At least he understands the threat of ocean acidification and lack of fresh water. Both of those things are being caused by us too so apparently we do have the power to affect mother nature.
Looks like what we really have here is an arrogant weather man. Why do we need millions of years of data? (We do have that too) We know it is warming so we ask why? The answer becomes obvious.
7 degrees warmer in the 13th Century? My ass. But of course it's the Heartland Institute. Liars Inc.
Never forget the core of the eco-fascist cult demands mindless obedience , and hate your individuality . They alone will show you the correct behavior, thought processes, attitudes, and beliefs you must have to partake in there green world . . .
They will dictate to you , what food you will eat , what fuel you will use this is there main goal total control over you . They know better than you and you will obey becaue it is in the little green book of do's and don'ts . Think hard people
So the Sun does it, not man. Can he explain how? Nope
The classic is that Sunspot activity has been on the increase & that has been making the Sun emit more energy. Only problem is that sunspots have been steadily DECLINING since 1957 (google "sunspot cycle" choose MSFC option and click on the jpeg image).
So another group claims that as the Sun's activity declines more CRs get in and form clouds. Only problem is that the total CRs have not changed appreciably in the last 30 years. Ooops.
You are just talking about Milankovitch cycles of orbital eccentricity, precession and obliquity and how every few million years all these things phase up to create a very warm of very cool configuration. This has been known about for a century.
It has nothing to do with the Sun but the fact we have other large planets orbiting the Sun near us. They stretch and compress our orbit.
In any case the timescale for these changes is millenia, not decades. If you want explain GW look elsewhere.
Yes temperatures go up & down, but recently you can add an upward trend of about 0.2C per decade. That does not stop the normal period of extreme hot weather or cold (may even enhance them in some places) bu the hot becomes more likely and the cold less.
Remember last month all the fuss about a global "deep freeze" - NOAA just ranked January 2010 as the 4 th warmest ever.
The scientists have data, you have bumper stickers. Not a fair fight!
your obviously not very educated.. or your too susceptible to Al Gore and IPCC propaganda..
Sorry to put it this way mate, but you really really never cracked a book, you never looked into the subject. You just think solar energy comes in and cant get out. wrong wrong wrong ...
theres more to it, natural balance factors etc.
Besides mate, temperatures have actually been declining for the last decade.. Thats what the real, un manipulated data shows
I better let my alma mater know the Phd they gave me in astrophysics is worthless
I dont just crack books I write them (google "Many Faces of the Sun" and see who the lead editor is. Better yet buy it and read the first chapter which I helped Bob Willson write on total solar irradiance (energy input to the Earth) measurements form the first ACRIM experiment
PS stop putting words in my mouth and then cirtiquing them - you need to get your reading comprehensoion levels up a point or two.
That's not a typo. Tihs is a typo. You just can't spell. And that's fine, I wouldn't have called you up on it under normal circumstances -- but you can't call others uneducated and demonstrate that you're no better at the same time. Let alone call those who want to use what they learned in 2nd grade "nerds"
I earn well under that. Struggling to find the relevance? Or do you just bring this up every time you're made to look stupid? If so you might want to get some cards made up, save breath and all.
I mean I have a huge dick that travels more than Gulliver, but I don't let it do the talking for me.
Alright well that just ain't true. In the last decade we've seen global cooling, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
Even CRU frontman Phil Jones has recently said of 2002-present: "The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade)". This has been corroborated by both UAH and USNCDC data. Love guru Pachauri has also acknowledged the recent cooling, only saying that it warrants investigation before continuing on about how AGW will kill us all and how great breasts are (he's got my support there)
How can there have been cooling int he last decade when it was the warmest on record?
In fact no annual average temperatrue in this last decade (ranged from +0.38 to +0.6C) was below the average temperature anomaly (+0.35C) for the previous decade of the 90's.
If that is "cooling" then I would hate to experince warming!
Dont believe me? Google: "NOAA Global Surface Temperature Anomalies" and click on the graph. Happy hunting for a way to spin that into no warming.
Are you calling the CRU and IPCC liars?? Hang on, you might be on to something there.
I haven't spun anything, I've used quotation, which you've chosen not to address.
I'll address your graph though: It doesn't extend to the present. Hence, using your graph you get to count 1998 (hotter than any year in the 21st century) among the last decade and let a gaussian average make the 21st century cooling less visible.
Sorry for the belated reply, drkstrong, our little skirmish slipped my mind for a few days.
You're using adjusted data, not raw data. The NOAA blamed 1998's heat on El Nino, and took Schmidt's advice in using ENSO adjustments to lower the temperature that year. Fawcett and Jones (2007) recommended the same. Hence the UAH data, which remains unadjusted, shows '98 was significantly warmer than '05.
But hey, as long as we're issuing spin challenges, Google: climate4you global temperatures
You'll see assorted graphs by the UAH, RSS, CRU, GISS, and yes, even the NOAA (NCDC). The difference is that these graphs show data right up to the present, and still only draw trend lines to the point where they can maintain a true Gaussian average. And in all of these graphs you will notice cooling. Happy hunting for a way to spin that into warming!
the thing is we have a warmer climate then we had in the last "warming period" now wich is increasing the speed of icelack in noth. as the ice keep disapearing, the water will cover more land. and as the tide is rising , for examle the gulf of mexico will change its course and this will result in a much colder climate in our northern part such as north america/north europe/russia/northern asia.
the sun isnt even playing a role in this game yet, when it does we will notice..
drkstrong: "If the Sun does 15% ... what does the other 85%? "
My point was IPCC's wrong. Here they ignore dozens peered studies and a vast majority och sun physicists -- besides a large part of atmospheric scientists.
Why do you presume that the error by IPCC I mentioned is truth?
.
Global warming fanatics always acts like you. No surprice. But that is to live in denial. Check results by Svensmark, Check Stephen Schwartz, Miskolczi, Paltridge and others of the world's very top scientists.
IPCC does take the solar variations into account. A very good solar physicist (and a friend of mine) Judith Lean was on the IPCC WG1 panel in 2007. She is a member of the national accademy of science (one of only two solar physicists in the world to make it there)
They guys you mention are obscure professors from obscure colleges. They are so famous in climate research that they have never given a talk at any of the climate conferences I have ever attended and I attend a lot
it doesnt matter how many scientist believe it ... one side is right and the other is wrong... most scientist believed newton was 100% right ... we now know he wasnt ...
we are not talking about the oceans ... the oceans are vast but the atmosphere is extreamly thin and we are not talking about significantly changing the rations we are only talking a 0.2% change in concentrations to cause 4degrees centigrade warming... and the data he is using is only a few hundred years old as well. cooling in the past decade year right so far 2009 has been the hottest year on record .. WTF douche
What? How could a giant fireball in the sky -- 386 billion times the mass of Earth's atmosphere -- have more of an effect on the planet's temperature than mankind's contribution to the 0.038% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Jeez get a clue!
The Sun supplies over 99% of th eenergy that drives our weather
The Sun varies by only 0.1% peak to peak every 11 years or so. That produces <0.05C change in the Earth's temperature - otherwise you would see giant 11 year oscillations in the global temperatures - there isn't any
Explain - visible light from the Sun in, warms the Earth, reemits it as IR light, GHGs (H20, CO2, CH4 etc) absorb some of it and trap it. More GHGs, more warming. Simple, isnt it?
No u idiot .. Thats the whole problem IT IS NOT SIMPLE as you said.
Watch Lord Moncton discuss Global Warming, Hes not a climate scientist but he presents facts from real scientific data.
And if you dont believe him, check his data, he provides all sources. Global Warming is propaganda. Your elementary school theory doesnt hold water, you are essentially to dumb to realize this, me thinks.
Moncton certainly is not a climate scientist and it shows. He is an idiot spouting political propaganda.
His sources are generally his non climate scientist friends. I have looked at his data and even listened to his hour long self satisfied lecture on global warming and I found it mostly deliberately misleading with a light seasoning of downright lies.
Give any specific fact that he uses to make his cases and I'll show where it is wrong.
drkstrong: "visible light from the Sun in, warms the Earth"
Like every retarded IPCC believer you only mention direct light from the sun. Other factors affecting the Earth (none of them in IPCC climate models) vary much more than SW radiation.
Peer reviewed these are proved to influence high-energetic CR which peer reviewed affects low level clouds; albedo (energy budget). A low level cloud change between 92 and 02 changed energy budget more than all human CO2 released in the history of time.
Sorry that I used the word retarded, but I think that you mostly don't have a clue. You say that the sun declined since 1957. It's quite the opposite, says every solar physicists. Even those who are politically correct pro-IPCC says so. E g Lockwood here:
spacedaily (DOT) com/
news/weather-00b.html
Google for the well known graph on this.
Your have several of those in every comment, so I don't care to correct them.
I happen to be a solar physicist and I say it has declined and so would everyone else in my field that I know.
The largest solar cycle (19) was in 1957 (smoothed sunpot number ~200). Cycle 20 had a peak of 110; CS21 peaked at about 165; CS22 peaked at 160; and SC23 peaked at 120.
That sure looks like a decline to me - the decline for the last 3 cycles is even more dramatic if you sum the magnetic flux rather than use antiquated sunspot number.
"More GHGs, more warming. Simple, isnt it?" Obviously cannot be that simple. Note certain ice ages when CO2 was 1000 times its current level. Hence you can't attribute it all to one variable.
I suggested the sun not as a single alternative variable but just as a more powerful one with a better temperature correlation (thanks for the freebie on its primacy in our weather). But there are obviously negative feedback mechanisms at play, which is why we don't see those 11 year oscillations.
I dont believe I did attribute it to one variable . I have always maintained that the natural variability will continue. We have just added a human component to it which at th moment is the diminent long-term mechanism.
It is relevant to note that the most prestigious scientific organizations of the planet, organizations like NAS, AAAS, & the Royal Society, have stated that global warming is happening, will have delterious effects, and that action is needed to halt greenhouse gas emisions. When men like Chad Meyers react with scorn I am amazed at their arrogance.
Does mankind effect the climate?I would say that everything on earth and outside of the earth does.Should we shut down americas whole economy just to stop the use of petro?I would like all the people who believe in manmade GW to lead by example.Give up everything that has petro in it.You cant use wood to burn in the winter to keep warm with since it releases co2 into the air.You would have to live underground i guess.
Carbon emissions from fossil fuels trap heat, and also fuck with the global flow of of water through the world by distorting the carbon cycle. So some areas get warmer while others get colder, fucking with the delicate balance of our eco system.
So go fuck yourself you selfish ignorant grunt.
It's people like you who live their life through fairy tales and mysticism that are destroying this planet.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention The real enemy, then, is humanity itself, the Club of Rome declared in its 1991 report, The First Global Revolution.
Now now, let's not be a drama queen. No one is saying humanity is the enemy. But if considerable scientific evidence suggests that human activity might be inadvertently and systematically damaging the environment in a dangerous or irreversible way then humanity should take that seriously and consider doing something about it.
Global warming is the biggest hoax since the Y2K scare at the turn of the century!! Al Gore, the moron has used this hoax to stay relevent in the publics eye. Even the Pres., CEO, and founder of the weather channel came out publicly about a year ago and said it was a hoax!! Hell, if the enviro-freaks of the 70's had it their way, we'd all be living in an ice age right now with the "global cooling" b.s..
Who cares!!! We are all going to die from something... global warming, smoking, 2nd hand smoke, cancer, heart attacks, flu, colds, heat stroke, natural causes...global warming... global cooling... who cares!!
Ok! You can go crawl into a ditch and die an agonizing death, as you please.
The rest of us who actually CARE about life on this planet will continue to prevent the lunatics from accelerating the process of a long, tortuous death. (Which is what will happen to us all if we allow the man-made global warming myth to go unchallenged.
Personally, I'd like to enjoy life on this beautiful planet before I die.
The lunatics... you mean the scientists whose empirically-supported theories suggest that human activity might be contributing to global warming and maybe we should take that seriously and do something about it if possible? Why exactly is that lunacy? It is denial of anything that might be emotionally uncomfortable to accept (such as AGW) that is lunacy. The problem with people like you is not that you are suggesting that AGW is untrue but that you refuse to even allow it as a possibility.
drinks, food, pneumatic systems, fire extinguisher, welding, caffeine removal, pharmaceutical and other chemical processes, biological process (photosynthesis-separating oxygen from CO2 for us to breathe and other life..etc), lasers, polymers, plastics...etc
Oh fuck. You really are bone headedly stupid aren't you?
Just about ANYTHING can be useful in the RIGHT context and just about ANYTHING can be destructive in the WRONG context. So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful? OF COURSE CO2 can be useful but under certain conditions it can be HARMFUL and if it is contributing to global warming then it is HARMFUL.
" So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful?"
The point is, if you think the 0.038% of CO2 in our Earth's atmosphere is anywhere near a toxic amount compared to the around 78% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, then you're either very ignorant or delusional.
Maybe if we had a couple dozen Earth's drop off their CO2 load onto our single Earth, there may be a problem, other than that, the global warming scare is political p. The sun is the main driver of climate.
Yes. Let's get rid of all taxation. Let's let the weak and the poor die in the streets. Let's let the strong do whatever they want to whomever they want. What a wonderful society that would be.
That would be awesome, but we would still need some taxes to run the government. In addition to getting rid of taxes, we also need to get rid of all business restrictions that cause people to fall into poverty in the first place. I envision cities with no need for taxi, plumbing, or construction liscens. Also, we should repeal the drug laws, then the economy would really boom. Gambling and Prostitution laws need to go too. Of course, it would all be up to individual states...
No I wouldn't mind paying a proposed tax, if that tax was socially useful and resulted in a better society and world. That is of course the point of taxes. They are a way of organising society for the better so that everyone benefits. People such as yourself are dangerously ignorant of the way the world works though so I don't expect you to get it.
You don't get it. The fact that you keep saying that there are only minute quantities of CO2 proves that you don't get it.
Let me give you an analogy. There are minute quantities of iron in the human body. The amount present is good and necessary. But increasing the quantity of iron present can be harmful. The same principle applies to CO2.
have you ever seen the sun go down at noon because of rat poisoning? I am sure you have not, so stop comparing the relationship among human, earth and environment with the relationship between the human body and chemicals
"So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful?"
ROTFLMHO!!!
You've completely missed the point.
CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life on this planet. We'd all DIE without it.
C02 simply doesn't drive temperature variations, or climate change. All the ice core sample data confirmed that CO2 reacts to temperature change... not the other way around.
Hw long do you think it takes the oceans to heat up?
I have not missed any point. I know that CO2 is essential to life. However, just because something is essential does not mean it cannot be harmful as well in sufficient quantities or in the right situation. My point is not difficult to understand. Your questions are irrelevant. Answer my question or make some other kind of coherent point, please.
ianyoutub, I have answered your question. You're simply incapable of understanding the answer... otherwise, you might just be ignoring it... hoping that nobody will notice that you're full of what you're trying to shovel down our throats.
When you've calmed down, try discussing this topic with any of the 33000+ scientists who's SCIENTIFIC opinion is that man-made Global Warming is a myth... it hasn't happened.
I'm done with you, until you have something of value to say.
Now, why don't you just point me to where you have found that it says that there are 33000 scientists whose (not who's) scientific opinion is that man made global warming is a myth? By the way, I do hope that that group will include a reasonable percentage whose speciality is climatology.
It's interesting to note that I had already responded to you, but my response appears to have been deleted. Or should we say "suppressed"?
Google: "over 31000 scientists" +"petition"
You'll see LOTS of information about it.
Or, just go straight to:
petitionproject. org
All the scientists are listed. You can check their credentials. However, I doubt you'll accept ANY of them as credible... you're a nay-sayer... it's your M.O.
Yes, that response was 'suppressed'. If that is so, then why was your latest one not suppressed?
Not enough information given here. For example, I want to know , what percentage of scientists DO support AGW? Why isn't THAT given? Also, of the number given EXACTLY how many are climatologists?
"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy."
"Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy"
"Many" currently work in these fields? EXACTLY how many and how many as a PERCENTAGE of the total, since we are relying on numbers here? Surely the petition should include that information?
Just as I expected from you. You choose to believe the IPCC fraudulent report, in which most of the people associated with it had NO professional experience whatsoever in the study (most were merely paper pushers and hid in obscurity behind the report)... while conversely, you choose to denigrate legitimate scientists, most of whom have professional, pertinent experience... and all of whom make themselves known for you to vet at will.
We do not know the percentages of scientists or climatologists who believe/disbelieve AGW theory because a decent poll has never been conducted. So no one has ever quoted figures, but have just announced "a consensus." The Oregon Petition, although it doesn't come up with percentages and is stricken with errors, disproves any claim of a consensus. Google "the undersigned scientists maintain" to see a great list of prominent climatologists compiled by Cato.
Don't jump to conclusions. I never said anything like that. You are contributing to a debate in which a scientific question is being considered, so try to think a bit more coherently.
China has surpassed the USA as the #1 atmospheric polluter on the planet. India, Pakistan and other 'developing' nations are quickly closing in on them, too.
It won't be long before the USA leads the world in implementing more true 'green' industrial changes... mainly because it will have no choice. The technology is there; they just need to tap it.
Regardless of how clean we all are, climate change will continue to occur... at least until the Sun dies out.
Wonderful. The climate changes. Well spotted. No one is arguing that CC does not occur. The argument is whether global warming is happening, which evidence suggests it is, and whether CO2 can and is contributing, which evidence suggests it is.
Yeah, and 500 years ago people thought the earth was flat. Now they think it's a globe. How do we decide between these? I mean people keep changing their minds. How do we know that we won't think it's flat again in the future? Human pronouncements are just so damn unreliable. Oh wait, could it be... that science is becoming MORE precise and with massive increasing amounts of computer power is getting better models so that PRESENT science might actually have more insight into things?...EUREKA!
Talk about hitting the wrong end of the nail with the hammer!
It's precisely BECAUSE of all the technological advances that scientists have been increasing speaking out AGAINST the man-made global warming myth.
They concur that Al Gore's "computer models" were incomplete. They didn't take many extremely important factors into consideration. (ie: the Sun, etc...)
Computer models are only as good/bad as the human(s) that program them.
People such as ianyoutub and other supporters of the man-made global warming myth are dangerously ignorant when it comes to differentiating between pollution & climate change.
We do need to clean up the planet, but it's not going to happen by waging war against CO2. Instead, try going after China, India, Pakistan, etc... who are spewing industrial pollutants into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate... not Canada, Europe, Australia, etc... where CO2 and atmospheric pollutants have decreased.
CO2 is good for plants and the more you have, the more oxygen you get, the bankers and their goons think most are too stupid to see that, prove them wrong
Unfortunately for most of us, the vast majority of proponents of the man-made global warming theory don't know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The all too often confuse the two, not knowing that combustion engine vehicles emit carbon monoxide... and not CO2.
As you point out, CO2 is essential to life on Earth.
Elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
Once again, I draw your attention to the Medieval Warm Period, which was a period in which CO2 levels were far higher than today, yet they enjoyed prosperity that included an excellent harvest of crops. The only thing that stopped it was the Little Ice Age.
Neither of those periods were caused by mankind... unless you're going to argue now that they were too aggressive in their agricultural activities.
From WIKI: The NOAA states the "idea of a global... "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today ... has turned out to be incorrect" and what those "records that do exist show is there was no multi-century periods when global... temps were the same or warmer than in the 20th century". Global temp. records taken from ice cores, tree rings, lake deposits, show that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees C) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th C.
If all you can cite it Wikipedia, then you're lost. ANYONE can edit Wiki, which is why reputable Universities refuse to accept it as a source by their students.
The Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today; and it lasted just over 500yrs.
Al Gore and his disciples deny it existed, because it destroys half of their global warming argument: the "Hockey Stick" graph, which also denies that the Little Ice Age ever occurred.
"Elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth"
You may want to take a biology class sometime and learn what photosynthesis is, CO2 is essential in the calvin cycle (carbon fixation when plants produce energy from CO2 and emit oxygen as a byproduct.
The opposite happens in humans and mammals, where the Krebs cycle in our cells produce CO2 after using oxygen for cellular respiration. All part of the natural cycle.
Look fuckwit, I know about that cycle. You might want to actually find out about the science in more detail. Just because you need something does not mean it will not harm you in greater quantities. We need Oxygen but too much will kill us.
"Just because you need something does not mean it will not harm you in greater quantities."
Earth's atmosphere is over 78% nitrogen with another around 20% oxygen, CO2 is only around .038% with other trace gases.
You don't see nitrogen killing plants or humans.
If you're trying to imply that 0.038% CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is on the verge of killing us all and the plants that use it, then I'd suggest you educate yourself.
No you don't see nitrogen killing plants or animals, because we evolved to be in an atmosphere in which nitrogen is at 78% - do you understand that?
I never said that the CO2 PER SE was on the verge of killing anything. Plants may well thrive at greater concentrations of CO2 to a limited extent but higher concentrations of CO2 will have adverse effects in terms of warming. Plants emit CO2 at high enough concentrations as well thus adding to those effects.
you could put this video on a 2x4 and smack a enviro-nut up side the head and they still wont get it, always back to the al gore bumpersticker bull shit
Let's hear your arguments against global warming being anthropogenic in origin. C'mon on, lay out all the complexities of it, so we can all have a good laugh.
Yes, it thus shows that temperature changes CAN precede CO2. Of course we know that to be the case, which is one reason that scientists are so alarmed - at the possibility of both processes feeding each other and positive feedback and runaway warming occuring. In the present case, CO2 is happening first and that is causing warming but then that warming will cause further CO2 and other deadlier emissions and humans will be powerless to stop it.
There is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that CO2 emissions are now, or have ever driven temperature change. The only people to suggest otherwise are Al Gore and his followers.
Absolutely EVERY study of ice core samples conclusively supports the fact that CO2 emissions FOLLOWED temperature change by 200 - 800 years.
To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts, or to blantantly lie.
As a matter of fact, all the data from every ice core sample ever taken supports the conclusion that CO2 changes occur AFTER temperature changes have already occurre, by up to an 800yr lag period.
The SUN drives climate change on Earth. NOT CO2 emissions.
You don't even seem to be aware that the most important GHG is water vapour; and that CO2 is one of the least important GHG.
Gee! Sun heats up water = increase water vapour = increased GHG = increased global temperature.
You don't seem to be aware that a gas does not need to be the most potent as regards climate change in order to cause warming if you increase it massively and quickly.
According to ice core sample studies, there was a higher concentration of CO2 in PPM in the year 1250 than there is today. It's no mere coincidence that was during the Medieval Warm Period.
Water vapour constitutes 95% of GHG.
CO2 only 3.5% (max).
Only 0.117% of total atmospheric CO2 is man-made; and the rest is natural.
Play with the numbers all you want, but CO2 is by no stretch of the imagination the "most potent" GHG.
Typical! Faced with the facts that don't support your already biased views, you simply declare them to be "bullshit".
Well, you've just made an ass of yourself on YouTube, because you not only failed to support your argument with anything more than juvenile "bullshit" remarks, you also demonstrated that you're incapable of accepting the truth when it's presented to you clearly.
Life is too short to go round and round arguing against you and other mindless idiots on the net whose occupation is to regurgitate the mewlings of lots of other mindless idiots on the web. You're in your element aren't you? You can argue and argue and argue about inconsequential details and by leaving out facts and distorting things while in the real world there is a REAL PROBLEM of global warming to solve. You don't care though. Your value is only in the endless mindless argument.
Wrong again! The real problem is that Al Gore and his followers have already conned so many people to WASTE resources and money on an idiotic quest, which is resulting only in making Gore and his friends rich, which making the developed world poor. It has nothing to do with saving the planet... it never has. It's about power. THEY don't care.
You want to help the planet, stop griping about CO2; and worry instead about pollution and corruption.
the world is so big. Were going to die form a "lack of fresh water, or ocean acidification"..well thank god thats affected by global warming.
"my career is 22 yrs long, thats a good career on TV" Yeah TV, not meteorologist.
Compaing the earth's life and weather cycles to a car that is built by humans only to eventually breakdown no matter how well you takecare of it to a fuckin planet that has eveolved to create and sustain life and say hey it'll eventually breakdown is a doozy!
He did not say that the earth will break down inevitably as a car would do. What he means is that a hundred years of a slight warming trend is not sufficient to conclude that it will continue let alone whether it is normal or abnormal for our planet or that it is man made. (It's not abnormal and it's not man made by the way.)
Oh it's not man made, is it not? So YOU alone have proof that pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmsphere DEFINITELY does not increase warming then. Wow, that's impressive. Why don't you submit your findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal and convince all those numb skull scientists of the error of their ways?
"peer reviewed"? You mean like the IPCC report, from which lead author Professor John Christy refused to have his name associated with, because the report didn't reflect his findings? Also from which some of the contributors had to threaten legal action to have their names removed?
Maybe you should listen to the 31000+ scientists who signed a petition denying man-made global warming. They seem to believe that the SUN (not CO2) drives climate change.
You mean the massive climate changes that wiped out most species? Those ones? As with the current crisis, some of those involved some kind of happening on earth (e.g., volcanic eruptions) that trapped heat and caused positive feedback changes that ended up devastating the planet and most life forms on it. The difference is that this present crisis is caused by CO2 and is happening much faster.
You've completely destroyed any possible credibility that may have remained in your argument(s) by stating that "...that this present crisis is caused by CO2 and is happening much faster" than previous climatic changes caused by volcanic eruptions.
The shockwaves of Santorini and Krakatoa were felt around the world. Santorini literally caused destruction of Biblical proportions.
Do your research, before making a fool of yourself on YouTube.
I'm talking about the volcanic eruptions at the end of the Permian era, you twat, and I don't mean the IMMEDIATE effect. I mean the knock on effects that raised average temperatures by 10C and killed 95% of all life forms on the planet. Those effects happened over a much much longer period than the few hundred years of CO2 emissions humans are responsible for.
The Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than current "average global temperatures".
The Little Ice Age lasted ~200yrs ending in the late 1800's. (~1850)
It's natural that the temperature would increase after a cool period of 200+yrs; and considering that we're still cooler than the prosperous Medieval Warm Period, we're a long way from man-made global disaster.
Whats going to kill us is the willful perpetuation of ignorance. And if I recall correctly the reason why it was so cold 3 centuries, known as the Little Ice Age, was excess gases from volcanic activity and golly what a coincidence that it's cooling again with the massive industrial CO2 gases. The typical Bush brain spoon fed historical reconstructionism talking points , but who's paying attention anyways.
It's so obvious - the majority of climate scientists are wrong and this TV weatherman is right. Of course...
Nature is 'too big' for us to affect it much, yeah? Well, we have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an acelerating rate for the last few hundred years and we now have 385ppm in the atmosphere and climate models, which are getting increasingly accurate, all agree that this can affect average temperatures.
What the hell? Do you actually know anything about physics at all? We may be a blip compared to the magnitude of the energy that surrounds us, but how is that ahn argument against manmade global warming? The global warming argument is that by filling the atmosphere with CO2 we are trapping energy that would otherwise escape and it is having a warming effect. How does what you have said contradict that?
And by what scientific process do you distinguish energy that escapes normally due to a multitude of factors against what is being trapped by CO2. Given that each factor is in constant change.
Since I am a neophyte in physics (according to you), please explain to me what you are using as a control? I am all ears.
A liberal? Well if a liberal is someone who can think for themselves then yes, I'm a liberal. You, meanwhile, obviously can't think much at all if this comment is all you can come out with.
Weather is a dynamic and flexible phenomenon. To say it is cooling or warming, and that somehow one or the other must be right or both are wrong is absolutely ignorant. The truth of the matter is that on an overpopulated planet under the system which says "if youve got the gold than you can do it" mentality--, you have a serious problem. There is WAY TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND OVER CONSUMPTION. 80 PERCENT OF THE LOT GOES TO THE 20% THAT WANT(not need) IT, LEAVING THE OTHER 80% OUT OF LUCK...
There has been no global average temperatur increase in the last ten years. In fact, it's gotten COOLER during that period.
Of course, the global average temperature has increased since the "Little Ice Age". Do you expect man to attempt to drive the temperatures back to what it was in the Little Ice Age?
We're still several degrees cooler than the Mideival Warm Period, which was a PROSPEROUS time. Did they burn too many fires to create the Mideival Warm Period?
No, actually the point is that we (humans) or we (life itself) has existed for 540 million years for life or for humans one hundredish thousand years.
And only 100-150 of heavy industry, meaning we do not affect climate as much as the Ecos say we do. More like 3% of total world co2 emissions and even then Co2 isn't a pollutant.
At least he understands the threat of ocean acidification and lack of fresh water. Both of those things are being caused by us too so apparently we do have the power to affect mother nature.
Looks like what we really have here is an arrogant weather man. Why do we need millions of years of data? (We do have that too) We know it is warming so we ask why? The answer becomes obvious.
7 degrees warmer in the 13th Century? My ass. But of course it's the Heartland Institute. Liars Inc.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
I've noticed that meterologists think global warming is complete b*. Almost to a man.
oracle2world 5 months ago
the last three years have proven these goofs wrong
Revbone450 6 months ago
of course its on CNN
Neuschwender63 7 months ago in playlist Global Warming (al gore is a liar)
How many idiots can they put on one show?
Glasya666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never forget the core of the eco-fascist cult demands mindless obedience , and hate your individuality . They alone will show you the correct behavior, thought processes, attitudes, and beliefs you must have to partake in there green world . . .
They will dictate to you , what food you will eat , what fuel you will use this is there main goal total control over you . They know better than you and you will obey becaue it is in the little green book of do's and don'ts . Think hard people
ozzycriss 1 year ago
Save your dignity. Burn your Prius.
TheForeskinrunner777 1 year ago
So the Sun does it, not man. Can he explain how? Nope
The classic is that Sunspot activity has been on the increase & that has been making the Sun emit more energy. Only problem is that sunspots have been steadily DECLINING since 1957 (google "sunspot cycle" choose MSFC option and click on the jpeg image).
So another group claims that as the Sun's activity declines more CRs get in and form clouds. Only problem is that the total CRs have not changed appreciably in the last 30 years. Ooops.
drkstrong 1 year ago
"So the Sun does it, not man. Can he explain how? Nope"
Google "global wobble", retard!
TheForeskinrunner777 1 year ago
You are just talking about Milankovitch cycles of orbital eccentricity, precession and obliquity and how every few million years all these things phase up to create a very warm of very cool configuration. This has been known about for a century.
It has nothing to do with the Sun but the fact we have other large planets orbiting the Sun near us. They stretch and compress our orbit.
In any case the timescale for these changes is millenia, not decades. If you want explain GW look elsewhere.
drkstrong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch this video of Hitler, Stalin & Chinese Democracy admirers in support of the Global Warming Soviet style Pseudo-science
Input
"Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda"
Having Railroad conductors, IMF economists & foot doctors as climate experts is reminiscent of the pseudo sciences of the former Soviet Union
These frauds should be operating a Model Railroad Club, not a Pseudo-science
Thisawareness 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
IPCC IS A SCAM
GLOBAL WARMING, COOLING is a sham
Ofcourse the temperatures go up.. they also go down.
majortom321 2 years ago
All unsupported assertions.
Yes temperatures go up & down, but recently you can add an upward trend of about 0.2C per decade. That does not stop the normal period of extreme hot weather or cold (may even enhance them in some places) bu the hot becomes more likely and the cold less.
Remember last month all the fuss about a global "deep freeze" - NOAA just ranked January 2010 as the 4 th warmest ever.
The scientists have data, you have bumper stickers. Not a fair fight!
drkstrong 1 year ago
your obviously not very educated.. or your too susceptible to Al Gore and IPCC propaganda..
Sorry to put it this way mate, but you really really never cracked a book, you never looked into the subject. You just think solar energy comes in and cant get out. wrong wrong wrong ...
theres more to it, natural balance factors etc.
Besides mate, temperatures have actually been declining for the last decade.. Thats what the real, un manipulated data shows
majortom321 1 year ago
I better let my alma mater know the Phd they gave me in astrophysics is worthless
I dont just crack books I write them (google "Many Faces of the Sun" and see who the lead editor is. Better yet buy it and read the first chapter which I helped Bob Willson write on total solar irradiance (energy input to the Earth) measurements form the first ACRIM experiment
PS stop putting words in my mouth and then cirtiquing them - you need to get your reading comprehensoion levels up a point or two.
drkstrong 1 year ago
"your obviously not very educated"
your =/= you're
Come on man, I'm a skeptic too. Do you have to make the rest of us look stupid?
hayesism 1 year ago
Only when they act that way.
drkstrong 1 year ago
oh oh.. its the grammar police... derr... geee boss.. I really care about typos on youtube
what a complete nerd you must be
fcuk you fuk face
majortom321 1 year ago
That's not a typo. Tihs is a typo. You just can't spell. And that's fine, I wouldn't have called you up on it under normal circumstances -- but you can't call others uneducated and demonstrate that you're no better at the same time. Let alone call those who want to use what they learned in 2nd grade "nerds"
hayesism 1 year ago
Ohh noo.. Im devastated. Hey.? how much money do you earn? I made over 30K last month. Ill let you do the spelling. Cheers mate
majortom321 1 year ago
I earn well under that. Struggling to find the relevance? Or do you just bring this up every time you're made to look stupid? If so you might want to get some cards made up, save breath and all.
I mean I have a huge dick that travels more than Gulliver, but I don't let it do the talking for me.
hayesism 1 year ago
"recently you can add an upward trend of about 0.2C per decade."
Including this last decade?
hayesism 1 year ago
Yes.
drkstrong 1 year ago
Alright well that just ain't true. In the last decade we've seen global cooling, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
Even CRU frontman Phil Jones has recently said of 2002-present: "The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade)". This has been corroborated by both UAH and USNCDC data. Love guru Pachauri has also acknowledged the recent cooling, only saying that it warrants investigation before continuing on about how AGW will kill us all and how great breasts are (he's got my support there)
hayesism 1 year ago
How can there have been cooling int he last decade when it was the warmest on record?
In fact no annual average temperatrue in this last decade (ranged from +0.38 to +0.6C) was below the average temperature anomaly (+0.35C) for the previous decade of the 90's.
If that is "cooling" then I would hate to experince warming!
Dont believe me? Google: "NOAA Global Surface Temperature Anomalies" and click on the graph. Happy hunting for a way to spin that into no warming.
drkstrong 1 year ago
Are you calling the CRU and IPCC liars?? Hang on, you might be on to something there.
I haven't spun anything, I've used quotation, which you've chosen not to address.
I'll address your graph though: It doesn't extend to the present. Hence, using your graph you get to count 1998 (hotter than any year in the 21st century) among the last decade and let a gaussian average make the 21st century cooling less visible.
hayesism 1 year ago
I did not include 1998 in the last decade, I just did not use the figures fro 2008/9
Go to the bottom of that page and click on "The Annual Global Land Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)" There are all the numbers.
Average annual anomally for the 90's: 0.4636C
Lowest annual T anomally in the 00's (2000): 0.5175C
Precisely as I said.
2005: 0.9571C
1998: 0.8321C
So 1998 is not the warmest year
drkstrong 1 year ago
Sorry for the belated reply, drkstrong, our little skirmish slipped my mind for a few days.
You're using adjusted data, not raw data. The NOAA blamed 1998's heat on El Nino, and took Schmidt's advice in using ENSO adjustments to lower the temperature that year. Fawcett and Jones (2007) recommended the same. Hence the UAH data, which remains unadjusted, shows '98 was significantly warmer than '05.
hayesism 1 year ago
I just went over the Smith and Reynolds paper which describes the NOAA analysis methodology. It does not mention 1998 adjustments anywhere.
The Fawcett and Jones paper is an unreferreed report from the Australian Meteorological center. It is not reference by Smith and Reynolds.
drkstrong 1 year ago
But hey, as long as we're issuing spin challenges, Google: climate4you global temperatures
You'll see assorted graphs by the UAH, RSS, CRU, GISS, and yes, even the NOAA (NCDC). The difference is that these graphs show data right up to the present, and still only draw trend lines to the point where they can maintain a true Gaussian average. And in all of these graphs you will notice cooling. Happy hunting for a way to spin that into warming!
hayesism 1 year ago
the thing is we have a warmer climate then we had in the last "warming period" now wich is increasing the speed of icelack in noth. as the ice keep disapearing, the water will cover more land. and as the tide is rising , for examle the gulf of mexico will change its course and this will result in a much colder climate in our northern part such as north america/north europe/russia/northern asia.
the sun isnt even playing a role in this game yet, when it does we will notice..
KeevH 2 years ago
Comment removed
magnusea 2 years ago
KeevH: "sun isnt even playing a role in this game yet, when it does we will notice".
Is this logical, or scientific? You say the sun plays no part, and that we will notice when it does. A equals non-A
Do you think the sun either kill us or play no part, or?
No climate scientists deny that the sun is constantly important in climate change. IPCC say maybe 15 percent of climate change last 100 years.
Climate change now is natural and the importance of the sun increases among scientists
magnusea 2 years ago
If the Sun does 15% of the climate change (which high by a factor of at least 3) what does the other 85%?
drkstrong 1 year ago
drkstrong: "If the Sun does 15% ... what does the other 85%? "
My point was IPCC's wrong. Here they ignore dozens peered studies and a vast majority och sun physicists -- besides a large part of atmospheric scientists.
Why do you presume that the error by IPCC I mentioned is truth?
.
Global warming fanatics always acts like you. No surprice. But that is to live in denial. Check results by Svensmark, Check Stephen Schwartz, Miskolczi, Paltridge and others of the world's very top scientists.
magnusea 1 year ago
IPCC does take the solar variations into account. A very good solar physicist (and a friend of mine) Judith Lean was on the IPCC WG1 panel in 2007. She is a member of the national accademy of science (one of only two solar physicists in the world to make it there)
They guys you mention are obscure professors from obscure colleges. They are so famous in climate research that they have never given a talk at any of the climate conferences I have ever attended and I attend a lot
drkstrong 1 year ago
gott alove metrologists talking about things they dont know about, would be a totally different thing if a climatologist would have said it.
KeevH 2 years ago
it doesnt matter how many scientist believe it ... one side is right and the other is wrong... most scientist believed newton was 100% right ... we now know he wasnt ...
mmann6666 2 years ago
we are not talking about the oceans ... the oceans are vast but the atmosphere is extreamly thin and we are not talking about significantly changing the rations we are only talking a 0.2% change in concentrations to cause 4degrees centigrade warming... and the data he is using is only a few hundred years old as well. cooling in the past decade year right so far 2009 has been the hottest year on record .. WTF douche
mmann6666 2 years ago
About time the other side gets out .
camcheck 2 years ago
"It is the sun that does it, not man."
What? How could a giant fireball in the sky -- 386 billion times the mass of Earth's atmosphere -- have more of an effect on the planet's temperature than mankind's contribution to the 0.038% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Jeez get a clue!
hayesism 2 years ago
333,000 times the mass of Earth
The Sun supplies over 99% of th eenergy that drives our weather
The Sun varies by only 0.1% peak to peak every 11 years or so. That produces <0.05C change in the Earth's temperature - otherwise you would see giant 11 year oscillations in the global temperatures - there isn't any
Explain - visible light from the Sun in, warms the Earth, reemits it as IR light, GHGs (H20, CO2, CH4 etc) absorb some of it and trap it. More GHGs, more warming. Simple, isnt it?
drkstrong 1 year ago
No u idiot .. Thats the whole problem IT IS NOT SIMPLE as you said.
Watch Lord Moncton discuss Global Warming, Hes not a climate scientist but he presents facts from real scientific data.
And if you dont believe him, check his data, he provides all sources. Global Warming is propaganda. Your elementary school theory doesnt hold water, you are essentially to dumb to realize this, me thinks.
majortom321 1 year ago
Moncton certainly is not a climate scientist and it shows. He is an idiot spouting political propaganda.
His sources are generally his non climate scientist friends. I have looked at his data and even listened to his hour long self satisfied lecture on global warming and I found it mostly deliberately misleading with a light seasoning of downright lies.
Give any specific fact that he uses to make his cases and I'll show where it is wrong.
drkstrong 1 year ago
drkstrong: "visible light from the Sun in, warms the Earth"
Like every retarded IPCC believer you only mention direct light from the sun. Other factors affecting the Earth (none of them in IPCC climate models) vary much more than SW radiation.
Peer reviewed these are proved to influence high-energetic CR which peer reviewed affects low level clouds; albedo (energy budget). A low level cloud change between 92 and 02 changed energy budget more than all human CO2 released in the history of time.
magnusea 1 year ago
Sorry that I used the word retarded, but I think that you mostly don't have a clue. You say that the sun declined since 1957. It's quite the opposite, says every solar physicists. Even those who are politically correct pro-IPCC says so. E g Lockwood here:
spacedaily (DOT) com/
news/weather-00b.html
Google for the well known graph on this.
Your have several of those in every comment, so I don't care to correct them.
I guess you are appreciated at Real Climate. :)
magnusea 1 year ago
I happen to be a solar physicist and I say it has declined and so would everyone else in my field that I know.
The largest solar cycle (19) was in 1957 (smoothed sunpot number ~200). Cycle 20 had a peak of 110; CS21 peaked at about 165; CS22 peaked at 160; and SC23 peaked at 120.
That sure looks like a decline to me - the decline for the last 3 cycles is even more dramatic if you sum the magnetic flux rather than use antiquated sunspot number.
PS your reference is 10 years old
drkstrong 1 year ago
"More GHGs, more warming. Simple, isnt it?" Obviously cannot be that simple. Note certain ice ages when CO2 was 1000 times its current level. Hence you can't attribute it all to one variable.
I suggested the sun not as a single alternative variable but just as a more powerful one with a better temperature correlation (thanks for the freebie on its primacy in our weather). But there are obviously negative feedback mechanisms at play, which is why we don't see those 11 year oscillations.
hayesism 1 year ago
I dont believe I did attribute it to one variable . I have always maintained that the natural variability will continue. We have just added a human component to it which at th moment is the diminent long-term mechanism.
drkstrong 1 year ago
It is relevant to note that the most prestigious scientific organizations of the planet, organizations like NAS, AAAS, & the Royal Society, have stated that global warming is happening, will have delterious effects, and that action is needed to halt greenhouse gas emisions. When men like Chad Meyers react with scorn I am amazed at their arrogance.
bluetwinky 2 years ago
Mill the polar ice and drop it in the seas, and sort out the world climate!
JonThm 2 years ago
Does mankind effect the climate?I would say that everything on earth and outside of the earth does.Should we shut down americas whole economy just to stop the use of petro?I would like all the people who believe in manmade GW to lead by example.Give up everything that has petro in it.You cant use wood to burn in the winter to keep warm with since it releases co2 into the air.You would have to live underground i guess.
qynsar 2 years ago
BUURN the heretic burn burn him burn him!!!!!!!!!
napalmcoffee 2 years ago
the heat is meltin the polar caps which makes ice melt nd the sea level rises so were not gonna die of heat we are gonna probably gonna drown
DWAALLSTARZ 2 years ago
Man lives with the weather, which started cooling in 2005.
JonThm 3 years ago
Manbearpig is real! I'm super serial!
AustraliaMedia 3 years ago
And wrong! GW is PR from nuclear power.
JonThm 3 years ago
Al Gore, Line 1, Al Gore, Line 1 please...
oh... he's out having Waffle House breakfasts...
harveyschmidlap 3 years ago 2
Al Gore owns Global Warming is real
Joe402 3 years ago
so has this guy been fired yet for going AGAINST the great global warming hoax?
They know that global warming is a farce so now it's called "Climate Change"...what another way to rip us off...
chelle099 3 years ago
Chad Myers is a flat earther.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
Prove it Rationalbeats.
Where's some proof, or is it just the usual slander.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago 2
Hi asshole,
Carbon emissions from fossil fuels trap heat, and also fuck with the global flow of of water through the world by distorting the carbon cycle. So some areas get warmer while others get colder, fucking with the delicate balance of our eco system.
So go fuck yourself you selfish ignorant grunt.
It's people like you who live their life through fairy tales and mysticism that are destroying this planet.
Once again, fuck you, you knuckle dragging grunt.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
You must be an Obamabot.
Obaaaaaaaaaaaama. Obaaaaaaaaaaaaama.
Co2 isn't a pollutant. Humans equate to 3% of total emissions. Volcanoes pump out more Co2 Eco-hipster.
The world won't go green just that your environment is clean for you. If your so concerned turn your damn PC off!
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago 2
I said prove the Flat-Earth claim Forest Gump.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
You say carbon emissions do not have an effect upon global climate functions, means you are a flat earther.
Thanks asshole.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
So what about the 650 Scientists of the EPW Senate Minority Report?
Read that.....Eco-hipster.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
"You say carbon emissions do not have an effect upon global climate functions, means you are a flat earther.
Thanks asshole. "
Wanna throw in Holocaust Denier too Eco-Hipster?
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
This coming from an asshole who drinks blood and eats flesh every Sunday.
You are a freak.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
Oh "Rational"beats, you trying to label me as a Christian? Bzzzzzzz wrong. I'm not religious nor atheist.
Gee that came out of left field, eco-hipster. What next? I'm an Exxon Mobile secret agent! Vatican Assassin LMAO.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
No you are just a guy who lives his life in mysticism.
You are the asshole wasting his life not me, asshole.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
Want a dictionary for a wider vocabulary?
Mysticism? 650 Scientists from the EPW Senate Minority report is a telling sign of the propaganda of the depopulationists like you not working.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
I did not vote for Obama kid.
Obama will make no real change in America, but anti-reality pro-mysticism assholes like you will destroy this planet.
rationalbeats 3 years ago
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention The real enemy, then, is humanity itself, the Club of Rome declared in its 1991 report, The First Global Revolution.
AustraliaMedia 3 years ago
Now now, let's not be a drama queen. No one is saying humanity is the enemy. But if considerable scientific evidence suggests that human activity might be inadvertently and systematically damaging the environment in a dangerous or irreversible way then humanity should take that seriously and consider doing something about it.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
Uhm The Club of Rome, First Global Revolution.......
Most Green groups, WWF, Greenpeace, UN.
Dr. Eric Pianka wants total if not 99% population reduction. Research population reduction, eugenics.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
Global warming is the biggest hoax since the Y2K scare at the turn of the century!! Al Gore, the moron has used this hoax to stay relevent in the publics eye. Even the Pres., CEO, and founder of the weather channel came out publicly about a year ago and said it was a hoax!! Hell, if the enviro-freaks of the 70's had it their way, we'd all be living in an ice age right now with the "global cooling" b.s..
nextdrink45 3 years ago 3
Who cares!!! We are all going to die from something... global warming, smoking, 2nd hand smoke, cancer, heart attacks, flu, colds, heat stroke, natural causes...global warming... global cooling... who cares!!
terri368 3 years ago
terri368,
Ok! You can go crawl into a ditch and die an agonizing death, as you please.
The rest of us who actually CARE about life on this planet will continue to prevent the lunatics from accelerating the process of a long, tortuous death. (Which is what will happen to us all if we allow the man-made global warming myth to go unchallenged.
Personally, I'd like to enjoy life on this beautiful planet before I die.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
The lunatics... you mean the scientists whose empirically-supported theories suggest that human activity might be contributing to global warming and maybe we should take that seriously and do something about it if possible? Why exactly is that lunacy? It is denial of anything that might be emotionally uncomfortable to accept (such as AGW) that is lunacy. The problem with people like you is not that you are suggesting that AGW is untrue but that you refuse to even allow it as a possibility.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
co2science. org
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
CO2 is also needed in many industries:
drinks, food, pneumatic systems, fire extinguisher, welding, caffeine removal, pharmaceutical and other chemical processes, biological process (photosynthesis-separating oxygen from CO2 for us to breathe and other life..etc), lasers, polymers, plastics...etc
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
Oh fuck. You really are bone headedly stupid aren't you?
Just about ANYTHING can be useful in the RIGHT context and just about ANYTHING can be destructive in the WRONG context. So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful? OF COURSE CO2 can be useful but under certain conditions it can be HARMFUL and if it is contributing to global warming then it is HARMFUL.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
" So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful?"
The point is, if you think the 0.038% of CO2 in our Earth's atmosphere is anywhere near a toxic amount compared to the around 78% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, then you're either very ignorant or delusional.
Maybe if we had a couple dozen Earth's drop off their CO2 load onto our single Earth, there may be a problem, other than that, the global warming scare is political p. The sun is the main driver of climate.
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
jellyjam10534,
I suspect that logic, reason, or hard facts/statistics is lost on ianyoutub. He'd been brainwashed by the almighty Al Gore and his 'Convenient Lies'.
Hmmmm? Isn't it interesting how much more wealthy Gore's gotten off all this man-made global warming nonsense? LOL!
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
"Hmmmm? Isn't it interesting how much more wealthy Gore's gotten off all this man-made global warming nonsense? LOL!"
Perhaps ianyoutub wouldn't mind paying the proposed global carbon tax. Nothing like a tax on breathing!
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
jellyjam10534,
Oh, no! I daresay ianyoutub wants people like you and I to pay his share. That the Liberal way: make those you don't agree with pay for everything.
With Obama going to the White House, we'd best brace for all the new tax proposals. Wouldn't be surprised to see air on that list.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Yes. Let's get rid of all taxation. Let's let the weak and the poor die in the streets. Let's let the strong do whatever they want to whomever they want. What a wonderful society that would be.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
"Let's let the weak and the poor die in the streets."
"Hurricane Katrina.." remember? The government does this everyday not only in USA but around the world: Africa, Middle East and more.
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
That would be awesome, but we would still need some taxes to run the government. In addition to getting rid of taxes, we also need to get rid of all business restrictions that cause people to fall into poverty in the first place. I envision cities with no need for taxi, plumbing, or construction liscens. Also, we should repeal the drug laws, then the economy would really boom. Gambling and Prostitution laws need to go too. Of course, it would all be up to individual states...
enomarekim 3 years ago
No I wouldn't mind paying a proposed tax, if that tax was socially useful and resulted in a better society and world. That is of course the point of taxes. They are a way of organising society for the better so that everyone benefits. People such as yourself are dangerously ignorant of the way the world works though so I don't expect you to get it.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
"That is of course the point of taxes. They are a way of organising society for the better so that everyone benefits."
You may want to research the income tax.
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
Yes, it's all a conspiracy. Al Gore, the IPCC, and the vast majority of thinking scientists are all part of it.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
Vast majority?
like 2600 scientists for man-made global warming and 33,000 petitioned against it?
Damn.
Krawnikal 3 years ago
You don't get it. The fact that you keep saying that there are only minute quantities of CO2 proves that you don't get it.
Let me give you an analogy. There are minute quantities of iron in the human body. The amount present is good and necessary. But increasing the quantity of iron present can be harmful. The same principle applies to CO2.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
Yeah? have you ever seen the sun go down at noon because of rad poisoning? Stop the stupid high school teenager analogies please!!
affiliate30 3 years ago
What are you talking about? Can you try being a bit more coherent?
ianyoutub 3 years ago
have you ever seen the sun go down at noon because of rat poisoning? I am sure you have not, so stop comparing the relationship among human, earth and environment with the relationship between the human body and chemicals
affiliate30 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
"So what the fuck are you trying to prove by showing that CO2 can be useful?"
ROTFLMHO!!!
You've completely missed the point.
CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life on this planet. We'd all DIE without it.
C02 simply doesn't drive temperature variations, or climate change. All the ice core sample data confirmed that CO2 reacts to temperature change... not the other way around.
Hw long do you think it takes the oceans to heat up?
Where do you think water vapour comes from?
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
I have not missed any point. I know that CO2 is essential to life. However, just because something is essential does not mean it cannot be harmful as well in sufficient quantities or in the right situation. My point is not difficult to understand. Your questions are irrelevant. Answer my question or make some other kind of coherent point, please.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub, I have answered your question. You're simply incapable of understanding the answer... otherwise, you might just be ignoring it... hoping that nobody will notice that you're full of what you're trying to shovel down our throats.
When you've calmed down, try discussing this topic with any of the 33000+ scientists who's SCIENTIFIC opinion is that man-made Global Warming is a myth... it hasn't happened.
I'm done with you, until you have something of value to say.
MickPsyphon 2 years ago
Ok, Mick, I'm calm. Steady as a rock.
Now, why don't you just point me to where you have found that it says that there are 33000 scientists whose (not who's) scientific opinion is that man made global warming is a myth? By the way, I do hope that that group will include a reasonable percentage whose speciality is climatology.
ianyoutub 2 years ago
ianyoutub,
It's interesting to note that I had already responded to you, but my response appears to have been deleted. Or should we say "suppressed"?
Google: "over 31000 scientists" +"petition"
You'll see LOTS of information about it.
Or, just go straight to:
petitionproject. org
All the scientists are listed. You can check their credentials. However, I doubt you'll accept ANY of them as credible... you're a nay-sayer... it's your M.O.
MickPsyphon 2 years ago
Yes, that response was 'suppressed'. If that is so, then why was your latest one not suppressed?
Not enough information given here. For example, I want to know , what percentage of scientists DO support AGW? Why isn't THAT given? Also, of the number given EXACTLY how many are climatologists?
ianyoutub 2 years ago
Better than that google- climate in the carboniferous . The graph part way down makes AGWs screem!!!!!
camcheck 2 years ago
ianyoutub,
Verbatim from the petition website:
"All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy."
MickPsyphon 2 years ago
Oh c'mon.
"Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy"
"Many" currently work in these fields? EXACTLY how many and how many as a PERCENTAGE of the total, since we are relying on numbers here? Surely the petition should include that information?
ianyoutub 2 years ago
ianyoutub,
Just as I expected from you. You choose to believe the IPCC fraudulent report, in which most of the people associated with it had NO professional experience whatsoever in the study (most were merely paper pushers and hid in obscurity behind the report)... while conversely, you choose to denigrate legitimate scientists, most of whom have professional, pertinent experience... and all of whom make themselves known for you to vet at will.
You've just proven to all, that you're an idiot.
MickPsyphon 2 years ago
It's called the Oregon Petition.
We do not know the percentages of scientists or climatologists who believe/disbelieve AGW theory because a decent poll has never been conducted. So no one has ever quoted figures, but have just announced "a consensus." The Oregon Petition, although it doesn't come up with percentages and is stricken with errors, disproves any claim of a consensus. Google "the undersigned scientists maintain" to see a great list of prominent climatologists compiled by Cato.
hayesism 2 years ago
Ian,
You sound like one of those types who screams about how they want people who doubt the man-made global warming theory to die in a flood.
Go away.
replicant10000 3 years ago
Don't jump to conclusions. I never said anything like that. You are contributing to a debate in which a scientific question is being considered, so try to think a bit more coherently.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
China has surpassed the USA as the #1 atmospheric polluter on the planet. India, Pakistan and other 'developing' nations are quickly closing in on them, too.
It won't be long before the USA leads the world in implementing more true 'green' industrial changes... mainly because it will have no choice. The technology is there; they just need to tap it.
Regardless of how clean we all are, climate change will continue to occur... at least until the Sun dies out.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Climate change will continue to occur.
Wonderful. The climate changes. Well spotted. No one is arguing that CC does not occur. The argument is whether global warming is happening, which evidence suggests it is, and whether CO2 can and is contributing, which evidence suggests it is.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
When I was a young lad in the 70's, the world was afraid that another Ice Age would hit.
In the 80's they cried about how the Greenhouse Effect will destroy the Earth.
When that was disproved, the renamed it "Man-Made Global Warming" and whined louder.
Nobody's arguing "global warming". The question is whether it's "man-made".
Answer: NO!
Every ice core sample study revealed that CO2 does NOT drive climate change.
PERIOD! Regardless of how many times you say otherwise.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Yeah, and 500 years ago people thought the earth was flat. Now they think it's a globe. How do we decide between these? I mean people keep changing their minds. How do we know that we won't think it's flat again in the future? Human pronouncements are just so damn unreliable. Oh wait, could it be... that science is becoming MORE precise and with massive increasing amounts of computer power is getting better models so that PRESENT science might actually have more insight into things?...EUREKA!
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
Talk about hitting the wrong end of the nail with the hammer!
It's precisely BECAUSE of all the technological advances that scientists have been increasing speaking out AGAINST the man-made global warming myth.
They concur that Al Gore's "computer models" were incomplete. They didn't take many extremely important factors into consideration. (ie: the Sun, etc...)
Computer models are only as good/bad as the human(s) that program them.
Do your research.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
People such as ianyoutub and other supporters of the man-made global warming myth are dangerously ignorant when it comes to differentiating between pollution & climate change.
We do need to clean up the planet, but it's not going to happen by waging war against CO2. Instead, try going after China, India, Pakistan, etc... who are spewing industrial pollutants into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate... not Canada, Europe, Australia, etc... where CO2 and atmospheric pollutants have decreased.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
CO2 is good for plants and the more you have, the more oxygen you get, the bankers and their goons think most are too stupid to see that, prove them wrong
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
jellyjam10534,
Unfortunately for most of us, the vast majority of proponents of the man-made global warming theory don't know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The all too often confuse the two, not knowing that combustion engine vehicles emit carbon monoxide... and not CO2.
As you point out, CO2 is essential to life on Earth.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Wrong again.
Elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
Once again, I draw your attention to the Medieval Warm Period, which was a period in which CO2 levels were far higher than today, yet they enjoyed prosperity that included an excellent harvest of crops. The only thing that stopped it was the Little Ice Age.
Neither of those periods were caused by mankind... unless you're going to argue now that they were too aggressive in their agricultural activities.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
From WIKI: The NOAA states the "idea of a global... "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today ... has turned out to be incorrect" and what those "records that do exist show is there was no multi-century periods when global... temps were the same or warmer than in the 20th century". Global temp. records taken from ice cores, tree rings, lake deposits, show that the Earth was actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees C) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th C.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
If all you can cite it Wikipedia, then you're lost. ANYONE can edit Wiki, which is why reputable Universities refuse to accept it as a source by their students.
The Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than today; and it lasted just over 500yrs.
Al Gore and his disciples deny it existed, because it destroys half of their global warming argument: the "Hockey Stick" graph, which also denies that the Little Ice Age ever occurred.
Wrong again.
Keep trying.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
"Elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth"
You may want to take a biology class sometime and learn what photosynthesis is, CO2 is essential in the calvin cycle (carbon fixation when plants produce energy from CO2 and emit oxygen as a byproduct.
The opposite happens in humans and mammals, where the Krebs cycle in our cells produce CO2 after using oxygen for cellular respiration. All part of the natural cycle.
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
jellyjam10534,
You make an excellent point! I certainly wouldn't want ianyoutub to be the Minister of Agriculture. We'd all starve to death!
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Look fuckwit, I know about that cycle. You might want to actually find out about the science in more detail. Just because you need something does not mean it will not harm you in greater quantities. We need Oxygen but too much will kill us.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
"Just because you need something does not mean it will not harm you in greater quantities."
Earth's atmosphere is over 78% nitrogen with another around 20% oxygen, CO2 is only around .038% with other trace gases.
You don't see nitrogen killing plants or humans.
If you're trying to imply that 0.038% CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is on the verge of killing us all and the plants that use it, then I'd suggest you educate yourself.
jellyjam10534 3 years ago
No you don't see nitrogen killing plants or animals, because we evolved to be in an atmosphere in which nitrogen is at 78% - do you understand that?
I never said that the CO2 PER SE was on the verge of killing anything. Plants may well thrive at greater concentrations of CO2 to a limited extent but higher concentrations of CO2 will have adverse effects in terms of warming. Plants emit CO2 at high enough concentrations as well thus adding to those effects.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
a lot of weather we're having lately
amagilly 3 years ago
you could put this video on a 2x4 and smack a enviro-nut up side the head and they still wont get it, always back to the al gore bumpersticker bull shit
BUDDAWG2004 3 years ago
Really.
Let's hear your arguments against global warming being anthropogenic in origin. C'mon on, lay out all the complexities of it, so we can all have a good laugh.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
I draw your attention to a report entitled:
"Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antartic Temperature Changes Across Termination III"
A study of ice core samples by Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang and Volodya Y. Lipenkov.
It concludes that "CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by
800 +/- 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
In other words, temperature changes occurs before CO2 changes.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Yes, it thus shows that temperature changes CAN precede CO2. Of course we know that to be the case, which is one reason that scientists are so alarmed - at the possibility of both processes feeding each other and positive feedback and runaway warming occuring. In the present case, CO2 is happening first and that is causing warming but then that warming will cause further CO2 and other deadlier emissions and humans will be powerless to stop it.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
There is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that CO2 emissions are now, or have ever driven temperature change. The only people to suggest otherwise are Al Gore and his followers.
Absolutely EVERY study of ice core samples conclusively supports the fact that CO2 emissions FOLLOWED temperature change by 200 - 800 years.
To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts, or to blantantly lie.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
As a matter of fact, all the data from every ice core sample ever taken supports the conclusion that CO2 changes occur AFTER temperature changes have already occurre, by up to an 800yr lag period.
The SUN drives climate change on Earth. NOT CO2 emissions.
You don't even seem to be aware that the most important GHG is water vapour; and that CO2 is one of the least important GHG.
Gee! Sun heats up water = increase water vapour = increased GHG = increased global temperature.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
You don't seem to be aware that a gas does not need to be the most potent as regards climate change in order to cause warming if you increase it massively and quickly.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
According to ice core sample studies, there was a higher concentration of CO2 in PPM in the year 1250 than there is today. It's no mere coincidence that was during the Medieval Warm Period.
Water vapour constitutes 95% of GHG.
CO2 only 3.5% (max).
Only 0.117% of total atmospheric CO2 is man-made; and the rest is natural.
Play with the numbers all you want, but CO2 is by no stretch of the imagination the "most potent" GHG.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Sorry, but that's bullshit. But even if it was true, they were not actively pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
Typical! Faced with the facts that don't support your already biased views, you simply declare them to be "bullshit".
Well, you've just made an ass of yourself on YouTube, because you not only failed to support your argument with anything more than juvenile "bullshit" remarks, you also demonstrated that you're incapable of accepting the truth when it's presented to you clearly.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Life is too short to go round and round arguing against you and other mindless idiots on the net whose occupation is to regurgitate the mewlings of lots of other mindless idiots on the web. You're in your element aren't you? You can argue and argue and argue about inconsequential details and by leaving out facts and distorting things while in the real world there is a REAL PROBLEM of global warming to solve. You don't care though. Your value is only in the endless mindless argument.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
Wrong again! The real problem is that Al Gore and his followers have already conned so many people to WASTE resources and money on an idiotic quest, which is resulting only in making Gore and his friends rich, which making the developed world poor. It has nothing to do with saving the planet... it never has. It's about power. THEY don't care.
You want to help the planet, stop griping about CO2; and worry instead about pollution and corruption.
Man-made global warming is a myth!
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
the world is so big. Were going to die form a "lack of fresh water, or ocean acidification"..well thank god thats affected by global warming.
"my career is 22 yrs long, thats a good career on TV" Yeah TV, not meteorologist.
Compaing the earth's life and weather cycles to a car that is built by humans only to eventually breakdown no matter how well you takecare of it to a fuckin planet that has eveolved to create and sustain life and say hey it'll eventually breakdown is a doozy!
Dkouts57 3 years ago
He did not say that the earth will break down inevitably as a car would do. What he means is that a hundred years of a slight warming trend is not sufficient to conclude that it will continue let alone whether it is normal or abnormal for our planet or that it is man made. (It's not abnormal and it's not man made by the way.)
21crenaissanceman 3 years ago
Oh it's not man made, is it not? So YOU alone have proof that pumping massive amounts of carbon into the atmsphere DEFINITELY does not increase warming then. Wow, that's impressive. Why don't you submit your findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal and convince all those numb skull scientists of the error of their ways?
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
"peer reviewed"? You mean like the IPCC report, from which lead author Professor John Christy refused to have his name associated with, because the report didn't reflect his findings? Also from which some of the contributors had to threaten legal action to have their names removed?
Maybe you should listen to the 31000+ scientists who signed a petition denying man-made global warming. They seem to believe that the SUN (not CO2) drives climate change.
Makes sense to me.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
31000 scientists, eh? What's your source for that figure?
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
What drove the massive climate changes in Earth's History prior to the last 150yrs?
In fact, what drove massive climate changes prior to mankind becoming the dominant species?
You don't suppose it could be the Sun, do you? All those solare flares over the billions of years?
Oh, and then there were meteors smashing into the Earth.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
You mean the massive climate changes that wiped out most species? Those ones? As with the current crisis, some of those involved some kind of happening on earth (e.g., volcanic eruptions) that trapped heat and caused positive feedback changes that ended up devastating the planet and most life forms on it. The difference is that this present crisis is caused by CO2 and is happening much faster.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
You've completely destroyed any possible credibility that may have remained in your argument(s) by stating that "...that this present crisis is caused by CO2 and is happening much faster" than previous climatic changes caused by volcanic eruptions.
The shockwaves of Santorini and Krakatoa were felt around the world. Santorini literally caused destruction of Biblical proportions.
Do your research, before making a fool of yourself on YouTube.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
I'm talking about the volcanic eruptions at the end of the Permian era, you twat, and I don't mean the IMMEDIATE effect. I mean the knock on effects that raised average temperatures by 10C and killed 95% of all life forms on the planet. Those effects happened over a much much longer period than the few hundred years of CO2 emissions humans are responsible for.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
The Medieval Warm Period was several degrees warmer than current "average global temperatures".
The Little Ice Age lasted ~200yrs ending in the late 1800's. (~1850)
It's natural that the temperature would increase after a cool period of 200+yrs; and considering that we're still cooler than the prosperous Medieval Warm Period, we're a long way from man-made global disaster.
Your numbers don't match up with Historical data.
Do your research.
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Whats going to kill us is the willful perpetuation of ignorance. And if I recall correctly the reason why it was so cold 3 centuries, known as the Little Ice Age, was excess gases from volcanic activity and golly what a coincidence that it's cooling again with the massive industrial CO2 gases. The typical Bush brain spoon fed historical reconstructionism talking points , but who's paying attention anyways.
mattghtpa 3 years ago
It's so obvious - the majority of climate scientists are wrong and this TV weatherman is right. Of course...
Nature is 'too big' for us to affect it much, yeah? Well, we have been pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at an acelerating rate for the last few hundred years and we now have 385ppm in the atmosphere and climate models, which are getting increasingly accurate, all agree that this can affect average temperatures.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
Think of it terms of energy(input and output). A single hurricane contains more energy than we can produce in a decade.
If we could capture 1% of 1% of the total Sun rays that fall on earth, we would have a higher rate of energy production than we currently produce.
We are a blip compared to the magnitude of energy that surrounds us naturally.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
What the hell? Do you actually know anything about physics at all? We may be a blip compared to the magnitude of the energy that surrounds us, but how is that ahn argument against manmade global warming? The global warming argument is that by filling the atmosphere with CO2 we are trapping energy that would otherwise escape and it is having a warming effect. How does what you have said contradict that?
ianyoutub 3 years ago
And by what scientific process do you distinguish energy that escapes normally due to a multitude of factors against what is being trapped by CO2. Given that each factor is in constant change.
Since I am a neophyte in physics (according to you), please explain to me what you are using as a control? I am all ears.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
We found a liberal!
shiftyshooter90 3 years ago
A liberal? Well if a liberal is someone who can think for themselves then yes, I'm a liberal. You, meanwhile, obviously can't think much at all if this comment is all you can come out with.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
Weather is a dynamic and flexible phenomenon. To say it is cooling or warming, and that somehow one or the other must be right or both are wrong is absolutely ignorant. The truth of the matter is that on an overpopulated planet under the system which says "if youve got the gold than you can do it" mentality--, you have a serious problem. There is WAY TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT AND OVER CONSUMPTION. 80 PERCENT OF THE LOT GOES TO THE 20% THAT WANT(not need) IT, LEAVING THE OTHER 80% OUT OF LUCK...
yetzirahsan 3 years ago
Weather is not either cooling or warming, you fucking dingbat. The average TEMPERATURE is increasing and that will change the CLIMATE.
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
There has been no global average temperatur increase in the last ten years. In fact, it's gotten COOLER during that period.
Of course, the global average temperature has increased since the "Little Ice Age". Do you expect man to attempt to drive the temperatures back to what it was in the Little Ice Age?
We're still several degrees cooler than the Mideival Warm Period, which was a PROSPEROUS time. Did they burn too many fires to create the Mideival Warm Period?
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
ha Lou Dobbs....... 4.5 billion is the formation of the earth not humans. In fact no one was here 4.5 billion years ago.
nospacesallowed 3 years ago
Kinda the point.
The Earth has had climate for billions of years. Obviously not straight away
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
No, actually the point is that we (humans) or we (life itself) has existed for 540 million years for life or for humans one hundredish thousand years.
nospacesallowed 3 years ago
And only 100-150 of heavy industry, meaning we do not affect climate as much as the Ecos say we do. More like 3% of total world co2 emissions and even then Co2 isn't a pollutant.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
Only 100-150 years of heavy industry. But if you are pumping out enough carbon then 100-150 years is all you need. How long is a piece of string?
ianyoutub 3 years ago
ianyoutub,
Here's something you can string together:
Santorini; Vesuvius; Tambora; and Krakatoa.
Some of the most catastrophic volcanic eruptions in History, which immediately altered global climate... yet the Earth 'recovered'.
By comparison, CO2 emissions by mankind has done NOTHING to effect climate change.
Another cataclysmic event to wrap your tiny mind around: The Tunguska Event
It changed climate this past 100yrs.
What ever happened to the nuclear winter debate? Sheesh!
MickPsyphon 3 years ago
Compared to billions of years of climate without us.
Co2 isn't a pollutant. If your so concerned, turn off your computer and never use it again.
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
Google: EPW + 650 scientists dissent
WeAreChangeBrisbane 3 years ago
Wow? Someone at CNN actually gets it.
I hear he's no longer employed there though - not a surprise.
replicant10000 3 years ago