Global warming is a scam I love when people say the ice caps melting will cause the world to be covered with water. Yea and when your ice in your glass melts the glass overflows. What a bunch of morons. The ice comes off the ice vaps all the time. The Titanic hit one. One washed up on the coast of Ireland and it was the first time the irish had their wiskey on the rocks. Hahahaha
The warm monger's lies are being exposed left, right and centre and yet they still are trying to convince us to accept it so they can line their pockets with trillions of the west's dollars.
@StinkyKnobcheese Are you aware that every attempt at propaganda like this one is composed of blatant distortions, misrepresentations, (intended) misinterpretantions, omition of citations' contexts, vague assertions, laymen testimonials, and oil interest driven agendas?
This movie was completely destroyed by many people, and so did the director who was enterviewed, made himself look like a fool and swaped subjects away from tough questions. And you even believe this... :\
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
@TullyRiven If the 'movement' is predicated upon a lie (man made climate change)...then the gambit can be nothing but 'nefarious'.
And I care not for what the smear machine may or may not do. A truth on two legs, a lie on but one. Truths resonate, regardless of how liars may rant against said.
And you have several terms and a book to look up that would flesh things out for even a very common mind to grasp.
One could also google for the history of the IPCC...to see which religious 'cult' is largely behind this 'pseudo-scientific cult'. Just another diversion to keep the smart folks from noting the Praemunire and Requirimiento underway in the West.
@awshucks I do not doubt there are some who seek to exploit climate change for political reasons, there are others who are so convinced it is true that their work is biased and others who are want to believe we caused it because if we caused it that means we could fix it. The way you word it is too easy for the smear machine to paint as kooky. The motives are not all nefarious.
@TullyRiven Pseudo science is what it is. No one (at least not I) was talking about sunspot activity. Regardless of sunspot activity...we get nearer to the sun (in a relative sense) as the growth curve of the suns photosphere keeps going. Nice attempt at the redirect, though not quite the high ground of activity that you are demanding of others...is it?
As for supporting documentation, simply google the terms...you'll find all you need.
@awshucks I’m a skeptic and enjoy reading different studies on the various cycles and contributors to climate change. I didn’t hear of the one you mentioned so my purpose was not to “call you out” on it but to “clue me in” on a theory I’m not familiar with.
@awshucks Um, huh? That's about as whacky to me as the AGW Fanatics on the lunatic fringe of the science. I'd love to see a citation for the part about the photosphere because solar activity is down and we may head into a maunder minimum resulting in a cooling period or at the least a halt to warming.
@gesehengehoert You laid praise for the objectivity of Wiki and called me foolish for not checking my sources. As it turns out I have the very survey and have proved the veracity of my claims, yet you are now silent.
The end is stupid funny. “debate.. nonexistent… among those who understand.. communicate.. to.. policy makers.. mistakenly perceive debate.”
If you dismiss people who don’t agree you can trick the public and politicians into supporting an artificial concensus.
@TullyRiven Where did you prove it? Did I miss something? It just seems to me that all evidence (if you want to call it that way) is promoted EXTREMELY agressively in America, which is funny enough the only country with a MAJORITY of people not believing in global warming. I wonder if it those are the same people who don't believe in evolution...
However, as we are probably both not involved in science directly, it's sadly enough always a thing of believing. Still, watch the movie HOME. cheers
@gesehengehoert Americans are pragmatic and cautious individualists. We will not bend knee to an intellectual elite that responds to calls for freedom of information with demagoguery and arrogant difference. If you want to convince us, treat us with respect and hold scientists to the same standard. You start tossing bigoted insults and I assure you that we’ll rally with our friends and neighbors and tell you to piss off.
Argue on the merit of facts and not talking points.
@TullyRiven The fun thing about Americans (especially in the face of Americans presidents (usually, there are exceptions, just like the current one)) is that they DO NOT want to listen to people that are more informed than they are, they want somebody equally "informed" (or uninformed), which is why people dismissing climate change usually say stuff like "WELL, I am NOT an EXPERT, but in MY OPINION" and start talking uneducated, false shit and pseudo science.
@TullyRiven Sorry I didn't reply earlier. As it seems, we have different points of view and none of us is probably willing to adapt the others point, but I took notice of yours and hope you did the same. Let's continue and sit around and wait and see who is right (although I actually hope you are, for our sake). But caring for the environment (e.g. pollution) as well as resticting CO2 due to ocean acidification is probs still a good plan. Cheers
@gesehengehoert Caring for the environment is of course a good idea.Real environmentalism,not this phoney green/marxist enviro-religion promoted by the 'New Class' Restricting Co2 output is a terrible idea,we couldnt sustain Earths population if we did.If Co2 related warming is as significant as the IPCC claims,we should be roasting by now.Co2 output is accelerating,yet global temps are cooling,theory doesnt fit with reality.Govt. scientists cant be trusted to spell it out,too much money 2 lose.
@TullyRiven P.s. I still don't have your sources ;) As if I'd believe in something that's on your desktop and no one can see! Wiki is checked by MILLIONS of people and admins for mistakes and changes, all the time and you find all the sources in the footnotes you can check for yourself (including quotations).
@TullyRiven And by the way, if you are talking about great "American freedome", why is it happening that 1% of your people own 54% of all wealth (aah yeah liberal markets, I forgot). And if they work so well, why are so many people unemployed? I tell you why: Because machines are cheaper than people. And in an economy where profit is the only thing that counts, nobody things about people. You feel so free, but you have frikkin security everywhere, you build walls and shut yourself away from the
@TullyRiven world. You only interact when there's profit to get. You pollute the environment and don't give a fuck. You developed the ultimate philosophy that selfishness is natural and is to be respected. Oh yes, fu*k the poor, because if they are poor, they probably deserve it. Don't you see that it's the system that's fuc*ed up and not the people? I live in the EU and although we have problems, at least we are a community that is not exclusively based on money!
@gesehengehoert The EU(SSR) is not a community.Its a neo-fascist technocratic dictatorship run by a bunch of self serving,corrupt,unelected bureaucratic criminals namely the Brussels elite.Take pride in your country,its great.I would never say I live in the EU as its not a country,it has no citizens for that reason either.In the future after the EU and Eurozone inevitably fails,it will be seen by all,as every other failed socialist political tyranny of the 20th century was.Just u wait and see
@TullyRiven You have the "liberty" to bear arms, so you are forced to have them to not be scared. But you will never be save. You will never be in control. Just sad social disintegration and distrust. Well, I should stop going off about America, but you guys don't even doubt the "surpremeness" of your country. So better don't start answering me to tell me how the weather is up you own arse.
I will not reply anymore. We hold different opinions, I don't respect yours. You don't respect mine. Bye.
@gesehengehoert You said, “97% think that climate change is cause by humans adding CO2”. I responded with a link to the study you referred to and it details how they came to 97%. If you are too stupid to read more than a talking point then I can see why you are an AGW Fanboi. Go and read the post, read your study and learn something. It doesn’t take a climatologist to realize that the risk of bias exists in all quarters.
@gesehengehoert I don’t care if you respect my opinion which, by the way, is a sensible and moderate one. I fully realize that CO2 contributes to warming and that humans have added CO2. The theory regarding forcing is weak and the projected signatures do not exist in reality. The forecasts fail and the best the AGW folks can do is rename it to Climate Change.
@gesehengehoert When the Euro fails nationalism will rise again in Europe. The USA should withdraw from around the world and let people slaughter each other like the good old days. Your crusades, world wars, intolerance, genocide, colonial tyranny and glorious socialism built upon dependence on us to keep the USSR from crushing you like bugs. You have some fucking nerve going down this class warfare self-righteous bullshit but clearly does show that Climate Justice is POLITICS, not science.
@gesehengehoert My final post to you is this. I’m a 1st generation American whose parents fled the ruins of Europe after WWII. I studied the subject but left academia for a different profession decades ago. I fully realize the failings of the USA but you appear to have forgotten the failings of your own nation and that leads to the very real risk of repeating the mistakes of your forefathers. There is a new form of intolerance and a new inquisition forming and it is not based on science.
By the way, I'd like to know who the people talking non-sense in the beginning of this video are and if they are in any scientific field that reflects their strong rejection of the evidence that +99% of the scientific community supports (97% think that climate change is cause by humans adding CO2 to the athmosphere, 2% hold non-committing positions)
@gesehengehoert In 2009 there was a survey of 10k Earth Scientists with a vague question about Global Warming. They didn’t like the responses so they filtered it down to a category that only had 97 scientists. 95 of the 97 thought humans contributed to climate change resulting in 97%. 97% sound so impressive when you ignore the fact that it only represented a tiny fraction of the scientists.
@TullyRiven Tell me your source and if I can identify, analyse, understand and determine the prosess that brought them to this conclusion, I am more than happy to believe you. :)
@gesehengehoert Maybe you should tell me YOUR source. Your the one Lording Around that 97% crap. Wikipedia is crap. I'll provide the study and the analysis at my leisure. I'm rather certain you are firmly entrenched in the Gasser Cult so I doubt you'll be pursuaded anyways.
@TullyRiven So you don't have one an hope I will forget about it. ;) That's fine for me, I can spend my days better anyways (I need to go to work now), however it would have been interesting! I am AGAINST climate change denial, but skeptisism is ESSENTIAL for good science, so I'd have been happy to have my views challenged. Concerning wiki: It is INTERNATIONAL with clear sources. Always check your sources - then you won't embarrass yourself. Enjoy your leisure! :D Cheers
@gesehengehoert wikipedia is open source and is not a reliable source. I have the study sitting on my desktop right now. I also went and looked at the data. However, I have to get my kids to bed and quite frankly think that you are a knucklehead who won't listen to reason so I don't feel the need to do your homework because you won't learn anything from it.
When I have the time I'll provide real citations and not some wikipedia garbage.
@gesehengehoert Firstly, a scientific theory doesn’t become a law through consensus and definitely not from polls. Data, methodology, reproducibility and success in predictions do. The very things that can make a theory a law can also falsify. A failure to provide the means to verify or falsify compromises the scientific method and gives cause for skepticism. If someone has nothing to hide, they shouldn’t hide anything.
Do you THINK human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures… It is asking for OPINION.
10,257 asked of which 96% were from North America. 30% responded. 82% THINK it is true. 2.5% of those were experts. 97% of the experts THINK it is true. The 97% sounds great but it is absurd, not peer-reviewed and solicited opinions. It is a talking point.
@gesehengehoert Thirdly, the notion that the only people who lobby are greedy oil companies is disingenuous at best. Environmental lobbies like Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc all lobby, advertise and vigorously push their agenda. Grant money goes to research AGW topics, not to broaden understanding. There are rich subsidies to Companies and they lobby hard for their share of taxpayer cash.
@TullyRiven You quoted the 97% talking point so you’re welcome to provide a citation to support your claim. While you’re there, read into the study so you understand exactly what you are quoting. Ask yourself why they would do this and further ask what else they are doing to distort the idea of consensus.
I'm far more concerned about other threats to our habitat than a natural trace gas which we've had at higher levels with a more stable climate.
CLIMATE IS DRIVEN BY CARBONDIOXIDE! Without a fraction of the CO2 we have today in the athmosphere, we could not even live here because it keeps the heat, causing our surface-temperature to be around +12 on average instead of -20. This is the "natural green house effect". But it also proves: IF YOU ADD MORE, YOU'LL FRIKKIN HAVE MORE HEAT ON THE PLANET. Check out wikipedia, everything is on there concerning "global warming".
A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
PLEASE AMERICA, DO YOURSELF AND THE WOLRD A FAVOUR AND WAKE UP!
ManBearPig (aka Al Gore) is getting sued by 30,000 scientists around the world for fraud.
Gore made billions of dollars from the scam though.
We are getting sprayed aluminum, barium, strontium from the sky (chemtrails) and it's called "Geo Engineering" and they say they're doing it to cool the earth. Of course it's BS.
@Ganseblumchen12 Geo Engineering is crap. But climate change is not. Where are Gore's billions I ask you? The US government spend 700 BILLION ALONE on the finanical crisis, caused by gambling bankers! If you worry about your states finances, you should be ranting about that.
When I was in the High-Arctic, we experienced temperatures of 25°C in 2010. We were amazed by these temperatures... According to the local people, they had never ever experienced these high temperatures in the past. We talk of people that lived there for thousand years.
I would say that the Earth is changing quite rapidly and we have to change our way of life... I can not believe what I'm watching... this is very embarrassing for a lot of nation.
@frankobjectif As natural forces not yet understood steadily drove down temperatures, CO2 levels went down with them. At high levels of CO2 there is greater climate stability. As temperatures dropped so did CO2 and as CO2 dropped the climate grew increasingly erratic. CO2 is stability and life and is not persistent. There is no tipping point and we will move to cleaner energy as it becomes cost effective.
@TullyRiven Read "Global warming" on wikipedia and stop wasting people's time with your uninformed statements and spreading false information to the public. Cheers
@frankobjectif And it's sad how they succeed, well, at least in America, where the media is just entirely bought by the lobbies. But we must not give up!!! Funny and sad how people still believe in that, after the Tabacco lies, the Afghanistan lies, gambling banks and everything else that the American economy has produced/flourished under (and also exported, unfortunately).But let's not go into this, I'm off to work! Cheers and man up. :)
@gesehengehoert Which lobbies? You mean GE? The American Media is biased AGAINST Global Warming? That's fucking stupid. Fox is about the only one that has any skeptical coverage and the others show those poor polar bears drifing on icebergs and neglect to mention how the polar bear population is growing, not shrinking. What you mean is that we haven't imposed draconian censor laws that make it illegal to report what the government deems untrue. That's tyranny and you can keep it.
Google Solarchords com where you will find a perfectly pragmatic, rational and calculated discovery regarding sunspot production and climate variation. There is no 'axe to grind' either way or any influencing bias such as funding, just a sensible scientific evaluation of factual findings. The work actually started in about 1995 and the recent information is a result of further study and refinement of Solar Chord Science. Well worth a serious study. With an unassailable correlation with climate.
@IQuaereVerum2 This is simply wrong. Check out wikipedia on "Global warming", they have relatively reliably, pretty objective as INTERNATIONAL information, especially on the entertaining topic you are talking about. Read it and THEN reply. Cheers
@IQuaereVerum2 The funny thing is that NO SCIENCE ORGANISATION OR INSTITUTE has ever affirmed or OBSERVED "Solar chords". There isn't even a bloody wikipedia article about it. Funny, hey? ;) You better do some more serious research to impress me :)
@gesehengehoert Absolutely right!! The reason is because, until now, no one even knew the question, Solar Chords is a discovery. Who else has published long term predictions for Sunspot cycles, detailed climate wattage changes, given a rational explanation for the causes of the Maunder Minimum Cold Period, Medievil Warm Period, the failure of the Franklin expedition, the reason why Shackleton survived his failed venture and the proof for the Varve sediment solar link ?
@SpankyRavenscroft 9 out of 10 Europeans wish they never heard of Maachstricht either but hey, there you go. 99 out of 101 statisticians think my statistics are as good as yours.
@TullyRiven My statistics are based on actual facts, yours are constructed from bullshit and whatever crap your preacher/slave master has told you.
Of course according to you scientists know nothing and everything can be learnt from some shit old fiction book written by a bunch of cave monkeys thousands of years ago.
@SpankyRavenscroft It used to be that when there were natural disasters people would, in their ignorance of science, blame god. Those who did not believe in the same way as the others were regarded as heretics and persecuted. The Gassers have regressed but instead of blaming god they blame natural gas emissions. They have faith in their orthodoxy of belief and persecute unbelievers as heretics. I respect all faiths and none yet you show such bigotry. I guess you are true to your heritage.
@TullyRiven Religion has its place, safley tucked away having no effect on the real world, I only object to it when some moron tries to use it as a way of influencing the real world, "god says" means nothing at all, worthless meaningless words that have nothing on science, anyone that tries to put an argument from the bible up against scientific evidence should be totally ignored, their caveman words have no value. They have tried to persecute me in the past, fuck them.
@SpankyRavenscroft Many Americans fled Religious Persecution and War in Europe to enjoy freedom. Europe long regarded the world as heathens to be ruled and/or converted since they arrogantly thought they knew better. Now Europe has a new Faith in Pseudoscience and wants to reestablish their dominance over the world because once again, they think they know better. I tell you to fuck off and stop trying to sell me a load of shit. Show the data, show the method and prove it. Then we can talk.
@SpankyRavenscroft This video doesn't use the God excuse. I have never used the God excuse. You could spend a day digging through all the posts and only find a handful of God excuses. Ultimately it comes down to your intollerance, ignorance and bigotry of people that don't agree with you. You are worse than those who persecuted you because you are doing that which you claim to have been victim of. Hypocrite.
Wait. I know. Why dont we give millions of dollars to African warlords so they can build oil pipelines and gain even more money! Yeah, thats gotta be the right thing to do!
@TheHammerhead98 Some people would like to give African warlords money to sit on their asses and hold their people back from industrialization. Then they can burn wood for fuel, choke on the fumes and depend on string laden welfare system promoted by the Colonial Powers that raped their lands for centuries. Yeah, that’s much better!
If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery.
there is global warming....it started right after the last ice age, thousand of years ago. way the fuck before humans started burning fossil fuels. the earth will inevitably enter another ice age despite all the CO2 in the atmosphere. al gore and the rest of the fucktards need to get their heads out of their asses.
I believe the warming predicted is a likely 2-6 C. Many are calling for a limit of 2. That we are even having that debate now is scary. This will still mean sea level rise, mass crop failure and populations centres becoming uninhabitable. And WE ARE NOT ON SCHEDULE to keep it to(only!) 2 C.
Isn't the truth that you don't care because you think the really bad shit will happen after you are gone? How sad that the earth will be here(hopefully with
@23peacefrog Debate strengthens science and is integral to the Scientific Method. Challenges expose questions and the answers strengthen or break the theory. Suppression of dissent and lack of transparency impairs science.
You are talking fear mongering drivel coupled with personal attacks saying that my skepticism means I’m selfish and don’t care. I have clearly stated that I do but am more concerned about our impact on the environment beyond the natural gasses we exhale and fart.
Your arguments are flawed. Climate changes all the time yeah yeah so you keep saying.
You say that life adapts and "the poles were tropical" what is your point? That life can move around the planet. No I'm afraid WE will be there already
I am not unaware of the danger of an ice age. If your argument is that warming of 4 C is ok as some insurance against an ice age then you are bonkers. Sea level rise is not gonna be seen like that my friend
@23peacefrog The predicted warming of 4C is on the lunatic fringe and is not supported by physics or empirical evidence. It relies on forcing of cloudless moisture yet the same people who cry 4C also cry that floods are caused by the moisture. Rain doesn’t come from cloudless moisture.
Assuming that natural forces don’t drive us into a new glacial period, sea levels will rise. However, it will be over centuries and we’ll adapt.
I say 4C is a steaming load of fear mongering crap.
I don't want them to be held to ethical or legal standards? I WANT to believe on global warming?
Don't tell me what I believe - you are wrong on both counts. Especially in wanting global warming to be true. I WANT TO BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE!!!
You are obviously intelligent and also cynical. Cynicism is good but not everyone is lying all the time. The scientific community is being challenged on evolution by some people do you think the earth is 12 thousand years old?
@23peacefrog The Earth is billions of years and life adapted and evolved as its climate shifted and changed through natural cycles, cosmic influences and natural catastrophe. For much of this time the poles were subtropical and life thrived. Yet people decry the lost habitats that are anomalous in geological time.
Ironically AGW fails to see past a blink of time. It is the AGW folks who don’t recognize the reality and dangers of the Ice Ages and think permafrost is normal. Irony Alert.
I dispute that they are not being held to any ethical or legal standard.
You seem to be suggesting that the UN is forcing them to push the Global Warming agenda. Yet I do not hear any of the many governments of the world calling them on this... Are ALL the governments of the world in on this conspiracy?
Yeah right
Stop telling me I WANT to believe.....that is a load of rubbish. I want the IPCC to tell me man made global warming is not true/not a problem
There is uncertainty in the data? I'm not convinced this means that the IPCC is clinging to global warming in the face of evidence against it.
"Climategate 2" for example. Another very sophisticated hack right before big climate talks and yet the revelations are hardly earth shattering are they? If there was this whole conspiracy of disinformation or denial wouldn't there be a way of getting more damning clues than this?
Your argument is the sum total of human activity MIGHT not effect our climate. This argument seems preposterous to me and many others. The question for me is: what is the most likely outcome of mass habitat destruction, greenhouse gas emissions etc.
@23peasefrogger My argument is that the climate history of the earth is not something to be lorded over by some exclusive bunch of academic elites. There are numerous gaffs and screw-ups by the AGW folks but you are too deluded to realize it. Correlation depends on reliable and verifiable data and doesn’t determine Causation.
You have faith in these FOIA violating blowhards and don't think they should be held to any legal or ethical standard because you want them to be right. That's sad.
I agree biofuels suck as an alternative energy source. Deforestation for biofuels to alleviate climate change? A joke
Scepticism is fine if it is based on a genuine search for truth. You say "we need to know what is going on"
Here's what: the ever rising no of people is having more and more impact on earth. They are many different crisis happening now GW is ONLY ONE. It's about so much more than co2 and methane
@23peacefrog People WANT to believe we are the cause for that means we have power to FIX it. It is an understandable bias.
The keepers of Global Climate Data blatantly refuse to share the raw data. The top climate scientists launch smears and attacks on skeptics based on their being skeptics rather than the few pieces they slip past the censors and those publishers are punished. Those who try so hard to hide things give cause to believe they have something to hide. Free OUR data for TRUTH
I suggest that the climate change deniers might care to have a look/listen to "Denial Tango" at /watch?v=TrURLJ6Vlsg and if the ice-cap fits, you'd better wear it quickly - while you still can!
We live in the most important moment of human history since we started using the first tools millions of years ago.
We can achieve so much it is
mind blowing to think of all the stuff we might come up with.
But our home is in a bit of a state and it is heading for a major fucking crisis. If you do not know this then you are a poor advert for the intelligence of our species. It's time you looked around at the world you live in and realised you are part of it
@23peacefrog I am a skeptic but also one that has a deep respect for nature. “Green” Energy does reduce CO2 but manufacturing and disposing of them releases toxic chemicals and contributes to deforestation to produce bio fuels. For humanity to adapt to a changing world we need to know what is going on and the monopoly on the data must end. We must consider the environmental costs for alternatives and weigh it against other options. Skepticism is part of science and should not be persecuted.
If we act now we can avoid SOME of the worst effects of climate change.
All this talk is just that. What do we care? We'll be dead before it gets too bad yeah?
Anyone out there under 25 you WILL live long enough to see the terrible wars famine flooding etc.
We MAY have a few more decades of relatively stable climate if we are lucky. As for the mass extinction? Very little is being done to combat this and it is not only caused by GW
This is garbage, not based upon science, but upon ideology. There is no parallel body of scientific published material to support this position. Dangerous as it slows down the acceptance of the science by the body politic and the politicians. Our children will live with the consequences and will not look kindly upon our inaction. Censorship - garbage. Carbon based energy industries are the vested interests we must fight. It really worries me these get given credibility just because they exist.
@blackadderthe4 The opening of that vid is funny. I can’t count the number of times that "Scientists" that serve “The Cause” have made empty claims that skeptics are on the payroll of big oil. Isn’t that a conspiracy theory? I didn’t mention CG2 because it only confirms what the violations of FOIA prove; these ‘scientists’ are afraid of the disclosure demanded of them by the Scientific Method and by Law. Funny thing is that people do conspire for this and that. It's the way people tick.
@blackadderthe4 As part of the Thatcher administration, Monkton was the first poster-child for using CO2 and Climate Change as a political policy tool. Thatcher saw her predecessor brought down by striking coal miners and she needed a pretext to break their power by shifting to nuclear. “The Cause” was to break the Coal Miners and it worked. However, once it was shown that pseudoscientific fear mongering was so effective to impose unwanted policies, it continued long after he left politics.
'Monkton was the first poster-child for using CO2 and Climate Change as a political policy tool' first time I've heard that one!' she needed a pretext to break their power' and rhat was Scargill! And Thatcher has spoken out about the influence of AGW and has scientfic baclground, not like the fake Lord!
@blackadderthe4 You can say many things about Monkton related to questionable statements and publications but he is, by law, a Lord. As a typical AGW Fanboi you regard anyone who agrees with you as Scientific and anyone skeptical as Corrupt. She recanted her earlier views but AGW Conspiracy Theories rage that she was bought by Big Oil. I guess conspiracies only count when they serve “The Cause”.
‘The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house…your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms’
’
w ww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
@blackadderthe4 O’Donoghue, an expert on English Peerage Laws, stated in an opinion that Lord Monkton’s “claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable…. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.” Nov 2011.
This is politics of personal destruction. It is nothing more than a shut up or else action by desparate people. It shows the weakness of AGW "science"
‘Lord Monckton‟s late father was disqualified from sitting and voting in the House of Lords as a consequence of the House of Lords Act 1999 (hereinafter “the Act”). Lord Monckton, on his succession, was thus automatically disqualified in turn’
@blackadderthe4 You bore me. Wake me up if you want to talk abouit something about the politics of personal destruction and attacking the character of people because they dare say or publish something skeptical.
@blackadderthe4 In candor, I don't give two shits what "video" you posted. Likely another BBC lacky spinning things for "The Cause". The summary of the judgement is that LORD Monckton was fully within his rights to say he is a member of the House of Lords. That's the fact. You keep digging your own grave by making unsubstantiated half baked attacks on skeptics and watch the feeble support for "The Cause" vanish like morning dew evaporated by the light of day.
'two shits what "video" you posted' is that a bite? Because you HAVE watched the vid and now realise you have been wrong in placing your faith in this con man? 'half baked attacks on skeptics' not skeptics but deniers, no doubt using the same tactics they use to deny the holocaust! 'is a member of the House of Lords' even if the House of Lords have said he is not under the law? People who are prepared to lie so brazenly are quite prepared to ignore proof that they are in error.
@blackadderthe4 I don’t care about Monckton or Peerage laws in the slightest nor do I have great confidence in his knowledge of the science although I will say he has thoroughly trashed some of his opponents in debates. However, defeating liars and cheats in a debate is no big deal so I don’t place much credit on that alone. What I despise are intellectual bullies who launch vicious personal attacks to silence dissent. Redacted my last line; was a bit over the top.
'I don’t care about Monckton' now you've seen how much a liar he is! Did he not give 'evidence' about there been no AGW to your politicians at some meeting in Capitol Hill? Dangerous man spreading all these pork pies and what's worse is that you Americans have fallen for this modern day Goebbels, oh well there must be WMD in Iraq after all! Tell a big lie and you will be believed, as Goebbels used to say.
@blackadderthe4 "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" - Lenin. The lie is the radical extreme of AGW theory that you demand people agree with or you will relentlessly attack them. Every tyrant needs to have a villain and Monckton seems to be the boogeyman you parade around every time you don't have facts to speak of. As I said, you bore me. I'm done rolling in the guttter with trash like you. I've tried reason, moderation and you just can't accept anything but the extreme.
'the greater the lie, the greater the chance it will be believed' Hitler, page 79, Hamlyn Dictionary of Quotes, ISBN 0-600-56520-3. 'you will relentlessly attack them' yes when they claim extraordinary things and don't back the claim with evidence from a valid source! Because none are so blind as those who will not open their eyes to see the truth and prefer to follow blindly follow the likes of Monckton!
@blackadderthe4 The old Holocaust Denier ad hominem attack, eh? How unoriginal. I don’t see any moral equivalence between the Germans murdering millions and a pip or two of temperature increases. I also don’t see how flimsy FOIA violation plagued “Scientific” Theory hereafter known as “The Cause” compares to concentration camps, mass graves and scores of witnesses come close. It's just a way to impugn the character of skeptics but the reality is that it impugns the integrity of the accuser.
‘AN ERA of ice that has gripped Earth's poles for 35 million years could come to an end as extreme global warming really begins to bite. Previously unknown sources of positive feedback - including "hyperwarming" that was last seen on Earth half a billion years ago - may push global temperatures high enough to send Earth into a hothouse state with tropical forests growing close to the poles’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228392.300-hyperwarming-climate-could-turn-earths-poles-green.html
@blackadderthe4 You say that like it’s a bad thing. Heh. The Ice Age has been a brutal episode in Earth’s History. What you call ‘Hyperwarming’ I call “Normalization”. Over the past hundreds of millions of years the earth was tropical for much longer than it was an icebox. Life thrives in the tropical world and was driven to the brink of extinction in the depths of the ice age.
'What you call ‘Hyperwarming’ I call “Normalization”' well you can call it what you like, but I doubt you are qualified to make that satatement! 'Over the past hundreds of millions of years the earth was tropical for much longer than it was an icebox' well that may be so, but there were no humans 100s of millions of years ago and if we are heading for a runaway greenhouse atmosphere there will not be any humans again.
@blackadderthe4 Humans came damn close to extinction during the last glacial period of the ice ages. Humans are a Tropical Species that adapted themselves to the Cold through the use of tools. I'd place our odds of surviving a tropical transformation far greater than a return to another glacial period. It is true that the earth was tropical far longer than it was glacial so Normalization is a good word for it and I didn't realize I needed qualifications to post on Youtube. LOL
'I didn't realize I needed qualifications to post on Youtube' you do if you make extaordinary claims or at least back it up with extraordinary evidence! Which your silence is deafening!
@blackadderthe4 You said, “that may be so” to my comment which I took to mean you didn’t deny paleontological evidence of flora and fauna in northern latitudes during the Miocene which saw a cooling from even hotter Oligocene and hotter still Eocene. I’ll also point out that permanent ice at the South Pole was 35 million years ago but NOT the North Pole. You sound like a paleoclimatology denier. Now why don’t you go read your pseudoscience mag and find a good talking point to counter with.
@blackadderthe4 It is known that the planet has been a snowball at times and it is also known that they pushed life near to the breaking point. The increasingly wild fluctuations of the ice ages have been brutal. We will either go into a new period of glaciation or we’ll break the cycle and return to the warm stability of earlier ages. I for one can only hope it is the latter. There is nothing good about land buried in ice compared to forests full of life.
@blackadderthe4 There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gasses cause warming however, the evidence that it will have catastrophic impacts is weak and the consensus for that extreme is grossly overstated. Climate Activists like Hansen make $millions off their position by unethical if not illegal means and Mann and Pedd State still fight FOIA compliance. The new IPCC report is far less ominous because their chronic errors are an embarrassment. You sound like Chicken Little the Doomsayer. LOL
Ah so you agree with AGW! So you must be in the conspiracy section, that believes the scientist don't know what they are talking about with regards to the effects
‘In the US, the Global Changes Research Program published a report in 2009 entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. The National Climate Change chapter reports the following findings for recent decades:’
w ww.skepticalscience.co m/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm
@blackadderthe4 OMG! Hold the Presses! A BLOG has declared that AGW will bring about the END of the WORLD! It’s a sad day when you refute the corrupt practices of prominent AGW scientists whose data is used to justify the science by pointing to a BLOG authored by people whose idea of science is to call people names.
I have said many times that I acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change and every time you feign shock. You have the attention span of a toad.
'I have said many times that I acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change' and what I don't understand is the untenable position you have, that it is of minor concern! When all the evidence points in the other direction! You are like that guy who fell out of the Empire State buiding and could be heard to shout 'tenth foor and still OK...ninth floor and still OK...eigth floor and still OK... this is going to be OK to the bottom...SPLAT!'
@blackadderthe4 It is the LAW of Gravity and CC LAW. A Theory is a Theory until PROVEN true at which point it becomes a Law. If falsified it becomes a historical footnote. If a Theory cannot be falsified it is not a Scientific Theory.
I have a pragmatic view on the subject. Show the data, show the methodology, reproduce to confirm or reject. It is the analytical view which is consistent with the scientific method. You should take more care to avoid embarassing yourself further.
'A Theory is a Theory until PROVEN true at which point it becomes a Law' and how does it become a proven law?
watch?v=KFcWwJOJUZc
'If a Theory CANNOT {your words} be falsified it is not a Scientific Theory' so what are you saying here? If you can't falsify a theory then it can't be considered as a scientific theory? That's an oxymoron!
@blackadderthe4 A Scientific Theory uses empirical data expressed with some formal system of logic based on scientific laws and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
In the humanities there are philosophical theories. A sociologist may make a theory about human behavior for which empirical data and scientific laws cannot be used to explain.
You really should look before you leap. This is a fundimental concept I should not have to explain.
"I do not want anyone to assume these are my views". "hinderment to my progress as a youtube video poster". "Tags: global warming the scandal co2 is not cause of climate change". "You can't get the 100% truth".
.....scientists believe things and this is the basis of their errors, they are down there with journalists and must be constantly scrutinized and mercilessly prosecuted.
30,000 scientist's agree that man made global warming is a hoax!
I'll listen to them. Establishment based science and scientist's can't be trusted.
some of them have quit because they know the truth. Get the facts and how they fixed the charts using computer programs that distort facts and numbers. listen to Lord mockton and the 30,000 experts.
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
@blackadderthe4 esrl. noaa.gov/psd/people/tao.zhang/2010GL046582.pdf “We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability”
You confuse Climate and Weather. This was a regional event where a blocking pattern prevented cooler air from moving the air through.
While you talk about unsubstantiated lawsuits against oil companies justified by flimsy science, I’d like to talk about lawsuits against institutions that are trying to compromise the ability of real scientists to forecast weather. Forecasts based on bad data result in bad forecasts and the not being able to properly prepare costs lives. A lawsuit would be good, though. Maybe those FOIA violators will be compelled to release withheld data so the court can properly evaluate the “evidence”.
@blackadderthe4 I’ve never denied that humans influence the climate. We build cities, we cut down forests, we dump toxic chemicals into the ocean and we contribute to greenhouse gasses which do have a nominal impact on temperatures. I object to zealots who grossly exaggerate the impacts, refuse to comply with FOIA laws, harass skeptics and threaten to sue when an objective court would toss them out the door so fast their heads would spin. In short, newscientist is pseudoscientist.
'In short, newscientist is pseudoscientist' and what do you base that on? Because it backs up its articles with reference to scientific research! Or is it just you don't like the message so we'll shoot the messenger.
@blackadderthe4 I find a rather dramatic gap between their claim that there is an 80% chance that it couldn't have happened without climate change and NOAA saying that it was due to natural internal atmospheric variability. I really want this to go to court and see FOIA documents released as part of the discovery phase. Let’s get a REAL debate with an Objective arbiter get all the facts on the table and see how it goes.
Climate change theory is like a jigsaw! You have pieces and try to work out a pattern (theory), Then you notice clumps match up and put them together (building evidence). Some people try a piece from the deniers jigsaw but it’s obvious it doesn’t belong there and is rejected (peer reviewed)! But will the jigsaw be completed before time runs out (tipping point) or will mankind come to its senses and stop the co2 rise!
@blackadderthe4 Wow, what an idiotic analogy. It’s like assembling a jigsaw puzzled blindfolded with many pieces missing to assemble an image that is dynamic. The many variables and cycles that happen in the climate system converge and diverge. That makes for a great talking point. Given that you so often quote pseudoscience magazine I can see why. They dedicate entire issues to putting out talking points so morons like you can sound smart to other idiots.
'what an idiotic analogy' well i do like to keep it KISS! But it seems that it's even gone above your head, but the thing is I can't drop to your low level of comprehension.
@blackadderthe4 You and I have been on this merry-go-round many times, Adder. If you have not read the many times that I have recognized that Greenhouse Gasses contribute to warming it is you who are lacking in reading comprehension and not I. You posted something from some Activist Rag and I posted something from NOAA and they say very different things. Not the first time nor the last time, I assure you.
'some Activist Rag' I think not, if you do it just exposes your bias and pretext at critical thinking! 'they say very different things' oh no they don't! ‘and is very likely to produce more frequent and extreme heat waves later this Century…the results suggest that we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly…increases ingreenhouse gas concentrations’ from your link! That will be game, set and match to me then!
@blackadderthe4 You, sir, are the one who lacks reading skills. Until you have another POC from your Activist Rag, we’re done. I'll leave it to other posters to read the two articles and judge for themselves.
I welcome a trial of Big Oil on the basis of AGW. If you think your case is strong enough to stand before a Court of Law and subject to Discovery, bring it on. The defeat of such frivolous litigation would do wonders for the pursuit of science.
And you are like that little dutch boy who tried to stop the dams leaking by sticking his thumb in the leak, but he was overwhelmed and doomed to failure!
According to good ol' Al, we now have less than 4.5 years before the earth's surface is scorched to an unbearably hot temperature and rendered uninhabitable. So who's selling ticket to Mars? Is Al building his spaceship arc yet? Why did he buy ocean front property in California a couple of years ago? The oceans are suppose to rise at a catastrophic height, killing millions. Won't that mean his 10 upstairs bathrooms will be flooded for generations to come? Does he have lots of flood insurance?
@cesar333 Climate Science should not be partisan. If you want to make a partisan spin on it then you are an Activist and not someone capable of reason.
@TullyRiven The Repubs have put a partisan spin on this subject a long time ago. Look at what they did to Al gore. Seriously does anyone really take this party seriously?
@cesar333 Wow, you said Al Gore with a straight face. I’m impressed! Not.
The Repubs stood by while Dems seized the reigns of Fear Mongering to scare voters to support their crony capitalist endeavors to give a return on the investment of their Green Lobby Allies. The Republicans didn’t make Al Gore become a climate profiteer with a propaganda network and an ironically named “documentary” called “Inconvenient Truth” full of “Inconvenient Errors”.
@TullyRiven The guy came out and talked about global warming and he was ridiculed because the repubs were in the pocket of big oil. Now the the biggest critic finally believes in global warming. Many of the same repubs came from states that either had large oil, gas or coal production. They are the only party in the free world today who dont believe in climate change. Face it. The repubs are in the pocket of big corp. You have have the green lobby argument but its not looking good for you guys.
@cesar333 Politicians on both sides are beholden to special interest groups whether it is in defense of established energy sources or new industries that want to replace them. This is why I said, “Climate Science should not be Partisan”. Science should be objective and for us to obsess on one part of the system at the expense of the full complexity of the climate is foolish.
@TullyRiven I agree with you, thats why when that english scientist fabricated the evidence there were alot of pissed off people and the repubs pounced on it. Its sad that it has come down to become a partisan issue but the repubs are to blame for that. Any thing the dems are for, they are against. They are truely the party of no.
@cesar333 The government is flushing $BILLIONS down the drain on venture capital scams where their buddies are invested (Including Al Gore) based off of a Theory that is NOT Fact with Predictions that FAIL to match reality. Unethical scientific practices + Failed Predictions + Demagogues + Crappy Partisan Investments = Damn Good Cause for Opposition. The Dems are going to be soundly defeated in 2012.
@cesar333 You talk as if you think there is some difference between the two parties that act like they debate over issues that they want you to think you have any effect on. Well there is not and you do not.
Wake up and smell the cow farts guy. It terrifies me that so many people still can not see that they are ruled by a bank. Further more that they, who is you still stand up for the government they fear. Individually you are harmless but as the majority your ignorance is lethal to freedom.
Global warming is a scam I love when people say the ice caps melting will cause the world to be covered with water. Yea and when your ice in your glass melts the glass overflows. What a bunch of morons. The ice comes off the ice vaps all the time. The Titanic hit one. One washed up on the coast of Ireland and it was the first time the irish had their wiskey on the rocks. Hahahaha
db10001110101 4 days ago
The warm monger's lies are being exposed left, right and centre and yet they still are trying to convince us to accept it so they can line their pockets with trillions of the west's dollars.
StinkyKnobcheese 4 days ago
@StinkyKnobcheese Are you aware that every attempt at propaganda like this one is composed of blatant distortions, misrepresentations, (intended) misinterpretantions, omition of citations' contexts, vague assertions, laymen testimonials, and oil interest driven agendas?
This movie was completely destroyed by many people, and so did the director who was enterviewed, made himself look like a fool and swaped subjects away from tough questions. And you even believe this... :\
skaruts 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 1 week ago
The earth goes into warming and cooling periods the ice ages prove that. It's not caused by pollution.
garrettgha96 1 week ago
@TullyRiven If the 'movement' is predicated upon a lie (man made climate change)...then the gambit can be nothing but 'nefarious'.
And I care not for what the smear machine may or may not do. A truth on two legs, a lie on but one. Truths resonate, regardless of how liars may rant against said.
And you have several terms and a book to look up that would flesh things out for even a very common mind to grasp.
awshucks 2 weeks ago
All tyrannies must needs be underwritten by a tyrannical priesthood. - LH Lehmann, Behind The Dictators, 1942. Free online.
awshucks 2 weeks ago
One could also google for the history of the IPCC...to see which religious 'cult' is largely behind this 'pseudo-scientific cult'. Just another diversion to keep the smart folks from noting the Praemunire and Requirimiento underway in the West.
awshucks 2 weeks ago
@awshucks I do not doubt there are some who seek to exploit climate change for political reasons, there are others who are so convinced it is true that their work is biased and others who are want to believe we caused it because if we caused it that means we could fix it. The way you word it is too easy for the smear machine to paint as kooky. The motives are not all nefarious.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
@TullyRiven Pseudo science is what it is. No one (at least not I) was talking about sunspot activity. Regardless of sunspot activity...we get nearer to the sun (in a relative sense) as the growth curve of the suns photosphere keeps going. Nice attempt at the redirect, though not quite the high ground of activity that you are demanding of others...is it?
As for supporting documentation, simply google the terms...you'll find all you need.
awshucks 2 weeks ago
@awshucks I’m a skeptic and enjoy reading different studies on the various cycles and contributors to climate change. I didn’t hear of the one you mentioned so my purpose was not to “call you out” on it but to “clue me in” on a theory I’m not familiar with.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
Roman habits...establish pseudo science and profit from the businesses built around it.
The UN and EU...papal constructs. Many so-called 'movements', established in the bowels of her Orders.
The climate will continue to get hotter, overall, due to the growth of the photosphere of the sun and our constant position relative to said.
When establishing a very large tyranny, small tyrannies are established as diversion. Global Warming is one such small tyranny.
awshucks 3 weeks ago
@awshucks Um, huh? That's about as whacky to me as the AGW Fanatics on the lunatic fringe of the science. I'd love to see a citation for the part about the photosphere because solar activity is down and we may head into a maunder minimum resulting in a cooling period or at the least a halt to warming.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
What a crock!
here's what the ice core shows
watch?v=Kr02VF3ralc&feature=g-vrec&context=G2db7a2dRVAAAAAAAABg
bernzeppi 3 weeks ago
@bernzeppi Great informative video! Cheers man
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert You laid praise for the objectivity of Wiki and called me foolish for not checking my sources. As it turns out I have the very survey and have proved the veracity of my claims, yet you are now silent.
The end is stupid funny. “debate.. nonexistent… among those who understand.. communicate.. to.. policy makers.. mistakenly perceive debate.”
If you dismiss people who don’t agree you can trick the public and politicians into supporting an artificial concensus.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven Where did you prove it? Did I miss something? It just seems to me that all evidence (if you want to call it that way) is promoted EXTREMELY agressively in America, which is funny enough the only country with a MAJORITY of people not believing in global warming. I wonder if it those are the same people who don't believe in evolution...
However, as we are probably both not involved in science directly, it's sadly enough always a thing of believing. Still, watch the movie HOME. cheers
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Americans are pragmatic and cautious individualists. We will not bend knee to an intellectual elite that responds to calls for freedom of information with demagoguery and arrogant difference. If you want to convince us, treat us with respect and hold scientists to the same standard. You start tossing bigoted insults and I assure you that we’ll rally with our friends and neighbors and tell you to piss off.
Argue on the merit of facts and not talking points.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
@TullyRiven The fun thing about Americans (especially in the face of Americans presidents (usually, there are exceptions, just like the current one)) is that they DO NOT want to listen to people that are more informed than they are, they want somebody equally "informed" (or uninformed), which is why people dismissing climate change usually say stuff like "WELL, I am NOT an EXPERT, but in MY OPINION" and start talking uneducated, false shit and pseudo science.
That's my opinion.
Cheers
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@TullyRiven Sorry I didn't reply earlier. As it seems, we have different points of view and none of us is probably willing to adapt the others point, but I took notice of yours and hope you did the same. Let's continue and sit around and wait and see who is right (although I actually hope you are, for our sake). But caring for the environment (e.g. pollution) as well as resticting CO2 due to ocean acidification is probs still a good plan. Cheers
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Caring for the environment is of course a good idea.Real environmentalism,not this phoney green/marxist enviro-religion promoted by the 'New Class' Restricting Co2 output is a terrible idea,we couldnt sustain Earths population if we did.If Co2 related warming is as significant as the IPCC claims,we should be roasting by now.Co2 output is accelerating,yet global temps are cooling,theory doesnt fit with reality.Govt. scientists cant be trusted to spell it out,too much money 2 lose.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 1 week ago
@TullyRiven P.s. I still don't have your sources ;) As if I'd believe in something that's on your desktop and no one can see! Wiki is checked by MILLIONS of people and admins for mistakes and changes, all the time and you find all the sources in the footnotes you can check for yourself (including quotations).
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@TullyRiven And by the way, if you are talking about great "American freedome", why is it happening that 1% of your people own 54% of all wealth (aah yeah liberal markets, I forgot). And if they work so well, why are so many people unemployed? I tell you why: Because machines are cheaper than people. And in an economy where profit is the only thing that counts, nobody things about people. You feel so free, but you have frikkin security everywhere, you build walls and shut yourself away from the
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@TullyRiven world. You only interact when there's profit to get. You pollute the environment and don't give a fuck. You developed the ultimate philosophy that selfishness is natural and is to be respected. Oh yes, fu*k the poor, because if they are poor, they probably deserve it. Don't you see that it's the system that's fuc*ed up and not the people? I live in the EU and although we have problems, at least we are a community that is not exclusively based on money!
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert The EU(SSR) is not a community.Its a neo-fascist technocratic dictatorship run by a bunch of self serving,corrupt,unelected bureaucratic criminals namely the Brussels elite.Take pride in your country,its great.I would never say I live in the EU as its not a country,it has no citizens for that reason either.In the future after the EU and Eurozone inevitably fails,it will be seen by all,as every other failed socialist political tyranny of the 20th century was.Just u wait and see
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 1 week ago
@TullyRiven You have the "liberty" to bear arms, so you are forced to have them to not be scared. But you will never be save. You will never be in control. Just sad social disintegration and distrust. Well, I should stop going off about America, but you guys don't even doubt the "surpremeness" of your country. So better don't start answering me to tell me how the weather is up you own arse.
I will not reply anymore. We hold different opinions, I don't respect yours. You don't respect mine. Bye.
gesehengehoert 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert You said, “97% think that climate change is cause by humans adding CO2”. I responded with a link to the study you referred to and it details how they came to 97%. If you are too stupid to read more than a talking point then I can see why you are an AGW Fanboi. Go and read the post, read your study and learn something. It doesn’t take a climatologist to realize that the risk of bias exists in all quarters.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert I don’t care if you respect my opinion which, by the way, is a sensible and moderate one. I fully realize that CO2 contributes to warming and that humans have added CO2. The theory regarding forcing is weak and the projected signatures do not exist in reality. The forecasts fail and the best the AGW folks can do is rename it to Climate Change.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert When the Euro fails nationalism will rise again in Europe. The USA should withdraw from around the world and let people slaughter each other like the good old days. Your crusades, world wars, intolerance, genocide, colonial tyranny and glorious socialism built upon dependence on us to keep the USSR from crushing you like bugs. You have some fucking nerve going down this class warfare self-righteous bullshit but clearly does show that Climate Justice is POLITICS, not science.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert My final post to you is this. I’m a 1st generation American whose parents fled the ruins of Europe after WWII. I studied the subject but left academia for a different profession decades ago. I fully realize the failings of the USA but you appear to have forgotten the failings of your own nation and that leads to the very real risk of repeating the mistakes of your forefathers. There is a new form of intolerance and a new inquisition forming and it is not based on science.
TullyRiven 2 weeks ago
By the way, I'd like to know who the people talking non-sense in the beginning of this video are and if they are in any scientific field that reflects their strong rejection of the evidence that +99% of the scientific community supports (97% think that climate change is cause by humans adding CO2 to the athmosphere, 2% hold non-committing positions)
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert In 2009 there was a survey of 10k Earth Scientists with a vague question about Global Warming. They didn’t like the responses so they filtered it down to a category that only had 97 scientists. 95 of the 97 thought humans contributed to climate change resulting in 97%. 97% sound so impressive when you ignore the fact that it only represented a tiny fraction of the scientists.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven Tell me your source and if I can identify, analyse, understand and determine the prosess that brought them to this conclusion, I am more than happy to believe you. :)
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Maybe you should tell me YOUR source. Your the one Lording Around that 97% crap. Wikipedia is crap. I'll provide the study and the analysis at my leisure. I'm rather certain you are firmly entrenched in the Gasser Cult so I doubt you'll be pursuaded anyways.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven So you don't have one an hope I will forget about it. ;) That's fine for me, I can spend my days better anyways (I need to go to work now), however it would have been interesting! I am AGAINST climate change denial, but skeptisism is ESSENTIAL for good science, so I'd have been happy to have my views challenged. Concerning wiki: It is INTERNATIONAL with clear sources. Always check your sources - then you won't embarrass yourself. Enjoy your leisure! :D Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert wikipedia is open source and is not a reliable source. I have the study sitting on my desktop right now. I also went and looked at the data. However, I have to get my kids to bed and quite frankly think that you are a knucklehead who won't listen to reason so I don't feel the need to do your homework because you won't learn anything from it.
When I have the time I'll provide real citations and not some wikipedia garbage.
Good day.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven I am excited to see your source and I am more than happy to read it. But don't rush. I'm patient. Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Ok, appreciate that. My wife is yelling from upstairs so I really have to go this time. Heh
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Firstly, a scientific theory doesn’t become a law through consensus and definitely not from polls. Data, methodology, reproducibility and success in predictions do. The very things that can make a theory a law can also falsify. A failure to provide the means to verify or falsify compromises the scientific method and gives cause for skepticism. If someone has nothing to hide, they shouldn’t hide anything.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Secondly, the survey
tigger.uic. edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final. pdf
Do you THINK human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures… It is asking for OPINION.
10,257 asked of which 96% were from North America. 30% responded. 82% THINK it is true. 2.5% of those were experts. 97% of the experts THINK it is true. The 97% sounds great but it is absurd, not peer-reviewed and solicited opinions. It is a talking point.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Thirdly, the notion that the only people who lobby are greedy oil companies is disingenuous at best. Environmental lobbies like Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, Greenpeace etc all lobby, advertise and vigorously push their agenda. Grant money goes to research AGW topics, not to broaden understanding. There are rich subsidies to Companies and they lobby hard for their share of taxpayer cash.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven It is funny. My source is wiki, but you won't tell me yours. Such a pitty! ;)
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@TullyRiven You quoted the 97% talking point so you’re welcome to provide a citation to support your claim. While you’re there, read into the study so you understand exactly what you are quoting. Ask yourself why they would do this and further ask what else they are doing to distort the idea of consensus.
I'm far more concerned about other threats to our habitat than a natural trace gas which we've had at higher levels with a more stable climate.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
CLIMATE IS DRIVEN BY CARBONDIOXIDE! Without a fraction of the CO2 we have today in the athmosphere, we could not even live here because it keeps the heat, causing our surface-temperature to be around +12 on average instead of -20. This is the "natural green house effect". But it also proves: IF YOU ADD MORE, YOU'LL FRIKKIN HAVE MORE HEAT ON THE PLANET. Check out wikipedia, everything is on there concerning "global warming".
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
CHECK OUT "Global warming controversy" on wikipedia. Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
PLEASE AMERICA, DO YOURSELF AND THE WOLRD A FAVOUR AND WAKE UP!
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
ManBearPig (aka Al Gore) is getting sued by 30,000 scientists around the world for fraud.
Gore made billions of dollars from the scam though.
We are getting sprayed aluminum, barium, strontium from the sky (chemtrails) and it's called "Geo Engineering" and they say they're doing it to cool the earth. Of course it's BS.
Ganseblumchen12 3 weeks ago
@Ganseblumchen12 Geo Engineering is crap. But climate change is not. Where are Gore's billions I ask you? The US government spend 700 BILLION ALONE on the finanical crisis, caused by gambling bankers! If you worry about your states finances, you should be ranting about that.
Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
When I was in the High-Arctic, we experienced temperatures of 25°C in 2010. We were amazed by these temperatures... According to the local people, they had never ever experienced these high temperatures in the past. We talk of people that lived there for thousand years.
I would say that the Earth is changing quite rapidly and we have to change our way of life... I can not believe what I'm watching... this is very embarrassing for a lot of nation.
frankobjectif 1 month ago
Comment removed
frankobjectif 1 month ago 3
@frankobjectif As natural forces not yet understood steadily drove down temperatures, CO2 levels went down with them. At high levels of CO2 there is greater climate stability. As temperatures dropped so did CO2 and as CO2 dropped the climate grew increasingly erratic. CO2 is stability and life and is not persistent. There is no tipping point and we will move to cleaner energy as it becomes cost effective.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@TullyRiven Read "Global warming" on wikipedia and stop wasting people's time with your uninformed statements and spreading false information to the public. Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@frankobjectif Finally someone talking sense. Thanks man!
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert
No problem. It seems that too many scientist are paid by oils companies..
frankobjectif 3 weeks ago
@frankobjectif And it's sad how they succeed, well, at least in America, where the media is just entirely bought by the lobbies. But we must not give up!!! Funny and sad how people still believe in that, after the Tabacco lies, the Afghanistan lies, gambling banks and everything else that the American economy has produced/flourished under (and also exported, unfortunately).But let's not go into this, I'm off to work! Cheers and man up. :)
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Which lobbies? You mean GE? The American Media is biased AGAINST Global Warming? That's fucking stupid. Fox is about the only one that has any skeptical coverage and the others show those poor polar bears drifing on icebergs and neglect to mention how the polar bear population is growing, not shrinking. What you mean is that we haven't imposed draconian censor laws that make it illegal to report what the government deems untrue. That's tyranny and you can keep it.
TullyRiven 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert I understand you perfectly! Cheers from Québec!
frankobjectif 3 weeks ago
The reason for the lies is so that companies can take a product, stick a new label on it saying "green" and sell it for 2$ more...
dareapa1 1 month ago
Google Solarchords com where you will find a perfectly pragmatic, rational and calculated discovery regarding sunspot production and climate variation. There is no 'axe to grind' either way or any influencing bias such as funding, just a sensible scientific evaluation of factual findings. The work actually started in about 1995 and the recent information is a result of further study and refinement of Solar Chord Science. Well worth a serious study. With an unassailable correlation with climate.
IQuaereVerum2 1 month ago
@IQuaereVerum2 This is simply wrong. Check out wikipedia on "Global warming", they have relatively reliably, pretty objective as INTERNATIONAL information, especially on the entertaining topic you are talking about. Read it and THEN reply. Cheers
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@IQuaereVerum2 The funny thing is that NO SCIENCE ORGANISATION OR INSTITUTE has ever affirmed or OBSERVED "Solar chords". There isn't even a bloody wikipedia article about it. Funny, hey? ;) You better do some more serious research to impress me :)
gesehengehoert 3 weeks ago
@gesehengehoert Absolutely right!! The reason is because, until now, no one even knew the question, Solar Chords is a discovery. Who else has published long term predictions for Sunspot cycles, detailed climate wattage changes, given a rational explanation for the causes of the Maunder Minimum Cold Period, Medievil Warm Period, the failure of the Franklin expedition, the reason why Shackleton survived his failed venture and the proof for the Varve sediment solar link ?
howardsway782 2 weeks ago
9 out of 10 Americans would rather say god is changing the weather.
SpankyRavenscroft 1 month ago
@SpankyRavenscroft 9 out of 10 Europeans wish they never heard of Maachstricht either but hey, there you go. 99 out of 101 statisticians think my statistics are as good as yours.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@TullyRiven My statistics are based on actual facts, yours are constructed from bullshit and whatever crap your preacher/slave master has told you.
Of course according to you scientists know nothing and everything can be learnt from some shit old fiction book written by a bunch of cave monkeys thousands of years ago.
LOL, christians ! What the fuck are they for ?
SpankyRavenscroft 1 month ago
@SpankyRavenscroft It used to be that when there were natural disasters people would, in their ignorance of science, blame god. Those who did not believe in the same way as the others were regarded as heretics and persecuted. The Gassers have regressed but instead of blaming god they blame natural gas emissions. They have faith in their orthodoxy of belief and persecute unbelievers as heretics. I respect all faiths and none yet you show such bigotry. I guess you are true to your heritage.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@TullyRiven Religion has its place, safley tucked away having no effect on the real world, I only object to it when some moron tries to use it as a way of influencing the real world, "god says" means nothing at all, worthless meaningless words that have nothing on science, anyone that tries to put an argument from the bible up against scientific evidence should be totally ignored, their caveman words have no value. They have tried to persecute me in the past, fuck them.
SpankyRavenscroft 1 month ago
@SpankyRavenscroft Many Americans fled Religious Persecution and War in Europe to enjoy freedom. Europe long regarded the world as heathens to be ruled and/or converted since they arrogantly thought they knew better. Now Europe has a new Faith in Pseudoscience and wants to reestablish their dominance over the world because once again, they think they know better. I tell you to fuck off and stop trying to sell me a load of shit. Show the data, show the method and prove it. Then we can talk.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@SpankyRavenscroft This video doesn't use the God excuse. I have never used the God excuse. You could spend a day digging through all the posts and only find a handful of God excuses. Ultimately it comes down to your intollerance, ignorance and bigotry of people that don't agree with you. You are worse than those who persecuted you because you are doing that which you claim to have been victim of. Hypocrite.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
Wait. I know. Why dont we give millions of dollars to African warlords so they can build oil pipelines and gain even more money! Yeah, thats gotta be the right thing to do!
TheHammerhead98 1 month ago
@TheHammerhead98 Some people would like to give African warlords money to sit on their asses and hold their people back from industrialization. Then they can burn wood for fuel, choke on the fumes and depend on string laden welfare system promoted by the Colonial Powers that raped their lands for centuries. Yeah, that’s much better!
TullyRiven 1 month ago
is it?
apadana334 1 month ago
Where are parts 2 & 3? Censored? Only part 4 is avail other than this intro part 1 -- obviously cutting out most of the ARGUMENT.
boobah1067 1 month ago
@23peacefrog. YOU are a complete idiot.
budapest509 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to read an alternative view to AGW that is pragmatic, unbiased and easily testable, then Google Solarchords com, take some time to seriously study the info and I defy anyone to pick holes in it, it's a unique discovery.
howardsway782 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when alex jones and fox news are saying the same thing what does that tell you? climategate is a cia mossad deception
how obvious does it have to be that the common thread is OIL and imperialism
climate gate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
why is alex jones against avatar when the movie points directly to 911 truth
why is alex jones against the environment and pro oil when exxon and shell and haliburton are the biggest part of the NWO
MrTranscend1 1 month ago
there is global warming....it started right after the last ice age, thousand of years ago. way the fuck before humans started burning fossil fuels. the earth will inevitably enter another ice age despite all the CO2 in the atmosphere. al gore and the rest of the fucktards need to get their heads out of their asses.
castelgandalf 1 month ago
...(hopefully with humans!!!) for millions of years after you have gone and yet that matters not compared to your own selfish interests.
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@TullyRiven
"4 C is ..fear mongering crap"
I believe the warming predicted is a likely 2-6 C. Many are calling for a limit of 2. That we are even having that debate now is scary. This will still mean sea level rise, mass crop failure and populations centres becoming uninhabitable. And WE ARE NOT ON SCHEDULE to keep it to(only!) 2 C.
Isn't the truth that you don't care because you think the really bad shit will happen after you are gone? How sad that the earth will be here(hopefully with
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@23peacefrog Debate strengthens science and is integral to the Scientific Method. Challenges expose questions and the answers strengthen or break the theory. Suppression of dissent and lack of transparency impairs science.
You are talking fear mongering drivel coupled with personal attacks saying that my skepticism means I’m selfish and don’t care. I have clearly stated that I do but am more concerned about our impact on the environment beyond the natural gasses we exhale and fart.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@23peacefrog ...Did you even watch the video?
YourMomIsAShadow 1 month ago
@TullyRiven
Your arguments are flawed. Climate changes all the time yeah yeah so you keep saying.
You say that life adapts and "the poles were tropical" what is your point? That life can move around the planet. No I'm afraid WE will be there already
I am not unaware of the danger of an ice age. If your argument is that warming of 4 C is ok as some insurance against an ice age then you are bonkers. Sea level rise is not gonna be seen like that my friend
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@23peacefrog The predicted warming of 4C is on the lunatic fringe and is not supported by physics or empirical evidence. It relies on forcing of cloudless moisture yet the same people who cry 4C also cry that floods are caused by the moisture. Rain doesn’t come from cloudless moisture.
Assuming that natural forces don’t drive us into a new glacial period, sea levels will rise. However, it will be over centuries and we’ll adapt.
I say 4C is a steaming load of fear mongering crap.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@TullyRiven
I don't want them to be held to ethical or legal standards? I WANT to believe on global warming?
Don't tell me what I believe - you are wrong on both counts. Especially in wanting global warming to be true. I WANT TO BE CONVINCED OTHERWISE!!!
You are obviously intelligent and also cynical. Cynicism is good but not everyone is lying all the time. The scientific community is being challenged on evolution by some people do you think the earth is 12 thousand years old?
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@23peacefrog The Earth is billions of years and life adapted and evolved as its climate shifted and changed through natural cycles, cosmic influences and natural catastrophe. For much of this time the poles were subtropical and life thrived. Yet people decry the lost habitats that are anomalous in geological time.
Ironically AGW fails to see past a blink of time. It is the AGW folks who don’t recognize the reality and dangers of the Ice Ages and think permafrost is normal. Irony Alert.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
I dispute that they are not being held to any ethical or legal standard.
You seem to be suggesting that the UN is forcing them to push the Global Warming agenda. Yet I do not hear any of the many governments of the world calling them on this... Are ALL the governments of the world in on this conspiracy?
Yeah right
Stop telling me I WANT to believe.....that is a load of rubbish. I want the IPCC to tell me man made global warming is not true/not a problem
23peacefrog 1 month ago
There is uncertainty in the data? I'm not convinced this means that the IPCC is clinging to global warming in the face of evidence against it.
"Climategate 2" for example. Another very sophisticated hack right before big climate talks and yet the revelations are hardly earth shattering are they? If there was this whole conspiracy of disinformation or denial wouldn't there be a way of getting more damning clues than this?
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@trullyRiven
There is nothing to "FIX"
It's simple cause and effect.
Your argument is the sum total of human activity MIGHT not effect our climate. This argument seems preposterous to me and many others. The question for me is: what is the most likely outcome of mass habitat destruction, greenhouse gas emissions etc.
23peacefrog 1 month ago
@23peasefrogger My argument is that the climate history of the earth is not something to be lorded over by some exclusive bunch of academic elites. There are numerous gaffs and screw-ups by the AGW folks but you are too deluded to realize it. Correlation depends on reliable and verifiable data and doesn’t determine Causation.
You have faith in these FOIA violating blowhards and don't think they should be held to any legal or ethical standard because you want them to be right. That's sad.
TullyRiven 1 month ago
Comment removed
TullyRiven 1 month ago
@trulliriven
I agree biofuels suck as an alternative energy source. Deforestation for biofuels to alleviate climate change? A joke
Scepticism is fine if it is based on a genuine search for truth. You say "we need to know what is going on"
Here's what: the ever rising no of people is having more and more impact on earth. They are many different crisis happening now GW is ONLY ONE. It's about so much more than co2 and methane
23peacefrog 2 months ago
@23peacefrog People WANT to believe we are the cause for that means we have power to FIX it. It is an understandable bias.
The keepers of Global Climate Data blatantly refuse to share the raw data. The top climate scientists launch smears and attacks on skeptics based on their being skeptics rather than the few pieces they slip past the censors and those publishers are punished. Those who try so hard to hide things give cause to believe they have something to hide. Free OUR data for TRUTH
TullyRiven 1 month ago
I suggest that the climate change deniers might care to have a look/listen to "Denial Tango" at /watch?v=TrURLJ6Vlsg and if the ice-cap fits, you'd better wear it quickly - while you still can!
ASHaustralia 2 months ago
We live in the most important moment of human history since we started using the first tools millions of years ago.
We can achieve so much it is
mind blowing to think of all the stuff we might come up with.
But our home is in a bit of a state and it is heading for a major fucking crisis. If you do not know this then you are a poor advert for the intelligence of our species. It's time you looked around at the world you live in and realised you are part of it
23peacefrog 2 months ago
@23peacefrog I am a skeptic but also one that has a deep respect for nature. “Green” Energy does reduce CO2 but manufacturing and disposing of them releases toxic chemicals and contributes to deforestation to produce bio fuels. For humanity to adapt to a changing world we need to know what is going on and the monopoly on the data must end. We must consider the environmental costs for alternatives and weigh it against other options. Skepticism is part of science and should not be persecuted.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
If we act now we can avoid SOME of the worst effects of climate change.
All this talk is just that. What do we care? We'll be dead before it gets too bad yeah?
Anyone out there under 25 you WILL live long enough to see the terrible wars famine flooding etc.
We MAY have a few more decades of relatively stable climate if we are lucky. As for the mass extinction? Very little is being done to combat this and it is not only caused by GW
23peacefrog 2 months ago
This is garbage, not based upon science, but upon ideology. There is no parallel body of scientific published material to support this position. Dangerous as it slows down the acceptance of the science by the body politic and the politicians. Our children will live with the consequences and will not look kindly upon our inaction. Censorship - garbage. Carbon based energy industries are the vested interests we must fight. It really worries me these get given credibility just because they exist.
Patrickjl968 2 months ago
'climategate emails 2.0' debunked here
watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 The opening of that vid is funny. I can’t count the number of times that "Scientists" that serve “The Cause” have made empty claims that skeptics are on the payroll of big oil. Isn’t that a conspiracy theory? I didn’t mention CG2 because it only confirms what the violations of FOIA prove; these ‘scientists’ are afraid of the disclosure demanded of them by the Scientific Method and by Law. Funny thing is that people do conspire for this and that. It's the way people tick.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
And I can't count the number of times such deniers as Monckton fly in the face of FACTS, by lying and distorting the truth!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 As part of the Thatcher administration, Monkton was the first poster-child for using CO2 and Climate Change as a political policy tool. Thatcher saw her predecessor brought down by striking coal miners and she needed a pretext to break their power by shifting to nuclear. “The Cause” was to break the Coal Miners and it worked. However, once it was shown that pseudoscientific fear mongering was so effective to impose unwanted policies, it continued long after he left politics.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'Monkton was the first poster-child for using CO2 and Climate Change as a political policy tool' first time I've heard that one!' she needed a pretext to break their power' and rhat was Scargill! And Thatcher has spoken out about the influence of AGW and has scientfic baclground, not like the fake Lord!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You can say many things about Monkton related to questionable statements and publications but he is, by law, a Lord. As a typical AGW Fanboi you regard anyone who agrees with you as Scientific and anyone skeptical as Corrupt. She recanted her earlier views but AGW Conspiracy Theories rage that she was bought by Big Oil. I guess conspiracies only count when they serve “The Cause”.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
‘The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house…your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms’
’
w ww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 O’Donoghue, an expert on English Peerage Laws, stated in an opinion that Lord Monkton’s “claim is not a false or misleading claim. It is legitimate, proportionate, and reasonable…. Unless and until such revocation takes place, Lord Monckton remains a member of the House of Lords, and he is fully entitled to say so.” Nov 2011.
This is politics of personal destruction. It is nothing more than a shut up or else action by desparate people. It shows the weakness of AGW "science"
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
But he also states
‘Lord Monckton‟s late father was disqualified from sitting and voting in the House of Lords as a consequence of the House of Lords Act 1999 (hereinafter “the Act”). Lord Monckton, on his succession, was thus automatically disqualified in turn’
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c om/.../odonoghue-lords-opinion.pdf
Which is good enough for me! Plus he is also a snake oil salesman
watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I
Just being economical with the truth again, but oh so cruel!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You bore me. Wake me up if you want to talk abouit something about the politics of personal destruction and attacking the character of people because they dare say or publish something skeptical.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'Wake me up' so you didn't watch the vid I linked to you? Because that shows what a lying scumbag he is!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 In candor, I don't give two shits what "video" you posted. Likely another BBC lacky spinning things for "The Cause". The summary of the judgement is that LORD Monckton was fully within his rights to say he is a member of the House of Lords. That's the fact. You keep digging your own grave by making unsubstantiated half baked attacks on skeptics and watch the feeble support for "The Cause" vanish like morning dew evaporated by the light of day.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'two shits what "video" you posted' is that a bite? Because you HAVE watched the vid and now realise you have been wrong in placing your faith in this con man? 'half baked attacks on skeptics' not skeptics but deniers, no doubt using the same tactics they use to deny the holocaust! 'is a member of the House of Lords' even if the House of Lords have said he is not under the law? People who are prepared to lie so brazenly are quite prepared to ignore proof that they are in error.
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
Comment removed
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 I don’t care about Monckton or Peerage laws in the slightest nor do I have great confidence in his knowledge of the science although I will say he has thoroughly trashed some of his opponents in debates. However, defeating liars and cheats in a debate is no big deal so I don’t place much credit on that alone. What I despise are intellectual bullies who launch vicious personal attacks to silence dissent. Redacted my last line; was a bit over the top.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'I don’t care about Monckton' now you've seen how much a liar he is! Did he not give 'evidence' about there been no AGW to your politicians at some meeting in Capitol Hill? Dangerous man spreading all these pork pies and what's worse is that you Americans have fallen for this modern day Goebbels, oh well there must be WMD in Iraq after all! Tell a big lie and you will be believed, as Goebbels used to say.
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4
If the cap fits wear it!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" - Lenin. The lie is the radical extreme of AGW theory that you demand people agree with or you will relentlessly attack them. Every tyrant needs to have a villain and Monckton seems to be the boogeyman you parade around every time you don't have facts to speak of. As I said, you bore me. I'm done rolling in the guttter with trash like you. I've tried reason, moderation and you just can't accept anything but the extreme.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'the greater the lie, the greater the chance it will be believed' Hitler, page 79, Hamlyn Dictionary of Quotes, ISBN 0-600-56520-3. 'you will relentlessly attack them' yes when they claim extraordinary things and don't back the claim with evidence from a valid source! Because none are so blind as those who will not open their eyes to see the truth and prefer to follow blindly follow the likes of Monckton!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 The old Holocaust Denier ad hominem attack, eh? How unoriginal. I don’t see any moral equivalence between the Germans murdering millions and a pip or two of temperature increases. I also don’t see how flimsy FOIA violation plagued “Scientific” Theory hereafter known as “The Cause” compares to concentration camps, mass graves and scores of witnesses come close. It's just a way to impugn the character of skeptics but the reality is that it impugns the integrity of the accuser.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
Comment removed
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
‘AN ERA of ice that has gripped Earth's poles for 35 million years could come to an end as extreme global warming really begins to bite. Previously unknown sources of positive feedback - including "hyperwarming" that was last seen on Earth half a billion years ago - may push global temperatures high enough to send Earth into a hothouse state with tropical forests growing close to the poles’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228392.300-hyperwarming-climate-could-turn-earths-poles-green.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You say that like it’s a bad thing. Heh. The Ice Age has been a brutal episode in Earth’s History. What you call ‘Hyperwarming’ I call “Normalization”. Over the past hundreds of millions of years the earth was tropical for much longer than it was an icebox. Life thrives in the tropical world and was driven to the brink of extinction in the depths of the ice age.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'What you call ‘Hyperwarming’ I call “Normalization”' well you can call it what you like, but I doubt you are qualified to make that satatement! 'Over the past hundreds of millions of years the earth was tropical for much longer than it was an icebox' well that may be so, but there were no humans 100s of millions of years ago and if we are heading for a runaway greenhouse atmosphere there will not be any humans again.
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 Humans came damn close to extinction during the last glacial period of the ice ages. Humans are a Tropical Species that adapted themselves to the Cold through the use of tools. I'd place our odds of surviving a tropical transformation far greater than a return to another glacial period. It is true that the earth was tropical far longer than it was glacial so Normalization is a good word for it and I didn't realize I needed qualifications to post on Youtube. LOL
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'I didn't realize I needed qualifications to post on Youtube' you do if you make extaordinary claims or at least back it up with extraordinary evidence! Which your silence is deafening!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You said, “that may be so” to my comment which I took to mean you didn’t deny paleontological evidence of flora and fauna in northern latitudes during the Miocene which saw a cooling from even hotter Oligocene and hotter still Eocene. I’ll also point out that permanent ice at the South Pole was 35 million years ago but NOT the North Pole. You sound like a paleoclimatology denier. Now why don’t you go read your pseudoscience mag and find a good talking point to counter with.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
And what is your point? It is thought the planet has been a snowball at times!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 It is known that the planet has been a snowball at times and it is also known that they pushed life near to the breaking point. The increasingly wild fluctuations of the ice ages have been brutal. We will either go into a new period of glaciation or we’ll break the cycle and return to the warm stability of earlier ages. I for one can only hope it is the latter. There is nothing good about land buried in ice compared to forests full of life.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
There is nothing good about been dead, but it's going to happen. because there is evidence for it! Just as there is plenty of evidence foir AGW!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 There is plenty of evidence that greenhouse gasses cause warming however, the evidence that it will have catastrophic impacts is weak and the consensus for that extreme is grossly overstated. Climate Activists like Hansen make $millions off their position by unethical if not illegal means and Mann and Pedd State still fight FOIA compliance. The new IPCC report is far less ominous because their chronic errors are an embarrassment. You sound like Chicken Little the Doomsayer. LOL
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
Ah so you agree with AGW! So you must be in the conspiracy section, that believes the scientist don't know what they are talking about with regards to the effects
‘In the US, the Global Changes Research Program published a report in 2009 entitled Global Climate Change Impacts in the US. The National Climate Change chapter reports the following findings for recent decades:’
w ww.skepticalscience.co m/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm
Read and weep!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 OMG! Hold the Presses! A BLOG has declared that AGW will bring about the END of the WORLD! It’s a sad day when you refute the corrupt practices of prominent AGW scientists whose data is used to justify the science by pointing to a BLOG authored by people whose idea of science is to call people names.
I have said many times that I acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change and every time you feign shock. You have the attention span of a toad.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'I have said many times that I acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change' and what I don't understand is the untenable position you have, that it is of minor concern! When all the evidence points in the other direction! You are like that guy who fell out of the Empire State buiding and could be heard to shout 'tenth foor and still OK...ninth floor and still OK...eigth floor and still OK... this is going to be OK to the bottom...SPLAT!'
Theory of gravity and CC theory!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 It is the LAW of Gravity and CC LAW. A Theory is a Theory until PROVEN true at which point it becomes a Law. If falsified it becomes a historical footnote. If a Theory cannot be falsified it is not a Scientific Theory.
I have a pragmatic view on the subject. Show the data, show the methodology, reproduce to confirm or reject. It is the analytical view which is consistent with the scientific method. You should take more care to avoid embarassing yourself further.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'A Theory is a Theory until PROVEN true at which point it becomes a Law' and how does it become a proven law?
watch?v=KFcWwJOJUZc
'If a Theory CANNOT {your words} be falsified it is not a Scientific Theory' so what are you saying here? If you can't falsify a theory then it can't be considered as a scientific theory? That's an oxymoron!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 A Scientific Theory uses empirical data expressed with some formal system of logic based on scientific laws and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
In the humanities there are philosophical theories. A sociologist may make a theory about human behavior for which empirical data and scientific laws cannot be used to explain.
You really should look before you leap. This is a fundimental concept I should not have to explain.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'A Scientific Theory uses empirical data expressed with some formal system of logic based on scientific laws' as in here
watch?v=8sNtemijNn4
watch?v=r0tJEkldmf4
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
"I do not want anyone to assume these are my views". "hinderment to my progress as a youtube video poster". "Tags: global warming the scandal co2 is not cause of climate change". "You can't get the 100% truth".
bobinhk1 2 months ago
.....scientists believe things and this is the basis of their errors, they are down there with journalists and must be constantly scrutinized and mercilessly prosecuted.
BTsmoke 2 months ago
30,000 scientist's agree that man made global warming is a hoax!
I'll listen to them. Establishment based science and scientist's can't be trusted.
some of them have quit because they know the truth. Get the facts and how they fixed the charts using computer programs that distort facts and numbers. listen to Lord mockton and the 30,000 experts.
Joskel362 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware the ides of March!
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
‘Playing the climate blame game
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 esrl. noaa.gov/psd/people/tao.zhang/2010GL046582.pdf “We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability”
You confuse Climate and Weather. This was a regional event where a blocking pattern prevented cooler air from moving the air through.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
While you talk about unsubstantiated lawsuits against oil companies justified by flimsy science, I’d like to talk about lawsuits against institutions that are trying to compromise the ability of real scientists to forecast weather. Forecasts based on bad data result in bad forecasts and the not being able to properly prepare costs lives. A lawsuit would be good, though. Maybe those FOIA violators will be compelled to release withheld data so the court can properly evaluate the “evidence”.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
Have you read your own link? Which says
‘These boundary conditions reflect a mixture of both natural and HUMAN influences on the climate system.’
Here is a tip don't rely on CC denier blogs, but go to the source and read it for yourself!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 I’ve never denied that humans influence the climate. We build cities, we cut down forests, we dump toxic chemicals into the ocean and we contribute to greenhouse gasses which do have a nominal impact on temperatures. I object to zealots who grossly exaggerate the impacts, refuse to comply with FOIA laws, harass skeptics and threaten to sue when an objective court would toss them out the door so fast their heads would spin. In short, newscientist is pseudoscientist.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'In short, newscientist is pseudoscientist' and what do you base that on? Because it backs up its articles with reference to scientific research! Or is it just you don't like the message so we'll shoot the messenger.
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 I find a rather dramatic gap between their claim that there is an 80% chance that it couldn't have happened without climate change and NOAA saying that it was due to natural internal atmospheric variability. I really want this to go to court and see FOIA documents released as part of the discovery phase. Let’s get a REAL debate with an Objective arbiter get all the facts on the table and see how it goes.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
‘based off of a Theory that is NOT Fact’
Climate change theory is like a jigsaw! You have pieces and try to work out a pattern (theory), Then you notice clumps match up and put them together (building evidence). Some people try a piece from the deniers jigsaw but it’s obvious it doesn’t belong there and is rejected (peer reviewed)! But will the jigsaw be completed before time runs out (tipping point) or will mankind come to its senses and stop the co2 rise!
watch?v=KFcWwJOJUZc
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 Wow, what an idiotic analogy. It’s like assembling a jigsaw puzzled blindfolded with many pieces missing to assemble an image that is dynamic. The many variables and cycles that happen in the climate system converge and diverge. That makes for a great talking point. Given that you so often quote pseudoscience magazine I can see why. They dedicate entire issues to putting out talking points so morons like you can sound smart to other idiots.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'what an idiotic analogy' well i do like to keep it KISS! But it seems that it's even gone above your head, but the thing is I can't drop to your low level of comprehension.
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You and I have been on this merry-go-round many times, Adder. If you have not read the many times that I have recognized that Greenhouse Gasses contribute to warming it is you who are lacking in reading comprehension and not I. You posted something from some Activist Rag and I posted something from NOAA and they say very different things. Not the first time nor the last time, I assure you.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
'some Activist Rag' I think not, if you do it just exposes your bias and pretext at critical thinking! 'they say very different things' oh no they don't! ‘and is very likely to produce more frequent and extreme heat waves later this Century…the results suggest that we may be on the cusp of a period in which the probability of such events increases rapidly…increases ingreenhouse gas concentrations’ from your link! That will be game, set and match to me then!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
@blackadderthe4 You, sir, are the one who lacks reading skills. Until you have another POC from your Activist Rag, we’re done. I'll leave it to other posters to read the two articles and judge for themselves.
I welcome a trial of Big Oil on the basis of AGW. If you think your case is strong enough to stand before a Court of Law and subject to Discovery, bring it on. The defeat of such frivolous litigation would do wonders for the pursuit of science.
TullyRiven 2 months ago
@TullyRiven
And you are like that little dutch boy who tried to stop the dams leaking by sticking his thumb in the leak, but he was overwhelmed and doomed to failure!
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
According to good ol' Al, we now have less than 4.5 years before the earth's surface is scorched to an unbearably hot temperature and rendered uninhabitable. So who's selling ticket to Mars? Is Al building his spaceship arc yet? Why did he buy ocean front property in California a couple of years ago? The oceans are suppose to rise at a catastrophic height, killing millions. Won't that mean his 10 upstairs bathrooms will be flooded for generations to come? Does he have lots of flood insurance?
Boris82much 2 months ago
I dont really care about all the technical stuff just read the bible! :)
God bless you! <3
stefansalvatorable 3 months ago
@stefansalvatorable The bible is man made crap just like the theory of us causing global warming. Neither one is true.
lovebigboobs29 2 months ago
Ha another fact that has blown up in the republicans face.
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 Climate Science should not be partisan. If you want to make a partisan spin on it then you are an Activist and not someone capable of reason.
TullyRiven 3 months ago
@TullyRiven The Repubs have put a partisan spin on this subject a long time ago. Look at what they did to Al gore. Seriously does anyone really take this party seriously?
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 Wow, you said Al Gore with a straight face. I’m impressed! Not.
The Repubs stood by while Dems seized the reigns of Fear Mongering to scare voters to support their crony capitalist endeavors to give a return on the investment of their Green Lobby Allies. The Republicans didn’t make Al Gore become a climate profiteer with a propaganda network and an ironically named “documentary” called “Inconvenient Truth” full of “Inconvenient Errors”.
TullyRiven 3 months ago
@TullyRiven The guy came out and talked about global warming and he was ridiculed because the repubs were in the pocket of big oil. Now the the biggest critic finally believes in global warming. Many of the same repubs came from states that either had large oil, gas or coal production. They are the only party in the free world today who dont believe in climate change. Face it. The repubs are in the pocket of big corp. You have have the green lobby argument but its not looking good for you guys.
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 Politicians on both sides are beholden to special interest groups whether it is in defense of established energy sources or new industries that want to replace them. This is why I said, “Climate Science should not be Partisan”. Science should be objective and for us to obsess on one part of the system at the expense of the full complexity of the climate is foolish.
TullyRiven 3 months ago
@TullyRiven I agree with you, thats why when that english scientist fabricated the evidence there were alot of pissed off people and the repubs pounced on it. Its sad that it has come down to become a partisan issue but the repubs are to blame for that. Any thing the dems are for, they are against. They are truely the party of no.
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 The government is flushing $BILLIONS down the drain on venture capital scams where their buddies are invested (Including Al Gore) based off of a Theory that is NOT Fact with Predictions that FAIL to match reality. Unethical scientific practices + Failed Predictions + Demagogues + Crappy Partisan Investments = Damn Good Cause for Opposition. The Dems are going to be soundly defeated in 2012.
TullyRiven 3 months ago 2
@cesar333 You talk as if you think there is some difference between the two parties that act like they debate over issues that they want you to think you have any effect on. Well there is not and you do not.
Wake up and smell the cow farts guy. It terrifies me that so many people still can not see that they are ruled by a bank. Further more that they, who is you still stand up for the government they fear. Individually you are harmless but as the majority your ignorance is lethal to freedom.
LastCynicStanding 2 months ago