heres a point. glaciers cant even melt. the only way they can disspear is if snow stops accumalating on the glaciers itself. look up the creep glacial process and i believe you will probly find your answers
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
I've watched the "Inconvenient Truth" DVD twice and assert that Al Gore took extreme care to well document & explain every bit of evidence provided in the film, to affirm a fact.
CONCLUSION:
I absolutely agree with the documentary & the ongoing Global Warming & Climate Change.
- It is not an American issue. It's a world issue.
- It's not a political issue. It's a moral. issue.
Right-Wing Conservatives---always siding with Big Oils---are hard at work smearing the irrefutable fact
you have not shown any proof what so ever king toad. Tired arguments and flawed models prove nothing. The facts of the REAL world that you and millions of others have closed your eyes to tell a different story. Oh by the way I sometimes make typos when I am in a hurry. But I think you are somewhat of an illiterate person by your posts.
insults demonstarte a lack of argument, any so blinded by own position on any issue that the best they can offer is childish insults clearly has nothing to offer.
but it is you who have not offered anything, all you have done is repated over and over again that it does not exsit which is not an argument at all.
futhermore I should point out I have been very civil with you dispite you're being compleatly uninformed on this issue. Sadly due to your childish insults you cannot make the same claim.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas we have known this since the 1890s, humans are adding more of it, therefore the temperture should and has been riseing with a direct corelation with Co2 emmissions. Every aspect of the bioshpere is respoding to an increase in Co2 and every brach of natural science can see the effects.
There is your evidence, your move. Unless you're going to tell me that an increse of 7 BILLION tones of Co2 per year somehow just vanishes into nothingness or that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas at all. or that you have discovered the magic variable what virtually the entire global scientific community somehow missed, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Global warming is caused by humans you're just going to have to accept it because what you think about the issue has no effect on cliamte systems.
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas with a logarithmic relationship to the amount of warming it causes when compared to concentration. The bulk of the proposed future warming is from external feedbacks and assumed positive internal variability.
I agree the authors of the petition should not of made it open to the public. It should of done it's research and sent out all the available studies with it's review to all of the scientists who are qualified to comment. And if those Scientists wish to sign on then good for them for taking a stand. But false names and unqualified signers does not invalidate those who are qualified. It matters not a bit the proportions of false vs valid signers. Peer review or consensus is not science. Fact is.
Last time I cheacked Micheal J Fox, William Shatner and Sir Ian Macillan, were neither in support of the petition nor did they sign it and more importantly they are not scientists.
Yes because I have just that much time on my hands...
*rolls eyes*
These are only three names out of a long list of falsifed persons, the name, John smith appears well over 100 times and yet no address or other back ground information is provided.
That in collaberation with a number of known falsifed entries makes the whole petition valueless.
And even if it wernt valueless a petition is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, meaning it carries very little scientific weight anyway.
As for peer review many very well known and respected scientists did peer review the data put forward by those who are pushing man made global warming and they strongly disagree. So there is not a consensus. And from what has been argued I certainly can see that the date in Al Gores movie contains many errors, ommissions and exaggerations. Al Gore himself admits this.
Certainly there has been peer reviwed scientific jouranls written going aginst the AGW.
However this does not consitute a lack of consensus; a consensus is reached when there is ENOUGH agreement on a subject to be reasonbly sure this is the case with AGW (98% of scientisits agree)
By the very nature of science there will always be disent amonst scientists.
To put the importance of doubt into persective, consider this: There are still peer reviewed scientific journals written about how the law of gravity could easily be false. Yet we accept it as true... why?
Because it has been tested and studied long enough to be reasonbly sure gravity is true (yet still dispite all this research we still cannot be 100% positive)
KingMucktoad many of the false names on the petition were placed there by people such as yourself. Obviously there needs to be some peer review of the signers of the petition. But that does not discredit the respectable scientists who did sign the petition. There are some verified 200 climitologists who have been verified and have not changed thier minds. And some of the "Famous" names like Perry Mason really are scientists who happen to have that name. It's a big world. Get used to it.
I'm not sure about that number but let's just asume for the sake of argument that you're right... Even so 200 individual scientists compared to the 1000s of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS that are on the otherside.
This issue is so hopelessly one sided that the disenting scientists fall into a category simalar to second hand smoke and HIV deniers.
Besides there being some cridible names on the petition does not make up for the fact that many are invented to make it seem more cridible.
you're assuming that they were added by those that wished to discredit it, which of couse nither of us can know that for sure.
But its far more likly that those in favor of the petition would have added in the forgeries to add weight to the petition simply due to the sheer number of false names.
You would think that is they were added by the opposition, those that created the petition would have noticed that many falacies, besides they would undoubtibly be on the look out for them.
So Mucktoad by your standards if scientist take a vote then the majority is right? Democracy over fact? STUPID> man made global warming is false. All the Major points in Al Gores Movie are lies. So if you vote on it and most people like it then I guess that makes it so? Stupid
Where do you suspose all these "facts" came from in the first place? 98% agreement is very convincing, the reason this is so is because man made global warming had stood up to all attpemts by all scientists to proe it false, the only ones left desienting are those that stand by the conclusion "it will be proven false just give it time". however this is not scientific as it is assuming something about a phomonimon which is contray to what the evidnec suggests.
"Where do you suspose all these "facts" came from" I don't suppose. I know who authored these "facts". It is those who would use these "facts" to lay further burdensome taxes on the average citizen while the government and the wealthy use loopholes to avoid the same burdens. Al Gore created the first loophole by creating his own carbon credit company and then paying money to himself to offset his carbon excess.
MMGW has not stood up and has been proven false by sincere honest scientists.
Ofcourse global warming hasn't been proven fasle if it had we wouldn't be here debating this.
I'm not going to argue about Al Gore and his politics or about high or low taxes (I'm Canadian), as I said before global warming is an issue of science and not of politics.
KingFucktoad we are debating this because I want the world to see what a fool you and those like you are. We are debating this because I actually care about people, and the world I live in. We are debating this because I am a long suffering person and you are an insufferable mental midget who takes random facts and rolls them in little balls with his shit and calls it proof.
"it will be proven false" in reply to that last point I must say that MMGW supporters have made assumptions not based on fact but on flawed projections that have never been proven. In fact climatology records indicate the projections are flawed. MMGW supporters actually do the very thing you accuse the rational independent scientists of doing. I find that very interesting that your accusations are precisely what Al Gores movie is most guilty of. Amazing!! Keep trying though.
The climate model you refer to was proven to be flawed but then the NAS reviewed the model and a new one was release in its place which took into account the critiques.
You should really use mor eup to date data.
Don't you understand in sicence NOTHING is ever proven to be true. So science is based on proving everying else false.
The sicentific community examined the evidence as to why the planet was warming and they eliminated all other posible reason with the acception of CO2.
Mr. KingMucktoad I noticed that your name is false also. There is no Mr. KingMucktoad so this renders your opinion valueless. Unlike myself. I am a real person with a real name. you are a fake person with a fake name and too cowardly to come out into the light and be counted among men. I have little regard for a man who thinks himself royalty and goes by the name Muck of the Toad family.
So i guess that means that I am a magical internet faery then, huh
But my name is not on a petition to ban action on climte change and if I were to sign any such paper (not that i ever would) it would of couse be my real name but as it is now I have no reason to provide it.
If the best defence you can come up with is to make fun of my username then oviously you have nothing further to offer. In an intellectual debate petty insults are typcally considered a consession.
KingMuckToad you were saying a whole petition is invalid because a few idiots sent in false names.That obviously is a stupid premise. As your name is false so does that invalidate everything you say? according to you it does. I was making a point. Unfortunately you are not bright enough to get it. You warmer nuts think consensus equates science fact.
There's no such thing as science fact so consensus is the best we have, A theory like gravity or global warming is tested once and then again and then again and again until the throty is proven false. Until the theory is proven false then the testing continues. This is how science is conducted.
So far GW has stood up to all attepts to prove it false, giving the theory more validy.
You can't change the rules of science just because you don't like the conculsion it has come up with.
So are you still testing the theory of Gravity? I accepted that as fact when I was in high school. But please continue. The "data" used to support MMGW has been over and over proven to be false. So the supporters have come up with hurried and untested new defenses. They have "cooked the books" and mislead the public. Even kidney stones are now blamed on MMGW. In fact a good study would be to look up all the things blamed on MMGW. The complete list is extensive and completely unsubstantuated.
You accepting it as fact does not mean a thing, I accept the world is flat does that make it flat... no.
It has been proven false over and over again? where did you that idea? best tell that to AAAS, NAS, IPCC, EPA, NASA, AMS, AGU, AIP, SCC, RSC, and countless others not to mention the 172 countires that have ratifed Kyoto.
So all those millions of scientists and hundreads of organizations were just not paying attention? Or are all involved in some cloak and dagger conspircy?
KingMuckToad all the organizations you mentioned took millions and millions of dollars to "Prove" this manMade Global warming hoax. If you remember correctly it wasn't just a few nuts who were the proponants of the flat earth theory. It was the whole world of that time. It was one man standing alone who begged to differ. your consensus does not make fact. You stated no facts at all. Sorry. But until you can show how co2 creates global warming you have nothing.
yes but this was long before th basic principals of scientific inqury were devolped had this system of thought been devloped then a round earth would have been discovered much sooner, in fact the precourser to sciencetific thought was made by greek philosphers, and they knew the world was round over 2000 years ago it was peoples reilgious grasping of ideals in the middle ages that kept the flat earth throty in exsistance sortof like what your doing now.
"What would it take to convince you"? For one hard facts would convince me. I have so far seen none. NOT ONE! Al Gores movie actually galvanized my thoughts because of it's many lies. Al Gore uses the the "IF" over and over. "If this happens then this will happen"
Now other nations who were showing the movie to "educate" children about the dangers of Man made global Warming have been ordered by the courts to list the serious errors in the movie. In effect gutting the movie of its major "facts"
"These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, ....potentially supporting Lindzen's "infrared iris" hypothesis..."
search :
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698, 2007
It is also presented in a video in YouTube under this title :
A lot of this data is concerned with America over the past few decades, global warming is
a) Global
b) Been occurring over the past 150 years
Why is this different from the natural cycle? Because a rise of 1oC has never occurred in 100 years in the history of the atmosphere over the 2 million year data set, normally it takes 1000s of years to rise that fast.
cah404 you obviously know nothing about palaeo-climatology. Temperature rises as higher and faster than 1 degree per century have occurred many times over the last few million years. Please don't use your ignorance to attack valid scientific data.
The whole point, in an case is that there isn't much evidence of much global warming in recent decades, and none at all for the last 10 years. QED
Ok people... just so you know the earth has been freezing and unfreezing for millions of years and this is nothing new... the Caps have gotten as small as florida in a circle and as big into stretching half way into part's of canada... how is this any differnt?
because in the past, it took thousands or millions of years to freeze and un-freeze, as opposed to centuries or decades. animals can't adapt that fast.
minilemur it is your who are disgracefully miss informed, i have a degree in physics and can tell you that the earths temperature has not risen by 1oC in 100 years for many millions of years
cah404 - you must have been a dreadful student and barely scraped a pass, given the quality of your misinformation. A real physicist would give data and references. Many datasets show larger changes in temperature than that over a century.
Looking at it the other way, in the last year alone the global temperature has dropped by 0.7 degrees, enough to wipe out the global warming of the whole of the last century.
Go back to school and study rather than relying on your fevered imagination.
your figures are clearly not peer reviewed, what you do go outside and measure the temperature yourself? try taking some meaningful global data averages, interesting that you yourself don't give your qualifications as you clearly have none
cah404 - what nonsense you spout - how sould my figures be peer reviewed. It shows how much you fail to understand the first thing about the peer review process.
No, I don't measure the temperature myself, I rely on the only vaild global temperature measurement systems namely the satellite and radio sonde systems. You probably don't even know what these are.
My qualifications trump yours I suspect. Do you have a first class degree from Cambridge?
This is one of the worst so called "science" videos I have seen on Youtube. If you are going to dissent, the least you could do is present it in a credible way.
You show a lot of data here, but how do I know that it supports your contention that it refutes global warming?
Of course the extremist Green politicians are using the climate change problem to advance thier own crazy socio-political, even neo-religious agendas. eg Noam Chomsky and others like the leader of Australia's Green party, who openly supported Robert Mugabe and his insane policies on national TV. The answer is to find real practical solutions and implement them democratically using moderation and common sense.
What percentage of basic and applied scientists does this represent? I think a majority of scientists think that global warming and climate change are real risks which must be faced.
The Oregon Petition — signed by 18,000 scientists world-wide states:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
CO2 emission sources: Oceans-------59.5% Decaying vegitaion----17.9% Plant and animal respiration--17.9% Human made----4.7% (factories, cars, fireplaces, breathing, etc.) The human input of CO2 into the earth is insignificant compared to natural sources, i.e. 4.7% to 95.3%. Quit worrying about global warming.
YOU SEE FOLKS once the ice is gone, WE will heat up even faster. Do we really want to play with that? I think it would be stupid not to take action now. Americans are not Ostriches that put their heads in the sand..
These graphs are completely meaningless withut any references. I instantly recognize the atmospheric data as being incorrect. As always, if someone has a theory, then they can publish it for the scientific review process.
Wow. Graphs. I know how to make graphs too. And guess what? I can make them say WHATEVER I WANT.
People may be dumb, but I don't think they're so dumb to be persuaded by graphs with zero credibility, no explanation of how the studies were performed, or why so many graphs I've seen on this topic are completely different. Most credible ones say it's the hottest its been in the last 2000 years or so. Others, like these, say we're still below Medieval warming times. Who do you believe?
["Most credible ones say it's the hottest its been in the last 2000 years or so.") Show me ONE. When you say "most", you must mean MBH98. No one tries to defend that anymore, not even the authors. They tried to pretend the medieval warm period didn't exist, but no one feel for it. Still, alarmists cite it.
heres a point. glaciers cant even melt. the only way they can disspear is if snow stops accumalating on the glaciers itself. look up the creep glacial process and i believe you will probly find your answers
Zachdudeio2 1 year ago
Here's a great expose of what the GATT expansion to the WTO (orchestrated by Clinton/Gore) has produced in terms of environmental damage by moving manufacturing in the West that had Environmental laws to pollute with impunity in the Socialists/Limousine Liberals current favorite failed utopia, China
Graphic pictures of the environmental horrors
chinahush(dot)com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Thisawareness 1 year ago
Global Warming=HOAX
crazy7house 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I've watched the "Inconvenient Truth" DVD twice and assert that Al Gore took extreme care to well document & explain every bit of evidence provided in the film, to affirm a fact.
CONCLUSION:
I absolutely agree with the documentary & the ongoing Global Warming & Climate Change.
- It is not an American issue. It's a world issue.
- It's not a political issue. It's a moral. issue.
Right-Wing Conservatives---always siding with Big Oils---are hard at work smearing the irrefutable fact
librophile 3 years ago
you have not shown any proof what so ever king toad. Tired arguments and flawed models prove nothing. The facts of the REAL world that you and millions of others have closed your eyes to tell a different story. Oh by the way I sometimes make typos when I am in a hurry. But I think you are somewhat of an illiterate person by your posts.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
insults demonstarte a lack of argument, any so blinded by own position on any issue that the best they can offer is childish insults clearly has nothing to offer.
but it is you who have not offered anything, all you have done is repated over and over again that it does not exsit which is not an argument at all.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
futhermore I should point out I have been very civil with you dispite you're being compleatly uninformed on this issue. Sadly due to your childish insults you cannot make the same claim.
Co2 is a greenhouse gas we have known this since the 1890s, humans are adding more of it, therefore the temperture should and has been riseing with a direct corelation with Co2 emmissions. Every aspect of the bioshpere is respoding to an increase in Co2 and every brach of natural science can see the effects.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
There is your evidence, your move. Unless you're going to tell me that an increse of 7 BILLION tones of Co2 per year somehow just vanishes into nothingness or that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas at all. or that you have discovered the magic variable what virtually the entire global scientific community somehow missed, you don't have a leg to stand on.
Global warming is caused by humans you're just going to have to accept it because what you think about the issue has no effect on cliamte systems.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas with a logarithmic relationship to the amount of warming it causes when compared to concentration. The bulk of the proposed future warming is from external feedbacks and assumed positive internal variability.
EasyEs 3 years ago
I agree the authors of the petition should not of made it open to the public. It should of done it's research and sent out all the available studies with it's review to all of the scientists who are qualified to comment. And if those Scientists wish to sign on then good for them for taking a stand. But false names and unqualified signers does not invalidate those who are qualified. It matters not a bit the proportions of false vs valid signers. Peer review or consensus is not science. Fact is.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
I hate to burst you're bubble but the petition you are refering to was signed by a number of indivduals that don't even exist.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
prove it?
johnknoefler 3 years ago
Okay take a look at the petition, google it.
Last time I cheacked Micheal J Fox, William Shatner and Sir Ian Macillan, were neither in support of the petition nor did they sign it and more importantly they are not scientists.
There I proved it.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
those were added by some detractors. YOu may of done that yourself to discredit the petition. Since we know the real persons didn't sign it. .
johnknoefler 3 years ago
Yes because I have just that much time on my hands...
*rolls eyes*
These are only three names out of a long list of falsifed persons, the name, John smith appears well over 100 times and yet no address or other back ground information is provided.
That in collaberation with a number of known falsifed entries makes the whole petition valueless.
And even if it wernt valueless a petition is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, meaning it carries very little scientific weight anyway.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
As for peer review many very well known and respected scientists did peer review the data put forward by those who are pushing man made global warming and they strongly disagree. So there is not a consensus. And from what has been argued I certainly can see that the date in Al Gores movie contains many errors, ommissions and exaggerations. Al Gore himself admits this.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
Certainly there has been peer reviwed scientific jouranls written going aginst the AGW.
However this does not consitute a lack of consensus; a consensus is reached when there is ENOUGH agreement on a subject to be reasonbly sure this is the case with AGW (98% of scientisits agree)
By the very nature of science there will always be disent amonst scientists.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
To put the importance of doubt into persective, consider this: There are still peer reviewed scientific journals written about how the law of gravity could easily be false. Yet we accept it as true... why?
Because it has been tested and studied long enough to be reasonbly sure gravity is true (yet still dispite all this research we still cannot be 100% positive)
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
KingMucktoad many of the false names on the petition were placed there by people such as yourself. Obviously there needs to be some peer review of the signers of the petition. But that does not discredit the respectable scientists who did sign the petition. There are some verified 200 climitologists who have been verified and have not changed thier minds. And some of the "Famous" names like Perry Mason really are scientists who happen to have that name. It's a big world. Get used to it.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
I'm not sure about that number but let's just asume for the sake of argument that you're right... Even so 200 individual scientists compared to the 1000s of SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS that are on the otherside.
This issue is so hopelessly one sided that the disenting scientists fall into a category simalar to second hand smoke and HIV deniers.
Besides there being some cridible names on the petition does not make up for the fact that many are invented to make it seem more cridible.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
you're assuming that they were added by those that wished to discredit it, which of couse nither of us can know that for sure.
But its far more likly that those in favor of the petition would have added in the forgeries to add weight to the petition simply due to the sheer number of false names.
You would think that is they were added by the opposition, those that created the petition would have noticed that many falacies, besides they would undoubtibly be on the look out for them.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
So Mucktoad by your standards if scientist take a vote then the majority is right? Democracy over fact? STUPID> man made global warming is false. All the Major points in Al Gores Movie are lies. So if you vote on it and most people like it then I guess that makes it so? Stupid
johnknoefler 3 years ago
"Democracy over fact"
Where do you suspose all these "facts" came from in the first place? 98% agreement is very convincing, the reason this is so is because man made global warming had stood up to all attpemts by all scientists to proe it false, the only ones left desienting are those that stand by the conclusion "it will be proven false just give it time". however this is not scientific as it is assuming something about a phomonimon which is contray to what the evidnec suggests.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
"Where do you suspose all these "facts" came from" I don't suppose. I know who authored these "facts". It is those who would use these "facts" to lay further burdensome taxes on the average citizen while the government and the wealthy use loopholes to avoid the same burdens. Al Gore created the first loophole by creating his own carbon credit company and then paying money to himself to offset his carbon excess.
MMGW has not stood up and has been proven false by sincere honest scientists.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
Ofcourse global warming hasn't been proven fasle if it had we wouldn't be here debating this.
I'm not going to argue about Al Gore and his politics or about high or low taxes (I'm Canadian), as I said before global warming is an issue of science and not of politics.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
KingFucktoad we are debating this because I want the world to see what a fool you and those like you are. We are debating this because I actually care about people, and the world I live in. We are debating this because I am a long suffering person and you are an insufferable mental midget who takes random facts and rolls them in little balls with his shit and calls it proof.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
"it will be proven false" in reply to that last point I must say that MMGW supporters have made assumptions not based on fact but on flawed projections that have never been proven. In fact climatology records indicate the projections are flawed. MMGW supporters actually do the very thing you accuse the rational independent scientists of doing. I find that very interesting that your accusations are precisely what Al Gores movie is most guilty of. Amazing!! Keep trying though.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
The climate model you refer to was proven to be flawed but then the NAS reviewed the model and a new one was release in its place which took into account the critiques.
You should really use mor eup to date data.
Don't you understand in sicence NOTHING is ever proven to be true. So science is based on proving everying else false.
The sicentific community examined the evidence as to why the planet was warming and they eliminated all other posible reason with the acception of CO2.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
Mr. KingMucktoad I noticed that your name is false also. There is no Mr. KingMucktoad so this renders your opinion valueless. Unlike myself. I am a real person with a real name. you are a fake person with a fake name and too cowardly to come out into the light and be counted among men. I have little regard for a man who thinks himself royalty and goes by the name Muck of the Toad family.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
So i guess that means that I am a magical internet faery then, huh
But my name is not on a petition to ban action on climte change and if I were to sign any such paper (not that i ever would) it would of couse be my real name but as it is now I have no reason to provide it.
If the best defence you can come up with is to make fun of my username then oviously you have nothing further to offer. In an intellectual debate petty insults are typcally considered a consession.
Wow, that was easy
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
KingMuckToad you were saying a whole petition is invalid because a few idiots sent in false names.That obviously is a stupid premise. As your name is false so does that invalidate everything you say? according to you it does. I was making a point. Unfortunately you are not bright enough to get it. You warmer nuts think consensus equates science fact.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
There's no such thing as science fact so consensus is the best we have, A theory like gravity or global warming is tested once and then again and then again and again until the throty is proven false. Until the theory is proven false then the testing continues. This is how science is conducted.
So far GW has stood up to all attepts to prove it false, giving the theory more validy.
You can't change the rules of science just because you don't like the conculsion it has come up with.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
So are you still testing the theory of Gravity? I accepted that as fact when I was in high school. But please continue. The "data" used to support MMGW has been over and over proven to be false. So the supporters have come up with hurried and untested new defenses. They have "cooked the books" and mislead the public. Even kidney stones are now blamed on MMGW. In fact a good study would be to look up all the things blamed on MMGW. The complete list is extensive and completely unsubstantuated.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
You accepting it as fact does not mean a thing, I accept the world is flat does that make it flat... no.
It has been proven false over and over again? where did you that idea? best tell that to AAAS, NAS, IPCC, EPA, NASA, AMS, AGU, AIP, SCC, RSC, and countless others not to mention the 172 countires that have ratifed Kyoto.
So all those millions of scientists and hundreads of organizations were just not paying attention? Or are all involved in some cloak and dagger conspircy?
I doubt it
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
KingMuckToad all the organizations you mentioned took millions and millions of dollars to "Prove" this manMade Global warming hoax. If you remember correctly it wasn't just a few nuts who were the proponants of the flat earth theory. It was the whole world of that time. It was one man standing alone who begged to differ. your consensus does not make fact. You stated no facts at all. Sorry. But until you can show how co2 creates global warming you have nothing.
johnknoefler 3 years ago
yes but this was long before th basic principals of scientific inqury were devolped had this system of thought been devloped then a round earth would have been discovered much sooner, in fact the precourser to sciencetific thought was made by greek philosphers, and they knew the world was round over 2000 years ago it was peoples reilgious grasping of ideals in the middle ages that kept the flat earth throty in exsistance sortof like what your doing now.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
well a few false names would perhaps allow it to maintain some cridibility, but more then half were falsified.
A petition is not a a peer reviewed journal it is politcal and Global warming is not politcal it's scientific.
try this it will help you see more clearly
Ask yourself this question:
"What would it take to convince you the Global warming is caused by humans and is a serious threat?"
This type of question is the secret to rational thought.
KingMucktoad 3 years ago
"What would it take to convince you"? For one hard facts would convince me. I have so far seen none. NOT ONE! Al Gores movie actually galvanized my thoughts because of it's many lies. Al Gore uses the the "IF" over and over. "If this happens then this will happen"
Now other nations who were showing the movie to "educate" children about the dangers of Man made global Warming have been ordered by the courts to list the serious errors in the movie. In effect gutting the movie of its major "facts"
johnknoefler 3 years ago
Peer-reviewed :
from the abstract of this seminal work :
"These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, ....potentially supporting Lindzen's "infrared iris" hypothesis..."
search :
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698, 2007
It is also presented in a video in YouTube under this title :
Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 1
Why the IPCC models are wrong - Part 2
SauceMystery 3 years ago
Thanks for the CO2/plant growth data, its new information to me. I'll be looking into it further though.
And this video could do with music #
KamiKaziChicken 4 years ago
A lot of this data is concerned with America over the past few decades, global warming is
a) Global
b) Been occurring over the past 150 years
Why is this different from the natural cycle? Because a rise of 1oC has never occurred in 100 years in the history of the atmosphere over the 2 million year data set, normally it takes 1000s of years to rise that fast.
cah404 4 years ago
cah404 you obviously know nothing about palaeo-climatology. Temperature rises as higher and faster than 1 degree per century have occurred many times over the last few million years. Please don't use your ignorance to attack valid scientific data.
The whole point, in an case is that there isn't much evidence of much global warming in recent decades, and none at all for the last 10 years. QED
minilemur 3 years ago
" Americans are not ostriches that put their heads in the sand". They might if they could figure out how to pull their heads from their asses.
barflew 4 years ago
COP2 supports life on Earth! Global WArming is phantom sceince, and the IPCC are modern phantoms! Man made climate change doesn't, can't happen!
JonThm 4 years ago
Ok people... just so you know the earth has been freezing and unfreezing for millions of years and this is nothing new... the Caps have gotten as small as florida in a circle and as big into stretching half way into part's of canada... how is this any differnt?
zykeaisem13 4 years ago
because in the past, it took thousands or millions of years to freeze and un-freeze, as opposed to centuries or decades. animals can't adapt that fast.
123smilie 3 years ago
123smilie - wrong! Animals have adapted to just such fast changes.
minilemur 3 years ago
minilemur it is your who are disgracefully miss informed, i have a degree in physics and can tell you that the earths temperature has not risen by 1oC in 100 years for many millions of years
cah404 3 years ago
cah404 - you must have been a dreadful student and barely scraped a pass, given the quality of your misinformation. A real physicist would give data and references. Many datasets show larger changes in temperature than that over a century.
Looking at it the other way, in the last year alone the global temperature has dropped by 0.7 degrees, enough to wipe out the global warming of the whole of the last century.
Go back to school and study rather than relying on your fevered imagination.
minilemur 3 years ago
your figures are clearly not peer reviewed, what you do go outside and measure the temperature yourself? try taking some meaningful global data averages, interesting that you yourself don't give your qualifications as you clearly have none
cah404 3 years ago
cah404 - what nonsense you spout - how sould my figures be peer reviewed. It shows how much you fail to understand the first thing about the peer review process.
No, I don't measure the temperature myself, I rely on the only vaild global temperature measurement systems namely the satellite and radio sonde systems. You probably don't even know what these are.
My qualifications trump yours I suspect. Do you have a first class degree from Cambridge?
minilemur 3 years ago
Could you put Dr. Robinson's lecture on Youtube in addition to this slideshow. I think more people would understand each graph.
CaliforniaArchitect 4 years ago
This is one of the worst so called "science" videos I have seen on Youtube. If you are going to dissent, the least you could do is present it in a credible way.
You show a lot of data here, but how do I know that it supports your contention that it refutes global warming?
BeachofDreams 4 years ago
Of course the extremist Green politicians are using the climate change problem to advance thier own crazy socio-political, even neo-religious agendas. eg Noam Chomsky and others like the leader of Australia's Green party, who openly supported Robert Mugabe and his insane policies on national TV. The answer is to find real practical solutions and implement them democratically using moderation and common sense.
utkonos313 4 years ago
What percentage of basic and applied scientists does this represent? I think a majority of scientists think that global warming and climate change are real risks which must be faced.
utkonos313 4 years ago
The Oregon Petition — signed by 18,000 scientists world-wide states:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
forkeat 4 years ago
forkeat 4 years ago
YOU SEE FOLKS once the ice is gone, WE will heat up even faster. Do we really want to play with that? I think it would be stupid not to take action now. Americans are not Ostriches that put their heads in the sand..
mjimih 4 years ago
Here's a fantastic debunk video of Swindle by a GeoSciences Professor at the University of Edinburgh.
greyfalcon. net/ swindle
I particularly like the section at timemark 33:00 where it shows just how much Swindle frauded the data.
Looks something like this:
greyfalcon. net/ solar2.png
greyflcn 4 years ago
excellent video. I suggest that the people using the global warming swindle documentary as evidence watch this.
BobbyBBobson 4 years ago
These graphs are completely meaningless withut any references. I instantly recognize the atmospheric data as being incorrect. As always, if someone has a theory, then they can publish it for the scientific review process.
fightinLIB 4 years ago
Wow. Graphs. I know how to make graphs too. And guess what? I can make them say WHATEVER I WANT.
People may be dumb, but I don't think they're so dumb to be persuaded by graphs with zero credibility, no explanation of how the studies were performed, or why so many graphs I've seen on this topic are completely different. Most credible ones say it's the hottest its been in the last 2000 years or so. Others, like these, say we're still below Medieval warming times. Who do you believe?
dizLmonsta 4 years ago
good to know you have an "open mind"
levifran 4 years ago
the graphs were pbobaly from a laecture. It would be nice if there was audio with it.
nader11111 4 years ago
"It would be nice if there was audio with it."
Actually its nice to know there isn't; I though my system was broken.
gerjanp 4 years ago
For a good refutation of manmade global warming watch my video "Global Warming - Sun"
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
"For a good refutation of manmade global warming watch my video "Global Warming - Sun""
I've seen it carmexworks drew my attention to it. What is the music it it?
gerjanp 4 years ago
it's Rammstein's "Sonne"
iloveemo1984 4 years ago
"it's Rammstein's "Sonne""
Thanks. It's interesting though I can only understand a little of it.
gerjanp 4 years ago
["Most credible ones say it's the hottest its been in the last 2000 years or so.") Show me ONE. When you say "most", you must mean MBH98. No one tries to defend that anymore, not even the authors. They tried to pretend the medieval warm period didn't exist, but no one feel for it. Still, alarmists cite it.
codehead1 4 years ago
Much of the data is taken from NASA,and all of it is available directly.
use Google and search for
"1880-present" NASA
Thats a good starting point
Brantoc 4 years ago