Part of the “Expansion Pack” of videos accompanying the video “How It All Ends.” See “How It All Ends: Index” for a roadmap to guide you through the expansion pack.
hmmm…. the 1800’s … hmmm…. the 1800’s you say? i think the christians(not blasting the christians) actually condemmed surgery and experiments involving human tissue. as a result, thousands of years of resaerch and improvement were lost. they once said dat an atom is unable to be split, the heart is not operable, brain surgery is bad, stem cells are bad and dat u hav to stay wid da diseased organs u were born wid cuz u were made perfect. no blood transfusion no kidney liver etc transplants. wanna do dis wid gcc?
I have created a … I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
“There are … “There are currently no reliable sources of information in the field of climate prediction.”
That’s fine. You are welcome to make any claim you want, even one as general as that. However, your posts carry no weight because you have not provided any unbiased source that supports anything you have posted such as the supposed unreliability of ice core samples or the alleged unreliability of climate prediction models. This has nothing to do with guessing. Still waiting…
There are currently … There are currently no reliable sources of information in the field of climate prediction. When it comes to what the global climate will be like in 50-100 years, your guess is as good as mine… and as good as the National Academy of Sciences’.
I find it … I find it interesting that you still have not come up with a single unbiased source that supports what you are saying. Not one. The data from 1900 are temperature data. You never mention why Ice core samples that go back 160,000 years are unreliable. Basically what you are doing is attempting to discredit the evidence without holding yourself accountable for your claims.
“How much more … “How much more evidence do you need?” I need a predictive model that, when fed the existing (unreliable, but all we have) data from 1900 can reproduce (to a reasonable degree of accuracy) the subsequent data that we have for the 109 years that follow. Ice core samples are unreliable, air and water temperature and natural phenomena are all too short term on the scale of climate change. Global warming is not proven by naming scientific journals, you can find some yourself that have skeptics.
That is just plain … That is just plain false. How many of the videos have you watched? He is telling us quite clearly not to believe him. You are plenty skillful enough to post comments on his videos so it shouldn’t be too hard for you to search for scientific journals regarding global warming.
My question to you is if all the scientific journals and organizations are unreliable, what do you consider reliable as a source of unbiased information?
You don’t think … You don’t think there is enough evidence? How much more evidence do you need? Is Nasa unreliable? Are all the thousands of measurements of core ice samples, air temperature, water temperature, observed ice melting and other natural phenomenon somehow not good enough? You haven’t named even one respected scientific journal that supports any of your claims. And don’t come back with the Cato Institute. That is not a scientific journal.
Also, I don’t see … Also, I don’t see any evidence in his videos. There is no discussion about the greenhouse effect or what calculations have been done to create these doomsday scenarios or even what evidence was gathered. All he is saying is that we should believe whatever doomsday scenario is out there based on the credibility of scientific journals. If you want more evidence against AGW, just type “climate change skeptics” on Google.
The problem with … The problem with climate change is there is not enough evidence to constitute a “preponderance.” 100 years of spotty data is nothing compared to stable climate periods of 10s of 1000s of years. Some past ice ages are believed to have lasted 50000+ years–we have 1/500 as much data, at best. Climate science now is the same as medicine in the 1800s–just starting. Every source is as ignorant as the rest so citing big name journals helps little. AGW may be true, but we haven’t proved it yet at all.
Of course it … Of course it doesn’t always apply. Remember that being weighed here is also the preponderance of evidence. If you wish to discard the evidence, you have to present something convincing to the contrary, something you haven’t done in any of your posts.
great to see … great to see someone doing what he does with some enthusiasm; however he cannot be expected to apply equal criticism, as he’s obviously comfortable with government education/indoctrination and political agenda determining the course of action in the end, regardless of scientific reasoning; he is prepared to be wilfully blind and expects same of everyone else, in the face of global power mongers and their pet projects.
well think about … well think about that when the changes are irreversible ( or if you have gotten that far already) oh wait… some changes are already irreversible.. now lets hope it doesn’t snow in Georgia in may again or.. hail in a northern part of California in march.. not really salesmanship.. more like trying to help out the people of this world…
i had to watch one … i had to watch one of his videos as a class assignment and was stupefied by the lack of substance. so then i wanted to see if the real substance was in these other seven videos and this was as far as i got before i decided it was a waste of time to look for something that is clearly either not here or buried under too many layers of salesmanship.
Taking it to the … Taking it to the extreme is his favorite arguing tactic–but it doesn’t always apply in real life. Anything you take to the extreme can be made to seem so terrifying that you have to focus all your efforts on preventing it. Applying ideas to the real world means you actually have to study the world and not just take things to the extreme in an abstract fashion. His whole argument is based on taking it to the extreme, but he doesn’t justify why we should except because some scientists say so.
because despite … because despite being an intelligent man he’s looking at a situation in a completely scientific way because so many people got up in arms about his incredibly simple grid so he decided to take it to the extreme and made a 6 hour long lecture
yes, you are right, … yes, you are right, it’s about risk management, not global warming. nothing in risk management says that you should blindly act on or believe in something that you don’t know is true without evaluating the risks first. so why does he spend so much time trying to convince us that risk management supports blind action and belief instead of evaluating the actual risks and likelihood of them?
Fuck u Jewishist … u Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let’s spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
18 minutes and … 18 minutes and still nothing about global warming and all about which scientific club you should listen to. i used to believe but now im turning atheist.
Part of the “Expansion Pack” of videos accompanying the video “How It All Ends.” See “How It All Ends: Index” for a roadmap to guide you through the expansion pack.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
hmmm…. the 1800’s …
hmmm…. the 1800’s you say? i think the christians(not blasting the christians) actually condemmed surgery and experiments involving human tissue. as a result, thousands of years of resaerch and improvement were lost. they once said dat an atom is unable to be split, the heart is not operable, brain surgery is bad, stem cells are bad and dat u hav to stay wid da diseased organs u were born wid cuz u were made perfect. no blood transfusion no kidney liver etc transplants. wanna do dis wid gcc?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
I have created a …
I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.
The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).
pharmgateway howitallends
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
“There are …
“There are currently no reliable sources of information in the field of climate prediction.”
That’s fine. You are welcome to make any claim you want, even one as general as that. However, your posts carry no weight because you have not provided any unbiased source that supports anything you have posted such as the supposed unreliability of ice core samples or the alleged unreliability of climate prediction models. This has nothing to do with guessing. Still waiting…
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
There are currently …
There are currently no reliable sources of information in the field of climate prediction. When it comes to what the global climate will be like in 50-100 years, your guess is as good as mine… and as good as the National Academy of Sciences’.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
I find it …
I find it interesting that you still have not come up with a single unbiased source that supports what you are saying. Not one. The data from 1900 are temperature data. You never mention why Ice core samples that go back 160,000 years are unreliable. Basically what you are doing is attempting to discredit the evidence without holding yourself accountable for your claims.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
“How much more …
“How much more evidence do you need?” I need a predictive model that, when fed the existing (unreliable, but all we have) data from 1900 can reproduce (to a reasonable degree of accuracy) the subsequent data that we have for the 109 years that follow. Ice core samples are unreliable, air and water temperature and natural phenomena are all too short term on the scale of climate change. Global warming is not proven by naming scientific journals, you can find some yourself that have skeptics.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
That is just plain …
That is just plain false. How many of the videos have you watched? He is telling us quite clearly not to believe him. You are plenty skillful enough to post comments on his videos so it shouldn’t be too hard for you to search for scientific journals regarding global warming.
My question to you is if all the scientific journals and organizations are unreliable, what do you consider reliable as a source of unbiased information?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
You don’t think …
You don’t think there is enough evidence? How much more evidence do you need? Is Nasa unreliable? Are all the thousands of measurements of core ice samples, air temperature, water temperature, observed ice melting and other natural phenomenon somehow not good enough? You haven’t named even one respected scientific journal that supports any of your claims. And don’t come back with the Cato Institute. That is not a scientific journal.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Also, I don’t see …
Also, I don’t see any evidence in his videos. There is no discussion about the greenhouse effect or what calculations have been done to create these doomsday scenarios or even what evidence was gathered. All he is saying is that we should believe whatever doomsday scenario is out there based on the credibility of scientific journals. If you want more evidence against AGW, just type “climate change skeptics” on Google.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
The problem with …
The problem with climate change is there is not enough evidence to constitute a “preponderance.” 100 years of spotty data is nothing compared to stable climate periods of 10s of 1000s of years. Some past ice ages are believed to have lasted 50000+ years–we have 1/500 as much data, at best. Climate science now is the same as medicine in the 1800s–just starting. Every source is as ignorant as the rest so citing big name journals helps little. AGW may be true, but we haven’t proved it yet at all.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Of course it …
Of course it doesn’t always apply. Remember that being weighed here is also the preponderance of evidence. If you wish to discard the evidence, you have to present something convincing to the contrary, something you haven’t done in any of your posts.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
great to see …
great to see someone doing what he does with some enthusiasm; however he cannot be expected to apply equal criticism, as he’s obviously comfortable with government education/indoctrination and political agenda determining the course of action in the end, regardless of scientific reasoning; he is prepared to be wilfully blind and expects same of everyone else, in the face of global power mongers and their pet projects.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
well think about …
well think about that when the changes are irreversible ( or if you have gotten that far already) oh wait… some changes are already irreversible.. now lets hope it doesn’t snow in Georgia in may again or.. hail in a northern part of California in march.. not really salesmanship.. more like trying to help out the people of this world…
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
i had to watch one …
i had to watch one of his videos as a class assignment and was stupefied by the lack of substance. so then i wanted to see if the real substance was in these other seven videos and this was as far as i got before i decided it was a waste of time to look for something that is clearly either not here or buried under too many layers of salesmanship.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
im watching it to …
im watching it to learn.. what about you?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Taking it to the …
Taking it to the extreme is his favorite arguing tactic–but it doesn’t always apply in real life. Anything you take to the extreme can be made to seem so terrifying that you have to focus all your efforts on preventing it. Applying ideas to the real world means you actually have to study the world and not just take things to the extreme in an abstract fashion. His whole argument is based on taking it to the extreme, but he doesn’t justify why we should except because some scientists say so.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
because despite …
because despite being an intelligent man he’s looking at a situation in a completely scientific way because so many people got up in arms about his incredibly simple grid so he decided to take it to the extreme and made a 6 hour long lecture
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
yes, you are right, …
yes, you are right, it’s about risk management, not global warming. nothing in risk management says that you should blindly act on or believe in something that you don’t know is true without evaluating the risks first. so why does he spend so much time trying to convince us that risk management supports blind action and belief instead of evaluating the actual risks and likelihood of them?
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
this part is about …
this part is about risk managment not global warming go watc the mechanics of GCC videos
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
I agree, he’s …
I agree, he’s incredibly geeky, but in an intelligent and understandable way.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Fuck u Jewishist …
u Jewishist Jew Shit, filling us with Jewish Controlled Propaganda, Mankind is not Responsible nor is Able to Control Global Warming you insignificant meaningless Parasite, Global Warming is indeed a natural cycle, Instead: Let’s spread the word that israeli jews are Parasites thriving on US taxpayer handouts
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
18 minutes and …
18 minutes and still nothing about global warming and all about which scientific club you should listen to. i used to believe but now im turning atheist.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
hes a great salesman
hes a great salesman
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
you’re right! this …
you’re right! this guy should be on discovery channel or something
October 31st, 2009 at 12:06 am
asses: What is the …
asses: What is the meaning of life.