Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Rule of Phobia: War on terror ruins Israel democracy Posted by: RussiaToday
Video duration: 195 seconds Related: N/A Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment |
Further Reading: Global Warming - Climate Change - Energy - Recycling - Pollution
Latest articles: Facts about solar energy ~ Pros and cons of solar energy ~ How does solar energy work ~ Solar energy advantages disadvantages ~ Types of energy ~ Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy ~ Who are the world's 1 renewable energy site? ~ How does recycling affect the environment? ~ Why is recycling so important? ~ Interesting recycling facts ~ Natural causes of global warming ~ Is global warming real? ~ Safe and clean energy ~ Effects of water pollution ~ Types of water pollution ~ Land pollution ~ Poems about pollution ~ Definition of climate change ~ Fiji social capital community meetings climate change
Latest comments made on this video:
By: 1000frolly. on 10 Feb 12, 12:09:15
After initializing and parametrizing hundreds of unknown factors,inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted--an ensemble of meaningless projected results,which we then averaged. We utilized the liberally unprincipled component method to homogenize and sensitize this to produce a new hockey stick,which gave a very? robust prediction (95% probability) that we are totally screwing all of you
By: mathai11. on 26 Dec 11, 05:05:49
global warming is created by the artificial heating up of the various layers? of the earths atmosphere for climate change processes. Haarp in alaska.
By: Strange0ne. on 24 Nov 11, 13:54:14
@cristop5? thank you!
By: cristop5. on 24 Nov 11, 13:20:58
@Strange0ne Here are links to three reports (remove blanks) ww w.publications.parliament.u k/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf ww w.uea.ac.u k/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP ww w.cce-review.o rg/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf?
By: Strange0ne. on 24 Nov 11, 12:37:22
@cristop5 where? are the findings and what did they state?
By: JonThm. on 11 Nov 11, 14:27:17
Any rational person realises that plants metabolise all the available carbon dioxide: so mankind has increased life on earth. But have no? conceivable effect on the weather. That is all lie from nuclear fission.
By: irelandcool1. on 24 Sep 11, 22:49:23
I still believe in global warming ? is getting worse due to human error because anyone who does not believe is stubborn
By: gregrutz. on 25 Jun 11, 21:31:29
This is so much crap. The fact is we need more Research to find? out what we can do about the climate and how we can stop polluting everything. Look how easy it was to make Acid Rain. We can warm up the whole world too.
By: ReduceGHGs. on 19 Jun 11, 14:43:35
@thenewovermind . The fuss about "Climategate" was much-a-do-about-nothing. The emails have been reviewed many times by qualified professionals. Did? you really think that those out-of-context emails that were spoken in a "language" few understand debunked over 30 years of global research and study? Come on! The vested interests used the opportinity to spread doubt where no credible doubt exists. . Google: Climategate's death rattle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
By: thenewovermind. on 19 Jun 11, 05:53:44
@ReduceGHGs fine, but you didn't? address the second one, which is unrelated to the first
By: ReduceGHGs. on 19 Jun 11, 03:22:47
@thenewovermind . You make two mistakes with that link. First of all, john coleman studied Journalism in college. He's all talking head and no scientific substance. Second, the 30k scientists he refers to comes from the Petition Project also known? as the Oregon Petition. It was corporate propaganda to keep the Kyoto Treaty from passing. Here one of many links that debunks it. . Google: What if the Oregon Petition names were real? . I recommend credible sources like NAS or AAAS instead.
By: thenewovermind. on 18 Jun 11, 23:11:39
@ReduceGHGs watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ watch?v=Zgbo1JJHbeo?
By: ReduceGHGs. on 18 Jun 11, 22:27:04
@thenewovermind . Wrong. You can learn about the "Hockey Stick" graph from many sources. Try avoiding the less credible ones. Wiki has a good description of it. Google: Hockey stick controversy Wikipedia . Among those that actively study climate change (including EVERY? scientific body) there is no credible doubt over the core issue; we humans are warming the planet. If you believe you've found reliable, respected evidence to the contrary, send me a link.
By: thenewovermind. on 18 Jun 11, 22:19:05
@ReduceGHGs The hockey stick uses cherry-picked data that ignores high temperatures of the? past.
By: SIM2402. on 05 Jun 11, 20:38:30
This is bad science being used to make bad political decisions. Look at Melbourne. These scientists said the drought was because of climate change so we needed a desal plant. Then the drought broke and the dams filled again. Now we're stuck with a desal plant that's going? to cause water prices to rise by fivefold. The irony is that the desal plant's construction has been delayed by all the rainfall. Sombody's going to make a lot of money from this and we're all going to pay for it
By: Regisphilben. on 29 May 11, 18:00:00
No wonder it snowed it's ass off in Dallas this year. ?
By: ReduceGHGs. on 07 May 11, 14:17:32
@Racronus . Sorry, but he Hockey Stick is a temperature record of the past 1000 years. It is not a theory. It is a factual representation. Try researching it. I do recommend that playing scientist is NOT a good idea without the necessary tools. It takes many years of education and training to begin to grasp the many related sciences. Until then, we layman must rely on credible experts. Read what our respected scientific institutions say about climate change. Try NAS, AAAS, AGU,? ...
By: Racronus. on 07 May 11, 09:14:31
@ReduceGHGs Those sites list also ANOVA, correlation, Fisher tests + some theory about greenhouse gases. An odd mixture between physics and statistics. And statistics is the prevailing component. Physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, geology allow you to to predict? an event and control it. Climatology and economics on the other hand rely on probabilities.Pseudo-science is about probabilities, science is about certainty.
By: Racronus. on 07 May 11, 08:55:37
@ReduceGHGs The hockey stick theory is based only on statistics. And statistics aren't a scientific method. Cherry pick data and have a small sample. The only difference between your GW Scientist and Marketing director is the data source. A 4% error? in a McDonald's poll would still be scientifically valid if it showed a correlation between age groups and McNuggets. By statistics everyone is a scientist if he/she has an Excel spreadsheet. Science can predict something, GW predicts nothing.
By: ReduceGHGs. on 06 May 11, 18:54:03
@Racronus . If you can't take a critique of your post just don't click the reply. I know, your argument won't stand up to the facts so its best you avoid a critique. Try not to play scientist. You haven't the necessary tools. The "hockey stick" graph has been proven to be sound. As I said, read what the experts have to say. Your baseless opinion is worthless (except to? you).
By: Racronus. on 06 May 11, 18:26:17
Just to put a nail in the panic coffin, Greenland was much hotter in the past. In Romania the highest temperature on record was registered in 1951. More than half a century has passed and with the hockey stick theory, you would expect that to repeat again. It? didn't.
By: ReduceGHGs. on 06 May 11, 18:22:28
@Racronus . MY science? What tha? No, sorry. I'm not talking about? a regression analysis. Try reading what the experts have concluded and what drove them to those conclusions. Here's a good site from the NAS. Google: NAS pdf Global Warming 2008 Edition Or, research what AGU, AAAS, NASA, NCAR, SOCC, have to say about it. If you have more reliable sources please send me a link.
By: Racronus. on 06 May 11, 18:13:31
@ReduceGHGs By your science, marketers who? compile polls for Coca Cola are top mark scholars. Taking data and doing a regression by your reason is tantamount to science. An Excel spreadsheet with 200 data bins don't make a scientific fact. Experimentation is a scientific method. By your mind, a poll between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola with a 4% error is scientific fact.
By: ReduceGHGs. on 02 May 11, 06:48:28
Yes, let's expose climategate for what it is! The phony "climategate" propaganda has been debunked, AGAIN! Taking out-of-context emails to promote the corporate disinformation campaign didn't work! The science that tells us we are? warming the planet is sound. It's time we changed the way we generate and use energy and natural resources. Here's a link to debunking the corporate climategate calamity! . . . Google: Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
By: ParrhesiaJoe. on 18 Apr 11, 02:55:03
I love you guys... all you commenters. After I realized that a good number of the insane comments are either sock puppets or the extremely vocal extreme minority, I realized just? how many of you are intelligent and sincerely searching for answers. Keep searching, fellow tubers :) These are good times.