Tell Al Gore and his environmental fanatics and scaremongers to live in Malarial areas without chemical insecticides since they value the environment so much that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Tell them to live in the wild like the American Indians before the arrival of the first European colonists and let them live off the land and let us see how long they will last!
Tell that to a Russian living in Siberia that he or she must stop burning coal that is keeping them from freezing. Let those global warming hyped fanatics to start living in the so called melting poles which in fact are getting colder and their ice is getting thicker and the snow getting denser and frequent and let them keep on shouting that global warming is coming. As a Russian saying to Al Gore, why not you be the first to do it since you practically believe in your so called Global Warming?
SARS, Bird flu, millennium bug, killer bees. Excellent examples Stossell, not of where scientists have misled reporters with scare stories, but of where the media has blown the real science completely out of proportion in order to create a public sensation and sell papers.
These scare stories were all temporary, and they were all hugely distorted by the media beyond what most scientists would have thought justified. Climate change on the other hand has not gone away, evidence for it has grown.
I have no interest in "agreeing" with what most people think. I do however hold high standards for evidence, as does the scientific community. To find consensus, the evidence has to be quite unambiguous. if there is contradicting evidence, present it to your peers and see if it survives. The end!
You know...call me crazy, but when somneone opens a talk on climate change with he sentence 'I have no expertise in climate science', all I can do is laugh.
John, you stupid bastard. Be a real journalist and become scientifically literate, then report. YOU are an example of bad reporting!! How about smoking and cancer? How about CFC's and ozone depletion? How about dioxins...oh forget it, ignorance is bliss. You're a fraud!
@dwolfcoach he is not a "bastard"...just because there is some1 who uses facts to base their opinions and happen to happen to have a different belief than you doesn't make them wrong. Im not saying that you are wrong, but saying that both you and stossel have based your opinions off offsetting facts that contradict eachother. 1 mor thing, all energy comes from the Sun. The Sun dus NOT giv off a constant temps or a constant amount of solar flarz, wich directly corelate with historical earth temps
@dwolfcoach there is a direct correlation between the number of solar flares and the temperature of earth, more solar flares - higher temps. Temperature goes up and down, iceage then warm period. RIght now we r in a warm period. This warm period will not last forever. In the last 20 years Earth's temp has actually gone DOWN 0.7 degrees! Even though right now is the point where the most CO2 is in the atmosphere! The only thing i believe in is CLIMATE CHANGE, due to the sun's flare patters...
@iluvpoliticzz I care about empirical evidence and scientific consensus. Almost every major scientific organization with expertise over climate science has issued statements in support of the IPCC consensus view. These now include:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
@iluvpoliticzz Cont. • European Physical Society • Federation of American Scientists • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal Society of the UK
@iluvpoliticzz Let me guess, you and John Stossel have degrees in atmospheric physics? Love politics all you want, but you should have more respect for SCIENCE. The consensus view is way over your head, but keep using these industry talking points, you are quite compelling. LOL!
@dwolfcoach have u realized often the consensus has often been wrong though history? Yea u said this two months ago but its pretty dumb to always agree with what most people think all the time. There has been plenty of times where a scientist that didn't believe in the consensus has been right. With Global warming its actually not as swayed on the side of its warming and humans are the cause as much as you r saying.
@kooooolmatt The scientific consensus view changes sometimes yes. If it didn't, we'd still be living in the middle ages. It goes to show that scientists have an open mind, and so if a view does have a broad consensus within the scientific community, the most open minded and self critical community there is, then it is likely to be correct. Big mistakes in understanding happen less often than you'd think, scientists are usually happy to say "we don't know" when there is insufficient evidence.
@wowsa0 That's just plain BS. CONSENSUS has nothing to do with science. Science is about proving an idea false. Consensus is political. And if scientists who depend on funding were not afraid to say they don't know, out the door the funding would go. Peer reviewed scientific findings are heavily censored by those whose credibility is tied to government funding. Come forward about 200 years to the current world of scientific investigation.
@svartvist If you look at the opinion of the scientific community on a given issue, consensus is something that tends to happen of its own accord over time, by the application of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is based on experiment, and once the experimental data becomes good enough, it tends to end the argument. Even if the conclusion turns out ultimately to be wrong, it must have at least been a good approximation to the truth in the areas in which it was tested.
@wowsa0 I have 35 yrs in electrical engineering. I can assure you science is not treated nor performed in the manner you describe. I was taught in greater detail the scientific method in core engineering courses than what I got in public education. Apparently it is poorly taught now, or not at all. Opinion and consensus has no place in engineering research reports, nor in any reputable research organization.
@svartvist In fact I often think about this and I would be very interested if you could give me a single example of where the consensus view of the scientific community on any issue has turned out to be completely wrong, not even a rough approximation. That is an example of where the vast majority of scientists (people who use the scientific method) had been sure they knew something (not just had suspicions) and got it wrong. I'm sure there must be at least one example but I cant think of one.
@wowsa0 Start with the Big Bang "theory", and then Einstein's concept of a gravity driven universe. What you keep missing is science has nothing to do with opinion or consensus. Politics runs on consensus. 50M scientists can claim they have proven an hypothesis, but if one comes along and repeats the same test but gets different results then the hypothesis is refuted and everyone starts over. Obviously you have not paid attention to grade school science.
@svartvist Cosmology wasn't even a science pre-einstein's general relativity. Post relativity, there was a lot of controversy for many many years before, eventually, as the evidence became unarguable, a consensus emerged on Big Bang theory. I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying consensus is a part of the scientific method, I'm aware of what the scientific method is, I'm saying that consensus is what tends to emerge when the scientific method is applied, and it is rarely wrong
@wowsa0 And I see that you continue to miss the point that consensus has no place science. How many people agree with a POV has nothing to do with the correctness of the results of investigation. I don't know how you associate cosmology in general and pre-einsteinian relativity. My purpose in listing Peratt's plasma work was another example of serious research that does not follow the prevailing dogma promoted in the news and university textbooks.
@svartvist It just so happens as a result of Peratt's and his predecessor's work in plasma that we now have a far better explanation of the universe than what Einstein came up with, who incidentally confessed he was never sure he was right about his equations.
@svartvist 'How many people agree with a POV has nothing to do with the correctness of the results of investigation.' I agree with that, and that's why the scientific method is built on experiment, not arguments from authority, which is the method people used pre-science. But, when you look historically at where the scientific method has been applied, consensus is what tends to emerge out of it. When has this consensus been fundamentally wrong in the past? There probably is an example...
@wowsa0 There are examples, far more than I've listed, but until you read and understand them you will continue to adhere to the dogma produced by authoritative bodies who generate it. My Sage dictionary defines consensus: "Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole." The group you described here isn't homogenous except in their prevention of publication ideas differing from their own. Spend a couple of years reading their material so you know something.
@svartvist Go read Arp's Seeing Red, Pari Spolter's Gravitational Force of the Sun, IEEE articles by Anthony Peratt on Plasma Cosmology, papers presented at the Natural Philosophy Alliance at worldnpa, physicist Thornhill's holoscience, Bill Gaede's fundamental physics debunking, StephenCcrothers' debunking of Einestein's very bad math. There are so many examples that the fact you don't know one suggests gross ignorance on the subject.
@svartvist You have seriously just quoted Bill Gaede? I've watched some of Bill Gaede's videos, even argued quite a lot with him on the comments (the fact that his scientific debate is confined to youtube comments with non-experts like me tells you a lot). From what I've heard him say he appears to have no understanding of the basics of the relativity he claims to debunk.
@wowsa0 No I did not QUOTE Bill Gaede. I listed him as just one of many people who do not follow the "consensus" science. As far as relativity is concerned, it is not possible in a physical universe to associate the dimensionless term of time and have it predict anything observable.
@svartvist So you don't believe in relativity theory either? Climate change is one thing, but relativity has undergone stringent experimental tests, it has the reached the stage where it is unarguable, that's why there's a consensus around it. It could, and probably will, turn out to be not the fundamental truth but rather a very good approximation, but it is one of the best theories we have.
@wowsa0 That's your problem, you BELIEVE. You're a True Believer. No relativity has not undergone stringent tests because the math behind it is faulty to begin with, and the tests that have been performed never had the capacity of falsification. Again, if you read the material and understood the refutations you would know this to be so. But there is no hope for True Believers who adhere to dogma rather than critical thinking.
@svartvist The maths behind relativity is not faulty, maths truly is unarguable, it is one branch of knowledge where you can truly know something for sure without a shadow of a doubt. That's what makes mathematics so beautiful. The mathematics of higher dimensional curved spaces was developed before Einstein, and is mathematically rigorous, not faulty. Whether Einstein's mathematical model is a description of the real world though is a different and less certain question...
@svartvist ...However, it has been subject to falsifiable tests, and it has passed them. It predicts the gravitational deflection of light to be exactly twice what you would expect in Newtonian gravity, this has been measured, it predicts the perihelion shift of mercury, that was measured before GR, it predicts gravitational time dilation and the red shift of light moving upwards in a gravitational field, this has been measured...
@svartvist ...this has been measured by gravity probe B. It predicts the existence of gravitational waves, and while these have yet to be seen, a binary pulsar system has been observed losing energy at just the rate expected if it were emitting gravitational waves. Had any of these measurements been different, the deflection of light slightly different, the perihelion shift of mercury slightly different etc then GR would have to be abandoned in favour of a better theory. Instead it has worked.
@wowsa0 There are a number of respected scientists who refuted the probe B tests, but of course you will dismiss them out of hand as establishment followers do. the GPS system refuted Einstein's SRT 30 yrs ago, but there again you will dismiss that as well. This forum is too limited to have an effective discussion, besides, your True Believing bias prevents you from seriously examining the material I previously suggested you look into. Good luck and continue to be surprised like NASA.
@svartvist First you say GR is not falsifiable, now you claim it has been falsified experimentally but the establishment interpretation of those experiments is flawed, you can't have it both ways, which is it?
@svartvist One of the things Bill Gaede claimed is that experiment has no place in science, which, whatever you may think of my understanding of the scientific method, betrays his complete and utter ignorance of it. Maybe you should go and take a look of some of the things he says again.
@wowsa0 In Bill's Einstein's Idiots, video 12 he does mention performing experimentation within the context of gravity & relativity. So far I have no mention of experiment having no place in science. However in video 5 he states this verbatim: "PHYSICS is not the science of energy and measurement. Physics is the science of existence." Unless you can point to your alleged statement for inspection, it must be relegated to hearsay.
@svartvist He doesn't mention it in the video, it was in the argument in the comments with me. If you go to video 12, along with one other about the speed of gravity I think, and do a ctrl f on the comments page for the word 'experiment', you will find him saying several times that 'In science we do not do experiments'.
First off, DDT has never been banned anywhere for fighting malaria. It was banned for agricultural use, as it should be, but there were always exemptions for fighting disease. It is a fact that DDT is still being used in many places to fight malaria today.
Second, cancer is one of the biggest killers out there. Of course people are afraid of it. They should be.
Love Canal? Is guy fucking real. That place was a toxic waste dump. No sane person would live there.
Oh Holy Climate Denying Messiah, Your Holy Word has so much power over virtually every scientific body on the planet ant 97 percent of climatologists! Please, preach more wisdom!
We aren't talking about 1 or 2 fringe scientists, we aren't talking about a book like silent spring, we are talking about a world wide scientific consensus by the most qualified people in the world. It's also not new, we have known the link between co2 and climate for over 100 years. John Cristi really is a lonely man, he has virtually no colleagues who have drawn the same conclusion he has. Why is it that you are willing to trust science with EVERYTHING else?
Ok. So we take 300 million years worth of stored carbon out of the ground, and put it into the atmosphere. It is scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet. Instrumental readings show that the planet is warming in a way that coincides with the elevated CO2 level. What does all this mean? Of course! It's a sinister plot to create a worldwide, draconian-socialist government. How could I have been so blind? Thank you mr Stossell, for showing me the light.
@minibrownliger No, it is not a scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet, second of all you say that planet warming coincides with co2 level. C02 level follows warming by about 800 years. If A causes B how can B happen 800 years before A?
@poopster102 The greenhouse effect is a well established and robust theory. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are traces gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and render our planet inhabitable. Not even scientists who are skeptics of AGW question the fact that CO2 is a GHG responsible in part for the warming. The 800 year lag from temp to CO2 increase is well known. watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related
That will shed some light on the issue in a scientific context.
Actually, it works both ways. CO2 drives heat, and heat drives CO2 (tinyurl dot com slash 33dwwx). Temperature rise also raises water vapor (tinyurl dot com slash 25khzrd), another GHG, which exacerbates the problem even more.
John is a curmudgeon! THANK GOD FOR CURMUDGEONS! They always seem to take the simple truth, sharpen it to a fine point and jab us in the side with it!
Ok, here is some simple truth for you: DDT has never been banned for fighting malaria, Love Canal is a toxic waste dump, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs energy, and we have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 33% since the Industrial Revolution. Oh, one more thing, cancer is one of the leading causes of death.
@codematrix There are a lot of reasons why CO2 concentrations were higher in the past. Mainly, it was the increased mountain formation over the last couple hundred million years that brought the levels down to where they are now. I suggest you read a geology book for further information.
@Glasya666 - Mountain formations? Are you fucking kidding me? Mountain formation is constantly occuring even as we speak. It's an ongoing very slow process of Igneous rocks being formed. Oh, and when the earth exprienced the 4000 ppm, it was the during one of the earth's many ice ages it experienced. CO2 is not the cause of high temps. Its the other way around. High temps first, CO2 comes 100s of years later. Stop wathing Al Gores crap.
>> "Mountain formation is constantly occuring even as we speak. It's an ongoing very slow process of Igneous rocks being formed."
Learn how to read. I said increased mountain formation. The rate of formation is not even remotely constant, especially when you are talking about 100's of millions of years. In the last billion years we have had a supercontinent (Rodina) form, break up, a new supercontinent (Pangea) form, and break up again.
>> "Oh, and when the earth exprienced the 4000 ppm, it was the during one of the earth's many ice ages it experienced."
You simply cannot compare the current climate to one half a billion years ago. Back then continents were in different places and ocean and air currents were far different. The suns output is slowly increasing, but significant over long time scales. Hell, our position in the galaxy was different back then.
>> "CO2 is not the cause of high temps. Its the other way around. High temps first, CO2 comes 100s of years later."
We are all aware that the temperature rises before CO2 concentrations. This was explained even before it was observed.
>> "Stop wathing Al Gores crap."
I don't listen to, or care, what Al Gore has to say on any subject. I do, however, care what the National Academy of Sciences has to say on the subject, as well as every other major scientific organization on the planet.
@Glasya666 - DDT has been banned in many places, Love Canal may have toxic waste, that nobody got sick from (imagine if that SuperFund money was being put to actual good use, like cancer research, or just not stolen from the people as it has been)
And cancer is a leading cause of death because we've cured a lot of the things that used to kill people before they ever got cancer. Life spans have increased dramatically.
@mpc91 >> "DDT has been banned in many places, . . ."
Name one.
>> "Love Canal may have toxic waste, that nobody got sick from . . . "
May have? They had known toxins thousands of times higher than acceptable levels. A lot of people got sick. And cancer is a leading cause of death for a lot of reasons. Living longer is just one of them. The toxins that we are exposed to is another.
I do agree with clean energy, and I'll go so far as to say we need more than that! Clean water, clean News Media, and clean Politicians.
The problem I have is all the Draconian, strict, ridiculous laws they're throwing on us saying that everybody is a criminal if they don't go along with this plan, and even if its physically impossible.
Bunch of strict bullcrap laws put into place to take your hard earned tax money away! If you want clean energy then look for technology.
I'm not laymen (or however you spell it). Even if you doubt the evidence (or don't understand it like you), making clean energy is the right thing to do for our future.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
Hey docpepper, i want to applaud your questions, good points!!! that person who made this pathatic personal attack you, can see that the discussion is not over and won't admit to it.. and i want to thank john strossel for standing-up... you know he's getting hammered a lot worse than you...
First of all, I never asked for your help. Secondly, you could not help me with this topic if you wanted to.
You state that fossil fuels are killing people right now....there is no proof. You gave me an example of the Cal State study, I gave you a report that debunked it. The debate is not over on that.
I agree that renewable forms of energy are overall better for us, and asked you what forms do you think would work best, and all you want to do is pick a fight? Nice.
You said: "keep sucking that oil titty. keep up their rhetoric (and their profits)
i leave you to stew in your own cesspool."
And I am the one wasting my passion? Wow!
Well it appears that your name calling and personal attacks on me leave me to think I must have struck a nerve. One often resorts to things of this nature, when they no longer have the ability to discuss and/or debate an issue. You refuse to answer the question about what type of renewable energy would work best.
I also believe you must be young or very immature to use personal attacks while hiding behind the cloak of the internet. Answer me two questions if you can. What types of renewable energy do you think would work best? Secondly, if one volcano eruption causes more air pollution than man ever has, how does the earth continue to spin and produce life since many volvanic eruptions have occured?
You say that: " yes, this is the problem.co2 is surely being produced in great quantities, but these other things are pure poison." You are comparing apples to oranges. Water is in liquid weed poison, but I would not suggest that you stop drinking water. Just because it is in there does not make it harmful.
my entire point here is that we should not debate whether or not we have caused global warming, but that fossil fuels pollute enough for us to move away from them in favor of renewables now. no need to wait for any further evidence. fossil fuels are poisoning our air, water and land RIGHT NOW.
governments suck, some more than others. no cap and trade.
for US, we need renewables now. you know, for survival.
Again, I will ask what should those forms of renewable energy be? For the record, I have never stated that I am against forms of renewable energy, I just do not like being misled with half truths and lies that people use to get their points across.
You said: "stop the pointless debated of GW." - What does that even mean?
So, now that I am no longer missing your point....Again, I will ask what should those forms of renewable energy be?
you don't know what the forms of renewable energy are? you can't be helped then.
stop the pointless debate of GW means just that. we won't know why we're warmer for sure for hundreds of years because it takes that long for the oceans and atmosphere to completely absorb/distribute pollution. it is most likely greenhouse gases, but the oil companies have mounted a campaign to discredit that.
so don't argue it at all.
but, pollution kills RIGHT NOW. so go to renewables RIGHT NOW.
Why not? That is your opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. So according to you I should just shut up and listen to you? That will never happen my friend. As soon as anyone quits thinking for themselves they are truely lost and a slave to the system.
To be fair Stossell never said that other forms of energy like wind and solar were bad either. He just said that the science behind the 'green' movement has not been proven. The hacked e-mails were just icing on the cake for that arguement. While I agree that renewable energy would help us be more independent, I also find it absurd to lie about such claims about climate change research. There is always another motive when lies are present.
Greenies want people to own up to & take responsibility for our freedoms, which I've fought for. But I'm really beginning to believe that the big oil companies, which pay a large % of fed tax to our gov, have been launching this campaign to cause doubt in non-scientific public. Hi gas prices hurt, but have you ever imagined how solar, wind & hydro power will relieve us of dependency on foreign oil? It's never mentioned in this puppet's speech....
...and you know as well as anyone that concentrated amounts of any gas is not good for you. Try breathing pure oxygen and see how long you stay awake.
The Scientific Integrity Institute does not agree with the Cal Sate Fullerton study on pollution. How can you be so sure? I am not sure one way or the other. But logically it does not make sense to me. One volcanic eruption will create more air pollution than man ever has, yet the world keeps turning.
Where did the store get the items your purchased? A CO2 creating truck brought them. Before that, a CO2 creating tractor harvested the food items. The non-food items were created in a CO2 creating factory. If you no longer wish to purchase things from a store, then keep up your way of thinking. Both you and jjrglobal have interesting points, but both of your attitudes and personal attacks discredit anything that you guys write.
Well then you're not allowed to exhale anymore. You produce CO2 every time you exhale so quit exhaling you polluter. I can't believe you dont care enough about the earth to stop exhaling. I said stop it!!! You are killing us all every time you exhale STOP POLLUTING THE EARTH
Is an Oil and Gas Man is going to be out of work if we believe in "Man Made Global Warming"?
Al Gore, is still flying in private jets and riding in Limos! Big Oil, still makes money no matter what the Public believes!
But.... if you just spent 7 years or more obtaining your PHD, and have an opportunity to study the effects of Man on the Climate which there are paid positions for!
Or to research for free that "Man has no effect on the Climate"?
Could it be that sucking on a tailpipe is death for some other reason than co2?
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Particulate matter
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Of course we should be looking to replace fossil fuels, but you have been lied to about co2. Governments, all governments, lie all the time about everything.
In regards to cap and trade and climate change you are calling for renewables. What should they be? If renewables are the answer, why is the government and libs trying to install cap and trade, instead of pushing for the renewables? The cap and trade agenda is just another tax. It only gives the govmnt more money and power, and it will do nothing to help the earth.
The points she brought up about the Cal State Study were interesting, though some argue the mathmatics were incorrect and other portions of the study were ignored.
I guess she is missing my point that I am all for finding other energy sources, but taxing energy is not going to do anything except grow the size of government and hurt the poorest people the most. People like her will understand when their electric bill doubles that taxes levied against businesses are taxes levied against the people, they just pass the costs onto the consumer. They must in order to survive, conversely the consumer does not have the ability to pass taxation to someone else
relicofgold....If you are so worried about CO2 coming from tailpipes, then I am to assume that you do not drive or take any form of public transportation. I am also to assume that you never personally buy products from a store. If you bought it...a truck brought it.
did it ever occur to anyone that the oil companies are the ones footing the bill for the anti-Global Warming conspiracy theory?
follow the money. exxon is the largest corporation on this planet. do you suppose they have a vested interest in the continuation of drilling anywhere and everywhere?
jjrglobal is the ultimate hypocrite. his channel says his occupation is "oil and gas exploration".
then says he is not self-serving, but concerned for his fellow man.
I absolutely agree that we need to develop other energy sources, but currently there is not an alternative energy source that can even come close to fulfilling our needs.
Imagine if tomorrow morning me and the rest of the oil and gas producers decided to shut in all production. How long could you survive?
What would your life be like? I can think of no other industry that has had a more positive profound effect on society as the oil industry.
WHAT A SURPRISE!: oil and gas employee jjrglobal is using scare tactics to attempt to garner more support for the oil sluts.
NO ONE is proposing shutting down fossil fuel processes.
i am proposing intensive research to make renewables viable, but every time a funding bill for this comes before congress, the oil sluts make sure it dies, as in last summer's bill.
my contribution right here is to OUT you as an oil slut and bring people's awareness to renewables.
My point was that they SHOULD stop production of oil and gas if they believe that CO2 is destroying our planet. Since they are not proposing anything like that, then they either dont care about the planet or they just want more money. BTW Major US oil companies are spending more on research and development of alternate sources of energy than any other entity on the planet, including governments. Mans dramatic ascent the last 100 years can be attributed to one thing more than all others, OIL.
So your contribution to society is commenting on youtube? Pretty pathetic contribution. Of what worth is commenting about things you know nothing about? For that matter of what worth are you?
Do you think that there is more pollution in the US or in third world countries?
Why did mankind especially the West enjoy never before seen growth and prosperity the last 100 or so years?
How do you think any oil company raped resources and citizens?No one forced anyone to buy a single gallon of oil or gas and the land we produce oil from we happen to own or lease.Landowners have made hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties because of oil companies. I'm sure they enjoyed that kind of rape
the pollution is killing people TODAY and costing billions RIGHT NOW.
your job in "oil and gas exploration" makes you a moneyed interest with bias beyond belief.
your question about third world countries is yet another attempt at distraction from the point: we need renewables now, the entire planet. pollution does not know one international border from another.
Central Florida HAS LOST its commercial citrus groves since the mid-'80's due to the preponderance of hard freezes. The citrus-growers have moved south.
We were told to be very afraid of acid rain, Chernobyl, Killer bees, fire ants, DDT, dioxin, Alar, Y2K, global cooling, global warming, H1N1, bird flu, hurricanes, nuclear power, Sars, and West Nile. These were largely greatly exaggerated fears. What were the real dangers of the last 100 years? Commies and dictators (Hitler, WWI Germany, and the Soviet union). And the real problem today is the same: commies and dictators (e.g. Iran).
the arguments as to what causes global warming are a great distraction.......it cannot be proven or disproven, and it keeps everyone arguing, when in fact:
THE REAL ISSUE IS POLLUTION, WHICH KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY, AND IS COSTING US BILLIONS PER YEAR.
FOSSIL FUELS KILL.
RENEWABLES NOW, GLOBAL WARMING ARGUMENTS ARE THE DIVERSION PEOPLE.
Fossil fuels do not kill. Restriction of fossil fuels does. Do you really think that banning fossil fuels in America isn't going to cause widespread suffering, massive starvation and a lower standard of living for all?
And if you're an environmentalist do you realize how much more shitty and polluted third world nations are compared to rich countries like the USA?
And if you're concerned with population realize that modern countries have less than 2 kids per family, 3rd world has more than 4.
no one said anything about banning fossil fuels. no one said anything about lowering our standard of living. no one said anything about the third world.
the point is, we need to stop polluting to save lives and billions each year in health related costs.
i guess you're not open to any sort of solar, wind, geothermal, biomass energy.
Did you know that we get most of our oil from Canada? Do you think that solar energy and all the other sources of energy are viable for supporting our energy needs? Conservation will help some but at this point energy via coal is cheap _and it fuels innovation, production, etc_ BECAUSE it is cheap. Do you know what makes for a good economy? High production yield per person. We have gotten to the point where you can use that computer your sitting in front of on the backs of cheap fossil fuels.
yeah, let's not invest in renewables research.......we just don't want to know what they can do.
let's bet on coal. let's strip mine until there's nothing left.
or you could pull you head out and see that if we had invested a trillion in renewables research instead of blowing away middle-easterners, we'd be closer to solutions than ever.
User favorite videos as much as their uploads are very telling about ones personality and world view. Your perception of the world and humanity is disturbing to say the least. Are you under any psychiatric care right now?
Show me the studies and reports to back up your claims that pollution kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. Do not trust the government reports. The surgeon general of the US said that asbestoes was a modern miracle during its beginnings.
cal state fullerton study concluded that 3000 deaths per year and costs of 28 billion dollars were realized in california due to pollution.
nationally, that translates to tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions.
forget global warming, who knows if it's true or not or who cares.......pollution is the killer right now, we know it, and we can do something about it.
I have said over and over again that if the global warming scaremongers were serious about any of this then they would not tax carbon they would ban any future production of fossil fuels. No more drilling, or production of any oil, gas, or coal,but you dont hear anyone even suggesting such a ban. If we pull it from the earth we will burn it, whether tomorrow or next year has no more or less environmental consequence. This proves that all they want is money and taxes wont help the environment
You see the difference between me and you is that I would do what I thought was best for the country regardless of what problems it might cause me personally. You would never consider such a sacrifice, let me guess, your for Obamacare, right? You dont give a shit that it will certainly bankrupt the country, just so long as you get some free shit.. So dont come at me with self interest bullshit, if I didn't believe my work was benefiting my fellow man I would cease to do it.
the difference between you and me is that you work for the oil companies, per your youtube channel.
if you really cared about this country, you'd support sustainable, renewable energey sources that don't pollute and we could tell the oil barrons and the middle east to go take a flying leap.
your feigned concern for your fellow man is pathetic.
(1) We Floridians are routinely harangued by the media and the govt. over our dependence on water. I say "dependence" because the citizens are portrayed as junkies. We can't be trusted. We must defer to a state university as to when & how often we may water our lawns & gardens. An odd/even street address scheme has been implemented statewide to keep the citizenry in line
(2) and reminded that water is a rare & precious state-owned resource...all the while the sub-tropical counties north of Vero Beach and the tropical counties to its south experience the predictable, seasonal flooding that independent climatic forces (the weather) delivers.
Way to go John Stossel. Why in the world don't people like him - those exuding common sense and reason in the face of hysteria - become our politicians instead. Wouldn't it be great to have a few hundred people like this in Congress? I'm confident that this would result in a heck of a lot being fixed.
Plain Jane Goodall, Jacques Cousteau, Prince Phillip, Ted Turner, Obama, Julian & Aldous Huxley, Bertand Russell, Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Herbert Geo. Wells, Paul Ehrlich {of "The Population Bomb"/"End of Affluence" infamy}, Oliver Wendell Holmes & Pol Pot are unapologetic eugenicists. They preach "bio-ethics"; "animal rights" & "sustainability" which ALWAYS subjects the impoverished people of the Earth to forced sterilizations/abortions, vaccinations & "euthanasia."
Every once in a while I post a comment. I used to post more but found I was arguing with people who had their mind made up already and did not want to be confused with facts. I see things have not changed. There is simply no science to the GW claims. All the data is anecdotal and massaged to foster the argument. These are the same folks who would like to spend everyone else's money to fix what is PERCEIVED to be a problem. I'm glad they don't have the power to do so.
Wikipedia article for Scientific opinion on climate change:
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
NO REMAINING SCIENTIFIC BODY. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. CERO. Got it???
10 years the eart has been cooling....hmmmm. The same fools crying global warming are the same idiots that were crying global cooling in the 70's. But libs don't care what the truth is they just seek to erode unity of truth and chip away at mans freedoms.
I actually think he is a libertarian. What is wrong w/ asking questions, and challenging the consensus? I think this is actually what drives real science. Let's have rational (and scientific) discussion w/o the rants.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
John wake up!!!! Do you see what is happening around the world with the climate change???? What will it take for you to wake up? What planet or you from? Maybe if the climate change will flood your house you will change your mind!!!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the climate change skeptics: the 'depth' of your comments astounds me. Try looking beyond the US for a change (I know, that's tough). Take a random pick of 10 developed nations, and 10 developing nations: google their stand on environmental issues. Then you'll truly understand what the WORLD is doing about the climate and whether they're concerned.
If there's time left over, you can try asking yourselves why you're called 'skeptics' in the first place (as opposed to ____ advocates).
There are safer, better ways to prevent & treat malaria. A recent National Geographic did a terrific job discussing the topic.
Dumping known carcinogens (the most poisonous substance known) into the environment is not the answer.
We have lost our strong independent media. Without it the corporate shills will continue to push their corporate agendas & junk science suggesting that their carcinogens are/is safer for us all.
John Stossell certainly dumb, but also very irresponsible.
Science banning DDT was bad science?
Doesn't he remember the Arctic/Alaskan sea birds (thousands of miles away & up the food chain) being born with extreme levels of DDT in their systems? That stuff is very bad stuff and it migrates!
Dioxin? It only takes a fraction of one grain of sand to kill you. Very, very bad stuff and it takes a very long time to break down.
is it irresponsible being against population growth, properity growth and in generel human freedom? yeah, really irresponsible. I guess you are right. Lets cut back on human evolution in order to save(spoil) the future.
DDT was used acroos europe and is actually still used in south africa. In countries like mozambique it was used for twenty years, AND NOT ONE REPORT EVER SHOWED IT WAS HARMFUL TO HUMANS. However they were forced to stop using it, and cases of malaria have skyrocketed again. btw, when have you ever seen a fish eat a dead bird?
Actually, it is probably not the fish eating the dead bird, right? It is more likely the rain washing the chemicals into the ground water. The bottom feeders and other fish absorb/eat the chemicals; the birds eat the fish... Humans eat the fish... The concentration of the chemicals intensifies with each step up the food chain. Fish is the primary source of protein through much of Africa. High concentrations of poisons (known human carcinogens) in fish is a bad idea.
cost benefit man, cost benefit. A known risk, vs an unlikely harm. Like cars. Cars kill thousands of people a year, but should we abandon using it? Should we not invent the car because it might kill someone? No. Because using it saves far far more lives than it hurts.
DDT ftw! DDT is a miracle chemical. I can't believe the west still refuses to let the 3rd world use DDT. It's a genocide! They refuse to let the poor people of the 3rd world protect themselves from malaria. Environmentalist irrationality at it's best.
That's because they are not all in the pockets of the corporate elite that is trying to run your country and the rest of the world. I'd love to know how many shares in Ford Stossel owns. You talk about perspective Joem734, how about this; stop thinking about your next pay check and start to consider the kind of world you are going to leave behind for your grandchildren.
hahahaha, yeah.. i wonder. Lets see, which one of all the past events shall we consider for the future.. is it warming, os is it cooling? Learn history, see how weather has changed over and over. Its not just a pattern, its logic.
bbiermanster, do us a favour, mate. Put a plastic bag over your head and don't remove it until a republican government is running your country again. All that CO2 is going to make you a superman. Trust me, just try it.
John Stossel report on the hype on HIV and AIDS Watch House of Numbers
spoke1771 3 weeks ago
Tell Al Gore and his environmental fanatics and scaremongers to live in Malarial areas without chemical insecticides since they value the environment so much that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Tell them to live in the wild like the American Indians before the arrival of the first European colonists and let them live off the land and let us see how long they will last!
darthvader5300 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell that to a Russian living in Siberia that he or she must stop burning coal that is keeping them from freezing. Let those global warming hyped fanatics to start living in the so called melting poles which in fact are getting colder and their ice is getting thicker and the snow getting denser and frequent and let them keep on shouting that global warming is coming. As a Russian saying to Al Gore, why not you be the first to do it since you practically believe in your so called Global Warming?
darthvader5300 6 months ago
Comment removed
darthvader5300 6 months ago
SARS, Bird flu, millennium bug, killer bees. Excellent examples Stossell, not of where scientists have misled reporters with scare stories, but of where the media has blown the real science completely out of proportion in order to create a public sensation and sell papers.
These scare stories were all temporary, and they were all hugely distorted by the media beyond what most scientists would have thought justified. Climate change on the other hand has not gone away, evidence for it has grown.
wowsa0 8 months ago
I have no interest in "agreeing" with what most people think. I do however hold high standards for evidence, as does the scientific community. To find consensus, the evidence has to be quite unambiguous. if there is contradicting evidence, present it to your peers and see if it survives. The end!
dwolfcoach 9 months ago
You know...call me crazy, but when somneone opens a talk on climate change with he sentence 'I have no expertise in climate science', all I can do is laugh.
singring76 9 months ago
man made global warming !? lol, Study the NWO unless you want to pay to breathe
manelmariarodrigues 1 year ago
John, you stupid bastard. Be a real journalist and become scientifically literate, then report. YOU are an example of bad reporting!! How about smoking and cancer? How about CFC's and ozone depletion? How about dioxins...oh forget it, ignorance is bliss. You're a fraud!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach he is not a "bastard"...just because there is some1 who uses facts to base their opinions and happen to happen to have a different belief than you doesn't make them wrong. Im not saying that you are wrong, but saying that both you and stossel have based your opinions off offsetting facts that contradict eachother. 1 mor thing, all energy comes from the Sun. The Sun dus NOT giv off a constant temps or a constant amount of solar flarz, wich directly corelate with historical earth temps
iluvpoliticzz 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach there is a direct correlation between the number of solar flares and the temperature of earth, more solar flares - higher temps. Temperature goes up and down, iceage then warm period. RIght now we r in a warm period. This warm period will not last forever. In the last 20 years Earth's temp has actually gone DOWN 0.7 degrees! Even though right now is the point where the most CO2 is in the atmosphere! The only thing i believe in is CLIMATE CHANGE, due to the sun's flare patters...
iluvpoliticzz 11 months ago
@iluvpoliticzz I care about empirical evidence and scientific consensus. Almost every major scientific organization with expertise over climate science has issued statements in support of the IPCC consensus view. These now include:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@iluvpoliticzz Let me guess, you and John Stossel have degrees in atmospheric physics? Love politics all you want, but you should have more respect for SCIENCE. The consensus view is way over your head, but keep using these industry talking points, you are quite compelling. LOL!
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@dwolfcoach have u realized often the consensus has often been wrong though history? Yea u said this two months ago but its pretty dumb to always agree with what most people think all the time. There has been plenty of times where a scientist that didn't believe in the consensus has been right. With Global warming its actually not as swayed on the side of its warming and humans are the cause as much as you r saying.
kooooolmatt 9 months ago
@kooooolmatt The scientific consensus view changes sometimes yes. If it didn't, we'd still be living in the middle ages. It goes to show that scientists have an open mind, and so if a view does have a broad consensus within the scientific community, the most open minded and self critical community there is, then it is likely to be correct. Big mistakes in understanding happen less often than you'd think, scientists are usually happy to say "we don't know" when there is insufficient evidence.
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 That's just plain BS. CONSENSUS has nothing to do with science. Science is about proving an idea false. Consensus is political. And if scientists who depend on funding were not afraid to say they don't know, out the door the funding would go. Peer reviewed scientific findings are heavily censored by those whose credibility is tied to government funding. Come forward about 200 years to the current world of scientific investigation.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist If you look at the opinion of the scientific community on a given issue, consensus is something that tends to happen of its own accord over time, by the application of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is based on experiment, and once the experimental data becomes good enough, it tends to end the argument. Even if the conclusion turns out ultimately to be wrong, it must have at least been a good approximation to the truth in the areas in which it was tested.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 I have 35 yrs in electrical engineering. I can assure you science is not treated nor performed in the manner you describe. I was taught in greater detail the scientific method in core engineering courses than what I got in public education. Apparently it is poorly taught now, or not at all. Opinion and consensus has no place in engineering research reports, nor in any reputable research organization.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist In fact I often think about this and I would be very interested if you could give me a single example of where the consensus view of the scientific community on any issue has turned out to be completely wrong, not even a rough approximation. That is an example of where the vast majority of scientists (people who use the scientific method) had been sure they knew something (not just had suspicions) and got it wrong. I'm sure there must be at least one example but I cant think of one.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 Start with the Big Bang "theory", and then Einstein's concept of a gravity driven universe. What you keep missing is science has nothing to do with opinion or consensus. Politics runs on consensus. 50M scientists can claim they have proven an hypothesis, but if one comes along and repeats the same test but gets different results then the hypothesis is refuted and everyone starts over. Obviously you have not paid attention to grade school science.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist Cosmology wasn't even a science pre-einstein's general relativity. Post relativity, there was a lot of controversy for many many years before, eventually, as the evidence became unarguable, a consensus emerged on Big Bang theory. I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying consensus is a part of the scientific method, I'm aware of what the scientific method is, I'm saying that consensus is what tends to emerge when the scientific method is applied, and it is rarely wrong
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 And I see that you continue to miss the point that consensus has no place science. How many people agree with a POV has nothing to do with the correctness of the results of investigation. I don't know how you associate cosmology in general and pre-einsteinian relativity. My purpose in listing Peratt's plasma work was another example of serious research that does not follow the prevailing dogma promoted in the news and university textbooks.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist It just so happens as a result of Peratt's and his predecessor's work in plasma that we now have a far better explanation of the universe than what Einstein came up with, who incidentally confessed he was never sure he was right about his equations.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist 'How many people agree with a POV has nothing to do with the correctness of the results of investigation.' I agree with that, and that's why the scientific method is built on experiment, not arguments from authority, which is the method people used pre-science. But, when you look historically at where the scientific method has been applied, consensus is what tends to emerge out of it. When has this consensus been fundamentally wrong in the past? There probably is an example...
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 There are examples, far more than I've listed, but until you read and understand them you will continue to adhere to the dogma produced by authoritative bodies who generate it. My Sage dictionary defines consensus: "Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole." The group you described here isn't homogenous except in their prevention of publication ideas differing from their own. Spend a couple of years reading their material so you know something.
svartvist 1 month ago
@wowsa0
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist Go read Arp's Seeing Red, Pari Spolter's Gravitational Force of the Sun, IEEE articles by Anthony Peratt on Plasma Cosmology, papers presented at the Natural Philosophy Alliance at worldnpa, physicist Thornhill's holoscience, Bill Gaede's fundamental physics debunking, StephenCcrothers' debunking of Einestein's very bad math. There are so many examples that the fact you don't know one suggests gross ignorance on the subject.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist You have seriously just quoted Bill Gaede? I've watched some of Bill Gaede's videos, even argued quite a lot with him on the comments (the fact that his scientific debate is confined to youtube comments with non-experts like me tells you a lot). From what I've heard him say he appears to have no understanding of the basics of the relativity he claims to debunk.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 No I did not QUOTE Bill Gaede. I listed him as just one of many people who do not follow the "consensus" science. As far as relativity is concerned, it is not possible in a physical universe to associate the dimensionless term of time and have it predict anything observable.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist So you don't believe in relativity theory either? Climate change is one thing, but relativity has undergone stringent experimental tests, it has the reached the stage where it is unarguable, that's why there's a consensus around it. It could, and probably will, turn out to be not the fundamental truth but rather a very good approximation, but it is one of the best theories we have.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 That's your problem, you BELIEVE. You're a True Believer. No relativity has not undergone stringent tests because the math behind it is faulty to begin with, and the tests that have been performed never had the capacity of falsification. Again, if you read the material and understood the refutations you would know this to be so. But there is no hope for True Believers who adhere to dogma rather than critical thinking.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist The maths behind relativity is not faulty, maths truly is unarguable, it is one branch of knowledge where you can truly know something for sure without a shadow of a doubt. That's what makes mathematics so beautiful. The mathematics of higher dimensional curved spaces was developed before Einstein, and is mathematically rigorous, not faulty. Whether Einstein's mathematical model is a description of the real world though is a different and less certain question...
wowsa0 1 month ago
@svartvist ...However, it has been subject to falsifiable tests, and it has passed them. It predicts the gravitational deflection of light to be exactly twice what you would expect in Newtonian gravity, this has been measured, it predicts the perihelion shift of mercury, that was measured before GR, it predicts gravitational time dilation and the red shift of light moving upwards in a gravitational field, this has been measured...
wowsa0 1 month ago
@svartvist ...this has been measured by gravity probe B. It predicts the existence of gravitational waves, and while these have yet to be seen, a binary pulsar system has been observed losing energy at just the rate expected if it were emitting gravitational waves. Had any of these measurements been different, the deflection of light slightly different, the perihelion shift of mercury slightly different etc then GR would have to be abandoned in favour of a better theory. Instead it has worked.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 Woops in that last post it should say the non-euclidean nature of space has been measured by gravity probe b.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 There are a number of respected scientists who refuted the probe B tests, but of course you will dismiss them out of hand as establishment followers do. the GPS system refuted Einstein's SRT 30 yrs ago, but there again you will dismiss that as well. This forum is too limited to have an effective discussion, besides, your True Believing bias prevents you from seriously examining the material I previously suggested you look into. Good luck and continue to be surprised like NASA.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist First you say GR is not falsifiable, now you claim it has been falsified experimentally but the establishment interpretation of those experiments is flawed, you can't have it both ways, which is it?
wowsa0 1 month ago
@svartvist One of the things Bill Gaede claimed is that experiment has no place in science, which, whatever you may think of my understanding of the scientific method, betrays his complete and utter ignorance of it. Maybe you should go and take a look of some of the things he says again.
wowsa0 1 month ago
@wowsa0 In Bill's Einstein's Idiots, video 12 he does mention performing experimentation within the context of gravity & relativity. So far I have no mention of experiment having no place in science. However in video 5 he states this verbatim: "PHYSICS is not the science of energy and measurement. Physics is the science of existence." Unless you can point to your alleged statement for inspection, it must be relegated to hearsay.
svartvist 1 month ago
@svartvist He doesn't mention it in the video, it was in the argument in the comments with me. If you go to video 12, along with one other about the speed of gravity I think, and do a ctrl f on the comments page for the word 'experiment', you will find him saying several times that 'In science we do not do experiments'.
wowsa0 1 month ago
Holy fuck, this guy is insane!
First off, DDT has never been banned anywhere for fighting malaria. It was banned for agricultural use, as it should be, but there were always exemptions for fighting disease. It is a fact that DDT is still being used in many places to fight malaria today.
Second, cancer is one of the biggest killers out there. Of course people are afraid of it. They should be.
Love Canal? Is guy fucking real. That place was a toxic waste dump. No sane person would live there.
Glasya666 1 year ago
Oh Holy Climate Denying Messiah, Your Holy Word has so much power over virtually every scientific body on the planet ant 97 percent of climatologists! Please, preach more wisdom!
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
We aren't talking about 1 or 2 fringe scientists, we aren't talking about a book like silent spring, we are talking about a world wide scientific consensus by the most qualified people in the world. It's also not new, we have known the link between co2 and climate for over 100 years. John Cristi really is a lonely man, he has virtually no colleagues who have drawn the same conclusion he has. Why is it that you are willing to trust science with EVERYTHING else?
christo930 1 year ago
Ok. So we take 300 million years worth of stored carbon out of the ground, and put it into the atmosphere. It is scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet. Instrumental readings show that the planet is warming in a way that coincides with the elevated CO2 level. What does all this mean? Of course! It's a sinister plot to create a worldwide, draconian-socialist government. How could I have been so blind? Thank you mr Stossell, for showing me the light.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
@minibrownliger No, it is not a scientific fact that atmospheric CO2 warms the planet, second of all you say that planet warming coincides with co2 level. C02 level follows warming by about 800 years. If A causes B how can B happen 800 years before A?
poopster102 1 year ago
@poopster102 The greenhouse effect is a well established and robust theory. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are traces gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and render our planet inhabitable. Not even scientists who are skeptics of AGW question the fact that CO2 is a GHG responsible in part for the warming. The 800 year lag from temp to CO2 increase is well known. watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=related
That will shed some light on the issue in a scientific context.
minibrownliger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@poopster102
Actually, it works both ways. CO2 drives heat, and heat drives CO2 (tinyurl dot com slash 33dwwx). Temperature rise also raises water vapor (tinyurl dot com slash 25khzrd), another GHG, which exacerbates the problem even more.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING?
April = 2nd WARMEST April in UAH records of Global Temperatures.
March = HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
(UAH - Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville is run by Dr. John Christy, well known AGW skeptic)
Global Temps. for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temps. for January = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
Temperatures are rising "0.14C/decade" - UAH
2010 is on track to be the HOTTEST year on record since 1880.
So much for global cooling.
LOL!!!
goog2k 1 year ago 2
John is a curmudgeon! THANK GOD FOR CURMUDGEONS! They always seem to take the simple truth, sharpen it to a fine point and jab us in the side with it!
univibe23 1 year ago
@univibe23
Ok, here is some simple truth for you: DDT has never been banned for fighting malaria, Love Canal is a toxic waste dump, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs energy, and we have increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by over 33% since the Industrial Revolution. Oh, one more thing, cancer is one of the leading causes of death.
Glasya666 1 year ago
@Glasya666 Complete BS and you know it...I hope!
univibe23 1 year ago
@univibe23
Yes, Stossel's entire speech was complete BS. I do know that. If you are talking about my post, please tell me what I got wrong.
Glasya666 1 year ago
@Glasya666 - yeah, and CO2 was 4000 ppm 500 million years ago. We are almost @ 400 ppm. Explain that.
codematrix 1 year ago
@codematrix There are a lot of reasons why CO2 concentrations were higher in the past. Mainly, it was the increased mountain formation over the last couple hundred million years that brought the levels down to where they are now. I suggest you read a geology book for further information.
Glasya666 1 year ago
Comment removed
codematrix 1 year ago
@Glasya666 - Mountain formations? Are you fucking kidding me? Mountain formation is constantly occuring even as we speak. It's an ongoing very slow process of Igneous rocks being formed. Oh, and when the earth exprienced the 4000 ppm, it was the during one of the earth's many ice ages it experienced. CO2 is not the cause of high temps. Its the other way around. High temps first, CO2 comes 100s of years later. Stop wathing Al Gores crap.
codematrix 1 year ago
>> "Mountain formation is constantly occuring even as we speak. It's an ongoing very slow process of Igneous rocks being formed."
Learn how to read. I said increased mountain formation. The rate of formation is not even remotely constant, especially when you are talking about 100's of millions of years. In the last billion years we have had a supercontinent (Rodina) form, break up, a new supercontinent (Pangea) form, and break up again.
Glasya666 1 year ago
>> "Oh, and when the earth exprienced the 4000 ppm, it was the during one of the earth's many ice ages it experienced."
You simply cannot compare the current climate to one half a billion years ago. Back then continents were in different places and ocean and air currents were far different. The suns output is slowly increasing, but significant over long time scales. Hell, our position in the galaxy was different back then.
Glasya666 1 year ago
>> "CO2 is not the cause of high temps. Its the other way around. High temps first, CO2 comes 100s of years later."
We are all aware that the temperature rises before CO2 concentrations. This was explained even before it was observed.
>> "Stop wathing Al Gores crap."
I don't listen to, or care, what Al Gore has to say on any subject. I do, however, care what the National Academy of Sciences has to say on the subject, as well as every other major scientific organization on the planet.
Glasya666 1 year ago
@Glasya666 - DDT has been banned in many places, Love Canal may have toxic waste, that nobody got sick from (imagine if that SuperFund money was being put to actual good use, like cancer research, or just not stolen from the people as it has been)
And cancer is a leading cause of death because we've cured a lot of the things that used to kill people before they ever got cancer. Life spans have increased dramatically.
mpc91 1 year ago
@mpc91 >> "DDT has been banned in many places, . . ."
Name one.
>> "Love Canal may have toxic waste, that nobody got sick from . . . "
May have? They had known toxins thousands of times higher than acceptable levels. A lot of people got sick. And cancer is a leading cause of death for a lot of reasons. Living longer is just one of them. The toxins that we are exposed to is another.
Glasya666 1 year ago
What book did he cite at 7:07?
bcharville 1 year ago
You get my vote. Govenor, just keep up the attack on the mainstream media.
fluffydanny 1 year ago
I do agree with clean energy, and I'll go so far as to say we need more than that! Clean water, clean News Media, and clean Politicians.
The problem I have is all the Draconian, strict, ridiculous laws they're throwing on us saying that everybody is a criminal if they don't go along with this plan, and even if its physically impossible.
Bunch of strict bullcrap laws put into place to take your hard earned tax money away! If you want clean energy then look for technology.
ketogenesis 1 year ago 2
Clean water, definitely because they pour fluoride allover in it which destroys our internal organs, slowly though so we dont realize it.
ketogenesis 1 year ago
I'm not laymen (or however you spell it). Even if you doubt the evidence (or don't understand it like you), making clean energy is the right thing to do for our future.
cypress1337 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
Good vid. Thanks Bushvision.
solamande 1 year ago
Well Done John Stossell!!!
Wow...A reporter actually speaking the truth!!!
BRAVO!!!
lorrainegate 1 year ago 9
Global Warming is a pseudo-science like they had in the Soviet Union. The top three gurus for the Global Warming Cult are
A flake, who has a load of character, credibility & possible mental issues
A Railroad Engineer (Choo Choo Charlie) who is the chief quack of the quacks of the IPCC
Head of the CUEI is an economist with ties to the IMF
Yeah Global warming is a pseudo-science
These bums are more qualified working at an amusement park train ride
1984 Choo Choo!
Thisawareness 2 years ago 7
Hey docpepper, i want to applaud your questions, good points!!! that person who made this pathatic personal attack you, can see that the discussion is not over and won't admit to it.. and i want to thank john strossel for standing-up... you know he's getting hammered a lot worse than you...
8fastball79 2 years ago 4
Thanks, John Stossel.
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago 4
@ Relicofgold
First of all, I never asked for your help. Secondly, you could not help me with this topic if you wanted to.
You state that fossil fuels are killing people right now....there is no proof. You gave me an example of the Cal State study, I gave you a report that debunked it. The debate is not over on that.
I agree that renewable forms of energy are overall better for us, and asked you what forms do you think would work best, and all you want to do is pick a fight? Nice.
docpepper 2 years ago
don't argue the point because there isn't an answer and there won't be one for hundreds of years. why waste your passion?
no, don't shut up and listen, question everything, but do it intelligently (why am i wasting my breath?)
you are a complete dumbshit if you think pollution is not killing people right now.
keep sucking that oil titty. keep up their rhetoric (and their profits)
i leave you to stew in your own cesspool.
relicofgold 2 years ago
You said: "keep sucking that oil titty. keep up their rhetoric (and their profits)
i leave you to stew in your own cesspool."
And I am the one wasting my passion? Wow!
Well it appears that your name calling and personal attacks on me leave me to think I must have struck a nerve. One often resorts to things of this nature, when they no longer have the ability to discuss and/or debate an issue. You refuse to answer the question about what type of renewable energy would work best.
docpepper 2 years ago 2
I also believe you must be young or very immature to use personal attacks while hiding behind the cloak of the internet. Answer me two questions if you can. What types of renewable energy do you think would work best? Secondly, if one volcano eruption causes more air pollution than man ever has, how does the earth continue to spin and produce life since many volvanic eruptions have occured?
docpepper 2 years ago
@ relicofgold -
You say that: " yes, this is the problem.co2 is surely being produced in great quantities, but these other things are pure poison." You are comparing apples to oranges. Water is in liquid weed poison, but I would not suggest that you stop drinking water. Just because it is in there does not make it harmful.
docpepper 2 years ago
you are missing the point.
my entire point here is that we should not debate whether or not we have caused global warming, but that fossil fuels pollute enough for us to move away from them in favor of renewables now. no need to wait for any further evidence. fossil fuels are poisoning our air, water and land RIGHT NOW.
governments suck, some more than others. no cap and trade.
for US, we need renewables now. you know, for survival.
stop the pointless debated of GW.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Again, I will ask what should those forms of renewable energy be? For the record, I have never stated that I am against forms of renewable energy, I just do not like being misled with half truths and lies that people use to get their points across.
You said: "stop the pointless debated of GW." - What does that even mean?
So, now that I am no longer missing your point....Again, I will ask what should those forms of renewable energy be?
docpepper 2 years ago
you don't know what the forms of renewable energy are? you can't be helped then.
stop the pointless debate of GW means just that. we won't know why we're warmer for sure for hundreds of years because it takes that long for the oceans and atmosphere to completely absorb/distribute pollution. it is most likely greenhouse gases, but the oil companies have mounted a campaign to discredit that.
so don't argue it at all.
but, pollution kills RIGHT NOW. so go to renewables RIGHT NOW.
relicofgold 2 years ago
You said: "so don't argue it at all."
Why not? That is your opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. So according to you I should just shut up and listen to you? That will never happen my friend. As soon as anyone quits thinking for themselves they are truely lost and a slave to the system.
docpepper 2 years ago
The science is settled. Al gore is super serial.
FreelancePatriot76 2 years ago
@schlauChemiker
To be fair Stossell never said that other forms of energy like wind and solar were bad either. He just said that the science behind the 'green' movement has not been proven. The hacked e-mails were just icing on the cake for that arguement. While I agree that renewable energy would help us be more independent, I also find it absurd to lie about such claims about climate change research. There is always another motive when lies are present.
docpepper 2 years ago
Greenies want people to own up to & take responsibility for our freedoms, which I've fought for. But I'm really beginning to believe that the big oil companies, which pay a large % of fed tax to our gov, have been launching this campaign to cause doubt in non-scientific public. Hi gas prices hurt, but have you ever imagined how solar, wind & hydro power will relieve us of dependency on foreign oil? It's never mentioned in this puppet's speech....
schlauChemiker 2 years ago
relicofgold...no response to my comments?
...and you know as well as anyone that concentrated amounts of any gas is not good for you. Try breathing pure oxygen and see how long you stay awake.
docpepper 2 years ago
The Scientific Integrity Institute does not agree with the Cal Sate Fullerton study on pollution. How can you be so sure? I am not sure one way or the other. But logically it does not make sense to me. One volcanic eruption will create more air pollution than man ever has, yet the world keeps turning.
docpepper 2 years ago
Where did the store get the items your purchased? A CO2 creating truck brought them. Before that, a CO2 creating tractor harvested the food items. The non-food items were created in a CO2 creating factory. If you no longer wish to purchase things from a store, then keep up your way of thinking. Both you and jjrglobal have interesting points, but both of your attitudes and personal attacks discredit anything that you guys write.
docpepper 2 years ago
I thought I was being civil, at least in comparison.
I don't think I attacked her personally, or wished her death.
Just wondering what points she brought up that you found interesting?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
why would you consider a suggestion that you suck on your tailpipe wishing someone death?
it's just co2 and few other items.
you act like co2 is ok.
but you are now admitting that sucking on a tailpipe is death.
ready to concede?
of course not.
you'll say anything to continue your job as an oil and gas developer.
pathetic.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Well then you're not allowed to exhale anymore. You produce CO2 every time you exhale so quit exhaling you polluter. I can't believe you dont care enough about the earth to stop exhaling. I said stop it!!! You are killing us all every time you exhale STOP POLLUTING THE EARTH
jjrglobal 2 years ago 2
so how's your job at the OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION company? you are the ultimate conflict of interest.
zero credibility.
you threaten and lie to support your position.
if co2 is so harmless, suck on your exhaust pipe. breathe deep.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Is an Oil and Gas Man is going to be out of work if we believe in "Man Made Global Warming"?
Al Gore, is still flying in private jets and riding in Limos! Big Oil, still makes money no matter what the Public believes!
But.... if you just spent 7 years or more obtaining your PHD, and have an opportunity to study the effects of Man on the Climate which there are paid positions for!
Or to research for free that "Man has no effect on the Climate"?
Thank-you for conceding! :-)
aurex73 2 years ago
Could it be that sucking on a tailpipe is death for some other reason than co2?
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Particulate matter
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons
Of course we should be looking to replace fossil fuels, but you have been lied to about co2. Governments, all governments, lie all the time about everything.
Itallendsin2012 2 years ago 3
i was waiting for someone to point this out.
yes, this is the problem. co2 is surely being produced in great quantities, but these other things are pure poison.
renewables, regardless of what is causing global warming, are required now.
relicofgold 2 years ago
In regards to cap and trade and climate change you are calling for renewables. What should they be? If renewables are the answer, why is the government and libs trying to install cap and trade, instead of pushing for the renewables? The cap and trade agenda is just another tax. It only gives the govmnt more money and power, and it will do nothing to help the earth.
docpepper 2 years ago
@jjrglobal
The points she brought up about the Cal State Study were interesting, though some argue the mathmatics were incorrect and other portions of the study were ignored.
docpepper 2 years ago
I guess she is missing my point that I am all for finding other energy sources, but taxing energy is not going to do anything except grow the size of government and hurt the poorest people the most. People like her will understand when their electric bill doubles that taxes levied against businesses are taxes levied against the people, they just pass the costs onto the consumer. They must in order to survive, conversely the consumer does not have the ability to pass taxation to someone else
jjrglobal 2 years ago
you're dreaming again jjrgloal.
in no way did i say that anyone should have additional taxes.
oh, except perhaps a windfall profits tax for the oil and gas industry.......you know, YOUR EMPLOYER.
if you click on jjrglobal's name, you'll see his employment is OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION.
if you trust anything he says, i have a giant bridge to sell you.
relicofgold 2 years ago
@relicofgold
I am guessing my earlier statements were true in your eyes, since you are obviously ignoring me.
docpepper 2 years ago
relicofgold....If you are so worried about CO2 coming from tailpipes, then I am to assume that you do not drive or take any form of public transportation. I am also to assume that you never personally buy products from a store. If you bought it...a truck brought it.
docpepper 2 years ago
i do not commute. i walk to work and to get my groceries.
in this culture, that is a lot.
can you say the same?
relicofgold 2 years ago
did it ever occur to anyone that the oil companies are the ones footing the bill for the anti-Global Warming conspiracy theory?
follow the money. exxon is the largest corporation on this planet. do you suppose they have a vested interest in the continuation of drilling anywhere and everywhere?
jjrglobal is the ultimate hypocrite. his channel says his occupation is "oil and gas exploration".
then says he is not self-serving, but concerned for his fellow man.
pathetic liar.
relicofgold 2 years ago
I absolutely agree that we need to develop other energy sources, but currently there is not an alternative energy source that can even come close to fulfilling our needs.
Imagine if tomorrow morning me and the rest of the oil and gas producers decided to shut in all production. How long could you survive?
What would your life be like? I can think of no other industry that has had a more positive profound effect on society as the oil industry.
What is your contribution to society, again?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
WHAT A SURPRISE!: oil and gas employee jjrglobal is using scare tactics to attempt to garner more support for the oil sluts.
NO ONE is proposing shutting down fossil fuel processes.
i am proposing intensive research to make renewables viable, but every time a funding bill for this comes before congress, the oil sluts make sure it dies, as in last summer's bill.
my contribution right here is to OUT you as an oil slut and bring people's awareness to renewables.
relicofgold 2 years ago
My point was that they SHOULD stop production of oil and gas if they believe that CO2 is destroying our planet. Since they are not proposing anything like that, then they either dont care about the planet or they just want more money. BTW Major US oil companies are spending more on research and development of alternate sources of energy than any other entity on the planet, including governments. Mans dramatic ascent the last 100 years can be attributed to one thing more than all others, OIL.
jjrglobal 2 years ago
you've been OUTTED MR. OIL AND GAS DEVELOPER.
go suck on the planet and suck on your tailpipe.
relicofgold 2 years ago
So your contribution to society is commenting on youtube? Pretty pathetic contribution. Of what worth is commenting about things you know nothing about? For that matter of what worth are you?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
nice try on the diversion front jjrglobal.
the fact is, you are an oil and gas developer. you have a conflict of interest.
what have you contributed to society?
the death of pollution, the corporate rape of resources and citizens.
yeah, clamp your lips around your tailpipe and breathe your product in full.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Do you think that there is more pollution in the US or in third world countries?
Why did mankind especially the West enjoy never before seen growth and prosperity the last 100 or so years?
How do you think any oil company raped resources and citizens?No one forced anyone to buy a single gallon of oil or gas and the land we produce oil from we happen to own or lease.Landowners have made hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties because of oil companies. I'm sure they enjoyed that kind of rape
jjrglobal 2 years ago
those days are gone howdy-doody.
the pollution is killing people TODAY and costing billions RIGHT NOW.
your job in "oil and gas exploration" makes you a moneyed interest with bias beyond belief.
your question about third world countries is yet another attempt at distraction from the point: we need renewables now, the entire planet. pollution does not know one international border from another.
relicofgold 2 years ago
if co2 is so wonderful, i expect you'll be attaching your mouth to your exhaust pipe to get a good dose of it.
do it now.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Central Florida HAS LOST its commercial citrus groves since the mid-'80's due to the preponderance of hard freezes. The citrus-growers have moved south.
ScientificalnessUSA 2 years ago
We were told to be very afraid of acid rain, Chernobyl, Killer bees, fire ants, DDT, dioxin, Alar, Y2K, global cooling, global warming, H1N1, bird flu, hurricanes, nuclear power, Sars, and West Nile. These were largely greatly exaggerated fears. What were the real dangers of the last 100 years? Commies and dictators (Hitler, WWI Germany, and the Soviet union). And the real problem today is the same: commies and dictators (e.g. Iran).
zor98765 2 years ago
WAKE UP.
the arguments as to what causes global warming are a great distraction.......it cannot be proven or disproven, and it keeps everyone arguing, when in fact:
THE REAL ISSUE IS POLLUTION, WHICH KILLS PEOPLE EVERY DAY, AND IS COSTING US BILLIONS PER YEAR.
FOSSIL FUELS KILL.
RENEWABLES NOW, GLOBAL WARMING ARGUMENTS ARE THE DIVERSION PEOPLE.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Fossil fuels do not kill. Restriction of fossil fuels does. Do you really think that banning fossil fuels in America isn't going to cause widespread suffering, massive starvation and a lower standard of living for all?
And if you're an environmentalist do you realize how much more shitty and polluted third world nations are compared to rich countries like the USA?
And if you're concerned with population realize that modern countries have less than 2 kids per family, 3rd world has more than 4.
fluff125 2 years ago
hey fluffy, stop drinking the cool aid.
no one said anything about banning fossil fuels. no one said anything about lowering our standard of living. no one said anything about the third world.
the point is, we need to stop polluting to save lives and billions each year in health related costs.
i guess you're not open to any sort of solar, wind, geothermal, biomass energy.
that's just stupidity.
say goodbye to oil and screw the arabs.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Did you know that we get most of our oil from Canada? Do you think that solar energy and all the other sources of energy are viable for supporting our energy needs? Conservation will help some but at this point energy via coal is cheap _and it fuels innovation, production, etc_ BECAUSE it is cheap. Do you know what makes for a good economy? High production yield per person. We have gotten to the point where you can use that computer your sitting in front of on the backs of cheap fossil fuels.
thebiggoofer 2 years ago
yeah, let's not invest in renewables research.......we just don't want to know what they can do.
let's bet on coal. let's strip mine until there's nothing left.
or you could pull you head out and see that if we had invested a trillion in renewables research instead of blowing away middle-easterners, we'd be closer to solutions than ever.
ah, nevermind, keep your head in there.
relicofgold 2 years ago
So does this mean that you are for Cap and Trade or any other energy taxes?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
saying the fossil fuels do not kill is like saying jeffry dahmer didn't eat his victims.
pull your head out fluffy.
pollution will kill someone you currently know.
if it's you, you will have earned a darwin award.
relicofgold 2 years ago
So it doesnt matter what causes global warming?
User favorite videos as much as their uploads are very telling about ones personality and world view. Your perception of the world and humanity is disturbing to say the least. Are you under any psychiatric care right now?
jjrglobal 2 years ago
check jjrtglobal's site.........his occupation is listed as "oil and gas exploration" and the site picture is that of a giant oil or gas well.
hmmm.......no self-interest in his stupid remarks at all.
get real people. support renewable energy and get off the oil titty.
pollution kills tens of thousands of americans each year and costs hundreds of billions of your dollars.
reduced fossil fuels to the minimum and maximize the use of renewable energy.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Show me the studies and reports to back up your claims that pollution kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. Do not trust the government reports. The surgeon general of the US said that asbestoes was a modern miracle during its beginnings.
docpepper 2 years ago
cal state fullerton study concluded that 3000 deaths per year and costs of 28 billion dollars were realized in california due to pollution.
nationally, that translates to tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions.
forget global warming, who knows if it's true or not or who cares.......pollution is the killer right now, we know it, and we can do something about it.
let's get started.
relicofgold 2 years ago
I have said over and over again that if the global warming scaremongers were serious about any of this then they would not tax carbon they would ban any future production of fossil fuels. No more drilling, or production of any oil, gas, or coal,but you dont hear anyone even suggesting such a ban. If we pull it from the earth we will burn it, whether tomorrow or next year has no more or less environmental consequence. This proves that all they want is money and taxes wont help the environment
jjrglobal 2 years ago
You see the difference between me and you is that I would do what I thought was best for the country regardless of what problems it might cause me personally. You would never consider such a sacrifice, let me guess, your for Obamacare, right? You dont give a shit that it will certainly bankrupt the country, just so long as you get some free shit.. So dont come at me with self interest bullshit, if I didn't believe my work was benefiting my fellow man I would cease to do it.
jjrglobal 2 years ago
the difference between you and me is that you work for the oil companies, per your youtube channel.
if you really cared about this country, you'd support sustainable, renewable energey sources that don't pollute and we could tell the oil barrons and the middle east to go take a flying leap.
your feigned concern for your fellow man is pathetic.
you are a loser.
relicofgold 2 years ago
Global warming is a myth,,, pure and simple.
lillybit882 2 years ago 3
Cancer is escalating as Amygdalin is being removed from our foods.
ScientificalnessUSA 2 years ago
Krebs the quack lives!
pezzonovante99 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(1) We Floridians are routinely harangued by the media and the govt. over our dependence on water. I say "dependence" because the citizens are portrayed as junkies. We can't be trusted. We must defer to a state university as to when & how often we may water our lawns & gardens. An odd/even street address scheme has been implemented statewide to keep the citizenry in line
ScientificalnessUSA 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2) and reminded that water is a rare & precious state-owned resource...all the while the sub-tropical counties north of Vero Beach and the tropical counties to its south experience the predictable, seasonal flooding that independent climatic forces (the weather) delivers.
ScientificalnessUSA 2 years ago
I love this man. Look forward to hearing more from him...
ssvensons 2 years ago 2
Way to go John Stossel. Why in the world don't people like him - those exuding common sense and reason in the face of hysteria - become our politicians instead. Wouldn't it be great to have a few hundred people like this in Congress? I'm confident that this would result in a heck of a lot being fixed.
GuinsGuy 2 years ago 4
im just going to come out and say what we all are thinking,
we are fucking doomed
LLCoolPass 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Plain Jane Goodall, Jacques Cousteau, Prince Phillip, Ted Turner, Obama, Julian & Aldous Huxley, Bertand Russell, Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Herbert Geo. Wells, Paul Ehrlich {of "The Population Bomb"/"End of Affluence" infamy}, Oliver Wendell Holmes & Pol Pot are unapologetic eugenicists. They preach "bio-ethics"; "animal rights" & "sustainability" which ALWAYS subjects the impoverished people of the Earth to forced sterilizations/abortions, vaccinations & "euthanasia."
OneDollarBook 2 years ago
Every once in a while I post a comment. I used to post more but found I was arguing with people who had their mind made up already and did not want to be confused with facts. I see things have not changed. There is simply no science to the GW claims. All the data is anecdotal and massaged to foster the argument. These are the same folks who would like to spend everyone else's money to fix what is PERCEIVED to be a problem. I'm glad they don't have the power to do so.
jimcumming999 2 years ago 4
Here Here !
Auggie56 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia article for Scientific opinion on climate change:
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
NO REMAINING SCIENTIFIC BODY. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. CERO. Got it???
ThinkTank255 2 years ago
10 years the eart has been cooling....hmmmm. The same fools crying global warming are the same idiots that were crying global cooling in the 70's. But libs don't care what the truth is they just seek to erode unity of truth and chip away at mans freedoms.
Rangerday1 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Would it change your mind if, GOD FORBID, you would have cancer!
No offense I think you should stick with just reporting the news!
pinabarryscott 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John another bad opinion! Just like your idea on health care! Wrong again!
let me guess YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!
pinabarryscott 2 years ago
Let me guess YOU ARE AN 8 year old child!!!!! Or at the very least you type like one. Have fun with your delusion.
IconicFiber 2 years ago
I actually think he is a libertarian. What is wrong w/ asking questions, and challenging the consensus? I think this is actually what drives real science. Let's have rational (and scientific) discussion w/o the rants.
thefish103 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John wake up!!!! Do you see what is happening around the world with the climate change???? What will it take for you to wake up? What planet or you from? Maybe if the climate change will flood your house you will change your mind!!!!
pinabarryscott 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the climate change skeptics: the 'depth' of your comments astounds me. Try looking beyond the US for a change (I know, that's tough). Take a random pick of 10 developed nations, and 10 developing nations: google their stand on environmental issues. Then you'll truly understand what the WORLD is doing about the climate and whether they're concerned.
If there's time left over, you can try asking yourselves why you're called 'skeptics' in the first place (as opposed to ____ advocates).
jennanemone 2 years ago
jdafunk, were you born stupid or did you just end up that way?
terrycallahan 2 years ago
That's quite a leap of logic Mike.
There are safer, better ways to prevent & treat malaria. A recent National Geographic did a terrific job discussing the topic.
Dumping known carcinogens (the most poisonous substance known) into the environment is not the answer.
We have lost our strong independent media. Without it the corporate shills will continue to push their corporate agendas & junk science suggesting that their carcinogens are/is safer for us all.
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
BTW, carcinogen is a category not a thing, so it cant be the most poisonous thing known to man, that would be a botulinum neurotoxin.
skatekid25 2 years ago
LOL. You actually made me laugh with that one.
What belongs in the carcinogen category?
It's the category full of the MOST poisonous things.
Have you read that National Geographic article yet? It's quite good.
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
John Stossell certainly dumb, but also very irresponsible.
Science banning DDT was bad science?
Doesn't he remember the Arctic/Alaskan sea birds (thousands of miles away & up the food chain) being born with extreme levels of DDT in their systems? That stuff is very bad stuff and it migrates!
Dioxin? It only takes a fraction of one grain of sand to kill you. Very, very bad stuff and it takes a very long time to break down.
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
is it irresponsible being against population growth, properity growth and in generel human freedom? yeah, really irresponsible. I guess you are right. Lets cut back on human evolution in order to save(spoil) the future.
ogello 2 years ago
?? The ban of DDT let's poor people in third world countries die unnecessarily of malaria.
mikedemilo 2 years ago
So would you rather have a couple birds born messed up, or 2 million cases of malaria?
skatekid25 2 years ago
I'm sorry. I haven't made my point clearly.
The birds are messed up and die. The fish or whatever eat the dead birds. We eat the fish. We die.
This stuff stays in the environment a LONG, LONG time. It doesn't just go away. It can take decades or longer to break down.
By that time, it's human babies being born messed up.
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
DDT was used acroos europe and is actually still used in south africa. In countries like mozambique it was used for twenty years, AND NOT ONE REPORT EVER SHOWED IT WAS HARMFUL TO HUMANS. However they were forced to stop using it, and cases of malaria have skyrocketed again. btw, when have you ever seen a fish eat a dead bird?
skatekid25 2 years ago 3
Actually, it is probably not the fish eating the dead bird, right? It is more likely the rain washing the chemicals into the ground water. The bottom feeders and other fish absorb/eat the chemicals; the birds eat the fish... Humans eat the fish... The concentration of the chemicals intensifies with each step up the food chain. Fish is the primary source of protein through much of Africa. High concentrations of poisons (known human carcinogens) in fish is a bad idea.
It isn't safe.
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
cost benefit man, cost benefit. A known risk, vs an unlikely harm. Like cars. Cars kill thousands of people a year, but should we abandon using it? Should we not invent the car because it might kill someone? No. Because using it saves far far more lives than it hurts.
fluff125 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
IllinoisCAN 2 years ago
DDT ftw! DDT is a miracle chemical. I can't believe the west still refuses to let the 3rd world use DDT. It's a genocide! They refuse to let the poor people of the 3rd world protect themselves from malaria. Environmentalist irrationality at it's best.
TijoKJose 2 years ago 2
That's because they are not all in the pockets of the corporate elite that is trying to run your country and the rest of the world. I'd love to know how many shares in Ford Stossel owns. You talk about perspective Joem734, how about this; stop thinking about your next pay check and start to consider the kind of world you are going to leave behind for your grandchildren.
jdafunk 2 years ago
hahahaha, yeah.. i wonder. Lets see, which one of all the past events shall we consider for the future.. is it warming, os is it cooling? Learn history, see how weather has changed over and over. Its not just a pattern, its logic.
ogello 2 years ago
It is INSANE that there aren't more like Stossel in the media. Putting everything in perspective.
Joem734 2 years ago
its not that insane when you realise who owns the media. climate mongers.
ogello 2 years ago
bbiermanster, do us a favour, mate. Put a plastic bag over your head and don't remove it until a republican government is running your country again. All that CO2 is going to make you a superman. Trust me, just try it.
jdafunk 2 years ago