FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Noam Chomsky: How climate change became a liberal hoax

Noam Chomsky: How climate change became a liberal hoax

(21:50) American philosopher and political activist Noam Chomsky: The 2010 elections could be interpreted as a "death knell for the species" because most of the new Republicans in Congress are global warming deniers. "If this was happening in some small country, it wouldn't matter much. But when it's happening in the richest, most powerful country in the world, it's a danger to the survival of the species. From video series Peak Oil and a Changing Climate

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Surrey_Tidal_Wave (1831 days ago)
He is so smart not. He is liar as it is not true.
ReplyVote up (254)down (188)
Original comment
He is so smart not. He is liar as it is not true.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Samsgimp Samsgimp (1831 days ago)
As trolls go, you suck - big time!, yr an unfunny joke ....deliberate spelling mistakes, baiting atheists, moral ambiguity etc etc, booooring!
ReplyVote up (172)down (196)
Original comment
As trolls go, you suck - big time!, yr an unfunny joke ....deliberate spelling mistakes, baiting atheists, moral ambiguity etc etc, booooring!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1831 days ago)
Noal chomsky does not have any qualifications in science. He's specialities are in linguistics and politics (from his biography). he lacks the understanding of mathematics or physics to the level where he can understand climate science therefor all he can do is belive of not belive in it based on his political stance (leftist). his opionion is worthless
ReplyVote up (234)down (192)
Original comment
Noal chomsky does not have any qualifications in science. He's specialities are in linguistics and politics (from his biography). he lacks the understanding of mathematics or physics to the level where he can understand climate science therefor all he can do is belive of not belive in it based on his political stance (leftist). his opionion is worthless
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1831 days ago)
'his opionion is worthless' - as is yours. You could at least get his name right retard.
ReplyVote up (2710)down (197)
Original comment
'his opionion is worthless' - as is yours. You could at least get his name right retard.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1831 days ago)
sorry blurred vision due to recent operation but i do have a degree in physics so i do know what im talking about
ReplyVote up (2688)down (201)
Original comment
sorry blurred vision due to recent operation but i do have a degree in physics so i do know what im talking about
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1831 days ago)
Sure.
ReplyVote up (189)down (191)
Original comment
Sure.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mad (1828 days ago)
Latest comment: Yes, and there the one thing my physics degree tought me is that no matter how beautiful or elegant your theory, how big and expensive your computer, how big and complicated your program, if it doesn't match the real world it is junk. ie its time to go back to blackboard and start again. Am i in denial ? as noam says, or just merely rational.
ReplyVote up (159)down (182)
Original comment
Latest comment: Yes, and there the one thing my physics degree tought me is that no matter how beautiful or elegant your theory, how big and expensive your computer, how big and complicated your program, if it doesn't match the real world it is junk. ie its time to go back to blackboard and start again. Am i in denial ? as noam says, or just merely rational.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: isitme (1831 days ago)
Somehow I doubt that you have spent 21 minutes listening to Chomsky, your attention span won't be that long especially when it's adults talking. Back to your colouring book and remember to try and keep the crayon inside the black line
ReplyVote up (155)down (195)
Original comment
Somehow I doubt that you have spent 21 minutes listening to Chomsky, your attention span won't be that long especially when it's adults talking. Back to your colouring book and remember to try and keep the crayon inside the black line
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jimbo Chester (1831 days ago)
If I was a Climate Scientist I would be wanting to justify my particular field of science by promoting the great con based on fear as much as I could. None of them refer to the effects of volcano's and the fact that despite their enormous 'pollution' the planet adjusts and survives.
ReplyVote up (195)down (195)
Original comment
If I was a Climate Scientist I would be wanting to justify my particular field of science by promoting the great con based on fear as much as I could. None of them refer to the effects of volcano's and the fact that despite their enormous 'pollution' the planet adjusts and survives.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1830 days ago)
the PLANET survives, but do WE?
ReplyVote up (198)down (185)
Original comment
the PLANET survives, but do WE?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1830 days ago)
I believe Jimbo meant that volcanoes are events that cause more global warming than humans ever have. There are charts that clearly outline the past eruptions and the subsequent climate changes. So in other words, regardless if humans survive or not, the world will probably continue to get warmer because of the natural progression of the planet's climate independent of what humans have done. Then, just like regular cycles, we will go into additional ice ages. Most of us will be doomed when Lake Toba or the Yellowstone caldera blows up (the last three occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago). So, if you look at the history, we are due for another explosion any year now (800,000 years between first and second, 660,000 years between second and third, and already 640,000 years past since the last one). We should all be worried.
ReplyVote up (174)down (176)
Original comment
I believe Jimbo meant that volcanoes are events that cause more global warming than humans ever have. There are charts that clearly outline the past eruptions and the subsequent climate changes. So in other words, regardless if humans survive or not, the world will probably continue to get warmer because of the natural progression of the planet's climate independent of what humans have done. Then, just like regular cycles, we will go into additional ice ages. Most of us will be doomed when Lake Toba or the Yellowstone caldera blows up (the last three occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago). So, if you look at the history, we are due for another explosion any year now (800,000 years between first and second, 660,000 years between second and third, and already 640,000 years past since the last one). We should all be worried.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1830 days ago)
Interestingly, when Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted in 2010, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere for that period actually reduced because of the grounding of European flights ie. European flights produced more CO2 than the volcano. The problem with human produced CO2 is that it is relentless. Eyjafjallajokull stopped erupting after a week or so. European flights continue every day, every week, every year.
ReplyVote up (198)down (206)
Original comment
Interestingly, when Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano erupted in 2010, CO2 emissions into the atmosphere for that period actually reduced because of the grounding of European flights ie. European flights produced more CO2 than the volcano. The problem with human produced CO2 is that it is relentless. Eyjafjallajokull stopped erupting after a week or so. European flights continue every day, every week, every year.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1830 days ago)
And about Yellowstone blowing its top, on the timescales we are talking about, 'any year now' could mean 2014, or in 10,000 years time.
ReplyVote up (221)down (174)
Original comment
And about Yellowstone blowing its top, on the timescales we are talking about, 'any year now' could mean 2014, or in 10,000 years time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1830 days ago)
That's true but then when is the exact date that global warming will kill all humans on earth? At least we have a good estimate about the volcanoes. Yellowstone was just one example and there are others like Lake Toba which erupted 69-77,000 years ago. It is estimated to have been a VEI 8 eruption. It is the largest known explosive eruption anywhere on Earth in the last 25 million years. Large earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity in 1987 and then in 1892, 1916, and 1920–1922.
ReplyVote up (169)down (208)
Original comment
That's true but then when is the exact date that global warming will kill all humans on earth? At least we have a good estimate about the volcanoes. Yellowstone was just one example and there are others like Lake Toba which erupted 69-77,000 years ago. It is estimated to have been a VEI 8 eruption. It is the largest known explosive eruption anywhere on Earth in the last 25 million years. Large earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity in 1987 and then in 1892, 1916, and 1920–1922.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1829 days ago)
isn't it more to cancel all possibillities you can? Up to now, there is no way to stop a volcano from erupting, but it is possible not to use a car for a less-then-a-mile trip or just not use a hummer or something like that. You just have to now, what you can do...
ReplyVote up (189)down (196)
Original comment
isn't it more to cancel all possibillities you can? Up to now, there is no way to stop a volcano from erupting, but it is possible not to use a car for a less-then-a-mile trip or just not use a hummer or something like that. You just have to now, what you can do...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1830 days ago)
My point is that volcanoes produce more of those "greenhouse gases" than us humans do. Even the government agrees: LINK It states just one volcano, a medium to small one, in Kilauea, Hawaii discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. Can someone find a reference to how much our cars produce each year?
ReplyVote up (181)down (190)
Original comment
My point is that volcanoes produce more of those "greenhouse gases" than us humans do. Even the government agrees: LINK It states just one volcano, a medium to small one, in Kilauea, Hawaii discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. Can someone find a reference to how much our cars produce each year?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1830 days ago)
Actually, volcanoes don't produce more CO2 than humans. If you scrolled a bit further down the very page you provided the link for, it says: "…while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value." This also tallies with this New Scientist report. LINK Erupting super volcanoes though are probably a different kettle of fish.
ReplyVote up (198)down (185)
Original comment
Actually, volcanoes don't produce more CO2 than humans. If you scrolled a bit further down the very page you provided the link for, it says: "…while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value." This also tallies with this New Scientist report. LINK Erupting super volcanoes though are probably a different kettle of fish.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1830 days ago)
Thanks but I didn't understand that number to be of human production of CO2 (it says just the global fossil fuel emission) but I did find another government source. LINK In 2007, it seems to have been 8 billion metric tons of carbon but some of that is solid and some liquid carbon. This government site does not claim it to be CO2 specifically but total carbon. Liquid and solid fuels accounted for 76.3%. And here are some nice graphs here. LINK So with a little math, this leaves 1.9 billion metric tonnes of the gas version of carbon (assuming that's the CO2). The number you stated from 2003 of 26.8 billion seems a bit high considering the CUMULATIVE global fossil fuel CO2 emission since 1751 is 337 billion so that would mean in 2003 it was 8% of all CO2 emission since 1751? Possible but still seems high if it's supposedly increasing every year.
ReplyVote up (186)down (181)
Original comment
Thanks but I didn't understand that number to be of human production of CO2 (it says just the global fossil fuel emission) but I did find another government source. LINK In 2007, it seems to have been 8 billion metric tons of carbon but some of that is solid and some liquid carbon. This government site does not claim it to be CO2 specifically but total carbon. Liquid and solid fuels accounted for 76.3%. And here are some nice graphs here. LINK So with a little math, this leaves 1.9 billion metric tonnes of the gas version of carbon (assuming that's the CO2). The number you stated from 2003 of 26.8 billion seems a bit high considering the CUMULATIVE global fossil fuel CO2 emission since 1751 is 337 billion so that would mean in 2003 it was 8% of all CO2 emission since 1751? Possible but still seems high if it's supposedly increasing every year.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (1828 days ago)
"Thanks but I didn't understand that number to be of human production of CO2 (it says just the global fossil fuel emission)". do you know what a fossil fuel is? where does it's energy come from? well it comes from oxidising the carbon from ancient plants and animals. and when you oxidise carbon you get......co2. why are you posting this stuff when you dont understand it? why not just trust the guys that really understand this rather than the websites you get these links from?
ReplyVote up (178)down (185)
Original comment
"Thanks but I didn't understand that number to be of human production of CO2 (it says just the global fossil fuel emission)". do you know what a fossil fuel is? where does it's energy come from? well it comes from oxidising the carbon from ancient plants and animals. and when you oxidise carbon you get......co2. why are you posting this stuff when you dont understand it? why not just trust the guys that really understand this rather than the websites you get these links from?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1830 days ago)
Human activity actually contributes a very small amount of CO2 compared to the whole, only about 3.6%. The problem is that it's changing the balance. It's like a seesaw with 2 heavy objects of equal weight on each side. Add a tiny weight to one side and it may not tip. Keep on adding tiny weights, every hour, every day, every week, every year, and it won't take long before it starts tipping. Indeed it already has.
ReplyVote up (164)down (189)
Original comment
Human activity actually contributes a very small amount of CO2 compared to the whole, only about 3.6%. The problem is that it's changing the balance. It's like a seesaw with 2 heavy objects of equal weight on each side. Add a tiny weight to one side and it may not tip. Keep on adding tiny weights, every hour, every day, every week, every year, and it won't take long before it starts tipping. Indeed it already has.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1830 days ago)
That is why simply cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions is not enough. The imbalance remains even if we cut our emissions to zero.
ReplyVote up (203)down (164)
Original comment
That is why simply cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions is not enough. The imbalance remains even if we cut our emissions to zero.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1830 days ago)
I also know that CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. There is a gas that is even greater and that is H2O (water vapor). CO2 is the second most abundant followed by methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Water vapor contributes 36 – 72% to the greenhouse effect while CO2 only contributes 9 – 26%.
ReplyVote up (164)down (173)
Original comment
I also know that CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. There is a gas that is even greater and that is H2O (water vapor). CO2 is the second most abundant followed by methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Water vapor contributes 36 – 72% to the greenhouse effect while CO2 only contributes 9 – 26%.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Elon Musk unveils Tesla Semi dream truck
Elon Musk unveils Tesla Semi dream truck
Who's doing business with North Korea?
Who's doing business with North Korea?
Elon Musk presents the new Tesla Roadster 2020
Elon Musk presents the new Tesla Roadster 2020
Business leaders react to Trump's 'Art of the Deal'
Business leaders react to Trump's 'Art of the Deal'
How restaurants use psychology to make you spend more
How restaurants use psychology to make you spend more