also if only these climate supporters new that the global elite are literally trying to lower population over this garbage. Read Eco Science by John Holdren, Obamas current science czar, apparently they don't care how they lower our populations. WHy are ice on other planets melting if co2 is rising on this planet? Why not be intelligent and plant more trees? duh.. Corporations keep cutting trees, get Bill gates to say co2 is to high, so these same corps can profit off of it?
@mphello yea lets blindly support men who funded hitler (Rothschild) into be believing that CO2 is ruining this world despite the fact multiple scientist state its the sun that is causing global warming. GOv fraud and scientific involvement has been exposed so many times. Every time an independent comes out and denies accusations made by gov agent scientists they are immediately fired instead of properly debated with. I don't trust Rothschilds/Gore/Maurice strong.
@Gtrplyr1 The temps have gone up, irrespective of solar activity and that's very well known. Deniers cite the sun; nothing to do with the scientific reality.
@Gtrplyr1 And the Rothschilds have nothing to do with it, either. That's what people who don't understand/want to discuss the data say. Read the science, not the conspiracy nutjobs.
@LukeScientiae The Rotchshilds, Al Gore, and Maurice strong directly would receive a carbon tax that all of us humanity would have to pay for. How aren't they involved?
@Gtrplyr1 Rothschild, Gore, etc. have NOTHING to do with the science. They might discuss it, popularize it, whatever, but the data is gathered independently, internationally by thousands of different people working in as diverse fields as geophysics, oceanography, plant biology and atmospheric chemistry. Nothing about the Rothschilds has anything to do with the scientific reality that CO2 is driving climate change, which has been known about for 116 years (look up Arrhenius).
@LukeScientiae yea but why are their plenty of scientists that say the sun is causing the rise in temperature and it's not so extreme? And why are the ice moons and ice on other planets melting as well if co2 is only on the earth? Do you also know that the world leaders want to wipe out 80 percent of the current population? Im not making this stuff up, but it's concerning. Do you stand profit off of this science?
@Gtrplyr1 It's simply untrue that the world's leaders are planning to wipe out 80% of the world's population. I'm sure you believe it, and I'm sure you think your source for this is reliable. But it's the stuff of nonsense conspiracy theories people constantly invoke to distract attention away from what climate science says. No reputable climatologists believe climate change on Earth is driven by the Sun. Temps have gone up even when solar activity was v. low (last 12 years).
@Gtrplyr1 And no, I don't stand to profit from climate change science. You'll find that the people who study climate science are largely in academia, and their wages are VERY far below what equivalent positions earn in industry. It's simply untrue that they're doing it for the money or because it's all some gigantic NWO/Illuminati/Communist conspiracy. However, oil companies have admitted to funding think tanks that deny climate science. So have the think tanks. (e.g. Exxon & CEI).
@LukeScientiae thats interesting that big business denies it. Well can you point me in a direction to get more info on your research and organization. Im interested.
@Gtrplyr1 I am not a climate researcher, I'm an assistant professor of chemistry. But if you want more info on the denial of climate change, see e.g. Koch Industries: /watch?v=RBgO_ZW4K4U
@Gtrplyr1 Also, compare what you think you know about climate change against the real science & the long list of deniers' "arguments". Find the SkepticalScience website and go to their arguments page.
@LukeScientiae I'm open to listening. I just don't want to pay a carbon tax off of this stuff. Our gov is trying to formulate hundreds of taxes regarding this science. Thats why i question it, int's nothing personal against you.
@Gtrplyr1 The first thing you should be aware of is that ideology (e.g. not wanting to pay taxes) isn't something you can use to disprove the science of it. Climate science is one thing, what you think about taxes is another. Now, the science tells us anthropogenic CO2 is, indeed, warming the planet. It's also already devastating the environment (e.g. destroying coral reefs) and endangering many people's lives (sub-Saharan Africa, Tuvalu, etc.) We need to move to renewable energy.
@LukeScientiae but how does CO2 ruin the environment if it is a natural occurring substance? Wouldn't providing more trees/plants in the environment be a suitable way to lower the amount in the air?
@Gtrplyr1 Just because something is "naturally occurring" doesn't mean it's not dangerous (poisonous snakes and earthquakes are also naturally occurring, and so is cancer). CO2 accounts for 0.039 % of the atmosphere. It has a strong greenhouse gas effect, helping Earth stay warm for life to survive. But the more CO2, the warmer it will be, even to a point which endangers life, which is what is starting to happen, as we can see from massive wildlife migration towardst the poles.
@Gtrplyr1 The other way in which CO2 is destroying the environment is because it dissolves in water (just like it does in soft drinks). The chemical equation for this is: CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3. And H2CO3 is carbonic acid. This is created when CO2 dissolves in the oceans. As a result the acidity of the oceans rises, which endangers many animals, including those that depend on carbonates to live (e.g. coral reefs, which are vitally important for biodiversity). It's a real emergency.
@LukeScientiae how does co2 in the environment kill off coral reefs?Corals rely on photosynthesis which needs co2 in order for it to take place. How do you guys props to fix the carbon in the air?
@Gtrplyr1 Coral reefs are threatened because they depend on carbonates. CO2 makes ocean water more acidic and dissolves carbonate shells. See here: /watch?v=evfgbVjb688
@Gtrplyr1 The absolute priority is to reduce CO2 emissions by moving away from fossil fuels. This means reorienting the economy, but that will create MANY jobs - which is a good thing.
@Gtrplyr1 Solar, wind and wave energy are all alternatives, but effective to different extents in different places. Even nuclear is MUCH better than coal, oil, etc.
@Gtrplyr1 If you don't want to pay taxes to organize a change to renewables, that's one thing. But don't buy into the conspiracy crap about how climate change is all a hoax. It's not. (For a start it's not even possible to organize a global conspiracy of scientists on that level). The climate change deniers use the same tactics (they've discussed it in leaked memos even) as tobacco companies used to: undermine public confidence in the science that says it's dangerous.
@Gtrplyr1 Search out videos on YouTube by Naomi Oreskes, and read her book Merchants of Doubt if you want a detailed account of how the climate change denial lobby works, its history and so on. Another book you might be interested in is Climate Change Denial by Cook & Washington. Also, watch the videos on YT of Peter Sinclair (greenman3610 is his username).
@Gtrplyr1 On top of this, Gore's entire revenue from climate campaigning to date he has given away, not used to profit personally. And as I said, Gore is irrelevant. You approach climate change from the perspective of defending your preferred ideology. That is not any kind of way to evaluate scientific reality, and nor is listening to conspiracy cranks. If you don't read or understand the science, go and learn it and read it.
And, btw, Ron Paul is as scientifically illiterate as Perry and Bachmann. All of them deny climate change is anthropogenic, all of them invoke ridiculous conspiracy theories, all of them deny the central unifying principle of all bioscience and medicine (evolution), all of them have a pro-Christian, anti-regulation ideology. It's not about the science or the facts for these people, it's about ideology and politics and it has nothing to do with reality.
@LukeScientiae why bring Ron paul into it?? I didn't mention him once, besides he is a physician so i think he may know a thing or two about science.. All I'm saying is in not a sheep, I'm not going to believe in something when there are hundreds of qualified scientists who are against the idea.
@Gtrplyr1 That Ron Paul is a physician (qualified 50 decades ago - no training in climatology, physics, atmospheric chemistry, I presume) has nothing to do with his understanding of climate science. He even denies evolution, which is just about as moronic an opinion on science as you can hope to find. Where are these hundreds of qualified scientists who are against the idea? Multiple surveys show 97% of scientists qualified on climate (ie do research on it) agree it's man-made. Not to mention...
... as he puts his Christianity ahead of the basic reality of all biology, just as Perry and Bachmann do. And you clearly put your ideology ahead of learning anything about how science works, not just climate science. Suddenly physicians from 50 years ago are literate on climate science, Rockerfeller funds climate research, US climate isn't corroborated and all the rest. It's bull. It's corroborated internationally from multiple independently funded studies. Learn the science!
And stop telling yourself and others that Gore is more important than he is. For you he's a political target and it has nothing to do with the data, which you've not read yourself and probably don't understand. Read/listen to Oreskes (book: Merchants of Doubt), go and read Climte Change Denial by Washington & Cook, confront the reality of the right-wing media lying about the science, and stop putting what you'd like to be a political reality ahead of what the science actually is.
If you're not willing to discuss the science, or learn how it's funded, or what the studies are or what the data means, then there's no point continuing this discussion. Climate science started over a hundred years ago (did you look up Arrhenius?) and has accumulated a huge body of evidence that unambiguously points towards the fact that humans are causing climate change. No amount of attacking Gore or Rockerfeller or the IPCC is going to change that.
...the evidence from multiple other disciplines, like zoology (I already told you about species migration). The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable except to two types of people: the fossil fuel lobby who have adopted the same "scientific" position on climate as the tobacco industry did in the 70s and 80s, and the scientifically illiterate anti-regulationists. Ron Paul is relevant for belonging to the second category: he puts his ideological PREFERENCES ahead of the scientific reality...
@mphello I'm saying that government can no longer be trusted.. There is evidence over the years that they have manipulated scientists into supporting the Globalist agenda. Flouride is an example. And the major people pushing this climate change garbage are the very crooks who would be gaining profit off of all of this. (Al Gore, Maurice Strong)
@Gtrplyr1 And I'm saying that oil/coal/breeders/meat eaters cannot be trusted and are crooks who want to destroy small nations without paying the price.
If you are such an anarchist, then please openly and publicly support bombing the prisons and courthouses in the USA until all prisoners are released.
@mphello lets not forget that another front man for this global warming scheme David De Rothschild's Banking family funded Hitler and all our wars in history. And they are not considered the most humanitarian family.
@mphello now you proved to me psychologically that you are just a pawn to this establishment by the mere fact you can't keep your composure and seem to be only able to resort to obscene language in order to prove a point.. Lol and I'm supposed to believe people like you?
@mphello why not debate facts? Why is water melting on other planets? Why are their scientists that say it's the sun causing the slight warming? Im open to your evidence?
@Gtrplyr1 Classic logical fallacy: water is melting on another planet, therefore the reasons for it here and on Earth must be the same. That's very far from clear thinking, Gtrplyr1.
@Gtrplyr1 And real scientists do not spread lies to schoolchildren and Congress the way the HI does.
And real professionals (unlike pussy coward cops and judges) would not insult defendants or convicts. Judges and cops lie about proof and evidence all the time, but I don't hear you complaining about that.
Every prisoner and convict has the same right to have their opinion heard as you do.
@mphello it's your tone that makes you not worth talking to. Yes it's ok for you to believe this and your entitled to your opinion, but the fact you bring up Ron Paul to try to categorize me as a crazy loon when I'm quite educated myself, just shows your lack of communication skills. you attack instead of explaining your point of view on the topic. Atleast Luke is capable of communicating.
@Gtrplyr1 The fact that you judge a person's arguments based on their tone rather than the validity of their claims proves you and your lover RuPaul are a mentally inferior subhuman shithead who does not have a math PhD.
@mphello Who cares, I'm working currently on exceeding that anyways. You aren't a scientists, just some kiss ass who has no understanding about life who gets paid to troll a channel. You haven't presented any evidence on your supposed conclusions, and you point me in Luke's direction because you are to inferior to understand the own stuff you spew. Get a life.
@Gtrplyr1 Because you fucking fanatical extremists bring Al Gore into the discussion of AGW at every opportunity, even though none of us climate hawks mention him.
@mphello well maybe you guys are legit. But the facts indicate that Corrupt government and world bank leaders would be making millions off this. And they were the "inventors" of this movement.
@LukeScientiae Amen! I just saw that brainless lazy shithead RuPaul deny the proven fact of evolution. RuPaul is not fit to govern a homeowners association, let alone a country.
@mphello So far as I recall, of the 16 Republican candidates that originally ran for the 2012 nomination, all of them denied evolution except Jon Huntsman.
@LukeScientiae I salute you for listening to that shit, or if you didn't, whoever did. I refuse to listen to any speeches or debates by any Republicans. They are all murderers, terrorists, and lunatics. I give more respect to Charles Manson than to them.
I'm not going to continue this because you're making accusations that aren't true (e.g. about Rockerfeller), none of your comments are about the science (about which you obviously know little) and because you're refusing to acknowledge the history of how climate change denial started, and the openly expressed tactic of seeding doubt in the minds of a scientifically illiterate public. Skepticism is fine, but you're being selective about your targets along ideological lines. That's not science.
@shadesters Had a listen, and she says "knickers in a twitch", which was probably meant to be "knickers in a twist", which is itself some British slang, meaning "to get flustered or agitated".
That Fox News poll is likely skewed to the far right. I have seen it at roughly 50/50 in America, depending on whether they believe evolution was "God assisted" or purely scientific.
It has always been obvious (to me) that environmental denial is rooted in either Creationism or avarice.
The one stupid myth that I hear too often is the idea "global warming deniers are skilled or successful at politics". BULLSHIT! It takes ZERO skill, ZERO effort to convince people to continue doing what they've already been doing, to continue with their lifestyles, by brainless brute force repetition of lies. That is NO test of one's skill at politics.
Let's see them do something hard like PETA has done: make people vegan.
@LukeScientiae your blind acceptance of concensus is similar actually. Really doubt anyone can claim the higher ground. Better go where the evidence leads. Evidence is decidedly opposed to evolutoin, but climate change is stronger. This vid on evolution is essentially propaganda and repeating the same thing over and over so that lesser minds believe it. Should have been about climate change alone.
@LukeScientiae i deny global warming because Maurice Strong "godfather of global warming" is making money off this concept. He already has been tied to corrupt globalists such as David Rockerfeller as well as Al Gore etc etc. They control parts of the government that portray issues like this as being factual. Point being, i can't trust already determined "corrupt" elite who own and control the organizations who support their ideals.
@Gtrplyr1 So you're persuaded against global warming not on the basis of any scientific understanding of the subject, but your personal dislike of particular people. It's scientific illiteracy that the deniers prey on, hence the ridiculous canards. None of the people you mention - not Rockerfeller or Gore - do the science or analyze the data. (Nor is what you say about them true). The science is done by 1000s of independent scientists across the world, from atmospheric chemists to zoologists.
@LukeScientiae they aren't scientists but they finance the "scientists" who run these test. im not saying it doesn't exist or isn't possible.. Im simply saying my experience with men in power who control these aspects of government have in the past manipulated the outcome or suppose "hypothesis" of certain statistical data.. Why was there an article stating that the "facts' that prove this case skeptical were intentionally "messed with". There are many "scientists" who doubt this as well.
@LukeScientiae i suggest you observe the current corruption in our country involving the men and power to better understand what it is I'm talking about. THey have and are manipulate every aspect of what we perceive. Put simply i don't trust the globalists or their supposed data without it being backed up by independent highly educated scientists world wide.
@Gtrplyr1 The fact that you continually repeat stuff about corruption, your dislike of particular individuals and what you say about science funding and international corroboration suggests to me you don't follow the science at all, but are interested in arguing against the reality of man-made climate change on the basis of your political preferences. The science is corroborated many times over independently. The mainstream media (US particularly, but UK and elsewhere too) demonstrably lie.
@LukeScientiae You say the mainstream lie's yet you don't realize that the men behind this crap are in control of the mainstream media.. Like i said I'm not denying it's happening, all I'm saying is you need to look at the men who started this. They aren't even scientists.. Al Gore and Maurice Strong started this... They then pay for scientists to support their ideals. There are many articles from independent scientists who say this is fraud. I remain skeptical, it's that simple.
@Gtrplyr1 "Like i said I'm not denying it's happening, all I'm saying is you need to look at the men who started this. They aren't even scientists." Started all WHAT? Climate science? It started over a hundred years ago. Look up Svante Arrhenius' seminal calculations on the effect rises in CO2 concentrations will have on global temperature. As for your comments on the media: no, Gore doesn't control the media. Murdoch controls large parts of it, so do other multinationals opposed to regulation.
For example, Fox put out a piece plainly lying to people about the 1st law of thermodynamics and Le Chatelier's principle - two things that a 12th grade student of chemistry knows about. You talk about corruption: look at Fox's owners, their alliance with the GOP, big oil and Murdoch's well known propagandizing. None of this has to do with the science. We know from isotope distributions that humans are increasing CO2 levels, that this is leading to warming and ocean acidification.
@LukeScientiae you can even youtube Al Gore in congressional court getting ridiculed for this fraud, with politicians suggesting it's fraud and even noting non-governmental scientific statistics that oppose this.
More than that, you could take a look at the people who take your position, and ask why they tell such obvious lies (e.g. Fox News, Daily Mail, James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, Lord Monckton and Alex Jones to name just a handful). They make money from lying about the science in ways that a college student can detect. But you don't mention any of that, or the political lobbying by fossil fuel companies, who also have a profit motive.
@Gtrplyr1 Firstly, neither Gore nor Rockerfeller finance scientists. Secondly, you call for international collaboration. That's already there. Thousands of scientists funded in MANY different ways are finding evermore evidence of climate change. I don't know where you get your climate information from; I read the original studies. The mainstream media you despise are sources like Fox and others regurgitate what big oil-funded think tanks (e.g. CEI) tell them because of ideological commitments.
This is already leading to the death of marine species relying on carbonate (e.g. coral reefs) which are absolutely vital for sustaining biodiversity. Moreover, we see the mass migration of species due to increasing temperatures. Those who claim climate change is a scam should describe in detail what political agendas butterflies, birds and fish have and how they are funded by Gore. The denial position is ridiculous and scientifically illiterate.
Finally, the people who deny climate change are some of the same people who helped seed doubt over the medical reality that smoking causes cancer and nicotine is addictive, or that the hole in the ozone layer is a serious environmental issue. See Oreskes YouTube lectures, and the book "Merchants of Doubt" (many other sources too). The opposition to admitting the reality of cigarettes, climate, ozone, etc. has to do with the ideological opposition to regulation. It has NOTHING to do with science.
also if only these climate supporters new that the global elite are literally trying to lower population over this garbage. Read Eco Science by John Holdren, Obamas current science czar, apparently they don't care how they lower our populations. WHy are ice on other planets melting if co2 is rising on this planet? Why not be intelligent and plant more trees? duh.. Corporations keep cutting trees, get Bill gates to say co2 is to high, so these same corps can profit off of it?
Gtrplyr1 6 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And let's not forget that AGW is a proven fact and we need serious action now.
And if you don't want the government to do anything about it,
then you and that evil meat-eating fucktard RuPaul have ZERO right to complain
if a small band of radical activists do the work themselves, blowing up coal plants and killing coal mine CEOs and fracking executives.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello yea lets blindly support men who funded hitler (Rothschild) into be believing that CO2 is ruining this world despite the fact multiple scientist state its the sun that is causing global warming. GOv fraud and scientific involvement has been exposed so many times. Every time an independent comes out and denies accusations made by gov agent scientists they are immediately fired instead of properly debated with. I don't trust Rothschilds/Gore/Maurice strong.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 I'm not going to get into shouting match with you, but it's simply untrue that the Sun is driving the present climate warming.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 The temps have gone up, irrespective of solar activity and that's very well known. Deniers cite the sun; nothing to do with the scientific reality.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
Comment removed
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And the Rothschilds have nothing to do with it, either. That's what people who don't understand/want to discuss the data say. Read the science, not the conspiracy nutjobs.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae The Rotchshilds, Al Gore, and Maurice strong directly would receive a carbon tax that all of us humanity would have to pay for. How aren't they involved?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Rothschild, Gore, etc. have NOTHING to do with the science. They might discuss it, popularize it, whatever, but the data is gathered independently, internationally by thousands of different people working in as diverse fields as geophysics, oceanography, plant biology and atmospheric chemistry. Nothing about the Rothschilds has anything to do with the scientific reality that CO2 is driving climate change, which has been known about for 116 years (look up Arrhenius).
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
Comment removed
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae yea but why are their plenty of scientists that say the sun is causing the rise in temperature and it's not so extreme? And why are the ice moons and ice on other planets melting as well if co2 is only on the earth? Do you also know that the world leaders want to wipe out 80 percent of the current population? Im not making this stuff up, but it's concerning. Do you stand profit off of this science?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 It's simply untrue that the world's leaders are planning to wipe out 80% of the world's population. I'm sure you believe it, and I'm sure you think your source for this is reliable. But it's the stuff of nonsense conspiracy theories people constantly invoke to distract attention away from what climate science says. No reputable climatologists believe climate change on Earth is driven by the Sun. Temps have gone up even when solar activity was v. low (last 12 years).
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And no, I don't stand to profit from climate change science. You'll find that the people who study climate science are largely in academia, and their wages are VERY far below what equivalent positions earn in industry. It's simply untrue that they're doing it for the money or because it's all some gigantic NWO/Illuminati/Communist conspiracy. However, oil companies have admitted to funding think tanks that deny climate science. So have the think tanks. (e.g. Exxon & CEI).
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae thats interesting that big business denies it. Well can you point me in a direction to get more info on your research and organization. Im interested.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 I am not a climate researcher, I'm an assistant professor of chemistry. But if you want more info on the denial of climate change, see e.g. Koch Industries: /watch?v=RBgO_ZW4K4U
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Also, compare what you think you know about climate change against the real science & the long list of deniers' "arguments". Find the SkepticalScience website and go to their arguments page.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae I'm open to listening. I just don't want to pay a carbon tax off of this stuff. Our gov is trying to formulate hundreds of taxes regarding this science. Thats why i question it, int's nothing personal against you.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 The first thing you should be aware of is that ideology (e.g. not wanting to pay taxes) isn't something you can use to disprove the science of it. Climate science is one thing, what you think about taxes is another. Now, the science tells us anthropogenic CO2 is, indeed, warming the planet. It's also already devastating the environment (e.g. destroying coral reefs) and endangering many people's lives (sub-Saharan Africa, Tuvalu, etc.) We need to move to renewable energy.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae but how does CO2 ruin the environment if it is a natural occurring substance? Wouldn't providing more trees/plants in the environment be a suitable way to lower the amount in the air?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Just because something is "naturally occurring" doesn't mean it's not dangerous (poisonous snakes and earthquakes are also naturally occurring, and so is cancer). CO2 accounts for 0.039 % of the atmosphere. It has a strong greenhouse gas effect, helping Earth stay warm for life to survive. But the more CO2, the warmer it will be, even to a point which endangers life, which is what is starting to happen, as we can see from massive wildlife migration towardst the poles.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 The other way in which CO2 is destroying the environment is because it dissolves in water (just like it does in soft drinks). The chemical equation for this is: CO2 + H2O --> H2CO3. And H2CO3 is carbonic acid. This is created when CO2 dissolves in the oceans. As a result the acidity of the oceans rises, which endangers many animals, including those that depend on carbonates to live (e.g. coral reefs, which are vitally important for biodiversity). It's a real emergency.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae how does co2 in the environment kill off coral reefs?Corals rely on photosynthesis which needs co2 in order for it to take place. How do you guys props to fix the carbon in the air?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Coral reefs are threatened because they depend on carbonates. CO2 makes ocean water more acidic and dissolves carbonate shells. See here: /watch?v=evfgbVjb688
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 The absolute priority is to reduce CO2 emissions by moving away from fossil fuels. This means reorienting the economy, but that will create MANY jobs - which is a good thing.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae is there alternative energy that is currently being studied? if so what?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Solar, wind and wave energy are all alternatives, but effective to different extents in different places. Even nuclear is MUCH better than coal, oil, etc.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 In the longer term more advanced technologies are being developed, e.g. for the catalytic oxidation of water to generate hydrogen.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 If you don't want to pay taxes to organize a change to renewables, that's one thing. But don't buy into the conspiracy crap about how climate change is all a hoax. It's not. (For a start it's not even possible to organize a global conspiracy of scientists on that level). The climate change deniers use the same tactics (they've discussed it in leaked memos even) as tobacco companies used to: undermine public confidence in the science that says it's dangerous.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Search out videos on YouTube by Naomi Oreskes, and read her book Merchants of Doubt if you want a detailed account of how the climate change denial lobby works, its history and so on. Another book you might be interested in is Climate Change Denial by Cook & Washington. Also, watch the videos on YT of Peter Sinclair (greenman3610 is his username).
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Name ONE, shithead. You can't.
mphello 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae where is your website with your statistics?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gtrplyr1 On top of this, Gore's entire revenue from climate campaigning to date he has given away, not used to profit personally. And as I said, Gore is irrelevant. You approach climate change from the perspective of defending your preferred ideology. That is not any kind of way to evaluate scientific reality, and nor is listening to conspiracy cranks. If you don't read or understand the science, go and learn it and read it.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@mphello has nothing to do with Ron Paul, its called being aware to gov corruption.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
AGW deniers = creatards = Holocaust deniers = homeopaths who think water has magical memory properties.
mphello 6 days ago
Good - glad these conservative religious idiots ARE bundling evolution with global warming.
It makes them look like WORSE idiots than they already are, causing their bills not even to be brought up for discussion.
mphello 6 days ago
Science is about finding repeatable experiments to prove scientific theories, it is not about concensus to theories. Politics is about concensus.
david222444 1 week ago
She looks like she has the genes to live to age 100.
NoEcologyNoEconomy 1 month ago
And, btw, Ron Paul is as scientifically illiterate as Perry and Bachmann. All of them deny climate change is anthropogenic, all of them invoke ridiculous conspiracy theories, all of them deny the central unifying principle of all bioscience and medicine (evolution), all of them have a pro-Christian, anti-regulation ideology. It's not about the science or the facts for these people, it's about ideology and politics and it has nothing to do with reality.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae why bring Ron paul into it?? I didn't mention him once, besides he is a physician so i think he may know a thing or two about science.. All I'm saying is in not a sheep, I'm not going to believe in something when there are hundreds of qualified scientists who are against the idea.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 That Ron Paul is a physician (qualified 50 decades ago - no training in climatology, physics, atmospheric chemistry, I presume) has nothing to do with his understanding of climate science. He even denies evolution, which is just about as moronic an opinion on science as you can hope to find. Where are these hundreds of qualified scientists who are against the idea? Multiple surveys show 97% of scientists qualified on climate (ie do research on it) agree it's man-made. Not to mention...
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
... as he puts his Christianity ahead of the basic reality of all biology, just as Perry and Bachmann do. And you clearly put your ideology ahead of learning anything about how science works, not just climate science. Suddenly physicians from 50 years ago are literate on climate science, Rockerfeller funds climate research, US climate isn't corroborated and all the rest. It's bull. It's corroborated internationally from multiple independently funded studies. Learn the science!
LukeScientiae 3 months ago 2
And stop telling yourself and others that Gore is more important than he is. For you he's a political target and it has nothing to do with the data, which you've not read yourself and probably don't understand. Read/listen to Oreskes (book: Merchants of Doubt), go and read Climte Change Denial by Washington & Cook, confront the reality of the right-wing media lying about the science, and stop putting what you'd like to be a political reality ahead of what the science actually is.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago 5
@LukeScientiae
Well said.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
If you're not willing to discuss the science, or learn how it's funded, or what the studies are or what the data means, then there's no point continuing this discussion. Climate science started over a hundred years ago (did you look up Arrhenius?) and has accumulated a huge body of evidence that unambiguously points towards the fact that humans are causing climate change. No amount of attacking Gore or Rockerfeller or the IPCC is going to change that.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago 6
@LukeScientiae Bravo!
mphello 6 days ago
...the evidence from multiple other disciplines, like zoology (I already told you about species migration). The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable except to two types of people: the fossil fuel lobby who have adopted the same "scientific" position on climate as the tobacco industry did in the 70s and 80s, and the scientifically illiterate anti-regulationists. Ron Paul is relevant for belonging to the second category: he puts his ideological PREFERENCES ahead of the scientific reality...
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 And I and millions of climate activists are not sheep, either. We are not brainwashed by the coal and fracking cults.
mphello 6 days ago
@mphello I'm saying that government can no longer be trusted.. There is evidence over the years that they have manipulated scientists into supporting the Globalist agenda. Flouride is an example. And the major people pushing this climate change garbage are the very crooks who would be gaining profit off of all of this. (Al Gore, Maurice Strong)
Gtrplyr1 6 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And I'm saying that oil/coal/breeders/meat eaters cannot be trusted and are crooks who want to destroy small nations without paying the price.
If you are such an anarchist, then please openly and publicly support bombing the prisons and courthouses in the USA until all prisoners are released.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello lets not forget that another front man for this global warming scheme David De Rothschild's Banking family funded Hitler and all our wars in history. And they are not considered the most humanitarian family.
Gtrplyr1 6 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And let's not forget that you have zero proof of any connection between Rothschild, Hitler, and AGW.
And let's not forget that the Nazis had kids and ate meat, hence, they are no different than any conservatives and white people today.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello David De Rotschild is the poster boy for this crap. lol He's got many youtube videos, where he spews his incompetency.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And Rotschild has absolutely NOTHING to do with AGW.
AGW is a common well-known fact.
Everybody (no matter if they are a criminal, a prime minister, a soldier, a saint) knows this - except for mentally inferior retards like you.
Shitheads like you would think that just because racist slaveholders know that 1+1=2, all math must be wrong.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello now you proved to me psychologically that you are just a pawn to this establishment by the mere fact you can't keep your composure and seem to be only able to resort to obscene language in order to prove a point.. Lol and I'm supposed to believe people like you?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And you proved to me that your family is worthless to you, because if you had a family they would have beaten some sense into you.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello why not debate facts? Why is water melting on other planets? Why are their scientists that say it's the sun causing the slight warming? Im open to your evidence?
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Classic logical fallacy: water is melting on another planet, therefore the reasons for it here and on Earth must be the same. That's very far from clear thinking, Gtrplyr1.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 LukeScientiae answered this better than I could have.
You'd better appreciate dealing with cool calm rational intelligent people like LukeS,
who do have the facts. But, if their knowledge and explanations do not change your dogmatic fanatical mind, then you'll have to deal with me.
I show no restraint about using any kinds of attacks on creatards, Holocaust deniers, homeopaths, and AGW deniers.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello wow, what a professional you are. You know real professionals don't smack talk those who don't agree with them.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 And real scientists do not spread lies to schoolchildren and Congress the way the HI does.
And real professionals (unlike pussy coward cops and judges) would not insult defendants or convicts. Judges and cops lie about proof and evidence all the time, but I don't hear you complaining about that.
Every prisoner and convict has the same right to have their opinion heard as you do.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello it's your tone that makes you not worth talking to. Yes it's ok for you to believe this and your entitled to your opinion, but the fact you bring up Ron Paul to try to categorize me as a crazy loon when I'm quite educated myself, just shows your lack of communication skills. you attack instead of explaining your point of view on the topic. Atleast Luke is capable of communicating.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 The fact that you judge a person's arguments based on their tone rather than the validity of their claims proves you and your lover RuPaul are a mentally inferior subhuman shithead who does not have a math PhD.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello Who cares, I'm working currently on exceeding that anyways. You aren't a scientists, just some kiss ass who has no understanding about life who gets paid to troll a channel. You haven't presented any evidence on your supposed conclusions, and you point me in Luke's direction because you are to inferior to understand the own stuff you spew. Get a life.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@Gtrplyr1 Because you fucking fanatical extremists bring Al Gore into the discussion of AGW at every opportunity, even though none of us climate hawks mention him.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello well maybe you guys are legit. But the facts indicate that Corrupt government and world bank leaders would be making millions off this. And they were the "inventors" of this movement.
fact.
Gtrplyr1 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae Amen! I just saw that brainless lazy shithead RuPaul deny the proven fact of evolution. RuPaul is not fit to govern a homeowners association, let alone a country.
mphello 5 days ago
@mphello So far as I recall, of the 16 Republican candidates that originally ran for the 2012 nomination, all of them denied evolution except Jon Huntsman.
LukeScientiae 5 days ago
@LukeScientiae I salute you for listening to that shit, or if you didn't, whoever did. I refuse to listen to any speeches or debates by any Republicans. They are all murderers, terrorists, and lunatics. I give more respect to Charles Manson than to them.
mphello 5 days ago
I'm not going to continue this because you're making accusations that aren't true (e.g. about Rockerfeller), none of your comments are about the science (about which you obviously know little) and because you're refusing to acknowledge the history of how climate change denial started, and the openly expressed tactic of seeding doubt in the minds of a scientifically illiterate public. Skepticism is fine, but you're being selective about your targets along ideological lines. That's not science.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
does she say ni**ers at 40:13 ? I doubt it but I can't figure out what word it is...
shadesters 3 months ago
@shadesters Had a listen, and she says "knickers in a twitch", which was probably meant to be "knickers in a twist", which is itself some British slang, meaning "to get flustered or agitated".
GlasgowSkeptics 3 months ago
@GlasgowSkeptics Oh ok, thanks :)
shadesters 3 months ago
@GlasgowSkeptics, she actually said "ni--ers in a ditch" but she looks so wholesome that the audience let it slide.
NoEcologyNoEconomy 1 month ago
Eugenie Scott is my idol!
shadesters 3 months ago
That Fox News poll is likely skewed to the far right. I have seen it at roughly 50/50 in America, depending on whether they believe evolution was "God assisted" or purely scientific.
It has always been obvious (to me) that environmental denial is rooted in either Creationism or avarice.
Antithropocentric 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution is an absolute disgrace to science.
Objects never order anything, mutations never order anything and natural selection will only select what has already been ordered.
Evolution is so irrational that it should be removed from all classrooms.
watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM
JungleJargon 4 months ago
"NCSE's Eugenie Scott Reassures Scotland: There's No Scientific Controversy on Evolution or Climate Change" bit . ly / p6UZwq
semitope 4 months ago
The one stupid myth that I hear too often is the idea "global warming deniers are skilled or successful at politics". BULLSHIT! It takes ZERO skill, ZERO effort to convince people to continue doing what they've already been doing, to continue with their lifestyles, by brainless brute force repetition of lies. That is NO test of one's skill at politics.
Let's see them do something hard like PETA has done: make people vegan.
THAT is a phenomenal achievement by PETA.
mphello 4 months ago
Understanding the mentality of denialism is absolutely crucial to overcoming its influence. Thank you for this invaluable contribution!
LukeScientiae 4 months ago
@LukeScientiae your blind acceptance of concensus is similar actually. Really doubt anyone can claim the higher ground. Better go where the evidence leads. Evidence is decidedly opposed to evolutoin, but climate change is stronger. This vid on evolution is essentially propaganda and repeating the same thing over and over so that lesser minds believe it. Should have been about climate change alone.
semitope 4 months ago
@LukeScientiae i deny global warming because Maurice Strong "godfather of global warming" is making money off this concept. He already has been tied to corrupt globalists such as David Rockerfeller as well as Al Gore etc etc. They control parts of the government that portray issues like this as being factual. Point being, i can't trust already determined "corrupt" elite who own and control the organizations who support their ideals.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 So you're persuaded against global warming not on the basis of any scientific understanding of the subject, but your personal dislike of particular people. It's scientific illiteracy that the deniers prey on, hence the ridiculous canards. None of the people you mention - not Rockerfeller or Gore - do the science or analyze the data. (Nor is what you say about them true). The science is done by 1000s of independent scientists across the world, from atmospheric chemists to zoologists.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae they aren't scientists but they finance the "scientists" who run these test. im not saying it doesn't exist or isn't possible.. Im simply saying my experience with men in power who control these aspects of government have in the past manipulated the outcome or suppose "hypothesis" of certain statistical data.. Why was there an article stating that the "facts' that prove this case skeptical were intentionally "messed with". There are many "scientists" who doubt this as well.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae i suggest you observe the current corruption in our country involving the men and power to better understand what it is I'm talking about. THey have and are manipulate every aspect of what we perceive. Put simply i don't trust the globalists or their supposed data without it being backed up by independent highly educated scientists world wide.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 The fact that you continually repeat stuff about corruption, your dislike of particular individuals and what you say about science funding and international corroboration suggests to me you don't follow the science at all, but are interested in arguing against the reality of man-made climate change on the basis of your political preferences. The science is corroborated many times over independently. The mainstream media (US particularly, but UK and elsewhere too) demonstrably lie.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae You say the mainstream lie's yet you don't realize that the men behind this crap are in control of the mainstream media.. Like i said I'm not denying it's happening, all I'm saying is you need to look at the men who started this. They aren't even scientists.. Al Gore and Maurice Strong started this... They then pay for scientists to support their ideals. There are many articles from independent scientists who say this is fraud. I remain skeptical, it's that simple.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 "Like i said I'm not denying it's happening, all I'm saying is you need to look at the men who started this. They aren't even scientists." Started all WHAT? Climate science? It started over a hundred years ago. Look up Svante Arrhenius' seminal calculations on the effect rises in CO2 concentrations will have on global temperature. As for your comments on the media: no, Gore doesn't control the media. Murdoch controls large parts of it, so do other multinationals opposed to regulation.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
For example, Fox put out a piece plainly lying to people about the 1st law of thermodynamics and Le Chatelier's principle - two things that a 12th grade student of chemistry knows about. You talk about corruption: look at Fox's owners, their alliance with the GOP, big oil and Murdoch's well known propagandizing. None of this has to do with the science. We know from isotope distributions that humans are increasing CO2 levels, that this is leading to warming and ocean acidification.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae you can even youtube Al Gore in congressional court getting ridiculed for this fraud, with politicians suggesting it's fraud and even noting non-governmental scientific statistics that oppose this.
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
More than that, you could take a look at the people who take your position, and ask why they tell such obvious lies (e.g. Fox News, Daily Mail, James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, Lord Monckton and Alex Jones to name just a handful). They make money from lying about the science in ways that a college student can detect. But you don't mention any of that, or the political lobbying by fossil fuel companies, who also have a profit motive.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
@LukeScientiae ps.. i hate American mainstream news.. I agree it's b.s.. .And ironically it supports the elite :)
Gtrplyr1 3 months ago
@Gtrplyr1 Firstly, neither Gore nor Rockerfeller finance scientists. Secondly, you call for international collaboration. That's already there. Thousands of scientists funded in MANY different ways are finding evermore evidence of climate change. I don't know where you get your climate information from; I read the original studies. The mainstream media you despise are sources like Fox and others regurgitate what big oil-funded think tanks (e.g. CEI) tell them because of ideological commitments.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
This is already leading to the death of marine species relying on carbonate (e.g. coral reefs) which are absolutely vital for sustaining biodiversity. Moreover, we see the mass migration of species due to increasing temperatures. Those who claim climate change is a scam should describe in detail what political agendas butterflies, birds and fish have and how they are funded by Gore. The denial position is ridiculous and scientifically illiterate.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
Finally, the people who deny climate change are some of the same people who helped seed doubt over the medical reality that smoking causes cancer and nicotine is addictive, or that the hole in the ozone layer is a serious environmental issue. See Oreskes YouTube lectures, and the book "Merchants of Doubt" (many other sources too). The opposition to admitting the reality of cigarettes, climate, ozone, etc. has to do with the ideological opposition to regulation. It has NOTHING to do with science.
LukeScientiae 3 months ago
Still gutted I missed this. Bloody work!
Garfunkle20 4 months ago
That's about how much the population of atheists have increased over the same period also. I guess either way, it's still significant.
YahwehSlayer 4 months ago
When will the Q&A be going up?
Mjhavok 5 months ago
@Mjhavok - If things go to plan hopefully by next week.
AweegieDon 4 months ago
i would have went to this. how the hell do i hear about these things?
volound 5 months ago
We're on Twitter (@GlasgowSkeptics) and Facebook (/GlasgowSkeptics), and regular updates are posted there!
Hope this helps. :)
GlasgowSkeptics 5 months ago 2
Couldn't make this because Celtic were getting humped on the same night, so really appreciate the talk being made available. Thanks.
MagicStickUK 5 months ago 2
Thanks.
AdairZionist 5 months ago