Alex Jones Vs. Rothschild: The Best Global Warming Debate in History

[Jon]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4891699310483983031

The son of a trillionaire banking family vs. Alex Jones

[1714003601]

1714003601

[terrytibbs]

"long while"

[FirstAscent]

Can I get the two sentence synopsis?

[benjamindees]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

[FirstAscent]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't know whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

[zionist shill]

Fantastic topic and video.

because there's a war on for your mind.

[TECSHARE]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

Exclusive statements are often proven to be false. You approach the topic with almost religious faith and equivalent disgust for nonbelievers. This is the "scientific" form of religion, and you practice it faithfully.

[FirstAscent]

It's pretty much what you would expect.  Jones makes some good points.  Rothschild makes some good points.  Then it devolves into name calling.

I wouldn't expect anything (therefore it couldn't possibly be what I would expect) because I don't whose side each one is on or what their points are. Nor do I know of any good points made by Global Warming deniers. They can all be demonstrated to be founded on fraudulent and deceptive premises.

Exclusive statements are often proven to be false. You approach the topic with almost religious faith and equivalent disgust for nonbelievers. This is the "scientific" form of religion, and you practice it faithfully.

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

[Kettenmonster]

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

... uhm if you take a look back in the past few hundreds of thousands of years, you can easily see: The next ice age is just about to come.

So now ... get this related to tobacco, oil or any whatevernamed Institute.

[kokjo]

"long while"

+1

@OP: nobody likes you(not even your mom), go away.

[FirstAscent]

Show me an argument against Global Warming, and I'll show you that it contains a significant portion of the following: falsified documents; its authors are funded by Big Oil; it preys upon its audience's ignorance of the facts; its affiliated with groups who also were paid by tobacco companies to claim tobacco smoke does not cause cancer; its authors can be tied to the Heartland Institute or other similar organizations.

... uhm if you take a look back in the past few hundreds of thousands of years, you can easily see: The next ice age is just about to come.

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts. Do you understand Milankovitch Cycles and how they affect the periodicity of ice ages? I doubt it, but you're actually correct, dude! An ice age is coming. Which means the global rise in temperature over the past one hundred years must not be because of ice age cycles, huh?

[RodeoX]

So two guys yell at each other while the Earth slowly becomes Venus? Got it.

[bb113]

So two guys yell at each other while the Earth slowly becomes Venus? Got it.

Don't do that.

[Kettenmonster]

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts.

Whatever a fact might be and where audience references to.
Just be aware, that different brains might work differently on different assumptions.

[FirstAscent]

That would be scenario #2: audience's ignorance of the facts.

Whatever a fact might be and where audience references to.
Just be aware, that different brains might work differently on different assumptions.

The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance.

[Kettenmonster]

The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance.

Is this approved by your profound experience? 

[FirstAscent]

The Earth's climate isn't going to respond to ignorance.

Is this approved by your profound experience? 

Kettonmonster,

If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so.

[FirstAscent]

Kettonmonster,

Here are some things for you to study:

- The Oregon Petition
- Frederick Seitz
- The background of those running the Heartland Institute
- Brownlash, as coined by Paul Ehrlich
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Heat retention of ocean water
- Ice age sea levels
- Species extinction rates
- Milankovitch cycles
- Steady state economics
- Methods of determining the accuracy of historically recorded temperatures
- Correlation of independent data: ice cores, atmospheric temperature readings, sea level, satellite photos, etc.

[Kettenmonster]

If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so.

Sorry just looked into your arguments considered them void, so opposed to see wether you can bring along something profound.

What I have learned about global warming is:
- Math is abused.
Take a look into what they do and be amazed. They tune the models until able to perdict the past. Then of cause this will work for the future ...
Ok those scientist don´t claim to have a valid proof. But as soon as its out to Television everything is so pretty obvious ... but still rubbish.

So I just love to laugh about "audience's ignorance".

No doubt burning oil and coal is second most stupid idea ever, right behind nuclear power blasts (weapons are out of my consideration here).
But there is no point in putting wrong arguments for a right cause. People like me show up pick them, prove them wrong and thus cancel your reasonable goals by your own faulty arguments. Don´t let this happen in the wild out there (btw. it already happend).

You have probably heard of the waldsterben. In my youth I learned, those trees I nowadays chop for firewood died long years ago.
They came up with wrong arguments, concluded the wrong medicine, made things even worse. But the german forest is still prospering.
Same thing for ozone depletion. It happens around south pole, so its cause has to be defeated on the northern half of the planet. 
And now ... global warming. you can´t predict the weather for the next two weeks, but climate for centuries?!? That is ignorance at its best.

The problem I see is the sand in whomsoever eyes, could be you do so as well. But rubbing does not help. Stop the guy throwing that sand.
Global warming might be a very important issue. But you will never solve it. So take care for what you can handle and stick to that.
Do never ever pick up arguments you can´t validate, just because they are stamped by some important whatsowever.
 ... just my 5 satoshis.

[FirstAscent]

If you have some logical conclusions to draw based upon observations and data, please share. If you wish to provide examples which would allow one to draw a conclusion counter to the things I've said, then do so.

Sorry just looked into your arguments considered them void, so opposed to see wether you can bring along something profound.

What I have learned about global warming is:
- Math is abused.
Take a look into what they do and be amazed. They tune the models until able to perdict the past. Then of cause this will work for the future ...
Ok those scientist don´t claim to have a valid proof. But as soon as its out to Television everything is so pretty obvious ... but still rubbish.

So I just love to laugh about "audience's ignorance".

No doubt burning oil and coal is second most stupid idea ever, right behind nuclear power blasts (weapons are out of my consideration here).
But there is no point in putting wrong arguments for a right cause. People like me show up pick them, prove them wrong and thus cancel your reasonable goals by your own faulty arguments. Don´t let this happen in the wild out there (btw. it already happend).

You have probably heard of the waldsterben. In my youth I learned, those trees I nowadays chop for firewood died long years ago.
They came up with wrong arguments, concluded the wrong medicine, made things even worse. But the german forest is still prospering.
Same thing for ozone depletion. It happens around south pole, so its cause has to be defeated on the northern half of the planet.  
And now ... global warming. you can´t predict the weather for the next two weeks, but climate for centuries?!? That is ignorance at its best.

The problem I see is the sand in whomsoever eyes, could be you do so as well. But rubbing does not help. Stop the guy throwing that sand.
Global warming might be a very important issue. But you will never solve it. So take care for what you can handle and stick to that.
Do never ever pick up arguments you can´t validate, just because they are stamped by some important whatsowever.
 ... just my 5 satoshis.

There's a lot of contradictory and opinionated views in there, some not true, and there are some conclusions in there that don't really follow. Let me see if I can summarize your view:

Kettonmonster's view in a nutshell: Science isn't applying the proper methods to properly predict Global Warming even though Global Warming is probably happening, so we shouldn't try and find alternatives to burning oil and coal even though it's really stupid to burn oil and coal. Weather isn't predictable two weeks out, and that must mean we can't do science.