Comments by "Fredinno" (@innosam123) on "Paul Joseph Watson" channel.

  1. 166
  2. 52
  3. 40
  4. 23
  5. 19
  6. 18
  7. 16
  8. 15
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. Incredulous I didn't say there was no concensous, I said we don't KNOW the concencous... geez. "That does not mean that GHG emissions drive climate change. It's possible that variations in Earth's orbital distance (i.e. Milankovitch cycles) drive the climate ENTIRELY, with GHG emissions having ZERO effect. It's up to scientists to prove which one it is. Why were the temps on Earth in the distant past higher than today, with NO man-made emissions? Natural GHG emissions, orbital variations and (possibly) sun activity." The fuck is the difference between man and natural GHGs? They are the same gases, CO2, CH4, etc... You said GHGs don't drive climate change, but you contridicted yourself. Also, the variations in Earth's Orbital distance are counted in the Sun's heat load... It's still higher than it should be. And the temperature of Earth being higher in the distant past is soomething completely different, and would not be possible if it was only the Sun's fault, and the Earth was in teh same orbital distance. Look: "Young Sun Paradox". " >"it would overturn decades of climate and Earth science" No. Milankovitch cycles and their influence on climate have been known since 1920s." Bullshit, those cycles have to do with the interglacial and ice age cycles. WE should be ebbing into an ice age right now because of this- the opposite is actually happening right now. That fact is also why there was the global cooling panic in the past. Not anymore. ">"Doesn't mean the science behind it is not true." Child, stop shifting the burden of proof. It's up to IPCC etc to prove their claims. Political agreement to implement the costly policies proposed by supporters requires a HARD proof. It's yet to be presented. "Doesn't mean it's not true" is not a proof." except there IS HARD PROOF. IPCC is not the only organisation. For example, NASA. If it was just political, it should have been denying climate change when Bush was in office... http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Climate change being fake and climate change being overestimated are two different things...
    1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1