I hate how people who believe in global warming have a lesser say in the matter but then dont care to read or watch anything from the otherside and feel offended when someone doesnt have the same opinion as them.
The lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.
@akirafactor -- That's absolute hogwash you're posting. Provide proof of your anti science trash with some links to scientific data from reputable sources that prove your point. Go for it.
@MrAmethystium - Non sequitur to my comment about this John Coleman video, but if you'd like to get into details... Which period of the bronze age would you like to characterize and to which studies would you like to refer? The rate of warming now is about 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.
WATCH "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debate Part 7/9" start@ 1:50 lead GlobalWarming scientist FINALLY ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then@ 2:49 he confesses ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED by EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! Then sun's warmth releases more CO2 from earth itself which exponentially adds global warmth. THE CAUSE is the SUN! you tube com/watch?v=nGfnryuDwec&feature=related
All those vids have so few views. And that's cause nobody cares, but people fuckin should.
Because if people don't wake up to this scam, they'll find themselves robbed of their standard of living and taxed to a point of insanity. Not to forget all the rights we'll lose.
Search UN Agenda 21 and you will be able to connect the dots to what is happening with all this. It is merely an attempt to consolidate power under the authority of the UN for the sake of the New World Order.
Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter[1] of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions)[1] claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton is given to lying about his credentials, often falsely claiming he is a member of the British House of Lords.
@dbrotman What are Al Gore's qualifications to be spreading the myth known as anthropogenic global warming? Getting a "D" in one of the only science classes he took in college? How ironic that people bring up Monckton being a journalist when - gasp - that was Al Gore's old profession before he dropped out of law school to become a politician.
@dbrotman The biggest proponent of man-made global warming, Mr. Gore, is not a scientist, and neither are most of the people on the IPCC. Many of Al Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth have been thoroughly debunked. How many peer-reviewed reports has the con artist Gore submitted? Once you acknowledge that he too, has NO qualifications to be discussing this, it's hard to disqualify those who have arguments opposite those of Al Gore merely based on being a scientist or having published papers.
@dbrotman The biggest proponent of man-made global warming, Mr. Gore, is not a scientist, and neither are most of the people on the IPCC. Many of Al Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth have been thoroughly debunked. How many peer-reviewed reports has the con artist Gore submitted? Once you acknowledge that he too, has NO qualifications to be discussing this, it's hard to disqualify those who have arguments opposite those of Al Gore merely based on being a scientist or having published papers.
@AlexanderRozhenko You might do well to learn about science. It is not about your opinion or my opinion or anyone elses opinion. So your use of the word "proponent" is completely off mark about Mr. Gore. He is one messenger out of many regarding the observable changes in our climate. If he didn't exist, climate change would still be a problem. This seems to be a recurring theme among climate change deniers. They spend a lot of time focusing on the messengers and little time on the message.
@dbrotman I guess you didn't like the fact I turned your nonsensical argument around on you. You stated Monckton isn't a scientist...well Gore isn't either, and he's the biggest pusher of this hypothesis in the world. In fact, he only seems to have taken one science class when he was in college. Also, your use of the word "denier" is extremely offensive language since it is based on Holocaust deniers. It only shows the low level most of you alarmists will go to when trying to discredit someone.
@AlexanderRozhenko I don't see anything nonsensical about pointing out that Mr. Gore is simply one of many who are informing the public about climate change. He is not attempting to come up with his own theory nor is he trying to prosletyze or attempt to convert people. The evidence is strong enough to stand on its own with or without Gore. There is nothing alarmist about reporting the observable data that already exists.
@dbrotman What's more, you don't see anything nonsensical about it because you agree with Mr. Gore. Well, there are many millions of us who do not agree with Mr. Gore and see things differently. Monckton speaks for us just as Gore speaks for those in the Gaia cult. Why do you people want to cut off all debate on the issue? If the arguments against AGW carried no weight, you'd have nothing to worry about. Science has never been done by consensus.
@AlexanderRozhenko Wrong, I agree with the message of Mr. Gore. The messenger does not have to be the original researcher. No one is cutting off debate but so far you have adroitly been able to continue dodging the issue I keep bringing up which is you have not provided any alternative theory that has withstood peer review scrutiny.
I wan't dodge the issue, increasing temperature increases co2 levels, the exact opposite of what you and mr gore believe in. The same test gore presented produced a different result. 1 test 2 different results. Your move.
What "move?" The IPeCaC has been debunked and exposed as a poltically-driven group of frauds seeking an agenda, and those "2500 scientists" is a think-air number which includes the names of scientists who have vehemently DENIED man-made global warming and denounced the IPeCaC outright. So their forgers as well.
@AlexanderRozhenko Furthermore, to somehow equate my use of the word denial with the holocaust is probably the height of irrational thinking. Denial is in fact a very appropriate term to use. Why? Because like others in the denial side, you are very adept at avoiding the burden of proof which actually lies on your end. The theory of global climate change has been painstakenly developed over many decades and was developed from many varied sources of data.
@dbrotman The burden of proof is hardly on my end, it is on your end and the other alarmists' end. Because you are the people who want to change the way society powers itself, you want to impose a global carbon tax, and you want to tell everyone what kind of light bulbs they can use, etc. Thanks to Monckton and many others like him, who have as much right to be talking about this as a loser like Gore, the truth is coming out and the majority of people in the USA now do not believe the myth. :)
@dbrotman I've gone round and round with other idiots like you on these message boards. The more debates I have with weak-minded green fascists like yourself, the more I see that there really isn't much science behind the myth at all. You won't be able to silence me or others like me, and the truth will be and is being presented to the public on a daily basis. You will lose the debate and history will judge you as the fools you are.
And the height of hypocrisy is the selective nature of your denial and others like you. The scientific process used to arrive at the theory of climate change is exactly the same process used to develop practically everything around us - medical technology, computer technology, space science, the list goes on and on. Do you ever question if the microwave will blow up each time you use it or wonder if the plane engine will fall apart while you are on a flight?
@dbrotman This is hardly the same science that brought a microwave to your kitchen. I love this classic argument that "the science is on our side." It's a classic warmist tactic. So, in your delusion, you believe the fact that CO2 has gone from 0.03% to about 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to have catastropic effects. (90% of annual CO2 emmisions come from natural sources, I might add.) I shouldn't even reply to someone with such a low level of intelligence.
@dbrotman Are you upset because I pointed out what a fraud Al Gore is and he has about as much experience being a scientist as Monckton does? If Al Gore believed his own film on the global warming myth, why on earth did he buy a condo in San Francisco that will be underwater if his catastrophic and apocalyptic predictions are true?
@AlexanderRozhenko Like I said before, it really has nothing to do with Al Gore. Funny how some of you get fixated on the messenger. Read up on Dr. James Hansens pioneering work on anthropogenic influence on climate change. You can read up in wikipedia about how his team developed the first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model back in 1988. In 2007 Hansen discussed the danger of "fast-feedback" effects causing ice sheet disintegration, based on paleoclimatic data.
Not only that, they've proven that the IPeCaC fraudulently listed the names of scientists who DISCLAIMED global warming, bearing them out to nothing but a gang of lying thieves, hucksters and con-artists.
@dbrotman Further, Al Gore is given to lying about his credentials, too. From claiming to have been the person responsible for the initiative to create the Internet, to claiming he was the one who "found" the Love Canal in New York, there are a long list of lies following this bloated gasbag around.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil. His theories about water vapor and climate change have been refuted and even Lindzen himself has stopped using it because the evidence was so weak.
According to a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Fred Singer is affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil. Singer co-authored a global warming denial book called Unstoppable Global Warming, with Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at an organization called the Hudson Institute, again funded by ExxonMobil . He has also done consulting work for other major oil companies including Texaco, Arco, Shell, American Gas Assoc, etc.
@AlexanderRozhenko Your ignorance about science really is pretty blatant. The "agenda" you keep referring to is a theory that has support across different scientific disciplines, not just atmospheric sciences and is acknowledged as being the only credible explanation of climate change by every major scientific journal in the U.S. and Europe. So no, the burden of proof is on you. Quit avoiding the issue and bring up a credible alternative theory or you are just blowing hot air.
Joseph D'Aleo is a retired meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel. He is not a climatologist and has only published one paper in a peer reviewed journal called Energy and Environment, a publication that has been criticized as allowing the publication of substandard papers. The editor of this publication admitted that she had an agenda: "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate skepticism] alive She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -"
Now THAT makes sense, the way he railroaded this global warming farce down everyone's throats in the scientific community and the world. It's the biggest power-grab since communism!
@dbrotman You are not qualified to be discussing this matter either, using your own logic. You are merely a YouTube keyboard warrior who happens to believe in apocalyptic myths. Let's see you post some of your own credentials since you're so good at trying to discredit anyone who doesn't believe the myth.
@AlexanderRozhenko My credentials are irrelevant as are yours unless you are an atmospheric scientist. I can point you to the massive amount of evidence developed by others in the field and you have provided nothing leading me to believe that you are the real fraud here..
Willie Soon, Ph.d. has not published any research results regarding climate change in any scientific journal. Most of his work has been published in the George C Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank.
Why do all these people keep calling the main combustible liquid in our lives 'fossil fuel'. These people have swallowed this crap hook, line, and sinker. Gasoline is a bi-product of refined oil. Oil comes out of the ground, deep under ground or sea all over the world. It is NOT some goo from dinosaurs or any other ridiculous root cause. Coal? Mayyyyyyybe, but not oil. How ridiculous can these people be.
I am of the opinion that "Global Warming" is being used to try to lower our use of fossil fuels to extend the life of them as we have been over the peak for about 20 years. On the other hand, if "Global Warming" is caused by mans use of fossil fuels then when we finally do run out the problem will be taken care of. Honestly I doubt we have 50 yrs of fossil fuels left.
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste, it is completely safe, NO Fukushima here.
If you care about the cost of your energy you will want this: "..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" see blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post
website "Star Scientific Limited"
youtube video "In the footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
Also note in Coleman's attempt to debunk the theory of CO2 driving temperature, he never mentions what in fact causes temperature to rise. In other words, if CO2 lags behind temperature, then what is causing temperature to rise, if not CO2? Sunspots, volcanoes? The burden of proof is not on the scientific consensus but those who claim they have an alternative explanation. That explanation is missing here.
@dbrotman Yes, volcanoes and other things do contribute. If you believe in the theory of the Iceage. Imagine how the world came to be an inhabitable place by man. Imagine the world going from Ice to what it is today. So, somehow, the earth would continued to heat up, even since the Iceage. Look at other Global Warming hoax information. Those scientists argue that CO2 has nothing to do with the earth's warming. Like Gore John Coleman isn't a scientist. Check scientists GW hoax though
@dbrotman Solar output is not constant, fool. It varies century to century, year to year, and even minute to minute. The idea of the sun being a friendly yellow ball that provides a constant stream of heat that never changes is utter idiocy. Believing a TRACE GAS has more influence over climate than the engine itself is the height of idiocy.
That's a good question and even as a "global warming skeptic" I objectively want to find that out as well. If CO2 is not causing a rise in temperature then what is? But by the same token simply saying co2 and temperature are both rising therefore co2 causes global warming, is bad science as well, particularly if CO2 does lag 800 years behind global temperatures. I believe something else is actually causing a rise in temperature.....
and I'm humble enough to say that I don't know the answer to that. I'm not interested in sensationalizing and calling everyone who doesn't follow my opinion a "heretic". I simply believe that paradoxically these findings can show evidence for and against global warming. That's the difference between a sensationalist fanatic and a person who actually want's to find the truth.
What I will suggest though according to data, not just my own opinion is that temperatures not only rise and fall irrespective of what we do but the "rate" (the all important word here) also increases and decreases irrespective of what we do. temperatures also increased and decreased as fast as they are today which bolster my view that we are not at least not directly causing global warming.
Argument #2: Co2 is only present in trace amounts. Its influence is weak.
Response:An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
@CALICOTV301 Correct. The earth has warmed and cooled according to whatever was the dominant forcing at the time, thus reinforcing the idea of climate sensitivity. So even though Co2 at 393 PPM is tiny compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, its introduction into the atmosphere is the current dominant forcing. The normal variations occur over 10,000 years. If you watch and listen carefully to what these skeptics are saying, they tend to focus on specific points on the graph.
The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released.
@dbrotman Compared with ALL other geological epochs since the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago, the present Neogene epoch is CO2-starved. Today's CO2 is merely being re-emitted from the fossil fuel remains of plants who put the CO2 in the ground in the first place. The plants thrived, used the CO2 to make food, and stored that CO2 from the past atmosphere which decayed and became fossil fuels. Using those fossil fuels merely releases the "old" CO2 that once caused plant life to thrive.
@AlexanderRozhenko And that proves what? What matters is that Co2 is the current dominant forcing effect. on the earth's climate. Mount Pinatubo's eruption slowed the rate of increase for a while but when that diminished, Co2 returned as the main influence. Look at the graph of Co2 and climate over the past 600 million years for proof of climate sensitivity.
U.S. 4-star General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran (2007 upto 2012)
/watch?v=lpBAC9dPr-o
"Japan’s government, threatened with more HAARP attacks, pays 60 trillion yen to Feds"
Global Bullshit Warming became Climate Bullshit Change.
CO2 level follows temperatures by an 800 year lag.
akirafactor 6 days ago
I hate how people who believe in global warming have a lesser say in the matter but then dont care to read or watch anything from the otherside and feel offended when someone doesnt have the same opinion as them.
griff097 6 days ago
@griff097 -- It's not a "say", and reality is not an opinion. Look at the science, if you can.
djdevine59 6 days ago
Global Bullshit Warming became Climate Bullshit Change.
Wow, the weather changes everyday and CO2 doesn't have a thing to do with it. CO2 levels follow the Sun's temperature.
akirafactor 1 month ago 2
@akirafactor -- Debunked.
djdevine59 1 week ago
@djdevine59 Yes, Global Bullshit Warming has been debunked.
CO2 levels follow temperatures by an 800 year lag.
akirafactor 6 days ago
Comment removed
djdevine59 6 days ago
The lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.
icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
djdevine59 6 days ago
Comment removed
djdevine59 6 days ago
Comment removed
djdevine59 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@akirafactor -- That's absolute hogwash you're posting. Provide proof of your anti science trash with some links to scientific data from reputable sources that prove your point. Go for it.
djdevine59 6 days ago
@MrAmethystium - Non sequitur to my comment about this John Coleman video, but if you'd like to get into details... Which period of the bronze age would you like to characterize and to which studies would you like to refer? The rate of warming now is about 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.
djdevine59 1 month ago
@djdevine59 wow, i think you need to do some more research.
Walsh2571 1 week ago
@Walsh2571 -- I did my research. Now do yours.
djdevine59 1 week ago
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.
djdevine59 1 month ago
@djdevine59 climate change all the time, in bronze age climate was much warmer for 300 years, polar bears did not go extinct, did they?
MrAmethystium 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@djdevine59 climate change all the time, in bronze age climate was much warmer for 300 years, polar bears did not go extinct, did they?
MrAmethystium 1 month ago
@djdevine59 And climatologists are more learned than him?
Walsh2571 1 week ago
@Walsh2571 -- Your question says it all.
djdevine59 1 week ago
whoa !! hell yeah ! fun with heather moore ! hahahaha !
napalmvoododaddy 1 month ago
the guy at 10:23 looks like "the tall man" in the movie phantasm. hahahaha ! ...BOY....
napalmvoododaddy 1 month ago
follow the money trail....
on both sides of the divide
davidhkchng 1 month ago
Climate change deniers are white trash.
justindr660 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debate Part 7/9" start@ 1:50 lead GlobalWarming scientist FINALLY ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES, then@ 2:49 he confesses ICEAGES & WARM PERIOD CYCLE is CAUSED by EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN! Then sun's warmth releases more CO2 from earth itself which exponentially adds global warmth. THE CAUSE is the SUN! you tube com/watch?v=nGfnryuDwec&feature=related
shawso7 2 months ago
All those vids have so few views. And that's cause nobody cares, but people fuckin should.
Because if people don't wake up to this scam, they'll find themselves robbed of their standard of living and taxed to a point of insanity. Not to forget all the rights we'll lose.
RancheroBFT 2 months ago 2
Thanks for upload, John Coleman is kinda cool!
RancheroBFT 2 months ago
The NWO order wants to use GW to imprison you! Yeah that's why they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to build solar panels!
It's easy to come up with conspiracy theories, really easy. Beats learning anything right?
23peacefrog 3 months ago
Search UN Agenda 21 and you will be able to connect the dots to what is happening with all this. It is merely an attempt to consolidate power under the authority of the UN for the sake of the New World Order.
sradie 3 months ago
@sradie
Naturally, if you can control energy then you control everything.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
AL GORE = ONE BIG LIER AND SON OF A BITCH!
WAKE UP HUMANS AND SEE WHO ARE YOUR LEADERS!
gabigowriel 3 months ago
NOBODY BUT FOOLS BELIEVE THE BS ABOUT CO2 AND GLOBAL WARMING!
rdhawk777 4 months ago
...Gore on that "manlift" with his yellow crayon = LOL
memama2 4 months ago
Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter[1] of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions)[1] claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic. Monckton is given to lying about his credentials, often falsely claiming he is a member of the British House of Lords.
dbrotman 6 months ago
@dbrotman What are Al Gore's qualifications to be spreading the myth known as anthropogenic global warming? Getting a "D" in one of the only science classes he took in college? How ironic that people bring up Monckton being a journalist when - gasp - that was Al Gore's old profession before he dropped out of law school to become a politician.
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago
@dbrotman The biggest proponent of man-made global warming, Mr. Gore, is not a scientist, and neither are most of the people on the IPCC. Many of Al Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth have been thoroughly debunked. How many peer-reviewed reports has the con artist Gore submitted? Once you acknowledge that he too, has NO qualifications to be discussing this, it's hard to disqualify those who have arguments opposite those of Al Gore merely based on being a scientist or having published papers.
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago
@dbrotman The biggest proponent of man-made global warming, Mr. Gore, is not a scientist, and neither are most of the people on the IPCC. Many of Al Gore's claims in An Inconvenient Truth have been thoroughly debunked. How many peer-reviewed reports has the con artist Gore submitted? Once you acknowledge that he too, has NO qualifications to be discussing this, it's hard to disqualify those who have arguments opposite those of Al Gore merely based on being a scientist or having published papers.
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago 2
@AlexanderRozhenko You might do well to learn about science. It is not about your opinion or my opinion or anyone elses opinion. So your use of the word "proponent" is completely off mark about Mr. Gore. He is one messenger out of many regarding the observable changes in our climate. If he didn't exist, climate change would still be a problem. This seems to be a recurring theme among climate change deniers. They spend a lot of time focusing on the messengers and little time on the message.
dbrotman 4 months ago
@dbrotman I guess you didn't like the fact I turned your nonsensical argument around on you. You stated Monckton isn't a scientist...well Gore isn't either, and he's the biggest pusher of this hypothesis in the world. In fact, he only seems to have taken one science class when he was in college. Also, your use of the word "denier" is extremely offensive language since it is based on Holocaust deniers. It only shows the low level most of you alarmists will go to when trying to discredit someone.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko I don't see anything nonsensical about pointing out that Mr. Gore is simply one of many who are informing the public about climate change. He is not attempting to come up with his own theory nor is he trying to prosletyze or attempt to convert people. The evidence is strong enough to stand on its own with or without Gore. There is nothing alarmist about reporting the observable data that already exists.
dbrotman 4 months ago
@dbrotman What's more, you don't see anything nonsensical about it because you agree with Mr. Gore. Well, there are many millions of us who do not agree with Mr. Gore and see things differently. Monckton speaks for us just as Gore speaks for those in the Gaia cult. Why do you people want to cut off all debate on the issue? If the arguments against AGW carried no weight, you'd have nothing to worry about. Science has never been done by consensus.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko Wrong, I agree with the message of Mr. Gore. The messenger does not have to be the original researcher. No one is cutting off debate but so far you have adroitly been able to continue dodging the issue I keep bringing up which is you have not provided any alternative theory that has withstood peer review scrutiny.
dbrotman 4 months ago
I wan't dodge the issue, increasing temperature increases co2 levels, the exact opposite of what you and mr gore believe in. The same test gore presented produced a different result. 1 test 2 different results. Your move.
AhzekAhriman1 3 months ago
btw 2500 ipcc scientists vs 30000 climate change deniers. I'd say the debate is far from over. Your move.
AhzekAhriman1 3 months ago
@AhzekAhriman1
What "move?" The IPeCaC has been debunked and exposed as a poltically-driven group of frauds seeking an agenda, and those "2500 scientists" is a think-air number which includes the names of scientists who have vehemently DENIED man-made global warming and denounced the IPeCaC outright. So their forgers as well.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko Furthermore, to somehow equate my use of the word denial with the holocaust is probably the height of irrational thinking. Denial is in fact a very appropriate term to use. Why? Because like others in the denial side, you are very adept at avoiding the burden of proof which actually lies on your end. The theory of global climate change has been painstakenly developed over many decades and was developed from many varied sources of data.
dbrotman 4 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@dbrotman The burden of proof is hardly on my end, it is on your end and the other alarmists' end. Because you are the people who want to change the way society powers itself, you want to impose a global carbon tax, and you want to tell everyone what kind of light bulbs they can use, etc. Thanks to Monckton and many others like him, who have as much right to be talking about this as a loser like Gore, the truth is coming out and the majority of people in the USA now do not believe the myth. :)
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@dbrotman I've gone round and round with other idiots like you on these message boards. The more debates I have with weak-minded green fascists like yourself, the more I see that there really isn't much science behind the myth at all. You won't be able to silence me or others like me, and the truth will be and is being presented to the public on a daily basis. You will lose the debate and history will judge you as the fools you are.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
And the height of hypocrisy is the selective nature of your denial and others like you. The scientific process used to arrive at the theory of climate change is exactly the same process used to develop practically everything around us - medical technology, computer technology, space science, the list goes on and on. Do you ever question if the microwave will blow up each time you use it or wonder if the plane engine will fall apart while you are on a flight?
dbrotman 4 months ago
@dbrotman This is hardly the same science that brought a microwave to your kitchen. I love this classic argument that "the science is on our side." It's a classic warmist tactic. So, in your delusion, you believe the fact that CO2 has gone from 0.03% to about 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to have catastropic effects. (90% of annual CO2 emmisions come from natural sources, I might add.) I shouldn't even reply to someone with such a low level of intelligence.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@dbrotman Are you upset because I pointed out what a fraud Al Gore is and he has about as much experience being a scientist as Monckton does? If Al Gore believed his own film on the global warming myth, why on earth did he buy a condo in San Francisco that will be underwater if his catastrophic and apocalyptic predictions are true?
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko Like I said before, it really has nothing to do with Al Gore. Funny how some of you get fixated on the messenger. Read up on Dr. James Hansens pioneering work on anthropogenic influence on climate change. You can read up in wikipedia about how his team developed the first climate prediction computed from a general circulation model back in 1988. In 2007 Hansen discussed the danger of "fast-feedback" effects causing ice sheet disintegration, based on paleoclimatic data.
dbrotman 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Not only that, they've proven that the IPeCaC fraudulently listed the names of scientists who DISCLAIMED global warming, bearing them out to nothing but a gang of lying thieves, hucksters and con-artists.
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dbrotman Further, Al Gore is given to lying about his credentials, too. From claiming to have been the person responsible for the initiative to create the Internet, to claiming he was the one who "found" the Love Canal in New York, there are a long list of lies following this bloated gasbag around.
AlexanderRozhenko 5 months ago
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil. His theories about water vapor and climate change have been refuted and even Lindzen himself has stopped using it because the evidence was so weak.
dbrotman 6 months ago
According to a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Fred Singer is affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil. Singer co-authored a global warming denial book called Unstoppable Global Warming, with Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at an organization called the Hudson Institute, again funded by ExxonMobil . He has also done consulting work for other major oil companies including Texaco, Arco, Shell, American Gas Assoc, etc.
dbrotman 6 months ago
@dbrotman Most oil companies support the global warming agenda. You really need to check your facts.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko Your ignorance about science really is pretty blatant. The "agenda" you keep referring to is a theory that has support across different scientific disciplines, not just atmospheric sciences and is acknowledged as being the only credible explanation of climate change by every major scientific journal in the U.S. and Europe. So no, the burden of proof is on you. Quit avoiding the issue and bring up a credible alternative theory or you are just blowing hot air.
dbrotman 4 months ago
Joseph D'Aleo is a retired meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel. He is not a climatologist and has only published one paper in a peer reviewed journal called Energy and Environment, a publication that has been criticized as allowing the publication of substandard papers. The editor of this publication admitted that she had an agenda: "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate skepticism] alive She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -"
dbrotman 6 months ago
@dbrotman - The head pooh-ba of the UN IPCC is a railway engineer.
oracle2world 6 months ago 2
@oracle2world
Now THAT makes sense, the way he railroaded this global warming farce down everyone's throats in the scientific community and the world. It's the biggest power-grab since communism!
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
@dbrotman You are not qualified to be discussing this matter either, using your own logic. You are merely a YouTube keyboard warrior who happens to believe in apocalyptic myths. Let's see you post some of your own credentials since you're so good at trying to discredit anyone who doesn't believe the myth.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko My credentials are irrelevant as are yours unless you are an atmospheric scientist. I can point you to the massive amount of evidence developed by others in the field and you have provided nothing leading me to believe that you are the real fraud here..
dbrotman 4 months ago
Willie Soon, Ph.d. has not published any research results regarding climate change in any scientific journal. Most of his work has been published in the George C Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank.
dbrotman 6 months ago
Why do all these people keep calling the main combustible liquid in our lives 'fossil fuel'. These people have swallowed this crap hook, line, and sinker. Gasoline is a bi-product of refined oil. Oil comes out of the ground, deep under ground or sea all over the world. It is NOT some goo from dinosaurs or any other ridiculous root cause. Coal? Mayyyyyyybe, but not oil. How ridiculous can these people be.
cr500blur 6 months ago
I am of the opinion that "Global Warming" is being used to try to lower our use of fossil fuels to extend the life of them as we have been over the peak for about 20 years. On the other hand, if "Global Warming" is caused by mans use of fossil fuels then when we finally do run out the problem will be taken care of. Honestly I doubt we have 50 yrs of fossil fuels left.
Quuva 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste, it is completely safe, NO Fukushima here.
If you care about the cost of your energy you will want this: "..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" see blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post
website "Star Scientific Limited"
youtube video "In the footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
2110kop 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 7 months ago
If co2 is stopping say 50% of the heat from leaving the earth, then wouldn't it stop 50% from coming in as well?
ToRZanderax 7 months ago
Also note in Coleman's attempt to debunk the theory of CO2 driving temperature, he never mentions what in fact causes temperature to rise. In other words, if CO2 lags behind temperature, then what is causing temperature to rise, if not CO2? Sunspots, volcanoes? The burden of proof is not on the scientific consensus but those who claim they have an alternative explanation. That explanation is missing here.
dbrotman 7 months ago
@dbrotman Yes, volcanoes and other things do contribute. If you believe in the theory of the Iceage. Imagine how the world came to be an inhabitable place by man. Imagine the world going from Ice to what it is today. So, somehow, the earth would continued to heat up, even since the Iceage. Look at other Global Warming hoax information. Those scientists argue that CO2 has nothing to do with the earth's warming. Like Gore John Coleman isn't a scientist. Check scientists GW hoax though
CALICOTV301 6 months ago
@dbrotman Solar output is not constant, fool. It varies century to century, year to year, and even minute to minute. The idea of the sun being a friendly yellow ball that provides a constant stream of heat that never changes is utter idiocy. Believing a TRACE GAS has more influence over climate than the engine itself is the height of idiocy.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.
dbrotman 4 months ago
That's a good question and even as a "global warming skeptic" I objectively want to find that out as well. If CO2 is not causing a rise in temperature then what is? But by the same token simply saying co2 and temperature are both rising therefore co2 causes global warming, is bad science as well, particularly if CO2 does lag 800 years behind global temperatures. I believe something else is actually causing a rise in temperature.....
AhzekAhriman1 3 months ago
@AhzekAhriman1
Well put it this way, it's over your head-- at high noon anyway LOL
SovereignStatesman 2 months ago
and I'm humble enough to say that I don't know the answer to that. I'm not interested in sensationalizing and calling everyone who doesn't follow my opinion a "heretic". I simply believe that paradoxically these findings can show evidence for and against global warming. That's the difference between a sensationalist fanatic and a person who actually want's to find the truth.
AhzekAhriman1 3 months ago
What I will suggest though according to data, not just my own opinion is that temperatures not only rise and fall irrespective of what we do but the "rate" (the all important word here) also increases and decreases irrespective of what we do. temperatures also increased and decreased as fast as they are today which bolster my view that we are not at least not directly causing global warming.
AhzekAhriman1 3 months ago
Argument #2: Co2 is only present in trace amounts. Its influence is weak.
Response:An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
dbrotman 7 months ago
@dbrotman It also has been proved otherwise. In addition, the earth has been warming before this. The earth was colder previously.
CALICOTV301 6 months ago
@CALICOTV301 Correct. The earth has warmed and cooled according to whatever was the dominant forcing at the time, thus reinforcing the idea of climate sensitivity. So even though Co2 at 393 PPM is tiny compared to the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, its introduction into the atmosphere is the current dominant forcing. The normal variations occur over 10,000 years. If you watch and listen carefully to what these skeptics are saying, they tend to focus on specific points on the graph.
dbrotman 6 months ago
@dbrotman How would you explain the sea surface being 33.8 degrees Fahrenheit during the medieval warm period?
CALICOTV301 6 months ago
@CALICOTV301 While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
dbrotman 6 months ago
Argument #1: Co2 lags temperature
Response:
The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released.
dbrotman 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@dbrotman Compared with ALL other geological epochs since the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago, the present Neogene epoch is CO2-starved. Today's CO2 is merely being re-emitted from the fossil fuel remains of plants who put the CO2 in the ground in the first place. The plants thrived, used the CO2 to make food, and stored that CO2 from the past atmosphere which decayed and became fossil fuels. Using those fossil fuels merely releases the "old" CO2 that once caused plant life to thrive.
AlexanderRozhenko 4 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko And that proves what? What matters is that Co2 is the current dominant forcing effect. on the earth's climate. Mount Pinatubo's eruption slowed the rate of increase for a while but when that diminished, Co2 returned as the main influence. Look at the graph of Co2 and climate over the past 600 million years for proof of climate sensitivity.
dbrotman 4 months ago
heather moore ! ohh yeah baby !! come sit on daddys knee and tell me all about it !! i'll listen i swear !!
napalmvoododaddy 7 months ago
hahahaha ! at 18:44 joe looks like " the tall man " in the movie phantasm !! sorry joe ! but wtf ! haha !
napalmvoododaddy 7 months ago
does anyone anywhere know where the fuck al gore is ? i mean just where the hell is that asshole !! hiding ? ! wtf !!
napalmvoododaddy 7 months ago
It's all about the $
brklynmd3 8 months ago
John Coleman for Mayor of San Diego.
rusty1491 9 months ago
all make sens to me
nonafetcu 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U.S. 4-star General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran (2007 upto 2012)
/watch?v=lpBAC9dPr-o
"Japan’s government, threatened with more HAARP attacks, pays 60 trillion yen to Feds"
eclinik. wordpress. com/vital-issues/ben-fulford/japan%E2%80%99s-government-threatened-with-more-haarp-attacks-pays-60-trillion-yen-to-feds/
USFullOfLies 10 months ago