Load of bullshit, you people suck at life! Global Warming is a NATURAL process, just like ice age was 20,000 years ago! This is propaganda so the government can tax CO2 emissions and make the bankster elite wealthier while you starve. WAKE THE FUCK UP!
@Fichorkaa That is not always the case. Now I ain't no recycling and global-warming-climate-change nutcase but you must truly be stupid if you think that this is 'just like ice age'. Google up ozone depletion
You deniers of science sound like this...."Ooh look at the sky! It's so big and I'm so small. What could we do to affect things?" Study and learn people!!! We are MASSIVELY changing the atmosphere and it is MASSIVELY changing the climate!
74 people are scientists who rely on the scientific method instead of orders from the political committee called IPCC.
When the political agitator shown in this video is dead, the Upsala glacier will grow again, and melt again, and grow again, and melt again, ... , just like it always has and always will, and there's nothing that the puny biomass known as Homo sapiens can do about it.
Rely on our respected scientific institutions. They are ALL saying the same thing when it comes to the core issue: HUMANS are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
So now that that guy is finally dead it means there's one less asshole telling me what to do. What am I expected to do, anyway? Stop driving? Stop working? Stop eating. Just die? Fucking idiots. Life is so fucking hard as it is without these cunts making us feel guilty for contributing to our society and world.
@SuperApparition you dont have to stop living your life, just do what you can and whats possible. If you cant even do that, just be aware. Whether they make you feel guilty about it or not is not their problem, these are the facts they wont disappear you either care or you just dont give a fuck and live yourself only caring about yourself just like almost everyone else in this world.
Solar activity is causing ALL the planets in our solar system to heat up. Earths magnetic field is already in demise, since it's flipping by the next 7 years, reversing the magnetic poles. Meanwhile we'll have extreme exposure to solar winds, x-rays, gamma rays, UV rays, IR rays and we'll experience extreme winds up to 1 or even 1.5 mach (that's over 1500 km/h!) in 3 or 4 years. As the solar winds fire up the earths inner activity we'll see (or suffer) extreme volcanism and seismic activity.NASA
Think about permaculture. There are some amazingly beautiful and sustainable things going on in our world!
Not only do you cut out the food being shipped all over the place, thus saving lots of fuel; you also prevent lots of chemicals and waste. Another huge benefit to you is a better variety of healthier food.
wow! that was so touching it gave me gas. this year is the coldest and snowiest and rainiest and sleetiest and hailiest and iciest year where i live so shut up green peace
Bullshit. The so called Little Ice Age has ended only 100 hundred years ago (it's a blink of an eye when placed on earth's history timeline) so it's obvious that temperature is locally (locally with respect to time, not space) increasing. Solar activity's minimum was reached in 17th century just like temperature minimum in LIA. This whole global-warming-crap is nothing more than a opportunity to drain money from people.
ok, so what do greenpeace to stop "buy and throw away" mania?
why i should stop to have a "good" life and companies, factories ... etc still do the same stuff ? more and more electronic things are made to be dead in a couple of years, as cars .. or motos .. why a unimog still work fine with 60 years and a new car broke in 20? do greenpeace something against it ? i guess not..
@thytum don't guess about shit like that. find out. and if you took the time to do so, you would find that greenpeace SPECIALISES in targeting the big companies and governments to get them to do the right thing. FUCKING hell, you fucking ignorant people you need to get educated before SPEAKING about shit you clearly know nothing about .. OR STFU and stop wasting good peoples' air.
You can't understand that improve our energy technology and efficiency, stop deforestation, transfer resources and technology to the poor will actually reduce poverty instead. No matter if the most of the warming is caused exogenously by the sun or not, we have to do the most we can to mitigate it.
@carlospfontes most people here will read mitigate and think of mexicans invading the usa. sorry to say, but the world if full of ignorant ass holes who are somehow entitled to an opinion. you seem strong, i wish i was like you.
If you dont want to acknowledge that by just turning your heads and saying that this is all an over reaction of us. well then you are clearly mistaken. Our generation will not suffer from global warming as much as our future generations will. We will be dead. and they will be stuck with a ruined world full of drouts and famine. OPEN YOUR EYES. and do something about it. DONT TURN YOUR HEADS AROUND and pretend like nothings wrong.
Current climate trends are within variability. There is no accurate evidence to support the global warming theory. Go and watch some of Ian Plimer's lectures. It will give you a much more balanced view of what climate change is and how this environmental movement is turning into a religion, not based on sound facts but selected, biased information.
im not saying that global warming isnt happening, coz it clearly is but i feel that the dangers are totaly over stated.
people will only ever support the enviromental movement fully if it is believeable and the fact is that the plannet will not die, life will continue and so will humanity regardless of how much CO2 we make.
our plannet has faced worse mass extinction events than this can ever become, yeh it could fuck us up but lets keep some perspective guys.
K guys, its serious business time, Let get all these billion dollar making companies to just STOP destroying the earth and then everything will be fine. Yeah fucking right, do you think one retarded youtube video is going to do ANYTHING? no not a chance. The only people who can do anything is the government and they obviously dont give a fuck.
THANKS FOR FUCKING US OVER LAST GENERATION YOU SELF CENTERED ASS HOLES, NOW WE'RE FUCKED AND SO IS THE EARTH
Actually there was no Arctic ice 6000-7000 years ago when life on Earth and humanity flourished. But ice was the enemy of life on Earth and humanity 12000 to ~100000 years ago. Also CO2 isn't control climate. Real data says it isn't.
Livestock indutry is No.1 cause of global warming as United Nation FAO says. Whale meat is green protein source and Greenpeace is against it. That is why Greenpeace is labeled as Environmental Terrorist. Greenpeace activists consume tons of Beef, Ram and Chicken everyday and sadly they all look so fat. To raise more money, they oppose whaling. Greenpeace doesn't care about environment, but money.
Google - Global Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
"...we need to get our heads around the idea that global warming is one of the most serious long-term threats to our national and personal security. ...Historic levels of built-up greenhouse gases will continue to warm the world -- and spin it toward new patterns of conflict."
Although virgins would be a good start, I think that the best way to tackle volcanos would probably be tunneling and explosives. Tap into the power, release some pressure, generate some electricity, eventually control the magma itself.
everyone take not of how the extreme left wing thinks - plainly, you get in line and follow like sheep or go to jail
this same econut wants to put limitations on human reproduction - of course he and others like him will be given the power to choose who is good or bad (hmmm i wonder if they will want blond hair like someone else from the past)
this same econut wants to round you up, place UN imposed taxes on you and fire you if you work for any "bad" company
You don't all have to jump into greenpeace ships and stand infront of whaling vessels, you don't have to build windfarms and wear hemp clothing, BUT, EVERYONE should take responsibility for protection of the planet and all other living organisms on it. Is recycling your paper, metal and plastics and turning the light switch off at night really that difficult? Come on think about it.
"We do not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our Children." -Kenyan Proverb
@oOXxKerAxXOo recycling paper,cans uses more energy than trashing it because separate trucks have to collect it using more fuel then it has to be shipped to places around the world to be recycled. It is a good idea and does save resources which go into mining and sourcing new materials so its good fro the environment that way but its so disorganized that it uses more energy! Another problem thanks to the government. Watch - Penn and Teller ; Recycling is Bulls**t
Wow. I have seen this video a couple of times now, but this is the first time i ever read any of the comments and I must say I am completely shocked by the masses of ignorant consumers there are on this planet- particularly the number that left comments to this video. How selfish are all of you who decide that global warming is not your problem! This is a planet which we are blessed to be able to enjoy, but in doing so we MUST also keep it clean and healthy for furute generations...
They said that about the ozon layer too..deniers blaimed the sun, the wind, Arctica, background radiation etc, but sceptics were right, it was destroyed be cfc gases and other chemical pollution
it s not a 'pseudo-religious' propaganda as u called it. Is REALITY!if u are unable to understand that...just try..leave your cloud and see that greenpeace is trying to warn us not scare us.
But i actually think global warming rocks, we can grow other vegitebles and have other types of animals in for example sweden also i hate winter and global warming makes it go away yay! Go Co2
No I'm going to buy and consume whatever i can afford and enjoy it. The next generation will be even more equipped to deal with climate issues then we are. Of cousre GW is sut a figment in the imagination of the looney left.
i wanna know somthing they say the sea level is gonna rise and people are gonna die becouse of it but if it rises wouldn't it just be better to move further back off the beach ??
i beleive global warming is a natural cycle but we humans made it go too far. we use cfc's, burn fossil fuels, use all earth natural resources, that elminates earth's majestic beauty and displaces valuable endangered organisms. global warming happened in the ice age as well but today we are causing it to happen at a more drastic rate. be active in a cause lend an ear to mother earth. our planet too should deserve a voice not just us for we live on this planet.
Yes there were climate changes, some drastic, like the time the earth was hit by a meteorite and the resulting ice age wiped most of life. Geology shows that at one time the great lakes area of Canada was one vast and held back by an ice dam. The ice dam busrt and the resulting trillions of gallons of fresh water flooded into the sea, diluted the salt water that the Gulf Stream (Atlantic Conveyor) relies on to work and turned it off. That was the last Ice Age, what is happening now is man made!
I would just like to point out that before humans, drastic climate changes occurred wiping out species and populations of various animals and plants. These climate changes were absolutely natural. How do we know that we are not on the precipice of another climate change?
People are gonna continue ignoring it, until it hits them. Simple as that. All this bull about it being a goverment scam is just paranoia. Utter stupidity. Lets have a grown up debate about theese issues and not bull, thank you.
this is sad , most ppl have to see it to believe it . now they see it and just dont give a Sh*t... their will come a day when it will be to late to turn it around... all we will do is watch as our world dies.. god save us all....
Just another system of control, another excuse to tax us, suppress us and keep us living in fear. The majority of people won't stand for this anymore. Greenpeace, you are all tools.
Whose "system of control" would that be, Beefforhire? God's?
"An other excuse to tax us"? Ok, so you know what, no-one pays tax anymore and there will be no trains or traffic ways or government protection...
But even when taxpaying WOULD be a bad thing, still what does it have to do with Greenpeace? Greenpeace is an international, non-governmental organisation, so it would never have profit from tax-paying.
As for the fear: YES, we SHOULD be afraid! For all those low-laid lands, f.e. Holland!
We are always told to be afraid for 1 simple reason. Too keep us in control. We are divided and conquered by our governments but this latest government scam to tax the shit out of us on the back of a myth is compeltely unnacceptable, and i'm pretty sure the people arent going to fall for it this time.
This guy is a looser. co gas is what plants use to convert it into oxygen. co gas is not a pollutant. Al Gore and the whole man made global warming religion/cult is about restricting your freedom and implimenting governmnet control over you. Government control psycos are bad for freedom and I will fight them til the end. That being said I am in favor of solar, and wind. But the choice is yours, that freedom. Also, people are starving so we burn food in cars? Oil is not running out.
Gore tells us what the science says. He is not the source of the science.
Gore is not part of the government.
What good is freedom if you haven't the habitat in which to enjoy it.
The oil supply WILL run out and we must move to alternative energy sources. Let's make the move sooner on OUR terms for the sake of our future generations.
Some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. Most of the world's glaciers have never been surveyed, and good data probably only exists on some 5% or so of them. In any case glaciers are not thermometers, and the scientific consensus is that glacier dynamics are not simply dependent on temperature, but also on many other factors - not least local anthropogenic changes to land use which influence humidity.
In any case, where glaciers have been retreating, it began in the 18th century.
Billions of people in the world are starving in the least fertile areas. Basic science in plant growth show that light, water, heat and nutrients aswell as carbon dioxide are needed to produce plant life. It is simply ignorant to say that extra C02 will help people when we can harly feed the worlds population as it is, not even considering the fact that predictions in population growth show an estimate of an extra 3 billion people by 2050.
bdfm89 people are indeed starving in the least fertile and poorest areas of the world and it should be our priority to stop world hunger now rather than waste billions of dollars on pointless carbon reduction policies or on biofuels, which just exacerbate the problems of world hunger.
Extra CO2 has indeed increased world crop yield by between 10 - 20% over the last century and is likely to continue to keep doing so.
Obviously, it isn't the only solution to hunger but it certainly contributes.
You are using outdated facts to criticise new science. The 10-20% increase in growth is simply flase. It was once thought that this would be the case and still is under certain circumstances. HOWEVER a stamford university report has lookd comprehensively at CO2 increases with relation to other factors such as water, heat and nitrogen levels.
It actually found that if water and heat levels increase(which they are,a FACT that you have already admitted), CO2 actually becomes a SUPPRESSIVE FACTOR!
bdfm89 - there's nothing outdated in the science that shows that plant growth is increased as CO2 levels rise. Commercial greenhouses are for this very reason flooded with extra CO2 to encourage the plants to grow more vigorously. Studies also show that increased CO2 levels help plants grow better when they are otherwise stressed (e.g. through shortage of water).
I don't think one study that you misquote outweighs the dozens that have shown the benefits of CO2.
AGAIN you misprepresent what i have said. as i have actually looked at the evidence i KNOW that increased CO2 can increase plant growth by up to 30%+can accept that as fact. However i misquote nothing, the study looked at over 30 variations on the variables needed for plant life and DID conclude that with extra heat+water, as YOU have admitted are happening, that CO2 becomes a supressive factor.AGAIN your only defence is to flat out deny new science as evidence for the problems of global warming
nonsense bdfm89 - one study set against the settled science showing the beneficial impact of CO2 as a plant fertiliser is just one study. You have also taken its conclusions out of context and presented an oversimplified version of the findings.
Since you seem to be ignorant of these many other studies on the other side of the debate would you like me to cite some of them for you?
LISTEN...I ACCEPT THE SCIENCE THAT PROVES AN INCREASE IN CO2 CAN FUTHER PLANT GROWTH BY 30%. Im not ignorant of their findings, its ignorant for you to assume the study is necessarily wrong. I accept that it is just one study and hope futher research is taken and new findings are released. But you seem to assume that i am using this as evidence that extra CO2 will slow plant growth, infact i am showing that saying 'extra CO2 is a good thing' is more of a complex problem than critics admit.
bdfm89 - I'm glad you're beginning to accept that estimating the impact of CO2 is more of a complex problem than critics admit. For examples, even the latest IPCC report notes that it expects food production to rise for a 1 - 2 degree centigrade warming - something completely inconsistent with the alarmist predictions.
Conversely, I accept that there will eventually be a limit on the benefits to plant growth of increasing CO2 - but we are nowhere near that limit yet.
Okay i know the world changes anyway... but its changing more than useawall... if you don't belive in globle warming cheack the figures! We need to act now and save the world before it's lost!
TheReaperOfLife - I have checked the figures and you are incorrect in claiming that it's changing more than usual. The mild global re-warming we have seen since 1850 is a recovery from the last "little ice age" and well within the bounds of normal variation.
We don't need to act now because the planet is in no danger of being lost.
TheReaperofLife - I can deny there is a problem because there is in fact no evidence of a major problem. Studies show no trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, droughts, etc. Crops and biodiversity increase with a warmer planet. Sea levels are rising at roughly the same rate as they have been for the last 10,000 years.
The harm in acting is that it is stupid and wasteful to act to try to control the climate when we do not understand how it works. We risk depressing the world economy.
what! have you seen whats goin on in astralia... drout! and in america... hurricanes! rising in water? how can u not see it?
how is it wastefull? it saves money by savin electrisity! man even my little sister can work that out!we harm the world by doin this stuff and the sources are runnin out.. what u going to say then? when theres nothing left to use and ur to buzy sayin we dunt know enough well what do u think all the scintests are doing! and the rate has changed it has rised! do ur maths!
The Reaper - what you are describing in Australia is weather not man-made climate change. There is extensive evidence of droughts in Australia on a a multi-decadal and centennial scale.
Many scientific studies have established that there is no detectable trend in hurricanes over the last 100 years. For example, none made landfall in the USA the year after Katrina.
Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years and there is no evidence of an acceleration. Which bit don't you understand?
actually we should act, as we are controlling the climate now, we are having a stupid effect, CFC's for example break down the ozone layer, that is known. for every CFC that is released its predicted that around 10,000 ozone and oxygen (not o2) molecules are turned into o2. We are having an effect and we need to stop having an effect
miniphreeb - correction - we have no evidence that we are controlling the climate now - any supposed "fingerprint" of man-made global warming is swamped by the noise of natural global variation. Ozone has nothing to do with CO2. In fact the ozone hole is a good example of unnecessary alarmism. Despite our cuts in CFCs under the Montreal Protocol, ozone depletion should have continued - but in fact there is deafening silence from environmentalists, suggesting the alarm was over-stated.
I never said ozone had anything to do with C02. And your denying that CFC's cause a hole? you want me to explain how it happens, and it does because you can see the same effect with a CFC on things like alkanes. I agree that the world is heating up anyway as we are coming out of an ice age, but if we have to drastic an impact, the damage could be ridiculous. We need to stop ignoring our effect and start being responsible
miniphreeb - in that case why bring up ozone - keep to topic. A laboratory demonstration of what CFCs can do, by the way does not demonstrate what's going on in the upper atmosphere. Why, after all should an ozone hole not be filled by the conversion of more oxygen lower down into ozone by the same UV light?
If you agree that the world has been heating up anyway because we are coming out of an ice age, why do you feel we need ascribe any of the recent warming to greenhouse gases? What damage?
I took this video as general enviroment impact. The ozone layer has a hole, so it isnt happening.
Trends show that we are going to go into an ice age, but what if we cause to much damage before the ice age, its not about whether we should worry, but about the need for survival, if we just sit back and do nothing, then yes maybe it will be ok and everyone will survive and be happy. But are you willing to take that risk? Just because something isnt certain, doesnt mean it isnt real.
miniphreeb - but what conceivable risk can you be talking about? You are so completely vague about the risks that you claim we face you might as well be scared of a great flying spaghetti monster in the sky landing on earth and devastating cities one by one!
Come on - get real - name the risks and then I'll be able to reassure you as to why they are not all that risky.
but miniphreeb - the only inconvenient truth is that the facts do not support your fears. Far from mass starvation what we actually have is a planet successfully feeding a much larger population. There has been no increasing trend in drought over the 20th century. You can't name a single animal species becoming extinct as a result of temperature rises. What's wrong with huge area of unarable land? Surely keeping some areas natural is a good thing.
The reason land would become unarable is because of the lack of water leading to the ground not being able to support plants or animals living upon it. Land that cannot support plant or animal life is hardly natural if the conditions of the land have changed too fast for any life to adapt to their new surroundings. IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD THING
bdfm98 - but there is absolutely zero indication from observed evidence that the warming we have seen over the twentieth century has reduced arable land. On the contrary, the arable land nas increased and so has its yield. This is one of the reasons we can feed a much larger population on the planet. (Some of this is threatened with biofuels and the poor harvests caused by cooling that we have seen recently! Ironic.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that warmer means more drought.
Arable land has increased because of continuing advances in farming technology allowing for acres of land to become useful in traditionally unarable places such as deserts. Also drought is not necessarily a flat issue, the problem will come from significant changes in rainfall patterns. There IS evidence that rain patterns will move away from more fertile land leading to drought in more fertile places whilst rainfall could increase in areas of very low population which would not be beneficial
bdfm89 - there ISN'T evidence that rainfall patterns will move in the way that you suggest. You are trying to predict the future, but the computer climate models have totally failed to ever do that correctly so far! Also, all responsible climate modellers admit that they cannot make regional predictions. Now add into this mix the fact that observed weather data show no particular trends towards drought or storminess, other than a mildly increasing rainfall globally. So what is your evidence?
First of all i did not describe storminess. The IPCC does not actually show a trend towards increased storms and hurricanes but it does prdict that they will become more severe.
That aside a report in 2007 lead by the UEA showed that between 1920 and 2006, using ACTUAL data from weather stations that europe and nothern America have become wetter whilst areas of Central Africa and Asia have become drier. The scientist used regional data rather than global rainfall to show this trend.
bdfm89 - exactly - no trend towards increased storms and similarly no trend towards increased intensity or severity. I can post you some scientific references on this if you want.
As for the UEA report - yes it's common knowledge that rainfall has mildly increased in most areas. So what? It's better for agriculture and biodiversity.
The regional data that show some regions becoming drier does not correlate with increasing temperatures in those regions: e.g. parts of central Africa have cooled.
The most comprehensive look at climate change to date, the 2007 IPCC report shows that there is a trend toward more severe storms.
Yes its common knowledge that rain patterns are changing(which is what the report actually shows)+ you should then know that the trend is set to continue + increase with further warming that has, and will continue to be measured. The fact that some areas of Africa have cooled is largely insignificant. The problem is 'GLOBAL' warming not isolated temperature changes.
bdfm89 - the IPCC report is not the most comprehensive look at climate change to date. It doesn't show a trend towards more severe storms. On the contrary, the actual science in the scientific report shows considerable uncertainty and no discernible trends that can be linked to global warming.
You obviously haven't read the IPCC scientific report. only the summary for policy makers which wasn't written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians.
From IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment-
Globally, estimates of the potential
destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature.
bdfm89 - 2 problems with that quote. First, what it reveals is esyimates of destructiveness - these have been rising not because hurricanes are getting any stronger, but because there are more richer people living in hurricane alleys. Once the trends are normalised to take account oincreasing wealth, and once the trend is taken back to the beginning of the century (to deal with random multi-decadal variation) it is clear there has been no observed increase in hurricane frequency or intensity.
Again you are simply denying the evidence. I dont see how you can say that the evidence shows that it is simply to do with socio-economic changes when the report says (as is already shown above ) 'with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity'. This has absolutely nothing to do with wealth and therefore the data cannot be 'normalised' as you call it in any way.
bdfm89 - you just don't understand do you. Let me spell it out for you again.
The trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity that you cite is a wholly imaginary trend in computer models that have never once been validated as making accurate predictions.
The fact of the matter, by contrast, is that many studies have now shown that there is no observed overall global or regional increase in the trend of storm intensity frequency or duration. Which bit do you not understand?
Why don't you tell the truth about how records show that all the glaciers that are retreating today were retreating 200 - 300 years ago - i.e. long before human fossil fuel emissions.
Even the IPCC has downgraded its estimate of sea-level rise over the next century due to ice-cap melting to about 2".
Of course glaciers retreat and advance in cycles, temperature's been varying for thousands of years. That's no substansial evidence that we can't accelerate warming though.
KamiKaziChicken - there's no substantial evidence that we CAN accelerate warming either. So, given complete uncertainty, and no bad effects so far after a century of mild global re-warming, no need to declare a planetary emergency based purely on imaginary problems.
There's a difference between declaring planetary emergency and taking action.
From what it seems, the majority of scientific (no, not political) organisations have no doubt that global warming is evident and is being accelerated by human activity.
When there's no definitive evidence on either side, it pays to do the beneficial thing. There's nothing anthropogenicly good about CO2, SO2, and NO emissions.
KamiKaziChicken - when we don't understand how the climate works - it pays to do nothing rather than act hastily or foolishly. When you claim there is nothing good about CO2 you are ignoring the evidence of how much better plants grow when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Scientific organisations are not entities that do science - they are just political organisations of some scientists. Einstein, Newton, Darwin, were individually right, not because they were part of an organisation.
I mean there's no direct advantage of it towards humans. Of course, without it we'd be in an ice age with no plant life, but it doesn't deny the fact acid rain, ozone, and smog are problems to humans.
When individual scientists made claims, some of them were met with great criticism. There was one, not sure who, who actually commited suicide when his idea wasn't accepted. Usualy it takes more scientists to test the ideas and expand on the basic principles, especially on complex issues.
KaniKazi - the direct advantage to humans of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is that it provides increased agricultural yields that help us feed the planet.
As for your point about criticism of individual scientists, yes, but so what? The crucial thing is for science to continue progressing through the testing of hypotheses. The Co2 hypothesis seems to have been tested and failed - there has been no global warming since 1998.
I mean directly to humans (food is indirect, but of course important). Thing is, the limiting factor in most crop-growing areas is water, not co2. In the MEDW, we have far too many crops. In the LEDW, they're at the hands of drought and disease. CO2 makes a very small difference.
Is there denial that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect? What about water vapour released in combustion? Sun spot theories and the like are also fraught with problems. Its better to err on the side of caution.
KamiKazi - now you're saying many confused things - which means that 500 characters isn't enough to explain the errors in your arguments.
There isn't denial that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, but there is no evidence that suggests that CO2 contibutes a significant amount or that there is any risk of dangerous warming as a result of extra CO2.
You ask about water vapour released in combustion - a tiny tiny proportion of the hydrological cycle.
Less problematic? We have an excellent understanding of sunspots, how to identify them and how they're caused, but it seems that the theories put forward are still problematic and in some cases, uncertain (if you look at competeing views as well). Whether you look at solar influence or greenhouse gases, climate is still complex and we have little firm understanding of it.
Its just that greenhouse gases theories have been warped by the media, and are more contraversial.
KamiKazi - what's uncertain about the sunspot theories? They correlate much better with temperature trends than CO2 does.
You are totally correct when you say that "climate is complex and we have little firm understanding of it."
You are wrong when you suggest that greenhouse gases have been warped by the media - they have in fact been hyped in an alarmist way. In reality, there has been only mild global re-warming of ~ 0.6 degrees at most in the last century. No cause to declare an emergency.
You say there has been no warming since 1998 but there is actually still a positive trend, Crtitics like to use 1998 and a basis point for their arguments however you have cherrypicked this year due to the unusually strong El Nino that happened by natural sdeviation to fall in 1998. As i said earlier if you look at the trend before and after 1998 , the trend is STILL POSTIVE
bdfm89 - correction - I have not cherry-picked a single year, I have just pointed out that the trend suince 1998 is more or less flat and perhaps slightly falling in temperature. You prefer the longer trend which still then shows an increase (because it's a longer trend which doesn't reflect what's been happening recently. In any case, this data utterly rebuts the ludicrous alarmist claims of accelerating warming! Planetary emergency cancelled. Back to sensible projects like eliminating hunger.
The planet has still been warming recently on both ground level and the tropospere (which has actually been warming faster than the ground to mute a common critics argument). You would be right in saying the media in some cases has overplayed the problems, for example if a paper is produced citing a temperature increse of between 2 and 6 degrees they are likely to choose 6. However this does NOT mean that the estimates are incorrect, and does NOT mean we should do nothing about the problem.
bdfm89 - another correction - the troposphere has been warming very little and much slower than the combined surface stations record.
There has been consistent and relentless media exaggeration of the amount of warming, which has been trivial - so slight it is well within the error bars of our ability ro measure it accurately.
What does mean that the alarmist "estimates" - which are actually predictions from computer models - are wrong is that they have never once had any prediction validated.
Your continuing use of climate models not being proved as proof that global warming isnt hapening is amazing considering its impossible to tell if they are correct or not at this stage as they predict the future. Climate models have their basis is past and current data, that is why with continuing measurements predictions change. The same level of computing is used to pedict the movements of particles in phsyics labs for example, but i doubt if you would rubbish their accuracy in that situation!
Also the IPCC has said and i quote, "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming". Increasing satelite technology and dealing with dispcrepancies from orbital decay and sensor drift has allowed a more accurate look at the warming of different levels in our atmosphere.
bdfm89 - what you and the IPCC fail to understand is that the more accurate and representative sample of records from satellite data shows exactly the opposite since 1979. Namely, that the troposphere has warmed much less than the surface record (contrary to CO2 hypothesis and climate models) and that, again contrary to climate models this is most pronounced in the tropical troposphere, where observations are in complete conflict with model predictions.
nipples
beckwithpj 1 week ago
Load of bullshit, you people suck at life! Global Warming is a NATURAL process, just like ice age was 20,000 years ago! This is propaganda so the government can tax CO2 emissions and make the bankster elite wealthier while you starve. WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Fichorkaa 2 weeks ago
@Fichorkaa That is not always the case. Now I ain't no recycling and global-warming-climate-change nutcase but you must truly be stupid if you think that this is 'just like ice age'. Google up ozone depletion
MissYoungMula1 1 week ago
You deniers of science sound like this...."Ooh look at the sky! It's so big and I'm so small. What could we do to affect things?" Study and learn people!!! We are MASSIVELY changing the atmosphere and it is MASSIVELY changing the climate!
anahatatutu 2 weeks ago
74 people are scientists who rely on the scientific method instead of orders from the political committee called IPCC.
When the political agitator shown in this video is dead, the Upsala glacier will grow again, and melt again, and grow again, and melt again, ... , just like it always has and always will, and there's nothing that the puny biomass known as Homo sapiens can do about it.
negermord 1 month ago
It's getting warmer? Shit. I'm freezing me ass off. Take a trip to Canada guys. It's really fucking cold.
xbeast133 2 months ago
george bush at 0:18!!
TakanBruderToTo 4 months ago
Rely on our respected scientific institutions. They are ALL saying the same thing when it comes to the core issue: HUMANS are warming the planet and the consequences are not good.
.
Learn more about it. Here's an NAS publication.
Google: NAS pdf Global Warming 2008 Edition
ReduceGHGs 9 months ago
PRAY FOR GLOBAL WARMING
kodachromefilm 9 months ago
vòll_geil_gëbt_mAl_bêÎ_gØòglË:_geldeasy_Eïn_vÕll_kråss
turnerdoner 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exaggerated.... just saying.
98wuvbug 11 months ago
Exaggerated.... just saying.
98wuvbug 11 months ago
Good. I hope this bitch burns.
ANASTASIACHAVEZVLOG 11 months ago
earth is getting warmer? it was -27 in northern ontario, i cant warm this shit up no matter what i do green peace is retarded
hawker800FO 11 months ago
notice how they never mention the annual melting of the ice and annual freezing
charlienethercoat094 1 year ago
good life cycle there cool
dappledbaybeauty 1 year ago
There's this Angry Kid around that gives me the feeling that he'd take enormous pleasure in seeing millions die.
7Hook 1 year ago
Would have been better if he'd turned into a skeleton at the end.
afreauff 1 year ago
So now that that guy is finally dead it means there's one less asshole telling me what to do. What am I expected to do, anyway? Stop driving? Stop working? Stop eating. Just die? Fucking idiots. Life is so fucking hard as it is without these cunts making us feel guilty for contributing to our society and world.
SuperApparition 1 year ago 4
@SuperApparition you dont have to stop living your life, just do what you can and whats possible. If you cant even do that, just be aware. Whether they make you feel guilty about it or not is not their problem, these are the facts they wont disappear you either care or you just dont give a fuck and live yourself only caring about yourself just like almost everyone else in this world.
pres880 1 year ago
That guy is seriously skinny.
OlyJeebus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Solar activity is causing ALL the planets in our solar system to heat up. Earths magnetic field is already in demise, since it's flipping by the next 7 years, reversing the magnetic poles. Meanwhile we'll have extreme exposure to solar winds, x-rays, gamma rays, UV rays, IR rays and we'll experience extreme winds up to 1 or even 1.5 mach (that's over 1500 km/h!) in 3 or 4 years. As the solar winds fire up the earths inner activity we'll see (or suffer) extreme volcanism and seismic activity.NASA
87solarsky 1 year ago
I love greenpeace, this is a very good commercial
miguelspirits 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@miguelspirits I hate you, you are a fucking idiot.
SuperApparition 1 year ago
We have to eliminate the monetary System, or the earth will be in danger
pirufihho 1 year ago
Think about permaculture. There are some amazingly beautiful and sustainable things going on in our world!
Not only do you cut out the food being shipped all over the place, thus saving lots of fuel; you also prevent lots of chemicals and waste. Another huge benefit to you is a better variety of healthier food.
/watch?v=SjQOZmlqiyk
/watch?v=hftgWcD-1Nw
Charlesincharge42 1 year ago
wow! that was so touching it gave me gas. this year is the coldest and snowiest and rainiest and sleetiest and hailiest and iciest year where i live so shut up green peace
poonjab94 1 year ago
@poonjab94 haha, not to stay off topic like you have.. but you made this comment 7 months ago. now this year is the hottest on record. dick.
now back on topic. it is called climate change. climate is different from weather. learn something or YOU shut up and stop wasting good peoples' air.
paulbav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bullshit. The so called Little Ice Age has ended only 100 hundred years ago (it's a blink of an eye when placed on earth's history timeline) so it's obvious that temperature is locally (locally with respect to time, not space) increasing. Solar activity's minimum was reached in 17th century just like temperature minimum in LIA. This whole global-warming-crap is nothing more than a opportunity to drain money from people.
MoroJesha 2 years ago 2
I see that Greenpiss supports censorship.
MoroJesha 2 years ago
ok, so what do greenpeace to stop "buy and throw away" mania?
why i should stop to have a "good" life and companies, factories ... etc still do the same stuff ? more and more electronic things are made to be dead in a couple of years, as cars .. or motos .. why a unimog still work fine with 60 years and a new car broke in 20? do greenpeace something against it ? i guess not..
thytum 2 years ago
@thytum nothing, because is part of the capitalist and monetary system, those are the real enemies, because money is agains progress
pirufihho 2 years ago
@thytum don't guess about shit like that. find out. and if you took the time to do so, you would find that greenpeace SPECIALISES in targeting the big companies and governments to get them to do the right thing. FUCKING hell, you fucking ignorant people you need to get educated before SPEAKING about shit you clearly know nothing about .. OR STFU and stop wasting good peoples' air.
paulbav 1 year ago
amazing!!!
monzongcha 2 years ago
12000 AC: Sea level under 100 mt. of now.
TODAY: Sea level as you know.
2050 BC: Sea level over 6 mt.
2100 BC Sea level over 23 mt.
¿What about NYC, London, Rio, Miami, etc etc etc etc etc?
nicolaswilli 2 years ago
Real cool video...please think about it
GeniusAndrey 2 years ago
We should stop procreating like pigs
carlospfontes 2 years ago
its a point...
DERZWERGE11 2 years ago
Yes. And it is cause of pobertyt too.
nicolaswilli 2 years ago
You can't understand that improve our energy technology and efficiency, stop deforestation, transfer resources and technology to the poor will actually reduce poverty instead. No matter if the most of the warming is caused exogenously by the sun or not, we have to do the most we can to mitigate it.
carlospfontes 2 years ago
@carlospfontes most people here will read mitigate and think of mexicans invading the usa. sorry to say, but the world if full of ignorant ass holes who are somehow entitled to an opinion. you seem strong, i wish i was like you.
paulbav 1 year ago
If you dont want to acknowledge that by just turning your heads and saying that this is all an over reaction of us. well then you are clearly mistaken. Our generation will not suffer from global warming as much as our future generations will. We will be dead. and they will be stuck with a ruined world full of drouts and famine. OPEN YOUR EYES. and do something about it. DONT TURN YOUR HEADS AROUND and pretend like nothings wrong.
RybbetLuo 2 years ago 6
A religion. you are terribly wrong. If you havent noticed by now. we've hit the 3 digit number now. The earth is clearly in crisis.
RybbetLuo 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
global warming is a hoax, so go kill brutally cute baby seal!
vgdd4 2 years ago
IS BUSH!!! (SECOND 29)
facundobahia 2 years ago
Think for yourself and all take over my opinion wich is : against global warming.
vandaahll 2 years ago
Yes think yourself, but you must put attention on message.
NachoxChile90 2 years ago
YEAH SURFING FOR EVERYONE!
skiie 2 years ago
thism video is another ecoterror propaganda, don't be blind, think yourself
k3ntPL 2 years ago
Current climate trends are within variability. There is no accurate evidence to support the global warming theory. Go and watch some of Ian Plimer's lectures. It will give you a much more balanced view of what climate change is and how this environmental movement is turning into a religion, not based on sound facts but selected, biased information.
Rotpig 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
!!!SHOCKING!!!
Check out this trailer of an upcoming film about the oil sands, it's SHOCKING!!!
search for this: h2oil trailer
monsieug 2 years ago
Comment removed
xixlovexducksx 2 years ago
The same video but in argentian (spanish of Argentina, where is Upsala)
in our channel tierralibredigital
tierralibredigital 2 years ago
im not saying that global warming isnt happening, coz it clearly is but i feel that the dangers are totaly over stated.
people will only ever support the enviromental movement fully if it is believeable and the fact is that the plannet will not die, life will continue and so will humanity regardless of how much CO2 we make.
our plannet has faced worse mass extinction events than this can ever become, yeh it could fuck us up but lets keep some perspective guys.
davencolleen 2 years ago
Yeah and there is a guy smoking a cig on the ice cap and we are getting sick on his second- hand smoke
jrox0077 2 years ago
K guys, its serious business time, Let get all these billion dollar making companies to just STOP destroying the earth and then everything will be fine. Yeah fucking right, do you think one retarded youtube video is going to do ANYTHING? no not a chance. The only people who can do anything is the government and they obviously dont give a fuck.
THANKS FOR FUCKING US OVER LAST GENERATION YOU SELF CENTERED ASS HOLES, NOW WE'RE FUCKED AND SO IS THE EARTH
TheseOpenRoads 2 years ago 3
Political propaganda.
magnusea 2 years ago
Actually there was no Arctic ice 6000-7000 years ago when life on Earth and humanity flourished. But ice was the enemy of life on Earth and humanity 12000 to ~100000 years ago. Also CO2 isn't control climate. Real data says it isn't.
magnusea 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Livestock indutry is No.1 cause of global warming as United Nation FAO says. Whale meat is green protein source and Greenpeace is against it. That is why Greenpeace is labeled as Environmental Terrorist. Greenpeace activists consume tons of Beef, Ram and Chicken everyday and sadly they all look so fat. To raise more money, they oppose whaling. Greenpeace doesn't care about environment, but money.
sprb00 2 years ago
bummer bro
brazdylan 2 years ago
It's Chinas Fault Anyway!!!! :@
lukeburnley 2 years ago
what?? china started to grow as an industry not so long ago... it's europe and america fault, but now we're trying to compensate..
well.. i think that's irreversible... but we can try not to aggravate and it's now china's turn to do the right thing...
siazmar 2 years ago 3
Omg , just think about the poor polar bears :( lol
sj2685 3 years ago
Great vid!
good article.
Google - Global Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
"...we need to get our heads around the idea that global warming is one of the most serious long-term threats to our national and personal security. ...Historic levels of built-up greenhouse gases will continue to warm the world -- and spin it toward new patterns of conflict."
Learn more at UCSUSA(dot)org
and WeCanSolveIt(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We can stop volcanos from erupting by sacrificing virgens!! the sky is falling the polititians told me so and they never lie!!
davetileguy 3 years ago
Although virgins would be a good start, I think that the best way to tackle volcanos would probably be tunneling and explosives. Tap into the power, release some pressure, generate some electricity, eventually control the magma itself.
But I like where your brains at with the virgins.
JayKeaton 3 years ago 3
polititians only lie!
AlwaysDreamChaser 3 years ago
it looks better as a lake i think
lateboy4 3 years ago
It isnt about how it immediately looks, its what it being a lake means.
Corocco1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
everyone take not of how the extreme left wing thinks - plainly, you get in line and follow like sheep or go to jail
this same econut wants to put limitations on human reproduction - of course he and others like him will be given the power to choose who is good or bad (hmmm i wonder if they will want blond hair like someone else from the past)
this same econut wants to round you up, place UN imposed taxes on you and fire you if you work for any "bad" company
keep listening to these guys
wkwickham 3 years ago
i told you so
Josezitoreq 3 years ago
You don't all have to jump into greenpeace ships and stand infront of whaling vessels, you don't have to build windfarms and wear hemp clothing, BUT, EVERYONE should take responsibility for protection of the planet and all other living organisms on it. Is recycling your paper, metal and plastics and turning the light switch off at night really that difficult? Come on think about it.
"We do not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our Children." -Kenyan Proverb
oOXxKerAxXOo 3 years ago 34
@oOXxKerAxXOo paper is organic. :p
NitroxideHS 2 months ago
@oOXxKerAxXOo recycling paper,cans uses more energy than trashing it because separate trucks have to collect it using more fuel then it has to be shipped to places around the world to be recycled. It is a good idea and does save resources which go into mining and sourcing new materials so its good fro the environment that way but its so disorganized that it uses more energy! Another problem thanks to the government. Watch - Penn and Teller ; Recycling is Bulls**t
Moncantha 2 weeks ago
Wow. I have seen this video a couple of times now, but this is the first time i ever read any of the comments and I must say I am completely shocked by the masses of ignorant consumers there are on this planet- particularly the number that left comments to this video. How selfish are all of you who decide that global warming is not your problem! This is a planet which we are blessed to be able to enjoy, but in doing so we MUST also keep it clean and healthy for furute generations...
oOXxKerAxXOo 3 years ago
They said that about the ozon layer too..deniers blaimed the sun, the wind, Arctica, background radiation etc, but sceptics were right, it was destroyed be cfc gases and other chemical pollution
sandbreak2 3 years ago
What a load of pseudo-religous propaganda. Scare mongering and bullying are the traits of global warmning alarmists.
Finnbar01 3 years ago
it s not a 'pseudo-religious' propaganda as u called it. Is REALITY!if u are unable to understand that...just try..leave your cloud and see that greenpeace is trying to warn us not scare us.
pardalo777 3 years ago
There is no such thing as global warming, Chuck Norris felt cold so he turned the sun up.
TheDeerKiller1 3 years ago
The melting of Uppsala Glacier from this clip, is caused by shifts in glacial dynamics and local geology. Not temperatures or "global warming"..
GlobalOpvarmningCom 3 years ago
yeah ich sitz hier inna schulöe und langweile mich mit diesem video...
schwarzblut333 3 years ago
not your kids you are all going to die vary vary soon i had a dream i can see the truth.
freeyourmindusa 3 years ago
cool video.
But i actually think global warming rocks, we can grow other vegitebles and have other types of animals in for example sweden also i hate winter and global warming makes it go away yay! Go Co2
Lizzarazo 3 years ago
part of GW is made by sun activity
Cabroni2 3 years ago
Whatever GW is man made or not, stop buying and consuming all kinds of crap and leave ressources for the next gens cant hurt anybody!
sandbreak2 3 years ago 11
No I'm going to buy and consume whatever i can afford and enjoy it. The next generation will be even more equipped to deal with climate issues then we are. Of cousre GW is sut a figment in the imagination of the looney left.
Finnbar01 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
haha the old man at the end when he says u and your children will
Bootyboy909 3 years ago
i wanna know somthing they say the sea level is gonna rise and people are gonna die becouse of it but if it rises wouldn't it just be better to move further back off the beach ??
iscay666 3 years ago
i beleive global warming is a natural cycle but we humans made it go too far. we use cfc's, burn fossil fuels, use all earth natural resources, that elminates earth's majestic beauty and displaces valuable endangered organisms. global warming happened in the ice age as well but today we are causing it to happen at a more drastic rate. be active in a cause lend an ear to mother earth. our planet too should deserve a voice not just us for we live on this planet.
shadowdeviant192 3 years ago 6
I agree with whats going on, but big company's moving form black to green just makes me unease. I hope we change the way this world(humans) think.
atmancloud 3 years ago
i'm with you but changing the way a human thinks is the hardest part.
shadowdeviant192 3 years ago
Awesome commercial.
SomeGeekGirl 3 years ago
Yes there were climate changes, some drastic, like the time the earth was hit by a meteorite and the resulting ice age wiped most of life. Geology shows that at one time the great lakes area of Canada was one vast and held back by an ice dam. The ice dam busrt and the resulting trillions of gallons of fresh water flooded into the sea, diluted the salt water that the Gulf Stream (Atlantic Conveyor) relies on to work and turned it off. That was the last Ice Age, what is happening now is man made!
frpd5 3 years ago
I would just like to point out that before humans, drastic climate changes occurred wiping out species and populations of various animals and plants. These climate changes were absolutely natural. How do we know that we are not on the precipice of another climate change?
OneChevron 3 years ago
LOL i like your username
You sneaky horse
B0R4M 3 years ago
People are gonna continue ignoring it, until it hits them. Simple as that. All this bull about it being a goverment scam is just paranoia. Utter stupidity. Lets have a grown up debate about theese issues and not bull, thank you.
furrymack 3 years ago
Glaciers grow and recede contantly, that is their nature.
If glaciers stop moving than that means something is seriously wrong.
lees20022 3 years ago
Great video, it's very well made and has an excellent message!!!
advocaatlaura 3 years ago
this is sad , most ppl have to see it to believe it . now they see it and just dont give a Sh*t... their will come a day when it will be to late to turn it around... all we will do is watch as our world dies.. god save us all....
Anniemay21 3 years ago 2
Yeah bub, it's called computer animation.
celloprof 3 years ago
Just another system of control, another excuse to tax us, suppress us and keep us living in fear. The majority of people won't stand for this anymore. Greenpeace, you are all tools.
beefforhire 3 years ago
Whose "system of control" would that be, Beefforhire? God's?
"An other excuse to tax us"? Ok, so you know what, no-one pays tax anymore and there will be no trains or traffic ways or government protection...
But even when taxpaying WOULD be a bad thing, still what does it have to do with Greenpeace? Greenpeace is an international, non-governmental organisation, so it would never have profit from tax-paying.
As for the fear: YES, we SHOULD be afraid! For all those low-laid lands, f.e. Holland!
advocaatlaura 3 years ago
We are always told to be afraid for 1 simple reason. Too keep us in control. We are divided and conquered by our governments but this latest government scam to tax the shit out of us on the back of a myth is compeltely unnacceptable, and i'm pretty sure the people arent going to fall for it this time.
beefforhire 3 years ago
scam? this is the worlds future were talking about not bloody scam mate.
furrymack 3 years ago
This guy is a looser. co gas is what plants use to convert it into oxygen. co gas is not a pollutant. Al Gore and the whole man made global warming religion/cult is about restricting your freedom and implimenting governmnet control over you. Government control psycos are bad for freedom and I will fight them til the end. That being said I am in favor of solar, and wind. But the choice is yours, that freedom. Also, people are starving so we burn food in cars? Oil is not running out.
iamheuno 3 years ago
imheuno...."This guy is a looser."
Were you looking in a mirror?
CO2 is a pollutant so says the US Supreme Court.
Gore tells us what the science says. He is not the source of the science.
Gore is not part of the government.
What good is freedom if you haven't the habitat in which to enjoy it.
The oil supply WILL run out and we must move to alternative energy sources. Let's make the move sooner on OUR terms for the sake of our future generations.
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 3 years ago
co2 is a gas
and any gas in high amounts becomes a pollutant
ever heard anyone say "too much of a good thing is never a good thing?"
co2 is part of our natural world.
dont believe in global warming? then you're just part of the corporate control psyco group.
just wait a few years and you'll be getting a few "i told you so" 's
crimescene450 3 years ago
Some glaciers are receding, others are advancing. Most of the world's glaciers have never been surveyed, and good data probably only exists on some 5% or so of them. In any case glaciers are not thermometers, and the scientific consensus is that glacier dynamics are not simply dependent on temperature, but also on many other factors - not least local anthropogenic changes to land use which influence humidity.
In any case, where glaciers have been retreating, it began in the 18th century.
minilemur 3 years ago
ya global warming is not waht there talking about well sorta. the ice caps have melted before thats how they work they melt and freze
MipoFilms 3 years ago
This video is lying. It wont be when he is old, 30 years faster the said.
Parts of Antartica have seen the temperature risign by 0.5 Celcius per decade since 1940.
The north pole sea ice anual minimum felled by 20% between 2006 and 2007. Water temp rose by 0.6 C within 3 years, salinity diluted by 12%.
The IPCC models were made optimist by design.
I volonteered in Greenpeace for their Kyoto+ petition and I saw they are infiltrated, they slow things down, they want no success.
911allo 3 years ago
lets have a vote... who thinks that globle warming is happining
i do for one!
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
me too
bdfm89 3 years ago
Haha nice, that's effective
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
GOOOOOOO GREENPEACE!!!
BaltDog 3 years ago
Even if the sealevel is rising less quickly now, we do need to be more careful with our waste & CO2 emmisions.
xXGreyWingsXx 3 years ago
xXGreyWingsXx - why do we need to be more careful? Careful of what? CO2 is good for crops and biodiversity. Where's the concrete evidence of harm?
minilemur 3 years ago
Billions of people in the world are starving in the least fertile areas. Basic science in plant growth show that light, water, heat and nutrients aswell as carbon dioxide are needed to produce plant life. It is simply ignorant to say that extra C02 will help people when we can harly feed the worlds population as it is, not even considering the fact that predictions in population growth show an estimate of an extra 3 billion people by 2050.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 people are indeed starving in the least fertile and poorest areas of the world and it should be our priority to stop world hunger now rather than waste billions of dollars on pointless carbon reduction policies or on biofuels, which just exacerbate the problems of world hunger.
Extra CO2 has indeed increased world crop yield by between 10 - 20% over the last century and is likely to continue to keep doing so.
Obviously, it isn't the only solution to hunger but it certainly contributes.
minilemur 3 years ago
You are using outdated facts to criticise new science. The 10-20% increase in growth is simply flase. It was once thought that this would be the case and still is under certain circumstances. HOWEVER a stamford university report has lookd comprehensively at CO2 increases with relation to other factors such as water, heat and nitrogen levels.
It actually found that if water and heat levels increase(which they are,a FACT that you have already admitted), CO2 actually becomes a SUPPRESSIVE FACTOR!
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - there's nothing outdated in the science that shows that plant growth is increased as CO2 levels rise. Commercial greenhouses are for this very reason flooded with extra CO2 to encourage the plants to grow more vigorously. Studies also show that increased CO2 levels help plants grow better when they are otherwise stressed (e.g. through shortage of water).
I don't think one study that you misquote outweighs the dozens that have shown the benefits of CO2.
minilemur 3 years ago
AGAIN you misprepresent what i have said. as i have actually looked at the evidence i KNOW that increased CO2 can increase plant growth by up to 30%+can accept that as fact. However i misquote nothing, the study looked at over 30 variations on the variables needed for plant life and DID conclude that with extra heat+water, as YOU have admitted are happening, that CO2 becomes a supressive factor.AGAIN your only defence is to flat out deny new science as evidence for the problems of global warming
bdfm89 3 years ago
nonsense bdfm89 - one study set against the settled science showing the beneficial impact of CO2 as a plant fertiliser is just one study. You have also taken its conclusions out of context and presented an oversimplified version of the findings.
Since you seem to be ignorant of these many other studies on the other side of the debate would you like me to cite some of them for you?
minilemur 3 years ago
LISTEN...I ACCEPT THE SCIENCE THAT PROVES AN INCREASE IN CO2 CAN FUTHER PLANT GROWTH BY 30%. Im not ignorant of their findings, its ignorant for you to assume the study is necessarily wrong. I accept that it is just one study and hope futher research is taken and new findings are released. But you seem to assume that i am using this as evidence that extra CO2 will slow plant growth, infact i am showing that saying 'extra CO2 is a good thing' is more of a complex problem than critics admit.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - I'm glad you're beginning to accept that estimating the impact of CO2 is more of a complex problem than critics admit. For examples, even the latest IPCC report notes that it expects food production to rise for a 1 - 2 degree centigrade warming - something completely inconsistent with the alarmist predictions.
Conversely, I accept that there will eventually be a limit on the benefits to plant growth of increasing CO2 - but we are nowhere near that limit yet.
minilemur 3 years ago
Okay i know the world changes anyway... but its changing more than useawall... if you don't belive in globle warming cheack the figures! We need to act now and save the world before it's lost!
Go Greenpeace!
TOGETHER we can make a difference!
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
TheReaperOfLife - I have checked the figures and you are incorrect in claiming that it's changing more than usual. The mild global re-warming we have seen since 1850 is a recovery from the last "little ice age" and well within the bounds of normal variation.
We don't need to act now because the planet is in no danger of being lost.
minilemur 3 years ago
how can u deny it after all the everdance! anyway whats the harm in acting anway? why take the risk?
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
TheReaperofLife - I can deny there is a problem because there is in fact no evidence of a major problem. Studies show no trends in hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, droughts, etc. Crops and biodiversity increase with a warmer planet. Sea levels are rising at roughly the same rate as they have been for the last 10,000 years.
The harm in acting is that it is stupid and wasteful to act to try to control the climate when we do not understand how it works. We risk depressing the world economy.
minilemur 3 years ago
what! have you seen whats goin on in astralia... drout! and in america... hurricanes! rising in water? how can u not see it?
how is it wastefull? it saves money by savin electrisity! man even my little sister can work that out!we harm the world by doin this stuff and the sources are runnin out.. what u going to say then? when theres nothing left to use and ur to buzy sayin we dunt know enough well what do u think all the scintests are doing! and the rate has changed it has rised! do ur maths!
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
The Reaper - what you are describing in Australia is weather not man-made climate change. There is extensive evidence of droughts in Australia on a a multi-decadal and centennial scale.
Many scientific studies have established that there is no detectable trend in hurricanes over the last 100 years. For example, none made landfall in the USA the year after Katrina.
Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years and there is no evidence of an acceleration. Which bit don't you understand?
minilemur 3 years ago
there is everdance of an acceleration! you obviously don't care about anyone else in the world! you will see!
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
actually we should act, as we are controlling the climate now, we are having a stupid effect, CFC's for example break down the ozone layer, that is known. for every CFC that is released its predicted that around 10,000 ozone and oxygen (not o2) molecules are turned into o2. We are having an effect and we need to stop having an effect
miniphreeb 3 years ago
miniphreeb - correction - we have no evidence that we are controlling the climate now - any supposed "fingerprint" of man-made global warming is swamped by the noise of natural global variation. Ozone has nothing to do with CO2. In fact the ozone hole is a good example of unnecessary alarmism. Despite our cuts in CFCs under the Montreal Protocol, ozone depletion should have continued - but in fact there is deafening silence from environmentalists, suggesting the alarm was over-stated.
minilemur 3 years ago
I never said ozone had anything to do with C02. And your denying that CFC's cause a hole? you want me to explain how it happens, and it does because you can see the same effect with a CFC on things like alkanes. I agree that the world is heating up anyway as we are coming out of an ice age, but if we have to drastic an impact, the damage could be ridiculous. We need to stop ignoring our effect and start being responsible
miniphreeb 3 years ago
miniphreeb - in that case why bring up ozone - keep to topic. A laboratory demonstration of what CFCs can do, by the way does not demonstrate what's going on in the upper atmosphere. Why, after all should an ozone hole not be filled by the conversion of more oxygen lower down into ozone by the same UV light?
If you agree that the world has been heating up anyway because we are coming out of an ice age, why do you feel we need ascribe any of the recent warming to greenhouse gases? What damage?
minilemur 3 years ago
I took this video as general enviroment impact. The ozone layer has a hole, so it isnt happening.
Trends show that we are going to go into an ice age, but what if we cause to much damage before the ice age, its not about whether we should worry, but about the need for survival, if we just sit back and do nothing, then yes maybe it will be ok and everyone will survive and be happy. But are you willing to take that risk? Just because something isnt certain, doesnt mean it isnt real.
miniphreeb 3 years ago
miniphreeb - but what conceivable risk can you be talking about? You are so completely vague about the risks that you claim we face you might as well be scared of a great flying spaghetti monster in the sky landing on earth and devastating cities one by one!
Come on - get real - name the risks and then I'll be able to reassure you as to why they are not all that risky.
minilemur 3 years ago
huge areas of unarable land, mass starvation, mass drought, many animals becoming extinct. I'm not an expert in this field, but those are real risks
miniphreeb 3 years ago
but miniphreeb - the only inconvenient truth is that the facts do not support your fears. Far from mass starvation what we actually have is a planet successfully feeding a much larger population. There has been no increasing trend in drought over the 20th century. You can't name a single animal species becoming extinct as a result of temperature rises. What's wrong with huge area of unarable land? Surely keeping some areas natural is a good thing.
minilemur 3 years ago
The reason land would become unarable is because of the lack of water leading to the ground not being able to support plants or animals living upon it. Land that cannot support plant or animal life is hardly natural if the conditions of the land have changed too fast for any life to adapt to their new surroundings. IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD THING
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm98 - but there is absolutely zero indication from observed evidence that the warming we have seen over the twentieth century has reduced arable land. On the contrary, the arable land nas increased and so has its yield. This is one of the reasons we can feed a much larger population on the planet. (Some of this is threatened with biofuels and the poor harvests caused by cooling that we have seen recently! Ironic.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that warmer means more drought.
minilemur 3 years ago
Arable land has increased because of continuing advances in farming technology allowing for acres of land to become useful in traditionally unarable places such as deserts. Also drought is not necessarily a flat issue, the problem will come from significant changes in rainfall patterns. There IS evidence that rain patterns will move away from more fertile land leading to drought in more fertile places whilst rainfall could increase in areas of very low population which would not be beneficial
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - there ISN'T evidence that rainfall patterns will move in the way that you suggest. You are trying to predict the future, but the computer climate models have totally failed to ever do that correctly so far! Also, all responsible climate modellers admit that they cannot make regional predictions. Now add into this mix the fact that observed weather data show no particular trends towards drought or storminess, other than a mildly increasing rainfall globally. So what is your evidence?
minilemur 3 years ago
First of all i did not describe storminess. The IPCC does not actually show a trend towards increased storms and hurricanes but it does prdict that they will become more severe.
That aside a report in 2007 lead by the UEA showed that between 1920 and 2006, using ACTUAL data from weather stations that europe and nothern America have become wetter whilst areas of Central Africa and Asia have become drier. The scientist used regional data rather than global rainfall to show this trend.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - exactly - no trend towards increased storms and similarly no trend towards increased intensity or severity. I can post you some scientific references on this if you want.
As for the UEA report - yes it's common knowledge that rainfall has mildly increased in most areas. So what? It's better for agriculture and biodiversity.
The regional data that show some regions becoming drier does not correlate with increasing temperatures in those regions: e.g. parts of central Africa have cooled.
minilemur 3 years ago
The most comprehensive look at climate change to date, the 2007 IPCC report shows that there is a trend toward more severe storms.
Yes its common knowledge that rain patterns are changing(which is what the report actually shows)+ you should then know that the trend is set to continue + increase with further warming that has, and will continue to be measured. The fact that some areas of Africa have cooled is largely insignificant. The problem is 'GLOBAL' warming not isolated temperature changes.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - the IPCC report is not the most comprehensive look at climate change to date. It doesn't show a trend towards more severe storms. On the contrary, the actual science in the scientific report shows considerable uncertainty and no discernible trends that can be linked to global warming.
You obviously haven't read the IPCC scientific report. only the summary for policy makers which wasn't written by scientists but by bureaucrats and politicians.
minilemur 3 years ago
From IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment-
Globally, estimates of the potential
destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - 2 problems with that quote. First, what it reveals is esyimates of destructiveness - these have been rising not because hurricanes are getting any stronger, but because there are more richer people living in hurricane alleys. Once the trends are normalised to take account oincreasing wealth, and once the trend is taken back to the beginning of the century (to deal with random multi-decadal variation) it is clear there has been no observed increase in hurricane frequency or intensity.
minilemur 3 years ago
Again you are simply denying the evidence. I dont see how you can say that the evidence shows that it is simply to do with socio-economic changes when the report says (as is already shown above ) 'with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity'. This has absolutely nothing to do with wealth and therefore the data cannot be 'normalised' as you call it in any way.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - you just don't understand do you. Let me spell it out for you again.
The trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity that you cite is a wholly imaginary trend in computer models that have never once been validated as making accurate predictions.
The fact of the matter, by contrast, is that many studies have now shown that there is no observed overall global or regional increase in the trend of storm intensity frequency or duration. Which bit do you not understand?
minilemur 3 years ago
heat generate storm!!
asakiantos 3 years ago
yay! some one with knowlage :)
TheReaperOfLife 3 years ago
Why did you make a comment of youtube ingreen-peace Japan on an approval system?
Is it because 95% in an opinion of the critism and sarcasm?
It is suppression of free speech.
5a44 3 years ago
Why don't you tell the truth about how records show that all the glaciers that are retreating today were retreating 200 - 300 years ago - i.e. long before human fossil fuel emissions.
Even the IPCC has downgraded its estimate of sea-level rise over the next century due to ice-cap melting to about 2".
minilemur 3 years ago
Of course glaciers retreat and advance in cycles, temperature's been varying for thousands of years. That's no substansial evidence that we can't accelerate warming though.
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
KamiKaziChicken - there's no substantial evidence that we CAN accelerate warming either. So, given complete uncertainty, and no bad effects so far after a century of mild global re-warming, no need to declare a planetary emergency based purely on imaginary problems.
minilemur 3 years ago
There's a difference between declaring planetary emergency and taking action.
From what it seems, the majority of scientific (no, not political) organisations have no doubt that global warming is evident and is being accelerated by human activity.
When there's no definitive evidence on either side, it pays to do the beneficial thing. There's nothing anthropogenicly good about CO2, SO2, and NO emissions.
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
KamiKaziChicken - when we don't understand how the climate works - it pays to do nothing rather than act hastily or foolishly. When you claim there is nothing good about CO2 you are ignoring the evidence of how much better plants grow when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Scientific organisations are not entities that do science - they are just political organisations of some scientists. Einstein, Newton, Darwin, were individually right, not because they were part of an organisation.
minilemur 3 years ago
I mean there's no direct advantage of it towards humans. Of course, without it we'd be in an ice age with no plant life, but it doesn't deny the fact acid rain, ozone, and smog are problems to humans.
When individual scientists made claims, some of them were met with great criticism. There was one, not sure who, who actually commited suicide when his idea wasn't accepted. Usualy it takes more scientists to test the ideas and expand on the basic principles, especially on complex issues.
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
KaniKazi - the direct advantage to humans of extra CO2 in the atmosphere is that it provides increased agricultural yields that help us feed the planet.
As for your point about criticism of individual scientists, yes, but so what? The crucial thing is for science to continue progressing through the testing of hypotheses. The Co2 hypothesis seems to have been tested and failed - there has been no global warming since 1998.
minilemur 3 years ago
I mean directly to humans (food is indirect, but of course important). Thing is, the limiting factor in most crop-growing areas is water, not co2. In the MEDW, we have far too many crops. In the LEDW, they're at the hands of drought and disease. CO2 makes a very small difference.
Is there denial that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect? What about water vapour released in combustion? Sun spot theories and the like are also fraught with problems. Its better to err on the side of caution.
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
KamiKazi - now you're saying many confused things - which means that 500 characters isn't enough to explain the errors in your arguments.
There isn't denial that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, but there is no evidence that suggests that CO2 contibutes a significant amount or that there is any risk of dangerous warming as a result of extra CO2.
You ask about water vapour released in combustion - a tiny tiny proportion of the hydrological cycle.
Sun spot theories are less problematic.
minilemur 3 years ago
Less problematic? We have an excellent understanding of sunspots, how to identify them and how they're caused, but it seems that the theories put forward are still problematic and in some cases, uncertain (if you look at competeing views as well). Whether you look at solar influence or greenhouse gases, climate is still complex and we have little firm understanding of it.
Its just that greenhouse gases theories have been warped by the media, and are more contraversial.
KamiKaziChicken 3 years ago
KamiKazi - what's uncertain about the sunspot theories? They correlate much better with temperature trends than CO2 does.
You are totally correct when you say that "climate is complex and we have little firm understanding of it."
You are wrong when you suggest that greenhouse gases have been warped by the media - they have in fact been hyped in an alarmist way. In reality, there has been only mild global re-warming of ~ 0.6 degrees at most in the last century. No cause to declare an emergency.
minilemur 3 years ago
You say there has been no warming since 1998 but there is actually still a positive trend, Crtitics like to use 1998 and a basis point for their arguments however you have cherrypicked this year due to the unusually strong El Nino that happened by natural sdeviation to fall in 1998. As i said earlier if you look at the trend before and after 1998 , the trend is STILL POSTIVE
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - correction - I have not cherry-picked a single year, I have just pointed out that the trend suince 1998 is more or less flat and perhaps slightly falling in temperature. You prefer the longer trend which still then shows an increase (because it's a longer trend which doesn't reflect what's been happening recently. In any case, this data utterly rebuts the ludicrous alarmist claims of accelerating warming! Planetary emergency cancelled. Back to sensible projects like eliminating hunger.
minilemur 3 years ago
The planet has still been warming recently on both ground level and the tropospere (which has actually been warming faster than the ground to mute a common critics argument). You would be right in saying the media in some cases has overplayed the problems, for example if a paper is produced citing a temperature increse of between 2 and 6 degrees they are likely to choose 6. However this does NOT mean that the estimates are incorrect, and does NOT mean we should do nothing about the problem.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - another correction - the troposphere has been warming very little and much slower than the combined surface stations record.
There has been consistent and relentless media exaggeration of the amount of warming, which has been trivial - so slight it is well within the error bars of our ability ro measure it accurately.
What does mean that the alarmist "estimates" - which are actually predictions from computer models - are wrong is that they have never once had any prediction validated.
minilemur 3 years ago
Your continuing use of climate models not being proved as proof that global warming isnt hapening is amazing considering its impossible to tell if they are correct or not at this stage as they predict the future. Climate models have their basis is past and current data, that is why with continuing measurements predictions change. The same level of computing is used to pedict the movements of particles in phsyics labs for example, but i doubt if you would rubbish their accuracy in that situation!
bdfm89 3 years ago
Also the IPCC has said and i quote, "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming". Increasing satelite technology and dealing with dispcrepancies from orbital decay and sensor drift has allowed a more accurate look at the warming of different levels in our atmosphere.
bdfm89 3 years ago
bdfm89 - what you and the IPCC fail to understand is that the more accurate and representative sample of records from satellite data shows exactly the opposite since 1979. Namely, that the troposphere has warmed much less than the surface record (contrary to CO2 hypothesis and climate models) and that, again contrary to climate models this is most pronounced in the tropical troposphere, where observations are in complete conflict with model predictions.
minilemur 3 years ago