Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Rep. Nick Rahall Responds to Marc Scribner on the Highway Bills Posted by: CEIdotorg
Video duration: 200 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: blacktigerpaw1. on 27 Feb 12, 00:22:21
So THAT'S where the 97% consensus came from. They only polled 79? Huh. It's amazing? how people use that stat still.
By: betamale3. on 22 Aug 11, 05:11:12
Why do we care about the opinion of a self-serving talk show host? Her only concern is to boost her ratings. She manages to achieve stalemate by shouting everybody down. "Planetary thermostat", "Cognitive? dissonance" What a waste of time
By: vechorik. on 28 Jul 11, 19:24:40
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the "huge discrepancy" between global warming predictors and NASA's satellite? data.
By: wimahlers. on 12 Jul 11, 20:45:24
Another fox idiot who confuses weather with climate. If only any fox reporter ever did the? thiniest research beyond their superficial gullible and mindbogingly stupid and mind numbing unintelligent shallow reporting. I would be surprised if fox news will ever report a scientific resource. They never do. Who cares what some individual said or says on TV. Opinion is not science. AGW is a scientific fact. Deal with it!
By: olympic66power. on 24 Jan 11, 18:37:35
this guy is a jack ass where is your data go to RSOE CLIMATE OVERSEEING WEB SIGHT REAL? SCIENCE REAL DATA NO HYPE FACTS ALSO NOAA NASA AND CALL THESE SCIENTIST LIERS THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 22 Jan 11, 16:42:22
@magnusea How you can think this is justifiable methodology is? beyond me. You also wrote: "Even if you select skeptics the result will be the same". Are you saying that the poll-conductors specifically went out of there way to survey CAGW-proponents? Remember, the poll-conductors only selected 79 scientists, out of the 3,000 that replied to the survey. The results must have been catastrophically underwhelming if they had to dwindle the number down to 79 to artificially produce a desired result.
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 22 Jan 11, 16:27:44
Righto. So using your logic if you decided to launch a survey about the public's opinions concerning the state of health-care in the UK and you asked 3,000 citizens in total would you consider it? proper to select only 79 opinions of the total 3,000 you have surveyed? Because that is essentially what they have done. They arbitrarily disregarded a total of 2923 opinions, selected a subgroup that propounded the CAGW-hypothesis and then misleadingly claimed that "97% of scientists agree".
By: LokiScoutSniper. on 21 Jan 11, 19:45:03
A third of the1% of carbon in the air is caused by man. There were colder and warmer? periods in the past 1000 years. The rest of the planets are oddly warmer. The Kyoto protocol would allow other nations to pollute while we pay for their development via the UN. And planes that crashed in Greenland some 50 years ago were found all in one piece under hundreds of feet of ice. The planes would have been ripped apart if it wasn't ice forming over it. Let's not forget why the Vikings settled there.
By: magnusea. on 21 Jan 11, 09:23:21
Btw, you use rhetorics instead of being honest. Your words "selectively hand-picked" isn't a? fair description of a filter that creates a sample with scientists with most of their research in climate science. Nuff said.
By: magnusea. on 21 Jan 11, 09:17:19
"Selectively handpick and cherry-picked essentially mean the same thing." No. In order to give relevant answers at all one has to select subsets of data. It's basic method in any research. The subset here due to? level of knowledge is un-biased in other respects. And again, this proves I'm right: Even if you select climate skeptics the result here will be about the same. Something else is wrong with this study.
By: redrajani. on 20 Jan 11, 18:55:10
"I hope the? spaceship lands..." lmao!
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 20 Jan 11, 18:01:19
Sorry, that's meant to be whether", not "weather". Slight? grammatical error.
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 20 Jan 11, 17:59:55
Selectively? handpick and cherry-picked essentially mean the same thing. If you set about surveying three-thousand scientists you don't decide to pick 77 and then triumphantly exult that there is an 'overwhelming consensus' among climate scientists. That is what is known as 'lying by omission'. And I think everyone to varying degrees accepts that CO2 may have a slight warming effect, it is weather this warming will have catastrophic economical, social, and ecological consequences.
By: magnusea. on 20 Jan 11, 13:09:46
You say 77 scientist among 3000 were "hand-picked", then slide to the word cherry picked. Those with more than half of published papers in climate science were picked. An adequate method of selection! But even if skeptics as Monckton, Lindzen, Watts etc had been cherry picked the result of the study could have been the same. That's the trick! The questions regarded if Earth has warmed since the 19th century, and if CO2 is a greenhouse gas? that warms the Earth.
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 19 Jan 11, 23:44:45
The US Senate Minority Report now has over 1,000 scientists against AGW and CAGW.?
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 19 Jan 11, 23:43:42
Sorry, that's? meant to be "2923".
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 19 Jan 11, 23:42:41
142-IQ, eh? Impressive. However the fact is they only selectively hand-picked 77 scientists out of 3,000 that responded to the survey. You don't do that. You? take all of the scientists' opinions you surveyed into consideration. You don't cherry-pick a subgroup of 77 that espouse AGW and leave out 2,023 others. And now CAGW-alarmists are now touting the '97% of mainstream scientists' as the 'overwhelming consensus' without realising it is just the opinions of a mere 75 scientists.
By: oTANSTAAFLo. on 19 Jan 11, 23:33:43
Changing weather is normal? weather. Don't be taken in by climate fear mongers and profiteers like Betsy Rosenberg.
By: magnusea. on 19 Jan 11, 22:57:03
I've read Joannes article, and she as well as hockeyschtick are wrong that the method to exclude those with less than half of papers outside climate science? isn't good. I think it's an adequate method. 77 climate scientists is also good, so Joanne miss the point! I'm University engineer, partly in another field, IQ 142... Of course I can be wrong. However, I'm not here. This is very simple. Answers on the questions equal from skeptics and alarmists, and study is garbage!
By: magnusea. on 19 Jan 11, 22:39:02
How is that a kicker? If they survey 3000 scientists and the number of climate sceientist who has answered are 50 or 100 I can accept? that. Maybe they did something not acceptable which resulted in a biased sample, but I 'm not aware of that. (Tell me!) . I (like Lawrence Solomon do now) find 97 percent a low number regarding the obvious correct answers to the questions (I've argued this since the study was released). . The only crucial problem is questions and conclusion.
By: CHIPSTERO7. on 19 Jan 11, 21:52:06
The kicker is,? according to the article, they surveyed around 3,000 scientists.
By: Celebrian666. on 19 Jan 11, 19:36:02
Many previous extinction events are now thought to be caused by a dramatical chaotic change in the climate...forgive me if i'm wrong but were we even around several billion years ago, let alone had industry. Also i think it's egotistical? of us to think that we lowly humans can so dramatically damage a planet and ecosystem that's been around for billions of years.
By: Celebrian666. on 19 Jan 11, 19:35:17
What i think is funny is that humans have only been around for a few thousand years, and only for a a little over a century have we been monitoring the weather and then only within the last few decades have we had the tools to get more accurate predictions, which still aren't all that accurate. The reason we think we've never seen weather like this before is that we haven't been? monitoring the weather of our planet long enough.
By: magnusea. on 19 Jan 11, 18:29:35
Yes, 75/77 may be the 97 percent, but that could be okay in some studies. The real fraud I think is that most so called climate skeptics (in fact realists) are within the 97 percent consensus. So this study - with its obvious questions, lack of methodology, and conclusions -- is fraud. The media of the world has ignorant to? this repeated "97 percent consensus" thousands, or millions(?) of times. They don't seem to be able to read a simple 2 page study.