After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized,sensitized and utilized the liberally unprincipled component method, to produce a new hockey stick, which gave a very robust prediction (90% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
I employ "tricks" in my job. It doesn't mean I'm doing something dodgy. It just means I'm employing another method to ensure accuracy when conventional practice falls short.
"... calling for an enquiry in to the 100's of emails exchanged that talk of tricks and hiding decline"
Err, no! One email that talked of employing one trick to hide the decline.
Why is the BBC bint so willing to lie, misrepresent and exaggerate what has been written in one email AND to take it out of the context in which it was written?
@m1aws There is NO BIAS AT ALL! The science is crystal clear CO2 traps heat, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rapidly rising & so are the global temps...Humans are the primary driver behind the rise in CO2. You are an utter FOOL who obviously knows ZERO about science & are so ignorant you are being used!
So explain why there has been no GW in the past decade. Why the ocean levels are falling. The Arctic sea ice extent is almost back to nominal levels. The troposphere is not heating up and the mesosphere is collapsing.
Any school kid who has seen the Vostock data knows the effects of CO2 are simply not enough against water vapour which obliterates the CO2 absorption bands.
@david222444 actually, the word that matters is "hide". The context surrounding the word decline talks about unreliable tree ring data and not actual global temperatures. But that shouldn't put anyone off a good conspiracy theory!
@wotdoesitmatter decline ? decline means the globe is cooling does it not? could it be due to the Grand Solar Minimum now upon us or could it be due to the fact that evey ocean on the planet is cooling. The troposphere is 0.5 degrees celcius cooler than this day last year. We want the truth not fraudulent science. These climatologists are a disgrace to science . See Prof Muller explains 'hide the decline ' on youtube.
@david222444 wrote, "decline means the globe is cooling does it not?" - Well there we have it. You have not bothered to find out what it meant and have assumed what it meant. Google "tree ring proxies decline". It's not about actual global temperatures. Potholer54 covered this topic a while back. He can explain it better than I can. Look for his videos on youtube.
About 6 billion people on earth Roughly 2 sq ft per standing person 12 billion sq ft for all humanity There are 28 million sq ft per sq mile equals all the people in the world could stand in a <500 sq mile box. or, to put it in scale, about: 2 Singapores or 8 Washington DC's or 1city of Los Angeles, CA or Houston, TX. The sq miles of the surface of the earth: 196,939,900 About 12 billion sq ft for all humanity People cover about 0.00022% of the earth. Man disappeared? Earth wouldn't notice.
Al gores data show the log for every rise in temp there is a rise in CO2 100's for years latter. and that cycle has been going on for 100,000's of years. to say the suddenly that a human induced .001% human change is going to change the planet. You have WAY to much ego.
@cupera1 Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.Humans have increased CO2 by about 40% in the last 150 years.
@checkyoursources The Sun kicks out ~4*10 to the 23 watts per second. the entire human race on the planet produces ~4*10 to the 12 watts in a year. analogy, a 100 story building and a sheet of paper next to it, you are saying the the paper is standing on edge and I say it is flat. We are still next to a 1000 foot building.
@cupera1 Lockwood et al 2008 "It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987" "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings." GHG's hang onto more of the Suns energy than before because they have increased.
@checkyoursources The Maunder Minimum occurred at the beginning of he LIA and we are in another sun spot minimum again thus would explain the cooling that has gone on for the last ten-fifteen years. And explain the Hiding the decline in the CRU emails.
@cupera1 1) It hasn't cooled! 2) 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on modern record and warmer than the previous one. WMO: In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average.
@cupera1 You quoted from the Mail which misquoted Jones' BBC interview.Phil Jones said: from 1975-2009 the trend in degrees per decade was +0.161 actually.From 1995 to 2009 the trend was +0.12C per decade. He aslo said: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity".You said: "Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes" -This is NOT saying that the current warming is natural.
@checkyoursources I listen to the complete audio of the interview and those were the statements made by Phil Johns. Of the last five earlier warming periods after ice ages how does this one compare with those five? If all humans were removed from the planet tomorrow there would be a .001% change in temp from if they remained.
@cupera1 The fact you can't spell his name suggests otherwise. The interview was not broadcast, it was for internet only and is only available in text form. You copied and pasted direct from the daily mail news. To compare warming rates you need to have the same length of time to compare. Most heat is held in the oceans: In willis 2004: ocean heat measurements warming rate of 0.85 Watts per square metre from 1999-2003 . In 2000-2004 it was 0.9 Watts per sq m
@checkyoursources So this cycle of warming is probably in the normal range of warming after an Ice Age. So all the suckers that are buying into AGW I need to sell the carbon credits to.. so back to the money question how many tones of carbon credits can I sell you.
@checkyoursources So this cycle of warming is probably in the normal range of warming after an Ice Age. So all the suckers that are buying into AGW I need to sell the carbon credits to,so back to the money question how many tones of carbon credits can I sell you.
@therhythmicmenace Yes it is. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,2008, 2009. Ten years there, count them. It was the hottest decade on record.
Just keep ignoring the real facts and keep subscribing to George Monbiot's daily cause, 2010 did happen and there was no mega hot summer or wild winter, your political religion is dying, give it up and find some new marxist ideology.
then how ever in history could we prove that agw is not real or has their been no climate change since the industrial revolution.
Your whole system of evidence makes it completely impossible to prove agw is not real and by that logic it makes it impossible to prove that agw is real.
@therhythmicmenace I don't need to flag your comments. p.s. science doesn't work on "proof", it works on reducing uncertainty. AGW is the current best explanation of recent rapid observed warming for the last 4 decades. Please feel free to suggest an alternative theory.
@therhythmicmenace The last ice age and past climate shifts were explained by either the sun or orbital wobbles but the current warming phase is not explained by either of these two factors because 1) We aren't in an orbital "wobble" and 2) The suns output hasn't risen in 40 years and 3) you don't seem to appreciate that it is not only natural cycles that can cause a change. By your logic only lightning (natural) can start a fire but matches (man made) cannot.
WE NEED more heat we are going into an ice age and OAPs cannot afford to heat their houses because of marxists sh1te bags like you and your elitist carbon tax !!!
@therhythmicmenace CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Got it?
Can you provide a peer reviewed paper that states that oceans are being warmed more than before by underwater volcanoes? If that were the case we would see the oceans being warmed from underneath. How exactly do you equate scientific data with marxism and being elitist? Writing in capitals does not make your argument any less incorrect.
@checkyoursources Then why is there a 300-800 year lag in the rise of CO2 from the temperature rises. What did humans do that far bake in time that caused the Little ice age to stop and start this cycle for warming.
@cupera1 Co2 causes temp rise AND temp rise causes higher levels of CO2. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that only lightning can cause a fire and not matches.
@therhythmicmenace You really should try quoting from peer reviewed sources, not newspapers. The number of years with heavy snow in the Swiss Alps has decreased since the 1980's. e.g. Switzwerland "since the mid-1980s, the length of the snow season and snow amount have substantially decreased" Benistin, Institute of Geography, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. In the UK there has been an average increase in temps and less snowy winters since the 60's Look up 1962/3.
So you agree that you cherry pick the new testament then?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. Are these your morals? odd how Jesus did nothing for the 99.9% of the population outside his immediate area when alive?
Notice the way the biased BBC interviewer interrupts and talks all over Marc Morano while letting that corrupt twit Watson waffle on as long as he likes.
There is no such thing as AGW. In fact. co2 rises only after temperature rises. It is a scientific fact. This is about AGENDA 21, The Rome groups initial plan to use this in lew of war to implement the agenda. This cod fucking limey bastard should be shot for all the tax dollars that went into his worthless pocket. I'm serious about this. Men like him should not be allowed to remain on this earth. He is pushing the global elitists agenda and should not be allowed to speak
@SuperGuitarman69 When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
@checkyoursources If you filled a stadium. With people in colored shirts 30,000 to be exact. The ones that represent all the gases and water vapor and all other pollutants and natural atmospheric conditions wore blue shirts. And the ones that represent man made C02 in white shirts would the one's representing man made c02 stand out in the crowd? I kinda doubt it considering there would only be 4 people in white shirts. I rest my case. Man Made Global Warming is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
@SuperGuitarman69 Your logic is more flawed than anyones I have ever seen. 1) You don't understand the difference between % composition and effect per molecule2) Only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere can has a forcing effect e.g. Nitrogen and Oxygen have almost no effect on Infra red absorption and they make up 99% of your "stadium". 3) i.e. those "white" shirts in your stadium contribute more to Global warming than all the oxygen and nitrogen put together.
@checkyoursources Wow. Never ever heard a lie as cras as that. global warming is total and complete bullshit. Is there warming? Yes, ask the dinosaurs it was real hot back then. Ask those who lived in greenland when they had great soil for crops. Yeah it's been going on since the beginning of the earth warming and cooling. We have no effect on it in the least. We are ants on this mound of dirt. cannot effect it. Any moron who travels on a plane as much as I do and stares off into miles...Part1
@SuperGuitarman69 So far you have yet to provide an iota of evidence for your position? odd. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. According to you what natural factor accounts for recent rapid warming?
p.s.Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
@checkyoursources Yeah if we would of had satellites up since the beginning of time you might have an arguement. It is a farce a sceme to make money. The global warming scam has already been exposed. Why do you think there is so little activity on these sites debating it??? It is over. People know and the ones who were believing it now are like "I dunno sounds fishy to me". It's over move on to something else. I've got a new Hummer that gets 6 miles to the gallon. Now that is a real energy crisi
@SuperGuitarman69 Actually according to NASA, NOAA, the WMO, the EEA and the Met office 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on modern record. Maybe that is why you haven't given even one source for your statement.
@checkyoursources I told you. The data??? Who believes someone who is funded by the same people who stand to profit from Carbon offsets. Data is easily manipulated as seen in climate gate. Which I cared nothing about because I already knew the scam. Last ice age question???
@SuperGuitarman69 I've asked you to explain how the royal society, The UK's independent scientific academy that supports the assertion that recent rapid warming is most likely to be caused by human emissions is making money from carbon offsets? p.s.Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped "climate gate" email incident.
@SuperGuitarman69 1)Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. 2) Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans. 3) The recent rapid warming is unexplained by natural cycles.
@checkyoursources Suuuuuuuuuuuure it did. LOL do you work for the IPCC??? You'd do better against someone who doesn't know the truth I think. Still no answer on that question huh???? LOL I can understand why
@SuperGuitarman69 There are 6 degrees difference between the last ice age ending 10,000 yrs ago and todays temps. The average rate of change up until 1950 was around 1 degree per 1600 years. the last 40 years have seen a rate of change nearer 1 degree every 100 years. The last 40 years are unexplained by natural cycles. Read:PNAS February 5, 2008 vol. 105 no. 5 1425-1430
@checkyoursources Copy and Pasting I see. We are still in an ice age. Ya know I'm really not kidding. I'm beginning to think you work for some propoganda firm. You are spending a lot of time on someone who knows the issues. In fact, if tomorrow they said a giant astroid is coming towards earth. I would believe it. Right up til the point where they said we all have to quickly get into these zoning areas to survive. We will set up a central government to run the world after. I'd sip my coffee.. P1
@SuperGuitarman69 The only copy and paste was the peer reviewed paper from PNAS, the rest of the comment was all mine. Now then, are you going to keep dodging my question on What exactly you think has caused the recent rapid warming over the last 40 years. You can't be scared surely?
@checkyoursources finish my paper. Text everyone I know and tell them it is total complete bullshit. And after the little 3 day period I'd be proven right while the whole world would be ushered into the new world order.
@SuperGuitarman69 Oh there we have it, another conspiracy theorist who believes aliens are in his cupboard and that 9/11 was an inside job. You are pitiful.
@SuperGuitarman69 Your "opinion" is exactly what I would expect from someone who "believes" in a sky fairy and talking snakes. Go and watch you favourite programme- glenn beck.
@checkyoursources Never said any of those things. And sky fairies??? Wow, you didn't tell me you were an atheist but I should have guessed. And no I've done the research on the conspiracy theories too. Some utterly dismissed. Others such as Global Warming and such??? Dismissed immidiately upon logical deduction. Sorry you couldn't win. It wasn't really something you could win on honestly. Science in respect to certain aspects? Flawed. And now?? Exposed.
@SuperGuitarman69 Rather than waffle, please explain how you came to the incorrect conclusion that AGW is illogical. You have yet to provide any evidence for your view.
@checkyoursources First of all starting off with incorrect or calling me a denier. Which is a plain and simple reference to the holocaust. My study took me away from the science. Which was when I found out from the IPCC the ones who bailed because of fraudulant practices in the science I read that. Through that I followed those who were the most prominant voices on the matter. Maurice Strong for one. Through that I started studying the UN. By then I started seeing the money trail and agendas P1
a person who denies". The term denier pre-dates the holocaust. 2) You are simply a conspiracy theorist. You are clearly not a scientist and have no evidence to back your ideas. I pity you.
@checkyoursources No what I am tho and have a degree which required many hours of is logistics. You are probably more than likely a part in it somehow. Denier was used explicitly as a reference to the shame of the holocaust deniers. Oh and one more last thing. I know 2 former employees of Al Gores. They flat out told me that Al was doing it for one thing MONEY. He admitted that it was a long shot but it was worth it because of the finacial support he was getting.
@checkyoursources Oh and your warming quip??? To answer you. Go back to the scientist in the 70's that was pushing us telling us there was another ice age coming. Maybe they know???
@SuperGuitarman69 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Check your sources. You have yet to explain recent rapid warming with natural factors? Is it because it isn't natural?
@checkyoursources The agenda that was set forth by 2 prominant organizations. The UN and the Rome Group. Now, if you follow the Cap and Trade legislation back to it's source it is the profit of numerous corporations which stand to profit from carbon offsets. Al and Maurice to name a few. BP, GE etc... Now who does GE own MSNBC. One of the biggest pushers or this garbage. Well now what do the UN and The Rome Group have to do with it. Well, the UN wants to see one world government. In the UN.. P2
@SuperGuitarman69 looks like you've been listening to too much Glenn beck and Alex Jones. Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. It's a public programme, not some hidden conspiracy you loon.
@SuperGuitarman69 You made a comment on Alex Jones video less than a year ago, short memory? You obviously think Alex Jones ( a certified lunatic and conspiracy theorist like yourself is correct.
@checkyoursources If I did I do not remember it. And how would you know unless you were propaganda for that side??? I mean honestly dude. Who goes around spouting about AGW?? And promoting it?? Why?? To get the word out?? Like mass media and Hollywood aren't already doing that??? What is the point??
@checkyoursources Charter there is AGENDA 21. Now this is no conspiracy. You can look it up on the UN site. Everything I am saying you can look up. AGENDA 21 is about putting people in zoned living areas. Based on habitable areas. In other words the taking of private property and the destruction of the constitution. The Rome Group is mainly bankers that own the rights to the shares of Carbon offsets. Making global corporations richer as well as the bankers who own them. The Rome Group knew.. P3
@checkyoursources They would never be able to start a war that would involve Americans freely and willingly give up their individual freedoms and property much less their constitution. So they divised a sceme a scam. IN THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS IT IS IN THERE. Thought up in the 60's and put in motion in 1991. If you could convince the world that industry and cars energy consumption was killing the earth due to a natural earth life substaining substance ie... c02 you could break them in guilt. P5
@checkyoursources Now you scare the public to death. So big corporations funded huge movies campaigns you name it, in the direct will of scaring the ba jesus out of the masses. Now it has been working for a good while. There number 1 enemy?? The internet. There is so much shared information on the net. You can look up any info you want. I spent 3 years of my life researching this. In the middle of the 2nd year it was to overwhelming to remain a objective believer in AGW. So is that enough info?
@checkyoursources News flash. There are tons of scientists who claim that if it is happening it is of no alarm at all and most of the ones of desent are totally claiming bullshit on it. There is NO CONSENSUS. Especially in THE IPCC. The most fraudulant of them all. And then caught red handed in a cover up and you defend that??? You have red flags all over you
@SuperGuitarman69 That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions. You are calling them all liars?
@checkyoursources Indeed, the percentage of assertion is approx 97% of climate scientists. Why people refuse to concede to unanimous consensuses perplexes me
@checkyoursources I'll tell you what. I'll prove it to you. Give me names and organizations of the so called scientists that have stated such. I will track AND find where they are recieving their funding. I will show you exactly what I am talking about. Am I calling them liars??? I cannot at the moment. But as I said in every instance that I tracked the funding sources?? YES I have found motive and propoganda. So, If you want to challenge me?? I'll do it. With the ok that I can copy and.. P1
@SuperGuitarman69 The royal society, the Uk's oldest independent science academy. I would like to see how you think they will benefit from it?
You keep suggesting that NASA, NOAA, theroyal society, the met office, the WMO, environment agency, and every major academy on the planet is corrupt and lying. That is so ridiculous to anyone but your deluded self.The very fact that climatologist salaries are in line with other fields should give you some indication that there is no personal gain.
@checkyoursources As I said, I know everything you know. The science is based on an agenda. We are NOT destroying the earth. We are NOT going to give up tax dollars to save it. If someone wants to invent a alternative energy. Use THEIR own money take THEIR own risks. Put the product out there. If it is something I like? I might drive it. If not? Then I won't. Stay out of my life, and out of my cool ass Humvee
@SuperGuitarman69 You clearly don't know everything I know. If you even knew the basics of scientific thought or even probability then you would have grasped that the likelyhood of every single major scientific academy, NOAA, NASA, the met office, the WMO and all the rest being liars and all part of your deluded conspiracy theory is less than 0.5%. You clearly disagree with anything that affects your lifestyle. You are selfish and ignorant. You have issues separating science and politics.
@checkyoursources FAIL! No, selfishness comes from those who are trying to change others lifestyles so they can become rich off the tax payers of the worlds backs. THAT IS SELFISH. They cannot compete with others in the free market so they will steal it. Others have their agendas full blown. It is a scam a scheme from beginning to end. YOU ARE ENDORESING THEM!!! You are an enemy to freedom, liberty, and civil rights. You are part of the SCUM of the earth. And soon you will pay for that!!!!!!!!!
@SuperGuitarman69 As stated: The very fact that climatologist salaries are in line with other fields should give you some indication that there is no personal gain. Writing in capitals and adding to many "!"'s does not make you any less incorrect. It is also interesting that you have yet to provide any evidence. The rights of those already being affected by climate change do not seem to concern you? e.g. Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries (Mendelsohn 2006)
@SuperGuitarman69 You haven't provided any evidence as yet that humans are not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming as observed. Your bet is a poor one.
@checkyoursources Yeah I have. Very unlucky for you most people have something called common sense. They know bullshit when they see it. Without even knowing all of what I know they can smell the stink of this elaborate lie.
@SuperGuitarman69 Nope, you are still being subjective. I repeat again: You haven't provided any evidence as yet that humans are not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming as observed.
@checkyoursources paste your statements and your names and references along with the facts I provide across numerous other YouTube sites and end this once and for all!!!!
@SuperGuitarman69 Be careful not to slip into an ad hominem, "also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." wiki
So what made the Ice of the last iceage melt? Cave men were driving SUVs ? You dont know if 'all those institutions' are lying or not if the common man cant get access to the RAW data. Do you think the earths climate was the same since the day it was formed till the industrial revolution? We all agree, exhaust is bad for the nature, but paying a Carbon tax wont save the world. And whats next? Aliens are going to attack us ...?
@tjcombo84 Yes, Climate changes but different factors can cause the change, currently its probably humans.The last ice age melt was caused by cahnges in the Earths orbit/suns output increasing. The current changes we have observed show neither of these e.g. read lockwood 2010. I know that climatologists have nothing to gain from lying as their salaries are not increasing any faster than any scientist in any other field.
@tjcombo84 Checkyoursources is full of shit. I wouldn't doubt he knows the guy who attcked the Discovery channel. He and him probably were roommates at the loony bin!
@SuperGuitarman69 If by "pusher" you mean I support the most likely explanation that humans are the primary driver of recent rapid warming observed over the last 3 decades then yes you could say i'm a "pusher" of scientific evidence over denial by people lke yourself. p.s around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position just like me. How does that make you feel?
@checkyoursources It is an agenda. Anyone with any common sense and rational thinking skills with ABSOLUTELY ZERO research can deduce that this is a complete scam top to bottom. There is reason why the AGW crazies and lying scam artists no longer are heard from any longer. A REASON why the lame stream media is no longer pushing it. The people arte not gullible and stupid past a certain point. No amount of making and lying can fool the masses after a certain point. It's over!!!!
@SuperGuitarman69 That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions. You are calling them ALL liars???
@checkyoursources Absolutely! They all have a stake in it. The earth had been hearing and cooling for centuries. Naturally. One volcanic explosion is more co2 emissions than we can produce as a species in a year. See there also is this big ball of has that is in the center of or galaxy called the SUN. Now when you look up don't state directly at it. Ok? But, the polar magnetic fields draw in the sun. I betcha that has a lot to do with it as well. But gee I'm no scientist. Jeez?
@SuperGuitarman69 How likely is that the 200,000 plus scientists associated with the science academies worldwide are all liars and able to collectively get the same indepenedentb results? You have no logic! Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. (morner 2002) The sunsout put has not risen since the 1980's, the temperature on Earth has. read: (Lockwood et al 2010)
@checkyoursources 200,000 plus scientists? Ok lol wow. You should call it quits right there. You are way beyond any kind of common sense. There isn't 200,000 people who even can spell global warming. Give it up!
@SuperGuitarman69 No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.The AGU has 40,000 members, AAAS has 126,995 individual and institutional members, the Royal society has 1314 fellows, NASA/NOAA have over 5,000 members, not to mention the other 16 scientific academies that support the concensus on AGW. 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) Anderegg et al 2010
@SuperGuitarman69 That's odd because if you compare climatologists salaries with those of other scientists in other non climate fields at the same grade you don't see any extra pay for climatologists. Who is more likely to be correct, me and 200,000 plus scientists or you?
@checkyoursources Yes me. Why? Because I have sense. Cap and Trade is a scam. It is easy to get climatologists to say anything when you are giving them grants. My cousin is a climatologist. He says it's all bullshit as well. Give it up!
@SuperGuitarman69 Your cousin? Care to name a paper he has published on climate?
If what you said was true and 200,000 scientists were all lying, that would mean a dishonesty rate of 100%, do you really think that is likely?
You have an issue with cap and trade, fine...but why take out your anger on the innocent people who reported what they observed, i.e. the scientists, who are simply the messengers. If you dislike the policy, attack the policy, not the science!
@checkyoursources Look. It is simple. Fly across the United States. 330 million people and miles upon miles of open inpopulated space. WAY more open than even the most populated areas. The earth is 75% water. It is absolutely a joke to try to pawn this non-sense on rational human beings that clearly can see that it is 100% bullshit! I wanna know why you are pushing this? What iss your agenda?
@SuperGuitarman69 The volume of the troposphere (75% of the Atmospheres mass) might seem big but divide the the volume by the number of people and you find that there is not very much atmosphere per person after all, head straight up and you reach space pretty quick. There are 51 people per sq km of land on the planet, 32 per sq km in the USA. Don't let open areas decieve you when you ignore the cities with 19,000 per sq km in the USA e.g. Union city
@checkyoursources Who is paying you? Why are you doing this? Answer the question! It are you a disingenuous jerk? Don't ad hominem me. That is the admission if guilt!
@checkyoursources Typical. That used to work doesn't anymore. You are being paid. The thing is? It is not working. You are failing whom it that is employing you. Or you are Al Gore playing on youtube. Either one is laughable. You will not answer. Typical. And states that you are not to be taken seriously.
@checkyoursources Wow. Bingo! Nailed it right on the nose. You are being paid to do this. Makes complete sense to me now. See, this is why AGW is no longer viable. Most already smelled a rat before. Then after the scandal? It was over. Yet, those whom are paid such as you, are still pushing. Why? Because those who are in the scam are standing to lose billions. To bad for them. And YOU!
@SuperGuitarman69 A Pathetic Ad hominem. If you seriously think that people are making money from climate change then why haven't you invested in Al Gore's companies?
Or are you just all wind and no substance?
What exactly is your evidence that I am in any way paid to argue with you?
Does that include all the other people who disagree with you. Are you seriously suggesting that billions of people who support AGW are all paid to do so and lie about it???
@checkyoursources Why don't I invest in Al Gore's companies? Easy, I am not a lying shit bag trying to get tax payers money because I am to stupid to get it by competition in the free market. You are no different than the ridiculous peer journals that post junk science to keep the gravy train rolling in. Yes simple fundamental logic provides that YOU are either being paid or incredibly indoctrinated by the agenda. There was someone like that who strolled into the Discovery Channels building!
@SuperGuitarman69 You would be the expert in indoctrination seeing as you believe in a particular sky fairy do you not?
If you honestly think it's all a scam then write a peer reviewed paper, do some research and get it published. By the way do you 1) think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? 2) think that globally temps have not risen between 1975-2009? 3) think that humans don't release huge amounts of CO2 through industry?
@checkyoursources Here we go. Sky fairy? A typical leftist! You are consistently 100% wrong on EVERY single issue. You are NOT of the intelligence level to be innovative, creative enough to compete in free enterprise. You chastise those with superior intellect. Your liberal agenda has DESTROYED this country. Schools, post office, DMV, taxation. Taxes on everything we do. Inheritance tax, Capital gains. Now you have the dumbest Harvard piece of shit on earth in office. Go to hell you atheist FUCK
@SuperGuitarman69 Are you of the intelligence to appreciate that the likelyhood fo your being right about your particular brand of sky fairy is less than mine of being correct that their almost certainly isn't one. You have resorted to petty ad hominems, a sure sign of emotion and subjectivity overcoming your objectivity. If you want to blame scientists for letting you know some bad news then maybe you should stop using anything that science has given you, starting with computers.
@checkyoursources Another thing. My cousins started the Tea Party. Wanna talk about their credentials? They have law degrees from Yale and are constitutional scholars. We on the founding fathers side were routing you out like the gutless Alinski, Cloward and Piven pieces of shit you are. You Do NOT DESERVE what MY founding fathers fought and died for! You WILL NOT destroy America. We are taking back the schools and teaching truth in this country. You mock Beck. He kills your agenda with truth!
@SuperGuitarman69 Eh? How many cousins do you have? first you had a climatologist as a cousin (although you didn't name a journal they had published in or who they work for odd?), now you are making an appeal to authority that because your alledged cousins have degrees in law from yale that this somehow makes them qualified to talk about climate science?
Explain exactly what "your" founding fathers fought for, it was secularism if I remember correctly, but then you are a secularist.
@SuperGuitarman69 While at a Tea Party event on February 27, 2009, a photo was taken of TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar. [sic]" on it. Is that your cousin?
The tea party movemnet started as an way of campaigning against a tax on full sugar sodas in an attempt to reduce obesity. Obesity costs the US billions each year.
@checkyoursources 2ndly. Once again I will reiterate. Peer journals are only propaganda machines. I can give you 1000's of printed studies that turned out to be either inaccurate or false. They are a complete joke. The march on Washington was peaceful. They even cleaned up after themselves unlike the pompous asses that came to YOUR 1 term presidents inauguration and left Washington in shambles. And regards to your COMPLETE stupidity on the tea party. You throw out racial slander? Racists are P2
@SuperGuitarman69 You do know what peer review means? i.e. checked independently by other experts in the field who see if the results of the paper are repeatable and valid. How you got so confused between science and politics is truly astounding.
@checkyoursources Yes I know what it is. Exactly why I tell you they are a JOKE! Obesity? No wrong in that, but you're a leftist you lie. In fact Alinsky said it was ok to. No, we shouldn't be paying a dime as tax payers to anyone elses healthcare to other than our own or families. As the GREAT Milton Friedman said once to the 2 idiots Cloward and Piven, society doesn't care about people, people care about people. Like it our not "SOURCES", common sense is making a comeback!
@checkyoursources Do you think the billions that Maurice Strong has put into"science" won't have the end result HE wants? Do you know who owns those peer review journals? Do you think you are blogging with someone who knows this information? Give it a rest already. As I have stated they atte all frauds. All of them. It is all about the money!
@SuperGuitarman69 Can you provide some e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. for your view?
You really want an excuse to run the environment into the ground for short term gains don't you. Your excuse is to pretend that AGW is not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming and that it is all some conspiracy.
@checkyoursources Who are you? Who is paying you? How much money are you going to lose or already have lost by the rejection of man made global warming by the masses? Oh who am I kidding I'm talking to a half witted Marxist atheist. You are like talking to my end tables. It does no good. Your brain haas been sucked out of your head. You take your marching orders from the left. Hitler was good at that too!
@SuperGuitarman69 I don't need to be paid to argue with people like you who only care about money, not people. To call me a marxist because I think there are better and in the long term cheaper and safer ways of producing electricity than using fossil fuels is laughable. How is your sky fairy by the way? which one did you pick, thor, ra, zeus?
@checkyoursources You are a Marxist. It is about money. People work hard to provide for their families. Then because of people like you their money is taken away by force. Ie.... Taxation to pay for your pet projects. The thing is YOUR projects are all based on lies and propaganda. Hence why AGW no longer has relevance. You are an atheist. There is nothing more telling about a persons character than that. Your belittling of those of faith shows you have possession of some sort. Sad really.
@SuperGuitarman69 I support tax as a way of protecting the vulnerable. In the US you pay some of the lowest taxes in world, yet produce almost 25% of the pollution. Tax money goes straight back into the public domain, no taxes = no cheap education, no police, no army, no fire brigade, no cheap healthcare. Capitalism does some things well e.g. consumer products, but it does not do services very well e.g. energy supply, hospitals
@checkyoursources Actually no. Government does nothing well. Or public schools pale to private. Our hospitals that are privately funded are superior to the public ones. The post office cannot compete with private carriers who through competition keeps costs down. In energy? If the there is demand by the public for such goods? Not only would they be available they would be affordable. Free markets are the corner stone of higher standards of living at affordable costs. Gov is the problem!
This has been flagged as spam show
After initializing and parameterizing hundreds of unknown factors, inserting divergent proxy data and ignoring any difficult natural forcing factors,we ran hundreds of simulations until we obtained the results we wanted–an ensemble of meaningless projected results, which we then averaged. We homogenized,sensitized and utilized the liberally unprincipled component method, to produce a new hockey stick, which gave a very robust prediction (90% probability) that we are all being totally screwed.
1000frolly 1 month ago
We had an engineer fake data for the qualification of aircraft instrument.
He quit, and then his technician confessed.
In college is was called "dry labbing".
tnekkc 2 months ago
Marc Morano, the new Josef Goebbels, swift-boating his BS
ReverendBrownbuttock 5 months ago
Damn, it kind of sucks dealing with ignorant fat ass blowhards like that. lol
ridewave444 7 months ago
My god what a deceptive lying human weasel Watson is, it's amazing how they
squirm when the bright light of reality shines on them. Get em Mark!
SuperDdy 8 months ago
@SuperDdy You are the fool! LOL! Keep playing the FOOL who is too dumb to know he/she is being used!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711 I may be playing the fool but you defiantly
are a fool.
SuperDdy 1 month ago
see climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Prof Muller on youtube.
david222444 11 months ago
I employ "tricks" in my job. It doesn't mean I'm doing something dodgy. It just means I'm employing another method to ensure accuracy when conventional practice falls short.
wotdoesitmatter 11 months ago 10
BBC Bias Exposed 0:17
"... calling for an enquiry in to the 100's of emails exchanged that talk of tricks and hiding decline"
Err, no! One email that talked of employing one trick to hide the decline.
Why is the BBC bint so willing to lie, misrepresent and exaggerate what has been written in one email AND to take it out of the context in which it was written?
We know why! Bias runs through the BBC's veins.
wotdoesitmatter 11 months ago 2
@wotdoesitmatter Then there was climategate2. Read them and you will either have to admit bias or bigotry on your side.
The BBC has a full-time paid for global warming reporter. He is implicated in the mails. Hung by his own petard over corruption and bias.
m1aws 2 months ago
@m1aws There is NO BIAS AT ALL! The science is crystal clear CO2 traps heat, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rapidly rising & so are the global temps...Humans are the primary driver behind the rise in CO2. You are an utter FOOL who obviously knows ZERO about science & are so ignorant you are being used!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
@Viracocha711 Oh Really?
So explain why there has been no GW in the past decade. Why the ocean levels are falling. The Arctic sea ice extent is almost back to nominal levels. The troposphere is not heating up and the mesosphere is collapsing.
Any school kid who has seen the Vostock data knows the effects of CO2 are simply not enough against water vapour which obliterates the CO2 absorption bands.
CO2 is the symptom, not the illness.
You uneducated idiot.
m1aws 1 month ago
@wotdoesitmatter its the word decline that matters not the word trick.
david222444 11 months ago
@david222444 actually, the word that matters is "hide". The context surrounding the word decline talks about unreliable tree ring data and not actual global temperatures. But that shouldn't put anyone off a good conspiracy theory!
wotdoesitmatter 11 months ago
@wotdoesitmatter decline ? decline means the globe is cooling does it not? could it be due to the Grand Solar Minimum now upon us or could it be due to the fact that evey ocean on the planet is cooling. The troposphere is 0.5 degrees celcius cooler than this day last year. We want the truth not fraudulent science. These climatologists are a disgrace to science . See Prof Muller explains 'hide the decline ' on youtube.
david222444 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444 wrote, "decline means the globe is cooling does it not?" - Well there we have it. You have not bothered to find out what it meant and have assumed what it meant. Google "tree ring proxies decline". It's not about actual global temperatures. Potholer54 covered this topic a while back. He can explain it better than I can. Look for his videos on youtube.
wotdoesitmatter 11 months ago
marc3075 1 year ago
Second guy *barf*
Feldegast92 1 year ago
@IFloridaMotocrossI
I hope that this gargantuan amount of evidence keep you warm since this winter is not a dream for a warmist
LOL
rokag3 1 year ago
Al gores data show the log for every rise in temp there is a rise in CO2 100's for years latter. and that cycle has been going on for 100,000's of years. to say the suddenly that a human induced .001% human change is going to change the planet. You have WAY to much ego.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.Humans have increased CO2 by about 40% in the last 150 years.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources The Sun kicks out ~4*10 to the 23 watts per second. the entire human race on the planet produces ~4*10 to the 12 watts in a year. analogy, a 100 story building and a sheet of paper next to it, you are saying the the paper is standing on edge and I say it is flat. We are still next to a 1000 foot building.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 Lockwood et al 2008 "It was shown that all solar forcings of climate have declined since 1987" "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings." GHG's hang onto more of the Suns energy than before because they have increased.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources The Maunder Minimum occurred at the beginning of he LIA and we are in another sun spot minimum again thus would explain the cooling that has gone on for the last ten-fifteen years. And explain the Hiding the decline in the CRU emails.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 1) It hasn't cooled! 2) 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on modern record and warmer than the previous one. WMO: In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
Professor Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has admitted
• Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
• There has been no global warming since 1995
• The Medieval Warm Period is hotter than it is now
• Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 You quoted from the Mail which misquoted Jones' BBC interview.Phil Jones said: from 1975-2009 the trend in degrees per decade was +0.161 actually.From 1995 to 2009 the trend was +0.12C per decade. He aslo said: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed" and "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity".You said: "Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes" -This is NOT saying that the current warming is natural.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources I listen to the complete audio of the interview and those were the statements made by Phil Johns. Of the last five earlier warming periods after ice ages how does this one compare with those five? If all humans were removed from the planet tomorrow there would be a .001% change in temp from if they remained.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 The fact you can't spell his name suggests otherwise. The interview was not broadcast, it was for internet only and is only available in text form. You copied and pasted direct from the daily mail news. To compare warming rates you need to have the same length of time to compare. Most heat is held in the oceans: In willis 2004: ocean heat measurements warming rate of 0.85 Watts per square metre from 1999-2003 . In 2000-2004 it was 0.9 Watts per sq m
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources So this cycle of warming is probably in the normal range of warming after an Ice Age. So all the suckers that are buying into AGW I need to sell the carbon credits to.. so back to the money question how many tones of carbon credits can I sell you.
cupera1 1 year ago
@checkyoursources So this cycle of warming is probably in the normal range of warming after an Ice Age. So all the suckers that are buying into AGW I need to sell the carbon credits to,so back to the money question how many tones of carbon credits can I sell you.
cupera1 1 year ago
Who is President "Abommer?"
gombis666 1 year ago
Not an excuse, but instead a pretty good darn REASON to disbelieve dishonest representations from The Hockey Team.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Met Office knew big freeze was coming but hushed it up
dailymail co uk / news / article-1343863 / Met-Office-knew-Decembers-big-freeze-coming-hushed-up dot html#ixzz1A4OXaQMC
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace This is direct from the met office, if you call this hushing up, i'd love to see what you would call an announcement.
Met office 19 Nov 2010: "forecasters at the Met Office are predicting a change to colder conditions "
22 Nov 2010: "Met Office forecasters have issued an Advisory of heavy snow"
25 Nov: "The cold and snow showers are forecast to affect other parts of the UK"
checkyoursources 1 year ago
Typical commie bbc, not letting the skeptic speak, skepticism is an integral part of science.
'what an areshole' you the f***ing areshole professor Watson
Amd no he didn't kick ass at all!!!
No I am off to play in the strange white stuff the AGW warmist ecotards told us ten years ago we would never see again.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
2000-2009 was the warmest decade on modern record.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "2000-2009 was the warmest decade on modern record."
so your claim is that one recent decade is warmest in 150 years. basically, one decade has to be warmest of the last 150 yrs.
so you're properly reduced to small claims that don't actually have necessary significance
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
2000-2009 is not a decade.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace Yes it is. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,2008, 2009. Ten years there, count them. It was the hottest decade on record.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
Just keep ignoring the real facts and keep subscribing to George Monbiot's daily cause, 2010 did happen and there was no mega hot summer or wild winter, your political religion is dying, give it up and find some new marxist ideology.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace
sorry 'mild winter'
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace Have you learnt that 2000-2009 was a decade yet?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
tell me something
if its too hot, its global warming
if its too cold its global warming
then how ever in history could we prove that agw is not real or has their been no climate change since the industrial revolution.
Your whole system of evidence makes it completely impossible to prove agw is not real and by that logic it makes it impossible to prove that agw is real.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
Stop flagging comments you don't like you eco fascist
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace I don't need to flag your comments. p.s. science doesn't work on "proof", it works on reducing uncertainty. AGW is the current best explanation of recent rapid observed warming for the last 4 decades. Please feel free to suggest an alternative theory.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
Yeah the same one that has been changing the climate for the last billion plus years, Nature and my favorite heavenly body, SOL!
P.S.
The Medieval warm period was real, the last Ice was real, the last mini ice was real, the coming mini ice age is real.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace The last ice age and past climate shifts were explained by either the sun or orbital wobbles but the current warming phase is not explained by either of these two factors because 1) We aren't in an orbital "wobble" and 2) The suns output hasn't risen in 40 years and 3) you don't seem to appreciate that it is not only natural cycles that can cause a change. By your logic only lightning (natural) can start a fire but matches (man made) cannot.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
*yawn*
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
Co2 follows heat , heat is caused by the sun.
and
Underwater volcanoes heat the oceans. simple.
WE NEED more heat we are going into an ice age and OAPs cannot afford to heat their houses because of marxists sh1te bags like you and your elitist carbon tax !!!
THEIR DEATHS WILL BE ON YOUR HEAD SCUMBAG
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Got it?
Can you provide a peer reviewed paper that states that oceans are being warmed more than before by underwater volcanoes? If that were the case we would see the oceans being warmed from underneath. How exactly do you equate scientific data with marxism and being elitist? Writing in capitals does not make your argument any less incorrect.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Then why is there a 300-800 year lag in the rise of CO2 from the temperature rises. What did humans do that far bake in time that caused the Little ice age to stop and start this cycle for warming.
cupera1 1 year ago
@cupera1 Co2 causes temp rise AND temp rise causes higher levels of CO2. Don't fall into the trap of assuming that only lightning can cause a fire and not matches.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
independent co uk / environment / snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017 html
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000
"Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives."
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is,"
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
@therhythmicmenace You really should try quoting from peer reviewed sources, not newspapers. The number of years with heavy snow in the Swiss Alps has decreased since the 1980's. e.g. Switzwerland "since the mid-1980s, the length of the snow season and snow amount have substantially decreased" Benistin, Institute of Geography, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. In the UK there has been an average increase in temps and less snowy winters since the 60's Look up 1962/3.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
So you agree that you cherry pick the new testament then?
Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves: "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship into many of his parables. Are these your morals? odd how Jesus did nothing for the 99.9% of the population outside his immediate area when alive?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Props to you. You scared that moron away! :)
DemonZonkey 1 year ago
@DemonZonkey At last! Glad we can all get back to the topic of the video now.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
Talk about BBC bias. That presenter gave Andrew Watson far more time to speak and never interrupted him like she kept doing with Marc Maron.
CrankCase08 1 year ago
The guy who looks like Richard Dawkins on meth kicked ass!
IAimToMisbehave42 1 year ago
Notice the way the biased BBC interviewer interrupts and talks all over Marc Morano while letting that corrupt twit Watson waffle on as long as he likes.
MMGWsceptic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out the official UEA Summer Bash video on my channel! :D
WINYARD87 1 year ago
There is no such thing as AGW. In fact. co2 rises only after temperature rises. It is a scientific fact. This is about AGENDA 21, The Rome groups initial plan to use this in lew of war to implement the agenda. This cod fucking limey bastard should be shot for all the tax dollars that went into his worthless pocket. I'm serious about this. Men like him should not be allowed to remain on this earth. He is pushing the global elitists agenda and should not be allowed to speak
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources If you filled a stadium. With people in colored shirts 30,000 to be exact. The ones that represent all the gases and water vapor and all other pollutants and natural atmospheric conditions wore blue shirts. And the ones that represent man made C02 in white shirts would the one's representing man made c02 stand out in the crowd? I kinda doubt it considering there would only be 4 people in white shirts. I rest my case. Man Made Global Warming is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago 3
@SuperGuitarman69 Your logic is more flawed than anyones I have ever seen. 1) You don't understand the difference between % composition and effect per molecule2) Only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere can has a forcing effect e.g. Nitrogen and Oxygen have almost no effect on Infra red absorption and they make up 99% of your "stadium". 3) i.e. those "white" shirts in your stadium contribute more to Global warming than all the oxygen and nitrogen put together.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Wow. Never ever heard a lie as cras as that. global warming is total and complete bullshit. Is there warming? Yes, ask the dinosaurs it was real hot back then. Ask those who lived in greenland when they had great soil for crops. Yeah it's been going on since the beginning of the earth warming and cooling. We have no effect on it in the least. We are ants on this mound of dirt. cannot effect it. Any moron who travels on a plane as much as I do and stares off into miles...Part1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 So far you have yet to provide an iota of evidence for your position? odd. Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. According to you what natural factor accounts for recent rapid warming?
p.s.Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Yeah if we would of had satellites up since the beginning of time you might have an arguement. It is a farce a sceme to make money. The global warming scam has already been exposed. Why do you think there is so little activity on these sites debating it??? It is over. People know and the ones who were believing it now are like "I dunno sounds fishy to me". It's over move on to something else. I've got a new Hummer that gets 6 miles to the gallon. Now that is a real energy crisi
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I ask you again: What explanation do you give for recent rapid warming?
p.s.Is it not rather silly to say its not being debated on this site when we are doing just that?
p.p.s. Try not to rant.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Actually for the last 10 years we have been cooling. Check the data checkyoursources
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Actually according to NASA, NOAA, the WMO, the EEA and the Met office 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on modern record. Maybe that is why you haven't given even one source for your statement.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Why should I it's all over the news. Let me ask you a question. Do you know when the last ice age ended???
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Which news? You would rather use a media outlet than direct from the satellites/weather stations and peer reviewed papers? odd.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources I told you. The data??? Who believes someone who is funded by the same people who stand to profit from Carbon offsets. Data is easily manipulated as seen in climate gate. Which I cared nothing about because I already knew the scam. Last ice age question???
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 I've asked you to explain how the royal society, The UK's independent scientific academy that supports the assertion that recent rapid warming is most likely to be caused by human emissions is making money from carbon offsets? p.s.Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped "climate gate" email incident.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 1)Several investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident. 2) Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans. 3) The recent rapid warming is unexplained by natural cycles.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Suuuuuuuuuuuure it did. LOL do you work for the IPCC??? You'd do better against someone who doesn't know the truth I think. Still no answer on that question huh???? LOL I can understand why
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 There are 6 degrees difference between the last ice age ending 10,000 yrs ago and todays temps. The average rate of change up until 1950 was around 1 degree per 1600 years. the last 40 years have seen a rate of change nearer 1 degree every 100 years. The last 40 years are unexplained by natural cycles. Read:PNAS February 5, 2008 vol. 105 no. 5 1425-1430
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Copy and Pasting I see. We are still in an ice age. Ya know I'm really not kidding. I'm beginning to think you work for some propoganda firm. You are spending a lot of time on someone who knows the issues. In fact, if tomorrow they said a giant astroid is coming towards earth. I would believe it. Right up til the point where they said we all have to quickly get into these zoning areas to survive. We will set up a central government to run the world after. I'd sip my coffee.. P1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 The only copy and paste was the peer reviewed paper from PNAS, the rest of the comment was all mine. Now then, are you going to keep dodging my question on What exactly you think has caused the recent rapid warming over the last 40 years. You can't be scared surely?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources finish my paper. Text everyone I know and tell them it is total complete bullshit. And after the little 3 day period I'd be proven right while the whole world would be ushered into the new world order.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Oh there we have it, another conspiracy theorist who believes aliens are in his cupboard and that 9/11 was an inside job. You are pitiful.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Your "opinion" is exactly what I would expect from someone who "believes" in a sky fairy and talking snakes. Go and watch you favourite programme- glenn beck.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Never said any of those things. And sky fairies??? Wow, you didn't tell me you were an atheist but I should have guessed. And no I've done the research on the conspiracy theories too. Some utterly dismissed. Others such as Global Warming and such??? Dismissed immidiately upon logical deduction. Sorry you couldn't win. It wasn't really something you could win on honestly. Science in respect to certain aspects? Flawed. And now?? Exposed.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Rather than waffle, please explain how you came to the incorrect conclusion that AGW is illogical. You have yet to provide any evidence for your view.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources First of all starting off with incorrect or calling me a denier. Which is a plain and simple reference to the holocaust. My study took me away from the science. Which was when I found out from the IPCC the ones who bailed because of fraudulant practices in the science I read that. Through that I followed those who were the most prominant voices on the matter. Maurice Strong for one. Through that I started studying the UN. By then I started seeing the money trail and agendas P1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 1)"denier –noun
a person who denies". The term denier pre-dates the holocaust. 2) You are simply a conspiracy theorist. You are clearly not a scientist and have no evidence to back your ideas. I pity you.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources No what I am tho and have a degree which required many hours of is logistics. You are probably more than likely a part in it somehow. Denier was used explicitly as a reference to the shame of the holocaust deniers. Oh and one more last thing. I know 2 former employees of Al Gores. They flat out told me that Al was doing it for one thing MONEY. He admitted that it was a long shot but it was worth it because of the finacial support he was getting.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Oh and your warming quip??? To answer you. Go back to the scientist in the 70's that was pushing us telling us there was another ice age coming. Maybe they know???
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). Check your sources. You have yet to explain recent rapid warming with natural factors? Is it because it isn't natural?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources The agenda that was set forth by 2 prominant organizations. The UN and the Rome Group. Now, if you follow the Cap and Trade legislation back to it's source it is the profit of numerous corporations which stand to profit from carbon offsets. Al and Maurice to name a few. BP, GE etc... Now who does GE own MSNBC. One of the biggest pushers or this garbage. Well now what do the UN and The Rome Group have to do with it. Well, the UN wants to see one world government. In the UN.. P2
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 looks like you've been listening to too much Glenn beck and Alex Jones. Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. It's a public programme, not some hidden conspiracy you loon.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Did I not just say it is all public knowledge?? I do not know who Alex Jones is
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You made a comment on Alex Jones video less than a year ago, short memory? You obviously think Alex Jones ( a certified lunatic and conspiracy theorist like yourself is correct.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources If I did I do not remember it. And how would you know unless you were propaganda for that side??? I mean honestly dude. Who goes around spouting about AGW?? And promoting it?? Why?? To get the word out?? Like mass media and Hollywood aren't already doing that??? What is the point??
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Charter there is AGENDA 21. Now this is no conspiracy. You can look it up on the UN site. Everything I am saying you can look up. AGENDA 21 is about putting people in zoned living areas. Based on habitable areas. In other words the taking of private property and the destruction of the constitution. The Rome Group is mainly bankers that own the rights to the shares of Carbon offsets. Making global corporations richer as well as the bankers who own them. The Rome Group knew.. P3
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@checkyoursources They would never be able to start a war that would involve Americans freely and willingly give up their individual freedoms and property much less their constitution. So they divised a sceme a scam. IN THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS IT IS IN THERE. Thought up in the 60's and put in motion in 1991. If you could convince the world that industry and cars energy consumption was killing the earth due to a natural earth life substaining substance ie... c02 you could break them in guilt. P5
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Now you scare the public to death. So big corporations funded huge movies campaigns you name it, in the direct will of scaring the ba jesus out of the masses. Now it has been working for a good while. There number 1 enemy?? The internet. There is so much shared information on the net. You can look up any info you want. I spent 3 years of my life researching this. In the middle of the 2nd year it was to overwhelming to remain a objective believer in AGW. So is that enough info?
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I cannot believe you would call every single scientist who has worked on climate change research a liar!? What a load of rubbish.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources News flash. There are tons of scientists who claim that if it is happening it is of no alarm at all and most of the ones of desent are totally claiming bullshit on it. There is NO CONSENSUS. Especially in THE IPCC. The most fraudulant of them all. And then caught red handed in a cover up and you defend that??? You have red flags all over you
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions. You are calling them all liars?
checkyoursources 1 year ago 8
@checkyoursources Indeed, the percentage of assertion is approx 97% of climate scientists. Why people refuse to concede to unanimous consensuses perplexes me
raidon04 1 year ago
@checkyoursources I'll tell you what. I'll prove it to you. Give me names and organizations of the so called scientists that have stated such. I will track AND find where they are recieving their funding. I will show you exactly what I am talking about. Am I calling them liars??? I cannot at the moment. But as I said in every instance that I tracked the funding sources?? YES I have found motive and propoganda. So, If you want to challenge me?? I'll do it. With the ok that I can copy and.. P1
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 The royal society, the Uk's oldest independent science academy. I would like to see how you think they will benefit from it?
You keep suggesting that NASA, NOAA, theroyal society, the met office, the WMO, environment agency, and every major academy on the planet is corrupt and lying. That is so ridiculous to anyone but your deluded self.The very fact that climatologist salaries are in line with other fields should give you some indication that there is no personal gain.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources As I said, I know everything you know. The science is based on an agenda. We are NOT destroying the earth. We are NOT going to give up tax dollars to save it. If someone wants to invent a alternative energy. Use THEIR own money take THEIR own risks. Put the product out there. If it is something I like? I might drive it. If not? Then I won't. Stay out of my life, and out of my cool ass Humvee
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You clearly don't know everything I know. If you even knew the basics of scientific thought or even probability then you would have grasped that the likelyhood of every single major scientific academy, NOAA, NASA, the met office, the WMO and all the rest being liars and all part of your deluded conspiracy theory is less than 0.5%. You clearly disagree with anything that affects your lifestyle. You are selfish and ignorant. You have issues separating science and politics.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources FAIL! No, selfishness comes from those who are trying to change others lifestyles so they can become rich off the tax payers of the worlds backs. THAT IS SELFISH. They cannot compete with others in the free market so they will steal it. Others have their agendas full blown. It is a scam a scheme from beginning to end. YOU ARE ENDORESING THEM!!! You are an enemy to freedom, liberty, and civil rights. You are part of the SCUM of the earth. And soon you will pay for that!!!!!!!!!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 As stated: The very fact that climatologist salaries are in line with other fields should give you some indication that there is no personal gain. Writing in capitals and adding to many "!"'s does not make you any less incorrect. It is also interesting that you have yet to provide any evidence. The rights of those already being affected by climate change do not seem to concern you? e.g. Economic damage to poorer, low latitude countries (Mendelsohn 2006)
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources I provided all the evidence needed. If someone happens on this blog I bet they will side with me.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You haven't provided any evidence as yet that humans are not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming as observed. Your bet is a poor one.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Yeah I have. Very unlucky for you most people have something called common sense. They know bullshit when they see it. Without even knowing all of what I know they can smell the stink of this elaborate lie.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 Nope, you are still being subjective. I repeat again: You haven't provided any evidence as yet that humans are not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming as observed.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 What you know? Not a lot based on the lack of evidence provided.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources paste your statements and your names and references along with the facts I provide across numerous other YouTube sites and end this once and for all!!!!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Be careful not to slip into an ad hominem, "also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." wiki
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources
So what made the Ice of the last iceage melt? Cave men were driving SUVs ? You dont know if 'all those institutions' are lying or not if the common man cant get access to the RAW data. Do you think the earths climate was the same since the day it was formed till the industrial revolution? We all agree, exhaust is bad for the nature, but paying a Carbon tax wont save the world. And whats next? Aliens are going to attack us ...?
tjcombo84 1 year ago
@tjcombo84 Yes, Climate changes but different factors can cause the change, currently its probably humans.The last ice age melt was caused by cahnges in the Earths orbit/suns output increasing. The current changes we have observed show neither of these e.g. read lockwood 2010. I know that climatologists have nothing to gain from lying as their salaries are not increasing any faster than any scientist in any other field.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@tjcombo84 Checkyoursources is full of shit. I wouldn't doubt he knows the guy who attcked the Discovery channel. He and him probably were roommates at the loony bin!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
Which source ? i didnt give you any source ? i didnt get your point.
tjcombo84 1 year ago
@tjcombo84 lol, no check your sources. The guy that you replied to on this video. He is a global warming pusher
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 If by "pusher" you mean I support the most likely explanation that humans are the primary driver of recent rapid warming observed over the last 3 decades then yes you could say i'm a "pusher" of scientific evidence over denial by people lke yourself. p.s around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position just like me. How does that make you feel?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources It is an agenda. Anyone with any common sense and rational thinking skills with ABSOLUTELY ZERO research can deduce that this is a complete scam top to bottom. There is reason why the AGW crazies and lying scam artists no longer are heard from any longer. A REASON why the lame stream media is no longer pushing it. The people arte not gullible and stupid past a certain point. No amount of making and lying can fool the masses after a certain point. It's over!!!!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.Comparisons to the most recent data consistently finds that climate change is occurring more rapidly and intensely than indicated by IPCC predictions. You are calling them ALL liars???
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Absolutely! They all have a stake in it. The earth had been hearing and cooling for centuries. Naturally. One volcanic explosion is more co2 emissions than we can produce as a species in a year. See there also is this big ball of has that is in the center of or galaxy called the SUN. Now when you look up don't state directly at it. Ok? But, the polar magnetic fields draw in the sun. I betcha that has a lot to do with it as well. But gee I'm no scientist. Jeez?
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 How likely is that the 200,000 plus scientists associated with the science academies worldwide are all liars and able to collectively get the same indepenedentb results? You have no logic! Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. (morner 2002) The sunsout put has not risen since the 1980's, the temperature on Earth has. read: (Lockwood et al 2010)
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources 200,000 plus scientists? Ok lol wow. You should call it quits right there. You are way beyond any kind of common sense. There isn't 200,000 people who even can spell global warming. Give it up!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.The AGU has 40,000 members, AAAS has 126,995 individual and institutional members, the Royal society has 1314 fellows, NASA/NOAA have over 5,000 members, not to mention the other 16 scientific academies that support the concensus on AGW. 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) Anderegg et al 2010
checkyoursources 1 year ago 4
@checkyoursources Yep they are making a fortune lying about it.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 That's odd because if you compare climatologists salaries with those of other scientists in other non climate fields at the same grade you don't see any extra pay for climatologists. Who is more likely to be correct, me and 200,000 plus scientists or you?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Yes me. Why? Because I have sense. Cap and Trade is a scam. It is easy to get climatologists to say anything when you are giving them grants. My cousin is a climatologist. He says it's all bullshit as well. Give it up!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Your cousin? Care to name a paper he has published on climate?
If what you said was true and 200,000 scientists were all lying, that would mean a dishonesty rate of 100%, do you really think that is likely?
You have an issue with cap and trade, fine...but why take out your anger on the innocent people who reported what they observed, i.e. the scientists, who are simply the messengers. If you dislike the policy, attack the policy, not the science!
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Look. It is simple. Fly across the United States. 330 million people and miles upon miles of open inpopulated space. WAY more open than even the most populated areas. The earth is 75% water. It is absolutely a joke to try to pawn this non-sense on rational human beings that clearly can see that it is 100% bullshit! I wanna know why you are pushing this? What iss your agenda?
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 The volume of the troposphere (75% of the Atmospheres mass) might seem big but divide the the volume by the number of people and you find that there is not very much atmosphere per person after all, head straight up and you reach space pretty quick. There are 51 people per sq km of land on the planet, 32 per sq km in the USA. Don't let open areas decieve you when you ignore the cities with 19,000 per sq km in the USA e.g. Union city
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Grow much are you being paid to do this. ? What is your reason? You will never convince anyone. Lies or not.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Ad hominem, ad hominem. Can you name a journal your cousin has published in? I doubt it.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Who is paying you? Why are you doing this? Answer the question! It are you a disingenuous jerk? Don't ad hominem me. That is the admission if guilt!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Nope, it's still an ad hominem, you attack me with accusations, ungrounded ones, instead of attacking my argument. next.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Typical. That used to work doesn't anymore. You are being paid. The thing is? It is not working. You are failing whom it that is employing you. Or you are Al Gore playing on youtube. Either one is laughable. You will not answer. Typical. And states that you are not to be taken seriously.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Ad hominem, ad hominem.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Wow. Bingo! Nailed it right on the nose. You are being paid to do this. Makes complete sense to me now. See, this is why AGW is no longer viable. Most already smelled a rat before. Then after the scandal? It was over. Yet, those whom are paid such as you, are still pushing. Why? Because those who are in the scam are standing to lose billions. To bad for them. And YOU!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 A Pathetic Ad hominem. If you seriously think that people are making money from climate change then why haven't you invested in Al Gore's companies?
Or are you just all wind and no substance?
What exactly is your evidence that I am in any way paid to argue with you?
Does that include all the other people who disagree with you. Are you seriously suggesting that billions of people who support AGW are all paid to do so and lie about it???
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Why don't I invest in Al Gore's companies? Easy, I am not a lying shit bag trying to get tax payers money because I am to stupid to get it by competition in the free market. You are no different than the ridiculous peer journals that post junk science to keep the gravy train rolling in. Yes simple fundamental logic provides that YOU are either being paid or incredibly indoctrinated by the agenda. There was someone like that who strolled into the Discovery Channels building!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You would be the expert in indoctrination seeing as you believe in a particular sky fairy do you not?
If you honestly think it's all a scam then write a peer reviewed paper, do some research and get it published. By the way do you 1) think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? 2) think that globally temps have not risen between 1975-2009? 3) think that humans don't release huge amounts of CO2 through industry?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Here we go. Sky fairy? A typical leftist! You are consistently 100% wrong on EVERY single issue. You are NOT of the intelligence level to be innovative, creative enough to compete in free enterprise. You chastise those with superior intellect. Your liberal agenda has DESTROYED this country. Schools, post office, DMV, taxation. Taxes on everything we do. Inheritance tax, Capital gains. Now you have the dumbest Harvard piece of shit on earth in office. Go to hell you atheist FUCK
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Are you of the intelligence to appreciate that the likelyhood fo your being right about your particular brand of sky fairy is less than mine of being correct that their almost certainly isn't one. You have resorted to petty ad hominems, a sure sign of emotion and subjectivity overcoming your objectivity. If you want to blame scientists for letting you know some bad news then maybe you should stop using anything that science has given you, starting with computers.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Another thing. My cousins started the Tea Party. Wanna talk about their credentials? They have law degrees from Yale and are constitutional scholars. We on the founding fathers side were routing you out like the gutless Alinski, Cloward and Piven pieces of shit you are. You Do NOT DESERVE what MY founding fathers fought and died for! You WILL NOT destroy America. We are taking back the schools and teaching truth in this country. You mock Beck. He kills your agenda with truth!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Eh? How many cousins do you have? first you had a climatologist as a cousin (although you didn't name a journal they had published in or who they work for odd?), now you are making an appeal to authority that because your alledged cousins have degrees in law from yale that this somehow makes them qualified to talk about climate science?
Explain exactly what "your" founding fathers fought for, it was secularism if I remember correctly, but then you are a secularist.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 While at a Tea Party event on February 27, 2009, a photo was taken of TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar. [sic]" on it. Is that your cousin?
The tea party movemnet started as an way of campaigning against a tax on full sugar sodas in an attempt to reduce obesity. Obesity costs the US billions each year.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources 2ndly. Once again I will reiterate. Peer journals are only propaganda machines. I can give you 1000's of printed studies that turned out to be either inaccurate or false. They are a complete joke. The march on Washington was peaceful. They even cleaned up after themselves unlike the pompous asses that came to YOUR 1 term presidents inauguration and left Washington in shambles. And regards to your COMPLETE stupidity on the tea party. You throw out racial slander? Racists are P2
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 You do know what peer review means? i.e. checked independently by other experts in the field who see if the results of the paper are repeatable and valid. How you got so confused between science and politics is truly astounding.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Yes I know what it is. Exactly why I tell you they are a JOKE! Obesity? No wrong in that, but you're a leftist you lie. In fact Alinsky said it was ok to. No, we shouldn't be paying a dime as tax payers to anyone elses healthcare to other than our own or families. As the GREAT Milton Friedman said once to the 2 idiots Cloward and Piven, society doesn't care about people, people care about people. Like it our not "SOURCES", common sense is making a comeback!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Do you think the billions that Maurice Strong has put into"science" won't have the end result HE wants? Do you know who owns those peer review journals? Do you think you are blogging with someone who knows this information? Give it a rest already. As I have stated they atte all frauds. All of them. It is all about the money!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Can you provide some e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. for your view?
You really want an excuse to run the environment into the ground for short term gains don't you. Your excuse is to pretend that AGW is not the most likely primary driver of recent rapid warming and that it is all some conspiracy.
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Who are you? Who is paying you? How much money are you going to lose or already have lost by the rejection of man made global warming by the masses? Oh who am I kidding I'm talking to a half witted Marxist atheist. You are like talking to my end tables. It does no good. Your brain haas been sucked out of your head. You take your marching orders from the left. Hitler was good at that too!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I don't need to be paid to argue with people like you who only care about money, not people. To call me a marxist because I think there are better and in the long term cheaper and safer ways of producing electricity than using fossil fuels is laughable. How is your sky fairy by the way? which one did you pick, thor, ra, zeus?
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources You are a Marxist. It is about money. People work hard to provide for their families. Then because of people like you their money is taken away by force. Ie.... Taxation to pay for your pet projects. The thing is YOUR projects are all based on lies and propaganda. Hence why AGW no longer has relevance. You are an atheist. There is nothing more telling about a persons character than that. Your belittling of those of faith shows you have possession of some sort. Sad really.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I support tax as a way of protecting the vulnerable. In the US you pay some of the lowest taxes in world, yet produce almost 25% of the pollution. Tax money goes straight back into the public domain, no taxes = no cheap education, no police, no army, no fire brigade, no cheap healthcare. Capitalism does some things well e.g. consumer products, but it does not do services very well e.g. energy supply, hospitals
checkyoursources 1 year ago
@checkyoursources Actually no. Government does nothing well. Or public schools pale to private. Our hospitals that are privately funded are superior to the public ones. The post office cannot compete with private carriers who through competition keeps costs down. In energy? If the there is demand by the public for such goods? Not only would they be available they would be affordable. Free markets are the corner stone of higher standards of living at affordable costs. Gov is the problem!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago