Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Wind Energy at the Crossroad Posted by: greenman3610
Video duration: 753 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: vengencefrom1979. on 11 Mar 12, 06:16:28
and then the plankton? died and denver woke up asphyxiated.
By: tnekkc. on 06 Mar 12, 19:27:38
We need more greenhouse effect. That is? why we are building more green houses every day. Duh.
By: WaxItYourself. on 20 Feb 12, 06:52:53
solar activity has been decreasing for 60? years...
By: WaxItYourself. on 20 Feb 12, 06:42:35
There? was and is no consensus on hurricane activity in a warming atmosphere. hurricanes remain a mystery in a warming environment. However they will most definitely be affected in some way as those things that drive it are changing. The ozone hole still exists. An ozone hole is any part of the ozone layer that drops below 200DU. You have no idea what you're talking about.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 07 Oct 11, 22:54:37
um the "maunder minimum" indicates an observed? minimum of SOLAR FLARES.... Solar Flares do not necessarily equate to overall solar output. is this a concept you can accept?
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 08 Sep 11, 15:11:16
We've told them. but they don't believe? us.
By: mecher3k. on 07 Sep 11, 02:35:55
""the Lancet"? published in 1998 it took me about 5 seconds to see the BS, it took you a? full year? r u slow?" What the fuck is your deranged mind going on about now? "THAT would be SIX years in big boy math" Yea by the publisher, ignoring all the actual peer reviewed studies destroying his posted before that. Retard. You're a hopeless retard, I'm through with you. You ignore all the studies done within that timeframe shredding his study. You fail4ever.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 06 Sep 11, 03:37:00
"the Lancet" published in 1998 it took me about 5 seconds to see the BS, it took you a full year? r u slow? peer review status was revoked (BY THE PUBLISHER, "the Lancet") in 2004 THAT would be SIX? years in big boy math I know, you got all confused when you counted from one hand to the other or is 6 years actually 1 in "climate truther" years the article was retracted in 2008 sorry, in big boy math, 10 is TEN years, not one year sorry if this is confusing for your little brain
By: whodathunkit1960. on 06 Sep 11, 03:18:30
lets get this straight either its getting HOTTER because we are in the midst of AGW or we are in the midst of a solar minimum problem is, according to SOLAR patterns (that we dont understand either) the solar minimum that started in 2006 should have been GRADUAL to where we are today. it wasnt, we dont understand why, but in 2006, solar flares nearly stopped, and so did AGW and you dont? get to simply ignore that when solar activity increases, that this is part of a NORMAL cycle.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 06 Sep 11, 02:42:04
oh truther tard, where to begin.... how about HERE? clearly you state: "So where is the articles from actual science journals?" excuse me, but (in your astute, but quite obviously MOUTHBREATHING opinion) arent you stating that "the Lancet" is not an "actual science journal"? unless of course you are NOW going to claim that this is somehow "taken out of context" being ONE of FOUR sentences, 2 of which affirm your "mouthbreathing" status. go? ahead and try to spin it that way.
By: Galv140577. on 06 Sep 11, 01:46:26
Yes for the last year or two. It was peaking a decade ago when all the man-made-global-warming-alarmists were getting hysterical over fuck all. Don't you know the global climate is actually cooling despite the continuous lies? that we are all being cooked alive by our own CO2? I've done my research reached the inevitable conclusion that man made global warming can't possibly account for any more than 10% of climate change. The Sun provides the driving energy which the Oceans regulate.
By: mecher3k. on 05 Sep 11, 23:41:08
"wasnt it YOU who flew your ignorance across the internet by claiming "the Lancet" wasnt a? science journal?" Nope never did. But then again you're a retard so I can see how your mind could think that. "guess that makes you the RE-TARD" It's retard, you retard.
By: mecher3k. on 05 Sep 11, 23:39:26
Dumbfuck. The sun as been at a? solar minimum.
By: mecher3k. on 05 Sep 11, 23:38:38
""Truther-tard"" All the facts point to AGW. All the facts point to Wakefield's study being bullshit, this was found in a year or so of his study being published. Try to deny the fact the world is warming, this is an indisputable fact. "where they? publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review" Wakefield's stuudy was published, was? quickly ripped apart. Obviously real peer review never happened. Once it did it was found out to be BS by everyone.
By: mecher3k. on 05 Sep 11, 23:35:04
"this is a PRIME? example of how "peer review" DIDNT work, and it took 10 years to FINALLY set it straight" What? It was set straight within a year of the "study" posted by him you fucking piece of shit retard.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 05 Sep 11, 00:37:01
= EMO "climate truther" you DIDNT read the article, and JUST as I predicted, you claimed that the peer review happened AFTER publication, lol please, READ? the article, DO SOME CRITICAL THINKING, before you shoot your mouth off AGAIN wasnt it YOU who flew your ignorance across the internet by claiming "the Lancet" wasnt a science journal? who is the science denier? you seem to be verifying your tard status over, and over, and over again guess that makes you the RE-TARD, but go on
By: whodathunkit1960. on 05 Sep 11, 00:21:18
= "Truther-tard" clearly, the reference to the guardian was for the statement from Richard Horton, editor of "the Lancet". which CLEARLY states that the autism article HAD BEEN peer reviewed prior to publication, "but there is only so much we can do" but, true to your "climate truther" status, facts and actual timelines are "inconveniences" to? be ignored I noteice you havent cited a single journal who uses YOUR timeline, where they publish ludicrous theories, THEN go to peer review
By: mecher3k. on 04 Sep 11, 21:47:18
The guardian is not a scientific journal. Fail for trying to? pass off like it is. The only tard is idiots like you. "you will discover that the wakefield article was peer reviewed by 12 others" Obviously not as after it was published it was shredded by peer review. Then again you think the guardian matters, lol piece of shit AGW denier. Actually, just science denier in general.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 04 Sep 11, 04:20:39
= truther TARD oh, and if you actually READ the guardian article you will discover that the wakefield article was peer reviewed by 12 others, and wakefields employer at the time was contacted and verified his credibility... OUCH... if you DONT read the guardian article, I predict you will try and claim that the "peer review" happened AFTER it was published see pubs like "the Lancet" are NOT debate? rags, their credibility is important to them, unlike "climate truther" TARDS lol
By: whodathunkit1960. on 04 Sep 11, 04:05:32
@mecher3k I so love dissecting idiotic "climate truther" spin 'Wakefield "was dishonest", said Horton. "He deceived the journal." The Lancet had? done what it could to establish that the research was valid, by having it peer-reviewed. But there is a limit, he said, to what peer-review can ascertain.' - the guardian, 2/2/2010 let me say it again, this is a PRIME example of how "peer review" DIDNT work, and it took 10 years to FINALLY set it straight so how do you like your CROW, truther TARD?
By: mecher3k. on 03 Sep 11, 21:26:27
"as in the Autism link WAS "peer reviewed"" Funny how when it actually was his findings were found to be bullshit. No spin, just facts. "MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed" status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be" But your point fails as when it was peer reviewed, to you it was peer reviewed again, his findings were found? to be bullshit. Peer review works, your example PROVES THAT.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 03 Sep 11, 11:55:56
YOUR spin is IMPRESSIVE, even for a "climate truther" do you have problems with reading comprehension? is the word "WAS" causing you issues? it definitively infers PAST TENSE as in the Autism link WAS "peer reviewed" MY point WAS; the perceived "credibility" that "peer reviewed"? status infers DOES NOT mean it is "a proven fact", like "climate truthers" may LIKE it to be AGW believer = "climate truther" = NUTTER if you ARENT a "climate truther", GO BACK, READ IT AGAIN, and STFU
By: mecher3k. on 03 Sep 11, 05:39:26
So you destroyed your own point on "Need I point out that the Imunization/Autism link was (5? yrs ago) considered "peer reviewed" also?" When it was actually peer reviewed his findings were shown to be false. Are you a creationist btw? You are acting like one.
By: whodathunkit1960. on 03 Sep 11, 01:23:11
If you knew shit from shinola, or ANYTHING about what you are professing SUCH in depth knowledge, you would know that mr Wakefield's problem wasnt further research Mr Wakefield had 2 issues 1) he TAMPERED with HIS "RESEARCH"? data, which when "the Lancet" discovered this, they retracted their "peer reviewed" status 2) before he STARTED his "research", he had taken payments from law firms suing the vaccine manufacturers you think that EITHER of those may have influenced his results?
By: mecher3k. on 02 Sep 11, 19:48:56
"SIT UP, PAY ATTENTION, AND KEEP BOTH HANDS WHERE WE CAN SEE THEM!" How mentally retarded are you? "so, YOU dont consider "the Lancet"" You are talking about Andrew Wakefield's article in it.? I suggest you read up on it. His findings were ripped apart dumb ass. Just because I respect something doesn't mean I accept everything in it, especially when it get's ripped to shreds by farther science. Retarded troll.