I'm usually not very keen on censorship, but I think you should remove conspiracy crap/ climate change deniers' comments from the comment sections of your videos. Great videos, by the way: )
I only remove stuff that is overtly racist, threatening, violent, or just so foul that even I can't stand it. Other than that, I try to make it an open forum. I think when conspiracy nuts post, it just underlines my point about climate deniers.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
@pseudotruth, that's a very good point! If we ALL get together in groups & demand susainability & 'smart planning' from our communities' govt. planning depts, govts. would be less inclined to align with big-money polluters & more likely to start lobbying THEIR committees to change for the better....
These GW restrictions are to make sure that no one else achieves a level of affluence that the eco elite and Al Gore have right now, thus keeping everything just as it is now with Al and his cronies on top.
Global warming has been going on since the end of the little ice age ~200 years ago and will continue or start cooling even if every human was taken of the planet tomorrow. The argument over man made GW is like to fleas fighting over who steer the dog they are ridding on.
From a British press story about the flawed inquiries into ClimateGate:
"Prof Phil Jones, the head of UEA's climatic research unit, had been criticised for writing emails about deleting emails that were apparently the subject of a freedom of information act (FoI) request. He has denied deleting any emails to avoid FoI requests, but the main inquiry into the emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell never asked him or any of the other scientists about this..."
One truly has to wonder why Greenman spends his entire life making and posting these videos, and responding like a martyred zealot when anyone challenges his faith with a post here. Global warming truly is the new religion.
Greenman, do you actually wear a robe while posting ... or do you just say a little prayer to Mother Gaia after each post?
@ttowntom Im more curious about how much time you spent copy/pasting this exact message to multiple videos posted by him... I suspect you didnt even take the time to watch them, but rather ran in, pasted, and ran out before you accidentally learnt anything that contradicts your message. Sounds a lot more like what a faithful dogmatist would do than anything Ive seen in Greenman's vids, which are generally concerned with the presentation of actual evidence- as opposed to finding ways to ignore it
@ttowntom Call me crazy, but I think people kind of expect channel owners to spend a bit of time on their own channels - especially those that produce original content... So have you managed to watch any of the videos yet? Or are you still just copy/pasting the same messages across multiple channels associated with Global warming related videos?
A "bit of time"? Greenman creates an entire series of videos, and posts thousands of responses total? And you don't find that more than a little disturbing?
And yes, I've watched his videos. They're quite humorous really, especially the ones that use clips from Hollywood films to try to make a point.
Luckily the real world doesn't correspond to his Hollywood reality, which is why the number of scientists who reject GW alarmism continues to increase exponentially, and even its most zealous supporters now admit there is something terribly wrong.
'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
@ttowntom So you've finally resorted to misquoting stolen emails in which several independent reviews found no wrong doing? Luckily, you're claims are easily dealt with by pointing to yet another video! One of these days you might make an argument where the response hasn't already been taken care of including the full analysis of such quotes!
The leaked emails are not being "misquoted". Any reader is invited to Google the full text of them and verify that for themselves.
As for the "independent reviews", one was by the friends and colleagues of the accused, the other led by a gentleman who runs a $20B carbon trading company. Both refused to interview any witnesses other than the scientists involved, and neither made any conclusions as to the accuracy of their conclusions or methods.
As you well know, none of the inquiries were truly independent. And none "exonerated" the scientists involved. None of them asked why they deleted emails and asked other scientists to do the same. None asked why they broke the law to ignore FOI requests. None interviewed any of the scientists or others actually raising allegations against the CRU scientists.
The British press has done a thorough job reporting on the numerous problems with these so-called investigations.
One of the investigations, for instance, was headed by Lord Oxburgh, a man who in 2005 said global warming was "the greatest problem facing mankind". Oxburgh is also CEO of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.
The Oxburgh 'investigation' refused to investigate any of the real issues behind ClimateGate. Instead, it confined itself to examining just 11 published papers by the CRU, out of many hundreds. (cont)
Even with all these limitations and conflicts of interest the Oxburgh team found several serious issues. It said that research and data-gathering techniques were "sometimes sloppy", that inappropriate statistical techniques had been used, that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph had been exaggerated, and that key uncertainties and caveats in the papers had been ignored or stripped away when reported on by the IPCC (note the IPCC members reporting on those papers were the same CRU scientists).
Those third world people have clearly have something to gain by siding with the "lying scientists". I imagine they'll all be SOOOO rich by the end of the decade from all those carbon credits....
Although not in those words, I suspect deniers will just write it off as "it could be some other reason, X, Y, Z"...
Seriously, these videos are great! You really need to make more of them!
Make some more on the effects of climate change. Especially mention the effects of climate change and ocean acidification (the other carbon problem) on coral reefs. I have a feeling that the reefs may be the most important part of the equation.
If you're taking requests more on feedback mechanisms masking warming and the possibility of these mechanisms reaching breaking point would be good :)
@co2isgoodal Nobody in the science field is denying or trying to ignore the Medieval Warming. It has been intensively studied. Try "New Scientist;" Vol. 201, Issue 2703, page 13 for a start, then try looking up Bradley, University of Massachusetts, or Keller with the Los Alamos Laboratory, or perhaps Pederson with Columbia University. No, science is NOT denying the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Did you try looking up any of this research before claiming there is none?
Millions of CO2 producers & environmental polluters want to be added to the US polluting lifestyle so they can increase GHGs, destroy wildlife habitat, & increase US environmental degradation. Gore, phony environmental organizations, & the AGW Cult have not or will not do anything to stop it. Its not convenient to the revolution & stopping GHG increases, environmental degradation, or protecting wildlife is not their goal
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Why is this 650,000 year number always repeated? Is it because over a million, ten million, or anything longer the significance is no longer there?
Did the oceans acidify in the Carboniferous when CO2 was 7000 ppm? Or during most of the rest of geologic history, when C02 was higher than now? Gee, how did ocean life manage?
Could it be, just possibly, you're a pathetic fucking liar?
Again, with certain freedoms and rights come responsibilities, especially when we're talking about such an important subject as AGW. So they have the responsibility to be well informed, and thus should make the effort. If they don't, I'm not inclined to call them "a skeptic", just as I'm not inclined to call creationists skeptical towards evolutionary theory. If you're going to have an opinion about it, at least study the science (otherwise you would be skeptical about what exactly?)
In today's complex world, you have to make the effort to really understand something, and, with these people having the right to vote (which they - I needn't mention - damn well deserve just as any other individual) they also have an obligation to do just that. If they don't, but instead quite mindlessly reiterate whatever propaganda has been handed to them, I don't feel the least bit sympathy with their situation. They are denying reality, albeit out of ignorance, not stupidity per se.
Well, I don't know how much experience you have debating these people here on youtube, but I've debated them quite a lot lately, and, from what I can tell, they are usually quite agressive in pushing their point of view. They usually dismiss all scientific evidence/studies out of hand when it doesn't suit their belief system (which is what it is, albeit a "negative" one). Sure, a huge "manufacturing of dissent" (to paraphrase Lipman) has been going on, but that's not an excuse.
People who unreasonably disagree with climate science and AGW are *not* skeptics, in the same way that creationists are *not* skeptics apropos of evolutionary theory.
Everyone is skeptical, so am I. What denial amounts to is not an absolute truth that is denied, but choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. What is being denied is an empirically verifiable reality. That is denialism pur sang, it has nothing to do with skepticism.
I would argue that not a single individual EVER "chooses" to "deny reality".
That would imply that at heart they knew climate change to be real and were DENYING it CONCIOUSLY. I disagree, I feel that everyone I have spoken to who were skepticle of climate change and even thought there was some form of conspiracy have had information they deemed reliable to back it up.
They may have been MISTAKEN or may have drawn the WRONG CONCLUSIONS. But they were based on rational arguement.
I think we must be careful not to apply our own personal knowledge and understanding and projecting the same knowledge onto others. Not everyone is coming from the same background and understanding as you are.
Again, to "deny" implies that they KNOW the truth and are DENYING it. Is it so unimaginable, given the huge amounts of media distortion and confusion on this topic, that people are simply MISTAKEN?
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects all migrating north. Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
Great video. Most people in the US and Europe have never seen how people live in third world countries. They are living on the edge now so if things get worse they will be starving.
Peter, your videos are great. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to offer real understanding of the issues.
However, the only evidence for your points in this video come from Brilliant's talk, the rest is factually vacuous moralising that glosses over details.
What sets you apart is that you provide ample, well-referenced, sound science and informative, engaging presentation. So please avoid emotionally manipulative rubbish, as the latter is the hallmark of the very subjects you are debunking.
I think this is one of the weakest of my vids in terms of providing reference to primary sources. However I believe it is broadly accurate in terms of the impacts that third world people are experiencing and will experience, ie drought, severe weather, etc
he is an expert on climate change and has tirelessly been exposing it around the world as a digusting hoax.
Al Gore continuously refuses to debate him. as do many other scientists claiming climate change is man made
dont believe me though, look for yourself, research Lord Monckton any you will find numerous links to him and other scientists proving it is a government hoax to tax the western population and depopulate the third world.
Why do you believe Monckton and disbelieve the thousands of expert scientists who say that the climate is warming and it's primarily caused by CO2 as a result of human activity?
Oh go do some learning. Monktons a twat and all he has said is so easily rebutted but fox viewers like you who get their 'knowledge' from glen beck will be impressed because you are right wing crackah's and not very bright.
I have the worlds leading climatologists to back me up,I defer to the experts in science because they seek the truth.They collect data and make sense of it,not collect data in the hope of reinforcing an idea.
Climatologists don't work like creationist apologists you know?
You're fucking stupid I say again,if you actually think that polluters bitch monkton has science to rebut GW.
No,actually,you're a total idiot wanker,lets get it right for science eh?
here is something to think about you biased, simple minded, foul mouthed idiot:
The climategate scandal.
The pliticalisation of climte science.
Al Gore set to make billions from carbon credits.
The projected death of millions in the third world due to a clamp down on their economic growth.
the attempt to implement environmental taxes and laws that would dramatically reduce the freedoms and wealth of all western countries, forcing the middle and lower classes into complete poverty.
Tell me, of all of the emails by a FEW scientists in ONE part of the world, exactly WHICH ones show that there was a scandal of ANY kind?
Buuuuuuut of course that isn't what matters. I suppose that at the end of the day thinking that climate change ISN'T happening is much more reassuring. Something controlable, understandable, like a government conspiracy or something equally mundane is far easier to come to terms with.
if you actually knew anything about the climatgate scandal you would know that it is NOT the denyal of climate change
it exposes the lies that the climate is sygnificantly influenced by man which it is not, climate change is natural and cant be stopped by man, its just another way the obcenely rich political classes can tax you and me into oblivion
you are just another flat earther, people like you are the reason propaganda was invented.
Interestingly, I wrote a paper on this so called "climategate", which involved me reading through the long accounts of scientists back and forthing over various topics. Needless to say, it was tedious work.
What I found, in my research and STUDY of the so called scandal was NO EVIDENCE to suggest ANY scandal. AT ALL.
Now, perhaps I overlooked something. In which case, BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION. Instead of flatly insisting my views are ignorant and foolish, show me my folly with EVIDENCE.
Quote something, link something. Show me ANYTHING that DISPROVES my prior claim. Don't feel like anything would go over my head, I am well read and in fact WRITE on this topic. Please, as they say, LAY ONE ON ME.
If you CAN'T prove what you claim then REVIEW and CHANGE your oppinion. Without fact your working on FAITH.
I don't think your a fool, or ignorant. Clearly you've made attempts to understand and apply your theory to the topic.
But let me assure you, your theories are somewhat mis-informed here. Stop quoting retoric and show some evidence, or take a very close look at what your claiming to be true and review it. How much of what your saying rests on facts you've checked up on, studies you've fully read and understand?
I'm confident that you won't simply reply with more "Your an idiot" ad hominims
you have to look deeper, at the interconnections of it all
look to the funding, look who will become rich, and who will be driven into poverty or in the case of the 3rd world, death.
look at how its 1 rule for them and another for you
i agree that there are many environmental issues that can and should be avoided: de-forestation/ dumping of toxic waste etc but they are ignored by the media look at how they just concentrate EVERYTHING on C02 and climate change, look past the propaganda
Now you don't need to look far for propaganda, this I agree with you. Every media outlet, at least within Britain, has quite a high degree of sensationalism and distortion.
However, you haven't provided any EVIDENCE. Before you can assert a position like "CO2 isn't important" you must PROVE that to be the case. Before you can say "Climategate disproves all the science for climate change" you must show WHERE and HOW.
So I ask you again, provide me with this body of evidence. SHOW me.
However I put to you that if you CAN'T, if all that last comment was based on was conjecture and speculation because the media focus on CO2, then you do not HAVE a position. You have idle speculation.
So again I ask, no I BEG, prove me wrong. Show me the EVIDENCE. I WANT to think climate change isn't happening. I would far PREFER that to be the case. However, on study, on evidence, on measurements and on analysis this is shown, again and again, NOT to be the case.
Finally, I hope you are not offended if I point out to you this piece of Irony.
You claim that propaganda was made just for people like me. Yet I put to you this, I was able to cut through the swath of bullshit that was climategate, that was PROPAGATED, DISTORTED AND EXAGERATED BY THE MEDIA precisely BECAUSE I had read, studied and KNEW what happened.
You claim that anti-climategate feeling is propaganda. The Irony is that your very position on this IS BASED ON THE PROPAGANDA THAT CAME OUT.
Actually yes. Daniel Chivers, one of the folks involved with alot of climate movement political work here in the UK, and his girlfriend who's involved in the same work, were IN for some of the meeting.
Why did it fail? There were various reasons. Some political grand standing among countries, some to do with economics, but some of the main reasons, according to Daniel, was the inability for China and America to negotiate and settle the deals for their own political reasons. Without these two
big hitters, other nations were unwilling to be the ones to make more cutsw than any other. And part of the reason America and China didn't back the convention movements is BECAUSE of this media induced confusion surrounding the subject.
Climate change is still hotly contested. AMONG THE PUBLIC. The scientific comunity, and this is according to people I KNOW who WORK as climatologists and analyse the data, are broadly speaking in agreement. They might not agree SPECIFICS and argue small DETAIL
but they ALL agree with the SCIENCE of CO2, feedback mechanisms and other climate affecting systems.
Also I want to just say something when you say "MAN made global warming". We're NOT saying that, at least us who study it aren't. What we're saying is that humanity is a FACTOR. We are acting as a CATALYST to accelerate and alter a NATURAL process. We've upset the BALANCE of the system.
I think that your an intelligent person. Please, read up on the science on this subject, ALL of it, and listen to the summaries by PROFESSIONALS. We laymen, myself INCLUDED, can UNDERSTAND the topic but we're i'll equiped to actually make PREDICTIONS based on the science because we lack the full KNOWLEDGE needed to do so.
As such, the reports of these professionals needs to be highly regarded. Do you not take your car to a mechanic? Your injuries to a doctor? Why are climatologists less capable
I agree, but argueing from a phycological perspective I would suggest that this is a subconcious effect and perhaps greater influences than simple "denial" are at work.
I think this individual genuinely believes his position. He simply hasn't been led FULLY down his path of thinking so that he can see how his position is speculative conjecture and not rational and reasoned deliberation. I don't think this is malicious, but misinformed.
As is often the case, the onus, it seems, is on us to provide illumination.
In addition I think its important for all of us who are trying to educate people on the science of this important topic to understand that people are rarely deliberately malicious in their skepticism of climate change. I see many people losing their tempers add engaging in hostile mud slinging.
I don't think this is very productive. Hostile attacks and name calling...
usually cause both parties to adopt a defensive mentality. Such a mentality is highly pressured and emotive, rational reasoning will be less engaged in favor of the more emotive responsive part of our psyche. As a result individuals will be more likely to be influenced by such notions as "pride" and even a sense of "superiority". A dismissal of the other as simply "stupid" or "moronic".
These defenses are normal and natural. But thats why its important to engage people with respect and...
rationality. GUIDE them to illumination, don't BLUDGEN them with it.
People are capable of learning and understanding, but their far more likely to discard information from people they don't like, or people they feel don't like THEM. As such it is in our best interests, perhaps even our DUTY, to rise above such responses. To be those charasmatic and reassuring teachers.
But I'm ranting, I appologise. Again, your videos are excellent and your responses well informed. Keep up the great work.
you paint a venomous picture of the man made climate change sceptics with your specific use of words, like "denier". i see these tactics used all the time.
im no scientist, ive never claimed to be, but i know my politics, and i guarantee you, if any major bill passes on Co2, EVERYONE, thats you, me, Grysham.. everyone will enter a new dark age. you are fighting to give politicians and the social elite the power to take your human rights away.
Also, I don't think your a "denier". I agree, thats a silly term that implies some absolute truth that is being "denied".
People who disagree are "Skeptics", as you say. Your not stupid, your not incapable, your not evil. You're skepticle and for good reason.
Sadly, however well meaning, polorisation, distortion and exageration on BOTH sides causes mistakes that can reinforce eaothers polorised oppinion. This can lead to what you see in these comments, close minded ad homenim insults that
A favorite quote: "The Iraq War was basically about oil" Alan Greenspan.
For GW to be a hoax, CO2's accepted role as a greenhouse gas has to somehow cease to exist at levels above 250ppm (Earths natural balance of CO2). How CAN CO2 be at 390ppm without affecting climate? The burden of proof is clearly on the foot of the deniers, yet none has an explanation for this. Cosmic rays, sunlight, volcanoes; alternative forcings abound: but HOW CAN CO2 NOT have an affect above 250ppm?
Citing sources on youtube is impossible and begs the old question "if a tree falls in the middle of the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"
Maurice Strong is an enemy of humanity. If he were in control he would kill the vast majority of us to "save the planet."
Business As Usual [BAU] is like flying in an aircraft at high altitude, without a radio or safety gear over shark infested seas, while a lunatic wanders around randomly cutting wires, drilling out rivets and beating the windows and doors with a fire axe. You notice that the lunatic has entered the cockpit and has killed the co-pilot, now he's about to kill the pilot.
Would you let him? After-all nothing really bad has happened so far!
Almost all the extra CO2 is the result of human activity. That extra CO2 causes the warming and is enhanced by water vapour and other GHGs like methane. We can never have 'the 100% proof' in a complex chaotic system. That doesn't mean we have no idea.
Lack of certainty is no reason for complacency, it is a reason for greater caution. It's not as if we can blithely discard the experiment as a failure, shrug our shoulders and start again.
Do you know the lead singer Peter Garret is a Green MP in the Australian government, he not only approves of Australia mining coal, but about 3 months ago he gave the go ahead (nod) to a uranium mine ..... go figure?
In an email I sent him I quoted this song "US forces gives the nod"
He went from an informed activist into a .... politician
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
.... wiki the 1930s Dust Bowl. No rain, bad winds, tons of erosion. It make lives miserable for years. Are we blaming global warming for that too? Screwed up rain patterns etc. obviously have non-warming origins as well.
Maybe we should have a much closer look at resource management instead of CO2. When you clear-cut trees along hills, there is going to be problems. When you throw industrial toxins into the waters, reefs die. No one refutes these as they have been tested - unlike man-made CO2!
Back in 1st year philosophy, we learned about a logical fallacy called the "Strawman Argument".
Greenman never said that this was evidence that AGW is a reality. This is evidence against those who claim that, even if it happens, it won't be that big a deal (or might even be beneficial).
Really skydancer?? All greenman's videos revolve around proving AGW. Just because he didn't explicitly say the words "AGW is a reality" in this video, certainly doesn't deny the message he is stating. All this and his other videos do is take the indirect approach to the claim of AGW, which is what I was arguing against.
pseudotruth, all that does is show there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure some of it may be added due to us, but we still don't have the 100% proof that our contribution is a strong driver of warming Nor do we have proof of a 'tipping point'.
And off topic - CO2 is still plant food. The wheat experiments were flawed and fly in the face of the observations of seasoned commercial and private greenhouse food growers world-wide, as well as other scientific experiments.
@00dfm00 the only real proof u can have of a tipping point that everyone (and i'm sure not even then all) would accept is when u literally pass it and the effects are so obvious that even the most dedicated opponent can't deny it - do we really have to wait for that point?
TRAA has been posting on UCTV's "American Denial of Global Warming" for around a year, and if you read any of his posts, you will realize that he would fail the entrance exam for high school.
On the lighter side, I did a screenshot of his "Grand Unification Theory" from ADGW, and sent it to my oldest and best friend, a theoretical physicist, last week....he is still ROFL!
I'll second that. I also dont know any scientist that calls themself a scientist. I call myself a microbiologist. My partner is an astrophysicist. My friend is a fluvial geologist. We are all scientists but never call ourselves such. I never trust the comments of someone that calls themself a scientist, because they could be commenting on something that has nothing to do with their area of expertise. It degrades the comment to an argument from authority rather than expert knowlege.
too true... I am an invertebrate zoologist. Most of the other "scientists" I know have yet to disagree about this. For all we know these so called self-proclaimed scientists could be rat psychologists or not even anyone with a degree at all.
You have to do better than that. This sort of generic "BS" claim without specifics is meaningless. What facts are skirted? How are science and real world data misused? Where is the video wrong, specifically?
"I am a Scientist .... Show me a report that tests AGW as Conclusive and absolute fact "
I'm curious what kind of scientist expects to be able to find a report that shows ANYTHING to be an "Conclusive and absolute fact." Science is incapable of such a judgment. It can't even prove as an "absolute fact" that your apple will fall to the floor the next time you drop it. Any scientist should know this.
These Imbeciles who believe resources are infinite (or nowhere near depleted) were the same bigoted goons who wiped out species in frontier times. Heck, some probably still believe that was a liberal conspiracy and hunt animals just kept raining down forever.
1) I am a Scientist, I'm trelling you what the Political Enviromental Activist posing as "Climate Experts" are saying isn't what the Scientist are saying and What they are suggesting isn't what the Scientist are suggesting
2) Try actually reading the reports instead of just thumping on them..their is fine print and disclaimers even on Jame henson's work that all the factors haven't been tested or verified as of yet
c) Show me a report that tests AGW as Conclusive and absolute fact
e) Surely you can Google anything I say for verification..or go to a Building called a Liabrary and look it up in Acreac devices called books f) I do admit I'm wrong....when I'm wrong
g) yes considering by former Environut status and the fact I do sell alternative power technology to those willing to dish out the 15k-30k to power their little house you'd think I be on the "No clean coal Wagon"..lol
I prefer Water kenetic,Wave turbine,and Geothermal power
Are you... retarded? I don't know about 1, so I won't respond to it. That's what smart people do when they don't know enough to voice an opinion on a scientific subject. Try it sometime.
2) The amount of water is not constant. Water can be created and destroyed. We use hydrolysis on water to make hydrogen and oxygen for fuel for the space shuttles. That is destroying water. We do it in many other things as well.
3) I guess water is a good thing then, because you need it to live. Oh wait, it can drown you if you have too much. I guess it's a bad thing. OH WAIT! I GUESS IT CAN BE BOTH! It can be both. It shows a severe lack of logic and intelligence on your part that you can not see how depending on the situation, water can be good and bad.
1) Actually 100,000 years ago the Great Barrier reef off Australia was a forest, there was a Glacier covering all of what is now Canada,and 1/2 of the US, there was a land bridge betweem Asia and th4 Americas and the Persion Gulf was a Valley Forest...as the Glaciers melted from the last ICe Age the seas Rose and the Great Lakes and body of water formed
2) Huh?
3) Fresh Water dumping into Ocean from Polar Ice will eventually trigger a Ice Age as the Ocean Conveyer stops
I absolutly love these videos. My only "complaint" would be about the sound levels. I seem to range from soft whispers to loud rock music. Maybe it's just my settings but apart from that, GREAT work, keep it up!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Big deal. Those warmings are a response to long term changes of the Earth's orbit around the sun and the CO_2 changes are a response the warming. No one is claiming all warmings are due CO_2 input imbecile - only the modern warming.
I will look it up more. As for other planets, im sure that if you look into it properly from renound scientific literature or websites then you will see what the scientists think is going on. If you google "Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find"
and click on the first link, then there is a good news report there on the findings, and you might be pleased to note that they agree with your view on the snowball effect, but in this case relating to orbital changes, not sunspots
Well thats a bit of a lie because you said on at least 2 occasions that CO2 had no effect:
"Seems to point to CO2 having absolutely no effect on the Temperatures"
"Because thatt CO2 had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT"
But im glad you agree that it has effect now. I need to refresh my knowledge on the details of how we returned to glacial ages with peak CO2 lagging, but it is to do with the Earth's orbit forcing changes that outweigh the CO2 level, and the "snowball effect" of CO2 +ve feedbacks
I completely agree with you there, venus and earth is comparing two extremes of the same effect. I have never mentioned venus because it is not a good analogue to earth. The levels of CO2 that we are looking at is specific to our planet and our CURRENT climate system and global biology etc. CO" has been FAR higher on earth relative to now, but it didnt support our living beings or have the climate zones we have today
Titan. Saturns Moon, has a Hy Nitrogen/Methane atmosphere as is a better representation of Premodial earth then Venus or Mars almost pure Co2 atmosphere
I mean Scientist can explain the Life Exhaling Oxygen to bring up the Oxygen levels but how to you magically turn a 99% percent Carbon Dioxide Atmosphere into a 78ish% Nitrogen one as some Envirnuts posing as "Climate Experts" want you to believe?
Again,Titan is proof that a premordial planet can Start with a high Nitrogen Atmopshere
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here... no one to my knowledge has ever claimed that earth started with a 99% CO2 atmosphere. I'm not sure what the consensus is exactly, but they reckon that it was a mix of water vapour, CO2, NH3 and others due to volcanic outgasing. N2 builds up because its inert and is too heavy to escape the earth (unlike hydrogen). Oxygen also converted any NH3 into water and N2. It just gradually built up over time!
although care must be taken when matching ENSO events to the temperature record. It IS the largest source of inter seasonal climate variability but it doesnt always dominate over other factors
Im sorry, looking at a NINO 3.4 record i can see there WAS an el nino just prior to '05. The point that i was trying to recall from a paper was that it was a very minor one but the temps were still up there with the 98 biggie. If you look closely at both records then you can see: small la nina 2006 = small temp drop
small el nino 2007 = v.small temp up
BIG la nina 2008 = big temp drop
and there was a small la nina at the beginning of 09 which is just turning into a small el nino
Yes, nitrogen makes up ~78% of our atmosphere, but in the inert form of N2. N2 does not absorb or emit infrared radiation.
Nitrogen trifluoride (esp) and methane are both stronger GHGs than CO2, but not nearly as abundant. This makes the overall effect of them less than that of CO2. The other problem is that CO2 has such a long lifetime in the atmosphere and is the one that we are most significantly increasing!! Research isn't ignoring the others, but CO2 gets the limelight for this reason
Nitrogen actually has a Infared light asorbtion,refraction.pass rate which is why a laser Spectrometer can detect it
Nitrogen, like all gases, can asorb thermal heat....which is not the same thing as infared light though some layman types use or mistake Thermal heat and IR radiation for the same thing and use them interchangably
Thermal heat happen when a mass' atoms is agitated and the electrons on the aggitated atoms emmit electromagnetic waves relative to the mass' tempature
2005 WAS before an el nino, and so therefore CANNOT be affected by its warming, it doesnt work like that. Can you not see many other drops in temperature in the past 30yrs that are as big or bigger than the recent one eg ~'91 to '92 and yet the overall trend is sharply upwards. Lots of things affect year on year temperatures, thats why we look at the longer trends. How can the effects of sunspots be picky? some drops correlating to temp rise, others to falls?
CO2 is the 2nd major GHG. Water is the 1st but is self regulating by the water cycle. Water only increases if the atmospheric temp increases-i.e. in a +ve feedback way, and is one of the major +ve feedbacks to global warming. True that GHG relies on the sun, but the forcing due to changes in the sun are outweighed by the effect of increasing GHGs by the amount that we are
If you take 1998 to be your starting point to look at temp trends then you have 2 issues: 1) this is, as you know, the biggest el nino on record
2) not looking at the far more important long term trend
If you look at the averaged 5 year mean that NASA plots then you can see that it increases right thru to 2005ish (a year as hot or hotter than 1998 but with no el nino to help) and only falls a little after. Look back thru the past 30yrs and see at least 2 drops in the 5yr trend larger than this
The relative conc. of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.03%) is seemingly insignificant, but the calculated effects using its physical properties at this conc. IS significant. The only way you can debate this is to debate the measured physical properties of CO2. You could use the analogy of how little cyanide it takes to kill a human. without CO2 to help explain temp changes in the Earth's history, we are left with big temp swings that we cant explain with the other feedbacks and forcings alone.
First of all the dating of CO2 in the temperature record is very tricky and has large error bars, due to the time lag of the CO2 getting trapped in the snow and becoming ice, so there is ambiguity there. But the evidence is pointing towards a few 100 yr lag. You are right, global warming causes CO2 rise- no debate there, however, CO2 in turn causes temp rise in a +ve feedback loop. Without this feedback we would not have seen the amplitude of glacial-interglacial swings that we did!
Er...co2 is to minute to effect the thermal capasity of the Earth's Atmosphere and Thermal heat isn't actually Infared light, nor can bombarding CO2 with infered light generate heat heat in CO2 or any other of the So called "green House Gases"
Nitrogen can asorb Thermal heat which is CONDUCTED to it from the Earth Surface which is the real source of Earths heat
The hot air rises while cold air falls and the variences create wind
Evaportion creates humidity which helps the heat "stick'
So you are arguing against the physics and principles of GHG's?? and that a weakened EM field and changing of earth's axis (which works on MUCH longer timescales) is causing rapid increase in temperatures?? i'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain in detail how these mechanisms could cause the observed changes, and then show the data to back it up! could you point me towards some papers in reputable journals which support any of your claims?
Only the Political Environut Activists posing as "Climate Experts" Atmospheric Physisists and some of the misinformed massesare spuing a corrupted version of Svante's GHG Chemical Theory as a "established fact"
Name me a Meterologist or Geologist that agrees that it is GHG theory and not Surface Heat conduction,Ocean Conveyer and the evaporation/precipitation Cycle that disriputes heat and creates wind and waeather
In 2004 the Earth's axis shiufted 30 meters from a core disturbance quake
YES all those things control our wind and weather, as well as the heat and pressure differences in the atmosphere, they are all interlinked. GHG's increase the temp of the atmosphere, and therefore the earth! This effects surface heat conduction, the ocean, the water cycle etc!
This is the most bizzar argument i have ever seen! Let me get it straight... you believe in a different GHG theory? Arrhenius developed his theory around CO2 to explain the ice ages. Whats your version of his theory?
Greenman did a good job in talking about orbital changes,axis wobble, and axis variation if you seen that video..all the long term stuff
There is also Core disturbance induced sudden Axis shift which can happen when the core is disturbed by gravitational forces of the sun and planets and other celestial bodies
The Egyptains document a "great quake" that changed the path of the Nile and made their endless grasslands Desert within a generation from the sudden 5 degree axis change
5 degree axis change!! thats pretty big! I haven't heard of any of that, so can you please point me to some papers from scientific journals which will enlighten me?
.E. Barton, Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity, v 49, 123-148, 1997.
Kirschvink, Joseph L., et al; "Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander," Science, 277:541, 1997
Oh and in the last 300 years the succesion of core distubances have shifted the Earth's axis 1/2 of a degree...which moves the temparate reagions 2000 miles, causes hooter summers and Cooler Winters some like to blame on "Big Oil Profits' and George Bush(wtf?)
Yes, evaporation causes humidity, helping the heat stick to the earth, which in turn creates more evaporation and so on.....
Sooner or later you're going to get to a point where there's a lot more cloud cover, which would bounce all that heat right back out before it's absorbed
The "Soylent Green" scenario where this stuff just spirals out of control is unrealistic.
There are various tempatures at which a mass's heated body emmits a type of EM frequency as it's atomic structure vibrates from being heated ....but TV remotes which are Infared Flashlights and Radios show that EM frequencies can be generated without a mass being heated
In 0% humidity day Desert.the Thermal heat from the surface will conduct to Dry air as Nitrogen and oxygen will asorb thermal heat like any other gas
Water vapour is a GHG, but only if the temperature is high enough.
Without CO2, there'd be precious little water vapour. Because the earth would be 33 degrees C colder - frozen.
Warming doesn't have to 'go on forever', it just has to get warm enough to destabilise the frozen clathrates and melt the permafrost. Then we're screwed.
It's not that much warmer and we're well on the way.
No, heat from the Surface heat sinks, like the Ocean conveyer are only renewed from the sun and volcanic heat
Heat travels upward only so when the heat conducts to the air it's a 1 way journey as that heated air rises as the Colder air sinks...with variations in heated and cold air resulting,along with the eaths rotation, "Wind"
As the hot air rises it is subjected to the colder upper atomosphere and lower pressure which turns the hmidity back into visible water vapor to make Clouds
right again about the permafrost and methane clathrates, i was only referring to the ice caps themselves, must have misunderstood your origonal comment
the amount of co2 trapped in ice is tiny when compared to other sources, but if you are being pedantic then yes, you are right.
CO2 continues to rise after temps drop again because it takes a while before the +ve feedbacks reduce enough to make it decrease, the temperature is being dominated by the changes in orbit and effects of ice sheet growth by this stage.
you are clearly not looking for a discussion on the topic, but just seeking to be rude and offensive
I'm usually not very keen on censorship, but I think you should remove conspiracy crap/ climate change deniers' comments from the comment sections of your videos. Great videos, by the way: )
winterstellar 2 weeks ago
@winterstellar
I only remove stuff that is overtly racist, threatening, violent, or just so foul that even I can't stand it. Other than that, I try to make it an open forum. I think when conspiracy nuts post, it just underlines my point about climate deniers.
greenman3610 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
@pseudotruth, that's a very good point! If we ALL get together in groups & demand susainability & 'smart planning' from our communities' govt. planning depts, govts. would be less inclined to align with big-money polluters & more likely to start lobbying THEIR committees to change for the better....
{yup, it started with us - & its starts with us!)
JamesKaify 8 months ago
These GW restrictions are to make sure that no one else achieves a level of affluence that the eco elite and Al Gore have right now, thus keeping everything just as it is now with Al and his cronies on top.
Global warming has been going on since the end of the little ice age ~200 years ago and will continue or start cooling even if every human was taken of the planet tomorrow. The argument over man made GW is like to fleas fighting over who steer the dog they are ridding on.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1 "I hate Al Gore" is just another way deniers say "I got nuthin".
greenman3610 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out our upcoming non-profit documentary about UK climate change activists!
JustDoItFilm 11 months ago
We don't have a climate problem, we have a liberal problem.
tnekkc 1 year ago
Name one person who denies the climate.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Factual Asian brides are there **busizz4me.info**
DonetaGersan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The leaked emails are not being "misquoted". Any reader is invited to Google the full text of them and verify that for themselves."
I hope they do - they'll see rather quickly how totally out of context the single sentences being thrown around by deniers are.
ferrett78 1 year ago
From a British press story about the flawed inquiries into ClimateGate:
"Prof Phil Jones, the head of UEA's climatic research unit, had been criticised for writing emails about deleting emails that were apparently the subject of a freedom of information act (FoI) request. He has denied deleting any emails to avoid FoI requests, but the main inquiry into the emails conducted by Sir Muir Russell never asked him or any of the other scientists about this..."
ttowntom 1 year ago
One truly has to wonder why Greenman spends his entire life making and posting these videos, and responding like a martyred zealot when anyone challenges his faith with a post here. Global warming truly is the new religion.
Greenman, do you actually wear a robe while posting ... or do you just say a little prayer to Mother Gaia after each post?
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Im more curious about how much time you spent copy/pasting this exact message to multiple videos posted by him... I suspect you didnt even take the time to watch them, but rather ran in, pasted, and ran out before you accidentally learnt anything that contradicts your message. Sounds a lot more like what a faithful dogmatist would do than anything Ive seen in Greenman's vids, which are generally concerned with the presentation of actual evidence- as opposed to finding ways to ignore it
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett,
I think its quite evident I've spent less than 1/100 the time here than Greenman has. Why not question his religious zeal instead?
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom Call me crazy, but I think people kind of expect channel owners to spend a bit of time on their own channels - especially those that produce original content... So have you managed to watch any of the videos yet? Or are you still just copy/pasting the same messages across multiple channels associated with Global warming related videos?
ferrett78 1 year ago
A "bit of time"? Greenman creates an entire series of videos, and posts thousands of responses total? And you don't find that more than a little disturbing?
And yes, I've watched his videos. They're quite humorous really, especially the ones that use clips from Hollywood films to try to make a point.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Luckily the real world doesn't correspond to his Hollywood reality, which is why the number of scientists who reject GW alarmism continues to increase exponentially, and even its most zealous supporters now admit there is something terribly wrong.
'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't" - K. Trenberth, 10/2009.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom So you've finally resorted to misquoting stolen emails in which several independent reviews found no wrong doing? Luckily, you're claims are easily dealt with by pointing to yet another video! One of these days you might make an argument where the response hasn't already been taken care of including the full analysis of such quotes!
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
ferrett78 1 year ago
The leaked emails are not being "misquoted". Any reader is invited to Google the full text of them and verify that for themselves.
As for the "independent reviews", one was by the friends and colleagues of the accused, the other led by a gentleman who runs a $20B carbon trading company. Both refused to interview any witnesses other than the scientists involved, and neither made any conclusions as to the accuracy of their conclusions or methods.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
there have been 5 total reviews, including one by the UK house of commons, and one by Penn State University.
Your conspiracy keeps expanding. They are all against you.
greenman3610 1 year ago
As you well know, none of the inquiries were truly independent. And none "exonerated" the scientists involved. None of them asked why they deleted emails and asked other scientists to do the same. None asked why they broke the law to ignore FOI requests. None interviewed any of the scientists or others actually raising allegations against the CRU scientists.
The British press has done a thorough job reporting on the numerous problems with these so-called investigations.
ttowntom 1 year ago
One of the investigations, for instance, was headed by Lord Oxburgh, a man who in 2005 said global warming was "the greatest problem facing mankind". Oxburgh is also CEO of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.
The Oxburgh 'investigation' refused to investigate any of the real issues behind ClimateGate. Instead, it confined itself to examining just 11 published papers by the CRU, out of many hundreds. (cont)
ttowntom 1 year ago
Even with all these limitations and conflicts of interest the Oxburgh team found several serious issues. It said that research and data-gathering techniques were "sometimes sloppy", that inappropriate statistical techniques had been used, that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph had been exaggerated, and that key uncertainties and caveats in the papers had been ignored or stripped away when reported on by the IPCC (note the IPCC members reporting on those papers were the same CRU scientists).
ttowntom 1 year ago
Can you spell "Great Extinction"? I can...
stevethul1 1 year ago
"Alarmists are trying to re-write history by denying the Medieval Warming Period."
They are not denying the MWP, the MWP comes from measurements taken from one area, Europe (Europe =/= Global)
"Greenland was much warmer, they used to grow grapes there"
Greenland also used to be on the equator thanks to plate tectonics.
"Do NOT trade your freedom to the govt for the alarmists lies!"
Who is trading any freedoms? We get cleaner air and energy sources and create new jobs, you are so full of shit.
Moirera 1 year ago
Those third world people have clearly have something to gain by siding with the "lying scientists". I imagine they'll all be SOOOO rich by the end of the decade from all those carbon credits....
Although not in those words, I suspect deniers will just write it off as "it could be some other reason, X, Y, Z"...
Moirera 1 year ago
Seriously, these videos are great! You really need to make more of them!
Make some more on the effects of climate change. Especially mention the effects of climate change and ocean acidification (the other carbon problem) on coral reefs. I have a feeling that the reefs may be the most important part of the equation.
seltian 1 year ago 2
@seltian
stay tuned. they are in the pipeline.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I look forward to it.
seltian 1 year ago
@greenman3610
If you're taking requests more on feedback mechanisms masking warming and the possibility of these mechanisms reaching breaking point would be good :)
CHSoarer 1 year ago
I see scores of people that will be banging on my door step one day for food and water. If that reality doesn't bother you. Think happy place!
sagemakaiserxl 1 year ago
AGW, al gore and all promotions of this scam are the crock of the century.
Alarmists are trying to re-write history by denying the Medieval Warming Period.
Greenland was much warmer, they used to grow grapes there. The 1990's were not "the warmest decade EVER!"
Even the 1930's were warmer.
.
31,000 scientists know man-made global warming is a lie:
~petitionproject
Do NOT trade your freedom to the govt for the alarmists lies!
co2isgoodal 1 year ago
@co2isgoodal Nobody in the science field is denying or trying to ignore the Medieval Warming. It has been intensively studied. Try "New Scientist;" Vol. 201, Issue 2703, page 13 for a start, then try looking up Bradley, University of Massachusetts, or Keller with the Los Alamos Laboratory, or perhaps Pederson with Columbia University. No, science is NOT denying the Medieval Climate Anomaly. Did you try looking up any of this research before claiming there is none?
KingofNH 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thousands rally for immigration reform in DC
AP March 22
Millions of CO2 producers & environmental polluters want to be added to the US polluting lifestyle so they can increase GHGs, destroy wildlife habitat, & increase US environmental degradation. Gore, phony environmental organizations, & the AGW Cult have not or will not do anything to stop it. Its not convenient to the revolution & stopping GHG increases, environmental degradation, or protecting wildlife is not their goal
Thisawareness 1 year ago
goog2k said
"BTW, the U.S. CONSUMES & POLLUTES 20X more than a 3rd world peasant.
So, U.S. population growth = 14.18 X 20 = 284, the equivalent of 284 poor children in Mali, Uganda & Afghanistan.
Duhh????
Over 1/4 of all the world's past pollution came from the U.S., only 4% of the world's population.
China still has only 1/4 the per capita consumption and pollution of the U.S.
Pathetic"
With that being said why did Gore helped to push through increasing the US population?
Gore=Fraud
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
By 2100, at current rates of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, average ocean pH will drop 0.3 - 0.4 and be @ 7.8 with an increase in acidic H+ ion concentration of 150-200%.
That will cause a 50% DECREASE of ocean carbonate ions (CO3).
Carbonate ions are needed for growth by plankton & corals at the base of the ocean's food chain.
Oops!!!
For info. on CO2 ocean acidification check:
Dr. Richard Feely, NOAA
Ocean Acidification Part 1 of 3
/watch?v=0KgRpJxWQDw&NR=1
goog2k 1 year ago
We make over 90 million tons CO2 each DAY.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising 2ppm per year (0.5%), TWICE that of 50 years ago.
CO2 levels are 37% above the highest levels for 650,000 years.
Dissolved CO2 makes acid.
Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 and H+ ion is up 30%
In 25 years CO2 will reach 450ppm which most oceanographers warn will interfere with growth of calcium carbonate forming plankton and corals.
They make the base of the ocean's food chain.
Search:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide
goog2k 1 year ago
11/23/09, (AP) Mauna Loa, Global warming gases have built up to record levels in the atmosphere, from emissions that match scientists' worst-case scenarios.
Carbon dioxide concentrations this fall are hovering at around 385 parts per million, on their way to a near-certain record high above 390 in the first half of next year, at the annual peak.
"For the past million years we've never seen 390. You have to wonder what that's going to do," said physicist John Barnes, the observatory director.
goog2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FOUND THIS:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago 6
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 2 years ago
Why is this 650,000 year number always repeated? Is it because over a million, ten million, or anything longer the significance is no longer there?
Did the oceans acidify in the Carboniferous when CO2 was 7000 ppm? Or during most of the rest of geologic history, when C02 was higher than now? Gee, how did ocean life manage?
Could it be, just possibly, you're a pathetic fucking liar?
12stringsforme 1 year ago
Thanks for the reflection of how very good I have it living here in Oregon, especially compared to those poor sods.
ThorGoLucky 2 years ago
Excuse me, Lippmann. (Walter)
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
Again, with certain freedoms and rights come responsibilities, especially when we're talking about such an important subject as AGW. So they have the responsibility to be well informed, and thus should make the effort. If they don't, I'm not inclined to call them "a skeptic", just as I'm not inclined to call creationists skeptical towards evolutionary theory. If you're going to have an opinion about it, at least study the science (otherwise you would be skeptical about what exactly?)
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
In today's complex world, you have to make the effort to really understand something, and, with these people having the right to vote (which they - I needn't mention - damn well deserve just as any other individual) they also have an obligation to do just that. If they don't, but instead quite mindlessly reiterate whatever propaganda has been handed to them, I don't feel the least bit sympathy with their situation. They are denying reality, albeit out of ignorance, not stupidity per se.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
Well, I don't know how much experience you have debating these people here on youtube, but I've debated them quite a lot lately, and, from what I can tell, they are usually quite agressive in pushing their point of view. They usually dismiss all scientific evidence/studies out of hand when it doesn't suit their belief system (which is what it is, albeit a "negative" one). Sure, a huge "manufacturing of dissent" (to paraphrase Lipman) has been going on, but that's not an excuse.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
People who unreasonably disagree with climate science and AGW are *not* skeptics, in the same way that creationists are *not* skeptics apropos of evolutionary theory.
Everyone is skeptical, so am I. What denial amounts to is not an absolute truth that is denied, but choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. What is being denied is an empirically verifiable reality. That is denialism pur sang, it has nothing to do with skepticism.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
I would argue that not a single individual EVER "chooses" to "deny reality".
That would imply that at heart they knew climate change to be real and were DENYING it CONCIOUSLY. I disagree, I feel that everyone I have spoken to who were skepticle of climate change and even thought there was some form of conspiracy have had information they deemed reliable to back it up.
They may have been MISTAKEN or may have drawn the WRONG CONCLUSIONS. But they were based on rational arguement.
Grysham 2 years ago
I think we must be careful not to apply our own personal knowledge and understanding and projecting the same knowledge onto others. Not everyone is coming from the same background and understanding as you are.
Again, to "deny" implies that they KNOW the truth and are DENYING it. Is it so unimaginable, given the huge amounts of media distortion and confusion on this topic, that people are simply MISTAKEN?
Your thoughts on this?
Grysham 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
goog2k 2 years ago
AWP are you still here? Vanish clown, ricky-tick, and take your BS with you.
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This video is ghastly terrible and encouraging of World Goverment.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Great video. Most people in the US and Europe have never seen how people live in third world countries. They are living on the edge now so if things get worse they will be starving.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 4
Peter, your videos are great. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to offer real understanding of the issues.
However, the only evidence for your points in this video come from Brilliant's talk, the rest is factually vacuous moralising that glosses over details.
What sets you apart is that you provide ample, well-referenced, sound science and informative, engaging presentation. So please avoid emotionally manipulative rubbish, as the latter is the hallmark of the very subjects you are debunking.
neurocrater 2 years ago 2
I think this is one of the weakest of my vids in terms of providing reference to primary sources. However I believe it is broadly accurate in terms of the impacts that third world people are experiencing and will experience, ie drought, severe weather, etc
greenman3610 2 years ago
Lors Monckton is an artist in twisted truth and false science. If you think Gore is wrong, then Monckton is worst than that.
regg001 2 years ago
type in "Lord Monckton Climate Change Fraud"
he is an expert on climate change and has tirelessly been exposing it around the world as a digusting hoax.
Al Gore continuously refuses to debate him. as do many other scientists claiming climate change is man made
dont believe me though, look for yourself, research Lord Monckton any you will find numerous links to him and other scientists proving it is a government hoax to tax the western population and depopulate the third world.
seroeth 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
seroeth
Why do you believe Monckton and disbelieve the thousands of expert scientists who say that the climate is warming and it's primarily caused by CO2 as a result of human activity?
tinyurl com/yg4a68b
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Oh go do some learning. Monktons a twat and all he has said is so easily rebutted but fox viewers like you who get their 'knowledge' from glen beck will be impressed because you are right wing crackah's and not very bright.
Rockster969 2 years ago
"oh go do some learning"
thats something ralph wiggum would say off the simpsons.
Carefull what you write before going around calling people stupid, with nothing to back it up, or you may just end up looking like a complete idiot.
go do some learning!
seroeth 2 years ago
I have the worlds leading climatologists to back me up,I defer to the experts in science because they seek the truth.They collect data and make sense of it,not collect data in the hope of reinforcing an idea.
Climatologists don't work like creationist apologists you know?
You're fucking stupid I say again,if you actually think that polluters bitch monkton has science to rebut GW.
No,actually,you're a total idiot wanker,lets get it right for science eh?
Rockster969 2 years ago
here is something to think about you biased, simple minded, foul mouthed idiot:
The climategate scandal.
The pliticalisation of climte science.
Al Gore set to make billions from carbon credits.
The projected death of millions in the third world due to a clamp down on their economic growth.
the attempt to implement environmental taxes and laws that would dramatically reduce the freedoms and wealth of all western countries, forcing the middle and lower classes into complete poverty.
seroeth 2 years ago
The climategate scandal.
*sigh*
Tell me, of all of the emails by a FEW scientists in ONE part of the world, exactly WHICH ones show that there was a scandal of ANY kind?
Buuuuuuut of course that isn't what matters. I suppose that at the end of the day thinking that climate change ISN'T happening is much more reassuring. Something controlable, understandable, like a government conspiracy or something equally mundane is far easier to come to terms with.
Grysham 2 years ago 2
if you actually knew anything about the climatgate scandal you would know that it is NOT the denyal of climate change
it exposes the lies that the climate is sygnificantly influenced by man which it is not, climate change is natural and cant be stopped by man, its just another way the obcenely rich political classes can tax you and me into oblivion
you are just another flat earther, people like you are the reason propaganda was invented.
seroeth 2 years ago
I am a flat earther huh?
Interestingly, I wrote a paper on this so called "climategate", which involved me reading through the long accounts of scientists back and forthing over various topics. Needless to say, it was tedious work.
What I found, in my research and STUDY of the so called scandal was NO EVIDENCE to suggest ANY scandal. AT ALL.
Grysham 2 years ago
Now, perhaps I overlooked something. In which case, BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION. Instead of flatly insisting my views are ignorant and foolish, show me my folly with EVIDENCE.
Quote something, link something. Show me ANYTHING that DISPROVES my prior claim. Don't feel like anything would go over my head, I am well read and in fact WRITE on this topic. Please, as they say, LAY ONE ON ME.
If you CAN'T prove what you claim then REVIEW and CHANGE your oppinion. Without fact your working on FAITH.
Grysham 2 years ago
I don't think your a fool, or ignorant. Clearly you've made attempts to understand and apply your theory to the topic.
But let me assure you, your theories are somewhat mis-informed here. Stop quoting retoric and show some evidence, or take a very close look at what your claiming to be true and review it. How much of what your saying rests on facts you've checked up on, studies you've fully read and understand?
I'm confident that you won't simply reply with more "Your an idiot" ad hominims
Grysham 2 years ago
you have to look deeper, at the interconnections of it all
look to the funding, look who will become rich, and who will be driven into poverty or in the case of the 3rd world, death.
look at how its 1 rule for them and another for you
i agree that there are many environmental issues that can and should be avoided: de-forestation/ dumping of toxic waste etc but they are ignored by the media look at how they just concentrate EVERYTHING on C02 and climate change, look past the propaganda
seroeth 2 years ago
Now you don't need to look far for propaganda, this I agree with you. Every media outlet, at least within Britain, has quite a high degree of sensationalism and distortion.
However, you haven't provided any EVIDENCE. Before you can assert a position like "CO2 isn't important" you must PROVE that to be the case. Before you can say "Climategate disproves all the science for climate change" you must show WHERE and HOW.
So I ask you again, provide me with this body of evidence. SHOW me.
Grysham 2 years ago
However I put to you that if you CAN'T, if all that last comment was based on was conjecture and speculation because the media focus on CO2, then you do not HAVE a position. You have idle speculation.
So again I ask, no I BEG, prove me wrong. Show me the EVIDENCE. I WANT to think climate change isn't happening. I would far PREFER that to be the case. However, on study, on evidence, on measurements and on analysis this is shown, again and again, NOT to be the case.
Grysham 2 years ago
Finally, I hope you are not offended if I point out to you this piece of Irony.
You claim that propaganda was made just for people like me. Yet I put to you this, I was able to cut through the swath of bullshit that was climategate, that was PROPAGATED, DISTORTED AND EXAGERATED BY THE MEDIA precisely BECAUSE I had read, studied and KNEW what happened.
You claim that anti-climategate feeling is propaganda. The Irony is that your very position on this IS BASED ON THE PROPAGANDA THAT CAME OUT.
Grysham 2 years ago
look if you know as much about this as you claim,
then i presume you know why the copenhagen treaty failed so miserably?
seroeth 2 years ago
Actually yes. Daniel Chivers, one of the folks involved with alot of climate movement political work here in the UK, and his girlfriend who's involved in the same work, were IN for some of the meeting.
Why did it fail? There were various reasons. Some political grand standing among countries, some to do with economics, but some of the main reasons, according to Daniel, was the inability for China and America to negotiate and settle the deals for their own political reasons. Without these two
Grysham 2 years ago
big hitters, other nations were unwilling to be the ones to make more cutsw than any other. And part of the reason America and China didn't back the convention movements is BECAUSE of this media induced confusion surrounding the subject.
Climate change is still hotly contested. AMONG THE PUBLIC. The scientific comunity, and this is according to people I KNOW who WORK as climatologists and analyse the data, are broadly speaking in agreement. They might not agree SPECIFICS and argue small DETAIL
Grysham 2 years ago
but they ALL agree with the SCIENCE of CO2, feedback mechanisms and other climate affecting systems.
Also I want to just say something when you say "MAN made global warming". We're NOT saying that, at least us who study it aren't. What we're saying is that humanity is a FACTOR. We are acting as a CATALYST to accelerate and alter a NATURAL process. We've upset the BALANCE of the system.
We are not the CAUSE. We are a FACTOR.
This is a very important distinction to make.
Grysham 2 years ago
I think that your an intelligent person. Please, read up on the science on this subject, ALL of it, and listen to the summaries by PROFESSIONALS. We laymen, myself INCLUDED, can UNDERSTAND the topic but we're i'll equiped to actually make PREDICTIONS based on the science because we lack the full KNOWLEDGE needed to do so.
As such, the reports of these professionals needs to be highly regarded. Do you not take your car to a mechanic? Your injuries to a doctor? Why are climatologists less capable
Grysham 2 years ago
"climategate" is a device deniers use to stop thought.
It makes them feel better, and assuages the pain of their cognitive dissonance.
greenman3610 2 years ago
I agree, but argueing from a phycological perspective I would suggest that this is a subconcious effect and perhaps greater influences than simple "denial" are at work.
I think this individual genuinely believes his position. He simply hasn't been led FULLY down his path of thinking so that he can see how his position is speculative conjecture and not rational and reasoned deliberation. I don't think this is malicious, but misinformed.
Grysham 2 years ago
As is often the case, the onus, it seems, is on us to provide illumination.
In addition I think its important for all of us who are trying to educate people on the science of this important topic to understand that people are rarely deliberately malicious in their skepticism of climate change. I see many people losing their tempers add engaging in hostile mud slinging.
I don't think this is very productive. Hostile attacks and name calling...
Grysham 2 years ago
usually cause both parties to adopt a defensive mentality. Such a mentality is highly pressured and emotive, rational reasoning will be less engaged in favor of the more emotive responsive part of our psyche. As a result individuals will be more likely to be influenced by such notions as "pride" and even a sense of "superiority". A dismissal of the other as simply "stupid" or "moronic".
These defenses are normal and natural. But thats why its important to engage people with respect and...
Grysham 2 years ago
rationality. GUIDE them to illumination, don't BLUDGEN them with it.
People are capable of learning and understanding, but their far more likely to discard information from people they don't like, or people they feel don't like THEM. As such it is in our best interests, perhaps even our DUTY, to rise above such responses. To be those charasmatic and reassuring teachers.
But I'm ranting, I appologise. Again, your videos are excellent and your responses well informed. Keep up the great work.
Grysham 2 years ago
again, I"m here to help.
Seroeth, before you continue to embarrass yourself, you'd best look at my vids on the so called "climate gate" nonsense.
It is a distraction.
part 1
/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
part 2
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
greenman3610 2 years ago
you do nothing but divide debates.
you paint a venomous picture of the man made climate change sceptics with your specific use of words, like "denier". i see these tactics used all the time.
im no scientist, ive never claimed to be, but i know my politics, and i guarantee you, if any major bill passes on Co2, EVERYONE, thats you, me, Grysham.. everyone will enter a new dark age. you are fighting to give politicians and the social elite the power to take your human rights away.
seroeth 2 years ago
Also, I don't think your a "denier". I agree, thats a silly term that implies some absolute truth that is being "denied".
People who disagree are "Skeptics", as you say. Your not stupid, your not incapable, your not evil. You're skepticle and for good reason.
Sadly, however well meaning, polorisation, distortion and exageration on BOTH sides causes mistakes that can reinforce eaothers polorised oppinion. This can lead to what you see in these comments, close minded ad homenim insults that
Grysham 2 years ago
serve to help and further the dabate and understanding not at all.
Grysham 2 years ago
A favorite quote: "The Iraq War was basically about oil" Alan Greenspan.
For GW to be a hoax, CO2's accepted role as a greenhouse gas has to somehow cease to exist at levels above 250ppm (Earths natural balance of CO2). How CAN CO2 be at 390ppm without affecting climate? The burden of proof is clearly on the foot of the deniers, yet none has an explanation for this. Cosmic rays, sunlight, volcanoes; alternative forcings abound: but HOW CAN CO2 NOT have an affect above 250ppm?
ubrew12 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
acavideo
'...growing food with oil; literally eating oil in the form of fertilizers..'
I don't know if you've come across this, I haven't looked at the references yet , but it looks interesting.
tinyurl (com) /yuwdz
pseudotruth 2 years ago
All this and people still think global warming is nothing but a hoax? :/
AtheistLurker 2 years ago
Or holocaust deniers.
IndianaGreg2000 2 years ago
This is completely irrelevant.
I go out of my way to be environmentally responsible and use as little energy as possible to conserve RESOURCES.
AND I believe global warming IS THE BIGGEST HOAX TO EVER HAVE EXISTED!
fuckyougeorgebush 2 years ago
yet you CITE NO SOURCES OR EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU PASSIONATELY BELIEVE!!!!!
until you do, you're just another loon around here.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Citing sources on youtube is impossible and begs the old question "if a tree falls in the middle of the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise?"
Maurice Strong is an enemy of humanity. If he were in control he would kill the vast majority of us to "save the planet."
Google Maurice Strong.
fuckyougeorgebush 2 years ago
and saying climate Deniers are like Stuart smalley...that's school yard tactics..
sto12m 2 years ago
wow...20 to 40 inches...that's 3-4 ft...whoopdie doo...
sto12m 2 years ago
00dfm00
Business As Usual [BAU] is like flying in an aircraft at high altitude, without a radio or safety gear over shark infested seas, while a lunatic wanders around randomly cutting wires, drilling out rivets and beating the windows and doors with a fire axe. You notice that the lunatic has entered the cockpit and has killed the co-pilot, now he's about to kill the pilot.
Would you let him? After-all nothing really bad has happened so far!
That's what we're doing by BAU!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
At least the flight lasts a couple hundred years.
IndianaGreg2000 2 years ago
00dfm00
Almost all the extra CO2 is the result of human activity. That extra CO2 causes the warming and is enhanced by water vapour and other GHGs like methane. We can never have 'the 100% proof' in a complex chaotic system. That doesn't mean we have no idea.
Lack of certainty is no reason for complacency, it is a reason for greater caution. It's not as if we can blithely discard the experiment as a failure, shrug our shoulders and start again.
We get to do this experiment just the once!
pseudotruth 2 years ago 3
Midnight Oil ?
Do you know the lead singer Peter Garret is a Green MP in the Australian government, he not only approves of Australia mining coal, but about 3 months ago he gave the go ahead (nod) to a uranium mine ..... go figure?
In an email I sent him I quoted this song "US forces gives the nod"
He went from an informed activist into a .... politician
oilcrash1 2 years ago
Wow, that's a bummer.
greenman3610 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
.... wiki the 1930s Dust Bowl. No rain, bad winds, tons of erosion. It make lives miserable for years. Are we blaming global warming for that too? Screwed up rain patterns etc. obviously have non-warming origins as well.
Maybe we should have a much closer look at resource management instead of CO2. When you clear-cut trees along hills, there is going to be problems. When you throw industrial toxins into the waters, reefs die. No one refutes these as they have been tested - unlike man-made CO2!
00dfm00 2 years ago
While I definitely feel sorry for those whose lives are affected by unusual weather, this still doesn't prove man's involvement in it.
Back in 1st year philosophy, you learned about a logical fallacy called confirming the antecedent.
A (premise: man is accelerating global warming)
B (there is less rain & crops dry out)
If A, then B
Well, we see B, but that doesn't necessarily mean A. B can be caused by multiple things. We are still trying to confirm the truth of A.
More...
00dfm00 2 years ago
00dfm00
Back in 1st year philosophy, we learned about a logical fallacy called the "Strawman Argument".
Greenman never said that this was evidence that AGW is a reality. This is evidence against those who claim that, even if it happens, it won't be that big a deal (or might even be beneficial).
Skydancer365 2 years ago 2
Really skydancer?? All greenman's videos revolve around proving AGW. Just because he didn't explicitly say the words "AGW is a reality" in this video, certainly doesn't deny the message he is stating. All this and his other videos do is take the indirect approach to the claim of AGW, which is what I was arguing against.
00dfm00 2 years ago
00dfm00
Attribution of GW to human activity is based upon science
It is based-upon measurable facts:
a) burning of carbon fuels produces CO2 - CO2 is a GHG [radiative physics]
b) Burn rates of FFs are known
c) rising CO2 levels in atmosphere
d) Isotopic mix of C in FFs has distinct fingerprint
e) Isotopic ratios of C in atmos. are changing to reflect the CO2 from FF combustion
f) Isotopic ratios of C in ocean surface are changing to reflect the dissolved CO2 from FF combustion
Voilà!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
pseudotruth, all that does is show there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure some of it may be added due to us, but we still don't have the 100% proof that our contribution is a strong driver of warming Nor do we have proof of a 'tipping point'.
And off topic - CO2 is still plant food. The wheat experiments were flawed and fly in the face of the observations of seasoned commercial and private greenhouse food growers world-wide, as well as other scientific experiments.
00dfm00 2 years ago
@00dfm00 the only real proof u can have of a tipping point that everyone (and i'm sure not even then all) would accept is when u literally pass it and the effects are so obvious that even the most dedicated opponent can't deny it - do we really have to wait for that point?
symelian 2 years ago
Of course, they'll just blame it on God's vengeance for gay parades.
greenman3610 2 years ago
1:49 - A comment from Bill Murray...
OccamsView 2 years ago 3
Great video Peter, one of the best yet - keep up the great work.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago 3
well said WavegirlThinks!
TRAA has been posting on UCTV's "American Denial of Global Warming" for around a year, and if you read any of his posts, you will realize that he would fail the entrance exam for high school.
On the lighter side, I did a screenshot of his "Grand Unification Theory" from ADGW, and sent it to my oldest and best friend, a theoretical physicist, last week....he is still ROFL!
cansurfer1 2 years ago 2
@Chris949
I'll second that. I also dont know any scientist that calls themself a scientist. I call myself a microbiologist. My partner is an astrophysicist. My friend is a fluvial geologist. We are all scientists but never call ourselves such. I never trust the comments of someone that calls themself a scientist, because they could be commenting on something that has nothing to do with their area of expertise. It degrades the comment to an argument from authority rather than expert knowlege.
WavegirlThinks 2 years ago 2
too true... I am an invertebrate zoologist. Most of the other "scientists" I know have yet to disagree about this. For all we know these so called self-proclaimed scientists could be rat psychologists or not even anyone with a degree at all.
marim0y 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What a load of bull. Skirting around facts and misusing science and real world data. Absolute misinformation.
ohpolikop 2 years ago
You have to do better than that. This sort of generic "BS" claim without specifics is meaningless. What facts are skirted? How are science and real world data misused? Where is the video wrong, specifically?
chrisd949 2 years ago 5
ohpolikop
Thanks for sharing some vague drivel with us. Could you be more specific with your drivel?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
@TRRA:
"I am a Scientist .... Show me a report that tests AGW as Conclusive and absolute fact "
I'm curious what kind of scientist expects to be able to find a report that shows ANYTHING to be an "Conclusive and absolute fact." Science is incapable of such a judgment. It can't even prove as an "absolute fact" that your apple will fall to the floor the next time you drop it. Any scientist should know this.
chrisd949 2 years ago 9
These Imbeciles who believe resources are infinite (or nowhere near depleted) were the same bigoted goons who wiped out species in frontier times. Heck, some probably still believe that was a liberal conspiracy and hunt animals just kept raining down forever.
shadowcnidarian 2 years ago
TRAA's approach is to:
a) Deny the science
b) Lie about the science
c) Introduce as many red-herrings as possible
e) Repeat pseudo-scientific drivel ad nauseam
f) Never admit to being wrong
g) Speak-up for coal
It is notable that TRAA makes so many posts, that it's hard to imagine that he has a job. Perhaps, this is his job.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Hahaha
1) I am a Scientist, I'm trelling you what the Political Enviromental Activist posing as "Climate Experts" are saying isn't what the Scientist are saying and What they are suggesting isn't what the Scientist are suggesting
2) Try actually reading the reports instead of just thumping on them..their is fine print and disclaimers even on Jame henson's work that all the factors haven't been tested or verified as of yet
c) Show me a report that tests AGW as Conclusive and absolute fact
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
e) Surely you can Google anything I say for verification..or go to a Building called a Liabrary and look it up in Acreac devices called books f) I do admit I'm wrong....when I'm wrong
g) yes considering by former Environut status and the fact I do sell alternative power technology to those willing to dish out the 15k-30k to power their little house you'd think I be on the "No clean coal Wagon"..lol
I prefer Water kenetic,Wave turbine,and Geothermal power
P.S. I post on my days off
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
What's with the Zeitgeist footage?
MidgardEagle 2 years ago
" 20-40 inch increase in Sea-Level is a myth that cannot be supported. "
right. The best science now indicates much higher.
The rest of your post is non sensical.
greenman3610 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TOTALLY ANNECDOTAL and UNSCIENTIFIC.
1) 20-40 inch increase in Sea-Level is a myth that cannot be supported.
2) The amount of water on earth is a constant. There's no evidence that its going to redistribute itself toward rich people and away from poor people.
3) Get your facts straight. Is more water a good thing or a bad thing? You can't claim both.
4) Droughts are NOT new. They just have a new thing to blame it on now.
5) Bangladesh has seen floods since the dawn of time.
andharvey8 2 years ago
Comment removed
garith21 2 years ago
1) water levels rising is due to a combination of a principle known as thermal expansion and melting glaciers or other large ice bodies
2) 6CO2+6H2O+sunlight => C6H12O6 + 6O2, and the other physical laws that are being used to make predictions.
3) water's a good thing if you need water to live, but bad if you're home is under water
4) so things can't have new triggers based on physical laws?
5) even if it wouldn't get it otherwise?
garith21 2 years ago 4
Are you... retarded? I don't know about 1, so I won't respond to it. That's what smart people do when they don't know enough to voice an opinion on a scientific subject. Try it sometime.
2) The amount of water is not constant. Water can be created and destroyed. We use hydrolysis on water to make hydrogen and oxygen for fuel for the space shuttles. That is destroying water. We do it in many other things as well.
TehFlowah 2 years ago 3
3) I guess water is a good thing then, because you need it to live. Oh wait, it can drown you if you have too much. I guess it's a bad thing. OH WAIT! I GUESS IT CAN BE BOTH! It can be both. It shows a severe lack of logic and intelligence on your part that you can not see how depending on the situation, water can be good and bad.
TehFlowah 2 years ago 3
1) Actually 100,000 years ago the Great Barrier reef off Australia was a forest, there was a Glacier covering all of what is now Canada,and 1/2 of the US, there was a land bridge betweem Asia and th4 Americas and the Persion Gulf was a Valley Forest...as the Glaciers melted from the last ICe Age the seas Rose and the Great Lakes and body of water formed
2) Huh?
3) Fresh Water dumping into Ocean from Polar Ice will eventually trigger a Ice Age as the Ocean Conveyer stops
4) yes
5) yes
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
I absolutly love these videos. My only "complaint" would be about the sound levels. I seem to range from soft whispers to loud rock music. Maybe it's just my settings but apart from that, GREAT work, keep it up!
bemiand 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Big deal. Those warmings are a response to long term changes of the Earth's orbit around the sun and the CO_2 changes are a response the warming. No one is claiming all warmings are due CO_2 input imbecile - only the modern warming.
queanbeyan 2 years ago
I'll be explaining and clarifiying this in upcoming vids.
stay tuned.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Greenman,
These excellent videos are severely irritating the denialists.
Please keep up the pressure.
pseudotruth 2 years ago 3
I will look it up more. As for other planets, im sure that if you look into it properly from renound scientific literature or websites then you will see what the scientists think is going on. If you google "Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find"
and click on the first link, then there is a good news report there on the findings, and you might be pleased to note that they agree with your view on the snowball effect, but in this case relating to orbital changes, not sunspots
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Well thats a bit of a lie because you said on at least 2 occasions that CO2 had no effect:
"Seems to point to CO2 having absolutely no effect on the Temperatures"
"Because thatt CO2 had ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT"
But im glad you agree that it has effect now. I need to refresh my knowledge on the details of how we returned to glacial ages with peak CO2 lagging, but it is to do with the Earth's orbit forcing changes that outweigh the CO2 level, and the "snowball effect" of CO2 +ve feedbacks
Mrdave153 2 years ago
I completely agree with you there, venus and earth is comparing two extremes of the same effect. I have never mentioned venus because it is not a good analogue to earth. The levels of CO2 that we are looking at is specific to our planet and our CURRENT climate system and global biology etc. CO" has been FAR higher on earth relative to now, but it didnt support our living beings or have the climate zones we have today
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Titan. Saturns Moon, has a Hy Nitrogen/Methane atmosphere as is a better representation of Premodial earth then Venus or Mars almost pure Co2 atmosphere
I mean Scientist can explain the Life Exhaling Oxygen to bring up the Oxygen levels but how to you magically turn a 99% percent Carbon Dioxide Atmosphere into a 78ish% Nitrogen one as some Envirnuts posing as "Climate Experts" want you to believe?
Again,Titan is proof that a premordial planet can Start with a high Nitrogen Atmopshere
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here... no one to my knowledge has ever claimed that earth started with a 99% CO2 atmosphere. I'm not sure what the consensus is exactly, but they reckon that it was a mix of water vapour, CO2, NH3 and others due to volcanic outgasing. N2 builds up because its inert and is too heavy to escape the earth (unlike hydrogen). Oxygen also converted any NH3 into water and N2. It just gradually built up over time!
but how is this related...?
Mrdave153 2 years ago
although care must be taken when matching ENSO events to the temperature record. It IS the largest source of inter seasonal climate variability but it doesnt always dominate over other factors
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Im sorry, looking at a NINO 3.4 record i can see there WAS an el nino just prior to '05. The point that i was trying to recall from a paper was that it was a very minor one but the temps were still up there with the 98 biggie. If you look closely at both records then you can see: small la nina 2006 = small temp drop
small el nino 2007 = v.small temp up
BIG la nina 2008 = big temp drop
and there was a small la nina at the beginning of 09 which is just turning into a small el nino
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Yes, nitrogen makes up ~78% of our atmosphere, but in the inert form of N2. N2 does not absorb or emit infrared radiation.
Nitrogen trifluoride (esp) and methane are both stronger GHGs than CO2, but not nearly as abundant. This makes the overall effect of them less than that of CO2. The other problem is that CO2 has such a long lifetime in the atmosphere and is the one that we are most significantly increasing!! Research isn't ignoring the others, but CO2 gets the limelight for this reason
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Nitrogen actually has a Infared light asorbtion,refraction.pass rate which is why a laser Spectrometer can detect it
Nitrogen, like all gases, can asorb thermal heat....which is not the same thing as infared light though some layman types use or mistake Thermal heat and IR radiation for the same thing and use them interchangably
Thermal heat happen when a mass' atoms is agitated and the electrons on the aggitated atoms emmit electromagnetic waves relative to the mass' tempature
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
2005 WAS before an el nino, and so therefore CANNOT be affected by its warming, it doesnt work like that. Can you not see many other drops in temperature in the past 30yrs that are as big or bigger than the recent one eg ~'91 to '92 and yet the overall trend is sharply upwards. Lots of things affect year on year temperatures, thats why we look at the longer trends. How can the effects of sunspots be picky? some drops correlating to temp rise, others to falls?
Mrdave153 2 years ago
CO2 is the 2nd major GHG. Water is the 1st but is self regulating by the water cycle. Water only increases if the atmospheric temp increases-i.e. in a +ve feedback way, and is one of the major +ve feedbacks to global warming. True that GHG relies on the sun, but the forcing due to changes in the sun are outweighed by the effect of increasing GHGs by the amount that we are
Mrdave153 2 years ago
If you take 1998 to be your starting point to look at temp trends then you have 2 issues: 1) this is, as you know, the biggest el nino on record
2) not looking at the far more important long term trend
If you look at the averaged 5 year mean that NASA plots then you can see that it increases right thru to 2005ish (a year as hot or hotter than 1998 but with no el nino to help) and only falls a little after. Look back thru the past 30yrs and see at least 2 drops in the 5yr trend larger than this
Mrdave153 2 years ago
The relative conc. of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.03%) is seemingly insignificant, but the calculated effects using its physical properties at this conc. IS significant. The only way you can debate this is to debate the measured physical properties of CO2. You could use the analogy of how little cyanide it takes to kill a human. without CO2 to help explain temp changes in the Earth's history, we are left with big temp swings that we cant explain with the other feedbacks and forcings alone.
Mrdave153 2 years ago
First of all the dating of CO2 in the temperature record is very tricky and has large error bars, due to the time lag of the CO2 getting trapped in the snow and becoming ice, so there is ambiguity there. But the evidence is pointing towards a few 100 yr lag. You are right, global warming causes CO2 rise- no debate there, however, CO2 in turn causes temp rise in a +ve feedback loop. Without this feedback we would not have seen the amplitude of glacial-interglacial swings that we did!
Mrdave153 2 years ago
Er...co2 is to minute to effect the thermal capasity of the Earth's Atmosphere and Thermal heat isn't actually Infared light, nor can bombarding CO2 with infered light generate heat heat in CO2 or any other of the So called "green House Gases"
Nitrogen can asorb Thermal heat which is CONDUCTED to it from the Earth Surface which is the real source of Earths heat
The hot air rises while cold air falls and the variences create wind
Evaportion creates humidity which helps the heat "stick'
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
So you are arguing against the physics and principles of GHG's?? and that a weakened EM field and changing of earth's axis (which works on MUCH longer timescales) is causing rapid increase in temperatures?? i'm sorry, but you are going to have to explain in detail how these mechanisms could cause the observed changes, and then show the data to back it up! could you point me towards some papers in reputable journals which support any of your claims?
Mrdave153 2 years ago 4
Only the Political Environut Activists posing as "Climate Experts" Atmospheric Physisists and some of the misinformed massesare spuing a corrupted version of Svante's GHG Chemical Theory as a "established fact"
Name me a Meterologist or Geologist that agrees that it is GHG theory and not Surface Heat conduction,Ocean Conveyer and the evaporation/precipitation Cycle that disriputes heat and creates wind and waeather
In 2004 the Earth's axis shiufted 30 meters from a core disturbance quake
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
YES all those things control our wind and weather, as well as the heat and pressure differences in the atmosphere, they are all interlinked. GHG's increase the temp of the atmosphere, and therefore the earth! This effects surface heat conduction, the ocean, the water cycle etc!
This is the most bizzar argument i have ever seen! Let me get it straight... you believe in a different GHG theory? Arrhenius developed his theory around CO2 to explain the ice ages. Whats your version of his theory?
davebell989876 2 years ago
(cont)
Greenman did a good job in talking about orbital changes,axis wobble, and axis variation if you seen that video..all the long term stuff
There is also Core disturbance induced sudden Axis shift which can happen when the core is disturbed by gravitational forces of the sun and planets and other celestial bodies
The Egyptains document a "great quake" that changed the path of the Nile and made their endless grasslands Desert within a generation from the sudden 5 degree axis change
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
5 degree axis change!! thats pretty big! I haven't heard of any of that, so can you please point me to some papers from scientific journals which will enlighten me?
davebell989876 2 years ago
William Hutton,.New Zealand Journal of Geology & Geophysics,Indicator Volcanoes for Coming Earth Changes and the Pole Shift of 2001
Immanuel Velikovsky(a friend of Eienstien), Earth in Upheaval, Scripta Universitatis(a German Scientific Journal he was a editor of)
Charles Hapgood'sTheroy on radical Pole shift ,Canadian Journal of Anthropology
origins of agriculture using the earth crust displacement model, Canadian Journal of Anthropology
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
.E. Barton, Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity, v 49, 123-148, 1997.
Kirschvink, Joseph L., et al; "Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander," Science, 277:541, 1997
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Oh and in the last 300 years the succesion of core distubances have shifted the Earth's axis 1/2 of a degree...which moves the temparate reagions 2000 miles, causes hooter summers and Cooler Winters some like to blame on "Big Oil Profits' and George Bush(wtf?)
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Yes, evaporation causes humidity, helping the heat stick to the earth, which in turn creates more evaporation and so on.....
Sooner or later you're going to get to a point where there's a lot more cloud cover, which would bounce all that heat right back out before it's absorbed
The "Soylent Green" scenario where this stuff just spirals out of control is unrealistic.
andharvey8 2 years ago
andharvey8
'evaporation causes humidity, helping the heat stick to the earth, which in turn creates more evaporation'
So CO2 has no effect?
What about where & when there's little or no water vapour?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Thermal heat is not Infared light
There are various tempatures at which a mass's heated body emmits a type of EM frequency as it's atomic structure vibrates from being heated ....but TV remotes which are Infared Flashlights and Radios show that EM frequencies can be generated without a mass being heated
In 0% humidity day Desert.the Thermal heat from the surface will conduct to Dry air as Nitrogen and oxygen will asorb thermal heat like any other gas
A 0% humidity night goes cold
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
If there's no water vapor, then alas, there's also no heat trap. ((Water vapor is the primary green-house gas).
So, no water vapor -> no Heat Trap -> it would be very cold down here on Earth.
I didn't say CO2 has no effect. I simply said that warming can't go on forever before increased cloud cover halts it.
andharvey8 2 years ago
andharvey8
Water vapour is a GHG, but only if the temperature is high enough.
Without CO2, there'd be precious little water vapour. Because the earth would be 33 degrees C colder - frozen.
Warming doesn't have to 'go on forever', it just has to get warm enough to destabilise the frozen clathrates and melt the permafrost. Then we're screwed.
It's not that much warmer and we're well on the way.
pseudotruth 2 years ago 2
No, heat from the Surface heat sinks, like the Ocean conveyer are only renewed from the sun and volcanic heat
Heat travels upward only so when the heat conducts to the air it's a 1 way journey as that heated air rises as the Colder air sinks...with variations in heated and cold air resulting,along with the eaths rotation, "Wind"
As the hot air rises it is subjected to the colder upper atomosphere and lower pressure which turns the hmidity back into visible water vapor to make Clouds
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How about using NASA as one of your sources. Ever thought of that? Oh no, that would be too intelligent!
quickdudley 2 years ago
right again about the permafrost and methane clathrates, i was only referring to the ice caps themselves, must have misunderstood your origonal comment
Mrdave153 2 years ago
the amount of co2 trapped in ice is tiny when compared to other sources, but if you are being pedantic then yes, you are right.
CO2 continues to rise after temps drop again because it takes a while before the +ve feedbacks reduce enough to make it decrease, the temperature is being dominated by the changes in orbit and effects of ice sheet growth by this stage.
you are clearly not looking for a discussion on the topic, but just seeking to be rude and offensive
Mrdave153 2 years ago