insane amounts of money continue to go into into climate reseach and nothing is said about the amount of radiation building in the biosphere and the effects of this build up on the magnetic feild which keeps deadly radiation out...over 2050 nuclear detonations between 1945 to 1998
which does coincide with temperature increases and problems with the earth..what is really causing the increasing erratic weather ,siesmic activity,and magnetic disturbances on our planet..
@phantomscolts1 When you say that, do you mean that you recognise the existence of this? it would sound so ? I have an issue with all of this carbon footprint nonsense, and its my belief that it is creating a society that looks on the ground to clean its act up, but while its doing that, its not watching whats going on upstairs ! I have witnessed some peculiar things in the air of late, that have convinced me. I have to admit that until recently I sat on the fence with this issue.
As New Scientist reported three years ago, a frozen peat bog in Western Siberia the size of France and Germany combined is turning into “a mass of shallow lakes,” some almost a mile wide. In the past 40 years, the region has warmed by 3°C, greater warming than almost anywhere else in the world, in part because of the vicious cycle described earlier: Warming melts highly reflective ice and replaces it with dark soils, which absorb more sunlight and warm up, melting more ice, and on and on.
The tundra or permafrost is soil that stays below freezing (0°C or 32°F) for at least two years. Normally, plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and slowly release that carbon back into the atmosphere after they die. But the Arctic acts like a freezer, and the decomposition rate is very low. The tundra is a carbon locker. We open it at our own risk.
The tundra is probably the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback. None of the IPCC’s climate models, however, include carbon emissions from a defrosting tundra as a feedback.
this moron shows such an inability to understand logic and reason that it's quite obviously useless to debate anything with him. time to cut bait, ma'am aand let him go. he's too stupid to learn anything
Al Gore & the Global Warmists are in bed with Wall St who are the carbon gangsters. Scumbag Jon Corzine of MF Global infamy is from the same crooks that Gore is in with, ready to fleece the poor & working class so they can jet, grope, & frolick around the globe like the rich corporate polluting scumbags they truly are. they are the enemy of all of us
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Renewable energy needed to replace fuel wood, Tanzanian minister says
.
The absence of renewable energy in place of fuel wood has accelerated deforestation which in turn has contributed to climatic changes currently being felt all over the world, according to a Tanzanian minister of the environment.
As soon as the Young Conservative mentioned The-Oil-Companies in the context of Global Warming Scepticism (ie Real Science), I knew that Ann was onto a loser.
The poor chap obviously doesn't realise WHO is behind the Fake Green Movement, and the entire Global Warming Scam (which he 'believes').
Tell him - and just count the seconds before the dread phrase 'conspiracy theory' drops into the conversation.
And - perhaps - deploy a little bit of reasoned argument now and then. In my experience, people (if approached correctly) tend to be much more 'reasonable' than most imagine.
Except when it comes to Politics, Religion, and Sex.
And right now, 'Global Warming' is sexy, VERY political, and appeals to those who desperately need a New Religion to fill the vacuum in their lives.
Nonetheless:
Dum Spiro, Spero...................................
@acman6 Then maybe you should read their conversation and find out why it turned to evolution. I'll suggest it's because MrOYLChamp questions all science. (except the science he thinks works for him)
But in the meantime you're a fuckwit for being so judgmental about what and where people talk about things. So much for free speech eh
if you have an open mind and some back bone watch my top fav clip on my chanel. it will change your life. but be warned it might actually change your life.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
@ChristopherMonckton5 Monckton's a charlatan who makes a living by telling you credulous, uninformed climate change denial nuts what you want to hear. He doesn't believe what he says any more than faith healers believe the nonsense they peddle.
@ndrthrdr1 He's spreading awareness and exposing the Wall St Carbon gangster schemes to implement carbon taxes on the people, creating more of the people's blood money to fund & increase their lavish and polluting lifestyles. What fools the Global Warmists truly are.
@ChristopherMonckton5 Right ... those evolutionists, germ theorists, and gravitationists are the same way - they support what overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates to be true. The vast majority of climatologists couldn't possibly be right, so we should listen only to Monckton, whose degrees in classics and journalism make him an expert on climate.
@ChristopherMonckton5 The vast majority of climatologists couldn't possibly be right, so we should listen only to Monckton, whose degrees in classics and journalism make him an expert on climate.
Why are you hugging Monckton's nuts? You chose his name for a YouTube username. Are you one of his pathetic sock accounts or just his mommy? Let's face it. Monckton's to climate change what Kent Hovind is to evolution. He's a fake and a liar who cons dimwits, and you idiots fall for it.
@ndrthrdr1 The computer modelers? LOL What a joke. Why are you sucking the carbon taxers from Wall St's nutsacks? So they can continue to jet around the world, and pollute with abandon and continue to fleece the people? You are pathetic, but looking at the carbon mafia's Godfather and the rest of the carbon mafia of Wall St's polluting lifestyles, they don't follow their own bs. Do as I say, not as I do? LOL, what a joke you Wall St bootlicker.
Look up Harries et al. (2001) as well as their subsequent published papers. The fact that humans are causing global warming is demonstrable using detectable differences in radiation leaving earth over multi-decade time frames. The radiation differences can also be traced to particular greenhouse gases - most importantly carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and to some extent water vapour. What do 'deniers' know?
@BeachofDreams 2001 was a long time ago.Why dont you look up some of Lindzens current papers?,instead of the bedwetter papers greenman3610 sold you.Oh i remember,its because you true believers believe any scientist who dissents from the received wisdom is a shill for Exxon.Water vapour is the major GHG.Its contribution to greenhouse effects are at least 80%Hardly the irrelevance you suggest."What do deniers know?" Common sense and logic perhaps?more so than you and your communist friends anyway.
I am neither here nor there on the climate change debate, untill i gather my own conclusive data i'm not going to force my opinion on anyone, which is what everyone on youtube seems to do. However the risk involved in not taking GW seriously is much greater. When we consider turning down the heating or cycling to work it should be because the luxury of resources like oil are fast running out and we should conserve all we can. Noone can deny that is the real inconvenient truth.
Anyone know why I've been visiting conspiracy theory videos lately? Am I trying to decrease my respect for humanity? Am I a masochist? Am I trying to lower my IQ?
Is this guy insane? How the hell do you argue that you think global warming is a big problem, but that population growth isn't? I mean if he is arguing that antropogenic CO2 emissions are causing it, it's only logical that less people = less emissions.
when alex jones and fox news are saying the same thing what does that tell you? climategate is a cia mossad deception. how obvious does it have to be that the common thread is OIL and imperialism.
why is alex jones against avatar when the movie points directly to 911 truth
climate gate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
yeah lets keep global warming still up for debate, it's better to talk about it than actually do anything. Here's another video were you can see a climate scientist getting all hot and bothered about the same old arguments. There is also an interesting point made by a Shell representative. check: theyoungarmachians channel, video: 'On The Fence'.
@ndrthrdr1 There is nothing we can do if the IPCCs temp predictions become reality.No carbon energy usage at all,none,for the rest of this century might just about forestall the temp rises.Thats based on IPCC figures,thats the consensus.Its not as simple as switching to cfls,driving less,turning heating off eating local food etc all the usual green suggestions.In 12 years time the increased co2 output from China alone will equal double USAs current output.pissing in the wind springs to mind.
One disagreeing scientist doesn't break a consensus. The fact is that the vast majority of reputable climate scientists do agree that global warming is a real phenomenon. Now, that doesn't mean that his criticisms shouldn't be considered, but one man's criticism doesn't instantly make an entire theory supported by the vast majority of those who study the subject fly out the window. A rational layman would agree with the opinion held by the majority of the experts.
@maximum411 The released emails talked alot about the process, and how they went about getting the names for the so-called consensus.'But, the 97% number comes from when they sent out the questionnaire to only specific scientist.(ones they knew, or thought would be in agreement with AGW). Out of 10257 sent out, only 77 responded, and 75 said yes. And they didn't even include scientist in the fields of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.
@MrOTLChamp Do you have any idea how biased that statistic could be? so they sent it to 10,000+ people. And 77 responded. That's 0.75%. What the fuck makes you think that if less than 1% of people that were surveeyed responded (and if literally almost 100% of those responders went one way), they did so out of complete non-bias? How do you know they didn't send an e-mail enticing them to respond so they could use their answers? Why DIDN'T they survey everyone else?
@Antend0 And one more thing. I go to school bud, I see, and talk with scientists all fuckin day. Guess how many think global warming isn't real? None. Not one fucking prof, TA, legitimate scientist I have ever talked to denies it. Of course this is just my school at the University of Guelph, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. But I'm wary of telling you my school, you might try to tell me I'm extremely biased because Canada has trees n shit and I like nature. Facts are facts.
@Antend0 Of course it was bias. it was intended to be. That's why they didn't send it to the proper scientist...You know, the ones that would know most about the science, like solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. So, the scientist that responded really doesn't mean anything, because that's not their field. And the majority of the scientist that matter do not endorse the AR4 report, because it's BS.
Re: "That's why they didn't send it to the proper scientist...You know, the ones that would know most about the science, like solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. So, the scientist that responded really doesn't mean anything, because that's not their field"
That 75 out of 77 was from the 77 who are actively publishing climatologists. "that's not their field"? We should ask scientists studying the Andromeda galaxy instead? Jesus!
@VeryEvilPettingZoo If you read the emails about this, you would know that the intention was only to get the numbers, and it didn't matter if it was scientist with Phd's or not.
"I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!"
WTF are you on about? Do you realize that your quote there has as much to do with the topic at hand as the kind of tp I use to wipe my ass? Are you brain damaged?
I responded to your response to Antend0. All our posts were clearly about the Doran survey ("Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Doran & Zimmerman, EOS 2009).
The "bias" of the Doran paper: "An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA... facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories... ."
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Only to the warmist is 75 out of 10257 is a good accurate sampling, to show their conclusions. That would explain why you idiots would think that CO2 at 390 out of a million is a huge factor for warming.
You should go back to your penis video...Something you know more about.
Wow - you get ass handed to you, and you just ignore it and carry on with a new "argument" that's just as stupid and ignorant as the first. I'd be shocked if your IQ were above 90.
As to your new "insight": 3146 of the invited 10257 responded to the survey, which is about the usual rate for these things. Of those 3146, only 77 were actively publishing climate specialists. Out of JUST those 77, 75 agreed with the consensus. Good luck getting 75 out of 77 people to agree on ANYTHING.
Wow. You get butt handed to you, and you just ignore it and carry on with a new "argument" that's just as stupid and ignorant as the first. I'd be shocked if your IQ were above 90.
As to your new "insight": 3146 of the invited 10257 responded to the survey, which is about the usual rate for these things. Of those 3146, only 77 were actively publishing climate specialists. Out of JUST those 77, 75 agreed with the consensus. Good luck getting 75 out of 77 people to agree on ANYTHING.
Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? KEY WORD "inventing" otherwise known as fraud.
That has nothing to due with the Doran survey that you lied about. You're introducing something new and out of the blue, a red herring.
Your new claim is a fraud allegation based on one word in a 15 year old private email. Reading that entire email, there's a good guess (a better one than yours) as to what was meant (not fraud), but that's clear only if your IQ is over 90, and so it obviously eluded you.
Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything.
Which part of "Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything" can't you understand?
I broke my cardinal rule, and start "discussing" facts with one of you YouTube denier tards. I deserve what I get. Whether you're a troll or a moron doesn't matter - I'm done with you. Done. Get it?
+-@VeryEvilPettingZoo ' You should run. You have no explanation for the e-mails. You only babble and make no rhyme or reason, but always pretending to be above everyone else. A true fool.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
Just thought you might learn a little more...idiot.
For the 3rd time: "Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything". Three times - is it starting to sink in?
You've proven yourself incapable of reasoned discourse, or focus, or understanding anything, and therefore I will never waste my time engaging with you. Take your nonsense somewhere else. Feel free to do another victory dance about how scared I am of your devastating arguments & evidence... everyone knows, the kids on the short bus never lose!!
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You make me laugh at your stupidity. You can't argue the facts about what these criminal scientist said in their e-mails...So you resort to name calling.
That's when you know the liberal piece of crap is done...Merry Christmas!! Oh that's right, you're an athiest. Well, Merry Christmas anyway, loser. LMAO
@MrOTLChamp You think that people who accept the fact of evolution believe that we descended from monkeys? The reason you don't accept evolution is because you don't know what the theory is about.
@MrOTLChamp They keep making minor adjustments to the details of how particular species evolved, not to the fact of common ancestry. This is because common ancestry is known to be fact, and has been known for years.
Religion keeps changing, too. Hanging witches and stoning to death those who work on the "Sabbath" are no longer practiced in most places because most people recognize these orders in the Bible as barbaric and ridiculous. Nobody ever lived inside a big fish for three days, etc.
@ndrthrdr1 Minor adujstments? You mean going from dolphin man to pigman?
The fossil records don't confirm Macro evolution. Infact they clearly show all species still being the same species. Only Micro evolution has occured for any species.
Yes, religion has changed..All by man. But the Bible has never changed. Only man's perception has changed.
@MrOTLChamp The theory of evolution has never claimed that a "dolphin man" changed into a "pigman". Where the hell do you get these ideas? Were you home schooled by cult parents?
The fossil evidence clearly shows gradual change from one species to another to another. You simply remain willfully ignorant of the evidence because it shows your magical invisible friend cult to be nonsense.
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are terms made up by religiotards. Evolution is evolution.
@ndrthrdr1 Try scientist made it up. Maybe you should do a little research to find out the difference. Macro evolution is alot different, and is not supported by the fossil records. Species are not evolving into other species. There evovlments are within the same species, always.
@MrOTLChamp Watch this one video for examples of macroevolution:
Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1
... or better yet, this one with photos of the fossils of animals you claim never existed:
There are no transitional fossils
If you want to keep believing in your magician in the sky, don't examine the actual fossils in natural history museums. You'll run out of the museum sobbing and wiping away creatard tears, hanging your foolish head in shame.
@ndrthrdr1 Your video is a joke. There's no evidence in that video. OMG that was seriously a pathetic attempt to prove macro-evolution.
Geez, anyone can put together drawings of what they think happened. Darwin did the same thing with the monkeys turning into man. It doesn't make it real. Maybe you should watch more video's on Dawkins and see how he can't answer what should be easy questions if he really has the proof he thinks he does.
@ndrthrdr1 Being a dumb shit in your eye's, is hardly meaningful. But those emails from HadleyCRU sure clear things up. LMAO
"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process"
-Phil Jones
LMAO Just another cover-up! Yep, the science is settled...It's F R A U D!
@ndrthrdr1 " I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”."
@MrOTLChamp Nylon eating bacteria, look it up. Denying that evolution is the best explanation for diversity on planet Earth is the same as suggesting that every generation that has ever existed in a clone of its parent.
@checkyoursources Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms.1 However, examining only the apparent, visible beneficial trait can be misleading. Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place.2 In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation. EPIC FAIL
@MrOTLChamp Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha your source fro denying that nylon eating bacteria is excellent evidence of a beneficial mutation was the deeply religious creationist "research" site which believes in sky fairies. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN HOW A BACTERIA THAT CAN DIGEST NYLON (WHILE NO OTHERS CAN) IS "DEGRADED"?
@checkyoursources So, a bacteria that can breakdown circularized proteins is able to consume a synthetic nylon which is similar to the protein structure, and that proves MACROevolution? Brilliant! (sarcasm)
@MrOTLChamp Nylon is made of linear repeating units linked by amide bonds which is very very different to circularised proteins! nylon eating bacteria can digest the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. I ask again By the way what biological or logical barriers prevent the former "micro" from becoming the latter "macro"?
@MrOTLChamp NATURE|January 2009|doi:10.1038/nature07740 "Evidence for evolution by natural selection." p.s. AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's e.g. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
@checkyoursources Natural selection doesn't explain the origin for which any species started. e.g. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you think we evolved from a bacteria. Then who laid the egg? how could it have been fertilized? And that's just the chicken. This sort of impossible occurrence would have to happen by chance millions of times to create all these different species.
@MrOTLChamp Seeing as you are not identical to your parents and they were not identical to their parents, why is it so hard to appreciate that a few mutations each generation and a change in environment inevitably lead to some features being more useful thereny leading to bigger changes over time?
Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn't, driving organisms to evolve. p.s.What barriers prevent micro from becoming macro?
@MrOTLChamp Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens and the mutation became more common in the population beacuse the first chicken had an advantage over its ancestor. According to a christian like yourself only one parent is required ;)
@MrOTLChamp 1) Changes over time are seen in many fossil records and even in an species you care to name. e.g. horse ancestors and look at your own mother and father 2) We have only been looking for just over a 100 years.Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography,
comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental
biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing,each point to the conclusion that life evolved
@checkyoursources Gradual evolutionary change from one species to another requires many mutations and genetic changes. But, the fossil record exhibits anything but gradual change. There is a gap between living systems and non-life, invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and mammals and man.
@MrOTLChamp Every single living organism is a transistional stage so there can't be "missing links" as you are trying to suggest i.e. it's a continuous process. Horse ancestors such as Miohippus which evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus show gradual change. You see evolution as trying to jump to the top of a cliff in one giant leap, whereas in reality life takes the slow, easier route step by step around the other side.You prefer to explain diverse life on Earth with a sky fairy?
@checkyoursources " AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's"
.
Scientist even admit that they only know about 1% of the knowledge that would need to be known, to understand our climate system. The minute amount of warming recorded since the 70's can easily be attributed to ocean currents. We're talking tenth's of a degree. A "micro" change in temperature.
@MrOTLChamp "The minute amount of warming recorded since the 70's can easily be attributed to ocean currents."- It's NOT currents- globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space due to human GHG' and feedback.
@MrOTLChampActualy evolution is simply changes between generations. Denying it happens is like denying your own parents existence. You seem to have trouble working out the difference between Speciation and Evolution?
p.s. Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. By the way what biological or logical barriers prevent the former "micro" from becoming the latter "macro"?
@ndrthrdr1 Macro and Micro Evolution are terms that were coined by Biologists in the 1920's. They are distinctively different concepts in Evolutionary Biology. Macro Evolution shows clear disparaging gaps in the chain from Species to another, rather than the gradual change you stated. I can't even comment on the rest of your posting or his, you're both acting like children.
@Joe11Blue Those terms were coined by creationists who had to admit that genetic mutations do happen, and are afraid to admit what this shows to be true.
Genesis is a creation myth which has been debunked.
@MrOTLChamp "The" Bible? Which one is that? Do you pretend that there's only one version?
From here on, you're talking to yourself. Arguing with a religiotard is like playing chess with a toddler. The adult always wins, but the toddler is blissfully aware that he lost.
Re: "the 97% number comes from when they sent out the questionnaire to only specific scientist.(ones they knew, or thought would be in agreement with AGW). Out of 10257 sent out, only 77 responded, and 75 said yes. And they didn't even include scientist in the fields of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."
I don't know whether you're lying or just don't know WTF you're talking about, but what you wrote there is just FALSE.
If you want to see a totally unbiased, sensible discovery regarding climate variation, that by the way gives the reason for the Little Ice age and the Warm period, then Google Solarchords com, I challenge anyone to seriously study and fully understand the information before making their mind up. The author, Fred Bailey, is a private unfunded individual who still believes in doing things based on an honest, sensible and unbiased approach in a search for the truth
Wasn't "not evil just wrong" funded by tea party supporters and businessmen? hmm now why would they want people to think that climate change doesn't exist?
@checkyoursources If it wasn't for the tea party and businessmen, you would be eating out of a dumpster and this country would be socialist. So thank God for the tea party you scum vermin you!
@gamefreak1000000 here here, well said.stupid fools think tea party ideology is bad or evil rather than eminently sensible. typical left wing collectivist idiocy.
@CAMERONisaEUROPHILE I am sick and tired of these tree hugging libs over regulating our country with crap like cap and trade. I am sick of it! If they are really concerned about emitting too much co2 (which the majority of it comes from exhaling), then they should just kill themselves. Then again, they won't do that because they are just hypocritical scumbags who would rather deteriorate this country than actually do anything good!
@checkyoursources The truth is still the truth no matter who says it.Would you be so critical if some filthy socialist thinktank funded some pro warmist propaganda piece?
Would you fuck .Because in your statist mindset they are the good guys, along with big government and all the noble rent seeking "scientists". They would be out of a job fast if they were to even begin to act like uninterested seekers of truth,instead they parrot the "consensus" that has proved to be so financially fruitful.
@checkyoursources So oil greedy ****s can continue selling their junk w/o consideration of the consequences of using such junk. Al Gore is like someone who sells pseudomedicine. He takes advantage of a condition to make profit while coming up with no real solution.
@TurboDally No real solution? Burn less fossil fuels, buy less manufactured products, use less power at home, buy locally produced foods and other products, live closer to work.
In my experience, many people who try to "follow the money" don't understand what that means in practice. I agree, by the way, that monied-interests are intentionally and successfully distorting the public discussion of this issue - there's simply no doubt about that. The problem with "follow the money" is that casual on-lookers, being ignorant about how the world works, often use that "wisdom" to draw exactly the wrong conclusion
"Not Evil Just Wrong" co-producer and director Ann McElhinney said "but what about the fact that there is no consensus on the science...".
This co-producer and director obviously never bothered to, um, learn the the basic *facts* about her subject matter. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the documentary.
The word "consensus" doesn't mean "unanimous". And the views of scientists who don't work in the specific field aren't overly relevant to determining if there's a "scientific consensus" about a matter - and in fact wouldn't even be included in "normal" situations. (Global warming is not "normal" because its impact on the economy is so serious that monied-interests have invested big $ to distort the truth and confuse the public - the threatened interests have politicized the issue.)
There's a scientific consensus about this basic principle: human activity, mainly CO2 emissions, is most likely the primary cause of the recent warming, with threats of eventual harmful consequences. There are 3 general ways to discover a consensus - surveying scientists in that field, surveying the literature, and examining the positions affirmed by esteemed scientific orgs. Those 3 methods agree, so unequivocally declare there's a consensus. That there's a consensus is, simply, a fact.
The fact is that the Global Warmest have confused the public in order to create a giant renewable energy bubble. Is it just a coincidence that China leads the world in the production of solar panels while at the exact same time is pushing for treaties such a Kyoto? While hypocritically drilling for oil in the GULF of Mexico.
This movement is about money and control. I read original Earth Day book 1970, guess what -->
No - the fact is that you've just ignored that the planet's scientists are the giving us the warnings about human driven global warming, and have instead have referred to "Global Warmests" (the scientists?), who are apparently in cahoots with the Chinese in implementing a commie plot that began at least as far back as the first Earth Day. If that's your position, then you're simply dumber than a bag of hammers. I don't wish to be insulting, but if the shoe fits..
You mean the scientist who have yet to be proven right?? Yep just as I ignored the scientists who claimed 40 years ago that we would be in a new ice age 11 years ago. Just as the same scientist claimed we would have recored hurricanes. Just as the same scientists claimed we would have record floods.
The same scientists who claim that the answer to all these imaginary disasters could be prevented so long as we pay more taxes.
Now that you've proven your contempt for science (over the internet no less - oh sweet irony!), let me ask you, pray tell, just whom should we listen to learn about the climate if not the planet's climatologists? Rush Limbaugh? A Ouiji Board? Psychics? Fox "News"? The dozen or so climatologists who disagree with their thousands of colleagues, but who say exactly what you want to hear?
Ignoring what scientists say, about the physical phenomenon that they study, is simply pure stupidity.
Wait are you talking about the same climatologists who have been predicting dozens of hurricanes every year since Gore put out his crappy movie??? Please we have had some of the weakest hurricane seasons I have ever seen in my life. Texas and Louisiana are going through a drought.
Just keep listening to them as they make the cost of home insurance go through the roof.
Re: "Wait are you talking about the same climatologists who have been predicting dozens of hurricanes every year?"
Again - your facts are wrong. The prediction has been of, on AVERAGE (as with everything about climate), increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. And those predictions have openly been debated and admitted aren't very confident. And have, if I recall, largely come to pass GLOBALLY (hint - the USA is not the whole planet. Pacific typho intensities have increased.)
So if I goggle Climatologist hurricane predictions. The results will come back as that they claimed increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. right????
I don't want to waste my time researching what they said in 2010, 2009, 2008 and so fourth. I wont find that right???
Re: "So if I goggle Climatologist hurricane predictions. The results will come back as that they claimed increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. right?"
Yes, IF you use google to read what the *climatologists* were saying. If you read a story from a blogger, you'll read all kinds of (wrong) things.
You can find rare predictions of increased frequency, but those weren't the community's view, as the scientists themselves should note. Even the intensity claims were tentative.
I understand how you evaluate scientific claims. You seem to pick a cause that you like and then accept what ever they say to be true. Which is pretty much what the enviro movement is based on.
How else can people say that snow storms are the result of global warming??
I didn't quote Newsweek I quoted Earth Day.
So now are you saying that we are not going to have floods and hurricanes??
Re: "I understand how you evaluate scientific claims. You seem to pick a cause that you like and then accept what ever they say to be true."
No, you obviously don't. You're PROJECTING - a ubiquitous rightwing habit. I START with what the scientists say - about this and everything else. You, however, obviously start with your conclusion (spoon fed to you as with all good rightwing thralls), and then go hunting for arguments to justify it (again, they're spoon fed to you).
Re: "How else can people say that snow storms are the result of global warming?"
1. It's GLOBAL warming. Effects vary by region.
2. Snowstorms are from WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE when its freezing. No one claimed winter would go away, but they did claim that warmer temps would put more water into the atmosphere. Get it?
Re: "I didn't quote Newsweek"
Newsweek is the main source of the denier canard you cited about the climatologists in the 70's predicting a coming ice age.
Bu by all means be a slave to fashion which is what this movement is.
The Chinese on the other hand see it as a means to disrupt western industry that is why they support politicians that will seek to regulate production. But by all means run factories out of the US regulate the construction of refineries. The Chinese economy isn't booming and American factories are not leaving.
Re: "Bu by all means be a slave to fashion which is what this movement is"
Again, you match facts about the scientific basis for these warnings with an empty naked assertion to the contrary. That's a very effective technique - you can use that method for anything, whether to argue that the Earth is flat, or that you fart rainbows, and it's always just as compelling. The SCIENTISTS are telling us that this is a problem - what's your reply to that? Do you have a reply... a sane reply?
Once again, some scientist have made that statement, mostly ones that have a lot of money to gain from it.
Now you can sit and believe them all you want, but what you can't dispute is that Global warming is a multi billion dollar business. And while these tax increase might make you feel better they do little to stop pollution.
Re: "some scientist have made that statement, mostly ones that have a lot of money to gain from it"
Your facts are 100% wrong again.
You're wrong about everything you think you know about this - wrong in exactly the way you've been trained to be wrong by the corporate funded rightwing think tanks. You've surrendered your mind. You've been played for a sucker by those who stand to gain from manipulating your views. You should be REALLY angry at them for disrespecting you so.
Re: "When was the last time one of these climatologists was right about something? I want to go back and check it out"
The event more than any other that made this a national issue was NASA's James Hansen's famous 1988 testimony before congress. So let's look at those predictions.
Hansen predicted, in 1988, a global temp increase of .33 C by 2005. The measured temp increase was .33 C. That's AMAZING, especially for his earlier simpler models.
insane amounts of money continue to go into into climate reseach and nothing is said about the amount of radiation building in the biosphere and the effects of this build up on the magnetic feild which keeps deadly radiation out...over 2050 nuclear detonations between 1945 to 1998
which does coincide with temperature increases and problems with the earth..what is really causing the increasing erratic weather ,siesmic activity,and magnetic disturbances on our planet..
phantomscolts1 6 days ago
@phantomscolts1 Add to that the crap that is being emitted from aircraft as chemtrails.
rodjames98 4 days ago
@rodjames98 I believe chemtrailing is one of the big puzzle pieces..
phantomscolts1 4 days ago
@phantomscolts1 When you say that, do you mean that you recognise the existence of this? it would sound so ? I have an issue with all of this carbon footprint nonsense, and its my belief that it is creating a society that looks on the ground to clean its act up, but while its doing that, its not watching whats going on upstairs ! I have witnessed some peculiar things in the air of late, that have convinced me. I have to admit that until recently I sat on the fence with this issue.
rodjames98 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As New Scientist reported three years ago, a frozen peat bog in Western Siberia the size of France and Germany combined is turning into “a mass of shallow lakes,” some almost a mile wide. In the past 40 years, the region has warmed by 3°C, greater warming than almost anywhere else in the world, in part because of the vicious cycle described earlier: Warming melts highly reflective ice and replaces it with dark soils, which absorb more sunlight and warm up, melting more ice, and on and on.
maylinghoo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The tundra or permafrost is soil that stays below freezing (0°C or 32°F) for at least two years. Normally, plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and slowly release that carbon back into the atmosphere after they die. But the Arctic acts like a freezer, and the decomposition rate is very low. The tundra is a carbon locker. We open it at our own risk.
maylinghoo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The tundra is probably the single most important amplifying carbon-cycle feedback. None of the IPCC’s climate models, however, include carbon emissions from a defrosting tundra as a feedback.
maylinghoo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models”
maylinghoo 1 week ago
Dude needs a new haircut!
JezzBentham 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oil is not a fossil fuel. They mine for it at 30,000 feet and fossils havent been found anywhere near that level. Its a myth.
fieldfullofthistles 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Confirmation that skeptic blogger Anthony Watts is part of Heartland’s funded network of misinformation communicators.
“We have also pledged to help raise around $90,000 in 2012 for Anthony Watts to help him create a new website to track temperature station data.”
maylinghoo 2 weeks ago
Global Warming - the new religion.
SiftyFix 3 weeks ago
this moron shows such an inability to understand logic and reason that it's quite obviously useless to debate anything with him. time to cut bait, ma'am aand let him go. he's too stupid to learn anything
jrooksable 3 weeks ago
@MISTERWHITE111 O excuse me almighty smart one drop us some words of wisdom for we dnt kno nothing at all
rosalie3034 3 weeks ago
@rosalie3034 Misterwhite has no words of wisdom. He's a shill for global government.
His talent is calling people names and running. He can't back up anything his little brain spews. But, he can run!
MrOTLChamp 1 week ago
I wish I could understand a single word they were saying.
MISTERWHITE111 3 weeks ago
@ChristopherMonckton5 Agreed thought i was the only one on youtube with half a mind
rosalie3034 3 weeks ago
@rosalie3034
Actually there are quite a few whack jobs on YOUTUBE that only have half a mind like you.
MISTERWHITE111 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al Gore & the Global Warmists are in bed with Wall St who are the carbon gangsters. Scumbag Jon Corzine of MF Global infamy is from the same crooks that Gore is in with, ready to fleece the poor & working class so they can jet, grope, & frolick around the globe like the rich corporate polluting scumbags they truly are. they are the enemy of all of us
ChristopherMonckton5 3 weeks ago
Al Gwhore is a phoney
Alba12349 1 month ago
@Alba12349 That provided a whole minute of laughs.
Halofanbiggest 4 weeks ago
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Renewable energy needed to replace fuel wood, Tanzanian minister says
.
The absence of renewable energy in place of fuel wood has accelerated deforestation which in turn has contributed to climatic changes currently being felt all over the world, according to a Tanzanian minister of the environment.
.
All Africa
31 January 2012
Nightversionn 1 month ago
@Nightversionn no just no
Halofanbiggest 4 weeks ago
As soon as the Young Conservative mentioned The-Oil-Companies in the context of Global Warming Scepticism (ie Real Science), I knew that Ann was onto a loser.
The poor chap obviously doesn't realise WHO is behind the Fake Green Movement, and the entire Global Warming Scam (which he 'believes').
Tell him - and just count the seconds before the dread phrase 'conspiracy theory' drops into the conversation.
Never mind - one day he WILL grow up.
Just as long as he doesn't become a politiican !
marvinc999 1 month ago
@marvinc999 We can only hope
Halofanbiggest 4 weeks ago
@Halofanbiggest
Indeed !
And - perhaps - deploy a little bit of reasoned argument now and then. In my experience, people (if approached correctly) tend to be much more 'reasonable' than most imagine.
Except when it comes to Politics, Religion, and Sex.
And right now, 'Global Warming' is sexy, VERY political, and appeals to those who desperately need a New Religion to fill the vacuum in their lives.
Nonetheless:
Dum Spiro, Spero...................................
marvinc999 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate change deniers are dumb rednecks.
justindr660 1 month ago
hes a great public speaker
NUGNESS123 1 month ago
@checkyoursources @MrOTLChamp
I don't know how you got to arguing about evolution on a climate change video but you are both fuckwits.
acman6 1 month ago
@acman6 Then maybe you should read their conversation and find out why it turned to evolution. I'll suggest it's because MrOYLChamp questions all science. (except the science he thinks works for him)
But in the meantime you're a fuckwit for being so judgmental about what and where people talk about things. So much for free speech eh
rugbyguy59 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you have an open mind and some back bone watch my top fav clip on my chanel. it will change your life. but be warned it might actually change your life.
TruthWithinRange 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 The terms were coined and defined by a German Evolutionary Biologist from the late 19th and early 20th Century. The guy was an Atheist.
Joe11Blue 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
Lord Monckton is fighting your Wall St carbon gangster scumbags for the working & middle class. Down with Wall St carbon taxes, up Monckton!
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5 Monckton's a charlatan who makes a living by telling you credulous, uninformed climate change denial nuts what you want to hear. He doesn't believe what he says any more than faith healers believe the nonsense they peddle.
Even he's not that dim-witted.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 He's spreading awareness and exposing the Wall St Carbon gangster schemes to implement carbon taxes on the people, creating more of the people's blood money to fund & increase their lavish and polluting lifestyles. What fools the Global Warmists truly are.
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5 Right ... those evolutionists, germ theorists, and gravitationists are the same way - they support what overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates to be true. The vast majority of climatologists couldn't possibly be right, so we should listen only to Monckton, whose degrees in classics and journalism make him an expert on climate.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5 The vast majority of climatologists couldn't possibly be right, so we should listen only to Monckton, whose degrees in classics and journalism make him an expert on climate.
Why are you hugging Monckton's nuts? You chose his name for a YouTube username. Are you one of his pathetic sock accounts or just his mommy? Let's face it. Monckton's to climate change what Kent Hovind is to evolution. He's a fake and a liar who cons dimwits, and you idiots fall for it.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 The computer modelers? LOL What a joke. Why are you sucking the carbon taxers from Wall St's nutsacks? So they can continue to jet around the world, and pollute with abandon and continue to fleece the people? You are pathetic, but looking at the carbon mafia's Godfather and the rest of the carbon mafia of Wall St's polluting lifestyles, they don't follow their own bs. Do as I say, not as I do? LOL, what a joke you Wall St bootlicker.
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
Look up Harries et al. (2001) as well as their subsequent published papers. The fact that humans are causing global warming is demonstrable using detectable differences in radiation leaving earth over multi-decade time frames. The radiation differences can also be traced to particular greenhouse gases - most importantly carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and to some extent water vapour. What do 'deniers' know?
BeachofDreams 2 months ago
@BeachofDreams 2001 was a long time ago.Why dont you look up some of Lindzens current papers?,instead of the bedwetter papers greenman3610 sold you.Oh i remember,its because you true believers believe any scientist who dissents from the received wisdom is a shill for Exxon.Water vapour is the major GHG.Its contribution to greenhouse effects are at least 80%Hardly the irrelevance you suggest."What do deniers know?" Common sense and logic perhaps?more so than you and your communist friends anyway.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 2 months ago
I am neither here nor there on the climate change debate, untill i gather my own conclusive data i'm not going to force my opinion on anyone, which is what everyone on youtube seems to do. However the risk involved in not taking GW seriously is much greater. When we consider turning down the heating or cycling to work it should be because the luxury of resources like oil are fast running out and we should conserve all we can. Noone can deny that is the real inconvenient truth.
stevierayvaughan180 2 months ago
i'll bet he shares some genes with ashton kutcher
jwiderstra 2 months ago
Wow, is that Ashton Kutcher? LOL
"Al Gore, you have been Global Warming PUNK'D!!!"
ROTFLMAO
SouthParkBear 2 months ago
Anyone know why I've been visiting conspiracy theory videos lately? Am I trying to decrease my respect for humanity? Am I a masochist? Am I trying to lower my IQ?
I just don't know.
Ryakki 2 months ago
Global warming alarmist pwned!!
Y2KCIA 2 months ago
Hahaha!! And thats the reason they decided to call it climate change instead? Haha! When did the climate stop changing?
ChrisMeerkat 2 months ago
Is this guy insane? How the hell do you argue that you think global warming is a big problem, but that population growth isn't? I mean if he is arguing that antropogenic CO2 emissions are causing it, it's only logical that less people = less emissions.
Halos1987 2 months ago
@Halos1987 yes halo, thank you for pointing out the most dangerous aspect of environmentalism
which is the belief that man needs to be reduced
how should we do that?
forced abortions or extermination perhaps?
who has the authority to decide whom should be reduced?
starts to sound a little like NAzi Germany huh?
StopGlobalWarming09 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when alex jones and fox news are saying the same thing what does that tell you? climategate is a cia mossad deception. how obvious does it have to be that the common thread is OIL and imperialism.
why is alex jones against avatar when the movie points directly to 911 truth
climate gate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
MrTranscend1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence/impacts of climate change series.."Roof of the world" edition:
.
Tibet braces for another mild winter
.
The "roof of the world" is bracing for another mild winter this year, or the 11th such season since 2001, due to the impact of global warming.
.
Xinhua News Agency, China
3 December 2011
Nightversionn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yeah lets keep global warming still up for debate, it's better to talk about it than actually do anything. Here's another video were you can see a climate scientist getting all hot and bothered about the same old arguments. There is also an interesting point made by a Shell representative. check: theyoungarmachians channel, video: 'On The Fence'.
TheYoungArmachians 3 months ago
He hates any debates with someone who knows his bs is bs
ChristopherMonckton5 3 months ago 2
@ChristopherMonckton5 Monckton's a clown who has no clue about the science behind global climate change. Real Climatologists laugh at him.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 There is nothing we can do if the IPCCs temp predictions become reality.No carbon energy usage at all,none,for the rest of this century might just about forestall the temp rises.Thats based on IPCC figures,thats the consensus.Its not as simple as switching to cfls,driving less,turning heating off eating local food etc all the usual green suggestions.In 12 years time the increased co2 output from China alone will equal double USAs current output.pissing in the wind springs to mind.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 2 months ago
oh shit, elves are real !
nssurge 3 months ago
One disagreeing scientist doesn't break a consensus. The fact is that the vast majority of reputable climate scientists do agree that global warming is a real phenomenon. Now, that doesn't mean that his criticisms shouldn't be considered, but one man's criticism doesn't instantly make an entire theory supported by the vast majority of those who study the subject fly out the window. A rational layman would agree with the opinion held by the majority of the experts.
maximum411 3 months ago
@maximum411 There is no consensus. Most scientist DON'T think there is a real threat of catastrophic climate change.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Oh, really? Where'd you here that- Glenn Beck?
There is very much a consensus that global warming is real.
maximum411 2 months ago
@maximum411 The released emails talked alot about the process, and how they went about getting the names for the so-called consensus.'But, the 97% number comes from when they sent out the questionnaire to only specific scientist.(ones they knew, or thought would be in agreement with AGW). Out of 10257 sent out, only 77 responded, and 75 said yes. And they didn't even include scientist in the fields of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Do you have any idea how biased that statistic could be? so they sent it to 10,000+ people. And 77 responded. That's 0.75%. What the fuck makes you think that if less than 1% of people that were surveeyed responded (and if literally almost 100% of those responders went one way), they did so out of complete non-bias? How do you know they didn't send an e-mail enticing them to respond so they could use their answers? Why DIDN'T they survey everyone else?
Antend0 2 months ago
@Antend0 And one more thing. I go to school bud, I see, and talk with scientists all fuckin day. Guess how many think global warming isn't real? None. Not one fucking prof, TA, legitimate scientist I have ever talked to denies it. Of course this is just my school at the University of Guelph, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. But I'm wary of telling you my school, you might try to tell me I'm extremely biased because Canada has trees n shit and I like nature. Facts are facts.
Antend0 2 months ago
@Antend0 Of course it was bias. it was intended to be. That's why they didn't send it to the proper scientist...You know, the ones that would know most about the science, like solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. So, the scientist that responded really doesn't mean anything, because that's not their field. And the majority of the scientist that matter do not endorse the AR4 report, because it's BS.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLC
Re: "That's why they didn't send it to the proper scientist...You know, the ones that would know most about the science, like solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. So, the scientist that responded really doesn't mean anything, because that's not their field"
That 75 out of 77 was from the 77 who are actively publishing climatologists. "that's not their field"? We should ask scientists studying the Andromeda galaxy instead? Jesus!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo If you read the emails about this, you would know that the intention was only to get the numbers, and it didn't matter if it was scientist with Phd's or not.
Clearly showing their agenda.
Cont....
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
...cont.
"I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!"
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
WTF are you on about? Do you realize that your quote there has as much to do with the topic at hand as the kind of tp I use to wipe my ass? Are you brain damaged?
I responded to your response to Antend0. All our posts were clearly about the Doran survey ("Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change", Doran & Zimmerman, EOS 2009).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
Your bullshit:
1. "it didn't matter if it was scientist with Phd's or not. Clearly showing their agenda"
2. "No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without."
Reality:
A quote from the peer-reviewed paper in question: "More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees."
Again, are you brain damaged?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
The "bias" of the Doran paper: "An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA... facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories... ."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Only to the warmist is 75 out of 10257 is a good accurate sampling, to show their conclusions. That would explain why you idiots would think that CO2 at 390 out of a million is a huge factor for warming.
You should go back to your penis video...Something you know more about.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Wow - you get ass handed to you, and you just ignore it and carry on with a new "argument" that's just as stupid and ignorant as the first. I'd be shocked if your IQ were above 90.
As to your new "insight": 3146 of the invited 10257 responded to the survey, which is about the usual rate for these things. Of those 3146, only 77 were actively publishing climate specialists. Out of JUST those 77, 75 agreed with the consensus. Good luck getting 75 out of 77 people to agree on ANYTHING.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp
Wow. You get butt handed to you, and you just ignore it and carry on with a new "argument" that's just as stupid and ignorant as the first. I'd be shocked if your IQ were above 90.
As to your new "insight": 3146 of the invited 10257 responded to the survey, which is about the usual rate for these things. Of those 3146, only 77 were actively publishing climate specialists. Out of JUST those 77, 75 agreed with the consensus. Good luck getting 75 out of 77 people to agree on ANYTHING.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Thats not my BS. It's the BS that's in the e-mails.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
November 22, 1996: email 0848679780
Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? KEY WORD "inventing" otherwise known as fraud.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
That has nothing to due with the Doran survey that you lied about. You're introducing something new and out of the blue, a red herring.
Your new claim is a fraud allegation based on one word in a 15 year old private email. Reading that entire email, there's a good guess (a better one than yours) as to what was meant (not fraud), but that's clear only if your IQ is over 90, and so it obviously eluded you.
Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo I didn't lie about anything. I've only showed their e-mails as is.
And they speak very clearly for themselves.
What part of "inventing the December monthly value" can't you understand?
I'm sure it's written in English. Go ahead and try to explain it. I'd love to hear another BS story from you warmist. LMAO
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Which part of "Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything" can't you understand?
I broke my cardinal rule, and start "discussing" facts with one of you YouTube denier tards. I deserve what I get. Whether you're a troll or a moron doesn't matter - I'm done with you. Done. Get it?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
+-@VeryEvilPettingZoo ' You should run. You have no explanation for the e-mails. You only babble and make no rhyme or reason, but always pretending to be above everyone else. A true fool.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
Just thought you might learn a little more...idiot.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
For the 3rd time: "Quite simply, you're too stupid to carry on with about this or anything". Three times - is it starting to sink in?
You've proven yourself incapable of reasoned discourse, or focus, or understanding anything, and therefore I will never waste my time engaging with you. Take your nonsense somewhere else. Feel free to do another victory dance about how scared I am of your devastating arguments & evidence... everyone knows, the kids on the short bus never lose!!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You make me laugh at your stupidity. You can't argue the facts about what these criminal scientist said in their e-mails...So you resort to name calling.
That's when you know the liberal piece of crap is done...Merry Christmas!! Oh that's right, you're an athiest. Well, Merry Christmas anyway, loser. LMAO
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp You believe that you have an invisible superfriend who has magical powers?
We can simply ignore your opinions, since you are clearly unable to separate fact from fiction.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 And you believe your uncle is a monkey. What does that make you?
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp You think that people who accept the fact of evolution believe that we descended from monkeys? The reason you don't accept evolution is because you don't know what the theory is about.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 "The reason you don't accept evolution is because you don't know what the theory is about."
No, it's because they keep changing the theory...Alot like the warmist changing global warming to climate change.
The reason they change it, is because their theory is wrong. DUH Or it wouldn't change.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp They keep making minor adjustments to the details of how particular species evolved, not to the fact of common ancestry. This is because common ancestry is known to be fact, and has been known for years.
Religion keeps changing, too. Hanging witches and stoning to death those who work on the "Sabbath" are no longer practiced in most places because most people recognize these orders in the Bible as barbaric and ridiculous. Nobody ever lived inside a big fish for three days, etc.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Minor adujstments? You mean going from dolphin man to pigman?
The fossil records don't confirm Macro evolution. Infact they clearly show all species still being the same species. Only Micro evolution has occured for any species.
Yes, religion has changed..All by man. But the Bible has never changed. Only man's perception has changed.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp The theory of evolution has never claimed that a "dolphin man" changed into a "pigman". Where the hell do you get these ideas? Were you home schooled by cult parents?
The fossil evidence clearly shows gradual change from one species to another to another. You simply remain willfully ignorant of the evidence because it shows your magical invisible friend cult to be nonsense.
Micro evolution and Macro evolution are terms made up by religiotards. Evolution is evolution.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Try scientist made it up. Maybe you should do a little research to find out the difference. Macro evolution is alot different, and is not supported by the fossil records. Species are not evolving into other species. There evovlments are within the same species, always.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Watch this one video for examples of macroevolution:
Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils! - Nebraska Vignettes #1
... or better yet, this one with photos of the fossils of animals you claim never existed:
There are no transitional fossils
If you want to keep believing in your magician in the sky, don't examine the actual fossils in natural history museums. You'll run out of the museum sobbing and wiping away creatard tears, hanging your foolish head in shame.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Your video is a joke. There's no evidence in that video. OMG that was seriously a pathetic attempt to prove macro-evolution.
Geez, anyone can put together drawings of what they think happened. Darwin did the same thing with the monkeys turning into man. It doesn't make it real. Maybe you should watch more video's on Dawkins and see how he can't answer what should be easy questions if he really has the proof he thinks he does.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Gee, you're right! An invisible magician makes so much more sense!
Wallow in your superstitious ignorance, dumb shit.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Being a dumb shit in your eye's, is hardly meaningful. But those emails from HadleyCRU sure clear things up. LMAO
"I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process"
-Phil Jones
LMAO Just another cover-up! Yep, the science is settled...It's F R A U D!
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1"But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland."
-Pollack
Thats because the hockey stick is a fraud. LMAO
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 " I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”."
-Bradley
F R U A D is everywhere you look.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Nylon eating bacteria, look it up. Denying that evolution is the best explanation for diversity on planet Earth is the same as suggesting that every generation that has ever existed in a clone of its parent.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms.1 However, examining only the apparent, visible beneficial trait can be misleading. Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place.2 In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation. EPIC FAIL
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha your source fro denying that nylon eating bacteria is excellent evidence of a beneficial mutation was the deeply religious creationist "research" site which believes in sky fairies. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO EXPLAIN HOW A BACTERIA THAT CAN DIGEST NYLON (WHILE NO OTHERS CAN) IS "DEGRADED"?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources So, a bacteria that can breakdown circularized proteins is able to consume a synthetic nylon which is similar to the protein structure, and that proves MACROevolution? Brilliant! (sarcasm)
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp Nylon is made of linear repeating units linked by amide bonds which is very very different to circularised proteins! nylon eating bacteria can digest the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. I ask again By the way what biological or logical barriers prevent the former "micro" from becoming the latter "macro"?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp NATURE|January 2009|doi:10.1038/nature07740 "Evidence for evolution by natural selection." p.s. AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's e.g. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@checkyoursources Natural selection doesn't explain the origin for which any species started. e.g. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you think we evolved from a bacteria. Then who laid the egg? how could it have been fertilized? And that's just the chicken. This sort of impossible occurrence would have to happen by chance millions of times to create all these different species.
MrOTLChamp 1 month ago
@MrOTLChamp Seeing as you are not identical to your parents and they were not identical to their parents, why is it so hard to appreciate that a few mutations each generation and a change in environment inevitably lead to some features being more useful thereny leading to bigger changes over time?
Natural selection is a rigorous testing process that filters out what works from what doesn't, driving organisms to evolve. p.s.What barriers prevent micro from becoming macro?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Problem is...Nearly every species had to have an opposite sex to procreate.
Please explain how a chicken could have become a chicken without another chicken to lay the egg and then keep it warm enough for it to survive?
Two chickens of opposite sex would have had to have been made, for this to happen
MrOTLChamp 1 month ago
@MrOTLChamp Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens and the mutation became more common in the population beacuse the first chicken had an advantage over its ancestor. According to a christian like yourself only one parent is required ;)
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources 1) Slow changes over time would be seen in the fossil records. 2) No species has ever given birth to a different species.
MrOTLChamp 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp 1) Changes over time are seen in many fossil records and even in an species you care to name. e.g. horse ancestors and look at your own mother and father 2) We have only been looking for just over a 100 years.Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography,
comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental
biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing,each point to the conclusion that life evolved
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Gradual evolutionary change from one species to another requires many mutations and genetic changes. But, the fossil record exhibits anything but gradual change. There is a gap between living systems and non-life, invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and mammals and man.
MrOTLChamp 1 month ago
@MrOTLChamp Every single living organism is a transistional stage so there can't be "missing links" as you are trying to suggest i.e. it's a continuous process. Horse ancestors such as Miohippus which evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus show gradual change. You see evolution as trying to jump to the top of a cliff in one giant leap, whereas in reality life takes the slow, easier route step by step around the other side.You prefer to explain diverse life on Earth with a sky fairy?
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources " AGW is the most likely explanation for the majority of warming since the 1970's"
.
Scientist even admit that they only know about 1% of the knowledge that would need to be known, to understand our climate system. The minute amount of warming recorded since the 70's can easily be attributed to ocean currents. We're talking tenth's of a degree. A "micro" change in temperature.
MrOTLChamp 1 month ago
@MrOTLChamp "The minute amount of warming recorded since the 70's can easily be attributed to ocean currents."- It's NOT currents- globally oceans are accumulating energy at a rate of 4 x 1021 Joules per year - equivalent to 127,000 nuclear plants (which have an average output of 1 gigawatt) pouring their energy directly into the world's oceans. This tells us the planet is in energy imbalance - more energy is coming in than radiating back out to space due to human GHG' and feedback.
checkyoursources 1 month ago
@checkyoursources Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChampActualy evolution is simply changes between generations. Denying it happens is like denying your own parents existence. You seem to have trouble working out the difference between Speciation and Evolution?
p.s. Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. By the way what biological or logical barriers prevent the former "micro" from becoming the latter "macro"?
checkyoursources 2 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Macro and Micro Evolution are terms that were coined by Biologists in the 1920's. They are distinctively different concepts in Evolutionary Biology. Macro Evolution shows clear disparaging gaps in the chain from Species to another, rather than the gradual change you stated. I can't even comment on the rest of your posting or his, you're both acting like children.
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
@Joe11Blue Those terms were coined by creationists who had to admit that genetic mutations do happen, and are afraid to admit what this shows to be true.
Genesis is a creation myth which has been debunked.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp "The" Bible? Which one is that? Do you pretend that there's only one version?
From here on, you're talking to yourself. Arguing with a religiotard is like playing chess with a toddler. The adult always wins, but the toddler is blissfully aware that he lost.
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndrthrdr1 And you believe your uncle is a monkey. What does that make you?
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrOTLChamp
Re: "the 97% number comes from when they sent out the questionnaire to only specific scientist.(ones they knew, or thought would be in agreement with AGW). Out of 10257 sent out, only 77 responded, and 75 said yes. And they didn't even include scientist in the fields of solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers."
I don't know whether you're lying or just don't know WTF you're talking about, but what you wrote there is just FALSE.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
His daddy must own a bank. :~/
philyB08 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to see a totally unbiased, sensible discovery regarding climate variation, that by the way gives the reason for the Little Ice age and the Warm period, then Google Solarchords com, I challenge anyone to seriously study and fully understand the information before making their mind up. The author, Fred Bailey, is a private unfunded individual who still believes in doing things based on an honest, sensible and unbiased approach in a search for the truth
howardsway782 3 months ago
The face of the brainwashed children.
m1aws 3 months ago
Wasn't "not evil just wrong" funded by tea party supporters and businessmen? hmm now why would they want people to think that climate change doesn't exist?
checkyoursources 3 months ago 2
@checkyoursources If it wasn't for the tea party and businessmen, you would be eating out of a dumpster and this country would be socialist. So thank God for the tea party you scum vermin you!
gamefreak1000000 2 months ago
@gamefreak1000000 here here, well said.stupid fools think tea party ideology is bad or evil rather than eminently sensible. typical left wing collectivist idiocy.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 2 months ago
@CAMERONisaEUROPHILE I am sick and tired of these tree hugging libs over regulating our country with crap like cap and trade. I am sick of it! If they are really concerned about emitting too much co2 (which the majority of it comes from exhaling), then they should just kill themselves. Then again, they won't do that because they are just hypocritical scumbags who would rather deteriorate this country than actually do anything good!
gamefreak1000000 2 months ago
@checkyoursources The truth is still the truth no matter who says it.Would you be so critical if some filthy socialist thinktank funded some pro warmist propaganda piece?
Would you fuck .Because in your statist mindset they are the good guys, along with big government and all the noble rent seeking "scientists". They would be out of a job fast if they were to even begin to act like uninterested seekers of truth,instead they parrot the "consensus" that has proved to be so financially fruitful.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 2 months ago
@checkyoursources So oil greedy ****s can continue selling their junk w/o consideration of the consequences of using such junk. Al Gore is like someone who sells pseudomedicine. He takes advantage of a condition to make profit while coming up with no real solution.
TurboDally 2 months ago
@TurboDally No real solution? Burn less fossil fuels, buy less manufactured products, use less power at home, buy locally produced foods and other products, live closer to work.
Gee, there's nothing we can do!
ndrthrdr1 2 months ago
i wanna KNOW.... how the FUCK she got out of the kitchen.
atimor 3 months ago
Follow the money - follow the money - follow the money
eloquentlyfly 3 months ago
@eloquentlyfly
I'm curious, where do you think the $ takes you?
In my experience, many people who try to "follow the money" don't understand what that means in practice. I agree, by the way, that monied-interests are intentionally and successfully distorting the public discussion of this issue - there's simply no doubt about that. The problem with "follow the money" is that casual on-lookers, being ignorant about how the world works, often use that "wisdom" to draw exactly the wrong conclusion
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
That guy looks like Ashton Kutcher, after a bar fight.
CHUCKYCHUCKYBOBUCY 3 months ago 2
@CHUCKYCHUCKYBOBUCY ha ha
Strange0ne 3 months ago
I wonder if James Hansen knows Al Gore?
CSATexan 3 months ago
"Not Evil Just Wrong" co-producer and director Ann McElhinney said "but what about the fact that there is no consensus on the science...".
This co-producer and director obviously never bothered to, um, learn the the basic *facts* about her subject matter. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the documentary.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Actually there is no consensus on the science. Even nobel laureates have come out against the theory of global warming.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
The word "consensus" doesn't mean "unanimous". And the views of scientists who don't work in the specific field aren't overly relevant to determining if there's a "scientific consensus" about a matter - and in fact wouldn't even be included in "normal" situations. (Global warming is not "normal" because its impact on the economy is so serious that monied-interests have invested big $ to distort the truth and confuse the public - the threatened interests have politicized the issue.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
(cont)
There's a scientific consensus about this basic principle: human activity, mainly CO2 emissions, is most likely the primary cause of the recent warming, with threats of eventual harmful consequences. There are 3 general ways to discover a consensus - surveying scientists in that field, surveying the literature, and examining the positions affirmed by esteemed scientific orgs. Those 3 methods agree, so unequivocally declare there's a consensus. That there's a consensus is, simply, a fact.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
The fact is that the Global Warmest have confused the public in order to create a giant renewable energy bubble. Is it just a coincidence that China leads the world in the production of solar panels while at the exact same time is pushing for treaties such a Kyoto? While hypocritically drilling for oil in the GULF of Mexico.
This movement is about money and control. I read original Earth Day book 1970, guess what -->
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "The fact is..."
No - the fact is that you've just ignored that the planet's scientists are the giving us the warnings about human driven global warming, and have instead have referred to "Global Warmests" (the scientists?), who are apparently in cahoots with the Chinese in implementing a commie plot that began at least as far back as the first Earth Day. If that's your position, then you're simply dumber than a bag of hammers. I don't wish to be insulting, but if the shoe fits..
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
You mean the scientist who have yet to be proven right?? Yep just as I ignored the scientists who claimed 40 years ago that we would be in a new ice age 11 years ago. Just as the same scientist claimed we would have recored hurricanes. Just as the same scientists claimed we would have record floods.
The same scientists who claim that the answer to all these imaginary disasters could be prevented so long as we pay more taxes.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "You mean the scientist who have yet to be proven right?"
You obviously don't understand how to evaluate scientific claims.
Re: " I ignored the scientists who claimed 40 years ago that we would be in a new ice age 11 years ago"
Newsweek isn't a scientific journal. The climatologists were warning of global warming back then. Your facts are wrong.
Re: "as the same scientist claimed we would have recored hurricanes. ... record floods"
Again, your facts are simply wrong.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
(cont)
Now that you've proven your contempt for science (over the internet no less - oh sweet irony!), let me ask you, pray tell, just whom should we listen to learn about the climate if not the planet's climatologists? Rush Limbaugh? A Ouiji Board? Psychics? Fox "News"? The dozen or so climatologists who disagree with their thousands of colleagues, but who say exactly what you want to hear?
Ignoring what scientists say, about the physical phenomenon that they study, is simply pure stupidity.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Wait are you talking about the same climatologists who have been predicting dozens of hurricanes every year since Gore put out his crappy movie??? Please we have had some of the weakest hurricane seasons I have ever seen in my life. Texas and Louisiana are going through a drought.
Just keep listening to them as they make the cost of home insurance go through the roof.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "Wait are you talking about the same climatologists who have been predicting dozens of hurricanes every year?"
Again - your facts are wrong. The prediction has been of, on AVERAGE (as with everything about climate), increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. And those predictions have openly been debated and admitted aren't very confident. And have, if I recall, largely come to pass GLOBALLY (hint - the USA is not the whole planet. Pacific typho intensities have increased.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
So if I goggle Climatologist hurricane predictions. The results will come back as that they claimed increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. right????
I don't want to waste my time researching what they said in 2010, 2009, 2008 and so fourth. I wont find that right???
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "So if I goggle Climatologist hurricane predictions. The results will come back as that they claimed increased INTENSITY, not increased FREQUENCY. right?"
Yes, IF you use google to read what the *climatologists* were saying. If you read a story from a blogger, you'll read all kinds of (wrong) things.
You can find rare predictions of increased frequency, but those weren't the community's view, as the scientists themselves should note. Even the intensity claims were tentative.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I understand how you evaluate scientific claims. You seem to pick a cause that you like and then accept what ever they say to be true. Which is pretty much what the enviro movement is based on.
How else can people say that snow storms are the result of global warming??
I didn't quote Newsweek I quoted Earth Day.
So now are you saying that we are not going to have floods and hurricanes??
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "I understand how you evaluate scientific claims. You seem to pick a cause that you like and then accept what ever they say to be true."
No, you obviously don't. You're PROJECTING - a ubiquitous rightwing habit. I START with what the scientists say - about this and everything else. You, however, obviously start with your conclusion (spoon fed to you as with all good rightwing thralls), and then go hunting for arguments to justify it (again, they're spoon fed to you).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
No you started with posting what some of the scientist you agreed with had to say. Once again not all scientist are in agreement.
But back to my question what was the last time one of them climatologists was right about something???
You can start with what they had to say in the 50s.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "How else can people say that snow storms are the result of global warming?"
1. It's GLOBAL warming. Effects vary by region.
2. Snowstorms are from WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE when its freezing. No one claimed winter would go away, but they did claim that warmer temps would put more water into the atmosphere. Get it?
Re: "I didn't quote Newsweek"
Newsweek is the main source of the denier canard you cited about the climatologists in the 70's predicting a coming ice age.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
1 Effects may vary??? In other words they don't really know what they are talking about.
2 The claim that was made was that the polar ice caps would melt. Just how are they going to melt if the earth doesn't get warmer???
3 I have no idea what other have said to you. I posted what environmentalist wrote about in 1970.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Bu by all means be a slave to fashion which is what this movement is.
The Chinese on the other hand see it as a means to disrupt western industry that is why they support politicians that will seek to regulate production. But by all means run factories out of the US regulate the construction of refineries. The Chinese economy isn't booming and American factories are not leaving.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "Bu by all means be a slave to fashion which is what this movement is"
Again, you match facts about the scientific basis for these warnings with an empty naked assertion to the contrary. That's a very effective technique - you can use that method for anything, whether to argue that the Earth is flat, or that you fart rainbows, and it's always just as compelling. The SCIENTISTS are telling us that this is a problem - what's your reply to that? Do you have a reply... a sane reply?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Once again, some scientist have made that statement, mostly ones that have a lot of money to gain from it.
Now you can sit and believe them all you want, but what you can't dispute is that Global warming is a multi billion dollar business. And while these tax increase might make you feel better they do little to stop pollution.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "some scientist have made that statement, mostly ones that have a lot of money to gain from it"
Your facts are 100% wrong again.
You're wrong about everything you think you know about this - wrong in exactly the way you've been trained to be wrong by the corporate funded rightwing think tanks. You've surrendered your mind. You've been played for a sucker by those who stand to gain from manipulating your views. You should be REALLY angry at them for disrespecting you so.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
When was the last time one of these climatologists was right about something??? I want to go back and check it out.
CSATexan 3 months ago
@CSATexan
Re: "When was the last time one of these climatologists was right about something? I want to go back and check it out"
The event more than any other that made this a national issue was NASA's James Hansen's famous 1988 testimony before congress. So let's look at those predictions.
Hansen predicted, in 1988, a global temp increase of .33 C by 2005. The measured temp increase was .33 C. That's AMAZING, especially for his earlier simpler models.
Check it out: Hansen et al., PNAS 2006
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Is that a joke or are you serious???
So in other words YOUR premise that the earth is getting warmer is based on a .33 increase in temp over the span of 17 years?
Hell we are all doomed!!!!
CSATexan 3 months ago