Video scenes shots:
Watch the video:
| URL: | |
| Embed: |
Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment
Other videos by this author:
 |
Ever used MegaUpload? Stop ACTA/PIPA/SOPA Posted by: MrXstacey
Video duration: 899 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: aquartlow. on 26 Dec 11, 15:49:45
@demdanglibruls "Rick Perry did hide data because it did not conform with his denialist views, George W Bush did hide AGW evidence - apparently unless it comes out of the mouth of a pundit, it cannot be true," LOL First you purport to know Perry's mind (movtives) then you state that Bush hid evidence of your myth. You live in a world of straw arguments and? Jonesian corruption. A corruption you deny. Are you now a denier?
By: aquartlow. on 17 Dec 11, 15:51:31
@demdanglibruls ". I was surprised when I heard? about a study that said ..." You heard. My, my.......so scientific........."hey a buddy o'mine down at the plant says......"
By: ernanimartins. on 08 Dec 11, 03:44:11
What a catchy meme that jingle? is, in the morning!
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:54:21
@aquartlow The sad fact of the? matter is that you cannot change your mind. It is closed against any conflicting evidence and afraid of policies that might upset the status quo-even if keeping the status quo creates problems. Someone who is so hardened against the evidence will never be convinced- and will spend their days waging war on science.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:50:58
@aquartlow "I'm not sure of much", is what you claim on your page. That is? completely wrong. You are overconfident and brazenly spew nonsense and ignore most of my comments. You didn't change your viewpoint based on the facts- instead you attempt to change the facts to correspond with your viewpoint. Now you are the good guy, fighting back with "facts" against the evil metrosexual hipsters who plan to take over the world with their "watermelon" agenda. Nothing can dissuade a true believer?.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:34:14
@aquartlow A 61 year old woman typing on a computer, calling people metrosexual socialists? That is a? very funny picture in my mind.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:32:35
@aquartlow The people who hate NPR are generally wingnuts and moonbats because it demonstrates the falws in being on the fringe. I was surprised when I heard? about a study that said that 63% of the experts on NPR stories were conservative, while only 37% were liberal. I always viewed it as being biased to the left. This tentative evidence may indicate it has a conservative bias. Either way, it is a credible source.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:26:59
@aquartlow The fact is, it is? very easy to quote mine anything. Taking a bunch of quote mined emails from a small research unit and using them to demonstrate that AGW is a massive global socialist conspiracy is preposterous. I just read the article you sent. Among the majority of scientists who accept AGW there is a minor dispute over whether AGW will cause larger and stronger hurricanes. Many scientists reject the idea because the warming seen so far is too small to cause a notable effect.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:13:57
@aquartlow What it says is true- Rick Perry did hide data because it did not conform with his denialist views, George W Bush did hide AGW evidence - apparently unless it comes out of the mouth of a pundit, it cannot be true, which is what you are implying.? Your odd poetic way of writing comments does little for the debate-you just reuse the same old tactic and create interesting metaphors. The "Final Nail" (this one is at least the tenth) is a common denialist tactic.
By: demdanglibruls. on 01 Dec 11, 01:09:31
@aquartlow My "excuse making" is explaining to you that I do not automatically wish to know the biases of my sources-most news sites don't pull things out of thin air. I find it amusing that you do not read or choose not to reply to my other comments, and say nonsense like "climategate 2.0 is the final nail in the watermelon" without explaining how it is. Almost all of the emails are? rehashed from '09, '07, or '05. NPR is highly credible and doesn't pull things out of thin air.
By: aquartlow. on 01 Dec 11, 00:42:19
@demdanglibruls "...and I found that the Daily Mail is just as insane as the Guradian-in the other direction. " Your excuse making is amusing. The noose tightens and you quiver............ NPR........a credible source? You can feel that thing getting tighter and tighter. Climategate 2.0 is the final nail in the? watermelon. When the time comes, don't fight it. It only hurts more.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 23:25:26
@aquartlow I looked up sources, and I found that the Daily Mail is just as insane as the Guradian-in the other direction. The first time I heard about Rick Perry's politicization of denialism was on NPR- a? fairly credible source. The Washington Post backs me up on Bush and Perry. Don't dismiss facts because they disagree with your ideology.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:38:46
@aquartlow Kyoto was a modest success. Many countries did cut back on Carbon emissions. Unfortunately, due to political pressure, the US of A did not agree and has been releasing GHGs in large quantities since then. The people? who love their regional proxy data are the denialists.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:34:02
@aquartlow I have proved it. Newton is a? liar and wants to control the peer review process, so therefore gravity is a fraud. The Laws of Motion are a Fraud. Your evil Gravity agenda is falling apart. My point is that anyone can cherry pick and draw interesting conclusions. The Bible tells me: "There is no God."
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:31:00
@aquartlow More of these lies: "There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What's done before many witnesses is seldom? without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, so I hope it will prove between you me."
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:30:30
@aquartlow AHA! Gravity must be a lie! The Laws of Motion are SOCIALIST? LIES! Look... Newton aware of fraud: "You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence may be corrected by the reader."
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:27:22
@aquartlow Yes, they did not deny them... the last thing I read said that there were simply too many emails for them to deny. Just a note to you, there are more than 3 scientists researching AGW. You seem to think that a few people at CRU represent the whole body of? evidence.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:22:03
@aquartlow Actually, Watts deserves a gold star. He said that NOAA weather stations did not meet regulatory code using microsite data, and he said the temperatures were inaccurate. The Journal of Geophysical research showed he was? correct- the weather stations UNDERESTIMATED the warming trend. Good job, Watts, for adding to the massive body of evidence for AGW.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:19:06
@aquartlow "... I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let's not pay attention to the little yippers who want to? tear it down before they even see the results." Of course, after the results showed the accuracy, Watts backpedaled and said they were wrong.
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:17:35
@aquartlow The emails are mostly cold turkey from 2009, some from 2007, and some from 2005. It seems as if these were released to correspond with the recent talk and to cast doubt after the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature has confirmed the? accuracy of the temperature records. Your boy Watts said:
By: demdanglibruls. on 30 Nov 11, 22:13:38
@aquartlow "Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions" Completely False. The evil socialist Jones actually went public to explain the excessive amounts? of quote mining and cherry picking.
By: aquartlow. on 29 Nov 11, 06:59:31
@demdanglibruls Another thing.......Climategate 2 has not been denied by the authors of the emails in question. Read them yourself. Stop data mining warmist blogs. Soon? you will have no choice. None at all.
By: aquartlow. on 29 Nov 11, 06:57:21
@demdanglibruls LOL Hacked or not.............your AGW crap is wheezing and on the ropes. "Things don't look promising for the perennial climate confab which convenes in Durban, South Africa today. There is little chance of extending the expiring 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Kyoto has turned into a giant international scam that has already wasted hundreds? of billions, with little to show for it;"
By: aquartlow. on 29 Nov 11, 01:46:46
@demdanglibruls Ru roh... "Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures? to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political 'cause' rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
By: aquartlow. on 25 Nov 11, 13:45:26
@EdgeGeraldine "CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don't have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get -- and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not? releasing the original station data." Phil Jones, 2009 Climategate 2.0