These Bullshit models try to blame CO2 for all this HEAT THAT COMES FROM THE SUN. So first obviously the Sun controls temperature. Secondly where do you account for the temperature increase what all the waste heat created by your electronics and transportation vehicles on the entire Earth?
@akirafactor Sun controls temp and so does CO2. The waste heat from every piece of technology on earth is extremely minor and has almost not effect on global temperatures, maybe some urban heat islands but not much else. For example, every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year. CO2 act like a blanket over the earth trapping that energy in the form of heat. So Solar activity and CO2 are the two main forcers. Hope that helps
@thesparitan The CO2 blanket comment is completely false. The Earth is surrounded by outer space aka a vacuum which is a perfect insulator. What would it matter what kind of gas was around the Earth?
@akirafactor No, actually the vacuum ins't a perfect insulator. Here is why, there are three different kinds of ways heat is transferred, radiation, conduction and convection. Lets ignore convection for now. While a vacuum is a perfect insulator against conduction, it does nothing to prevent radiation. CO2 traps a larger spectrum of light waves and therefore picks up more of the radiation that would leave into space. Even scientist that are skeptical of global warming agree that is a fact
@thesparitan 2% of the atmosphere picking-up a tiny bit more heat from sunlight. That is an absurdly weak reason over the 70% nitrogen in our atmosphere.
@akirafactor Nitrogen isn't an effective conductor of heat radiation as far as I know. So it doesn't have much effect. The % are very small and it is shocking that a few minor changes can effect such big changes, but we are only talking about a few degrees at the most extreme. Just goes to show how fragile the earths climate really is. Earth's climate is balance on a razors edge at the best of times. Just a drop of some poisons can kill a grown man, small things can have big effects.
@akirafactor ..OK but you didn't even address my arguments. CO2 does trap heat, that is a fact of the universe. I don't actually know of a scientist alive that would disagree with that statement, even lord Monckton agrees with that fact. The earth did have higher CO2 levels before and it was far hotter before. If present day return to CO2 levels of the jurassic the effect would be catastrophic. The largest extinction in earths history was from climate change.
@akirafactor "I find the entire CO2 argument absurd."
Why? Do you have any argument or reason to think it absurd? Have I not been reasonable and rational and addressed every question and argument you had with facts? Please tell me where I went wrong but don't just say "well I just think it is absurd"
How is that logical? Climate change is happening, the real debate is what to do about it.
@akirafactor "I find the entire CO2 argument absurd."
What do you find absurd? Everything I said can be fact check. If I said something wrong why don't you explain it. Or do you find my argument absurd because it disagrees with your conclusion? Prove me wrong, if can.
Propaganda - he can't help it. Any proof of man made global warming yet? Are there any negative feedbacks in the climate system? or are they just not telling . The ignorance lies in this poor effort at propaganda. Meanwhile the Planet cools as the Sun enters a Grand Solar Minimum.
"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get—and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data." E-mail from Climategate II
@MrFreeLibertarian What does that even prove and how do we know that was in the emails and not something someone made up? I cannot seem to find is origin or source the quote. Besides it doesn't refute anything even if it is true. There cannot be a massive conspiracy between 100,000s of people across the world and every major university on planet earth. That is insanity to think they could even do that.
@thesparitan It's not a conspiracy. It's a combination of groupthink and too many scientists being dependent on government grants. AGW is a theory. It's fine to have a theory, but it's not fine to say "the debate is over" when the debate hasn't even begun yet. The fact is that more an more scientists are jumping off the bandwagon now and expressing their skepticism with the theory. Anybody who isn't skeptical about AGW is not truly interested in science and the scientific method.
@MrFreeLibertarian So you actually think that, well I guess there is nothing I could say to you to change your mind because that is just not the incentive structure in science. The amount of fame and reward for overturning global warming is so extreme that what you say just isn't possible. 97% of climate scientist have group think? Science isn't made by debate. There is a 95% chance that AGW is happening. Name these scientist that are jumping off the band wagon?
@MrFreeLibertarian I want you to read my last comment too but after you have I just want to point out that you are making the same argument that anti-evolutionist and holocaust deniers make. There is debate, its a case of group think, its the government. You have no facts or figures you back up your belief you are just rejecting the science based on ad hominem fallacy.
There is evidence and you choose to ignore it. I wish we could have a debate, but you wont let that happen.
The Himalayas have lost no ice in past 10 years. Yeah, "professional deniers" are the ones trying to create an illusion. lol Actually the "professional climate change propagandists" are the ones getting paid to produce findings favorable to politicians. This explains why, for example, at the same time we were being fed environmental extremism, China and India were exempted from Kyoto and useless carbon credits, designed to make Al Gore and his friends billionaires were being pushed on us.
I missed how we know that we can rule out sun activity. Why is temperature not driven by sun activity? That was the main point of "Global Warming Swindle."
@greenman3610 Why would it matter what kind the gas surrounds the Earth?
We are surrounded by outer space aka a vacuum which is a perfect insulator and means we basically we live in a clear thermos bottle floating in space.
@akirafactor "Why would it matter what kind the gas surrounds the Earth?"
Good question because it is a fascinating topic. It turns out that gases, like other forms of matter, trap heat differently. For example O2 is a poor conductor and doesn't hold heat very well but CO2, methane, and water vapor are great conductors of heat.
Actually if you were being chased by the predator and were surrounded by a cloud of CO2 you would be invisible, it works even better then mud Arnold had.
I admire your patience for having to debunk the same idiotic crap over and over from the flat-earther/climate deniers! I'd go insane in a week or so, hehe!
So the empirical data is that the ice core records show that C02 lags temperature by about 800 years and has been doing so for about 400 000 years. The reason as I understand it is the solubility pump of the oceans.
In the authors' "opinion" C02 "may" --> "fast atmospheric feedbacks" ie it's a guess, no doubt included to get the paper published. If this were true why didn't the previous C02 rises kick off a positive feedback cycle instead of falling after T falls?
weird. since Lindzen has made himself totally irrelevant. Just as he insists that tobacco isn't nearly so toxic as all those crazy doctors (who are trying to control you) say -
he also insists against the self evident real world data, that climate change is all made up by the dark forces of evil.
sorry. you have to come up with some extra forcing to get the full interglacial transition. fairy dust not allowed. see a walk thru of the calculation here
Just in case major climate change happens humans should be researching ways of "climate control" so that we can counteract threats to our climate when they arise. That's regardless of whether it is happening now or not. It is something civilization will need to know how to do. Humanity must master its environment including the climate.
Even if it is humans, humans are part of the ecosystem. What if the ecosystem has naturally built in mechanisms to correct for it that just haven't fully caught up yet? Many plants will clean the atmosphere of the extra CO2.
The primary concern should be "If the Earth is warming how much and what will the effects be and what can we do to respond or to cope?" Even if it were not caused by us then if it were serious enough it should behoove us to...
...debates it casts doubt on their claims to people who are trying to make up their minds. It raises the question "why do they feel the need to come off so strong? Are they afraid their facts are not good enough?"
If Global Warming was that bad then people wouldn't be denying it on purpose.
Which ever side is right it's likely the side that is wrong sincerely believes their position and is unaware of their self-interested motivations lying in their subconscious that is turning them away from accepting the evidence of the other side.
Using words like "deniers", "conspiracy" etc. are fighting words. We shouldn't use those words. Whoever is right should be nice. When people resort to rudeness in political...
@sicktoaster It's not a "political debate". That's what the deniers want to cast it as. It's a simple debate where science is on one side and people who for some reason want to deny the science are on the other side. A lot of the problem is that facts simply don't seem to be good enough because there's more than enough evidence for anthropogenic climate change, so to fight the deniers you have to call them what they are: Climate Change Deniers.
My question is Why does it matter enough to push the point?
When people deny anthropogenic climate change why not steer the debate to the obvious fact that even if they're right and we're not causing it it does NOT take away the fact that climate change is happening and so something has to be done and furthermore the fact that just for human survival it is a necessity that our species learn how to CONTROL the climate with technology.
...maybe real progress could be made. The government should be funding scientific research projects into how to control the Earth's climate. If we can control the climate we won't have to worry about human activities anymore, and both sides can be happy.
@sicktoaster Science says that humans are causing the increase in temperature so we know how to CONTROL it - stop doing the things that cause it to increase. That's the problem. Climate change deniers are exactly preventing the thing you want: the answer to how to control it relies directly on the root causes (or the forcings in climatespeak) so denying what science says is the cause means you're deliberately ignoring (as you put it) the necessity for human survival.
What about the far future? What if something pops up naturally? Science needs to figure out how to control the whole climate through technology. We should be able to get both sides on board with that and if we could speed research fast enough they could keep on releasing emissions and it wouldn't be a problem, because we'd know what to release into the atmosphere to counteract it.
We already know aerosols have a cooling effect, why not
@sicktoaster Yes, it could only control the current problem. I think that controlling a current problem with what you know is a pretty good plan. You can even keep researching on hypothetical future problems at the same time!
Your argument is like an alcoholic arguing he shouldn't stop drinking because someday they may figure out how to cure alcoholism AND let him keep being a drunk at the same time.
Why not release aerosols? They can have other effects, like acid rain.
Even if we should try to control the current problem there is limited political capital to make things happen with. It may be easier to get the government to spend more on researching ways for humans to directly control the climate than to try to get the government to do anything substantial about reducing emissions.
At 4:00, notice how the denier only wants to give him 15 seconds to explain something that obviously takes much longer. Typical "dumb it down and hear what you want to hear" mentality.
If anyone should pay taxes for CO2 emissions then the money should all go straight to farmers who's crops consume CO2 emissions. Or why not just send the CO2 to them? I'm sure they would welcome the increased crop-yield that comes with increased CO2 levels, & we would all welcome the knock on effect of economic growth. You need to realise the globalists lust only for power, they are deliberately destroying the global economy & genocidally downsizing the population ready for total enslavement.
"If anyone should pay taxes for CO2 emissions then the money should all go straight to farmers who's crops consume CO2 emissions."
actually, that's one of the ideas. Or sending money to indigenous people or third world nations as payment for the service provided by their rainforests in locking up carbon.
I was going to point Galv to the CO2 plant food video...
And then I noticed that he's already got a response from greenman there from 2 weeks ago to a nearly identical comment to his "Carbon tax is a crime" post up there.
Galv is a troll, but a useful one, in that he brings up the old saws of denial, allowing me point more open minded viewers to the facts.
He also richly demonstrates the mindless, repetitive nature of the denialist mindset, which helps my case - so he can stay as long as he keeps it clean.
@greenman3610 Hey greenman, you ever play climate denier bingo? Its a great way to past the time.
w. w. w. rationalwiki. org /wiki/ Fun:Global_Warming_Denial_Bingo
I've got a bingo so many times. I am trying to get a bingo with in ten comments but the denier arguments are not getting better so I think I will reach my goal
The non-realistic carbon-cycle modeling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda ‘pop’ that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).
With such short CO2 residence times (about one fifth of the CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks), it is impossible for human activity to be the cause of rising CO2 levels.
The residence time of bulk atmospheric CO2 is roughly five years, a fact previously acknowledged by former IPCC Chairman Dr. Bert Bolin. This figure is steadfastly ignored or disputed by scientists who base their findings on carbon-cycle computer models that project theoretically longer lifetimes – 50 to 200 years, or longer – than those actually measured in the real world. Their model-manipulated conclusions are contradicted by observational data and geo-chemistry.
Their attempts to demonise CO2 aren't working & now they're getting desperate. This bullshit pseudo-science was debunked as was inevitable & they respond by denying that it's been debunked & the facist legislators continue to go along with the lie knowing it's a lie & impose tighter regulations on everyone to cripple all attempts to avoid GMOs that sterilise & cause cancer & artifical nutrient deficent junk food, economic collapse, war, chemtrails, tainted vaccines, fluoridation, ....Agenda 21.
@Galv140577 Hello again Galv. You know I can understand why you may feel a little, how can I put it, worried about where the world is going. But if you look back at history civilisation has never faced an "end of the world" question based on science. Yes, some religious people have claimed the end of the world (eg: Both N.Y. Eves: 1,000 & 2000). And I expect that sort of person dominated the so called climate debate now. But something tells me you are just being ironical. And I'm too kind.
@Galv140577 Oh yeah Galv....one more thing. I have (or did have) a good FRIEND who got HIV & also smoked Pot quite a bit - then got sick. I see him hanging around the local shopping centre where he's involved with PEOPLE flogging every conspiracy theory. His has become obsessed about them to the point where he has lost his sense of reality. My lesson in life is: Do not worry about what you can not control. Yes, be concerned for it is true, the end of th world is more than 1000 years away.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has determined that a one percent increase in CO2 boosts crop yields by eight percent, translating into a 33-pound-per-acre yield per 1-ppm rise in CO2. The USDA also found that a field of corn in full sunlight consumes all of the CO2 within three feet of the ground. The corn will stop growing unless the surrounding air is stirred constantly by wind currents. In fact, the plants are harmed at CO2 concentrations of 240 ppm, and they die at 160 ppm
This is a good explanation of one of the more subtle aspects of AGW. Probably too subtle for entrenched deniers to accept, but that's how it goes. They want everything explained in 30 seconds.
P.S. Watch the YouTube video called "Cummins vs Bicycles" to see the anti-regulatory sociopath mentality behind a lot of denial. It comes down to decent, thinking people vs. Troglodytes.
Look people the climate is changing yes! It has always changed and has little or nothing to do with co2 period! As for scientist claiming its a settled fact I say ha ha ha you dumb guys still thing the sun is a nuclear reactor, space is a vacuum, redshift is related to distance, gravity is related to mass I can go on forever YOU KNOW NOTHING!
@yahshuah29 : That it has to do with CO2 is OBSERVED AND PROVEN as we have an increase in radiative forcing which has occured since 1971 - not randomly - but AT SPECIFIC ABSORPTION WAVELENGTH OF MAN-MADE GREENHOUSE GASES.
You are like someone claiming the earth is flat after Eratosthenos experiment...
@nigelelsass It is not proven period! As for the earth being flat that was european scientists who believed that, my ancestors knew the earth was spherical for a hundred thousand years!
YES IT IS PROVEN: (Harries, 2001) (Wang, 2009) (Evans, 2006) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) .... you are free to believe that high altitude measurements are wrong, satellite measurements are wrong, surface based measurements are wrong.... it is however over 99% more likely YOU ARE WRONG
@nigelelsass Look troll I do not "Believe" in anything that is the difference between you and me I am not a believer! YOU ARE! Besides none of what you have sighted has anything to do with my KNOWING. My ancestors have been on this planet for millions of years so I consult "THE RECORDS" for information concerning the changes on this planet, not the beliefs of the youngest people and civilization on this planet OK! THEY HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY.
@yahshuah29 : no you are not a believe in facts, you are a DENIER
Long story short smartass: which natural activity did you identify which has driven the warming over the last 50 years? none? then justg shut up with your conspiracy theories.
WAIT, I QUOTE PRECISE PUBLICATIONS... (and I have "zero credibility") but YOU MAKE STUFF UP WITHOUT EVEN GIVING CAUSE - LET ALONE SOURCES ??? Sorry, you are plain dumb.
@nigelelsass Bro you can not even form complete sentences and your vernacular is dismal at best. I do not & can not take you seriously I mean really just look how you mangled the last post ouch!
@yahshuah29 : I apologize for my incomplete sentence BUT - anybody can see from your profile that you are a conspiracy theorist - and also an idiot (Quote: "my ancestors knew the earth was spherical for a hundred thousand years"). As I explained, formal proof was given by Eratosthenes. You do not have the intelligence to understand the difference between a demonstration and a "guess". Don´t call me "bro" - I do not know you and do not want to be associated with you in any way.
@nigelelsass Ha ha typical goyim! You can be assured that I was not calling you bro as in brother your a goyim so we could never be brothers ok! You do not have the intelligence to know anything but what you are told goyim as I stated before my ancestors knew the earth is spherical a 100,000 years ago! You dumb goyim know nothing but what we tell you period!
@nigelelsass The greeks were not advanced douche boy! Neither is this present civilization it is ran by hybrid humans who's only claim to fame is they make the best killing machines & can destroy a planet in 300 yrs! I will ignore you now because you are lame & a goyim!
@yahshuah29 The original word was חוּג chûg khoog >From Strong's Concordance: H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, com passive. It does not mean a sphere. Hebrew has at least two words that mean sphere: : כדור (he) (kadúr) m., ספרה (he) (sféra).
Apparently god failed geometry as well as biology. What's it like coming from an ignorant culture?
@gamesbok How does it feel? I would have to ask your mother! 1st fail I do not believe in any stupid religion what so ever! 2nd fail what are you talking about troll what does the strongs concordance have to do with climate change moron? You obviously are confused or something or maybe its just the inbreeding that has fucked you up what I do know is you are not a hebrew nor was Strong so I take what you stated with a grain of salt if I want to know the meaning of hebrew words I would ask them!
@gamesbok Its clear that not only is your mother obviously a pig & father a fungus but you are an imbecile! Your argument is null & void for one simple reason that you in your blind stupidity over looked! I AM NOT JEWISH DUMMY! So you see retard your arguments using hebrew is as uses as your brain! Lol "חוּג - circle, not כדור or ספרה sphere" Uh so ha ha ha what an idiot!
@gamesbok Everyone reading your posts know you feel stupid! Why your argument fails in reality? You spent several posts arguing about what the torah states concerning the earth in hebrew, pointing out over & over that the words mean circle! Yet I never made any references to any of this what so ever you based your entire argument on the erroneous BELIEF that I was jewish total failure! This is a classic strawman argument & only impotent want to be intellectuals ever commit such a blunder sad!
@yahshuah29 : FIND IT IN: (Harries, 2001) (Wang, 2009) (Evans, 2006) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) => ALL PROVE YOU ARE DEAD WRONG - and that the fact is settled (except for the kind of delusional guys who would never admit anything)
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
@Galv140577 Bullshit. Climate Denial is AMPLIFIED by adding common ignorance + fear. What confuses all such FEARFUL people stems from their general ignorance that causes them to become confused by science. Such as, when a scientist says THE EARTH IS SPINNING. But their own senses tell them that the Earth is stationary. If climatologist also said, "And the earth's spin dampens the warming effect". Deniers would scream "But the Earth CLEARLY doesn't spin".
@listen2meokidoki How vague & nonsensical of you to say so. Not quite sure what the fuck you are babbling on about but clearly you are meerly expressing your opinion about something that is very metaphorical & about as logical or scientific as the cartoons that go on inside the minds of global warming alarmists. STFU
@Galv140577 How stupid you are to not understand my simple contrived analogy. You clearly lack knowledge of how hard it was to convince the Earth centrics that the Earth spins around the sun. People beleived, because their senses told them that the heavens & the sun revolve around a stationary Earth. Anti-scientific climate skeptics like you, need a good kick up their collected arses & I'm surprises someone from Scientific Britain would be as stupid as you appear. Now get ready. Bend over!
@listen2meokidoki What is "anti-scientific" about doing research & finding out that the ice-caps are growing, the global climate is cooling, the climate changes all the time naturally it's nothing to be alarmed about, the Sun drives climate, the oceans regulate climate, the world's plants are CO2 starved today as they evolved in an atmosphere 10 times richer in the life-giving miracle-gas CO2, the international cabal of oligarchs behind this carbon-tax initiative deserve to be put on trial?
@greenman3610 You man-made-global-warming-alarmists are so affraid to utter the phrase "global warming" because you know how easy it is to prove that it's not warming, so instead you now resort to calling it "climate change" & say that any change in climate is caused by MMGW whether it's warming or not, & you say it's dangerous even though the climate changes all the time. In fact if it was warming we would actually have milder weather. Cold is harsh, warm is nice, get it? CO2 = good for climate
@Galv140577 We changed the name to climate change cause its more then just warming.
Suddle changes in global temeratures such as a couple degrees could have profound impacts on the global climate. You say cold is harsh warm is nice. That all depends where you live. if you live in Arizona or Southern California Im sure you will change your tone. Summers ARE HELL ON EARTH down there. 110 degrees F sometimes durring the summer.
@Galv we have to curb GHG emissions before the tipping point.
Once the Earth warms up enough, somewhere between additional 2 or 3 degrees, this will enable many permafrost areas such as Siberia Russia, Northern Canada, Alaska to start releasing tons more of Methane, 20-30x as strong as CO2 into the atmosphere, this will further accelerate global warming.
To prevent this problem, we must act fast to become less fossil fuel dependent. We must continue to transition to solar, wind geothermal.
@curingaging00 So, what YOU say is,"well may the world's climate be constantly changing etc, & well may human civilisations have grown & developed during the several thoughsands of years of current warmth that is an interglacial period. But that the cabal of climate scientists is sincere men & women with impecable scientific credentials who base their conclusions on facts as do scierntist who invented global satelite navigation, the Internet & digital TV & their intellects vastly exceed ours!
@Galv140577 You bandy (means: pass on or discuss (an idea or rumour) in a casual or uninformed way) with words you do not understand. Eg: Oligach (especially in Russia - a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence). You see, unlike you, the vast majority (95% cinfidence level) of qualified climatologists are absolutely horrified by the people you blindly follow. There is no conspiracy! But there is error in their predictions, which they "SHOUT" is equal to or less than 5%.
@Galv140577 As for your calling for people to be put on trial, I agree. The people you or I follow (and we) SHOULD absolutely be PUT ON TRIAL for crimes against Humanity in the year 2020. By that time either you and the people you follow, or I and the world's cabal of climatologist will be PROVEN correct. If we feel compelled, as you & I are, we MUST sign up and if we are found wrong then all of our estates should be confiscated & we be BURNT alive. I hereby agree. Do you?
@Galv140577 And my dear Galv, you must admit that climate denial feeds the World's media with stuff to publish and, likewise, BANDY on about. And, if you categorise or examine WHO (and the sorts of people and their financial interests) are climate change anti cabal-climatologists, they are a rag-tag group of attention seekers, quasi scientists or spokespersons for industry. And worst, they ae religious freaks or indeologists who head\-bang on about absolute market place freedom regardless.
@listen2meokidoki You clearly have no idea what planet you are living on. There are a bunch of evil eugecists who murder people, plunder all the wealth, & vandalise the planet intentionally. They teach human cattle that those things are immoral only to eliminate the competition. They are Godless & most of them are Satanists. Look up "Georgia Guidestones". They openly anounce that they call for a 93% reduction in global population, to use food as a weapon, GMO's, chemtrails, Economic collapse...
@listen2meokidoki The people who are demonising CO2 aren't doing it because they care about you, it's the total opposite reason. They want you dead. CO2 is a life-giving miracle gas that today's plants are starved of. They evolved in an atmosphere with 10x the CO2 of today. They demonise CO2 while re-introducing 5 pesticides that were banned for good, & at the same time banning nutrients & declaring that vitamins are toxins. Look up "Agenda 21 food facism".
@Galv140577 Hello Galv! What you are doing, consciously or not, is confusing your demons. Climatologists are beneficial demons. They are like White Witches & they can be trusted. They do not, rest assured, demonise CO2. They say, if I may put some words into their mouths, that CO2 is like sugar or starchy foods. Yes, we need them and by all means keep on eating them because you mustn't go hungry. But too much starch will make you fat or obess.Yes, Climatologist also love CO2. And I'm impartial
Hank Paulson, fleeces the tax payers with the banks bailouts and now plans on fleecing the US tax payers again with carbon taxes. With clowns like that involved, you know its a scam. LOL
I was wonder what kind of slanders your bunch would like to try & sling @ Fred Singer? Climatology isn't rocket science, but he has training in both rocket science AND climatology, so he seems imminently qualified to comment on the subject. He was also involved the IPCC report & was also driven to denounce it b/c of the treatment he received there.
By-the-way, he says that only 150 ACTUAL scientists were involved in writing that report. Feel free to comment, Algore isn't here.
Maybe it wasn't in the high school books, it certainly was in the grade school books. That is how propaganda campaigns work. They probably wrote your lot off, "Too old to begin the training." Brainwashing is always much more effective w/ children. That is why Mao waited until the 60s to begin the Cultural Revolution, they had been raised under his system. I remember the pictures of glaciers devouring Manhattan & the diagrams. I remember reading the text. Don't tell me what I experienced.
@VictorLepanto I never said anything about what you learned. There are kids in my town who go to schools where they "learn" that dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth at the same time.
What I said was "read Peterson et al. and tell me what peer-reviewed studies, pointing to an imminent ice age, they left out."
@541iceman: Well, if you're willing to lump anthropogenic climate change theory in w/ creationist theory we might be making some progress. As to the local creationists, atleast their paleantology is more scientific then your climatology in this one respect, they're right about the dinosaurs & man, only difference is today we call them birds. In a few years I fear you'll be using your beloved IPCC report to line your dinosaur cage.
@VictorLepanto Rather than keep posting nonsense, go away and read Peterson et al., then come back and tell me what peer-reviewed papers they left out of their review of the "ice age vs global warming literature in the 70's".
@541iceman: You're the one who wanted to go on about what local schools teach their students. You don't even mention which peer reviewed journal this report appeared in. Was it a statistical research journal? That is the only kind that is relevant to the issue. That would only prove he was right about his statistical interpretation of the material presented, assuming his subjective interpretation of them as pro-warming is valid. & IT HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ ANY ALLEGED CONSENSUS NOW.
The Peterson 2008 paper was the one who quoted a FICTIONAL character from a NOVEL for 'evidence'. You can really trust that!
I've been gone for a couple months & I see that you & robhoneycutt still haven't found a single paper that uses EMPIRICAL DATA to explain why the warming of recent decades has a different cause than the rapid warming of the early 1900s. The assertion that recent warming is caused by CO2 is all based on computer simulation MODELS, NOT empirical, measured data.
@RealOldOne2 The Peterson et al. (2008) paper addresses a popular denialist meme, that science can't be trusted to predict warming because they used to predict cooling. Crichton didn't invent this meme; he simply played off it. The only reason I've been discussing it here is because Victor used it.
If you didn't have a computer model, you'd still estimate 2-4 C per doubling of CO2 based on interpretation of past climate change.
@541iceman "If you didn't have a computer model, you'd still estimate 2-4 C per doubling of CO2 based on interpretation of past climate change."
That is absurd. You only get 2-4C using MODELS which erroneously have high positive feedback. Back up your claim w/some empirical evidence that DOESN'T use climate models then.
The theory says ~1.1C w/o pos. or neg. feedback.
Latest 2011 peer-reviewed science says 0.7C based on EMPIRICAL DATA, which means feedback is NEGATIVE. bit(dot)ly/ooUCDG
Could you please link the study you are referring to? "Latest 2011 peer-reviewed science says 0.7C based on EMPIRICAL DATA, which means feedback is NEGATIVE. bit(dot)ly/ooUCDG" ....Thanks in advance :D
@RealOldOne2 I predict that Lindzen and Choi (2011) will have a short shelf life, just like their 2009 paper. Their methodology, of cutting up the record into specific chunks, discriminates against long time-scale climate change phenomena like CO2-induced warming. It is somewhat equivalent to taking the first derivative, comparing d(CO2)/dt with d(T)/dt, where the signal is overwhelmingly ENSO, whereas correlating T with CO2 (logarithmically) works better for long-term processes.
@RealOldOne2 : (1) The models are not all linear; (2) The probability of the same bias in all models is very low; (3) reality shows that models have estimated the warming - especially looking at the arctis (4) If non-linear models are not possible, why the F%$&%%% do millions of students use softwares such as Ansys????
Cut through the ignorance with your ARMY OF FLYING MONKEYS! WAHAHAHA! But that was a very well formulated video you created, that goes to show arguing with real scientific knowledge that has been thoroughly studied and understood fairly well, doesn't pay in the ultimate scheme of things.
"Finally, the situation at Termination III dif- fers from the recent anthropogenic CO2 in- crease. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and exter- nal influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system"..
"..Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. "
"The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feed- backs (39) that are also at work for the present- day and future climate."
bottom line, this is the mainstream scientific understanding of how ice ages come and go. You can't get the amplitude of change just from the orbital factors, you must have GHG forcing.
Temp and CO2 are tightly coupled - sometimes temp leads, and sometimes CO2 leads - but the time scales are usually different -- see
and don't despair. THIS IS NOT EASY STUFF. that's why I've had to spend thousands of glazed eye hours trying to get just the rudimentary understanding that I have. That's why it's so easy for the denial industry to confuse people about what is happening.
people change the climate. obviously, other things change the climate too. cigarettes cause lung cancer. other things cause lung cancer too - that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop smoking.
@YinYangMind "Gaping holes". Hmm .. start by reading tinyurl com/3qxuas4 . You don't have to accept this rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell, but you should read and understand it before you get too excited by the Forbes/Fox headlines.
Also read Barry Bickmore's critique of an earlier version of this "analysis": tinyurl com/3rmg9g8 .
So...the guy the IPCC trusted to lead their investigation, used a Anthropogenic global warming believer's own study, to prove CO2 levels can only amplify warming during natural warming trends, and NEVER overpower the natural forces that drive our climate, like keep it from cooling and naturally reducing Co2 levels?
@pimpdalyrical: The bureaucratic minions o f the U.N. really didn't care what anyboby they suckered into pariticipating in this scam thought. They were going to pastiche a report to serve their purposes no matter what anyone said thought or wrote. The reports of Christy, Lindzen & Reither make this all too clear. Most of the operatives @ the U.N are from 3rd world thug regimes, where a vigorously critical press is NOT a problem. People need to a wake up what the U.N. has become.
Maybe it would be more fruitful to address this matter from the larger U.N. issue. Why would any sensible person trust anything coming from the U.N.? Let's review the Rwanda matter for instance. It refused to acknowledge what happened there was genocide. That would have required them to do something about it, according to their own human rights charter. So they just LIED. Look at the Sudan over the same period & even w/ the Darfur situation. These people are swine, NO ONE SHOULD TRUST THEM!
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Only 500 years ago we had a consensus in Europe about the existence of God.
Nowadays in the Middle-East there is still a consensus about the existence of Allah.
Still nobody ever managed to scientific prove the existence of God and i get the idea a majority of the GW alarmists belong to the group of people who don't believe God or Allah exists.
Face it, GW-alarmists are the new religious fanatics and GW is their religion.
@ronintje Your argument doesn't make any sense. A quick look at your channel gives an indication why.
In 4 years you have only favourited 1 vid - of Christopher Monckton. Since he's already been discredited as a CHARLATAN and a LIAR and you still believe in him one could conclude that Denialism is your religion and Monckton your God.
Source: guardian.co.uk Viscount Monckton's climate change scepticism has been discredited by Professor John Abraham.
Another general challenge: If Paul Reiter was forced to resign this IPCC scam b/c of the unscientific political pressure to surrender the chicken little scare campaign, who else had a similar experience? If he could NOT get his name removed from the report, who else was similarly libelled by being presented as endorsing this notorious fraud? To illustrate this problem, I'll ask a question: Who believes the IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 2038? Utter shoddiness.
@VictorLepanto 2035 for Himalayan glaciers. An error that has been identified and corrected, but does not affect the science of AGW as summarized in WG1. Next?
By the way, Potholer54 has an excellent critique of Monckton's claims that the Himalayan glaciers are not even shrinking. Go to 10:00 in tinyurl com/3gkk8h5.
@VictorLepanto "Paul Reiter forced to resign": "After much effort and many fruitless discussions, I decided to concentrate on the USGCCRP and resigned from the IPCC project. My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong insistence that I succeeded in having it removed."
So, he resigned because he wanted to, and his name was removed. Next?
@541iceman: That is so astonishingly vacuous. The blind child like faith you place in the U.N. & utter lack of curiousity you show towards them, it is either very touching or deeply disturbing, I can't decide which. Even in your blind faith for your U.N. priesthood & prophets, you must have one little corner of your mind where critical facuties still survive & you ask yourself, "Gee, if they did this w/ this guy, maybe they did it w/ others as well?" Maybe people who weren't so insistant.
@VictorLepanto Vacuous? I quoted Reiter,who said "I decided to concentrate on ... and resigned from the IPCC". You interpret this as "I was forced to resign." How do you get that?
Check out the Potholer clip on trying to get Monckton to explain his "state of the Himalayan glaciers" interpretation yet?
@541iceman: Himalayan glaciers? When did your beloved gods at the IPCC predict it would be gone, 2035? Do you support that prediction? Has it ever entered your mind that every thing these goons put out might be just as dubious? You only quoted Reiter to dismiss him. He was quite disturbed by his treatment by this propaganda front called the IPCC. Is your faith so utterly devout in the Olympian spirits of the U.N. IPCC that you've never thought, maybe OTHERS have been done like Reiter?
@VictorLepanto I cited Reiter's words. Just provide evidence that his words support your interpretation of them. If others "resigned" under the same circumstances, name them and cite sources.
@541iceman: As to Reiter, he is hardly the only person complaining against his treatment by the IPCC. Richard Lindzen says that mere U.N. staffers had their names added to the report to puff it out as seemingly weighty document. W/ Christy, Reiter & Lindzen we have a significant set of defectors; very significant if what Lindzen says is valid. Just name 5 scientists whos names are on it & who endorse its claims fully.
@VictorLepanto As I said before, name the authors who are merely staffers but are identified as scientists.
As to the IPCC report, I asked you to read it skeptically and identify the errors, not read it like holy writ. Are you scared you won't find as many errors as you've been told about?
@541iceman: As I said b/4 I don't have my own copy of the IPCC report mounted worshipfully in horor in my own house shrine. Talking to you about this is like listening to fundamentalist explain from the Bible that God exists. If you don't believe in the sacred text, why should you bother w/ it? I am not going to waste my time chasing down the biographies of the sacred evangelists & prophets. Just give me 5 names of true scientists w/ RELEVANT expertease who participated in & endorse the report.
@VictorLepanto Do a little homework. You make a claim, so you provide the evidence.
And to repeat: I did *not* say that the IPCC was a sacred text. I said "read it SKEPTICALLY, and tell us what you find". Trouble is, you've never read it, you don't have any plans to, you're content to believe interpretations provided by others.
There's a reason why you lot are not taken seriously where it counts.
@541iceman: I know what the U.N. is, I know all I need to know about the IPCC from their stunt w/ putting out a propaganda sheet by Greenpeace as "scientific" report. Your priesthood in the IPCC want to turn the world upside down on the basis of your chicken little project. It is YOU who is making the extraordinary claim & extraordinary demands on the WHOLE WORLD! You'll bankrupt us. Three of the main IPCC report scientists have denounced it. That is enough for me, find someone to defend it.
@VictorLepanto Plenty of people defend it, I'm not worried. Tell me what, other than the "Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035", you have problems with. All that attention on the report, and not much to show for it.
@541iceman: I find extraordinary the display of blind unshakable faith you display that a scandal like that doesn't utterly discredit it in your eyes. They put out ungrounded claim froma Greenpeace propaganda pamphlet as if it was scientific research. That should be enough to utterly discredit them. But that is hardly all! Once again, TRY TO PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME, Christy (the LEAD writer), Reither (who wrote a WHOLE chapter), & Lindzen says people's names were just put on it for no reason.
@VictorLepanto Yes, the unsupported claim on glaciers was a mistake. However, it was public and was able to be found. And it doesn't affect the scientific basis of AGW.
You still seem to be struggling with finding anything else.
Reither wrote a whole chapter by himself? Is that his claim? You want to check that carefully.
@541iceman: I know this will amuse you, I work in the schools, I've worked w/ Kindergardeners, whatever you tell them, it is as if you said nothing 5 mins. later. Talking to you is like talking to a kindergardener. I talk to you about Christy, & you say, "That's Christy, got anything else?" Then, "That's Reiter, got anything else?" "That's Lindzen, got anything else?" "That's the Himalayan report, got anything else?" "That's Christy, got anything else?" Nothings I say sticks.
@VictorLepanto It worries me that someone is teaching kids when they don't think they should look at the document they're commenting on. Doesn't matter with K'ers, but by Grade 2 it's a problem.
So far you have one mistake that doesn't impact the reliability of AGW. You have a guy I've never heard of before this thread (Reiter) and two guys whose recent history indicates that they put publicity ahead of peer-assessed science.
@541iceman: Once again you demonstrate your inability to concentrate on anything but one fact at a time. It isn't just one fact. Christy's opposition is a fact, Lindzen's is a fact, Reiter's is a fact. The Himalayan scare, now discredited, show us what probably really happened w/ this phony IPCC report. IT WAS TAKEN FROM A GREENPEACE PROPAGANDA PAMPHLETE! This shows us the collusion of the U.N. & these activist groups (NGOs). All corrupt inside dealing, it is OBVIOUS.
@VictorLepanto I'm not able to assess Reiter's comments on malaria. However, he has no background to comment on the physics of AGW. Perhaps you can tell me what his arguments are against AGW?
@541iceman: LOLOLOL! If he has no relevant knowledge re: AGW, THEN WHAT WAS HE DOING ON THE IPCC? If he does have relevant knowledge, his disrespectful treatment by the bureaucratic hacks @ the IPCC is indicative of how they treated everyone. As I recall, he is supposed to have written a paragraph of the IPCC report, or maybe that was Lindzen. Doesn't matter. These three men demonstrate that the IPCC report was a, typical for the U.N., corrupt insider political scam. It is all rotten.
@VictorLepanto "Reiter" I didn't say he had no expertise: I said I hadn't heard of him before this thread. And in a previous comment you suggested he'd write a chapter (it sounded like by himself); now it's a paragraph.
Now ... what, other than the Himalayan glacier timeline, is wrong in IPCC AR4 (2007) ? Especially with regard to the veracity of AGW?
The floor's yours for a few days; try not to damage your cause any further.
@541iceman: PLEASE, PLEASE LISTEN THIS TIME. Everything is wrong w/ it. The whole hysterical tone of it. The insane unsupported claims & predictions of it. The OBVIOUSLY politically inspired policy predictions it puts forward. Let me ask you a question: try to answer it this time, do you think Iran & Syria should be on the Human Rights Commission? The U.N. thought that they were perfectly fine for that commission. If they put those two on human rights, what kind of decisions went into the IPCC?
@VictorLepanto "The hysterical tone of it". So, you have not read it? Read the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers and cite me an example of "hysterical tone".
These Bullshit models try to blame CO2 for all this HEAT THAT COMES FROM THE SUN. So first obviously the Sun controls temperature. Secondly where do you account for the temperature increase what all the waste heat created by your electronics and transportation vehicles on the entire Earth?
akirafactor 2 days ago
@akirafactor Sun controls temp and so does CO2. The waste heat from every piece of technology on earth is extremely minor and has almost not effect on global temperatures, maybe some urban heat islands but not much else. For example, every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year. CO2 act like a blanket over the earth trapping that energy in the form of heat. So Solar activity and CO2 are the two main forcers. Hope that helps
thesparitan 2 days ago
@thesparitan The CO2 blanket comment is completely false. The Earth is surrounded by outer space aka a vacuum which is a perfect insulator. What would it matter what kind of gas was around the Earth?
akirafactor 2 days ago
@akirafactor No, actually the vacuum ins't a perfect insulator. Here is why, there are three different kinds of ways heat is transferred, radiation, conduction and convection. Lets ignore convection for now. While a vacuum is a perfect insulator against conduction, it does nothing to prevent radiation. CO2 traps a larger spectrum of light waves and therefore picks up more of the radiation that would leave into space. Even scientist that are skeptical of global warming agree that is a fact
thesparitan 2 days ago
@thesparitan 2% of the atmosphere picking-up a tiny bit more heat from sunlight. That is an absurdly weak reason over the 70% nitrogen in our atmosphere.
akirafactor 2 days ago
@akirafactor Nitrogen isn't an effective conductor of heat radiation as far as I know. So it doesn't have much effect. The % are very small and it is shocking that a few minor changes can effect such big changes, but we are only talking about a few degrees at the most extreme. Just goes to show how fragile the earths climate really is. Earth's climate is balance on a razors edge at the best of times. Just a drop of some poisons can kill a grown man, small things can have big effects.
thesparitan 2 days ago
@thesparitan I'm not buying it at all. The Earth has had higher levels of CO2 before and the planet went along nicely then.
When the next Ice Age comes along, do you think they will start shouting MAKE MORE CO2.
I find the entire CO2 argument absurd.
akirafactor 2 days ago
@akirafactor ..OK but you didn't even address my arguments. CO2 does trap heat, that is a fact of the universe. I don't actually know of a scientist alive that would disagree with that statement, even lord Monckton agrees with that fact. The earth did have higher CO2 levels before and it was far hotter before. If present day return to CO2 levels of the jurassic the effect would be catastrophic. The largest extinction in earths history was from climate change.
thesparitan 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@akirafactor "I find the entire CO2 argument absurd."
Why? Do you have any argument or reason to think it absurd? Have I not been reasonable and rational and addressed every question and argument you had with facts? Please tell me where I went wrong but don't just say "well I just think it is absurd"
How is that logical? Climate change is happening, the real debate is what to do about it.
thesparitan 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@akirafactor "I find the entire CO2 argument absurd."
What do you find absurd? Everything I said can be fact check. If I said something wrong why don't you explain it. Or do you find my argument absurd because it disagrees with your conclusion? Prove me wrong, if can.
thesparitan 18 hours ago
Global Bullshit Warming became Climate Bullshit Change.
akirafactor 2 days ago
Propaganda - he can't help it. Any proof of man made global warming yet? Are there any negative feedbacks in the climate system? or are they just not telling . The ignorance lies in this poor effort at propaganda. Meanwhile the Planet cools as the Sun enters a Grand Solar Minimum.
david222444 1 week ago
@david222444
"grand solar minimum"
nonsense here
watch?v=IQHqgdvXTxE
and
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 1 week ago
"Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get—and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data." E-mail from Climategate II
MrFreeLibertarian 2 weeks ago
@MrFreeLibertarian What does that even prove and how do we know that was in the emails and not something someone made up? I cannot seem to find is origin or source the quote. Besides it doesn't refute anything even if it is true. There cannot be a massive conspiracy between 100,000s of people across the world and every major university on planet earth. That is insanity to think they could even do that.
thesparitan 2 days ago
@thesparitan It's not a conspiracy. It's a combination of groupthink and too many scientists being dependent on government grants. AGW is a theory. It's fine to have a theory, but it's not fine to say "the debate is over" when the debate hasn't even begun yet. The fact is that more an more scientists are jumping off the bandwagon now and expressing their skepticism with the theory. Anybody who isn't skeptical about AGW is not truly interested in science and the scientific method.
MrFreeLibertarian 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFreeLibertarian So you actually think that, well I guess there is nothing I could say to you to change your mind because that is just not the incentive structure in science. The amount of fame and reward for overturning global warming is so extreme that what you say just isn't possible. 97% of climate scientist have group think? Science isn't made by debate. There is a 95% chance that AGW is happening. Name these scientist that are jumping off the band wagon?
thesparitan 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrFreeLibertarian I want you to read my last comment too but after you have I just want to point out that you are making the same argument that anti-evolutionist and holocaust deniers make. There is debate, its a case of group think, its the government. You have no facts or figures you back up your belief you are just rejecting the science based on ad hominem fallacy.
There is evidence and you choose to ignore it. I wish we could have a debate, but you wont let that happen.
thesparitan 1 day ago
The Himalayas have lost no ice in past 10 years. Yeah, "professional deniers" are the ones trying to create an illusion. lol Actually the "professional climate change propagandists" are the ones getting paid to produce findings favorable to politicians. This explains why, for example, at the same time we were being fed environmental extremism, China and India were exempted from Kyoto and useless carbon credits, designed to make Al Gore and his friends billionaires were being pushed on us.
MrFreeLibertarian 2 weeks ago
I missed how we know that we can rule out sun activity. Why is temperature not driven by sun activity? That was the main point of "Global Warming Swindle."
marce11o 2 weeks ago
@marce11o
We can rule out the sun, because during the recent decades of fastest warming, solar activity has been flat or declining.
thanks for bringing up the swindle movie. I treated it here.
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
More on the sun
watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
watch?v=IQHqgdvXTxE
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 2 weeks ago
@greenman3610 Why would it matter what kind the gas surrounds the Earth?
We are surrounded by outer space aka a vacuum which is a perfect insulator and means we basically we live in a clear thermos bottle floating in space.
akirafactor 2 days ago
@akirafactor "Why would it matter what kind the gas surrounds the Earth?"
Good question because it is a fascinating topic. It turns out that gases, like other forms of matter, trap heat differently. For example O2 is a poor conductor and doesn't hold heat very well but CO2, methane, and water vapor are great conductors of heat.
Actually if you were being chased by the predator and were surrounded by a cloud of CO2 you would be invisible, it works even better then mud Arnold had.
thesparitan 2 days ago
I admire your patience for having to debunk the same idiotic crap over and over from the flat-earther/climate deniers! I'd go insane in a week or so, hehe!
winterstellar 3 weeks ago
@winterstellar
it's an interesting study of human nature.
not crazy yet, I have a good support system,and I take my vitamins.
greenman3610 3 weeks ago
So the empirical data is that the ice core records show that C02 lags temperature by about 800 years and has been doing so for about 400 000 years. The reason as I understand it is the solubility pump of the oceans.
In the authors' "opinion" C02 "may" --> "fast atmospheric feedbacks" ie it's a guess, no doubt included to get the paper published. If this were true why didn't the previous C02 rises kick off a positive feedback cycle instead of falling after T falls?
DontBendOverForAllah 1 month ago
@DontBendOverForAllah
the answer is that at Co2 levels below 300 ppm, the orbital drivers override the co2 drive.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@frolly1000
weird. since Lindzen has made himself totally irrelevant. Just as he insists that tobacco isn't nearly so toxic as all those crazy doctors (who are trying to control you) say -
he also insists against the self evident real world data, that climate change is all made up by the dark forces of evil.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@frolly1000
sorry. you have to come up with some extra forcing to get the full interglacial transition. fairy dust not allowed. see a walk thru of the calculation here
watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
at about 4:45, if you're rushed.
greenman3610 1 month ago
...develop ways to mitigate the problem.
Just in case major climate change happens humans should be researching ways of "climate control" so that we can counteract threats to our climate when they arise. That's regardless of whether it is happening now or not. It is something civilization will need to know how to do. Humanity must master its environment including the climate.
sicktoaster 1 month ago
And why is the main debate over "is it humans?"
Even if it is humans, humans are part of the ecosystem. What if the ecosystem has naturally built in mechanisms to correct for it that just haven't fully caught up yet? Many plants will clean the atmosphere of the extra CO2.
The primary concern should be "If the Earth is warming how much and what will the effects be and what can we do to respond or to cope?" Even if it were not caused by us then if it were serious enough it should behoove us to...
sicktoaster 1 month ago
...debates it casts doubt on their claims to people who are trying to make up their minds. It raises the question "why do they feel the need to come off so strong? Are they afraid their facts are not good enough?"
sicktoaster 1 month ago
If Global Warming was that bad then people wouldn't be denying it on purpose.
Which ever side is right it's likely the side that is wrong sincerely believes their position and is unaware of their self-interested motivations lying in their subconscious that is turning them away from accepting the evidence of the other side.
Using words like "deniers", "conspiracy" etc. are fighting words. We shouldn't use those words. Whoever is right should be nice. When people resort to rudeness in political...
sicktoaster 1 month ago
@sicktoaster It's not a "political debate". That's what the deniers want to cast it as. It's a simple debate where science is on one side and people who for some reason want to deny the science are on the other side. A lot of the problem is that facts simply don't seem to be good enough because there's more than enough evidence for anthropogenic climate change, so to fight the deniers you have to call them what they are: Climate Change Deniers.
throx 2 weeks ago
@throx
My question is Why does it matter enough to push the point?
When people deny anthropogenic climate change why not steer the debate to the obvious fact that even if they're right and we're not causing it it does NOT take away the fact that climate change is happening and so something has to be done and furthermore the fact that just for human survival it is a necessity that our species learn how to CONTROL the climate with technology.
If we could get that much common ground then...
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@throx
...maybe real progress could be made. The government should be funding scientific research projects into how to control the Earth's climate. If we can control the climate we won't have to worry about human activities anymore, and both sides can be happy.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster Science says that humans are causing the increase in temperature so we know how to CONTROL it - stop doing the things that cause it to increase. That's the problem. Climate change deniers are exactly preventing the thing you want: the answer to how to control it relies directly on the root causes (or the forcings in climatespeak) so denying what science says is the cause means you're deliberately ignoring (as you put it) the necessity for human survival.
throx 2 weeks ago
@throx
That could only control the current problem.
What about the far future? What if something pops up naturally? Science needs to figure out how to control the whole climate through technology. We should be able to get both sides on board with that and if we could speed research fast enough they could keep on releasing emissions and it wouldn't be a problem, because we'd know what to release into the atmosphere to counteract it.
We already know aerosols have a cooling effect, why not
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@throx
release more aerosols into the air.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster Yes, it could only control the current problem. I think that controlling a current problem with what you know is a pretty good plan. You can even keep researching on hypothetical future problems at the same time!
Your argument is like an alcoholic arguing he shouldn't stop drinking because someday they may figure out how to cure alcoholism AND let him keep being a drunk at the same time.
Why not release aerosols? They can have other effects, like acid rain.
throx 2 weeks ago
@throx
Even if we should try to control the current problem there is limited political capital to make things happen with. It may be easier to get the government to spend more on researching ways for humans to directly control the climate than to try to get the government to do anything substantial about reducing emissions.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
I like the message you are trying to send you, the narrator of these videos just sound so snide. Way to win over people. YA DOUCHE!
MattacksRC 1 month ago
At 4:00, notice how the denier only wants to give him 15 seconds to explain something that obviously takes much longer. Typical "dumb it down and hear what you want to hear" mentality.
Antithropocentric 4 months ago
If anyone should pay taxes for CO2 emissions then the money should all go straight to farmers who's crops consume CO2 emissions. Or why not just send the CO2 to them? I'm sure they would welcome the increased crop-yield that comes with increased CO2 levels, & we would all welcome the knock on effect of economic growth. You need to realise the globalists lust only for power, they are deliberately destroying the global economy & genocidally downsizing the population ready for total enslavement.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577
"If anyone should pay taxes for CO2 emissions then the money should all go straight to farmers who's crops consume CO2 emissions."
actually, that's one of the ideas. Or sending money to indigenous people or third world nations as payment for the service provided by their rainforests in locking up carbon.
very good!!!
greenman3610 5 months ago
I was going to point Galv to the CO2 plant food video...
And then I noticed that he's already got a response from greenman there from 2 weeks ago to a nearly identical comment to his "Carbon tax is a crime" post up there.
gimmethegepgun 5 months ago
@gimmethegepgun
Galv is a troll, but a useful one, in that he brings up the old saws of denial, allowing me point more open minded viewers to the facts.
He also richly demonstrates the mindless, repetitive nature of the denialist mindset, which helps my case - so he can stay as long as he keeps it clean.
greenman3610 5 months ago 4
@greenman3610 Yeah yeah what ever you say lol [with no proof whatsoever = ]
Galv140577 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 Hey greenman, you ever play climate denier bingo? Its a great way to past the time.
w. w. w. rationalwiki. org /wiki/ Fun:Global_Warming_Denial_Bingo
I've got a bingo so many times. I am trying to get a bingo with in ten comments but the denier arguments are not getting better so I think I will reach my goal
thesparitan 1 day ago
The non-realistic carbon-cycle modeling and misconception of the way the geochemistry of CO2 works simply defy reality, and would make it impossible for breweries to make the carbonated beer or soda ‘pop’ that many of us enjoy (Segalstad, 1998).
With such short CO2 residence times (about one fifth of the CO2 pool is exchanged every year between different sources and sinks), it is impossible for human activity to be the cause of rising CO2 levels.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 You should research the other videos around this channel.
Global Warming cannot be summarized in just one video. He makes it very easy for someone such as yourself to just click on the source, under info.
curingaging00 5 months ago
The residence time of bulk atmospheric CO2 is roughly five years, a fact previously acknowledged by former IPCC Chairman Dr. Bert Bolin. This figure is steadfastly ignored or disputed by scientists who base their findings on carbon-cycle computer models that project theoretically longer lifetimes – 50 to 200 years, or longer – than those actually measured in the real world. Their model-manipulated conclusions are contradicted by observational data and geo-chemistry.
:-)
Galv140577 5 months ago
Their attempts to demonise CO2 aren't working & now they're getting desperate. This bullshit pseudo-science was debunked as was inevitable & they respond by denying that it's been debunked & the facist legislators continue to go along with the lie knowing it's a lie & impose tighter regulations on everyone to cripple all attempts to avoid GMOs that sterilise & cause cancer & artifical nutrient deficent junk food, economic collapse, war, chemtrails, tainted vaccines, fluoridation, ....Agenda 21.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Hello again Galv. You know I can understand why you may feel a little, how can I put it, worried about where the world is going. But if you look back at history civilisation has never faced an "end of the world" question based on science. Yes, some religious people have claimed the end of the world (eg: Both N.Y. Eves: 1,000 & 2000). And I expect that sort of person dominated the so called climate debate now. But something tells me you are just being ironical. And I'm too kind.
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Oh yeah Galv....one more thing. I have (or did have) a good FRIEND who got HIV & also smoked Pot quite a bit - then got sick. I see him hanging around the local shopping centre where he's involved with PEOPLE flogging every conspiracy theory. His has become obsessed about them to the point where he has lost his sense of reality. My lesson in life is: Do not worry about what you can not control. Yes, be concerned for it is true, the end of th world is more than 1000 years away.
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has determined that a one percent increase in CO2 boosts crop yields by eight percent, translating into a 33-pound-per-acre yield per 1-ppm rise in CO2. The USDA also found that a field of corn in full sunlight consumes all of the CO2 within three feet of the ground. The corn will stop growing unless the surrounding air is stirred constantly by wind currents. In fact, the plants are harmed at CO2 concentrations of 240 ppm, and they die at 160 ppm
Galv140577 5 months ago
This is a good explanation of one of the more subtle aspects of AGW. Probably too subtle for entrenched deniers to accept, but that's how it goes. They want everything explained in 30 seconds.
P.S. Watch the YouTube video called "Cummins vs Bicycles" to see the anti-regulatory sociopath mentality behind a lot of denial. It comes down to decent, thinking people vs. Troglodytes.
Antithropocentric 5 months ago
Look people the climate is changing yes! It has always changed and has little or nothing to do with co2 period! As for scientist claiming its a settled fact I say ha ha ha you dumb guys still thing the sun is a nuclear reactor, space is a vacuum, redshift is related to distance, gravity is related to mass I can go on forever YOU KNOW NOTHING!
yahshuah29 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 : That it has to do with CO2 is OBSERVED AND PROVEN as we have an increase in radiative forcing which has occured since 1971 - not randomly - but AT SPECIFIC ABSORPTION WAVELENGTH OF MAN-MADE GREENHOUSE GASES.
You are like someone claiming the earth is flat after Eratosthenos experiment...
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass It is not proven period! As for the earth being flat that was european scientists who believed that, my ancestors knew the earth was spherical for a hundred thousand years!
yahshuah29 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 :
YES IT IS PROVEN: (Harries, 2001) (Wang, 2009) (Evans, 2006) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) .... you are free to believe that high altitude measurements are wrong, satellite measurements are wrong, surface based measurements are wrong.... it is however over 99% more likely YOU ARE WRONG
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass Look troll I do not "Believe" in anything that is the difference between you and me I am not a believer! YOU ARE! Besides none of what you have sighted has anything to do with my KNOWING. My ancestors have been on this planet for millions of years so I consult "THE RECORDS" for information concerning the changes on this planet, not the beliefs of the youngest people and civilization on this planet OK! THEY HAVE ZERO CREDIBILITY.
yahshuah29 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 : no you are not a believe in facts, you are a DENIER
Long story short smartass: which natural activity did you identify which has driven the warming over the last 50 years? none? then justg shut up with your conspiracy theories.
WAIT, I QUOTE PRECISE PUBLICATIONS... (and I have "zero credibility") but YOU MAKE STUFF UP WITHOUT EVEN GIVING CAUSE - LET ALONE SOURCES ??? Sorry, you are plain dumb.
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass Bro you can not even form complete sentences and your vernacular is dismal at best. I do not & can not take you seriously I mean really just look how you mangled the last post ouch!
yahshuah29 5 months ago
Comment removed
nigelelsass 5 months ago
Comment removed
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 : I apologize for my incomplete sentence BUT - anybody can see from your profile that you are a conspiracy theorist - and also an idiot (Quote: "my ancestors knew the earth was spherical for a hundred thousand years"). As I explained, formal proof was given by Eratosthenes. You do not have the intelligence to understand the difference between a demonstration and a "guess". Don´t call me "bro" - I do not know you and do not want to be associated with you in any way.
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass Ha ha typical goyim! You can be assured that I was not calling you bro as in brother your a goyim so we could never be brothers ok! You do not have the intelligence to know anything but what you are told goyim as I stated before my ancestors knew the earth is spherical a 100,000 years ago! You dumb goyim know nothing but what we tell you period!
yahshuah29 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 : It is pointless... an idiot making a guess which happens to be right due to "luck" doesn't make the idiot anything else than an idiot.
Were you ancestors greek? no, neither were mine - so stop saying that your ancestors were advanced. It is ridiculous.
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@nigelelsass The greeks were not advanced douche boy! Neither is this present civilization it is ran by hybrid humans who's only claim to fame is they make the best killing machines & can destroy a planet in 300 yrs! I will ignore you now because you are lame & a goyim!
yahshuah29 5 months ago
@yahshuah29 The original word was חוּג chûg khoog >From Strong's Concordance: H2328; a circle: - circle, circuit, com passive. It does not mean a sphere. Hebrew has at least two words that mean sphere: : כדור (he) (kadúr) m., ספרה (he) (sféra).
Apparently god failed geometry as well as biology. What's it like coming from an ignorant culture?
gamesbok 3 months ago
@gamesbok How does it feel? I would have to ask your mother! 1st fail I do not believe in any stupid religion what so ever! 2nd fail what are you talking about troll what does the strongs concordance have to do with climate change moron? You obviously are confused or something or maybe its just the inbreeding that has fucked you up what I do know is you are not a hebrew nor was Strong so I take what you stated with a grain of salt if I want to know the meaning of hebrew words I would ask them!
yahshuah29 3 months ago
@yahshuah29 '...as I stated before my ancestors knew the earth is spherical a 100,000 years ago!'
What a pity that, unlike Erithosthenies, they could not show their reasoning.
חוּג - circle, not כדור or ספרה sphere., you don't have a case Kazac'heg, and your ancesters were ignorant as pigs.
gamesbok 3 months ago
@gamesbok Its clear that not only is your mother obviously a pig & father a fungus but you are an imbecile! Your argument is null & void for one simple reason that you in your blind stupidity over looked! I AM NOT JEWISH DUMMY! So you see retard your arguments using hebrew is as uses as your brain! Lol "חוּג - circle, not כדור or ספרה sphere" Uh so ha ha ha what an idiot!
yahshuah29 3 months ago
@yahshuah29 You could be from Svalbard for all I know, the arguement still stands, sheketz. What a pity logic escapes you.
gamesbok 3 months ago
Comment removed
yahshuah29 3 months ago
@gamesbok Everyone reading your posts know you feel stupid! Why your argument fails in reality? You spent several posts arguing about what the torah states concerning the earth in hebrew, pointing out over & over that the words mean circle! Yet I never made any references to any of this what so ever you based your entire argument on the erroneous BELIEF that I was jewish total failure! This is a classic strawman argument & only impotent want to be intellectuals ever commit such a blunder sad!
yahshuah29 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yahshuah29 '' Ha ha typical goyim''
Tell me the knowledge of 'your people' 100,000 years ago.
''You dumb goyim know nothing but what we tell you period!''
gamesbok 3 months ago
@yahshuah29 : FIND IT IN: (Harries, 2001) (Wang, 2009) (Evans, 2006) (Griggs, 2004) (Chen, 2007) => ALL PROVE YOU ARE DEAD WRONG - and that the fact is settled (except for the kind of delusional guys who would never admit anything)
nigelelsass 5 months ago
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
@Galv140577
The swindle movie has, of course, become an embarrassment to
all those involved. Perhaps you did not get that memo.
But thanks for bringing the subject of one of my most popular ids:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 6 months ago
@Galv140577 Bullshit. Climate Denial is AMPLIFIED by adding common ignorance + fear. What confuses all such FEARFUL people stems from their general ignorance that causes them to become confused by science. Such as, when a scientist says THE EARTH IS SPINNING. But their own senses tell them that the Earth is stationary. If climatologist also said, "And the earth's spin dampens the warming effect". Deniers would scream "But the Earth CLEARLY doesn't spin".
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@listen2meokidoki How vague & nonsensical of you to say so. Not quite sure what the fuck you are babbling on about but clearly you are meerly expressing your opinion about something that is very metaphorical & about as logical or scientific as the cartoons that go on inside the minds of global warming alarmists. STFU
You can't argue with science.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 How stupid you are to not understand my simple contrived analogy. You clearly lack knowledge of how hard it was to convince the Earth centrics that the Earth spins around the sun. People beleived, because their senses told them that the heavens & the sun revolve around a stationary Earth. Anti-scientific climate skeptics like you, need a good kick up their collected arses & I'm surprises someone from Scientific Britain would be as stupid as you appear. Now get ready. Bend over!
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@listen2meokidoki What is "anti-scientific" about doing research & finding out that the ice-caps are growing, the global climate is cooling, the climate changes all the time naturally it's nothing to be alarmed about, the Sun drives climate, the oceans regulate climate, the world's plants are CO2 starved today as they evolved in an atmosphere 10 times richer in the life-giving miracle-gas CO2, the international cabal of oligarchs behind this carbon-tax initiative deserve to be put on trial?
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577
if you had done research you would have found those assertions to be untrue. so get real.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 You man-made-global-warming-alarmists are so affraid to utter the phrase "global warming" because you know how easy it is to prove that it's not warming, so instead you now resort to calling it "climate change" & say that any change in climate is caused by MMGW whether it's warming or not, & you say it's dangerous even though the climate changes all the time. In fact if it was warming we would actually have milder weather. Cold is harsh, warm is nice, get it? CO2 = good for climate
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 We changed the name to climate change cause its more then just warming.
Suddle changes in global temeratures such as a couple degrees could have profound impacts on the global climate. You say cold is harsh warm is nice. That all depends where you live. if you live in Arizona or Southern California Im sure you will change your tone. Summers ARE HELL ON EARTH down there. 110 degrees F sometimes durring the summer.
curingaging00 5 months ago
@Galv we have to curb GHG emissions before the tipping point.
Once the Earth warms up enough, somewhere between additional 2 or 3 degrees, this will enable many permafrost areas such as Siberia Russia, Northern Canada, Alaska to start releasing tons more of Methane, 20-30x as strong as CO2 into the atmosphere, this will further accelerate global warming.
To prevent this problem, we must act fast to become less fossil fuel dependent. We must continue to transition to solar, wind geothermal.
curingaging00 5 months ago
@curingaging00 So, what YOU say is,"well may the world's climate be constantly changing etc, & well may human civilisations have grown & developed during the several thoughsands of years of current warmth that is an interglacial period. But that the cabal of climate scientists is sincere men & women with impecable scientific credentials who base their conclusions on facts as do scierntist who invented global satelite navigation, the Internet & digital TV & their intellects vastly exceed ours!
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@Galv140577 You bandy (means: pass on or discuss (an idea or rumour) in a casual or uninformed way) with words you do not understand. Eg: Oligach (especially in Russia - a very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence). You see, unlike you, the vast majority (95% cinfidence level) of qualified climatologists are absolutely horrified by the people you blindly follow. There is no conspiracy! But there is error in their predictions, which they "SHOUT" is equal to or less than 5%.
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@Galv140577 As for your calling for people to be put on trial, I agree. The people you or I follow (and we) SHOULD absolutely be PUT ON TRIAL for crimes against Humanity in the year 2020. By that time either you and the people you follow, or I and the world's cabal of climatologist will be PROVEN correct. If we feel compelled, as you & I are, we MUST sign up and if we are found wrong then all of our estates should be confiscated & we be BURNT alive. I hereby agree. Do you?
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@Galv140577 And my dear Galv, you must admit that climate denial feeds the World's media with stuff to publish and, likewise, BANDY on about. And, if you categorise or examine WHO (and the sorts of people and their financial interests) are climate change anti cabal-climatologists, they are a rag-tag group of attention seekers, quasi scientists or spokespersons for industry. And worst, they ae religious freaks or indeologists who head\-bang on about absolute market place freedom regardless.
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
@listen2meokidoki You clearly have no idea what planet you are living on. There are a bunch of evil eugecists who murder people, plunder all the wealth, & vandalise the planet intentionally. They teach human cattle that those things are immoral only to eliminate the competition. They are Godless & most of them are Satanists. Look up "Georgia Guidestones". They openly anounce that they call for a 93% reduction in global population, to use food as a weapon, GMO's, chemtrails, Economic collapse...
Galv140577 5 months ago
@listen2meokidoki The people who are demonising CO2 aren't doing it because they care about you, it's the total opposite reason. They want you dead. CO2 is a life-giving miracle gas that today's plants are starved of. They evolved in an atmosphere with 10x the CO2 of today. They demonise CO2 while re-introducing 5 pesticides that were banned for good, & at the same time banning nutrients & declaring that vitamins are toxins. Look up "Agenda 21 food facism".
Crop yield increases with CO2.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Hello Galv! What you are doing, consciously or not, is confusing your demons. Climatologists are beneficial demons. They are like White Witches & they can be trusted. They do not, rest assured, demonise CO2. They say, if I may put some words into their mouths, that CO2 is like sugar or starchy foods. Yes, we need them and by all means keep on eating them because you mustn't go hungry. But too much starch will make you fat or obess.Yes, Climatologist also love CO2. And I'm impartial
listen2meokidoki 5 months ago
Hank Paulson, fleeces the tax payers with the banks bailouts and now plans on fleecing the US tax payers again with carbon taxes. With clowns like that involved, you know its a scam. LOL
HerecomestheGrump 6 months ago
I was wonder what kind of slanders your bunch would like to try & sling @ Fred Singer? Climatology isn't rocket science, but he has training in both rocket science AND climatology, so he seems imminently qualified to comment on the subject. He was also involved the IPCC report & was also driven to denounce it b/c of the treatment he received there.
By-the-way, he says that only 150 ACTUAL scientists were involved in writing that report. Feel free to comment, Algore isn't here.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
Maybe it wasn't in the high school books, it certainly was in the grade school books. That is how propaganda campaigns work. They probably wrote your lot off, "Too old to begin the training." Brainwashing is always much more effective w/ children. That is why Mao waited until the 60s to begin the Cultural Revolution, they had been raised under his system. I remember the pictures of glaciers devouring Manhattan & the diagrams. I remember reading the text. Don't tell me what I experienced.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
@VictorLepanto I never said anything about what you learned. There are kids in my town who go to schools where they "learn" that dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth at the same time.
What I said was "read Peterson et al. and tell me what peer-reviewed studies, pointing to an imminent ice age, they left out."
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman: Well, if you're willing to lump anthropogenic climate change theory in w/ creationist theory we might be making some progress. As to the local creationists, atleast their paleantology is more scientific then your climatology in this one respect, they're right about the dinosaurs & man, only difference is today we call them birds. In a few years I fear you'll be using your beloved IPCC report to line your dinosaur cage.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
@VictorLepanto Rather than keep posting nonsense, go away and read Peterson et al., then come back and tell me what peer-reviewed papers they left out of their review of the "ice age vs global warming literature in the 70's".
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman: You're the one who wanted to go on about what local schools teach their students. You don't even mention which peer reviewed journal this report appeared in. Was it a statistical research journal? That is the only kind that is relevant to the issue. That would only prove he was right about his statistical interpretation of the material presented, assuming his subjective interpretation of them as pro-warming is valid. & IT HAS NOTHING TO DO W/ ANY ALLEGED CONSENSUS NOW.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto Peterson et al. (2008) Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325-1337 (tinyurl com/4c5hfh2).
Read it, tell me what papers were left out.
I didn't say it had anything to do with consensus now. You were the one who claimed that the old consensus was "imminent ice age".
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman
The Peterson 2008 paper was the one who quoted a FICTIONAL character from a NOVEL for 'evidence'. You can really trust that!
I've been gone for a couple months & I see that you & robhoneycutt still haven't found a single paper that uses EMPIRICAL DATA to explain why the warming of recent decades has a different cause than the rapid warming of the early 1900s. The assertion that recent warming is caused by CO2 is all based on computer simulation MODELS, NOT empirical, measured data.
RealOldOne2 6 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The Peterson et al. (2008) paper addresses a popular denialist meme, that science can't be trusted to predict warming because they used to predict cooling. Crichton didn't invent this meme; he simply played off it. The only reason I've been discussing it here is because Victor used it.
If you didn't have a computer model, you'd still estimate 2-4 C per doubling of CO2 based on interpretation of past climate change.
541iceman 6 months ago
@541iceman "If you didn't have a computer model, you'd still estimate 2-4 C per doubling of CO2 based on interpretation of past climate change."
That is absurd. You only get 2-4C using MODELS which erroneously have high positive feedback. Back up your claim w/some empirical evidence that DOESN'T use climate models then.
The theory says ~1.1C w/o pos. or neg. feedback.
Latest 2011 peer-reviewed science says 0.7C based on EMPIRICAL DATA, which means feedback is NEGATIVE. bit(dot)ly/ooUCDG
RealOldOne2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RealOldOne2
Could you please link the study you are referring to? "Latest 2011 peer-reviewed science says 0.7C based on EMPIRICAL DATA, which means feedback is NEGATIVE. bit(dot)ly/ooUCDG" ....Thanks in advance :D
FriendsOfNone 6 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I predict that Lindzen and Choi (2011) will have a short shelf life, just like their 2009 paper. Their methodology, of cutting up the record into specific chunks, discriminates against long time-scale climate change phenomena like CO2-induced warming. It is somewhat equivalent to taking the first derivative, comparing d(CO2)/dt with d(T)/dt, where the signal is overwhelmingly ENSO, whereas correlating T with CO2 (logarithmically) works better for long-term processes.
541iceman 6 months ago
@RealOldOne2 : SVANTE ARRHENIUS ESTIMATED 5°C in 1896 !!!! You can hardly accuse him of having a computer bias !!!!!!
nigelelsass 5 months ago
@541iceman
The dire predictions of future warming are also based on the same computer simulation models.
Don’t you realize that these models may contain fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
And yet, like chicken little, you claim the ‘sky is falling’ and the earth is going to overheat because of CO2 based on these models.
RealOldOne2 6 months ago
@RealOldOne2 : (1) The models are not all linear; (2) The probability of the same bias in all models is very low; (3) reality shows that models have estimated the warming - especially looking at the arctis (4) If non-linear models are not possible, why the F%$&%%% do millions of students use softwares such as Ansys????
nigelelsass 5 months ago
Cut through the ignorance with your ARMY OF FLYING MONKEYS! WAHAHAHA! But that was a very well formulated video you created, that goes to show arguing with real scientific knowledge that has been thoroughly studied and understood fairly well, doesn't pay in the ultimate scheme of things.
xGauntletx 6 months ago
Very well made. Thank you for posting these videos.
sweatyeti 6 months ago
@sweatyeti
I depend on viewers to spread them around - hope you'll share.
greenman3610 6 months ago
I have always considered myself intelligent, until now.....
how is higher temperatures causing an increase in CO2 showing that higher CO2 causes higher temperatures... still confused fella.
AltairZielite 6 months ago
@AltairZielite
google
caillon timing of
to get the original paper and read it.
last para graph -
"Finally, the situation at Termination III dif- fers from the recent anthropogenic CO2 in- crease. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and exter- nal influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system"..
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
"..Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. "
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
"The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feed- backs (39) that are also at work for the present- day and future climate."
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
for more details, google
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
links there to more primary material.
bottom line, this is the mainstream scientific understanding of how ice ages come and go. You can't get the amplitude of change just from the orbital factors, you must have GHG forcing.
Temp and CO2 are tightly coupled - sometimes temp leads, and sometimes CO2 leads - but the time scales are usually different -- see
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
and
first part of
watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
and don't despair. THIS IS NOT EASY STUFF. that's why I've had to spend thousands of glazed eye hours trying to get just the rudimentary understanding that I have. That's why it's so easy for the denial industry to confuse people about what is happening.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Any clearer? Really? I watched this video twice and still can't figure out if you are saying that humans change the climate or not.
AltairZielite 6 months ago
@AltairZielite
some people will have to watch 3 times.
or more. obviously, you are one.
people change the climate. obviously, other things change the climate too. cigarettes cause lung cancer. other things cause lung cancer too - that doesn't mean you shouldn't stop smoking.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Oops! More research shows the AGW Alarmists have more holes in their 'consensus theory' than Nero's Toga...
news.yahoo. com /nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
YinYangMind 7 months ago
@YinYangMind "Gaping holes". Hmm .. start by reading tinyurl com/3qxuas4 . You don't have to accept this rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell, but you should read and understand it before you get too excited by the Forbes/Fox headlines.
Also read Barry Bickmore's critique of an earlier version of this "analysis": tinyurl com/3rmg9g8 .
541iceman 6 months ago
So...the guy the IPCC trusted to lead their investigation, used a Anthropogenic global warming believer's own study, to prove CO2 levels can only amplify warming during natural warming trends, and NEVER overpower the natural forces that drive our climate, like keep it from cooling and naturally reducing Co2 levels?
Thanks. Couldn't have said it better myself.
pimpdalyrical 7 months ago
@pimpdalyrical: The bureaucratic minions o f the U.N. really didn't care what anyboby they suckered into pariticipating in this scam thought. They were going to pastiche a report to serve their purposes no matter what anyone said thought or wrote. The reports of Christy, Lindzen & Reither make this all too clear. Most of the operatives @ the U.N are from 3rd world thug regimes, where a vigorously critical press is NOT a problem. People need to a wake up what the U.N. has become.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
Excellent. Very informative. Highly educational.
TomUsherRLCC 7 months ago
Maybe it would be more fruitful to address this matter from the larger U.N. issue. Why would any sensible person trust anything coming from the U.N.? Let's review the Rwanda matter for instance. It refused to acknowledge what happened there was genocide. That would have required them to do something about it, according to their own human rights charter. So they just LIED. Look at the Sudan over the same period & even w/ the Darfur situation. These people are swine, NO ONE SHOULD TRUST THEM!
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
Once again that consensus about global warming.
Only 500 years ago we had a consensus in Europe about the existence of God.
Nowadays in the Middle-East there is still a consensus about the existence of Allah.
Still nobody ever managed to scientific prove the existence of God and i get the idea a majority of the GW alarmists belong to the group of people who don't believe God or Allah exists.
Face it, GW-alarmists are the new religious fanatics and GW is their religion.
ronintje 7 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
@ronintje
wow. scientific proof.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@ronintje Your argument doesn't make any sense. A quick look at your channel gives an indication why.
In 4 years you have only favourited 1 vid - of Christopher Monckton. Since he's already been discredited as a CHARLATAN and a LIAR and you still believe in him one could conclude that Denialism is your religion and Monckton your God.
Source: guardian.co.uk Viscount Monckton's climate change scepticism has been discredited by Professor John Abraham.
68spaceman 7 months ago
@68spaceman
Hail Monckton!! He's cured the common cold!!!
watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
greenman3610 6 months ago
Another general challenge: If Paul Reiter was forced to resign this IPCC scam b/c of the unscientific political pressure to surrender the chicken little scare campaign, who else had a similar experience? If he could NOT get his name removed from the report, who else was similarly libelled by being presented as endorsing this notorious fraud? To illustrate this problem, I'll ask a question: Who believes the IPCC report that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 2038? Utter shoddiness.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto 2035 for Himalayan glaciers. An error that has been identified and corrected, but does not affect the science of AGW as summarized in WG1. Next?
By the way, Potholer54 has an excellent critique of Monckton's claims that the Himalayan glaciers are not even shrinking. Go to 10:00 in tinyurl com/3gkk8h5.
541iceman 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto "Paul Reiter forced to resign": "After much effort and many fruitless discussions, I decided to concentrate on the USGCCRP and resigned from the IPCC project. My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong insistence that I succeeded in having it removed."
So, he resigned because he wanted to, and his name was removed. Next?
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: That is so astonishingly vacuous. The blind child like faith you place in the U.N. & utter lack of curiousity you show towards them, it is either very touching or deeply disturbing, I can't decide which. Even in your blind faith for your U.N. priesthood & prophets, you must have one little corner of your mind where critical facuties still survive & you ask yourself, "Gee, if they did this w/ this guy, maybe they did it w/ others as well?" Maybe people who weren't so insistant.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto Vacuous? I quoted Reiter,who said "I decided to concentrate on ... and resigned from the IPCC". You interpret this as "I was forced to resign." How do you get that?
Check out the Potholer clip on trying to get Monckton to explain his "state of the Himalayan glaciers" interpretation yet?
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: Himalayan glaciers? When did your beloved gods at the IPCC predict it would be gone, 2035? Do you support that prediction? Has it ever entered your mind that every thing these goons put out might be just as dubious? You only quoted Reiter to dismiss him. He was quite disturbed by his treatment by this propaganda front called the IPCC. Is your faith so utterly devout in the Olympian spirits of the U.N. IPCC that you've never thought, maybe OTHERS have been done like Reiter?
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto I cited Reiter's words. Just provide evidence that his words support your interpretation of them. If others "resigned" under the same circumstances, name them and cite sources.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: As to Reiter, he is hardly the only person complaining against his treatment by the IPCC. Richard Lindzen says that mere U.N. staffers had their names added to the report to puff it out as seemingly weighty document. W/ Christy, Reiter & Lindzen we have a significant set of defectors; very significant if what Lindzen says is valid. Just name 5 scientists whos names are on it & who endorse its claims fully.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto As I said before, name the authors who are merely staffers but are identified as scientists.
As to the IPCC report, I asked you to read it skeptically and identify the errors, not read it like holy writ. Are you scared you won't find as many errors as you've been told about?
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: As I said b/4 I don't have my own copy of the IPCC report mounted worshipfully in horor in my own house shrine. Talking to you about this is like listening to fundamentalist explain from the Bible that God exists. If you don't believe in the sacred text, why should you bother w/ it? I am not going to waste my time chasing down the biographies of the sacred evangelists & prophets. Just give me 5 names of true scientists w/ RELEVANT expertease who participated in & endorse the report.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto Do a little homework. You make a claim, so you provide the evidence.
And to repeat: I did *not* say that the IPCC was a sacred text. I said "read it SKEPTICALLY, and tell us what you find". Trouble is, you've never read it, you don't have any plans to, you're content to believe interpretations provided by others.
There's a reason why you lot are not taken seriously where it counts.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: I know what the U.N. is, I know all I need to know about the IPCC from their stunt w/ putting out a propaganda sheet by Greenpeace as "scientific" report. Your priesthood in the IPCC want to turn the world upside down on the basis of your chicken little project. It is YOU who is making the extraordinary claim & extraordinary demands on the WHOLE WORLD! You'll bankrupt us. Three of the main IPCC report scientists have denounced it. That is enough for me, find someone to defend it.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto Plenty of people defend it, I'm not worried. Tell me what, other than the "Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035", you have problems with. All that attention on the report, and not much to show for it.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: I find extraordinary the display of blind unshakable faith you display that a scandal like that doesn't utterly discredit it in your eyes. They put out ungrounded claim froma Greenpeace propaganda pamphlet as if it was scientific research. That should be enough to utterly discredit them. But that is hardly all! Once again, TRY TO PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME, Christy (the LEAD writer), Reither (who wrote a WHOLE chapter), & Lindzen says people's names were just put on it for no reason.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto Yes, the unsupported claim on glaciers was a mistake. However, it was public and was able to be found. And it doesn't affect the scientific basis of AGW.
You still seem to be struggling with finding anything else.
Reither wrote a whole chapter by himself? Is that his claim? You want to check that carefully.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: I know this will amuse you, I work in the schools, I've worked w/ Kindergardeners, whatever you tell them, it is as if you said nothing 5 mins. later. Talking to you is like talking to a kindergardener. I talk to you about Christy, & you say, "That's Christy, got anything else?" Then, "That's Reiter, got anything else?" "That's Lindzen, got anything else?" "That's the Himalayan report, got anything else?" "That's Christy, got anything else?" Nothings I say sticks.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto It worries me that someone is teaching kids when they don't think they should look at the document they're commenting on. Doesn't matter with K'ers, but by Grade 2 it's a problem.
So far you have one mistake that doesn't impact the reliability of AGW. You have a guy I've never heard of before this thread (Reiter) and two guys whose recent history indicates that they put publicity ahead of peer-assessed science.
But you won't read the document.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: Once again you demonstrate your inability to concentrate on anything but one fact at a time. It isn't just one fact. Christy's opposition is a fact, Lindzen's is a fact, Reiter's is a fact. The Himalayan scare, now discredited, show us what probably really happened w/ this phony IPCC report. IT WAS TAKEN FROM A GREENPEACE PROPAGANDA PAMPHLETE! This shows us the collusion of the U.N. & these activist groups (NGOs). All corrupt inside dealing, it is OBVIOUS.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto I'm not able to assess Reiter's comments on malaria. However, he has no background to comment on the physics of AGW. Perhaps you can tell me what his arguments are against AGW?
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: LOLOLOL! If he has no relevant knowledge re: AGW, THEN WHAT WAS HE DOING ON THE IPCC? If he does have relevant knowledge, his disrespectful treatment by the bureaucratic hacks @ the IPCC is indicative of how they treated everyone. As I recall, he is supposed to have written a paragraph of the IPCC report, or maybe that was Lindzen. Doesn't matter. These three men demonstrate that the IPCC report was a, typical for the U.N., corrupt insider political scam. It is all rotten.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto "Reiter" I didn't say he had no expertise: I said I hadn't heard of him before this thread. And in a previous comment you suggested he'd write a chapter (it sounded like by himself); now it's a paragraph.
Now ... what, other than the Himalayan glacier timeline, is wrong in IPCC AR4 (2007) ? Especially with regard to the veracity of AGW?
The floor's yours for a few days; try not to damage your cause any further.
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: PLEASE, PLEASE LISTEN THIS TIME. Everything is wrong w/ it. The whole hysterical tone of it. The insane unsupported claims & predictions of it. The OBVIOUSLY politically inspired policy predictions it puts forward. Let me ask you a question: try to answer it this time, do you think Iran & Syria should be on the Human Rights Commission? The U.N. thought that they were perfectly fine for that commission. If they put those two on human rights, what kind of decisions went into the IPCC?
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@VictorLepanto "The hysterical tone of it". So, you have not read it? Read the IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers and cite me an example of "hysterical tone".
541iceman 7 months ago
@541iceman: What happened to your promise to take a break for a few days?
VictorLepanto 7 months ago