@pawpouch As for Peer reviewed data/theorem...it wasn't so long ago that scientists claimed the celocanth was extinct, that man would never fly and that gorillas didn't exist. Science is not infalable (noting your nonresponce to the John P. Holdren reference) and has recently been revealed to even be corrupt (ie the email scandal of 2 years ago). I've spent plenty of time at the ocean shore over the past 45 years, and have yet to see any signs of rising sea levels.
@drummer4theperish Dont you dare undermine the process wich has lifted the world out of dark ages.You owe your quality of life to the scientific method. Unless you are enrolled in a respectable institution with at least a BSc you have no claim to understand these processes.I suggest you stop quibbling over this guy and that guy, corruption is rife in the world and i would bet money that some environmentalists are too. do not let that distract you from results of repeatable reviewed experiments.
@pawpouch Me undermine? All I'm doing is questioning the system which has been proven corrupt, controlled and mistaken time and again. Get down off your high horse and stop demanding we all fall in line behind you. You want to lead? At least lead with some integrity. Plant a tree, walk to work and stop exhaling.
@drummer4theperish and what makes you think i dont do all those things perishable drummer? Ive never owned a car i'm a vegeterian and enrolled in an environmental science degree, at a university that is number 2 in the field in the UK and number 19 in the world. and yes a lot of field trips have involved making plans for reforesting large areas. I am on no high horse. but i am high enough to see ignorance when i spot it. stop smoking so much weed and crawl out of the drums of paranoia :)
@pawpouch You eat the plants that turn CO2 into oxygen? Well, your just adding to the problem then. #19 in the world? That IS pretty impressive. Perishable? Yes, not DISPOSABLE though. Make PLANS to reforest? How much planning does it take to dig a hole an plan a tree?
@drummer4theperish what is it that you do then? what are your considered solutions? i really hope you are not over 16 years of age man, all logic and rationality is lost to you.you still have time to get an education. i repeat. unless you are studying a holistic environmental course at a respectable institution you have no CLAIM to understanding the forces at play whithin this subject. you would not challenge a nuclear scientist on the potential of uranium enrichment because you have no claim.
@drummer4theperish thats better keep laughing man, at least thats a positive addition to your surroundings, lets hope you can snap out of that dream world now. just make sure the evil climate scientists dont come out from under the bed and eat all the oxygen from your room D: arrrrrrrrrr
@drummer4theperish adiitionally, plants sequester CO2 and release it. They are at the bottom of the food chain. As you go up the trophic levels, you have energy conversion efficiencies of ~10 % wich means if you eat an animal that eats plants you are responsible for much greater CO2 emissions. Typical values to produce one kg of beef: 36 kg of CO2, chicken 4 Kg, potato, 0.64 kg apple 0.55 kg. a small example of the facts u may learn through an education.
Skeptic or not, I don't understand how people, from a basic physics perspective, can't see that freeing huge amounts of sequestered carbon, for instance, in a mostly closed thermodynamic system (the earth and its atmosphere) isn't a problem.
I just don't get it. I'm an average guy. I went out and bought low power CFL bulbs for my house. I turned down the thermostat during the wintertime after reinforcing the insulation on my apartment. Its the little things that we all can do..but we don't.
“Other people are put up to it by the fossil fuel industry or certainly incentivised by them”
Abso-blinking-lutely. Its so obvious that the fossil fuel industry is denying that pollution from fossil fuels is causing a problem at all. In extreme examples the industry actually claims the pollution is good for the planet! Amazingly some people believe them.
Wakey Wakey don’t be duped by the fossil fuel lobby!
There aren't any skeptics regarding CO2 and climate change; they all became convinced over 20 years ago. Nearly 98% consensus among scientists, after evidence collected since the end of the 1800s. Science works, bitches!
anyone who has a fascination with wasting time to groom your mustache is always based in some forms of fallacies and traditionalities. as soon as i get the money all that shit is getting lazered off. but then again tom doesn't have a fuck clue what proficiency is all about anyways.
Ha-ha - NY Times columnist, Whatever-man, ha-ha, I already know what he wants - he wants us to give our money, so his cousin banker can take and put them in his private Federal Reserve bank so they can continue to spray us, feed us GMO, vaccinate us further, fluoridate us, ... So they can make more wars, and further deceive, dumb-down, poison and manipulate us and the world.
FYI: NY Times is known also as Toilet Paper on Record.
Xman needs perfect storm? You got HARP, don't you? Don't be shy.
clearly another educated and well reasoned addition to a dialogue that presents profound implications for mine and your children and grandchildren... such tripe and baseless conjurings only serve to distract... may your influence remain petty schoolground bytes (pun intended) as the rest of us tirelessly serve to understand how the planet works.
@pawpouch Clearly you lack the ability to see the scam going on right in front of you. Climate change goes on constantly on our planet. In fact there was a much greater percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere long before humans and the industrial revolution. The fact that AL Gore stands to make BILLIONS of dollars of his psudo-science, blaming humans for exhaling what all plants require to exist, is lost on you makes me believe we are doomed to exist in a ninnying, micro-managed state of slavery.
@drummer4theperish you are demonstrating your misunderstanding of peer review and the scientific method itself. Things are not just invented in the academic arena. whether it be in physics, atmospheric chemistry or ecology. theories are ripped to pieces if they do not produce verifiable results based on previous knowledge. It DOESNT WORK ANY OTHER WAY. al gore is a jackass. however we are adding c02 in intervals that natural systems cant adapt to fast enuf.humans and investments are at risk.
@pawpouch So you're disregarding the 30,000+ climatologists who don't agree will the Global Warming theory. I find it interesting that John P. Holdren, one of the greatest Global Warming theory supporters, was decrying the imminent Global Ice Age back in the 1970's. I wonder, if he was wrong then, is he wrong now? If you really want to combat excess CO2, you ought to plant some trees and stop exhaling.
@drummer4theperish you are referring to the 30000 scientists of wich only 39 were climatologists and no names released? do your homework before you perish from the drums of ignorance to wich you are leeching.Being a phd in medicine does not give you credibility in the field of atmospheric science. This is common propaganda peddled to the uneducated. i bet you believe in the illuminati too?come back to me when you have read 300+ peer reviewed papers in top journals. your arguments are uninformed.
@pawpouch Quite correct it is 30,000 scientists not climatologists. Meanwhile, Tom Friedman, is neither a climatologist nor a scientist. He is a globalist who believes every country should surrender its economic sovereignty to a world banking system - sounds like some kind of World Government or a New World Order. Hmmm...I wonder where he got that idea from.
@pawpouch For a partial list of scientists who DARE to question the THEORY of Global Warming, go to wikipedia and search "scientist opposed to global warming theory". I know they don't have the credentials of Tom Freidman, but they are scientists.
@drummer4theperish examine the claims of your article on wikipedia more closely. For a start on the page reads: 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. And that the page itself: 'It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.' this usually implies that there is an unfounded bias towards the claims in the article i.e. no credible peer reviewed source. Just click on some of the scientists. they dont disagree.
Friedman is not qualified to comment on climate change. Dr. Fred Singer, a highly respected scientist (atmospheric physicist) and Nobel Prize winner, challenges the findings of the IPCC along with more than 30,000 scientists that have petitioned against CO2 effect on climate change. Climate change has been going on for more than 4 billion years. The last high water mark in the geologic record is 300 feet above the present sea level. Start moving coastal cities.
@rsm6912 Dr. Fred Singer is not a highly respected scientist. In the past he supported the industry in telling the public smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, sulphur dioxide from coal power stations doesn't cause acid rain and man's production of CFC's weren't destroying the ozone layer.
copenhagen marks the end of western europe as an important player. they were not able to deliver on their big idea of "climate change" what can they deliver on.
There are experts on both sides of the field fighting it out, there is no climate change concordance; it's scary to see scientists forcing this climate change down the public's throat.
Who the hell cares if global warming is a "hoax." what the fuck is wrong with going green, having nice parks and forests for our kids to go play in, developing alternative fuels and energy to reduce the costs to fill up a car, or have cheaper power bills? Even if you don't support global warming, it makes no sense why you would be against developing more efficient environmental developments
no one minds those things in and of themselves. But when there forced down our throats dispite the costs and consequences, we have a problem. Forcing people to go green can have serious economic reprocussions. If you want to make people go green, make green cheaper.
By the looks of it, it might be anyways. so sit back and let whoever wins win.
You've got NOTHING to complain about environmentalism being "shoved" down anyone's throat. Only delusional insane subhuman shitheads who deserve to have blowtorches shoved down their mouths believe otherwise.
It's ALWAYS been the extremist consumptionists who force THEIR way of life on others.
When you pay back the people of Ecuador for all the poisons Texaco has dumped on them, only THEN can you claim you are not forcing your lifestyle on others.
@cha05kn1ght As always, you're completely twisted from the truth. You've got absolutely no right to complain about environmentalism being forced down anyone's throat. It never has been. Instead, coal, nuclear & gas are forced down people's throats, who want to have energy careers in solar, wind & geothermal. 25 miners died in W Va because the coal industry forces ITS industry on the whole state.
@duck24x I've got no right to complain? good thing your not the one who decides my rights. Look, if you like environmentalism so much that's fine. I dont mind it myself. But it deserves just as much skeptecism (spelling bad sorry) as anything else. And no one's occupation is "forced" on them. Not in this country.
@cha05kn1ght And nobody is "forcing" environmentalism on anyone. To the contrary, polluters & those who want unlimited wealth force their lifestyle and pollution from ALL its effects on those of us who are poor and try to do what we can to reduce pollution & greenhouse gases.
To all the deniers: until you go back in time and vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, & vote to legalize marijuana and freedom of choice of private affairs such as drugs & porn (and not just guns, but those too), and send a bomb to kill Patriot Act GW Bush & Cheney (& asshole Gore for torturing animals with the LD50 test by the EPA) - and free all the prisoners in the USA..
- non-human, too! - don't you DARE complain about a trivial loss of freedom for environmental protection.
LOL you're an America-hating unpatriotic coward, just like your fucking lover-boy Obama. You said absolutely NOTHING to stop the Iraq War for oil. You want to drill for oil & gas everywhere. Yet you hypocritically oppose war to save the environment. You're the extremist.
Blow up and kill everyone who votes for a Demopub. Anyone who does so is a hero and makes tough choices.
This reminds me of something that happened in elementary school, years ago. Someone stole my money, and he then accused me of stealing his when it was raised with a teacher.
This Friedman fellow is doing the same thing. He's trying to debunk climate change deniers to save himself, and the countless other AGW cronies.
He's hardly even doing that much. The problem is that anti-GW people don't have much in terms of scientific evidence to support their claims. All they can logical argue based on what evidence we have is that humans are not the primary reason for the adjustment in the climate. We most certainly are influencing the climate, though. Personally, I think we're just a piece of a larger puzzle. I suspect climate will change regardless. We should just prepare ourselves accordingly.
I would reccomend that you read the scientific paper "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" written by Arhut B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon - All 3 are scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
That, and the all-famous paper written by Lindzen and Choi.
Peer reviewed, peer peer reviewed, peer peer peer reviewed, its all there.
I just might do that. But what do you do with the mountains of peer reviewed papers that support GW? I haven't read the papers you've mentioned, but I'll look them up. I'll reserve judgment until then, because that's the sensible thing to do.
Yes, I know about the "mountains of papers". This might come out rather cliche, but the few real scientists that write those papers are paid to, to push the idea forward to the sheeple in schools, infront of the television or listening to the radio. It sucked me in once, too. You could also read Christopher Monckton's articles or watch some of his documentaries.
I reserved judgement myself. until I did something useful and researched.
You'd need proof for that. Because that's a hell of a lot of people being paid off. Where does the money come from? To what end? What do they serve to gain from forcing us to make changes we'll have to make anyway? Oil is unsustainable, for example. Eventually we're going to have to replace it with something better (electric, most likely). We probably shouldn't be dumping shit in the ocean or mowing down rainforests or dropping waste and garbage into the air or nature anyway, GW or not.
How can humans have ANYTHING to do with climate change? Are you completely forgetting about the medieval warm period, or any other warm period for that matter that occurred before the industrial revolution? I mean, back in the day of the Vikings, Greenland was actually green. Humanity flourished and prospered during these warm periods. Not to mention the fact that the temperature is currently decreasing, though I don't expect the IPCC to show you that on FOX or CNN >_>
Yes, I'm aware of the natural cycles of the Earth. That doesn't mean that humans can't influence natural cycles. We screw up the planet on a regular basis. Take, for instance, our influence on the oxygen levels in the ocean.
Humans have nothing to do with oxygen levels in the ocean.
The climate of the planet is one of the most chaotic and unpredictable systems/processes on the planet. Its hard enough to say what it will do next, but its even harder to say that us humans have anything to do with its fluctuations. If we did, using your logic, medieval warm periods would never have existed. The earth would have started out as a frozen ball of ice, and would gradually melt as the population of humanity grew.
I think you seriously underestimate humanity. And unless you're saying that thousands upon thousands of scientists are all liars (and you'd have to provide evidence for that), there's really no way you can logical deny that humans have, at the very least, a noticeable, though not necessarily catastrophic impact on this planet. Entire ecosystems have been destroyed by us, and I'm not talking about GW. I'm talking in general.
And I think you seriously overestimate humanity. YOu and I both know that I can't speak for every individual scientist on the planet - I am just telling you what I have learned for my research. I do know that a fair few scientists have actually admitted to such "bribes". I strongly suggest you read the papers I suggested. By read, I actually mean read - not just a quick glance and letting it go over the top of your head. Or you can visit scienceandpublicpolicy(.)org and read Monckton's articles.
I live in Florida. I don't overestimate the damage humanity can do to the environment. Stupidity alone destroys ecosystems, let alone negligence...
There's enough research on what humanity has done to the environment just in the last 20 years to fill a university library. Which is why I don't buy into the argument that GWers as a whole serve to gain something. Individuals, maybe, but the movement itself, there's a gap in logic there.
@Arconna You refer to some research in your garbled post. Please list out the research to which you refer. Include the author, title and date of publication. Please note that tabloid articles do not count.
@ChristianYorke You're kidding right? Have you been watching the news over the last 20 years? Oil spills, deforestation, and so on. All influence the environment and, in some cases, destroy or alter (almost the same in the context of biological diversity) ecosystems. This isn't rocket science.
Its not really that large a number. The group of scientists that disagree with AGW is larger than the ones that do. The money comes from the government, which comes from taxpayers like you and I. To what end? Greed, power, control. The usual. The usual reasons people want money. Dropping "garbage" has nothing to do with global warming. Trees grow back. There have always been enough trees, and always will be trees, to absorb what pathetic amounts of CO2 us humans emit and give back oxygen.
I would reccomend that you read the scientific paper "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" written by Arhut B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon - All 3 are scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
That, and the all-famous paper written by Lindzen and Choi.
Peer reviewed, peer peer reviewed, peer peer peer reviewed, its all there.
The only climate about to change is the economic one. Wave goodbye to any chance of developing countries moving into the 21st century. What next taxes on Human Oxygen consumption, WAKE UP!!!
Two great interviews with Lord Monckton and Thomas Friedman, after the CRU email leak can we believe any thing on global warming. I would like to point out that they now call it 'climate change' not 'global warming' is this because they know that they [the IPCC] may be wrong?
This guy is a moron and is using the cooked sayings of the EU to lie to the people, this guy needs to shut the hell up and get the hell out. Also notice he called the people who don't believe in this Climate Change thing as Deniers which has negative connotations attatched. Notice it changed from GLOBAL WARMING TO CLIMATE CHANGE, these people are basically calling us to stupid to see though their facade and blatantly change the entire Schemes name overnight since the Globe is actually COOLING,
this guy is breathing, he's contributing to climate change. plus he's a a bit of a pig slop so he takes up more space, damn, a double offender. he prob eats more than the normal person, thereby emitting gaseous fumes that contribute to the degradation of the environment, this guy is a walking/talking contradiction
@cristop5: The environment aside, given that fractional reserve banking is a fraud and that the governments of the world are now almost completely dominated by the central banking interests who have aims at world government; don't you think that it is fairly obvious that the climate is being used to create a central taxing body controlled by these same interests?
Yes, it is also obvious that the 'crisis' is a Trojan horse for corporate neo-monarchy. But really, there was a time not so long ago that we could ice skate from one end of Holland to the other in winter. Now,, the puddles hardly ever freeze. The Ski slopes need snow making machines and even then its slush by noon and ice in the mornings.. sigh. Open your eyes. Where is the snow?
@abirdnamedcat: I don't think anyone doubts that the climate is changing. I live where there were once glaciers and I'm fairly confident man had nothing to do with it. We all want to pollute less and take care of the earth. The opposition is to climate profiteers and radical political exploitation. The same people that own the most environmentally damaging corporations are the central banking elite that are also fund the environmental movements. Confusing? Not if you know their agenda.
@cristop5: I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone doubts climate change. As I said in an earlier post, I live where there were once glaciers: in the middle of the United States.
Paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories? I'm amazed by your power to deny the obvious. You clearly lack an fundamental understanding of the fraud behind our fractional reserve lending system, fiat currencies and our central banking oligarchs. Start there before you tackle "climate change".
@VoteLib3rty: You certainly did miss it. The internet is awash with people who deny the climate is warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. Of those best able to evaluate the evidence - working and publishing climatologists - 97% think "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
tigger. uic. edu /~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Perhaps if they took more interest in banking they'd see things as clearly as you do. But alas they're scientists.
OMG your right! This non-binding international treaty will be the end of us all!!!!! The BAnkers have set up GIANT hair dryers at glaciers around the world just to brainwash you in to paying more taxes, because we pay taxes to the bank...right?
yes, lets call those who disagree with our position names so we can comfortably ignore them and get on with the important business of ignoring scientific facts.
Actually the e-mails did no such thing. They show discussions by scientists about trends and their opinions, but NOTHING in the e-mails showed deception of any sort.
I have read a good portion of the e-mails, it is clear you have read nothing of them.
No actually they did, and why did they DUMP all the research - bec it didnt support warming - but I'm sure you'll have another excuse for that too - another mass media mind controlled zombie supporting THE MAN as he leads you to your death for profit - back in the pen with the rest of the sheep who do not use their minds for themselves
what research got dumped? i loose data all the time that doesn't mea i wrote the wrong essay. again, what research got dumped? where is the deception in the emails? did you read the emails, or are you just a blind sheep for the political right and big brother corporations that throw pollutants in the air. your kind of people are proved wrong time and time again and you still insist on finding things contrery to scientific consensus.
Yeah, I've read a lot of them. The content of the e-mails is benign. The quotes on TV are cherry picked. The bit about "trick" to "hide the decline" is in reference to the relevance of tree ring data. (As a botanist, this growth anomaly really interests me.)
The public are partisan unspecialized loudmouths who can't distinguish media pandering from actual science, because they're science illiterate. Their consistent "conspiracy" arguments from ignorance, or from the gaps, are getting old.
@abyssquick People never seem to read that quote very correctly.. Wasn't the "trick" to add in the REAL temps to hide the decline (ahem, a decline that didn't actually exist..).
@lyingmoron Um, actually, IF YOU READ THE QUOTE, you can clearly see IT WAS REFERRING TO TEMPERATURE:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of ADDING IN THE _REAL TEMPS_ to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
The "trick" refers to a paper published in the journal NATURE by Mike in 1998 that solves a problem regarding divergent (faulty) tree ring data.
@Richard482 When Mann says he is using the REAL TEMPS to hide the decline, he is doing just that; he is using the REAL temperature data to hide a decline in temperature seen in tree ring data THAT DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE TREE RING DATA IS FAULTY, FLAWED, WRONG, INCORRECT!
The REAL conspiracy is how rethuglicon conservaloon liars are making money off raping the planet at everyone's expense while denying scientific fact and using the media to fabricate news to fool gullible morons like you ;)
@watercup123456 I've seen that before. Its another excellent video by Peter Hadfield. Both his video and Greenman3610's which you posted states the decline was refering to tree ring data and not global temperatures as those conspiracy theorists thought. I'll send you a link which explains what scientists think caused the 'decline'. What scientific fact are you talking about?
@Richard482 Right, the decline refers to tree ring temperature data, which shows a decline (which isn't actually happening if you look at other data sets).
It's really just a shit show of confirmation bias for them. Critical thinking, and literacy in the subjects of the e-mails' discussion, is irrelevant. The public doesn't want to know. They function on the emotionality of their political disdain by whoever they didn't vote for. Anything they disagree with becomes a "conspiracy" by whomever they didn't vote for.
Partisan stupidity, utter lack of individual intellectual autononmy, depth, & coherence, is putting the US in a state of atrophy.
What the hell is up with Fora stirring up the hornets nest with titles like, "Slams climate skeptics". Or wait, is that Fora's stance? I might have to take them off the subscription list.
I have a ZERO tolerance for skeptics and their glanced over excuses. The best one is "it still gets cold in the winter". LMFAO!!! If only you had any clue what you were objecting to.
Yes, but this cosmic-rays-seed-clouds hypothesis has never been shown. It is not accepted in science as it has not been observed or repeated. It's based on one paper that was heavily criticized.
"Global Warming" is a red herring being used to scare people into paying a global tax to a global government. There ARE serious environmental problems (the trash swirl in the Pacific comes to mind), but as long as people are divided into left and right - with the right sticking their heads in the sand making believe there's no problem, and the left going off to slay imaginary dragons - nothing will be done.
Great video. It is sadly true that the floor has been ceded to skeptics and deniers who crave attention. Uneducated pawns parrot "facts" that are not facts. How often do the canards of the deniers have to be refuted?
Even here some idiot is claiming the sun is causing the recent warming, unaware and uninterested in the fact that solar forcing has been waning since 1985!
The earth is 4.8 billion years old. And only the last 200 years we have measured the temperature on Earth. Therefore we have no idea what the global climate will do in the future.
Huh? How come we know about the mini ice age and the medieval warming period, then? We do research on core samples where temperature fluctuations leave behind evidence.
I would have liked to emigrate in GreenLand to cultivate grapewine there. Sadly Italy is in the grip of the coldest temperatures in 84 years, here I have minus 20 centigrades. I guess in Greenland is not going better.
I'm a supporter of global warming, but I'm against any CO2 international agreements. IF there is a global warming the best thing against it is globalwarming itself. It would be a good thing to let the many pollutant towns on the costs be submerged and leave them for new ecological towns in nowadays cold places (we're going to save Venice only, because it's beautiful. All the other ones can sink, obviously). Nothing new in history. Greenland was a green land, and it can be it again
Don't exagerate with these hundreds millions of people displacement, please. We don't need all that people safe. To save half of them is more than sufficient. Think of the CO2 saved.
2 Questions.. who is in charge of stopping the pendulum from going too far the other way once all this stuff is implemented? And why is today's temp perfect when it's been all over the map for millions of years?
@joetaylors, if all this stuff is implemented, the Earth's temp will still go up, just not as much and not as fast as otherwise, so don't worry. And no one is claiming that today's temp is perfect, only that, if human activity is left unchecked and we keep producing CO2 and cutting down forests, changes that normally take thousands of years will happen in dozens of years, given us little time to react, wrecking hundreds of millions of lives, and destroying entire ecosystems.
Friedman is also a guy who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he wishes we could have a autocracy like the Chinese 'for a day' so we could solve our societies problems. The worst part is that he's no towering intellect. If you've read "The World is Flat", you'll quickly understand that he considers peeling back his own ignorance of global economics and commerce a revelation for all to bask in, and then goes on for about 5 times as long as he needs to about what he's learned.Fuck him
@pizzaboyserious the crap is being spread by far right wing pro corp lobbyists like Ron Paul. He poses as some kind of liberator while pushing the nastiest corp agendas.
Anti welfare, for more inequality, conspiracy theory, ranting populist hate against liberals and academics.
He is the worst corp stooge in America turn on the creep.
Friedman is a liar and a corporate shill. In reality, Big Oil is funding the misanthropic global warming cult, and the pseudo-scientists and quackademics who provide a veneer of scientific support for it.
Global warming deniers all have one thing in common. They are all religious nuts who still think the earth is flat. What a joke that these people want to keep man from progressing.
you are so wrong. The science is lacking. It also pisses me off that all the people who support global warming want global Government. I want freedom and the Constitution.
You are a dilusional American who thinks that your flag will save your ass from global warming and I say if you really love your country then join the military and prove it. Either that or stfu moron constitutionalist flag hag
Unfortunately, that is not always true. Often they are (and often they are "NWO" conspiracy theorists - think shadow governments and reptilian aliens) but not all are religious. I know a few who are nonreligious, yet still deluded on this issue.
Actually, it's the misanthropic Green/Warmist cult who want to halt all human progress. This is especially apparent when we see how virulently opposed they are to nuclear power, despite the fact that it's the only zero-carbon alternative which has been proven to work on a large scale (i.e., France).
Oh, and by the way, I'm a politically left-of-center atheist, and I see through the AGW fraud. So, your attempted slander is teh fail.
On the contrary Global warming alarmist are religious zealot nuts! Global warming has turned into a religion masses of sheeps believe in it without question. It makes them feel like "the good guy"!?
This whole global warming scare was cooked up by Ken Lay and Al Gore to make big bucks from carbon tax! University East Anglia the no #1 global warming "research" centre, cooked the data to make the globe looks like warming up when in reality Earth had been cooling in the past 10 years!
"Real scientists tend to focus on the 10% that they don't know rather than the 90% that they do know."
Mr. Friedman, you're absolutely incorrect. By that logic, we should still think that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and that all light propagates through luminiferous ether.
You couldn't be more incorrect and should be ashamed of yourself for taking that perspective. The highest achievement of science is the ability to be skeptical towards ALL claims. Consensus is nonsense.
No he said that "Scientists tend to focus on what they don't know instead of what they do, so they tend to focus on the 10% that is still UNCERTAIN as uposed to the 80%-90% that is CERTAIN."
You're argument would be correct if your quote wasn't taken out of context. Scientists do progress into more complex ideas and hypothesises but only after they are completely sure that they have a (good) understanding of the topic at hand
This quote was not taken out of context, Mr. Friedman continued that "skeptics" have taken issue with the details that are CERTAIN to "scientists" implying that these CERTAIN details are considered fact. Absurdly untrue.
The fundamental basis of science is that every conclusion is tentative - thus, opposing views are THE most important aspect of science, they cause it to self-correct and find truth. Claiming we should "look beyond" this fundamental necessity is ludicrous.
"Not put restraints on our selves?" I'm sure this whole fiasco is so that YOU could put restraints on us.
Global warming will happen regardless. I'm sorry, matter of fact I don't even like calling it "global warming." The more correct term is "oceanic warming."
What bullshit. I'm unsubscribing from "Florda"TV. ;-)
The only good point he made was that it's better to lead by example.
The fact is these scientists have not conclusively proven jack squat. We know data & the presentation of data has been manipulated. We know many of these 'scientists' have financial incentive to reach biased conclusions. Governments have the potential to vastly expand their power due to this movement. They vilify non-believers just like most monotheistic religions. We're too intelligent to fall for this crap.
So what? In the movie it clearly said we only have 30 years of satellite data on sea ice. So you cannot make any conclusion that man has caused this decrease in ice coverage. You cannot prove that this is not a natural trend. Plus while the northern hemisphere ice decreases, the southern hemisphere ice increases. They brushed over that finding. This is not enough evidence to conclude a major natural disaster. I'm sorry. That takes a leap of faith. Just like a religious belief in judgement day.
Sure the antarctic ice cover is changing, but for different reasons - e.g. loss of ozone, and warmer seas causing more snowfall.
It's hard to 'prove' anything in science without running an experiment. That's a bit tricky when you're dealing with a planetary climate system. So waiting for 'proof'' rather than attempting to manage a potentially disastrous risk is really, really stupid.
So it's a guess. That's the reason you are disrupting the lives of billions of people, giving dangerous power to corrupt leaders around the world to control our lives, to steal from companies to give to other companies of their choosing? That's the reason you drag down the economy hurting the poor more than anyone else? That's the reason you allow governments to financially influence science? For a guess? An ice age would be far more devastating. Why not manage that risk?
By dismissing all the evidence for man made global warming as a "guess" you are choosing to be extremely obtuse. Apparently in your world view the science is either completely sewn up in all respects, or it's a "guess".
actually your strwmanning the fuck out of this. Ice core samples can track long term ice records. The conclusion of man made cause is partially deductive (there is no know natural cause). Only a portion of antarctic ice is increasing, but there is a net decrease. They brush over this 'findings' because their a trivial and beside the point. Nowhere are these finding 'denied' (like the climate change deniers do) but explained in the context of the overwhelming amount of other evidence.
I know about ice core samples. I've heard many scientists claim that these ice core samples show that trends in CO2 lag 800 years after trends in temperature. In these comments we were referring to the size of the arctic ice sheet. I've never heard about any ice core sample study that addressed that issue. My argument is not that the climate isn't changing. It has always been changing. I just don't think we have developed an accurate way to predict the future. And I don't bow to scare tactics.
It is because the Arctic ice sheet is a floating sheet and in constant movement . The Summer ice portion will melt in " surprise" Summer . Some summer more will melt depending on ocean current wind and temperature and sometime less melting depending on same factors. Why no ice core can be taken to show a long term ice records. Unless of course if you work for the UK MET Office you can make data fit anything by tweaking the data. :-)
I watched it. The label "climate denier" is misleading. Who's denying the climate? I'm a skeptic. This issue is far too politically & financially charged for you or I to know who to trust.
If I have made a false statement then quote it.
The movie you sent me to, supported my statement, that scientists claim trends in CO2 lag behind trends in temp. You may know better, but many activists did claim that CO2 raised temp, so the lag time is not a strawman. It's another piece of the puzzle.
I said "I've heard many scientists claim..." that doesn't mean I blindly trust them. I'm skeptical of every study on climate change. I don't trust the data, the theories, the conclusions. I find them interesting. But I don't parrot anything like the debate is over. GW activists do that. My most emphatic statements were, "I just don't think we have developed an accurate way to predict the future." "This issue is far too politically & financially charged for you or I to know who to trust."
truthadvocate. The issue only became politically charged over the last several years due to the efforts of 'think tanks' like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, both funded by ExxonMobil.
There IS genuine dissent, but when you hear canards like the one about temperature leading carbon, you are NOT listening to a researcher. The people who lifted this one aspect of Caillon's paper out of context are propagandists. Those like you who then parrot it are pawns.
If I was Exxon Mobile I'd spend some money to defend myself from big government zealots like you too. So you admit that a corporation can create bias in the debate through funding. Not to mention lobbying. Why is it so hard for you to consider that these studies are also influenced by corporations and investors with millions to gain from a pro-man-made-climate-change conclusion? How many hundreds of millions of dollars is Al Gore worth today? I can't keep track.
@truthadvocate There is no question that Exxon has funded deniers. The Royal Society took the unprecedented step of asking Exxon to stop funding groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". Google it.
You have no evidence of climate science being funded by solar panel manufacturers. Earlier you seemed to think GW and an ice age were equally probable!!
If ever there are two possibilities, you seem to think they must deserve equal credibility!
@pawpouch As for Peer reviewed data/theorem...it wasn't so long ago that scientists claimed the celocanth was extinct, that man would never fly and that gorillas didn't exist. Science is not infalable (noting your nonresponce to the John P. Holdren reference) and has recently been revealed to even be corrupt (ie the email scandal of 2 years ago). I've spent plenty of time at the ocean shore over the past 45 years, and have yet to see any signs of rising sea levels.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish Dont you dare undermine the process wich has lifted the world out of dark ages.You owe your quality of life to the scientific method. Unless you are enrolled in a respectable institution with at least a BSc you have no claim to understand these processes.I suggest you stop quibbling over this guy and that guy, corruption is rife in the world and i would bet money that some environmentalists are too. do not let that distract you from results of repeatable reviewed experiments.
pawpouch 2 months ago
@pawpouch Me undermine? All I'm doing is questioning the system which has been proven corrupt, controlled and mistaken time and again. Get down off your high horse and stop demanding we all fall in line behind you. You want to lead? At least lead with some integrity. Plant a tree, walk to work and stop exhaling.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish and what makes you think i dont do all those things perishable drummer? Ive never owned a car i'm a vegeterian and enrolled in an environmental science degree, at a university that is number 2 in the field in the UK and number 19 in the world. and yes a lot of field trips have involved making plans for reforesting large areas. I am on no high horse. but i am high enough to see ignorance when i spot it. stop smoking so much weed and crawl out of the drums of paranoia :)
pawpouch 2 months ago
@pawpouch You eat the plants that turn CO2 into oxygen? Well, your just adding to the problem then. #19 in the world? That IS pretty impressive. Perishable? Yes, not DISPOSABLE though. Make PLANS to reforest? How much planning does it take to dig a hole an plan a tree?
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish what is it that you do then? what are your considered solutions? i really hope you are not over 16 years of age man, all logic and rationality is lost to you.you still have time to get an education. i repeat. unless you are studying a holistic environmental course at a respectable institution you have no CLAIM to understanding the forces at play whithin this subject. you would not challenge a nuclear scientist on the potential of uranium enrichment because you have no claim.
pawpouch 2 months ago
@pawpouch LOL!!
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish thats better keep laughing man, at least thats a positive addition to your surroundings, lets hope you can snap out of that dream world now. just make sure the evil climate scientists dont come out from under the bed and eat all the oxygen from your room D: arrrrrrrrrr
pawpouch 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish adiitionally, plants sequester CO2 and release it. They are at the bottom of the food chain. As you go up the trophic levels, you have energy conversion efficiencies of ~10 % wich means if you eat an animal that eats plants you are responsible for much greater CO2 emissions. Typical values to produce one kg of beef: 36 kg of CO2, chicken 4 Kg, potato, 0.64 kg apple 0.55 kg. a small example of the facts u may learn through an education.
pawpouch 2 months ago
Comment removed
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
Comment removed
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
Skeptic or not, I don't understand how people, from a basic physics perspective, can't see that freeing huge amounts of sequestered carbon, for instance, in a mostly closed thermodynamic system (the earth and its atmosphere) isn't a problem.
I just don't get it. I'm an average guy. I went out and bought low power CFL bulbs for my house. I turned down the thermostat during the wintertime after reinforcing the insulation on my apartment. Its the little things that we all can do..but we don't.
phuturephunk 7 months ago
“Other people are put up to it by the fossil fuel industry or certainly incentivised by them”
Abso-blinking-lutely. Its so obvious that the fossil fuel industry is denying that pollution from fossil fuels is causing a problem at all. In extreme examples the industry actually claims the pollution is good for the planet! Amazingly some people believe them.
Wakey Wakey don’t be duped by the fossil fuel lobby!
kaieteurdevon 11 months ago
"Tom Friedman Slams Climate Skeptics at COP15"
There aren't any skeptics regarding CO2 and climate change; they all became convinced over 20 years ago. Nearly 98% consensus among scientists, after evidence collected since the end of the 1800s. Science works, bitches!
Desertphile 1 year ago
anyone who has a fascination with wasting time to groom your mustache is always based in some forms of fallacies and traditionalities. as soon as i get the money all that shit is getting lazered off. but then again tom doesn't have a fuck clue what proficiency is all about anyways.
tophernates 1 year ago
Ha-ha - NY Times columnist, Whatever-man, ha-ha, I already know what he wants - he wants us to give our money, so his cousin banker can take and put them in his private Federal Reserve bank so they can continue to spray us, feed us GMO, vaccinate us further, fluoridate us, ... So they can make more wars, and further deceive, dumb-down, poison and manipulate us and the world.
FYI: NY Times is known also as Toilet Paper on Record.
Xman needs perfect storm? You got HARP, don't you? Don't be shy.
PeaceAndGloryMB 1 year ago
Global Warming will end once Al Gore gets several hundred trillion dollars selling carbon credits.
drummer4theperish 1 year ago
@drummer4theperish
clearly another educated and well reasoned addition to a dialogue that presents profound implications for mine and your children and grandchildren... such tripe and baseless conjurings only serve to distract... may your influence remain petty schoolground bytes (pun intended) as the rest of us tirelessly serve to understand how the planet works.
pawpouch 2 months ago
@pawpouch Clearly you lack the ability to see the scam going on right in front of you. Climate change goes on constantly on our planet. In fact there was a much greater percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere long before humans and the industrial revolution. The fact that AL Gore stands to make BILLIONS of dollars of his psudo-science, blaming humans for exhaling what all plants require to exist, is lost on you makes me believe we are doomed to exist in a ninnying, micro-managed state of slavery.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish you are demonstrating your misunderstanding of peer review and the scientific method itself. Things are not just invented in the academic arena. whether it be in physics, atmospheric chemistry or ecology. theories are ripped to pieces if they do not produce verifiable results based on previous knowledge. It DOESNT WORK ANY OTHER WAY. al gore is a jackass. however we are adding c02 in intervals that natural systems cant adapt to fast enuf.humans and investments are at risk.
pawpouch 2 months ago
@pawpouch So you're disregarding the 30,000+ climatologists who don't agree will the Global Warming theory. I find it interesting that John P. Holdren, one of the greatest Global Warming theory supporters, was decrying the imminent Global Ice Age back in the 1970's. I wonder, if he was wrong then, is he wrong now? If you really want to combat excess CO2, you ought to plant some trees and stop exhaling.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish you are referring to the 30000 scientists of wich only 39 were climatologists and no names released? do your homework before you perish from the drums of ignorance to wich you are leeching.Being a phd in medicine does not give you credibility in the field of atmospheric science. This is common propaganda peddled to the uneducated. i bet you believe in the illuminati too?come back to me when you have read 300+ peer reviewed papers in top journals. your arguments are uninformed.
pawpouch 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pawpouch Quite correct it is 30,000 scientists not climatologists. Meanwhile, Tom Friedman, is neither a climatologist nor a scientist. He is a globalist who believes every country should surrender its economic sovereignty to a world banking system - sounds like some kind of World Government or a New World Order. Hmmm...I wonder where he got that idea from.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@pawpouch For a partial list of scientists who DARE to question the THEORY of Global Warming, go to wikipedia and search "scientist opposed to global warming theory". I know they don't have the credentials of Tom Freidman, but they are scientists.
drummer4theperish 2 months ago
@drummer4theperish examine the claims of your article on wikipedia more closely. For a start on the page reads: 97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. And that the page itself: 'It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.' this usually implies that there is an unfounded bias towards the claims in the article i.e. no credible peer reviewed source. Just click on some of the scientists. they dont disagree.
pawpouch 2 months ago
MM global warming is a scam. A 2 year old child can understand that.
partyhouse88 1 year ago
Friedman is not qualified to comment on climate change. Dr. Fred Singer, a highly respected scientist (atmospheric physicist) and Nobel Prize winner, challenges the findings of the IPCC along with more than 30,000 scientists that have petitioned against CO2 effect on climate change. Climate change has been going on for more than 4 billion years. The last high water mark in the geologic record is 300 feet above the present sea level. Start moving coastal cities.
rsm6912 1 year ago
@rsm6912 Dr. Fred Singer is not a highly respected scientist. In the past he supported the industry in telling the public smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, sulphur dioxide from coal power stations doesn't cause acid rain and man's production of CFC's weren't destroying the ozone layer.
Richard482 1 year ago
copenhagen marks the end of western europe as an important player. they were not able to deliver on their big idea of "climate change" what can they deliver on.
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
Face + Palm = My face
ridjf 1 year ago
There are experts on both sides of the field fighting it out, there is no climate change concordance; it's scary to see scientists forcing this climate change down the public's throat.
judasiscariot3 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING? LOL!!!
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
HOT OFF THE PRESS - 4/10/10
See the latest delightful YouTube from greenman3610
Debunking LORD MONCKTON Part 1
/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
goog2k 1 year ago
Who the hell cares if global warming is a "hoax." what the fuck is wrong with going green, having nice parks and forests for our kids to go play in, developing alternative fuels and energy to reduce the costs to fill up a car, or have cheaper power bills? Even if you don't support global warming, it makes no sense why you would be against developing more efficient environmental developments
SuperInfective 1 year ago
no one minds those things in and of themselves. But when there forced down our throats dispite the costs and consequences, we have a problem. Forcing people to go green can have serious economic reprocussions. If you want to make people go green, make green cheaper.
By the looks of it, it might be anyways. so sit back and let whoever wins win.
cha05kn1ght 1 year ago
You've got NOTHING to complain about environmentalism being "shoved" down anyone's throat. Only delusional insane subhuman shitheads who deserve to have blowtorches shoved down their mouths believe otherwise.
It's ALWAYS been the extremist consumptionists who force THEIR way of life on others.
When you pay back the people of Ecuador for all the poisons Texaco has dumped on them, only THEN can you claim you are not forcing your lifestyle on others.
Until then, all your complaints = 0.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
do you enjoy sounding extreme yourself? not to mention angry. >.>
cha05kn1ght 1 year ago
@cha05kn1ght As always, you're completely twisted from the truth. You've got absolutely no right to complain about environmentalism being forced down anyone's throat. It never has been. Instead, coal, nuclear & gas are forced down people's throats, who want to have energy careers in solar, wind & geothermal. 25 miners died in W Va because the coal industry forces ITS industry on the whole state.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x I've got no right to complain? good thing your not the one who decides my rights. Look, if you like environmentalism so much that's fine. I dont mind it myself. But it deserves just as much skeptecism (spelling bad sorry) as anything else. And no one's occupation is "forced" on them. Not in this country.
cha05kn1ght 1 year ago
@cha05kn1ght And nobody is "forcing" environmentalism on anyone. To the contrary, polluters & those who want unlimited wealth force their lifestyle and pollution from ALL its effects on those of us who are poor and try to do what we can to reduce pollution & greenhouse gases.
duck24x 1 year ago
To all the deniers: until you go back in time and vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney, & vote to legalize marijuana and freedom of choice of private affairs such as drugs & porn (and not just guns, but those too), and send a bomb to kill Patriot Act GW Bush & Cheney (& asshole Gore for torturing animals with the LD50 test by the EPA) - and free all the prisoners in the USA..
- non-human, too! - don't you DARE complain about a trivial loss of freedom for environmental protection.
duck24x 1 year ago
LMAO your the worst kind of extremist.
cha05kn1ght 1 year ago
LOL you're an America-hating unpatriotic coward, just like your fucking lover-boy Obama. You said absolutely NOTHING to stop the Iraq War for oil. You want to drill for oil & gas everywhere. Yet you hypocritically oppose war to save the environment. You're the extremist.
Blow up and kill everyone who votes for a Demopub. Anyone who does so is a hero and makes tough choices.
duck24x 1 year ago
Comment removed
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 1 year ago
Honestly, this is hardly a slam at all. He's being very diplomatic here.
Arconna 1 year ago
This reminds me of something that happened in elementary school, years ago. Someone stole my money, and he then accused me of stealing his when it was raised with a teacher.
This Friedman fellow is doing the same thing. He's trying to debunk climate change deniers to save himself, and the countless other AGW cronies.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
He's hardly even doing that much. The problem is that anti-GW people don't have much in terms of scientific evidence to support their claims. All they can logical argue based on what evidence we have is that humans are not the primary reason for the adjustment in the climate. We most certainly are influencing the climate, though. Personally, I think we're just a piece of a larger puzzle. I suspect climate will change regardless. We should just prepare ourselves accordingly.
Arconna 1 year ago
I would reccomend that you read the scientific paper "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" written by Arhut B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon - All 3 are scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
That, and the all-famous paper written by Lindzen and Choi.
Peer reviewed, peer peer reviewed, peer peer peer reviewed, its all there.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
I just might do that. But what do you do with the mountains of peer reviewed papers that support GW? I haven't read the papers you've mentioned, but I'll look them up. I'll reserve judgment until then, because that's the sensible thing to do.
Arconna 1 year ago
Yes, I know about the "mountains of papers". This might come out rather cliche, but the few real scientists that write those papers are paid to, to push the idea forward to the sheeple in schools, infront of the television or listening to the radio. It sucked me in once, too. You could also read Christopher Monckton's articles or watch some of his documentaries.
I reserved judgement myself. until I did something useful and researched.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
You'd need proof for that. Because that's a hell of a lot of people being paid off. Where does the money come from? To what end? What do they serve to gain from forcing us to make changes we'll have to make anyway? Oil is unsustainable, for example. Eventually we're going to have to replace it with something better (electric, most likely). We probably shouldn't be dumping shit in the ocean or mowing down rainforests or dropping waste and garbage into the air or nature anyway, GW or not.
Arconna 1 year ago
How can humans have ANYTHING to do with climate change? Are you completely forgetting about the medieval warm period, or any other warm period for that matter that occurred before the industrial revolution? I mean, back in the day of the Vikings, Greenland was actually green. Humanity flourished and prospered during these warm periods. Not to mention the fact that the temperature is currently decreasing, though I don't expect the IPCC to show you that on FOX or CNN >_>
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
Yes, I'm aware of the natural cycles of the Earth. That doesn't mean that humans can't influence natural cycles. We screw up the planet on a regular basis. Take, for instance, our influence on the oxygen levels in the ocean.
Arconna 1 year ago
Humans have nothing to do with oxygen levels in the ocean.
The climate of the planet is one of the most chaotic and unpredictable systems/processes on the planet. Its hard enough to say what it will do next, but its even harder to say that us humans have anything to do with its fluctuations. If we did, using your logic, medieval warm periods would never have existed. The earth would have started out as a frozen ball of ice, and would gradually melt as the population of humanity grew.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
I think you seriously underestimate humanity. And unless you're saying that thousands upon thousands of scientists are all liars (and you'd have to provide evidence for that), there's really no way you can logical deny that humans have, at the very least, a noticeable, though not necessarily catastrophic impact on this planet. Entire ecosystems have been destroyed by us, and I'm not talking about GW. I'm talking in general.
Arconna 1 year ago
And I think you seriously overestimate humanity. YOu and I both know that I can't speak for every individual scientist on the planet - I am just telling you what I have learned for my research. I do know that a fair few scientists have actually admitted to such "bribes". I strongly suggest you read the papers I suggested. By read, I actually mean read - not just a quick glance and letting it go over the top of your head. Or you can visit scienceandpublicpolicy(.)org and read Monckton's articles.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
I live in Florida. I don't overestimate the damage humanity can do to the environment. Stupidity alone destroys ecosystems, let alone negligence...
There's enough research on what humanity has done to the environment just in the last 20 years to fill a university library. Which is why I don't buy into the argument that GWers as a whole serve to gain something. Individuals, maybe, but the movement itself, there's a gap in logic there.
Arconna 1 year ago
@Arconna You refer to some research in your garbled post. Please list out the research to which you refer. Include the author, title and date of publication. Please note that tabloid articles do not count.
ChristianYorke 1 year ago
@ChristianYorke You're kidding right? Have you been watching the news over the last 20 years? Oil spills, deforestation, and so on. All influence the environment and, in some cases, destroy or alter (almost the same in the context of biological diversity) ecosystems. This isn't rocket science.
Arconna 1 year ago
Its not really that large a number. The group of scientists that disagree with AGW is larger than the ones that do. The money comes from the government, which comes from taxpayers like you and I. To what end? Greed, power, control. The usual. The usual reasons people want money. Dropping "garbage" has nothing to do with global warming. Trees grow back. There have always been enough trees, and always will be trees, to absorb what pathetic amounts of CO2 us humans emit and give back oxygen.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
I would reccomend that you read the scientific paper "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" written by Arhut B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon - All 3 are scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
That, and the all-famous paper written by Lindzen and Choi.
Peer reviewed, peer peer reviewed, peer peer peer reviewed, its all there.
NoThankYouNWO 1 year ago
The only climate about to change is the economic one. Wave goodbye to any chance of developing countries moving into the 21st century. What next taxes on Human Oxygen consumption, WAKE UP!!!
darranbc 1 year ago
i wonder how much friedman is payed to extol china week after week
twotimesalady 1 year ago
Tom Friedman: As wrong on climate change as he is on the Middle East.
A retard leftist apologist to the bone.
DeathToAllReligions 1 year ago
Say, your name is 'Death To All Religions' in clear wrtite, but you hate on scientists and the so called leftists.
Would you then be a 'right-wing' nihilist?
And to Friedmans statements:
There is no absolute truth in science. That what is the difference to religions, they say, we are absolutely right, and thats it.
He is closing in on the 100% of the truth in the case of climate chance and its reasons.
Bring your arguments to the table.
H3rb3rtW3hn3r 1 year ago
Two great interviews with Lord Monckton and Thomas Friedman, after the CRU email leak can we believe any thing on global warming. I would like to point out that they now call it 'climate change' not 'global warming' is this because they know that they [the IPCC] may be wrong?
iansummerell 1 year ago
Comment removed
AtheistrEvolutionist 1 year ago
i wish the fossil fuel industry would send me a check in the mail
skepticism is pollution
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
Well said, it would be a very big cheque !
1BustedMyth 2 years ago
This guy is a moron and is using the cooked sayings of the EU to lie to the people, this guy needs to shut the hell up and get the hell out. Also notice he called the people who don't believe in this Climate Change thing as Deniers which has negative connotations attatched. Notice it changed from GLOBAL WARMING TO CLIMATE CHANGE, these people are basically calling us to stupid to see though their facade and blatantly change the entire Schemes name overnight since the Globe is actually COOLING,
illmagnified 2 years ago
i want to get my green taxes back
Lord Monclton should be the KING OF ENGLAND....LOL....Yeah
Long Live Lord Monckton!!!
Long Live Lord Monckton!!!
Im now a royalist no more democrat or republican.
YEP...Royalty Rocks!!
eufavourite 2 years ago 2
@2:10 you can see in his eyes he's lying.
Lazydogtv 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 2 years ago
I used to think Tom Friedman was a level headed guy but I have lost all respect for him.
jerho7 2 years ago
Every who believes in climate change should walk around naked, eat their pets, kill their children and then commit suicide to protect mother earth.
flexorder 2 years ago
this guy is breathing, he's contributing to climate change. plus he's a a bit of a pig slop so he takes up more space, damn, a double offender. he prob eats more than the normal person, thereby emitting gaseous fumes that contribute to the degradation of the environment, this guy is a walking/talking contradiction
jvforever72 2 years ago
he said " built their case on the science" The fake falsified deleted data is science?
wilbert1755 2 years ago
Almost no one is seriously skeptical of global warming. Its skepticism of man made carbon pollution as the cause of the warming, that is at issue.
abirdnamedcat 2 years ago
abirdnamedcat "Almost no one is seriously skeptical of global warming"
That's bullshit, it's just that the skeptics' arguments shift and morph. Here's how it works:-
Position 1. There is no global warming (or there was GW but it stopped just now).
When this position becomes untenable we have:
Position 2. Well OK there is global warming, but it's because of the sun or something, not carbon.
Final fall back is:
Position 3. OK we do cause GW but it's too late to do anything about it, game over!
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5: The environment aside, given that fractional reserve banking is a fraud and that the governments of the world are now almost completely dominated by the central banking interests who have aims at world government; don't you think that it is fairly obvious that the climate is being used to create a central taxing body controlled by these same interests?
VoteLib3rty 2 years ago
Yes, it is also obvious that the 'crisis' is a Trojan horse for corporate neo-monarchy. But really, there was a time not so long ago that we could ice skate from one end of Holland to the other in winter. Now,, the puddles hardly ever freeze. The Ski slopes need snow making machines and even then its slush by noon and ice in the mornings.. sigh. Open your eyes. Where is the snow?
abirdnamedcat 2 years ago
@abirdnamedcat: I don't think anyone doubts that the climate is changing. I live where there were once glaciers and I'm fairly confident man had nothing to do with it. We all want to pollute less and take care of the earth. The opposition is to climate profiteers and radical political exploitation. The same people that own the most environmentally damaging corporations are the central banking elite that are also fund the environmental movements. Confusing? Not if you know their agenda.
VoteLib3rty 2 years ago
What I said: A Trojan horse for 'Corporate Neo-Monarchy' .
abirdnamedcat 2 years ago
@abirdnamedcat
Well atm there is snow blocking my car in the driveway. First time in a long while it's snowed this much, does that prove anything? No.
XxxxxAvatarxxxxX 2 years ago
@VoteLib3rty.
The way to form an opinion on climate change is to look at the scientific evidence.
The way to encourage paranoid delusions is to follow conspiracy theories.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5: I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone doubts climate change. As I said in an earlier post, I live where there were once glaciers: in the middle of the United States.
Paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories? I'm amazed by your power to deny the obvious. You clearly lack an fundamental understanding of the fraud behind our fractional reserve lending system, fiat currencies and our central banking oligarchs. Start there before you tackle "climate change".
VoteLib3rty 2 years ago
@VoteLib3rty: You certainly did miss it. The internet is awash with people who deny the climate is warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. Of those best able to evaluate the evidence - working and publishing climatologists - 97% think "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".
tigger. uic. edu /~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Perhaps if they took more interest in banking they'd see things as clearly as you do. But alas they're scientists.
cristop5 2 years ago
GLOBAL WARMING is a BANKER SCAM to consolidate control and under a One World Govt and return to the world's populace to feudal slavery.
And if you dont have an inkling of that - your asleep with a brain full of mainstream mindcontrol media
2JOHNNYT 2 years ago
OMG your right! This non-binding international treaty will be the end of us all!!!!! The BAnkers have set up GIANT hair dryers at glaciers around the world just to brainwash you in to paying more taxes, because we pay taxes to the bank...right?
WTF?
verstwo2 2 years ago
Back in the pen with the rest of the sheep until you learn to think for yourself, now get!
2JOHNNYT 2 years ago
yes, lets call those who disagree with our position names so we can comfortably ignore them and get on with the important business of ignoring scientific facts.
verstwo2 2 years ago
If you havent noticed that CLIMATE GATE emails EXPOSED the FAKE SCIENCE - I tend to ignore scam science - choose to stay a zombie my friend
2JOHNNYT 2 years ago
@2JOHNNYT
Actually the e-mails did no such thing. They show discussions by scientists about trends and their opinions, but NOTHING in the e-mails showed deception of any sort.
I have read a good portion of the e-mails, it is clear you have read nothing of them.
kajabla1961 2 years ago 2
No actually they did, and why did they DUMP all the research - bec it didnt support warming - but I'm sure you'll have another excuse for that too - another mass media mind controlled zombie supporting THE MAN as he leads you to your death for profit - back in the pen with the rest of the sheep who do not use their minds for themselves
2JOHNNYT 2 years ago
what research got dumped? i loose data all the time that doesn't mea i wrote the wrong essay. again, what research got dumped? where is the deception in the emails? did you read the emails, or are you just a blind sheep for the political right and big brother corporations that throw pollutants in the air. your kind of people are proved wrong time and time again and you still insist on finding things contrery to scientific consensus.
LuminousTruth 2 years ago
Yeah, I've read a lot of them. The content of the e-mails is benign. The quotes on TV are cherry picked. The bit about "trick" to "hide the decline" is in reference to the relevance of tree ring data. (As a botanist, this growth anomaly really interests me.)
The public are partisan unspecialized loudmouths who can't distinguish media pandering from actual science, because they're science illiterate. Their consistent "conspiracy" arguments from ignorance, or from the gaps, are getting old.
abyssquick 2 years ago 2
@abyssquick People never seem to read that quote very correctly.. Wasn't the "trick" to add in the REAL temps to hide the decline (ahem, a decline that didn't actually exist..).
watercup123456 1 year ago
@watercup123456 Just humour me. What was the term 'hide the decline' referring to? Because it wasn't temperature
Richard482 1 year ago
@lyingmoron Um, actually, IF YOU READ THE QUOTE, you can clearly see IT WAS REFERRING TO TEMPERATURE:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of ADDING IN THE _REAL TEMPS_ to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
The "trick" refers to a paper published in the journal NATURE by Mike in 1998 that solves a problem regarding divergent (faulty) tree ring data.
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_737520
watercup123456 1 year ago
@Richard482 When Mann says he is using the REAL TEMPS to hide the decline, he is doing just that; he is using the REAL temperature data to hide a decline in temperature seen in tree ring data THAT DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE TREE RING DATA IS FAULTY, FLAWED, WRONG, INCORRECT!
The REAL conspiracy is how rethuglicon conservaloon liars are making money off raping the planet at everyone's expense while denying scientific fact and using the media to fabricate news to fool gullible morons like you ;)
watercup123456 1 year ago
Another: watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=related
watercup123456 1 year ago
@watercup123456 I've seen that before. Its another excellent video by Peter Hadfield. Both his video and Greenman3610's which you posted states the decline was refering to tree ring data and not global temperatures as those conspiracy theorists thought. I'll send you a link which explains what scientists think caused the 'decline'. What scientific fact are you talking about?
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482 Right, the decline refers to tree ring temperature data, which shows a decline (which isn't actually happening if you look at other data sets).
... The fact of global warming I was pretty sure?
watercup123456 1 year ago
It's really just a shit show of confirmation bias for them. Critical thinking, and literacy in the subjects of the e-mails' discussion, is irrelevant. The public doesn't want to know. They function on the emotionality of their political disdain by whoever they didn't vote for. Anything they disagree with becomes a "conspiracy" by whomever they didn't vote for.
Partisan stupidity, utter lack of individual intellectual autononmy, depth, & coherence, is putting the US in a state of atrophy.
abyssquick 2 years ago 7
@abyssquick Excellently said.
bcn533 1 year ago
You obviously have not read the transcripts in their entirety or even the specific e-mails quoted ad nauseum on opinion shows in any sort of context.
Enjoy your ignorance. Sheep.
Crackadackas 2 years ago
What the hell is up with Fora stirring up the hornets nest with titles like, "Slams climate skeptics". Or wait, is that Fora's stance? I might have to take them off the subscription list.
I have a ZERO tolerance for skeptics and their glanced over excuses. The best one is "it still gets cold in the winter". LMFAO!!! If only you had any clue what you were objecting to.
VAR1UM 2 years ago
The Best one is " It still get warm in summer" LMFAO!!!
wilbert1755 2 years ago
thats just... fucking retarded.
VAR1UM 2 years ago
Thank you. Were all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.
wilbert1755 2 years ago
Obviously.
VAR1UM 2 years ago
Another pointless!
wilbert1755 2 years ago
Ditto ;)
VAR1UM 2 years ago
"I believe climate change is real"
Ok, good for you.
rudenoodle 2 years ago
another climate douchebag..
new science suggests cosmic rays forming low level clouds is a major factor. that makes more sense than the crap these eggheads spout.
i guess dinosaur farts ended the ice ages.
see a great documentary called
The Cloud Mystery its available on youtube.
llshamelessll 2 years ago
Yes, but this cosmic-rays-seed-clouds hypothesis has never been shown. It is not accepted in science as it has not been observed or repeated. It's based on one paper that was heavily criticized.
abyssquick 2 years ago
All wrong Mr. friedman, ( except the opening and the ending remark, almost simmilar to your book's opening and ending chapters)
Manjo1981 2 years ago
"Global Warming" is a red herring being used to scare people into paying a global tax to a global government. There ARE serious environmental problems (the trash swirl in the Pacific comes to mind), but as long as people are divided into left and right - with the right sticking their heads in the sand making believe there's no problem, and the left going off to slay imaginary dragons - nothing will be done.
mule1969 2 years ago 2
Great video. It is sadly true that the floor has been ceded to skeptics and deniers who crave attention. Uneducated pawns parrot "facts" that are not facts. How often do the canards of the deniers have to be refuted?
Even here some idiot is claiming the sun is causing the recent warming, unaware and uninterested in the fact that solar forcing has been waning since 1985!
cristop5 2 years ago
The earth is 4.8 billion years old. And only the last 200 years we have measured the temperature on Earth. Therefore we have no idea what the global climate will do in the future.
Abkebab 2 years ago
Huh? How come we know about the mini ice age and the medieval warming period, then? We do research on core samples where temperature fluctuations leave behind evidence.
eirefrance 2 years ago
I would have liked to emigrate in GreenLand to cultivate grapewine there. Sadly Italy is in the grip of the coldest temperatures in 84 years, here I have minus 20 centigrades. I guess in Greenland is not going better.
italianchappy 2 years ago
@italianchappy
The interesting thing about cold snaps is that they are firm evidence that global warming is not happening.
Heat waves on the other hand must never be taken as evidence that global warming is happening.
If the deniers have taught me one thing, this is it!
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5
I'm a supporter of global warming, but I'm against any CO2 international agreements. IF there is a global warming the best thing against it is globalwarming itself. It would be a good thing to let the many pollutant towns on the costs be submerged and leave them for new ecological towns in nowadays cold places (we're going to save Venice only, because it's beautiful. All the other ones can sink, obviously). Nothing new in history. Greenland was a green land, and it can be it again
italianchappy 2 years ago
@italianchappy
So you see the flooding of coastal towns and the displacement of hundreds of millions of people as preferable to a carbon tax.
You must be REALLY scared of a carbon tax.
cristop5 2 years ago
@cristop5
Don't exagerate with these hundreds millions of people displacement, please. We don't need all that people safe. To save half of them is more than sufficient. Think of the CO2 saved.
italianchappy 2 years ago
Loaded title.
LlortnA 2 years ago
This guy is deluded and an idiot !
stopchemtrails 2 years ago
2 Questions.. who is in charge of stopping the pendulum from going too far the other way once all this stuff is implemented? And why is today's temp perfect when it's been all over the map for millions of years?
joetaylors 2 years ago
@joetaylors, if all this stuff is implemented, the Earth's temp will still go up, just not as much and not as fast as otherwise, so don't worry. And no one is claiming that today's temp is perfect, only that, if human activity is left unchecked and we keep producing CO2 and cutting down forests, changes that normally take thousands of years will happen in dozens of years, given us little time to react, wrecking hundreds of millions of lives, and destroying entire ecosystems.
frankroto 2 years ago
@ Chimpanchu
People will take you more seriously if you back your statements up instead of spewing out wild assertions.
Khronofox 2 years ago
Fora teeVEE! The world is melting.
NeedsEvidence 2 years ago
I'm an anthropogenic climate change skeptic.
I think that limiting human CO2 output would kill and impoverish more poor people than letting it continue.
freesk8 2 years ago
Friedman is also a guy who has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he wishes we could have a autocracy like the Chinese 'for a day' so we could solve our societies problems. The worst part is that he's no towering intellect. If you've read "The World is Flat", you'll quickly understand that he considers peeling back his own ignorance of global economics and commerce a revelation for all to bask in, and then goes on for about 5 times as long as he needs to about what he's learned.Fuck him
glennd7962 2 years ago
blaah blaah , i bet toms mum was sick of all his lying when he was a kid,
tonythatjesusloves 2 years ago
@pizzaboyserious the crap is being spread by far right wing pro corp lobbyists like Ron Paul. He poses as some kind of liberator while pushing the nastiest corp agendas.
Anti welfare, for more inequality, conspiracy theory, ranting populist hate against liberals and academics.
He is the worst corp stooge in America turn on the creep.
He is the Bush b team, he IS the oil lobby.
marsCubed 2 years ago
Man, you got that right!
seamoremonster 2 years ago
Friedman is a liar and a corporate shill. In reality, Big Oil is funding the misanthropic global warming cult, and the pseudo-scientists and quackademics who provide a veneer of scientific support for it.
offsprng46 2 years ago
"Big Oil is funding the misanthropic global warming cult"
Wow, this is the most disturbing case of brainwashed cognitive dissonance I've seen in this debate so far.
Naskeleng 2 years ago
@Naskeleng
i take it you've never been to america.
Kafka1479 2 years ago
ROFL!
seamoremonster 2 years ago
Global warming deniers all have one thing in common. They are all religious nuts who still think the earth is flat. What a joke that these people want to keep man from progressing.
burntonion05 2 years ago 3
you are so wrong. The science is lacking. It also pisses me off that all the people who support global warming want global Government. I want freedom and the Constitution.
satinbarbi 2 years ago
You are a dilusional American who thinks that your flag will save your ass from global warming and I say if you really love your country then join the military and prove it. Either that or stfu moron constitutionalist flag hag
burntonion05 2 years ago 3
NIce!
Roonskii 2 years ago
Unfortunately, that is not always true. Often they are (and often they are "NWO" conspiracy theorists - think shadow governments and reptilian aliens) but not all are religious. I know a few who are nonreligious, yet still deluded on this issue.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
Actually, it's the misanthropic Green/Warmist cult who want to halt all human progress. This is especially apparent when we see how virulently opposed they are to nuclear power, despite the fact that it's the only zero-carbon alternative which has been proven to work on a large scale (i.e., France).
Oh, and by the way, I'm a politically left-of-center atheist, and I see through the AGW fraud. So, your attempted slander is teh fail.
offsprng46 2 years ago
You are only lying to yourself with this statement. Why don't you come clean and admit the truth?
burntonion05 2 years ago
burntonion05,
You're a joke. We're all slightly stupider for reading your garbage. Next time you have another brainy opinion, keep it to yourself.
Is Lord Monckton a religious nut? Did he not make a set of reasoned arguments which didn't reference any religious texts?
Keep making your brash over-generalizations - I hear it's cool to be a lying douche bag.
ok123jump 2 years ago
I will see you in church homer
burntonion05 2 years ago
On the contrary Global warming alarmist are religious zealot nuts! Global warming has turned into a religion masses of sheeps believe in it without question. It makes them feel like "the good guy"!?
This whole global warming scare was cooked up by Ken Lay and Al Gore to make big bucks from carbon tax! University East Anglia the no #1 global warming "research" centre, cooked the data to make the globe looks like warming up when in reality Earth had been cooling in the past 10 years!
chimpanchu 2 years ago
"Real scientists tend to focus on the 10% that they don't know rather than the 90% that they do know."
Mr. Friedman, you're absolutely incorrect. By that logic, we should still think that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects and that all light propagates through luminiferous ether.
You couldn't be more incorrect and should be ashamed of yourself for taking that perspective. The highest achievement of science is the ability to be skeptical towards ALL claims. Consensus is nonsense.
ok123jump 2 years ago
No he said that "Scientists tend to focus on what they don't know instead of what they do, so they tend to focus on the 10% that is still UNCERTAIN as uposed to the 80%-90% that is CERTAIN."
You're argument would be correct if your quote wasn't taken out of context. Scientists do progress into more complex ideas and hypothesises but only after they are completely sure that they have a (good) understanding of the topic at hand
AndrewKulcsar 2 years ago
AndrewKulcsar,
This quote was not taken out of context, Mr. Friedman continued that "skeptics" have taken issue with the details that are CERTAIN to "scientists" implying that these CERTAIN details are considered fact. Absurdly untrue.
The fundamental basis of science is that every conclusion is tentative - thus, opposing views are THE most important aspect of science, they cause it to self-correct and find truth. Claiming we should "look beyond" this fundamental necessity is ludicrous.
ok123jump 2 years ago
"Not put restraints on our selves?" I'm sure this whole fiasco is so that YOU could put restraints on us.
Global warming will happen regardless. I'm sorry, matter of fact I don't even like calling it "global warming." The more correct term is "oceanic warming."
What bullshit. I'm unsubscribing from "Florda"TV. ;-)
innerJAG 2 years ago
The only good point he made was that it's better to lead by example.
The fact is these scientists have not conclusively proven jack squat. We know data & the presentation of data has been manipulated. We know many of these 'scientists' have financial incentive to reach biased conclusions. Governments have the potential to vastly expand their power due to this movement. They vilify non-believers just like most monotheistic religions. We're too intelligent to fall for this crap.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
While you are busy trying to concoct a theory as to why people are telling us about global warming, I have something that needs your attention.
WAKE UP! THE ARCTIC ICECAP IS MELTING!
Thought you might need a reality check there.
/watch?v=r2RGQfmLl4E
cristop5 2 years ago
So what? In the movie it clearly said we only have 30 years of satellite data on sea ice. So you cannot make any conclusion that man has caused this decrease in ice coverage. You cannot prove that this is not a natural trend. Plus while the northern hemisphere ice decreases, the southern hemisphere ice increases. They brushed over that finding. This is not enough evidence to conclude a major natural disaster. I'm sorry. That takes a leap of faith. Just like a religious belief in judgement day.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
@truthadvocate
Sure the antarctic ice cover is changing, but for different reasons - e.g. loss of ozone, and warmer seas causing more snowfall.
It's hard to 'prove' anything in science without running an experiment. That's a bit tricky when you're dealing with a planetary climate system. So waiting for 'proof'' rather than attempting to manage a potentially disastrous risk is really, really stupid.
cristop5 2 years ago
So it's a guess. That's the reason you are disrupting the lives of billions of people, giving dangerous power to corrupt leaders around the world to control our lives, to steal from companies to give to other companies of their choosing? That's the reason you drag down the economy hurting the poor more than anyone else? That's the reason you allow governments to financially influence science? For a guess? An ice age would be far more devastating. Why not manage that risk?
truthadvocate 2 years ago
truthadvocate.
By dismissing all the evidence for man made global warming as a "guess" you are choosing to be extremely obtuse. Apparently in your world view the science is either completely sewn up in all respects, or it's a "guess".
The idiocy of your position is self evident.
The "ice age" bit is the icing on the cake!
cristop5 2 years ago
actually your strwmanning the fuck out of this. Ice core samples can track long term ice records. The conclusion of man made cause is partially deductive (there is no know natural cause). Only a portion of antarctic ice is increasing, but there is a net decrease. They brush over this 'findings' because their a trivial and beside the point. Nowhere are these finding 'denied' (like the climate change deniers do) but explained in the context of the overwhelming amount of other evidence.
verstwo2 2 years ago
I know about ice core samples. I've heard many scientists claim that these ice core samples show that trends in CO2 lag 800 years after trends in temperature. In these comments we were referring to the size of the arctic ice sheet. I've never heard about any ice core sample study that addressed that issue. My argument is not that the climate isn't changing. It has always been changing. I just don't think we have developed an accurate way to predict the future. And I don't bow to scare tactics.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
It is because the Arctic ice sheet is a floating sheet and in constant movement . The Summer ice portion will melt in " surprise" Summer . Some summer more will melt depending on ocean current wind and temperature and sometime less melting depending on same factors. Why no ice core can be taken to show a long term ice records. Unless of course if you work for the UK MET Office you can make data fit anything by tweaking the data. :-)
wilbert1755 2 years ago
truthadvocate. Your readiness to believe all and any of the bullshit pumped out by deniers belies your tag.
Believe it or not people who study the climate are aware of the 800 year lag you have just discovered. On the off chance you would like to learn more:
/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
cristop5 2 years ago
I watched it. The label "climate denier" is misleading. Who's denying the climate? I'm a skeptic. This issue is far too politically & financially charged for you or I to know who to trust.
If I have made a false statement then quote it.
The movie you sent me to, supported my statement, that scientists claim trends in CO2 lag behind trends in temp. You may know better, but many activists did claim that CO2 raised temp, so the lag time is not a strawman. It's another piece of the puzzle.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
@truthadvocate
Perhaps you didn't notice, but you had been sold the lie that because temperature led carbon at Termination III, carbon cannot cause warming.
You were lied to about this, and along with millions of deniers/skeptics you parroted it without being 'skeptical' of it.
Q. Why no skepticism here?
A. Because your skepticism only applies to one side of the issue.
Q. Which side?
A. The side pre-ordained by your politics.
Q. Why not the science?
A. That's all about guessing apparently.
cristop5 2 years ago
I said "I've heard many scientists claim..." that doesn't mean I blindly trust them. I'm skeptical of every study on climate change. I don't trust the data, the theories, the conclusions. I find them interesting. But I don't parrot anything like the debate is over. GW activists do that. My most emphatic statements were, "I just don't think we have developed an accurate way to predict the future." "This issue is far too politically & financially charged for you or I to know who to trust."
truthadvocate 2 years ago
truthadvocate. The issue only became politically charged over the last several years due to the efforts of 'think tanks' like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute, both funded by ExxonMobil.
There IS genuine dissent, but when you hear canards like the one about temperature leading carbon, you are NOT listening to a researcher. The people who lifted this one aspect of Caillon's paper out of context are propagandists. Those like you who then parrot it are pawns.
cristop5 2 years ago
If I was Exxon Mobile I'd spend some money to defend myself from big government zealots like you too. So you admit that a corporation can create bias in the debate through funding. Not to mention lobbying. Why is it so hard for you to consider that these studies are also influenced by corporations and investors with millions to gain from a pro-man-made-climate-change conclusion? How many hundreds of millions of dollars is Al Gore worth today? I can't keep track.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
@truthadvocate There is no question that Exxon has funded deniers. The Royal Society took the unprecedented step of asking Exxon to stop funding groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". Google it.
You have no evidence of climate science being funded by solar panel manufacturers. Earlier you seemed to think GW and an ice age were equally probable!!
If ever there are two possibilities, you seem to think they must deserve equal credibility!
cristop5 2 years ago