Congratulations! Your video, Nikolas Plytas 2021 H2O, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 265 Badge!

Your video, Nikolas Plytas 2021 H2O, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Let's not forget to mention how incredibly diluted consumer-grade Hydrogen Peroxide is...~2-3%, so your image of dousing your open flesh to this caustic substance is missing how much is simultaneously being flushed out with common (but effective) H2O before you hit the tap.

To be fair I can't test the hypothesis that contrails are H2O either.

And then for headaches = wifi etc I think some people don't understand why their experience isn't sufficient evidence, or rather what constitutes an experiment.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Very, Smart, Bird, thirsty, crow, comes, humans, for, help, SOS, h2o, bottle, drink, lid, need' to 'bird, thirsty, crow, emergency, bottle, drink, lid, dutch, croatian, croatia' - edited by Eklek

His idea is still a good one, making ultra pure ice cubes (or spheres) for perfect cocktails. You wouldn't be drinking enough pure water to worry about, and it would mix with the alcohol before you drink it anyway, so it would not be pure H2O anymore. The lack of taste and impurities would allow it to cool and dilute your drink without changing it's taste, exactly what you want in a cocktail ice cube. Even better that, if used without alcohol (or something impure), they're technically poison! Call them 'death cubes' or 'virgin ice' and you'll have trouble keeping up with demand!
Oh....wait....isn't that already a product?

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

Lovely to watch again. for the multiple time. So great.

Makes me want to forage for quality pop/soda and drink it and savor it as a quality home crafted beer.

The fuck I can get quality Soda though. or Beer. I can distill water from the air though, MmmMmMMM fresh H2O.

I think that's H2O you are being filled with...

OK, so Why?

Why won't it enter the sponge? why won't the liquid enter the negative spaces in the sponge?

I do know there are some materials that don't absorb water - I have some dish towels (bought at the dollar store) that won't absorb water, absolutely useless. But I think that's different as I doubt they would absorb anything.

So why not Mercury? it's definitely more dense than water. Are the molecules larger than the H2O Molecule? I don't think it is, and even if it was, surly they are not larger than the holes in the sponge.

I'd like to see this tried with different types of sponges.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Oh, and no harmful emissions I'm guessing unless you count h2o as a harmful emission.

Definitely Y2K. It was crazy seeing people making money off the subject. For instance, some rocket scientist was selling Y2K H2O.