The sollution must rather be to break off the monopoly and copyrights and let technology and science take care of it. The politicians should stay the hell away from this!!!
@turbofritz2 Absolutely NOT. Politicians should listen to the environmentalists and citizens who have had enough land, air and water pollution fromt these giant companies.
@damoninsky Citeczents do NOT want a global tax. This is a unconstitutional kind of illigal transfer of welth from poor and middle class over to some parasite globalists that don't benifit any of us.
@turbofritz2 It's amazing how little you know on this subject. You are seriously only regurgitating FoxNews, republican talking points. No substance, all BS. The civilization is at stake (according to the scientific consensus on climate change). Raising a tiny tax to help prevent it isn't asking too much; but that's not even the big deal. The big deal is that the actual major polluters DON'T want to be taxed anything, so they pay PR groups to spread disinformation, which you ate up.
@turbofritz2 So you'd rather allow private companies be able to do whatever they want to the planet? Why do you find it OK for them to come in, extract resources (who's to say it is theirs in the first place? should it be everybody's?), burn it and dump waste wherever they want (back into OUR environment)? Just because their is a law that allows them to? Stupid law if you ask me. Time to change it.
@whiskeredtuna Actually, I like a lot of his liberal stances, though I think he also believes 911 was a conspiracy conducted by Bush. He's a true idiot with other respects.
@damoninsky You notice how jesse always meeting people in some out of the way location so as not to be seen...Yet, their willing to go on camera & spill the beans. anytime i see him giving interviews on talk shows or radio shows he spends most of his time trying to sell the show. just like in his wrestling days. he has carried that acting over to reality.
@whiskeredtuna Exactly! This video he made is all smoke and mirrors, completely biased and utterly deceiving with cinematographic tricks. Not a true investigation of climate science at all. It's amazing how many morons the U.S. makes up.
I checked out some of the sources listed and the result is they do not support CO2 causes global warming. My weather tech: So common knowledge would indicate that when the Earth warms carbon dioxide and methane begin to rise in response. When the Earth begins to cool, carbon dioxide and methane begin to drop off in response. Well if that is the case, the “Carbon Dioxide Argument” goes up or should I say down in defeat.
@HanginAbout Wow, your grasp on the subject matter (even with your research) is quite pathetic. Go try actual science sites (75% of the sites about climate change are BS, unscientific, Big Business propaganda).
@Allisoninsky Then what makes you any more correct than anyone else! It's just a lot of hot air about co2 causing global warming. You don't need to look at any scientific research because it requires just very basic common sense. CO2 does not cause global warming. It's a joke. I replied back because I want you to use your common sense.
@HanginAbout Wow, see, the difference between me and you, is that I have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support my claim. YOU are simply stating an opinion. I site SCIENTIFIC articles and agree with the scientific consensus. YOU go on opinions, NOT science. If you think you do, please site a source that states your ridiculous claim.
I'll trust Jesse Ventura ANY DAY over those who attack him. He is one of the few guys out there who has the guts to expose government lies and conspiracies.
@zzyzx0788 Seriously? You get your opinion for a YouTube video? Ha! First of all, that guy spends more than half the time explaining what global warming and what a positive feedback loop is (since nobody reads anymore). All it comes down to is that he has two different tiny arguments: 1, the broken satellite one anecdote of unreliable data doesn't discount the 1000's of research papers that support it. And 2, the 800 year lag is a very common misunderstood occurrence, go READ about it.
@damoninsky Lol, no i dont get my opinion from youtube, actually a great deal of that has come from universities (which yes I know apparently has a very liberal bias). Are you kidding? Potholer54 has the ability to debunk all bullshit, including Al Gores. Thats why I respect him and recommend viewing. I dont understand how people can accuse this of being a giant conspiracy. Mainly because I think giant conspiracies are retarded and never make real sense.
@zzyzx0788 Interesting how universities (the smartest most intellectual minds around) have a "liberal bias", that's because they ARE liberal. Liberal means freedom to think up new ideas, quite different from being "conservative" where everyone STOPS thinking and just wants the same. Go READ how OTHER scientists explain the 800 lag (because your guy didn't). His 'opinion' doesn't trump scientific census; if that's how science worked, we should be debating what killed the dinosaurs too.
@damoninsky I'm curious... the scientific consensus is clear that global warming is occurring. I mean as far as my research goes, and I'm finding a bit of difficulty turning up competing explanations from scientists about the 800 lag. This is not an attack, but it would be very helpful if you could actually explain the other ideas about this, or perhaps link to a paper or two which supports what you say?
@Norlick Thank you for actually attempting to do research, I really appreciate your skepticism and passion for truth (neither of which produces fruit quickly). I know it is difficult amongst all of the disinformation out there, so you find accredited scientific institutions, journals, literature, etc...If you want a good explanation, NewScientist is very reputable, article called "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming"
@Allisoninsky Thanks for the courteous reply :) But this has added more confusion. I was under the impression you'd not believed in climate change, yet NewScientist, and all relevant sources I could dig up appear to support the idea that Climate Change is occurring because of man-made events, and that the 600-1000 lag is due in part to orbital changes, which trigger a spike in CO2.
@Norlick Sorry you were confused, yes, you have mistaken my position (i wonder how). I have always sided with the scientists and agreed with their data that supports climate change and humans's influence on it. Whatever the IPCC report says, I agree with. (this is Damoninsky too). I made this video to inform the deniers.
@Norlick NewScientist isn't a journal, it's just an accurate magazine for scientific news (based on recent published journal articles). If you want the real-deal, hard-core original science research articles on the matter, type in "the 800 year lag graphed" and the first site that pops up (joannenova) will have a list of great references on the topic (and also offers another great graphic explanation). She alone isn't "accredited" or anything, but her sources are. Please reply if need be.
@2KModzX Yes, please do so and go back to living your conspiracy theory. You should watch part 2 just for the fun of it, then try and provide any refuting evidence. How can you deny scientists, but support the big oil companies? How much education have you had?
@2KModzX Everyone knows the government lies. But climate change has nothing to do with government. It's about science. There is a scientific census about climate change and humans contribution to it. Show me one example where the entire scientific community got together to create a conspiracy about something. You can't.
@Allisoninsky Yea but what the government is doing is that there scaring people by telling them the world is gonna end if you dont stop farting or if you dont buy green products so who profits when you buy green products...the government
@2KModzX No, government is not saying this at all. Scientists are saying this. Government responds to the populace. Why do you think the government profit from green products? This is business. Private companies will produce renewable energies and green products, people will pay for them, it's the same as anything else. Not only will it help the economy, but also clean up the air.
There are several scientist whose work indicates that g/wming is due to the sun, which is in an highly active phase. Jessie's show is just a fun . The problem with global warming is that it isn't fully proven to be the reason our planet is warming up - after all it has had warm periods in the past. Read the literature and learn both sides - don't trust anyone to inform you of anything - find out for yourself!
@ShiningFlamez Both the sun and green house gases contribute to the climate, do you really think there's any scientist foolish enough to say only one is the sole cause? Its important to keep an eye on both
I seldom believed Jesse Ventura would stoop to such levels. In the context of sincerity, Scientists will always take precedence as they aren't influenced by biased partisanship. The scientific method by definition is rigorously self critical, politicians are not. Good video damoninsky.
@raidon04 Thanks, I really appreciate it. Hardly anyone ever compliments me on this video, they're mostly obnoxious comments made by people who don't understand or haven't had experience in the field of science.
@damoninsky Unfortunately, politics shares a lot of similar traits to that of religion. Both prioritise belief as opposed to truth. Both are obstinate, obnoxious and have a deep, resonating bigotry. I am sure there are genuinely politically neutral sceptics, although I feel confident enough to make the assertion that the majority are subliminally and consciously loyal to certain political factions. I applaud you for being polemic and loyal to scientific fact.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,”
According to him there is global warming on all of the known planets and Mars is along the same timetable as us. Do they also have a problem with CO2 on Mars and Jupiter etc. Carbon credits is all bout money
@TheRickmurray It's funny, he even ADMITS that humans have contributed to Global Warming, are you sure you want to use him as evidence? Just because a scientist has a different opinion than the scientific consensus doesn't mean that he is right. There are several scientists that have different opinions about how the dinosaurs went extinct, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The way science works, is that the facts influences the consensus, until they are contradicted.
@damoninsky You only see what you want to see. He says that human's have contributed only slightly to the planet warming. We are not on Mars and it are heating up near the same levels. Should we pour billions of dollars thru carbon taxing and credits on a issue that most scientist would agree we are only contributing slightly to. Also, pole shifts have alot to do with our current situation as well. But I am like Al Gore and not an expert and really do not know what I am talking about.
@TheRickmurray No, you are NOT like Al Gore, he has actually studied the science literature. He is simply the talking piece for the scientists (who have the consensus). Once again, you can't just take one outlier's position as fact and dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the scientific consensus. Not only that, but you're taking another observation (polar caps decreasing on Mars) and claiming it's due to the sun, which is also NOT a scientific consensus, but merely a hypothesis. Just stop
@Tommy4216 That's a good question. I really don't know. I think that he's accepted his stance as the truth (he really believes it now) and is too stubborn to ever turn back.
@TheRickmurray That's hilarious. You obviously didn't even watch it all the way through or else you would have wrote your comment in Part 2. Just the fact that the first person he goes to to understand climate change is a Fox News correspondent is just idiotic (if he wants to learn the science behind it) or just deceptive (because he is duped or paid by Big Oil propaganda).
@damoninsky Why don't you look up carbon taxing and how the Coenhagen treaty almost started a one world goverment to collect the carbon tax and distribute.
@TheRickmurray Carbon taxing is a brilliant idea; I'm all about paying taxes to help our society and the environment. Go watch the second video (after you watch this one), then try to refute something.
@damoninsky If you are for Carbon Taxing you are a fool. Carbon has played no role in "Global Warming", Have you even looked at what scientist are saying. In 25 years we will have gone up in temp. 1/5 of a degree. It is all a sham Damion. I use to beleive in it, but after seeing Al Gore get ripped to shreds so many times by Scientist I saw it for what it was. A money maker. Did you know your expert Mr. Gore only took on college credit in the subject matter and suddenly had all knowledge of it.
@TheRickmurray You have been duped by right-wing, Big Oil, non-scientific propaganda. Go read what the scientists are saying (not the politicians or Fox News). Anyone can be "ripped to shreds", but that doesn't mean the people doing the ripping are right. Go read the IPCC report. Every single National Science Academy agrees that CO2 is responsible. Please show evidence to the contrary and stop regurgitating corporate talking points.
@damoninsky I do not watch Fox news and i havae always been a very liberal democrat. Look over to your right and you will see links to Al gore gets sued by 30,000 scienists. If the Carbon tax comes to pass it would be the end of our country, wwe would be required to spend, not millions but Billions and possibly trillions to help 3rd world countrys because we are a country with more people and people admit CO2 naturally. This is all so so silly.. Go buy your carbon credits and be done with it.
@TheRickmurray If you bothered to watch this video, you would see that this "30,000 scientists" shit has been debunked. Your knowledge is crap because your sources are crap. At least the "trillions" would be spent keeping our earth cleaner, as opposed to going to Big Oil, Coal, Automobile and Industry (for the record it's not trillions, though Bush wasted trillions on unjust wars).
All of you that believe this video is so snowed, and you are snowed by..wait for it... your government and the NWO!! As far as where I get my info Timmins, I do ppersonally get my info from reading and research myself. The tv is a brainwashing scheme, so I can see where you may think this is fake, BUT if you would research instead of mock us, you will figure that out. Also the internet is a good place to warn epeople & get like minded people together.I bet you idiots believe Bin Laden did 9/11
@jgjennifergreen1 Uh, where do you get your info from? What are your sources? You are so caught up in conspiracy theories, it's so sad. NWO? Global Warming is fake?? Bush did 9/11??? Hahaha...please, I dare you to choose any of those topics and reveal your sources. Each of those are well known conspiracy theories....your heart is in the right place for seeking truth, but your brain is too eager for the sensationalized media. Good luck with your quest for knowledge.
@Timmins420 What's pathetic are the people that get sucked into this dramatic TV as truth. What's pathetic is people get their information from TV instead of reading. I not only point out the standard cinematography, but more importantly, the lack of evidence and biased journalism. Why don't you try dismissing the evidence instead of pointing out something obvious.
@Timmins420 Whats really pathetic is people like you who think everything on TV is evil and corrupt and can't believe anything unless some dick in a lab coat says hmm yes, they expect people to research on their own and think for themselves theres no need to talk about every single things it has to be a certain length does it not? not everyhing can be squeezed into 44 mins. Im not interested in dismissings his evidence what he presents its pretty clear
im not saying its not scripted either its pretty obvious when every single episode the black girls presents something at the beginning, then the other guy says something trying to debunk it and jesse goes oh well blah blah. anyone with a brain can tell the show is made to create drama and draw viewers, but it opens people up to issues or 'conspiracys' that they may not have heard of you have to start somewhere and i think this show is a great starting point to someones personal research intothis
The climate propaganda concerns me. I will keep watching but as best I can tell, a carbon tax is going to go along way to funding an oppressive global government run by eco-nuts who want to control everything you do to rescue the planet from mankinds foolishness and greed. Climate changes and humans pollute but I do not want to support or breath life into any more beurocratic machines! It is too risky... And offers very little hope for actual beneficial action.
@NowForTruth "an oppressive global government run by eco-nuts"??? Hahahaha....there has never been such a thing, why not give them a chance? So far, we've only had governments run by war-mongers and corporation-lovers. You know what is "risky", continue letting corporations prevent government from conducting true eco activism. If you think our rivers, air and environments are clean and in good health, you're in denial. EPA gets a drop of funding compared to military.
FACT: scientists are funded by the government or private institutions with special interests. How do scientists make money? If a scientist does research on his/her own or invents a product on his/her own eventually it will get in the hands of institutions regardless if it is self invested. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean anything.
One example: BP bought energy renewal bacteria from a scientist for $700 million dollars and now the scientist works for BP. Special interest
@hybird9012 Your "fact" is ignorantly generalizing. Of course there are scientists for BP, that doesn't mean they are all in it for the money, and it doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad. You should familiarize yourself with how science is conducted before it's published. If you don't believe in peer-reviewed, accredited science journals, then you will remain lost in the world of PR propaganda. Please show some evidence of how the science in Nature or Science is improper.
Medicine is generally not safe and you are more likely to develop complications as a result (my dad is a doctor). We have engineered rockets and they don't work all the time. We have satellites in space and they don't work all the time. We CAN'T predict the weather. There is no demonstrable evidence of macro evolution.... read 'the Apology' by Darwin himself. The difference between a chimp and a human is actually HUGE. CO2 does exist, so does oxygen and nitrogen. What's your point?
@hybird9012 If it were "generally not safe" to get medicine, then people wouldn't go to see a doctor (my wife and dad are doctors). The point is that scientists understand much of how the world works and we don't question their findings (they do). Why do you believe CO2 and oxygen exist? Scientists! Why do we know when a hurricane or storm is coming (yes, we can predict weather, of course not all of the time)? Scientists! How do we know that macro and microevolution is fact? Scientists!
ah.. hate to break it but Global Warming isn't true and it's proven NOT to be true regardless of the organizations that support it. Also, you better look into where all those organizations get all their funding... hum.. If global warming were to be true, it would exist from the CO2 emitted from algae, plants, animals, humans, etc.. basically every living thing on Earth. Guess how many people drive in the world? 8%. And that's only certain parts of the day.
@hybird9012 These aren't just "organizations", these are the scientists that bring you everything you see around you. Do you believe medicine works? Do you believe we've built rockets? Do you believe we have satellites? Do you believe we can predict the weather? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in any science? Doyou believe CO2 exists? If so, why do you pick and choose this specific topic for the scientists to be wrong about, but right about the others? You are clueless.
@choochinbigtime420 I know, isn't it? I mean, how can people actually believe that every single science journal and science magazine is wrong, but believe the Big Oil and FOX News PR campaigns? Do people honestly believe that all of the scientists are wrong about this one thing, but right about everything else? Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, along with the environment.
The warmists are liars and fraudsters...........Al [NO BRAIN] Gore being the prime example - as for the other sheeple that tow the warmists theory? Many try to bolster their delusions with criminal actions against those they percieve as 'perpetrators' of this 'global warming' Oh, incidentally, Gore no brain has lined his pockets very nicely thank you on the back of the warmist agenda!
@colliecandle I demand you show evidence of Gore making all of this money (which is a very common Fox News talking point). You think he's making more then the oil company CEOs? Ha! You think he's making more than the auto company CEOs? Ha! You think he's making more than the lobbyists? Ha! You think all of the scientists are wrong about this? Show evidence! Virtually every single scientist, every scientific organization, and climatologist supports the scientific fact of global warming.
@fuquininsane They still do call it Global Warming during the times when the climate is changing to become warmer (like it is now). Go ask any climatologist (not Fox News).
sorry CHOMPSKY , dont know where you are going with this and just who you are but you couldnt justify anything and you didnt do anything productive , try debunking bush or obama that might get you some views... TERRIBLE and pure time wasting BULLCRAP!
@itizmemrrizvi I think you may have meant to write this comment on a different video. Chomsky wasn't mentioned anywhere and Bush and Obama have nothing to do with the this attack against science. If you did mean to write this here, then you failed to point out a single flaw.
But when governments lie and continue to lie, it's kind of hard to tell when they are telling the truth. I believe the pc title is climate change though now and not global warming - i guess they wanted to wrap it up in a new bow. Science is powerful- but it can be paid for. Most of the science here in the US tells us that products, food, and medicine are safe...when it's not. And there are plenty of real scientists out there that question global warming. Who's telling the truth?
@zmcleod I agree that it is difficult to tell when to believe government, but this isn't about government, it's about the science. The only reason why this debate exists is due to PR disinformation campaigning by Big Oil and friends. To suggest the science behind it is "paid for" is a pretty bold statement, one the republicans would love for people to believe; though surely there is evidence of this? Science can tell us what is safe, but the people who sell us stuff may not. It's the People.
@damoninsky and no, there aren't "plenty of real scientists" out there that question global warming; hardly a single climatologist would suggest the climate isn't changing, and hardly a couple may believe humans aren't contributing to it. It's another scientific theory; every theory has dissenters, but that doesn't make the theory incorrect. The leading theory of how the dinosaurs went extinct is an asteroid, but some scientists have other ideas, that doesn't mean they're right.
I don't think he went to the reporter for the reporter's expertese on Climate Change. He went to the reporter for a reference or even better, a connection to a reference (someone who is closer to the subject). He might let the reporter add his two sense, but that's not what Jesse is there for, Jesse is really there to get a name(s).
The point of the show, I think is to make the viewer aware, that perhaps "Global Warming" is the title of a billion dollar scam that jeapordizes health/safety
@ECWnWWF Sure, he wanted to get the most sensational side of the story. He tracked down the people who would provide the contradicting information. This is precisely how conspiracy theories work. There is ALWAYS supposed info that contradicts the actual info; but it really doesn't, it just appears to do so when one lacks knowledge of the original claim. This video is to lure people into one side without ever having seen the other.
So, you are debunking Jesse's show ... because he started his investigation with a News guy .... wouldn't a News guy have contacts? The news guy might have some information about Climate change if he's covering the story, but most importantly he would have contacts.
Now granted this show is hollywoodanized with the sound effects, the narration, the suspense music, and all. But, I think the purpose is to give the viewer ideas of what might be happening. Inspire their curiousity to look it up
@ECWnWWF I'm sorry, you don't research a topic by asking a partisan/biased reporter. By no means, was that guy an expert in Climate Change. Therefore he should have went to some science journal articles, the IPCC report, and spoke with dozens of Climatologists. The problem is that he made up his mind BEFORE he began his research. I completely agree with you that his ideas should provoke curiosity for people to do further investigations, but sadly, most people are lazy and easily manipulated.
Wow dude i feel bad for you cause i live in Toronto, Canada and get pure fucking snow every winter. Yes, every once in a while there is a little less and a little more each year so what does that tell you? That the climate is always changing and yes, Jesse does talk about alot of other issues but half of them you dont even prove wrong. The government and bankers of the world are out to fuck you royally so have fun being cattle you self righteous prick.
@Lambofgod9904 It tells me that you don't even know the difference between weather and climate or world averages vs. local averages. There's more snow now because there's more water vaper now because it's warmer now! How could you honestly believe Jessie, when the FIRST person he goes to learn about climate change is a Fox News friend? This is ALL about science. You are the sheep, following the Big Oil and Big Business propaganda wolves. Research the SCIENCE!
@koorgen No doubt there are people out there with not a lot of money, I mean, we have LOADS of them over here too. But at least you guys don't have to worry about paying health insurance, among many other social benefits. Watch my other video, Dear Tea Party, Check Out Europe.
We've been going through climate change since the Earth's creation, can't these silly little liberal tree-huggers understand this. In the 70s they were worried about a fucking ice age, 30 years later there worried about global warming.........
@ConservativeRev Interesting how nearly every single climate scientist is now deemed a "tree hugger". You obviously haven't looked at any research and are just repeating your Big Oil, corporate, Fox News propaganda. Global Warming and Ice Ages are coupled, one leads to another. Read before you write.
@damoninsky well i believe jesse now, our government just spent 724billion dollars on war an we can't seem to come together on anything else is crazy to me ,in fact we pass that bill faster than we passed the bill to support the heroes of 911 it's a shame but the truth the rich get richer while the middle class goes to war,honestly i'm done voting bush,obama,none of them care about the people contingency plan to divide america,an thats no joking matter!
@badgk187 I side with your concern and actions to not vote for the dems or reps in the future, but I don't think that warrants that what everything Jesse Ventura has to say is valid. He definitely has the right idea on a few things (like religion and being a social liberal), but he's a complete nutball on Climate Change and the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
a carbon tax is total horse-shit.. its only going to raise prices and what will the money go to? Restoring the ozone layer... right... we dont need anymore taxes shoved up our ass
@Bojoe777NaBl Dude, you should first, at the very least, get the basic science down. Monitoring carbon has nothing to do with the Ozone Layer. Your blatant lack of knowledge is frightening, but what is even more scary, is that half of this country is just like you.
@Bojoe777NaBl you're back for more? With your comments about the "ozone layer"? You are so far from knowing what's going on, maybe if you keep going down the path of ignorance, you'll come full circle and start right back where you began, knowing absolutely nothing. At least that would be better than living a total life of dilution.
@damoninsky c'mon.. i'm no fool.. we are in no way a threat to mother earth and all i was saying I don't want taxes shoved up our asses and hell i'm not recycling until they legalize hemp or do something real that would have an impact.. Think before you type
@Bojoe777NaBl Personally, I do want taxes shoved up our asses because that's what makes for a better society. To suggest we are "no way a threat to mother earth" is completely foolish. Pick up a book a book a text book on environmental studies before you have opinions.
@damoninsky Taxes are alright for a few things but dude mt. Saint Helen's eruption alone is more pollution than humans have ever done quit acting like a know it all douche ffs
@Bojoe777NaBl Sorry man, you've been absorbing the Big Oil, right-wing propaganda. Volcanoes spew a fraction of what humans have been. You're just regurgitating the most superficial talking points without having read a damn thing on the science. Humans put out 27 gigatons of CO2 per year, volcanoes put out 0.2 gigatons, 130 times more! Go read about it at the US Geological Survey site. Science articles: Gerlach 1991 or 2002, or Maryland 2006. If you disagree, show evidence!
Kind of hard to debunk facts such as temperature driving up CO2 levels not vice versa, that our current global climate is not outside the normal range of variance in climate change, and that the warming trend started before the industrial revolution when were barely producing any carbon. Not to mention all the data showing correlations to climate and solar cycles.
@Devious2323 Wow, you epitomize the average American's ignorance. I beg you to reveal your sources which claim your disinformative remarks "temperature drives up CO2 levels" or, "our current global climate change is not outside the normal range" or "all the data showing correlations to climate and solar cycles". I dare you to provide evidence from an ACCREDITED source...not Fox News or from Big Oil public relation propaganda. Good luck.
@damoninsky Maybe YOU should go do some homework. Our warming period has a lower temperature than many other recent warming periods in the Holocene including the MWP. The climate was also warmer in other interglacial periods in the last 500k years including the Eemian period. I'm surprised you've never heard that historically Temperature drives up CO2. That's a pretty accepted fact by most scientists, even ones that believe in AGW.
@Devious2323 No, maybe you should. Those temperatures were regional, NOT global...so you go research GMT. Temperature drives CO2 during Milanokovitch cycles, but it's NOT happening today. It's hilarious how you guys can just pick and choose things pieces that the scientists come up with for your evidence, but disregard everything else they find too. Everything you mentioned is in the IPCC report, but it's surrounded by dozens of other papers that you won't hear about from Fox propaganda.
As a closed minded fool... You really need to pay attention to ALL of the facts so you can see what kind of REAL danger we are all in. Main stream media also reported that there were emails and MORE that PROVED the global warming scam is a hoax! THIS IS A CARBON BASED PLANET!!! TREES BREATHE IT SO WE CAN HAVE OXYGEN! HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@transonicmind77 Hahaha, "mainstream media"..."proved hoax"...Hahaha. Wow man, you're hilarious! Since you probably only watch Fox, you probably have no idea what those emails were actually about. Nothing in any emails negated any science; but were sentences taken out of context. You also obviously haven't read ANY science journal, so are completely unaware that humans contribute to carbon emissions. If you want to know more, I would start with reading Science or Nature. Good luck.
@crisie0115 Hahaha, you people are amazing, refusing to listen to the other side. Why don't you do yourself a favor and see what the other side has to say instead of just going with the conspiracy theories right off the bat? I spent the time to here your argument, what, are you afraid of the our rebuttal?
damoninsky you are rubbish and all your films are skewed, even your American Imperialism-exstravaganza, doesn't even point remotely in the direction of the criminals in charge: The Elite-banking-media types who sit at the Council On Foreign Relations/Royal Institute Of International Affairs. The Scientific Agencies that agree on Climate Bullshit are PAID PAID PAID PAID. Thats why the numbers are with those who don't. Here is a brief list of Scientists, who know the con: Continued
@herculese220 Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. continued:
@herculese220 Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. David Bellamy, botanist. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science. David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.
@herculese220 William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University. William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University. William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology. David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
@herculese220 Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. Tim Patterson,[30] paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide.Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville. And on and on and on I could go.....
@herculese220 So what right-wing website did you get your list from? See, it's you people who just spread the propaganda without doing real research. Half of these people you mentioned have absolutely NO merit (physicians, geologists, Ian Pilmer falsified data is an embarrassment), and the other half don't even agree with each other but have their own opinions. This is exactly how science should work, there's never 100% census, but you roll with the majority (in this case 97%).
@damoninsky Listen mate the "wings", both 'left' and 'right', are both joined onto the same Bird 'of Tyranny', that hides behind the shield. Until you can understand that you are Brainwashed, you will not see. Science isn't to help you, it's to control you. We could live with total abundance, of all needs, with no starving, anywhere, and sustain a Global Population of 8 times what it is now, with clean fuel and no pollution. Our 'system', is based on 'Scarcity', because POWER, comes from this.
@herculese220 I was with you right up to "[science] is to control you". Firstly, I despise the republicans, and I really don't give too much of a damn for the democrats. These parties are definitely bought and the democracy in this country is virtually non-existent. Secondly, the problem isn't the science, but how we decide to use it. People are completely ignorant and crazy for consumerism while corporations dominate without regulations. Clean fuel and no pollution will come from science.
@herculese220 Why do you just shrug away the fact that large corporations should be allowed to just pollute, pollute, pollute and get PAID, PAID, PAID? Scientific agencies are paid to do research to understand the world, yes, but why is this a bad thing? These are the people who are now able to predict hurricanes, snow storms, etc...how can you just pick and choose what science to accept is real?
@damoninsky Sorry I came in a bit offensive, but I got annoyed listening to your Ad Hominem attacks on Ventura during your narration. Listen, large corporations are the enemy, but they control most of the agencies that do the 'research'. On the weather, scratch "predict" mate. CONTROL is where they are now with weather. Read: Unless Peace Comes, 1968, by Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald, associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California.
@herculese220 The money may come from corporations, but science is science. Scientists follow the scientific method and is peer reviewed for bias and errors. Who interprets the data is very important, that's why we need to read the journals and NOT listen to the media. I will look into this book you mention.
@damoninsky "science is science. Scientists follow the scientific method and is peer reviewed for bias and errors." That's twaddle mate, read off the script. If you haven't yet read the IPCC e-mails(which have been verified in a National Enquiry), then you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Because they 'laid bare' the corrupt, pathetic peer-review process. On science in general, they are at least 60 yrs ahead of any technology that they show us. Behaviourism is the frontier now.
@herculese220 It's really unbelievable how people (ie: yourself) can so easily disregard scientific data, analysis, and their conclusions simply because they don't like it. The IPCC report is as comprehensive (but actually much more so) as any scientific report concerning any field of science. Those emails don't negate any science within the report but merely spin a conspiracy theory your way. The "behaviorism" of being ignorant and eating up conspiracy theories is the frontier indeed.
@damoninsky lol, You don't even know what Behaviourism is do you? Or Understand it's implications. Here's some reading for you: Topics in the History of Psychology, Vol. 1 ("Ivan Petrovich Pavlov and Classical Conditioning" begins on p. 24)
by Gregory A. Kimble, Kurt Schlesinger. Foundations of Conditioning and Learning (Chap. 2 "Pavlov and the Experimental Study of Conditional Reflexes")
@herculese220 Did you just take this class or something? Are you still in college? Everyone knows Pavlov. Your comment regarding "behaviorism" was so out of context in that last sentence, the term behaviorism could have been interpreted in many different ways..."it's the frontier now"??? That doesn't even mean anything. This debate is on the if the science is credible or not. You haven't produced ANY evidence. Money funds science, that's not evidence.
@damoninsky lol, How can you dictate my context, you silly little boy? I'm having to try and come in and out of many subjects because you are so ignorant, of them all !
@herculese220 Hahaha, I'm actually very aware of each one; but my knowledge is the opposite of yours. Your knowledge is coming from right-wing propaganda machines and have very few credible sources. What "many subjects" are you talking about? You obviously didn't take ANY time to research climate change, or else you wouldn't have given me a junky list people and called that evidence. Read the journal of Science or Nature on climate change, then try to disprove that.
@herculese220 If you don't believe there is a difference between abortion and anti-abortion, or stem cell research and not stem cell research, or tax cuts and not tax cuts, or civil liberties and not civil liberties, then you are the one that is stupid. These the major differences between the wings which you seem to think are all the same. Wow!
@damoninsky Right one last try...to help you try to breach the avalanche of bullshit you are buried under. Read this book : "The Impact of Science on Society" - Bertrand A. W. Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970). he was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government.
@herculese220 (cont8)If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers........
@damoninsky Here are some of Lord Russell's main points ...."I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of (cont).
@herculese220 (cont2) anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment." "Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
@damoninsky (cont3) "Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It is expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."
@damoninsky (cont4) "In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis,
@damoninsky (cont5) behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."................
@damoninsky (cont6) "Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative...." "On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration.
@damoninsky (cont9)........ but I think they will not shrink from performing it." "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
@herculese220 Thank you for your insights on Russell. I appreciate your knowledge and extensive comprehension of him because I'm familiar with a few of his essays (Why I'm not a Christian and Intellectual Rubbish) and really like him too. There's no doubt we fear the loss of intellectual thought and creativity amongst the populace, but that's doesn't mean everything government equals bad. Not helping low income people, who'v been born into a shitty life w/o support is immoral.
@damoninsky No you're right, everything in Government doesn't equal bad, and fair government is possible. What is bad, is the corrupt element of Government, who just take big pay-offs, (sorry, donations), from Big Corporations, from which they get share-options in, and then a Directorship, after office, in the "Revolving door" policy, at Corps like say Monsanto. The poor people won't get help, the OECD's just give the money too our Big Corps to start abroad for cheaper Slave-Labour. peace
@herculese220 I completely agree with you. So I don't know how you can honestly disclaim scientific knowledge, and disagree with scientific consensus simply because their recommended solution requires government regulations. Do you think there shouldn't be regulations for protecting coral reefs? National parks? What about fining people for littering? Where are all of the people freaking out about where all of the entrance fees and fines are going?
Jesse Ventura was a very famous Professional Wrestler, a former Mayor, a Former Govenor, a former actor, former Naval Special Operations, a War Vet, and currently a well known TV host. What has this chump accomplished in his life that gives him more credibility then Jesse V? Lol, thats what I thought....go back to watching Sunday football and playing on your iPhone. You clearly dont know shit.
@MiClLC Hahaha, oh yes, your logic is amazing! Anyone who has achieved the status of a wrestler, or going to the military, or becoming a politician has to be absolutely correct. Hey, Hitler was the leader of an entire country, I guess everyone else that never achieved that be wrong about him. There's no doubt Ventura might be right on a few areas, but he is DEAD wrong on Climate Change and 9/11.
Yes carbon tax will hit big industry. But how do you think they will off set that? By increasing the price to the consumer. So yes it will effect us all. Where does this money that they're being taxed go? Who get's that money?
@Hornfinger I am willing to pay more for things as long as they are produced sustainably and humanely. I'm not a greedy, selfish person that needs everything cheap and easy with an out-of-sight, out-of-mind kind of mind set. The money goes to further enforce environmental regulations.
@damoninsky That's fair enough and good on you. But really we don't know how much it's going to inflate prices and not everyone is in the finacial comfort as someone like yourself. Especially in the current climate. I also think your final statement is nieve to say the least.
@Hornfinger At about 5:35 in the video is a great example of how little this could affect us (depending). "Financial comfort" is totally subjective. We don't NEED to have plasma screens, ipods and PS3s (which even the lowest income people have) to be "comfortable". Do you support buying things made from people in sweat shops? Or from industries the dump all their sludge in the river? Material things come at a price, unfortunately they need to be a little bit higher (a few extra bucks).
@damoninsky I agree with everything you've just said. Apart from the bit about even the lowest income people have PS3's etc, and also you've not mentioned the people who've lost their jobs and and houses. I don't think though that the people who run the big multi national corperations share your or my view on living comforatably without luxuries. They will happily hike prices a lot more than they have to using the carbon tax as the reason. Thus earning more profit.
Technology, science, invention and so on will take care of it.
turbofritz2 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@turbofritz2 Wow, you're optimistic. You really want to risk the entire Earth on that assumption? Perhaps you are wrong? Might big gamble bro.
damoninsky 2 weeks ago
The sollution must rather be to break off the monopoly and copyrights and let technology and science take care of it. The politicians should stay the hell away from this!!!
turbofritz2 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@turbofritz2 Absolutely NOT. Politicians should listen to the environmentalists and citizens who have had enough land, air and water pollution fromt these giant companies.
damoninsky 2 weeks ago
@damoninsky Citeczents do NOT want a global tax. This is a unconstitutional kind of illigal transfer of welth from poor and middle class over to some parasite globalists that don't benifit any of us.
turbofritz2 2 weeks ago
@turbofritz2 It's amazing how little you know on this subject. You are seriously only regurgitating FoxNews, republican talking points. No substance, all BS. The civilization is at stake (according to the scientific consensus on climate change). Raising a tiny tax to help prevent it isn't asking too much; but that's not even the big deal. The big deal is that the actual major polluters DON'T want to be taxed anything, so they pay PR groups to spread disinformation, which you ate up.
damoninsky 2 weeks ago
If there is any manmade chage to the climate then we have to debate what to do with it.
Politicians who propose to tax us and make CO2 taxes should realy be lynched. This fuckheads should stay the fuck away from our private property!!
turbofritz2 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@turbofritz2 So you'd rather allow private companies be able to do whatever they want to the planet? Why do you find it OK for them to come in, extract resources (who's to say it is theirs in the first place? should it be everybody's?), burn it and dump waste wherever they want (back into OUR environment)? Just because their is a law that allows them to? Stupid law if you ask me. Time to change it.
damoninsky 2 weeks ago
This can't be the only jesse ventura conspiracy video you find to be absurd. I'd say all of them are comical.
whiskeredtuna 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna Actually, I like a lot of his liberal stances, though I think he also believes 911 was a conspiracy conducted by Bush. He's a true idiot with other respects.
damoninsky 1 month ago
@damoninsky You notice how jesse always meeting people in some out of the way location so as not to be seen...Yet, their willing to go on camera & spill the beans. anytime i see him giving interviews on talk shows or radio shows he spends most of his time trying to sell the show. just like in his wrestling days. he has carried that acting over to reality.
whiskeredtuna 1 month ago
@whiskeredtuna Exactly! This video he made is all smoke and mirrors, completely biased and utterly deceiving with cinematographic tricks. Not a true investigation of climate science at all. It's amazing how many morons the U.S. makes up.
Allisoninsky 1 month ago
I checked out some of the sources listed and the result is they do not support CO2 causes global warming. My weather tech: So common knowledge would indicate that when the Earth warms carbon dioxide and methane begin to rise in response. When the Earth begins to cool, carbon dioxide and methane begin to drop off in response. Well if that is the case, the “Carbon Dioxide Argument” goes up or should I say down in defeat.
HanginAbout 1 month ago
@HanginAbout Wow, your grasp on the subject matter (even with your research) is quite pathetic. Go try actual science sites (75% of the sites about climate change are BS, unscientific, Big Business propaganda).
Allisoninsky 1 month ago
@Allisoninsky Then what makes you any more correct than anyone else! It's just a lot of hot air about co2 causing global warming. You don't need to look at any scientific research because it requires just very basic common sense. CO2 does not cause global warming. It's a joke. I replied back because I want you to use your common sense.
HanginAbout 1 month ago
@HanginAbout Wow, see, the difference between me and you, is that I have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support my claim. YOU are simply stating an opinion. I site SCIENTIFIC articles and agree with the scientific consensus. YOU go on opinions, NOT science. If you think you do, please site a source that states your ridiculous claim.
damoninsky 1 month ago
I'll trust Jesse Ventura ANY DAY over those who attack him. He is one of the few guys out there who has the guts to expose government lies and conspiracies.
TheLensSolution 1 month ago
LOL Ventura is full blown retard.
tjohn1986 3 months ago
"he's been told to arrive alone" hahahaha i guess he has a robotic camera crew
BillKiernan 6 months ago
I really recommend people check out potholer54's video on climate change
zzyzx0788 8 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Seriously? You get your opinion for a YouTube video? Ha! First of all, that guy spends more than half the time explaining what global warming and what a positive feedback loop is (since nobody reads anymore). All it comes down to is that he has two different tiny arguments: 1, the broken satellite one anecdote of unreliable data doesn't discount the 1000's of research papers that support it. And 2, the 800 year lag is a very common misunderstood occurrence, go READ about it.
damoninsky 8 months ago
@damoninsky Lol, no i dont get my opinion from youtube, actually a great deal of that has come from universities (which yes I know apparently has a very liberal bias). Are you kidding? Potholer54 has the ability to debunk all bullshit, including Al Gores. Thats why I respect him and recommend viewing. I dont understand how people can accuse this of being a giant conspiracy. Mainly because I think giant conspiracies are retarded and never make real sense.
zzyzx0788 8 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Interesting how universities (the smartest most intellectual minds around) have a "liberal bias", that's because they ARE liberal. Liberal means freedom to think up new ideas, quite different from being "conservative" where everyone STOPS thinking and just wants the same. Go READ how OTHER scientists explain the 800 lag (because your guy didn't). His 'opinion' doesn't trump scientific census; if that's how science worked, we should be debating what killed the dinosaurs too.
damoninsky 8 months ago
@damoninsky I'm curious... the scientific consensus is clear that global warming is occurring. I mean as far as my research goes, and I'm finding a bit of difficulty turning up competing explanations from scientists about the 800 lag. This is not an attack, but it would be very helpful if you could actually explain the other ideas about this, or perhaps link to a paper or two which supports what you say?
Norlick 1 month ago
@Norlick Thank you for actually attempting to do research, I really appreciate your skepticism and passion for truth (neither of which produces fruit quickly). I know it is difficult amongst all of the disinformation out there, so you find accredited scientific institutions, journals, literature, etc...If you want a good explanation, NewScientist is very reputable, article called "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming"
Allisoninsky 1 month ago
@Allisoninsky Thanks for the courteous reply :) But this has added more confusion. I was under the impression you'd not believed in climate change, yet NewScientist, and all relevant sources I could dig up appear to support the idea that Climate Change is occurring because of man-made events, and that the 600-1000 lag is due in part to orbital changes, which trigger a spike in CO2.
Have I mistaken your position?
Norlick 1 month ago
@Norlick Sorry you were confused, yes, you have mistaken my position (i wonder how). I have always sided with the scientists and agreed with their data that supports climate change and humans's influence on it. Whatever the IPCC report says, I agree with. (this is Damoninsky too). I made this video to inform the deniers.
Allisoninsky 1 month ago
@Norlick NewScientist isn't a journal, it's just an accurate magazine for scientific news (based on recent published journal articles). If you want the real-deal, hard-core original science research articles on the matter, type in "the 800 year lag graphed" and the first site that pops up (joannenova) will have a list of great references on the topic (and also offers another great graphic explanation). She alone isn't "accredited" or anything, but her sources are. Please reply if need be.
Allisoninsky 1 month ago
Fuck this video
2KModzX 8 months ago
@2KModzX Yes, please do so and go back to living your conspiracy theory. You should watch part 2 just for the fun of it, then try and provide any refuting evidence. How can you deny scientists, but support the big oil companies? How much education have you had?
Allisoninsky 8 months ago
@Allisoninsky I have enough education on not believing what the government and the media tell me. Search for operation northwoods
2KModzX 8 months ago
@2KModzX I just looked up Operation Northwoods, what in the world does this have to do with a scientific census on climate change?
Allisoninsky 8 months ago
@Allisoninsky Nothing lol im just giving you proof that the government lies :)
2KModzX 8 months ago
@2KModzX Everyone knows the government lies. But climate change has nothing to do with government. It's about science. There is a scientific census about climate change and humans contribution to it. Show me one example where the entire scientific community got together to create a conspiracy about something. You can't.
Allisoninsky 8 months ago
@Allisoninsky Yea but what the government is doing is that there scaring people by telling them the world is gonna end if you dont stop farting or if you dont buy green products so who profits when you buy green products...the government
2KModzX 8 months ago
@2KModzX No, government is not saying this at all. Scientists are saying this. Government responds to the populace. Why do you think the government profit from green products? This is business. Private companies will produce renewable energies and green products, people will pay for them, it's the same as anything else. Not only will it help the economy, but also clean up the air.
damoninsky 8 months ago
There are several scientist whose work indicates that g/wming is due to the sun, which is in an highly active phase. Jessie's show is just a fun . The problem with global warming is that it isn't fully proven to be the reason our planet is warming up - after all it has had warm periods in the past. Read the literature and learn both sides - don't trust anyone to inform you of anything - find out for yourself!
ShiningFlamez 9 months ago
@ShiningFlamez It's all in the IPCC report. No where else.
damoninsky 9 months ago
@ShiningFlamez Both the sun and green house gases contribute to the climate, do you really think there's any scientist foolish enough to say only one is the sole cause? Its important to keep an eye on both
zzyzx0788 8 months ago
I seldom believed Jesse Ventura would stoop to such levels. In the context of sincerity, Scientists will always take precedence as they aren't influenced by biased partisanship. The scientific method by definition is rigorously self critical, politicians are not. Good video damoninsky.
raidon04 9 months ago
@raidon04 Thanks, I really appreciate it. Hardly anyone ever compliments me on this video, they're mostly obnoxious comments made by people who don't understand or haven't had experience in the field of science.
damoninsky 9 months ago
@damoninsky Unfortunately, politics shares a lot of similar traits to that of religion. Both prioritise belief as opposed to truth. Both are obstinate, obnoxious and have a deep, resonating bigotry. I am sure there are genuinely politically neutral sceptics, although I feel confident enough to make the assertion that the majority are subliminally and consciously loyal to certain political factions. I applaud you for being polemic and loyal to scientific fact.
raidon04 9 months ago 2
Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, “Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,”
According to him there is global warming on all of the known planets and Mars is along the same timetable as us. Do they also have a problem with CO2 on Mars and Jupiter etc. Carbon credits is all bout money
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray It's funny, he even ADMITS that humans have contributed to Global Warming, are you sure you want to use him as evidence? Just because a scientist has a different opinion than the scientific consensus doesn't mean that he is right. There are several scientists that have different opinions about how the dinosaurs went extinct, but that doesn't mean that they are right. The way science works, is that the facts influences the consensus, until they are contradicted.
damoninsky 9 months ago
@damoninsky You only see what you want to see. He says that human's have contributed only slightly to the planet warming. We are not on Mars and it are heating up near the same levels. Should we pour billions of dollars thru carbon taxing and credits on a issue that most scientist would agree we are only contributing slightly to. Also, pole shifts have alot to do with our current situation as well. But I am like Al Gore and not an expert and really do not know what I am talking about.
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray No, you are NOT like Al Gore, he has actually studied the science literature. He is simply the talking piece for the scientists (who have the consensus). Once again, you can't just take one outlier's position as fact and dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the scientific consensus. Not only that, but you're taking another observation (polar caps decreasing on Mars) and claiming it's due to the sun, which is also NOT a scientific consensus, but merely a hypothesis. Just stop
damoninsky 9 months ago
do you think jesse knows what his doing? surely he does
Tommy4216 9 months ago
@Tommy4216 That's a good question. I really don't know. I think that he's accepted his stance as the truth (he really believes it now) and is too stubborn to ever turn back.
damoninsky 9 months ago
all you really did was criticize him without any real proof as to your take on it. I think he actually has more substance than you do.
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray That's hilarious. You obviously didn't even watch it all the way through or else you would have wrote your comment in Part 2. Just the fact that the first person he goes to to understand climate change is a Fox News correspondent is just idiotic (if he wants to learn the science behind it) or just deceptive (because he is duped or paid by Big Oil propaganda).
damoninsky 9 months ago
@damoninsky Why don't you look up carbon taxing and how the Coenhagen treaty almost started a one world goverment to collect the carbon tax and distribute.
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray Carbon taxing is a brilliant idea; I'm all about paying taxes to help our society and the environment. Go watch the second video (after you watch this one), then try to refute something.
damoninsky 9 months ago
@damoninsky If you are for Carbon Taxing you are a fool. Carbon has played no role in "Global Warming", Have you even looked at what scientist are saying. In 25 years we will have gone up in temp. 1/5 of a degree. It is all a sham Damion. I use to beleive in it, but after seeing Al Gore get ripped to shreds so many times by Scientist I saw it for what it was. A money maker. Did you know your expert Mr. Gore only took on college credit in the subject matter and suddenly had all knowledge of it.
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray You have been duped by right-wing, Big Oil, non-scientific propaganda. Go read what the scientists are saying (not the politicians or Fox News). Anyone can be "ripped to shreds", but that doesn't mean the people doing the ripping are right. Go read the IPCC report. Every single National Science Academy agrees that CO2 is responsible. Please show evidence to the contrary and stop regurgitating corporate talking points.
damoninsky 9 months ago
@damoninsky I do not watch Fox news and i havae always been a very liberal democrat. Look over to your right and you will see links to Al gore gets sued by 30,000 scienists. If the Carbon tax comes to pass it would be the end of our country, wwe would be required to spend, not millions but Billions and possibly trillions to help 3rd world countrys because we are a country with more people and people admit CO2 naturally. This is all so so silly.. Go buy your carbon credits and be done with it.
TheRickmurray 9 months ago
@TheRickmurray If you bothered to watch this video, you would see that this "30,000 scientists" shit has been debunked. Your knowledge is crap because your sources are crap. At least the "trillions" would be spent keeping our earth cleaner, as opposed to going to Big Oil, Coal, Automobile and Industry (for the record it's not trillions, though Bush wasted trillions on unjust wars).
damoninsky 9 months ago
All of you that believe this video is so snowed, and you are snowed by..wait for it... your government and the NWO!! As far as where I get my info Timmins, I do ppersonally get my info from reading and research myself. The tv is a brainwashing scheme, so I can see where you may think this is fake, BUT if you would research instead of mock us, you will figure that out. Also the internet is a good place to warn epeople & get like minded people together.I bet you idiots believe Bin Laden did 9/11
jgjennifergreen1 10 months ago
@jgjennifergreen1 Uh, where do you get your info from? What are your sources? You are so caught up in conspiracy theories, it's so sad. NWO? Global Warming is fake?? Bush did 9/11??? Hahaha...please, I dare you to choose any of those topics and reveal your sources. Each of those are well known conspiracy theories....your heart is in the right place for seeking truth, but your brain is too eager for the sensationalized media. Good luck with your quest for knowledge.
damoninsky 10 months ago
If you dont believe in global warming you dont understand the simplest of science.
gulbirk 10 months ago
you are pathetic it wouldnt be on TV if there wasnt added drama
Timmins420 10 months ago
@Timmins420 What's pathetic are the people that get sucked into this dramatic TV as truth. What's pathetic is people get their information from TV instead of reading. I not only point out the standard cinematography, but more importantly, the lack of evidence and biased journalism. Why don't you try dismissing the evidence instead of pointing out something obvious.
damoninsky 10 months ago
@Timmins420 Whats really pathetic is people like you who think everything on TV is evil and corrupt and can't believe anything unless some dick in a lab coat says hmm yes, they expect people to research on their own and think for themselves theres no need to talk about every single things it has to be a certain length does it not? not everyhing can be squeezed into 44 mins. Im not interested in dismissings his evidence what he presents its pretty clear
Timmins420 10 months ago
im not saying its not scripted either its pretty obvious when every single episode the black girls presents something at the beginning, then the other guy says something trying to debunk it and jesse goes oh well blah blah. anyone with a brain can tell the show is made to create drama and draw viewers, but it opens people up to issues or 'conspiracys' that they may not have heard of you have to start somewhere and i think this show is a great starting point to someones personal research intothis
Timmins420 10 months ago
The climate propaganda concerns me. I will keep watching but as best I can tell, a carbon tax is going to go along way to funding an oppressive global government run by eco-nuts who want to control everything you do to rescue the planet from mankinds foolishness and greed. Climate changes and humans pollute but I do not want to support or breath life into any more beurocratic machines! It is too risky... And offers very little hope for actual beneficial action.
NowForTruth 10 months ago 2
@NowForTruth "an oppressive global government run by eco-nuts"??? Hahahaha....there has never been such a thing, why not give them a chance? So far, we've only had governments run by war-mongers and corporation-lovers. You know what is "risky", continue letting corporations prevent government from conducting true eco activism. If you think our rivers, air and environments are clean and in good health, you're in denial. EPA gets a drop of funding compared to military.
damoninsky 10 months ago
Also, our news is a joke. Fox is too conservative and CNN/MSNBC is too liberal.
hybird9012 11 months ago
@hybird9012 of course there is bias.
damoninsky 11 months ago
FACT: scientists are funded by the government or private institutions with special interests. How do scientists make money? If a scientist does research on his/her own or invents a product on his/her own eventually it will get in the hands of institutions regardless if it is self invested. Just because they're scientists doesn't mean anything.
One example: BP bought energy renewal bacteria from a scientist for $700 million dollars and now the scientist works for BP. Special interest
hybird9012 11 months ago
@hybird9012 Your "fact" is ignorantly generalizing. Of course there are scientists for BP, that doesn't mean they are all in it for the money, and it doesn't mean their science is necessarily bad. You should familiarize yourself with how science is conducted before it's published. If you don't believe in peer-reviewed, accredited science journals, then you will remain lost in the world of PR propaganda. Please show some evidence of how the science in Nature or Science is improper.
damoninsky 11 months ago
Medicine is generally not safe and you are more likely to develop complications as a result (my dad is a doctor). We have engineered rockets and they don't work all the time. We have satellites in space and they don't work all the time. We CAN'T predict the weather. There is no demonstrable evidence of macro evolution.... read 'the Apology' by Darwin himself. The difference between a chimp and a human is actually HUGE. CO2 does exist, so does oxygen and nitrogen. What's your point?
hybird9012 11 months ago
@hybird9012 If it were "generally not safe" to get medicine, then people wouldn't go to see a doctor (my wife and dad are doctors). The point is that scientists understand much of how the world works and we don't question their findings (they do). Why do you believe CO2 and oxygen exist? Scientists! Why do we know when a hurricane or storm is coming (yes, we can predict weather, of course not all of the time)? Scientists! How do we know that macro and microevolution is fact? Scientists!
damoninsky 11 months ago
ah.. hate to break it but Global Warming isn't true and it's proven NOT to be true regardless of the organizations that support it. Also, you better look into where all those organizations get all their funding... hum.. If global warming were to be true, it would exist from the CO2 emitted from algae, plants, animals, humans, etc.. basically every living thing on Earth. Guess how many people drive in the world? 8%. And that's only certain parts of the day.
hybird9012 11 months ago
@hybird9012 These aren't just "organizations", these are the scientists that bring you everything you see around you. Do you believe medicine works? Do you believe we've built rockets? Do you believe we have satellites? Do you believe we can predict the weather? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in any science? Doyou believe CO2 exists? If so, why do you pick and choose this specific topic for the scientists to be wrong about, but right about the others? You are clueless.
damoninsky 11 months ago
big bag of bullshit
choochinbigtime420 11 months ago
@choochinbigtime420 I know, isn't it? I mean, how can people actually believe that every single science journal and science magazine is wrong, but believe the Big Oil and FOX News PR campaigns? Do people honestly believe that all of the scientists are wrong about this one thing, but right about everything else? Meanwhile, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, along with the environment.
damoninsky 11 months ago
The warmists are liars and fraudsters...........Al [NO BRAIN] Gore being the prime example - as for the other sheeple that tow the warmists theory? Many try to bolster their delusions with criminal actions against those they percieve as 'perpetrators' of this 'global warming' Oh, incidentally, Gore no brain has lined his pockets very nicely thank you on the back of the warmist agenda!
colliecandle 11 months ago
@colliecandle I demand you show evidence of Gore making all of this money (which is a very common Fox News talking point). You think he's making more then the oil company CEOs? Ha! You think he's making more than the auto company CEOs? Ha! You think he's making more than the lobbyists? Ha! You think all of the scientists are wrong about this? Show evidence! Virtually every single scientist, every scientific organization, and climatologist supports the scientific fact of global warming.
damoninsky 11 months ago
Climate change is bs that's why they don't call it global warming anymore!
We have allways had climate change, duh
fuquininsane 11 months ago
@fuquininsane They still do call it Global Warming during the times when the climate is changing to become warmer (like it is now). Go ask any climatologist (not Fox News).
damoninsky 11 months ago
Apparently half the people who have watched this video don't like science unless it tells them what they want to hear.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
sorry CHOMPSKY , dont know where you are going with this and just who you are but you couldnt justify anything and you didnt do anything productive , try debunking bush or obama that might get you some views... TERRIBLE and pure time wasting BULLCRAP!
itizmemrrizvi 1 year ago
@itizmemrrizvi I think you may have meant to write this comment on a different video. Chomsky wasn't mentioned anywhere and Bush and Obama have nothing to do with the this attack against science. If you did mean to write this here, then you failed to point out a single flaw.
damoninsky 1 year ago
But when governments lie and continue to lie, it's kind of hard to tell when they are telling the truth. I believe the pc title is climate change though now and not global warming - i guess they wanted to wrap it up in a new bow. Science is powerful- but it can be paid for. Most of the science here in the US tells us that products, food, and medicine are safe...when it's not. And there are plenty of real scientists out there that question global warming. Who's telling the truth?
zmcleod 1 year ago
@zmcleod I agree that it is difficult to tell when to believe government, but this isn't about government, it's about the science. The only reason why this debate exists is due to PR disinformation campaigning by Big Oil and friends. To suggest the science behind it is "paid for" is a pretty bold statement, one the republicans would love for people to believe; though surely there is evidence of this? Science can tell us what is safe, but the people who sell us stuff may not. It's the People.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky and no, there aren't "plenty of real scientists" out there that question global warming; hardly a single climatologist would suggest the climate isn't changing, and hardly a couple may believe humans aren't contributing to it. It's another scientific theory; every theory has dissenters, but that doesn't make the theory incorrect. The leading theory of how the dinosaurs went extinct is an asteroid, but some scientists have other ideas, that doesn't mean they're right.
damoninsky 1 year ago
I don't think he went to the reporter for the reporter's expertese on Climate Change. He went to the reporter for a reference or even better, a connection to a reference (someone who is closer to the subject). He might let the reporter add his two sense, but that's not what Jesse is there for, Jesse is really there to get a name(s).
The point of the show, I think is to make the viewer aware, that perhaps "Global Warming" is the title of a billion dollar scam that jeapordizes health/safety
ECWnWWF 1 year ago
@ECWnWWF Sure, he wanted to get the most sensational side of the story. He tracked down the people who would provide the contradicting information. This is precisely how conspiracy theories work. There is ALWAYS supposed info that contradicts the actual info; but it really doesn't, it just appears to do so when one lacks knowledge of the original claim. This video is to lure people into one side without ever having seen the other.
damoninsky 1 year ago
So, you are debunking Jesse's show ... because he started his investigation with a News guy .... wouldn't a News guy have contacts? The news guy might have some information about Climate change if he's covering the story, but most importantly he would have contacts.
Now granted this show is hollywoodanized with the sound effects, the narration, the suspense music, and all. But, I think the purpose is to give the viewer ideas of what might be happening. Inspire their curiousity to look it up
ECWnWWF 1 year ago
@ECWnWWF I'm sorry, you don't research a topic by asking a partisan/biased reporter. By no means, was that guy an expert in Climate Change. Therefore he should have went to some science journal articles, the IPCC report, and spoke with dozens of Climatologists. The problem is that he made up his mind BEFORE he began his research. I completely agree with you that his ideas should provoke curiosity for people to do further investigations, but sadly, most people are lazy and easily manipulated.
damoninsky 1 year ago
Wow dude i feel bad for you cause i live in Toronto, Canada and get pure fucking snow every winter. Yes, every once in a while there is a little less and a little more each year so what does that tell you? That the climate is always changing and yes, Jesse does talk about alot of other issues but half of them you dont even prove wrong. The government and bankers of the world are out to fuck you royally so have fun being cattle you self righteous prick.
Lambofgod9904 1 year ago
@Lambofgod9904 It tells me that you don't even know the difference between weather and climate or world averages vs. local averages. There's more snow now because there's more water vaper now because it's warmer now! How could you honestly believe Jessie, when the FIRST person he goes to learn about climate change is a Fox News friend? This is ALL about science. You are the sheep, following the Big Oil and Big Business propaganda wolves. Research the SCIENCE!
damoninsky 1 year ago
@koorgen No doubt there are people out there with not a lot of money, I mean, we have LOADS of them over here too. But at least you guys don't have to worry about paying health insurance, among many other social benefits. Watch my other video, Dear Tea Party, Check Out Europe.
damoninsky 1 year ago
We've been going through climate change since the Earth's creation, can't these silly little liberal tree-huggers understand this. In the 70s they were worried about a fucking ice age, 30 years later there worried about global warming.........
ConservativeRev 1 year ago
@ConservativeRev Interesting how nearly every single climate scientist is now deemed a "tree hugger". You obviously haven't looked at any research and are just repeating your Big Oil, corporate, Fox News propaganda. Global Warming and Ice Ages are coupled, one leads to another. Read before you write.
damoninsky 1 year ago
Finally someone who made a debunk video about it.
It was unfortunate to see how Jesse Ventura got duped
by pseudo science people, and people from big interests.
He specially interviewed one "scientist"
who earlier in his life claimed that cigarettes does not do any harm.
he was off course paid by the tobacco industry,
Global Warming got the same fighting back as the Tobacco industry did.
izaccy 1 year ago
@izaccy Thanks, I appreciate your comment and wisdom.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky well i believe jesse now, our government just spent 724billion dollars on war an we can't seem to come together on anything else is crazy to me ,in fact we pass that bill faster than we passed the bill to support the heroes of 911 it's a shame but the truth the rich get richer while the middle class goes to war,honestly i'm done voting bush,obama,none of them care about the people contingency plan to divide america,an thats no joking matter!
badgk187 1 year ago
@badgk187 I side with your concern and actions to not vote for the dems or reps in the future, but I don't think that warrants that what everything Jesse Ventura has to say is valid. He definitely has the right idea on a few things (like religion and being a social liberal), but he's a complete nutball on Climate Change and the 9/11 conspiracy theory.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky true i agree
badgk187 1 year ago
WTF? ITS ENTERTAINMENT NOT A SCIENCE CLASS!
Jahkillian 1 year ago
@Jahkillian unfortunately, people eat entertainment up as truth.
damoninsky 1 year ago
a carbon tax is total horse-shit.. its only going to raise prices and what will the money go to? Restoring the ozone layer... right... we dont need anymore taxes shoved up our ass
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl Dude, you should first, at the very least, get the basic science down. Monitoring carbon has nothing to do with the Ozone Layer. Your blatant lack of knowledge is frightening, but what is even more scary, is that half of this country is just like you.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky another self righteous puke taking what I say out of context.. just keep reassuring yourself with all these comments you have
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl you're back for more? With your comments about the "ozone layer"? You are so far from knowing what's going on, maybe if you keep going down the path of ignorance, you'll come full circle and start right back where you began, knowing absolutely nothing. At least that would be better than living a total life of dilution.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky c'mon.. i'm no fool.. we are in no way a threat to mother earth and all i was saying I don't want taxes shoved up our asses and hell i'm not recycling until they legalize hemp or do something real that would have an impact.. Think before you type
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl Personally, I do want taxes shoved up our asses because that's what makes for a better society. To suggest we are "no way a threat to mother earth" is completely foolish. Pick up a book a book a text book on environmental studies before you have opinions.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky Taxes are alright for a few things but dude mt. Saint Helen's eruption alone is more pollution than humans have ever done quit acting like a know it all douche ffs
Bojoe777NaBl 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl Sorry man, you've been absorbing the Big Oil, right-wing propaganda. Volcanoes spew a fraction of what humans have been. You're just regurgitating the most superficial talking points without having read a damn thing on the science. Humans put out 27 gigatons of CO2 per year, volcanoes put out 0.2 gigatons, 130 times more! Go read about it at the US Geological Survey site. Science articles: Gerlach 1991 or 2002, or Maryland 2006. If you disagree, show evidence!
damoninsky 1 year ago
@Bojoe777NaBl well, thats a lie
grendelee 11 months ago
Kind of hard to debunk facts such as temperature driving up CO2 levels not vice versa, that our current global climate is not outside the normal range of variance in climate change, and that the warming trend started before the industrial revolution when were barely producing any carbon. Not to mention all the data showing correlations to climate and solar cycles.
Devious2323 1 year ago
@Devious2323 Wow, you epitomize the average American's ignorance. I beg you to reveal your sources which claim your disinformative remarks "temperature drives up CO2 levels" or, "our current global climate change is not outside the normal range" or "all the data showing correlations to climate and solar cycles". I dare you to provide evidence from an ACCREDITED source...not Fox News or from Big Oil public relation propaganda. Good luck.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky Maybe YOU should go do some homework. Our warming period has a lower temperature than many other recent warming periods in the Holocene including the MWP. The climate was also warmer in other interglacial periods in the last 500k years including the Eemian period. I'm surprised you've never heard that historically Temperature drives up CO2. That's a pretty accepted fact by most scientists, even ones that believe in AGW.
Devious2323 1 year ago
@Devious2323 No, maybe you should. Those temperatures were regional, NOT global...so you go research GMT. Temperature drives CO2 during Milanokovitch cycles, but it's NOT happening today. It's hilarious how you guys can just pick and choose things pieces that the scientists come up with for your evidence, but disregard everything else they find too. Everything you mentioned is in the IPCC report, but it's surrounded by dozens of other papers that you won't hear about from Fox propaganda.
damoninsky 1 year ago
As a closed minded fool... You really need to pay attention to ALL of the facts so you can see what kind of REAL danger we are all in. Main stream media also reported that there were emails and MORE that PROVED the global warming scam is a hoax! THIS IS A CARBON BASED PLANET!!! TREES BREATHE IT SO WE CAN HAVE OXYGEN! HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
transonicmind77 1 year ago
@transonicmind77 Hahaha, "mainstream media"..."proved hoax"...Hahaha. Wow man, you're hilarious! Since you probably only watch Fox, you probably have no idea what those emails were actually about. Nothing in any emails negated any science; but were sentences taken out of context. You also obviously haven't read ANY science journal, so are completely unaware that humans contribute to carbon emissions. If you want to know more, I would start with reading Science or Nature. Good luck.
damoninsky 1 year ago
i played not even a minute .. ignorant people . you should really take this down....
crisie0115 1 year ago
@crisie0115 Hahaha, you people are amazing, refusing to listen to the other side. Why don't you do yourself a favor and see what the other side has to say instead of just going with the conspiracy theories right off the bat? I spent the time to here your argument, what, are you afraid of the our rebuttal?
damoninsky 1 year ago
Just shut up, your voice is so annoying, fucking fag
BigJames666 1 year ago
@BigJames666 Not only do you choose ignorance but also homophobia. Hahaha, you guys are hilarious, but sadly quite a wound to society.
damoninsky 1 year ago
damoninsky you are rubbish and all your films are skewed, even your American Imperialism-exstravaganza, doesn't even point remotely in the direction of the criminals in charge: The Elite-banking-media types who sit at the Council On Foreign Relations/Royal Institute Of International Affairs. The Scientific Agencies that agree on Climate Bullshit are PAID PAID PAID PAID. Thats why the numbers are with those who don't. Here is a brief list of Scientists, who know the con: Continued
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. continued:
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. David Bellamy, botanist. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science. David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University. William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University. William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology. David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa. Tim Patterson,[30] paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide.Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville. And on and on and on I could go.....
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 So what right-wing website did you get your list from? See, it's you people who just spread the propaganda without doing real research. Half of these people you mentioned have absolutely NO merit (physicians, geologists, Ian Pilmer falsified data is an embarrassment), and the other half don't even agree with each other but have their own opinions. This is exactly how science should work, there's never 100% census, but you roll with the majority (in this case 97%).
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky Listen mate the "wings", both 'left' and 'right', are both joined onto the same Bird 'of Tyranny', that hides behind the shield. Until you can understand that you are Brainwashed, you will not see. Science isn't to help you, it's to control you. We could live with total abundance, of all needs, with no starving, anywhere, and sustain a Global Population of 8 times what it is now, with clean fuel and no pollution. Our 'system', is based on 'Scarcity', because POWER, comes from this.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 I was with you right up to "[science] is to control you". Firstly, I despise the republicans, and I really don't give too much of a damn for the democrats. These parties are definitely bought and the democracy in this country is virtually non-existent. Secondly, the problem isn't the science, but how we decide to use it. People are completely ignorant and crazy for consumerism while corporations dominate without regulations. Clean fuel and no pollution will come from science.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@herculese220 Why do you just shrug away the fact that large corporations should be allowed to just pollute, pollute, pollute and get PAID, PAID, PAID? Scientific agencies are paid to do research to understand the world, yes, but why is this a bad thing? These are the people who are now able to predict hurricanes, snow storms, etc...how can you just pick and choose what science to accept is real?
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky Sorry I came in a bit offensive, but I got annoyed listening to your Ad Hominem attacks on Ventura during your narration. Listen, large corporations are the enemy, but they control most of the agencies that do the 'research'. On the weather, scratch "predict" mate. CONTROL is where they are now with weather. Read: Unless Peace Comes, 1968, by Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald, associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 The money may come from corporations, but science is science. Scientists follow the scientific method and is peer reviewed for bias and errors. Who interprets the data is very important, that's why we need to read the journals and NOT listen to the media. I will look into this book you mention.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky "science is science. Scientists follow the scientific method and is peer reviewed for bias and errors." That's twaddle mate, read off the script. If you haven't yet read the IPCC e-mails(which have been verified in a National Enquiry), then you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Because they 'laid bare' the corrupt, pathetic peer-review process. On science in general, they are at least 60 yrs ahead of any technology that they show us. Behaviourism is the frontier now.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 It's really unbelievable how people (ie: yourself) can so easily disregard scientific data, analysis, and their conclusions simply because they don't like it. The IPCC report is as comprehensive (but actually much more so) as any scientific report concerning any field of science. Those emails don't negate any science within the report but merely spin a conspiracy theory your way. The "behaviorism" of being ignorant and eating up conspiracy theories is the frontier indeed.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky lol, You don't even know what Behaviourism is do you? Or Understand it's implications. Here's some reading for you: Topics in the History of Psychology, Vol. 1 ("Ivan Petrovich Pavlov and Classical Conditioning" begins on p. 24)
by Gregory A. Kimble, Kurt Schlesinger. Foundations of Conditioning and Learning (Chap. 2 "Pavlov and the Experimental Study of Conditional Reflexes")
by Gregory A. Kimble. Please get started soon.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Did you just take this class or something? Are you still in college? Everyone knows Pavlov. Your comment regarding "behaviorism" was so out of context in that last sentence, the term behaviorism could have been interpreted in many different ways..."it's the frontier now"??? That doesn't even mean anything. This debate is on the if the science is credible or not. You haven't produced ANY evidence. Money funds science, that's not evidence.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky lol, How can you dictate my context, you silly little boy? I'm having to try and come in and out of many subjects because you are so ignorant, of them all !
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Hahaha, I'm actually very aware of each one; but my knowledge is the opposite of yours. Your knowledge is coming from right-wing propaganda machines and have very few credible sources. What "many subjects" are you talking about? You obviously didn't take ANY time to research climate change, or else you wouldn't have given me a junky list people and called that evidence. Read the journal of Science or Nature on climate change, then try to disprove that.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky I can tell your stupid , because you still believe in "the wings" hahahaha
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 If you don't believe there is a difference between abortion and anti-abortion, or stem cell research and not stem cell research, or tax cuts and not tax cuts, or civil liberties and not civil liberties, then you are the one that is stupid. These the major differences between the wings which you seem to think are all the same. Wow!
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky Right one last try...to help you try to breach the avalanche of bullshit you are buried under. Read this book : "The Impact of Science on Society" - Bertrand A. W. Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970). he was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 (cont8)If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers........
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky Here are some of Lord Russell's main points ...."I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of (cont).
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 (cont2) anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment." "Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky (cont3) "Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It is expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky (cont4) "In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis,
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky (cont5) behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."................
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky (cont6) "Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative...." "On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration.
herculese220 1 year ago
@damoninsky (cont9)........ but I think they will not shrink from performing it." "Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Thank you for your insights on Russell. I appreciate your knowledge and extensive comprehension of him because I'm familiar with a few of his essays (Why I'm not a Christian and Intellectual Rubbish) and really like him too. There's no doubt we fear the loss of intellectual thought and creativity amongst the populace, but that's doesn't mean everything government equals bad. Not helping low income people, who'v been born into a shitty life w/o support is immoral.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky No you're right, everything in Government doesn't equal bad, and fair government is possible. What is bad, is the corrupt element of Government, who just take big pay-offs, (sorry, donations), from Big Corporations, from which they get share-options in, and then a Directorship, after office, in the "Revolving door" policy, at Corps like say Monsanto. The poor people won't get help, the OECD's just give the money too our Big Corps to start abroad for cheaper Slave-Labour. peace
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 I completely agree with you. So I don't know how you can honestly disclaim scientific knowledge, and disagree with scientific consensus simply because their recommended solution requires government regulations. Do you think there shouldn't be regulations for protecting coral reefs? National parks? What about fining people for littering? Where are all of the people freaking out about where all of the entrance fees and fines are going?
damoninsky 1 year ago
Jesse Ventura was a very famous Professional Wrestler, a former Mayor, a Former Govenor, a former actor, former Naval Special Operations, a War Vet, and currently a well known TV host. What has this chump accomplished in his life that gives him more credibility then Jesse V? Lol, thats what I thought....go back to watching Sunday football and playing on your iPhone. You clearly dont know shit.
MiClLC 1 year ago
@MiClLC Hahaha, oh yes, your logic is amazing! Anyone who has achieved the status of a wrestler, or going to the military, or becoming a politician has to be absolutely correct. Hey, Hitler was the leader of an entire country, I guess everyone else that never achieved that be wrong about him. There's no doubt Ventura might be right on a few areas, but he is DEAD wrong on Climate Change and 9/11.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky AND YOU'RE Dead wrong on Climate Change and 9/11, What a Gimp.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 What is your evidence and source for any of these claims?
damoninsky 1 year ago
Yes carbon tax will hit big industry. But how do you think they will off set that? By increasing the price to the consumer. So yes it will effect us all. Where does this money that they're being taxed go? Who get's that money?
Hornfinger 1 year ago
@Hornfinger I am willing to pay more for things as long as they are produced sustainably and humanely. I'm not a greedy, selfish person that needs everything cheap and easy with an out-of-sight, out-of-mind kind of mind set. The money goes to further enforce environmental regulations.
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky That's fair enough and good on you. But really we don't know how much it's going to inflate prices and not everyone is in the finacial comfort as someone like yourself. Especially in the current climate. I also think your final statement is nieve to say the least.
Hornfinger 1 year ago
@Hornfinger At about 5:35 in the video is a great example of how little this could affect us (depending). "Financial comfort" is totally subjective. We don't NEED to have plasma screens, ipods and PS3s (which even the lowest income people have) to be "comfortable". Do you support buying things made from people in sweat shops? Or from industries the dump all their sludge in the river? Material things come at a price, unfortunately they need to be a little bit higher (a few extra bucks).
damoninsky 1 year ago
@damoninsky I agree with everything you've just said. Apart from the bit about even the lowest income people have PS3's etc, and also you've not mentioned the people who've lost their jobs and and houses. I don't think though that the people who run the big multi national corperations share your or my view on living comforatably without luxuries. They will happily hike prices a lot more than they have to using the carbon tax as the reason. Thus earning more profit.
Hornfinger 1 year ago