Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

Insult Comic Dog on Global Warming

Insult Comic Dog on Global Warming

  • Views: 2687
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:Girls on Bikes
  • Girls on Bikes
  • Carla and Henriette Hochdorfer's performance at the 200. . .
  • Votes 4.18/5 - Views 123 - Comments 0
  • Video:Smiling Dog
  • Smiling Dog
  • This dog likes to greet his owner with a great big smil. . .
  • Votes 4.13/5 - Views 96 - Comments 1

View All



Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.6 out of 5 based on 357 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

15 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

idoubtit : LVL 33: VP 4.2: said:

idoubtit

18 votes NegativePositive

83 days 16 hours ago...

I just love how the guy with the glasses kept picking up his cigar for him and putting it back in his mouth.

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

Hidden (Show Comment) -14 votes

83 days 15 hours ago...

Indeed, the dog pretty much sums up the liberal side of the issue...no debate, just patronizing insults. Good thing there was a laugh track or I wouldn`t have realized it was supposed to be funny.

thedevilstaco : LVL 11: VP 2: said:

thedevilstaco

7 votes NegativePositive

83 days 12 hours ago...

theres gonna be another ice age in 10000years so who cares

tootles : LVL 23: VP 3.2: said:

tootles

-1 votes NegativePositive

82 days ago...

It isn`t a liberal thing, you hard core conservatives make it that way, as it is with most things science. EVERYTHING that goes against your little world view is LIBERAL. It`s ridiculous. You`re part of a minority of ignorant, uneducated idiots, no wonder everything else around you, including every media station on the planet except for Fox News, is LIBERAL. You draw lines in the sand constantly and no matter the overwhelming evidence or facts, you keep your position for the sake of opposition.

I lump global warming deniers in with creationists. Both are just anti-science right wing loons. And, coincidentally, Republicans.

ShinyG : LVL 36: VP 4.4: said:

ShinyG

-1 votes NegativePositive

82 days ago...

You`re right tootles, republicans tend to like drawing lines and sticking to them, no matter what! That`s why they are such devout christians...

miksah2001 : LVL 36: VP 4.4: said:

miksah2001

2 votes NegativePositive

81 days 23 hours ago...

As the great Stephen Colbert would say, truth has a well-known liberal bias.

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

6 votes NegativePositive

81 days 22 hours ago...

Tootles: I`m libertarian, not conservative.

And I`d love to argue the science with you sometime. But like all other liberals on the subject, you never discuss the science, you simply call people names. Calling people deniers only reinforces the religious fervor that has co-opted any real debate.

Several legitimate climate scientists have challenged Al Gore to a public debate on the issue. Why is he so afraid to take them on?

Or perhaps you can explain how Al Gore has miraculously removed all evidence of the Medieval Warm Period from his data? He still clings to the infamous "hockey stick" graph in his presentations despite the IPCC itself denouncing it and telling him to stop it. (Gore admitted that he exaggerates his data to scare people.)

Or perhaps you could address Richard Hansen being forced to recant his claim that eight of the warmest years on record have occured since 1998. In fact, there has been a slight cooling trend since 1998...going against every prediction of those clinging to this myth that global warming is going to have catastrophic consequences.

Or perhaps you could address the "consensus" that we have entered into a thirty-year cooling trend which, amazingly, correlates with the pacific decadal oscillation cycle. (Imagine that.)

Or perhaps you could address why the bulk of global warming over the last 150 years occurred prior to 1940? Or perhaps you could address how this warming trend began at the end of the Little Ice Age and the conclusions that can be inferred from that?

Is that enough science to get you started? Or would you prefer to cling to self-righteous proclamations that folks who do not believe in catastrophic global warming don`t know anything about science? I`ll happy to compare my science knowledge to yours any day.

Personally, I`m guessing that I just threw out several issues about which you are completely clueless.

proctor@internode.on.net : LVL 25: VP 3.4: said:

proctor@internode.on.net

2 votes NegativePositive

81 days 22 hours ago...

@ tooties, maybe you should do some independent research and have a look into global research for your self. Appeal to the masses,

"It`s ridiculous. You`re part of a minority of ignorant, uneducated idiots, no wonder everything else around you, including every media station on the planet except for Fox News, is LIBERAL."

This is not a valid argument, but none the less you are entitled to opinion. It is easy to point fingers, but what Al Gore and co spew out is extremely biased. The third world can not develop with out going through the industrial stage, unless you want to pay for them to skip a generation.

miksah2001 : LVL 36: VP 4.4: said:

miksah2001

2 votes NegativePositive

81 days 21 hours ago...

^ Just wanted to point out the Little Ice Age is a myth. Just a small regional change in temperature, limited to Britain and Northeastern Europe.

For example, the freezing of the Thames was figured out to be due to a bridge blocking the flow of warm water, not a temperature decrease.

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

10 votes NegativePositive

81 days 20 hours ago...

^ And yet you fail to explain what caused the LIA, what ended it, and the fact that most global warming data is also based on an a small region of the planet with incongruous methods of data collection. Proponents of AGW also fail to account for the fact that most data collection points are located in urban heat islands...making it notoriously difficult to separate the noise from reality.

Global data points gathered in the last 30 years, which are far more consistent and reliable, are matching closely with expected results from the pacific decadal oscillation. Explain.

Also, please explain why not one single climate model can match past trends of the global climate, let alone have any legitimacy in predicting future trends.

As for the Thames, a single event cannot support or disprove any theories about AGW...nice try though.

Pop quiz: What`s the average rate of sea level rise for the last 10,000 years and what is the rate today?

BTW, I`m not denying a one degree celcius temperature rise since the mid-1800s. What I debate is the cause of said temperature rise and the alleged catastrophic nature of global warming.

For all that you guys bitch and moan about religion, and rightly so, it`s ironic that you so easily allow your ignorance to be preyed upon by secular fearmongers.

imadazol : LVL 31: VP 4: said:

imadazol

-1 votes NegativePositive

81 days 16 hours ago...

Hockey Stick was just in Scientific American Nov `09 issue. It was recreated using an entirely different method from a researcher at Harvard (but I bet he is a liberal!). You could maybe go read the article...but it is easier to just believe EckJerome.

saltesc : LVL 36: VP 4.4: said:

saltesc

2 votes NegativePositive

81 days 14 hours ago...

EckJerome, don`t forget solar variation!

In retort to tootles, I rather put creationists on par with people that believe in human destruction of our climate through CO2. They both ignore basic science and put their fingers in their ears saying, "LA LA LA LA!!!" whenever someone tries to show them the obvious fact of the matter.

I suggest you start with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeY8oqAGhyA

Then go to one of the many sites that have `challenges` like GlobalClimateScam.com

"Take the GCS Challenge
Spend 10 minutes reviewing articles on this site and see if you don`t become a global warming skeptic."

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

4 votes NegativePositive

81 days 14 hours ago...

imadazol: The hockey stick has also been reproduced by climate skeptics. It required using erroneous data.

That said, I found an online summary of the article in Scientific American. There`s nothing conclusive about it...yet more data manipulation. It does support that the use of the graph for either side of the debate remains controversial. The researcher, David Apell, has also written past papers supporting the graph, so he is biased in regard to defending his own work. It is by no means an independent analysis.

The summary also states that he only recreated the last 600 years of the graph...conveniently omitting the time frame for the Medival Warm Period, the most disputed data in the graph. Imagine that.

Next.

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

5 votes NegativePositive

81 days 13 hours ago...

Ironically, in the few arranged debates with experts on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming and climate science, the proponents have had to admit that the skeptics they face do, in fact, know their science very well. (And this is why Al Gore is afraid to debate them.)

It would seem that the more one actually knows and understands the climate, the more skeptical one becomes. Imagine that...the exact opposite of what the name-callers claim.

EckJerome : LVL 42: VP 5: said:

EckJerome

3 votes NegativePositive

81 days 13 hours ago...

Pop quiz: State the relationship between El Nino, La Nina, the trade winds, and the North American jet stream.

Nope, nothing to do with global warming, but lets see how much you guys know about the climate.

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Drawing Coming Soon!
Prize
Entry Dates: 9/8/2007-9/14/2009