Its the sun that's warming the planet and a thinning ozone layer probably doesn't help, man made climate change is a con job, because if it were true, governments would have done something already, when petrol changed from leaded to unleaded, the government did it without any whohar they just went ahead and did it. If there was anything in this agw governments would have done something serious about it by now, but because they have done very little means there is not really a problem
Great video. To the douche below me...the "urban heat island" effect was dis-proven by the largest study of its kind last year. It was funded by the Koch brothers...proud climate change deniers who initiated the research in an effort to dis-prove the overwhelming amount of data that suggests we are changing the climate. The results of the study ended up confirming that climate scientists had been right all along. Global warming is undeniable! Accept it! It's already happening...debate over!!!
P.P.S. Now...please don't confuse "Urban Cooling" with "Global Cooling". In the exact same paragraph they clearly state that the "Urban Cooling" Phenomenon is statistically INSIGNIFICANT when comparing the land average.
@iwanolga Have you looked at the reports on surfacestations. org ?
I'll explain what has happened and why this crazy notion that there is an opposite effect.
The globe has cooled over the last 15 years; this is hard to hide with surface stations that haven't changed much since they are ALREADY in a heat island.
However the surface stations that are in rural areas have had increasing encroachment from heat islands, so they are showing increases even though temperatures are falling.
The next ClimaGate has happened! The results from the BEST Project showed three things:
First; the data clearly shows no warming for the last 13 years
Second; The data may well have been contaminated by heat islands as many have predicted (to you mindless believers, that means temps have gone down, not up)
Third: The report by Prof. Richard Muller, of Berkeley was a clear cut act of fraud! According to Prof Judith Curry (another AGW scientist) we SHOULD be skeptical about AGW!
@TAMPADOC64 I read all 4 papers from the BEST Project as per your recommendations. Do you know what I found? Evidence of global warming. They even admit it within the paper that there is evidence of global warming and that the signs are "significant". Have you actually read the papers?
Juvenile. It's been shown that this "Global warming/climate change" farce is simply a scam perpetrated by scientists in the pay of government. They simply depend on the taxpayers to keep the siphon flowing. They are whores for the Statist agenda. No more. No less.
you know what people are saying ??? because people produce co2 they must be killed . for now its a carbon tax what is at the heart of it a tax on life . and one more thing so why are people saying co2 is bad, humans make less then 0.1% of a whole of less then 5% in the atmosphere that is just enough to keep our earth warm enough to not be frozen, and explain why the moons of Jupiter and saturn are melted and are now liquid water last time i check co2 isnt causing that , is it now.
"humans make less then 0.1% of a whole of less then 5% in the atmosphere "
Almost 7 billion Humans exhaling (vs 200 million 150 years ago) exhale 2 billion tons of co2 a year
Likewise farm animals to support that many humans have also boomed adding their farts and exhales to the atmosphere
What we don't have is the fallacy that a post 1994 car with no catalyst converter turning CARBON MONOXIDE out of the engine to CARBON DIOXIDE(the grain of truth in hokey "co2 from combustion" claims)
@TheRealArchAngel What do you think happens to that carbon MONoxide when it gets into the atmosphere and interacts with free oxygen? Hmmm...
You also might look at your exhalation figures in comparison to the total contribution of anthropogenic CO2. Humans put 30 GIGATONS of CO2 into the air. Not only that but consider where the carbon from breathing coming from originally (answer: the air).
I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true. But I would argue that 99% of all non-government funded scientists agree that Co2 is good for earth and there is nothing we can do that would significantly change the outcome of global warming. The hockey stick graph has already been proven to be a hoax, where the numbers and calculations were fudged. The people and companies that fund and promote these Global Warming ideas are in favor of a one World Government. Beware!
@unite4peaceonearth Wow. How many things can you get wrong in one paragraph.
1) 97% of scientist who are actively publishing in the field of climate say that CO2 is a problem.
2) The "hockey stick" has actually been vindicated repeatedly. Nothing is wrong with the global proxy graphs.
3) No one is "funding" global warming.
4) You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people.
"You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people."
Motives?
There attempts to convince government there is "peak oi;" in the 70's in order to get the world governments to losen the restrictions on their alternative energy research was largely ignored by government
"Big Oil" actually joined the AGW outcry thus their PR campaign saying they were more then Oil after the US Nov 2007 cap&trade
"You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people."
COme on, without government subsidies it costs up to $23 a gallon to drill and move oil and the only reason governments subsidize that for a 10 cents a gallon profit is they make up to $980 a gallon in various taxes,fines,leases
Geothermal and Solar is cheap for Chevron and BP to run by comparison but voltage and range vs cost currently sucks
"The "hockey stick" has actually been vindicated repeatedly. Nothing is wrong with the global proxy graphs."
Well, proxy isn't 100 accurate or foolproof....it's a estimate based on relative information
This is why when scientists startied to have instruments to monitor co2 and tempature directly they was noting that the proxy was actually low compared to real world data which is why they started to swap out real world data for proxy to..er.."hide the decline" which deniers took out of context
"I can clearly see that you have not read even one paper on temperature proxy records"
Because I'm saying that Prox data vs real world instruments is TOO LOW?
Tree rings, Soil composition and ICe Composition is subject to various factors that can easily fuck up the data...and,more importantly, Proxy data is a reaction to thoe factors changing (as in a lag) so sampling ICe Cores, Soil or Tree rings for now 300 years from now wouldn't show the 390ppm co2 in the air...it would be166ppm
10 billion was given to further study the possibility that humans have soething to do with it and what the impacts might be
Of course what the UN been coveting since it's inception was taxing and regulation powers and the AGW nonsense was it's angle up to Copenhagen when Obama told them to fuck off with a cherry on top by givening "green policy" powers to the world bank and not them
Now they've switched to the ol' "Overpopulation Armegedon" bullshit
"I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true"
Well, considering only 14 of the 250 experts on IPCC (not "2500") were scientists and only 4 of them had a degree in anything related to Climate...100% of 4 = 4 (Hansen,Webber,CHristy,and Spenser)..lol
Of the 4 only Andrew is so sure that Humans are the cause and Hansen is the one convinced taxing the fuck out of oil and gas can unmelt the ice,save baby polar bears,and lower the sea levels (rollseyes)
"I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true"
Well, considering only 14 of the 250 experts on IPCC (not "2500") were scientists and only 4 of them had a degree in anything related to Climate...100% of 4 = 4 (Hansen,Webber,CHristy,and Spenser)..lol
Of the 4 only Andrew is so sure that Humans are the cause and Hansen is the one convinced taxing the fuck out of oil and gas can unmelt the ice,save baby polar bears,and lower the sea levels
@TheRealArchAngel Sorry, but two different studies show that 97% of researchers who study and publish in the field of climate science believe that climate change is real.
but the start of this video begins with a tactic of conformity, where by they try and get the 'middle ground' by saying, effectively: "everyone else thinks so"
people should not be urged either for or against a position they don't fully understand.
i have studied far more than most people, and i'm still open-minded
and no, i'm not saying what my position is, it's irrelevant to the point i'm trying to say;
Not all of us are experts on every topic. I tend to put my trust on the scientific consensus, and the reason should be obvious. The thing is, you dont have to stop there; no one is telling you to do so. You can go and check the facts and studies yourself if the subject is so important for you, thats the beauty of science.
This video is full of errors of misleading information.
For one thing, the "hockey stick" mentioned in the video is no longer used by anyone, as no-one has been able to re-create it and the "scientists" behind it refuse (or refused) to release their numbers.
But warmer or colder, rich people can adapt better than poor, so we should just expand free-market capitalism to all humans, and may the weather be what it may be.
@geiragustsson Capitalism didn't work for the U.S. A vast supply of natural resources did. Granted, a stable and sane government helped us develop and profit off of these resources. Taking advantage of the cheap transportation (cause of cheap oil) and cheap labor in other countries also helped us a lot.
I doubt the world will ever again experience economic growth like it did in the U.S. this last century. And the idea that people can continue economic growth until we are all rich is idiotic.
@geiragustsson The original hockey-stick chart was built on info that contained inaccurate data. The scientists released all the errors and corrected them. The errors were inconsequential and the graph still looks EXACTLY the same.
The original Soon & Baliunas report criticising the graph was proved by a scientific body to be flawed. It also didn't criticise global warming in the present, it only stated that they believed the Medieval temps to be higher. You never read any of that I'm sure.
@Trent1492 what other problem? That of adding pollution free co2 to the atmosphere...the least harmful, most necessary element for life and sustainabilty on earth (after water). That's not a problem :) having good ppl like u focused on the wrong issues is the problem.
@Thatmakessense356 Greenhouse gases emit thermal radiation back regardless of the time of day. Thermal radiation is what is put out by the earth after it is hit by solar radiation. We haven't observed increases in the amount of solar radiation (the original radiation put out by the sun), which makes the sunspot theory slightly weak in comparison to the man-made C02 theory.
The Wolfpack 2010 With two snow flurries in one school year and weather that feels even more frigid than normal, it should come as no surprise to anybody that this winter is, in fact, colder than usual. This strange cold snap has wreaked all sorts of havoc across the glob. The most surprising aspect of this weather is the extent to which it has reached in the southern United State. As far south as Florida, farmers of citrus and berry fruits prepared for a freeze
@Dayversion Of course not being interested in causes and science you assume that a cold winter means global cooling but I'm afraid that warming is likely causing the harder winters. As the arctic warms the jet stream is being pushed further south and the eastern USA and Europe bringing cold and record snow. NOAA says this is likely to continue.
Welcome to a warming world. Welcome to CLIMATE CHANGE.
And of course, despite this the overall global temperature keeps rising.
The "belief" that 1998 was the warmest year was based solely on the data by the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (that's from memory so forgive me if I don't get the name exactly right), otherwise known as HadCRUT. NOAA and NASA however, both show 2005 as the hottest. The data from HadCRUT has recently been shown to be flawed and now they all agree that it was 2005.
@Skydancer365 UAH still says it was 1998 and Roy Spencer is now saying (albeit begrudgingly) that 2010 is on track to break the 1998 record WITHOUT a strong ENSO like 1998 had.
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
@lustieyoda Hi, let me know what major city is near you so I can check, because right now cities in Wisconsin are in the 30's through the 50's and the forecast for the next few days are in the 6o's during the day. I wouldn't want to think you are a liar and are a friend of the fake "Dr".
Are neo-nazi nutjobs like TheElasticRandomlaughingJesusMPDFreak, "StarStuff"?
According to Dayversion below, the temperature in Scotland is a good way of judging global climate. S/he has cherry-picked the lowest temp record s/he can find during a year when global average temperature was higher than at any other point in recorded history (check Dr Roy Spencer's blog), and uses it to make a strawman argument.
Dayversion is a duplicate account established to troll Nightversionn.
You been talking to Al Gore? Your data is wrong! CO2 does not drive teperature change. On the contrary, temperature drives CO2 levels. Also, you are wrong about the sun being a factor. It is a huge factor. If look at the correct data, you sill see that the CO2 levels are directly related to levels of sun activity and cosmic rays. Also you are wrong on the polor ice caps, they are not melting away. Scientific fact supports what I have just explained and that you are a fraud.
@ricorine Naturally occurring CO2 follows temperature driven by Milankovitch cycles. But it is CO2 which is the "biggest control knob" in climate change. Milankovitch cycles (google it) can account for about 1C of warming but glacial-interglacial periods run 8C. CO2 in conjunction with water vapor drives most of the rest of that warming, which is what informs us about what will happen if we rapidly increase atmospheric CO2 levels.
BTW BeondaPale you are starting to edge towards the abusive.I know this is common currency for you people but if you wish this discussion to continue kindly remain civil.
You seem confused.The climate and CO2 levels change naturally.Your stance is that we are altering both by contributing to CO2. If we interfere with them for the better or worse we are altering them....how can I make this any clearer?
You are claiming that by allowing the atmosphere to move BACK toward a level that will better sustain the current bioshphere (since our alterations began) that WE are altering it.
This is clearly untrue - NATURAL PROCESSES are altering it - WE are simply doing no more harm.
Anything we create plastic, sodium lauryl sulfate, GMO's - all natural
Let's cut through the BS. Just because the word natural has been MARKETED to mean "from the earth" or "unmodified by man" does NOT mean that it's the word's real definition
Man is part of nature, therefore everything man does is natural
@BeondaPale Yes but they are naturally very far away. I suppose its natural by now for people to ask what is your point. How does it relate to the Co2 hoax causing global warming. Or are you going to pick up on my use of the word hoax and tell me its meaning and from what language it originated, Are you good in pub quizzes by any chance.
@BeondaPale Yes but my original premise is that a distinction be made between the co2 people breathe out which is an inherent part of being an animal on this planet, and those of the actions of our brain as in burning fossil fuels. If your suggesting a drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage this is commendable if your suggesting that we should reduce the amount of breathing in some way, would you explain how you would achieve this.
@BeondaPale Your premise that global warming must logically be true only pans out if we understand all the variables at play here and like any science does not hold true facts but theories, The expectation that climate never changes for example can be readily challenged. the middle ages warm period for example, Ice ages etc would suggest that the planets climate changes over time, Its natural. To treat something as complicated as the Earth as modelled by a greenhouse is bad science.
@BeondaPale Co2 dissolves in water and we happen to live on a sea world. More Infra-red radiation will be emmitted as the levels trapped as you say heat up the earth. Processes have been in play for Billions of years to deal with the varying amount of heat coming from the real heat source, on our planet, the sun
The sun is currently at a minimum. It has been considered and discounted as the direct cause of this most recent statistically significant warming. When all factors are considered, anthropogenic source are the most logical conclusion
@BeondaPale Lets say your right, now we have two solutions the first, complete change of the western way of life as not too use fossil fuels etc. A halt to all developing countries developing into Western countries. Or secondly the one favoured by the West, population reduction in lets see developing countries and carbon credits to pay for measures from the rich west that by the way in this system stay rich. The second solution sounds a bit final.
Let's say you are right and we take no action whatsoever just a continuance of what we have been doing. - but you turn out to be wrong on climate sensitivity...
What do you think we're looking at? All of what you mentioned and more, right?
The only solutions I propose is an orderly (though urgent) movement away from fossil fuels with big R&D money going to carbon sequestration
Regardless, population control WILL happen -- though rational efforts or nature itself
@BeondaPale Yes but the rations are being distributed unfairly in the West's favour. Your calling for this movement away from fossil fuels but it isn't happening as I stated with increased fossil fuel consumption. If Government was serious about Co2 reduction then surely immediate halt to fossil fuel consumption and replacement with more sustainable fuels such as alcohol, or hemp oil would ensue, strange that these substances are both banned. Oil is still being pumped out the sea, well sometimes
@BeondaPale In the REAL WORLD 2 conferences - Kyoto and Copenhagen - have achieved nothing. Do you ever wonder why, if scientists believe in AGW and pass this info on to politicians, nothing is done about it? The AGW line is that it is "the greatest threat to human existence". If this is true, why don't politicians do anything about it? And do you really believe the Chinese and the Indians care about pollution or CO2 and will spednd a single penny on it?
@BeondaPale You are talking what is known as a "False Dichotomy".This is an an argument beloved of Creationists i.e "if we can prove your argument false then ours wins by default".
The other arguments include 1) Man has an input to GW but it is minor.
2) Other factors come into play which we don't fully understand yet.
3) Man has a significant impact but the climate is a self correcting system.
4) Man has a low impact and the climate is still a self correcting system.
(Continued) Or my favourite 5) It's the ultimate in human arrogance to think we could alter the climate of the entire planet even if it needed to be done,
.Search Youtube for "George Carlin Saving The Earth". George was a free thinker and as usual, nailed it.
Not one person in the science has EVER suggested that we must alter the climate - unless you consider CEASING our CURRENT alteration of the climate altering it - a bizarre and dishonest argument
@BeondaPale " Only that we should slowly discontinue that current unintentional alteration.".WHICH WILL ALTER THEM FROM THEIR CURRENT STATE! Read the dictionary.
And you are being dishonest. If you are currently altering something and stop doing so, it will no longer change EXCEPT ON ITS OWN. Therefore WE are not changing it
"if we can prove your argument false then ours wins by default"
I'm doing no such thing -
You have not addressed my argument in the slightest. but have moved to a seperate argument - climate sensitivity.
Again, none of the 3 things I posited are false, therefore AGW must logically be true - The DEGREE to which it is true is debatable and that is what you are addressing. It is nonetheless a separate discussion
If you would like we can debate that aspect of the science now
@BeondaPale As far as i can tell you actually don't have an argument. Apart from instructing us u tubers as to the word natural and your argument that everything we do is natural, does this extend in any way, Do you accept everything natural that people do. Picking up on people's wording such as your use of the word Man to mean all people is well, to cut the BS not really clever or helpful either is setting sums you don't explain.
Does this extend in any way. Do you accept everything natural that people do.
The word natural has more than a dozen definitions - including definitions in music and color schemes.
IN SCIENCE the word natural can ONLY mean OF NATURE - the way YOU are using the word natural is in reference to morality with moral being natural and immoral being unnatural
So no it does not extend. You're just confusing two definitions of the same word
No One deny's the EARTH is warming, the ICE is melting but the real evidence that its no the first time this has happened and the earth warmed up 10,000 ago, so lets just get rid of all the cars instead of taking the countries with a New World Order Carbon tax
@ukbands Honestly, if you watch this whole video and still believe there is no evidence that this is something of tremendous concern (as virtually all the scientists in this field are telling us) then you have other issues.
If you had cancer and 98 doctors told you to do chemo and two said you didn't need it, you are the person who would listen to the two.
Here is a graph of three data sets together. UAH, RSS (both satellite based) and direct surface measurements. They all agree. (Note: This data stops in 2009)
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures . png
The Spain story makes no sense at all. Why would they run projectors onto the solar arrays? The loss of energy through heat would be tremendous. They'd be better off just pushing the energy from the generator directly into the grid. And why would they do it at night when 1) demand is low anyway, and 2) when it would be obvious they shouldn't be generating a load?
Yup, NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office are all in conspiracy. Yup. Sure. Of course. And the left wing stuff the publish in: Science, Nature, Scientific American. How can anyone believe that stuff? It's got charts and maths and it's hard. You know all those 145 IQs who studied for ten years somehow forgot that it was the sun. Because I read it in a blog that advertises hair removal products.
@prikhod when all the evidence is stacked against you, go on the offensive. Perhpas if you rant and posture enough people won't notice how weak your position is.
And you just used the infamous hockey stick graph which is scientific invalid and have been proven to be purely fraud.
And your argument that so and so many believe in something do not make it real or true. Millions believe in God, but that do not prove that God exist nor does it validate the argument.
@Trent1492 If you believe that the hockey stick graph has any scientific merit you have a real problem. I bet you believe in Santa Claus, God and virgin births as well..
Do you actually have any idea of how the hockey stick graphs compriced and computated and how you are being manipulated?...
You really do not have a clue do you? Let me put it to you this way. The Hockey Stick has been replicated a dozen different times using different methods and proxies. Did you know any of what I just told you prior to my posting it to you just now? Let me say that again. A dozen different peer reviewed articles have found roughly the same thing. Can you name any of those studies. I can. Do you see now that you have been duped by the fossil fuel industry?
@Trent1492 Can you name any of the pier review articles that actually shows that?
And you obviously do not know anything about statistics or science to say like you do. If you knew, you would shake you head at graph that drowns in statistical uncertainty.
I can in fact name the british scientist K. Briffa which research is the whole cornerstone of Manns hockey stick is total fraud. ANd Briffa did in fact pier review Manns work several times and co author some.You have no understanding of science
Why yes I can name those peer reviewed studies. Allow me:
Huang, S.. "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future." Geophys. Res, Lett. 31, L13205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019781, 2004.
Huang, S., H.N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen. "Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures." Nature, Volume 403, pp. 756-758. 2000.
@Trent1492 You really are just as much a fraud like Mann and Briffa. You site: "Huang, S., H.N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen. "Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures." Nature, Volume 403, pp. 756-758. 2000" as an article that actually reconstrucs Mann hockey stick from the data he manipulated. ANd in fact is NOT a reconstruction nor a debunking of McIntyre and McKitrick work to expose Manns fraudulent science. You are a liar and I have exposed you.
Oh, then it should be no problem for you to cite the appropiate passages that substantiate your position. Go ahead. What does Huang paper say on page 757? Go ahead, Tell us.
I also would like to note that you have now accused four scientist of fraud without substantiating any of it. I am sorry saying "but X is a fraud too" is not going to cut it.
Once again what data was manipulated? Name it. Be specific. Show us the peer reviewed article that substantiates your position.
@Trent1492 Your claim was more than 12 pier review articles the reproduced Manns hockey stick and refutes Steve McIntyres work, and then you produced a number of articles when I ask you to. But when I just pick one random article to see if it in fact does that it dosnt. The Huang article do not take all of Manns proxy and reproduces the hockey stick does? NOO. He take some proxys and fake the hockey stick by adding on fixed temperature data. Thats called manipulation.
Not only are you a dishonest shill but one who suffers from reading comprehension problems. Try this again, the Hockey Stick has been reproduced using DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES and PROXIES. That makes the original findings even STRONGER. Why is it you can understand this?
@Trent1492 And do you know what happend to Keith Briffa? The same Briffa that actually vrote most of the pier review to Manns articles and the official IPCC defense of Manns hockey stick. Do you know what happend to his work on the tree ring data from the Urals? Has that work been exposed as fraud? And had that work been removed from the UK CRU website. That pure and simple fraud.
You just throw around articles that dont demonstrate what you claim and support fraudulent science. Im done with you
Why absolutely nothing happened to Keith Briffa. The only thing that happened to Keith Briffa is that he was the victim of a ineffective propaganda campaign. No one has found him guilty of academic misconduct or any other untoward behavior. Why do you feel so free to lie? You can easily find those datasets on the net to this day.
Moberg, A, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, and W. Karlén, "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data." Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 2005.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability." Science, Volume 295, Number 5563, 22 March 2002, 2002.
Crowley, T.J. , "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years", Science, Volume 289: 270-277, July 14, 2000.
Plenty more to if you want. Now notice these peer reviewed cites using different proxies and methods.
Other than Blogs and Fox news what peer reviewed empirically based data can you cite to substantiate you position. Now note I just substantiated my claims meeting that criteria can you? Now name the SPECIFIC data set and peer reviewed works you think are fraudulent. Name it. Exactly where was this fraud committed in those papers. Name it.
@mYOzZyKaT Just in case you haven't heard, there was only one substantive rebuttal to Mann's hockey stick (McIntyre and McKitrick). But that rebuttal has been show to be inaccurate on a long list of issues. Subsequently nearly a dozen other proxy studies have been produced, all of which show nearly the same hockey stick.
@robhoneycutt You clearly havent read Steve McIntyres work in any detail. I bet you also believe in God. Do you?
And do you know that the only thing most proxy studies shows is that you can not use them in any way shape or form to say anything with any certainty. Do you know the statistical uncertainty on your beloved hockey graph? How big is that and does it make any sence of using such a graph with that big of an uncertainty to conclude anything?
@mYOzZyKaT I'm an atheist but I don't that has any bearing on this issue.
I have read M&M and the rebuttals of it (have YOU read the rebuttals?). I absolutely know there are uncertainties associated with all forms of proxy records. What people like you continually miss is, you keep harping on there being a strong MWP period but that would be the worst possible result of any of the proxy studies. A strong MWP would suggest high climate sensitivity and that would mean we are truly screwed now!
@mYOzZyKaT On top of that, you're completely missing the entire point of this video! It's not just about the hockey stick. It's about the thousands of other ways that we know climate change is happening. If this were all about Mann's hockey stick then I'd be as skeptical as anyone. I think Mann himself would be skeptical! But it's that we have more than ample evidence that shows that rising CO2 levels could have a devastating effect upon life on this planet in the coming centuries.
@pseudotruth: LOL! Here we go again... instead of addressing what McIntyre and McKitrick actually did, attack the messenger instead. "agent of the AGW denial industry" Do you even hear yourself?
They simply methodologically showed Mann's MBH98 to be bogus... and they were correct which is not in question now.
@mYOzZyKaT The hockey stick has not been proven to be fraud. That is simply denialist propoganda. There are about a dozen 'hockey sticks' produced by different research teams, using different data sets and they all produce comparable graphs.
The scientific consensus is not based on the number of scientists - it is based on the multiple, converging lines of evidence.
Excellent video. Evidence is overwhelming. Well except for blind deaf and dumb types like prikhod. Unfortunately there are a lot of these noisy idiots.
prikhod needs to stop relying on his broken BS detector and bogus global warming denial talking points and start making an effort to understand the science.
Until he does the rest of us need to ignore his efforts to spread misinformation and confusion.
@exusian: Don't you fucking get AGW is a POLITICAL issue, it has nothing to do with science or the planet. All those retards at Goddard Institute, NOAA, IPCC are fucking ACTIVISTS. Good thing at least one of the cocksuckers died a few days ago...
I am intimidated by your unimaginative use of swear words. Not. Hold it. Maybe if I swear really hard the fact that British Isles have had vineyards CONTINUOUSLY since the Roman era will go away. Let me see:
Fuck You! You Limey piece of shit vineyard!
Eat Shit! You Nigel name bearing Viticulturist poofer!
Nope. I am afraid those facts are still stubbornly there. Have you thought of trying rational thought?
You need to revise this to actually get people interested. The human race is going to die off within a handful of generations (or sooner) if things don't change. I'D SAY that is important to state RIGHT OFF THE BAT. People have very short attention spans. Spice this up and smack people in the face, or no one will pay any attention at all.
If people don't "get it", after listening to and watching this, then they should be immediately checked for a pulse.
This is so much more than a compelling argument about the facts of global warming.
It is an urgent warning from a respected scientist.
If we, as planet, take action and Dr. Powell and his worldwide colleagues are wrong, we will have spent some money making the world a better place and created some new economies and jobs, all sorely needed.
@prikhod Yes, you're right and I apologise. Not one of my finest hours. But, I guess I get so angry and irritated when people ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence when it is presented to them and are offensive. You have called the person who went to great lengths to produce this video a 'joke'. Whereas, I'm quite confident that you are not a climate scientist so you really are not in a position to make that statement, are you?
@ConservatoryTV: I am NOT a climate scientist, but let me tell you something. I am also NOT a web developer, neither did I take marketing. Having said that I have a thriving business utilizing the very things I never took in school.
What I'm trying to say is that shit I hear HAS to make SENSE. CO2 scare does NOT. This is not new, people have been scaremongered into shit time and time again. What I hear "the sky is falling", i get very suspicious. And for a good reason.
@prikhod I think you may have been fed incorrect information, which is not your fault. There's a lot of misinformation about climate science which may have confused you and led you to worry that the sky is falling in. Try watching some of Potholer54 or Greenman3610's videos which may help you. Also, the website SkepticalScience has lots of information which may help you come to terms with your scepticism. I hope this helps.
@ConservatoryTV: While I appreciate you trying to help me through misinformation that I've "obviously" have been the victim of.... so for that thank you... I used to be an environmentalist, I used to believe in Global Warming, BAD BAD humanity for destroying the planet and other things like that... NO MORE
I have read the emails and I am not cool with the content, NO MATTER who says what. There is no consensus, there are plenty of respectable scientists who disagree with IPCC's findings... tbc
Its the sun that's warming the planet and a thinning ozone layer probably doesn't help, man made climate change is a con job, because if it were true, governments would have done something already, when petrol changed from leaded to unleaded, the government did it without any whohar they just went ahead and did it. If there was anything in this agw governments would have done something serious about it by now, but because they have done very little means there is not really a problem
vmgqie 6 days ago
Great video. To the douche below me...the "urban heat island" effect was dis-proven by the largest study of its kind last year. It was funded by the Koch brothers...proud climate change deniers who initiated the research in an effort to dis-prove the overwhelming amount of data that suggests we are changing the climate. The results of the study ended up confirming that climate scientists had been right all along. Global warming is undeniable! Accept it! It's already happening...debate over!!!
ReadABookAndLearn 2 weeks ago
P.P.P.S. One last booya. Read their Summary where they clearly state global warming is true.
berkeley earth dot org
iwanolga 1 month ago
P.P.S. Now...please don't confuse "Urban Cooling" with "Global Cooling". In the exact same paragraph they clearly state that the "Urban Cooling" Phenomenon is statistically INSIGNIFICANT when comparing the land average.
....BOO....YAAAA
iwanolga 1 month ago
P.S. Directly from the conclusions of the BEST report on "HEAT ISLANDS"
We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a
slope of -0.19 ± 0.19 °C/100yr. This is not statistically consistent with prior estimates, but it
does verify that the effect is very small, and almost insignificant on the scale of the observed
warming (1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950 in the land average from figure 5A)
iwanolga 1 month ago
@iwanolga Have you looked at the reports on surfacestations. org ?
I'll explain what has happened and why this crazy notion that there is an opposite effect.
The globe has cooled over the last 15 years; this is hard to hide with surface stations that haven't changed much since they are ALREADY in a heat island.
However the surface stations that are in rural areas have had increasing encroachment from heat islands, so they are showing increases even though temperatures are falling.
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
The next ClimaGate has happened! The results from the BEST Project showed three things:
First; the data clearly shows no warming for the last 13 years
Second; The data may well have been contaminated by heat islands as many have predicted (to you mindless believers, that means temps have gone down, not up)
Third: The report by Prof. Richard Muller, of Berkeley was a clear cut act of fraud! According to Prof Judith Curry (another AGW scientist) we SHOULD be skeptical about AGW!
TAMPADOC64 3 months ago
@TAMPADOC64 I read all 4 papers from the BEST Project as per your recommendations. Do you know what I found? Evidence of global warming. They even admit it within the paper that there is evidence of global warming and that the signs are "significant". Have you actually read the papers?
iwanolga 1 month ago
@iwanolga You need to review my recommendation again, you got it wrong! I didn't tell you to read their papers, I told you to review the data!
If I wrote here that this web page has 52 characters on it, would you believe it? Would you count the characters?
You have one of the top experts on the BEST project that says the papers are contrary to the data.
Based on her disclosure, I reviewed the data!
She is correct; the data is contrary to the published papers.
TAMPADOC64 1 month ago
Juvenile. It's been shown that this "Global warming/climate change" farce is simply a scam perpetrated by scientists in the pay of government. They simply depend on the taxpayers to keep the siphon flowing. They are whores for the Statist agenda. No more. No less.
htsone 3 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Yes, I know you aren't reading the actual research because none of it says what you are saying! I HAVE read the published research.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
you know what people are saying ??? because people produce co2 they must be killed . for now its a carbon tax what is at the heart of it a tax on life . and one more thing so why are people saying co2 is bad, humans make less then 0.1% of a whole of less then 5% in the atmosphere that is just enough to keep our earth warm enough to not be frozen, and explain why the moons of Jupiter and saturn are melted and are now liquid water last time i check co2 isnt causing that , is it now.
JumboGaming 6 months ago
@JumboGaming Boy, you are full of all sorts of mumbo jumbo that "people" are saying. Problem is, none of it is true.
robhoneycutt 6 months ago
"humans make less then 0.1% of a whole of less then 5% in the atmosphere "
Almost 7 billion Humans exhaling (vs 200 million 150 years ago) exhale 2 billion tons of co2 a year
Likewise farm animals to support that many humans have also boomed adding their farts and exhales to the atmosphere
What we don't have is the fallacy that a post 1994 car with no catalyst converter turning CARBON MONOXIDE out of the engine to CARBON DIOXIDE(the grain of truth in hokey "co2 from combustion" claims)
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel What do you think happens to that carbon MONoxide when it gets into the atmosphere and interacts with free oxygen? Hmmm...
You also might look at your exhalation figures in comparison to the total contribution of anthropogenic CO2. Humans put 30 GIGATONS of CO2 into the air. Not only that but consider where the carbon from breathing coming from originally (answer: the air).
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true. But I would argue that 99% of all non-government funded scientists agree that Co2 is good for earth and there is nothing we can do that would significantly change the outcome of global warming. The hockey stick graph has already been proven to be a hoax, where the numbers and calculations were fudged. The people and companies that fund and promote these Global Warming ideas are in favor of a one World Government. Beware!
unite4peaceonearth 9 months ago
@unite4peaceonearth Wow. How many things can you get wrong in one paragraph.
1) 97% of scientist who are actively publishing in the field of climate say that CO2 is a problem.
2) The "hockey stick" has actually been vindicated repeatedly. Nothing is wrong with the global proxy graphs.
3) No one is "funding" global warming.
4) You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people.
robhoneycutt 7 months ago
"You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people."
Motives?
There attempts to convince government there is "peak oi;" in the 70's in order to get the world governments to losen the restrictions on their alternative energy research was largely ignored by government
"Big Oil" actually joined the AGW outcry thus their PR campaign saying they were more then Oil after the US Nov 2007 cap&trade
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Go read about Hubbert Peak Oil theory. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
"You should be concerned about the motives of fossil fuel energy companies. They are the ones with the means and motivation to try to confuse people."
COme on, without government subsidies it costs up to $23 a gallon to drill and move oil and the only reason governments subsidize that for a 10 cents a gallon profit is they make up to $980 a gallon in various taxes,fines,leases
Geothermal and Solar is cheap for Chevron and BP to run by comparison but voltage and range vs cost currently sucks
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Now you're pulling numbers out of your ass with that $23/gal figure.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
"The "hockey stick" has actually been vindicated repeatedly. Nothing is wrong with the global proxy graphs."
Well, proxy isn't 100 accurate or foolproof....it's a estimate based on relative information
This is why when scientists startied to have instruments to monitor co2 and tempature directly they was noting that the proxy was actually low compared to real world data which is why they started to swap out real world data for proxy to..er.."hide the decline" which deniers took out of context
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel I can clearly see that you have not read even one paper on temperature proxy records.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
"I can clearly see that you have not read even one paper on temperature proxy records"
Because I'm saying that Prox data vs real world instruments is TOO LOW?
Tree rings, Soil composition and ICe Composition is subject to various factors that can easily fuck up the data...and,more importantly, Proxy data is a reaction to thoe factors changing (as in a lag) so sampling ICe Cores, Soil or Tree rings for now 300 years from now wouldn't show the 390ppm co2 in the air...it would be166ppm
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"3) No one is "funding" global warming"
10 billion was given to further study the possibility that humans have soething to do with it and what the impacts might be
Of course what the UN been coveting since it's inception was taxing and regulation powers and the AGW nonsense was it's angle up to Copenhagen when Obama told them to fuck off with a cherry on top by givening "green policy" powers to the world bank and not them
Now they've switched to the ol' "Overpopulation Armegedon" bullshit
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true"
Well, considering only 14 of the 250 experts on IPCC (not "2500") were scientists and only 4 of them had a degree in anything related to Climate...100% of 4 = 4 (Hansen,Webber,CHristy,and Spenser)..lol
Of the 4 only Andrew is so sure that Humans are the cause and Hansen is the one convinced taxing the fuck out of oil and gas can unmelt the ice,save baby polar bears,and lower the sea levels (rollseyes)
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"I would say 100% of all climate scientists say that Global Warming is true"
Well, considering only 14 of the 250 experts on IPCC (not "2500") were scientists and only 4 of them had a degree in anything related to Climate...100% of 4 = 4 (Hansen,Webber,CHristy,and Spenser)..lol
Of the 4 only Andrew is so sure that Humans are the cause and Hansen is the one convinced taxing the fuck out of oil and gas can unmelt the ice,save baby polar bears,and lower the sea levels
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Sorry, but two different studies show that 97% of researchers who study and publish in the field of climate science believe that climate change is real.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
ok, i'm seriously not trying to be bias.
but the start of this video begins with a tactic of conformity, where by they try and get the 'middle ground' by saying, effectively: "everyone else thinks so"
people should not be urged either for or against a position they don't fully understand.
i have studied far more than most people, and i'm still open-minded
and no, i'm not saying what my position is, it's irrelevant to the point i'm trying to say;
think for your self.
TrollForTuna 11 months ago
@TrollForTuna
Not all of us are experts on every topic. I tend to put my trust on the scientific consensus, and the reason should be obvious. The thing is, you dont have to stop there; no one is telling you to do so. You can go and check the facts and studies yourself if the subject is so important for you, thats the beauty of science.
CafecitoConLeche 8 months ago
Thanks, overwhelming evidence, just what i needed
horbergaren 1 year ago
This video is full of errors of misleading information.
For one thing, the "hockey stick" mentioned in the video is no longer used by anyone, as no-one has been able to re-create it and the "scientists" behind it refuse (or refused) to release their numbers.
But warmer or colder, rich people can adapt better than poor, so we should just expand free-market capitalism to all humans, and may the weather be what it may be.
geiragustsson 1 year ago
@geiragustsson That's not entirely accurate. I'll send you a few links to explain
Richard482 1 year ago
@geiragustsson Capitalism didn't work for the U.S. A vast supply of natural resources did. Granted, a stable and sane government helped us develop and profit off of these resources. Taking advantage of the cheap transportation (cause of cheap oil) and cheap labor in other countries also helped us a lot.
I doubt the world will ever again experience economic growth like it did in the U.S. this last century. And the idea that people can continue economic growth until we are all rich is idiotic.
LeadBeIIy 10 months ago
@geiragustsson The original hockey-stick chart was built on info that contained inaccurate data. The scientists released all the errors and corrected them. The errors were inconsequential and the graph still looks EXACTLY the same.
The original Soon & Baliunas report criticising the graph was proved by a scientific body to be flawed. It also didn't criticise global warming in the present, it only stated that they believed the Medieval temps to be higher. You never read any of that I'm sure.
LeadBeIIy 10 months ago
@Trent1492 what other problem? That of adding pollution free co2 to the atmosphere...the least harmful, most necessary element for life and sustainabilty on earth (after water). That's not a problem :) having good ppl like u focused on the wrong issues is the problem.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His last line is:
"Can global warming be true? You decide."
It should be:
Global warming is true. Deal with it or go extinct.
rapauli 1 year ago
Comment removed
rapauli 1 year ago
Why would nights warm more than days if CO2 only emits radiation back to the earth during the day?
Thatmakessense356 1 year ago
@Thatmakessense356 Greenhouse gases emit thermal radiation back regardless of the time of day. Thermal radiation is what is put out by the earth after it is hit by solar radiation. We haven't observed increases in the amount of solar radiation (the original radiation put out by the sun), which makes the sunspot theory slightly weak in comparison to the man-made C02 theory.
LeadBeIIy 10 months ago
Well explained
drkstrong 1 year ago
Obviously Global Warming is true. The true question is: is it human induced?
Well, if you consider GHG to be less than 10% CO2, then humans contributing less than 1% CO2 on Earth seems insignificant.
What we need to focus on is throwing chemical products in our ecosystem and deforestation.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
Well for starters CO2 contribution to GHG is around 20% and humanity has increased the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%.
"What we need to focus on is throwing chemical products in our ecosystem and deforestation."
False Dichotomy: Who says we can only tackle one problem at a time?
Trent1492 1 year ago
Bravo!! :)
very well done, dude. Great vid.
AmbientSmiley 1 year ago
a nice comprehensive selection of data there i see. /sarcasm
(also if we can't see the y-axis scale then that image means jack.
charlie123abc360 1 year ago
Winter weather sets records
The Wolfpack 2010 With two snow flurries in one school year and weather that feels even more frigid than normal, it should come as no surprise to anybody that this winter is, in fact, colder than usual. This strange cold snap has wreaked all sorts of havoc across the glob. The most surprising aspect of this weather is the extent to which it has reached in the southern United State. As far south as Florida, farmers of citrus and berry fruits prepared for a freeze
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion Of course not being interested in causes and science you assume that a cold winter means global cooling but I'm afraid that warming is likely causing the harder winters. As the arctic warms the jet stream is being pushed further south and the eastern USA and Europe bringing cold and record snow. NOAA says this is likely to continue.
Welcome to a warming world. Welcome to CLIMATE CHANGE.
And of course, despite this the overall global temperature keeps rising.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
The "belief" that 1998 was the warmest year was based solely on the data by the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (that's from memory so forgive me if I don't get the name exactly right), otherwise known as HadCRUT. NOAA and NASA however, both show 2005 as the hottest. The data from HadCRUT has recently been shown to be flawed and now they all agree that it was 2005.
Skydancer365 1 year ago
@Skydancer365 UAH still says it was 1998 and Roy Spencer is now saying (albeit begrudgingly) that 2010 is on track to break the 1998 record WITHOUT a strong ENSO like 1998 had.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Comment removed
FroggieTerd 1 year ago
Br-r-r! Where did global warming go?
Jeff Jacoby
THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion I live in Wisconsin it is Now October and I'm Sweating my ass of because it 75 degrees out and It's supposed to only be in the 50's
lustieyoda 1 year ago
@lustieyoda Hi, let me know what major city is near you so I can check, because right now cities in Wisconsin are in the 30's through the 50's and the forecast for the next few days are in the 6o's during the day. I wouldn't want to think you are a liar and are a friend of the fake "Dr".
Are neo-nazi nutjobs like TheElasticRandomlaughingJesusMPDFreak, "StarStuff"?
Dayversion 1 year ago
According to Dayversion below, the temperature in Scotland is a good way of judging global climate. S/he has cherry-picked the lowest temp record s/he can find during a year when global average temperature was higher than at any other point in recorded history (check Dr Roy Spencer's blog), and uses it to make a strawman argument.
Dayversion is a duplicate account established to troll Nightversionn.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Global Freezing
2010 Scotland’s coldest winter since 1914
The average temperatures in January and December were the coldest in Scotland since 1914 - the year that data was first logged.
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion
Look at any map of the world. Scottland is clearly the globe.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Tell me why is global warming an issue when we live in the middle of technically an Ice Age?
OxAO 1 year ago
@OxAO
The peak of the Ice age is in 80,000 years. Humans are changing the climate WAY faster than that
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
Both the video's we post on are a joke.
OxAO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale
Both the video's we post on are a joke.
OxAO 1 year ago
You been talking to Al Gore? Your data is wrong! CO2 does not drive teperature change. On the contrary, temperature drives CO2 levels. Also, you are wrong about the sun being a factor. It is a huge factor. If look at the correct data, you sill see that the CO2 levels are directly related to levels of sun activity and cosmic rays. Also you are wrong on the polor ice caps, they are not melting away. Scientific fact supports what I have just explained and that you are a fraud.
ricorine 1 year ago
@ricorine Naturally occurring CO2 follows temperature driven by Milankovitch cycles. But it is CO2 which is the "biggest control knob" in climate change. Milankovitch cycles (google it) can account for about 1C of warming but glacial-interglacial periods run 8C. CO2 in conjunction with water vapor drives most of the rest of that warming, which is what informs us about what will happen if we rapidly increase atmospheric CO2 levels.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
BTW BeondaPale you are starting to edge towards the abusive.I know this is common currency for you people but if you wish this discussion to continue kindly remain civil.
lewisner 1 year ago
"you people" is not abusive?
It is you who are edging toward the abusive.
Kindly remain civil
BeondaPale 1 year ago
You seem confused.The climate and CO2 levels change naturally.Your stance is that we are altering both by contributing to CO2. If we interfere with them for the better or worse we are altering them....how can I make this any clearer?
lewisner 1 year ago
Its a dishonest argument. - Sophistry.
You are claiming that by allowing the atmosphere to move BACK toward a level that will better sustain the current bioshphere (since our alterations began) that WE are altering it.
This is clearly untrue - NATURAL PROCESSES are altering it - WE are simply doing no more harm.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
caused by burning oil and gas, not from breathing
ste6666666 1 year ago
of these two
A. breathing
and
B. burning oil and gas
Which produces more CO2? What is the degree of difference between A and B?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Would you like to enlighten us. Breathing is a natural activity burning oil and gas is not
ste6666666 1 year ago
@ste6666666
Since neither are supernatural activities, both are natural activities
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale right lets set off all those natural atomic bombs then.
ste6666666 1 year ago
@ste6666666
Not an argument. Are they supernatural bombs?
Anything we create plastic, sodium lauryl sulfate, GMO's - all natural
Let's cut through the BS. Just because the word natural has been MARKETED to mean "from the earth" or "unmodified by man" does NOT mean that it's the word's real definition
Man is part of nature, therefore everything man does is natural
BeondaPale 1 year ago
BTW, hydrogen fussion bombs are set off every second on the sun - isn't the sun natural?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Yes but they are naturally very far away. I suppose its natural by now for people to ask what is your point. How does it relate to the Co2 hoax causing global warming. Or are you going to pick up on my use of the word hoax and tell me its meaning and from what language it originated, Are you good in pub quizzes by any chance.
ste6666666 1 year ago
it's not a hoax. If it were, one of the following true or false questions would have to be false.
True or False:
1. CO2 retains infrared energy
2. The activities of man has significantly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
3. The greenhouse effect exists and can become more or less prominent depending on the amount of its constituent gasses within the atmosphere.
Since none of these are false anthropogenic global warming MUST LOGICALLY BE TRUE
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Yes but my original premise is that a distinction be made between the co2 people breathe out which is an inherent part of being an animal on this planet, and those of the actions of our brain as in burning fossil fuels. If your suggesting a drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage this is commendable if your suggesting that we should reduce the amount of breathing in some way, would you explain how you would achieve this.
ste6666666 1 year ago
@ste6666666
No, only fossil fuels, so yes, commendable
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Your premise that global warming must logically be true only pans out if we understand all the variables at play here and like any science does not hold true facts but theories, The expectation that climate never changes for example can be readily challenged. the middle ages warm period for example, Ice ages etc would suggest that the planets climate changes over time, Its natural. To treat something as complicated as the Earth as modelled by a greenhouse is bad science.
ste6666666 1 year ago
"Your premise that global warming must logically be true only pans out if we understand all the variables at play here"
No, I'm not arguing the DEGREE to which AGW must be true. Only that it must be true. Climate sensitivity is another discussion entirely
No one has ever said that the climate never changes - NO ONE!!
The greenhouse effect is a fact and must be considered in models of what you admit is a complex system
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Co2 dissolves in water and we happen to live on a sea world. More Infra-red radiation will be emmitted as the levels trapped as you say heat up the earth. Processes have been in play for Billions of years to deal with the varying amount of heat coming from the real heat source, on our planet, the sun
ste6666666 1 year ago
@ste6666666
The sun is currently at a minimum. It has been considered and discounted as the direct cause of this most recent statistically significant warming. When all factors are considered, anthropogenic source are the most logical conclusion
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Lets say your right, now we have two solutions the first, complete change of the western way of life as not too use fossil fuels etc. A halt to all developing countries developing into Western countries. Or secondly the one favoured by the West, population reduction in lets see developing countries and carbon credits to pay for measures from the rich west that by the way in this system stay rich. The second solution sounds a bit final.
ste6666666 1 year ago
Let's say you are right and we take no action whatsoever just a continuance of what we have been doing. - but you turn out to be wrong on climate sensitivity...
What do you think we're looking at? All of what you mentioned and more, right?
The only solutions I propose is an orderly (though urgent) movement away from fossil fuels with big R&D money going to carbon sequestration
Regardless, population control WILL happen -- though rational efforts or nature itself
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Yes but the rations are being distributed unfairly in the West's favour. Your calling for this movement away from fossil fuels but it isn't happening as I stated with increased fossil fuel consumption. If Government was serious about Co2 reduction then surely immediate halt to fossil fuel consumption and replacement with more sustainable fuels such as alcohol, or hemp oil would ensue, strange that these substances are both banned. Oil is still being pumped out the sea, well sometimes
ste6666666 1 year ago
@BeondaPale In the REAL WORLD 2 conferences - Kyoto and Copenhagen - have achieved nothing. Do you ever wonder why, if scientists believe in AGW and pass this info on to politicians, nothing is done about it? The AGW line is that it is "the greatest threat to human existence". If this is true, why don't politicians do anything about it? And do you really believe the Chinese and the Indians care about pollution or CO2 and will spednd a single penny on it?
lewisner 1 year ago
Politicians do nothing because:
A. There is no such thing as long term thinking in politics (or, I suspect, within the human condition overall)
B. It necessarily means a reduction of their power and the power of the people and nation they represent. As such it would also be very unpopular.
C. They do not trust any other nation to do their part
D. AGW means that we as a species must slow our growth. Humans are not geared for this.
But none of this changes the REAL WORLD of AGW
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Except nothing will be done.So we'll get to find out whether AGW is true or not.
lewisner 1 year ago
@lewisner
You maybe right, I hope not.
People are one of three minds:
1. They are ignorant and genuinely don't see the need for change.
2. They are lemmings and see the cliff ahead but continue to cry "KEEP GOING!!!"
3. They see the need for change and work toward it
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
4.They find the argument unconvincing as a whole.
5.They think it is happening but also think it is being massively exaggerated.
lewisner 1 year ago
Comment removed
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@lewisner
Re: 4. See # 1
Again If it is false, one of the following would have to be false
1. CO2 retains infrared energy
2. Man has significantly increased the amount of CO2
3. The GHE exists and can become more or less prominent depending on the amount of its gasses within the atmosphere
None of these are false, So AGW MUST LOGICALLY BE TRUE
Re: 5 - So they necessarily believe that this massive experiment on the only atmosphere that sustains us should continue indefinitely - see #2
BeondaPale 1 year ago
GHE = Greenhouse effect
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You are talking what is known as a "False Dichotomy".This is an an argument beloved of Creationists i.e "if we can prove your argument false then ours wins by default".
The other arguments include 1) Man has an input to GW but it is minor.
2) Other factors come into play which we don't fully understand yet.
3) Man has a significant impact but the climate is a self correcting system.
4) Man has a low impact and the climate is still a self correcting system.
lewisner 1 year ago
(Continued) Or my favourite 5) It's the ultimate in human arrogance to think we could alter the climate of the entire planet even if it needed to be done,
.Search Youtube for "George Carlin Saving The Earth". George was a free thinker and as usual, nailed it.
lewisner 1 year ago
Not one person in the science has EVER suggested that we must alter the climate - unless you consider CEASING our CURRENT alteration of the climate altering it - a bizarre and dishonest argument
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale So you say we are currently altering it and yet nobody is suggesting we should alter it? Wow.
lewisner 1 year ago
Yes, that's correct - hard for you to understand?
Please try to follow:
We as a species did not intend to altered it. And yet we have.
AND
No one suggesting that we should do so now. Only that we should slowly discontinue that current unintentional alteration.
...No wow here - just plain english
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale " Only that we should slowly discontinue that current unintentional alteration.".WHICH WILL ALTER THEM FROM THEIR CURRENT STATE! Read the dictionary.
lewisner 1 year ago
@BeondaPale BTW from DictionaryReference "Alter –verb (used with object)
1.
to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course."
So you being loose with your defintion of the word. If something is in state "X" and you wish to change it to state "Y" you are altering it.
lewisner 1 year ago
And you are being dishonest. If you are currently altering something and stop doing so, it will no longer change EXCEPT ON ITS OWN. Therefore WE are not changing it
More total obviousness
BeondaPale 1 year ago
"if we can prove your argument false then ours wins by default"
I'm doing no such thing -
You have not addressed my argument in the slightest. but have moved to a seperate argument - climate sensitivity.
Again, none of the 3 things I posited are false, therefore AGW must logically be true - The DEGREE to which it is true is debatable and that is what you are addressing. It is nonetheless a separate discussion
If you would like we can debate that aspect of the science now
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale As far as i can tell you actually don't have an argument. Apart from instructing us u tubers as to the word natural and your argument that everything we do is natural, does this extend in any way, Do you accept everything natural that people do. Picking up on people's wording such as your use of the word Man to mean all people is well, to cut the BS not really clever or helpful either is setting sums you don't explain.
ste6666666 1 year ago
Does this extend in any way. Do you accept everything natural that people do.
The word natural has more than a dozen definitions - including definitions in music and color schemes.
IN SCIENCE the word natural can ONLY mean OF NATURE - the way YOU are using the word natural is in reference to morality with moral being natural and immoral being unnatural
So no it does not extend. You're just confusing two definitions of the same word
BeondaPale 1 year ago
No One deny's the EARTH is warming, the ICE is melting but the real evidence that its no the first time this has happened and the earth warmed up 10,000 ago, so lets just get rid of all the cars instead of taking the countries with a New World Order Carbon tax
ukbands 1 year ago
@ukbands We're actually approaching CO2 levels not seen in 15 million years. We are WELL beyond anything seen in the past 10k years.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@ukbands Honestly, if you watch this whole video and still believe there is no evidence that this is something of tremendous concern (as virtually all the scientists in this field are telling us) then you have other issues.
If you had cancer and 98 doctors told you to do chemo and two said you didn't need it, you are the person who would listen to the two.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@ukbands
No one denies the Earth is warming. Dude! Who do you think your lying too?
Trent1492 1 year ago
Pole shifting which was the same global warming from10,000 years ago
ukbands 1 year ago
Comment removed
rockinelle 1 year ago
Here is a graph of three data sets together. UAH, RSS (both satellite based) and direct surface measurements. They all agree. (Note: This data stops in 2009)
en . wikipedia . org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures . png
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@prikhod "we have such a difference in the worldview". Yes, robhoneycutt worldview is rational and prikhod is irrational.
remcovanek2 1 year ago
@remcovanek2: Yes, robhoneycutt worldview is rational and prikhod is irrational.
Thank you for settling the issue :) And you happened to be who? ... Exactly! Not much...
prikhod 1 year ago
The Spain story makes no sense at all. Why would they run projectors onto the solar arrays? The loss of energy through heat would be tremendous. They'd be better off just pushing the energy from the generator directly into the grid. And why would they do it at night when 1) demand is low anyway, and 2) when it would be obvious they shouldn't be generating a load?
The whole story smells rotten.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Yup, NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office are all in conspiracy. Yup. Sure. Of course. And the left wing stuff the publish in: Science, Nature, Scientific American. How can anyone believe that stuff? It's got charts and maths and it's hard. You know all those 145 IQs who studied for ten years somehow forgot that it was the sun. Because I read it in a blog that advertises hair removal products.
johnhaverysamuel 1 year ago
If you are a climate sceptic and you don't get payed you are a sucker
eurogoldexchange 1 year ago
@eurogoldexchange: I am a sucker :)
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod
You are a Dunning-Kruger self opinionated idiot.
pseudotruth 1 year ago
@pseudotruth: Right... the sky is falling, right, greentard? :) Stupid cocksucker!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod when all the evidence is stacked against you, go on the offensive. Perhpas if you rant and posture enough people won't notice how weak your position is.
hewhosits 1 year ago
@hewhosits: Right!
prikhod 1 year ago
And you just used the infamous hockey stick graph which is scientific invalid and have been proven to be purely fraud.
And your argument that so and so many believe in something do not make it real or true. Millions believe in God, but that do not prove that God exist nor does it validate the argument.
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Why lie? You are simply repeating long debunked falsehoods.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 If you believe that the hockey stick graph has any scientific merit you have a real problem. I bet you believe in Santa Claus, God and virgin births as well..
Do you actually have any idea of how the hockey stick graphs compriced and computated and how you are being manipulated?...
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
You really do not have a clue do you? Let me put it to you this way. The Hockey Stick has been replicated a dozen different times using different methods and proxies. Did you know any of what I just told you prior to my posting it to you just now? Let me say that again. A dozen different peer reviewed articles have found roughly the same thing. Can you name any of those studies. I can. Do you see now that you have been duped by the fossil fuel industry?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Can you name any of the pier review articles that actually shows that?
And you obviously do not know anything about statistics or science to say like you do. If you knew, you would shake you head at graph that drowns in statistical uncertainty.
I can in fact name the british scientist K. Briffa which research is the whole cornerstone of Manns hockey stick is total fraud. ANd Briffa did in fact pier review Manns work several times and co author some.You have no understanding of science
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Why yes I can name those peer reviewed studies. Allow me:
Huang, S.. "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future." Geophys. Res, Lett. 31, L13205, doi:10.1029/2004GL019781, 2004.
Huang, S., H.N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen. "Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures." Nature, Volume 403, pp. 756-758. 2000.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 You really are just as much a fraud like Mann and Briffa. You site: "Huang, S., H.N. Pollack, and P.-Y. Shen. "Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures." Nature, Volume 403, pp. 756-758. 2000" as an article that actually reconstrucs Mann hockey stick from the data he manipulated. ANd in fact is NOT a reconstruction nor a debunking of McIntyre and McKitrick work to expose Manns fraudulent science. You are a liar and I have exposed you.
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Oh, then it should be no problem for you to cite the appropiate passages that substantiate your position. Go ahead. What does Huang paper say on page 757? Go ahead, Tell us.
I also would like to note that you have now accused four scientist of fraud without substantiating any of it. I am sorry saying "but X is a fraud too" is not going to cut it.
Once again what data was manipulated? Name it. Be specific. Show us the peer reviewed article that substantiates your position.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 Your claim was more than 12 pier review articles the reproduced Manns hockey stick and refutes Steve McIntyres work, and then you produced a number of articles when I ask you to. But when I just pick one random article to see if it in fact does that it dosnt. The Huang article do not take all of Manns proxy and reproduces the hockey stick does? NOO. He take some proxys and fake the hockey stick by adding on fixed temperature data. Thats called manipulation.
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Not only are you a dishonest shill but one who suffers from reading comprehension problems. Try this again, the Hockey Stick has been reproduced using DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES and PROXIES. That makes the original findings even STRONGER. Why is it you can understand this?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492 And do you know what happend to Keith Briffa? The same Briffa that actually vrote most of the pier review to Manns articles and the official IPCC defense of Manns hockey stick. Do you know what happend to his work on the tree ring data from the Urals? Has that work been exposed as fraud? And had that work been removed from the UK CRU website. That pure and simple fraud.
You just throw around articles that dont demonstrate what you claim and support fraudulent science. Im done with you
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Why absolutely nothing happened to Keith Briffa. The only thing that happened to Keith Briffa is that he was the victim of a ineffective propaganda campaign. No one has found him guilty of academic misconduct or any other untoward behavior. Why do you feel so free to lie? You can easily find those datasets on the net to this day.
Again, why do you lie with such abandon?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT Reference Request Continued:
Moberg, A, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko, and W. Karlén, "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed from Low- and High-Resolution Proxy Data." Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613 - 617, 2005.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT Request Peer Reviewed Article Citation Continued:
Esper, J., E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber, "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability." Science, Volume 295, Number 5563, 22 March 2002, 2002.
Crowley, T.J. , "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years", Science, Volume 289: 270-277, July 14, 2000.
Plenty more to if you want. Now notice these peer reviewed cites using different proxies and methods.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
Respond to this video...
Other than Blogs and Fox news what peer reviewed empirically based data can you cite to substantiate you position. Now note I just substantiated my claims meeting that criteria can you? Now name the SPECIFIC data set and peer reviewed works you think are fraudulent. Name it. Exactly where was this fraud committed in those papers. Name it.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT Just in case you haven't heard, there was only one substantive rebuttal to Mann's hockey stick (McIntyre and McKitrick). But that rebuttal has been show to be inaccurate on a long list of issues. Subsequently nearly a dozen other proxy studies have been produced, all of which show nearly the same hockey stick.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt You clearly havent read Steve McIntyres work in any detail. I bet you also believe in God. Do you?
And do you know that the only thing most proxy studies shows is that you can not use them in any way shape or form to say anything with any certainty. Do you know the statistical uncertainty on your beloved hockey graph? How big is that and does it make any sence of using such a graph with that big of an uncertainty to conclude anything?
mYOzZyKaT 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT I'm an atheist but I don't that has any bearing on this issue.
I have read M&M and the rebuttals of it (have YOU read the rebuttals?). I absolutely know there are uncertainties associated with all forms of proxy records. What people like you continually miss is, you keep harping on there being a strong MWP period but that would be the worst possible result of any of the proxy studies. A strong MWP would suggest high climate sensitivity and that would mean we are truly screwed now!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT On top of that, you're completely missing the entire point of this video! It's not just about the hockey stick. It's about the thousands of other ways that we know climate change is happening. If this were all about Mann's hockey stick then I'd be as skeptical as anyone. I think Mann himself would be skeptical! But it's that we have more than ample evidence that shows that rising CO2 levels could have a devastating effect upon life on this planet in the coming centuries.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT
McIntyre's claims are bogus. He is an agent of the AGW denial industry.
The only thing he is really good at is QUOTE MINING!
Google Steve Mcintyre quote mining
pseudotruth 1 year ago
@pseudotruth: LOL! Here we go again... instead of addressing what McIntyre and McKitrick actually did, attack the messenger instead. "agent of the AGW denial industry" Do you even hear yourself?
They simply methodologically showed Mann's MBH98 to be bogus... and they were correct which is not in question now.
prikhod 1 year ago
@mYOzZyKaT The hockey stick has not been proven to be fraud. That is simply denialist propoganda. There are about a dozen 'hockey sticks' produced by different research teams, using different data sets and they all produce comparable graphs.
The scientific consensus is not based on the number of scientists - it is based on the multiple, converging lines of evidence.
hewhosits 1 year ago
Excellent video. Evidence is overwhelming. Well except for blind deaf and dumb types like prikhod. Unfortunately there are a lot of these noisy idiots.
Prikhood...Prick-Hood....Foreskin?
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
prikhod needs to stop relying on his broken BS detector and bogus global warming denial talking points and start making an effort to understand the science.
Until he does the rest of us need to ignore his efforts to spread misinformation and confusion.
exusian 1 year ago
@exusian: Don't you fucking get AGW is a POLITICAL issue, it has nothing to do with science or the planet. All those retards at Goddard Institute, NOAA, IPCC are fucking ACTIVISTS. Good thing at least one of the cocksuckers died a few days ago...
1970's Global Cooling - FAKE
1980's Acid Rain - FAKE
1980's Ozone Layer Hole - FAKE
1990's Deforestation - FAKE
2000's Plastic in the Pacific - FAKE
BUT this time Global Warming is true :)
RIGHT :)
Stop being a stupid sheep
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod The true denier. Any scientist who disagrees with me is an activist. Never an actual fact when an insult is all you're capable of.
70s Global cooling: never a big scientific issue. More scientists were talking about Global Warming.
80s: Acid Rain: Real and too an extent dealt with.
80s: Ozone Layer: Real and still an issue although Montreal Protocol helped slow growth.
90s: Deforestation: Real. Part of why there is global warming
00s: Plastic in Ocean: Real and in need of dealing with.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
LOL!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod
I am intimidated by your unimaginative use of swear words. Not. Hold it. Maybe if I swear really hard the fact that British Isles have had vineyards CONTINUOUSLY since the Roman era will go away. Let me see:
Fuck You! You Limey piece of shit vineyard!
Eat Shit! You Nigel name bearing Viticulturist poofer!
Nope. I am afraid those facts are still stubbornly there. Have you thought of trying rational thought?
Trent1492 1 year ago
@Trent1492: Good 4 u buddy! Enjoy your Jesus...
my bad Gaia religion
don't bother me you "no money" monkey, k?
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod
All your claims are bogus, so stop lying.
pseudotruth 1 year ago
@pseudotruth: Interesting statement... Hwo shall I put it? ... Hmmmm. FUCK YOU, commiescum!
prikhod 1 year ago
Thank you for this informative summary.
sayitaintsoulful 1 year ago
You need to revise this to actually get people interested. The human race is going to die off within a handful of generations (or sooner) if things don't change. I'D SAY that is important to state RIGHT OFF THE BAT. People have very short attention spans. Spice this up and smack people in the face, or no one will pay any attention at all.
MazeleyFanClub 1 year ago
@MazeleyFanClub. LOL! Good to know you're on a bullshit diet, that you're obviously consuming with a spoon.
prikhod 1 year ago
If people don't "get it", after listening to and watching this, then they should be immediately checked for a pulse.
This is so much more than a compelling argument about the facts of global warming.
It is an urgent warning from a respected scientist.
If we, as planet, take action and Dr. Powell and his worldwide colleagues are wrong, we will have spent some money making the world a better place and created some new economies and jobs, all sorely needed.
There's no downside to this bet.
laurielovesjohn 1 year ago
Have no argument? No problem, use "argument from authority", which BTW is a LOGICAL FALLACY!
33 Science Academies? Really? Is this why Russian Academy of Sciences advised Putin not to participate in Kyoto?
Oh no... the hockey stick again!!! Even IPCC's own AR4 from 2007 didn't even mention that graph!
You're a joke!
prikhod 1 year ago
Comment removed
ConservatoryTV 1 year ago
@ConservatoryTV: Does name calling and personal attacks represent the pinnacle of your brain function, greentard?
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod Yes, you're right and I apologise. Not one of my finest hours. But, I guess I get so angry and irritated when people ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence when it is presented to them and are offensive. You have called the person who went to great lengths to produce this video a 'joke'. Whereas, I'm quite confident that you are not a climate scientist so you really are not in a position to make that statement, are you?
ConservatoryTV 1 year ago
@ConservatoryTV: I am NOT a climate scientist, but let me tell you something. I am also NOT a web developer, neither did I take marketing. Having said that I have a thriving business utilizing the very things I never took in school.
What I'm trying to say is that shit I hear HAS to make SENSE. CO2 scare does NOT. This is not new, people have been scaremongered into shit time and time again. What I hear "the sky is falling", i get very suspicious. And for a good reason.
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod I think you may have been fed incorrect information, which is not your fault. There's a lot of misinformation about climate science which may have confused you and led you to worry that the sky is falling in. Try watching some of Potholer54 or Greenman3610's videos which may help you. Also, the website SkepticalScience has lots of information which may help you come to terms with your scepticism. I hope this helps.
ConservatoryTV 1 year ago
@ConservatoryTV: While I appreciate you trying to help me through misinformation that I've "obviously" have been the victim of.... so for that thank you... I used to be an environmentalist, I used to believe in Global Warming, BAD BAD humanity for destroying the planet and other things like that... NO MORE
I have read the emails and I am not cool with the content, NO MATTER who says what. There is no consensus, there are plenty of respectable scientists who disagree with IPCC's findings... tbc
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod
You used to an environmentalist and I used to be a Don for the Mafia. Yea, that's it,...
Trent1492 1 year ago