Michele Bachmann, via the stopped clock principle, is right that we don't need to take action against climate change...BECAUSE IT'S TOO GODDAMN LATE. Maybe if fucktards like her handn't been fucking around for the last half century we could have done something, but climate change is like a car rolling down a hill. It's easy to stop early on, but if you just ignore it, it will gain enough momentum to mow you down no matter what. Prepare for your fucking, folks.
@Snakepliskinist okay....watch the movie: The Man Made Gobal Warming Hoax. They said that Davinci was a heretic for being outside the box on many "current issues of his time" and was ostracized for it. The young turks are idiots as well for not doing further research. Minimizing what the economic outcome is for people that buy into the global warming hoax is a huge mistake! The mind is like a parachute....it works best when it is opened!
Lol these 2 are jokes. How can you publicly try to ridiculize someones arguments when you in fact have 0 argument to bring....lol Again I don't know who watch this show but I hope you guys take it as a very low level entertainment like bathroom entertainment or lunch entertainment lol..peace.
@firedogvegas sorry then, sometimes I come on late after long day and have a tad to much wine please accept my apology. The reason I despise the global warming clowns is its hard enough to raise a family without these morons campaigning to tax us more simply for breathing. Some of these fools actually think CO2 is dangerous they will be campaigning to ban H20 next
@firedogvegas Because everyone who has doen research into the global warming cult will know about the data being forged and manipulated there was even climate gate where emails from the so called scientists were leaked. Look CO2 is what we breath out and why when you talk to plants it helps them grow yes plants use CO2.
You know the crazy wacky people who run around saying the world will end you have become one of them
@saintanger99. You're even dumber than I thought.. Human beings don't exhale carbon monoxide. You fucking imbecile! I'm living in the movie idocracy!!!
@firedogvegas No you are the idiot CO2 is what we breath out we are a carbon based life form God made moist men out of clay but he seems to have run out and made you out of dung
@saintanger99. Are you serious?!? That's what this is all about! We are supposed to believe that cyclical global climate change is OUR fault. That carbon dioxide, the byproduct of respiration, what plants use to grow and make oxygen, is somehow bad for the earth. They want to tax us on our "carbon footprint", which is another way of saying they are going to tax us for BREATHING! And by paying these taxes, it will help prevent global warming! Wake the fuck up!
@firedogvegas I say to those that believe that human breathing is destroying the earth they should kill themselves the world loses a moron and they think they are dieing for there delusional cult its win win
@Otomiify. Okay! You've changed my mind. The earth is getting warmer, and it's all our fault.... Now please explain to me how paying more money in taxes is going to help.
The argument of TYTs is perfectly valid and rational: Both CO2 and arsenic are natural, neither is harmless. I am so sick of my native USA and I am so sick of people denying global warming and proposing asinine solutions to the energy crisis like "clean" coal and drilling for more oil in this country when the less than 4 km^3 of oil in that exists could not support us for 3 days at our consumption rate of slightly over 2 km^3/day.
well said @zfhknt12 top man ! let all the little eco warriors sit in their poverty stricken huts when Al Gore & co steal all their money. well worth it. assholes
Ah the Dumb Turks railing psuedo morality through the BS god of "green" - tax me tax me tax me they said, sliding their hands into the saws of government. Non stop demonizations here for angry 20 somethings who haven't made their money yet (well and quitters who gave up after they failed).
The dumb turks more like political science is no longer science as Hitler proved this tax the air we breath tax is a joke a message to the dumb turks why not kill yourself you lower co2 and we lose 2 retards stoping you having more retard children
I kind of agree. The proper comparison would have been nitrogen, for example. Nitrogen is a necessary component for all living cells. Nitrogen comprises nearly 80% of the earth's atmosphere. However, inhaling pure nitrogen would kill us all. This would have been an ideal corollary to the threat of increasing levels of CO2. I found it funny that Bachmann said there were no studies on danger of CO2 levels. It took me literally ten secs. to find such peer-reviewed articles online.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Advocacy campaign takes aim at on-air climate skeptics
.
A new campaign aimed at exposing television weathercasters who present discredited climate science information to viewers has sparked a growing storm within the meteorological community.
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed
Fuck. I clicked here because i wanted to watch michelle be a dumb ass and i got the young fking turks AGAIN. I hate you guys, how about you put your ugly face as the picture so i quit accidently clicking you your stupid videos. Nobody cares about what you have to say, your a fat hawaiian pussy who needs to quit making videos so pls quit making videos
How do the AGW brigade explain global warming on all the other planets in our solar system? Did we have something to do with that as well? I still cant understand how people believe all this AGW shit, when it is blatant scare-mongering to extract a global tax, for basically living, and is based entirely on computer modelling, which will prove anything you want it to prove if you program it right. Complete load of bollocks.
@bazerk8888 I believe it because did some goddamn research. It took effort and time. There are a number of reputable scientists that have refuted the 'other planet' argument. Why would you compare Earth to planets with different atmospheres, surfaces, distance from the sun etc. when you are talking about climate change ON EARTH.You really think 1000s of scientist are involved in a global conspiracy? How paranoid and delusional can you be!?
@zfhknt12 That's thousands of scientists who have a vested interest in promoting AGW you fkkn moron. Their jobs depend on it. They work for the IPCC, who have extracted over 1,000,000,000 dollars in the last 20 years from world governments. What have you done to save the planet dipshit?
@zfhknt12 If you've done the research smart ass, when was the Earths climate ever stable/stagnant in the last 6 billion years? I'll tell you - NEVER. Climate change is a NATURAL EVENT> you cant change the climate by catching a bus to work you self-important pratt.
first of all, all the other planets don't have the same atmosphere as earth, or they don't have an atmosphere at all. second, there is no global tax and never will be.
How ridiculous to compare CO2 to arsenic. We breath out CO2 and plants breath it in. Who survives on arsenic you morons? "It's really complicated" she says. So complicated only dumbfuck TV presenters can understand it?
AGW really is a new religion. You dont actually have to prove it, you just have to "believe" it, and denounce all heretics who dare to want to bring science into the debate.
And Bachmann is still wrong about the Earth's atmosphere being 3 percent CO2. The atmosphere is THREE HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT CO2! (0.03 PERCENT!) If you want people to agree that climate change is a hoax, get advocates who actually know the difference between CO2 and R2D2!
this vid makes me mad.brainwashed people who think they are free thinkers and know it all are more dangerous than the brainwashed stupid people.fucking idiots
These people think they are so clever, mocking someone because they are so arrogant to admit the possibility that the skeptics are right. 3% of CO2 is man made, which only makes up 3% of the atmosphere anyway, even GW alarmists admit this. And Natures CO2 annual variation is 4 times human output. Secondly CO2 IS harmless, just 'apparently' not when there is too much of it, just like any other gas and unlike arsenic CO2 is odourless, tasteless and colourless, as well as being beneficial to plants
@hearv888 It's not a scam. Because even the skeptics have to agree that the Earth's climate has changed many times over its history. And that climate change does include global warming every so often. Nevertheless, the fact does remain that Bachmann has her facts wrong. Like the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere which is closer to 0.003 percent of the atmosphere in reality. But most importantly, this climate change controversy is PROOF that everyone should know BASIC SCIENCE!!!
@timelike01 No, Global warming was false, then they changed it to climate change. Its not basic science, its not science at all... The co2 goes up AFTER the temperature goes up, not the other way around.. The sun is responsible for the small increase in temperature due to higher solar activity.. But manmade global warming is a scam dude... dont be ignorant.
@hearv888 But even if the skeptics are CORRECT, the Earth's climate still changes over time. And even if there never were any humans on the Earth, some sort of climate change would be happening anyway. You have to agree with that!
@timelike01 Do you really think that paying money to al gore will change anything?? dont be ignorant.. Climate change aka seasons, commonly known as spring, summer, fall and winter.. Climate change is 100% based on politics and 0% real science , they want a carbon tax so they can get more money from natural gas/fossil fules.. And YES EVERYTHING changes over time.
@saintanger99 wikipedia is a zionmist controlled site for morons too stupid to do real research. If you think your breathing will kill the world and the sky is falling in kill yourself stop your breathing. If your not dead we all will know you either don`t think breathing is killing the world or your a coward afraid to follow up your own convictions
wow. everything you just said is ignorant. co2 is lighter than air, it goes up no matter what. co2 acts like an insulating layer in the atmosphere & traps heat inside from the sun. use wikipedia some time.
So, since CO2 creates GLOBAL WARMING, let's change all CO2 fire extinguishers WORLD WIDE because even though they COOL FIRES, they make the earth warmer????? Makes TOTAL FREAKIN SENSE TO ME!!! LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!
Well, agriculture does depend upon CO2. Without CO2 in the atmosphere our Earth would be like Mars. Mars has zero greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Mars has zero life.
to all non-scientists, hell even to anyone who has never studied science or the process involved, peer review, balance of statistics etc...u are fucking morons and should never have kids. 97% of us are telling you that it is happening and man made.....what the hell is wrong with you? U think politicians are the ones leading this? Clearly u never sat the the EU parliament committee room and heard them say before it was widely known, that 'we will be sacrificing out political careers"but its 2 NB
@CountJimbo Well retard, your lack of logic is hilarious. You've just pulled a "argument from numbers" sophism. Emotional appeal also. Go suck Daffy Duck's dick.
More evidence/impacts of climate change series...(please read my article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Wind farm opponents 'aided and abetted' by climate sceptic groups
.
The anti-wind farm movement that is gaining influence in the NSW Parliament is being ''aided and abetted'' by climate sceptic groups and some mining figures.
Of course, ridicule the truth. Wake the fuck up people. Everything in the world goes in cycles. ice ages, warmth, cold. everything. Just google Climategate you dumb bastard.
@ademi7 LOL! climategate? you mean the overhyped drama that in reality was a gross misunderstanding by scientifically illiterate ppl like yourself? that was an epic fail on the part of you denialists.
the earth has cycles, those cycles have been documented & substantiated by evidence. its this very data that clearly demonstrates that human activity is to blame for the recent departure from these cycles.
lulz "wake up"? maybe you should follow that advice & think for yourself for once
@Researchrules you know, i meant the naturally occurring cycles of climate change (ice ages, warmth, cold as the original commenter put it). that's pretty obvious too, so maybe try reading before reacting next time.
This is so smug, and I love TYT! Lets sit down and mock people who don't believe in what I believe in, I haven't read any studies, I'm sure their there cause my trendy friends quote internet assembled nuggets of them and they know scientists. Scientists can disagree with each other and are on this very topic. AGW theory is greatly flawed as is the contrary argument. Be objective and save your judgement until there is something resembling a middleground.
@dylanbeckett i think you need to take an objective look at the data, cuz it clearly shows climate change as a result of human activity. this is the scientific consensus. the only "controversy" is from those outside of the scientific community, mostly right wing politicians protecting their business interests, nothing more. it's no different than the folks who would have you believe there is controversy over evolution's validity.
@kapwns People always seem to put evolution and climate in the same category as a way of demeaning the argument. What are your views on the thousands of recently leaked emails from working climatologists that the current data doesn't fit their climate model at all and that the data must be manipulated for political reasons. I live a reasonably green life and I do actively care for the environment but i can't abide the concepts of a climate court and carbon taxes based on agenda-led science.
@dylanbeckett just noticed you have a strong opinion on this, thats fine. I'm naturally skeptical of everything that claims that the debate is over. Scientific debates should never be over, otherwise its just superstition.
@dylanbeckett so would you consider something like the 2nd law of thermodynamics mere superstition? i never said debates should be over, however in this instance much like creationism vs evolution, the debate is entirely manufactured. ppl like "lord" monckton aren't debating for answers or solutions or even better data, instead they intentionally use misleading data & lie to confuse laymen & politicians. they abuse debate for controversy & business interests.
@dylanbeckett i am not comparing them to demean. the comparison is perfectly valid, creationists want to spread the idea that there is some huge controversy in the scientific community over it, just like climate change denialists.
my response would be, can you cite where this is, in the emails. b/c the "mike's trick" bit is a misunderstanding on the part of the scientifically illiterate(not necessarily anyone's fault but the journalists) & there isn't anything else that supports..
@kapwns ..supports those claims. if you know of something else, i will take the time to look into it. "climategate" is a perfect example of what i'm getting at when it comes to manufactured controversy.
lol we actually agree here, i too am concerned about how politicians are going to handle climate change policies, but that's a different issue & it's a political issue, not one led by science. the focus should be on keeping those policies fair, rather than denial of climate change
@kapwns Well moron, denial is an emotional irrational response like your thread. Audit is a skeptic opinion expressed by an independent and qualified expert. Your scientific papers are unaudited. Peer review may stand the "qualified" criteria but it certainly fails to pass the "independent" one. Peer reviewers are drawn from the ranks of researchers WITH PUBLISHED PAPERS. You may intentionally or unintentionally quote your reviewer or the reviewer might be biased towards your bibliography.
@Researchrules like my thread? um i can cite everything i asserted, & i even allowed for the fact there might something i didn't know about. hardly denial, when i'm literally asking for evidence, yet i'm the moron lulz.
why should i care about an "independent" review, why should i care about the opinions of those who would peer review who haven't themselves published papers?
with no published papers how exactly is the auditor determined to be an expert?
@kapwns Well, moron your thread is an emotional response.
Independence means objectivity. Dependence means bias.
Your reply sound like "I'm a farmer. Why should my products be biologically tested for pesticides by a chemist who hasn't planted an onion in his entire life". Science may have different branches with different applications but all science shares the same methodology. I don't need sixty papers in quantum physics to evaluate your METHODOLOGY.
@Researchrules um? i fail to see the emotion when my point was that climategate was bullshit in the way of demonstrating a hoax, however, it is a clear demonstration of my point that there is manufactured controversy.
no that analogy doesn't apply & all of it's non sequitur to my original points any way. demonstrate it's actually having any significant effect if you're calling for hundreds of papers/data points to be biased that strongly.
@kapwns Any regression produces 2 conclusions. IPCC papers produce only one conclusion. How's that unbiased research? You know that yeasts produce CO2. You know that yeasts function better in warmer environments. A lot of microorganisms increase their metabolisms in warmer climates, such as fermentation and decay bacteria etcetera. Yet no IPCC research paper says that if y = a*x + e than it follows that x = (y-e)/a or x = y'-e'.
@kapwns If Y = a*X in a regression it does not follow that Y is the effect and X is the cause. It simply means there is a correlation between Y and X by a factor of a for Y and 1/a for X.
@Researchrules your point? your entire argument for the need for independent review in addition to peer review, is nothing more than special pleading.
@kapwns Special pleading? Nearly all walks of life have embraced audit. Governmental agencies, NYSE ET AL. have embraced audit as the only viable insurance for investors.Auditors don't need to be engineers to audit ASUS, or programmers to audit Google. Audit examines the procedures used to obtain a set of data as well as the output itself. The public who finance Universities need a reasonable insurance that the output is free of material errors.
@Researchrules yes special pleading and it still remains. how are you substantiating the conclusion that the scientific consensus is so biased by this that they are wrong, b/c that is your argument. make all the arguments for independent auditing you'd like, until you can demonstrate that the alleged bias is having such a significant effect, it's a nonsequitur, just as i said before.
@kapwns You again ignore the basic fact that a a regressions studies correlation not cause-effect. When a scientific paper ignores half of all possible conclusions that is bias. All IPCC papers are biased that CO2 is an independent variable and temperature is a dependent variable in any system. Provide me with a scientific paper that explores both possibilities.There is none. This is unscientific publishing.
@kapwns How many pounds get dedicated to useless research? A few thousand at most, and the research is done mostly by Professor Emeritus or undergrad students. How many pounds are dedicated to useful research. Billions of dollars, and the research draws a bigger Academic crowd. Any research paper which provides uncontrollable independent variables is useless for any implementation.
@Researchrules so you're bringing that up to me for what purpose? if it's the big problem you claim it to be and you're so against waste, why not actually demonstrate it where it matters, rather than waste time using your unsubstantiated opinion to draw equally unsubstantiated conclusions.
@kapwns Covering farmland with solar panels is waste, building wind farms is waste considering the costs of mining for the necessary components to build the wind farm. Rechargable batteries have a limited number of cycles.
@Researchrules so your argument is your inability to personally think of better solutions? clearly because you can't imagine anyone engineering anything better, no one can.
@kapwns Temperature drives CO2 is useful only for farmers and/or wine production and gets little funding. CO2 drives temperature is useful for a much bigger crowd and gets more funding. Which conclusion will you publish in your thesis?
@Researchrules i would publish the one that reflects the data, again you make the assertion that thousands of data points and hundreds of papers are all somehow part of a giant conspiracy.
@kapwns Those papers are unaudited. If your broker shoved the Pepsi Co. annual report up your throat without the auditor's report you would cry abuse. That is the same issue with research papers. The reviewer never checks the reviewed personally. Peer Review never checks the instruments, the control environment or the handling of data.
@Researchrules again your argument assumes that these alleged flaws and biases somehow accumulate to have a significant effect through thousands of data points and hundreds of papers, either unnoticed or with everyone conspiring to keep quiet about it. can you demonstrate this to be the case?
do you make similar demands for any other areas of science? i doubt it.
@kapwns I haven't read a single IPCC report which shows evidence of an efficient control environment. Errors and omissions aren't the product of conspiracy, they are the product of a weak control environment. All SEC audits focus on two areas of interest. The results and the control environment. The assessment of the control environment must be done independently, or else you are subject to the Pygmalion effect.
@kapwns I call it the Pygmalion effect. It occurs with programmers, managers and researchers. You simply love your work and keep silent about its flaws. That is why we have separate beta testing units inside software firms. Programmers could easily fill the gap and probably be more effective at spotting errors. But their reviews will be biased because it is bloody annoying to iron out your mistakes.
@Researchrules but again you are putting the horse before the cart, you have yet to demonstrate this alleged effect is taking place and at such a level that it is significantly effecting consensus.
@kapwns It is simple. Any research paper in the world should contain for further inquiry a "Limits" section, after the conclusions.Just sample a decent amount of papers from any field and compare the ratios relating to the occurrence of the said section. It is not a necessary part of any research paper but one that enhances the credibility of the said paper.
@kapwns Research findings in medicine get assessed by thousands of patients, doctors and pharmacists. Physics and chemistry get indirectly confirmed by their applications in engineering and industry. The interests involved in engineering and industry are the ones which are entitled to demand audited reports from Academia as I am entitled to audited reports from the managers of those institutions. However, the IPCC is a public entity receiving public funds from taxpayers.
@kapwns Is that data set audited? Are the conclusions consistent with the data? Does the regression analysis provide both possible answers to the problem? Is the conclusion free of philosophical, religious and moral points. Is the confidence level and measurement error mentioned?
@kapwns Peer review is abnormal in this age. Are peer reviewers accountable in any way? Blind review implies no contact between the reviewer and reviewed. No visits are conducted from the Board to the research laboratory. That makes the review process useless in preventing and spotting errors.
@Researchrules again, in order to support your conclusion we have to believe that the greater majority of papers published on the subject are all victim to this bias, as are the reviewers, to the point where they come to the wrong consensus as a whole. again that's hundreds of papers/data points that all have to succumb to this bias despite nonsupporting data. that is special pleading.
@kapwns How many ISI articles have you written in your life? None, I assume. Well, I've been to 2 international conferences and published 2 ISI articles. Papers which provided more "practical" content ware graded better than those which didn't. Many prizes at conferences are sponsored by companies and their prizes are generally bigger than those of the Scholarship Committee.
@kapwns All guilds try to gain financial support for its members. Lawyers lobby for the expansion of the legal system so they gain more cases to plead. Accountants push for an ever more sophisticated regulatory framework that expands their scope in an enterprise. Psychiatrists diagnose an ever increasing amount of human behavior as pathological to increase their spending. This lobby is substantiated by research, which is biased towards their ends. Is this science?
@Researchrules lol yeah and those who oppose climate change push to claim it's all a hoax or the data is flawed, they are just as biased to their lobbies and for the most part, are not substantiated by any evidence, flawed or not. your point here, is self defeating.
@kapwns You seem to live in a world where people fall in love with their primary economic sector and are loyal to it. Keep dreaming, those "big oil and gas" obviously understand that fossil fuels would not last forever and move to the electric sector. To quote Elliat Goldrat, a business produces money.
@kapwns just noticed you have a strong opinion on this, thats fine. I'm naturally skeptical of everything that claims that the debate is over. Scientific debates should never be over, otherwise its just superstition.
She is the most ridiculous display of stupidity i have seen in a while,how is it possible that this idiot can run for president?She knows nothing about the world,what a joke.
@spktruthinlove No, because trees absorb carbon dioxide (while releasing oxygen). However at the rate Bachmann and her right-wing buddies want to wipe out our forests, there will be a serious excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
@spktruthinlove No. But when there are better means to replace things that create a lot of co2, there is no plausible reason NOT to use them. Too much of anything can kill a living organism. Some people just can't comprehend this. Bachmann, along with most other conservatives are not stupid--they do well at what they do. Deception through ignorance. Americans ( and I am one ) for the most part, are naive.
Did you hear about Bill Gates saying that vaccines, healthcare, and birth control are tools to lower the world population? did you read about the 23 Honduran farmers killed in the name of global warming? Google this: "Honduran Farmers Slaughtered In Name Of Global Warming." There is a large # of scientists who refute man made global warming. The scientists who support mm glob warming have been caught lying & covering up evidence. This is a eugenicist scam. Wake up ppl; THEY DONT CARE ABOUT US!!
@spktruthinlove this is what happens when the only "research" you do is listen to alex jones and friends. even if a number of scientists did refute climate change, which is not the case, it wouldn't matter any way, the data clearly shows climate change as a result of human activity. the evidence speaks for itself.
name one study where the authors were caught lying & covering up evidence. don't bother crying climategate, there wasnt any there.
Researchers from the University of Bremen have announced that 2011’s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum is the smallest in recorded history, coming in under the previous lowest Minimum in September of 2007, reaching its minimum on September 8 at 4.24 million square kilometers.
triple w dailygalaxy com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef015391918d07970b-pi
Check the facts, the sea levels have dropped, the glaciers have been growing. check it out the reports is from NASA. Global warming is occurng however it is not man made. Does anyone study temperature changes in geology since the earths history.
@BoysForPele1989 Researchers from the University of Bremen have announced that 2011’s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum is the smallest in recorded history, coming in under the previous lowest Minimum in September of 2007, reaching its minimum on September 8 at 4.24 million square kilometers.
triple w dailygalaxy com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef015391918d07970b-pi
Water could kill you if you drank to much. But natual C02 is only .03 percent and is what you breath out and plants breath in. It's call nature and the greenhouse is good as it protects us from sun's radiation.
Problem with you gullible greenies is your little results oriented controlled experiments are in a vacum and totally incomplete and inaccurate. The environmental marxist solution is always to ban things and raise taxes.
@GreenChurchReject Wrong, and wrong. CO2 doesn't protect us from solar radiation at all, ozone does. In fact, it's the opposite: carbon dioxide (and water vapor) are strong, selective absorbers of infrared radiation. Biologists just published a paper in "Science" showing that species are moving to higher elevations at 36 feet per decade and higher latitudes at 10.5 miles per decade: two or three times faster than just in 2003. Not an "experiment in a vacuum," applied ecology on the ground.
Michele Bachmann, via the stopped clock principle, is right that we don't need to take action against climate change...BECAUSE IT'S TOO GODDAMN LATE. Maybe if fucktards like her handn't been fucking around for the last half century we could have done something, but climate change is like a car rolling down a hill. It's easy to stop early on, but if you just ignore it, it will gain enough momentum to mow you down no matter what. Prepare for your fucking, folks.
Snakepliskinist 1 day ago
@Snakepliskinist okay....watch the movie: The Man Made Gobal Warming Hoax. They said that Davinci was a heretic for being outside the box on many "current issues of his time" and was ostracized for it. The young turks are idiots as well for not doing further research. Minimizing what the economic outcome is for people that buy into the global warming hoax is a huge mistake! The mind is like a parachute....it works best when it is opened!
francovu 7 hours ago
Bachman doesn't know any science at all. Her stupidity is not even entertaining anymore.
sige333 4 days ago
@TheMightyGardener Clearly you've read all of the previous posts and understand what we're talking about. Ignorant jerk off
firedogvegas 6 days ago
Lol these 2 are jokes. How can you publicly try to ridiculize someones arguments when you in fact have 0 argument to bring....lol Again I don't know who watch this show but I hope you guys take it as a very low level entertainment like bathroom entertainment or lunch entertainment lol..peace.
TheMightyGardener 6 days ago
@MultiShampain No worries brother.. I could not agree more.
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@MultiShampain. Actually, I haven't... Again, reread my posts. You and I are saying the same thing.
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@firedogvegas sorry then, sometimes I come on late after long day and have a tad to much wine please accept my apology. The reason I despise the global warming clowns is its hard enough to raise a family without these morons campaigning to tax us more simply for breathing. Some of these fools actually think CO2 is dangerous they will be campaigning to ban H20 next
MultiShampain 1 week ago
@MultiShampain Why am I an idiot? I think you need to reread my posts..
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@firedogvegas Because everyone who has doen research into the global warming cult will know about the data being forged and manipulated there was even climate gate where emails from the so called scientists were leaked. Look CO2 is what we breath out and why when you talk to plants it helps them grow yes plants use CO2.
You know the crazy wacky people who run around saying the world will end you have become one of them
MultiShampain 1 week ago
We are hopelessly and utterly fucked!
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@saintanger99. You're even dumber than I thought.. Human beings don't exhale carbon monoxide. You fucking imbecile! I'm living in the movie idocracy!!!
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@firedogvegas No you are the idiot CO2 is what we breath out we are a carbon based life form God made moist men out of clay but he seems to have run out and made you out of dung
MultiShampain 1 week ago
@saintanger99. Are you serious?!? That's what this is all about! We are supposed to believe that cyclical global climate change is OUR fault. That carbon dioxide, the byproduct of respiration, what plants use to grow and make oxygen, is somehow bad for the earth. They want to tax us on our "carbon footprint", which is another way of saying they are going to tax us for BREATHING! And by paying these taxes, it will help prevent global warming! Wake the fuck up!
firedogvegas 1 week ago
@firedogvegas I say to those that believe that human breathing is destroying the earth they should kill themselves the world loses a moron and they think they are dieing for there delusional cult its win win
MultiShampain 1 week ago
@Otomiify. Okay! You've changed my mind. The earth is getting warmer, and it's all our fault.... Now please explain to me how paying more money in taxes is going to help.
firedogvegas 1 week ago
who mentioned taxes?
saintanger99 1 week ago
The argument of TYTs is perfectly valid and rational: Both CO2 and arsenic are natural, neither is harmless. I am so sick of my native USA and I am so sick of people denying global warming and proposing asinine solutions to the energy crisis like "clean" coal and drilling for more oil in this country when the less than 4 km^3 of oil in that exists could not support us for 3 days at our consumption rate of slightly over 2 km^3/day.
Otomiify 1 week ago
these pair of twats are an insult to human intelligence
dmngrek12 1 week ago
well said @zfhknt12 top man ! let all the little eco warriors sit in their poverty stricken huts when Al Gore & co steal all their money. well worth it. assholes
stvb2142 1 week ago
Ah the Dumb Turks railing psuedo morality through the BS god of "green" - tax me tax me tax me they said, sliding their hands into the saws of government. Non stop demonizations here for angry 20 somethings who haven't made their money yet (well and quitters who gave up after they failed).
ReturnofBeelio 1 week ago
The dumb turks more like political science is no longer science as Hitler proved this tax the air we breath tax is a joke a message to the dumb turks why not kill yourself you lower co2 and we lose 2 retards stoping you having more retard children
MultiShampain 4 weeks ago
did you make it past 5th grade?
saintanger99 1 week ago
Bachman is wrong - 385 parts per million is NOT 3 percent of the atmosphere, its actually a lot less.
CokeSupply 4 weeks ago
Bachman is a moron yes, but carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment and TYT are morons for comparing it to arsenic
CokeSupply 4 weeks ago
@CokeSupply
I kind of agree. The proper comparison would have been nitrogen, for example. Nitrogen is a necessary component for all living cells. Nitrogen comprises nearly 80% of the earth's atmosphere. However, inhaling pure nitrogen would kill us all. This would have been an ideal corollary to the threat of increasing levels of CO2. I found it funny that Bachmann said there were no studies on danger of CO2 levels. It took me literally ten secs. to find such peer-reviewed articles online.
ChomskyandCheetos 2 weeks ago
...........and you think arsenic isn't natural? you obviously didn't understand the comparison.
saintanger99 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Advocacy campaign takes aim at on-air climate skeptics
.
A new campaign aimed at exposing television weathercasters who present discredited climate science information to viewers has sparked a growing storm within the meteorological community.
.
Climate Central
27 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 month ago
That woman is wrong, more like 3% of 0.035%
EYAccount 1 month ago
Comment removed
EYAccount 1 month ago
Comment removed
EYAccount 1 month ago
Yeah God makes the temps
ianhowe007 1 month ago
50Cenk is owned by Al Gore. Nuff said. Global warming is insane.
408Magenta 1 month ago
i bet you can't even pronounce cenk's name.
saintanger99 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very robust prediction (95% probability) that we are all being totally screwed
1000frolly 1 month ago
Fuck. I clicked here because i wanted to watch michelle be a dumb ass and i got the young fking turks AGAIN. I hate you guys, how about you put your ugly face as the picture so i quit accidently clicking you your stupid videos. Nobody cares about what you have to say, your a fat hawaiian pussy who needs to quit making videos so pls quit making videos
tristynleos 1 month ago
Young Jerks at is again hating on conservative women.
GreenChurchReject 1 month ago
@GreenChurchReject
You mean Young Turks calling out a vegetable
Gopsaholic 1 month ago
no, just hating on stupid people.
saintanger99 1 week ago
How do the AGW brigade explain global warming on all the other planets in our solar system? Did we have something to do with that as well? I still cant understand how people believe all this AGW shit, when it is blatant scare-mongering to extract a global tax, for basically living, and is based entirely on computer modelling, which will prove anything you want it to prove if you program it right. Complete load of bollocks.
bazerk8888 1 month ago 2
@bazerk8888 I believe it because did some goddamn research. It took effort and time. There are a number of reputable scientists that have refuted the 'other planet' argument. Why would you compare Earth to planets with different atmospheres, surfaces, distance from the sun etc. when you are talking about climate change ON EARTH.You really think 1000s of scientist are involved in a global conspiracy? How paranoid and delusional can you be!?
zfhknt12 1 month ago 2
@zfhknt12 That's thousands of scientists who have a vested interest in promoting AGW you fkkn moron. Their jobs depend on it. They work for the IPCC, who have extracted over 1,000,000,000 dollars in the last 20 years from world governments. What have you done to save the planet dipshit?
bazerk8888 4 weeks ago
@zfhknt12 If you've done the research smart ass, when was the Earths climate ever stable/stagnant in the last 6 billion years? I'll tell you - NEVER. Climate change is a NATURAL EVENT> you cant change the climate by catching a bus to work you self-important pratt.
bazerk8888 4 weeks ago
first of all, all the other planets don't have the same atmosphere as earth, or they don't have an atmosphere at all. second, there is no global tax and never will be.
saintanger99 1 week ago
How ridiculous to compare CO2 to arsenic. We breath out CO2 and plants breath it in. Who survives on arsenic you morons? "It's really complicated" she says. So complicated only dumbfuck TV presenters can understand it?
AGW really is a new religion. You dont actually have to prove it, you just have to "believe" it, and denounce all heretics who dare to want to bring science into the debate.
bazerk8888 1 month ago
@bazerk8888 actually there are extremophiles that subsist on different minerals of arsenic.
deraerks 1 month ago
And Bachmann is still wrong about the Earth's atmosphere being 3 percent CO2. The atmosphere is THREE HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT CO2! (0.03 PERCENT!) If you want people to agree that climate change is a hoax, get advocates who actually know the difference between CO2 and R2D2!
timelike01 1 month ago
Climate change deniers are dumb rednecks.
justindr660 1 month ago
this vid makes me mad.brainwashed people who think they are free thinkers and know it all are more dangerous than the brainwashed stupid people.fucking idiots
daveeol1987 1 month ago
These people think they are so clever, mocking someone because they are so arrogant to admit the possibility that the skeptics are right. 3% of CO2 is man made, which only makes up 3% of the atmosphere anyway, even GW alarmists admit this. And Natures CO2 annual variation is 4 times human output. Secondly CO2 IS harmless, just 'apparently' not when there is too much of it, just like any other gas and unlike arsenic CO2 is odourless, tasteless and colourless, as well as being beneficial to plants
LMacleodovich 1 month ago
you are talking about carbon MONOXIDE, the greenhouse gas is carbon DIOXIDE.
saintanger99 1 week ago
and it IS harmful.
saintanger99 1 week ago
Global warming IS a scam...
hearv888 1 month ago
@hearv888 It's not a scam. Because even the skeptics have to agree that the Earth's climate has changed many times over its history. And that climate change does include global warming every so often. Nevertheless, the fact does remain that Bachmann has her facts wrong. Like the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere which is closer to 0.003 percent of the atmosphere in reality. But most importantly, this climate change controversy is PROOF that everyone should know BASIC SCIENCE!!!
timelike01 1 month ago
@timelike01 No, Global warming was false, then they changed it to climate change. Its not basic science, its not science at all... The co2 goes up AFTER the temperature goes up, not the other way around.. The sun is responsible for the small increase in temperature due to higher solar activity.. But manmade global warming is a scam dude... dont be ignorant.
hearv888 1 month ago
@hearv888 The temperature on mars has also increased....
hearv888 1 month ago
your point is? what time is it in china? see, i can make irrelevant statements too.
saintanger99 1 week ago
@hearv888 But even if the skeptics are CORRECT, the Earth's climate still changes over time. And even if there never were any humans on the Earth, some sort of climate change would be happening anyway. You have to agree with that!
timelike01 1 month ago
@timelike01 Do you really think that paying money to al gore will change anything?? dont be ignorant.. Climate change aka seasons, commonly known as spring, summer, fall and winter.. Climate change is 100% based on politics and 0% real science , they want a carbon tax so they can get more money from natural gas/fossil fules.. And YES EVERYTHING changes over time.
hearv888 1 month ago
look up climate change/global warming on wikipedia.... fake that, dumbass.
saintanger99 1 week ago
@saintanger99 /watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
hearv888 1 week ago
@saintanger99 wikipedia is a zionmist controlled site for morons too stupid to do real research. If you think your breathing will kill the world and the sky is falling in kill yourself stop your breathing. If your not dead we all will know you either don`t think breathing is killing the world or your a coward afraid to follow up your own convictions
MultiShampain 1 week ago
yes, i agree. BUT, humans ARE on earth therefore we are adding to the co2 problem.
saintanger99 1 week ago
wow. everything you just said is ignorant. co2 is lighter than air, it goes up no matter what. co2 acts like an insulating layer in the atmosphere & traps heat inside from the sun. use wikipedia some time.
saintanger99 1 week ago
@timelike01 /watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE
hearv888 1 month ago
So, since CO2 creates GLOBAL WARMING, let's change all CO2 fire extinguishers WORLD WIDE because even though they COOL FIRES, they make the earth warmer????? Makes TOTAL FREAKIN SENSE TO ME!!! LIBTARDS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!
larryt7001 2 months ago
AT LEAST CONTRADICT HER WITH SOME INFORMATION YOU FUCKING LIBTARD PATHETIC BRAIN WASHED KOOL AID SUCKERS!!!!!
larryt7001 2 months ago
WHAT???? THAT BITCH IS STUPID!!!!!!
LIBTARDS DO RULE BY BUMPER STICKER!!!!!!!!
larryt7001 2 months ago
She's right! There is NO study showing that CO2 is a harmful gas!!!! WOW THESE RETARDS DID NO RESEARCH!!!! CONSENSUS BETWEEN LIBTARDS!
larryt7001 2 months ago
Well, agriculture does depend upon CO2. Without CO2 in the atmosphere our Earth would be like Mars. Mars has zero greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Mars has zero life.
Researchrules 2 months ago
Plants feed off of CO2. Without it plants die..... Wow these LIBTARDS are out of their minds!
larryt7001 2 months ago
Tards.
Zillo91 2 months ago
to all non-scientists, hell even to anyone who has never studied science or the process involved, peer review, balance of statistics etc...u are fucking morons and should never have kids. 97% of us are telling you that it is happening and man made.....what the hell is wrong with you? U think politicians are the ones leading this? Clearly u never sat the the EU parliament committee room and heard them say before it was widely known, that 'we will be sacrificing out political careers"but its 2 NB
CountJimbo 2 months ago
@CountJimbo Well retard, your lack of logic is hilarious. You've just pulled a "argument from numbers" sophism. Emotional appeal also. Go suck Daffy Duck's dick.
Researchrules 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series...(please read my article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Wind farm opponents 'aided and abetted' by climate sceptic groups
.
The anti-wind farm movement that is gaining influence in the NSW Parliament is being ''aided and abetted'' by climate sceptic groups and some mining figures.
.
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
20 December 2011
Nightversionn 2 months ago
i like the use of "perhaps" & "maybe".
chakra25king 2 months ago
breath in a canister of carbon dioxide then lol
chakra25king 2 months ago
Of course, ridicule the truth. Wake the fuck up people. Everything in the world goes in cycles. ice ages, warmth, cold. everything. Just google Climategate you dumb bastard.
ademi7 3 months ago
@ademi7 LOL! climategate? you mean the overhyped drama that in reality was a gross misunderstanding by scientifically illiterate ppl like yourself? that was an epic fail on the part of you denialists.
the earth has cycles, those cycles have been documented & substantiated by evidence. its this very data that clearly demonstrates that human activity is to blame for the recent departure from these cycles.
lulz "wake up"? maybe you should follow that advice & think for yourself for once
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns "Departure from those cycles"? Has the Earth stopped rotating or something?
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules you know, i meant the naturally occurring cycles of climate change (ice ages, warmth, cold as the original commenter put it). that's pretty obvious too, so maybe try reading before reacting next time.
kapwns 2 months ago
Ozone only makes up 0.00006% of the atmosphere. Does that mean it has no effect?
sxz1997 3 months ago
@sxz1997 no
chakra25king 2 months ago
This is so smug, and I love TYT! Lets sit down and mock people who don't believe in what I believe in, I haven't read any studies, I'm sure their there cause my trendy friends quote internet assembled nuggets of them and they know scientists. Scientists can disagree with each other and are on this very topic. AGW theory is greatly flawed as is the contrary argument. Be objective and save your judgement until there is something resembling a middleground.
dylanbeckett 3 months ago
@dylanbeckett i think you need to take an objective look at the data, cuz it clearly shows climate change as a result of human activity. this is the scientific consensus. the only "controversy" is from those outside of the scientific community, mostly right wing politicians protecting their business interests, nothing more. it's no different than the folks who would have you believe there is controversy over evolution's validity.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns People always seem to put evolution and climate in the same category as a way of demeaning the argument. What are your views on the thousands of recently leaked emails from working climatologists that the current data doesn't fit their climate model at all and that the data must be manipulated for political reasons. I live a reasonably green life and I do actively care for the environment but i can't abide the concepts of a climate court and carbon taxes based on agenda-led science.
dylanbeckett 2 months ago
@dylanbeckett just noticed you have a strong opinion on this, thats fine. I'm naturally skeptical of everything that claims that the debate is over. Scientific debates should never be over, otherwise its just superstition.
dylanbeckett 2 months ago
@dylanbeckett so would you consider something like the 2nd law of thermodynamics mere superstition? i never said debates should be over, however in this instance much like creationism vs evolution, the debate is entirely manufactured. ppl like "lord" monckton aren't debating for answers or solutions or even better data, instead they intentionally use misleading data & lie to confuse laymen & politicians. they abuse debate for controversy & business interests.
kapwns 2 months ago
@dylanbeckett i am not comparing them to demean. the comparison is perfectly valid, creationists want to spread the idea that there is some huge controversy in the scientific community over it, just like climate change denialists.
my response would be, can you cite where this is, in the emails. b/c the "mike's trick" bit is a misunderstanding on the part of the scientifically illiterate(not necessarily anyone's fault but the journalists) & there isn't anything else that supports..
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns ..supports those claims. if you know of something else, i will take the time to look into it. "climategate" is a perfect example of what i'm getting at when it comes to manufactured controversy.
lol we actually agree here, i too am concerned about how politicians are going to handle climate change policies, but that's a different issue & it's a political issue, not one led by science. the focus should be on keeping those policies fair, rather than denial of climate change
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Well moron, denial is an emotional irrational response like your thread. Audit is a skeptic opinion expressed by an independent and qualified expert. Your scientific papers are unaudited. Peer review may stand the "qualified" criteria but it certainly fails to pass the "independent" one. Peer reviewers are drawn from the ranks of researchers WITH PUBLISHED PAPERS. You may intentionally or unintentionally quote your reviewer or the reviewer might be biased towards your bibliography.
Researchrules 2 months ago
Comment removed
kapwns 2 months ago
@Researchrules like my thread? um i can cite everything i asserted, & i even allowed for the fact there might something i didn't know about. hardly denial, when i'm literally asking for evidence, yet i'm the moron lulz.
why should i care about an "independent" review, why should i care about the opinions of those who would peer review who haven't themselves published papers?
with no published papers how exactly is the auditor determined to be an expert?
nice try at trolling ace
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Well, moron your thread is an emotional response.
Independence means objectivity. Dependence means bias.
Your reply sound like "I'm a farmer. Why should my products be biologically tested for pesticides by a chemist who hasn't planted an onion in his entire life". Science may have different branches with different applications but all science shares the same methodology. I don't need sixty papers in quantum physics to evaluate your METHODOLOGY.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules um? i fail to see the emotion when my point was that climategate was bullshit in the way of demonstrating a hoax, however, it is a clear demonstration of my point that there is manufactured controversy.
no that analogy doesn't apply & all of it's non sequitur to my original points any way. demonstrate it's actually having any significant effect if you're calling for hundreds of papers/data points to be biased that strongly.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Any regression produces 2 conclusions. IPCC papers produce only one conclusion. How's that unbiased research? You know that yeasts produce CO2. You know that yeasts function better in warmer environments. A lot of microorganisms increase their metabolisms in warmer climates, such as fermentation and decay bacteria etcetera. Yet no IPCC research paper says that if y = a*x + e than it follows that x = (y-e)/a or x = y'-e'.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns If Y = a*X in a regression it does not follow that Y is the effect and X is the cause. It simply means there is a correlation between Y and X by a factor of a for Y and 1/a for X.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules your point? your entire argument for the need for independent review in addition to peer review, is nothing more than special pleading.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Special pleading? Nearly all walks of life have embraced audit. Governmental agencies, NYSE ET AL. have embraced audit as the only viable insurance for investors.Auditors don't need to be engineers to audit ASUS, or programmers to audit Google. Audit examines the procedures used to obtain a set of data as well as the output itself. The public who finance Universities need a reasonable insurance that the output is free of material errors.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules yes special pleading and it still remains. how are you substantiating the conclusion that the scientific consensus is so biased by this that they are wrong, b/c that is your argument. make all the arguments for independent auditing you'd like, until you can demonstrate that the alleged bias is having such a significant effect, it's a nonsequitur, just as i said before.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns You again ignore the basic fact that a a regressions studies correlation not cause-effect. When a scientific paper ignores half of all possible conclusions that is bias. All IPCC papers are biased that CO2 is an independent variable and temperature is a dependent variable in any system. Provide me with a scientific paper that explores both possibilities.There is none. This is unscientific publishing.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules so this confirms your conclusion that climate change is a hoax how? o thats right, it doesn't. like i said before its nonsequitur.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Did I ever say climate change was a hoax? The issue here is MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns How many pounds get dedicated to useless research? A few thousand at most, and the research is done mostly by Professor Emeritus or undergrad students. How many pounds are dedicated to useful research. Billions of dollars, and the research draws a bigger Academic crowd. Any research paper which provides uncontrollable independent variables is useless for any implementation.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules so you're bringing that up to me for what purpose? if it's the big problem you claim it to be and you're so against waste, why not actually demonstrate it where it matters, rather than waste time using your unsubstantiated opinion to draw equally unsubstantiated conclusions.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Covering farmland with solar panels is waste, building wind farms is waste considering the costs of mining for the necessary components to build the wind farm. Rechargable batteries have a limited number of cycles.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules so your argument is your inability to personally think of better solutions? clearly because you can't imagine anyone engineering anything better, no one can.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Temperature drives CO2 is useful only for farmers and/or wine production and gets little funding. CO2 drives temperature is useful for a much bigger crowd and gets more funding. Which conclusion will you publish in your thesis?
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules i would publish the one that reflects the data, again you make the assertion that thousands of data points and hundreds of papers are all somehow part of a giant conspiracy.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns Those papers are unaudited. If your broker shoved the Pepsi Co. annual report up your throat without the auditor's report you would cry abuse. That is the same issue with research papers. The reviewer never checks the reviewed personally. Peer Review never checks the instruments, the control environment or the handling of data.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules again your argument assumes that these alleged flaws and biases somehow accumulate to have a significant effect through thousands of data points and hundreds of papers, either unnoticed or with everyone conspiring to keep quiet about it. can you demonstrate this to be the case?
do you make similar demands for any other areas of science? i doubt it.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns I haven't read a single IPCC report which shows evidence of an efficient control environment. Errors and omissions aren't the product of conspiracy, they are the product of a weak control environment. All SEC audits focus on two areas of interest. The results and the control environment. The assessment of the control environment must be done independently, or else you are subject to the Pygmalion effect.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns I call it the Pygmalion effect. It occurs with programmers, managers and researchers. You simply love your work and keep silent about its flaws. That is why we have separate beta testing units inside software firms. Programmers could easily fill the gap and probably be more effective at spotting errors. But their reviews will be biased because it is bloody annoying to iron out your mistakes.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules but again you are putting the horse before the cart, you have yet to demonstrate this alleged effect is taking place and at such a level that it is significantly effecting consensus.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns It is simple. Any research paper in the world should contain for further inquiry a "Limits" section, after the conclusions.Just sample a decent amount of papers from any field and compare the ratios relating to the occurrence of the said section. It is not a necessary part of any research paper but one that enhances the credibility of the said paper.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns Research findings in medicine get assessed by thousands of patients, doctors and pharmacists. Physics and chemistry get indirectly confirmed by their applications in engineering and industry. The interests involved in engineering and industry are the ones which are entitled to demand audited reports from Academia as I am entitled to audited reports from the managers of those institutions. However, the IPCC is a public entity receiving public funds from taxpayers.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns Is that data set audited? Are the conclusions consistent with the data? Does the regression analysis provide both possible answers to the problem? Is the conclusion free of philosophical, religious and moral points. Is the confidence level and measurement error mentioned?
Researchrules 2 months ago
@kapwns Peer review is abnormal in this age. Are peer reviewers accountable in any way? Blind review implies no contact between the reviewer and reviewed. No visits are conducted from the Board to the research laboratory. That makes the review process useless in preventing and spotting errors.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules again, in order to support your conclusion we have to believe that the greater majority of papers published on the subject are all victim to this bias, as are the reviewers, to the point where they come to the wrong consensus as a whole. again that's hundreds of papers/data points that all have to succumb to this bias despite nonsupporting data. that is special pleading.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns How many ISI articles have you written in your life? None, I assume. Well, I've been to 2 international conferences and published 2 ISI articles. Papers which provided more "practical" content ware graded better than those which didn't. Many prizes at conferences are sponsored by companies and their prizes are generally bigger than those of the Scholarship Committee.
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules good for you, i care about your unsupported anecdote why? sounds to me like you are bitter to be honest, but that hardly matters.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns All guilds try to gain financial support for its members. Lawyers lobby for the expansion of the legal system so they gain more cases to plead. Accountants push for an ever more sophisticated regulatory framework that expands their scope in an enterprise. Psychiatrists diagnose an ever increasing amount of human behavior as pathological to increase their spending. This lobby is substantiated by research, which is biased towards their ends. Is this science?
Researchrules 2 months ago
@Researchrules lol yeah and those who oppose climate change push to claim it's all a hoax or the data is flawed, they are just as biased to their lobbies and for the most part, are not substantiated by any evidence, flawed or not. your point here, is self defeating.
kapwns 2 months ago
@kapwns You seem to live in a world where people fall in love with their primary economic sector and are loyal to it. Keep dreaming, those "big oil and gas" obviously understand that fossil fuels would not last forever and move to the electric sector. To quote Elliat Goldrat, a business produces money.
Researchrules 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kapwns just noticed you have a strong opinion on this, thats fine. I'm naturally skeptical of everything that claims that the debate is over. Scientific debates should never be over, otherwise its just superstition.
dylanbeckett 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
by the way, Bachmann is a liar. Ron Paul 2012!!!
spktruthinlove 3 months ago
i hope her house gets flooded
cmwells55 3 months ago
Yeah, lava is also a necessary product of nature, but i wouldn't want it filling the atmosphere...
mchandler2112 3 months ago
TYT's are some of the most sanctimonious psuedo-intellectual libtards on Earth.
adkfotoboy 3 months ago
@adkfotoboy TYT* Pseudo*
CaptainCarrotify 3 months ago
She is the most ridiculous display of stupidity i have seen in a while,how is it possible that this idiot can run for president?She knows nothing about the world,what a joke.
bigfishmadeira 3 months ago
If you had a stadium full of 10,000 people who "believed" in man made global warming and there would only be 4 seats that represent C02.
Plants breath in C02 and breath out oxygen.
GreenChurchReject 4 months ago
Young Jerks at it again...hating on conservative women.
GreenChurchReject 4 months ago
@GreenChurchReject yeah, because global warming is voodoo.
TheMightyP00tis 3 months ago
@GreenChurchReject Yeaaahh...that's exactly what it is ( and yes--this is HEAVILY laced with sarcasm )
porsche62689 3 months ago
we exhale CO2. so i guess we should kill humans to lower CO2 emissions?
spktruthinlove 4 months ago
@spktruthinlove No, because trees absorb carbon dioxide (while releasing oxygen). However at the rate Bachmann and her right-wing buddies want to wipe out our forests, there will be a serious excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
GeorgiaKev 3 months ago in playlist TYT1
@spktruthinlove No. But when there are better means to replace things that create a lot of co2, there is no plausible reason NOT to use them. Too much of anything can kill a living organism. Some people just can't comprehend this. Bachmann, along with most other conservatives are not stupid--they do well at what they do. Deception through ignorance. Americans ( and I am one ) for the most part, are naive.
porsche62689 3 months ago
Did you hear about Bill Gates saying that vaccines, healthcare, and birth control are tools to lower the world population? did you read about the 23 Honduran farmers killed in the name of global warming? Google this: "Honduran Farmers Slaughtered In Name Of Global Warming." There is a large # of scientists who refute man made global warming. The scientists who support mm glob warming have been caught lying & covering up evidence. This is a eugenicist scam. Wake up ppl; THEY DONT CARE ABOUT US!!
spktruthinlove 3 months ago
@spktruthinlove this is what happens when the only "research" you do is listen to alex jones and friends. even if a number of scientists did refute climate change, which is not the case, it wouldn't matter any way, the data clearly shows climate change as a result of human activity. the evidence speaks for itself.
name one study where the authors were caught lying & covering up evidence. don't bother crying climategate, there wasnt any there.
your nwo is a cartoon super villain
kapwns 2 months ago
Shes harmful to my brain.
gaki636 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Researchers from the University of Bremen have announced that 2011’s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum is the smallest in recorded history, coming in under the previous lowest Minimum in September of 2007, reaching its minimum on September 8 at 4.24 million square kilometers.
triple w dailygalaxy com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef015391918d07970b-pi
hyaenidae 4 months ago
Check the facts, the sea levels have dropped, the glaciers have been growing. check it out the reports is from NASA. Global warming is occurng however it is not man made. Does anyone study temperature changes in geology since the earths history.
BoysForPele1989 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BoysForPele1989 Researchers from the University of Bremen have announced that 2011’s Arctic Sea Ice Minimum is the smallest in recorded history, coming in under the previous lowest Minimum in September of 2007, reaching its minimum on September 8 at 4.24 million square kilometers.
triple w dailygalaxy com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef015391918d07970b-pi
hyaenidae 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens, can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens....can we do that immediately???
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens....can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens....can we do that immediately?
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens....can we do that immediately???
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
Let's put Bachmann in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide and see what happens....can we do that immediately???
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 5 months ago
I'm baffled that people are still suffering from denial.... I'm Canadian, but I'll still cry if Bachmann is nominated.
kolby47 5 months ago 2
@kolby47 but wont it just be hilarious up here, us canadian can just laugh for another 4-8 like we did with bush...
crazybraeden 4 months ago
@kolby47 well your Canadian, so you don't know what your talking about....
dadnapt24 4 months ago
@dadnapt24 And you're one of the Americans who will elect this idiot and run your own country into the ditch?
kolby47 4 months ago
@kolby47 we have elected a brain dead idiot that ran this country into the shitter, (Obama)
dadnapt24 4 months ago
YOU GUYS ARE FUCKIN STUPID YOU GET UP THERE AND TRY TO BE FUNNY WHILE YOUR LYING TO ALL YOUR VIEWERS AND YOU THINK ITS FUNNY. SCUM BAGS.
Elipticle 5 months ago
@Elipticle Kill yourself.
Lukeschedel 5 months ago
@Lukeschedel Kill You
Elipticle 5 months ago
Water could kill you if you drank to much. But natual C02 is only .03 percent and is what you breath out and plants breath in. It's call nature and the greenhouse is good as it protects us from sun's radiation.
Problem with you gullible greenies is your little results oriented controlled experiments are in a vacum and totally incomplete and inaccurate. The environmental marxist solution is always to ban things and raise taxes.
GreenChurchReject 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GreenChurchReject Wrong, and wrong. CO2 doesn't protect us from solar radiation at all, ozone does. In fact, it's the opposite: carbon dioxide (and water vapor) are strong, selective absorbers of infrared radiation. Biologists just published a paper in "Science" showing that species are moving to higher elevations at 36 feet per decade and higher latitudes at 10.5 miles per decade: two or three times faster than just in 2003. Not an "experiment in a vacuum," applied ecology on the ground.
hyaenidae 5 months ago