FAIL! -- entrepreneurs providing for the people? What assbackwards fantasy world do you live in? Rich people have no interest in providing anything for anybody but themselves, period. History bears this out consistently. This video is laughable at nearly every moment. Great job espousing the views which oil industry marketing campaigns have assigned you to believe in. Great job understanding the scientific method too. And finally good luck in school, you're going to need it.
@beta447 Genius, what alternative universe do you live in?! It makes no difference the intention, entrepreneurs have provided more for people than any government in history. The only way to make a profit or more money is to provide people what they want.
LOL That sad moron, Al Gore. Nothing he does works for him. First he "invents" the internet, then he runs for president and fails, and now he is the self appointed climate expert predicting global warming and the planet is getting colder.
@wheelzwheela Because we already have hacks on TV. Why in the world would we hire another one?
On another note, you should watch all his early videos.I thought he liked the patriot act and we should love our president? Now its "change we can belive in" jokes because he didnt get rid of the law he already professed to love.Oh wait, that is in the same vain....nevermind
That was my experience. And, I used to be a believer, you know what it took to shake that belief?
Someone offhandedly mentioned they weren't sold on it. Then I realized that, its not an open shut case. Then I did research. Then came anger. Anger, that I wasn't shown the other side, at all. Global warming was forced on me in 5th grade
Any side that uses that kind of propaganda, and still is losing, is probably wrong
You do know, lindzen has said, "I do not like to be called a skeptic. I am to the extent possible in such matters, a denier. A skeptic is saying, 'you have a case, but I'm not quite sold'. To call myself a skeptic, is to admit the other side has a case. They do not."
Its paraphrased to the best of my memory
I don't know how you define denier, so.... maybe it applies, maybe not
Did they write a group letter or are you referring to a specific paper?
Sorry for being indignant, I just really don't like that phrase that is thrown around as though it had meaning. As though anyone who disagrees with the POLITICAL party line, is not a scientist
yeah, those people that work day in and day out to research glaciers instead of studying CO2s impact on the climate
Come on, scientists are using it as a grant money gravy train to study whatever they want
Less than 50 actually study how much warming you get from adding CO2, and everyone that I've heard speak, all say its a crock
Now, who should I believe? Richard lindzen, the man that has studied climate and global warming longer than any other human being on the planet, or the glacier guy?
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.
I'm 40 years old...I remeber as a child in grade school being taught that the doom that was coming was the new ice age.that most of N America was going to be covered with ice from the North Point is global warming is just the latest unquantifiable scare tactic put forth.The Earth will do what it will..regardless of us.We think we're so smart and have so much control.when we actually have none..case and point..the recent wave of quakes.I'm waiting for those to be blamed on global warming as well.
Anyway, we need not go broke with governments to regulate this or that but as individuals we can make big changes. The thing is it needs to be presented to the public in a different light rather than save the Earth crap that has been spewed thus far. Frankly, most people are just too damn tired to play the role of superhero. Instead it should be promoted as save a buck technology. Who wouldn't want to generate their own electricity if it means freedom from the utility companies monthly bill ?
The problem is simple. Scientists like allot of other people out there have begun to take the easy road when it comes to their jobs and no matter how true the concept of climate change may be, they have fudged the numbers and we will all have to take a wait and see attitude about what they say. Of course this spells doom for us if what they say is true but oh well man wasn't meant to last forever.
@wafflegirl I have already dealt with this issue earlier in the thread.
The earth naturally emits a large amount of CO2, but it was in equilibrium as it was absorbing that same amount. The small addition of anthropogenic emissions disturbs the equilibrium, and cannot be absorbed. The isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 is changing accordingly. Thus we can be confidant that the increased CO2 is anthropogenic.
loveofphysics - the earth in equilibrium? maybe you know a lot about physics, but the earth has never been in equilibrium. 4.5 billion years of evolution can prove that
Evolution is in regard to complex biological organisms. I was discussing the atmosphere, a gaseous system, that has nothing to do with biological evolution. And we don't have to pontificate about the plausability of equilibrium, we can just look at the measurements. I hate to spam this thread with this link, but please check out skepticalscience . com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions . htm
That article is sourced, so look those up if you still have doubts.
i read the article "The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance"
this is true, however the article does not mention other terrestrial speicies besides humans. mammals, reptiles, insects etc also produce CO2 & yet absorb none ..and they far outnumber humans
It included all the non-human animals in the natural emissions. And the Human emissions that are displacing the from equilibrium are the fossil fuels burning. Hence, why the isotopic ratios of atmospheric CO2 are changing, hence more evidence that humans are the cause for this whole AGW crisis.
Al gore came out with all guns Blazing over AGW it was a distressful, aggressive attack of pushing his false data and views on people, bullying scientist and journalists world wide to conform to his consensus, The man is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The only green these people are interested in is the color of your money!! Well done to everyone world wide who stood up to these Tyrants. Does "Damage Control" mean debate? that should have been the first step towards any consensus.
so, the sun doesn't heat our earth? WOW.. take crazy somewhere else, cause we're all full up here. And there's a hole in the ozone layer? hahaha... that's like saying bubbles can get holes in them. You guys no nothing of advertising. Problem, reaction, solution. LOOK a PROBLEM! reaction: AAAAHHHHHHHHHH Solution: It's okay, it's CO2! Now we can get rid of it and press our agenda of making you into our slaves. FOOLS wake the fuck up already.
The sun has been decreasing in output since the 1970's, so there is no way the sun can be responsible for the warming of the last half century.
There was a hole in the Ozone, it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, but with CFCs, and an international treaty signed in the 1990's stopped production of CO2,and the Ozone hole has diminished. And Bubbles (H2O and solution) are physically different than the atmosphere.
Hate to break it to you, but AGW is real, that doesn't make me a liberal though.
Oh god I thought you might be one of the smart ones but by resorting to the old "It's the sun!" fallacy you've proved me wrong.
There is no conduction or convection of heat in space, unless there was a radiological change in makeup of the sun, then solar activity could not be responsible.
You might have convinced me by talking about an atmospheric effect, but you've missed that opportunity now.
"There is no conduction or convection of heat in space"
True
"unless there was a radiological change in makeup of the sun"
First off a "radiological change" is a nonsensical statement. Secondly there is a compositional change taking place which causes the sun to output more radiation. This is a fact.
Now, don't misconstrue my comments to be related to global warming what-so-ever. I am only commenting on your misconception about solar phenomena.
amcnea, it is the infrared radiation that is actually heat, and passes through the transparency of space and collides with objects such as the earth and the moon, etc...
"it is the infrared radiation that is actually heat"
Yes, infrared radiation is what you FEEL as heat when light hits your skin. But, heat is the transfer of energy from one body to another. This is not limited to infrared radiation.
For instance, blue light is absorbed by the upper atmosphere and re-emitted. This is why the sky is blue. Sometimes this energy is not re-emitted and the absorbed light is converted into kinetic energy increasing the temperature of those molecules.
jtkirkfan... quit talking sense, and by God man, don't bring factual irrefutable scientific fact into the crazy house.
The sun absolutely heats the earth and that conductiion, convection, and radiation, and that which heats called, infrared radiation, is absorbed and stored in our atmosphere, oceans, and land masses. It is contained by our ozone layer.
@jtkirkfan2002 While the sun is a climate forcing agent, it is one of many, and it is actually negligible. check out this site for links to published research papers discussing everything you wanted to know about the sun's effect on the climate.
@jtkirkfan2002 "global temp began to fall off"??? Where did you get that statistic? The 2000's have broke every record for global mean temp.
And when I referred to the decrease in TSI from the 1970's I was referring to the decrease in the maximum that occurs every 11 years. The fact is that TSI doesn't correalate with temps after 1975 or so.
Why are we just hearing about this now? The hottest year on record was 1934 and the Earth has cooled since 2001. The golbal average temperature has steadily fallen. Now that's hard to believe if all you get is from the people at the IPCC who place weather stations over central AC units, in blacktop parking lots and next to mirrored-glass buildings.
@jtkirkfan2002 1934 was one of the COOLEST years for the GLOBE. It was only the warmest year for the continuous 48 US states. We are talking about GLOBAL warming, not American warming, so this lie abuot 1934 is also irrelevant.
The warmest year on record for the GLOBE is 2005, with 2009 being a close second. That does not sound like cooling since 2001 now does it?
We may as well just take our heads and bang them into walls. For some odd reason I can't understand, many conservatives feel they have to deny AGW to remain a conservative and that actually caring about the future climate is tantamount to being a big gov liberal. It doesn't matter that just about every single point they ever had has been shown to be wrong, misquoted or flat our made up doesn't seem to deter them. It's like arguing with a creationist.
No more lies and incorrect information than what comes from the AGW crowd. If half of what you say is true, then every reputable scientist and not just the kooks would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The average global temperature has fallen since 1995 and in the last 40 years they have only been able to prove a 0.7 degree increase. That is hardly anything to worry about.
Most climate scientists are. You won't hear scientists without a speciality in climate science say anything because they constantly worry about their reputation. Scientists almost never comment outside of their field of speciality.
Scientists are not that worried about the co2 caused warming (at least from what I have read), it's the feedback system they are so worried about. For example, melting permafrost is releasing methane, a much more powerful GHG, albedo, clouds and so on.
Watts' urban heat island crock has been shown to be false because NOAA compared the temp readings from the sites Watts said were "good" to the ones Watts said were "bad" and found little difference.
ncdc . noaa . gov/oa/about/response-v2 . pdf
The reason is that the urban heat island effect only raises the base temp, it doesn't add or subtract from any overall deviation (that is what AGW predicts), and the instruments are not error prone, and the data for temps also comes from sattilites.
Why don't liberals admit that Al Gore uses 20 times the amount of energy than the average American? Lets not also forget about Leo Dicraprio the Lear Jet Liberal.
@biddefordgop Just because liberals admit the truth of science, doesn't mean that only liberals can do something about the problem. I recognize the problem, and my solution is promoting entrepreneurship of cleaner, more efficient, and carbon free technology. What is wrong with that?
Instead of making up conspiracy theories, the GOP should be supporting the next wave of innovations.
I have been saying the same thing. The free market could easily solve this problem is the deniers would just get out of the way. Of course, most of the deniers (professional, not laypeople) are very close to the fossil fuel industry and like things just the way they are. Scare people with visions of gigantic utility bills and they will allow themselves to be duped into thinking everything is fine.
The GOP only wanted the REAL facts to come out. We don't want CAP and TRADE cause it will destroy our economy.....yes, even more ! We all would love to have emission free technologies, who would not? But its how we get there.
Considering that we are causing the climate change, since we know that the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotopic signature of human emissions not natural emissions, then I think we should be able to stop it as well, by promoting entrepreneurship of clean, efficient, and CO2 free technology.
@jimisback Nature produces about 800 gigatonnes of CO2 yearly on its own, but it also absorbs rougly 800 gigatonnes of CO2 yearly, thus it stays in balance. However, the human emissions upset this balance, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere than nature can absorb. Thus humans are introducing SURPLUS CO2.
It's because physics is full of a bunch of double-talk. Other experts will tell you that nature absorbs about 36 million tons of artificially produced CO2 every day.
@jtkirkfan2002 a million tons is three orders of magnitude less than a giggatonne.
That comment about daily absorbtion is irrelevant, and just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. If someone measures a daily change, that does not mean there is a contradiction with someone who measures a annual change.
I can't believe I have to explain these things to you???
A daily change is cumulative. I can't believe I have to explain that to you. I know what a gigatonne is. What you failed to mention was how MUCH excess CO2 was in the atmosphere.
Your contention that the world was somehow in exact equilibrium before industrialization pushes suspension of disbelief beyond even the most gullible.
@jtkirkfan2002 What is your supporting evidence for the atmsphere failing to equilibriate? Personal incredulity of a layperson is not evidence.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect a system that has existed for 4 billion years, like our atmosphere, to reach equilibrium, but you don't have to take my word for it, check out what this guy has to say about the changing composition of CO2 in our atmosphere- bgc . mpg . de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS . pdf
Simple logic is the only supporting evidence I need. To believe that until industrialization that there were exactly enough plants to counter the CO2 produced naturally by humans and animals is crazy. What happened when a volcano errupted? The balance would have always been lopsided one way or the other, well within the change caused by the infinitesimal percentage of industrial CO2 toady.
First of all, it's not just plants that absorb co2. Secondly, why is it so hard to believe that the earth was in a state of equilibrium? Too few plants the temp goes up, too many causes the weakest plants to die off. A balance between temperature and plant life that thrives in the current environment.
How do you know if it is natural or man made? Does it have a wee stamp on it? And nobody on the link you provided seems to agree. But thank you for the link.
The isotopic ratios of CO2 due to human emissions, fossil fuels burning, is different than the isotopic ratios of CO2 due to natural emissions. All we need to do is measure the isotopic ratios of the atmospheric CO2 and then we can know whether or not it is anthropogenic or natural.
They've got an answer for everything. It's usually just a bunch of "you wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you" double-talk, as if any one of them understands the science. They are simply trusting someone not to lie because he or she has "Phd" after the name. It is dangerous to be so trusting.
Aye the scientists have lied and admitted it. So the rest is just nonsense. How can you take any of it for truth? They have screwed themselves. As well as us.
So the same scientific community that developed the semiconductor technology that allows an ignorant fool as yourself to comment in an online community are not to be trusted on this one issue because you misconstrue the link between science and the policy of the democratic party?
Are we to believe someone who doesn't even know what an isotope is versus a professor who has spent 30 years studying this subject?
OK, so then who do you trust if you can't trust scientists? The reason we trust science is because of the track record it has, not because of a particular scientist's phd.
@jimisback If you don't have the basic knowledge of chemistry to even know what an isotope is, then you shouldn't be debating climate science. Here is the wikipedia article on isotopes, you will learn that not all CO2 is identical.
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Isotope
Now, human emissions have a different ration of carbon isotopes than natural, so we can measure the atmospheric CO2 and determine if it is natural or anthropogenic.
I merely ask questions, My point is that scientists have been caught lying about man made warming. People just are not trusting what is being published now. That is human nature. You don't need a PHD to figure it out. And please don't call me an ignorant fool, ignorant perhaps, but a fool? No.
No they haven't, the mainstream media and the deniers have been the ones lying. Academic fraud is a serious charge and unless that scientist could find oil money or tobacco money or something to keep him working, he will quickly find himself unemployable.
Let's be fair, Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's more of a publicist and shouldn't really been parrotted too much.
The scientists on the other hand know what they are doing, they've been trained in climate science and it's related topics. So we should really look to them for an expert judgement on climate change.
Overwhelmingly, scientists state that climate change is happening and humans are causing it to happen a lot worse than it would do naturally.
I'm assume you're referring to 'those emails'. Look into it yourself, the data is legit - it's just ignorant journalism which says otherwise. Misinformation which is all too common nowadays, most editors probably can't even spell physics.
I'm 68 years old and I worry about my country, Then I see young people like this fighting the fight and I think,, "I can pass the torch to this young man. He can do better than my best efforts." It gives me a good feeling to know the country is in good hands.
All of science commits the fallacy of asserting the consequence, therefore science is the most subjective form of inquiry. Only fields like epistemology and philosophy can be certain.
I should add that the ingredient brominated vegetable oil which is found in Mountain Dew is banned in the UK (and many other countries) so an alternative ingredient was used.
This is because bromine is dangerous for consumption, and has been proven as such.
Damn nanny-state not letting people put poison in my soda!
I ask this question respectfully, Steve. Does your association with the CEI and its significant funding by oil companies - in the millions - deserve mention? Shouldn't you make clear that the CEI has a bias and as you are paid by them, don't you have an obligation to disclose? I'm a fan and an AGW skeptic, but I find this troubling.
This concern about aspirin being bad for stomach, has always been a concern. Even before anybody thought it might be good for your heart.
Please don't get your ideas about health from the media and political organisations such as the American Heart Association. This is like getting your political ideas from MS-NBC.
Besides, the best way to "adjust" to this new problem, as you recommended, is to introduce green tech. Just a good metaphor, down 880, near my home (in Silicon Valley) is a enormous auto manufacturing plant that is closing this month, but just 1/2 mile south a solar cell manufacturer is building a new plant that will create ~1,000 jobs, the future is entrepreneurship of green tech, not relying on old 1960's tech.
@loveofphysics and here's the point! thank you lop. green tech is just a money maker. cap and trade is a derivatives market. and, saying that "climate change" is a fact does not make it so. And, what happened to global warming? haha... had to change it because of climate gate. nasa... what a joke. It just may be hotter, but it's not because of co2. besides, .7º over 40 years is not that big of a deal. AND it's from the SUN. and warmth is actually better for the planet. Thanks to the SUN.
Now i'm not saying that global warming is manmade either, I don't know enough about geophysics to rule out volcanic activity, or enough about oceanography to rule out some sort of oceanic activity. But I do know enough astrophysics to rule out solar activity as having anything more than a minor effect.
But when people claim "It's the sun!" it's almost as if they are saying "It is the will of the sun god Ra! His ways are not for mortals to understand!".
Solar flairs can change the earths temp by 15 degrees and quickly. That been said underwater volcano's would heat the ocean faster the C02 considering that C02 is oxygen for plant life and also not a conductor of heat.
Like I said, I don't know enough about Volcanoes. You could be right.
However, If solar flares had any effect it would be in the magnetosphere, which would cause localised weather changes. It would not effect climate since it would only last for as long as the solar flare was releasing charged particles into the atmosphere. It. Is. Not. The. Sun.
Know this about volcanoes then: A single erruption spews more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than a normal size city does in a year.
Your idea that somehow the Earth was in "equilibrium" between O2 and CO2 before industrialization pushes the suspension of disbelief beyond the capacity of mortal men.
Sorry, it was "physics" who made the equilibrium comment. However my comment still stands. The Earth has adapted to a lot worse than an infinitesimal amount of artificially produced CO2.
Oh, and Al, the biggest producer of CO2 is the oceans; 96%. moron. the earth has warmed .7 degrees in 40 years mainly because of urban island heat effect. jerk off. Gore is HIGHLY invested in the new derivatives market, cap and trade, and the technology behind it. BILLIONS stand to be made every year. He should be tried, beaten in public, and hung for his treachery.
Climate change is a fact, as a matter of FACT it happens 4 times a yr. When I was in grade school they called it "the 4 seasons", not to be mistaken for the hotel.
The seasons are weather, climate change is the FACT that each of those particular seasons are getting warmer, as in 2009 was the second warmest year on record, second only to 2005
google,"what is the hottest year on record", and click the third link, it is the first one from NASA
If you recall from your 7th grade science teacher the entire earth was covered in ICE. Now all that ICE broke down about a million years ago, and last time I checked GM and Ford were only 80 years old or so. Mobil wasn't around when the first iceberg cracked either, but all those companies are being accused of melting the north pole. The point is this, SUV's didn't cause the ice shelves to break down then when the whole earth was ice, and they're not doing it now.
The ICE age ended due to the Milankovitch factors, and they won't be significant for 50,000 years, google "Milankovitch factors" if you don't know what they are.
Your fallacy is that you think climate scientists claim that humans are the only forcing, however what they say is that humans have BECOME the dominant forcing within the last century.
Since nature can start forest fires on its own, does that mean humans are incapable of start them also?
The "scientist" that say global warming is a fact believe that humans are the root cause. Don't try to recreate what's been said. It was called GLOBAL WARMING which would insinuate that the earth is getting hotter, that's been disproven. Now you guy's call it climate change, and can only refer to future temperatures that can't possibly be proven w/ out a crystal ball. The sun controls our temp not C02.
It used to be called "the greenhouse effect" WAAAAAAAY before it was ever called Global Warming. Until people thought "Greenhouses, those are nice! It can't be that bad then!" People have very short memories.
Remember the so called hole in the OZONE that "NASA" found, and they said hairspray was the cause. No one ever saw the hole we were just supposed to believe it was there because NASA said so. What the hell ever happened to the OZONE; didn't they say that it fixed it's self? Convenient don't you think?
Bc if given the opportunity...authorities can manipulate the public with their supreme understanding of their particular subject. Are we supposed to trust all authorities? Questions everyone and everything they do...even members of the IPCC...it's health for the American citizen to question rather than accept...no?
the hole in the Ozone has receded due to an international treaty signed in the early 90's. Haven't you noticed that all your hairspray is marked,"No CFCs"???
See, we can protect the climate if we respond to what scientists tell us.
You haven't read any real scientific papers on this matter have you? Don't rely on the strawman fallacy. There are many different climate forcing agents, however, recently, over the last century, human emissions of CO2 have begun to dominate over all natural cycles and forgings, driving the climate warmer and warmer.
About the sun, the solar output has been dropping steadily since the 1970's, and yet it is warming, thus the forcing due to the sun is negligent.
I've read plenty of BS papers on the idea "theory" that C02 "plant food" is causing the planet to warm up. C02 isn't a conductor of heat. The writings use C02 as the bad guy because they can contribute it to anything from what we exhale to Ford F150's. I have a science project for you. Fill a glass container w/ C02 and another w/ oxygen. Put a block of ice in it while beaming a UV lamp on both. Which one melts faster?
"Artificially" produced CO2 is infinitesimal compared to the naturally produced stuff. You idea that somehow Earth was in "equilibrium" before industrialization pushes the boundary of believability.
I said,"Since nature can start forest fires on its own, does that mean humans are incapable of start them also? "
I was referring to the red herring brought up that claims that since nature changed the climate before, only nature can change the climate now. That is a fallacy, and if you are going to quote me, please quote me correctly.
You're the one man army of sense in here lol. Some of these comments are painful.
One of my favorites so far is the guy that said the amount of CO2 was irrelevant because it was the "oxygen of plants, and doesn't conduct heat." ?!????
@jtkirkfan2002 the forest fire comment is in response to the oft invoked fallacy that simply because natural causes changed climate in the distant past (Milankovitch factors, continental drift, etc...) therefore humans can't change the climate. This is of course a false analogy, nature can change the climate, and so can humans, and it just so happens that the change we are currently experiencing is due to human emissions of CO2.
This video is painful. If you had a panoramic view on the science of climate change you would recognize why the fudging of a few reports does not undermine the entire theory. This isn't a theory for laymen, your really have to bloody your knuckles a bit and immerse yourself in the data. I would suggest that you do because its an issue that transcends left and right.
@FistfullaBerries first of all the theory is flawed. second of all, do your research into the new derivatives market; cap and trade. The fudging of any reports discredits the whole thing, berry. I can't stand these uneducated sheep. baaaa...
@AbsurdKrapp he U.N., and other amateur scientist, and normal citizens as yourself, dont take into consideration the real science, like the geoid of the earth, and other implicit characteristics of our world. Whats the geoid? The geoid is the equipotential surface of the earth's gravitational field that approximates the mean sea surface. It is the core concept in the measurement of sea levels.
@AbsurdKrapp TBut you also have to take into consideration the glacio-hydro-isostatic modeling. The eustatic and tectonic effects on shoreline dynamics. The holocene sedimentary sequences, intertidal foraminifera distributions, carbon analysis of coastal paleoenvironments, and aminostratigraphy. So, be a good person and go do the research.
Speaking of lazy arguments... You just lambasted everyone who doesn't believe in climate change yet offered no facts as to why anyone should believe in it.
pelosi called tea parties, astroturfers...she even cried about the violence they were inciting like the libs did in san franciso in the 60's and 70's. botox has eaten her brain, if she ever had one.
What happened to your background image? If you lost rights to it, you should use a big close up of Pelosi's near grimace when she smiled at the cameras.....that time. You know. When the cameras were on her.
And while their at it they should all get together and demand that laws that have nothing to do with protecting the wildlife and everything to do with preventing that bull**** know as global warming be gotten rid of!
The people who have suffered the most from this (Like all the people who have friends and a family who have died in a auto accidents because of the flimsy covering on the car that are required by law or all the coal miners and people who work at a coal power plant who have lost their jobs because their jobs are tax to death.) should all go out and sue Al Gore and all the dweebs like him.
Sorry dude, you're wrong. He voted for the FISA bill and mentions how he generally sides with conservatives on Wiretapping bills with his interview with Bill O' Riley. Check it.
Obama was awarded an Olympic Gold medal to day for down hill skiing according to the president of the OIC. He said he never saw anyone go down hill so fast.
FAIL! -- entrepreneurs providing for the people? What assbackwards fantasy world do you live in? Rich people have no interest in providing anything for anybody but themselves, period. History bears this out consistently. This video is laughable at nearly every moment. Great job espousing the views which oil industry marketing campaigns have assigned you to believe in. Great job understanding the scientific method too. And finally good luck in school, you're going to need it.
beta447 11 months ago
@beta447 Genius, what alternative universe do you live in?! It makes no difference the intention, entrepreneurs have provided more for people than any government in history. The only way to make a profit or more money is to provide people what they want.
HowTheWorldWorks 11 months ago 4
great job ^^^
VEGASINTN 11 months ago
Al Gore. What a pratt. Lying to the entire population of Earth. What a tosser.
raspberrybaggio 11 months ago
LOL That sad moron, Al Gore. Nothing he does works for him. First he "invents" the internet, then he runs for president and fails, and now he is the self appointed climate expert predicting global warming and the planet is getting colder.
MyTube22T 1 year ago
Why isn't this guy on TV all the time?
wheelzwheela 1 year ago
@wheelzwheela Because we already have hacks on TV. Why in the world would we hire another one?
On another note, you should watch all his early videos.I thought he liked the patriot act and we should love our president? Now its "change we can belive in" jokes because he didnt get rid of the law he already professed to love.Oh wait, that is in the same vain....nevermind
FreedumbFighter28 1 year ago
Diet coke is the cure for aids.
rangergxi 1 year ago
@rangergxi yeah i heard that on fox news
AhmadSmadi2012 1 year ago
@rangergxi Coca Cola, a lasting cure for slimness.
raspberrybaggio 11 months ago
I only seem to get bombarded with one opinion
I had to search out the rest
That was my experience. And, I used to be a believer, you know what it took to shake that belief?
Someone offhandedly mentioned they weren't sold on it. Then I realized that, its not an open shut case. Then I did research. Then came anger. Anger, that I wasn't shown the other side, at all. Global warming was forced on me in 5th grade
Any side that uses that kind of propaganda, and still is losing, is probably wrong
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
You say lindzen is not a denier?
You do know, lindzen has said, "I do not like to be called a skeptic. I am to the extent possible in such matters, a denier. A skeptic is saying, 'you have a case, but I'm not quite sold'. To call myself a skeptic, is to admit the other side has a case. They do not."
Its paraphrased to the best of my memory
I don't know how you define denier, so.... maybe it applies, maybe not
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
They have a community now?
Did they write a group letter or are you referring to a specific paper?
Sorry for being indignant, I just really don't like that phrase that is thrown around as though it had meaning. As though anyone who disagrees with the POLITICAL party line, is not a scientist
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
yeah, those people that work day in and day out to research glaciers instead of studying CO2s impact on the climate
Come on, scientists are using it as a grant money gravy train to study whatever they want
Less than 50 actually study how much warming you get from adding CO2, and everyone that I've heard speak, all say its a crock
Now, who should I believe? Richard lindzen, the man that has studied climate and global warming longer than any other human being on the planet, or the glacier guy?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
choass up cracka
jesselee121 1 year ago
whoa your teeth changed!
arabviolin 1 year ago
What I will find interesting will be the domino effect that AGW's collapse will start.
BHO is counting on the revenue from Cap&Trade to help fund whatever it is he's doing. And now, that's gone.
Will he try to shove C&T through anyway, ignoring facts and the will of the people; as with ObamaCare?
Or, will he try to create a new monster under the bed??
Claymore5by5 1 year ago
Can't stop it?
Tell that to the ozone layer.
atheeism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CO2 is innocent!
Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczis theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.
judomagyar 1 year ago
i don't believe anything these guys are dishing out on us anymore
sciencemunk 1 year ago
I'm 40 years old...I remeber as a child in grade school being taught that the doom that was coming was the new ice age.that most of N America was going to be covered with ice from the North Point is global warming is just the latest unquantifiable scare tactic put forth.The Earth will do what it will..regardless of us.We think we're so smart and have so much control.when we actually have none..case and point..the recent wave of quakes.I'm waiting for those to be blamed on global warming as well.
evel1969 1 year ago
Al Gore is an impudent strumpet
ab1tchslap 1 year ago 3
why do people still beileve in this so strongly?
GodAthie 1 year ago
Anyway, we need not go broke with governments to regulate this or that but as individuals we can make big changes. The thing is it needs to be presented to the public in a different light rather than save the Earth crap that has been spewed thus far. Frankly, most people are just too damn tired to play the role of superhero. Instead it should be promoted as save a buck technology. Who wouldn't want to generate their own electricity if it means freedom from the utility companies monthly bill ?
hobo59 1 year ago
The problem is simple. Scientists like allot of other people out there have begun to take the easy road when it comes to their jobs and no matter how true the concept of climate change may be, they have fudged the numbers and we will all have to take a wait and see attitude about what they say. Of course this spells doom for us if what they say is true but oh well man wasn't meant to last forever.
hobo59 1 year ago
nothing wrong with green technology we just cannot afford to bankrupt ourselves over it otherwise we cannot make more of it.
btw is it to late to take back his awards for his global warming stuff?
(well ok we all know the response to that but I had to ask)
fartwimp 1 year ago
CO2 in the atmosphere - 0.04%
man made CO2 - apprx 3-6% of 0.04%
its concieted of us to assume we can control the fluctuations in earths temperature if we are not causing it.
wafflegirl 1 year ago
@wafflegirl I have already dealt with this issue earlier in the thread.
The earth naturally emits a large amount of CO2, but it was in equilibrium as it was absorbing that same amount. The small addition of anthropogenic emissions disturbs the equilibrium, and cannot be absorbed. The isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 is changing accordingly. Thus we can be confidant that the increased CO2 is anthropogenic.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
loveofphysics - the earth in equilibrium? maybe you know a lot about physics, but the earth has never been in equilibrium. 4.5 billion years of evolution can prove that
wafflegirl 1 year ago
Evolution is in regard to complex biological organisms. I was discussing the atmosphere, a gaseous system, that has nothing to do with biological evolution. And we don't have to pontificate about the plausability of equilibrium, we can just look at the measurements. I hate to spam this thread with this link, but please check out skepticalscience . com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions . htm
That article is sourced, so look those up if you still have doubts.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
loveofphysics- what do you think contributes most to gaseous systems & the atmosphere? biological organisms
if you dont believe thats true, do a simple search on cyanobacteria
wafflegirl 1 year ago
i read the article "The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance"
this is true, however the article does not mention other terrestrial speicies besides humans. mammals, reptiles, insects etc also produce CO2 & yet absorb none ..and they far outnumber humans
wafflegirl 1 year ago
It included all the non-human animals in the natural emissions. And the Human emissions that are displacing the from equilibrium are the fossil fuels burning. Hence, why the isotopic ratios of atmospheric CO2 are changing, hence more evidence that humans are the cause for this whole AGW crisis.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
I understand 13C/12C ratios and that these ratios are lower today than in the last thousand years.
I have also read much on the interglacial phenomena and the greenland ice core data as much I could understand, that is...
But the question was; I dont see any serious suggestion that we could literally change the climate.
though you may be able to help me with this.
I was not denying climatechange but accepting the idea that we do not understand it so we must adapt to what ever happens
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
Al gore came out with all guns Blazing over AGW it was a distressful, aggressive attack of pushing his false data and views on people, bullying scientist and journalists world wide to conform to his consensus, The man is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The only green these people are interested in is the color of your money!! Well done to everyone world wide who stood up to these Tyrants. Does "Damage Control" mean debate? that should have been the first step towards any consensus.
TheTempestSpark 1 year ago
What did the bamster say? He can't control Nature but he can control the American people????
overtaxed79 1 year ago
Albert Gore is a wannabe evil dictator, We can't let him get away with taking free peoples freedom!
overtaxed79 1 year ago 3
so, the sun doesn't heat our earth? WOW.. take crazy somewhere else, cause we're all full up here. And there's a hole in the ozone layer? hahaha... that's like saying bubbles can get holes in them. You guys no nothing of advertising. Problem, reaction, solution. LOOK a PROBLEM! reaction: AAAAHHHHHHHHHH Solution: It's okay, it's CO2! Now we can get rid of it and press our agenda of making you into our slaves. FOOLS wake the fuck up already.
xdream1 1 year ago
The sun has been decreasing in output since the 1970's, so there is no way the sun can be responsible for the warming of the last half century.
There was a hole in the Ozone, it has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, but with CFCs, and an international treaty signed in the 1990's stopped production of CO2,and the Ozone hole has diminished. And Bubbles (H2O and solution) are physically different than the atmosphere.
Hate to break it to you, but AGW is real, that doesn't make me a liberal though.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
The sun was in a cycle of increased activity until the late 1990's. It ended about the same time that the global average temp began to fall off.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Oh god I thought you might be one of the smart ones but by resorting to the old "It's the sun!" fallacy you've proved me wrong.
There is no conduction or convection of heat in space, unless there was a radiological change in makeup of the sun, then solar activity could not be responsible.
You might have convinced me by talking about an atmospheric effect, but you've missed that opportunity now.
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
@Beelzeboogie
"There is no conduction or convection of heat in space"
True
"unless there was a radiological change in makeup of the sun"
First off a "radiological change" is a nonsensical statement. Secondly there is a compositional change taking place which causes the sun to output more radiation. This is a fact.
Now, don't misconstrue my comments to be related to global warming what-so-ever. I am only commenting on your misconception about solar phenomena.
amcnea 1 year ago
amcnea, it is the infrared radiation that is actually heat, and passes through the transparency of space and collides with objects such as the earth and the moon, etc...
xdream1 1 year ago
"it is the infrared radiation that is actually heat"
Yes, infrared radiation is what you FEEL as heat when light hits your skin. But, heat is the transfer of energy from one body to another. This is not limited to infrared radiation.
For instance, blue light is absorbed by the upper atmosphere and re-emitted. This is why the sky is blue. Sometimes this energy is not re-emitted and the absorbed light is converted into kinetic energy increasing the temperature of those molecules.
amcnea 1 year ago
So the sun doesn't heat the Earth? My science teacher in junior high was lying to me?
The increase or decrease in solar radiation due to solar activity most certainly does have an effect on the Earth's temperature.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago 2
jtkirkfan... quit talking sense, and by God man, don't bring factual irrefutable scientific fact into the crazy house.
The sun absolutely heats the earth and that conductiion, convection, and radiation, and that which heats called, infrared radiation, is absorbed and stored in our atmosphere, oceans, and land masses. It is contained by our ozone layer.
xdream1 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 While the sun is a climate forcing agent, it is one of many, and it is actually negligible. check out this site for links to published research papers discussing everything you wanted to know about the sun's effect on the climate.
skepticalscience . com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming . htm
loveofphysics 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 "global temp began to fall off"??? Where did you get that statistic? The 2000's have broke every record for global mean temp.
And when I referred to the decrease in TSI from the 1970's I was referring to the decrease in the maximum that occurs every 11 years. The fact is that TSI doesn't correalate with temps after 1975 or so.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
Why are we just hearing about this now? The hottest year on record was 1934 and the Earth has cooled since 2001. The golbal average temperature has steadily fallen. Now that's hard to believe if all you get is from the people at the IPCC who place weather stations over central AC units, in blacktop parking lots and next to mirrored-glass buildings.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 1934 was one of the COOLEST years for the GLOBE. It was only the warmest year for the continuous 48 US states. We are talking about GLOBAL warming, not American warming, so this lie abuot 1934 is also irrelevant.
The warmest year on record for the GLOBE is 2005, with 2009 being a close second. That does not sound like cooling since 2001 now does it?
loveofphysics 1 year ago
We may as well just take our heads and bang them into walls. For some odd reason I can't understand, many conservatives feel they have to deny AGW to remain a conservative and that actually caring about the future climate is tantamount to being a big gov liberal. It doesn't matter that just about every single point they ever had has been shown to be wrong, misquoted or flat our made up doesn't seem to deter them. It's like arguing with a creationist.
christo930 1 year ago
No more lies and incorrect information than what comes from the AGW crowd. If half of what you say is true, then every reputable scientist and not just the kooks would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The average global temperature has fallen since 1995 and in the last 40 years they have only been able to prove a 0.7 degree increase. That is hardly anything to worry about.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Most climate scientists are. You won't hear scientists without a speciality in climate science say anything because they constantly worry about their reputation. Scientists almost never comment outside of their field of speciality.
Scientists are not that worried about the co2 caused warming (at least from what I have read), it's the feedback system they are so worried about. For example, melting permafrost is releasing methane, a much more powerful GHG, albedo, clouds and so on.
christo930 1 year ago
Watts' urban heat island crock has been shown to be false because NOAA compared the temp readings from the sites Watts said were "good" to the ones Watts said were "bad" and found little difference.
ncdc . noaa . gov/oa/about/response-v2 . pdf
The reason is that the urban heat island effect only raises the base temp, it doesn't add or subtract from any overall deviation (that is what AGW predicts), and the instruments are not error prone, and the data for temps also comes from sattilites.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
you're an idiot
MrFootDick 1 year ago
and you're a psychonut
THEsquirrel3d 1 year ago
squirrels like nuts
MrFootDick 1 year ago
Why don't liberals admit that Al Gore uses 20 times the amount of energy than the average American? Lets not also forget about Leo Dicraprio the Lear Jet Liberal.
biddefordgop 1 year ago
@biddefordgop Just because liberals admit the truth of science, doesn't mean that only liberals can do something about the problem. I recognize the problem, and my solution is promoting entrepreneurship of cleaner, more efficient, and carbon free technology. What is wrong with that?
Instead of making up conspiracy theories, the GOP should be supporting the next wave of innovations.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
I have been saying the same thing. The free market could easily solve this problem is the deniers would just get out of the way. Of course, most of the deniers (professional, not laypeople) are very close to the fossil fuel industry and like things just the way they are. Scare people with visions of gigantic utility bills and they will allow themselves to be duped into thinking everything is fine.
christo930 1 year ago
The GOP only wanted the REAL facts to come out. We don't want CAP and TRADE cause it will destroy our economy.....yes, even more ! We all would love to have emission free technologies, who would not? But its how we get there.
dijhili 1 year ago
Weasel
eurogoldexchange 1 year ago
@ MRaverz thank you for spreading the truth.
frosty689 1 year ago
"we can't stop climate change we can only adapt to it"
Totally - my government here in Australia has been trumperting this bullshit that somehow we can change the climate
though no one can actually point out how... accept to say;
Let's put new taxes on everything...
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago 2
Considering that we are causing the climate change, since we know that the surplus CO2 in the atmosphere has the isotopic signature of human emissions not natural emissions, then I think we should be able to stop it as well, by promoting entrepreneurship of clean, efficient, and CO2 free technology.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
Surplus CO2 ? I hope we never get surplus Oxygen. Who the hell gets these numbers?
jimisback 1 year ago
@jimisback Nature produces about 800 gigatonnes of CO2 yearly on its own, but it also absorbs rougly 800 gigatonnes of CO2 yearly, thus it stays in balance. However, the human emissions upset this balance, leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere than nature can absorb. Thus humans are introducing SURPLUS CO2.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
How is that measured? How do we Know it can't absorb more or the amount it does?
jimisback 1 year ago
It's because physics is full of a bunch of double-talk. Other experts will tell you that nature absorbs about 36 million tons of artificially produced CO2 every day.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
I know, I wanted to hear the BS from him or her.
jimisback 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 a million tons is three orders of magnitude less than a giggatonne.
That comment about daily absorbtion is irrelevant, and just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. If someone measures a daily change, that does not mean there is a contradiction with someone who measures a annual change.
I can't believe I have to explain these things to you???
loveofphysics 1 year ago
A daily change is cumulative. I can't believe I have to explain that to you. I know what a gigatonne is. What you failed to mention was how MUCH excess CO2 was in the atmosphere.
Your contention that the world was somehow in exact equilibrium before industrialization pushes suspension of disbelief beyond even the most gullible.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 What is your supporting evidence for the atmsphere failing to equilibriate? Personal incredulity of a layperson is not evidence.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect a system that has existed for 4 billion years, like our atmosphere, to reach equilibrium, but you don't have to take my word for it, check out what this guy has to say about the changing composition of CO2 in our atmosphere- bgc . mpg . de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS . pdf
loveofphysics 1 year ago
Simple logic is the only supporting evidence I need. To believe that until industrialization that there were exactly enough plants to counter the CO2 produced naturally by humans and animals is crazy. What happened when a volcano errupted? The balance would have always been lopsided one way or the other, well within the change caused by the infinitesimal percentage of industrial CO2 toady.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
First of all, it's not just plants that absorb co2. Secondly, why is it so hard to believe that the earth was in a state of equilibrium? Too few plants the temp goes up, too many causes the weakest plants to die off. A balance between temperature and plant life that thrives in the current environment.
christo930 1 year ago
Comment removed
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
So, you're admitting that the Earth has the ability to adapt to changining levels of CO2.
Interesting. You may not have as much of a closed mind as I thought. You just have to make the leap. There may be hope for you yet.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Only we (and most other life forms) might not like the new equilibrium. If the earth were a car, every single light on dashboard would be bright red.
christo930 1 year ago
@jimiisback you can find out all you want to know about how it is maesured by looking up the sources on this page
skepticalscience . com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions . htm
loveofphysics 1 year ago
How do you know if it is natural or man made? Does it have a wee stamp on it? And nobody on the link you provided seems to agree. But thank you for the link.
jimisback 1 year ago
all this information is avaliable online.
The isotopic ratios of CO2 due to human emissions, fossil fuels burning, is different than the isotopic ratios of CO2 due to natural emissions. All we need to do is measure the isotopic ratios of the atmospheric CO2 and then we can know whether or not it is anthropogenic or natural.
skepticalscience . com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions . htm
loveofphysics 1 year ago
Sounds like BS to me. CO2 is CO2.
jimisback 1 year ago
They've got an answer for everything. It's usually just a bunch of "you wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you" double-talk, as if any one of them understands the science. They are simply trusting someone not to lie because he or she has "Phd" after the name. It is dangerous to be so trusting.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Aye the scientists have lied and admitted it. So the rest is just nonsense. How can you take any of it for truth? They have screwed themselves. As well as us.
jimisback 1 year ago
So the same scientific community that developed the semiconductor technology that allows an ignorant fool as yourself to comment in an online community are not to be trusted on this one issue because you misconstrue the link between science and the policy of the democratic party?
Are we to believe someone who doesn't even know what an isotope is versus a professor who has spent 30 years studying this subject?
loveofphysics 1 year ago
OK, so then who do you trust if you can't trust scientists? The reason we trust science is because of the track record it has, not because of a particular scientist's phd.
christo930 1 year ago
Whenever science appears to have an agenda, or support those having an agenda, a healthy dose of skepticism is advised.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Are you denying the existence of different isotopes? A quick google search would easily sort this out for you.
christo930 1 year ago
@jimisback If you don't have the basic knowledge of chemistry to even know what an isotope is, then you shouldn't be debating climate science. Here is the wikipedia article on isotopes, you will learn that not all CO2 is identical.
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/Isotope
Now, human emissions have a different ration of carbon isotopes than natural, so we can measure the atmospheric CO2 and determine if it is natural or anthropogenic.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
I merely ask questions, My point is that scientists have been caught lying about man made warming. People just are not trusting what is being published now. That is human nature. You don't need a PHD to figure it out. And please don't call me an ignorant fool, ignorant perhaps, but a fool? No.
jimisback 1 year ago
And this is not a democracy. I t is a representive republic. And it it is not the democratic party it is the democrat party.
jimisback 1 year ago
No they haven't, the mainstream media and the deniers have been the ones lying. Academic fraud is a serious charge and unless that scientist could find oil money or tobacco money or something to keep him working, he will quickly find himself unemployable.
christo930 1 year ago
Or Algore money, or George Soros money.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
What's all the hubbu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bub ?
There's no problem. The climate changes, so what ? More people die due to severe weather, so what ?
Less People = Less pollution.
Less Pollution = Less climate change.
All fixed, now lets move on and talk about something really important like an ineffective Government !
hobo59 1 year ago
You use too much commen sense. Look at NOVEMBER. Let us work it out.
jimisback 1 year ago
oh cool, your cool intro is back <3
zeheero 1 year ago
Let's be fair, Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's more of a publicist and shouldn't really been parrotted too much.
The scientists on the other hand know what they are doing, they've been trained in climate science and it's related topics. So we should really look to them for an expert judgement on climate change.
Overwhelmingly, scientists state that climate change is happening and humans are causing it to happen a lot worse than it would do naturally.
I guess we better do something.
MRaverz 1 year ago
Let's be fair, AL started this shit. So you are going to listen to a publicist? Wait that is what libs do.
jimisback 1 year ago
I'm not listening to any publicist, that's the point. I'm listening to the scientists and the wealth of data they've obtained.
MRaverz 1 year ago
And it turns out they lied. They admit it.
jimisback 1 year ago
No, they didn't.
I'm assume you're referring to 'those emails'. Look into it yourself, the data is legit - it's just ignorant journalism which says otherwise. Misinformation which is all too common nowadays, most editors probably can't even spell physics.
MRaverz 1 year ago
Those are pert of it, And the other glacier BS. Plus so many other things. But keep it up. You can make it work if you just ram it through.
jimisback 1 year ago
You wanna give examples with sources rather than ramble on about nothing?
MRaverz 1 year ago
Terribly bias
frosty689 1 year ago
I'm 68 years old and I worry about my country, Then I see young people like this fighting the fight and I think,, "I can pass the torch to this young man. He can do better than my best efforts." It gives me a good feeling to know the country is in good hands.
ImHappynBP 1 year ago
Look at your next tax return.
jimisback 1 year ago
It's Bush's fault
ricadrew 1 year ago
i hate your face
MrFootDick 1 year ago
Wow a 5 toed dick!
tubaboy71 1 year ago
thats Mr. 5 toed dick to you tubbyfat
MrFootDick 1 year ago
Mrs?
tubaboy71 1 year ago
your mom is Mrs. she likes the 5 toes
MrFootDick 1 year ago
All of science commits the fallacy of asserting the consequence, therefore science is the most subjective form of inquiry. Only fields like epistemology and philosophy can be certain.
52blades 1 year ago
You're misinformed about those UK laws.
+ Mountain Dew isn't banned, it's just not popular because the recipe aimed at the UK was different. (Lower caffeine etc)
+ Margarine isn't banned either, we have buckets of the stuff. It was however banned in some states of America in the past.
+ As for KFC, you can call it what you like! xD
I'm surprised you didn't check your facts better to be honest...
MRaverz 1 year ago 2
Are you really surprised?
Nuhopoclik 1 year ago
I should add that the ingredient brominated vegetable oil which is found in Mountain Dew is banned in the UK (and many other countries) so an alternative ingredient was used.
This is because bromine is dangerous for consumption, and has been proven as such.
Damn nanny-state not letting people put poison in my soda!
MRaverz 1 year ago
I ask this question respectfully, Steve. Does your association with the CEI and its significant funding by oil companies - in the millions - deserve mention? Shouldn't you make clear that the CEI has a bias and as you are paid by them, don't you have an obligation to disclose? I'm a fan and an AGW skeptic, but I find this troubling.
glennd7962 1 year ago
all i know is that it has don't recall it snowing in southern louisiana 3 F$%#ing times in one winter.
Zanpakuto87 1 year ago
Al Gore is a lying ass fuck jest like Obama!!!!
killergames187 1 year ago
Lee, if you were standing right next to me, I would give you a high five.
QshesshoumaruQ 1 year ago
This concern about aspirin being bad for stomach, has always been a concern. Even before anybody thought it might be good for your heart.
Please don't get your ideas about health from the media and political organisations such as the American Heart Association. This is like getting your political ideas from MS-NBC.
cynthiaall 1 year ago
May be the guy was unlawfully arrested?
TruthBeyond 1 year ago
Lee you are wrong on the AGW issue. It is scientifically established, and your nitpicking is just a side issue.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
Besides, the best way to "adjust" to this new problem, as you recommended, is to introduce green tech. Just a good metaphor, down 880, near my home (in Silicon Valley) is a enormous auto manufacturing plant that is closing this month, but just 1/2 mile south a solar cell manufacturer is building a new plant that will create ~1,000 jobs, the future is entrepreneurship of green tech, not relying on old 1960's tech.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
@loveofphysics and here's the point! thank you lop. green tech is just a money maker. cap and trade is a derivatives market. and, saying that "climate change" is a fact does not make it so. And, what happened to global warming? haha... had to change it because of climate gate. nasa... what a joke. It just may be hotter, but it's not because of co2. besides, .7º over 40 years is not that big of a deal. AND it's from the SUN. and warmth is actually better for the planet. Thanks to the SUN.
xdream1 1 year ago
EVERY SINGLE ONE of you comments are debunked here, skepticalscience . com/argument . php
Please peruse that page, and respond after you have really read it.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
No it's not the sun.
Now i'm not saying that global warming is manmade either, I don't know enough about geophysics to rule out volcanic activity, or enough about oceanography to rule out some sort of oceanic activity. But I do know enough astrophysics to rule out solar activity as having anything more than a minor effect.
But when people claim "It's the sun!" it's almost as if they are saying "It is the will of the sun god Ra! His ways are not for mortals to understand!".
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
Solar flairs can change the earths temp by 15 degrees and quickly. That been said underwater volcano's would heat the ocean faster the C02 considering that C02 is oxygen for plant life and also not a conductor of heat.
Springr1911 1 year ago
Like I said, I don't know enough about Volcanoes. You could be right.
However, If solar flares had any effect it would be in the magnetosphere, which would cause localised weather changes. It would not effect climate since it would only last for as long as the solar flare was releasing charged particles into the atmosphere. It. Is. Not. The. Sun.
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
Know this about volcanoes then: A single erruption spews more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than a normal size city does in a year.
Your idea that somehow the Earth was in "equilibrium" between O2 and CO2 before industrialization pushes the suspension of disbelief beyond the capacity of mortal men.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Sorry, it was "physics" who made the equilibrium comment. However my comment still stands. The Earth has adapted to a lot worse than an infinitesimal amount of artificially produced CO2.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
Oh, and Al, the biggest producer of CO2 is the oceans; 96%. moron. the earth has warmed .7 degrees in 40 years mainly because of urban island heat effect. jerk off. Gore is HIGHLY invested in the new derivatives market, cap and trade, and the technology behind it. BILLIONS stand to be made every year. He should be tried, beaten in public, and hung for his treachery.
xdream1 1 year ago
Climate change is a fact, as a matter of FACT it happens 4 times a yr. When I was in grade school they called it "the 4 seasons", not to be mistaken for the hotel.
Springr1911 1 year ago
The seasons are weather, climate change is the FACT that each of those particular seasons are getting warmer, as in 2009 was the second warmest year on record, second only to 2005
google,"what is the hottest year on record", and click the third link, it is the first one from NASA
loveofphysics 1 year ago
If you recall from your 7th grade science teacher the entire earth was covered in ICE. Now all that ICE broke down about a million years ago, and last time I checked GM and Ford were only 80 years old or so. Mobil wasn't around when the first iceberg cracked either, but all those companies are being accused of melting the north pole. The point is this, SUV's didn't cause the ice shelves to break down then when the whole earth was ice, and they're not doing it now.
Springr1911 1 year ago
The ICE age ended due to the Milankovitch factors, and they won't be significant for 50,000 years, google "Milankovitch factors" if you don't know what they are.
Your fallacy is that you think climate scientists claim that humans are the only forcing, however what they say is that humans have BECOME the dominant forcing within the last century.
Since nature can start forest fires on its own, does that mean humans are incapable of start them also?
loveofphysics 1 year ago
easy guy, there are many who disagree with you. you are obsessing
MrCaptainBlack1 1 year ago
The "scientist" that say global warming is a fact believe that humans are the root cause. Don't try to recreate what's been said. It was called GLOBAL WARMING which would insinuate that the earth is getting hotter, that's been disproven. Now you guy's call it climate change, and can only refer to future temperatures that can't possibly be proven w/ out a crystal ball. The sun controls our temp not C02.
Springr1911 1 year ago
It used to be called "the greenhouse effect" WAAAAAAAY before it was ever called Global Warming. Until people thought "Greenhouses, those are nice! It can't be that bad then!" People have very short memories.
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
Remember the so called hole in the OZONE that "NASA" found, and they said hairspray was the cause. No one ever saw the hole we were just supposed to believe it was there because NASA said so. What the hell ever happened to the OZONE; didn't they say that it fixed it's self? Convenient don't you think?
Springr1911 1 year ago
Well yeah, YOU were just asked to believe it, but it was verified by other scientific organisations across the world.
I mean, whats the point of scientists if the public at large has to understand everything they do?
Beelzeboogie 1 year ago
Bc if given the opportunity...authorities can manipulate the public with their supreme understanding of their particular subject. Are we supposed to trust all authorities? Questions everyone and everything they do...even members of the IPCC...it's health for the American citizen to question rather than accept...no?
Buergs323 1 year ago
the hole in the Ozone has receded due to an international treaty signed in the early 90's. Haven't you noticed that all your hairspray is marked,"No CFCs"???
See, we can protect the climate if we respond to what scientists tell us.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
You haven't read any real scientific papers on this matter have you? Don't rely on the strawman fallacy. There are many different climate forcing agents, however, recently, over the last century, human emissions of CO2 have begun to dominate over all natural cycles and forgings, driving the climate warmer and warmer.
About the sun, the solar output has been dropping steadily since the 1970's, and yet it is warming, thus the forcing due to the sun is negligent.
Global warming is real guys.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
I've read plenty of BS papers on the idea "theory" that C02 "plant food" is causing the planet to warm up. C02 isn't a conductor of heat. The writings use C02 as the bad guy because they can contribute it to anything from what we exhale to Ford F150's. I have a science project for you. Fill a glass container w/ C02 and another w/ oxygen. Put a block of ice in it while beaming a UV lamp on both. Which one melts faster?
Springr1911 1 year ago
"Artificially" produced CO2 is infinitesimal compared to the naturally produced stuff. You idea that somehow Earth was in "equilibrium" before industrialization pushes the boundary of believability.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
What do you mean nature cant start a forrest fire. Lightning causes hundreds of fires each year.
adamhawk71 1 year ago
I said,"Since nature can start forest fires on its own, does that mean humans are incapable of start them also? "
I was referring to the red herring brought up that claims that since nature changed the climate before, only nature can change the climate now. That is a fallacy, and if you are going to quote me, please quote me correctly.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
You're the one man army of sense in here lol. Some of these comments are painful.
One of my favorites so far is the guy that said the amount of CO2 was irrelevant because it was the "oxygen of plants, and doesn't conduct heat." ?!????
ScottishAtheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
loveofphysics 1 year ago
"Since nature can start forest fires on its own, does that mean humans are incapable of start them also?"
Apples and Oranges.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@jtkirkfan2002 the forest fire comment is in response to the oft invoked fallacy that simply because natural causes changed climate in the distant past (Milankovitch factors, continental drift, etc...) therefore humans can't change the climate. This is of course a false analogy, nature can change the climate, and so can humans, and it just so happens that the change we are currently experiencing is due to human emissions of CO2.
loveofphysics 1 year ago
"change we are currently experiencing is due to human emissions of CO2."
There is no purely scientific way to prove that. The "concensus" and "settled science" comes from nothing more than observational conjecture.
The "settled science" of a flat Earth once came from the same thing.
And it's getting cooler, not warmer.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
This video is painful. If you had a panoramic view on the science of climate change you would recognize why the fudging of a few reports does not undermine the entire theory. This isn't a theory for laymen, your really have to bloody your knuckles a bit and immerse yourself in the data. I would suggest that you do because its an issue that transcends left and right.
FistfullaBerries 1 year ago
@FistfullaBerries first of all the theory is flawed. second of all, do your research into the new derivatives market; cap and trade. The fudging of any reports discredits the whole thing, berry. I can't stand these uneducated sheep. baaaa...
xdream1 1 year ago
@AbsurdKrapp he U.N., and other amateur scientist, and normal citizens as yourself, dont take into consideration the real science, like the geoid of the earth, and other implicit characteristics of our world. Whats the geoid? The geoid is the equipotential surface of the earth's gravitational field that approximates the mean sea surface. It is the core concept in the measurement of sea levels.
xdream1 1 year ago
@AbsurdKrapp TBut you also have to take into consideration the glacio-hydro-isostatic modeling. The eustatic and tectonic effects on shoreline dynamics. The holocene sedimentary sequences, intertidal foraminifera distributions, carbon analysis of coastal paleoenvironments, and aminostratigraphy. So, be a good person and go do the research.
xdream1 1 year ago
OMG, fucking Pelosi, I'm speechless.
chewbaca1989 1 year ago
Speaking of lazy arguments... You just lambasted everyone who doesn't believe in climate change yet offered no facts as to why anyone should believe in it.
PS: I thought it was global warming
Celticsbball15 1 year ago
@Celticsbball15 serious dude! I hate uninformed morons.
xdream1 1 year ago
WOW GREAT VID! LOVE IT!
Oceanno69 1 year ago
Nice work! Common Sense is making a comeback.
CHardi1099 1 year ago
pelosi called tea parties, astroturfers...she even cried about the violence they were inciting like the libs did in san franciso in the 60's and 70's. botox has eaten her brain, if she ever had one.
ladyshondra 1 year ago
what did you do to your teeth?
JerryD0101 1 year ago
he ate poo for a month
MrFootDick 1 year ago
What happened to your background image? If you lost rights to it, you should use a big close up of Pelosi's near grimace when she smiled at the cameras.....that time. You know. When the cameras were on her.
ClaudeParish 1 year ago
Is Pelosi a hoot, or what?
And,
after all the liberal outrage against the Bush Administration re the Patriot Act,
it's interesting that there was not a whimper coming from them when The Bama renewed it for an additional year.
"Fair & Balanced"?
bobbytiger 1 year ago 2
Whom, you sound like Minarchist to me.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
@Paboozala, Nah, the Chile and Haiti earthquakes were caused by HAARP.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
And while their at it they should all get together and demand that laws that have nothing to do with protecting the wildlife and everything to do with preventing that bull**** know as global warming be gotten rid of!
IamRayson 1 year ago
The people who have suffered the most from this (Like all the people who have friends and a family who have died in a auto accidents because of the flimsy covering on the car that are required by law or all the coal miners and people who work at a coal power plant who have lost their jobs because their jobs are tax to death.) should all go out and sue Al Gore and all the dweebs like him.
IamRayson 1 year ago
Sorry dude, you're wrong. He voted for the FISA bill and mentions how he generally sides with conservatives on Wiretapping bills with his interview with Bill O' Riley. Check it.
mayorofgooftown 1 year ago
Obama was awarded an Olympic Gold medal to day for down hill skiing according to the president of the OIC. He said he never saw anyone go down hill so fast.
micsc50 1 year ago 2
Al Gore can't tap dance fast enough to get people to buy his snake oil.
He's a silly man.
cloudberry121 1 year ago