FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Koch Brothers' amazing climate change denial machine

Koch Brothers' amazing climate change denial machine

(3:35) How billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch undermine belief in climate change to prevent legislation that would threaten their profits.

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: little old lady (1405 days ago)
i hate shale gas propagandist pieces of poop! they are very naughty naughty, and deserve a hefty spanking for being so naughty! they are all poop heads! especially originalmad... the biggest naughty poop head manipulative lady hole! eat my knickers originalmad!
ReplyVote up (284)down (249)
Original comment
i hate shale gas propagandist pieces of poop! they are very naughty naughty, and deserve a hefty spanking for being so naughty! they are all poop heads! especially originalmad... the biggest naughty poop head manipulative lady hole! eat my knickers originalmad!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: little old man (1405 days ago)
yes dear, i hate shale gas propagandist poopy heads too, but they have to make a living somehow and if it's being a poopy head shale gas propagandist then so be it. Their kids have to eat too my sugar plum. Let them be naughty poopy heads shale gas propagandists if they want to.
ReplyVote up (221)down (232)
Original comment
yes dear, i hate shale gas propagandist poopy heads too, but they have to make a living somehow and if it's being a poopy head shale gas propagandist then so be it. Their kids have to eat too my sugar plum. Let them be naughty poopy heads shale gas propagandists if they want to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1404 days ago)
What a sweet couple. Please let me help you across this motorway
ReplyVote up (210)down (207)
Original comment
What a sweet couple. Please let me help you across this motorway
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 5 y.o. grandson (1404 days ago)
you're naughty poopy head.
ReplyVote up (187)down (214)
Original comment
you're naughty poopy head.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: non-Gullible Denier (1406 days ago)
Please remind me how much the globe has warmed these past 17 years. Remind me how many computer programmes two decades ago; and, one decade ago, predicted this zero change.
ReplyVote up (241)down (224)
Original comment
Please remind me how much the globe has warmed these past 17 years. Remind me how many computer programmes two decades ago; and, one decade ago, predicted this zero change.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: 9_876543210 (1406 days ago)
Why so much effort to battle the non-existent?
ReplyVote up (225)down (218)
Original comment
Why so much effort to battle the non-existent?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1406 days ago)
Isn't the koch brothers own exxon mobil who do business with tetra tech who totally pay science denialist dana nuccitelli's wages
ReplyVote up (222)down (204)
Original comment
Isn't the koch brothers own exxon mobil who do business with tetra tech who totally pay science denialist dana nuccitelli's wages
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1406 days ago)
Who is more likely to be lying? 97% of climate scientists all around the world, or the fossil-fuel industry?
ReplyVote up (211)down (220)
Original comment
Who is more likely to be lying? 97% of climate scientists all around the world, or the fossil-fuel industry?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1406 days ago)
You may want to look at this LINK Walter, particularly scroll down and look at some of the emails from the climate gate fiasco. If you want to talk about who to believe, who can you believe, conspiracies etc. I'd say a lot of your proof is right there. And if you're suggesting a profit motive just look at, not only the billions in funding, but also the prestige that comes with the territory, perhaps even a Nobel prize?
ReplyVote up (257)down (246)
Original comment
You may want to look at this LINK Walter, particularly scroll down and look at some of the emails from the climate gate fiasco. If you want to talk about who to believe, who can you believe, conspiracies etc. I'd say a lot of your proof is right there. And if you're suggesting a profit motive just look at, not only the billions in funding, but also the prestige that comes with the territory, perhaps even a Nobel prize?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1406 days ago)
Yes, scientists can be vain, may want prestige, influence and a good life. Surprise! But they did not get into science because of that, bu rather because of a genuine interest to describe the world better. And guess what, they are generally doing areally god job at that. Now compare that to the primary motives of businesses and oil companies and the people who own them or work for them. In short: When it comes to trust on the validity of a statement, I'll take the scientist, and not the manager or business representative.
ReplyVote up (263)down (207)
Original comment
Yes, scientists can be vain, may want prestige, influence and a good life. Surprise! But they did not get into science because of that, bu rather because of a genuine interest to describe the world better. And guess what, they are generally doing areally god job at that. Now compare that to the primary motives of businesses and oil companies and the people who own them or work for them. In short: When it comes to trust on the validity of a statement, I'll take the scientist, and not the manager or business representative.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1406 days ago)
the sense of power and prestige that comes with having government ministers listening to you can be seductive, not to mention the financial reward obtained. History is replete with examples of goverment advisors spinning more and more fanciful stories in order to keep their exhalted position
ReplyVote up (240)down (220)
Original comment
the sense of power and prestige that comes with having government ministers listening to you can be seductive, not to mention the financial reward obtained. History is replete with examples of goverment advisors spinning more and more fanciful stories in order to keep their exhalted position
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1406 days ago)
That's the same link you gave before where the first quote from Maurice Strong was taken completely out of context. So I checked another at random under the section you suggested I should read - with exactly the same result - a quote taken completely out of context. Kevin Trenberth, one of the IPCC's top bods, said on Nature.com in 2007: "None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state." LINK If you actually read the article, you'd understand what he was talking about. Just substitute "observed state" with "weather today". This YT video from 2013 is Kevin Trenberth on the complexities of figuring out what happens to the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases humans emit. I think it's a great explanation that is deep enough to show the complexities involved, but still understandable to non-experts. LINK Conspiracies lie within the 3%, not the 97%.
ReplyVote up (281)down (251)
Original comment
That's the same link you gave before where the first quote from Maurice Strong was taken completely out of context. So I checked another at random under the section you suggested I should read - with exactly the same result - a quote taken completely out of context. Kevin Trenberth, one of the IPCC's top bods, said on Nature.com in 2007: "None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state." LINK If you actually read the article, you'd understand what he was talking about. Just substitute "observed state" with "weather today". This YT video from 2013 is Kevin Trenberth on the complexities of figuring out what happens to the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases humans emit. I think it's a great explanation that is deep enough to show the complexities involved, but still understandable to non-experts. LINK Conspiracies lie within the 3%, not the 97%.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1406 days ago)
So you looked at two examples and assumed the rest are bogus, but there were other quotes in there that clearly show there was a conspiracy to keep valid papers that questioned global warming out and that there was an agenda other than proving global warming.there is clear intent of those in charge to affect a determined outcome.there is also clear evidence that some scientists within the IPPC were sceptical about the actual science and conclusions, I notice you didn't address that. Also an interesting article on why the majority are more likely to be wrong on research and that the more studies involved, the larger the area covered, the more complex the research, the more data you have, the finer the results, for eg. a 0.1-0.2 degrees difference, and of course the big one when money and politics are involved , then the more likely the result will be wrong. The IPPC falls into this category in spades.
ReplyVote up (220)down (244)
Original comment
So you looked at two examples and assumed the rest are bogus, but there were other quotes in there that clearly show there was a conspiracy to keep valid papers that questioned global warming out and that there was an agenda other than proving global warming.there is clear intent of those in charge to affect a determined outcome.there is also clear evidence that some scientists within the IPPC were sceptical about the actual science and conclusions, I notice you didn't address that. Also an interesting article on why the majority are more likely to be wrong on research and that the more studies involved, the larger the area covered, the more complex the research, the more data you have, the finer the results, for eg. a 0.1-0.2 degrees difference, and of course the big one when money and politics are involved , then the more likely the result will be wrong. The IPPC falls into this category in spades.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1406 days ago)
I looked at only 2 quotes and BOTH were intentionally taken out of context. The website you are so fond of (cfact.org), which stands for 'Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow', yeah right - received over $4 million from Donors Trust between 2002 and 2011. Donors Trust fund climate denial groups even more than Koch Foundations and ExxonMobile put together. LINK You need a more reliable source that doesn't so obviously make stuff up.
ReplyVote up (284)down (248)
Original comment
I looked at only 2 quotes and BOTH were intentionally taken out of context. The website you are so fond of (cfact.org), which stands for 'Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow', yeah right - received over $4 million from Donors Trust between 2002 and 2011. Donors Trust fund climate denial groups even more than Koch Foundations and ExxonMobile put together. LINK You need a more reliable source that doesn't so obviously make stuff up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1405 days ago)
So compare $4million to the billions being pumped into the climate change camp, who do you think has a bigger insentive? As for the 97% check this out for the real numbers LINK scroll down the comments section for the methodology. Basically 66% hold no position on AGW but were included in the consensus! The results of the 12000 reviewed papers.. explicit endorse, >50%: 65 explicit endorse: 934 implicit endorse: 2934 no position: 8269 implicit reject: 53 explicit reject: 15 explicit reject, <50%: 10
ReplyVote up (220)down (246)
Original comment
So compare $4million to the billions being pumped into the climate change camp, who do you think has a bigger insentive? As for the 97% check this out for the real numbers LINK scroll down the comments section for the methodology. Basically 66% hold no position on AGW but were included in the consensus! The results of the 12000 reviewed papers.. explicit endorse, >50%: 65 explicit endorse: 934 implicit endorse: 2934 no position: 8269 implicit reject: 53 explicit reject: 15 explicit reject, <50%: 10
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1405 days ago)
When Larry Bell (author of cfact.org) intentionally takes a quote out of context, it means he knows he is wrong and resorts to lying. I checked 2 quotes and both were taken out of context. The billions spent ($1 - 2.4 billion each year) is on research to understand how our climate works, and it includes some of NASA's rather expensive hardware. If scientists were in it for the money, they'd target medical research (NIH budget is about $31 billion a year). LINK Also, you don't win any prizes in science for following the consensus. If I can discredit Brandon Shollenberger's page on the consensus (the link you provided), will you then accept that the conspiracies are within the 3%?
ReplyVote up (224)down (224)
Original comment
When Larry Bell (author of cfact.org) intentionally takes a quote out of context, it means he knows he is wrong and resorts to lying. I checked 2 quotes and both were taken out of context. The billions spent ($1 - 2.4 billion each year) is on research to understand how our climate works, and it includes some of NASA's rather expensive hardware. If scientists were in it for the money, they'd target medical research (NIH budget is about $31 billion a year). LINK Also, you don't win any prizes in science for following the consensus. If I can discredit Brandon Shollenberger's page on the consensus (the link you provided), will you then accept that the conspiracies are within the 3%?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1404 days ago)
I notice you still ignore the blatant examples given, particularly in the climate gate emails, among others, that show a distinct bias and agenda, conspiracy, towards climate science in the IPCC. As for scientists targeting medical research, just how do you think a climate scientist might do that? If I can show you that Shollengers number that of the 12000 or so papers 8000 did not attribute a cause to climate change would you agree the 97% consensus is false? Go for it.
ReplyVote up (224)down (213)
Original comment
I notice you still ignore the blatant examples given, particularly in the climate gate emails, among others, that show a distinct bias and agenda, conspiracy, towards climate science in the IPCC. As for scientists targeting medical research, just how do you think a climate scientist might do that? If I can show you that Shollengers number that of the 12000 or so papers 8000 did not attribute a cause to climate change would you agree the 97% consensus is false? Go for it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
OK, so let's look at Brandon Shollenberger's attempt ( LINK ) to discredit John Cook's 97% survey. First, you need to read and digest details of the survey. LINK So Shollenberger says: "The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions: that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change…". And from that, he searched that phrase and came up with 65 results out of 12,000. Problem is, that is not how the abstracts were rated. They were rated by real people - who those people were and what they were rating is all explained in the details of the survey.
ReplyVote up (257)down (192)
Original comment
OK, so let's look at Brandon Shollenberger's attempt ( LINK ) to discredit John Cook's 97% survey. First, you need to read and digest details of the survey. LINK So Shollenberger says: "The only time an abstract is rated as saying how much humans contribute to global warming is if it mentions: that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change…". And from that, he searched that phrase and came up with 65 results out of 12,000. Problem is, that is not how the abstracts were rated. They were rated by real people - who those people were and what they were rating is all explained in the details of the survey.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
Sorry, forgot links - Brandon Shollenberger's page: LINK John Cook's survey details: LINK
ReplyVote up (244)down (234)
Original comment
Sorry, forgot links - Brandon Shollenberger's page: LINK John Cook's survey details: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1403 days ago)
lets not, look i will list the many logical failures in your argument later, but for now, why dont you look at casey's link to the blackboard and note the comments by steve mosher. steve mosher is definitely not a "denier" (whatever that means) and even he says "cooks trick is this". This is because even he reconizes that the survey is a trick to fool idiots like walterego. so for goodness sake please give it a rest, the survey is junk, the 97% figure is just for idiots to believe in.
ReplyVote up (198)down (253)
Original comment
lets not, look i will list the many logical failures in your argument later, but for now, why dont you look at casey's link to the blackboard and note the comments by steve mosher. steve mosher is definitely not a "denier" (whatever that means) and even he says "cooks trick is this". This is because even he reconizes that the survey is a trick to fool idiots like walterego. so for goodness sake please give it a rest, the survey is junk, the 97% figure is just for idiots to believe in.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
Steven Mosher claims that the climate papers in the survey are only referring to CO2 causing warming, and nothing to do with humans. This is your killer point? Did you even read about the survey? Let me quote from John Cook: "We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence)." Notice the use of the word "human"… twice!
ReplyVote up (239)down (225)
Original comment
Steven Mosher claims that the climate papers in the survey are only referring to CO2 causing warming, and nothing to do with humans. This is your killer point? Did you even read about the survey? Let me quote from John Cook: "We agreed upon definitions of possible categories: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no position, and implicit or explicit rejection (or minimization of the human influence)." Notice the use of the word "human"… twice!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1403 days ago)
the survey's conclusions uses a non-sequiter argument. it assumes that a paper admitting co2 may cause some warming means the paper endorses cagw, quite clearly a false conclusion. The survey is obviously junk.
ReplyVote up (226)down (230)
Original comment
the survey's conclusions uses a non-sequiter argument. it assumes that a paper admitting co2 may cause some warming means the paper endorses cagw, quite clearly a false conclusion. The survey is obviously junk.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
Really? Here's another quote from John Cook: "We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'." Please read about the survey before spouting more nonsense.
ReplyVote up (247)down (215)
Original comment
Really? Here's another quote from John Cook: "We took a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included (either implicit or explicit) language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no position'." Please read about the survey before spouting more nonsense.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1403 days ago)
It doesn't matter what john cook thinks, the conclusion given does not follow from the survey, and it is obvious to any intelligent person. I'm sorry walter the survey is junk
ReplyVote up (221)down (234)
Original comment
It doesn't matter what john cook thinks, the conclusion given does not follow from the survey, and it is obvious to any intelligent person. I'm sorry walter the survey is junk
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
John Cook is not saying what he thinks, he is describing the process of the survey. Have you even read it?
ReplyVote up (251)down (187)
Original comment
John Cook is not saying what he thinks, he is describing the process of the survey. Have you even read it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1403 days ago)
yes and i also enjoyed Dr richard tol's analysis of the survey. Prof richard tol in case your dont know is a highly respected academic, he thought the survey "A silly idea poorly implemented" and that was one of the politer comments
ReplyVote up (227)down (230)
Original comment
yes and i also enjoyed Dr richard tol's analysis of the survey. Prof richard tol in case your dont know is a highly respected academic, he thought the survey "A silly idea poorly implemented" and that was one of the politer comments
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1403 days ago)
If you've read it, then you'll understand why Steven Mosher is wrong when he claims that when scientists say AGW, they actually mean GW.
ReplyVote up (235)down (210)
Original comment
If you've read it, then you'll understand why Steven Mosher is wrong when he claims that when scientists say AGW, they actually mean GW.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1402 days ago)
no mosher is absolutely right (he is a statistician by trade) You must remember both Dr richard tol and Steve mosher have vastly superior skills in analysing data and surveys than john cook and dana nuccitelli (who basically are shooting sparks out of their arse) which is why you must defer to their opinion. The whole survey was designed around a pre-written conclusion as a sort of pr trick, and both mosher and tol called it as such. I know in the past you have admitted your very limited skills in science and maths in the past, Could you please accept my vastly superior judgement in being able to reconize whose expertise is greater, and go with mosher and tol. The survey is still junk.
ReplyVote up (210)down (250)
Original comment
no mosher is absolutely right (he is a statistician by trade) You must remember both Dr richard tol and Steve mosher have vastly superior skills in analysing data and surveys than john cook and dana nuccitelli (who basically are shooting sparks out of their arse) which is why you must defer to their opinion. The whole survey was designed around a pre-written conclusion as a sort of pr trick, and both mosher and tol called it as such. I know in the past you have admitted your very limited skills in science and maths in the past, Could you please accept my vastly superior judgement in being able to reconize whose expertise is greater, and go with mosher and tol. The survey is still junk.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1403 days ago)
you're a CU*T with no respectable, reliable, pertinent sources! you're a shale gas propagandist manipulative twat, who calls civilized people IDIOTS for not eating your SHEIT, and that's where i come in, you sheit eating shale gas propagandist FU*K! you want insults, I'll give you insults, you wanker! yer mum can swallow a whole orange ! fok off!
ReplyVote up (242)down (235)
Original comment
you're a CU*T with no respectable, reliable, pertinent sources! you're a shale gas propagandist manipulative twat, who calls civilized people IDIOTS for not eating your SHEIT, and that's where i come in, you sheit eating shale gas propagandist FU*K! you want insults, I'll give you insults, you wanker! yer mum can swallow a whole orange ! fok off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1404 days ago)
walter 100% of philosophers who have studied the logical fallacies know you are wrong.
ReplyVote up (235)down (236)
Original comment
walter 100% of philosophers who have studied the logical fallacies know you are wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1404 days ago)
i can list them if you want
ReplyVote up (226)down (211)
Original comment
i can list them if you want
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1404 days ago)
Please do.
ReplyVote up (231)down (219)
Original comment
Please do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: I warned ya (1390 days ago)
Latest comment: Those rich fukers need to die from painful cancer now.
ReplyVote up (214)down (205)
Original comment
Latest comment: Those rich fukers need to die from painful cancer now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1406 days ago)
given the billions upon biillions that has been pumped into the "kill all industries" machine you have to wonder at the simple shoestring cost effectiveness of the koch brothers' effort
ReplyVote up (217)down (218)
Original comment
given the billions upon biillions that has been pumped into the "kill all industries" machine you have to wonder at the simple shoestring cost effectiveness of the koch brothers' effort
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1405 days ago)
yo manipulative FU*K! you made the editor delete the entire conversation, you propagandist piece of sheit! you manipulative FU*K! this round goes to you, you fekin shale gas propagandist manipulative piece of sheit! shame on editor.
ReplyVote up (219)down (189)
Original comment
yo manipulative FU*K! you made the editor delete the entire conversation, you propagandist piece of sheit! you manipulative FU*K! this round goes to you, you fekin shale gas propagandist manipulative piece of sheit! shame on editor.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: everyone is bored (1405 days ago)
I suspect he found it boring
ReplyVote up (210)down (190)
Original comment
I suspect he found it boring
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1405 days ago)
you are definitely a sheit head! FU*K YOU!
ReplyVote up (192)down (163)
Original comment
you are definitely a sheit head! FU*K YOU!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1405 days ago)
Deleted what conversation? What did I miss?
ReplyVote up (181)down (189)
Original comment
Deleted what conversation? What did I miss?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: everone is bored (1405 days ago)
just someone showing his inabilty to curb his tics
ReplyVote up (193)down (167)
Original comment
just someone showing his inabilty to curb his tics
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1405 days ago)
this bloody manipulative CU*T, calling himself "orginalmad" sometimes, used a different nickname to make stupid trollish copy pasted comments, to get me all wound up until i told him he's a "CUM gobbling horse cock sucker"! and of course, the editor doesn't like to suck on horse cock so he deleted the entire troll conversation! which is pretty lame since that was the whole idea behind "originalmad"s strategy! so this round went to the shale gas propagandist denialsit manipulative scum!
ReplyVote up (176)down (179)
Original comment
this bloody manipulative CU*T, calling himself "orginalmad" sometimes, used a different nickname to make stupid trollish copy pasted comments, to get me all wound up until i told him he's a "CUM gobbling horse cock sucker"! and of course, the editor doesn't like to suck on horse cock so he deleted the entire troll conversation! which is pretty lame since that was the whole idea behind "originalmad"s strategy! so this round went to the shale gas propagandist denialsit manipulative scum!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1405 days ago)
Finally, 20 years after many people knew the truth, the truth is finally being know by the masses. So what do people do about it? I'll wait for another 20 years.....
ReplyVote up (213)down (219)
Original comment
Finally, 20 years after many people knew the truth, the truth is finally being know by the masses. So what do people do about it? I'll wait for another 20 years.....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1405 days ago)
At 0:36, "Reposition global warming as a theory and not fact." Someone needs to learn what a theory is. It is the scientific holy grail for a hypothesis. Global warming is so far off from being a theory and would be much more believable if it was a theory. At 2:43, "Steven Milloy admits that his side is vastly outnumbered." So? The number of people believing doesn't make it true or false. The facts are what is important. Galileo was vastly outnumbered on his belief of heliocentrism when most people believed in geocentrism. Galileo was correct. There are more people that believe in a god than there are atheists. Why should I believe in something just because the majority of the people believe in it?
ReplyVote up (197)down (231)
Original comment
At 0:36, "Reposition global warming as a theory and not fact." Someone needs to learn what a theory is. It is the scientific holy grail for a hypothesis. Global warming is so far off from being a theory and would be much more believable if it was a theory. At 2:43, "Steven Milloy admits that his side is vastly outnumbered." So? The number of people believing doesn't make it true or false. The facts are what is important. Galileo was vastly outnumbered on his belief of heliocentrism when most people believed in geocentrism. Galileo was correct. There are more people that believe in a god than there are atheists. Why should I believe in something just because the majority of the people believe in it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1405 days ago)
i have to say, you fekin denialist piece of sheit, you make a good logical argument! now fu*K off!
ReplyVote up (208)down (195)
Original comment
i have to say, you fekin denialist piece of sheit, you make a good logical argument! now fu*K off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1405 days ago)
Its funny that you should mention "geocentricism" as i regard a similar flaw in the global warming hypothosis
ReplyVote up (196)down (216)
Original comment
Its funny that you should mention "geocentricism" as i regard a similar flaw in the global warming hypothosis
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: oringinalmad (1405 days ago)
should have said i've noticed a similar flaw in the global warming hypotosis
ReplyVote up (192)down (204)
Original comment
should have said i've noticed a similar flaw in the global warming hypotosis
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1404 days ago)
I notice that flaw too and that's the reason I refuse to believe anything without proof. Humans have made too many wrong assumptions in the past and I'm afraid we might be doing it again. The planet does go through natural heating and cooling cycles and how do we know we are not experiencing one of the natural ones? Sure you can simulate the effect that CO2 does trap heat in a laboratory but the models they use to predict the temperatures are not working on the planet. Is it possible human created CO2 will eventually warm the planet? Yes. Is it happening now? Not sure. Can we stop it? Probably not anyway. How do we replace the millions of cars out there to use solar. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime or as long as there's cheap fossil fuels to burn or as long as people still have to drive to work and the grocery stores. Am I worried? Nope. If we can consider building a settlement on harsher planets like Mars, we should be able to continue living on this planet even if the temperature rises.
ReplyVote up (195)down (199)
Original comment
I notice that flaw too and that's the reason I refuse to believe anything without proof. Humans have made too many wrong assumptions in the past and I'm afraid we might be doing it again. The planet does go through natural heating and cooling cycles and how do we know we are not experiencing one of the natural ones? Sure you can simulate the effect that CO2 does trap heat in a laboratory but the models they use to predict the temperatures are not working on the planet. Is it possible human created CO2 will eventually warm the planet? Yes. Is it happening now? Not sure. Can we stop it? Probably not anyway. How do we replace the millions of cars out there to use solar. It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime or as long as there's cheap fossil fuels to burn or as long as people still have to drive to work and the grocery stores. Am I worried? Nope. If we can consider building a settlement on harsher planets like Mars, we should be able to continue living on this planet even if the temperature rises.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1403 days ago)
you saying that you won't accept anything without proof is exactly the sort of attitude some people have towards vaccines, ya twat! vaccines cause cancer, vaccines, this and vaccines that, there's no proof vaccines work, i'm not vaccinating my children, it's a bloody conspiracy... bloody bollocks!! the "vaccine consensus denialists" are even more ridiculous than the climate change denialists! and them, just as you lot, also think they're intellectually superior in regards for their unfounded beliefs, intellectually superior to the majority of people who vaccinate their kids, and doctors who actually recommend vaccination! you're an idiot! now fok off!
ReplyVote up (193)down (195)
Original comment
you saying that you won't accept anything without proof is exactly the sort of attitude some people have towards vaccines, ya twat! vaccines cause cancer, vaccines, this and vaccines that, there's no proof vaccines work, i'm not vaccinating my children, it's a bloody conspiracy... bloody bollocks!! the "vaccine consensus denialists" are even more ridiculous than the climate change denialists! and them, just as you lot, also think they're intellectually superior in regards for their unfounded beliefs, intellectually superior to the majority of people who vaccinate their kids, and doctors who actually recommend vaccination! you're an idiot! now fok off!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Greenpeace looks into Hillary's connections to fossil fuel industry
Greenpeace looks into Hillary's connections to fossil fuel industry
Patrick Moore: Why I left Greenpeace
Patrick Moore: Why I left Greenpeace
Geico - Unskippable
Geico - Unskippable
Koch Brothers' amazing climate change denial machine
Koch Brothers' amazing climate change denial machine
The call for toxic-free fashion
The call for toxic-free fashion