You are absolutely wrong, those emails were taken out of context and do not mean what the idiots on tv that pose as journalists said they meant. But you actually have to do some work. Also, not all conservatives deny AGW or are creationists. I am an atheist who supports global warming, but also supports freedom and low taxes.
Supporting personal freedom hardly makes you a conservative. Just look at history and you may notice that social conservatives are always the ones opposing the contemporary civil liberties issues of their time in order to protect an established social order.
This was the case with loyal monarchists who opposed American independence, Southern slave-owners who fought against abolitionism, those who were against women's suffrage and now it's about gay rights.
If we could only find climate researchers who didn't get paid. Then we could be sure to get research that is above suspicion...
But wait! We do! Most of the climate change related videos on Youtube are by deniers who offer their expertise for free! Sure they know next to nothing about science, BUT they are able to compensate for this by "going to motive". So who needs all that scientific interpretation, reading journals etc when you can prattle on about the NWO, Illuminati, statists & commies?
I think you have a great balanced approach to issues and this is no exception - a great 4 min overview on the issue - who is the prick with his prick in the bunny - I feel like trolling the moron!
@TheJamesPope A scientist is not payed for simply doing research. He's funded by colleges, academies, and scientific institutions to advance human knowledge. The scholar's creed forbids deception and hiding the truth as it is shown through empirical evidence. The whole concept of a conspiracy or "fudging" the numbers is disproved by the fact that scientist do not seek compensation many scientists actually make around 50-60k compare that to the leaders of industry thats small potatoes.
Scientists are also paid by corporations in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and on occasion the tobacco industry to vouch for different products safety, and they've been wrong before.
Now whether past inaccuracies were just mistakes or possibly influenced by a certain degree of cash, has to be examined on a case by case basis,
the major disagreement I have with your comment is the idea you are portraying that scientists, in general, are these morally incorruptible beings that would never do anything for the money,
and they are not,
they're just people, some good, some bad, some greedy,
it is in my opinion that when we begin to regard any group of people in this way,
to a point where we feel questioning them to be "wrong,"
@TheJamesPope I do think that as rational people we should look at the research ourselves and study each allegation but we can't dismiss a whole mountain of research just because we feel like it; FOR that would be no better than people who say that evolution isn't real or gravity.
We have to study the phenomena and accept the realities of such evidence. I hope we can all agree that empirical evidence trumps conspiracy, hearsay, emotional feeling and especially theology and tradition.
Dude, the emails are just a speck of dust. The real problem with Global warming is that there is a real opposition from real scientist. I repeat James, plz watch the Global Warming Swindle. I do need your oppinion on it. Its a good point to start research. Plus the reason I kinda hate the Global warming phenomenon is that everybody seems to have stopped dealing with real pollution, like garbage, dioxins, nuke waste, particles in the air and water, destruction of animal habitat
@TheJamesPope Plus Can you think of Al Gore being involved in anything descent? He let Bush on power like a breeze and then went for his Co2 Prophet Career. We atheists & skeptics need to recognise that there is some freaky resemblance between religion and the Global Warming marketing. They both claim infallibility and decide behind closed doors. A US climatologist awarded 4 times for his exeptional contribution in climater predictions, says its fraud. Skeptics should listen.
@TheJamesPope I won't say that there are scientists that aren't funded by private business to fudge the numbers. The ones implicated on the conspiracy are in fact innocent or at least severely misunderstood. Yes, where there is business there is corruption but don't forget scientists compare each others research and quickly disavow anything that has been disproven or they are removed from the Academy of Sciences. Those who are corrupt are no longer respected or part of the scholastic community
You know I really wasn't clear on what you wanted me to watch before, but I am now, I will watch, "The Global Warming Swindle," and I will do so soon, (let me know if the title is incorrect)
to everyone reading, I kept my opinion in this video, towards the middle, on purpose, because I really am not sure where I stand on the Global Warming issue yet, because I personally have not looked at the research out there, but I will make this a priority and give me thoughts soon.
Yeah, sorry, Youtube kept posting my comments on a jerked sequence, I could hardly make sense my self :P.
Yes you got the Title correct, video.google has it... 1.20 minutes or something.
Its not the only research I have done, but its the best beggining i think.
Whatever your view after it I will still respect it, because you are evolving to be one of the most unbiased and thoughtfull youtubers I've seen. It just that many lunatics deny Global Warming and makes the issue cloudy for skeptics.
I recently saw a video by one of my favorite bloggers.. er vidoggers? THunderfoot. he broke down this e-mail craze and honestly now I laugh at this so called scandal. you mean out of like 2000 e-mails that all they could find? and we're not talking published results. we're talking any random joke, trash talk, considering counterpoint, or the like they may of discussed brought down to a single stentence as proof of some grand conspiracy?
If you want information on global warming you can do a lot worse than listening to Potholer54. HTWWorks cant even get his globe to spin the right way, thats a pretty big omission.
He basically portrays the data very faithfully and has some authority on the subject. He does his research cites his sources and is genuinely just looking out for those who don't know and trying to convince those who are too stupid to look by themselves to clean the rhetoric out of their eyes and uses their brains.
Shit I down thumbed when I meant to up thumb Ill correct that later.
I completely agree with your comment I believe this video paints potholer54 in the same light as some of the deniers. When they correctly cite their sources this will be acceptable.
I think global warming is the wrong term here. It might confuse the poor fundies :P
I prefer the term climate change, because not all areas of the world are getting warmer. For example, where I'm from, it's been getting much colder and snowing more than it usually does (and it never snows here.)
My guess is that rising sea levels are disrupting the ocean currents which bring warm water and air up to me. When those currents are disrupted, it gets friggin cold.
You are correct, and thats why the term has officially changed to climate change for most
Global warming was based on the fact that overall the earth is getting warmer, but its confusing, because the overall warming is affecting ocean currents which affect the weather a great deal around the world.
Some areas increase drout, some floods.
The effects will vary in many ways.
But it also affects the air.
Because of the way hurricanes are formed, they are also affected by the overall warming
yes the comments are horrible and hard to keep up with. I suggest the guy on channel. greenman3610 for factual information on climate change. he has firm, cited, and rational arguments that is far better layed outthen I could ever mention for those concerned if climate change is real or not. Fact is.. it is real and pretending we have no impact on the enviroment is like a child covering thier eyes and saying thier invisible.
I first got the story off of The Daily Show, but apparently this has been happening more and more often, it's not our generation that has to be as worried as much as our children's generation, that is if you're having children, I don't plan on it,
I'd like to add here that I found an article some time ago saying that the plastics in the giant island of plastic in the ocean are causing extreme changes in sealife.
Like male sea turtles suddenly growing female reproductive organs, for example. Lovely.
Um last time I checked plastic it not going to harm a human thats mostly why we put our food in it.
Pollution is bad yes and the plastic can harm birds and fish but eating a fish that has had plastic in it i doubt will do much. Now mercury that shits scary.
oh? Can you show me a study linking plastic consumption to poor health? I doubt fish can properly digest plastic to any extent.
If it is digested yes it could cause harm to people. There is a reason you see plastic in the fishes gut they eat it then die not eat it then metabolize it.
are you serious, this shit was on the news just like a couple of weeks ago, it's not new or hidden information, many plastics contain estrogen boosters, especially soft plastics that are used for water bottles, those estrogen boosters and estrogens when drunk by women who are pregnant with boys have shown to cause genital deformation, mostly in the form of under-dropped testicles in the male children.
The news? I am sorry but i usually don't listen to the news on medical issues because they typically give cooks and quacks more time than real doctors.
and just for further clarification, the estrogens and related boosters are released into the water from the soft plastic bottle, if it is left in sunlight for too long, is reused too many times, or is just a poor quality plastic depending on the company.
Gongradulations JamesPope... just for having a somewhat balanced view on Global warming. I quess you are fan of Global Warming, but you described the situation justly. Just saying this because all "sceptics" easily bash a Fucktard Creationists but hardly ever doubt an inch of the establishement. Which is kind of unfair if you think the strength of Creationists and Establishement compared....
Just asking you to see this, cause we in the west think that even if Global Warming is a hoax, we should pursue the same course as if it was real, just in case. Only that this "just in case" maybe the biggest famine of the world, because of smokey biofuel eating up all the food of the poor countries, and because we are undermining their developement every day while we have extra hot showers and drive in SUV's. Just watch it and tell me what you think.
I for one, do not drive a car, take my showers cold, winter ans summer, recycle, and control my power consumtion, just because it all makes sense, although I do not believe in Man made Climate Change. I do believe in use on a strict need basis, and I do believe in the reservation of resources. And to be honest, if Global Warming is man made, I got a whole set of proposals, with no cost to the Third world. Too bad COP15 was all about drinking cold coffe and taxes and no good ideas. watch the vid
Disclaimer>>, am not in oil business, am not republican or american , am not religious, am not watching fox news or Alex Jones, am not in this for the controversy, have ecological conscience, am not a hunter or gun owner, am not trolling.
I just want you to watch the Global Warming Swindle (its on google vids) by ch 4 cause it is the most all-inclusive documentary I found on the matter, with the comprehensive oppinions of grade a scientists and no conspiracy. Watch it and tell me ! BYE!!!!
The plastic patch is very scary, and very little media attention is being given to it. Why discuss something of this magnitude when Tiger Woods has issues being faithful? *sigh* This isn't just affecting fish- birds are also dying in large numbers. 40% of all baby albatross birds die from plastic ingestion these days! And yet, more and more things are being re-packaged and marketed as "disposable".
Their kiss was disgusting. Not because it was a kiss between 2 guys, but because it was a kiss between 2 of the ugliest motherfuckers I have ever seen.
Yes, I did. That's why I was confused when you started talking about pollution in general. I'm not aware of anyone who's debating the existence of pollution, so I wasn't sure who those comments were directed at.
It'd be like someone saying "Does Steve drive a blue car?" and you responding by saying "You'd be crazy to think Steve hates blue. He has a blue shirt." It's like you're just throwing in useless facts so it seems like you know more about the subject then you actually do.
Most of the people I've seen who are skeptical of global warming, myself included, care a great deal about the environment. I don't think we should trash the planet, and I don't want to see animals go extinct. I'm just not entirely sold on the whole global warming crisis.
Also, even if what you say is true, that isn't a good argument. That's like when people argue for the existence of a god by saying that the unbelievers just want to sin. Even if the unbelievers do just want to sin, that doesn't prove that there is a god.
Likewise, even if it were true that the global warming skeptics just don't care about the environment, that doesn't prove that we're causing global warming.
I think we're coming at this topic from different perspectives.
In my experience the people who are against Global Warming or don't believe it at all, and just think it's a scam, often also think that humans are not capable of impacting the environment at all, I hear the argument all the time, how could we be changing the climate, and extends beyond the climate issue. The point I was trying to make is that we are making a negative impact, and regardless of global warmings validity we must change
My thing about anthropogenic GW is that it is not a matter of IF it is happening, but a matter of to what degree. The hockeystick graph pwns deniers since they don't comprehend how it is formulated. Praise Science.
neither one of your are putting forward very convincing comments, though I'm more inclined to believe Spike seeing on how I know him to be intelligent, and Chupamiubre seems to just be leaving a string of useless crap up and down my comment section.
Potholer54's video destroys opposition. It pretty much is a closed case... it is not possible that unlocking 1000s of GTs of fossilized carbon into the atmosphere will have zero effect (especially when we are systematically destroying carbon sinks). That's why I say it's a matter of degree.
I have not seen potholders video to comment on it nor his sources so um whatever i cant comment on it.
To simply have an ambiguous statement of well we don't know to what extent is bullshit. That means that the best statement you can make is that we have possibly had an effect on the environment to an extent we do not yet know.
So the first action is to impose laws regulating the output of certain gases.
I stated the same thing you did. Its not a closed case.
I also read up more on my source the Wegman report is the one i have used of late. I did learn something that it was not properly peer reviewed . This pisses me off so i will more or less use the other report from now on it's name escapes me right now.
You act as if i have some how said nothing bad will ever happen i did no such thing i said the case was not closed so please don't make me into some oil baron who raped your mom.
"an ambiguous statement of well we don't know to what extent is bullshit"
Um, that's what climate science these days is all about... determining the magnitude of the effect. My point is that it is safe to accept that zero is not among potential outcomes, just from basic chem/physics. The hard part is locking in a degree of certainty, more data is needed. It's kind of a pain to do good science when every anomalous data point is touted as disproof or evidence of conspiracy.
Well it is hard i am 100% with you their and with so much bullshit flying around people need to just calm down. Very little would change if we passed these laws in the next 1-2 years after a large independent study was done.
And after 2 years and your 'independent study' deniers will still deny... wait 5 more years, they'll say 10 more years... wait until the rain forests are gone, THEN we'll THINK about doing something, THAT is the bullshit. It's not like the phenomenon hasn't been studied for the past...oh 30 years! We do have enough information now however to start planning a low-carbon economy, cap and trade is one tool we will need to use, assigning a real cost to pollution.
Really because last i checked the guys reports were fudged using the tree ring data. Also wanting to remove the "deniers" from peer review. Honestly they BROKE the law and destroyed information. How would having a new team look over the data hurt?
I don't deny global warming but cap and trade just means you need to pay more to pollute. Fines of 1mil don't hurt when they make 2 bil we need to be smart not fast.
I will again refer you to the Potholer54 video because he addresses 'climategate' head on. Basically, they omitted data which didn't agree with the rest of the data (which is unethical, I'm with you here). BUT that does not discount in any way the other real data that supports the model. Do Haeckel's embryos disprove evolution?
"cap and trade just means you need to pay more to pollute"
That's the point, when it hits your wallet you minimize. New consumer demand creates new products/industries.
"Fines of 1mil don't hurt when they make 2 bil we need to be smart not fast"
Cap and Trade is not fines. It assigns permits to the variable factor of GHG emissions, a negative externality which incurs costs on the public. It's really just a matter of recognizing the value in preserving the climate equilibrium for which we are optimized and connecting the environmental costs to the costs of production. Fast? By when would you like to see emission reduction policies enacted? I want them now.
I think that giving a years time to properly investigate the emails and such would be proper time table. Remember they destroyed data illegally and this is the un's go to place.
I am sorry but this needs to be looked at very carefully. It sucks and i know it's unlikely too happen but to simply gloss over this seems hasty at best.
I am just glad some of these things will be nailed down but not take effect immediately so hopefully we get some time to look over stuff.
Clean Air Act of 1990's SO2 Cap and Trade program that vastly reduced acid rain (at 40% of projected cost) illustrates a successful example of directed emission abatement. Perhaps a blanket program would not be as effective as specialized clusters, but one way or another, cap and trade works better than the status quo.
You're the one 'glossing' cuz you don't have a clue to what C&T is.
AGW is a factor we can control. We should control it b/c nature's a bitch even w/o us riling it up. U weaksauce
S02 are you seriously equating co2 to s02? Also of course cap and trade or carbon credits works better than nothing. Yes but say nothing about the illegal activity at the lab, that you see as nothing big i guess.
SO2 and CO2 are both production outputs and both impose a cost on the environment and therefore the public.
It's not just the atmosphere, my friend is working on a paper about CO2 generated acidity in the oceans. We've already seen huge die-offs of corals and plankton and so on.
The lab was wrong to omit the treering data, but that does not discount all the other data that shows temp & CO2 levels are related. Higher co2 concentration could alter the growth pattern of the trees anyway.
unfortunatly there is only one thing corporations understand. The bottom line. Anything that negitively inpact profits has immedate effects. cap and trade is merely one avenue to give value to the cost of polution that would of otherwise cost nothing but has negitive impacts on everyone. The cost of cleaning up enviromental hazards outweighs the cost of prevention. So from the goverments veiw point cap and trade vs. trying to clean up after corporations is cost effective.
yes not one person cares about the environment at all all businesses are evil people who would rape people if they could make money. I mean it's cheaper to rape then to pay for the legal defense of a rapist.
Your logic sucks not all companies are evil hell look at china before you ever comment on u.s.a companies.
If there was no law against rape there is no cost. Hence why we have laws to protect the enviroment. The laws, fines, and courtordered clean up of things like brownfields for example have been put in place due to the fact companies will pollute for a buck. If there is no consequnce then obviously there is no deterent from an action weither it is rape or pollution. The point is to create such a detterent such that is it more costly to pollute then to not.
i also find people who oppose the carbon tax try to deny climate change to justify their position
i oppose these carbon trading schemes and i acknowledge that the global warming data is correlative but i think it is clear that our pollution is altering the planet, in waterways, eco-systems, and the atmosphere
you dont need to deny global warming to disagree on the best way to improve the situation
I've been dealing with the whole potholer54 video and global warming on my channel quite a bit lately... what's funny is, as a conservative, I have a lot of the same views as you. People are CONSTANTLY misrepresenting the problem though.
Your ideas are pretty much the same as mine. Could more be done. absolutely. Should more be done? Well yeah, since its in our best interest as a species. But going to extremes is not going to really get anything done.
That part when you're just going on and on explaining your point of view is just so sweet.
Nierenmeter 5 months ago
@Nierenmeter i know don't you just love long pointless meanderings ..|..
JamesEzSecretChannel 4 months ago
I've enjoyed your new upload; also too: Global Warming Scandal. Cool work!
pietratrota 1 year ago
Idiot conservatives.
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
You are absolutely wrong, those emails were taken out of context and do not mean what the idiots on tv that pose as journalists said they meant. But you actually have to do some work. Also, not all conservatives deny AGW or are creationists. I am an atheist who supports global warming, but also supports freedom and low taxes.
christo930 2 years ago 2
Supporting personal freedom hardly makes you a conservative. Just look at history and you may notice that social conservatives are always the ones opposing the contemporary civil liberties issues of their time in order to protect an established social order.
This was the case with loyal monarchists who opposed American independence, Southern slave-owners who fought against abolitionism, those who were against women's suffrage and now it's about gay rights.
BrokenCurtain 2 years ago
@BrokenCurtain
Definitely agree, save now its about gay rights and Christian invented "Culture Wars".
The emergence of a new breed of social conservatives always marks the end of a particularly tragic era in human social evolution.
BusinessIDBAI 1 year ago
If we could only find climate researchers who didn't get paid. Then we could be sure to get research that is above suspicion...
But wait! We do! Most of the climate change related videos on Youtube are by deniers who offer their expertise for free! Sure they know next to nothing about science, BUT they are able to compensate for this by "going to motive". So who needs all that scientific interpretation, reading journals etc when you can prattle on about the NWO, Illuminati, statists & commies?
cristop5 2 years ago 2
god I've been so blind this whole time, you're right, I'm throwing out my text books :)
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
By they way, how is your double-cracked ass? Has it healed mate? I hope your better.
graphattic 2 years ago
oh yes, that actually ended up healing quite quickly, way faster than everyone thought,
but thank you for the concern : )
james
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
Your a fit guy, maybe that helped..... so stay off the over-booze....LMAO.
graphattic 2 years ago
I think you have a great balanced approach to issues and this is no exception - a great 4 min overview on the issue - who is the prick with his prick in the bunny - I feel like trolling the moron!
Keep em coming James.
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
thank you for the support,
as for the bunny fucker,
I put all links in the sidebar,
he's one of the fun boys, RavingConservative
bests,
james
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope A scientist is not payed for simply doing research. He's funded by colleges, academies, and scientific institutions to advance human knowledge. The scholar's creed forbids deception and hiding the truth as it is shown through empirical evidence. The whole concept of a conspiracy or "fudging" the numbers is disproved by the fact that scientist do not seek compensation many scientists actually make around 50-60k compare that to the leaders of industry thats small potatoes.
DarkMagus1985 2 years ago
Scientists are also paid by corporations in the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, and on occasion the tobacco industry to vouch for different products safety, and they've been wrong before.
Now whether past inaccuracies were just mistakes or possibly influenced by a certain degree of cash, has to be examined on a case by case basis,
.............
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
...........
the major disagreement I have with your comment is the idea you are portraying that scientists, in general, are these morally incorruptible beings that would never do anything for the money,
and they are not,
they're just people, some good, some bad, some greedy,
it is in my opinion that when we begin to regard any group of people in this way,
to a point where we feel questioning them to be "wrong,"
it's just not smart.
and such a large group of people as well
scientists
: )
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope I do think that as rational people we should look at the research ourselves and study each allegation but we can't dismiss a whole mountain of research just because we feel like it; FOR that would be no better than people who say that evolution isn't real or gravity.
We have to study the phenomena and accept the realities of such evidence. I hope we can all agree that empirical evidence trumps conspiracy, hearsay, emotional feeling and especially theology and tradition.
DarkMagus1985 2 years ago 4
@TheJamesPope
Dude, the emails are just a speck of dust. The real problem with Global warming is that there is a real opposition from real scientist. I repeat James, plz watch the Global Warming Swindle. I do need your oppinion on it. Its a good point to start research. Plus the reason I kinda hate the Global warming phenomenon is that everybody seems to have stopped dealing with real pollution, like garbage, dioxins, nuke waste, particles in the air and water, destruction of animal habitat
graphattic 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope Plus Can you think of Al Gore being involved in anything descent? He let Bush on power like a breeze and then went for his Co2 Prophet Career. We atheists & skeptics need to recognise that there is some freaky resemblance between religion and the Global Warming marketing. They both claim infallibility and decide behind closed doors. A US climatologist awarded 4 times for his exeptional contribution in climater predictions, says its fraud. Skeptics should listen.
graphattic 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope I won't say that there are scientists that aren't funded by private business to fudge the numbers. The ones implicated on the conspiracy are in fact innocent or at least severely misunderstood. Yes, where there is business there is corruption but don't forget scientists compare each others research and quickly disavow anything that has been disproven or they are removed from the Academy of Sciences. Those who are corrupt are no longer respected or part of the scholastic community
DarkMagus1985 2 years ago 2
@DarkMagus1985 Still 7.000.000.000 $ a year on research is a lot o doh, for a lot of hungry fishes....
graphattic 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope... Bunny fucker? LMAO.....
I guess they fantasize beastiality, but The LORD wont allow it....LOLOLOL
graphattic 2 years ago
You know I really wasn't clear on what you wanted me to watch before, but I am now, I will watch, "The Global Warming Swindle," and I will do so soon, (let me know if the title is incorrect)
to everyone reading, I kept my opinion in this video, towards the middle, on purpose, because I really am not sure where I stand on the Global Warming issue yet, because I personally have not looked at the research out there, but I will make this a priority and give me thoughts soon.
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
Yeah, sorry, Youtube kept posting my comments on a jerked sequence, I could hardly make sense my self :P.
Yes you got the Title correct, video.google has it... 1.20 minutes or something.
Its not the only research I have done, but its the best beggining i think.
Whatever your view after it I will still respect it, because you are evolving to be one of the most unbiased and thoughtfull youtubers I've seen. It just that many lunatics deny Global Warming and makes the issue cloudy for skeptics.
graphattic 2 years ago
I recently saw a video by one of my favorite bloggers.. er vidoggers? THunderfoot. he broke down this e-mail craze and honestly now I laugh at this so called scandal. you mean out of like 2000 e-mails that all they could find? and we're not talking published results. we're talking any random joke, trash talk, considering counterpoint, or the like they may of discussed brought down to a single stentence as proof of some grand conspiracy?
twylightsky2007 2 years ago
I would love it if you could link that video in the comment section, I can't imagine how I missed it, but I most definitely did.
Bests,
James
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
If you want information on global warming you can do a lot worse than listening to Potholer54. HTWWorks cant even get his globe to spin the right way, thats a pretty big omission.
He basically portrays the data very faithfully and has some authority on the subject. He does his research cites his sources and is genuinely just looking out for those who don't know and trying to convince those who are too stupid to look by themselves to clean the rhetoric out of their eyes and uses their brains.
KaelHunter 2 years ago 4
Thanks for backing him up.
I dont get what this video was on about, acting like Potholer is some extreme liberal who we have to worry about making us all look bad.
I thought potholer debunked the denier claims about the emails quite well. Even making 2 videos to cover as much of the accusations as possible
greenman3610 is also a great asset to helping us understand the issue, and is very professional with his videos and provides sources
waltermh111 2 years ago
Shit I down thumbed when I meant to up thumb Ill correct that later.
I completely agree with your comment I believe this video paints potholer54 in the same light as some of the deniers. When they correctly cite their sources this will be acceptable.
KaelHunter 2 years ago
I think global warming is the wrong term here. It might confuse the poor fundies :P
I prefer the term climate change, because not all areas of the world are getting warmer. For example, where I'm from, it's been getting much colder and snowing more than it usually does (and it never snows here.)
My guess is that rising sea levels are disrupting the ocean currents which bring warm water and air up to me. When those currents are disrupted, it gets friggin cold.
schoberdink 2 years ago 2
You are correct, and thats why the term has officially changed to climate change for most
Global warming was based on the fact that overall the earth is getting warmer, but its confusing, because the overall warming is affecting ocean currents which affect the weather a great deal around the world.
Some areas increase drout, some floods.
The effects will vary in many ways.
But it also affects the air.
Because of the way hurricanes are formed, they are also affected by the overall warming
waltermh111 2 years ago
this comment board is all fucked up,
I hate YouTube comments
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
yes the comments are horrible and hard to keep up with. I suggest the guy on channel. greenman3610 for factual information on climate change. he has firm, cited, and rational arguments that is far better layed outthen I could ever mention for those concerned if climate change is real or not. Fact is.. it is real and pretending we have no impact on the enviroment is like a child covering thier eyes and saying thier invisible.
twylightsky2007 2 years ago
While standing infront of a moving train.
KaelHunter 2 years ago
oh god, I guess if you're not careful you learn something new every day, god damn, that's horrible,
on a side note thank you for the research,
that is actually some helpful information,
bests,
james
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
I first got the story off of The Daily Show, but apparently this has been happening more and more often, it's not our generation that has to be as worried as much as our children's generation, that is if you're having children, I don't plan on it,
so let's waterbottle away,
jk
bests,
james
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
I'd like to add here that I found an article some time ago saying that the plastics in the giant island of plastic in the ocean are causing extreme changes in sealife.
Like male sea turtles suddenly growing female reproductive organs, for example. Lovely.
schoberdink 2 years ago
I feel so bad for that bunny.. thats gonna hurt in the morning D:
joshx23 2 years ago
Um last time I checked plastic it not going to harm a human thats mostly why we put our food in it.
Pollution is bad yes and the plastic can harm birds and fish but eating a fish that has had plastic in it i doubt will do much. Now mercury that shits scary.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
Oh my god just stop please.
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
oh? Can you show me a study linking plastic consumption to poor health? I doubt fish can properly digest plastic to any extent.
If it is digested yes it could cause harm to people. There is a reason you see plastic in the fishes gut they eat it then die not eat it then metabolize it.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
are you serious, this shit was on the news just like a couple of weeks ago, it's not new or hidden information, many plastics contain estrogen boosters, especially soft plastics that are used for water bottles, those estrogen boosters and estrogens when drunk by women who are pregnant with boys have shown to cause genital deformation, mostly in the form of under-dropped testicles in the male children.
And that's just ONE side effect.
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
The news? I am sorry but i usually don't listen to the news on medical issues because they typically give cooks and quacks more time than real doctors.
Jenny McCarty being a prime example.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
and just for further clarification, the estrogens and related boosters are released into the water from the soft plastic bottle, if it is left in sunlight for too long, is reused too many times, or is just a poor quality plastic depending on the company.
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
are you talking about Bisphenol A (BPA)?
chupamiubre 2 years ago
Gongradulations JamesPope... just for having a somewhat balanced view on Global warming. I quess you are fan of Global Warming, but you described the situation justly. Just saying this because all "sceptics" easily bash a Fucktard Creationists but hardly ever doubt an inch of the establishement. Which is kind of unfair if you think the strength of Creationists and Establishement compared....
graphattic 2 years ago
I find this dilemma frustrating to watch as well, thank you for the support.
Bests,
James
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
Just asking you to see this, cause we in the west think that even if Global Warming is a hoax, we should pursue the same course as if it was real, just in case. Only that this "just in case" maybe the biggest famine of the world, because of smokey biofuel eating up all the food of the poor countries, and because we are undermining their developement every day while we have extra hot showers and drive in SUV's. Just watch it and tell me what you think.
graphattic 2 years ago
I for one, do not drive a car, take my showers cold, winter ans summer, recycle, and control my power consumtion, just because it all makes sense, although I do not believe in Man made Climate Change. I do believe in use on a strict need basis, and I do believe in the reservation of resources. And to be honest, if Global Warming is man made, I got a whole set of proposals, with no cost to the Third world. Too bad COP15 was all about drinking cold coffe and taxes and no good ideas. watch the vid
graphattic 2 years ago
Disclaimer>>, am not in oil business, am not republican or american , am not religious, am not watching fox news or Alex Jones, am not in this for the controversy, have ecological conscience, am not a hunter or gun owner, am not trolling.
I just want you to watch the Global Warming Swindle (its on google vids) by ch 4 cause it is the most all-inclusive documentary I found on the matter, with the comprehensive oppinions of grade a scientists and no conspiracy. Watch it and tell me ! BYE!!!!
graphattic 2 years ago
wow, liberalism....is a desiease
ScaleyGuns 2 years ago
The plastic patch is very scary, and very little media attention is being given to it. Why discuss something of this magnitude when Tiger Woods has issues being faithful? *sigh* This isn't just affecting fish- birds are also dying in large numbers. 40% of all baby albatross birds die from plastic ingestion these days! And yet, more and more things are being re-packaged and marketed as "disposable".
choirgrrl 2 years ago
who really cares about baby albatross birds
ScaleyGuns 2 years ago
Well its offical that RagingConservative is a closeted homosexual,who doesn't even try to disguise the Innuendo.
GhostBusta234 2 years ago
Their kiss was disgusting. Not because it was a kiss between 2 guys, but because it was a kiss between 2 of the ugliest motherfuckers I have ever seen.
bfl3tcher 2 years ago
What do animals eating plastic and people throwing McDonald's rappers on the ground have to do with global warming?
mrplow8 2 years ago
it is all circling the topic of pollution, I mean did you watch the whole video?
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope
Yes, I did. That's why I was confused when you started talking about pollution in general. I'm not aware of anyone who's debating the existence of pollution, so I wasn't sure who those comments were directed at.
It'd be like someone saying "Does Steve drive a blue car?" and you responding by saying "You'd be crazy to think Steve hates blue. He has a blue shirt." It's like you're just throwing in useless facts so it seems like you know more about the subject then you actually do.
mrplow8 2 years ago
and or most people that are like oh global warming is a hoax blah blah blah also don't give a shit about the environment.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
@chupamiubre
What?
mrplow8 2 years ago
A number of people who i know of have 2 mind sets
1. fuck the planet and tear it up and do whatever we want to it. Pollution is bs it's not that bad and all we are killing is a stupid bird.
or
2. Global warming is bs but pollution is a problem that we need to control.
The vast majority of people i have met and seen on the internet and real life are type 1.
Type 2 are few and far between.
I simply think we are going far too fast on the whole laws and regulation crap.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
@chupamiubre
Most of the people I've seen who are skeptical of global warming, myself included, care a great deal about the environment. I don't think we should trash the planet, and I don't want to see animals go extinct. I'm just not entirely sold on the whole global warming crisis.
mrplow8 2 years ago
Also, even if what you say is true, that isn't a good argument. That's like when people argue for the existence of a god by saying that the unbelievers just want to sin. Even if the unbelievers do just want to sin, that doesn't prove that there is a god.
Likewise, even if it were true that the global warming skeptics just don't care about the environment, that doesn't prove that we're causing global warming.
mrplow8 2 years ago
I think we're coming at this topic from different perspectives.
In my experience the people who are against Global Warming or don't believe it at all, and just think it's a scam, often also think that humans are not capable of impacting the environment at all, I hear the argument all the time, how could we be changing the climate, and extends beyond the climate issue. The point I was trying to make is that we are making a negative impact, and regardless of global warmings validity we must change
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
My thing about anthropogenic GW is that it is not a matter of IF it is happening, but a matter of to what degree. The hockeystick graph pwns deniers since they don't comprehend how it is formulated. Praise Science.
spikesmth 2 years ago
really? the hockey stick that was more or less lies.
I mean you act as if anthropogenic is a closed case it's not period.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
neither one of your are putting forward very convincing comments, though I'm more inclined to believe Spike seeing on how I know him to be intelligent, and Chupamiubre seems to just be leaving a string of useless crap up and down my comment section.
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
"more or less lies"
In what respect, Charlie?
Potholer54's video destroys opposition. It pretty much is a closed case... it is not possible that unlocking 1000s of GTs of fossilized carbon into the atmosphere will have zero effect (especially when we are systematically destroying carbon sinks). That's why I say it's a matter of degree.
spikesmth 2 years ago
spikesmith: 15
chupamiubre : love
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
I have not seen potholders video to comment on it nor his sources so um whatever i cant comment on it.
To simply have an ambiguous statement of well we don't know to what extent is bullshit. That means that the best statement you can make is that we have possibly had an effect on the environment to an extent we do not yet know.
So the first action is to impose laws regulating the output of certain gases.
I stated the same thing you did. Its not a closed case.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
I also read up more on my source the Wegman report is the one i have used of late. I did learn something that it was not properly peer reviewed . This pisses me off so i will more or less use the other report from now on it's name escapes me right now.
You act as if i have some how said nothing bad will ever happen i did no such thing i said the case was not closed so please don't make me into some oil baron who raped your mom.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
"an ambiguous statement of well we don't know to what extent is bullshit"
Um, that's what climate science these days is all about... determining the magnitude of the effect. My point is that it is safe to accept that zero is not among potential outcomes, just from basic chem/physics. The hard part is locking in a degree of certainty, more data is needed. It's kind of a pain to do good science when every anomalous data point is touted as disproof or evidence of conspiracy.
spikesmth 2 years ago
Well it is hard i am 100% with you their and with so much bullshit flying around people need to just calm down. Very little would change if we passed these laws in the next 1-2 years after a large independent study was done.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
And after 2 years and your 'independent study' deniers will still deny... wait 5 more years, they'll say 10 more years... wait until the rain forests are gone, THEN we'll THINK about doing something, THAT is the bullshit. It's not like the phenomenon hasn't been studied for the past...oh 30 years! We do have enough information now however to start planning a low-carbon economy, cap and trade is one tool we will need to use, assigning a real cost to pollution.
spikesmth 2 years ago
game
spikesmith
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
@TheJamesPope
lol coming from the one who can't even provide a source.
@spikesmth
Really because last i checked the guys reports were fudged using the tree ring data. Also wanting to remove the "deniers" from peer review. Honestly they BROKE the law and destroyed information. How would having a new team look over the data hurt?
I don't deny global warming but cap and trade just means you need to pay more to pollute. Fines of 1mil don't hurt when they make 2 bil we need to be smart not fast.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
I will again refer you to the Potholer54 video because he addresses 'climategate' head on. Basically, they omitted data which didn't agree with the rest of the data (which is unethical, I'm with you here). BUT that does not discount in any way the other real data that supports the model. Do Haeckel's embryos disprove evolution?
"cap and trade just means you need to pay more to pollute"
That's the point, when it hits your wallet you minimize. New consumer demand creates new products/industries.
spikesmth 2 years ago
"Fines of 1mil don't hurt when they make 2 bil we need to be smart not fast"
Cap and Trade is not fines. It assigns permits to the variable factor of GHG emissions, a negative externality which incurs costs on the public. It's really just a matter of recognizing the value in preserving the climate equilibrium for which we are optimized and connecting the environmental costs to the costs of production. Fast? By when would you like to see emission reduction policies enacted? I want them now.
spikesmth 2 years ago
I think that giving a years time to properly investigate the emails and such would be proper time table. Remember they destroyed data illegally and this is the un's go to place.
I am sorry but this needs to be looked at very carefully. It sucks and i know it's unlikely too happen but to simply gloss over this seems hasty at best.
I am just glad some of these things will be nailed down but not take effect immediately so hopefully we get some time to look over stuff.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
Clean Air Act of 1990's SO2 Cap and Trade program that vastly reduced acid rain (at 40% of projected cost) illustrates a successful example of directed emission abatement. Perhaps a blanket program would not be as effective as specialized clusters, but one way or another, cap and trade works better than the status quo.
You're the one 'glossing' cuz you don't have a clue to what C&T is.
AGW is a factor we can control. We should control it b/c nature's a bitch even w/o us riling it up. U weaksauce
spikesmth 2 years ago
chupamiubre, why should we reinvestigate? The thing is we should stop polluting at the level we do, weither or not global warming is real.
Krensharpaw 2 years ago
@Krensharpaw
Because we never investigated it in the first place.
but i can agree stop polluting as much as we are is a good thing
@spikesmth
S02 are you seriously equating co2 to s02? Also of course cap and trade or carbon credits works better than nothing. Yes but say nothing about the illegal activity at the lab, that you see as nothing big i guess.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
SO2 and CO2 are both production outputs and both impose a cost on the environment and therefore the public.
It's not just the atmosphere, my friend is working on a paper about CO2 generated acidity in the oceans. We've already seen huge die-offs of corals and plankton and so on.
The lab was wrong to omit the treering data, but that does not discount all the other data that shows temp & CO2 levels are related. Higher co2 concentration could alter the growth pattern of the trees anyway.
spikesmth 2 years ago
unfortunatly there is only one thing corporations understand. The bottom line. Anything that negitively inpact profits has immedate effects. cap and trade is merely one avenue to give value to the cost of polution that would of otherwise cost nothing but has negitive impacts on everyone. The cost of cleaning up enviromental hazards outweighs the cost of prevention. So from the goverments veiw point cap and trade vs. trying to clean up after corporations is cost effective.
twylightsky2007 2 years ago
LOL
yes not one person cares about the environment at all all businesses are evil people who would rape people if they could make money. I mean it's cheaper to rape then to pay for the legal defense of a rapist.
Your logic sucks not all companies are evil hell look at china before you ever comment on u.s.a companies.
chupamiubre 2 years ago
If there was no law against rape there is no cost. Hence why we have laws to protect the enviroment. The laws, fines, and courtordered clean up of things like brownfields for example have been put in place due to the fact companies will pollute for a buck. If there is no consequnce then obviously there is no deterent from an action weither it is rape or pollution. The point is to create such a detterent such that is it more costly to pollute then to not.
twylightsky2007 2 years ago
i also find people who oppose the carbon tax try to deny climate change to justify their position
i oppose these carbon trading schemes and i acknowledge that the global warming data is correlative but i think it is clear that our pollution is altering the planet, in waterways, eco-systems, and the atmosphere
you dont need to deny global warming to disagree on the best way to improve the situation
queenboxi 2 years ago
I've been dealing with the whole potholer54 video and global warming on my channel quite a bit lately... what's funny is, as a conservative, I have a lot of the same views as you. People are CONSTANTLY misrepresenting the problem though.
eagleeye1975 2 years ago
God I love your videos. Great one as usual.
Your ideas are pretty much the same as mine. Could more be done. absolutely. Should more be done? Well yeah, since its in our best interest as a species. But going to extremes is not going to really get anything done.
kelliko70 2 years ago
I think it's a problem with both extremes. The far left and far right both cling to the extreme ideologies of their opponents.
Your stance on climate change is pretty much the same as mine ;)
great video as always
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Yeah, seems to be HowTheWorldWork's MO: seize on a rampant generalization and then use it to misrepresent the vast majority of a group.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
haha very cool
boxintypex 2 years ago
Whoa.. I had no idea that garbage patch existed. That's fucking insane.
Link10893 2 years ago
Great video bud. And ya what is up with people who say gays are "evil" people and then act like there fucking everything?
PaganRon 2 years ago
You could use a desk to make your videos look more like a news show ;)
allianceofdemons 2 years ago
Potholer54 did a great video on the global warming thing.
ShellySummers 2 years ago