The Alex Jones Show-Dr.Howard Hayden:Global Warming Hoax pt2
Top Comments
All Comments (39)
-
Should get him back on!
-
@pseudotruth george carlin globalwarming. youtube it.!
look at logic! the earth has been in ice ages and it has been a fire ball . its fine.
the earth is not going to crumble. if it was real why tax it? wake up you obama loving hippie
-
Since you are obviously impervious to learning and have not listened to me, I will not be responding any further to you.
-
You have been misled. TGGWS was pseudoscience. IIRC Many of those who appeared are shills for the denial industry, exception Carl Wunsch who was quoted out of context. Furthermore, the majority of climate scientists do not agree with the multiple egregious false claims put out by the Swindle.
Google: OfcomSwindleComplaint FullComplaint.pdf
Is citing a deeply flawed mockumentary the best you can do?
So far you have used bogus claims to support bogus claims - I'm unimpressed.
-
@pseudotruth watch the great global warming swindle and all the things he say are backed up by british and european scientists
-
"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans,"
This claim is completely misleading and effectively another lie.
Nature's CO2 emissions are balanced by matching carbon sinks. There would be no net growth in atmospheric CO2 due to nature alone. It is the digging-up of fossil carbon [coal, oil gas] and burning it that has increased CO2 levels.
As the isotopic ratio 13C:12C reveals.
sceptical science Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
-
You will note that Dr Hayden makes vague claims, but he cites no actual science to support these claims. Isn't this supicious?
All his arguments are SPECIOUS. Look at skeptical science, where you fill find links to the science that debunks his claims.
-
"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing," adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.
Hayden must realise this is utter BS, if he doesn't he's an incompetent idiot.
I don't believe he is an idiot, so he must be lying.
For why Hayden claims are wrong
Google skeptical science mars
Google skeptical science planets
-
"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."
This is the exact revesre of the truth!
Ask yourself who looks to LOSE money when carbon fuels are outlawed?
Google:
a) Dirty Energy Money and see which energy companies are lobbying which politician
b) Smoke Mirrors and Hot Air How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change
-
I think you have a comprehension problem. Dr Hayden's claims are wrong! They are NOT backed by the science! As for WHY Dr Hayden's makes such claims, presumably it's either POLITICAL or he's being paid handsomely. He is linked to the Exxon Funded CFACT.
Google: Exxonsecrets Hayden
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Hayden has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of human-induced climate change.
Google: DeSmogBlog Hayden
Just one of Dr. Hayden's claims, the others are similarly error-strewn, or PLAIN WRONG and misleading.
"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years,"
This is UNTRUE, we are at the HIGHEST levels of CO2 in AT LEAST 800,000 years [Brook 2009].
How can he be so wrong?
Is he incompetent? I don't think so.
So why are his so-called 'facts' in utter contradiction with the science? And there's a lot of it!
Has he done any professional climate research? I haven't found any record of it.
pseudotruth 2 years ago 4
These arguments are always easy to spot
First the science is made-up, cherry-picked, or a pack of lies.
Secondly this is used as proof of a giant conspiracy for world government etc., or mega-rich scientists in search of research funding for which no evidence is offered.
If Dr. Hayden has the proof to back his theories, then why doesn't he submit them to Nature for p/r and publication. Prove the science is wrong.
Or perhaps he won't because the reviewers would fall off their chairs laughing
pseudotruth 2 years ago 3