when clinton says "most scientists say" she is advocating groupthink.groupthink is when people agree with each other in order to get along.it's what caused chernobyl,the canary islands klm crash in the late 70's{500 plus dead},WW2 [appeasement policies} ETC etc .Getting it right is what counts.the difference between getting it right and being popular is the difference between thomas edison and paris hilton.one work his arse off,the other opened up her arse.
Funny how she doesn't have time to critique the work point by point. More accurately she can't. She falls back on the classic "A bunch of smart guys agree with me so I don't need my own science". And on her other point. If the feds cant balance a check book how are they going to lead the way in R & D.
Wow, nice speech. Now all she has to do is add evidence! The U.S. isn't going to fall behind on sciences because of a cut in federal spending. Great technological advances didn't occur because a dictator decreed it. They happen because people are free to create wealth and keep it!
I take it your rant is tied to the "why should the rich pay more taxes" debate. Are you positive that these people who "created Great technological advances" did so without help in any significant areas of their lives due to federal spending?
What most don't understand is the enviromental movement is a kin to the eugenics movement of the 1930's part of trhe excuse people use to exterminate others.
There are some that advocate population reduction as much as 94% to around 500 million that means 1 in 16 of us get to live and my guess is if you reading this you are not likely to be that one... check out the Gerogia guide stones!!!
She slams Crichton. No. She dismisses him. The Union of Concerned Scientists? Does she know how many non-scientists are signatories, including George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Franken and many other celebrities and politicians?
Senator Inhofe is doing a great job fighting these gangsters. he calls them what they are, frauds. Subscribe to Senator Inhofe he has new videos all the time exposing the many facets of this criminal enterprise called AGW
Why can't deniers find anything but corporate hacks and some si fi writer to support their opinions? It's because the respected experts and studies have all found that in fact HUMANS are deteriorating our only habitat. No babbling from a si fi writer or bought and paid for senator (inhofe) can change the facts but they do influence the gullible, the uninformed, and the irrational. For the sake of our future generations, good thing they are in the minority.
You have to laugh at these clowns trying to ram this lie tax down through fearmongering. They are a bunch of crooks who grovel for the dollar to keep their paychecks flowing, to enable this deception known as Anthropogenic Global Warming.
@daveeol Those with nothing to offer find a way to look in the mirror and post what they see. As for Hillary, she's smart and has been doing a wonderful job. In this vid she the si fi writer for the worthless propaganda he spews out about climate change. Yea, it was just more of his science FICTION. Hillary and others that care about the truth look the experts like NAS, NASA, AAAS, SOCC, and others. The deniers often sit back with nothing but vulgarity. Telling and transparent.
Hey Hillary, What you got to say now that the top has been blown off of the Global Warming Scam? A reason Pseudo-Science has no business in politics, and Politicians should stop fear mongering for political points. They have screwed enough things up with their bullshit. Both Parties have ruined us as a nation financially and reputationally.
VOTE OUT ALL ENCUMBENTS AND SUPPORT CONSTITUTIONALISTS! SEND A REAL MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON THIS NOVEMBER!
Do you guys see how she did that? She said "his views" haven't been peer reviewed. She didn't say his sources weren't peer reviewed or that they weren't supported by the scientific community. She's a slippery one. Also using one scientists opinion does not refute contradictory research. And the Bush administrations "misuse" of scientific data concerning emissions is frankly unfounded since she offers no evidence other than hearsay.
Ok....politics at its best, she talked for four minutes and said absolutely nothing lol. This is anything but a slam, she refuted none of his points, she thanked ppl for raising issues and that was it. I guess it looks like a slam to some ppl because she talks nonstop and uses big words. Maybe try thinking about what exactly she says next time.
I often wonder how hard it would be to become a politician and be handed things to read that I don't even remotely understand (or care about).
look at hilary clinton, a rich, clueless bureaucrat who has done nothing but steer this country in the wrong direction criticizing a private citizen who has actually produced countless products that have benefitted human lives. how dare she.
The 'HALO EFFECT" is strong with the democrats right now. Since when have a bunch of Lawyers and career politicians been so science savvy? How does Al Gore and Godzillery get away speaking as if they are more reliable then leading scientists in their field. I would love to see either one of them debate a real scientist who disagrees with them, they would mop the floor with them, its a lot easier to lash out when nobody will oppose your ignorance.
Oh, how deliciously ironic Hillary's arrogance has proven as of late- what with the debunking of many of the "unquestionable" scientists she refers to. What a self-assured imbecile and bitch.
Hillary is a tool, I wonder if her position has changed since climate gate? or if she was somehow in the know of the BS science that goes into environmentalism
Poor Hilary, hasn't anyone told her..., 90% of scientific information is paid for by New World Corporations. Everyone needs drugs, GMO Foods are good for you, you must eat meat and green jello and junk food is a basic food group, exercise can kill you, coffee is good for you, you will never dig yourselves out of the bullshit and some of you will die in some heat waves this summer.
The New World Order has the solution: Soy Lent Green, Join our Masters in this tasty endevor and help produce new flavors of Jerky treats made from the most abundant and the tastiest and flavorful of all the mammals..., humans. We can eat 6 billion humans and make this a better world, that is sustanable for the rest of the planet. Save the earth, eat your neibour! It is the only solution! SoyLent Green will be sold this summer, don't miss our specials...
The world is not flat, although a few generations ago 100% world population thought so. I vaguely remember global over population being an issue at one point in elementary school. Like there isn't enough land to grow food and raise livestock, and we'd all have to have only one kid to bring world pop. down again. What happened to that? Like a Don, the government would rather invoke fear, than love.
I'm almost :) too embarrassed to post comments at 4am that few will read. But tonight I had a real breakdown in my trust in public media (in supporting global warming for as long as possible until it becomes too obviously bogus). Scientists need to make a living, and may be swayed to support public consensus, so that public consensus continues to support their own 'credibility'. btw the graph on "Inconvenient Truth" shows CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise; it's not even cause, but effect!
Consensus science is not science. About 200 scientists decided Einstein was wrong about relativity, yet not one PROVED he was wrong. We have all this independent media, which is a great thing, yet an argument becomes so one-sided, at first I QUICKLY dismissed those that thought human's were mainly responsible for the warming over the past decades. Solar flares, climate cycles anyone, what about solar cycles? CO2 parts per million caused by humans are negligible compared to actual CO2 increase.
Ignorance is bliss. But the Garden of Eden is OVER. Some consider evil exists because good men do nothing. Well, ignorance exists because educated people do nothing. Clinton says this [Bush] administration misuses scientific data. Misuse of data goes both ways, and global warming doesn't hit the press as much as it did even only 2 years ago because people are getting wise to 'Inconvenient Truth' conveniently misusing scientific data. 'Global Cooling' occurred during the Carter Administration.
Our Congress are among the top 6% of the wealthy. They won't be affected by laws that make our fuel more expensive. The little people are the ones who will suffer from misguided lawmakers. Alternate energy sources will raise the cost of electricity ten times over what it costs when generated from coal plants. Who can afford this? Not me. It won't bother Hillary.
She has never uttered a word that wasn't politically motivated.
She is the "wife" of a serial adulterer but lowered herself and her gender to stay with that man to further her political career.
She knows as much about science and the climate as she knows about a faithful marriage.
Instead of using all of her time to read what her staff got for her from the environmental lobby, she should have asked some questions and then shut her mouth and listened. She might have learned something.
Michael Crichton is an excel;lent writer, but also an excellent researcher, he was very bright and will be missed by so many. I don't understand how so many cannot take his research serious, but fall in love with Dan Brown novels, who writes pure fiction, but is treated like a prize historian!
Consensus science is not science, its about politics...and this video is useless without Crichton's testimony. Afaid to let people decide on their own? Oh, that's right, the debate is over because one man who made a movie filled with errors and exageration said so...science is not about debate, competing hypothesis, dialouge or discussing things, right?
As a physician and a reader of Dr. Crichton's novels, I can assure you that his views should not be dismissed. Most of what is read in so-called "peer reviewed journals" is simply crap approved by people who owe the writer something.
On the other hand, most of what Dr. Crichton has published is prophetic of what scientific studies have proven is possible.
I would never let a senator discount Dr. Crichton. Yes, we should ban gasoline, but we should not condemn Dr. Crichton.
We will all try to argue on this ridiculous website, jabering on in a pointless attempt to in some way satisfy our self-righteous need to prove our opinions and beliefs are better than others', but are any of you actually willing to claim the knowledge,insight, intelligence and proof of any of these individuals? I think not. So whether or not you follow my advice, I will urge anyone reading to quit their vein squables, go by a book supporting an opinion other than your own, and test your ideals.
If you could have tested Chrichton in some basic science you would have found that he did not realy understand very much science at all. His novels are full of his missunderstanding of science.
Crichton's critique of climate change may appear in a fictional storyline, but the science used in the story is most definitely not fiction. Hilary should have read those footnotes she was so willing to dismiss; they were not fiction; they were fact.
@anoniab As far as respected science with crichton, there's NONE. It's all fiction. The studies tell the story of our deteriorating habitat. Without studies, what did crichton rely on? His imagination apparently.
@qsteveens "State of Fear" is fiction, with facts woven in. If you knew anything about Yellowstone, you'd know they really messed it up when they tried to "manage" it - none of THAT is fiction; it's STILL a mess.
@anoniab It isn't clear why you bring up Yellowstone or assume what I know. The issue is climate change; how humans are altering the atmosphere's composition. Try reading a recent book written by NASA's James Hansen. Storms Of My Grandchildren. He tell it like it is. No fiction.
@qsteveens The reason I bring up Yellowstone is because the government tried to "fix" a problem it had no understanding of with horrific repercussions. They think they can do the same thing with CO2 and they don't care what the unforseen consequences are. Comprende?
@anoniab We The People (government) can't fix all problems. ANY organization, be it governmental or private, isn't perfect. Take the Gulf Spill for example. The private endeavor sure needed more regulation didn't they? But in the last 30 years the energy companies pretty much did what they wanted even to the point of writing the US energy policy in the w/cheney admin. THEY (We The People) need to reduce our emissions. Governments are the best tools to accomplish this. True story.
@ReduceGHGs Anytime the government tries to do something they screw it up - guaranteed. We do not need to reduce our emissions. CO2 is a natural by-product of life/living.
@anoniab Many times in the Earth's past has CO2 levels been much higher than now. Did Dinosaur factories and vehicles push CO2 levels and Warmth then? This is a scam to make us pay more for our energy while the ripoff artists cash in on our backs!
Good thing we have real experts that have completed many, many studies. They all conclude that humans are warming the planet. Most deniers that don't understand simply lack information. Some are in denial, some are too young to appreciate the gravity of the situation, some consume the vested interest propaganda, and others are the vested interests themselves or their hired hacks.
For we the reasonable, there's no credible debate.
@anoniab As for Hansen's "predictions" it is clear you aren't qualified to judge them. Given the fact that ALL of our respected scientific institutions concluded that we humans are causing the warming we should take notice. Clinging to some si fi writer's notions is adolescent.
@ReduceGHGs "ALL of our respected scientific institutions concluded that we humans are causing the warming "
They do not. Again, we only produce 3-4% of the CO2. CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere. The sun has much more to do with it than any CO2 emissions. A prediction is not a fact. You didn't watch Crichtons film on what happened in Yellowstone did you? Again, THAT is HISTORICAL FACT.
@anoniab You say I'm wrong? You say there are respected scientific institutions concluding that humans are NOT causing the warming. Prove it. You can't because there aren't any. After such a false statement, all your remaining "analysis" means nothing.
@ReduceGHGs ICECAP for one. Deal with the percentages will you? If we only produce 3-4% of the CO2 on the planet, how is it we're causing the warming? What about the sun? You are refusing to deal with other influences. The warming is NOT global. It is regional. It is no different than anything that's happened in the past.
@anoniab Wow! You don't do your research! Here's ICECAP's position, "society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change"
You can't do better because the facts aren't with you.
@anoniab And the sun? What, do you really think that big hot ball that we rotate around was overlooked? I don't refuse to deal with other influences. Don't be silly. I rely on the studies that have been completed and the experts analysis of them. There is warming as a global average. As for regional effects, the pole areas have warmed much faster and local/regional effects differ. This is a given and deserves a "No Kidding!".
All this wouldn't matterso much if it weren't for the fact that the GW issue is the bat by which we will all be beaten with, the regulations will cost every household thousands, limit our freedoms in every way. People better wake up!
I love how she states that all these researchers received these awards... but they're GIVEN by corporations and organizations that SUPPORT the climate change Crisis.
She sounds smart in how she says what she says, she's a good speaker, good politician, but every time she says climate change we should all understand that climate change is natural and has been going on since the birth of the Earth. Listen to it again with this in mind and you'll wonder why should we try to stop the Earths natural processes, when we can't. Pollution=bad, climate change=not!
Hilarious that she uses Hanson's data, you know, the Hanson that lately had to revise his statements due to the fact that he was caught falsifying global temperature data....
I wonder if the 31,000 scientist that are now petitioning to be heard in a rebuttal of Global Climate Change will force her to willfully suspend disbelief?
I am SO glad that c*nt Hillary Clinton got her ass handed to her by Mr. Obama. I could stand to listen to 4 years of her screaching voice. I just don't know how Bill puts up with it.
Hillary Clinton is an eco-nazi pig who uses false claims of "overwhelming scientific consensus" to intimidate lone rebels from voicing their conclusions.
...She doesn't care what happens to the world, so long as she and her immature, ruthless clique retain power. She'll burn everything to the ground, and pose for a press photo.
I've read all of his books except Next. He's an exceptional author who probably does more actual research for his novels than any other popular modern author.
So the question remains....Have YOU read a book by Crichton?
I always thought Hillery was a bit of a bitch but after listening to her shit on Crichton I hate her guts. She is the most stupid hateful bitch I have ever seen or heard. What a whore. Yes I said whore. Bills wife is a Whore. disgusting.
Union of Concerned Scientists is a Fraud. I'm so glad Clinton is finished. It's the Global Warming fraud people who are the scietific frauds. They are the ones who have politicalize science.
wowo, clinton has now reached a stupidity so vast, SCHOOL CHILDREN are smarter than her. why dont we just elect them 4 president, or better yet, their teacher, michael crichton himself. i doubt hilary could even understand the ingenius level crichton writes at, none the less write at it. id like to see her opinion on a book as complex as SPHERE. god, shes an idiot
1:05 - "I won't go into an assessment of Mr. Crichton's critique point by point because we don't have time". Oh REALLY Hillary? As if you have ANY clue about the scientific issues? Please, give us a break. Yeah, sure, the ONLY reason is because you are limited on time.
I like how they use the consensus of scientist say line to defend their beliefs in Global Warming, 100 scientist can believe something is true but it only takes 1 to prove they are wrong.
The title of the video is misleading. This was not a discussion which pitted Crichton (or any of the other panelists) against Mrs. Clinton's assertions. It was simply a 6 minute (roughly) railing against them. Offering no differing viewpoint or defense. That wasn't a "vs" - it was a one-sided slap to the face.
Clinton and all liberal tree huggers go die. If you and the rest of the liberals would base your beliefs off of actual science rather than politics, you would know Crichton is right! All science says Global Warming is NATURAL. According to the "global warming" myth, the end of the ice age was most likely brought on by the increase of gas emissions by the prehistoric cro-magnon man.
Thag20. Do you have any real proofs that Global Warming is natural?? as you say? you are just a plain retard, stupid. Those pseudoscientists who claim "that it is natural" have manipulated information they can say whatever they want, with no REAL proofs such as ice melting, sea level rise. Data has been recorded only in the last 100 years so the rest is "brain washing" and made to help to some right wing politician. So, think for yourself and do not be a sheep who follows what others say.
The earth's climate has always changed and always will. The earth went through an entire ice age. The polarities have even shifted. All current science AND fossil records show earths climate to have always been completely erratic. Only now is man thinking that it is their fault that the climate is changing. The issue is not that the earth is changing. The issue is that tree huggers are blaming the human race for causing the changes. You, my ignorant friend, are the sheep, not me.
it is not about politics, it is about reality. Yes, "the end of the ice age" right, did you live on those time to be 100% sure?? no, right? unlike what is happening today, we can see and touch the GW consequences.
R you being serious? If not, then you are a complete idiot. The fact is that the earth's climate is a non-linear system. It is completely erratic and follows no pattern, and therefore cannot possibly be predicted more than a few DAYS in the future. All independent and unbiased studies have shown it to be completely natural. If you believe that the previous climate changes can be explained by the current global warming theory, you are one of the dumbest people alive.
i did not say that the Earth's climate was linear, some cycles may exist. However, greenhouse gases have been realised to the atmosphere as never before during the last few decades (i hope u agree with this if not u my friend are an idiot not me) which triggers GW (cause-effect phenomena). Do not buy what "big corporation"'s scientist say about GW of course they will assure you that it is a natural phenomena, what we can expect from them?. i am just talking based on reality.
Out of all of the research that has been done, Only one study showed that global warming was occurring. This one study received millions of dollars in funding from environmental extremists trying to prove global warming, so naturally they showed warped data. This has been confirmed by countless scientists also studying this issue. The alleged greenhouse grasses are trace elements in earth's atmosphere. They play little role in climate change.
I am guessing that you have gotten some of your thoughts from Al Gores movie. This is a perfect example of half truths and lies. In Britain it is required by law that a disclaimer be given to students who watch it that it contains radical political beliefs. The ice crumbling was found to be computer generated. The CO2 and Temperature graphs, when put together, show the temperature rises preceding the CO2, so the CO2 cant possibly be the cause. Seriously, do some research and see for yourself.
lol She wants to submit a document from a political lobbying group (the UCS) and one of the subjects of Crichton's debunking in the book (James Hansen) to refute Crichton's points? Does this woman think we're all morons?
In 2000 Bush had no votes and just because his Cousin was in that FOX channel, he became a president. So what? If it is so easy to become a president then i guess anyone can become a GOD in America...And not only that but when Black citizens said that Bush did not worth his possition, they dropped them out. Racism.
If Hillary becomes a president, get ready to grab looooooooooots of Umbrellas....
"...Oh say can you see...What a crap, piece of shit..."
I fucking HATE that worthless cunt, Crichton could've tore that bitch apart in two seconds if he had the same pulpit to speak from here. He probably did if I can just find the other parts of this ;-]
she dont know shit. she doesent have experience in the field of "science" and though by linking politics with science it is clearly irrelevent and extremest ran. reading the book state of fear wrote by Dr. Crichton helped me understand why they should not be intertwined. basically in the most valid and simplist form of saying this Hillary clinton has her head up the government's ass so high that she can smell george bush's rotton banana peels. thankyou for your time. Obama 2008
Obama 2008 too. Hillary is an American politician of the 21st century, so truely what should we expect from her? I don't believe again that Obama will win the Presidence seat since These guys in Gongrese forgot to drop away racism while being in College. But this is American education, right? Pure Brainwashing...
One of the biggest issues between GW alarmists and GW skeptics is over the amount of temperature forcing that comes from increased CO2. I decided to put together a 5 minute tutorial to explain the contention over this issue. Put the dots in the blanks where needed, remove excess blanks, and read it for yourself.
mysticminutiae blogspot com / 2008 / 01 / idiots-guide-to-co2 html
For a gas to act as a green house one way heat trap it would need layer itself. co2 does not layer. It mixes freely and evenly with all other gases. Yes it is heavier but with a slight breeze it mixes readily and will not unmix. Besides how do American autos compete with the burning coal seems in other countries? Namely China? I have seen natural heat traps. Rarely do they last out the whole day.
Go to the desert and wait for the sun to set and measure how fast the heat escapes to outer space at dusk. Then go to a southern state that is very humid and you will see that it is moisture that is the best insulater and moisture keeps heat from escaping. it has literally tonnes of mass. Dry air cools much faster. There can be a difference of 50 degrees in some deserts between day and night.
Scientists get it wrong all the time. What about iron nickel meteorites? They say this was formed in deep space. UHH> it was molten when formed. You can not get that in deep space. But they say the iron is mixed with nickel and that is impossible except in a weightless invirement. Right which is what is inside a planet ... DEEP inside. So how did the iron nickel chunks get in space? Something large hit a planet and ripped open its guts. How large?
notice she doesn't debate the facts. Notice she doesn't debate even one detail. She just slams the author. And she brings up her chosen researchers who are all EVERY ONE paid for out of Government funds. She lies completely about who said what. "vast majority" sounds alot like "vast right wing conspiracy" she likes that word "vast" . perhaps because it is so much like her "vast" butt.
Notice the way she looks up absently every few seconds while she's reading. It looks very mechanical. It's not a sincere look. She's not looking up because it has any relevance to her speech. I think she does it because, in school, they tell you to make eye-contact, whether it's meaningful or not. I don't trust her.
hillary. our [vehicle] emissions cause global warming? what of the seldom-mentioned underground coal fires in india and china, which release more co2 than every car, truck, motorcycle, lawn mower, and other internal combustion engine-driven machine in the u.s.? what the heck does ddt have to do with global warming? somebody must be using it for suv fuel. i ask unanimous consent that the senator from new york not breathe any more because of the hideous amount of co2 and hot air that she exhales.
and what about the methane that the fat cow hillery spews out her vast ass? for sure don't mention that China is opening another coal powered generator plant every week and plans to continue to do so for the next 3 years.
Furthermore, CO2 doesn't care whether it comes from an underground coal fire or a power plant. That means the new plants' CO2 emissions will be in addition to that emitted from the underground fires. Oh those crafty Chinese. They give you one disaster and an hour later they give you another one.
I am not concerned with co2. logic would tell you that co2 can not be a source of global warming. I dont care how many scientists have a consensus. I only care for logic and facts. co2 levels roughly follow tempature. And one degree is no big deal. we are not even close to one degree yet.
i thought some co2 was necessary to keep the greenhouse effect at some minimal level. the earth's core's slow fission of uranium can't warm the surface alone.
i grow so weary, jk, of the word "concensus."
krystalnacht was done by conscensus, a concensus of churchmen put galileo under house arrest, a consencus of scientific thought made discovery of continental drift late by about 50 years.
Happywallaby you are soo right. Hillery uses every buzzward and off hand slur she can against what this man wrote. She fails to mention how those footnotes are NOT fiction. By the way co2 has a neutral effect on Global warming. It is thought to be a green house gas. Well the whole atmosphere is an insulater. We need it. But an insulater works in both directions. They are supposing that sun rays can get in and infrared heat and other heat rays can not escape?
This is off-subject a little. Long ago on PBS, there was a gardening program, "The Victory Garden," hosted by the late Jim Crocket. He said the heat of a greenhouse comes about primarily from air convection within the building. It seems to me that a true greenhouse effect on earth would generate vertial columns of tornado-speed winds. I don't pretend to know the actual mechanics of global warming, but I think people are being duped with an irrelevant example.
Yes you are right. True green house effect is actually not possible on planet earth. If co2 were the green house magical gas that they say we would of been dead long ago. If they are correct that co2 holds in heat well it would work in both directions.
Um...it said "Clinton vs. Crichton and Inhofe". Why didn't I see any arguement against Hillary or any debate? How am I supposed to believe that Democrats aren't censoring debate when I see this?
I have one question for all these science doubters. why? why do all these people lie about environmental threats? do they just make it up? grand conspiracy huh! come people on wake up! 6.3 billion people can't crap where they eat without some consequence.
It would be easier for deniers to believe that we were the primary cause of climate change if the "experts" and politicians like Al Gore actually ACTED LIKE they believed in their own message. But their continued use of fossil fuels is such obvious and rank hypocrisy that it hurts the environmentalist movement, making it look like political scare tactics as part of a "VOTE FOR ME AND I'LL SAVE YOU" power grab.
when clinton says "most scientists say" she is advocating groupthink.groupthink is when people agree with each other in order to get along.it's what caused chernobyl,the canary islands klm crash in the late 70's{500 plus dead},WW2 [appeasement policies} ETC etc .Getting it right is what counts.the difference between getting it right and being popular is the difference between thomas edison and paris hilton.one work his arse off,the other opened up her arse.
nphanlon1973 3 months ago
Galileo and Copernicus were also in the minority for a long time versus consensus.
GladiusRutter 4 months ago
Funny how she doesn't have time to critique the work point by point. More accurately she can't. She falls back on the classic "A bunch of smart guys agree with me so I don't need my own science". And on her other point. If the feds cant balance a check book how are they going to lead the way in R & D.
bubuh1117 4 months ago 2
before i even start watching this video i would just like to say; FUCK hilary clinton....
GanjikaAranyaka 5 months ago 2
Wow, nice speech. Now all she has to do is add evidence! The U.S. isn't going to fall behind on sciences because of a cut in federal spending. Great technological advances didn't occur because a dictator decreed it. They happen because people are free to create wealth and keep it!
Reason1600 8 months ago 2
@Reason1600
I take it your rant is tied to the "why should the rich pay more taxes" debate. Are you positive that these people who "created Great technological advances" did so without help in any significant areas of their lives due to federal spending?
drbayoms 7 months ago
Wow Hilary i guess science is a popularity contest if everybody agrees with it, its obviously true
theessenceofcool 10 months ago 10
"The laws of atmospheric physics, unlike government reports, are absolutely
immune from political tampering. If humanity insists on continuing to add
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, there will be consequences." says Richard Somerville, Scripps Inst. Oceanography.
rapauli 1 year ago
@rapauli Yes and Dr. Richard Lindzen the leading Atmospheric scientist in the world says the CO2 is not a danger, How about Dr. Christy?
MultiTacs 11 months ago
What most don't understand is the enviromental movement is a kin to the eugenics movement of the 1930's part of trhe excuse people use to exterminate others.
There are some that advocate population reduction as much as 94% to around 500 million that means 1 in 16 of us get to live and my guess is if you reading this you are not likely to be that one... check out the Gerogia guide stones!!!
nextthought 1 year ago 3
I can't say if Crichton is right or wrong but I will say one thing. He is smarter than everyone in that room put together.
bkl139 1 year ago 12
@bkl139 Not smarter. Wiser.
LicoriceLain 9 months ago
She slams Crichton. No. She dismisses him. The Union of Concerned Scientists? Does she know how many non-scientists are signatories, including George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Franken and many other celebrities and politicians?
kagasan2008 1 year ago 5
The video of Crichton NEEDS to be here...Does anyone know where I can find it?
rylanm92 1 year ago 2
oh wow, she mad
anon2999 1 year ago
Senator Inhofe is doing a great job fighting these gangsters. he calls them what they are, frauds. Subscribe to Senator Inhofe he has new videos all the time exposing the many facets of this criminal enterprise called AGW
Theylivewesleep1984 1 year ago
Why can't deniers find anything but corporate hacks and some si fi writer to support their opinions? It's because the respected experts and studies have all found that in fact HUMANS are deteriorating our only habitat. No babbling from a si fi writer or bought and paid for senator (inhofe) can change the facts but they do influence the gullible, the uninformed, and the irrational. For the sake of our future generations, good thing they are in the minority.
FMI try UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
You have to laugh at these clowns trying to ram this lie tax down through fearmongering. They are a bunch of crooks who grovel for the dollar to keep their paychecks flowing, to enable this deception known as Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Theylivewesleep1984 1 year ago
THANK YOU HILLARY!!
Wow, she really tells it like it is!
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
one word......cunt
daveeol 1 year ago
@daveeol Those with nothing to offer find a way to look in the mirror and post what they see. As for Hillary, she's smart and has been doing a wonderful job. In this vid she the si fi writer for the worthless propaganda he spews out about climate change. Yea, it was just more of his science FICTION. Hillary and others that care about the truth look the experts like NAS, NASA, AAAS, SOCC, and others. The deniers often sit back with nothing but vulgarity. Telling and transparent.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
I'd love to have seen Crichton in a debate with Hillary... he would destroy her.
matt484991 1 year ago
@matt484991 can't happen...he "came down with throat cancer" and died Nov. 8,08 doctors expected him to live. hmmmmmmmmm
linwooddeaton 1 year ago
@matt484991
A debate? Some think there's a credible debate over the core issue. There isn't. Humans are warming the planet; deteriorating habitability.
EVERY respected scientific institution that has considered the issue basically agrees.
EVERY respected scientific study has come to the same basic finding.
So what more does the reasonable, the rational need?
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
Hey Hillary, What you got to say now that the top has been blown off of the Global Warming Scam? A reason Pseudo-Science has no business in politics, and Politicians should stop fear mongering for political points. They have screwed enough things up with their bullshit. Both Parties have ruined us as a nation financially and reputationally.
VOTE OUT ALL ENCUMBENTS AND SUPPORT CONSTITUTIONALISTS! SEND A REAL MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON THIS NOVEMBER!
YOU POLITICAL IDIOTS NEED TO GO!
LordBicen 1 year ago
IT'S ONLY ABOUT POWER.
SHAME.
soslinio 1 year ago
Do you guys see how she did that? She said "his views" haven't been peer reviewed. She didn't say his sources weren't peer reviewed or that they weren't supported by the scientific community. She's a slippery one. Also using one scientists opinion does not refute contradictory research. And the Bush administrations "misuse" of scientific data concerning emissions is frankly unfounded since she offers no evidence other than hearsay.
hkjghfgh 1 year ago
Ok....politics at its best, she talked for four minutes and said absolutely nothing lol. This is anything but a slam, she refuted none of his points, she thanked ppl for raising issues and that was it. I guess it looks like a slam to some ppl because she talks nonstop and uses big words. Maybe try thinking about what exactly she says next time.
I often wonder how hard it would be to become a politician and be handed things to read that I don't even remotely understand (or care about).
hkjghfgh 1 year ago
shes a snake and a liar
dickmoe99 2 years ago 4
Apparently footnotes "are" quite credible.
stephgarza102089 2 years ago
Hillary want presidency and wants to be a world leader
Samuella133 2 years ago
look at hilary clinton, a rich, clueless bureaucrat who has done nothing but steer this country in the wrong direction criticizing a private citizen who has actually produced countless products that have benefitted human lives. how dare she.
senorfarqueso 2 years ago 7
The 'HALO EFFECT" is strong with the democrats right now. Since when have a bunch of Lawyers and career politicians been so science savvy? How does Al Gore and Godzillery get away speaking as if they are more reliable then leading scientists in their field. I would love to see either one of them debate a real scientist who disagrees with them, they would mop the floor with them, its a lot easier to lash out when nobody will oppose your ignorance.
SuperBrandocommando 2 years ago 3
Oh, how deliciously ironic Hillary's arrogance has proven as of late- what with the debunking of many of the "unquestionable" scientists she refers to. What a self-assured imbecile and bitch.
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
Hillary needs a Big Stiff Cuban Cigar shoved up her where the Sun Dont Shine.
WHERE'S BILL, WHERE'S BILL????
kchedville 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
genehilbert 2 years ago
Hillary is a tool, I wonder if her position has changed since climate gate? or if she was somehow in the know of the BS science that goes into environmentalism
SuperBrandocommando 2 years ago 3
You are asking an absolutely terrific question. That is exactly the question to ask. Either way, watch this and study her mannerisms well.
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
idiot.
ivanhorvath 2 years ago
Michael Crichton is awesome. If they actually debated hillary would get pwned
Protege385 2 years ago 6
This robot just proves Crichton's point.
DOH1284 2 years ago
Comment removed
DOH1284 2 years ago
FUCK YOU HILLARY CLINTON
TheMainEvent321 2 years ago 2
This video is one big FAIL.
yaroukh 2 years ago
On the part of whom?
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
Where TF is Crichton speaking?
yaroukh 2 years ago
Poor Hilary, hasn't anyone told her..., 90% of scientific information is paid for by New World Corporations. Everyone needs drugs, GMO Foods are good for you, you must eat meat and green jello and junk food is a basic food group, exercise can kill you, coffee is good for you, you will never dig yourselves out of the bullshit and some of you will die in some heat waves this summer.
Jai666666666 2 years ago
The New World Order has the solution: Soy Lent Green, Join our Masters in this tasty endevor and help produce new flavors of Jerky treats made from the most abundant and the tastiest and flavorful of all the mammals..., humans. We can eat 6 billion humans and make this a better world, that is sustanable for the rest of the planet. Save the earth, eat your neibour! It is the only solution! SoyLent Green will be sold this summer, don't miss our specials...
Jai666666666 2 years ago
And Crichton's response? Why not show that in your video? Too scared he'll damage Clinton's arguments?
GusMagnusO 2 years ago 2
CLINTON is a product of the CONSENSUS and of popular opinion, not of science or rationality. Of course she trusts consensus science. She's an idiot.
davidngo4415 2 years ago 3
The world is not flat, although a few generations ago 100% world population thought so. I vaguely remember global over population being an issue at one point in elementary school. Like there isn't enough land to grow food and raise livestock, and we'd all have to have only one kid to bring world pop. down again. What happened to that? Like a Don, the government would rather invoke fear, than love.
bearcolombia 2 years ago 3
Their trying to bring that back up.. using Africa as an example of why the world will become over-populated...
Recent studies show they have been including the DEAD in their population explosion studies...
Its a sad state when people push their agenda skewing data like that.
Final point the IPCC is not a scientific organization. they claim 2500+ scientists.. only 9 have a PhD and none are qualified for climate change..
Vynjira 2 years ago
I'm almost :) too embarrassed to post comments at 4am that few will read. But tonight I had a real breakdown in my trust in public media (in supporting global warming for as long as possible until it becomes too obviously bogus). Scientists need to make a living, and may be swayed to support public consensus, so that public consensus continues to support their own 'credibility'. btw the graph on "Inconvenient Truth" shows CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures rise; it's not even cause, but effect!
bearcolombia 2 years ago 4
Consensus science is not science. About 200 scientists decided Einstein was wrong about relativity, yet not one PROVED he was wrong. We have all this independent media, which is a great thing, yet an argument becomes so one-sided, at first I QUICKLY dismissed those that thought human's were mainly responsible for the warming over the past decades. Solar flares, climate cycles anyone, what about solar cycles? CO2 parts per million caused by humans are negligible compared to actual CO2 increase.
bearcolombia 2 years ago
Ignorance is bliss. But the Garden of Eden is OVER. Some consider evil exists because good men do nothing. Well, ignorance exists because educated people do nothing. Clinton says this [Bush] administration misuses scientific data. Misuse of data goes both ways, and global warming doesn't hit the press as much as it did even only 2 years ago because people are getting wise to 'Inconvenient Truth' conveniently misusing scientific data. 'Global Cooling' occurred during the Carter Administration.
bearcolombia 2 years ago
Our Congress are among the top 6% of the wealthy. They won't be affected by laws that make our fuel more expensive. The little people are the ones who will suffer from misguided lawmakers. Alternate energy sources will raise the cost of electricity ten times over what it costs when generated from coal plants. Who can afford this? Not me. It won't bother Hillary.
oilhammer04 2 years ago 2
She has never uttered a word that wasn't politically motivated.
She is the "wife" of a serial adulterer but lowered herself and her gender to stay with that man to further her political career.
She knows as much about science and the climate as she knows about a faithful marriage.
Instead of using all of her time to read what her staff got for her from the environmental lobby, she should have asked some questions and then shut her mouth and listened. She might have learned something.
JonMcAin08 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go Hillary! Tell 'em like it is! Time has proven you to be correct.
jereuter01 2 years ago
Michael Crichton is an excel;lent writer, but also an excellent researcher, he was very bright and will be missed by so many. I don't understand how so many cannot take his research serious, but fall in love with Dan Brown novels, who writes pure fiction, but is treated like a prize historian!
Dc328 2 years ago 4
Consensus science is not science, its about politics...and this video is useless without Crichton's testimony. Afaid to let people decide on their own? Oh, that's right, the debate is over because one man who made a movie filled with errors and exageration said so...science is not about debate, competing hypothesis, dialouge or discussing things, right?
chrisizq 3 years ago 22
@chrisizq Amen sister!
0spiker 5 months ago
As a physician and a reader of Dr. Crichton's novels, I can assure you that his views should not be dismissed. Most of what is read in so-called "peer reviewed journals" is simply crap approved by people who owe the writer something.
On the other hand, most of what Dr. Crichton has published is prophetic of what scientific studies have proven is possible.
I would never let a senator discount Dr. Crichton. Yes, we should ban gasoline, but we should not condemn Dr. Crichton.
maryfay53 3 years ago 5
We will all try to argue on this ridiculous website, jabering on in a pointless attempt to in some way satisfy our self-righteous need to prove our opinions and beliefs are better than others', but are any of you actually willing to claim the knowledge,insight, intelligence and proof of any of these individuals? I think not. So whether or not you follow my advice, I will urge anyone reading to quit their vein squables, go by a book supporting an opinion other than your own, and test your ideals.
jrubin68 3 years ago
If you could have tested Chrichton in some basic science you would have found that he did not realy understand very much science at all. His novels are full of his missunderstanding of science.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Crichton's critique of climate change may appear in a fictional storyline, but the science used in the story is most definitely not fiction. Hilary should have read those footnotes she was so willing to dismiss; they were not fiction; they were fact.
anoniab 3 years ago 31
@anoniab As far as respected science with crichton, there's NONE. It's all fiction. The studies tell the story of our deteriorating habitat. Without studies, what did crichton rely on? His imagination apparently.
qsteveens 1 year ago
@qsteveens "State of Fear" is fiction, with facts woven in. If you knew anything about Yellowstone, you'd know they really messed it up when they tried to "manage" it - none of THAT is fiction; it's STILL a mess.
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab It isn't clear why you bring up Yellowstone or assume what I know. The issue is climate change; how humans are altering the atmosphere's composition. Try reading a recent book written by NASA's James Hansen. Storms Of My Grandchildren. He tell it like it is. No fiction.
qsteveens 1 year ago
@qsteveens The reason I bring up Yellowstone is because the government tried to "fix" a problem it had no understanding of with horrific repercussions. They think they can do the same thing with CO2 and they don't care what the unforseen consequences are. Comprende?
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab We The People (government) can't fix all problems. ANY organization, be it governmental or private, isn't perfect. Take the Gulf Spill for example. The private endeavor sure needed more regulation didn't they? But in the last 30 years the energy companies pretty much did what they wanted even to the point of writing the US energy policy in the w/cheney admin. THEY (We The People) need to reduce our emissions. Governments are the best tools to accomplish this. True story.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Anytime the government tries to do something they screw it up - guaranteed. We do not need to reduce our emissions. CO2 is a natural by-product of life/living.
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab Many times in the Earth's past has CO2 levels been much higher than now. Did Dinosaur factories and vehicles push CO2 levels and Warmth then? This is a scam to make us pay more for our energy while the ripoff artists cash in on our backs!
Theylivewesleep1984 1 year ago
@Theylivewesleep1984 Was that your "expert" opinion?
Good thing we have real experts that have completed many, many studies. They all conclude that humans are warming the planet. Most deniers that don't understand simply lack information. Some are in denial, some are too young to appreciate the gravity of the situation, some consume the vested interest propaganda, and others are the vested interests themselves or their hired hacks.
For we the reasonable, there's no credible debate.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@Theylivewesleep1984 We are in full agreement, my friend:)
anoniab 1 year ago
@qsteveens Any of Hansen's "predictions" ARE fiction..
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab As for Hansen's "predictions" it is clear you aren't qualified to judge them. Given the fact that ALL of our respected scientific institutions concluded that we humans are causing the warming we should take notice. Clinging to some si fi writer's notions is adolescent.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs "ALL of our respected scientific institutions concluded that we humans are causing the warming "
They do not. Again, we only produce 3-4% of the CO2. CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere. The sun has much more to do with it than any CO2 emissions. A prediction is not a fact. You didn't watch Crichtons film on what happened in Yellowstone did you? Again, THAT is HISTORICAL FACT.
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab You say I'm wrong? You say there are respected scientific institutions concluding that humans are NOT causing the warming. Prove it. You can't because there aren't any. After such a false statement, all your remaining "analysis" means nothing.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs ICECAP for one. Deal with the percentages will you? If we only produce 3-4% of the CO2 on the planet, how is it we're causing the warming? What about the sun? You are refusing to deal with other influences. The warming is NOT global. It is regional. It is no different than anything that's happened in the past.
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab Wow! You don't do your research! Here's ICECAP's position, "society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change"
You can't do better because the facts aren't with you.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs "man plays a role in climate change"
Did you note the exclusion of "global"?
anoniab 1 year ago
@anoniab
Do you note that you have nothing to support your opinion?
Try reading. Here are recent articles that may help you gain a little understanding of what we face.
Google: Shrinking Glaciers To Spark Food Shortages
Google: Researching the impact of melting ice sheet in Greenland
Good luck. I can't help anyone that is unwilling to learn.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@anoniab And the sun? What, do you really think that big hot ball that we rotate around was overlooked? I don't refuse to deal with other influences. Don't be silly. I rely on the studies that have been completed and the experts analysis of them. There is warming as a global average. As for regional effects, the pole areas have warmed much faster and local/regional effects differ. This is a given and deserves a "No Kidding!".
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs "There is warming as a global average."
An "average" will not melt ice anywhere it's below freezing.
anoniab 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Remove the spaces and watch it. The Yellowstone fiasco is HISTORICAL
video . google . com / videoplay? docid = 2795753336403393538 #
anoniab 1 year ago
All this wouldn't matterso much if it weren't for the fact that the GW issue is the bat by which we will all be beaten with, the regulations will cost every household thousands, limit our freedoms in every way. People better wake up!
oneblessedperson 3 years ago 2
I love how she states that all these researchers received these awards... but they're GIVEN by corporations and organizations that SUPPORT the climate change Crisis.
billyd87 3 years ago 3
She sounds smart in how she says what she says, she's a good speaker, good politician, but every time she says climate change we should all understand that climate change is natural and has been going on since the birth of the Earth. Listen to it again with this in mind and you'll wonder why should we try to stop the Earths natural processes, when we can't. Pollution=bad, climate change=not!
aaront596 3 years ago
Comment removed
jereuter01 3 years ago
And your anonymous opinion carries naught weight- nothing more.
avisionofsorrow 3 years ago
have you ever read the book? everything in it is accurate and peer reviewed.
enomarekim 3 years ago 2
Hilarious that she uses Hanson's data, you know, the Hanson that lately had to revise his statements due to the fact that he was caught falsifying global temperature data....
I wonder if the 31,000 scientist that are now petitioning to be heard in a rebuttal of Global Climate Change will force her to willfully suspend disbelief?
micontrols 3 years ago 4
A bit coincidental his sudden demise yes?
driecken 3 years ago
bam clinton is sharp. well said.
Animalll2003lll 3 years ago
She really makes me want to throw up, love you crichton!!!
webboy9579 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hate Obama b/c I hate communists. I thought we had buried communism all over the world at it springs up in a Neo-Com named Barack Hussein Obama.
beefnliver 3 years ago
NOT. I for got the 'not' between 'could' and 'stand'. Sorry, but I was confuzzled from hearing her screaching.
JustSomeOldGuy 3 years ago
I am SO glad that c*nt Hillary Clinton got her ass handed to her by Mr. Obama. I could stand to listen to 4 years of her screaching voice. I just don't know how Bill puts up with it.
JustSomeOldGuy 3 years ago
you can always find a scientist to agree with you if they depend on you for their funding
British scientists say Gore's ideas are poopy
stephenkingrocks 3 years ago 3
where's the response from Crichton? Isn't there a "vs" in the title?
osxing 3 years ago 3
I miss the good ole un-politically charged Chrichton novels, like Timeline.
1moaper2 3 years ago
The Andromeda Strain and Jurssic Park were good ones too
Coonstafabio 3 years ago
can you believe he died? How sudden.
1moaper2 3 years ago
I think it would have been on the news a lot more if the election wasn't going on..i'm going to miss him
Coonstafabio 3 years ago
now that little hint of sexism
mouelafrica2 3 years ago
clintons on the ball
tristangod 3 years ago
Hillary Clinton is an eco-nazi pig who uses false claims of "overwhelming scientific consensus" to intimidate lone rebels from voicing their conclusions.
...She doesn't care what happens to the world, so long as she and her immature, ruthless clique retain power. She'll burn everything to the ground, and pose for a press photo.
Pig.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago 5
Thank you, good sir. You truly are a logic junkie. Couldn't have put it better myself.
jamesremus07 3 years ago
Read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.
lexar 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming is a lie.
lexar 3 years ago
Has anyone on this page even read a book by Crichton?... read a book?
TimeForTowels 3 years ago
I've read all of his books except Next. He's an exceptional author who probably does more actual research for his novels than any other popular modern author.
So the question remains....Have YOU read a book by Crichton?
bighitter42 3 years ago
'Prey' was pretty good, 'Prey' and 'Congo'. Have'nt read any of the others. I Do love to hate Hilary Clinton though.
Doomzdayxx 3 years ago
What a bitch.
ecgospelg 3 years ago
I always thought Hillery was a bit of a bitch but after listening to her shit on Crichton I hate her guts. She is the most stupid hateful bitch I have ever seen or heard. What a whore. Yes I said whore. Bills wife is a Whore. disgusting.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
All excellent points!!
TimeForTowels 3 years ago
Union of Concerned Scientists is a Fraud. I'm so glad Clinton is finished. It's the Global Warming fraud people who are the scietific frauds. They are the ones who have politicalize science.
juscurious 3 years ago
Is HILLARY RODMAN CLINTON related to DENNIS RODMAN?
If so, it would explain her stupidity!
JarheadMarine 3 years ago
She won't go into his points because she can't refute them.
bighitter42 3 years ago
Indeed, clearly nothing to do with congressional time allotment
TimeForTowels 3 years ago
Clearly.
bighitter42 3 years ago
Man, Hillary is a bitch, she uses the perfect lawyer/liberal bullshit of not allowing a person to finish there statements after answering questions.
81broncoman 3 years ago
apparently she likes hearing herself speak. oh wait, already knew that.
P51DAllen 3 years ago
wowo, clinton has now reached a stupidity so vast, SCHOOL CHILDREN are smarter than her. why dont we just elect them 4 president, or better yet, their teacher, michael crichton himself. i doubt hilary could even understand the ingenius level crichton writes at, none the less write at it. id like to see her opinion on a book as complex as SPHERE. god, shes an idiot
ikymuffins 3 years ago
1:05 - "I won't go into an assessment of Mr. Crichton's critique point by point because we don't have time". Oh REALLY Hillary? As if you have ANY clue about the scientific issues? Please, give us a break. Yeah, sure, the ONLY reason is because you are limited on time.
riker29 3 years ago
I love Clinton & Crichton. I'm divided.
(I'm sure Michael Crichton is very liberal like lady Clinton)
benitogarciaweblog 3 years ago
The Queen bitch is close to the Presidency....
Memo to Hollywood : lets look at "The Omen " series again........
haldenver 3 years ago
I like how they use the consensus of scientist say line to defend their beliefs in Global Warming, 100 scientist can believe something is true but it only takes 1 to prove they are wrong.
lethalwpn77 3 years ago
Hill is roughly five times less intelligent than Crichton. He would absolutely own her in a real debate.
rdangelo 3 years ago
Take that!
2025DPlaza 3 years ago
what a bitch!
osmaldz 3 years ago
Man-made global warming=Man-made global Scam
Wilco79 3 years ago
The title of the video is misleading. This was not a discussion which pitted Crichton (or any of the other panelists) against Mrs. Clinton's assertions. It was simply a 6 minute (roughly) railing against them. Offering no differing viewpoint or defense. That wasn't a "vs" - it was a one-sided slap to the face.
Sinuev1 3 years ago 2
And what a slap to the face it was!
jrubin68 3 years ago
Amazing : a man who should be President is being crucified by a woman who may be. She demeans Crichton, and then rants on .....a disgrace.
haldenver 4 years ago 3
Fuck Chrichton, Fuck You, EARTH FIRST!
jrubin68 3 years ago
Clinton and all liberal tree huggers go die. If you and the rest of the liberals would base your beliefs off of actual science rather than politics, you would know Crichton is right! All science says Global Warming is NATURAL. According to the "global warming" myth, the end of the ice age was most likely brought on by the increase of gas emissions by the prehistoric cro-magnon man.
Thag20 3 years ago
Thag20. Do you have any real proofs that Global Warming is natural?? as you say? you are just a plain retard, stupid. Those pseudoscientists who claim "that it is natural" have manipulated information they can say whatever they want, with no REAL proofs such as ice melting, sea level rise. Data has been recorded only in the last 100 years so the rest is "brain washing" and made to help to some right wing politician. So, think for yourself and do not be a sheep who follows what others say.
adamthelover10 3 years ago
The earth's climate has always changed and always will. The earth went through an entire ice age. The polarities have even shifted. All current science AND fossil records show earths climate to have always been completely erratic. Only now is man thinking that it is their fault that the climate is changing. The issue is not that the earth is changing. The issue is that tree huggers are blaming the human race for causing the changes. You, my ignorant friend, are the sheep, not me.
Thag20 3 years ago
it is not about politics, it is about reality. Yes, "the end of the ice age" right, did you live on those time to be 100% sure?? no, right? unlike what is happening today, we can see and touch the GW consequences.
adamthelover10 3 years ago
R you being serious? If not, then you are a complete idiot. The fact is that the earth's climate is a non-linear system. It is completely erratic and follows no pattern, and therefore cannot possibly be predicted more than a few DAYS in the future. All independent and unbiased studies have shown it to be completely natural. If you believe that the previous climate changes can be explained by the current global warming theory, you are one of the dumbest people alive.
Thag20 3 years ago 3
i did not say that the Earth's climate was linear, some cycles may exist. However, greenhouse gases have been realised to the atmosphere as never before during the last few decades (i hope u agree with this if not u my friend are an idiot not me) which triggers GW (cause-effect phenomena). Do not buy what "big corporation"'s scientist say about GW of course they will assure you that it is a natural phenomena, what we can expect from them?. i am just talking based on reality.
adamthelover10 3 years ago
Out of all of the research that has been done, Only one study showed that global warming was occurring. This one study received millions of dollars in funding from environmental extremists trying to prove global warming, so naturally they showed warped data. This has been confirmed by countless scientists also studying this issue. The alleged greenhouse grasses are trace elements in earth's atmosphere. They play little role in climate change.
Thag20 3 years ago
I am guessing that you have gotten some of your thoughts from Al Gores movie. This is a perfect example of half truths and lies. In Britain it is required by law that a disclaimer be given to students who watch it that it contains radical political beliefs. The ice crumbling was found to be computer generated. The CO2 and Temperature graphs, when put together, show the temperature rises preceding the CO2, so the CO2 cant possibly be the cause. Seriously, do some research and see for yourself.
Thag20 3 years ago 2
lol She wants to submit a document from a political lobbying group (the UCS) and one of the subjects of Crichton's debunking in the book (James Hansen) to refute Crichton's points? Does this woman think we're all morons?
Gwynne66 4 years ago
The answer is "yes".
haldenver 3 years ago
Hillary.. kknows as much about science as Al gore
siamdesperado 4 years ago 2
Hillary 08'
2025DPlaza 4 years ago
yes she will make a great Dog Catcher and might actually win that post.
siamdesperado 4 years ago
In 2000 Bush had no votes and just because his Cousin was in that FOX channel, he became a president. So what? If it is so easy to become a president then i guess anyone can become a GOD in America...And not only that but when Black citizens said that Bush did not worth his possition, they dropped them out. Racism.
If Hillary becomes a president, get ready to grab looooooooooots of Umbrellas....
"...Oh say can you see...What a crap, piece of shit..."
JBrikiatis 4 years ago
I fucking HATE that worthless cunt, Crichton could've tore that bitch apart in two seconds if he had the same pulpit to speak from here. He probably did if I can just find the other parts of this ;-]
glitched731 4 years ago
she dont know shit. she doesent have experience in the field of "science" and though by linking politics with science it is clearly irrelevent and extremest ran. reading the book state of fear wrote by Dr. Crichton helped me understand why they should not be intertwined. basically in the most valid and simplist form of saying this Hillary clinton has her head up the government's ass so high that she can smell george bush's rotton banana peels. thankyou for your time. Obama 2008
BoneThuggin1999 4 years ago
Obama 2008 too. Hillary is an American politician of the 21st century, so truely what should we expect from her? I don't believe again that Obama will win the Presidence seat since These guys in Gongrese forgot to drop away racism while being in College. But this is American education, right? Pure Brainwashing...
JBrikiatis 4 years ago
One of the biggest issues between GW alarmists and GW skeptics is over the amount of temperature forcing that comes from increased CO2. I decided to put together a 5 minute tutorial to explain the contention over this issue. Put the dots in the blanks where needed, remove excess blanks, and read it for yourself.
mysticminutiae blogspot com / 2008 / 01 / idiots-guide-to-co2 html
vsaluki 4 years ago
For a gas to act as a green house one way heat trap it would need layer itself. co2 does not layer. It mixes freely and evenly with all other gases. Yes it is heavier but with a slight breeze it mixes readily and will not unmix. Besides how do American autos compete with the burning coal seems in other countries? Namely China? I have seen natural heat traps. Rarely do they last out the whole day.
johnknoefler 4 years ago
Go to the desert and wait for the sun to set and measure how fast the heat escapes to outer space at dusk. Then go to a southern state that is very humid and you will see that it is moisture that is the best insulater and moisture keeps heat from escaping. it has literally tonnes of mass. Dry air cools much faster. There can be a difference of 50 degrees in some deserts between day and night.
johnknoefler 4 years ago
Scientists get it wrong all the time. What about iron nickel meteorites? They say this was formed in deep space. UHH> it was molten when formed. You can not get that in deep space. But they say the iron is mixed with nickel and that is impossible except in a weightless invirement. Right which is what is inside a planet ... DEEP inside. So how did the iron nickel chunks get in space? Something large hit a planet and ripped open its guts. How large?
johnknoefler 4 years ago
notice she doesn't debate the facts. Notice she doesn't debate even one detail. She just slams the author. And she brings up her chosen researchers who are all EVERY ONE paid for out of Government funds. She lies completely about who said what. "vast majority" sounds alot like "vast right wing conspiracy" she likes that word "vast" . perhaps because it is so much like her "vast" butt.
johnknoefler 4 years ago 2
Notice the way she looks up absently every few seconds while she's reading. It looks very mechanical. It's not a sincere look. She's not looking up because it has any relevance to her speech. I think she does it because, in school, they tell you to make eye-contact, whether it's meaningful or not. I don't trust her.
ravencao 4 years ago
hillary. our [vehicle] emissions cause global warming? what of the seldom-mentioned underground coal fires in india and china, which release more co2 than every car, truck, motorcycle, lawn mower, and other internal combustion engine-driven machine in the u.s.? what the heck does ddt have to do with global warming? somebody must be using it for suv fuel. i ask unanimous consent that the senator from new york not breathe any more because of the hideous amount of co2 and hot air that she exhales.
happywallaby 4 years ago 3
and what about the methane that the fat cow hillery spews out her vast ass? for sure don't mention that China is opening another coal powered generator plant every week and plans to continue to do so for the next 3 years.
johnknoefler 4 years ago
Furthermore, CO2 doesn't care whether it comes from an underground coal fire or a power plant. That means the new plants' CO2 emissions will be in addition to that emitted from the underground fires. Oh those crafty Chinese. They give you one disaster and an hour later they give you another one.
happywallaby 4 years ago
I am not concerned with co2. logic would tell you that co2 can not be a source of global warming. I dont care how many scientists have a consensus. I only care for logic and facts. co2 levels roughly follow tempature. And one degree is no big deal. we are not even close to one degree yet.
johnknoefler 4 years ago
i thought some co2 was necessary to keep the greenhouse effect at some minimal level. the earth's core's slow fission of uranium can't warm the surface alone.
i grow so weary, jk, of the word "concensus."
krystalnacht was done by conscensus, a concensus of churchmen put galileo under house arrest, a consencus of scientific thought made discovery of continental drift late by about 50 years.
global warming has become a religion.
happywallaby 4 years ago
Happywallaby you are soo right. Hillery uses every buzzward and off hand slur she can against what this man wrote. She fails to mention how those footnotes are NOT fiction. By the way co2 has a neutral effect on Global warming. It is thought to be a green house gas. Well the whole atmosphere is an insulater. We need it. But an insulater works in both directions. They are supposing that sun rays can get in and infrared heat and other heat rays can not escape?
johnknoefler 4 years ago
This is off-subject a little. Long ago on PBS, there was a gardening program, "The Victory Garden," hosted by the late Jim Crocket. He said the heat of a greenhouse comes about primarily from air convection within the building. It seems to me that a true greenhouse effect on earth would generate vertial columns of tornado-speed winds. I don't pretend to know the actual mechanics of global warming, but I think people are being duped with an irrelevant example.
happywallaby 4 years ago
Yes you are right. True green house effect is actually not possible on planet earth. If co2 were the green house magical gas that they say we would of been dead long ago. If they are correct that co2 holds in heat well it would work in both directions.
johnknoefler 4 years ago
Um...it said "Clinton vs. Crichton and Inhofe". Why didn't I see any arguement against Hillary or any debate? How am I supposed to believe that Democrats aren't censoring debate when I see this?
gibson22varcelone 4 years ago 4
I have one question for all these science doubters. why? why do all these people lie about environmental threats? do they just make it up? grand conspiracy huh! come people on wake up! 6.3 billion people can't crap where they eat without some consequence.
ZodrazLaBolga 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WELL SAID HILLARY! VOTE FOR HILLARY!!
ghill2008 4 years ago
Hilary Clinton is taking the politicization of science to new levels, too!
matthew871 4 years ago 2
Hilary Clinton and Al Gore are not credible spokespersons for ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.
ExtraGarlicNow 4 years ago 2
It would be easier for deniers to believe that we were the primary cause of climate change if the "experts" and politicians like Al Gore actually ACTED LIKE they believed in their own message. But their continued use of fossil fuels is such obvious and rank hypocrisy that it hurts the environmentalist movement, making it look like political scare tactics as part of a "VOTE FOR ME AND I'LL SAVE YOU" power grab.