AGW is a failed theory. The Ryal Met said just announced no warming since 1997.
Moreover, the next solar cycle will be the lowest in 300 years, which meansthatglobal temps from 2014 will continue to decline and when solar cycle 25 starts, Earths temps will fall for 30 years wiping out ALL the natural warming all the hoaxers were so"worried" about.
If you still believe in this hoax, you're extremely naive... It's junk science.
lol, global warming has been debunked...also nasa tells us exactly what the government want us to know, everyone knows that. nasa is about as credible as onion news
All these videos should be archived and no one should be allowed to remove them.
We may have been programmed by our local indoctrination institution to accept that cow farts are killing the planet but some of us that did the independent research into the people involved and uncovered the truth should be able to look back at how we defeated this lie and laugh.
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post ]
website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
10 degrees fahenheit in 2080 haha. Who will win this years Grand National? that is a lot easier to deduce than climate. Many scientists now think that the climate will cool for the next 30 years.
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today than yesterday?
Damn it because we are at fault, you right wing nut jobs should really listen to the politicians that say we are at fault not the scientists and meteorologists that say it is a natural cycle.
@atgskater14 your brainwashed and ignorant you foolish person, do your own research into climatatology, learn and educate yourself otherwise lest ye be a part of the flock...Baaaa
Not only are you stupid, but your brainwashed too. It's true I'm a fiscal conservative but I'm much more a libertarian than a republican. I believe that they government should be the hell out of my life. If I want to drive my car without a seatbelt? If I want to smoke a joint? I want the government out of my life. Period. The last person I will ever listen to is a politician. They have better interest in mind but they are never my better interest. Wake the hell up.
@n5ifi : In 1970 the word Recycle was not on the minds of everyone the way it is today. The reality is that we as a people have changed a great deal. We have altered our way of living to help the environment.
When I was younger I remember first hearing of recycled paper. No on wanted it. They considered it an inferior product to "regular" paper. Today, Recycled paper is all my office uses.
Yes, this is overblown, but in reality, where would we be had we not acted?
In 1975, the Environmental Fund warned" The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Doomsayers have always been wrong.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
Lets boycott the environmental movement. I am in favor of building more power plants using coal. I am in favor of drilling for more oil. I am in favor of expanding corporations. I am in favor of exploiting the earths resources for the good of man and not the earth. Eventually the earth will recover and the human race will have changed but for now, the earth just has to deal with us.
The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain: )
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
@BeondaPale You ARE a fool and here's why: you commented,"Feces is also a natural bi-product of human life, but it would not be beneficial to have 40% more of it in the world" The truth is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 40% MORE of anything in the world because in this world the Earth does not loose or gain anything and nothing is misplaced. The Earth is the greatest recycling program. Even that stack of shit that you call your body is not your own...You and I both belong to the Earth. SHILL
"The truth is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 40% MORE of anything in the world because in this world the Earth does not loose or gain anything and nothing is misplaced."
Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?
@BeondaPale You commented:"Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?" Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday. Co2=Plants=Oxygen/Food=BeondaPale=Propoganda...See, it's recycled. Shill
"Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday."
True - BUT - Right now there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels over the last 180 years - this amount is growing. This increase has definite consequences
@BeondaPale HAARP is a 3 million watt microwave oven but that cannot possibly influence the weather? And Chemtrail reflective Aluminum spraying program cannot possibly trap solar energy in the atmosphere? NOT! The truth is your foolish pride will repress any logical alternative explanation to abnormal weather patterns. You are a classic case of DENIAL! SHILL!
@BeondaPale Go into your kitchen and put a bag of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn in your MICROWAVE OVEN and push start, and presto you have just changed the climate inside the bag of popcorn. Now calculate that same example multiplied by 3 million watts. Duh! Not to mention the more cell phones and radio waves that are broadcast everyday.
@BeondaPale I told you, Co2 was Chosen to blame for global warming because it is invisible and beyond natural human detection and you and I cannot account for the amounts we generate. It is a big scam, but don't worry there will be a Carbon Market for the big corporations to avoid having to modify their practices and still continue their current Co2 production. Scam!
@BeondaPale That's a good strategy, deni the existance of microwave enery. Those cell phones and micro-ovens are just spooky and mysterious magical pheonomina. Oh boy, we got a real live one here! Ha! What a Fool!
@BeondaPale I have to take a break for awile, I have to drive my 1970'S v8 powered chevy with no catalitic converters to the post office. After that I need to cut down an oak tree and burn all the wood for no reason at all. (Just kidding about the tree, but not the v8)
@alltvisanimated loook at how many birds fish crab lobster and penguins have died in 2011 and 2 days before 2011 all that is because the temperature was so cold and got so cold so fast and the did tests water tempertature hasnt been this low in some areas of eastern u.s i n over 25 years
@BeondaPale Do you remember in November 2008 when Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said never let a good crisis go to waste? This is the logic behind Global Warming Crisis, only the crisis is a FRAUD.
"Estimates of both sea surface temperatures in the subtropical North Atlantic from sediment cores and tree rings from Scandinavia and Eastern China imply unusually warm conditions only during the 11th and early 12th centuries."
@BeondaPale You really need to stop drinking the Flourinated Public Water Supply. It drops your IQ by 20% and makes you more likely to believe anything by making you more docile and gullable. But you will probably just think this yet another conspiracy theory.
@BeondaPale You commented:"Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?" Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday. Co2=Plants=Oxygen/Food=BeondaPale=Propoganda...See, it's recycled. Shill
@BeondaPale If you are SO concerned with the elevated amount of Co2 in the world then why don't you just hold your breathe...the rest of us won't mind...I guarentee it.
I will asume that you are totally ignorant to the existance of Chemtrails and you are nervously typing the word "Chemtrails" into the youtube search box to enlighten your narrow little mind.
@BeondaPale So you subscribe to the loony notion that harmless and invisible Co2 is trapping solar energy in the atmosphere, but when there is an actual military weather modifaction program such as Chemtrails right in front of your fucking eyes all of a sudden it becomes a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that BeondaPale is a shill.
@alltvisanimated BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :(
"So you subscribe to the loony notion that harmless and invisible Co2 is trapping solar energy in the atmosphere"
CO2 is harmless ONLY in the right concentrations that it is invisible is irrelevant at 10% it will kill people directly via suffocation
This science is clear - Now if you lay out a RATIONAL and LOGICAL argument based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE regarding chemtrails and or HAARP I will take it seriously - until then you will continue to look like a loony
Yeah, I used to be one of those so called "EnviroMENTAList" but then I realized that the movement had been highjacked by the globalists. The globalists saw the potential energy that was stored in the green movement and they began to subtlely over time divert the blame to the invisible Co2 and condition the movement to worship the global warming religion. By burdening the common people through regulation and bullshit the elitists will maintain their "class security" at the expense of our liberty
Any proposed solution to a problem differs fundamentally from the problem it proposes to solve
The FACT that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy is not religious in any way
The FACT that man has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40% since the beginning of the the industrial revolution is also NOT connected to a belief in the supernatural
- this has been today's statements of the totally fricken obvious
@BeondaPale Oh and how about HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program)? Does your scope of intillect encompass such an existance as the HAARP program? How does your science apply HAARP and Chemtrails to your Co2 causes Global Warming Scenario? Oh, I can't wait to hear this one.
@MrAl3005 I refuse to be declared guilty of a crime that I have no human ability to apply a reasonable and logical cross examination to. Such accusations are designed to put people on the defensive against the indefensible. Humans are only capable of using their five senses of sight, hearing, tasting, smelling and feeling. These senses fail to detect the presence or absence of the all too ellusive Co2. The Devil is in the details and you are following his counterfiet religion.
@BeondaPale Science or Theory or Phylosophy of Law? I am talking about preserving ones individual right to reasonable doubt and innocence until proven guilty. You must be one of those nieve submissive types? Your thoughts have been cultivated over time to worship and idolize your precious global warming religion. You have past the point of no return and become too emotionally attached and won't let go. Your foolish benevolence will cost many their freedoms to coexist with nature.
@BeondaPale First of all, Science IS Theory and Law IS Philosophy. Your entire logic is NOT the result of your own investigations, but instead it is the result of paranoid insecurity. You have been prescribed your so called science by those who tell you that it exists. You are loyal to a THEORY and it is your foolish denial that keeps you believing. You have allowed others to narrowly define and limit your thoughts, they have disarmed your desire to question the pre-selected outcome.
@BeondaPale You are one dimensional and are incapable of the creative thought proccess that is required to attend any honest debate regarding the religion of global warming. Therefore you have been deemed unfit for this debate and will no longer command a response from me and you will be ignored from now on...bye...bye.
"You are one dimensional and are incapable of the creative thought proccess that is required to attend any honest debate regarding the religion of global warming."
OR
YOU are incapable of a SCIENTIFIC discussion about SCIENCE.
"Therefore you have been deemed unfit for this debate and will no longer command a response from me and you will be ignored from now on...bye...bye."
Good bye and thanks for all the fish oh king of the moron people. Oh and good luck in La La land!!
"You have allowed others to narrowly define and limit your thoughts"
PURE BS
"they have disarmed your desire to question the pre-selected outcome. "
Please give a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a pre-selected outcome and show how and when it was pre-selected. You won't, because you can't, because you are full of crap AGAIN
The global warming problem is a well thought out "CREATION". Co2 was "SELECTED" to be the culprate behind global warming because of it's invisible and ellusive characteristics. The detection Co2 is beyond your natural human capabilities therefore making individual accountability impossible. This newley created global warming religion will be used by the corporate overlords to manipulate and condemn the common people by regulating their everyday human activities.DisasterCapitalism
Blah, Blah, Blah. The planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for thousands of years. Some people just want to have something important to live for so they irrationally get all caught up in such things and in the process link it to their esteem then they really become irrational. Blah, Blah, Blah
Finally, as ludicrously implausible as a 6C warming is (even the IPCC itself is predicting less than half that) it would still be far from an agricultural catastrophe. The current average global temperature is 54F. That rise would take it to 64F, and actually *increase* the amount of arable land available for farming. Sure, some areas currently in use would become unsuitable ... but hundreds of millions of acres that are now TOO COLD to farm would no longer be so.
If that MIT study is correct, why is it that past periods in earth's history in which CO2 levels were far, far higher than we're expected to see by 2100 never saw such runaway warming? The answer is simple. Climate is a complex dynamic system governed primarily by negative feedbacks, not positive. The idea that one simple equation (5.35ln(C/C0) can accurately predict future temperatures is laughable.
Model results are not reality: a model can be relied upon only if its been shown to have predictive ability.
Here in the real world, the last 4 years have seen cold record temperatures set nearly 3X as often as hot ... just today the Swedish press announced they're expecting the coldest winter in 100 years. Places ranging from China, South Korea, to Argentina to Florida to Iraq have all had record cold weather recently.
I'd also like to ask that, if environmentalists truly thought we were facing a catastrophe, why do they fight so hard the one energy source that's not only practical and available today, but generates no CO2 emissions whatsoever-- nuclear power?
What's ironic is that eco-facists- by killing off the nuclear power industry in the 1970s and 80s - have done more to increase global emissions than all the world's oil companies combined.
By simply extending modern agricultural techniques to the 3rd World, global food output is expected to rise nearly 300%. But modern agriculture improves every year-- higher yield strains, better fertilizers and pesticides. And genetic engineering promises to revolutionize agriculture yet again. With the technology available by 2100, we can feed the world population on less than 1/10 the land in use today.
Despite 150 years of "global warming", agricultural output continues to rise each and every year. In 1900, US corn production averaged 20 bushels/acre. In 1960, it was 60 bushels/acre. Today, it's nearly 150 ... and the scientists who actually grow food are predicting 300 bushels/acre within 40 more years. Today, we feed 300 million people on LESS farmland than we used in 1900, to feed 100 million.
Actually, its being driven both by agricultural technology, as well as increased CO2 (studies have shown that grain production has increased by anywhere from 5-15% as as result of higher atmospheric CO2 -- enough extra food to food several hundred million people).
The important point is that agricultural technology is continuing to increase, meaning, food output will also. In the future, we'll grow far more food on far less land than we do today.
"Actually, its being driven both by agricultural technology, as well as increased CO2 (studies have shown that grain production has increased by anywhere from 5-15% as as result of higher atmospheric CO2 -- enough extra food to food several hundred million people)."
I agree, but you should admit that this can not be sustained into even the short term future (100 years)
"agricultural technology is continuing to increase, meaning, food output will also."
On the contrary, increases in food production and agricultural technology will continue significantly longer than the next 100 years. Those scientists who actually produce food estimate that US grain production yields will increase another 40-50% in just the next 50 years
The Third World is using primarily 19th century agriculture. Bringing them up to US technology alone will nearly triple world food production, even without assuming further advances.
(12/302010) British press: "Record cold kills 60+ across Europe"
At least 60 people have died across Europe during the current cold snap...Seventeen people died in Central Europe in the last 24 hours from the cold, bringing the total this week to 45. A further 11 died in Russia, plus four in France and Germany...
30 people have died in Poland in the past week, and temperatures dropped to minus 15 degrees Celsius...
Temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius in Scotland...
Can you spell "fearmongering"? How about "Chicken Little"? Or better yet- "fraud". The notion that we're all going to starve from minor temperature changes is without even a shred of factual basis.
Currently we grow food everywhere from the Saharan desert to Alaska. Courtesy of irrigation, flood, control, and modern technology, our biggest problem today is too much food, not too little.
"CO2 is a trace gas. Water vapor has 200 times more molecules and each is 7X better at absorbing IR energy, making 1400 X the heating effect or 99.9% of all atmospheric heating."
Environmental debate heats up; global warming is melting away
by James H. Shott
China daily
Data show that the Earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term “global warming” with “climate change,” using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
CO2 is a trace gas. Water vapor has 200 times more molecules and each is 7X better at absorbing IR energy, making 1400 X the heating effect or 99.9% of all atmospheric heating.
Coal and oil make 80% of our energy. The control of carbon will transfer more political/economic power than anything in history.
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of abundance: Europe was awash with grain. Vikings were grazing sheep in Greenland, but the AGW promoters tell us a 2 degree increase would end the world
@ttowntom "99.9% of all atmospheric heating" Nope, nice try. Water Vapor = 36 to 72% of the greenhouse effect CO2 = 9 to 26% Methane = 4 – 9% Ozone = 3 – 7% All depending on geography and altitude SOURCE (and I note YOU DON'T USE SOURCES - why is that?): Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (1997). "Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197–208. Better luck next time!!
• Google "Vita Europe radical activism is back" Greenpeace UK members shut down British Petroleum's carbon trading website. They know the solution of Cap and Trade for Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam and is being pushed by the very same Oil and other Corporations Global warmers lie and claim they despise.
Input into youtube "The Story of Cap and Trade" watch the video
Nasa is run by the gov't. What does the gov't push? Carbon taxes. These guys study space. They are just using NASA's good name for disinformation. I think it is pretty obvious that Gov't has it's own agenda and lies to us everyday based on what they want us to think and do. Go look at a real climatetologists data and you will see co2 has a miniscule effect on temperature. I do believe however we are poisoning our planet. I just don't like supporting the NWO's agenda as it is bad for us.
NASA's modeling is interesting, however, it is also fatally flawed. Earlier temperature readings culminated from some global data beginning in 1931 does not stand up to the technology in sophisticated temperature recordings via satellites we have today. Such possibilities were unavailable during the first quarter of the 20th century. Therefore, a few base ground temperatures from the 1930s through the 1970s were added to NASA's model, rendering it incomplete and, essentially, unreliable.
Let the world collapse, let the world of human life crumble away as we all are careless and ignorant about the earth and only care about money and waterproof tampons..
The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?
1) The graph at 2:26, what do the colors represent? 1 degree? 0.5 degrees? A millionth of a degree?
2) Assuming blue is cold, 1932 is cold. 1947 is hot. 1962 is warm. 1977 cold. Etc. Looks like a normal climate model.
3) The sun cycles through hot periods and low periods. 80 years isn't enough to show this. You need at least 1000 years, and the only way to get that are ice core samples. Samples like Vostok.
1) They are talking about how the Earth is warming. What do you expect the color to represent? I'm wondering what difference between red and blue is, in degrees.
2) How do you know what my education is? Stalker.
3) Um, reference to that statement? The sun produces all the heat on earth, so yeah, it's a pretty big factor in warming.
1) I'm assuming red is hotter, meaning bad. Blue is cold and white is neutral. Still, I'd like it to be a little more scientific besides blue good, red bad. Can't find what the measurements are.
2) Good to know. I'll sleep better.
3) The point is it's a rather BIG factor, I'm not saying it's the only factor.
@BeondaPale10 degrees farenheit in 70 years? Wow, talk about a let down. Thats only 3/4 of a degree Celsius a decade. We have enough available oil to last us 40-50 years. That means 3.1-3.9 degrees which is if the warming trend is linear(which it's not, the most warming will be in the later years, meaning this temperature change will be lower)
PS: Looking at that site, I still have not found how much of an increase is shown on the video. Can you point it out for me please? I might have missed it
I said you should CONTACT them or find the studies on Google scholar.
And redo that unbelievably simple math problem you just got wrong - 10 degrees in 70 is the equivalent of 1.43 degrees per decade - you inverted it
Also check the simple logic you just flubbed - if the warming trend is NOT linear (and you just admitted that it's not and that most of the warming will be in the later years - more of a J curve or exponential), how to you figure that the temperature change will be lower?
1) I converted it into Celsius, because I am Canadian
2) If we run out of fossil fuel in 40 years, only the first part of the J-curve must be taken into effect. I think NASA is a little smarter than to forget exponential growth. Remember, the second half will ALWAYS be larger than the first half ON A J-CURVE graph.
3) Again, the temp will be lower because you only have to look at the first 40 out of 70 years on those estimates, the lower half of the J-curve
Nope, still wrong, though closer - A 5.8 degrees Celsius over 70 years is .83 per decade - not .75 degrees.
You may think that a 5.8 degree change over 70 years is negligible - but it is unprecedented in at least the last million years and it is disastrous from a biological diversity standpoint.
@BeondaPale 10 degrees ferenheit. It's a difference instead of a temperature, so to convert it's 10 f * (5 / 9) = 5.55556 Celsius. It's a difference so you don't put in the -32 before the equation. Devided by 7 decades gives you .793 a decade, so I just rounded to 3/4.
A million years is nothing in terms of life. In fact, if it weren't for humans cutting down all the forests for farmland, life would flourish from a temperature and CO2 increase.
You're right, a change of 10 degrees over a million years would mean nothing.
But a 10 degree change over 70 years is disastrous from a biological diversity standpoint. that kind of evolutionary pressure is just too intense for diversity as we know it
@BeondaPale 1) I screwed up. I did not mean a change over 1 million years is nothing. I was referring to you saying the change in temperature "is unprecedented in at least the last million years". That really isn't saying much.
2) Yes, such an increase would hurt the ecosystem, but not as much as you would think. Evolution happens in the generations and generations for most creatures are much smaller than humans.
Regarding #2 - As you have not lived for 1 million years, how can you possibly have any certainty AT ALL about a such a big change in such a short time span in the interlinking global system of climates?
#2 seems like an incredibly arrogant statement to me
@BeondaPale I'm assuming the arrogant statement is my talk on evolution. In fact, there are plenty of models on youtube made to bash creationist that support this. The faster the reproduction cycle of a species, the faster they can change. If most species live around 10 years and have multiple generations of offspring, then most species, by deductive logic, will adapt very fast. The only creatures that wouldn't adapt fast enough is anything that has a small population or have long lifespans.
@BeondaPale As most populations are usually quite large, most species will be fine. Most species have also adapted to humans encroachment already, and have birth rates between 6-14 and can reproduce multiple times in one lifetime. The only creatures that would be affected by a 70 year change would be creatures with VERY low numbers (like tigers and pandas) or are very weak to change (some species of coral).
It's been nice talking to you. I'll hear back when you read this I guess.
@fcukedupguy As I think I said before, it about more than about population dynamics. Humans and other species depend on each other in countless ways. the current thinking on evolution differs markedly from Darwin's original outline in that it now includes inter-species cooperation.
The ailing honeybee is a but one of literally countless of examples. Humans live in a lattice of life. It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to pull on strings when you don't know what you're doing.
@BeondaPale I agree, but the strings have already been pulled, and according to the theory of MMGW, it's been pulled since ww2. Trying to fix it is like trying to put the strings back by banging them with your forehead, it will hurt and accomplish nothing. You need to find a solution that has the least cost and the most reward. Grinding the economy with carbon tax would accomplish nothing but let China and India produce more to compensate. And they have worse things as waste than carbon dioxide.
Only no one is suggesting we reweave the lattice (you're right, we couldn't if we tried) - just that we put measures into place to stop the continuing damage we are doing to it.
The problem is, if MMGW is true, then the question becomes whether the economical impact would be worth it. Unless you completely take humans out of the picture, you'd just be delaying the inevitable.
You would also need to make sure we don't start dumping other chemicals into the air. I personally think that CO2 isn't a problem, even if global warming is true. At least, compared to the heavy metals, toxins and synthetic fertilizers out there.
@BeondaPale the end result is the same, whether it's 50 years or a thousand years. I never said it's a sound strategy and I'm too tired to think of any ideas that are non-pessimistic tonight.
Still, we would be able to use the resources spent on carbon control for something much more important, like developing third world countries.
In you're "delaying the inevitable" argument, I hope you see that you are using the exact same kind of rationalization that a badly addicted chain smoker (or any kind of totally hooked addict) uses.
"I know I'm doing damage to my body, but it's too late, I've already done too much damage. It doesn't matter, everyone dies of something. it's just to hard to quit"
@BeondaPale nah, the debate was getting boring so I decided to start an argument.
Prevention is good. Stopping it now is also good. Pretending you can just stop and everything goes back to normal is a big mistake.
The best analog to describe this is a car break. If you want to stop, you apply the break. The car's momentum still carries it forward, and you don't stop immediately. It's not a question of how important it is or how much you want to break, your still going to hit granny.
@BeondaPale You have not lived for 1 million years either. We can, however, look at bacteria, which has a lifespan of several minutes, which we do live. We can then see how well the bacteria survives to, say, a 10 degree change over four life cycles, to estimate how other species will adapt.
@BeondaPale Actually, evolutionary change is based on percentage. A species can only change so much. But a larger, more complex creature has more to change than a single bacteria. Also, the time line for the experiment I was proposing was in "LIFE TIMES" meaning that it can apply to all animals. I only used bacteria because we can see the effect in a very short amount of time. 70 years is about four life cycles for most animals, therefor it's comparable.
And why do you assume that if we were to suddenly stop using fossil fuel in 40 years, you only have to look at the first 40 out of 70 years on the estimates?
Even If we stopped using them today - the temps would continue to rise (though at a lower rate) into the far foreseeable future
@BeondaPale if we stop using fossil fuels, the CO2 levels will stop climbing. Since the 10 degrees over 70 years is based on CO2 emissions, the temperature rise past the point we cut our emissions is inaccurate and a new model would have to be created.
the CO2 levels might stop climbing - But the temperature wouldn't (though you're right, we would have to change estimates as to how much it might change)
Btw, you're wrong about fossil fuels running out. Companies (and countries) are already talking about tapping methane hydrate reserves (which are HUGE - WAY bigger than coal and oil) .
Also the rise in temps already occurring will release methane, which in turn will increase the warming.
@BeondaPale refresh your page. I wasn't talking about ALL the fossil fuel. I was talking about AVAILABLE fuel, meaning cheap. Your talking about RESERVE fuel which is the deep fuel which could (yes) last us hundreds of years. Still, we can't get to those as easily and the price would climb to points that solar and wind power would be cheap enough to invest in.
You assume too much - Plentiful usually automatically mean cheap. I hope you're right about solar - but there are still technological hurdles
Meanwhile, Japan has built the world's largest research drilling ship, the Chikyu, primarily to study methane hydrate and India recently invested 200 million euros to launch a major national program to study it -- and has already reported successes.
@BeondaPale There is plenty of iron in the asteroid belt in between Mars and Jupiter. Just try and get to it. If you can't reach it, it really isn't an available resource. Most Methane Hydrate reserves are mostly located (if I'm correct) in cold climates such as tundras, under large mountain chains like Tibet or under large sediment layers 120 fathoms underwater.
@BeondaPale Harder than you'd think, especially if you need to drill into bedrock as well. Just look what happened with BP. They won't be doing that quite as Gun-Ho as they used to. (That gives you time to make and market a good solar panel)
I agree it would be hard. And I hope you're right about solar being competitive, but right now it's mere speculation on both our parts. However, like oil with so much available and so much profit to be made, people will find a way.
@BeondaPale we wouldn't run out of fuel in 40 years. We would run out of AVAILABLE fuel, meaning the fuel that is cheap and easy to get to. We would still have reserves, but those would be expensive enough that alternative energy will be economically viable and would replace fossil fuel.
For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....
what about factors like solar activity? everyone blames CO2 for the rise in tempature, but why not blame the rise in tempature for the rise of CO2. back in the 60's there was a gloable cooling scare.
blaming it all on the sun (the only real source of heat on earth, ever) doesn't bring in the research dollars needed to fund the lavish life styles of corporate bigwigs (such as the head of greenpeace,WWF,PETA, anyone who advertises constantly on your television about how climate chance has affected the lives of squirrels, bears, seals, bats, frogs, gophers,_________ fill in the blank)
It's amazing how people (not the climate) have changed in my short life of 35 years.
AGW is a failed theory. The Ryal Met said just announced no warming since 1997.
Moreover, the next solar cycle will be the lowest in 300 years, which meansthatglobal temps from 2014 will continue to decline and when solar cycle 25 starts, Earths temps will fall for 30 years wiping out ALL the natural warming all the hoaxers were so"worried" about.
If you still believe in this hoax, you're extremely naive... It's junk science.
samuraiconservative 1 day ago
lol, global warming has been debunked...also nasa tells us exactly what the government want us to know, everyone knows that. nasa is about as credible as onion news
chopin999 1 month ago
the system used is highly accurate.helpful way to predict catastrophe ahead. Global warming is happening!
happinesson 2 months ago
All these videos should be archived and no one should be allowed to remove them.
We may have been programmed by our local indoctrination institution to accept that cow farts are killing the planet but some of us that did the independent research into the people involved and uncovered the truth should be able to look back at how we defeated this lie and laugh.
LastCynicStanding 4 months ago
bullshit
batmandeltaforce 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fred Bailey has discovered the underlying nataural mechanism that regulates Sunspot production and Climate Change, there is a connection between them but Sunspots have nothing to do with Climate Change, Google solarchords and you will see for yourself
howardsway782 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on by Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. WE NEED IT NOW. The source is deuterium from the World’s Oceans – virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce."..could cost as little as 0.9c per kilowatt" See blog "the Big Picture by Andrew Horvath" July 01 post ]
website “Star Scientific Limited”
Youtube video – “In the Footsteps of Fusion” + youtube channel
2110kop 6 months ago
What is he regarding to be "Greenhouse gases? It cant be carbon as its presence is very small.
1Knowledgeable 9 months ago
10 degrees fahenheit in 2080 haha. Who will win this years Grand National? that is a lot easier to deduce than climate. Many scientists now think that the climate will cool for the next 30 years.
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444 i hope so because its getting kinda hot
Mylovekori0 8 months ago
@Mylovekori0 Not here! what Planet is that?
david222444 8 months ago
@Mylovekori0 Not here! what Planet is that? a Maunder minimum has been predicted here ( no computer model used, just human intellect.)
david222444 8 months ago
In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of man made global cooling and the threat of an ice age, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?
When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome?
Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct today than yesterday?
n5ifi 1 year ago
@n5ifi
Damn it because we are at fault, you right wing nut jobs should really listen to the politicians that say we are at fault not the scientists and meteorologists that say it is a natural cycle.
atgskater14 1 year ago
@atgskater14 your brainwashed and ignorant you foolish person, do your own research into climatatology, learn and educate yourself otherwise lest ye be a part of the flock...Baaaa
Solnce39 10 months ago
@atgskater14
Not only are you stupid, but your brainwashed too. It's true I'm a fiscal conservative but I'm much more a libertarian than a republican. I believe that they government should be the hell out of my life. If I want to drive my car without a seatbelt? If I want to smoke a joint? I want the government out of my life. Period. The last person I will ever listen to is a politician. They have better interest in mind but they are never my better interest. Wake the hell up.
n5ifi 10 months ago
@n5ifi I think he is joking.
zoogle1 10 months ago
@n5ifi : In 1970 the word Recycle was not on the minds of everyone the way it is today. The reality is that we as a people have changed a great deal. We have altered our way of living to help the environment.
When I was younger I remember first hearing of recycled paper. No on wanted it. They considered it an inferior product to "regular" paper. Today, Recycled paper is all my office uses.
Yes, this is overblown, but in reality, where would we be had we not acted?
mashamatt 1 year ago
@n5ifi hear hear, well said
Solnce39 10 months ago
In 1975, the Environmental Fund warned" The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Doomsayers have always been wrong.
n5ifi 1 year ago
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
n5ifi 1 year ago
Lets boycott the environmental movement. I am in favor of building more power plants using coal. I am in favor of drilling for more oil. I am in favor of expanding corporations. I am in favor of exploiting the earths resources for the good of man and not the earth. Eventually the earth will recover and the human race will have changed but for now, the earth just has to deal with us.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
PrairleDogged 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairleDogged
"In the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists"
Yep - the subgroup that studies climate SPECIFICALLY
Like asking dentists about teeth rather than asking podiatrists about teeth
You clowns are hilarious AND pathetic
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
The amount of times you put your foot in your big mouth miss "± is not a margin of error" perhaps the podiatrist is the correct choice.
PrairleDogged 1 year ago
@PrairleDogged
You say something stupid, then attack me
LOL - par for the course
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )BeondaPale cannot explain: )
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alltvisanimated
BeondaPale DOES NOT NEED to explain the benifits (sic) of these programs - they are irrelevant to the issue at hand
It's very simple - If close to 7 billion people burn stuff to get energy there will be consequences.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Before you condemn Co2 as the cause of Climate Change you must consider other intentional weather modification programs like Chemtrails and HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program). These are man made weather modification weapons that are being used to secretly infuence the science theory behind global warming in order to enforce the Climate Change Religion and Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. BeondaPale cannot explain the benifits of these programs: )
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"Demonize Co2 that is the natural bi-product of human life. "
Feces is also a natural bi-product of human life, but it would not be beneficial to have 40% more of it in the world
Again you irrationally confuse RELIGION (the belief in the supernatural) with SCIENCE (the study of the natural world via observation)
It's very simple - If close to 7 billion people burn stuff to get energy there will be consequences.
This LOGIC is not based on anything but FACTS
Sorry
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You ARE a fool and here's why: you commented,"Feces is also a natural bi-product of human life, but it would not be beneficial to have 40% more of it in the world" The truth is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 40% MORE of anything in the world because in this world the Earth does not loose or gain anything and nothing is misplaced. The Earth is the greatest recycling program. Even that stack of shit that you call your body is not your own...You and I both belong to the Earth. SHILL
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"The truth is that there is NO SUCH THING AS 40% MORE of anything in the world because in this world the Earth does not loose or gain anything and nothing is misplaced."
Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale You commented:"Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?" Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday. Co2=Plants=Oxygen/Food=BeondaPale=Propoganda...See, it's recycled. Shill
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday."
True - BUT - Right now there is 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans burning fossil fuels over the last 180 years - this amount is growing. This increase has definite consequences
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale HAARP is a 3 million watt microwave oven but that cannot possibly influence the weather? And Chemtrail reflective Aluminum spraying program cannot possibly trap solar energy in the atmosphere? NOT! The truth is your foolish pride will repress any logical alternative explanation to abnormal weather patterns. You are a classic case of DENIAL! SHILL!
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"HAARP is a 3 million watt microwave oven but that cannot possibly influence the weather?"
I didn't say that - what I asked for is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (evidence derived from observation rather than your own imagination) that it is doing so
"your foolish pride will repress any logical alternative explanation"
No, logic DEMANDS a RATIONAL BASE from which to proceed - imagining an alternative explanation is not enough - I need PROOF
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Go into your kitchen and put a bag of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn in your MICROWAVE OVEN and push start, and presto you have just changed the climate inside the bag of popcorn. Now calculate that same example multiplied by 3 million watts. Duh! Not to mention the more cell phones and radio waves that are broadcast everyday.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Why do you try so hard to ignore empirical evidence that actually DOES exist?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I told you, Co2 was Chosen to blame for global warming because it is invisible and beyond natural human detection and you and I cannot account for the amounts we generate. It is a big scam, but don't worry there will be a Carbon Market for the big corporations to avoid having to modify their practices and still continue their current Co2 production. Scam!
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"I told you, Co2 was Chosen to blame for global warming"
Yes - you told me that - but offered zero proof of it.
"because it is invisible" Illogical, invisibility has nothing to do with anything. BTW, HAARP is equally invisible is that why YOU are "choosing" it?
"and beyond natural human detection"
CO2 is certainly NOT beyond human detection - it can measured easily - HAARP (your CHOSEN explanation) can not be measured AT ALL
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale That's a good strategy, deni the existance of microwave enery. Those cell phones and micro-ovens are just spooky and mysterious magical pheonomina. Oh boy, we got a real live one here! Ha! What a Fool!
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Show me where precisely that I denied microwave energy exists. That would be absurd.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You commented, "HAARP (your CHOSEN explanation) can not be measured AT ALL"
FOR YOUR INFORMATION HAARP IS MICROWAVE ENERGY.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
I meant that it can't be directly measured AS A CAUSE of something - as a cause of anything at all really - much less climate change.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Yes, the HAARP microwave technology cooked the popcorn in your microwave.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I have to take a break for awile, I have to drive my 1970'S v8 powered chevy with no catalitic converters to the post office. After that I need to cut down an oak tree and burn all the wood for no reason at all. (Just kidding about the tree, but not the v8)
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated loook at how many birds fish crab lobster and penguins have died in 2011 and 2 days before 2011 all that is because the temperature was so cold and got so cold so fast and the did tests water tempertature hasnt been this low in some areas of eastern u.s i n over 25 years
pattycarljackson 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Do you remember in November 2008 when Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said never let a good crisis go to waste? This is the logic behind Global Warming Crisis, only the crisis is a FRAUD.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alltvisanimated
"Do you remember in November 2008 when Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said...."
What some guy said is irrelevant to the evidence at hand - you continue to hoist irrelevancies in the face of real and substantive EVIDENCE
"This is the logic behind Global Warming Crisis"
That is what you IMAGINE the logic to be behind a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY that somehow created the Global Warming Crisis.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
This sort of Empirical evidence?
"Estimates of both sea surface temperatures in the subtropical North Atlantic from sediment cores and tree rings from Scandinavia and Eastern China imply unusually warm conditions only during the 11th and early 12th centuries."
PrairleDogged 1 year ago
@PrairleDogged
Yes, PrairleDogged this (if you are quoting it correctly and honestly) is empirical evidence
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You really need to stop drinking the Flourinated Public Water Supply. It drops your IQ by 20% and makes you more likely to believe anything by making you more docile and gullable. But you will probably just think this yet another conspiracy theory.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale You commented:"Yes, conservation of matter - BUT - Can matter be rearranged in space? Can Matter be changed into different types of matter?" Yes Co2 can be changed in to Oxygen, plants recycle it everyday. Co2=Plants=Oxygen/Food=BeondaPale=Propoganda...See, it's recycled. Shill
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@BeondaPale If you are SO concerned with the elevated amount of Co2 in the world then why don't you just hold your breathe...the rest of us won't mind...I guarentee it.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Because my holding my breath would be an obviously irrational response to the problem at hand.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
I will asume that you are totally ignorant to the existance of Chemtrails and you are nervously typing the word "Chemtrails" into the youtube search box to enlighten your narrow little mind.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
No, I have been aware of this particular conspiracy theory for a while
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale So you subscribe to the loony notion that harmless and invisible Co2 is trapping solar energy in the atmosphere, but when there is an actual military weather modifaction program such as Chemtrails right in front of your fucking eyes all of a sudden it becomes a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that BeondaPale is a shill.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :( BeondaPale is a shill :(
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Repeating things over and over is what 3-year-olds do to get their way and is not rational behavior
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"So you subscribe to the loony notion that harmless and invisible Co2 is trapping solar energy in the atmosphere"
CO2 is harmless ONLY in the right concentrations that it is invisible is irrelevant at 10% it will kill people directly via suffocation
This science is clear - Now if you lay out a RATIONAL and LOGICAL argument based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE regarding chemtrails and or HAARP I will take it seriously - until then you will continue to look like a loony
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Yes, I cannot resist the lure of a debate, shame on me. But are you Chemtrail aware?
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
This subject matter is IRRELEVANT to the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Yeah, I used to be one of those so called "EnviroMENTAList" but then I realized that the movement had been highjacked by the globalists. The globalists saw the potential energy that was stored in the green movement and they began to subtlely over time divert the blame to the invisible Co2 and condition the movement to worship the global warming religion. By burdening the common people through regulation and bullshit the elitists will maintain their "class security" at the expense of our liberty
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Any proposed solution to a problem differs fundamentally from the problem it proposes to solve
The FACT that CO2 absorbs and emits infrared energy is not religious in any way
The FACT that man has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by close to 40% since the beginning of the the industrial revolution is also NOT connected to a belief in the supernatural
- this has been today's statements of the totally fricken obvious
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Are you Chemtrails aware?
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
Wait - I've been deemed unfit for this debate and will no longer command a response from you and will be ignored from now on
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Oh and how about HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Reasearch Program)? Does your scope of intillect encompass such an existance as the HAARP program? How does your science apply HAARP and Chemtrails to your Co2 causes Global Warming Scenario? Oh, I can't wait to hear this one.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@MrAl3005 I refuse to be declared guilty of a crime that I have no human ability to apply a reasonable and logical cross examination to. Such accusations are designed to put people on the defensive against the indefensible. Humans are only capable of using their five senses of sight, hearing, tasting, smelling and feeling. These senses fail to detect the presence or absence of the all too ellusive Co2. The Devil is in the details and you are following his counterfiet religion.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"These senses fail to detect the presence or absence of the all too ellusive (sic) Co2."
They certainly can, have and will detect the consequences of it's overabundance
"The Devil is in the details and you are following his counterfiet (sic) religion. "
LOL - My goodness NO, science does not equal Satan - good luck with that
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Science or Theory or Phylosophy of Law? I am talking about preserving ones individual right to reasonable doubt and innocence until proven guilty. You must be one of those nieve submissive types? Your thoughts have been cultivated over time to worship and idolize your precious global warming religion. You have past the point of no return and become too emotionally attached and won't let go. Your foolish benevolence will cost many their freedoms to coexist with nature.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"Science or Theory or Phylosophy of Law? "
Science
"I am talking about preserving ones individual right to reasonable doubt and innocence until proven guilty. "
How in the world were you doing that??
"You must be one of those nieve (sic) submissive types?"
Logic is neither submissive nor naive
"cultivated over time to worship and idolize "
Science differs from worship in that science requires reason - worship does not
All of what you just said is completely absurd
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale First of all, Science IS Theory and Law IS Philosophy. Your entire logic is NOT the result of your own investigations, but instead it is the result of paranoid insecurity. You have been prescribed your so called science by those who tell you that it exists. You are loyal to a THEORY and it is your foolish denial that keeps you believing. You have allowed others to narrowly define and limit your thoughts, they have disarmed your desire to question the pre-selected outcome.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"Science IS Theory and Law IS Philosophy."
What does this even mean?
"Your entire logic is NOT the result of your own investigations, but instead it is the result of paranoid insecurity."
Explain how?
"You have been prescribed your so called science by those who tell you that it exists."
I have been shown observed evidence and followed the logic from such evidence - YOU are full of crap
"You are loyal to a THEORY"
Theory = a well-substantiated explanation
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You are one dimensional and are incapable of the creative thought proccess that is required to attend any honest debate regarding the religion of global warming. Therefore you have been deemed unfit for this debate and will no longer command a response from me and you will be ignored from now on...bye...bye.
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"You are one dimensional and are incapable of the creative thought proccess that is required to attend any honest debate regarding the religion of global warming."
OR
YOU are incapable of a SCIENTIFIC discussion about SCIENCE.
"Therefore you have been deemed unfit for this debate and will no longer command a response from me and you will be ignored from now on...bye...bye."
Good bye and thanks for all the fish oh king of the moron people. Oh and good luck in La La land!!
BeondaPale 1 year ago
"You have allowed others to narrowly define and limit your thoughts"
PURE BS
"they have disarmed your desire to question the pre-selected outcome. "
Please give a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a pre-selected outcome and show how and when it was pre-selected. You won't, because you can't, because you are full of crap AGAIN
BeondaPale 1 year ago
The global warming problem is a well thought out "CREATION". Co2 was "SELECTED" to be the culprate behind global warming because of it's invisible and ellusive characteristics. The detection Co2 is beyond your natural human capabilities therefore making individual accountability impossible. This newley created global warming religion will be used by the corporate overlords to manipulate and condemn the common people by regulating their everyday human activities.DisasterCapitalism
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
@alltvisanimated
"Co2 was "SELECTED" to be the culprate (sic) behind global warming because of it's invisible and ellusive (sic) characteristics."
Right. After all it's not as if CO2 is an actual byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels
You guys keep getting more and more wacky every day
BeondaPale 1 year ago
I am a proud denier of man caused global warming.
feelzthelove 1 year ago
@feelzthelove Are you Chemtrails aware?
alltvisanimated 1 year ago
Blah, Blah, Blah. The planet has been warming and cooling in cycles for thousands of years. Some people just want to have something important to live for so they irrationally get all caught up in such things and in the process link it to their esteem then they really become irrational. Blah, Blah, Blah
Teacherable1 1 year ago
@MrAl,
Finally, as ludicrously implausible as a 6C warming is (even the IPCC itself is predicting less than half that) it would still be far from an agricultural catastrophe. The current average global temperature is 54F. That rise would take it to 64F, and actually *increase* the amount of arable land available for farming. Sure, some areas currently in use would become unsuitable ... but hundreds of millions of acres that are now TOO COLD to farm would no longer be so.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@MrAl,
If that MIT study is correct, why is it that past periods in earth's history in which CO2 levels were far, far higher than we're expected to see by 2100 never saw such runaway warming? The answer is simple. Climate is a complex dynamic system governed primarily by negative feedbacks, not positive. The idea that one simple equation (5.35ln(C/C0) can accurately predict future temperatures is laughable.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@MrAl,
Model results are not reality: a model can be relied upon only if its been shown to have predictive ability.
Here in the real world, the last 4 years have seen cold record temperatures set nearly 3X as often as hot ... just today the Swedish press announced they're expecting the coldest winter in 100 years. Places ranging from China, South Korea, to Argentina to Florida to Iraq have all had record cold weather recently.
ttowntom 1 year ago
I'd also like to ask that, if environmentalists truly thought we were facing a catastrophe, why do they fight so hard the one energy source that's not only practical and available today, but generates no CO2 emissions whatsoever-- nuclear power?
What's ironic is that eco-facists- by killing off the nuclear power industry in the 1970s and 80s - have done more to increase global emissions than all the world's oil companies combined.
ttowntom 1 year ago
By simply extending modern agricultural techniques to the 3rd World, global food output is expected to rise nearly 300%. But modern agriculture improves every year-- higher yield strains, better fertilizers and pesticides. And genetic engineering promises to revolutionize agriculture yet again. With the technology available by 2100, we can feed the world population on less than 1/10 the land in use today.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Despite 150 years of "global warming", agricultural output continues to rise each and every year. In 1900, US corn production averaged 20 bushels/acre. In 1960, it was 60 bushels/acre. Today, it's nearly 150 ... and the scientists who actually grow food are predicting 300 bushels/acre within 40 more years. Today, we feed 300 million people on LESS farmland than we used in 1900, to feed 100 million.
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
"Despite 150 years of "global warming", agricultural output continues to rise each and every year."
It's called "the green revolution" and it's driven by ever improving agricultural TECHNOLOGY, not climate
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@Beonda,
Actually, its being driven both by agricultural technology, as well as increased CO2 (studies have shown that grain production has increased by anywhere from 5-15% as as result of higher atmospheric CO2 -- enough extra food to food several hundred million people).
The important point is that agricultural technology is continuing to increase, meaning, food output will also. In the future, we'll grow far more food on far less land than we do today.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
"Actually, its being driven both by agricultural technology, as well as increased CO2 (studies have shown that grain production has increased by anywhere from 5-15% as as result of higher atmospheric CO2 -- enough extra food to food several hundred million people)."
I agree, but you should admit that this can not be sustained into even the short term future (100 years)
"agricultural technology is continuing to increase, meaning, food output will also."
I hope you're right
BeondaPale 1 year ago
On the contrary, increases in food production and agricultural technology will continue significantly longer than the next 100 years. Those scientists who actually produce food estimate that US grain production yields will increase another 40-50% in just the next 50 years
The Third World is using primarily 19th century agriculture. Bringing them up to US technology alone will nearly triple world food production, even without assuming further advances.
ttowntom 1 year ago
(12/302010) British press: "Record cold kills 60+ across Europe"
At least 60 people have died across Europe during the current cold snap...Seventeen people died in Central Europe in the last 24 hours from the cold, bringing the total this week to 45. A further 11 died in Russia, plus four in France and Germany...
30 people have died in Poland in the past week, and temperatures dropped to minus 15 degrees Celsius...
Temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius in Scotland...
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Could you please describe how the term "cold snap" differs from the concept of "climate"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Sure,
"Climate" = anything that supports the belief in global warming, even if its just a single hot day in one city.
"Weather" = anything that doesn't support a belief in global warming, even if it lasts many years, and spans the entire globe.
So saith the Church of Global Warming. Amen.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
You accuse me of something you JUST DID... LOL
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@MrAl
Can you spell "fearmongering"? How about "Chicken Little"? Or better yet- "fraud". The notion that we're all going to starve from minor temperature changes is without even a shred of factual basis.
Currently we grow food everywhere from the Saharan desert to Alaska. Courtesy of irrigation, flood, control, and modern technology, our biggest problem today is too much food, not too little.
(cont).
ttowntom 1 year ago
@MrAl3005
You're right. Read again, the original post either heard this erroneous info somewhere and repeated it or just made it up on the spot.
Water vapor obviously DOES NOT constitute 99.9% of the greenhouse effect
BeondaPale 1 year ago
"CO2 is a trace gas. Water vapor has 200 times more molecules and each is 7X better at absorbing IR energy, making 1400 X the heating effect or 99.9% of all atmospheric heating."
Absolutely hilarious, made up CRAP
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Environmental debate heats up; global warming is melting away
by James H. Shott
China daily
Data show that the Earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term “global warming” with “climate change,” using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
Dayversion 1 year ago
CO2 is a trace gas. Water vapor has 200 times more molecules and each is 7X better at absorbing IR energy, making 1400 X the heating effect or 99.9% of all atmospheric heating.
Coal and oil make 80% of our energy. The control of carbon will transfer more political/economic power than anything in history.
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of abundance: Europe was awash with grain. Vikings were grazing sheep in Greenland, but the AGW promoters tell us a 2 degree increase would end the world
ttowntom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BeondaPale 1 year ago
..2 years ago
khusbunny 1 year ago
• Google "Vita Europe radical activism is back" Greenpeace UK members shut down British Petroleum's carbon trading website. They know the solution of Cap and Trade for Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam and is being pushed by the very same Oil and other Corporations Global warmers lie and claim they despise.
Input into youtube "The Story of Cap and Trade" watch the video
Dayversion 1 year ago
Nasa is run by the gov't. What does the gov't push? Carbon taxes. These guys study space. They are just using NASA's good name for disinformation. I think it is pretty obvious that Gov't has it's own agenda and lies to us everyday based on what they want us to think and do. Go look at a real climatetologists data and you will see co2 has a miniscule effect on temperature. I do believe however we are poisoning our planet. I just don't like supporting the NWO's agenda as it is bad for us.
DoYouThinkForUrselF 1 year ago
NASA's modeling is interesting, however, it is also fatally flawed. Earlier temperature readings culminated from some global data beginning in 1931 does not stand up to the technology in sophisticated temperature recordings via satellites we have today. Such possibilities were unavailable during the first quarter of the 20th century. Therefore, a few base ground temperatures from the 1930s through the 1970s were added to NASA's model, rendering it incomplete and, essentially, unreliable.
ClarkieDude 1 year ago
www_worldconspiracy.co.uk
cyberlifer 1 year ago
Let the world collapse, let the world of human life crumble away as we all are careless and ignorant about the earth and only care about money and waterproof tampons..
slerz1 1 year ago
Uh oh. Ten minutes since your last posting, you must be researching. This can't be good for me.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?
Dayversion 1 year ago
Warming in Summer time? Could it be... summer?
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy
This video a word IN FRONT of the words "summer warming"
Maybe ya didn't see it...
7 letters... started with an "E"...
Anyone in there?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale how snide.
1) The graph at 2:26, what do the colors represent? 1 degree? 0.5 degrees? A millionth of a degree?
2) Assuming blue is cold, 1932 is cold. 1947 is hot. 1962 is warm. 1977 cold. Etc. Looks like a normal climate model.
3) The sun cycles through hot periods and low periods. 80 years isn't enough to show this. You need at least 1000 years, and the only way to get that are ice core samples. Samples like Vostok.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
1. there is no graph at 2:26, there is a time lapse animation -- what do you assume colors represent? Why do you assume that?
2. How do YOU know with your level of education about such things what is normal for such a time frame?
3. Solar iradiance has been accounted for and has not been found to be the cause of the current unusual warming
"A" for effort though ...keep trying
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
1) They are talking about how the Earth is warming. What do you expect the color to represent? I'm wondering what difference between red and blue is, in degrees.
2) How do you know what my education is? Stalker.
3) Um, reference to that statement? The sun produces all the heat on earth, so yeah, it's a pretty big factor in warming.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
1. No, read carefully, I was asking what YOU assumed the difference between the colors red and blue IN DEGREES is. the same question you asked me.
And why you assumed that?
Why don't you read something and find out what they represent rather than assuming anything?
2. I don't - LOL - hence the question. (with your level of education about such things - WHATEVER THAT MAY BE)
3. Yes, but not the only factor.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
1) I'm assuming red is hotter, meaning bad. Blue is cold and white is neutral. Still, I'd like it to be a little more scientific besides blue good, red bad. Can't find what the measurements are.
2) Good to know. I'll sleep better.
3) The point is it's a rather BIG factor, I'm not saying it's the only factor.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
1. Everyone else can - contact NASA's global modeling and assimilation office. It's on the web.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale10 degrees farenheit in 70 years? Wow, talk about a let down. Thats only 3/4 of a degree Celsius a decade. We have enough available oil to last us 40-50 years. That means 3.1-3.9 degrees which is if the warming trend is linear(which it's not, the most warming will be in the later years, meaning this temperature change will be lower)
PS: Looking at that site, I still have not found how much of an increase is shown on the video. Can you point it out for me please? I might have missed it
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
I said you should CONTACT them or find the studies on Google scholar.
And redo that unbelievably simple math problem you just got wrong - 10 degrees in 70 is the equivalent of 1.43 degrees per decade - you inverted it
Also check the simple logic you just flubbed - if the warming trend is NOT linear (and you just admitted that it's not and that most of the warming will be in the later years - more of a J curve or exponential), how to you figure that the temperature change will be lower?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale
1) I converted it into Celsius, because I am Canadian
2) If we run out of fossil fuel in 40 years, only the first part of the J-curve must be taken into effect. I think NASA is a little smarter than to forget exponential growth. Remember, the second half will ALWAYS be larger than the first half ON A J-CURVE graph.
3) Again, the temp will be lower because you only have to look at the first 40 out of 70 years on those estimates, the lower half of the J-curve
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Nope, still wrong, though closer - A 5.8 degrees Celsius over 70 years is .83 per decade - not .75 degrees.
You may think that a 5.8 degree change over 70 years is negligible - but it is unprecedented in at least the last million years and it is disastrous from a biological diversity standpoint.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale 10 degrees ferenheit. It's a difference instead of a temperature, so to convert it's 10 f * (5 / 9) = 5.55556 Celsius. It's a difference so you don't put in the -32 before the equation. Devided by 7 decades gives you .793 a decade, so I just rounded to 3/4.
A million years is nothing in terms of life. In fact, if it weren't for humans cutting down all the forests for farmland, life would flourish from a temperature and CO2 increase.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
You're right, a change of 10 degrees over a million years would mean nothing.
But a 10 degree change over 70 years is disastrous from a biological diversity standpoint. that kind of evolutionary pressure is just too intense for diversity as we know it
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale 1) I screwed up. I did not mean a change over 1 million years is nothing. I was referring to you saying the change in temperature "is unprecedented in at least the last million years". That really isn't saying much.
2) Yes, such an increase would hurt the ecosystem, but not as much as you would think. Evolution happens in the generations and generations for most creatures are much smaller than humans.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Regarding #2 - As you have not lived for 1 million years, how can you possibly have any certainty AT ALL about a such a big change in such a short time span in the interlinking global system of climates?
#2 seems like an incredibly arrogant statement to me
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I'm assuming the arrogant statement is my talk on evolution. In fact, there are plenty of models on youtube made to bash creationist that support this. The faster the reproduction cycle of a species, the faster they can change. If most species live around 10 years and have multiple generations of offspring, then most species, by deductive logic, will adapt very fast. The only creatures that wouldn't adapt fast enough is anything that has a small population or have long lifespans.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Tell me, what happens during a mass extinction and WHY does it happen?
And yes,
Bacteria and insects - large populations, high reproduction rates, short life spans - they'll be just fine
Most higher life forms - much smaller populations, much lower reproduction rates, much longer life spans.
Therefore, We are very possibly looking at a mass extinction caused by humans
Gotta go, just as it was starting to get interesting - thanks
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale As most populations are usually quite large, most species will be fine. Most species have also adapted to humans encroachment already, and have birth rates between 6-14 and can reproduce multiple times in one lifetime. The only creatures that would be affected by a 70 year change would be creatures with VERY low numbers (like tigers and pandas) or are very weak to change (some species of coral).
It's been nice talking to you. I'll hear back when you read this I guess.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@fcukedupguy As I think I said before, it about more than about population dynamics. Humans and other species depend on each other in countless ways. the current thinking on evolution differs markedly from Darwin's original outline in that it now includes inter-species cooperation.
The ailing honeybee is a but one of literally countless of examples. Humans live in a lattice of life. It is the height of ignorance and arrogance to pull on strings when you don't know what you're doing.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale I agree, but the strings have already been pulled, and according to the theory of MMGW, it's been pulled since ww2. Trying to fix it is like trying to put the strings back by banging them with your forehead, it will hurt and accomplish nothing. You need to find a solution that has the least cost and the most reward. Grinding the economy with carbon tax would accomplish nothing but let China and India produce more to compensate. And they have worse things as waste than carbon dioxide.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Only no one is suggesting we reweave the lattice (you're right, we couldn't if we tried) - just that we put measures into place to stop the continuing damage we are doing to it.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale you are a good debater :)
The problem is, if MMGW is true, then the question becomes whether the economical impact would be worth it. Unless you completely take humans out of the picture, you'd just be delaying the inevitable.
You would also need to make sure we don't start dumping other chemicals into the air. I personally think that CO2 isn't a problem, even if global warming is true. At least, compared to the heavy metals, toxins and synthetic fertilizers out there.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
If you can, please describe the inevitable we are just delaying.
And please tell me how and why not delaying it (making it happen faster?) would be a sound strategy
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale the end result is the same, whether it's 50 years or a thousand years. I never said it's a sound strategy and I'm too tired to think of any ideas that are non-pessimistic tonight.
Still, we would be able to use the resources spent on carbon control for something much more important, like developing third world countries.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
In you're "delaying the inevitable" argument, I hope you see that you are using the exact same kind of rationalization that a badly addicted chain smoker (or any kind of totally hooked addict) uses.
"I know I'm doing damage to my body, but it's too late, I've already done too much damage. It doesn't matter, everyone dies of something. it's just to hard to quit"
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale nah, the debate was getting boring so I decided to start an argument.
Prevention is good. Stopping it now is also good. Pretending you can just stop and everything goes back to normal is a big mistake.
The best analog to describe this is a car break. If you want to stop, you apply the break. The car's momentum still carries it forward, and you don't stop immediately. It's not a question of how important it is or how much you want to break, your still going to hit granny.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Same difference -
To extend your analogy...
No one is stating that we must stop the car on a dime while we're still going 90 MPH - we'd go through the windshield.
BUT...
By hitting the break and swerving, Granny MIGHT live.
Not hitting the break at all ENSURES that granny will die.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale you could just pay for granny's ambulance and funeral bill...
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale You have not lived for 1 million years either. We can, however, look at bacteria, which has a lifespan of several minutes, which we do live. We can then see how well the bacteria survives to, say, a 10 degree change over four life cycles, to estimate how other species will adapt.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
That's fine - if we want to hand the surface of the earth over to bacteria. Now move on up the evolutionary ladder.
More complex life form are (of course) way way more sensitive to change.
Look up the term "keystone species" -- we NEED biodiversity
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Actually, evolutionary change is based on percentage. A species can only change so much. But a larger, more complex creature has more to change than a single bacteria. Also, the time line for the experiment I was proposing was in "LIFE TIMES" meaning that it can apply to all animals. I only used bacteria because we can see the effect in a very short amount of time. 70 years is about four life cycles for most animals, therefor it's comparable.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
And why do you assume that if we were to suddenly stop using fossil fuel in 40 years, you only have to look at the first 40 out of 70 years on the estimates?
Even If we stopped using them today - the temps would continue to rise (though at a lower rate) into the far foreseeable future
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale if we stop using fossil fuels, the CO2 levels will stop climbing. Since the 10 degrees over 70 years is based on CO2 emissions, the temperature rise past the point we cut our emissions is inaccurate and a new model would have to be created.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
the CO2 levels might stop climbing - But the temperature wouldn't (though you're right, we would have to change estimates as to how much it might change)
Btw, you're wrong about fossil fuels running out. Companies (and countries) are already talking about tapping methane hydrate reserves (which are HUGE - WAY bigger than coal and oil) .
Also the rise in temps already occurring will release methane, which in turn will increase the warming.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale refresh your page. I wasn't talking about ALL the fossil fuel. I was talking about AVAILABLE fuel, meaning cheap. Your talking about RESERVE fuel which is the deep fuel which could (yes) last us hundreds of years. Still, we can't get to those as easily and the price would climb to points that solar and wind power would be cheap enough to invest in.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
You assume too much - Plentiful usually automatically mean cheap. I hope you're right about solar - but there are still technological hurdles
Meanwhile, Japan has built the world's largest research drilling ship, the Chikyu, primarily to study methane hydrate and India recently invested 200 million euros to launch a major national program to study it -- and has already reported successes.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale There is plenty of iron in the asteroid belt in between Mars and Jupiter. Just try and get to it. If you can't reach it, it really isn't an available resource. Most Methane Hydrate reserves are mostly located (if I'm correct) in cold climates such as tundras, under large mountain chains like Tibet or under large sediment layers 120 fathoms underwater.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
Oil a mile or more under water - hard to get to, right?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale Harder than you'd think, especially if you need to drill into bedrock as well. Just look what happened with BP. They won't be doing that quite as Gun-Ho as they used to. (That gives you time to make and market a good solar panel)
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
I agree it would be hard. And I hope you're right about solar being competitive, but right now it's mere speculation on both our parts. However, like oil with so much available and so much profit to be made, people will find a way.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
@BeondaPale we wouldn't run out of fuel in 40 years. We would run out of AVAILABLE fuel, meaning the fuel that is cheap and easy to get to. We would still have reserves, but those would be expensive enough that alternative energy will be economically viable and would replace fossil fuel.
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
@BeondaPale 0) google scholar, thank you
fcukedupguy 1 year ago
For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....
Dayversion 1 year ago
Just wondering about that REALLY REALLY OLD explanation for fire -- was it based on EMPIRICAL evidence??
Or does that not matter?
And how many pieces of evidence were at issue with Piltdown Man?
ONE? Really? Only ONE?? and from only one scientists? hmmmm...
How many interweaving pieces of evidence would have to be at issue if climate change was a forgery?
THOUSANDS you say?... by scientists from all over the globe?
Well, that's quite a difference - but you already knew that didn't you?
BeondaPale 1 year ago
Can't be too bad. It's colder today than before.
Bidmartinlo 1 year ago
So how come the solar radiation ahas gone DOWN in the last decades and the global average temperature keeps going up?
Look at skepticalscience com for actual referenced data (ie you can analyze it and plot it yourself if you want).
indulis1 1 year ago
what about factors like solar activity? everyone blames CO2 for the rise in tempature, but why not blame the rise in tempature for the rise of CO2. back in the 60's there was a gloable cooling scare.
FriendlyFire360 1 year ago
@FriendlyFire360
blaming it all on the sun (the only real source of heat on earth, ever) doesn't bring in the research dollars needed to fund the lavish life styles of corporate bigwigs (such as the head of greenpeace,WWF,PETA, anyone who advertises constantly on your television about how climate chance has affected the lives of squirrels, bears, seals, bats, frogs, gophers,_________ fill in the blank)
It's amazing how people (not the climate) have changed in my short life of 35 years.
jwboll 1 year ago