@Ineverjustdie ha yh know there dum owned a quarter of the world and give birth to morons like stephan Hawkins and Incase your dum arse doesn't know I'm being sarcastic
5:10 reminded me of spending time with some american friends, and when I proposed that the pledge of allegiance was dangerous, they were outraged.
I said:
"Evil caused by kids made to swear allegiance to something they don't understand has happened within living memory. Only they swore it to a fuhrer, not a flag."
And they simply did not believe that I could make such a connection.
I think the motto: "My country, right or wrong" is testament to their ignorance.
The scientific evidence is overwhelming? What a load of BS!! Mars' Ice Caps have receded Jupiter is getting a second red spot and every planet in the solar system even Pluto is getting hotter. The ice record clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 is a function of global temperature not the cause. And we still haven't even reached the historical high we reached in the Middle Ages or anywhere near what it was just 6000 years ago. The science is overwhelming that GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY THE SUN!
No "scientific" body of national or international standing disputes that the world is getting warmer due to human activity.
If you're certain of your conclusions try contacting one of these organisations to ask why they don't support them. I'm sure they would treat your arguments & supporting evidence with professional consideration.
Well dude what can I say, 31,000 scientist have signed a petition saying that man made global warming is a hoax and Al Gore (the world's first carbon millionaire) flat out refuses to debate any skeptics. And as a matter of fact i did consider both sides seeing as I used to buy into this bullshit until I actually researched it for myself. I don't think I am the one who needs to start questioning his beliefs.
Most of these signatories aren't scientists at all, and the few who are are not qualified as their disciplines have absolutely nothing to do with climate.
Except that many scientist have actually had to fight to get their names off the list the UN presents. You got to stop drinking all that Kool-Aid.
The Earth's temperature changes all the time. Believe it or not that giant ball of fire in the sky is to blame. The ice record shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, NOT the other way round.
Actually, it is the other way round - it is many scientists who had to fight to get their names off the list of those who contest global warming. Oh, and the ice records show that it is rise in CO2 that precede rises in temperature. The Kool-Aid drinkers here are you and your ilk.
Umm, basically it is exactly the opposite of that. Scientists who were on the UN list did have to fight to get off it, you can't dispute that. And take a close look at the ice core records for your self, the rise in carbon lags after the rise in temperature. There is no way around that. Believe it or not the mainstream media and Al Gore lie to you. The Science clearly shows that that big ball of fire in the sky is the driving factor in temperature change. Always has been.
I don't rely on Al Gore, and I work in the UN, so I am in a far better position than you to know. The Swiss glaciers have shrunk by 15% over the past ten years, and the heat-wave of 2003 accounted for 3.5% of that melting. I suppose you're going to try to tell me that this is due to global cooling.
You have a severe case of cognitive dissonance - I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you are a Republican, as that is a mental disease that is rife among them.
So what the glaciers shrank? They have shrunk and grown through out history. We still haven't reached the high we reached in the medieval warm period, and the earth was much hotter for about 3,000 years during the Holocene Maximum.
That's right everything is about Republican or Democrat with Kool-Aid drinkers like you. Well I got news for you.
Wait for it.
BOTH PARTIES ARE CONTROLED!!
Gasp!
As a matter of fact I don't ascribe to either brainwashed camp.
Yes, they have shrunk and grown, but never have they shrunk so much in so little time. The medieval warm period??? I've been seeing loads of articles and posts about the medieval COLD period! With regard to Kool-Aid, I do not partake in it - I rely on sound peer-reviewed scientific evidence provided by reputable paleoclimatologists and other scientists, not on the phony and mendacious papers proffered by the fraudsters you obviously rely on.
Furthermore, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I don't even live in the USA. I do my own thinking with no prompting nor control from anyone or any political party whatsoever. You, on the other hand, post nothing but right-wing lies. You epitomize the brain-washed individual.
Right wing lies? Grow up. The truth is not based which side of this phony right, left, paradigm YOU place the person championing this viewpoint.
You are the perfect controled individual, espousing this false political paradigm (designed to keep you enslaved) and this Global Warming Pseudo Science (enjoy your global carbon tax).
No, the truth is thoroughly eschewed by the right-wing of which you are the paragon. Nobody controls me, I don't espouse any political paradigms whatsoever and am not enslaved by anything or anyone - I am a free thinker and a free spirit. As for the science I refer to, there is nothing pseudo about it, nothing whatsoever. You really need to be liberated and educated.
The week ones are the ones that fall for the government scams like you.
How long has this debate been going on? Over 10 years now? If it were a real crisis it would be addressed but instead it's just debated. When the banks failed was there a 10 year debate on what to do? LOL
To attempt to blame humans for this or to fret and see this as threatening is pretty close to fantasy IMO. As a geologist, I think in terms longer than 100 years and 10 year time intervals are practically worthless
There was a relatively cold period 300 years ago and we have been warming generally since then. It stands to reason that generally the ice caps are shrinking as they generally have for 10,000 years at various rates with some minor back and forth and since we are coming out of a minor cold period, than duh it should be shrinking.
We are coming out of a period of glaciation. There is isostatic rebound near Chicago resulting from the continents springing back from the glaciers that were present there 10,000 years ago. Since that time, ice levels have receded generally, obviously.
The nice thing about climate change is that science will be vindicated over the next 100 years. I suspect that people will look back upon today's leaders and ask why such hard evidence was persistently ignored. History will not render a favorable judgment upon us. As with those who set the stage for WWII through the post WWI settlements, our generation and our response to climate change will be regarded as 'what not to do' by generations over the next 500 years.
Climate change will not change anything, commerce trumps all environmental concerns. Concessions will be made by governments to much money being made to change much especially in a hurry. The appearance of concern is all that is needed to fool the people. Powerful rich folks are not in the least worried about environmental damage or change they will simple move to a new climate. Corporate leaders are of the same mind. Profits are the only long term wall street value, greed and hubris prosper.
I'm afraid if this gw turns out to flood my coastal house, I shall have to sue the coal-powered station near here, because I don't like their smoke or look.
gw is now an awesome way to promote anti-civilization values. NOT saying that civilization is always good, but rather that we can use ingenuity and economic opportunity to change this, not taxation or more UN government funding.
I also prefer the idea of sueing factories if they make toxic waste and dump it into air, to "carbon trading".
basically in all important aspects of their lifes average people dont get real unfiltered information, much rather manipulative myths and propaganda - history, economy and most obvious: religion - but all of the sudden the powers and structures that be have an attack of honesty and public spirit? suddenly we all come together - like in wartime right? ..
Republicans saw that they could mobilize their base by exaggerating the power of Russia & the Commies...up stepped Sen Joe McCarthy. When the cold war was over they needed a replacement for da Commies so they found "da GUMMENT" as the real bogieman- except when they're in power when they passed the equivalent of a TARP spending bill while starting 2 wars-off budget in each year of Bush's term. Then republicans say *we wandered from the true conservative path* Realy?
for those who will not invest time to watch a 8 part video, here is a much shorter video of a foolish sheeple global warming peddler get put in his place just hours ago on news:
wat are you talking about. the pleiocene was 5.5 million years ago. notable carbon increase in the atmosphere dates from the industrial revolution. double whammy of rainforest logging on a massive scale and tenfold increase in man made Co2 production=rise in temperature. its basic logic.
Yet another climate-denying claim has been scientifically shown the door, although this is expected to have as much effect as a trigonometric proof on a charging bull. Skeptics have been saying that global temperature rises might be due to changes in the sun, pretty much the ultimate "it wasn't us, a big boy did it," with a giant fusion reactor as the elusive culprit.
uh, yeah. int he 70's, the front page of magazines read "the next ice age"!
with recent record lows in temperture, main stream has been forced to change global warming into climate change to better cover all the recent lows and keep their story peddled.
has it occurRed to you that every planet in our system was also recording record highs?
what is man's percentage contributions of CO2's to out air??
who said anything about "one"? has not the media change their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change"? its not because of "one". i can appreciate ur elementary approach to debating but if some1 poses a question, you should probably answer that headon
as far as your comment below, "That is total nonsense", try proving it wrong instead of again sounding elementary. the planets did record similar highs when we were experiencin ours & now they r coolin just like we r! its mor bout the sun
yes the sun magnetic poles should shift sometime in 2012, and solar activity should spike for a while, but so far theres been no flare up or anything, so temperature rise in all the planets of the solar system is highly unlikely. please source where you got this info from, id be interested in reading it.
You, nor I have the authority to choose the leader. We have come to an agreement on this. The people choose the leader. I have offered a method for you to dicover who the people determine the leader is. I will leave it at that.
You, cite the magnetic pole shifting around 2012. Is there scientific evidence you are presenting for this claim?
Im not saying I do, but theres a difference between an outspoken voice on the matter and being a leader in it. The leaders, if you can even call them leaders-its a global movement with figureheads-no centralization, are the scientists who accumulate the data and hypothesize.
here is a trusted source for the solar activity fact:
arstechnica. com /science/ news/ 2006/03/3086. ars
how much of CO2 makes up the air and how much do humans contribute? no source is needed as long as there close enough and ill move onto my next point of the silly notion that CO2 is causing global warming!
no source is needed? that says it all really. but in any case it wasnt for your benefit.
the typical amount of Co2 in the air is about 0.04%. Small alterations in quantity however can change climate, as its effects increase water vapour production, and this coupled with other greenhouse gases and a diminishing rainforests on a global scale can lead to temperature increase. There is also a phenomenon called global dimming, which is part of climate change. all of you who dont know of it should do
yes and it was widely discredited because there wasnt enough proof. further more the next ice age stuff was in relation to the hole in the ozone layer. the accumulation of scientific data shows that at no other time in history has the change been so drastic.
"has it occurRed to you that every planet in our system was also recording record highs? "
no. please source. that seems to me very unlikely verging on the impossible. of course co2 is harmless when theres a balance in the air.
jupiter and mars's temperatures are rising and then decreasing in unison with earth. maybe its because of fat people eating all the meat (since that contributes more CO2 than all man made CO2) is casuing juptiter to rise in degrees.
that may well be the case. but then why arent similar rises being recorded on every planet? also we have the weather record dating back to thousands of year for earth. for Mars and Jupiter:from the 70s onwards. moot point. also solar activity could have a lot to do with it but there hasnt been any recently, since 2001, when the last major event took place.
source please, but in any case thats a crappy argument.
Ok first off when there is high solar activity the temperature on earth should change only very little due to our magnetic field and thick atmosphere. On planets like mars the temperature change should be DRASTIC, as there is hardly any atmosphere.not only that, every single planetary and lunar body in the SS should be subject 2 temp rises. The changes for mars and jupiter might well be due to other things like their orbits.
Please answer the questions blakiplops put to you or shut up. You whine a lot about others information but give no source for yours, after repeated polite requests. Then you ignore the information given in blakiplops comment and focus on the word like. You should really learn to answer the question head on, instead of deflecting. Then trying to make light and ask a question. You have not given your source to the ridiculous idea that is the foundation of your argument. So SOURCE OR SHUT UP!
As stated before put up or shut up, you have not addressed your theory of all the planets warming.
Instead you PM me (not post in the comments) the same old tired anti-global warming propaganda. Then try to cosy up to me by referencing other channels I watch. Let me guess, you think Alex Jones is on your side. It is the mistake too many make.
So PUT UP OR SHUT UP you still need to answer the question. You know answer it head on, and stop deflecting. LOL
Just a little reminder of why you were fooled by anti-GW propaganda.
1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century
oh and isn't there something called La Niña?
According to one expert, NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, El Niños were present 31% of the time & La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state. The frequency of El Niños has increased in recent decades, a shift being studied for its possible relationship to global climate change.
Wrong, you fail to understand how this works, you do not get to keep asking questions with out answering them. Remember you should face questions head on, or is it that you can't.
Your poor attempt to write me off says a lot about you. Most likely is you have nothing to counter with & think that you are superior. But that facts remain, & you have no credibility.
Did you watch the videos I mentioned? Did you walk away with some new insight? HowToBoilAFrog has a lot of good information that you should really look at before continuing.
theres been no notable sun activity since 2001 and the next sun spot related activity isnt due till 2012.
anyone saying anything about jupiter having a temperature rise due to the sun is clearly talking out of his arse. Jupiters temperatures are due to internal dynamics which we barely understand as it is. your drawing conclusions from a prior assumption, and as such the argument has no validity.
hmm, now what was that about the sun is the cause?
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
actually those are the only two I could find that had "reported" temperature changes. Nasa has said there hasnt been any notable sun activity since 2001, when the sun last switched its (many) poles. I didnt receive anything from you. and btw its not "controversial". lets put it this way: if Pluto for example has risen in temp bcause of the sun, then we would be fried.
as to your record lows, guess you hadn't heard of LA NIÑA
Trying to say there is the same rise between planets you have to be at the least uneducated to believe that. Earth has atmosphere, & magnetic field, Mars is missing both. The reason Mars lost its atmo was the loss of mag field. Mars and Earth are inside the sun, Jupiter is outside. Jupiter would not be effected the same unless the data is false.
The 70's regurgitation from your 8 videos, which are laughable at best. Yes I watched them as torturous as it was. You may think it neat that there is some authors uncited in magazines, with quotes cherrypicked from the 70's. Did you realize the Frank Cappra had a warning about Global Warming in 1958? That is at least 12 years before your 70's magazines.
Unlike others I don't base my ideas of climate change on CO2. I base mine on mans effect. Cows produce methane, we breed cows, MANs effect.
Since it is your spelling, grammar and terms which demonstrate advanced infantilism, you're in no position to demand anything from anyone, least of all from adults.
And you are an uneducated, ignorant, rude little upstart who needs to have both his mouth and his brains thoroughly cleaned with a wire-brush and bleach.
"And you are an uneducated, ignorant, rude little upstart who needs to have both his mouth and his brains thoroughly cleaned with a wire-brush and bleach"
"not scared, but unwilling to stoop to your low level"
wow, do u have split personalities of just a horrible memory?
either way, ur still showing ur yellow belly. I GET IT! put ur shirt down. we see that ur scared.
just remember that ur incapable of answerin my "stupid q"!
who has said there wouldnt be any ice left in the north pole this summer? theyre not global warming folks theyre just idiots. No one with any intelligence would make a statement like that.
The vast majority of these morons who deny the high probability of global warming are only able to do so because they are alive as a result of the benefits of the civilization that causes the problem.
I am one of those m0R0ns. You are part of the civilization too, and according to you, part of the problem.
Believing in human-caused global warming fails to make us any better thinkers than if we argued against it. It is not an intellectual feat to be proud of. I know that global warming is occuring, that ice is melting. But looking at it straightly, nature is still too big. Bigger than UN propaganda.
I am alive partly because of civilization, true. But how is it not for the better.
Not everyone who denies global warming is a moron (although I think denying that anything is happening requires a pretty high degree of ignorance). Yes, you are probably part of the problem. So am I. I do, however, do what I can to reduce my contribution to the problem. Plenty of people are exaggerating the impact, I agree. Argument is NOT the answer - action is.
How IS it for the better? How is nearly 7 billion people a benefit to the planet?
who gives a fuck about the planet except for supporting us, this talk as if people were part of or informed by some higher being is childish, i hope we all can agree that the population size is not up for debate!!
the thing is the planet has survived much worst than us and will do so in the future too. The planet will be fine, this is just like a slight fever for it: the danger is that we're fucking OURSELVES up with this. this whole global warming thing isnt about our planets survival, its about our survival.
but saying the planet will be fine is redundant, except for some insane eugenics or pantheists i think its a no-brainer that we dont really care what the planet would be without us, "overpopulation" is a horrible demagogic term, i think the implication is self-explanatory!
the planet wont be fine but itll recover. the biggest mass extinction ever recorded ( triassic) where 90% of all life died out was due to an excess of carbon and later methane. the planet will be fine in the long run. But if we dont stop fucking about, we wont be. btw eugenics/pantheists would care about the planet would be without us? ok...?
the crazy ones, at least most of us ^^, the planet is not the same as the nature using its surface, so the "planet" probably will be "fine" in any case ;)
the conundrum is that the global warming scheme plays in the hands of exactly those powers that fuel the system that leads to short-term policy, namely american corporatism, free market imperialism and authoritarian government, its all about measures that have to be imposed from above based on data from above
I think its actually the other way around tbh. This movement has been going on since the 60s and has had increasing scientific support. The corporate sector sector was vehemently against this idea at first. Its had to accept it because of public opinion(=profits) AND overwhelming scientific data. since 2006 i think no scientific body refutes man made climate change. The phenomenon is highly complex and of course could have been prevented earlier, but it was neither profitable to (even if there..
had been sufficient proof) nor politically on the agenda. Now multinationals pride themselves on being "green"...because of us, so its a self reinforcing cycle, but it doesnt come out of any conspiracy of anything. Its up to us to make sure the main contributors to climate change modify their ways of production. (industrial complex is by far more responsible 4 greenhouse emissions than cars for example). Economic incentives can also b given as opposed to taxation, which wouldnt be accepted neway
do you really think the corporate sector which f.e. in america largely owns the media would take the global warming issue without a fight? did you see one?
and yes these people have indeed tried to make the case since the 60ies but without the global warming argument, back then it was smog, the ozon hole aso., now suddenly global warming seems to confirm everything they failed to prove, funny how things have fallen into place
there is a bottle neck at the crucial underlying data, its mainly about nasa measurements why isnt climate champion al gore talking about the disappearence of the "ev1" - an electric car he sponsored himself and that was a striking success! look up the story of its disappearance!
I know of the story. The EV1 was most likely pulled because it would affect other car models and was hugely expensive to build. the balance between market share and costs just wasnt right. Now the market share is potentially huge for cars like that. rising oil prices will make sure well get them very soon, its already starting.
oh come on! did you look it up? these are old bullshit gm talking points that were completely debunked, its even in the wiki article, the case is blatantly obvious, they didnt just pull it, they destroyed all evidence, all prototypes, they made it disappear! its all documented on video ffs! really no point in lying about it!
second: well thats my question: now that "the market is ready" why isnt al gore asking for his own EV1?
hardly bullshit points. Theyre all completely valid. whatever projections they made turned out to be wrong. Its all about the profit. They killed it because it would be more profitable to do so in the long run. pressures from energy companies would have done it too. thats translates into profits. Who knows why specifically? but who also cares? its behaviour thats to be expected from a multinational.
well the guys that worked on the project and documented everything know it, gm even had to concede in many points, even if a project is a failure you dont destroy any last evidence and valuable prototypes like that, you havent looked it up otherwise you ll see the case is entirely unambiguous really, no need to argue about that
but as is the case with multinationals, when they realise public opinion ( through repeated use of media and court cases by environmental movements) goes against them and they cant win, they change strategy. From NOW on, we should take what corporations say about climate change with a pinch of salt. They have a burgeoning market set up especially for it. thankfully we have independent scientific institutions to rely on. It doesnt follow however that
this means the whole climate change thing is a fraud (because of the marketing of climate change within the corporate sector) as its the logical way for them to continue making money. Corporations wield massive powers to persuade and influence both our consumption and our politics, but they have a weakness and thats our opinion on them, as thats where they source their profits from.
do you know how a "huge fight" by the powers that be would look like, look at f.e. the israeli occupation, the MIC or the war on labour - nothing remotely comparable happened against global warming, al gores movie made the case basically over night
"independent science" lol, the vast majority of the "world science community" that first made the case for global warming was revealed to have conflicts of interest! energy is power territory, nothing is independent there!
the battle was in large parts not fought in the mainstream media and it was for a long time not on any governments political agenda. Al gores movie did highlight the issue in the mainstream but it was already in the public consciousness anyway. What he did was get other well known faces talking about it and the whole thing gained momentum.
your independant science point is partly true, as science and profit seeking can twist a lot of things up, but scientists also like nothing more than...
i dont trust this consensus since they all have to base their conclusions on the same narrow set of data, there is as much herd drive and group pressure in science as anywhere else, and the vast majority of the science community has conflicts of interests
I can completely see how average people would be convinced by the arguments, but they dont do it based on actual understanding or unambiguous verifiable evidence
Im sorry but the data is in no way narrow. Its an accumulation of over 30 years. It is massively overwhelming. The phenomenon is hugely complex, but all the information is there if you really want to find out about it. Ill be the first to admit there are some things I dont understand about it, but saying things like "but theres been cooling over the past so and so years" is just foolish. Science is of course subject to outside pressures, but its unlikely that this is the case for global warming.
A similar argument could be made for evolution: does the consensus on that mean there are special interests involved? of course. but it doesnt take away from the fundamental truth of the matter. The scientific community can be very divided indeed, for it to reach agreement on something on the scale weve seen is usually a good indication of validity.
Yes, but corporations have the WEALTH to go buy commercial ads on all air-waves with high profile entertainment Stars and Personalities as their front-man to [brain-wash] SELL us their views in order to steer our opinion in their favor.
Absolutely, but at the same time all the marketing and spin in the world cant take away from fundamentally universalist issues. the anti-globalisation movement is testament to this. My point is its possible to be too cynical in their regards. Most corporate behaviour is attributable to their research on focus groups and marketing response. Theyre far from invulnerable.
soz but no, not a yank, and most yanks are rather well indoctrinated thus not seeing conspiracies
and its rather science finding convenient prove for the wishful thinking of non-science, thats not how it usually works
and maybe you shouldnt politicise this, i certainly dont, human made or not - i dont have a preference, i just dont see "overwhelming evidence" on either side
And this Yank would like to go right at the conspiracy. Mainly corporations want governments to subsidies and build all Green Project Infrastructures, then, when no one is looking, Congress/Parliaments will pass legislations transferring "Tax Paid" Green Project Programs to Private companies.
Socialize Green Project infrastructures.
Privatize Green Project Profits.
They did it with Computers back in the'70. They'll do it with Green Projects today.
And how do you know I am not helping clean up the place. I know there are many more problems that are clear and obvious, that I can reasonably throw my effort in and see something change for the better. Like cleaning beaches.
Believing in human-caused global warming fails to make us any better thinkers than if we argued against it, because we produce only a very small percentage of CO2, and only 30 years have the temp. risen.
I work in the environmental sciences, so I'm very aware that there are multiple factors involved. What I can't do is ignore the DATA which suggest that even if human activity over the past 150 years (or so) is not the primary cause, it appears to be the accelerant, if you will. I'm as pissed as anyone that people are using this real problem as a personal or political advantage, but that's not the point! We can't control the sun, but we can control our part, which is really insult to injury.
I was listening to this lecture the other day, and basically it was about how there is actually more greenhouse gas given off by domesticated animals compared to all the artificial sources combined? If that is the case, then our emissions are not the major cause.
Also, i am aware that even a small increase in ocean temperature would release greenhouse gases into atmosphere. If so, can the temperature increase be the cause of increased CO2 increase?
As am I. A rational discussion is always preferable to argument!
I know that one of the greatest sources of CO2 emissions is livestock. Since animals (and lots of them) have lived on the earth for a long time, animals breathing shouldn't be such a problem. The problem in that regard seems to be related to the huge megafarms and ranches and millions upon millions of cattle...
so if it's DOMESTIC animals, then again, that's our contribution to the problem.
I think the thing is that this is a "chicken or the egg" thing. What I take from the research is that whatever started the warming, we do seem to be making it worse.
An increase in temp would cause more ocean water to evaporate, increasing water vapor content. But, a large part of it would condense into clouds whose albedo would reflect light and heat away from earth, I believe. Need to check on that...
The excess water vapor does block some heat from coming to the surface when it turns to clouds, but it also absorbs heat it self from the sun & traps the heat between the ground and the clouds. Those two effects out way any refection that occurs sadly.
Along with domestic animals humans have had a lot of other impacts. All the trees we have cut down for example, not only the burning of them but the loss of them taking out CO2 as they live.
I don't believe the solar constant has changed perceptively. Also, the base line is much longer than 30 years - I think it's 600,000 (at least 30,000 since the last ice age). You should take some time to research your understanding of this problem. Your intuition on this off by at least a factor of a thousand. This is like thinking the Earth is 5,000 yrs old vs an actual age of 4.5 billion (a factor of a million). Approximate orders of magnitude are important to get right.
well volcanoes put about 21 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere on average each year..
mankind puts on average 26 BILLION tons a year!
Go figure
But sure if we grew hemp to make paper instead of trees.. we could get 10X as much paper from the land (& thus 'capture' more of the 'carbon')
This is because an acre of Hemp produces the same amount of fibre as an acre of trees.. except the Hemp grows every year & the trees take a minimum of 10 years to re-grow.
i think calculations indicate that our co2 output amount to something like 1 billionst part of the atmosphere, not impossible that it still has an impact, but not self-explanatory at all
The CO2 content is usually measured in Parts Per Million..ppm
The impact is of CO2 is understood by scientists & not a case of conjecture.. nor does it need to be 'self-explanatory'.
We know that volcanoes affect the climate with CO2 production (amongst other gasses).. & 21 million tons volcanic CO2 is nothing compared to mankind's 26 billion tons (each and every year.. and growing!)
One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist.. just a climatologist.
Real News.. please post links to this data & the video.. it would be really interesting to see that yearly ice map with the DATES next to it if possible.
But its clear that the data is overwhelming and it has been for many years!
Its not a matter of 'belief' its a fact that the climate has been affected by mankind's activities.
If you accept that volcanoes affect the environment with 21million tons of CO2 a year then mankind's 24BILLION tons starts to look alarming!
use google you moron...the ice sheets are about as big as they were 20 years ago. Polar bears are not drowning...you have been drinking too much flouride and gone to government schools too long. Please do not vote.
Dude, are you a scientist or do you just believe everything you hear on the Alex Jones Radio show? Unless you're the former, please don't have an opinion on this.
The Alex Jones Radio show is a radio show hosted by Alex Jones. It's a good source for blacked out political issues so long as you take them with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, not a lot of people are so good at discerning the good things he says from the bogus, or vice versa. Thus, you get a lot of Jones zealots and haters, and not a lot between.
lol.. of course you are.. that's why you're trolling the Real News.. LOL!!! MIT eh? "I know scientist who have been the Greenland to study ice" Clearly you didn't specialise in language. LOL! Did this report mention Greenland? Looks like it was about the North Pole ice cap & how the LONG-TERM ice was disappearing.. It means it could be ice-free in summer very soon & that alone could lead to all sorts of other changes... MIT eh? scientist eh? & pigs have wings! Thats how we get swine/bird flu ;-)
The map clearly showed the size of the sheet was the same but that the long-term ice was decresing & rapidly by the looks of it!
Did I mention polar bears you fool?
&.. I don't do either of your purile accusations so its clearly a case of those who point a finger at others having three fingers pointing back at themself!
;-D
Use google yourself.. you can find any information you want to back up any theory you might have.. somewhere in cyberspace..
Manufacturing byproducts, carbon monoxide and other dangerous GASES and PARTICLES DO POLLUTE the atmosphere, but they are made by COMPANIES not PEOPLE. the COMPANIES want the PEOPLE to pay for their mistakes.
I work in the energy business. SO2, Nitrus Oxide and Mercury are all real pollutants that kill animals, cause retardation and many other problems. This is real proven science and we also know how to reduce them for relatively small amounts of money...put scrubbers on coal plants. It has helped our air and water quality in the US. Meanwhile the total amount of these pollutants grows rapidly as the world focuses on CO2 fearmongering. I worry that you people are too stupid to understand this.
And civilisation to country's probably including yours
01ccoulson 1 month ago
And the industrial revolution
01ccoulson 1 month ago
@Ineverjustdie ha yh know there dum owned a quarter of the world and give birth to morons like stephan Hawkins and Incase your dum arse doesn't know I'm being sarcastic
01ccoulson 1 month ago
Lol, British thinking they know things, silly brits'.
IneverJustDie 4 months ago
I like the "Donate Today" at the start.
Jro1805 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ust googleearth the northpole and there's no ice is all this scare tactics to distract us from a major pole shift ? can someone tell me im wrong !
evile55 1 year ago
5:10 reminded me of spending time with some american friends, and when I proposed that the pledge of allegiance was dangerous, they were outraged.
I said:
"Evil caused by kids made to swear allegiance to something they don't understand has happened within living memory. Only they swore it to a fuhrer, not a flag."
And they simply did not believe that I could make such a connection.
I think the motto: "My country, right or wrong" is testament to their ignorance.
rabmcnab1 2 years ago
The scientific evidence is overwhelming? What a load of BS!! Mars' Ice Caps have receded Jupiter is getting a second red spot and every planet in the solar system even Pluto is getting hotter. The ice record clearly shows that atmospheric CO2 is a function of global temperature not the cause. And we still haven't even reached the historical high we reached in the Middle Ages or anywhere near what it was just 6000 years ago. The science is overwhelming that GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY THE SUN!
priapus512 2 years ago
No "scientific" body of national or international standing disputes that the world is getting warmer due to human activity.
If you're certain of your conclusions try contacting one of these organisations to ask why they don't support them. I'm sure they would treat your arguments & supporting evidence with professional consideration.
Would you do the same? Have you?
Leander290 2 years ago 2
Well dude what can I say, 31,000 scientist have signed a petition saying that man made global warming is a hoax and Al Gore (the world's first carbon millionaire) flat out refuses to debate any skeptics. And as a matter of fact i did consider both sides seeing as I used to buy into this bullshit until I actually researched it for myself. I don't think I am the one who needs to start questioning his beliefs.
priapus512 2 years ago
Most of these signatories aren't scientists at all, and the few who are are not qualified as their disciplines have absolutely nothing to do with climate.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
Are you sure your not describing the UN climate change scientist list?
priapus512 2 years ago
You wish!
Vierotchka 2 years ago
Except that many scientist have actually had to fight to get their names off the list the UN presents. You got to stop drinking all that Kool-Aid.
The Earth's temperature changes all the time. Believe it or not that giant ball of fire in the sky is to blame. The ice record shows that rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, NOT the other way round.
priapus512 2 years ago
Actually, it is the other way round - it is many scientists who had to fight to get their names off the list of those who contest global warming. Oh, and the ice records show that it is rise in CO2 that precede rises in temperature. The Kool-Aid drinkers here are you and your ilk.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Umm, basically it is exactly the opposite of that. Scientists who were on the UN list did have to fight to get off it, you can't dispute that. And take a close look at the ice core records for your self, the rise in carbon lags after the rise in temperature. There is no way around that. Believe it or not the mainstream media and Al Gore lie to you. The Science clearly shows that that big ball of fire in the sky is the driving factor in temperature change. Always has been.
priapus512 2 years ago
I don't rely on Al Gore, and I work in the UN, so I am in a far better position than you to know. The Swiss glaciers have shrunk by 15% over the past ten years, and the heat-wave of 2003 accounted for 3.5% of that melting. I suppose you're going to try to tell me that this is due to global cooling.
You have a severe case of cognitive dissonance - I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that you are a Republican, as that is a mental disease that is rife among them.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah and I work as a ninja.
So what the glaciers shrank? They have shrunk and grown through out history. We still haven't reached the high we reached in the medieval warm period, and the earth was much hotter for about 3,000 years during the Holocene Maximum.
That's right everything is about Republican or Democrat with Kool-Aid drinkers like you. Well I got news for you.
Wait for it.
BOTH PARTIES ARE CONTROLED!!
Gasp!
As a matter of fact I don't ascribe to either brainwashed camp.
priapus512 2 years ago
Yes, they have shrunk and grown, but never have they shrunk so much in so little time. The medieval warm period??? I've been seeing loads of articles and posts about the medieval COLD period! With regard to Kool-Aid, I do not partake in it - I rely on sound peer-reviewed scientific evidence provided by reputable paleoclimatologists and other scientists, not on the phony and mendacious papers proffered by the fraudsters you obviously rely on.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
Furthermore, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I don't even live in the USA. I do my own thinking with no prompting nor control from anyone or any political party whatsoever. You, on the other hand, post nothing but right-wing lies. You epitomize the brain-washed individual.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Right wing lies? Grow up. The truth is not based which side of this phony right, left, paradigm YOU place the person championing this viewpoint.
You are the perfect controled individual, espousing this false political paradigm (designed to keep you enslaved) and this Global Warming Pseudo Science (enjoy your global carbon tax).
priapus512 2 years ago
No, the truth is thoroughly eschewed by the right-wing of which you are the paragon. Nobody controls me, I don't espouse any political paradigms whatsoever and am not enslaved by anything or anyone - I am a free thinker and a free spirit. As for the science I refer to, there is nothing pseudo about it, nothing whatsoever. You really need to be liberated and educated.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
i post a video response on this why isn't it loading?
unansweredQUESTI0NS 2 years ago
Baahh
The week ones are the ones that fall for the government scams like you.
How long has this debate been going on? Over 10 years now? If it were a real crisis it would be addressed but instead it's just debated. When the banks failed was there a 10 year debate on what to do? LOL
I'm surrounded by idiots!
innervis 2 years ago
The government has never wasted a crisis to scare you into giving up your freedoms and money!
innervis 2 years ago
Continued
To attempt to blame humans for this or to fret and see this as threatening is pretty close to fantasy IMO. As a geologist, I think in terms longer than 100 years and 10 year time intervals are practically worthless
innervis 2 years ago
Continued:
There was a relatively cold period 300 years ago and we have been warming generally since then. It stands to reason that generally the ice caps are shrinking as they generally have for 10,000 years at various rates with some minor back and forth and since we are coming out of a minor cold period, than duh it should be shrinking.
innervis 2 years ago
Quote from an geologist::
We are coming out of a period of glaciation. There is isostatic rebound near Chicago resulting from the continents springing back from the glaciers that were present there 10,000 years ago. Since that time, ice levels have receded generally, obviously.
innervis 2 years ago
Holy Shit!!
FaaarLeft 2 years ago
The nice thing about climate change is that science will be vindicated over the next 100 years. I suspect that people will look back upon today's leaders and ask why such hard evidence was persistently ignored. History will not render a favorable judgment upon us. As with those who set the stage for WWII through the post WWI settlements, our generation and our response to climate change will be regarded as 'what not to do' by generations over the next 500 years.
scasey1960 2 years ago 2
Climate change will not change anything, commerce trumps all environmental concerns. Concessions will be made by governments to much money being made to change much especially in a hurry. The appearance of concern is all that is needed to fool the people. Powerful rich folks are not in the least worried about environmental damage or change they will simple move to a new climate. Corporate leaders are of the same mind. Profits are the only long term wall street value, greed and hubris prosper.
jobedied 2 years ago 2
I'm afraid if this gw turns out to flood my coastal house, I shall have to sue the coal-powered station near here, because I don't like their smoke or look.
gw is now an awesome way to promote anti-civilization values. NOT saying that civilization is always good, but rather that we can use ingenuity and economic opportunity to change this, not taxation or more UN government funding.
I also prefer the idea of sueing factories if they make toxic waste and dump it into air, to "carbon trading".
soccom8341576 2 years ago
basically in all important aspects of their lifes average people dont get real unfiltered information, much rather manipulative myths and propaganda - history, economy and most obvious: religion - but all of the sudden the powers and structures that be have an attack of honesty and public spirit? suddenly we all come together - like in wartime right? ..
random0815 2 years ago
multi year see ace not multi year ice, there is clearly multi year ice, get you title right!, it is seriously misleading!.
joebot1 2 years ago
danger0usknowledge 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Carbon tax a scam.
Al Gore is a lying sack of turd, as a young journalist he destroyed some guys life, he fabricated a story to politically burn the dude.
His dad, through politicking, ended up with a coal mine.
DON'T BELIEVE A THING THIS GOVERNMENT DOES!
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
So, did you obey and eat your babies? Were they tasty?
Vierotchka 2 years ago
for those who will not invest time to watch a 8 part video, here is a much shorter video of a foolish sheeple global warming peddler get put in his place just hours ago on news:
watch?v=1Z67K3e3dtY
juliganp 2 years ago
It is deniers like you who are frauds.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
wat are you talking about. the pleiocene was 5.5 million years ago. notable carbon increase in the atmosphere dates from the industrial revolution. double whammy of rainforest logging on a massive scale and tenfold increase in man made Co2 production=rise in temperature. its basic logic.
blakiplops 2 years ago
$cam, either way right or wrong they, the world bank aims to tax fat people forhigher carbon output.
It's gotten warmer BFD, shit happens it's been colder and it's been hotter.
Hell the seas we're toxic and the air was made of amonia at one point.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
yeah when the earth was forming...
blakiplops 2 years ago
The entire solar system is getting warmer. Not just planet earth.
DefeatTyranny 2 years ago
That is total nonsense.
Vierotchka 2 years ago 3
You might want to look into it before you cast judgements.
DefeatTyranny 2 years ago
I have, extensively and thoroughly, for over 30 years.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
liar!
juliganp 2 years ago
Speak for yourself, you little mendacious ignoramus!
Vierotchka 2 years ago
blah blah blah. ur still yellow and ur still avoiding my questions. run u lying coward!
juliganp 2 years ago
I don't answer stupid question from congenital idiots like you.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
Yet another climate-denying claim has been scientifically shown the door, although this is expected to have as much effect as a trigonometric proof on a charging bull. Skeptics have been saying that global temperature rises might be due to changes in the sun, pretty much the ultimate "it wasn't us, a big boy did it," with a giant fusion reactor as the elusive culprit.
h t t p : / / tinyurl . com / pl9ezp
Vierotchka 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
f u "real" news!! i WAS a supporter but ur hit peice of global warming seems like yellow flag journalism.
two sides to the story of global warming; one, the story peddled by main stream and two,
watch?v=jaNcQ4Wj7bQ
TRUTH!
juliganp 2 years ago
has it occured to you that for many years the situation was exactly the opposite? its only in recent times that global warming has been accepted.
blakiplops 2 years ago
uh, yeah. int he 70's, the front page of magazines read "the next ice age"!
with recent record lows in temperture, main stream has been forced to change global warming into climate change to better cover all the recent lows and keep their story peddled.
has it occurRed to you that every planet in our system was also recording record highs?
what is man's percentage contributions of CO2's to out air??
have you watch the 8 videos i list above?
juliganp 2 years ago
One "record low" does not a tendency make. The hottest years on record, globally, all occurred over the past ten years.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
who said anything about "one"? has not the media change their rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change"? its not because of "one". i can appreciate ur elementary approach to debating but if some1 poses a question, you should probably answer that headon
as far as your comment below, "That is total nonsense", try proving it wrong instead of again sounding elementary. the planets did record similar highs when we were experiencin ours & now they r coolin just like we r! its mor bout the sun
juliganp 2 years ago
Climate change is a consequence of global warming, as anyone with even a minimal amount of knowledge of the subject knows.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
yes the sun magnetic poles should shift sometime in 2012, and solar activity should spike for a while, but so far theres been no flare up or anything, so temperature rise in all the planets of the solar system is highly unlikely. please source where you got this info from, id be interested in reading it.
blakiplops 2 years ago
You, nor I have the authority to choose the leader. We have come to an agreement on this. The people choose the leader. I have offered a method for you to dicover who the people determine the leader is. I will leave it at that.
You, cite the magnetic pole shifting around 2012. Is there scientific evidence you are presenting for this claim?
webovisionca 2 years ago
Im not saying I do, but theres a difference between an outspoken voice on the matter and being a leader in it. The leaders, if you can even call them leaders-its a global movement with figureheads-no centralization, are the scientists who accumulate the data and hypothesize.
here is a trusted source for the solar activity fact:
arstechnica. com /science/ news/ 2006/03/3086. ars
blakiplops 2 years ago
how much of CO2 makes up the air and how much do humans contribute? no source is needed as long as there close enough and ill move onto my next point of the silly notion that CO2 is causing global warming!
juliganp 2 years ago
no source is needed? that says it all really. but in any case it wasnt for your benefit.
the typical amount of Co2 in the air is about 0.04%. Small alterations in quantity however can change climate, as its effects increase water vapour production, and this coupled with other greenhouse gases and a diminishing rainforests on a global scale can lead to temperature increase. There is also a phenomenon called global dimming, which is part of climate change. all of you who dont know of it should do
blakiplops 2 years ago 2
thumbs down for questions?? WOOOOOOOOOOOW!!
really guys, and liberals claim to be so tolerant?
real nice way to prove it guys!
juliganp 2 years ago
How do you know its 'liberals' giving you thumbs down?
siradam575 2 years ago
yes and it was widely discredited because there wasnt enough proof. further more the next ice age stuff was in relation to the hole in the ozone layer. the accumulation of scientific data shows that at no other time in history has the change been so drastic.
"has it occurRed to you that every planet in our system was also recording record highs? "
no. please source. that seems to me very unlikely verging on the impossible. of course co2 is harmless when theres a balance in the air.
blakiplops 2 years ago 2
jupiter and mars's temperatures are rising and then decreasing in unison with earth. maybe its because of fat people eating all the meat (since that contributes more CO2 than all man made CO2) is casuing juptiter to rise in degrees.
damn sheep!
juliganp 2 years ago
that may well be the case. but then why arent similar rises being recorded on every planet? also we have the weather record dating back to thousands of year for earth. for Mars and Jupiter:from the 70s onwards. moot point. also solar activity could have a lot to do with it but there hasnt been any recently, since 2001, when the last major event took place.
blakiplops 2 years ago
actually, they have been recorded. mars and jupiter are the best examples but all have similar temp increases. common denominator? the sun! not co2
juliganp 2 years ago
source please, but in any case thats a crappy argument.
Ok first off when there is high solar activity the temperature on earth should change only very little due to our magnetic field and thick atmosphere. On planets like mars the temperature change should be DRASTIC, as there is hardly any atmosphere.not only that, every single planetary and lunar body in the SS should be subject 2 temp rises. The changes for mars and jupiter might well be due to other things like their orbits.
blakiplops 2 years ago
the changes in mars and jupiter are not "like their orbits". i dont deal in terms of "like" or "could be" and neither should you allow urself to.
lets makes this even easier. please summarize the earths temp in the past four years and draw the correlation of the suns activity such as sun spots?
juliganp 2 years ago
Please answer the questions blakiplops put to you or shut up. You whine a lot about others information but give no source for yours, after repeated polite requests. Then you ignore the information given in blakiplops comment and focus on the word like. You should really learn to answer the question head on, instead of deflecting. Then trying to make light and ask a question. You have not given your source to the ridiculous idea that is the foundation of your argument. So SOURCE OR SHUT UP!
illyounotme 2 years ago
ive sent the article to him.
juliganp 2 years ago
As stated before put up or shut up, you have not addressed your theory of all the planets warming.
Instead you PM me (not post in the comments) the same old tired anti-global warming propaganda. Then try to cosy up to me by referencing other channels I watch. Let me guess, you think Alex Jones is on your side. It is the mistake too many make.
So PUT UP OR SHUT UP you still need to answer the question. You know answer it head on, and stop deflecting. LOL
illyounotme 2 years ago
Just a little reminder of why you were fooled by anti-GW propaganda.
1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century
oh and isn't there something called La Niña?
According to one expert, NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, El Niños were present 31% of the time & La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state. The frequency of El Niños has increased in recent decades, a shift being studied for its possible relationship to global climate change.
illyounotme 2 years ago
i do not see this as a bipartisan issue so dont bother mentioning GW!
i never said that there is no climate fluctuation.
did you read those articles? did you walk away with any new insight?
juliganp 2 years ago
GW=Global Warming, LOL
And no, you failed to show any new information to me
illyounotme 2 years ago
wow! you know everything.
ok, well you are a lost hope! well let me ask you this, what article would you say was close to being good (according to u all-knowing-one) and why?
juliganp 2 years ago
Wrong, you fail to understand how this works, you do not get to keep asking questions with out answering them. Remember you should face questions head on, or is it that you can't.
Your poor attempt to write me off says a lot about you. Most likely is you have nothing to counter with & think that you are superior. But that facts remain, & you have no credibility.
So PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
illyounotme 2 years ago
Did you watch the videos I mentioned? Did you walk away with some new insight? HowToBoilAFrog has a lot of good information that you should really look at before continuing.
illyounotme 2 years ago
where I havent received anything.
blakiplops 2 years ago
theres been no notable sun activity since 2001 and the next sun spot related activity isnt due till 2012.
anyone saying anything about jupiter having a temperature rise due to the sun is clearly talking out of his arse. Jupiters temperatures are due to internal dynamics which we barely understand as it is. your drawing conclusions from a prior assumption, and as such the argument has no validity.
blakiplops 2 years ago
how many planets do we have in our solar system? you have responded to the controversial one...lame! did you read the article that ive sent to you??
juliganp 2 years ago
hmm, now what was that about the sun is the cause?
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
illyounotme 2 years ago
actually those are the only two I could find that had "reported" temperature changes. Nasa has said there hasnt been any notable sun activity since 2001, when the sun last switched its (many) poles. I didnt receive anything from you. and btw its not "controversial". lets put it this way: if Pluto for example has risen in temp bcause of the sun, then we would be fried.
blakiplops 2 years ago
You ask others for their proof but provide none. I'll not be reading any more of your posts and I would suggest that others ignore you as well.
siradam575 2 years ago 2
well thought I would jump into this fun with you
watch?v=-br8Yewo9A0 and the rest of those
as to your record lows, guess you hadn't heard of LA NIÑA
Trying to say there is the same rise between planets you have to be at the least uneducated to believe that. Earth has atmosphere, & magnetic field, Mars is missing both. The reason Mars lost its atmo was the loss of mag field. Mars and Earth are inside the sun, Jupiter is outside. Jupiter would not be effected the same unless the data is false.
illyounotme 2 years ago
The 70's regurgitation from your 8 videos, which are laughable at best. Yes I watched them as torturous as it was. You may think it neat that there is some authors uncited in magazines, with quotes cherrypicked from the 70's. Did you realize the Frank Cappra had a warning about Global Warming in 1958? That is at least 12 years before your 70's magazines.
Unlike others I don't base my ideas of climate change on CO2. I base mine on mans effect. Cows produce methane, we breed cows, MANs effect.
illyounotme 2 years ago
The truth is that you are absolutely wrong.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
u sure did prove ur point.
juliganp 2 years ago
u sure do know how to prove your point. you are so gonna kill it in middle school once you are done with elementary.
juliganp 2 years ago
Grow up, child.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
uhhh, nice try on reversing your child like behavior onto me but um, no. answer my questions or piss off!
juliganp 2 years ago
Since it is your spelling, grammar and terms which demonstrate advanced infantilism, you're in no position to demand anything from anyone, least of all from adults.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
ur a chump who can not stand and explain his position. answer my questions or piss off you yellow belly coward.
'I have, extensively and thoroughly, for over 30 years"?
yea right. then you would love to have shown off your knowledge and answered my questions. instead, you reverted to child like actions behavior.
juliganp 2 years ago
And you are an uneducated, ignorant, rude little upstart who needs to have both his mouth and his brains thoroughly cleaned with a wire-brush and bleach.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
still avoiding my q's you coward!
juliganp 2 years ago
Stupid questions, at best.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
so you are scared of stupid questions. how fucking dumb are you bro????
juliganp 2 years ago
No, not scared, but unwilling to stoop to your low level - and I am NOT your bro.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
not your not. thank God!
"And you are an uneducated, ignorant, rude little upstart who needs to have both his mouth and his brains thoroughly cleaned with a wire-brush and bleach"
"not scared, but unwilling to stoop to your low level"
wow, do u have split personalities of just a horrible memory?
either way, ur still showing ur yellow belly. I GET IT! put ur shirt down. we see that ur scared.
just remember that ur incapable of answerin my "stupid q"!
LMAO at u and urs!!!!!!
juliganp 2 years ago
Totally lame - what else to expect from you?
Vierotchka 2 years ago
i quoted you making a jackass of yourself and you call that lame?
you are weak!
juliganp 2 years ago
Yes, because the only one making a jackass of themselves is you. As for weakness, you display inordinate amounts of it.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div
juliganp 2 years ago
Total bollocks, at best.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
which fact presented to you have issue with?
juliganp 2 years ago
There were no facts presented.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
please watch again and take notes!
juliganp 2 years ago
I did - no facts.
Vierotchka 2 years ago
u are dumb as shit. no hope or use for you!
juliganp 2 years ago
The summer will be the big test.
Some of the global warming folks had earlier asserted the ice at the north pole will be gone this summer.
From what I've seen thus far it'll be greater ice coverage in 2009 than 2008.
Let's just wait & see.
DillonX 2 years ago
who has said there wouldnt be any ice left in the north pole this summer? theyre not global warming folks theyre just idiots. No one with any intelligence would make a statement like that.
blakiplops 2 years ago
bogus
kurydebarcelona 2 years ago
Problem is that this cycle will take us back not 500 years back but 70'000 years back
jalexoid 2 years ago
Global Warming is a scientific fact, just like the dinosaurs and the ice ages.
jalexoid 2 years ago
Measure twice, cut once.
RCinPAWA 2 years ago
The vast majority of these morons who deny the high probability of global warming are only able to do so because they are alive as a result of the benefits of the civilization that causes the problem.
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
hello,
I am one of those m0R0ns. You are part of the civilization too, and according to you, part of the problem.
Believing in human-caused global warming fails to make us any better thinkers than if we argued against it. It is not an intellectual feat to be proud of. I know that global warming is occuring, that ice is melting. But looking at it straightly, nature is still too big. Bigger than UN propaganda.
I am alive partly because of civilization, true. But how is it not for the better.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
UN Propaganda? Now that is something new....
jalexoid 2 years ago 2
Not everyone who denies global warming is a moron (although I think denying that anything is happening requires a pretty high degree of ignorance). Yes, you are probably part of the problem. So am I. I do, however, do what I can to reduce my contribution to the problem. Plenty of people are exaggerating the impact, I agree. Argument is NOT the answer - action is.
How IS it for the better? How is nearly 7 billion people a benefit to the planet?
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
who gives a fuck about the planet except for supporting us, this talk as if people were part of or informed by some higher being is childish, i hope we all can agree that the population size is not up for debate!!
random0815 2 years ago
the thing is the planet has survived much worst than us and will do so in the future too. The planet will be fine, this is just like a slight fever for it: the danger is that we're fucking OURSELVES up with this. this whole global warming thing isnt about our planets survival, its about our survival.
blakiplops 2 years ago
but saying the planet will be fine is redundant, except for some insane eugenics or pantheists i think its a no-brainer that we dont really care what the planet would be without us, "overpopulation" is a horrible demagogic term, i think the implication is self-explanatory!
random0815 2 years ago
the planet wont be fine but itll recover. the biggest mass extinction ever recorded ( triassic) where 90% of all life died out was due to an excess of carbon and later methane. the planet will be fine in the long run. But if we dont stop fucking about, we wont be. btw eugenics/pantheists would care about the planet would be without us? ok...?
blakiplops 2 years ago
the crazy ones, at least most of us ^^, the planet is not the same as the nature using its surface, so the "planet" probably will be "fine" in any case ;)
the conundrum is that the global warming scheme plays in the hands of exactly those powers that fuel the system that leads to short-term policy, namely american corporatism, free market imperialism and authoritarian government, its all about measures that have to be imposed from above based on data from above
random0815 2 years ago
I think its actually the other way around tbh. This movement has been going on since the 60s and has had increasing scientific support. The corporate sector sector was vehemently against this idea at first. Its had to accept it because of public opinion(=profits) AND overwhelming scientific data. since 2006 i think no scientific body refutes man made climate change. The phenomenon is highly complex and of course could have been prevented earlier, but it was neither profitable to (even if there..
blakiplops 2 years ago
had been sufficient proof) nor politically on the agenda. Now multinationals pride themselves on being "green"...because of us, so its a self reinforcing cycle, but it doesnt come out of any conspiracy of anything. Its up to us to make sure the main contributors to climate change modify their ways of production. (industrial complex is by far more responsible 4 greenhouse emissions than cars for example). Economic incentives can also b given as opposed to taxation, which wouldnt be accepted neway
blakiplops 2 years ago
do you really think the corporate sector which f.e. in america largely owns the media would take the global warming issue without a fight? did you see one?
and yes these people have indeed tried to make the case since the 60ies but without the global warming argument, back then it was smog, the ozon hole aso., now suddenly global warming seems to confirm everything they failed to prove, funny how things have fallen into place
random0815 2 years ago
there is a bottle neck at the crucial underlying data, its mainly about nasa measurements why isnt climate champion al gore talking about the disappearence of the "ev1" - an electric car he sponsored himself and that was a striking success! look up the story of its disappearance!
random0815 2 years ago
I know of the story. The EV1 was most likely pulled because it would affect other car models and was hugely expensive to build. the balance between market share and costs just wasnt right. Now the market share is potentially huge for cars like that. rising oil prices will make sure well get them very soon, its already starting.
blakiplops 2 years ago
oh come on! did you look it up? these are old bullshit gm talking points that were completely debunked, its even in the wiki article, the case is blatantly obvious, they didnt just pull it, they destroyed all evidence, all prototypes, they made it disappear! its all documented on video ffs! really no point in lying about it!
second: well thats my question: now that "the market is ready" why isnt al gore asking for his own EV1?
random0815 2 years ago
hardly bullshit points. Theyre all completely valid. whatever projections they made turned out to be wrong. Its all about the profit. They killed it because it would be more profitable to do so in the long run. pressures from energy companies would have done it too. thats translates into profits. Who knows why specifically? but who also cares? its behaviour thats to be expected from a multinational.
blakiplops 2 years ago
well the guys that worked on the project and documented everything know it, gm even had to concede in many points, even if a project is a failure you dont destroy any last evidence and valuable prototypes like that, you havent looked it up otherwise you ll see the case is entirely unambiguous really, no need to argue about that
random0815 2 years ago
there was a huge fight. where have u been? lol
but as is the case with multinationals, when they realise public opinion ( through repeated use of media and court cases by environmental movements) goes against them and they cant win, they change strategy. From NOW on, we should take what corporations say about climate change with a pinch of salt. They have a burgeoning market set up especially for it. thankfully we have independent scientific institutions to rely on. It doesnt follow however that
blakiplops 2 years ago
this means the whole climate change thing is a fraud (because of the marketing of climate change within the corporate sector) as its the logical way for them to continue making money. Corporations wield massive powers to persuade and influence both our consumption and our politics, but they have a weakness and thats our opinion on them, as thats where they source their profits from.
blakiplops 2 years ago
do you know how a "huge fight" by the powers that be would look like, look at f.e. the israeli occupation, the MIC or the war on labour - nothing remotely comparable happened against global warming, al gores movie made the case basically over night
"independent science" lol, the vast majority of the "world science community" that first made the case for global warming was revealed to have conflicts of interest! energy is power territory, nothing is independent there!
random0815 2 years ago
the battle was in large parts not fought in the mainstream media and it was for a long time not on any governments political agenda. Al gores movie did highlight the issue in the mainstream but it was already in the public consciousness anyway. What he did was get other well known faces talking about it and the whole thing gained momentum.
your independant science point is partly true, as science and profit seeking can twist a lot of things up, but scientists also like nothing more than...
blakiplops 2 years ago
debunking one another. It can make a career.
the level of consensus in the scientific community makes it unlikely that their position is based on special interests.
blakiplops 2 years ago
i dont trust this consensus since they all have to base their conclusions on the same narrow set of data, there is as much herd drive and group pressure in science as anywhere else, and the vast majority of the science community has conflicts of interests
I can completely see how average people would be convinced by the arguments, but they dont do it based on actual understanding or unambiguous verifiable evidence
random0815 2 years ago
Im sorry but the data is in no way narrow. Its an accumulation of over 30 years. It is massively overwhelming. The phenomenon is hugely complex, but all the information is there if you really want to find out about it. Ill be the first to admit there are some things I dont understand about it, but saying things like "but theres been cooling over the past so and so years" is just foolish. Science is of course subject to outside pressures, but its unlikely that this is the case for global warming.
blakiplops 2 years ago
A similar argument could be made for evolution: does the consensus on that mean there are special interests involved? of course. but it doesnt take away from the fundamental truth of the matter. The scientific community can be very divided indeed, for it to reach agreement on something on the scale weve seen is usually a good indication of validity.
blakiplops 2 years ago
Yes, but corporations have the WEALTH to go buy commercial ads on all air-waves with high profile entertainment Stars and Personalities as their front-man to [brain-wash] SELL us their views in order to steer our opinion in their favor.
You cannot deny that!
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
Absolutely, but at the same time all the marketing and spin in the world cant take away from fundamentally universalist issues. the anti-globalisation movement is testament to this. My point is its possible to be too cynical in their regards. Most corporate behaviour is attributable to their research on focus groups and marketing response. Theyre far from invulnerable.
blakiplops 2 years ago
funny how science gets better...
you know that the only ones who think this is all somesort of tax scam are the Americans.
it's funny with you yanks, everything is some big conspiracy
Darusdei 2 years ago
soz but no, not a yank, and most yanks are rather well indoctrinated thus not seeing conspiracies
and its rather science finding convenient prove for the wishful thinking of non-science, thats not how it usually works
and maybe you shouldnt politicise this, i certainly dont, human made or not - i dont have a preference, i just dont see "overwhelming evidence" on either side
random0815 2 years ago
I totally agree with your views random0815 .
And this Yank would like to go right at the conspiracy. Mainly corporations want governments to subsidies and build all Green Project Infrastructures, then, when no one is looking, Congress/Parliaments will pass legislations transferring "Tax Paid" Green Project Programs to Private companies.
Socialize Green Project infrastructures.
Privatize Green Project Profits.
They did it with Computers back in the'70. They'll do it with Green Projects today.
yo1dude1man 2 years ago
I didn't deny gw.
And how do you know I am not helping clean up the place. I know there are many more problems that are clear and obvious, that I can reasonably throw my effort in and see something change for the better. Like cleaning beaches.
Believing in human-caused global warming fails to make us any better thinkers than if we argued against it, because we produce only a very small percentage of CO2, and only 30 years have the temp. risen.
What about all the other factors like the sun?
soccom8341576 2 years ago
I work in the environmental sciences, so I'm very aware that there are multiple factors involved. What I can't do is ignore the DATA which suggest that even if human activity over the past 150 years (or so) is not the primary cause, it appears to be the accelerant, if you will. I'm as pissed as anyone that people are using this real problem as a personal or political advantage, but that's not the point! We can't control the sun, but we can control our part, which is really insult to injury.
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
I was listening to this lecture the other day, and basically it was about how there is actually more greenhouse gas given off by domesticated animals compared to all the artificial sources combined? If that is the case, then our emissions are not the major cause.
Also, i am aware that even a small increase in ocean temperature would release greenhouse gases into atmosphere. If so, can the temperature increase be the cause of increased CO2 increase?
Glad to continue discussion.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
just a little point here, DOMESTIC, means we created the problems the animals make
illyounotme 2 years ago
As am I. A rational discussion is always preferable to argument!
I know that one of the greatest sources of CO2 emissions is livestock. Since animals (and lots of them) have lived on the earth for a long time, animals breathing shouldn't be such a problem. The problem in that regard seems to be related to the huge megafarms and ranches and millions upon millions of cattle...
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
so if it's DOMESTIC animals, then again, that's our contribution to the problem.
I think the thing is that this is a "chicken or the egg" thing. What I take from the research is that whatever started the warming, we do seem to be making it worse.
An increase in temp would cause more ocean water to evaporate, increasing water vapor content. But, a large part of it would condense into clouds whose albedo would reflect light and heat away from earth, I believe. Need to check on that...
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
Yes, you are thinking well SayYesToReason
The excess water vapor does block some heat from coming to the surface when it turns to clouds, but it also absorbs heat it self from the sun & traps the heat between the ground and the clouds. Those two effects out way any refection that occurs sadly.
Along with domestic animals humans have had a lot of other impacts. All the trees we have cut down for example, not only the burning of them but the loss of them taking out CO2 as they live.
illyounotme 2 years ago
I am glad to hear that you are inclined to do your part, such as the beach cleaning. I do a lot of things like that as well.
SayYesToReason 2 years ago
I don't believe the solar constant has changed perceptively. Also, the base line is much longer than 30 years - I think it's 600,000 (at least 30,000 since the last ice age). You should take some time to research your understanding of this problem. Your intuition on this off by at least a factor of a thousand. This is like thinking the Earth is 5,000 yrs old vs an actual age of 4.5 billion (a factor of a million). Approximate orders of magnitude are important to get right.
scasey1960 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
will do, Thanks.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
Q: Who do you think is the LEADER of the GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT?
webovisionca 2 years ago
I wonder how many trees we cut down every year to produce toilet paper!:/
Anarkokommunist 2 years ago
well volcanoes put about 21 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere on average each year..
mankind puts on average 26 BILLION tons a year!
Go figure
But sure if we grew hemp to make paper instead of trees.. we could get 10X as much paper from the land (& thus 'capture' more of the 'carbon')
This is because an acre of Hemp produces the same amount of fibre as an acre of trees.. except the Hemp grows every year & the trees take a minimum of 10 years to re-grow.
No reason to cut down trees at all!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
i think calculations indicate that our co2 output amount to something like 1 billionst part of the atmosphere, not impossible that it still has an impact, but not self-explanatory at all
random0815 2 years ago
I'm not sure what a billionst part is?
The CO2 content is usually measured in Parts Per Million..ppm
The impact is of CO2 is understood by scientists & not a case of conjecture.. nor does it need to be 'self-explanatory'.
We know that volcanoes affect the climate with CO2 production (amongst other gasses).. & 21 million tons volcanic CO2 is nothing compared to mankind's 26 billion tons (each and every year.. and growing!)
One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist.. just a climatologist.
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Real News.. please post links to this data & the video.. it would be really interesting to see that yearly ice map with the DATES next to it if possible.
But its clear that the data is overwhelming and it has been for many years!
Its not a matter of 'belief' its a fact that the climate has been affected by mankind's activities.
If you accept that volcanoes affect the environment with 21million tons of CO2 a year then mankind's 24BILLION tons starts to look alarming!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
use google you moron...the ice sheets are about as big as they were 20 years ago. Polar bears are not drowning...you have been drinking too much flouride and gone to government schools too long. Please do not vote.
gabeh73 2 years ago
Dude, are you a scientist or do you just believe everything you hear on the Alex Jones Radio show? Unless you're the former, please don't have an opinion on this.
seethepatterns 2 years ago 2
What's Alex Jones Radio Show?
webovisionca 2 years ago
The Alex Jones Radio show is a radio show hosted by Alex Jones. It's a good source for blacked out political issues so long as you take them with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, not a lot of people are so good at discerning the good things he says from the bogus, or vice versa. Thus, you get a lot of Jones zealots and haters, and not a lot between.
seethepatterns 2 years ago
yes I'm a scientist who went to MIT. I know scientist who have been the Greenland to study ice and I also know that they were pressured to lie!
gabeh73 2 years ago
ejbh3160 2 years ago 4
good greif.. did you even watch the report??
The map clearly showed the size of the sheet was the same but that the long-term ice was decresing & rapidly by the looks of it!
Did I mention polar bears you fool?
&.. I don't do either of your purile accusations so its clearly a case of those who point a finger at others having three fingers pointing back at themself!
;-D
Use google yourself.. you can find any information you want to back up any theory you might have.. somewhere in cyberspace..
ejbh3160 2 years ago
Scientific Evidence is NOT overwhelming. Global Warming Scientists will be known in history like the Flat Earth Society.
CO2 is what you exhale. It isn't a toxic dangerous gas. It is what plants need to live, and it does not harm humans.
Think about why AL GORE is the leader of the movement. The GOVERNMENT wants to TAX every BREATH you take.
webovisionca 2 years ago
Manufacturing byproducts, carbon monoxide and other dangerous GASES and PARTICLES DO POLLUTE the atmosphere, but they are made by COMPANIES not PEOPLE. the COMPANIES want the PEOPLE to pay for their mistakes.
webovisionca 2 years ago 3
I work in the energy business. SO2, Nitrus Oxide and Mercury are all real pollutants that kill animals, cause retardation and many other problems. This is real proven science and we also know how to reduce them for relatively small amounts of money...put scrubbers on coal plants. It has helped our air and water quality in the US. Meanwhile the total amount of these pollutants grows rapidly as the world focuses on CO2 fearmongering. I worry that you people are too stupid to understand this.
gabeh73 2 years ago
I agree with you 100%.
CO2 is not a BAD gas.
It is GOOD for plants.
Humans EXHALE CO2.
Manufacturing processes etc. create and send particles of other dangerous gases and particles into the air.
If you read all the earlier posts I made, you will see that I stated this previously. Cheers.
webovisionca 2 years ago