More info debunking PANG"s parroted consensus claim. forbes(dot)come/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing More info debunking PANG"s claim that the 2011 Arctic minimum was lower than the 2007 minimum. ijis(dot)iarc(dot)uaf(dot)edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L(dot)png Ice 2.5 meters or thicker is increasing real-science(dot)com/uncategorized/ice-growth-from-2008-2011
PANG is quote-mining again. The man he parrots (Peter Sinclair) apparently doesn't understand that when it's summer in the Arctic, it's winter in the Antarctic. stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2010/11/24/peter-sinclair-disastrously-clueless-about-ice Check my archived comments folks, I cited several peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the MWP was warmer than now, no need repeating them. PANG is quote-mining again.
PANG is quote-mining again. The man he parrots (Peter Sinclair) apparently doesn't understand that when it's summer in the Arctic, it's winter in the Antarctic. stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2010/11/24/peter-sinclair-disastrously-clueless-about-ice Check my archived comments folks, I cited several peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the MWP was warmer than now, no need repeating them. PANG is quote-mining again.
Also notice how PANG brought up WUWT when I ctied the exact links to the material (from the geological survey of Norway, Ohios State Univ. et al). He's trying an ad hom attack. In addition, he offered no rebuttal to my correct point that S. Hem sea ice extent has been trending upwards in March for quite some time. sidads(dot)colorado(dot)edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot(dot)png
@UTubekookdetector The bullshit S. hemisphere sea ice trend simply doesn't wash. It's another bullshit denier argument that has been debunked multiple times. The facts are that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing mass for years. That doesn't happen if things are getting colder. Denier b.s. debunked here:
PANG: Interested users can see the NSIDC data I cited concerning sea ice extent trends in the S. Hem for March (height of the melt season, which contradicts PANG"s cut-and-paste. In addition, see J. Liu, D.G. Martinson et al "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability," Geophysical Research Letters 31. They utilize Nimbus-7 satellite data showing that 15% sea ice concentrations had increased massively during the 1979-2002 solar cycle. Next...
@UTubekookdetector From the abstract you cite: "Over the last 24 years, a positive AAO trend and a slightly negative ENSO trend produce a spatial pattern of ice changes similar to the regional ice trends. However, the magnitude of the ice changes associated with the AAO and ENSO is much smaller than the regional ice trends. More local (or less understood large) scale processes should be investigated for the explanations."
Not exactly a stunning refutation of AGW. More of a dead cat bounce.
PANG: I would also say, your statistics that go back all the way to 1978 (on an earth that is how old according to you?) isn't much of a sample size. Your arguments that the Arctic is seeing its lowest levels of ice ever (its happened before, interested users can see the ref. I cited earlier) & the 2011 minimum was lower than 2007 is also rubbish. ocean(dot)dmi(dot)dk/arctic/icecover(dot)uk(dot)php
@UTubekookdetector So lets get this straight. Any scientific finding that agrees with your pre-established viewpoint is rock solid; or at least your misinterpretation is. BUT..... The scientific academies, journals, universities, and scientists themselves are all (except for your tiny fraction of deniers) liars?
Exxon doesn't think so. See NYT: "Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians", ANDREW E. KRAMER: August 30, 2011.
PANG: Under that vid I referenced watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8, there are links to surverys where thousands of scientists dissented from the AGW paradigm. Sorry kid. I already debunked the "you're in the pocket of big oil" argument. Roy Spencer did paid talks for envirokook groups, is he now an envirokook? This is at least the 2nd time you've brought this up. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo I don't care if you don't watch it, just letting others know, what you do doesn't matter kiddo.
@UTubekookdetector Those people you label "scientists" might be people with bachelors or masters degrees in science but if any of them objected they know the legitimate process. Publish a paper and submit it to peer review.
That is the process which validates their own science degrees. If the scientific process and academies that awarded them degrees is invalid then there own degrees are invalid. A "good enough to get paid" degree does NOT make you a working scientist.
PANG: Anyone can check those surveys for themselves to see who signed and what their credentials are. Your comment, if recorded in court would be categorized as "conjecture." Bonus points for using the Robert Kennedy Jr. denial term. I also cited numerous peer-reviewed articles countering your googled, cherry-picked and quote-mined conclusions. Good day kiddo!
@UTubekookdetector You're an idiot with no degree, credentials, or actual references to any valid scientific body that supports your thesis. You have a survey given to right-wing dentists and oil company geologists which DOES NOT make them authors or contributors to peer reviewed journal studies.
That's the standard by which medicine, chemistry, biology, physics and all other sciences are judged. You claim a particular exemption. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
@UTubekookdetector You're still claiming that you somehow have better information than the world's science academies. Are you also a better doctor than the assembled American Medical Association? I suppose you do all your own dentistry also. You probably cook up your own shampoo in the kitchen because those chemists don't know bupkiss right? You're a right-wing twit who's confused his truck with his dick. Just like the weather walrus Anthony Watts.
PANG: Bonus points for the ad hom attack on Watts... again. Still hawking the consensus nonsense? Again, check my vid at watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 and look at the links under "climate change/global warming consensus debunked." "dead cat bounce" Of course, the articles (plural) that I cited nullify your point that Antarctic ice is decreasing (NSIDC data debunks that). It also seems you're parroting the "ozone hole" argument that S; Hem ice is increasing because of man-made emissions. Hilarious!
@UTubekookdetector I'm not going to watch any b.s. denier vid you keep spamming. The National Snow & Ice Data Center: "Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic." explains why you're wrong. Ice shelfs in the arctic and antarctic that have been stable for tens of thousands of years are breaking off and floating away like the Ross ice shelf in Antarctic and the Petermann Glacier in Greenland.
You'll deny everything anyway because you're a crank who's afraid of reality.
PANG: Ice shelves never collapsed before 1978, when we put up satellites they started retreating. I already cited peer-reviewed data showing the Antarctic Peninsula retreated during the MWP and the Arctic was ice-free or nearly ice-free many times over the past 3 mln years. They said the same thing about the Wilkins Ice Shelf, it retreats every summer, SHOCKER! appinsys(dot)com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf(dot)htm Greenland's ice sheet is stable, LOL. watch?v=1BRPj4EXtUo
@UTubekookdetector The whole Medieval Warm Period lie is crap and unsupported by any valid science. Climate Crock of the Week debunks it here on video for your low information types. Google: v=vrKfz8NjEzU or here: scholarsandrogues.wordpress(dot)com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m7
PANG does get bonus points however, for his 'corporate lackey" comment--which is a product of his great frustration & a poor attempt at ad hominem because she can't compete in the arena of ideas.
@UTubekookdetector You can't deny that the major oil, gas and coal companies that are used to enjoying billions of dollars yearly in PROFITS are spending millions yearly to discredit AGW theory. After all, a reasonable conclusion to the dangerous growth of greenhouse gases is that we have to stop producing them. No profits for the big guys. So what do they do? They pay Lush Rimjob, Glenn Wreck, Anthony Watts and other cronies to harp on a "global warming is fraud campaign."
Since he's billing himself as a geologist, I'm curious to know if Mr. Hendrickx has published any peer-reviewed literature challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.
Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. You can mock him if you like but you should probably ignore the TV and read some of the scientific papers out there. There aren't many sceptics left in that community.
@UTubekookdetector I can see you're looking forward to a future where the only things to eat are glow-in-the-dark fungi and two-foot long cockroaches.
PANG: Quite a generalized rant there. What caused the spike in temps during the MWP, void of the methan and CO2 levels we have now? And then, without any aid from man, the world slid into the LIA and began climbing out of it slowly, beginning in 1850.
@UTubekookdetector from: wwwDOTncdcDOTnoaaDOTgov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. For a summary of the latest available research on the nature of climate during the "Medieval Warm Period", please see Box 6.4 of the IPCC 2007 Palaeoclimate chapter."
PANG: I figured you might do that. So you and your sources are aware of Millet et al (The Holocene 19: 317-328), where it was detemined that there was a distinct DACP, followed by the MWP, followed by the LIA in the French Alps. Or Lake Joux in Sweden (M Magny et al, Quarternary Research 75: 45-54). Or a MWP on the Antarctic Pen. hotter than today, with lower CO2 levels (B.L. Hall et al, Geology 38: 635-38). Or Cayuga Lake in NY, wetter & warmer than today (Journal of Paleolimnology 45: 243-256)
@UTubekookdetector Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. "“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
I'm pretty sure the AAAS has reviewed all the papers you refer to and judged them faulty in disproving AGW.
PANG: " I'm pretty sure" Still quote-mining. You're unaware of climate forcings (the IPCC admits we don't understand them ipcc(dot)ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1(dot)html) such as more heat has been escaping our atmosphere than previously thought, according to NASA satellite data (mdpi(dot)com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf) or that natural changes in cloud cover are responsible for more warming than previously thought. iac(dot)es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007(dot)pdf
@UTubekookdetector Cherry picking bullshit and throwing it up on the internet is a tactic straight out of WUWT the idiot stepchild of "Christian" scienze. (deliberate misspelling). CO2 in the atmosphere is what keeps this planet from being a frozen ball of ice on the surface. More CO2 and we get a warmer atmosphere.
It's basic physics that's pretty hard to refute because it's been proven six ways from sunday.
PANG: Actually, I gave you numerous peer-reviewed references (you mad?) which you feebly attempted to toss it all under the rug with generalized quote-mining (no specifics). I never mentioned anything about any religion, you're attacking straw men & that's another feeble attempt to change the subject. I already refuted (see my previous comments folks) your parroted "more CO2 means higher temp" argument. Antarctica was warmer 650K years ago, CO2 & Methane levels were lower than today. Sorry!
@UTubekookdetector The problem here is that it's actually impossible to challenge Gish Galloping at 500 characters per statement. You get to continue to lie. You challenge people for detailed refutations of your lies. Meanwhile more lies are thrown out.
The actual scientific academies and science journals. The ultimate arbiters in our culture of what "science" is....say YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. Not in so many words but the result is the same.
PANG: It seems you've given up (I assume by Gish you mean Duane Gish?), bringing up all kinds of unrelated items in an attempt to segue out of the argument. I've done fine with the YT character limit, you're whining about it. If there were no character limit, you'd be cutting and pasting reams of (cherry-picked) material off of Google. Interested users can look up the specific references I supplied showing numerous examples of higher temps with lower CO2 & Methane levels. Better luck next time!
@UTubekookdetector “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”_Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
There is not a scientific body in the world that supports your position you corporate lackey.
PANG: Still quote-mining? I already refuted the "consensus" argument in my vid at watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 There is no consensus. "atmospheric constituents... that absorb or scatter radiant energy." Several days ago, I posted a link to the IPCC AR4 report where they admit they have a "low" understanding of most climate forcings. This kid is just spinning in circles like a whirling dervish. I also refuted the notion that hurricanes & flooding are increasing because of CO2 watch?v=hObWeBa2nzQ
@UTubekookdetector Another moron whose personal opinion counts more than the assembled consideration of several national science academies. What exactly is your scientific training? How is it that the the CO2 absorption band experiments work for everybody but you and the U.S. conservative right wing? Linking to videos isn't linking to peer-reviewed papers and even peer-reviewed papers are subject to later review by SCIENTISTS.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot with YouTube as evidence.
PANG: Actually, in the vid I linked to, see "climate change consensus debunked" under the vid: There are links to surveys & petitions numerous climatoligists, paloeoclimatologists, geologists, etc have signed onto stating they don't buy the AGW pseudoscience. Nice spin though! It seems you've given up, seguing to oil companies, etc. I already had an envirokook try that on me, it didn't work then, doesn't work now. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo Nice try though kiddo!
@UTubekookdetector In other words: if you give my bullshit vid traffic you'll see links to my bullshit justifications for being an anti-science crackpot. No thanks.
Any real scientific criticisms should be submitted them to the proper journals for review. All "climatoligists, paloeoclimatologists, geologists, etc." accepted that system when they went to a university and worked towards a degree in the sciences. To claim the authority of the academies and reject peer review is simply fraud.
@Pangolinx1 When somebody with a science degree rejects the peer-review process yet claims his/her degree as validation of their argument they are committing fraud. The degree only has authority because science has a peer-review system designed to weed out false statements. Without peer-review there is little to separate claims of scientific findings from speculation. Speculation such as cold-fusion or "global cooling."
PANG: I have all the links to the relevant material I mentioned & during this very one-sided debate (me citing peer-reviewed & specific data--you quote-mining on Google) I've have cited numerous peer-reviewed articles. You're still hawking the consensus argument, it's not true. Your ad hom. oil company attack was pretty pathetic too. In closing, any interested users can check out the info & peer-reveiwed articles I cited. You've largely become a waste of time kiddo.
@UTubekookdetector_In a remarkably convenient coincidence the arctic polar sea ice reached it's lowest area in modern records yesterday. (google: cryosphere today) That goes along with the lowest recorded ice volume and numerous high temperature records across the northern hemisphere.
The planet refutes your denier b.s.. The science academies make clear statements supporting AGW theory. The major scientific journals have published numerous papers supporting AGW theory. You got nada.
PANG: Moving onto this now? According to the USGS, the Arctic was too warm in summer to support sea ice 3.3-3 million years ago. In addition, sediment cores going back 9000 yrs in the West Arctic Ocean indicate that it was warmer during the MWP & RWP than now. bprc(dot)osu(dot)edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08(dot)pdf The Geo. Survey of Norway says the Arctic was ice-free or nearly ice-free 6-7K years ago. ngu(dot)no/en-gb-Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago
@UTubekookdetector Ok Mr. Brilliant. Exactly how many humans were on the planet 3.3 million years ago? If your answer is >0 you're an idiot. How about grain agriculture at that time? Nada. In short the conditions for human civilization as we know it didn't exist.
As to the b.s. copypasta you pulled off WUWT it's flat b.s.. Refuted here: scienceblogs(dot)com/illconsidered/2011/02/ice_sheet_overview.php
Respond to this video... First, sea ice area, not extent, is what changes the earth's albedo. Second, due to the different nature of northern and souther polar ice caps northern hemisphere sea ice will be a) more variable and b) more important to global warming due to the exposure of ocean to sunlight in summer. Sea ice on the S. polar ocean in winter means nada. Finally: you're still full of crap: arctic.atmos.uiuc(dot)edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily(dot)ice(dot)area(dot)withtrend(dot)jpg
PANG: I would also advise you to check NSIDC data on ice extent in the S. Hemisphere. Ice extent in March (that's the height of the melt season down there kiddo) has been trending up for over a decade. Better luck next time!
@UTubekookdetector You still haven't explained how you're more qualified than the entirety of The National Academy of Sciences, the The National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science to judge Global Warming science. They're conclusion is that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. Even the Pentagon thinks Global Warming is real. (see: NYT, Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S.,JOHN M. BRODER, August 8, 2009) And you think you're smarter?
PANG: Back to the consensus argument again? Those interested can see watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 and see the links underneath (climate change/global warming consensus debunked). There are numerous geologists, paleoclimatologists & climatologists who aren't buying your ad populum appeals from taxpayer-funded govt entities. Good day!
@UTubekookdetector If 99 engineers say a bridge is about to drop and one engineer says it's safe YOU DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BRIDGE. You denier crackpots have all the validity of the cold-fusion and zero-point energy whackjobs. You claim scientific credibility but actually you're charlatans touting mumbo-jumbo "scienzey" bullshit so that your corporate overlords can make oil profits.
PANG: In addition, despite increased in CO2 levels, hurricanes & tornadoes are declining, river discharge levels haven't seen a marked increase. watch?v=hObWeBa2nzQ (begin listening at 2:10). Lastly, most of the warming in the satellite record (since 1978) has been confined to the N. Hem. & especially the Arctic. Too small a sample on an earth that is how old? The N. Hem had a cooling from 1958-78. Better luck next time kiddo.
PANG: In addition, paleorainfall records in S. America indicate (pnas(dot)org/content/early/2011/05/02/1003719108(dot)abstract) a very dry period from 900-1040 and the wettest period was during the LIA. There was also a "megadrought" in N. America (primarily the Corn Belt), which coincided with the MWP (M.C. Stambaugh et al, Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 151: 154-62). You're just quote-mining PANG, everyone can see that.
This was interesting atleast... but I have the view that global warming has alot of holes as a theory BUT we still have alot to gain from stopping the use of plastic and redusing car emissions will help agains astma in big citys...
I just watched that video and I still have the tears in my eyes and half upchucked food in my mouth from the hysterical fits of laughter I was in .... also the peoples comments were just as funny... check it out.
More info debunking PANG"s parroted consensus claim. forbes(dot)come/sites/jamestaylor/2011/09/08/global-warming-a-98-consensus-of-nothing More info debunking PANG"s claim that the 2011 Arctic minimum was lower than the 2007 minimum. ijis(dot)iarc(dot)uaf(dot)edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L(dot)png Ice 2.5 meters or thicker is increasing real-science(dot)com/uncategorized/ice-growth-from-2008-2011
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PANG is quote-mining again. The man he parrots (Peter Sinclair) apparently doesn't understand that when it's summer in the Arctic, it's winter in the Antarctic. stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2010/11/24/peter-sinclair-disastrously-clueless-about-ice Check my archived comments folks, I cited several peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the MWP was warmer than now, no need repeating them. PANG is quote-mining again.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
PANG is quote-mining again. The man he parrots (Peter Sinclair) apparently doesn't understand that when it's summer in the Arctic, it's winter in the Antarctic. stevengoddard(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2010/11/24/peter-sinclair-disastrously-clueless-about-ice Check my archived comments folks, I cited several peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the MWP was warmer than now, no need repeating them. PANG is quote-mining again.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
Also notice how PANG brought up WUWT when I ctied the exact links to the material (from the geological survey of Norway, Ohios State Univ. et al). He's trying an ad hom attack. In addition, he offered no rebuttal to my correct point that S. Hem sea ice extent has been trending upwards in March for quite some time. sidads(dot)colorado(dot)edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/S_03_plot(dot)png
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The bullshit S. hemisphere sea ice trend simply doesn't wash. It's another bullshit denier argument that has been debunked multiple times. The facts are that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been losing mass for years. That doesn't happen if things are getting colder. Denier b.s. debunked here:
skepticalscience(dot)com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice(dot)htm
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Interested users can see the NSIDC data I cited concerning sea ice extent trends in the S. Hem for March (height of the melt season, which contradicts PANG"s cut-and-paste. In addition, see J. Liu, D.G. Martinson et al "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability," Geophysical Research Letters 31. They utilize Nimbus-7 satellite data showing that 15% sea ice concentrations had increased massively during the 1979-2002 solar cycle. Next...
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector From the abstract you cite: "Over the last 24 years, a positive AAO trend and a slightly negative ENSO trend produce a spatial pattern of ice changes similar to the regional ice trends. However, the magnitude of the ice changes associated with the AAO and ENSO is much smaller than the regional ice trends. More local (or less understood large) scale processes should be investigated for the explanations."
Not exactly a stunning refutation of AGW. More of a dead cat bounce.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: I would also say, your statistics that go back all the way to 1978 (on an earth that is how old according to you?) isn't much of a sample size. Your arguments that the Arctic is seeing its lowest levels of ice ever (its happened before, interested users can see the ref. I cited earlier) & the 2011 minimum was lower than 2007 is also rubbish. ocean(dot)dmi(dot)dk/arctic/icecover(dot)uk(dot)php
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector So lets get this straight. Any scientific finding that agrees with your pre-established viewpoint is rock solid; or at least your misinterpretation is. BUT..... The scientific academies, journals, universities, and scientists themselves are all (except for your tiny fraction of deniers) liars?
Exxon doesn't think so. See NYT: "Exxon Reaches Arctic Oil Deal With Russians", ANDREW E. KRAMER: August 30, 2011.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Under that vid I referenced watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8, there are links to surverys where thousands of scientists dissented from the AGW paradigm. Sorry kid. I already debunked the "you're in the pocket of big oil" argument. Roy Spencer did paid talks for envirokook groups, is he now an envirokook? This is at least the 2nd time you've brought this up. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo I don't care if you don't watch it, just letting others know, what you do doesn't matter kiddo.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Those people you label "scientists" might be people with bachelors or masters degrees in science but if any of them objected they know the legitimate process. Publish a paper and submit it to peer review.
That is the process which validates their own science degrees. If the scientific process and academies that awarded them degrees is invalid then there own degrees are invalid. A "good enough to get paid" degree does NOT make you a working scientist.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Anyone can check those surveys for themselves to see who signed and what their credentials are. Your comment, if recorded in court would be categorized as "conjecture." Bonus points for using the Robert Kennedy Jr. denial term. I also cited numerous peer-reviewed articles countering your googled, cherry-picked and quote-mined conclusions. Good day kiddo!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You're an idiot with no degree, credentials, or actual references to any valid scientific body that supports your thesis. You have a survey given to right-wing dentists and oil company geologists which DOES NOT make them authors or contributors to peer reviewed journal studies.
That's the standard by which medicine, chemistry, biology, physics and all other sciences are judged. You claim a particular exemption. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You're still claiming that you somehow have better information than the world's science academies. Are you also a better doctor than the assembled American Medical Association? I suppose you do all your own dentistry also. You probably cook up your own shampoo in the kitchen because those chemists don't know bupkiss right? You're a right-wing twit who's confused his truck with his dick. Just like the weather walrus Anthony Watts.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Bonus points for the ad hom attack on Watts... again. Still hawking the consensus nonsense? Again, check my vid at watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 and look at the links under "climate change/global warming consensus debunked." "dead cat bounce" Of course, the articles (plural) that I cited nullify your point that Antarctic ice is decreasing (NSIDC data debunks that). It also seems you're parroting the "ozone hole" argument that S; Hem ice is increasing because of man-made emissions. Hilarious!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector I'm not going to watch any b.s. denier vid you keep spamming. The National Snow & Ice Data Center: "Characteristics: Arctic vs. Antarctic." explains why you're wrong. Ice shelfs in the arctic and antarctic that have been stable for tens of thousands of years are breaking off and floating away like the Ross ice shelf in Antarctic and the Petermann Glacier in Greenland.
You'll deny everything anyway because you're a crank who's afraid of reality.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Ice shelves never collapsed before 1978, when we put up satellites they started retreating. I already cited peer-reviewed data showing the Antarctic Peninsula retreated during the MWP and the Arctic was ice-free or nearly ice-free many times over the past 3 mln years. They said the same thing about the Wilkins Ice Shelf, it retreats every summer, SHOCKER! appinsys(dot)com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf(dot)htm Greenland's ice sheet is stable, LOL. watch?v=1BRPj4EXtUo
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The whole Medieval Warm Period lie is crap and unsupported by any valid science. Climate Crock of the Week debunks it here on video for your low information types. Google: v=vrKfz8NjEzU or here: scholarsandrogues.wordpress(dot)com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m7
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG does get bonus points however, for his 'corporate lackey" comment--which is a product of his great frustration & a poor attempt at ad hominem because she can't compete in the arena of ideas.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You can't deny that the major oil, gas and coal companies that are used to enjoying billions of dollars yearly in PROFITS are spending millions yearly to discredit AGW theory. After all, a reasonable conclusion to the dangerous growth of greenhouse gases is that we have to stop producing them. No profits for the big guys. So what do they do? They pay Lush Rimjob, Glenn Wreck, Anthony Watts and other cronies to harp on a "global warming is fraud campaign."
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
Oh look, George W. Bush's Climate Change briefing book.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
And people are supposed to take something like this seriouse because?
Kalkazaar 6 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kalkazaar "And people are supposed to take something like this seriouse because?"
It's addressing them at their reading comprehension level unlike all those nasty "science" journals.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
Since he's billing himself as a geologist, I'm curious to know if Mr. Hendrickx has published any peer-reviewed literature challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.
BeOurBee 11 months ago
BWAHAHA. This is what a geologist does with his spare time. Such a wasted life, characterised by deceit and vindictive stupidity.
evandar0 11 months ago
Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. You can mock him if you like but you should probably ignore the TV and read some of the scientific papers out there. There aren't many sceptics left in that community.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago 7
Thanks for sharing the story.
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago
OoooOOOOHHhhhhH nnNNNNNnnoOOOOoo
it's Sluggo, I mean Al Whore. We are all gonna' die. . . I mean really he can't be lying. . . He invented the internet. . . . Didn't he???
We need to watch out for Maurice Strom, Al's pimp.
xtaxplayer 2 years ago
What will Uncle Al do when he reads that UC-Davis study showing we had CO2 concentrations of 2,000PPM about 300 million years ago?
It's Bush's fault!
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago
@UTubekookdetector I can see you're looking forward to a future where the only things to eat are glow-in-the-dark fungi and two-foot long cockroaches.
Just pretend they're lobster.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
PANG: Quite a generalized rant there. What caused the spike in temps during the MWP, void of the methan and CO2 levels we have now? And then, without any aid from man, the world slid into the LIA and began climbing out of it slowly, beginning in 1850.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector from: wwwDOTncdcDOTnoaaDOTgov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. For a summary of the latest available research on the nature of climate during the "Medieval Warm Period", please see Box 6.4 of the IPCC 2007 Palaeoclimate chapter."
or rather......bullshit to your crappy argument.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
PANG: I figured you might do that. So you and your sources are aware of Millet et al (The Holocene 19: 317-328), where it was detemined that there was a distinct DACP, followed by the MWP, followed by the LIA in the French Alps. Or Lake Joux in Sweden (M Magny et al, Quarternary Research 75: 45-54). Or a MWP on the Antarctic Pen. hotter than today, with lower CO2 levels (B.L. Hall et al, Geology 38: 635-38). Or Cayuga Lake in NY, wetter & warmer than today (Journal of Paleolimnology 45: 243-256)
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. "“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”
I'm pretty sure the AAAS has reviewed all the papers you refer to and judged them faulty in disproving AGW.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
PANG: " I'm pretty sure" Still quote-mining. You're unaware of climate forcings (the IPCC admits we don't understand them ipcc(dot)ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1(dot)html) such as more heat has been escaping our atmosphere than previously thought, according to NASA satellite data (mdpi(dot)com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf) or that natural changes in cloud cover are responsible for more warming than previously thought. iac(dot)es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Goode_Palle_JASTP_2007(dot)pdf
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Cherry picking bullshit and throwing it up on the internet is a tactic straight out of WUWT the idiot stepchild of "Christian" scienze. (deliberate misspelling). CO2 in the atmosphere is what keeps this planet from being a frozen ball of ice on the surface. More CO2 and we get a warmer atmosphere.
It's basic physics that's pretty hard to refute because it's been proven six ways from sunday.
Try dealing with reality instead of denying it.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
PANG: Actually, I gave you numerous peer-reviewed references (you mad?) which you feebly attempted to toss it all under the rug with generalized quote-mining (no specifics). I never mentioned anything about any religion, you're attacking straw men & that's another feeble attempt to change the subject. I already refuted (see my previous comments folks) your parroted "more CO2 means higher temp" argument. Antarctica was warmer 650K years ago, CO2 & Methane levels were lower than today. Sorry!
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
@UTubekookdetector The problem here is that it's actually impossible to challenge Gish Galloping at 500 characters per statement. You get to continue to lie. You challenge people for detailed refutations of your lies. Meanwhile more lies are thrown out.
The actual scientific academies and science journals. The ultimate arbiters in our culture of what "science" is....say YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. Not in so many words but the result is the same.
Pangolinx1 6 months ago
PANG: It seems you've given up (I assume by Gish you mean Duane Gish?), bringing up all kinds of unrelated items in an attempt to segue out of the argument. I've done fine with the YT character limit, you're whining about it. If there were no character limit, you'd be cutting and pasting reams of (cherry-picked) material off of Google. Interested users can look up the specific references I supplied showing numerous examples of higher temps with lower CO2 & Methane levels. Better luck next time!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”_Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
There is not a scientific body in the world that supports your position you corporate lackey.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Still quote-mining? I already refuted the "consensus" argument in my vid at watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 There is no consensus. "atmospheric constituents... that absorb or scatter radiant energy." Several days ago, I posted a link to the IPCC AR4 report where they admit they have a "low" understanding of most climate forcings. This kid is just spinning in circles like a whirling dervish. I also refuted the notion that hurricanes & flooding are increasing because of CO2 watch?v=hObWeBa2nzQ
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Another moron whose personal opinion counts more than the assembled consideration of several national science academies. What exactly is your scientific training? How is it that the the CO2 absorption band experiments work for everybody but you and the U.S. conservative right wing? Linking to videos isn't linking to peer-reviewed papers and even peer-reviewed papers are subject to later review by SCIENTISTS.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot with YouTube as evidence.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Actually, in the vid I linked to, see "climate change consensus debunked" under the vid: There are links to surveys & petitions numerous climatoligists, paloeoclimatologists, geologists, etc have signed onto stating they don't buy the AGW pseudoscience. Nice spin though! It seems you've given up, seguing to oil companies, etc. I already had an envirokook try that on me, it didn't work then, doesn't work now. watch?v=sPa-pQTnqdo Nice try though kiddo!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector In other words: if you give my bullshit vid traffic you'll see links to my bullshit justifications for being an anti-science crackpot. No thanks.
Any real scientific criticisms should be submitted them to the proper journals for review. All "climatoligists, paloeoclimatologists, geologists, etc." accepted that system when they went to a university and worked towards a degree in the sciences. To claim the authority of the academies and reject peer review is simply fraud.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
@Pangolinx1 When somebody with a science degree rejects the peer-review process yet claims his/her degree as validation of their argument they are committing fraud. The degree only has authority because science has a peer-review system designed to weed out false statements. Without peer-review there is little to separate claims of scientific findings from speculation. Speculation such as cold-fusion or "global cooling."
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: I have all the links to the relevant material I mentioned & during this very one-sided debate (me citing peer-reviewed & specific data--you quote-mining on Google) I've have cited numerous peer-reviewed articles. You're still hawking the consensus argument, it's not true. Your ad hom. oil company attack was pretty pathetic too. In closing, any interested users can check out the info & peer-reveiwed articles I cited. You've largely become a waste of time kiddo.
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector_In a remarkably convenient coincidence the arctic polar sea ice reached it's lowest area in modern records yesterday. (google: cryosphere today) That goes along with the lowest recorded ice volume and numerous high temperature records across the northern hemisphere.
The planet refutes your denier b.s.. The science academies make clear statements supporting AGW theory. The major scientific journals have published numerous papers supporting AGW theory. You got nada.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Moving onto this now? According to the USGS, the Arctic was too warm in summer to support sea ice 3.3-3 million years ago. In addition, sediment cores going back 9000 yrs in the West Arctic Ocean indicate that it was warmer during the MWP & RWP than now. bprc(dot)osu(dot)edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08(dot)pdf The Geo. Survey of Norway says the Arctic was ice-free or nearly ice-free 6-7K years ago. ngu(dot)no/en-gb-Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Ok Mr. Brilliant. Exactly how many humans were on the planet 3.3 million years ago? If your answer is >0 you're an idiot. How about grain agriculture at that time? Nada. In short the conditions for human civilization as we know it didn't exist.
As to the b.s. copypasta you pulled off WUWT it's flat b.s.. Refuted here: scienceblogs(dot)com/illconsidered/2011/02/ice_sheet_overview.php
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
Respond to this video... First, sea ice area, not extent, is what changes the earth's albedo. Second, due to the different nature of northern and souther polar ice caps northern hemisphere sea ice will be a) more variable and b) more important to global warming due to the exposure of ocean to sunlight in summer. Sea ice on the S. polar ocean in winter means nada. Finally: you're still full of crap: arctic.atmos.uiuc(dot)edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily(dot)ice(dot)area(dot)withtrend(dot)jpg
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: I would also advise you to check NSIDC data on ice extent in the S. Hemisphere. Ice extent in March (that's the height of the melt season down there kiddo) has been trending up for over a decade. Better luck next time!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector You still haven't explained how you're more qualified than the entirety of The National Academy of Sciences, the The National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science to judge Global Warming science. They're conclusion is that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. Even the Pentagon thinks Global Warming is real. (see: NYT, Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S.,JOHN M. BRODER, August 8, 2009) And you think you're smarter?
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: Back to the consensus argument again? Those interested can see watch?v=mUi8MiwrAI8 and see the links underneath (climate change/global warming consensus debunked). There are numerous geologists, paleoclimatologists & climatologists who aren't buying your ad populum appeals from taxpayer-funded govt entities. Good day!
UTubekookdetector 5 months ago
@UTubekookdetector If 99 engineers say a bridge is about to drop and one engineer says it's safe YOU DON'T DRIVE OVER THE BRIDGE. You denier crackpots have all the validity of the cold-fusion and zero-point energy whackjobs. You claim scientific credibility but actually you're charlatans touting mumbo-jumbo "scienzey" bullshit so that your corporate overlords can make oil profits.
Pangolinx1 5 months ago
PANG: In addition, despite increased in CO2 levels, hurricanes & tornadoes are declining, river discharge levels haven't seen a marked increase. watch?v=hObWeBa2nzQ (begin listening at 2:10). Lastly, most of the warming in the satellite record (since 1978) has been confined to the N. Hem. & especially the Arctic. Too small a sample on an earth that is how old? The N. Hem had a cooling from 1958-78. Better luck next time kiddo.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
PANG: In addition, paleorainfall records in S. America indicate (pnas(dot)org/content/early/2011/05/02/1003719108(dot)abstract) a very dry period from 900-1040 and the wettest period was during the LIA. There was also a "megadrought" in N. America (primarily the Corn Belt), which coincided with the MWP (M.C. Stambaugh et al, Agricultural & Forest Meteorology 151: 154-62). You're just quote-mining PANG, everyone can see that.
UTubekookdetector 6 months ago
Hot Air Gore the Liar
Busted with Emails from East Anglia
That's why it's snowing in Dallas & New Mexico & AZ & Las Vegas
Hardliner1269 2 years ago
Gore only caters to idiots who get their climate "news" from Katie Couric and other pseudo-intellects.
I stuck a thermometer under the hood of my car and boy is it hot today!
UTubekookdetector 2 years ago
This was interesting atleast... but I have the view that global warming has alot of holes as a theory BUT we still have alot to gain from stopping the use of plastic and redusing car emissions will help agains astma in big citys...
jimdidr 3 years ago
agreed.....whats wrong with stopping the wastage we produce even if global warming doesnt exist?
pamalutracam 2 years ago
Brilliant ...
Someone posted your link on below website.
I just watched that video and I still have the tears in my eyes and half upchucked food in my mouth from the hysterical fits of laughter I was in .... also the peoples comments were just as funny... check it out.
wattsupwiththat[.]com/2008/12/17/hot-propaganda-coming-soon-to-a-tv-near-you/#comment-64630
aGlobalWarmingHOAX 3 years ago
Man that guy has an irritating voice though.
However, we have to understand the skeptics don't have the money to go out and brainwash a professional actor like Leonardo Dicaprio.
You need the cash flow of the alarmist warmists to get the good readers.
xempla 3 years ago
At last - a rational view.
allanloveskylie 3 years ago 2