The proof of how peer review was highjacked by the IPCC is pretty hard to deny-unless you are a denier-which global warming screamers call anyone who doubts them? As to the claim that no "real scientists thought we were threatened by man-made global cooling" in the 70s-the chief advocate of that [and forced population control,even in the US] is John Holdren,Obamas science Czar today.
I like how you used other peoples misinformation in your video to misrepresent what those emails actually said. But hey, why do your own research when you can just borrow someone else's. Who cares whether its factual, right?
Please stop with the warming alarmism all you warmers out there. Your high priests aren't even pretending to believe it anymore. Look at Al Gore. With his multiple mansions and world travel he has a carbon footprint about 30 times that of the average person. He's like a gun control activist who collects assault rifles. Look, if someone is saying there's a problem, but doesn't act like there's a problem, then there's probably no problem. No one cares about global warming anymore. You lost. Next.
Some sell sugar pills with no active ingredient in them to those in need of medical assistance, yet don't use those pills themselves. We call them con artists, fraudsters, etc.
"Look, if someone is saying there's a problem, but doesn't act like there's a problem, then there's probably no problem."
Another possibility:
THEY DON'T CARE- They just want to make a buck, invent a BS "solution" (CO2 tax) that diverts us from creating REAL solutions (renewables).
so the ice caps aren't melting ,weather patterns haven't changed,record flooding and loss from storms is just graphically non provable? sell it to the holocaust deniers .
"How the World Works." It's sarcasm, right? Or it's an instructional video on the art of deceptive cherry picking? Lots of Right, no doubt about it. Though climate science isn't political if you think about it more than a minute. It's a human issue at the core.
BTW, how is it fair to use the data of science to support what you say and then denigrate the scientific data that goes against what you say? This seems inconsistent and hypocritical, but maybe it's that cherry picking thing again.
The best part about global warming is in the 70s the same people were predicting an ice age. We like to make fun of the change in argument, but to be honest given the history of the planet that is far more likely then a prolonged warming period. At least if it's warm we can still grow food.
If you believe in global warming then you MUST advocate the wholesale slaughter of every cow on earth. According to the same scientists cows and other livestock produce more harm than all of humanity.
@fishblades "The best part about global warming is in the 70s the same people were predicting an ice age."
That is a complete, utter myth. Only a few people speculated about possible cooling and it never came close to being the consensus. By comparison, global warming is a well proven theory that is supported by the vast majority of people in the field and has as a result become the overwhelming scientific consensus.
All you need to know about global warming is that its not called global warming anymore, it's called climate change, which is just another word for weather. If it gets hot that's climate change, if it gets cold that's climate change! They are right no matter what. It's brilliant!
Another fun fact about the Earths climate: CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature increases. Why? Because most CO2 is trapped in the ocean. Higher temperatures and solar activity means more evaporation.
He's just using a faked graph at the beginning (the 2nd one) to tell us there would have been "no statistical significant differtence in the temperature readings between 1987 and 2008". I'm not going any further. That clip is a total hoax.
Go to NOAA or IPCC websites and get your picture right,
It's amazing how such videos remain online to this day, with no retraction, despite all being clarified to the point that anyone who follow the non-fox/real news is tired of hearing what it was really all about. I can't decide whether it's good, as it's effectively the deniers making clowns of themselves for anyone with a dim of skepticism, or it's bad, as it speaks volumes about how so many people are so easily fooled by anyone who press the right buttons...
Funny how libs play this tedious and overplayed us vs. them game, whereby all those who dare to disagree with their perspective are automatically branded wrong. Because everyone knows that all the rest of the news media outlets are the purveyors of "real news." How convenient.
Try being more modest; however difficult that might be for you.
@regelemihai That us vs them game was perfected by conservative Republicans. It even led to the founding of Fox News as Roger Ailes, formerly a media consultant for 3 Republican presidents, once hatched a plan with Nixon to start a GOP-biased news organisation
You believe something with no undeniable facts to back it up. Humans are causing the planet to warm.
Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it true. They used to believe the Earth was flat, and something like 90% of the people on Earth believe in God. Does that mean god is real.. the whole planet basically agrees that yes, in some form he does. They have no proof, but neither do you. The proof you do have is flawed and molded to fit.
As always, you are a cherry picking charlatan who uses misinformation and misrepresentation to put forth your dishonest and inaccurate propaganda. In essence, you are a liar and should be ashamed of yourself.
Your suggestion that all proxy data must be thrown out because it doesn't always match measured temperature perfectly is a perfect example. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about - you obviously don't.
And "hiding the decline" hid nothing from the public as you suggest.
"Enormous medieval warm period" using an old old chart that has since been updated? Maybe if you keep saying the word "Enormous" people will believe you. I also liked your "really really important" bit. What an utterly garbage filled waste of 8 minutes. You need to watch Greenman's videos and try to learn something, cause you're just dancing here.
Careful, Al gore may issue a Fatwa against you. The Medieval warm period is supported by history. People chronicled what they grew. Wine was grown in England. Greenland was green. The climate cult was debunked. I am going to open my windows and turn on the AC and start a new ice age.
Greenman explained your main point before your made your video - there are numerous proxies that agree before 1850. That's why they can be used. Your video is rather dumb. You should listen to scientists and stop playing around.
@appapo3 they aren't. just do a google search and you will see that they are increasing in size. just because somebody with an agenda says it is happening does not really make it so. Just like the niburu 2012 nuts say the end of the world will take place in 2012 because of a planet larger than jupiter does not mean it will happen. the evidence is out there if people want to hear it.
1. You admit that proxies are imperfect measures of temperature. If this is the case the "trick" (which is a common statistical practice) done to the curves should make the data more useful, not less.
2. "hide the decline" was in reference specifically to tree-ring data. You imply that everything we know about the climate from 1000-1800AD is based on tree-ring data, when this is certainly not the case.
You really should stick to political rhetoric, because you are way out of your depth here. Right off the bat, you refer to a reconstruction from an early IPCC report as showing an enornous MWP. That graph is extremely limited in terms of data, and is highly localized, but what's even worse for you is that if we used that graph to form any conclusions, it shows that the temperature is WARMER NOW. Way to pwn yourself.
LOL enormous MWP? This was not a global event, gobal reconstructions show the global temperature is considerably higher now than it was at the highest point of the MWP, also the LIA was not global.
A really great piece on this can also be found if you lookup climatereview's channel. He has probably the most well put-together set of criticisms of climate science I've seen to date.
So your answer is to do nothing? Not going to happen. By the end of this decade the case for warming will be abundantly clear, and fossil fuel funded deniers like yourself will be heading for cover.
Can you explain why just one tree dataset declines whilst others still match modern temps? Can you also explain why other types of proxies also match the tree data and modern measurements? Are all proxies bad because of the one tree dataset?
The statistical method used in the Hockey Stick graph was controversial and incomplete, so 12 reconstructions were formulated using different proxies and methods. All reconstructions largely arbitrated the Hockey Stick graph, which is why recent warming anomalies are still widely viewed as problematic within the scientific community.
By arbitrated, I mean reinforced. Also, these findings are problematic in as much as they indicate that environmental damage can be extensive if this trend continues.
some make fun of gullible christians at times for being gullible and believing anything but then they show they're just as bad with examples like this crap
oh the gullible
The hardest thing to do is to convince an idiot that he's an idiot
the maker of this video seems to think he's debunked AGW theory lol
After looking at the other videos, I can tell that the poster is a complete narcissist, and thinks he's a genius and an expert at any topic you throw at him.
@70rn The temp rise since the 1970's may well be exaggerated, as the satellite data shows a lesser trend aloft than what's measured at the surface. In addition, recent papers sharply dispute the alleged trend in solar activity. Finally, an honest reading of the peer-reviewed literature reveals that human GHG's are only minor contributors to climate change, not the driving force behind it.
This simply isn't true. Over a large temporal extent sure - initial triggers for climatic shifts are driven by such things as continental shift, or orbital alteration - but none of these things are relevant over a 40 year period, and no other forcing can account for the trend. Sattelite trends for the troposphere show ~ .14K/D for the UAH, ~.16K/D for the RSS. These are at most ~ .03 (for the UAH) below the trend exhibited by the surface record. In other words they don't differ considerably.
Warming since 1987 is roughly 3 tenths of a degree C, according to NASA. This change is certainly statistically significant at the 95% level. THe claims made above are quite laughable. They refer loosely to an interview with the CRU head about their record, that only shows warming at the 90% significance level since 1995,. 90% is hardly low stuff.
This is highly flawed. Global temperature up until 1960s - 70s was dependent on the su, but now has deviated upward were as solar activity has plateauted/ decreases slightly. Given the reliance that trees have on solar activity for growth it is hardly suprising they to were no longer indactivie of the changes in temperature. This is quite well known and discussed - and the inabilty of the presenter to raise this is glaring. We have had 6 tenths of a degree rise since '75 after this solar slump
your "few tenths of a degree" Is a whole degree Celsius.
Also, The "medieval warm period" if it was a global phenomenon (which is unlikely) was just a hill. It wasn't the sloping mountain we have right now. In another 40 years, the graph will not flatten out. It will likely keep its slope.
No, that is just wrong. We have sufficient data about how the world warms up, how this will effetct nature, our society and economy, and how the rise in CO2 causes the warming.
@LoryLandskipper wait, just becuz he doesnt want to reply to his viewers, (mostly are pointless) hes a coward? and so what if he was a coward? what diffrence does it make ?
@TheBeeFart Yes he is a coward for not responding. Greenman3610, the person whom he is attacking in this video, replies all the time to those of his viewers that think they have come up with some witty retort to his video. 100% of the time, he makes them look like an complete idiot.
@cristop5 The question isn't whether or not the climate's changing. That it's warmed up is a given, but that it's not exactly unprecedented shows that alarms are false.
I'm glad us christians don't need to be concerned with global warming! VERY soon Jesus will come again and rapture us away from this man made mess! Non-believers can worry but not me!! lol
@99minerkc That comment is so asinine. Waiting for rapture so you won't do anything to save your own planet. What a mindless idiot you are. In other words your saying "I'm to lazy to do anything about this mess, or change my ways". It's because of people like you that this world has any problems in the first place.
@Balsology you said, "so you won't do anything to save your own planet. " There's NO NEED to, it's just that simple! Jesus is preparing a mansion in heaven for me, why would I do anything to help clean up a mess when in fact God plans to wipe this man made mess off the face of the planet in 2012? In other words I'll let God do the cleaning! So do I recycle, no need! Do I keep the environment clean, again,, NO NEED! It's really that simple!
@99minerkc I actually meant to delete that comment because I realized that your mocking the opposition, and mocking Christians. If you not mocking it, then well...your simply not worth my time.
@Balsology Of course I'm mocking christians! Unfortunately, there's plenty of them who seriously hold the very view that I'm playing with! I personally do my part in helping keep a better environment! I recycle, drive a hybrid, etc, etc.
0:27 "Since 1850 the planet has warmed by a couple of tenths of a degree" Unless you look at the graph. It's more like 0.8 degrees. BTW who crayoned in the error bars, and what are they based on?
0:40 "from 1987-2008 there was no staistically significant difference in the temperature readings" Unless you do a correlation analysis on global mean temps vs time. In which case you find p<0.01. That is very statistically significant.
@CokeSupply "p" is the probability that the data in question could be thrown up by random chance (as opposed to a real trend).
Certainty is 1. So if p<0.01, that means that the chance of the steadily rising mean global temperature trends measured from 1987-2008 being due to random chance - are less than 1 in 100.
The statistical test I used to get this number is called correlation analysis.
Mr. Doren, why are you still banging on about hiding the decline? Apparently, if it is said five times to a mirror, Ann Coulter appears and gives you a blowjob.
To paraphrase Fezzik the giant, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Arctic sea ice melted over the summer to cover the third smallest area on record, US researchers said Wednesday, warning global warming could leave the region ice free in the month of September 2030
disappointing eh deniers?
"Only the third lowest? It didn't set a new record? Well, right. It didn't set a new record but we're still headed down. We're not looking at any kind of recovery here," he told AFP
Darn!
Oh medieval warm period only happened in the northern hemisphere...
If we move towards an efficient green economy and all the climate scientists were right, we made a good choice. If we don't change, we fail miserable and our species suffers for many many years.
If we move towards a green economy and all the scientists were wrong, we still come out with a much more efficient and sustainable society with less consumption, less pollution, and less dependence on the temporarily available fossil fuels. In either case, environmental action is beneficial.
very good i knew al gore was just trying to make a bunch of money thank you fore prooving global warming just a means of passing cap and trade which would destroy our free market system.
Bizarre, so tree ring proxy data matched for the best part except between 1961 - 1991. So let's throw all proxies from glacial movements to fossil records and say we simply don't know, let's not do anything.
@meercatdotcom Oh come stop the crap no one is throwing out all the proxies just the ones that have been shown not to work by actually diverging e.g. getting narrower rings as the world got warmer.
Those sneaky bastards, hiding the tree ring "trick" from other scientists by publishing it in the journal Nature. That's the last place a scientist would think of looking for it.
@Tapecutter59 Well ther is little point disguising the fact that the temperature proxy Mann was using couldn't track recent warming in Penthouse magazine now is there.
Then again those bunny girls probably have a better grip on reality than you do.
@OvoidCranium Sorry but the comment about the journal Nature puts you in the same boat as creationists. It's not like there are any facts on your side, you simply don't like the message so you shoot the messenger.
@Tapecutter59 Sorry but your acceptance of a mag like Nature which appears to have stealthily become a vehicle fo advocacy of climate alarmist has become much more like holy writ than playboy will ever be. This actually puts you into the same boat as creationist more so than me.
@OvoidCranium Yes I'm a fool for accepting and understanding the well established science that all the scientific journals and institutions of the world agree apon, and you're a genius with the secret truth that nobody will listen to. Can you not hear yourself speak?
What other things does the scientific community suppress? - Creationisim, homeopathy, telepathy, UFO's, ghosts, unicorns.... How many of these nujob conspiracy theories do you accept?
@Tapecutter59 You are still projecting you are an adherent of the new religion that believes in the apocalyptic catastrophic anthropogenic global warming for which there is about as much evidence as there is for creationism, homeopathy, telepathy etc. and you don't have to believe in any of those to be an avid follower of your new religion.
This is like listening to Glenn Beck or someone who doesn't know anything about Global Warming. I don't think we should listen to this FOX-channel favorite who is put here on youtube as an armchair "scientist". You has followed his movies knows that he likes to deny science about environment, health and science. He loves to confuse people, and make them think that there is no problem. Instead of complaining over the net and help this guy earn more credit, talk to the scientists!
Isn't it a bit simplistic to assume that since we had warm weather before we shouldn't worry about it now and completely ignore all the factors that are involved in climate change?
@sajfen It's reality if we want to know how the world may survive warmer temperatures we only need to look into the past where it has been warmer like the MWP. It also shows the earth does not need more CO2 to get warmer than it is now, contrary to Arrhenius theory.
@OvoidCranium The earth will survive sure, but the thing is, what will happen to the conditions surrounding the people living on it. We've had higher CO2 in the past therefor it cant be humans this time? Are you seriously going with that argument? You McExperts are really getting lazy.
@sajfen I suggest you actually read what I wrote and argue with that rather than argue with something you invented and attribute to me. Do you know the meaning of strawman fallacy? Well don't be lazy look it up.
@OvoidCranium Let me keep guessing then, but don't get mad if I miss since you refuse to say what you mean. Was it something like "since we had warmer temperatures a thousand years ago we don't have to worry now" ? That would be equality simplistic and completely missing the point.
@sajfen There is no need to guess look at what I said and I had not mentioned higher CO2 levels in the past. If you have a comment or question just make it relevant to what I actually said then we move on. Whether or not we need to worry has nothing to do with what I said either because even natural events can cause much damage and loss of life. Look at what Katrina ( cat 3 on landfall) did, not because of global warming but because of poor maintenance of levies and sea walls.
Thank you for proving the IPCC right in their decision to remove the tree ring data... Which is noted in the emails..... Furthermore your trying to make it as all proxy data is tree ring data....
As for your lame excuse about changing the economy, Germany and China are starting to pull far a head of us in the green tech..... Well I guess you like the fact we have a credit line with china already... Another great opportunity missed for the US...
So have you published this for peer review? Remember that the "disputed" medieval warming period if not regional is still a result of proxy data as is all paleoclimatology.
Have you ever studied philosophy of science and technology, and formal logics? If not, I suggest you do, because it could teach you a thing or two about how we get to knowledge and how we make decsions based on this knowledge (while not distorting overall data). Also, even if you are right and we are not sure, does the precautionary principle mean anything to you?
@zottejakke3 "does the precautionary principle mean anything to you?"
Is that what you crazy kids are calling Pascal's Wager these days? Well, I guess it's true that you can sell any tired, old pig if you slap enough new lipstick on it.
You are a complete idiot. Tree-rings and other proxy data for determining ancient global temperatures are not the only thing supporting modern, sudden warming. Many fields of science including botany and the study of bird migrations, etc. all support the facts that global climate is changing rapidly, and the only possible reason for this sudden increase is anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases. Get a clue.
I like the way you leave out "tree ring" in front of "proxy" in almost every case. Definitely the behaviour of someone who is honest & doesn't want to distort the facts. Of course ALL the proxies must be completely and utterly invalid because a small segment of tree ring data does not line up! Let's also forget about solar cycles and El Niños (far too complicated) because they couldn't possibly be the reason for hot summers! Also let's expect statistical significance over short time periods! /s
@HowTheWorldWorks would you like your medieval warm period or not? no proxies - no medieval warm period. and without the medieval warm period where are you at? climate scientists understand the issues and cannot explain it without co2. you have chosen one aspect of the issue and not covered it well. i understand that you throw a whole lot of disclaimers our at the end - but all these ignore the vast number of scientists and scientific bodies out there giving you their view. why? and who better?
@jwielmak yep. and none of the other variables that have big impacts on changing climate explain the current warming. i see also that you have inverted commas around scientists, presumably some sort of low level dig. perhaps we shouldn't listen to scientists when it comes to science. perhaps all we need to tell us what we need to know about "how the world works" are some free-market shills.
@OvoidCranium how wonderful. an ovoid post that is ad hominem and based on a strawman. not believing everything a moron like lee doren says does not make you a communist. not treating the free-market as if it is a religion, again, does not make you a communist. and calling someone a communist does not make their opinion on climate science wrong. what makes you wrong is that your arguments don't hold up. and all the word games in the world won't cover that up.
@batteries76 I agree that being a communist doesn't *make* what is already wrong, wrong but it makes your faith in greenman's anti science understandable.
@OvoidCranium oh.. and happy at any stage for your explanation on why, if you don't follow along with the moronic rantings of doren, you are a communist. this will be one of those posts that you ignore. cheers.
@batteries76 Lee Doren certainly seems to have a better grasp of what is happening in the scientific world than either you or Peter Sinclair has. Being anti freemarket is more of an ideological (socialist/communtist) state than the laisez faire that comprises the opposite. It's not a religion your standpoint is because all of evidence points to the failure of that ideology yet you continue to hang on to it.
@OvoidCranium 1. when did i say i was totally against the free-market? 2. feel free at any stage (perhaps now if you like) to debunk anything that peter sinclair has said. 3. explain how lee doren has a better grasp of the science than peter sinclair. 4. you were far more interesting when you didn't make these sorts of boring, and again, unsubstantiated claims and were instead flopping around with some stupid physics argument. this is just unadulterated shite. what a shame.
@batteries76 If you understood the science you would not have to ask those questions. It's quite simple we know that tree rings are not a good temperature proxy as is shown by the fact that proxies diverged from the instrumental readings. That is to say they do NOT have a linear relationship as required for proxies. In fact it's an inverse parabolic relationship. What Mann did was hide that fact in his 1999 Nature article. greenman is defending the indefensible.
@OvoidCranium yeah. that's really really boring. and we all know mann and all the rest were cleared. you are losing this debate so this is the best you can do. and it's so boring. the only reason you people get hung up on the proxies is to try and prop up the fading medieval warm period. it's time to slip away and try a better tactic.
@batteries76 Mann was whitewashed by his mates we all know THAT and even if he didn't mislead as found by the Muir Russell panel his hocky stick chart has still been debunked and thoroughly so by McIntyre and McKitirick in peer reviewed literature, Soon and Baliunas (yes I do know about the feckless critique from the Hockey team) and the NAS wegman panel and even the friendly to Mann NRC panel wasn't happy that method reflected temperatures for more than 400 years past. Give it up.
@OvoidCranium mcintyre and mckitrick have been shown to be charlatans and no where near the saviours you are/were hoping for. and to even bring up soon and baliunas is beyond a joke. you had a crack, you lost. and none of this changes the current understanding of the science at all. this is desperate stuff. apart from idiots like doren, even the more ardent deniers have learned to let this go. maybe try banging on about models or something.
@batteries76 Again all you have is ad hominem they are both expert statisticians something Mike Mann is not as he told the NAS panel "I'm not a statistician" I eagerly await your peer reviewed paper proving your statement.
@OvoidCranium then wait no more: bit ly/bZcmlg, bit ly/cbOsrX and there's more. mcIntyre is a "semiretired toronto minerals consultant" and does not have an advanced degree who has published two articles in a journal not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. he also has ties to big oil. mckitrick is an economics phd, with a history of a conservative agenda. his area of specialization is environmental economics and policy analysis. both expert statisticians? better luck next time.
@batteries76 I've read that tripe from Geoff Brunfiel even the title "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" has it wrong. From the NAS report "Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis." Do you really think you ar the first to have posted that tripe here? Well think again.
@OvoidCranium "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.." and " the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium." - NAS. your credibility is completely shot.
@OvoidCranium and your quote misses this key: "because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales". we don't need the hockey-stick, but you need the mwp. you read what you want out of these things and then try and twist it to your advantage, but it's irrelevant. you are irrelevant.
"... and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."
@OvoidCranum hahaha. pathetic. what i like even more is you've clearly done a good job to get my comment off the highest rated and yours in. it's over. if you are so into the games that you have to do that you are through the looking-glass. you don't reference anything except the bewildered musings of oil shills and clowns of various sorts. constantly talking about ad hominem but perhaps you should look at where the information comes from. i can smell your desperation. keep going, it's good.
@batteries76 The quote I gave was from the Wegman report which you would know if you had taken the care to read it instead of just posting a link to the Geoff Brumfiel paper that really had it wrong. You should learn to check things for yourself.
@OvoidCranium yeah, that wegman report looked real clean. i'm sure you could find some good quotes from inhofe or barton or some other idiot and that would be great for your file. selective again. you need the mwp to be higher in temp than now and that isn't the case. and like i have said time and again, it doesn't even matter - we don't need the hockey-stick. i also notice you have in pride of place a nice little bit by easterbrook. his theories are among the more laughable i've seen.
@batteries76 So now you are referring to Dr Edward Wegman the pre eminant statistician of the NAS as an idiot. Good going yet another ad hominem. You are becoming more shrill as time wears on.
@OvoidCranium so it's battle of the specialists again. i have no problem with wegman, but it doesn't mean everything he touches turns to gold. and it doesn't mean he's right on this. they went in with an answer in mind, and they made sure they found what they thought they wanted to get it, ignoring other things. but like i say, you need the mwp, not me. and even if it were true, you wouldn't have a win. so really you are just scrabbling around in the dirt providing blog articles to other shills.
@batteries76 Not at all a battle of specialists Mike Mann is neither a dendrochronologist nor a statistician trying to apply a sophisticated statistical method to dendrochronology. IOW an amateur vs specialists Wegman and McIntyre (Wegman recognised as such), McKitrick is not, even though econometricians make heavy use of time series statistics. The probability that two specialist statisticians (one the top dog in the US) are wrong and an amateur right is pretty low.
@OvoidCranium wrong, but irrelevant anyway. but keep going. you and doren are miles off, and this change is coming whether you bang on about mwps or some crap about a paper coming up or whatever other spurious argument you can muster - and they change with the climate. what's laughable is you claim to be a scientist, but not once have backed anything but some fringe claims. you spend your time talking about arguing but have no substance at all. but, you may as well keep going. keep on going.
@batteries76 I can't help it if you can't understand my claims the fact that you can't explains your constant appeal to authority which makes my points about the qualifications of Wegman, McIntyre and McKitrick and Mann's lack in the required fields very valid.
@OvoidCranium i understood and dismissed your claims. the first time i've seen anything to back them up is here - and this is at best a side-issue. we are both arguing from different authorities, but you are the only one who cares about it (the mwp) and yet you act as if you are above it all - you aren't - you are scrabbling around in the dirt. mann was cleared, it's over. find another pointless and stupid argument. try the co2 rubbish again, mate.
@batteries76 You are the one fiercly and illogically defending the bad science that went into the hockey stick which by the way is dead in the water and has been for a while. Mann wasn't cleared he was whitewashed one day you will understand the difference, but for now feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
@OvoidCranium he was cleared. the only people who think not are shills like you, doren and barton. what an excellent crew. the rest of the world has moved on and doesn't care about the issue as you are wrong and the wider debate is more important. meanwhile, you are the bloke who actually spent time putting your comment to the top and voting mine down. what a fish.
@batteries76 The only people who think it wasn't a whitewash didn't read the report. There would not be an experienced scientist in the world that would accept that it's OK to hide the fact that the proxy data doesn't match the parameter being measured,
@OvoidCranium you bore me beyond belief. actually, you sadden me and disappoint me. you may or may not be pleased to know that it's over - we've had a good run, but i'm never responding to you again. you are certainly the smartest bloke i've argued with here on youtube (although i take some of that back if you are hetket - then again, early ovoid was essentially hetket). regardless, you have an obvious grasp of science and a way of arguing that would frustrate many. and as much as i'd hate to..
@OvoidCranium ..admit it, you've taught me things that there was no chance i was going to learn without your special brand of.. well.. ovoidness. i genuinely hope it's true you have a paper coming. i genuinely hope you are the scientist that you could be (although posting on youtube isn't the best use of a good scientist's talents). more to the point - i hope you are right. i hope that co2 doesn't have any effect. and that the current warming is a cycle. and if that ends up being true, i will..
@OvoidCranium ..through gritted teeth acknowledge it - for whatever that's worth on a youtube comments page, which is apparently quite a lot for most of us. and i hate that it even gets to me (and you) making light of people by reducing their careers of service to science to whatever suits the argument at that point. it's sickening. take it easy mate. have a beer. see your kids (?). do something important. this was worthwhile in a way, but it isn't now. good luck ovoid, see you around.
@OvoidCranium Actually the hockey stick graph is not doubted in its usefulness and accuracy by experts. Just check the actual scientific journals - you know, Nature, Science - real science journals. Mann's work is not in doubt by people publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. To deny this seems to be highly prejudiced.
@topologyrob There are over 700 proxy studies in the peer reviewed literature showing a medieval warm as opposed to a dozen that show a hockey stick. Now who did you say is prejudiced?
Here you can compare the list of 857 scientists with the dozen or so on the Hockey Team (remove the space)
@topologyrob Nuts that editorial does not address the fact that there are many more proxy studies that show a medieval warm period than there are those that don't.
@OvoidCranium Did you read it? it's not an editorial. Science is not a numbers game. It matters which journals are publishing the stuff (some are a lot more reliable than others) and what the field as a whole says. And the experts (yes, experts matter) disagree with you. Maybe you should look at how you can start being part of the solution. See ya.
@topologyrob I don't know what else to call an overview of several reports and no I haven't read it and unless it addresses all 700 of those proxy studies (and I know it won't) I shall not bother. Secondly science is very definitely a numbers game it was fudging the numbers by too high weighting on heat and moisture stressed bristlecone pines (among other "errors") that delivered the hockey stick. If you want to make a case that the MWP didn't happen you need the statistical evidence.
@OvoidCranium It appears you haven't seen it at all. Oh well, come back later. Science is not a game of comparing how many people assert one thing vs another - one researcher can overturn a big bunch. The evidence is what matters. There is currently insufficient evidence to establish any clear knowledge of a global medieval warm period, certainly there is nothing like enough evidence to conclude that that period was globally warmer than the present. Go and read "Science" for May - it's reliable.
@topologyrob It's about weight of evidence which is heavily in favour of there having been a MWP that was warmer than today and quite widespread. There not just proxy evidence but also historical and archaeological.
I've given you a link to where you can find information on it so go on go refute them all 700 of them.
I have no intention od wasting my money on an op ed.
@OvoidCranium and just in case: bit ly/d9eHKA which was published in the journal of climate. furthmore those two bonehead shills were rejected by nature and instead published in a non scientific journal. it's also been discredited twice by mann and his colleagues, but knowing your paranoia over the decent scientists and presumably mann as well, i've left them off. they were published in highly respected journals. i'm just trying to picture what irrelevant response you'll come up with now.
@batteries76 Now realclimate as if they are impartial the blog was created to fight McIntyre and McKitric. We see who those magazines are "respected" by
bit.ly /do4WjA . I wouldn't be worrying about irrelevant response you have just made two and use of ad hominem is rife in both and in the previous one you don't seem to realise what job McIntyre did for the mining industry and how it involves statistics as does environmental economics. I know, you like to show off your ignorance.
@batteries76 He has actually covered it extremely well there are far more proxy studies about that actually can be and have been calibrated to temperature, unlike Michael Mann's bristlecone pine tree rings that show a wide extend to the medieval warm period.
@OvoidCranium you're now defending lee doren and backing an argument that even the most strident gormless twerp stopped bothering with some time ago. unlike you, everything greeman says is backed by scientific papers and words from the mouths of those who are in the field. he quietly and carefully takes the rubbish of the pseudo-scientists you listen to (lee doren perhaps) and explains that they are mistaken. you make claim after unsupported claim and achieve nothing, even after all this time.
Warmers are suckers.
Believing in the global warming scam is so 2000.
tnekkc 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@winterstellar "Damn, that guy is ignorant. Or dishonest"
Answer: dishonest.
remcovanek2 1 month ago
The proof of how peer review was highjacked by the IPCC is pretty hard to deny-unless you are a denier-which global warming screamers call anyone who doubts them? As to the claim that no "real scientists thought we were threatened by man-made global cooling" in the 70s-the chief advocate of that [and forced population control,even in the US] is John Holdren,Obamas science Czar today.
muskratist 1 month ago
@muskratist propaganda v science. science ftw.
uknowispeaksense 4 weeks ago
I like how you used other peoples misinformation in your video to misrepresent what those emails actually said. But hey, why do your own research when you can just borrow someone else's. Who cares whether its factual, right?
Moreviolent 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of ADDING IN THE REAL temps...TO HIDE THE DECLINE..."
So the REAL temps show there ISN'T a decline??? XD
TurboDally 2 months ago
Please stop with the warming alarmism all you warmers out there. Your high priests aren't even pretending to believe it anymore. Look at Al Gore. With his multiple mansions and world travel he has a carbon footprint about 30 times that of the average person. He's like a gun control activist who collects assault rifles. Look, if someone is saying there's a problem, but doesn't act like there's a problem, then there's probably no problem. No one cares about global warming anymore. You lost. Next.
WarEagle8055 2 months ago
Comment removed
TurboDally 2 months ago
"Al Gore...his CO2 footprint is 30x"
Some sell sugar pills with no active ingredient in them to those in need of medical assistance, yet don't use those pills themselves. We call them con artists, fraudsters, etc.
"Look, if someone is saying there's a problem, but doesn't act like there's a problem, then there's probably no problem."
Another possibility:
THEY DON'T CARE- They just want to make a buck, invent a BS "solution" (CO2 tax) that diverts us from creating REAL solutions (renewables).
TurboDally 2 months ago
so the ice caps aren't melting ,weather patterns haven't changed,record flooding and loss from storms is just graphically non provable? sell it to the holocaust deniers .
samohtzoo 5 months ago
Damn, that guy is ignorant. Or dishonest.
winterstellar 6 months ago
I'm so sorry I won't be around when reality hits for this guy.
pmdillavou 7 months ago
"How the World Works." It's sarcasm, right? Or it's an instructional video on the art of deceptive cherry picking? Lots of Right, no doubt about it. Though climate science isn't political if you think about it more than a minute. It's a human issue at the core.
BTW, how is it fair to use the data of science to support what you say and then denigrate the scientific data that goes against what you say? This seems inconsistent and hypocritical, but maybe it's that cherry picking thing again.
frededison 7 months ago 7
The best part about global warming is in the 70s the same people were predicting an ice age. We like to make fun of the change in argument, but to be honest given the history of the planet that is far more likely then a prolonged warming period. At least if it's warm we can still grow food.
If you believe in global warming then you MUST advocate the wholesale slaughter of every cow on earth. According to the same scientists cows and other livestock produce more harm than all of humanity.
fishblades 7 months ago
@fishblades "The best part about global warming is in the 70s the same people were predicting an ice age."
That is a complete, utter myth. Only a few people speculated about possible cooling and it never came close to being the consensus. By comparison, global warming is a well proven theory that is supported by the vast majority of people in the field and has as a result become the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Ranillon 5 months ago
All you need to know about global warming is that its not called global warming anymore, it's called climate change, which is just another word for weather. If it gets hot that's climate change, if it gets cold that's climate change! They are right no matter what. It's brilliant!
Another fun fact about the Earths climate: CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature increases. Why? Because most CO2 is trapped in the ocean. Higher temperatures and solar activity means more evaporation.
fishblades 7 months ago
If increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true:
1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in GHGs).
2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the GHE.
So we can accept what we know to be true (AGW) or we accept two unknowns. (Powell, 2010)
TheMrSirCharles 7 months ago
He's just using a faked graph at the beginning (the 2nd one) to tell us there would have been "no statistical significant differtence in the temperature readings between 1987 and 2008". I'm not going any further. That clip is a total hoax.
Go to NOAA or IPCC websites and get your picture right,
Or visit skepticalscience. com
TheMrSirCharles 7 months ago
It's amazing how such videos remain online to this day, with no retraction, despite all being clarified to the point that anyone who follow the non-fox/real news is tired of hearing what it was really all about. I can't decide whether it's good, as it's effectively the deniers making clowns of themselves for anyone with a dim of skepticism, or it's bad, as it speaks volumes about how so many people are so easily fooled by anyone who press the right buttons...
extremophile 8 months ago 20
@extremophile maybe you should use a warmist "trick" to get it right?
arkivx1 7 months ago
@extremophile
Funny how libs play this tedious and overplayed us vs. them game, whereby all those who dare to disagree with their perspective are automatically branded wrong. Because everyone knows that all the rest of the news media outlets are the purveyors of "real news." How convenient.
Try being more modest; however difficult that might be for you.
regelemihai 7 months ago
@regelemihai That us vs them game was perfected by conservative Republicans. It even led to the founding of Fox News as Roger Ailes, formerly a media consultant for 3 Republican presidents, once hatched a plan with Nixon to start a GOP-biased news organisation
bannor99 6 months ago 2
@extremophile
You believe something with no undeniable facts to back it up. Humans are causing the planet to warm.
Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it true. They used to believe the Earth was flat, and something like 90% of the people on Earth believe in God. Does that mean god is real.. the whole planet basically agrees that yes, in some form he does. They have no proof, but neither do you. The proof you do have is flawed and molded to fit.
Prove it.
fishblades 7 months ago
@extremophile I see you want to supress Free Speech.
Texmurphy51 6 months ago
As always, you are a cherry picking charlatan who uses misinformation and misrepresentation to put forth your dishonest and inaccurate propaganda. In essence, you are a liar and should be ashamed of yourself.
Your suggestion that all proxy data must be thrown out because it doesn't always match measured temperature perfectly is a perfect example. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about - you obviously don't.
And "hiding the decline" hid nothing from the public as you suggest.
Pandonodrim 8 months ago
"Enormous medieval warm period" using an old old chart that has since been updated? Maybe if you keep saying the word "Enormous" people will believe you. I also liked your "really really important" bit. What an utterly garbage filled waste of 8 minutes. You need to watch Greenman's videos and try to learn something, cause you're just dancing here.
YTEdy 8 months ago
Great vid.
AHAHAHAHAHA
Just kidding, you're a joker and this shit is hilarious.
Go learn the real facts on the matter please.
Draffut2003 8 months ago
You should rename you channel, right wing denial drivel!
KrunchyJD 8 months ago
Careful, Al gore may issue a Fatwa against you. The Medieval warm period is supported by history. People chronicled what they grew. Wine was grown in England. Greenland was green. The climate cult was debunked. I am going to open my windows and turn on the AC and start a new ice age.
Jerricho68 8 months ago 3
Greenman explained your main point before your made your video - there are numerous proxies that agree before 1850. That's why they can be used. Your video is rather dumb. You should listen to scientists and stop playing around.
topologyrob 9 months ago
No global warming?Why are the ice caps and glaciers getting smaller?
appapo3 9 months ago
@appapo3 they aren't. just do a google search and you will see that they are increasing in size. just because somebody with an agenda says it is happening does not really make it so. Just like the niburu 2012 nuts say the end of the world will take place in 2012 because of a planet larger than jupiter does not mean it will happen. the evidence is out there if people want to hear it.
cordawg1 9 months ago
Why don't you allow comments on some of your videos? Can't stand the heat?
gregrutz 10 months ago
co2 in the atmosphere is still enhancing the greenhouse effect.
cypress1337 10 months ago
1. You admit that proxies are imperfect measures of temperature. If this is the case the "trick" (which is a common statistical practice) done to the curves should make the data more useful, not less.
2. "hide the decline" was in reference specifically to tree-ring data. You imply that everything we know about the climate from 1000-1800AD is based on tree-ring data, when this is certainly not the case.
guy1481 10 months ago 20
Is greenman 3610 (aka Peter Sinclair) related to Larry Sinclair?
kiffter 11 months ago
You really should stick to political rhetoric, because you are way out of your depth here. Right off the bat, you refer to a reconstruction from an early IPCC report as showing an enornous MWP. That graph is extremely limited in terms of data, and is highly localized, but what's even worse for you is that if we used that graph to form any conclusions, it shows that the temperature is WARMER NOW. Way to pwn yourself.
infinityand0 1 year ago
LOL enormous MWP? This was not a global event, gobal reconstructions show the global temperature is considerably higher now than it was at the highest point of the MWP, also the LIA was not global.
Aanthanur 1 year ago
A really great piece on this can also be found if you lookup climatereview's channel. He has probably the most well put-together set of criticisms of climate science I've seen to date.
andharvey8 1 year ago
So your answer is to do nothing? Not going to happen. By the end of this decade the case for warming will be abundantly clear, and fossil fuel funded deniers like yourself will be heading for cover.
mikatollah 1 year ago
Can you explain why just one tree dataset declines whilst others still match modern temps? Can you also explain why other types of proxies also match the tree data and modern measurements? Are all proxies bad because of the one tree dataset?
Piddy555 1 year ago
Comment removed
Richard482 1 year ago
your videos are trash
superfisto 1 year ago
@superfisto Nice argument, you're an intellectual giant.
savemyplaylist 1 year ago
The statistical method used in the Hockey Stick graph was controversial and incomplete, so 12 reconstructions were formulated using different proxies and methods. All reconstructions largely arbitrated the Hockey Stick graph, which is why recent warming anomalies are still widely viewed as problematic within the scientific community.
TheAtheistAllegiance 1 year ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
I don't understand your post. What did you mean by "arbitrated"?
Also, "...warming anomalies are still widely viewed as problematic..." seems ambiguous to me. What do you mean by "problematic"?
Rovinpiper 11 months ago
@Rovinpiper
By arbitrated, I mean reinforced. Also, these findings are problematic in as much as they indicate that environmental damage can be extensive if this trend continues.
TheAtheistAllegiance 11 months ago
No academic citations = personal opinion = unpersuasive
This is another fail whale from HowTheWorldWorks.
Not2Sane 1 year ago
Oh Libertarians
some make fun of gullible christians at times for being gullible and believing anything but then they show they're just as bad with examples like this crap
oh the gullible
The hardest thing to do is to convince an idiot that he's an idiot
alucardthealchemist 1 year ago
the maker of this video seems to think he's debunked AGW theory lol
After looking at the other videos, I can tell that the poster is a complete narcissist, and thinks he's a genius and an expert at any topic you throw at him.
A TRUE conservative.
evanWith7 1 year ago
If anyone is interested I can message a link explaining what's caused the decline in tree ring data
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482 Cite an academic source and i will read it.
Not2Sane 1 year ago
@Not2Sane All done. Let me know what you think
Richard482 1 year ago
first you whine they use unreliable source and when they remove the unreliable source you whine more.......
Aanthanur 1 year ago
@70rn The temp rise since the 1970's may well be exaggerated, as the satellite data shows a lesser trend aloft than what's measured at the surface. In addition, recent papers sharply dispute the alleged trend in solar activity. Finally, an honest reading of the peer-reviewed literature reveals that human GHG's are only minor contributors to climate change, not the driving force behind it.
smartalek65 1 year ago
This simply isn't true. Over a large temporal extent sure - initial triggers for climatic shifts are driven by such things as continental shift, or orbital alteration - but none of these things are relevant over a 40 year period, and no other forcing can account for the trend. Sattelite trends for the troposphere show ~ .14K/D for the UAH, ~.16K/D for the RSS. These are at most ~ .03 (for the UAH) below the trend exhibited by the surface record. In other words they don't differ considerably.
70rn 1 year ago
Warming since 1987 is roughly 3 tenths of a degree C, according to NASA. This change is certainly statistically significant at the 95% level. THe claims made above are quite laughable. They refer loosely to an interview with the CRU head about their record, that only shows warming at the 90% significance level since 1995,. 90% is hardly low stuff.
70rn 1 year ago
This is highly flawed. Global temperature up until 1960s - 70s was dependent on the su, but now has deviated upward were as solar activity has plateauted/ decreases slightly. Given the reliance that trees have on solar activity for growth it is hardly suprising they to were no longer indactivie of the changes in temperature. This is quite well known and discussed - and the inabilty of the presenter to raise this is glaring. We have had 6 tenths of a degree rise since '75 after this solar slump
70rn 1 year ago
@70rn I'll send you a link explaining what has caused the decline in tree ring data. Scientists don't think its due to solar activity
Richard482 1 year ago
your "few tenths of a degree" Is a whole degree Celsius.
Also, The "medieval warm period" if it was a global phenomenon (which is unlikely) was just a hill. It wasn't the sloping mountain we have right now. In another 40 years, the graph will not flatten out. It will likely keep its slope.
jpsousa4 1 year ago
No, that is just wrong. We have sufficient data about how the world warms up, how this will effetct nature, our society and economy, and how the rise in CO2 causes the warming.
dumbzebra 1 year ago
@LoryLandskipper wait, just becuz he doesnt want to reply to his viewers, (mostly are pointless) hes a coward? and so what if he was a coward? what diffrence does it make ?
TheBeeFart 1 year ago
@TheBeeFart Yes he is a coward for not responding. Greenman3610, the person whom he is attacking in this video, replies all the time to those of his viewers that think they have come up with some witty retort to his video. 100% of the time, he makes them look like an complete idiot.
Balsology 1 year ago
@cristop5 The question isn't whether or not the climate's changing. That it's warmed up is a given, but that it's not exactly unprecedented shows that alarms are false.
smartalek65 1 year ago
I'm glad us christians don't need to be concerned with global warming! VERY soon Jesus will come again and rapture us away from this man made mess! Non-believers can worry but not me!! lol
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc That comment is so asinine. Waiting for rapture so you won't do anything to save your own planet. What a mindless idiot you are. In other words your saying "I'm to lazy to do anything about this mess, or change my ways". It's because of people like you that this world has any problems in the first place.
Balsology 1 year ago
@Balsology you said, "so you won't do anything to save your own planet. " There's NO NEED to, it's just that simple! Jesus is preparing a mansion in heaven for me, why would I do anything to help clean up a mess when in fact God plans to wipe this man made mess off the face of the planet in 2012? In other words I'll let God do the cleaning! So do I recycle, no need! Do I keep the environment clean, again,, NO NEED! It's really that simple!
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc Can you PLEASE promise you don't exist anymore after 2012?!
ratje67 1 year ago
@ratje67 You won't exist anymore either! :p
99minerkc 1 year ago
@99minerkc I actually meant to delete that comment because I realized that your mocking the opposition, and mocking Christians. If you not mocking it, then well...your simply not worth my time.
Balsology 1 year ago
@Balsology Of course I'm mocking christians! Unfortunately, there's plenty of them who seriously hold the very view that I'm playing with! I personally do my part in helping keep a better environment! I recycle, drive a hybrid, etc, etc.
99minerkc 1 year ago
We need to have a lynching on this issue , I will buy all the rope...!!!!!!!!!!!
klnine 1 year ago
0:27 "Since 1850 the planet has warmed by a couple of tenths of a degree" Unless you look at the graph. It's more like 0.8 degrees. BTW who crayoned in the error bars, and what are they based on?
0:40 "from 1987-2008 there was no staistically significant difference in the temperature readings" Unless you do a correlation analysis on global mean temps vs time. In which case you find p<0.01. That is very statistically significant.
All this in the first minute! What crap.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5 What is "p" ??
CokeSupply 1 year ago
@CokeSupply "p" is the probability that the data in question could be thrown up by random chance (as opposed to a real trend).
Certainty is 1. So if p<0.01, that means that the chance of the steadily rising mean global temperature trends measured from 1987-2008 being due to random chance - are less than 1 in 100.
The statistical test I used to get this number is called correlation analysis.
cristop5 1 year ago
You are teaching us how the world works because of your experience in capitalism? What exactly is your training in climate science?
You seemed to have stopped thinking a long time ago and willing turned into a mouth piece for an ideology.
michalchik 1 year ago
you are the man!!! This video is SICK!!! YOU should win the G` Damn Noble Prize!!! I'm posting this video EVERYWHERE!!!!
Great Job!!!
MrGutsMan 1 year ago
Mr. Doren, why are you still banging on about hiding the decline? Apparently, if it is said five times to a mirror, Ann Coulter appears and gives you a blowjob.
To paraphrase Fezzik the giant, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
monco66 1 year ago
as soon as i heard medieval warm period and "hacked emails" ignorance i did a facepalm.
Omthiest 1 year ago
@Omthiest *facepalms* they emails was hacked, deal with it, (without stupidity)
TheBeeFart 1 year ago
i can't see the comments
doonuter 1 year ago
@5:12 you don't give a reason for why the data has to be thrown out
cowboyx1970 1 year ago
Arctic sea ice melted over the summer to cover the third smallest area on record, US researchers said Wednesday, warning global warming could leave the region ice free in the month of September 2030
disappointing eh deniers?
"Only the third lowest? It didn't set a new record? Well, right. It didn't set a new record but we're still headed down. We're not looking at any kind of recovery here," he told AFP
Darn!
Oh medieval warm period only happened in the northern hemisphere...
Doh!
Damn!
Shit!
bernzeppi 1 year ago
If we move towards an efficient green economy and all the climate scientists were right, we made a good choice. If we don't change, we fail miserable and our species suffers for many many years.
If we move towards a green economy and all the scientists were wrong, we still come out with a much more efficient and sustainable society with less consumption, less pollution, and less dependence on the temporarily available fossil fuels. In either case, environmental action is beneficial.
Octoschizare 1 year ago
wow. that is one amazing combination of misinformation and lies, but i suppose you already know that. cheers!
QuestionReadLearn 1 year ago
@QuestionReadLearn Just like algores movie right?
cheers! Could you point out the misinformation for us dummies?
arkivx1 7 months ago
Great video! Thank you
BestPoliticalVideos 1 year ago
very good i knew al gore was just trying to make a bunch of money thank you fore prooving global warming just a means of passing cap and trade which would destroy our free market system.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
Bizarre, so tree ring proxy data matched for the best part except between 1961 - 1991. So let's throw all proxies from glacial movements to fossil records and say we simply don't know, let's not do anything.
meercatdotcom 1 year ago
@meercatdotcom Oh come stop the crap no one is throwing out all the proxies just the ones that have been shown not to work by actually diverging e.g. getting narrower rings as the world got warmer.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What decline? HOTTEST TEMPS RECORDED EVER YET AGAIN FOR 2010 - HOTTEST SURFACE TEMPS, HOTTEST OCEAN TEMPS!
THOUSANDS DEAD FROM EXTREME WEATHER CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING.
DO NOT BE FOOLED, SCIENTISTS MAY BE WISHY WASHY AND SAY "WELL WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THIS IS FROM GLOBAL WARMING..."
IT IS. THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING.
EVERYTHING THE EARTH IS EXPERIENCING NOW IS BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
GET THE FUCK OVER IT YOU MORON FACT DENIERS. THE PROOF IS RIGHT THERE. YOU CAN'T DENY THE NUMBERS!
watercup123456 1 year ago
Comment removed
watercup123456 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey what's the deal haven't heard anything from you faggot fact deniers for some time now!
MUST BE THE HUGE HEAT WAVE THE WHOLE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING, ALONG WITH RECORD HIGH TEMPS ONCE AGAIN ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE!
OOPS OCEAN TEMPERATURE HOTTEST RECORDED EVER!!
HUGE ICEBERG BREAKING OFF GREENLAND AND MELTING!
THOUSANDS DEAD ACROSS THE WORLD FROM HEAT WAVES AND EXTREME WEATHER (WHICH IS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING)!
THE WEATHER WE ARE HAVING IS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING. THERE CAN BE NO MORE DENIAL!
watercup123456 1 year ago
Those sneaky bastards, hiding the tree ring "trick" from other scientists by publishing it in the journal Nature. That's the last place a scientist would think of looking for it.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Well ther is little point disguising the fact that the temperature proxy Mann was using couldn't track recent warming in Penthouse magazine now is there.
Then again those bunny girls probably have a better grip on reality than you do.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 2
@OvoidCranium That wooshing sound you hear is the point of my post flying over your head.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Looks more like it was the point of mine flying over yours.
Sorry but the way "Nature" has been going of late you get better science from Playboy.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Sorry but the comment about the journal Nature puts you in the same boat as creationists. It's not like there are any facts on your side, you simply don't like the message so you shoot the messenger.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Sorry but your acceptance of a mag like Nature which appears to have stealthily become a vehicle fo advocacy of climate alarmist has become much more like holy writ than playboy will ever be. This actually puts you into the same boat as creationist more so than me.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Stop stealing my insults, wanker!
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 That was no insult on your part it was projection. Fool!
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Yes I'm a fool for accepting and understanding the well established science that all the scientific journals and institutions of the world agree apon, and you're a genius with the secret truth that nobody will listen to. Can you not hear yourself speak?
What other things does the scientific community suppress? - Creationisim, homeopathy, telepathy, UFO's, ghosts, unicorns.... How many of these nujob conspiracy theories do you accept?
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 You are still projecting you are an adherent of the new religion that believes in the apocalyptic catastrophic anthropogenic global warming for which there is about as much evidence as there is for creationism, homeopathy, telepathy etc. and you don't have to believe in any of those to be an avid follower of your new religion.
Have a good day.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
This is like listening to Glenn Beck or someone who doesn't know anything about Global Warming. I don't think we should listen to this FOX-channel favorite who is put here on youtube as an armchair "scientist". You has followed his movies knows that he likes to deny science about environment, health and science. He loves to confuse people, and make them think that there is no problem. Instead of complaining over the net and help this guy earn more credit, talk to the scientists!
GoSiv1 1 year ago
Great video!
SuperSneakySteve 1 year ago 2
Isn't it a bit simplistic to assume that since we had warm weather before we shouldn't worry about it now and completely ignore all the factors that are involved in climate change?
sajfen 1 year ago
@sajfen It's reality if we want to know how the world may survive warmer temperatures we only need to look into the past where it has been warmer like the MWP. It also shows the earth does not need more CO2 to get warmer than it is now, contrary to Arrhenius theory.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium The earth will survive sure, but the thing is, what will happen to the conditions surrounding the people living on it. We've had higher CO2 in the past therefor it cant be humans this time? Are you seriously going with that argument? You McExperts are really getting lazy.
sajfen 1 year ago
@sajfen I suggest you actually read what I wrote and argue with that rather than argue with something you invented and attribute to me. Do you know the meaning of strawman fallacy? Well don't be lazy look it up.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Then please elaborate what you mean with your reference to the MWP.
sajfen 1 year ago
@sajfen Certainly not a time of high CO2 like you tried to suggest 4 hours ago.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Let me keep guessing then, but don't get mad if I miss since you refuse to say what you mean. Was it something like "since we had warmer temperatures a thousand years ago we don't have to worry now" ? That would be equality simplistic and completely missing the point.
sajfen 1 year ago
@sajfen There is no need to guess look at what I said and I had not mentioned higher CO2 levels in the past. If you have a comment or question just make it relevant to what I actually said then we move on. Whether or not we need to worry has nothing to do with what I said either because even natural events can cause much damage and loss of life. Look at what Katrina ( cat 3 on landfall) did, not because of global warming but because of poor maintenance of levies and sea walls.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
Comment removed
topologyrob 1 year ago
Lee I think you may be understating the evidence available for a medieval warming period. remove space the claims made a referrenced.
bit.ly /dcTWN7
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
awesome!!!!!!!!!!
realscience1 1 year ago
Thank you for proving the IPCC right in their decision to remove the tree ring data... Which is noted in the emails..... Furthermore your trying to make it as all proxy data is tree ring data....
As for your lame excuse about changing the economy, Germany and China are starting to pull far a head of us in the green tech..... Well I guess you like the fact we have a credit line with china already... Another great opportunity missed for the US...
BlitzNeko 1 year ago
So have you published this for peer review? Remember that the "disputed" medieval warming period if not regional is still a result of proxy data as is all paleoclimatology.
Also are the oceans acidifying?
Is extent ice decreasing?
Are sea levels rising?
Go ahead and explain why.
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
Have you ever studied philosophy of science and technology, and formal logics? If not, I suggest you do, because it could teach you a thing or two about how we get to knowledge and how we make decsions based on this knowledge (while not distorting overall data). Also, even if you are right and we are not sure, does the precautionary principle mean anything to you?
zottejakke3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zottejakke3 "does the precautionary principle mean anything to you?"
Is that what you crazy kids are calling Pascal's Wager these days? Well, I guess it's true that you can sell any tired, old pig if you slap enough new lipstick on it.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 1 year ago
Comment removed
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
You are a complete idiot. Tree-rings and other proxy data for determining ancient global temperatures are not the only thing supporting modern, sudden warming. Many fields of science including botany and the study of bird migrations, etc. all support the facts that global climate is changing rapidly, and the only possible reason for this sudden increase is anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases. Get a clue.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
I like the way you leave out "tree ring" in front of "proxy" in almost every case. Definitely the behaviour of someone who is honest & doesn't want to distort the facts. Of course ALL the proxies must be completely and utterly invalid because a small segment of tree ring data does not line up! Let's also forget about solar cycles and El Niños (far too complicated) because they couldn't possibly be the reason for hot summers! Also let's expect statistical significance over short time periods! /s
lIThorIl 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks would you like your medieval warm period or not? no proxies - no medieval warm period. and without the medieval warm period where are you at? climate scientists understand the issues and cannot explain it without co2. you have chosen one aspect of the issue and not covered it well. i understand that you throw a whole lot of disclaimers our at the end - but all these ignore the vast number of scientists and scientific bodies out there giving you their view. why? and who better?
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76
"Scientists" do have several compelling explanations wherein atmospheric CO2 is at best a secondary variable.
jwielmak 1 year ago
@jwielmak yep. and none of the other variables that have big impacts on changing climate explain the current warming. i see also that you have inverted commas around scientists, presumably some sort of low level dig. perhaps we shouldn't listen to scientists when it comes to science. perhaps all we need to tell us what we need to know about "how the world works" are some free-market shills.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 So now we know your agenda
"perhaps all we need to tell us what we need to know about "how the world works" are some free-market shills."
so you are a communist
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium how wonderful. an ovoid post that is ad hominem and based on a strawman. not believing everything a moron like lee doren says does not make you a communist. not treating the free-market as if it is a religion, again, does not make you a communist. and calling someone a communist does not make their opinion on climate science wrong. what makes you wrong is that your arguments don't hold up. and all the word games in the world won't cover that up.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 I agree that being a communist doesn't *make* what is already wrong, wrong but it makes your faith in greenman's anti science understandable.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium oh.. and happy at any stage for your explanation on why, if you don't follow along with the moronic rantings of doren, you are a communist. this will be one of those posts that you ignore. cheers.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Lee Doren certainly seems to have a better grasp of what is happening in the scientific world than either you or Peter Sinclair has. Being anti freemarket is more of an ideological (socialist/communtist) state than the laisez faire that comprises the opposite. It's not a religion your standpoint is because all of evidence points to the failure of that ideology yet you continue to hang on to it.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium 1. when did i say i was totally against the free-market? 2. feel free at any stage (perhaps now if you like) to debunk anything that peter sinclair has said. 3. explain how lee doren has a better grasp of the science than peter sinclair. 4. you were far more interesting when you didn't make these sorts of boring, and again, unsubstantiated claims and were instead flopping around with some stupid physics argument. this is just unadulterated shite. what a shame.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 If you understood the science you would not have to ask those questions. It's quite simple we know that tree rings are not a good temperature proxy as is shown by the fact that proxies diverged from the instrumental readings. That is to say they do NOT have a linear relationship as required for proxies. In fact it's an inverse parabolic relationship. What Mann did was hide that fact in his 1999 Nature article. greenman is defending the indefensible.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium yeah. that's really really boring. and we all know mann and all the rest were cleared. you are losing this debate so this is the best you can do. and it's so boring. the only reason you people get hung up on the proxies is to try and prop up the fading medieval warm period. it's time to slip away and try a better tactic.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Mann was whitewashed by his mates we all know THAT and even if he didn't mislead as found by the Muir Russell panel his hocky stick chart has still been debunked and thoroughly so by McIntyre and McKitirick in peer reviewed literature, Soon and Baliunas (yes I do know about the feckless critique from the Hockey team) and the NAS wegman panel and even the friendly to Mann NRC panel wasn't happy that method reflected temperatures for more than 400 years past. Give it up.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 2
@OvoidCranium mcintyre and mckitrick have been shown to be charlatans and no where near the saviours you are/were hoping for. and to even bring up soon and baliunas is beyond a joke. you had a crack, you lost. and none of this changes the current understanding of the science at all. this is desperate stuff. apart from idiots like doren, even the more ardent deniers have learned to let this go. maybe try banging on about models or something.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Again all you have is ad hominem they are both expert statisticians something Mike Mann is not as he told the NAS panel "I'm not a statistician" I eagerly await your peer reviewed paper proving your statement.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium then wait no more: bit ly/bZcmlg, bit ly/cbOsrX and there's more. mcIntyre is a "semiretired toronto minerals consultant" and does not have an advanced degree who has published two articles in a journal not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. he also has ties to big oil. mckitrick is an economics phd, with a history of a conservative agenda. his area of specialization is environmental economics and policy analysis. both expert statisticians? better luck next time.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 I've read that tripe from Geoff Brunfiel even the title "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" has it wrong. From the NAS report "Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis." Do you really think you ar the first to have posted that tripe here? Well think again.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.." and " the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium." - NAS. your credibility is completely shot.
batteries76 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium and your quote misses this key: "because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales". we don't need the hockey-stick, but you need the mwp. you read what you want out of these things and then try and twist it to your advantage, but it's irrelevant. you are irrelevant.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 That is not the key this is
"... and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr.Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians."
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranum hahaha. pathetic. what i like even more is you've clearly done a good job to get my comment off the highest rated and yours in. it's over. if you are so into the games that you have to do that you are through the looking-glass. you don't reference anything except the bewildered musings of oil shills and clowns of various sorts. constantly talking about ad hominem but perhaps you should look at where the information comes from. i can smell your desperation. keep going, it's good.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 The quote I gave was from the Wegman report which you would know if you had taken the care to read it instead of just posting a link to the Geoff Brumfiel paper that really had it wrong. You should learn to check things for yourself.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium yeah, that wegman report looked real clean. i'm sure you could find some good quotes from inhofe or barton or some other idiot and that would be great for your file. selective again. you need the mwp to be higher in temp than now and that isn't the case. and like i have said time and again, it doesn't even matter - we don't need the hockey-stick. i also notice you have in pride of place a nice little bit by easterbrook. his theories are among the more laughable i've seen.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 So now you are referring to Dr Edward Wegman the pre eminant statistician of the NAS as an idiot. Good going yet another ad hominem. You are becoming more shrill as time wears on.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium so it's battle of the specialists again. i have no problem with wegman, but it doesn't mean everything he touches turns to gold. and it doesn't mean he's right on this. they went in with an answer in mind, and they made sure they found what they thought they wanted to get it, ignoring other things. but like i say, you need the mwp, not me. and even if it were true, you wouldn't have a win. so really you are just scrabbling around in the dirt providing blog articles to other shills.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Not at all a battle of specialists Mike Mann is neither a dendrochronologist nor a statistician trying to apply a sophisticated statistical method to dendrochronology. IOW an amateur vs specialists Wegman and McIntyre (Wegman recognised as such), McKitrick is not, even though econometricians make heavy use of time series statistics. The probability that two specialist statisticians (one the top dog in the US) are wrong and an amateur right is pretty low.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium wrong, but irrelevant anyway. but keep going. you and doren are miles off, and this change is coming whether you bang on about mwps or some crap about a paper coming up or whatever other spurious argument you can muster - and they change with the climate. what's laughable is you claim to be a scientist, but not once have backed anything but some fringe claims. you spend your time talking about arguing but have no substance at all. but, you may as well keep going. keep on going.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 I can't help it if you can't understand my claims the fact that you can't explains your constant appeal to authority which makes my points about the qualifications of Wegman, McIntyre and McKitrick and Mann's lack in the required fields very valid.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium i understood and dismissed your claims. the first time i've seen anything to back them up is here - and this is at best a side-issue. we are both arguing from different authorities, but you are the only one who cares about it (the mwp) and yet you act as if you are above it all - you aren't - you are scrabbling around in the dirt. mann was cleared, it's over. find another pointless and stupid argument. try the co2 rubbish again, mate.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 You are the one fiercly and illogically defending the bad science that went into the hockey stick which by the way is dead in the water and has been for a while. Mann wasn't cleared he was whitewashed one day you will understand the difference, but for now feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium he was cleared. the only people who think not are shills like you, doren and barton. what an excellent crew. the rest of the world has moved on and doesn't care about the issue as you are wrong and the wider debate is more important. meanwhile, you are the bloke who actually spent time putting your comment to the top and voting mine down. what a fish.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 The only people who think it wasn't a whitewash didn't read the report. There would not be an experienced scientist in the world that would accept that it's OK to hide the fact that the proxy data doesn't match the parameter being measured,
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium you bore me beyond belief. actually, you sadden me and disappoint me. you may or may not be pleased to know that it's over - we've had a good run, but i'm never responding to you again. you are certainly the smartest bloke i've argued with here on youtube (although i take some of that back if you are hetket - then again, early ovoid was essentially hetket). regardless, you have an obvious grasp of science and a way of arguing that would frustrate many. and as much as i'd hate to..
batteries76 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium ..admit it, you've taught me things that there was no chance i was going to learn without your special brand of.. well.. ovoidness. i genuinely hope it's true you have a paper coming. i genuinely hope you are the scientist that you could be (although posting on youtube isn't the best use of a good scientist's talents). more to the point - i hope you are right. i hope that co2 doesn't have any effect. and that the current warming is a cycle. and if that ends up being true, i will..
batteries76 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium ..through gritted teeth acknowledge it - for whatever that's worth on a youtube comments page, which is apparently quite a lot for most of us. and i hate that it even gets to me (and you) making light of people by reducing their careers of service to science to whatever suits the argument at that point. it's sickening. take it easy mate. have a beer. see your kids (?). do something important. this was worthwhile in a way, but it isn't now. good luck ovoid, see you around.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Well of you go then I hope you find what you hope for in life.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Actually the hockey stick graph is not doubted in its usefulness and accuracy by experts. Just check the actual scientific journals - you know, Nature, Science - real science journals. Mann's work is not in doubt by people publishing in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. To deny this seems to be highly prejudiced.
topologyrob 1 year ago
@topologyrob There are over 700 proxy studies in the peer reviewed literature showing a medieval warm as opposed to a dozen that show a hockey stick. Now who did you say is prejudiced?
Here you can compare the list of 857 scientists with the dozen or so on the Hockey Team (remove the space)
bit.ly /bg6ElT
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Your answer is in Science - the May issue this year
topologyrob 1 year ago
@topologyrob Nuts that editorial does not address the fact that there are many more proxy studies that show a medieval warm period than there are those that don't.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium Did you read it? it's not an editorial. Science is not a numbers game. It matters which journals are publishing the stuff (some are a lot more reliable than others) and what the field as a whole says. And the experts (yes, experts matter) disagree with you. Maybe you should look at how you can start being part of the solution. See ya.
topologyrob 1 year ago
@topologyrob I don't know what else to call an overview of several reports and no I haven't read it and unless it addresses all 700 of those proxy studies (and I know it won't) I shall not bother. Secondly science is very definitely a numbers game it was fudging the numbers by too high weighting on heat and moisture stressed bristlecone pines (among other "errors") that delivered the hockey stick. If you want to make a case that the MWP didn't happen you need the statistical evidence.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium It appears you haven't seen it at all. Oh well, come back later. Science is not a game of comparing how many people assert one thing vs another - one researcher can overturn a big bunch. The evidence is what matters. There is currently insufficient evidence to establish any clear knowledge of a global medieval warm period, certainly there is nothing like enough evidence to conclude that that period was globally warmer than the present. Go and read "Science" for May - it's reliable.
topologyrob 1 year ago
@topologyrob It's about weight of evidence which is heavily in favour of there having been a MWP that was warmer than today and quite widespread. There not just proxy evidence but also historical and archaeological.
I've given you a link to where you can find information on it so go on go refute them all 700 of them.
I have no intention od wasting my money on an op ed.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium and just in case: bit ly/d9eHKA which was published in the journal of climate. furthmore those two bonehead shills were rejected by nature and instead published in a non scientific journal. it's also been discredited twice by mann and his colleagues, but knowing your paranoia over the decent scientists and presumably mann as well, i've left them off. they were published in highly respected journals. i'm just trying to picture what irrelevant response you'll come up with now.
batteries76 1 year ago
@batteries76 Now realclimate as if they are impartial the blog was created to fight McIntyre and McKitric. We see who those magazines are "respected" by
bit.ly /do4WjA . I wouldn't be worrying about irrelevant response you have just made two and use of ad hominem is rife in both and in the previous one you don't seem to realise what job McIntyre did for the mining industry and how it involves statistics as does environmental economics. I know, you like to show off your ignorance.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@batteries76 He has actually covered it extremely well there are far more proxy studies about that actually can be and have been calibrated to temperature, unlike Michael Mann's bristlecone pine tree rings that show a wide extend to the medieval warm period.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago
@OvoidCranium you're now defending lee doren and backing an argument that even the most strident gormless twerp stopped bothering with some time ago. unlike you, everything greeman says is backed by scientific papers and words from the mouths of those who are in the field. he quietly and carefully takes the rubbish of the pseudo-scientists you listen to (lee doren perhaps) and explains that they are mistaken. you make claim after unsupported claim and achieve nothing, even after all this time.
batteries76 1 year ago