Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)

[SuperZorba007]

it is verry arrogant, to bielieve that our planet is NOT reacting to the rest of the cosmos! Ofcourse there is much to be proven, before the theory is settled, but this is realy a big step forward! We all know that a cloud before the sun tempers the temperature, en now we know what makes the clouds[ It is proven bij experiments, over and over again] So it must be true!

I hope that the believers of G.W. rediside there opinion, and start acting like him!

[jiin5993]

For people who think this settles the science: In the time that you all took to watch this documentary, you could've also read numerous scientific papers (including Svensmark's) of competent climate scientists. But maybe you don't want to get a fair overview of the research done as much as you want your own opinion to be vindicated. In short: variation of cosmic ray intensity does not correlate with the warming. This is just one scientist among many with a hypothesis that hasn't been proven yet.

[johnsenkenn]

This is blowing the feet away under the climate scammers. Which means it blows their ideology reason behind the global warming scam away.

[banvir99999]

@johnsenkenn I agree. Al Gore has made hundreds of millions off of his global warming scam. These guys are not doing it for the money because they can't make a profit out of it. These guys have clearly written there research into history and we need this to go global and educate the world.

[PandoraLeigh]

Thumbs up for thinking outside the box

[Warhead3000]

Well I hope that acyually scientishts will rewiew the data for the truth and realism on climate change becasue this is real

[Warhead3000]

Just to say this really should be looked at and they have been verified as there is a verified a 79% sunspot effect on temperate chance VS a 22% on the C02 driving temperature chance on the planet, which oservationally is the correct scientific ratioanlle which do you as an intelegence think is driving temperature change on the planet ??? a 22 % chance or a 79% chance???

[Warhead3000]

Sureley, science and life is about the scientific process and if it is right it should hold true in the light of falling temps even though C02 represents only a 22% correlation of temps on Earth VS a Sunsport Correlation of 79% when does the sience happen or come into effect. For fuck sake it is pretty basick considering the lack of warming the the last 15 years. This is really cround breaking. Others will follow , given time because C02 is not the driver

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf As I said give me the refernce for the consensus otherwise shut up, don't state a a consensus without the proof. All I'm asking is the proof, how hard can that be why is it so evasive of there is a consensive based on real science surely if we are spending all this money on climate chane there has to be a study to determine this otherwise where is the money going???

Give me the references, if there is one how hard can it be???

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Consensus where is is??? if your argumnent is solid lets hear it ??/ If you cant then please seek further evidence before engaging in debate for the truth.

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Give us the data?? don't say the scince is settled without letting us know what debate or scientific confernce this occured at. Stop talking bullshit and back it up with data. Real data that can't be debated??

Yep you have proven you can't because it dosen't exist all I asked was the scientific proof and it never came. So AGW doesn't exists without the proof or consensus based on nreal data

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Still waiting for the Concensus vote that you surely have by your comments??? It has to be there because you said it??? Surley otherwise are your lying??? Yep

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf It's amazing how roboust the comment on climate change is untill you cannn't supply the consensus on it on or even a scientiic case for it surley somone whould have made one if it was real??? or even the poll (with the bases) of scientific consensus ?? if this was so readily availble why can no one provide it ????? Why speak about the consensus with our the proff. Sureley Al Gore spoke about it he would have provided the refernce??? That's basic

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Funny isn't it that I can post so much data whixh you have no response to or even prove me wrong with the "latest dat" but you can't say you were wrong it isn't science when it gets in the way of poropaganda

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Rep no wonder it's spam as you said it before, get a life or real data

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Still awaiting your comments and refernces. Also Cern have now taken up the CLOUD project (look it up) and please report back how CERN thinks that it is important enough to justify and research. nit C02. So yess after all my comments, Phil Jones is still a dickhead at best and mostly a criminal mostly

[theCosmicQueen]

thanks svensmark, et al, and to denmark for filming this video! a great contribution.

[kaskadaks]

Well now that Climategate is blown wide open it seems pretty obvious why they had a hard time getting published in those "peer reviewed" (perhaps more like PC-controlled) journals. Very nice work though, and good videos. Thanks for sharing!

[pondman27]

These things have been known to former natural observers. I am amazed that the stats on this series, for all that is stated, I fully support, only a fool would assume that the forces that enable this existence would not reign supreme.

But there is another element of this, that we should pay great attention to. The influence on atmospheric ionisation is being manipulated through the aerosol spraying we have all witnessed, this in conjunction with the HAARP WMD, reveals much.

[b789eacon]

How interesting, posts critical are removed

those trying to post replies are then blocked

so much for open debate

. 1998 was just exceptionally hot so the 10 years since seem to show no further rise. According to the UK Met Office, the 10 warmest years in the modern record have all occurred since 1997.

[MrBacardi72]

@b789eacon

It only supports the theory..

Think of the money involved in "Climategate" Theories like this are not politically correct.

Your choice.. follow the crowd or listen to a man that nows what he's talking about.

[Warhead3000]

@b789eacon Phil Jones has stated that the Earth has been cooling since 1995 even though 3 times more C02 has been placed into the atmosphere so how is C02 driving tempreture dickhead

[tftftf]

@Warhead3000

How interesting that people who have faith in the general body of scientists are treated to being called dickheads. Evidence for warming is clear enough for the majority. It may not happen in every period smoothly without dips or noise in the data. If you expect relentless correlation in every period you will wait forever before believing the data. In a democracy we VOTE and if the majority say cut carbon we all have to do it. It hurts us all, I wish it werent happening.

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf

Science is not a democracy and not concensus otherwise we all would still believe that the Earth is flat. So saying more beople believe in AGW like the list of so called IPCC registered "scientist2 when actually you look at the list and realise that many do not any have the qualifications. Most People whom believe in AGW have not looked at the science or accurately modeled the atmosphere. If it had been proven why manipulate the data, why refuse to release the maths they use,

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Why hide the decline?? why do they say that they cannot explain the fall in temperatures why hide data (which is public property) why manipulate data why refuse freedom of information request. Dickhead Phil Jones should have been proecuted for his handling of the data but got away with a technicality because the case ws not brought within 6 months (he sat on it for over 7 years). Actually research the whole story before posting look at real science not propaganda.

[tftftf]

@Warhead3000

the public vote, they are influenced by the scientific consensus. there is such a consensus. sorry if you dont like it.

i suggest you try to write an article for say scientific american and get it published

Calling everyone dickhead, even when they have been cleared by the investigation into their actions, may not help you get your case across.

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Oh this investigation "Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony — did not cover all the issues and would not be as in-depth as the two other inquiries into the e-mail scandal that are still pending and which were instigated by the University of East Anglia.

Wow one hole day of hearing only one view, that of thoes in the email, that's a real investigation.

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Please giveme the reference for the consensus, please provide us all with the market research and poll that provides unbiased data on a consensus. Then also please let me know why 32,000 have signed a petition claiming that AGW doesn't exists (over 9000 with PHD's) please provide the ref and the counter concensus??? you can't as it doesn't exists

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf (Daily Mail) Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled. The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago. Yep definatley a criminal dickhead

[Warhead3000]

@tftftf Also the science and observations show that there is only a 22% correlation between temp increase and the increase of C02 and yet there is a 79% correlation between the number of sunspots and tepreture increase/ decrease. Scientifically which observation seems to be driving temps on Earth or you could learn for yourself or keep reading the junk media and place your head in the sand

[Warhead3000]

@b789eacon Bull shit and I live in the UK and for the last 15 years they have been wrong in any of there longterm predictions for the last 16 years based on their models so much so that they have stopped issuing the sesonal forcast. So the can't forcast a season then they can't forcast the future and they admit that so forget forcast of global warming

[b789eacon]

Funny how all the allowed posts are supportive of the authors views

the planet is warming at the fastest rate for ages, we know air retains more heat from radiation if it has more CO2 in it, we see a correlation between Co2 and earth temperature for the past 1m years, most scientists put all this together and suggest pumping loads more into the air than theres ever been in the past 1m years would cause earth warming.

[marktimmer2212]

yeah what do professors of astrophysica know

[b789eacon]

maths mostly, having a hat means little, plenty of mavericks have them

its concensus among a large body of scientists that matters

[marktimmer2212]

yes, a large body of peeer related blalalblablablablablabalbalbal

get of Al Gore s dick or do want to go to jail with him?

faggot

[b789eacon]

I think you mean 'peer reviewed'

and yes, thats how science works

mavericks are useful, thats how new ideas start, sure their ideas should be published and debated

but on average the consensus is often right, and the consensus on Co2 is currently pretty strong

[marktimmer2212]

please, i know what this is about

and i know what you are about.

please come with us to next levell of humankind

[cosmicheretic]

@b789eacon Emperical evidence matters more than consensus if the large body of scientists is wrong!

[odyssey5555]

Yes, there's a correlation between CO2 and earth temperature, with a delay in the CO2 level compared to temperature - You can even see this on Al Gore's graph! Only IPCC or scientists married to the CO2-lie support the claim that CO2 is CAUSING the warming. Most other scientists, like danish Henrik Svensmark don't draw conclusions without evidence and can't find the correlation to CO2.

Besides that, earth haven't become warmer the past 10 years, and in the medieval period it was likewise warm.

[rialcnis]

Most excellent . Is there more?

[TheLotusMantis]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

[toranacar]

FANTASTIC DUCUMENTARY

[elbuggo]

YES!