the whole climate change glabol warming is a huge money making scam. I remember hearing Nobama on climate change..he hasn't said a word about it in a year
No evidence? Satellites measured a fall in the amount of outgoing radiation at the wavelengths intercepted by CO2 as its concentration increased from 1970-1997. Who knows why? Here's a link to that paper. ww w.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Now if less heat is escaping, you'd think more must be being refracted down. Well that's what these researchers found, at an average rate of 2.2 W m-2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. ww w.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
ok, so lets keep on poluting the earth and see what happens a few dosen years later... if we are lucky then we will get dirty air and nothing else, but if we are unlucky... we get very extreme weather very often... and if we still continue to polute the earth at the same or greater rate then in 100 years or 200 years we might turn this planet into venus. and 3.5 billion years of evolution goes all to waiste all because people didnt want to pay increased taxes
@Zee96969696 I like how you think carbon taxes are going to end our pollution of the earth. People deserve the politics they get because they are stupid.
who cares if global warming exists or not, the point is that green energy is good. It makes countries independent from import of gas and oil. It helps having clean air, no smog in cities if cares are electric and so on.... you see the reason for renewable energy is not only global warming.
@ndrthrdr1 Yes, oh naieve one, falling: Kaufman et al & Dr. Phil "Hide-the-Decline" Jones. An absolutely brutal winter in the Southern Hemisphere this year and ANOTHER brutal winter in the Northern Hemisphere this year. With the very long solar cycle 23 and the weak cycles 24 & 25 projected, global temps will be falling further. CAGW is soon to be thrown on the trash heap of history.
@ TheWenaus Thanks to Henry's Law, (air/water equilibrium coefficient 1:50) real scientists know with 1000% certainty that manmade CO2 ends up in the oceans and is converted to CaCO3. Without manmade CO2, current levels would be around 370ppm. Big deal... CO2 is a VERY weak GHG compared to H2O and CH4 is only.....wait for it..... 1.7 ppm LOL! 1.7 ppm vs. 25,000 ppm H20. Stop it, you're killing me with your joke/junk science.
@samuraiconservative You have no idea what you are talknig about... The highest lvls of CO2 have been around 290 ppm for the evolutionary history of humans. In the past 150 years or so that has risen to now 392 ppm. Thats just...fact. YOU ARE ARGUING ESTABLISHED FACTS FROM SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
@TheWenaus I'm sorry but I do know what I'm talking about. During the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels were often higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al. 2002). The results of these studies prove a false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations were 270 to 280 ppm until the industrial revolution. It'll soon become apparent that CAGW is a junk-science cult, as temps continue to fall and CO2 continues to rise.
@samuraiconservative Im glad you actually have a source, thats awesome. No one every sites anything. But, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. You sited one of the 2% of scientist who do not agree with athropogenic warming
"This first reconstruction of trends in CO2 concentration in the Northern Hemisphere is based on more than 90,000 direct chemical measurements in the atmosphere at 43 stations, between 1812 and 2004."
@samuraiconservative He tries to disprove evidence gathered from the Vostok and other ice cores and instead relies on measurments done over 100 years ago with very poor crude technology and techniques.
So hey you can believe one of the leading skeptics if you wish i guess.
@Thewenause 71% of Earth is covered by water... Avg H2O air concentration is 25,000 ppm many areas MUCH higher. RT for atmospheric CO2 is 7 yrs & only about 5% 20ppm is manmade. What a joke. I can't believe you see the absurdity of CAGW. Just Goggle the Canadian scientist survey.
@TheWenause- No, I'm referring to outgassing (chemical property of gas in suspension; more heat/more released). For the past 500 million yrs, average CO2 level has been 2000 ppm. Hasn't been thus low since the late Carboniferous. Durin Medieval Warming Period, proably abiut the same as temps were the same; proxy measurements aren't that accurate.
The data against man made climate change is mounting and the writing is on the wall. Human production of CO2 has nothing to do with the earths changing climate. But this has become purely a political tool. The Left sees this as their chance to destroy Western economy and they aren't going to let facts and reason get in their way. And don't look to the media for the truth. It's all a damn shame.
@anywayokay Explain how the addition of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere could have nothing to do with a increase in global temperatures? If you removed all GHG's from the atmosphere the average temperature on the planet would be something like 30 degrees cooler.
Also...what data are you referring too? Because 99% of the people who have spent their lives studying the planet would tell you the complete opposite of that statement.
@TheWenaus Rising CO2 is caused naturally by a process called outgassing (i.e. the warmer a medium (oceans/soil) holding CO2 gets, the more CO2 is released. Rising CO2 is an EFFECT of NATURAL global warming not a CAUSE of global warming. H20 is 25,000ppm vs. CO2 390pppm, of which only 5% (20ppm) is manmade. Hmmm 20 ppm vs. 25,000 ppm. I think there is more H2O than manmade CO2 in the air. A recent survey of 50,000 Canadian scientists shows only 26% adhere to CAGW theory, not 99%. LOL!
@samuraiconservative :S. I would like to see the link to that source for the 26%. Also h2O is at anytime/place btwn 0.00001%-4% of the atmosphere and it is by far the most important GHG (greenhouse gas). I understand that. Where as CO2, CH4, N2O hardly make up 1%. The important thing about CO2 is its resinance time within the atmopshere. Water comes and goes within a matter of minutes/hours vs CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for potentially over a hundred years.
You Claim co2 has been the product of natural outgassing (I assume you mean from volcanoes/plate tectonic subduction) and that is going on right now but the thing is for the past.... 800,000 years give or take(human history), the MAXIMUM [co2] has been about 290 ppm. Now we are nearly at 400 ppm and the prediction to where we should be is somewhere far less then 290 because we are so far into this particular interglacial period (the holocene)
@samuraiconservative We know that through fossil fuel consumption CO2 is a by product and released to the atmosphere.... so my question to you is.... where do you think that carbon is going? You are saying Temperatures control CO2 lvls - but the fact is we cant say either with 100% certainty. (correlation does mean causation yada yada) however CLEARLY they are tightly intertwined in some form. But you know go to a nearby university and ask profs for yourself i bet you will get nearer to 99%
People Often argue that plants will take up the extra co2 through photosynthesis... but we just arnt seeing that happening. CO2 is not a limiting nutrient for most plants compared to nitrogen and phosphorous.
Its true the ocean will take up lots of the carbon (carbon cycle). However that takes time and currently we are not slowing our emission rates. There are other methods of carbon sequestration also mind you.
.....Global av temps have risen but it couldn't be CO2 because the increase in ppm in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has been hotter in past history. Av temps on the moon and Mars are also up the exact same amount as on Earth. Global av temps stopped rising in 1998, some 13 years ago, scientists have been saying for 10 years that the graph will "skyrocket" upward again soon but it didn't happen. Sea levels fell last year. Trees are growing quicker now.
@BTsmoke "Global av temps have risen but it couldn't be CO2 because the increase in ppm in the atmosphere is minuscule" - Minuscule? Its about 390pm right now ~100+ more than we have ever seen in Hominid History and its only increasing and the rate of increase is also increasing (Whats minuscule about that?)
" It has been hotter in past history" - Its been A lot hotter in past history - Our species also didnt exist in these periods of time (just something to think about)
@BTsmoke "Av tempsthe moon and Mars up the exact same amount as on Earth." - I would love to see the Data on this if you could link it. "Global av temps stopped rising in 1998" - 1998 is recorded as one of the warmest years IN HISTORY lol, 2007 Ties with 1998 for second behind 2005. And now 2010 has tied with 2005. So you're wrong and you manipulated the data in your favor
" Sea levels fell last year" - Sea levels a different all around the globe, but saying the fell one year proves nothing.
@BTsmoke "Trees are growing quicker now" Huh? No idea if this is true but i would say its Irrelevant considering the amount of deforestation that is taking place on our planet.
"scientists have been saying for 10 years that the graph will "skyrocket" upward again soon but it didn't happen" - I guess you're referring to an exponential rise in temperature - Well if the earth was Super warm at some point in its History what makes you think it can't happen again?
@TheWenaus Trees are growing better because of the increase in CO2, that has been proven but nobody is saying that the Earth is not warming, that's a red herring from the Climate Alarmists. What I am saying is that it cannot be CO2, obviously it is caused by the Sun.
@BTsmoke There is NO evidence of increased photosynthesis taking up the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you can site any papers that support that idea i would like to read/see them. CO2 simply is not a limiting nutrient for plants
How can you say its obviously caused by the sun. Increased Solar luminosity takes place over Millions of years we are talking about the last 200 years. Maybe if you're talking about Solar flares yada yada but thats out of my field
@TheWenaus If you really knew what you were talking about when it comes to climate, you would know what the Little Ice Age was, wouldn't you? The peak of the Little Ice Age, when global temperatures were lower than today, coincided with low sunspot activity. The link below (second picture) shows the times when grand solar minimums took place, and global temperatures. Continued.
@MMrandomdude12 I think saying that solar activity accounts for recent warming is wishful thinking. But you mention the little ice age, some scientist believe the black death plagues (which killed off... some 50% of the population) may have been enough to off set the CO2 emitted through agriculture (particularly rice cultivation -methane) and therefore reduced the global temperature. I Dont know how much i believe that but...
@TheWenaus I wish I could post links, but I can't. The Sun emits flares, etc, which warm the atmosphere if there the sun is active (more flares). If the Sun is virtually spotless, then the sunspots can't release these flares and the atmosphere steadily cools. Why does solar activity coincide so much with global temperatures? There is no way it is coincidence.
@TheWenaus That graph shows how solar activity controls world temperatures. It also explains why global temperatures haven't risen since 1998. Sunspot activity has become very weak recently. The world is going to get colder.
@MMrandomdude12 Temperatures HAVE risen since 1998 though.... :S i can send you data if you like. Off hand i think the warmest year was 2007? ... dont quote me. Either Way we cant say with 100% certainty BUT.... again (im not a doctor of science) nearly all of Earth/atmospheric/biology/chemistry/physics you know, anyone that studies Earth and issues related to climate or green house gasses believe that recent warming is due to anthropogenic activities.
@TheWenaus In 1998 was a year that followed two massive solar cycles and was during the heightening of another solar cycle. This year coincided with a positive PDO, extremely positive AMO and (I think) the strongest El Nino ever. No wonder the Earth was so warm in 1998. Google global temperatures from 1998 and watch how the trend was straight and then followed by dramatic cooling.
@MMrandomdude12 So according to you in 11 years we should be able to observe the whole cycle... I guess ill talk to you in Eleven years when temperatures have only steadily risen :]
@MMrandomdude12 So according to you in 11 years we should be able to observe the whole cycle... I guess ill talk to you in Eleven years when temperatures have only steadily risen :]
@TheWenaus Cant post a link so just type in Maunder Minimum replay on google, go on images and its the yellow graph with the named grand solar minimums on it.
@MMrandomdude12 Solar activity has been steadily increasing for the past... 4.6 billions years lol(earths history). So i dont think it can account for such accelerated warming in recent years. And well 97% of scientist that study the earth would probably agree.
@TheWenaus The Sun goes through 11 year cycles from low activity to high to low again. During the late 20th century, these cycles were massive (except one which coincided with global cooling) and during these active cycles the atmosphere warmed. The oceans warmed and caused temperatures to rise. Now, the PDO has turned negative, the AMO is on the decline, were seeing more La Nina events, the stratosphere has cooled greatly, all coinciding with low solar activity in SS24. The earth is cooling.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences did a survey that found that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is 'very likely' caused mainly by human activity." it also found that "the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
Climate change is a flawed theory, it obvious that the scientific method of scientist conducting research which is then opened up to be tested and critiqued by other scientists is being deliberately thwarted. The IPCC directly funded by the U.N. hasn't published any contrary findings to climate change. The 'scientific data' of climate change has been used as a power grab by politicians who want a 1 world government to suit their population control 'brave new world' agenda. Wake up people!
Oil is the driver for US and China's 'climate change policies' - oil, finance and power. They crave money, so I think it will be other financial factors (energy prices and peak-oil) that bring about climate friendly by default. The observed warming of the early 20thC through to the present was modelled along with various carbon forcing events - volcanic eruptions etc. Apparently, they could'nt get the model predict today's actual temperatures - until they added in human carbon emissions.
Correct. 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
For something to be a scam, there has to be a scammer who profits. So, who profits from getting people concerned about global warming? The powerful, international solar panel cartel? Nope.
Who profits from calling global warming a scam? Oil companies, Coal companies, automobile manufacturers, heavy industry... all powerful, rich entities.
I go with the scientists and with scientific evidence from our OWN planet. The theory is sound and we should be concerned!
@Doodle1Bean There are people who will benefit from the global wraming scam, namely your government who will tax you on carbon output and financial markets that will trade and speculate in carbon emissions.
climate change is real. The earth is not flat. Jesus cannot walk on water. Saying that humans are NOT having an impact on the earths climate is like saying you can live a shitty lifestyle, drinking, smoking, no exercise and then claim 'there is no scientific evidence that my habits and activities are impacting my health in any way, shape or form". How preposterous! People that are scientifically illiterate get scared easily and say... ahhh! the government are out to get us, arrggghh!!!
@dman1311974 Just who is committing the fraud? Thousands of scientists and governments around the world? Why would they do that? Taking steps to combat global warming wouldn't make them a dime!
True, governments would save money if we arrested climate change because there would be fewer floods, droughts, and disasterous heat waves. But that would be helpful to ALL of us.
On the other hand, who would avoid losses and profit from *calling* climate change a fraud? Think about it.
that final statement is true, however what they fail to explain is that it is the WARMING that raises CO2 not the CO2 that increases warming...they are related but in the opposite order than is being touted to institute this global control of every aspect of everyone's life, and the sheering of the last bit of wealth [less than 4% of global wealth] that 95+% of the global population still has in their hands..regardless of why however, there is no reason not to make green changes w/out taxes..
Humans exhale co2. Plants convert co2 into oxygen through photosynthesis. More people? Plant more trees, do something about the destruction of the rainforests. Global warming is now Climate Change according to the EPA. Who can deny climate change? We see it 4 times a year on small scale. We see it in the ice layers at the poles and the geological column. What ever happened to worrying about the ozone hole? Oh, yeah, they found it's a naturally occurring phenomenon. This is all 9th gr. science .
Global Warming is a hoax because it is more convenient to make people believe that so profits can be made on oil drilling and destruction of the environment.
Basically, greed can turn something real into a hoax. All you have to convince people is that they will end up spending more money on energy if it is real, then they will agree with you that it is a hoax.
If you toss enough money and fake logic at the public, enough people will start believing gravity is a hoax too.
Willie Soon, one of the scientific figures who claimed to be skeptical about climate change, has admitted to being paid more than $1 million in the past decade by major U.S. oil and coal companies. June 29, 2011
Your an idiot. The planet is 5 billion years old and with 400 years of data you have decided that we are changing the climate? Completely irrational. CO2 levels were 2000% higher than today 400 million years ago. I got that directly from a geophysics professor at Yale. Shut up. Intelligent free thinkers aren't buying it and never will.
There is no government... just the governed... any one that BELIEVES that co2 can drive climate has not looked into it. that is absolute. the only people who are governed are those who try to get away with the bare minuim and stand by there adolecent convictions. ironically todays governments are maintained for those who have no intrest in democracy. the true colors of the western world have been shown and they are not bright. damn all the sheep and fake good doers
@Saamfy - and be broke - already, in a leftist led economic crash, and governments showing bankruptcy all over the world - we entertain the idea of giving the UN taxation over the world through a carbon tax scheme
and the sheep just say.... doesn't sound bad to me
@Saamfy we will also drive jobs off shore to countries that don't have the political leanings that countries like Australia do and they will just pollute more so with no controls than what would have happened had the jobs stayed in the developed nations.
@asgardian001 : You mean drive off jobs from 20t CO2e per capita Australian workers who people who emitt as little as 2t CO2e per capita???
No seriously, you are going to lose low-wage jobs ANYWAY because you have high salaries - and a slight increase in energy prices won't change much to the fact it is 10 to 20 times cheaper to produce in China.
Germany has reduced its emissions 30%... the US let them increase 16%... guess who's doing better? facts do not support your argument.
@nigelelsass The problem is that there are very few facts to support either side of the argument. The USA and Germany are very different beasts to Australia and thus are a false dichotomy. According to wikipedia "An emphasis on exporting commodities rather than manufactured goods has underpinned a significant increase in Australia's terms of trade since the start of the century, due to rising commodity prices.". Australia mines and cannot compete with manufacturing. (cont.,)
@asgardian001 : So by your own admission you do not have problems about the impact on the manufacturing basis??? that nullifies your previous argument.
@nigelelsass (cont.,) Our emissions (if in fact they are a problem) are less of an issue than a massive increase in unemployment. Furthermore I fail to see how taxing carbon will be as effective as real environmental initiatives such as compulsory solar panels to all new homes, or better town planning to increase energy efficiency, better public transport, etc. It is purely and solely our minority government's attempt to appease the Greens who hold the balance of power
If you had invested in green technologies and high tech instead of financial bubbles and pointless wars, you would now be where Germany is now with an unemployment lower than before the crisis and your emissions would be 30% down, not 16% up.
Why taxing carbon would be more effective to implement measures which have 1/40th of the cost of photovoltaic ??? your really don't see?
@asgardian001 : Why do you want something as intrusive as a mandate for PV while taxing carbon (revenue-neutral off course - the revenues should ideally be compensated by lowering taxes on wage to increase competitiveness)... while taxing carbon leaves to the consumer the choice (the cost of carbon is however reflected in prices and is taken into account in the purchasing decision).
Long story short, you can abate N2O at chemical factories for $2/tCO2; PV cost over 400$/tCO2... your choice???
@nigelelsass A carbon tax may reduce carbon emissions (this is dubious) however we are unsure that carbon is actually causing climate change anyway. Furthermore I hardly believe there is real choice when all industry will have to increase prices of most goods that are not negotiable - basic foods will increase as will other "staple" consumer goods.
@asgardian001 : yes WE ARE SURE that carbon emissions have a radiative forcing in the magnitude of 5W/m2 - as measured directly from two different satellites which show this radiative forcing to have occured at the specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases.
Countries which have implemented strong emission reductions have not seen prices increase in a noticeable way - and other factors have a 5 to 10-fold effect - once again your arguments are inaccurate.
global warming is the earths natural cycle, the planet went through ice ages and i guess warm ages many of times before humans. so climate change is real but humans can not be blamed for it. I would say fight for clean air its a much better use of time.
@Steve552751 If you look at where we are now in the natural cycle we are near the end of the current interglacial and temperatures have been falling more or less for the last 12,000 years. Interglacials start with a rapid rise in temps and then a quick decline in temps followed by a slow decline. The current interglacial has followed that pettern until 100 years ago when it began to diverge. Rather odd don't you think?
@AtomSmash3r Everything has irregularities and a 100 years isn't much in Earth's time. Its kinda like a fly trying to eat a mountain, the fly will be long dead before anything would happen.
@Steve552751 Attribution studies have shown that a 0.5'C rise that is not sustained is within the statistical noise of the climate. However the change is now 0.75'C and the rise has been sustained for the decades, illustrating that the change is not a statistical fluke.
@AtomSmash3r I don't know what to say, neither of us are going to convince the other. 0.5 to 0.75 is a jump in statistical noise and is decent (glad to see you said celsius), but again I don't believe in these temperature readings, because were are they being taken? in a city or everywhere? i hope everywhere. And then its what are they are comparing it too. I'm doubtful that there is a glacier that is still around from the birth of the earth to test. There is too many variables too me.
@Steve552751 The temp readings are taken globally over sea and land. Of course Urban Heat Island affects are accounted for. If you don't believe direct temp readings, you wont believe anything.
@AtomSmash3r I can believe the temp readings, but I find it too hard to point fingers on such an issue. To say we are the soul reason for a 0.25 degree increase from the standard deviation, I feel the need for more facts and proof. We might be the problem or not. My opinion is no. We'll see come back to this video in 50 years and then one of us might be saying haha or boohoo. Peace
@Steve552751 : Trust me, glaciers melting are an accurate information the climate is warming. As I live close to alpine glaciers I have one of the best real source of info.
We have pumped many billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, via chimneys & vehicle exhausts, at a greater rate than natural sequestration can cope with. I think that this has been a trigger point for GW. This could change given new evidence.
However, I am sceptical about the CO2 trading & taxing schemes, because they do not address the root, which is our over-dependence on imported fossil-fuels, centralised generating & wasteful economy.
Reply to Odessuss: Just view planet Earth from space. You will see that much of the land area is desert - just sun and soil but no water. Now imagine these deserts covered in jungle. Where would all the " CO2 emissions " disappear to? The answer is self evident - in photosynthesis producing life supporting oxygen. Non-negative solutions to "saving the planet " are surely to be preferred. Its just a matter of constructive management of the Earth's resouces for the benefit of all.
@WPGS25041941 Haha so you agree that climate change is occuring good. So you think it will make positive changes, interesting. More jungles? maybe. more deserts as well ... plus an awful lot of dead organisms that can't cope with the rapid changes. But i don't think it will be that bad, no doomsday soothsayer. Just that if we break it, should try to fix it ;)
Methane has 23 times the heating effect of CO2 and so what if the planet is getting warmer. The Earth is far too cold anyway judging by the vast tracts of permafrost in Nothern Russia and Canada. The true answer to excess CO2 in the atmosphere is surely to jungalize vast areas of tropical desert and green plants will do the rest. Carbon is quite rare an element and CO2 is essential to the growth of our daily bread in wheat, ... " Global Warming " - a pretext ? I say No to CO2 sequestration.
Tell me guys why would there be a worldwide scientific conspiracy into human influenced climate change? or is it more likely that scientists DO THEIR JOBS, check their data and see, hang on, something isn't right, maybe dumping thousands of tonnes of fossil fuel into the atmosphere is doing something, hang on, thats what the EVIDENCE is actually telling us! Stop thinking a fossil fuel funded climate denier who commits obvious fallcies means shit people.
The indoctrinated of the warming cult think there individuals but here composites of there indoctrination . Who owns the media , Look at the new holy words (carbon ect ) Scary stories , Continuously repeated messages . Understand how propoganda works , there using ancient tricks . Plato also tells how thru the media/actors ect you upgrade and control an entire culture .
The none thinkers will continue to use the mantras , stats , data etc thats given to them to parrot .
@RB1US Well, I'll tell you what I'm gunna do.. I will block you remove all your comments and give you a week to educate yourself better on the subject.. The when you come back, We will start again.
@13the Sphere Don't block, that is the exact tactics used by these environmental extremists. The hot topic in Australia at the moment is not whether climate change is real, but is it necessary to tax struggling families massive amounts of money to eradicate. A lot of the money will be redirected overseas to assist in their climate change struggles. Stinks of a leftist plot of wealth redistribution. Most of the money will end up in the pockets of corrupt government officials.
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter. WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE DISINFORMATION CRIMINALS.
I find it deplorable that some assume climate change is a hoax.... really folks... from someone born and raised in British Columbia Canada, global warming is real. It is hard not to notice such things as our glaciers melting at an alarming rate... and palm trees replacing snow in Vancouver.... now it comes down to the US & China battling Canada for it dirty tarsands OIL.... but of course to convince Canada to turn up the tap.....it must convince the world that global warming is a hoax..
@JonahBC what's deplorable is that you don't see the point here. Nobody is saying climate change is a hoax. What's the hoax is taxing people because of it. Ice cores tell us that c02 levels a 1000 years ago are higher than of today. The earth is due for a polarity shift, Meaning we will have new north and south poles. It's nothing new, It happens all the time. Wake up, don't be sucked in....... Even if it was real (which it's not), The only solution the government have is to tax you for it...
@13thSphere Exactly sure the climates changing it always has...we should aspire to live cleaner more efficent lives regardless but to pin millions of years of weather (natural cycles) on 200 years of human industry is stupidity.
name the science article dude, don't just believe science journals of "shock jocks" I mean a lot of this "pseudo science" you guys pander about when you read the actual science Journal you see that actually they often are completely taken out of context, but SUPPORT anthropogenic climate change. There is a motherload of evidence supporting it, and you truly just want to take the word of one climate change skeptic? just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, its actually scary.
@13thSphere Hahaha I'm ignorant for knowing what the actual science says on the issue, thats right. People like you who are scientifically illiterate aren't ignorant, but someone those who have read and studied the science are ignorant. Ignorant of what exactly? I agree I'm ignorant of how stupid you are on this issue. You say clearly humans don't influence the climate and disagree with the vast majority of actual scientists. Bullshit, you have nothing. Go look at a science journal.
@13thSphere I'm sorry, but your ignorance is frankly dangerous. Your contradictory comment proves your lack of thought on the subject. Even if people ignore anthropogenic climate change, then the other impacts of GHG emissions should make you rejoice at mankind seeing sense. What happens when the oil runs out because people didn't care enough to use it efficiently? The only way people can learn to care about anything is by making it economically unfavourable these days. Hence taxes
@13thSphere You have obviously done little to no research on the molecular affect of an excess of CO2, ignorant you say? These are scientific facts. It is a fact that CO2 contributes to global warming, some of the LEADING scientists in the world agree on climite change, 94% of climite change pHD's agree that it is a man-made cause. I hardly think that you, a basment blogger can win the debate based on plausibibilities. As to the taxes, ignorance on your part again; we just cut extraneus spending
@13thSphere Well, a large part of the Green House Gas consists of CO2, as for CO2 levels 1000 years ago being higher than now, its 100,000 years ago (2 zeros make a lot of difference). What everyone is debating is not that climate change is a hoax or not, but whether we as humans caused it to happen or not. There has not been enough research done on this still since we are not 100% sure whether the climate change is anthropogenic or natural, which is also why this controversy is happening.
@13thSphere "That is clearly not the case", eh? Are you aware that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of scientific evidence says that it IS THE CASE? Tell me, why have you decided to favour THIS science over the landslide of science that says the opposite? Why do you cherry pick?
@13thSphere No, CO2 levels were not higher 1,000 years ago.
Please, for your own sake so you don't look retarded, read some scientific literature and LEARN about climate change instead of just inanely rejecting the "mainstream view" presented by the media for the sake of rejecting what the media reports on everything.
Maybe you'll actually learn something and will stop trying to claim climate change is a hoax.
@JonahBC Globalwarming is NOT being told here as a hoax! What they're saying is there is no evidence that it is being caused by CO2 emissions... get it?
@JonahBC If that was true WE WOULD HAVE DIED AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN THE 1700s!!! A extremist hoax solely for a tax and tolitarian state. People who want 1984 like government brainwash people with so called global warming, and pretty soon meat will be banned, only the hippiecrit polictians can eat meat, smoke, and drink sodas and eat trans fatty foods.
On 7/28/11, it was revealed that the scientist behind the polar-bears-are-in-trouble research is being investigated for “scientific misconduct”. Then, a new study of NASA data revealed that the earth is actually allowing more heat to escape the planet than previously thought by the climate change community. During a speech at the Aspen Institute in Colorado, Al Gore launched into a vulgar tirade while accusing skeptics of media manipulation.
Today we have co2 taxes and climate change, tomorrow governments will say: eat shit, because its good and healthy, not fruits cause they are bad for you. if you eat fruits you go to jail. At the begining people will not agree, but gradually they will get used to eating shit and will start defending it as a good food! Everyone who supports climate change bullshit on TV gets paid a lot of money for that! All those "scientists" are politicians and dont know shit! If you believe in TV youre doomed!
@wneq I forgot to add that there will be no fruits or trees left cause we will eradicate exterminate them by gettting rid of co2. Wait.... we wont be around too, cause there will be no plants, so no oxygen! Hooray lets all breath diesel fumes and live happy asthma, cancer life till our 15 th birthday !
@wneq Everyone dies, You cannot change Natural Selection. A lot of people have allergies some might trigger asthmatic attacks. They are natural cures for Asthma but the federal government covers that up to pay for bribes made by the pharma companies. The Democrats are the worst when it comes to this.
@wneq ...There's no scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change. The only scenario that explains the data are if both human and natural "forcings" are combined. Carbon dioxide increases temperature, and heat increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water. It's just physics. We are at 390 ppm carbon dioxide...and rising...with no end in sight. Humanity are playing Russian roulette since the earth system, which may "flip" into a rapid and permanently extreme climate regime.
@peterm3964 : Well then it was really planned ahead (1896) by Svante Arrhenius... by your reasoning it should even have been used for the great depression or to finance WW1.
You guys are right, burning 30 million years of stored carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere in less than 200 is totally natural. Carbon is stored in the planet in the form of coal and every couple million years or so a species comes by and burns it all. Sounds right.
It's funny how you don't hear nothing on the news about global warming anymore, and Al Gore is still keeping his head down, lmao!! The dumbass liberals that voted for Obama the worst American president in history, and most have remorse, except the ALTRA brain dead, also fell fore the global warming crock HOOK LINE AND SINKER. And what's worse is, they have the common gull, to call us conservatives unintelligent, when we said all along it was lies, lmao even harder!!
I would doubt it as PhD students know how to write scientific reports and never fail to give precise soures... you are most likely therefore a FRAUD!!!!
This has been flagged as spam show
research
snow chaos near the equator, the polar ice melts,
facts
darkest points on the earth's north and south pole
hottest points on the earth's equator
Who trollls who
TheInComLive 2 hours ago
Comment removed
TheInComLive 2 hours ago
Comment removed
TheInComLive 2 hours ago
IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE PLANET IS WARMING BECAUSE OF HUMANS...YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN
simplyskyla 1 day ago
The Oil Companies should next make high budget film debunking the "theory" of Gravity.
DrRobDammet 4 days ago
CO2 is heavier than air, yet it magically floats into our atmosphere where it warms the planet. what a crock of shit.
minteko 6 days ago
@minteko This is literally the stupidest rationale for global warming denialism. Please, educate yourself! You need an education, very badly.
danthegeoman 1 day ago
Maunder Minimum
jbfrodsham 3 weeks ago
the whole climate change glabol warming is a huge money making scam. I remember hearing Nobama on climate change..he hasn't said a word about it in a year
Jx1x3 3 weeks ago
No evidence? Satellites measured a fall in the amount of outgoing radiation at the wavelengths intercepted by CO2 as its concentration increased from 1970-1997. Who knows why? Here's a link to that paper. ww w.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Now if less heat is escaping, you'd think more must be being refracted down. Well that's what these researchers found, at an average rate of 2.2 W m-2 per decade from 1973 to 2008. ww w.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml
cristop5 1 month ago
ok, so lets keep on poluting the earth and see what happens a few dosen years later... if we are lucky then we will get dirty air and nothing else, but if we are unlucky... we get very extreme weather very often... and if we still continue to polute the earth at the same or greater rate then in 100 years or 200 years we might turn this planet into venus. and 3.5 billion years of evolution goes all to waiste all because people didnt want to pay increased taxes
Zee96969696 1 month ago
@Zee96969696 I like how you think carbon taxes are going to end our pollution of the earth. People deserve the politics they get because they are stupid.
FantasticBob7000 1 month ago
who cares if global warming exists or not, the point is that green energy is good. It makes countries independent from import of gas and oil. It helps having clean air, no smog in cities if cares are electric and so on.... you see the reason for renewable energy is not only global warming.
senoner90 1 month ago
@senoner90 i agree completely we need more green energy,
zimbebe 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
climategate is a cia mossad deception designed to protect the military industrial complex
MrTranscend1 1 month ago
@ndrthrdr1 Yes, oh naieve one, falling: Kaufman et al & Dr. Phil "Hide-the-Decline" Jones. An absolutely brutal winter in the Southern Hemisphere this year and ANOTHER brutal winter in the Northern Hemisphere this year. With the very long solar cycle 23 and the weak cycles 24 & 25 projected, global temps will be falling further. CAGW is soon to be thrown on the trash heap of history.
samuraiconservative 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@ TheWenaus Thanks to Henry's Law, (air/water equilibrium coefficient 1:50) real scientists know with 1000% certainty that manmade CO2 ends up in the oceans and is converted to CaCO3. Without manmade CO2, current levels would be around 370ppm. Big deal... CO2 is a VERY weak GHG compared to H2O and CH4 is only.....wait for it..... 1.7 ppm LOL! 1.7 ppm vs. 25,000 ppm H20. Stop it, you're killing me with your joke/junk science.
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative You have no idea what you are talknig about... The highest lvls of CO2 have been around 290 ppm for the evolutionary history of humans. In the past 150 years or so that has risen to now 392 ppm. Thats just...fact. YOU ARE ARGUING ESTABLISHED FACTS FROM SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
holy cow educate yourself please
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus I'm sorry but I do know what I'm talking about. During the past 10,000 years, CO2 levels were often higher than 300 ppmv, fluctuating up to 348 ppmv (Kurschner et al. 1996, Royer et al. 2001, Wagner et al. 2002). The results of these studies prove a false the assertion of stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations were 270 to 280 ppm until the industrial revolution. It'll soon become apparent that CAGW is a junk-science cult, as temps continue to fall and CO2 continues to rise.
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative Im glad you actually have a source, thats awesome. No one every sites anything. But, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. You sited one of the 2% of scientist who do not agree with athropogenic warming
"This first reconstruction of trends in CO2 concentration in the Northern Hemisphere is based on more than 90,000 direct chemical measurements in the atmosphere at 43 stations, between 1812 and 2004."
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative He tries to disprove evidence gathered from the Vostok and other ice cores and instead relies on measurments done over 100 years ago with very poor crude technology and techniques.
So hey you can believe one of the leading skeptics if you wish i guess.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative Temperatures continue to fall?
Actual climatologists laugh at you.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
@Thewenause 71% of Earth is covered by water... Avg H2O air concentration is 25,000 ppm many areas MUCH higher. RT for atmospheric CO2 is 7 yrs & only about 5% 20ppm is manmade. What a joke. I can't believe you see the absurdity of CAGW. Just Goggle the Canadian scientist survey.
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
@TheWenause- No, I'm referring to outgassing (chemical property of gas in suspension; more heat/more released). For the past 500 million yrs, average CO2 level has been 2000 ppm. Hasn't been thus low since the late Carboniferous. Durin Medieval Warming Period, proably abiut the same as temps were the same; proxy measurements aren't that accurate.
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
The data against man made climate change is mounting and the writing is on the wall. Human production of CO2 has nothing to do with the earths changing climate. But this has become purely a political tool. The Left sees this as their chance to destroy Western economy and they aren't going to let facts and reason get in their way. And don't look to the media for the truth. It's all a damn shame.
anywayokay 2 months ago
@anywayokay Explain how the addition of a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere could have nothing to do with a increase in global temperatures? If you removed all GHG's from the atmosphere the average temperature on the planet would be something like 30 degrees cooler.
Also...what data are you referring too? Because 99% of the people who have spent their lives studying the planet would tell you the complete opposite of that statement.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus Rising CO2 is caused naturally by a process called outgassing (i.e. the warmer a medium (oceans/soil) holding CO2 gets, the more CO2 is released. Rising CO2 is an EFFECT of NATURAL global warming not a CAUSE of global warming. H20 is 25,000ppm vs. CO2 390pppm, of which only 5% (20ppm) is manmade. Hmmm 20 ppm vs. 25,000 ppm. I think there is more H2O than manmade CO2 in the air. A recent survey of 50,000 Canadian scientists shows only 26% adhere to CAGW theory, not 99%. LOL!
samuraiconservative 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative :S. I would like to see the link to that source for the 26%. Also h2O is at anytime/place btwn 0.00001%-4% of the atmosphere and it is by far the most important GHG (greenhouse gas). I understand that. Where as CO2, CH4, N2O hardly make up 1%. The important thing about CO2 is its resinance time within the atmopshere. Water comes and goes within a matter of minutes/hours vs CO2 which stays in the atmosphere for potentially over a hundred years.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative
You Claim co2 has been the product of natural outgassing (I assume you mean from volcanoes/plate tectonic subduction) and that is going on right now but the thing is for the past.... 800,000 years give or take(human history), the MAXIMUM [co2] has been about 290 ppm. Now we are nearly at 400 ppm and the prediction to where we should be is somewhere far less then 290 because we are so far into this particular interglacial period (the holocene)
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@samuraiconservative We know that through fossil fuel consumption CO2 is a by product and released to the atmosphere.... so my question to you is.... where do you think that carbon is going? You are saying Temperatures control CO2 lvls - but the fact is we cant say either with 100% certainty. (correlation does mean causation yada yada) however CLEARLY they are tightly intertwined in some form. But you know go to a nearby university and ask profs for yourself i bet you will get nearer to 99%
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus
where is the carbon going? errr uhh you mean the plant food?
StopGlobalWarming09 2 months ago
@StopGlobalWarming09 Sorry im not sure what you are referring too.
People Often argue that plants will take up the extra co2 through photosynthesis... but we just arnt seeing that happening. CO2 is not a limiting nutrient for most plants compared to nitrogen and phosphorous.
Its true the ocean will take up lots of the carbon (carbon cycle). However that takes time and currently we are not slowing our emission rates. There are other methods of carbon sequestration also mind you.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
..after years of silence following the scientific fraud emails the Warming Alarmists and CO2 Liars are creeping back onto the news this week.
BTsmoke 3 months ago
One man's Global Warming is another man"s "eh, it's nice out"
TheCoolHandFluke 3 months ago
.....Global av temps have risen but it couldn't be CO2 because the increase in ppm in the atmosphere is minuscule. It has been hotter in past history. Av temps on the moon and Mars are also up the exact same amount as on Earth. Global av temps stopped rising in 1998, some 13 years ago, scientists have been saying for 10 years that the graph will "skyrocket" upward again soon but it didn't happen. Sea levels fell last year. Trees are growing quicker now.
BTsmoke 3 months ago
@BTsmoke "Global av temps have risen but it couldn't be CO2 because the increase in ppm in the atmosphere is minuscule" - Minuscule? Its about 390pm right now ~100+ more than we have ever seen in Hominid History and its only increasing and the rate of increase is also increasing (Whats minuscule about that?)
" It has been hotter in past history" - Its been A lot hotter in past history - Our species also didnt exist in these periods of time (just something to think about)
TheWenaus 3 months ago
@BTsmoke "Av tempsthe moon and Mars up the exact same amount as on Earth." - I would love to see the Data on this if you could link it. "Global av temps stopped rising in 1998" - 1998 is recorded as one of the warmest years IN HISTORY lol, 2007 Ties with 1998 for second behind 2005. And now 2010 has tied with 2005. So you're wrong and you manipulated the data in your favor
" Sea levels fell last year" - Sea levels a different all around the globe, but saying the fell one year proves nothing.
TheWenaus 3 months ago
@BTsmoke "Trees are growing quicker now" Huh? No idea if this is true but i would say its Irrelevant considering the amount of deforestation that is taking place on our planet.
"scientists have been saying for 10 years that the graph will "skyrocket" upward again soon but it didn't happen" - I guess you're referring to an exponential rise in temperature - Well if the earth was Super warm at some point in its History what makes you think it can't happen again?
TheWenaus 3 months ago
@TheWenaus Trees are growing better because of the increase in CO2, that has been proven but nobody is saying that the Earth is not warming, that's a red herring from the Climate Alarmists. What I am saying is that it cannot be CO2, obviously it is caused by the Sun.
BTsmoke 3 months ago
@BTsmoke There is NO evidence of increased photosynthesis taking up the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you can site any papers that support that idea i would like to read/see them. CO2 simply is not a limiting nutrient for plants
How can you say its obviously caused by the sun. Increased Solar luminosity takes place over Millions of years we are talking about the last 200 years. Maybe if you're talking about Solar flares yada yada but thats out of my field
TheWenaus 3 months ago
@TheWenaus If you really knew what you were talking about when it comes to climate, you would know what the Little Ice Age was, wouldn't you? The peak of the Little Ice Age, when global temperatures were lower than today, coincided with low sunspot activity. The link below (second picture) shows the times when grand solar minimums took place, and global temperatures. Continued.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
@MMrandomdude12 I think saying that solar activity accounts for recent warming is wishful thinking. But you mention the little ice age, some scientist believe the black death plagues (which killed off... some 50% of the population) may have been enough to off set the CO2 emitted through agriculture (particularly rice cultivation -methane) and therefore reduced the global temperature. I Dont know how much i believe that but...
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus I wish I could post links, but I can't. The Sun emits flares, etc, which warm the atmosphere if there the sun is active (more flares). If the Sun is virtually spotless, then the sunspots can't release these flares and the atmosphere steadily cools. Why does solar activity coincide so much with global temperatures? There is no way it is coincidence.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
@TheWenaus That graph shows how solar activity controls world temperatures. It also explains why global temperatures haven't risen since 1998. Sunspot activity has become very weak recently. The world is going to get colder.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
@MMrandomdude12 Temperatures HAVE risen since 1998 though.... :S i can send you data if you like. Off hand i think the warmest year was 2007? ... dont quote me. Either Way we cant say with 100% certainty BUT.... again (im not a doctor of science) nearly all of Earth/atmospheric/biology/chemistry/physics you know, anyone that studies Earth and issues related to climate or green house gasses believe that recent warming is due to anthropogenic activities.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus In 1998 was a year that followed two massive solar cycles and was during the heightening of another solar cycle. This year coincided with a positive PDO, extremely positive AMO and (I think) the strongest El Nino ever. No wonder the Earth was so warm in 1998. Google global temperatures from 1998 and watch how the trend was straight and then followed by dramatic cooling.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
@MMrandomdude12 So according to you in 11 years we should be able to observe the whole cycle... I guess ill talk to you in Eleven years when temperatures have only steadily risen :]
TheWenaus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MMrandomdude12 So according to you in 11 years we should be able to observe the whole cycle... I guess ill talk to you in Eleven years when temperatures have only steadily risen :]
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@MMrandomdude12 wait no... 2005 ... warmer then 1998
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus Cant post a link so just type in Maunder Minimum replay on google, go on images and its the yellow graph with the named grand solar minimums on it.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
@MMrandomdude12 Solar activity has been steadily increasing for the past... 4.6 billions years lol(earths history). So i dont think it can account for such accelerated warming in recent years. And well 97% of scientist that study the earth would probably agree.
TheWenaus 2 months ago
@TheWenaus The Sun goes through 11 year cycles from low activity to high to low again. During the late 20th century, these cycles were massive (except one which coincided with global cooling) and during these active cycles the atmosphere warmed. The oceans warmed and caused temperatures to rise. Now, the PDO has turned negative, the AMO is on the decline, were seeing more La Nina events, the stratosphere has cooled greatly, all coinciding with low solar activity in SS24. The earth is cooling.
MMrandomdude12 2 months ago
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences did a survey that found that "97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is 'very likely' caused mainly by human activity." it also found that "the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
Climate Change is real
893160007 3 months ago
ITS ALL A CONSPIRACY!!
Wafferman2000 3 months ago
Global Warming=BULLSHIT
Al Gore=Crook
peter455sd 4 months ago
@peter455sd = an idiot.
Mesdriver 3 months ago
@Mesdriver =Asswipe
peter455sd 3 months ago
@peter455sd
Whatever, illiterate idiot.
Mesdriver 3 months ago
@peter455sd wow your a complete dumb ass go kill yourself
zimbebe 1 month ago
Co2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 22% since 1960
Temperature has not followed this rise.
If temperature has risen, it is within the error margins and natural uncertainty, ie below the noise floor.
And we've burned half our oil already. If that hasn't changed the temperature, then burning the other half won't either.
And as we are probably at peak oil, the price will go up as it becomes scarce, and emissions will drop anyway.
robzed2 4 months ago
@robzed2
Earths temperature has gone up .5 degree C since 1960
893160007 3 months ago
Climate change is a flawed theory, it obvious that the scientific method of scientist conducting research which is then opened up to be tested and critiqued by other scientists is being deliberately thwarted. The IPCC directly funded by the U.N. hasn't published any contrary findings to climate change. The 'scientific data' of climate change has been used as a power grab by politicians who want a 1 world government to suit their population control 'brave new world' agenda. Wake up people!
julzBbY1 4 months ago
Oil is the driver for US and China's 'climate change policies' - oil, finance and power. They crave money, so I think it will be other financial factors (energy prices and peak-oil) that bring about climate friendly by default. The observed warming of the early 20thC through to the present was modelled along with various carbon forcing events - volcanic eruptions etc. Apparently, they could'nt get the model predict today's actual temperatures - until they added in human carbon emissions.
TheGoodalpha 5 months ago
Typical media! Why are they giving these flat earther's airtime? I'm going to start placing THEM in this conspiracy theorist group as well.
neutronbomb1000 5 months ago
Correct. 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
For something to be a scam, there has to be a scammer who profits. So, who profits from getting people concerned about global warming? The powerful, international solar panel cartel? Nope.
Who profits from calling global warming a scam? Oil companies, Coal companies, automobile manufacturers, heavy industry... all powerful, rich entities.
I go with the scientists and with scientific evidence from our OWN planet. The theory is sound and we should be concerned!
Doodle1Bean 6 months ago
@Doodle1Bean There are people who will benefit from the global wraming scam, namely your government who will tax you on carbon output and financial markets that will trade and speculate in carbon emissions.
SpiralTrance 5 months ago
climate change is real. The earth is not flat. Jesus cannot walk on water. Saying that humans are NOT having an impact on the earths climate is like saying you can live a shitty lifestyle, drinking, smoking, no exercise and then claim 'there is no scientific evidence that my habits and activities are impacting my health in any way, shape or form". How preposterous! People that are scientifically illiterate get scared easily and say... ahhh! the government are out to get us, arrggghh!!!
725672567256 6 months ago
i believe climate change is a fraud
dman1311974 6 months ago
@dman1311974 Just who is committing the fraud? Thousands of scientists and governments around the world? Why would they do that? Taking steps to combat global warming wouldn't make them a dime!
True, governments would save money if we arrested climate change because there would be fewer floods, droughts, and disasterous heat waves. But that would be helpful to ALL of us.
On the other hand, who would avoid losses and profit from *calling* climate change a fraud? Think about it.
Doodle1Bean 6 months ago
that final statement is true, however what they fail to explain is that it is the WARMING that raises CO2 not the CO2 that increases warming...they are related but in the opposite order than is being touted to institute this global control of every aspect of everyone's life, and the sheering of the last bit of wealth [less than 4% of global wealth] that 95+% of the global population still has in their hands..regardless of why however, there is no reason not to make green changes w/out taxes..
preparadox 6 months ago
Humans exhale co2. Plants convert co2 into oxygen through photosynthesis. More people? Plant more trees, do something about the destruction of the rainforests. Global warming is now Climate Change according to the EPA. Who can deny climate change? We see it 4 times a year on small scale. We see it in the ice layers at the poles and the geological column. What ever happened to worrying about the ozone hole? Oh, yeah, they found it's a naturally occurring phenomenon. This is all 9th gr. science .
jimprjayp 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
henrymakow com
infowars com
911weknow com
wake the hell up
new world order is a world takeover thats all and thats IT
singledad1234 6 months ago
Global Warming is a hoax because it is more convenient to make people believe that so profits can be made on oil drilling and destruction of the environment.
Basically, greed can turn something real into a hoax. All you have to convince people is that they will end up spending more money on energy if it is real, then they will agree with you that it is a hoax.
If you toss enough money and fake logic at the public, enough people will start believing gravity is a hoax too.
Neosaigo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Willie Soon, one of the scientific figures who claimed to be skeptical about climate change, has admitted to being paid more than $1 million in the past decade by major U.S. oil and coal companies. June 29, 2011
swordsintopens 7 months ago
Your an idiot. The planet is 5 billion years old and with 400 years of data you have decided that we are changing the climate? Completely irrational. CO2 levels were 2000% higher than today 400 million years ago. I got that directly from a geophysics professor at Yale. Shut up. Intelligent free thinkers aren't buying it and never will.
TheAndyadair 7 months ago
There is no government... just the governed... any one that BELIEVES that co2 can drive climate has not looked into it. that is absolute. the only people who are governed are those who try to get away with the bare minuim and stand by there adolecent convictions. ironically todays governments are maintained for those who have no intrest in democracy. the true colors of the western world have been shown and they are not bright. damn all the sheep and fake good doers
TruthWithinRange 7 months ago
SO WHAT IF WE ARE RIGHT ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE???
We will have cleaner air, sustainable development, and a healthy environment for future generations.. doesn't sound too bad to me?
Saamfy 7 months ago
@Saamfy - and be broke - already, in a leftist led economic crash, and governments showing bankruptcy all over the world - we entertain the idea of giving the UN taxation over the world through a carbon tax scheme
and the sheep just say.... doesn't sound bad to me
Nightverslonn 7 months ago
@Saamfy we will also drive jobs off shore to countries that don't have the political leanings that countries like Australia do and they will just pollute more so with no controls than what would have happened had the jobs stayed in the developed nations.
asgardian001 7 months ago
@asgardian001 : You mean drive off jobs from 20t CO2e per capita Australian workers who people who emitt as little as 2t CO2e per capita???
No seriously, you are going to lose low-wage jobs ANYWAY because you have high salaries - and a slight increase in energy prices won't change much to the fact it is 10 to 20 times cheaper to produce in China.
Germany has reduced its emissions 30%... the US let them increase 16%... guess who's doing better? facts do not support your argument.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass The problem is that there are very few facts to support either side of the argument. The USA and Germany are very different beasts to Australia and thus are a false dichotomy. According to wikipedia "An emphasis on exporting commodities rather than manufactured goods has underpinned a significant increase in Australia's terms of trade since the start of the century, due to rising commodity prices.". Australia mines and cannot compete with manufacturing. (cont.,)
asgardian001 6 months ago
@asgardian001 : So by your own admission you do not have problems about the impact on the manufacturing basis??? that nullifies your previous argument.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass (cont.,) Our emissions (if in fact they are a problem) are less of an issue than a massive increase in unemployment. Furthermore I fail to see how taxing carbon will be as effective as real environmental initiatives such as compulsory solar panels to all new homes, or better town planning to increase energy efficiency, better public transport, etc. It is purely and solely our minority government's attempt to appease the Greens who hold the balance of power
asgardian001 6 months ago
@asgardian001 : This is NONE OF MY BUSINESS....
If you had invested in green technologies and high tech instead of financial bubbles and pointless wars, you would now be where Germany is now with an unemployment lower than before the crisis and your emissions would be 30% down, not 16% up.
Why taxing carbon would be more effective to implement measures which have 1/40th of the cost of photovoltaic ??? your really don't see?
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@asgardian001 : Why do you want something as intrusive as a mandate for PV while taxing carbon (revenue-neutral off course - the revenues should ideally be compensated by lowering taxes on wage to increase competitiveness)... while taxing carbon leaves to the consumer the choice (the cost of carbon is however reflected in prices and is taken into account in the purchasing decision).
Long story short, you can abate N2O at chemical factories for $2/tCO2; PV cost over 400$/tCO2... your choice???
nigelelsass 6 months ago
@nigelelsass A carbon tax may reduce carbon emissions (this is dubious) however we are unsure that carbon is actually causing climate change anyway. Furthermore I hardly believe there is real choice when all industry will have to increase prices of most goods that are not negotiable - basic foods will increase as will other "staple" consumer goods.
asgardian001 6 months ago
@asgardian001 : yes WE ARE SURE that carbon emissions have a radiative forcing in the magnitude of 5W/m2 - as measured directly from two different satellites which show this radiative forcing to have occured at the specific wavelength of man-made greenhouse gases.
Countries which have implemented strong emission reductions have not seen prices increase in a noticeable way - and other factors have a 5 to 10-fold effect - once again your arguments are inaccurate.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
global warming is the earths natural cycle, the planet went through ice ages and i guess warm ages many of times before humans. so climate change is real but humans can not be blamed for it. I would say fight for clean air its a much better use of time.
Steve552751 7 months ago
@Steve552751 If you look at where we are now in the natural cycle we are near the end of the current interglacial and temperatures have been falling more or less for the last 12,000 years. Interglacials start with a rapid rise in temps and then a quick decline in temps followed by a slow decline. The current interglacial has followed that pettern until 100 years ago when it began to diverge. Rather odd don't you think?
AtomSmash3r 7 months ago
@AtomSmash3r Everything has irregularities and a 100 years isn't much in Earth's time. Its kinda like a fly trying to eat a mountain, the fly will be long dead before anything would happen.
Steve552751 7 months ago
@Steve552751 Attribution studies have shown that a 0.5'C rise that is not sustained is within the statistical noise of the climate. However the change is now 0.75'C and the rise has been sustained for the decades, illustrating that the change is not a statistical fluke.
AtomSmash3r 7 months ago
@AtomSmash3r I don't know what to say, neither of us are going to convince the other. 0.5 to 0.75 is a jump in statistical noise and is decent (glad to see you said celsius), but again I don't believe in these temperature readings, because were are they being taken? in a city or everywhere? i hope everywhere. And then its what are they are comparing it too. I'm doubtful that there is a glacier that is still around from the birth of the earth to test. There is too many variables too me.
Steve552751 7 months ago
@Steve552751 The temp readings are taken globally over sea and land. Of course Urban Heat Island affects are accounted for. If you don't believe direct temp readings, you wont believe anything.
AtomSmash3r 7 months ago
@AtomSmash3r I can believe the temp readings, but I find it too hard to point fingers on such an issue. To say we are the soul reason for a 0.25 degree increase from the standard deviation, I feel the need for more facts and proof. We might be the problem or not. My opinion is no. We'll see come back to this video in 50 years and then one of us might be saying haha or boohoo. Peace
Steve552751 7 months ago
@Steve552751 : Trust me, glaciers melting are an accurate information the climate is warming. As I live close to alpine glaciers I have one of the best real source of info.
nigelelsass 6 months ago
We have pumped many billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution, via chimneys & vehicle exhausts, at a greater rate than natural sequestration can cope with. I think that this has been a trigger point for GW. This could change given new evidence.
However, I am sceptical about the CO2 trading & taxing schemes, because they do not address the root, which is our over-dependence on imported fossil-fuels, centralised generating & wasteful economy.
archolman 8 months ago
@archolman we supposedly pumped x billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere and yet co2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere - in fact 0.3 %
over a 150 yrs and it remains unchanged
I wonder why... could it be that plants use it to make O2?
Nightverslonn 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here are some tools for you to use:
cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
earthkam.ucsd.edu/
metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/publications/climate-change
This last has links to, amongst other material, peer-reviewed papers , mostly in .pdf form. I hope these resources are of use.
archolman 8 months ago
metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/6/evidence.pdf
Good evidence here
archolman 8 months ago
I would do her!
bumzurvaj 8 months ago
Reply to Odessuss: Just view planet Earth from space. You will see that much of the land area is desert - just sun and soil but no water. Now imagine these deserts covered in jungle. Where would all the " CO2 emissions " disappear to? The answer is self evident - in photosynthesis producing life supporting oxygen. Non-negative solutions to "saving the planet " are surely to be preferred. Its just a matter of constructive management of the Earth's resouces for the benefit of all.
WPGS25041941 8 months ago
@WPGS25041941 Haha so you agree that climate change is occuring good. So you think it will make positive changes, interesting. More jungles? maybe. more deserts as well ... plus an awful lot of dead organisms that can't cope with the rapid changes. But i don't think it will be that bad, no doomsday soothsayer. Just that if we break it, should try to fix it ;)
Oddessuss 8 months ago
Ever noticed how all skeptics of undeniable facts are morons? Just saying...
Castrophia1986 9 months ago
We the people just don't trust the scientists who are paid by the government to say we need to pay a new tax here in Australia to save the Planet!!!
TheGladeGirl 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone here wants to learn about climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Drkstrong:
watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=channel_video_title
And Greenman3610:
watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 9 months ago
Methane has 23 times the heating effect of CO2 and so what if the planet is getting warmer. The Earth is far too cold anyway judging by the vast tracts of permafrost in Nothern Russia and Canada. The true answer to excess CO2 in the atmosphere is surely to jungalize vast areas of tropical desert and green plants will do the rest. Carbon is quite rare an element and CO2 is essential to the growth of our daily bread in wheat, ... " Global Warming " - a pretext ? I say No to CO2 sequestration.
WPGS25041941 10 months ago
@WPGS25041941 It doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as c02, which can affect hang around in the atmosphere for 1000's of years.
Oddessuss 8 months ago
Tell me guys why would there be a worldwide scientific conspiracy into human influenced climate change? or is it more likely that scientists DO THEIR JOBS, check their data and see, hang on, something isn't right, maybe dumping thousands of tonnes of fossil fuel into the atmosphere is doing something, hang on, thats what the EVIDENCE is actually telling us! Stop thinking a fossil fuel funded climate denier who commits obvious fallcies means shit people.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The indoctrinated of the warming cult think there individuals but here composites of there indoctrination . Who owns the media , Look at the new holy words (carbon ect ) Scary stories , Continuously repeated messages . Understand how propoganda works , there using ancient tricks . Plato also tells how thru the media/actors ect you upgrade and control an entire culture .
The none thinkers will continue to use the mantras , stats , data etc thats given to them to parrot .
ozzycriss 11 months ago
@RB1US Well, I'll tell you what I'm gunna do.. I will block you remove all your comments and give you a week to educate yourself better on the subject.. The when you come back, We will start again.
13thSphere 11 months ago
@13the Sphere Don't block, that is the exact tactics used by these environmental extremists. The hot topic in Australia at the moment is not whether climate change is real, but is it necessary to tax struggling families massive amounts of money to eradicate. A lot of the money will be redirected overseas to assist in their climate change struggles. Stinks of a leftist plot of wealth redistribution. Most of the money will end up in the pockets of corrupt government officials.
bullyoz1973 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHO'S A LIAR? CLIMATE CRIMINAL Exxon was caught funding a huge disinformation campaign about global warming. This is one of the reasons so many people don't understand the realities of global warming, or they are complicit or participating in the criminal disinformation scam. Read the report: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science -- ucsusa . org/publications/catalyst/exxon-exposed . html
gregjalbert 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine: greenpeace . org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries -- Billionaire oilman David Koch and his brother Charles (Koch Industries) have quietly funneled $50 million to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter. WHO'S A LIAR? PROSECUTE DISINFORMATION CRIMINALS.
gregjalbert 11 months ago
@RB1US Jupiter and Saturn are known as the gas and ice giants. The ice in Saturn rings has been melting for years... Next question?
13thSphere 11 months ago
1) Uranus is cooling actually.(Young 2001).
2) The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began. Read (Lockwood et al 2008)
3) There is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007).
TheDisproof 1 year ago
I think my IQ dropped a few points watching this.
naomiwiflath 1 year ago
SBS news is probably the most balanced news source in Australia. The show both sides of the argument rather than poking and aggravating people
LibertyDownUnder 1 year ago
I find it deplorable that some assume climate change is a hoax.... really folks... from someone born and raised in British Columbia Canada, global warming is real. It is hard not to notice such things as our glaciers melting at an alarming rate... and palm trees replacing snow in Vancouver.... now it comes down to the US & China battling Canada for it dirty tarsands OIL.... but of course to convince Canada to turn up the tap.....it must convince the world that global warming is a hoax..
JonahBC 1 year ago
@JonahBC what's deplorable is that you don't see the point here. Nobody is saying climate change is a hoax. What's the hoax is taxing people because of it. Ice cores tell us that c02 levels a 1000 years ago are higher than of today. The earth is due for a polarity shift, Meaning we will have new north and south poles. It's nothing new, It happens all the time. Wake up, don't be sucked in....... Even if it was real (which it's not), The only solution the government have is to tax you for it...
13thSphere 1 year ago 13
@13thSphere Reread the title of this video. The accusation is the climate change based on GHG production is a hoax. Far, far from it.
friedie1jeff 1 year ago
@13thSphere Exactly sure the climates changing it always has...we should aspire to live cleaner more efficent lives regardless but to pin millions of years of weather (natural cycles) on 200 years of human industry is stupidity.
fawnication 11 months ago
@fawnication Stupididty; is the very thing that mad youtube and everything you own "stupidity"; kid get a life outside your retarded ass eco shell.
Sugardaddy501 11 months ago
@Sugardaddy501 not sure you understood my comment...maybe read 13thsphere's comment, I don't believe in man made climate change.
fawnication 11 months ago
name the science article dude, don't just believe science journals of "shock jocks" I mean a lot of this "pseudo science" you guys pander about when you read the actual science Journal you see that actually they often are completely taken out of context, but SUPPORT anthropogenic climate change. There is a motherload of evidence supporting it, and you truly just want to take the word of one climate change skeptic? just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, its actually scary.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@13thSphere You say climate change isn't a hoax, and then say its not real ...hmmm contradiction anyone
Oddessuss 8 months ago 6
@Oddessuss The hoax is that climate change is because of human co2 and that is clearly not the case. hmmm ignorant anyone?
13thSphere 8 months ago
@13thSphere Hahaha I'm ignorant for knowing what the actual science says on the issue, thats right. People like you who are scientifically illiterate aren't ignorant, but someone those who have read and studied the science are ignorant. Ignorant of what exactly? I agree I'm ignorant of how stupid you are on this issue. You say clearly humans don't influence the climate and disagree with the vast majority of actual scientists. Bullshit, you have nothing. Go look at a science journal.
Oddessuss 8 months ago
@13thSphere I'm sorry, but your ignorance is frankly dangerous. Your contradictory comment proves your lack of thought on the subject. Even if people ignore anthropogenic climate change, then the other impacts of GHG emissions should make you rejoice at mankind seeing sense. What happens when the oil runs out because people didn't care enough to use it efficiently? The only way people can learn to care about anything is by making it economically unfavourable these days. Hence taxes
TheShurikenBoy 8 months ago
@13thSphere You have obviously done little to no research on the molecular affect of an excess of CO2, ignorant you say? These are scientific facts. It is a fact that CO2 contributes to global warming, some of the LEADING scientists in the world agree on climite change, 94% of climite change pHD's agree that it is a man-made cause. I hardly think that you, a basment blogger can win the debate based on plausibibilities. As to the taxes, ignorance on your part again; we just cut extraneus spending
happyemo4life 8 months ago
@happyemo4life well you're busted on one giant fact! - No scientist has said that the small amount of warming was caused by man
not even the IPCC - before 2005, when the planet showed a 0.4C amount of warming, they said "man MAY be (or most likely) contributing!
huge difference - what they said was that is was natural and man may (or may not) be adding some amount to it
get your facts straight - read a few IPCC reports please
Nightverslonn 7 months ago
@13thSphere Well, a large part of the Green House Gas consists of CO2, as for CO2 levels 1000 years ago being higher than now, its 100,000 years ago (2 zeros make a lot of difference). What everyone is debating is not that climate change is a hoax or not, but whether we as humans caused it to happen or not. There has not been enough research done on this still since we are not 100% sure whether the climate change is anthropogenic or natural, which is also why this controversy is happening.
diggyzerox 8 months ago
@13thSphere "That is clearly not the case", eh? Are you aware that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of scientific evidence says that it IS THE CASE? Tell me, why have you decided to favour THIS science over the landslide of science that says the opposite? Why do you cherry pick?
neutronbomb1000 5 months ago
@13thSphere Algore was desperate to gain popularity so he invented this scheme back in 1977 as an Atari Democrat.
willdav713 8 months ago
@13thSphere No, CO2 levels were not higher 1,000 years ago.
Please, for your own sake so you don't look retarded, read some scientific literature and LEARN about climate change instead of just inanely rejecting the "mainstream view" presented by the media for the sake of rejecting what the media reports on everything.
Maybe you'll actually learn something and will stop trying to claim climate change is a hoax.
Moron.
tomroutledge 8 months ago
Comment removed
nigelelsass 8 months ago
@13thSphere The CO2 levels were higher but the solar activity was lower, accounting for a lower global temperature than today
TheGamanic 5 months ago
@JonahBC Globalwarming is NOT being told here as a hoax! What they're saying is there is no evidence that it is being caused by CO2 emissions... get it?
iamgr80k 1 year ago
@iamgr80k : Yes but there is such evidence:
- decrease IR radiated to space at specific GHG absorption bands
- increase IR reradiated to earth at specific GHG absorption bands
- no increase in day/night temperature difference
- stronger warming in polar regions
- stratospheric cooling (resulting from 2 first points)
I wonder why the evidence is not better communicated to the public
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@JonahBC I guess you know more than Lindstrem from MIT.....CYCLE NOT A CHANGE AND GORE IS A FRAUD..THE SCIENCE AND THE FINANCIAL CAROUSEL!
GABLACKOPS 11 months ago
@JonahBC canada is being sued for not meeting their Kyoto protocol co2 reductions.... really palm trees replacing snow wow what hyperbole
litterbug206 10 months ago
@JonahBC If that was true WE WOULD HAVE DIED AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION IN THE 1700s!!! A extremist hoax solely for a tax and tolitarian state. People who want 1984 like government brainwash people with so called global warming, and pretty soon meat will be banned, only the hippiecrit polictians can eat meat, smoke, and drink sodas and eat trans fatty foods.
willdav713 8 months ago
@JonahBC
OMG Idiot Warning! Idiot Warning! Idiot Warning! Idiot Warning! Should be written across your forehead!
Edooo20 7 months ago
On 7/28/11, it was revealed that the scientist behind the polar-bears-are-in-trouble research is being investigated for “scientific misconduct”. Then, a new study of NASA data revealed that the earth is actually allowing more heat to escape the planet than previously thought by the climate change community. During a speech at the Aspen Institute in Colorado, Al Gore launched into a vulgar tirade while accusing skeptics of media manipulation.
vechorik 5 months ago
Today we have co2 taxes and climate change, tomorrow governments will say: eat shit, because its good and healthy, not fruits cause they are bad for you. if you eat fruits you go to jail. At the begining people will not agree, but gradually they will get used to eating shit and will start defending it as a good food! Everyone who supports climate change bullshit on TV gets paid a lot of money for that! All those "scientists" are politicians and dont know shit! If you believe in TV youre doomed!
wneq 1 year ago 7
@wneq I forgot to add that there will be no fruits or trees left cause we will eradicate exterminate them by gettting rid of co2. Wait.... we wont be around too, cause there will be no plants, so no oxygen! Hooray lets all breath diesel fumes and live happy asthma, cancer life till our 15 th birthday !
wneq 1 year ago 6
@wneq Everyone dies, You cannot change Natural Selection. A lot of people have allergies some might trigger asthmatic attacks. They are natural cures for Asthma but the federal government covers that up to pay for bribes made by the pharma companies. The Democrats are the worst when it comes to this.
willdav713 8 months ago
@wneq HAHAHAHAHA well said.
iamgr80k 1 year ago
@iamgr80k thanks:)
wneq 1 year ago
@wneq ...There's no scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change. The only scenario that explains the data are if both human and natural "forcings" are combined. Carbon dioxide increases temperature, and heat increases the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water. It's just physics. We are at 390 ppm carbon dioxide...and rising...with no end in sight. Humanity are playing Russian roulette since the earth system, which may "flip" into a rapid and permanently extreme climate regime.
followthefleet1 8 months ago
Global warming is the FEAR created to pay for the DEPRESSION . HAVE YOU NOTICED your electricity bill lately suckers .
peterm3964 1 year ago 2
@peterm3964 : Well then it was really planned ahead (1896) by Svante Arrhenius... by your reasoning it should even have been used for the great depression or to finance WW1.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
There is NO Global Warming! You guys do realize that Al Gore part OWNS a "carbon credit" company!!! This is the BIGGEST scam of the modern age!
LynchColl94 1 year ago 3
You guys are right, burning 30 million years of stored carbon and releasing it into the atmosphere in less than 200 is totally natural. Carbon is stored in the planet in the form of coal and every couple million years or so a species comes by and burns it all. Sounds right.
Rstil666 1 year ago
stupid vid
remcovanek2 1 year ago
no change in CO2 fro 200 years
JonThm 1 year ago
It's funny how you don't hear nothing on the news about global warming anymore, and Al Gore is still keeping his head down, lmao!! The dumbass liberals that voted for Obama the worst American president in history, and most have remorse, except the ALTRA brain dead, also fell fore the global warming crock HOOK LINE AND SINKER. And what's worse is, they have the common gull, to call us conservatives unintelligent, when we said all along it was lies, lmao even harder!!
1966MRspock 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@1966MRspock as an intelligent conservative, I'm guessing you also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.
IAmHotize 1 year ago
@1966MRspock : That is because you live in one of the western countries with the lowest IQ and some of the most distorted media, aka America.
nigelelsass 1 year ago
High School biology, green plants sink CO2: So no change in free CO2 for 200 years: CC ficiton from paid stooges to nuclear power as here
JonThm 1 year ago
I am an unpaid PhD studenrt. Nuclear power has paid for all work on GW or CC. Just is nto true! No more CO2 in the air than 200 years ago
JonThm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonThm PhD in what? sports?
I would doubt it as PhD students know how to write scientific reports and never fail to give precise soures... you are most likely therefore a FRAUD!!!!
nigelelsass 1 year ago
Comment removed
nigelelsass 1 year ago
O level biology predicted rightly, that CO2 had remained static for 200 years: GW adn CC were lies from paid stooges to nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm : You are a total moron....
You do not even know how to measure the things to claim!!!! Idiot
nigelelsass 1 year ago
@JonThm : SOURCE????
My grandma says... therefore...
nigelelsass 1 year ago
Green plants have sunk all man's CO2 - high school biology, as conmfirmed by Harvard. No GW or CC
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm: You are a total moron....
You do not even know how to measure the things to claim!!!! Idiot
One thing is for sure... you did not graduate from Havard.
nigelelsass 1 year ago