Illuminated Darkness - The Countdown to Lockdown begins NEW!
The necessity for call the military to control population will be a fact: martail law application due to social/economis caos. The FEMA camps will provide enclausure and the cawfins their end.
Wow alex yousay all of this is going to happen about martial law and it hasnt happen you and govenor ventura are a bunch of hippies im soory for sying that but its true show some damm evidence police are good.guys.our goverment rules go live somewhere if u dont like it and if no then quit telling us a bunch of bullshit
@ericluna40 Ventura was a Navy SEAL & Vietnam veteran, hardly a hippie. I bet Jones would rather live in the country of his birth rather than surrendering it to GW freaks & sheep like you. Besides, leaving the country wouldn't help since the idiotic carbon tax would be global.
More taxes will clean the air! R U Phucking kidding! Co2 is poisonous? It is part of the life cycle. Al Gore tells the truth, ah, isn't this guy the inventer of the internet? "NOT"! Climate Gate a lie... PROVE IT! Scientists never lie and ALL Theories are facts until proven otherwise so say the Rothchilds who own the carbon credit scheme!
PROVE YOUR FUCKING THEORY BEFORE YOU MARRY IT ASSHOLES!
"Climategate" does not exist. There has been no cooling over the last decade. The last decade has been the warmest in human history. Temperature readings have not been faked. The only fraud is DENIAL of global warming.
"Warming temperatures is melting ice that has been in place for thousands of years in the mountains of the Canadian High Arctic and in turn revealing a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools.
Ice patches result from layers of annual snow that, until recently, remained frozen all year. As Earth's temperature has warmed in recent decades due to the heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ...revealing ancient artifacts to the surprise of archaeologists."
Answer me a question that has perplexed me and challenged my belief that AGW is unprecedented.
.
If as I was taught by scientists that our planet is entering a warm phase never seen before by man how come there are human artifacts being found under the receding ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and also tools and human effects coming out under Glaciers that have receded?
.
I find this disturbing and goes against my faith ~ have I been mislead?
If man made climate change was bullshit (it's not) less emissions is not a bad thing.Taking global warming seriously AT WORST will result in cleaner air...there is only one side who makes billions from lying about this.
i didnt think much of alex before this week, thought he was jus another jumping on the anti establishment wagon so to earn from it, till i seen him this week freaking out about fluoride and our babies.
I've researched arguments disputing CO2 driving temp and the problem is that you have global warming skeptics like RM Carter whose arguments misrepresent data and are themselves working for energy interests. That said though, Alex Jones makes a great case that the issue is being used by globalists to promote a diabolical agenda. This is clear when considering that the Copenhagen response to the concern of global warming is to tighten world governance! That alone is very concerning.
So where are you getting your information regarding CO2 over a 600,000 year period? What was it n 1900? What was it in 1950? What was it in 2000? What is it now? Has the temperature risen by 2 times over the past 600,000 years? If not, that kind of blows your little theory out of the water now doesn't it?
Of course I don't believe you, that's because there are scientists who YOU don't believe saying the exact opposite of what you're saying so why would I disagree with them you ask?
@AndrianGA OK, then show the CO2 levels periodically, and why stop at 600,000 years? Is that because they were higher before that? Is it because that is when the CO2 conveniently started dropping? According to the famous "hockey stick" graph it (2xCO2=2Xtemperature)does, are you going to now say that was wrong? The scientists who are on your side of the argument are not scientists, most of the IPCC are activists.
"OK, then show the CO2 levels periodically, and why stop at 600,000 years?"
The record is very accurate for the last 50 years, the data points are more distant as you look further back in time.
There was no reason to stop at 600,000 other then that's how far the ice core record goes, besides you won't find anyone agreeing that Earth could sustain 8 billion people 600,000 years ago.
The hockey stick shows a exponential relationship 2xCO2=2xTemperature is a linear relationship
"So you have no idea, perhaps it would be easier to respond simply by saying you don't know rather than changing the subject."
Are you refering to me answering your question by asking you a question?
FYI: capnograph is a instrument to measure CO2 concentration it has been used on Mauna Lao observatory since 1950-ies to measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere day after day for years.
So I do know, and you didn't even try to find out since my question to you had your answers
@AndrianGA Yes moron, I KNOW what it is, so please elaborate on how an instrument such as the capnograph can give readings of CO2 levels 600,000 years ago. It can't so why don't you post what the capnograph says for the readings of CO2 levels for the dates I asked about?
Listen shitbag, it's clear you have 2 neurons one for reading one for writing, but do try and use google to understand how ice cores were used to determine the CO2 concentration over the thousands of years.
I'm sure your "shit for brains" agrees that Earth had more than one ice age, well the same information is taken from the ice cores, if you accept the ice core evidence as valid proof of more than one ice age then you accept the evidence for CO2 record over the last 600,000 year
@AndrianGA I am well aware of how ice core samples work cock breath, I am also aware of Dr. John Christy's work in satellite imagery to get a more acurate global temperature reading than the faulty and incompetent reading conducted by IPCC activists. YOU made the claim that CO2 drives temperature levels, many scientists disagree and say temperature levels drive CO2 levels and they use ice core samples to prove it. So the earth has cooled and warmed many times without man, thanks!
@AndrianGA Ice core evidence is not valid proof when the INTERPRETATION of said evidence is flawed beyond belief, take the throbbing cock out of your mouth and pay attention.
A simple experiment for any denier of AGW. 1) take two bottles, fill one with CO2 and one with normal air and put the lids on tight. Leave in the sun in the same conditions for 5 hours, record temps inside both. 2) note temps, you will find the bottle with Co2 in is warmer. case closed.
How about these peer reviewed scientific papers going back over a century showing conclusively that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: Joseph Fourier, (1824), Samuel Pierpoint Langley (1890).
@checkyoursources Of course CO2 is a gas dipshit. That isn't the issue, the issue isn't even if man has an effect on climate, we KNOW it does, the true question is how much of an effect and the true answer is not nearly as much as people like you would like others to believe. The minniscule effect man has on climate is NOT a significant factor in climate change.
The fact is CO2 is now 2 times higher than it had ever been in the past 600,000 years. By contrast human species appeared a little over 150,000 years ago.
I know you're not going to believe me and you'll completely refuse to check the facts because of your desire to be right, but I'm curious on what grounds do you consider yourself a better climate researcher than the best there are?
@beazgod Why the insult, are you unable to converse like a mature human without resorting to ad hominem? Every single national science academy agrees that humans have been the dominant factor in climate change since the 1970's, this was confirmed when it was found that the total solar irradiance has fallen since the 1970's yet temps globally have risen. read: Erlykin 2009: "Solar activity isaccounts for just 14% of the observed global warmingsince the 1970's"
@checkyoursources Really? EVERY single "science academy" ? How many would that be? Why are you so afraid to address the growing number of scientists who are moving away from these flawed claims? Can you explain the ice caps melting on Mars as well? Is that because Martians are driving around in SUV's as well? You sound more and more irrational with every post.
@beazgod 1) "growing" number of scientists? no, read some scientific peer reviews, some of the best known skeptics of AGW have changed their mind in the last 3 years due to continued warming. 2) I will now have to explain to you why just two photos of the surface from Mars (one from 1977, one from 1999 is not enough data to state that Mars is warming. It would be like suggesting that picking 2 random days 20 years apart would give you the entire 20 years climate and Mars has an eliptical orbit.
@beazgod 1) Scientist Bjorn Lomborg now admits that AGW is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" Monday 30 August 2010 Guardian
2) No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with AGW as the most likely explantion for the majority of warming since the 1970's See: DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren
@beazgod A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). More recently (Anderegg 2010) found between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus. 84% of AAAS (the AAAS has over 10 million members) respondents to a Pew survey in 2009 felt that “warming is due to human activity”, just 10% agreed with you.
@checkyoursources Unfortunately for you, science is not based upon consensus. I'm quite sure in the 1400's there was a consensus of scientists who agreed the earth was flat. The consensus of scientists also believed the DDT was a harmful pesticide in the studies, mass hysteria took over all because of ONE flawed study and now that DDT has been banned, MILLIONS of people have died of malaria when there's not ONE single case of DDT ever harming a human being. This movement is mass hysteria.
@beazgod You used a non sequitur by proclaiming that your DDT case means that all science is wrong as a result, it's like claiming that you got a question wrong in a maths paper when you were 12 so all future maths you do musts also be incorrect.Science works on who is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.AGW is the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.If it weren't you would be able to name a more likely explanation, but you haven't as yet?
@beazgod You used a non sequitur by proclaiming that your DDT case means that all science is wrong as a result, it's like claiming that you got a question wrong in a maths paper when you were 12 so all future maths you do musts also be incorrect.Science works on who is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.AGW is the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.If it weren't you would be able to name a more likely explanation, but you haven't as yet?
"I'm quite sure in the 1400's there was a consensus of scientists who agreed the earth was flat."
That's an urban myth, come on, it's the age of information you can easily look this stuff up.
About DDT again it's public information, go to pubmed . gov (that's the web site where all the doctors share their research) make a search for DDT and humans to get a clear pictures on the harmful effects of DDT on humans.
Next thing you'll tell us that fluorine in the water is bad for you
@AndrianGA Name one person who has ever died from DDT exposure. I have a list of millions that have died from malaria that DDT could have prevented. Come on, use some aspect of common sense. No, fluorine isn't bad for you, its just unnecessary. More scare tactics from idiots who think they understand things.
"Unfortunately for you, science is not based upon consensus. "
I'm still waiting for you to disprove the experiments that support global warming.
Aren't you cock sure that Global Warming is a hoax and since you know how science works that means you have counter experiments to the current evidence. Well, let's hear/see it.
BTW, you have yet to understand the existing evidence for man made climate change
Whether or not data shows significant GW or not, I see huge potential for a scam by those working for global governance, especially as the shadow banking crime syndicate is robbing sovereign economies with derivatives, credit swaps, bailouts, chains of fraud that bought politicians are blind to. Peak oil could dwarf in scope and neutralize any potential harm of GW anyway, so globalists are making a play for control now, to impoverish and control now before scarcities become obvious.
Is it the measurements that CO2 is increasing and therefore all the medical instruments called the capnograph are a scam, or the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared and therefore all the microwaves working on the same principle are a scam?
If it's a scam one of these (or both) must be wrong, lol, care to elaborate?
@AndrianGA I'm still waiting for them to prove it! John Christy is ON THE IPCC and doesn't buy any of their garbage. My counter evidence is based upon the flawed science that claims man is causing this much climate change. The "hockey stick hoax which conveniently left out disparities in their research, the stolen e-mails which prove they are liars, and then there's the obvious connection of grant money they are given to sit on their ass and scare idiots into believing this, you fell for it.
@AndrianGA I'm not talking about rising CO2 levels, I'm talking about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. We know CO2 levels rise and fall with or without the presence of man, so there's no "making up of my mind". Do you even know what proportion CO2 makes up of our atmospheric gases? The minimal amount man adds is insignificant and even using the computer models the global warming fear mongers provide, Dr. Christy was able to prove their claims are greatly exagerrated.
@AndrianGA Simple question. We know from historical data that CO2 levels rise and fall, along with the temperature with or without the presence of man. That is indisputable fact. The question is how much of an effect does man have on current climate changes. The answer is very minimal at our current level of ignorance regarding climate.
"Simple question. We know from historical data that CO2 levels rise and fall, along with the temperature with or without the presence of man. That is indisputable fact. The question is how much of an effect does man have on current climate changes."
I've mentioned 3 times the CO2 record kept and taken at Mauna Loa Observatory (aka Keeling Curve). Your reply tells me that you still don't know what I'm talking about.
If you don't trust it, then buy a capnograph and make your own.
@AndrianGA I've mentioned the FACT that CO2 levels have risen and fallen before man existed on this planet, my question, which seems to be over your head, is why should I believe man is having an effect THIS time. Getting current measurements of CO2 is irrelevant to the discussion, my question is rather simple, but the fact you keep dodging it leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
"I've mentioned the FACT that CO2 levels have risen and fallen before man existed on this planet, my question, which seems to be over your head, is why should I believe man is having an effect THIS time."
let's get this thing out of the way first.
Do you agree that human activities almost doubled the amount of CO2 as it ever was in the past 600,000 years?
@AndrianGA No I do not, while I agree human activities have increased the amount of CO2 levels, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes up a VERY small fraction of the total atmospheric gases and saying that it has "almost doubled" because of human activities is a myth. It has doubled, tripled and quadrupled before man existed on this planet. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere does not come from a result of human activity, only a small portion does.
@AndrianGA Again, we have to revert back to your reading comprehension. I don't deny it has almost doubled, what I'm denying is your claim that it has almost doubled BECAUSE of human activities, as I said (and you agreed) it has increased BEFORE man even existed, whether or not man COULD exist during those times is a moot point. As far as the SIGNIFICANCE of CO2 levels, that's my entire point, the man made emmissions are not as SIGNIFICANT as they are being made out.
"it has almost doubled BECAUSE of human activities"
We can count.
"whether or not man COULD exist during those times is a moot point."
No it is not. We are talking climate change and what it means to us, at this moment in time. The fact that it was higher before doesn't mean that it's ok for us at this moment in time.
" the man made emmissions are not as SIGNIFICANT as they are being made out."
Yes, they are, we are adding extra that the system can't recycle. It's accumulative.
No, you are assuming the increase is BECAUSE of the activities of man, we have seen CO2 levels increase at rates faster than this when man wasn't present.
I understand higher levels in the past doesn't mean its OK for us now, the POINT you keep dodging is your claim that these increases are as a result of human activity, I dispute that claim. The system can't recycle the extra? Wow, that explains the cooling we've seen over the past 11 years or so.
We can measure how much CO2 is produced by burning coal, oil, cement production, intake and release by the ocean and plants in the arctics, tundra, savanna, jungles.
Add all the contribution from point 2 and verify with point 1.
That's how we know human activities contribution to the total amount.
How we know how much CO2 a Jungle releases and consumes?
Respond to this video... In order to discuss "current change", don't you think its wise to consider "past change"? Plants need CO2 to live, so I guess what you're saying is that increasing the level of CO2 provides a climate conducive to plant growth. So we need to be driving MORE SUV's, huh?
"Plants need CO2 to live, so I guess what you're saying is that increasing the level of CO2 provides a climate conducive to plant growth."
Why is the CO2 concentration rising then?
The plants (the bio system) can't handle the additional CO2.
This is how we can count.
Take an oz of gasoline, burn it and collect the gases from the burn, measure to see how much there is then multiply by the amount consumed (sales receipts etc)
@AndrianGA Yet you fail to acknowledge the minniscule effect that the proportions are having on the overall picture, and you provided METHODS, yet did not provide the results(which can easily be manipulated). The fraction of atmospheric gases can only do so much to warm or cool the earth, even if the levels were quadrupled, using your own computer models, it would only result in a very small fraction of a degree of warming. Which changes annually regardless.
In our conversation we've gone from, Global Warming is not happening, to it's not humans' fault, then CO2 amount is insignificant, then temperature in the past 10 years had been decreasing, then CO2 concentration was higher in the past, etc, etc, etc.
Don't you see the pattern by now?
To understand in more details how a small amount of CO2 influences the climate you should learn about Ice Ages.
The little warming that CO2 provides is enough to push the ice boundary further north. The retreat of the ice exposes darker surface which heats in the sun rays, as opposed to ice that just reflects it.
This additional heat is absorbed by CO2 making it vibrate faster, aka raises the temperature of CO2, additionally the exposed soil releases more CO2 and in the case of Siberia CH4 which is a more potent green house gas.
Also the little extra heat creates more water vapor which is a GHG
@AndrianGA Why have the Ice sheets grown according to NASA? Clouds cool the Earth and reflect sunlight. The sun is the major factor in climate. You pay the "carbon tax to the "man-bear-pig" Al Gore!
@AndrianGA When he built models using his own data sets, it disproved their claims even more. But he doesn't rely on government funding to continue his studies like all the academys do who claim this is caused by man, without that fear being perpetuated, their funds would dry up and they'd actually be forced to work for a living.
@beazgod Yep every single science academy with MILLIONS of members! Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth and it has fallen since the 1970's. Try looking up the data from the World radiation centre if you don't believe me or ask NASA. We have been measuring albedo from Uranus and it indicates that it is cooling.
@checkyoursources Its quite interesting you brought up google in a recent incompetent rant of yours. Here's a little experiment for you to try. Just google "man made global warming" and see how many people are beginning to doubt your claims. I have been hearing the sky is falling for over 20 years now and STILL have yet to see any of the catstrophic predictions come to pass. It was the same case with the global cooling crowd in the 70's, grow up and find something constructive to do.
@beazgod Google? nope, got the wrong person there. Oh and you made several other errors in your comment. 1) You claimed that scientist were suggesting global cooling in the 1970's when in fact the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming (there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet) See: (Peterson 2008) 2) There are many examples of damage and death attributed to climate change whether you personally are aware of them or not.
@checkyoursources Yeah, just more liberal bullshit, the great global cooling scare WAS in the 70's, regardless of any records you may show which suggests the "vast majority" of scientists predicting warming rather than cooling at the time, it was all about mass hysteria and like I said, a "consensus" proves nothing. A few global cooling scientists started screaming the loudest and the mass hysteria took over, this entire movement is just more of the same
@beazgod Thanks for providing evidence that your confirmation bias is extreme. try reading this: the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming (there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet) See: (Peterson 2008).
We aren't the gears in The Machine, nor any other mechanism of The Machine-- we are completely separate from The Machine. The only problem is, we are the perfect fuel for The Machine. But the point is, we have a choice to not enter ourselves into it as fuel. And if the majority of the fuel chose to stay away from powering this beast, The Machine would cease up and die, very quickly... And do you realize how hard it would be to re-start a machine of this size??
Nearly a billion people worldwide don't have reliable access to food, according to United Nations estimates, and some experts worry climate change will drive that number even higher.
alex is right, they cook the books to get the results they want. if that wasn't enough, the human race has only been recording temps for a little over one hundred years. in the life span of the planet that's like comparing now to 15 minutes ago. anyone who doesn't see the carbon tax as part of the totalitarian tiptoe isn't paying enough attention and needs to wake up. thanx alex jones!
‘In February 2010, climate sceptics were crowing about apparent admissions from Phil Jones at the (CRU) UK, that warming trends over the period 1995 to 2009 were "not statistically significant”…sceptics including far-right media pundit Glenn Beck seized on Jones's admission,to support their contention that global warming had effectively come to a halt’
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima... Who want to talk about gasoline pollution? Have you eaten any fish from the North Pacific, lately? I understand that they are easier to catch...
It's a carbon industry sham!!!! The phony "climategate" propaganda has been debunked, AGAIN! Taking out-of-context emails to promote the corporate disinformation campaign didn't work! The science that tells us we are warming the planet is sound. It's time we changed the way we generate and use energy and natural resources. Here's a link to debunking the corporate climategate calamity!
.
Google: Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
ALEX I HAVE AN INCREDIBLE ALERT.....THREE DAYS AGO THE GOVERNMENT WAS SPRAYING NON STOP ABOVE PITTSBURGH THE NEXT DAY THE TEMPERATURE PLUMETED AND WE WERE RACKED BY NON STOP TORNADOS....!!!!!
@illuminationclub Oh yeah? Well they do not have to do that. The frigging climate is changing anyway. It is part of the natural cycle of a planet or leastways this planet. The point is to be prepared. In addition, mess too much and there will be major problems like there are in China.
@shood1943 NATURAL CYCLES DO NOT INCLUDE PAVING EVERYTHING BLACK THAT ABSORBS HEAT!, PAVEMENT IS HOT IN THE SUN, BURNING FUEL CREATES HEAT.. YOU PEOPLE ARE CLUELESS.
@maluorno AND IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND I WAS MAKING FUN OF YOUR ONE LINER NO PROOF IN THE PUDDING RESPONSE THATS TYPICAL OF YOU CLOWN INFOWARS MORONS BY SAYING THERES MAGMA UNDER OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE HAVING THE HOTTEST SUMMERS ON RECORD DESPITE RICK PERRY(IDIOT)'S ATTEMPT TO DENY GLOBAL WARMING, OH YEA DID YOU FUCKING INFO WARS MORONS HEAR THERE A FUCKING HUGE DROUGHT, THE LARGEST DROUGHT EVER RECORDING IN US HISTORY, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW? OBVIOUSLY YOU LIVE IN A CAVE
@livingproofof - as i said before. I'm Canadian. I have have come to realize that there is no left and right. i belong to no political party. Carbon dioxide has no effect on climate. Remember Mr Gore's nifty graph showing the last 600,000 years of climate data and how carbon content in the atmosphere rose with the global temp?
@livingproofof - the graph is all lies. Carbon has no effect on temperatures. the inverse is true. global temps rise due to the sun's activity - cosmic rays that increase cloud cover which releases carbon dioxide from the oceans, permafrost, etc. Climate scientists in the establishment have manufactured data and excluded data that doesnt conform to their models. Carbon taxes are a scam. Cap and trade was designed to de-industrialize North America
@maluorno you're just spouting lies made up by a blogger who copied a bloger, world tempurature have gone up unrelated to cosmic rays, they function on an 11 year cycle, do your fucking homework imbsosil, and no tempurature have no decreased in the last 13 years, this is a lie too, the research done to prove likewise is bullshit, do your fucking homework, ive seen all sides of the story, just because theres one scientist from a southern state saying something doesnt make it true
@livingproofof - your lack of critical thinking is only surpassed by your inability to spell. World temps are not going up. Man-made climate change is a lie.
@maluorno 2010 was the warmest year on modern record and 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on modern record according to the World Meteorological Organsiation who use every global dataset going.
@checkyoursources warmest on record?.....so ok for the last 200 years MAX. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old man. there has been many times in the last 10000 years where it has been much warmer and much colder than today. WAKE UP.
@maluorno 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. 2) We should be concenred about the next 100 years, not the last 4 billion as they ahve already happened :) 3) I am awake, but are you?
@checkyoursources carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not drive climate. Carbon content increases are a byproduct of increases in global temps. Climate is driven by the sun.
@maluorno Temp increases can raise CO2 levels as we saw in the past but high CO2 can also amplify warming as we see now, hence it works both ways, not just the way you suggest. I do hope you are not denying that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas?
i.e.CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
@maluorno you're just spouting lies made up by a blogger who copied a bloger, world tempurature have gone up unrelated to cosmic rays, they function on an 11 year cycle, do your fucking homework imbsosil, and no tempurature have no decreased in the last 13 years, this is a lie too, the research done to prove likewise is bullshit, do your fucking homework, ive seen all sides of the story, just because theres one scientist from a southern state saying something doesnt make it true
@maluorno all the magma below texas and oklahoma(oklahoma city hottest summer on record), and hot the shit we burn in our cars at 500 degrees is causing global warming, um ok fucktard get a fucking unbrainwashed mind u tea party wanna be fag stop listening to fox news and minions for the pro tea party garbage theyre trying to use you for, so they can make money and stay in power, SCREW you and SCREW RUPERT MURDOCH YOU REPUBLICAN PIECES O CRAP
@livingproofof - i pay no allegiance to any party. the sun regulates the earth's climate. heat from cars does nothing. Al Gore says its CO2 thats causing global warming. not heat from cars, silly. get your own argument straight. Greetings from Canada, numb nuts.
the arguement isnt fully explained is the problem, the EPA itself admits that they do not know the percentage of heat that causes global warming that comes from black pavement, rooftops, this is an even bigger problem, numbnuts, because black pavement never goes away numbnuts, if you dont believe me, call them yourself and ask!
For some reason I can't sign up to the Prisonplanet forum. I register, then I get an email saying I need to wait for Admin approval, and nothing happens for months... Any ideas?
@clmabry , when the climate in Japan changed due to two nuclear bombs being detonated on top of that region, the man made climate change was proven for over two weeks.
You can give me the promised million dollars by wire transfer.
Hey Alex, care to comment on the leaked Heartland Institute documents? Ha ha ha.
neutronbomb1000 2 weeks ago
Illuminated Darkness - The Countdown to Lockdown begins NEW!
The necessity for call the military to control population will be a fact: martail law application due to social/economis caos. The FEMA camps will provide enclausure and the cawfins their end.
YTRFStinger 2 months ago
Conspiration 2012
.yoyogames Conspiration-2012
terantina 3 months ago
Now play the videogame! The first non-official Alex Jones Game!!!
terantina 3 months ago
Wow alex yousay all of this is going to happen about martial law and it hasnt happen you and govenor ventura are a bunch of hippies im soory for sying that but its true show some damm evidence police are good.guys.our goverment rules go live somewhere if u dont like it and if no then quit telling us a bunch of bullshit
ericluna40 3 months ago
@ericluna40 Ventura was a Navy SEAL & Vietnam veteran, hardly a hippie. I bet Jones would rather live in the country of his birth rather than surrendering it to GW freaks & sheep like you. Besides, leaving the country wouldn't help since the idiotic carbon tax would be global.
FantasticBob7000 2 months ago in playlist Global Warming Hoax: Al Gores Quest for Global Government
More taxes will clean the air! R U Phucking kidding! Co2 is poisonous? It is part of the life cycle. Al Gore tells the truth, ah, isn't this guy the inventer of the internet? "NOT"! Climate Gate a lie... PROVE IT! Scientists never lie and ALL Theories are facts until proven otherwise so say the Rothchilds who own the carbon credit scheme!
PROVE YOUR FUCKING THEORY BEFORE YOU MARRY IT ASSHOLES!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!
calrenman 4 months ago
"Climategate" does not exist. There has been no cooling over the last decade. The last decade has been the warmest in human history. Temperature readings have not been faked. The only fraud is DENIAL of global warming.
RedXlV 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1912 : Global Warming – Ice Caps Shrinking And Thinning – Animals Migrating North – Winters Getting Mild And Short
West Gippsland Gazette Warragul, Vic., Tuesday 19 March 1912
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
"Warming temperatures is melting ice that has been in place for thousands of years in the mountains of the Canadian High Arctic and in turn revealing a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools.
Ice patches result from layers of annual snow that, until recently, remained frozen all year. As Earth's temperature has warmed in recent decades due to the heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ...revealing ancient artifacts to the surprise of archaeologists."
Unprecedented warming then?
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
"Unprecedented warming then?"
Your question shows a complete misunderstanding of what the Global Warming Theory says.
1) CO2 is on the rise
2) CO2 absorbs infrared
CO2 levels are now higher than they ever were in the past 600,000 years, so yes unprecedented warming
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
""...revealing ancient artifacts to the surprise of archaeologists."
Unprecedented warming then?"
You do know that the ice moves right? that big boulders are pushed and left after ice ages etc?
Have you heard of Ötzi the Iceman?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
""...revealing ancient artifacts to the surprise of archaeologists."
Unprecedented warming then?"
You do know that the ice moves right? that big boulders are pushed and left after ice ages etc?
Have you heard of Ötzi the Iceman?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA
Please decipher and make your point?
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
My point ~~~~>
Your head ~~~~>
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA
Cotton Buds ~~~~>
Copper Sulphate ~~~~>
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
ww w. livescience . com / 4702-melting-glacier-reveals-ancient-tree-stumps. html
OMG adder how on earth did they get there? Tobacco? Big Oil? Capitalists spreading BS?
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
Use reply next time if you want me to get notified.
BTW I get a "page not found error"
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Answer me a question that has perplexed me and challenged my belief that AGW is unprecedented.
.
If as I was taught by scientists that our planet is entering a warm phase never seen before by man how come there are human artifacts being found under the receding ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and also tools and human effects coming out under Glaciers that have receded?
.
I find this disturbing and goes against my faith ~ have I been mislead?
PrairleDogged 5 months ago
@PrairleDogged
"how come there are human artifacts being found under the receding ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions"
Care to give a source?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
If man made climate change was bullshit (it's not) less emissions is not a bad thing.Taking global warming seriously AT WORST will result in cleaner air...there is only one side who makes billions from lying about this.
dazmin100 5 months ago
Alex Jones is every thing that is wrong with this country today. Fuck Alex Jones in his stupid ass.
RoethlisCrosby 5 months ago
i didnt think much of alex before this week, thought he was jus another jumping on the anti establishment wagon so to earn from it, till i seen him this week freaking out about fluoride and our babies.
magnusalexa 5 months ago
Anyone try to read the board in back?
chylerreckeaolgodhul 5 months ago
I've researched arguments disputing CO2 driving temp and the problem is that you have global warming skeptics like RM Carter whose arguments misrepresent data and are themselves working for energy interests. That said though, Alex Jones makes a great case that the issue is being used by globalists to promote a diabolical agenda. This is clear when considering that the Copenhagen response to the concern of global warming is to tighten world governance! That alone is very concerning.
radicalsquare 5 months ago
@radicalsquare
"That said though, Alex Jones makes a great case"
Alex Jones makes no case. This is a classical ad hominem attack. He talks about people and not the evidence.
He does not explain (or present) ANY experiment that demonstrates OR disproves global warming.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
retard
MrSlingblade22 5 months ago
temps are not increasing. its all lies
maluorno 5 months ago
NOAA: August, Summer, 2011 Hear Year-to-Date Records Smashed
livingproofof 5 months ago
I have a question, is fracking oil today, a play for MONOPOLY control of water tomorrow, think about it before answering.
Thom in Scotland.
fuelban 5 months ago
HACK THE WORLD!
317skarekrow 6 months ago
So where are you getting your information regarding CO2 over a 600,000 year period? What was it n 1900? What was it in 1950? What was it in 2000? What is it now? Has the temperature risen by 2 times over the past 600,000 years? If not, that kind of blows your little theory out of the water now doesn't it?
Of course I don't believe you, that's because there are scientists who YOU don't believe saying the exact opposite of what you're saying so why would I disagree with them you ask?
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
"So where are you getting your information regarding CO2 over a 600,000 year period? "
Ice core samples for one.
"Has the temperature risen by 2 times over the past 600,000 years? If not, that kind of blows your little theory out of the water now doesn't it?"
How so? More CO2 means higher temperature this doesn't mean 2x CO2 2x temperature.
"that's because there are scientists who YOU don't believe"
For a minority to overrule the majority they must have proof, your "scientists" don't
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA OK, then show the CO2 levels periodically, and why stop at 600,000 years? Is that because they were higher before that? Is it because that is when the CO2 conveniently started dropping? According to the famous "hockey stick" graph it (2xCO2=2Xtemperature)does, are you going to now say that was wrong? The scientists who are on your side of the argument are not scientists, most of the IPCC are activists.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
"OK, then show the CO2 levels periodically, and why stop at 600,000 years?"
The record is very accurate for the last 50 years, the data points are more distant as you look further back in time.
There was no reason to stop at 600,000 other then that's how far the ice core record goes, besides you won't find anyone agreeing that Earth could sustain 8 billion people 600,000 years ago.
The hockey stick shows a exponential relationship 2xCO2=2xTemperature is a linear relationship
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@beazgod
The scientists who are on your side of the argument are not scientists, most of the IPCC are activists.
Why can't they be both?
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@beazgod
Please use the reply button to have a conversation over wise you'd be talking into ether.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@beazgod
"What was it in 1950? What was it in 2000? What is it now?"
Do you know what a capnograph is? Have you ever heard of Mauna Lao observatory CO2 readings?
"What is it now?"
goo . gl /qdoy
It's expected to rise quickly in the upcoming months due to decomposing foliage.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA So you have no idea, perhaps it would be easier to respond simply by saying you don't know rather than changing the subject.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
"So you have no idea, perhaps it would be easier to respond simply by saying you don't know rather than changing the subject."
Are you refering to me answering your question by asking you a question?
FYI: capnograph is a instrument to measure CO2 concentration it has been used on Mauna Lao observatory since 1950-ies to measure CO2 concentration in the atmosphere day after day for years.
So I do know, and you didn't even try to find out since my question to you had your answers
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Yes moron, I KNOW what it is, so please elaborate on how an instrument such as the capnograph can give readings of CO2 levels 600,000 years ago. It can't so why don't you post what the capnograph says for the readings of CO2 levels for the dates I asked about?
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
Listen shitbag, it's clear you have 2 neurons one for reading one for writing, but do try and use google to understand how ice cores were used to determine the CO2 concentration over the thousands of years.
I'm sure your "shit for brains" agrees that Earth had more than one ice age, well the same information is taken from the ice cores, if you accept the ice core evidence as valid proof of more than one ice age then you accept the evidence for CO2 record over the last 600,000 year
F U
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA I am well aware of how ice core samples work cock breath, I am also aware of Dr. John Christy's work in satellite imagery to get a more acurate global temperature reading than the faulty and incompetent reading conducted by IPCC activists. YOU made the claim that CO2 drives temperature levels, many scientists disagree and say temperature levels drive CO2 levels and they use ice core samples to prove it. So the earth has cooled and warmed many times without man, thanks!
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@AndrianGA Ice core evidence is not valid proof when the INTERPRETATION of said evidence is flawed beyond belief, take the throbbing cock out of your mouth and pay attention.
beazgod 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beazgod
"Ice core evidence is not valid proof when the INTERPRETATION of said evidence is flawed beyond belief"
You have no clue about the measurements taken on past CO2 concentrations from ice cores.
1) Step one, count the number of rings on ice core to get to desired year.
2) Step two, collect the air bubbles and measure CO2 concentration.
How can the INTERPRETATION be anything else but a simple measurement?
It's a shame you have a right to vote.
AndrianGA 6 months ago
A simple experiment for any denier of AGW. 1) take two bottles, fill one with CO2 and one with normal air and put the lids on tight. Leave in the sun in the same conditions for 5 hours, record temps inside both. 2) note temps, you will find the bottle with Co2 in is warmer. case closed.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Yeah, great experiment, that proves everything, what a fucking moron!
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod Ad hominem!
How about these peer reviewed scientific papers going back over a century showing conclusively that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: Joseph Fourier, (1824), Samuel Pierpoint Langley (1890).
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Of course CO2 is a gas dipshit. That isn't the issue, the issue isn't even if man has an effect on climate, we KNOW it does, the true question is how much of an effect and the true answer is not nearly as much as people like you would like others to believe. The minniscule effect man has on climate is NOT a significant factor in climate change.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod
The fact is CO2 is now 2 times higher than it had ever been in the past 600,000 years. By contrast human species appeared a little over 150,000 years ago.
I know you're not going to believe me and you'll completely refuse to check the facts because of your desire to be right, but I'm curious on what grounds do you consider yourself a better climate researcher than the best there are?
Why else would you disagree with them?
goo . gl /VefR9
AndrianGA 6 months ago
@beazgod Why the insult, are you unable to converse like a mature human without resorting to ad hominem? Every single national science academy agrees that humans have been the dominant factor in climate change since the 1970's, this was confirmed when it was found that the total solar irradiance has fallen since the 1970's yet temps globally have risen. read: Erlykin 2009: "Solar activity isaccounts for just 14% of the observed global warmingsince the 1970's"
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Really? EVERY single "science academy" ? How many would that be? Why are you so afraid to address the growing number of scientists who are moving away from these flawed claims? Can you explain the ice caps melting on Mars as well? Is that because Martians are driving around in SUV's as well? You sound more and more irrational with every post.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod 1) "growing" number of scientists? no, read some scientific peer reviews, some of the best known skeptics of AGW have changed their mind in the last 3 years due to continued warming. 2) I will now have to explain to you why just two photos of the surface from Mars (one from 1977, one from 1999 is not enough data to state that Mars is warming. It would be like suggesting that picking 2 random days 20 years apart would give you the entire 20 years climate and Mars has an eliptical orbit.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Name one.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod 1) Scientist Bjorn Lomborg now admits that AGW is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" Monday 30 August 2010 Guardian
2) No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with AGW as the most likely explantion for the majority of warming since the 1970's See: DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources would you like a list of all the scientists who disagree with the findings of the IPCC? We could do this all day.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). More recently (Anderegg 2010) found between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus. 84% of AAAS (the AAAS has over 10 million members) respondents to a Pew survey in 2009 felt that “warming is due to human activity”, just 10% agreed with you.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Unfortunately for you, science is not based upon consensus. I'm quite sure in the 1400's there was a consensus of scientists who agreed the earth was flat. The consensus of scientists also believed the DDT was a harmful pesticide in the studies, mass hysteria took over all because of ONE flawed study and now that DDT has been banned, MILLIONS of people have died of malaria when there's not ONE single case of DDT ever harming a human being. This movement is mass hysteria.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod You used a non sequitur by proclaiming that your DDT case means that all science is wrong as a result, it's like claiming that you got a question wrong in a maths paper when you were 12 so all future maths you do musts also be incorrect.Science works on who is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.AGW is the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.If it weren't you would be able to name a more likely explanation, but you haven't as yet?
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@beazgod You used a non sequitur by proclaiming that your DDT case means that all science is wrong as a result, it's like claiming that you got a question wrong in a maths paper when you were 12 so all future maths you do musts also be incorrect.Science works on who is most likely to be correct based on the available evidence.AGW is the most likley explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.If it weren't you would be able to name a more likely explanation, but you haven't as yet?
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@beazgod
"I'm quite sure in the 1400's there was a consensus of scientists who agreed the earth was flat."
That's an urban myth, come on, it's the age of information you can easily look this stuff up.
About DDT again it's public information, go to pubmed . gov (that's the web site where all the doctors share their research) make a search for DDT and humans to get a clear pictures on the harmful effects of DDT on humans.
Next thing you'll tell us that fluorine in the water is bad for you
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Name one person who has ever died from DDT exposure. I have a list of millions that have died from malaria that DDT could have prevented. Come on, use some aspect of common sense. No, fluorine isn't bad for you, its just unnecessary. More scare tactics from idiots who think they understand things.
beazgod 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beazgod
"Name one person who has ever died from DDT exposure."
I know hundreds in Ukraine, I'd have to dig out the hospital record.
"No, fluorine isn't bad for you, its just unnecessary."
Neither is brushing your teeth.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
"Unfortunately for you, science is not based upon consensus. "
I'm still waiting for you to disprove the experiments that support global warming.
Aren't you cock sure that Global Warming is a hoax and since you know how science works that means you have counter experiments to the current evidence. Well, let's hear/see it.
BTW, you have yet to understand the existing evidence for man made climate change
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA
Whether or not data shows significant GW or not, I see huge potential for a scam by those working for global governance, especially as the shadow banking crime syndicate is robbing sovereign economies with derivatives, credit swaps, bailouts, chains of fraud that bought politicians are blind to. Peak oil could dwarf in scope and neutralize any potential harm of GW anyway, so globalists are making a play for control now, to impoverish and control now before scarcities become obvious.
radicalsquare 5 months ago
@radicalsquare
LOL
So what exactly is the scam?
Is it the measurements that CO2 is increasing and therefore all the medical instruments called the capnograph are a scam, or the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared and therefore all the microwaves working on the same principle are a scam?
If it's a scam one of these (or both) must be wrong, lol, care to elaborate?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA I'm still waiting for them to prove it! John Christy is ON THE IPCC and doesn't buy any of their garbage. My counter evidence is based upon the flawed science that claims man is causing this much climate change. The "hockey stick hoax which conveniently left out disparities in their research, the stolen e-mails which prove they are liars, and then there's the obvious connection of grant money they are given to sit on their ass and scare idiots into believing this, you fell for it.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"I'm still waiting for them to prove it!"
1) CO2 is rising, anyone that cares can measure that
2) CO2 absorbs infrared.
We can talk about the source of the additional CO2 or the amount by which the temperature is rising, but those are separate conversations.
So for the sake of "Prove that Global Warming is real" those two points are enough.
As I recall you had nothing to say about that but now you turned around and ask for proof again.
Make up your mind please.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA I'm not talking about rising CO2 levels, I'm talking about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. We know CO2 levels rise and fall with or without the presence of man, so there's no "making up of my mind". Do you even know what proportion CO2 makes up of our atmospheric gases? The minimal amount man adds is insignificant and even using the computer models the global warming fear mongers provide, Dr. Christy was able to prove their claims are greatly exagerrated.
beazgod 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beazgod
"We know CO2 levels rise and fall with or without the presence of man"
Please explain Mauna Lao Observatory CO2 readings.
"The minimal amount man adds is insignificant "
Add 1 gram of cyanide to your diet, it's insignificant. Let's see how that works out for you
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
"I'm not talking about rising CO2 levels, I'm talking about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING."
Tell me how are the rising CO2 levels and MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING not related?
Please answer after you explain the readings done at Mauna Loa observatory.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Simple question. We know from historical data that CO2 levels rise and fall, along with the temperature with or without the presence of man. That is indisputable fact. The question is how much of an effect does man have on current climate changes. The answer is very minimal at our current level of ignorance regarding climate.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"Simple question. We know from historical data that CO2 levels rise and fall, along with the temperature with or without the presence of man. That is indisputable fact. The question is how much of an effect does man have on current climate changes."
I've mentioned 3 times the CO2 record kept and taken at Mauna Loa Observatory (aka Keeling Curve). Your reply tells me that you still don't know what I'm talking about.
If you don't trust it, then buy a capnograph and make your own.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA I've mentioned the FACT that CO2 levels have risen and fallen before man existed on this planet, my question, which seems to be over your head, is why should I believe man is having an effect THIS time. Getting current measurements of CO2 is irrelevant to the discussion, my question is rather simple, but the fact you keep dodging it leads me to believe you have no idea what you're talking about.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"I've mentioned the FACT that CO2 levels have risen and fallen before man existed on this planet, my question, which seems to be over your head, is why should I believe man is having an effect THIS time."
let's get this thing out of the way first.
Do you agree that human activities almost doubled the amount of CO2 as it ever was in the past 600,000 years?
Do you agree or not?
If yes, the that's the impact on the climate.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA No I do not, while I agree human activities have increased the amount of CO2 levels, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes up a VERY small fraction of the total atmospheric gases and saying that it has "almost doubled" because of human activities is a myth. It has doubled, tripled and quadrupled before man existed on this planet. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere does not come from a result of human activity, only a small portion does.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
Why do you doubt that it has almost doubled? Do you not trust the ice core samples?
"the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes up a VERY small fraction of the total atmospheric gases"
Yes that's true, however how is that an indication that CO2 influence is insignificant?
1 gram of cyanide is insignificant to a 200 lbs man.
This insignificant amount of CO2 is what plants keeps the plants going, if if was bellow 50ppm 90% of plants will die.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Again, we have to revert back to your reading comprehension. I don't deny it has almost doubled, what I'm denying is your claim that it has almost doubled BECAUSE of human activities, as I said (and you agreed) it has increased BEFORE man even existed, whether or not man COULD exist during those times is a moot point. As far as the SIGNIFICANCE of CO2 levels, that's my entire point, the man made emmissions are not as SIGNIFICANT as they are being made out.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"it has almost doubled BECAUSE of human activities"
We can count.
"whether or not man COULD exist during those times is a moot point."
No it is not. We are talking climate change and what it means to us, at this moment in time. The fact that it was higher before doesn't mean that it's ok for us at this moment in time.
" the man made emmissions are not as SIGNIFICANT as they are being made out."
Yes, they are, we are adding extra that the system can't recycle. It's accumulative.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA "We can count"
No, you are assuming the increase is BECAUSE of the activities of man, we have seen CO2 levels increase at rates faster than this when man wasn't present.
I understand higher levels in the past doesn't mean its OK for us now, the POINT you keep dodging is your claim that these increases are as a result of human activity, I dispute that claim. The system can't recycle the extra? Wow, that explains the cooling we've seen over the past 11 years or so.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
Point 1:
We can measure how much CO2 there is right now
Point 2:
We can measure how much CO2 is produced by burning coal, oil, cement production, intake and release by the ocean and plants in the arctics, tundra, savanna, jungles.
Add all the contribution from point 2 and verify with point 1.
That's how we know human activities contribution to the total amount.
How we know how much CO2 a Jungle releases and consumes?
Setup a green house, a closed system and measure.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
"Wow, that explains the cooling we've seen over the past 11 years or so."
You don't trust NASA?
data . giss . nasa. gov/ gistemp
Do you trust NASA that man was on the moon?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
"Wow, that explains the cooling we've seen over the past 11 years or so."
We can go back and forth saying, "the temperature had been increasing" "no it's been decreasing"
One sure way to find out for sure is to compile the information ourselves.
Go back from say 1980 and collect all the weather reports to present day and see it for ourselves.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
"It has doubled, tripled and quadrupled before man existed on this planet."
That's right, BEFORE man existed. Who says man COULD exist in those condition?
We're talking about the current change and what it means to us.
We depend on arable land, 8 billion people depend on that.
Was there any grain when the CO2 concentration was tripled and quadrupled?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
Respond to this video... In order to discuss "current change", don't you think its wise to consider "past change"? Plants need CO2 to live, so I guess what you're saying is that increasing the level of CO2 provides a climate conducive to plant growth. So we need to be driving MORE SUV's, huh?
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"Plants need CO2 to live, so I guess what you're saying is that increasing the level of CO2 provides a climate conducive to plant growth."
Why is the CO2 concentration rising then?
The plants (the bio system) can't handle the additional CO2.
This is how we can count.
Take an oz of gasoline, burn it and collect the gases from the burn, measure to see how much there is then multiply by the amount consumed (sales receipts etc)
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGAWhy is the CO2 concentration rising then?
That's my point, it has risen naturally in the past, who's to say this isn't part of a natural cycle?
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
"That's my point, it has risen naturally in the past, who's to say this isn't part of a natural cycle?"
We can count each contributing factor and compare the result with the actual measurement.
We know how much human activities add to the system by measuring the ration of C14 in CO2.
Fossil fuels are composed of C12 and C13 because the isotope C14 in fossil fuel had decreased through ages.
We can sample tree rings and we see that the ration of C14 is changing, there's less of it
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
There, I've giving you 2 different methods by which we can count human contribution of CO2
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Yet you fail to acknowledge the minniscule effect that the proportions are having on the overall picture, and you provided METHODS, yet did not provide the results(which can easily be manipulated). The fraction of atmospheric gases can only do so much to warm or cool the earth, even if the levels were quadrupled, using your own computer models, it would only result in a very small fraction of a degree of warming. Which changes annually regardless.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod
In our conversation we've gone from, Global Warming is not happening, to it's not humans' fault, then CO2 amount is insignificant, then temperature in the past 10 years had been decreasing, then CO2 concentration was higher in the past, etc, etc, etc.
Don't you see the pattern by now?
To understand in more details how a small amount of CO2 influences the climate you should learn about Ice Ages.
watch?v=fyXwFK603J4
Then read about positive feedback.
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@beazgod
The little warming that CO2 provides is enough to push the ice boundary further north. The retreat of the ice exposes darker surface which heats in the sun rays, as opposed to ice that just reflects it.
This additional heat is absorbed by CO2 making it vibrate faster, aka raises the temperature of CO2, additionally the exposed soil releases more CO2 and in the case of Siberia CH4 which is a more potent green house gas.
Also the little extra heat creates more water vapor which is a GHG
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@AndrianGA Why have the Ice sheets grown according to NASA? Clouds cool the Earth and reflect sunlight. The sun is the major factor in climate. You pay the "carbon tax to the "man-bear-pig" Al Gore!
calrenman 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@calrenman
"Why have the Ice sheets grown according to NASA?"
I don't know which NASA you're talking about, but according to this NASA they haven't.
goo . gl / PEVmo
Haven't you heard the news about the Northwest Passage? Was that possible if the ice wasn't melting?
AndrianGA 5 months ago
@calrenman you got it, how the fuck are they going to tax us for what we breath out
Umbrella0021 4 months ago
@AndrianGA When he built models using his own data sets, it disproved their claims even more. But he doesn't rely on government funding to continue his studies like all the academys do who claim this is caused by man, without that fear being perpetuated, their funds would dry up and they'd actually be forced to work for a living.
beazgod 5 months ago
@beazgod Yep every single science academy with MILLIONS of members! Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth and it has fallen since the 1970's. Try looking up the data from the World radiation centre if you don't believe me or ask NASA. We have been measuring albedo from Uranus and it indicates that it is cooling.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources OK, NAME one.
beazgod 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Its quite interesting you brought up google in a recent incompetent rant of yours. Here's a little experiment for you to try. Just google "man made global warming" and see how many people are beginning to doubt your claims. I have been hearing the sky is falling for over 20 years now and STILL have yet to see any of the catstrophic predictions come to pass. It was the same case with the global cooling crowd in the 70's, grow up and find something constructive to do.
beazgod 6 months ago
@beazgod Google? nope, got the wrong person there. Oh and you made several other errors in your comment. 1) You claimed that scientist were suggesting global cooling in the 1970's when in fact the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming (there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet) See: (Peterson 2008) 2) There are many examples of damage and death attributed to climate change whether you personally are aware of them or not.
checkyoursources 6 months ago
@checkyoursources Yeah, just more liberal bullshit, the great global cooling scare WAS in the 70's, regardless of any records you may show which suggests the "vast majority" of scientists predicting warming rather than cooling at the time, it was all about mass hysteria and like I said, a "consensus" proves nothing. A few global cooling scientists started screaming the loudest and the mass hysteria took over, this entire movement is just more of the same
beazgod 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beazgod Thanks for providing evidence that your confirmation bias is extreme. try reading this: the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming (there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet) See: (Peterson 2008).
checkyoursources 5 months ago
Here are the facts that have nothing to do with ANY man.
1) Buy a capnograph (ebay $20) and take measurements of CO2 concentrations yourself, for a year or so, see for yourselves
2) Make an experiment that demonstrates that CO2 absorbs infrared watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
AndrianGA 6 months ago
We hate censorship
We dislike rick perry
We endorse Ron Paul
We fight for Freedom
and for the prophets( peace be upon them) that fought for ours
Ramesses II Burn in hell and all those who have been warned by the miracle that is his preservation.
robZzdaboss 6 months ago 2
We aren't the gears in The Machine, nor any other mechanism of The Machine-- we are completely separate from The Machine. The only problem is, we are the perfect fuel for The Machine. But the point is, we have a choice to not enter ourselves into it as fuel. And if the majority of the fuel chose to stay away from powering this beast, The Machine would cease up and die, very quickly... And do you realize how hard it would be to re-start a machine of this size??
christopher19894 6 months ago
Is it just me or does he kind of sound like a /b/tard?
kshepherdgmail 6 months ago
Al Gore preached a good sermon and made good money doing it. That lying false prophet!!!
REMNANT47 6 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Feeding a hotter, more crowded planet
.
Nearly a billion people worldwide don't have reliable access to food, according to United Nations estimates, and some experts worry climate change will drive that number even higher.
.
Talk of the Nation, NPR
Opinion, 13 August 2011
Nightversionn 6 months ago
alex is right, they cook the books to get the results they want. if that wasn't enough, the human race has only been recording temps for a little over one hundred years. in the life span of the planet that's like comparing now to 15 minutes ago. anyone who doesn't see the carbon tax as part of the totalitarian tiptoe isn't paying enough attention and needs to wake up. thanx alex jones!
lightfoot320 6 months ago
star wars is a extension and exaggeration of the Illuminati look it up
crazylucifer0 7 months ago
A conspiracy of 5 is easy, a conspiracy of 50 is difficult, a conspiracy of tens of thousands is usually confined to the mind of the mentally ill.
Alex Jones if a hyper-ventilating fool.
Zantorc 8 months ago
every body better preach this are we all our going to sorry and paying co2 fart tax for the rest of your life and children life grand children life
fisher99100 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recent warming trend is significant after all
‘In February 2010, climate sceptics were crowing about apparent admissions from Phil Jones at the (CRU) UK, that warming trends over the period 1995 to 2009 were "not statistically significant”…sceptics including far-right media pundit Glenn Beck seized on Jones's admission,to support their contention that global warming had effectively come to a halt’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn20571-recent-warming-trend-is-significant-after-all.html
blackadderthe4 8 months ago
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima... Who want to talk about gasoline pollution? Have you eaten any fish from the North Pacific, lately? I understand that they are easier to catch...
YeOldClipper 9 months ago
the blind leading the blind into a ditch
Jmillyful 9 months ago
@Jmillyful That's just about right.
shood1943 9 months ago
This video is very useful.
kopi5896 9 months ago
This video is great.
saijai587 9 months ago 4
Good video.
minami935 9 months ago
Oppose the deceivers
pmcgraw13 10 months ago
It's a carbon industry sham!!!! The phony "climategate" propaganda has been debunked, AGAIN! Taking out-of-context emails to promote the corporate disinformation campaign didn't work! The science that tells us we are warming the planet is sound. It's time we changed the way we generate and use energy and natural resources. Here's a link to debunking the corporate climategate calamity!
.
Google: Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
.
Don't be fooled!
ReduceGHGs 10 months ago
153 people are brainwashed by the mainstream media.
xaphan9600 11 months ago
this guy is so full of crap his eyes are turning brown.
MADDKNOCKER 11 months ago
ALEX I HAVE AN INCREDIBLE ALERT.....THREE DAYS AGO THE GOVERNMENT WAS SPRAYING NON STOP ABOVE PITTSBURGH THE NEXT DAY THE TEMPERATURE PLUMETED AND WE WERE RACKED BY NON STOP TORNADOS....!!!!!
illuminationclub 11 months ago
@illuminationclub Oh yeah? Well they do not have to do that. The frigging climate is changing anyway. It is part of the natural cycle of a planet or leastways this planet. The point is to be prepared. In addition, mess too much and there will be major problems like there are in China.
shood1943 9 months ago
@shood1943 NATURAL CYCLES DO NOT INCLUDE PAVING EVERYTHING BLACK THAT ABSORBS HEAT!, PAVEMENT IS HOT IN THE SUN, BURNING FUEL CREATES HEAT.. YOU PEOPLE ARE CLUELESS.
livingproofof 8 months ago
@livingproofof - red hot magma is pretty hot too. Get an education.
maluorno 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
@maluorno AND IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND I WAS MAKING FUN OF YOUR ONE LINER NO PROOF IN THE PUDDING RESPONSE THATS TYPICAL OF YOU CLOWN INFOWARS MORONS BY SAYING THERES MAGMA UNDER OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE HAVING THE HOTTEST SUMMERS ON RECORD DESPITE RICK PERRY(IDIOT)'S ATTEMPT TO DENY GLOBAL WARMING, OH YEA DID YOU FUCKING INFO WARS MORONS HEAR THERE A FUCKING HUGE DROUGHT, THE LARGEST DROUGHT EVER RECORDING IN US HISTORY, HAPPENING RIGHT NOW? OBVIOUSLY YOU LIVE IN A CAVE
livingproofof 6 months ago
@livingproofof what you are saying just isnt true. humans have no effect on the global climate.
maluorno 6 months ago
@maluorno yea ok, you and all your clown republican friends agree with you
livingproofof 6 months ago
@livingproofof - as i said before. I'm Canadian. I have have come to realize that there is no left and right. i belong to no political party. Carbon dioxide has no effect on climate. Remember Mr Gore's nifty graph showing the last 600,000 years of climate data and how carbon content in the atmosphere rose with the global temp?
maluorno 6 months ago
@livingproofof - the graph is all lies. Carbon has no effect on temperatures. the inverse is true. global temps rise due to the sun's activity - cosmic rays that increase cloud cover which releases carbon dioxide from the oceans, permafrost, etc. Climate scientists in the establishment have manufactured data and excluded data that doesnt conform to their models. Carbon taxes are a scam. Cap and trade was designed to de-industrialize North America
maluorno 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 5 months ago
@maluorno you're just spouting lies made up by a blogger who copied a bloger, world tempurature have gone up unrelated to cosmic rays, they function on an 11 year cycle, do your fucking homework imbsosil, and no tempurature have no decreased in the last 13 years, this is a lie too, the research done to prove likewise is bullshit, do your fucking homework, ive seen all sides of the story, just because theres one scientist from a southern state saying something doesnt make it true
livingproofof 5 months ago
@livingproofof - your lack of critical thinking is only surpassed by your inability to spell. World temps are not going up. Man-made climate change is a lie.
maluorno 5 months ago
@maluorno 2010 was the warmest year on modern record and 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on modern record according to the World Meteorological Organsiation who use every global dataset going.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources warmest on record?.....so ok for the last 200 years MAX. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old man. there has been many times in the last 10000 years where it has been much warmer and much colder than today. WAKE UP.
maluorno 5 months ago
@maluorno 1) Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the most likely dominant forcing. 2) We should be concenred about the next 100 years, not the last 4 billion as they ahve already happened :) 3) I am awake, but are you?
checkyoursources 5 months ago
@checkyoursources carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not drive climate. Carbon content increases are a byproduct of increases in global temps. Climate is driven by the sun.
maluorno 5 months ago
@maluorno Temp increases can raise CO2 levels as we saw in the past but high CO2 can also amplify warming as we see now, hence it works both ways, not just the way you suggest. I do hope you are not denying that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas?
i.e.CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
checkyoursources 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maluorno you're just spouting lies made up by a blogger who copied a bloger, world tempurature have gone up unrelated to cosmic rays, they function on an 11 year cycle, do your fucking homework imbsosil, and no tempurature have no decreased in the last 13 years, this is a lie too, the research done to prove likewise is bullshit, do your fucking homework, ive seen all sides of the story, just because theres one scientist from a southern state saying something doesnt make it true
livingproofof 5 months ago
Respond to this video... in case no one noticed hacking is very illegal and i wouldnt trust anything a hacker says
livingproofof 5 months ago
@maluorno all the magma below texas and oklahoma(oklahoma city hottest summer on record), and hot the shit we burn in our cars at 500 degrees is causing global warming, um ok fucktard get a fucking unbrainwashed mind u tea party wanna be fag stop listening to fox news and minions for the pro tea party garbage theyre trying to use you for, so they can make money and stay in power, SCREW you and SCREW RUPERT MURDOCH YOU REPUBLICAN PIECES O CRAP
livingproofof 6 months ago
@livingproofof - i pay no allegiance to any party. the sun regulates the earth's climate. heat from cars does nothing. Al Gore says its CO2 thats causing global warming. not heat from cars, silly. get your own argument straight. Greetings from Canada, numb nuts.
maluorno 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
Comment removed
livingproofof 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the arguement isnt fully explained is the problem, the EPA itself admits that they do not know the percentage of heat that causes global warming that comes from black pavement, rooftops, this is an even bigger problem, numbnuts, because black pavement never goes away numbnuts, if you dont believe me, call them yourself and ask!
livingproofof 6 months ago
lol this guy is so funny, and so full of shite. I think I'm owed a few million dollars by now.
kijbob 1 year ago
For some reason I can't sign up to the Prisonplanet forum. I register, then I get an email saying I need to wait for Admin approval, and nothing happens for months... Any ideas?
imRyRy 1 year ago
@imRyRy Sometimes emails from sites like that end up in your junk/spam folder. Check in there.
xaphan9600 11 months ago
@xaphan9600 Checked multiple times, used different email services, nothing.
imRyRy 11 months ago
I promise to give $1,000,000 to anyone who can show evidence of man made climate change.
I have never lost a $1,000,000 challenge because I am pure logic.
clmabry 1 year ago
@clmabry i just turned on my furnace, you owe me some money
longfootbuddy 1 year ago
@clmabry Get a clue
GeorgeofGondor2 1 year ago
@clmabry , when the climate in Japan changed due to two nuclear bombs being detonated on top of that region, the man made climate change was proven for over two weeks.
You can give me the promised million dollars by wire transfer.
Getsen42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey ALEX maybe if you get on your knees &suck a couple of COCKS AT U TUBE...
``` like u suck CRIMINAL ISREALS COCKS it may save your SISSIE ass...
``` you never talk about the fucking Jews who pay your bills cause your a FUCKING HYPOCRIT ~
```
GROW A PAIR OF FUCKING NUTZ OR BORROW A PAIR ~ !
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 1 year ago
al gore is corrupt beyond belief.
shackle5 1 year ago
@ 4:19 Alex is bowing to me because i am the hacker!!! na jokes i'm actually General Zod... kneellllllllllllll before Zod!!!! ;-)
moh1612 1 year ago