Some great analogies. After reading a lot of comments on denialist blogs it occured to me that most of the commenters don't understand the scientific method and have a distrust of scientists.
Stolen emails prove the absolute lack of honesty on the part of the rabid AGW-denialists. Who knows what else they are into stealing, hacking, corrupting?
Real climate scientists who have proven AGW true are still to this day being silenced by big-pro-oil big-pro-industry big-pro-corporate welfare conservatives, like Prime Minister Harper, in Canada. Environmentalists & scientists who come to any conclusion that offends corporations & individuals who are too selfish to change their shopping & consumptions habits are silenced by those corps.
Why would he be embarrassed for lying? First of all there is no such thing a a PHD in Climatology in fact there is no such degree. Secondly the small handful of scientist that have backed this lie have tampered with data, suppressed data, lied, blocked peer review, slandered legitimate scientist, and extorted money based on their lies.
Notice Mars @3:37 with 95% CO2 in the atmosphere, average temp -81 degrees F and polar ice caps made of dry-ice. Great job of retaining heat on Mars CO2 you dangerous plant loving gas.
Do you feel embarrassed about making this video now that Climategate has revealed the scientific fraud, peer review pressures, bullying, censorship, etc. Oh, yeah, and the temperature has declined for the past 10 years.
As an academic, I laughed at your "it's a scientific theory which, in practical terms, means it's a fact". Your ignorance of scientific method is actually quite funny.
No. Only a conspiracy nut would find anything sinister in the email exchanges stolen from the CRU. Those of us that are sane find them completely innocuous.
If only a conspiracy nut would find any sinister, then why are investigations being initiated by the University of East Anglia, the US Senate, and the United Nations?
@TheModestAgnostic Only an idiot would find them completely innocuous. I'm sure you didn't look over the doctored code that was recovered with the emails, you know, that eliminated the MWP and the LIA as well as the cooling period int the 50s and 60s. Oh and how about "Hide the decline" you know, substituting weather station data from Urban hot zones in place of the satelite data because it dispelled their lie?
The denialists preach about how the incursions on their freedoms. Well, it's MY freedoms, too. But, those incursions are trivial compared to the gains.
And, even *I* do not believe the very worst predictions - e.g. hurricanes.
I'm too busy battling the denialists.
Denialists don't know what real loss of freedom is: look at BILLIONS of animals confined in a BOX their ENTIRE lives in factory farms, fur farms, and laboratories.
All the anti-sex terrorists want to increase taxes by imprisoning people for consensual sex as well as extremist excessive punishments for non-consensual sex and sexual offenses.
They take away freedom and property from prisoners, then use the circular reasoning that they do so because they are felons and criminals, but that is because they made them felons and criminals.
The anti-sex terrorists, like the anti-drug terrorists, are coming for YOU, to take away YOUR freedom & property!
Capitalism leads to corporate welfare - the biggest cause of taxation.
If there is one thing government cannot do well, it is administer justice. Thanks to anti-socialist religionists, gov't insanely punishes poor people over theft and sexual offenders, while doing NOTHING to punish corporations for taking away OUR money for corp welfare, owning all resources, land, etc.
The anti-socialist pro-capitalist religion has never ONCE scientifically proved that socialism raises taxes more than capitalism. Taxes have risen in the US in spite of the same party: Democrat=Republican being in power essentially from the beginning.
These same anti-socialists religionists then hypocritically attack the proven fact of AGW for not being "proven" enough.
But, I don't consider that their worst hypocrisy! But, I have run out of room to explain what that worst thing is.
Here are some other critics you can look up; Lindzen (wrote part of the IPCC report), Murty, Wiskle, Bellamy, Giaever (Nobel Prize winner), Itoh, Evans (AUS) - and a host of other top thinkers in THIS field.
Wiskel once set out to build a Kyoto house!
Dr. David Evans (AUS) Built Austrailia's Kyoto Carbon Counting model - a 6year effort.
These names would NEVER be on the skeptic side of this argument if the Science was on the on the other side.
OK, I've been looking around for awhile, and I still have not found any proof that CO2, causes most of the heating we've seen.
I've seen that we've increased Co2 and other green house gases, I've seen the ice caps melt, and all that.
But no one, has proven that the green house effect causes most of the warming we've seen. They have hypothesis, that Co2, will, interact with water vapor, and magnify the heating effect 2x, 5x, or 10x. But it is, hypothesis, and it is unproven.
The IPCC is just a bunch of Shills paid to tell us how bad we need a global government
And by the way, I notice you haven't directed me to where I can find the answers to what I asked, you know why? Because you don't have it. No one does.
And yes, I'm calling you out. Put your evidence where your mouth is.
IF you have no evidence, then shut up, grown-ups are talking.
It is time you global warming fear mongers, to come to the table, no more of this, "The Debate is over" BS.
I mean, lets be honest, you don't care about the environment. You're all about attacking industry, attacking progress. And then you cloak your male intent in a shroud of righteousness.
Come'on, Priest of Industries Death, Where are your facts? Whats your proof?
Oh yeah, you can prove ice melts when it gets warmer, but what about CO2 driving temp?
Wow, you're sure drawing me out. Why wouldn't I debate with some random kook on the internet? I must be mad not to spend hours and hours learning from someone [who thinks they're]smarter than 90% of the worlds climatologists. How can I let this opportunity pass me by?
dude, if you don't have any evidence, and you are blindly going along with them no questions asked, just say it.
If these scientist are really as smart as you claim, then surly they can provide some evidence. But, up and till this point, no evidence has been forth coming from them...Kinda like you...
I just noticed something, you dont ever back up your opinion with evidence, just like "90%" of scientist, lol, hey, do you work for the IPCC?
There is little virtue in debating studied ignorance, dishonesty and delusion. You gave yourself away as a hopeless idelouge with your talk of IPCC "shills" and similar neo-con talking points. You trot them out with such conviction! As if these particular turds have never bobbled to the top of the swamp before. Perhaps you're new to the intertubes.
*shakes head* Your contributions are valuable though, to be ridiculed and mocked:-) It is also gratifying that your time spent talking to thin air on my channel, is time not spent boring some other poor bastard to death. You ARE a longwinded tiresome pissant.
Tell you what. Get your degree in Climatology, publish a few papers on the subject in the relevant journals and then I'll be genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about climate change. Honest.
There isn't a great need to argue against this sort of arguement. The next ten years of cooling is going to pretty much put a dent in it. What I find difficult to understand are the attacks, often personal, if you dare to say lets examine whats happening here.
The reason attacks get personally are due to the type of repetitive, specious argument you are presenting in this post. Delay represents a danger to all of us, I take that personally. You may simply be a poorly informed idiot, or you may be a disingenous prick, either way, I'm pretty sick of molly coddling you people and politely refuting the same nonsense time and time again. That frustration, I suspect, is what you are picking up on. My suggestion? Avoid abuse by getting a clue.
Hey, thanks for the personal attack, at least there is an effect demonstrated by a cause there. Calling me a prick really adds weight to your arguement. If you like, you can abuse me some more, but don't go too far and reach a tipping point.
You are welcome to the personal attack! I can think of few posters more deserving. For the record, merely being a prick doesn't validate you perspectives. You may be a 1 in a million genius who is a prick, or you might just be a common or garden prick. I'm thinking the latter.
Global warming is real - and is due to both Anthropogenic and ciclical. What can we do about global warming? Work on making each individual's footprint as small as possible while maintaining a REASONABLE yet sustainable way of life.
The world has been going through trends since the Earth was formed. There are periods in history where it's been warmer and periods where it has been cooler.
I'm not saying that we all need to continue burning our resources up. We do need to cut CO2 emissions, but more for our own health.
While this is quite true, and CO2 is required in the correct amounts to preserve life on earth, it says nothing about what we are currently doing to the planet NOW. The human heart has a natural rythym, but pump a few thousands volts of "life saving" electricity through your body when you don't need it, and you'll find out just how much damage the right stuff at the wrong time can do.
There is no poll or study that shows that the vast majority of scientists support the AGW theory and it hasn't been tested, because it can't be tested. The reason why action is being taken is because of the use of the precautionary principle, not due to overwhelming amounts of fact.
19,000 American Scientist disagree. Since 500 have publicy declared AGW null & void. It's easy to find papers debunking the 900 peer reviews. All that needs done is to search the opposite of the argument. It's even easier to declare a fact by ignoring all opposition as irrelevant. Doing so is not being scientific at all.
So you're saying 18,500 privately disagree. Did they contact you by telekinesis? Face it , no self respecting foot doctor is going to sign a paper on climate science unless you penciled his name in for him. How come the same four non active researchers showed up on your last two, quack documentaries?
So you're saying 18,500 privately disagree. Did they contact you by telekinesis? Face it , no self respecting foot doctor is going to sign a paper on climate science unless you penciled his name in for him. How come the same four non active researchers showed up on your last two, quack documentaries?
What the hell is wrong with you? You think Al Gore is credible and you're making fun of me? I simply stated the fallacies in this video so you could at least try acting mature.
Your use of the term evil sun and your lack of ability to create a comment that makes sense shows that you read Mallard Fillmore, and are so filled with the crap on it that there is no need to take you seriously. Go to the blag duck and cover. They have good rebuttals on Mallard Fillmore's arguments.on global warming. (And dirty wind? What do you mean by that? Oil is dirty, and no matter how dirty wind is, it does not affect wind power. And the sun is good. It keeps us all alive.):)
If I wanted to make sense I would believe the oil corp science that says cow farts or the sun or volcanoes or 20,000 year natural cycles are at the top of the agenda if they can decide what the hell subject they are on (not believing in consensus and all). Who the hell is Mallard Fillmore? I know some water fowl who make good sense when they're not loaded.They are advocates for the wet lands and wild rice. Not so much Condescending or minute Rice.Confused well beyond your years internetcount122?
Why are you people so incredibly stupid? You're typing this comment on the internet and complaining about the lack of facts? It's like sitting on a beach, closing your eyes and complaining there's no sand to build your castle. If you're not satisfied just google 'co2 temperature'. It's that simple you dumb fucks.
You can fire off all the quotes you like. I consider only the consensus among climatologists relevant (as should be obvious now). Creationists use the same ploy to promote ID, whine about exclusion and quote non biologists. It's silly, disingenous and it undermines science.
"NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability."
If you really care about this issue, get a PhD and convince your peers that climate change is nonsense, then lets talk again. In the meantime, you're just the cyber equivalent of a homeless guy on the street with a placard, yelling that "space aliens stuck probes in my ass!!". Get the experts on your side, then you'll have some credibility.
I was doing my PhD, but convinced Prof. Zimmerman GW was a lie from nuclear power, so he suggested I went and studied cancer! As Nuclear Power rule academia, because of the money they give.
If you really care about this issue, maybe you'll actually put some evidence on the table instead of just shooting off your mouth like a sophomore that can't pass high school chemistry
You're like a creationist who thinks that finding a few scientists who are spkeptical of
evolution (most of them not even in relevant fields of science) among tens of thousands
is enough to disprove evo. In fact creationists are in a better position than you right now because they have a few 100s of names to throw out while you have a few dozen (most not even climatologists).
Mind you, individual scientists are near the bottom of the credibility colum (a little higher than laymen) because you can always find someone disagreeing with the consensus. This is good (because differing opinions are always good) but can unfortunately be used by laymen with an agenda like you.
What matters is peer reviewed literature (900+ papers and counting ALL agreeing that AGW is happening and humans are
the most likely cause) and science organizations like AAAS and NAS (the most prestigious organizations in the US both stating that humans are causing AGW), putting their
you have closed your mind to the other side of the debate.
I could tell you about "peer-reviesed" papers written by people who do not think man is the cause of global warming. I could tell you some of the most prestigious scientists in the world do not think man is causing global warming. i could tell you the founder of the Weather Channel thinks "manmade" global warming is a scam.
But none of these things will mean anything to you because your mind is closed.
My mind is no more closed to the idea of natural GW/no GW than yours is to the geocentric model of the solar system. By all means point me to peer reviewed literature that explains GW by natural, not anthropogenic means.
"Remember, mankind's addition of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is only one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air every 5 years; do we really believe that such a small influence would have catastrophic effects?"
--Roy Spencer
-former Lead Climatologist, NASA
-UAH
-recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
-recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
"You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant."
"unfortunately, this is an issue(AGW) which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."
"Retreat of the snows of Kilimanjaro is often imputed to local phenomena,the main one being desertification in EAfrica. In a recent issue of Science magazine,French researchers have shown that this desertification was in large measure due to tectonic activities responsible for the gradual uplift of the African continent,thereby inducing a reorganization of atmospheric circulation. Greenhouse effect plays no significant role in these processes"
Yes, quite true and nothing to do with the general impact of global warming. The original author later complained that his research had been hijacked by climate change skeptics.
And was it before or after some GW skeptics have had the tires on their cars fall off while driving them, because some rational GW believer thought it was a good Idea to loosen the lug nuts holding the tires on?
"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
"Fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,hydrosphere,and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5years. Oceans will be able to absorb the larger part of CO2 that man produces through fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model isnt supported by scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there shouldnt be reason to fear climatic catastrophe because of mans release of life-governing CO2 gas"
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.......... I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company, and I'm not a Republican."
"Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists"
--NY Times article, 'From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype', March 13th, 2007
"The hypothesis of Manmade Global Warming is falsified by the evidence... co2 is not the cause of warming...there's really no question in my mind that the large amounts of money that have been fed into this particular, rather small area of science, have distorted the overall scientific effort."
"I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical."
"There's such intolerance of any dissenting voice. This is the most politically incorrect thing possible: is to doubt this climate change orthodoxy....(but) There are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a bit frightened to come out in the open, but who quietly and privately, and some of them publicly, are saying, 'Hang on. Wait a minute. This simply doesn't add up' " (refering to co2 being the cause of Global Warming)
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row....... The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars"
--Habibullo Abdussamatov
--head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia
"What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always... warming or cooling, it's never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years"
--Philip Stott
--emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
"They(tv reporters) ask me 'Did you see ice falling from the edge of glaciers?' 'Yes. That's the "spring break-up". That happens every year.' The press comes to us all the time, you know, 'I want to see something of the greenhouse disaster.' I say 'There is none(chuckles).' "
--Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
-Founder, Director (ret 2007), IARC, Fairbanks, Alaska (International Artic Research Center - the worlds leading arctic research institute)
"I mean, I don't know, this whole thing is very strange. I can't stop it. Everybody's believing Al Gore's movie, which is nothing but science fiction, but people think that that's right though. But we'll see."
--Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
-Director(ret.2007), IARC, Fairbanks, Alaska (International Artic Research Center - the worlds leading arctic research institute
"Temperature changes periodically occur in different parts of the planet. However, it is not an irreversible process. Nature controls itself.... All that global (extreme) cold and (extreme) heat has been made up by American film directors"
-Aleksei Babushkin
--Dean of the Department of Physics of the Ural State University, Aleksei, Russia
"He's refering to Al Gore) one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."
"A 30 year global cooling period occurred from the early 1940s to 1977, during which time temperatures cooled 0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and 0.2°C in the Southern, despite rapid rise in atmospheric CO2. Many glaciers advanced significantly during this cool period. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, the sharply rising atmospheric CO2 during this time should have resulted in global warming, not 30 years of global cooling."
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,and,on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age"
"You can't say that co2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.... If we look at climate through the geological time frame we would never suspect co2 as a major climate driver."
"The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling... Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased co2, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all."
--Dr. Gary D. Sharp
--Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California
"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus."
"...First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today,right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take"
"While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests."
--Roy Spencer, 3/20/08
-U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E, NASA's Terra satellite
"The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard."
--Roy Spencer, 3/20/08
-U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E, NASA's Terra satellite
"Global Warming is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming."
"These days if you are skeptical about the litany around climate change you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier. The envorinmental movement, really, it is a political activist movement. And they have become hugely influential at a global level. And every politician is aware of that today. Wether you're on the left, the middle, or the right, you have to pay homage to the environment."
Everything has a political dimension, and this is not before time. The public has been convinced, because the scienctific community is convinced, and politicians have to follow. It's a simple equation, which is quite familiar. There is no need to fabricate a conspiracy around a process which is completely transparent.
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes falls within the natural range of environmental change in our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."
"One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of co2 or other greenhouse gases. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination"
--Reid Bryson
-Gaylord Nelson Inst Envir Studies,UWM
-holds 30th PhD Meteorology granted in American history
Whatever his past glories, he is a minority. Science works by gradually convincing and winning over the skeptical in its own ranks, this process has happened. That there are outliers, genuine honest researchers with real concerns, should not be a surprise. There are always outliers. It's the primary reason science works, and religion doesn't.
All I'm saying is that he is a single individual in a field where the consensus is strongly against him. He doesn't need to convince me, or you, neither of us are climatologists in a position to evaluate his work. He needs to convince his peers.
you need to study for a few weeks on who Reid Bryson is. You do not know what you are talking about.
You have only convinced yourself that there is a "consensus". The "concensus" argument is propaganda. If you'll take time you can find 1000's of scientists who are questioning "manmade" global warming.
I'm sorry, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the subject to know that this is nonsense. The consensus among the relevant experts however, that is to say climatologists, is overwhelming. I submit that you are the victim of the propaganda, limited almost exclusively to North America. I think we will have to leave it at that.
No general framework of scientific principles that we deem a theory has been completely overturned when all of the following conditions apply: long duration (more than a few years), increased consensus as the evidence has grown, and continued general agreement despite extensive attempts at refutation. Evolution and Relativity are examples; anthropogenic global warming is approaching that level of certainty.
lol, a scientific theory is a fact now? I humbly request that the author of this mess find something sturdy and inexpensive, then begin hitting himself. I'll let you know when to stop.
Oh dear, at least how a go at civility, it's a baseline requirement for being taken seriously. Have a good think about how you screwed up here, it may help.
There was a theory that the world was flat at one time too, didn't make it a fact though now did it :) Look up the definition of theory again, I did before this post, have a nice day
As any scientist worth his/her salt does, I bristle when I hear someone claim a "theory" as a "fact." There are very few accepted scientific facts and they are limited to things like gravity. There have been many scientific "facts" throughout history that have been proven incorrect with time. Anyone accepting as fact a theory that has only been around for such a relatively short time should be considered suspect -- and by short, I mean in a historical context. (cont. below)
Point taken, however the word "theory" in a scientific context, has nothing like the emphemeral and insubstantial meaning afforded it in everyday language. Especially given the creationist debacle. Anthroprogenic global warming is well established now, and the debate is largely over. Besides, the actions to address it have range of other compelling drivers, as I'm sure you are aware.
There is little downside to efficiency, and renewable energy sources in a world with 5 billion people in the Q to engage in the lifestyle of the 1.5 billion of the worlds elite "consumers". So lets get on with it.
I agree that people should be less wasteful. Turn off the water while you brush your teeth. Re-use your bath towel a few times. Stop buying ridiculously inefficient vehicles. But do these things for the purpose of keeping what precious natural resources we have. Do it, because it just makes sense.
Golly, you're like one of those Japanese soldiers they found on islands in the pacific in the 1980's, still manning their guns 40 years after the war had ended. Someone get a megaphone.
Newsflash! It's over. You lost. The good news is the worlds a better place because of it. Cheer up.
Ok , explain this if humans are causing global warming. At the end of the ice age glaciers were melting 100 times faster than today.
michael32768 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL you don't know what you're talking about, you're an idiot.
mynameaborat993 1 year ago
Some great analogies. After reading a lot of comments on denialist blogs it occured to me that most of the commenters don't understand the scientific method and have a distrust of scientists.
gr4tuitou5 1 year ago
Stolen emails prove the absolute lack of honesty on the part of the rabid AGW-denialists. Who knows what else they are into stealing, hacking, corrupting?
duck24x 1 year ago
Real climate scientists who have proven AGW true are still to this day being silenced by big-pro-oil big-pro-industry big-pro-corporate welfare conservatives, like Prime Minister Harper, in Canada. Environmentalists & scientists who come to any conclusion that offends corporations & individuals who are too selfish to change their shopping & consumptions habits are silenced by those corps.
duck24x 1 year ago 3
Why would he be embarrassed for lying? First of all there is no such thing a a PHD in Climatology in fact there is no such degree. Secondly the small handful of scientist that have backed this lie have tampered with data, suppressed data, lied, blocked peer review, slandered legitimate scientist, and extorted money based on their lies.
TAMPADOC64 1 year ago
Notice Mars @3:37 with 95% CO2 in the atmosphere, average temp -81 degrees F and polar ice caps made of dry-ice. Great job of retaining heat on Mars CO2 you dangerous plant loving gas.
rusty1491 2 years ago
Do you feel embarrassed about making this video now that Climategate has revealed the scientific fraud, peer review pressures, bullying, censorship, etc. Oh, yeah, and the temperature has declined for the past 10 years.
As an academic, I laughed at your "it's a scientific theory which, in practical terms, means it's a fact". Your ignorance of scientific method is actually quite funny.
strawberrysubmarine 2 years ago
No. Only a conspiracy nut would find anything sinister in the email exchanges stolen from the CRU. Those of us that are sane find them completely innocuous.
TheModestAgnostic 2 years ago 7
If only a conspiracy nut would find any sinister, then why are investigations being initiated by the University of East Anglia, the US Senate, and the United Nations?
strawberrysubmarine 2 years ago
hmmm, those same people probably dismiss the IPCC head when he says that the Himalayans won't soon disappear as a voodoo scientiest
aweiss 2 years ago
@TheModestAgnostic Only an idiot would find them completely innocuous. I'm sure you didn't look over the doctored code that was recovered with the emails, you know, that eliminated the MWP and the LIA as well as the cooling period int the 50s and 60s. Oh and how about "Hide the decline" you know, substituting weather station data from Urban hot zones in place of the satelite data because it dispelled their lie?
TAMPADOC64 1 year ago
@TheModestAgnostic BRAVO!
The AGW-deniers so discredit themselves as paid shills of Exxon and Chevron who have been found guilty of murder in Ecuador and Nigeria.
mphello 1 year ago
Honestly you Dawkinites are unreal.
Does creationism have to be brought into every single arguement?
floppykid 2 years ago
Good video. We need more like this.
The denialists preach about how the incursions on their freedoms. Well, it's MY freedoms, too. But, those incursions are trivial compared to the gains.
And, even *I* do not believe the very worst predictions - e.g. hurricanes.
I'm too busy battling the denialists.
Denialists don't know what real loss of freedom is: look at BILLIONS of animals confined in a BOX their ENTIRE lives in factory farms, fur farms, and laboratories.
ecordy75 2 years ago
All the anti-sex terrorists want to increase taxes by imprisoning people for consensual sex as well as extremist excessive punishments for non-consensual sex and sexual offenses.
They take away freedom and property from prisoners, then use the circular reasoning that they do so because they are felons and criminals, but that is because they made them felons and criminals.
The anti-sex terrorists, like the anti-drug terrorists, are coming for YOU, to take away YOUR freedom & property!
ecordy75 2 years ago
Capitalism leads to corporate welfare - the biggest cause of taxation.
If there is one thing government cannot do well, it is administer justice. Thanks to anti-socialist religionists, gov't insanely punishes poor people over theft and sexual offenders, while doing NOTHING to punish corporations for taking away OUR money for corp welfare, owning all resources, land, etc.
ecordy75 2 years ago
The anti-socialist pro-capitalist religion has never ONCE scientifically proved that socialism raises taxes more than capitalism. Taxes have risen in the US in spite of the same party: Democrat=Republican being in power essentially from the beginning.
These same anti-socialists religionists then hypocritically attack the proven fact of AGW for not being "proven" enough.
But, I don't consider that their worst hypocrisy! But, I have run out of room to explain what that worst thing is.
ecordy75 2 years ago
As of 2008 - all the IPCC models from about 2000, have failed miserably.
Warming drives CO2.
CO2 does not drive warming.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Here are some other critics you can look up; Lindzen (wrote part of the IPCC report), Murty, Wiskle, Bellamy, Giaever (Nobel Prize winner), Itoh, Evans (AUS) - and a host of other top thinkers in THIS field.
Wiskel once set out to build a Kyoto house!
Dr. David Evans (AUS) Built Austrailia's Kyoto Carbon Counting model - a 6year effort.
These names would NEVER be on the skeptic side of this argument if the Science was on the on the other side.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
OK, I've been looking around for awhile, and I still have not found any proof that CO2, causes most of the heating we've seen.
I've seen that we've increased Co2 and other green house gases, I've seen the ice caps melt, and all that.
But no one, has proven that the green house effect causes most of the warming we've seen. They have hypothesis, that Co2, will, interact with water vapor, and magnify the heating effect 2x, 5x, or 10x. But it is, hypothesis, and it is unproven.
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Wow! Let me rush to take the word of some random guy on the internet over the IPCC!
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
as well you should.
The IPCC is just a bunch of Shills paid to tell us how bad we need a global government
And by the way, I notice you haven't directed me to where I can find the answers to what I asked, you know why? Because you don't have it. No one does.
And yes, I'm calling you out. Put your evidence where your mouth is.
IF you have no evidence, then shut up, grown-ups are talking.
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Wow! I've never heard any of this before .... what a convincing fellow you are. My eyes are opened! Oh help, I am undone!
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
again you side-step the issue of providing evidence
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
come'on you puss
It is time you global warming fear mongers, to come to the table, no more of this, "The Debate is over" BS.
I mean, lets be honest, you don't care about the environment. You're all about attacking industry, attacking progress. And then you cloak your male intent in a shroud of righteousness.
Come'on, Priest of Industries Death, Where are your facts? Whats your proof?
Oh yeah, you can prove ice melts when it gets warmer, but what about CO2 driving temp?
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Wow, you're sure drawing me out. Why wouldn't I debate with some random kook on the internet? I must be mad not to spend hours and hours learning from someone [who thinks they're]smarter than 90% of the worlds climatologists. How can I let this opportunity pass me by?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
dude, if you don't have any evidence, and you are blindly going along with them no questions asked, just say it.
If these scientist are really as smart as you claim, then surly they can provide some evidence. But, up and till this point, no evidence has been forth coming from them...Kinda like you...
I just noticed something, you dont ever back up your opinion with evidence, just like "90%" of scientist, lol, hey, do you work for the IPCC?
They train you guys well on NOT proving things.
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
There is little virtue in debating studied ignorance, dishonesty and delusion. You gave yourself away as a hopeless idelouge with your talk of IPCC "shills" and similar neo-con talking points. You trot them out with such conviction! As if these particular turds have never bobbled to the top of the swamp before. Perhaps you're new to the intertubes.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
*shakes head* Your contributions are valuable though, to be ridiculed and mocked:-) It is also gratifying that your time spent talking to thin air on my channel, is time not spent boring some other poor bastard to death. You ARE a longwinded tiresome pissant.
Tell you what. Get your degree in Climatology, publish a few papers on the subject in the relevant journals and then I'll be genuinely interested to hear what you have to say about climate change. Honest.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Did you know that Richard Dawkins has a link to this video on his website?
internetaccount122 3 years ago
There isn't a great need to argue against this sort of arguement. The next ten years of cooling is going to pretty much put a dent in it. What I find difficult to understand are the attacks, often personal, if you dare to say lets examine whats happening here.
roddersy2k 3 years ago
The reason attacks get personally are due to the type of repetitive, specious argument you are presenting in this post. Delay represents a danger to all of us, I take that personally. You may simply be a poorly informed idiot, or you may be a disingenous prick, either way, I'm pretty sick of molly coddling you people and politely refuting the same nonsense time and time again. That frustration, I suspect, is what you are picking up on. My suggestion? Avoid abuse by getting a clue.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Hey, thanks for the personal attack, at least there is an effect demonstrated by a cause there. Calling me a prick really adds weight to your arguement. If you like, you can abuse me some more, but don't go too far and reach a tipping point.
roddersy2k 3 years ago 4
You are welcome to the personal attack! I can think of few posters more deserving. For the record, merely being a prick doesn't validate you perspectives. You may be a 1 in a million genius who is a prick, or you might just be a common or garden prick. I'm thinking the latter.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Global warming is real - and is due to both Anthropogenic and ciclical. What can we do about global warming? Work on making each individual's footprint as small as possible while maintaining a REASONABLE yet sustainable way of life.
VideoGuyNC 3 years ago
100% Possible
bflatkitty 3 years ago
100% Progressive
bflatkitty 3 years ago
100% Necessary
bflatkitty 3 years ago
100% Renewable energy in ten years
bflatkitty 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The globe has been in a cooling phase since 2005. Review this video!
JonThm 3 years ago
The world has been going through trends since the Earth was formed. There are periods in history where it's been warmer and periods where it has been cooler.
I'm not saying that we all need to continue burning our resources up. We do need to cut CO2 emissions, but more for our own health.
PsykoticCreations 3 years ago
While this is quite true, and CO2 is required in the correct amounts to preserve life on earth, it says nothing about what we are currently doing to the planet NOW. The human heart has a natural rythym, but pump a few thousands volts of "life saving" electricity through your body when you don't need it, and you'll find out just how much damage the right stuff at the wrong time can do.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
There is no poll or study that shows that the vast majority of scientists support the AGW theory and it hasn't been tested, because it can't be tested. The reason why action is being taken is because of the use of the precautionary principle, not due to overwhelming amounts of fact.
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago
19,000 American Scientist disagree. Since 500 have publicy declared AGW null & void. It's easy to find papers debunking the 900 peer reviews. All that needs done is to search the opposite of the argument. It's even easier to declare a fact by ignoring all opposition as irrelevant. Doing so is not being scientific at all.
dberry2003 3 years ago
So you're saying 18,500 privately disagree. Did they contact you by telekinesis? Face it , no self respecting foot doctor is going to sign a paper on climate science unless you penciled his name in for him. How come the same four non active researchers showed up on your last two, quack documentaries?
bflatkitty 3 years ago
19,000 dentists signed the "Your Gums" petition against coronary bypass surgery.
belmont162 3 years ago 3
So you're saying 18,500 privately disagree. Did they contact you by telekinesis? Face it , no self respecting foot doctor is going to sign a paper on climate science unless you penciled his name in for him. How come the same four non active researchers showed up on your last two, quack documentaries?
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago
Nice to see you're arguing both sides of the issue.
bflatkitty 3 years ago
That's actually not my comment, some other guy made it earlier on this vid, I didn't intend to have it under my name.
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago
"Mommy Mommy"
" What Baby J "
" I learned on faux news that voodoo environmental, kill and drill, oil corporation science is much better than real science.
Al Gore is trying to make all our energy come from dirty wind and the evil sun. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!???"
bflatkitty 3 years ago
What the hell is wrong with you? You think Al Gore is credible and you're making fun of me? I simply stated the fallacies in this video so you could at least try acting mature.
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago
The only mature people are dead.
bflatkitty 3 years ago
Great comeback.
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago 8
Your use of the term evil sun and your lack of ability to create a comment that makes sense shows that you read Mallard Fillmore, and are so filled with the crap on it that there is no need to take you seriously. Go to the blag duck and cover. They have good rebuttals on Mallard Fillmore's arguments.on global warming. (And dirty wind? What do you mean by that? Oil is dirty, and no matter how dirty wind is, it does not affect wind power. And the sun is good. It keeps us all alive.):)
internetaccount122 3 years ago
If I wanted to make sense I would believe the oil corp science that says cow farts or the sun or volcanoes or 20,000 year natural cycles are at the top of the agenda if they can decide what the hell subject they are on (not believing in consensus and all). Who the hell is Mallard Fillmore? I know some water fowl who make good sense when they're not loaded.They are advocates for the wet lands and wild rice. Not so much Condescending or minute Rice.Confused well beyond your years internetcount122?
bflatkitty 3 years ago
Yes.
internetaccount122 3 years ago
That makes three of us.
bflatkitty 3 years ago
I'm confused. Are you pro or anti global warming?
internetaccount122 3 years ago
I'm not sure yet.
LiesMakeBabyJesusCry 3 years ago
WHERE ARE THE FACTS?
SHOW ME THE SCIENTIFIC LINK BETWEEN CO2 LEVELS AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!
"We are right, and you are stupid if you disagree." IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD
jpickett83 3 years ago
Here they are:
gristmill(.)grist(.)org/story/2006/11/20/21248/499
Why are you people so incredibly stupid? You're typing this comment on the internet and complaining about the lack of facts? It's like sitting on a beach, closing your eyes and complaining there's no sand to build your castle. If you're not satisfied just google 'co2 temperature'. It's that simple you dumb fucks.
Jacnas 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
ANOTHER SCIENTIST BECOMES A SKEPTIC
And this name is a HUGE one, the biggest name since Reid A. Bryson left the alarmists side.
It is:
Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science at MIT
To read about it search the web for this:
Hurricane Expert Reconsiders Global Warming's Impact
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
You can fire off all the quotes you like. I consider only the consensus among climatologists relevant (as should be obvious now). Creationists use the same ploy to promote ID, whine about exclusion and quote non biologists. It's silly, disingenous and it undermines science.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
What consensus? Do you even read Scientific literature? Or just believe whatever the government tells you?
Government boy
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
"NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability."
--Robert J. Samuelson
--columnist, Newsweek, Aug.20-27, 2007 issue
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
If you really care about this issue, get a PhD and convince your peers that climate change is nonsense, then lets talk again. In the meantime, you're just the cyber equivalent of a homeless guy on the street with a placard, yelling that "space aliens stuck probes in my ass!!". Get the experts on your side, then you'll have some credibility.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
I was doing my PhD, but convinced Prof. Zimmerman GW was a lie from nuclear power, so he suggested I went and studied cancer! As Nuclear Power rule academia, because of the money they give.
JonThm 3 years ago
If you really care about this issue, maybe you'll actually put some evidence on the table instead of just shooting off your mouth like a sophomore that can't pass high school chemistry
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
You're like a creationist who thinks that finding a few scientists who are spkeptical of
evolution (most of them not even in relevant fields of science) among tens of thousands
is enough to disprove evo. In fact creationists are in a better position than you right now because they have a few 100s of names to throw out while you have a few dozen (most not even climatologists).
Jacnas 3 years ago
Mind you, individual scientists are near the bottom of the credibility colum (a little higher than laymen) because you can always find someone disagreeing with the consensus. This is good (because differing opinions are always good) but can unfortunately be used by laymen with an agenda like you.
Jacnas 3 years ago
What matters is peer reviewed literature (900+ papers and counting ALL agreeing that AGW is happening and humans are
the most likely cause) and science organizations like AAAS and NAS (the most prestigious organizations in the US both stating that humans are causing AGW), putting their
reputations at stake on this matter.
Jacnas 3 years ago
you have closed your mind to the other side of the debate.
I could tell you about "peer-reviesed" papers written by people who do not think man is the cause of global warming. I could tell you some of the most prestigious scientists in the world do not think man is causing global warming. i could tell you the founder of the Weather Channel thinks "manmade" global warming is a scam.
But none of these things will mean anything to you because your mind is closed.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
My mind is no more closed to the idea of natural GW/no GW than yours is to the geocentric model of the solar system. By all means point me to peer reviewed literature that explains GW by natural, not anthropogenic means.
Jacnas 3 years ago 2
MagentaTrue says:
"I could tell you about "peer-reviesed" papers written by people who do not think man is the cause of global warming."
YOU COULD????
Then TELL ME -- just one PLEEEEEASE
BeondaPale 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"Remember, mankind's addition of more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is only one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air every 5 years; do we really believe that such a small influence would have catastrophic effects?"
--Roy Spencer
-former Lead Climatologist, NASA
-UAH
-recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
-recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Special Award
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant."
--John Coleman
--Founder, The Weather Channel
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter
arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting,
coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have
been duped."
--John Coleman
--Founder, The Weather Channel
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"unfortunately, this is an issue(AGW) which has become far more political than technical, and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."
--Michael Griffin
-former NASA Chief
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"Retreat of the snows of Kilimanjaro is often imputed to local phenomena,the main one being desertification in EAfrica. In a recent issue of Science magazine,French researchers have shown that this desertification was in large measure due to tectonic activities responsible for the gradual uplift of the African continent,thereby inducing a reorganization of atmospheric circulation. Greenhouse effect plays no significant role in these processes"
--Claude Allegre
-French and USAcadSciences
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Yes, quite true and nothing to do with the general impact of global warming. The original author later complained that his research had been hijacked by climate change skeptics.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
When and where did he say that?
And was it before or after some GW skeptics have had the tires on their cars fall off while driving them, because some rational GW believer thought it was a good Idea to loosen the lug nuts holding the tires on?
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."
--Christopher Landsea, PhD
--Hurricane Research Division, NOAA
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
I count 2 maybe three climatologists in that entire spam storm. You'll need to do better than that.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There's all this stuff about saving the planet.The Earth is fine.The Earth was fine before we got here,and it'll be fine long after we're gone"
--Bob Giegengack
-UofPenn,Dept,Earth and EnvirSc
-Lindback Award,Distinguished Teaching,1979
-Ira Abrams Distinguished TeachingAward,1994
-College GenStudiesDistinguished Teaching Award,1999
-Dir,Undergrad Major in EnvirStudies,1971-
-FacultyDir,Concentration in Envir Studies
-FacultyDir,Masters EnvirStudies
-FacultyCoor,EnvirStudies
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fossil fuel carbon is minute compared to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,hydrosphere,and lithosphere. The atmospheric CO2 lifetime is about 5years. Oceans will be able to absorb the larger part of CO2 that man produces through fossil fuels. The IPCC CO2 global warming model isnt supported by scientific data. Based on geochemical knowledge there shouldnt be reason to fear climatic catastrophe because of mans release of life-governing CO2 gas"
-Tom Segalstad
IPCC former Reviewer
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore, but there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.......... I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company, and I'm not a Republican."
--Don Easterbrook
--Western Washington Univ.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists"
--NY Times article, 'From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype', March 13th, 2007
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
How many of them were climatologists?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"None of the major climate changes in the last 1000 years can be explained by co2........ The sun is driving climate change. Co2 is irrelevant."
--Piers Corbyn
-solar physisist
-Weather Action
-'The SuperWeatherman'
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The hypothesis of Manmade Global Warming is falsified by the evidence... co2 is not the cause of warming...there's really no question in my mind that the large amounts of money that have been fed into this particular, rather small area of science, have distorted the overall scientific effort."
--Frederick Singer
-Former Director, US National Weather Service
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical."
--Dr. David Evans
-Science Speak, Australia
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There's such intolerance of any dissenting voice. This is the most politically incorrect thing possible: is to doubt this climate change orthodoxy....(but) There are more and more thoughtful people, some of them a bit frightened to come out in the open, but who quietly and privately, and some of them publicly, are saying, 'Hang on. Wait a minute. This simply doesn't add up' " (refering to co2 being the cause of Global Warming)
--Lord Lawson of Blaby, England
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no direct evidence which links 20th century global warming to arthropogenic greenhouse gases."
--Nir Shaviv
-U of Jerusalem
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row....... The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars"
--Habibullo Abdussamatov
--head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"You imagine that we live in an age of reason... and the global warming alarm is dressed up as science but it's not science. It's propaganda."
--Paul Reiter
--Pasteur Institute, Paris, France
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always... warming or cooling, it's never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years"
--Philip Stott
--emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
-politically-left environmentalist
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"They(tv reporters) ask me 'Did you see ice falling from the edge of glaciers?' 'Yes. That's the "spring break-up". That happens every year.' The press comes to us all the time, you know, 'I want to see something of the greenhouse disaster.' I say 'There is none(chuckles).' "
--Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
-Founder, Director (ret 2007), IARC, Fairbanks, Alaska (International Artic Research Center - the worlds leading arctic research institute)
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
"I mean, I don't know, this whole thing is very strange. I can't stop it. Everybody's believing Al Gore's movie, which is nothing but science fiction, but people think that that's right though. But we'll see."
--Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
-Director(ret.2007), IARC, Fairbanks, Alaska (International Artic Research Center - the worlds leading arctic research institute
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"Temperature changes periodically occur in different parts of the planet. However, it is not an irreversible process. Nature controls itself.... All that global (extreme) cold and (extreme) heat has been made up by American film directors"
-Aleksei Babushkin
--Dean of the Department of Physics of the Ural State University, Aleksei, Russia
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"He's refering to Al Gore) one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about."
--Dr. William Gray
--Colorado State Univ.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is this guy a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"A 30 year global cooling period occurred from the early 1940s to 1977, during which time temperatures cooled 0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and 0.2°C in the Southern, despite rapid rise in atmospheric CO2. Many glaciers advanced significantly during this cool period. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, the sharply rising atmospheric CO2 during this time should have resulted in global warming, not 30 years of global cooling."
--Don Easterbrook
--Western Washington Univ
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
fact in isolation, not helpful.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."
--Yury Izrael
-IPCC co-chairman
-Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute
-Russian Academy of Sciences
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree,and,on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age"
---Richard Lindzen
-MIT
-member National Academy of Science
-member IPCC
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Morally ambivalent, possibly honest skeptic. Thats one.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"You can't say that co2 will drive climate. It certainly never did in the past.... If we look at climate through the geological time frame we would never suspect co2 as a major climate driver."
--Ian Clark
--hydrogeologist and professor
-arctic specialist
-Department of Earth Sciences
-University of Ottawa
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is he a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling... Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased co2, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all."
--Dr. Gary D. Sharp
--Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Talking about Coral Reefs not AGW.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus."
--Timothy Ball
-PhD Climatology
-Prof of climatology(for 32 years)
-University of Winnipeg
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Ah this guy is familiar. Windbag and paid shill of the oil industry.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"MANMADE" GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION - RULE ONE:
NEVER discuss the science.
Instead:
Attack the scientist - Repeat the mantra.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
"...First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today,right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take"
--Michael Griffin
-NASAChief(frm)
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is he a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests."
--Roy Spencer, 3/20/08
-U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E, NASA's Terra satellite
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Fallacious argument, says nothing about the reality of climate change.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard."
--Roy Spencer, 3/20/08
-U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E, NASA's Terra satellite
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is he a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"Global Warming is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming."
--John Coleman
--Founder, The Weather Channel
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Is he a climatologist?
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"MANMADE" GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION - RULE ONE:
NEVER discuss the science.
Instead:
Attack the scientist - Repeat the mantra.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
on the contrary, it is the very view of the relevant scientists that we support.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
on the contrary, it is the very view of the relevant scientists that we support.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
"These days if you are skeptical about the litany around climate change you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier. The envorinmental movement, really, it is a political activist movement. And they have become hugely influential at a global level. And every politician is aware of that today. Wether you're on the left, the middle, or the right, you have to pay homage to the environment."
--Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Everything has a political dimension, and this is not before time. The public has been convinced, because the scienctific community is convinced, and politicians have to follow. It's a simple equation, which is quite familiar. There is no need to fabricate a conspiracy around a process which is completely transparent.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes falls within the natural range of environmental change in our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change."
--Hon. Robert Carter
--FRSNZ
--James Cook Univ, Queensland, Australia
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
"One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of co2 or other greenhouse gases. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination"
--Reid Bryson
-Gaylord Nelson Inst Envir Studies,UWM
-holds 30th PhD Meteorology granted in American history
-"Father of scientific meteorology"
-"Most cited climatologist in the world"
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
Whatever his past glories, he is a minority. Science works by gradually convincing and winning over the skeptical in its own ranks, this process has happened. That there are outliers, genuine honest researchers with real concerns, should not be a surprise. There are always outliers. It's the primary reason science works, and religion doesn't.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
youre saying Reid Bryson is a has been?
you saying this reveals more about you than it does about him.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
All I'm saying is that he is a single individual in a field where the consensus is strongly against him. He doesn't need to convince me, or you, neither of us are climatologists in a position to evaluate his work. He needs to convince his peers.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
there is no consensus.
would you like more quotes? 100's?
you need to study for a few weeks on who Reid Bryson is. You do not know what you are talking about.
You have only convinced yourself that there is a "consensus". The "concensus" argument is propaganda. If you'll take time you can find 1000's of scientists who are questioning "manmade" global warming.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the subject to know that this is nonsense. The consensus among the relevant experts however, that is to say climatologists, is overwhelming. I submit that you are the victim of the propaganda, limited almost exclusively to North America. I think we will have to leave it at that.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANTARCTIC ICE GROWS TO RECORD SIZE
It is now at 16.17 million sq. km.
The old record is 16.03 million sq. km
And the Antarctic is still growing.
In Al Gore's predictions this wasn't supposed to happen.
MagentaTrue 3 years ago
No general framework of scientific principles that we deem a theory has been completely overturned when all of the following conditions apply: long duration (more than a few years), increased consensus as the evidence has grown, and continued general agreement despite extensive attempts at refutation. Evolution and Relativity are examples; anthropogenic global warming is approaching that level of certainty.
grastog1313 4 years ago
lol, a scientific theory is a fact now? I humbly request that the author of this mess find something sturdy and inexpensive, then begin hitting himself. I'll let you know when to stop.
theirairisoverthere 4 years ago
Oh dear, at least how a go at civility, it's a baseline requirement for being taken seriously. Have a good think about how you screwed up here, it may help.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
There was a theory that the world was flat at one time too, didn't make it a fact though now did it :) Look up the definition of theory again, I did before this post, have a nice day
JamieG58 4 years ago
Have a go at civility? Are you a panzee ass Brit? Oh... Right. Never mind.
And you know, for calling yourself Modest, you might try it some time Agy
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Civility is simply wasted on some people.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago
Don't look down or make fun of someone based on nationality or place of origin. When you do you're no better! Just pity smug haters.
Socialismordeath 3 years ago
As any scientist worth his/her salt does, I bristle when I hear someone claim a "theory" as a "fact." There are very few accepted scientific facts and they are limited to things like gravity. There have been many scientific "facts" throughout history that have been proven incorrect with time. Anyone accepting as fact a theory that has only been around for such a relatively short time should be considered suspect -- and by short, I mean in a historical context. (cont. below)
powerchik 4 years ago
Point taken, however the word "theory" in a scientific context, has nothing like the emphemeral and insubstantial meaning afforded it in everyday language. Especially given the creationist debacle. Anthroprogenic global warming is well established now, and the debate is largely over. Besides, the actions to address it have range of other compelling drivers, as I'm sure you are aware.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
There is little downside to efficiency, and renewable energy sources in a world with 5 billion people in the Q to engage in the lifestyle of the 1.5 billion of the worlds elite "consumers". So lets get on with it.
TheModestAgnostic 4 years ago
I agree that people should be less wasteful. Turn off the water while you brush your teeth. Re-use your bath towel a few times. Stop buying ridiculously inefficient vehicles. But do these things for the purpose of keeping what precious natural resources we have. Do it, because it just makes sense.
theirairisoverthere 4 years ago
Really? So, looking at cost of land, cost of materials, and energy creation per year.
Which is more efficient, Nuclear, or Wind mills?
Yeah, Nuclear. Do the same thing with Coal Fire Plants, oh Coal wins there too.
Face it ArrogantAgnostic, the only reason you guys want carbon taxes, and carbon credits, is you know these renewables can't compete without them.
LordVigeous666999 3 years ago
Golly, you're like one of those Japanese soldiers they found on islands in the pacific in the 1980's, still manning their guns 40 years after the war had ended. Someone get a megaphone.
Newsflash! It's over. You lost. The good news is the worlds a better place because of it. Cheer up.
TheModestAgnostic 3 years ago 2