Hi guys! You saved my day. Glad to see there are fresh people who see the real way things are. And you do this in a happy way. Yeah guys. You are the hope for future. Cres.
Can we get back to music and humor? Somehow I visualize a bunch of people standing around talking, talking, these many things, and then the conversation is over! I love this vid - but look at them! They are laughing their asses off. Yeah, it's a problem, but having a sense of humor about the whole thing makes the message more graceful (and fun) to carry.
I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone, but I would look into how extremely meridional the jet stream has been. Global Climate Change as it is now called is very real - anthropogenic or not. Minnesota has increased an average of 4 degrees over the last century (check the USGCRP) Instead of creating an entire band arguing against dendrochronologists, perhaps we should focus on preventing or flooded or frozen cities. Other than that, hilarious video! :-)
@Physiography I can prove that every word you just said abot AGW is wrong. 4 degrees? Even Al Gore isn't that full of ........ well, you know. Fraud, manipulated, adjusted and flat out lied about data. Ground based temperature monitor games, CRU, Jones, Hansen, Mann and the rest of the list of liars and thieves. Give it another 5 years, I'll bet you at least one of those on my list is prosecuted.
@fishinwflies Please feel free to do so, but if AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, I didn't mention anything on the matter. Global climate change seems real and obvious to me, anthropogenic or not. A flooded Venice is flooded no matter the cause. I know Mann has been accused of falsified stats - and I hear he's got a pretty, brand new job at Penn State. I don't know about the others. I don't really follow the publications though. Please let me know if you have more info.
@Physiography There has been no warming since 1998. Any warming that had been shown has been discredited as manipulation of data, false data, poor data or outright lies. Go to surface stations dot org and you can see a survey of more than 80% of the ground based monitors. Look at MN, every monitor there reads more than 1* high. Most more than 2. The one by me reads high by 3, unless it's sunny and calm, and then as much as 19 high. This is no accident, 10.6 mill a day spent on this fraud.
Here in Finland the november was colder than in many decades. Now there's more snow in Helsinki than ever measured in the beginning of december. Our newspapers are still yelling about global warming how it's true and coming. Shit.
"You got to have a fiddle in the band" That fiddle playing is awsome! I think she might even get a wink and a nod from Charlie Daniels if she played for him.
I don't care wether you agree with these guys' position or not, that was so mean music playin'! ( I, of course, happen to agree with their position.) Go to their channel, even more great stuff!
LOL @ Larry, Moe, Curly & Shemp! Pathetic hypocrites spend hours here everyday to troll. Curly is mad because he doesn't know enough words to fill up 500 characters & the rest are so ignorant they don't even know the Amazon is freezing. Sorry to leave you with them Elmer. Moron baiting is fun but I've no more time. I agree w/Larry that you need to do more great videos. "Hot Blooded" starring the crazed sex poodle would be fun (got a fever of millions of degrees). Thanks Elmer. Viva Cuccinelli!
Global warming is real. Just like eugenics! And anyone who disagrees with me must work for a Big Oil company! No one could possibly decide that AGW is bunk by looking at the evidence and deciding for themselves!
Seriously, go Google Global Warming Test. Basic 6th Grade science, so you'd think it wouldn't be that hard to figure out.
But good job on freaking out the Church of Al Gore, M4GW. And you guys sure do know how to play!
@knightofmars How about this, anyone that advocates global warming must work for Google or GE. Advocates tell us we must develop a better electrical infrastructure and build wind farms. Well who is the leading manufacturer of SmartMeters and Wind turbines? GENERAL ELECTRIC.
Google is well known for being invasive in our privacy. They developed a sofware called Home Area Network. This will monitor everyone's energy usage. These two corporations have financial interests in Global Warming too.
@knightofmars of course its 6th grade science. We have been taught since elementary that nitrogen is 71% of our atmosphere, oxygen is about 20%. Do you know how much of our atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide? Only .038%
And out of that tiny amount according to the US Dept. of Energy only 3.2% is man-made. We cannot possibly be producing enough carbon dioxide to affect the climate.
@best1089 -Wow! Is that it? On a personal level, I don't suppose the word schizophrenic means anything to you? It should. You're a confused dude. That, and the future is going to be hard on you. I'm sorry for you.
PS - neither fat nor idiot. More importantly, I get plenty. Not that it would mean anything to you.
@Jangle2007 Go pray to your master, Al Gore, for guidance.
In fact, you win. I will not go any further. It'd be pointless to do so. The govt. never ever lies, and we should all worship the govt, and pray to Al Gore for guidance.
The deniers, and the denier's screed, including related propoganda like this WHO rip-off, can go to hell. Deciphering the likes of WPTD45, and the ignorant tripe that these sheeple post is easy, once you FOLLOW THE MONEY. All the pseudo "science" of the deniers is just a shallow and flimsy charade propped up at considerable expense by oil and coal interests, and the morally misguided politicians (Dems and GOP) who stand to lose trillions in future free from fossil fuels. Who will win?
Still not a shred of proof that humans have anything to do with the weather patterns. All you greenie retards have is a faith-based religion, where you worship Al Whore and his corporate IPCC cronies.
cont. (2) I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”
The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’:
@Jangle2007 How about, scientist desperate for... MONEY!! Global warming is a large money maker for the scientific community. And you only get money if you predict catastrophe. They always say that the skeptics are well funded when just the opposite is true. I live in an RV!!!
@M4GW Pure crap. The scientific community gets paid enough to pay research salaries....in amounts of less than $100K per year. The oil industry revenues, on the other hand, are orders of magnitude greater, and has a cash flow worth untold $billions/year to protect. I presume that you can read the annual income statements of the big oil corps?
The immediate question is: why would you defend them? Do you suppose that Exxon-Mobile, Shell, BP aren't rich enough to protect themselves?
You "guys" provide a great service to Liberals who are too lazy to read the 70's era Impact Research Report 400 page+ book and indexes written by the CIA and the Pentagon about the coming Ice Age due to lowered C02 levels!!!!
@Jangle2007 It sure is about money. Not just for scientists but also those big greedy corporations we all like to hate. Google has already invested millions of dollars in developing their Home Area Network, which going to be used to control our energy usage. General Electric has investments in building Solar panels and leads in the production of wind turbines. Microsoft and IBM have their investments in global warming too. They are all just aching for the moment to create a "green" bubble.
@Jangle2007 I am not a scientist. I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog. Follow what is being rewarded and you will get to the truth. Supporting global warming is rewarded with additional grants to build a stronger case. Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough.
@coldwarvet75 Your Pavlovian theory is interesting and has some merit. However, a cold, objective eye would also note that, among the climate skeptics - and there are plenty - they don't have robust, grounded, statistically supported, and peer-reviewed science behindthem.
Note: one of the most outspoke climate skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg now states that we should invest heavily in climage change mitigation and preparation. I won't try to convince you, but it's worth having an open mind.
@Jangle2007 ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, is in fact a hoax, let's be clear. The earth's climate has shifted for millions of years on its own without our help. Look up the carboniferous era and arthropleura if you don't believe me. Also, remember the ice age? And the year without a summer? research before you choose the side of the mainstream media.
@Sunchip74 OK - Anthropogenic climate change is hoax. I take it that your uneducated enough, close minded enough, and just dumb enough to be incapable of objective analysis. That's OK for you.
@Jangle2007 first of all you meant "you're" not "your". You can't back up your accusation of MY uneducation, if indeed I am so, when you make an elementary mistake like that. By the way, I notice you didn't use actual science or objectivity to argue against me, you just called me stupid. That's a tactic used by people desperate to assert their ideas without real evidence.
@Sunchip74 Good entertainment value seeing the grammar Nazi's out trolling. How many hours did it take you to proof-read and edit your comment to be sure YOU didn't make a mistake?
Moreso, I suspect that when you lead off with the statement "anthropogenic global warming, is in fact a hoax", no amount of science will sway you.
BTW, you need a comma after "fact" if you use a comma after "warming". I'm just sayin'.
The Mid-Atlantic state areas blanketed by record snows last February (DC, Baltimore, Philly) are now having a heat wave for the record books. Time for the musical geniuses at M4GW to treat us to the next installment of a Who-song massacre.
LOL, the fascist marxist Maoist cockroaches have organized and come to this comments page just to thumb down every pro-common sense comment and thumb up the hysterical global warming alarmist crap! Pathetic!
A lot more people die of poverty every year than from climate change. These fools trust the IPCC despite their deliberate attempts to exagerate future projected effects. They then claim the moral high ground by saying we need to shut down the world's economy while millions are dying of poverty and malnutrition, in order to save the environment. Just stop for a second and think about the real consequences of what you propose.
@93msinclair - Yours is a twisted and conflated logic. ANY economist will state that human productivity is based upon the health and livability of the environment. IOW, "the economy is a wholely owned subsidiary of the environment". Therefore, efforts to constrain ghg emissions to slow climate change isn't about "saving the environment", its about saving humanity. So, how about you stop for a second and think about your comments within the context of the big picture.
@Nameunavailabletoday Why don't you go tell that to a starving African family - that their country can't burn fossil fuels in order to lift them out of poverty even though your's did. And ANY real economist knows that the biggest tax increase in history (cap and trade) will destroy an already devastated economy. So to pretend that climate change policy is somehow going to result in a net increase in standard of living is crazy.
@93msinclair - In some ways, we're making the same arguement, although you are short of the big picture. In terms of annual global CO2 emissions, Africa is inconsequential. The big emitters are the countries you can already guess: US, EU, China, India, Aust, etc. The argument about starving African families is based more on emotion than fact since the African family using a tiny fraction of energy compared to 1st world family.
@93msinclair (cont). Further, NOBODY humane would argue that poor African families shouldn't have access to better health, nutrition, and resources. But too, those resources do NOT have to be carbon-based. The stone age didn't end for lack of stones.
The point you miss is that an increasingly strong link exists between Sahel (and larger African) rainfall patterns and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
@93msinclair (cont.2) Climate patterns are turning towards increasingly severe drought across central Africa, which among other factors, sparked the Sudan civil war in Dafur. Resource competition will drive future African (and other country) conflicts.
You are right to be concerned about starvation in Africa. So am I. I believe that climate change induced starvation will be an enormous future issue, which is why I act and raise my voice to address the emissions issue today.
@Nameunavailabletoday I don't believe that there is any conclusive evidence to suggest that CO2 causes drought. In fact an increase in CO2 has proven to lead to a significant increase in crop yields across all countries. Secondly, if you assume that Africa and other other poor areas of the world (and of course this includes China and India) are entitled to the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy, then they are going to have to burn fossil fuels.
@Nameunavailabletoday And as these fuels run out the price of fossil fuels will sky-rocket, incentivising investment in cheaper alternative forms of energy. I simply don't believe cutting emmissions is practical or necessary - It will cause far more harm than good. And clearly the motives of members of the IPCC need to be questioned having been repeatedly caught exaggerating the projected effects such as in the hockey-stick graph and the recent Himalayan glacier case.
@93msinclair - (Cont.) Africa as a whole is projected to fare very poorly in a climate-change future.
I don't know about issues with a Himalayan glacier case or the hockey stick graph. As the climate science refines and computing power increases, the projections and calculations will shift. That doesn't bother me. I think the main problem the climate-scientist community must address deals with absolute transparency with their data, methods, research and conclusions.
@93msinclair (cont2) What concerns me is being caught flat-footed when the basic ghg science is unequivical (IE- a sun-lit container will warm in direct proportion to concentrations of CO2), and the climate change finger print is clearer everyday. Given that we have exactly ONE planet earth upon which to conduct this global experiment, a precuationary approach is not far-fetched. Waiting for fossil fuel to run out is one idea, but not one that I will advocate or support.
@Nameunavailabletoday Why would you care if fossil fuels ran out? If you support the current climate change legislation that Cuntocrats are proposing, you already approve of taking ordinary people's ability to travel away from them. Who cares if the oil runs out?
@GlengarryGlennBeck I noticed that some Cuntocans are also supporting a climate bill. Hmmm. I wasn't aware that oil was the only way to move a car. My car runs on electricity and goes 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The future will be much larger than the pea-brains can imagine. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
@Nameunavailabletoday No, I'm sorry I think 4.1 seconds is the amount of time before the battery runs out. You were getting confused. I know you girly men aren't good with cars, lol.
@GlengarryGlennBeck Paid $110K. Nobody said state-of-the-art technology would come cheap. Battery life is good for approx 220 miles. Corners better than my Porsche, but not quite out-accelerate it, especially at the top end. Full recharges costs about $2.00. Tesla's next vehicle, a four door sedan, will come out at less than half that price.
LOLZ, so basically the only people who will be able to move more than 5 feet from their house in the new magical 1984 will be the 5 fags who are the central pawns in our gay media culture which is the only industry we have left
@GlengarryGlennBeck - Angry. Inarticulate. Close minded. Not too bright. Depressed. Not much future. Perhaps violent. Probably alcoholic. You're an unemployed Brit, roight?
LOL, leftists, a political movement that claims to care about the "underpriveleged", then mocks people who oppose their misguided policies by calling them unemployed and laughing at them "having no future" or whatever.
@GlengarryGlennBeck BTW, why would we have any unemployed people here in Britain? That's a "baseless" claim, as the people at Media Matters love to say. We've had 13 years of magical unicorn pixie socialism here, why would anything be not strictly rainbow-based?
@GlengarryGlennBeck Mock you? I feel sorry for you. You're something of a clueless wonder, as you see and mock the world around you, a little to pathetic to adjust to the changes you know are coming. It's safer in your world to mock and defame the people and changes happening around you, than to adjust and capitalize. There are a couple words to describe this (in addition to those already used): bigot; loser.
@Jangle2007 your lame attempts at mockery and dismissal is just further acknowledgement that you have no substantial comeback. you are a shameless power hungry control freak, immature little 6 year old statist cockroach and you deserve to be reincarnated as a fly. I hope your female family members get breast cancer.
@GlengarryGlennBeck You wrote to Jangle2007 " I hope your female family members get breast cancer."
WoW! Just when you think you've seen it all on youtube...psomebody comes along to push the envelope to new levels of depravity. I was right the first time. You're an angry, inarticulate, close minded, not too bright, depressed, violent punk. Whatever else, you've clearly displayed your irrelevance. See you in the funny pages.
@Nameunavailabletoday still can't answer a simple question. you have to run down the clock with irrelevant bickering instead. thanks for once again comfirming your utter intellectual, moral and spiritual emptiness.
@Nameunavailabletoday Your Porsche must be plenty slow. Do you charge your Tesla (soon to be defunct but now wholely subsidized by Uncle Sam like Solyndra) with a windmill, or does your electricity come from Coal like most. Putting 7000 little battery cells together is now a hi-tech solution to our transportation needs.
Henry Ford didn't put America on wheels by making the most expensive vehicle that he possibly could while delivering the same performance as cheaper cars.
@Nameunavailabletoday #1 The Earth isn.t just a sun-lit container. #2 I would like to see a citation for this container experiment because the AGW theory relies on a Rube Goldberg Scheme of "positve feedbacks" like water vapor etc in order to get significant warming as even the AGW swindlers have to admit that CO2 by itself could never produce warming on a level that they project to evoke their scary scenarios.
@93msinclair - You are correct - At present NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS LINKING PROOF- POSITIVE CO2 LEVELS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. The case for such gets stronger every day, but correlation does not equal causation. Still, numerous scholarly research exists that strongly supports a link between climate change and disrupted rainfall patters across the Sahel, leading, among other things, the Darfur crisis.
@Nameunavailabletoday The problem is that we now live in a world where this area of science is highly politicised and where every change in wheather is blamed on CO2 when in fact climatology is an area of exreme uncertainty. It is the only area of science I know of where people are classed as heritics for disagreeing.
@Nameunavailabletoday As for the precautionary principle we must remember that the precaution itself may have consequences far more devastating than any predicted effects, which I personally think are unfounded. Lets not forget the number of people who have been lifted out of poverty with cheap forms of energy.
@93msinclair Ps. and as a computer scientist and mathematician myself I understand that computer models are incapable of giving accurate predictions of chaotic systems such as the whether. You can compare the IPCC's projected temperature chages with those of the last fifteen years and you will see that the predictions are way off.
I love this. Especially the silly look on the singer's face during the violin solo, and how he takes the opportunity afforded by his break to put another piece of wood in the stove.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
the first thing i would have done if i was trying to prove the earth was warming, is prove that it wasn't being caused by the sun. where are supreme chief meteorologist al gore's notes on this? null hypothesis? there are enough new voters in the system to resurrect the acid rain scam, try that instead mr. gore.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Congratulations Elmer, you got the attention of the climatards and have them so fearful they have turned into climatrolls and are censoring the comments on this video. Peakman has all his sycophant friends downing the intelligent comments and thumbs upping his to the point they can't be suppressed. Good job, Elmer! I guess those hypocrites only believe in freedom of speech for their cult members. Keep putting the word out.
Oh, another intellectual zombie! Look wpdt45, while most of us don't beleive that having Elmer's dick in your mouth qualifies as real work, consider coming up for air once in a while. The oxygen would help you.
On a more serious note, how about actually citing to real scientific data and analysis to support your climate-denial posture? Faux news, Rush, Beck, Coulter don't count Othewise do what any reasonable person would do and close your mouth lest you remove all doubt as to stupidity
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@BTYH Apparently I owe Peakman an apology, you,re the troll. I'll ignore the vulgar comments considering the sources mouth and brain are connected to Algore's ass. I don't listen to Rush and barely know who Beck is. As a scientist, I'm skeptical of correlation data. Correlation=/=causation. Years ago I looked it up and found scientists who have data showing that solar activity is most likely responsible for the .2 degree change in temp. (GASP! The SUN responsible for global temps? Absurd!)
@wpdt45 Funny thing: I actually feel kinda bad about the turn towards vulgarity. It's out of character. So, I'd propose that if you want a dignified intellectual debate, well cut the pejorative comments related to our respective positions. I don't think for a minute that there is much upon which we'll agree...so be it.
As to your points - agreed (gasp!) - coorelation =/= causation.
@BTYH 4/22 1) Funny thing: I don't believe you felt bad or that it was out of character to be vulgar. Regret would cause one to remove the comment or apologize, and it wouldn't have been your first instinct to use it. It does a disservice to you and your beliefs, as does the continuing censorship and trolling of these comments. If LMAO is so threatening it must be suppressed, what does that say about the validity of your points? Unlike you, I don't consider internet trolling real work, so I--
2) will fill you in on some information you may not be aware of as you are too deeply indoctrinated to do real research. 2009 in PNAS, 106, your own AGW goddess, Dr. S. Solomon, said that GW is irreversible. If we bring emissions to zero we wont reverse the trend for 1000 years and we're expected to fry before then. Your great goddess says all is lost. Now I don't need to tell you that CO2 is second to WATER VAPOR in its abundance and effectiveness as a greenhouse gas and its GH effectiveness—
3) is logarithmic & lags warming (I don't expect you to understand that anyway). CO2 & H2O are NOT pollutants. That means the ecology is equipped to take care of them. Because the end is near, no need to point out you should've been focusing on pollutants. Why weren't you? Because Algore made this a POLITICAL issue, polarizing partisan drones on both sides. Hate makes you irrational. This never should've been a political issue & led to too much bad science. BTW that should have alarmed you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@BTYH The research is there, Lord Mockton told you where to find it, but Dr. Festinger's theory predicts you won't bother as the truth would separate you from your delusion. Because I'm environmentally minded, I didn't completely reject your movement (hoping it would lead to solutions for all pollution) until you zealots blamed global warming on CO2 and reached cult status. There is overwhelming research that CO2 is actually ESSENTIAL for life on earth.
@wpdt45 (cont.) And any credible climate scientist will be very cautious against saying that today's wierd weather event (name it) is caused by climate change.
However, you must know the basic experiment (now 100+ years old) proving how C02 is a greenhouse gas...its easily done in any elementary school science class. As far as I'm concerned todays contest lies in whether we can directly measure effects.
4) It makes no difference to remind you that the people manipulating the numbers can lie. I have seen dry labbing, data loading, statistical inflation & poor experimental design pushed by fads. Some are not above this when grant money & power are on the line. The problems exist on both sides, but the real problem seems to be that the focus of AGW is too narrow. Climate is such a complex & dynamic system the research should have included hydrologists, physicists, chemists, geologists,--
5) astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, & anthropologists. Political pressure & greed prevented such collaboration. Instead it is infected with political double talk & spin doctoring. Your cult has made skepticism a dirty word & free thinkers who dare question them are demonized. Your prejudice kept you from looking at the research on both sides, though your ability to spew propaganda is impressive. The solar/geological theory has only been put to bed by alarmists, not real scientists.
6) The real scientists present clear, accurate data. They are enduring threats from AGWrs & are professionally ostracized for presenting other theories or trying to prevent their work from being misinterpreted & misused. That is why their research holds more weight for free thinkers who arent manipulated by politics. Even though I don't like Algore & disagree with Monckton on many things, I looked at references both gave. Monckton at least points out that the emperor has no clothes.
@wpdt45 (cont2) One highly worrying trend is that the ratio of low/high temperature records (whether daily or absolute) are skewing dramatically towards record warmth....low temperature records are becoming very rare.Variation in solar output is responsible for recent warming? That theory has pretty much been been put to bed. And even if true, the .2 degree amount claimed doesn't account for the recent temperature rises observed.
@wpdt45 CO2 is essential to life on earth? True. And an absolutely ridiculous assertion in support of your climate position. Oxygen is essential to life as well...too much oxygen will eventually kill you.
Finally use of Viscount Monckton as a kills your scientific credibility. I've viewed a number of his presentations. The man is widely regarded as right-wing buffoon wholely without scientific training or creditentials.
7) Because her worshipfulness Solomon declared irreversible doom on humanity, I will thank you for the amusing little snippets above. If you change right to left and add Divinity & Law school flunk out you describe Algore perfectly. (BTW the Divinity school thing should alarm you.) China? I'm sure their humanitarian government would love your input on their green energy programs. Xi jian! You thought I was talking about weather? Credible climate scientists ARE blaming climate for that.
@wpdt45 (cont.) Monckton and Beck, btw, have a significant history of joint action. One would presume that if you were actually as familiar with Monckton as you seem to claim, you would know that.
Regardless of your assertions, I have no allusions or delusions. I'm following the evidence where it leads. But one final point worth making is that the rest of the world is NOT waiting for the US to get on the clean-energy train.
@wpdt45 (cont). You, Elmer, Beck, the GOP, and the rest of the deniers can (and will for a while longer) effectively gum-up the progress towards reducing the carbon intensity of the US economy. But China, India, and Europe, are plunging head-long towards renewable and alternative sources of energy indepedent of fossil fuel.
@wpdt45 (cont.) The US will be very LATE to that energy enormous market, to our detriment. And the worst part of this is that we will likely address our greenhouse gas output anyway, but so late in time that the rest of the world will be selling us THEIR technology. How smart is that?
As to my solutions, planting trees is one of many useful tools to address the issues in a comprehensive manner. Many other ideas are needed.
8) I will also admit to some embarrassment at not realizing until last week how my decades long, automatic charity contribution to the WWF was being misused for propaganda. It will come back to bite them hard if Cap & Trade passes. History shows that when people in the developed world can't afford to heat their homes, donations stop. In the 3rd world it will cause poaching and habitat destruction. Too bad, I do like pandas. I can think of better uses for my money.
9) good plan AGWrs have. Why? A) They work B) no R&D needed C) they're good for the environment & economy D) they're pretty. Can't say the same for Branson's filters. I'm sure learning from your high priestess that we will die is hard on you and the rest of the cult. Yes, it is a cult. It started with a doomsday prophecy from a "charismatic" leader who claims to care. (Algore doesn't love you, this I know.) You were told that if you obeyed piously & proselytized, you would be saved.
@wpdt45 (cont.) In the you and I will disagree. That's fine. But I'm placing my bets on the need to take action. If I lose, I'll live with that. But if it turns out that you are the loser, don't think that you'll receive much sympathy for your position. The market rewards the innovators and risk takers. So just what, are you going to bet on?
10) It's insidious in that it's based on "science", so even atheists can be sucked in & the converted truly believe they can stop Armageddon. You rationalize everything & punish the heretics. You felt very powerful, not like the insignificant insects humans are. Like any other cult, it's not really about something moral, it's about power and control. What to do now? Dr. Festinger's theory says you can A) change your mind B) accept the "inevitable" & turn your energies toward reducing human—
11) suffering in the time that's left. Unlike your cult, free thinking people understand human fallacies, & will accept your help should you choose A or B. Or, C) you can continue to be a fool, push for taxes that will ruin the world economy & some believe create an IPCC run New World Order & a Green Gestapo (IMO not so extreme, but we'll lose freedoms). Finally, D) drink the Kool-Aid. Humans should focus on fresh air, clean water, & good soil. I'm betting on nature to regulate climate.
@wpdt45 The only place where yours and my opinions really diverge are 1) nature will regulate climate (true...but MY BET is that we are not going to like those results) and 2) Continued use of perjoratives to belittle the opposing opinion. I had thought you were going to stop doing that. Oh well.
Anyway, I do agree with you on fresh air, clean water, good soil. I disagree with you on how we get to that goal. The future I am betting on is low carbon energy.
@BTYH 1) Though disappointed you didn't choose option A or B, I'm truly glad you didn't choose D. Our opinions diverge much more than you believe as you have chosen C. I was prepared to cease the use of condescending language, but your continued use of it led me to believe you weren't serious. You don't get better than you give. We may not like how nature regulates climate, but there's nothing we can do about it. Humans are too insignificant to control or cause the cycles of warming & cooling--
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (1) Given your approach to this discussion, I had long since abandoned expectations of getting better than I was giving. Now, on to the substantive portion of the debate. Annual CO2 naturally occuring output (geologic activity, natural biological processes) is dwarfed (by a factor of 20) by the anthropogenic output of CO2. I don't know how you can call that insignificant.
2) experienced in the last 10,000 years. While I don't believe that carbon needs to be limited, we know (the good folks at M4GW too) that fossil fuels are finite & thus we need to research alternate energy sources. The problem this video points out is the inane forcing of this conversion (cap & trade, subsidies) before the technology is ready (especially when based on a false premise) will cause severe hardships on the poor globally. Government subsidies of these "industries" leads to fraud.
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (2) Your para 2 makes no sense. Your conclusion seems to be that we should leave it to the market alone to create the new energy paradigm for the future. Problem is, the market won't do that and it never has. Government incentive has always (and still does) play a central role in incubating new technology, and our best moments in America arose through use of government policy and incentives to spur new technology.
3) Why hasn't the US developed these? Because AGWrs protest them & politicians want to be popular. The most efficient & reliable is nuclear. Too dangerous. Next is hydroelectric. Hurts fish & environment, same with waves. Wind is next. Not as reliable, kills raptors & bats needed for agriculture, ugly, noisy, dangerous, drives away wildlife, uses too much space.
usatoday 2005-01-04-windmills
You seem to love biodiesel, which is the worst. Equally polluting—
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (3) The wheels come off your argument for good in your para 3). Your shallow dismissal of energy schemes, both renewable and fossil fails to acknowlege their usefullness as either bridge technologies or in targeted limited applications. Each that you listed has costs and benefits that need careful evaluation. I never listed support for biomass displacing food crops. I do support limited use of biomass in areas unsuitable for food crops to grow switch grass or hardy conifers.
4)(still carbon), inefficient, drives up food prices, requires too much land. In Malaysia & Congo rainforest is being destroyed for palm oil & endangered primates are killed as pests. The EU's regulations forcing conversion to biofuels has them declaring plantations as forest.
mongabay 2009/0924 orangutans. & foeeurope 2010/Feb03 EC plans to sacrifice forests for biofuels. & cornell july05/ethanol toocostly
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (4) Your para 4) is very true and one that I agree with, except that there may yet be a highly viable future for cellulosic methanol production, or algae- based fuels.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
6) the subsidies. In summer I keep my house cool at your expense because I sell my solar power to you at a profit. Thanks BTW! We'll also become dependant on China who can mine lanthanides & make panels cheaply. These technologies are not ready & forcing them prematurely will have devastating effects. Instead of lining Algore's pocket & financing costly, inefficient "solutions", we should put the money into developing Mr Fusion. Here is a surprising opinion from one who was where we are going:
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (5) You lost me with your solar argument: "Solar is the second worst offender. Unreliable, ugly & expensive....In summer I keep my house cool at your expense because I sell my solar power to you at a profit." Huhh? Unless you installed your solar system through an enormous subsidy or tax credit, I should be laughing at you for making such an economically irrational investment...much though I appreciate your effort to install solar.
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (6) As to last laugh, I get that honor. On my property I installed a run-of-stream micro hydro system rated at 2.2 KW with an annual capacity factor of 78%, net-metered and all in for less than 2 grand. Yes, I take that to the bank.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
7) english pravda ru opinion columnists 109977-0
I said many AGW skeptics believe this is a plot to create a New World Order. They are not that paranoid
tellus org documents Great Transition
I believe most politicians want power enough it won't happen. I'm off to enjoy the rest of a longer, cooler than usual spring. (Thanks to a sunspot minimum.) You do the same.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (7) You have previously mocked my observation about the speed with which the CHINESE government is building a renewable energy industry from the ground up, seeming to take my statement as support for a communist-style government. It is not, and I do not. I am pointing out that, regardless of our feelings of Chinese-styled governence, they are going to eat our lunch in the future energy market unless we get serious dammed quickly about our energy future.
@wpdt45 4/18/10(8) Our US energy market hasn't nurtured viable alternatives because the political will has been lacking, although the market for such is clearly evident, and growing.
In the end, the only legitimate debate is to what extent AGW impacts our climate. That answer will become increasingly clear. Meanwhile, a switch away from carbon-based energy resources looks smart from every conceivable angle: environmental, energy security, national security, economic, etc.
@BTYH I will continue to give you a bit better than I am being given as most free-thinkers do. The problem in this exchange seems to be on your end. You don't read carefully & come up with entirely wrong conclusions. First, estimates from both alarmists & real scientists (aka you & skeptics, I remind you that when I say "you" I really mean AGWrs in general as you seem to have trouble with the concept) that the human CO2 contribution is 2.5-4% of all CO2. That means 96% of CO2 is natural.
@wpdt45 Welcome back my friend, to the show that never ends...
I'll grant that you are continuing to DO better (less pejoratives). But there's no problem at my end. I read your arguments, I read your links, and then make the obvious conclusion to further advance the debate. If I'm going too fast, I'll slow down, if you like.
One other favor. Don't lump me into anybody's argument or camp. If you mean to say "you" as in "me" then say it. But don't say "you" when you me "alarmist", etc.
2) CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere & .00114% is man made. There is no pre-industrial human estimate, but anthropologists could make the case that it was 1-3%. No statistical difference, & yes, insignificant. The molecular structure of CO2 causes it to work logarithmically. The more CO2, the more heat bounces around the upper atmosphere & out. Yeah, I know confusing chemistry & physics. It’s so much easier to let the IPCC tell you what to think. Second, I clearly stated that those were arguments
@wpdt45 What the readily available atmospheric research shows from countless sources is that atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased from approx 280 ppm in late 1700s to approx 392 ppm (May, 10). Contrary to what you seem to assert, basic, unequivical, fundamental, indisputable science shows that higher concentrations of CO2 trap long-wave radiation and force warming. If I understand you correctly, the greater the CO2 conc, the cooler the atmosphere becomes. If so....I'm left speechless.
3) made by AGWrs (environmentalist warmer alarmists). These are the people in your camp. I just pointed out how contradictory the alarmist camp is, & how the valid points of your camp combined with those of mine, show just how inane it is to force immediate conversion before good technologies are ready & the bad ones are discredited & discarded. Global dumbing revisionist history has you thinking that government policies & incentives drive technology. It was individual innovation that drove
@wpdt45 My "camp" consists of one person. Me. I associate with professionals and colleagues, but I make - and am paid for - my own conclusions.
As to "forcing" technologies, au contraire. I believe the market is the most powerful way to determine what technologies should win and lose. But at present we have no real market...only various systems of monopolies and oligarchies.
4) technology, & government policies have kept us dependent on foreign oil. I concede that not all government policies failed, but now few succeed & the success rate is falling. This is the current state of government sponsored science in the AGW era: usatoday sciencefair 2010/05 mammoth extinction triggered climate cooling "Science" that’s good enough for government work. Here is policy "incubated" "science": inhabitat 2010/05/10 bill-gates
@wpdt45 No single government policy will unfailingly produce the objective results, but in a democracy there is seldom better sources of stimulus funds to catalyze R&D. (Notable exception: the X-Prize foundation. We need more of this private-sector activity!) As to who's reading propaganda versus facts, I'd advise caution what accusation you make: at the end of the day, facts can be used many ways, and where the research continues to develop, it is every person's Rorschach test.
5) Most of the things you mentioned are just dreams or over exaggerated. As to your water wheel, good for you. Hopefully your precious government, an upstream neighbor or a beaver won't divert your water. As to China, I was saying that you are naive to think they would enter in to green energy in earnest. The few solar panels & windmills they threw up are facades. They want to make the things, corner the market & own us. There's no political will, only special interest will. Read the Kerry bill.
@wpdt45 I didn't exaggerate the benefits of any technology. There will be room for many different technologies in the market in the future as a bridge or stop-gap measure until dominant solutions become apparent. I advocate rational, economic full-life-cycle analsyis of present and future energy technologies to determine their most efficient use. As to the Chinese, you're flat wrong: they're installing solar and wind projects (on and offshore) by the terra-watt. Certainly they'll build...
@wpdt45 ...and use their own technology, but they are poised to become a global POWERHOUSE in renewable technology SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE LET THEM.
As to my micro-hydro (water-wheel, huh?), I appreciate your concern, but her in the north-eastern US, water rights are not so litigated, and I consume no water in the first place. I pipe it 134 vertical feet downhill, turbine, and return it to the stream. In fact, I do have a beaver dam upstream: it helps to regulate flow during dryer months.
6) It's nothing but expensive special interest pandering & won't work. As for low carbon energy being good for environmental, energy & national security, economic, etc., it is responsible for Spain's (Obama's model) collapse & the land grab that will destroy a national park in Denmark: juandemariana org pdf 090327 employment public aid renewable DOT pdf
nationalttestcenter DOT dk/nyheder/English
(google)
Obviously forcing a switch now threatens world stability more than any imagined crisis.
@wpdt45 In 2009 I read the "Effects of on Employment of Public Aid in Renewable Energy", and some of its arguments have some limited validity. The report itself is not without internal bias, and contains problematic research. More so, its applicability to the renewables industry, in the EU or US, is marginally, if all, relevant to the real problems we presently face. For reasons too complicated to discuss here, I would regard and use the report only with extreme caution and limits.
7) Why do you want the government be your nanny? Do you enjoy living in fear? Do you think you’re one of the anointed, or just a loyal political pawn? Read, get informed, learn the difference between information & propaganda. Look at what both sides are saying, think for yourself & avoid hypocrisy. Most of all, get a sense of humor watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
@wpdt45 I read with interest your arguments, criticisms, and disputes with present energy policy. With all due respect, what is finally your point, and what policy do YOU actually support. There's a lot of noise in the blogosphere echo chamber repeating oft-made (and scientifically unsupported) opposition positions to weaning off oil. Is it your position that we should continue with our present fossil-fuel uses and policies?
@wpdt45 (2) "Government as nanny". This statement reveals a profound misunderstanding (or perhaps ignorance) of the role of any effective goverment. I presume you drive some sort of vehilce? If so, you already depend upon the government to provide you with roadways, bridges, relatively inexpensive fuel subsidized by a massive military presence to protect supply regions, regulations to keep roadways safe, etc etc. It has nothing to do with "living in fear".
@wpdt45 (3) It has to do with recognition that private industry is most efficient at micro economics - producing goods and services through capital invesment. Private industry is a chronic and abject failure at providing public goods and macro economic stability. That's where the government functions best: Regulation. Policy. Rules. And where R&D needs stimulation, the proper incentives. Examples of proof = 1) The industrial enterprise to win WWII 2) Manhattan Project 3) Appolo/Moon.
@wpdt45 (4) As to relevance to this current thread, the solution to a move away from fossil-based energy resources (which is critical to our security and future, whether or not one believes climate change a factor) will be initiated and stimulated by government action, policy, and incentives, as the private sector cannot and will not do this on their own.
@jangle Couldn't resist gang trolling, huh Moe? Tell your friend Shemp not to even try. Given your stated education level I expected more from you, but all you can do is regurgitate strawman platitudes. Disappointing. I'll indulge you by answering your question anyway. A) I don't support covering the earth with inefficient, expensive, environmentally dangerous energy "solutions" based on a politically motivated religious cult's pseudoscience. We have 200+ years of oil, etc. left, CO2 is not
@wpdt45 I call it vigorous discussion. You call it trolling. We've seen your brand of tricks before. 1936 Germany,etc. I'll leave you to the bed your making. Best of luck.
2) pollution & we know how to reduce real fossil fuel pollutants. I support researching hydrogen, nuclear etc. & getting them right before switching. I support reducing real pollution, using resources wisely & conservation. AGW is not supported by science, that position is. B) I support small, efficient government. I don't mind paying taxes when they are used for what they are intended. An example from your shallow, strawman comment would be roads. I pay the highest gas tax as well as DMV &
3) property taxes. Every year they try to increase them because the roads are so bad. They no longer succeed because for years we avoid the same wheel wrecking potholes while the legislators get raises, perks & freshly decorated offices. You can't think of an example of government stimulating industry that didn't involve war or cold war. The industries involved geared themselves up out of patriotism. Sorry if I used a word you don't understand. Right now private industries milk the subsidies.
4) Big Oil funds AGW propaganda because they know green will fail. Haven't you asked yourself why they have been so quiet on the issue & why Rockefeller is the main funder of Woods Hole etc? BTW things like the EPA declaring milk a hazardous material doesn't help stimulate business. C) Living in fear refers to the delight you get believing & spreading doomsday prophecies. You people get off on it. Private industry could & would find energy solutions if government would let them. Goodbye, Moe.
@wpdt45 Government as nanny? Is this where you could be lumped in with the tea party-Beck-Limbaugh-Coulter-Fox camp? For the sake of argument, lets remove government from the picture for a moment and see what we get: Savings and Loan melt-downs. Financial / housing credit crisis and a Wall Street that preys on anybody not on the "inside". Gulf Oil Spills. Without strong government, you get Somalia. I'm an investor, a thinker, a cog in the economic system.
@wpdt45 A functional govt keeps the system glued together, regulated and running. The results of an abscence of government are too readily apparent. Scoff if you must, but this reveals only a lack of understanding or deeper ignorance. Jangle2007's point seems valid: govt is most useful promoting macro economic stability.
PS - I have a sense of humor. But Dr. Hansimian is not going to pick my stocks.
@BTYH Well, Larry, the show ends now. I take care of myself, but you needing to call in your associates Curly & Moe for help just makes me look like a bully (even though you started it) & my You Tube time is too scarce & precious to waste on all 3 stooges. A few closing points. A) China: 30 new coal plants to open by the end of next year, needed for the real power for the useless windmills etc. they put up. We can't build them because libs exported manufacturing & won't let
That 'lier, pants on fire' bit slayed me :-)
alexeykh 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Your banjo player is pretty good.
Riclists 2 months ago
Hi guys! You saved my day. Glad to see there are fresh people who see the real way things are. And you do this in a happy way. Yeah guys. You are the hope for future. Cres.
vilsu2 2 months ago 2
Can we get back to music and humor? Somehow I visualize a bunch of people standing around talking, talking, these many things, and then the conversation is over! I love this vid - but look at them! They are laughing their asses off. Yeah, it's a problem, but having a sense of humor about the whole thing makes the message more graceful (and fun) to carry.
TheJedgeworth 5 months ago
good job guys
thanx for the laugh
chena3 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great entertainment for those of us not watching the Police State Bowl.
Michaelwiseguy 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great entertainment for those of us not watching the Police State Bowl!
Michaelwiseguy 11 months ago
Comment removed
Michaelwiseguy 11 months ago
I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone, but I would look into how extremely meridional the jet stream has been. Global Climate Change as it is now called is very real - anthropogenic or not. Minnesota has increased an average of 4 degrees over the last century (check the USGCRP) Instead of creating an entire band arguing against dendrochronologists, perhaps we should focus on preventing or flooded or frozen cities. Other than that, hilarious video! :-)
Physiography 11 months ago
@Physiography I can prove that every word you just said abot AGW is wrong. 4 degrees? Even Al Gore isn't that full of ........ well, you know. Fraud, manipulated, adjusted and flat out lied about data. Ground based temperature monitor games, CRU, Jones, Hansen, Mann and the rest of the list of liars and thieves. Give it another 5 years, I'll bet you at least one of those on my list is prosecuted.
fishinwflies 11 months ago
@fishinwflies Please feel free to do so, but if AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, I didn't mention anything on the matter. Global climate change seems real and obvious to me, anthropogenic or not. A flooded Venice is flooded no matter the cause. I know Mann has been accused of falsified stats - and I hear he's got a pretty, brand new job at Penn State. I don't know about the others. I don't really follow the publications though. Please let me know if you have more info.
Physiography 11 months ago
@Physiography There has been no warming since 1998. Any warming that had been shown has been discredited as manipulation of data, false data, poor data or outright lies. Go to surface stations dot org and you can see a survey of more than 80% of the ground based monitors. Look at MN, every monitor there reads more than 1* high. Most more than 2. The one by me reads high by 3, unless it's sunny and calm, and then as much as 19 high. This is no accident, 10.6 mill a day spent on this fraud.
fishinwflies 11 months ago
@fishinwflies
The earth is always heating or cooling.
Even if the earth were getting warmer, we should not have to put up with global warming bs from liberals.
tnekkc 6 months ago 3
Elmer & co, I used this song for my first eva vid! Fit like a glove ;)
evenesteven 1 year ago
Here in Finland the november was colder than in many decades. Now there's more snow in Helsinki than ever measured in the beginning of december. Our newspapers are still yelling about global warming how it's true and coming. Shit.
oh2mmy 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
oh2mmy 1 year ago
"You got to have a fiddle in the band" That fiddle playing is awsome! I think she might even get a wink and a nod from Charlie Daniels if she played for him.
coldwarvet75 1 year ago
Pink Flamingos 4ever dudes - Far OUT!!
dutchflats 1 year ago
I don't care wether you agree with these guys' position or not, that was so mean music playin'! ( I, of course, happen to agree with their position.) Go to their channel, even more great stuff!
thepartyof4 1 year ago 3
Love the pink flamingos peeking out of a snow drift.Excellent work!
Pomiferous 1 year ago
Excellent video, keep up the good work.
oTANSTAAFLo 1 year ago 3
lol, this is still one of my most favorite music videos on youtube.
mdreiger 1 year ago
If Al Gore's predictions about Global Warming come true than the condo he owns in San Francisco is bound to be under water.
zerotowatch 1 year ago
Comment removed
zerotowatch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL @ Larry, Moe, Curly & Shemp! Pathetic hypocrites spend hours here everyday to troll. Curly is mad because he doesn't know enough words to fill up 500 characters & the rest are so ignorant they don't even know the Amazon is freezing. Sorry to leave you with them Elmer. Moron baiting is fun but I've no more time. I agree w/Larry that you need to do more great videos. "Hot Blooded" starring the crazed sex poodle would be fun (got a fever of millions of degrees). Thanks Elmer. Viva Cuccinelli!
wpdt45 1 year ago
AL Gore is a Liar his pants are on FIRE!!! HAHAHA!!! love it!
prusso09 1 year ago
UP'er rock...
2161jeff 1 year ago
Global warming is real. Just like eugenics! And anyone who disagrees with me must work for a Big Oil company! No one could possibly decide that AGW is bunk by looking at the evidence and deciding for themselves!
Seriously, go Google Global Warming Test. Basic 6th Grade science, so you'd think it wouldn't be that hard to figure out.
But good job on freaking out the Church of Al Gore, M4GW. And you guys sure do know how to play!
knightofmars 1 year ago 4
@knightofmars How about this, anyone that advocates global warming must work for Google or GE. Advocates tell us we must develop a better electrical infrastructure and build wind farms. Well who is the leading manufacturer of SmartMeters and Wind turbines? GENERAL ELECTRIC.
Google is well known for being invasive in our privacy. They developed a sofware called Home Area Network. This will monitor everyone's energy usage. These two corporations have financial interests in Global Warming too.
zerotowatch 1 year ago
@knightofmars of course its 6th grade science. We have been taught since elementary that nitrogen is 71% of our atmosphere, oxygen is about 20%. Do you know how much of our atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide? Only .038%
And out of that tiny amount according to the US Dept. of Energy only 3.2% is man-made. We cannot possibly be producing enough carbon dioxide to affect the climate.
zerotowatch 1 year ago
And btw M4GW, where is your next great rip-off celebrating the hot summer of 2010 as continued proof positive than climate change is a hoax?
Jangle2007 1 year ago 19
@Jangle2007 No one is denying climate change, you fat idiot.
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089 -Wow! Is that it? On a personal level, I don't suppose the word schizophrenic means anything to you? It should. You're a confused dude. That, and the future is going to be hard on you. I'm sorry for you.
PS - neither fat nor idiot. More importantly, I get plenty. Not that it would mean anything to you.
Jangle2007 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 Go pray to your master, Al Gore, for guidance.
In fact, you win. I will not go any further. It'd be pointless to do so. The govt. never ever lies, and we should all worship the govt, and pray to Al Gore for guidance.
"I get plenty. "
No one cares, turdshines. Go fuck yourself.
best1089 1 year ago
@best1089 Nice try, schizo. You care, or else you'd have said nothing.
Jangle2007 1 year ago
The deniers, and the denier's screed, including related propoganda like this WHO rip-off, can go to hell. Deciphering the likes of WPTD45, and the ignorant tripe that these sheeple post is easy, once you FOLLOW THE MONEY. All the pseudo "science" of the deniers is just a shallow and flimsy charade propped up at considerable expense by oil and coal interests, and the morally misguided politicians (Dems and GOP) who stand to lose trillions in future free from fossil fuels. Who will win?
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 20
@Nameunavailabletoday Cry, Warmist moron, cry!!
Still not a shred of proof that humans have anything to do with the weather patterns. All you greenie retards have is a faith-based religion, where you worship Al Whore and his corporate IPCC cronies.
best1089 1 year ago
cont. (2) I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”
Jangle2007 1 year ago 23
The last word goes to the contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’:
Jangle2007 1 year ago 19
@Jangle2007 How about, scientist desperate for... MONEY!! Global warming is a large money maker for the scientific community. And you only get money if you predict catastrophe. They always say that the skeptics are well funded when just the opposite is true. I live in an RV!!!
M4GW 1 year ago 12
@M4GW Pure crap. The scientific community gets paid enough to pay research salaries....in amounts of less than $100K per year. The oil industry revenues, on the other hand, are orders of magnitude greater, and has a cash flow worth untold $billions/year to protect. I presume that you can read the annual income statements of the big oil corps?
The immediate question is: why would you defend them? Do you suppose that Exxon-Mobile, Shell, BP aren't rich enough to protect themselves?
Jangle2007 1 year ago 18
@M4GW
Keep up the great work!!!
You "guys" provide a great service to Liberals who are too lazy to read the 70's era Impact Research Report 400 page+ book and indexes written by the CIA and the Pentagon about the coming Ice Age due to lowered C02 levels!!!!
ziggy2sound4u 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 It sure is about money. Not just for scientists but also those big greedy corporations we all like to hate. Google has already invested millions of dollars in developing their Home Area Network, which going to be used to control our energy usage. General Electric has investments in building Solar panels and leads in the production of wind turbines. Microsoft and IBM have their investments in global warming too. They are all just aching for the moment to create a "green" bubble.
zerotowatch 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 Blah, blah, blah. All you have is deflection, insult and conspiracy theories to try to defend your faith-based religion.
Go on, condemn me to your carbon "hell". LOL.
best1089 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 I am not a scientist. I do believe in the theory of Pavlov's dog. Follow what is being rewarded and you will get to the truth. Supporting global warming is rewarded with additional grants to build a stronger case. Scientists who do not subscribe to global warming are left on the outside looking in at the money trough.
coldwarvet75 1 year ago 2
@coldwarvet75 Your Pavlovian theory is interesting and has some merit. However, a cold, objective eye would also note that, among the climate skeptics - and there are plenty - they don't have robust, grounded, statistically supported, and peer-reviewed science behindthem.
Note: one of the most outspoke climate skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg now states that we should invest heavily in climage change mitigation and preparation. I won't try to convince you, but it's worth having an open mind.
Jangle2007 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, is in fact a hoax, let's be clear. The earth's climate has shifted for millions of years on its own without our help. Look up the carboniferous era and arthropleura if you don't believe me. Also, remember the ice age? And the year without a summer? research before you choose the side of the mainstream media.
Sunchip74 1 year ago
@Sunchip74 OK - Anthropogenic climate change is hoax. I take it that your uneducated enough, close minded enough, and just dumb enough to be incapable of objective analysis. That's OK for you.
See you around the funny pages.
Jangle2007 1 year ago
@Jangle2007 first of all you meant "you're" not "your". You can't back up your accusation of MY uneducation, if indeed I am so, when you make an elementary mistake like that. By the way, I notice you didn't use actual science or objectivity to argue against me, you just called me stupid. That's a tactic used by people desperate to assert their ideas without real evidence.
Sunchip74 1 year ago
@Sunchip74 Good entertainment value seeing the grammar Nazi's out trolling. How many hours did it take you to proof-read and edit your comment to be sure YOU didn't make a mistake?
Moreso, I suspect that when you lead off with the statement "anthropogenic global warming, is in fact a hoax", no amount of science will sway you.
BTW, you need a comma after "fact" if you use a comma after "warming". I'm just sayin'.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago
The Mid-Atlantic state areas blanketed by record snows last February (DC, Baltimore, Philly) are now having a heat wave for the record books. Time for the musical geniuses at M4GW to treat us to the next installment of a Who-song massacre.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 27
Nice Job, I'll put this on my public access TV show.
mdreiger 1 year ago
Funny, but oh so true.
WesOrion 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL, the fascist marxist Maoist cockroaches have organized and come to this comments page just to thumb down every pro-common sense comment and thumb up the hysterical global warming alarmist crap! Pathetic!
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
A lot more people die of poverty every year than from climate change. These fools trust the IPCC despite their deliberate attempts to exagerate future projected effects. They then claim the moral high ground by saying we need to shut down the world's economy while millions are dying of poverty and malnutrition, in order to save the environment. Just stop for a second and think about the real consequences of what you propose.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair - Yours is a twisted and conflated logic. ANY economist will state that human productivity is based upon the health and livability of the environment. IOW, "the economy is a wholely owned subsidiary of the environment". Therefore, efforts to constrain ghg emissions to slow climate change isn't about "saving the environment", its about saving humanity. So, how about you stop for a second and think about your comments within the context of the big picture.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday Why don't you go tell that to a starving African family - that their country can't burn fossil fuels in order to lift them out of poverty even though your's did. And ANY real economist knows that the biggest tax increase in history (cap and trade) will destroy an already devastated economy. So to pretend that climate change policy is somehow going to result in a net increase in standard of living is crazy.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair - In some ways, we're making the same arguement, although you are short of the big picture. In terms of annual global CO2 emissions, Africa is inconsequential. The big emitters are the countries you can already guess: US, EU, China, India, Aust, etc. The argument about starving African families is based more on emotion than fact since the African family using a tiny fraction of energy compared to 1st world family.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@93msinclair (cont). Further, NOBODY humane would argue that poor African families shouldn't have access to better health, nutrition, and resources. But too, those resources do NOT have to be carbon-based. The stone age didn't end for lack of stones.
The point you miss is that an increasingly strong link exists between Sahel (and larger African) rainfall patterns and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@93msinclair (cont.2) Climate patterns are turning towards increasingly severe drought across central Africa, which among other factors, sparked the Sudan civil war in Dafur. Resource competition will drive future African (and other country) conflicts.
You are right to be concerned about starvation in Africa. So am I. I believe that climate change induced starvation will be an enormous future issue, which is why I act and raise my voice to address the emissions issue today.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday I don't believe that there is any conclusive evidence to suggest that CO2 causes drought. In fact an increase in CO2 has proven to lead to a significant increase in crop yields across all countries. Secondly, if you assume that Africa and other other poor areas of the world (and of course this includes China and India) are entitled to the freedoms and prosperity that we enjoy, then they are going to have to burn fossil fuels.
93msinclair 1 year ago 2
@Nameunavailabletoday And as these fuels run out the price of fossil fuels will sky-rocket, incentivising investment in cheaper alternative forms of energy. I simply don't believe cutting emmissions is practical or necessary - It will cause far more harm than good. And clearly the motives of members of the IPCC need to be questioned having been repeatedly caught exaggerating the projected effects such as in the hockey-stick graph and the recent Himalayan glacier case.
93msinclair 1 year ago 4
@93msinclair - (Cont.) Africa as a whole is projected to fare very poorly in a climate-change future.
I don't know about issues with a Himalayan glacier case or the hockey stick graph. As the climate science refines and computing power increases, the projections and calculations will shift. That doesn't bother me. I think the main problem the climate-scientist community must address deals with absolute transparency with their data, methods, research and conclusions.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@93msinclair (cont2) What concerns me is being caught flat-footed when the basic ghg science is unequivical (IE- a sun-lit container will warm in direct proportion to concentrations of CO2), and the climate change finger print is clearer everyday. Given that we have exactly ONE planet earth upon which to conduct this global experiment, a precuationary approach is not far-fetched. Waiting for fossil fuel to run out is one idea, but not one that I will advocate or support.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday Why would you care if fossil fuels ran out? If you support the current climate change legislation that Cuntocrats are proposing, you already approve of taking ordinary people's ability to travel away from them. Who cares if the oil runs out?
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck I noticed that some Cuntocans are also supporting a climate bill. Hmmm. I wasn't aware that oil was the only way to move a car. My car runs on electricity and goes 0-60 in 4.1 seconds. The future will be much larger than the pea-brains can imagine. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nameunavailabletoday No, I'm sorry I think 4.1 seconds is the amount of time before the battery runs out. You were getting confused. I know you girly men aren't good with cars, lol.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nameunavailabletoday BTW, how much did your pocket calculator on wheels cost?
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
Comment removed
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck Paid $110K. Nobody said state-of-the-art technology would come cheap. Battery life is good for approx 220 miles. Corners better than my Porsche, but not quite out-accelerate it, especially at the top end. Full recharges costs about $2.00. Tesla's next vehicle, a four door sedan, will come out at less than half that price.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 9
@Nameunavailabletoday "Nobody said state-of-the-art technology would come cheap."
LOLZ, so basically the only people who will be able to move more than 5 feet from their house in the new magical 1984 will be the 5 fags who are the central pawns in our gay media culture which is the only industry we have left
thanks
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck - Angry. Inarticulate. Close minded. Not too bright. Depressed. Not much future. Perhaps violent. Probably alcoholic. You're an unemployed Brit, roight?
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nameunavailabletoday
LOL, leftists, a political movement that claims to care about the "underpriveleged", then mocks people who oppose their misguided policies by calling them unemployed and laughing at them "having no future" or whatever.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GlengarryGlennBeck BTW, why would we have any unemployed people here in Britain? That's a "baseless" claim, as the people at Media Matters love to say. We've had 13 years of magical unicorn pixie socialism here, why would anything be not strictly rainbow-based?
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck Mock you? I feel sorry for you. You're something of a clueless wonder, as you see and mock the world around you, a little to pathetic to adjust to the changes you know are coming. It's safer in your world to mock and defame the people and changes happening around you, than to adjust and capitalize. There are a couple words to describe this (in addition to those already used): bigot; loser.
Get out of the way asshole.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nameunavailabletoday Fucking yawn.
I see you couldnt answer my questions, just throw buzzwords around again like bigot etc.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck Please do let us know when you pose a real question.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jangle2007 your lame attempts at mockery and dismissal is just further acknowledgement that you have no substantial comeback. you are a shameless power hungry control freak, immature little 6 year old statist cockroach and you deserve to be reincarnated as a fly. I hope your female family members get breast cancer.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck - You've said it all, friend. We now know who you are. Thanks for that.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jangle2007 And you also have to get the "last word" too. Just when I thought you couldn't get any more retarded.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck Coming from an impulse-challenged 16 year old, I guess I'm not going to sweat it.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jangle2007 "K and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@GlengarryGlennBeck You wrote to Jangle2007 " I hope your female family members get breast cancer."
WoW! Just when you think you've seen it all on youtube...psomebody comes along to push the envelope to new levels of depravity. I was right the first time. You're an angry, inarticulate, close minded, not too bright, depressed, violent punk. Whatever else, you've clearly displayed your irrelevance. See you in the funny pages.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nameunavailabletoday still can't answer a simple question. you have to run down the clock with irrelevant bickering instead. thanks for once again comfirming your utter intellectual, moral and spiritual emptiness.
GlengarryGlennBeck 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday Your Porsche must be plenty slow. Do you charge your Tesla (soon to be defunct but now wholely subsidized by Uncle Sam like Solyndra) with a windmill, or does your electricity come from Coal like most. Putting 7000 little battery cells together is now a hi-tech solution to our transportation needs.
Henry Ford didn't put America on wheels by making the most expensive vehicle that he possibly could while delivering the same performance as cheaper cars.
brandywells 4 months ago
@Nameunavailabletoday #1 The Earth isn.t just a sun-lit container. #2 I would like to see a citation for this container experiment because the AGW theory relies on a Rube Goldberg Scheme of "positve feedbacks" like water vapor etc in order to get significant warming as even the AGW swindlers have to admit that CO2 by itself could never produce warming on a level that they project to evoke their scary scenarios.
brandywells 4 months ago
@93msinclair - You are correct - At present NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS LINKING PROOF- POSITIVE CO2 LEVELS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. The case for such gets stronger every day, but correlation does not equal causation. Still, numerous scholarly research exists that strongly supports a link between climate change and disrupted rainfall patters across the Sahel, leading, among other things, the Darfur crisis.
Nameunavailabletoday 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday The problem is that we now live in a world where this area of science is highly politicised and where every change in wheather is blamed on CO2 when in fact climatology is an area of exreme uncertainty. It is the only area of science I know of where people are classed as heritics for disagreeing.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@Nameunavailabletoday As for the precautionary principle we must remember that the precaution itself may have consequences far more devastating than any predicted effects, which I personally think are unfounded. Lets not forget the number of people who have been lifted out of poverty with cheap forms of energy.
93msinclair 1 year ago
@93msinclair Ps. and as a computer scientist and mathematician myself I understand that computer models are incapable of giving accurate predictions of chaotic systems such as the whether. You can compare the IPCC's projected temperature chages with those of the last fifteen years and you will see that the predictions are way off.
93msinclair 1 year ago
I love this. Especially the silly look on the singer's face during the violin solo, and how he takes the opportunity afforded by his break to put another piece of wood in the stove.
TheJedgeworth 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmfao!
ThoughtIsCrime 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the first thing i would have done if i was trying to prove the earth was warming, is prove that it wasn't being caused by the sun. where are supreme chief meteorologist al gore's notes on this? null hypothesis? there are enough new voters in the system to resurrect the acid rain scam, try that instead mr. gore.
ab9957 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Congratulations Elmer, you got the attention of the climatards and have them so fearful they have turned into climatrolls and are censoring the comments on this video. Peakman has all his sycophant friends downing the intelligent comments and thumbs upping his to the point they can't be suppressed. Good job, Elmer! I guess those hypocrites only believe in freedom of speech for their cult members. Keep putting the word out.
wpdt45 1 year ago
Oh, another intellectual zombie! Look wpdt45, while most of us don't beleive that having Elmer's dick in your mouth qualifies as real work, consider coming up for air once in a while. The oxygen would help you.
On a more serious note, how about actually citing to real scientific data and analysis to support your climate-denial posture? Faux news, Rush, Beck, Coulter don't count Othewise do what any reasonable person would do and close your mouth lest you remove all doubt as to stupidity
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BTYH Apparently I owe Peakman an apology, you,re the troll. I'll ignore the vulgar comments considering the sources mouth and brain are connected to Algore's ass. I don't listen to Rush and barely know who Beck is. As a scientist, I'm skeptical of correlation data. Correlation=/=causation. Years ago I looked it up and found scientists who have data showing that solar activity is most likely responsible for the .2 degree change in temp. (GASP! The SUN responsible for global temps? Absurd!)
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 Funny thing: I actually feel kinda bad about the turn towards vulgarity. It's out of character. So, I'd propose that if you want a dignified intellectual debate, well cut the pejorative comments related to our respective positions. I don't think for a minute that there is much upon which we'll agree...so be it.
As to your points - agreed (gasp!) - coorelation =/= causation.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 16
@BTYH 4/22 1) Funny thing: I don't believe you felt bad or that it was out of character to be vulgar. Regret would cause one to remove the comment or apologize, and it wouldn't have been your first instinct to use it. It does a disservice to you and your beliefs, as does the continuing censorship and trolling of these comments. If LMAO is so threatening it must be suppressed, what does that say about the validity of your points? Unlike you, I don't consider internet trolling real work, so I--
wpdt45 1 year ago
2) will fill you in on some information you may not be aware of as you are too deeply indoctrinated to do real research. 2009 in PNAS, 106, your own AGW goddess, Dr. S. Solomon, said that GW is irreversible. If we bring emissions to zero we wont reverse the trend for 1000 years and we're expected to fry before then. Your great goddess says all is lost. Now I don't need to tell you that CO2 is second to WATER VAPOR in its abundance and effectiveness as a greenhouse gas and its GH effectiveness—
wpdt45 1 year ago
3) is logarithmic & lags warming (I don't expect you to understand that anyway). CO2 & H2O are NOT pollutants. That means the ecology is equipped to take care of them. Because the end is near, no need to point out you should've been focusing on pollutants. Why weren't you? Because Algore made this a POLITICAL issue, polarizing partisan drones on both sides. Hate makes you irrational. This never should've been a political issue & led to too much bad science. BTW that should have alarmed you.
wpdt45 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BTYH The research is there, Lord Mockton told you where to find it, but Dr. Festinger's theory predicts you won't bother as the truth would separate you from your delusion. Because I'm environmentally minded, I didn't completely reject your movement (hoping it would lead to solutions for all pollution) until you zealots blamed global warming on CO2 and reached cult status. There is overwhelming research that CO2 is actually ESSENTIAL for life on earth.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 (cont.) And any credible climate scientist will be very cautious against saying that today's wierd weather event (name it) is caused by climate change.
However, you must know the basic experiment (now 100+ years old) proving how C02 is a greenhouse gas...its easily done in any elementary school science class. As far as I'm concerned todays contest lies in whether we can directly measure effects.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 17
4) It makes no difference to remind you that the people manipulating the numbers can lie. I have seen dry labbing, data loading, statistical inflation & poor experimental design pushed by fads. Some are not above this when grant money & power are on the line. The problems exist on both sides, but the real problem seems to be that the focus of AGW is too narrow. Climate is such a complex & dynamic system the research should have included hydrologists, physicists, chemists, geologists,--
wpdt45 1 year ago
5) astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, & anthropologists. Political pressure & greed prevented such collaboration. Instead it is infected with political double talk & spin doctoring. Your cult has made skepticism a dirty word & free thinkers who dare question them are demonized. Your prejudice kept you from looking at the research on both sides, though your ability to spew propaganda is impressive. The solar/geological theory has only been put to bed by alarmists, not real scientists.
wpdt45 1 year ago
6) The real scientists present clear, accurate data. They are enduring threats from AGWrs & are professionally ostracized for presenting other theories or trying to prevent their work from being misinterpreted & misused. That is why their research holds more weight for free thinkers who arent manipulated by politics. Even though I don't like Algore & disagree with Monckton on many things, I looked at references both gave. Monckton at least points out that the emperor has no clothes.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 (cont2) One highly worrying trend is that the ratio of low/high temperature records (whether daily or absolute) are skewing dramatically towards record warmth....low temperature records are becoming very rare.Variation in solar output is responsible for recent warming? That theory has pretty much been been put to bed. And even if true, the .2 degree amount claimed doesn't account for the recent temperature rises observed.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 18
@wpdt45 CO2 is essential to life on earth? True. And an absolutely ridiculous assertion in support of your climate position. Oxygen is essential to life as well...too much oxygen will eventually kill you.
Finally use of Viscount Monckton as a kills your scientific credibility. I've viewed a number of his presentations. The man is widely regarded as right-wing buffoon wholely without scientific training or creditentials.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 20
7) Because her worshipfulness Solomon declared irreversible doom on humanity, I will thank you for the amusing little snippets above. If you change right to left and add Divinity & Law school flunk out you describe Algore perfectly. (BTW the Divinity school thing should alarm you.) China? I'm sure their humanitarian government would love your input on their green energy programs. Xi jian! You thought I was talking about weather? Credible climate scientists ARE blaming climate for that.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 (cont.) Monckton and Beck, btw, have a significant history of joint action. One would presume that if you were actually as familiar with Monckton as you seem to claim, you would know that.
Regardless of your assertions, I have no allusions or delusions. I'm following the evidence where it leads. But one final point worth making is that the rest of the world is NOT waiting for the US to get on the clean-energy train.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 22
@wpdt45 (cont). You, Elmer, Beck, the GOP, and the rest of the deniers can (and will for a while longer) effectively gum-up the progress towards reducing the carbon intensity of the US economy. But China, India, and Europe, are plunging head-long towards renewable and alternative sources of energy indepedent of fossil fuel.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 38
@wpdt45 (cont.) The US will be very LATE to that energy enormous market, to our detriment. And the worst part of this is that we will likely address our greenhouse gas output anyway, but so late in time that the rest of the world will be selling us THEIR technology. How smart is that?
As to my solutions, planting trees is one of many useful tools to address the issues in a comprehensive manner. Many other ideas are needed.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 39
8) I will also admit to some embarrassment at not realizing until last week how my decades long, automatic charity contribution to the WWF was being misused for propaganda. It will come back to bite them hard if Cap & Trade passes. History shows that when people in the developed world can't afford to heat their homes, donations stop. In the 3rd world it will cause poaching and habitat destruction. Too bad, I do like pandas. I can think of better uses for my money.
Planting trees is the only—
wpdt45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9) good plan AGWrs have. Why? A) They work B) no R&D needed C) they're good for the environment & economy D) they're pretty. Can't say the same for Branson's filters. I'm sure learning from your high priestess that we will die is hard on you and the rest of the cult. Yes, it is a cult. It started with a doomsday prophecy from a "charismatic" leader who claims to care. (Algore doesn't love you, this I know.) You were told that if you obeyed piously & proselytized, you would be saved.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 (cont.) In the you and I will disagree. That's fine. But I'm placing my bets on the need to take action. If I lose, I'll live with that. But if it turns out that you are the loser, don't think that you'll receive much sympathy for your position. The market rewards the innovators and risk takers. So just what, are you going to bet on?
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 24
10) It's insidious in that it's based on "science", so even atheists can be sucked in & the converted truly believe they can stop Armageddon. You rationalize everything & punish the heretics. You felt very powerful, not like the insignificant insects humans are. Like any other cult, it's not really about something moral, it's about power and control. What to do now? Dr. Festinger's theory says you can A) change your mind B) accept the "inevitable" & turn your energies toward reducing human—
wpdt45 1 year ago
11) suffering in the time that's left. Unlike your cult, free thinking people understand human fallacies, & will accept your help should you choose A or B. Or, C) you can continue to be a fool, push for taxes that will ruin the world economy & some believe create an IPCC run New World Order & a Green Gestapo (IMO not so extreme, but we'll lose freedoms). Finally, D) drink the Kool-Aid. Humans should focus on fresh air, clean water, & good soil. I'm betting on nature to regulate climate.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 The only place where yours and my opinions really diverge are 1) nature will regulate climate (true...but MY BET is that we are not going to like those results) and 2) Continued use of perjoratives to belittle the opposing opinion. I had thought you were going to stop doing that. Oh well.
Anyway, I do agree with you on fresh air, clean water, good soil. I disagree with you on how we get to that goal. The future I am betting on is low carbon energy.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@BTYH 1) Though disappointed you didn't choose option A or B, I'm truly glad you didn't choose D. Our opinions diverge much more than you believe as you have chosen C. I was prepared to cease the use of condescending language, but your continued use of it led me to believe you weren't serious. You don't get better than you give. We may not like how nature regulates climate, but there's nothing we can do about it. Humans are too insignificant to control or cause the cycles of warming & cooling--
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (1) Given your approach to this discussion, I had long since abandoned expectations of getting better than I was giving. Now, on to the substantive portion of the debate. Annual CO2 naturally occuring output (geologic activity, natural biological processes) is dwarfed (by a factor of 20) by the anthropogenic output of CO2. I don't know how you can call that insignificant.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
2) experienced in the last 10,000 years. While I don't believe that carbon needs to be limited, we know (the good folks at M4GW too) that fossil fuels are finite & thus we need to research alternate energy sources. The problem this video points out is the inane forcing of this conversion (cap & trade, subsidies) before the technology is ready (especially when based on a false premise) will cause severe hardships on the poor globally. Government subsidies of these "industries" leads to fraud.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (2) Your para 2 makes no sense. Your conclusion seems to be that we should leave it to the market alone to create the new energy paradigm for the future. Problem is, the market won't do that and it never has. Government incentive has always (and still does) play a central role in incubating new technology, and our best moments in America arose through use of government policy and incentives to spur new technology.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
3) Why hasn't the US developed these? Because AGWrs protest them & politicians want to be popular. The most efficient & reliable is nuclear. Too dangerous. Next is hydroelectric. Hurts fish & environment, same with waves. Wind is next. Not as reliable, kills raptors & bats needed for agriculture, ugly, noisy, dangerous, drives away wildlife, uses too much space.
usatoday 2005-01-04-windmills
You seem to love biodiesel, which is the worst. Equally polluting—
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (3) The wheels come off your argument for good in your para 3). Your shallow dismissal of energy schemes, both renewable and fossil fails to acknowlege their usefullness as either bridge technologies or in targeted limited applications. Each that you listed has costs and benefits that need careful evaluation. I never listed support for biomass displacing food crops. I do support limited use of biomass in areas unsuitable for food crops to grow switch grass or hardy conifers.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
4)(still carbon), inefficient, drives up food prices, requires too much land. In Malaysia & Congo rainforest is being destroyed for palm oil & endangered primates are killed as pests. The EU's regulations forcing conversion to biofuels has them declaring plantations as forest.
mongabay 2009/0924 orangutans. & foeeurope 2010/Feb03 EC plans to sacrifice forests for biofuels. & cornell july05/ethanol toocostly
Corrupt!
(Google these youtube doesn't allow links)
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (4) Your para 4) is very true and one that I agree with, except that there may yet be a highly viable future for cellulosic methanol production, or algae- based fuels.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 21
This has been flagged as spam show
5) You love solar, but don't see the problems. Solar is the second worst offender. Unreliable, ugly & expensive.
instituteforenergyresearch 2009/10/26 highest cost generating plant comes on-line in florida
Solar arrays render the land beneath it useless & need a lot of it.
e360 DOT yale msp?id=2236
Full of fraud.
bluewin 24,265341
Schwindel mit Solarstrom in Spanien aufgeflogen
(Sorry, German)
I do like—
wpdt45 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
6) the subsidies. In summer I keep my house cool at your expense because I sell my solar power to you at a profit. Thanks BTW! We'll also become dependant on China who can mine lanthanides & make panels cheaply. These technologies are not ready & forcing them prematurely will have devastating effects. Instead of lining Algore's pocket & financing costly, inefficient "solutions", we should put the money into developing Mr Fusion. Here is a surprising opinion from one who was where we are going:
wpdt45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (5) You lost me with your solar argument: "Solar is the second worst offender. Unreliable, ugly & expensive....In summer I keep my house cool at your expense because I sell my solar power to you at a profit." Huhh? Unless you installed your solar system through an enormous subsidy or tax credit, I should be laughing at you for making such an economically irrational investment...much though I appreciate your effort to install solar.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 7
@BowToYourHighness
peakman2006 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (6) As to last laugh, I get that honor. On my property I installed a run-of-stream micro hydro system rated at 2.2 KW with an annual capacity factor of 78%, net-metered and all in for less than 2 grand. Yes, I take that to the bank.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 56
This comment has received too many negative votes show
7) english pravda ru opinion columnists 109977-0
I said many AGW skeptics believe this is a plot to create a New World Order. They are not that paranoid
tellus org documents Great Transition
I believe most politicians want power enough it won't happen. I'm off to enjoy the rest of a longer, cooler than usual spring. (Thanks to a sunspot minimum.) You do the same.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 5/18/10 (7) You have previously mocked my observation about the speed with which the CHINESE government is building a renewable energy industry from the ground up, seeming to take my statement as support for a communist-style government. It is not, and I do not. I am pointing out that, regardless of our feelings of Chinese-styled governence, they are going to eat our lunch in the future energy market unless we get serious dammed quickly about our energy future.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 24
@wpdt45 4/18/10(8) Our US energy market hasn't nurtured viable alternatives because the political will has been lacking, although the market for such is clearly evident, and growing.
In the end, the only legitimate debate is to what extent AGW impacts our climate. That answer will become increasingly clear. Meanwhile, a switch away from carbon-based energy resources looks smart from every conceivable angle: environmental, energy security, national security, economic, etc.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 53
This has been flagged as spam show
@BTYH I will continue to give you a bit better than I am being given as most free-thinkers do. The problem in this exchange seems to be on your end. You don't read carefully & come up with entirely wrong conclusions. First, estimates from both alarmists & real scientists (aka you & skeptics, I remind you that when I say "you" I really mean AGWrs in general as you seem to have trouble with the concept) that the human CO2 contribution is 2.5-4% of all CO2. That means 96% of CO2 is natural.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 Welcome back my friend, to the show that never ends...
I'll grant that you are continuing to DO better (less pejoratives). But there's no problem at my end. I read your arguments, I read your links, and then make the obvious conclusion to further advance the debate. If I'm going too fast, I'll slow down, if you like.
One other favor. Don't lump me into anybody's argument or camp. If you mean to say "you" as in "me" then say it. But don't say "you" when you me "alarmist", etc.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
2) CO2 is .038% of the atmosphere & .00114% is man made. There is no pre-industrial human estimate, but anthropologists could make the case that it was 1-3%. No statistical difference, & yes, insignificant. The molecular structure of CO2 causes it to work logarithmically. The more CO2, the more heat bounces around the upper atmosphere & out. Yeah, I know confusing chemistry & physics. It’s so much easier to let the IPCC tell you what to think. Second, I clearly stated that those were arguments
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 What the readily available atmospheric research shows from countless sources is that atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased from approx 280 ppm in late 1700s to approx 392 ppm (May, 10). Contrary to what you seem to assert, basic, unequivical, fundamental, indisputable science shows that higher concentrations of CO2 trap long-wave radiation and force warming. If I understand you correctly, the greater the CO2 conc, the cooler the atmosphere becomes. If so....I'm left speechless.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 28
This has been flagged as spam show
3) made by AGWrs (environmentalist warmer alarmists). These are the people in your camp. I just pointed out how contradictory the alarmist camp is, & how the valid points of your camp combined with those of mine, show just how inane it is to force immediate conversion before good technologies are ready & the bad ones are discredited & discarded. Global dumbing revisionist history has you thinking that government policies & incentives drive technology. It was individual innovation that drove
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 My "camp" consists of one person. Me. I associate with professionals and colleagues, but I make - and am paid for - my own conclusions.
As to "forcing" technologies, au contraire. I believe the market is the most powerful way to determine what technologies should win and lose. But at present we have no real market...only various systems of monopolies and oligarchies.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 32
This has been flagged as spam show
4) technology, & government policies have kept us dependent on foreign oil. I concede that not all government policies failed, but now few succeed & the success rate is falling. This is the current state of government sponsored science in the AGW era: usatoday sciencefair 2010/05 mammoth extinction triggered climate cooling "Science" that’s good enough for government work. Here is policy "incubated" "science": inhabitat 2010/05/10 bill-gates
You’re reading propaganda & not facts.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 No single government policy will unfailingly produce the objective results, but in a democracy there is seldom better sources of stimulus funds to catalyze R&D. (Notable exception: the X-Prize foundation. We need more of this private-sector activity!) As to who's reading propaganda versus facts, I'd advise caution what accusation you make: at the end of the day, facts can be used many ways, and where the research continues to develop, it is every person's Rorschach test.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 32
This has been flagged as spam show
5) Most of the things you mentioned are just dreams or over exaggerated. As to your water wheel, good for you. Hopefully your precious government, an upstream neighbor or a beaver won't divert your water. As to China, I was saying that you are naive to think they would enter in to green energy in earnest. The few solar panels & windmills they threw up are facades. They want to make the things, corner the market & own us. There's no political will, only special interest will. Read the Kerry bill.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 I didn't exaggerate the benefits of any technology. There will be room for many different technologies in the market in the future as a bridge or stop-gap measure until dominant solutions become apparent. I advocate rational, economic full-life-cycle analsyis of present and future energy technologies to determine their most efficient use. As to the Chinese, you're flat wrong: they're installing solar and wind projects (on and offshore) by the terra-watt. Certainly they'll build...
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 33
@wpdt45 ...and use their own technology, but they are poised to become a global POWERHOUSE in renewable technology SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE LET THEM.
As to my micro-hydro (water-wheel, huh?), I appreciate your concern, but her in the north-eastern US, water rights are not so litigated, and I consume no water in the first place. I pipe it 134 vertical feet downhill, turbine, and return it to the stream. In fact, I do have a beaver dam upstream: it helps to regulate flow during dryer months.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 32
This has been flagged as spam show
6) It's nothing but expensive special interest pandering & won't work. As for low carbon energy being good for environmental, energy & national security, economic, etc., it is responsible for Spain's (Obama's model) collapse & the land grab that will destroy a national park in Denmark: juandemariana org pdf 090327 employment public aid renewable DOT pdf
nationalttestcenter DOT dk/nyheder/English
(google)
Obviously forcing a switch now threatens world stability more than any imagined crisis.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 In 2009 I read the "Effects of on Employment of Public Aid in Renewable Energy", and some of its arguments have some limited validity. The report itself is not without internal bias, and contains problematic research. More so, its applicability to the renewables industry, in the EU or US, is marginally, if all, relevant to the real problems we presently face. For reasons too complicated to discuss here, I would regard and use the report only with extreme caution and limits.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 35
This has been flagged as spam show
7) Why do you want the government be your nanny? Do you enjoy living in fear? Do you think you’re one of the anointed, or just a loyal political pawn? Read, get informed, learn the difference between information & propaganda. Look at what both sides are saying, think for yourself & avoid hypocrisy. Most of all, get a sense of humor watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 I read with interest your arguments, criticisms, and disputes with present energy policy. With all due respect, what is finally your point, and what policy do YOU actually support. There's a lot of noise in the blogosphere echo chamber repeating oft-made (and scientifically unsupported) opposition positions to weaning off oil. Is it your position that we should continue with our present fossil-fuel uses and policies?
Jangle2007 1 year ago 17
@wpdt45 (2) "Government as nanny". This statement reveals a profound misunderstanding (or perhaps ignorance) of the role of any effective goverment. I presume you drive some sort of vehilce? If so, you already depend upon the government to provide you with roadways, bridges, relatively inexpensive fuel subsidized by a massive military presence to protect supply regions, regulations to keep roadways safe, etc etc. It has nothing to do with "living in fear".
Jangle2007 1 year ago 18
@wpdt45 (3) It has to do with recognition that private industry is most efficient at micro economics - producing goods and services through capital invesment. Private industry is a chronic and abject failure at providing public goods and macro economic stability. That's where the government functions best: Regulation. Policy. Rules. And where R&D needs stimulation, the proper incentives. Examples of proof = 1) The industrial enterprise to win WWII 2) Manhattan Project 3) Appolo/Moon.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 20
@wpdt45 (4) As to relevance to this current thread, the solution to a move away from fossil-based energy resources (which is critical to our security and future, whether or not one believes climate change a factor) will be initiated and stimulated by government action, policy, and incentives, as the private sector cannot and will not do this on their own.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
@jangle Couldn't resist gang trolling, huh Moe? Tell your friend Shemp not to even try. Given your stated education level I expected more from you, but all you can do is regurgitate strawman platitudes. Disappointing. I'll indulge you by answering your question anyway. A) I don't support covering the earth with inefficient, expensive, environmentally dangerous energy "solutions" based on a politically motivated religious cult's pseudoscience. We have 200+ years of oil, etc. left, CO2 is not
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 I call it vigorous discussion. You call it trolling. We've seen your brand of tricks before. 1936 Germany,etc. I'll leave you to the bed your making. Best of luck.
Jangle2007 1 year ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
2) pollution & we know how to reduce real fossil fuel pollutants. I support researching hydrogen, nuclear etc. & getting them right before switching. I support reducing real pollution, using resources wisely & conservation. AGW is not supported by science, that position is. B) I support small, efficient government. I don't mind paying taxes when they are used for what they are intended. An example from your shallow, strawman comment would be roads. I pay the highest gas tax as well as DMV &
wpdt45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3) property taxes. Every year they try to increase them because the roads are so bad. They no longer succeed because for years we avoid the same wheel wrecking potholes while the legislators get raises, perks & freshly decorated offices. You can't think of an example of government stimulating industry that didn't involve war or cold war. The industries involved geared themselves up out of patriotism. Sorry if I used a word you don't understand. Right now private industries milk the subsidies.
wpdt45 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4) Big Oil funds AGW propaganda because they know green will fail. Haven't you asked yourself why they have been so quiet on the issue & why Rockefeller is the main funder of Woods Hole etc? BTW things like the EPA declaring milk a hazardous material doesn't help stimulate business. C) Living in fear refers to the delight you get believing & spreading doomsday prophecies. You people get off on it. Private industry could & would find energy solutions if government would let them. Goodbye, Moe.
wpdt45 1 year ago
@wpdt45 Government as nanny? Is this where you could be lumped in with the tea party-Beck-Limbaugh-Coulter-Fox camp? For the sake of argument, lets remove government from the picture for a moment and see what we get: Savings and Loan melt-downs. Financial / housing credit crisis and a Wall Street that preys on anybody not on the "inside". Gulf Oil Spills. Without strong government, you get Somalia. I'm an investor, a thinker, a cog in the economic system.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 34
@wpdt45 A functional govt keeps the system glued together, regulated and running. The results of an abscence of government are too readily apparent. Scoff if you must, but this reveals only a lack of understanding or deeper ignorance. Jangle2007's point seems valid: govt is most useful promoting macro economic stability.
PS - I have a sense of humor. But Dr. Hansimian is not going to pick my stocks.
BowToYourHighness 1 year ago 36
This has been flagged as spam show
@BTYH Well, Larry, the show ends now. I take care of myself, but you needing to call in your associates Curly & Moe for help just makes me look like a bully (even though you started it) & my You Tube time is too scarce & precious to waste on all 3 stooges. A few closing points. A) China: 30 new coal plants to open by the end of next year, needed for the real power for the useless windmills etc. they put up. We can't build them because libs exported manufacturing & won't let