Yawn, a terribly misinformed video, with no scientific peer reviewed references and the same tired ignorant arguments from AGW deniers which have been disproved by climatologists countless times. If climatereview wants a debate, i'm happy to give him one.
To clarify my view as backed by every single national scientific acdemy on the planet anthropogenic global warming is currently the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
What a boring video. p.s. Towards the end of 1997 Klaus was forced to step down as Prime Minister by several opponents in his party in connection with accusations of funding irregularities in the ODS. His opinion is about as useful as your plumbers.
Again how can any human do ANYTHING about the planets weather let alone giving money to bureaucratic politicians. This is absolutely disgusting. Look people just stop the bullshit seriously. I will defend myself against radicals who DEMAND they some how control me for their "cause" whatever it may be. Nasty fucking people.
@ifuckingfarted ALSO! The problem with the study of global warming Billions of dollars has been poured into this over the years. If you spend that much money looking for something, you WILL find it... weather or not it exists. Please people just stop the bullshit. Drop your hatred for mankind and grow up. Please. If not like I said I will defend myself against radicals. How gross....
if you have ever studied geology, plate tectonics and global warming you might realize what will happen when antarctica defrosts. currently greenland is on record as rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. antarctica will also rise out of the sea (once enough ice melts) and is connected to every tectonic plate around the world, directly or indirectly. it has the potential to crack the earths crust and makes any other issue pale in comparison.
Many thanks, I hope you're wrong because our species is about to self-implode if Global Warming is inducing sea level changes that will lead to major crust fracturing.
Sea levels have been much higher and much lower than presently; eg they were a 120 metres lower just 20,000 years ago. In addition, the most commonly quoted figure for our current rate of sea level increase is 0.1 inch per year.
@climatereview i'm not sure as to how much antarctica has been 'pushed down' because of the ice on top of it, but if i had to guess i would say at least five miles.
@climatereview Here is how the "scientists" handle "peer review"
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 !
Why do all the scientists that support the global cow fart tax have less education and live in bigger houses and drive more expensive cars than the ones that are supposedly being funded by 'big oil' ?
Michael E. Mann reported over 2 Million in grant money this year alone and this is just what he reported. Think about it...........
Did you know the mechanism was discovered 120 years ago? It was not political motivated. There is evidence that the meat industry causes 40% of melting arctics. You Americans looks more and more like a joke, but not a funny one. Greetings from Norway.
@astralwalk Computer simulations and predictions since 1965. 350 000 deaths every year caused by climate change. Dead fish belt around equator. Predicted end of fish food in 50 years (after being stable for 400 million years). Black sot signatures from rain forest in the arctics, alone estimated 40% cause of melting. Measuring of increased carbon dioxide in air everywhere on earth. Measured faster forest growth. Last 15 years, the 15 warmest in mankind history.
@bvssvni Well those computer simulations were wrong as recently it was revealed ice sheets from Antarctica and Greenland are GROWING. "350000 deaths every year" Is that another computer prediction? Please give me scientific evidence that dead fish are related to an increase in carbon dioxide. Pollution maybe, but CDioxide is a natural gas and has increased many times before and the "last 15 years is the hottest ever" has been debunked.
@astralwalk You think of global warming as intense increase in temperature over all the globe. The temperature increases intensively one place, it decreases another place. Your arguments are contradicting, you say the last 15 years are not the hottest, while you use another argument that it happened before. Let me put this way: I'll give you 10$ if you give me more evidences against than I can give for. I got 2000 science reports over 40 years on my side.
@bvssvni No, all I'm saying is that the climate is changing and it has changed many times before but carbon dioxide is not a problem that we need to tax, that's just taxing the air we breathe. Yes I am saying that the last 15 years is not the hottest ever and that carbon dioxide has increased countless times before. I believe the sun is responsible for the climate, google NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
@astralwalk "google NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming"
BUT if you read the article they refer to you get this:
"Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate. For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change,"
Yep, the old AGW canard!
And just when we thought we could finally quote NASA instead of denigrating them!
Yes. But it doesn't pay to look into any of this stuff too closely. Did you read the entire ScienceDaily article?
It's almost as if dailytech, wattsupwiththat, climaterealists, bibliotecapleyades, freerepublic, weeklyintercept, armageddononline, abovetopsecret, prisonplanet, minnesotansforglobalwarming, cassiopaea, tribalwar, reddit, sott, godlikeproductions etc NEVER read the article!
Scratch that. It's just me having doubts. Skeptic blogs ARE reliable sources.
@astralwalk You get my point? You would not be able to provide more evidence for your view even if you worked your entire life. Neither can I read through all 2000 reports, it would take too much time, but I know to predict the temperature on a global map 50 years ahead with a physics model, it matches and still it would be another random cause is chance close to zero. The study you point to is a hypothesis, not evidence. Read wikipedia it says conclusion that solar cycle is not strong enough.
@bvssvni Of course I wouldn't but I care about quality not quantity. Man made global warming is also a hypothesis it's just that because there has been a huge push to make people believe it you consider it truth.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome - 1991
@astralwalk OK. Now you are silly. Just look at this statement and watch the gaps in real life. You spend 70% of the fresh water in the world on the fields in the US, while lot of it goes to produce biofuel, a zero energy outcome proposed by mad politicians. That's enough water wasted on nothing that could fill the need of every human on this planet. It's not ideas that people just spread around. Heard of the plastic vortex in pacific ocean? It's twice the US area. You know little yet.
@astralwalk I posted that message 1 month ago when I thought people would use their common sense, but US is brainwashing it's population to a such degree that I'm almost given up. US citizens are the worst in the world at math, but think they are the best. About 1% of the human population on earth thinks climate change is a hoax, and it's centered at US. I don't know what to say. It's so sad. Many people in Norway think like that too. Like it was nothing outside their little bubble.
The scary thing about the Church of Global Warming is that it gets nature to go along with it. It's not just the scientists that get sucked in, the glaciers seem to just melt away on cue.
@astralwalk Exactly! And instead of just accepting that the climate warms and cools, glaciers come and go etc, these zealots insist on trying to explain why! Some questions are best left unasked. Why can't they be happy with terms like 'natural variation'. I don't know if they're religious nut jobs or atheistic commies - or both, but you certainly won't find any at my barbeques!
8:16 onward is an unfounded statement followed by an implicit genetic fallacy based on that statement followed further by a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise. Politicians are taking global warming seriously because scientists are taking it seriously. Smart politicians trust the findings of science because science is the only reliable way we have of gaining knowledge about our world. It's simple and it doesn't require any sort of conspiracy.
"D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years."
(Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg by Marc Sheppard a few days ago)
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
@ttowntom Those are VERY short periods of time, a cold day doesn't disprove a warming pattern. You need to look at MANY years, not 1 day, 3 weeks or 2 years.
How about a 15 year period? According to satellite data, there's been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years ... and slight cooling for the last 10 years.
As climatologist Kevin Trenberth - one of the most ardent supporters of GW -- puts it, "the fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at present, and its a travesty we can't".
Excellent series! You should get the IPCC's Nobel prize for this.
Our planet is far more at risk from greed, corruption, stupidity and asteroids than it is from CO2 molecules. As a former research statistician, I have seen how statistics are used to help publish research rather than being the cause of it. As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Every generation of humans needs the threat of a pending Armageddon. I wonder what the next global fear will be. 2012? Apophis?
This guy repeats the myth that scientists were warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s. If you search youtube for "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age" you'll see a good refutation of this
@v8pilot It's true that there were a few news articles about a possible coming ice age in the 70s. But this video states "Up until the 1980s the world's scientists were ablaze with the upcoming catastrophe that was the ice age..." and that is false. Next we're told that Margret Thatcher invented the idea of global warming as a way to sell nuclear power, or something like that. I haven't watched the rest of these videos. Do we get the whole new world order, global governance saga?.
@uscltyrenti It actually wa a consensus among scientists that the threat was ice. E g nowadays warming alarmists Stephen Schneider and John Holdren warned in books and articles about that catastrophy coming within decades.
@uscltyrenti The refutal I've seen is that the balance between number of warming- and cooling studies respectively a period in the 70s was about 50/50. This was presented on an AGW propaganda blog. As a biased refutal it's weak.
@uscltyrenti maybe so, but if you go to your local library and look at the papers of the day, your "refutation" will show itself contrived. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality.
So what? Records have only been kept for 150 years or so. The world is still coming out of "the little ice age" when the river Thames in London froze over each year.
"Ever recorded" is the key phrase in what you wrote. They haven't been recording temps for very long and now we hear their temperature stations are in piss poor shape giving unreliable readings. If you compile that with the fact that the IPCC has been slectively omitting temperature data......I don't see how you could believe a word they say, unless you are simply a "true believer" of the recent green faith movement.
This is an excellent video series. Having studied global warming for the last three years I have to say that there are a few small technical inaccuracies in these 6 videos, but overall, the concepts are correct and the conclusions are accurate.
Comment removed
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
Yawn, a terribly misinformed video, with no scientific peer reviewed references and the same tired ignorant arguments from AGW deniers which have been disproved by climatologists countless times. If climatereview wants a debate, i'm happy to give him one.
To clarify my view as backed by every single national scientific acdemy on the planet anthropogenic global warming is currently the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
What a boring video. p.s. Towards the end of 1997 Klaus was forced to step down as Prime Minister by several opponents in his party in connection with accusations of funding irregularities in the ODS. His opinion is about as useful as your plumbers.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
Again how can any human do ANYTHING about the planets weather let alone giving money to bureaucratic politicians. This is absolutely disgusting. Look people just stop the bullshit seriously. I will defend myself against radicals who DEMAND they some how control me for their "cause" whatever it may be. Nasty fucking people.
ifuckingfarted 1 month ago
@ifuckingfarted ALSO! The problem with the study of global warming Billions of dollars has been poured into this over the years. If you spend that much money looking for something, you WILL find it... weather or not it exists. Please people just stop the bullshit. Drop your hatred for mankind and grow up. Please. If not like I said I will defend myself against radicals. How gross....
ifuckingfarted 1 month ago
if you have ever studied geology, plate tectonics and global warming you might realize what will happen when antarctica defrosts. currently greenland is on record as rising out of the sea at a rate of 1 inch per year. antarctica will also rise out of the sea (once enough ice melts) and is connected to every tectonic plate around the world, directly or indirectly. it has the potential to crack the earths crust and makes any other issue pale in comparison.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@vengencefrom1979
Many thanks, I hope you're wrong because our species is about to self-implode if Global Warming is inducing sea level changes that will lead to major crust fracturing.
Sea levels have been much higher and much lower than presently; eg they were a 120 metres lower just 20,000 years ago. In addition, the most commonly quoted figure for our current rate of sea level increase is 0.1 inch per year.
See, wiki file: Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
climatereview 1 month ago
@climatereview i'm not sure as to how much antarctica has been 'pushed down' because of the ice on top of it, but if i had to guess i would say at least five miles.
vengencefrom1979 1 month ago
@climatereview Here is how the "scientists" handle "peer review"
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 month ago
Why do all the scientists that support the global cow fart tax have less education and live in bigger houses and drive more expensive cars than the ones that are supposedly being funded by 'big oil' ?
Michael E. Mann reported over 2 Million in grant money this year alone and this is just what he reported. Think about it...........
LastCynicStanding 4 months ago
If there are scientists that believe in evolution how on earth am I supposed to believe them about anything?
psycofloyd 5 months ago
Did you know the mechanism was discovered 120 years ago? It was not political motivated. There is evidence that the meat industry causes 40% of melting arctics. You Americans looks more and more like a joke, but not a funny one. Greetings from Norway.
bvssvni 6 months ago
@bvssvni which evidence?
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk Computer simulations and predictions since 1965. 350 000 deaths every year caused by climate change. Dead fish belt around equator. Predicted end of fish food in 50 years (after being stable for 400 million years). Black sot signatures from rain forest in the arctics, alone estimated 40% cause of melting. Measuring of increased carbon dioxide in air everywhere on earth. Measured faster forest growth. Last 15 years, the 15 warmest in mankind history.
bvssvni 5 months ago
@bvssvni Well those computer simulations were wrong as recently it was revealed ice sheets from Antarctica and Greenland are GROWING. "350000 deaths every year" Is that another computer prediction? Please give me scientific evidence that dead fish are related to an increase in carbon dioxide. Pollution maybe, but CDioxide is a natural gas and has increased many times before and the "last 15 years is the hottest ever" has been debunked.
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk You think of global warming as intense increase in temperature over all the globe. The temperature increases intensively one place, it decreases another place. Your arguments are contradicting, you say the last 15 years are not the hottest, while you use another argument that it happened before. Let me put this way: I'll give you 10$ if you give me more evidences against than I can give for. I got 2000 science reports over 40 years on my side.
bvssvni 5 months ago
@bvssvni No, all I'm saying is that the climate is changing and it has changed many times before but carbon dioxide is not a problem that we need to tax, that's just taxing the air we breathe. Yes I am saying that the last 15 years is not the hottest ever and that carbon dioxide has increased countless times before. I believe the sun is responsible for the climate, google NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk "google NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming"
BUT if you read the article they refer to you get this:
"Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth's climate. For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change,"
Yep, the old AGW canard!
And just when we thought we could finally quote NASA instead of denigrating them!
cristop5 5 months ago
@cristop5 damn, well found sir. Oh well, the point remains and is well established that AGW is a fraud.
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk "AGW is a fraud."
Yes. But it doesn't pay to look into any of this stuff too closely. Did you read the entire ScienceDaily article?
It's almost as if dailytech, wattsupwiththat, climaterealists, bibliotecapleyades, freerepublic, weeklyintercept, armageddononline, abovetopsecret, prisonplanet, minnesotansforglobalwarming, cassiopaea, tribalwar, reddit, sott, godlikeproductions etc NEVER read the article!
Scratch that. It's just me having doubts. Skeptic blogs ARE reliable sources.
cristop5 5 months ago
@astralwalk You get my point? You would not be able to provide more evidence for your view even if you worked your entire life. Neither can I read through all 2000 reports, it would take too much time, but I know to predict the temperature on a global map 50 years ahead with a physics model, it matches and still it would be another random cause is chance close to zero. The study you point to is a hypothesis, not evidence. Read wikipedia it says conclusion that solar cycle is not strong enough.
bvssvni 5 months ago
@bvssvni Of course I wouldn't but I care about quality not quantity. Man made global warming is also a hypothesis it's just that because there has been a huge push to make people believe it you consider it truth.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." Club of Rome - 1991
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk OK. Now you are silly. Just look at this statement and watch the gaps in real life. You spend 70% of the fresh water in the world on the fields in the US, while lot of it goes to produce biofuel, a zero energy outcome proposed by mad politicians. That's enough water wasted on nothing that could fill the need of every human on this planet. It's not ideas that people just spread around. Heard of the plastic vortex in pacific ocean? It's twice the US area. You know little yet.
bvssvni 5 months ago
@bvssvni What? Yeah I agree the biofuel situation is stupid and yes I am well aware of the plastic in the oceans.
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk I posted that message 1 month ago when I thought people would use their common sense, but US is brainwashing it's population to a such degree that I'm almost given up. US citizens are the worst in the world at math, but think they are the best. About 1% of the human population on earth thinks climate change is a hoax, and it's centered at US. I don't know what to say. It's so sad. Many people in Norway think like that too. Like it was nothing outside their little bubble.
bvssvni 5 months ago
What are the technical inaccuracies?
oracle2world 7 months ago
I used to think this church analogy was a bit over the top. Now I think it is spot on.
oracle2world 7 months ago
The scary thing about the Church of Global Warming is that it gets nature to go along with it. It's not just the scientists that get sucked in, the glaciers seem to just melt away on cue.
cristop5 8 months ago
@cristop5 Just like they have done for millions of years, weird hey.
astralwalk 5 months ago
@astralwalk Exactly! And instead of just accepting that the climate warms and cools, glaciers come and go etc, these zealots insist on trying to explain why! Some questions are best left unasked. Why can't they be happy with terms like 'natural variation'. I don't know if they're religious nut jobs or atheistic commies - or both, but you certainly won't find any at my barbeques!
cristop5 5 months ago
8:16 onward is an unfounded statement followed by an implicit genetic fallacy based on that statement followed further by a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise. Politicians are taking global warming seriously because scientists are taking it seriously. Smart politicians trust the findings of science because science is the only reliable way we have of gaining knowledge about our world. It's simple and it doesn't require any sort of conspiracy.
BrooklynRagtag 10 months ago
@Shinimegami86
"D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years."
(Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg by Marc Sheppard a few days ago)
climatereview 1 year ago
warming? My ass
mooners40 1 year ago
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Those are VERY short periods of time, a cold day doesn't disprove a warming pattern. You need to look at MANY years, not 1 day, 3 weeks or 2 years.
LunarFuror 1 year ago
@Lunar,
How about a 15 year period? According to satellite data, there's been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years ... and slight cooling for the last 10 years.
As climatologist Kevin Trenberth - one of the most ardent supporters of GW -- puts it, "the fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at present, and its a travesty we can't".
ttowntom 1 year ago 2
@ttowntom Way to quote mine.
LunarFuror 1 year ago
I suppose it's good that the right can finally admit that "church" is synonymous with "scam artist".
Now if only you could apply that to your own churches, we'd be all set.
Taranatar9 1 year ago
we do consume far too much, though.
palmostositive 1 year ago
Excellent series! You should get the IPCC's Nobel prize for this.
Our planet is far more at risk from greed, corruption, stupidity and asteroids than it is from CO2 molecules. As a former research statistician, I have seen how statistics are used to help publish research rather than being the cause of it. As they say, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Every generation of humans needs the threat of a pending Armageddon. I wonder what the next global fear will be. 2012? Apophis?
rickcheyne 1 year ago
This guy repeats the myth that scientists were warning of a coming ice age in the 1970s. If you search youtube for "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age" you'll see a good refutation of this
uscltyrenti 2 years ago
I was thirty years old in 1974. I remember the "coming ice age" predictions very clearly.
v8pilot 2 years ago 3
@v8pilot It's true that there were a few news articles about a possible coming ice age in the 70s. But this video states "Up until the 1980s the world's scientists were ablaze with the upcoming catastrophe that was the ice age..." and that is false. Next we're told that Margret Thatcher invented the idea of global warming as a way to sell nuclear power, or something like that. I haven't watched the rest of these videos. Do we get the whole new world order, global governance saga?.
uscltyrenti 2 years ago
@uscltyrenti It actually wa a consensus among scientists that the threat was ice. E g nowadays warming alarmists Stephen Schneider and John Holdren warned in books and articles about that catastrophy coming within decades.
magnusea 1 year ago
@uscltyrenti The refutal I've seen is that the balance between number of warming- and cooling studies respectively a period in the 70s was about 50/50. This was presented on an AGW propaganda blog. As a biased refutal it's weak.
magnusea 1 year ago
@uscltyrenti maybe so, but if you go to your local library and look at the papers of the day, your "refutation" will show itself contrived. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality.
shoelessjohn 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What does this video have to do with the fact that 2009 WAS THE SECOND HOTTEST YEAR EVER recoreded?
This is just more "greed is good" BS
MrTallnose 2 years ago
So what? Records have only been kept for 150 years or so. The world is still coming out of "the little ice age" when the river Thames in London froze over each year.
v8pilot 2 years ago
"Ever recorded" is the key phrase in what you wrote. They haven't been recording temps for very long and now we hear their temperature stations are in piss poor shape giving unreliable readings. If you compile that with the fact that the IPCC has been slectively omitting temperature data......I don't see how you could believe a word they say, unless you are simply a "true believer" of the recent green faith movement.
cano21 1 year ago
Great video series. Thankyou
Eriksz 2 years ago
And the truth shall set you free... Well done !!!
snapperhead1969 2 years ago
"Finally someone has given us the whole story."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What does turning it into a bible social conspiracy story have to do with paying attention to what's actually happening upon our planet.
You can't examine the science by turning it into an ideological polemic!
citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago
You say AGW was created 20 years ago to fill the gap left by people turning away from christianity.
Why was I learning about it in high school forty years ago.
Get you heads out of your heaven's and look at what is actually happening upon our planet you sillies.
The evidence is out there.
You just need to open your eyes to see it.
citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago
Your "evidence" has all the earmarks of junk science, and you need to wake up to the facts on this entire issue.
The theory of AGW is dangerous unsubstantiated bunk.
quicknthedead 2 years ago
Agree...
alienspacecentereast 2 years ago
Comment removed
freemind454 2 years ago
obvious sockpuppetry
diogeneslaertius666 2 years ago
This is an excellent video series. Having studied global warming for the last three years I have to say that there are a few small technical inaccuracies in these 6 videos, but overall, the concepts are correct and the conclusions are accurate.
vsaluki 2 years ago 11
Finally someone has given us the whole story.
djrubbish1 2 years ago 13