Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists? There are a lot of people who present their ideas. We don't need to be scientists to say that the earth wasn't created by God.
@dialectical44 -- "Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists?" -- I show several of them in the second video of this series: 'Climate Change - the Objections.'
I saw that years ago. On your Climate Change Myth video (with the John Travolta thumbnail) there is an exhaustive list (added by a commenter) of reputable dissenting scientists. Why don't you include them as well? Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT and proceed from there. You have no interest in rigrous scientific debate. You are a PR hack for corporate science. You present dissenting theories as some kind of abberation from your so called "real science."
@dialectical44 - I think you are refering to a list of papers published in the 1960s and 70s that predicted either a warming or a cooling Earth. If you can find any of the latter group who now insist they were right I would be very surprised. However, if you can find one, please let me know.
@dialectical44 =Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT = I have covered Lindzen's Iris theory and cloud theories extensively, starting in 'Climate Change-- the Objections.' I have also explained the hypotheses of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, and explained why other scientists don't accept these hypotheses. If I have made any mistakes by misrepresenting anyone, please let me know and I will correct the error.
There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos. When you do show them you present their theories as some abberation from the Co2 hyothesis. You are nothing but an anonymous PR hack with an AV editor and a pension for having hissy fits who disguises himself as a purveyor of "rational" ""sober" science. Everything you put up on a pedestal regarding disinterested scientific inquiry is violated with the Co2 hypothesis.
@dialectical44 =There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos.= The only one you named was Lindzen, and I have indeed covered his theories. I don't know who these hundreds of "dissenting" scientists are, but please name ten whom I have not already covered in my videos.
Never mind "trick". What does the vid mean in the use of the phrase "fat mouth"? I am saddened when otherwise reasonable rationalists resort to banal fattist abuse. Apart from the bigotry, a rationalist ought to be aware that the body mass index of a person has no relevance to the veracity of their views. Cheap tricks like that (in the perjorative sense) are the hallmark of the irrationalists; we should not stoop to their level.
@gentler I used "fattist" as am adjective rather than a noun. and you are of course perfectly aware of what I meant by it.. By analogy with "racist", it could be said to be expression of irrational prejudice against people who are fat. It could be used as a noun similalry for someone who holds such a prejudice, without requiring an "ideology".
@PeteWatts48 aww its ok tubby. (sorry, couldn't resist.) I am unsure of the etymology of the word and whether it is somehow used to demean someones weight. Niggardly for instance is a word that is not in any way related to the other word it sort of resembles.
@nospacesallowed That's alright airhead. Sorry, couldn't as you havent the brains to work out a meaning based on simple English language conventions. The abusive term from "fat" is clear and well-known: "fatty". I would have thought from context and grammar even those thin on brains could work out that "fattist" would here mean prejudice based on fatness by analogy with "racism" and "sexism".
@PeteWatts48 My statement was about the etymology of use of the phrase. "fat" has many definitions stupid, foolish, productive, substantial and impressive, well stocked,well filled, plump, and obese. Only these last two actually deal with a persons weight. The rest of them could still be used to describe a mouth that continues to produce and never closes. Just because it uses the word "fat" does not mean it is "fattest" Just like niggardly contains a racist word, but is not racist.
Mphello. I hope you're not disagreeing with putting murderers in jail. We don't put them in jail to "retaliate" we put them in jail so they don't kill more people. And to suggest open-mindedness, you yourself must be open minded; you sound like a religious type trying to suck someone into their religion. If someone proposes an idea better than your own, you must be willing to accept it, although skepticism is what keeps us protected from wrong ideas, if you are over- skeptical you will miss o
@mphello Also I don't really eat meat unless it's Thanksgiving or Yule time but that's because it's usually bow hunted turkey and hunted boar, that are hunted in the actual wilderness and i'm not the one who does the hunting and that's the only time I do......so you can't get at me too much for that.....or you probably can.
@mphello I agree that a lot of animals are horribly treated and tortured in the food industry. But I was wondering, you must hate all carnivorous animals right? I mean there are animals that eat other animals and by doing so forces their morality and lifestyle onto them when they eat them. Also he can't be worse than any so-called "convicts" and "criminals" because I feel it's safe to say a majority of convicts and criminals also eat meat. So they would be even worse by including your view.
Alex Jones sounds like he's about the cry. I do know what people listening to that feel like though, being a part of the unwashed masses. It is a tremendous high to be "vindicated", and people might not want to let go of that. Certainly, they won't think particularly critically of the piece.
Alex Jones sounds like he's about the cry. I do know what people listening to that feel like though, being a part of the unwashed masses. It is a tremendous high to be "vindicated", and people might not want to let go of that. Certainly, they won't think particularly critically of the piece.
There are NO such things as "ecofascists" or "eco-extremists".
ONLY when all the countries in the world ban nuclear power, meat (tortures animals), and outlaws reproducing children by mandating vasectomies for men - only THEN can you dare complain about the excessive power of environmentalists.
But, as long as environmentalists are FORCED to PAY to cleanup you DENIERS' messes, nuclear spills, etc, YOU are the fascists forcing YOUR way of life onto everyone else.
There are NO such things as "fascists" or "racists".
ONLY when all the countries in the world start ethnic cleansing, ban buying from jews, and outlaws racemixing by mandating vasectomies for minorities - only THEN can you dare complain about the excessive power of racists.
But, as long as racists are FORCED to PAY to cleanup you RACE DENIERS' messes, mongrel ghettos, etc, YOU are the fascists forcing INTEGRATION of races onto everyone else.
You can outlaw racemixing by mandating vasectomies for majorities, too. And should, since they are the ones who are already overpopulated.
A majority in one area may be a minority in another, of course. So, OBVIOUSLY, I mean to take that into account.
But nothing wrong with race-mixing and nothing worse about being Jewish compared to being brainwashed by any other lunacy called religion and belief in bullshit like "god".
There is a large group of people who are eager to impose all kinds of taxes and other restrictions on my freedom for what they deem is necessary to protect the environment. From my standpoint, using government to force your morality on others makes you little more than a petty thug.
"only THEN can you dare complain"
Oh and now you're even telling me when I should have the right to complain. You sound like a total jerk.
Then let us see you openly and publicly advocate letting everybody out of prison
because you don't believe you should impose your morality (on murder, theft, child pornography, terrorism) on all those citizens held hostage in prison.
Until then, you are full of shit and hypocrisy with your philosophy that you obviously never bothered to take 2 seconds to think through.
If you don't like me using the law to outlaw you destroying ecology, then don't complain about bombs.
Murderers give up their rights when they impose their will unto others by means of force. We only jail them in retaliation. If you force your morality on others, then you lose any rights you have. I don't force you to eat meat and you shouldn't try to force me not to; it's that simple.
And of course I eat meat. I don't feel bad about it either because animals don't have rights.
"Well, you're an evil sick person who needs to be raped to death."
You should keep an open mind, because the people whom you label "murderers" have good reasons for their killing and believe they should not be held against your will.
You can bullshit all you want, but the bottom line is you want to control and dominate people who don't agree with your opinion by putting them into prison.
And, FYI: you should be put into prison for eating meat, because YOU gave up YOUR rights.
Yes, animals have rights. You force your morality and
You force your morality and lifestyle onto animals when you eat them.
Yes - you are a fucking worse than any so-called "convict" or "criminal".
You should keep an open mind to different ways of thinking about things, like the law, which you too stupid to grasp is an arbitrary construct by humans. Hence, ALL of us have the right to make the law be whatever we want.
And I bet you eat meat and torture animals. That's 1000X worse than so-called "terrorsim" or molesting children. Well, you're an evil sick person who needs to be raped to death.
my theory is that because everything is so polorzied right now between al gore alarmism and glenn beck denialism the scientist were scared that certain data could be misconstrued and fuel controversy so they tried some math tricks to show it in a different light.
I like how the scientific community is in almost complete agreement about global warming and human contributions to it, with not one scientific organization dissenting, yet people like Alex Jones, Limbaugh and Beck are 100% certain of a shadowy conspiracy. There IS NO controversy in the scientific community about global warming. It reminds me of creationism, and the ridiculous war chant "teach the controversy" when there is no controversy.
Potholer has an "evidence based belief system" and understands that our beliefs drive our choices (individually and collectivelly) and....our choices always have consequences....ergo he advocates basing our beliefs (and choices) based on the best evidence you can obtain.
It is either an evidence based belief system or finding a religion where we firmly believe in what we wish were true...and re: religion...you have so many choices.
Global warming caused by man only exists inside a faulty computer model, it is as real as the game inside your Wii fit. Meanwhile the Planet is cooling as the Sun enters a new Grand Solar Minimum.
@david222444 Whether or not you agree that humanity is causing the recent warming, I don't see how you can claim that the Earth is cooling. Since the actual temperatures measured (averaged over the entire Earth) for the last 100 years show a general warming trend, especially in the last 25 years or so. Thermometers and their more precise equivalents, just don't lie... Check out the IPCC annual reports for the summarised data.
@deathtopenguin5 Humanity did not cause Global warming by producing a trace gas which has a minute effect on the climate , this gas tends not to mix easily and is heavier than air. The Sun in its Grand maximum caused the past warming. The Earth is cooling as the Sun has now become inactive and is entering a Grand Solar minimum. The Sun's activity can now be compared to it's activiy in the Dalton minimum. Check out Layman's sunspot count and CERN cloud experiment . Prepare for a very cold winter.
@david222444 The CERN Cloud experiment is interesting but has years of work left before it can say anything quantifiable about cosmic ray cloud production.There is a potholer54 video about it, with sources. I looked up on the Dalton Minimum (in scientific articles) and found "Climate Dynamics (2005), Wagner, Zorita - The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830): a model study" I'm not sure of the scientific consensus on the DM however.
@david222444 The CERN Cloud experiment is interesting but has years of work left before it can say anything quantifiable about cosmic ray cloud production.There is a potholer54 video about it, with sources. I looked up on the Dalton Minimum (in scientific articles) and found [Climate Dynamics (2005), Wagner, Zorita - The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830): a model study] I'm not sure of the scientific consensus on the DM however.
@david222444 Ozone is also heavier than air and somewhat heavier than CO2 and occurs only in parts per billion, thousands of times less than CO2. By your reasoning, their should be no issue with increasing Ozone many times over, right? How about removing it entirely from the atmosphere since such a minute amount must clearly only insignificant effects
@bannor99 Ozone (O3) is destroyed by exreme cold in the upper atmosphere. Ozone has nothing to do with the planet's climate, it filters uv light. Your last comment has no logic whatsoever. Atmospheric Co2 enhancement can be nothig but good for life on the Planet. The Atmosphere cools the earth in daylight. Today the Sunspot count was 2 and during a period of high solar activity it should be 200. La Nina is building for the winter. I repeat prepare for a harsh winter in the northern hemisphere.
@david222444 You missed the point on "minute" completely. And ozone is also a greenhouse house but its overall effect is less than CO2 because it's not as long-lived or pervasive.
@bannor99 Ozone is a greenhouse gas in parts per billion! give me a break. The Sun caused the past warming and co2 is a product of that warming. The Atmosphere cannot heat the oceans and our Planet is mostly ocean. The Planet has been cooling since 1998 as the sun became inactive and now starts to enter a new Grand Minimum. Corrupt climatologists and deep greens will be shown as frauds as deep and prolonged cooling sets in. The nitwits are those who take these warming computer models as gospel.
@david222444 Look into the GHG potential of O3. Despite its low concentration and shorter lifespan, it actually causes more warming in PARTS of the upper atmosphere than CO2. If you believe that we've been cooling since 1998, you need to watch this series again. Well, some group is about to be exposed as frauds and nitwits - my money is on those who actually PROFIT from their stance on climate change, not those who merely earn a living.
@bannor99 Will you stop pissing about with insignificant trace gases? The climate will dictate to humanity what energy policies must be put in place. The climate is on the skeptics side, it is cooling and cooling fast. The crazy theory that humans can cool the Earth by simply reducing co2 is absurd. Humanity deserves a medal for its atmospheric co2 enrichment which benefits all life on the Planet. Time to build more traditional power stations before we freeze in the coming winters.
@david222444 Most of the serious scientists who doubt AGW still agree we are in a warming trend though they don't agree on what's the cause and how much of a rise in temps we'll see in the near future.
@bannor99 The past warming trend has stopped. Why must you dwell on the past, when the future is now cooling? I would say that no serious scientist agrees that man caused the Planet to warm, only fools would fall for that one. I repeat, the climate dictates to man,who is simply forced to adapt.
@david222444 When did the trend stop? None of the denialists seem to agree - they've proposed 1995, 1998, 2001, 2006. This is all recent dates with detailed records - how hard can it be to get it right?
@bannor99 Denialists? what is there to deny? You seem to be trying hard to deny that our Planet is cooling.Let me repeat myself, the Sun caused the past warming. The Sun's present inactivity is causing the Planet to cool.
@david222444 All the credible evidence shows on overall positive warming trend and an increasing level of GLOBAL weather extremes. If the solar output decreases, it will only SLIGHTLY slow down the overall upward trend, NOT reverse it. At this point in our history, our emissions have a stronger positive or negative overall effect than the normal swings of solar forcing.
@bannor99 Dont be silly. A trace gas cannot force our climate and we only produce 4% of the trace gas. The Sun and Oceans control the climate. We are merely slaves to their whims. Increased Carbon dioxide is a product of an active Sun warming the Planet.
@david222444 Then a prolonged period of reduced solar activity should cause a decrease in global CO2 levels, right? How much of a CO2 reduction can we expect?
@bannor99 You are correct, reduced Solar activity will cause co2 levels to fall once the oceans have lost most of the heat stored during the Grand Maximim. The cool oceans will hold more co2 and therefore atmospheric levels should drop significantly. The problem is that scientists are beginning to think that Solar cycle 25 may not occur. If this happens then look forward to a little ice age. Plant life shuts down at atmospheric co2 levels of 150 ppm.
@david222444@david222444 Consider this - in previous posts, you claimed that such an "insignificant, trace gas" could never impact the global climate but now claim it's so crucial to plant life that reducing it by half would wipe out all plant life.
Also, you are aware that the much-touted solar GRAND MAXIMUM merely means a gradual increase of 0.07% over 11 years - or 0.0066% yearly. Small changes can make one heck of a difference.
@bannor99 A grand minimum means that there may be next to no sunspots until the end of the present centuary, so you can forget 11 year cycles. As for the atmospheric trace gas CRUCIAL for plant photosynthesis, yes plant photosynthesis would stop at atmospheric level of 150ppm. Meanwhile 2 million people in America are without power due to a Snow storm in October. Warming my arse. The Greenhouse theory is falling appart at the seems.
@david222444 Again, just because it's "trace" doesn't mean it's not important - hence the word "vita-min" - crucial for life in small amounts but can be toxic or fatal above a certain level. And now you see why some decided to start using climate change (which previously sounded innocuous) - people who don't think quickly forget that weather EXTREMES were an early prediction of a warming world. Heavy snowstorms usually happen in fairly mild winter temps - you don't see 1 foot of snow at -4 F
@bannor99 Again you lot want to class Co2 as a pollutant, this is pure ignorance. Again you want to have it all ways ie mild winters its global warming and cold winters its global warming. Go get some knowlege for youself and stop parroting the same crap. You may even find that our Planet is COOLING and every level of the Atmosphere is cooling. Your greenhouse theory is bust, finished, caput. Your last sentence is crazy.
@david222444 I've been following this,at various levels of interest, for 20 years. And you can hardly accuse me of parroting, considering your own posts. And I've lived in some very snowy places since adolescence. The 3 inches that fell on the Big Apple would be a minor nuisance, except that idiots who wait until the 1st snow / ice before putting on winter tires will earn Darwin awards in crashes. As for my "crazy sentence", did you note that New York is back well above zero and getting warmer?
@david222444 An old, wise saying - Too much of a good thing is good for nothing. Some CO2 is necessary, some more is wonderful, but somewhere, not too far off, there's a threshold we shouldn't cross. Some warmth is absolutely necessary, more is fantastic, too much can kill. Even oxygen has thresholds that are dangerous.
@KesslersCross No, I don't believe that ClimateGate revealed a conspiracy and anyone who changed from believing in AGW to thinking it's not happening or isn't human-influenced solely on the basis of the hacked e-mails is a moron. Honestly, they found 3 questionable statements in THIRTEEN years of correspondence? Anyone who had a year's worth of my e-mail could probably get me fired, arrested or sued.
@bannor99 Well, I dont think the beginning of it was so much of a conspiracy and I was rash in my original statement "from day one". I think it was a theory that got elevated, and once it became a point of awareness on a political stage then greed, self profit, and greed kicked in. Somewhere around the early to mid 90s, just a guess. I cant remember the last financial statement from the U.S. that I seen but it was in the billions spend on this theory that hasnt even been proven.
@KesslersCross For the most part, doing the things that would reduce our CO2 output are good things to do anyway. I don't have much of an issue with oil production - it's the burning of it that a problem. And petroleum is just too useful a substance to indiscriminately burn more than 1/2 what we have. Remember when a billion was a lot of money? All the money spent on climate research since 1980 wouldn't pay for 1 year's war in Iraq.
Say it with me now... C-on-text. C-on-text. And I particularly enjoy the irony of the McAmateurs who seem to thrive on oversimplification - why bother understanding what a data proxy is, when you can bleat on about direct, non-proportional equivalence? Maybe it's the KFC effect : Kentucky Fried ClimateChangeDenial! Mmmmm, nom nom nom...
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
@potholer54 the reconstructed proxy temps ARE supposed to be global temperatures, why would they bother reconstructing them if they weren't? The fact that Mann et.al. had hidden the reconstructions in the period where we do have most reliable temp. records because they diverged significantly while purporting to show that they're reliable before that doesn't bother you at all? How isn't that fraud? You pick some losers to show and ignore the primary source Steve McIntire entirely? r u serious?
4:40 he says it needs to be investigated yet the investigation never looked at that comment. He says whatever the outcome it has nothing to do with the earth warming, yet the earth warming has nothing to do with the apocalyptic doom & gloom warnings that human survival of the planet is threatened.
@ZShogan You'll need to do better than that if you want to make your case, burden's on you to come up with something not task me with doing your homework for you. I realize it's not easy for you so don't try sending me on fool's errands instead.Lisa Graumlich testified in congress their charge wasn't to investigate the actual emails or the bias they exposed.
You claimed that "hide the decline" was never investigated, it was.
"Lisa Graumlich testified in congress their charge wasn't to investigate the actual emails or the bias they exposed."
I'm not talking about Lisa Graumlich, I'm talking about Sir Muir Russel and his investigation. Even if Graumlich did as you said, Sir Muir Russel investigated "hide the decline" when you said no one did.
@ZShogan I was talking about the SAP but Russell's report speaks volumes too.
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
GW proponents use words like "conspiracy theory" rather than "bias" to portray skeptics as crazy, but the general public is obviously on to these tactics. Good luck peddling this crap in the future, the cat's out of the bag.
This was stupid. If all the evidence is still being worked out then why are they so ready to pass all these taxes for conflicting science records.
It is always easy to make fun and have a good laugh at 'consipracy people" but if there is to be further tests to be done then do so, but don't have Al Gore and big business force some Carbon tax on conflicting evidence.
So make more vids, but leave that child like ruling elite sucking up at the door.
@geradical The consensus right now is the Earth is warming and that man is playing a major role in it. Thats why. You always do more research because it makes are understanding of it even more clear over time, like for instance how high the water rise will be over time. Its a very serious issue that will cause serious problems in the future
I'm still a bit of a skeptic of anthropological climate change but now I realize that my initial skepticism was based on two stupid reasons:
1. When my geography teacher explained to us Greenhouse effect I remarked that H2O is immensely much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. My teacher had nothing to say to that so that experience made me feel really smart because I made the my conclusion independently no one told me that climate change is a fraud I "discovered it"
@johnnysecular He actually tackles why water vapor is less of a problem even if theres more than CO2 in the atmosphere. Its basically just that CO2 absorbs a large spectrum of light
@zzyzx0788 Oh yeah I saw that, what I'm saying is I was misinformed by my own interpretation because I lacked fundamental understanding of the "greenhouse effect" theory. Also clouds (H2O) reflect some of the heat away during the day something CO2 doesn't do. I am fully aware now that it's a matter of potency as well as a matter of quantity.
Glad you realized your error. But, why in the world would you listen to John Stossel?
Ingrid Newkirk of PETA has infinitely more credibility. I don't agree with her about some of the claimed benefits of veganism, but veganism should be the law, since the animal suffering is INFINITELY worse than some petty urge to eat meat. Pro-vegan organizations like PETA have known anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real and serious since 1990, when Jeremy Rifkin spoke at a DC mtg.
PETA is certainly more honest and credible and intelligent than those fanatic anti-patriotic cults like What's Up with Watts, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute.
If you want to see some Green fascists literally caught in the act, you should watch this video, that was recorded at the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden this week:
watch?v=srYHFbom4Rc
There, a bunch of oligarchs wanted to push through a new "global governance" policy that should be implemented by the UN at the Rio Summit next year. But they were exposed!
What a pointless video. All he said was a bunch of facts and evidence, whatever those are.
Coincidentally though, God told me global warming is real. So if you deny it, you'll burn for all eternity in a fiery pit of your imagination, err hell... which is over there.. somewhere.
What if this nibiru isn't a planet orbiting elliptically around our solar system or whatever, but something that is indefinitely coming our way? Who's to say that what's been hypothesized is EXACTLY what's going on? I think it's entirely possible for us to not see this thing, and IF something invades our solar system, it'll happen pretty fast won't it? Anyone who argues
1) The fact is there's no evidence for anything like niburu, for the sake of discussion I assumed it did exist and pointed out that if such an object did exist that it can't be behind the sun year round if it is "coming right at us" as that's one of the assertions people use to state why we haven't found it yet.
2) The fingerprints of how, when and where it is warming are the biggest reasons why global warming via ghgs is convincing for the most recent warming.
@garith21 dude stop using your science and evidence to trick us. Every layman knows that Nibiru is coming, orbiting the sun at the same rate as the earth but taking 3,400 years, perfectly behind the sun and coming straight for us but it's not going to get burnt.
If those who claim to expand human knowledge pick and choose data to push the enveloped answers demanded by sponsors and political masters, the integrity of their reports are suspect. A damage limitation exercise citing selective less incriminating examples therefore needs to be done to preserve public respect for the scientific profession as a whole.. Make sure this exercise is not a case of shooting one in the foot !
Um, if you've done any reading, cherry picking data is what people that claim to be skeptics do, and rather well. How often is it that you're presented with the argument against climate change with cherry picked data and when you read more into it and in the context of more information that you come to a completely different conclusion, I find this essentially every single time.
You have not read my point properly probably because you started with preconceived notion I missed the point of this video. I know what this video is trying to "disprove" the "hysteria" about the exposure of the leaked info to the public eye. But whatever reasons one can conceivably offer to the public so as to maintain some credibility for professional scientists, the truth remains for all to see the Bandwagon effect and the professional fear of being out in the cold. Massage data?
"the truth remains for all to see the Bandwagon effect and the professional fear of being out in the cold."
Uh yeah, I'm sure that's how Einstein was when he was over tuning the old idea of purely Newtonian understanding of time. Oh wait, there's none of what you claim in the e-mails either since there's cases of them disagreeing with each other even in private e-mails.
Also the point of the video is to indicate that it's not necessarily what "skeptics" want to assert it is, you'll note that he's said repeatedly in such videos that investigations will have to be done, and they were done which indicated no proof of fraud. Many scientists were skeptics till around the 90's when the evidence for AGW became overwhelming
It is contradictory to say on the one hand "that investigations will have to be done"and that "they were done which indicated no proof of fraud". Time will tell the degree and extent of the fraud and how much are excusable and can be put to bad science due to bandwagon herd instinct and professional timidity to speak out of syn with senior figures. I will wait rather than pronounce judgement no fraud whatsoever. I notice skeptics are also asking why other planets are warming? Nibiru?
1) In the videos which were done before the investigations he says "investigations will have to be done" in reality over a year later many investigations have been done and found no proof of fraud, I hope this clarifies things.
2) Other planets are warming due to other factors, you might want to read about it rather than doing a mindless statement of "they're warming, so are we therefore it must be the same mechanism and it has to be the sun"
3) You might want to read about the biggest reasons why it's believed to be ghg concentration increase, the basic physics dictates that certain areas and times will warm more quickly than others due to various factors like differences in water vapor concentrations, latitudes and the like which don't have the same fingerprints as other proposed warming mechanisms like "it's the sun". Most of AGW is basic physics and observations
Thanks for the info. I think the sun is also an important factor. Well, it is what those "Nibiruan" videos are claiming about Earth warming up and also the other planets. They are saying maybe cow gas gone to them as well. :-(
Well, perhaps you should actually read on the topics because no one says that in regards to the few planetary bodies that are warming up. I also don't care about "nibiruan" videos or what they claim, there's no evidence for a nibiru nor does it explain the phenomenon of why it's warming that just so happens to be consistent with ghgs
It would be comforting to hold fast the official lines if not for the number of exposures discrediting the spin s and cover upsI really do hope you are right for the selfish reason that there is a tomorrow. For if a cosmic body does come out behind the sun on its Passover cycle of 3600 years +/-, many people will die nasty. Lawlessness will have to controlled by Martial Law, FEMA camps cos of wild panics. America is the best prepared by the look of things,n Norway. Safety First,I say.
"For if a cosmic body does come out behind the sun on its Passover cycle of 3600 years"
Are you saying that there's some cosmic star sized body that is hiding behind the sun year round? I hear this sort of nonsense all the time, but do you realize how fast it would have to be in order to accomplish such a feat as we orbit the sun every year and for it to magically be behind the sun year round? Also how would it accomplish this while having such a huge orbit? =P
Also if it's some how behind the sun year round it means it's already been going through an orbit every year, why it would suddenly pop out from behind the sun every 3600 years despite already having such a bizzare stable orbit every year in a distant place outside of our solar system probably traveling near the speed of light to maintain it's position behind the sun would be something I'd like to hear about =P
The Nibiru camp has an answer to that apparently. From the ones I viewed they are saying there had been a big cover up operation since the 1980s. Space does not admit recounting here nor would I think most people want to know. I keep an open mind to this. Just hope there won't come that one awful day the alleged puss is out of the bag and the human race has to cower in Martial Law FEMA camps while Fat Cats go to Bunkers!
Actually that's not really an answer, I'm asking a basic physics question assuming it does exist and that somehow it's behind the sun year round and pointing out that even if we did have those assumptions that it makes absolutely no sense even if there is some "global scientific cover up". You can't physically have a 3.5k year orbit and simultaneously have an orbit that has it hiding behind the sun year round.
You did not read my replies properly. It is not my intention to prove or disprove Nibiru theories, and there are theories galore. For every your protestations, they already have a reply to that, some credible, others not so. I am neutral to the argument. My interest =only to protect my investment in case of a world market crash should the "truth" come out. So it is damage limitation and self preservation. The "cover up" apparently is pretty intensive.Martial Law is for Nibiru coming?
Why would you believe something which is so absurd and has no evidence for it? I'm even asking you basic questions at the very root of claiming that such an object exists, anyone claiming such nonsense has a lot to explain if it both is hiding behind the sun year round and supposedly has a 3.6k year orbit which can't simultaneously be true since one states that it has to orbit the sun one time per year which is impossible without it being in our orbit.
Your position reminds me of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One who touched the elephant insisted the elephant is like a tube - he touched only the elephant trunk. Another said it is like a string - he touched only the elephant's tail. The last one said it is like a fan - he touched one of the elephant ear. The Nibiru theorists and anti Nibiru theorists are the same - based on their study they insist there is no other possible explanations other than their own. QED
Uh, I'm simply pointing out what doesn't make sense based upon their claims and our basic knowledge of this little thing known as gravity and the basic physics of orbiting objects and the contradictory argument of "it's hiding behind the sun year round" and "it has a 3.6k year orbit". You are aware that we orbit around the sun right? And if we orbit around the sun the angle of what's behind the sun changes to the point that such an object would have to also orbit once a year.
You do not seem to take in what I said. If you are so interested in their explanations, why don't you go view some of the Nibiru theorists videos for answers to the questions you put up. I am happy to sit by the side and watch you all argue about the "Elephant" of a Nemesis or shall I say, Mother of All Nemesis. If you want to disprove their arguments, put up a video to debunk theirs point by point. I assure you I will be viewing it. I been watching ze trend. Now read Dr Brad Carter.
I'm asking you this basic physics question, and you're the one saying you think it's true so I'm asking what your explanation is since you're saying it's coming from behind the sun and pointing out this logical point to you.
If you are deliberately misunderstanding me to score points, there is no reason on earth I should entertain your line of argument. When I said this planet appearing from behind the sun, I am using the layman's expression for what is the part of its orbit coming out from behind the sun from the earth's point of view. I am not saying Nibiru is hiding behind the sun like a being in a Hide & Seek game. Go check on the Nib-vid. You obviously pre-dismiss on poss of this as impossible. QED.
Perhaps I should lay it out more succinctly, we orbit the sun, ergo the area behind the sun relative to us changes, in order for it to be behind the sun year round it would have to orbit the sun at the same rate we do, ie once per year. If it didn't then it couldn't possibly be behind the sun for the entire year. If it orbits once per year it can't simultaneously orbit once every 3.6k years. Get it?
You obviously have been closeted in your own lab verifying official data given to you and now trying to score points with my comments. As I said times before, the limited space here is not for me talking in layman language to prove to you the points raised by the people labeled as Nibiru theorists or whatever. Twisting my comments to try to rubbish those theorists is like the story of a brain doctor who rubbished acupuncture because a patient cannot talk his lingo.Go check urself.
Okay, you're saying it's coming from behind the sun, I'm simply telling you that "behind the sun" changes over the course of a year because we're orbiting the sun, are you too stupid to understand this basic fact that needs to be addressed simply =P It's not even a "verifying official data" problem, it's a basic physics and logic problem.
The only feasible way it could even be hiding behind the sun year round in this regard based on gravity and escape velocity is if it has the same orbit as we do, if it's orbiting outside of our solarsystem and maintaining such a speed as to attain a 1 orbit per year it wouldn't even be possible because it would simply be traveling so fast that it would reach escape velocity, even then it still wouldn't have a 3.6k year orbit.
and then to suddenly assert it's going to "pop out from behind the sun every 3.6k years" is equally absurd. Being neutral to an absurd argument for which there is no evidence for and isn't even physically possible simply makes me laugh
I am hilarious too. But I am willing to keep looking for the signs in the sky! I don't want the sense of "victory" of a las t laugh if it is for that of Nibiru!
not really, I didn't accept the skeptics arguments either because I felt they were always cherry picking and intentionally made the arguments of proponents sound absurd like a strawman, but when I started researching more into the topic I found out why the skeptics arguments are incredibly bad and cherry picked and I know why agw is accepted. Even if we discarded historical records as stated before most of it is the basic physics and observations over the instrumental record.
"But overall taking previous records into account, it's not really a problem."
I forgot to respond to this gem, what makes you come to this conclusion? This statement "based upon the past there's nothing to worry about" it makes the assumption that we've had the same situation before in the past which isn't the case, especially further back in the past the sun was so much dimmer that if it was the same co2 concentrations as today we'd still be an ice ball planet.
There have been many factors that have changed over time, especially when going back further in time, like continental drift, the fact that the sun gets brighter etc etc. So I have to ask you what make you think "it's not really a problem" based on past records which are different from our current situation and I might add often have many negative effects associated with events happening so quickly on a global basis.
Right, it's only backed by basic physics and observations, but it has to be a hippie cause. Ever think about how much of an issue it will be for us if we do nothing? It will be more expensive to do something about it later if we don't start sooner. The earth doesn't care if life gets harder for us, it'll be around long after the human race, this is both a human issue and protecting human interests.
Sorry, but using very old technologies is not looking forward, not to mention it's getting progressively more expensive to use those fuels, when we started drilling for oil in the united states it took around 1 barrel of oil to get 100 barrels of oil, saudia arabia where it's amongst the cheapest is currently about 1 barrel for 20, other parts of the world it's as miserable as 1 for 5.
If we don't use other energy methods we're going to run out of usable oil and very quickly
As an example in the US we import a large portion of our oil primarily for energy and because it's much cheaper than domestic oil, what happens if other countries just cut us off? Is it so much easier to innovate when you've lost such a large portion of your imported fuel?
As far as the "ice ages" bit, if past cycles are any indication we won't have to worry about a significant ice age for nearly thousands of years, we're causing a climate fluctuation now.
Many of the other developed countries are also making renewable energy a priority when it comes to their energy policy, we're starting to lose more innovators to places like China because they want to invest in it and we don't, soon we'll have to import such alternatives from China rather than making them at home if we don't invest in it.
Who cares what the government wants? This topic is on whether it's true or not, discussing about what government wants to do about it is a separate topic. So far it seems like you're simply rejecting it because you disagree with potential outcomes rather than the science isn't convincing. That to is a very retarded argument. You can still accept that something is true but still reject some proposed solutions in favor of others.
Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists? There are a lot of people who present their ideas. We don't need to be scientists to say that the earth wasn't created by God.
dialectical44 1 week ago
@dialectical44 -- "Why doesn't potholer54 show one of the hundreds of disinterested dissenting researchers and scientists?" -- I show several of them in the second video of this series: 'Climate Change - the Objections.'
potholer54 1 week ago
@potholer54
I saw that years ago. On your Climate Change Myth video (with the John Travolta thumbnail) there is an exhaustive list (added by a commenter) of reputable dissenting scientists. Why don't you include them as well? Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT and proceed from there. You have no interest in rigrous scientific debate. You are a PR hack for corporate science. You present dissenting theories as some kind of abberation from your so called "real science."
dialectical44 1 week ago
@dialectical44 - I think you are refering to a list of papers published in the 1960s and 70s that predicted either a warming or a cooling Earth. If you can find any of the latter group who now insist they were right I would be very surprised. However, if you can find one, please let me know.
potholer54 1 week ago
@dialectical44 =Let's start with Richard Lindzen of MIT = I have covered Lindzen's Iris theory and cloud theories extensively, starting in 'Climate Change-- the Objections.' I have also explained the hypotheses of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, and explained why other scientists don't accept these hypotheses. If I have made any mistakes by misrepresenting anyone, please let me know and I will correct the error.
potholer54 1 week ago
@potholer54
There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos. When you do show them you present their theories as some abberation from the Co2 hyothesis. You are nothing but an anonymous PR hack with an AV editor and a pension for having hissy fits who disguises himself as a purveyor of "rational" ""sober" science. Everything you put up on a pedestal regarding disinterested scientific inquiry is violated with the Co2 hypothesis.
dialectical44 1 week ago
@dialectical44 =There are hundreds of reputable dissenting scientists and researchers who you ignore in your videos.= The only one you named was Lindzen, and I have indeed covered his theories. I don't know who these hundreds of "dissenting" scientists are, but please name ten whom I have not already covered in my videos.
potholer54 1 week ago
End your own life less co2, more oil for my SUV! I will give you bullet if you rent GUN!
tileguy12341 1 week ago
I thought the guy at 0:49 was joking, so I looked him up, and he's not a comedian, but an actual journalist. My god.
heytherehadfield 2 weeks ago
I kinda wish this video had hundreds of millions of views so more people knew this.
TehJedicake 2 weeks ago
You are my favorite youtube guy.
JonasAlbrecht 4 weeks ago
Never mind "trick". What does the vid mean in the use of the phrase "fat mouth"? I am saddened when otherwise reasonable rationalists resort to banal fattist abuse. Apart from the bigotry, a rationalist ought to be aware that the body mass index of a person has no relevance to the veracity of their views. Cheap tricks like that (in the perjorative sense) are the hallmark of the irrationalists; we should not stoop to their level.
PeteWatts48 1 month ago in playlist Climate Change
@PeteWatts48 "Fattist"? Is that someone who subscribes to the ideology of Fattism?
gentler 3 weeks ago
@gentler I used "fattist" as am adjective rather than a noun. and you are of course perfectly aware of what I meant by it.. By analogy with "racist", it could be said to be expression of irrational prejudice against people who are fat. It could be used as a noun similalry for someone who holds such a prejudice, without requiring an "ideology".
PeteWatts48 3 weeks ago
@PeteWatts48 aww its ok tubby. (sorry, couldn't resist.) I am unsure of the etymology of the word and whether it is somehow used to demean someones weight. Niggardly for instance is a word that is not in any way related to the other word it sort of resembles.
nospacesallowed 3 weeks ago
@nospacesallowed That's alright airhead. Sorry, couldn't as you havent the brains to work out a meaning based on simple English language conventions. The abusive term from "fat" is clear and well-known: "fatty". I would have thought from context and grammar even those thin on brains could work out that "fattist" would here mean prejudice based on fatness by analogy with "racism" and "sexism".
PeteWatts48 2 weeks ago
@PeteWatts48 Well my fuller-figured brain left out the word "resist" in my last post. Self-pwnage. :)
PeteWatts48 2 weeks ago
@PeteWatts48 My statement was about the etymology of use of the phrase. "fat" has many definitions stupid, foolish, productive, substantial and impressive, well stocked,well filled, plump, and obese. Only these last two actually deal with a persons weight. The rest of them could still be used to describe a mouth that continues to produce and never closes. Just because it uses the word "fat" does not mean it is "fattest" Just like niggardly contains a racist word, but is not racist.
nospacesallowed 2 weeks ago
@PeteWatts48 My conclusion was that it's simply another term for "big mouth".
dwkjo 1 week ago
Mphello. I hope you're not disagreeing with putting murderers in jail. We don't put them in jail to "retaliate" we put them in jail so they don't kill more people. And to suggest open-mindedness, you yourself must be open minded; you sound like a religious type trying to suck someone into their religion. If someone proposes an idea better than your own, you must be willing to accept it, although skepticism is what keeps us protected from wrong ideas, if you are over- skeptical you will miss o
ffletcherr 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheGlassDot 1 month ago
Pro hack (NO PROGRAMS!) /watch?v=9cBy9xuEuYk
ModUrGame 1 month ago
@mphello Also I don't really eat meat unless it's Thanksgiving or Yule time but that's because it's usually bow hunted turkey and hunted boar, that are hunted in the actual wilderness and i'm not the one who does the hunting and that's the only time I do......so you can't get at me too much for that.....or you probably can.
STEELFISTSOFDOOM 1 month ago
@mphello I agree that a lot of animals are horribly treated and tortured in the food industry. But I was wondering, you must hate all carnivorous animals right? I mean there are animals that eat other animals and by doing so forces their morality and lifestyle onto them when they eat them. Also he can't be worse than any so-called "convicts" and "criminals" because I feel it's safe to say a majority of convicts and criminals also eat meat. So they would be even worse by including your view.
STEELFISTSOFDOOM 1 month ago
Dear Varney
Die in a hole.
Regards.
Atheeizm 1 month ago
Follow the money
ghawk1232 2 months ago
Alex Jones sounds like he's about the cry. I do know what people listening to that feel like though, being a part of the unwashed masses. It is a tremendous high to be "vindicated", and people might not want to let go of that. Certainly, they won't think particularly critically of the piece.
Also, I love the montage soundtrack. :P
stuartp2006 2 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
Alex Jones sounds like he's about the cry. I do know what people listening to that feel like though, being a part of the unwashed masses. It is a tremendous high to be "vindicated", and people might not want to let go of that. Certainly, they won't think particularly critically of the piece.
stuartp2006 2 months ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
I say that global warming is happening because of what the Spaceball Theory supports : "she's gone from suck to blow!"
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
RipTheSystem33 2 months ago
There are NO such things as "ecofascists" or "eco-extremists".
ONLY when all the countries in the world ban nuclear power, meat (tortures animals), and outlaws reproducing children by mandating vasectomies for men - only THEN can you dare complain about the excessive power of environmentalists.
But, as long as environmentalists are FORCED to PAY to cleanup you DENIERS' messes, nuclear spills, etc, YOU are the fascists forcing YOUR way of life onto everyone else.
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello
There are NO such things as "fascists" or "racists".
ONLY when all the countries in the world start ethnic cleansing, ban buying from jews, and outlaws racemixing by mandating vasectomies for minorities - only THEN can you dare complain about the excessive power of racists.
But, as long as racists are FORCED to PAY to cleanup you RACE DENIERS' messes, mongrel ghettos, etc, YOU are the fascists forcing INTEGRATION of races onto everyone else.
CarbonAndWater 2 months ago
@CarbonAndWater
You can outlaw racemixing by mandating vasectomies for majorities, too. And should, since they are the ones who are already overpopulated.
A majority in one area may be a minority in another, of course. So, OBVIOUSLY, I mean to take that into account.
But nothing wrong with race-mixing and nothing worse about being Jewish compared to being brainwashed by any other lunacy called religion and belief in bullshit like "god".
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello
There is a large group of people who are eager to impose all kinds of taxes and other restrictions on my freedom for what they deem is necessary to protect the environment. From my standpoint, using government to force your morality on others makes you little more than a petty thug.
"only THEN can you dare complain"
Oh and now you're even telling me when I should have the right to complain. You sound like a total jerk.
FromMuToYou 2 months ago
@FromMuToYou
Then let us see you openly and publicly advocate letting everybody out of prison
because you don't believe you should impose your morality (on murder, theft, child pornography, terrorism) on all those citizens held hostage in prison.
Until then, you are full of shit and hypocrisy with your philosophy that you obviously never bothered to take 2 seconds to think through.
If you don't like me using the law to outlaw you destroying ecology, then don't complain about bombs.
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello
Murderers give up their rights when they impose their will unto others by means of force. We only jail them in retaliation. If you force your morality on others, then you lose any rights you have. I don't force you to eat meat and you shouldn't try to force me not to; it's that simple.
And of course I eat meat. I don't feel bad about it either because animals don't have rights.
"Well, you're an evil sick person who needs to be raped to death."
Haha, okay bully.
FromMuToYou 2 months ago
@FromMuToYou
You should keep an open mind, because the people whom you label "murderers" have good reasons for their killing and believe they should not be held against your will.
You can bullshit all you want, but the bottom line is you want to control and dominate people who don't agree with your opinion by putting them into prison.
And, FYI: you should be put into prison for eating meat, because YOU gave up YOUR rights.
Yes, animals have rights. You force your morality and
mphello 1 month ago
@FromMuToYou
You force your morality and lifestyle onto animals when you eat them.
Yes - you are a fucking worse than any so-called "convict" or "criminal".
You should keep an open mind to different ways of thinking about things, like the law, which you too stupid to grasp is an arbitrary construct by humans. Hence, ALL of us have the right to make the law be whatever we want.
You're a terrorist.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello
Lol, I don't know how I thought I could have an intelligent discussion with you.
I feel like an idiot for even wasting my time.
FromMuToYou 1 month ago
@FromMuToYou
And I bet you eat meat and torture animals. That's 1000X worse than so-called "terrorsim" or molesting children. Well, you're an evil sick person who needs to be raped to death.
mphello 2 months ago
Rush is a fat and stupid asshole, and his followers are even more idiotic.
Mythification 2 months ago
my theory is that because everything is so polorzied right now between al gore alarmism and glenn beck denialism the scientist were scared that certain data could be misconstrued and fuel controversy so they tried some math tricks to show it in a different light.
ndelliott138 2 months ago
"Climategate." LOL
I like how the scientific community is in almost complete agreement about global warming and human contributions to it, with not one scientific organization dissenting, yet people like Alex Jones, Limbaugh and Beck are 100% certain of a shadowy conspiracy. There IS NO controversy in the scientific community about global warming. It reminds me of creationism, and the ridiculous war chant "teach the controversy" when there is no controversy.
RipTheSystem33 3 months ago
@RipTheSystem33 Amen!
AGW deniers = conservatards = Holocaust deniers = creationists
mphello 2 months ago
@RipTheSystem33 Great comment! Keep up the good work! :)
mphello 2 months ago
Alex Jones is a fucking loony LOL.
Mattyb88ful 3 months ago
THANK YOU, SIR!
grozde 3 months ago
Potholer has an "evidence based belief system" and understands that our beliefs drive our choices (individually and collectivelly) and....our choices always have consequences....ergo he advocates basing our beliefs (and choices) based on the best evidence you can obtain.
It is either an evidence based belief system or finding a religion where we firmly believe in what we wish were true...and re: religion...you have so many choices.
poosta7 4 months ago
Super lol at Jones. Was he crying?
MyOnlyFarph 4 months ago
Global warming caused by man only exists inside a faulty computer model, it is as real as the game inside your Wii fit. Meanwhile the Planet is cooling as the Sun enters a new Grand Solar Minimum.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Whether or not you agree that humanity is causing the recent warming, I don't see how you can claim that the Earth is cooling. Since the actual temperatures measured (averaged over the entire Earth) for the last 100 years show a general warming trend, especially in the last 25 years or so. Thermometers and their more precise equivalents, just don't lie... Check out the IPCC annual reports for the summarised data.
deathtopenguin5 4 months ago
@deathtopenguin5 Humanity did not cause Global warming by producing a trace gas which has a minute effect on the climate , this gas tends not to mix easily and is heavier than air. The Sun in its Grand maximum caused the past warming. The Earth is cooling as the Sun has now become inactive and is entering a Grand Solar minimum. The Sun's activity can now be compared to it's activiy in the Dalton minimum. Check out Layman's sunspot count and CERN cloud experiment . Prepare for a very cold winter.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 The CERN Cloud experiment is interesting but has years of work left before it can say anything quantifiable about cosmic ray cloud production.There is a potholer54 video about it, with sources. I looked up on the Dalton Minimum (in scientific articles) and found "Climate Dynamics (2005), Wagner, Zorita - The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830): a model study" I'm not sure of the scientific consensus on the DM however.
deathtopenguin5 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444 The CERN Cloud experiment is interesting but has years of work left before it can say anything quantifiable about cosmic ray cloud production.There is a potholer54 video about it, with sources. I looked up on the Dalton Minimum (in scientific articles) and found [Climate Dynamics (2005), Wagner, Zorita - The influence of volcanic, solar and CO2 forcing on the temperatures in the Dalton Minimum (1790–1830): a model study] I'm not sure of the scientific consensus on the DM however.
deathtopenguin5 4 months ago
@david222444 Ozone is also heavier than air and somewhat heavier than CO2 and occurs only in parts per billion, thousands of times less than CO2. By your reasoning, their should be no issue with increasing Ozone many times over, right? How about removing it entirely from the atmosphere since such a minute amount must clearly only insignificant effects
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Ozone (O3) is destroyed by exreme cold in the upper atmosphere. Ozone has nothing to do with the planet's climate, it filters uv light. Your last comment has no logic whatsoever. Atmospheric Co2 enhancement can be nothig but good for life on the Planet. The Atmosphere cools the earth in daylight. Today the Sunspot count was 2 and during a period of high solar activity it should be 200. La Nina is building for the winter. I repeat prepare for a harsh winter in the northern hemisphere.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 You missed the point on "minute" completely. And ozone is also a greenhouse house but its overall effect is less than CO2 because it's not as long-lived or pervasive.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Ozone is a greenhouse gas in parts per billion! give me a break. The Sun caused the past warming and co2 is a product of that warming. The Atmosphere cannot heat the oceans and our Planet is mostly ocean. The Planet has been cooling since 1998 as the sun became inactive and now starts to enter a new Grand Minimum. Corrupt climatologists and deep greens will be shown as frauds as deep and prolonged cooling sets in. The nitwits are those who take these warming computer models as gospel.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Look into the GHG potential of O3. Despite its low concentration and shorter lifespan, it actually causes more warming in PARTS of the upper atmosphere than CO2. If you believe that we've been cooling since 1998, you need to watch this series again. Well, some group is about to be exposed as frauds and nitwits - my money is on those who actually PROFIT from their stance on climate change, not those who merely earn a living.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Will you stop pissing about with insignificant trace gases? The climate will dictate to humanity what energy policies must be put in place. The climate is on the skeptics side, it is cooling and cooling fast. The crazy theory that humans can cool the Earth by simply reducing co2 is absurd. Humanity deserves a medal for its atmospheric co2 enrichment which benefits all life on the Planet. Time to build more traditional power stations before we freeze in the coming winters.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Most of the serious scientists who doubt AGW still agree we are in a warming trend though they don't agree on what's the cause and how much of a rise in temps we'll see in the near future.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 The past warming trend has stopped. Why must you dwell on the past, when the future is now cooling? I would say that no serious scientist agrees that man caused the Planet to warm, only fools would fall for that one. I repeat, the climate dictates to man,who is simply forced to adapt.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 When did the trend stop? None of the denialists seem to agree - they've proposed 1995, 1998, 2001, 2006. This is all recent dates with detailed records - how hard can it be to get it right?
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Denialists? what is there to deny? You seem to be trying hard to deny that our Planet is cooling.Let me repeat myself, the Sun caused the past warming. The Sun's present inactivity is causing the Planet to cool.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 All the credible evidence shows on overall positive warming trend and an increasing level of GLOBAL weather extremes. If the solar output decreases, it will only SLIGHTLY slow down the overall upward trend, NOT reverse it. At this point in our history, our emissions have a stronger positive or negative overall effect than the normal swings of solar forcing.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Dont be silly. A trace gas cannot force our climate and we only produce 4% of the trace gas. The Sun and Oceans control the climate. We are merely slaves to their whims. Increased Carbon dioxide is a product of an active Sun warming the Planet.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 Then a prolonged period of reduced solar activity should cause a decrease in global CO2 levels, right? How much of a CO2 reduction can we expect?
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 You are correct, reduced Solar activity will cause co2 levels to fall once the oceans have lost most of the heat stored during the Grand Maximim. The cool oceans will hold more co2 and therefore atmospheric levels should drop significantly. The problem is that scientists are beginning to think that Solar cycle 25 may not occur. If this happens then look forward to a little ice age. Plant life shuts down at atmospheric co2 levels of 150 ppm.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444 @david222444 Consider this - in previous posts, you claimed that such an "insignificant, trace gas" could never impact the global climate but now claim it's so crucial to plant life that reducing it by half would wipe out all plant life.
Also, you are aware that the much-touted solar GRAND MAXIMUM merely means a gradual increase of 0.07% over 11 years - or 0.0066% yearly. Small changes can make one heck of a difference.
bannor99 2 months ago
@bannor99 A grand minimum means that there may be next to no sunspots until the end of the present centuary, so you can forget 11 year cycles. As for the atmospheric trace gas CRUCIAL for plant photosynthesis, yes plant photosynthesis would stop at atmospheric level of 150ppm. Meanwhile 2 million people in America are without power due to a Snow storm in October. Warming my arse. The Greenhouse theory is falling appart at the seems.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 Again, just because it's "trace" doesn't mean it's not important - hence the word "vita-min" - crucial for life in small amounts but can be toxic or fatal above a certain level. And now you see why some decided to start using climate change (which previously sounded innocuous) - people who don't think quickly forget that weather EXTREMES were an early prediction of a warming world. Heavy snowstorms usually happen in fairly mild winter temps - you don't see 1 foot of snow at -4 F
bannor99 2 months ago
@bannor99 Again you lot want to class Co2 as a pollutant, this is pure ignorance. Again you want to have it all ways ie mild winters its global warming and cold winters its global warming. Go get some knowlege for youself and stop parroting the same crap. You may even find that our Planet is COOLING and every level of the Atmosphere is cooling. Your greenhouse theory is bust, finished, caput. Your last sentence is crazy.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 I've been following this,at various levels of interest, for 20 years. And you can hardly accuse me of parroting, considering your own posts. And I've lived in some very snowy places since adolescence. The 3 inches that fell on the Big Apple would be a minor nuisance, except that idiots who wait until the 1st snow / ice before putting on winter tires will earn Darwin awards in crashes. As for my "crazy sentence", did you note that New York is back well above zero and getting warmer?
bannor99 2 months ago
@david222444 An old, wise saying - Too much of a good thing is good for nothing. Some CO2 is necessary, some more is wonderful, but somewhere, not too far off, there's a threshold we shouldn't cross. Some warmth is absolutely necessary, more is fantastic, too much can kill. Even oxygen has thresholds that are dangerous.
bannor99 2 months ago
say it with me, stu-pidity, stu-pidity
CristianApostol 5 months ago
Well of course its a scam, it has been from day one. The majority always knew this.
KesslersCross 5 months ago
@KesslersCross The "majority"don't know shit.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Do you believe that it is not a hoax? The owner of this video had an interesting coversation about this.
KesslersCross 4 months ago
@KesslersCross No, I don't believe that ClimateGate revealed a conspiracy and anyone who changed from believing in AGW to thinking it's not happening or isn't human-influenced solely on the basis of the hacked e-mails is a moron. Honestly, they found 3 questionable statements in THIRTEEN years of correspondence? Anyone who had a year's worth of my e-mail could probably get me fired, arrested or sued.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Well, I dont think the beginning of it was so much of a conspiracy and I was rash in my original statement "from day one". I think it was a theory that got elevated, and once it became a point of awareness on a political stage then greed, self profit, and greed kicked in. Somewhere around the early to mid 90s, just a guess. I cant remember the last financial statement from the U.S. that I seen but it was in the billions spend on this theory that hasnt even been proven.
KesslersCross 4 months ago
@KesslersCross For the most part, doing the things that would reduce our CO2 output are good things to do anyway. I don't have much of an issue with oil production - it's the burning of it that a problem. And petroleum is just too useful a substance to indiscriminately burn more than 1/2 what we have. Remember when a billion was a lot of money? All the money spent on climate research since 1980 wouldn't pay for 1 year's war in Iraq.
bannor99 4 months ago
@bannor99 Great comments!
mphello 2 months ago
Absolutely awesome!
MauroRincon 5 months ago
Say it with me now... C-on-text. C-on-text. And I particularly enjoy the irony of the McAmateurs who seem to thrive on oversimplification - why bother understanding what a data proxy is, when you can bleat on about direct, non-proportional equivalence? Maybe it's the KFC effect : Kentucky Fried ClimateChangeDenial! Mmmmm, nom nom nom...
VinylMechanic 5 months ago
well you are just putting your spin on this... sorry.
just had to do that.
steadwik 5 months ago
"aka Manbearpig" lmao
urantivirus 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey!
I found a working email hacking software!!!
I tried it with my email and it gave me the correct password.
Do a search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube, he has a video with it.
Please subscribe me if it works and also to the video's owner!
PeterHatYai2008 6 months ago
@potholer54 the reconstructed proxy temps ARE supposed to be global temperatures, why would they bother reconstructing them if they weren't? The fact that Mann et.al. had hidden the reconstructions in the period where we do have most reliable temp. records because they diverged significantly while purporting to show that they're reliable before that doesn't bother you at all? How isn't that fraud? You pick some losers to show and ignore the primary source Steve McIntire entirely? r u serious?
Androidoful 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey!
I found a working email hacking software!!!
I tried it with my email and it gave me the correct password.
Do a search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube, he has a video with it.
Please subscribe me if it works and also to the video's owner!
PeterHatYai2008 6 months ago
4:40 he says it needs to be investigated yet the investigation never looked at that comment. He says whatever the outcome it has nothing to do with the earth warming, yet the earth warming has nothing to do with the apocalyptic doom & gloom warnings that human survival of the planet is threatened.
A lot of rock throwing from a glass house.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
@FantasticBob7000
Yes it did. Please read page 12 of Sir Muir Russel's "The Independent
Climate Change E-mails Review."
ZShogan 6 months ago
@ZShogan You'll need to do better than that if you want to make your case, burden's on you to come up with something not task me with doing your homework for you. I realize it's not easy for you so don't try sending me on fool's errands instead.Lisa Graumlich testified in congress their charge wasn't to investigate the actual emails or the bias they exposed.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
@FantasticBob7000
"burden's on you to come up with something"
You claimed that "hide the decline" was never investigated, it was.
"Lisa Graumlich testified in congress their charge wasn't to investigate the actual emails or the bias they exposed."
I'm not talking about Lisa Graumlich, I'm talking about Sir Muir Russel and his investigation. Even if Graumlich did as you said, Sir Muir Russel investigated "hide the decline" when you said no one did.
ZShogan 6 months ago
@ZShogan I was talking about the SAP but Russell's report speaks volumes too.
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
GW proponents use words like "conspiracy theory" rather than "bias" to portray skeptics as crazy, but the general public is obviously on to these tactics. Good luck peddling this crap in the future, the cat's out of the bag.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey!
I found a working email hacking software!!!
I tried it with friend's email, I tried logging in with the password it gave me and it works!
Do a search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube, he has a video with the tool.
Please subscribe me if it works and also to the video's owner!
PeterHatYai2008 7 months ago
Thanks for the sanity-ade to wash down all that McShit.
PICLex 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
This has been flagged as spam show
I found a working email hacking program!!!
I tried it with my email and it gave me the correct password.
Do a search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube, he has a video with it.
Please subscribe me if it works!
PeterHatYai2008 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I found a working email hacking program!!!
I tried it with my email and it gave me the correct password.
Do a search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube, he has a video with it.
Please subscribe me if it works!
PeterHatYai2008 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
E-mail program to penetrate the
mrhamza.com/hacked_email.exe
DDFFDD111 7 months ago
The McExperts! Brilliant :)
ddarklighter 7 months ago
402 people are brainwashed by fox news.
AnAtheisticAbomb 7 months ago
This was stupid. If all the evidence is still being worked out then why are they so ready to pass all these taxes for conflicting science records.
It is always easy to make fun and have a good laugh at 'consipracy people" but if there is to be further tests to be done then do so, but don't have Al Gore and big business force some Carbon tax on conflicting evidence.
So make more vids, but leave that child like ruling elite sucking up at the door.
geradical 7 months ago
@geradical The consensus right now is the Earth is warming and that man is playing a major role in it. Thats why. You always do more research because it makes are understanding of it even more clear over time, like for instance how high the water rise will be over time. Its a very serious issue that will cause serious problems in the future
zzyzx0788 7 months ago
@geradical "...have Al Gore and big business..."
Please see episode 4.
zzyzx0788 5 months ago
I'm still a bit of a skeptic of anthropological climate change but now I realize that my initial skepticism was based on two stupid reasons:
1. When my geography teacher explained to us Greenhouse effect I remarked that H2O is immensely much more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. My teacher had nothing to say to that so that experience made me feel really smart because I made the my conclusion independently no one told me that climate change is a fraud I "discovered it"
2. John Stossel
johnnysecular 7 months ago
@johnnysecular He actually tackles why water vapor is less of a problem even if theres more than CO2 in the atmosphere. Its basically just that CO2 absorbs a large spectrum of light
zzyzx0788 7 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Oh yeah I saw that, what I'm saying is I was misinformed by my own interpretation because I lacked fundamental understanding of the "greenhouse effect" theory. Also clouds (H2O) reflect some of the heat away during the day something CO2 doesn't do. I am fully aware now that it's a matter of potency as well as a matter of quantity.
johnnysecular 7 months ago
@johnnysecular
Glad you realized your error. But, why in the world would you listen to John Stossel?
Ingrid Newkirk of PETA has infinitely more credibility. I don't agree with her about some of the claimed benefits of veganism, but veganism should be the law, since the animal suffering is INFINITELY worse than some petty urge to eat meat. Pro-vegan organizations like PETA have known anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real and serious since 1990, when Jeremy Rifkin spoke at a DC mtg.
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello Laws mandating veganism... PETA as a credible source of information... AGW is real and serious... wow!
I've read quite a few ridiculous comments today, but you cleared the hurdle by a mile with all that nonsense.
fred1671 2 months ago
@fred1671
PETA is certainly more honest and credible and intelligent than those fanatic anti-patriotic cults like What's Up with Watts, Heartland Institute, Cato Institute.
mphello 2 months ago
tell Joplin Mo about the myth of climate change ...
ThingNation 8 months ago
If you want to see some Green fascists literally caught in the act, you should watch this video, that was recorded at the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden this week:
watch?v=srYHFbom4Rc
There, a bunch of oligarchs wanted to push through a new "global governance" policy that should be implemented by the UN at the Rio Summit next year. But they were exposed!
LAROUCHEpunktSE 8 months ago
@LAROUCHEpunktSE Moron
thesparitan 8 months ago
Febrile nitwits. Good one.
nealart 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I found a way of hacking emails.
Search for the user hackhunterh7 on Youtube. He has a video with the working email hacking software.
It's great!
PeterHatYai2008 9 months ago
What a pointless video. All he said was a bunch of facts and evidence, whatever those are.
Coincidentally though, God told me global warming is real. So if you deny it, you'll burn for all eternity in a fiery pit of your imagination, err hell... which is over there.. somewhere.
SpeakingSerpent 9 months ago
hahaha gotta love Alex Jones and the Conspigasm he got.
Aanthanur 9 months ago
nice job on this video, I like how you factualy back up your argument, unlike rush limburg.
turborabbit1114 9 months ago
lady at the end "cun-speera-see, cun-speera-see"
stoltobot 10 months ago
2:38 "That's the same one fat mouth..." Lol that made me laugh
zzyzx0788 10 months ago
is arguing pointlessly, seeing as only a year and so many months from now we'll know the truth.. Be patient?
dtpchilli4life 10 months ago
What if this nibiru isn't a planet orbiting elliptically around our solar system or whatever, but something that is indefinitely coming our way? Who's to say that what's been hypothesized is EXACTLY what's going on? I think it's entirely possible for us to not see this thing, and IF something invades our solar system, it'll happen pretty fast won't it? Anyone who argues
dtpchilli4life 10 months ago
@dtpchilli4life
Well
1) The fact is there's no evidence for anything like niburu, for the sake of discussion I assumed it did exist and pointed out that if such an object did exist that it can't be behind the sun year round if it is "coming right at us" as that's one of the assertions people use to state why we haven't found it yet.
2) The fingerprints of how, when and where it is warming are the biggest reasons why global warming via ghgs is convincing for the most recent warming.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21 dude stop using your science and evidence to trick us. Every layman knows that Nibiru is coming, orbiting the sun at the same rate as the earth but taking 3,400 years, perfectly behind the sun and coming straight for us but it's not going to get burnt.
stoltobot 10 months ago
@stoltobot
Thanks for the poe, I got a good laugh.
garith21 10 months ago
@stoltobot and you know that how?
eleminatus 8 months ago
If those who claim to expand human knowledge pick and choose data to push the enveloped answers demanded by sponsors and political masters, the integrity of their reports are suspect. A damage limitation exercise citing selective less incriminating examples therefore needs to be done to preserve public respect for the scientific profession as a whole.. Make sure this exercise is not a case of shooting one in the foot !
CardinalSinga 11 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Um, if you've done any reading, cherry picking data is what people that claim to be skeptics do, and rather well. How often is it that you're presented with the argument against climate change with cherry picked data and when you read more into it and in the context of more information that you come to a completely different conclusion, I find this essentially every single time.
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21
You have not read my point properly probably because you started with preconceived notion I missed the point of this video. I know what this video is trying to "disprove" the "hysteria" about the exposure of the leaked info to the public eye. But whatever reasons one can conceivably offer to the public so as to maintain some credibility for professional scientists, the truth remains for all to see the Bandwagon effect and the professional fear of being out in the cold. Massage data?
CardinalSinga 11 months ago
@CardinalSinga
"the truth remains for all to see the Bandwagon effect and the professional fear of being out in the cold."
Uh yeah, I'm sure that's how Einstein was when he was over tuning the old idea of purely Newtonian understanding of time. Oh wait, there's none of what you claim in the e-mails either since there's cases of them disagreeing with each other even in private e-mails.
garith21 11 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Also the point of the video is to indicate that it's not necessarily what "skeptics" want to assert it is, you'll note that he's said repeatedly in such videos that investigations will have to be done, and they were done which indicated no proof of fraud. Many scientists were skeptics till around the 90's when the evidence for AGW became overwhelming
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21
It is contradictory to say on the one hand "that investigations will have to be done"and that "they were done which indicated no proof of fraud". Time will tell the degree and extent of the fraud and how much are excusable and can be put to bad science due to bandwagon herd instinct and professional timidity to speak out of syn with senior figures. I will wait rather than pronounce judgement no fraud whatsoever. I notice skeptics are also asking why other planets are warming? Nibiru?
CardinalSinga 11 months ago
@CardinalSinga
1) In the videos which were done before the investigations he says "investigations will have to be done" in reality over a year later many investigations have been done and found no proof of fraud, I hope this clarifies things.
2) Other planets are warming due to other factors, you might want to read about it rather than doing a mindless statement of "they're warming, so are we therefore it must be the same mechanism and it has to be the sun"
garith21 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
3) You might want to read about the biggest reasons why it's believed to be ghg concentration increase, the basic physics dictates that certain areas and times will warm more quickly than others due to various factors like differences in water vapor concentrations, latitudes and the like which don't have the same fingerprints as other proposed warming mechanisms like "it's the sun". Most of AGW is basic physics and observations
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
Thanks for the info. I think the sun is also an important factor. Well, it is what those "Nibiruan" videos are claiming about Earth warming up and also the other planets. They are saying maybe cow gas gone to them as well. :-(
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Well, perhaps you should actually read on the topics because no one says that in regards to the few planetary bodies that are warming up. I also don't care about "nibiruan" videos or what they claim, there's no evidence for a nibiru nor does it explain the phenomenon of why it's warming that just so happens to be consistent with ghgs
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
It would be comforting to hold fast the official lines if not for the number of exposures discrediting the spin s and cover upsI really do hope you are right for the selfish reason that there is a tomorrow. For if a cosmic body does come out behind the sun on its Passover cycle of 3600 years +/-, many people will die nasty. Lawlessness will have to controlled by Martial Law, FEMA camps cos of wild panics. America is the best prepared by the look of things,n Norway. Safety First,I say.
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
"For if a cosmic body does come out behind the sun on its Passover cycle of 3600 years"
Are you saying that there's some cosmic star sized body that is hiding behind the sun year round? I hear this sort of nonsense all the time, but do you realize how fast it would have to be in order to accomplish such a feat as we orbit the sun every year and for it to magically be behind the sun year round? Also how would it accomplish this while having such a huge orbit? =P
garith21 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Also if it's some how behind the sun year round it means it's already been going through an orbit every year, why it would suddenly pop out from behind the sun every 3600 years despite already having such a bizzare stable orbit every year in a distant place outside of our solar system probably traveling near the speed of light to maintain it's position behind the sun would be something I'd like to hear about =P
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
The Nibiru camp has an answer to that apparently. From the ones I viewed they are saying there had been a big cover up operation since the 1980s. Space does not admit recounting here nor would I think most people want to know. I keep an open mind to this. Just hope there won't come that one awful day the alleged puss is out of the bag and the human race has to cower in Martial Law FEMA camps while Fat Cats go to Bunkers!
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Actually that's not really an answer, I'm asking a basic physics question assuming it does exist and that somehow it's behind the sun year round and pointing out that even if we did have those assumptions that it makes absolutely no sense even if there is some "global scientific cover up". You can't physically have a 3.5k year orbit and simultaneously have an orbit that has it hiding behind the sun year round.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
You did not read my replies properly. It is not my intention to prove or disprove Nibiru theories, and there are theories galore. For every your protestations, they already have a reply to that, some credible, others not so. I am neutral to the argument. My interest =only to protect my investment in case of a world market crash should the "truth" come out. So it is damage limitation and self preservation. The "cover up" apparently is pretty intensive.Martial Law is for Nibiru coming?
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Why would you believe something which is so absurd and has no evidence for it? I'm even asking you basic questions at the very root of claiming that such an object exists, anyone claiming such nonsense has a lot to explain if it both is hiding behind the sun year round and supposedly has a 3.6k year orbit which can't simultaneously be true since one states that it has to orbit the sun one time per year which is impossible without it being in our orbit.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
Your position reminds me of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One who touched the elephant insisted the elephant is like a tube - he touched only the elephant trunk. Another said it is like a string - he touched only the elephant's tail. The last one said it is like a fan - he touched one of the elephant ear. The Nibiru theorists and anti Nibiru theorists are the same - based on their study they insist there is no other possible explanations other than their own. QED
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Uh, I'm simply pointing out what doesn't make sense based upon their claims and our basic knowledge of this little thing known as gravity and the basic physics of orbiting objects and the contradictory argument of "it's hiding behind the sun year round" and "it has a 3.6k year orbit". You are aware that we orbit around the sun right? And if we orbit around the sun the angle of what's behind the sun changes to the point that such an object would have to also orbit once a year.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
You do not seem to take in what I said. If you are so interested in their explanations, why don't you go view some of the Nibiru theorists videos for answers to the questions you put up. I am happy to sit by the side and watch you all argue about the "Elephant" of a Nemesis or shall I say, Mother of All Nemesis. If you want to disprove their arguments, put up a video to debunk theirs point by point. I assure you I will be viewing it. I been watching ze trend. Now read Dr Brad Carter.
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
I'm asking you this basic physics question, and you're the one saying you think it's true so I'm asking what your explanation is since you're saying it's coming from behind the sun and pointing out this logical point to you.
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
If you are deliberately misunderstanding me to score points, there is no reason on earth I should entertain your line of argument. When I said this planet appearing from behind the sun, I am using the layman's expression for what is the part of its orbit coming out from behind the sun from the earth's point of view. I am not saying Nibiru is hiding behind the sun like a being in a Hide & Seek game. Go check on the Nib-vid. You obviously pre-dismiss on poss of this as impossible. QED.
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Perhaps I should lay it out more succinctly, we orbit the sun, ergo the area behind the sun relative to us changes, in order for it to be behind the sun year round it would have to orbit the sun at the same rate we do, ie once per year. If it didn't then it couldn't possibly be behind the sun for the entire year. If it orbits once per year it can't simultaneously orbit once every 3.6k years. Get it?
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
You obviously have been closeted in your own lab verifying official data given to you and now trying to score points with my comments. As I said times before, the limited space here is not for me talking in layman language to prove to you the points raised by the people labeled as Nibiru theorists or whatever. Twisting my comments to try to rubbish those theorists is like the story of a brain doctor who rubbished acupuncture because a patient cannot talk his lingo.Go check urself.
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
Okay, you're saying it's coming from behind the sun, I'm simply telling you that "behind the sun" changes over the course of a year because we're orbiting the sun, are you too stupid to understand this basic fact that needs to be addressed simply =P It's not even a "verifying official data" problem, it's a basic physics and logic problem.
garith21 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
The only feasible way it could even be hiding behind the sun year round in this regard based on gravity and escape velocity is if it has the same orbit as we do, if it's orbiting outside of our solarsystem and maintaining such a speed as to attain a 1 orbit per year it wouldn't even be possible because it would simply be traveling so fast that it would reach escape velocity, even then it still wouldn't have a 3.6k year orbit.
garith21 10 months ago
@CardinalSinga
and then to suddenly assert it's going to "pop out from behind the sun every 3.6k years" is equally absurd. Being neutral to an absurd argument for which there is no evidence for and isn't even physically possible simply makes me laugh
garith21 10 months ago
@garith21
I am hilarious too. But I am willing to keep looking for the signs in the sky! I don't want the sense of "victory" of a las t laugh if it is for that of Nibiru!
CardinalSinga 10 months ago
Looks like I could be wrong, to be honest I am you 2 years ago, definitely something to get into.
But overall taking previous records into account, it's not really a problem.
otester 11 months ago
@otester
not really, I didn't accept the skeptics arguments either because I felt they were always cherry picking and intentionally made the arguments of proponents sound absurd like a strawman, but when I started researching more into the topic I found out why the skeptics arguments are incredibly bad and cherry picked and I know why agw is accepted. Even if we discarded historical records as stated before most of it is the basic physics and observations over the instrumental record.
garith21 11 months ago
@otester
"But overall taking previous records into account, it's not really a problem."
I forgot to respond to this gem, what makes you come to this conclusion? This statement "based upon the past there's nothing to worry about" it makes the assumption that we've had the same situation before in the past which isn't the case, especially further back in the past the sun was so much dimmer that if it was the same co2 concentrations as today we'd still be an ice ball planet.
garith21 11 months ago
@otester
There have been many factors that have changed over time, especially when going back further in time, like continental drift, the fact that the sun gets brighter etc etc. So I have to ask you what make you think "it's not really a problem" based on past records which are different from our current situation and I might add often have many negative effects associated with events happening so quickly on a global basis.
garith21 11 months ago
I am simply defending the human race from the hippies.
Couldn't really give a shit about the other causes.
otester 11 months ago
@otester
Right, it's only backed by basic physics and observations, but it has to be a hippie cause. Ever think about how much of an issue it will be for us if we do nothing? It will be more expensive to do something about it later if we don't start sooner. The earth doesn't care if life gets harder for us, it'll be around long after the human race, this is both a human issue and protecting human interests.
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21
The current agenda is against human interest and I feel it is being used by the ruling elite for such a purpose.
I am all for technology which protects us from natural climate fluctuations which past records have shown we need to watch out for (ice ages).
otester 11 months ago
@otester
Sorry, but using very old technologies is not looking forward, not to mention it's getting progressively more expensive to use those fuels, when we started drilling for oil in the united states it took around 1 barrel of oil to get 100 barrels of oil, saudia arabia where it's amongst the cheapest is currently about 1 barrel for 20, other parts of the world it's as miserable as 1 for 5.
If we don't use other energy methods we're going to run out of usable oil and very quickly
garith21 11 months ago
@otester
As an example in the US we import a large portion of our oil primarily for energy and because it's much cheaper than domestic oil, what happens if other countries just cut us off? Is it so much easier to innovate when you've lost such a large portion of your imported fuel?
As far as the "ice ages" bit, if past cycles are any indication we won't have to worry about a significant ice age for nearly thousands of years, we're causing a climate fluctuation now.
garith21 11 months ago
@otester
Many of the other developed countries are also making renewable energy a priority when it comes to their energy policy, we're starting to lose more innovators to places like China because they want to invest in it and we don't, soon we'll have to import such alternatives from China rather than making them at home if we don't invest in it.
garith21 11 months ago
@garith21
We should be looking to alternatives but currently the government wants to force this upon us and their intentions are not for our well being.
otester 11 months ago
@otester
Who cares what the government wants? This topic is on whether it's true or not, discussing about what government wants to do about it is a separate topic. So far it seems like you're simply rejecting it because you disagree with potential outcomes rather than the science isn't convincing. That to is a very retarded argument. You can still accept that something is true but still reject some proposed solutions in favor of others.
garith21 11 months ago
In regards to climate change or whether humans are responsible?
otester 11 months ago