Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Standing Rock Water Protectors Aren't Going Anywhere" video.

  1. +liberty2014 if we're an oil economy for the next 100 years we are beyond fucked.
    10
  2. liberty2014 Whoever you're listening to is just flat out lying to you. All of the evidence (of which there are mountains of), as well as basic physics shows man-made climate change. Do some research outside of your right-wing echo chambers, so you can hear more than the propaganda of the oil industry. Even the pentagon has been calling for action on climate change for over a decade.
    2
  3. liberty2014 Forbes has been shown to be pushing climate denial (presumably due to direct influence of the fossil fuel industry). http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/how-forbes-got-it-wrong-the-real-climate-change-data-from-nasa/ and that entire article was misrepresenting what the NOAA was trying to say to push their own agenda. Note: Even that grossly misleading article doesn't even say "climate change is not occurring" but actually mentions "heat waves were nevertheless exacerbated by global warming." and "probability of another extreme 5-day rainfall, like the one that caused widespread flooding in Boulder, is estimated to have decreased because of human-caused climate change” because it wasn't trying to disprove climate change existing as you claim. A look at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (I assume what you meant) shows the opposite position that you lay out in your post. http://www.noaa.gov/climate https://www.climate.gov/news-features/category/96/all (note, all climate links on noaa.gov are direct links to climate.gov) https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/global-warming-increased-risk-intensity-louisianas-extreme-rain-event (one of many, many articles showing a link between climate change and extreme weather, which the BS forbes article tried, and failed, to disprove)
    1
  4. liberty2014 It's easier to find the NOAA site than a Forbes article if you're looking up their position. It misrepresents the NOAA position (as the links we both posted prove). I read it, that's how I know the quote you cite isn't in the article at all. Did you not read it, or are you intentionally lying to people about this subject?
    1