*eco

Adding video to channels (Eco) - requested by calvados.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Climate, Fraud, Scientific Method, fail' to 'Climate, Fraud, Scientific Method, Fail, Gods Tears' - edited by calvados

Well - what do you know - even Jon Stewart occasionally swerves into accuracy. Nice to see he isn't trying to just ignore it like Obama's administration, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the AP, and every other major media outlet. One wonders what the media reaction would be if the hacker had stolen files from Exxon about how they used 'tricks' to 'hide' temperature increases...

Still I can't help but shake my head. "Does this mean warming doesn't exist? Of course not!" Uh - yeah it kind of does... When the lead climate lab used by the IPCC admits it has thrown away primary data, deliberately hidden data that contradicts their claims, and engaged in a practice of censoring opposing science then it pretty much dismisses the concept of there being 'consensus' on the so-called 'science' of AGW.

Hoax: 0 Truth: 1 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! MSM fools: Quick! More Tiger coverage!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - what do you know - even Jon Stewart occasionally swerves into accuracy. Nice to see he isn't trying to just ignore it like Obama's administration, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, the AP, and every other major media outlet. One wonders what the media reaction would be if the hacker had stolen files from Exxon about how they used 'tricks' to 'hide' temperature increases...
Still I can't help but shake my head. "Does this mean warming doesn't exist? Of course not!" Uh - yeah it kind of does... When the lead climate lab used by the IPCC admits it has thrown away primary data, deliberately hidden data that contradicts their claims, and engaged in a practice of censoring opposing science then it pretty much dismisses the concept of there being 'consensus' on the so-called 'science' of AGW.


Let's assume that these out of context emails did discredit all of the work from this lab (although, they don't), that does not mean that global warming doesn't exist. You have a significant misunderstanding of science. If a scientist's work is completely fraudulent, then the work is uninformative. It doesn't prove the opposite of what he was trying to show.

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

As a scientist, I do wince when I hear about some of the stuff from this lab. Not either of these emails -- those were just fine (the "trick" was nothing nefarious, nothing was "hidden"). But the fact that they're hiding the raw data and the fact that they're making personal attacks on other scientists and skeptics is pathetic.

Recently sifted video about those emails

Nobody reasonable doubts that global warming is happening. There are multiple independent data sources showing global warming. Temperature records, either on the ground or from space. Ice and glacier records, etc...

If you rephrase to say "no reasonable person doubts that Earth's climate has cycles" then I agree. But if you mean "no reasonable person doubts Anthropogenic Global Warming as defined by Al Gore, the IPCC, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and the "Green" movement and their bought & paid for scientists" then I strongly disagree.

Temperatures change, sure. I have seen no credible evidence to date that proves human activity has (A) caused it (B) could possibly prevent it or (C) can do jack-squat to 'fix' things. I don't mind sensible resource management. But the AGW movement is not about pollution so much as it is about wealth redistribution. No thanks. The next energy revolution will happen on its own without a multi-trillion dollar tax scheme.

Who benefits from a continued disbelief in anthropogenic climate change?

- Corporations benefiting from society's century old petroleum and coal based addiction. See - Top Corporations.
- People who would rather not feel guilty, and rather not make a small effort to conserve for the future.

Who benefits from a shift to low carbon emitting energy sources?

- my children.

Who benefits from a continued disbelief in anthropogenic climate change?

It would be more accurate to say, "Who benefits from the usage of inexpensive, efficient fuel?" The answer - of course - is everybody. Fossil fuels are the most efficient fuels we have right now. If 'low carbon' alternatives were feasible then it would be worth pursuing them. But at this point in time there is no other energy that can possibly replace fossil fuels. Except one. Nuclear.

For transportation there is no substitute. Electric cars are LESS efficient energy-wise than fossil fuel (FF) cars. It takes more fossil fuels to generate the electricity to charge up a battery than compared to just using gasoline. The only 'benefit' (if you can call it that) is that your pollution is coming out a smokestack instead of your tailpipe. It is a cheat - a ruse - a choice for ignorant suckers. The only way electric cars can reduce pollution is if they use a clean electrical source to charge.

So - can we swap over to 'clean' electical plants? Heck no. Solar doesn't operate at peak hours, and requires massive infrastructures to support - not to mention it needs 75% operating capacity in redundant FOSSIL fuel generation to deal with demand anyway. Same with wind. The only way to make it work is to replace all our coal plants with nuclear ones. Why aren't we talking about that? Because the 'green' movement doesn't like nuclear either.

You can't wish on a star and make green energy feasible. The hard reality is that the technology just isn't there yet, and that the green movement itself is standing in the way of the ONLY viable energy we have (clean coal & nuclear). Even the most promising 'alternative' energy options are still well over 30 years away from any sort of commercial, large scale viability that has any hope of even coming close to fossil fuels. That's just reality.

Now - are you (and your children) ready to pay 2,500+ a month for your electric bill? That's what it is going to cost you to use 'green' energy instead of coal. All so you can - what? Feel better about yourself? The planet isn't being destroyed except in the minds of the Flavor-aid drinkers.

Your arguments are invalid and you occupy your time reading propaganda. Fossils fuels only outshine renewable energies because they are highly subsidized. Do you even know what the oilsands are? No, of course you don't, but its where your GD gasoline comes from, and its only affordable because Albertans subsidize it with their tax dollars, and watch as their northern Boreal forests are leveled.

Furthermore, despite the fact that I have never heard of Flavor-Aid, it sounds delicious and If I had access to it I would drink some right now, because apparently the flavour-aid drinkers are the only ones who give a shit about anyone other than themselves. Realize the truth, the consumption of fossil fuels is an ego-centric individualistically self satisfying activity that necessitates a blatant disregard for the other, and future, human beings who have just as much of a right as you do to dwell on this planet and enjoy its natural bounty.

Your arguments are invalid and you occupy your time reading propaganda. Fossils fuels only outshine renewable energies because they are highly subsidized

No - they do it by generating more energy per unit than any other form of energy except nuclear. It'st not propoganda. That's just basic science. Something the AGW crowd has forgotton about if climategate is any indicator...

Realize the truth, the consumption of fossil fuels is an ego-centric individualistically self satisfying activity that necessitates a blatant disregard for the other, and future

No - it is a necessary step in human technological evolution. At some point we will move beyond them - naturally - and without artificially forcing the timeline. Greenies are wanting to move off of fossil fuels about 30 to 50 years before it makes any sense and at a point in time when there are no viable alternatives. That's just stupid. Be patient. The planet will be just fine. When science actually catches up then we'll move from fossil fuels to something else. But trying to do it 'just because you want to' is bad policy and stupid economics.

O-I-L-S-A-N-D-S.