You are starting to die younger than the rest due to your pollution inhalation. Mordor has poisond your minds
Why are you bringing up actors/politiciams when scientists make crap from their fearmongering? And when they can make a lot more from denying climate change? In fact it is in the funding interests of most climatologists to say climate change is uncertain, because if it's settled then (as is the case) they can only make a case for the majority of the money to go to green innovation.
Has Sheryl Crow or Travolta or Sting et al ever been compelled to answer for their actions in an interview? What could their answer conceivably be? I saw Cameron Diaz once say that she only flew because she "had to" for her job. (!?!??!??blulaaaagh!)
Well, of course all of these people in Copenhagen will not solve a thing of the climate change problem. They only care about keeping up the current system.
Just a interesting facts I've bump into recently. Anyway Great video and overall the idea to reveal the "integrity" of the preachers. What has changed ? haha
Anyway I urge people to check the Serbian scientist M.MILANKOVIC who basically was involved during 19-20 century in climate research and came up with a theory of cycles of warming and cooling. What is remarkable is that he has been proven right by recent testing, data, etc. and many others expanded it.
Ethanol is distilled in refineries that use gas boilers - and it takes 30,000 BTU of the stuff to produce a single gallon of "green" fuel. In other words, a 50-million-gallon-per-year plant uses 5 billion cubic feet of natural gas with corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. alone set to increase to 15 billion gallons per year by 2022, it is ironically a response to environmental energy issues that had been driving natural gas demand (and prices) through the roof.
Conservationis common sense if you don't have money since you can only afford so much. If your heating bill goes up your going to turn the thermostat down.
I get pissed when I'm told to better insulate my home, replace windows ect. Your told that the initial investmwent to make my home more energy efficient will pay for itself over the years but the more you cut back the more exspensive energy becomes.
If you are poor or rent there is only so much youcan do.
Obviously we live in a time of retarded hordes of celebrities worshipers.
Northamericans and other westerners are generally too dumb to see the bigger picture.
Mainstream media are at fault of course.
That's why, in my opinion, the best way people can help with the"global air and water polution problems" by changing the channels from celebrity scandals to Discovery Channel and other science related tv networks.
Enough Oprah, Woopy Goldberg and all the rest of them!
At what point in this video does he try to use the hypocrisy of these celebrities to show that this global warming voodoo magic bullshit is just that?
That was entirely the point of his video. As someone who has been watching Molyneux for years, he routinely uses tu quoqe fallacies to prove his world view.
I think it could be summarized to say that in situations where you cannot get all the facts, if the people promoting a theory don't even act as if what they are preaching is true, why believe them?
The north pole might still be here if my money wasn't spent toward flying pizza guys 800 miles, but of course the state is in charge of fixing these important, dire matters.
sorry but ur 20 euros s bein wasted for nothing since greenpeace s just another organisation of ur agenda and there are a possibility they even used ur money to destroy some of the rain forest around brasil to make an ong to ask people to DONATE MORE MONEY
I did do a search now. I found only articles of pretty much the opposite. I have a genuin concern and if greenpeace is doing damage to the environment, I really want to know. Can you please p.m me links, and also, what environmental group should I support with my 20 euro a month? My only interest is to help the environment. I really want to know if I'm only helping to destroy the environment.
@MaikUniversum If you had listened to anything he had said and watched his previous videos on Global Warming you wouldn't say that. And saying PEACE at the end of your message in capitals actually gives the impression you are shouting, which isn't too peaceful at all :P
Nice video on hypocrisy. It doesn't mean global warming is wrong in any way, just that most humans are idiots that think stuff only applies to other, so actually we probably deserve to become just another failed mutation. Nature will adapt to whatever we throw at it of course, just it will have to exclude us from this future.
monkeybrainsmediauk 2 months ago
Stephan, sorry but its hard to agree with you. You just use way too much common sense. ;-)
paullie6719 7 months ago
Harrison Ford and deforestation...Classic! :)
paullie6719 7 months ago
This is funnier than tons of LOLCATS : >
These ppl have always been lying hypocrites m8.
Soma874 11 months ago
I've seen an interview with Sting&Trudie where they mocked Tea Parties and called for a "Green Tea Party" to promote BIG GOVERNMENT to solve "our Big Problems with environment". How more fascist can you get? The hypocrisy of this schmock and his wife is striking, especially considering his overtly leftist lyrics and idiotic statements.
Arjozof 11 months ago
Over a year old and still JUICY! Great shelf life on this one!
Actions speak louder than words is my favorite sayings.
I have been using it more and more with people in my life ' here's what you say, here's what you do' is now a standard when dealing with miscreant behavior. Some have reformed or are trying and most have opted for ' the distance lends enchantment to view' option which is fine since I'm pretty busy.
What's rough is when I have to do it to myself. I still cut up sometimes.
acuriousbeast 1 year ago
Stefan, do you initiate violent force against people? jw, since all my other celebrity idols i now know are frauds! :-(
LordAgonis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freedomain Radio and Stefan Molyneux provides some of the clearest, logical analysis and critique of our contemporary world I've ever come across in my 45 years on this forsaken rock in space. Thank you. Please join me in voting for Freedomain Radio at podcastawards com. under two categories 1) People Choice Award and 2) Education. Be sure to check your email address to validate your vote. (Voting ends Tuesday December 15th 2010)
eyejudgeeverything 1 year ago
Al and ol'Tipster bought a 10,070-square-foot mansion here in Nashville in '03. It has 8 baths (for all his bullshit). The local news did an expose on his Nashville Electric Service bills... they averaged $1,350 a month. That's about most peoples' 12- to 14-month usage. He flies around in private jets and gets driven all over in armored SUV's that weigh about 8,000 lbs. and get 5 miles per gallon. He's the biggest damn hypocrite around, and let me tell ya, most Southerners can't stand him!
cowboytim98 1 year ago 2
@cowboytim98 What I can't understand is why the people of Tennessee ever voted Al Gore into office to begin with....I can see why they didn't vote for him for President, even though he was their native son.
jmelkis 1 year ago
An Incovenient Film by Al Whore was such a waste of time! Not only did he back up his claims with such lack-luster "evidence", but the whole movie was basically about his incredibly boring personal life! Somebody just needs to silence him.
TheAfrikaanerMP 2 years ago 3
One sheet of toilet paper. now I know to never shake sheryl crow's hand
indigo3187 2 years ago 11
lmao you might as well just USE your hand!!
I say we just use giant, ass-sized -tips. Then you can wash them and re-use them - oh!! Wait, that's a waste of water!!
beggarz 2 years ago
@indigo3187
No, Sheryl is one of the chosen few who is entitled to use as much toilet paper as she wants...its just the rest of us non-millionaire peons who have to suffer...
ashane77 1 year ago 2
@ashane77
"Sheryl is one of the chosen few..." LMAO you've got that right!
cowboytim98 1 year ago
So we need to wake up and realise that climate change is dangerous.
The celebrities in the campaing? we can very much ignore them. They can atrack people who knows the world through watching CNN to get concious about climate change and we that are aware of they hipocrisy should criticate them if we want to do it but still pay attencion to the problem.
Sorry for my english, I'm from argentina y hablo mejor el español.
Thanks for the videos and keep fighting the goverment! Someday we'll wake up
chicalleje 2 years ago
I didn't need to watch this video to know of the hypocrisy of the people who make campaings. They are most of the time telling lies about climate change. They think that's the only way people will undestand the risks and try to do something. All celebrities are invited to that porpose. Truth is that haven't been climate change in the last eleven years, not even 1/4 of a degree, but that's only for now, temperature will go up maybe half, maybe a degree and we don't know for shure the outcome.
chicalleje 2 years ago
Is the conclusion to this video that the Climate Change attendees don't practice what they preach, therefore they don't believe in Climate Change, therefore Climate Change is a bogus theory?
Surely it's more simply explained by the fact that celebrities generally don't give a fuck about anything but their image, and politicians do what is most politically and commercially expedient, such as talking but not doing.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
The $650 a night hotel rates are probably more an indication of supply and demand than how many resources it took to build them.
Any town that has a large short term swell of visitors will show hotel prices rise considerably during that period -- the more people, the higher the prices. A low carbon footprint hotel in Copenhagen would also be charging $650 a night at this conference.
As soon as the conference is over, the prices will drop to whatever the market conditions are at that time.
furyofbongos 2 years ago
Look at u, genius! The the price of resources is determined by supply and demand! Hotel rooms in this instance are the resource and their supply is low vs demand hence the price. But you miss the point, the point is about how much resources were spent and I can betcha those 650$ rooms use up a whole lot more energy than a youth hostel bunk which is what these climate quacks would use if they were serious in anyway about what they spoke about.
Bisotun 2 years ago
I always use every sheet of toilet paper on both sides :)
A tip for Sheryl maybe?
john1230 2 years ago 2
@john1230 too much information dude
ScubaSctimpy 2 years ago
Do u ever get shit on your hands?
Bisotun 2 years ago
You bet!
But it is for a better world.
Everybody should work harder to lower their carbon footprint.
The next plan I have is recycle the toilet paper I use.
I wash it by hand, and hang it to dry to use it again :)
john1230 2 years ago 4
i dont get why u disabled the zeitgeist video comments man..
thewirrow 2 years ago
I also understood a hoard of eastern european prostitutes came over to Copenhagen, who got into a fight with the local ones.
modelmark 2 years ago
You should do the carbon footprint of Congress next.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
or the carbon footprint of the actual leading climatologists!!!
Oh wait....
newexperiment 2 years ago
= )
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Lol That is an insult to every climatologists if you are talking about Al Gore. He actually has a Bachelor of the Arts degree in Government. That is all.
He is nothing much more than a highend lobbyist. A recognizable face speaking a memorized msg. Would many people really take notice/pay attention if the lead climatologist got on TV and started talking. No ppl would change the channel to watch something else. Once any issue has been assigned a "Political Party" that is when ppl get interested
Traveler2112 2 years ago
my comment was supposed to get you thinking outside the box that is outside the box..
All the celebrities mentioned in this video are far far far far from being climatologists.
newexperiment 2 years ago
So much gets lost when you can only write comments. Emphasis, emotion, context, humor, seriousness. It is very easy at times to misinterpret someones meaning. Thank god for emoticons = P
lol
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I thought the "oh wait..." made clear that the statement contradicted the (sarcastic) goal of the statement thereby showing the sarcasm. =/
newexperiment 2 years ago
= )
Traveler2112 2 years ago
You said many important things, Stef, but yet again, there is a slight flaw in your logic. First of all just because Al Gore doesn't want to change how he lives doesn't mean that Global Warming doesn't exist. Its only relevance is to the character of Al Gore. You said that the presidents have had more research on the topic, and they still waste. How do you know? You just said it. And anyway, you believe that the government is almost always wrong anyway, so then why do you care what they say?
nhmllr725 2 years ago
because other people believe what government says, and then try to enforce policies on people like stef, under the threat of violence.
Claytrainor 2 years ago
Yes, but it doesn't affect whether or not there is actually global warming.
nhmllr725 2 years ago
No, he's already covered that in 2 other videos.
This video is to point out the hypocrisy of the alarmists, not make a scientific case.
Claytrainor 2 years ago 10
I'm not worried about losing freedom to what's going on in Denmark. "World leaders gathering to discuss _________" is a wordy way of saying "nothing is going to happen". Relax, the world might end because of Global Warming (I only said that to get a reaction), but it won't end because of Copenhagen. Their credibility won't end either, since it never had any.
Dacadvid 2 years ago
***** Stars ! Excellent!
NWOIS666 2 years ago
Do as I say, not as I do....very inefficient way to get things done...then again preaching by example doesn't work very well in the propaganda machine...
Nebbyker 2 years ago
LOL Excellent talk. 5***** and So True.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Look at all the global warming apologists defending the lying hypocrites...pathetic!
ashane77 2 years ago
Minor note: One can be speaking the truth and be a hypocrite.
example: Jefferson believed the all men should be free, Jefferson owned slaves. He may well have been speaking the truth and acting hypocritically.
Acting consistently with ones belief shows virtue - I agree - but it is independent of truth.
VeritasEtLibertas82 2 years ago
One can also be speaking lies and be a hypocrite.
Also, not defending Jefferson here, but its possible that he didn't consider slaves to be wholly human. In this way he could claim "men" should be free while also owning "men" (who, in his opinion, weren't proper "men"). The institution of slavery pre-dated him, and was not an easy one to reconcile/reform. If a huge portion of one's net worth was composed of slaves (esp. if inherited over generations) it would've been hard to free them.
ashane77 2 years ago
It's like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where everyone brought their own fridge full of liquor.
wreckerpecker 2 years ago
Alright Stef, I don't like what you're saying here. Just because these people are doing something that does create CO2 admissions doesn't mean that their argument is completely invalid. And despite being somewhat hypocritical, they are still are to a certain extent helping the enviornment more than perhaps someone else. With all due respect, just beacuse there's a contradiction doesn't mean that you can immedietly through out their argument stef.
drew335533 2 years ago
Agreed. As an example of this kind of reasoning, Stef himself is an anti-statist, yet he's probably used OHIP several times in his life.
Now, I totally don't buy the whole global warming thing, and I can see what he's saying here, BUT, this video will not convince anyone that's not already on our side.
drewmandan 2 years ago
Just to clarify my previous comment for those who don't know me: I gave the OHIP example to show what a corrupt statist would be thinking watching this video. I do understand that it is flawed reasoning, and there's a difference between using forced government services and flying in private jets. But a flaming liberal will not see the difference.
drewmandan 2 years ago 2
Of course you don't like it, you're probably a member of the Green Church.
ashane77 2 years ago
Haha I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But if you aren't, then are you serious? Just because I don't like Stef means taht I'm immedietly a member of the Green Church? In all honesty, you really need to rebuttle my point if you want to not look like an idiot. I pointed out a flaw in Stef's argument therefore that means I'm a member of the Green Church isn't logical at all.
drew335533 2 years ago
@ video time 6:15 It sounds like he says 140 jets and 12,000 limos but I thought it was 1,200 limos, I thought this was TRUE news not spin word news:-(
LibertyJedi 2 years ago
Yeah...he mistakenly said 12,000 one time.
He must've been lying about all the rest too!
ashane77 2 years ago
No ashane77 I do not believe he was lying about all the rest . That statement is false, unless you have evidence for it, but I see none.
LibertyJedi 2 years ago
Great video..
Peace
truefictions 2 years ago
These people are such pig slob, wasters. They have the gall to tell us what to do???? Have you ever seen the slop that these kind of people leave behind? Look at the inauguration!!!! Foie Gras, REALLY?? I am a major carnivore, but even I know how CRUEL the preparation for that is. This is just tip of the iceberg stuff, but that simple act speaks volumes!
midnightbirdgirl 2 years ago
the only disagreement I have is about the world leaders (Obama et all). yes, they could teleconference, but it's not as strong as meeting personally. plus, they can't fly with average folk since it's an absolutely *gigantic* security risk.
about the movie stars however, fuck them. they're douchebags who think their shit doesn't stink. Al Gore is lumped in with this crew.
NightfallGemini 2 years ago
I enjoyed the first half of the video and I think it's worth pointing out but not as a method of refutation...
But then you change the topic to a criticism of people... The validity of an idea is not dependent on it's origin is it? You seem to profess that and much worse than that. You seem to profess that the origin of the ideas is the bulk of the relevance. It's ad-hominem sorry.
..continued. (read rest before voting).
newexperiment 2 years ago
Of course there are those who will profit if AGW is the case. That has no relevance to the actual state of affairs.
There are those who benefited from Katrina, and 9/11. Does it follow that neither happened? No, there's data, the data empirically says that it happened, so it happened.
If you looked up the actually scientists, those with enough experience in the field to truly grasp what the numbers and data mean, you'll see them reducing their carbon foot print.
newexperiment 2 years ago
No one ever said the people going to Copenhagen were real environmentalists. They're world leaders. And these celebrities are obviously bourgeois capitalists.
But the more important point to make is that we're not trying to decrease our quality of life. We're just trying to neutralize its bad effects. World leaders and industries have to change our civilization institutionally. The onus is on them; the people who create these policies and these products, not the ones who use them or follow them
mistaspot1 2 years ago
If they were just Bougeois Capitalists, they probably wouldnt go..These media types are MUCH worse, they are State Mercantile Power Worshipping Toadies. They stay rich by supporting STATE solutions- uber alles- we are the peasants who are pressured to fly economy.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
False dichotomy. Just because you're a bourgeois capitalist doesn't mean you're not a state mercantile power-worshiping toady. Bourgeois capitalists have often been very fond of state power, when it benefits them. So have non-bourgeois non-capitalists. The state is the medium of their expression of their disagreement; both of these entities. And it will continue to be. It has to be.
I only posit that capitalist state is unjust because it is hierarchical and dictatorial. The socialist one isn't.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
A Socialist state isn't hierarchical and dictatorial?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
How old are you, 10?
I'll mention the USSR and leave it at that.
Wow, socialists are certainly in denial.
Get rid of the state - ALL STATES - and live your life as you see fit. And leave me to live mine that way too.
johnycannuk 2 years ago 2
It doesn't aim to be. A capitalist state does aim to be hierarchical.
Soviet means "worker's council". A worker's council was, by definition, less hierarchical than a business in that it represented the interests of the people. Think of the USA as the opposite of the Soviet Union. It is a union of businesses. You could call it the Business Union.
All you're doing is replacing the nation-state with the business-state. You're still a statist. You still support absolute power.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
Retarded.
ashane77 2 years ago
I guess the appropriate response would be something like this? "Nuh-uuuuhhhh!!!!!!"
mistaspot1 2 years ago
If it's a "don't have to deal with violent pricks" kinda business state-sign me up!
DecassyJake 2 years ago
If you can site the USSR as socialist, I can site Somalia as anarcho capitalist. For the sake of consistency.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Even more retarded.
ashane77 2 years ago
I agree with your first two points, but can you explain to me WHY a socialist state is'st hierarchical and dictatorial, just on principle?
DecassyJake 2 years ago
Well, for starters, socialist states usually have popular support. So you can't dictate something to someone who is asking for that thing. It may be hierarchical in that it is representative government, but it eliminates private hierarchies. So just by that alone it is already less hierarchical than state capitalism. In other words, capitalist statism = many little hierarchies and one big hierarchy. Socialist statism = just one big hierarchy. And it's this only exists out of necessity...
mistaspot1 2 years ago
If one person doesn't want it, and it's forced upon them, is that wrong? Don't call it popular support, it's Tyranny of the Majority, with freedom people can CHOOSE socialism and the rest of us can CHOOSE charity. Eliminating Private "hierachy" is limiting freedom (that's CHOSEN hierachy and it's not universal) So no, it's entirley different. No private hierachy can enter into contracts with people who don't agree you authoratarian fuck.
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
If one person doesn't agree that the law against murder is wrong and it's enforced upon them, is that wrong? Democracy isn't tyranny because every majority decision is not an infringement upon inalienable rights. Capitalism is not an inalienable right. If you disagree with the right of democratic self-governance then YOU are an authoritarian fuck. You're the kind of guy who would help overthrow popular leaders like Salvador Allende and install a capitalist dictator and claim to be a liberator.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
I don't understand the question... it's never wrong to disagree with a law. It's never right to murder, the question is contradictary and you ignore the immoral parts of statism, especially as you were talking about socialism, which is entirely immoral, hence you didnt ask a question about it. Freedom is an inalienable right, of course it is, don't be silly. If i disagree with freedom, then I'm authoratarian? Get a dictionary... How could their be a dictator without government? Gibberish!
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
You misunderstand the question because you intentionally dodged its meaning. Of course you know that I meant that the person who disagrees with the law against murder actually behaves as though this is the case. In other words, they murder.
You ignore the moral parts of statism, especially as you were talking about capitalism, which is entirely immoral. Democracy is an inalienable right, of course it is, don't be silly.
There are all kinds of non-governmental dictators. The line is arbitrary.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
I disagree with the law on murder... and as I said, they are still wrong to murder, I did not avoid the question, it is morally wrong to murder, I question you making the assumption that the state is the only solution.
If a thief beats you up and takes everything you have and gives it to charity, it is the thief I question, not the charity. The state is entirely immoral, that some of it's actions pretend to be moral is meaningless. Democracy is not an inalienable right, what are you on?
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
If murder is sanctioned, ever, then it is illegal. It's called primitive law. The state is not a thief because one could argue that the state is someone's property that you're living on. They set conditions for living on it, but never in those conditions does it say that you can take that property from them by way of paying currency for it.
"Democracy is not an inalienable right"
Now *THAT* is a scary comment.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
I'm confused. If murder is sanctioned then it's illegal? I don't care what you call it, you're mixing statism and non-statism again. The state is a thief, you can't argue that, I don't touch it's property. Democracy isn't an inalienable right, it didn't exist from 99% of human history... and it's violent Tyranny against me, I don't agree, I don't have poor communication, and my concern (the state) is no addressed. Youre talking gibberish
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a non-governmental dictator in the sense that you use dictator, don't talk gibberish. If democracy was an inalienable right, then why are their 200 odd countries? What would be wrong with 6 billion? What's the difference?
DreadLaw2 2 years ago
Democracy is not an end. It is a means to an end. The end is agreement. Democracy exists only where there is poor communication. Where there is not, there is no need for democracy, only consensus decision-making processes. In this climate, all minority concerns are addressed.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
It's about institutions silly.
First, cut out the moral thinking. There are no morals, they are just subjective intellectual constructs. They are meaningless for anyone except the individual who constructs them.
Rights likewise don't exist, where is a right? Show me one. You can't. They don't exist except in your mind.
If you institutionalize the provision of services by forcing people to buy them from a violently enforced monopoly, you will be undermining the structure of society.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
It is beneficial to construct them detrimental not to construct them. Since morality is the law of the living, morals do exist intersubjectively. Same goes for rights.
If you craft an incendiary narrative, you remove yourself from dialogue with everyone else, therefore making violence the only recourse. If you do not, then there are others. There is no separating yourself from the group. Not humanity and not nature.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
No, morals do not exist. Present me a moral, I will measure it for you.
Anarchism does not disintegrate social order, anymore than evolution disintegrates biology. It's not about progressive, voluntary, order, rather than unsustainable compulsory order.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
mistaspot1:
Perhaps if the government formed was structured as a democratic one, then people like me wouldn't have a bitch, we'd have to go somewhere else or accept our fate.
However, in the US, the government is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. If it were a true democracy, there would be no states, just majority rule, and under those circumstances, people like me are in the majority. If this ever happens, people like you need to be very afraid.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
We are a democratic constitutional republic. (As opposed to an oligarchic constitutional republic or an aristocratic constitutional republic, etc.)
If you think people like you are in the majority you are sorely mistaken. Any popular government favors socialism.
mistaspot1 2 years ago
mistaspot1:
Really? That's why the largest group of Americans view themselves as conservative...45% at last count. If it was up to me, I'd simply declare open warfare and fight this out till the end. You Socialists represent a horrible system, responsible to the death of hundreds of millions. Deny this all you want. We may have a socialist government, but it's not a "lawful" government.
The Constitution denys the collective and recognizes the Individual. It's worth saving.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
Nuke Copenhagen this week! Problem solved.
dlucas90 2 years ago
I love how Al Gore actually sits on an airplane in his movie.
Paddis92 2 years ago 2
PS: remind me never to shake Sheryl Crow's hand.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Its all about the transfer of wealth from the poor & middle-class to the Elite. Business as usual for these guys.
We have no heroes! Bono, Tom Cruise, etc. they're all puppets.
Bottom line: this is a Kabal of nations united in one mind to Socially Program the masses (peasants) to accept Global Taxes (also referred to as Green Taxes) without a fight.
So If you run across someone who says "..I agree with Global Taxes to save our planet.." just scratch that person as another Brainwashed Zombie.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Wacko Scio's like John Travolta and Tom Cruise are so full of their own hot air they could fly to Copenhagen with that.
AshCyc 2 years ago 4
I can only agree
Paxmax 2 years ago
Very true and well put.
Gromitdog1 2 years ago
The Harrison Ford commentary is hillarious.
This post is fantastic, it shows the hypocracy of those who try to impose their will on (he said it) us peasants. He speaks in a way that everyone can or should understand. To the point, down to earth and real.
Can't wait to check out more of your vids. 5 Stars! Fav'd, and gonna pass this on.
IgnoranceIsNoExuse 2 years ago
Hi stef, have you looked into Climate gate scandal? Just wondered what you thought of it.
kevbrav 2 years ago
the problem with the climate gate scandal, is that it isn't actually a scandal, have you noticed how it seems to be only sceptics who are scientifically illiterate are focusing on it, and how out of hundreds of lengthy emails they focus on two quote mines in particular.
the real issue the scientifically literate have is not with these "secret" emails, its that at very best the evidence appears to indicate a link but its inconclusive as to the proportion responsibility that's on CO2
ScubaSctimpy 2 years ago
Majority of CO2 comes from one place: The Ocean; this is directly related to Sun Spot maximum & minimum cycles. Today man only contributes 3% of all CO2 emissions.
So what's going on? 1st recognized the "End Result", then the "Means to accomplish their agenda". Think backwards if you will.
End Result: new (Global) taxes on the masses (sheep following its shepherds).
Means to accomplish agenda: Fear mongering.
Be afraid of the environmental boogieman & turn to government too SAVE YOU/US!
yo1dude1man 2 years ago 3
@ yo1dude1man. You need to stop spouting the same lies over and over. Stop watching 'the great global warming swindle' as if it's an honest documentary.
Watch this instead.
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
The rest of your comment, the conclusion, is invalid and unsound.
newexperiment 2 years ago
I respectfully reject your claim that I'm lying.
I suggest you read up on sun spot maximum/minimum cycles.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Oh, and I never seen this 'the great global warming swindle' documentary that you speak of, nor do I plan too.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
well whever you get your BOGUS information got it from that movie.. It's clearly refuted in this video
watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
newexperiment 2 years ago
But this is all trivial.
Regardless of the hair-splitting on how CO2 is generated; wither it should be called "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"; the END RESULT is a new form of TAXATION.
The elite want us distracted with idiotic debates on the "How & Why" of increase CO2 (the Fake punch) while their puppet politicians write up legislation to implement Global/Green TAXES (the Knock-out blow).
When was the last time a TAX truly benefited the whole? Never!
My point? I'm fed up with new TAXES!
yo1dude1man 2 years ago 2
there are a few possibilites.
1. If AGW is the case.
2. AGW is not the case.
3 taxes are an inescapable necessity in the event that 1 is true.
4. taxes are not a solution to AGW (human-Accelerated Global Warming) even IF 1 is true.
Now I'm going to go ahead and assume you think 4 is true. Then I'll put myself in your shoes and try to act wisely. I'll see what the best option is for me (you) to avoid new taxes.
ready?
...continued.
newexperiment 2 years ago
ok so, It's fairly easy to show that taxes never benifit the whole. So there are free-market solutions to any problem. This isn't complicated stuff - at least magnitudes less complicated than climate science. So should I argue climate science, a peer-reviewed empirical process that I have no real credentials on, or... should I just show that taxes won't help, they never help, and even the empirical peer-reviewed publications agree on that. I'll go with arguing AGW!
newexperiment 2 years ago
This is a contradiction between two claims
A, you are reasonably smart
B, you believe 4
If you believed 4 and were smart, you'd start by arguing taxes as a solution, not AGW. And you'd spend most of you effort (at least) arguing that 4 is the case.
But you don't. I don't think you're dumb.. I don't want to assume you have no integrity either. So.. could you let me know which one it is?
newexperiment 2 years ago
EDIT:
1 should read :AGW is the case.
Sorry.
newexperiment 2 years ago
This argument applies to you too stefbot <3
= )
newexperiment 2 years ago
Check 3 vids back dude! Love Peace and Anarchy, Jake
DecassyJake 2 years ago
3 vids back? the one that he apologizes for repeating a fallacy for half an hour? Or the the one he repeats a fallacy for half an hour in?
newexperiment 2 years ago
He apologized for the misunderstanding not his point and he CLARIFIED it, not a fallacy.
A) Its not man made
B) Earth is not the only planet affected
C) Climates never stay the same and by trend this fear campaign is a fallacy nor the solutions by Gov't change anything worthwhile but jack up energy costs absent of the barrier to entry, inflation/dollar collapse problems..
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A) It is man-made.
B) This is a lie and propaganda. Refuted here
watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
C) It doesn't matter that there exist people trying to take advantage of this problem. It doesn't matter that there exist not-so-well-informed celebrities who are hypocrites. If these things matter you'd have to deny 9/11 for the same reasons.
Read this whole post and see my argument.
newexperiment 2 years ago
It does matter that there are people trying to take advantage of the problem. They are using a disaster to try justify theft and control. And much of the creditability is virtually zero when it comes from sources that receive State Funding. Why? Because the Solutions that are proposed are just to make Government bigger. And if you know anything about history, that isn't a solution, just a problem.
It does matter that there are stupid celebs spinning the truth and adding fear.
BIackOp 2 years ago
I am not saying all the information is false, I am saying I have zero trust in State funded institutions.
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You clearly did not read my chain of posts that outline my argument against this sort of reasoning. I'd like to not have to type it again.
YES, it DOES matter that people are trying to use the problem as an excuse for violence, coercion, and an increase in authoritative power. NO, it does NOT matter in so far as what the case actually is. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.
newexperiment 2 years ago
So you are saying that all the data on Global Warming is solid; and that just because its funded by the State, supported by the State, and promoted by the State; has absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever.
Let me make this clear for you. I will not accept State related Research as a foundation to anything empirical as solid evidence for the case of Global Warming, because its very nature is funded by theft, and has the reputation of shit. Outside of Statism is another story.
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are proposing that claims made as a result of funding by the state (or other violence) will not be accepted by you as solid evidence for X.
Then you ought to deny, more often than not, claims made in the field of mathematics, astronomy, physics, geology, history, linguistics, chemistry, and many many more for the sake of consistency. But do you? If not, I think stefbot and I are going to have to question your integrity because it will seem as thought you don't actually beleive that.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Global Warming is a tax scheme, Climate Change has been happening for millions of years. This is a fact. When you have the State scaring everybody based on data proposed by Scientists who are funded by the State, that creates a conflict of interest and I question all integrity in the matter.
The more I see your post defend this crap, the more you are backing the Statist mantra. If you truly are making a empirical case for Global Warming, stay out of the State box.
BIackOp 2 years ago
Second, except for Economics and History, mathematics, astronomy, physics, linguistics, chemistry... I don't see a conflict of interest; however, Keynesian Ecomnomics is soley based to legimaze Central Planning in the market where Government can do what they want and claim its "Standard Economics".
And History is very corrupted because what better way to keep the slave class in line than to rewrite history in order to make them think this is how society functions. You are very naive.
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The vast majority (95%+)of the data on global warming is solid. Yes. The last < 5% is human and instrument error, not coercive intent.
Perhaps there is reason for the state to prefer AGW but ,as it happens, the actual state of affairs are such that the government has no need to tamper with data as AGW is an empirical fact.
Coupled with my argument you still haven't read, I'd say I have a strong case against your integrity.
newexperiment 2 years ago
You question my integrity, but turn a blind eye to the damaging empirical fact that Statism is to use whatever resource it can, to maintain its control and continue to expand its power; which is why I have no trust on Scientists being paid off by the State especially when the only solution is more State. This shouldn't even be an argument, let alone the emails hacked. Again, how is my integrity questioned when I said there is a conflict of interest here.
BIackOp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are only strengthening my argument... Why do you refuse to even read it? scared?
#1 I am an anarchist.
#2 I agree (profess that it is the case) that statism will use resources to maintain and increase it's power.
#3 YOOOUUUU agree (profess that it is the case) that the ONLY solution is more state. You just did.
Q: How can you profess #1 and #3 at the same time?
A: Only without integrity...
newexperiment 2 years ago
Now you are trolling. I never said I agree that the only solution should be more state. I said that this is what all this agenda is about, learn to read carefully. If you are an anarchist, then you need to immediately oppose the Government involvement in Science Research, particularly the area of Global Warming; because from your posts you make an all out leap as to claim there is no conflict of interest especially while gathering data for the case of Global Warming.
BIackOp 2 years ago
So you agree that AGW may be the case? But you claim that the truth of AGW is not within our reach because the empirical data-gatherers are funded by un-trust-able sources (states).
Is that your position?
newexperiment 2 years ago
How would you distinguish between the two cases empirically.
AGW is happening, dangerous, avoidable and discovered by state scientists.
AGW is not happening, a fabrication by 100's of conspiring governments but still asserted by 10's of thousands of scientists across the globe (99%+).
Ignoring time and cost, what are some of the ways one might go about figuring out what the case truly is? All I hear from you is that the 2nd case is likely, therefor the first case unlikely (a fallacy).
newexperiment 2 years ago
Comment removed
BIackOp 2 years ago
that link isn't working.
newexperiment 2 years ago
they are plant friendly
marktimmer2212 2 years ago
Stop the Eco-Fascist Tyranny NOW!
stopchemtrails 2 years ago
I heard that something's rotten in Denmark, this is why all of them are flying there :-)
I will write an article about the BS happening in Copenhagen now, till then, here are some danish proverbs that work well with the video/situation:
-Do as you would be done by
-Every fool can find faults that a great many wise men can't remedy
-He must keep a sharp look-out who would speak the truth
-The more cooks, the worse broth
-While the great bells are ringing no one hears the little ones
Great work!
SopraTutt1 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no pollution.
The seas are not dying from poison.
The air is not becoming poisonous, due to poisonous gases.
The soil is not becoming poisoned, the water table neither.
Everything is fine. Keep believing that YOU STUPID FUCCING SHEEEEP !
The corporations are funding the pro-pollution propoganda.
You sheep will be the first to be poisoned and die from pollution. You are starting to die younger than the rest due to your pollution inhalation. Mordor has poisond your minds
SatwaMan 2 years ago
When you believe Government is the solution you are the sheep.
BIackOp 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've done more to successfully change the ways of the government and other governments than you will do in 10 lifetimes fool.
SatwaMan 2 years ago
Big words from a guy on the internet.
BIackOp 2 years ago
Why are you bringing up actors/politiciams when scientists make crap from their fearmongering? And when they can make a lot more from denying climate change? In fact it is in the funding interests of most climatologists to say climate change is uncertain, because if it's settled then (as is the case) they can only make a case for the majority of the money to go to green innovation.
rajasmasala 2 years ago
Has Sheryl Crow or Travolta or Sting et al ever been compelled to answer for their actions in an interview? What could their answer conceivably be? I saw Cameron Diaz once say that she only flew because she "had to" for her job. (!?!??!??blulaaaagh!)
URInTheVillage 2 years ago
Well, of course all of these people in Copenhagen will not solve a thing of the climate change problem. They only care about keeping up the current system.
In reality they do not care.
DonAnonimus 2 years ago
Simple and effective message.
DeeperBlueX16 2 years ago
at least harrison ford uses his helicopters to save people
jmeiskues 2 years ago
Comment removed
korrdxl 2 years ago
Just a interesting facts I've bump into recently. Anyway Great video and overall the idea to reveal the "integrity" of the preachers. What has changed ? haha
Anyway I urge people to check the Serbian scientist M.MILANKOVIC who basically was involved during 19-20 century in climate research and came up with a theory of cycles of warming and cooling. What is remarkable is that he has been proven right by recent testing, data, etc. and many others expanded it.
This is a evidence versus hoax!
konshoff 2 years ago
Sheryl Crow must have a dirty ass
sharpsteve2003 2 years ago 3
Ethanol is distilled in refineries that use gas boilers - and it takes 30,000 BTU of the stuff to produce a single gallon of "green" fuel. In other words, a 50-million-gallon-per-year plant uses 5 billion cubic feet of natural gas with corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. alone set to increase to 15 billion gallons per year by 2022, it is ironically a response to environmental energy issues that had been driving natural gas demand (and prices) through the roof.
konshoff 2 years ago 2
Conservationis common sense if you don't have money since you can only afford so much. If your heating bill goes up your going to turn the thermostat down.
I get pissed when I'm told to better insulate my home, replace windows ect. Your told that the initial investmwent to make my home more energy efficient will pay for itself over the years but the more you cut back the more exspensive energy becomes.
If you are poor or rent there is only so much youcan do.
deadman12078 2 years ago
good vid stef
thanks and i look forward to the next one
galikazoid 2 years ago
don't judge.. be curious?
erdal0 2 years ago
Five stars.
chris3443 2 years ago
Obviously we live in a time of retarded hordes of celebrities worshipers.
Northamericans and other westerners are generally too dumb to see the bigger picture.
Mainstream media are at fault of course.
That's why, in my opinion, the best way people can help with the"global air and water polution problems" by changing the channels from celebrity scandals to Discovery Channel and other science related tv networks.
Enough Oprah, Woopy Goldberg and all the rest of them!
adorianvlad 2 years ago
The Discovery Channel and "other science-related networks" are putting out global warming propaganda. Everyone should turn their TVs off, period.
regresseur 2 years ago 3
@regresseur - Seconded with all my heart.
Shezmu 2 years ago
Well, regresseur, I don't think we should stop watching tv all together, after all, even the Internet now is covering a lot of streaming video
Yes, where there are money involved, there is propaganda being used as a tool, indeed,
but at least here the general public can analyze with their own minds different issues presented on a professional channel.
We can't expect the general population to read the scientific publications, right?
Experts in the field should have the say not celebrities.
adorianvlad 2 years ago
Hypocrisy doesn't prove your opponent's position is false.
McCain: We must protect children from pedophiles
Obama: I saw you molest your OWN children when I was at your house.
By Molyneux's logic, pedophillia should be no big deal since the person argueing for increased protection from pedophiles is himself a pedophile.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
At what point in this video does he try to use the hypocrisy of these celebrities to show that this global warming voodoo magic bullshit is just that?
regresseur 2 years ago 2
That was entirely the point of his video. As someone who has been watching Molyneux for years, he routinely uses tu quoqe fallacies to prove his world view.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
That's besides the point. To Quoque is a weak fallacy.
If people can't practice what they preach, then it's either because they'll be punished for practicing it, or it's because they're preaching is BS.
Guncriminal 2 years ago 2
I think it could be summarized to say that in situations where you cannot get all the facts, if the people promoting a theory don't even act as if what they are preaching is true, why believe them?
sumadartsan 2 years ago
You are right. Action speak louder than words.
lindabebe835 2 years ago
The North Pole probably ISN'T disappearing, right?
philhellenes 2 years ago
The Ice caps have been melting since the Ice age.
darwaan 2 years ago 2
Again, the point of the video has *nothing* to do with providing a scientific argument against climate change.
Shezmu 2 years ago
The north pole might still be here if my money wasn't spent toward flying pizza guys 800 miles, but of course the state is in charge of fixing these important, dire matters.
abortabraham 2 years ago
This is why I subscribe. Good job Stef.
bawokoroma 2 years ago
YOU ARE AMAZING - GOD I LOVE YOU!!!!
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
Well said. that was very well said. 8o)
2minstral 2 years ago
I believe our lifestyle is dangerous. That's why I drive an electric moped and give 20 euro a month to greenpeace.
Censeo 2 years ago
sorry but ur 20 euros s bein wasted for nothing since greenpeace s just another organisation of ur agenda and there are a possibility they even used ur money to destroy some of the rain forest around brasil to make an ong to ask people to DONATE MORE MONEY
Isilvarno 2 years ago
They destroy rain forest in Brazil? Can you give evidence for your claim?
Censeo 2 years ago
Google earth, eyes. Use them.
Xakryn 2 years ago
I did do a search now. I found only articles of pretty much the opposite. I have a genuin concern and if greenpeace is doing damage to the environment, I really want to know. Can you please p.m me links, and also, what environmental group should I support with my 20 euro a month? My only interest is to help the environment. I really want to know if I'm only helping to destroy the environment.
Censeo 2 years ago
Hoax and Change!
Orchard6773 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global Warming is very true. Instead of shouting hoax, like moon landing denialists often do, learn more about science. PEACE.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
thank you for not commenting on a single point in the video
1junk 2 years ago 4
@MaikUniversum If you had listened to anything he had said and watched his previous videos on Global Warming you wouldn't say that. And saying PEACE at the end of your message in capitals actually gives the impression you are shouting, which isn't too peaceful at all :P
TehGhoul 2 years ago