(SHORT) 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT

[treon123456]

hahahaha!!! ' VVHO PAYS YOU! ' youtube...' congress laughs at obama on climate change '

[gerjanp]

that Russian meteoroligst is telling porkies

remove the spaces for the word on this from WHO

ww w. euro. who. int /malaria /ctryinfo /affected /20020722_14

[marktimmer2212]

IPCC and Monsanto are currently the biggest terroristic organisation on the face of this planet

both owned by the worldbank btw

[leostomicek]

The word debate should be in inverted comas.

[honestann]

::: postscript :::

An honest being/scientist only cares to understand reality, not win arguments, grants, prestige, salaries, followers, dominance. An honest being/scientist values understanding reality ***vastly*** more than all other considerations combined.

[14842]

haha!

[Whorulesnow]

People should look into the weaper weapon HAARP. It is being used.

[drakosha2]

Comrade Kokorin, stop spreading false alarms about something that is not there, check the real facts and while doing it check the history of malaria in Russia, but ops, I forgot it's your job Climate changes coordinator isn't it, and if the hysteria is stopped your job would disappear.

[astonmatthews1]

Everyone should watch the full length version, especially those who think this is a 'shouting match' or something.

The Russian WWF guy suggests that malaria never happened in Russia (0:43) but google "malaria in russia'. The First link shows an article about 10 million cases of Malaria in Russia in 1921! That is what is called a lie, the Russian WWF guy lied. It is that simple. And only an MD can know history, I guess. Typical warmer. "Who Pays You?" - a question never out of order.

[towerdawg1976]

Huh!

[SSENGNIHTON]

That was a disappointment. I don't think I heard a single coherent sentence.

[Ketzerstein]

LOL @ Londoner's face.

[CitizenViews]

who pays you. .. why can't he just answer the question?

[smalltime0]

cause its WWF, who would get a massive increase in funding if copenhagen goes ahead and establishes a carbon limit.

[tilon2000]

Pretty much sums up the whole "debate" on climate change.

[danmanjones]

Yeah. But according to the Warmers "the debate is over". Bullshit.

[lilglee423]

yeah, why have an actual debate on facts and figures when we can have a good ol' fashioned shouting match, gotta love how the media keeps the people "informed" lol.

[evcrawfish]

problem? climate change is not the problem, the problem is lying cheating stealing scientists, politicians, and corporations. so to solve this problem we muzzle the scientists, fire all the politicians, and lock up all the corporations, oh yeah and we must lock up all the media for playing along and not doing their job in investigating any of this. there, problem solved. ok tree huggers now that this is resolved your next mission is to restore the constitution, and get our country back.

[sgeo2008]

Shouldn't each country decide what is best for their own people? Why do we need a summit in Copenhagan to decide? These money hungry goons want to pose higher taxes and restraints on the people so they can make even more money and tell us even bigger lies.

[danben72]

OMG, simple reason, because the climate doesn't respect borders last time I checked it.

If you have information to the contrary please let me know!

[sgeo2008]

I know that you dumb cunt, but the truth is - it has nothing to do with climate. It's all about the NWO and world control.

[danben72]

Name calling starts, once somebody runs out of arguments. Not only that, he/she also tries to escape scrutiny by calling it a conspiracy!

Good luck!

Every profession is by design a conspiracy against the laymen!

[drewsick]

WHO PAYS YOU. That is the good question.

[neotoy]

In Soviet Russia Climate Kill You!

[jokerbookshop]

"nat a waisss oh tayme, nat a waisss oh tayme at all."

[JessicaBelle81]

lol Ohhhhh noooo it's getting warmer outside, we're all going to die.

[Jacomus7]

HAHAHA quality debate. Ugh... climate fanatics even in Russia... tragic.

[divinacomedias]

"Climate change"? Why not discuss the overall problem of pollution instead? Maybe because there is no political interest for corporate funded plutocratic kleptocracies to actually tackle any problem in a way that would prevent profit maximisation by the sectors in question.

[moidc]

just stop using the "climate change" term for god's sake! it was called "global warming" for last years, so why not stay with this term? OOOOh I see, looks like the earth started cooling for some reasons now.... I guess I have to recheck the leaked emails again to understand why....

[SFCJHadley]

It's the AGW Alarmist way of covering all bases. This way when it rains, it's Global Warming.

When it's a drought, it's Global Warming.

When it snows, it's Global Warming.

When it doesn't snow, it's Global Warming.

When there is a Hurricane, it's Global Warming.

When there is a lack of Hurricanes,  it's Global Warming.

When Haiti has an Earthquake, it's Global Warming.

When Chili has an Earthquake, it's Global Warming.

See how easy it is?

Now pay me 1 Billion dollars. :)

[tracala]

too much vodka (..and 5.000 $)

[wrxbungle]

Yeah GREAT discussion, couldn't comprehend either dickface talking over the other.

[foolish237]

lol I find it outrageous that when you attach "scientific article" or "PHD" onto and statement it is supposed to be accepted as authentic undeniable facts. What a sham!

[honestann]

Exactly - "who pays you"? Every single one of these criminals needs to identify how they gain from any conclusion.

The claims of human-caused global warming of large scale is a total FRAUD. How do we know? Because the same kind of warming and cooling has happened many times over thousands of years at least. Also, when the earth warms and polar caps shrink... so do polar caps on Mars. Global warming is largely caused by solar activity, not human carbon-dioxide. Stop pollution, not CO2.

[amet1980]

...thank god the american southerns retards are onto them....

here you go real americans heroes save the day..

[gunsandbullhorns]

Damn right, amet1980.

Thank gawd for them.

[Americanluvunit]

Clarity is rare these days.

Thanks!

[dgleason2]

@honestann sorry....clicked the wrong thumb.

very very insightful comment!!!

[danben72]

Ok, for the time being I will consider your opinion serious.

Please tell me when did you read the last scientific article in general and on the subject of climate in particular?

[honestann]

I value my privacy, so I must be vague. But I have been a scientist all my life, most recently a senior research scientist at AirForceResearchLabs. I read scientific articles often, and write some too.

What happens in my brain when I read a scientific article written by top scientists? I consider everything I read to be merely ideas or claims that I could investigate if I choose - NOT fact. I draw inferences from my observations and experiments, not from the written words of anyone.

[danben72]

Thank you for your response.

What would you answer to somebody who asks you whether it is possible to come to a definite conclusion about global warming, considering that it is almost impossible to live long enough to know everything in this field in order not to rely to a certain extent on other scientists?

It is inhumane to ask a single person of such a task imo and equally isn't it dishonest, to say the least, if somebody claims such thing as to be knowledgeable about it all?

[honestann]

::: part #1 of 2 :::

I only know two things with absolute 100% certainty: that reality/universe/existence exists, and that existence isn't entirely static (change exists). All else is an "inference" based upon my observations of reality and processes of inference. Sure, the chance I am wrong about many simple issues is less than 1 in a trillion, but they are still inferences nonetheless.

We need not be 100% certain about an issue to be knowledgeable - that would set an impossible standard.

[honestann]

::: part #2 of 2 :::

This is why honest folks/scientists who infer a conclusion are happy to produce (or reference) the evidence their inferences are based. And they will describe their inference processes too, so others can understand the connections and emphasis of each observation.

We need not know everything to draw valid inferences: beyond a point, more observations may improve precision but rarely overturns our inferences. We happily hear debate to assure we missed nothing crucial.

[danben72]

I absolutely agree on anything you said so far.

So based on your approach/research you are certain beyond any reasonably doubt that CO2 emissions don't play any role in climate change and that CO2 emissions are in general only good for us human beings taking all effects this provokes on us/nature into account?

How than would you explain the contradictory information as well as interpretation on this issue?

I know money plays a big role but it can't explain all the madness, can it?

Cheers!

[honestann]

danben72: #1 of ???

Yes, after years of investigation and thought, I am now virtually certain human-caused CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. But dumping pollutants and harmful chemicals (fluorine/chlorine/etc) into the air and water must stop (as close as humanly possible).

I am so confident about the CO2 scam because so many seemingly reliable observations and justified inferences support my point-of-view. If ANY ONE of these observations is true, CO2-GW is a gigantic fraud.

[honestann]

banben72: #2 of ???

Since astronomy is one of my fields, the first investigation was to collect a bunch of photographs (and even drawings) of Mars over the past many decades, study the growth of shrinkage of its polar ice-caps, and compare this to earth polar ice-cap photographs, estimates and data. This was not trivial, since their orbits are different. Nonetheless, Mars ice-caps tend to shrink and grow along with earth ice-caps. This implies the sun causes the bulk of temperature changes.

[honestann]

banben72: #3 of ???

Others have performed this analysis (even more thoroughly) and infer the same conclusion. If the sun causes most warming and cooling, then CO2 cannot be the major cause. This alone derails "alarmism".

Another huge issue is ***admitted*** by the CO2 alarmists and is well presented by many graphs on the internet. That is, for 10 years CO2 has been climbing steadily while global temperatures are falling! This prompted the "hide the decline" and "travesty" emails.

[honestann]

banben72: #4 of ???

Another issue that *by itself* contradicts CO2-alarmism is "the MWP" (medieval warm period). When global temperature graphs are extended back ~2000 years or more, they show warm periods that are VERY much warmer than recent times. This is why warm-weather crops that cannot grow in England today were grown centuries, why comments in old texts mention growing warm-weather crops in now cold places, and why Greenland has its name. Again, this issue *alone* is very convincing.

[honestann]

banben72: #5 of ???

To conclude my MWP comments, if earth was much warmer a few thousand years ago, when humans most certainly were not causing substantial CO2 emissions, how can we claim CO2 is the main driver of global warming? Obviously, we cannot. And again, note that the CO2-alarmists know about the MWP, and their emails discuss hiding this annoying fact.

Also, their models are bogus (like assume reduced heat emission at higher temperatures while physics demans just the opposite).

[honestann]

banben72: #6 of 6

This may not be an example of the "scientific method", but I shall include the following nonetheless. When you look at the methods, omissions and conclusions of the CO2-alarmists, we note the "amazing coincidence" that every single error, every single omission, every single fudge, every single fraud --- always and invariably promotes CO2-alarmism, and none of them support the opposite. And every bit of inconvenient evidence others raise is rejected out of hand. Suspicious?

[honestann]

banben72:  postscript

Finally, consider who funds these CO2-alarmists. The ones in question work for the UN, which is (by definition) a "globalist institution" that favors global solutions and global governments. You only need read their reports over the decades to be informed of that. This is blatant conflict of interest.

You find similar situations almost everywhere: governments fund advocates of "government solutions/power", always at the expense of honesty, liberty and individualism.

[honestann]

banben72: afterthought

Oh, I forgot to mention some of the other very important considerations, which the CO2-alarmists have also admitted privately, but try to ignore or deflect in public.

One of the most interesting, and one they got caught at several years ago, is that increases in temperature happen before increases in CO2. Therefore, the causal relationship is - rising temperature tends to cause (directly or indirectly) rising CO2, not the other way around.

Enough evidence?

[FreeAgain2]

and here is just ONE of the scientific papers -

Indermühle et al (GRL vol 27, p735, 2000) find CO2 lags temperature by 1000 years, using Antarctic cores.

[honestann]

Yes, thanks much for that reference.

I thought the delay between temperature rise and CO2 rise was "only" about 200 years on average, but perhaps I remember wrong. The point is, this one discovery alone is sufficient to totally destroy the CO2-alarmist arguments and plans. Thanks again.

[borttrollad]

Why does the Russian guy sound like a heavy from TF2 lol