Only a moron would believe in "man-made climate change" The earth always and ALWAYS WILL go through phases where it warms up for a few years, then cools down. Thats how its always been. All this talk about man made climate change is for mentally disturbed individuals
@246alive lol.. all the childish name calling proves that i can get u upset. the FACTS are is that your buddy Al Whore is scamming people into believing this crazyness of MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. You really need to check urself into a mental institute. Humans are not responsible for the changing of our climate. in 10 years, when the weather cools down again, you'l feel like a moron. Which in your case, you'l feel pretty normal
Latest data shows that TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN FLAT SINCE 1998 and DROPPED SINCE 2010!
In case you didn't get the news, yet: It's SNOWING in New England. The first time since 1865 that it snowed this early in that region. Just as it snowed 10 days ago over the Alps. Also very, very early for the season.
@Aro2220 Yes, it IS sufficiently hard science that we should have been taking action:
ending factory farming, going vegan, outlawing coal, banning the production of oil-powered cars, putting up wind and solar farms - since 1990.
I fully support letting everybody out of prison because there is infinitely less proof that anyone in prison has ever caused anyone harm than there is for AGW, so we should NOT take action against prisoners.
There is no hard science or proof that terrorism exists, or that anyone held hostage in prison has every committed a crime or done anyone any harm. But I don't hear the hypocritical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers demanding giving equal time to the opinions of prisoners and releasing them all from prison until all the facts are heard. That's because AGW-deniers are the worst anti-freedom anti-American unpatriotic tyrants, as are all conservatives.
@Aro2220 Actually, the reason we have so many cows is due to people so my old point is kind of stupid...
But as far as whether global warming is caused by people or by other factors is still not hard science. Climate change is probably a fact but the reasons are complex and I don't think anyone knows what the reason is just yet to the point of us being able to prevent further climate change.
It could be a lot of things all at once or it could be related to changes in solar output, etc.
@Aro2220 Yes, it IS sufficiently hard science that we should have been taking action:
ending factory farming, going vegan, outlawing coal, banning the production of oil-powered cars, putting up wind and solar farms - since 1990.
I fully support letting everybody out of prison because there is infinitely less proof that anyone in prison has ever caused anyone harm than there is for AGW, so we should NOT take action against prisoners.
Nobody seems to realize that green technology and applications can only be created through petroleum. Last night I saw a myth buster episode where they asked if a fuel effecient car is better than a motorcycle. They decided it was. What they fail to mention is how vastly more energy is needed to create a car than a motorcycle.
Michele Bachmann is a Christian and a creationist and an idiot. She says ''look at the science''.....She doesn't understand science so how the fuck can she look at it???? She thinks the Earth was made in 6 days........FUCKING IDIOT.....END OF!
Global Warming FRAUDSTERS will be PROSECUTED and HANGED for having brought misery and cost hundreds of billions to the rest of the planet just because they pursued an EVIL ideology!
You're WORSE than Christians and Creationists rolled into one with your Gaia bullshit!
Look at the science literature, it's readily available on line and if they were committing fraud then they would get found out during peer review as some unscrupulous scientists have in the past. If global warming does get out of control then we don't have another planet to go to but the credulous religious idiots aren't bothered about that because they, wrongly, think they will live for ever after they die. Michele Bachmann like all religious nut bags of her kind is dangerous.
@Zed1967 READ THE ARTICLE! Prof.Curry is a CO-SIGNER of the study now published by Prof.Muller, who claims that it shows that there was continuous warming since the 1950s and that this "proves the skeptics wrong". Prof.Curry says that nothing about their JOINED study proves anything like it, that he didn't ask for her approval before coming forward with such statements and that they were simply WRONG and not supported by any scientific evidence!
@Zed1967 Prof.Curry further said that the absence of any warming (!) since the 1990s actually gave far more credibility to the skeptics and that scientists were now looking at innumerable other factors that influence the climate, rather than insisting on climate change due to CO2.
See, the "CO2 AGW" theory is DEAD. NO WARMING IN OVER 10 YEARS.
@AmadeusPower Curry was debunked, I can send you the article if you would like. The debunking of what she said that is. Or do you want to keep denying AGW?
Check out Potholer54 who actually has a science background and explains global warming in terms even a layperson can understand. It is well known that CO2 levels are not the only factor for global warming but the Christian attitude of ''don't worry about it, God will save us'' will certainly seal our fate. One pair of hands at work is worth more than billion pairs of hands clasped in prayer but try telling that to the likes of Christian nut bag Rick Perry.
@Zed1967 Kiddo, I studied Physics and IT, I don't need "explanations". I've followed this hoax since the beginning, which is why I never bought into this shit. They made claims that were completely ridiculous at the beginning of the 1990s and ever since, they kept adapting their claims to reality, which NEVER matched their previous predictions. That's what I call FULL OF SHIT. And what is that idiotic reference to Christian faith for? I'm ATHEIST and SCIENTIST, you joker!
Well seeing as you studied physics you should know that the scientific literature is peer reviewed so I reject your claim that hoaxes get through the process on a regular basis. If this were true then the whole of the scientific body would be virtually worthless as you wouldn't be able to determine which studies were reliable. You are just like any other conspiracy theorist. I bring up Christians because they often say exactly what you do but they invoke God into the equation.
@Zed1967 Your argument is completely worthless. You reject the possibility that a group of scientists - assisted by very strong government interests - could have subverted the peer review process (as is well documented!) only because you don't like the conclusion. Your assumption that if it happened in ONE extremely political subject, it would mean that it happens for ALL scientific publications is equally absurd. You have to overcome your blind faith in the system.
@Zed1967 This is not a "conspiracy theory", this is FACT. The climate gate emails proved beyond any possible doubt that the people behind AGW did all they could to stop the publication of articles they didn't like, that they had methods to pressure editors etc.
You should really start reading those messages before you say another stupid word that just reveals your degree of ignorance. I'm sure you just didn't want to believe that there wasn't much in those messages because it hurts your faith.
ok, so whatever anybody says about it, i don't care, because the ice caps are melting..we KNOW that...they didn't used to be melting, now they are. the if the ice melts it could fuck with the planetary air circulation and make weird weather. hot cold...air pressure....shit can change. and so can scientists minds, something will happen we are just trying to figure out what
Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming. He confirmed what all intelligent people understood about the "church of global warming": it has NOTHING to do with science! Ivar Giaever is by far not the only one. Quite a few other serious scientists have left organizations that have blindly followed the ideological BS imposed by the IPCC.
@AmadeusPower : Which is why the consensus is at 97% not 100%
By the way I have never heard of him publishing anything in atmospheric science. Science is not a competition of opinions in the form of Op-Eds in the WallStreetJournal. If he were to be able to prove Global Warming wrong, he should write a paper and publish it for God´s sake !!! PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH !!! If somebody invalidates observations I want to read it... but hey almost none of these contrarians ever publish!!
@nigelelsass Just because you're ignorant about all the innumerable publications by those who disagree with AGW doesn't mean they don't publish. It just means that you're not paying attention. Take Dr.Vincent Gray from NZ. Official expert reviewer for the IPCC, so you really can't call him names. Published the book “The Global Warming Scam” in which he documents why none of the facts presented by the IPCC supports human influence on the climate.
@nigelelsass Says the completely mentally retarded moron, who didn't even read the ClimateGate emails: they explicitly talk about how to PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF OPPOSING SCIENTISTS in P-R publications through INTIMIDATION and SLANDER etc. There's this hard core of 50 pseudo-scientists, who have been able to do this for 20 years, with unlimited support from governments. THAT is why you haven't seen much contrarian evidence in those publications, you idiot.
@nigelelsass So your attempt to claim that the non-existence of such articles as proof that scientists "agree" is pathetic. Just as pathetic as your attempt to denigrate those scientists who do disagree and who have 10'000 times more qualification than you. Dr.Vincent Gray is OFFICIAL EXPERT REVIEWER of the IPCC. What's your status? Oh right: idiotic little sucker who still licks his professors' asses so that he may graduate one day, as good member of the flock of sheep who approve of AGW.
@nigelelsass More prove that you are either completely retarded or intellectually totally dishonest: Giaever didn't claim anything specific about Global Warming, he simply observed the OBVIOUS, i.e. that the entire way the issue is treated has NOTHING to do with science and everything with POLITICS. He protested against the hijacking of a scientific organization for a political goal. In other words: the science behind AGW is extremely bad, because they hinder the scientific process.
@nigelelsass Or the - coincidentally - homologue Dr.William Gray, pioneer in the prediction of hurricane seasons. From Wiki: "Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[5] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[6] He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[7]"
@AmadeusPower : If you keep posting one contrarian scientist per post it would take you over 1,000 post to overturn the consensus. BTW, W.Gray has no publication on global warming (they have been full of basic science errors - thus turned down).
PS2: A political statement without underlying evidence is no science - just so you know in case you are totally retarded (which I suspect)
@nigelelsass Now if you want to make a complete ass out of yourself, try to claim that one of the leading pioneers in atmospheric sciences doesn't know what he's talking about. This is not appeal to authority, this is simply a hint that you do NOT have the slightest clue on what this is all about. You're incredibly naive. You don't even see that this is all ABOUT BIG, BIG MONEY! Al Gore, who is just a minor puppet, made $100 million in 7 years. Imagine how much those behind him made.
@AmadeusPower : So the fact that somebody is making profit (whether legally or illegally) on a solution to a problem is a proof the problem does not exist? Kid you might really want to review the logic you use there !!!
I suspect you do not have the slightest clue as you have brought only statements backed by zero evidence. I suspect you do not have any scientific education.
The global cooling theories of the 70's were predicated upon a cyclic model of global behavior and has nothing whatsoever to do with human causality. If one combines the new ice age theory of the 70's with the contemporary global warming model we have global warming that is much worse than we realize because it is being mitigated by a down cycle of unrelated causality.
For anyone who still thinks that there's any truth in the Anthropogenic Global Warming, watch the YouTube video called "The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies".
@nigelelsass By what I see in your profile, you're a pathetic little anti-American? A typical Frenchie - socialist or even communist and hence necessarily trying to push an agenda that's just communism by other means. Still can't bear the thought that France had to be liberated by the Americans TWICE and that they're better in everything they do :D
Obama was an accident, he'll be kicked out next year. The next president won't give the slightest support to this GW Hoax.
@nigelelsass You live in Hong Kong? Memo: it's not because the USSR imploded that communism has been eliminated. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela are the most obvious ones that still suffer under it, but so does France. And most of the EU is far, far on the left. Besides, the legacy of the USSR is still all around. Even the war in Afghanistan only happened because of the USSR. And the ideology is still around, cf. the Global Warming Hoax and the anti-globalization movement.
@AmadeusPower : It´s not fair - why do we get poorly educated and crazy immigrants like you in Switzerland? Your place is indeed in a failing country like..... USA !! USA !!! USA !!!
@nigelelsass You're a real retard, aren't you? Calling me an "immigrant", haha. Idiot! I'm the one who is fluent in 5 languages here, not you. You barely manage to express yourself in English, your German is abysmal and your ignorance of the principles of science is pathetic.
Du bist nur ein kleiner arroganter Zwerg, der glaubt, er sei ein "Experte", weil er ein paar Wochen lang einem gelangweilten Professor zugehört hat. Deine Arroganz ist typisch für junge Weltverbesserer.
@AmadeusPower : You're just frustrated because everything about you is French: your native language, your last name, your way of being - so long sucker. Back to the ETH - We believe in science in Zurich, not in your conspiracy theories - sucker
@nigelelsass The only frustrated moron is YOU, because you don't even have the intelligence to know what science is. You're definitely not at ETHZ, you don't even remotely have the intelligence, you don't know German or Swiss German and you're a complete moron to assume that anything about me is "French". You don't know my name. Not to mention that your "English" sucks completely. Hint: Science is NEVER decided by "consensus". And you have no clue about climate and complex systems.
@AmadeusPower : Lieber Freund, ihre Behauptungen liegen voll daneben. Hätte ich was anderes von einem Verschwörungstheoretiker erwarten müssen? Die Antwortet lautet ganz klar nein.
Wir könnten uns sicherlich über die physischen und thermodynamischen Grundlagen der Klimaerwärmung unterhalten, allerdings bin ich nicht der Meinung dass Sie über die notwendigen Grundkenntnisse verfügen.
@AmadeusPower : A good clue little smartass: YOU believe you have more clue than 97% of scientists?
No you are right that the consensus does not matter - not more than for the shape of the earth. When Eratosthenos brought his experiment - he proved people like you wrong - but that did not end the ridiculous idea of a flat earth. Well spectral absorption physics at least prove you wrong, pathetic and ridiculous.
@nigelelsass Another little hint, sucker: in case you missed the post, the Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever doesn't believe in man-made global warming. But I'm sure you are arrogant and stupid enough to pretend that you know more about science than a Nobel Price winner in Physics :D
And yes, he's just one of innumerable top-notch scientists who totally disagree with your ridiculous ideological bullshit.
@AmadeusPower : Which is why the consensus is at 97% not 100%
By the way I have never heard of him publishing anything in atmospheric science. Science is not a competition of opinions in the form of Op-Eds in the WallStreetJournal. If he were to be able to prove Global Warming wrong, he should write a paper and publish it for God´s sake !!! PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH !!! If somebody invalidates observations I want to read it... but hey almost none of these contrarians ever publish!!
@AmadeusPower Um history 101. In the 1970s scientists warned us that the introduction of florocarbons into the atmosphere would deplete our ozone layer. People that wanted to sell their products created counter science to refute it. Now today 40 years later Austrailia has a hole in the Ozone layer which has changed their climate. We have been told that what we are doing is affecting our planet and killing us, why is it so hard to understand that people will deceive you for money?
@Ryooken Oh now the ozone layer is supposedly changing the climate, too? Wow... the ignorance is almost painful. FYI: the depletion of the ozone layer was first observed in the 1950s by 2 French scientists, who found that it was a result of varying solar radiation. The famous CFC gasses were prohibited, so in theory, the ozone layer should grow. Instead, it suddenly was shrinking again: less solar activity!
@Ryooken Hint: the CFC gas harms ozone theory became famous just when patents on CFC ran out and 3rd world countries could manufacture it cheaply. It was pushed by big corporations who had "substitution" products like Freon, which cost 10x more. Another hint: CFC is heavier than air - try it in your bath tub. And it is decomposed at soil level by bacteria. So how could significant quantities get into the upper atmosphere, let alone concentrated over the poles???
@Ryooken You might want to re-consider who is being deceived. Who do you think profits the most from the theory that there is man-made global warming? Obama just awarded $1 billion to a solar power company that went promptly bankrupt, the money disappearing mysteriously. 2 weeks later, Obama awards another $500 million to a solar company in California that is run ... by Pelosi's brother in law. You are soooo naive, it should hurt!!!
@Ryooken Exxon was accused of funding Global Warming skeptical research (which is bad because?) to the tune of $20 million. A grant they immediately rescinded, finding it very profitable to produce solar and other alternate energy products. They don't care WHAT they sell to make money! Just those 2 Obama grants for $1.5 billion represent 75x more money than that $20 million grant. Guess who has more money to fund bullshit "science"?
@Ryooken A last point about the ozone: the WORST estimate of the ozone "depletion" (no hole, remember, just a thinning of the layer!) would correspond to the increase you get by traveling from Oslo to Rome. I yet have to find anyone who thinks that Rome is a place of deadly radiations...
@Ryooken A lot of idiots believe in the AGW hoax, too. And 1.5 billion people are Muslims. The fact that a lot of people believe in Bullshit doesn't make it true. If you read up about the SCIENCE, you'd find that the current Australian hot and dry climate has NOTHING to do with the ozone layer or the alleged AGW. It's a matter of weather patterns that change all the time.
@Ryooken More bullshit: skin cancer has increased worldwide ... because people spend more and more hours lying in the sun and in less sunny countries, even more so UNDER ARTIFICIAL UV LAMPS!!! There are complete studies about this. Doctors who examined their patient's habits laugh about the insinuation that it has anything to do with the ozone layer. You don't want skin cancer, don't roast in the sun for weeks. Cancer also increased because people get older than they used to.
@AmadeusPower Oh? You're kidding right? I see so all throughout history people without airconditioning have been spending hours working and living in the sun, but you are going to tell me that it's because people are spending now more time in the sun. LOL! You do remember we were talking about Austrialia right?
@Ryooken No, I'm NOT kidding, I'm quoting MEDICAL SCIENCE. Before modern times, people didn't lie in the sun. Even those who worked in the open had the intelligence to cover themselves against the sun. Look at how desert dwellers dress - not a lot of skin showing, right? And as I said: they had much shorter life spans!
Check the FACTS: the alleged ozone "hole" is merely a thinning of the layer and it is changing all the time, growing thicker and thinner with solar radiation intensity.
@Ryooken Just type "UV lamps skin cancer" in Google and read a few links. There are those that explain how to prevent skin cancer, e.g. among the first, by University of Iowa, which explains exposure risks and gives advise. They don't mention the "ozone hole" anywhere. And you didn't reply at all to the obvious facts, such as: CFCs have been banned no change in the "ozone hole", CFC heavier than air anyway, so how t.f. does it get up into the polar ozone layer? etc.
@AmadeusPower Oh I am terribly sorry I didn't think you were serious. I didn't think that you would use such an obvious twisting of the facts. Let's begin then. Worldwide CFC production fell sharply after the U.S. aerosol ban, but by 1986 had returned nearly to its 1976 level. In 1993, DuPont shut down its CFC facility. CFCs have been reduced but not eliminated. That's point one.
@AmadeusPower Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere since peaking in 1994, the Effective Equivalent Chlorine (EECl) level in the atmosphere had dropped about 10% by 2008. It is estimated that by 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole will have reduced by 1 million km² out of 25
@Ryooken (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer is not expected to occur until the year 2050 or later. Now are you done?
Whoever continues to deny the proven fact of AGW needs to read and see every comment at skepticalscience (dot) com. The latest BEST study (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature), sponsored by extremist deniers in the false hopes that they would uncover faults in the work of the IPCC, ended up proving and confirming the obvious and what all rational people already know: humans ARE heating up the atmosphere and oceans with their emissions.
@mphello Too bad for you, loser! This "study" has been revealed to be FAKE. Prof Muller's claim is a FRAUD. Quote: Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis."
You're in the camp of the LIARS, FRAUDS and HYPOCRITES!!!
If Al Gore believed even a word of what he said, he wouldn't be one of the top individual polluters on the planet. But hey, he made $100 Million by promoting the Global Warming Hoax. How much did you make? Nothing, right?
SUCKER!!!
You're what Stalin called a USEFUL IDIOT. Keep helping Al Gore pay for his private Jet traveling. Lick his boots, too, while you're at it.
Get the FUCK out of this youtube channel and get the FUCK out of America so the rest of us true patriotic pro-environmental vegan Americans can get to work cleaning up the mess YOU assholes made.
Go worship your hero, Alex Jones, who thinks 911 was a hologram and the moonlanding was a hoax.
AGW has NOTHING to do with "Al Gore".
Conservatives NEVER want to take responsibility for their crimes, esp environmental crimes.
@mphello YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET OFF THIS PLANET!!!
WE DON'T NEED EVIL COMMUNIST RETARDS LIKE YOU!!!
You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and we will start PROSECUTING all the fucking bastards who have filled their pockets by stirring up idiotic fears of non-existent man-made warming.
@orkneymist NASA does NOT support AGW. One of their directors did, religiously, but totally without any connection with scientific data, which always said something completely different from what he claimed, e.g. that other planets in the solar system warmed during the 1990s and most recently, that the earth radiates much more heat than predicted by the AGW theory, based on satellite data. Don't try to talk to people much more intelligent and better informed than you, kiddo!
@AmadeusPower I believe that the, "one of their directors" being referred to is Dr James Hansen an interplanetary climatologist who is uniquely qualified to have an opinion on global warming. The radiant heat coming off the earth could be explained away as the effect of particulate pollutions increasing the albedo levels of the earth and mitigating global warming in a serendipitous way.
@Zyworski Hansen is not "uniquely qualified". He hasn't done any scientific work since the 1970s. Then he became an ADMINISTRATOR, more interested in expanding his personal power and status through extremist theories based on his completely outdated work on Venus, which is absurd. If his idea about a "runaway global warming" was true, then the earth would have a steaming hot climate now, as we had up to 25 times the current levels of CO2 in the past. Venus is hot because it is close to the sun.
@AmadeusPower You are quite incorrect, Dr Hansen is active in research at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to this day. Dr Goddard has spoken before multiple congressional committees which indicates he has credibility. He has 30 years of tenure at Columbia University. Only the cream of the crop get tenured positions at Ivy league schools. Dr Hansen's work is predicated upon data obtained from meteorological stations across the globe and satellite based high resolution radiometers.
@Zyworski Sorry kiddo, but you are totally incorrect: you should know that appeals to authority are always worthless in a debate. Worse: Congress has no credibility at all. Politicians are worthless crooks and government is a big mafia. They are the ones who want to get all the profits from the Global Warming scam in the form of taxes, which they then distribute to people like Hansen. Hansen's position at Columbia is based on his function at Nasa, not his actual qualification.
@Zyworski You are totally naive in your vision of society and "authorities". Those with power rarely, if ever, hold power because of their qualifications. Politicians are the winners of popularity competitions, preceded by all sorts of shady deals and corrupt affairs to even become candidates, often involving the mafia. Intellectual honesty is not even remotely on the list of qualifications for 99% of them.
@AmadeusPower "Politicians are the winners of popularity competitions" To an even greater degree I believe this to be true about the Committee Chairman selection process, and believe this process of dynasties in the congressional committees is the source of much corruption in our government.
Back to global warming for a sec. One need not be a rocket scientist to see the effects of burning coal, look at one of these plants on G Earth and notice the 1000 yard radius of death.
@Zyworski Hansen is famous for being an extremist activist, promoting political goals more than science. As for the data you mention, it was mostly falsified, which has been proven beyond any doubt during the Climategate scandal. It is now impossible to get the raw data. Besides, Dr.Lindzen - a real climatologist from MIT - works with the same data and arrives at totally different conclusions. So what's your point about the "data"?
@AmadeusPower Regarding Climategate, Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious". I looked up Dr. Lindzen and he doesn't deny the roll of CO2 in warming the atmosphere, but hypothesizes about negative feedback scenarios that counteract it. You will notice on my very first comment to you I also gave one of many negative feedback scenarios, so I do give credence to the concept. Continued in next comment
@orkneymist Now some clueless sucker wants to convince me that the same UN, that has been PROVEN to lie about such SCIENTIFIC facts is an "authority" that may not be questioned? The IPCC is no better than WHO and UNAIDS - and they're also in Geneva. Which is why I could follow closely the enormous corruption scandal at the World Meteorological Agency. Did you joker sleep through the entire Climate Gate revelations, which proved that all the climate data had been manipulated?
@orkneymist I met the entire directorate of WHO and UNAIDS as a guest of Dr.Chin, who had proven that they had LIED for years about the real extent of AIDS, which was not even 50% of what they claimed and had never entered mainstream society anywhere but in Africa. They finally admitted the crushing evidence provided by Dr.Chin and adjusted their numbers, but waited from 2004 to 2007 to finally do so officially. Why? Because the bigger numbers gave them more MONEY!!!
@orkneymist As for "World class institutions", it just shows how totally clueless you are about reality. You call the UN "world class"? I'm a few km away from their headquarters in Geneva and I know them intimately well, having participated in many events and conferences involving UN representatives, including from the very top. They are the most CORRUPT and USELESS bunch of people on the planet!!!
@orkneymist "Go and cling a bit tighter to your bible" You retard just can't get over your idiotic assumptions, can you? I'm an ATHEIST, as any rational person who understands SCIENCE, which clearly doesn't include you. You're a believer in the Church of Global Warming. Go pay your dues to Al Gore, who is laughing all the way to the bank. He made $100 Million out of suckers like you. How much did you make? Ah, right: NOTHING.
@orkneymist Take Dr.Grey who was the official representative of NZ at IPCC. He called their report so bad that he'd give it a failing grade if it had been produced by one of his students. Your ignorance is staggering: THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORDED WARMING SINCE 1998! That's a PEER REVIEWED study that the AGW pushers had to grudgingly admit. Hence all the articles trying to justify the absence of warming since 1998!
@orkneymist Hahaha, what does the WHO - the World Health Organization - know about the climate? And you moron claim that I'm "making a fool of myself"? Not as much as you just did! Your appeal to authority is totally useless as it is pathetic and WRONG. There are hundreds of people who were quoted by the IPCC as "supporters" who vehemently disagree and whose name was included without their consent.
The climate has always been changing since the beginning of time and it always will change. Anybody who believes in man-made climate change needs to go to a mental institute. Global warming is a complete scam and only an eco friendly nut case would believe that human beings are causing the ice in the Artic to melt. I cant help but to laugh at these paranoid little lib-tards
Did you hear the audience LAUGH when she said "I don't think that it has been established yet, as a fact, that global warming is the issue of the day." ?
So, I assume she's never read about Glacier National Park, Montana... where the glaciers are predicted to be all melted & gone by 2020?
@ShawnsterVideos Oh so you didn't get the memo? The claims about glaciers disappearing within 30 years were FRAUDULENT and based on nothing but hot air! Not a single glacier will disappear by 2020, not even by 2100. There are close to 100'000 of them all over the world. Only 22'000 are retreating, the rest are advancing, stationary, oscillating or unknown. Look it up in the "World Glacier Inventory" (Google). Try SCIENCE and FACTS before you make stupid claims the next time!!!
@AmadeusPower Sir, I have a friend by the name of Joe Bruncsak who was contracted by National Geographic to film Glacier Nation Park. Joe's film company is called Blue Land Media. Joe and his company filmed what few glaciers remain at the Park. Joe's before and after films of glaciers that were present in the 1920's do not exist today. Pictures don't lie.
Don't take my word for it. Please investigate Blue Land Media to see for yourself.
@AmadeusPower First for the fundamentals: Pictures DO lie. They're even one of the easiest things to manipulate. Apart from that, you simply ignore the SCIENTIFIC source of DATA for world-wide glaciers, which proves that only 20% of the worldwide glaciers are retreating, while 12% are ADVANCING and the rest are STABLE or OSCILLATING. So your "pictures" are completely irrelevant. Glaciers advance and retreat all the time.
@ShawnsterVideos 2000 years ago, most modern glaciers in the Alps were minuscule or non-existent. So whatever happens with glaciers has NOTHING to do with human activities.
@AmadeusPower If you say so. I have no opinion on the Alps, as I have no information on those mountains. I know what I saw from Blue Land Media's film of Glacier National Park.
I read the International Business Times article about Ivar Giaever's resignation. His reasons for quitting seem quite balanced to me. I especially like that he is 82 years old and stated, "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" It is likely many people want global warming to occur.
Sammy, actually the NASA data does corroborate the work of the IPCC. (See Mark Maslin's of University College, London's work.
You guys need to get over your dislike of Gore and actually read something serious.
Bachmann is a dogmatic religious nut who rejects evolutionary theory because it doesn't fit the Bible doesn't read anything scientific (or otherwise I fear) unless it comports with her religious beliefs as learned from her cracker college Oral Roberts U. She is a joke nothing more.
Bachmann isn't quite right in her description of the discussion of the cooling of the 1970s which was caused by sunspot activity and the recent international studies on global warming.
Glasy, straw man, Gore didn't say that. But if you think it is a joke then go to the website of the National Academy of Sciences which has been issuing annual reports for over 12 years or simply read a book by a scientist on global warming. You are the joke.
Yes Michelle you have to look at the science you idiot! NOT THE SPIN funded by the Koch brothers and EXXON! This kind of person is really dangerous and unreliable with the pesky migraines she gets all of the time. The republicans are blinded by appearances and spin!
Finally, rynther, you were clearly and demonstrably in error when you objected to my criticism of Bachman's comments in the video. You appear eager to engage in entirely new arguments. and I am willing to consider additional offerings.
However, you don't need to lead us down the rabbit hole with unnecessary terminology; I doubt your authority. These discussions are about the findings of qualified researchers in the field, and what agreement they largely find on the subject of climate change.
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP!
"One thing we can do is look at the science" Michelle Bachman.
Great! So educate yourself in the most basic, well-understood, and well-established facts that science has provided us! Welcome aboard the reason and science bus Michelle! Now stop spouting ignorance and/or lies about the subject of climate change science.
Okay, now you are making a claim that climatology is both basic, and well understood.
You've made the claim elsewhere in this thread that AGW has a scientific consensus.
Care to explain the competing theory of solar irradiance? Understanding that a consensus means that there are no competing theories. Would you like to explain the rise in the number of climatologists that don't agree with AGW? Too hard? Then just explain climatology.
@rynther Sorry for dominating this discussion, but as I look into this issue I can see it will make a great subject for my next college research paper. It has been highly politicized, which will make my job easy, and the scientific concensus supporting my side is overwhelming, which will make my job easier still. It would be a big job just to list nationally or internationally recognized scientifc organizations that support my side...wanna' guess how many dissent?--(shh the answer is zero) LOL!
@rynther In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, a paper reached the following conclusions: 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. You were saying?
BTW, one of those scientists that "agreed" took 2 years to get his name removed from the report that you refer from the IPCC, having to file suit to finally get his name removed.
@rynther Those numbers come directly from the study I cited--not from "my ass" as you suggest--and I have to wonder how you could ask me such a question, because those numbers can be found both in both the thesis and the abstract. Why ask for a source and then not read it? Also, those nuimbers were published in 2010, allow me to refer you--again--to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, article name: "Expert Credibility in Climate Change."
@rynther Unfortunately, that sounds exactly like a normal problem within the scientific beauracracy. I'm surprised you think this sort of objection can offer a significant challenge to the finding of EVERY scientific organization that receives national or international regonization, not to mention the concensus found among climate researchers that could be as high as 98%. Anyway, I do agree that this is a problem and it will appear in my opposing points as it did when I demolished ID creationism
@rynther Quid pro quo! I have answered you repeatedly with verifiable information and sources. You tend to respond with personal attack and unwarrantable excuses for not considering them. I will need what you have for my paper, so I expect you to offer something substantial in exchange for my sources. "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" is the name of the paper. So lets have your stuff, like I said, it is very hard to find. Your earlier confidence suggests you had at least...something.
@SammyHales Richard Feynman, John Coleman, these are two actual names.
Solar irradiance fits temperature change much better than Anthropomorphic global warming. If that isn't giving you information, then I just can't use what you might call English.
You pulled numbers straight out of your ass BTW, and haven't backed them. And since you accused me of insult, why the fuck don't you learn some basic fucking english? <---question mark, used to mark a question.
@rynther Thank you for at last providing a source of any kind. I will have to research those names since you were unable to provide me with any published work. I was hoping your formerly confident attitude was informed by a much more comprehensive knowledge of the subject than what you seem able to exibit.
Your passion seems undimished, however, and that could prove useful to me. Use google.scholar if you don't have access to an academic library to find valid scientific critiques (and mine).
@SammyHales I can be pretty handy, but my field is computers, so I don't have annotated papers about the topic at hand. (I don't catalog everything I read on the internet)
Have you seen the nasa global satellite survey? That is a good read, and doesn't support the IPCC numbers.
I will get you some, as you seem to take the topic seriously enough to warrant the time.
@rynther BTW, I carry a 4.0 at college, and I have been invited to write undergraduate research in state-wide symposiums. That hardly qualifies me as an expert in English, but you must understand how absurd your layman's attempts at condescention must seem to me. Finally, I specifically said you offered personal attacks in response to my verifiable research, and you do. When I cited the scientific concensus vis-a-vis climate science, you inexplicably blurted that I need to be institutionalized.
@SammyHales Yes, however you maybe didn't get the humor, cheap shot, but you were asserting that if the majority of institutions had a given opinion, that opinion is somehow better or less assailable.
I find that concept less than proper, given the importance of the issue, and some of the absurd claims, most notably mr Gore, who is the the main reason that I started questioning the idea in the first place.
@rynther I really should throw you a bone here. I would suggest you read the works of Bjorn Lomborg, and about his treatment from the scientific community when he dared question the statistics used by some environmental groups--many mistakenly thought he was questioning climate science, but as a statician, he just wanted to make sure that the numbers were being interpreted accurately (often times they weren't). Al Gore has done more harm to science than any wild-eyed Bachman type could hope for.
@rynther Do me this favor: I will need your sources for my paper. I am having a very hard time finding any scholarly journals that have published any convincing papers from your side of the argument. I have to be able to support both sides to a certain extent, and yours seems so weak I might have to find another subject to write about. Any help?
@SammyHales One of the better studies that I have read on global temp is the global satellite survey, courtesy of nasa, as for others, it might be a while.
"According to disclosure forms filed with the Justice Department - FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, The PACs estabished to organize the Tea Party Movement, are mounting a "Grassroots Opposition" to alternative energy legislation by taking millions in donations from: Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya, and Venezuela...Now thats taking your country back!" see liveleak webpage.
She doesn't believe in global warming? Most people don't and most scientists don't either. The earth is now cooling. Warming has stopped for 13 years now. Warming and cooling in the earth is normal.
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP
Anyone who believes in man made global warming is a sucker. Al Gore is laughing at you. There are as many scientists who disagree with the THEORY as agree. Just a scam to sell a video and to make billions selling you saps air.
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then." newscientist "climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s"
@billzen And I see your expose of Bachman's false statment has received deafening silence from her supporters. First they challenge us to prove them wrong, and when that happens, they retreat to: "I would rather vote for someone honest and wrong than someone who jumps in with the political fad..." That kind of willful stupidity is both scary and sad.
Someone should bitchslap her as hard as possible, then send Pierre Woodman to her house to fuck her good, then slap her again and finally kick her into the kitchen, where she belongs!!
Funny... NASA and the National Academy of Science of the United States both agree that climate change is occurring. Michele Bachmann, Presidential Candidate and world renowned climatologist who is much more intelligent than any of those scientists at NASA.
in '89 cold fusion was featured in the LATimes (unlimited power without co2 emission). The global warming lobbyists were aghast at the possibility of cheap clean energy. “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of SkepticalScience) “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
Is it not possible that GW is caused naturally, by the sun ? Fluctuations in thermal energy reaching the earth will cause C(O)2 to come out of solution from the oceans in varying amounts. This must surely make the amount of that gas produced by humans seem minute.
I don't recall any scientific studies in the 70's that warned about any impending ice-age.
Some articles from the period did discuss the impact of sulphate aerosols on global temperature. But there were definitly multiple examples of predictions of a warmer world with increasing CO2 concentration in 70's studies.
@mightydragon2000 Actually I have read about global warming and the studies even before Al Gore made a big deal out of it. You know what people say about being wrong but honest? It is called willful ignorance.
@buildgerga Actually what we do matters to climate change in an industrialized society. Go open a book and study. Also Global warming doesn't mean the temperature gets warm all the time, go study.
@Neosaigo I studied physics and IT and I can say with absolute certainty that man-made global warming is a FRAUD!
They claimed all sorts of things 15 years ago, based on "computer models", without even having a clue about how the climate really works. NONE of their predictions have come true. NONE. That's why they changed the name from "warming" to "climate change", which allows them to claim ANYTHING as "proof" of their theory, because the climate always changes.
@Glasya666 My grades were excellent and yes, I can say that with absolute certainty. Because it is NOT a scientific issue. Scientifically speaking, the claims by those who promote the AGW theory are completely ridiculous. Absurd.
#1 THEY DO NOT HAVE A VALID MODEL OF THE CLIMATE! So how can they make ANY predictions? Answer: they can't
#2 How could a tiny change in CO2 levels cause a gigantic climate change? Only if there was a TIPPING POINT. But there is no such tipping point!!!
@Glasya666 You dumb idiot are not even able to respond to what's posted. You just believe what you've been fed by the media, Zero ability to think logically. So tell me: if they don't have a valid climate model - and I hope you're aware that they don't - how is it a scientific issue when they claim that they can make climate predictions for what will happen 100 years from now? That's so pathetic, you cannot begin to claim there's science behind it. More like Voodoo magic - or a fraud.
@Glasya666 And since you dumb prick dare attacking those infinitely smarter than you, just answer this other question: WHERE IS THE TIPPING POINT FOR CO2?
In the past, the earths atmosphere held up to 25 times more CO2 and there wasn't anything remotely like a global catastrophe wiping out all life forms. On the contrary, it was a very good period for all sorts of life forms.
So you dumb idiot, what's that tipping point due to which a tiny increase in CO2 causes a gigantic climate change?
@AmadeusPower Yes, I dare attack somebody "infinitely smarter" than me. You crack me up. Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off right now. Anyways, I'm not sure why you keep talking about a tipping point. It's possible that we could reach a point where warmer temperatures lead to more CO2 emissions (such as the melting permafrost). This could cause a runaway effect. That's just one possibility. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warmer temperatures. A tipping point is not required.
@Glasya666 Of course you are laughing - like a moron. You don't even realize that you are so dumb that you don't get the problem. "It's possible" BUT WRONG. "This could cause a runaway effect" It doesn't - NO WARMING SINCE 1998! You don't even keep up with the facts, so what the fuck do you comment on anyway? "More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warmer temperatures" - WRONG: warmer temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around!
@Glasya666 If you had bothered to look at the past temperature / CO2 diagrams, you'd have seen that CO2 increases always FOLLOW, NEVER PRECEDE temperature increases. That's because the biggest storage of CO2 are the oceans. Warm the oceans and CO2 will be released. However, the thermal inertia of oceans is such that it takes centuries to change their temperatures significantly. Claims about a little atmospheric warming having led to warming the oceans in just 20 years are just ridiculous.
@Glasya666 There has been significantly more underwater volcanic activity, though (on which humanity has ZERO influence), which might have caused oceanic warming in some locations, which in turn might have led to more CO2 being released. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 might be totally unrelated to human activity as well. The CO2 we add is so insignificant that it is probably almost entirely absorbed by more plant growth.
@Glasya666 You carefully avoided the first question: How can anyone dare to make long-term predictions about the climate, if no one even has a valid model for how the climate operates? We are not even close to having such a model. All we know (or think we know) is that the biggest factor for the climate on earth is water vapor (clouds etc.), but we don't know how much of it there is in the atmosphere and how it acts in different forms and at different altitudes. Predictions are just dumb.
@AmadeusPower Whether or not they have a valid model is debatable. Obviously, these models are not 100% accurate. That does not mean they are worthless. The science academies of every country that has one agrees that global warming is real and that we are causing it. Add to that dozens of other organizations , like NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geological Society and many others. Nobel Prize winning physicists also agree with AGW. Sorry, but its real.
@Glasya666 "That does not mean they are worthless" Totally worthless for predicting the climate in 100 years or even 5 years. They got it wrong every single time so far. Your claim about science academies is WRONG and IRRELEVANT. Agreement in science has never had any value. 100% of all physicists except Einstein thought that his theory of relativity was completely wrong in 1905, yet Einstein was right, everyone else was wrong. Anyone even mentioning "consensus" doesn't know shit about science.
@Glasya666 Your claim about NASA in particular is wrong - they had ONE activist who made up tons of bullshit, which has been disproven since, but when you look at their scientific articles - not the press releases - you find that the scientists at NASA actually do not believe in man causing climate change. e.g. they observed warming on other solar system objects like Mars. What do you make of that?
@Glasya666 You are totally confused about the PUBLIC, POLITICAL part of such organizations and the scientific activities. Even the official statements in the IPCC report often flatly contradict the scientific articles in the very same document. But to know that, you'd actually have to study it. Ask someone like Dr.Grey from NZ about it - he was an official member of IPCC and said that he'd give such a report a failing grade, if submitted by a student. It helps to talk to such people in person.
@Glasya666 Besides, the entire debate is moot. The CERN just released a study that finds that temperature variations on the same amplitude and speed as currently observed were very common over the last 10'000 years, which completely ridicules the claims by the AGW crowd. Go to the CERN Document server and search for "Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability". You're not just stubborn, but also extremely badly informed, as I already noted.
@Glasya666 Your appeal to authority is pathetic anyway - it's NEVER a way to win an argument. For every "expert" you quote, I can provide one of at least equal or higher standing who says the exact contrary - usually with more data and logic on his side. SCIENTISTS would have waited for the kind of studies now published by CERN. For if fast climate variability is common throughout earths history, then the entire AGW debate is moot. You do understand that, Exit the non-existent "consensus".
Only a moron would believe in "man-made climate change" The earth always and ALWAYS WILL go through phases where it warms up for a few years, then cools down. Thats how its always been. All this talk about man made climate change is for mentally disturbed individuals
noreaga12326 1 week ago
@noreaga12326 what a moron you are
global warming is not fully understood
but it is clear that the earth would not be as warm as it is if there were no humans
go back to watching your fox news
global warming is real
global warming if it is real is like a invisable nuclear bomb
do you say that nuclear bomb cant exist we will be fine
or do you try to prevent it from going off and killing people
if global warming is real then we are all fucked
dont deny it without the facts
246alive 1 week ago
@246alive lol.. all the childish name calling proves that i can get u upset. the FACTS are is that your buddy Al Whore is scamming people into believing this crazyness of MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE. You really need to check urself into a mental institute. Humans are not responsible for the changing of our climate. in 10 years, when the weather cools down again, you'l feel like a moron. Which in your case, you'l feel pretty normal
noreaga12326 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"One thing we need to do is look at the science."
Bachmann's so friggin' dumb she can't spell "science."
oneupagain 2 months ago
avon lady for president!
maestro4110 2 months ago
Latest data shows that TEMPERATURES HAVE BEEN FLAT SINCE 1998 and DROPPED SINCE 2010!
In case you didn't get the news, yet: It's SNOWING in New England. The first time since 1865 that it snowed this early in that region. Just as it snowed 10 days ago over the Alps. Also very, very early for the season.
WHICH MEANS THAT THE PLANET IS COOLING!!!
Exactly as predicted, based on SOLAR CYCLES!
CO2 has nothing to do with it!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aro2220 Yes, it IS sufficiently hard science that we should have been taking action:
ending factory farming, going vegan, outlawing coal, banning the production of oil-powered cars, putting up wind and solar farms - since 1990.
I fully support letting everybody out of prison because there is infinitely less proof that anyone in prison has ever caused anyone harm than there is for AGW, so we should NOT take action against prisoners.
Hence, free them.
mphello 3 months ago
There is no hard science or proof that terrorism exists, or that anyone held hostage in prison has every committed a crime or done anyone any harm. But I don't hear the hypocritical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers demanding giving equal time to the opinions of prisoners and releasing them all from prison until all the facts are heard. That's because AGW-deniers are the worst anti-freedom anti-American unpatriotic tyrants, as are all conservatives.
mphello 3 months ago
@Aro2220 Actually, the reason we have so many cows is due to people so my old point is kind of stupid...
But as far as whether global warming is caused by people or by other factors is still not hard science. Climate change is probably a fact but the reasons are complex and I don't think anyone knows what the reason is just yet to the point of us being able to prevent further climate change.
It could be a lot of things all at once or it could be related to changes in solar output, etc.
Aro2220 3 months ago
@Aro2220 Yes, it IS sufficiently hard science that we should have been taking action:
ending factory farming, going vegan, outlawing coal, banning the production of oil-powered cars, putting up wind and solar farms - since 1990.
I fully support letting everybody out of prison because there is infinitely less proof that anyone in prison has ever caused anyone harm than there is for AGW, so we should NOT take action against prisoners.
Hence, free them.
mphello 3 months ago
Nobody seems to realize that green technology and applications can only be created through petroleum. Last night I saw a myth buster episode where they asked if a fuel effecient car is better than a motorcycle. They decided it was. What they fail to mention is how vastly more energy is needed to create a car than a motorcycle.
SissyNekoBoi 3 months ago
@SissyNekoBoi Not hardly.
Water car
watch?v=Jivb7lupDNU
Air Car
watch?v=OJeMnZuOOJU
Ryooken 3 months ago
Stupidity has a new base entity: One Bachmann.
celloswiss 3 months ago
Michele Bachmann is a Christian and a creationist and an idiot. She says ''look at the science''.....She doesn't understand science so how the fuck can she look at it???? She thinks the Earth was made in 6 days........FUCKING IDIOT.....END OF!
Zed1967 4 months ago
@Zed1967 And YOU are a FUCKING RETARD!!!
SHUT UP, YOU IDIOT!
Global Warming FRAUDSTERS will be PROSECUTED and HANGED for having brought misery and cost hundreds of billions to the rest of the planet just because they pursued an EVIL ideology!
You're WORSE than Christians and Creationists rolled into one with your Gaia bullshit!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower
Look at the science literature, it's readily available on line and if they were committing fraud then they would get found out during peer review as some unscrupulous scientists have in the past. If global warming does get out of control then we don't have another planet to go to but the credulous religious idiots aren't bothered about that because they, wrongly, think they will live for ever after they die. Michele Bachmann like all religious nut bags of her kind is dangerous.
Zed1967 3 months ago
@Zed1967 READ THE ARTICLE! Prof.Curry is a CO-SIGNER of the study now published by Prof.Muller, who claims that it shows that there was continuous warming since the 1950s and that this "proves the skeptics wrong". Prof.Curry says that nothing about their JOINED study proves anything like it, that he didn't ask for her approval before coming forward with such statements and that they were simply WRONG and not supported by any scientific evidence!
Typical methods of a warming apostle!!!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Zed1967 Prof.Curry further said that the absence of any warming (!) since the 1990s actually gave far more credibility to the skeptics and that scientists were now looking at innumerable other factors that influence the climate, rather than insisting on climate change due to CO2.
See, the "CO2 AGW" theory is DEAD. NO WARMING IN OVER 10 YEARS.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower Curry was debunked, I can send you the article if you would like. The debunking of what she said that is. Or do you want to keep denying AGW?
Tactic11 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower
Check out Potholer54 who actually has a science background and explains global warming in terms even a layperson can understand. It is well known that CO2 levels are not the only factor for global warming but the Christian attitude of ''don't worry about it, God will save us'' will certainly seal our fate. One pair of hands at work is worth more than billion pairs of hands clasped in prayer but try telling that to the likes of Christian nut bag Rick Perry.
Zed1967 3 months ago
@Zed1967 Kiddo, I studied Physics and IT, I don't need "explanations". I've followed this hoax since the beginning, which is why I never bought into this shit. They made claims that were completely ridiculous at the beginning of the 1990s and ever since, they kept adapting their claims to reality, which NEVER matched their previous predictions. That's what I call FULL OF SHIT. And what is that idiotic reference to Christian faith for? I'm ATHEIST and SCIENTIST, you joker!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower
Well seeing as you studied physics you should know that the scientific literature is peer reviewed so I reject your claim that hoaxes get through the process on a regular basis. If this were true then the whole of the scientific body would be virtually worthless as you wouldn't be able to determine which studies were reliable. You are just like any other conspiracy theorist. I bring up Christians because they often say exactly what you do but they invoke God into the equation.
Zed1967 3 months ago
@Zed1967 Your argument is completely worthless. You reject the possibility that a group of scientists - assisted by very strong government interests - could have subverted the peer review process (as is well documented!) only because you don't like the conclusion. Your assumption that if it happened in ONE extremely political subject, it would mean that it happens for ALL scientific publications is equally absurd. You have to overcome your blind faith in the system.
AmadeusPower 2 months ago
@Zed1967 This is not a "conspiracy theory", this is FACT. The climate gate emails proved beyond any possible doubt that the people behind AGW did all they could to stop the publication of articles they didn't like, that they had methods to pressure editors etc.
You should really start reading those messages before you say another stupid word that just reveals your degree of ignorance. I'm sure you just didn't want to believe that there wasn't much in those messages because it hurts your faith.
AmadeusPower 2 months ago
Comment removed
Zed1967 4 months ago
ok, so whatever anybody says about it, i don't care, because the ice caps are melting..we KNOW that...they didn't used to be melting, now they are. the if the ice melts it could fuck with the planetary air circulation and make weird weather. hot cold...air pressure....shit can change. and so can scientists minds, something will happen we are just trying to figure out what
eyestepback 4 months ago
Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits Physics Group over Stand on Global Warming. He confirmed what all intelligent people understood about the "church of global warming": it has NOTHING to do with science! Ivar Giaever is by far not the only one. Quite a few other serious scientists have left organizations that have blindly followed the ideological BS imposed by the IPCC.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : Which is why the consensus is at 97% not 100%
By the way I have never heard of him publishing anything in atmospheric science. Science is not a competition of opinions in the form of Op-Eds in the WallStreetJournal. If he were to be able to prove Global Warming wrong, he should write a paper and publish it for God´s sake !!! PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH !!! If somebody invalidates observations I want to read it... but hey almost none of these contrarians ever publish!!
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass Just because you're ignorant about all the innumerable publications by those who disagree with AGW doesn't mean they don't publish. It just means that you're not paying attention. Take Dr.Vincent Gray from NZ. Official expert reviewer for the IPCC, so you really can't call him names. Published the book “The Global Warming Scam” in which he documents why none of the facts presented by the IPCC supports human influence on the climate.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : BRING IT ON !!!!! SHOW THE PUBLICATIONS !!! Don´t be shy, I have an access so please quote very precisely or shut up !!!
PS: A book is not a P-R scientific publication - in case you are totally retarded (which I suspect)
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass Says the completely mentally retarded moron, who didn't even read the ClimateGate emails: they explicitly talk about how to PREVENT THE PUBLICATION OF OPPOSING SCIENTISTS in P-R publications through INTIMIDATION and SLANDER etc. There's this hard core of 50 pseudo-scientists, who have been able to do this for 20 years, with unlimited support from governments. THAT is why you haven't seen much contrarian evidence in those publications, you idiot.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@nigelelsass So your attempt to claim that the non-existence of such articles as proof that scientists "agree" is pathetic. Just as pathetic as your attempt to denigrate those scientists who do disagree and who have 10'000 times more qualification than you. Dr.Vincent Gray is OFFICIAL EXPERT REVIEWER of the IPCC. What's your status? Oh right: idiotic little sucker who still licks his professors' asses so that he may graduate one day, as good member of the flock of sheep who approve of AGW.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@nigelelsass More prove that you are either completely retarded or intellectually totally dishonest: Giaever didn't claim anything specific about Global Warming, he simply observed the OBVIOUS, i.e. that the entire way the issue is treated has NOTHING to do with science and everything with POLITICS. He protested against the hijacking of a scientific organization for a political goal. In other words: the science behind AGW is extremely bad, because they hinder the scientific process.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@nigelelsass Or the - coincidentally - homologue Dr.William Gray, pioneer in the prediction of hurricane seasons. From Wiki: "Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding[5] and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.[6] He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children."[7]"
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : If you keep posting one contrarian scientist per post it would take you over 1,000 post to overturn the consensus. BTW, W.Gray has no publication on global warming (they have been full of basic science errors - thus turned down).
PS2: A political statement without underlying evidence is no science - just so you know in case you are totally retarded (which I suspect)
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass Now if you want to make a complete ass out of yourself, try to claim that one of the leading pioneers in atmospheric sciences doesn't know what he's talking about. This is not appeal to authority, this is simply a hint that you do NOT have the slightest clue on what this is all about. You're incredibly naive. You don't even see that this is all ABOUT BIG, BIG MONEY! Al Gore, who is just a minor puppet, made $100 million in 7 years. Imagine how much those behind him made.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : So the fact that somebody is making profit (whether legally or illegally) on a solution to a problem is a proof the problem does not exist? Kid you might really want to review the logic you use there !!!
I suspect you do not have the slightest clue as you have brought only statements backed by zero evidence. I suspect you do not have any scientific education.
nigelelsass 4 months ago
The global cooling theories of the 70's were predicated upon a cyclic model of global behavior and has nothing whatsoever to do with human causality. If one combines the new ice age theory of the 70's with the contemporary global warming model we have global warming that is much worse than we realize because it is being mitigated by a down cycle of unrelated causality.
Zyworski 4 months ago
For anyone who still thinks that there's any truth in the Anthropogenic Global Warming, watch the YouTube video called "The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies".
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower : For anybody who believes there is much scientific accuracy in youtube videos, continue watching youtube...
And thanks God it's the "Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies" - who else could you mislead with cheap statistical tricks?
nigelelsass 5 months ago 2
@nigelelsass By what I see in your profile, you're a pathetic little anti-American? A typical Frenchie - socialist or even communist and hence necessarily trying to push an agenda that's just communism by other means. Still can't bear the thought that France had to be liberated by the Americans TWICE and that they're better in everything they do :D
Obama was an accident, he'll be kicked out next year. The next president won't give the slightest support to this GW Hoax.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower
1) I happily live in the most capitalist country in the world.
2) Memo: the cold war is over - communist lost - America forever living in the past and fear of redscare
3) I donnot give a sh... about France - why is it relevant to me?
4) It does not matter who your president is - it was obviously not God's intention to make of the smartest nation in the world to say the least...
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass You live in Hong Kong? Memo: it's not because the USSR imploded that communism has been eliminated. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela are the most obvious ones that still suffer under it, but so does France. And most of the EU is far, far on the left. Besides, the legacy of the USSR is still all around. Even the war in Afghanistan only happened because of the USSR. And the ideology is still around, cf. the Global Warming Hoax and the anti-globalization movement.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
Comment removed
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower : It´s not fair - why do we get poorly educated and crazy immigrants like you in Switzerland? Your place is indeed in a failing country like..... USA !! USA !!! USA !!!
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass You're a real retard, aren't you? Calling me an "immigrant", haha. Idiot! I'm the one who is fluent in 5 languages here, not you. You barely manage to express yourself in English, your German is abysmal and your ignorance of the principles of science is pathetic.
Du bist nur ein kleiner arroganter Zwerg, der glaubt, er sei ein "Experte", weil er ein paar Wochen lang einem gelangweilten Professor zugehört hat. Deine Arroganz ist typisch für junge Weltverbesserer.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : Chätzli, her jetz uff !!! A rassister uss d'Romandie? D's gaat nütt !!!
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass That was a joke, right? Miserable, absolutely miserable. Don't even try... you have no frigging clue what Swiss German is.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower : You're just frustrated because everything about you is French: your native language, your last name, your way of being - so long sucker. Back to the ETH - We believe in science in Zurich, not in your conspiracy theories - sucker
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass The only frustrated moron is YOU, because you don't even have the intelligence to know what science is. You're definitely not at ETHZ, you don't even remotely have the intelligence, you don't know German or Swiss German and you're a complete moron to assume that anything about me is "French". You don't know my name. Not to mention that your "English" sucks completely. Hint: Science is NEVER decided by "consensus". And you have no clue about climate and complex systems.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower : Lieber Freund, ihre Behauptungen liegen voll daneben. Hätte ich was anderes von einem Verschwörungstheoretiker erwarten müssen? Die Antwortet lautet ganz klar nein.
Wir könnten uns sicherlich über die physischen und thermodynamischen Grundlagen der Klimaerwärmung unterhalten, allerdings bin ich nicht der Meinung dass Sie über die notwendigen Grundkenntnisse verfügen.
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower : A good clue little smartass: YOU believe you have more clue than 97% of scientists?
No you are right that the consensus does not matter - not more than for the shape of the earth. When Eratosthenos brought his experiment - he proved people like you wrong - but that did not end the ridiculous idea of a flat earth. Well spectral absorption physics at least prove you wrong, pathetic and ridiculous.
nigelelsass 5 months ago 2
@nigelelsass Another little hint, sucker: in case you missed the post, the Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever doesn't believe in man-made global warming. But I'm sure you are arrogant and stupid enough to pretend that you know more about science than a Nobel Price winner in Physics :D
And yes, he's just one of innumerable top-notch scientists who totally disagree with your ridiculous ideological bullshit.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower : Which is why the consensus is at 97% not 100%
By the way I have never heard of him publishing anything in atmospheric science. Science is not a competition of opinions in the form of Op-Eds in the WallStreetJournal. If he were to be able to prove Global Warming wrong, he should write a paper and publish it for God´s sake !!! PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH !!! If somebody invalidates observations I want to read it... but hey almost none of these contrarians ever publish!!
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower Um history 101. In the 1970s scientists warned us that the introduction of florocarbons into the atmosphere would deplete our ozone layer. People that wanted to sell their products created counter science to refute it. Now today 40 years later Austrailia has a hole in the Ozone layer which has changed their climate. We have been told that what we are doing is affecting our planet and killing us, why is it so hard to understand that people will deceive you for money?
Ryooken 3 months ago
@Ryooken Oh now the ozone layer is supposedly changing the climate, too? Wow... the ignorance is almost painful. FYI: the depletion of the ozone layer was first observed in the 1950s by 2 French scientists, who found that it was a result of varying solar radiation. The famous CFC gasses were prohibited, so in theory, the ozone layer should grow. Instead, it suddenly was shrinking again: less solar activity!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Ryooken Hint: the CFC gas harms ozone theory became famous just when patents on CFC ran out and 3rd world countries could manufacture it cheaply. It was pushed by big corporations who had "substitution" products like Freon, which cost 10x more. Another hint: CFC is heavier than air - try it in your bath tub. And it is decomposed at soil level by bacteria. So how could significant quantities get into the upper atmosphere, let alone concentrated over the poles???
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Ryooken You might want to re-consider who is being deceived. Who do you think profits the most from the theory that there is man-made global warming? Obama just awarded $1 billion to a solar power company that went promptly bankrupt, the money disappearing mysteriously. 2 weeks later, Obama awards another $500 million to a solar company in California that is run ... by Pelosi's brother in law. You are soooo naive, it should hurt!!!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Ryooken Exxon was accused of funding Global Warming skeptical research (which is bad because?) to the tune of $20 million. A grant they immediately rescinded, finding it very profitable to produce solar and other alternate energy products. They don't care WHAT they sell to make money! Just those 2 Obama grants for $1.5 billion represent 75x more money than that $20 million grant. Guess who has more money to fund bullshit "science"?
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Ryooken A last point about the ozone: the WORST estimate of the ozone "depletion" (no hole, remember, just a thinning of the layer!) would correspond to the increase you get by traveling from Oslo to Rome. I yet have to find anyone who thinks that Rome is a place of deadly radiations...
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower Really tell that to the Australians. They seem to think it's a big deal. i wonder why?
Ryooken 3 months ago
@Ryooken A lot of idiots believe in the AGW hoax, too. And 1.5 billion people are Muslims. The fact that a lot of people believe in Bullshit doesn't make it true. If you read up about the SCIENCE, you'd find that the current Australian hot and dry climate has NOTHING to do with the ozone layer or the alleged AGW. It's a matter of weather patterns that change all the time.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower I would say that the increase in skin cancer rates would be significant enough with the increased UV radiation exposure.
Ryooken 3 months ago
@Ryooken More bullshit: skin cancer has increased worldwide ... because people spend more and more hours lying in the sun and in less sunny countries, even more so UNDER ARTIFICIAL UV LAMPS!!! There are complete studies about this. Doctors who examined their patient's habits laugh about the insinuation that it has anything to do with the ozone layer. You don't want skin cancer, don't roast in the sun for weeks. Cancer also increased because people get older than they used to.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower Oh? You're kidding right? I see so all throughout history people without airconditioning have been spending hours working and living in the sun, but you are going to tell me that it's because people are spending now more time in the sun. LOL! You do remember we were talking about Austrialia right?
Ryooken 3 months ago
@Ryooken No, I'm NOT kidding, I'm quoting MEDICAL SCIENCE. Before modern times, people didn't lie in the sun. Even those who worked in the open had the intelligence to cover themselves against the sun. Look at how desert dwellers dress - not a lot of skin showing, right? And as I said: they had much shorter life spans!
Check the FACTS: the alleged ozone "hole" is merely a thinning of the layer and it is changing all the time, growing thicker and thinner with solar radiation intensity.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@Ryooken Just type "UV lamps skin cancer" in Google and read a few links. There are those that explain how to prevent skin cancer, e.g. among the first, by University of Iowa, which explains exposure risks and gives advise. They don't mention the "ozone hole" anywhere. And you didn't reply at all to the obvious facts, such as: CFCs have been banned no change in the "ozone hole", CFC heavier than air anyway, so how t.f. does it get up into the polar ozone layer? etc.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower Oh I am terribly sorry I didn't think you were serious. I didn't think that you would use such an obvious twisting of the facts. Let's begin then. Worldwide CFC production fell sharply after the U.S. aerosol ban, but by 1986 had returned nearly to its 1976 level. In 1993, DuPont shut down its CFC facility. CFCs have been reduced but not eliminated. That's point one.
continued
Ryooken 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere since peaking in 1994, the Effective Equivalent Chlorine (EECl) level in the atmosphere had dropped about 10% by 2008. It is estimated that by 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole will have reduced by 1 million km² out of 25
cont.
Ryooken 3 months ago
@Ryooken (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer is not expected to occur until the year 2050 or later. Now are you done?
Ryooken 3 months ago
Whoever continues to deny the proven fact of AGW needs to read and see every comment at skepticalscience (dot) com. The latest BEST study (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature), sponsored by extremist deniers in the false hopes that they would uncover faults in the work of the IPCC, ended up proving and confirming the obvious and what all rational people already know: humans ARE heating up the atmosphere and oceans with their emissions.
But the sore loser denier babies won't STFU.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello Too bad for you, loser! This "study" has been revealed to be FAKE. Prof Muller's claim is a FRAUD. Quote: Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis."
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@mphello So why don't YOU shut the fuck up?
You're in the camp of the LIARS, FRAUDS and HYPOCRITES!!!
If Al Gore believed even a word of what he said, he wouldn't be one of the top individual polluters on the planet. But hey, he made $100 Million by promoting the Global Warming Hoax. How much did you make? Nothing, right?
SUCKER!!!
You're what Stalin called a USEFUL IDIOT. Keep helping Al Gore pay for his private Jet traveling. Lick his boots, too, while you're at it.
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@AmadeusPower
Get the FUCK out of this youtube channel and get the FUCK out of America so the rest of us true patriotic pro-environmental vegan Americans can get to work cleaning up the mess YOU assholes made.
Go worship your hero, Alex Jones, who thinks 911 was a hologram and the moonlanding was a hoax.
AGW has NOTHING to do with "Al Gore".
Conservatives NEVER want to take responsibility for their crimes, esp environmental crimes.
mphello 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET OFF THIS PLANET!!!
WE DON'T NEED EVIL COMMUNIST RETARDS LIKE YOU!!!
You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and we will start PROSECUTING all the fucking bastards who have filled their pockets by stirring up idiotic fears of non-existent man-made warming.
YOU WILL GO DOWN, FUCKING LIARS!!!
YOU ARE THE MADOFFS OF SCIENCE!!!
AmadeusPower 3 months ago
@orkneymist NASA does NOT support AGW. One of their directors did, religiously, but totally without any connection with scientific data, which always said something completely different from what he claimed, e.g. that other planets in the solar system warmed during the 1990s and most recently, that the earth radiates much more heat than predicted by the AGW theory, based on satellite data. Don't try to talk to people much more intelligent and better informed than you, kiddo!
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@AmadeusPower I believe that the, "one of their directors" being referred to is Dr James Hansen an interplanetary climatologist who is uniquely qualified to have an opinion on global warming. The radiant heat coming off the earth could be explained away as the effect of particulate pollutions increasing the albedo levels of the earth and mitigating global warming in a serendipitous way.
Zyworski 4 months ago
@Zyworski Hansen is not "uniquely qualified". He hasn't done any scientific work since the 1970s. Then he became an ADMINISTRATOR, more interested in expanding his personal power and status through extremist theories based on his completely outdated work on Venus, which is absurd. If his idea about a "runaway global warming" was true, then the earth would have a steaming hot climate now, as we had up to 25 times the current levels of CO2 in the past. Venus is hot because it is close to the sun.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower You are quite incorrect, Dr Hansen is active in research at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to this day. Dr Goddard has spoken before multiple congressional committees which indicates he has credibility. He has 30 years of tenure at Columbia University. Only the cream of the crop get tenured positions at Ivy league schools. Dr Hansen's work is predicated upon data obtained from meteorological stations across the globe and satellite based high resolution radiometers.
Zyworski 4 months ago
@Zyworski Sorry kiddo, but you are totally incorrect: you should know that appeals to authority are always worthless in a debate. Worse: Congress has no credibility at all. Politicians are worthless crooks and government is a big mafia. They are the ones who want to get all the profits from the Global Warming scam in the form of taxes, which they then distribute to people like Hansen. Hansen's position at Columbia is based on his function at Nasa, not his actual qualification.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@Zyworski You are totally naive in your vision of society and "authorities". Those with power rarely, if ever, hold power because of their qualifications. Politicians are the winners of popularity competitions, preceded by all sorts of shady deals and corrupt affairs to even become candidates, often involving the mafia. Intellectual honesty is not even remotely on the list of qualifications for 99% of them.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower "Politicians are the winners of popularity competitions" To an even greater degree I believe this to be true about the Committee Chairman selection process, and believe this process of dynasties in the congressional committees is the source of much corruption in our government.
Back to global warming for a sec. One need not be a rocket scientist to see the effects of burning coal, look at one of these plants on G Earth and notice the 1000 yard radius of death.
Zyworski 4 months ago
@Zyworski Hansen is famous for being an extremist activist, promoting political goals more than science. As for the data you mention, it was mostly falsified, which has been proven beyond any doubt during the Climategate scandal. It is now impossible to get the raw data. Besides, Dr.Lindzen - a real climatologist from MIT - works with the same data and arrives at totally different conclusions. So what's your point about the "data"?
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower Regarding Climategate, Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious". I looked up Dr. Lindzen and he doesn't deny the roll of CO2 in warming the atmosphere, but hypothesizes about negative feedback scenarios that counteract it. You will notice on my very first comment to you I also gave one of many negative feedback scenarios, so I do give credence to the concept. Continued in next comment
Zyworski 4 months ago
@orkneymist Now some clueless sucker wants to convince me that the same UN, that has been PROVEN to lie about such SCIENTIFIC facts is an "authority" that may not be questioned? The IPCC is no better than WHO and UNAIDS - and they're also in Geneva. Which is why I could follow closely the enormous corruption scandal at the World Meteorological Agency. Did you joker sleep through the entire Climate Gate revelations, which proved that all the climate data had been manipulated?
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@orkneymist I met the entire directorate of WHO and UNAIDS as a guest of Dr.Chin, who had proven that they had LIED for years about the real extent of AIDS, which was not even 50% of what they claimed and had never entered mainstream society anywhere but in Africa. They finally admitted the crushing evidence provided by Dr.Chin and adjusted their numbers, but waited from 2004 to 2007 to finally do so officially. Why? Because the bigger numbers gave them more MONEY!!!
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@orkneymist As for "World class institutions", it just shows how totally clueless you are about reality. You call the UN "world class"? I'm a few km away from their headquarters in Geneva and I know them intimately well, having participated in many events and conferences involving UN representatives, including from the very top. They are the most CORRUPT and USELESS bunch of people on the planet!!!
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@orkneymist "Go and cling a bit tighter to your bible" You retard just can't get over your idiotic assumptions, can you? I'm an ATHEIST, as any rational person who understands SCIENCE, which clearly doesn't include you. You're a believer in the Church of Global Warming. Go pay your dues to Al Gore, who is laughing all the way to the bank. He made $100 Million out of suckers like you. How much did you make? Ah, right: NOTHING.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@orkneymist Take Dr.Grey who was the official representative of NZ at IPCC. He called their report so bad that he'd give it a failing grade if it had been produced by one of his students. Your ignorance is staggering: THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY RECORDED WARMING SINCE 1998! That's a PEER REVIEWED study that the AGW pushers had to grudgingly admit. Hence all the articles trying to justify the absence of warming since 1998!
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
@orkneymist Hahaha, what does the WHO - the World Health Organization - know about the climate? And you moron claim that I'm "making a fool of myself"? Not as much as you just did! Your appeal to authority is totally useless as it is pathetic and WRONG. There are hundreds of people who were quoted by the IPCC as "supporters" who vehemently disagree and whose name was included without their consent.
AmadeusPower 5 months ago
WOW! Just how ignorant and stupid is Bachmann.
robhex 5 months ago
The climate has always been changing since the beginning of time and it always will change. Anybody who believes in man-made climate change needs to go to a mental institute. Global warming is a complete scam and only an eco friendly nut case would believe that human beings are causing the ice in the Artic to melt. I cant help but to laugh at these paranoid little lib-tards
noreaga12326 6 months ago
Thumbs up because of the laughter.
But actually it is very sad and disturbing to see someone with a mental and moral handicap elected into office in the biggest economy in the world.
Boreas171270 6 months ago
@Boreas171270 You're an ignorant prick with zero knowledge of science. Fortunately, you are not elected into office.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
Did you hear the audience LAUGH when she said "I don't think that it has been established yet, as a fact, that global warming is the issue of the day." ?
So, I assume she's never read about Glacier National Park, Montana... where the glaciers are predicted to be all melted & gone by 2020?
ShawnsterVideos 6 months ago
@ShawnsterVideos Oh so you didn't get the memo? The claims about glaciers disappearing within 30 years were FRAUDULENT and based on nothing but hot air! Not a single glacier will disappear by 2020, not even by 2100. There are close to 100'000 of them all over the world. Only 22'000 are retreating, the rest are advancing, stationary, oscillating or unknown. Look it up in the "World Glacier Inventory" (Google). Try SCIENCE and FACTS before you make stupid claims the next time!!!
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower Sir, I have a friend by the name of Joe Bruncsak who was contracted by National Geographic to film Glacier Nation Park. Joe's film company is called Blue Land Media. Joe and his company filmed what few glaciers remain at the Park. Joe's before and after films of glaciers that were present in the 1920's do not exist today. Pictures don't lie.
Don't take my word for it. Please investigate Blue Land Media to see for yourself.
ShawnsterVideos 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower First for the fundamentals: Pictures DO lie. They're even one of the easiest things to manipulate. Apart from that, you simply ignore the SCIENTIFIC source of DATA for world-wide glaciers, which proves that only 20% of the worldwide glaciers are retreating, while 12% are ADVANCING and the rest are STABLE or OSCILLATING. So your "pictures" are completely irrelevant. Glaciers advance and retreat all the time.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@ShawnsterVideos 2000 years ago, most modern glaciers in the Alps were minuscule or non-existent. So whatever happens with glaciers has NOTHING to do with human activities.
AmadeusPower 4 months ago
@AmadeusPower If you say so. I have no opinion on the Alps, as I have no information on those mountains. I know what I saw from Blue Land Media's film of Glacier National Park.
I read the International Business Times article about Ivar Giaever's resignation. His reasons for quitting seem quite balanced to me. I especially like that he is 82 years old and stated, "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" It is likely many people want global warming to occur.
ShawnsterVideos 4 months ago
stupid bitch.
DIBBLES21 6 months ago 8
Sammy, actually the NASA data does corroborate the work of the IPCC. (See Mark Maslin's of University College, London's work.
You guys need to get over your dislike of Gore and actually read something serious.
Bachmann is a dogmatic religious nut who rejects evolutionary theory because it doesn't fit the Bible doesn't read anything scientific (or otherwise I fear) unless it comports with her religious beliefs as learned from her cracker college Oral Roberts U. She is a joke nothing more.
Hume77 6 months ago 4
Bachmann isn't quite right in her description of the discussion of the cooling of the 1970s which was caused by sunspot activity and the recent international studies on global warming.
Glasy, straw man, Gore didn't say that. But if you think it is a joke then go to the website of the National Academy of Sciences which has been issuing annual reports for over 12 years or simply read a book by a scientist on global warming. You are the joke.
Hume77 6 months ago 2
Yes Michelle you have to look at the science you idiot! NOT THE SPIN funded by the Koch brothers and EXXON! This kind of person is really dangerous and unreliable with the pesky migraines she gets all of the time. The republicans are blinded by appearances and spin!
tomestubbs 6 months ago
Finally, rynther, you were clearly and demonstrably in error when you objected to my criticism of Bachman's comments in the video. You appear eager to engage in entirely new arguments. and I am willing to consider additional offerings.
However, you don't need to lead us down the rabbit hole with unnecessary terminology; I doubt your authority. These discussions are about the findings of qualified researchers in the field, and what agreement they largely find on the subject of climate change.
SammyHales 6 months ago
What do you expect? The extreme heat deranged her brain.
loufalce 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP!
GOPkicksbutt 6 months ago
"One thing we can do is look at the science" Michelle Bachman.
Great! So educate yourself in the most basic, well-understood, and well-established facts that science has provided us! Welcome aboard the reason and science bus Michelle! Now stop spouting ignorance and/or lies about the subject of climate change science.
SammyHales 6 months ago 2
@SammyHales
Okay, now you are making a claim that climatology is both basic, and well understood.
You've made the claim elsewhere in this thread that AGW has a scientific consensus.
Care to explain the competing theory of solar irradiance? Understanding that a consensus means that there are no competing theories. Would you like to explain the rise in the number of climatologists that don't agree with AGW? Too hard? Then just explain climatology.
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther Sorry for dominating this discussion, but as I look into this issue I can see it will make a great subject for my next college research paper. It has been highly politicized, which will make my job easy, and the scientific concensus supporting my side is overwhelming, which will make my job easier still. It would be a big job just to list nationally or internationally recognized scientifc organizations that support my side...wanna' guess how many dissent?--(shh the answer is zero) LOL!
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales yea, do the paper, you will get an A for sure. colleges eat that shit up
zieben64 6 months ago
@SammyHales Well, evidently you belong in an institution.
I said climatologists.
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, a paper reached the following conclusions: 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. You were saying?
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales When were those numbers published?
BTW, one of those scientists that "agreed" took 2 years to get his name removed from the report that you refer from the IPCC, having to file suit to finally get his name removed.
Does that sound like normal science?
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther Those numbers come directly from the study I cited--not from "my ass" as you suggest--and I have to wonder how you could ask me such a question, because those numbers can be found both in both the thesis and the abstract. Why ask for a source and then not read it? Also, those nuimbers were published in 2010, allow me to refer you--again--to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, article name: "Expert Credibility in Climate Change."
SammyHales 6 months ago
@rynther Unfortunately, that sounds exactly like a normal problem within the scientific beauracracy. I'm surprised you think this sort of objection can offer a significant challenge to the finding of EVERY scientific organization that receives national or international regonization, not to mention the concensus found among climate researchers that could be as high as 98%. Anyway, I do agree that this is a problem and it will appear in my opposing points as it did when I demolished ID creationism
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales BTW, which paper exactly was it from the national academy?
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther Quid pro quo! I have answered you repeatedly with verifiable information and sources. You tend to respond with personal attack and unwarrantable excuses for not considering them. I will need what you have for my paper, so I expect you to offer something substantial in exchange for my sources. "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" is the name of the paper. So lets have your stuff, like I said, it is very hard to find. Your earlier confidence suggests you had at least...something.
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales Richard Feynman, John Coleman, these are two actual names.
Solar irradiance fits temperature change much better than Anthropomorphic global warming. If that isn't giving you information, then I just can't use what you might call English.
You pulled numbers straight out of your ass BTW, and haven't backed them. And since you accused me of insult, why the fuck don't you learn some basic fucking english? <---question mark, used to mark a question.
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther Thank you for at last providing a source of any kind. I will have to research those names since you were unable to provide me with any published work. I was hoping your formerly confident attitude was informed by a much more comprehensive knowledge of the subject than what you seem able to exibit.
Your passion seems undimished, however, and that could prove useful to me. Use google.scholar if you don't have access to an academic library to find valid scientific critiques (and mine).
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales I can be pretty handy, but my field is computers, so I don't have annotated papers about the topic at hand. (I don't catalog everything I read on the internet)
Have you seen the nasa global satellite survey? That is a good read, and doesn't support the IPCC numbers.
I will get you some, as you seem to take the topic seriously enough to warrant the time.
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther BTW, I carry a 4.0 at college, and I have been invited to write undergraduate research in state-wide symposiums. That hardly qualifies me as an expert in English, but you must understand how absurd your layman's attempts at condescention must seem to me. Finally, I specifically said you offered personal attacks in response to my verifiable research, and you do. When I cited the scientific concensus vis-a-vis climate science, you inexplicably blurted that I need to be institutionalized.
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales Yes, however you maybe didn't get the humor, cheap shot, but you were asserting that if the majority of institutions had a given opinion, that opinion is somehow better or less assailable.
I find that concept less than proper, given the importance of the issue, and some of the absurd claims, most notably mr Gore, who is the the main reason that I started questioning the idea in the first place.
rynther 6 months ago
@rynther I really should throw you a bone here. I would suggest you read the works of Bjorn Lomborg, and about his treatment from the scientific community when he dared question the statistics used by some environmental groups--many mistakenly thought he was questioning climate science, but as a statician, he just wanted to make sure that the numbers were being interpreted accurately (often times they weren't). Al Gore has done more harm to science than any wild-eyed Bachman type could hope for.
SammyHales 6 months ago
@rynther Do me this favor: I will need your sources for my paper. I am having a very hard time finding any scholarly journals that have published any convincing papers from your side of the argument. I have to be able to support both sides to a certain extent, and yours seems so weak I might have to find another subject to write about. Any help?
SammyHales 6 months ago
@SammyHales One of the better studies that I have read on global temp is the global satellite survey, courtesy of nasa, as for others, it might be a while.
rynther 6 months ago
"According to disclosure forms filed with the Justice Department - FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, The PACs estabished to organize the Tea Party Movement, are mounting a "Grassroots Opposition" to alternative energy legislation by taking millions in donations from: Algeria, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya, and Venezuela...Now thats taking your country back!" see liveleak webpage.
billzen 6 months ago
She doesn't believe in global warming? Most people don't and most scientists don't either. The earth is now cooling. Warming has stopped for 13 years now. Warming and cooling in the earth is normal.
SomeLittleShoe 6 months ago
When I see these types of candidates, I weep for the future.
LegalFuhrer 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks to liberal policies America can no longer afford to pay for medicare, social security, unemployment and many other services. We also need to lower the minimum wage to $2/hr in order to compete with China and bring jobs back home. Fiscally responsible conservatives like Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann know this and are currently
working to end these wasteful handout programs and bring the minimum wage down so that America can be great again. God bless the GOP
unclelight 7 months ago
Lots of people don't believe in Global Warming. Seems like it's the loud ones that do.
SomeLittleShoe 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming does not believe in Michele Bachmann.
LiveTheWild 7 months ago
Anyone who believes in man made global warming is a sucker. Al Gore is laughing at you. There are as many scientists who disagree with the THEORY as agree. Just a scam to sell a video and to make billions selling you saps air.
barryneyrey 7 months ago
Global Warming is being used to control the nations energy, hence economy.....its a globalist plot.......wake the fuckup people
sherkhan17 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out new song for Bachmann, on my channel
heytootssweet 7 months ago
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then." newscientist "climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s"
billzen 7 months ago
@billzen And I see your expose of Bachman's false statment has received deafening silence from her supporters. First they challenge us to prove them wrong, and when that happens, they retreat to: "I would rather vote for someone honest and wrong than someone who jumps in with the political fad..." That kind of willful stupidity is both scary and sad.
SammyHales 6 months ago
Because she's brain dead.
Tmetrvlr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Someone should bitchslap her as hard as possible, then send Pierre Woodman to her house to fuck her good, then slap her again and finally kick her into the kitchen, where she belongs!!
ajaxrules1975 7 months ago
Battmann is just another RepubliCunt whore
HowardSternn 7 months ago
Funny... NASA and the National Academy of Science of the United States both agree that climate change is occurring. Michele Bachmann, Presidential Candidate and world renowned climatologist who is much more intelligent than any of those scientists at NASA.
mattt1994 7 months ago
@mattt1994
You might want to read the NASA site and the satellite climate study results.
rynther 6 months ago
in '89 cold fusion was featured in the LATimes (unlimited power without co2 emission). The global warming lobbyists were aghast at the possibility of cheap clean energy. “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of SkepticalScience) “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
AGW isn't about co2 pollution.
papertigero 7 months ago
Is it not possible that GW is caused naturally, by the sun ? Fluctuations in thermal energy reaching the earth will cause C(O)2 to come out of solution from the oceans in varying amounts. This must surely make the amount of that gas produced by humans seem minute.
valarmanwe 8 months ago
I don't recall any scientific studies in the 70's that warned about any impending ice-age.
Some articles from the period did discuss the impact of sulphate aerosols on global temperature. But there were definitly multiple examples of predictions of a warmer world with increasing CO2 concentration in 70's studies.
AtomSmash3r 8 months ago
@mightydragon2000 Actually I have read about global warming and the studies even before Al Gore made a big deal out of it. You know what people say about being wrong but honest? It is called willful ignorance.
@buildgerga Actually what we do matters to climate change in an industrialized society. Go open a book and study. Also Global warming doesn't mean the temperature gets warm all the time, go study.
America is so screwed.
Neosaigo 9 months ago 11
@Neosaigo As if big oil is not a special interest group. Mightydragon must not read what he says.
ETericET 7 months ago
@Neosaigo I studied physics and IT and I can say with absolute certainty that man-made global warming is a FRAUD!
They claimed all sorts of things 15 years ago, based on "computer models", without even having a clue about how the climate really works. NONE of their predictions have come true. NONE. That's why they changed the name from "warming" to "climate change", which allows them to claim ANYTHING as "proof" of their theory, because the climate always changes.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@AmadeusPower "I studied physics and IT and I can say with absolute certainty that man-made global warming is a FRAUD!"
Absolute certainty? I wonder what your grades were.
Glasya666 6 months ago
@Glasya666 My grades were excellent and yes, I can say that with absolute certainty. Because it is NOT a scientific issue. Scientifically speaking, the claims by those who promote the AGW theory are completely ridiculous. Absurd.
#1 THEY DO NOT HAVE A VALID MODEL OF THE CLIMATE! So how can they make ANY predictions? Answer: they can't
#2 How could a tiny change in CO2 levels cause a gigantic climate change? Only if there was a TIPPING POINT. But there is no such tipping point!!!
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@AmadeusPower Global warming is not a scientific issue? You keep getting dumber with every post.
Glasya666 6 months ago
@Glasya666 You dumb idiot are not even able to respond to what's posted. You just believe what you've been fed by the media, Zero ability to think logically. So tell me: if they don't have a valid climate model - and I hope you're aware that they don't - how is it a scientific issue when they claim that they can make climate predictions for what will happen 100 years from now? That's so pathetic, you cannot begin to claim there's science behind it. More like Voodoo magic - or a fraud.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 And since you dumb prick dare attacking those infinitely smarter than you, just answer this other question: WHERE IS THE TIPPING POINT FOR CO2?
In the past, the earths atmosphere held up to 25 times more CO2 and there wasn't anything remotely like a global catastrophe wiping out all life forms. On the contrary, it was a very good period for all sorts of life forms.
So you dumb idiot, what's that tipping point due to which a tiny increase in CO2 causes a gigantic climate change?
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@AmadeusPower Yes, I dare attack somebody "infinitely smarter" than me. You crack me up. Seriously, I'm laughing my ass off right now. Anyways, I'm not sure why you keep talking about a tipping point. It's possible that we could reach a point where warmer temperatures lead to more CO2 emissions (such as the melting permafrost). This could cause a runaway effect. That's just one possibility. More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warmer temperatures. A tipping point is not required.
Glasya666 6 months ago
@Glasya666 Of course you are laughing - like a moron. You don't even realize that you are so dumb that you don't get the problem. "It's possible" BUT WRONG. "This could cause a runaway effect" It doesn't - NO WARMING SINCE 1998! You don't even keep up with the facts, so what the fuck do you comment on anyway? "More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to warmer temperatures" - WRONG: warmer temperatures lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around!
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 If you had bothered to look at the past temperature / CO2 diagrams, you'd have seen that CO2 increases always FOLLOW, NEVER PRECEDE temperature increases. That's because the biggest storage of CO2 are the oceans. Warm the oceans and CO2 will be released. However, the thermal inertia of oceans is such that it takes centuries to change their temperatures significantly. Claims about a little atmospheric warming having led to warming the oceans in just 20 years are just ridiculous.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 There has been significantly more underwater volcanic activity, though (on which humanity has ZERO influence), which might have caused oceanic warming in some locations, which in turn might have led to more CO2 being released. So an increase in atmospheric CO2 might be totally unrelated to human activity as well. The CO2 we add is so insignificant that it is probably almost entirely absorbed by more plant growth.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 You carefully avoided the first question: How can anyone dare to make long-term predictions about the climate, if no one even has a valid model for how the climate operates? We are not even close to having such a model. All we know (or think we know) is that the biggest factor for the climate on earth is water vapor (clouds etc.), but we don't know how much of it there is in the atmosphere and how it acts in different forms and at different altitudes. Predictions are just dumb.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@AmadeusPower Whether or not they have a valid model is debatable. Obviously, these models are not 100% accurate. That does not mean they are worthless. The science academies of every country that has one agrees that global warming is real and that we are causing it. Add to that dozens of other organizations , like NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geological Society and many others. Nobel Prize winning physicists also agree with AGW. Sorry, but its real.
Glasya666 6 months ago
@Glasya666 "That does not mean they are worthless" Totally worthless for predicting the climate in 100 years or even 5 years. They got it wrong every single time so far. Your claim about science academies is WRONG and IRRELEVANT. Agreement in science has never had any value. 100% of all physicists except Einstein thought that his theory of relativity was completely wrong in 1905, yet Einstein was right, everyone else was wrong. Anyone even mentioning "consensus" doesn't know shit about science.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 Your claim about NASA in particular is wrong - they had ONE activist who made up tons of bullshit, which has been disproven since, but when you look at their scientific articles - not the press releases - you find that the scientists at NASA actually do not believe in man causing climate change. e.g. they observed warming on other solar system objects like Mars. What do you make of that?
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 You are totally confused about the PUBLIC, POLITICAL part of such organizations and the scientific activities. Even the official statements in the IPCC report often flatly contradict the scientific articles in the very same document. But to know that, you'd actually have to study it. Ask someone like Dr.Grey from NZ about it - he was an official member of IPCC and said that he'd give such a report a failing grade, if submitted by a student. It helps to talk to such people in person.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 Besides, the entire debate is moot. The CERN just released a study that finds that temperature variations on the same amplitude and speed as currently observed were very common over the last 10'000 years, which completely ridicules the claims by the AGW crowd. Go to the CERN Document server and search for "Evidence for pre-industrial solar-climate variability". You're not just stubborn, but also extremely badly informed, as I already noted.
AmadeusPower 6 months ago
@Glasya666 Your appeal to authority is pathetic anyway - it's NEVER a way to win an argument. For every "expert" you quote, I can provide one of at least equal or higher standing who says the exact contrary - usually with more data and logic on his side. SCIENTISTS would have waited for the kind of studies now published by CERN. For if fast climate variability is common throughout earths history, then the entire AGW debate is moot. You do understand that, Exit the non-existent "consensus".
AmadeusPower 6 months ago