Hey, you know what, 10 times as many people lke thia vid as displike it. And when you read the comments on news websites about AGW stories, there is a similar ratio of sceptics to alarmists.
90% of people are sceptics. Period. If AGW was put to the vote it would disappear overnight.
look at the tree ring data and compare it to other proxy data and compare it to the direct measurements and you will see only the tree ring data declines from the 1960's on. but that would mean actually research things rather than cherry picking parts of emails out of context.....
we haven't seen any increase in temperature? wtf is this guy retarded? has he once looked at the NASA data or the Japanese data? they come to the same conclusion as almost every single climate researcher........
PJTV seems to be a weirdos channel......
the guys have no clue about decline of tree ring data....
I think that Global warming is a very complex scientific issue and shouldn't be decided in the hallway between two people trying to outtalk each other.
I think PJTV should be criticizing the Government on its failure to properly investigate the matter and react in a sane and competent manner if indeed there is a problem.
Not the best of PJTV. I found out about PJTV just recently and watched through a lot of their videos and support their work. But this video is not playing well. The so-called reported is trying to shove his views down the throats of those he's interviewing. And obviously they refuse to accept his side. There are no facts here, just his word against someone else's.
Was there ever a time when the climate didn't change? I love Monckton's statement to the effect: "They call themselves green because they are too yellow to call themselves red"
@pimpdalyrical Globally this has been one of the coldest winters on record. Recond cold temps and snowfalls. Ice in Bejing, headlines about the Mongolian people in danger from the cold...The Mongols...these are Tough, tough people and it's so cold in Mongolia that they are threatened by it. As you listen to these pretend "Global Warming" experts remember where you are sitting used to be a glacier.
These people are SHEEP!! Evidence, right in front of their faces that they are being lied to, and they don't want to hear it!!!
The IPCC is THE most central hub for the global warming community. They have been manipulating data, strong arming peer reviewed journals from publishing conflicting science, using flawed programming to generate dishonest predictive models, and the IPCC report has names of contributers on it, from scientist who disagree with it's findings.
I need to start ove rand count how many times they use the word cherry picked.
So if we found damaging Emails in the millions of the Emails sent in the Bush Administration & narrowed them down to the 100 most damning... that would be cherry picking?
They were the ones cherry picking their data for years and now want to act like they have gotten better at their data collection?
If it was that bad just a few years ago, how can we trust data from 1800s
Myron, get an organ that produces testosterone. Then, get one that promotes rational thought. How many times did Ebell repeat "hide the decline" without explaining what it was?
Oh, and Myron, NASA's GISS Land Ocean Temperature Anomaly graph shows the last 10 years as the warmest decade on record.
@TRMerc You have an error with time. The earth is billions of years old, not millions. Knowing how prone to error you are, you won't appreciate the rate at which the atmosphere has changed in the last 160 years.
It's the pace of the change that is causing the alarm. Think of yourself having to walk a hundred miles to the grocery store, or in your case, the liquor store. Then, someone gives you a Murciélago for your next trip. See the difference? Probably not.
True, but what harmful effects is it going to have on the earth? Some species will become extinct? Well they would have had to deal with this warmer weather anyway so they just have to adapt sooner. The ocean levels are going to rise? So we lose a few beaches.
What is the WORST that will happen at this RATE of change... cause it was bound to get this warm or warmer sooner or later
So why does that matter, we are looking at longer term trends where we have to marge proxy data and instrument data. These don't support that conclusion or that this static decade is meaningless, what is says is many major components of the climate system don't support the conclusion that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks..
Oh man, I am a scientist I doubt you are but lets see.
The last decade hasn't warmed which is why it is static. It isn't cheery picking because 1997 seems to be the start of a oceanographic regime shift.
Right H2O is very variable and I would argue not understood. The atmosphere hasn't increased in humidity as predicted. So assigning it a value (+,-) can not be done as you did. That would mean precipitation can be modeled correctly because it is the controlling factor not surface temp.
@EasyEs I know you will say this is cherry picking but, NASA GISS Land Ocean Temperature graphs show the last decade as the warmest on record.
If a mass of atmosphere increases in temperature and the mass of water vapor remains the same, the relative humidity goes down. If the air temperature goes up the water vapor mass can increase without increasing the relative humidity. You don't believe in the dew point fairy bunny. I do.
No the point is that it didn't get warmer as predicted by the models reviewed by AR3. I don't care that it is the warmest according the GISS over the last century.
Uh thanks for the overview.? Not sure of your point, .but to save time and space I will just state that finding the extra water vapor in the atmosphere hasn't been done yet when looking at the Aqua satellite data.
The blame aerosols excuse doesn't stack up as an explanation.
Okay I see where the confusion is. I used term humidity, with out also adding that total water vapor content also needed to increase. Yes warmer air can hold more water vapor, then colder air. The atmosphere is much more complex though and "can" leads to more questions.
If it can but doesn't which is what the data tells me I am interested in the why it doesn't and I don't think the any studies reviewed by the IPCC do a good job of explaining this phenomenon.
Yes and the middle of the United States use to be an ocean because the earth was so warm the ice caps melted to that point
Tell me though who's SUV was at fault then? This might be the warmest year of instrumental data but it isn't the warmest the earth has ever been, in fact it has been a LOT warmer. Thing England being a tropic zone
What I'm saying is that don't go screaming the sky is falling when humans aren't doing something that hasn't been done before
The earth warms and the earth cools it's called a 'cycle' you see they believe that the middle ages (1066-1600's) were WARMER then now, but that's only the environmentalists that aren't acting like fire and brimstone preachers
So explain how it was warmer during middle ages then now with no SUVs or factories?
@TRMerc The Medieval Warm Period was regional only. It wasn't as spectacular as some would wish. Debate is still ongoing about its cause.
The atmosphere has changed faster since the industrial revolution than at any other time. CO2 is up 38% in 150 years. Dr Hansen believes that ice did not exist on Antarctica until it dropped below 450 ppm. It's currently 387 ppm and rising.
Once again, it's the speed of the change that is the concern. Don't worry, nothing will be done about it.
Yes in the European area, also parts of Asia, Africa, North and South America
While some areas experienced more warming other experienced less... does that change the fact over all the earth was warmer then? Cause if it wasn't how could the little ice age have so much impact
Warmer? Where, when and for how long? There are reasons why Greenland has ice that is over 150K years old. The Ellesmere Island ice shelf that collapsed was over 4500 yo. The Wilkens and Larsen B ice shelves were thousands of years old and they collapsed.
You are happily oblivious to the speed at which things are changing. Something tells me that you will insist on remaining oblivious.
just using the error that is in the data which places that periods warmest possibly over today's possibles. If you look at the non-average chart it will show that
Also if the earth was never warmer then now. Why isn't the ice MILLIONS of years old? Cause it was warmer in the past. How warm does it have to be for plants and animals to GROW to the size of the dino's? Cause obviously things in Africa are smaller then Europe
Among other things, one argument stands out as wholly un-scientific: the claim of it being "settled" "case closed" & "consensus" (and therefore, anyone who isn't a part of the consensus is dismissed). If science worked that way, then no existing scientific theory could ever be challenged.
And given how massively complex the environment is, how could anyone ever be so confident about how it works? We can't predict the weather 24hrs in advance, but we know this with absolute certainty?
this globel warming ppl just thing their so right in the 19 hundreds Docs thought leeching was a good idea to stop fever and we all know that work so well lol
@peacechild61 I used to respect the whole green movement, now I think they are a vile evil body, whose self seekinglies and deceit actully harm the planet and life.
Nitrogen oxides are 128 times more potent/effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, what are those used for, just 99% of the world's plant fertilizer....take that greens
This guy from CAP needs to read an article published in Science (2005) that stated (from satellite info) that the Greenland Ice Sheet was losing mass at the rate of... 0.5% per CENTURY.
I like how they showed the smug of these guys but that last interview seemed kind of crammed down. If only he had the emails, huh? He spoke of of a "Glenn Beck-anization". lol Glenn Beck sure is a loon
You should have asked them a hypothetical question that if global warming was debunked would they go along with it or would they try to discredit the person(s) presenting the information? I think they got tenure in a made up problem. That much they hope is settled.
I thought there for a moment that Myron had lost it to Faiz but he held his ground. Very good. These guys (climate zealots) aren't going to give up their paycheck without a fight.
Climate changes all the time. Never did I think the day would come that people would accept a lie that climate is caused by humans yet ignore the solar activity and cycles of the SUN!
BTW... Sorry. I added this as a favorite which means a stalker by the name of skank will likely troll his way here. I blocked the fool and he manually trolls my account on an hourly basis so he can find me on other videos and talk to me. It's sort of creepy.
Again, climate change =/= weather change. The AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE has been going UP rather sharply. So what if it snowed in Texas? Texas is NOT the world. How bout you take a look at what's happening to the lakes in East Africa, eh? Why don't you tell those Kenyans and Tanzanians that their water sources disappearing is "just a conspiracy"? What's so hard to understand, 4G? If you do x, you will get result y. If you spew heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere, YOU GET CLIMATE CHANGE.
338dmac: You clueless naive little man. Nobody is disputing that the earth isn't going through weather cycles. The debate (which the climate zealots refuse to engage because they know they'll be humiliated) is about whether it's anthropogenic. Now get out of here and let the adults talk. Children should be seen and not heard.
"Seen and not heard"? What are you Amish or something? Or a fundie muslim? Sheesh... Gee, I guess I'll just "get out of here and let the adults talk", JUST because you told me to. I guess I have NO CHOICE but to listen to the internet pussy pushover and do exactly what he says. Eat my shit cabron! :D Seriously, what the hell kind of response did you expect? 1) People ARE disputing climate change, anyone who's been on the internet for five fuckin minutes knows that. 2) Don't even (cont.)
call the phenomenon a cycle if you have ZERO evidence that any such cycle exists. 3) Climate change HAS to be at LEAST partially anthropogenic. As I said before, how the hell can you release sooooo many heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere for soooo many years in such high concentrations and NOT expect any environmental consequences? What, are you retarded? It's just common fucking sense; you spew enough shit into the atmosphere, it is GOING to have an EFFECT on the environment.
BTW. Man produced CO2 is barely measurable compared to the naturally occurring production of CO2. We don't even make 2% with all the industry and people breathing.
I just set that fool up with a question to see what he answers. Because the EVIDENCE I will post after his answer will blow his lies, and Al Gore's lies, out the door!
... What, was that it? That some GreenPeace person disagreed with some scientists? Please tell me that wasn't it, that I was waiting for something that wasn't going to come... dammit.....
I honestly don't know, I am not going to lie, I don't study the environmental shit like that very much, but there are plenty of people who do. Go ask them. I look at it from a logical perspective, and logic tells me that if you endlessly, non-stop release heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere over a period of over a hundred years, you are going to see effects come of it. If you pollute the ocean, there will be an impact. If you pollute the soil, there will be an impact. Air is no different.
So how do you know that man is causing "global warming" with CO2 if you don't even realize that
1) It has been in FACT cooling for over 10 years, that's why they are dropping the stupid global warming phrase for the new "Climate Change" phrase...
2) In the medieval period not too long ago yet far before industrialize man, it was quite a bit more warmer than it is now and for some period of time. Approx 1100 to 1400 or so AD.
CO2 is GOOD. I make as much as possible. Life will thrive!
Yes, CO2 is good IN THE RIGHT AMOUNT. I hope you're not enough of a simpleton to think that the more CO2 the better, because "plants like it". It's a matter of balance, and we are upsetting that balance. Too much CO2 is bad because plants can't keep up with its production and the excess goes towards trapping heat in the atmosphere. Imagine if you tried to breathe straight Oxygen (hint: you would die).
"In the past"? What, like during the formation of the Earth? "We could use more heat"? Yeah, and more drought? Sure, your grapes might do better in the Mediterranean or wherever, but as I said, it's causing the lakes and wells in the Middle East and East Africa to dry up. But what do you care, you probably don't think black people or Arabic people are worth as much as a gun-totin, beer-chuggin white man. Yeah, you could grow them further from the equator, but then what about AT the equator? Duh!
Yup. There is ZERO evidence that CO2 drives temp but we have evidence that temp drives CO2!!!
We also have evidence of warmer periods, even within the last 1,000 years long before industrialized man and long long before Al Gore was flying a LEAR JET all over the world to promote a lie that will make him even more rich!
I agree GGGG: In Girabaldi Provincial Park (Brit. Col.) there were glaciers receding and under those glaciers were intact tree stumps in their original soil.
In other words, it was full of trees and warmer thousands of years ago, until the glaciers took over.
Got to LOVE the facts that Al Gore can't cover up!
The Medieval warm period within the last 1,000 years is my favorite because there is a lot of documented history of that time when grapes and other agriculture thrived for a period of time where it is still too cold today! :-]
I was impressed by the measured and well articulated discussion by both sides on that last interview. I wish more of the debates about this would go that way. Lately it seems that one side always wants to condescend to the other and nothing constructive comes out of it.
no, that last guy did when he said the scientists trying to suppress opposing viewpoints were unethical but then basically saying its ok because it doesn't help his cause.
Maybe. But if it doesnt make sense and deviates the primary study it should be thrown out due to lack of relevancy.
If it were valid it would be considered. I believe one of the studies thrown out had something to do with an unknown cosmic energy from outside are universe or other ridiculous phenomena.
You seem to be one of the "its a conspiracy" flock so im sure you got a million and one excuses to ignore reality.
if you are saying I believe scientists conspired to suppress opposing viewpoints from being published, then yeah, im part of the "conspiracy" flock you speak of.
But to believe climate change (the natural ups and downs of the climate) is a conspiracy is totally nuts. I just don't believe it is as important an issue as hunger today.
If you want to keep assuming though, thats fine, keep asserting your stupidity so that all can see.
Im glad you brought up "hunger". That is a great part of the reason why many more people are taking man enhanced climate change seriously. The last thing we need is to continually contribute with dire effects such as drought or flooding, wiping out food supplies. No one has ever said the Earth doesn't naturally go through changes in climate. But it would be nice to keep it that way. Natural.
Im a skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist. I believe once politics are involved then the game changes and I especially can't stand gore with his cg global warming effects. For a man who preaches so much he is quite a hippocrite.
I believe we should conserve energy and find alternative fuel sources, you are just sad if you don't. I just want to see solid proof we as humans caused this climate change they speak of. I am pretty sure (maybe I am wrong though) that there is no actual proof.
Have you noticed how different people, from different institutions use the exact same expressions and tout the identical claims. I wonder if the enormous left-wing organization has a secret memo that spells out these things..........QUICK! Where's the Climagate hacker when you need him/her! lol........(had to put him/her to be politically correct...LOL....)
see, this is how i know the people buying into this whole conspiracy theory are idiots. i've been very cooperative in answering every question thrown at me, making sure to provide evidence to back up my claims, and for some reason, just about all of my comments are being thumbed down to where they are no longer visible. and i'm apparently the one in denial??? give me a break!
this idiot ebell keeps hitting on the topic that the world hasn't been warming for the past ten years. the fact is, the earth is warming. in fact, 11 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. what's even worse is he's trying to attibute this lie to a credible scientist, kevin trenberth, when that's not what he said.
oh really? and i suppose you're basing that on everything you hear from the honest people at pjtv. that last interview, where ebell throws out the number of the warmest decade on record being in the 1930, and attributing it to james hansen. the fact is that figure is referring to the u.s. only which makes up less than 2% of the world's surface area.
It is amazing, all of the people that say there is no God, only science and yet they themselves ignore the science and go with what they want to believe. The irony is simply incredible.
Then why did it just recently snow in Austin, Texas? This has only been the 4th time in RECORDED HISTORY that it has snowed there. Furthermore, it was the earliest snowing in the season! Hm?
first off, that could hardly be considered snow what we experienced here a few weeks ago. secondly, you're confusing local weather with global climate. as i pointed out already, ebell tried to pull this same trick by stating that we haven't experienced warming because the hottest year on record wasn't the 1990's but the 1930's. however he's talking about the u.s., and not the entire planet.
and btw, it's snowed several times in austin's history. it snowed just last year. i even recorded it. and it snowed about 4 years before that. and before that i think it snowed 12 years ago when i moved to austin. are you saying those are the only 4 times in recorded history that it's snowed here? because my friends who have lived here since the 70s might have a difference of opinion with you.
Climate change does exist. Unfortunately for these folks that just don't get it, it isn't caused by man, it's a natural shift. Anything changes these "global warming" people are trying to inject are going to be disastrous. They'll do more damage than help. Extremely sad.
If you did your reasearch, you would see that there are actually many different theories about the Dinosaur's extinction, but NONE of them have ever been conclusively proven.
The only reason none of them can be conclusively proven is because we have no dinosaurs to test any of the hypotheses on, nor do we want to crash a meteor into the earth right now, so you're going to have to excuse me if I trust the notion that dinosaurs were indeed in fact killed off laregely in part because a meteor hit the earth, which is what the soil records indicate. Now could you give me any evidence of these so-called "cycles" you speak of? And climate change is NOT "weather change".
Mmm-hmm. "Good" is anything that advances the cause, eh?
Sorry -- consensus has NO place in science. Nobody needs to agree on *anything* for facts to be facts. So sad that some people would rather stick to their fake "facts" than learn everything they can.
Not too many years ago, our collective doom was wrapped up in the "fact" of global cooling. The EXPERTS assured us that we were headed for another ice age.
if the scientist are corrupted why wouldnt the data be corrupted the fact is global warming has no hard detailed mathematical facts in which science uses to explain how this effects the world, fake scientist fake data, fake data means fake global warming.
ok... forget the proxy data for a moment. let's assume scientists are idiots, and all the proxy data is garbage. what would be the first step you would take in trying to determing if the earth is warming?
Socialist Globalists (Regressives) had to create this SCAM emergency before the SHEEPLE would accept Social-Fascist Corporatist SLAVERY & the redistribution of money & power FROM the People TO Global Bankers, the Corporations they own & the corrupt politicians & Special Interest Groups they control through contributions.
$Trillions will be redistributed for "Green" technologies & CO2 trading schemes PLUS all the political power to be concentrated in Global Govt & New Global Financial Order.
Man lee is a little weasel. Hes pulling a Kirk Cameron/ Ray Comfort here. and asking smug questions with minimal understanding of what they are talking about. Boob
i would respond to myron ebell by offering him the same bet george monbiot offered him in a debate between the two of them, which he refused to accept. the bet: if global average temps. are higher for the next 10 yrs than they were for the past 10 yrs., he pays me 10,000 dollars. if they not, i'll pay him 10,000 dollars.
@cristoballs Yeah, Myron Bell is a ridiculous douchebag.
Bottom line on CO2 #: 50 years ago: 315 PPM, now 390 ppm, 50 years from now? 450PPM? 500PPM? That CO2 rise is manmade and a greenhouse gas, no conservative denies that.
BTW, I'm not an alarmist on MMGW. There are going to big huge losers, but also winners from it. Little is discussed of the positive effects of MMGW, nor that is inevitable as nothing can be done to stop it and little to slow it.
wow, these interviews are just the like the street interviews creationists like kirk cameron and ray comfort have become famous for doing, whereby they go about asking people who are not experts in a particular field of science questions about that field. then the interviewer will ambush the interviewee with a bunch of so-called "facts" which have already been thoroughly debunked. way to go pjtv. you're no better than creationists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I salute that first interviewee for his courage in actually speaking on camera. I believe his heart is in the right place, I dont believe he is evil like the politicians such as Al Gore and the other bastards.
The second guy was a flat out douche.
These tools have built their careers around this hoax, and therefore are unable to accept that their lives' work are based on a lie.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
cristoballs - These people are researchers and active proponents of the global warming agenda (Greenpeace, Center for American Progress). They did NOT just interview random people on the street.
Please provide citations to support your claim the emails have been "thoroughly debunked". You were wrong on your first point, so your further points are in question.
Facts are facts. Either disprove them, or don't try to insinuate they are lies by using quotation marks. It's cheesy and lame.
are you serious? do you know what the sierra club, greenpeace and the center for american progess are? they are not scientific research institutes, and they do not produce any peer-reviewed literature whatsoever. these are non-profit activist organizations. and the people they interviewed were a press secretary, and two research directors.
as for the debunking of their "facts" check out the videos produced by greenman3610 and potholer54. they detail explicitly why this video is b.s.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I repeat - these are active proponents of MMGW. They are the ones, among others, articulating and pushing the global warming agenda. Your comparison is inaccurate. I guess Al Gore is also off limits for questioning, because he's not a scientist?
The fact that you cite YouTube users, rather than a reputable (or any other) news agency as proof that the emails have been "thoroughly debunked" does not surprise me. Will you be citing Alex Jones' InfoWars site next? Or maybe an article at Wikipedia?
i repeat, "they are not scientists." and furthermore, while they may be active proponents of spreading news about climate change, you can't assume that they only ones, let alone the most qualified to speak on the science of global change. this would be like asking me to defend keeping creationism from being taught in our public schools. now, while i understand a good amount about evolution and the ongoing debate, i don't know enough to answer every question about it.
and since you obviously didn't watch the video, it's apparent that you did not find out why this entire climategate thing is b.s. if you'd like i'll be more than glad to send you statement from the american meteriological society as well as the article published in nature magazine which explains why "stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy". these are the sources highlighted in the video.
and no, i won't be citing alex jones, and it's obvious from his radio show that he's another moron who has bought into this whole conspiracy that there was some sort of coverup by scientists. so actually, if anyone's jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, it's you. thanks for helping in proving that point for me.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didn't say anything about knowing who he is, I was amused by your admission that you listened to his show... but thanks for illustrating your inability to comprehend what you read. It explains a lot.
The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand the full effects of man on the climate, but your ilk are arrogant enough to believe you do, and you're willing to ignore, marginalize or silence anyone who dissents.
Worse, you're willing to economically cripple us based on theory.
keep digging your whole. you're only making yourself look dumber. there's nothing incriminating about listening to someone's show. i've listen to glenn beck too, but i don't buy into his b.s. either.
"The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand the full effects of man on the climate"
yet, you pretend you do by claiming that climate change is a hoax. i'm at least basing what i believe on evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I never claimed listening to Jones is 'incriminating', I stated I was amused that you'd admit to it.
I have not stated ANYWHERE in these comments that climate change is a hoax. I questioned it's cause.
These are two factually incorrect statements you've made (in addition to your initial inaccurate comment) which clearly indicate you do not actually comprehend the things you read, and instead you are filtering them through your preconceptions.
Much as the scientists who wrote those emails did.
"I never claimed listening to Jones is 'incriminating'"
you implied that i was somehow a conspiracy theorist, just because i've watched his show.
and you responded to comment i made, where i was asking user, where they got the idea that climate change is a hoax. you did everything you could to defend that person's position. so don't give me this crap about what you did and didn't say.
furthermore, how can you even say you're not calling it a hoax, when say stuff like this:
"and instead you are filtering them through your preconceptions.
Much as the scientists who wrote those emails did."
you just admitted that you think the scientists were filtering data through their preconceptions... in other words, you believe it's a hoax. geez, you're an idiot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ archemedes314 - Good point.
@cristoballs - at every step you have shown your inability to process information as presented, without imposing your agenda upon it. You do not address what's actually said, instead what you imagine I am implying.
And as is so typical of your sort, when that fails to extricate you from your faulty statements, you resort to marginalizing your opposition by calling me an 'idiot'.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yes, run along, as it's obvious you won't even own up to what you were implying. there is no use in arguing with you as you will simply deny everything you say. read over your comments and tell how could construed any other way.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It seems I'm now guilty of making two factually incorrect statements, which I feel obligated to correct:
1. 'cristoballs' did not conclude by attempting to marginalize the opposition, he BEGAN that way, with his initial inaccurate comparison of this video to Kirk Cameron's videos.
2. Actual douche bags serve a practical purpose, so that designation by me was clearly inaccurate, if not inappropriate.
are you gluton for punishment or what? once again, i feel i have to remind you. the people being interviewed are not experts. this tactic by doren and ebell was nothing more than a sad attempt at trying to confuse science with advocacy for science. if you can't see that, you truly are an idiot. now, if you want to see how ebell reacts when confronted with actual experts, i'll be more than happy to provide with the videos to show how much of an idiot he is.
It's quite funny that you say that this video tries to confuse science with advocacy for science, cris! Because all the believers have is consensus of belief, which is decidedly NOT science.
Sadly, people that you would consider 'actual experts' have hidden the data that supports their claim and won't discuss the issue with non-believers, so that discussion is not likely to occur.
"Sadly, people that you would consider 'actual experts' have hidden the data that supports their claim"
really? show me the proof of that. show the full emails and not the bits and pieces that were quote-mined to present a some sort of conspiracy?
and this not about consensus among the majority. even skeptics, such as ebell, accept that the earth is warming and man is contributing to it. of course, his position tends to bounce around so much that he shouldn't be taken seriously.
The 'proof' is that there is no raw data available to us scientists. Not just CRU data. GISS raw data is also not available. You can only see the data that they have modified (increased the original data's temps). Strange that a group so confident of their findings would not allow others to re-create them.
If I'm wrong, please feel free to prove it by showing me where to get the data. Sadly, you can't :(.
Don't thumb me down simply because you disagree with me. That's tacky of you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you're getting thumbed down because you're repeating the usual lies.
from a recent article published in the mail online website:
"It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95 per cent of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years," said the university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor Prof Trevor Davies
It didn't require an FOI, and you also didn't get the original raw data. What you downloaded was the raw data with unspecified UHI (urban heat island) 'adjustments' added to it. You are looking at modified data, and believing it to be actual data.
I guess if you want to play the silly thumb down game, I'll play it with you. It's pretty lame though.
tell you what, i'll even hold off on thumbing you down, until you can provide me with the source that says that not only is the raw data adjusted, and that there is no original data available, but that the adjusted data was modified by an unspecified amount. deal?
cris, the source is the giss website. You can go there and see that there is no option to view unmodified data. Only UHI modified 'raw' data (heh. yes, they call the modified data 'raw').
I can't help you if you're going to be a true believer despite the facts, cris :(.
There is also the East Anglia CRU's own admission that they no longer have the unmodified data, and all they offer is modified data (before they withdrew ALL DATA yesterday and now offer no data at all).
this is statement i found from the giss website regarding their current method for surface temperature analysis:
"The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the UNADJUSTED data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations."
i capitalized unadjusted for added emphasis. furthermore, nasa data sets are not the same thing as the GHCN datasats, which i pointed you in the direction of originally. as for east anglia university, i assume you're referring to "less than 5%" number which they admit to destroying. this data, which they aquired from noaa stations is still available at those stations. are you tired of being wrong? because i have no problem correcting every lie you repeat. it's actually kinda fun.:-)
Excellent, Cris! You are almost to the heart of the matter. Now, do your best to try to look at/download that UNADJUSTED data. Sadly, you will find yourself unable to do so, because it's been hidden from you and the rest of the masses.
Don't you wonder why that is? Why can you only download ADJUSTED data?
And again I implore you, can we stop with the thumb down thing? It's kind of annoying, and it's making your comments difficult to read since they become hidden at -5. Thanks in advance.
no. i don't wonder. because it's not hidden. as i've already mention nasa collects their info from a number of places. one of which is the ghcn. so if you want the adjusted data, simply go to the ghcn website. do a search for unadjusted data and you will eventually your way to an ftp directory page.
on that page you will find a read me file, telling you exactly which file contains the unadjusted data, which i have downloaded. here's what the readme file says:
"***"raw (unadjusted) temperature series"*** - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.max.gz" if you want monthly mean maximum temperatures that are not bias adjusted; OR - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.min.gz" if you want monthly mean minimum temperatures that
are not bias adjusted; OR - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.avg.gz" if you want the average of monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures that are not bias adjusted. where YYYY and MM refer to the Year and Month when the files were updated. "
if you'd like, i will be more than happy to download the files for you and email to you if you are unable to find them, but please, give up this delusion that the information is being hidden from you or anyone.
so what now? are you going to deny that that's not the unadjusted data? if so, there is no satisfying you because you truly are a conspiracy theorist. or can you admit you are wrong?
and don't worry about me thumbing down your comments. i want them to get as many thumbs as possible so that the world can see who reluctant some people have become to looking at the facts, so much so, that they'll even thumb down the response to questions asking for where to find things like unadjusted data sets. so thumbs up to you and to everyone else who's lying about deleted data. cheers!!!
"so if you want the adjusted data, simply go to the ghcn website."
I do NOT want the ADJUSTED data, cris! That's what I've been complaining about since we started this discussion. I've had my fill of that at the GISS website.
But if you think that you are indeed holding the unadultered raw data in a format that is useable (i.e. gps/time/temp), I'd be forever grateful if you'd forward it to me. I'll be more than happy to code it into graphs. Email below.
Hey, you know what, 10 times as many people lke thia vid as displike it. And when you read the comments on news websites about AGW stories, there is a similar ratio of sceptics to alarmists.
90% of people are sceptics. Period. If AGW was put to the vote it would disappear overnight.
zzebowa 2 months ago
7 investigations of the CRU and nothing has been found. The hell with conservatism
skisheavenly 2 months ago
4:57 -> "I don't honestly care what they do as long as we come out with the right conclusions" ?
What is this, a religion ?
zamestol 4 months ago
look at the tree ring data and compare it to other proxy data and compare it to the direct measurements and you will see only the tree ring data declines from the 1960's on. but that would mean actually research things rather than cherry picking parts of emails out of context.....
Aanthanur 1 year ago
we haven't seen any increase in temperature? wtf is this guy retarded? has he once looked at the NASA data or the Japanese data? they come to the same conclusion as almost every single climate researcher........
PJTV seems to be a weirdos channel......
the guys have no clue about decline of tree ring data....
Aanthanur 1 year ago
I think that Global warming is a very complex scientific issue and shouldn't be decided in the hallway between two people trying to outtalk each other.
I think PJTV should be criticizing the Government on its failure to properly investigate the matter and react in a sane and competent manner if indeed there is a problem.
trino26 1 year ago
Not the best of PJTV. I found out about PJTV just recently and watched through a lot of their videos and support their work. But this video is not playing well. The so-called reported is trying to shove his views down the throats of those he's interviewing. And obviously they refuse to accept his side. There are no facts here, just his word against someone else's.
trino26 1 year ago
Was there ever a time when the climate didn't change? I love Monckton's statement to the effect: "They call themselves green because they are too yellow to call themselves red"
ibdugefrsh 1 year ago 3
@pimpdalyrical Globally this has been one of the coldest winters on record. Recond cold temps and snowfalls. Ice in Bejing, headlines about the Mongolian people in danger from the cold...The Mongols...these are Tough, tough people and it's so cold in Mongolia that they are threatened by it. As you listen to these pretend "Global Warming" experts remember where you are sitting used to be a glacier.
wideawake123 2 years ago
We have a cold winer in greece too They only care about their green jobs and nothing else They are wrst than a cult
mefisto706 2 years ago
These people are SHEEP!! Evidence, right in front of their faces that they are being lied to, and they don't want to hear it!!!
The IPCC is THE most central hub for the global warming community. They have been manipulating data, strong arming peer reviewed journals from publishing conflicting science, using flawed programming to generate dishonest predictive models, and the IPCC report has names of contributers on it, from scientist who disagree with it's findings.
It's CRAP!!!
pimpdalyrical 2 years ago
What a bogus channel!!!!!
aburgheim 2 years ago
Alarmist people have vested interest in global warming swindle.
There is no point in trying to convince these alarmist idiots because no proof is good enough to change a religious belief.
oozzyy11 2 years ago
I am curious how many of these "environmentalists" can actually explain the carbon cycle.
FrankinHolland 2 years ago
Im going to have to watch this again later.
I need to start ove rand count how many times they use the word cherry picked.
So if we found damaging Emails in the millions of the Emails sent in the Bush Administration & narrowed them down to the 100 most damning... that would be cherry picking?
They were the ones cherry picking their data for years and now want to act like they have gotten better at their data collection?
If it was that bad just a few years ago, how can we trust data from 1800s
EricIndiana 2 years ago
also the Argos sea buoys over 3,000 of them are reporting no change in the top mile of the oceans.
Martintfre 2 years ago
Myron, get an organ that produces testosterone. Then, get one that promotes rational thought. How many times did Ebell repeat "hide the decline" without explaining what it was?
Oh, and Myron, NASA's GISS Land Ocean Temperature Anomaly graph shows the last 10 years as the warmest decade on record.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
There is one problem with that. How far back does the record go? 100 years? The earth is MILLIONS of years old
At one point the middle of North America was a lake. One huge lake... who's SUV created the CO2 to cause that? How was that time COLDER then now?
TRMerc 2 years ago
@TRMerc You have an error with time. The earth is billions of years old, not millions. Knowing how prone to error you are, you won't appreciate the rate at which the atmosphere has changed in the last 160 years.
It's the pace of the change that is causing the alarm. Think of yourself having to walk a hundred miles to the grocery store, or in your case, the liquor store. Then, someone gives you a Murciélago for your next trip. See the difference? Probably not.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
What is billions made up of? Over 999 millions
True, but what harmful effects is it going to have on the earth? Some species will become extinct? Well they would have had to deal with this warmer weather anyway so they just have to adapt sooner. The ocean levels are going to rise? So we lose a few beaches.
What is the WORST that will happen at this RATE of change... cause it was bound to get this warm or warmer sooner or later
TRMerc 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENT
You have got to be kidding right???
JAMRAND 2 years ago
@JAMRAND Not kidding. What's your point?
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
So why does that matter, we are looking at longer term trends where we have to marge proxy data and instrument data. These don't support that conclusion or that this static decade is meaningless, what is says is many major components of the climate system don't support the conclusion that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks..
EasyEs 2 years ago
@EasyEs This static decade? NOAA NCDC published this has been the warmest decade in the instrument record history.
There are reasons why H2O is a positive feedback and CO2 is a forcing.
H2O is extremely variable in content and also limited to low altitudes. CO2 doesn't form clouds and mixes uniformly up through the stratosphere.
Please, never offer to help with someone's homework. You will only contribute to fail.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Oh man, I am a scientist I doubt you are but lets see.
The last decade hasn't warmed which is why it is static. It isn't cheery picking because 1997 seems to be the start of a oceanographic regime shift.
Right H2O is very variable and I would argue not understood. The atmosphere hasn't increased in humidity as predicted. So assigning it a value (+,-) can not be done as you did. That would mean precipitation can be modeled correctly because it is the controlling factor not surface temp.
EasyEs 2 years ago
@EasyEs I know you will say this is cherry picking but, NASA GISS Land Ocean Temperature graphs show the last decade as the warmest on record.
If a mass of atmosphere increases in temperature and the mass of water vapor remains the same, the relative humidity goes down. If the air temperature goes up the water vapor mass can increase without increasing the relative humidity. You don't believe in the dew point fairy bunny. I do.
1997-98 was the super el nino.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
No the point is that it didn't get warmer as predicted by the models reviewed by AR3. I don't care that it is the warmest according the GISS over the last century.
Uh thanks for the overview.? Not sure of your point, .but to save time and space I will just state that finding the extra water vapor in the atmosphere hasn't been done yet when looking at the Aqua satellite data.
The blame aerosols excuse doesn't stack up as an explanation.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Okay I see where the confusion is. I used term humidity, with out also adding that total water vapor content also needed to increase. Yes warmer air can hold more water vapor, then colder air. The atmosphere is much more complex though and "can" leads to more questions.
If it can but doesn't which is what the data tells me I am interested in the why it doesn't and I don't think the any studies reviewed by the IPCC do a good job of explaining this phenomenon.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Yes and the middle of the United States use to be an ocean because the earth was so warm the ice caps melted to that point
Tell me though who's SUV was at fault then? This might be the warmest year of instrumental data but it isn't the warmest the earth has ever been, in fact it has been a LOT warmer. Thing England being a tropic zone
TRMerc 2 years ago
@TRMerc Is that the goal? Flood the Mississippi River valley? Now, that's a plan! Caribbean Cruise Lines could relocate from Miami to Montreal.
You must be drooling over the possibility of getting some contract work to build the thousand mile bridges that will become necessary.
BTW, most of that thing England would be under a lot of sea water. The cliffs of Dover would actually start growing again.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
What I'm saying is that don't go screaming the sky is falling when humans aren't doing something that hasn't been done before
The earth warms and the earth cools it's called a 'cycle' you see they believe that the middle ages (1066-1600's) were WARMER then now, but that's only the environmentalists that aren't acting like fire and brimstone preachers
So explain how it was warmer during middle ages then now with no SUVs or factories?
TRMerc 2 years ago
@TRMerc The Medieval Warm Period was regional only. It wasn't as spectacular as some would wish. Debate is still ongoing about its cause.
The atmosphere has changed faster since the industrial revolution than at any other time. CO2 is up 38% in 150 years. Dr Hansen believes that ice did not exist on Antarctica until it dropped below 450 ppm. It's currently 387 ppm and rising.
Once again, it's the speed of the change that is the concern. Don't worry, nothing will be done about it.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@TRUMPHENT
Yes in the European area, also parts of Asia, Africa, North and South America
While some areas experienced more warming other experienced less... does that change the fact over all the earth was warmer then? Cause if it wasn't how could the little ice age have so much impact
See you can't cherry pick the data you want
TRMerc 2 years ago
Warmer? Where, when and for how long? There are reasons why Greenland has ice that is over 150K years old. The Ellesmere Island ice shelf that collapsed was over 4500 yo. The Wilkens and Larsen B ice shelves were thousands of years old and they collapsed.
You are happily oblivious to the speed at which things are changing. Something tells me that you will insist on remaining oblivious.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
just using the error that is in the data which places that periods warmest possibly over today's possibles. If you look at the non-average chart it will show that
Also if the earth was never warmer then now. Why isn't the ice MILLIONS of years old? Cause it was warmer in the past. How warm does it have to be for plants and animals to GROW to the size of the dino's? Cause obviously things in Africa are smaller then Europe
TRMerc 2 years ago
the released emails are the tip of the iceberg. i hear they have 1000 times the released data and are just waiting to drop the bomb! I cant Wait!!!!
cldump 2 years ago
@cldump Don't hold your breath.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Among other things, one argument stands out as wholly un-scientific: the claim of it being "settled" "case closed" & "consensus" (and therefore, anyone who isn't a part of the consensus is dismissed). If science worked that way, then no existing scientific theory could ever be challenged.
And given how massively complex the environment is, how could anyone ever be so confident about how it works? We can't predict the weather 24hrs in advance, but we know this with absolute certainty?
DonTruman 2 years ago
Whatever happened to that new ice age they told us was coming back in the '70's???????
hawkinsproductions 2 years ago
this globel warming ppl just thing their so right in the 19 hundreds Docs thought leeching was a good idea to stop fever and we all know that work so well lol
jaay334 2 years ago
used to respect Greenpeace...but no more....
peacechild61 2 years ago 6
Me too, peacechild.
roarthwo 2 years ago
@peacechild61 I used to respect the whole green movement, now I think they are a vile evil body, whose self seekinglies and deceit actully harm the planet and life.
zzebowa 2 months ago
Global warming is all about one thing : CONTROL
BILLCLINTONCAUSED911 2 years ago
Nitrogen oxides are 128 times more potent/effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas, what are those used for, just 99% of the world's plant fertilizer....take that greens
GonPolitics 2 years ago
This guy from CAP needs to read an article published in Science (2005) that stated (from satellite info) that the Greenland Ice Sheet was losing mass at the rate of... 0.5% per CENTURY.
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago 2
BTW. The founder of GREENPEACE disagrees with the Global Warming (Climate Change) lie!
The current GreenPeace organization is an abomination.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
I like how they showed the smug of these guys but that last interview seemed kind of crammed down. If only he had the emails, huh? He spoke of of a "Glenn Beck-anization". lol Glenn Beck sure is a loon
NeverAloneForever 2 years ago
You should have asked them a hypothetical question that if global warming was debunked would they go along with it or would they try to discredit the person(s) presenting the information? I think they got tenure in a made up problem. That much they hope is settled.
hdl13 2 years ago
I thought there for a moment that Myron had lost it to Faiz but he held his ground. Very good. These guys (climate zealots) aren't going to give up their paycheck without a fight.
MrEmesis 2 years ago
Yeah, cause they get paid sooooo much more for getting different results from the same research, right? How fuckin stupid are you man?
338dmac 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrEmesis 2 years ago
Climate changes all the time. Never did I think the day would come that people would accept a lie that climate is caused by humans yet ignore the solar activity and cycles of the SUN!
BTW... Sorry. I added this as a favorite which means a stalker by the name of skank will likely troll his way here. I blocked the fool and he manually trolls my account on an hourly basis so he can find me on other videos and talk to me. It's sort of creepy.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Pre-emptive whining. Nice!
skanktimonious 2 years ago
Again, climate change =/= weather change. The AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE has been going UP rather sharply. So what if it snowed in Texas? Texas is NOT the world. How bout you take a look at what's happening to the lakes in East Africa, eh? Why don't you tell those Kenyans and Tanzanians that their water sources disappearing is "just a conspiracy"? What's so hard to understand, 4G? If you do x, you will get result y. If you spew heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere, YOU GET CLIMATE CHANGE.
338dmac 2 years ago
338dmac: You clueless naive little man. Nobody is disputing that the earth isn't going through weather cycles. The debate (which the climate zealots refuse to engage because they know they'll be humiliated) is about whether it's anthropogenic. Now get out of here and let the adults talk. Children should be seen and not heard.
MrEmesis 2 years ago
"Seen and not heard"? What are you Amish or something? Or a fundie muslim? Sheesh... Gee, I guess I'll just "get out of here and let the adults talk", JUST because you told me to. I guess I have NO CHOICE but to listen to the internet pussy pushover and do exactly what he says. Eat my shit cabron! :D Seriously, what the hell kind of response did you expect? 1) People ARE disputing climate change, anyone who's been on the internet for five fuckin minutes knows that. 2) Don't even (cont.)
338dmac 2 years ago
call the phenomenon a cycle if you have ZERO evidence that any such cycle exists. 3) Climate change HAS to be at LEAST partially anthropogenic. As I said before, how the hell can you release sooooo many heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere for soooo many years in such high concentrations and NOT expect any environmental consequences? What, are you retarded? It's just common fucking sense; you spew enough shit into the atmosphere, it is GOING to have an EFFECT on the environment.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
BTW. Man produced CO2 is barely measurable compared to the naturally occurring production of CO2. We don't even make 2% with all the industry and people breathing.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
So then what's the 98% that's natural? Wher the hell does it come from?
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
98% comes from Oceans.
Plus volcanoes, animal life, etc which has NOTHING to do with the population or industrialized man.
You have been brain washed.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
"Oceans"? How? How do the oceans fill the atmosphere with CO2? Now volcanoes I can understand, but oceans?
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
The amount of life in the Oceans completely dwarfs the amount of life on land.
That life produces CO2.
CO2 is a LIFE FORCE on the planet. One of the basic building blocks of life.
That's why they chose it to control people. because no matter how "green" you become, you will be enslaved in a tax for producing it.
Also they have no plans to get you off of fossil fuels because they only plan to TAX you.
Man produces a nil amount of CO2. And we could actually use MORE CO2.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
@MrEmesis
I just set that fool up with a question to see what he answers. Because the EVIDENCE I will post after his answer will blow his lies, and Al Gore's lies, out the door!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Still waiting for that "evidence."
skanktimonious 2 years ago
@338dmac
You HOCKEY STICK FOOL!!!!
Hey pervert of science, do you even acknowledge that there have been much warmer periods int he last 1,000 years than right now???
Or do you take all of that data out to form your hockey stick science like Al Gore, the pervert?
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
"Hockey stick fool"? Well conflammin tarnation! Very well; let's have your evidence. Go ahead. At least you're earnest to post something at all.
338dmac 2 years ago
... What, was that it? That some GreenPeace person disagreed with some scientists? Please tell me that wasn't it, that I was waiting for something that wasn't going to come... dammit.....
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
No, the FOUNDER of GreenPeace, before greenpeace got taken over by neo nazi scum sucking liars with a hidden agenda.
Just like the FOUNDER of the weather channel is trying to take pervert Al Gore to court for the global waming scam.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
@338dmac
You ignored my question.
Do YOU think we are in the warmest period in say the last 1,000 years?
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
I honestly don't know, I am not going to lie, I don't study the environmental shit like that very much, but there are plenty of people who do. Go ask them. I look at it from a logical perspective, and logic tells me that if you endlessly, non-stop release heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere over a period of over a hundred years, you are going to see effects come of it. If you pollute the ocean, there will be an impact. If you pollute the soil, there will be an impact. Air is no different.
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
So how do you know that man is causing "global warming" with CO2 if you don't even realize that
1) It has been in FACT cooling for over 10 years, that's why they are dropping the stupid global warming phrase for the new "Climate Change" phrase...
2) In the medieval period not too long ago yet far before industrialize man, it was quite a bit more warmer than it is now and for some period of time. Approx 1100 to 1400 or so AD.
CO2 is GOOD. I make as much as possible. Life will thrive!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
Yes, CO2 is good IN THE RIGHT AMOUNT. I hope you're not enough of a simpleton to think that the more CO2 the better, because "plants like it". It's a matter of balance, and we are upsetting that balance. Too much CO2 is bad because plants can't keep up with its production and the excess goes towards trapping heat in the atmosphere. Imagine if you tried to breathe straight Oxygen (hint: you would die).
338dmac 2 years ago
@338dmac
Fact is. We could use MORE CO2 and MORE heat.
The temp drives CO2 not CO2 driving temp.
In the past when the temp was higher life flourished. We could actually grow crops further away form the equator, like they did in the medieval times.
This is proven history because grapes were growing and wineries thrived when it was much warmer.
Much warmer than it is now.
CO2 has been over 1,000 ppm in the past.
It's less than 400 ppm now.
Only sheep believe the lies of the IPCC.
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago 3
"In the past"? What, like during the formation of the Earth? "We could use more heat"? Yeah, and more drought? Sure, your grapes might do better in the Mediterranean or wherever, but as I said, it's causing the lakes and wells in the Middle East and East Africa to dry up. But what do you care, you probably don't think black people or Arabic people are worth as much as a gun-totin, beer-chuggin white man. Yeah, you could grow them further from the equator, but then what about AT the equator? Duh!
338dmac 2 years ago
@GodGunsGutsGlory777 Bye, bye exposingthetrolls. Take the hint.
skanktimonious 2 years ago
You're right GGGG: We've seen much higher levels of CO2 and methane in the past, yet the planet somehow survived!
In addition, in East Antarctica the temps were higher 650K years ago, yet the CO2 and methane levels were lower.
300 million years ago (disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with the long ages) we had CO2 levels more than 4 times today's levels.
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago 3
@UTubekookdetector
Yup. There is ZERO evidence that CO2 drives temp but we have evidence that temp drives CO2!!!
We also have evidence of warmer periods, even within the last 1,000 years long before industrialized man and long long before Al Gore was flying a LEAR JET all over the world to promote a lie that will make him even more rich!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago 2
I agree GGGG: In Girabaldi Provincial Park (Brit. Col.) there were glaciers receding and under those glaciers were intact tree stumps in their original soil.
In other words, it was full of trees and warmer thousands of years ago, until the glaciers took over.
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago 2
@UTubekookdetector
HA HA!
Got to LOVE the facts that Al Gore can't cover up!
The Medieval warm period within the last 1,000 years is my favorite because there is a lot of documented history of that time when grapes and other agriculture thrived for a period of time where it is still too cold today! :-]
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
If it warms up enough, we can start farming in Greenland again.
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago
@UTubekookdetector
"..again".
EXACTLY!
GodGunsGutsGlory777 2 years ago
@338dmac Dude, you have no idea how simple he is. It just makes him more confident.
skanktimonious 2 years ago
Then I'm glad as hell that people like him aren't the ones calling the shots on this matter.
338dmac 2 years ago
Masterfully done. KEEP IT UP!!!
qworegoys 2 years ago
What makes these folks THINK that taxing us will effect the weather?
CaptElaine 2 years ago
I was impressed by the measured and well articulated discussion by both sides on that last interview. I wish more of the debates about this would go that way. Lately it seems that one side always wants to condescend to the other and nothing constructive comes out of it.
AeonicDesigns 2 years ago
isnt global warming happening on the other planets in our solar system? What does that say about the cause? lol
Shiftfallout 2 years ago
Way to go PJTV. Throwing around "your in denial" just like a 12 year old girl would do.
Is it just me or did PJTV really stick their foot in their mouth on this one.
PJTV is living in La La land
VAR1UM 2 years ago 2
no, that last guy did when he said the scientists trying to suppress opposing viewpoints were unethical but then basically saying its ok because it doesn't help his cause.
JRooster101 2 years ago
@JRooster101
Maybe. But if it doesnt make sense and deviates the primary study it should be thrown out due to lack of relevancy.
If it were valid it would be considered. I believe one of the studies thrown out had something to do with an unknown cosmic energy from outside are universe or other ridiculous phenomena.
You seem to be one of the "its a conspiracy" flock so im sure you got a million and one excuses to ignore reality.
VAR1UM 2 years ago
if you are saying I believe scientists conspired to suppress opposing viewpoints from being published, then yeah, im part of the "conspiracy" flock you speak of.
But to believe climate change (the natural ups and downs of the climate) is a conspiracy is totally nuts. I just don't believe it is as important an issue as hunger today.
If you want to keep assuming though, thats fine, keep asserting your stupidity so that all can see.
JRooster101 2 years ago
Im glad you brought up "hunger". That is a great part of the reason why many more people are taking man enhanced climate change seriously. The last thing we need is to continually contribute with dire effects such as drought or flooding, wiping out food supplies. No one has ever said the Earth doesn't naturally go through changes in climate. But it would be nice to keep it that way. Natural.
It aint rocket science. More like common sense.
VAR1UM 2 years ago
Im a skeptic, not a conspiracy theorist. I believe once politics are involved then the game changes and I especially can't stand gore with his cg global warming effects. For a man who preaches so much he is quite a hippocrite.
I believe we should conserve energy and find alternative fuel sources, you are just sad if you don't. I just want to see solid proof we as humans caused this climate change they speak of. I am pretty sure (maybe I am wrong though) that there is no actual proof.
JRooster101 2 years ago
Have you noticed how different people, from different institutions use the exact same expressions and tout the identical claims. I wonder if the enormous left-wing organization has a secret memo that spells out these things..........QUICK! Where's the Climagate hacker when you need him/her! lol........(had to put him/her to be politically correct...LOL....)
sponsoredbydinosaurs 2 years ago
see, this is how i know the people buying into this whole conspiracy theory are idiots. i've been very cooperative in answering every question thrown at me, making sure to provide evidence to back up my claims, and for some reason, just about all of my comments are being thumbed down to where they are no longer visible. and i'm apparently the one in denial??? give me a break!
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
this idiot ebell keeps hitting on the topic that the world hasn't been warming for the past ten years. the fact is, the earth is warming. in fact, 11 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. what's even worse is he's trying to attibute this lie to a credible scientist, kevin trenberth, when that's not what he said.
cristoballs 2 years ago
That isn't a fact at all.
anfiach 2 years ago
oh really? and i suppose you're basing that on everything you hear from the honest people at pjtv. that last interview, where ebell throws out the number of the warmest decade on record being in the 1930, and attributing it to james hansen. the fact is that figure is referring to the u.s. only which makes up less than 2% of the world's surface area.
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
Yes, I only get my facts from PJTV :eyeroll:
It is amazing, all of the people that say there is no God, only science and yet they themselves ignore the science and go with what they want to believe. The irony is simply incredible.
anfiach 2 years ago
Then why did it just recently snow in Austin, Texas? This has only been the 4th time in RECORDED HISTORY that it has snowed there. Furthermore, it was the earliest snowing in the season! Hm?
sponsoredbydinosaurs 2 years ago
first off, that could hardly be considered snow what we experienced here a few weeks ago. secondly, you're confusing local weather with global climate. as i pointed out already, ebell tried to pull this same trick by stating that we haven't experienced warming because the hottest year on record wasn't the 1990's but the 1930's. however he's talking about the u.s., and not the entire planet.
cristoballs 2 years ago
and btw, it's snowed several times in austin's history. it snowed just last year. i even recorded it. and it snowed about 4 years before that. and before that i think it snowed 12 years ago when i moved to austin. are you saying those are the only 4 times in recorded history that it's snowed here? because my friends who have lived here since the 70s might have a difference of opinion with you.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Climate change does exist. Unfortunately for these folks that just don't get it, it isn't caused by man, it's a natural shift. Anything changes these "global warming" people are trying to inject are going to be disastrous. They'll do more damage than help. Extremely sad.
FEDS91 2 years ago
Exactly! Look at the dinosaurs. There was no ice on the earth then. Then look at the ice ages. The earth naturally goes through different cycles.
sponsoredbydinosaurs 2 years ago
Umm, that was caused by a METEOR HITTING THE EARTH. I would hardly consider that part of a "natural cycle".
338dmac 2 years ago
If you did your reasearch, you would see that there are actually many different theories about the Dinosaur's extinction, but NONE of them have ever been conclusively proven.
sponsoredbydinosaurs 2 years ago
The only reason none of them can be conclusively proven is because we have no dinosaurs to test any of the hypotheses on, nor do we want to crash a meteor into the earth right now, so you're going to have to excuse me if I trust the notion that dinosaurs were indeed in fact killed off laregely in part because a meteor hit the earth, which is what the soil records indicate. Now could you give me any evidence of these so-called "cycles" you speak of? And climate change is NOT "weather change".
338dmac 2 years ago
LOL, this idiot says..."the issue of climate change is settled."
Gotta love the left, they are always right, and if you disagree well than you are written off.
cdubMRA 2 years ago 4
This has been debunked, the emails were quote mined, good day.
fakeham 2 years ago
Hmm, this vid looks interesting...
"Hi, I'm Lee Doren of the..."
NOOOOO!!!!!! I already can't watch any more of this tripe!
338dmac 2 years ago
Doren aka captain stare is a tool.
TheSpankymonkey 2 years ago 3
Mmm-hmm. "Good" is anything that advances the cause, eh?
Sorry -- consensus has NO place in science. Nobody needs to agree on *anything* for facts to be facts. So sad that some people would rather stick to their fake "facts" than learn everything they can.
Not too many years ago, our collective doom was wrapped up in the "fact" of global cooling. The EXPERTS assured us that we were headed for another ice age.
taratorah 2 years ago
if the scientist are corrupted why wouldnt the data be corrupted the fact is global warming has no hard detailed mathematical facts in which science uses to explain how this effects the world, fake scientist fake data, fake data means fake global warming.
technosportsman75 2 years ago
ok... forget the proxy data for a moment. let's assume scientists are idiots, and all the proxy data is garbage. what would be the first step you would take in trying to determing if the earth is warming?
cristoballs 2 years ago
I'm going to play devils advocate here but both sides do like to argue that consensus matters...
g00se99 2 years ago
like the liberals say, th debate is over! lol that way they dont have to answer questions
Ms57states 2 years ago
Word of the day, boys and girls, is "cherry picked".
bigun89 2 years ago
When did science reach conclusions based on consensus?
ArchangelSaintMike 2 years ago
LOL He said, "you can't pick out one piece and call it 'evidence' ". What???
EffieReal 2 years ago
Socialist Globalists (Regressives) had to create this SCAM emergency before the SHEEPLE would accept Social-Fascist Corporatist SLAVERY & the redistribution of money & power FROM the People TO Global Bankers, the Corporations they own & the corrupt politicians & Special Interest Groups they control through contributions.
$Trillions will be redistributed for "Green" technologies & CO2 trading schemes PLUS all the political power to be concentrated in Global Govt & New Global Financial Order.
yakyakyak69 2 years ago
OMG - Its their lie and they are going to stick to it. What a bunch of liberal tree hugging, go greenier douche bags.
LordAtrocities 2 years ago
Man lee is a little weasel. Hes pulling a Kirk Cameron/ Ray Comfort here. and asking smug questions with minimal understanding of what they are talking about. Boob
seeingglass86 2 years ago
Why the fuck would buck tooth dwarf Doren want comments? He censors the hell out of them on his YT channel.
My response to Lee would be, "What oil company is paying you to ask these stupid questions?
robertmike57 2 years ago
i would respond to myron ebell by offering him the same bet george monbiot offered him in a debate between the two of them, which he refused to accept. the bet: if global average temps. are higher for the next 10 yrs than they were for the past 10 yrs., he pays me 10,000 dollars. if they not, i'll pay him 10,000 dollars.
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs Yeah, Myron Bell is a ridiculous douchebag.
Bottom line on CO2 #: 50 years ago: 315 PPM, now 390 ppm, 50 years from now? 450PPM? 500PPM? That CO2 rise is manmade and a greenhouse gas, no conservative denies that.
BTW, I'm not an alarmist on MMGW. There are going to big huge losers, but also winners from it. Little is discussed of the positive effects of MMGW, nor that is inevitable as nothing can be done to stop it and little to slow it.
robertmike57 2 years ago 4
wow, these interviews are just the like the street interviews creationists like kirk cameron and ray comfort have become famous for doing, whereby they go about asking people who are not experts in a particular field of science questions about that field. then the interviewer will ambush the interviewee with a bunch of so-called "facts" which have already been thoroughly debunked. way to go pjtv. you're no better than creationists.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I salute that first interviewee for his courage in actually speaking on camera. I believe his heart is in the right place, I dont believe he is evil like the politicians such as Al Gore and the other bastards.
The second guy was a flat out douche.
These tools have built their careers around this hoax, and therefore are unable to accept that their lives' work are based on a lie.
Kinda sad actually.
VegasBilgeRat 2 years ago
and you belief that climate change is all a hoax is based on what?
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cristoballs - These people are researchers and active proponents of the global warming agenda (Greenpeace, Center for American Progress). They did NOT just interview random people on the street.
Please provide citations to support your claim the emails have been "thoroughly debunked". You were wrong on your first point, so your further points are in question.
Facts are facts. Either disprove them, or don't try to insinuate they are lies by using quotation marks. It's cheesy and lame.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
are you serious? do you know what the sierra club, greenpeace and the center for american progess are? they are not scientific research institutes, and they do not produce any peer-reviewed literature whatsoever. these are non-profit activist organizations. and the people they interviewed were a press secretary, and two research directors.
as for the debunking of their "facts" check out the videos produced by greenman3610 and potholer54. they detail explicitly why this video is b.s.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I repeat - these are active proponents of MMGW. They are the ones, among others, articulating and pushing the global warming agenda. Your comparison is inaccurate. I guess Al Gore is also off limits for questioning, because he's not a scientist?
The fact that you cite YouTube users, rather than a reputable (or any other) news agency as proof that the emails have been "thoroughly debunked" does not surprise me. Will you be citing Alex Jones' InfoWars site next? Or maybe an article at Wikipedia?
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
i repeat, "they are not scientists." and furthermore, while they may be active proponents of spreading news about climate change, you can't assume that they only ones, let alone the most qualified to speak on the science of global change. this would be like asking me to defend keeping creationism from being taught in our public schools. now, while i understand a good amount about evolution and the ongoing debate, i don't know enough to answer every question about it.
cristoballs 2 years ago
and since you obviously didn't watch the video, it's apparent that you did not find out why this entire climategate thing is b.s. if you'd like i'll be more than glad to send you statement from the american meteriological society as well as the article published in nature magazine which explains why "stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy". these are the sources highlighted in the video.
cristoballs 2 years ago
and no, i won't be citing alex jones, and it's obvious from his radio show that he's another moron who has bought into this whole conspiracy that there was some sort of coverup by scientists. so actually, if anyone's jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, it's you. thanks for helping in proving that point for me.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Heh... you listen to Alex Jones' show.
Again, not a surprise, any more than your leap that mentioning Jones means I'm on his (or any) bandwagon.
Just keep on digging that hole buddy.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
i live in austin, tx. alex jones is a local celebrity here. everyone knows who is. sorry, try again.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didn't say anything about knowing who he is, I was amused by your admission that you listened to his show... but thanks for illustrating your inability to comprehend what you read. It explains a lot.
The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand the full effects of man on the climate, but your ilk are arrogant enough to believe you do, and you're willing to ignore, marginalize or silence anyone who dissents.
Worse, you're willing to economically cripple us based on theory.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
keep digging your whole. you're only making yourself look dumber. there's nothing incriminating about listening to someone's show. i've listen to glenn beck too, but i don't buy into his b.s. either.
"The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand the full effects of man on the climate"
yet, you pretend you do by claiming that climate change is a hoax. i'm at least basing what i believe on evidence.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never claimed listening to Jones is 'incriminating', I stated I was amused that you'd admit to it.
I have not stated ANYWHERE in these comments that climate change is a hoax. I questioned it's cause.
These are two factually incorrect statements you've made (in addition to your initial inaccurate comment) which clearly indicate you do not actually comprehend the things you read, and instead you are filtering them through your preconceptions.
Much as the scientists who wrote those emails did.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
Why would you waste your time arguing with a left wing automaton?
archemedes314 2 years ago
first you said:
"Heh... you listen to Alex Jones' show.
Again, not a surprise."
then, you said:
"I never claimed listening to Jones is 'incriminating'"
you implied that i was somehow a conspiracy theorist, just because i've watched his show.
and you responded to comment i made, where i was asking user, where they got the idea that climate change is a hoax. you did everything you could to defend that person's position. so don't give me this crap about what you did and didn't say.
cristoballs 2 years ago
keep trying to defend yourself, though. you're only making your arguments weaker.
cristoballs 2 years ago
furthermore, how can you even say you're not calling it a hoax, when say stuff like this:
"and instead you are filtering them through your preconceptions.
Much as the scientists who wrote those emails did."
you just admitted that you think the scientists were filtering data through their preconceptions... in other words, you believe it's a hoax. geez, you're an idiot.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ archemedes314 - Good point.
@cristoballs - at every step you have shown your inability to process information as presented, without imposing your agenda upon it. You do not address what's actually said, instead what you imagine I am implying.
And as is so typical of your sort, when that fails to extricate you from your faulty statements, you resort to marginalizing your opposition by calling me an 'idiot'.
Yeah, you're a real MENSA candidate..
I'm done wasting time on such a douche-bag.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yes, run along, as it's obvious you won't even own up to what you were implying. there is no use in arguing with you as you will simply deny everything you say. read over your comments and tell how could construed any other way.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It seems I'm now guilty of making two factually incorrect statements, which I feel obligated to correct:
1. 'cristoballs' did not conclude by attempting to marginalize the opposition, he BEGAN that way, with his initial inaccurate comparison of this video to Kirk Cameron's videos.
2. Actual douche bags serve a practical purpose, so that designation by me was clearly inaccurate, if not inappropriate.
KafirAlalazoo 2 years ago
are you gluton for punishment or what? once again, i feel i have to remind you. the people being interviewed are not experts. this tactic by doren and ebell was nothing more than a sad attempt at trying to confuse science with advocacy for science. if you can't see that, you truly are an idiot. now, if you want to see how ebell reacts when confronted with actual experts, i'll be more than happy to provide with the videos to show how much of an idiot he is.
cristoballs 2 years ago
It's quite funny that you say that this video tries to confuse science with advocacy for science, cris! Because all the believers have is consensus of belief, which is decidedly NOT science.
Sadly, people that you would consider 'actual experts' have hidden the data that supports their claim and won't discuss the issue with non-believers, so that discussion is not likely to occur.
blogegog 2 years ago
"Sadly, people that you would consider 'actual experts' have hidden the data that supports their claim"
really? show me the proof of that. show the full emails and not the bits and pieces that were quote-mined to present a some sort of conspiracy?
and this not about consensus among the majority. even skeptics, such as ebell, accept that the earth is warming and man is contributing to it. of course, his position tends to bounce around so much that he shouldn't be taken seriously.
cristoballs 2 years ago
The 'proof' is that there is no raw data available to us scientists. Not just CRU data. GISS raw data is also not available. You can only see the data that they have modified (increased the original data's temps). Strange that a group so confident of their findings would not allow others to re-create them.
If I'm wrong, please feel free to prove it by showing me where to get the data. Sadly, you can't :(.
Don't thumb me down simply because you disagree with me. That's tacky of you.
blogegog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you're getting thumbed down because you're repeating the usual lies.
from a recent article published in the mail online website:
"It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95 per cent of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years," said the university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor Prof Trevor Davies
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
now feel free to factcheck that claim, and get back to me after you've actually done some fact-checking, rather than relying on pjtv.
cristoballs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it took me all of two minutes to find this and it didn't require a foi request form either.
ftp [:] [//] ftp [.] ncdc [.] noaa [.] gov
cristoballs 2 years ago
It didn't require an FOI, and you also didn't get the original raw data. What you downloaded was the raw data with unspecified UHI (urban heat island) 'adjustments' added to it. You are looking at modified data, and believing it to be actual data.
I guess if you want to play the silly thumb down game, I'll play it with you. It's pretty lame though.
blogegog 2 years ago
just curious... what is the source of your claim on unspecified UHI adjustments?
cristoballs 2 years ago
tell you what, i'll even hold off on thumbing you down, until you can provide me with the source that says that not only is the raw data adjusted, and that there is no original data available, but that the adjusted data was modified by an unspecified amount. deal?
cristoballs 2 years ago
cris, the source is the giss website. You can go there and see that there is no option to view unmodified data. Only UHI modified 'raw' data (heh. yes, they call the modified data 'raw').
I can't help you if you're going to be a true believer despite the facts, cris :(.
There is also the East Anglia CRU's own admission that they no longer have the unmodified data, and all they offer is modified data (before they withdrew ALL DATA yesterday and now offer no data at all).
blogegog 2 years ago
this is statement i found from the giss website regarding their current method for surface temperature analysis:
"The current analysis uses surface air temperatures measurements from the following data sets: the UNADJUSTED data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998), United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data, and SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) data from Antarctic stations."
cristoballs 2 years ago
Comment removed
cristoballs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i capitalized unadjusted for added emphasis. furthermore, nasa data sets are not the same thing as the GHCN datasats, which i pointed you in the direction of originally. as for east anglia university, i assume you're referring to "less than 5%" number which they admit to destroying. this data, which they aquired from noaa stations is still available at those stations. are you tired of being wrong? because i have no problem correcting every lie you repeat. it's actually kinda fun.:-)
cristoballs 2 years ago
Excellent, Cris! You are almost to the heart of the matter. Now, do your best to try to look at/download that UNADJUSTED data. Sadly, you will find yourself unable to do so, because it's been hidden from you and the rest of the masses.
Don't you wonder why that is? Why can you only download ADJUSTED data?
And again I implore you, can we stop with the thumb down thing? It's kind of annoying, and it's making your comments difficult to read since they become hidden at -5. Thanks in advance.
blogegog 2 years ago 2
no. i don't wonder. because it's not hidden. as i've already mention nasa collects their info from a number of places. one of which is the ghcn. so if you want the adjusted data, simply go to the ghcn website. do a search for unadjusted data and you will eventually your way to an ftp directory page.
cristoballs 2 years ago
on that page you will find a read me file, telling you exactly which file contains the unadjusted data, which i have downloaded. here's what the readme file says:
cristoballs 2 years ago
"***"raw (unadjusted) temperature series"*** - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.max.gz" if you want monthly mean maximum temperatures that are not bias adjusted; OR - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.min.gz" if you want monthly mean minimum temperatures that
are not bias adjusted; OR - "9641C_YYYYMM_raw.avg.gz" if you want the average of monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures that are not bias adjusted. where YYYY and MM refer to the Year and Month when the files were updated. "
cristoballs 2 years ago
if you'd like, i will be more than happy to download the files for you and email to you if you are unable to find them, but please, give up this delusion that the information is being hidden from you or anyone.
cristoballs 2 years ago
so what now? are you going to deny that that's not the unadjusted data? if so, there is no satisfying you because you truly are a conspiracy theorist. or can you admit you are wrong?
cristoballs 2 years ago
and don't worry about me thumbing down your comments. i want them to get as many thumbs as possible so that the world can see who reluctant some people have become to looking at the facts, so much so, that they'll even thumb down the response to questions asking for where to find things like unadjusted data sets. so thumbs up to you and to everyone else who's lying about deleted data. cheers!!!
cristoballs 2 years ago
"so if you want the adjusted data, simply go to the ghcn website."
I do NOT want the ADJUSTED data, cris! That's what I've been complaining about since we started this discussion. I've had my fill of that at the GISS website.
But if you think that you are indeed holding the unadultered raw data in a format that is useable (i.e. gps/time/temp), I'd be forever grateful if you'd forward it to me. I'll be more than happy to code it into graphs. Email below.
blogagog
yahoo
com
blogegog 2 years ago
sorry, that was a typo. i meant unadjusted, as is clear from the other comments i've posted.
cristoballs