What do you think about this video?

Question

This is a film about 2012 Pole Shift, Nibiru, The Anunnaki, Giants/Nephilim/ Fallen ones, and UFOs. If you scare very easy do not view.

I myself, believe that this is all facts. I believe that global warming-- is just the cause of lack of oxygen on earth (IE: less trees to breathe more Co2 and therefore less oxygen).
Co2= carbon dioxide. More trees, more oxygen, less messing up the earth.

Back on topic, people thought I was nuts with one of my questions if aliens were coming back to earth to help us.
Watch these videos on youtube, and explain to me if its true or not.
part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O96ZMPXuv1A
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxfs1iEg144&NR=1
Part3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-3RLx_4Y5Y&NR=1

Tell me what you think.

I DID NOT MAKE THESE VIDEOS.

Answer 1

you really need to see how very gullible you are.... next you'll believe you just won the European Lottery!..................

Answer 2

Survey 1: 0 percent of those links worked...

Survey 2: The vast majority of the scientists that denounce global warming as a reality or caused by CO2 works for the Bush administration.

Today the majority of serious scientist agree that global warming is a reality and that it is caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (there is no shortage of oxygen). And two category 5 hurricanes in two weeks is a pretty good recipe for disaster. Global warming predicts that more powerful hurricanes will be the norm. What´s it gonna take? For Miami to be completely wiped off the map by the next one? ALL climate change is a potential disaster. Our agriculture and our economic system cannot handle change. What are farmers gonna do when the wheat belt moves north? Migrate to Canada?

Answer 3

I think someone went to a lot of trouble and spent a lot of money scare-mongering unproven and unproveable ideas that have no scientific basis.

So let me ask this - lets say its all true, the whole shebang and Earth will be destroyed in 5 years.
What can we do about it? Nothing.
So what's the point of getting all worried or concerned or panicky over something that may not even happen (do you remember the Y2K scare?) and if it does there is not one thing anyone can do to stop it.

Answer 4

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Answer 5

What a load of crap! There's absolutely no scientific basis for any of this garbage. Posting it here on Astronomy & Space is SPAM!

Answer 6

http://xfacts.com/x.htm