The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 8)

[2wheels88]

Only 5, that's right 5 of those 1500 IPCC scientists were willing to sign or put their name to the latest IPCC Report!!!! I don't know about you but it certainly does'nt give me any confidence in them.If you would like to see the latest scientific findings and hear about new peer reviewed papers coming out then go to my channel and watch the 2011 International conference on climate change.Only one scientist from the alarmist side bothered to show up and he was a laughing stock.Subscribe to me.

[EchoMike03]

7:56 I wonder how much CO2 producing electrictity had to be used for that gigantic TV screen that was alos produced by CO2 genreating industries?

MORONS!!!

[thegeorgeisgeorge]

@EchoMike03 What I stated what fact (apart from "the funny thing is" humour is subjective haha). Come back when you can do the same ;)

[EchoMike03]

I love the term "Peer-Reviewed" reports.

You mean a report created by a scientists who gets all of his grant money from the govt to prove, not research, global warming, was reviewed and substantiated by other scientists who get their pockets lined with govt grant money as well to prove, not research, global warming.

That's like having different mobster families review each other's tax forms for discrepancies.

[arscill1]

Malaria mosquitoes and malaria was common in Sweden during the 18th century. Many of these diseases must have more with economy and developments in fields like health must have more to do with it than anything else.

[hils65]

this program should be on the national curriculum !

[lukafafrenz]

lol, i love the shot of guy in the panda suit at 8:03 -- now, s/he is really making a difference

[thegeorgeisgeorge]

the funny thing is the guy at 6:16 is paid by nuclear companies. he's called "patrick moore" he used to work for greenpeace until he realised he could make more money elsewhere

[hello29o]

@thegeorgeisgeorge is that a bad this ? whats your point

[EchoMike03]

@thegeorgeisgeorge

OK. Then you are suggesting that his statements are biased because he rec's funding and his liveleyhood from an industry that you disagree with.

Then I would have to use the counterpoint to discredit "scientists" who get gobs of tax payer cash shoved in their pockets via govt grants to PROVE man made global warming, rather than ethically research the issue. They get funded by ppl who already believe it, and are looking for a specific result.

That to me is more unethical

[EchoMike03]

@thegeorgeisgeorge

Because surely the scientists are not motivated by greed to fill their pockets with govt grant money.