@triphip2 No, it's you who is the moron. Your comment is flat out stupid. Question? Why won't Gore debate? He's never debated this global warming issue. He simply says the debate is over. But I don't remember the debate at all. This is shear assertion and nothing more. BTW, she would destroy you in a debate.
@juscurious You gathered all that from a short sentence I wrote? You need to be careful in how you talk to people. Also I am far from a moron, I am a student in Envrionmental sciences. I assure you I am more qualified than this crazy lady, or even Al Gore considering he's not even a sceintist... This is not an issue to be debated except in the science world. Only a moron considers this a social issue... It has been debated, and discovered in the science community. You lose.
@triphip2 It is moronic to call someone else a moron without some evidence to back it up. Environmental Sciences is a phony curriculum as far as I'm concerned. My background is physics and electrical engineering. But I also know that most of climate science is borderline fraud. Look, the earth has warmed and cooled many times in history without the intervention of man. There is nothing unusual about the minor warming trend. It started after the end of the ice age. It's been warmer many times.
@juscurious Nooo it's not moronic because I actually do know what I'm talking about. I am a an evironmental science student. She is not, and neither are you. You can only speculate, and without credibility mind you. My best friend is a physics major, has nothing to do with environmental science. Everyone thinks they are experts. I can't give you a run down of the evidence here, not enough words and can't do links. And you make the same dumb argument so many make, and it's simply wrong.
God Dam Environmentalist are NO dam better then the Taliban at killing are Liberty's and Freedom. These basterd Environmentalist are freedom killing mother fookers! How come there not being killed? the same as the terrorist? Purity dam soon are kids are gonna be standing on the EDGE of the road not being able to do a dam thing cuzz some fookn bug or some dum azz reason! God's truth,these fookers need be rounded up and hunted down!
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. ecclesiastes 3-19
If somebody tried to argue that gravity didn't exist, would Newton have entertained a debate with the 'tard who disagreed? No. He wouldn't have even considered bringing himself down to that level.
Your very clear strategy is to use largely academic words..and obscure works of very narrowly focused researchers.....again from decades ago.
This is all in the hopes that you intimidate anyone that disagrees with your pretentious drivel...... into abandoning the disagreement.
You resort to immediate bullying by using words like Bozo and Crusty and various other clowns you seem to be an expert on..( the only topic it seems...you know well)...
Isnt it interesting that you only cite studies from dates during which DDT was still held in high dis-favor
When the usageof DDT was re-visited and a renaissance of its efficacy was made to be once again "acceptable" within widening research circles..in the early to mid 2000's...you have nothing to say or cite from that period..
The point being made to the age of the reference material is merely that while ..yes..if one wants to indulge in theoretical research conduced 30 years ago...their results ..when measured against the historical context of their research..and available material..were accurate to that extent....
However..there is hardly any research of significance..that survives a 30 year run ( even Darwin)..so my point is simply..look at the latest research and do not form your argument on this.
Why dont you try more recent literature you fossil..
:DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes
9 Aug 2007 "DDT's repellent action makes it a powerful public health tool. It also explains DDT remains effective against malariacarrying.medicalnewstoday.
DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes15 Sep 2006
Media Release. DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes. New study .
fightingmalaria.
DDT to be used against malaria - Health & Science International
Straw man - I've never argued that DDT was not effective - it is. Nor do I support the total ban of DDT. It's use should be strategic, as small as possible and always with the idea of it's major side effects and bio- accumulation in mind
You are ...delightfully free from the ravages of intelligence you blowhard ass..
First
Where the hell do you get the "Tangenial " idea that we should take as gospel sources that your provide from bloody 1981...and 1994..that is 30 and 17 years ago respectively..you pompous moron.
Second.
You SIMPLY state that you BELIEVE that $.015/lb of DDT is RELATIVELY inexpensive to countries such as Tanzania and Sri Lanka???
"You SIMPLY state that you BELIEVE that $.015/lb of DDT is RELATIVELY inexpensive to countries such as Tanzania and Sri Lanka"
No It WAS inexpensive - And this is FRICKEN OBVIOUS, you political toad. Or are you putting forth the ridiculous argument (without citing any sources whatsoever, of course) that Sri Lanca couldn't scrape up $300 (even through charities and such) to buy 2000lbs (a TON) of DDT to wipe out malaria over a SIGNIFICANT land area??
Finally..we may agree to disagree but lets give it a shot:
Today: Family income in Egypt is around $2.00/day that is in 2011 (Sri Lanka is slightly higher)
In 1964: my dad was buying a gallon of gas for $.10-12/gallon today it is lets say $3.75 almost 2 days of family income in Egypt.
$.15 in 1964 probably represented that if not more based on on inflation factors etc. and the transportation, distribution and application probably increased the "real cost"/ kg to 4-5 days income.
Well keeping this light..here is a partial quote from WHO 2008 Report ...
"global DDT distribution for public health must be supported technically and financially. It is essential that adequate resources and technical support are rapidly allocated to countries so that they can adopt appropriate measures for sound management of pesticides in general and of DDT in particular. (pg.88)
Clearly an external financial support is urged...why?...does this sound cheap?..or without control?
My main point on this is starting be this however...
As an admirer of Albert Einstein..I very much like one of his many quotes which states:
Any fool can make that..which is complex more complex..it is sign of genius to make that which is complex...simple..
This is not a forum to pontificate about obscure publications..with rhetorical questions about a body of work you "know"..very few if any people have read...
Then hang your entire argument positioning on that assumption.
This windbag is amazed that other then him and the other heard of nerds...the rest of us have....amazingly enough not read the engrossing:
Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001"
Typical rhetorical question from this prick: 1964 is 44 years prior to 2008...Isnt it?? (I'm a prick..as I am only asking this question to be an exponential prick)..
He also feels its important to point out that the difference between 2008 and 1964 is 44 years...isnt it? he asks earnestly ...obviously very genuine and eager to be right.
he then continues on the road to energetically disprove my allegation that DDT is difficult to obtain and is controlled...by stating proudly that he in fact has cracked the code and "has the source for 15 cent/pound in 1969"...whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
Finaly..the nerd is a quote machine without an actual personal position clearly articulated in any of his posts...but merely challenges as to what was read..(only correct if in his "read that" depository)..
Are you seriously so derranged that the basis of your outrage with my position is: that I dont have a clue if $.15 was "exponentially expensive"..much less tightly controlled"..
Seriously..where the hell did you lead this discussion?...and why?..never-mind..not interested!
"Are you seriously so derranged that the basis of your outrage with my position is: that I dont have a clue if $.15 was "exponentially expensive"..much less tightly controlled"."
No, My position is that you are willing to listen to political pundits throwing around accusations LONG LONG LONG before you are willing to listen to people that know what the hell they are talking about
This form of polemics is disingenuous and self aggrandizing...purely seeking out to ask questions that you could have very well pulled out of a google search..and placed them in your "challenge".
Then act like a tenured entomologist..
your aha moment of realizing that I used 64 instead of 69 in postulating a general response...did that make your heart flutter with the excitement that you got me?
fact is neither of us know the actual value of $.02 in Sri Lanka in 1969.
By tangential, I mean small exposure to the stuff (sort of like getting a vacine) since in any effort all ponds will not be treated by DDT evenly and some breeding grounds will end up with only a small fraction of the DDT that should be used.
Populations that receive such tangential exposure are far more likely to develop resistance and then pass on that resistance to future generations
Thank you..I am aware of the term Tangenial..and my singular point in that area really was that in a "theoretical setting"..you could, by introduction of a new agent..call it TDD..wipe out 99.9% of a given hypothetical population..be it of musquitoes or water buffalos..and you will in most cases slow down the population growth to the numbers left over...01% (who had a genetic makeup that allowed this cohort to survive.)
In fact precise effect of massive DDT initial dose utilization.
I never suggested that there was a specific location or occurrence where 99.9% of any musquito population was eradicated by any means..including DDT..again purely theoretical explanation of slow re-emergence of the insect.
(Call it my Straw Man...)..
To return to the issue though...I am not ignorant of the fact that there is a relatively high habituation to DDT and "war of attrition" may not be the best utilization of this agent...as early "massive" doses were most effective.
Please BeondPale...educate us..with your well documented assertions..backed by maybe an excerpt or two.
Finally.everyone knows that lower / restricted production of anything is subject to the laws of supply and demand screwed by the artificial barriers and tariffs supported by WHO and others under the prevailing idiotic dogma like "Secret Spring" published by Rachel Carson in 1962 for god sakes so there go your dates.
This crap was completely discredited since but still cost millions of lives!
Where did you get your information..seriously??...cite the actual of a 1 year adaptation cycle??
there are basically two methods of adaptation..
A.) mutation after exposure..slow..unpredictable...(longer then the 20 generation cycle process you describe..by far)
B) Individuals with an existing resistance to DDT already..they are the only ones to survive and breed after eradication....again...99.9 breeding individuals did not survive...so to build up this population also exceptionally slow..
Its very easy and provocative to make totally unsubstantiated statements about the historical efficacy of DDT without ANY empirical or statistical data to back it up with
( verified by a peer review reports just for freaking starters).
Then to add to this idiocy..you put out the figure of $0.15/pound cost of DDT without using the context of prevailing cost index in 1969.
Curtis, C. F., "Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?", Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Vol. 8, 1994, pages 107-112
AND HERE
Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, pages 181 to 185.
Where are you getting YOUR info from? the Rush Limbaugh show?
"verified by a peer review reports just for freaking starters"
Which peer review reports would those be? NAME THEM Let me guess you don't have a clue because you are a CLOWN!
Btw, are we talking efficacy in labs or (I reiterate) WIDESPREAD USE IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Also if you think 15 cents a pound for DDT is exorbitantly expensive in a 1969 context - even for a country like Sri Lanka or Tanzania you are full of crap
If she had asked ME that question about Malaria and DDT and accused ME of suppporting the passive killing of kids in Africa -
I would have not walked away. I would have merely pointed out that DDT WAS NOT BANNED in africa during the time she would claim and that she has been fed (and is mindlessly spreading) TOTAL BS by someone with a political agenda
DDT was not banned in any DEVELOPED country till the 1970s and certainly NOT banned ANYWHERE in Africa in1964
@BeondaPale check your facts and check them again while the bans did not take place..as you point out corectly...the actual price of DDT and its production has become..during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled...it as a substance non-grata and the manufacturing facilities of this product have been systematically downsized and of course the product has become exponentially more expensive..and harder to obtain..through red tape..specially vis vis 3rd world per capita $..
"during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled"
BULL!! I will now ask you to prove this statement and you will now utterly fail to do so. The time frame is 1964 -1969
The price of DDT in 1969 was 15 cents A POUND
The DDT eradication program was ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it NO LONGER WORKED - mosquitoes had grown resistant. In fact mosquitoes resistant to DDT started appearing ONE YEAR after its first public health use.
Why do enviromentalist want to destroy and reduce the numbers of the most evolved animal so far produced on this planet or do they believe man is not of this earth.
I do think this enviromental movement has turn into a faith like atheism has with scientist like Dawkins controling most science decisions now. Science could not even figure out amino weather patterns let alone predicting the future of them and now they claim to know the future without providing proof for other scientist to examine
just wana say, im an AGW skeptic (or at least dont agree with the current "consensus" notion) but i have to say this, WE ARE ANIMALS! we arent better than them, we ARE them, maybe we dont eat our young but we do some fucked up shit instead. AGW is balls. but we are apes. its a fact, we are as depraved as the other animals but we are as great as them too, just like the magestic orca, the beutiful butterflys, and rhinos, elephants and we are as savage as the chaos of nature, we are part of nature.
#1) Human mothers do kill their young, ie Susan Smith and Andrea Yates
#2) Name an amimal that spills a million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Name an animal that released a toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal India. Name an animal that created a texas sized patch of plastic in the Pacific Ocean. Name an animal that emits radioactive waste.
We have to stop the spreading of that religious sect of the environmentalists, these deceived idiots are very dangerous, talk about mad cow disease in their brains.
The only reason they say that carbon is the cause of the "problem" is so they can tax the crap out of anything to do with it and line their own pockets.
I wonder why, the believers of the CO2 theory, always refer to the prestigiousness of the co2 preaching weather scientists, but never wants to debate the evidence and the technicality? Its always about: 'oh you should believe him, because he is this and that, and don't believe those, because they are paid by the oil industry.
It becomes religion, where people choose a prophet instead of researching themselves. Staying ignorant is a secure way to totalitarianism
The thing is that you can't really have a debate on the science unless you really dig into the science. You can't just read a couple websites and pretend like you know what you are talking about. That's when you get to the really stupid arguments like: "its snowing outside, obviously global warming is false," or my favorite "CO2 is a trace gas, so it can't have an effect on the climate."
My favorite is ignoring 4 billion years and arguing that 150 years of data put into a computer model is plenty proof of CO2 being the main reason for global warming. I doesn't make any sense. Especially when Greenland Ice core drillings clearly states that when they started measuring temp. it was the coldest year in 10.000 years.
Hopefully it will get warmer, because we are only 2° from an iceage.
@PalleSchultz Im sorry you have been lied to, and you believe it! It's a shame that basic science escaped you about Co2. fact is that since Co2 is in the ice cores proves that Co2 goes down not up! This is because Co2 is heavier than Oxygen! If Alice Gore's phoney theory was correct and the Co2 was getting into the atmosphere we would all be dead allready!
@PalleSchultz Co2 thats what! Co2 displaces Oxygen, fire fighters use it to put out fires! Co2 pools up in low lying area's, same reason why volcano explorers have to be carefull at the base of a volcano. If indeed there was enough Co2 to reach the earths atmosphere the oxygen would be floating on top of it therefore we would suficate. Thank God for Photosynthesis! People just don't get it! disproving Global warming due to Co2 is basic science!
@PalleSchultz That almost sounds like a threat! But regardless since im not a dog, there is only common sense to say I am not nor have I ever been Barking! "Buddy may refer to: A friend or a partner for a particular activity; Buddy (dog)". Should I be offended or honored that you want to be my friend? I'm not sure! I think we are on the same side of the debate, but don't agree on the science! Plain and simple man made Global Warming is a fraud! Im satisfied with that!
@PalleSchultz What the hell are you talking about? Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. Are you saying to disagree with a lie being told such Co2 causing global warming constitues an anal fixation? Do you want to pay taxes on a lie? I don't! Sigmund Freud"Anal fixation, which may be caused by too much punishment during toilet training"? How bizzar!
@PalleSchultz Let's talk about Conspiracy for a minute! If you believe Conspiracy Theory believers are crazy! Think about this for a minute. If they are not crazy and it's true then we have a big problem! However if they are crazy we have also got a big problem! Someone is trying to convince a lot of people that there is or isn't a God! And that there is or isn't a NWO! and that there is or isn't a government Conspiracy!
@PalleSchultz regardless of how you look at it there is indeed a Conspiracy to play us like a banjo! We are being manipulated,lied to,cheated,stolen from while we go about our lives seeking the truth!
@PalleSchultz regardless of how you look at it there is indeed a Conspiracy to play us like a banjo! We are being manipulated,lied to,cheated,stolen from while we go about our lives seeking the truth!
@PalleSchultz And on the "misconceptions:A view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding." Show me your science and I will humor you further, but in the meantime "hysterical anal fixation tends to create conspiracy theories and misconceptions. So try to relax just a little" Phrases such as these only prove one thing! Your just not sure of your science! So you have to belittle others to get your point accross! It's not working! I stand firm!
@PalleSchultz You crack me up! Im laughing to hard to respond! But i'll try? Still no Science! That's it short and sweet! Thank You for your humorous responses.
CO2 is a trace gas, if you were to line up all the gasses of the atmosphere of this planet as a football field, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon would take you to 3" from the goal, about half the width of the chalk stripe, and most of that chalk stripe is CO2, since we have had the ability to measure, CO2 has increased in concentration by 1/3", the width of a pencil, in 100 yards, in 160 years. CO2 does not drive climate, it reacts to it.
@PalleSchultz I prefer the climatologist to the meteorologist. CO2 could not be precisely measured until Charles Keeling built an interferometer for the task. Now, there is a CO2 gas laser interferometer that can constantly measure CO2. Wanna guess how?
@PalleSchultz Al Gore and Mann decided CO2 and carbon was to be the only target as this creates life and that wont reduce the population enough now we missed nuclear war in the 1980s, dont forget the Georgia Guild stones
Make them answer this: Before DDT was banned the man who invented it was given the Nobel Prize for saving more lives than anybody else in history, malaria deaths had gone from a million a year to just 1% of that 99 lives in 100 saved by DDT. After DDT was banned, due to Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring which is entirely based on bad science, the death toll went from 10,000 to a million and stayed there for 40 years. Finally in 2006 the WHO lifted the ban on DDT. Defend banning DDT, i dare you.
NOTHING you said here is true. Rachel Carson never suggested banning DDT. She actually supported its use in fighting disease. Contrary to popular belief, DDT was never banned for use in fighting disease. They have been using it all along.
One of the reasons that malaria made a comeback was because of the overuse of DDT. It's an insecticide. The more you use it, the less effective it becomes. Carson actually warned about this in her book. Too bad they didn't listen soon enough.
This is completely riddiculous, it's unbelievable how far the spread of ignorance can warp someones opinion. Environmentalists have been so strongly misrepresented and wrongly compared in this video that I'm going to make video response over the next couple of days. I'm an environmentalist, if you are one as well and wish to contribute to the video, leave a comment on my wall with your contribution in text. I'm sick of environmentalism being wrongly portrayed as an ignorant cult.
Humans actually in some parts of the world do eat their young as well as other humans, you put yourself in a starving situation and see how long you live, actually your porb such a coward that some one would eat you. Sounds grose but it is true. I hate hearing ignorance.
wow you're an idiot. Okay hold on one second. comparing how humans which are animals and animals in the wild are different is pretty ignorant. First of all, the reaosn why an animal will eat their young is in the case of survival. A mother will eat her baby if the baby is not going to survive aka a runt, because a predator can smell death and can harm the rest
Glasya666. I am guessing you are a well educated, and probably well meaning person. However, it is such a shame to see you make such a fool of yourself. Many, and I would guess 75% of the World's scientific population, now see the 'man-made global warming' SCAM for what it is, a failed and flawed science only continued because of the billions of dollars now involved in this "business". In fact one so called "Climate Scientist" even admitted about two weeks back it was now only about money!
@hughster41 Those were peace prizes. Not the same thing. You only get a Nobel Prize in science by accomplishment.
Tim Ball heads an industry lobby group. Is that really the best you can come up with?
I am not pointing to political groups, I am pointing to scientific organizations. Research groups at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc. Are they all in on the conspiracy? It's amazing how you can just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your view.
Is the National Academy of Sciences in on the scam? The Royal Society? The NOAA? The American Geological Society? The American Meterological Society? How about prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking? Nobel Prize winning scientists?
Thing is, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. If you were given a standard college level physics exam right now I would bet everything I own that you would fail miserably. You can't argue the science, so you exaggerate this "controversy".
There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate. Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over... 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists.
Seriously, you just embarrass yourself by mentioning the Oregon Petition. Look at the requirements to sign up. Just about anybody with a college degree can be a global warming "expert". There are almost 100 veterinariany on the list. There are also a lot of fake names on the list, such as Michael J. Fox and Perry Mason.
So the 31000 REAL scientists, who signed a petition, who disagree with the nonsense of 'man made global warming' are also all wrong? There is not one reputable scientist in the World who agrees 100% with what the IPCC is telling people. Not one. Only you :-)
The same Royal Society who around 100 years ago were discussing their concerns of how the World was warming and the ice in the Arctic was melting? Ohhhh, THAT Royal Society. Lol.
The Royal Society is one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world. I don't know, or care, what they were talking about 100 years ago.
Every major scientific organization in the world agrees with the IPCC. All you have is a couple e-mails taken out of context. What a joke, especially considering the title of this video.
A "couple of emails" LOL!!! There are thousands of emails discussing how they will "trick" and "hide" and "change" and "cover up" etc real data from gullible people like yourself. 31000 REAL scientists say what the IPCC (which is political, not scientific) tell us - is not correct. I am guessing with your extremely limited knowledge you would last about 60 seconds in a debate before being made to look a fool.
Look up - "THE WORLD WIDE PROTEST AGAINST THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM" - on facebook
The term "trick" is commonly used in science. I've even seen it in textbooks. You obviously don't know what the term "hide the decline" actually means. What they were "hiding" was openly discussed in peer reviewed journals for some time. You are taking things out of context, without the slightest clue as to what you are actually talking about.
Look into the Oregon Petition. It's a scam. You arent't helping yourself by mentioning it. The majority of scientists agree with AGW. That's a fact.
@Glasya666 The key word/phrase is not "trick", it's hide the decline. Look into the actual context of what that meant... not just the whitewashed context. It will be clear that there is nothing scientific about what was done here. Hide the decline consists of altering the graph to hide the fact that the proxy data is not consistent with observed measurements. That graph was then shown to politicians and policy makers.
So you say I should look into the actual context behind "hide the decline"? I assume that means that you read the peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject and found flaws in their statistical analysis. Please show me where the errors are in these articles. Either that, or admit that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
McIntyre found flaws in the hockey team analysis and his work has been peer-reviewed. Unfortunately the incident about 'hide the decline' is new enough not to have much in any academic journals. One more thing, at least in terms of climate science, the peer-review process has been damaged.
Glaysya - you just agreed on the point that makes the whole man-made global warming SCAM the nonsense it is, yet you don't even realise it. If I was you, I would head back to University and ask for a refund on your degree. :-)
So let's say that CO2 matches up perfectly with climate change and they are 110% related with NO other factors. hypothetically of course.
thousands of years ago when the climate can be said to have been much warmer, what caused the build up of CO2? where did it all come from? because we obviously weren't causing the CO2 emissions like we WERE... how can you say that climate change in and of itself is not completely natural, regardless of the reasons?
Ok, I'll defend Rachel Carson you stupid bitch. She was 100% right. DDT is an insecticide. The more you use it, the less effective it becomes (just like antibiotics). She never called for a ban, but instead said that it should be used sparingly to prevent disease. Nobobdy listened, and they used it in large quantities for agriculture.
DDT was never actually banned for use in fighting disease. Blaming malaria on Carson is just stupid. Ironic, coming from a bitch that has all the facts.
another thing stupid, the majority of "climate scientists" would be out of a job if they said anything else, to bad you don't have more than half a brain, stupid ass.
creationists are like environmentalists - both is purely faith and not fact nor reason based, both can not be scientific therefore.
The entire CO2 fuzz is just one giant scam in order to reach total domination, we had big ice ages with far more CO2 in the atmosphere then we have today, water vapor is far more climate active then CO2 could possibly ever be yet the morons go on - owners of mainstream want it that way.
For the same reason that scientists dont debate creationists. Or that people who believe in a spherical earth dont debate peoople who believe in a flat one. Because debating someone whose only goal is to cast doubt and cause confusion about science doenst help anyone.
Eventually...IN YOUR FACE -type responses are the only ones that get through. No extremism here. Fighting myths with facts. She's just hitting the new politially correct "Green Fundamentalist religion" head on. Tough lady.
Stunned by the stupidity of anyone who believes environmentalist lies. Fuck you green nazis. Iknow how you can save the planet, just go kill yourself and there is one less gullible idiot who believes junk science
Bizarre claims that all animals casually eat their young isn't needed to demonstrate homosapiens are superior. Besides, no other animal has terminated more of its own species more than humans.
This speaker's website for her new movie is so partisan it is sickening. It is more anti democrat than anti extremism.
I agree that Al Gore is misleading us and his cronies are hypocrites, but all extremism is dangerous even if the heart is in the right place.
Environmentalist thinking is inherently flawed whenever it accepts both evolution and the proposition that there is even the possibility of right and wrong as concerns the environment. As part of the environment whatever we do can neither be right nor wrong. It just is. Might makes right.
How is it possible that more people aren't outraged by the horrible consequences of some of these Liberal boondoggles? Anne & Phelim's started this crusade because of an entire town that was wiped out because a rich Liberal woman decided to throw her weight around and close a mine (for all of our own good, of course).
Liberals always say they care about the poor, but their actions are just the opposite. Just look at charitable contributions from the Left and Right. It's all about image...
the current cycle of global warming started at the end of the last ice age, anyone who blames it on man is completely ignorant. over the last 5 billions years, the avg global temperature has been constantly changing. We've had multiple Ice ages. Mans fault? Al Gore would like you to think that, but he's a real idiot, just like the posters on this page blaming man for global warming. Retards.
>> "the current cycle of global warming started at the end of the last ice age, anyone who blames it on man is completely ignorant."
This is hilarious. An idiot on youtube claiming that the majority of climate scientists are ignorant. How about Stephen Hawking? He believes that humans are causing global warming. Maybe you can educate him.
Hello stupid, I'm going to type this slowly because I can tell you have a hard time reading. 20,000 years ago sea levels were about 300 feet lower than they are now. That is a fact, you can ask Mr Hawkings that yourself Einstein. there was no industry 20000 years ago to start global warming, that melted the ice caps, that brought the sea levels up about 300 feet so far, so how could it be man made stupid? How smart are u blaming global wrmng on something that only makes up 0.03% of the atm?
We didn't have anything to do with climate change in the past, therefore we can't have anything to do with the current climate change? Nice "logic".
There are a lot of things that affect our climate. The position of the continents, the composition of the atmosphere, changes is our orbit, changes in the land that effect energy absorption, etc.
And your claim that CO2 is insignificant because it only makes up .03% of the atmosphere is ridiculous. Have you done any calculations on this?
your probably the dumbest sandal nazi i've seen on here. Obviously you don't understand how small 0.03% is, it's 3 out of every 10,000 parts. not a very effective greenhouse. of course your so stupid you probably couldn't find you own ass in a dark room.
In the 1980's a satellite was launched which contains radiation detectors pointed at earth. Over 20 years this has revealed that, contrary to the computer models produced by the IPCC, CO2 has little effect on CO2.
why don't you prove it otherwise since your the skeptic. I'd like to see this, your so fucking stupid you don't even realize there's noway to "see" this. how bout looking at global temperatures the last couple of hundred years stupid? global temps are dropping dumb ass, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee
I'd like to see proof that C02 DOESN'T have a minimal effect? Consistent Proof. Not 1 article from a biased source. Show me several indesputable sources that show C02 being a sound cause for global warming.
just 30 years ago we it was all about the "ice age scare"... now we hear people whining about warming. GREAT.
This woman is a moron. I would love to debate with her.
triphip2 4 months ago
@triphip2 No, it's you who is the moron. Your comment is flat out stupid. Question? Why won't Gore debate? He's never debated this global warming issue. He simply says the debate is over. But I don't remember the debate at all. This is shear assertion and nothing more. BTW, she would destroy you in a debate.
juscurious 3 months ago
@juscurious You gathered all that from a short sentence I wrote? You need to be careful in how you talk to people. Also I am far from a moron, I am a student in Envrionmental sciences. I assure you I am more qualified than this crazy lady, or even Al Gore considering he's not even a sceintist... This is not an issue to be debated except in the science world. Only a moron considers this a social issue... It has been debated, and discovered in the science community. You lose.
triphip2 3 months ago
@triphip2 It is moronic to call someone else a moron without some evidence to back it up. Environmental Sciences is a phony curriculum as far as I'm concerned. My background is physics and electrical engineering. But I also know that most of climate science is borderline fraud. Look, the earth has warmed and cooled many times in history without the intervention of man. There is nothing unusual about the minor warming trend. It started after the end of the ice age. It's been warmer many times.
juscurious 3 months ago
@juscurious Nooo it's not moronic because I actually do know what I'm talking about. I am a an evironmental science student. She is not, and neither are you. You can only speculate, and without credibility mind you. My best friend is a physics major, has nothing to do with environmental science. Everyone thinks they are experts. I can't give you a run down of the evidence here, not enough words and can't do links. And you make the same dumb argument so many make, and it's simply wrong.
triphip2 3 months ago
The politicians tell us the only way to stop Gorebull Warming is to give all your freedoms and a large chunk of your money!
The green folks have been brainwashed in school and by the media to believe this psuedo-science.
. Don't forget to freeze to death in the dark just in case the scammers are correct and the temperature goes up 1 degree in the next 100 years.
$700 trillion spent on the cap n trade taxes could lower the Earth's temperature by.000000000001 degree, if the hoax was real.
co2isgoodal 5 months ago
I'm still waiting for a skeptic to come up with a more likely explanation than AGW for the majority of warming since the 1970's?
checkyoursources 6 months ago
Comment removed
Yrigoyen74 8 months ago
I'd like a debate with this woman. I could shut her up pretty easily
Richard482 9 months ago
@Richard482 say no to cousin's sex.
Yrigoyen74 8 months ago
@Yrigoyen74 What are you on about?
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 i was referring to your stupidity as a consecuence of inbreeding.
Yrigoyen74 8 months ago
@Yrigoyen74 Stupid because I said I could shut her up. Weird.
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 Oh and learn to spell consequence.
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 It gets mixed when you're speaking several languages.
Yrigoyen74 8 months ago
If anyone here wants to learn about the science behind climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Drkstrong:
watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=channel_video_title
FreshAirScentOfPine
watch?v=QL3ED6aXrks&feature=related
And Greenman3610:
watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 9 months ago
God Dam Environmentalist are NO dam better then the Taliban at killing are Liberty's and Freedom. These basterd Environmentalist are freedom killing mother fookers! How come there not being killed? the same as the terrorist? Purity dam soon are kids are gonna be standing on the EDGE of the road not being able to do a dam thing cuzz some fookn bug or some dum azz reason! God's truth,these fookers need be rounded up and hunted down!
JUSTACHIPN 9 months ago
Good job conservatives keep up the good work on your spin doctoring and thought control! Go Team Ignorance!!!
MrGuacamoli 10 months ago
environmentalists don't debate because they are thinking above the human race. yeah bitches hahaha
2woball 10 months ago
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. ecclesiastes 3-19
ratje67 10 months ago
If somebody tried to argue that gravity didn't exist, would Newton have entertained a debate with the 'tard who disagreed? No. He wouldn't have even considered bringing himself down to that level.
VoxPopNews 11 months ago
@VoxPopNews
well said...lesson learned...but none of us..are unfortunately... ankle high to Newton..
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Your very clear strategy is to use largely academic words..and obscure works of very narrowly focused researchers.....again from decades ago.
This is all in the hopes that you intimidate anyone that disagrees with your pretentious drivel...... into abandoning the disagreement.
You resort to immediate bullying by using words like Bozo and Crusty and various other clowns you seem to be an expert on..( the only topic it seems...you know well)...
Sorry this dog dont hunt with me....
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Isnt it interesting that you only cite studies from dates during which DDT was still held in high dis-favor
When the usageof DDT was re-visited and a renaissance of its efficacy was made to be once again "acceptable" within widening research circles..in the early to mid 2000's...you have nothing to say or cite from that period..
Your prejudice and dishonesty makes me sick....
zeroceiling 11 months ago
"isnt it interesting that you only cite studies from dates during which DDT was still held in high dis-favor"
Would you have me use studies from what would have been the future to the people making public heath decisions at the time?
Isn't that "hind site is 20/20"?
I'm using the science OF THE TIME because it was what the PEOPLE OF THE TIME had to use
.
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
The point being made to the age of the reference material is merely that while ..yes..if one wants to indulge in theoretical research conduced 30 years ago...their results ..when measured against the historical context of their research..and available material..were accurate to that extent....
However..there is hardly any research of significance..that survives a 30 year run ( even Darwin)..so my point is simply..look at the latest research and do not form your argument on this.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Why dont you try more recent literature you fossil..
:DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes
9 Aug 2007 "DDT's repellent action makes it a powerful public health tool. It also explains DDT remains effective against malariacarrying.medicalnewstoday.
DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes15 Sep 2006
Media Release. DDT Highly Effective Against Resistant Mosquitoes. New study .
fightingmalaria.
DDT to be used against malaria - Health & Science International
25.10 2007
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
Straw man - I've never argued that DDT was not effective - it is. Nor do I support the total ban of DDT. It's use should be strategic, as small as possible and always with the idea of it's major side effects and bio- accumulation in mind
BeondaPale 11 months ago
You state you are waiting...
Is that for the badly needed "blowhard academic rod up your ass" medication recalibration..?
zeroceiling 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zeroceiling
"Is that for the badly needed "blowhard academic rod up your ass" medication recalibration..?"
Nope, waiting - STILL waiting -- for you to cite a SINGLE SOURCE
You won't, because you can't, because YOU ARE A CLOWN
BeondaPale 11 months ago
You are ...delightfully free from the ravages of intelligence you blowhard ass..
First
Where the hell do you get the "Tangenial " idea that we should take as gospel sources that your provide from bloody 1981...and 1994..that is 30 and 17 years ago respectively..you pompous moron.
Second.
You SIMPLY state that you BELIEVE that $.015/lb of DDT is RELATIVELY inexpensive to countries such as Tanzania and Sri Lanka???
Why?? because you believe this to be true???
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"You SIMPLY state that you BELIEVE that $.015/lb of DDT is RELATIVELY inexpensive to countries such as Tanzania and Sri Lanka"
No It WAS inexpensive - And this is FRICKEN OBVIOUS, you political toad. Or are you putting forth the ridiculous argument (without citing any sources whatsoever, of course) that Sri Lanca couldn't scrape up $300 (even through charities and such) to buy 2000lbs (a TON) of DDT to wipe out malaria over a SIGNIFICANT land area??
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
Finally..we may agree to disagree but lets give it a shot:
Today: Family income in Egypt is around $2.00/day that is in 2011 (Sri Lanka is slightly higher)
In 1964: my dad was buying a gallon of gas for $.10-12/gallon today it is lets say $3.75 almost 2 days of family income in Egypt.
$.15 in 1964 probably represented that if not more based on on inflation factors etc. and the transportation, distribution and application probably increased the "real cost"/ kg to 4-5 days income.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
The 15 cent figure was for '69 - not '64. but you original argument was:
"the actual price of DDT and its production has become..during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled"
I see, so it must have been what... 2 cents a pound in 1962, right?
Do you have the slightest thread of evidence to back up the stuff you pulling out of your backside?
You also claim that DDT was "tightly controlled" in that time frame - Same question, any evidence there either?
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
Well keeping this light..here is a partial quote from WHO 2008 Report ...
"global DDT distribution for public health must be supported technically and financially. It is essential that adequate resources and technical support are rapidly allocated to countries so that they can adopt appropriate measures for sound management of pesticides in general and of DDT in particular. (pg.88)
Clearly an external financial support is urged...why?...does this sound cheap?..or without control?
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zeroceiling
"does this sound cheap?..or without control?"
For 2008? No - but then 64 - 68 was 40 to 44 years earlier, wasn't it?
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
My main point on this is starting be this however...
As an admirer of Albert Einstein..I very much like one of his many quotes which states:
Any fool can make that..which is complex more complex..it is sign of genius to make that which is complex...simple..
This is not a forum to pontificate about obscure publications..with rhetorical questions about a body of work you "know"..very few if any people have read...
Then hang your entire argument positioning on that assumption.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
The BSer's last resort is to wax philosophical
BeondaPale 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale
You are quite simply an ass!!
This windbag is amazed that other then him and the other heard of nerds...the rest of us have....amazingly enough not read the engrossing:
Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001"
Typical rhetorical question from this prick: 1964 is 44 years prior to 2008...Isnt it?? (I'm a prick..as I am only asking this question to be an exponential prick)..
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@BeondaPale My dad always said..do not get into an argument with an idiot..they will drag you down to their level and then pummel you with experience
It's is beyond belief that this nerd would honestly expect youtube normal users to have readi:
"Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001"?
Perfect!
quote from 1980's and a this fine work and its a nerd parade.
BTW: Dont challenge him on clowns either.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zeroceiling
Hey ZERO
A preview of the book
Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001"?
Is available in google books if only you would DECIDE TO READ IT.
Here is a link to a preview of page 150 of the book - which speaks specifically about mosquito resistance to DDT
books.google. com/books?id=cXReOkRW4BkC&lpg=PP1&dq=editions%3AISBN0786867817&pg=PA150#v=onepage&q=ddt&f=false
Good reading!
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
He also feels its important to point out that the difference between 2008 and 1964 is 44 years...isnt it? he asks earnestly ...obviously very genuine and eager to be right.
he then continues on the road to energetically disprove my allegation that DDT is difficult to obtain and is controlled...by stating proudly that he in fact has cracked the code and "has the source for 15 cent/pound in 1969"...whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
An obvious escapee from the nerd herd.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"An obvious escapee from the nerd herd."
This in lieu of some sort of argument - got it
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
Finaly..the nerd is a quote machine without an actual personal position clearly articulated in any of his posts...but merely challenges as to what was read..(only correct if in his "read that" depository)..
Are you seriously so derranged that the basis of your outrage with my position is: that I dont have a clue if $.15 was "exponentially expensive"..much less tightly controlled"..
Seriously..where the hell did you lead this discussion?...and why?..never-mind..not interested!
zeroceiling 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zeroceiling
"Are you seriously so derranged that the basis of your outrage with my position is: that I dont have a clue if $.15 was "exponentially expensive"..much less tightly controlled"."
No, My position is that you are willing to listen to political pundits throwing around accusations LONG LONG LONG before you are willing to listen to people that know what the hell they are talking about
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale cont.
This form of polemics is disingenuous and self aggrandizing...purely seeking out to ask questions that you could have very well pulled out of a google search..and placed them in your "challenge".
Then act like a tenured entomologist..
your aha moment of realizing that I used 64 instead of 69 in postulating a general response...did that make your heart flutter with the excitement that you got me?
fact is neither of us know the actual value of $.02 in Sri Lanka in 1969.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"This form of polemics is yadda yadda bs bs bs bs"
LOL ALL of which is a wind bag way of saying
"I don't have a fricken clue if 15 cents was "exponentially expensive" much less "tightly controlled as I earlier claimed to definitely know"
BTW, I do have a source for the 15 cents a pound in 1969
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
By tangential, I mean small exposure to the stuff (sort of like getting a vacine) since in any effort all ponds will not be treated by DDT evenly and some breeding grounds will end up with only a small fraction of the DDT that should be used.
Populations that receive such tangential exposure are far more likely to develop resistance and then pass on that resistance to future generations
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
Thank you..I am aware of the term Tangenial..and my singular point in that area really was that in a "theoretical setting"..you could, by introduction of a new agent..call it TDD..wipe out 99.9% of a given hypothetical population..be it of musquitoes or water buffalos..and you will in most cases slow down the population growth to the numbers left over...01% (who had a genetic makeup that allowed this cohort to survive.)
In fact precise effect of massive DDT initial dose utilization.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@BeondaPale
I never suggested that there was a specific location or occurrence where 99.9% of any musquito population was eradicated by any means..including DDT..again purely theoretical explanation of slow re-emergence of the insect.
(Call it my Straw Man...)..
To return to the issue though...I am not ignorant of the fact that there is a relatively high habituation to DDT and "war of attrition" may not be the best utilization of this agent...as early "massive" doses were most effective.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Please BeondPale...educate us..with your well documented assertions..backed by maybe an excerpt or two.
Finally.everyone knows that lower / restricted production of anything is subject to the laws of supply and demand screwed by the artificial barriers and tariffs supported by WHO and others under the prevailing idiotic dogma like "Secret Spring" published by Rachel Carson in 1962 for god sakes so there go your dates.
This crap was completely discredited since but still cost millions of lives!
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Where did you get your information..seriously??...cite the actual of a 1 year adaptation cycle??
there are basically two methods of adaptation..
A.) mutation after exposure..slow..unpredictable...(longer then the 20 generation cycle process you describe..by far)
B) Individuals with an existing resistance to DDT already..they are the only ones to survive and breed after eradication....again...99.9 breeding individuals did not survive...so to build up this population also exceptionally slow..
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"99.9 breeding individuals did not survive." Really? Where in Africa, precisely did mosquito populations fall by 99.9%, bozo?
What of TANGENTIAL exposure, Krusty?
Have you read "Mosquito: A Natural History of our Most Persistent and Deadly Foe, by Andrew Spielman, Sc. D., and Michael D'Antonio, Hyperion, 2001"?
BeondaPale 11 months ago
Bull??
Are you getting this from some 101 course?
Its very easy and provocative to make totally unsubstantiated statements about the historical efficacy of DDT without ANY empirical or statistical data to back it up with
( verified by a peer review reports just for freaking starters).
Then to add to this idiocy..you put out the figure of $0.15/pound cost of DDT without using the context of prevailing cost index in 1969.
So..totally meaningless!
Example..Today.: Egypt 2011 : $2.00 /day/cap
zeroceiling 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"Are you getting this from some 101 course?"
Why no, fraud I'm getting it from here:
Curtis, C. F., "Should DDT continue to be recommended for malaria vector control?", Medical and Veterinary Entomology, Vol. 8, 1994, pages 107-112
AND HERE
Chapin, Georgeanne & Robert Wasserstrom, "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India", Nature, Vol. 293, 1981, pages 181 to 185.
Where are you getting YOUR info from? the Rush Limbaugh show?
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"verified by a peer review reports just for freaking starters"
Which peer review reports would those be? NAME THEM Let me guess you don't have a clue because you are a CLOWN!
Btw, are we talking efficacy in labs or (I reiterate) WIDESPREAD USE IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Also if you think 15 cents a pound for DDT is exorbitantly expensive in a 1969 context - even for a country like Sri Lanka or Tanzania you are full of crap
BeondaPale 11 months ago
If she had asked ME that question about Malaria and DDT and accused ME of suppporting the passive killing of kids in Africa -
I would have not walked away. I would have merely pointed out that DDT WAS NOT BANNED in africa during the time she would claim and that she has been fed (and is mindlessly spreading) TOTAL BS by someone with a political agenda
DDT was not banned in any DEVELOPED country till the 1970s and certainly NOT banned ANYWHERE in Africa in1964
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@BeondaPale check your facts and check them again while the bans did not take place..as you point out corectly...the actual price of DDT and its production has become..during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled...it as a substance non-grata and the manufacturing facilities of this product have been systematically downsized and of course the product has become exponentially more expensive..and harder to obtain..through red tape..specially vis vis 3rd world per capita $..
zeroceiling 11 months ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
"during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled"
BULL!! I will now ask you to prove this statement and you will now utterly fail to do so. The time frame is 1964 -1969
The price of DDT in 1969 was 15 cents A POUND
The DDT eradication program was ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it NO LONGER WORKED - mosquitoes had grown resistant. In fact mosquitoes resistant to DDT started appearing ONE YEAR after its first public health use.
BeondaPale 11 months ago
@zeroceiling
Now, you ask me to cite MY sources and I did, but you still haven't cited yours for your statement
"the actual price of DDT and its production has become..during the time you cite...exponentially expensive and controlled"
I'm waiting
BeondaPale 11 months ago
oh shit have you noticed that volcanos give off CO2 shit it must be my fault
GWR4079 1 year ago
Why do enviromentalist want to destroy and reduce the numbers of the most evolved animal so far produced on this planet or do they believe man is not of this earth.
I do think this enviromental movement has turn into a faith like atheism has with scientist like Dawkins controling most science decisions now. Science could not even figure out amino weather patterns let alone predicting the future of them and now they claim to know the future without providing proof for other scientist to examine
beginization 1 year ago
If you asked me, in a quite aggressive way that you pitch your speak, I'd walk away from you.
yozeroz 1 year ago
just wana say, im an AGW skeptic (or at least dont agree with the current "consensus" notion) but i have to say this, WE ARE ANIMALS! we arent better than them, we ARE them, maybe we dont eat our young but we do some fucked up shit instead. AGW is balls. but we are apes. its a fact, we are as depraved as the other animals but we are as great as them too, just like the magestic orca, the beutiful butterflys, and rhinos, elephants and we are as savage as the chaos of nature, we are part of nature.
FreeTheRadical 1 year ago
#1) Human mothers do kill their young, ie Susan Smith and Andrea Yates
#2) Name an amimal that spills a million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Name an animal that released a toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal India. Name an animal that created a texas sized patch of plastic in the Pacific Ocean. Name an animal that emits radioactive waste.
This woman is nuts
Revbone450 1 year ago
Like the fact that greenman and potholer are not on here. I think they are really Al Gore and Maurice Strong, lol.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
God this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
jumpingjesusholycow 1 year ago
We have to stop the spreading of that religious sect of the environmentalists, these deceived idiots are very dangerous, talk about mad cow disease in their brains.
Serge1965 1 year ago 2
The only reason they say that carbon is the cause of the "problem" is so they can tax the crap out of anything to do with it and line their own pockets.
blorgensteen 1 year ago 2
When you debate an idiot, there are tow idiots. I wouldn't debate a creationist either: it would be a total waste of time.
gumpydoood 1 year ago
I wonder why, the believers of the CO2 theory, always refer to the prestigiousness of the co2 preaching weather scientists, but never wants to debate the evidence and the technicality? Its always about: 'oh you should believe him, because he is this and that, and don't believe those, because they are paid by the oil industry.
It becomes religion, where people choose a prophet instead of researching themselves. Staying ignorant is a secure way to totalitarianism
PalleSchultz 1 year ago 13
The thing is that you can't really have a debate on the science unless you really dig into the science. You can't just read a couple websites and pretend like you know what you are talking about. That's when you get to the really stupid arguments like: "its snowing outside, obviously global warming is false," or my favorite "CO2 is a trace gas, so it can't have an effect on the climate."
Glasya666 1 year ago
My favorite is ignoring 4 billion years and arguing that 150 years of data put into a computer model is plenty proof of CO2 being the main reason for global warming. I doesn't make any sense. Especially when Greenland Ice core drillings clearly states that when they started measuring temp. it was the coldest year in 10.000 years.
Hopefully it will get warmer, because we are only 2° from an iceage.
PalleSchultz 1 year ago 19
@PalleSchultz Im sorry you have been lied to, and you believe it! It's a shame that basic science escaped you about Co2. fact is that since Co2 is in the ice cores proves that Co2 goes down not up! This is because Co2 is heavier than Oxygen! If Alice Gore's phoney theory was correct and the Co2 was getting into the atmosphere we would all be dead allready!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz
Dead from what?
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz Co2 thats what! Co2 displaces Oxygen, fire fighters use it to put out fires! Co2 pools up in low lying area's, same reason why volcano explorers have to be carefull at the base of a volcano. If indeed there was enough Co2 to reach the earths atmosphere the oxygen would be floating on top of it therefore we would suficate. Thank God for Photosynthesis! People just don't get it! disproving Global warming due to Co2 is basic science!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz
You are barking up the wrong tree, buddy!
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz That almost sounds like a threat! But regardless since im not a dog, there is only common sense to say I am not nor have I ever been Barking! "Buddy may refer to: A friend or a partner for a particular activity; Buddy (dog)". Should I be offended or honored that you want to be my friend? I'm not sure! I think we are on the same side of the debate, but don't agree on the science! Plain and simple man made Global Warming is a fraud! Im satisfied with that!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz
hysterical anal fixation tends to create conspiracy theories and misconceptions. So try to relax just a little.
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz What the hell are you talking about? Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes a state of mind, one of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. Are you saying to disagree with a lie being told such Co2 causing global warming constitues an anal fixation? Do you want to pay taxes on a lie? I don't! Sigmund Freud"Anal fixation, which may be caused by too much punishment during toilet training"? How bizzar!
shazizz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz Let's talk about Conspiracy for a minute! If you believe Conspiracy Theory believers are crazy! Think about this for a minute. If they are not crazy and it's true then we have a big problem! However if they are crazy we have also got a big problem! Someone is trying to convince a lot of people that there is or isn't a God! And that there is or isn't a NWO! and that there is or isn't a government Conspiracy!
shazizz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PalleSchultz regardless of how you look at it there is indeed a Conspiracy to play us like a banjo! We are being manipulated,lied to,cheated,stolen from while we go about our lives seeking the truth!
shazizz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PalleSchultz regardless of how you look at it there is indeed a Conspiracy to play us like a banjo! We are being manipulated,lied to,cheated,stolen from while we go about our lives seeking the truth!
shazizz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz And on the "misconceptions:A view or opinion that is incorrect because based on faulty thinking or understanding." Show me your science and I will humor you further, but in the meantime "hysterical anal fixation tends to create conspiracy theories and misconceptions. So try to relax just a little" Phrases such as these only prove one thing! Your just not sure of your science! So you have to belittle others to get your point accross! It's not working! I stand firm!
shazizz 1 year ago
@shazizz
I could not describe hysterical anal fixation, more clearly than you have just demonstrated with your three posts
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz You crack me up! Im laughing to hard to respond! But i'll try? Still no Science! That's it short and sweet! Thank You for your humorous responses.
shazizz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PalleSchultz that what you need to tell these idiots who believe in global warming! of course they will not listen because they are full of koolaid!
shazizz 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz we have ice cores that show CO2 levels from millions of years ago. They have been going up. But more CO2 does not equal warmer weather.
kyleisreallycool 10 months ago
@Glasya666
CO2 is a trace gas, if you were to line up all the gasses of the atmosphere of this planet as a football field, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Argon would take you to 3" from the goal, about half the width of the chalk stripe, and most of that chalk stripe is CO2, since we have had the ability to measure, CO2 has increased in concentration by 1/3", the width of a pencil, in 100 yards, in 160 years. CO2 does not drive climate, it reacts to it.
81broncoman 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz I prefer the climatologist to the meteorologist. CO2 could not be precisely measured until Charles Keeling built an interferometer for the task. Now, there is a CO2 gas laser interferometer that can constantly measure CO2. Wanna guess how?
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
@PalleSchultz Al Gore and Mann decided CO2 and carbon was to be the only target as this creates life and that wont reduce the population enough now we missed nuclear war in the 1980s, dont forget the Georgia Guild stones
beginization 1 year ago
"Make them defend Rachel Carson"
From what you stupid whore?
Glasya666 2 years ago
Make them answer this: Before DDT was banned the man who invented it was given the Nobel Prize for saving more lives than anybody else in history, malaria deaths had gone from a million a year to just 1% of that 99 lives in 100 saved by DDT. After DDT was banned, due to Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring which is entirely based on bad science, the death toll went from 10,000 to a million and stayed there for 40 years. Finally in 2006 the WHO lifted the ban on DDT. Defend banning DDT, i dare you.
81broncoman 1 year ago
NOTHING you said here is true. Rachel Carson never suggested banning DDT. She actually supported its use in fighting disease. Contrary to popular belief, DDT was never banned for use in fighting disease. They have been using it all along.
One of the reasons that malaria made a comeback was because of the overuse of DDT. It's an insecticide. The more you use it, the less effective it becomes. Carson actually warned about this in her book. Too bad they didn't listen soon enough.
Glasya666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>> "Defend banning DDT, i dare you. "
I'm not going to defend something that never actually happened.
Glasya666 1 year ago
This is completely riddiculous, it's unbelievable how far the spread of ignorance can warp someones opinion. Environmentalists have been so strongly misrepresented and wrongly compared in this video that I'm going to make video response over the next couple of days. I'm an environmentalist, if you are one as well and wish to contribute to the video, leave a comment on my wall with your contribution in text. I'm sick of environmentalism being wrongly portrayed as an ignorant cult.
Makethedifference777 2 years ago
broad brush...
apples in a barrell
AussieDolla 1 year ago
Humans actually in some parts of the world do eat their young as well as other humans, you put yourself in a starving situation and see how long you live, actually your porb such a coward that some one would eat you. Sounds grose but it is true. I hate hearing ignorance.
Punksual 2 years ago
wow you're an idiot. Okay hold on one second. comparing how humans which are animals and animals in the wild are different is pretty ignorant. First of all, the reaosn why an animal will eat their young is in the case of survival. A mother will eat her baby if the baby is not going to survive aka a runt, because a predator can smell death and can harm the rest
Punksual 2 years ago
Glasya666. I am guessing you are a well educated, and probably well meaning person. However, it is such a shame to see you make such a fool of yourself. Many, and I would guess 75% of the World's scientific population, now see the 'man-made global warming' SCAM for what it is, a failed and flawed science only continued because of the billions of dollars now involved in this "business". In fact one so called "Climate Scientist" even admitted about two weeks back it was now only about money!
Tuafan 2 years ago
@hughster41 Those were peace prizes. Not the same thing. You only get a Nobel Prize in science by accomplishment.
Tim Ball heads an industry lobby group. Is that really the best you can come up with?
I am not pointing to political groups, I am pointing to scientific organizations. Research groups at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc. Are they all in on the conspiracy? It's amazing how you can just ignore everything that doesn't fit into your view.
Glasya666 2 years ago
Dude, you're a shill you twit. "You only get a Nobel Prize in science by accomplishment." LOL just LOL!!!
LeoBloomWilder 1 year ago
Name one Nobel Prize winning scientist that was awarded the prize based on anything other than accomplishment. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you moron.
Glasya666 1 year ago
Al Gore
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
I said Nobel Prize winning scientist. A Peace Prize is obviously political. One has nothing to do with the other.
Glasya666 1 year ago
Thank you for clarifying that. And yes, those two obviously has absolutely nothing to do with each other. :)
PalleSchultz 1 year ago
Is the National Academy of Sciences in on the scam? The Royal Society? The NOAA? The American Geological Society? The American Meterological Society? How about prominent scientists like Stephen Hawking? Nobel Prize winning scientists?
Thing is, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. If you were given a standard college level physics exam right now I would bet everything I own that you would fail miserably. You can't argue the science, so you exaggerate this "controversy".
Glasya666 2 years ago
There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate. Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over... 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists.
Tuafan 2 years ago
Seriously, you just embarrass yourself by mentioning the Oregon Petition. Look at the requirements to sign up. Just about anybody with a college degree can be a global warming "expert". There are almost 100 veterinariany on the list. There are also a lot of fake names on the list, such as Michael J. Fox and Perry Mason.
Glasya666 2 years ago
So the 31000 REAL scientists, who signed a petition, who disagree with the nonsense of 'man made global warming' are also all wrong? There is not one reputable scientist in the World who agrees 100% with what the IPCC is telling people. Not one. Only you :-)
Tuafan 2 years ago
PWNED!!!
Dmac11a666 2 years ago
The same Royal Society who around 100 years ago were discussing their concerns of how the World was warming and the ice in the Arctic was melting? Ohhhh, THAT Royal Society. Lol.
Tuafan 2 years ago
The Royal Society is one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world. I don't know, or care, what they were talking about 100 years ago.
Glasya666 2 years ago
The Wegman Report said, Based on the
literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on
MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper). As analyzed in our social
network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately
believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has
a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been
sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public
positions without losing credibility.
Tuafan 2 years ago
@hughster41
Every major scientific organization in the world agrees with the IPCC. All you have is a couple e-mails taken out of context. What a joke, especially considering the title of this video.
Glasya666 2 years ago
A "couple of emails" LOL!!! There are thousands of emails discussing how they will "trick" and "hide" and "change" and "cover up" etc real data from gullible people like yourself. 31000 REAL scientists say what the IPCC (which is political, not scientific) tell us - is not correct. I am guessing with your extremely limited knowledge you would last about 60 seconds in a debate before being made to look a fool.
Look up - "THE WORLD WIDE PROTEST AGAINST THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM" - on facebook
Tuafan 2 years ago
The term "trick" is commonly used in science. I've even seen it in textbooks. You obviously don't know what the term "hide the decline" actually means. What they were "hiding" was openly discussed in peer reviewed journals for some time. You are taking things out of context, without the slightest clue as to what you are actually talking about.
Look into the Oregon Petition. It's a scam. You arent't helping yourself by mentioning it. The majority of scientists agree with AGW. That's a fact.
Glasya666 2 years ago
@Glasya666 The key word/phrase is not "trick", it's hide the decline. Look into the actual context of what that meant... not just the whitewashed context. It will be clear that there is nothing scientific about what was done here. Hide the decline consists of altering the graph to hide the fact that the proxy data is not consistent with observed measurements. That graph was then shown to politicians and policy makers.
nyer82 2 years ago
So you say I should look into the actual context behind "hide the decline"? I assume that means that you read the peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject and found flaws in their statistical analysis. Please show me where the errors are in these articles. Either that, or admit that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.
Glasya666 2 years ago
McIntyre found flaws in the hockey team analysis and his work has been peer-reviewed. Unfortunately the incident about 'hide the decline' is new enough not to have much in any academic journals. One more thing, at least in terms of climate science, the peer-review process has been damaged.
nyer82 2 years ago
@hughster41 "The IPCC, those are the same guys who brought us climate gate."
Did you actually bother to look up the report I mentioned? Don't bother answering that, because I know you didn't.
Glasya666 2 years ago
@hughster41 "CO2 follows heat, not the other way around."
Yes, we all know this. It is well understood. It was even predicted before we discovered this, so I fail to see your point.
Glasya666 2 years ago
Glaysya - you just agreed on the point that makes the whole man-made global warming SCAM the nonsense it is, yet you don't even realise it. If I was you, I would head back to University and ask for a refund on your degree. :-)
Tuafan 2 years ago
So let's say that CO2 matches up perfectly with climate change and they are 110% related with NO other factors. hypothetically of course.
thousands of years ago when the climate can be said to have been much warmer, what caused the build up of CO2? where did it all come from? because we obviously weren't causing the CO2 emissions like we WERE... how can you say that climate change in and of itself is not completely natural, regardless of the reasons?
Ynell 2 years ago 3
Ok, I'll defend Rachel Carson you stupid bitch. She was 100% right. DDT is an insecticide. The more you use it, the less effective it becomes (just like antibiotics). She never called for a ban, but instead said that it should be used sparingly to prevent disease. Nobobdy listened, and they used it in large quantities for agriculture.
DDT was never actually banned for use in fighting disease. Blaming malaria on Carson is just stupid. Ironic, coming from a bitch that has all the facts.
Glasya666 2 years ago
another thing stupid, the majority of "climate scientists" would be out of a job if they said anything else, to bad you don't have more than half a brain, stupid ass.
wsmith1213 2 years ago
Anyone interested in signing a petition to regulate the use of the chemical dihydrogen oxide? LOL
WeAreDevo456 2 years ago
Glasya666 would do something that stupid, just tell him it'll save a tree
wsmith1213 2 years ago
don't forget to stop breathing. every breath you take releases deadly CO2
Ackbar60 2 years ago
well, a little crazy but right on target.
life is too easy if you have time to whine about how you think food feels.
msqtube 2 years ago
ann you are so full of shit. who gave you the money to make this movie?
mwd69 2 years ago
creationists are like environmentalists - both is purely faith and not fact nor reason based, both can not be scientific therefore.
The entire CO2 fuzz is just one giant scam in order to reach total domination, we had big ice ages with far more CO2 in the atmosphere then we have today, water vapor is far more climate active then CO2 could possibly ever be yet the morons go on - owners of mainstream want it that way.
Sideshowbobx 2 years ago
sit down and smoke some DMT you weirdo.
anthonyreckitt 2 years ago
Yes , whatever you do dont get in the position of being proved that you are full of shit!
Bobbygn 2 years ago
For the same reason that scientists dont debate creationists. Or that people who believe in a spherical earth dont debate peoople who believe in a flat one. Because debating someone whose only goal is to cast doubt and cause confusion about science doenst help anyone.
hovertree1 2 years ago
Telling it like it is. Thank you.
TehBlackBaron 2 years ago
How about you explain the oppression anyone who expressed ideas about evolution, a spherical earth etc got?
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
What in the hell are you talking about?
Glasya666 2 years ago
Eventually...IN YOUR FACE -type responses are the only ones that get through. No extremism here. Fighting myths with facts. She's just hitting the new politially correct "Green Fundamentalist religion" head on. Tough lady.
caryhey 2 years ago
Stunned by the stupidity of anyone who believes environmentalist lies. Fuck you green nazis. Iknow how you can save the planet, just go kill yourself and there is one less gullible idiot who believes junk science
daizee106 2 years ago 2
would be natural selection at its prime =D
aznboy131 2 years ago
Extremism is not the answer to extremism.
Bizarre claims that all animals casually eat their young isn't needed to demonstrate homosapiens are superior. Besides, no other animal has terminated more of its own species more than humans.
This speaker's website for her new movie is so partisan it is sickening. It is more anti democrat than anti extremism.
I agree that Al Gore is misleading us and his cronies are hypocrites, but all extremism is dangerous even if the heart is in the right place.
Iwannaseenakedchicks 2 years ago 5
What does she say at the 14 second mark? "Whole emotional thing about the ......." What? Labors? Can't quite catch it, but it brings a big laugh.
hittpitch 2 years ago
Lemurs
Gobilva 2 years ago
Got it, thanks Gobilva!
hittpitch 2 years ago
Environmentalist thinking is inherently flawed whenever it accepts both evolution and the proposition that there is even the possibility of right and wrong as concerns the environment. As part of the environment whatever we do can neither be right nor wrong. It just is. Might makes right.
tchoakim 2 years ago
There's going to be a Civil war soon in America. I can feel it...
HalfLucky 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Stingray3440 2 years ago
How is it possible that more people aren't outraged by the horrible consequences of some of these Liberal boondoggles? Anne & Phelim's started this crusade because of an entire town that was wiped out because a rich Liberal woman decided to throw her weight around and close a mine (for all of our own good, of course).
Liberals always say they care about the poor, but their actions are just the opposite. Just look at charitable contributions from the Left and Right. It's all about image...
SDesWriter 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Its all bullshit
Jacobrester 2 years ago
the current cycle of global warming started at the end of the last ice age, anyone who blames it on man is completely ignorant. over the last 5 billions years, the avg global temperature has been constantly changing. We've had multiple Ice ages. Mans fault? Al Gore would like you to think that, but he's a real idiot, just like the posters on this page blaming man for global warming. Retards.
wsmith1213 2 years ago
>> "the current cycle of global warming started at the end of the last ice age, anyone who blames it on man is completely ignorant."
This is hilarious. An idiot on youtube claiming that the majority of climate scientists are ignorant. How about Stephen Hawking? He believes that humans are causing global warming. Maybe you can educate him.
Glasya666 2 years ago
Hello stupid, I'm going to type this slowly because I can tell you have a hard time reading. 20,000 years ago sea levels were about 300 feet lower than they are now. That is a fact, you can ask Mr Hawkings that yourself Einstein. there was no industry 20000 years ago to start global warming, that melted the ice caps, that brought the sea levels up about 300 feet so far, so how could it be man made stupid? How smart are u blaming global wrmng on something that only makes up 0.03% of the atm?
wsmith1213 2 years ago
We didn't have anything to do with climate change in the past, therefore we can't have anything to do with the current climate change? Nice "logic".
There are a lot of things that affect our climate. The position of the continents, the composition of the atmosphere, changes is our orbit, changes in the land that effect energy absorption, etc.
And your claim that CO2 is insignificant because it only makes up .03% of the atmosphere is ridiculous. Have you done any calculations on this?
Glasya666 2 years ago
your probably the dumbest sandal nazi i've seen on here. Obviously you don't understand how small 0.03% is, it's 3 out of every 10,000 parts. not a very effective greenhouse. of course your so stupid you probably couldn't find you own ass in a dark room.
wsmith1213 2 years ago
Intelligent response. Just about what I would expect from you.
Glasya666 2 years ago
I'm not surprised you don't understand. And yes, Mr. Hawkings seems to be losing his marbles
wsmith1213 2 years ago
>> "And yes, Mr. Hawkings seems to be losing his marbles."
If there was ever any doubt that you are a complete moron, this just ended it.
Glasya666 2 years ago
Just for the record, are you calling Stephen Hawking an idiot too? Please reply to this, as I would like to see how you work your way out of this.
Glasya666 2 years ago
What majority of scientists? You mean the majority that completely disagree with your hypothesis?
CO2 is a TRACE GAS. Which has demonstrably minimal effect on the temperature of earth.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
CO2 has a demonstratably minimal effect on the temperature of the earth? Care to demonstrate? I'd like to see this.
Glasya666 2 years ago
In the 1980's a satellite was launched which contains radiation detectors pointed at earth. Over 20 years this has revealed that, contrary to the computer models produced by the IPCC, CO2 has little effect on CO2.
PonguigPeopinn 2 years ago
Ok, I guess that settles it then. Which satellite was this? Any information at all?
Glasya666 2 years ago
why don't you prove it otherwise since your the skeptic. I'd like to see this, your so fucking stupid you don't even realize there's noway to "see" this. how bout looking at global temperatures the last couple of hundred years stupid? global temps are dropping dumb ass, wake the fuck up and smell the coffee
wsmith1213 2 years ago
Did you forget to take your pill this morning?
Glasya666 2 years ago
did your brains fall out of your ass this morning?
wsmith1213 2 years ago
I'd like to see proof that C02 DOESN'T have a minimal effect? Consistent Proof. Not 1 article from a biased source. Show me several indesputable sources that show C02 being a sound cause for global warming.
just 30 years ago we it was all about the "ice age scare"... now we hear people whining about warming. GREAT.
Ynell 2 years ago