The irony that is howtheworldworks
Uploader Comments (j0hnwi11iams)
Top Comments
-
lol Don't worry about howtheworldworks. He doesn't understand that science foundation is based on uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.
-
Again, based on your logic we should've taken action against the bogus 1970's global cooling scare. There is no evidence pointing that there is substantial man made global warming. If we do provide any warming to the earth based on our actions it's extremely tiny.
Video Responses
All Comments (107)
-
This little boy Doren is a creep. There is no other word for him. He is a creep who has never been in bar fight. He needs his smooth, unworried face to be rearranged. Only those who have never struggled or suffered hold opinions such as that little boy holds.
About AGW, I concur with Darkconis here: AGW deniers base their argument on a faulty misunderstanding of how science operates, i.e. if there is ANY uncertainty, there must be something wrong with the science. This proves they're idiots.
-
Nice defense of how scientific papers are reviewed! I wish more people understood the process.
-
balance my friend. deniers are totaly denying to balance out the doomsdayers' claim that AGW is definately happening, (the world is coming to an end, the polar bears and bunnies are drowning.). every one knows that for everything, there is an equal and exact opposite. it's balance. maybe we do play a part, maybe we don't. the doomsdayers started claiming AGW was a fact long before deniers claimed it was nonsense. it could only happen in that order .
-
who decided the papers were flat out wrong? I would be willing to bet it was a review board with vested intrest in AGW. Like Al gorelioni having a vested interest in carbon credits, there's a conflict of interest. if i worked at a company making money selling car parts, i'm not going to tell everyone to stop buying cars. that would destroy my bottom line.
-
taxing co2 is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper. it's a joke. a hoax. a pyramid scheme. Al Gore is at the top of the pyramid along with the NWO.
-
life works with balances. when you have one side claiming that man made global warming is definately happening and destroying the Earth using only theories, you will have a balance by people totally denying that it exists using only theory. Global warming is a multi billion dollar business. science has proved nothing but claims to have, to keep the money flowing. without solid proof, they won't debate. they will just keep spewing their theory, while trying to silence opposing theory.
-
LOL so because it is Global Warming means the alarmist get to redifine peer review?
You are denying the fixes the global warming cult had done and the fact they locked out other scientists with another point of view. If you are a teacher, you should know that locking out the other side is not science but indeed a cult. I want to know how you view the term "hide the decline"...
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Scientific journals are not in the habit of publishing material that is WRONG. It is peer reviewed in order to weed out that stuff that is flat out STUPID.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You should read what the insider put out, from what is there I highly doubt it was hacked. It is VERY damning. So far the cult is way behind in the explaining it. Also some nice NWO propaganda they put out. The explinations/excuses from the cult is about as effective as trying to take all the water out of Lake Michigan with an eye dropper.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You make it sound like this was the only place where they were doing science. Not only is the evidence against them LAME, it would only knock down one source.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
LOL just one source? Every body that spoke to the scientists at that school is in the mess. Micheal Mann is under investigation via Penn St but I would venture to say it will run deeper than that LOL. All those asshats were together and the cult is not as far apart as you twits want to make it seem. Hell they peer reviewed eachothers work exclusively. If they did not agree with someone they were kicked out. You clearly have not read very much into it.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Peer review is a means of reaching consensus. What are they supposed to do with papers that are just flat out wrong? This is science, not a democracy. You should quit bemoaning the fact that science doesn't give equal time to idiots like the media.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago