Climate Change a Hoax?

Share
Embed
  • Published on Dec 6, 2009
  • A series of leaked e-mails between climate scientists is casting a cloud over the Climate Change Summit. Kimberly Dozier reports whether scientists fudged numbers to over-exaggerate climate change.

Comments • 1 166

  • carl bole
    carl bole 50 minutes ago

    Great comments...While GW is a NWO Global takeover to diminish populations, and reduce consumption, ultimately it may be for the greater good! While I despise the NWO way the world is headed, the masses need herding into a "non-rabbit" way of procreating, for the future generations to have a chance...Convince me!

  • Brian Thompson
    Brian Thompson 20 hours ago

    The thorium plasma battery could reduce the world wide burning of hydrocarbons by 60-80%!!! Oh I forgot, this technology is for the military only, also we must protect the profits of the big oil industry!!!

  • Bryan & Issac
    Bryan & Issac 22 hours ago

    I cant believe people are so stupid!
    The warming is caused by the ice age

  • Ryan Borganson
    Ryan Borganson Day ago

    If nothing else(and there is plenty more) they have cherrypicked. And thereby ignore the lack of causality that disproves their claims ultimately when you account for the full data.

  • gerry 61
    gerry 61 Day ago +1

    Snow job.😁

  • Mathew Annoyed
    Mathew Annoyed Day ago

    Yeh we all know it's fake.. And Mother Nature has failsafes to ensure it will survive and some microbes will survive... When the Ocean water gets a little too hot MN spawns cyclones hurricanes to rapidly cool the ocean so imo where are probably ment to be here doing what where doing. everything is here for a reason and where not as important as you want to believe... Think parasite that sits of the back of a fish and sucks the life out of it over a few months that's us but on a grander scale yeh ✌.. Things will only get worse 👌 and there going to make you buy all the eviro friendly crap in the meantime ✌

    • Mathew Annoyed
      Mathew Annoyed Day ago

      Thing is once that fish dyes the leech will also die because it had no choice but to kill it's host

  • Jeff Yates
    Jeff Yates 2 days ago

    Al Gore is a jackass and Climate Change in the past ~135 years has risen slightly less than 1.0%. All this Garbage about Global Warming is just another Liberal Dumping of crap. The REAL experts think we may well moving toward a cooling phase. Global warming is beneficial in many ways.

  • Antonio CC
    Antonio CC 2 days ago

    Everything has allways changed, and everything will still change.

  • Denny Soinski
    Denny Soinski 3 days ago

    Man-made climate change is totally bogus, is NOT based on objective, rigorous, verifiable scientific research, and is an excuse/smoke screen for the real agenda by socialist and/or communist government elites, namely, the total takeover and control of our energy sector.

  • CIA 4GENT
    CIA 4GENT 3 days ago +1

    Just like evolution...another hoax

  • Tim Garrett
    Tim Garrett 3 days ago +1

    The earth changes on its own every minute...they will never bullshit their way through it.

    • Aravind MK
      Aravind MK 2 hours ago

      Human can never alter earthly figures it moves it own.

  • Tony Clark 1965
    Tony Clark 1965 3 days ago

    Sun spots have a lot to do with weather ,

  • Tony Clark 1965
    Tony Clark 1965 3 days ago

    Oh , so only 10 yr left to survive the planet again , yeah yeah blah blah loada rubbish the scientists are split 50 50 each with own views Bottom line is the world weather goes through fluctuations over numerous years , nothing to worry bout ,

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      "the scientists are split 50 50 each with own views" = False.
      "Bottom line is the world weather goes through fluctuations over numerous years" = True. It's called climate change. And we're causing it - dramatically - this time.
      "nothing to worry bout" = False.
      You obviously don't understand this issue. Heed the findings of the world's climate scientists... they know more than you.

  • Mark W
    Mark W 3 days ago

    This isn't science, this is a hoax to scam people's of money. I know it's a hoax because the Rothschild with their $500 Trillion aren't panicking. If things were so disastrous and they were threatened, a cheque for $400 Trillion to fix the issue would be signed in a second.
    All the sheeple need to stop listening to MSM FAKE NEWS outlets and start thinking for yourselves....blaaaah bleeeet

  • Webchez
    Webchez 5 days ago

    They are hiding the fact that the world is running out of oil, and pushing a more palatable white self-guilt and humanitarian ideal. Educated, but naive people will fall for this pseudo-science religion. Third world countries don't give a hoot about global warming, they just want cars and motorcycles, like the first world countries..... That is why there is so much global migration.... Who wouldn't want to be driving a Volvo or BMW?

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      Wrong.
      It's not white self-guilt, it's not pseudo-science, and it's not religion. It's just science. It's just one of the physical sciences, and so only an ignoramus or a fool would ignore or dispute it.

  • Paladin 06
    Paladin 06 6 days ago +1

    Fancy words to say thy lied.

  • PianoMan 2018
    PianoMan 2018 6 days ago

    What is the green New Deal? The GREEN form of COMMUNISM. ✌️

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 4 days ago

      @PianoMan 2018
      As long as people do not recognize the fact that Hitler's NSDAP stands for
      National (Anty-Jewish)
      SOCIALIST
      DEMOCRATIC
      LAYBORIST (Arbeiter)
      Party
      (far left, not right!!!)
      we are doomed to miserable fascist future.
      Modern Dem's are almost there...
      Antifa resembles Hitler-ugend.
      Could mention more...

    • PianoMan 2018
      PianoMan 2018 5 days ago

      Grant Perry Instead Of learning from history, we are bound to repeat it:(

    • Grant Perry
      Grant Perry 5 days ago

      PianoMan 2018 yeah but sadly everyone is indoctrinated into believing all of this, I have seen this first hand !

    • PianoMan 2018
      PianoMan 2018 5 days ago +1

      Grant Perry Yes, Communism couldn’t win with nukes, so they went the route of the Body Snatchers. They’ll absorb our minds one by one.

    • Grant Perry
      Grant Perry 5 days ago

      PianoMan 2018
      The green deal.. more like the red deal

  • Zefurno!!
    Zefurno!! 6 days ago

    To be clear right now based on past research, the earth was way hotter than it was now about 65 million years ago, and as time has progressed the earth is by science getting colder. To me this is all a huge hoax for news stations and for other people to get clout anx money for something that we shouldn't be making a big deal out of at the moment.


    Just my opinion though, oh and if you get offended by this I'm sorry if I did offend you, but you might aswell call yourself a "special snowflake"

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      I'm only offended by your magnitude of your stupidity. Your kind is a danger to the gene pool.
      This is just science, ya drooling half-wit. You don't know a damn thing about it, so if you had a single lick of common sense, you'd shut the hell and heed the findings of the scientific world.

  • ClydeCraft
    ClydeCraft 7 days ago +1

    Yes, actually, it is.

  • SevenMagpies
    SevenMagpies 7 days ago

    Learn to pronounce "Copenhagen" correctly.

  • IQBIAN ORGANUS
    IQBIAN ORGANUS 8 days ago

    The climate always changes, but that change has nothing to do with human behaviour.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 3 days ago

      @IQBIAN ORGANUS
      It's not a typo, my friend, it's ignorance.
      But at least you've proven you know how to google, good!
      Quote:"Look up the word SCIENTIA, I mentioned it in my post, aaah but you did not notice and compute."
      Honestly I'd prefer a simple link in plain
      English to a real dose of climate "scientia" that attempts to prove AGW horror claims.
      I can provide as a starter - link to 10Kyears of interactive GISP2 data (chart in blue in the end):
      www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change.
      It speaks for itself.

    • IQBIAN ORGANUS
      IQBIAN ORGANUS 3 days ago

      Oh Vladimir, you are so out of your league, but at least you put a smile on my face. My typo ought to have been seen as such, as once posted one cannot edit an error.
      Hmmm, me think I need to educate YOU again.lol Now YOU have got to do your homework since it is YOU who made the real faux pa.
      Look up the word SCIENTIA, I mentioned it in my post, aaah but you did not notice and compute.
      Chemistry is a faculty of ‘Science’ and has a lot to do with, Er Er more homework for YOU.
      Please familiarise your self with the PERIODIC TABLE, there you will find all the elements and gases known of our planet. The will have their atomic numbers and CHEMICAL compositions, ergo Co2!
      Lastly, Biology and physics are a couple more faculties of science.
      With that LESSON OVER, homework time.
      In future, try being polite to your betters.lol Have a Gr8 weekend.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 3 days ago

      @IQBIAN ORGANUS
      Quote:"Why offended Vladimir?"
      Because you answer me second time. You seem to have lost traction, and overexcited, my friend...
      Quote:"I poke of indisputable scientia, which has now qualified as priori."
      Really?
      How about this pearl:
      "Co2 0.39-0.4%" ?
      LOL
      Quote:"The facts may hurt feelings"
      Your "fact" about CO2 cannot hurt feelings, it's plain funny.
      Quote:"Furthermore, the truth of the essential matter I spoke of is not idiocy."
      If it was truth, probably it would not be idiocy.
      But as it IS idiocy, it's my obligation to inform you. ;-)
      Strongly recommend you to verify your claim.
      Quote:"Again, a school chemistry/science class may aid your knowledge base"
      We've got one more scientist here.
      LOL :-)
      BTW, keep in mind, my friend, there is no science called SCIENCE. Science has many branches and every single one has a unique name.
      Looks like elementary school dropouts do not know this.
      Also, please enlighten me, what science called "CHEMISTRY" has to do with global warming?
      Please, come back, my friend, but first do your homework. Otherwise you'll prove yourself being a clown.
      :-)

    • IQBIAN ORGANUS
      IQBIAN ORGANUS 4 days ago

      Why offended Vladimir? I poke of indisputable scientia, which has now qualified as priori. The facts may hurt feelings, they may even embarrass some, but the truth cares not about how you and I feel about it, it just is, the facts exist. Furthermore, the truth of the essential matter I spoke of is not idiocy. Again, a school chemistry/science class may aid your knowledge base.

    • IQBIAN ORGANUS
      IQBIAN ORGANUS 4 days ago

      Offended? That which is true may hurt feelings, it may even slightly embarrass some, but offended, no. One learns by dint of scientists, the lived reality. As for the composition of the air we breathe, I would not call those established facts idiocy.

  • RecliningRocker
    RecliningRocker 10 days ago

    Australia's center right party just destroyed the socialist party on an election the socialist party continually said was based on climate change, common sense prevailed.

    • Jeremy Kirkpatrick
      Jeremy Kirkpatrick 7 days ago

      The Labor party did no such thing sure it was mentioned by both parties but it was far from being the main topic. Now look whos making shit up to fit an agenda . You bogans are so predictable

  • Vladimir Gurevich
    Vladimir Gurevich 11 days ago

    During last week or two I had discussions with most of active participants of this thread.
    Every time we came close to stopping BS and talking real science number of my opponents shrunk significantly. The last active one - Proemed44G
    - has just proudly announced that according to Planck's equation the longer the waive length - the higher the energy.
    My logical conclusion from these facts is that ALL PROPONENTS OF AGW (at least on this thread) ARE IDIOTS.
    I would appreciate someone coming here and proving me (and the audience) that I am wrong.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 2 days ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      Dear zoo.
      Let me briefly summarize all your arguments:
      1)no, it doesn't;
      2)no, it didn't;
      3)there's absolutely no point in carrying a discussion with brain-damaged people like you;
      4)I won't repeat my comment...
      Etc,etc, etc...
      All I've been asking for from people here is ONE single, but solid proof of AGW.
      I've spent lot's of time trying to find it myself and couldn't.
      Arguments I've found do not satisfy the lowest scientific requirements. Some are irrelevant, some are blurry, even sleazy, some are outright fake.
      You may say I am stupid, brain damaged and other nice things. ;-)
      Sorry, I am not a climatologist, I am a rocket scientist.
      But please do not forget - rockets are flying pretty well, all climate models miserably fail.
      Maybe it would be easier just to help me find what I've asked for?
      If it's so hard that nobody managed to provide it (nobody even tried to), maybe I am right and you are wrong?
      What do you think?

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      ​@Vladimir Gurevich
      You appear to be the kind of brain-damaged person I sometimes encounter on TVclip. it works like this:
      1. You post an argument.
      2. I post a rebuttal.
      3. You completely ignore the substance of my rebuttal (even if - especially if - it's decisive as was the case here), and instead simply take the fact that I posted anything at all as your cue to restate your argument.
      Now, as should be obvious, there's absolutely no point in carrying a discussion with brain-damaged people like you who behave this way. It's utterly pointless, because there is no discussion at all. There's just you repeating your argument. The substance of my comments are totally irrelevant to your solipsistic game. You're arguing only with yourself (and no doubt congratulating yourself for your glorious triumph every time!). I'm simply a prop within your mental illness. I'll give you one chance to correct this behavior.
      Point by point:
      *"I referred specifically to the chart in the end."*
      No you didn't.
      *"I find it very amusing that data they post goes against their claims."*
      No it doesn't. And I explained why. In detail. Giving you 2 reasons why the data doesn't go against the global/hemispheric models, and a reason why I don't accept your claim about the climate models evaluated against that data.
      I won't repeat my comment, since I've already written it. Read what I wrote again, slowly, carefully. Read it while actually _thinking_ about what the words I wrote _mean._
      *Please keep in mind, that GISP2 is just one of many ice cores available, and they all present very similar picture regarding temperatures and CO2 content.*
      Again, your comment here is simply ignoring the substance of the point I made over and over and over in my post.
      I won't repeat my comment, since I've already written it. Read what I wrote again, slowly, carefully. Read it while actually _thinking_ about what the words I wrote _mean._
      *And they prove beyond any doubt that at least in the last 800Kyears CO2 has never been a driver of climate.*
      No it doesn't. This is a new wrong claim on your part. I thought you wanted to keep the conversation focused?
      Okay, so here's the deal. You made claims, and I responded. Your current post has entirely ignored the substance of my response. I'll give you one last chance to actually pay attention to what I wrote. If your next post is simply you restating your argument, then we're done. The task before you is to engage with what I wrote. First read it until you understand it, and then disagree with parts of it if you like. But if you simply ignore it and restate your claims again, as you did in this post, then for reasons I've made very clear, we're done. Criticize my comments, or accept them - but do not ignore them. If you want to stick to one point at a time, that's fine - but it must be you critiquing one of the points I made in my rebuttal of your claims. I'll give you one more chance only to prove that you're capable of rational discourse.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 3 days ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      Dear Zoo.
      You posts become too long. Answering requires multiple quoting and re-quoting which would make them even longer.
      Please let's split long ones into several shorter ones. It would be better for everyone (including followers) to discuss one item in one post.
      Regarding your complaint:"You only responded to that comment on the day that I made my comment on this comment chain - after more than a week of silence..."
      Answering you is not my full time job.
      Also keep in mind that sometimes youtube notifications do not go through and I find some unanswered posts much later. Be patient, please. I'll answer eventually and you'll have problems like my other opponents here.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 3 days ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      My dear zoo. Why do you tell me all this garbage? I've read it.
      I referred specifically to the chart in the end.
      I find it very amusing that data they post goes against their claims. :-)
      Please keep in mind, that GISP2 is just one of many ice cores available, and they all present very similar picture regarding temperatures and CO2 content.
      And they prove beyond any doubt that at least in the last 800Kyears CO2 has never been a driver of climate.
      If you'd still like to discuss opinions from this article let's do it, but let's do it one thesis at a time. Otherwise posts get too long.
      Choose your favorite thesis and come back.

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich
      *Re: "Just wondering, I've posted this link at least half a dozen times:"*
      www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
      *It's not a deniers link, it's quite official. But some evil characters from a stinking zoo keep pretending they've not seen it. And this was just a teaser! ;-)"*
      You either didn't read your own damn link, or if you did, you didn't understand it. And yet you've posted it "at least half a dozen times"? Bad news son, had you been able to read and understand what it meant, it's saying the opposite of what you imagine it's saying.
      Jesus, what a fool...
      But I'll pat you on your simpleton's head for trying, and explain it a bit for you.
      Your first clue that it wasn't going to help the denier cause should've been its first sentence: _"A misleading graph purporting to show that past changes in Greenland’s temperatures dwarf modern climate change has been circling the internet since at least 2010."_ Yes, that's right, the article's first sentence is noting some of the circulating denier bullshit.
      The article starts off by explaining the current actual temp evidence provided by the Greenland ice core proxies. It says that Greenland is currently warmer than any time in the last 2000 years, but not as warm as some times earlier in the Holocene many more thousands of years ago. It then states that projections show that sometime within the next few decades, Greenland will be warmer than at any time during the entire Holocene - hence warmer than anytime since the previous interglacial (about 125,000 years ago).
      (FYI: Nothing about that supports your bullshit that _"AGW theory goes against historic records millions years long."_ )
      It then talks a bit about ice cores and the early research and temp reconstructions, before getting to the denier stupidity. The mistake mentioned in the first sentence originated with a -peer reviewed paper- blog post by -climate scientist- AI/nanotechnologist Dr Hall. That was soon - of course - picked up by the big denier blog WUWT, and so a new incorrect graph was made for -a peer reviewed paper- a blog by -climatologist- geologist Dr Easterbrook, a -respected climate authority- commonly quoted denier (and, having heard some of his comments, I'll just add that Dr Easterbrooke is a moron who's an embarrassment to the word "scientist". He makes Roy Spencer look smart.) It then explains the errors in Easterbrook's graph, and points out his apparent conflation of the temp record at one spot on Earth with the global temp record (a primary distinction you'll note I mentioned in my previous post, my point #1).
      (I should point out that this PhD's tragic comments and attempts to analyze time series in that blog are cringe-worthy. He's a PhD who needs to go take some undergrad courses to learn the basics. I'm actually embarrassed for him whenever I read or hear him. Such junk is expected from the average denier doofus like you, but not a geology professor, no matter how unimpressive his university.)
      This background explanation of the real science, and the denier bullshit, ends with a NYTimes quote from a competent scientist in the field, a Penn State professor and glaciologist/climatologist, Dr Richard Alley.
      _"So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores... and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount... Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."_
      I want you to pause for a moment and process that quote. Seriously, it has to be dawning on even your pea brain that you've produced a link, one that you've posted "at least half a dozen times", that shows the exact opposite of what you thought that it showed.
      You've relied on your link to:
      1) help make the denier case, by
      2) hyping the GISP2 data in order to
      3) implicitly suggest the GISP2 data undermines AGW (presumably also your defense of _"AGW theory goes against historic records millions years long."_ )
      Instead, your link has:
      1) Shown the denier graphs and claims are mistaken,
      2) by a detailed explanation concluding with _"what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount",_ and that
      3) _"Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible."_
      Again, I want you to pause for a moment and process that.
      After that, the article just goes over the science some more, delving into what it claimed at the start about the current temp evidence provided by the Greenland ice core proxies.
      (Aside: It also refers to the Marcott paper I told you about.)

  • lamanchadale
    lamanchadale 13 days ago

    Anthropogenic global warming....if only it were so. Global warming would move the limit of the grain belt way up into Canada and Siberia. Greater CO2 would dramatically increase crop yields. Hunger would cease globally.
    CO2 levels were as much as 10 times greater in ancient times than the levels of today, yet no Armageddon occurred. Read the scientific papers of Dr. Heinz Hug to understand how CO2 functions in the atmosphere. It has very narrow bands of absorption, 1, 2.7, 4.3, 15 micrometers are the generalized spectral peaks. These wavelengths are ALL absorbed to extinction within 30 feet of the ground. ADDING MORE CO2 DOES NOT INCREASE ENERGY ABSORPTION, but only reduces the distance needed for full absorption by a foot or two, in fact, higher CO2 levels caused higher O and O2 levels (photosynthesis) that allowed the dinosaurs to exist (Commercial green houses inject CO2 to increase plant yields). The atmosphere today has .04% CO2, yet modern nuclear submarines operate with levels of .2% or higher with no ill effects to the crew. Higher CO2 also reduces the amount of water vapor venting required from plants. When plants draw in air through its Stomata (tiny holes) to eat the CO2, it must vent water vapor to keep from drying out. If there is twice as much CO2 in the air, the plant only needs half as many Stomata, and thus uses half as much water. The deserts are greening today where the CO2 is rising for this reason. Also, with low CO2, plants must breath in oxygen to replace it. They generate hydrogen peroxide and other damaging molecules that the plant must expend water and energy to remove. Remember that In ancient times, the times with the most vegetation and O and O2, CO2 was as much as 10 times higher than today. We are currently in a CO2 drought, see the You Tube video "World in Midst of Carbon Drought (w/Prof. William Happer, Princeton University)".
    As an example, during the Cretaceous period, there was NO ice at all at the poles, much higher CO2, and the Earth was full of vegetation and dinosaurs. They could not live today as the O and O2 levels are too low for such large land animals.
    The oceans are rising today because the Wisconsinin ice age has not yet finished, there is still ice at the poles and it is still melting. The ice age ends when all the ice has melted, so technically were are still in the last ice age, but the next ice age will begin before the last has ended.
    The climate changes we have seen in the geologic record are entirely disconnected from the CO2 levels. CO2 is a VERY minor gas in the atmosphere (.04%). Note that water vapor is a vastly more efficient and abundant greenhouse gas (1% to 4.24%) than CO2. The reason for climate change is entirely due to the output of the sun and the amount of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere. Watch the You Tube video "Svensmark: the cloud mystery" and maybe read his book "The chilling stars" to understand the reasons for climate change, it has NOTHING to do with CO2.
    After doing these things, look on the US Geologic Survey website and find the graphs of Earth temperatures over the last 2 million years. This time period includes all the recent ice ages. You will see that this data proves we are leaving the current interglacial warm period and are entering the next ice age.
    The fraud of anthropogenic global warming exists because the globalists are subsidizing it to convince us to accept a global carbon tax, that is to get western nations to accept it. There is no call for China, the greatest producer of CO2 in history, to pay such a tax. ONLY the west. This tax will in effect take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries.
    Don't fall for this fraud. AGW is the greatest science scam ever thrust upon the people of the Earth in all of history. Don't buy it, educate yourself instead.
    As a final note, read about the Vostok ice core samples, and other following sample sets to see that ice ages are preceded by a brief warming period. We are leaving that stage now. Real scientists expect a little ice age to happen, starting as early as 2020, and that it will last 350-400 years. Be ready.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 20 hours ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      Quote:"As you know, I gave a long, detailed, and decisive rebuttal to you denier bullshit."
      Long - YES!
      Detailed - YES!
      Decisive - LOL!
      Rebuttal - HILARIOUS!
      Was this the reason why you magically disappeared, my funny friend?
      How far did you get along the drain?

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich
      *Re: "How about engaging me?"*
      As you know, over the past couple of days I have engaged with you on another comment chain.
      As you know, I gave a long, detailed, and decisive rebuttal to you denier bullshit.
      As you know, your reaction was to ignore my rebuttal and simply reaffirm your arguments as if I'd written nothing.
      As you know, I told you that makes rational discourse with you impossible, so I gave you a second and final chance to engage my posts.
      As you know, you failed your second and final chance because you still failed to engage my detailed rebuttals.
      As you know, I told you I'm done with discussing anything with you, because it's pointless, because you're incapable of rational discourse.
      *Re: "Nobody “bothered to” answer me with any substance."*
      As you know, that's a shameless lie. (see above)

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 2 days ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      “…you might want to note that I wasn't avoiding engaging him…”
      How about engaging me?
      “but that given the volume of his mistakes, I was trying to keep it focused to a single issue…”
      Great idea!
      One issue at a time, promise you’ll follow your own suggestion.
      Do you have one favorite issue?
      Please, share it with me.
      I have one issue to share.
      I’ve posted it in this thread probably 20 times, maybe 30… or more, you should be well aware of what I am talking about.
      Nobody “bothered to” answer me with any substance.
      Will you?

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 days ago

      ​@Vladimir Gurevich
      That was still muddled in the second half, but was definitely better than your first attempt.
      Anyway, you might want to note that I wasn't avoiding engaging him, but that given the volume of his mistakes, I was trying to keep it focused to a single issue. I've interacted with you before, and as usual, you have a difficult time understanding what you read. Please pay careful attention to the 2nd sentence of this quote from my original comment, and try to appreciate what it means:
      _"There's so much wrong here I won't even bother correcting it. _*_Pick one, and I'll explain your confusion to you._*_ "_
      This guy then claimed he couldn't get out a reply, so I let it drop.
      That's when your muddled bullshit arrived.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 3 days ago

      @VeryEvilPettingZoo
      My friend, I "do not bother" about one more opinion about myself from another brainwashed dummy.
      I bother about exchanging scientific data and arguments with someone who knows how it's being done among scientists. I haven't found one single person like that on the thread so far.
      Obviously you are not one of them too.
      And sorry, talking to dummies like you with over inflated self esteem requires some harsh words.
      Keep going, my friend, drains are long. Sometimes it takes the entire life to float through.

  • Jotacreeper Star Creepernium

    global warming is bullshit

  • Dave 5400
    Dave 5400 16 days ago +5

    I like how there was an advert on this video saying that "If you buy one of our bracelets, then we'll remove some rubbish out of the sea on your behalf!".
    Utterly ironic how PC things are today...

  • Dave 5400
    Dave 5400 16 days ago +1

    "Climate change" has to be one of the most pointless phrases in the English language. Think about it. I put forward the following question: What does the weather do between January and July? Answer: In January it (generally) is cold and snows; and in July it (once again, generally) is hot an sunny. To get from one to the other the climate has to change, therefore it is always bloody changing!
    And another thing, what happened a few million years ago? Answer: an Ice Age. When do we think it ended? about 11,000 years ago. What caused that then? "Climate change"?
    I have some sympathy for the "global warming" idea, not because I believe it myself, but because at least it actually says something that has some substance.
    I think you see my point.

  • Bruce Windorski
    Bruce Windorski 16 days ago

    The only climate change os the hearts turning cold towards GOD !!! REPENT while there is time it's going 2 get worse cuz GOD is angry with mankind n HE'S in control, JESUS is coming soon!! R u ready 2 meet HIM face 2 face? Turn 2 HIM or pay the price!!HELL

  • jeffjd1970
    jeffjd1970 17 days ago +2

    No man is going to be able to change the temperature on earth

  • Warren Peece
    Warren Peece 17 days ago +1

    The issue is that "man made" climate change has become politicized and marketed. The solution? Huge taxes and fees that will "save the planet" -- meaning that if you question it or present contradictory data you are demonized as a "denier." The real deniers are those who claim that climate change is not influenced by the natural processes that have always caused climate change in the past. What's worse is the crazy idea that paying more taxes will affect the climate!

  • John Zyp
    John Zyp 18 days ago

    We need to burn all forests to stop global warming.

  • John Zyp
    John Zyp 18 days ago

    Cope in hargin.

  • Jenny B
    Jenny B 21 day ago

    Ummm...Isn't the climate supposed to change? You know....spring, summer, autumn and winter.

    • Jenny B
      Jenny B 20 days ago

      boomcshroo regardless, climate change is a sham. Don't be bamboozled. Its all a ruse to put fear into people.

    • boomcshroo
      boomcshroo 20 days ago +2

      Those are seasons, not climates.

  • Norze KenWays
    Norze KenWays 21 day ago +1

    Seems like most people don't believe in climate change unlike what tv tells us that there are only a few people that don't believe in it. But every climate change video I click on is just full of people who don't believe in climate change. Can someone explain to me why they would fake climate change? I'm trying to decide what I believe.

    • VeryEvilPettingZoo
      VeryEvilPettingZoo 18 days ago

      The deniers are mindless sheep, who hear and obey the commands of their herd, no matter how ridiculous.
      Money buys propaganda which then trains the herd what to believe. In this case, anti-government ideologues, and mostly fossil-fuel money, have bought the allegiance of the republican party leaders (in the USA) and fund the denier propaganda machine. The mindless herd (the deniers - and in the USA, the ordinary ignorant republicans) has thus been instructed what to believe, and so loyally believes it, despite their position being totally delusional.
      There's no real dispute about this issue in the scientific world, and hasn't been for decades. It's borderline insanity to dispute the findings of the physical sciences.

  • Darren M
    Darren M 22 days ago +1

    To all climate change skeptics; There is a lot of dis-information being spread, with a great deal of politicians themselves misinterpreting the scientific data. I used to believe it was a hoax after falling down the youtube rabbit hole of videos on this. However, you have to look at the scientific arguments to the skeptics claims, and you will find quite often it is either: 1) Made up bullshit 2) A complete misrepresentation of the science 3) A complete misunderstanding of the science 4) Leaves out key facts that changes the context completely or makes a sweeping claim based on one limited dataset. If you want to honestly know the real truth, don't be like a flat-earther that simply see's what they want to see. One channel I highly recommend is Potholer54 tvclip.biz/video/ugwqXKHLrGk/video.html

  • Greg Wilson
    Greg Wilson 24 days ago

    hoax clomplete

  • Jesus Negger Christ
    Jesus Negger Christ 24 days ago

    cleverly worded as climate change.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 16 days ago

      @louiscypher1001
      Mr. louiscypher1001 going down the drain?
      LOL!
      Why did you ignore my request:
      "Let's talk SCIENCE and I promise, I'll never offend you.
      Trying to guess...
      You are not about science, you are about community organizing, correct?

    • louiscypher1001
      louiscypher1001 16 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich - I came here to talk with facts not your feelings. So thanks for the personnel attacks and slander and misdirects. I wish you well.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 16 days ago

      @louiscypher1001
      "I never inferred I was a researcher."
      Good to know. Why are you so excited then? Do not believe official BS and relax!
      You do not know bare minimum about climatology but trying to herd the audience. Stop your BS and I'll leave you alone. :-)
      "Your straw manning me is pretty shallow and rude you mother must be very proud of you ethics."
      You prefer talking ethics because you lack scientific knowledge? Let's keep this topic out.
      Let's talk SCIENCE and I promise, I'll never offend you.
      "Since you don't know about Exxon in all this let me help you"
      I do not care who pays for the research as long as customer does not imply certain things upfront. And it's definitely not the case with 1982 Exxon study you referred to. (did you bother to read it?)
      But it's the case with today's government funded climate "studies".
      "1981 Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere"
      He honestly tried his best to predict the worst case outcome. He was not the only scientist in the world who was wrong in the obscure world of climatology. Given rudimentary state of modern climatology he took wrong approach - attempted analytical prediction without minimal knowledge of driving factors.
      Thank you for the link.

    • louiscypher1001
      louiscypher1001 17 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich - Comrade Vlad I never inferred I was a researcher.. - you did. Your straw manning me is pretty shallow and rude you mother must be very proud of you ethics. Because since you don't have counter evidence it's obvious your know your wrong. "I'm saying this because I want to feel special. I know that even if I am wrong people will listen to me" It's OK to be wrong that is how we learn and grow as an individual. Its OK to ask questions and demand the evidence too. It's not NOT to smear people who disagree or lie or misdirect with personnel attacks when presented with facts. Since you don't know about Exxon in all this let me help you - 1977: James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company’s top management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels is causing climate change.


      1981 Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the first half of the 21st century. Here is a copy of the research paper insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 17 days ago

      @louiscypher1001
      LOL!
      I absolutely love this:
      "driving wedges between people and voters"
      I am a human being (single from people ;-) and a voter simultaneously. Trying to imagine driving a wedge through myself :-)

      One other thing I love is that you are no longer trying to position yourself as a "climatologist". (It's obvious that you have nothing to do with REAL science, but it's nice that you stop pretending).
      You are one of activists, community organizers, otherwise you would never mention Exxon as a "scientific argument".

  • Jack
    Jack 25 days ago

    Yes, it's all fake and the those pesky wild fires are just a figment of our collective imaginations! So are those hurricanes! Oh and those polar bears close to extinction aren't real either.
    Um, what about Iceland melting and those other places you ask...? Well, Um, the thing about Iceland is er...It doesn't exist! Yes, that's it! There's no such place as Iceland! Hah! Take that climate hoaxers!

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 18 days ago

      Dear Jack
      .
      Wild fires have been forever. With more AGW believers smoking weed in the wild they get more frequent. ;-)
      If you'd bother to check historic records, you'd find out that recent decades were not that bad. 30-s were much worse. (prior to major CO2 injections into atmosphere)
      Polar ice also started to melt decades before mankind introduced measurable amount of CO2 into atmosphere.
      And please, check it yourself, make a note and tell all other idiots:
      CO2 has never driven temperature on the planet. At least in last 800,000 years.
      Temperature ALWAYS changed first! CO2 ALWAYS lagged behind.

  • Blue Orange
    Blue Orange 25 days ago

    Yes or No?

  • TechNStuff
    TechNStuff 27 days ago

    Climate change is a hoax what is real is pollution

  • Born Blazed
    Born Blazed 28 days ago

    climate change is real !

  • Anthony E Huggins Jr
    Anthony E Huggins Jr 28 days ago

    He is hitting the nail on the head here.....They're not concerned about global warming because of crop failure, sea level rise or anything like that. Its because theyre all suffering with Entomophobia. It's a known fact that plants get bigger when given more CO2 and that when plans get bigger they produce more oxygen.........wait for it....wait for it....and it's also a proven fact that more OXYGEN PRODUCES BIGGER MORE HEALTHY BUGS!!!! They are terrified at the very thought of it. It is mental illness driving the whole man made climate change agenda. They know full well that more CO2 will produce a healthier environment than we have now and that is what frightens them most.......I know I am right but you do not need to take my word for it as this hypothesis is easily testable.......If you know someone who says they believe people are causing climate change you must put a big bug on them. This is the only way we can test my hypothesis.

  • ericsmail99
    ericsmail99 28 days ago

    I’m never going to be a person who dismisses ‘the other side’ off hand because I have a counter position. Science doesn’t work like that. There are numerous reputable scientists who say the opposite is actually happening to the worlds climate. That we’re heading into a period of intense global cooling after the warming peak of 1998 and the general flatline since.
    So ..... who’s right. Should we incline to the majority? Or do we apply the scientific model to the hypothesis of the majority as numerous others have done?
    As the models perpetually fail we need to come to grips with something else MUST be going on.
    Listening to people like Martin Mlynczak of Nasa, Dr. Valentina Zharkova of North Umbria University, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Roy Spencer Sr. scientist for climate studies Nasa - Mashall Space Flight Center,
    there’s plenty of information and excellent science to suggest something else entirely might be going on.
    Science is built on healthy skepticism. I’ve become a healthy skeptic.

  • Rusty Reno
    Rusty Reno Month ago +1

    This video is from 2009 which is funny because we had 2 tipping points in 2010 & 2016 come and go. Guess it’s been debunked as hyperbole. Oh wait another tipping point 2031.

  • gpettipas
    gpettipas Month ago +3

    What is a hoax is politicians can control the climate

  • My word
    My word Month ago

    China and India are working towards lowering their emissions (video of huge factories) . America hasn't (takes video of garbage truck).

  • John Calveley
    John Calveley Month ago +2

    Check "DOD can control the weather"
    J.Calveley

    • John Calveley
      John Calveley 28 days ago

      "DOD can control the weather"--- Google it.
      J.Calveley.

  • Nick The Music Snob
    Nick The Music Snob Month ago +2

    I think they’re trying to instill fear in us

    • ͔
      ͔ 20 days ago

      they want to Inform the people

  • Taka Konobe
    Taka Konobe Month ago +4

    We cant control the climate my dudes were along for the ride. Its changed before and it will change again.

  • Roger Diogo
    Roger Diogo Month ago

    The *Albanian* mob still believes in Global warming….

    • Aravind MK
      Aravind MK 2 hours ago

      Also India believes in global warming

  • Vince C
    Vince C Month ago +3

    Who woulda thunk?
    The climate emergency it's little more than a hoax perpetrated on the gullible

  • ed geiger 1
    ed geiger 1 Month ago

    Look at the climate data for the entire 20th century. You was much hotter in the 1940s!

    • ed geiger 1
      ed geiger 1 23 days ago

      @Mido The Football Genius The Sun? 🤔😂

    • Mido The Football Genius
      Mido The Football Genius 23 days ago

      ed geiger 1 were 1 degree celcius above average we’ve never been higher than 3 degrees over the average and scientists are predicting we’ll be over 5 degrees celcius. How?

  • silverhairdemon
    silverhairdemon Month ago

    Want a cooler fresh air moist stable planet? plant PLANTS and TREES, against and on buildings if we have to. integrate mama nature with man made infrastructure. The so called climate change is a thing of the past.

  • Jon Alarcon
    Jon Alarcon Month ago

    The information is being altered on the models

  • blanckieification
    blanckieification Month ago +2

    You mean man-made global change: definately a hoax. The climate has always, is and will always change. The climate is a complex system ruled by many many factors. The reason why they blame humans is money. See money behind everything and you understand the world

    • blanckieification
      blanckieification 21 day ago

      @Mohammed Al Nayeem oh I dont know (sarcasm). A new boost in the economy(energy reducing machines, the old ones have to go because they are bad for the environment(yet still we depend very much on oil(that is their source)(almost every machine runs on oil), or a revival for the economy because of the production of green energies...The people want change, so they give them change, but nothing really changes. Yet again people have the ILLUSION(next to among others the ILLUSION of freedom) of change. Fear has always helped the economy.

    • Mohammed Al Nayeem
      Mohammed Al Nayeem 21 day ago

      How do they gain money from this though?

  • FrankArend
    FrankArend Month ago

    Here some REAL INFO : tvclip.biz/video/oYhCQv5tNsQ/video.html (18:33 min GORE HOAX)

  • Doug Shaw
    Doug Shaw Month ago

    Celestial mechanics skills are unheard of in pseudo science climate models. In REAL science, the Sun and planetary movements have always determined our climate... Climate "believers" think they can change the Sun with politics. ...idiots

  • Doug Shaw
    Doug Shaw Month ago

    July 2019 and climate whacko voodoo is still just a hoax. Faulty computer modeling based on GIGO producing garbage results. Nobody but fools believe in voodoo...

  • David K
    David K Month ago

    Fake news :)

  • Johnny Rebel
    Johnny Rebel Month ago +1

    I remember in 1966 the UN scientists told us that there was an ice age coming. Now, these liars are telling us it's warming. Where's the evidence? The sheep that believe this crap haven't lived long enough to witness any drastic change and there is no climate change. One day about 40 or 50 years from now the sheep just might wake up and realize that the Earth's climate did not change.

    • Johnny Rebel
      Johnny Rebel Month ago

      @stephen hargreaves Well said. Exactly.

    • stephen hargreaves
      stephen hargreaves Month ago +1

      I remember being told at school also that the ice age was coming , scared the life out of me then ! There's a lot of money being made from this hoax . The planet warms & cools , I believe it to be a natural cyclical process .

  • Dan Strayer
    Dan Strayer Month ago

    everyone should see this:
    skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  • Willy Bee
    Willy Bee Month ago +1

    If the earth had an Ice Age,, and global warming is man made,, then what kind of man made global warming got rid of the ice age????

  • Willy Bee
    Willy Bee Month ago +11

    Going green, is where your money leaves your pocket for someone else's.

  • Chris Daniel
    Chris Daniel Month ago

    2019 still bullshit

  • Wyatt Earp
    Wyatt Earp Month ago

    Cherry picking! Climate change is good if temperatures are warming, bad if temperatures are cooling.

  • Ted Bishop
    Ted Bishop Month ago

    Global warming is caused by the Sun burning hotter as it depletes its nuclear fuel. All life on Earth will be gone in 1.7 billion more years. The Sun will go into super nova in 4.8 billion years. It will burn the 4 close orbiting planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) to ashes. We know the time frame we have to move humans to a younger solar system or go extinct.

  • Don Jet
    Don Jet Month ago +1

    If you believed the global warming/climate change nonsense when they started it 40 years ago, you should be old enough by now to know better. The evidence is in the results; not ONE of the alarmists predictions have come true. It's entirely a scam to make the elites richer and the rest of us poorer.

  • Onan Peuplu
    Onan Peuplu Month ago

    Yes IT IS A TOTAL BULLSHIT HOAX

  • Trigger Troll
    Trigger Troll Month ago

    32 climate models all wrong. Only the Russians got it right. Notice they don’t buy into solar panels and electric car. They are building nuclear ice breakers.

  • Richard Wind
    Richard Wind Month ago

    This video doesn't say a damn thing

  • CherryFlavoredMoth
    CherryFlavoredMoth Month ago +1

    Somebody made up global warming just to sell their products
    Besides, the planet's not on fire, it's just a little hotter this summer and a little cooler this winter
    It's called seasons

    • louiscypher1001
      louiscypher1001 12 hours ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich - Again kid, get help . www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/finding-help-when-get-it-and-where-go God bless.

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 2 days ago

      @louiscypher1001
      Lousy, you are switching topics, my friend.
      Are you getting desperate?
      :-)
      Let's concentrate on AGW.
      Have you ever seen "a paper or peer reviewed scientific study" that provides a undisputible proof that present warming trend is man made?
      If your answer is NO, why all this BS?
      If answer is YES, why are you hiding it from me?

    • Vladimir Gurevich
      Vladimir Gurevich 2 days ago

      @louiscypher1001
      I thought insulting a refined idiot is impossible...
      LOL
      Quote:"Again, If you have a paper or peer reviewed scientific study. I'll take a look. Also, get help."
      Seriously?
      GOOD!
      Please help me to find ONE "paper or peer reviewed scientific study" that proves AGW.
      :-)
      I thought I've asked you to do me this favor 10 or 20 times but you kept pretending that you do not notice.
      But now you will, right?
      After all you volunteered...
      ;-)

    • louiscypher1001
      louiscypher1001 2 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich - With regards to getting help. Narcissism disorders will impact your life negatively, Mind you mild cases make people with the disorder a lot of fun at a party. - www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 Again, you have to get a handle on your behavior and your emotions.

    • louiscypher1001
      louiscypher1001 2 days ago

      @Vladimir Gurevich - Please stop insulting people. I don't think this is very healthy for you. - Again, If you have a paper or peer reviewed scientific study. I'll take a look. Also, get help.

  • Randal Dupuis
    Randal Dupuis Month ago

    The government over exaggerates global warming to give people something else to worry about besides the actual problems with the world

  • Trumptonshire
    Trumptonshire Month ago

    If anyone wants to take part in an online survey about the air quality in Sheffield, please visit @t and fill in the questionaire, making sure to put anti-green answers.
    If you want a valid postcode for Sheffield just search online, or enter a prefix of S35, S9, S6, S5, S2 or S1 and add a number and two letters ( they ask you for your postcode and your email, nothing more.
    In the end they want to put a tax on cars, but are keeping quiet.
    They need to be told we ain't having it.

  • jonas miller
    jonas miller Month ago

    Does anybody with as much as a single brain cell really think that a world as unique as the planet earth is supposed to remain the same year after year, without temp fluctuations, or shifting islands. Here in southeastern Va. Back in 1806 a hurricane came on shore and created a land mass called Willowy Spit. And today there are people living there along with hotels. All where there once was part of the James River. All that before anybody ever heard of “global warming/climate change”. . If people really believed the garbage they are exhaling, banks would never finance hotels and condos that are located close to any body of tidal waters.

  • Bria Sturgess
    Bria Sturgess Month ago

    I don't believe this one but and give me an answer why would they make it up