..Now that would lead me to think the whole purpose of raising the issue was to hoodwink those who were less technically aware into thinking there was some issue with the reconstruction - needless to say it worked, the whole blogosphere went mad over this 'issue'. Of course any attempt to point out that it doesn't matter is 'scientists covering up'. Needless to say the Mann reconstruction still stands because it isn't wrong - a further source of fuel for the 'scientists covering up conspiracy'.
At 44:00 mins (Tiljander sediments). The bizarre 'upside down' criticism came from McIntyre and McKitrick in PNAS. It makes not a scrap of difference which way round you have them (it's basic stats). If you feed the proxy in upside down you get a negative correlation coefficient and you end up subtracting off a negative amount rather than adding a positive amount or vice versa. Mann pointed this out in the next issue of PNAS - there was no further comment from M and M. [continued]
Why is Moberg's graph in the 2005 paper in Nature significantly different to that given in the video at 46:05? The underlying data is the same but all the time has been stretched non-uniformly. 75 years have been added to the timings of the data on the right. so what you label as 2000 is actually 1925. Isn't that at bit dishonest, of either you or whoever you got it from?
50:05 There is only one financial model thats correct & accurate which is the Mathematically Perfected Model yet to be disproved that actually predicted economic failure in 2010 , 30 odd years earlier Why? Because it factored in INTEREST which always depletes any monetary circulation that only ever consists of some principal at most . Indeed any economic model that factors in " interest " at any rate always will predict & confirm any interest based monetary system forces TERMINAL FAILURE .
48:16 I might add here the IPCC models didn't do cloud ( water vapor ) which is natural & makes up 97% of the greenhouse gas so obviously their models couldn't accurately predict temperature man made or natural Why? If they cant predict the natural changes how could they accurately correlate their data with respect to the man made temperature data corrupted & massaged as it evidently was . This alone throws the IPCC predictions out the door in my most humble & logical opinion.
Why would you support Monckton's plan to redistribute wealth from good, hard working freedom-loving Democratic American people to Oil & Energy industry giants, lobbyists and politicians?
8:54 If one assumes most of the Co2 increases are due to" man " one would also be assuming the oceans emit little to no Co2 & trees ,plants emit little no Co2 at night & of course the dieing trees, plants etc emit little to no Co2 thus assuming man is the biggest emitter of Co2 that is far greater than any natural emissions but this is simply not the case because natural emissions of Co2 are evidently allot bigger than mans contribution of Co2 in the atmosphere.
@chotaboy66 Oceans absorb almost as much as they emit so their net contribution its small. (Something like 332 GT emitted and 338 GT absorbed). Land and vegetation has a similar pattern with a similar difference. So the net absorption from everything is about 12GT and we're producing about 23GT so there's a year on year build up.
@chotaboy66 Do you agree that the pre industrial level of co2 was about 280 ppmv and that the July 2011 level is 392 ppmv? (The video is a little old its increased since it was first uploaded). If so where do you think that extra 112 ppmv came from? Bear in mind that most of that increase has been since 1958 when it was 315 ppmv. Also isotopic analysis of tree rings indicate the extra carbon has a fossilised origin.
@Zantorc So CO2 follows temperature not leads it which is evident in ice core samples, & your tree ring data was evidently cherry picked by the IPCC to support an already disproved hockey stick theory. The fraudulent IPCC models don't even do cloud (water vapor) so how can one possibly correlate accurately mans contribution of CO2. There is more than enough evidence on my channel including over 900 peer reviewed papers that suggests man made CO2 has little to virtually no effect on the climate?
@chotaboy66 Let's deal with one point at a time. You referred me to a video which I viewed, it made a number of points. So I asked a few simple questions in order to get your opinion. I just wanted to know were you aware of these facts and did you agree or disagree with them.
The video seemed to me to be confusing total human contribution to co2 (112 ppm) with annual contribution (15 ppm). Like saying 'no straw ever broke a camels back' so it can always carry a bit more.
@Zantorc Sure I am ,its caused by the sun that drives temperatures that drives a CO2 lag evident in ice core samples ,the increase amount either way has little to no effect on climate,actually the more CO2 promotes plant growth which means more trees , get over it,man has little to no effect on climate change.Although he is trying with these nano self replicating aluminum particulates he is spraying all over the world that can only imbalance pH levels in the soil that will kill trees in the end?
@chotaboy66 OK so we agree pre industrial level was 280 ppmv its 392 ppmv now. So where did the extra come from? I'm going to say the extra is down to fossil burning fuel (and a tiny bit due to cement production). Therefore when the video claims mans contribution is 15 ppmv it's wrong because it's 112 ppm. In particular she doesn't say it's per year. It gives a very misleading impression. (Why would anyone want to do that when 5 mins research shows how misleading it is)? Agreed?
@Zantorc 4% of 385 ppm is 15ppm not 120ppm considering its 390ppm NOW ,According to the IPCC it ranged between-350 ppm before the industrial revolution, CO2 has risen & fallen by greater levels over longer periods of time which indicates a balance ? Considering natural events such as volcano's, CO2 lag evident in ice cores & slight decrease in temps over the last 10 years its impossible to conclusively say an increase of 1 or 2 ppm per year is due to man let alone cause non existent warming?
@chotaboy66 Did you mean to delete this? I'll comment anyway. To have co2 above 350ppm you have to go back to when the Sun was younger and therefore cooler. (Because as the Sun uses up its initial fuel it changes what it burns). If you go far enough back you can find co2 10 times higher than now, but then it had better be high, because the Suns output was like 7% lower. (That's big - the litte ice age was only a fraction of a percent drop). Yet there was liquid water at the equator.
@Zantorc If 4% of 385 ppm is 15ppm how the hell did you come up with 120ppm ?
Even if man contributed all the CO2 since that video was done it couldn't be any more than 20ppm which is an increase of 5ppm because the sum total of CO2 is 390ppm now so if anything your misleading mate with your dodgy numbers that don't add up .
You climate fear mongering alarmists are your own worst enemy seriously.
@chotaboy66 OK now I see where we disagree. It's over the pre industrial figure of 280 ppm. Do you think that is not correct? Ice core data going back 800,000 yrs only momentarily gets as high as 300 ppm once (that was 300,000 yrs ago). It's taken 7000 yrs to climb from 260 ppm to 280ppm. I'm using 112ppm as human contribution 392 (last Julys CO2 figure) - 280 (pre industrial level). CO2 is basically flat as a pancake for thousands of yrs then there is a sudden spike in the last 150 yrs.
@Zantorc The video seemed to me to be confusing total human contribution to co2 (112 ppm) with annual contribution (15 ppm).
--
I don't believe the video suggested 15 ppm is the annual contribution rather a sum total percentage? How is it confusing ? Its that simple second grader could understand it?
@chotaboy66 If u look it up, the current annual increase happens to be about 15 ppm per year. The human contribution has been going on for longer than 1 year - though at a slower rate in the past. She says 3 times that ONLY 15 ppm comes from human activity, but I thought we just agreed that it was 112 ppm? That's 40% of 280ppm or 28.6% of 392ppm, it isn't 4% no matter how you look at it. A percentage is dimensionless it can't be ppm (not that it's 15% anyway). Why do u still think she's right?
That's what 385 ppm means.4% OF THIS COMES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY that's about 15 ppm there you see them 4% of that (points to 385) 15 ppm. 15 parts (points to 15) a million parts (points to stack). THIS IS WHAT COMES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY (points to 15) billions and billions of people - that is all. (....). this is what I want to show, mainly this (points to 15) 15 ppm that is what is in question today ONLY 15 PPM CO2 FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY thank you for listening.
@Zantorc I think she is trying to say humans are responsible for only 15 ppm (which is incorrect it's 112 ppm). Do you see my point? Do you agree? If not how are you interpreting her words because they seem quite clear to me (and clearly wrong)?
@Zantorc So your telling me man made co2 contribution its not 4% rather its 8x that in the order of 32%?? .. Your off your rocker mate?? there is no science that indicates this figure ,if so please quote me the paper by all means.
@chotaboy66 This is really really simple the pre industrial level was 280 ppm and it was that or thereabouts for thousands of years. Without humans it would be 280 ppm. With humans its 392 ppm. How many ppm are caused by humans? Ans 112 ppm. Not 15 ppm.
This isn't controversial (go to any skeptic site that has a graph of co2 over the last few thousand years and look) the pre industrial level is 280 ppm.
@chotaboy66 You're jumping to conclusions, I've said nothing about global warming. One thing at a time, lets deal with the co2 claim in the video. Don't you think its wrong for the video to say human contribution to co2 was 15 ppm when in fact its 112 ppm?
@Zantorc I see where you got your information from but not where you got the figure of 112ppm
However these papers do show a increase of CO2 over a short period of time but they don't indicate man is responsible for temperature increase which is inconsistent with the theory increasing co2 is a driving advocate of global warming ? papers that indicate co2 phenomenally lags behind temperature increase. Petit et al. (1999) ,Fischer et al. (1999), Indermuhle et al. (2000) ,Monnin et al. (2001)
@Zantorc Industrialization is not the problem nor is the " human" rather its a society thats been pushed in the direction for a need for constant 'growth' fueling the creation of false needs and rampant materialism, built-in obsolescence of goods or our purposefully designed 'throw-away' society.
What I teach is the only solution & gets to the bottom why & how we have been pushed down this road of destruction. Climate change is just a mere symptom of a far bigger problem people are overlooking
2. The debt driven economy (perpetual debt driven growth is impossible).
3. Peak oil.
None of these are likely to be addressed until the US moves from a form of plutocratic crony capitalism to a democracy. That may happen when the US and western economies collapse some time in the next year or so - as looks increasingly likely.
@Zantorc Sadly people fail to logically prioritize thus caught up in the symptoms & propaganda which is often pre fabricated unsubstantiated lies & half truths to point them away from the one & only solution.Sadly if we remain divided & let the economies collapse first with out unity on the one & only proof of solution we will fail the ultimate test . Yes man is his own worst enemy because his egotistical self generated willful blind ignorance prevents him from seeing whats right under his nose.
Oh well we will call it carbon tax instead of CO2 tax because people are that stupid they will buy the lie carbon is a pollutant based on fraudulent data & propaganda ,we will write law that says its a pollutant & tax people accordingly because they do breathe in 380 ppm & breathe out 40000 ppm? .Now due to the world cooling which doesn't correlate with increasing CO2 levels we will call it climate change instead of global warming.
@chotaboy66 Next point. Co2 lags temperature in ice core data. No doubt at all about that - for entry and exit from ice ages. With a bigger lag on entry then on exit from an ice age. So what does that mean? CO2 is certainly not the trigger for ice ages - it can't be because of the lag. But there is nothing to stop it acting as a feedback once its started.
@Zantorc Looking at whos behind the carbon trading scheme dreamed up by political parasites & the imposition of further taxs one can only conclude this is just another PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION scam by our representatives working for banks to steal further from us thus removing our liberties & freedoms. Even if we were causing it which we aren't far from it, to deem a building block of life a pollutant so as to pass a tax that will end up in a bank who already steals from us is extortion & fraud
Within two minutes of the video he says global warming has been rebranded to climate change, which is not true. Global warming is climate change, but climate change is not global warming (global warming is a reference to the upward temperature trend).
It really sets the tone for the rest of the video.
@CollinMaessen actually it has been rebranded several times from: Global Cooling (1970's), Global Warming (late 80's to 1990's), Global Warming (late 1990's), Anthropogenic Global Warming or "AGW" (early 2000's) and Climate Change and Man Made Climate Change (lately). I wonder what they will come up with next? Something like "We Hate Humans?" Get off your commie boat and realise the Marxist ideal is dead (and so are 100's of millions with it) - you can't con us with your greenie disguise!
@MikkkkyB Global cooling was predominantly spread by the media, it wasn't the leading subject in the literature at the time. And all the other terminology you mention have different meanings in the literature, they are not synonymous in meaning (btw, all these pop up in the literature as early as 1960 and 1970).
@CollinMaessen thanks for the reply Colin. Why can't we have an open debate about all of this? Why, if I am still a little "sceptical," do I get called names like idiot or moron on YouTube? Was Galileo an idiot (he argued against scientific consensus) and so did Einstein. I don't take either side really except to say there are dark and murky forces on BOTH sides at play here.
@MikkkkyB Depends on what you said if calling you an idiot might have been justified. I refrain from it as it tends to derail any sensible exchange. But please note that there are a lot of uninformed people commenting, and some you can call idiots. So a lot of people do not bother anymore to check if you have a wrong piece of information or something else might be the case.
But then again, you did start out calling me a communist.
And what are the "dark forces" you are referring to?
@CollinMaessen yeah sorry for that mate; that was probably uncalled for. Unequivocal apology. In fact I should probably be "cut off" from any intellectual debate because of that action. I have been abused by some other "alarmists" and have told them I won't debate them because of their language or accusations. So, now, I do the same here and cut myself off for I have committed the same offence. Be well....sincerely.
@MikkkkyB An apology would have sufficed (and is all that is needed for a civil exchange).
It's also the main thing I require on my channel, some civility during discussions. They are allowed to get heated (it's the internet after all), but if you don't behave you get shown the door to cool off for a while.
After that people are again more than welcome to join the fray and discuss to their hearts content.
It's a policy I mirror with how I approach contrarians.
@CollinMaessen Your approach is fine with me and understandable. Please note, however, I myself requested the "cut off" before I knew your 'policy' as I was sincerely apologetic for that remark. Roma locuta causa finita.
..Now that would lead me to think the whole purpose of raising the issue was to hoodwink those who were less technically aware into thinking there was some issue with the reconstruction - needless to say it worked, the whole blogosphere went mad over this 'issue'. Of course any attempt to point out that it doesn't matter is 'scientists covering up'. Needless to say the Mann reconstruction still stands because it isn't wrong - a further source of fuel for the 'scientists covering up conspiracy'.
Zantorc 1 month ago
At 44:00 mins (Tiljander sediments). The bizarre 'upside down' criticism came from McIntyre and McKitrick in PNAS. It makes not a scrap of difference which way round you have them (it's basic stats). If you feed the proxy in upside down you get a negative correlation coefficient and you end up subtracting off a negative amount rather than adding a positive amount or vice versa. Mann pointed this out in the next issue of PNAS - there was no further comment from M and M. [continued]
Zantorc 1 month ago
Why is Moberg's graph in the 2005 paper in Nature significantly different to that given in the video at 46:05? The underlying data is the same but all the time has been stretched non-uniformly. 75 years have been added to the timings of the data on the right. so what you label as 2000 is actually 1925. Isn't that at bit dishonest, of either you or whoever you got it from?
Zantorc 1 month ago
50:05 There is only one financial model thats correct & accurate which is the Mathematically Perfected Model yet to be disproved that actually predicted economic failure in 2010 , 30 odd years earlier Why? Because it factored in INTEREST which always depletes any monetary circulation that only ever consists of some principal at most . Indeed any economic model that factors in " interest " at any rate always will predict & confirm any interest based monetary system forces TERMINAL FAILURE .
chotaboy66 2 months ago
48:16 I might add here the IPCC models didn't do cloud ( water vapor ) which is natural & makes up 97% of the greenhouse gas so obviously their models couldn't accurately predict temperature man made or natural Why? If they cant predict the natural changes how could they accurately correlate their data with respect to the man made temperature data corrupted & massaged as it evidently was . This alone throws the IPCC predictions out the door in my most humble & logical opinion.
chotaboy66 2 months ago
Why would you support Monckton's plan to redistribute wealth from good, hard working freedom-loving Democratic American people to Oil & Energy industry giants, lobbyists and politicians?
That's very Communist of you.
TheTruePooka 2 months ago
8:54 If one assumes most of the Co2 increases are due to" man " one would also be assuming the oceans emit little to no Co2 & trees ,plants emit little no Co2 at night & of course the dieing trees, plants etc emit little to no Co2 thus assuming man is the biggest emitter of Co2 that is far greater than any natural emissions but this is simply not the case because natural emissions of Co2 are evidently allot bigger than mans contribution of Co2 in the atmosphere.
chotaboy66 2 months ago
@chotaboy66 Oceans absorb almost as much as they emit so their net contribution its small. (Something like 332 GT emitted and 338 GT absorbed). Land and vegetation has a similar pattern with a similar difference. So the net absorption from everything is about 12GT and we're producing about 23GT so there's a year on year build up.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Now let make it real simple for the dummy shall we ?
watch?v=0WSGWNw_X2U
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 Do you agree that the pre industrial level of co2 was about 280 ppmv and that the July 2011 level is 392 ppmv? (The video is a little old its increased since it was first uploaded). If so where do you think that extra 112 ppmv came from? Bear in mind that most of that increase has been since 1958 when it was 315 ppmv. Also isotopic analysis of tree rings indicate the extra carbon has a fossilised origin.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc So CO2 follows temperature not leads it which is evident in ice core samples, & your tree ring data was evidently cherry picked by the IPCC to support an already disproved hockey stick theory. The fraudulent IPCC models don't even do cloud (water vapor) so how can one possibly correlate accurately mans contribution of CO2. There is more than enough evidence on my channel including over 900 peer reviewed papers that suggests man made CO2 has little to virtually no effect on the climate?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 Let's deal with one point at a time. You referred me to a video which I viewed, it made a number of points. So I asked a few simple questions in order to get your opinion. I just wanted to know were you aware of these facts and did you agree or disagree with them.
The video seemed to me to be confusing total human contribution to co2 (112 ppm) with annual contribution (15 ppm). Like saying 'no straw ever broke a camels back' so it can always carry a bit more.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Sure I am ,its caused by the sun that drives temperatures that drives a CO2 lag evident in ice core samples ,the increase amount either way has little to no effect on climate,actually the more CO2 promotes plant growth which means more trees , get over it,man has little to no effect on climate change.Although he is trying with these nano self replicating aluminum particulates he is spraying all over the world that can only imbalance pH levels in the soil that will kill trees in the end?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 OK so we agree pre industrial level was 280 ppmv its 392 ppmv now. So where did the extra come from? I'm going to say the extra is down to fossil burning fuel (and a tiny bit due to cement production). Therefore when the video claims mans contribution is 15 ppmv it's wrong because it's 112 ppm. In particular she doesn't say it's per year. It gives a very misleading impression. (Why would anyone want to do that when 5 mins research shows how misleading it is)? Agreed?
Zantorc 1 month ago
Comment removed
chotaboy66 1 month ago
Comment removed
chotaboy66 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zantorc 4% of 385 ppm is 15ppm not 120ppm considering its 390ppm NOW ,According to the IPCC it ranged between-350 ppm before the industrial revolution, CO2 has risen & fallen by greater levels over longer periods of time which indicates a balance ? Considering natural events such as volcano's, CO2 lag evident in ice cores & slight decrease in temps over the last 10 years its impossible to conclusively say an increase of 1 or 2 ppm per year is due to man let alone cause non existent warming?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 Did you mean to delete this? I'll comment anyway. To have co2 above 350ppm you have to go back to when the Sun was younger and therefore cooler. (Because as the Sun uses up its initial fuel it changes what it burns). If you go far enough back you can find co2 10 times higher than now, but then it had better be high, because the Suns output was like 7% lower. (That's big - the litte ice age was only a fraction of a percent drop). Yet there was liquid water at the equator.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc If 4% of 385 ppm is 15ppm how the hell did you come up with 120ppm ?
Even if man contributed all the CO2 since that video was done it couldn't be any more than 20ppm which is an increase of 5ppm because the sum total of CO2 is 390ppm now so if anything your misleading mate with your dodgy numbers that don't add up .
You climate fear mongering alarmists are your own worst enemy seriously.
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 OK now I see where we disagree. It's over the pre industrial figure of 280 ppm. Do you think that is not correct? Ice core data going back 800,000 yrs only momentarily gets as high as 300 ppm once (that was 300,000 yrs ago). It's taken 7000 yrs to climb from 260 ppm to 280ppm. I'm using 112ppm as human contribution 392 (last Julys CO2 figure) - 280 (pre industrial level). CO2 is basically flat as a pancake for thousands of yrs then there is a sudden spike in the last 150 yrs.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc The video seemed to me to be confusing total human contribution to co2 (112 ppm) with annual contribution (15 ppm).
--
I don't believe the video suggested 15 ppm is the annual contribution rather a sum total percentage? How is it confusing ? Its that simple second grader could understand it?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 If u look it up, the current annual increase happens to be about 15 ppm per year. The human contribution has been going on for longer than 1 year - though at a slower rate in the past. She says 3 times that ONLY 15 ppm comes from human activity, but I thought we just agreed that it was 112 ppm? That's 40% of 280ppm or 28.6% of 392ppm, it isn't 4% no matter how you look at it. A percentage is dimensionless it can't be ppm (not that it's 15% anyway). Why do u still think she's right?
Zantorc 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 Transcript:
That's what 385 ppm means.4% OF THIS COMES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY that's about 15 ppm there you see them 4% of that (points to 385) 15 ppm. 15 parts (points to 15) a million parts (points to stack). THIS IS WHAT COMES FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY (points to 15) billions and billions of people - that is all. (....). this is what I want to show, mainly this (points to 15) 15 ppm that is what is in question today ONLY 15 PPM CO2 FROM HUMAN ACTIVITY thank you for listening.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc I think she is trying to say humans are responsible for only 15 ppm (which is incorrect it's 112 ppm). Do you see my point? Do you agree? If not how are you interpreting her words because they seem quite clear to me (and clearly wrong)?
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc So your telling me man made co2 contribution its not 4% rather its 8x that in the order of 32%?? .. Your off your rocker mate?? there is no science that indicates this figure ,if so please quote me the paper by all means.
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 This is really really simple the pre industrial level was 280 ppm and it was that or thereabouts for thousands of years. Without humans it would be 280 ppm. With humans its 392 ppm. How many ppm are caused by humans? Ans 112 ppm. Not 15 ppm.
This isn't controversial (go to any skeptic site that has a graph of co2 over the last few thousand years and look) the pre industrial level is 280 ppm.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Without humans it would be 280 ppm. With humans its 392 ppm. How many ppm are caused by humans? Ans 112 ppm. Not 15 ppm.
--
I see now so global warming is real due to 112ppm increase, but warming started a century before our emissions?
The world is warmer than in 1850, but cooler than 1,000 , 8,000 even130,000 years ago, & cooler than most of the history of life on Earth?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 You're jumping to conclusions, I've said nothing about global warming. One thing at a time, lets deal with the co2 claim in the video. Don't you think its wrong for the video to say human contribution to co2 was 15 ppm when in fact its 112 ppm?
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Now if you cant quote me the paper that substantiates your preposterous claims your just making up numbers aren't you now?
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 A spline fit to atmospheric CO2 records from Antarctic ice cores and measured concentrations for the last 25,000 years references:
Byrd (Neftel et al., 1988; Staffelbach et al., 1991)
Dome Fuji (wet and dry extractions, Kawamura et al., 2007)
Taylor Dome (Indermühle et al., 2000)
EPICA Dome C (Monnin et al., 2001; Schwander et al., 2001; Monnin et al., 2004)
Vostok (Petit et al., 1999; Pepin et al., 2001; Raynaud et al., 2005)
...+ another 7
see also
watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc I see where you got your information from but not where you got the figure of 112ppm
However these papers do show a increase of CO2 over a short period of time but they don't indicate man is responsible for temperature increase which is inconsistent with the theory increasing co2 is a driving advocate of global warming ? papers that indicate co2 phenomenally lags behind temperature increase. Petit et al. (1999) ,Fischer et al. (1999), Indermuhle et al. (2000) ,Monnin et al. (2001)
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 This thread is getting too split. See other reply.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Industrialization is not the problem nor is the " human" rather its a society thats been pushed in the direction for a need for constant 'growth' fueling the creation of false needs and rampant materialism, built-in obsolescence of goods or our purposefully designed 'throw-away' society.
What I teach is the only solution & gets to the bottom why & how we have been pushed down this road of destruction. Climate change is just a mere symptom of a far bigger problem people are overlooking
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 As I see it there are 3 problems:
1. co2 induced warming.
2. The debt driven economy (perpetual debt driven growth is impossible).
3. Peak oil.
None of these are likely to be addressed until the US moves from a form of plutocratic crony capitalism to a democracy. That may happen when the US and western economies collapse some time in the next year or so - as looks increasingly likely.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Sadly people fail to logically prioritize thus caught up in the symptoms & propaganda which is often pre fabricated unsubstantiated lies & half truths to point them away from the one & only solution.Sadly if we remain divided & let the economies collapse first with out unity on the one & only proof of solution we will fail the ultimate test . Yes man is his own worst enemy because his egotistical self generated willful blind ignorance prevents him from seeing whats right under his nose.
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@Zantorc /watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
The thoughts of a globalist?
Oh well we will call it carbon tax instead of CO2 tax because people are that stupid they will buy the lie carbon is a pollutant based on fraudulent data & propaganda ,we will write law that says its a pollutant & tax people accordingly because they do breathe in 380 ppm & breathe out 40000 ppm? .Now due to the world cooling which doesn't correlate with increasing CO2 levels we will call it climate change instead of global warming.
chotaboy66 1 month ago
@chotaboy66 Next point. Co2 lags temperature in ice core data. No doubt at all about that - for entry and exit from ice ages. With a bigger lag on entry then on exit from an ice age. So what does that mean? CO2 is certainly not the trigger for ice ages - it can't be because of the lag. But there is nothing to stop it acting as a feedback once its started.
Zantorc 1 month ago
@Zantorc Looking at whos behind the carbon trading scheme dreamed up by political parasites & the imposition of further taxs one can only conclude this is just another PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION scam by our representatives working for banks to steal further from us thus removing our liberties & freedoms. Even if we were causing it which we aren't far from it, to deem a building block of life a pollutant so as to pass a tax that will end up in a bank who already steals from us is extortion & fraud
chotaboy66 1 month ago
Within two minutes of the video he says global warming has been rebranded to climate change, which is not true. Global warming is climate change, but climate change is not global warming (global warming is a reference to the upward temperature trend).
It really sets the tone for the rest of the video.
CollinMaessen 2 months ago
@CollinMaessen actually it has been rebranded several times from: Global Cooling (1970's), Global Warming (late 80's to 1990's), Global Warming (late 1990's), Anthropogenic Global Warming or "AGW" (early 2000's) and Climate Change and Man Made Climate Change (lately). I wonder what they will come up with next? Something like "We Hate Humans?" Get off your commie boat and realise the Marxist ideal is dead (and so are 100's of millions with it) - you can't con us with your greenie disguise!
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB Global cooling was predominantly spread by the media, it wasn't the leading subject in the literature at the time. And all the other terminology you mention have different meanings in the literature, they are not synonymous in meaning (btw, all these pop up in the literature as early as 1960 and 1970).
CollinMaessen 2 months ago
@CollinMaessen thanks for the reply Colin. Why can't we have an open debate about all of this? Why, if I am still a little "sceptical," do I get called names like idiot or moron on YouTube? Was Galileo an idiot (he argued against scientific consensus) and so did Einstein. I don't take either side really except to say there are dark and murky forces on BOTH sides at play here.
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB Depends on what you said if calling you an idiot might have been justified. I refrain from it as it tends to derail any sensible exchange. But please note that there are a lot of uninformed people commenting, and some you can call idiots. So a lot of people do not bother anymore to check if you have a wrong piece of information or something else might be the case.
But then again, you did start out calling me a communist.
And what are the "dark forces" you are referring to?
CollinMaessen 2 months ago
@CollinMaessen yeah sorry for that mate; that was probably uncalled for. Unequivocal apology. In fact I should probably be "cut off" from any intellectual debate because of that action. I have been abused by some other "alarmists" and have told them I won't debate them because of their language or accusations. So, now, I do the same here and cut myself off for I have committed the same offence. Be well....sincerely.
MikkkkyB 2 months ago
@MikkkkyB An apology would have sufficed (and is all that is needed for a civil exchange).
It's also the main thing I require on my channel, some civility during discussions. They are allowed to get heated (it's the internet after all), but if you don't behave you get shown the door to cool off for a while.
After that people are again more than welcome to join the fray and discuss to their hearts content.
It's a policy I mirror with how I approach contrarians.
CollinMaessen 2 months ago
@CollinMaessen Your approach is fine with me and understandable. Please note, however, I myself requested the "cut off" before I knew your 'policy' as I was sincerely apologetic for that remark. Roma locuta causa finita.
MikkkkyB 2 months ago