But it's the truth, the depths of the insanity of the tree hugging far left libs. They seek to change the lives of EVERYBODY, without so much as giving us a choice to even opt OUT of their mentally deranged agenda which will lower the quality of living standard for AmeriKa.
Hey mcjava retard, why don't you move to a socialist country and see what % of your daily wage it takes to purchase a cup of coffee! Next time your in your small local cafe, because I'm certain you don't patronize starbucks, why don't you read orwell's 1984 and think about what a tool you really are!
Funny how the left NOW prefers the phrase "climate change" over the old montros global warming. Hey lefty, if you mail ever so wise politicians the rest of your paycheck I'm certain they'll use it to help save the planet!
thank goodness the right is retarded or they would probably rule this country instead of sitting on farms, growing our food really cheap, getting fat and making stupid videos. They call the left "the elite" as if that is a bad thing. Its great and its the truth.
@MCJavaLearner Sounds like you're one of the environ-wackos that are increasingly hated as people awaken to the truths about the global warming lies. Too bad for the tree huggers that MOST people are using their brains and can think for themselves, seeing that the entire "climate change" agenda is nothing more than a global means to control every aspect of our LIVES. How ELSE would the globalists do it? They decided on "endangered" environment to use against the people, to ring in the NWO.
I have done so much research on this scam that i can say that this has to be one of appalling full of crap claim I have ever heard that man and co2 are causing the climate to change it is a load of pseudo scientific nonsense.. All to control and tax you and me... That I will not tolerate
George Bush infuriate "environmentalists" by rapidly expanding geothermal energy leasing and promoting development of geothermal power, same as his own home uses. Geothermal works 24/7, the new isopentane systems use very little land and it is "sustainable" for the next few million years at least.
Democrats fight to seize our tax dollars to bankrupt us with "green" energy projects that cost far more than they save, that produce relatively little and that will help accelerate national bankruptcy
If we followed the US Constitution, "equal protection" would mean something. But the unelected fourth branch of government -- the immense, unaccountable federal bureaucracies -- like the EPA, doesn't give a damn what you, congress, nor I think -- what's fair -- or whether the Constitution authorizes its existence. Which is something to think about long and hard in 2012. It's all about money. You want the EPA deciding where America's money goes? EPA fees/fines are taxation without representation.
George Bush worked hard to convert the USA to a clean Hydrogen fuel future. Working with Iceland, the EU and various corporations, the transition process was begun. We now have H-fuel stations in major cities and vehicles using it.
That's why, and when, Democrats trotted out Gore's movie to seize control of the "green" tax flow and push it into environmentally devastating biofuel production. They had to derail our clean H-fuel future.
I'm having a tyre and mattress burning party this weekend. I love CO2, but can I just point out at :28 he say's we breath CO2 ? No we exhale CO2 it's just the plants that breath it lol
"CO2 lags warming" - strawman argument - CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
"No warming since 2001" - LOL. 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
"No hotspot signature" - The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming - previous observations were inaccurate due to the satellite's decaying orbit.
Your comment on sensitivity is your strongest point.
@garlicbreds You say if CO2 didn't initiate the warming from the past it at least amplified it, wrong. If CO2 was a major driver,temperatures would rise indefinitely in a “runaway greenhouse effect.” That hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, or the models are missing the dominant driver.
@garlicbreds And yes, their is no hotspot signature, If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this “hot spot” just isn’t there.
@garlicbreds If you asked me, global warming is caused by two things, humidity and cloud cover, and solar flares which effect the solar magnetic field around earth which effect the amount of solar rays come into Earth. Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming, and thats according to the IPCC. Lets talk about clouds, cloud reflect about a quarter of the sunlight that hits earth. The IPCC assumes clouds respond to warming. But clouds could easily drive the warming.
@rapture333 Actually, increased humidity and cloud cover are effects of global warming. Warmer air can absorb more moisture, meaning more clouds and so more rain and snow in many regions. More clouds = more sunlight reflected. But if there is a constant increase of green house gases it won't matter. There is no "solar magnetic field around earth" the earth has a magnetic field and so does the sun. hugs n kisses
@peuwpe People have known for 200 years that sunspots affect our climate, rainfall patterns are also linked by sunspots. Sunspots are a sign of how weak the Sun's magnetic field is, the suns solar magnetic field reaches around Earth and shields us from cosmic rays. It is suggested that if more cosmic rays reach further into our atmosphere, they might ionize molecules to "seed" clouds. It so happens that this year, the sun has had almost no sun spots. But for much of the late twentieth century ─
@peuwpe ─ the solar magnetic field was extremely active. If the theory is correct then that means an active sun means a warming with fewer clouds. A quiet sun means a cooler Earth with more clouds. The correlation between sunspots and temperature is much better over all time spans then with carbon dioxide. And evaporation and rain keep the planet 50 degrees Celsius cooler. Noone knows if cloud cover was the same over hundreds of years. The IPCC modelers admit they don't do clouds or rain well.
@rapture333 Solar activity does effect climate, yes. But the, by some, claimed effects are highly exaggerated. Our knowledge about solar activity comes primarily from satellites, beginning some 30years ago. So we have much more to learn about the effects of it. The correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere and the global average temperature is incontrovertible. Don't understand this resistance towards the idea that mankind being responsible for global warming.
@peuwpe Did you know that in 1985 ice cores extracted in Greenland revealed CO2 levels dating back to 150,000 years ago. In 1999 it became clear carbon rose and fell "after" temperatures rose. By 2003 we had better data showing the lag was 800 years. The ice core data does not show WHAT caused the past warming, the simplest explanation would be that as the seas heat up they release more CO2. The correlation between cosmic rays and temperature is better over all time spans that CO2 and temp.
@rapture333 So the lag was 800years, great. No worries then? Time above anything is the important factor here. Consider the changes in CO2 and temperature over the last 150,000years. They have all been slow compared to the rate of increase in modern times. Changes will occur as they always have. The question is, are they happening to fast for us to adapt? And if you don't mind, I'd like a link to some data about cosmic rays and it's correlation with temp. over all time spans. cheers
@peuwpe Of course in modern times the increase in CO2 is from the industrial age, however the real question is can CO2 drastically increase temperatures that it will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. The answer is the way CO2 works, even if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere, it will make less of a difference. CO2 works exponentially less the more is up there. Search for: Svensmark 2007, clouds and cosmic rays, Svensmark 2009 for the information you requested. Cheers mate.
Human contribution to global atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution accounts for less than 3% of All atmospheric CO2, which itself accounts for less than 5% of Earth's Greenhouse Gasses.
So even IF the greenhouse effect were causing trouble (which has been disproven so man times it is becoming ridiculous) humans account for such a tiny portion that they can't produce a model that expresses Any effect based on it.
@rapture333 The 'its the sun" claim just won't go away, despite being repeatedly debunked to death. No substantial correlation exists between cosmic ray counts and warming; the causal link (cloud formation) is also unsubstantiated.
We can all try to become climate scientists and shoot for the next nobel prize, but thats kinda extremely narcissistic. I prefer to simply rely on reputablle international scientific establishments - thats why we have them. Why be so dismissive of them?
@garlicbreds Established scientific establishments? Like whom may I ask? The world was warmer in the medieval times, and according to data published by 752 individual scientists from 442 separate research institutions in 41 different countries the world was 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer. Why do I bring this up, because current climate models don't know why it was warmer 700 years ago. Skeptics have hundreds of samples of evidence. Non-skeptics have a few flawed bristlecones and a tree in Yamal.
@rapture333 Australian Academy of Sciences Brazilian Academy of Sciences Royal Society of Canada Caribbean Academy of Sciences Chinese Academy of Sciences French Academy of Sciences German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina Indian National Science Academy Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Royal Society (UK) ...
@rapture333 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) American Meteorological Society (AMS) American Institute of Physics Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) American Geophysical Union Geological Society of America American Association of State Climatologists US Geological Survey (USGS) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
@rapture333 So ... who do you have on your side? LOL Monkton?
"The world was warmer in the medieval times" - Europe is not the world.
You are right about the amazing corelation between solar/temp - EXCEPT in the last 30 years, & thats the whole point - it aint natural!
Any model that was sensitive enough to yield a large response to recent solar variability would yield an even larger response to radiative forcing from recent (and therefore also future) CO2 changes. ... oops! Hehe.
@garlicbreds On my side are over 31,000 scientists who have signed The Petition Project, 9000 with PH Ds. The petition project receives money from donations and is run by volunteers, I can't say the same about the IPCC. Their mission statement is:
@garlicbreds “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
@rapture333 No, look it up yourself. YOU need to provide a credible explanation for current warming.
The CO2 theory is perfectly satisfactory. It is supported by MULTIPLE lines of evidence, and is accepted by ALL major science institutes in the world. The "anything but CO2" proponents are clutching at pseudo-science, and are clearly politically motivated.
"31000 scientists" - LOL - again, this has been debunked ad infinitum. Get rid of your foil hat. There is no global conspiracy.
@garlicbreds I have looked up the reasons and details for the causes of global warming. A lot of it mixes cause and effect, but the rest has been torn apart my skeptics. Also, the climate doesn't care what the IPCC says. The clouds don't read David Suzuki, and the oceans don't care what Al Gore things. The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and explain to me how The Petition Project has been debunked? It only takes one scientist to prove a theory wrong.
@garlicbreds May I add that said samples are collected from ice cores, stalagmites, sediments and isotopes. Now then, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and modelers believe that the more CO2, the hotter the world would warm, the more evaporating water and the more humid it would get, and thus trap in more heat. This is called "feedback". Carbon warms us, thus lifting humidity, which warms us even more. Makes sense. But water is complex, it can stay humid, or turn into low clouds, high clouds, rain, snow
@rapture333 All of these have different effects. Every prediction by the IPCC over 1.1 degrees Celsius relies on "feedback", but if the humidity does turn into rain, low clouds, what if fewer high clouds formed? Any one of these would cool the planet. The missing hotspot shows the models are wrong. There goes almost all of the warming. The models exaggerate by a factor of six. Global warming is an audacious scam.
LOL ... and not a shred of real science or fact to be found. Apparently this is how the lowest skill/knowledge people (bottom feeders) learn best - through stories & anecdotes... interesting.
That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. The theories are well established. The onus is on skeptics to explain why we have warming. They cannot explain it (yet).
This video reacts to politics, and ignores established science.
@rapture333 I cannot paste the link to the page here (but I can tell you are not really interested in this, because the multiple lines of evidence are no secret)
CO2 is a perfectly reasonable explanation for recent warming. The onus is on skeptics to explain why it is not CO2. They cannot. What evidence do you have?
Please provide evidence which PROVES that CO2 does not cause warming.
The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale “hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming. Temperatures are not rising, and haven't since 2001. Satellites which orbit our planet twice a day show that the temperatures have not risin since 2001.
@garlicbreds And also new data shows that CO2 levels historically rose 800 years after temperatures have risen, mostly impart to the ocean releasing CO2 in the atmosphere as it becomes warmer. But even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was doubled, it wouldn't make much of a difference, the reason being that the first CO2 molecules in the atmosphere matter the most, the more you add and the effect decreases exponentially due to the way CO2 works. Which can be explained more in depth.
@garlicbreds Also, you say that this video ignores established society, simply a reaction to politics, well as much as the propaganda would have you think otherwise, their was never a consensus on the cause of global warming, ever. It's still a topic in debate, but could this topic be used by people for personal gain? Of course, but I wont sway to far from the question you asked.
@rapture333 "never a consensus" - 97% of published climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. How much more do you need? These days, even Dr Christie admits to warming. The only part of the science where there is any sensible scientific debate is on the issue of climate sensitivity.
You have fired off a lot of common crocks in the hope that at least one will resonate, but it actualy just ruins your credibility. You can take your foil hat off - there's no global conspiracy.
@garlicbreds Even if their was a consensus it wouldnt matter, a consensus doesn't change the laws of nature. And how many scientists does it take to say the debate is not over? More then 30,000 scientists have signed the petition project, 9000 with Ph D's. Science is not democratic. And the earth has not warmed according to satellite data, it may have according to groundstation data, and hundreds of the ground stations are collecting skewed data due to location. IE in a parking lot over concrete
@hagenar Actually there is very little science when it comes to Evolution. Darwin was a racist, the original title of his book included the phrase "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Scientists of the day hadn't discovered DNA yet. Darwin assumed cells were simple, and even said that if someday cells are discovered to be complex that would disprove his theory.
@M4GW Your argument so far is to say that scientists are bad, therefore all they ever say is wrong. Pretty weak.
It doesn't matter what Darwin thought. He didn't even come up with the theory. He just popularized it. Evolution is a proveable, observable process. It's still going on.
Any time a faster mouse survives being eaten by the housecat and has more offspring than his slower brothers, chances are that the next generation of mice will be faster too. That's evolution. Disprove that.
@hagenar I'm not saying scientist are bad, what I am saying is that the theory of evolution has its roots in racism. Read "The Voyage of the Beagle" or "The Decent of Man" both filled with racist remarks. Plus, is constantly being used by Tyrants as an excuse for genocide, the most famous of these is Hitler, who was a huge fan of Darwin.
@hagenar What you described in your mouse analogy is micro-evolution or adaptation, I don't deny that. All dogs for instance are descendants of the wolf but they will never turn into cat. What I do have a problem with is if the mouse, to get away from the cat, suddenly sprouts wings and becomes a bat. This is known as macro evolution which is Darwin's theory where every living thing evolved from primordial soup without Intelligent design.
@M4GW I'll go back to my original point: you made a bad strategic move adding evolution to this. Now people will think your objection to cap and trafe is ideological, not based on facts. Facts, by the way, support evolution.
Hitler liked evolution? Horrific! Did he also like breakfast? Reject breakfast!
How can you accept evolution (of the mouse) based on a single generation in our example but not greater changes over millions? Just because lab techs can't make something does not mean god did.
@hagenar Not only did Hitler "like" Evolution, it was his reasoning for genocide to "purify the species", as did Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Nobody is arguing against adaptation within a species, the problem is when the mouse turns into a bat. In order to do this there would need to be many transitional species of mice with long awkward front legs with skin hanging off of them that couldn't fly yet, and these offshoots would always get caught by the cat.
@M4GW Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot must have listened in science class. So did just about everyone pursuing science today. That doesn't make science fascist, communist, or murderous. It just means science is accepted. The technology you're using to upload videos was developed by scientists. Is your computer a murderer? I doubt it.
If you're looking for an intermediary species between land and airbourne rodents, consider the flying squirrel.
@hagenar DNA is a string of code telling that cell what to do and it is in every cell of every living thing on the planet. Even today the most advanced scientist using the most advanced technology can not replicate this, yet we are somehow supposed to "believe" that this all magically happened by mere chance.
do not be afraid friends, the world will never be destroyed as long as it has a purpose, god created this world , with powers far beyond our reconing, and so he can fix the earth with great ease, the world has a purpose, and as long as it does , it will never be destroyed.
scientists , and politicians all think they are right but they are not ,
The global warming is very much real, either that, or God has decided to end this planet's life =P
Personally I find this ad mocking towards those who try to help save this planet, for our CHILDREN. I am young myself and do not want to clean up behind you grown ups when I am one myself, so I try to do as much as I can for nature.
And no, God doesn't want to destroy the planet. If he do, then heäs not hte God I believe in.
@LoveSasukeKai the world will never be destroyed , i promiss you dont let the hype trick your mind, listen inwards, the world will never be detroyed, if god created this world and all its magnificence , then he can heal it just as quickly.
god does not show himself in form but he is there, always a creative inteligence helping and guideing and loving there is a reason for all things . we will be fine dont worry
As much of a Conservative as I am, I really don't like this commercial because it's just propaganda. But I do believe that Global Warming is false and will make the United States of America go bankrupt.
There is 15% more life on earth than there was 200 years ago. But no more carbon dioxide in the air. As plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide.
@JonThm It is true that there is more life on earth with all the CO2 than without it all. But adding more CO2 doesn't mean you get more life. It's just like food: without you die, but that doesn't mean obesity isn't a problem.
Cap and Trade in the Senate now the American Power Act would increase taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute. With Obama demanding the cessation of offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
Schwarzenegger got the cap and trade law passed in California and now he is going to Washinton to do the same. It looks like Arnold may be the antidote to the anti-scientific attitudes that infect the Republican party.
(cont.) Disproves the Third law of thermodynamics. I have attempted to get my paper published in a peer reviewed journal , however the scientist have ignored me. I'm currently taking my story to Glen Beck, and Fox news who have helped me fund further research into different subject matters, y next paper will be on whether or not Humans breath O2 or CO2.
As a scientist with a high school education in science, I have concluded hat global warming is untrue. I have done extensive research, you see I remember several months ago it felt warm now it feels col, thus we can conclude that global warming is inaccurate, and in fact the earth is cooling at in extremely alarming rate of about 16K per every 6 months, at this rate we can conclude that within 10 years the temperature will be 0K. This not only disputes the theory of Global Warming it also...
Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that with ENTIRE WORLD CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, which are NOT disputed, what kind of fool could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount?
After hearing enough creationists and geocentricsts babble, I'm convinced anyone can argue against any scientific theory no matter how plainly obvious it is and still get followers, as long as it has some kind of religous or political agenda.
@M4GW, #LOL , you think evolution is a fairy tale? Besides all the overwhelming evidence, heres one simple proof:
All sets of evolved things occur in nested hierarchies. No sets of non-evolved things (designed or otherwise) occur in nested hierarchies. All organisms fit a nested hierarchy. End of story.
@M4GW, what you are describing is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory", and see this video for an explanation:
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Evolution itself in no way depends on abiogenesis being correct or not. Aliens could have created the first life for all it matters. It still evolved into all life we have today, as is confirmed by all the empirical evidence including nested hierarchies which I already mentioned.
@M4GW Your argument is 'life is so complicated that science cant replicate it, so it couldnt happen randomly, so it must be a product of Intelligent Design', I dont see how this is conclusive? Scientists have replicated some parts of the initial evolution of life, but not all, that doesn't mean it cannot be done. Wouldn't it be more supportive of your argument if scientists could replicate life, therefore it is Intelligent Design? But they cant so it is not.
@M4GW Also Also if a series of random events where to occurr to make an environment fit for the evolution of life, fit for the evolution of intelligent life, would we not bear witness to this around us? Do we bare witness to this around us? Yes. All the more important to look after it.
@M4GW ... Was that an argument for your statement that Evolution is a fairy tale? Since it sounded more like you supported the theory of Evolution ^^'
No wonder you don't get it when you don't even try. One of the very first thing you will learn about evolution if you actually read something is that it is NOT random, it is the opposite of random.
When you buy into talking points without checking if they hold any water you get arguments like " evolution is random" and "missing link" ect.
Did you know that there are no missing links? Did you know that we don't even need one single fossile to prove evolution?
Evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
Of course, the creationists run from that argument because of obvious reasons, yet religious faggots think that a baby will magically emerge from their rectum.
There is also no more evidence that any species evolved exclusively on this earth than there is evidence for life to have been delivered or engineered by extra terrestrials. Life came from somewhere else just as the earth came from somewhere else.
@SirWinstonChurchill, google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory". They have proved that life can form on the conditions that were present in early earth, and considering how rare those conditions likey are in the universe it's a pretty big coincidence that they existed on Earth just as the first life forms started appearing if life didn't originate on Earth.
And asexual and hemaphroditic organisms are observed evolving all the time. Look at drug resistant viruses and bacteria.
@Houshalter What "overwhelming evidence"? Explain how the barren Earth formed from an explosion, gained organic life, and microbial blobs turned into humans without sounding like a lunatic.
There are massive gaps in the fossil record and carbon dating is way off. There's to many variables for it to be accurate with everything.
I'm not trying to be a jerk or a troll or whatever; just saying evolution is just a theory and people that treat it as fact are arrogant.
@DreamTiger5, a theory is the highest level of certainty a model can get in science. If 99.98% of people who study the subject in depth and do the research believe it, even when the most obvious things in science usually end up being highly controversial and have debates that carry on for years until the evidence goes above and beyond reasonable doubt, and there is huge incentive for anyone to make a contradictory discovery or theory, then I lean towards believing it as well.
@Houshalter That's fine and all, but it's still just a theory until it's been thoroughly proven to be correct. Which it isn't, and apparently never will be.
@DreamTiger5 Just making a side note: in science something only becomes a theory when it is thoroughly tested and the evidence for it's correctness is overwhelming(for example the theory of gravity or cell theory). Untill then it is a hypothesis, not a theory.
And as a general rule less complex systems produce more complex systems. Very simple things can produce very complex things, one of the things that make computer science beautifull to me.
@imorio All right, I'll go off of that instead. I prefer to think of a hypothesis as an idea that needs testing, and then if the tests provide positive feedback it becomes a theory for more advanced testing until it's proven and becomes fact.
@DreamTiger5 No, nothing in science ever becomes fact. That is the whole point, everything we know is the only "to the best of our knowledge". Some things are very, very, very, very.... very likely, but never certain.
@imorio Works for me. Now if only certain evolutionists would stop acting like it is, I would be a lot happier. Ultimately that's what I'm getting at; it's not fact. What they do after they understand that is none of my concern.
At least I would like to say it is, but I'm kind of a nosy person by nature.
Etc. If you want more, wikipedia has a nice layout of all the major relevant evidence in "Evidence of common descent". Proving a single fact or reference on the page wrong would be a great start. No creationist has yet done this.
@Houshalter Simulations? Seriously? Have you never heard the word "bias"? And observations? There's nothing to observe because it's supposed to take millions of years. Geographic distribution is only evidence of Pangaea, which some creationists including myself believe in. The fossil record is broken and there's no solid connections for transitional stages. Genetics mean nothing because DNA strands are so massive and complex.
I accept it as a possibility but creation makes more sense to me.
@I hate to tell you that God and Jesus do not exist. “Oh I'm a mystical being who controls the universe," please, total bullshit. You are stupid to not think something scientific is true. Pick up a science book instead of the bible and study it, it will teach you the right way rather than telling some mystical ancient fairy tale. I know a good fairy tale as well, there once was a flying dog that died from crashing into a cloud, the end. I think I found it in the bible.
Why is everyone so upset that CO2 emissions are fueling anthropogenic climate change that they have to misrepresent the argument? And all the conspiracy theorists going on about 'One World Government', I mean, please lol
@limeshakes start researching the people behind it. Look at the organizations they belong to. Listen to their OWN WORDS. Then lets see if you still feel like LOLing. Or you can just keep drinking the cool-aid and wait till it all happens to us. I suggest you read the CRU e-mails while you are at it.
@fishinwflies Yes, yes I've looked into the climate scientists and the peer reviewed scientific research of climate change. Have you? The research indicates that human created CO2 and methane emissions are changing the earths climate. I dont see what the big fuss is LOL. If a doctor told you 'our tests indicate that you have x disease, and it has x cause', you would go 'ok' because he is well educated in his profession. So why is it different for climate scientists? What is cool-aid?
@limeshakes Obviously you have not. You clearly didn't read the cru e-mails. You did not read where they manipulated the peer review process and faked data. So if you are going to tell a lioe, tewll one that is at least somewhat believable. By the way I wrote a paper that shows scientifically that not only is AGW nonsense but it has been proped up by a culture of scientific misconduct.
@fishinwflies I don't agree with you fishinwflies, but that does not mean that I have not done my research, or that I lie. But I am now curious. How many cru emails have you read? Also you have written a paper that shows, scientifically, that AGW is non-sense. Are you a climate scientist, and has your paper been published?
@limeshakes Clearly you have not. I have read a lot of the e-mails. I have a better background for it than most alarmists. I have a Paleontology background so I have seen the evidence of paleoclimatology first hand. In science you can never prove anything only disprove it. CO2 increases LAG temp increases. This alone disproves the foundation of AGW.
@fishinwflies I'm still unsure of what evidence you have to re-state I have clearly not read the emails. Out of the 1075 leaked emails how many specifically mention data manipulation? Paleoclimatology is the study of past changes in climate, not current changes in climate. If your paper had been published you would have found contrary evidence to show that CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
@fishinwflies To elaborate on what I said below the Milankovitch factors are amplified by CO2 increases released from the oceans and this explains the LAG you mentioned, this is also supported by the paleo record. However this is different from the recent anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 increase, which in turn will be amplified by CO2 released from the oceans and so on. So your paper does not disprove AGW, but shows how climate change has occurred in the past.
@limeshakes Milankovitch factors must have time travel capabiliies huh? You realize you are completely wrong here. It is nonsense and there is no possible way for the cause to lag the effect. Rules of science, you need to change the cause of AGW from CO2, which is clearly not responsible for the warming that ended in 98, or discard the theory. Anything else is scientific misconduct.
@fishinwflies The 'rules of science' also state that you need to have your paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal for it to be publicly reviewed and taken seriously. Until then i will have to assume what you're saying is hearsay. I dont follow on the requirement for time travel, are you saying that CO2 is not a factor in climate change?
@limeshakes There are facts that disprove the theory of AGW. i.e. CO2 lagging temp increase. It has stopped warming as of 98 according to the CRU before they lied about it. Like Darwin Airport, Ther was actually a down trend but the GRU adjusted it to have an up trend. This was caught in the climategate. Once they have been caught lying about any part of it, it must be discarded in whole.
@fishinwflies I've just removed the personal insults you leveled at me in my you tube channel comments. Do you always back up your research with accusations and assumptions? Your CO2 lagging 'fact' is inconsistent with the research. Therefore your theory should be dropped in its entirety. Is that how your scientific rule book works?
@fishinwflies I posted the initial comment, that you replied to. I'm not bothering you it is the other way around, mate. I've asked you some key questions that you could have used to back up your argument, but you have chosen to avoid these, instead you reassert previous statements, call me a lier, tell me I'm wrong, and leave comments on my channel questioning my maturity, political leanings and contribution to the nation. Is this science?
@fishinwflies The lag that you talk about has been well known in climate science for about 20 years, the initial paper published in 1990. It shows how changes in the earths orbit and rotation started a weak warming trend that was then amplified and spread globally by CO2 released from the ocean. However it is important to make a distinction between naturally occurring CO2 increases, and artificial CO2 increase from human activities.
@fishinwflies The current warming trend is linked to artificial CO2 increase. What does the paleo record tell us about the earths climate? The current warming trend will be amplified by naturally occurring CO2 increase and other factors. The 'parody' above confuses a third attribute of CO2, the 'carbon cycle', with both naturally occurring and artificial CO2 increases in the atmosphere and directly contradicts both sides of the climate debate.
@limeshakes You are wrong about everything. You have clearly been brainwashed and facts no longer matter to you. You are a waste of time and energy, now go away. The fundamental premise of the AGW theory is flawed and so is your entire argument.
@fishinwflies The evidence you have to support your theory is selective and therefore gives a misguided understanding of the role CO2 and CH4 plays in global warming. The lag that you talk about is already publicly known and is understood by climate scientists as it has been for two decades. Anyone can find that out if they look. I'm not surprised that your paper remains unpublished because your argument is flawed. Have you even written a paper? Are you even a scientist?
@fishinwflies I doubt that you are a scientist and I doubt that you have written a paper because you back up your theory with bullying, sweeping statements and arrogance. The fact your paper has not been published leads me to conclude that your theory and method is, well, flawed. Not only does your theory rehash something already well know to climate science it ignores the basic physics of the way CO2 and CH4 molecules trap infrared heat. And this has been known since way b4 the climate debate.
@limeshakes Doubt all you want. Fact of the matter is you are wrong. The CO2 increase lagging the temp increase WHICH ENDED IN 98, is from Ice core data planet wide. Can't argue with that. When you can explain how a cause can lag an effect, let me know.
@fishinwflies To restate your tired argument yet again Mr. 'scientist' 'chickens come from eggs because they are observed to hatch from them'. The only person who thinks in terms of effects coming before causes is you. What i have said agrees with the 3 ice core samples you cite. Temperature change cannot 'end', that is like saying at the end of the day 'that was the last day' and ignoring that there will be another one tomorrow. Now go away and stop propagating this selective view nonsense.
@fishinwflies Have you taken your global warming paper to your local daily rag? You know the kind that prints important stories about actors love lives with a special edition expose on horoscopes. Maybe they will publish it for you? That way you dont have to bother with that nagging scientific community.
@fishinwflies No, but seriously perhaps you could book some time at the community radio station and read your paper out on air? That way you wouldn't have to deal with climate scientists OR the general public. I wont tell anyone that the contents of your paper is already well known within the scientific community if you dont..... oh and by the way you are right about the decline in temperatures, I have observed that it is colder today than a week ago so the temperatures must be going down.
@limeshakes You are missing the point. In science you can never prove anything, just disprove it. The premise of AGW has been disproved over and over. Again the climategate e-mails show they lied and faked data to achieve a political agenda. The rules of science are such that AGW must be scraped or rewritten. To do anything else is scientific misconduct. Plus Mann, Jones and Hansen should be excluded from future process.
@fishinwflies You misinterpret emails in the same way you misinterpret the data from the ice core samples because you take them out of context and fail to comprehend the full complexity of what you observe. In scientific process there is a continuing dialogue and public debate through peer reviewed scientific journals, anything else is problematic amateur speculation. Part of that public dialogue is that the 01-10 decade is to be the hottest on record while CO2, CH4 levels continue to rise.
@limeshakes There is no misinterpretation on my part. Only cognitive disonence on your part. Ice core data world wide shows that temp goes up, THEN CO2 goes up. Unless CO2 time travels it cannot be the cause of the warming that ended in 1998. Which was revealed quite well in the e-mail that said "we can't show any warming for a decade, and it's a travesty that we can't." You are so brainwashed you refuse to see the truth that this has been politics not science.
@fishinwflies I thought you were going to add something to the debate? You over simplify a complex phenomenom and ignore basic mathematic laws of averages and calculus and ignore all the different factors that contribute to climate change. You restate misrepresented facts. This is the type of thinking creationists use to support their theories. Are you a creationist too? How's that paper going by the way? You havent said much about that just recently.
@limeshakes I worked in Paleontology and understand more about evolution that you ever will. As for mathematics, 100 years ago CO2 was @ 250 ppm and now is <350. This is not whole numbers. This is an increase of much less than 1%. CO2 is only 0.0349% of the atmosphere, only !% of it man made, and it only greenhouses in 8% of the spectrum. Mizkolzci, a physicist wrote a pier reviwed paper showing iit is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to have increased the temp which stopped rising in 98. AGW has failed.
@fishinwflies WOW now you are saying something that could possibly sway my thinking, Fishy. The only problem that I have with this argument is that the effect is not always in proportion to the relative amounts. Take for example Ozone (O3). There is far less ozone in the atmosphere than CO2 but a reduction in atmospheric ozone levels created by man made CRC's was found to be so dangerous that global use of the chemical was halted. Can you cite the date of the Mizkolzci paper?
@limeshakes You accuse me of oversimplification but it is OK for you to take something as complex as the solar system and the Earth's weather, and single cause (CO2) give us a problem. As for the reason I think warming ended in 98, the admissions of the CRA, and that is what the data shows sans the politically motivated "adjustments". Take for instance Darwin airport. CRA showed a rise in temp, but without the adjustments it dropped. It's called data.
@fishinwflies I dont see how global warming 'ended' in '98 with or without adjustments, Fishy, this doesn't abide by the laws of averages. The latest data that we have shows temperature rising in tandem with rising CO2 and CH4 levels, but not other drivers. The scientist in the email you cited made the same statement publicly before his emails were hacked. In all there were ONLY THREE seemingly contrary statements in 1075 leaked emails. This just doesnt fit with the idea of a complex scam.
@limeshakes Why if warming didn't end in 98, is the ice at both caps increasing? there is sat data updated daily to prove that. Why does the ARGO buoy data show the oceans are cooling? 3 seemingly contradictory e-mails? In what context does "we can't show any warming for a decade.." not arrouse suspicion? The e-mails discussing the manipulation of peer review, avoiding FOI suits and hiding raw data. They were dishonest on more than 3 subjects let alone e-mails. One lie disqualifies them.
@fishinwflies Wow so many brash statements all at once Fishy. Lets look at those statements. You said initially "we can't show any warming for a decade, and it's a travesty that we can't" shortened to "we cant show any warming for a decade...". HOWEVER THE ACTUAL STATEMENT IS "we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty we cant". NO 'DECADE'. Tremburth refers to cooling in 08-09 that has now been attributed to the solar cycle and la ninia. DO YOU OFTEN LIE FISHY?
@fishinwflies The other thing that you should note about those emails is that the one following the one you talk about disagrees with tremburth. "Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.....I do not agree with (tremburths statement)" DO YOU OFTEN TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT TO MISREPRESENT THE FACTS, FISHY? And if you will note I said CONTRARY, NOT CONTRADICTORY. Thanks Fishy.
@limeshakes You are a waste of time. You are wrong and untruthful, and I will no longer engage in this nonsense with someone so brainwashed and ignorant, so laters POMy wanker.
@fishinwflies You lied and it doesnt take much to track that down. Your scientific rule book: 1. What ever Fishy says is the truth, if anyone disagrees they are brainwashed. 2. Only Fishy is allowed to misrepresent the facts, if anyone else does their whole argument is flawed. 3. If all else fails Fishy will resort to bullying and name calling. Tremburth published the doubts you cited in a paper submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. No scandal. No egotism. No bullying. Just science.
@fishinwflies The other thing that you should note about that statement, Fishy, is that Tremburth noted that he EXPRESSED HIS DOUBT PUBLICLY IN A PAPER PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. SOMETHING YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO.
@limeshakes Now explain how increased temperature precedes increased CO2. If you can't explain that then you have no argument whatsoever. Your data, conclusions and basic premises are all flawed. You refuse to address the problem of time traveling CO2 and are so brainwashed I doubt you could see the truth if it was in a tin bucket and hit you square in the face. It is a waste of my time with you. For you this is political ideology, not science. Facts mean nothing to you.
@fishinwflies That will be enough of the insults and accusations, Fishy. I've already explained this twice in our conversation, but you have ignored this on both accounts. I am not about to restate this again.
@limeshakes As for ignoring things, you are still ignoring the fact that world wide, ice cores show temp after the end of the last ice age going up, and the 800 years LATER CO2 goes up. Higher CO2 levels are the result of warmer temperatures, not the cause. Unless of course you can show me how CO2 time travels. It is the like getting the black eye before you get punched. The world does not work that way, except on Star Trek. The primary idea behind AGW is completely flawed.
@fishinwflies No, Fishy, I've already addressed this, but you ignored my response and simply restated your previous statement. This is creationist thinking.
But it's the truth, the depths of the insanity of the tree hugging far left libs. They seek to change the lives of EVERYBODY, without so much as giving us a choice to even opt OUT of their mentally deranged agenda which will lower the quality of living standard for AmeriKa.
recyclecongress 6 days ago
FUCK THE NEW WORLD ORDER
MsTsarbomba 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey mcjava retard, why don't you move to a socialist country and see what % of your daily wage it takes to purchase a cup of coffee! Next time your in your small local cafe, because I'm certain you don't patronize starbucks, why don't you read orwell's 1984 and think about what a tool you really are!
1hairball1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Funny how the left NOW prefers the phrase "climate change" over the old montros global warming. Hey lefty, if you mail ever so wise politicians the rest of your paycheck I'm certain they'll use it to help save the planet!
1hairball1 2 months ago
Wow It's Fuckin Harry Potter, the pictures in the book are moving!!
jippiyeeejh 4 months ago
liberals are idiots , history is proving 'global warming' to be nothing
but a tax scam , to constrict an economy . . .OUR economy . .
you are being proven daily to either be Liars or Idiots . . or both
ocjon1965 5 months ago 2
thank goodness the right is retarded or they would probably rule this country instead of sitting on farms, growing our food really cheap, getting fat and making stupid videos. They call the left "the elite" as if that is a bad thing. Its great and its the truth.
MCJavaLearner 6 months ago
@MCJavaLearner Sounds like you're one of the environ-wackos that are increasingly hated as people awaken to the truths about the global warming lies. Too bad for the tree huggers that MOST people are using their brains and can think for themselves, seeing that the entire "climate change" agenda is nothing more than a global means to control every aspect of our LIVES. How ELSE would the globalists do it? They decided on "endangered" environment to use against the people, to ring in the NWO.
recyclecongress 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this a joke?
iandubois 7 months ago
Is this a joke?
iandubois 7 months ago
@iandubois yep
M4GW 7 months ago
LIberals always need to push their agenda on little kids just a like good little national socialist.
GreenChurchReject 7 months ago 9
Thats interesting explains hostility from choices made.
sicilied 7 months ago
I have done so much research on this scam that i can say that this has to be one of appalling full of crap claim I have ever heard that man and co2 are causing the climate to change it is a load of pseudo scientific nonsense.. All to control and tax you and me... That I will not tolerate
maegana 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OBEY CLIMATE COPS
oi51.tinypic.
com/2lljzeq.jpg
OBEY CLIMATE CRIMINALS
oi51.tinypic.
com/1iohe0.jpg
NikFromNYC 8 months ago
George Bush infuriate "environmentalists" by rapidly expanding geothermal energy leasing and promoting development of geothermal power, same as his own home uses. Geothermal works 24/7, the new isopentane systems use very little land and it is "sustainable" for the next few million years at least.
Democrats fight to seize our tax dollars to bankrupt us with "green" energy projects that cost far more than they save, that produce relatively little and that will help accelerate national bankruptcy
AmericaSpeakOut1 9 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
If we followed the US Constitution, "equal protection" would mean something. But the unelected fourth branch of government -- the immense, unaccountable federal bureaucracies -- like the EPA, doesn't give a damn what you, congress, nor I think -- what's fair -- or whether the Constitution authorizes its existence. Which is something to think about long and hard in 2012. It's all about money. You want the EPA deciding where America's money goes? EPA fees/fines are taxation without representation.
vechorik 5 months ago
George Bush worked hard to convert the USA to a clean Hydrogen fuel future. Working with Iceland, the EU and various corporations, the transition process was begun. We now have H-fuel stations in major cities and vehicles using it.
That's why, and when, Democrats trotted out Gore's movie to seize control of the "green" tax flow and push it into environmentally devastating biofuel production. They had to derail our clean H-fuel future.
They can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen.
AmericaSpeakOut1 9 months ago 2
Check this out:
bangkokmac (dot) com/warming/warming (dot) html
pickinheimer 9 months ago
A steam plasma does nuclear fusion from water. Power with no carbon dioxide or toxic waste.
JonThm 9 months ago
A belief in man-made climate change and global warming is to the medically ill
JonThm 9 months ago
Anybody who has politically incorrect thoughts deserves to die. Say hello to 1984 (Heil Stalin!, Heil Gore!, Heil UN!, Heil Hitler!).
pkpapers 9 months ago
I'm having a tyre and mattress burning party this weekend. I love CO2, but can I just point out at :28 he say's we breath CO2 ? No we exhale CO2 it's just the plants that breath it lol
giptonsilly 9 months ago
"CO2 lags warming" - strawman argument - CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
"No warming since 2001" - LOL. 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.
"No hotspot signature" - The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming - previous observations were inaccurate due to the satellite's decaying orbit.
Your comment on sensitivity is your strongest point.
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@garlicbreds You say if CO2 didn't initiate the warming from the past it at least amplified it, wrong. If CO2 was a major driver,temperatures would rise indefinitely in a “runaway greenhouse effect.” That hasn’t happened in 500 million years, so either a mystery factor stops the runaway greenhouse effect, or CO2 is a minor force. Either way, CO2 is trivial, or the models are missing the dominant driver.
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds And yes, their is no hotspot signature, If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this “hot spot” just isn’t there.
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds If you asked me, global warming is caused by two things, humidity and cloud cover, and solar flares which effect the solar magnetic field around earth which effect the amount of solar rays come into Earth. Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming, and thats according to the IPCC. Lets talk about clouds, cloud reflect about a quarter of the sunlight that hits earth. The IPCC assumes clouds respond to warming. But clouds could easily drive the warming.
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 Actually, increased humidity and cloud cover are effects of global warming. Warmer air can absorb more moisture, meaning more clouds and so more rain and snow in many regions. More clouds = more sunlight reflected. But if there is a constant increase of green house gases it won't matter. There is no "solar magnetic field around earth" the earth has a magnetic field and so does the sun. hugs n kisses
peuwpe 9 months ago
@peuwpe People have known for 200 years that sunspots affect our climate, rainfall patterns are also linked by sunspots. Sunspots are a sign of how weak the Sun's magnetic field is, the suns solar magnetic field reaches around Earth and shields us from cosmic rays. It is suggested that if more cosmic rays reach further into our atmosphere, they might ionize molecules to "seed" clouds. It so happens that this year, the sun has had almost no sun spots. But for much of the late twentieth century ─
rapture333 9 months ago
@peuwpe ─ the solar magnetic field was extremely active. If the theory is correct then that means an active sun means a warming with fewer clouds. A quiet sun means a cooler Earth with more clouds. The correlation between sunspots and temperature is much better over all time spans then with carbon dioxide. And evaporation and rain keep the planet 50 degrees Celsius cooler. Noone knows if cloud cover was the same over hundreds of years. The IPCC modelers admit they don't do clouds or rain well.
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 Solar activity does effect climate, yes. But the, by some, claimed effects are highly exaggerated. Our knowledge about solar activity comes primarily from satellites, beginning some 30years ago. So we have much more to learn about the effects of it. The correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere and the global average temperature is incontrovertible. Don't understand this resistance towards the idea that mankind being responsible for global warming.
peuwpe 9 months ago
@peuwpe Did you know that in 1985 ice cores extracted in Greenland revealed CO2 levels dating back to 150,000 years ago. In 1999 it became clear carbon rose and fell "after" temperatures rose. By 2003 we had better data showing the lag was 800 years. The ice core data does not show WHAT caused the past warming, the simplest explanation would be that as the seas heat up they release more CO2. The correlation between cosmic rays and temperature is better over all time spans that CO2 and temp.
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 So the lag was 800years, great. No worries then? Time above anything is the important factor here. Consider the changes in CO2 and temperature over the last 150,000years. They have all been slow compared to the rate of increase in modern times. Changes will occur as they always have. The question is, are they happening to fast for us to adapt? And if you don't mind, I'd like a link to some data about cosmic rays and it's correlation with temp. over all time spans. cheers
peuwpe 9 months ago
@peuwpe Of course in modern times the increase in CO2 is from the industrial age, however the real question is can CO2 drastically increase temperatures that it will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. The answer is the way CO2 works, even if we double the CO2 in the atmosphere, it will make less of a difference. CO2 works exponentially less the more is up there. Search for: Svensmark 2007, clouds and cosmic rays, Svensmark 2009 for the information you requested. Cheers mate.
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 still missing points..
Human contribution to global atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution accounts for less than 3% of All atmospheric CO2, which itself accounts for less than 5% of Earth's Greenhouse Gasses.
So even IF the greenhouse effect were causing trouble (which has been disproven so man times it is becoming ridiculous) humans account for such a tiny portion that they can't produce a model that expresses Any effect based on it.
eslake 8 months ago
@rapture333 The 'its the sun" claim just won't go away, despite being repeatedly debunked to death. No substantial correlation exists between cosmic ray counts and warming; the causal link (cloud formation) is also unsubstantiated.
We can all try to become climate scientists and shoot for the next nobel prize, but thats kinda extremely narcissistic. I prefer to simply rely on reputablle international scientific establishments - thats why we have them. Why be so dismissive of them?
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@garlicbreds Established scientific establishments? Like whom may I ask? The world was warmer in the medieval times, and according to data published by 752 individual scientists from 442 separate research institutions in 41 different countries the world was 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer. Why do I bring this up, because current climate models don't know why it was warmer 700 years ago. Skeptics have hundreds of samples of evidence. Non-skeptics have a few flawed bristlecones and a tree in Yamal.
rapture333 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
garlicbreds 9 months ago
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@rapture333 So ... who do you have on your side? LOL Monkton?
"The world was warmer in the medieval times" - Europe is not the world.
You are right about the amazing corelation between solar/temp - EXCEPT in the last 30 years, & thats the whole point - it aint natural!
Any model that was sensitive enough to yield a large response to recent solar variability would yield an even larger response to radiative forcing from recent (and therefore also future) CO2 changes. ... oops! Hehe.
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@garlicbreds On my side are over 31,000 scientists who have signed The Petition Project, 9000 with PH Ds. The petition project receives money from donations and is run by volunteers, I can't say the same about the IPCC. Their mission statement is:
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
rapture333 9 months ago
Comment removed
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds Please provide evidence AGW exists. How is CO2 the culprit?
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 No, look it up yourself. YOU need to provide a credible explanation for current warming.
The CO2 theory is perfectly satisfactory. It is supported by MULTIPLE lines of evidence, and is accepted by ALL major science institutes in the world. The "anything but CO2" proponents are clutching at pseudo-science, and are clearly politically motivated.
"31000 scientists" - LOL - again, this has been debunked ad infinitum. Get rid of your foil hat. There is no global conspiracy.
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@garlicbreds I have looked up the reasons and details for the causes of global warming. A lot of it mixes cause and effect, but the rest has been torn apart my skeptics. Also, the climate doesn't care what the IPCC says. The clouds don't read David Suzuki, and the oceans don't care what Al Gore things. The laws of nature are the laws of nature, and explain to me how The Petition Project has been debunked? It only takes one scientist to prove a theory wrong.
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds May I add that said samples are collected from ice cores, stalagmites, sediments and isotopes. Now then, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and modelers believe that the more CO2, the hotter the world would warm, the more evaporating water and the more humid it would get, and thus trap in more heat. This is called "feedback". Carbon warms us, thus lifting humidity, which warms us even more. Makes sense. But water is complex, it can stay humid, or turn into low clouds, high clouds, rain, snow
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 All of these have different effects. Every prediction by the IPCC over 1.1 degrees Celsius relies on "feedback", but if the humidity does turn into rain, low clouds, what if fewer high clouds formed? Any one of these would cool the planet. The missing hotspot shows the models are wrong. There goes almost all of the warming. The models exaggerate by a factor of six. Global warming is an audacious scam.
rapture333 9 months ago
LOL ... and not a shred of real science or fact to be found. Apparently this is how the lowest skill/knowledge people (bottom feeders) learn best - through stories & anecdotes... interesting.
That human CO2 is causing global warming is known with high certainty & confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. The theories are well established. The onus is on skeptics to explain why we have warming. They cannot explain it (yet).
This video reacts to politics, and ignores established science.
garlicbreds 10 months ago
@garlicbreds Oh yeah and whats your evidence? The only evidence AGW has is, well, we can't think of anything better, so it must be carbon dioxide!
rapture333 10 months ago
@rapture333 I cannot paste the link to the page here (but I can tell you are not really interested in this, because the multiple lines of evidence are no secret)
CO2 is a perfectly reasonable explanation for recent warming. The onus is on skeptics to explain why it is not CO2. They cannot. What evidence do you have?
Please provide evidence which PROVES that CO2 does not cause warming.
garlicbreds 10 months ago
@garlicbreds Okay,
The greenhouse signature is missing. Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale “hotspot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming. Temperatures are not rising, and haven't since 2001. Satellites which orbit our planet twice a day show that the temperatures have not risin since 2001.
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds And also new data shows that CO2 levels historically rose 800 years after temperatures have risen, mostly impart to the ocean releasing CO2 in the atmosphere as it becomes warmer. But even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was doubled, it wouldn't make much of a difference, the reason being that the first CO2 molecules in the atmosphere matter the most, the more you add and the effect decreases exponentially due to the way CO2 works. Which can be explained more in depth.
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds Also, you say that this video ignores established society, simply a reaction to politics, well as much as the propaganda would have you think otherwise, their was never a consensus on the cause of global warming, ever. It's still a topic in debate, but could this topic be used by people for personal gain? Of course, but I wont sway to far from the question you asked.
rapture333 9 months ago
@rapture333 "never a consensus" - 97% of published climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. How much more do you need? These days, even Dr Christie admits to warming. The only part of the science where there is any sensible scientific debate is on the issue of climate sensitivity.
You have fired off a lot of common crocks in the hope that at least one will resonate, but it actualy just ruins your credibility. You can take your foil hat off - there's no global conspiracy.
garlicbreds 9 months ago
@garlicbreds Even if their was a consensus it wouldnt matter, a consensus doesn't change the laws of nature. And how many scientists does it take to say the debate is not over? More then 30,000 scientists have signed the petition project, 9000 with Ph D's. Science is not democratic. And the earth has not warmed according to satellite data, it may have according to groundstation data, and hundreds of the ground stations are collecting skewed data due to location. IE in a parking lot over concrete
rapture333 9 months ago
@garlicbreds Also name calling is not science, I believe it actually just ruins your credibility.
rapture333 9 months ago
Bullshit global warming.
btester1 10 months ago
Oh my. Tying global warming to evolution was a bad strategic move for M4GW.
hagenar 10 months ago
@hagenar I suppose I should probably make sure that one scientific fraud is dead before I move on to the next one.
M4GW 10 months ago
@M4GW Yes please. That would be most impressive. Disprove evolution without the use of a Bible and you'll forever be my idol.
hagenar 10 months ago
@hagenar Actually there is very little science when it comes to Evolution. Darwin was a racist, the original title of his book included the phrase "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Scientists of the day hadn't discovered DNA yet. Darwin assumed cells were simple, and even said that if someday cells are discovered to be complex that would disprove his theory.
M4GW 10 months ago
@M4GW Your argument so far is to say that scientists are bad, therefore all they ever say is wrong. Pretty weak.
It doesn't matter what Darwin thought. He didn't even come up with the theory. He just popularized it. Evolution is a proveable, observable process. It's still going on.
Any time a faster mouse survives being eaten by the housecat and has more offspring than his slower brothers, chances are that the next generation of mice will be faster too. That's evolution. Disprove that.
hagenar 10 months ago
@hagenar I'm not saying scientist are bad, what I am saying is that the theory of evolution has its roots in racism. Read "The Voyage of the Beagle" or "The Decent of Man" both filled with racist remarks. Plus, is constantly being used by Tyrants as an excuse for genocide, the most famous of these is Hitler, who was a huge fan of Darwin.
M4GW 10 months ago
@hagenar What you described in your mouse analogy is micro-evolution or adaptation, I don't deny that. All dogs for instance are descendants of the wolf but they will never turn into cat. What I do have a problem with is if the mouse, to get away from the cat, suddenly sprouts wings and becomes a bat. This is known as macro evolution which is Darwin's theory where every living thing evolved from primordial soup without Intelligent design.
M4GW 10 months ago
@M4GW I'll go back to my original point: you made a bad strategic move adding evolution to this. Now people will think your objection to cap and trafe is ideological, not based on facts. Facts, by the way, support evolution.
Hitler liked evolution? Horrific! Did he also like breakfast? Reject breakfast!
How can you accept evolution (of the mouse) based on a single generation in our example but not greater changes over millions? Just because lab techs can't make something does not mean god did.
hagenar 10 months ago
@hagenar Not only did Hitler "like" Evolution, it was his reasoning for genocide to "purify the species", as did Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Nobody is arguing against adaptation within a species, the problem is when the mouse turns into a bat. In order to do this there would need to be many transitional species of mice with long awkward front legs with skin hanging off of them that couldn't fly yet, and these offshoots would always get caught by the cat.
M4GW 10 months ago
@M4GW Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot must have listened in science class. So did just about everyone pursuing science today. That doesn't make science fascist, communist, or murderous. It just means science is accepted. The technology you're using to upload videos was developed by scientists. Is your computer a murderer? I doubt it.
If you're looking for an intermediary species between land and airbourne rodents, consider the flying squirrel.
hagenar 10 months ago
@hagenar DNA is a string of code telling that cell what to do and it is in every cell of every living thing on the planet. Even today the most advanced scientist using the most advanced technology can not replicate this, yet we are somehow supposed to "believe" that this all magically happened by mere chance.
M4GW 10 months ago
hahaha omg you people just want to believe that's a fairy tale because you're to lazy to do something about
GeorgiEmbaid 11 months ago
I'm trying to get into the pants of this hot hippie girl who likes dolphins and shit, that's why I voted Green.
groam6666 1 year ago
do not be afraid friends, the world will never be destroyed as long as it has a purpose, god created this world , with powers far beyond our reconing, and so he can fix the earth with great ease, the world has a purpose, and as long as it does , it will never be destroyed.
scientists , and politicians all think they are right but they are not ,
WINDTALKER300 1 year ago
The global warming is very much real, either that, or God has decided to end this planet's life =P
Personally I find this ad mocking towards those who try to help save this planet, for our CHILDREN. I am young myself and do not want to clean up behind you grown ups when I am one myself, so I try to do as much as I can for nature.
And no, God doesn't want to destroy the planet. If he do, then heäs not hte God I believe in.
LoveSasukeKai 1 year ago
@LoveSasukeKai the world will never be destroyed , i promiss you dont let the hype trick your mind, listen inwards, the world will never be detroyed, if god created this world and all its magnificence , then he can heal it just as quickly.
god does not show himself in form but he is there, always a creative inteligence helping and guideing and loving there is a reason for all things . we will be fine dont worry
WINDTALKER300 1 year ago
@WINDTALKER300 I live in the north and trust me, I know that the global warning is very much real.
LoveSasukeKai 1 year ago
Obama got assassinated by NRA members when he tried to raise energy costs. The end. Stay second amendment!
911FalseFlagTerror01 1 year ago
As much of a Conservative as I am, I really don't like this commercial because it's just propaganda. But I do believe that Global Warming is false and will make the United States of America go bankrupt.
shaggy2Lance 1 year ago
There is 15% more life on earth than there was 200 years ago. But no more carbon dioxide in the air. As plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide.
JonThm 1 year ago
Carbon dioxide increases life on earth
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm It is true that there is more life on earth with all the CO2 than without it all. But adding more CO2 doesn't mean you get more life. It's just like food: without you die, but that doesn't mean obesity isn't a problem.
imorio 1 year ago
Cap and Trade in the Senate now the American Power Act would increase taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute. With Obama demanding the cessation of offshore drilling gas prices are expected to increase yet another $5 a gallon, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. They would price gouge w/ gas prices increasing to $10/gal!
Oktoberfesting 1 year ago
Climate change is a biological impossibility
JonThm 1 year ago
houshalter, wheres the missing link ???
why is that one transitional fossil so hard to find ???
what ? no answer ? thats what i thought !
brettbrock681 1 year ago
Schwarzenegger got the cap and trade law passed in California and now he is going to Washinton to do the same. It looks like Arnold may be the antidote to the anti-scientific attitudes that infect the Republican party.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
can people please look up shockingenvirom on twitter its for school work
lokijay 1 year ago
(cont.) Disproves the Third law of thermodynamics. I have attempted to get my paper published in a peer reviewed journal , however the scientist have ignored me. I'm currently taking my story to Glen Beck, and Fox news who have helped me fund further research into different subject matters, y next paper will be on whether or not Humans breath O2 or CO2.
applefrog111 1 year ago 2
@applefrog111 Gold, absolute pure gold.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@applefrog111 LOL right on!!
frickinmatchbox 10 months ago
As a scientist with a high school education in science, I have concluded hat global warming is untrue. I have done extensive research, you see I remember several months ago it felt warm now it feels col, thus we can conclude that global warming is inaccurate, and in fact the earth is cooling at in extremely alarming rate of about 16K per every 6 months, at this rate we can conclude that within 10 years the temperature will be 0K. This not only disputes the theory of Global Warming it also...
applefrog111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Using numbers from the US DOE, China alone will be emitting ~25Gt CO2 by yr 2050, in a 'bus. as usual' scenario, or ~19Gt in an 'extreme austerity' scenario. This ignores The other 2 economies which will have passed the US in CO2 emissions by then. Compare that with ENTIRE WORLD CO2 emissions of a mere 8Gt for the yr 2005 from CDIAC. Given the reality of the above numbers, which are NOT disputed, what kind of fool could possibly believe that it's possible to trim CO2 emissions by ANY amount?
jimbo1490 1 year ago
GW is nuclear lies, which will cost you money!
JonThm 1 year ago
I love it!
ellominkai89 1 year ago
After hearing enough creationists and geocentricsts babble, I'm convinced anyone can argue against any scientific theory no matter how plainly obvious it is and still get followers, as long as it has some kind of religous or political agenda.
Houshalter 1 year ago 3
@Houshalter Hate to tell you this but the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Global Warming and Evolution are all fairy tales.
M4GW 1 year ago 4
@M4GW, #LOL , you think evolution is a fairy tale? Besides all the overwhelming evidence, heres one simple proof:
All sets of evolved things occur in nested hierarchies. No sets of non-evolved things (designed or otherwise) occur in nested hierarchies. All organisms fit a nested hierarchy. End of story.
Houshalter 1 year ago 8
@Houshalter This is way to huge of a topic to discuss in a youTube comment string, so this is all I am going to say.
DNA is a longer string of code than the Windows Operating System and it is in every cell of every living thing, telling that cell what to do.
How can something so technically advanced that the smartest scientists in the world cannot replicate, happen randomly? End of story.
M4GW 1 year ago 2
@M4GW, what you are describing is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. Google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory", and see this video for an explanation:
watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Evolution itself in no way depends on abiogenesis being correct or not. Aliens could have created the first life for all it matters. It still evolved into all life we have today, as is confirmed by all the empirical evidence including nested hierarchies which I already mentioned.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@M4GW Your argument is 'life is so complicated that science cant replicate it, so it couldnt happen randomly, so it must be a product of Intelligent Design', I dont see how this is conclusive? Scientists have replicated some parts of the initial evolution of life, but not all, that doesn't mean it cannot be done. Wouldn't it be more supportive of your argument if scientists could replicate life, therefore it is Intelligent Design? But they cant so it is not.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@M4GW Also Also if a series of random events where to occurr to make an environment fit for the evolution of life, fit for the evolution of intelligent life, would we not bear witness to this around us? Do we bare witness to this around us? Yes. All the more important to look after it.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@M4GW ... Was that an argument for your statement that Evolution is a fairy tale? Since it sounded more like you supported the theory of Evolution ^^'
LoveSasukeKai 1 year ago
@M4GW
No wonder you don't get it when you don't even try. One of the very first thing you will learn about evolution if you actually read something is that it is NOT random, it is the opposite of random.
When you buy into talking points without checking if they hold any water you get arguments like " evolution is random" and "missing link" ect.
Did you know that there are no missing links? Did you know that we don't even need one single fossile to prove evolution?
TheSaltyAdmiral 11 months ago
@Houshalter
Evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
Of course, the creationists run from that argument because of obvious reasons, yet religious faggots think that a baby will magically emerge from their rectum.
There is also no more evidence that any species evolved exclusively on this earth than there is evidence for life to have been delivered or engineered by extra terrestrials. Life came from somewhere else just as the earth came from somewhere else.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill, google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory". They have proved that life can form on the conditions that were present in early earth, and considering how rare those conditions likey are in the universe it's a pretty big coincidence that they existed on Earth just as the first life forms started appearing if life didn't originate on Earth.
And asexual and hemaphroditic organisms are observed evolving all the time. Look at drug resistant viruses and bacteria.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Mammals can only evolve with heterosexual relationships.
Religious faggots will never admit it.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@Houshalter
Nonsense, the earth is not the center of the universe.
Life came from the same place the earth did - - somewhere else.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@Houshalter What "overwhelming evidence"? Explain how the barren Earth formed from an explosion, gained organic life, and microbial blobs turned into humans without sounding like a lunatic.
There are massive gaps in the fossil record and carbon dating is way off. There's to many variables for it to be accurate with everything.
I'm not trying to be a jerk or a troll or whatever; just saying evolution is just a theory and people that treat it as fact are arrogant.
DreamTiger5 1 year ago
@DreamTiger5, a theory is the highest level of certainty a model can get in science. If 99.98% of people who study the subject in depth and do the research believe it, even when the most obvious things in science usually end up being highly controversial and have debates that carry on for years until the evidence goes above and beyond reasonable doubt, and there is huge incentive for anyone to make a contradictory discovery or theory, then I lean towards believing it as well.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter That's fine and all, but it's still just a theory until it's been thoroughly proven to be correct. Which it isn't, and apparently never will be.
DreamTiger5 1 year ago
@DreamTiger5 Just making a side note: in science something only becomes a theory when it is thoroughly tested and the evidence for it's correctness is overwhelming(for example the theory of gravity or cell theory). Untill then it is a hypothesis, not a theory.
And as a general rule less complex systems produce more complex systems. Very simple things can produce very complex things, one of the things that make computer science beautifull to me.
imorio 1 year ago
@imorio All right, I'll go off of that instead. I prefer to think of a hypothesis as an idea that needs testing, and then if the tests provide positive feedback it becomes a theory for more advanced testing until it's proven and becomes fact.
DreamTiger5 1 year ago
@DreamTiger5 No, nothing in science ever becomes fact. That is the whole point, everything we know is the only "to the best of our knowledge". Some things are very, very, very, very.... very likely, but never certain.
imorio 1 year ago
@imorio Works for me. Now if only certain evolutionists would stop acting like it is, I would be a lot happier. Ultimately that's what I'm getting at; it's not fact. What they do after they understand that is none of my concern.
At least I would like to say it is, but I'm kind of a nosy person by nature.
DreamTiger5 1 year ago
@DreamTiger5, Evidence for evolution:
The fossil record
Genetics
Phenotypic evidence
Experiments
Temporal and geographical distribution
Simulations
Observations
Nested hierarchies
Etc. If you want more, wikipedia has a nice layout of all the major relevant evidence in "Evidence of common descent". Proving a single fact or reference on the page wrong would be a great start. No creationist has yet done this.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Simulations? Seriously? Have you never heard the word "bias"? And observations? There's nothing to observe because it's supposed to take millions of years. Geographic distribution is only evidence of Pangaea, which some creationists including myself believe in. The fossil record is broken and there's no solid connections for transitional stages. Genetics mean nothing because DNA strands are so massive and complex.
I accept it as a possibility but creation makes more sense to me.
DreamTiger5 1 year ago
@I hate to tell you that God and Jesus do not exist. “Oh I'm a mystical being who controls the universe," please, total bullshit. You are stupid to not think something scientific is true. Pick up a science book instead of the bible and study it, it will teach you the right way rather than telling some mystical ancient fairy tale. I know a good fairy tale as well, there once was a flying dog that died from crashing into a cloud, the end. I think I found it in the bible.
DerG3rm 1 year ago
@M4GW
I would more likely believe solar activity is a cause of climate warming or cooling.
I would more likely believe Santa Clause travels 93 million miles led by a red nosed reindeer than the foggy fraud of Algore and his ilk...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@M4GW "Hate to tell you this but the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Global Warming and Evolution are all fairy tales."
LMFAO
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
Life does fusion
JonThm 1 year ago
Why is everyone so upset that CO2 emissions are fueling anthropogenic climate change that they have to misrepresent the argument? And all the conspiracy theorists going on about 'One World Government', I mean, please lol
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes start researching the people behind it. Look at the organizations they belong to. Listen to their OWN WORDS. Then lets see if you still feel like LOLing. Or you can just keep drinking the cool-aid and wait till it all happens to us. I suggest you read the CRU e-mails while you are at it.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Yes, yes I've looked into the climate scientists and the peer reviewed scientific research of climate change. Have you? The research indicates that human created CO2 and methane emissions are changing the earths climate. I dont see what the big fuss is LOL. If a doctor told you 'our tests indicate that you have x disease, and it has x cause', you would go 'ok' because he is well educated in his profession. So why is it different for climate scientists? What is cool-aid?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Obviously you have not. You clearly didn't read the cru e-mails. You did not read where they manipulated the peer review process and faked data. So if you are going to tell a lioe, tewll one that is at least somewhat believable. By the way I wrote a paper that shows scientifically that not only is AGW nonsense but it has been proped up by a culture of scientific misconduct.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I don't agree with you fishinwflies, but that does not mean that I have not done my research, or that I lie. But I am now curious. How many cru emails have you read? Also you have written a paper that shows, scientifically, that AGW is non-sense. Are you a climate scientist, and has your paper been published?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Clearly you have not. I have read a lot of the e-mails. I have a better background for it than most alarmists. I have a Paleontology background so I have seen the evidence of paleoclimatology first hand. In science you can never prove anything only disprove it. CO2 increases LAG temp increases. This alone disproves the foundation of AGW.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
Comment removed
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I'm still unsure of what evidence you have to re-state I have clearly not read the emails. Out of the 1075 leaked emails how many specifically mention data manipulation? Paleoclimatology is the study of past changes in climate, not current changes in climate. If your paper had been published you would have found contrary evidence to show that CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies To elaborate on what I said below the Milankovitch factors are amplified by CO2 increases released from the oceans and this explains the LAG you mentioned, this is also supported by the paleo record. However this is different from the recent anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 increase, which in turn will be amplified by CO2 released from the oceans and so on. So your paper does not disprove AGW, but shows how climate change has occurred in the past.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Milankovitch factors must have time travel capabiliies huh? You realize you are completely wrong here. It is nonsense and there is no possible way for the cause to lag the effect. Rules of science, you need to change the cause of AGW from CO2, which is clearly not responsible for the warming that ended in 98, or discard the theory. Anything else is scientific misconduct.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies The 'rules of science' also state that you need to have your paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal for it to be publicly reviewed and taken seriously. Until then i will have to assume what you're saying is hearsay. I dont follow on the requirement for time travel, are you saying that CO2 is not a factor in climate change?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes There are facts that disprove the theory of AGW. i.e. CO2 lagging temp increase. It has stopped warming as of 98 according to the CRU before they lied about it. Like Darwin Airport, Ther was actually a down trend but the GRU adjusted it to have an up trend. This was caught in the climategate. Once they have been caught lying about any part of it, it must be discarded in whole.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I've just removed the personal insults you leveled at me in my you tube channel comments. Do you always back up your research with accusations and assumptions? Your CO2 lagging 'fact' is inconsistent with the research. Therefore your theory should be dropped in its entirety. Is that how your scientific rule book works?
limeshakes 1 year ago
Comment removed
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@limeshakes There were no insults and you are hopeless, go bother someone else.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I posted the initial comment, that you replied to. I'm not bothering you it is the other way around, mate. I've asked you some key questions that you could have used to back up your argument, but you have chosen to avoid these, instead you reassert previous statements, call me a lier, tell me I'm wrong, and leave comments on my channel questioning my maturity, political leanings and contribution to the nation. Is this science?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies The lag that you talk about has been well known in climate science for about 20 years, the initial paper published in 1990. It shows how changes in the earths orbit and rotation started a weak warming trend that was then amplified and spread globally by CO2 released from the ocean. However it is important to make a distinction between naturally occurring CO2 increases, and artificial CO2 increase from human activities.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies The current warming trend is linked to artificial CO2 increase. What does the paleo record tell us about the earths climate? The current warming trend will be amplified by naturally occurring CO2 increase and other factors. The 'parody' above confuses a third attribute of CO2, the 'carbon cycle', with both naturally occurring and artificial CO2 increases in the atmosphere and directly contradicts both sides of the climate debate.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes You are wrong about everything. You have clearly been brainwashed and facts no longer matter to you. You are a waste of time and energy, now go away. The fundamental premise of the AGW theory is flawed and so is your entire argument.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies The evidence you have to support your theory is selective and therefore gives a misguided understanding of the role CO2 and CH4 plays in global warming. The lag that you talk about is already publicly known and is understood by climate scientists as it has been for two decades. Anyone can find that out if they look. I'm not surprised that your paper remains unpublished because your argument is flawed. Have you even written a paper? Are you even a scientist?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I doubt that you are a scientist and I doubt that you have written a paper because you back up your theory with bullying, sweeping statements and arrogance. The fact your paper has not been published leads me to conclude that your theory and method is, well, flawed. Not only does your theory rehash something already well know to climate science it ignores the basic physics of the way CO2 and CH4 molecules trap infrared heat. And this has been known since way b4 the climate debate.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Doubt all you want. Fact of the matter is you are wrong. The CO2 increase lagging the temp increase WHICH ENDED IN 98, is from Ice core data planet wide. Can't argue with that. When you can explain how a cause can lag an effect, let me know.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
Comment removed
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies To restate your tired argument yet again Mr. 'scientist' 'chickens come from eggs because they are observed to hatch from them'. The only person who thinks in terms of effects coming before causes is you. What i have said agrees with the 3 ice core samples you cite. Temperature change cannot 'end', that is like saying at the end of the day 'that was the last day' and ignoring that there will be another one tomorrow. Now go away and stop propagating this selective view nonsense.
limeshakes 1 year ago
Comment removed
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Have you taken your global warming paper to your local daily rag? You know the kind that prints important stories about actors love lives with a special edition expose on horoscopes. Maybe they will publish it for you? That way you dont have to bother with that nagging scientific community.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies No, but seriously perhaps you could book some time at the community radio station and read your paper out on air? That way you wouldn't have to deal with climate scientists OR the general public. I wont tell anyone that the contents of your paper is already well known within the scientific community if you dont..... oh and by the way you are right about the decline in temperatures, I have observed that it is colder today than a week ago so the temperatures must be going down.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes You are missing the point. In science you can never prove anything, just disprove it. The premise of AGW has been disproved over and over. Again the climategate e-mails show they lied and faked data to achieve a political agenda. The rules of science are such that AGW must be scraped or rewritten. To do anything else is scientific misconduct. Plus Mann, Jones and Hansen should be excluded from future process.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies You misinterpret emails in the same way you misinterpret the data from the ice core samples because you take them out of context and fail to comprehend the full complexity of what you observe. In scientific process there is a continuing dialogue and public debate through peer reviewed scientific journals, anything else is problematic amateur speculation. Part of that public dialogue is that the 01-10 decade is to be the hottest on record while CO2, CH4 levels continue to rise.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes There is no misinterpretation on my part. Only cognitive disonence on your part. Ice core data world wide shows that temp goes up, THEN CO2 goes up. Unless CO2 time travels it cannot be the cause of the warming that ended in 1998. Which was revealed quite well in the e-mail that said "we can't show any warming for a decade, and it's a travesty that we can't." You are so brainwashed you refuse to see the truth that this has been politics not science.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I thought you were going to add something to the debate? You over simplify a complex phenomenom and ignore basic mathematic laws of averages and calculus and ignore all the different factors that contribute to climate change. You restate misrepresented facts. This is the type of thinking creationists use to support their theories. Are you a creationist too? How's that paper going by the way? You havent said much about that just recently.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes I worked in Paleontology and understand more about evolution that you ever will. As for mathematics, 100 years ago CO2 was @ 250 ppm and now is <350. This is not whole numbers. This is an increase of much less than 1%. CO2 is only 0.0349% of the atmosphere, only !% of it man made, and it only greenhouses in 8% of the spectrum. Mizkolzci, a physicist wrote a pier reviwed paper showing iit is IMPOSSIBLE for CO2 to have increased the temp which stopped rising in 98. AGW has failed.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies WOW now you are saying something that could possibly sway my thinking, Fishy. The only problem that I have with this argument is that the effect is not always in proportion to the relative amounts. Take for example Ozone (O3). There is far less ozone in the atmosphere than CO2 but a reduction in atmospheric ozone levels created by man made CRC's was found to be so dangerous that global use of the chemical was halted. Can you cite the date of the Mizkolzci paper?
limeshakes 1 year ago
Comment removed
limeshakes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fishinwflies Perhaps you could answer this question for me: Why do you think global warming ended in 1998?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Answer this question: Why do you think global warnming 'ended' in 1998?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes You accuse me of oversimplification but it is OK for you to take something as complex as the solar system and the Earth's weather, and single cause (CO2) give us a problem. As for the reason I think warming ended in 98, the admissions of the CRA, and that is what the data shows sans the politically motivated "adjustments". Take for instance Darwin airport. CRA showed a rise in temp, but without the adjustments it dropped. It's called data.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies I dont see how global warming 'ended' in '98 with or without adjustments, Fishy, this doesn't abide by the laws of averages. The latest data that we have shows temperature rising in tandem with rising CO2 and CH4 levels, but not other drivers. The scientist in the email you cited made the same statement publicly before his emails were hacked. In all there were ONLY THREE seemingly contrary statements in 1075 leaked emails. This just doesnt fit with the idea of a complex scam.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Why if warming didn't end in 98, is the ice at both caps increasing? there is sat data updated daily to prove that. Why does the ARGO buoy data show the oceans are cooling? 3 seemingly contradictory e-mails? In what context does "we can't show any warming for a decade.." not arrouse suspicion? The e-mails discussing the manipulation of peer review, avoiding FOI suits and hiding raw data. They were dishonest on more than 3 subjects let alone e-mails. One lie disqualifies them.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies Wow so many brash statements all at once Fishy. Lets look at those statements. You said initially "we can't show any warming for a decade, and it's a travesty that we can't" shortened to "we cant show any warming for a decade...". HOWEVER THE ACTUAL STATEMENT IS "we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty we cant". NO 'DECADE'. Tremburth refers to cooling in 08-09 that has now been attributed to the solar cycle and la ninia. DO YOU OFTEN LIE FISHY?
limeshakes 1 year ago
@fishinwflies The other thing that you should note about those emails is that the one following the one you talk about disagrees with tremburth. "Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.....I do not agree with (tremburths statement)" DO YOU OFTEN TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT TO MISREPRESENT THE FACTS, FISHY? And if you will note I said CONTRARY, NOT CONTRADICTORY. Thanks Fishy.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes You are a waste of time. You are wrong and untruthful, and I will no longer engage in this nonsense with someone so brainwashed and ignorant, so laters POMy wanker.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies You lied and it doesnt take much to track that down. Your scientific rule book: 1. What ever Fishy says is the truth, if anyone disagrees they are brainwashed. 2. Only Fishy is allowed to misrepresent the facts, if anyone else does their whole argument is flawed. 3. If all else fails Fishy will resort to bullying and name calling. Tremburth published the doubts you cited in a paper submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. No scandal. No egotism. No bullying. Just science.
limeshakes 1 year ago
Comment removed
limeshakes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fishinwflies The other thing that you should note about that statement, Fishy, is that Tremburth noted that he EXPRESSED HIS DOUBT PUBLICLY IN A PAPER PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. SOMETHING YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes Now explain how increased temperature precedes increased CO2. If you can't explain that then you have no argument whatsoever. Your data, conclusions and basic premises are all flawed. You refuse to address the problem of time traveling CO2 and are so brainwashed I doubt you could see the truth if it was in a tin bucket and hit you square in the face. It is a waste of my time with you. For you this is political ideology, not science. Facts mean nothing to you.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies That will be enough of the insults and accusations, Fishy. I've already explained this twice in our conversation, but you have ignored this on both accounts. I am not about to restate this again.
limeshakes 1 year ago
@limeshakes As for ignoring things, you are still ignoring the fact that world wide, ice cores show temp after the end of the last ice age going up, and the 800 years LATER CO2 goes up. Higher CO2 levels are the result of warmer temperatures, not the cause. Unless of course you can show me how CO2 time travels. It is the like getting the black eye before you get punched. The world does not work that way, except on Star Trek. The primary idea behind AGW is completely flawed.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@fishinwflies No, Fishy, I've already addressed this, but you ignored my response and simply restated your previous statement. This is creationist thinking.
limeshakes 1 year ago