Carbon dioxide reflects infrared light. When light from the sun hits earth, the planet heats up. When things get hot, they radiate infrared to cool down. Because of the CO2 in the atmosphere, earth can't radiate heat away as fast, thus causing the planet to heat up. If there is no greenhouse effect, why doesn't the earth freeze at night? If CO2 is not responsible, what is?
The scientific community of climatologists believe humans are accelerating global warming. Scientists repeatedly point out that no one individual event is attributable to this warming. If temperatures increase faster then the natural cycles yes, stuff is gonna happen!
Wow. A list of links. No proof, no numbers no evidence to support Global warming, just a list of links. That's about s compelling as the G8 summit where people took private jets to get there. That's helping the environment huh? or s convincing as Gore's summer home which uses more than 2X the kilowatt house as normal home. But he still loves the earth. He plants trees. Which won't reach their full potential for years and years
@pseudohippie55 Lee Doren actually is a global warming skeptic from what I've seen. I'm pretty sure this list (and Doren's reading of it) was made to show how people will blame anything on global warming and isn't intended as an endorsement of the links as fact.
Wait...didn't most scientists first say global wrming woulds kill us, THEN say global COOLING will kill us? Which is it? Will we burn or freeze to death?
See. global warming does exist, but it's all cyclical. There re MULTIPLE cycles of heating and cooling that have been PROVEN to be 100% correct. There's on of millions of years down to ones of 100 years. the 1750s, 1850s, nd 1950s were the hottest decades of each century. It's been proven.
Thats it! From this point on, I reject global warming. I was a skeptic before, but now I have no choice. You can't tell me frogs with extra heads and a glacier growing in California is proof of global warming.
@HerbertHKohl again why do i have to explain this? you ask why would climatologists have an incentive to fabricate global warming? maybe the fact that their jobs are on the line? maybe because without the threat of global warming the government will stop funding them. the field of science isn't a full time paying job. you only get paid if you can prove that your research is needed. THEN the government starts paying the bills. without the scare of global warming they would be out on their asses.
@HerbertHKohl the reason most climatologists support the argument of global warming is because without the threat of global warming there is way less need for climatologists. they are backing up the need for their own job. a seller of herbal remedies doesn't go around telling everyone their healthy as a horse. he tells you that the world is a deadly sick and nasty place. and if you just listen to him and buy his goods you will be fine.
@gibblets17 This is nothing but a bald assertion. If you have evidence that every single study ever done confirming that global warming is a real phenomenon, I would love to see it. If not, I suggest you take off your tinfoil hat and stop listening to Alex Jones. The NWO is not out to get you.
@ryan84160 there are counter studies and scientist across the world in the thousands who say that global warming at the very least is over rated. but every time the opposite side of the argument tries to bring up a study of their own the green side just sulks like a child and says they are bought and payed buy the big oil! the green lifestyle is big money. if you believe that everyone jumps on that bandwagon for the good of man kind your ignorant of the facts.
@gibblets17 There are always individual scientist that will disagree with mainstream opinion. You can find biologists that believe in creationism and bigfoot.What matters more is what the majority on scientists in any given field say. This doesn't necessarily mean they are always going to be right, but its the by far much more reliable.
@gibblets17 Every single scientific organization in the world, with the exception of american association of petroleum geologists, is of the opinion that global warming is actually happening and is caused by human activity.When it comes to global warming, there is an actual scientific consensus.
@ryan84160 that is completely incorrect and you know it. there are thousands of SCIENTISTS that say other wise. a large portion of climate scientists are not actually even scientists! not in that field at least.
@gibblets17 How do you know its thousands ? There are individual scientists that are of that hold skeptical opinions of global warming, but not one single scientific organization. Anyway the number is not as important as the percentage. The vast,overwhelming majority of scientists and peer reviewed studies support the conclusion that the earth is getting warmer and that greenhouse gases are responsible.
@ryan84160 as a scientist YOU CANT oppose global warming. your basically shunned if you do. there have been hundreds of accounts of scientist saying they are to afraid to speak out against it for fear of what THE "MAJORITY" would say and do about it. 20 thousand scientists signed a piece of paper stating that did not support the arguments of global warming. and once again global warming is OLD NEWS. even the GREEN scientists say its not global warnings its climate change.
@gibblets17 "as a scientist YOU CANT oppose global warming. your basically shunned if you do. there have been hundreds of accounts of scientist saying they are to afraid to speak out against it for fear of what THE "MAJORITY" would say and do about it." They are free to come to any conclusion they want, but they are not free from ridicule. If a biologist comes out n favor of creatonism, it is not a conspiracy if they are ridiculed by the vast,vast majority of biologists.
at one point in time it was we where going to freeze to death. then its global warming. and now its climate instability! why don't they just stick to their story. im willing to listen to theories and what not and keep an open mind. green scientists have not really PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity is causing climate change. they say they have and ignore any facts that oppose their assumptions. they say all the time that the debate is OVER. but debate should NEVER be over.
@gibblets17 Nothing in ever proven in science. There is only varying degrees of certainty based on the evidence that is available at the time. When more and more and better and better evidence is found, the theory becomes more and more probable, but never proven. In this case, just as is the case with evolution, the vast majority of evidence points to climate change caused by the release of greenhouse gases.
@ryan84160 besides your point is moot anyways. they don't even call it global warming anymore. even the climatologists have changed their tunes. its now climate instability or some bat shit insane stuff. whenever they turn out to be wrong they change their theory and start over. i believe that humanity DOES need to watch its pollution. but i DON'T believe putting small amount of c02 into the air is causing global warming. and yes i meant SMALL.
@gibblets17 Changing the name of the phenomenon climate change does not make the point moot. How could you possibly think that? "but i DON'T believe putting small amount of c02 into the air is causing global warming. What basis do you have to come to that conclusion ?
"and yes i meant SMALL." Uh you do realize that small is a relative term right ? Small in relation to what ?
Man I love how the Global Warming argument has changed so much, its hilarious.
First it was Global Warming, then Climate Change. Now people are just saying.. "well we know it can't be proven but we should do something anyway because if we are right everyone is going to die." hahahahahahaha
Well I can't prove that doing 3 back flips a day will cure cancer but we should do it anyway because cancer is bad.
If you are a believer in Global Warming then you have to advocate the wholesale slaughter of every cow or grazing animal that produces methane. If your theory is correct Cows do more damage then all of human activity combined.
Although I do believe in the free-market, I'm not just going to reject climate science just because it's convenient. The evidence for global warming is overwhelming and the argument that has been put against it has been very weak.
Because experts are called experts for a reason. If you think you can falsify the consensus you are free to do so. No one has done so convincingly thus far. That is why the consensus hasn't changed its position.
The list that Lee Doren uses is not a scientific one,it's a list from a denial blog called numberwatch and based on the media and other self-confirming blogs, not peer reviewed scientific papers which record accurate harmful effects of AGW. The media, just like Lee, mis-reported climate change in the 1970's saying it was going to get colder when the majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. Why doesn't Lee read some peer reviewed science for once.
Your an idiot. Global Warming?? That is also a joke. Wouldn't someone first say. Hey maybe the temperature is rising because the sun is getting hotter?
ok Lee...i'm not in doubt that you are substancially smater than i am.. i love your videos and my comment isn't a flame against you whatsoever..but a video with you reading down a very large list???? put it in the description because i lost interest after you got to the C's on the list =(......dude your then man i'm not flaming but this video makes a point.but all in all is very boring..and i say that with love for your channel....
Your youtube channel is awesome. Thanks for providing another barrier to at least slow down these morons who want to hand their freedom over to the government for "safety."
@pitchmod apparently you don't. a theory just means an explanation of a somewhat broad set of facts; using fact to mean 'true' and not 'a single datum' evolution and gravity are both facts, and they are both theories (steady state was also a theory, and seems to be false, however 'theory' doesn't somehow inherently mean false, or a guess). There is a theory of gravity (relativity), and laws of evolution (say, common descent), laws are simply more descriptive. tl;dr, stfu.
To be annoying, the difference between a theory and a law lies in the type of explanation they provide about physical phenomena. A theory is an explanation of cause and effect, whereas a law is an observed, recurring relation between two or more factors.
For instance, evolution is a theory. We can describe its causes - the chemical processes of life and reproduction, and the natural selection mechanism - and its effects - minute generational improvements to specific habitat adaptation.
In contrast, electrical resistivity is a law. We know for certain that electrons travel through different metals at different speeds, because we've been able to observe it - we can even predict the resistivity of a conductor of a given material, circumference and temperature, and build complex electronic circuits - but we are powerless to explain exactly how the material slows down the electrons travelling through it.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Not at all annoying mane, yours was just way better of what I think, or hope, I said. That theory just means explaining data and has a more prescriptive element to it and doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's true, but I'm glad there are people better articulated than me on the subject, and of course I had a bit of rage in mah last post to make me probably a bit cloudy :3.
Global warming caused by humans is a complete lie. The proper term is climate change, which is in fact, a naturally occurring event on this planet and has taken place over a million times in the earths existence. It is plainly obvious that the media, especially the American media, is hand in hand with the government agenda. Some see right through this scam but for the most part, the majority of people will believe anything that is on television. This is how dimmed down the public really is.
We'll see how people feel when they go to turn on their tv/computers and the power goes out because of over-exceeding your power limit. Meanwhile joblessness skyrockets as the energy industry jobs in America fold over and go to China, and on top of it all you'll be paying more for less power and more pollution.
Which of "are" freedoms are they trying to take away? Your freedom to drive cars that pollute the air unnecessarily and kill thousands of people? Your freedom to have electricity that is so cheap you don't mind wasting it all the time? Your freedom to make oil companies rich at the expense of the average citizen?
You need to understand the difference between the CO2 you exhale and the CO2 that comes out of the back of your car; their sources are different.
Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, and when we eat these plants we simply put that same carbon back into the atmosphere. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
When you dig oil out of the ground and burn it, you're releasing carbon into the atmosphere that otherwise would have stayed buried.
But CO2 is CO2 you have to understand that no matter what and CO2 doesn't even do what it claims look at my video it will explain it i can explain further than the video if you wish
I was actually talking about other kinds of automobile pollution though, such as carbon monoxide and all the other crap that causes people to have serious health problems and even die. Big, inefficient vehicles like hummers produce more of this deadly pollution without any benefit, so I think they should be banned.
People should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't directly effecting the health of somebody else or using violent coercion. Yes, you do have to account for externalities, but a true externality involves an effected third party suing one of the original parties of a transaction for specific cause and effect economic damages. The problem with global warming is that you can't attribute any negative event specifically and primarily to global warming.
Global warming hurts people, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to cause global warming. I don't understand all of what you just said, but that's what I believe.
You can draw a distinction between greenhouse gas emissions and other kinds of pollution which directly make you sick, but in many cases their sources are the same, so you might as well kill two birds with one stone.
But who causes the Global Warming? All of us. At what cost to each individual? Can't be determined officially. SO therefore, it's not a true externality and the only way to enforce such a policy of controlling CO2 involves lots of violent coercion from a strong central authority. The only semi defensible solution? A small 5 percent tax on all CO2 energy sources which goes directly towards R and D for green tech. Not vouchers for technology that isn't ready yet. That's iffy too.
Then there's the philosophical issue. We know that the poorest people in the world today are better off than people who lived in tennessee in 1905, and the next hundred years should bring similar global upheaval. Considering that even with the most disastrous effects of global warming ever dreamed up, our descendants will make 10 times what we make today. Why should I make today harder so that my spoiled grand children can buy a tenth ipod?
Since there is just too much arguing here, here's a YES or NO question. Are the average temperatures from 1960 to now higher than anytime within the last 400,000 years? Please, when you do answer it, make sure contains a YES or NO word.
Everyone knows that this global warming horseshit is being perpetuated by the OwlGore Doofus, the Obama state run media, Hollywood stars and badly in need of a suntan British pop stars.Yet this Obama guy will try and cram this cap and trade horseshit down our throats.
"Bush was an oilman who spent his presidency trying to suppress science. Why would United States climatologists have had an incentive to fabricate the issue of global warming?"
You answered that question with your first statement, although I wouldn't say it was "fabricated." Think about it. What has happened in response to Bush's term? Massive opposition.
It's called "climate change" instead of the former terms "global warming" or "global cooling." Does this mean that no matter what the temperature is next year, the model of "climate change caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere" is proven to be true?
"If your data is so compelling then why do so many climatologists still believe in global warming?"
Political funding. Political bias. Ignorance or negligence toward opposing data.
Is all scientific data that doesn't agree with the general scientific consensus wrong? Seems somewhat contradictory. If 1998 was a warmer year than now, then the earth is colder now.
how can ppl possibly still say there is no such thing as global warming, you're clueless to scientific facts. maybe it's not exponentially increasing like some left wing pushers would claim, but that it's not happening at all, as in 0%, is sticking your head in the dirt. yes this list is ridiculous, esp lochness monster lmao thats my favorite :). but still, putting pollution in the air is not going to go without any consequences. i just hate when ppl say it doesn't exist at all.
Yeah, but don't you think its weird that all those guys with PhDs in climatology seem to think its more than just natural cycles?
And you do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas right? Don't you think the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 290 ppm to 380 ppm since the industrial revolution might be at play here? I mean that's a pretty big difference...
Also, you don't understand how scientists use the word theory. The idea that germs cause disease is also "just a theory".
Yes, there's obviously a strong correlation between the power output of the earth's main heat source, and the temperature of the earth, duh, that would be true no matter what.
But how does that prove CO2 concentrations aren't also a factor?
That's like saying "your metabolic rate is the main factor in keeping you warm, therefore putting on a sweater will make absolutely no difference."
Stop being a dupe, give me a break. You can't show causality of global "warming" with CO2, this is so much bullshit.
Hey, you want to buy into this fine, I don't give a shit, but don't tell me that there's causality. We're talking about CO2 concentrations that are absurdly low, but sound soooooo bad, because of suckers who will buy into anything.
PROVE that CO2 is causal...The SUN is an EASY proof. I'll stack Isaac Newton up against anyone you want.
You completely misinterpreted Occam's Razor. It doesn't mean simpler is always better, it just means you shouldn't introduce complexity unnecessarily. Climate systems are complex, and to deny their complexity is just stupid. You should never ignore evidence.
If you want an example that proves your interpretation of Occam's Razor wrong, look at the newtonian equations for describing the motion of an object, then look at Einstein's.
Oh, now you want to say that Occam's Razor was not followed by Isaac Newton and use Einstein, who couldn't have existed without Newtonian Mathematics or Leibniz for that matter?
Even Einstein would suggest that the SUN is responsible for global warming and cooling. AND your whole notion that Mankind is responsible fails the Geological Record...humans have not been responsible for either warming or cooling in the past. The planet just does this because of the sun.
Oh, and THAT is the point, moving from complex to the most simple. Global Warming models are too complex, because the model builders don't have a clue.
And the proof is that from day to day, the weather service gets the daily weather wrong! Long-term forecasts? Right. Like all those hurricanes we were supposed to have this year? And those record lows in Montana? oh, that's part of the warming process. Right. Sure.
So we do or don't agree that Einstein's equations are better despite being more complex?
Look, I think we all agree that the Sun affects the Earth's temperature, but that doesn't suggest there aren't many other factors as well. Venus is further from the Sun than Mercury, but is actually hotter because of the greenhouse effect.
The fact that the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally in the past doesn't prove it isn't warming unnaturally now.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution and temperature increases have followed. In the past there has also been a correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations.
Scientists don't claim they can predict the weather with a large probability of being accurate. But climate and weather are not the same thing, and they are claiming a higher probability with climate change.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree and there's a body of evidence that makes a case that the CO2 is a precursor for Global Cooling. Your side uses specious arguments to suggest Global Warming is man made.
My side argues logically that the biggest factor of global warmth is The Sun. Which side is more logical?
There is a clear correlative relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. A casual search on the topic will show you that.
That would indicate that the earth has been cooling for 11 years now. If you intend to use that to imply anything else then I think your logic is faulty.
Are you trying to imply that science thinks that man-made CO2 emissions are the strongest force affecting global mean temperatures and therefore that warming trends have to be positive and linear?
there are just as many reputable scientist that say global warming is not real...and there is a MASSIVE amount of profit to be made by many many(Al gore and GE to name a few) people by this issue...they just want your money and this is a great way to get it
and by the by are you not aware the the world was apparently going through a major "life threatening" global cool just 30 years ago or so?
My understanding is that at least 90% of climatologists think man-made global warming is real and is a significant threat. I get this information mostly from science magazines as opposed to regular news sources.
Al Gore may have tried to popularize the issue, but he isn't the substance behind it. You might as well just ignore him at this point.
How does GE stand to profit from this, I'm curious?
There was never a broad scientific consensus about global cooling, so its not the same.
Have you not seen the GE commercials with the little kids? GE is going to be getting a lot of juicy climate change related orders for all of this "green tech" that Obama is touting. Corporatism plain and simple. Not to mention the billions in profits that would be achieved through cap and trade schemes, kind of like what has already happened in france.
Also, Forbes magazine did a survey of randomly chosen scientists from the American meteorological association in which only 56 percent of scientists see us as having even a fifty fifty chance of warming above 2 degrees celsisus. 13 percent said that global warming poses little risk, 44 percent believe it poses a mild to serious risk, and only 41 percent saw a grave risk as being likely. Also, only 29 % believe that our current scientific understanding of climate change is complete enough.
So 85% of these scientist believe global warming poses either a mild, serious, or grave risk, and to you this is a good sign?
Define "complete enough". Do you mean complete to the point where we know everything about global warming, or complete enough to warrant some kind of action?
You're lumping a lot of different views together, there. Even a serious risk doesn't necessarily mean that any amount of money and freedom spent is necessary. Plus only a tiny amount of american meteorologists believe that a catastrophe is coming. There is science and then there is SCIENCE!!!!!!
Also, when Eisenhower left office, he commented that government contracts could become a replacement for scientific curiosity, and that we should be weary of a techno scientific elite commanding us. We should listen to scientists, but translating science into public policy is a clusterfuck. Look at how the science related to smoking has translated into public policy. No government has successfully gotten people to quit and the money from cig taxes often goes to things not related to healthcare
The problem with science being translated into good public policy is simply that it isn't. There's just a huge disconnect being science, politicians and the public.
For exampe, if scientists were in charge of our prison system, you can bet that we would place more emphasis on treatment, rather than the prisons we have now which just make criminals worse. If scientist were in charge of smoking policies, we would employ more creative methods to prevent people from smoking, in addition to taxes.
I don't think that a scientist could effectively run a prison system. They might be able to offer good suggestions, but I wouldn't have a scientist as a prison warden, and maybe somebody who directs prison wardens should have some idea of what is like to be one. There is no such thing as the renaissance man politician. Scientists CAN"T make public policy. They can make good suggestions but the people who enact public policy will always have to be not-scientists.
Why? What do laymen know that scientists don't? Scientists are people too, its just that they're smarter than average and are better at analyzing information factually, rather than letting biases get in the way.
Well, ask a scientist to write a romance novel. And scientists don't let biases get in the way? Isn't that the entire issue at hand with the cru data? Even the smartest among us have biases. Different people are useful at different times. Really, science is just an extension of the philosophy of logical positivism. It's really just a set of rules for telling fact from myth. It's not some magic tool allowing people to predict the future and what not.
averagejoe040, I agree CO2 is not public enemy number one. There are other factors involved. However, from what I understand CO2 does seem to play a role in how much heat from the sun is retained in the Earth's atmosphere. As I have been trying to get everyone to understand, it is not a temperature incr per se that we should be concerned about, it is retention of excess energy from the sun.
jth0511 many of us r with u on this one! The big question is what & who is responsible for GW & pollution? In the 1960's the media was yelling about the coming new ICE AGE! What ever happened to that!? Yes something called GW is going on, some scientists claim it is coming from the Solar System. Some claim it is from the homes & cars. Some say it is from factories. I say the pollution comes mostly from factories & cars; also we have 2 preserve our forests & our water sources (reduce & recycle)
At 6:22 they forgot to cover all bases with FROGS WITH NO HEADS! Global warming is a joke!!!! 8:05-8:10 seems really bad. We better watch out!!!! India not drowning @ 8:21 was also left out! WOW! This administration is ALSO A JOKE! LIES. Promises! Obama is a piece of,.............. yeah.
Charlie Gibson should really stick to reading the teleprompter. I'm surprised he still has a good reputation after the evidence of his bias was pointed out. HINT: look up his interviews with Obama and Palin.
I like how everyone here thinks that global warming is a lie, and they are willing to actually tell people with Ph.D.'s in the relative fields that they don't know what they are talking about. I understand that the list is ridiculous. But I've never heard anyone say most of this nonsense.
Yep, Al Gore and countless world renowned scientists, university studies and geology are all wrong when it comes to man made global warming.
Earth naturally heats up and cools down based on a number of factors, one of which is greenhouse gas concentration. Since humans require extreme amounts of industrial processes (which emit said gases)their concentration has gone up dramatically.
Humans drastically accelerate the natural warming cycle causing untold effects. YOU = EPIC FAIL
RedErk. U R spouting logical fallacy. An appeal 2 authority an appeal 2 numbers, strawman false attribution etc. In 2000 Al Gore was worth $2 Mill now it's 100 mill. Als a major partner in CARBON CREDIT Co's Kleiner Perkins & GIM founded with a Goldman Sachs head. KP GIM & Gore R set 2 make billions via the 1 bill etc they invested in over 40 cap n trade benefitting companies. Gore Snr & Al's political career was funded by Armand Hammer the Soviet industrialist. GW is a $ & POWER GRAB CON
RedErkle.Yes, Al Gore & countable scientist & uni studies R wrong. Like they often R. Poulation bomb food resources collapse cooling Y2k SARS. R U or anyone U know, apart from E, F & C uni failed POLITICIAN Al Gore, qualified in the 100's of distinct environmental natural sciences & can thus prove in repeatable tests that GW is real? I mean without the logical fallacy ad hominem coercion & general conformist fascism? Oh & I want a WRITTEN GUARANTEE using THEIR OWN money where their tax mouth is
(gmakepiece ) - "Yes, Al Gore & countable scientist & uni studies R wrong. Like they often R."
And I guess you're here to tell us how it is. Because that's what Science is all about. Forget about looking at the actual data and methods used. It is all one big conspiracy! I don't want to accept any responsibility for the damage, because I want to continue doing what I've always done.
Reading the comments here gets me very frustrated. I'm tired of reading comments that only reflect a person's bias and opinion. I could care less about Al Gore, I never saw his movie. What I care about is the Science and Methodology around Climate Change. Please people, when you make a statement of fact, cite the reference where you get it. Someone stated that polar is incr, but it took me days to figure out that he was talking about the recent incr in Antarctic ice.
I suppose, if I really want to learn more about the Science around Climate Change I should keep to websites such as Skeptical Science or Science Magazine. People actually include links to PDF 's of Scientific papers on this topic in their comments section.
reasonfreebint. All fascists & Marxists ALWAYS attack all dissenters as "mentally ill subhuman untermenschen filth enemies of the state, revolution of the people etc". That's the radical nature of fascism Nazism Marxism Leninism Maoism Communism, socialism collectivism etc. U R merely conforming 2 the classic mind set behaviours of the ironically named "progressive" past circa 1930's onwards. Liberal Fascism J.Goldberg, The Black Book of Communism, Hitler & Stalin Parallel Lives A. Bollock.
Oh Jesus! It has been fascinating to see you come undone. And here you are trying to inoculate yourself against being called a madman by flattering yourself as a dissenter and those who point it out as fascists. Seems you suffer from delusions of grandeur as well as paranoia. The rot, Sunshine, is in your head:)
reasonfreebint. Er, riiight, but no. U R still spouting a line of ineffective meaningless & laughably absurd logical fallacy ONLY, in the standard mass style of the "progressive" left liberal, AKA as a smiley faced fascist. Carry on, twerpy. U R on wonderful display at zombietime com, thepeoplescube com, lookingattheleft com and drsanity blogspot com & in Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg, The Death of the Grown Up Diana West & America Alone Mark Steyn. Toodle ooh. U don't read really, do U?
helicrap. Gee U mean like the er, science of the UN? The UN's IPCCC has 2,000 of the millions of scientists in the world. UN's the go 2 place 4 phony soldiers & admin PEDOPHILES costing $1,000's per day 2 stand around watching people die. The UN's biggest voting blocks the 57 states of the OIC, Org of Islamic Countries, a vipers nest of Jew, women & gay hating theocratic fascist totalitarian freaks. UN's Human RIghts Group is made up of Lybia Nth Korea Sudan Cuba &African murder Incs etc. Er no.
helliscrap. Er, as 4 U allegedly not "caring less about Al Gore", au contraire. The majority of Al Gores opinions & views R virtually entirely in tune with IPCCC & most every other major proGlobal Warming group & nonindividual in academia, science, govt, media, education & hey, celebrity! It's the greatest joke & con in history. The GW hypothetical is already starting to collapse, especially when they can't steal anymore tax money from people via the government & expansions of power
Hey gmakesnosense, I have no idea how all that political stuff is relevant to the issue of Global Warming. If it is true or not, it will be reflected in the scientific data. It shouldn't matter who is presenting it.
heliscrap. Ya right. U do have no idea. When "political stuff' is refelected in scientific data it's NO LONGER SCIENTIFIC DATA but political ideology. U R as uninterested in science & the method as U R in much else, except for SAYING U R. It shouldn't matter who presents it now? Oh, unless they disagree with GW. Got it. GWs an endless line of logical fallacy goal shifting bullshit chosen with gymnastic random abandon. What a laughable fraud it is on EVERY level. GWs ONLY political $ & power
helicat. It shouldn't matter? But the argument of GW's is that there is a "consensus" of most if not all SCIENTISTS! My Lord. So if my Grandmother & her cat presented it, you'd be cool? If were right, but unlikely. You are right thought. The politics ARE reflected in the data..thus the data is bunk and a lie. The emotional, incurious distracted ideological misfit & unread R being manipulated by con artists for a $ & politlcal power & status grab. GW belief is worth billion$ to trillion$
reasonfreebint. Riight. So GWs all about me conforming & your attitude? Got it. Must B that new science based on ad hominem coercion & fascist group think. Science IS scepticism & NOT consensus. Science is ALWAYS open 2 new data & demands & welcomes being corrected. Science is never "settled." It's not logical fallacy. GW's a wonderland of singular research grants, Marxist sodden radical left liberal ideology, mass conformity, govt power & money grabs by uber corrupt opportunists.
Wow you are hopelessly lost. Good job however at bringing up random bullshit that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
You are one of those dolts who diarrhea's out a bunch of crap (which I might add is very taxing on a rational mind) and happily use the products of the scientific process all day, yet when it comes to something like global warming... oh no Al Gore did it.
You're a jackass, don't comment back to me I DGAF what your ignorant ass has to say.
RedEyedcreep. Fivestars for incoherent irrational unsupported logical fallacy! Bravo. You are an excellent envirofascist comrade. Wow, your scientific method and expression is top of the line. Sadly no. You are surgically examined here..zombietime com thepeoplescube com drsanity blogspot com lookingattheleft com dissectleft blogspot com greenhellblog com eco imperialism com greenspirit com colonelrobertneville blogspot com dissectleft blogspot com PJTV com. Toodle ooh you Gore flunky charmer
Did I hear that right? the earth's axis tilt is supposedly caused by global warming, and earthquakes, etc. NORMAL earth changes and activities attributed to Global warming? Crimony, these people that propose the things in this list are blithering idiots!
Move onto "Commerce" which is stirring all the muck, distracting us from the reality that we Don't live in democracies .. We actually live within Commercial Law, under Admiralty Jurisdiction, and are daily propagandised .. we can confront what you know to be true, never mind the *rap, get our lives sorted.
Google " freeman on the land" .. find freedom of mind, and Your Bond, which will enable you to meet our true enemy pay off your debts for free at the same time
For some reason my comment didn't come up. Again this is for Lee/Everyone, check out my first video where I make fun of Al Gore. And after you watch it, you'll want to make fun of me!
For all of you who still believe that idiot Gore, he just was dissed in the British courts, they found that 20 points made in his film were based on faulty science. He will not debate it in public because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. AGW is a scam, follow the money, Gore & GE and many other will make a great deal of money if Cap & Tax is passed. Wake up people, the sky is not falling.
Look at our candidates for the last 20 years, are you saying we're all that damn bright? Bob Dole?? Al Gore?? John "Flip a coin to see if I'm playing for the GOP or just making as Ass (donkey) of myself today" McCain?!? John Freaking "I got a medal from the north Vietnam military for telling lies about Americans committing war crimes" Kerry?!??!!! Barack "I'll make you miss George Bush" / "If you thought the patriot act was bad, just wait!" Obama??!?
Who for the love of Christ would 5 star this? Who indeed could sit through it in its entirety?( no one I bet) This channel is to the news what homeopathy is to medicine. I would much prefer taking the opinions of scientists and experts than the one of a pseudo anchorman who at times sounds like a playground bully.
EnthaphidH. Excellent jealous logical fallacy. Five stars. Ca't wait to see your vid, products, achievements...anything? Guess not. Now clearly you DO suck, chicken liver.. Toodle ooh.
i sat thru the whole thing and read along and laughed my ass off the whole time, this shit is so random, vampire moths?!? wtf?? some of the stuff on this list is so outrageous it just makes me laugh, and at the end hes like " oh by the way if you favorite this video it will probably cause global warming" if the video seems like its ridiculous thats the point, oh yea and i five starred
can i safly say "the fuck!"
TheClone3000 3 weeks ago
Carbon dioxide reflects infrared light. When light from the sun hits earth, the planet heats up. When things get hot, they radiate infrared to cool down. Because of the CO2 in the atmosphere, earth can't radiate heat away as fast, thus causing the planet to heat up. If there is no greenhouse effect, why doesn't the earth freeze at night? If CO2 is not responsible, what is?
dipositroniumhydride 1 month ago
This is a dishonest video, to say the least. Doren continues his crusade to defend the interests of his fat cat masters.
237Michael 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The scientific community of climatologists believe humans are accelerating global warming. Scientists repeatedly point out that no one individual event is attributable to this warming. If temperatures increase faster then the natural cycles yes, stuff is gonna happen!
kojak1two 8 months ago
Wow. A list of links. No proof, no numbers no evidence to support Global warming, just a list of links. That's about s compelling as the G8 summit where people took private jets to get there. That's helping the environment huh? or s convincing as Gore's summer home which uses more than 2X the kilowatt house as normal home. But he still loves the earth. He plants trees. Which won't reach their full potential for years and years
pseudohippie55 9 months ago
@pseudohippie55 Lee Doren actually is a global warming skeptic from what I've seen. I'm pretty sure this list (and Doren's reading of it) was made to show how people will blame anything on global warming and isn't intended as an endorsement of the links as fact.
TehGiggleMonster 8 months ago 2
Wait...didn't most scientists first say global wrming woulds kill us, THEN say global COOLING will kill us? Which is it? Will we burn or freeze to death?
See. global warming does exist, but it's all cyclical. There re MULTIPLE cycles of heating and cooling that have been PROVEN to be 100% correct. There's on of millions of years down to ones of 100 years. the 1750s, 1850s, nd 1950s were the hottest decades of each century. It's been proven.
pseudohippie55 9 months ago
Oh, I'm downloading this one.
Thats it! From this point on, I reject global warming. I was a skeptic before, but now I have no choice. You can't tell me frogs with extra heads and a glacier growing in California is proof of global warming.
Razlo5000 10 months ago
Respond to this video...
ryan84160 2 months ago
I giggled at Sex Change.
Chibithy 11 months ago
@HerbertHKohl again why do i have to explain this? you ask why would climatologists have an incentive to fabricate global warming? maybe the fact that their jobs are on the line? maybe because without the threat of global warming the government will stop funding them. the field of science isn't a full time paying job. you only get paid if you can prove that your research is needed. THEN the government starts paying the bills. without the scare of global warming they would be out on their asses.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@HerbertHKohl the reason most climatologists support the argument of global warming is because without the threat of global warming there is way less need for climatologists. they are backing up the need for their own job. a seller of herbal remedies doesn't go around telling everyone their healthy as a horse. he tells you that the world is a deadly sick and nasty place. and if you just listen to him and buy his goods you will be fine.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 This is nothing but a bald assertion. If you have evidence that every single study ever done confirming that global warming is a real phenomenon, I would love to see it. If not, I suggest you take off your tinfoil hat and stop listening to Alex Jones. The NWO is not out to get you.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160 there are counter studies and scientist across the world in the thousands who say that global warming at the very least is over rated. but every time the opposite side of the argument tries to bring up a study of their own the green side just sulks like a child and says they are bought and payed buy the big oil! the green lifestyle is big money. if you believe that everyone jumps on that bandwagon for the good of man kind your ignorant of the facts.
gibblets17 2 months ago
@gibblets17 There are always individual scientist that will disagree with mainstream opinion. You can find biologists that believe in creationism and bigfoot.What matters more is what the majority on scientists in any given field say. This doesn't necessarily mean they are always going to be right, but its the by far much more reliable.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@gibblets17 Every single scientific organization in the world, with the exception of american association of petroleum geologists, is of the opinion that global warming is actually happening and is caused by human activity.When it comes to global warming, there is an actual scientific consensus.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160 that is completely incorrect and you know it. there are thousands of SCIENTISTS that say other wise. a large portion of climate scientists are not actually even scientists! not in that field at least.
gibblets17 2 months ago
@gibblets17 How do you know its thousands ? There are individual scientists that are of that hold skeptical opinions of global warming, but not one single scientific organization. Anyway the number is not as important as the percentage. The vast,overwhelming majority of scientists and peer reviewed studies support the conclusion that the earth is getting warmer and that greenhouse gases are responsible.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160 as a scientist YOU CANT oppose global warming. your basically shunned if you do. there have been hundreds of accounts of scientist saying they are to afraid to speak out against it for fear of what THE "MAJORITY" would say and do about it. 20 thousand scientists signed a piece of paper stating that did not support the arguments of global warming. and once again global warming is OLD NEWS. even the GREEN scientists say its not global warnings its climate change.
gibblets17 2 months ago
@gibblets17 "as a scientist YOU CANT oppose global warming. your basically shunned if you do. there have been hundreds of accounts of scientist saying they are to afraid to speak out against it for fear of what THE "MAJORITY" would say and do about it." They are free to come to any conclusion they want, but they are not free from ridicule. If a biologist comes out n favor of creatonism, it is not a conspiracy if they are ridiculed by the vast,vast majority of biologists.
ryan84160 2 months ago
at one point in time it was we where going to freeze to death. then its global warming. and now its climate instability! why don't they just stick to their story. im willing to listen to theories and what not and keep an open mind. green scientists have not really PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that humanity is causing climate change. they say they have and ignore any facts that oppose their assumptions. they say all the time that the debate is OVER. but debate should NEVER be over.
gibblets17 2 months ago
@gibblets17 Nothing in ever proven in science. There is only varying degrees of certainty based on the evidence that is available at the time. When more and more and better and better evidence is found, the theory becomes more and more probable, but never proven. In this case, just as is the case with evolution, the vast majority of evidence points to climate change caused by the release of greenhouse gases.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160 besides your point is moot anyways. they don't even call it global warming anymore. even the climatologists have changed their tunes. its now climate instability or some bat shit insane stuff. whenever they turn out to be wrong they change their theory and start over. i believe that humanity DOES need to watch its pollution. but i DON'T believe putting small amount of c02 into the air is causing global warming. and yes i meant SMALL.
gibblets17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gibblets17 Changing the name of the phenomenon climate change does not make the point moot. How could you possibly think that? "but i DON'T believe putting small amount of c02 into the air is causing global warming. What basis do you have to come to that conclusion ?
"and yes i meant SMALL." Uh you do realize that small is a relative term right ? Small in relation to what ?
ryan84160 2 months ago
@HerbertHKohl
Man I love how the Global Warming argument has changed so much, its hilarious.
First it was Global Warming, then Climate Change. Now people are just saying.. "well we know it can't be proven but we should do something anyway because if we are right everyone is going to die." hahahahahahaha
Well I can't prove that doing 3 back flips a day will cure cancer but we should do it anyway because cancer is bad.
fishblades 11 months ago
@fishblades
To you and basically to everyone who still doesn't believe global warming is real:
There was a PNAS study which found that 98% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change.
is(.)gd/pY9wNs
willywallas3 11 months ago
@willywallas3
If you are a believer in Global Warming then you have to advocate the wholesale slaughter of every cow or grazing animal that produces methane. If your theory is correct Cows do more damage then all of human activity combined.
fishblades 11 months ago
@fishblades The only reason cows exists is BECAUSE of human activity.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@HerbertHKohl Because it is politically expedient to do so.
Yyyyzyyy 11 months ago
What nothing on zomibes?
hobbitno12 1 year ago
Although I do believe in the free-market, I'm not just going to reject climate science just because it's convenient. The evidence for global warming is overwhelming and the argument that has been put against it has been very weak.
Adlasyn 1 year ago
Does this guy still not believe in global warming?
Jesus christ.
ConservingStupid 1 year ago
@yuriatayde
Because experts are called experts for a reason. If you think you can falsify the consensus you are free to do so. No one has done so convincingly thus far. That is why the consensus hasn't changed its position.
SanRafaelSwell 1 year ago
@HerbertHKohl
"if 90% of astronomers tell you the Earth will probably be hit by an asteroid soon, it makes sense to actually do something about it."
You put it perfectly!!!!
SanRafaelSwell 1 year ago
The list that Lee Doren uses is not a scientific one,it's a list from a denial blog called numberwatch and based on the media and other self-confirming blogs, not peer reviewed scientific papers which record accurate harmful effects of AGW. The media, just like Lee, mis-reported climate change in the 1970's saying it was going to get colder when the majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. Why doesn't Lee read some peer reviewed science for once.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
Your an idiot. Global Warming?? That is also a joke. Wouldn't someone first say. Hey maybe the temperature is rising because the sun is getting hotter?
redlaker34 1 year ago
ok Lee...i'm not in doubt that you are substancially smater than i am.. i love your videos and my comment isn't a flame against you whatsoever..but a video with you reading down a very large list???? put it in the description because i lost interest after you got to the C's on the list =(......dude your then man i'm not flaming but this video makes a point.but all in all is very boring..and i say that with love for your channel....
bbender1986 1 year ago
@bbender1986 true that, boring as balls. Although, good point behind it. I bet the worst part was reading it. Hope he did it in one try lol.
Zohnerism 1 year ago
@bbender1986 You don't have to watch it lol.
1month after you posted that post.
rangergxi 1 year ago
all this shows is too many in bullshit postitions are emplyed.
bbender1986 1 year ago
This is amazing. Who would have thought that a change in the earth's climate would have caused lots of other things to change as well!
It's almost as if the lower troposphere is not somehow isolated or sequestered from the biosphere.
cristop5 1 year ago
"Crocodile sex" LOL!
TheAntiLeft 1 year ago
Your youtube channel is awesome. Thanks for providing another barrier to at least slow down these morons who want to hand their freedom over to the government for "safety."
trevxd7 1 year ago
"global warming is not a scientific fact like gravity or evolution". Are you kidding me. Do you know the difference between a LAW and a THEORY.
pitchmod 1 year ago
@pitchmod apparently you don't. a theory just means an explanation of a somewhat broad set of facts; using fact to mean 'true' and not 'a single datum' evolution and gravity are both facts, and they are both theories (steady state was also a theory, and seems to be false, however 'theory' doesn't somehow inherently mean false, or a guess). There is a theory of gravity (relativity), and laws of evolution (say, common descent), laws are simply more descriptive. tl;dr, stfu.
Spalg 1 year ago
@Spalg
To be annoying, the difference between a theory and a law lies in the type of explanation they provide about physical phenomena. A theory is an explanation of cause and effect, whereas a law is an observed, recurring relation between two or more factors.
For instance, evolution is a theory. We can describe its causes - the chemical processes of life and reproduction, and the natural selection mechanism - and its effects - minute generational improvements to specific habitat adaptation.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM
In contrast, electrical resistivity is a law. We know for certain that electrons travel through different metals at different speeds, because we've been able to observe it - we can even predict the resistivity of a conductor of a given material, circumference and temperature, and build complex electronic circuits - but we are powerless to explain exactly how the material slows down the electrons travelling through it.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Not at all annoying mane, yours was just way better of what I think, or hope, I said. That theory just means explaining data and has a more prescriptive element to it and doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's true, but I'm glad there are people better articulated than me on the subject, and of course I had a bit of rage in mah last post to make me probably a bit cloudy :3.
Spalg 1 year ago
Somewhere in there you need... Guam Capsizing
yahazif 1 year ago
Global warming caused by humans is a complete lie. The proper term is climate change, which is in fact, a naturally occurring event on this planet and has taken place over a million times in the earths existence. It is plainly obvious that the media, especially the American media, is hand in hand with the government agenda. Some see right through this scam but for the most part, the majority of people will believe anything that is on television. This is how dimmed down the public really is.
F4O4U4R4S 1 year ago
can i ask how many of these stories were made by the Murdoch media machine? some of these are links to nothing. they are only a few months old...
rsolgtp 2 years ago
We'll see how people feel when they go to turn on their tv/computers and the power goes out because of over-exceeding your power limit. Meanwhile joblessness skyrockets as the energy industry jobs in America fold over and go to China, and on top of it all you'll be paying more for less power and more pollution.
It's a brilliant idea.
TheTramik 2 years ago
Tee hee hee.... thank you
willcobbett 2 years ago
They would fabricate it for money and control are you blind they are taking away are freedoms
rainick 2 years ago 2
Which of "are" freedoms are they trying to take away? Your freedom to drive cars that pollute the air unnecessarily and kill thousands of people? Your freedom to have electricity that is so cheap you don't mind wasting it all the time? Your freedom to make oil companies rich at the expense of the average citizen?
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
1: Pollute? SO me breathing is also polluting Kill thousands of people?
2What is wrong with having "cheap" Electricity what about poor people wouldnt you be hitting them too. Not exactly for the little guy are you.
3IT is called Capatalism they have a right to make money right For gas which we use to transport people and supplies.
If you hate capatalism go to some F***ing communist country you would fit right in.
rainick 2 years ago
You need to understand the difference between the CO2 you exhale and the CO2 that comes out of the back of your car; their sources are different.
Plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow, and when we eat these plants we simply put that same carbon back into the atmosphere. There is no net change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
When you dig oil out of the ground and burn it, you're releasing carbon into the atmosphere that otherwise would have stayed buried.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
But CO2 is CO2 you have to understand that no matter what and CO2 doesn't even do what it claims look at my video it will explain it i can explain further than the video if you wish
rainick 2 years ago
Do you see the difference dum dum? Or do I have to give you a whole lesson in plant and human metabolic processes before you start to get it?
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
I was actually talking about other kinds of automobile pollution though, such as carbon monoxide and all the other crap that causes people to have serious health problems and even die. Big, inefficient vehicles like hummers produce more of this deadly pollution without any benefit, so I think they should be banned.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
First of all you obviously don't understand how it works the CO will easily disperse through the air it is called diffusion.
I know better than AL gore are atmosphere is huge in fact it goes out very far we don't know the extent of the atmosphere
rainick 2 years ago
But you're pretending that it's the same issue and it's not. There is a difference between pollution and global warming.
tkwelge 2 years ago
People should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they aren't directly effecting the health of somebody else or using violent coercion. Yes, you do have to account for externalities, but a true externality involves an effected third party suing one of the original parties of a transaction for specific cause and effect economic damages. The problem with global warming is that you can't attribute any negative event specifically and primarily to global warming.
tkwelge 2 years ago
Global warming hurts people, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to cause global warming. I don't understand all of what you just said, but that's what I believe.
You can draw a distinction between greenhouse gas emissions and other kinds of pollution which directly make you sick, but in many cases their sources are the same, so you might as well kill two birds with one stone.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
But who causes the Global Warming? All of us. At what cost to each individual? Can't be determined officially. SO therefore, it's not a true externality and the only way to enforce such a policy of controlling CO2 involves lots of violent coercion from a strong central authority. The only semi defensible solution? A small 5 percent tax on all CO2 energy sources which goes directly towards R and D for green tech. Not vouchers for technology that isn't ready yet. That's iffy too.
tkwelge 2 years ago
Then there's the philosophical issue. We know that the poorest people in the world today are better off than people who lived in tennessee in 1905, and the next hundred years should bring similar global upheaval. Considering that even with the most disastrous effects of global warming ever dreamed up, our descendants will make 10 times what we make today. Why should I make today harder so that my spoiled grand children can buy a tenth ipod?
tkwelge 2 years ago
is this supposed to be funny?
tudormocanu87 2 years ago
bee stings ?
DeeKey666 2 years ago
Since there is just too much arguing here, here's a YES or NO question. Are the average temperatures from 1960 to now higher than anytime within the last 400,000 years? Please, when you do answer it, make sure contains a YES or NO word.
unknownunknowns 2 years ago
Whether or not global warming is happening we still need to be concerned about the environment. I think resource depletion is a bigger concern.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Everyone knows that this global warming horseshit is being perpetuated by the OwlGore Doofus, the Obama state run media, Hollywood stars and badly in need of a suntan British pop stars.Yet this Obama guy will try and cram this cap and trade horseshit down our throats.
starVol 2 years ago
unless those 90% all have some sort of political agenda...
whatever happened to objectivism in this nation?
DRUM57IX 2 years ago
"Bush was an oilman who spent his presidency trying to suppress science. Why would United States climatologists have had an incentive to fabricate the issue of global warming?"
You answered that question with your first statement, although I wouldn't say it was "fabricated." Think about it. What has happened in response to Bush's term? Massive opposition.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
It's called "climate change" instead of the former terms "global warming" or "global cooling." Does this mean that no matter what the temperature is next year, the model of "climate change caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere" is proven to be true?
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
"If your data is so compelling then why do so many climatologists still believe in global warming?"
Political funding. Political bias. Ignorance or negligence toward opposing data.
Is all scientific data that doesn't agree with the general scientific consensus wrong? Seems somewhat contradictory. If 1998 was a warmer year than now, then the earth is colder now.
MindlessGlitch 2 years ago
hahahaha acme, this is rediculous, is breathing in there, if it is, then radical o green liberals would commit suicide.
Whatusay111 2 years ago
lol liberal viewer already proved he was a lier and he never wrote back. Hes just another right wing tool <3
MapleMusicVideos 2 years ago
As the maker of this video demonstrates, not believing in global warming causes you to remain a virgin well into your thirties.
morphine285point4 2 years ago
c-k holds some of the funniest things I've heard in my entire life. In my ENTIRE life.
FabreFresh 2 years ago
whats the point of this video.........?
chocolaterainlololo 2 years ago
So Funny
Buckwylds 2 years ago
We'd freeze to death without global warming - I don't have a problem with it.
Darksenrine 2 years ago
We're doomed... if anyone believes anything on that list is casued by so-called GW
rayban5016 2 years ago
how can ppl possibly still say there is no such thing as global warming, you're clueless to scientific facts. maybe it's not exponentially increasing like some left wing pushers would claim, but that it's not happening at all, as in 0%, is sticking your head in the dirt. yes this list is ridiculous, esp lochness monster lmao thats my favorite :). but still, putting pollution in the air is not going to go without any consequences. i just hate when ppl say it doesn't exist at all.
jth0511 2 years ago 2
Its not scientific fact, its just a theory like evolution. The earth goes through cold and warm cycles.
righttocensor 2 years ago
Yeah, but don't you think its weird that all those guys with PhDs in climatology seem to think its more than just natural cycles?
And you do accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas right? Don't you think the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 290 ppm to 380 ppm since the industrial revolution might be at play here? I mean that's a pretty big difference...
Also, you don't understand how scientists use the word theory. The idea that germs cause disease is also "just a theory".
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
Herbert:
No, I don't. In fact there's greater correlation between sun activity and Earth temperatures than this CO2 nonsense.
This year will be colder than last and so on based simply on the decrease in heat energy released by the sun.
Yes, it's that simple. These "scientists" seem to have forgotten Occam's Razor.
Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
Yes, there's obviously a strong correlation between the power output of the earth's main heat source, and the temperature of the earth, duh, that would be true no matter what.
But how does that prove CO2 concentrations aren't also a factor?
That's like saying "your metabolic rate is the main factor in keeping you warm, therefore putting on a sweater will make absolutely no difference."
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
Herb:
Stop being a dupe, give me a break. You can't show causality of global "warming" with CO2, this is so much bullshit.
Hey, you want to buy into this fine, I don't give a shit, but don't tell me that there's causality. We're talking about CO2 concentrations that are absurdly low, but sound soooooo bad, because of suckers who will buy into anything.
PROVE that CO2 is causal...The SUN is an EASY proof. I'll stack Isaac Newton up against anyone you want.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
You completely misinterpreted Occam's Razor. It doesn't mean simpler is always better, it just means you shouldn't introduce complexity unnecessarily. Climate systems are complex, and to deny their complexity is just stupid. You should never ignore evidence.
If you want an example that proves your interpretation of Occam's Razor wrong, look at the newtonian equations for describing the motion of an object, then look at Einstein's.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
Herb:
Oh, now you want to say that Occam's Razor was not followed by Isaac Newton and use Einstein, who couldn't have existed without Newtonian Mathematics or Leibniz for that matter?
Even Einstein would suggest that the SUN is responsible for global warming and cooling. AND your whole notion that Mankind is responsible fails the Geological Record...humans have not been responsible for either warming or cooling in the past. The planet just does this because of the sun.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
Herb:
Oh, and THAT is the point, moving from complex to the most simple. Global Warming models are too complex, because the model builders don't have a clue.
And the proof is that from day to day, the weather service gets the daily weather wrong! Long-term forecasts? Right. Like all those hurricanes we were supposed to have this year? And those record lows in Montana? oh, that's part of the warming process. Right. Sure.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
So we do or don't agree that Einstein's equations are better despite being more complex?
Look, I think we all agree that the Sun affects the Earth's temperature, but that doesn't suggest there aren't many other factors as well. Venus is further from the Sun than Mercury, but is actually hotter because of the greenhouse effect.
The fact that the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally in the past doesn't prove it isn't warming unnaturally now.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution and temperature increases have followed. In the past there has also been a correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations.
Scientists don't claim they can predict the weather with a large probability of being accurate. But climate and weather are not the same thing, and they are claiming a higher probability with climate change.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
Herb,
I'm sorry, but I don't agree and there's a body of evidence that makes a case that the CO2 is a precursor for Global Cooling. Your side uses specious arguments to suggest Global Warming is man made.
My side argues logically that the biggest factor of global warmth is The Sun. Which side is more logical?
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
Whatever, just remember this guy works for Exxon.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
Herb: Get a life. I own EXXON stock, I also own Apple which is managed by a bunch of Liberal Idiots.
LOGIC...or...EMOTION which do you chose, you're supposed to be 74 years old, DID YOU LOSE YOUR BRAINS or have you been a sucker your whole life?
Exxon? What a bunch of crap.
captaindiesalot 2 years ago
You don't think someone who works for Exxon might be slightly biased on this issue?
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
No.
Bassfortots 2 years ago
But you didn't bother to explain yourself, which is your way of saying that deep down you know I'm right.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
You may attach whatever meaning you like onto my response, I simply answered your question.
Bassfortots 2 years ago
Actually, there has NOT been a correlation between CO2 and temperatures. We've been cooling for 11 years now. What does that indicate?
ensignbay 2 years ago 2
I think you just pulled that out of your ass. Have you seen the ice-caps lately? They're definitely shrinking. Global temperatures have been rising.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
mmmm have u been there lately, or did u just watch the vidos people show you?
Whatusay111 2 years ago
Google: global cooling trend. You'll see that the earth has been cooling for 11 years. 1998 was the warmest year in 11 years.
ensignbay 2 years ago
good one. 11 years is clearly enough time to approximate the previous 4 billion years of earth's climate.
gwhodo90 2 years ago
There is a clear correlative relationship between CO2 and temperature increase. A casual search on the topic will show you that.
That would indicate that the earth has been cooling for 11 years now. If you intend to use that to imply anything else then I think your logic is faulty.
Are you trying to imply that science thinks that man-made CO2 emissions are the strongest force affecting global mean temperatures and therefore that warming trends have to be positive and linear?
Lunji 2 years ago
there are just as many reputable scientist that say global warming is not real...and there is a MASSIVE amount of profit to be made by many many(Al gore and GE to name a few) people by this issue...they just want your money and this is a great way to get it
and by the by are you not aware the the world was apparently going through a major "life threatening" global cool just 30 years ago or so?
dirksilver 2 years ago
My understanding is that at least 90% of climatologists think man-made global warming is real and is a significant threat. I get this information mostly from science magazines as opposed to regular news sources.
Al Gore may have tried to popularize the issue, but he isn't the substance behind it. You might as well just ignore him at this point.
How does GE stand to profit from this, I'm curious?
There was never a broad scientific consensus about global cooling, so its not the same.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago 2
Have you not seen the GE commercials with the little kids? GE is going to be getting a lot of juicy climate change related orders for all of this "green tech" that Obama is touting. Corporatism plain and simple. Not to mention the billions in profits that would be achieved through cap and trade schemes, kind of like what has already happened in france.
tkwelge 2 years ago
Also, Forbes magazine did a survey of randomly chosen scientists from the American meteorological association in which only 56 percent of scientists see us as having even a fifty fifty chance of warming above 2 degrees celsisus. 13 percent said that global warming poses little risk, 44 percent believe it poses a mild to serious risk, and only 41 percent saw a grave risk as being likely. Also, only 29 % believe that our current scientific understanding of climate change is complete enough.
tkwelge 2 years ago
So 85% of these scientist believe global warming poses either a mild, serious, or grave risk, and to you this is a good sign?
Define "complete enough". Do you mean complete to the point where we know everything about global warming, or complete enough to warrant some kind of action?
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
You're lumping a lot of different views together, there. Even a serious risk doesn't necessarily mean that any amount of money and freedom spent is necessary. Plus only a tiny amount of american meteorologists believe that a catastrophe is coming. There is science and then there is SCIENCE!!!!!!
tkwelge 2 years ago
Also, when Eisenhower left office, he commented that government contracts could become a replacement for scientific curiosity, and that we should be weary of a techno scientific elite commanding us. We should listen to scientists, but translating science into public policy is a clusterfuck. Look at how the science related to smoking has translated into public policy. No government has successfully gotten people to quit and the money from cig taxes often goes to things not related to healthcare
tkwelge 2 years ago
The problem with science being translated into good public policy is simply that it isn't. There's just a huge disconnect being science, politicians and the public.
For exampe, if scientists were in charge of our prison system, you can bet that we would place more emphasis on treatment, rather than the prisons we have now which just make criminals worse. If scientist were in charge of smoking policies, we would employ more creative methods to prevent people from smoking, in addition to taxes.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
I don't think that a scientist could effectively run a prison system. They might be able to offer good suggestions, but I wouldn't have a scientist as a prison warden, and maybe somebody who directs prison wardens should have some idea of what is like to be one. There is no such thing as the renaissance man politician. Scientists CAN"T make public policy. They can make good suggestions but the people who enact public policy will always have to be not-scientists.
tkwelge 2 years ago
Why? What do laymen know that scientists don't? Scientists are people too, its just that they're smarter than average and are better at analyzing information factually, rather than letting biases get in the way.
HerbertHKohl 2 years ago
Well, ask a scientist to write a romance novel. And scientists don't let biases get in the way? Isn't that the entire issue at hand with the cru data? Even the smartest among us have biases. Different people are useful at different times. Really, science is just an extension of the philosophy of logical positivism. It's really just a set of rules for telling fact from myth. It's not some magic tool allowing people to predict the future and what not.
tkwelge 2 years ago
@jth0511,
Agreed, air pollution is a bad thing.
Some pollutants are really bad news.
Deadly gases like carbon monoxide and acid rain producers like Sulfur Dioxide.
What gets me is that these idiots are making Carbon Dioxide the villain.
Carbon dioxide is only .04 percent of the atmosphere.
Water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2 is beneficial to plant life which converts it to oxygen.
I believe the greenies have ulterior motives for naming CO2 as the enemy.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
averagejoe040, I agree CO2 is not public enemy number one. There are other factors involved. However, from what I understand CO2 does seem to play a role in how much heat from the sun is retained in the Earth's atmosphere. As I have been trying to get everyone to understand, it is not a temperature incr per se that we should be concerned about, it is retention of excess energy from the sun.
helical4 2 years ago
Were you ever gonna get back to me?
thecrusadingdebator 2 years ago
jth0511 many of us r with u on this one! The big question is what & who is responsible for GW & pollution? In the 1960's the media was yelling about the coming new ICE AGE! What ever happened to that!? Yes something called GW is going on, some scientists claim it is coming from the Solar System. Some claim it is from the homes & cars. Some say it is from factories. I say the pollution comes mostly from factories & cars; also we have 2 preserve our forests & our water sources (reduce & recycle)
menderfire9 2 years ago
Has the earth warmed in the last decade? No, it hasn't. So there. As of now, it's not a threat.
thecrusadingdebator 2 years ago
Time for all Liberals to jump off the Edge of the Earth....LOL
Liberalism = Stupidity
Netdo7 2 years ago
attack of the killer jellyfish?! hahahaha
glramer2007 2 years ago
At 6:22 they forgot to cover all bases with FROGS WITH NO HEADS! Global warming is a joke!!!! 8:05-8:10 seems really bad. We better watch out!!!! India not drowning @ 8:21 was also left out! WOW! This administration is ALSO A JOKE! LIES. Promises! Obama is a piece of,.............. yeah.
michaelbacontube 2 years ago
Charlie Gibson should really stick to reading the teleprompter. I'm surprised he still has a good reputation after the evidence of his bias was pointed out. HINT: look up his interviews with Obama and Palin.
evilmasterstudios 2 years ago
lol. ur list is aw esome its so funny and yet so tru! :P
ConservativeCollin 2 years ago
this shit is fake written by liaing fagit
thekingchris21 2 years ago
I like how everyone here thinks that global warming is a lie, and they are willing to actually tell people with Ph.D.'s in the relative fields that they don't know what they are talking about. I understand that the list is ridiculous. But I've never heard anyone say most of this nonsense.
trivium666fan 2 years ago
"Man made Global Warming" is the newest religion or cult. Al Gore is its most lucrative "Profit" and control through fear is god.
toneo2001 2 years ago
Amen
dianddra999 2 years ago
Yep, Al Gore and countless world renowned scientists, university studies and geology are all wrong when it comes to man made global warming.
Earth naturally heats up and cools down based on a number of factors, one of which is greenhouse gas concentration. Since humans require extreme amounts of industrial processes (which emit said gases)their concentration has gone up dramatically.
Humans drastically accelerate the natural warming cycle causing untold effects. YOU = EPIC FAIL
RedEyes123420 2 years ago
RedErk. U R spouting logical fallacy. An appeal 2 authority an appeal 2 numbers, strawman false attribution etc. In 2000 Al Gore was worth $2 Mill now it's 100 mill. Als a major partner in CARBON CREDIT Co's Kleiner Perkins & GIM founded with a Goldman Sachs head. KP GIM & Gore R set 2 make billions via the 1 bill etc they invested in over 40 cap n trade benefitting companies. Gore Snr & Al's political career was funded by Armand Hammer the Soviet industrialist. GW is a $ & POWER GRAB CON
gmakepiece 2 years ago
RedErkle.Yes, Al Gore & countable scientist & uni studies R wrong. Like they often R. Poulation bomb food resources collapse cooling Y2k SARS. R U or anyone U know, apart from E, F & C uni failed POLITICIAN Al Gore, qualified in the 100's of distinct environmental natural sciences & can thus prove in repeatable tests that GW is real? I mean without the logical fallacy ad hominem coercion & general conformist fascism? Oh & I want a WRITTEN GUARANTEE using THEIR OWN money where their tax mouth is
gmakepiece 2 years ago
(gmakepiece ) - "Yes, Al Gore & countable scientist & uni studies R wrong. Like they often R."
And I guess you're here to tell us how it is. Because that's what Science is all about. Forget about looking at the actual data and methods used. It is all one big conspiracy! I don't want to accept any responsibility for the damage, because I want to continue doing what I've always done.
helical4 2 years ago
helica,
We are dealing with one very cranky and cracked nut here:)
reasonsbitch 2 years ago
Reading the comments here gets me very frustrated. I'm tired of reading comments that only reflect a person's bias and opinion. I could care less about Al Gore, I never saw his movie. What I care about is the Science and Methodology around Climate Change. Please people, when you make a statement of fact, cite the reference where you get it. Someone stated that polar is incr, but it took me days to figure out that he was talking about the recent incr in Antarctic ice.
helical4 2 years ago
I suppose, if I really want to learn more about the Science around Climate Change I should keep to websites such as Skeptical Science or Science Magazine. People actually include links to PDF 's of Scientific papers on this topic in their comments section.
helical4 2 years ago
It was precisely this that I was hoping the afore mentioned idiot could shed some light on. Could he? CHF!
reasonsbitch 2 years ago
reasonfreebint. All fascists & Marxists ALWAYS attack all dissenters as "mentally ill subhuman untermenschen filth enemies of the state, revolution of the people etc". That's the radical nature of fascism Nazism Marxism Leninism Maoism Communism, socialism collectivism etc. U R merely conforming 2 the classic mind set behaviours of the ironically named "progressive" past circa 1930's onwards. Liberal Fascism J.Goldberg, The Black Book of Communism, Hitler & Stalin Parallel Lives A. Bollock.
gmakepiece 2 years ago
Oh Jesus! It has been fascinating to see you come undone. And here you are trying to inoculate yourself against being called a madman by flattering yourself as a dissenter and those who point it out as fascists. Seems you suffer from delusions of grandeur as well as paranoia. The rot, Sunshine, is in your head:)
reasonsbitch 2 years ago
reasonfreebint. Er, riiight, but no. U R still spouting a line of ineffective meaningless & laughably absurd logical fallacy ONLY, in the standard mass style of the "progressive" left liberal, AKA as a smiley faced fascist. Carry on, twerpy. U R on wonderful display at zombietime com, thepeoplescube com, lookingattheleft com and drsanity blogspot com & in Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg, The Death of the Grown Up Diana West & America Alone Mark Steyn. Toodle ooh. U don't read really, do U?
gmakepiece 2 years ago
I will happily leave it there. Thank you for the insight and have the best of days:)
reasonsbitch 2 years ago
helicrap. Gee U mean like the er, science of the UN? The UN's IPCCC has 2,000 of the millions of scientists in the world. UN's the go 2 place 4 phony soldiers & admin PEDOPHILES costing $1,000's per day 2 stand around watching people die. The UN's biggest voting blocks the 57 states of the OIC, Org of Islamic Countries, a vipers nest of Jew, women & gay hating theocratic fascist totalitarian freaks. UN's Human RIghts Group is made up of Lybia Nth Korea Sudan Cuba &African murder Incs etc. Er no.
gmakepiece 2 years ago
helliscrap. Er, as 4 U allegedly not "caring less about Al Gore", au contraire. The majority of Al Gores opinions & views R virtually entirely in tune with IPCCC & most every other major proGlobal Warming group & nonindividual in academia, science, govt, media, education & hey, celebrity! It's the greatest joke & con in history. The GW hypothetical is already starting to collapse, especially when they can't steal anymore tax money from people via the government & expansions of power
gmakepiece 2 years ago
LOL! Looks like fun I can do that too.
Hey gmakesnosense, I have no idea how all that political stuff is relevant to the issue of Global Warming. If it is true or not, it will be reflected in the scientific data. It shouldn't matter who is presenting it.
helical4 2 years ago
heliscrap. Ya right. U do have no idea. When "political stuff' is refelected in scientific data it's NO LONGER SCIENTIFIC DATA but political ideology. U R as uninterested in science & the method as U R in much else, except for SAYING U R. It shouldn't matter who presents it now? Oh, unless they disagree with GW. Got it. GWs an endless line of logical fallacy goal shifting bullshit chosen with gymnastic random abandon. What a laughable fraud it is on EVERY level. GWs ONLY political $ & power
gmakepiece 2 years ago
helicat. It shouldn't matter? But the argument of GW's is that there is a "consensus" of most if not all SCIENTISTS! My Lord. So if my Grandmother & her cat presented it, you'd be cool? If were right, but unlikely. You are right thought. The politics ARE reflected in the data..thus the data is bunk and a lie. The emotional, incurious distracted ideological misfit & unread R being manipulated by con artists for a $ & politlcal power & status grab. GW belief is worth billion$ to trillion$
gmakepiece 2 years ago
reasonfreebint. Riight. So GWs all about me conforming & your attitude? Got it. Must B that new science based on ad hominem coercion & fascist group think. Science IS scepticism & NOT consensus. Science is ALWAYS open 2 new data & demands & welcomes being corrected. Science is never "settled." It's not logical fallacy. GW's a wonderland of singular research grants, Marxist sodden radical left liberal ideology, mass conformity, govt power & money grabs by uber corrupt opportunists.
gmakepiece 2 years ago
Wow you are hopelessly lost. Good job however at bringing up random bullshit that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
You are one of those dolts who diarrhea's out a bunch of crap (which I might add is very taxing on a rational mind) and happily use the products of the scientific process all day, yet when it comes to something like global warming... oh no Al Gore did it.
You're a jackass, don't comment back to me I DGAF what your ignorant ass has to say.
RedEyes123420 2 years ago
RedEyedcreep. Fivestars for incoherent irrational unsupported logical fallacy! Bravo. You are an excellent envirofascist comrade. Wow, your scientific method and expression is top of the line. Sadly no. You are surgically examined here..zombietime com thepeoplescube com drsanity blogspot com lookingattheleft com dissectleft blogspot com greenhellblog com eco imperialism com greenspirit com colonelrobertneville blogspot com dissectleft blogspot com PJTV com. Toodle ooh you Gore flunky charmer
gmakepiece 2 years ago
For that matter, the way they are wording this list, all things good or bad, can be attributed to the effects of global warming... gadzooks people!
jiro9cuts0001 2 years ago
Did I hear that right? the earth's axis tilt is supposedly caused by global warming, and earthquakes, etc. NORMAL earth changes and activities attributed to Global warming? Crimony, these people that propose the things in this list are blithering idiots!
jiro9cuts0001 2 years ago
you forgot about the broncos win over the patriots
alantmac 2 years ago
just a tech question... how come this is 16:41 long when I thought all vids on utube where 10min or shorter?
I assume the answer is right in front of me, but i don't see it....
4thtothe4th 2 years ago
Maybe it's because he's a Youtube Partner?
bayushizero 2 years ago
Move onto "Commerce" which is stirring all the muck, distracting us from the reality that we Don't live in democracies .. We actually live within Commercial Law, under Admiralty Jurisdiction, and are daily propagandised .. we can confront what you know to be true, never mind the *rap, get our lives sorted.
Google " freeman on the land" .. find freedom of mind, and Your Bond, which will enable you to meet our true enemy pay off your debts for free at the same time
Peace.
ealred 2 years ago
For some reason my comment didn't come up. Again this is for Lee/Everyone, check out my first video where I make fun of Al Gore. And after you watch it, you'll want to make fun of me!
marxman12 2 years ago
Freakin' hilarious! I'm old enough to remember the "Coming Ice Age" scam of the 80's... fool me once....
wlchase 2 years ago
Some of those things are not to be taken seriously. Early marriages? Really?
Some people just don't understand a joke.
slyscafe 2 years ago
I love the cannibalism and all the ones that say "or not" sure make it hard for them to be wrong huh?
Langoratti 2 years ago 2
For all of you who still believe that idiot Gore, he just was dissed in the British courts, they found that 20 points made in his film were based on faulty science. He will not debate it in public because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. AGW is a scam, follow the money, Gore & GE and many other will make a great deal of money if Cap & Tax is passed. Wake up people, the sky is not falling.
tlraffaele 2 years ago 2
why does our Gov & the media think we are all stupid ?
kellyelainewright61 2 years ago
Look at our candidates for the last 20 years, are you saying we're all that damn bright? Bob Dole?? Al Gore?? John "Flip a coin to see if I'm playing for the GOP or just making as Ass (donkey) of myself today" McCain?!? John Freaking "I got a medal from the north Vietnam military for telling lies about Americans committing war crimes" Kerry?!??!!! Barack "I'll make you miss George Bush" / "If you thought the patriot act was bad, just wait!" Obama??!?
I think they're pretty justified.
VALivingston 2 years ago
Who for the love of Christ would 5 star this? Who indeed could sit through it in its entirety?( no one I bet) This channel is to the news what homeopathy is to medicine. I would much prefer taking the opinions of scientists and experts than the one of a pseudo anchorman who at times sounds like a playground bully.
reasonsbitch 2 years ago
"I would much prefer taking the opinions of scientists and experts"
You sheep fool. Find out why 30,000+ of them oppose the Al Gore propaganda bullshit.
The MSM 'scientists' you listen to are funded by companies / agencies that directly profit from the global warming scam.
luckyvet 2 years ago
I don't. I think his videos suck, but I like how in each of his comments he begins his sentences with "genius..."
It kind of gives him a pretentious edge for his arguments. lol
EnthalpyH 2 years ago
EnthaphidH. Excellent jealous logical fallacy. Five stars. Ca't wait to see your vid, products, achievements...anything? Guess not. Now clearly you DO suck, chicken liver.. Toodle ooh.
gmakepiece 2 years ago
Maybe you should achieve to type properly =/
EnthalpyH 2 years ago
i sat thru the whole thing and read along and laughed my ass off the whole time, this shit is so random, vampire moths?!? wtf?? some of the stuff on this list is so outrageous it just makes me laugh, and at the end hes like " oh by the way if you favorite this video it will probably cause global warming" if the video seems like its ridiculous thats the point, oh yea and i five starred
UnDe4dB4stard 2 years ago