The CO2 debate

Login to rate this video.

You can place this video on your website by inserting the (X)HTML code below:

Embed code:
<iframe src="" width="400" height="330" frameborder="0"></iframe>

You can email this video to your friends by entering their addresses below:

Your information:

add Add another recipient

Human verification:

People who liked this video also liked

Bus driver rescues baby wandering on overpass
Turtles Love Watermelon!
Explosion in the clear ballistic gel ( Slow-Mo HD Video)
Aluminum and Mercury
Surabaya International Kite Festival 2015 ( By Team Impian )
If the Universe is only 14 Billion years old, how can it be 92 Billion years Wide with a W


14 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.

Expand all comments

Picture of krazeeeyez38 achievements

+1 1. krazeeeyez commented 36 days ago

not sure this should be categorised as 'science'...

Also, didn't we see this one a couple of months ago? (43 days ago to be scientific about it) :D
Picture of thefox28 achievements

-1 2. thefox commented 35 days ago

#1 They all appear to be highly qualified in their field. What are your qualifications krazeeeyez?
Picture of challenger45149 achievements

+2 3. challenger451 commented 35 days ago

Data sound interesting and may be accurate, however they left one small detail out of their calculations. THERE ARE PEOPLE AROUND NOW THAT WILL SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE!
Picture of nomaddaf22 achievements

0 4. nomaddaf commented 35 days ago

#3 People being around has zero effect on the facts. There are 2 things to prove. Is the climate changing abnormally, and are humans responsible ? People being effected has no bearing on the answers to these points. What you have effectively said is " But people will be effected, so the facts don't matter."
Picture of Thanny37 achievements

+2 5. Thanny commented 35 days ago

"It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years."

That statement is false. Absurdly false, in fact. So, no, that's not something "you can say" unless you want to be known as a liar.

There's no science discussion going on in this panel. Just deceptive propaganda.
Picture of RobertTusk15 achievements

0 7. RobertTusk commented 35 days ago

The same bullsh1t video was submitted here by thefox 44 days ago.
The heartland institute is still a lying bullsh1t factory.
Not sure what Judge-jake's agenda is in submitting this nonsense.
Picture of krazeeeyez38 achievements

-1 8. krazeeeyez commented 35 days ago

#2, I have plenty of common sense.

#5 seems to grasp it. Don't believe everything you hear... also, a beard doesn't make you 'highly qualified'.
Picture of thefox28 achievements

0 9. thefox commented 34 days ago

#8. So, relevant qualifications? None. Got that.
Picture of krazeeeyez38 achievements

-1 10. krazeeeyez commented 34 days ago

Read the Guardian article thefox and you may start to grasp the bigger picture :)
Picture of thefox28 achievements

-1 11. thefox commented 34 days ago

#10. Oh dear. krazeeeyez is Guardian reader. That explains everything. :D
No doubt you're a Remoaner as well, and I'll bet you own a t-shirt that says: "This is what a Feminist Looks Like." :D

At least you got the bit right about 'beards don't make you highly qualified'.

In fact, it's qualifications that do that:

Tom Harris - B.Eng, M.Eng
Richard A. Keen - Ph.D., Geography/Climatology
Stanley B. Goldenberg - M.S. Synoptic Meteorology, B.S. Meteorology
Terry L. Gannon - Ph.D. in electrical engineering and device physics
Jay H. Lehr - Ph.D., Ground Water Hydrology, Geological Engineering

Still krazeeeyez, I suppose you can blow them all out of the water with your common sense can't you? :D
Picture of ughlah41 achievements

+2 12. ughlah commented 34 days ago

How many people in those fields have a phd?
How many of those would be willing to say whatever their employer wants them to say for the right amount of money?

The heartland foundation pays ridiculous amounts to their scientist. Far more than they usually earn in their fields. Strangely everyone who speaks at their panels comes to the exact opposite of conclusion than every other scientist on the planet.

I don't claim those aren't experts, but they are bought and they mislead you into a direction that benefits their employers.
Picture of krazeeeyez38 achievements

0 13. krazeeeyez commented 34 days ago

#12.. exactly my point, but no point trying to explain it to #11... he's way too wrapped up in the BS :D
Picture of thefox28 achievements

-1 14. thefox commented 33 days ago

#12. Confirmation bias works both ways. #13 gets his daily dose of it from The Guardian hacks. :D