Comments by "" (@1965ace) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

  1. Almost every "science" consensus throughout time has been wrong, and every generation has thought itself superior to previous ones. Man Caused Global Warming is only the flat earth consensus of this generation.  CO2 is only 1 / 2500th of the atmosphere and Man released CO2 is 1 / 41,666th of the atmosphere assuming 6% of 400 ppm. We are all expected to believe this is the end all of global warming and climate LMAO. 
    23
  2. garouHH Current man released CO2 is only 1/41,666th of the atmosphere not really worried . The earth has had as much as 5 times the CO2 and not only did it not melt but it went into an ice age . 
    3
  3. vanhouten64 Please state the proof that nothing else besides CO2 could possibly be responsible for a meager .8C rise in 150 years. There is only one conclusion you can draw IF 98% of climate scientists agree and a much smaller percentage of other scientists agree, and that is funding .  How many used car salesmen point out the flaws on the cars they sell ? 
    3
  4. vanhouten64 600,000 years is a staggering low amount of time compared to 4.6 billion years , but if your picking and choosing here's another one, man released CO2 is 1/41,666th of the atmosphere. Pretty unimpressive huh ? ...and let's not forget the whole sham depends on that being the ONLY reason for any warming. 
    2
  5. vanhouten64 Only ignorance would compare the EM to the W or S force. 
    2
  6. vanhouten64 You must be a moron to compare nuclear radiation and ebola to CO2. WE exhale CO2 , it's not even as strong as water vapor. It's also absolutely necessary to plant life.  It's about as dangerous to the planet as water and just as necessary to life. 
    2
  7. vanhouten64 No chicken little I don't see a reason for hysteria. There are too many assumptions to panic,  in fact there is doubt that any warming has occurred in the last 17 years. Try heating your house up with 1/41,666th of a furnace let alone increasing the insulation by 1/41,666th . 
    2
  8. garouHH How about a candle that is only 58 degrees ????
    2
  9. garouHH Not only that but a candle PRODUCES heat . CO2 can only reradiate what IR is available and only a narrow band of IR .  http://cosmoscon.com/2011/12/27/a-graph-on-co2-absorption/
    2
  10. garouHH Soooo don't you think the primary factor is MORE roads, cities and clear cut ground ????
    2
  11. garouHH If it's really about science you shouldn't have any problem refuting Prof. Murry Salby. This is no shallow cheerleading for or against MMGW but a very mathematical comprehensive analyzation.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0
    2
  12. vanhouten64 Now that you know all the slander do you have anything to say to refute his math ?????  Typical liberal tactic , if you can't refute the message then slander the messenger,    weak. This is akin to me documenting all the hypocracy of al gore in response to a well thought out presentation, it's called deflection. Either your too lazy to look at the math and come up with a rebuttal and or you are afraid you can't.  
    2
  13. vanhouten64 That's what I expected. You know he's on the right trail when there's more on google about his personal failings than his analysis of climate fraud. Who disagrees with his analysis and what is the information ?  This is exactly like the 98% of science consensus that was wrong so many times in the past. Of course 98% of those studying MMGW agree with the premises. How many Catholic Priests paid by the Catholic Church agree with Satinism or Islam or Mormonism or at least are willing to state it ?  What we are dealing with is systematic corruption of the science process. One of my favorite books is by Theoretical Physicist Lee Smolin. The book is called Trouble with Physics and deals with the pressure of each faction to defend it's premises.   Imagine we wake up one day with definitive proof, String Physics Theory is wrong, don't you think there would be lot of denial from people with huge investments in it?   I don't buy consensus it's for sheep, do your own research. 
    2
  14. capusvacans Bias ? You Warmers trust that any temperature increase has to be CO2 to the exclusion of any other factor. It is widely accepted that it hasn't warmed for the last 17 years. You could be taken more seriously if there was any balance to your theory besides CO2 . 
    2
  15. vanhouten64 So 17 years is not a trend ? 150 is but trends are not found in billions of years of past proxy ice records. I get it, now who's arbitrary ? I don't think agreeing with or against a consensus is a sound practice, I'm merely pointing out that "climate scientists" are paid to agree with MMGW by CO2 and therefore they are not the most objective source of information. 
    2
  16. garouHH Proxy CO2 is highly subject to variables but I would say if CO2 was much above the mean any melting and refreezing at any point would indicate much less rather than an accurate picture. I really doubt man made global warming scientists are paid to look for other causes. Send me a link if you have one.  Consensus is always exclusive and in most cases ignorant (the definition of exclusive). Read the book I suggested even though its about theoretical physics it's very basic and digestible by the average weekend science buff. 
    2
  17. garouHH Was that an efficient use of your time ? Co2 follows temperature it doesn't lead. 
    2
  18. garouHH There is a huge difference between leading and contributing. 
    2
  19. garouHH Of course it does the only question is how much does 1/ 41,666th of the atmosphere absorb. 
    2
  20. Joseph Zus Apples and oranges, what you are suggesting is we should all be afraid of a glass of water because a glass of nuclear radiation is deadly. You realize CO2 is essential for life on planet earth. 
    2
  21. Joseph Zus It has never led temperature, CO2 levels have always risen because temperature rises AND the proof is in every example of temperature falling in spite of continued rising CO2. 
    2
  22. garouHH It is a slave to temperature you have the cart in front of the horse, otherwise the system wouldn't balance itself. 
    2
  23. garouHH We have billions of years of history that says otherwise. 
    2
  24. garouHH The absorption spectrum of CO2 is evidence that I am correct. Look at the bandwiths of energy coming in and reradiating out from the surface. The vast majority of that energy is invisible to CO2 even the IR.  http://cosmoscon.com/2011/12/27/a-graph-on-co2-absorption/ Interesting you mentioned gravity, I've made a couple videos on gravity to help people understand the "bending" of the ST grid.
    2
  25. urstin Carbon-monoxide is not Carbon-dioxide. 
    2
  26. garouHH You seem tho think that atmospheric temperature is all there is to global temperature. Surface and ocean temperature is magnitudes stronger. Just sit in an open cockpit a few hundred feet AGL on a hot day and you can feel the difference. 
    2
  27. garouHH No need to ponder, there are billions of years of interaction to study. How come this carbon dioxide roller coaster of doom has never vanquished the earth before ???? You are on the right path just figure out what the balancing factors are. You have identified the cause (temperature) and effect (CO2) . 
    2
  28. Look at the desperation of the warmers on this thread, comparing CO2 (plant food) to nuclear weapons. the only thing I can get from this is they are out of ideas in the reasonable common sense area.  Here's an idea , the warmer it gets the more water evaporates and there is more cloud cover, which results in cooling. So no matter how much CO2 or independent warming there is H2O is the key balancing factor. 
    2
  29. garouHH Moisture is on a conveyor belt that moves it away from the points of origin so at some point it does condense giving up it's heat that also drastically increases vertical wind speeds sucking up more and more water vapor . High altitude clouds also deflect incoming radiation. Glaciers would be offset by more water on land masses and vegetation. 
    2
  30. garouHH Top scientists unbiased by research money and politicians don't see it your way. http://iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm  CO2 has a much smaller effect than H2O.1/41,666th of the atmosphere. There are also very strong negative reinforcements on heating the atmosphere. 
    2
  31. garouHH There isn't a single scientific fact that proves CO2 drives temperature .  https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-Hype-Exposed.pdf
    2
  32. garouHH The only thing they have done is tried to link observations (flawed and phony as they are) to one "cause" excluding ALL the larger factors that would contribute to warming.  The world began 150 years ago according to the warmers because the data from before that might confuse someone with the facts that climate has always changed, CO2 has always followed temperature and there was no industrial capitalism to blame for the medieval warm period etc.  There is nothing remarkable about climate now.  http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
    2
  33. David Andrew White You could apply your non-logic to poisonous bread. If someone was forced to eat 25 loaves of bread they would probably die but then no one considers bread poisonous. 1/41,666th of the atmosphere of non-toxic CO2 (what we exhale) is not a poison and that's where the hysterical warmers loose the argument .  
    2
  34. IronicKismet First off it's the lack of oxygen that will kill you, but your insane stupidity equating CO2 to cyanide really makes you look like a desperate alarmist. Your comparisons are moronic. 
    2
  35. IronicKismet Have I upset you moron ? You go off on these insane comparisons because you got nothing else. I got news for you , everything will kill you if you ingest enough. Drink ten gallons of water, it will kill you therefore we must ban water is your ignorant non-logic. 
    2
  36. garouHH That is natural and has always occurred. Just like the sun always rises in the morning the climate changes throughout time. 
    2
  37. garouHH You don't see you get your data from very biased and dependent sources ? 
    2
  38. IronicKismet The difference is evolution has tons of evidence. Warmers ignore just about everything past 150 years just like religions ignore anything past 6 thousand years. You ASSume to know what you don't. 
    2
  39. joeschultz2  "we can keep raw industrialization going full blast with no regard for the environment at all."  You must be under 30 to think that is the case. When I was 18 I worked in a factory making farming machinery that was being shipped out to China. There were factories and steel mills everywhere. Now all those businesses are in China and no one is demanding they shut down. This country is on it's way out on this path. I am an environmentalist , I'm just not stupid enough to commit financial suicide for a phony made up scam.  It hasn't been warming, CO2 is still climbing and it's been much higher in the past, and the Earth is still here. Why don't you listen to al gore's movie again, the one where he lectures you like a child. I'm sure that will make you feel better, bud. 
    2
  40. joeschultz2 I am right, and furthermore the only "consensus" is by scientists paid to promote this sham.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php No objective scientist claims with any certainty that man caused global warming is correct. Name one who isn't collecting research money from the government in some form. 
    2
  41. Dai Qibao These "warmers" are cult members surrounded by their cult propaganda, and unquestioning faith in government priests . 
    2
  42. Dai Qibao This moron points to 50 years of "research" that yielded no results or accurate predictions. The definition of stupidity is being lied to for 50 years and continuing to be a true believer. Pure ignorance. 
    2
  43. garouHH When it may detract from the Warmers religion , just guess and say it's "negligible" , I thought it was all about science. It proves my point every time, you won't see any serious research money funding anything that might detract from the 100% certainty that CO2 and only CO2 causes warming. Critics are not allowed and that also proves it's frail tiny shred of theory that is collapsing can't stand up to any scrutiny. "Cities I have even less an idea about." expanding concrete jungles consuming gigawatts of power, I can't imagine that creating any kind of heat ........... "As for roads, cities and cleared ground emitting more IR radiation that could be trapped by them" What about just more IR (heat) ? I know your not stupid and anyone that feels the difference between a green field and a concrete parking lot knows exactly the huge difference in temperature, convection. 
    1
  44. garouHH Of course they have had a lot of time to to study the issue and with billions of dollars and careers on the line the apologists have to be ready to defend it from any angle just like a fundamental Christian (I was years ago) they always approach it with a bias. The scriptures/ theory say the scriptures/ theory are always right so when there is a conflict with the theory/ scriptures they twist and turn to make sense out of non-sense.  The Warming fundamentalist creates more and more documentation to justify their faith not only to challengers but to themselves. They quote the "experts" when they can't explain it, as if that is proof in itself .  Just like myself when you start looking at it from the outside it becomes almost ridicules. I'll bet you thought I was a Creationist.  You are one step away from bragging about your IQ as proof your right when you arrogantly look down from your pile of undigestible books. I lowered my guard and reached out to you as a reasonable honest person (stupid me huh) with the book suggestion, but I can see now your intelligence has made you an arrogant condescending know it all with a blind spot of predisposition on this farce. 
    1
  45. Aaron Cole The butterfly effect ? That could apply to any small factor not just CO2  but I would argue bigger things like the truck hitting a butterfly makes a bigger difference hitting a deer in the short and long run. 
    1
  46. garouHH Again the only reason CO2 follows temperature is because it's released by temperature.  Milankovitch cycles etc. CAUSE global warming and cooling , CO2 is just along for the ride. 
    1
  47. byteresistor It was the global warming church of the time.
    1
  48. garouHH So you are saying 70,000 ppm CO2 is lethal to humans , gee I'm glad we only have 400 ppm in the atmosphere. that means we can safely add say 63,000 ppm and still be able to breathe ? Thats and increase of 15,750% . You keep making my point and disproving these insane comparisons . 
    1
  49. garouHH Especially the last 15 years, wait ...no it hasn't . http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
    1
  50. garouHH Boring, your religion is wasting my time. 
    1
  51. garouHH Nothing biased about thermometers except their locations. http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2009/08/thermometers-create-global-warming.html http://www.bobbyshred.com/fools/falsetemps.html http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/04/looking-at-thermometer-placement-and-heat-in-the-infrared/ When the inmates are running the asylum you can't trust anything to be objective. 
    1
  52. garouHH Here is an example of outright fraud. http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/exposing-the-global-warming-fraud/
    1
  53. IronicKismet I think the IPCC takes the cake for paid liars .  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
    1
  54. IronicKismet I just sent you proof the IPCC is committing fraud, the "science " is full of fraud. I really don't care about one website, i don't have time to defend them but this is where your "facts" come from, liars. 
    1
  55. garouHH lol, you cheerleaders buy anything. 
    1
  56. IronicKismet Terms like "corporate shills " comes from a belief system and bias. Obviously all corporations (groups of business people) can't be corrupt AND all government can't be corrupt (jury is still out on this lol). You are an extremist saying my life is a fraud and "everything I say is a fraud". Since your little mind can't sort out the details you decide to dispatch an option of extreme prejudice, discounting "everything " I say. The only people I know for sure who have a great stake  financially in Warming propaganda are the IPCC and every government organization PAID to study the theory. Between that and incredible peer pressure by fellows and politics there is almost no benefit to objectively reject the Warmers religion. Read "Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin to get an insiders view of peer review by a well known Theoretical Physicist. 
    1
  57. IronicKismet Good sheep don't question your masters. Billions of years of data and you think the earth began 150 years ago. LOL
    1
  58. garouHH No your the one doing that I maintain the vast majority of change is due to these other factors and that CO2 is magnitudinally incidental. You have made my point once again. 
    1
  59. garouHH  My point is wether its warming or not CO2 has a very small role if any as it always has. Temperature caused CO2 not visa versa.  http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/548516/North-South-poles-not-melting-Dr-Benny-Peiser
    1
  60. garouHH "Milankovitch cycle triggered CO2 release" AND that "trigger" was HEAT. Heat liberates CO2, that is the horse in from of the cart as it should be. And again you focus on only one cycle, exaggerate the data and ignore billions of years of history. If you make one false assumption the rest of your theory is drastically off track.  There is nothing remarkable about the global temperatures, CO2 levels, or transitions in this current time period (150 years out of billions). Now if you depend on false data and exaggerations you go off a cliff rapidly. 
    1
  61. garouHH Your theory would have had the temperature out of bounds very quickly and the earth would have boiled the oceans and been a desert planet billions of years ago.  You have to believe every-time in the past temp and CO2 was peaking along comes a cycle to save the planet, instead of understanding balance includes negative reinforcement of much greater significance than the narrow band absorption of infrared by CO2.  A balance can't depend on a cycle saving it from tipping out of control and the historic data suggests a very strong balance. 
    1
  62. garouHH Surely there has been in the past 2000 + ppm in the atmosphere and much more that could be liberated from the oceans and ground. On the one hand you are afraid of an increase of 1/41,666th in the atmosphere and on the other you are confident there isn't an infinite supply .....????   Also I don't see any warmers blaming the 20th century rise on  a heat maximum, such hypocrites . 
    1
  63. garouHH You speak of a heat maximum and a cooling period at the same time. It's warming it's cooling it's melting it's freezing anything to convince the faithful.
    1
  64. garouHH I thought CO2 was to blame for all the heating in the 20th century ??? Your logic is flawed because if we're at a heat maximum the temperature should be maintaining (it is for 15 years) not cooling . 
    1
  65. garouHH It's all so convoluted are you sure the earth began 150 years ago, .....or are you cherry picking your data again ? 
    1
  66. garouHH I would say the same to you sir. 
    1
  67. garouHH No I call the warming movement a pseudo science and reject it . Just like I defend capitalism and reject crony capitalism. 
    1
  68. garouHH The destruction of the American economy is born out of the same ignorance and irresponsibility as the warming religion. Personally I'd like you to get what you want and live in a 3rd world country as your advocating. 
    1
  69. garouHH It's sad that you're so afraid of a lie. 
    1
  70. Dennis Mallon More than 75% of past consensus has been wrong, the flat earth, the universe revolving around the earth, throwing virgins into volcanos etc etc. Every generation thinks it knows. MMGW is just the flat earth consensus of this time. BTW it's not even a consensus  http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/06/flashback-1998-scientists-said-sun-caused-global-warming-bbc-climate-changes-such-as-global-warming-may-be-due-to-changes-in-the-sun-rather-than-to-the-release-of-greenhouse-gases-on-earth/ http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
    1
  71. Dennis Mallon Another sycophantic groupie of something he obviously knows nothing about. 
    1
  72. Dennis Mallon And still ...nothing ?
    1
  73. Dennis Mallon Give up your wasting your time and I'm not even reading the first paragraph to know there is nothing worth responding to. :) CO2 is a product of heat not the determining factor of temperature, yes there is a tiny reinforcing feedback but also negative feedback. Billions of years shows us that. Come back when you have something "sciency" to say. 
    1
  74. Dennis Mallon WOT
    1
  75. garouHH If the theory was fact it wouldn't continue to be questioned and dismissed. 
    1
  76. garouHH "climate change is real and man-made" , that is the statement that will fall into the the flat earth category. Send more virgins the volcano god is angry LOL.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2891432/Carbon-dioxide-emissions-help-tropical-rainforests-grow-faster-Study-shows-trees-absorb-greenhouse-gas-expected.html
    1
  77. garouHH Another scientific truth you reject to embrace warming ? CO2 and plant life ?? http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_generators_plant_growth.html
    1
  78. garouHH You only pay attention to paid hacks that are making a fortune on the warming myth. I am going to going to do some more experiments with CO2 gas cylinders to see how much energy they can hold and then correlate that from 900psi of almost pure gas to 1/ 41,666th of the atmosphere. Preliminarily it's like heating a football stadium with a couple of candles. Do you have any suggestions for this experiment? 
    1
  79. garouHH Good ideas, I have heated a bottle   with a volume of 1 cubic foot at 900 psi (cold) with sunlight for several hours. This should represent CO2 in 160,714 ft^3 at sea level and man released CO2 in 2,678,528 ft^3 at sea level. For comparison my 3,000 ft^2 house has about 24,000ft ^3 space and is represented to have about 10ft^3 of CO2 and .6ft^3 of man released CO2. The bottle only reached 120 degrees. What is the infrared transfer effect through 16 gauge stainless steel ? 
    1
  80. garouHH I understand the difference but I struggle to relate such a small volume making any notable difference. One bottle of CO2 (one cubic foot) influencing the direction of temperature in 2.7 million cubic feet of atmosphere and untold dimensions in the upper atmosphere. 
    1
  81. garouHH Ill explain the math it's rounded in your favor 400ppm 6% is man released (not really but in your favor again) 1 / 2500th and 1/ 41,666th. The one cubic foot of gas is at 900psi (cold again in your favor) . Pressure at sea level is about 14 psi so 900 psi would expand to 64.29 ft^3 pure CO2 at 400ppm it would occupy 160,725 ft^3 (at 14psi) and if it was just representative of man released CO2 then 1 part in 41,666 would occupy 2,678,707 cubic feet. So in a sense my little bottle of CO2 is supposed to direct enough heat to raise the temperature of 2,678,707 cubic feet of air (267 mid sized houses) about 2 degrees F. I just can't believe this. 
    1
  82. garouHH As I told you my figures were at sea level and of course the higher you go the more expansion there is of course. Do you really want me to draw a picture people will see representing ppb ??? I think ppm illustrates my point exactly. What nerve it takes to blame all the increase on man, after all historically temperature went up and CO2 followed, look at all the data.  Let's talk about the oceans, they give up their CO2 when the planet warms (outgassing), what your claiming. SO doesn't that factor into the calculations of increased atmospheric CO2 ??? You also claimed we were in a warming cycle and your also claiming a cooling Milankovich cycle (I think it was you anyway).  It seems to me even 1 part in 2500 parts (all atmospheric CO2) would have to be 2500 degrees (by volume I know it's not exact) in order to raise the collective 1 degree by itself. This all seems preposterous if not just grossly exaggerated. 
    1
  83. garouHH Where is the balance in your models? The way you describe the earth is a precarious balance that should have drifted to an extreme billions of years ago. If one factor is off by a few degrees of change the whole thing is doomed, but that is not what we have seen historically. There has always been counterbalance keeping things in check. Look at clouds , the tops reflect incoming energy and the bottoms reflect outgoing energy. Clear days and cloudy nights are much warmer than cloudy days and clear nights. Those effects are magnitudes greater than 1 degree in a century, and yet the earth remains abundant with life.  1/41,666th of the atmosphere and even 1/2500th of the atmosphere is only a part of the warmers fantasy for controlling global warming. The audacity to believe that none of the other factors will compensate in a billions of years old system is insanity. 
    1
  84. TheRealArchAngel And that amounts to a very tiny part of the atmosphere although it sounds big. Also all that carbon has been in the carbon cycle before. There is nothing new under the sun. 
    1
  85. TheRealArchAngel That amounts to 1 / 41,666th of the atmosphere is man released CO2. Not very much at all. 
    1
  86. TheRealArchAngel Have you ever looked at at a thermal scan ? infrared is the energy that moves molecules aka heat . All matter that is above absolute zero gives off electromagnetic radiation. Thermal conductivity is what makes the stainless steel hot on the non heated side, but it is convection and IR on the inside of the bottle that heats the gas.   You don't know what your talking about if you think the inside of that bottle is not giving off IR and the CO2 is not absorbing that infrared is specific frequencies. 
    1
  87. ***** I just can't stand the sheep who worship and idolize smart and popular people. Don't question and don't challenge them is the moniker of the sheep. Those people must be right because they are on TV and they have been recognized to be smart.  Imagine if Einstein never challenged the status quo . 
    1
  88. TheRealArchAngel "there is no debate in Science"  That is so ignorant, every major discovery and evolution in science was surrounded in debate and politics.  What we have now is a minuscule change in temperature blown out of proportion and 100% blamed on man released CO2 1/41,666th of the atmosphere. First you claim there is no politics in science and then you site government agencies, LOLOLOLOLOL. The same un-objective research that claims the warmers religion is 100% dependent on it being true !!!!!  
    1
  89. vanhouten64 Let's all believe the paid propagandists who claim to be smarter than anyone else. The tools of government and frauds like al gore. 
    1
  90. ***** That's what I'm waiting for is for them to accept this is wrong. Why are you so emotional ? 
    1
  91. ***** First of all coal and oil are nothing but  stored SOLAR Energy . You  are perfectly illustraiting the same error over and over , you don't understand scale.  I'll prove it. 2.5 people per home , 128,000,000 homes in the US, avg 903 KW per month, avg 10,836KW per year = 1,387,008,000,000 KWH per year for just homes . At 12W not KW per square foot (solar panel output) we need 473 square miles or 13,186,483,200 ft^2 of solar panels for just homes every 17 years (lifespan of solar panels). Go ahead and estimate the cost of these solar panels LOLOLOLOL. Green energy means flushing green money down the toilet. 
    1
  92. TheRealArchAngel You obviously know solar panels can't replace coal and oil then.   I think you missed the point on the coal, oil and solar I was trying to make.  " Most scientists agree that hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are of organic origin. A few, however, maintain that some natural gas could have formed deep within the earth, where heat melting the rocks may have generated it inorganically.1 Nevertheless, the weight of evidence favors an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks.2 The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas." https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/
    1
  93. TheRealArchAngel Billions of years in the making can produce huge reservoirs. The answer is not wind and solar it's Thorium. 
    1
  94. Rik Speek You are a psychophant for something you know nothing about. 
    1
  95. Rik Speek I'm in good company.  http://iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_say_global_warming_is_a_lie.htm
    1
  96. TheRealArchAngel As Mark Levin says the new green is the old red. 
    1
  97. Frank Spellman That's what the lie is. CO2 absorbs a narrow band of IR. Water vapor which far surpasses CO2 as a greenhouse gas absorbs the same bands and a lot more. Negative feedback is completely ignored and positive feedback is grossly exaggerated. It's just a shame that the science has been corrupted to benefit a few greedy politicians scientists and special interest groups. 
    1
  98. TheRealArchAngel " IR or infrared radiation detected by infrared spectrometers in identifying gases in air  by its adsorb/reflect/refract rate of IR  that makes air glow red with co2 has nothing to do with the maximum heat adsorption capacity of air, water vapor or co2 which is 32f for air, 1/10th of a hundredth of  a degree for 400ppm of co2, and 900f at 60% humidity (noting that while co2 is heavier then air it rides the humidity in air along with the other trace gases mostly off the world oceans)"   Where do you find this information ? I'm trying to follow along but I want verification. 
    1
  99. garouHH It only works if the earth was created 150 years ago ....LOL http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming.jpg
    1
  100. phwoarprozak In order to believe the current MMGW theory it is assumed the earth is only 150 years old, the natural carbon concentration never changes, natural carbon sinks never change, and every year is hotter than the last (ignoring the last 15+ years).  Billions of years of history ignored. 
    1
  101. phwoarprozak http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
    1
  102. garouHH It's a narrow band unlike water vapor. http://cosmoscon.com/2011/12/27/a-graph-on-co2-absorption/
    1
  103. Derek Your condescension lacks authority. 
    1
  104. Derek You're close minded to critical thinking. Every climate model has been wrong , the feedbacks are totally underestimated and the tsunami they swore would happen is less than a ripple if that. The theory is wrong and the evidence keeps mounting. You sound like a flat earther telling Columbus he will sail off the edge of the earth.
    1
  105. ExperienceCounts2 It's a religion with you warmers. Don't challenge anything don't question your masters. You are good sheep / fools.
    1
  106. ExperienceCounts2 You have said a lot of nothing but based on the number of insults you have made you're very emotionally invested is this false theory religion.  The negative feedbacks are completely ignored. The increase in CO2 has been 100% attributed to man, when for the past several billion years natural levels always swing up with temperature.  My authority to point out their theory is wrong comes out of their failures. They predicted a tidal wave of heat causing massive changes and yet not even a ripple. And talk about gutless, their man made global warming was revised to ambiguous climate change. Talk about not backing up what you say ........  I'm not claiming to have all the answers I'm just pointing out the snake oil salesmen to sheep like yourself. Baaaaaaa
    1
  107. ExperienceCounts2 You must feel really stupid  and offended magic troll. You are comparing CO2 a gas you exhale in every breath to arsenic. LOL  "What the fuck are the units being compared?" It's a ratio of volume, the units don't matter, and you call me stupid.........
    1
  108. George Lacroix There  is no controversy on my 6% man caused contribution, in fact 3.8% is more often quoted. The rest is basic math if you can do it........
    1
  109. ExperienceCounts2 The guy who demands to know what units are involved in volumetric ratios is calling someone stupid ...LOLOLOLOL !!!
    1
  110. Aguila701 That's the point,  it becomes increasingly ignorant, like religious dogma, to continue to believe in MMGW when more evidence comes every day that the theory is wrong. 
    1
  111. ExperienceCounts2""At what ratio does CO2 become significant?" All it takes is a yes or no answer, stupid. Can you not even manage that?" Do you realize you asked a question that cannot be answered with yes or no and then demand a yes or no answer ?  From the way you write and insult me you must be a very low brow person. I have no interest in determining for you the exact amount of CO2 it takes to become harmful but don't stop breathing just yet we are along way from it.  Stop asking ignorant questions . 
    1
  112. ExperienceCounts2 LOL
    1
  113. joeschultz2 Another idiot comparing arsenic with CO2 . WTF, why even have science, let's just compare arsenic with everything in the environment. Hey don't drink that water, a glass of arsenic will kill you . LOL
    1
  114. joeschultz2 Illogical
    1
  115. questworldmatrix Neither does imaginary environmental "problems". 
    1
  116. joeschultz2 Man caused global warming is imaginary . 
    1
  117. joeschultz2 Deliberately misquoting me and misleading my point makes you a dishonest person and a liar. When you quote someone and change what they said (not paraphrasing) you are a fraud and your argument relies on lies, but isn't that the whole case of the warmers ? 
    1
  118. joeschultz2   You're a liar who has been caught and you won't admit it , no surprise here. 
    1
  119. Ardy F Your an idiot to think I'm the only one who disagrees.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php I have spent hundreds of hours studying Einstein's theories by the way. 
    1
  120. ***** http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html
    1
  121. joeschultz2 Too bad for you it hasn't warmed since 1998, so much for CO2 leading temperature ..........and half the 20th century is out of reach for the warmers. Let's not forget the ice age predictions from the 70's . I think your warmers movement is falling apart LOL. 
    1
  122. joeschultz2 I don't agree with every point of the article however your article from 2008 has been 100% wrong. LOL There has been fewer and weaker hurricanes. 
    1
  123. joeschultz2 When you have to cite "scientists" to refute what everyone can see for themselves in some convoluted concoction  it brings more doubt to the thing these "scientists" believe in .....warming.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/ This thing is more cult like every day where the true believers like you favor the priests revelations and disbelieve your own eyes. 
    1
  124. ExperienceCounts2 It's funny how you accuse others of the thing you do. Go back to the Medieval warm period it's a lot cooler now.  So 17 years is not a trend, who's cherry picking now ?  I don't know why I engage with you, you by your own words are very emotionally immature. Reminds me of a grade school argument.  http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/25/new-peer-reviewed-paper-un-overestimated-climate-sensitivity-to-co2/
    1
  125. Sydney Allen Here's a little more advanced one Newtonian Physics vs General Relativity. Need more ? 
    1
  126. joeschultz2 That isn't a science consensus, that is an observation of a law of physics . Here's another one Geocentric and Heliocentric. I personally find the Michaelson Morley experiment fascinating because it disproved a theory about the either and proved a number of future theories on Special Relativity. 
    1
  127. joeschultz2 That's not a consensus it's an observation that is indisputable. A consensus is an option. 
    1
  128. joeschultz2 Wrong , the consensus was that they fell at different rates. Galileo postulated and observed something different. Today with gigantic vacuum chambers its a proven fact that feathers and bowling balls are accelerated at the same rate 32fps/ps, no consensus needed. 
    1
  129. joeschultz2 I don't care how you frame it the "consensus" was wrong before then and your proving my point. 
    1
  130. joeschultz2 Still proving my point. 
    1
  131. joeschultz2 Just like global warming began only 150 years ago to hell with everything before that right ???? Consensus is completely worthless when it's wrong and it's mostly wrong flat earther. 
    1
  132. mike o'leary I'm certainly aware of all this, my point can still be understood. Global Warming caused by man released CO2 is as scientifically wrong as a flat earth. 
    1
  133. joeschultz2 In this case, man caused global warming is wrong. There has been very valuable government research,  no one is saying anything different.  I guess you are saying,  government research is never wrong because it's been right about some things in the past ? That is pretty sycophantic isn't it ? 
    1
  134. joeschultz2 As I said in this case it's true in other cases it's not . I can't help that you see things as black and white. So is government ever wrong ???? 
    1
  135. joeschultz2 You are a government cheerleader trying to put words in my mouth. The only overwhelming evidence is the predictions have been wrong and therefore their understanding of climate mechanisms are wrong too.That is mountains of evidence. 
    1
  136. joeschultz2 Predictions are wrong 97.4% of the time, I'd say that is a terrible track record.  http://www.westernjournalism.com/global-warming-predictions-proven-wrong-97-4-time/
    1
  137. ExperienceCounts2 Hey moron I'm not masquerading as several people to get my point across.  https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Climate-Hype-Exposed.pdf I don't need "one" or a hundred corrupt sources to validate my position all I need is FACTS. Something you can't conceive because it conflicts with your beliefs.
    1
  138. ExperienceCounts2 Hey moron the evidence is overwhelming. The predictions are embarrassingly WRONG. Warmers have lost almost all their credibility. 
    1
  139. joeschultz2 Now your using local events to defend global predictions that on the whole aren't happening.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html
    1
  140. ExperienceCounts2 You might have a point if the evidence wasn't so overwhelming that the "science" hasn't been completely wrong and corrupt with politicians and crooks making money. 
    1
  141. ExperienceCounts2 Hey Moron open your eyes it's not happening it's a scam. 
    1
  142. ExperienceCounts2 Hey Moron , I'm not even sure there is a "conspiracy" I'm pointing out the whole thing is wrong and the participants won't admit the truth because they are either making a living at it or getting rich $$$$$$. 
    1
  143. ExperienceCounts2 Well Moron , if you think the scientific community is all in agreement then you're dumber than I thought. People like you need others to tell them what to think and your belief that they ALL agree is like a cult member.  No amount of evidence is going to dissuade a true believer like you. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report Here's your peer reviewed critic.  http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php
    1
  144. No more feeding the Trolls, 384 comments is enough, I'm going to spend my time taking down more global warming videos. 
    1
  145. ExperienceCounts2 All of them including yours.  You even sound like a raving lunatic, incensed that anyone would question your religion. It starts showing it's true colors when the leaders accuse people of being "deniers" and demanding the infidels be rounded up and jailed. YUP it's a cult ........ 
    1
  146. ExperienceCounts2 ALL OF THEM ! They will all say the scientific evidence points to their particular belief, creation, evolution, heliocentricism, Greek gods, Roman gods etc.   The warmer's cult is also rife with FAILED PROPHETIC PREDICTIONS, they adjust their view so as to still continue to believe. When predicted global warming catastrophic disaster didn't happen year after year after year they finally decided to tell members it's really "climate change" they need to fear. More hurricanes, tornadoes etc, BUT the current real data for that is once again proving them wrong........less tornadoes and fewer hurricanes.  They keep holding on for a shred of evidence and true to any cult, a sign will come, a year with a couple more natural disasters. Then it's absolutely confirmed , time to sacrifice some more virgins in the volcano. Just a shred of evidence is all you need...............and that is exactly what this cult is based on. 
    1
  147. ExperienceCounts2 Just like that 97% right?   http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ Fewer Tornadoes and Hurricanes !!! MMGW isn't science, the scientific method has proven it wrong.  Make observations. Propose a hypothesis. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis. It's not abnormally warming and weather is not getting abnormally or even a little worse. It's imaginary, just like the belief's of any other cult.  I'm done responding to you, You don't understand the science. You won't employ any critical thinking.  You think consensus will change real observations.  And you're an arrogant little prick. 
    1
  148. Dai Qibao The guy is obsessed with his imaginary problem. He would love the Fascists to come lock up all the infidels who doubt in his imaginary crisis. 
    1
  149. 7 million , you mean less than 3% of the nation ????? I guess we can call them the 3%ers . The most pathetic government program ever !!! What a joke . 
    1