You bring up the notion of CO2 forcing yet you neglect the fact that a warmer Nearly ice free arctic did not cause a runaway warming from carbon and methane release from permafrost. How come that did not occur? Furthermore, the amount of forcing co2 has on climate is far from certain. I know Hansen has it pegged at 3C doubling in the short with 6C in the long term, but others have it much less. Lets not forget the "missing heat" which Trenberth has burried in the deep oceans yet the Levitus o
Come now. The first quote i gave you the headline from science daily hardly a denialist blog
Then the second quote is from the actual study from the university of Copenhagen
All I am saying is that 8000 years ago we didn't have a tipping point when sea ice. Was less than half of what it was in 2007. No permafrost methane leak, and a warmer Arctic dud not lead to runaway warming in the middle latitudes. Saying that, LONG TERM exposure to more atmospheric CO2 may inevitably result in a warmer w
Large Variations in Arctic Sea Ice: Polar Ice Much Less Stable Than Previously Thought, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2011) — For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean -- probably less than half of current amounts.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
A new study came out and found that the arctic ice cap had as much as 50% less ice than today several thousand years ago. No tipping point was reached.
"During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which is absolutely lowest on record:
". The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return"
@chicagogeorge Could you please provide me the citation to the original paper? When you whack your quote into google, all I seem to get is endless denier blogsites.
@chicagogeorge nevermind. I found it. Global warming deniers love this because a quick read of the abstract and confirmation found in popular science reporting confirms in their minds that everything will be ok. Unfortunately, they don't read the entire original paper. While yes, the ice was less....in Greenland, they do admit that due to wind variations it may well have acumulated elsewhere. Its also important to remember that CO2 forcing didn't exist back then. Apples and oranges.
this poster obviously is unclear on the concept that ice floats, moves around, and occasionally gaps open here and there, even big enough to park a submarine. In fact, it's the submarine data that has shown very clearly the steady decline of arctic ice over the last 60 years.
curious readers can google the National Snow and ice Data Center faq-
@greenman3610, did you just make that up? Or did you actually read it somewhere?
Either way, it's nonsense. Your imagined 60 years of submarine data on arctic ice doesn't exist.
There's some submarine data from the 1990s, and very, very limited data from as far back as ~35 years ago, but nothing resembling your claim of data showing a "steady decline of arctic ice of the last 60 years."
The evidence we do have indicates the exact opposite; see for yourself:
showing arctic ice from military data going back to 1860.
Sorry, I prefer primary sources rather than blog-posts for my investigations, and consider the conclusions of actual arctic scientists first, rather than internet bloviators.
You are of course, free to do your own "research".
No human being had ever been to the north pole until well into the 20th century. There is no data, neither military nor civilian nor martian, extant for ice thickness, ice volume, or ice area prior to ~32 years ago.
Did you see the source shown on that pretty graph? It is the discredited IPCC! Translation: it is based on speculation, not data.
The best we have is anecdotal reports, starting in the 20th (not 19th) century, like this:
the IPCC does not make up data, it is a survey of the literature, and here cites military data from several sources - it remains the primary and most respected resource on climate worldwide, although I understand many deniers prefer Glen Beck. curious viewers may review data from NASA by googling
nasa key indicators
or hear from the US Navy's chief oceanographer, here
@greenman3610, the IPCC has little respect among those with no "skin in the game" who're best equipped to judge. In contrast with most climatologists, whose careers would suffer if people stopped worrying about climate change, most professional meteorologists don't depend on climate alarmism for their livelihoods, because they work in areas like weather forecasting.
Polls show that most of them don't trust the IPCC, or believe the alarmist hysteria.
the "anecdotal" evidence presented here is addressed in a lecture by Konrad Steffen, one of the world's formost Greenland experts, in a lecture to the american meteorological society - google
cspan impact of global warming on the arctic
basically he says there was a temporary warm spell that was regional in nature.
"Anecdotes" , fortunately, do not meet the standard scientifically. Suggest you find a crop circle forum where such input will be appreciated.
"There is no data, neither military nor civilian nor martian, extant for ice thickness, ice volume, or ice area prior to ~32 years ago"
in a previous post you cite evidence, which appears to be from military sources, of submarines at the pole in the 1950s and 60s. Do you even read your own material?
Military records of ice thickness were released under the FOIA not long ago, and confirmed the beginnings of the steady decline that satellites show continues today.
@greenman3610, sorry if I was unclear. 50yo photos of submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole are not data from which ice trend-lines can be plotted. They are anecdotal evidence against the myth that ice at the north pole was once much thicker than it is now, but there's no way to determine total Arctic ice volume or extent from that sort of evidence.
Whoever told you there was actual data showing 60 or more years of steady decline in Arctic ice was blowing smoke. It's nonsense.
believe it or not, the grownups who operate those submarines kept records of how thick the ice was, and where, so they could, if necessary surface and launch missiles. That is their job.
The data was FOIA'd by Al Gore. U of Illinois has one graph here going back to 1900.
tinyurl (dot) com (slash) 6jdse2f
there is also a graph in Al's original slide show going back to 53 that shows the same story.
@greenman3610, why don't you show us the submariner records that you think document declines in ice thickness?
That UI graph purports to show extents, not thickness or volume, and it's mostly speculation. There just isn't any information extant about arctic sea ice area prior to satellite surveys, which began about 32 years ago. Just because someone draws a graph doesn't make it meaningful.
It's this sort of thing (graphs of non-existent data) that ought to make you skeptical of the alarmists.
I'm showing you a credible graph from a leading university. You are bloviating and showing me internet comment pages. Your reaction is typical of the denialist mind set. When shown actual information, you just double down on your denial of reality.
your problem is emotional, not informational, and I'm not equipped to help with that.
@greenman3610, tell me, where do you think this supposed "actual information" came from, 110 years ago? Who monitored ice area in the Arctic Ocean in 1900?
14 months after this video was uploaded, the headlines were all about the dramatic INCREASE in Arctic sea ice. "Arctic ice recovers from the great melt" read the Sunday Times headline, 4/4/2010.:
webcitation(dot)org(slash)5zco3UeWW
But now, 14 months after THAT, arctic sea ice is back down to 2007 levels.
Arctic sea ice is as fickle as the wind... because it's the wind that drives it.
There's no such thing as "perennial ice" in the Arctic ocean. There never has been.
Arctic sea ice is a poor indicator of warming, because it isn't anchored in place. It drifts. Arctic sea ice changes have more to do with its movement into warmer waters due to fickle winds than with global temperatures.
Contrast Antarctic sea ice. It's anchored in place by a continent, so it doesn't blow around... and it's NOT shrinking.
(Plus, it's at lower latitudes, so it matters more for albedo-feedback.)
Oh you dumb fuck..... Have you considered the tilt of the earths axis.. If im correct the NSIDC has declared that earth tilt is the main cause of north cap melt.. Fucking warmist retard.
You are not correct. Earth's tilt is one of the major causes of glacial to interglacial changes, but the current forcing is more toward a slow (very slow) cooling effect, not warming. Calling names when one clearly has not done one's homework reflects poorly.
@greenman3610 yeah i get that a lot, it only shows when someone calls names that the person who calls names is a person who does not know what they are talking about
In this case, since you are clearly uninformed about the earth's orbital forcing, I think you should have a little humility towards those who have actually done the research. For more on orbital forcing, and the misuse of data, see
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
but thanks for validating my thesis about climate denial
The more uninformed, the greater the certainty and arrogance, and more likely to engage in name calling.
@greenman3610 uh dude i was sticking up for you, i believe you about global warming wow, do you treat all of your fans like this? wow man, i was agreeing with you, so back the hell off of me, or was this post intended for someone else? cause i think that climate change is real and we need to do our part to stop it, and the deniers are hurting our planet so please back the hell off of me o k?
@greenman3610 no big man, i love your videos thanks for informing me on the real peril we are in, no big, you like me get bombarded by stupid, and mean insults by childish people who act like overgrown 5 year olds, so no big, it is cool keep up the great work, i cannot wait for your next video, tell the truth, even if the idiots piss and moan do not back down the truth needs to be told
@greenman3610 look i am a sub o k, i was referring to myself that i get called a lot of names by people i was a little harsh, i am a big believer in climate change, i mean why else is the earth getting warmer? so i apologize for getting a little miffed but i am not your enemy dude, i used your videos for one of my own, your info helped me defeat a lot of these climate deniers who kept calling me stupid, they did not after i did my video, and i had them watch a few of yours, so sorry
@greenman3610 no problem, but thanks, that was nice, again i love the videos i just fried a guy who talked some stupid crap, about a quote about climate gate i used your video, to fry him lol he did not respond so thanks for all of the info
you are correct, it isn't science, it's science journalism. and as an ex-scientist, i think greenman is doing a good job. if you think the data quoted is wrong, by all means show us your proof, we'd all love to see it.
thanks mwhearn1. If it means anything, you are not alone. I hear daily from some of the better climate scientists on the planet. If I'm not getting something right, they tell me. I've pulled videos down that didn't meet the standard.
I'm not perfect, but I do believe I get most of it mostly right, and some of it completely right.
Denierism is the same as creationism, in order to maintain your position, you MUST be either ignorant or a liar. It is impossible to remain a denier (or a creationist) without lying and that is why there is so much overlap of these two groups. At some level they HAVE to know they are lying. Do you they just not care? Are they just simply unconcerned about the future or are they more like a sports team fan, where they have to cheer their side no matter what the evidence says?
All this B.S. does not have anything to do with human activity. The fact is, global warming or global cooling is not controlled by people. Making us live in poverty will not make one bit of difference in the climate. It will only give uncontrolled power to the government.
But remember, Newton’s laws of gravitation were considered the most concrete theory of all time, yet it was rendered obsolete by Einstein’s theory of relativity.
To be a theory a statement has to be something you can test through observation. You don’t “prove” a theory by looking for things that match up with the theory, you try to prove it wrong any way possible, and when it holds up, then and only then is it considered a good theory. Oh, and did I mention the results have to be repeatable by other scientists as well? Not just the scientists working to prove global warming so politicians have more reason to control and regulate our life.
Utter garbage pay close attention to the outside temperature. How can we possible blame a trace atmospheric gas for climate change when the Sun is going towards a second Dalton minimum. Get things into proportion. Sorry i dont believe in fairy tales.
So now BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you're a clueless blowhard until you,"as always", cite the source for your DIRECT QUOTE over at your 'In the 70s' crock where I caught you.
Now don't accuse me of name calling, because I'm just quoting YOU as my source.
You see, I always cite a source when I make a statement.
That way, people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard."
Look down several comments and see it.
Since you haven't been able to cite the source(as you ALWAYS do) of your direct quote("In the 70's all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming") over at the 'In the 70s' crock, by your own admission, you're a clueless blowhard.
@RealOldOne2 The citation you're looking for is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Well, let's let greenman answer, since he is the one who said "because in the 70's, denierS will tell you, "all . . ."
Greenman, is the iceman correct? Is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" the source of your DIRECT QUOTE "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." that you attribute to denierS?
Hi iceman. Yes, I read the Peterson paper. It certainly appears that the quote on page 1326 may have been the source of greenman's quote, but I like to confirm things from the original source. That's why I have asked greenman himself if the Peterson paper is indeed the source of his denier quote in his "In the 70s" crock.
Hi iceman. As I said before, I tend to agree w/you that the Peterson et al (2008) article was the source of gm's quote. Considering it is a word-for-word quote and that he closed the video quoting from that report, it seems very likely.
So what's up that greenman will not acknowledge that it is his source?
I'm puzzled since he said that he "ALWAYS" cites a source for his statements & you seem to have found it.
If he cites this, I'll stop referring to him as "I'macluelessblowhard"3610
Well, gm continues to stonewall & refuse to admit that you found his source. I outed him over at "In the 70s" crock. He was ashamed to admit that the quote that he attributes to a "denier" was actually from a pro-AGW alarmist! Not only that, but it was from a FICTIONAL character from a Michael Crichton NOVEL, State of Fear pp.315-316. Wasn't even a real person! See the ref there.
Typical propaganda. Made up stuff. Not by gm, but by the novelist he quotes as a real person. Lame. LOL!
Greenman, is the iceman correct? Is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" the source of your DIRECT QUOTE "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." that you attribute to denierS ?
Hey gm, when are you going to quit being an "I'm a clueless blowhard"(to use your own words) and verify that 541iceman located the source(Peterson et al. 2008) of your quote in the "In the 70s" crock?
OK! honestly... I'm not going to try and put on a fake air of I'm so superior in intelligence and write something that reads like I'm sooooo informed therefore my opinion is fact, like alot of these pukes. So I'll be objective to the majority of objectivenesses and say, I once asked one of our more knowledgable meterologiest at where I worked, "Whats the best information to compile to forcast weather for an area?" He said "talk to the people who live there" meaning the evidence first hand
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.
For sources, google UAH satellite data or RSS satellite data and look at the 15 year (not the 30-year) trendline. Or google Dr. Phil Jones sworn testimony during the Climategate hearings, where he was forced to confess that global temperatures have failed to see any statistically significant rise in the last 15 years (and a slight decrease in temperatures over the last 10).
What's even more amusing is the unscientific belief that polar albedo is anything but a tiny driver of world temperatures. Due to the angle of incidence, solar insolation is *always* extremely weak at the poles ... that is, after all, the entire reason its so cold up there.
Land use changes near the equator (increased blacktop roads and rooftops, less trees) has more than a 25X greater effect on temperature than polar albedo deltas.
Why the focus on Sept? In the Arctic, the sun (and thus albedo effects) are strongest in early July. If if you google Cryosphere Today, you will see that Antarctic ice is average more than one million sq. kilometers *more* than it was in mid-1980 ... and averaging that not just in September, but in EVERY month of the year.
Greenman, your continual attempts to bring politics into a scientific discussion are quite revealing. A scientific theory is judged by one factor only -- its predictive ability. The last 15 years of satellite temperature data shows how incredibly poorly GW theory has done in that regard. The long list of IPCC reports -- each one further downgrading the warming predicted by earlier ones - also proves how poorly it's done.
As I said before, you can only cry wolf so long before people wise up
And yes, zzebowa is correct. Antarctic ice is on a long term increasing trend. Northern ice is declining...just as it has been since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago.
"even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature."
In science, unlike on the Glenn Beck show, nuance matters.
@greenman, that statement is laughable, even my 11 year old saw the flaw in it. Yes, during the Antarctic winter the sun is at its weakest ... but that's equally true of the Arctic winter. In fact, since southern sea ice has a larger total area, its effect on global albedo is actually larger than the Arctic's.
Arctic ice is declining (11+ percent per decade) during arctic summer, when the increase in open water creates a positive feedback effect that accelerates global warming.
Antarctic increase, if there is one, (0.7 percent per decade) is occurring during that same September period, which is the winter in Antarctica. Therefore, with no sun, there is no albedo (feedback) effect.
You would do well to actually read the FAQs, as they are very informative:
@greenman, why do you intentionally spread disinformation? Arctic sea ice hit a max of 15m km^2 in 1979. In 2010, it hit 13.9m. That's a drop of 7.5% in 30 years, not "11% per decade". Further, Arctic ice has actually *increased( from the lows seen in 2005-06.
Even worse is your claim that southern sea ice increase is seen during only one month. Abject silliness. The UIUC's Arctic Research Center maintains a graph of ice coverage which clearly shows the increase is annual.
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
you'd have to cite a source for that, but of course, the most important issue is what is happening to Antarctic land ice, which is in negative balance.
Your claims are based on nothing more than it's getting warmer, it have got warmer since 1850, and it have been warmer many times before. Sea level have been 20 feet higher than to day. This global warming propaganda is made by people with an agenda.
200 feet higher, hmmmm. According to climate history, the ice core. The CO2 does not drive temperature, the temperature goes up, the CO2 follows, are that korrect. If it was CO2 there drove the temperature, then what prevent a run away temperature. The ice core clearly shows the CO2 driven temperature to be a hoax.
keep up the good work! I admire your patience at answering to the "deniers". I still find it really hard to not get fustrated... but more and more I understand all the fake arguments used or the cherry picking of the data and know how to properly answer them. At least, we're more and more on the bright side and we won't have to convert them all to make a difference.
Yo Greenman...you eveer been there? I have...11 times from 1990 till present. More ice today than there was in 1990 in my opinion. Seek out the real data? I suggest you travel there before you spout off at the hip and spray bullshit everywhere
Look up the story about the plane recovery, "Glacier Girl". Its about a plane that crash landed in Greenland 60 years ago... it was found 10 years ago, burried under 268 feet of new snow & ice - thats hard proof from the ground, where people literally had to dig out a plane because the snow & ice was so thick........
.
I believe people, & video footage from a hole in the snow rather than a satellite hundreds of miles in the air..
.
BTW you know its a scam when activists call you a denier LOL
In 46 years the ground / snow level increased in height by 268 feet. Yeah it snows, but it hasn't melted in at least 46 years, thats the point.
Also, temp stations in Greenland were burried under snow & ice & abandoned, the temp station in Antarctica is built on top of the old station after that was burried under snow.
Fact is the ocean is still warming since the MWP, it takes a long time for the ocean to warm. That + the extra inland snow means more coastal melting in parts
How long does the ocean take to warm? Would it have warmed more because of the MWP? If its warming what would you expect to happen to the edges of the ice?
There is no point in discussing somethingon youtube with people who don't know shit about it ( neither do i, only what i find online) and going on an egotrip proving your points to be wrong.
You know I am correct and we'll both part ways agreeing to disagree and agreeing that this is SCIENCE and not something that needs to be on youtube manipulating people. Greenman is not a scientist and should just leave this up to people who do know what they're talking about
@TheAnarchanon He should leave it up to people who know what they're talking about? Have you watched his videos? That's precisely what he does. Most of the videos consist of direct analysis of peer reviewed articles. It's not manipulative.
It's also something that cannot simply be left to a small number of experts. The reason is quite simple: the earth will relatively soon become uninhabitable for human life because of our own actions. That's a fairly urgent problem.
Yes I have. He uses the parts of studies that agree with him andignores studies claiming otherwise. The fact that he does this convinces people that his videos are the only truth and that's wrong. If he wanted too be informative, he would discuss studies proving the warming is natural as well, but he never does, thus he is manipulative.
Will earth become too warm for humans? maybe
Are the humans themself responsible for it? No, until proven otherwise
@TheAnarchanon It has been proven. Spectroscopy has shown quite clearly that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human pollution and not from living sources. The excess CO2 also correlates strongly with the rises in temperatures, and that in turn correlates strongly with the rise of industry and large-scale combustion of fossil fuels. Sometimes the earth's atmosphere warms naturally; this is not one of those times. It is man-made. Fairly simple stuff.
@TheAnarchanon You are an absolute moron. When I said "the majority", I specifically said, "the majority of climatologists and meteorologists". That is to say, the scientists themselves are saying this. You claim to defer to their opinions; they are saying something and they are unified. There is no real division in climatology on this. There are a couple - one or two - quacks out there. But the climatologists are saying that global warming is real.
@TheAnarchanon I'm afraid I can't let you leave it at that. I've asked you for a citation, or an article, or anything to back up your assertions. You claim there are articles out there showing that global warming isn't real, and yet, I can't seem to find them in reputable scientific article repositories. Instead, I find hundreds - thousands - of articles supporting the scientific consensus on global warming.
What do you know about spectroscopy? Nothing, it seems. Nor do you wish to know.
I'm not gonna do your fetching or discuss this with you. I don't know everything and neither do you, so neither of us is capable of having this discussion.
@TheAnarchanon I'm capable of having this discussion. I know quite a lot about global warming. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm also not a biologist and I feel very comfortable with explaining and discussing evolution. Climate change is actually quite easy to understand, and if you've ever heard of spectroscopy, you'll know why your assertion that mankind's involvement in climate change is not proven is quite ridiculous. Carbon dioxide from fuel has a specific signature.
This is so stupid. You know shit, you know everything you know from the internet and you consider yourself an expert. My guess is you're between 16 and 22 and you were brought up in a very leftwing home. You wwere in a youth group (boyscouts or whatever) and you somehow feel you should help make the sorld a better plae, cause it's your responibility.
Climate change is easy to understand, AGW is completely different subject, bozo
@TheAnarchanon I'm somewhat older than 22, actually. And I feel depressingly old these days. My home was British, and so very left wing by American standards, but I was never in a youth group, certainly not the boy scouts. No, my motivation in all this is simply that I want to be able to breathe in 40 year's time as I come to the end of my life. I don't want to leave the universe knowing that everyone is fucked.
@TheAnarchanon People may die, but when they die, other people live on, society continues, life continues. It's not necessary for my happiness to know that society will live on, but I'm afraid I value my children too highly to let them die arbitrarily due to 20th and 21st century greed and stupidity.
If you want a single article summing up the scientific consensus written by a professional academic then you could do worse than Oreskes (2004) in Science; it has links to other articles as well.
@TheAnarchanon There are not "steps" in evolution. Also, I'm an atheist too, and basically a nihilist, but I also have human emotions. I don't want my children to die because of my stupidity. I don't want everyone to die because of our collective stupidity. If you don't mind everyone dying, then shut the fuck up. You really are not needed. Yes, people die, and they are not objectively, universally valuable. But they are valued by other humans. Other humans who aren't sociopaths, anyway.
See how this AGW crap scares people? And as you probably know people who are afraid are more open to suggestion. If they give you options on how to redeem yourself, you'll be way more viable to accept them as truths.
Emotions have nothing to do with science and emotions in general are what causes humanities stupidity
@TheAnarchanon I've done something wrong, and so have we all, if climatologists are telling us that burning fossil fuels will endanger the lives of all humans and prevent them from being able to inhabit planet earth and then we continue to burn fossil fuels. I'm not afraid so much as annoyed that my efforts to prevent the unnecessary premature deaths of my children due to our fossil fuel burning will be nulled by other people not caring at all. I'm pretty annoyed at that.
@TheAnarchanon I'm not sure what a phsycologist is, but if there were genuine scientific reasons behind beating my children - which there aren't - and if there were peer reviewed articles detailing the mechanisms and reasons why - which there aren't - then yes, I would consider beating my children, but that's such a stupid and idiotic idea that it makes me wonder if you're not simply a mindless troll trying to coax a response.
@TheAnarchanon You claim to want to trust science, and you claim to be waiting for evidence, and you claim to be emotionless about this, but you're ignoring the real facts as demonstrated by climatologists, the real scientists who study this phenomenon. You are therefore a hypocrite, at best.
No, I'm looking further then some internet sites and I'm actually capable of making up my mind by reading through and understanding what the research is based on.
@TheAnarchanon The websites I've mentioned - JSTOR and PLoS One - are not website for climatology or summaries of journal articles. They are the articles themselves. They are the research. They are what climatologists and other scientists are basing their conclusions on and their argments on. They are not following some erroneous logical fallacies and stupid falsified argumentation to prop up an unsupportable claim.
@TheAnarchanon And climate scientists say that they have enough data. They are able to produce charts, models, graphs, and all manner of other explanatory devices to show how much evidence they have, to show how factual and real this is. They seem to think that they have enough, and you claim to wish to defer to science. So accept their conclusion or reject science; that is the choice you have. The article from 2004 was simply to show that even then, climatologists had a strong consensus.
@TheAnarchanon No. Many scientists do not disagree, at all, and those who do are not climatologists. Again, look in reputable journals and you will find that the scientific consensus is strongly showing anthropogenic global warming to be both real and genuinely threatening.
There are more then 700 scientists who disagree completely, even a former head of NASA is a skeptic, how can you still claim there is a consensus? How can you claim no one disagrees?
It's simple: like with religion, you're mind doesn't want to see it and thus blocks it out.
AGW is appealing to humans because it gives them a purpose, a goal like religion
@TheAnarchanon The scientific consensus doesn't mean "no one disagrees". It means that the people in the field of the research, and who know what they are talking about, agree on a certain phenomenon. Climatologists agree - in every major and minor research institution on earth - that AGW is real. That's the real scientists saying the real thing about science.
You know, one of the ways creationists talk about evolution is to say that there's no consensus because 700 scientists disagree.
There are no 700 scientists who disagree with evolution, that's something you made up. I've had discussions with religious people enough to knwo it's only michela behe who thinks creationsim is real.
Again, even IPCC members disagree. Do you know what IPCC stands for? International Panel for Climate Change. Notice the climate change and the international and the panel. Why wouldn't you believe them?
@TheAnarchanon The IPCC is actually unified in its views, and it has a strong consensus with perhaps the odd dissenting voice. You always get dissent in science, but in this case, it's heavily politicised and, by the way, climatologists can make a lot of money by pandering to the fossil fuel industry and populism with denialist books. But the consensus is strong and real.
And the green power industry won't make any money from it right?
Electric companies are already charging higher rates for green power and in 2 years prices of electricity will go up by atleast 20% because people are building solarpanels. Seems like there are other sides profiting just as much from the "no more co2" movement. Again, it's not because you have a majority that you are correct
@TheAnarchanon There is no "green power industry". At best there is a cottage industry of people who care producing and developing technologies, but the "green power industry" has no corporate giants trying to influence and pay off scientists and their data.
You're right, a majority is not important. But a majority opinion in a scientific field is called the consensus. If you don't want to trust the consensus on a subject, then you must learn to evaluate it yourself and become an expert.
Yeah, see that's where you are wrong. The solar panels get produced right? So do the windmills and guess who builds them: companies. Now as you might remember companies make money and companies often hand out boardmember seats (get paid to do nothing) to people. Guess what company head of the american climate research unit is a member of?
But if it's based on faulty science then it means shit
@TheAnarchanon You know what makes WAAAAY more money than green technologies, that has enough power both politically and monetarily to influence research, and which has proven links to AGW denialists and what has been proven to have paid for faulty and erroneous research in order to discredit what it sees as a threat to its profits?
The fossil fuel industry.
Most climatologists are not funded by either BP or a solar panel manufacturer. And they agree that AGW is real.
@TheAnarchanon Slinging facts? You're not slinging facts! You're slinging mud. It's an assertion that climatologists might have stocks in green tech and nothing more, and if such a connection existed, there are more than enough evil fuckheads like you who would opay highly for evidence of such, and enough people looking to make it likely. Besides, that's why we have peer review in the first place - to identify things like conflicts of interest. AGW IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
All of these "facts" of yours come from government groups and are designed to cause fear. Never once do you hear anything about the scientists or the studies who disagree with AGW, even though there are plenty (google is your friend).
@TheAnarchanon I've heard a lot from so-called "scientists" about their AGW denialism. I've heard too much, really. I'm aware of their "arguments", and I'm also aware that there really are people out there who study climate science for a living, who do lots of detailed research, and who have a consensus that AGW is real. It is you ignoring the real scientists involved in the ACTUAL pertinent field.
Oh, here we go. Knew it would happen; "sheeple". The conspiracy nut's last resort. Or first
@TheAnarchanon You don't seem to understand the difference between a majority in a lay population and a majority in a scientific community. When scientists in a particular field agree, that's a big deal. It means that there is some data that they broadly agree on the interpretation of. It means that there is something true that they have discovered. If you don't want to trust that, then feel free to trust any kook you meet in the street, but consensus is important.
@TheAnarchanon The only questionable research in the field of climate science is coming from denialists who repeat zombie arguments, don't engage with the arguments against them, and who are funded by fossil fuel conglomerates. It's not rocket science to compare the capacity for Chevron or ExxonMobil to influence scientific investigation with that of a windmill manufacturer.
@TheAnarchanon No, there aren't 700 real scientists who repudiate evolution. But the creationists cobbled together a list anyway, just like AGW denialists cobbled together a list of 700 scientists who repudiate AGW. Do you not see the flaw there? Evolution is not debated, and a list of "scientists" who repudiate it does not show a lack of consensus; you're with me on that. But when I say that AGW is not really debated and that a list of "scientists" does not show a lack of consensus, you...
@TheAnarchanon ...well, you won't accept it! The argument you're making is ridiculius. Climatologists themselves say that there is a strong consensus showing AGW to be real. You refuse to listen to them and instead say that there isn't a consensus without having enough expertise in the field to be able to say so.
@TheAnarchanon Then evolution is not a consensus, because some scientists in fields unrelated to evolutionary biology dispute it. Relativity is not a consensus, because some scientists in fields unrelated to physics dispute it. Science is NEVER "undisputable" - what a ridiculous and naive view of science you have, for a supposedly ultra-intelligent being.
@TheAnarchanon AGW is certainly based on good science, and you know who decides that? The scientists themselves. The climatologists. That's why we have peer review. How the fuck do you decide what is and what is not good science? It seems to be based solely on your personal predilection. AGW is as firmly supported by peer review and good science as evolution, but you accept on and not the other because you are demagoguic arrogant moron.
@TheAnarchanon Peer reviewed science is not AUTOMATICALLY good science, but it is one of the ways in which science is checked. In fact, it's one of main ways, and most of the time, everyone considers it fine. It's only when the consensus disagrees with their idiotic personal predilection that they throw out the scientific method and basic, simple, checking procedures like peer review, in favour of "science" with an agenda, a conflict of interest, no real checking procedures, and so on.
@TheAnarchanon And the creationists can produce a list of all the scientists - in fields unrelated to biology - who deny evolution. They can come up with about 1,000. That's not an argument against evolution, or the scientific consensus that evolution is real and is a fact. And in fact, to show how ridiculous the idea was, the evolutionary biologist community decided to find 1000 scientists called Steve who accepted evolution. They managed it.
@TheAnarchanon If you were willing to actually educate yourself instead of wallowing in conspiracy garbage then we'd both be perfectly capable of having this conversation. If you could cite or give me the title to any reputable study showing AGW to be a falsehood then we'd be able to get somewhere. You claim that such articles exist. It would surely be no problem to find a specific one for me to search for, would it?
@TheAnarchanon Your article will allow me to read about what you consider to be the truth. I'm not trying to "convert" you; this is not a faith issue. This is: either you are listening to the climatologists with their facts, articles, experimentation and peer review, or you're deciding not to listen to reason. It's not trying to convince you of something unknown and emotional, but something factual and true. The climatologists are quite clear on it, and you claim to wish to defer to science.
hehehe you said shrinkage
chronDiggity 2 months ago
Sorry if my comments look weird on my I phone on the train..... Thank you for you time.
chicagogeorge 3 months ago
You bring up the notion of CO2 forcing yet you neglect the fact that a warmer Nearly ice free arctic did not cause a runaway warming from carbon and methane release from permafrost. How come that did not occur? Furthermore, the amount of forcing co2 has on climate is far from certain. I know Hansen has it pegged at 3C doubling in the short with 6C in the long term, but others have it much less. Lets not forget the "missing heat" which Trenberth has burried in the deep oceans yet the Levitus o
chicagogeorge 3 months ago
Come now. The first quote i gave you the headline from science daily hardly a denialist blog
Then the second quote is from the actual study from the university of Copenhagen
All I am saying is that 8000 years ago we didn't have a tipping point when sea ice. Was less than half of what it was in 2007. No permafrost methane leak, and a warmer Arctic dud not lead to runaway warming in the middle latitudes. Saying that, LONG TERM exposure to more atmospheric CO2 may inevitably result in a warmer w
chicagogeorge 3 months ago
Science News
Large Variations in Arctic Sea Ice: Polar Ice Much Less Stable Than Previously Thought, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2011) — For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean -- probably less than half of current amounts.
chicagogeorge 3 months ago
Great reporting. They won't believe anything is happening until their beach house is floating off it foundation.
baxtar1963 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
Outstanding video. Thanks for doing this.
friedie1jeff 5 months ago
A new study came out and found that the arctic ice cap had as much as 50% less ice than today several thousand years ago. No tipping point was reached.
chicagogeorge 5 months ago
@chicagogeorge oh yeah? what new study?
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
From the study above:
"During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which is absolutely lowest on record:
". The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return"
chicagogeorge 3 months ago
@chicagogeorge Could you please provide me the citation to the original paper? When you whack your quote into google, all I seem to get is endless denier blogsites.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@chicagogeorge nevermind. I found it. Global warming deniers love this because a quick read of the abstract and confirmation found in popular science reporting confirms in their minds that everything will be ok. Unfortunately, they don't read the entire original paper. While yes, the ice was less....in Greenland, they do admit that due to wind variations it may well have acumulated elsewhere. Its also important to remember that CO2 forcing didn't exist back then. Apples and oranges.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
For those who believe in the myth of Arctic "perennial ice," here's your cure:
tinyurl(dot)com(slash)iceatnpole
Be sure to scroll down to view the photos of open water at the north pole ~50 years ago.
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
this poster obviously is unclear on the concept that ice floats, moves around, and occasionally gaps open here and there, even big enough to park a submarine. In fact, it's the submarine data that has shown very clearly the steady decline of arctic ice over the last 60 years.
curious readers can google the National Snow and ice Data Center faq-
nsidc arctic sea ice faq
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610, did you just make that up? Or did you actually read it somewhere?
Either way, it's nonsense. Your imagined 60 years of submarine data on arctic ice doesn't exist.
There's some submarine data from the 1990s, and very, very limited data from as far back as ~35 years ago, but nothing resembling your claim of data showing a "steady decline of arctic ice of the last 60 years."
The evidence we do have indicates the exact opposite; see for yourself:
tinyurl(dot)com(slash)iceatnpole
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
EPA has a good graph at
tinyurl (dot) com (slash) 3dz5ufd
showing arctic ice from military data going back to 1860.
Sorry, I prefer primary sources rather than blog-posts for my investigations, and consider the conclusions of actual arctic scientists first, rather than internet bloviators.
You are of course, free to do your own "research".
greenman3610 7 months ago
*1860*, greenman3610??
No human being had ever been to the north pole until well into the 20th century. There is no data, neither military nor civilian nor martian, extant for ice thickness, ice volume, or ice area prior to ~32 years ago.
Did you see the source shown on that pretty graph? It is the discredited IPCC! Translation: it is based on speculation, not data.
The best we have is anecdotal reports, starting in the 20th (not 19th) century, like this:
tinyurl(dot)com(slash)iceatnpole
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
the IPCC does not make up data, it is a survey of the literature, and here cites military data from several sources - it remains the primary and most respected resource on climate worldwide, although I understand many deniers prefer Glen Beck. curious viewers may review data from NASA by googling
nasa key indicators
or hear from the US Navy's chief oceanographer, here
watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610, the IPCC has little respect among those with no "skin in the game" who're best equipped to judge. In contrast with most climatologists, whose careers would suffer if people stopped worrying about climate change, most professional meteorologists don't depend on climate alarmism for their livelihoods, because they work in areas like weather forecasting.
Polls show that most of them don't trust the IPCC, or believe the alarmist hysteria.
So: what do THEY know that YOU don't?
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
the "anecdotal" evidence presented here is addressed in a lecture by Konrad Steffen, one of the world's formost Greenland experts, in a lecture to the american meteorological society - google
cspan impact of global warming on the arctic
basically he says there was a temporary warm spell that was regional in nature.
"Anecdotes" , fortunately, do not meet the standard scientifically. Suggest you find a crop circle forum where such input will be appreciated.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610
"There is no data, neither military nor civilian nor martian, extant for ice thickness, ice volume, or ice area prior to ~32 years ago"
in a previous post you cite evidence, which appears to be from military sources, of submarines at the pole in the 1950s and 60s. Do you even read your own material?
Military records of ice thickness were released under the FOIA not long ago, and confirmed the beginnings of the steady decline that satellites show continues today.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610, sorry if I was unclear. 50yo photos of submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole are not data from which ice trend-lines can be plotted. They are anecdotal evidence against the myth that ice at the north pole was once much thicker than it is now, but there's no way to determine total Arctic ice volume or extent from that sort of evidence.
Whoever told you there was actual data showing 60 or more years of steady decline in Arctic ice was blowing smoke. It's nonsense.
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
believe it or not, the grownups who operate those submarines kept records of how thick the ice was, and where, so they could, if necessary surface and launch missiles. That is their job.
The data was FOIA'd by Al Gore. U of Illinois has one graph here going back to 1900.
tinyurl (dot) com (slash) 6jdse2f
there is also a graph in Al's original slide show going back to 53 that shows the same story.
pm me if you want an image
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610, why don't you show us the submariner records that you think document declines in ice thickness?
That UI graph purports to show extents, not thickness or volume, and it's mostly speculation. There just isn't any information extant about arctic sea ice area prior to satellite surveys, which began about 32 years ago. Just because someone draws a graph doesn't make it meaningful.
It's this sort of thing (graphs of non-existent data) that ought to make you skeptical of the alarmists.
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
I'm showing you a credible graph from a leading university. You are bloviating and showing me internet comment pages. Your reaction is typical of the denialist mind set. When shown actual information, you just double down on your denial of reality.
your problem is emotional, not informational, and I'm not equipped to help with that.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610, tell me, where do you think this supposed "actual information" came from, 110 years ago? Who monitored ice area in the Arctic Ocean in 1900?
ncdave4life 7 months ago
@ncdave4life
Maybe they got it from somebody's blog comments. That would meet your standard, right?
greenman3610 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, greenman3610, there were no blogs in 1900, either.
No satellites, no submarines, no blogs...
So, where do you think this supposed "actual information" came from, 110 years ago? Who monitored ice area in the Arctic Ocean in 1900 (or 1860)?
ncdave4life 7 months ago
14 months after this video was uploaded, the headlines were all about the dramatic INCREASE in Arctic sea ice. "Arctic ice recovers from the great melt" read the Sunday Times headline, 4/4/2010.:
webcitation(dot)org(slash)5zco3UeWW
But now, 14 months after THAT, arctic sea ice is back down to 2007 levels.
Arctic sea ice is as fickle as the wind... because it's the wind that drives it.
ncdave4life 7 months ago
There's no such thing as "perennial ice" in the Arctic ocean. There never has been.
Arctic sea ice is a poor indicator of warming, because it isn't anchored in place. It drifts. Arctic sea ice changes have more to do with its movement into warmer waters due to fickle winds than with global temperatures.
Contrast Antarctic sea ice. It's anchored in place by a continent, so it doesn't blow around... and it's NOT shrinking.
(Plus, it's at lower latitudes, so it matters more for albedo-feedback.)
ncdave4life 7 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
See daily arctic see ice maps and check it every day. No propaganda here just the truth.
david222444 7 months ago
Oh you dumb fuck..... Have you considered the tilt of the earths axis.. If im correct the NSIDC has declared that earth tilt is the main cause of north cap melt.. Fucking warmist retard.
Adirtybird 9 months ago
@Adirtybird
You are not correct. Earth's tilt is one of the major causes of glacial to interglacial changes, but the current forcing is more toward a slow (very slow) cooling effect, not warming. Calling names when one clearly has not done one's homework reflects poorly.
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 yeah i get that a lot, it only shows when someone calls names that the person who calls names is a person who does not know what they are talking about
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
@whedonfreak976
In this case, since you are clearly uninformed about the earth's orbital forcing, I think you should have a little humility towards those who have actually done the research. For more on orbital forcing, and the misuse of data, see
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
but thanks for validating my thesis about climate denial
The more uninformed, the greater the certainty and arrogance, and more likely to engage in name calling.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 uh dude i was sticking up for you, i believe you about global warming wow, do you treat all of your fans like this? wow man, i was agreeing with you, so back the hell off of me, or was this post intended for someone else? cause i think that climate change is real and we need to do our part to stop it, and the deniers are hurting our planet so please back the hell off of me o k?
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
@whedonfreak976
sorry, replied to the wrong post.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 no big man, i love your videos thanks for informing me on the real peril we are in, no big, you like me get bombarded by stupid, and mean insults by childish people who act like overgrown 5 year olds, so no big, it is cool keep up the great work, i cannot wait for your next video, tell the truth, even if the idiots piss and moan do not back down the truth needs to be told
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
@greenman3610 look i am a sub o k, i was referring to myself that i get called a lot of names by people i was a little harsh, i am a big believer in climate change, i mean why else is the earth getting warmer? so i apologize for getting a little miffed but i am not your enemy dude, i used your videos for one of my own, your info helped me defeat a lot of these climate deniers who kept calling me stupid, they did not after i did my video, and i had them watch a few of yours, so sorry
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
@whedonfreak976
again apologies
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 no problem, but thanks, that was nice, again i love the videos i just fried a guy who talked some stupid crap, about a quote about climate gate i used your video, to fry him lol he did not respond so thanks for all of the info
whedonfreak976 7 months ago
The music has almost destroyed my ability for independent thought.
356pla 11 months ago
Collecting data and making a nice graph isn't science
psysprouts 1 year ago
@psysprouts
no. Science comes from trolling right wing internet blogs and talk radio.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@psysprouts
you are correct, it isn't science, it's science journalism. and as an ex-scientist, i think greenman is doing a good job. if you think the data quoted is wrong, by all means show us your proof, we'd all love to see it.
mwhearn1 1 year ago
@mwhearn1
thanks mwhearn1. If it means anything, you are not alone. I hear daily from some of the better climate scientists on the planet. If I'm not getting something right, they tell me. I've pulled videos down that didn't meet the standard.
I'm not perfect, but I do believe I get most of it mostly right, and some of it completely right.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Denierism is the same as creationism, in order to maintain your position, you MUST be either ignorant or a liar. It is impossible to remain a denier (or a creationist) without lying and that is why there is so much overlap of these two groups. At some level they HAVE to know they are lying. Do you they just not care? Are they just simply unconcerned about the future or are they more like a sports team fan, where they have to cheer their side no matter what the evidence says?
christo930 1 year ago
Evidently you are unaware of a lot of things.
t8114jg 1 year ago
All this B.S. does not have anything to do with human activity. The fact is, global warming or global cooling is not controlled by people. Making us live in poverty will not make one bit of difference in the climate. It will only give uncontrolled power to the government.
t8114jg 1 year ago
@t8114jg
I'm not aware that making someone live in poverty has been proposed as a solution.
On the other hand, freeing people from the domination of fossil fuel companies, and corrupt oil dictatorships, has.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Isn't the corrupt oil companies the ones that sponsor the media machine and government that push the AGW agenda. Interesting isn' t it.
psysprouts 1 year ago
@psysprouts
for a history of the denial machine, google
american denial of global warming
greenman3610 1 year ago
But remember, Newton’s laws of gravitation were considered the most concrete theory of all time, yet it was rendered obsolete by Einstein’s theory of relativity.
cwhunbun 1 year ago
To be a theory a statement has to be something you can test through observation. You don’t “prove” a theory by looking for things that match up with the theory, you try to prove it wrong any way possible, and when it holds up, then and only then is it considered a good theory. Oh, and did I mention the results have to be repeatable by other scientists as well? Not just the scientists working to prove global warming so politicians have more reason to control and regulate our life.
cwhunbun 1 year ago
Utter garbage pay close attention to the outside temperature. How can we possible blame a trace atmospheric gas for climate change when the Sun is going towards a second Dalton minimum. Get things into proportion. Sorry i dont believe in fairy tales.
david222444 1 year ago
@david222444
sun is in lowest minimum in a century.
2009 second hottest year in instrumental record.
2010 hottest.
google
nasa 2010 warmest year on record
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 .... NASA PHFFFFT! You forget they falsified data!!
cwhunbun 1 year ago
@cwhunbun
You see, I always cite a source when I make a statement.
That way, people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 ROFLOL!!! I see, "ALWAYS"!
Uh oh. You stepped in it big time there buddy!
So now BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you're a clueless blowhard until you,"as always", cite the source for your DIRECT QUOTE over at your 'In the 70s' crock where I caught you.
Now don't accuse me of name calling, because I'm just quoting YOU as my source.
Hasta la vista "I'macluelessblowhard"3610
I'll stand corrected when you cite the SOURCE.
Hahahaha
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Let me help jog your memory.
About 3 weeks ago on this video you commented:
"@cwhunbun
You see, I always cite a source when I make a statement.
That way, people won't think I'm a clueless blowhard."
Look down several comments and see it.
Since you haven't been able to cite the source(as you ALWAYS do) of your direct quote("In the 70's all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming") over at the 'In the 70s' crock, by your own admission, you're a clueless blowhard.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
I did cite the source:
watch?v=2uYSby1G1gU
at 1:40 per denier Tim Ball; " in the 1970s the consensus was we were heading to another ice age".
that's just one.
any claim that this is not a major denialist meme is simply evidence of ignorance and dishonesty.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Sorry, you already tried that one, but it is NOT the source of your direct quote. Don't you understand that "consensus" is NOT "all"?
I'm not claiming that skeptics of CAGW don't bring up the global cooling scare of the 70s. They do, because it is TRUE! It's NOT a myth.
Dishonesty is showing a DIRECT QUOTE & attributing it to someone, when in fact you MADE IT UP!
FABRICATING a LIE is dishonesty.
And that is what you have done, unless you cite the source of your DIRECT QUOTE!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 The citation you're looking for is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
You can find this free online by googling
ametsoc peterson connolley and fleck
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
Well, let's let greenman answer, since he is the one who said "because in the 70's, denierS will tell you, "all . . ."
Greenman, is the iceman correct? Is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" the source of your DIRECT QUOTE "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." that you attribute to denierS?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 Well. clearly you didn't read the cited link: typical.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman
Hi iceman. Yes, I read the Peterson paper. It certainly appears that the quote on page 1326 may have been the source of greenman's quote, but I like to confirm things from the original source. That's why I have asked greenman himself if the Peterson paper is indeed the source of his denier quote in his "In the 70s" crock.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@541iceman
Hi iceman. As I said before, I tend to agree w/you that the Peterson et al (2008) article was the source of gm's quote. Considering it is a word-for-word quote and that he closed the video quoting from that report, it seems very likely.
So what's up that greenman will not acknowledge that it is his source?
I'm puzzled since he said that he "ALWAYS" cites a source for his statements & you seem to have found it.
If he cites this, I'll stop referring to him as "I'macluelessblowhard"3610
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@541iceman
Well, gm continues to stonewall & refuse to admit that you found his source. I outed him over at "In the 70s" crock. He was ashamed to admit that the quote that he attributes to a "denier" was actually from a pro-AGW alarmist! Not only that, but it was from a FICTIONAL character from a Michael Crichton NOVEL, State of Fear pp.315-316. Wasn't even a real person! See the ref there.
Typical propaganda. Made up stuff. Not by gm, but by the novelist he quotes as a real person. Lame. LOL!
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Greenman, is the iceman correct? Is Peterson et al. (2008) "The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" the source of your DIRECT QUOTE "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming." that you attribute to denierS ?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Hey gm, when are you going to quit being an "I'm a clueless blowhard"(to use your own words) and verify that 541iceman located the source(Peterson et al. 2008) of your quote in the "In the 70s" crock?
What's up?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
What if your source is a clueless blowhand?
cwhunbun 10 months ago
"Do not go to secondary sources of information" How very scientific of the author.
That should sum up where to stick this video.
Considering the author considers disagreement with his sources child abuse it is very revealing of the mindset of these people.
"I am authority only listen to me and if you don't we are going to take your children".
No wonder people like this are running PSA's where school teachers murder children for not cutting carbon emissions.
watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM
JimboTHC 1 year ago
OK! honestly... I'm not going to try and put on a fake air of I'm so superior in intelligence and write something that reads like I'm sooooo informed therefore my opinion is fact, like alot of these pukes. So I'll be objective to the majority of objectivenesses and say, I once asked one of our more knowledgable meterologiest at where I worked, "Whats the best information to compile to forcast weather for an area?" He said "talk to the people who live there" meaning the evidence first hand
justsk8in 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
For sources, google UAH satellite data or RSS satellite data and look at the 15 year (not the 30-year) trendline. Or google Dr. Phil Jones sworn testimony during the Climategate hearings, where he was forced to confess that global temperatures have failed to see any statistically significant rise in the last 15 years (and a slight decrease in temperatures over the last 10).
ttowntom 1 year ago
What's even more amusing is the unscientific belief that polar albedo is anything but a tiny driver of world temperatures. Due to the angle of incidence, solar insolation is *always* extremely weak at the poles ... that is, after all, the entire reason its so cold up there.
Land use changes near the equator (increased blacktop roads and rooftops, less trees) has more than a 25X greater effect on temperature than polar albedo deltas.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
you are apparently constitutionally unable to cite a source.
saying something is so, and having it be so, are two different things.
that's the difference between science and magic.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Why the focus on Sept? In the Arctic, the sun (and thus albedo effects) are strongest in early July. If if you google Cryosphere Today, you will see that Antarctic ice is average more than one million sq. kilometers *more* than it was in mid-1980 ... and averaging that not just in September, but in EVERY month of the year.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Greenman, your continual attempts to bring politics into a scientific discussion are quite revealing. A scientific theory is judged by one factor only -- its predictive ability. The last 15 years of satellite temperature data shows how incredibly poorly GW theory has done in that regard. The long list of IPCC reports -- each one further downgrading the warming predicted by earlier ones - also proves how poorly it's done.
As I said before, you can only cry wolf so long before people wise up
ttowntom 1 year ago
And yes, zzebowa is correct. Antarctic ice is on a long term increasing trend. Northern ice is declining...just as it has been since the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
the National Snow and Ice Data Center has an excellent FAQ on sea ice, google:
nsidc sea ice faq
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Per NSIDC:
"even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature."
In science, unlike on the Glenn Beck show, nuance matters.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman, that statement is laughable, even my 11 year old saw the flaw in it. Yes, during the Antarctic winter the sun is at its weakest ... but that's equally true of the Arctic winter. In fact, since southern sea ice has a larger total area, its effect on global albedo is actually larger than the Arctic's.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Arctic ice is declining (11+ percent per decade) during arctic summer, when the increase in open water creates a positive feedback effect that accelerates global warming.
Antarctic increase, if there is one, (0.7 percent per decade) is occurring during that same September period, which is the winter in Antarctica. Therefore, with no sun, there is no albedo (feedback) effect.
You would do well to actually read the FAQs, as they are very informative:
NSIDC sea ice FAQ
greenman3610 1 year ago
@ttowntom
btw
science denial is child abuse.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman, why do you intentionally spread disinformation? Arctic sea ice hit a max of 15m km^2 in 1979. In 2010, it hit 13.9m. That's a drop of 7.5% in 30 years, not "11% per decade". Further, Arctic ice has actually *increased( from the lows seen in 2005-06.
Even worse is your claim that southern sea ice increase is seen during only one month. Abject silliness. The UIUC's Arctic Research Center maintains a graph of ice coverage which clearly shows the increase is annual.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
I clearly stated that the -11 percent is the change in september summer minimum.
I specifically compared september to september numbers.
The most recent graphs are available from NOAA, for august, 2010, (close enough),
by googling
State of the Climate Global Snow & Ice August 2010
You can see the change in september sea ice for both northern (8.9%) and
southern (0.6%) ice.
Your continued inability or unwillingness to understand these distinctions is revealing, but not surprising.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Nothing more than slick videos made by well financed toadys who are to sell us global warming hoax for cap and trade taxes paid to their masters.
ericstrattendgtmy 1 year ago
Antarctic sea ice is increasing and has been for 70 years.
zzebowa 1 year ago
@zzebowa
you'd have to cite a source for that, but of course, the most important issue is what is happening to Antarctic land ice, which is in negative balance.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Your claims are based on nothing more than it's getting warmer, it have got warmer since 1850, and it have been warmer many times before. Sea level have been 20 feet higher than to day. This global warming propaganda is made by people with an agenda.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn
Actually, sea level has been 200 feet higher than today.
That's what happens when you have more CO2 in the atmosphere - and we are pushing the levels up perhaps faster than ever in earth's history.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
200 feet higher, hmmmm. According to climate history, the ice core. The CO2 does not drive temperature, the temperature goes up, the CO2 follows, are that korrect. If it was CO2 there drove the temperature, then what prevent a run away temperature. The ice core clearly shows the CO2 driven temperature to be a hoax.
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
@johnsenkenn
again, you've not watched all the videos. Best to do so before repeating canards such as "The Temp Leads Carbon Crock"
watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
ignorance hurts.
I'm here to help.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
No thank you, I don't need your help, stay away from me. Don't come here with your sweet talk about you are only here - doing this to help "me"
johnsenkenn 1 year ago
keep up the good work! I admire your patience at answering to the "deniers". I still find it really hard to not get fustrated... but more and more I understand all the fake arguments used or the cherry picking of the data and know how to properly answer them. At least, we're more and more on the bright side and we won't have to convert them all to make a difference.
MaevaGauthier 1 year ago
Yo Greenman...you eveer been there? I have...11 times from 1990 till present. More ice today than there was in 1990 in my opinion. Seek out the real data? I suggest you travel there before you spout off at the hip and spray bullshit everywhere
thomasmoonman 1 year ago
@thomasmoonman
sorry, you'll need to actually document something.
Obviously, you hope that by saying it on the internet, you make it true.
We require more here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Look up the story about the plane recovery, "Glacier Girl". Its about a plane that crash landed in Greenland 60 years ago... it was found 10 years ago, burried under 268 feet of new snow & ice - thats hard proof from the ground, where people literally had to dig out a plane because the snow & ice was so thick........
.
I believe people, & video footage from a hole in the snow rather than a satellite hundreds of miles in the air..
.
BTW you know its a scam when activists call you a denier LOL
OZcheckm8 1 year ago
@OZcheckm8
it snows in Greenland.
That's not going to change anytime soon
What's changing is the mass balance of ice around the edges.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
In 46 years the ground / snow level increased in height by 268 feet. Yeah it snows, but it hasn't melted in at least 46 years, thats the point.
Also, temp stations in Greenland were burried under snow & ice & abandoned, the temp station in Antarctica is built on top of the old station after that was burried under snow.
Fact is the ocean is still warming since the MWP, it takes a long time for the ocean to warm. That + the extra inland snow means more coastal melting in parts
OZcheckm8 1 year ago
@OZcheckm8
Greenland is a dome.
HIgh elevations are colder. It snows. the snow stays. For years. Centuries, and it will for centuries more.
The edges are being melted by warming seas, and the overall mass balance is negative.
Nuance does not count on Glenn beck, but it does here, sorry.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
If your so full of answers tell me this -
How long does the ocean take to warm? Would it have warmed more because of the MWP? If its warming what would you expect to happen to the edges of the ice?
OZcheckm8 1 year ago
@OZcheckm8
a) a long time
b) probably not
c)pretty much what's happening now. record low arctic ice mass,
negative mass balance on both northern and southern ice sheets.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@blackjamm
There is no point in discussing somethingon youtube with people who don't know shit about it ( neither do i, only what i find online) and going on an egotrip proving your points to be wrong.
You know I am correct and we'll both part ways agreeing to disagree and agreeing that this is SCIENCE and not something that needs to be on youtube manipulating people. Greenman is not a scientist and should just leave this up to people who do know what they're talking about
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon He should leave it up to people who know what they're talking about? Have you watched his videos? That's precisely what he does. Most of the videos consist of direct analysis of peer reviewed articles. It's not manipulative.
It's also something that cannot simply be left to a small number of experts. The reason is quite simple: the earth will relatively soon become uninhabitable for human life because of our own actions. That's a fairly urgent problem.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Yes I have. He uses the parts of studies that agree with him andignores studies claiming otherwise. The fact that he does this convinces people that his videos are the only truth and that's wrong. If he wanted too be informative, he would discuss studies proving the warming is natural as well, but he never does, thus he is manipulative.
Will earth become too warm for humans? maybe
Are the humans themself responsible for it? No, until proven otherwise
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon It has been proven. Spectroscopy has shown quite clearly that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human pollution and not from living sources. The excess CO2 also correlates strongly with the rises in temperatures, and that in turn correlates strongly with the rise of industry and large-scale combustion of fossil fuels. Sometimes the earth's atmosphere warms naturally; this is not one of those times. It is man-made. Fairly simple stuff.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Again I'm not going into a discussion about this.
You are wrong, and I'm gonna leave it at that.
This is not something me, greenman or a retard like you who swithes the subject when he loses a discussion should discuss.
Leave it up to science and wait till they all agree and not just "the majority".
And till they can actually come up with clear undisputable evidence that humans are the cause (wich they haven't yet done)
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon You are an absolute moron. When I said "the majority", I specifically said, "the majority of climatologists and meteorologists". That is to say, the scientists themselves are saying this. You claim to defer to their opinions; they are saying something and they are unified. There is no real division in climatology on this. There are a couple - one or two - quacks out there. But the climatologists are saying that global warming is real.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Wrong
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I'm afraid I can't let you leave it at that. I've asked you for a citation, or an article, or anything to back up your assertions. You claim there are articles out there showing that global warming isn't real, and yet, I can't seem to find them in reputable scientific article repositories. Instead, I find hundreds - thousands - of articles supporting the scientific consensus on global warming.
What do you know about spectroscopy? Nothing, it seems. Nor do you wish to know.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
I'm not gonna do your fetching or discuss this with you. I don't know everything and neither do you, so neither of us is capable of having this discussion.
It's not that hard to understand
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I'm capable of having this discussion. I know quite a lot about global warming. I'm not a climatologist, but I'm also not a biologist and I feel very comfortable with explaining and discussing evolution. Climate change is actually quite easy to understand, and if you've ever heard of spectroscopy, you'll know why your assertion that mankind's involvement in climate change is not proven is quite ridiculous. Carbon dioxide from fuel has a specific signature.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
This is so stupid. You know shit, you know everything you know from the internet and you consider yourself an expert. My guess is you're between 16 and 22 and you were brought up in a very leftwing home. You wwere in a youth group (boyscouts or whatever) and you somehow feel you should help make the sorld a better plae, cause it's your responibility.
Climate change is easy to understand, AGW is completely different subject, bozo
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I'm somewhat older than 22, actually. And I feel depressingly old these days. My home was British, and so very left wing by American standards, but I was never in a youth group, certainly not the boy scouts. No, my motivation in all this is simply that I want to be able to breathe in 40 year's time as I come to the end of my life. I don't want to leave the universe knowing that everyone is fucked.
AGW IS modern climate change.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Everyone is fucked anyway *spoilers for life*: we all die
I'm belgian so I knwo exactly what type of leftwing you mean.
AGW isn't proven yet. Give me one article that can prove without a doubt that it's human carbon dioxide that's causing the warming. THERE IS NONE!
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon People may die, but when they die, other people live on, society continues, life continues. It's not necessary for my happiness to know that society will live on, but I'm afraid I value my children too highly to let them die arbitrarily due to 20th and 21st century greed and stupidity.
If you want a single article summing up the scientific consensus written by a professional academic then you could do worse than Oreskes (2004) in Science; it has links to other articles as well.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
You seem to think that people have been around forever and will be around forever: another spoiler: they won't.
We are just another step in evolution, always one step away from our end.
Wheter it comes tommorow or in 500000 years it's inevitable.
We are also constantly working towards a greener and less co2 heavy world, which should ease your mind.
Articel from 2004, see what I mean by we are not capable of having this discussion? WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA NEEDED
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon There are not "steps" in evolution. Also, I'm an atheist too, and basically a nihilist, but I also have human emotions. I don't want my children to die because of my stupidity. I don't want everyone to die because of our collective stupidity. If you don't mind everyone dying, then shut the fuck up. You really are not needed. Yes, people die, and they are not objectively, universally valuable. But they are valued by other humans. Other humans who aren't sociopaths, anyway.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Then rest assured: You have done nothing wrong.
See how this AGW crap scares people? And as you probably know people who are afraid are more open to suggestion. If they give you options on how to redeem yourself, you'll be way more viable to accept them as truths.
Emotions have nothing to do with science and emotions in general are what causes humanities stupidity
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I've done something wrong, and so have we all, if climatologists are telling us that burning fossil fuels will endanger the lives of all humans and prevent them from being able to inhabit planet earth and then we continue to burn fossil fuels. I'm not afraid so much as annoyed that my efforts to prevent the unnecessary premature deaths of my children due to our fossil fuel burning will be nulled by other people not caring at all. I'm pretty annoyed at that.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
And if phsycologists tell you to beat your children cause it's good for them, you'd do it too?
You are scared and acting on that emotion.
My children will die unless I do what they tell me, is not a good scientific argument
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I'm not sure what a phsycologist is, but if there were genuine scientific reasons behind beating my children - which there aren't - and if there were peer reviewed articles detailing the mechanisms and reasons why - which there aren't - then yes, I would consider beating my children, but that's such a stupid and idiotic idea that it makes me wonder if you're not simply a mindless troll trying to coax a response.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon You claim to want to trust science, and you claim to be waiting for evidence, and you claim to be emotionless about this, but you're ignoring the real facts as demonstrated by climatologists, the real scientists who study this phenomenon. You are therefore a hypocrite, at best.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
No, I'm looking further then some internet sites and I'm actually capable of making up my mind by reading through and understanding what the research is based on.
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon The websites I've mentioned - JSTOR and PLoS One - are not website for climatology or summaries of journal articles. They are the articles themselves. They are the research. They are what climatologists and other scientists are basing their conclusions on and their argments on. They are not following some erroneous logical fallacies and stupid falsified argumentation to prop up an unsupportable claim.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
So they are your Bible?
Look at different sites, sites that actually allow for discussion and articles and research that contradicts their points
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon And climate scientists say that they have enough data. They are able to produce charts, models, graphs, and all manner of other explanatory devices to show how much evidence they have, to show how factual and real this is. They seem to think that they have enough, and you claim to wish to defer to science. So accept their conclusion or reject science; that is the choice you have. The article from 2004 was simply to show that even then, climatologists had a strong consensus.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Again, look further, many scientists disagree.
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon No. Many scientists do not disagree, at all, and those who do are not climatologists. Again, look in reputable journals and you will find that the scientific consensus is strongly showing anthropogenic global warming to be both real and genuinely threatening.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Did you even read the links?
There are more then 700 scientists who disagree completely, even a former head of NASA is a skeptic, how can you still claim there is a consensus? How can you claim no one disagrees?
It's simple: like with religion, you're mind doesn't want to see it and thus blocks it out.
AGW is appealing to humans because it gives them a purpose, a goal like religion
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon The scientific consensus doesn't mean "no one disagrees". It means that the people in the field of the research, and who know what they are talking about, agree on a certain phenomenon. Climatologists agree - in every major and minor research institution on earth - that AGW is real. That's the real scientists saying the real thing about science.
You know, one of the ways creationists talk about evolution is to say that there's no consensus because 700 scientists disagree.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
There are no 700 scientists who disagree with evolution, that's something you made up. I've had discussions with religious people enough to knwo it's only michela behe who thinks creationsim is real.
Again, even IPCC members disagree. Do you know what IPCC stands for? International Panel for Climate Change. Notice the climate change and the international and the panel. Why wouldn't you believe them?
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon The IPCC is actually unified in its views, and it has a strong consensus with perhaps the odd dissenting voice. You always get dissent in science, but in this case, it's heavily politicised and, by the way, climatologists can make a lot of money by pandering to the fossil fuel industry and populism with denialist books. But the consensus is strong and real.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
And the green power industry won't make any money from it right?
Electric companies are already charging higher rates for green power and in 2 years prices of electricity will go up by atleast 20% because people are building solarpanels. Seems like there are other sides profiting just as much from the "no more co2" movement. Again, it's not because you have a majority that you are correct
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon There is no "green power industry". At best there is a cottage industry of people who care producing and developing technologies, but the "green power industry" has no corporate giants trying to influence and pay off scientists and their data.
You're right, a majority is not important. But a majority opinion in a scientific field is called the consensus. If you don't want to trust the consensus on a subject, then you must learn to evaluate it yourself and become an expert.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Yeah, see that's where you are wrong. The solar panels get produced right? So do the windmills and guess who builds them: companies. Now as you might remember companies make money and companies often hand out boardmember seats (get paid to do nothing) to people. Guess what company head of the american climate research unit is a member of?
But if it's based on faulty science then it means shit
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon You know what makes WAAAAY more money than green technologies, that has enough power both politically and monetarily to influence research, and which has proven links to AGW denialists and what has been proven to have paid for faulty and erroneous research in order to discredit what it sees as a threat to its profits?
The fossil fuel industry.
Most climatologists are not funded by either BP or a solar panel manufacturer. And they agree that AGW is real.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
But what if they have stocks in green power companies, won't they rise a lot if fossil fuels get outlawed?
See how I was right not to start this discussion, it just ends up slinging facts at one another and leads to nothing
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Slinging facts? You're not slinging facts! You're slinging mud. It's an assertion that climatologists might have stocks in green tech and nothing more, and if such a connection existed, there are more than enough evil fuckheads like you who would opay highly for evidence of such, and enough people looking to make it likely. Besides, that's why we have peer review in the first place - to identify things like conflicts of interest. AGW IS THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
You fail so much it hurts to see.
All of these "facts" of yours come from government groups and are designed to cause fear. Never once do you hear anything about the scientists or the studies who disagree with AGW, even though there are plenty (google is your friend).
It's sad really, how stupid sheeple can be
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon I've heard a lot from so-called "scientists" about their AGW denialism. I've heard too much, really. I'm aware of their "arguments", and I'm also aware that there really are people out there who study climate science for a living, who do lots of detailed research, and who have a consensus that AGW is real. It is you ignoring the real scientists involved in the ACTUAL pertinent field.
Oh, here we go. Knew it would happen; "sheeple". The conspiracy nut's last resort. Or first
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm But it doesn't make sense, think about it; Climate has always changed, why would it all of a sudden be humans causing it,
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Argh, now I know I've been trolled. Oh well. Got me flexing my AGW internet muscles...
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Trolling is a art
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Yes it is. Congratulations!
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon You don't seem to understand the difference between a majority in a lay population and a majority in a scientific community. When scientists in a particular field agree, that's a big deal. It means that there is some data that they broadly agree on the interpretation of. It means that there is something true that they have discovered. If you don't want to trust that, then feel free to trust any kook you meet in the street, but consensus is important.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
Not when money is involved and the research is very questionable
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon The only questionable research in the field of climate science is coming from denialists who repeat zombie arguments, don't engage with the arguments against them, and who are funded by fossil fuel conglomerates. It's not rocket science to compare the capacity for Chevron or ExxonMobil to influence scientific investigation with that of a windmill manufacturer.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon
So we shouldn't believe that HIV causes AIDS.
Too much money is being paid to those damn researchers.
we should believe Joe blogger with a high school degree-
we know he's not on the take.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon No, there aren't 700 real scientists who repudiate evolution. But the creationists cobbled together a list anyway, just like AGW denialists cobbled together a list of 700 scientists who repudiate AGW. Do you not see the flaw there? Evolution is not debated, and a list of "scientists" who repudiate it does not show a lack of consensus; you're with me on that. But when I say that AGW is not really debated and that a list of "scientists" does not show a lack of consensus, you...
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon ...well, you won't accept it! The argument you're making is ridiculius. Climatologists themselves say that there is a strong consensus showing AGW to be real. You refuse to listen to them and instead say that there isn't a consensus without having enough expertise in the field to be able to say so.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm The Anti-AGW list is compiled by the us government, just to say that it's quite something else.
A Consensus that isn't based on undisputable science is no consensus, it's a load of bullshit
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Then evolution is not a consensus, because some scientists in fields unrelated to evolutionary biology dispute it. Relativity is not a consensus, because some scientists in fields unrelated to physics dispute it. Science is NEVER "undisputable" - what a ridiculous and naive view of science you have, for a supposedly ultra-intelligent being.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm Evolution is based on good science, AGW is not
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon AGW is certainly based on good science, and you know who decides that? The scientists themselves. The climatologists. That's why we have peer review. How the fuck do you decide what is and what is not good science? It seems to be based solely on your personal predilection. AGW is as firmly supported by peer review and good science as evolution, but you accept on and not the other because you are demagoguic arrogant moron.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
implying peer reviewed science is automattically good science
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Peer reviewed science is not AUTOMATICALLY good science, but it is one of the ways in which science is checked. In fact, it's one of main ways, and most of the time, everyone considers it fine. It's only when the consensus disagrees with their idiotic personal predilection that they throw out the scientific method and basic, simple, checking procedures like peer review, in favour of "science" with an agenda, a conflict of interest, no real checking procedures, and so on.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon And the creationists can produce a list of all the scientists - in fields unrelated to biology - who deny evolution. They can come up with about 1,000. That's not an argument against evolution, or the scientific consensus that evolution is real and is a fact. And in fact, to show how ridiculous the idea was, the evolutionary biologist community decided to find 1000 scientists called Steve who accepted evolution. They managed it.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon If you were willing to actually educate yourself instead of wallowing in conspiracy garbage then we'd both be perfectly capable of having this conversation. If you could cite or give me the title to any reputable study showing AGW to be a falsehood then we'd be able to get somewhere. You claim that such articles exist. It would surely be no problem to find a specific one for me to search for, would it?
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
See the converting happening again?
I'm not going to discuss this.
My article will make you bring up an article and so on ans so on. This is pointless
TheAnarchanon 1 year ago
@TheAnarchanon Your article will allow me to read about what you consider to be the truth. I'm not trying to "convert" you; this is not a faith issue. This is: either you are listening to the climatologists with their facts, articles, experimentation and peer review, or you're deciding not to listen to reason. It's not trying to convince you of something unknown and emotional, but something factual and true. The climatologists are quite clear on it, and you claim to wish to defer to science.
blackjamm 1 year ago
@blackjamm
You are.
This is a matter of believing something or not. And you are trying to make me and others change their mind.