Fox Rips Huntsman On Global Warming

of course the people who don’t believe
in our climate change on the folks at foxnews john has been a republican presidential
candidate uh… said and earlier that he didn’t
leaving global warming which of course has made by surprise very angry uh… so they’re going to have that
uh… mini debate right here new recently treated nests he said to be
clear five million evolution and trust
scientists on global warming call me crazy well battle even evolution of any sort
of got stolen uh… i’ve always said it’s on the
record by the way i’m running on my record uh… climate change but has an
established body of science associated right and i don’t have a lot of
corruption surrounding ocean as i dress up a look at that in real quick at
nicole michelle mom and let’s get serious about the issues of the date of
issue visits are dealing with a dazzling face in creating jobs everything else
right now since i’m not the ones taking grant money and and with scientists
making up results which hurt the causing in particular brian kilometers up a call of the corporations that want to have
you eighteen or climate change why because they profit greatly heavily oil companies make a tremendous
amount of money as long as you don’t do anything about climate change they pick
up a lot of that money an advertisement to fox news five snooze is one of the
republican propaganda machine that’s why they have fools like brian kelly go out
there and pretend that ninety seven percent of the scientist or all white committed during the data making things
up as he said that no one should three percent a max on
mobile are the ones that are right and brad can’t kill me knows better then
ninety seven percent of science in the world but what’s sad is of the
propaganda the foxes puts out there is working if you look at our views in
america over last ten years from two thousand one to twenty eleven the believe in uh… global warming has
gone down from seventy five percent all the way down two forty four percent that is that illusion drop-off and then when you look at uh… the people who don’t believe it’s gone from
nineteen percent to twenty eight percent we know the people who are not sure it’s
gone from six percent two twenty eight percent so people say if i don’t know fox who
says one thing everyone else is another and brian kaelin tells me that the
scientists are also used seven percent other signs in the wall global all thinking what a in order to make up something that who
profits from making that up nobody does but people profit from protecting the
climate change does not exist but it’s in a way to work for thirty
percent of population of around i may be exams maybe it doesn’t it now let me tell you the reality and these are some stark numbers here of the world climate indicators
from twenty ten last full year we have the lowest volume of arctic ice ever measured ever measured that leads to greater water obviously emotions that lisa for example the sea level rising near boston by about of fought but hey don’t worry
about it i’m sure the foxes is right and the scientists are all making it up how about the rainfall we’ve had more
rainfall dull and this year any year on record any here but i’m sure climate changes just
coincidence i have not barometric pressure low is
very much pressure ever registered the continental united states lowest
ever how about the uh… temperature well uh… twenty ten was tied with two
thousand five congratulations as the warmest nearer on record not paying kind of a there with nineteen
fifty was like there’s an eighty seven he was like there’s no warmest year on record we’re not done yet according to arista report uh… twenty ten was the most extreme weather since at least eighteen sixteen and although he’s only tiny pieces team is because there was a joint martina
that erupted in eighteen sixteen leading to a great number of or the consequences they uh… went throughout around the world and weather patterns that center break so you put all that together using
climate change isn’t happening all if you’re a moron who watches
foxnews and trust brian kilometer over ninety seven percent of science in the
world this is happening and they’re really
scary thing about it is it is not easy to reverse defines this comes at a couple years
from now when there’s hurricanes in everything else that have become more
extreme and the temperature that has become more
strength and routes that are booked become more strain which then by the way
lead to more war then they come and upload your right
well what can we do hey exxon mobil already all or made all
that money token this has already made all that money well going to work is going on but i don’t reverse that while there is
no way to reverse it so you’re stuck with it

Comments 100

  • God I love Cenk

  • @Moreviolent Ok, fair point….. So CO2 causes warming. So tell me, how much warming would a doubling of CO2 create?; How long would it take to double CO2 in the atmosphere? Does the observed evidence support the computer models? What would the consequences be? What observed consequences have we seen so far? And finally, do the benefits of increased CO2 outweigh the potential harm. Again, I'll need observed empirical evidence for this…. Thanks.

  • @Moreviolent Thanks, I've seen all his videos and part of the reason I think the way I do is because he doesn't really answer of these questions satisfactorily. Thanks.

  • It's not just CO2 but also the trapped methane that is being released because of global warming, which traps even more heating because while methane is shorter lived than CO2 it's a more effective heat trapping greenhouse gas. The party hasn't started yet because one thing leads to another, especially in nature.

  • @JonThm There is no such thing as free energy.

  • @mercianproductions The planet Venus.

  • @cr500blur If you're going to call someone "stupid," it helps to spell the insult right.

  • @cr500blur More intelligent than you.

  • @Cammie010 Alienating 99.999% of morons doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

  • @SlugHatchet You don't actually know what a solar flare is, do you?

  • @americanfellow I'm tempted to ship them bottles of barbecue sauce to speed the process along.

  • @iruparatso – I wanted to spell it that way…it was written to someone who is empirically STOOPID, OH, AND ARROGANT.

  • @iruparatso – When?

  • @iruparatso The planet Mars. Why is it warming at the same rate?

  • @mercianproductions It isn't.

  • @cr500blur It's still spelled "stupid," stupid.

  • @iruparatso – Noooooooooooooooo, REALLY?

  • @cr500blur That's spelled "No."

  • @iruparatso NASA says it is. Check your research please.

  • @iruparatso – Never heard of it….

  • Biology produces free power via the turbulent flow of steam or high pressure water do molecular nuclear fusion. There would be no life on earth otherwise. Power with no carbon dioxide or plutonium.

  • No increase in global carbon dioxide for two centuries due to the action of photosynthesis. The global warming lobby are mentally deficient.


  • This global warming crap is to try to push us towards the goal of U.N. Agenda 21, look it up if you don't know what it is.

  • whoever thinks global warming is crap….i live in toronto the coldest in been since december is -10 it snowed 3 times. I've lived in Canada for 8 years and this is the first time i've ever seen people riding their bikes around no scarves and a saw some guys outside playing basketball in a t-shirt. now tell me that is not global warming

  • @shittyfagg yeah but with greenland and antarctica melting too, that raises sea levels.

  • @mercianproductions The planet Venus has already warmed. Its surface temperature is over 700K. It's temperature is the result of the green house effect, but as far as warming goes – past tense. To ask why Mars is warming at the same rate as Venus is a silly question because Venus is NOT warming, it already has.

  • @JonThm I'm sorry to hear that you have such a poor standard of education wherever you come from.
    Field tests have shown that increased levels of CO2 do not necessarily lead to a corresponding level of plant growth. Plants require a balance of Sun, water, nutrients, and CO2. Adding CO2 to a plant growing in Antarctica will not have much of an effect because the plant would need more sunlight not CO2. Adding CO2 to a plant in a desert will have little effect because the plant needs water.

  • Biology teaches that free carbon dioxide in the air is a limit to global plant growth. Since my have released additional carbon dioxide early and early 18th century crop yields have increased by 15%. But the, winter Harvard University free average global carbon dioxide in the air has not increased.

  • Biology teaches that green plants metabolise all the carbon dioxide from the air

  • @shittyfagg That would be true if the ice was all below water, but it isn't.

    Think of it like this:

    If you have a glass of water and ice filled up to the brim, some ice will be above the brim of the glass. As the ice above the surface melts, the only place it can go is into the glass,which is already full, so it will poor over the edge of the glass instead.

    It's slightly more complicated (believe it or not, ice actually has greater volume than water does), but that's the general principle.

  • Just one more reason I dig Huntsman. He's too good for that political party. Notice how the better Republican candidates are the least Republican-friendly ones? Hmm.

  • Brian Kilmeade should shoot himself in the face, as should anyone who watches "Foxn'Friends"

  • I just would like to point out, that it's not a single day, a single event or a single year. It's a culmination of a large swathe of time that leads us to believe that humanities impact on earth is actively effecting the global environment.

  • The worst part is that if you actually look into these "scientific" organisations claiming that global warming has nothing to do with increased amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere, a great deal of them are paid for by corporations. In particular, oil companies.

  • The irony, the climatologists are unsure of the exact cause and thus won't support legislation until they figure it out. Which is logical, if we jump into something and do what actually tipped the scale at first, we'll make matters worse.

  • 97% is wrong.. 99.5% of all the scientist in the world agree in Global warming.

    Fox News Is known for lien to the people in everything.. (NO NO Ron Paul Is unelectable, america is founded upon Christianity, Tide goes in and out do to GOD!)

    What Scientist say tide is do to the moon affect on the oceans.. Lies LIES!

  • Only repubtards would trust an uneducated fox news reporter over thousands of intelligent scientists.

  • Republicans like Jon Huntsman will never get elected to be president. Why?

  • what idiots fox news is, "tell those scientists to stop making crap up, they are just skewing the data" i mean, c'mon fox u are the biggest Hippocrates ever, why dont u stop telling people that god created the world 5000 years ago, hows that for being made up! FOX is not news, they are just brainwashing and dumbing down american with false information

  • I had a climate scientist from East Anglia (controversial during global climate talks) come to our politics class two years ago to explain in detail about the science that is understood. Its human caused global climate change (calling it global warming is a misnomer) and insinuates that we should expect temperature rises only, it actually increases more extreme weather patterns, which should be looked at. 99 percent of the top publishing (peer reviewed) climate scientists agree its human caused

  • I'm taking you at your word, bud. Spread the truth.
    Sorry, I meant tool.

  • Also I've just read snobord's comment, and noticed that yours didn't address any of his points.

  • What the fuck are you talking about?
    It is an estabilished fact, the only debate in the scientific community is the scale of activity they should enforce against it.

  • Im not claiming temperatures are going to RISE, im saying that weather will be less predictable.
    2nd the 99 percent is quite accurate, if you just count total climate scientists (1 or more published studies) then yes its not 99 percent. thats why i nuanced my comment by saying the TOP publishing climate scientists those that have published 20 or more (peer reviewed) papers, if you look at it by top publishers than im right.

  • I have a small adjustment he didn't work at CRU but worked with them his name is Dr. Bennet Brabson. and i looked up Phil Jones who is more or less incharge of that CRU division co-authored a paper:(Wikipedia -> Phil Jones ->Selected publications *Climate over past millennia*), i would give you direct link but youtube ins't letting me insert it..
    skip to page 31 in the conclusion and summary in the last paragraph clearly states that humans are causally attributable in climate change. so yeah…

  • Relax bro. In 2007 80% of scientists believed in global warming, and even now 45% think it will have a detrimental affect and prepare for it. Here is a link wiki/Global_warming_controversy. Type in wikipedia in the beginning

  • Your last statement is a non-sequitur. This study was conducted in 2003 and the science has evolved since then. I thought you were denying climate change?

  • Are you kidding me? You obviously aren't college educated because even professors reference wiki. It's one of the most reliable sources if you know how to use it. You look and read the references on the bottom. Have you ever written a research paper or a scholarly article. Well you can find them at the bottom of WIKI

  • You completely misunderstood the concept of climate change, assuming that it could only rise, that's why you're denying facts. Why do you think that sea levels will rise? And do you not realise that many settlements are already buying land to avoid submersion? in 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predicted a rise of 18-59cm by 2100. Even if you're denying CO2 (which is only political and pragmatic), you have to accept some form of climate change, not unrealistic conservative estimates.

  • Again, unless you're denying significant climate change, how do you explain the rapidly rising temperature levels since the industrial revolution?

  • and how did you deduce that?

  • Your numbers are great. Your interpretation is wrong.
    I personally do not insist that climate change has to be catastrophic, it will probably be gradual. (Unless we learn more about whether or not there is a tipping point once the concentration of CO2 reaches over 450 ppm, I believe it is) Gradual could mean that we will be able to adapt. It will cost us. Just ask the insurance companies how much they have been paying out in response to disasters in the last decade.

  • I am not sure that adapting will be cheap at all. I do live on the coast and every winter with the storms a few more houses slide down into the ocean. Some winters more some winters less, but that coastline is eroding. And I am not as cynical as you are in the way I regard scientists. Only science can give us the innovative solution that help us move beyond the use of fossil fuels, which is a finite and dirty resource.

  • There is a tipping point and the last time it was passed it lead to the extiction on 95% of all life on earth, once the tempreture of the oceans gets passed a certain point it will release the CO2 it has dissolved in it, raising the tempretures even more then if temps get even higher CO2 and methane trapped in rocks will start to escape, Its called a runnaway green house effect.

  • i wish fox news would go away, and the young turks would have it's own show on tv, basic cable

  • As far as I understand it, IPCC has contributors and reviewers from around the globe. These scientists are volunteers and work at independent institution, I find it unlikely that they would all conspire to fudge the data. The east anglican emails are perhaps blown at bit out of proportion here.

  • Sorry, but that is nonsense. The emails that had been illegally hacked were mainly documenting an exchange between four people, not a gang. The false interpretation of the content of the emails has been completely debunked, there was no misconduct or fraud on the side of the scientists. It is only the deniers that have not let go of their failed smear campaign. Everybody else has moved on. Therefore, I do not understand what you are referring to in your last sentence

  • It is a little bit more complicated than that. They don't simply clean it all up for us. We are also doing a pretty good job at cutting down rain forests ect. It is usually us people who believe that there is a problem, who plant a few trees here and there, while the deniers like to drive their trucks and suvs around and shoot some deer with lead ammunition.

  • Not denying climate change but not accepting it as man made. Why don't you mention the fact that thousands of scientist wanted to sue your boss Al-Gore for misleading information on global warming.

  • It is really simple: photosynthesis metabolises all available carbon dioxide to support life on earth. Harvard University put on record August 2010 that there has been a static level of carbon dioxide in the air has resulted fall last two centuries. As you were taught in high school biology! It is that simple.

  • gosh, if this man runs in 2016 against Sec. Clinton I will have the hardest time choosing who to vote for. Ive never felt so torn before. he is by far the best republican candidate i have seen run for the oval office in my lifetime. he has a great record for jobs, cutting down the size of government and trying new and innovative ideas. but the thought of having Bill Clinton back in the white house is tempting as well, he was great fiscally and very efficient. guess i'll have to wait and see…..

  • Scientists making things up?! I'm offended. What a fucking dumbass.

  • Huntsman even looks like the milktoast, effeminate, spoiled, gutless, timid RINO who the liberals slobber over and approve of. He somewhat resembles droopy dog.
    Face it, we treated him a lot nicer than the left treated Joe Lieberman.
    Would Al Franken write his name in small letters like he did Alan Colmes?

  • now i shall tell you evolution.
    look at a frog, from birth to his ending days.. and that happens withing a year. how can anybody. ANYBODY, think that it is impossible for us to have grown from cells aswell after millions of years. and global warming is a fact, 1000 years ago people didn´t get skin cancer after being in the sun.

  • Fox are in the pay of the energy corporations. They lie about everything else so why believe their denial of climate change. Rupert Murdoch is on the run he had to come to London and answer questions before a judicial enquiry on phone hacking. the British public are so anti Murdoch now so come our American cousins lets kick these liars (Fox News) out.

  • You should also look at the reply to climategate and think whether people that hack emails can really be trusted 😉

  • you obviously don't look at science

  • climategate is the scapegoat. the science can stand on its own feet

  • The report, issued on 18 February 2011,[117] cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".

  • what does that mean? that co2 ISNT a greenhouse gas?

  • "Climate has always changed!"

    Good grief! Do you really think that the climatologists, who study climate, year in, year out, don't know this? Are you really such a fool?

  • Ever look up the context for the 'hide the decline' quote? Or the explanation? Or that it is in fact entirely above board? Do you have the slightest idea of what you're writing about?

  • "Harvard University put on record August 2010 that there has been a static level of carbon dioxide"

    As the level of CO2 in the air has been measured and has been rising, I rather doubt that Harvard said any such thing. Your statement would then make you out to be a lying fool but I'll reserve judgement until you can, or cannot, produce a reference to the paper.

  • What is wrong with being an atheist? Why are all(?) American politicians religious? Seems a bit iffy to me.

  • Look for sermons by preachers in a lot of churches across the US. If they tell all the children who go there, from the impressionable age that they take in children, that atheists are evil baby eaters with no moral compass, with some people it will stick. This is not just with the attitude of atheists though. Most Christians and muslims who abandon blind faith for reason, still have an unreasonable amount of fear of hell, simply because the image was burned into them at young age.

  • Go to any public library. The fossil fuels formed at the end of the Jurassic age! When sea levels were 60 metres lower, there was 65% more life on earth and three natural ice ages!

  • Any high school biology book teaches about the carbon cycle! You learned about it when you were Xi. Global warming is dangerous PR from nuclear power-but natural climate has occurred since 1998! Go wash your mind out!

  • I know that climate change is a fact, but I do hold suspect the impact of humans to the climate change. We are still recovering from the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago. And volcanic activity has been increasing since around WWII, I think that may be part to blame with the reports of rising pollution, and may be greatly skewing the results of our tests.

  • Climate change was only partially caused by pollution. The rest is just natural tempature fluxuations. Happned from the dawn of time people.

  • I don't wanna talk to no scientists yall mutha fuckas lyin and gettin me pissed

  • Scientists invented your computer and your phone and your car and everything else you have in the world, so appreciate them the next time you use electricity.

  • Climate change is due in large part to pollution. Is it a coincidence that climatologists have been predicting climate change and now it is happening? The arctic isnt supposed to thaw out in summer like it is now. The earth is heating up, and Fox News would have people believe that is just a coincidence. Sad.

  • Huh for real. Ty for your post.

  • Like of your still watching this in 2221 where its so god damn hot that we've all moved to antarctica to avoid being sizzled like bacon

  • yeah America it is all a conspiracy brought up by the evil scientist community that wants to help those damn hippies produce vicious clean green energy and EVEN wants clean oceans and rivers and lakes, on top of that they dont want polluted food by pesticides and more and more… god they are so vicious!!! Hey, you know what what I think they are probably funded by terrorists or even worse, IRAN!! God I hate those damn conspiracy scientist people, do not let them profit from it!!! Idiots…

    Thanks Fox News.

  • Firstly, I don't think people are denying climate change, they're just saying human involvement is minimal or unproven. So it could be more to do with the sun/solar activity. As you say, we're stuck with it!

    Secondly, people do clearly benefit from the reactions to this and changing people's behaviour. People investing in green technology will benefit greatly from state subsidies, etc. In fact, it could be the big energy companies that diversify into green and profit!

    I'm undecided.

  • So Irene Sandy were scientific liberal lies? Any even if you don't grasp the human involvement or believe every scientist in humans perpetuating climate change, you'd rather throw your hat in with the lunatics at fox who get paid to regurgitate lies for oil companies???

  • I didn't say I was throwing my hat in with anybody. I was just clarifying the mistakes (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that it isn't intentional) made in this video, namely that it's climate change they are contending with (rather they dispute the impact of human activity upon it's extent), and also the assertion that nobody benefits from the changing of people's consumption habits and government subsidies, etc.

  • Yo birdbrain, Alaska faces another ice age

  • i dont care if they dont believe in global warming i can come up with another great reason for every envirnmental policy

  • If they finally end up believing it, FOX would blame everyone else for not doing anything sooner. "If you knew this was happening why didn't you do anything about it then?!"…uhhh "we tried, you fucked us".

  • Its not possible to reverse, its part of a natural cycle every 100,000 years

  • The thing is, a lot of people would say that our planetary tempuraturea fluctuate periodically, and they are right, but scientists have found out that we are supposed to be getting COLDER. That we are in the cooling stage… That's bad… If things keep going like this, methane pockets at the bottom of the oceans will melt and fill our atmosphere with methane… All that would be needed after that is a nice big thunderstorm (which are pretty common now) and we're all dead…

  • Kilmeade: "And a lot of corruption surrounding it, which has a lot of eyebrows up…",
    "Tell the scientists to get serious and stop making things up…", "But we're not the ones taking grant money and making up results…", etc..
    Such are the outright falsehoods and lies – spewed almost anytime anyone on FOX ventures to say anything at all – that makes FOX the punchline of so many jokes.

  • as much as i laugh at fox its clear cenk isnt aware of the proper data,if climate change was man made then why are our climate related taxes not going to fix the so called problem?go ask anyone who indoor grows pot what gas they use to increase their yeilds

  • I think the issue with public belief of global warming is that a decade ago due to everyone raising awareness people became worried about global warming. Then the general public did not see any sizable change in their daily lives relating to climate, so they don't feel like it is happening.

  • What a hack this guy is

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *