Global Warming isn't caused by man, it's caused by the SUN. Even the Al Gore has had to change the theory to say CO2 just adds to the effect. The Earth changes due to temperature these people are so alarmed about ARE going to happen, no matter what we do to CO2, and NOTHING is being done to prepare for it. This is opportunism, allowing them to control your life and Make Billions trading pieces of NOTHING. Ask yourself why they would want to replace CO2 emissions, with Water Vapor?
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus”
I am saying this is a World Wide movement starting with Maurice Strong in the UN.
All Warming is assumed to be Man Made & all research that is Government funded expects that answer. Can you show me any Gov funded studies that research the possibility of NON man made warming?? There are none. Any Scientists who have a contrary opinion are not published by peer review or have funding cut.
You only have to look at General Kofi Annan to see how corrupt the UN is. Carbon Credit is a scam.
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a Catastrophe
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Dr Charles R. Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, 1 of the 4 agencies charged with responsibility for collecting global climate temperatures NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
With the scientific literature filled with diagnosis papers on sunspots that show time after time after time that sun's activity correlated perfectly with the temperatures up until 1979, so I would say that Co2 based feedbacks took control of the climate only around there. Perhaps forced the early 20th century warming a bit, but not enough to really matter sense we started to fill the atmosphere with Co2 only after economic boom after WW2 with great speed.
I am sorry Finn but the Solar Hypothesis has been falsified several times over.
Consider that you should have several expectations of what a solar induced warming would look like.
1. You should see the top of the atmosphere warming first. We do not. Matter of fact the Earth is warming from the bottom up. Exactly what you would expect if the source was Anthropogenic.
2. The Tropics should warm the most the fastest. Again we do not see that. It is the Arctic that is warming.
It is the Arctic that is warming the fastest at twice the rest of the globes rate.
3. We should expect a larger difference in the day time temperature from the night if it was the Sun. We do not. What we do see is that the nights are warming faster than the days. Again the opposite of what you would expect but in line with CO2.
4. To spite your assertions of a "perfect correlation" that is not true at all. Matter of fact, and have been in the top five warmest.
To spite that this year and last are the top five warmest on record. The Sun spot activity has been its lowest in a century. Further we can, monitor the output of the sun and have seen no increase in its activity over the past several decades.
... As I said, correlation just before 1979... Read my text before answering you silly radicalists ^^
But if you would look at the temperature sets for NCDC, UAH, RSS and HadCRUT3, you would find out that non of these sets have any higher temperatures sense 1998. So that's 5/6 don't show any of the highest years. I doesn't mean that there isin't any GW going on, of course. However, considering that HadCrut3 and NCDC only differ from GISSTEMP by sets of calculations...
Sorry Finn but you have not addressed any of my points. And yes we had warmer years since 1998 and no you do not understand what how trends are decided. The 2000's have been the warmest decade on the instrument record.
... It appears that the mix between letter cap and my foreing not so good english create a confusion, my apologies.
But as I said, I don't blame the sun over the warming past 1979, just the time BEFORE that, wich you were claiming by saying "..and the Industrial Revolution is how old again?" so I really don't need to answers your points sense I AGREE WITH THEM.
And to your second point, I just said that in year to year variations, 1998 has been the warmest, while also saying that.
At what point are you going to address the evidence presented? And no 1998 has been the warmest. According to NASA 2005 was the warmest with 1998 and several other years tying for second.
I agree on that sun has had hardly to do with the temperature rise in the past thiry years and for the past thirty years there has been Global Warming, however, the 1998 being the the warmest.
If NASA somehow has the "bigger authority" with it's temperature data set, please explain this fact to me if you could.
I understand how trends are made. However, I point out that there are more then one temperature data set. There are actually multiple temperature data sets by diffrente organizations, some are made out of land based thermometers, some with Earth-orbiting satellites.
I named for example british HarCrut3, wich clearly shows 1998 is the warmest. Also dataset by NCDC and satellite based data sets like UAH and RSS show that 1998 is the warmest.
As I understand it they are just willing to extrapolate 1200 km of data ( for example, we only have temperature stations on the coast of Greenland). If we for example make the comparison from the RSS satellite data, GISS has produced over 1 degree Kelvin higher numbers yearly then RSS.
...Even beyond that, you just named HadCrut3, wich was only one of the four other data sets I mentioned. If we have five data sets and only one says 2005 was the highest then I go with the majority.
A. The satellites do not go further north than 82.5. degress.
B. All of the temperature sets are in close agreement.
C . You are still fixating on a single year which tells me that to spite all you protestations to the contrary you are clueless about how trends are decided. Hint: One data point does not a trend make.
D. All of the land temperature data sets use the same weather stations. What differentiates them is how it is processed.
D point as much to be to my advantage then to yours...
I don't really understand what B point has to do with it the way to another....
A: And we really do not have a even "a good" coverage by temperature stations. And even so, satellites give much better view over around that 60 N- 80 N, where there really isin't that well of a coverage.
C: ... I tend to get the feeling we have some sort of a communication problem (wich I would presume is from me, sense I really don't get to...
D. Why would it be to your "advantage"? Are you more interested in learning the science or scoring unsubstantiated points?
A. Is again an unsubstantiated assertion. And I am pointing out to you that the satellites do not go any further north than 82.5 degrees. Why am I having to repeat this?
C. Somehow you have come to the conclusion that a single data point invalidates the whole population of data. Your fixation on 1998 is testimony to that assessment.
... Really, as you have time and time again dodged the fact that I have no "fixation" on 1998 as any more as you have on your 2005 and the points I have tried to make, I only have this to say and I dare to actually quote one of my favourites:
In fact, I apologize for even waisting your time, you are right. Clearly this debate has been nothing more then a waist of both of our times and I hope that I haven't been of a most inconvinience to you. If you somehow suspect that I'm just sarcastic, then I apologize for that misconseption , I'm from Finland and in Finland we don't use sarcasm that much, so we aren't that good in using or not looking like using it. I hope that you will have a most day.
practice in english. As I have stated before, I as you believe that the past thirty years from 1979 to 2010 have been warming. You are right, a singular year does not matter to the over all trend, wich I have never claimed. I have basicly just set forward an idea that if from one of five good temperature data sets, you get a warmer year then that Super El Nino 1998, wouldn't it be most likely that those particular numbers from that ONE data set are off sense these data sets show si-
@Trent1492 milar trend of warming and for the surface station ones the only real thing that seperates them is the way that the unadjasted numbers are adjusted and computed to an overall line, wich shows a clear trend of warming?
Is that presumption from a logical way of thinking just too much to ask?
Global Warming truly exists. You were claiming that the past YEARS have been the warmest in the record, while individually 1998's Super El Nino holds out on all major records if not NASA's GISS includet. But, I agree with the notion that the last decades is the warmest, while it has been the decade without any actually, wich on itself only matters if that no warming continues for the next 20 more years.
We have been in a steady warming trend since mid 70's. That was something predicted back in the 70's too. Are you at all aware that the current warming trend is
was predicted based on the physics alone? No one is saying "ah! It is warming thus it is must be humans!"None of this is correlated with sun spots. That relationship stopped in the 70's. As I pointed out to you the solar hypothesis has been falsified.
What I specifly critisize about our Global Warming fears, is the role of clouds. Just right today actually Roy Spencer released had hi's latest paper released on the subject of cloud feedback analysis, wich indeed could show a large variation in Earth's internal forcings, like chaotic cloud fluctuations.
You can find hi's paper on hi's blog (just google Roy Spencer).
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at +0.61 deg. C for February, 2010. This is about the same as January, which in our new Version 5.3 of the UAH dataset was +0.63 deg. C. February was second warmest in the 32-year record, behind Feb 1998
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
There is another theory quickly stabbing at the heart of co2 AGW theory. If you can find and read Svensmark et al 2009. You'll find the magnetic feild from the sun and cosmic rays drive our climate.
CO2 traps heat & temps go up. But soon the oceans will be warm enough to stop absorbing CO2 and will eventually release large quantities of dissolved CO2.
Then deniers will say, see warming causes increased CO2.
Duhh???
Another FEEDBACK: If temps. rise 3.5C-5.2C as MIT predicts we could be facing a massive uncontrolled methane release from arctic permafrost and lakes. That's game over.
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
CO2 levels were 7000 ppm during the Cambrian Period but yet temperatures were no higher than today. Look back in history and see how much CO2 influenced temperature and you will be suprised. If the Jones statement of now warming is incorrect because the period is so short how can you claim warming is happening. Does the restriction not apply to this too? This nullifies your hottest year claims also.
This just shows how Little CO2 comes into play in Global Warming. It shows the Sun & other influences as Major Factors. Theres no doubt the sun has varied but did the caclulations fit Warming or was the solar variation made to fit the chart? I will have to see. This may be like Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old & say the speed of light changed so the stars now appear billions of light years away. Either way CO2 seems a minor factor by this video.
As I said, I believe it. Since the CO2 was 7000ppm vs 450ppm as today & yet the sun controled the temp, this just shows how Little CO2 effects the earths temp as a greenhouse gas. The fluctuation of our sun, with other factors is probably what is causing the temp variations today, just as it did during the Cambrian period. It is also amazing how Cambrian temps were similar to those today. This leads me to believe there is a stablizing factor, probably water/clouds, that needs more study.
Tex... What you seem to not understand is the fact that the sun is HOTTER now that it was during the Cambrian. It's not a matter of fluctuations. The sun grows hotter over time.
It's the combination of subduction of CO2 with increased solar irradiance that has allowed life to flourish on this planet.
Yes of course its hotter, but just enough to balance that huge shift in CO2 to keep the temperature stable? Unlikely that the CO2 changed just enought 7000ppm to 450ppm to balance the increased sun, just enough, to keep a stable climate. This again pushing CO2 out as major control of our climate.
I would add that, yes, it has been warmer in the past. Sometimes those events have corresponded with mass extinctions. As well, generally the changes do not take place in short time spans. It takes species a long time to adapt to temperature swings in the climate. What we are currently doing is considered to be extremely abrupt from the perspective of natural systems.
I think whats happening is people are picking data to create explanations for changes to come to the conclusion of man made global warming. This is the knots that Christian Scientists go through to make the universe appear less than 5000 - 9000 years old. Things like, light traveled more slowly in the past which makes galaxies appear further away. Can you tell me how solar intensity was measured/calculated for the Cambrian period?
This is a basic fact about the sun. As it burns it's hydrogen fuel converting it to helium, the sun increases in solar output at a known rate. It's explained in the Royer paper I referenced before.
Exactly. You are saying that a calculated output determines what past solar output was. These papers are all written with the premise that man made global warming is real, just as the Christian Scientists papers. Its all data interpretation and or exclusion. Point is its unlikely the change in co2 & sun should be that stable over time if co2 is the major control. If co2 is not then its not significant in this time so man made warming is wrong.
No, in fact, the paper I'm referencing doesn't say anything about man-made CO2. It's strictly looking at CO2 relative to temperature over the past 450 million years.
And CO2 and solar radiation are NOT that stable over the past 450my. Solar radiation increased at a stable rate but CO2 swings a lot.
Each study like this has the opportunity to show that CO2 does NOT affect temps but it's just not coming out this way. They more data that comes in the more CO2 looks like the largest driver of global climate.
robhoneycutt I am not refering to the paper when commenting on man made warming. "If these studies show CO2 is the largest climate driver then why is CO2 lag temp increases by about 800years. This is obvious & even admitted to be true by many pro warming sites who then explain Modern CO2 warming is different for various reasons. If the 800year lag is true then CO2 is Not the driver in the past. Solar radiations so called constant stable rate is not even true for ... cont
... the measurements made in recent times. It is Assumed to be stable over history. Again, if you have already decided the answer to the question, you WILL find Data to support it. I predict that every future climate change will have a scientific paper to explain how it is caused by man made warming, even as the earth grows colder. Now I wonder if you know why this is true.
@Texmurphy51 The 800 year lag is extremely well understood. CO2 is generally not the initial climate forcing mechanism. The earth's orbit, obliquity and precession are what normally initiate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. But that can only account for a rise and fall of maybe 1C. All the additional forcing comes from CO2 which then sets off other feedbacks in the system. The problem is now we are using CO2 as the initial forcing.
@Texmurphy51 I think you really have a misunderstanding of how science works. Science wants to find the answers regardless of the results. In fact, all the scientists I know are usually pleased to find answers they hadn't expected! THAT is the very nature of science.
The scientific process has a robustness that has done fantastically amazing things. But now that it's finding something disturbing everyone finds science somehow suspect in its finding.
I think you are naive to believe this. There are many frauds by Scientists because they KNEW the answer, but didnt have the data. Perhaps you should read the recent info reveald about NASA emails & data released under FOIA after 2 years of stonewalling. This ties in with East Anglia to show whats going on. Any scientists with a paper opposing Warming is not published because of peer review. These scientists see their career nosedive so, do you really think many buck the system? Cont ...
@Texmurphy51 Not at all naive about the system. It's always been said that science is a messy business. I'm not denying that in the least.
The whole issue about peer reviewed papers is normal. There's a huge issue when a journal gets pressured to accept a paper that is of extremely low quality. That's what the scientists were so up in arms about.
To clarify... The journal Climate Science was getting pressure to publish, I think it was, a Soon Baliune paper that would have failed a freshman science course. All the climate scientists were, rightfully, completely incensed about it. In the end it got published (as I remember) and most of the editorial staff at Climate Science resigned because of it.
robhoneycutt .. Well if you understand the system you know why East Anglia & NASA have been holding back information. They have to arrange it so the conclusion is what their bosses want. James Hansen has an adjenda with Al Gore,(if you know his history) to prove man made warming. I suggest you look at the NASA fraud that came to light under FOIA. How much research to prove tsmoking caused cancer do you think went on at the tobacco companies. Same with Climate Research centers.
@Texmurphy51 UEA has released 80% of the information. The release of the information was a function of a 3 man office dealing with thousands of requests (honestly designed more to stall their work than to get information) all of which require permission from a wide range of governments who are the actual owners of the data.
@Texmurphy51 A claim of fraud does not mean that a fraud was committed. That's part of the political tactic. Create lots of law suits for fraud and deception and all sorts of other things in order to create a public perception of wrongdoing.
In time each and every case that has been filed will get thrown out of court.
robhoneycutt ... NASA has been sitting on this for 2 years, never the less, forget the fraud. Read what has come out about the satelite data and emails. Does the Science you speak of say when you have conflicting Data you hide it? By their own admission there is not enough data collected to show a trend of warming. This is not Science and you know it. Statistically you cannot prove warming.
@Texmurphy51 If you are referring to the Phil Jones interview you're way off the mark. Go read the transcript of the BBC interview. Jones says that there was a warming of 0.12C/decade from 1995 to 2009 but that it falls short of "statistical significance" because it's 15 years. He adds that it is just short of statistically significant.
The statistical significance of global warming since 1950 is overwhelming.
@Texmurphy51 You asked, "Does science say when they have conflicting data?"
Yes it does. Constantly. Look, if a scientist could publish a paper that definitively shows there is nothing to worry about with AGW, that scientist will be set for life! They would get rich beyond their wildest dreams. So, they have every incentive to get it right! Problem is, virtually EVERYTHING is pointing the other direction. That it IS a serious concern for humanity.
robhoneycutt .. if you follow history the inventors are not the ones who get rich but political & businessmen. Al Gore & everyone attached to his Carbon Credit Scam is becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams. Peloci, Reid, & others are heavily invested in alternative energy. Why do you think we banned all US oil drilling? Besides the money is the power to control basically everything. If the concern was Real we would go to nuclear, specifically Thorium but thats another power struggle.
Yout talked about how science worked & why scientists would publish anti warming stuff n it got me off subject. Anyway read the NASA stuff they have been hiding.
robhoneycutt ....... Its in the news all you have to do is look. Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act discussing the climate dataset.
@RasPesher That peanuts compared to Governemnt funding. As I said, if someone cant get a grant for research into their project because it goes against the system, they will turn to somewhere else to get the money. If this money taints their research then Gov money taints the research of Warmers.
@Texmurphy51 " if someone cant get a grant for research into their project because it goes against the system, they will turn to somewhere else to get the money" - IRRELEVANT
The Competitive Enterprise Institute does not do scientific research, there purpose is to prevent research from being done. This sort of institution uses freedom of information requests to retard research. On the other hand, if they are lucky, they may discover an email that they can deliberately take out of context.
@Texmurphy51 "Gov money taints the research of Warmers"
This must be one of the strangest conspiracy theories of all time. Your idea is that governments pay scientists to make up stories about the Earth warming up?????? ...doesn't the absurdity, have alarm bells ringing in your head?
They don't have to pay them directly, just offer the money. These researchers livelihood now depends on there BEING a crisis. What do you think they're going to say?
@RasPesher That's just it, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a logical explanation of why a number of individuals would perpetuate something that keeps them employed. What reason do you have to think that any given scientist out there has any greater morals than a criminal defense attorney or tobacco lobbyist?
It's an industry to spread fearmongering about CO2 now, there is no conspiracy necessary.
@pimpdalyrical "It's a logical explanation of why a number of individuals would perpetuate something that keeps them employed"
In Australia the federal Government commissioned a report whereby they obtained Econometric statisticians to check the scientist's analysis. The econometricians verified the statistics. These guys don't have a vested interest here.
However it is a known fact that the DENIERS MAKE A LIVING OUT OF CASTING DOUBT; formerly they were denying that tabacco smoke causes cancer.
@Pimp Cont..For information on how DENIERS MAKE A LIVING OUT OF CASTING DOUBT google the George C. Mashal Institute and see what you find. Apparently according to the Marshall Inst. smoking does not cause cancer and the hole in the Ozone layer is a myth etc. Or google "Heartland Institute: Follow the money trail".
So the government commisioned report reinforced notions that give government more power and money. Shocking. Whereas the "Deniers" have nothing to gain from their reports, and have actually come forward to their detriment, losing grants and even jobs. Such as the lead author of the IPCC report that all this crap is based on, and the Co-founder of Greenpeace. Try applying for grant money without relating your research to proving this garbage. See how you do.
@pimpdalyrical "Whereas the "Deniers" have nothing to gain from their reports,.."
Exxon alone pumped $23 million into denier groups over the last ten years or so. Since there are only a handful of deniers, that's a lot of money per denier.
On the other hand your saying that the government, the economists, the scientists and former mining company CEOs are in a giant conspiracy, oh which isn't a conspiracy "because it keeps them employed"??? mind you they'd all be employed anyway!
Exxon and other companies (Who your retirement will rely on) aren't supposed to defend themselves from slander? Maybe your gas price would go down a little if they didnt have to fight off GE's buddies in Washington and the media pushing unrealistic "alternaives." Hey, but at least some bureacrat will be in control of it!
There's no conspiracy, just people who have decided to profit off the lie. Virus' don't need a leader, they just do whats in their nature.
@pimpdalyrical "just people who have decided to profit off the lie"
Nevertheless your assertion that the deniers don't profit from there stance is false, so there is a good motivation for people to come out as deniers. The reason that there are not more people who take up this highly profitable opportunity is that they are held back by their sense of morality.
"gas price would go down"
The world is changing. We're passing peak oil. Peak cars has been passed in the western countries (2004).
Except the scientists coming out as "Deniers" as you put it seem to share the common thread of gaining nothing from it, where as those propogating this garbage all have research grants and investments on the line. These scientists get their name dragged through the mud by Green movement which never bothers to counter their true scientific research and facts. You think John Christy and the founder of greenpeace are on Exxon's payroll? Get real. You're being played.
@Pimp Cont..It is clear from watching John Christy's video that he is primarily looking at local data; data which is unsuitable for determining whether global warming is happening or not. Data which may well have been cherry picked to go against the global trend. With almost any trend in climate data there will be some locations that buck the trend.
It occurs to me that this video is therefore not a serious attempt to determine the truth wrt climate change.
@RasPesher "John Christy's video that he is primarily looking at local data; data which is unsuitable for determining whether global warming is happening or not."
It was HIS research that drove the IPCC report upon which this whole Global Warming Panic is being driven. If HIS research can't be trusted, then all legal actions taken towards implementing CO2 emission standards need to be rescinded immediately.
Yet he was deemed impartial enough to be the lead author on the IPCC report, which apparently knew what it wanted to say before the facts were in.
The simple fact is that putting forth the science that disproves this garbage makes you a pariah, while even completely unrelated scientific research grants don't get approved unless you plan to "Expose" something about AGW and tow the line. I know, I've tried. You HAVE to go along with this crap to get funding these days.
@pimpdalyrical "scientific research grants don't get approved unless you plan to "Expose" something about AGW and tow the line" - TOTAL UTTER BS
You sound like a bleeding heart liberal!
If what you said was even remotely true there would be nothing to prevent a scientist from getting a grant to research an aspect of Global Warming that yielded a negative finding. Your argument is self defeating.
You have obviously never applied for grant money. You think the leftists holding the purse strings in Washington and academia would fund an impartial scientific study? Their future stranglehold on the people of this country is on the line! You either come to them with preformed conclusions and a plan to further their agenda or you're blacklisted. That's how it IS! Your work doesnt need to relate to climate at all, as long as they can add you to the list of "Consensus" of scientists.
Not as long as we can keep the communists masking themselves as "Environementalists" from destroying our enegy infrastructure. Their the one's wanting us back on steam trains and horse and buggy.
@pimpdalyrical From not being a conspiracy this thread has gone from just scientists TO scientists and politicians, TO scientists, politicians, economists and econometricians TO scientists, politicians, economists, econometricians and NOW communists! Wow this nonconspiracy conspiracy theory has certainly grown with the telling.
By the way, substitute the steam trains with modern electric trains powered by clean energy and you might be onto something.
And yes, electric trains (powered by coal obviously, windfarms and solar can't power something like that) would be closer to what I'm saying. Your ability to go where you wwant and when dictated to by the powerful who build the tracks where THEY want you to go and can throw the switch when they want you in one place. Hmm, kinda makes the centralized living plans make more sense too, don't it?
@pimpdalyrical Sorry but trains don't differenciate on the source of the electricity. They are just as happy to run on solar power as they are on coal power. The current generation of trains may not be typical of the future. It may be lightweight, high speed and right to your front door and use very little power.
Your SUV may well go the way of the dinosaur (and the horse and buggy). In the west, peak cars was passed in 2004. Some say that peak oil has already been passed (others say 2012).
And there isn;'t a single alternative "renewable" energy plan that doesn't include our rulers in Government having their finger on the switch. They want the ability to keep you on lock down. That's ALL this is about.
You can have my SUV, when you come up with something that A) Anybody actually wants to drive, and B) Actually works.
@pimpdalyrical When the price of petrol hits $40/litre no-one will want your SUV. This will happen sometime in the not too distant future even without a price on carbon.
Since your paranoid about the government you could always install solar panels, although currently wind turbines and solar thermal may be more efficient.
The current gas price has more to do with a certain worthless piece of shit in the whitehouse devaluing the dollar on purpose, than oil supply. Once we get that socialist out of office drilling can return to the gulf, and useless tundra in alaska, and the supply will go up. Then the price will go down as we straighten out the dollar, which the price of oil is tacked to.
At least long enough for the free market to come up with a REAL replacement, that actually works.
@Nihm420 You're right. As long as governments continue to regulate commerce against natural supply and demand, and ignorant consumers continue to use large corporate banks, which exchange currencies that are not backed upon a precious metal ...then yes there is no such thing as a free market.
@Nihm420 Again you are right when in an overwhelmingly well-established Keynesian infrastructure that overlaps nation to nation to nation. Free markets did exist in a purist sense centuries ago when supply/demand drove prices, when governments were essentially non-existent and the culture was predominantly agrarian.
Do I think the 21st Century society can ever return to a free-market? No, certainly not a pure one. Could we return to "classical liberalism" and flourish from the benefits? Yes
@Texmurphy51 Look, what you may not realize is that scientists are always highly critical of each other's work. If a scientist tries to publish a paper making claims that can not be substantiated with solid data, they get castigated regardless of any side of the political debate that the results fall on.
The issue these days is that the climate change denier community is using the fact that scientists are rejecting their poor quality work as a way of saying there is collusion on one side.
You can definitely find peer reviewed papers that counter climate change. Not many. Lindzen, Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, Christy and others have published plenty. But their conclusions are not consistent with all the other thousands of papers that are continuing to come out.
This is not a sign of collusion. It's a sign that science is working as it should.
For an in-depth investigation DEBUNKING the false claims that Phil Jones said "There has been no global warming since 1995" see the YouTube:
8a. Climate Change - supplement
/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=sub
Actually, Jones' figures show a rise of 0.12C per decade from 1995-2009. However, scientifically this was too short a period to show statistical significance.
Figures for 1975-2009 show a rise of 0.16C per decade and are scientifically statistically significant.
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Clearly Jones says "Yes, but only just...", not "No, because..." Plain and simple question, plain and simple answer. The answer to the question: trues or false from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming = true, but (then Jones explanation). Yes but blah blah blah is still yes, otherwise he would have said NO
For an in-depth investigation DEBUNKING the false claims that Phil Jones said "There has been no global warming since 1995" see the YouTube:
8a. Climate Change - supplement
/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=sub
Actually, Jones' figures show a rise of 0.12C per decade from 1995-2009. However, scientifically this was too short a period to show statistical significance.
Figures for 1975-2009 show a rise of 0.16C per decade and are scientifically statistically significant.
Nonsense. No solar flares August '08 and polar caps re-growing on Earth, Mars, moons of Jupiter. All the planets are COOLING. Not just Earth, all the planets and moons.
During the 1990's, solar activity was very high, and polar caps were melting Earth Mars moons of Jupiter.
NASA and satellite pics show it.
THINK FOR YOURSELF. Try to use facts, not suspicion or opinion. Verify the source before believing people.
Such blatant fearmongering that is totally without a scientific basis. The arctic ice is borderline insignificant...remarkable how you manage to not include the fact that the ice on Antarctica is growing with the exception of one very small peninsula.
The cherry picked hippie bullshit you spew is getting old. Nobody is listening anymore because it's truly nothing more than drivel.
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
To check the data search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
The same satellite data that "you" have show you that the troposphere hasn't shown the warming that ALL of your computer models said it would? Because that's also shown in the NASA data.
Your data can't account for the medieval warm period, which was significantly warmer than anything we're experiencing now. CO2 has been higher, temps have been warmer.... Basically you can't account for shit. Get a life and leave people to make their own energy decisions.
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome,therefore manemade global warming IS A THEORY!!!
ummm...what?... Earth IS the mother of all life, including all apples. If your mother or father didn't exist, you wouldn't and if earth didn't exist you would have a mother or father nor would they and so forth. Have some respect for the only home mankind will ever deeply know for a long time
Even if global warming is complete political BS it doesn't mean we should disrespect our Mother Earth. We are her children, every last one of us. So listen to her, not to these lying evil bastards we call leaders. Nature is the the True authority!
No honest human is pro-pollution. The problem is, catastrophic human-caused global-warming is an absolute total fraud. The entire purpose is to justify creation of totalitarian world government, make criminal organizations super-rich by taxing just about every human, product and corporation on earth, make every human a slave to the world-government elitists, and eventually kill 80% ~ 95% of the population of earth. This may sound amazing, but their own documents reveal this clearly.
Realm of my heart....that's your name and you're telling me to stop hugging trees???? LOL! Maybe you should stop being a hipocrit and start hugging some trees. Probably do you some good. If you don't have anything constructive to say....shut the fuck up. Cheers
FACT: No solar flares August '08 - and Earth, Mars, and moons of Jupiter are re-growing their polar caps. Eg the planets are cooling.
Not just Earth, ALL the planets are cooling. During the 90's, there was increased solar activity, and all the planets warmed. Photos show all the polar caps shrank during that decade.
The SUN causes warming and cooling of ALL the planets, Earth included. 20 - 30 minutes of serious googling and NASA and satellite photos will show you.
So in summary Christy agrees that CO2 increases global temperatures, but not evenly or predictably, and not by as much as other peoples' models predict.
Global Warming is BULL CRAP! Some of the top Global Warming "Scientists" had their e-mails hacked and as it turns out they falsified data, buried contradictory data, manipulated the media, fabricated false reports, manipulated politicians, talked about how the data didn't support their own claims and even wondered amongst themselves why the data didn't support their hypothesis.
Search Climategate on Yahoo as a single word and click the UK Telegraph link!
it's pretty funny to hear these global warming nuts claim that whoever does not agree with their theory is automatically in bed with corporations when in reality, those in the climate change business stand to gain billions off of things like cap and trade with GE being the biggest benefactor.
i hear u completely. now anyone who doesnt think we're causing global warming is instantly called heretic, said we;re part of a cult, and shunned. and history has shown wen this is done, the shunned people are usually telling the truth
more issues on global warming and none of them has something to do about it...
muhammadzahmad 2 months ago
@taillebasse1 which therefore makes his credibility less than the likes of Dr. Michael Mann...?
GreenRiver72 3 months ago
Comment removed
inflate98 5 months ago
@inflate98
Global Warming isn't caused by man, it's caused by the SUN. Even the Al Gore has had to change the theory to say CO2 just adds to the effect. The Earth changes due to temperature these people are so alarmed about ARE going to happen, no matter what we do to CO2, and NOTHING is being done to prepare for it. This is opportunism, allowing them to control your life and Make Billions trading pieces of NOTHING. Ask yourself why they would want to replace CO2 emissions, with Water Vapor?
pimpdalyrical 5 months ago
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus”
co2isgoodal 5 months ago
wonder how you feel about extreme weather, (tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts now (@ time 34:30)
maunaowakea777 7 months ago
yes let's look at the money, exxon --> denialists who only exist for this role
government --> scientists who are paid either way because climatology is important whether there is a catastrophe or not
noobler9 7 months ago
I am saying this is a World Wide movement starting with Maurice Strong in the UN.
All Warming is assumed to be Man Made & all research that is Government funded expects that answer. Can you show me any Gov funded studies that research the possibility of NON man made warming?? There are none. Any Scientists who have a contrary opinion are not published by peer review or have funding cut.
You only have to look at General Kofi Annan to see how corrupt the UN is. Carbon Credit is a scam.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
TheModelification 1 year ago 2
Gosh, but the quality of the audio is very poor!
oomblikkies 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year 2,500,000 people die of car exhaust. And car exhaust is destroying the nature! We know how to stop it!
youtube.com/watch?v=sHw7XSz2OGI
Stop the global warming !!!
MediaCryptix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a Catastrophe
In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Dr Charles R. Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, 1 of the 4 agencies charged with responsibility for collecting global climate temperatures NOAA is now fighting a rearguard legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists
Dayversion 1 year ago
I LOVE THIS GUY! Global warming is a whole lot of crap!!! I have english speech tomoz, glad someones on my side :)
CwAziEGiRl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEWS:
Methane Releases from Arctic Shelf May Be Much Larger and Faster Than Anticipated
NSF - March 4, 2010.
Research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is starting to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
As Martin Heimann writes in Science: Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
goog2k 1 year ago
Even people on Real Climate do not think it matters.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago 2
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
Artic ice has been melting for more then 100 years, Oerlemans, et al, 2005 clearly shows this.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago 2
@Finlandcitizen
..and the Industrial Revolution is how old again?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
With the scientific literature filled with diagnosis papers on sunspots that show time after time after time that sun's activity correlated perfectly with the temperatures up until 1979, so I would say that Co2 based feedbacks took control of the climate only around there. Perhaps forced the early 20th century warming a bit, but not enough to really matter sense we started to fill the atmosphere with Co2 only after economic boom after WW2 with great speed.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
I am sorry Finn but the Solar Hypothesis has been falsified several times over.
Consider that you should have several expectations of what a solar induced warming would look like.
1. You should see the top of the atmosphere warming first. We do not. Matter of fact the Earth is warming from the bottom up. Exactly what you would expect if the source was Anthropogenic.
2. The Tropics should warm the most the fastest. Again we do not see that. It is the Arctic that is warming.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
Continued.
It is the Arctic that is warming the fastest at twice the rest of the globes rate.
3. We should expect a larger difference in the day time temperature from the night if it was the Sun. We do not. What we do see is that the nights are warming faster than the days. Again the opposite of what you would expect but in line with CO2.
4. To spite your assertions of a "perfect correlation" that is not true at all. Matter of fact, and have been in the top five warmest.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
Continued.
To spite that this year and last are the top five warmest on record. The Sun spot activity has been its lowest in a century. Further we can, monitor the output of the sun and have seen no increase in its activity over the past several decades.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
... As I said, correlation just before 1979... Read my text before answering you silly radicalists ^^
But if you would look at the temperature sets for NCDC, UAH, RSS and HadCRUT3, you would find out that non of these sets have any higher temperatures sense 1998. So that's 5/6 don't show any of the highest years. I doesn't mean that there isin't any GW going on, of course. However, considering that HadCrut3 and NCDC only differ from GISSTEMP by sets of calculations...
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
Sorry Finn but you have not addressed any of my points. And yes we had warmer years since 1998 and no you do not understand what how trends are decided. The 2000's have been the warmest decade on the instrument record.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
... It appears that the mix between letter cap and my foreing not so good english create a confusion, my apologies.
But as I said, I don't blame the sun over the warming past 1979, just the time BEFORE that, wich you were claiming by saying "..and the Industrial Revolution is how old again?" so I really don't need to answers your points sense I AGREE WITH THEM.
And to your second point, I just said that in year to year variations, 1998 has been the warmest, while also saying that.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
At what point are you going to address the evidence presented? And no 1998 has been the warmest. According to NASA 2005 was the warmest with 1998 and several other years tying for second.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
And only NASA says that. That is One data set, I can name five others that say 1998 was the warmest.
Hadcrut, NCDC, UAH, HadCrut.
Don't just nitpick the evidence you want.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
I keep on pounding this on you because you seem stuck on it. Are you at all aware on how trends are decided?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
I agree on that sun has had hardly to do with the temperature rise in the past thiry years and for the past thirty years there has been Global Warming, however, the 1998 being the the warmest.
If NASA somehow has the "bigger authority" with it's temperature data set, please explain this fact to me if you could.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
Explain what fact? Please be clear. Once again I am going to ask you do you understand how trends are decided?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
I understand how trends are made. However, I point out that there are more then one temperature data set. There are actually multiple temperature data sets by diffrente organizations, some are made out of land based thermometers, some with Earth-orbiting satellites.
I named for example british HarCrut3, wich clearly shows 1998 is the warmest. Also dataset by NCDC and satellite based data sets like UAH and RSS show that 1998 is the warmest.
How does NASA prevail over them?
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
Unlike HadCru NASA monitors the Arctic. And I think you might want to take a look at how this year is shaping up. So far a record year.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
As I understand it they are just willing to extrapolate 1200 km of data ( for example, we only have temperature stations on the coast of Greenland). If we for example make the comparison from the RSS satellite data, GISS has produced over 1 degree Kelvin higher numbers yearly then RSS.
...Even beyond that, you just named HadCrut3, wich was only one of the four other data sets I mentioned. If we have five data sets and only one says 2005 was the highest then I go with the majority.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
A. The satellites do not go further north than 82.5. degress.
B. All of the temperature sets are in close agreement.
C . You are still fixating on a single year which tells me that to spite all you protestations to the contrary you are clueless about how trends are decided. Hint: One data point does not a trend make.
D. All of the land temperature data sets use the same weather stations. What differentiates them is how it is processed.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
D point as much to be to my advantage then to yours...
I don't really understand what B point has to do with it the way to another....
A: And we really do not have a even "a good" coverage by temperature stations. And even so, satellites give much better view over around that 60 N- 80 N, where there really isin't that well of a coverage.
C: ... I tend to get the feeling we have some sort of a communication problem (wich I would presume is from me, sense I really don't get to...
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
D. Why would it be to your "advantage"? Are you more interested in learning the science or scoring unsubstantiated points?
A. Is again an unsubstantiated assertion. And I am pointing out to you that the satellites do not go any further north than 82.5 degrees. Why am I having to repeat this?
C. Somehow you have come to the conclusion that a single data point invalidates the whole population of data. Your fixation on 1998 is testimony to that assessment.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
... Really, as you have time and time again dodged the fact that I have no "fixation" on 1998 as any more as you have on your 2005 and the points I have tried to make, I only have this to say and I dare to actually quote one of my favourites:
"How cute"
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Trent1492
In fact, I apologize for even waisting your time, you are right. Clearly this debate has been nothing more then a waist of both of our times and I hope that I haven't been of a most inconvinience to you. If you somehow suspect that I'm just sarcastic, then I apologize for that misconseption , I'm from Finland and in Finland we don't use sarcasm that much, so we aren't that good in using or not looking like using it. I hope that you will have a most day.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Trent1492 When you stated satellites don't go any further north than 82.5 degrees, does that mean 17.5 of the north of space is un accounted for??
dosh228 1 year ago
@dosh228 Dude, there aren't 100° from the Equator to Pole, only 90°.
TravelerDiogenes 11 months ago
@Trent1492
practice in english. As I have stated before, I as you believe that the past thirty years from 1979 to 2010 have been warming. You are right, a singular year does not matter to the over all trend, wich I have never claimed. I have basicly just set forward an idea that if from one of five good temperature data sets, you get a warmer year then that Super El Nino 1998, wouldn't it be most likely that those particular numbers from that ONE data set are off sense these data sets show si-
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Trent1492 milar trend of warming and for the surface station ones the only real thing that seperates them is the way that the unadjasted numbers are adjusted and computed to an overall line, wich shows a clear trend of warming?
Is that presumption from a logical way of thinking just too much to ask?
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Trent1492
cont.
Global Warming truly exists. You were claiming that the past YEARS have been the warmest in the record, while individually 1998's Super El Nino holds out on all major records if not NASA's GISS includet. But, I agree with the notion that the last decades is the warmest, while it has been the decade without any actually, wich on itself only matters if that no warming continues for the next 20 more years.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
We have been in a steady warming trend since mid 70's. That was something predicted back in the 70's too. Are you at all aware that the current warming trend is
was predicted based on the physics alone? No one is saying "ah! It is warming thus it is must be humans!"None of this is correlated with sun spots. That relationship stopped in the 70's. As I pointed out to you the solar hypothesis has been falsified.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
... And I agree with you...
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@Finlandcitizen
You agree with me on what?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492
Continued.
What I specifly critisize about our Global Warming fears, is the role of clouds. Just right today actually Roy Spencer released had hi's latest paper released on the subject of cloud feedback analysis, wich indeed could show a large variation in Earth's internal forcings, like chaotic cloud fluctuations.
You can find hi's paper on hi's blog (just google Roy Spencer).
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
UAH (Dr. Christy) global temperature for
February 2010, 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, at +0.61 deg. C for February, 2010. This is about the same as January, which in our new Version 5.3 of the UAH dataset was +0.63 deg. C. February was second warmest in the 32-year record, behind Feb 1998
goog2k 1 year ago
This warming has been unfortunately been caused by El Nino, watch the video before commenting.
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
There is another theory quickly stabbing at the heart of co2 AGW theory. If you can find and read Svensmark et al 2009. You'll find the magnetic feild from the sun and cosmic rays drive our climate.
unstableian 1 year ago
CO2 is a feedback mechanism.
CO2 traps heat & temps go up. But soon the oceans will be warm enough to stop absorbing CO2 and will eventually release large quantities of dissolved CO2.
Then deniers will say, see warming causes increased CO2.
Duhh???
Another FEEDBACK: If temps. rise 3.5C-5.2C as MIT predicts we could be facing a massive uncontrolled methane release from arctic permafrost and lakes. That's game over.
YouTube:
The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&NR=1
goog2k 1 year ago
HOTTEST JANUARY in UAH satellite record
(UAH/Dr. Christy, renown denier)
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
CO2 levels were 7000 ppm during the Cambrian Period but yet temperatures were no higher than today. Look back in history and see how much CO2 influenced temperature and you will be suprised. If the Jones statement of now warming is incorrect because the period is so short how can you claim warming is happening. Does the restriction not apply to this too? This nullifies your hottest year claims also.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
This scientifc YouTube debunks lies about periods of earth's history which had high levels of CO2, particularly the Ordovician.
5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=sub
goog2k 1 year ago
This just shows how Little CO2 comes into play in Global Warming. It shows the Sun & other influences as Major Factors. Theres no doubt the sun has varied but did the caclulations fit Warming or was the solar variation made to fit the chart? I will have to see. This may be like Christians who believe the earth is 5000 years old & say the speed of light changed so the stars now appear billions of light years away. Either way CO2 seems a minor factor by this video.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Tex... Temps were higher in the Cambrian with higher CO2 because the solar irradiance was far lower than today.
Jones statements said there WAS warming of 0.12C/decade. Read the BBC transcript, not the tabloid news reports.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
As I said, I believe it. Since the CO2 was 7000ppm vs 450ppm as today & yet the sun controled the temp, this just shows how Little CO2 effects the earths temp as a greenhouse gas. The fluctuation of our sun, with other factors is probably what is causing the temp variations today, just as it did during the Cambrian period. It is also amazing how Cambrian temps were similar to those today. This leads me to believe there is a stablizing factor, probably water/clouds, that needs more study.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago 2
Tex... What you seem to not understand is the fact that the sun is HOTTER now that it was during the Cambrian. It's not a matter of fluctuations. The sun grows hotter over time.
It's the combination of subduction of CO2 with increased solar irradiance that has allowed life to flourish on this planet.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Yes of course its hotter, but just enough to balance that huge shift in CO2 to keep the temperature stable? Unlikely that the CO2 changed just enought 7000ppm to 450ppm to balance the increased sun, just enough, to keep a stable climate. This again pushing CO2 out as major control of our climate.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago 2
Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. Initial climate forcing is not from CO2 but the subsequent feedbacks point to CO2 being the primary driver.
There's another good lecture on paleoclimate if you're interested. Google Alley biggest control knob.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I would add that, yes, it has been warmer in the past. Sometimes those events have corresponded with mass extinctions. As well, generally the changes do not take place in short time spans. It takes species a long time to adapt to temperature swings in the climate. What we are currently doing is considered to be extremely abrupt from the perspective of natural systems.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
If you'd like to understand the role of CO2 over the time here is the primary scientific study: Royer 2006.
droyer.web. wesleyan. edu/PhanCO2(GCA). pdf
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I think whats happening is people are picking data to create explanations for changes to come to the conclusion of man made global warming. This is the knots that Christian Scientists go through to make the universe appear less than 5000 - 9000 years old. Things like, light traveled more slowly in the past which makes galaxies appear further away. Can you tell me how solar intensity was measured/calculated for the Cambrian period?
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
This is a basic fact about the sun. As it burns it's hydrogen fuel converting it to helium, the sun increases in solar output at a known rate. It's explained in the Royer paper I referenced before.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Exactly. You are saying that a calculated output determines what past solar output was. These papers are all written with the premise that man made global warming is real, just as the Christian Scientists papers. Its all data interpretation and or exclusion. Point is its unlikely the change in co2 & sun should be that stable over time if co2 is the major control. If co2 is not then its not significant in this time so man made warming is wrong.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
No, in fact, the paper I'm referencing doesn't say anything about man-made CO2. It's strictly looking at CO2 relative to temperature over the past 450 million years.
Just read the paper!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
And CO2 and solar radiation are NOT that stable over the past 450my. Solar radiation increased at a stable rate but CO2 swings a lot.
Each study like this has the opportunity to show that CO2 does NOT affect temps but it's just not coming out this way. They more data that comes in the more CO2 looks like the largest driver of global climate.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
robhoneycutt I am not refering to the paper when commenting on man made warming. "If these studies show CO2 is the largest climate driver then why is CO2 lag temp increases by about 800years. This is obvious & even admitted to be true by many pro warming sites who then explain Modern CO2 warming is different for various reasons. If the 800year lag is true then CO2 is Not the driver in the past. Solar radiations so called constant stable rate is not even true for ... cont
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
... the measurements made in recent times. It is Assumed to be stable over history. Again, if you have already decided the answer to the question, you WILL find Data to support it. I predict that every future climate change will have a scientific paper to explain how it is caused by man made warming, even as the earth grows colder. Now I wonder if you know why this is true.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 The 800 year lag is extremely well understood. CO2 is generally not the initial climate forcing mechanism. The earth's orbit, obliquity and precession are what normally initiate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. But that can only account for a rise and fall of maybe 1C. All the additional forcing comes from CO2 which then sets off other feedbacks in the system. The problem is now we are using CO2 as the initial forcing.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 I think you really have a misunderstanding of how science works. Science wants to find the answers regardless of the results. In fact, all the scientists I know are usually pleased to find answers they hadn't expected! THAT is the very nature of science.
The scientific process has a robustness that has done fantastically amazing things. But now that it's finding something disturbing everyone finds science somehow suspect in its finding.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I think you are naive to believe this. There are many frauds by Scientists because they KNEW the answer, but didnt have the data. Perhaps you should read the recent info reveald about NASA emails & data released under FOIA after 2 years of stonewalling. This ties in with East Anglia to show whats going on. Any scientists with a paper opposing Warming is not published because of peer review. These scientists see their career nosedive so, do you really think many buck the system? Cont ...
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Not at all naive about the system. It's always been said that science is a messy business. I'm not denying that in the least.
The whole issue about peer reviewed papers is normal. There's a huge issue when a journal gets pressured to accept a paper that is of extremely low quality. That's what the scientists were so up in arms about.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
To clarify... The journal Climate Science was getting pressure to publish, I think it was, a Soon Baliune paper that would have failed a freshman science course. All the climate scientists were, rightfully, completely incensed about it. In the end it got published (as I remember) and most of the editorial staff at Climate Science resigned because of it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
robhoneycutt .. Well if you understand the system you know why East Anglia & NASA have been holding back information. They have to arrange it so the conclusion is what their bosses want. James Hansen has an adjenda with Al Gore,(if you know his history) to prove man made warming. I suggest you look at the NASA fraud that came to light under FOIA. How much research to prove tsmoking caused cancer do you think went on at the tobacco companies. Same with Climate Research centers.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 UEA has released 80% of the information. The release of the information was a function of a 3 man office dealing with thousands of requests (honestly designed more to stall their work than to get information) all of which require permission from a wide range of governments who are the actual owners of the data.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 A claim of fraud does not mean that a fraud was committed. That's part of the political tactic. Create lots of law suits for fraud and deception and all sorts of other things in order to create a public perception of wrongdoing.
In time each and every case that has been filed will get thrown out of court.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
robhoneycutt ... NASA has been sitting on this for 2 years, never the less, forget the fraud. Read what has come out about the satelite data and emails. Does the Science you speak of say when you have conflicting Data you hide it? By their own admission there is not enough data collected to show a trend of warming. This is not Science and you know it. Statistically you cannot prove warming.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Are you referring to Phil Jones comments on "no statistical warming?"
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 If you are referring to the Phil Jones interview you're way off the mark. Go read the transcript of the BBC interview. Jones says that there was a warming of 0.12C/decade from 1995 to 2009 but that it falls short of "statistical significance" because it's 15 years. He adds that it is just short of statistically significant.
The statistical significance of global warming since 1950 is overwhelming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 You asked, "Does science say when they have conflicting data?"
Yes it does. Constantly. Look, if a scientist could publish a paper that definitively shows there is nothing to worry about with AGW, that scientist will be set for life! They would get rich beyond their wildest dreams. So, they have every incentive to get it right! Problem is, virtually EVERYTHING is pointing the other direction. That it IS a serious concern for humanity.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
robhoneycutt .. if you follow history the inventors are not the ones who get rich but political & businessmen. Al Gore & everyone attached to his Carbon Credit Scam is becoming rich beyond their wildest dreams. Peloci, Reid, & others are heavily invested in alternative energy. Why do you think we banned all US oil drilling? Besides the money is the power to control basically everything. If the concern was Real we would go to nuclear, specifically Thorium but thats another power struggle.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 You're completely changing the topic we've been discussing.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Yout talked about how science worked & why scientists would publish anti warming stuff n it got me off subject. Anyway read the NASA stuff they have been hiding.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 Please direct me to the material they've been hiding and I'll look at it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
robhoneycutt ....... Its in the news all you have to do is look. Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act discussing the climate dataset.
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
@Texmurphy51 You may find it interesting to know who is funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
1998 $85,000 ExxonMobil, 2000 $230,000 ExxonMobil,2001 $280,000 ExxonMobil, 2002 $205,000 ExxonMobil, 2002 $200,000 ExxonMobil, 2003 $25,000 ExxonMobil, 2003 $440,000 ExxonMobil, 2004 $90,000 ExxonMobil, 2004 $90,000 ExxonMobil, 2004 $90000 ExxonMobil, 2005 $90,000 ExxonMobil, 2005 $180,000 ExxonMobil.
It's Exxon, Exxon, Exxon!
RasPesher 10 months ago
@RasPesher That peanuts compared to Governemnt funding. As I said, if someone cant get a grant for research into their project because it goes against the system, they will turn to somewhere else to get the money. If this money taints their research then Gov money taints the research of Warmers.
Texmurphy51 10 months ago
@Texmurphy51 " if someone cant get a grant for research into their project because it goes against the system, they will turn to somewhere else to get the money" - IRRELEVANT
The Competitive Enterprise Institute does not do scientific research, there purpose is to prevent research from being done. This sort of institution uses freedom of information requests to retard research. On the other hand, if they are lucky, they may discover an email that they can deliberately take out of context.
RasPesher 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Gov money taints the research of Warmers"
This must be one of the strangest conspiracy theories of all time. Your idea is that governments pay scientists to make up stories about the Earth warming up?????? ...doesn't the absurdity, have alarm bells ringing in your head?
RasPesher 9 months ago
@RasPesher
They don't have to pay them directly, just offer the money. These researchers livelihood now depends on there BEING a crisis. What do you think they're going to say?
pimpdalyrical 8 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Yes the researchers are not directly paid by grants. This has to be one of the most childish conspiracy theories ever!
RasPesher 8 months ago
@RasPesher That's just it, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a logical explanation of why a number of individuals would perpetuate something that keeps them employed. What reason do you have to think that any given scientist out there has any greater morals than a criminal defense attorney or tobacco lobbyist?
It's an industry to spread fearmongering about CO2 now, there is no conspiracy necessary.
pimpdalyrical 8 months ago
@pimpdalyrical "It's a logical explanation of why a number of individuals would perpetuate something that keeps them employed"
In Australia the federal Government commissioned a report whereby they obtained Econometric statisticians to check the scientist's analysis. The econometricians verified the statistics. These guys don't have a vested interest here.
However it is a known fact that the DENIERS MAKE A LIVING OUT OF CASTING DOUBT; formerly they were denying that tabacco smoke causes cancer.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@Pimp Cont..For information on how DENIERS MAKE A LIVING OUT OF CASTING DOUBT google the George C. Mashal Institute and see what you find. Apparently according to the Marshall Inst. smoking does not cause cancer and the hole in the Ozone layer is a myth etc. Or google "Heartland Institute: Follow the money trail".
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
So the government commisioned report reinforced notions that give government more power and money. Shocking. Whereas the "Deniers" have nothing to gain from their reports, and have actually come forward to their detriment, losing grants and even jobs. Such as the lead author of the IPCC report that all this crap is based on, and the Co-founder of Greenpeace. Try applying for grant money without relating your research to proving this garbage. See how you do.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical "Whereas the "Deniers" have nothing to gain from their reports,.."
Exxon alone pumped $23 million into denier groups over the last ten years or so. Since there are only a handful of deniers, that's a lot of money per denier.
On the other hand your saying that the government, the economists, the scientists and former mining company CEOs are in a giant conspiracy, oh which isn't a conspiracy "because it keeps them employed"??? mind you they'd all be employed anyway!
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
Exxon and other companies (Who your retirement will rely on) aren't supposed to defend themselves from slander? Maybe your gas price would go down a little if they didnt have to fight off GE's buddies in Washington and the media pushing unrealistic "alternaives." Hey, but at least some bureacrat will be in control of it!
There's no conspiracy, just people who have decided to profit off the lie. Virus' don't need a leader, they just do whats in their nature.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical "just people who have decided to profit off the lie"
Nevertheless your assertion that the deniers don't profit from there stance is false, so there is a good motivation for people to come out as deniers. The reason that there are not more people who take up this highly profitable opportunity is that they are held back by their sense of morality.
"gas price would go down"
The world is changing. We're passing peak oil. Peak cars has been passed in the western countries (2004).
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
Except the scientists coming out as "Deniers" as you put it seem to share the common thread of gaining nothing from it, where as those propogating this garbage all have research grants and investments on the line. These scientists get their name dragged through the mud by Green movement which never bothers to counter their true scientific research and facts. You think John Christy and the founder of greenpeace are on Exxon's payroll? Get real. You're being played.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical "You think John Christy and the founder of greenpeace are on Exxon's payroll?"
According to the exxon fact sheet he is or has been a member of the following Exxon funded institutes:
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Independent Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, and the Heartland Institute.
A large amount of the 23 million from Exxon went to these groups. Who do you think that they gave this money to?
RasPesher 7 months ago
@Pimp Cont..It is clear from watching John Christy's video that he is primarily looking at local data; data which is unsuitable for determining whether global warming is happening or not. Data which may well have been cherry picked to go against the global trend. With almost any trend in climate data there will be some locations that buck the trend.
It occurs to me that this video is therefore not a serious attempt to determine the truth wrt climate change.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher "John Christy's video that he is primarily looking at local data; data which is unsuitable for determining whether global warming is happening or not."
It was HIS research that drove the IPCC report upon which this whole Global Warming Panic is being driven. If HIS research can't be trusted, then all legal actions taken towards implementing CO2 emission standards need to be rescinded immediately.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@RasPesher
Yet he was deemed impartial enough to be the lead author on the IPCC report, which apparently knew what it wanted to say before the facts were in.
The simple fact is that putting forth the science that disproves this garbage makes you a pariah, while even completely unrelated scientific research grants don't get approved unless you plan to "Expose" something about AGW and tow the line. I know, I've tried. You HAVE to go along with this crap to get funding these days.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical "scientific research grants don't get approved unless you plan to "Expose" something about AGW and tow the line" - TOTAL UTTER BS
You sound like a bleeding heart liberal!
If what you said was even remotely true there would be nothing to prevent a scientist from getting a grant to research an aspect of Global Warming that yielded a negative finding. Your argument is self defeating.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
You have obviously never applied for grant money. You think the leftists holding the purse strings in Washington and academia would fund an impartial scientific study? Their future stranglehold on the people of this country is on the line! You either come to them with preformed conclusions and a plan to further their agenda or you're blacklisted. That's how it IS! Your work doesnt need to relate to climate at all, as long as they can add you to the list of "Consensus" of scientists.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical If you are representative of the US population then it seems that the US is headed back to the dark ages.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
Not as long as we can keep the communists masking themselves as "Environementalists" from destroying our enegy infrastructure. Their the one's wanting us back on steam trains and horse and buggy.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical From not being a conspiracy this thread has gone from just scientists TO scientists and politicians, TO scientists, politicians, economists and econometricians TO scientists, politicians, economists, econometricians and NOW communists! Wow this nonconspiracy conspiracy theory has certainly grown with the telling.
By the way, substitute the steam trains with modern electric trains powered by clean energy and you might be onto something.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
And yes, electric trains (powered by coal obviously, windfarms and solar can't power something like that) would be closer to what I'm saying. Your ability to go where you wwant and when dictated to by the powerful who build the tracks where THEY want you to go and can throw the switch when they want you in one place. Hmm, kinda makes the centralized living plans make more sense too, don't it?
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Sorry but trains don't differenciate on the source of the electricity. They are just as happy to run on solar power as they are on coal power. The current generation of trains may not be typical of the future. It may be lightweight, high speed and right to your front door and use very little power.
Your SUV may well go the way of the dinosaur (and the horse and buggy). In the west, peak cars was passed in 2004. Some say that peak oil has already been passed (others say 2012).
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
And there isn;'t a single alternative "renewable" energy plan that doesn't include our rulers in Government having their finger on the switch. They want the ability to keep you on lock down. That's ALL this is about.
You can have my SUV, when you come up with something that A) Anybody actually wants to drive, and B) Actually works.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical When the price of petrol hits $40/litre no-one will want your SUV. This will happen sometime in the not too distant future even without a price on carbon.
Since your paranoid about the government you could always install solar panels, although currently wind turbines and solar thermal may be more efficient.
RasPesher 7 months ago
@RasPesher
The current gas price has more to do with a certain worthless piece of shit in the whitehouse devaluing the dollar on purpose, than oil supply. Once we get that socialist out of office drilling can return to the gulf, and useless tundra in alaska, and the supply will go up. Then the price will go down as we straighten out the dollar, which the price of oil is tacked to.
At least long enough for the free market to come up with a REAL replacement, that actually works.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical
no such thing as a free market...
Libertarinan silliness...
Nihm420 7 months ago
@Nihm420 You're right. As long as governments continue to regulate commerce against natural supply and demand, and ignorant consumers continue to use large corporate banks, which exchange currencies that are not backed upon a precious metal ...then yes there is no such thing as a free market.
GreenRiver72 6 months ago
@GreenRiver72
I know I'm right.
AND even if we corrected every example that you gave just now - the markets would STILL not be free.
(Gotta love Externalities.)
The concept of a "Free Market" has only ever existed in Economic textbooks and has no basis in reality.
Free markets are "a fantasy – outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system with opposing interests and different distributions of wealth."
Nihm420 6 months ago
@Nihm420 Again you are right when in an overwhelmingly well-established Keynesian infrastructure that overlaps nation to nation to nation. Free markets did exist in a purist sense centuries ago when supply/demand drove prices, when governments were essentially non-existent and the culture was predominantly agrarian.
Do I think the 21st Century society can ever return to a free-market? No, certainly not a pure one. Could we return to "classical liberalism" and flourish from the benefits? Yes
GreenRiver72 6 months ago
@GreenRiver72 - Crackpot.
inflate98 5 months ago
@inflate98 Beg your pardon?
GreenRiver72 5 months ago
@pimpdalyrical - Crackpot.
inflate98 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Look, what you may not realize is that scientists are always highly critical of each other's work. If a scientist tries to publish a paper making claims that can not be substantiated with solid data, they get castigated regardless of any side of the political debate that the results fall on.
The issue these days is that the climate change denier community is using the fact that scientists are rejecting their poor quality work as a way of saying there is collusion on one side.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
You can definitely find peer reviewed papers that counter climate change. Not many. Lindzen, Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, Christy and others have published plenty. But their conclusions are not consistent with all the other thousands of papers that are continuing to come out.
This is not a sign of collusion. It's a sign that science is working as it should.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Phil Jones said there's not enough EVIDENCE to know if the MWP was a local or global warming.
goog2k 1 year ago
For an in-depth investigation DEBUNKING the false claims that Phil Jones said "There has been no global warming since 1995" see the YouTube:
8a. Climate Change - supplement
/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=sub
Actually, Jones' figures show a rise of 0.12C per decade from 1995-2009. However, scientifically this was too short a period to show statistical significance.
Figures for 1975-2009 show a rise of 0.16C per decade and are scientifically statistically significant.
So, FOX/Beck LIES.
Oops!
goog2k 1 year ago
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
glennimmortal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Clearly Jones says "Yes, but only just...", not "No, because..." Plain and simple question, plain and simple answer. The answer to the question: trues or false from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming = true, but (then Jones explanation). Yes but blah blah blah is still yes, otherwise he would have said NO
glennimmortal 1 year ago
For an in-depth investigation DEBUNKING the false claims that Phil Jones said "There has been no global warming since 1995" see the YouTube:
8a. Climate Change - supplement
/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=sub
Actually, Jones' figures show a rise of 0.12C per decade from 1995-2009. However, scientifically this was too short a period to show statistical significance.
Figures for 1975-2009 show a rise of 0.16C per decade and are scientifically statistically significant.
goog2k 1 year ago
In N-Norway the winther has become shorter and lack of snow in periods.The permafrost isnt was it was, but who knows !!!
15joey04 1 year ago
That's the point...WHO KNOWS. Some places have proven to be cooler, some places warmer.
Nobody knows anything...certainly nothing that would account for the catastrophism that we hear from the "environmentalists."
bighitter42 1 year ago
2010 the worst winter fro 50 years: We got us globla cooling
JonThm 2 years ago
Support geoengineering solutions to global warming.
TarkinRocher 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nonsense. No solar flares August '08 and polar caps re-growing on Earth, Mars, moons of Jupiter. All the planets are COOLING. Not just Earth, all the planets and moons.
During the 1990's, solar activity was very high, and polar caps were melting Earth Mars moons of Jupiter.
NASA and satellite pics show it.
THINK FOR YOURSELF. Try to use facts, not suspicion or opinion. Verify the source before believing people.
-former NASA research scientist
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
Such blatant fearmongering that is totally without a scientific basis. The arctic ice is borderline insignificant...remarkable how you manage to not include the fact that the ice on Antarctica is growing with the exception of one very small peninsula.
The cherry picked hippie bullshit you spew is getting old. Nobody is listening anymore because it's truly nothing more than drivel.
bighitter42 1 year ago
Really?? because Phil Jones admitted it was probably hotter during Medeival times. O he also admitted he loses track of data.
31guitar 1 year ago
2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record.
Temps. have spiked over 0.5C since 1975
9 of the last 10 years were the HOTTEST ever recorded. Only 1998 was hotter than 2000 or any year since.
Search:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs
Sun spots and the Net TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, have not increased since 1975. We have satellite data to prove it. Last year TSI was at a 35 year low.
To check the data search:
NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect our Climate system
goog2k 2 years ago
The same satellite data that "you" have show you that the troposphere hasn't shown the warming that ALL of your computer models said it would? Because that's also shown in the NASA data.
Your data can't account for the medieval warm period, which was significantly warmer than anything we're experiencing now. CO2 has been higher, temps have been warmer.... Basically you can't account for shit. Get a life and leave people to make their own energy decisions.
bighitter42 1 year ago
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
/watch?v=hqOQyvdkIFg&NR=1
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
No solar flares August '08 and polar caps re-growing on Earth, Mars, moons of Jupiter. All the planets are COOLING.
During the 90's, solar activity was very high, and polar caps were melting Earth Mars moons of Jupiter.
20 - 30 minutes serous googling and NASA and satellite pics will show it.
THINK FOR YOURSELF. Try to use facts, not suspicion or opinion. Verify the source before believing people!
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
@saynotonontruth
peace on brother, us "deniers" need to stick together and let people know the truth
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome,therefore manemade global warming IS A THEORY!!!
davetileguy 2 years ago
Earth is no more my 'mother' than an apple is my father.
Brantoc 2 years ago
ummm...what?... Earth IS the mother of all life, including all apples. If your mother or father didn't exist, you wouldn't and if earth didn't exist you would have a mother or father nor would they and so forth. Have some respect for the only home mankind will ever deeply know for a long time
jaggedsymmetry 2 years ago
Even if global warming is complete political BS it doesn't mean we should disrespect our Mother Earth. We are her children, every last one of us. So listen to her, not to these lying evil bastards we call leaders. Nature is the the True authority!
Peace on Earth
PeaceIsRad 2 years ago
good comment. i agree. even if there is no such thing as man enduced global warming we should still respect our planet home with less pollution
pprysb 2 years ago 4
"Mother Earth" will take care of its self, the things living on it are powerless
JEBLLC 2 years ago 2
No honest human is pro-pollution. The problem is, catastrophic human-caused global-warming is an absolute total fraud. The entire purpose is to justify creation of totalitarian world government, make criminal organizations super-rich by taxing just about every human, product and corporation on earth, make every human a slave to the world-government elitists, and eventually kill 80% ~ 95% of the population of earth. This may sound amazing, but their own documents reveal this clearly.
honestann 2 years ago 7
No question.
Allante715 2 years ago
good gosh, the earth is fine, if anything dies it'll be us. Stop hugging trees and start thinking about real problems going on in the world.
realmofmyheart 2 years ago
Realm of my heart....that's your name and you're telling me to stop hugging trees???? LOL! Maybe you should stop being a hipocrit and start hugging some trees. Probably do you some good. If you don't have anything constructive to say....shut the fuck up. Cheers
PeaceIsRad 2 years ago
I am sorry what does my name have anything to do with trees and mother earth crap? oh right...nothing....try again.
brokenrosejls 2 years ago
?!?
plmnw 2 years ago
FACT: No solar flares August '08 - and Earth, Mars, and moons of Jupiter are re-growing their polar caps. Eg the planets are cooling.
Not just Earth, ALL the planets are cooling. During the 90's, there was increased solar activity, and all the planets warmed. Photos show all the polar caps shrank during that decade.
The SUN causes warming and cooling of ALL the planets, Earth included. 20 - 30 minutes of serious googling and NASA and satellite photos will show you.
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
So in summary Christy agrees that CO2 increases global temperatures, but not evenly or predictably, and not by as much as other peoples' models predict.
cristop5 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global Warming is BULL CRAP! Some of the top Global Warming "Scientists" had their e-mails hacked and as it turns out they falsified data, buried contradictory data, manipulated the media, fabricated false reports, manipulated politicians, talked about how the data didn't support their own claims and even wondered amongst themselves why the data didn't support their hypothesis.
Search Climategate on Yahoo as a single word and click the UK Telegraph link!
gonavy505 2 years ago 2
Global warming is caused by the moon stealing heat energy from its gravitational force.
Thats why the moon has slowly been turning into cheese. Please stop using gasoline, because it gives the moon more warmings.
majortom321 2 years ago 8
Global Warming™ is a fraud.
arcanekrusader 2 years ago 7
ha ha love the trademark
1madaboutguitar 2 years ago
@1madaboutguitar Copy and paste it somewhere where you can use it again and again (mine is on my facebook profile).
arcanekrusader 2 years ago
it's pretty funny to hear these global warming nuts claim that whoever does not agree with their theory is automatically in bed with corporations when in reality, those in the climate change business stand to gain billions off of things like cap and trade with GE being the biggest benefactor.
data never lies. models do. end of argument.
strapt313 2 years ago 8
i hear u completely. now anyone who doesnt think we're causing global warming is instantly called heretic, said we;re part of a cult, and shunned. and history has shown wen this is done, the shunned people are usually telling the truth
tippman2k01 2 years ago 2
@strapt313
Shorter Strapt: Please ignore the trillion fossil fuel industry it is those greedy scientist and their sciency ways we got to really worry about.
Trent1492 1 year ago