Added: 2 years ago
From: boredjoewo
Views: 12,957
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (102)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • As I said earlier "Whose peer review?" Who is doing the reviewing?

    "Scientists" who advance that CO2 emissions cause catastrophic global warming are against proving their climes to any kind of reasonable audience. They only want to be "peer reviewed" by people that like them.

  • After a critic asked renowned climatologist Phil Jones to release the raw data from which he has generated one of the primary historical records of global temperature, Jones’s famous response was “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

  • cant believe how evil he is

  • AL Gore goes on Larry show to use him for air time then pulls that comment !! Got lost Al Gore you thief who makes billions off the scam called carbon credits !

  • Was this a reference to the whole Carrie Prejean interview?

  • Al just needs to get laid.... if I could only get the message through to him

  • Al Gore is out of his "gore"d

  • People compare Al Gore to the tobacco companies... but they forget that its quite possible that, in this case, Al Gore is the one selling the drugs. Such comparisons are not useful because you still have to show that Al Gore is right or wrong... so people, please stick to the science and quit this he said she said games. Lets have a real, intelligent, intellectual debate on these issues.

  • GOREPHYTE- 1. An individual within a larger group (see cult) who has abandoned all reason, unquestionably worshiping the manipulative lies of his or her own slave warden. 2. A willful victim of the pied piper of fools. 3. A con artist's victim who actively and obsessively aids his or her attacker in the victimization of others.

  • @manosmodularsystems You effin moron - have you ANY idea how bigotedly insane that failed attempt at sarcasm was? The future of humanity is at stake and you are SO bigoted that NOTHING can reach you - yet instead of being embarrassed by your idiocy you wear it like a badge of honour...

  • Always beware of the cult leader that says "Do as i say, not as i do"

  • @Theylivewesleep1984 Beware of the idiots below deck who carry on partying while a deck hand shouts iceberg...

  • I don't understand what Gore meant by "Thank you for not being inappropriate"

    Is that some inside joke?

  • @Seedofwinter no its about larry king's interview with carrie prejean go watch it. then you will understand

  • As opposed to Al Gore's claptrap, you can watch an honest approach to this problem:

    Why The Global Warming Agenda is Wrong on YouTube.

  • @RickDS200 What 100 years of SCIENCE not enough for you - you prefer corporations lies?

  • Comment removed

  • If a dishonest politician like Al Gore backs an idea, that is VERY good reason do discount the idea. It is a great reason to run for the hills.

  • I'm surprised Al Gore didn't mention manbearpig or stated that he was "Super Serial"

  • What I like about Gore is he cares about the enviornment like Valdir Putin cares about saving the Tigers in Russia.

  • @BranIL28 Yes he does, at the detriment of ignoring the value of human life.

  • dumb dumb is in deep shit now

  • Yeah! SWEDEN RULES!!!

  • @how2233 Yeah...rules in embarrasing ourselves as the most political correct dumb ass country falling for global warming nonsens..

  • climate change IS ALL BULLSHIT AL GORE JUST GETTIN RICH OUT OF THIS CRAP!!!!!!! FUCK HIM

  • @makaveliel1 are you out of your fucking mind? Jesus Christ. De Nile is more than a rive in Egypt.

  • al gore predicted big results for Copenhagen. There were NO results , Al.

  • fuck gore and his carbon tax... peddaling global warming hoax.

  • AL WHORE

  • It's classic Al Gore!

    This remind me of the vice president debate with Dan Quayle.

    Gore is a smart guy.

  • King you are a complete J.O.K.E - were you EVER a serious journalist?...lol

  • I'm just glad Al Gore invented the world wide web and toasted peanut butter sandwiches. Hooray!

  • I cant wait sweeden s government to default so al gore can eat his words....don t get me wrong, i have nothing against the sweeds, wish it doesent happen...but..

  • @mtklaric Well, you ll have to wait a long time. We have the lowest budget deficit in all of Europe, while countries like greece, spain and england are in big trouble..

    Join the ride! It's fun! You can make a lot of money on green tech! :) And in the future is good to be in front when oil runs out..

  • How fucking stupid you must be to believe the "man made global warming" nonsense.

    Please, start writing checks to Big Oil Burnin' Al - that'll fix dear ol' mother earth --LOL

  • paste this in Youtube

    The Huge Mistake Climate Change Solutions 2009

  • lol gotta love al gore

  • according to prejeans logic...larry was being innappropriate

  • What a corny comment that was. Good one Gore.

  • All i see is two dirty old men who want to talk about a sex tape made by somone who cold be their granddaughter .. SICK OLD F**KTARDS

  • If you believe in man made global warming, you have your head way up your ass...I mean way up it.

  • How so?

  • 90% of his book offers some solutions to environmental issues that affect our Earth & our Society, "Because there are solutions". You think he'll mention The Venus Project in his book?

  • Global warming is a lie and so is Al Gore !See 30.000 scientist sue Al Gore

  • the scheme has been uncovered and G.E. profits fall. Wanna buy an expensive light bulb full of mercury?

  • Al is looking great! He must have lost 50 pounds.

  • The climate has been changing for eons, currently in a cooling cycle.

    Brainwashed communists believe in MMGW.

  • 80-90% of climate scientists must be communists then.

    Wow, I never would have guessed.

    You sir, are a tool and an idiot.

  • What is your spin on the hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years that have been stolen by hackers and leaked online that show climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the view that climate change is real?

  • I read about it and didn't found the emails to be that incriminating in the first place. It was clear they had been taken out of context and possibly totally misinterpreted.

    As for data manipulation, I saw no evidence of it. If you mean the "hide the decline" part, supposedly the most damning part - as I understood it, that part was totally misinterpreted -"decline" refers to the so called divergence problem - not a decline in temperatures - there IS no decline in temps from 1981 to 2000

  • Google "Harry Read Me" to see the objective computer code that was leaked along with the emails, which cannot be "spun" or "misinterpreted". You will see the monumental, monstrous fraud that has been committed.

    People like you make me SICK -- you defend corruption, lies, manipulation, collusion, bullying, data suppression and manipulation -- all things which any person with half a brain can see happened in Climategate. I am an HONEST scientist and am disgusted by what has happened.

  • Again NickTony29, if the emails did prove data manipulation, I would be up an arms about this too...but so far I have seen no evidence of it. If you think there are emails that definitely prove it then can you send them to my inbox. The alleged "smoking gun" is the "hide the decline" email which is supposed to be proof of foul play - but that email has been completely misinterpreted - it actually refers to the so called divergence problem, not global temperatures.

  • Are you kidding? The "hide the decline" email was just ONE of SEVERAL damning emails. Any person with internet access can see the other emails, such as the ones with Phil Jones refusing to honour FOI requests and hinting about redefining the peer review process. This is dishonesty at its worst. I also suggest you go beyond the emails to the "Harry Read Me" data, which is far more damning.

  • I'm not saying I know for a certain they're totally clean, I haven't done so much reading on the incident myself. But it definitely helps reading arguments from both camps and seeing for yourself which side makes more sense. For a rebuttal and analysis of the emails from the non-skeptic camp, google "climate change deniers hoax themselves again" and read the greenfyre article - I found it to be a good read

  • And I suppose that "Climategate" now having over 30 million hits on Google is insignificant? What parallel universe do people like yourself live in???

  • Poor Larry. At his age he couldn't care less about Climate Change or Al Gore.

  • Gore is the biggest piece of shit to have ever been born. Did you hear me AL? Piece of SHIT!

  • Did an ex-vice president just mock a beauty queen? Somehow this is worse than him never conceding in 2000, among other things.

  • Global warming caused by man is a big HOAX. Al WHORE is a money whore , he is getting VERY RICH off of this HOAX by selling this LIE / HOAX through him self , as in WHORING him self to those who will buy what he is selling "carbon footprints".

  • Looks like someone likes the words "Whore" and "Hoax".

  • Hello ProgressiveNewsTV. Your right and they are called liberals. Im not the one buying "carbon footprints".

  • How fucking stupid must you be to think all these scientists are in on some giant conspiracy. You people are so ridiculously insane.

  • What proof is there that there is global warming?

    What time frame are you using to measure global warming?

    If there is global warming, what proof is there that humans are the cause?

  • Silveracity, I'm glad you're asking questions. Google "empirical evidence for AGW".

    In short, it goes like this

    We know CO2 raises temperatures (greenhouse effect)

    We know CO2 levels have risen by about 35% since the industrial revolution due to anthropogenic activities

    At the same time, warming has been observed

    -> humans are the cause

    We also have direct experimental evidence for a great increase in the Earths greenhouse from infared spectra satellite measurements

  • If only 3% of all C02 created on this planet is the result of humans, Is anyone trying to stop that other 97% of earths Co2 creation?

  • I know it may sound implausible that humans are responsible for warming if we only account for 3% of the CO2. The thing is, natural carbon sources are balanced by natural carbon sinks. The carbon sinks can't handle all of the extra CO2 put in the system by humans and that's why CO2 levels increase.

    CO2 levels having been steady within the 260-280ppm mark for 10000 years and then suddenly jumping up to 385 ppm since the industrial revolution, it's clear that the extra 3% by humans *is* the cause

  • Well hello kekemankek, Just read your reply to my posted comment here and all's i got to say is this - Oh this (your reply comment to me) coming from someone who has posted on your channel a feature video called "Why we need Goverment-Run Universal Socialized Healyh Insurance". Yep it's very revealing where you are coming from a very far leftie view point.

  • No conspiracy. just bad "scientists" using bad science to gain attention and grant money by fomenting panic. Bad politicians are in it for the excuse to pass the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. Algore and General electric are just in it for the money.

  • And the voiceofintgelligence turns out to be a comleat idjit.

  • Why won't Al debate with Lord Monckton of Brenchley?

    Look it up

  • al gore looks like satans brother

  • 3i,000 scientist petitioned against and debunked Al's movie. Courts ruled it must be labeled as political not science to be shown in schools. The same guy that once claimed to have invented the Internet! C'mon people professional wrestling is more real than this guy.

  • That's 31,000 meteorologist and scientist world wide, look it up.

  • the Oregon petition has no quality control. The 31,000 scientists include engineers, teachers, and doctors; only 40 of the 31,000 (0.13%) have anything to do with climatology. The list also appears to include some dead people. It includes corporations. (How does a corporation sign a petition? Who holds the pen?) In short, it's a propaganda exercise designed by people who aren't very good at covering their paper trail.

  • So thi quote in Newsmax dated May 19, 2008 is a flat out lie?

    An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gores claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

  • Funny...every other post, the number of global warming denial mental cases goes up. Email me when it hits 60,000

  • not a flat out like, just a blatant misdirection. talk to real climatologists; get the real story.

  • You look it up for me and post it here.

  • Turns our your claim about scientists is as ridiculous and childish as the tired attempt at a joke that was your reference to the internet.

    The scientific community, though publications and peer reviewed work, are basically unanimous. Digging up a few unpublished claims by people getting paid by oil companies doesn't affect the actual science.

    But whatever, the clocks ticking, you look stupider and stupider every moment.

  • Obviously you did no research as I challenged. I will send you an enormous amount of information debunking the whole "climate change" crap. If you still buy into Al's shtick, buy plenty of his solar panels and light bulbs and good luck saving the planet.

  • I don't count corporate funded bullshit as reasearch.

    Peer-reviewed studies are all that matters. That process is the necessary, but not sufficient, condition of actual science.

    But I'm so anxious to read the add publications by coal industry execs and scientists bought off by polluting industries. It's the same tired shit used over and over, and it only manages to fool idiots like you.

  • When this planet gets around to showing us some "climate change" there won't be a damn thing we will be able to do about it. Your a fool to believe otherwise.

  • @TBlake34 Peer-reviewed by whom? By those, in your words, who say the "......the same tired shit used over and over, and it only manages to fool idiots like you?" The peer-reviewed guys just step in line and obey whoever supplies their funding: The govt. politicians who support the thesis. They get the funding because they agree with the thesis.

    For myself, I will take the facts and a good argument where ever I can find it. Your approach does not look like an improvement on that.

  • @RickDS200 You have evinced total ignorance concerning the functioning of the scientific community.

    First, people make their reputation and enhance their careers by developing contrary views. They are incentivized to disagree.

    Second, all of the best economic incentives come from the oil companies and large corporations that offer massive sums to write AGW critical articles.

    Third, scientists are the people doing the research that allows us to distinguish good arguments from bad.

  • @TBlake34 I am trying to convince you to think for yourself!

    According to your view, Galileo and Newton should not be listened to unless their work was "peer reviewed" by some approved group....you would not listen to it. Again, "Peer reviewed" by whom?

    You are selling conformity.  Just because everyone steps in line does not mean they on the right track.

    You don't have to know much in order to see that. This issue is much wider than climate science.

  • @RickDS200 Galileo and Newton have been exhaustively peer reviewed. Their theories have been tested endlessly, and, in some cases, rejected based on the accumulation of better evidence.

    The Scientific Method is a process of inquiry that involves testing hypotheses. You cannot "think for yourself," you have to test the theory to see if it conforms with reality.

    Relying on common sense is the hallmark of the idiot. Test the theory against reality, see the result. That's all that matters.

  • @TBlake34 OK. You are conformist who just wants someone to fit into your group.

    What do you think "thinking for yourself" means? You are the one that is saying that if a guy tests a theory against the facts, doing his own thinking, he cannot be right if it is not peer reviewed, and that you will not accept it.

    That is your original position. All it will do is produce conformity, not truth. The solution is to think for yourself. I think we are done here. Geesh.

  • @RickDS200 Haha, yes, I am a conformist. I like it when my ideas conform to reality. The alternative is "making shit up," which is what weak thinking prefer.

    Peer review is the process by which a theory is tested. We want a theory tested as many times as possible to make sure there weren't errors made or the original theorist wasn't somehow biased.

    You can do testing yourself, but unless you work in a lab, this is impractical, thus one needs to study the results of the people doing the work.

  • I don't see why ANY scientist would want to defend Al Gore or even want him on his side!

    Al Gore is a dishonest politician. He will back any idea as long as it gives him power. Science is supposed to be about honesty. If you really value science, you should be disgusted and repelled by a Al Gore.

    BTW.......I don't think GW Bush is good either, nor Bill Clinton. I do think Clinton is much better than Gore. Politicians are such a dishonest lot.

  • @RickDS200 Scientists defend Al Gore when he's right, criticize him when he's wrong. That's called "intellectual honesty."

    But I do enjoy the quick about-face from a discussion of climate science to an ad hominem on Gore. Gore could be a child molester, a murderer, a liar, a thief, or worse, a Republican, and that would have little impact on whether or not humans are causing the Earth to heat up.

  • @TBlake34 You still there? The last discussion was about whether you a conformist just wanting someone to join your group. That has been established beyond all doubt. That discussion is over.

    Last I recall, you committed ad hominem by attacking privately funded scientists with all the closed mindedness of Pope Innocent II.

    My point was clear: Does an honest scientist want an openly dishonest guy, or a child molester, to be his poster boy? He should feel repelled.

  • @RickDS200 Ah, thanks then. The last two posts have made clear how incapable you are of 1) arguing and 2) understanding science.

    it would, of course, be easier if you just admitted you were wrong, but childish internet pride won't let you do that. The pathetic attempts at mockery and the pointless reiteration of your initial stupid ideas is a clear indication that you're spent.

    You can have the last word. I'm certain it will be impressive.

  • @TBlake34 ? YOU started with an OUTRIGHT ad hominem against all privately funded research; the kind of research that puts the shirt on your back. ("I don't want that nice product/drug, it wasn't peer reviewed."???? )

    And you cover it all up by saying: "He just doesn't understand science."

    You are proving my point: Al Gore is exactly the kind of poster boy you would like, as opposed to a legitimate scientist actually proving his case.

  • @TBlake34 The tobacco companies did the same thing with their "Research" that proved that "Nictotine wasnt addictive"---all bullshit.The tobacco companies hired "scientists" to spread doubt about the health risks of smoking.We are dealing with the same type of pseudo science now,only this time its the oil companies hiring scientists/non scientists to lie about global warming.

  • And it's all from Drudge.

  • I hate listening to Gore speak now.

    It makes me reflect on history and wonder why he listened to his shitty political handlers. If he had just behaved like this in 2000, instead of adopting that contrived persona, he would have won by enough that Florida would have been irrelevant.

    Instead, Bush.

    At least Gore's doing everything in his power to create positive change in the world now, albeit 8 years too late.

  • positive change in his pocket

  • Riiiight, because he was so poor before he ran for office...

  • Actually, he is a traitor. They (gores/communists) were funded by Armand (arm and) Hammer. Do the research.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more