Climate Change VS Global Warming (SATIRE)

[shartne]

Good satire! did you just burn a good one? your eyes say yes it is so.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@shartne Guilty as charged!

[maril275]

SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING . HAHAHAHAHA !!! .EPIC.

[LovesMassEffect]

Funny as hell! 

[simantov666]

thatz what the cub of rome said in 1969. so at least sign copenhagen treaty tody amerika.

[Slipknotyk06]

Global Warming vs Climate Change

In the 70s and early 80s, there was a movement of scientists that believed in the inevitability of global cooling.

In the late 80s, 90s and until about 05 these scientists believed in global warming

Today these scientists can't agree on the direction of global temperature, thus CLIMATE CHANGE.

I'm a denier because most of these scientists that conducted studies are not qualified in that field. IPCC was carried out by an economist!

[satirewriter07]

Your point would have been SOLIDIFIED (and more true to Satire, to boot) if you'd made the candle set a fire & burn Down the house.

Hence: Denier's COMPLIANCE leads to the Obviously Inevitable LARGER Destruction of the environment, instead of just holding to their Principles.

Good video.

[nelsoninjcmo]

I love it

[dudemanbearpig]

"Try to tell a Russian housewife, who trudges miles on foot in sub-zero weather in order to spend hours standing in line at a state store dispensing food rations, that America is defiled by shopping centers, expressways, and family cars." - Ayn Rand

[snewso]

whatever suits their agenda of selling the green movement. oh well, think i'll go burn a tire.

[realhxq]

keep it up!

[OlimDeus]

You know the thing everything this life is based on? WELL IT'S BAD! lol

[fruitikay]

LOL Like Algore said....Sometimes global warming can cause temporary global freezing...lol...like that makes sense.

[ZangaroZen]

@NotYourFriendBuddy, You think the scientific process amounts to "a bunch of people all agreed" "deciding by concensus". LOL. No that's how a group of morons declare their opinions are right.

Scientific concensus occurs after much research resulting in theories that stand up to the facts.

As for global warming deniers being just like flat earthers, good call.

The illiterate majority (including the church) once thought the earth was flat, not the tiny educated elite. Not the reverse.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen Exactly, which is why climate scientists at East Anglia University had to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't confuse the illiterate majority when their theories didn't stand up to the facts.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, one quote mined sentence fragment taken from many thousands of culled decade old emails. That's your evidence? A single tear in an ocean? Is your position so weak and feeble that you have to desperately cling to nonsense instead of coming up with anything remotely recent and significant?

Anyone could "prove" just about any nonsense by cherrying picking sentence fragments from thousands of emails. How about we try it with your emails history?

Watch P70SlEqX7oY

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen Yes, I've sen the video where greenman argues semantics. That doesn't disprove the fact that data was altered. "cherry picking" or not, if the scientists at UEA were so confident in their theory, they wouldn't have to figure out ways to reconcile the data. Is your alarmist position so weak that you desperately cling to dogmatic group-think by labeling any dissent "nonsense"? Science is never "settled", conclusions aren't based on consensus, and correlation does not equal causation.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

*seen the video

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, what semantics? As usual you claim things without backing.

Tree rings are one of the least accurate CO2 proxy measures. Say you required X amount of O2/minute, more or less in the atmosphere only changes your rate of breathing not the amount of O2 you require. Same with CO2 and plants.

You claim "data was altered". Fact is the scientific papers clearly state why the tree ring data was dropped far more accurate instrument readings.

Do you have a high school diploma?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "semantics": as in what the UEA scientists meant by "trick". If the tree ring data was the least accurate, it shouldn't have been used in the first place, not up until it declined. Yes, I have a high school diploma. Thanks for asking.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, out of many 1000s of 10 year old emails, all deniers can find:

1. "trick" which refers to a clever math short cut

2. "hide the decline" meaning dropping inaccurate data

That's like catching you in a grammatical mistake once and then declaring you can't speak English.

Tapping as many sources of evidence as possible to verify research is common. Tree ring data doesn't extrapolate as CO2 levels are the highest in history.

So you never took a college science course.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, been through this before, "group-think" based on opinions is what morons do, while crying things they don't understand like "never settled" and "correlation does not equal causation".

Say a car hits a man. Science would note the injuries correlate to the dents on the car and therefore the car caused the injuries, while you'd argue that "correlation does not equal causation" and we'd have no hope of ever "settling" how the man was injured.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Say a car hits a man" I'd argue that in order to prove the dents were made by the injured man, paint from the dents would have to match paint on the mans clothes/injuries. That would settle everything. I would not argue that just because a car is dented and a man is injured, therefore the car hit the man. Thank you for proving my point about causation vs correlation.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, you've only proved you don't know that correlate means "reciprocal relation". "injuries correlate to the dents", as in the body impression on the hood matches the victim. Correlation often implies causation, not the reservse as you say.

Let's make this clear: the dents/damage/paint/time/locati­on between the car and victim all correlate/match. science would conclude the man was hit by that car, while you'd claim "settling"/correlating the causation was impossible.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "let's make this clear" I'm not arguing against the correlation of physical evidence (paint from car matches paint from injuries) , I'm arguing against the correlation of events (damaged car/injured man). That's what I ment by "correlation does not equal causation", as you stated "correlation often implies causation". By your own admission it "often implies" not conclusively proves.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

I would never deny that the Earths climate is changing (b/c it always has, and will continue to) nor that mans actions effect the environment. I'm denying that the very thing that has improved the quality of life world wide is the sole cause of the changes and that we must severely alter our way of life in order to reverse the changes. There are far more variables when it comes to life on this planet than there are in a car accident. That's what I meant by "science is never settled".

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, the car accident is a simple analogy that disproves your "never settled" attitude.

Everyone knows that the earth's climate has evolved. Life flurishes when climate is stable, mass extinctions occur when that climate is disrupted. During the 400,000 year span of humanity CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, but in the last 100 years CO2 has rapidly rised to 390ppm a historic record, and the earth is warming. Why? Massive fossil fuel burning.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen CO2 cannot cause anymore "global warming" Ykgg9m-7FK4

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, a new GW denier hero "Dr Miklos Zagoni", a physicist. Your point is one quack is worth more than every prestigious national and international scientific organization on the planet? My question still stands:

"Name me one national or international scientific organization on the planet that backs the views of tobacco or big oil"...fourth time asking and you still have nothing.

As for "CO2 cannot cause anymore [GW]", does so in the lab and in ice cores.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, the tobacco industry successfully lobbied for decades that "correlation does not equal causation", 100s of millions died horrible deaths while a tiny minor indulged in a love of money. Smoking does cause cancer. "Correlation often implies causation". "Often" meaning most of the time.

Name me one national/international scientific organization that supports the tabacco or oil industry's claim "not conclusively proves".

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen I was wrong about correlation not equaling causation and science never being setyled. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, finally replying back.

You didn't answer the question, you didn't name one national/international scientific organization that supports the tabacoo or oil industry's claims. Why? You coudn't.

"Minimum wage laws increase unemployment" for who? Those that can't earn a living wage? Perhaps the minimum wage causes employers to make sure those employees are used more efficiently.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

"You couldn't" Because I'm not going to argue that smoking doesn't carry health risks. As for the evil oil companies and the global warming CO2 it creates:

Ferenc M. Miskolczi paper on Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary

atmospheres h t t p ://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol1110­01_01. pdf

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced, or otherwise less desired workers more expensive -- thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, again you didn't answer the question, to "name one national/international scientific organization that supports the tobacco or oil industry's claims", therefore you've conceeded TWICE.

Those that aren't worth the minimum/living wage of $10/hour because of mental/physical/etc defects aren't going to get jobs. Jobs worth less than $10/hour will be upgraded by the employer to reflect the higher wage, say a push mower for a ride-on one, so what's your problem?

[ZangaroZen]

@NotYourFriendBuddy, "climate change" is the more general term that includes "global warming" which is the trend to higher surface temperatures. Both terms are often used synonymously.

Your local weather is not a good measure as to what's happening climatically globally. Just because you forgot your umbrella and got soaked doesn't imply the earth is not desertifying.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen I "conceeded" that I was incorrect about correlation/causation, not becuase I couldn't argue that smoking isn't harmful, but because there is a correlation between minimum wage laws and unemployment. I'll repeat myself: Large disparities in unemployment rates between the young and the mature, the skilled and the unskilled, and between different racial groups have been common consequences of minimum wage laws. I fail to see how people w/ "defects" fit into that equation.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, are you kidding? "wrong about correlation not equaling causation", do you think this is some sort of ironclad law?

In the real world, things that appear always together are usually related, not always but usually. Cherry picking a rare example where correlation exists without relation doesn't disprove all the other cases of correlation with causation.

People with physical/mental "detects" can't land minimum wage jobs, so what do you propose for them?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Cherry picking" I see, it only works when it comes to controlling business in the name of saving the planet or paying people what they are "worth". Price is based on willingness to pay, not worth. "defects" We're talking about the unemployed, not the unemployable. There are plenty of tax payer funded social services and private charities that help these people. Please stop bringing them up.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "Cherry picking'...when it comes to controlling business... saving the planet", WRONG AGW has 1000s of scientific studies, decades of research, and EVERY national/international scientific organization behind it. Deniers cling to a few quacks, most always outside the field, and big oil funded shills.

"Price is based on willingness to pay, not worth", WRONG in captialism, price/worth varies with supply and demand.

You support taxed social services for the unempoyable?

[ZangaroZen]

[continued], say the minimum wage is $8/hour, and excluding unemployable people who you advocate (amazingly) should rely on taxed supported social programs:

1. Who then would be a permanent unemployed person?

2. Why are they permanently unemployed?

3. What's your solution?

4. If $8/hour is not a living wage then what is?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "say the minimum wage is $8/hour"

1. The young and unskilled willing to work for less than $8/hr

2. Because wage laws prevent them from working what they're willing to earn.

(assuming they aren't paid off the books tax free)

3. End wage laws.

4. However much an individual is willing to earn.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, thanks for the answers.

Let's face it $8/hour is peanuts.

If mowing lawns is a $6/hour job with a push mower, then the idea it to charge more with a ride on mower. If employers don't like the minimum $8 rate then let them enhance the job/employee so it's worth a living wage of $8+/hour.

There are always commission only jobs.

Minimum wage was instituted to combat sweat shops and their unfair confining nature or exploitation, but you'd love to see shanty towns.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Mowing lawns" The idea is to generate more revenue than expenses AKA profit. Purchasing a riding mower only makes sense if it's to fill an increase demand in mowing. Charging more only makes sense if the customer is willing to pay more than the market rate. "Shanty towns" I see we've moved on from "defects". Sweatshops/child labor still exist, people still work less than minimum wage in spite of the law. What do they have to do w/ the correlation between wage laws and unemployment?

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "idea is to generate more revenue than expenses AKA profit. Purchasing a riding mower only makes sense if it's to fill an increase demand...charging more only makes sense if the customer is willing to pay more" WRONG if a push mower takes 4 hours to cut 4 acres, but a ride on mower only needs 1 hour, then you can charge 4 times more per hour without effecting the customer's cost, and cover the ride on mower cost/hour, pay the employee more, earn more profit.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "you can charge 4 times more per hour without effecting the customer's cost, and cover the ride on mower cost/hour, pay the employee more, earn more profit." How can you charge the customer 4x more for doing 4x less the work w/o effecting thier cost? Who exactly are you "charging 4 times more" if not the customer? If you mean that by mowing more acres in less time enables you to add new customers, that would be an increase in demand.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "How can you charge the customer 4x more for doing 4x less...w/o effecting their cost", it's moronically obvious:

1. $32/hour ride on mower, 1 hour for 4 acres, $32 for the job

2. $8/hour push mower, 4 hours for 4 acres, still $32

Earning more per hour, means the employee is more efficient and the minimum wage if justified, it not more.

"drop Monckton", don't know of many "expert" deniers. Go ahead you name a few.

"research..save planet" Your point?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "moronically obvious" You haven't charged 4x more if you're still doing the same amount of work for the same price whether it takes 1 hour or 4. Nor will you have any yards to mow when your customers inform you that they no longer require your services since your competitor charges $28/hr to mow 4 acres.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Go ahead you name a few" According to you, only experts in a particular field can scrutinize research in a particular subject, making it easier to label all dissenters as oil shill quacks, without ever having to challenge anything based on the merits of the dissenting argument because only the expert creators of a particular theory are allowed to criticize their own expert work. That is antithetical to the scientific process.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "only experts in a particular field can scrutinize research in a particular subject...dissenters...oil shill quacks...[nothing] on the merits of the dissenting arguement...only the expert creators...allowed to critize their own expert work", what nonsense BS.

Need your teeth fix? Do you go to a guy with an opinion and sledge hammer, or a ADA certified dentist?

A subject expert opinion has weight. A moron opinion doesn't.

Found an expert mistake? You're free to say.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen '"allowed to critize their own expert work', what nonsense BS." "only AGW scientists can research climate change.' Sounds reasonable"

I'll name an expert denier as soon as you can decide exactly what constitutes one.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "I'll name an expert denier as soon as you can decide exactly what constitues one": Like so:

1. doesn't offer empty opinions and logical falacies

2. deals with statistical facts, not cherry picking cases

3. has published in reputable AGW science journals

"from the person who suggested purchasing equipment that burns more fossil fuels in order to "earn more profit" didn't say any of that.

"increasing expenses with out increasing revenue" WRONG didn't talk expenses.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "didn't say any of that" "didn't talk expenses" Yes, you did:

if a push mower takes 4 hours to cut 4 acres, but a ride on mower only needs 1 hour, then you can charge 4 times more per hour without effecting the customer's cost, and cover the ride on mower cost/hour, pay the employee more, earn more profit.

ZangaroZen 3 days ago

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "didn't talk expenses...yes you did" in one later post after you bitched.

Job expenses aren't the same as the customer bill, a constant $32 in this example: ride on mower for 1 hour @ $32 OR 4 hours @ $8/hour with the push mower.

Less $10/hour ride on mower expenses leaves $22. If you pay an employee minimum wage $8/hour, then with a ride on mower you'll make $14/hour profit, while with a push mower you make $0/hour. Finally clear?

Name a AGW denier expert already.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "pay the employee more" labor is an expense, that was before I "bitched" . I'll clear things up for you: Revenue ($32) - Expenses (TOTAL cost of mower & labor) = Profit (Whatever is left over if any)."Job expenses aren't the same as the customer bill" All costs are passed onto the consumer. Before you type WRONG, your own lawn mowing example is proof. "Name a AGW denier" Why bother, you're only going to label them a quack, shill, or outside their field simply b/c of their skepticism.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, you demand sweat shop wages, I noted employer could "enhance the job/employee so it's worth a living wage of $8+/hour". A ride on mower and $14/hour profit not of a push mower and $0/hour profit. Again "you can charge 4 times more per hour without effecting the customer's cost, and cover the ride on mower cost/hour, pay the employee more, earn more profit."

"Why bother [naming a AGW denier expert]" either there are none or you're afraid of a pwning. Stop crying, do it.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "enhance the job/employee" for the last time. You haven't "enhanced" anything if you only make $32 mowing 4 acres regardless of what equipment you use, how long it takes, or how much you pay your labor."there are none" Hard to do research when UEA denies freedom of information act requests for raw data. "afraid of a pwning" Why would I be afraid of someone who doesn't understand basic economics and can't even keep track of what they said?

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "haven't "enchanced anything" LOL you're dense:

Profit/loss= Revenue -Expenses

= [Charge/hour -$/hour mower -$8/hour wages] x hours

Push mower: [$8/hour -$1/hour push mower -$8/hour] x4 hours= -$4 loss

Ride on mower: [$32/hour -$10/hour ride on mower -$8/hour] x1 hour =$14 profit

Minimum living wage encourages efficient employee use, not sweat shops.

"denies freedom of infromation" WRONG. What's stopping denier experts from doing their own research?

[con't]

[ZangaroZen]

[con't]

"Why would I be afraid" you said "I'll name an expert denier as soon as you can decide exactly what constitutes one" REMEMBER? or "can't [you] even keep track of what [you] said?"

Again an expert denier who:

1. doesn't offer empty opinions and logical falacies

2. deals with statistical facts, not cherry picking cases

3. has published in reputable AGW science journals

Name an expert denier already

"doesn't understand basic economics" which you believe is accounting. WRONG

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "economics...is accounting" No, I stated "accounting" (your words) is mathematical analysis, look up the definition. You're paid by how many acres you mow, not the time it takes to mow them. You're expenses are calculated by total cost, not per hour. "doing their own research" nothing, except that sharing data is part of the scientific process but since they're not AGW scientists, they"re outside their field and therefor barred from being published in reputable AGW science journals

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, You said "keeping records of business transactions and tax collections for thousands of years" again that's ACCOUNTING not ECONOMICS

"not per hour" mowing example issues? Then SPECIFICALLY say what.

Per unit, break-even/micro/engineering analysis confuses you? Consider 40,000 acres, gives either -$40,000 and demands for sweat shop wages or +$140,000 with efficient employee use at $8/hour. Clear?

You got the criteria, name your BEST denier expert already.

[con't]

[ZangaroZen]

[con't]

"total cost" implies COST accounting, unfortunately for you FINANCIAL accounting is what's used in business.

"shaing data is part of the scientific process", absolutely, most is freely available online to ANYONE, but you can't expect data from the 70s to survive.

"barred from being published" WRONG. Lookup Michael Faraday and Robert Stroud, uneducated self-taught experts, widely published in reputable journals. The criteria is SOUND RESEARCH not credentials or BS opinions.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen What AGW scientific journal were Michael Faraday & Robert Stroud published in? That was your criteria. "you can't expect data from the 70s to survive" Why not?

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, Still confused by financial accounting? Consider 4M acres:

push mower: -$4M loss

ride on mower: $14M profit

Profits with a push mower require paying sweat shop wages. At $6/hour you'd make $4M versus $14M with an efficient employee at $8/hour and in 25% of the time. Clear?

Faraday & Stroud are examples of published experts without credentials. Name your best denier expert. Still waiting..

"Why not?" 70s tape memory is expensive and has a decade life expectancy.

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen Richard S. Lindzen

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, this Richard S. Lindzen:

1. since 1960s claims smoking doesn't cause lung cancer

2. believes "no statistically significant warming since 1995"

3. admits to a 0.45C increase ("a few tenths of a degree") over a 100 years but declares that "insignificant"

4. believes average temperature will drop below 2004 values by 2024

5. declares warming means more stable climate not less

6. charges $2500/day to speak at ExxonMobil funded events

Watch cp-iB6jwjUc and boj9ccV9htk

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen 1. No

2.Yes

3.Yep

4.No

5.Yes

6. You mean Heartland. I doubt he charges what you say and I don't have you're irrational hatred of energy companies so I don't care.

I read desmogblog and I get the smear routine. You realise when you attack his character it looks like you're avoiding debating the science? O.k John Christy why is he an evil person that can't be trusted?

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100

1. obviously he's wrong

3. actually Lindzen admits to 0.6C increase in Fz8KiA-YMt8

4. Reason Magazine quotes Lindzen in Nov 10 2004 saying "...that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."

6. Google "Lindzen $2500" Lindzen made speeches funded by ExxonMobil, OPEC, Western Fuels, etc, and lobbiest organizations funded by the same.

"attack his character" not calling Lindzen names, STATING FACTS

Dr. Christy has retracked his past issues

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen You didn't call him names but what has his income or who pays him to do with climate science? Are you saying he is lying for money? This implies he is corrupt. Why did you bring up this fact? What did you think it proved? John Christy has not retracked his past issues, he still does not support catastrophic climate change theory. Most sceptics agree that co2 will cause some warming its the catastrophe they debate. Wattsupwiththat has Christy's latest paper. He's still sceptical.

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, you admit I didn't call Lindzen names, so how is calling him on his claim that he only receives government funding when in reality he charges $2500/day to the oil lobby for appearances and papers in their support, an attack on his character?

As for Christy, check out his retractions here:

boj9ccV9htk @5:00

TNbjqSyWdcs @7:00

P70SlEqX7oY @7:00

Your next denier expert?

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen John Christy is a climate catastrophe sceptic. Rather than watch little snippets of Greenman, why don't you watch the lecture entitled Global warming where is the alarm he gave on May 17th this year to friends of science. The title contains a subtle hint at the content or the paper at wattsupwiththat. Why give a sceptic website a preview of his paper? To get Christy's view on climate change you only need type his name into the search bar above, there is really no point lying.

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, Christy has admitted to being wrong with regards to the increase in temperature and upper atmosphere temperature changes. QED

I take it you don't have any issues with the videos I sent you, as you have nothing specific to counter with.

As for the seriousness of CO2 levels, in ppm CO2 has been between 100 and 300ppm over the last 400,000 years, but in only the last 100 years (0.025% of that range) CO2 has risen 40% to a 400 millenium high of about 390ppm. Not cause for concern?

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen How about you make a specific argument and I'll respond to that rather than trying to debunk all the videos you link to (seems a little more fair). Christy admitting he was wrong on a dataset is not the same as recanting his views on global warming which is what you originally stated. Did you check any of the debates or lectures he has been involved in? Christy is clearly a cagw sceptic, if I wanted to understand his views why would I ask greenman rather than watch his lectures?

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen Are you honestly saying that you not bringing up payments from oil companies to imply that these payments have influenced Lindzen's scientific opinions? Do you think he's corrupt or not? You know you aren't qualified to argue atmospheric physics with Lindzen so you argue with his views on tobacco (he's not an oncologist) or his salary. I don't think climategate proved anything. I read Realclimate, I disagree but I have never checked the personal beliefs or salary of the writers.

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, "Do you think he's corrupt?", he seems to relish being a skeptic, whether it's with tobacco being non-cancer causing or global warming being harmless. The fact that Lindzen lied about his extra speaking income on behalf of big oil, is not very endearing to his character.

"influence Lindzen's scientific opinions", obviously nobody is going to pay $2500/day to get opinions that don't suit them. Maybe Lindzen should back up his opinions with actual research papers on AGW?

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen Lindzen has published peer reviewed research papers on agw. I've enjoyed reading realclimate try to debunk them. He was a lead author on chapter 7 of the 3rd IPCC assesment. This is on wikipedia, it's not hard to find. As for the oil payments, I could counter with crap about grants and gores speaking fees but it proves nothing either way. This stuff just clouds the issue.

Whether a 40% Co2 increase is cause for concern, not in itself, you need to prove a negative effect for humans.

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, "Lindzen has published peer reviewed research papers", yes about 200 papers. How many are on denier agw? What is his very best paper? The problem with publishing BS is that it tarnishes the author's reputation after it's ripped apart by other's in the field.

Sure Lindzen was a contributor to the 3rd IPCC assesment, but that 50 pages was 10 years ago and credit is divided among 10 lead authors and 40 other authors. Your point?

Vested interest fees indicate bais not clouding.

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen Being an IPCC lead author means the IPCC thought he had some expertise on climate change. "Denier agw" is not a scientific term so none. If you mean climate sensitivity, negative feedbacks etc then I don't know. You saw the list if you went to wiki. Papers referring to the Iris effect deal with sensitivity but there are more that deal with other aspects. Lindzen has vested interests and is biased but you weren't attacking character. Watch IQ2 debate see him get "ripped apart".

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, "Denier agw" is not a scientific term", only understand "scientific terms" now? My meaning was obvious. You're the Lindzen fan, who laughs at written debunkings of him, yet can't name ("so none") his very best irrefutable paper against AGW. Odd.

Want to talk experts? Then confirming who they are is par for the course, not "character attacks". However his 40 year denial of smoking's link to cancer shows his lack of respect for evidence.

Seen the full IQ2 debate. Your point?

[shiftyd100]

@ZangaroZen IQ2 debate, my point i've never seen him get ripped apart, have you?where? Said enjoyed not laughed, I like a debate. The guys at realclimate are smarter than me, but I believe Lindzen. I don't know what Lindzen's best paper is I'm not qualified to judge. Nothing is irrefutable, he could be wrong I don't think he is. Why get me to name a random paper Lindzen has written on agw? You know I can just pick one off the end of the list. Lindzen and Choi 2009.

[ZangaroZen]

@shiftyd100, as for the IQ2 "debate", 6 people with about 10 minutes each spread out over 75 minutes. Each with an 8 minute opening monologue, a few questions from the audience usually directed at one side only. The most effective speaker was Crichton the fiction author which isn't saying much. Lindzen did interject during each of his opponents monologues, the only one with bad manners. As for his monologue, typically slow talking, vague, littered with misreprentations.

[cont'd]

[JAIJAI0]

@ZangaroZen The reports tell us the the polar bears are melting, the oceans are drowning and the sun is rising- the million dollar question is -what are YOU doing about it Mr. Zen? Food for thought is it not?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen I said historically, analysis had been done. What confuses me is your logic and constant changing of variables. Let's say you paid $500 for the ride on mower and pay your labor $32 to mow 4 acres in one hour. Per your original example: 4 acres X $8 per acre = $32. $32 - $532 = -$500. What part of that confuses you?

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "historical analysis", sorry recording transactions is ACCOUNTING not ECONOMICS.

"Pay $500 for the ride on mower pay your labour $32 to mow 4 acres in one hour...-$500" WRONG again, the wage is $8/hour ($32 is the customer bill), the cost of a ride on mower is $10/hour ($1 for push mower), either rented for that amount or amortized. For 40,000 acres:

Push mower: ($8-$1-$8)x40,000= -$40,000 loss

Ride on mower: ($32-$10-$8)x40,000/4= +$140,000 profit

Clear?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Your point?" My point is that Alarmists could care less about the planet, but more about controlling private industry. Entrepreneurs investing & inventing more effecient ways to burn fossil fuels and cost effective energy alternatives will do greater good to the planet and mankind rather than putting people who aren't "experts" in business in charge of one of the largest industries on the planet.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "Alarmists could care less about the planet...controlling private industry. Entrepreneurs investing & inventing...greater good...[not] putting people who aren't "experts"...in charge", BS opinions that 25 years ago came from the tobacco industry regarding health "alarmists". Tobacco only ever cared about profits for a few, and 100s of millions died horrible deaths. Likewise big oil only cares about profits.

Name some expert denier evidence, not opinion, already.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "only cares about profits" This, coming from the person who suggested purchasing equipment that burns more fossil fuels in order to "earn more profit".

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "a few quacks, most always outside the field" So only AGW scientists can research climate change, is there any peer reviewer or skeptical scientist not worthy of being labeled a crack-pot? "big oil funded shills" as opposed to the gov't funded shills whose AGW research is needed to control big oil. "supply and demand" Exactly, higher demand and/or lower supply, the more willing to pay top dollar for a good/service.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "only AGW scientists can research climate change", sounds reasonable and that's what's been happening. Expert deniers like Lord Monckton don't ever do original research, they merely critique other's research. Got a tooth ache? Avoid a dentist, get Monckton to fix it.

"Gov't funded shills" versus "big oil shills", do you know the difference? Tenured scientists are mostly concern with reputation and don't publish crap for anyone. Oil shills take money to spout crap.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "sounds reasonable" By that logic, only Austrian economists can research the free market. After all, Marx had no original research, he just critiqued.

I'll ask again: is there any peer reviewer or skeptical scientist not worthy of being labeled a crack-pot? "Tenured scientists" whose research is necessary for control of private industry.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "moved on from "defects", as you advocate a big government safety net to handle unemployables.

"Sweatshops/child labor still exist", are they as rampent as in the industrial revolution? Can crime be eliminated? No and No. Cherry picked examples don't eclipse the wide reality.

"only Austrian economists can research...Marx had no original research", Marx was a 1800s philosopher, while Austrian economists minority views trades hard math/statistics for opinion [con't]

[ZangaroZen]

[cont'd] "any peer reviewer or skeptical scientist not worthy of being labeled a crack-pot?" the vast majority of experts and all national/international scientific bodies ("I'll ask again" name one that supports big oil) would never compromise scientific integrity for oil shill cash.

Peer reviewer implies expert in the field. Monckton has no science background, he's a critic, not a peer reviewer. Name me a few real peer expert deniers.

"research...control of private industry" your point?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Monckton" Please drop the straw man argument. I've never said anything about Monckton. "name one" According to you, there is none and if there were you'd label them "oil shills". Drop the loaded questions too. "your point" I was under the impression the research was ment to save to planet, not redistribute wealth.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Defects" have no relevent bearing on the clearly defined correlation between wage laws and unemployment. Please stop diverting the conversation and stick to the facts at hand. "Marx was a... philosopher" Exactly, by your logic any criticism he had of the free market is quackery because he wasn't an expert in the field of economics.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, are you hard of reading? "you advocate a big government safety net to handle unemployables", I've never have an issue with your solution, case closed.

"Marx was a philosopher...wasn't an expert in the field of economics", political economics of 200 years ago was philosophical and lacked mathematical analysis. It's very dishonest to compare today's experts with 200 year old experts. A dentist of 200 years ago basically was a barber that pulled teeth on the side.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen Are you hard of reading? Please stop diverting the conversation into topics irrelevant of the correlation between wage laws and unemployment. "political economics of 200 years ago was philosophical and lacked mathematical analysis" Civilizations have been keeping records of business transactions and tax collections for thousands of years. The only dishonesty is claiming no analysis was ever done, only philosophizing.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, don't you understand what "case closed" means? So you're for BIG GOVERNMENT supporting the unemployable. Let's move on.

Continually harping "correlation between wage laws and unemployment", would you rather have a piliferation of sweat shops with no incentive to make their sub-living wage employees more efficient?

"Civilizations have been keeping records of business transactions and tax collections for thousands of years", duh? that's ACCOUNTING not ECONOMICS.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen The case was closed the minute I pointed out that the unemployable have nothing to do w/ the unemployed. Continually harping about "defects" "sweat shops" and "shanty towns" only to claim that efficiency is increasing expenses with out increasing revenue and that accounting isn't "mathematical analysis" shows that the only thing "moronically obvious" is your lack of understanding basic economics.

[ZangaroZen]

@notyourfriendbuddy, "efficiency is increasing expenses with out increasing revenue and that accounting isn't "mathematical analysis" LOL

You never went to college did you?

Accounting uses basic math, grade 6. Mathematical analysis, refers to college statistics, numertical analysis, matrix algebra, calculus, etc.

As for ride on mower $32/hour versus push mower at $8/hour. If the ride on mower costs $10/hour expenses then that leaves $22/hour instead of $8/hour. Get the obvious now?

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@ZangaroZen "Get the obvious now?" I'll repeat myself: You haven't charged 4x more if you're doing the same amount of work (4 acres) for the same price ($32) whether it takes 1 hour or 4. "the ride on mower costs $10/hr" I thought you "didn't talk expenses"?

[IngloriousSob]

wooo a new video. well said my friend. Sharing..........

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@IngloriousSob Thanks, buddy. Please do.

[Intellisecular]

Great vid. I'm sharing it.

[notyourfriendbuddy]

@Intellisecular Thank you! Yes, please pass this video around.

[ORVX]

good vid!

[bannedbyMusloons]

LMAO!

[hazard808]

owned! Could not have put it better myself :)

[ronpaulisacommunist]

Ted Turner is a cannibal. A cannibal I say.

[dade7sreel]

One hundred years to undo what billions and billions of earthly cycles created.

[Yakko77]

I'll bet that volcano that went off in Iceland not too long ago spewed out more CO2 than all the vehicles in the world combined for several years so as my solution I propose we throw Al Gore into the volcano to counteract its effects.

[ZangaroZen]

@Yakko77, if you had "bet" the ranch and your life on your absolute opinion, you'd be reduced to be a destitute life of slavery now.

There are about 250 active volcanoes in the world.

Human CO2 output is equivalent to 8000 active volcanoes.

Any questions?

If you value your integrity then next time do some research, say consulting the US Geological Survey. Too much trouble? Then watch boj9ccV9htk.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen That is the biggest bull shit I have ever heard in my life. Here is some science for you trees take in CO2 that you continue to say is destroying the earth. As for people making CO2 do you realize that humans inhale oxygen and exhale CO2? So what is your plan? Have everyone stop breathing?

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, what EXACTLY is "the biggest bull shit"? You only state your opinion as fact as if that has anything but absolutely no weight.

The CO2/O2 photosynthesis/respiration cycle. What's your point? That you remember grade school science?

The natural balance of CO2/O2 cycle is being disrupted by rampant fossil fuel burning, not breathing. Stay on topic.

As for the retarded suggestion of having "everyone stop breathing" that was said by you not anyone else.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen Your right it was said by me, but I can guarantee you if people actually took the time to actually think that CO2 is causing global warming then they would want CO2 to be destroyed. Photosynthesis is the reason why we are still here today otherwise your "global warming" would actually have some merit. But when you consider who came up with the idea is not even a scientist, then who are you to say that we need to stop from what we are doing? Why is it that people buy into this bs?

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, you're the only one suggesting BS: "everyone stop breathing" and "want CO2 to be destroyed".

In that last 400,000 years CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm, today's level is 390ppm and RISING. That's the issue, rising CO2 levels, from burning fossil fuels. Photosynthesis can't convert it fast enough. Record rising CO2 levels cause "global warming", and that "merits" action.

I'll bite. Who created "global warming"?

Why do you buy into BS denialism of science?

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen I do not deny that carbon levels are rising, but your evidence does not support anything for your so called global warming. How does the carbon cause the change in climate? Answer me this question and prove your point, meanwhile I'll show you someone who knows what they are talking about. Global warming was produced by Al Gore as a way to get attention. If Al Gore is so against global warming then why is his motorcade consist of SUVs and not hybrids?

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, you've conceded every point I've made, including carbon levels are at 390ppm, the highest in 400,000 years and rising.

Every prestigious scientific national/international organization on the planet publically states rampant fossil fuel burning is caused rising record CO2 levels.

You don't know that CO2 is a green house gas? That trivial fact was discovered not by Al Gore, but Joseph Fourier 200 years ago.

Who's your expert?

SUV's are the security standard.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen In yet your missing the point, SUVs burn the most fossil fuels as they need more gas then your average car. If that is the case then everyone presumes in order to make the planet safer everyone should drive hybrids, in fact there are even SUV hybrids that get better mpgs but not by much. Al Gores convoy of SUVs are not hybrids, but Al Gore wants to reduce carbon emission. Point being? CO2 is not the problem to global warming as Al Gore is saying, so therefore how is gw dangerous?

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, your warped GW denial SUV argument is a desperate one. Using your logic you'd demand UN peace keepers be unarmed and then wonder why they aren't effective.

Hybrid SUVs aren't common while getting around requires what's common and safe. So don't expect to see Gore on a bike or living in a tent.

You want to compare CO2 footprints? Don't compare apples to oranges. Use proportional income and leisure time as a basis.

CO2 levels are the highest in 400,000 years. Agreed?

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, in addition to my other comment regarding your last post, I'm again asking for the second time:

Who's your expert?

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen lord christopher monckton

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, ROFLMAO!

Lord Monckton of Brenchley. LOL.

What makes that fucktard an expert on anything but impressing morons?

Again: CO2 levels are the highest in 400,000 years. Agreed?

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen Really? In case you haven't noticed he was knighted by the queens for his knowledge in science and of course as everyone knows was a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Compare that to Al Gore who is trying to get people to use less electricity (in which Gore uses the most in TN) and reduce our carbon footprint (in which he uses SUVs as his convoy) then GW is more fictional than ever. I agree that CO2 will lead to more pollution but as to GW? Forget about it!

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, Monckton knighted by the Queen for science? Never happended. A knight's prefix is "Sir" and Monckton is no "Sir".

Monckton's great science background? Has none. He studied classic arts in university not science, a journalist by trade.

A "Science advisor" to Margert Thatcher? Pure BS. First Thatcher is believes in AGW, second Moncton was at best an "economic policy advisor" (on housing mostly) for only 4 of Thatcher's 10.5 years.

Monckton is a joke/fraud in his own country

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, as for Gore?

1. Provide a link that proves Gore's proportionate CO2 foot print is bigger than anyone else's

2. How do you suggest Gore travel securely?

You agree that CO2 levels are the highest in 400,000 years. So why is that? What is the cause?

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen 1. In addition, Gore has been criticized for his allegedly above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning multiple very large homes. Also look at this: Gore has said that he agrees that meat production contributes to increased carbon emissions, but did not want to "go quite as far as ... saying everybody should become a vegetarian".

2. There are hybrid SUVs out there that Mr. Gore can use. High amounts of CO2 is what happens as civilization continues to grow. 

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, funny how you quietly ignore:

1. The points I made on that fraud Monckton

2. A request for a link on Gore's CO2 foot print is proportionately bigger

3. My question as to why current CO2 levels are at 400,000 year record levels

Al Gore's net worth is around $100M. Obviously his personal CO2 footprint will be bigger than most. Question is has he reduced it proportionately or not.

Demanding Gore ride a bike and live in a tent, is ridiculous.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen I responded to 2 and 3 but you actually did ignore. As for Number 1 you are right and I will say that you have made your point on Monckton. As for forcing Gore to ride a bike and live in a tent I'm not asking him to do that but when you stand so strongly against something and then the truth is revealed that YOU are one of the biggest contributors to the problem, then obviously you are showing the problem is not as bad as you say.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen Here is a more detailed response to the rising carbon levels. Back in the early 1900s carbon levels started to rise along with the rise of industrial booms. As industry has continued to boom people continued to buy these products and CO2 continued to rise. Our impact on this planet has always been viewed as "dangerous" and people continue to say we need to stop our way of life. However, they forget that this planet has been through so much that our impact has been so minimal.

[whalersfan18]

@ZangaroZen the links you ask for I will admit I was lazy and used wikipedia, but I figure that considering you will not concede to anything that I have to say, I will minimize my efforts to get you to open your mind. I will not respond back and instead leave you with this statement: "If the ones you follow lead you to a cliff and they all decide that it would be best to jump off the edge to make an impact, do you fall off to make the impact, or do you watch while the others fall around you?"

[ZangaroZen]

@whalersfan18, thanks for your 3 posts which will be addressed here.

Your jumping off a cliff example, what's your point? It's ironic that you revere and follow a non-knighted, non-science background, non-science advisor, etc fraud like Monckton and then accuse others of being lemmings.

You admit to an industrial revolution link and rising CO2. A delicate CO2 balance only requires minimal human effect to tip it. That's the point. Gore's life doesn't trump the fact of AGW.

[Yakko77]

@ZangaroZen I've seen the ice core studies which prove CO2 levels have been exceptionally higher throughout human history through natural causes and human civilization actually expanded during those periods.

watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

[ZangaroZen]

@Yakko77, you didn't address any of the facts that caused you to lose your "bet".

Your post is very vague, "CO2 levels have been exceptionally higher throughout human history". When specifically?

The homo sapiens species is 400,000 year old, and YOUR video shows that during the last 400 millenia CO2 varied between 180 and 300 ppm, problem is the CURRENT CO2 level is about 390ppm and rising. 30% to 100% higher then anytime in a 400,000 year history. See the problem?

[TheShowmebby]

I always say....." Global warming my ass"! the earth shows records of climate change before. Like plants under the ice in antarctica. Some climate changed so quickly that mamoths were frozen with food still in their mouths. The thing is. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY being paid to Al gore, or any other bankster will change the fact the earth goes through sycles. Thanks mean buddy. keep up the good work

[skater3shefik]

@TheShowmebby Hahaha the first thing i said when i saw it snowing here in texas is, "global warmng my ass"..

[ZangaroZen]

@TheShowmebby, the earth has been evolving for 5 billion years. Did you expect it to be stable that whole time?

Periods of stable climate allows for the development of life, while rapid climate change causes mass extinctions. Current atmospheric changes and extinction rates are 100 times what natural causes can account for.

Man induced rapid climate change is the issue.

Dead Mammoth with full stomachs? That's your proof? LOL. Condemned men also die after a last meal.

[anyonefindAMERICA]

The earth was flat. I am related to my aunt but I am not the same thing. What is a climate and how can I change it? Your best one yet brother! ***** LMAO

[thereprieve]

Wow.. this is funny. The only experience I've had in this area is when I was at an amusement park and a thunderstorm erupted without warning. Some kid working in the building that we took refuge in kept saying "See, global warming is real. You people need to wake up. you're killing the environment. This storm is proof!".

You guys need to get your story straight before you tell me that I need to get my story str8. =)

Great vid! I love the satire ;-P