Al Gore is a Sissy With No Guts

[stickguy13]

I'm still not sure why you posted the same video over 100 times, it was probably for views and crap to get this video out... pretty smart mate...

[nickcool9999]

Man with hat = Ray william johnson's troll. :)

[Tiberiusize]

@nickcool9999

rwj sucks

[IronicusPaladin]

you drink too much redbull!

[griptick]

why does this faggot have like 100 of the same vid with different titles?

fuck that faggot spam bot bitch cunt

[Zzozze]

"Al Gore is a Sissy With No Guts"

He proved it by letting the Cheney croonies steal his election.

As a revenge he charges you for the air you breath: no guts, but clever!

[robran53]

This fella is a GW shill. He doesn't mention the plans for world government that is behind this so-called science fact. For the imbeciles amongst us: the climate has always changed and will always change, with or wothout the benefit of human activity.

It has never been stagnant.

[mjachapman6]

This is stupid!

[peterbourgon]

we more likely to nuke each other or an astroid could hit the planet

Check out this graph:

live search this:

Is Global Warming on the Wane?

How Solar Goes Polar

found on farmers almanac page.

mean temp. increase over last centry:

about 1 deg

[justananderson]

Dont ya just love Geniouses? couldn't change a flat tire! I guess it takes all kinds!

[Mrcharliebobo]

This dude is an assclown!!! he worships manbearpig!!!

[krazyrich]

Stop making fun of him, you big silly!  Just stop it!!

He's so serial. Super... Duper... SERIAL!!!

[oconnorthelegend]

Mother nature is fed up with the hippy's. Let's get drunk and have a barbeque

[sonia989]

How can a smart guy like you believe this misinformation? First it was food shortage, then coal sortage, now man-made global warming. The solution is always population reduction.

Global climate change has everything to do with solar activity.

The environmentalists should concern themselves with real issues like GMO grops, dumping tons of toxic chemicals in our waters, spraying them in the air, depleting the soil. All life on earth is being poisoned.

[0pteryx]

Indeed.

[23nhalf]

Sonia is a smart cOOkie:)

Yes!Concern themselves with realissues like GMO grops,dumping tons of toxic chemicals in our waters(c Somalia waters),spraying them in the air,depleting the soil.All life on earth is being poisoned!

Stop killing!energies what dO yOuknoW??Animals are nOt things either!To get respect,One has tO give iT!Oh!dO not fOrget abOut free energies,cars that can run On water, the last inventOrs gOt killed!! Give Life tO Live.

What yOu want fOr yOurself yOu give it Out,SIMPLE!

[kanalje]

STOP PROMOTING ACTION DRIVEN BY FEAR!

[eddiequest2]

STOP PROMOTING ACTION DRIVEN BY FEAR! ????? Ha - yeah, leave the fear stuff to Bushies. LOL

[JustSomeGuy77]

Two extremes, choose one:

1. Act drastically, totally destroying our economy and living longer in a painful, hunger-filled world where you can't find a job to feed your family.

2. Live life to the fullest while we can, say "screw the environment," and have everyone die in a massive "upheaval" so there's no one left to mourn of get hurt.

Note: YES the only two choices are complete economic collapse or world explodes (what? it's possible...).

[MTGandP]

How come you are repeatedly uploading the same video?

[wonderingmind42]

Desperation.

[flyDEVIL]

"Global warming" is not abnormal. It's happened in the past, and more dramatically than when we were here. Why should I believe we are causing it?

[LilBola1]

Earth is home to 6.7 billion people, compared to under 2 billion in 1900. Our impact is drastic and of unprecedented scale. Simply breathing in and out, our immense population creates 1.3 trillion TONNES of CO2 per year, which is about 300 MILLION RMS Titanics, or 6.7 Lake Superiors, or 8.2 Mount Everests of SOLID CO2!!! Now consider that industrial CO2 production is at the very least 20 times greater than breathing. And almost all of this effect has occurred just in the last 100 years!

[R055HP]

Past warming occurred over MILLENIA. Right now we are seeing things in terms of DECADES.

[YuriRockzz12]

to flyDEVIL maybe you should try to believe it esp. NOW!! you think this thing is just a flunk??? its a serious global problem... we are the ones who are causing this kind of thing.. i think we should be more responsible to what we do or what we are going to do.

[R055HP]

I'm not flyDEVIL.

[kanalje]

Bullshit! Scientists have found that Greenland had SEVERE heating in only years, way way back. What you state is just F A L S E

[Daharen]

I only have one question... Why are there like 4 or 5 of the same exact video on one persons account with tons of different names? Just wondering...

[girrocks2905]

Daharen, wonderingmind42 is trying to spread this message as much as possible by putting the same video under somewhat related titles so that the people who are actually interested in global warming (whether they believe global warming or not) to see this and hopefully choose to do something

[Canwetakearide2]

i think you should call one of these videos "100% Expert Dragonforce"...everyone will see it then....even call it "Rick Roll"

[RyderSpearmann]

Another issue I have with WMs presentation is that the choices he offers us are bracketed at "economic harm" and "Destruction and upheaval" which he attributes to "Activists", but then later tries to gain credibility for his position based on credible science organizations... not activist groups!

WM, you must constrain your bracketing to the limits of your credible sources. Using the Fear generated by activists and assiciating that with undue credibility weakens your stance. Significantly.

[Penlord]

The person in blue is like the scientist and the dude in the hat is like the military, scientist talks a bunch, and the military nods and continues to blow shit up on the side, lighting fires, etc. someone turn it into a political cartoon <.<

[reaganite08]

Tempest, you sound like a smart person. You should make a video explaining exactly what light is. That would be fascinating.

[iiopen]

A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day. Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. WSJ

[HearTheTruth]

If man is causing global warming, then why is Mars warming up also?

[TempestStormwind]

Our only evidence for Mars warming up is a collection of photographs showing one of its poles melting a bit over the course of six weeks.

Furthermore, the only possible link between Mars' and Earth's climate would be the sun, and if you'll look at PMOD, solar output hasn't increased for as long as we've had satellites (and those six weeks are in that span).

For more info, watch How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC on his account.

[HearTheTruth]

That is exactly my point: the SUN is causing global warming on earth and Mars, not man.

[TempestStormwind]

Just because it's evident you didn't read my comment, here it is again:

"If you'll look at PMOD, solar output HAS NOT INCREASED FOR AS LONG AS WE'VE HAD SATELLITES".

The observed melting on Mars is minor, and within that span. ANYTHING, including orbital shifts, could have caused it, but we don't have an impressively large battery of instruments on Mars like we do on Earth to figure out why.

[TempestStormwind]

Just to clarify, that's PMOD/WRC, the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Additionally, even if Mars was warming (and I'm not saying it isn't), there's piles of other evidence that clearly indicates that man's causing global warming. There isn't a SINGLE national/international scientific organization on the planet that contests that claim.

But don't take my word for it! I'm no climate scientist. Look it up for yourself, and make sure you check each source for credibility.

[HearTheTruth]

Bottom line: Global warming is not cause by man. The Stalinist are going to have to try another ploy to manifest their anti-capitalist propaganda.

[spiderveloce]

Why is that the bottom line? Where is the evidence showing this? its not the sun, so its...?

[TempestStormwind]

Look up the evidence for yourself, if you feel qualified to interpret it.

Otherwise, look at the climate scientists, who make it their job to interpret that data. Specifically, look at professional organizations of scientists (NAS, AAAS are the ones cited here, but there are several others).

A decent starting point is Wikipedia: "Scientific Opinion On Climate Change". Check the sources for yourself from there.

[HearTheTruth]

It is the sun.

[TempestStormwind]

We've gone over that already.

The World Radiation Center (PMOD), which has been studying solar radiation since 1978, has not indicated an increase in solar activity.

Meanwhile, those same years have had the highest CO2 emissions, and an increase in temperature.

I will gladly cite sources, but I'm limited by comment space.

You cite credible sources supporting your claim. Otherwise, it's just the rantings of some yokel on YouTube.

[TempestStormwind]

Stalinists, anti-capitalist propaganda... don't words like that suggest there are other issues clouding your reasoning?

EVERY SINGLE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION ON THE PLANET has issued statements that agree with the claim that man is behind global climate change. NOT A SINGLE ONE has suggested the alternative.

Are you saying that you're more knowlegable in matters of climate science than thousands of scientists?

[HearTheTruth]

Just one example: The chief climatologist for the Weather Channel stated man-made global warming is an Al Gore hoax. There are legions of scientist and free thinking scientist who agree. Those who agree with comrade Al Gore do so because their funding has been threatened.

[TempestStormwind]

Let's begin.

You state one climatologist for the Weather Channel.

I mention the *hundreds of thousands* of members in AAAS alone (setting aside the NAS, NRC, AMS, AGU, and more) that have staked their stodgy organization's reputation on it being true.

In fact, *not a single scientific organization* of any repute opposes the claim that it's human-caused, regardless of where they're from in the world or their political leanings.

(Cont'd.)

[TempestStormwind]

Now, having cleared up the science, let's look at the free market of capitalism.

The biggest name here is USCAP, a group consisting of VERY profit-motivated members (including Shell, Ford, GM, ConocoPhillips and GE) who have called for mandatory carbon emissions caps *on themselves*. They seem pretty convinced. Even Exxon's making similar claims (google: rex tillerson prudent).

(cont'd)

[TempestStormwind]

So, since every reputable scientific organization on the planet says it's human-caused, and that some of the biggest carbon-emissions-producing companies have called limits on emissions, what's the result?

That it's a vast conspiracy by pinko commies and the lib'ral media to mooch money via intellectual terrorism that violates every tenet they have stood by for as long as they've existed...

...Or that humans really are causing climate change?

Occam's Razor, pal.

[TempestStormwind]

Oh, and while I'm at it, the industries in question openly say that this is a great business opportunity for them, suggesting that action is actually in their best, capitalistic self-interest.

Similarly, the scientific agreement extends down to far more than just the organizations. Look at the study conducted by Naomi Oreskes, which you can replicate yourself if you want.

In brief, you have to refute *all* of this, credibly, before anyone will be convinced it's not human-caused.

[HearTheTruth]

Okay you continue to adhere to the teachings of comrade Al Gore and his commissars. While I continue to have faith and respect for the earth's abilities to address the insignificant impact that may be caused by mankind and capitalism. That tree that all of those who blame mankind love to hug, has greater abilities than you give it credit for.

[TempestStormwind]

Your refusal to engage in reasoned, civil debate and address my points, resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree with you, suggests that you are *unable* to refute me.

This is interpreted as a concession, as my points remain uncontested.

If you can't further this conversation with debate, then please get out of the way and stop spreading misinformation.

For the record, I dislike Gore, and was thinking this way long before I'd heard of him. (I'm not an American, for one.)

[HearTheTruth]

If I insulted you please accept my apology. My intend was not to insult you, but only those Stalinist in America. I agree we need to keep the debate civil. It seems as if both you and I are entrenched in our belief as to the cause of global warming. You mention numerous organizations to support your position. Please understand I find them rather suspect. There is no need for me to quote all the free thinkers who agree with me, because they are not at the root of my belief.

[spiderveloce]

Could you please explain why you hold USCAP suspect, being that they have seemingly contradicted their own self-interest by making the statements they have on climate change? And please enlighten us as to why you hold, for example, NAS suspect? I would love to know, and I feel cheated out of the knowledge you withhold.

[HearTheTruth]

Any group that would blame mankind for global warming I hold suspect. The warming of the earth is cyclical. The last ice-age melted due to global warming. Was mankind responsible for that?  I have too much respect for our planet to think this living planet would allow mankind to disrupt its solvency. The temperature models used to support global warming only go back about 150 years, if that long. 150 years compared to the history of the earth is rather farcical

[TempestStormwind]

Why do you find them suspect, might I ask?

And what *wouldn't* you find suspect? What would it take for you to change your mind (i.e. is your claim falsifiable)?

Mine is falsifiable. I'm running out of comment space, so I'll direct you to How It All Ends: No Holds Barred (v=zZJzSURpSpY) where he deals with falsifiability. My criteria are slightly different than his, but it's a good example nevertheless.

[HearTheTruth]

Any group that would blame mankind for global warming I hold suspect. The warming of the earth is cyclical. The last ice-age melted due to global warming. Was mankind responsible for that? I have too much respect for our planet to think this living planet would allow mankind to disrupt its solvency. The temperature models used to support global warming only go back about 150 years, if that long. 150 years compared to the history of the earth is rather farcical

[TempestStormwind]

That doesn't answer the most critical point: Is your claim falsifiable?

That is, what would it take for you to change your mind?

For me, it would require a phenominal amount of evidence -- hard, credible evidence -- that shows that the entirety of the modern science establishment is in error, along with an alternate theory that stands up to scrutiny. In theory, this is doable.

What would it take for you?

[TempestStormwind]

Additionally, there are other models going back 500 years (borehole data), 1000 years (proxy data), and even ~100,000 years, though there's uncertainty (google Holocene Climactic Optimum).

...Which is the entire history of the human species. The vast CO2 levels are in the past ~200 years.

The conclusion? It's warmer now than it's EVER been in the history of the human species, and no climate model can account for why without including the forcing of human-caused CO2.

[TempestStormwind]

Finally, if you still maintain that the planet's so vast and humans so tiny that we can have no effect on it, watch the video How It All Ends: Scare Tactics (v=Z0V9Id6IfJo), and refute the points presented there.

Until you begin refuting claims with logic or credible evidence, whatever you say will just appear to be unfounded bias, and I know you don't consider it that (you probably have a very good reason to think what you think: I'm just trying to understand that).

[triscope]

Stalinists in america because we think current global climate shift is man made??? I wont even bother telling you in how many ways that seems messed up. Seriously...do you even have any common sense to understand the basic mechanics of climate change? Its people like you that keep digging this grave deeper and deeper for us, and keep with your old ways of consuming endlessly while polluting as much as humanly possible.

[HearTheTruth]

So do you want to limit consuming with the excuse you are saving the planet? Well that is exactly with the Stalinist did; limit consuming for the good of the people. Stalinist say "people," environmentalist say "planet." Either way both want to force their beliefs on others and control human behavior.

[triscope]

Its not an excuse, its a reality. Wake up dude. We are consuming a FINITE ressource that has taken millions and millions of years to become oil underground, and we are pumping it out in a blink of an eye. Also do you think we should consume as many ressources as possible until we run out as quickly as possible? Thats like being stuck in a cave with a months ration and eating it all up in 1 day. I dont think youl be still alive when rescuers come by.

[HearTheTruth]

In the United States alone, there is about 400 years worth of oil underground or offshore. By the time we run out of that supply, there will be another source of energy.

[TempestStormwind]

No, there isn't -- unless you adopt massive changes in lifestyle very similar to those proposed by global warming supporters.

You evidently don't understand how exponential growth works. The *rate* at which we consume things increases. The only way we have 400 years left *worldwide* is if we cut our consumption drastically -- which is exactly what we're arguing for here.

Watch v=F-QA2rkpBSY for more, then get the data and do the math yourself.

[HearTheTruth]

So with the growth, I give you 100 years.  Still plenty of time.

[TempestStormwind]

Imagine a type of intelligent bacteria that divides in two every minute. The jar it's in fills up at midnight. At what time was the jar half full?

Now, say at some point the bacteria make a BREAKTHROUGH discovery, finding THREE new bottles, each as big as the one they're in. This is a finding on par with working FUSION for us. How long does that buy them?

...Plenty of time?

[TempestStormwind]

I didn't have room for a critical third question: At what time does the bacteria begin to think that the jar might be full? When would they *begin* searching for those extra jars?

Because as it stands, funding for "discovering" this new source of energy is sparse and minimal. If you're banking on it, wouldn't it be wiser to make sure it can exist before saying "We'll innovate our way out of it" until the last minute?

[triscope]

Very well said TempestStormwind. It's very agravating to read peoples responses such as "Ah we will find out a way...technology... blah blah" yes we do have the technology RIGHT NOW, to solve all our energy needs, but we chose not to emplement them quickly enough and depend too much on oil. Its too late now to have a smooth adaption. It will be a very rough transition at this point. And people like HearTheTruth will only make it rougher.

[triscope]

And to top it all off, we are heading towards a triple wammy. We have succesfully destabalized the climate, we have succesfully sucked dry most of the earths oil, and pumped it into the atmosphere, and to top it all off, we are going to fight over the remains (middle east world war 3 here we come). Economic depression+global climate change+World war 3+energy crisis = One hell of a cluster fuck.

[spiderveloce]

Be sure to throw in a *hint* of optimism. Then again you probably hit the 500 word limit.

[iiopen]

Peak Fun!

[TempestStormwind]

Just for fun, I googled (united states oil reserves) and (united states oil consumption rates); the first hits were from late '05 to early '06. Recoverable US oil is estimated at ~30 gigabarrels, and they're extracting 1.8 gigabarrels per year right now.

Assuming HearTheTruth's correct and we have a century of oil production left accounting for growth, we can easily calculate what that growth has to be. I'll post my calculations and conclusions below.

[TempestStormwind]

(YouTube seems to be having a problem with my calculations; I posted them but they don't seem to be showing up.)

In brief, this VERY SIMPLE ARITHMETIC demonstrates that the United States must *scale back* oil production by 6% per year if you want to have 100 years of oil left.

I can't find what the department of energy's saying, but I'm willing to bet they say something much larger than that. Note that if they said even 0.1% growth per year, that gives you just 16.5 years of oil left. Not 100.

[TempestStormwind]

r=production rate, with r0=current rate.

t=time (yrs)

k=growth in production rate (%/100)

Let R=total reserve, C=total amount consumed, and T=t such that C=R.

r(t)=r0*e^(kt)

C=(r0/k)((e^(kt))-1)

T=(1/k)ln((Rk/r0)-1)

100=(1/k)ln(((30*10^9)k/(1.8*1­0^9))-1)

k=-0.06

[aliensexfiend]

1st of all, i enjoy ur videos, if i were back in highschool i would've liked u as my teacher

honestly, i dont know wats real anymore, the whole argument about the sun being the real source of global warmin and CO2 as a byproduct instead of the cause for increase in temp seems valid, but i dont know....

[TempestStormwind]

Look around; science is notoriously vocal for free and open exchange of information, and most of this info is available in the public domain.

If you want a starting point, consider his videos or gristmill(dot)grist(dot)org/sk­eptics. But the critical part after all of that is to *confirm all the sources you look up*, looking for who's funding them, how credible they are, and what counter-arguments or evidence exists to invalidate them.

[cyberdemon107]

if the sun was the source of global warming then why is venus (with an atmosphere) hotter than mercury (without but much closer to the sun)?

[zk0]

'No Sun link' to climate change: Sun's output has declined but Earth temperatures have risen. A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

[tbolger83]

Hey zk0 where can I find that study. I'm not trying to check up on you just want to read it for myself so I can use it when arguing with skeptics.

[TempestStormwind]

I'm also interested in looking into it, as the way you've reported it, it contradicts other evidence that I've seen and haven't been able to discard yet. (Other parts support my own research, but that's not what interests me.)

[zk0]

Google the exact term: "'No Sun link' to climate change: Sun's output has declined but Earth temperatures have risen" (yes, even the "", then click on the result from Newsvine and you will find all the links you need)

[tbolger83]

Thanks.

[TempestStormwind]

Can anyone find a rebuttal to this paper that isn't from the Friends of Science? I'd previously relegated that organization to a low credibility rating (They're being funded through a foundation (set up by a political party) that prides itself on keeping its donors secret, and, when pressured, they claim that they're "not entirely funded by oil companies", meaning statements like that are what you'd expect them to say).

I'd really like to know if these arguments have been credibly refuted.

[Spanishfries]

And what the hell does this have to do with Ron Paul. He doesn't advocate a global carbon tax. That is the solution we are being offered from the guys at the top. The activists mean well but they have no idea who they're working for.

[TempestStormwind]

And if you'll watch this video, he does not once say the word "taxes" nor does he advocate for a carbon tax any more energetically than as one possible course of action out of many.

[maggothon]

You have no idea who you are "advocating" for. Really all the pollution created by the overpopulation of the human species and their waste spewed into the water, air and the land we grow our food on has absolutely no effect what so ever. Dream on, lies are so much easier aren't they.

[Spanishfries]

The sun is getting hotter. The polar ice caps in Mars are melting at a faster rate than Earth's are. Greenland's inland glacier is getting bigger, while only the edges are melting. Besides the whole C02 argument is fallacious. As tempurature rise, THEN C02 rises, not the other way around. C02 is a life gas, trees inhale it and make OXYGEN. And C02 doesn't even make up 2% of the atmosphere water vapor does.

[TempestStormwind]

According to the World Radiation Center (specifically, PMOD), the sun hasn't gotten any hotter since 1978, when sattelite observations began. This is the same span where CO2 levels rose the fastest.

As for why the CO2 is what you should be watching, see the video How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (v=RqEYLvPt0lA), and then attempt to dispute the information he provides with credible sources.

[iiopen]

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would *likely* have produced cooling. Observed

patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.

-- IPCC

[TempestStormwind]

In addition, as to CO2 lagging behind temperature, it does -- on geological time scales.

If the temperature rises over a 5000 year period, and CO2 starts going up at the 800 year mark, all that means is that CO2 isn't responsible for the first 800 years of warming. The remaining 4200 are what concerns us. It's not like something happened at the start that resulted in 5000 years of warming: it's more like something kicked off a shorter warm period but the result led to feedback.

[cyberdemon107]

then how come al gore's video shows literally RIVERS of melt running straight through the glacier, away from the water?

[TempestStormwind]

Because Al Gore's video was meant to scare people.

Seriously; I'm *on his side* and I don't give his film or slideshow a lot of credibility.

If you're trying to connect my 5000-year-cycle description from earlier with An Inconvenient Truth, first note that I was describing a *natural* cycle, from long before industry (the fact that it's a 5000 year cycle and we've only had industrialization for 200 years should have been the giveaway).

[Spanishfries]

Okay you had me until you mentioned "Global Climate Destablization". That is a ridiculous statement. The climate is never stable. Never has, never will be. It was warmer in the medieval warm period. The bronze age was even warmer. And the solution all of the leaders want us to do is to pay a global carbon tax. That is ridiculous. That doesn't even solve anything.

[maggothon]

things changed with the evolution of the human species and the end result of overpopulation and the use of fossil fuels to the extent no one could predict. To say that the millions of people on this planet, dumping their toxins into the air, water and land is not having as effect is to play ostrich and avoid the necessary changes that responsible people should make.

[cyberdemon107]

proof that happened? do you have a temperature gauge from spartacus' time?

[triscope]

we dont need to, we have ice cores to tell us all the data we need to know with a very good deal of accuracy up to half a million years ago. So we know for a FACT that our actions are destabalizing the natural climate patterns by a large margin.

[myrelative]

stop flooding ron paul

[iiopen]

LOL!

[iiopen]

Like scattering feed across a trout pond.