Watching: Climate change is co2 the cause pt 4 of 4

Video scenes shots:

Watch the video:

URL:
Embed:

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

It seems that ...
By: droogish. on 05 Oct 08, 13:13:24
It seems that arguing against climate change caused by humans suffers from a "Proof by Burden of Proof" fallacy. i.e you are wrong because there isn't enough proof. Therefore my argument is right (please overlook the fact I have even less proof). There is a smorgasboard of evidence suggesting humans are chaing the climate. I challenge the skeptics to state what it would take for them to change their minds - are your beliefs falsifiable? This is an essential element of a scientific hypothesis.

Sounds to me like ...
By: malmswax. on 04 Oct 08, 08:38:50
Sounds to me like the entire debate on this is a front for confusing the population, to divert their attention from something else. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken ExxonMobil now sponsors Public TV shows like NOVA and the Nightly Business Report. Or how about an EU report indicating sky high profits for power companies trading carbon credits? Scammed from both sides!

Look him up, he is ...
By: JanLauGe. on 01 Oct 08, 15:27:55
Look him up, he is member of the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", payed by ExxonMobil. orly? yarly!

Great work. Real ...
By: soupdragon42. on 28 Sep 08, 06:19:39
Great work. Real science. People need to understand who is sponsoring the global warming scam, and the vast sums of money they are pumping into it. The mainstream media is controlled by a few. We need to deal with real environmental issues like polution and the rainfrests, instead of this elitist taxation scam.

"there are 10's of ...
By: TheNextTurn. on 27 Sep 08, 23:18:20
"there are 10's of thousands of scientists that don't" Who says this? Who do these scientics work for? WHy are these scientics not assiciated with any scientific organizations? Do you know... or you just beleive what poeple tell you? I can find 1000s of scientics that will say evolution is crack pot theory aswell. Of cource they come from religious colleges. And they are not hired by REAL scientific organizations which weed out the idoits.

First of all, I ...
By: christo930. on 27 Sep 08, 15:17:27
First of all, I didn't say it was a fact, I said it might be possible. The worlds politicians can not state we are at peak oil without crashing the worlds economy. The ENTIRE scientific community does not agree on AGW, there are 10's of thousands of scientists that don't. Nevertheless, we need to get off of FF very, very quickly as the cost goes up and availability down. AGW makes a great cover story and if it's true or not doesn't matter. We need off of fossil fuels NOW or bad times R coming.

SO you think the ...
By: TheNextTurn. on 25 Sep 08, 23:23:51
SO you think the ENTIRE scientific community related to this science both in the US and internationally are corrupt. Not to mention internalization charities like WWF, green peace, amnesty international and the Nobel society. And the 181 countries that signed Bali. So the countries that didn't sign Bali like Congo, Iraq, Chad, Zimbabwe and Somalia are the ONLY countries that saw past the scam. What is the color of the sky in your world?

Show me a ...
By: SpenzOT. on 25 Sep 08, 20:47:45
Show me a scientific organization that would benefit from saying that man-made global warming is a myth compared as much as they would benefit from saying that it is fact. Don't forget that the IPCC reviews all scientific data submitted by scientists past their political advisers. Global warming = money and power. Just look at Al Gore for a good example.

show me one ...
By: TheNextTurn. on 23 Sep 08, 02:50:39
show me one scientific organization that says GW is not man made.

I think the whole ...
By: christo930. on 22 Sep 08, 22:39:37
I think the whole climate change thing might be cover for peak oil. It's a great way to get the world off of oil without having to publicly admit we be producing less and less oil every year once the peak has past. Many experts believe the peak has past already and that we are on a plateau (which is true so far).Publicly admitting we are running out of oil is economic suicide, but convincing people that oil will kill us and we need to get off it as soon as possible will help ges us off it.

Interesting, ...
By: Feiksma. on 15 Sep 08, 08:42:48
Interesting, convincing and well backed up!! In the Netherlands, if not everywhere, this is more or less impossible to broadcast on national tv. This is because far too much money is made with the co2-scam. Politicians will not let, intelligent research and common sense, spoil the great eco-tax-party. Heroes like this scientist, will be generally ignored even if they are right (like he probably is). The co2-scam is not about the truth, it's about the money - it always is

Thank you very much ...
By: Loewenherz27. on 09 Sep 08, 16:59:28
Thank you very much for that video. It says what had to be said long ago. Climate change is nothing to worry about. I wish Mrs Angela Merkel and the German Government as well as some hot temperated people at Greenpeace would have a look at it. Thank you so much. Greetings Andreas Stadler

This should be ...
By: DrDave953. on 05 Sep 08, 13:08:09
This should be viewed with an open mind by the warmists, however, I'm not sure they have minds to be opened. Dave.

that's because ...
By: ellwyn. on 12 Aug 08, 18:28:18
that's because they're leftists with an agenda against free market nations. you won't hear them complain about damages to the environment in undeveloped or communist nations. the rest are useful idiot liberals who will parrot the leftists just to be trendy, to show they care. then there is gore, accurately parodied on south park as a megalomaniac on a quest to style himself as the savior of not only humanity but for all life on the planet.

Thank god for some ...
By: soreronicam. on 05 Aug 08, 12:30:18
Thank god for some straight no nonsense, aussie speak. Could do with a bit more here in the UK. Congrats, excellent series of videos.

I think too many ...
By: capemall. on 02 Aug 08, 04:38:12
I think too many people would be embarrassed for the somersaults they have put the world through for them to ever admit they were wrong at this point

Thanks Capemall... ...
By: frithwks. on 01 Aug 08, 22:54:36
Thanks Capemall...It's funny but deep down I knew this, thanks for reminding me....In spite of scientific institutions worldwide acknowledging AGW as real science. They seem unwilling to explain their case in simple enough terms for many to comprehend. I am not convinced either way but I am frustrated at getting to the truth. It seems we are to left to trust in fake polar-bear predicaments and jargon! I think Bobs theory of political bias and accumulative error has some merit!

clouds will cause ...
By: capemall. on 01 Aug 08, 21:26:38
clouds will cause less long wave radiation to leave the earth..they also increase the albedo of the causing more radiation to get reflected right back into space..so they change the composition of the energy leaving the earth...they also change the amount..which way is subject to argument

Can any one here ...
By: frithwks. on 01 Aug 08, 17:21:10
Can any one here account for satellite measurements that show a decrease of long wave radiance leaving the atmosphere in line with IPCC predictions? As far as i can see this is the strongest argument for AGW.....Please no Archybabble!

*Please 'stop' and ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 01 Aug 08, 11:29:18
*Please 'stop' and let this discussion become relevant* Okay, In the end all my babbling & all this discussion means nothing cause the UN scam to get taxing powers and establish a global Carbon tax using the IPCC report to convince world leaders failed. Why? In the Case of Bush voting no, even the "moron in the white house" asked the EPA if all those emmision claiming to be released were true and they said no,then asked Meteorologist in NAS if CO2 drives weather and climate & they said no

**Arch..Man is ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 01 Aug 08, 11:22:16
**Arch..Man is there no end to the babble?** lol **In all your calculations you allow no numbers for the natural uptake of C02** No, I am just pointing out the flaw in the assumptions of how much CO2 humans are causing....it it were true,burning fossil fuels doesn't even make anywhere near how much CO2 is spueing into the maunaloa Weather station from the Volcano...er.."up there" in the air

Arch..Man is there ...
By: frithwks. on 31 Jul 08, 23:21:38
Arch..Man is there no end to the babble? In all your calculations you allow no numbers for the natural uptake of C02 by plants and sprout numbers and conclusions that relate to nothing! Please 'stop' and let this discussion become relevant.

Yay Capermall Spot ...
By: frithwks. on 31 Jul 08, 23:10:29
Yay Capermall Spot on!!

**105,000,000,000/ ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 31 Jul 08, 22:52:25
**105,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 = .000021% CO2** What's the 5000 trillion tons that the total CO2 humans supposedly released over 150 years is being diveded into you ask? Thats the weight of the earth's atmosphere. the Environuts and Alarmnist like to throw around numbers on tons of CO2 released but even with the most outragous amounts claimed,if humans could put CO2 into the system from burning fossil fuels, the numbers don't add up to what is happening extra Co2 leaking out of Ocean

*(And making a mess ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 31 Jul 08, 22:46:30
*(And making a mess of it as I got my numbers wrong)* nothing wrong with that, I suck at math ;) But Google "AFTER TWO LARGE ANNUAL GAINS, RATE OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 INCREASE RETURNS TO AVERAGE, NOAA REPORTS" Not that they estimate 7 billion tons a year Now lets say Humans are at fault,and Co2 is getting past the filtration system,and lets use 7 billion times 150 years as a standard fugure of how much human CO2 is up there 105,000,000,000/5,000,000,000,000,000 = .000021% CO2,way below .002%

Other videos by this author:

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 581 seconds

The first of four parts where Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels. He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

excuse the typos
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 15:06:26
excuse the typos

To support gerjanp ...
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 15:05:18
To support gerjanp We can agree a system with an input of 170 W/sqm .. equivalent to Steve's pan and stove at this point. Passive termparature rise can be observed due to thermal resistance. Not controversial and widely accepted as < 1 dC per CO2 doubling. This is consistent with conservation of energy - a property of the passive response. Now what we need is a reference to literature which demonstrates that the response is magnified. Should be both mechanism and systems analysis.

Gerjanp - I only ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 14:55:48
Gerjanp - I only have a couple of minutes now, and I'll return later with more commentary. In the meantime, though, you and others might visit the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram in AR4 WGI FAQ for an illustration of the Earth's energy budget. Consider whether you don't agree that all net energy flux depicted conforms to the 2nd law, and that at equilibrium, energy in (168W/m^2) equals energy out, so that the system has not manufactured energy out of nothing.

"diminish it to ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 14:18:17
"diminish it to only 170W/m^2, and the system would have no way of knowing the difference from its external location." But grastog it's that 170 watt signal that you are claiming is being amplified where is the energy for that coming from?

**This is truly a ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 11:20:49
**This is truly a statement of ignorance. You have no clue why gas is as high as it is** It costs Big oil $7 a gallon to pump and ship oil to which world governments subsidize them $7 at regulates the sale price at $7.10 a gallon. Gasoline Refiners buy that 10 cents a gallon oil and it costs $8 a gallon to turn oil to gas and world governments subsidise $* and regulate gas Wholesale price to $1 before taxes. Add Federal tax,State tax,city tax,county tax,hazzard/sin tax then trasport costs

**dare you to find ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 11:09:44
**dare you to find ANY evidence how biofuels have hindered world supply any worse than it already** Farmer grows corn over hops,hops come more expensive and harder to come by. farmer grows corn over wheat and Wheat comes more expensive and harder to come by. Farmer sells corn for biofuel over food and corn fed cows and chickens products (milk,eggs,cheese,meat) comes more expensive. Because there is less corn for foodstuff products using cornstuff gets more expensive/harder to come by

**every nation is ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 10:49:04
**every nation is now committed to CO2 reduction at the leadership level** Yes, & people forget how quickly & efficiently government agencies like FEMA responded to Hurricane Katrina & How efficiently the UN is at keeping Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons andpulling out of Iraq. So far the "Biofuels initative" has cause a global food shortage as farmers rather grow corn and sell it for fuel over food and they have tax the air and taxed gas to $5 a gallon. Is the world saved yet?

**The point I've ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 10:39:02
**The point I've tried to make is that readers of the science literature can confirm there's no serious doubt anthropogenic warming is a potentially serious threat requiring vigorous efforts to reduce CO2 emissions** Just as readers of the Christain Bible have no doubt there is a God and Jesus "died for their sins? And no it isn't a unfair comparision as both works of litature are compilations of different works of different people and it is to easy to pick and choose what you read and believe

I'll relent, and at ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 09:32:57
I'll relent, and at the risk of boring those who already understand the CO2 greenhouse effect and feedback amplification, I'll explain why your claimed need for an internal energy source is unfounded. The Earth is heated directly by about 170W/m^2 solar radiation, but because the atmosphere is largely transparent to sunlight, you could relocate the sun internally within the Earth, diminish it to only 170W/m^2, and the system would have no way of knowing the difference from its external location.

Gerjanp - BV has ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 07:53:55
Gerjanp - BV has cautioned us against ridculing you for misconceptions about the positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, but I don't consider it unfair to invite readers to review the last few pages for an accurate understanding - all I'll do here is repeat suggestions to Google "Climate Book" for thermodynamic details. Despite your repeated challenges, it's truly a settled area. My concern is that we're not addressing unsettled questions on how to curtail the CO2 that's involved.

Jeffrey "You're ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 07:36:11
Jeffrey "You're level of insulin level production is probably fine, but you're immune systen attacks it." Regardless of how it happened, whether autoimmune problems etc. I am not producing enough insulin and my liver is producing more glucose than I need. Both are a failure of the feedback mechanism. There is also a complication of insulin resistance due to the excess glucose being converted to a fat that inhibits insulin uptake by cells -a typical run away system that I control by diet etc.

grastog you haven't ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 07:09:56
grastog you haven't shown that a) earth climate system is an active one i.e. with an internal power source. It IS a necessary condition for positive feedback it IS a necessary condition for amplification both effects imply more power out than in therefore an internal source for that power is necessary. or B) you can show the earths climate system has such an internal power source. You have done neither.

Regarding positive ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:42:54
Regarding positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, viewers can visit earlier pages of this thread and judge for themselves whether this has been adequately described - I expect most will agree it has. To proceed beyond what I see as an attempt to reargue already settled material, the new Ahn/Brook paper has appeared in Science (Oct. 3). It's importance lies in the evidence (mainly from Antarctica) that the current potency of CO2 in driving temperature was also high prehistorically.

Repeating it yet ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 06:35:23
Repeating it yet again does not make it true. It seems you are quite unable to do anything else. What you need to do is either show that that positive feedback is possible inn a passive system or show that earths climate system is not passive but active and has an internal power source that can drive the heat contrary to its natural (second law that is) inclination.

It's hard to avoid ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:31:33
It's hard to avoid being baited by some of these comments into rearguing matters that are well settled in science - certainly the role of net positive feedbacks in amplifying CO2-driven warming is an example, and my earlier comments explaining this and providing references will, I hope, satisfy objective readers. To me, the larger point is that debating what is no longer controversial - the potentially dangerous warming of the planet - diverts focus from addressing needed remediation options.

grastog simple ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 06:21:13
grastog simple repetition of the the tale does not make it true. So when are you going to show us that positive feedback is possible in a passive system. Of course the system may not be passive then you must show us the internal power source that will enable the feedback signal to run counter to it's natural inclination.

The point I've ...
By: grastog1313. on 07 Oct 08, 06:16:23
The point I've tried to make is that readers of the science literature can confirm there's no serious doubt anthropogenic warming is a potentially serious threat requiring vigorous efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. The role of positive feedbacks as a CO2 amplifier is also well established by evidence (multiple sources I cited earlier should be visited by those interested). Even if some here perceive the need to shift focus to CO2 remediation as unfair, it's a reality that's no longer avoidable.

**CO2-driven ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 07 Oct 08, 02:39:57
**CO2-driven warming and its feedback amplification are settled issues in science,** Actually it's settled politically and on the Environut fronts via mass media...Science has nothing to do with villinizing Co2 cause it is supposedly made by $5 gas and "big oil" making 12 billion a Quarter...er.."buirning fossil fuels" None of the papers try to exclude CO2 as the culprit via repeatable experiments in the field or lab nor do they even try to explain how CO2 excapes filtration systems

"You didn't read ...
By: gerjanp. on 07 Oct 08, 01:15:43
"You didn't read Spencer's paper, which argues that the negative feedback is due to a reduction, not an increase in clouds." I'm wondering whether you read the paper or if you did you understood it. Spencer's negative feedback is due to increase AND decrease of a particular kind of cloud not any clouds and not just reduction. You can try to base an argument on blurring distinctions but it won't carry much weight with people who have actually read and understood the paper.

"I learnt much ...
By: gufpott. on 07 Oct 08, 00:03:43
"I learnt much through videos at school & uni e.g the structure of DNA & I never read the literature of Watson & Crick" That's a very good point. grastog is apt to eulogise about truth in the literature. In his mind, he's ahead of the game and everybody needs to listen to his conclusions. Unfortunatly the references he gives are weak and he has a problem accpeting diverse conclusions from reading the same paper. Surely the experience of plate tectonics is reason for more caution.

"There's little ...
By: gufpott. on 06 Oct 08, 23:32:43
"There's little doubt feedbacks obviously play a role, to quantify them is the challenge." Thank you jffry - we agree. I asked a simple question: has it been shown that the climate an active system? This is a wish to understand the state of enquiry of one particular aspect of what you mention. If this has not been demonstrated, there would be serious reason to doubt the proposition that, due to feedback, climate is capable of acting as a temperature magnifier.

"the only game in ...
By: gerjanp. on 06 Oct 08, 22:42:39
"the only game in town, and it would seem neglectful not to participate." said one lemming to another just before diving off the the cliff.

Grastog there are ...
By: Bushvision. on 06 Oct 08, 20:47:04
Grastog there are thousands of sceptics including hundreds of eminent scientists & climate scientists who are not convinced of the CO2 warming being anything but a small amount and that an ETS is a total waste of time & money. I have read Spencers papers several months ago & I don`t claim I remember every detail however I remember the principles & conclusions of his presentations & have edited two videos for youtube. If you want to discuss remiadiation - you`re at the wrong site.

BV Despite your ...
By: grastog1313. on 06 Oct 08, 20:29:24
BV Despite your previous reluctance regarding CO2 remediation, the fact that we're wasting time on settled issues impels me to ask you to reconsider. The literature universally acknowledges CO2-driven warming, with a near unanimous sense of its danger. The outside world has consequently moved beyond arguing that point - every nation is now committed to CO2 reduction at the leadership level. At this juncture, remediation is the only game in town, and it would seem neglectful not to participate.

You reinforce ...
By: grastog1313. on 06 Oct 08, 20:15:26
You reinforce points I made, BV. You didn't read Spencer's paper, which argues that the negative feedback is due to a reduction, not an increase in clouds. More important, you repeat claims from videos, blogs, talks, etc., - all essentially worthless in the absence of supporting evidence in the literature. There, the evidence clearly documents a net positive feedback amplification of CO2-driven warming, and I can't help suggesting again that you consult original sources. It's not controversial.

Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 520 seconds

Part 2 - Professor Bob Carter examines more of the data concerning climate change and Global warming. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

I had to cherrypick ...
By: 81broncoman. on 07 Oct 08, 14:54:52
I had to cherrypick an attribute, we only have five hundred words.

I think you have ...
By: droogish. on 07 Oct 08, 14:52:37
I think you have missed the point. Firstly, methane does not persist as long in the atmosphere as CO2, saying "a cow does the global warming of 4 cars" is nonsense - you've cherry picked one attribute. And anyway, cars are not the major problem for AGW - the main problem is the way we generate electricity. You need to understand more about climate science to have an informed opinion either way. Your statement is exactly the sort of thing I mean by the "proof by burden of proof" fallacy.

What would you say ...
By: 81broncoman. on 07 Oct 08, 13:05:08
What would you say if i told you that a COWS, thats right, beef and milk COWS make many times more global warming contributions than all the cars and trucks in the world. Cows produce Methane, CH4, which is 25 times more potent as a global warming agent than CO2, if you with a little math assuming 20mpg from the cars of the world driven 5k miles a year average, a cow does the global warming of 4 cars, and there are 3.3 BILLION COWS in the world, and only 700 million or so cars, think about it.

No that's based on ...
By: droogish. on 05 Oct 08, 04:05:25
No that's based on the smorgasboard of evidence that humans are changing the climate.

Proof by Burden of ...
By: droogish. on 05 Oct 08, 04:03:50
Proof by Burden of Proof Your argument is wrong because you have no proof. Therefore my argument is right (please overlook the fact that I have no proof either!) "Prove it!" - amazing how two words can really take the wind out of your sails.

`absolutely no ...
By: aoanla. on 04 Oct 08, 20:01:19
`absolutely no doubt` That doesn`t sound like science does it? Sounds more like a declaration of faith.

Great work. Real ...
By: soupdragon42. on 28 Sep 08, 06:21:01
Great work. Real science. People need to understand who is sponsoring the global warming scam, and the vast sums of money they are pumping into it. The mainstream media is controlled by a few. We need to deal with real environmental issues like polution and the rainfrests, instead of this elitist taxation scam.

There is absolutely ...
By: droogish. on 22 Sep 08, 11:54:14
There is absolutely no doubt about global climate change as a result of human industry..approx 13 billion tonnes of CO2 per year is dumped into to our carbon cycle per year by fossil fuels. This is damaging our ecosystem. This is settled in the literature. Get your feet out of the grave people and your heads out of the sand!

You can't actually ...
By: st3v3mj. on 19 Sep 08, 12:13:17
You can't actually expect that a species stupid enough to fight wars would be wise enough to take advanced action and prevent the ongoing climate warming catastrophe.

Fantastic video! ...
By: NewhallStation. on 18 Sep 08, 16:34:28
Fantastic video! Excellent points supported by solid data.

**STUPID!!! Who are ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 30 Jul 08, 15:03:03
**STUPID!!! Who are you to say who is a real scientists or not.** Hey, the debaters are assuming they are "Scientist" not me, and definately not them. One thing I will say for the "Peers" that reviewed the report, they never ever pretended to be "experts" or "Scintist"...this has been assumed by mass media hyoe and those thumping on the IPCC report and the signatures of these people like it was a fucken bible and undisputible "fact" because they, supposed "experts",signed off on it

**Yeah lets all ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 30 Jul 08, 14:26:40
**Yeah lets all stop BREATHING since that produces CO2. Seriously** You don't even realize how close to the truth you are. 100 years ago there was only 200 million people in the world we are now near 6 billion and everyone exhaling does put out more CO2 them COmbution Technology with catalyst converters pre-1994 (now refitted) used to make But the .02% change is actually more CO2 comming out of the OCeans,not Humans exhaling as that CO2 falls to the ground and sinks into the soil,ground,etc

**Secondly, did you ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 30 Jul 08, 14:18:55
**Secondly, did you ever actually read the Report?" I wonder if you have..** Yes. And the Summary is a Opinion based on Corrolated data...forget that the Summary date pre-dates the date of all the "Scientist" signatures that signed off on the report (as in it had it's conclusion before they agreed with what it said and signed the conclusion as thiers) Secondly their is no Scientific Method to conclude the opinion as fact nor is their conclusion provable or repeatable in the Lab

"Firstly, they ...
By: Dogma1979. on 29 Jul 08, 09:04:29
"Firstly, they aren't "real" Scientist,most of them were grad students,University faculty,and government workers without a degree in Meteorology (real weather Science)" This is so way off that I dont even bother comment it, STUPID!!! Who are you to say who is a real scientists or not. "Secondly, did you ever actually read the Report?" I wonder if you have.. "It was a UN scam to get taxing power." All i say is: If this were true then Good, More taxing power to UN!!!!.

**cars & factories ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 23:07:36
**cars & factories are cleaner then they were in 70s ** I am old enough to remember growing up when the Sugarcane factories here in Hawaii had black smoke in the 70s and sometimes the soot rained down on the fields and sometimes the highway when the wind shifted. Likewise standing near my dad's car was a chocking experience as the Carbon monoxide swirled around Nowadays major cities like Hollywood have no Smog days & the Sugar Cane factory stacks little more then Steam cause of EPA standards

*all our technology ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 23:00:28
*all our technology,including alternative Energy technology depends on oil* I agree with Telsa that using Oil to make Gasoline (once a useless byproduct of making kerosine that was drummed up and dumped as toxic waste) is wasteful and using it to power cars is stupid the 2 major problems with the tree hugger arguments are 1)Burning fossil fuels does not make Co2 witout a catalyst converter 2)Filtration captures up to 99.99% of emmisions 3)cars & factories are cleaner then they were in 70s

**that they stop ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 22:54:42
**that they stop themselves from getting massive profits with Alternative Energy over large profit with Oil =silly** Likewise bankers not wanting to finance building massive fields of Windmills or retrofitting former oil furnaces with geothermal power and make tons of money over suppressing the technology for oil is also conspiracy theory. We live in what modern Archeologist call the "Oil Age" and all our technology,including alternative Energy technology depends on oil

**criminal scam on ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 22:49:38
**criminal scam on the planet by organised elements with too much money see owners of big oil, big media, and big banking. ** Oh fuck,now that's funny Media just want to sell their story, they rarely care if it's true or not Alternative energy uses technology built on oil and Exxon makes all the worlds nuclear rods,& BP is the largest provider of Solar power & Chevron Geothermal so that they stop themselves from getting massive profits with Alternative Energy over large profit with Oil =silly

*we are talking ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 22:43:35
*we are talking about over 1000 scientists in the IPCC who agree that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming* Firstly, they aren't "real" Scientist,most of them were grad students,University faculty,and government workers without a degree in Meteorology (real weather Science) Secondly, did you ever actually read the Report? The summary is a Opinion based on corrolated data that was drawn up before the "scientist" even saw and signed off on it. It was a UN scam to get taxing power

Yes its natural for ...
By: AquarianRising. on 27 Jul 08, 04:16:13
Yes its natural for the climate to change and yes what we do will affect it. Humans didnt heavily populate the earth a million years ago like we do today, the earth was younger and had unpolluted resources and enviroment, so its impossible to "predict" the outcome of future weather from past results. Climate change will happen no matter what we do, but the real message with conservation is there just arent enough resources to continue our current life style. Something has to change.

scam oh please NO ...
By: Dogma1979. on 23 Jul 08, 10:50:24
scam oh please NO global warming is no scam. I dont bother answering more than that.

Yeah lets all stop ...
By: TheGoodnessIsGood. on 23 Jul 08, 00:29:27
Yeah lets all stop BREATHING since that produces CO2. Seriously Greenhouse effect is a SCAM not just a mistake, it's a concerted, organised, criminal scam on the planet by organised elements with too much money see owners of big oil, big media, and big banking.

This is the scam - ...
By: TheGoodnessIsGood. on 23 Jul 08, 00:20:01
This is the scam - SURE we don't want pollution from industrial and vehicles, but it is NOT causing any warming. Global Warming is another global scam run by the world bankers and the real people in power. They fund these massive campaigns over years, concertedly and with endless funding. They dictate policy. Sure we want to protect animals and the environment, that hasn't changed, but these things don't come and go because of CO2, THAT is a MYTH and a LIE for their SCAM to tax us even more.

Save the earth, eat ...
By: couerl. on 19 Jul 08, 10:05:40
Save the earth, eat more steak..

Also im not ...
By: Dogma1979. on 13 Jul 08, 15:16:03
Also im not critisizing your science (I think you realize this) but rather the validity of the application to the GW, since you much rather discuss periods longer than 1000-1000000 years.

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - pt 3 of 4
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 509 seconds

Part 3 - Professor Bob Carter continues looking at the things which are problems to the idea that CO2 is driving climate change and global warming.Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

p.s. Modern ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 06 Oct 08, 13:40:37
p.s. Modern filtration systems not only capture most of the CO in combustion engines and furnace but those that have catalyst converters in their filtration system catch CO2 as a solid. It's a house of hards "Faith" thing the Environuts are preaching as technology is Cleaner then it was in the &0's or even the 90's but all they still do is bitch and moan about the technology itself. The most extreme want us to go back to living in caves and swinging from trees,don't you know...lol

**How does this ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 06 Oct 08, 13:34:54
**How does this free CO2 independent of the evaporation/precipitation cycles of the OCean not fall to the ground?** To clarify, All the CO2 in the Atmosphere in the real world in real gian weather/cliamte dynamics ride the Evaporation/precipitation cycles on water the water vapor and come out of the Carbon Dioxide in the OCeans...and even these eventually "rain" down on plantsa and fall back into the ocean or fall and sink into the soil,permafrost until evaporation gives them another ride

**even IF there was ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 06 Oct 08, 13:30:11
**even IF there was a greater quantity of Carbon monooxide (CO) exhausted from burning fossile fuels (in fact it few in car engines and very few in carbon power plants) it would be rapidly oxidized when released into the athmosphere.** Alright, let's suppose that lighter then air Carbon Monoxide gets pass modern filtration systems then oxidized into 5x heavier then air Carbon Dioxide How does this free CO2 independent of the evaporation/precipitation cycles of the OCean not fall to the ground?

even IF there was a ...
By: JanLauGe. on 06 Oct 08, 13:20:44
even IF there was a greater quantity of Carbon monooxide (CO) exhausted from burning fossile fuels (in fact it few in car engines and very few in carbon power plants) it would be rapidly oxidized when released into the athmosphere.

**erhm... yea... ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 02 Oct 08, 13:48:13
**erhm... yea... coal is made out of... eh? Carbon? And by oxidating carbon you get? ahhh lets see, CO².** Only in perfect combustion is co2,o2,and no extra heat generated Combustion engines and furnaces have imperfect combustion where the majority of fuel is wasted as heat with some Carbon moxide from only partial oxidation **Never made that barium sulfate experiment at school?** That isn't how combustion engines or funaces work,you need to stick a co2 meter at the exhaust of the machine

"3) Verify that ...
By: JanLauGe. on 01 Oct 08, 15:05:27
"3) Verify that Burning fossil fuels even makes Co2 (They didn't,it doesnt)" erhm... yea... coal is made out of... eh? Carbon? And by oxidating carbon you get? ahhh lets see, CO². Never made that barium sulfate experiment at school?

Great work. Real ...
By: soupdragon42. on 28 Sep 08, 06:10:54
Great work. Real science. People need to understand who is sponsoring the global warming scam, and the vast sums os money they are pumping into it. The mainstream media is a controlled by a few.

When did they do ...
By: Loewenherz27. on 11 Sep 08, 18:13:19
When did they do the measurements?

"Scientific method ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 23:50:45
"Scientific method cont" 6)Repeat all experiments to confirm real world and lab tests for repeatibility to verify that Humans can make co2 by burning fossil fuels and by increasing Co2 it causes the world to absorb more heat and therefore humans cause global warming. They didn't even do the actual tests even once 7)Make a conclusion based on facts obtained from real world & lab experiments proved by repeatability.Again they never went beyond coorolated data so the IPCC summary=opinion not fact

"scientific method ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 23:45:54
"scientific method cont" 4) prove Co2 can asorb heat. They didn't, and it can't 5) Prove more of a ghg like Co2 can bend IR light based on density in volume and more mass equals more heat asbortion. They didn't, it can't, GHG theory breaks a few laws of physics which is why it's atiquated

**There is not one ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 28 Jul 08, 23:27:10
**There is not one peer reviewed paper, NOT ONE! that says global warming isn't natural. not one. ** Also no science in those papers either,just opinions based on correlated data which isn't the "Scientific Method" What is that 1) Observe. Okay they related heat increase to co2 increase to industrialization 2) hypothosize. Okay Human CO2 emmisions cause global warming 3) Verify that a) Burning fossil fuels even makes Co2 (They didn't,it doesnt) b) replicate GHG in Lab. They didn't nor can

There is not one ...
By: jaminunit. on 07 Jul 08, 23:51:56
There is not one peer reviewed paper, NOT ONE! that says global warming isn't natural. not one.

If this is such an ...
By: imnos482. on 30 Jun 08, 13:06:14
If this is such an important subject, why not have a huge public debate about it? I would love to see such a thing.

The negative albedo ...
By: Cwestion. on 07 Jun 08, 07:10:54
The negative albedo effect of clouds he mentions has been found to be inneffectual. Measurements have shown that increased cloud cover hasnt counteracted any recent warming trends.

The solution able ...
By: cyberpituc. on 27 May 08, 13:51:46
The solution able to make disappear our consumerist system,regulating our demographic levels to the future and simultaneously being able to contribute to the society the freedom,the order,the health and the welfare that all we wish,is to harness the right of shelter directed to the minors and transform it in a large, bigger and complete right.A right that doesn´t disappear to the eighteen. On this simple issue,our future and the one of the planet,it depends. w w w. leypaz. c o m We reflect

I don't believe in ...
By: questioneverything8. on 18 May 08, 23:58:55
I don't believe in conspiracy theory, not large ones anyways. Why I don't follow MMGW I have looked at the facts and in my conclusion the facts don't support it. Another reason is that Grants fuel dishonesty, it's built into the system. If Karoly finds no problem with climate change, than there are no further grants. If he engages fear of the problem that insures more grants. Another reason, science findings are acceptable when proven as fact, however we don't have facts we have projections

Oh that cash grant ...
By: raymondbe. on 18 May 08, 08:21:01
Oh that cash grant conspiracy theory is so old now. Do you honestly think anyone takes it seriously any more? If you watch all the video parts of the debate they do discuss it at a couple of points and explain how ridiculous that charge is. This is a waste of time. There is nothing that's going to convince you that the conclusions of the best peer reviewed climate scientists in the world are correct. Yes of course there are skeptics, even among them but why side with the skeptics when the...

... David Karoly's? ...
By: raymondbe. on 18 May 08, 08:12:09
... David Karoly's? Karoly is way more qualified in this field so why do you jump to Carter's side without investigating the arguments Karoly has against Carter's theories? Fair and balanced? I think not! Paranoid bias? I think yes!

... misleading ...
By: raymondbe. on 18 May 08, 08:06:41
... misleading information (ie. lies) he presented in the program. Anyone would be cynical about the non-MMGW case after seeing what he did. I want to get to the truth but I also realise it's a very complex subject and so lean towards the conclusions of real climate scientists over people like Bob Carter. With a username like 'questioneverything' I can see why you hold the views you do. Life's just one big conspiracy theory isn't it? Tell me why have you taken on Bob Carter's over...

Ok, but I still say ...
By: raymondbe. on 18 May 08, 07:55:53
Ok, but I still say Carter could have but in to make points if he had any compelling arguments to make. I suspect the fact that it looked like he didn't have a chance to speak actually worked out well for him. Another thing you perhaps you did not realise is that they screened The Great GW Swindle in its entirety just before this debate so most of the arguments on the non-MMGW side were actually presented. Did you see the part where the presenter confronted the Swindle's dodgy producer on the..

raymondbe, (1)Can ...
By: questioneverything8. on 17 May 08, 17:34:55
raymondbe, (1)Can you really watch that video, "Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6" and say it was fair. While there were 10 minutes total dialog, 8 min. and 2 sec. given to in favor of MMGW and only 1 min. and 58 sec. against MMGW of that 1;58 sec... 1:20 sec. were in defense of the question proposed by the director of the committee. The questions were, "were you surprised to find big oil behind the no on MMGW, and would you take the 1 in 5 risk in flying a plane.

(2) He was not ...
By: questioneverything8. on 17 May 08, 17:33:42
(2) He was not allowed to add intellectually he was placed in situations to answer questions that were not relevant. To add to that Bob carter was cut off while trying to answer David Karoly, the director said, "Let David Karoly continue" In conclusion the response time for defending the disagreement of MMGW was 38 seconds the rest of the time went to the committee for MMGW. Fair and balanced? I think not!

(3) If you are ...
By: questioneverything8. on 17 May 08, 17:30:55
(3) If you are unwilling to notice the impartiality of debates like this one, than my questions to you are, "Are you unwilling to have a balanced debate? Are you afraid of what you might learn? Or are you involved in the disinformation as are the rest of the media and the receivers of cash grants? Do you really want to get to the truth?

No he was not cut ...
By: raymondbe. on 17 May 08, 07:24:05
No he was not cut off, he just failed to present a counter argument whenever Karoly showed his understanding to be lacking. Several times he could have responded but did not dare. I'm sure he realised he could not win an argument against someone who obviously knew more than he on the subject.

raymondbe, You said ...
By: questioneverything8. on 17 May 08, 01:53:11
raymondbe, You said, " Bob's Carter's arguments were demolished " You lie,. Bob's points were cut short he didn't get a chance to respond to the question on CO2 for the last million years or the cooling in the last 8 years. It was very obvious, it was an unfair and unbalanced in regards to having equal time to respond and equal time in posing evidence at that forum. On this video you get to hear his rebuttal and the evidence, but for some reason it's invalid to your reasoning.

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 574 seconds

Part 4 - Professor Bob Carter examines examples of the scientific data being ignored over popularist views about CO2 causing climate change and Global warming. Inconvenient Truth author Al Gore would find his presentation contradicted by this presentation? Will kyoto`s greenhouse reduction goals be in vain?

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Look him up, he is ...
By: JanLauGe. on 01 Oct 08, 15:27:55
Look him up, he is member of the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition", payed by ExxonMobil. orly? yarly!

show me one ...
By: TheNextTurn. on 23 Sep 08, 02:50:39
show me one scientific organization that says GW is not man made.

This should be ...
By: DrDave953. on 05 Sep 08, 13:08:09
This should be viewed with an open mind by the warmists, however, I'm not sure they have minds to be opened. Dave.

Yay Capermall Spot ...
By: frithwks. on 31 Jul 08, 23:10:29
Yay Capermall Spot on!!

Past & Future Climate change - Pt 1of 4
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 561 seconds

The first of a 4 part presentation where Scientist David Archibald has researched the data that effects Climate change and has worked out the
most likely future climate predictions.
Inconvenient Truth Author Al Gore would find his views contradicted by this presentation

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

No hurricanes in ...
By: upcountrywater. on 18 Sep 08, 17:14:36
No hurricanes in 2008 have hit #5.. yea I'm betting no hurricanes will reach this force level ( hurricane season continues for another month)..Stock up on heating fuel, now.

Top 10 GISS U.S. ...
By: eveable. on 02 Sep 08, 22:21:56
Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007 Year Old New 1934 1.23 1.25 1998 1.24 1.23 1921 1.12 1.15 2006 1.23 1.13 1931 1.08 1.08 1999 0.94 0.93 1953 0.91 0.90 1990 0.88 0.87 1938 0.85 0.86 1939 0.84 0.85

Global warming does ...
By: raymondbe. on 09 Aug 08, 21:35:37
Global warming does NOT mean the entire globe is warming. It means that on average, the temperature is increasing. Put another way, if 10% of the Earth is getting colder and 90% of the Earth is warming by the same number of degrees, that IS global warming because the average temperature of the globe is increasing. The sun has been at a solar minimum for years (very few flares and spots) yet many of the record temperatures have still been reached.

The ''30s were NOT ...
By: raymondbe. on 09 Aug 08, 21:34:04
The ''30s were NOT as hot as we have it now. Show your sources. The 20 Hottest Years on Record* Rank Year 1 2005 TIE, 1 1998 TIE, 3 2002, 4 2003, 5 2004, 6 2001, 7 1997, 8 1990, 9 1995, 10 1999, 11 2000, 12 1991, 13 1987, 14 1988, 15 1994, 16 1983, 17 1996, 18 1944, 19 1989, 20 1993

Not true.. there ...
By: astronmr20. on 08 Aug 08, 23:15:31
Not true.. there has not been warming in the past 10 years in comparison. Remember NASA amended their data-- the hottest year on record was 1933, not 1998.

If you care about ...
By: SupplySideRules. on 23 Jul 08, 15:59:20
If you care about the environment then you drive a big V8 car because the CO2 its combustion releases makes plants grow faster and more and increases biodiversity. If you really think CO2 is so bad then you support nuclear power that barely releases any CO2.

This man is ...
By: justmenowagain. on 13 Jul 08, 15:41:48
This man is speaking the truth and the sun has been sunspot dead for almost two years, and if this keeps going we will see anther little ice age. This data does not lie and for those whose doom and gloom dreams will be crushed....don't worry being cold is a lot worse than being hot. Did you people not hear that the global tempurature has dropped 1 deg celcius all in one year. It took almost a hundred to raise one degree. This info will not be respected because it makes the world look foolish!

There are two types ...
By: vonziebelbach. on 19 Jun 08, 09:40:39
There are two types of people; those who like the environment and animals and there are those who never gonna care about that , that of course until theres no oxygen on earth .... If you care about the environment of course you agree with Ipcc and others, it´s only natural You other deniers live in the stoneage

So is 1RNuYd4v8es ...
By: FreeAgain2. on 19 Jun 08, 07:31:21
So is 1RNuYd4v8es a "denier" Global warming HOAX'ERS are supported by massive grants from governments,, billions of dollars. These hoaxers HAVE to WIN grants or they lose their jobs. That is why they won't allow for PEER REVIEW and CHALLANGES to their fiction. If the HOAX'ers are found out = funding dries up. Simple as that. PUBLISH OR PERISH.

check out the ...
By: vonziebelbach. on 19 Jun 08, 04:58:06
check out the deniers backgrounds and you will see that most of them have/or are affiliated with big companys.Denying the global warming isn´t a scientifical issue,it´s a political and economic statement.

The thing is this ...
By: moomar1. on 08 Jun 08, 05:18:26
The thing is this global warming movement will do very little to stop global warming but do a heck of alot of damage to the economys of the world, and ultimately increase human suffering,, Its WRONG!

Who cares about ...
By: moomar1. on 08 Jun 08, 05:17:27
Who cares about peer review when you getting paid big buck to write about how man is destroying the planet... I would lol

Dr. Tom V. ...
By: c02lies. on 06 Jun 08, 19:50:27
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad: "The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible." Geologist/Geochemist, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC.

Can you read? Check ...
By: c02lies. on 06 Jun 08, 19:45:22
Can you read? Check the list of scientists that presented this to the UN. h t t p : // folk . uio . no / tomvs / esef / ungensecr07.pdf Quite a few climatologists there and other relevent sciences. What you dont understand is the entire hypotheses is politically motivated. It's is based solely on hypotheses & opinions. Not 1 piece of scientific evidence has been put forth to support it. Real scientists like Bob are doing the real work of testing the hypotheses and it FAILS every test.

Can you read? ...
By: raymondbe. on 06 Jun 08, 10:25:19
Can you read? supercal said there aren't many climate scientists signing onto those petitions. Heck, anyone with a science degree can sign on. Unless they are signed by the majority of the world's top climate scientists, those petitions are almost meaningless. Climate science is increadibly complex and unless you are an expert in the field your conclusions probably aren't worth listening to over someone who has spent their entire life studying it.

the 'ol "scientists ...
By: raymondbe. on 06 Jun 08, 10:15:41
the 'ol "scientists aren't acting in good faith because it's a bad career move" argument. You really don't understand how peer review works and what motivates most scientists to do the work they do. If you're looking for a good conspiracy theory to sink your teeth into, try the 911 denialists. They need some help right now.

lookup the " ...
By: raymondbe. on 06 Jun 08, 10:09:23
lookup the "realclimate" and "skepticalscience" websites.

realclimate org and ...
By: raymondbe. on 06 Jun 08, 10:05:12
realclimate org and skepticalscience com

Bob Carter is only ...
By: c02lies. on 06 Jun 08, 05:05:05
Bob Carter is only one of thousands and this is just the beginning of a ground swell of decent.

If Bob Carter is a ...
By: moomar1. on 06 Jun 08, 01:53:38
If Bob Carter is a scientist then he'd Know NOT to cherry pick data... I'd say he knows more than you pal

Being a top ...
By: moomar1. on 06 Jun 08, 01:51:25
Being a top climatologist might also mean agreeing with man made global warming though, thats if what you say is even true... If it were just left to scientists , maybe we'd get some truth out of it..but at the moment , disagreing with the global warming movement is a very bad career move

He does not cherry ...
By: moomar1. on 05 Jun 08, 23:41:45
He does not cherry pick data. The mount of data is against man made global warming.... Man made global warming will be a big non event...

You gave your ...
By: c02lies. on 05 Jun 08, 17:54:13
You gave your sources? Can you provide them again. I don't what a hypotheses - hypotheses are not evidence.

I gave you my ...
By: raymondbe. on 05 Jun 08, 11:51:01
I gave you my sources. Look them up.

Ok - show everyone ...
By: c02lies. on 05 Jun 08, 10:21:08
Ok - show everyone here your evidence. I will accept it if it's validated and credible.

Forestry - Hidden Talents
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 536 seconds

A look at the opportunities the forest industry in SE of SA presents to people with good machinery skills

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Thank for the ...
By: JupiterretipuJ. on 22 Aug 08, 02:12:13
Thank for the information, Aha!

The tree ...
By: Bushvision. on 22 Aug 08, 01:57:45
The tree plantations are Pinus Radiata (softwood) & Tasmanian Blue Gums (hardwood chips)

Was für ...
By: JupiterretipuJ. on 22 Aug 08, 01:14:49
Was für Baumplantagen! Gute Darstelleung der Entwicklung der Holzverwertung.Da ich seit 1963 im Wald gearbeitet habe,habe ich die rasannte Entwicklung der Holzernte,hautnah mit gemacht. What kind of tree plantations! Good film pictures of the development of the wood utilization.Since I have worked in the woods since 1963, I have the Rasannte development of the wood harvest, made very closely. Gruß Rolf

Thankyou Bushvision
By: RJM1011. on 15 Aug 08, 16:56:19
Thankyou Bushvision

Hi RJM, ...
By: Bushvision. on 12 Aug 08, 18:33:20
Hi RJM, There are many companies in Australia & in parts of Australia there is increasing demand for forwarder & harvester operators. I expect it would only take a week or two to find work on these machines if you were qualified. You will need a work visa & have someone write a letter inviting you to work for them. Search for Australian forestry & hauling companies & make contact

Is it possible that ...
By: RJM1011. on 12 Aug 08, 15:11:15
Is it possible that someone from the U.K. would be able to work in these forests if they where a forwarder O.P. If they where willing to travel to Australia ?

Fires are a natural ...
By: IcarusInflight. on 21 Jul 08, 01:48:40
Fires are a natural part of the cycle of the forest unless a vandal sets it alight. Many trees require fire so their seeds can grow and everything can regenerate. It's only a problem when men build themselves into places where they should not go :-)

God I can hear them ...
By: GERMAN6660. on 21 Jul 08, 00:18:24
God I can hear them screaming, oh the pain they must be going through alot. Take into consideration that with out the lumber industry here in America this country would be nothing. Where would everyone live? I got it how about those nice little boxes a refridgerator comes in!!!

Are you up for the ...
By: GERMAN6660. on 21 Jul 08, 00:13:13
Are you up for the challenge to be a man, and get a job? I work for the lumber industry, and you know what? Tree's are a renewable resource, and if you let the tree's die and start falling over the forest floor you are going to have even a bigger forest fire. So that is a major reason why we log, another is to make it possible to have products for your house. Let alone with out logging you would not even have a house, toilet paper, tooth paste, magazine's, book's the list get's bigger.

Tree hugger's BS is ...
By: GERMAN6660. on 21 Jul 08, 00:08:37
Tree hugger's BS is all that I can read.

Get the book if you ...
By: IcarusInflight. on 13 Feb 08, 08:34:42
Get the book if you can, it's not a 'Tree Hugger' book, it considers both sides of the story, but the conclusion is that where ever man goes, all the trees fall in his path, and as one can see from their video on a mind bending industrial scale.

ive grown up in ...
By: briancarroll89. on 12 Feb 08, 20:49:00
ive grown up in logging in texas and will be contacting u soon great video

If you get the ...
By: IcarusInflight. on 21 Jan 08, 01:04:45
If you get the chance read, 'The Golden Spruce' by John Vaillant. Have a great day :-)

Our foresters ...
By: Bushvision. on 20 Jan 08, 23:32:08
Our foresters consider growing, harvesting and regrowing trees as the win win win option - good for the environment, good for society (the products they produce) and good for the economy (Jobs). Would you agree?

Indeed the subject ...
By: IcarusInflight. on 20 Jan 08, 21:55:02
Indeed the subject is bigger than destroying trees. Trees provide the air we breath, places where the animals and flora live, trees are the very living essence of this planet and can no longer be considered a cheap resource so we can read 'Hello' magazine and 'package' everything into neat rows. 'Are you up for the Challenge' :-)

The subject is ...
By: Bushvision. on 20 Jan 08, 14:26:58
The subject is bigger than just "destroying trees". It`s who wants the benefits of a industry that produces great products that make life easier and enjoyable. If you don`t want a forest industry (that both destroys trees and regrows them), where will you get your low cost toilet paper, newspaper, cardboard, paper bags, magazines, timber products from? Or do you want a world without timber products?

Destroying trees ...
By: IcarusInflight. on 19 Jan 08, 17:44:40
Destroying trees has become like a video game. Who wants a career in destroying trees ?

In this area there ...
By: Bushvision. on 17 Jan 08, 14:10:21
In this area there are about 10 people whose job is to plant trees. 10 x 4,000 x 200 days = 8 million trees / yr. The trees get used to produce toilet paper, photocopying paper, newspapers, magazines, timber for houses, cardboard etc. If anyone doesn`t want trees cut down & regrown, don`t use these products.

3500 tress a day is ...
By: akumie. on 16 Jan 08, 04:19:06
3500 tress a day is not even 10% of what they cut down, besids its sad how humans destroy so much nature sjust to plant alot trees and then have a reason to cut down.

Yes, There are ...
By: Bushvision. on 16 Jan 08, 02:40:28
Yes, There are people who plant 3- 5,000 trees per day In other places the trees regrow from the stumps so they don`t need replanting. Do you want to visit these places & see it for yourself?

so ur saying some ...
By: akumie. on 13 Jan 08, 17:08:27
so ur saying some people have the time to replace all the tress that they cut down? dont think so if they cut down this fast

Hi Akumie, have you ...
By: Bushvision. on 13 Jan 08, 14:53:19
Hi Akumie, have you seen the thousands of acres each year that forests get replanted or that regrow after harvesting has occurred. In this video there are aerial shots of pine & blue gumforests all planted in the last 50 years - and the areas are expanding. Your views are completely inaccurate so would you be happy to be shown these areas?

Australia cuts down ...
By: akumie. on 11 Jan 08, 22:59:52
Australia cuts down the most trees/day in the world, in like 100 years Australia will have no tresss and no animals

The younger trees ...
By: Bushvision. on 04 Jan 08, 01:18:03
The younger trees are thinned out after a few years to let the better trees continue growing fast. These thinnings are used to produce pulp or posts. The bigger trees get used for timber flooring and other products.

Why are they ...
By: uni000ver000sal. on 03 Jan 08, 20:49:01
Why are they harvesting what appears baby tress! You want people, try Canada, I heard there are a lot of LumberJAcks willing to travell!

Apocalypse? No! - Why there is no Global Warming Crisis
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 583 seconds

Lord Christopher Monckton was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher & has been following the Global Warming issue with growing concern the facts have not been properly revealed.
This nine minute excerpt of his New DVD gives you some good information to think about

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

Actually, the " ...
By: packrat76. on 03 Oct 08, 08:01:53
Actually, the "conspiracy nuts" as you call them, have explained this. I read years ago, that the hole expands and contracts during the different seasons. I myself, not sure what to believe, but I refuse to get caught up in the hysteria of all of this.

Why don't you stick ...
By: packrat76. on 03 Oct 08, 07:59:11
Why don't you stick to debating the science itself? You know GE has a larger lobbying budget than all the major oil companies in the US?

This guy and many ...
By: controlpopulation. on 03 Oct 08, 01:42:35
This guy and many others was funded by Exxon Oil. Type in his name and exxon on google, you'll his true background and who he really works for.

We want more ozone ...
By: controlpopulation. on 03 Oct 08, 01:20:17
We want more ozone because right now we have a huge hole in it that allows in harmful radiation from space. The conspiracy nuts lose all credability because they can't explain away the ozone hole. They can try to explain away climate change but they can't change the fact there is a huge fricken hole in our ozone that isn't supposed to be there. You'll notice this guy makes no mention of the ozone hole and the carbon emmissions and nuclear explosions that caused it.

The global warming ...
By: packrat76. on 02 Oct 08, 22:19:10
The global warming alarmists never mention how many more people die in cold spells as opposed to heat waves. Bottom line is the whole Kyoto Treaty will do little to reduce CO2 and cost a lot of people a lot of money and do little more than make the common man poorer and a select few richer.

So we want more ...
By: packrat76. on 02 Oct 08, 22:17:41
So we want more ozone or less? I thought we were saving it...now there's too much??

this guys a ...
By: controlpopulation. on 02 Oct 08, 10:27:50
this guys a corporate shrill. When he says "all these numbers are multiplied by 10 and they shouldn't be"... why doesn't he give a reason why they shouldn't be? Where is his proof? What makes his statement anymore accurate than the others? To think that you can have 7.5 billion people on the planet and not have global warming is just plain idiocy. You really need to check his background before you believe anything he says. GW is real, its not a conspiracy sheeple.

packrat, he is ...
By: controlpopulation. on 02 Oct 08, 10:22:20
packrat, he is right. The ozone has increased about 30-40% over the last 25 years and is a HUGE worry to everyone and everything on the planet. Our satellites been monitoring the ozone since the 70's and even more so today.

It's funny ...
By: packrat76. on 21 Sep 08, 13:20:11
It's funny elvistunes mentioned the ozone layer. Remember all the hype about that in the 80's? I was growing up when that was going on. They had us scared to death we'd all die from skin cancer. Isn't ozone a greenhouse gas? Maybe we should reduce it to cool the earth??

The IPPC is a fraud ...
By: MickPsyphon. on 20 Sep 08, 01:35:04
The IPPC is a fraud; and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it was learned that it was directly linked to the Kyoto Accord, which was solely designed to redistribute wealth to Third World Nations. Al Gore should be imprisoned along with the likes of David Suzuki, because they're directly responsible for destroying the lives of many innocent people. No different from yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theatre. I wonder how many people have died under the trample of their lies!?!

The theory of human ...
By: TheTruthHurtsYou. on 17 Sep 08, 13:13:22
The theory of human influance on global climate change has been debunked time and time again, yet liberals are content to act blind deaf and dumb.

The "Farmers ...
By: MikeHawkins. on 15 Sep 08, 05:09:10
The "Farmers Almanac" says human activity may be delaying the next Ice Age that we are over-due for! If we have an Ice Age, everyone north of Texas will have to move south! So if there was a Global Warming its a good thing!!!

I've been telling ...
By: MikeHawkins. on 15 Sep 08, 05:04:36
I've been telling people for years, they believe me now here, I live in West Texas, we've had way too much rain, last week it rained for days, I couldn't leave my home, it was un-real, looking out my windows it looked like my home was in a car wash. I had to break out my space heater for days in September which its usually really hot and sunny. This had nothing to do with the hurricane, it was over Cuba when this happened!!

My personal reasons ...
By: jbperez808. on 10 Aug 08, 00:12:03
My personal reasons for being skeptical about this whole "Global Warming" thing, is that if you remember back in the 50s or 60s, the scientists were all warning us about a possible ice age due to man made causes!!! People have such short memories.

30,000 ...
By: tegalans. on 08 Aug 08, 18:20:53
30,000 professionals 9,000 of which are PH.D's. These people have all signed a petition and are scientist are in fields related to climate. I believe that the media is perpetuating that stereotype by portraying the opposing side as "flat-earthers." Those who believe try to discredit the scientist, but not the science. It's all a media campaign to keep people from making self-informed decisions based on facts. For what end; it's hard to say but the amount of government needed is scary.

One thing that's ...
By: jbperez808. on 04 Aug 08, 04:19:31
One thing that's hurting the global-warming-is-not-antrhopogenic crowd though are the number of quacks, nuts, "evangelists" and assorted right wingers who glom on to their point of view simply because it's "anti-liberal".

that was an awesome ...
By: jbperez808. on 04 Aug 08, 04:17:48
that was an awesome link by lupe 753 in case you haven't clicked it yet... at least as awesome as this debate.

boobies!
By: rpalan1. on 30 Jul 08, 14:05:42
boobies!

Good debate! If I ...
By: perunatic. on 29 Jul 08, 15:10:24
Good debate! If I wasn't drunk I'd dip my toe in the water. Monckton destroyed his opponent in a recent debate on Radio 4. I wish I'd recorded it. I'm a bit uncomfy watching this because of the link featuring a female bottom that's been posted by "lupe 753", though. How many of you clicked on it, be honest now?

"you claim there is ...
By: hayesy316. on 26 Jul 08, 19:02:50
"you claim there is non-objectivity in a scientific result." Where the hell are you getting this shit from? Leave me alone and quit making up crap.

Avtually, hayesy316 ...
By: magnusea. on 26 Jul 08, 11:39:35
Avtually, hayesy316, you claim there is non-objectivity in a scientific result. But this is natural science where results has to have objectivity, and also has to be refuted by objectivity. You say that knowledge about the presence of political interrests in science, which you claim exists, is how to get "facts soberly and rationally". The anti-thesis to your conspiracy creates in natural science objective truth is in between two sides. That's so stupid it's almost unbearable!

2/2 You are wrong ...
By: magnusea. on 26 Jul 08, 11:28:27
2/2 You are wrong about your political agenda conspiracy, and your statement "In between the two extremes lies the cold, hard science" is actually modern relativism/dialectic, and is anti-scientific method. My answer to your accusation is that only science (scientific method) can tell us if there is non-objective bias. Thus the scintific method can't be biased/corrupt.

1/2 hayesy316: " ...
By: magnusea. on 26 Jul 08, 11:27:01
1/2 hayesy316: "You're trying ... Hegelian conclusions" Not at all! Dialectic methodology of today has nothing to do with Hegels philosophy, even if Hegel happens to be the one which first came up with the idea. The presence of discourses depends on- ,and modern methodology includes dialectic.

"You say that truth ...
By: hayesy316. on 26 Jul 08, 00:29:29
"You say that truth is achieved through dialectic method (synthesis)." No, I don't. You're trying to draw literal Hegelian conclusions from a simple analogy. You're also implying that Left and Right are antitheses of each other. In reality, they are merely inconsistent and vague pragmatic shortcuts. If you're unable to admit that knowledge derived from the epistemology of the scientific method is frequently perverted for ideological reasons, then you're the one who's mistaken.

hayesy316. Your ...
By: magnusea. on 26 Jul 08, 00:01:57
hayesy316. Your comment is a common point of view, and a misunderstanding. (Maybe somehow politically correct.) But you're wrong. You say that truth is achieved through dialectic method (synthesis). Nothing can be true if everything is always in between. There are things we have to take as truth in our understanding of the world, which is science achieved through knowledge and scientific method (Popper, Kuhn...). Truth in science has nothing to do with "in between", consensus, or politics.

David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Posted by: Bushvision

Video duration: 523 seconds

David Evans worked for the Aust Greenhouse office as a modeller and established the worlds best method of carbon accounting. He also started to realise CO2 is not the cause of dangerous global warming. Here he explains why.

Display Video Comments | Hide Video Comments | Add Comment

Latest comments made on this video:

**Maybye someone ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 29 Sep 08, 23:05:38
**Maybye someone during the "Changing of the guards" that the Poles of Mars has Ice made from Co2?...lol** pfft... meant someone should have told the kids taking over NASA polar Ice on Mars is made of CO2 not h20

**Breaking news! ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 29 Sep 08, 23:03:01
**Breaking news! Also the cooling extends to the solar system. Snow falling in Mars: nasa. gov/ home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08246_ Phoenix. htm** Mars has always had snow on it's poles and snow fall. Some of the noobs at NASA want to send probes there for signs of life. Maybye someone during the "Changing of the guards" that the Poles of Mars has Ice made from Co2?...lol

Breaking news! Also ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 29 Sep 08, 17:18:48
Breaking news! Also the cooling extends to the solar system. Snow falling in Mars: nasa. gov/ home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08246_Phoenix. html

I should look the ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 29 Sep 08, 16:39:42
I should look the news up (Oct/Nov-07). We are cooling anyway; we're in for a little ice age. Now the alarmists say "we won't have GW for ten years, *but after that it´ll come back*". They can't let go of the bone (they didn't predict this, and they say they'll be right in a century?!) BTW, the "warmmonger" bank (Gore's bank) was Lehmann Bros, couldn't even get their own debacle predicted.

**I'm talking about ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 29 Sep 08, 16:30:56
**I'm talking about the temperatures of Mars and Jupiter, increasing at the same time the Earth avg temp did.** Which layer of the Atmosphere vs Which layer in which planet? Alarmnist like to compare Venuses 2 layer atmosphere of CO2 over SO to Earth's 6 layers with marginal sublayers. So it is 90of degrees on Venus' surface cause volcanic heat is pressure cooked from the upsidedown atmposhere.. Big Deal, Earth's Thermosphere layer reaches 4500F and the alarmnist are complaining about +.75C?

Great work. Real ...
By: soupdragon42. on 28 Sep 08, 06:40:46
Great work. Real science. People need to understand who is sponsoring the global warming scam, and the vast sums of money they are pumping into it. The mainstream media is controlled by a few. We need to deal with real environmental issues like polution and the rainfrests, instead of this elitist taxation scam.

**I have the right ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 27 Sep 08, 03:02:15
**I have the right information and you don't does not cut it. Why is there not a greater cry for full disclosure?** The Blunt Answer? The Media is Liberal, and so are the "Experts" on climate change that used to bew the hippies/tree huggers preaching the same shit in the 70's before they came proffesors and grad students with their PHD's in Physics like Adrew Weber (Co-author of IPPC is PHD in Physics not Climatology). With the internet and GLobal Media their B.S. is a brainwashing storm

**do the naysayers ...
By: TheRealArchAngel. on 27 Sep 08, 02:56:18
**do the naysayers of CO2 induced global warming have even a single alternative hypothesis that can be explained to a lay person like myself?** Meterology 101 The Sun heats the surface of the Earth,both ocean and land which causes water to evaporate and heat to convect into atmopshere. Water vapour % in the Air,measured as "humidity" determines how much suraface heat sticks to any given pocket of air Hot air rises,cool air falls the differece makes wind. This with precipitation makes weather

I think the whole ...
By: christo930. on 22 Sep 08, 22:39:15
I think the whole climate change thing might be cover for peak oil. It's a great way to get the world off of oil without having to publicly admit we be producing less and less oil every year once the peak has past. Many experts believe the peak has past already and that we are on a plateau (which is true so far).Publicly admitting we are running out of oil is economic suicide, but convincing people that oil will kill us and we need to get off it as soon as possible will help ges us off it.

Just to nail Evans ...
By: StunnedByStupidity. on 09 Sep 08, 17:55:51
Just to nail Evans to the floor go here: bravenewclimate(dot)com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans- born-again-alarmist/ replace the (dot) with a .

Rubbish, most of ...
By: pauly31. on 03 Aug 08, 21:26:59
Rubbish, most of the skeptics that I know are qualified scientists. Anyone interested in AGW should note that this theory is based on spurious data, take the "correcting" of data that has been effected by UHI for example.

"We are cooling, ...
By: smoketnt. on 22 Jul 08, 03:44:52
"We are cooling, and it will become obvious soon enough." It already is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to scientific fact since 97'. Not slamming you, I get you're point, just the willfully ignorant.

What about greyflcn ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 16:50:14
What about greyflcn? Having so many URLs labelled as "greyfalcon. net/ ..." George Carlin, after talking about the horrible bastard biblic God, says: "... but He loves you, and HE NEEDS MONEY!!!" The same can be applied to the IPCC. Kyoto protocol pushes natural gas instead of the cheaper carbon, but gas releases MUCH MORE CO2 than carbon, and this will damage the 3rd World. Look up George Hunt UNCED (Google video, or YT)

I'm talking about ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 16:26:46
I'm talking about the temperatures of Mars and Jupiter, increasing at the same time the Earth avg temp did. Now, has that to do with "sand on ice"? The IPCC provides a final report written BY policy makers(most reviewers don't have a say) ,there's hardly any science in it. They promised the scientific report would be due in November'07, then in Feb'08. Zip. Nada. Meanwhile, we're cooling, we'll continue to cool down (as all agencies report) en. rian. ru/ analysis/ 20080103/ 94768732. html

We are cooling, and ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 15:37:24
We are cooling, and it will become obvious soon enough. A Pentagon emergency report points at this fact; then the media will have no excuse for buying all this BS from Al Gore, Rockefeller, Ted Turner and so on. Why don't you go explore the background of "environmentalism". Not to mention the fraudulent Nobel prize awarded to Molina et al. for an effect Dobson had already explained in 1958.

"got lucky" -he ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 15:34:42
"got lucky" -he predicts natural disasters with 80%+ success within 48h, and you call that "getting lucky". All you can give me is computer-model hotch-potch. 31000+ scientists worldwide now rise against GWBS en. rian. ru/ analysis/ 20080103/94768732.html Lyubushin, a computer modeller, says that the models predict WE ARE COOLING. No evidence of warming at all.

Bokov got lucky, ...
By: greyflcn. on 06 Jul 08, 14:08:26
Bokov got lucky, big woop. And then the guy goes and publishes a BOOK rather than something peer reviewed on climate science. Much in the same way you would expect from someone who can't get their absurd arguments past peer review. _____________ So far you got 2 people who haven't published their findings in peer reviewed journals. One who has, and was proven wrong by dramatic events on Mars. And one which hasn't yet passed peer review.

news. ...
By: greyflcn. on 06 Jul 08, 14:04:54
news. nationalgeographic. com / news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. html (Debunked hardly two months later by a mathematical model - No he was debunked by the fact that there was a gigantic sand storms which practically killed the mars rover. And covered the entire planet in red sand. greyfalcon. net/ mars2 greyfalcon. net/ mars - You put sand on ice, and you get melting. Duh. - How much more bluntly obvious does it need to be?

news. ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 13:40:11
news. nationalgeographic. com / news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming. html (Debunked hardly two months later by a mathematical model? David Evans spoke very clearly about this numerical model-based GW fearmongering for us to buy into this.) The sun has currently no spots, and that's a sign of cooling. Besides, unless you have an interest in this I cannot fathom who would push this AGW agenda when CO2 and temperatures DO NOT MATCH. Period.

Jupiter also warmed ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 06 Jul 08, 00:04:53
Jupiter also warmed. Reddish dust as well? Which mathematical models did they use to "explain" that, or rather explain that away? Models can always be adjusted to "confirm" the real data. You mention Balliunas, but at least she works with data. You can't find Bokov on Google -why am I not surprised? Bokov won't make a frontline in TIME or NEWSWEEK, but he does feature in ru. wikipedia. org

Viktor Bokov, AARI
By: jupiterjjrm. on 05 Jul 08, 23:35:24
Viktor Bokov, AARI

I sure hope you ...
By: jupiterjjrm. on 05 Jul 08, 23:35:10
I sure hope you aren't cherry-picking the lousy mathematical models used in the IPCC report finally a few functionaries and dull scientists had a say about in their final version. "Much less PDO" ?!!! J. Scott Armstrong: WE ARE COOLING, NO EVIDENCE OF WARMING. Where was Abdussamatov proven wrong. Viktor Bokov predicts natural disasters better than IPCC fearmongers, why doesn't he appear in the media? The solar cycles have a greater influence than UN leeches would dare to admit

==Last year's NOAA ...
By: greyflcn. on 05 Jul 08, 21:12:49
==Last year's NOAA data also shamefully disproved James Hansen's and Al Gore's alarmist rubbish== What are you going on about there? I sure hope you aren't cherry picking the trendline between 2008 and 1998. Meanwhile conveniently forgetting the ENSO effect that made 1998 hot, and early 2008 (and late 2007) cold. Much less the PDO. Are you saying that because natural forcings exist

Emergency Preparation Videos

Watching: Climate change is co2 the cause pt 4 of 4

Emergency Preparation Related Videos

Emergency Preparation Sponsors