This little boy Doren is a creep. There is no other word for him. He is a creep who has never been in bar fight. He needs his smooth, unworried face to be rearranged. Only those who have never struggled or suffered hold opinions such as that little boy holds.
About AGW, I concur with Darkconis here: AGW deniers base their argument on a faulty misunderstanding of how science operates, i.e. if there is ANY uncertainty, there must be something wrong with the science. This proves they're idiots.
balance my friend. deniers are totaly denying to balance out the doomsdayers' claim that AGW is definately happening, (the world is coming to an end, the polar bears and bunnies are drowning.). every one knows that for everything, there is an equal and exact opposite. it's balance. maybe we do play a part, maybe we don't. the doomsdayers started claiming AGW was a fact long before deniers claimed it was nonsense. it could only happen in that order .
life works with balances. when you have one side claiming that man made global warming is definately happening and destroying the Earth using only theories, you will have a balance by people totally denying that it exists using only theory. Global warming is a multi billion dollar business. science has proved nothing but claims to have, to keep the money flowing. without solid proof, they won't debate. they will just keep spewing their theory, while trying to silence opposing theory.
You are denying the fixes the global warming cult had done and the fact they locked out other scientists with another point of view. If you are a teacher, you should know that locking out the other side is not science but indeed a cult. I want to know how you view the term "hide the decline"...
Scientific journals are not in the habit of publishing material that is WRONG. It is peer reviewed in order to weed out that stuff that is flat out STUPID.
You should read what the insider put out, from what is there I highly doubt it was hacked. It is VERY damning. So far the cult is way behind in the explaining it. Also some nice NWO propaganda they put out. The explinations/excuses from the cult is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper.
You make it sound like this was the only place where they were doing science. Not only is the evidence against them LAME, it would only knock down one source.
LOL just one source? Every body that spoke to the scientists at that school is in the mess. Micheal Mann is under investigation via Penn St but I would venture to say it will run deeper than that LOL. All those asshats were together and the cult is not as far apart as you twits want to make it seem. Hell they peer reviewed eachothers work exclusively. If they did not agree with someone they were kicked out. You clearly have not read very much into it.
Peer review is a means of reaching consensus. What are they supposed to do with papers that are just flat out wrong? This is science, not a democracy. You should quit bemoaning the fact that science doesn't give equal time to idiots like the media.
who decided the papers were flat out wrong? I would be willing to bet it was a review board with vested intrest in AGW. Like Al gorelioni having a vested interest in carbon credits, there's a conflict of interest. if i worked at a company making money selling car parts, i'm not going to tell everyone to stop buying cars. that would destroy my bottom line.
taxing co2 is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper. it's a joke. a hoax. a pyramid scheme. Al Gore is at the top of the pyramid along with the NWO.
We are not dealing with a linear system. There are all kinds of feedback loops that could cause minor change to escalate into major change. The melting of the permafrost, for example, is releasing previously trapped methane. The loss of the ice cap will reflect less solar radiation. There is the danger that the saline conveyor that drives the gulf stream could stall. It is not just a matter of simple temperature that we can reverse.
Climate change or global warming does not agw that Al Gore and the IPCC lay out. I know agw does happen but it is in no way has bad as the IPCC makes it out to be. Also in warming climates their will be winners and losers.
Herman Van Rompuy is the president of the EU after calling this the first year of global governance" said ,The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. This global government wouldn't remain benevolent.
good job on this vid..but is howtheworldworks denying it? or is he just saying the scientists are making it look worse than it is? I do know a lot of people who are ignoring it like you say.
Okay so this guy says "But people who deny climate change are saying absolutely, man has absolutely nothing to do with it, that it's a big hoax" Okay, so this guy is saying people that completely deny climate change, also say they have nothing to do with something they don't believe in? He's stating that these skeptics of climate change are pretty much saying "Even though it isn't real, we have nothing to do with it" WTF?!
(from a conservative)most of us don't 100% deny man has an effect on the planet, we just don't think we're causing an irreversable catastrophic change in the planet, and we don't want fundamental change legislation based on unproven science.
The simple fact that cap/trade and other climate change legislation is rammed down our throats, especially during a time when we cannot afford it, makes me question the motives of those pushing it.
"most of us don't 100% deny man has an effect on the planet, we just don't think we're causing an irreversable catastrophic change in the planet, and we don't want fundamental change legislation based on unproven science."
this isn't an opinion debate - you either have a scientific consenzus or you don't, and so far, the lever has been heavily tilted towards anthropogenic global warming.
just saying it's unproven science is simply ignorant.
600 years ago people thought the world was flat? nice. 2000-600=1400.
that statement is surprisingly ignorant.
also, you've said that the lever is not tilted and " I've read enough reports to support either side, I simply won't believe one way or the other right now."
and then you choose the volcano side. contradicting yourself in a mere sentence before does not make your case any better. and your personal incredulity is also not a good argument - it's just a showcase of ignorance.
John, please allow an opposing voice to be heard without shutting it down immediately. Unless you've been living under a rock, you must know that green living, global warming scare, reducing energy dependence have all had a firm grip on the US media, and now our Governement Policies. In other words, Global Warming/Climate Change advocates have been winning the debate for the last 5 to 10 years. You won ok?! Now let the other side speak.
Im a conservative that does not believe in Global Warming with the way its described that its going to destroy the world. I do understand that there is going to be climate change do to humans. I wish more conservatives understood that as well. But I believe our effect is minute and minescule. And the earth has the obility to fix its self like it has since existence. God designed it well!
baseless assertions. some proponents assert w/ absolute certainty. cap and trade will "certainly" destroy 3rd world development and hurt economies, everywhere.
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from the University of Anglia has been hacked. Thousands of their e-mails and data dating back to 1996 have been leaked. You can even search the CRU climate fraud e-mails by keyword. Have fun!
You mean those emails that have been taken out of context and are circulated by global warming deniers, despite the fact that data from all over the world shows that planet is warming and we are contributing much of it?
skepticalscience com / What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us . h t m l
The uncertainty is the degree of significance, not whether or not it is happening. Our predictions are not perfect, in fact, many have been far too conservative, especially the rate of ice melting.
Unfortunately what scientists are hit with is not a difference in information, but a difference in opinion. Skepticism is part and parcel of the scientific process, however, at the end of the day we must weight these uncertainties to determine a course of action. There is no absolute certainty until it is too late.
Again, based on your logic we should've taken action against the bogus 1970's global cooling scare. There is no evidence pointing that there is substantial man made global warming. If we do provide any warming to the earth based on our actions it's extremely tiny.
To those who think this is a hoax, let me explain something to you. Scientific hypothesis is not something static. It evolves when more information is found, new tests are done, new kinds of tests are done and then it's thoroughly examined and debated.
If you have no solid evidence that man made global warming is real which scientists dont( we are in a cooling trend by the way) should we just go along with the scare? How did you react to the global cooling scare of the 70s? Do you think we should of pumped chemicals into the air to heat up the planet back then? You do think we shouldve DONE something right? Do you see the flaw in that logic?
You know you really should be more truthful with your comments. Although both years are below the 2 standard deviation on the 30 year average, they're still within 3 standard deviations of the average. Also you don't even bother to mention that the ice melt recovers annually. The melt in 2005 recovered, and the melt in 2007 recovered. They're not compounding melts that annually continue. I could also mention that the last 2 years have seen promising figures in the recovery of arctic ice.
Also, you're not being honest when you say that scientists accept new data to resolve problems. A lot of scientists have figured out that by twisting results of research to benefit a political action they can receive more funds for their research just by saying its to research global warming or something similar. Those scientists will try to shun any scientist that tries to get in the way of their new funds.
What scientists have done this? Please offer some names and cases (with evidence, of course). If the examples you cite are still held credible in the scientific community in spite of demonstrable corruption, you're comment will hold water. I'm assuming that, since almost everything you've said so far about global warming is incorrect, your response won't be chock full of evidence to back your claim but, rather, brimming with vague denialist conspiracy rhetoric. Please enlighten us.
All the scientists in the man made global warming scam ring, all the scientists that are getting extra money for putting "global warming" on every bit of fake research they do to get extra funds. Go look up the leaked letters exposing them distorting data. name me one thing that I've said that was incorrect. please enlighten me.
Well, I have to hand it to you. "All the scientists" is a pretty specific answer to my question. You gave the standard denialist conspiracy answer: no answer at all. Tell me something, genius: why would all of the scientists conspire for funding when they could make millions of dollars each by skewing their information to suit the industries involved? Certainly, if they're motivated by money, as you suggest, they'd be set for life. You're idea is childish.
You said almost everything I've said about global warming is incorrect. So you're saying the sun and the ocean dont account for the vast majority of the earths cooling and warming? Who are you trying to fool?
That's witty. Let's recap: You make the claim that scientists are lying for profit. I say "name some". You say "all of them". I say "Why would they lie for pennies when they could make millions?" You say.............nothing to address this. You can't address this because your claim is retarded to the core. I dare you to give me a good answer on this one. Please think before you "wing it" again with a lame insult to dodge accountability for your words.
Ok lets recap. I just told you to look up the letters that were mentioned by someone else in this blog where the scientists admit to distorting data for years. you can Google it and it will be on the front page.
Lie for pennies? Their research budgets and pay checks have increased significantly since the whole global warming scare started. They are getting much more then mere pennies extra, to even suggest that shows just how much of a propagandist you are.
You're referring to one sentence in one ten year old email by Phil Jones that, when read in context, says nothing about distorting data. You hack. This is your evidence of THOUSANDS of scientists lying in unison for grant money? You fucking idiot. That's some hard nosed investigating on your part. It's good to see you put in the work to reach your conclusion and didn't just run with a paper-thin talking point. I wouldn't want you to look like a douche or anything.
It more like over a decade of correspondence between leading british and u.s. scientists and also included about one thousand emails and three thousand documents. But you keep deluding yourself lol.
That's odd. Why aren't there any mentions of a conspiracy in any of those thousands of emails? Why, if these are correspondents passed between "co-conspirators" are there no mentions of shady fundings for skewing information? For that matter, why don't they mention global warming being false? You said that these scientists admitted to distorting data. Where? Give us the goods.
"Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine."
That's exactly what I just referenced in my earlier comment. Why would you point me back to the same line I just called you a hack for pointing out earlier? It's like you want to be called names at this point. After I explained that this one sentence was taken out of context you told me that there were thousands of documents and a thousand emails, not just one sentence. Then, as your smoking gun, you drool out the same sentence again. Are you wearing a helmet right now?
Called me out on it lol? All you said was that it was taken out of context which everyone says when they are referred to something that proves their horse shit wrong. Want to share light on the correct context of the email? Also, I havent read all the emails and documents that were leaked, and you havent either.
Most of the letters were just about overstating global warming though. Its not just these letters though, if you dig around you can find that climate scientists have been distorting graphs and climate research for a long time.
Okay, so point me to some of this bogus data. Show me the fake graphs on behalf of the climate scientists who are lying for money. You realize that every time you throw out a vague, unsubstantiated claim like this, I'm going to call you on it ,right?
...And yes, pennies. An average scientist makes barely six figures a year. A big oil lobbyist can wipe his ass with hundred dollar bills for the rest of his life. The money a scientist makes by supporting climate change is pennies compared to the bottomless pit of money that big oil lobbyists has access to. If you are serious about this conversation, you have to acknowledge this gaping hole in your logic.
You do realize its the oil companies and friends supporting the man made global warming scare right? If there are stricter regulations it means there is less competition since smaller competitors cant survive the new regulations and taxes. Go ask Exxon Mobil what they think about cap and trade.
This opinion is not reality based. Exxon has funded more junk climate denial "science" than any other corporation. Cap and trade HURT the oil companies, dummy.
They support cap and trade. Sure they will take some losses on it but the benefits outweigh the losses for them. This will remove small competitors for them and grant them and the large oil companies an absolute monopoly.
You sad, sad person. After saying, quite possibly, the dumbest thing ever (big oil is behind global warming hysteria), you point out the absolute biggest known funder of anti-global warming propaganda in the industry as a culprit? Please unplug your computer and submerge it in water. Clean out your desk-you're fired.
How is it dumb when oil companies support cap and trade? The dumbest thing in this entire blog was you saying that the sun and the ocean don't account for the majority of the earths warming and cooling, and yes I'm going to bring it up a lot since it proves you're a complete moron that lacks a single brain cell in his pea sized skull.
That's strange, I never said that. I'll discuss it, though. If you're saying that the sun is responsible for the increase in warming over the last 30 years, I'll say that you're mistaken. Is that what you're suggesting?
When I said it you changed your position and said everything I've said was wrong instead of just some of the things. How is that not suggesting it? If you think man made global warming is real to the extent that it could raise temperatures by entire degrees why did we go through a mini ice age during the industrial revolution when Co2 levels were skyrocketing?
When I said that the majority of the earths cooling and warming comes from the sun and the ocean you told me that everything I said was wrong. Proving that if you retook a 5th grade science class you would fail. I think that covers everything, enjoy living in your delusion. In 10 years this whole farce will be seen in the same light as the global cooling scam of the 70s and ill be right there laughing at people like you while you deny you were one of those idiots 10 years ago.
There are several forcing factors - solar radiation, reflection, absorption, emission. Scientist must take ALL of these into account, not just the top two.
I just read one of your comments on your other video saying that climate models are underestimated. In reality the climate models are being proven wrong at every corner and if even one fourth of the predictions were right we would be under water. There really is no point in continuing this. Im guessing youre an al gore supporter and think that his hockey chart on global warming is based in reality.
Man has very little to do with the earths cooling and heating process, to say that it does is to be a science illiterate. The major factor of our earths cooling and heating is the sun and the ocean. Everything else has very little to do with global warming and cooling.
Well the fact of the matter Is, This Is the old classic case of "Do as I say, Not as I do." No body In there right mind wants to be told there bad people for simply living and thriving.
Throwing more bullshit law's and taxes at the common man who Is the greatest gear work In any watch that Is considered a modern country Is suicide and you know It.
We have sixth Generation and solid state Nuclear Reactors....If Its such a big deal why they not popping up like the plague?
I don't think he missed the point of the question.. I think you missed the fact that you are obviously blinded by bias. Your entire argument that AGW deniers are absolutely certain is so completely off the reservation. The growing class of deniers out there are skeptics, and being so means that the purpose of the denial is to ask questions. Much like an atheist questions religion. However the AGW supporters are so certain that they're correct that they're going to sign a treaty...
... that will shift trillions of dollars in the global economy into the new green industry. Why do you people not also ask questions about who stands to benefit from cap and trade, or the copenhaggen treaty? Why is there no debate on the issue? Why do you not question the science when the projections don't match what is actually happening, and my biggest concern is, Why OH WHY do scientists seem to ignore the MWP like it never happened? That is the essence of being a skeptic, asking questions.
I don't think it's honest to say scientists are ignoring the MWP like it never happened. You may not like the conclusions of the National Academy of Science on the issue, but you can't say they ignored it. Especially not when we can all read their data. And who's not debating the policies you're bringing up? Certainly not the opposing politicians. They have plenty to say about them. Denialists aren't skeptics. True skeptics don't cry "conspiracy" when the experts don't support their ideology.
The e-mails in question even mention the active ignorance of the MWP. Supporters of AGW would rather just not mention it, or actively keep it under wraps because the data doesn't support the evidence for AGW. Also a growing number of experts are actually against AGW. In all honesty I can say that there is evidence to support a warming theory, but I cannot say that there is evidencial proof of it actually happening, and the more I see the projections fail the more I am skeptical.
What experts are you referring to? Please provide some names so we can all have a look at their research and findings. Names seem to be the missing ingredient from all of these comments I'm reading. I'd like to read the peer-reviewed work of actual climate scientists who are coming out so strongly against climate change. Please point me to the scientists (specifically) so I can see where you're coming from.
I've found the presentations by Prof. Bob Carter to be particularly inlightening on this issue. As far as my claim of "growing numbers" I have no statistics to back this up, but in that same breath neither do AGW supporters when they say that a majority of scientists support AGW. In all reality nobody has done that study. Other names to check are Prof. Tim Ball, Prof. Nir Shaviv, and Prof. John Christy. I'll PM you internet resources that aren't necessarily from experts, but still worth it.
Good call on Carter. It's refreshing to deal with someone who isn't spewing boiler-plate nonsense like zetsway5000. It's true that there isn't a hard list to reference when touting the pro GW scientists, but there are some good studies and surveys to look at. Google the Zimmerman / Doran survey from this year for a good start. It's not a slam dunk, by any means, but it's interesting.
All in all I believe that if there's not absolute proof of the human exceleration of the global warming cycle then I can't possibly be in support of policies that could very well collapse the global economy.
Let's look at that stance, though. Any honest, rational look at the scientific consensus on global warming (based on the actual climate scientists) is that it's a reality. They aren't running around claiming 100% certainty, but 90% is more like it. That should concern you. If there was a 90% consensus from meteorologists that a tornado was going to run through your house tomorrow, you'd most likely leave the house, right? that would you stay home until they were 100% certain?
I believe the MASSIVE difference in the analogies is that it might cost me $20 to pack a few things and get out of town. Insurance will pay for the damages. It will cost the major world economies trillions of dollars to transition to supposed "clean energy" sources possibly causing a global economic collapse. Sorry but there's no insurance policy in the world that will bail us out of that one. Also I don't believe that the numbers are 90% concensus anymore. I'll have to check.
I'll admit my analogy came with a huge price drop. I guess it was more about the weight of scientific opinion and consensus. Unfortunately, there's a huge gamble on either side of this issue. We could be screwed enviornmentally or financially. Personally, I'm going to just hide in my house and play Call of Duty until someone fixes everything.
I understood the basic analogy, and I agree it's more about the consesus of the scientific community, however something that pro AGW folks don't usually consider is that even though a majority of climatologists may agree on the issue (concensus) that doesn't necessarily mean that there's tested scientific proof supporting this concensus. Which in this case there's not. You are correct in that it's a huge gamble either way, which is why I'm not against individuals taking steps to reduce their...
...own personal CO2 output. I think that if you feel the need to do something of that nature that's all fine and dandy, but to put laws in place forcing people, corporations, countries to immediately alter their lifestyle is wrong. Especially when there's no proof positive evidence either for or against AGW. On that last thing... I'll second that one, Xbox or PS3?
When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, we have an alignment of goals. Not only do we want to get away from fossil fuels because of CO2 emissions, but because we know it is going to run out. We need to get started. It makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. Hoping people will just volunteer to lower emissions is essentially doing nothing at all. We need the grown ups to set policy and make sure defectors bear the full cost of their ignorant decisions.
Our technology is getting cleaner and cleaner already. We dont need things like cap and trade to destroy our economy even further in an attempt to speed up the process.
First of all assuming that it is ignorant to be against your policy is a very dangerous path. Secondly, as the past has shown economics is the driving factor for a change in energy source. When one source becomes too scarce it costs more. Thus the consumer seeks new resources. This will occur eventually. Also I'll repeat myself... Since there is no PROOF, just consensus, that AGW exists then there is no proof that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything to curb any kind of warming trend.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is happening. What is uncertain is the degree. Many of the projections, especially related to ice melt, have been far too conservative. Ice is melting at an extremely alarming rate.
Actually according to NSIDC graphs... Even though we're still below the 30 year average on sea ice, we haven't actually seen a massive decrease in the past 2 years. Some scientists have recently noted that the sea ice was actually thicker than expected. 2 meters was expected, but the ice was actually 4 meters thick in some parts. So before you go alarmist again at least come with data supporting your claims.
So you admit that there are other indicating factors that could possibly be even stronger factors in climate change than human produced CO2? Also your argument that "2 years is noise" is funny coming from someone who subscribes to the same doctrine as people who look at the past 30 years as the major climate issue, when there have been even sharper increases in temperature many times in the earth's EONS of existence.
This little boy Doren is a creep. There is no other word for him. He is a creep who has never been in bar fight. He needs his smooth, unworried face to be rearranged. Only those who have never struggled or suffered hold opinions such as that little boy holds.
About AGW, I concur with Darkconis here: AGW deniers base their argument on a faulty misunderstanding of how science operates, i.e. if there is ANY uncertainty, there must be something wrong with the science. This proves they're idiots.
bapyou 11 months ago
Nice defense of how scientific papers are reviewed! I wish more people understood the process.
harvellt 1 year ago
lol Don't worry about howtheworldworks. He doesn't understand that science foundation is based on uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.
Darkconis 1 year ago 4
"Man has nothing to with climate" is a strawman argument.
gerjanp 2 years ago
balance my friend. deniers are totaly denying to balance out the doomsdayers' claim that AGW is definately happening, (the world is coming to an end, the polar bears and bunnies are drowning.). every one knows that for everything, there is an equal and exact opposite. it's balance. maybe we do play a part, maybe we don't. the doomsdayers started claiming AGW was a fact long before deniers claimed it was nonsense. it could only happen in that order .
fieldzee09 2 years ago
life works with balances. when you have one side claiming that man made global warming is definately happening and destroying the Earth using only theories, you will have a balance by people totally denying that it exists using only theory. Global warming is a multi billion dollar business. science has proved nothing but claims to have, to keep the money flowing. without solid proof, they won't debate. they will just keep spewing their theory, while trying to silence opposing theory.
fieldzee09 2 years ago
You are denying the fixes the global warming cult had done and the fact they locked out other scientists with another point of view. If you are a teacher, you should know that locking out the other side is not science but indeed a cult. I want to know how you view the term "hide the decline"...
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Scientific journals are not in the habit of publishing material that is WRONG. It is peer reviewed in order to weed out that stuff that is flat out STUPID.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You should read what the insider put out, from what is there I highly doubt it was hacked. It is VERY damning. So far the cult is way behind in the explaining it. Also some nice NWO propaganda they put out. The explinations/excuses from the cult is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You make it sound like this was the only place where they were doing science. Not only is the evidence against them LAME, it would only knock down one source.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
LOL just one source? Every body that spoke to the scientists at that school is in the mess. Micheal Mann is under investigation via Penn St but I would venture to say it will run deeper than that LOL. All those asshats were together and the cult is not as far apart as you twits want to make it seem. Hell they peer reviewed eachothers work exclusively. If they did not agree with someone they were kicked out. You clearly have not read very much into it.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Peer review is a means of reaching consensus. What are they supposed to do with papers that are just flat out wrong? This is science, not a democracy. You should quit bemoaning the fact that science doesn't give equal time to idiots like the media.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
LOL so because it is Global Warming means the alarmist get to redifine peer review?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
who decided the papers were flat out wrong? I would be willing to bet it was a review board with vested intrest in AGW. Like Al gorelioni having a vested interest in carbon credits, there's a conflict of interest. if i worked at a company making money selling car parts, i'm not going to tell everyone to stop buying cars. that would destroy my bottom line.
fieldzee09 2 years ago
taxing co2 is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper. it's a joke. a hoax. a pyramid scheme. Al Gore is at the top of the pyramid along with the NWO.
fieldzee09 2 years ago
No, it's arrogant to say that our miniscule existence has the kind of impact that actually warms an entire planet. THAT is arrogance.
JetMech72 2 years ago
What an ignorant response.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Nice name game. We deny AGW that will end civilization not climate change or global warming.
manwihthat 2 years ago 2
We are not dealing with a linear system. There are all kinds of feedback loops that could cause minor change to escalate into major change. The melting of the permafrost, for example, is releasing previously trapped methane. The loss of the ice cap will reflect less solar radiation. There is the danger that the saline conveyor that drives the gulf stream could stall. It is not just a matter of simple temperature that we can reverse.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Climate change or global warming does not agw that Al Gore and the IPCC lay out. I know agw does happen but it is in no way has bad as the IPCC makes it out to be. Also in warming climates their will be winners and losers.
Herman Van Rompuy is the president of the EU after calling this the first year of global governance" said ,The Climate Conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. This global government wouldn't remain benevolent.
manwihthat 2 years ago
good job on this vid..but is howtheworldworks denying it? or is he just saying the scientists are making it look worse than it is? I do know a lot of people who are ignoring it like you say.
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago
Okay so this guy says "But people who deny climate change are saying absolutely, man has absolutely nothing to do with it, that it's a big hoax" Okay, so this guy is saying people that completely deny climate change, also say they have nothing to do with something they don't believe in? He's stating that these skeptics of climate change are pretty much saying "Even though it isn't real, we have nothing to do with it" WTF?!
chadpron1 2 years ago
(from a conservative)most of us don't 100% deny man has an effect on the planet, we just don't think we're causing an irreversable catastrophic change in the planet, and we don't want fundamental change legislation based on unproven science.
The simple fact that cap/trade and other climate change legislation is rammed down our throats, especially during a time when we cannot afford it, makes me question the motives of those pushing it.
VegasBilgeRat 2 years ago
"most of us don't 100% deny man has an effect on the planet, we just don't think we're causing an irreversable catastrophic change in the planet, and we don't want fundamental change legislation based on unproven science."
this isn't an opinion debate - you either have a scientific consenzus or you don't, and so far, the lever has been heavily tilted towards anthropogenic global warming.
just saying it's unproven science is simply ignorant.
franzpolak 2 years ago
consensus is irrelevant. 600 years ago, it was the world's scientists' consensus that the world was flat.
Frankly, listening to science you essentially know nothing about is sheep-like and ignorant.
The lever has NOT titled towards either side, I've read enough reports to support either side, I simply won't believe one way or the other right now.
What i DO believe is volcanos have spewed more carbon than man ever could, and the world seemed fine for the last couple billion years...
VegasBilgeRat 2 years ago
600 years ago people thought the world was flat? nice. 2000-600=1400.
that statement is surprisingly ignorant.
also, you've said that the lever is not tilted and " I've read enough reports to support either side, I simply won't believe one way or the other right now."
and then you choose the volcano side. contradicting yourself in a mere sentence before does not make your case any better. and your personal incredulity is also not a good argument - it's just a showcase of ignorance.
franzpolak 2 years ago
John, please allow an opposing voice to be heard without shutting it down immediately. Unless you've been living under a rock, you must know that green living, global warming scare, reducing energy dependence have all had a firm grip on the US media, and now our Governement Policies. In other words, Global Warming/Climate Change advocates have been winning the debate for the last 5 to 10 years. You won ok?! Now let the other side speak.
ptmoneyrap 2 years ago
I agree...but you do know you are trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
Just look at the comments from his trolls...they don't want a discussion, if you disagree with them they start with the name calling.
howtheworldworks does the exact same thing and there is no such thing as debating these people.
grumpychuck 2 years ago
You know like skepticism is like doubting anything. Nobody can convince me
watch?v=kcrF346sS_I#t=1m
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Learn the syntax of structuring English sentences first, enviro-marxist liberal former hippie!
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Im a conservative that does not believe in Global Warming with the way its described that its going to destroy the world. I do understand that there is going to be climate change do to humans. I wish more conservatives understood that as well. But I believe our effect is minute and minescule. And the earth has the obility to fix its self like it has since existence. God designed it well!
garnerbum06 2 years ago
baseless assertions. some proponents assert w/ absolute certainty. cap and trade will "certainly" destroy 3rd world development and hurt economies, everywhere.
buddhajapan 2 years ago
You forget the null hypothesis.
gfogus 2 years ago
put well john
sisforshayla 2 years ago
j0hnwi11iams is cereal about Global Warming.... super cereal.
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago 2
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) from the University of Anglia has been hacked. Thousands of their e-mails and data dating back to 1996 have been leaked. You can even search the CRU climate fraud e-mails by keyword. Have fun!
anelegantchaos(dot)org/cru
Bigtymer781 2 years ago
You mean those emails that have been taken out of context and are circulated by global warming deniers, despite the fact that data from all over the world shows that planet is warming and we are contributing much of it?
skepticalscience com / What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us . h t m l
Saukko31 2 years ago
was gore arragent when he told a person that ask him a question about gw,it's a fact,that finnishes it?
areyoulookinatmepal 2 years ago 2
The uncertainty is the degree of significance, not whether or not it is happening. Our predictions are not perfect, in fact, many have been far too conservative, especially the rate of ice melting.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
how do we know it's not the chemicals in those chem trails that causing the ice melts?and now we'll be taxed for breathing and gas?
areyoulookinatmepal 2 years ago
While I agree that people calling global warming a hoax with no regard for the possibility for it to be true. One can also argue the opposite.
Tell me, are people expected to act when there is so much SCIENTIFIC uncertainty about global warming?
I am honestly unsure about it, I look up information once in a while to see if something has changed, and I CONSTANTLY find conflicting information.
Scientists need to address the conflicting information, not just tell you to change everything.
Blade19234 2 years ago
Unfortunately what scientists are hit with is not a difference in information, but a difference in opinion. Skepticism is part and parcel of the scientific process, however, at the end of the day we must weight these uncertainties to determine a course of action. There is no absolute certainty until it is too late.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Again, based on your logic we should've taken action against the bogus 1970's global cooling scare. There is no evidence pointing that there is substantial man made global warming. If we do provide any warming to the earth based on our actions it's extremely tiny.
zetsway5000 2 years ago 2
To those who think this is a hoax, let me explain something to you. Scientific hypothesis is not something static. It evolves when more information is found, new tests are done, new kinds of tests are done and then it's thoroughly examined and debated.
Scientists just don't go around crying Wolf.
iamsosquid 2 years ago
If you have no solid evidence that man made global warming is real which scientists dont( we are in a cooling trend by the way) should we just go along with the scare? How did you react to the global cooling scare of the 70s? Do you think we should of pumped chemicals into the air to heat up the planet back then? You do think we shouldve DONE something right? Do you see the flaw in that logic?
zetsway5000 2 years ago 2
We have record ice melt in 2005 and 2007. What matters is the total energy of which temperature is but one component.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You know you really should be more truthful with your comments. Although both years are below the 2 standard deviation on the 30 year average, they're still within 3 standard deviations of the average. Also you don't even bother to mention that the ice melt recovers annually. The melt in 2005 recovered, and the melt in 2007 recovered. They're not compounding melts that annually continue. I could also mention that the last 2 years have seen promising figures in the recovery of arctic ice.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Also, you're not being honest when you say that scientists accept new data to resolve problems. A lot of scientists have figured out that by twisting results of research to benefit a political action they can receive more funds for their research just by saying its to research global warming or something similar. Those scientists will try to shun any scientist that tries to get in the way of their new funds.
zetsway5000 2 years ago 2
What scientists have done this? Please offer some names and cases (with evidence, of course). If the examples you cite are still held credible in the scientific community in spite of demonstrable corruption, you're comment will hold water. I'm assuming that, since almost everything you've said so far about global warming is incorrect, your response won't be chock full of evidence to back your claim but, rather, brimming with vague denialist conspiracy rhetoric. Please enlighten us.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
All the scientists in the man made global warming scam ring, all the scientists that are getting extra money for putting "global warming" on every bit of fake research they do to get extra funds. Go look up the leaked letters exposing them distorting data. name me one thing that I've said that was incorrect. please enlighten me.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Well, I have to hand it to you. "All the scientists" is a pretty specific answer to my question. You gave the standard denialist conspiracy answer: no answer at all. Tell me something, genius: why would all of the scientists conspire for funding when they could make millions of dollars each by skewing their information to suit the industries involved? Certainly, if they're motivated by money, as you suggest, they'd be set for life. You're idea is childish.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
You said almost everything I've said about global warming is incorrect. So you're saying the sun and the ocean dont account for the vast majority of the earths cooling and warming? Who are you trying to fool?
zetsway5000 2 years ago
I was incorrect to say that almost everything you said was wrong. I actually meant that everything you said was wrong. Does that clear things up?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
Clears up that you dont know what you're talking about. Retake your 5th grade science class.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
That's witty. Let's recap: You make the claim that scientists are lying for profit. I say "name some". You say "all of them". I say "Why would they lie for pennies when they could make millions?" You say.............nothing to address this. You can't address this because your claim is retarded to the core. I dare you to give me a good answer on this one. Please think before you "wing it" again with a lame insult to dodge accountability for your words.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
Ok lets recap. I just told you to look up the letters that were mentioned by someone else in this blog where the scientists admit to distorting data for years. you can Google it and it will be on the front page.
Lie for pennies? Their research budgets and pay checks have increased significantly since the whole global warming scare started. They are getting much more then mere pennies extra, to even suggest that shows just how much of a propagandist you are.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
You're referring to one sentence in one ten year old email by Phil Jones that, when read in context, says nothing about distorting data. You hack. This is your evidence of THOUSANDS of scientists lying in unison for grant money? You fucking idiot. That's some hard nosed investigating on your part. It's good to see you put in the work to reach your conclusion and didn't just run with a paper-thin talking point. I wouldn't want you to look like a douche or anything.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
It more like over a decade of correspondence between leading british and u.s. scientists and also included about one thousand emails and three thousand documents. But you keep deluding yourself lol.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
That's odd. Why aren't there any mentions of a conspiracy in any of those thousands of emails? Why, if these are correspondents passed between "co-conspirators" are there no mentions of shady fundings for skewing information? For that matter, why don't they mention global warming being false? You said that these scientists admitted to distorting data. Where? Give us the goods.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
"Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine."
zetsway5000 2 years ago
That's exactly what I just referenced in my earlier comment. Why would you point me back to the same line I just called you a hack for pointing out earlier? It's like you want to be called names at this point. After I explained that this one sentence was taken out of context you told me that there were thousands of documents and a thousand emails, not just one sentence. Then, as your smoking gun, you drool out the same sentence again. Are you wearing a helmet right now?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
Called me out on it lol? All you said was that it was taken out of context which everyone says when they are referred to something that proves their horse shit wrong. Want to share light on the correct context of the email? Also, I havent read all the emails and documents that were leaked, and you havent either.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Most of the letters were just about overstating global warming though. Its not just these letters though, if you dig around you can find that climate scientists have been distorting graphs and climate research for a long time.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Okay, so point me to some of this bogus data. Show me the fake graphs on behalf of the climate scientists who are lying for money. You realize that every time you throw out a vague, unsubstantiated claim like this, I'm going to call you on it ,right?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
...And yes, pennies. An average scientist makes barely six figures a year. A big oil lobbyist can wipe his ass with hundred dollar bills for the rest of his life. The money a scientist makes by supporting climate change is pennies compared to the bottomless pit of money that big oil lobbyists has access to. If you are serious about this conversation, you have to acknowledge this gaping hole in your logic.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
You do realize its the oil companies and friends supporting the man made global warming scare right? If there are stricter regulations it means there is less competition since smaller competitors cant survive the new regulations and taxes. Go ask Exxon Mobil what they think about cap and trade.
zetsway5000 2 years ago 2
This opinion is not reality based. Exxon has funded more junk climate denial "science" than any other corporation. Cap and trade HURT the oil companies, dummy.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
They support cap and trade. Sure they will take some losses on it but the benefits outweigh the losses for them. This will remove small competitors for them and grant them and the large oil companies an absolute monopoly.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Nothing this guy says is reality based.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
nothing you say is reality based, considering you think the sun and the ocean don't account for the majority of the earths cooling and warming.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Actually, Zetsway5000 is right. It's called corporatism, and it's been occurring in the US for the last 50 plus years.
The main supporters of regulation and barriers to entry are big business.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
You sad, sad person. After saying, quite possibly, the dumbest thing ever (big oil is behind global warming hysteria), you point out the absolute biggest known funder of anti-global warming propaganda in the industry as a culprit? Please unplug your computer and submerge it in water. Clean out your desk-you're fired.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
How is it dumb when oil companies support cap and trade? The dumbest thing in this entire blog was you saying that the sun and the ocean don't account for the majority of the earths warming and cooling, and yes I'm going to bring it up a lot since it proves you're a complete moron that lacks a single brain cell in his pea sized skull.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
That's strange, I never said that. I'll discuss it, though. If you're saying that the sun is responsible for the increase in warming over the last 30 years, I'll say that you're mistaken. Is that what you're suggesting?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
When I said it you changed your position and said everything I've said was wrong instead of just some of the things. How is that not suggesting it? If you think man made global warming is real to the extent that it could raise temperatures by entire degrees why did we go through a mini ice age during the industrial revolution when Co2 levels were skyrocketing?
zetsway5000 2 years ago
When I said that the majority of the earths cooling and warming comes from the sun and the ocean you told me that everything I said was wrong. Proving that if you retook a 5th grade science class you would fail. I think that covers everything, enjoy living in your delusion. In 10 years this whole farce will be seen in the same light as the global cooling scam of the 70s and ill be right there laughing at people like you while you deny you were one of those idiots 10 years ago.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
There are several forcing factors - solar radiation, reflection, absorption, emission. Scientist must take ALL of these into account, not just the top two.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I just read one of your comments on your other video saying that climate models are underestimated. In reality the climate models are being proven wrong at every corner and if even one fourth of the predictions were right we would be under water. There really is no point in continuing this. Im guessing youre an al gore supporter and think that his hockey chart on global warming is based in reality.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Scientists don't need to create hoaxes to get funding. We would be collecting data and building climate models no matter what.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No, they don't need it to get funding, but they can use it to get way more funding. Are you an Al gore supporter by any chance? Just curious.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
Man has very little to do with the earths cooling and heating process, to say that it does is to be a science illiterate. The major factor of our earths cooling and heating is the sun and the ocean. Everything else has very little to do with global warming and cooling.
zetsway5000 2 years ago 3
Well the fact of the matter Is, This Is the old classic case of "Do as I say, Not as I do." No body In there right mind wants to be told there bad people for simply living and thriving.
Throwing more bullshit law's and taxes at the common man who Is the greatest gear work In any watch that Is considered a modern country Is suicide and you know It.
We have sixth Generation and solid state Nuclear Reactors....If Its such a big deal why they not popping up like the plague?
No tax money.
codexbiohazard 2 years ago 3
Everything we do has consequences to our environment....
However, I have a Crichton's kind of opinion about the whole issue.
Good video j0hn.
roberto8ag 2 years ago
I don't think he missed the point of the question.. I think you missed the fact that you are obviously blinded by bias. Your entire argument that AGW deniers are absolutely certain is so completely off the reservation. The growing class of deniers out there are skeptics, and being so means that the purpose of the denial is to ask questions. Much like an atheist questions religion. However the AGW supporters are so certain that they're correct that they're going to sign a treaty...
sedatedlife18 2 years ago 2
... that will shift trillions of dollars in the global economy into the new green industry. Why do you people not also ask questions about who stands to benefit from cap and trade, or the copenhaggen treaty? Why is there no debate on the issue? Why do you not question the science when the projections don't match what is actually happening, and my biggest concern is, Why OH WHY do scientists seem to ignore the MWP like it never happened? That is the essence of being a skeptic, asking questions.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago 2
I don't think it's honest to say scientists are ignoring the MWP like it never happened. You may not like the conclusions of the National Academy of Science on the issue, but you can't say they ignored it. Especially not when we can all read their data. And who's not debating the policies you're bringing up? Certainly not the opposing politicians. They have plenty to say about them. Denialists aren't skeptics. True skeptics don't cry "conspiracy" when the experts don't support their ideology.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
The e-mails in question even mention the active ignorance of the MWP. Supporters of AGW would rather just not mention it, or actively keep it under wraps because the data doesn't support the evidence for AGW. Also a growing number of experts are actually against AGW. In all honesty I can say that there is evidence to support a warming theory, but I cannot say that there is evidencial proof of it actually happening, and the more I see the projections fail the more I am skeptical.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
What experts are you referring to? Please provide some names so we can all have a look at their research and findings. Names seem to be the missing ingredient from all of these comments I'm reading. I'd like to read the peer-reviewed work of actual climate scientists who are coming out so strongly against climate change. Please point me to the scientists (specifically) so I can see where you're coming from.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
I've found the presentations by Prof. Bob Carter to be particularly inlightening on this issue. As far as my claim of "growing numbers" I have no statistics to back this up, but in that same breath neither do AGW supporters when they say that a majority of scientists support AGW. In all reality nobody has done that study. Other names to check are Prof. Tim Ball, Prof. Nir Shaviv, and Prof. John Christy. I'll PM you internet resources that aren't necessarily from experts, but still worth it.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Good call on Carter. It's refreshing to deal with someone who isn't spewing boiler-plate nonsense like zetsway5000. It's true that there isn't a hard list to reference when touting the pro GW scientists, but there are some good studies and surveys to look at. Google the Zimmerman / Doran survey from this year for a good start. It's not a slam dunk, by any means, but it's interesting.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
All in all I believe that if there's not absolute proof of the human exceleration of the global warming cycle then I can't possibly be in support of policies that could very well collapse the global economy.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Let's look at that stance, though. Any honest, rational look at the scientific consensus on global warming (based on the actual climate scientists) is that it's a reality. They aren't running around claiming 100% certainty, but 90% is more like it. That should concern you. If there was a 90% consensus from meteorologists that a tornado was going to run through your house tomorrow, you'd most likely leave the house, right? that would you stay home until they were 100% certain?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
I believe the MASSIVE difference in the analogies is that it might cost me $20 to pack a few things and get out of town. Insurance will pay for the damages. It will cost the major world economies trillions of dollars to transition to supposed "clean energy" sources possibly causing a global economic collapse. Sorry but there's no insurance policy in the world that will bail us out of that one. Also I don't believe that the numbers are 90% concensus anymore. I'll have to check.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
I'll admit my analogy came with a huge price drop. I guess it was more about the weight of scientific opinion and consensus. Unfortunately, there's a huge gamble on either side of this issue. We could be screwed enviornmentally or financially. Personally, I'm going to just hide in my house and play Call of Duty until someone fixes everything.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
I understood the basic analogy, and I agree it's more about the consesus of the scientific community, however something that pro AGW folks don't usually consider is that even though a majority of climatologists may agree on the issue (concensus) that doesn't necessarily mean that there's tested scientific proof supporting this concensus. Which in this case there's not. You are correct in that it's a huge gamble either way, which is why I'm not against individuals taking steps to reduce their...
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
...own personal CO2 output. I think that if you feel the need to do something of that nature that's all fine and dandy, but to put laws in place forcing people, corporations, countries to immediately alter their lifestyle is wrong. Especially when there's no proof positive evidence either for or against AGW. On that last thing... I'll second that one, Xbox or PS3?
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
XBOX, of course.
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice hit me up if you're looking for people to play with. I just got my first nuke yesterday.
GT: cravenC21H30O2
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
I have to admit I'm jealous. I've been cut five kills short of a nuke a few times now. Is it beautiful?
chubbyruckus 2 years ago
It was one of the most satisfying things in any video game. Especially since I don't like the map I got it on... Wasteland.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, we have an alignment of goals. Not only do we want to get away from fossil fuels because of CO2 emissions, but because we know it is going to run out. We need to get started. It makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. Hoping people will just volunteer to lower emissions is essentially doing nothing at all. We need the grown ups to set policy and make sure defectors bear the full cost of their ignorant decisions.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Our technology is getting cleaner and cleaner already. We dont need things like cap and trade to destroy our economy even further in an attempt to speed up the process.
zetsway5000 2 years ago
First of all assuming that it is ignorant to be against your policy is a very dangerous path. Secondly, as the past has shown economics is the driving factor for a change in energy source. When one source becomes too scarce it costs more. Thus the consumer seeks new resources. This will occur eventually. Also I'll repeat myself... Since there is no PROOF, just consensus, that AGW exists then there is no proof that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything to curb any kind of warming trend.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
Yes, but people that are heavy advocates of the free market don't care about fossil fuels running out either, because that is a 'hoax'.
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is happening. What is uncertain is the degree. Many of the projections, especially related to ice melt, have been far too conservative. Ice is melting at an extremely alarming rate.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Actually according to NSIDC graphs... Even though we're still below the 30 year average on sea ice, we haven't actually seen a massive decrease in the past 2 years. Some scientists have recently noted that the sea ice was actually thicker than expected. 2 meters was expected, but the ice was actually 4 meters thick in some parts. So before you go alarmist again at least come with data supporting your claims.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago
2 years is noise. There are other cyclical factors, particularly the sun which is at a low point right now.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
So you admit that there are other indicating factors that could possibly be even stronger factors in climate change than human produced CO2? Also your argument that "2 years is noise" is funny coming from someone who subscribes to the same doctrine as people who look at the past 30 years as the major climate issue, when there have been even sharper increases in temperature many times in the earth's EONS of existence.
sedatedlife18 2 years ago