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