although I thought Lindzen's talk was one of the most informative, he did contradict himself about CO2 - at 4:19 he claims temperature goes down per unit increase while at 8:20 he states that each doubling of CO2 give a 1% increase.
@chamjulee THere is not contradiction. His point was that CO2 causes temperature change, but that the impact per unit of carbon decreases as more CO2 enters the atmosphere. In other words, if you have an increase of CO2 from 1 billion to 2 billion tons, the impact is more than the increase from 2 billion to 3 billion. To get the same impact starting from 2 billion, you would have to go 4 billion. See what he is saying?
This planet has presumably been around for billions of years (4.5 is the current estimate). The notion that human-induced C02 emissions have been causing warming over the past 50 years may or may not be true, but in any case - SO WHAT! The geological record quite clearly shows that there have been many periods in the earth's history of far higher temperatures and C02 emissions - meaning that current temperatures are well within natural variability i.e. Jurassic Period, Medieval warming, etc.
It seems to me that human-beings, or at least some of us, have a remarkably narrow-minded perception of TIME. We tend to associate and relate to things within the time-frame of our lives. One must bear in mind that this planet has been around for approximately 4.5 BILLION years and has experiened far colder and warmer climate conditions than at present. The planet Earth is DYNAMIC, RESILIENT and as ALBERT EISTEIN once said: 'it is a self-regulating living organism which reycles everything'.
Haha, he's talking about India, and notice how he slyly, without coming out fully, suggests that India's agricultural output has increased because of warming in the second half of the century. That's bullshit. It has increased because farmer's have used better technology, period.
(I really am no expert and I welcome anyone who reads this and knows something I don't to point out where my idle musings go wrong but...)
Aren't the ice caps just vestiges of the last ice age? And if so then weren't they going to melt naturally anyway? As I understand it, (and I may be completely wrong,) they are and they were and all we have done and are doing is speeding it up slightly. (I would quite like for someone to be so kind as to correct or confirm this before I continue.)
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
we do what we do,and if the earth has a problem with it,she can slough us off,right? that's where we're at anyway. this,of course,is assuming the earth is self-correcting. might not be.
Considering the somewhat exponential increase in technological advances in the past 100 years, how can anyone predict what wo/man will invent to counteract any effects we chimps have on this planet now, and in the future?
Dr. Lindzen doesn't agree that man-induced CO2 is catastrophic as predicted; he believes it's insignificant. Man-induced CO2 is like a tiny, measly burning candle inside a jumbo jet hangar. It will not effect climate change whatsoever.
Funny GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) ice core the temp was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago then the Anasazis Indians thrived in Americas southwest from 850 ad to 1250 ad as the southwest was much wetter and the Vikings were able to plant crops, then 2000 years ago it was 2 degree C higher when the Roman empire was doing pretty good. Last it was 3 degree C higher 3300 years ago but this did not stop the Jewish exodus. Also note the polar bears survived all these warming periods as well.
all the politcs are against him...you'd think that if there ws this cabal of scientists fighting that they wouldnt trot out the same 2 or 3 guys all the time.
ALL A FRAUD. Professor Monckton,a top Bitish scientist has said that global waming is not happening,that thousand of years ago vikings were breeding cattle on Greenland,that since 1995 the earth has not been warming ,that since 2001 it has actually been cooling,that it will only warm up by 1 deg F in this century.The scientists who have covered up the facts should be sacked,goverments should stop all this nonsence and get on with sorting out the mess they have made.They are dispicable.
Monckton is not a professor and not a scientist. He graduated from from Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge with a degree in "classics" and from University College, Cardiff with a degree in "Journalism Studies". He obtained his peerage through heredity from his father. His career has been one of journalism with a focus on conservative issues.
Global warming is mostly nonsense. I find the mention of religion rather funny, as it is the environment that is the religion for so many of the global warming proponents. Environmentalism is really just a modified variant of conventional Christianity when one looks at it. Most of this obsession over human-induced global warming is just done by leftwing whackjobs who hate capitalism and want government to control our lives.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Try getting an education in science, and then you might see the difference between religious fundamentalists and whacked out evangelicals that came out of the wood-work in droves to get Bush elected (and who also poo-poo'ed global warming). Stick with the science.
@WheelsRCool You are rediculous, I don't want government to control my life nor do I hate capitalism. But we face so many problems today, polluting our oceans, lakes and rivers, our food and the air to a degree that is harmful to us and many species of animals. All I want is for people to be a bit (or a lot) less wasteful, be more careful about their actions...if you wanna call that a religion (although I do not see why you would) then I guess I am religious...
@83Hammerhead Then you are a more sensible environmentalist. But for many of these people, they worship trees and it's a religion for them. Environmentalism in the extreme is like a modified variant of conventional Christianity, just Google Michael Crichton on environmentalism being a religion, he wrote some articles on it that were very good.
Cap and tax is just that, a way to tax US. citizens and redistribute wealth to other country's, and to form a one world Gov. The whole argument for climate change is that co2 is holding radiation from going back out of our atmosphere. Dr. Richard Lindzen has a 15 year study that proves this is a farce. All of the "models", which are based on "theory" not fact, that support global warming based on co2 must and do show that as co2 and temperatures rise, continued
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
studies show from satilites that the radiation reflected from the sun by earth is decreasing leading to the conclusion that greenhouse gasses are trapping more heat thus causing global warming and it is our fault
World Meteorological Organization (2006) confirms the need to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The WMO concurs that scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
listen arguing with you over this is pointless. there is simply too much evidence and sources that show man made global warming is bull shit to put in a comment in 500 characters or less. but the last piece of evidence i will post here is a peer reviewed study that says 4-5 times the amount of co2 in the atmosphere would have little to no effect on temperature. like i said arguing with you here is pointless. ur not gonna change my view. im not gonna change urs. so lets just agree to disagree
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
Unfortunately in science, we are not permitted to cherry-pick evidence in such a way that it supports our political or religious assertions. You do not have the science education to even begin to weigh the evidence in front of you, and are therefore unable to know when and how you are being hood-winked. Read the credible scientific literature rather than some crack-pot conspiracy theorists book and you might get closer to the truth.
Arguing over this is NOT pointless. It matters, and if nothing else, if you keep talking with educated people instead of allowing yourself to be swayed by nutbars, you might start asking questions instead of just swallowing it. Would you rather have an educated surgeon take out your appendix, or believe somebody trying to sell you snake oil as a cure?
dude like i said your not gonna change my view. i have heard both sides of the issue. and if u have a problem with that, its your fault. so im agreeing to disagree. but ur obviously not, so im not gonna bother to reply anymore. it is pointless for US to debate this issue, because we're not gonna change each others views. so good bye
I am not concerned about your opinion, as it is not based on a rational approach to the information. I am much more concerned with the people who read this looking for sensible persepctives and who might be inclined to use scientific evidence to make their decisions. If "X-Files" rock your world, then that's where your bar is set.
if people want to read about the subject, they'll read about it themselves. and if they have some sort of an IQ they'll read both sides of the issue, rather than just believing what the media is feeding us. and then they'll draw their own conclusions and whatever they decide is their decision. and believe me if i really wanted to debate u. i would win in front of an audience. so ill allow you to believe what you want to believe. thats your problem, and/or stupidity
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Tipp: So if folks have an IQ, then how is it that you can make comments that are groundless, based in nonsense, and refuse to pursue the education required to actually debate the issue? Your stance is based on fundamentalism, sounding exactly like the Creationists who want us to believe that the Earth is 4000 years old despite fossil evidence. Both opinions are based on utter ignorance. How does that make me stupid there Clem?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ospreylookout you wouldn't know the difference. You didn't even know what the term radiative forcing meant.. I mean good god you are unprepared for this debate.
I was referring to your syntax, GOOF. Re-read your comment, and imagine that you were up to the task of using English as a first language.....perhaps it isn't your first language and then you have an excuse.
I have read most of your comments and it seems to me that all your doing is insulting people. This may be because you don't have any facts to back up your belief. Then again i could be wrong so please respond and give me something to read other then," whacked out evangelicals that came out of the wood-work in droves to get Bush elected (and who also poo-poo'ed global warming)". Honestly...grow up
A great debate. Certainly an issue that needs more open dialogue, as opposed to the supposed "scientific consensus" that has driven the discussion for the past decade.
yea i know if anything those idiots at the IPCC are only proving how weak their arguments are by not debating the 30,000 scientists that want to sue al gore
How about you stick to the science and leave the partisan politics aside. The science is real and each day the link between global warming and man's contribution to the problem by way of greenhouse gas emissions is made stronger. Unless your conclusion is based in science, then you are not helping the debate.
and the sun isnt science? the american geophysical union posted a graph in 2005 showing how much more correlated solar activity and temperature is, compared to co2 and temperature. co2 never drove temperature and it never will. the sun always drove our temperature and it always will. and the debate? the subject is never debated. this video is one of very few debates on the issue, and the "deniers" win. the problem is the otherside of the issue is being shunned and not given a chance to speak
This has been disputed and is now not what scientists consider a leading part of the prevailing thought. Perhaps you might wish to do some research first on the topic before posting incorrect jargon?
Dear Tipp: Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
as an excuse to manipulate the people to get us to sign the kyoto protocol. not to mention the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling. now last i checked the population is still rising which means more co2. so according to the global warming theory the global temperature should still be rising. but its not. its cooling.
I am sorry, but you are talking nonsense. Please use facts and science instead of spouting crap that is in error. Do you wish to provide the citation of the claim that global temp is decreasing please?
If there is a "debate", which there always is in good science, then it should be based on evidence...and an education in science. This forum and others like it has nothing to do with "debate" because 99% of the posts have nothing to do with science.
this was a debate. it was 3 legitimate scientists vs 3 legitimate scientists. and they debated the issue, and the "deniers" won the debate. another debate u should check out is climate models: predictions vs. reality. and i did research the graph. u have to pay to subscribe to the AGU to see it. its there. also if your attention span can handle it, watch global warming or global governance. it shows all the evidence that proves we're not the source of global warming, and how its being used
As I say, a debate is fine, but the content of this video has to be put into the larger context of the on-going science that is done NOW, and that does not dispute that global temperatures are in fact, RISING. Please, instead of the conspiracy theory junk, try Nat. Geog. website for something that you can read, understand, and trust.
try the trilateral comissions website. they say it themselves the government is using GW as an excuse to manipulate the people. u have to look for it, but its on there. and sure over the past 100 years the temp has warmed a little bit, but we're in another cooling spell. the IPCC admitted last year that the earth has been cooling since the 1990s. look it up theres plenty of sources. im all for going green, but co2 is not the source of temperature rise. its the sun
You are incorrect. The temp is not decreasing, but increasing. It is you who is being duped into the bs from the Big Oil and Coal folks. Please do not get sucked into the conspiracy theory stuff. The science is never going to be able to provide 100% certainly, but it is the best bet. Check many sources however, not just one. Honestly, try National Geographic website for an overview, go from there. Don't swallow the bs.
im not gonna swallow the bull shit that we're the source of global warming. did u not read a bunch of articles saying that the IPCC admitted that the world is cooling? and did u ever watch global warming or global governance, or better yet read the book unstoppable global warming every 1500 years. it covers everything proving that its AGW is just nonsense. and the book comes with a very thorough bibliography which refers you right to the sources, and they are legitimate
I suggest that you stick with the science because as soon as you drift off it, you are without a credible life-raft and you will get sucked up by nasty a-holes who only want your vote. I suggest also that you have been already swayed by too much conspiracy theory stuff. That's the bs, not eh science. Unfortunately, the lobbiests have deep pockets and just keep filling minds with crap. Global temps are not decreasing, but increasing; talk to any credible climate scientist and you will see.
You are being hood-winked. Take a look at who wrote the book and what they're academic credentials are. Then, who they work for. You will see that there is a huge amount of propaganda from Big Oil and Coal trying to keep you from looking too hard. Keep digging. Cheers....
trust me i have heard what both sides have to say, and i have drawn my own conclusions. i have also done small scale experiments, that support my conclusion. like i said im all for going green. going green is a great thing, because i think we should live more effeciently. and many people who speak out against AGW are for going green as well. and let me ask this. if AGW were such a serious problem, wouldnt the government make renewable energies affordable for everyone?
The Trilateral Commission is interested in a one-government world.....You might wish to question the political agenda of this as it heavily influences the context of the global warming debate....
and its not big oil and coal nonsense. thats what the media wants u to think. consider this. big oil has more money to spend than government. so if scientists were funded by big oil, there would be more scientists speaking out against AGW, bc they can fund more scientists. but thats if they were behind it, but they're not. all scientists who speak out against AGW laugh when they hear that bull shit, bc they havent seen a penny of that $.
I have been pretty polite in our conversation, and I don't know where your language makes the debate any stronger, but if you don't want to be educated, then fine, believe whatever you wish. It won't matter to me. Some people wish to learn and some of us have sufficient education in science to help them. Suit yourself.
i am very well educated, and trust me your being told lies. i have heard both sides of the issue, and not just in this debate. i have read books by both sides of the issue, and i have drawn my own conclusion. do u have a problem with that?
I suggest that your education is not the type that is useful in this debate as I do think that you have no idea what you are talking about. It might be different if you actually had at least a science degree under your belt. What is your academic background that you claim makes you so highly educated? If you had this education, you would have known how to find the reliable sources and be able to critically appraise it. Which scientific journals have you cited to support your postion?
Let me put it another way. Your remarks about scientists being "in it for the money", and language in general, indicates just how educated you are. If you don't trust scientists, then why are you using the solar activity as an argument? Who would have devised that for you?? GET AN EDUCATION!!
scientists like richard lindzen and tim ball get little to no funding and they speak out against man made global warming. and they both testify that the ice core record shows that temperature drives co2, not the other way around. and theres a scientist dr. piers corbyn who is using the sun as a way of predicting the weather. he won money by betting against the meterologist office time after time. so tell me how the sun isnt driving temperature?
Dear Tipp: Here is a quoatation to ponder: "Exxon Mobil is "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." Richard S. Lindzen. " Does it not cause you some pause to think how cozy this man has become to Big Oil?
Scientists tend to be an ethical lot. If they were really just in it for the money, they wouldn't have spent their life geeking in academia woring like slaves for little money. Few scientists diagree because most agree that global warming is by far and large, man-made, and is, yes, increasing. That is fact. If you don;t have at least an undergrad degree in science, then you should be sticking with the science, not the people trying to feed you crap.
the sun is not a crap argument. it is a legitimate argument. and most scientists are about the money. because they just spent probably 100grand on their phd, and they have to make a living, so how do they get funding? by the government they are payed to say that we're the source of global warming. now i have an idea. im not gonna convince you that AGW is bull shit, and ur not gonna convince me that we are the source. so lets just agree to disagree, and agree on going green
I am sorry, but no one said that solar activity has not been responsible for variations in the Earth's temperature. Unfortunately for you argument, it cannot be attributed to the rapid increases in these temp's noted over the past 100 years. The argument doesn't hold water, and obviously you have no idea about this topic whatsoever. Reading some moronic book written by a conspiracy theorist is not science my friend. Stick to the facts.
those climate crisis spin doctors are so good at brainstorming possible negative effects and climate change. but they dont put thier minds to coming up with possible benefits.
This person is a role model for us to follow. Be blunt, but perfectly clear and shape.
I don't know what to believe, except that there are many who would want to bend science findings to their advantage and many more who avoid science and blindly trust what they are told.
I am not for the mainstream "Al gore" global warming ideas, but I have seen first-hand the destruction of natural habitats around the world, which makes the general theme of degrading the natural environment valid.
i agree with the last part. but like u said, too many ppl clump all issues together regardless of merit or validity to pursue their end goal. its like pork spending in congress. they want something done but they attach hundreds of other things as well. thats how it works i guess.
lomborgs book doesnt evenn mention the ARTIC. blunder maybe .. not likely . convinient error , probably . he also doent recognise the ecoservices lsot when heating occurs. they are very important and very very costly indeed if lost like would happen if we go on as we are .. some economist that Lomborg .
you mean that movie full of misleading facts that are so obviously false you need to be a total nOOb in science to miss the point that TGGS is fraudulent ?
On the whole, TGGWS is more accurate than Al Gore's film. Does TGGWS contain mistakes? Absolutely. Most of them are minor and none of them undermine the overall conclusion of the film - that the public is being deliberately manipulated by politicians and a handful of scientific zealots with a political agenda.
eg : solar activity & earth temp : the 30 last year of the graph showing the relation was cut of. Because those 30 years clearly show the statements in the movie are nonsense .
i don't how you would call such a thing, but i call that 'fraud'.
A more accurate film is the Scandinavial documentary called "Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off". It features many of the same scientists who are saying that people like Al Gore are full of crap and don't know what they're talking about.
But Gore *does* claim to know enough about the climate to make a documentary film and speak authoritatively on the subject. Why shouldn't he be held to the same standards of accuracy as everyone else? The fact is that his film was a nonsensical farce.
They can't attack Lindzen on the facts, because Lindzen is right and they're wrong. His opponents can't fight him on the science, so they go political... to create guilt by association.
You mean like the statement he made that there is no increase in extreme weather? That sounds like a fact. Or his statement that extreme climate decreases as global temperature increases? Or his statement that the most rapid increase in sea level occurred 12,000 years ago? Or his statements that climate models are incapable of predicting the future but rather can only predict the present - once they have been carefully designed to do so.
What do you mean... "statements" don't get "published peer review". On the other hand, Lindzen has had many papers peer-reviewed and published. Still, being peer-reviewed is no guarantee of accuracy - look at the "Hockey Stick" graph. That was peer-reviewed and turned out to be blatantly fraudulent. On the other hand, Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was peer-reviewed with exceptional care and yet most of the AGW zealots still ignore it.
Lindzen published peer review, but none of his peer review articles are skeptical. Or vice versa : non of his skeptical claims went into peer review litterature.
Wanna guess why ?
Lomborgs book wasn't peer review. Check wiki.
check lomborg errors for the hundreds of flaws in lomborgs work.
Lomborg's book was not only peer-reviewed, it was reviewed more stringently than normal. Anyone who says different either doesn't know any better or is a liar. Check with Cambridge University Press. Clearly you haven't even read the wikipedia article on Lomborg's book - if you had, you'd have seen the section that describes the extra care CUP took with this book.
And you flushed whatever shreds of credibility you had when you mentioned Kåre Fog's website. The guy's a lunatic.
The claims Fog has made about Lomborg's book have been clearly refuted by the author.
Are you seriously denying that Lomborg's book was peer-reviewed? Did you not read the article in wikipedia on the book?
It very clearly states that Lomborg's book was peer-reviewed by four separate experts in various fields - climate science, biodiversity, sustainable development and economics. All four of them recommended publication.
Obviously, I do understand what peer-review means. Do you?
His "connections"? You mean the fact that he's one of the most respected climate scientists in the world? The fact that he's the Alfred Sloane professor of meteorology at MIT?
Same could be said about Al Gore who owns the worlds largest Carbon Offset agency, and sits on the board of two others. Follow the Billions today, not the ten thousand 18 years ago.
"In a 30 year period from 1940-1970 as the CO2 levels increased due to industrialization the global climate actually cooled."
"Manmade CO2 emissions are roughly 5% of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more CO2 than all of mankind's activities."
The cooling effect of aerosols, however, does not seem to directly counteract the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor and is accounted for in climate models, despite some claims that "global dimming" by aerosols may counteract global warming. - Wiki (check source)
Please, heed your own advice and at least present some evidence to support your "facts".
I think the most important fact is that Mars is warming too.... It's about time we sent a message to the martians, forcing them to stop driving their cars about so much up there!
You are inferring that Earth and Mars warming due to the Sun being "Hotter". If that were true all the planets in the solar system would be warming too and that is not true. Mars's obit has brought it closer to the Sun than it has been.
I remember back in the 1980's these same climate scientist that saids we are going into global warming today because of people was arguing just the opposite then in the 80's. I tell you most of this is funded by the Elitist banking to get more money out of your pockets, so to leave you even poorer than you are Now. Stop falling for their traps to send us all into feudalism world wide! End All Tax It's a Trick from those who would be your Master if you let them!
It only takes sommon sense to realize that this is a money driven world. Oil has manipulated the science and market beliefs of global warming. Its not just a conspiracy theory, it is real. Every free energy patent has been siezed by the federal government, so wha makes green solutions less prone to government attack. Considering 90% of congress is bought out. This is sad to see. I hope science prevails, not special interest.
Every free energy patent..? How about Stan Meyer's much discussed, yet never repeated water fuel cell.
Give me a break. As much money as big oil has, there are billionaires out there (Ellison, Gates, Buffett, Branson) who would gladly back a technology like this so they could get richer while looking like a philanthropist.
This lecture is so empty, Ever since the industrial revolution Co2 release has jumped an upwards of 50 fold. According to the national science foundation base in Antarctica the ice levels have melted over 25 feet in the passed 10 years. This is not good despite political interest. If your a scientist we need your support with the Union of Concerned Scientist. Its fundamental 8th grade science. When we put CO2 into the atmosphere it causes heat to be trapped. It's called the greenhouse effect.
I would like to think that most of mankind had evolved to a certain mature amount of intelligence but I am saddened to realize most people would rather die crying out that they are right than admitting they are wring and fixing a problem. It is so sad to see.
we dont control the climate we can barely if were lucky predict the weather three days in a row so before we start fighting over global warming how about the weather.
the fact you refer to the "oil lobby" suggests to me your more in the conspiracy nut category than the reasoned thought category. you probably think 911 was a inside job also.
No i do not like conspiracy theories in general. But the Global warming swindle movie so frequently used in arguments had three person paid by exxon mobile one person with funds from oil industry, and one with false PHD. So the oil lobby has clearly done great impact at internet. Not in the scientific world though.
what are you resources. always it seems those who disagree with man made global warming are always accused of being in the oil company's pocket. i find this to be often a specious argument designed simply to stop the debate and sully the reputations of noted scientist. this practice alone suggest to me that the debate is not over. my studies have been in history and not science but having a knowledge of history shows me that man made global warming does not jibe with the historical record.
Searc the names Patrick Michels,Chris Horner and Roy Spencer.Tim Ball is the one with a PHD in climatology from a university without such department.John Christy is selling his own books though so he makes his own money and he is clearly more scientific than the rest.He by the way shows up everywhere in the denier arena.There are very few from the reputed scientific world that not agrees with with the base of global warming.John does not agree with most of the denier arguments from the oil boys
i don't doubt there s global warming, only that mans impact is negligible. global warming industry is now a multi-billion dollar business. there is a great financial incentive for pro man made global warming advocates to propagate their positions. oil company's have also jumped on the financially lucrative global warming band wagon. so your argument that the oil company's are driving the opposition to man made global warming no longer has merit, if it ever did.
i've read several article by john christy. dr. yes christy's opinions have modified from his original statements, but even now he only maintains humans only contribute to global warming and are not the cause of world wide global change. he has also stated global warming would even be beneficial. even so, as i said before, history itself would bear out that global warming is a cyclical, natural event. it's happened before and it will happen again. it needs no help from mankind.
Well the it's happened before argument are used in a little odd way. -Its true that climate has changed dramatacally as most spieces have died out due to these changes. But is this a reason to think -oh well its natural that life as we know it will have to leave room for heat loving cyanobacterias so lets not worry. Lets spew out as much co2 so levels gets close to these historical levels millions of years ago. and lets hope the heat we now causes makes the rainforrest to dry up so it releases..
dont speak when you dont know scientist say they are record numbers and they may be since we started using the car. But do a little research they found out that the Co2 was almost as high during the time of the dinosaurs and i dont thing they had airplanes.
we are spewing out 4ppm c02 causing for now an annual increase of 2ppm per year. Total increase of ca 100ppm or an increase with 30% is not neglible and as the rate increases with growing economies, -this from historical co2 levels looks well lets say not especially clever.
in a century, CO2 has riseen from apprx. 300 ppm to 360 ppm. this is 20%. it sounds high untill you realize that that it is still only 600 PARTS PER MILLION additional cO2 in the atmousphere.
60 additional CO2 molecules, in every MILLION atmouspheric molecules and a politician wants you to believe the earth will shrivle up and die.
but it is only 300 parts in a millions particals 78% of this green house effect comes not from these terrible green house gasses but from water vapor so i agree with lindzen we have nothing to worry about.
Do better science, or try eating your next meal with only one ppm plutonium in it. It's the effect that counts not the the number of ppm itself. Clearly you understand that, if you just accept that we might be responsible.
It's not a politician, It's the scientific world. Nasa etc. I still have not heard a single argument from a credible source that could discredit the scientific conclusion. Just kids screaming for the reason that someone seems to tell them that we might need to cut down driving and excess lifestyle. (then it has to be wrong the ego says)
Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".
Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's which was very critical of Lindzen. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
Interestingly, because of that article, he won't take money from those groups anymore - but he still holds the same beliefs. If he was such a charlatan - why was he lead author for chapter seven of the third assessment report - some seven years after this article...? Oh, and interestingly - Hansen gave his first speech on global warming to congress in '88. Since this was very early in the movement, I doubt it was part of a big conspiracy.
although I thought Lindzen's talk was one of the most informative, he did contradict himself about CO2 - at 4:19 he claims temperature goes down per unit increase while at 8:20 he states that each doubling of CO2 give a 1% increase.
chamjulee 4 months ago
@chamjulee
He did not get to finish his sentence.
RogerOnTheRight 4 months ago
@chamjulee THere is not contradiction. His point was that CO2 causes temperature change, but that the impact per unit of carbon decreases as more CO2 enters the atmosphere. In other words, if you have an increase of CO2 from 1 billion to 2 billion tons, the impact is more than the increase from 2 billion to 3 billion. To get the same impact starting from 2 billion, you would have to go 4 billion. See what he is saying?
MewCat100 3 months ago
@MewCat100 +1. He's referring to a compounding effect at a certain hump in the graph.
slytown 1 month ago
@slytown What comment are you replying to?
MewCat100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMANITY IS A VIRUS
V
V
V
V
THIN THE HEARD BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
TheAvengingEvoL 5 months ago
This planet has presumably been around for billions of years (4.5 is the current estimate). The notion that human-induced C02 emissions have been causing warming over the past 50 years may or may not be true, but in any case - SO WHAT! The geological record quite clearly shows that there have been many periods in the earth's history of far higher temperatures and C02 emissions - meaning that current temperatures are well within natural variability i.e. Jurassic Period, Medieval warming, etc.
MegaPostman77 9 months ago
You can hardly hear the guy
Svecenader1 10 months ago
It seems to me that human-beings, or at least some of us, have a remarkably narrow-minded perception of TIME. We tend to associate and relate to things within the time-frame of our lives. One must bear in mind that this planet has been around for approximately 4.5 BILLION years and has experiened far colder and warmer climate conditions than at present. The planet Earth is DYNAMIC, RESILIENT and as ALBERT EISTEIN once said: 'it is a self-regulating living organism which reycles everything'.
MegaPostman77 11 months ago
Haha, he's talking about India, and notice how he slyly, without coming out fully, suggests that India's agricultural output has increased because of warming in the second half of the century. That's bullshit. It has increased because farmer's have used better technology, period.
TheStigsIndianCousin 1 year ago
(I really am no expert and I welcome anyone who reads this and knows something I don't to point out where my idle musings go wrong but...)
Aren't the ice caps just vestiges of the last ice age? And if so then weren't they going to melt naturally anyway? As I understand it, (and I may be completely wrong,) they are and they were and all we have done and are doing is speeding it up slightly. (I would quite like for someone to be so kind as to correct or confirm this before I continue.)
guglielmobelis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
we do what we do,and if the earth has a problem with it,she can slough us off,right? that's where we're at anyway. this,of course,is assuming the earth is self-correcting. might not be.
blatspanner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Terrific new NASA YouTube:
Our Earth has a FEVER! - the Climate Change puzzle
/watch?v=XzfRs74b-qw
For excellent data & scientific info. on Climate Change search:
1) Climate Change: Key indicators
2) Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth (These are the BEST sites)
3) NASA GISS Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System
4) Climate change odds much worse than thought MIT
-- and for some other great scientific YouTubes see the greenman3610
& potholer54 channels.
goog2k 1 year ago
I think Miss Tawney Tiger likes me--she follows me around like a robot.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
Are you going to believe Juan or your lying eyes?
Wobal glarming is real dochano!
TauntedTiger 1 year ago
Considering the somewhat exponential increase in technological advances in the past 100 years, how can anyone predict what wo/man will invent to counteract any effects we chimps have on this planet now, and in the future?
Boadeciia 1 year ago
Dr. Lindzen doesn't agree that man-induced CO2 is catastrophic as predicted; he believes it's insignificant. Man-induced CO2 is like a tiny, measly burning candle inside a jumbo jet hangar. It will not effect climate change whatsoever.
digitalfilmvillage 2 years ago 7
@digitalfilmvillage
0:58
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lindzen agrees--CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is contributing to warming. End of debate.
JuanVoyce 2 years ago
You are a FI
twocheers247 1 year ago
@twocheers247
:(
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
al gore lies. research the facts yourself !
shootermcgaven2 2 years ago 3
What doesn't matter is if warming is from us.
What matters is if it will be dangerous.
I say no. Climate won't kill you. Weather will.
kenzboard 2 years ago 2
Pfft. Try saying that on Venus.
Zdrazy 2 years ago
Funny GISP (Greenland Ice Sheet Project) ice core the temp was 1 degree C higher 1000 years ago then the Anasazis Indians thrived in Americas southwest from 850 ad to 1250 ad as the southwest was much wetter and the Vikings were able to plant crops, then 2000 years ago it was 2 degree C higher when the Roman empire was doing pretty good. Last it was 3 degree C higher 3300 years ago but this did not stop the Jewish exodus. Also note the polar bears survived all these warming periods as well.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
GISP also shows the temp in the NH has averaged 1 to 2 degree C higher since the last ice age.
Warmer temps are not the problem as it is cooler temps that kick's mans butt, Weather we can handle it is lack of food that is the killer.
MissingGWdotcom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dr. linzenis another political and corporate hack
DeRocco21 2 years ago
all the politcs are against him...you'd think that if there ws this cabal of scientists fighting that they wouldnt trot out the same 2 or 3 guys all the time.
ChristiansMustLearn 2 years ago
Dr Lindzen is the one who has done rea research and who addresses the physical rather then political fact.
He sites sources and makes a prediction based on model. milder
4:15 into this - he notes his research ...measured results. measurements - boil down to predicted increases not happening.
Martintfre 2 years ago 2
Co2 lags BEHIND temperatures! This is proven on Al Gore's charts!
airboat4477 2 years ago
ALL A FRAUD. Professor Monckton,a top Bitish scientist has said that global waming is not happening,that thousand of years ago vikings were breeding cattle on Greenland,that since 1995 the earth has not been warming ,that since 2001 it has actually been cooling,that it will only warm up by 1 deg F in this century.The scientists who have covered up the facts should be sacked,goverments should stop all this nonsence and get on with sorting out the mess they have made.They are dispicable.
marthaBot 2 years ago 5
Sorry, martha, there aren't any trees in Greenland, first of all,
because people cut them all down. They don't tell you that
on shout-radio.
czisc 2 years ago
We know there are no trees on Greenland,the Vikings lived there thousands of years ago, what has trees got to do with it.
One thing everyone can do to make up for all the trees that are being cut down is plant more trees.
marthaBot 2 years ago
Monckton is not a professor and not a scientist. He graduated from from Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge with a degree in "classics" and from University College, Cardiff with a degree in "Journalism Studies". He obtained his peerage through heredity from his father. His career has been one of journalism with a focus on conservative issues.
jkberner 2 years ago
regardless of this, he delivers the facts. and facts dont lie
KaliBeats 2 years ago
Comment removed
aiyaalsandouk 2 years ago
Global warming is mostly nonsense. I find the mention of religion rather funny, as it is the environment that is the religion for so many of the global warming proponents. Environmentalism is really just a modified variant of conventional Christianity when one looks at it. Most of this obsession over human-induced global warming is just done by leftwing whackjobs who hate capitalism and want government to control our lives.
WheelsRCool 2 years ago 18
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Try getting an education in science, and then you might see the difference between religious fundamentalists and whacked out evangelicals that came out of the wood-work in droves to get Bush elected (and who also poo-poo'ed global warming). Stick with the science.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
@WheelsRCool " is just done by leftwing whackjobs who hate capitalism and want government to control our lives." you sound a bit biased
omgGYGYGY 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool You are rediculous, I don't want government to control my life nor do I hate capitalism. But we face so many problems today, polluting our oceans, lakes and rivers, our food and the air to a degree that is harmful to us and many species of animals. All I want is for people to be a bit (or a lot) less wasteful, be more careful about their actions...if you wanna call that a religion (although I do not see why you would) then I guess I am religious...
83Hammerhead 1 year ago
@83Hammerhead Then you are a more sensible environmentalist. But for many of these people, they worship trees and it's a religion for them. Environmentalism in the extreme is like a modified variant of conventional Christianity, just Google Michael Crichton on environmentalism being a religion, he wrote some articles on it that were very good.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago 2
@WheelsRCool obvious troll is obvious
muetter 8 months ago in playlist debate
....and THIS IS YOUR AUDIENCE....the closest you will get to a real one at least....so THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO DEBATE....bring on the evidence....
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Cap and tax is just that, a way to tax US. citizens and redistribute wealth to other country's, and to form a one world Gov. The whole argument for climate change is that co2 is holding radiation from going back out of our atmosphere. Dr. Richard Lindzen has a 15 year study that proves this is a farce. All of the "models", which are based on "theory" not fact, that support global warming based on co2 must and do show that as co2 and temperatures rise, continued
lrluky 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
studies show from satilites that the radiation reflected from the sun by earth is decreasing leading to the conclusion that greenhouse gasses are trapping more heat thus causing global warming and it is our fault
DeRocco21 2 years ago
There are studies saying the different.
procraft 2 years ago 2
World Meteorological Organization (2006) confirms the need to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The WMO concurs that scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
listen arguing with you over this is pointless. there is simply too much evidence and sources that show man made global warming is bull shit to put in a comment in 500 characters or less. but the last piece of evidence i will post here is a peer reviewed study that says 4-5 times the amount of co2 in the atmosphere would have little to no effect on temperature. like i said arguing with you here is pointless. ur not gonna change my view. im not gonna change urs. so lets just agree to disagree
tippman2k01 2 years ago
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Unfortunately in science, we are not permitted to cherry-pick evidence in such a way that it supports our political or religious assertions. You do not have the science education to even begin to weigh the evidence in front of you, and are therefore unable to know when and how you are being hood-winked. Read the credible scientific literature rather than some crack-pot conspiracy theorists book and you might get closer to the truth.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Arguing over this is NOT pointless. It matters, and if nothing else, if you keep talking with educated people instead of allowing yourself to be swayed by nutbars, you might start asking questions instead of just swallowing it. Would you rather have an educated surgeon take out your appendix, or believe somebody trying to sell you snake oil as a cure?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
dude like i said your not gonna change my view. i have heard both sides of the issue. and if u have a problem with that, its your fault. so im agreeing to disagree. but ur obviously not, so im not gonna bother to reply anymore. it is pointless for US to debate this issue, because we're not gonna change each others views. so good bye
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I am not concerned about your opinion, as it is not based on a rational approach to the information. I am much more concerned with the people who read this looking for sensible persepctives and who might be inclined to use scientific evidence to make their decisions. If "X-Files" rock your world, then that's where your bar is set.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
if people want to read about the subject, they'll read about it themselves. and if they have some sort of an IQ they'll read both sides of the issue, rather than just believing what the media is feeding us. and then they'll draw their own conclusions and whatever they decide is their decision. and believe me if i really wanted to debate u. i would win in front of an audience. so ill allow you to believe what you want to believe. thats your problem, and/or stupidity
tippman2k01 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tipp: So if folks have an IQ, then how is it that you can make comments that are groundless, based in nonsense, and refuse to pursue the education required to actually debate the issue? Your stance is based on fundamentalism, sounding exactly like the Creationists who want us to believe that the Earth is 4000 years old despite fossil evidence. Both opinions are based on utter ignorance. How does that make me stupid there Clem?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Taking out an appendix is a specific procedure. Global warming and the climate are far too complex for any solid understanding of them right now.
WheelsRCool 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ospreylookout you wouldn't know the difference. You didn't even know what the term radiative forcing meant.. I mean good god you are unprepared for this debate.
EasyEs 2 years ago
I was referring to your syntax, GOOF. Re-read your comment, and imagine that you were up to the task of using English as a first language.....perhaps it isn't your first language and then you have an excuse.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
I have read most of your comments and it seems to me that all your doing is insulting people. This may be because you don't have any facts to back up your belief. Then again i could be wrong so please respond and give me something to read other then," whacked out evangelicals that came out of the wood-work in droves to get Bush elected (and who also poo-poo'ed global warming)". Honestly...grow up
xfactor5492 2 years ago
watch: Al Gore is Adolph Hitler.....This video is banned in some countries.
Comment, Rate, Subscribe......in my channel.
andrewanguslive 2 years ago
A great debate. Certainly an issue that needs more open dialogue, as opposed to the supposed "scientific consensus" that has driven the discussion for the past decade.
gekko55125 2 years ago
yea i know if anything those idiots at the IPCC are only proving how weak their arguments are by not debating the 30,000 scientists that want to sue al gore
tippman2k01 2 years ago
How about you stick to the science and leave the partisan politics aside. The science is real and each day the link between global warming and man's contribution to the problem by way of greenhouse gas emissions is made stronger. Unless your conclusion is based in science, then you are not helping the debate.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
and the sun isnt science? the american geophysical union posted a graph in 2005 showing how much more correlated solar activity and temperature is, compared to co2 and temperature. co2 never drove temperature and it never will. the sun always drove our temperature and it always will. and the debate? the subject is never debated. this video is one of very few debates on the issue, and the "deniers" win. the problem is the otherside of the issue is being shunned and not given a chance to speak
tippman2k01 2 years ago
This has been disputed and is now not what scientists consider a leading part of the prevailing thought. Perhaps you might wish to do some research first on the topic before posting incorrect jargon?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Dear Tipp: Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
ospreylookout 2 years ago
as an excuse to manipulate the people to get us to sign the kyoto protocol. not to mention the IPCC admitted in 2008 that the world is cooling. now last i checked the population is still rising which means more co2. so according to the global warming theory the global temperature should still be rising. but its not. its cooling.
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I am sorry, but you are talking nonsense. Please use facts and science instead of spouting crap that is in error. Do you wish to provide the citation of the claim that global temp is decreasing please?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
If there is a "debate", which there always is in good science, then it should be based on evidence...and an education in science. This forum and others like it has nothing to do with "debate" because 99% of the posts have nothing to do with science.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
this was a debate. it was 3 legitimate scientists vs 3 legitimate scientists. and they debated the issue, and the "deniers" won the debate. another debate u should check out is climate models: predictions vs. reality. and i did research the graph. u have to pay to subscribe to the AGU to see it. its there. also if your attention span can handle it, watch global warming or global governance. it shows all the evidence that proves we're not the source of global warming, and how its being used
tippman2k01 2 years ago
As I say, a debate is fine, but the content of this video has to be put into the larger context of the on-going science that is done NOW, and that does not dispute that global temperatures are in fact, RISING. Please, instead of the conspiracy theory junk, try Nat. Geog. website for something that you can read, understand, and trust.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
try the trilateral comissions website. they say it themselves the government is using GW as an excuse to manipulate the people. u have to look for it, but its on there. and sure over the past 100 years the temp has warmed a little bit, but we're in another cooling spell. the IPCC admitted last year that the earth has been cooling since the 1990s. look it up theres plenty of sources. im all for going green, but co2 is not the source of temperature rise. its the sun
tippman2k01 2 years ago
You are incorrect. The temp is not decreasing, but increasing. It is you who is being duped into the bs from the Big Oil and Coal folks. Please do not get sucked into the conspiracy theory stuff. The science is never going to be able to provide 100% certainly, but it is the best bet. Check many sources however, not just one. Honestly, try National Geographic website for an overview, go from there. Don't swallow the bs.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
im not gonna swallow the bull shit that we're the source of global warming. did u not read a bunch of articles saying that the IPCC admitted that the world is cooling? and did u ever watch global warming or global governance, or better yet read the book unstoppable global warming every 1500 years. it covers everything proving that its AGW is just nonsense. and the book comes with a very thorough bibliography which refers you right to the sources, and they are legitimate
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I suggest that you stick with the science because as soon as you drift off it, you are without a credible life-raft and you will get sucked up by nasty a-holes who only want your vote. I suggest also that you have been already swayed by too much conspiracy theory stuff. That's the bs, not eh science. Unfortunately, the lobbiests have deep pockets and just keep filling minds with crap. Global temps are not decreasing, but increasing; talk to any credible climate scientist and you will see.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
You are being hood-winked. Take a look at who wrote the book and what they're academic credentials are. Then, who they work for. You will see that there is a huge amount of propaganda from Big Oil and Coal trying to keep you from looking too hard. Keep digging. Cheers....
ospreylookout 2 years ago
trust me i have heard what both sides have to say, and i have drawn my own conclusions. i have also done small scale experiments, that support my conclusion. like i said im all for going green. going green is a great thing, because i think we should live more effeciently. and many people who speak out against AGW are for going green as well. and let me ask this. if AGW were such a serious problem, wouldnt the government make renewable energies affordable for everyone?
tippman2k01 2 years ago
The Trilateral Commission is interested in a one-government world.....You might wish to question the political agenda of this as it heavily influences the context of the global warming debate....
ospreylookout 2 years ago
and its not big oil and coal nonsense. thats what the media wants u to think. consider this. big oil has more money to spend than government. so if scientists were funded by big oil, there would be more scientists speaking out against AGW, bc they can fund more scientists. but thats if they were behind it, but they're not. all scientists who speak out against AGW laugh when they hear that bull shit, bc they havent seen a penny of that $.
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I have been pretty polite in our conversation, and I don't know where your language makes the debate any stronger, but if you don't want to be educated, then fine, believe whatever you wish. It won't matter to me. Some people wish to learn and some of us have sufficient education in science to help them. Suit yourself.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
i am very well educated, and trust me your being told lies. i have heard both sides of the issue, and not just in this debate. i have read books by both sides of the issue, and i have drawn my own conclusion. do u have a problem with that?
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I suggest that your education is not the type that is useful in this debate as I do think that you have no idea what you are talking about. It might be different if you actually had at least a science degree under your belt. What is your academic background that you claim makes you so highly educated? If you had this education, you would have known how to find the reliable sources and be able to critically appraise it. Which scientific journals have you cited to support your postion?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Let me put it another way. Your remarks about scientists being "in it for the money", and language in general, indicates just how educated you are. If you don't trust scientists, then why are you using the solar activity as an argument? Who would have devised that for you?? GET AN EDUCATION!!
ospreylookout 2 years ago
scientists like richard lindzen and tim ball get little to no funding and they speak out against man made global warming. and they both testify that the ice core record shows that temperature drives co2, not the other way around. and theres a scientist dr. piers corbyn who is using the sun as a way of predicting the weather. he won money by betting against the meterologist office time after time. so tell me how the sun isnt driving temperature?
tippman2k01 2 years ago
Dear Tipp: Here is a quoatation to ponder: "Exxon Mobil is "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US." Richard S. Lindzen. " Does it not cause you some pause to think how cozy this man has become to Big Oil?
ospreylookout 2 years ago
Scientists tend to be an ethical lot. If they were really just in it for the money, they wouldn't have spent their life geeking in academia woring like slaves for little money. Few scientists diagree because most agree that global warming is by far and large, man-made, and is, yes, increasing. That is fact. If you don;t have at least an undergrad degree in science, then you should be sticking with the science, not the people trying to feed you crap.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
the sun is not a crap argument. it is a legitimate argument. and most scientists are about the money. because they just spent probably 100grand on their phd, and they have to make a living, so how do they get funding? by the government they are payed to say that we're the source of global warming. now i have an idea. im not gonna convince you that AGW is bull shit, and ur not gonna convince me that we are the source. so lets just agree to disagree, and agree on going green
tippman2k01 2 years ago
I am sorry, but no one said that solar activity has not been responsible for variations in the Earth's temperature. Unfortunately for you argument, it cannot be attributed to the rapid increases in these temp's noted over the past 100 years. The argument doesn't hold water, and obviously you have no idea about this topic whatsoever. Reading some moronic book written by a conspiracy theorist is not science my friend. Stick to the facts.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
No one has been prevented from entering the debate. Bring your science to the table, but leave the ignorant and propaganda at the door.
ospreylookout 2 years ago
those climate crisis spin doctors are so good at brainstorming possible negative effects and climate change. but they dont put thier minds to coming up with possible benefits.
St37One 2 years ago
This person is a role model for us to follow. Be blunt, but perfectly clear and shape.
I don't know what to believe, except that there are many who would want to bend science findings to their advantage and many more who avoid science and blindly trust what they are told.
I am not for the mainstream "Al gore" global warming ideas, but I have seen first-hand the destruction of natural habitats around the world, which makes the general theme of degrading the natural environment valid.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
i agree with the last part. but like u said, too many ppl clump all issues together regardless of merit or validity to pursue their end goal. its like pork spending in congress. they want something done but they attach hundreds of other things as well. thats how it works i guess.
Tbar95 2 years ago
lomborgs book doesnt evenn mention the ARTIC. blunder maybe .. not likely . convinient error , probably . he also doent recognise the ecoservices lsot when heating occurs. they are very important and very very costly indeed if lost like would happen if we go on as we are .. some economist that Lomborg .
chrisobe 2 years ago
You stupid guys should watch the vid
'The global warming swindle' and need to learn Rosthchild.
chooseyourfutures 3 years ago
you mean that movie full of misleading facts that are so obviously false you need to be a total nOOb in science to miss the point that TGGS is fraudulent ?
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
On the whole, TGGWS is more accurate than Al Gore's film. Does TGGWS contain mistakes? Absolutely. Most of them are minor and none of them undermine the overall conclusion of the film - that the public is being deliberately manipulated by politicians and a handful of scientific zealots with a political agenda.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
well, everyone is able to enter in google the search string 'great global warming swindle + flaw"
minor problems with the movie ? Yeah right...
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
Yes, there were minor problems with the film. However, nothing like the extravagant exaggerations and outright dishonesty in Gore's film.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
minor ?
eg : solar activity & earth temp : the 30 last year of the graph showing the relation was cut of. Because those 30 years clearly show the statements in the movie are nonsense .
i don't how you would call such a thing, but i call that 'fraud'.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
A more accurate film is the Scandinavial documentary called "Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off". It features many of the same scientists who are saying that people like Al Gore are full of crap and don't know what they're talking about.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.
the fact you have to focus on him, basically demonsrates your remarks aren't about science.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
But Gore *does* claim to know enough about the climate to make a documentary film and speak authoritatively on the subject. Why shouldn't he be held to the same standards of accuracy as everyone else? The fact is that his film was a nonsensical farce.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
no serious climate scientist cares about gore.
think about that.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
Hahah. Did anyone else bother top look up Lindzen's connections? "Follow the money..."
It sucks that such an educated guy, with solid credentials, would blow his own credibility that way.
SirHomeFries 3 years ago
I agree.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
That is an ad hominem fallacy to disregard his argument. A much better method would be to attack the premises and conclusion using facts.
cassidy1478 3 years ago
They can't attack Lindzen on the facts, because Lindzen is right and they're wrong. His opponents can't fight him on the science, so they go political... to create guilt by association.
Gwynne66 3 years ago
they can't attack Lindzen's facts is a correct statement.
You can't attack something non-existent... Lindzen never gort beyond the point of 'if', 'would' or 'could'
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
You mean like the statement he made that there is no increase in extreme weather? That sounds like a fact. Or his statement that extreme climate decreases as global temperature increases? Or his statement that the most rapid increase in sea level occurred 12,000 years ago? Or his statements that climate models are incapable of predicting the future but rather can only predict the present - once they have been carefully designed to do so.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
could you tell me which of his statements were published peer review ?
non peer review, from a scientific point of view, is non-existent.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
What do you mean... "statements" don't get "published peer review". On the other hand, Lindzen has had many papers peer-reviewed and published. Still, being peer-reviewed is no guarantee of accuracy - look at the "Hockey Stick" graph. That was peer-reviewed and turned out to be blatantly fraudulent. On the other hand, Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was peer-reviewed with exceptional care and yet most of the AGW zealots still ignore it.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
Lindzen published peer review, but none of his peer review articles are skeptical. Or vice versa : non of his skeptical claims went into peer review litterature.
Wanna guess why ?
Lomborgs book wasn't peer review. Check wiki.
check lomborg errors for the hundreds of flaws in lomborgs work.
you should check your facts before posting.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
Lomborg's book was not only peer-reviewed, it was reviewed more stringently than normal. Anyone who says different either doesn't know any better or is a liar. Check with Cambridge University Press. Clearly you haven't even read the wikipedia article on Lomborg's book - if you had, you'd have seen the section that describes the extra care CUP took with this book.
And you flushed whatever shreds of credibility you had when you mentioned Kåre Fog's website. The guy's a lunatic.
Gwynne66 2 years ago
i'm not gonna deny Fog does not seem to be the most sympathetic guy in the world.
Nevertheless, he does find dozens of mistakes in Lomborgs work. As many others have done too.
furthermore, i'm not convinced that you understand what peer review means in the world of science.
ZeDollyDots 2 years ago
The claims Fog has made about Lomborg's book have been clearly refuted by the author.
Are you seriously denying that Lomborg's book was peer-reviewed? Did you not read the article in wikipedia on the book?
It very clearly states that Lomborg's book was peer-reviewed by four separate experts in various fields - climate science, biodiversity, sustainable development and economics. All four of them recommended publication.
Obviously, I do understand what peer-review means. Do you?
Gwynne66 2 years ago
His "connections"? You mean the fact that he's one of the most respected climate scientists in the world? The fact that he's the Alfred Sloane professor of meteorology at MIT?
Gwynne66 3 years ago
Same could be said about Al Gore who owns the worlds largest Carbon Offset agency, and sits on the board of two others. Follow the Billions today, not the ten thousand 18 years ago.
Brantoc 2 years ago
Derekusama...hahahah my dick is accounted for as well.
Colin
Eastsideweezy 3 years ago
So..6 billion people burning 1oo million tons of oil coal and other toxic stuff daily dont change nothing?
sandbreak2 3 years ago
Pretty much. How much CO2 have volcanoes been blowing out for years? The climate's been changing for thousands of years.
Caqui 3 years ago
volcanoes do not emit enough CO2 to be the cause of the present warming.
That the climate does change naturally, doesn't mean man-made climate change is insignificant.
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
"In a 30 year period from 1940-1970 as the CO2 levels increased due to industrialization the global climate actually cooled."
"Manmade CO2 emissions are roughly 5% of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more CO2 than all of mankind's activities."
Caqui 3 years ago
1940_1970 : saying that without mentioning aerosols is intellectual dishonest.
you numbers on manmade CO2 are incorrect : from 280 tot 390pmm is more than 5%
volcanoes do NOT produce more CO2 than mankind.
Please check your facts before writing something. Even on ze internetz
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
The cooling effect of aerosols, however, does not seem to directly counteract the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor and is accounted for in climate models, despite some claims that "global dimming" by aerosols may counteract global warming. - Wiki (check source)
Please, heed your own advice and at least present some evidence to support your "facts".
Caqui 3 years ago
This global cooling was independent of aerosol use.
(source below; just connect them)
pubs.giss.nasa.
-----
gov/docs/2007/2007_
-----
Romanou_etal.pdf
Caqui 3 years ago
The aerosol hypothesis to why there was a cooling period between 1940-1970 is a weak one.
chicagogeorge 3 years ago
if you have any peer review litterature to support that claim, i'd like to hear it ...
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
Which part? There are more than Youtube would allow for most of the general statements.
Brantoc 2 years ago
Nous devons écouter et comprendre ce que des hommes comme lui nous disent. C'est important.
JimmyGris 3 years ago
il ne dit pas la verité, donc ce qu'il dit n'est pas important du tout.
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
the IPCC models can't even replicate the effects of el nino. Pfft.
GorterPoss 3 years ago
Lindzen is so smart. If only the public could hear and understand what he is saying.
rigel1514 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the most important fact is that Mars is warming too.... It's about time we sent a message to the martians, forcing them to stop driving their cars about so much up there!
Selfish, selfish, selfish.
farfletched 3 years ago
You are inferring that Earth and Mars warming due to the Sun being "Hotter". If that were true all the planets in the solar system would be warming too and that is not true. Mars's obit has brought it closer to the Sun than it has been.
CleanGreen13 3 years ago
You should have maybe started that with the word "if" or just changed "You are" to "Are you".
Then my answer would be no.
My understanding is that all planets go through cycles. With or without the input of beings.
farfletched 3 years ago
LOL You got rocked.
bighitter42 3 years ago
You're an idiot. He said no such thing.
TheAaronBowleyMusic 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I agree. The polar bears on Ice Cap SR178 on Mars are drowning.
TolaMacarino 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I remember back in the 1980's these same climate scientist that saids we are going into global warming today because of people was arguing just the opposite then in the 80's. I tell you most of this is funded by the Elitist banking to get more money out of your pockets, so to leave you even poorer than you are Now. Stop falling for their traps to send us all into feudalism world wide! End All Tax It's a Trick from those who would be your Master if you let them!
spellbinder00 3 years ago
Richard Lindzen's pretty bad ass. He's An Inconvenient Scientist for Al Gore.
amb85 3 years ago 5
It only takes sommon sense to realize that this is a money driven world. Oil has manipulated the science and market beliefs of global warming. Its not just a conspiracy theory, it is real. Every free energy patent has been siezed by the federal government, so wha makes green solutions less prone to government attack. Considering 90% of congress is bought out. This is sad to see. I hope science prevails, not special interest.
georgelinke 3 years ago
common sense*
georgelinke 3 years ago
Every free energy patent..? How about Stan Meyer's much discussed, yet never repeated water fuel cell.
Give me a break. As much money as big oil has, there are billionaires out there (Ellison, Gates, Buffett, Branson) who would gladly back a technology like this so they could get richer while looking like a philanthropist.
cmyersnbt 3 years ago
This lecture is so empty, Ever since the industrial revolution Co2 release has jumped an upwards of 50 fold. According to the national science foundation base in Antarctica the ice levels have melted over 25 feet in the passed 10 years. This is not good despite political interest. If your a scientist we need your support with the Union of Concerned Scientist. Its fundamental 8th grade science. When we put CO2 into the atmosphere it causes heat to be trapped. It's called the greenhouse effect.
georgelinke 3 years ago
co2 in the atmosphere is .054% of our atmosphere. man's contibution is 1% of that. co2 has nothing to do with global warming.
geargemartin 3 years ago
I would like to think that most of mankind had evolved to a certain mature amount of intelligence but I am saddened to realize most people would rather die crying out that they are right than admitting they are wring and fixing a problem. It is so sad to see.
georgelinke 3 years ago
Wrong* sorry for my spelling and lack of punctuation. to be honest though I dont care its the internet
georgelinke 3 years ago
i think it's sad when so-called evolved humans believe they have accended to such godlike powers they they can control the weather.
geargemartin 3 years ago
Well sadly we do not believe that we control the climate. We only claim that we might affect it by relesing trillions of tons of greenhouse gas.
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
we dont control the climate we can barely if were lucky predict the weather three days in a row so before we start fighting over global warming how about the weather.
Rsiewell 3 years ago
there's a difference between weather and climate, weather in way is the 'noise' in a climate system we understand rather well
ZeDollyDots 3 years ago
we have rissen co2 from from 280 to 383ppm is that 1% ? I call it 30% do not listen to the oil lobby please.
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
the fact you refer to the "oil lobby" suggests to me your more in the conspiracy nut category than the reasoned thought category. you probably think 911 was a inside job also.
geargemartin 3 years ago 2
No i do not like conspiracy theories in general. But the Global warming swindle movie so frequently used in arguments had three person paid by exxon mobile one person with funds from oil industry, and one with false PHD. So the oil lobby has clearly done great impact at internet. Not in the scientific world though.
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
what are you resources. always it seems those who disagree with man made global warming are always accused of being in the oil company's pocket. i find this to be often a specious argument designed simply to stop the debate and sully the reputations of noted scientist. this practice alone suggest to me that the debate is not over. my studies have been in history and not science but having a knowledge of history shows me that man made global warming does not jibe with the historical record.
geargemartin 3 years ago 2
Searc the names Patrick Michels,Chris Horner and Roy Spencer.Tim Ball is the one with a PHD in climatology from a university without such department.John Christy is selling his own books though so he makes his own money and he is clearly more scientific than the rest.He by the way shows up everywhere in the denier arena.There are very few from the reputed scientific world that not agrees with with the base of global warming.John does not agree with most of the denier arguments from the oil boys
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
i don't doubt there s global warming, only that mans impact is negligible. global warming industry is now a multi-billion dollar business. there is a great financial incentive for pro man made global warming advocates to propagate their positions. oil company's have also jumped on the financially lucrative global warming band wagon. so your argument that the oil company's are driving the opposition to man made global warming no longer has merit, if it ever did.
geargemartin 3 years ago
i've read several article by john christy. dr. yes christy's opinions have modified from his original statements, but even now he only maintains humans only contribute to global warming and are not the cause of world wide global change. he has also stated global warming would even be beneficial. even so, as i said before, history itself would bear out that global warming is a cyclical, natural event. it's happened before and it will happen again. it needs no help from mankind.
geargemartin 3 years ago
Well the it's happened before argument are used in a little odd way. -Its true that climate has changed dramatacally as most spieces have died out due to these changes. But is this a reason to think -oh well its natural that life as we know it will have to leave room for heat loving cyanobacterias so lets not worry. Lets spew out as much co2 so levels gets close to these historical levels millions of years ago. and lets hope the heat we now causes makes the rainforrest to dry up so it releases..
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
dont speak when you dont know scientist say they are record numbers and they may be since we started using the car. But do a little research they found out that the Co2 was almost as high during the time of the dinosaurs and i dont thing they had airplanes.
Rsiewell 3 years ago
we are spewing out 4ppm c02 causing for now an annual increase of 2ppm per year. Total increase of ca 100ppm or an increase with 30% is not neglible and as the rate increases with growing economies, -this from historical co2 levels looks well lets say not especially clever.
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago
a lot of things are being spewed out nowadays.
geargemartin 3 years ago 2
you are mistaken.
in a century, CO2 has riseen from apprx. 300 ppm to 360 ppm. this is 20%. it sounds high untill you realize that that it is still only 600 PARTS PER MILLION additional cO2 in the atmousphere.
60 additional CO2 molecules, in every MILLION atmouspheric molecules and a politician wants you to believe the earth will shrivle up and die.
right.
timpor 3 years ago
but it is only 300 parts in a millions particals 78% of this green house effect comes not from these terrible green house gasses but from water vapor so i agree with lindzen we have nothing to worry about.
Rsiewell 3 years ago
Do better science, or try eating your next meal with only one ppm plutonium in it. It's the effect that counts not the the number of ppm itself. Clearly you understand that, if you just accept that we might be responsible.
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago 3
It's not a politician, It's the scientific world. Nasa etc. I still have not heard a single argument from a credible source that could discredit the scientific conclusion. Just kids screaming for the reason that someone seems to tell them that we might need to cut down driving and excess lifestyle. (then it has to be wrong the ego says)
Fyhrtheflame 3 years ago 2
The economy is linked with environment...
itskaikai 4 years ago
Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".
justtex1975 4 years ago
Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's which was very critical of Lindzen. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
SecondLifer2000 4 years ago
Interestingly, because of that article, he won't take money from those groups anymore - but he still holds the same beliefs. If he was such a charlatan - why was he lead author for chapter seven of the third assessment report - some seven years after this article...? Oh, and interestingly - Hansen gave his first speech on global warming to congress in '88. Since this was very early in the movement, I doubt it was part of a big conspiracy.
cmyersnbt 4 years ago