If you're afraid of the /policies/ proposed to stop global warming, then, logically, rather than DENYING the PEER-REVIEWED, ESTABLISHED SCIENCE you should, gee I dunno, maybe oppose the policies, perhaps? Just because someone has proposed something you don't like (or even that you believe will kill millions), doesn't suddenly change reality.
Yes, Lord Monkton and the institutions that he's affiliated with. In any case, you completely ignored my statement about depopulation. The policy that you're supporting to stop supposed man-made global warming will literally kill people by shutting down the means to grow, process, transport and even cook food. Why are you ignoring that?
Lord Monckton (note the spelling) is not a scientific academy. He's not even a scientist (he's schooled in Classical Languages or some such). What science academies is he "associated with" that deny global warming or its anthropogenic nature? Do you have any background in science? What "policy" am I supporting? When have I EVER mentioned a policy? Do you mean the "policy" of logically considering peer reviewed science more credible than crackpot lies. And this is killing ppl how?
@scuromano Lord Mockton is not a scientist and his claims have been completed debunked by the actaul scientific community. If we wanted to ast on the facts than we must definetly should do something based on a scientific consenus that is by worst acount %70 certain, and by best account %98 certain. This whole debate is rediculous it's like debating whether the law of gravity is real
Put the words those emails climate into the YT search box and watch the first two videos. You are being LIED TO by paid political operatives. If you deny this, read the current book Climate Cover Up, where the denialist movement's funding is painstakingly documented. Saying that a few lines from emails overturns mountains of peer reviewed science is not simply illogical, it's stupid.
The issue here is about depopulation, not man made global warming. We can go back and forth on "facts," but Lord Monckton has shown how the "warm-ists" are liars. They don't use peer review processes and they fudge the data. The recently released emails (from East Anglia) prove that they are liars who want to create a supranational government that will depopulate the planet by shutting down production globally, as the Copenhagen treaty states. Do you still want to follow liars?
Has a SINGLE reputable scientist looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence of lies. Just a single one? No. Has any reputable scientist (and by "reputable" I mean someone who is a working scientist in a relevant field and published in that field published in the peer reviewed lit) looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence that GW is not real?
Which peer reviewed journal is the good Viscount's evidence of the "warmist" mendacity published, please?
You are profoundly wrong when you declare that climate scientists do not use the peer reviewed process. On the contrary, it is denialists who don't use the pr process. Their "papers" are published in newspapers, magazines, and online. In the one or two instances where climate denialists have made it into a peer reviewed journal, their science has been shown to be simply mistaken (Friis Christesen) or worse, completely incompetent (Willie Soon).
And you never answered why you do not publish your theory in a peer reviewed journal. If it holds water, it will be published. Or do you seriously think that all peer reviewed journals in the world are in on the commie plot to say the world is warming?
Sure. Here's a recent article in Scientific American that answers your denialist bullshit about water vapor. Google "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense" from Scientific American. See item 1.
Of course I'm sure you'll categorize this among what you so eloquently label as "not correct facts being put out there in the media".
Your constant language and tone suggest a typical emotional response to the issue. I suggest less emotion and more intellect as emotion tends to cloud the truth. In any case, I've read the scientific American and the rebuttals as well. Your previous post about the cover up of global cooling is much more significant. That's exactly my point. The earth is getting cooler. That's looks bad for a global warming conference. We're due for another Ice Age in the next 1000 years or so.
scuromano, calling what you spew bullshit is the correct word. What other word should I use for some guy's off the cuff observations in a YT video that he thinks answer MOUNTAINS of peer reviewed data that show the earth is warming. You didn't answer me...what about the corroborating data from NOAA and NASA, etc. What about the fact that EVERY scientific academy in the world acknowledges AGW? What about the fact that the consensus in the pr lit is that the world is warming?
Here's another afterthought. don't know how old you are but I can remember in the early to mid 70s the scientific facts were, and the popular opinion was the there was going to be global cooling, which would result in mass deaths, social upheavals, etc. There were a couple brutal winters then to add plausibility to it. So, what happened? How in 30 years did the scientific "facts" change 180 degrees? Just something to think about.
No, that is another denialist LIE. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling. There were something like 7 papers predicting cooling and over 40 predicting warming. The predictions were sensationalized MEDIA predictions, Time and Newsweek.
Look, simply search "climate change anatomy of a myth" on YT and watch the brief video (it has a still of Travolta from Saturday Night Fever) and report back. Do that. I'll wait.
You are being brainwashed and lied to by paid shills. WAKE UP!
Nice sarcasm! Why don't you comment on the emails that came out of the University of East Anglia showing that the people and institutions at the top of the man made global warming push are lying to you? You won't find it in the peer-reviewed journals (no sarcasm intended). Why do you continue to believe people who, now, provably lie to you? Can you point me to the science that shows carbon being a bigger greenhouse gas than water vapor?
Thanks, I thought it was fine sarcasm. Okay, what about the emails? It's a NON issue. Even if the emails mean what deniers claim they do, this is a small part of the data. What about the NOAA data? What about the NASA data? What about the Japanese data? Were they in on the conspiracy, too?
And the supposed "cover up" in the emails have nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. They are supposed to be evidence of a cover up of cooling. Get your story straight.
Sounds like you're stuck on the argument of which row is right. It's the columns that matter, because, no matter what you say, there's a decent chance you're wrong, and if you can't admit that, then your opinion on this matter isn't really scientific in the first place.
Sounds like you're stuck on rows and columns of a theorem lattice belief structure built upon a false premise that man's carbon emissions are affecting the global climate, causing it to warm up. When in fact, the earth's climate is always changing, always has, probably always will. That's a scientific fact. Man's effect on it is minuscule compared to "mother nature." Kendoka5 has a good point about vapor being a bigger greenhouse gas than carbon.
Way to miss the whole point, there. If you cannot admit that there is a chance that you are wrong, then you're an idiot. I won't lie: There's convincing evidence on both sides of the field... and I'll let you slide by saying that you're 99.9% sure that you're right... but you're a moron if you refuse to admit that there is even a 0.1% chance that you're wrong on the issue. Any scientist will tell you that science is never absolute. We can only measure our observations so far.
You've reduced the discussion now to name calling. Not very scientific! Rather emotional. Well, that's what's been happening to the non-politically correct scientists, and others, who expose the fraud of man-made climate change. Read my update below. The exposed emails from the very top of the climate change fraudsters prove the whole thing is a hoax. So, what's your emotional attachment to a flawed climatic argument? Why are you afraid to acknowledge the lies about this?
Just wanted to update this discussion. See the "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes" It proves how the whole man made global warming argument is a big lie. All the dissenters are silenced, or ignored, in the mainstream media. You have to ask yourself: why are the most powerful and richest people in the world so concerned about the planet all of a sudden?
What are your credentials? Where do you get your facts? No citations, no references, why should I be convinced by what your are saying? Moreover, you right the earth's atmosphere is constantly changing, but the question is are we messing with that change for the worst and are we willing to take the risk.
My facts come from the part of the scientific community that doesn't get government funding, or big corporate grants. Do you really believe Al Gore, with his ties to Island Creek Coal Company, and family business partner of Armand Hammer's (the Red Billionaire) Occidental Petroleum? They are among the biggest man made emitters of CO2 on the planet, aside from the volcanoes and other natural processes. I'm not changing my lifestyle for polluting billionaires. Are you?
Don't politicize the issue. Never did I ask anyone to change their lifestyle. I simply asked where you got your facts. I was looking for authors of primary research papers so I can look at the data you have access to. I would like conclude for myself what is actually going on. I also confused as to how these scientist were funded if it was not via the government or corporations as they fund 90% of scientific research, but that doesn't mean their research is falsified.
so, are you saying that we should not even Try to stop our destructive habits? such as clear-cutting rain forests and not recycling, and polluting the air? yes technology needs to be developed to deal with the changes, but humans need to stop feeding on this rock like the parasites we appear to be. natural renewable energy is a must, and alternates to wood as well, because when you cut down a tree it releases all the Co2 it had trapped in it
Yes, really. Just 3%. They want us to change our entire life and living standard for just 3%. So, it shows that there's another agenda behind it. The earth is constantly changing, always will.
What I find interesting is that nobody is discussing about what artificial CO2 emmisions are doing to our bodies. While I have become somewhat sceptical whether man-made CO2 emissions is causing global warming (I was an early believer), I would still like to know what are these emmisions are doing to our lungs and vital organs? I don't hear much about that in the corporate media.
I don't know about you guys, but I definitely get all my scientific insights from scuromano on the Youtube and all sorts of other Internet Experts. The Internet is where REAL information is. scuromano for Head Scientist of The World! also lol jews did 911
wow you're a douche, aren't you krispatta. dont let facts get in the way of your delusions about "destroying the planet" (big LOL). the real kooks are those predicting global warming doomsday.
all people who thinks that global warming is a fraud are fucking IDIOTS. when will you stop thinking that this is a fraud??????????? oh come on! what can possibly be the reason for somebody to create something as horrible as global warming other than it BEING TRUE?????? you people, I hope you're happy. For killing yourselves, and us.
Don't forget that global cooling happens too. I agree with you that the world climate changes. The reality is that scientist do not know the outcome of climate change. For all we know the world could be far better in the next 50-500 years.
Sure species will die, sure coasts will flood but more species will evolve and the climate could change to better support farming and human life.
Tax is simply socialist control. From history we know socialism finds it hard to adapt. We have to adapt!
Ah comon. All scientists agree, global warming is man-made, thousands of species are threatened by man's pollution, soon there is no more trees if we don't stop cutting wood, there are 10x more cyclones, storms than there were just 50 years ago. All the dead in Burma, Louisiana might be caused by global warming.
all scientists? nope. many prominent scientists disagree with the so-called findings. 10x more cyclones? I don't think so. please pull your head out of your ass.
good vid man. Lol @ vegetarians riding bikes to save the environment... rotting vegetation causes 70% + of the worlds CO2 emmisions, and as this guy intimated.. humans cause < 5%. Best way is to be "dead plant patrol" where one goes around sequestering every dead plant they see underground.
Good on ya mate! You've done some research and have thought for yourself. Global warming = solar cycles. How people can believe that we humans are so all powerful that we can affect the earth so drastically is beyond me. These same people don't question that there were ice ages and global tropical climates in the past. Go figure!??
Yes, the SUN (that massive star in the center of our solar system) is the cause for changes in global temperature. Carbon Dioxide isnt even a major "greenhouse" gas. Water Vapor is. However, you can't tax or ban clouds so radical socialists decide to punish businesses over carbon emissions (what a joke)and drive the world economy further into the ground over this hoax.
Ok, I have to also as for one peer reviewed paper where the author predicts with any certainty that global temperatures would drop dramatically in the last year?
tinyurl com/2z8dux
I can say that this is anectdotal evidence at best, and certainly not a trend. But, having watched this debate, the consensus among AGW folk was that the Earth would rapidally get hotter. The 'deniers' mostly predicted cooling would take place in unison. The question is, who to believe on matters here on out?
I only have a short while here, but the theory says that the trend will be positive. This is not the same as saying every year will be hotter than the last.
To borrow a baseball analogy (since I'm told Americans love baseball): Imagine two teams, the Hot Sox and the Cold Sox. The Hot Sox have been gradually improving their players relative to the Cold Sox. Does this mean that the Cold Sox can never win against the Hot Sox? Or that if they do, the Hot Sox won't still have better odds of winning?
Continuing that analogy, looking at a single year on climate records is like looking at a single game in baseball and claiming it's representative of the quality of the teams overall. Any fan (let alone the professionals!) can tell you this is foolish.
Looking at a single *month* is much the same -- only here, it's comparing two teams based on a single *inning*. It's not representative.
Consider what Watts says carefully. He's made critical (and amateur) mistakes before: tinyurl com/ysrk92
I'll ask again, if you believe the conclusions the risk management video posits, if everyone were vegan we would see nearly an 18% cut in greenhouse emissions (per the peer reviewed IPCC which you claim as your ultimate source). Why are you (and Greg) not calling for this? Wouldn't bother me, I'm a vegetarian (I could go vegan if I wanted). Do you drive a car? Do you eat meat?
It seems to me if you guys really believed this stuff you wouldn't since both are just conveniences.
I've been ignoring this point since it's an ad-hominem (and displays a lack of understanding of the carbon cycle; I've been hunting through the IPCC report, but can't find where it supports your position), but for the record, I've been vegetarian for a while (digestion problems with meat, not out of emissions concerns) and I use an electric bike to commute (it was cheaper than one year's *insurance* on a car, and has no parking fees or gas costs to worry about). You've no moral high ground here.
Actually, it would be ad hominem if it held no relevance (like I said that your hair is red therefore your arguements have no merit). I'm pointing out hypocrisy and for the record I don't believe you (it's amazing how I never see electric bikes but everyone who posts anonomously uses them exclusively and doesn't eat meat). But for arguements sake, let's say it's true. First, carbon emissions aren't the problem with agriculture, methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon..
Next, it's in the third IPCC Assessment (the UN also quotes the FAO report, which is even more damning - tinyurl com/y79tbv
). Third, it creates more greenhouse gas emissions than all form of transportation. So again, I'll ask, based on Greg's risk management model, why aren't you, Greg and politicians/scientists calling for the end of livestock if you really believe this?
I would suggest that it's because politians would lose votes, and the scientists who claim to care would lose funding.
I am telling the truth about being a vegetarian, but I have no means of proving it. My bike is a cheap mountain bike with an after-market BionX system. It's not very common, but I've spotted one other user in my city, plus one stock electric bike (I agree they're very rare, but you *are* talking to an owner). If I had a digital camera or a scanner, I'd provide a photo.
I use "carbon emissions" to mean both CO2 and CH4 (which is a stronger GHG, I agree). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
Okay, I'll take your word for it, but I do take the higher ground in knowing that if I did believe that an impending disaster was forthcoming I'd be arguing to do something that actually combats the problem, not stalls it slowly for 92 years (Kyoto). Hence my impression that in the US (I know you're Canadian) Global Warming is to Democrats as Terrorism is to Republicans. Also, I'm skeptical when funding is dependent on the results and it certainly seems that way in enviornmental science.
This is another great link, which goes to the comments made by the reviewers of the 2007 IPCC (the scientists you trust). You can see plainly when reading through the comments that 1) There is really little consensus other than they typically (but not all of them) believe that global warming is real and may be manmade. As evidence, look at Chap 9 First Draft Comments, do a search for "Rejected".Basically, any dissenting opinion was ignored. How is this consensus?
Also note that over half of the total comments (572 of them!) stem from one person -- Vincent Gray, who has no climatology background. Of HIS comments, 97% were rejected, usually for providing no evidence to support his claims. Many of his comments are inane (50 of them are calling to replace "anthropogenic" with "human-caused".); the funniest example is comment 88-911 (search for that one).
Of comments from *all* others, only 16% were rejected, which is normal.
Dr. Gray does have peer reviewed papers on climate science (about a dozen) and is considered an expert reviewer by the IPCC (though I'm sure they're regreting it now).
So out of 572 comments, 268 were written by other scientists, some of whom did have climate backgrounds, were rejected because they dissented. Sorry, still not very good. For example; 9-37, 9-67, 9-118 (the response to this was hilarious), 9-156, 9-195, etc (there are dozens,essentially if anyone questions, reject.Bad Science.
"IPCC expert reviewer" just means he asked to see the report, signed an NDA, and paid a fee. (It doesn't mean the IPCC calls him an "expert".) It is Dr. Gray's ONLY climate qualification.
A search through the ISI database shows that Gray has no peer-reviewed climate change research published. He does have coal geology work published, but it's from over a decade ago.
Rejection of peer-review comments is not due to dissention. 9-118, for instance, is valid given IPCC definitions of likelyhood.
This paints a fairly good picture of the review process:
tinyurl com/2965fp
The most important take-away is:
"Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis of a significant human influence on climate, and one other endorsed only a specific section."
You're confusing an IPCC reviewer (someone who requests the report) with an IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel Member (which Dr. Gray is and has been since the IPCC's inception).
The critical sentence in chapter 9, the 'very likely' one you claim few explicitly endorsed, recieved exactly two attacks across the hundreds of comments on both drafts (other comments were more constructive). Both were from Grey. The second was more desperate than the first (as if Plan B was automatically twice as much gunpowder than Plan A). Look it up (first draft 9-80, second 9-22).
There is no difference between IPCC Reviewer and IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel Member.
The 2006 IPCC report was clear taht around 18% greenhouse gases come from livestock emissions (this is the same report which downgraded the previous sea level rise estimate by 50%). While there would be some effect, the world would do just fine without eating meat, it's certainly not a necessity. An 18% immediate reduction in greenhouse gases would be better than Kyoto or other 'solutions'. Why aren't you supporting making everyone vegan if you really believe the threat exists?
BTW, contrary to what Greg said, there are many, MANY studies which have been peer reviewed which debunk manmade Global Warming claims and they weren't in one questionable scientific journal, they were in many respected journals:
tinyurl com/3yc76h
I'm sure we'll hear now how unimportant peer reviewed science is compared to the NAS study (which, by the way, stated that long term estimates were, in essence, guesses).
I ran out of space and had a lab to attend. Forgive me for not addressing the dozens of 'same old, same old' references that have long-since been debunked.
I've got time for one more now:
It mentions NASA's surface station error, which was valid. However, the affected area (continental US) was only 2% of the globe -- the effect on GLOBAL temperatures is less than a thousanth of a degree. Even limiting ourselves to just the US, 1934 and 1998 went from a statistical tie to... a statistical tie.
I suggest that people read Lomborg's 'Cool It'. It's short and to the point. I've read several books on the subject, both pro and con. On the GW side, I suggest Al Gore's companion book to the documentary (which I've seen), also called 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Notice that I have no problem telling people to read both sides, something that generally will get you called 'a denier' by the other side. Think about why they believe such propaganda tactics are necessary (a phrase carefully chosen)
The issue is, of course, that neither Lomborg nor Gore are climate experts. Gore's a politician, Lomborg an economist, both with agendas.
I would suggest looking at the science itself, and feel free to look at both sides there.
(I note you mention bullying -- by citing Richard Lindzen, a skeptical scientist himself who has not had trouble speaking out. I'm having a VERY hard time actually finding evidence of people being bullied -- although I did find this: tinyurl com/345xuf. You decide.)
Obviously this reporter didn't look too hard, I posted a link listing professors who were fired, threatened and bullied.
Lindzen lists several scientists who have been fired, had their funding yanked and otherwise have been shunned before their claims were reviewed by anyone.
All second-hand information that I've been TRYING to confirm. Lindzen provides no evidence for his guesses behind why these scientists disappeared, and I'm trying to track that down. Meanwhile, you may notice the article I linked found anecdotal evidence as well, but nothing tangible (and even several counterexamples).
Now, interesting tidbit on Lindzen: He's on record as saying that it's as likely to cool as it is to warm -- but he refuses to bet on it without 50:1 odds in his favor.
Okay, I finally found the reference to Lomborg (40 sec into video 5). Hilarious is all I can say, Greg's logic is that Lomborg is 'cancelled out' because another group of Nobel Laureates wrote another statement. How does this pass for logic? By this logic Lomborg's statement cancelled out the other too, so the corollary should be that both should be ignored. Oh, wait, one group had six economists, the other four, so we give more weight to the group with six. That is patently absurd logic.
The point is that Lomborg, fundamentally, is arguing a point that has next to no peer reviewed science supporting it, no professional organizations of scientists supporting it, and no organizations who you'd expect to call for action calling for inaction. He, and others in the "think tank / petition / university program" bracket, are literally the best they've got -- and they don't stack up against the National Academies of Science (et al) in a scientific issue.
You obviously didn't read it, because Lomborg supports the contention that Global Warming is real and manmade. He's not arguing the science, he's arguing the economics.
Again, EVERY scientific society (all of the equivalents of the NAS) agreed completely that the mixing of races and 'lesser races' were causing the fall of mankind. By your logic, you would have believed it at the time. Some of us understand that science can be politicized.
I've spent a few hours trying to find the source for this claim, and I can't seem to find it. The closest I can get are conspiracy theories stemming from Lyndon LaRouche. The actual organizations of the time said NOTHING about it, as far as I can find.
Do you have actual evidence of this statement, or are you just reaffirming your beliefs?
Read "The War Against The Weak" by Edwin Black. Huge book, hundreds (if not thousands) of refernces to the body scientific unequivocally embracing the conclusions of Eugenics movement.
Oh, and another issue with Greg's lack of logic: He pretends as though your 'war on global warming' would just 'cost money'. The reality is that it would cost lives. Read Bjorn Lomborg's book 'Cool It'. Contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't argue that GW is false or that it isn't manmade. He argues that the way Greg argues to spend money on it would cost millions of lives because the money could be spent saving lives otherwise. I'll take my economics advice from an Economist, thanks. :)
And remember how I mentioned to be critical of your sources? Cool It averages just over one distortion of the facts per page.
tinyurl com/yu6abt summarizes them from the CO2/temperature section alone. (That site also goes into errors in Gore's film; check it out for yourself and verify the facts.)
If you want to look at the costs, why not consider Stern (which showed inaction is roughly 20x as costly as action), or perhaps Shell (tinyurl com/ypgrht)?
The interesting thing is that if you read the book (which obviously you didn't) you'd know that the almost all the points they've brought up as errors are almost completely irrelevant to the main thesis of the book.
I should also mention that I don't believe that you, or Greg, believes these arguments either. If did you wouldn't eat meat or use any type of motor vehicle. If you believe that the probability is that GW is manmade and can be reversed, you would take any action short of threatening your life to curb it (these are all just items of convenience). I'm sure you'll say you've never use a motor vehicle and your a vegetarian now: tinyurl com/2z6jrc
I'm not choosing him as a credible source for the science (nice strawman), but according to you and Greg, because all of the peer reviewed science at the time believed that the downfall of mankind was inevitable because of non-white races and race mixing, I assume you're saying that based on his argument of Risk Management, you would say that people like Hitler were justified taking extreme action to prevent such a horrible outcome.
I'll also suggest that the criticisms of the eugenics comparison (and I've read quite a few) are almost comical. Essentially people are arguing why it's good to politicize science (that's like arguing it's good to politicize National Intelligence Estimates).
There are plenty of scientists, none of whom are paid off, who don't buy into the hype (dozens of articles from some of the most highly qualified climatologists on the planet below):
tinyurl com/2jorjm
The IPCC committed fraud by adding scientists without their consent (gee, you don't read about this in the news, that's weird):
tinyurl com/2hcjmf
Why do you think that the IPCC wouldn't ask these scientists their actual opinions before including their name?
This is a great editorial by one of the 11 scientists who signed the National Academy of Science report several years ago, but it's a great example of how politicized the findings were:
tinyurl com/2llh3b
This is one of my favorites, one of the IPCC scientists commenting on his name being on the list, very funny and worth a read:
The problem with Greg's reasoning is that I could argue that we should take extreme action based on anything. For example, let's say I argued that global warming is good, and that millions of people would be saved if the temperature were raised a few degrees. By Greg's logic, we need to draw the same four squares and look at the worst case scenario (millions dying if we don't create more pollution) and then do it. Very poorly thought out, certainly not inescapable.
You are correct about a flaw in The Most Terrifying Video.
The problem is, he admits that, quite clearly, in the video description.
His revised video, How It All Ends, and its hours of expansion pack (for those who want more detail or still have issues), addresses that concern head-on.
youtube com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
Can you poke a hole in it that hasn't already been addressed in the expansion vids? To date, no one has been able to.
Sure, regarding the "How It All Ends" video, essentially his argument is that we should act because if we knew prior to WWII that Hitler was developing an atomic weapon we'd, of course, vote to go to war against Germany. So the possibility (with evidence weighted towards Hitler developing said weapon) means that pre-emptive action is warranted.... cont
The 'hole' in that argument is that the same one can (and was) made about WMDs in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world, even those that opposed action (German, Russia, etc, as well as Bill Clinton, Hillary, John Kerry) believed that Iraq possessed or was developing these weapons. 'What's the worst that can happen?' Well, I don't think it's gone so well. In order for the argument to be justified, you'd have to believe that the world is a better place because the US invaded Iraq.
Remember how I said "that he hasn't addressed in the expansion pack"?
He addressed that one in the video Risk Management. He doesn't mention the war explicitly (wisely, I think; that would have opened *another* can of worms), but he does address that line of reasoning.
(And for the record the decision wasn't to go to war on Germany. The decision was to fund the Manhattan Project, a huge endeavor that may or may not have even worked in time. THAT'S what he was speaking about, not going to war.)
I haven't watched all of them, but the argument still holds (ie... spending money on the war in Iraq based on perceived threat vs spending money on climate change vs the perceived threat).
Not really. Risk Management makes it clear you weigh the evidence and assign probabilities based on that. (Part 3 and later.)
The most damning evidence *for* WMDs in Iraq was, broadly, a few grainy photos waved at the UN with an impassioned speech that amounted to "we have more but you can't see them." (I'm oversimplifying for space reasons.)
Compare this to the vast body of peer-reviewed transparent research in the scientific community, plus the statements quoted in that video.
Every major intelligence agency in the world (Germany, Russia, France, Israel, the US, Great Britain). Hans Blix, contrary to what he said after the war, stated that the US should not attack because of the probability of WMDs in the hands of Iraq. That includes pretty much every Democrat in the House and Senate as well. All of these agencies based their conclusion that weapons existed on their own evidence. This is documented in K. Pollack's, "The Threatening Storm", your revisionism aside.
There's an old saying about peer reviewed science, when all scientists agree with each other in peer reviewed journals, hold on to your wallet. There is very little doubt about the direction of the tempterature, there is quite a bit of dispute about the cause, yes, even among scientists. The problem is that the ones who are skeptical are routinely threatened/fired or have their funding yanked.
The problem with the funding argument is that if you look at what these scientists are advocating for, it's *not* more funding. They are openly calling for money being spent on action, not more research (they admit more research is needed, but this is always the case, hardly unique to GW). The only ones advocating for piles of new research on the problem...are the skeptics.
I will watch it, but the argument doesn't really fly. Firstly, because politicians use this as the means of instilling fear for votes (Democrats use this the same way Republicans use terrorism... if you don't vote for us, we're all doomed!). Next, the scientists who are now researching to prove that GW is manmade would be the same ones working on the 'action'.
what does a simple man really know about what does or does not cause global warming?
besides, the guy with the AB/truefalse matrix's not saying that there is global warming. he just recommends that we should do something IN CASE THERE IS!
i mean, just try to image there is something like global warming.... wouldn't it be better to do something about it?
and even if there is not... i wouldn't risk humanity on a 50/50 chance.
and WTH?? "maybe global warming helps prevent a new ice age" ???
In other respects, analysis is not as strong as it could be - more homework needed.
For example, think about how moisture can moderate extremes of temperature, rather than average temperature. Desert temperature swings from extreme high in day time (lack of evaporation and convection) to freezing night time (clear sky). Less arid regions see lower extremes of temperature.
Agreed..Less then 10 years ago most of us saw daily updates to the "terrifying phenomenon of "INCREASING OZONE HOLES above the Arctic.
"We must do something immediately" headlines screamed...let...cut CFC's etc...When was the last time you saw an update..let alone a headline on Ozone depletion?? Do you know what the state of it is today?...according to NASA they have increased 17%....Do you care...is it no longer an issue? No..we have found a new dragon to slay.
Five to ten years ago this still would've been a major point of contention. Unfortunately we are in a time now, but the research is overtaken skeptics.nevertheless this man's idea that we use engineering solutions for dominantly is probably the best one considering India and China will not move aggressively enough to curb global warming. The developed economies have less to lose due to mature infrastructure investment, so those catching up might seek to cheat any treaty the world hammers out.
Five or 10 years ago this may have been up-to-date information on climate science science. Unfortunately the skeptics have been overtaken by new research. Though I agree with you that this should be treated more as an engineering problem that conservation problem. Just as Germany Italy avoided the inconvenient portions of the Washington Naval arms conference, today's China and perhaps India, will do likewise with any Kyoto global warming style treaty we come up with.
Actually most of the skepticism you'll find in scientific journals and elsewhere, tends to have quite an old date on. Very little if any skepticism from actual scientists can be found at this stage of the research. Many of your arguments would've been pretty well up to date five or 10 years ago, but now the evidence for warming is mounting up.
Although I do agree with you to treat this mainly as an engineering problem to be overcome with technology more than conservation.
You're correct on your consideration that The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See is missing some key elements. Which is why he clearly calls it "flawed" in the description.
The REVISED video, How It All Ends, addresses ALL of your concerns (literally!).
For the record, you're repeating long-debunked skeptical arguments as fact. Using this (tinyurl com/2m24g8) system (for space), you're using 2, 15, 10, 21, 25, and 20. They sound good, but they indicate a lack of research on your part.
yep, no scare tactics just a whole lot of ignorance
senatorvreenak33 1 year ago
If you're afraid of the /policies/ proposed to stop global warming, then, logically, rather than DENYING the PEER-REVIEWED, ESTABLISHED SCIENCE you should, gee I dunno, maybe oppose the policies, perhaps? Just because someone has proposed something you don't like (or even that you believe will kill millions), doesn't suddenly change reality.
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Can you point to a SINGLE scientific academy in the world that denies global warming is real and that it is man made? A single one?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Yes, Lord Monkton and the institutions that he's affiliated with. In any case, you completely ignored my statement about depopulation. The policy that you're supporting to stop supposed man-made global warming will literally kill people by shutting down the means to grow, process, transport and even cook food. Why are you ignoring that?
scuromano 2 years ago
Lord Monckton (note the spelling) is not a scientific academy. He's not even a scientist (he's schooled in Classical Languages or some such). What science academies is he "associated with" that deny global warming or its anthropogenic nature? Do you have any background in science? What "policy" am I supporting? When have I EVER mentioned a policy? Do you mean the "policy" of logically considering peer reviewed science more credible than crackpot lies. And this is killing ppl how?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
@scuromano Lord Mockton is not a scientist and his claims have been completed debunked by the actaul scientific community. If we wanted to ast on the facts than we must definetly should do something based on a scientific consenus that is by worst acount %70 certain, and by best account %98 certain. This whole debate is rediculous it's like debating whether the law of gravity is real
senatorvreenak33 1 year ago
Put the words those emails climate into the YT search box and watch the first two videos. You are being LIED TO by paid political operatives. If you deny this, read the current book Climate Cover Up, where the denialist movement's funding is painstakingly documented. Saying that a few lines from emails overturns mountains of peer reviewed science is not simply illogical, it's stupid.
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Did you watch "climate change anatomy of a myth"? Helloooo?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
The issue here is about depopulation, not man made global warming. We can go back and forth on "facts," but Lord Monckton has shown how the "warm-ists" are liars. They don't use peer review processes and they fudge the data. The recently released emails (from East Anglia) prove that they are liars who want to create a supranational government that will depopulate the planet by shutting down production globally, as the Copenhagen treaty states. Do you still want to follow liars?
scuromano 2 years ago
Has a SINGLE reputable scientist looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence of lies. Just a single one? No. Has any reputable scientist (and by "reputable" I mean someone who is a working scientist in a relevant field and published in that field published in the peer reviewed lit) looked at those emails and declared them to be evidence that GW is not real?
Which peer reviewed journal is the good Viscount's evidence of the "warmist" mendacity published, please?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
You are profoundly wrong when you declare that climate scientists do not use the peer reviewed process. On the contrary, it is denialists who don't use the pr process. Their "papers" are published in newspapers, magazines, and online. In the one or two instances where climate denialists have made it into a peer reviewed journal, their science has been shown to be simply mistaken (Friis Christesen) or worse, completely incompetent (Willie Soon).
fiandrhi 2 years ago
And you never answered why you do not publish your theory in a peer reviewed journal. If it holds water, it will be published. Or do you seriously think that all peer reviewed journals in the world are in on the commie plot to say the world is warming?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
So you have your answer about the water vapor and you ignore it. Typical denialist behavior. And you wonder why I say you spew bullshit?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Sure. Here's a recent article in Scientific American that answers your denialist bullshit about water vapor. Google "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense" from Scientific American. See item 1.
Of course I'm sure you'll categorize this among what you so eloquently label as "not correct facts being put out there in the media".
fiandrhi2 2 years ago
Your constant language and tone suggest a typical emotional response to the issue. I suggest less emotion and more intellect as emotion tends to cloud the truth. In any case, I've read the scientific American and the rebuttals as well. Your previous post about the cover up of global cooling is much more significant. That's exactly my point. The earth is getting cooler. That's looks bad for a global warming conference. We're due for another Ice Age in the next 1000 years or so.
scuromano 2 years ago
scuromano, calling what you spew bullshit is the correct word. What other word should I use for some guy's off the cuff observations in a YT video that he thinks answer MOUNTAINS of peer reviewed data that show the earth is warming. You didn't answer me...what about the corroborating data from NOAA and NASA, etc. What about the fact that EVERY scientific academy in the world acknowledges AGW? What about the fact that the consensus in the pr lit is that the world is warming?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Here's another afterthought. don't know how old you are but I can remember in the early to mid 70s the scientific facts were, and the popular opinion was the there was going to be global cooling, which would result in mass deaths, social upheavals, etc. There were a couple brutal winters then to add plausibility to it. So, what happened? How in 30 years did the scientific "facts" change 180 degrees? Just something to think about.
scuromano 2 years ago
No, that is another denialist LIE. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling. There were something like 7 papers predicting cooling and over 40 predicting warming. The predictions were sensationalized MEDIA predictions, Time and Newsweek.
Look, simply search "climate change anatomy of a myth" on YT and watch the brief video (it has a still of Travolta from Saturday Night Fever) and report back. Do that. I'll wait.
You are being brainwashed and lied to by paid shills. WAKE UP!
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Comment removed
fiandrhi2 2 years ago
Fascinating theory....
Why don't you publish it in a peer-reviewed journal?
Oh, because you can't, because it's BULLSHIT. Or are the peer-reviewed journals "liberal" now?
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Nice sarcasm! Why don't you comment on the emails that came out of the University of East Anglia showing that the people and institutions at the top of the man made global warming push are lying to you? You won't find it in the peer-reviewed journals (no sarcasm intended). Why do you continue to believe people who, now, provably lie to you? Can you point me to the science that shows carbon being a bigger greenhouse gas than water vapor?
scuromano 2 years ago
Thanks, I thought it was fine sarcasm. Okay, what about the emails? It's a NON issue. Even if the emails mean what deniers claim they do, this is a small part of the data. What about the NOAA data? What about the NASA data? What about the Japanese data? Were they in on the conspiracy, too?
And the supposed "cover up" in the emails have nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. They are supposed to be evidence of a cover up of cooling. Get your story straight.
fiandrhi 2 years ago
Sounds like you're stuck on the argument of which row is right. It's the columns that matter, because, no matter what you say, there's a decent chance you're wrong, and if you can't admit that, then your opinion on this matter isn't really scientific in the first place.
shanecf 2 years ago
Sounds like you're stuck on rows and columns of a theorem lattice belief structure built upon a false premise that man's carbon emissions are affecting the global climate, causing it to warm up. When in fact, the earth's climate is always changing, always has, probably always will. That's a scientific fact. Man's effect on it is minuscule compared to "mother nature." Kendoka5 has a good point about vapor being a bigger greenhouse gas than carbon.
scuromano 2 years ago
@scuromano
Way to miss the whole point, there. If you cannot admit that there is a chance that you are wrong, then you're an idiot. I won't lie: There's convincing evidence on both sides of the field... and I'll let you slide by saying that you're 99.9% sure that you're right... but you're a moron if you refuse to admit that there is even a 0.1% chance that you're wrong on the issue. Any scientist will tell you that science is never absolute. We can only measure our observations so far.
shanecf 2 years ago
You've reduced the discussion now to name calling. Not very scientific! Rather emotional. Well, that's what's been happening to the non-politically correct scientists, and others, who expose the fraud of man-made climate change. Read my update below. The exposed emails from the very top of the climate change fraudsters prove the whole thing is a hoax. So, what's your emotional attachment to a flawed climatic argument? Why are you afraid to acknowledge the lies about this?
scuromano 2 years ago
Just wanted to update this discussion. See the "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes" It proves how the whole man made global warming argument is a big lie. All the dissenters are silenced, or ignored, in the mainstream media. You have to ask yourself: why are the most powerful and richest people in the world so concerned about the planet all of a sudden?
scuromano 2 years ago
What are your credentials? Where do you get your facts? No citations, no references, why should I be convinced by what your are saying? Moreover, you right the earth's atmosphere is constantly changing, but the question is are we messing with that change for the worst and are we willing to take the risk.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
My facts come from the part of the scientific community that doesn't get government funding, or big corporate grants. Do you really believe Al Gore, with his ties to Island Creek Coal Company, and family business partner of Armand Hammer's (the Red Billionaire) Occidental Petroleum? They are among the biggest man made emitters of CO2 on the planet, aside from the volcanoes and other natural processes. I'm not changing my lifestyle for polluting billionaires. Are you?
scuromano 2 years ago
Don't politicize the issue. Never did I ask anyone to change their lifestyle. I simply asked where you got your facts. I was looking for authors of primary research papers so I can look at the data you have access to. I would like conclude for myself what is actually going on. I also confused as to how these scientist were funded if it was not via the government or corporations as they fund 90% of scientific research, but that doesn't mean their research is falsified.
jgrimsl1 2 years ago
so, are you saying that we should not even Try to stop our destructive habits? such as clear-cutting rain forests and not recycling, and polluting the air? yes technology needs to be developed to deal with the changes, but humans need to stop feeding on this rock like the parasites we appear to be. natural renewable energy is a must, and alternates to wood as well, because when you cut down a tree it releases all the Co2 it had trapped in it
debobrien1 2 years ago
2:37 really got me thinking. Really just 3%?
ratcatcherman 2 years ago
Yes, really. Just 3%. They want us to change our entire life and living standard for just 3%. So, it shows that there's another agenda behind it. The earth is constantly changing, always will.
scuromano 2 years ago
global warming... Two categories... Man Made Global Warming or Natural Gloabal Warming...
Next... can we stop either now? Nope... End... thx for playin'!
btownnetadmin 3 years ago
What I find interesting is that nobody is discussing about what artificial CO2 emmisions are doing to our bodies. While I have become somewhat sceptical whether man-made CO2 emissions is causing global warming (I was an early believer), I would still like to know what are these emmisions are doing to our lungs and vital organs? I don't hear much about that in the corporate media.
upchuck69 3 years ago
I don't know about you guys, but I definitely get all my scientific insights from scuromano on the Youtube and all sorts of other Internet Experts. The Internet is where REAL information is. scuromano for Head Scientist of The World! also lol jews did 911
krispattaxx 3 years ago
wow you're a douche, aren't you krispatta. dont let facts get in the way of your delusions about "destroying the planet" (big LOL). the real kooks are those predicting global warming doomsday.
kendoka5 2 years ago
all people who thinks that global warming is a fraud are fucking IDIOTS. when will you stop thinking that this is a fraud??????????? oh come on! what can possibly be the reason for somebody to create something as horrible as global warming other than it BEING TRUE?????? you people, I hope you're happy. For killing yourselves, and us.
doggiedim 3 years ago
Jews are taking our jobs and must be destroyed in a holocaust. The socialist attacks our main government building and must be imprisoned.
Learn about the past and you will see that governments lie most the time.
doford 3 years ago
all governements lie most of the time! but this is scientifically proven! global warming is REAL. maybe more real than you are.
doggiedim 3 years ago
Don't forget that global cooling happens too. I agree with you that the world climate changes. The reality is that scientist do not know the outcome of climate change. For all we know the world could be far better in the next 50-500 years.
Sure species will die, sure coasts will flood but more species will evolve and the climate could change to better support farming and human life.
Tax is simply socialist control. From history we know socialism finds it hard to adapt. We have to adapt!
doford 3 years ago
you are a retard, sorry your face looks like that
zach5952460 3 years ago
Ah comon. All scientists agree, global warming is man-made, thousands of species are threatened by man's pollution, soon there is no more trees if we don't stop cutting wood, there are 10x more cyclones, storms than there were just 50 years ago. All the dead in Burma, Louisiana might be caused by global warming.
Charbax 3 years ago
all scientists? nope. many prominent scientists disagree with the so-called findings. 10x more cyclones? I don't think so. please pull your head out of your ass.
kendoka5 2 years ago
Yes! Thank you!
Finally someone who has the same view as me.
thanks for putting this video out there!
ClickityChicks 3 years ago
take the Oscar away from Al Gore and give it to this guy.
please read 'The Gaia Project ' by Hwee-Yong Jang
Brettberg66 3 years ago
dont care about global warming.
But maybe instead of wasting your time making vids, you should go to work and make some money to get a nose job.
dannyheape 3 years ago
good vid man. Lol @ vegetarians riding bikes to save the environment... rotting vegetation causes 70% + of the worlds CO2 emmisions, and as this guy intimated.. humans cause < 5%. Best way is to be "dead plant patrol" where one goes around sequestering every dead plant they see underground.
EdgeStormcrow 3 years ago
Good on ya mate! You've done some research and have thought for yourself. Global warming = solar cycles. How people can believe that we humans are so all powerful that we can affect the earth so drastically is beyond me. These same people don't question that there were ice ages and global tropical climates in the past. Go figure!??
embers17 3 years ago
Yes, the SUN (that massive star in the center of our solar system) is the cause for changes in global temperature. Carbon Dioxide isnt even a major "greenhouse" gas. Water Vapor is. However, you can't tax or ban clouds so radical socialists decide to punish businesses over carbon emissions (what a joke)and drive the world economy further into the ground over this hoax.
kendoka5 2 years ago
you've missed the point. you need to watch more of wanderingmind42 videos,
KingMucktoad 4 years ago
Ok, I have to also as for one peer reviewed paper where the author predicts with any certainty that global temperatures would drop dramatically in the last year?
tinyurl com/2z8dux
I can say that this is anectdotal evidence at best, and certainly not a trend. But, having watched this debate, the consensus among AGW folk was that the Earth would rapidally get hotter. The 'deniers' mostly predicted cooling would take place in unison. The question is, who to believe on matters here on out?
voceangeli 4 years ago
I only have a short while here, but the theory says that the trend will be positive. This is not the same as saying every year will be hotter than the last.
To borrow a baseball analogy (since I'm told Americans love baseball): Imagine two teams, the Hot Sox and the Cold Sox. The Hot Sox have been gradually improving their players relative to the Cold Sox. Does this mean that the Cold Sox can never win against the Hot Sox? Or that if they do, the Hot Sox won't still have better odds of winning?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Continuing that analogy, looking at a single year on climate records is like looking at a single game in baseball and claiming it's representative of the quality of the teams overall. Any fan (let alone the professionals!) can tell you this is foolish.
Looking at a single *month* is much the same -- only here, it's comparing two teams based on a single *inning*. It's not representative.
Consider what Watts says carefully. He's made critical (and amateur) mistakes before: tinyurl com/ysrk92
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I'll ask again, if you believe the conclusions the risk management video posits, if everyone were vegan we would see nearly an 18% cut in greenhouse emissions (per the peer reviewed IPCC which you claim as your ultimate source). Why are you (and Greg) not calling for this? Wouldn't bother me, I'm a vegetarian (I could go vegan if I wanted). Do you drive a car? Do you eat meat?
It seems to me if you guys really believed this stuff you wouldn't since both are just conveniences.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I've been ignoring this point since it's an ad-hominem (and displays a lack of understanding of the carbon cycle; I've been hunting through the IPCC report, but can't find where it supports your position), but for the record, I've been vegetarian for a while (digestion problems with meat, not out of emissions concerns) and I use an electric bike to commute (it was cheaper than one year's *insurance* on a car, and has no parking fees or gas costs to worry about). You've no moral high ground here.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Actually, it would be ad hominem if it held no relevance (like I said that your hair is red therefore your arguements have no merit). I'm pointing out hypocrisy and for the record I don't believe you (it's amazing how I never see electric bikes but everyone who posts anonomously uses them exclusively and doesn't eat meat). But for arguements sake, let's say it's true. First, carbon emissions aren't the problem with agriculture, methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon..
voceangeli 4 years ago
Next, it's in the third IPCC Assessment (the UN also quotes the FAO report, which is even more damning - tinyurl com/y79tbv
). Third, it creates more greenhouse gas emissions than all form of transportation. So again, I'll ask, based on Greg's risk management model, why aren't you, Greg and politicians/scientists calling for the end of livestock if you really believe this?
I would suggest that it's because politians would lose votes, and the scientists who claim to care would lose funding.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I am telling the truth about being a vegetarian, but I have no means of proving it. My bike is a cheap mountain bike with an after-market BionX system. It's not very common, but I've spotted one other user in my city, plus one stock electric bike (I agree they're very rare, but you *are* talking to an owner). If I had a digital camera or a scanner, I'd provide a photo.
I use "carbon emissions" to mean both CO2 and CH4 (which is a stronger GHG, I agree). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Okay, I'll take your word for it, but I do take the higher ground in knowing that if I did believe that an impending disaster was forthcoming I'd be arguing to do something that actually combats the problem, not stalls it slowly for 92 years (Kyoto). Hence my impression that in the US (I know you're Canadian) Global Warming is to Democrats as Terrorism is to Republicans. Also, I'm skeptical when funding is dependent on the results and it certainly seems that way in enviornmental science.
voceangeli 4 years ago
tinyurl com/2a27nu
This is another great link, which goes to the comments made by the reviewers of the 2007 IPCC (the scientists you trust). You can see plainly when reading through the comments that 1) There is really little consensus other than they typically (but not all of them) believe that global warming is real and may be manmade. As evidence, look at Chap 9 First Draft Comments, do a search for "Rejected".Basically, any dissenting opinion was ignored. How is this consensus?
voceangeli 4 years ago
Thank you for bringing that up.
Also note that over half of the total comments (572 of them!) stem from one person -- Vincent Gray, who has no climatology background. Of HIS comments, 97% were rejected, usually for providing no evidence to support his claims. Many of his comments are inane (50 of them are calling to replace "anthropogenic" with "human-caused".); the funniest example is comment 88-911 (search for that one).
Of comments from *all* others, only 16% were rejected, which is normal.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Dr. Gray does have peer reviewed papers on climate science (about a dozen) and is considered an expert reviewer by the IPCC (though I'm sure they're regreting it now).
So out of 572 comments, 268 were written by other scientists, some of whom did have climate backgrounds, were rejected because they dissented. Sorry, still not very good. For example; 9-37, 9-67, 9-118 (the response to this was hilarious), 9-156, 9-195, etc (there are dozens,essentially if anyone questions, reject.Bad Science.
voceangeli 4 years ago
"IPCC expert reviewer" just means he asked to see the report, signed an NDA, and paid a fee. (It doesn't mean the IPCC calls him an "expert".) It is Dr. Gray's ONLY climate qualification.
A search through the ISI database shows that Gray has no peer-reviewed climate change research published. He does have coal geology work published, but it's from over a decade ago.
Rejection of peer-review comments is not due to dissention. 9-118, for instance, is valid given IPCC definitions of likelyhood.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
This paints a fairly good picture of the review process:
tinyurl com/2965fp
The most important take-away is:
"Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis of a significant human influence on climate, and one other endorsed only a specific section."
You're confusing an IPCC reviewer (someone who requests the report) with an IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel Member (which Dr. Gray is and has been since the IPCC's inception).
voceangeli 4 years ago
The critical sentence in chapter 9, the 'very likely' one you claim few explicitly endorsed, recieved exactly two attacks across the hundreds of comments on both drafts (other comments were more constructive). Both were from Grey. The second was more desperate than the first (as if Plan B was automatically twice as much gunpowder than Plan A). Look it up (first draft 9-80, second 9-22).
There is no difference between IPCC Reviewer and IPCC Expert Reviewer Panel Member.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Tempest:
The 2006 IPCC report was clear taht around 18% greenhouse gases come from livestock emissions (this is the same report which downgraded the previous sea level rise estimate by 50%). While there would be some effect, the world would do just fine without eating meat, it's certainly not a necessity. An 18% immediate reduction in greenhouse gases would be better than Kyoto or other 'solutions'. Why aren't you supporting making everyone vegan if you really believe the threat exists?
voceangeli 4 years ago
BTW, contrary to what Greg said, there are many, MANY studies which have been peer reviewed which debunk manmade Global Warming claims and they weren't in one questionable scientific journal, they were in many respected journals:
tinyurl com/3yc76h
I'm sure we'll hear now how unimportant peer reviewed science is compared to the NAS study (which, by the way, stated that long term estimates were, in essence, guesses).
voceangeli 4 years ago
That article's citations don't support its conclusions. For instance:
Schwartz 2007 is cited many times, and was addressed in the literature: tinyurl com/yqpgj4 -- summary at tinyurl com/2drtoo
Bob Carter's "warming stopped" claim is demonstratably false: tinyurl com/2en7xd
Tung 2007 does NOT dispute AGW: tinyurl com/yrb574
The "539 abstracts" reference is to a non-peer-reviewed paper by Schulte, which is critically flawed: tinyurl com/2hmdo9
And so on. I'd go on, but I'm out of space.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
There are dozens of references here, you've addressed four.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I ran out of space and had a lab to attend. Forgive me for not addressing the dozens of 'same old, same old' references that have long-since been debunked.
I've got time for one more now:
It mentions NASA's surface station error, which was valid. However, the affected area (continental US) was only 2% of the globe -- the effect on GLOBAL temperatures is less than a thousanth of a degree. Even limiting ourselves to just the US, 1934 and 1998 went from a statistical tie to... a statistical tie.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I suggest that people read Lomborg's 'Cool It'. It's short and to the point. I've read several books on the subject, both pro and con. On the GW side, I suggest Al Gore's companion book to the documentary (which I've seen), also called 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Notice that I have no problem telling people to read both sides, something that generally will get you called 'a denier' by the other side. Think about why they believe such propaganda tactics are necessary (a phrase carefully chosen)
voceangeli 4 years ago
The issue is, of course, that neither Lomborg nor Gore are climate experts. Gore's a politician, Lomborg an economist, both with agendas.
I would suggest looking at the science itself, and feel free to look at both sides there.
(I note you mention bullying -- by citing Richard Lindzen, a skeptical scientist himself who has not had trouble speaking out. I'm having a VERY hard time actually finding evidence of people being bullied -- although I did find this: tinyurl com/345xuf. You decide.)
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Obviously this reporter didn't look too hard, I posted a link listing professors who were fired, threatened and bullied.
Lindzen lists several scientists who have been fired, had their funding yanked and otherwise have been shunned before their claims were reviewed by anyone.
voceangeli 4 years ago
All second-hand information that I've been TRYING to confirm. Lindzen provides no evidence for his guesses behind why these scientists disappeared, and I'm trying to track that down. Meanwhile, you may notice the article I linked found anecdotal evidence as well, but nothing tangible (and even several counterexamples).
Now, interesting tidbit on Lindzen: He's on record as saying that it's as likely to cool as it is to warm -- but he refuses to bet on it without 50:1 odds in his favor.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Okay, I finally found the reference to Lomborg (40 sec into video 5). Hilarious is all I can say, Greg's logic is that Lomborg is 'cancelled out' because another group of Nobel Laureates wrote another statement. How does this pass for logic? By this logic Lomborg's statement cancelled out the other too, so the corollary should be that both should be ignored. Oh, wait, one group had six economists, the other four, so we give more weight to the group with six. That is patently absurd logic.
voceangeli 4 years ago
The point is that Lomborg, fundamentally, is arguing a point that has next to no peer reviewed science supporting it, no professional organizations of scientists supporting it, and no organizations who you'd expect to call for action calling for inaction. He, and others in the "think tank / petition / university program" bracket, are literally the best they've got -- and they don't stack up against the National Academies of Science (et al) in a scientific issue.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
You obviously didn't read it, because Lomborg supports the contention that Global Warming is real and manmade. He's not arguing the science, he's arguing the economics.
Again, EVERY scientific society (all of the equivalents of the NAS) agreed completely that the mixing of races and 'lesser races' were causing the fall of mankind. By your logic, you would have believed it at the time. Some of us understand that science can be politicized.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I've spent a few hours trying to find the source for this claim, and I can't seem to find it. The closest I can get are conspiracy theories stemming from Lyndon LaRouche. The actual organizations of the time said NOTHING about it, as far as I can find.
Do you have actual evidence of this statement, or are you just reaffirming your beliefs?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Read "The War Against The Weak" by Edwin Black. Huge book, hundreds (if not thousands) of refernces to the body scientific unequivocally embracing the conclusions of Eugenics movement.
voceangeli 4 years ago
Neither this guy, or the guy to which he's responding are scientists.
Often you won't hear the dissenting voices because scientists who don't tow the line are bullied, threatened and fired:
tinyurl com/pposm
(replace the space after 'tinyurl' with a period and copy to your browser address bar)
voceangeli 4 years ago
can i ask who this is? and if he's famous scientist and what not then he seems a bit more credible...
minamisakura 4 years ago
Oh, and another issue with Greg's lack of logic: He pretends as though your 'war on global warming' would just 'cost money'. The reality is that it would cost lives. Read Bjorn Lomborg's book 'Cool It'. Contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't argue that GW is false or that it isn't manmade. He argues that the way Greg argues to spend money on it would cost millions of lives because the money could be spent saving lives otherwise. I'll take my economics advice from an Economist, thanks. :)
voceangeli 4 years ago
Lomborg *is* addressed in Risk Managment.
And remember how I mentioned to be critical of your sources? Cool It averages just over one distortion of the facts per page.
tinyurl com/yu6abt summarizes them from the CO2/temperature section alone. (That site also goes into errors in Gore's film; check it out for yourself and verify the facts.)
If you want to look at the costs, why not consider Stern (which showed inaction is roughly 20x as costly as action), or perhaps Shell (tinyurl com/ypgrht)?
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
The interesting thing is that if you read the book (which obviously you didn't) you'd know that the almost all the points they've brought up as errors are almost completely irrelevant to the main thesis of the book.
voceangeli 4 years ago
Gore didn't do too hot in the honesty department in the film: - tinyurl com/2y5uay,
tinyurl com/yooucm, tinyurl com/2oedoa.
Here's a scorecard for the IPCC and it's predictions:
tinyurl com/787bj
Essentially, they're almost never correct.
Here are a bunch of scientists (actual
climate scientists) who question the movie:
tinyurl com/38579h
Lomborg's point, which is virtually unaddressed on the site you gave, was that political answers like Kyoto don't really do anything.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I should also mention that I don't believe that you, or Greg, believes these arguments either. If did you wouldn't eat meat or use any type of motor vehicle. If you believe that the probability is that GW is manmade and can be reversed, you would take any action short of threatening your life to curb it (these are all just items of convenience). I'm sure you'll say you've never use a motor vehicle and your a vegetarian now: tinyurl com/2z6jrc
Yeah, right. You and Greg.
voceangeli 4 years ago
Of course I can't post a real link, but go to Google, type "This Essay Breaks the Law" (with quotes) and click the second link.
voceangeli 4 years ago
State of Fear. You're choosing Michael Crichton, a fiction author, as a credible source over, say, the National Academy of Sciences?
Have you looked into the criticisms of State of Fear?
tinyurl com/ys69lm is a decent summary. Copy, paste, dot the space.
More in-depth ones can be found here:
tinyurl com/yw8at7 (PDF)
and here:
tinyurl com/dw8k4 (easy to follow and complete)
He is *also* mentioned in the middle parts of Risk Management.
I'll stick with the scientists for my science, thanks.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I'm not choosing him as a credible source for the science (nice strawman), but according to you and Greg, because all of the peer reviewed science at the time believed that the downfall of mankind was inevitable because of non-white races and race mixing, I assume you're saying that based on his argument of Risk Management, you would say that people like Hitler were justified taking extreme action to prevent such a horrible outcome.
voceangeli 4 years ago
I'll also suggest that the criticisms of the eugenics comparison (and I've read quite a few) are almost comical. Essentially people are arguing why it's good to politicize science (that's like arguing it's good to politicize National Intelligence Estimates).
voceangeli 4 years ago
There are plenty of scientists, none of whom are paid off, who don't buy into the hype (dozens of articles from some of the most highly qualified climatologists on the planet below):
tinyurl com/2jorjm
The IPCC committed fraud by adding scientists without their consent (gee, you don't read about this in the news, that's weird):
tinyurl com/2hcjmf
Why do you think that the IPCC wouldn't ask these scientists their actual opinions before including their name?
voceangeli 4 years ago
This is a great editorial by one of the 11 scientists who signed the National Academy of Science report several years ago, but it's a great example of how politicized the findings were:
tinyurl com/2llh3b
This is one of my favorites, one of the IPCC scientists commenting on his name being on the list, very funny and worth a read:
tinyurl com/26q4mr
voceangeli 4 years ago
The problem with Greg's reasoning is that I could argue that we should take extreme action based on anything. For example, let's say I argued that global warming is good, and that millions of people would be saved if the temperature were raised a few degrees. By Greg's logic, we need to draw the same four squares and look at the worst case scenario (millions dying if we don't create more pollution) and then do it. Very poorly thought out, certainly not inescapable.
voceangeli 4 years ago
You are correct about a flaw in The Most Terrifying Video.
The problem is, he admits that, quite clearly, in the video description.
His revised video, How It All Ends, and its hours of expansion pack (for those who want more detail or still have issues), addresses that concern head-on.
youtube com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
Can you poke a hole in it that hasn't already been addressed in the expansion vids? To date, no one has been able to.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Sure, regarding the "How It All Ends" video, essentially his argument is that we should act because if we knew prior to WWII that Hitler was developing an atomic weapon we'd, of course, vote to go to war against Germany. So the possibility (with evidence weighted towards Hitler developing said weapon) means that pre-emptive action is warranted.... cont
voceangeli 4 years ago
The 'hole' in that argument is that the same one can (and was) made about WMDs in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world, even those that opposed action (German, Russia, etc, as well as Bill Clinton, Hillary, John Kerry) believed that Iraq possessed or was developing these weapons. 'What's the worst that can happen?' Well, I don't think it's gone so well. In order for the argument to be justified, you'd have to believe that the world is a better place because the US invaded Iraq.
voceangeli 4 years ago
Remember how I said "that he hasn't addressed in the expansion pack"?
He addressed that one in the video Risk Management. He doesn't mention the war explicitly (wisely, I think; that would have opened *another* can of worms), but he does address that line of reasoning.
(And for the record the decision wasn't to go to war on Germany. The decision was to fund the Manhattan Project, a huge endeavor that may or may not have even worked in time. THAT'S what he was speaking about, not going to war.)
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I haven't watched all of them, but the argument still holds (ie... spending money on the war in Iraq based on perceived threat vs spending money on climate change vs the perceived threat).
voceangeli 4 years ago
Not really. Risk Management makes it clear you weigh the evidence and assign probabilities based on that. (Part 3 and later.)
The most damning evidence *for* WMDs in Iraq was, broadly, a few grainy photos waved at the UN with an impassioned speech that amounted to "we have more but you can't see them." (I'm oversimplifying for space reasons.)
Compare this to the vast body of peer-reviewed transparent research in the scientific community, plus the statements quoted in that video.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
Every major intelligence agency in the world (Germany, Russia, France, Israel, the US, Great Britain). Hans Blix, contrary to what he said after the war, stated that the US should not attack because of the probability of WMDs in the hands of Iraq. That includes pretty much every Democrat in the House and Senate as well. All of these agencies based their conclusion that weapons existed on their own evidence. This is documented in K. Pollack's, "The Threatening Storm", your revisionism aside.
voceangeli 4 years ago
There's an old saying about peer reviewed science, when all scientists agree with each other in peer reviewed journals, hold on to your wallet. There is very little doubt about the direction of the tempterature, there is quite a bit of dispute about the cause, yes, even among scientists. The problem is that the ones who are skeptical are routinely threatened/fired or have their funding yanked.
voceangeli 4 years ago
The problem with the funding argument is that if you look at what these scientists are advocating for, it's *not* more funding. They are openly calling for money being spent on action, not more research (they admit more research is needed, but this is always the case, hardly unique to GW). The only ones advocating for piles of new research on the problem...are the skeptics.
You may find this interesting:
youtube com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
(Topic changes halfway through, still worth it.)
TempestStormwind 4 years ago
I will watch it, but the argument doesn't really fly. Firstly, because politicians use this as the means of instilling fear for votes (Democrats use this the same way Republicans use terrorism... if you don't vote for us, we're all doomed!). Next, the scientists who are now researching to prove that GW is manmade would be the same ones working on the 'action'.
voceangeli 4 years ago
what does a simple man really know about what does or does not cause global warming?
besides, the guy with the AB/truefalse matrix's not saying that there is global warming. he just recommends that we should do something IN CASE THERE IS!
i mean, just try to image there is something like global warming.... wouldn't it be better to do something about it?
and even if there is not... i wouldn't risk humanity on a 50/50 chance.
and WTH?? "maybe global warming helps prevent a new ice age" ???
semaex 4 years ago
Refreshing to hear a dissenting voice Tony.
"Act on the facts". Good point.
In other respects, analysis is not as strong as it could be - more homework needed.
For example, think about how moisture can moderate extremes of temperature, rather than average temperature. Desert temperature swings from extreme high in day time (lack of evaporation and convection) to freezing night time (clear sky). Less arid regions see lower extremes of temperature.
guffpot 4 years ago
well maybe that's because all deserts are located very continental...
the mongolian steppe does have rivers... why is there still extremes of temperatures?
...
semaex 4 years ago
good question semaex. I'm sure there are many reasons why local climates vary from place to place.
Do you have and answer to your own question?
Does it show that moisture in the air causes extreme variation of temperature on a daily basis?
How does your answer transalte to the main desert regions?
guffpot 4 years ago
Agreed..Less then 10 years ago most of us saw daily updates to the "terrifying phenomenon of "INCREASING OZONE HOLES above the Arctic.
"We must do something immediately" headlines screamed...let...cut CFC's etc...When was the last time you saw an update..let alone a headline on Ozone depletion?? Do you know what the state of it is today?...according to NASA they have increased 17%....Do you care...is it no longer an issue? No..we have found a new dragon to slay.
zeroceiling 4 years ago
Five to ten years ago this still would've been a major point of contention. Unfortunately we are in a time now, but the research is overtaken skeptics.nevertheless this man's idea that we use engineering solutions for dominantly is probably the best one considering India and China will not move aggressively enough to curb global warming. The developed economies have less to lose due to mature infrastructure investment, so those catching up might seek to cheat any treaty the world hammers out.
Raptoreyes 4 years ago
Five or 10 years ago this may have been up-to-date information on climate science science. Unfortunately the skeptics have been overtaken by new research. Though I agree with you that this should be treated more as an engineering problem that conservation problem. Just as Germany Italy avoided the inconvenient portions of the Washington Naval arms conference, today's China and perhaps India, will do likewise with any Kyoto global warming style treaty we come up with.
Raptoreyes 4 years ago
Actually most of the skepticism you'll find in scientific journals and elsewhere, tends to have quite an old date on. Very little if any skepticism from actual scientists can be found at this stage of the research. Many of your arguments would've been pretty well up to date five or 10 years ago, but now the evidence for warming is mounting up.
Although I do agree with you to treat this mainly as an engineering problem to be overcome with technology more than conservation.
Raptoreyes 4 years ago
Christ what a moron.
greenman3610 4 years ago
Very interesting. It begs the question why we are even having a debate about global warming at all.
Johnson358 4 years ago
You're correct on your consideration that The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See is missing some key elements. Which is why he clearly calls it "flawed" in the description.
The REVISED video, How It All Ends, addresses ALL of your concerns (literally!).
For the record, you're repeating long-debunked skeptical arguments as fact. Using this (tinyurl com/2m24g8) system (for space), you're using 2, 15, 10, 21, 25, and 20. They sound good, but they indicate a lack of research on your part.
TempestStormwind 4 years ago 3
Great topic, good homework done here!
your certainly a great speaker, and your great
on camera, loved the other video as well ;)
tough topics to speak on...great hearing your point of view!
karinhiebert 4 years ago