Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Name my talk to the American Geophysical Union--QUICK! Posted by: wonderingmind42
Video duration: 152 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: repap1a. on 25 Aug 10, 15:51:50
you should ccross refernce your scale with personal (or organisations) benifits like money or power, and how these affect your source selection.
By: apopheniacMCMLXXXIX. on 18 Aug 10, 00:15:22
I never got this argument that the government is behind spreading the global warming "propaganda".The implications of climate change mean that the gov will need to spend billions of dollars to fight it. Is it so they can tax us more? And hurt the economy in the process? What makes more sense, is oil companies spreading in anti-science propaganda. They stand to loose TRILLIONS of dollars if people take action on climate change. And this is exactly what's happening. So who has more of a bias?
By: tarcal87. on 01 May 10, 18:56:01
jesus you repeat yourself so much though, praising those guys
By: FLPman. on 16 Apr 10, 19:02:03
@FLPman sorry.. i meant i don't get why we struggle..
By: FLPman. on 16 Apr 10, 19:00:17
I just get why we struggle to hold on to our use of non renewable resource enegery.. global warming or not.. we're going to have (and are currently having) major issues. Imagine how global politics and conflicts would be affected if we as a society were not interested in oil
By: FlashySenap. on 23 Mar 10, 04:21:07
LoL watching this I feel that I cannot trust anything or anyone anymore XD
By: handplanty. on 09 Mar 10, 20:34:13
Really? I didn't know that, please cite your source. Who refuted them? If they said something similar to you, for example, I wouldn't be convinced. Plus, measures against global warming is costing the government millions, so I'd say it would be more logical for the government here to instruct NASA to disprove global warming, or to ridicule it, rather than sending extensive earth and sun satelites up to study more of the climate. Unless, of course, they're doing science and they're just right...
By: Celebrindan. on 07 Mar 10, 07:44:49
@ArthurBiele It is proven, through core ice studies, that at a point in the history of the earth, MOSS AND LICHENS changed the atmosphere and climate of the earth. Adding so much Oxygen to the atmosphere, that Plant and Animal life forms were forever changed. And you still don't think we can do it too?
By: ArthurBiele. on 15 Feb 10, 12:11:25
AAAs and the NAS have been totally refuted on their naieve stand on behalf of the human-caused global Warming myth. Are you man enough to admit your error in declaring them infallble. Their views were not scientifically established. They simply caved in to government powers that hire them and pay their salaries. It was not that hard for the powers that be to get these two agencies to 'SEE' something there that wasn't there before. Now they get what they deserved, MUD ON THEIR FACES!
By: Paddis92. on 14 Jan 10, 18:23:00
There are people who have been members of the IPCC and have left because they weren't satisfied with the IPCC. After that, they remained in the IPCC's list of "Top 2500 scientists", or something similar, and when they had to threaten to take legal action for their name to be removed. I'm sceptical so the IPCC and their work because of this and a lot of other things that simply make them lose a lot of credibility.
By: alexkvaskov. on 13 Dec 09, 23:51:20
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate." source: nationalacademies (dot) org/onpi/06072005 (dot) pdf
By: alexkvaskov. on 13 Dec 09, 23:50:10
"There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worlds climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems.
By: alexkvaskov. on 13 Dec 09, 23:49:27
Joint statement from 11 national academies of science. Issued 7 June 2005, by the national science academies of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Brazil, China and India, the statement begins with:
By: alexkvaskov. on 13 Dec 09, 23:45:19
how about the royal society in the uk? how about many other very respected think tanks and scientific communities around the world?
By: alexkvaskov. on 13 Dec 09, 22:21:52
there is one word for people like you, moaninglory: scum
By: KawaitaSakebi1. on 07 Nov 09, 00:39:20
The two most respected science organizations in the world are both American? Wow, what are the odds?
By: gazmaticc. on 08 Sep 09, 17:12:12
the debate isn't if climate change exist or if it is caused by humans but how fast it is occurring and whether or not we'll experience the effects now or later on in the future. anybody that says otherwise is just plain ignorant and has a bias and shouldn't be listened to. when new york in the fall feels like California in the spring and there are RECORD BREAKING temperatures... hmmm...who should I believe. and for the religious... The Bible foretold of the ruining of the earth revelation 11:18
By: PharmGateway. on 23 Aug 09, 11:10:17
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order. The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end). pharmgateway howitallends
By: shadow1piece. on 05 Aug 09, 09:28:04
what happens to the credibility of a company (or person or what ever) changes their oppinion, says that they were wrong. their credibility (according to you who have given me an opinion) goes up. but what if they are to then again (think about it with and without new evidence) they change their opinion. i can see ppl saying then their original statement is beyond even more credible and ppl saying that company is a load and cant keep their shit together and shuld stop brown nosing whoever
By: dbrotman. on 05 Jul 09, 22:44:07
You are right. CAP and trade is lucrative business. It also represents a tremendous concession to industries that emit carbon. A carbon tax has a lot more teeth.
By: dbrotman. on 05 Jul 09, 22:42:43
Sure, there is always a possibility that some evil conspiracy is taking place and that what comes out of scientific journals is not objective at all. But when hundreds of other journals that are not at all related to one another basically say the same thing as the NAS, that tends to throw water on the conspiracy argument.
By: cmoleon. on 02 Jul 09, 07:35:15
CAP trade is lucrative business for politico-corporate world both in terms of power and wealth redistribution. big corporations calling for increased political action in this field might get all your alarm bells ringing 'credibility-wise' rather than put you to sleep... obviously he is oblivious of his own credulity, and the way this conflicts with his attempt at scientific objectivity. the more science becomes 'establishment' the more it is inseparably linked to corruption.
By: doctorsamadams. on 25 May 09, 06:15:38
it's also possible that there are no corrupt social woes to coerce people into believing in manmade global warming--peer pressure and simply a "follow the leader attitude" can be just as effective, even in the scientific community. look how this guy is using it! scientists are just as bad at questioning authority and their own belief systems as anyone else is. theyre sometimes more deluded because they believe the integrity of the scientific method guarantees the integrity of its conclusions.
By: moaninglory. on 17 May 09, 10:56:46
Fuck u Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let's spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
By: 112048112048. on 28 Apr 09, 12:59:30
the way you wrote google looked like googk lol