Ha ha ha 0:36 "climate change is happening". The idiot probably believes scientists agree overwhelmingly the sun rises & sets every day & we better panic about it.
This is why white house press secretaries are needed to explain profound truths.
If they push this shit through like healthcare and the pending immigration bill, it won't surprise me a bit, but I think its irrelevant without china and india. Those are the only two reasons we don't have it already.....never thought I'd be praising china. Obama sure likes to go against his "People" now about to sue arizona, and the 6 month moratorium will screw the American people once again, its like they are trying to destroy the country. Those 33 rigs are all going to brasil, sorry usa.
@TheKickerboy99 china last month past a comprehensive ets scheme in addition to the closure of 2000 inefficient factories to be replaced by newer state of the art ones.as for the other issues in America i don't know
Humans produce less than 10 percent of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
CO2 is just .038 percent of the total atmosphere, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume at 1 percent and methane (agriculture is often blamed) isn't even a trace element.
No real scientific bases for refuting thisWhat about consideration of refuting the scientific bases that declare it to be a legitimate concern without a single item thats without distortion of evidence. Gibbie is a dumb sock puppet.
"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore."
Uh, yeah... It's called weather. Way to ignore the data that indicates that "man-made climate change" has been thoroughly shown to be questionable (and that's putting it nicely).
And of course, let's not forget those pesky models! The models are full of shit. There's no way you can ever predict with total accuracy what's gonna happen in the future, esp. i nthe next 50-100 years or more. Besides, how do you know what variables to put in where? How can you be sure your variables are absolutely right? Modeling is very complex.
Dude, I don't think I have ever had the chance to meet a man who can comment rant such as yourself. Congrats on having the ability to spew non-stop on a regular bases. I run out of words frequently. You don't seem to have that problem. Way to flex your 1st amendment(natural) rights. :0)
I'm not sure whether to feel insulted or praised right now. Heh.
Well, I'm a very opinionated kind of guy. My mind is constantly running many thoughts at once, and after I write a comment, I oftentimes think "Shit, I should've put this in there" and end up writing many.
Bad habit, I know. I should probably keep it to a minimum cuz it's probably annoying to other commenters. I guess that'll be my new year's resolution, eh
lol I personally would take it as a complement. Though, I am sure others would consider it a fault. As far as your New years resolution goes; you have 8 1/2 months to go, so keep it coming!
So this is really just a waste of time, this debate on "what to do" for global warming. We'll be fine. Other than silly apocalyptic predictions about the polar ice caps melting and the world flooding, there's little to really worry about. Let's focus on more important issues like the war.
If you wanna focus on pollution for health's sake, fine. But don't cloud the issue or wrap it up in phony global warming nonsense. Just say "We don't like pollution." It's not hard.
Let's face it: even if there is substantial industry-caused warming, First World nations are fully equipped to deal with it! And besides, more warming is a good thing. The oceans are not gonna flood us to death. We're not gonna all die of heat stroke in the summer and spring. The polar ice caps will never TOTALLY melt, despite any melting that's occurring now.
The people who have anything to worry about are 3rd-worlders, but I think the threat is exaggerated even for them.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't volcanoes produce a good deal of pollution as well that could contribute to warming?? And yet, I don't see the global warming folks saying we need to spend money to keep volcanoes from erupting.
Overall, the amount of effect of increased CO2 on the environment is relatively weak. CO2 naturally lags temperature by about I think 800 years (more or less), so clearly a little additional co2 is not gonna hurt in the end. Let's just stop wasting time here.
And let's not forget about the brief COOLING period between 1940-1973 when American ingenuity and progress REALLY started to take off, when we started to become, in Galbraith's words, "the affluent society." Obviously CO2 emissions greatly increased. But there was still COOLING. Why?? For 30 years? That means the AGW story must at least have some holes in it.
We had cooling and then post-1970s the earth naturally began to warm up again, as in other 1500-year cycles. It's totally natural.
Michael Mann and the hockey stick graphs are such frauds. Mann worked for or with the IPCC, so you know he's a screwup. Many scientists have looked at the data and methodology used to produce the graph, and they couldn't do it. They realized Mann did a very poor job. Besides, it's so silly! The Earth's temperature is basically gonna stay the same until the last 150 years or so when humans industrialize? I don't think so.
Despite what the idiotic IPCC says, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period WERE very real, and they are only one set of cool and warm periods out of many 1500-year cycles in our planet's history. Add to that the fact that it's CO2 that lags temperature, not the other way around, and you start to realize you weren't told all the facts by Al Gore and the others.
Not to mention that, like firms' output, there are DIMINISHING MARGINAL RETURNS on warming on CO2. It's not a constant rate.
Those folks who actually think we're ENTIRELY responsible for warming are pure idiots. If they REALLY think temperatures worldwide don't change, and then when industrialization happens, all of a sudden the Earth is suffering and helpess, they need to get a clue. They REALLY think the Earth's atmosphere and climate are THAT weak?? come on...
Tree ring, coral reef, boreholes, etc. data all point to the 1500-year natural cycle. Sunspots and warming/colder periods correspond, too.
There's PLENTY of science refuting anthropogenic warming, in fact. Maybe if Gibbs had bothered to read a scientific journal for a change instead of just listening to all the crap the media reports about the scientists THEY favor or whose research THEY like, you know get both sides, he'd be far more balanced here.
Global warming was discovered in the 80s to be cyclical, the result of a 1500-year trend of random ups and downs. I mean, the atmosphere doesn't stay the same until humans come along
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at a 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects all migrating north. Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
WHAT THE FUCK??? "No scientific basis refuting global warming????" Is this some kind of joke, when you have C-Span and other networks reporting that "the majority of earth scientists agree that global warming CANNOT be substantiated." All we're hearing from are the few kooks....but they are far outnumbered by the rational scientist. Robert Gibbs is a compete idiot who got his college degree from Elmer Fudd University.
@guyfroml --- you are right. Gibbs has many mannerisms that makes me think he is in some way related to Elmer Fudd, let alone receiving a degree from said university. It amazes me the outright LYING of this administration.
I think it's time for those disbelievers (like myself) to start grabbing your ankles. This administration will stop at nothing to destroy the United States, Democracy, Freedom, and Capitalism.
31,000+ verified scientists disagree with the AGW theory. 2,500 scientists have been chosen for the IPCC and support AGW.
31K > 2.5K.
Also go read the emails and if you know Fortran try recreating their models using the real data and the cooked data. They show a decline is occurring while a warming was predicted.
2009 = year with the record number of earliest snows. The exact opposite of what was predicted by the people who have been proven wrong time and again.
There are a few minority alternate theories regarding climate change, but climate change deniers don't trumpet them because they're better supported, they do it because solving man-made climate change would inconvenience them. Thus, they deny it completely. There are a few good-faith climate change skeptics, but they are far outnumbered by people who just want to shift responsibility away from humans and conspiracy theorists who insist that it's some kind of socialist conspiracy.
If the evidence is so strong on GW, why do they need to cook the books to try to justify their theory. If the earth isnt warming in the last decade, common sense says this theory isnt ready for prime time. If you are so convinnced your theory is right, then its gone from theory to religion. The fact is GW is very possibly very and foolish theory. It could be right, but no way is the debate over.
"they do it because solving man-made climate change would inconvenience them."
That is simply the biggest understatement of the truth that I have ever seen on Youtube.
If you mean the cost of 2.5% of the world's GDP or raising the cost on the entire middle class by 300% on energy and of cost on all goods, then yes, it's simply "inconvenient".
Maybe we should line up like the sheep that we're expected to be and believe without real proof that we should destroy our economy.
Most of people on the "list" who are against the idea of global climate change have a PhD in economics or related field.... Not a single person on the "list" against climate change has a PhD in atmospheric sciences.
Gibbs, the fact remains that the dispute of the 31,000 scientist who disbelieve global warming has not been addressed. In fact it is completely being ignored.
Huffington Post is silencing all global warming dissent in their comment section. Over 400 messages have stood "pending approval" for hours! Pass this news on. Take screen grabs. Are we still in America?
DOWN! DOWN! GET BACK!! You bunch of mouth-foaming, 911 Truther-climate change denying wingnuts!!! (Sound of my whip snapping the air) Go find another conspiracy theory that doesn't endanger the lives of millions! Get used to paying more taxes! You've got it coming for the rape of the planet and most of its people! It's time for some payback! And you're going to pay and pay and pay until you're as impoverished as the billions of suffering people you've stolen from!
Al Gore has made millions in the 'Carbon Trading' market he helped create and stands to make tens of millions more once we start playing Pass the Popsicle. It does NOTHING to stop what we put out as a whole.
Watch out for that Carbon tax. You think we saw scandal and roulette these past 2 years??!!
The Green Movement is the horse ridden by many a Eco-Hypocrite. A money machine for many.
Id like to bring to your attention that Huffington Post is currently censoring hundreds of comments regarding climategate on its Hoax De-bunking page. If we are to save science and the liberal movement, we have to wake up to the fact that global warming is a fraud. Its a trillion dollar scam and Huffington Post is behaving like Pravda.
Amazing, the greatest scam in recorded Human history, and the media is virtually silent. Why is the media silent on this issue. Why have they not show the public the criminals emails? Why was all the "baseline" study data (the data used by ALL climate scientists) destroyed. The very data needed to prove they were lying, gone, deleted. And what's worse the emails said they were going to delete it before they did it. And still no story.
I got news for you, "news" is not news in America.
This is the SPIN that all the MSM is using: that the emails are just a few scientists talking about socking people in the news, but the GW science is sound.
97% of climatologists agree that global warming is real, is happening right now, and will get worse. Climatologists are the people who understand and study the phenomenon. There is basically no dispute among climatologists about the causes or serious consequences of global warming.
Billions of people will die needlessly if we do not take action now.
Please study the real evidence and ignor those who label all scientific facts like evolution and global warming as conspiracy theories.
(7%, where do you get that #? There are a huge amount that do not agree. There are LEGITIMATE questions that need to be answered BEFORE we all start crying that the Earth is burning up. The same thing is happening on Mars, is that Manmade?
A poll by Doran and Zimmerman University of Illinois got replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
One big word that should've been in bold letters in your comment.... BELIEVE. Scientists are wrong all the time. Just because they voice a BELIEF doesn't make it FACT. That's why they constantly bicker between each other. You can take the simplest like when they thought the world was flat to the most complex when they said that Andromeda Galaxy couldn't have a black hole in the center which now they theorize that it does. It goes back and forth until some visible fact.
Yes, Scientists way the facts and make conclusions from said facts that they believe in. If more fact come to disprove there beliefs they change the their beliefs. Do the idea that we should ignore the facts seems rather insane. Right now, all Scientists believe in the in AGW, but if facts come to light to disprove this theory scientist which not believe in that theory any more. The fact of the matter is, that we work with the information given.
There are facts that disprove AGW. A recent study showed that the net feedback was more negative than previously thought, indicating that the earth is insensitive to changes, and is stable enough to resist the affects of an increase in CO2. Second, there really isn't much hard evidence supporting AGW. If I am wrong, please reply telling me what that evidence is.
What does "stable enough to resist the affects of an increase in CO2" even mean? Resisting the any major change might be true, but we are only talking about 2 to 5'C. No scientists are really talking about anything more then that. But if you want something to disprove something, you can state the evidence. The fact that this year 75 out of 77 climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, does kinda counter act your idea.
A feedback in the climate system is how the earth responds to a given change. For example, CO2 traps some heat, causing the earth to warm slightly. This warming causes more water to evaporate, and thus more clouds which reflect sunlight, causing a cooling effect. That is a negative feedback.
5°C is the difference between the little ice age and the medieval warm period - The difference between abundant crops and famine, because warmer weather leads to higher crop yields.
5'C, the most anyone is putting out for numbers of global warm in the next 100 years, may have been the difference between abundant crops and famine 100 years ago, but even today, there would be no reason for famine, at least not in the developed world, and 100 years from now?
Also, less water absorbers more heat then ice from sunlight causing more warming... Yes, the system is very complex, many ppl get there PhD in it. That is why we ask them what they think...
Just because a lot of climatologists say that humans are causing global warming doesn't make it true. Almost every astronomer said 75 years ago that the Andromeda Galaxy was a nebula. It's not about how many people are on your side, it's the quality of evidence supporting your hypothesis. If you want evidence against substantial AGW, then look up Roy Spencer and read some of his articles.
I read some of Spencer, oddly it seems he does beleive in AGW just not "catastrophic man made global warming". He claim it is possible that 75% of global warming can be explained by Pacific Decadal Oscillation, still leaving at least 25% as AGW. Basically, even the scientific sceptic say AGW is real, it is merely a question of how much is caused by AGW, that is a reasonable stance.
There are plenty of room for a how much AWG? and what is the best way to deal with it? But denying it is silly.
I am not denying that the globe is warming, just that humans are not the main cause. If 75% of it is natural, then we can't do anything about it, and nature is the ultimate cause of climate change. I agree with him that humans are influencing the climate, but not in any significant way.
Really, there is no reason we, all the people in the world, could not currently control the climate how ever we choice. Really, it is all a question of value and costs. How much will in cost to control the climate vs how much will it cost us it the climate heats up by 3'C? If 3'C = 2 meter rise in the sea level, how much will it cost to protect all the cities near the sea (which is most of the cities in the world)? How much will other changes from global cost? How much are polar bear worth?
ummm polar bears population is currently RISING right now, learn what FACTS are.
Sure we can control a planet that has had EXTREME temperature changes (see ICE AGE...LONG BEFORE MANKIND dumbass) for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
You do know the FACT that the OCEANS in the world are the #1 emitter of CO2??? Guess we should get rid of the worlds water supply if we want to "save" it right?
Your so called "logic" is as stupid as the "facts" that arent' there.
"FACT that the OCEANS in the world are the #1 emitter of CO2" LOL... The ocean is an absorber of CO2 not a source. I think you are think of green house gases, in which case, yes, water vapor is an important green house gas.
And you, I firmly believe mankind can not or start a ice age if we so choice. It would be very costly, I am sure, but we could do it. We are looking into how to massively change Mar's climate, by as much as 50'C, but change earth 5'C???
"polar bears population is currently RISING right" That is not the point at all. Rising or falling, it the globe temp increased 3'C, polar bear would likely become extinct. Though, the point of bring up polar bear was merely to demonstrate that there would be other changes, not so direct to mankind, but they mankind may still value.
Global warming is occurring, that is not a debate at all. How much is caused by man is some what debatable, but it did not impact my previous statement.
Was global cooling another theory 95% of the scientists agreed on lol. Seems like their is more politics than science going on with global warming hoax. Al Gorleoni and the rest of his mob should be indicted for racketeering this hoax.
No, 95% of scientist know that the global temperature change heavily with the solar activity cycle. It is a sinusoidal activity with a 12 year cycle, this is way when should a chart of global temps in can see a large osculation over a general trend of rising temperature. In a mathematical formula it would look like Global temp = Xsin(t/12)+Y*t where X is the range of power of solar activity, Y is the longer, slower global temperature change and t is time in years. This is vastly simplified.
This is definitely true with all the bureaucracy surrounding this religion. the inconsistencies even before any news of Climategate was already incriminating. This is just a matter of getting the most credible people in our society to lie for this movement. It is as provable as the existence of Aliens has been to this point.
Your global warming flat-earthers need to start questioning things instead of being so gullible and just following the party lines like a bunch of drones.
The decrease depends on temperature. It decreases faster at lower temperatures. If it changes from 0 C to 10 C, the solubility changes from 1.8mL CO2/g water to 1.3mL CO2/g water - About -0.05 per degree. From 40 to 50 C, it's .52 to .43, or about 0.009.
Pressure has the opposite affect - as pressure increases, more CO2 dissolves, however that is very difficult to calculate, since the partial pressure of CO2 is so low, about 35 Pa, compared to atmospheric pressure of 101,325 Pa.
Of course the changing of the sea temperature effect on global temperature is far more complex then the amount of CO2 it creates. Other then more CO2, rising sea temperature = increased evaporation = more water vapor in the air (its self a green house gas) = more cloud cover (reflecting sunlight and lowering global temp). I do not know the full effect of rising sea temp, but I can say it certainly complex.
Oh stop the bullshit already! It's a political POWER PLAY to impose restrictions on industry and to give politicians power over industrialists by selling them "carbon credits." This is a load of fucking horse shit!
Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit, Einstein would bitchslap these fucking turds for even SUGGESTING there can be absolutely NO opposing theory/thoughts in a fucking scientific debate, that's why it's SCIENCE assholes....there has to be a debate amongst the community an OPEN HONEST DEBATE!
But not for Barry and Co, fucking tax us to obivion
there is no such thing as fact...yet you don't deny gravity, your third theory there...right? Apples still fall...the earth is heating up...not sure if its man made...may be natural
you're absolutely right. you can't deny facts right?
well get the facts straight on "man made" global warming. Because it's not only a FACT that the earth is NOT warming up, the sea levels are NOT rising, and the # of polar bears on earth is GROWING....but that the "scientists" that created the studies LIED about the data to make it APPEAR that the earth is doing these things, and it's not.
Its also a FACT that plants CONSUME Carbon Dioxide and that's a POSITIVE for earth.
When was the last debate on Relativity, Big Ban or Gravity? The title "THEORY" does not mean there is a scientific debate about something. In the scientific field, the is always room for a new theory, but you need to have a look of fact to back it up. The opposing theories Relativity, Big Ban or Gravity have no facts backing them up, but AGW is a bit more debated... I mean over 95% of the scientist have the view of AGW, but that does leave under 5% to disagree, but that way it was "real debate"
95% of scientists agree with Man Made Global Warming?
95% of scientists can't agree on ANYTHING, there are literally THOUSANDS of scientists that are refuting all of these claims, not to mention the emails actually show that those so called "scientists" cooked the books and LIED about the data, making that NOTHING close to a scientific reason.
The "facts" you speak of in this "debate" have been debunked by the "scientists" that wrote them.
The other's that "agree" with this do so since they are pressured to do so, as they will loose their jobs, grant money, and standing in the scientific community for opposing man made global warming. This is EXACTLY the same thing that's been happening for decades with the "intelligent design" & "evolution" theories. The "decenters" have been completely silenced and lost jobs, etc.
And you're going to tell me that there should be NO debate on these things? WOW! How open and scientific of you!
No, I am saying the scientific community is in general agreement as the last poll of earth scientist showed a 95% agreement that AGW is occurring. There is some who still question it,that would be the 5%. But 5% of an opposing view is not a real debate. 75/25 is a real debate, 90/10 is very questionable to be called a real debate, 95/5 is not a real debate.
As for "intelligent design", show me a scientific test to show god, and it can be a scientific theory. "God did it" /= scientific theory.
I don't know of a 95% agreement of ANYTHING in the science community, but I'll bite....granted the "poll" was given by the people who have been CAUGHT lying on emails so I don't know how much you could possibly TRUST what they say, but I digress.....liberals aren't the "smartest" people in the world.
There's enough evidence for intelligent design to show that no one can possibly explain how/why we are here and why things are the way they are.....tell me about your primordial ooze theories
Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. There are several theories of the how life on Earth non of which can be proven at the start of life occurred at one point in the past and likely did not leave physical evidence. The problem with "intelligent design", which is basically "god did it" is everything can be explained this way. Gravity = god did it, Big Band = god did it, ect. But saying "god did it" can't be tested.
so please enlighten me on these abiogenesis theories.....tell me one that simply explains where the FIRST living cell came from.
According to your statements, that shouldn't be so hard for an elitest of your status to conjure up.
You can test, and there are all kinds of tests currently ran with science to prove intelligent design. You can test for intelligent design just as you can test for anything else. The problem is that that arguement is ostricized by the people such as yourself.
1 The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere (methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent)
2 This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3 These compounds accumulated in a "soup".
4 By further transformation, more complex organic polymers— and ultimately life
you can't create a "simple organic compund" from something that wasn't FIRST organic no?
If so, then why isn't this taking place now? Why aren't there new species growing out of these "soups" today? Wouldn't the "soups" have EVOLVED to produce MORE results ars time went on, not less? Just as there are now MORE humans on earth than when we 1st started, not less....we can procreate.
Yes, you can create a "simple organic compound" from non organic. You should really look up the meaning of words before using them.
Organic compound - Substance whose molecules contain one or more carbon atoms (excluding carbonates, cyanides, carbides, and a few others. Many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever, material or structural, to any substance found in living organisms. But "organic compounds" are generally, the building blocks of life.
where di the CARBON MOLECULES come from? you can simply choose to keep running around the questions all you want, it's painfully obvious that I've asked ONE simple questiion, SHOW ME PROOF OF WHERE THE FIRST CARBON LIVING MOLECULE CAME FROM to which you cannot reply. You have to have what? FAITH in your believes right? You weren't there, there weren't scientists there were there? So its FAITH, the SAME as Intelligent Design, expect mine's more plausable than a fucking OOZE! LOL
Where did the carbon come from? And if what you JUST STATED is true, then what you are saying is everything is made out of carbon, therefore Carbon cannot possibly be a Man-Made Global Warming problem right?!?!?! Everything on earth, INCLUDING the atmosphere, the Sun, Stars, Planets, etc, etc are made of Carbon.....does Venus have Man Made Global Warming too!?!?!?
dont forget, Yoda was in exile on the Earth before he went to Degobah. While here, he used the force to forge matter into life thus making the planet a better hiding spot from the evil Empire. But Underestimate his powers he did, for he mistakingly produced giant T-Rexes which continually tried to eat him. Thus, Yoda had to use his remaining pod fuel to leave and ended up stuck on Degobah. Meanwhile, the Empire discovered that Yoda had been on Earth, so they attacked the planet with a CO2 ray.
Ok, but I don't need to read your science fiction "humpbacking on crystals" theories....I mean comeon, its HARDER to believe the shit that some of these "theories" have than it is to believe in Intelligent Design.
Furthermore, if I can just "wiki" those hypothesis, can you not do the same for theories of Intelligent Design? I would need eternity to explain it, thank God I will have that one day :)
I did read the wiki on Intelligent Design, please read the segment titled "Defining science". Then you will understand my objection to it. I have no problem with anyone believe the idea of Intelligent Design, but the fact of the matter is that it fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method and their for, is not a scientific theory.
Ohhh wouldn't expect any less rhetoric from a liberal. All BS no substance.
Can we get off the Wiki thing for HALF a secoind....Wiki is edited by ANYONE/EVERYONE in the world. That's line listening to that game in elementary school "telephone" for your life's questions, just plain retarded.
Now I UNDERSTAND very clearly that there are ALOT of ppl against these ideas, but the complete DISREGARD for other theories only proves how scared you are
No we can't get off the wiki thing, go read the "Defining science", if you don't like reading off wiki, the source is sited, click on the link and go there. The idea of "intelligent Design" is fine, but it is not a scientific theory.
No one is against the idea of "intelligent Design", they are just against the idea of "intelligent Design" as a scientific theory as it fail to meet the requirements of becoming a scientific theory. Read the definition of the scientific method and scientific theory
Science by nature is limited in what it can explain. What it can be reproducible and predictable can be said to become fact. Something that can be measured can be theorized. One time events are theories as they cant be reproduced and hence are not facts. Evolution is fine as scientific theory given they constraints they operate under. Science does not prove truth...only provides an explanation of material things given its constraints it operates under.
Of course, you should remember that from the Bush days....I remember it from TODAY, the BO days....that if I didn't vote for him I MUST be a racists....
thats the SAME arguement as what you're putting up here and NO LESS rediculous.
Just because some "politically correct" pussies refuse to DEBATE at ALL doesn't make my process any less REAL or PLAUSABLE than yours..
You're a book burner huh? Just because YOU dont like it you just completely rule it out of life?
I am not a scientist, but I do understand the basic principle of scientist. I understand the basic of most scientific fields as I studied them in college. You seem to have fail to understand truly basic chem, which is just sad. Really, you should read some chem and bio books before trying to talk about this. You level of ignorance is disheartening.
The ocean and volcanoes produce MUCH more C02 than humans...but these leeches can't figure out how to tax volcanoes so they blame humans. Oh, and there is this star called the "sun" very close to our planet which just might account for warming...
These e-mails just punched the official hole in the bottom of the cap and trade boat. It ain't gonna happen... We all just put money in the bank, and saved many of the third world poor...
I wonder how long it will be before they start calling it 'global cooling' and trying to pass a new energy tax? That's what they called it in the 70's.
- The real data shows no real global temperature change over the past 10 years, though it you measure from the peck in '98 you can make it look like global cooling. This would be great if it weren't for the 12 solar activity cycle, for which we are currently at the bottom of right now. Global temperatures are always in a cycle going up and down with solar activity, global warming offset the cool, but we will still get the warming in the next two years.
"-We are currently at 350ppm co2 but plants really thrive in1800-2200ppm co2." That is not relivent to global warming.
"-The cool/warm cycles match up to the sunspot activity better than co2." The equation 2A+B=C, C might follow A better then B, C is still equal to 2A+B=C. Solar activity is FAR more important the green house gases. All the CO2 in the world will not heat the planet without the sun, but greenhouse gas do also effect global temperatures.
The US forest service does not put out natural forest unless they threaten homes. But Amazon deforestation releases an estimated 400 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is 1.4% of man made CO2. The reforestation of places could be an effect sink for CO2. But to equal out the 28 billion tons of CO2 we would need to save about 2-3 million km² of forest per year between 1/5 and 1/3 the total area of the US.
I saw a funny picture the other day. Two cavemen sitting in a cave. One of them says, there are no cars, cities, no c02 emissions, no pollution, yet we only live 30 years.
Major Garret shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to do peer review research at the university level and what the dumb hacked emails "prove," which is nothing.
Because I am not a paralyzed Fox News viewing dittohead. I am a citizen of the world who knows the science and reads things other than the Drudge Report. Global warming is real.
There are 141 nations and their representative hundreds of thousands of scientists who agree with me. But you've got Fox News on your side (and the oil companies). Oh, and you also have China and Croatia.
Actually even China is coming around. Increasingly it is only Republicans in the US who think GW is not real. Look at some sat photos on the NASA website my frend. The pictures don't lie. Glaciers are melting--and fast. The data doesn't lie.
That's a good point, actually, blite13. But don't you think it's better we err on the side of caution and TRY do do something just in case? If you are right, I'll give you $50,000 in 20 years. If you are wrong, we all die.
It's better to get to the truth of the matter, we are getting the wool pulled over our eyes. I want the TRUTH so we can make an informed decision. Err on caution is recipe for disaster and to give governments and the UN the power to tell us what that truth is=NAHHHHHH. Screw that, we deserve better and these con artists need to be held accountable. They are not God's, they are human just like us, I think, we all need to be informed with TRUTH instead of lies and we need to hold them accountable.
They are not "con artists." They are scientists. Science is evolving and changing all the time. Maybe if you kept an open mind you'd see the truth. Do some real reserach. I'm willing to admit that the case for GW might be over stated, but you should also open your eyes to the possibility it could be very real.
I have my mind open and history has taught me that Globalists take advantage of ALL situations, real or madeup. This is another case, they have spun a NATURAL occurence into a profit driven agenda. One to make you and me feel guilty for being a Human Being so we will willingly give up rights and pay more tax. My mind is open, I see scientists being bought off, ones who are making false claims...to blow off these emails..have you read them?
That's like saying "well it snowed yesterday so i guess there is no global warming!" Doesn't work that way. You have to look at data over a much longer period. Centuries or even milllenia. Ice cores from the arctic help.
It's been PROVEN that the earth was much warmer a 1000 yrs ago. Plus, as soon as scientists, from the University that was leading this agenda, are fudging numbers and seeing other scientists who say G W isn't true......there has to be questions answered, we deserve the truth and I will not accept the word of it from people who get paid by the government for climate studies. I want independent people, not someone who is enticed to rule a certain way. To not do this is very irresponsible.
Yes the earth was warmer at various points throughout the earth's history. But we also didn't have massive cities with 5 million people in low lying costal areas 10,000 years ago. You are getting played by the spin from the right wing media if you are reading too much into the dumb emails. They prove nothing except that academics talk freely and you have no idea what data they were actually talking about-would you trust a oil lobby funded study on GW? A university study? What source is best?
Like I wrote, it's happening on Mars too, is that Man's fault? How can we stop Nature from taking it's course? And why do WE NEED TO BE TAXED for it? Just the fact that we are being used on this subject for the powerful to get more power. We are not being told the truth and the emails confirm that, it's not acceptable, so questions need to be answered.
May not be personally taxed, but it will make it's way to every single one of us and you know that is true. More I read your writing, the more I see an agenda.
My only fucking agenda is to try (not like it will work) to counteract the stupid bs I see on Fox everyday. It makes me want to cry because they over simplify everything.
doesnt it strike you as odd that the green leadership also has a huge stake in oil? or a bit strange that the green leadership flies everywhere? i thought airplanes were the greatest transgressors? gore is a majority shareholder in standard oil. rockefeller is the godfather of the oil industry yet he funds all of the green movements at the same time. it seems like someone is setting us up for another derivatives bubble under the guise of a carbon trading system
GW is a very complex issue and it is not black and white. Not total BS or 100% true. I urge you to keep an open mind and to please make up your own mind and do real research. That is all. Goodnight.
You are missing my point. I already said that the Earth has been warmer at various points. But that doesn't mean that humans aren't part of the current problem and that we shouldn't try to curb emmissions.
Well duhhh, less pollution the better, you would have to be a moron to not want that. We have lot's of Humans, you one of these guys who want to cull the herd? Of course there will be waste and pollution, we aren't that advanced yet apparently. But to make this into a Human problem, with UN and Governments that can't be trusted telling us that it's real bad.....Mars buddy, emails buddy, not trust buddy....I'm not that easy.
Ha ha ha 0:36 "climate change is happening". The idiot probably believes scientists agree overwhelmingly the sun rises & sets every day & we better panic about it.
This is why white house press secretaries are needed to explain profound truths.
FantasticBob7000 2 months ago
FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
basmikiemike 8 months ago
Fraud
Google climate gate emails, the evidence speaks for itself...
Gates is a goon
Expose911Lies 11 months ago
If they push this shit through like healthcare and the pending immigration bill, it won't surprise me a bit, but I think its irrelevant without china and india. Those are the only two reasons we don't have it already.....never thought I'd be praising china. Obama sure likes to go against his "People" now about to sue arizona, and the 6 month moratorium will screw the American people once again, its like they are trying to destroy the country. Those 33 rigs are all going to brasil, sorry usa.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheKickerboy99 china last month past a comprehensive ets scheme in addition to the closure of 2000 inefficient factories to be replaced by newer state of the art ones.as for the other issues in America i don't know
judoisoww 1 year ago
He just has one of those faces that you wanna punch........with ancient roman gladiator gloves.
xBoBaReNox 1 year ago 3
Idiot. This is like saying, "There is no scientific evidence that pink flying elephants do not exist." What a bozo!
DeathToLiberalism 1 year ago 2
Hail Lord Obama. The sun and moon would fall into the sea without his magnificent wisdom. Hail Lord Obama, greater than Jimmy Carter.
Hail Lord Obama for he can stop the wobble of the earth's axis (Precession of the Equinoxes) and end global warming forever!
AcePilot101 1 year ago
More lies from the Obama White House.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
More lies from the Obama White House.
Humans produce less than 10 percent of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
CO2 is just .038 percent of the total atmosphere, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas by volume at 1 percent and methane (agriculture is often blamed) isn't even a trace element.
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
The climate has been changing for millions of years before we were using hydrocarbons.
tonylee1973 1 year ago
No real scientific bases for refuting thisWhat about consideration of refuting the scientific bases that declare it to be a legitimate concern without a single item thats without distortion of evidence. Gibbie is a dumb sock puppet.
robolojo 1 year ago
"Several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore."
Uh, yeah... It's called weather. Way to ignore the data that indicates that "man-made climate change" has been thoroughly shown to be questionable (and that's putting it nicely).
LokiOwl 1 year ago
And of course, let's not forget those pesky models! The models are full of shit. There's no way you can ever predict with total accuracy what's gonna happen in the future, esp. i nthe next 50-100 years or more. Besides, how do you know what variables to put in where? How can you be sure your variables are absolutely right? Modeling is very complex.
whoo689 2 years ago
Dude, I don't think I have ever had the chance to meet a man who can comment rant such as yourself. Congrats on having the ability to spew non-stop on a regular bases. I run out of words frequently. You don't seem to have that problem. Way to flex your 1st amendment(natural) rights. :0)
Mauhadeeb28 2 years ago
I'm not sure whether to feel insulted or praised right now. Heh.
Well, I'm a very opinionated kind of guy. My mind is constantly running many thoughts at once, and after I write a comment, I oftentimes think "Shit, I should've put this in there" and end up writing many.
Bad habit, I know. I should probably keep it to a minimum cuz it's probably annoying to other commenters. I guess that'll be my new year's resolution, eh
whoo689 2 years ago
lol I personally would take it as a complement. Though, I am sure others would consider it a fault. As far as your New years resolution goes; you have 8 1/2 months to go, so keep it coming!
Mauhadeeb28 2 years ago
So this is really just a waste of time, this debate on "what to do" for global warming. We'll be fine. Other than silly apocalyptic predictions about the polar ice caps melting and the world flooding, there's little to really worry about. Let's focus on more important issues like the war.
If you wanna focus on pollution for health's sake, fine. But don't cloud the issue or wrap it up in phony global warming nonsense. Just say "We don't like pollution." It's not hard.
whoo689 2 years ago
Let's face it: even if there is substantial industry-caused warming, First World nations are fully equipped to deal with it! And besides, more warming is a good thing. The oceans are not gonna flood us to death. We're not gonna all die of heat stroke in the summer and spring. The polar ice caps will never TOTALLY melt, despite any melting that's occurring now.
The people who have anything to worry about are 3rd-worlders, but I think the threat is exaggerated even for them.
whoo689 2 years ago
And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't volcanoes produce a good deal of pollution as well that could contribute to warming?? And yet, I don't see the global warming folks saying we need to spend money to keep volcanoes from erupting.
Overall, the amount of effect of increased CO2 on the environment is relatively weak. CO2 naturally lags temperature by about I think 800 years (more or less), so clearly a little additional co2 is not gonna hurt in the end. Let's just stop wasting time here.
whoo689 2 years ago
And let's not forget about the brief COOLING period between 1940-1973 when American ingenuity and progress REALLY started to take off, when we started to become, in Galbraith's words, "the affluent society." Obviously CO2 emissions greatly increased. But there was still COOLING. Why?? For 30 years? That means the AGW story must at least have some holes in it.
We had cooling and then post-1970s the earth naturally began to warm up again, as in other 1500-year cycles. It's totally natural.
whoo689 2 years ago
Michael Mann and the hockey stick graphs are such frauds. Mann worked for or with the IPCC, so you know he's a screwup. Many scientists have looked at the data and methodology used to produce the graph, and they couldn't do it. They realized Mann did a very poor job. Besides, it's so silly! The Earth's temperature is basically gonna stay the same until the last 150 years or so when humans industrialize? I don't think so.
There's more to the story.
whoo689 2 years ago
Despite what the idiotic IPCC says, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period WERE very real, and they are only one set of cool and warm periods out of many 1500-year cycles in our planet's history. Add to that the fact that it's CO2 that lags temperature, not the other way around, and you start to realize you weren't told all the facts by Al Gore and the others.
Not to mention that, like firms' output, there are DIMINISHING MARGINAL RETURNS on warming on CO2. It's not a constant rate.
whoo689 2 years ago
Those folks who actually think we're ENTIRELY responsible for warming are pure idiots. If they REALLY think temperatures worldwide don't change, and then when industrialization happens, all of a sudden the Earth is suffering and helpess, they need to get a clue. They REALLY think the Earth's atmosphere and climate are THAT weak?? come on...
Tree ring, coral reef, boreholes, etc. data all point to the 1500-year natural cycle. Sunspots and warming/colder periods correspond, too.
whoo689 2 years ago
There's PLENTY of science refuting anthropogenic warming, in fact. Maybe if Gibbs had bothered to read a scientific journal for a change instead of just listening to all the crap the media reports about the scientists THEY favor or whose research THEY like, you know get both sides, he'd be far more balanced here.
Global warming was discovered in the 80s to be cyclical, the result of a 1500-year trend of random ups and downs. I mean, the atmosphere doesn't stay the same until humans come along
whoo689 2 years ago
he looks like a turtle
hobgoblinlkjfdsa 2 years ago
whatta maroon.
steveFL450 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
goog2k 2 years ago
I still cant figure out what this video is about.
MultiWheat 2 years ago
WHAT THE FUCK??? "No scientific basis refuting global warming????" Is this some kind of joke, when you have C-Span and other networks reporting that "the majority of earth scientists agree that global warming CANNOT be substantiated." All we're hearing from are the few kooks....but they are far outnumbered by the rational scientist. Robert Gibbs is a compete idiot who got his college degree from Elmer Fudd University.
guyfroml 2 years ago
Darn Global Warming...I'm freezing! LOL
timmunst 2 years ago
@guyfroml --- you are right. Gibbs has many mannerisms that makes me think he is in some way related to Elmer Fudd, let alone receiving a degree from said university. It amazes me the outright LYING of this administration.
sushinibbler 2 years ago
You are a moron.
PrinceGeorgeCutbanks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All you greenies in attendance ?? ... great, now lets rename world facist headquarters as Dope-enhagen
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
We could create a fraud tax to use against their scientists. But you can't tax the dems in the White House, because they refuse to pay their taxes.
joebidensanass 2 years ago
We should carbon tax the white house, the UN and Al Gore for being alarmists, fear mongerers and frauds.
xxramblingsxx 2 years ago
Wow I love this part 1:37
jowright33 2 years ago
Comment removed
xxramblingsxx 2 years ago
I think it's time for those disbelievers (like myself) to start grabbing your ankles. This administration will stop at nothing to destroy the United States, Democracy, Freedom, and Capitalism.
Hope & Change = Socialism & World Gov't
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
Doesn't the fact that the mainstream media is ignoring climate-gate completely in some way validate that man-made global warming is a conspiracy?
Read page 22-25 of the Copenhagen climate treaty.
1. Forms one world government
2. The one world government is controlled by an unelected "executive committee"
3. The one world government annually collects $160 billion in taxes from us
4. The one world government is granted GLOBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS.
All in the name of...phoney science.
kja5 2 years ago
31,000+ verified scientists disagree with the AGW theory. 2,500 scientists have been chosen for the IPCC and support AGW.
31K > 2.5K.
Also go read the emails and if you know Fortran try recreating their models using the real data and the cooked data. They show a decline is occurring while a warming was predicted.
2009 = year with the record number of earliest snows. The exact opposite of what was predicted by the people who have been proven wrong time and again.
purechaos2000 2 years ago
There are a few minority alternate theories regarding climate change, but climate change deniers don't trumpet them because they're better supported, they do it because solving man-made climate change would inconvenience them. Thus, they deny it completely. There are a few good-faith climate change skeptics, but they are far outnumbered by people who just want to shift responsibility away from humans and conspiracy theorists who insist that it's some kind of socialist conspiracy.
WatermelonRat 2 years ago
If the evidence is so strong on GW, why do they need to cook the books to try to justify their theory. If the earth isnt warming in the last decade, common sense says this theory isnt ready for prime time. If you are so convinnced your theory is right, then its gone from theory to religion. The fact is GW is very possibly very and foolish theory. It could be right, but no way is the debate over.
killefer762 2 years ago
"they do it because solving man-made climate change would inconvenience them."
That is simply the biggest understatement of the truth that I have ever seen on Youtube.
If you mean the cost of 2.5% of the world's GDP or raising the cost on the entire middle class by 300% on energy and of cost on all goods, then yes, it's simply "inconvenient".
Maybe we should line up like the sheep that we're expected to be and believe without real proof that we should destroy our economy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
afghanastan why?
onlything propping up american economy.
rshace
rshace2012
cprparty
THEALLCNI
THEALLCNI 2 years ago
Most of people on the "list" who are against the idea of global climate change have a PhD in economics or related field.... Not a single person on the "list" against climate change has a PhD in atmospheric sciences.
GDP2003 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
might as well start defining abc... Well A goes before B, and B goes before C, And well you C texas goes before every thing. Everythiang
xxrazaxx 2 years ago
Ahahah, Robert Gibbs. Oh man what an idiot thing to say.
TheOriginalName555 2 years ago 2
One big joke
ekjohndeer 2 years ago
Gibbs, the fact remains that the dispute of the 31,000 scientist who disbelieve global warming has not been addressed. In fact it is completely being ignored.
MayonR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Huffington Post is silencing all global warming dissent in their comment section. Over 400 messages have stood "pending approval" for hours! Pass this news on. Take screen grabs. Are we still in America?
tstm89 2 years ago
DOWN! DOWN! GET BACK!! You bunch of mouth-foaming, 911 Truther-climate change denying wingnuts!!! (Sound of my whip snapping the air) Go find another conspiracy theory that doesn't endanger the lives of millions! Get used to paying more taxes! You've got it coming for the rape of the planet and most of its people! It's time for some payback! And you're going to pay and pay and pay until you're as impoverished as the billions of suffering people you've stolen from!
TheForwardGaze 2 years ago
Rap music is causing polar bears to die off in droves.
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
Al Gore has made millions in the 'Carbon Trading' market he helped create and stands to make tens of millions more once we start playing Pass the Popsicle. It does NOTHING to stop what we put out as a whole.
Watch out for that Carbon tax. You think we saw scandal and roulette these past 2 years??!!
The Green Movement is the horse ridden by many a Eco-Hypocrite. A money machine for many.
prphotography 2 years ago
Id like to bring to your attention that Huffington Post is currently censoring hundreds of comments regarding climategate on its Hoax De-bunking page. If we are to save science and the liberal movement, we have to wake up to the fact that global warming is a fraud. Its a trillion dollar scam and Huffington Post is behaving like Pravda.
tstm89 2 years ago
Gibbs will be starting his comedy tour soon. He is such a great comedian.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Gibbs is the kind of goofy four eyed kid that gets beat up in the school yard. He's another of Obama's ass kissing buddies.
thirdcoastguy 2 years ago 2
Amazing, the greatest scam in recorded Human history, and the media is virtually silent. Why is the media silent on this issue. Why have they not show the public the criminals emails? Why was all the "baseline" study data (the data used by ALL climate scientists) destroyed. The very data needed to prove they were lying, gone, deleted. And what's worse the emails said they were going to delete it before they did it. And still no story.
I got news for you, "news" is not news in America.
putittogether 2 years ago 5
The new "Baghdad Bob".
firejack007 2 years ago 3
firejack; Yes he is! And to elaborate, I've heard him referred to as... "D.C. Bob!"
Hehe
CheObama 2 years ago
Global Warming is bull shit people and the Gov't is going to tax your ass off to save us all!LOL
killergames187 2 years ago 5
This is the SPIN that all the MSM is using: that the emails are just a few scientists talking about socking people in the news, but the GW science is sound.
Site showing the emails:
bishophill(dot)squarespace(dot)com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33(dot)html
Site showing part of a fraudulent hockey-stick-making computer program:
esr(dot)ibiblio(dot)org/?p=1447
ChristopherMarlowe 2 years ago 2
Anyone need the site where these emails can be read, just respond to this message and I will send it to you.
blite13 2 years ago
97% of climatologists agree that global warming is real, is happening right now, and will get worse. Climatologists are the people who understand and study the phenomenon. There is basically no dispute among climatologists about the causes or serious consequences of global warming.
Billions of people will die needlessly if we do not take action now.
Please study the real evidence and ignor those who label all scientific facts like evolution and global warming as conspiracy theories.
JayPhilosopher 2 years ago 2
(7%, where do you get that #? There are a huge amount that do not agree. There are LEGITIMATE questions that need to be answered BEFORE we all start crying that the Earth is burning up. The same thing is happening on Mars, is that Manmade?
blite13 2 years ago 4
A poll by Doran and Zimmerman University of Illinois got replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Loathomar 2 years ago
One big word that should've been in bold letters in your comment.... BELIEVE. Scientists are wrong all the time. Just because they voice a BELIEF doesn't make it FACT. That's why they constantly bicker between each other. You can take the simplest like when they thought the world was flat to the most complex when they said that Andromeda Galaxy couldn't have a black hole in the center which now they theorize that it does. It goes back and forth until some visible fact.
firejack007 2 years ago 3
Yes, Scientists way the facts and make conclusions from said facts that they believe in. If more fact come to disprove there beliefs they change the their beliefs. Do the idea that we should ignore the facts seems rather insane. Right now, all Scientists believe in the in AGW, but if facts come to light to disprove this theory scientist which not believe in that theory any more. The fact of the matter is, that we work with the information given.
Loathomar 2 years ago
There are facts that disprove AGW. A recent study showed that the net feedback was more negative than previously thought, indicating that the earth is insensitive to changes, and is stable enough to resist the affects of an increase in CO2. Second, there really isn't much hard evidence supporting AGW. If I am wrong, please reply telling me what that evidence is.
xp19375 2 years ago
What does "stable enough to resist the affects of an increase in CO2" even mean? Resisting the any major change might be true, but we are only talking about 2 to 5'C. No scientists are really talking about anything more then that. But if you want something to disprove something, you can state the evidence. The fact that this year 75 out of 77 climatologists believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, does kinda counter act your idea.
Loathomar 2 years ago
A feedback in the climate system is how the earth responds to a given change. For example, CO2 traps some heat, causing the earth to warm slightly. This warming causes more water to evaporate, and thus more clouds which reflect sunlight, causing a cooling effect. That is a negative feedback.
5°C is the difference between the little ice age and the medieval warm period - The difference between abundant crops and famine, because warmer weather leads to higher crop yields.
xp19375 2 years ago
5'C, the most anyone is putting out for numbers of global warm in the next 100 years, may have been the difference between abundant crops and famine 100 years ago, but even today, there would be no reason for famine, at least not in the developed world, and 100 years from now?
Also, less water absorbers more heat then ice from sunlight causing more warming... Yes, the system is very complex, many ppl get there PhD in it. That is why we ask them what they think...
Loathomar 2 years ago
Just because a lot of climatologists say that humans are causing global warming doesn't make it true. Almost every astronomer said 75 years ago that the Andromeda Galaxy was a nebula. It's not about how many people are on your side, it's the quality of evidence supporting your hypothesis. If you want evidence against substantial AGW, then look up Roy Spencer and read some of his articles.
xp19375 2 years ago 2
I read some of Spencer, oddly it seems he does beleive in AGW just not "catastrophic man made global warming". He claim it is possible that 75% of global warming can be explained by Pacific Decadal Oscillation, still leaving at least 25% as AGW. Basically, even the scientific sceptic say AGW is real, it is merely a question of how much is caused by AGW, that is a reasonable stance.
There are plenty of room for a how much AWG? and what is the best way to deal with it? But denying it is silly.
Loathomar 2 years ago
I am not denying that the globe is warming, just that humans are not the main cause. If 75% of it is natural, then we can't do anything about it, and nature is the ultimate cause of climate change. I agree with him that humans are influencing the climate, but not in any significant way.
xp19375 2 years ago
Really, there is no reason we, all the people in the world, could not currently control the climate how ever we choice. Really, it is all a question of value and costs. How much will in cost to control the climate vs how much will it cost us it the climate heats up by 3'C? If 3'C = 2 meter rise in the sea level, how much will it cost to protect all the cities near the sea (which is most of the cities in the world)? How much will other changes from global cost? How much are polar bear worth?
Loathomar 2 years ago
ummm polar bears population is currently RISING right now, learn what FACTS are.
Sure we can control a planet that has had EXTREME temperature changes (see ICE AGE...LONG BEFORE MANKIND dumbass) for BILLIONS OF YEARS.
You do know the FACT that the OCEANS in the world are the #1 emitter of CO2??? Guess we should get rid of the worlds water supply if we want to "save" it right?
Your so called "logic" is as stupid as the "facts" that arent' there.
alwaysending 2 years ago
"FACT that the OCEANS in the world are the #1 emitter of CO2" LOL... The ocean is an absorber of CO2 not a source. I think you are think of green house gases, in which case, yes, water vapor is an important green house gas.
And you, I firmly believe mankind can not or start a ice age if we so choice. It would be very costly, I am sure, but we could do it. We are looking into how to massively change Mar's climate, by as much as 50'C, but change earth 5'C???
Loathomar 2 years ago
"polar bears population is currently RISING right" That is not the point at all. Rising or falling, it the globe temp increased 3'C, polar bear would likely become extinct. Though, the point of bring up polar bear was merely to demonstrate that there would be other changes, not so direct to mankind, but they mankind may still value.
Global warming is occurring, that is not a debate at all. How much is caused by man is some what debatable, but it did not impact my previous statement.
Loathomar 2 years ago
Was global cooling another theory 95% of the scientists agreed on lol. Seems like their is more politics than science going on with global warming hoax. Al Gorleoni and the rest of his mob should be indicted for racketeering this hoax.
killefer762 2 years ago
No, 95% of scientist know that the global temperature change heavily with the solar activity cycle. It is a sinusoidal activity with a 12 year cycle, this is way when should a chart of global temps in can see a large osculation over a general trend of rising temperature. In a mathematical formula it would look like Global temp = Xsin(t/12)+Y*t where X is the range of power of solar activity, Y is the longer, slower global temperature change and t is time in years. This is vastly simplified.
Loathomar 2 years ago
This is definitely true with all the bureaucracy surrounding this religion. the inconsistencies even before any news of Climategate was already incriminating. This is just a matter of getting the most credible people in our society to lie for this movement. It is as provable as the existence of Aliens has been to this point.
MayonR 2 years ago
Your global warming flat-earthers need to start questioning things instead of being so gullible and just following the party lines like a bunch of drones.
killefer762 2 years ago
When the oceans warm, they release CO2 because it is able to dissolve less.
xp19375 2 years ago
Ah, I see, it was the "a warming Ocean" is a large source of CO2. How much CO2 per degree is a good questions.
Loathomar 2 years ago
The decrease depends on temperature. It decreases faster at lower temperatures. If it changes from 0 C to 10 C, the solubility changes from 1.8mL CO2/g water to 1.3mL CO2/g water - About -0.05 per degree. From 40 to 50 C, it's .52 to .43, or about 0.009.
Pressure has the opposite affect - as pressure increases, more CO2 dissolves, however that is very difficult to calculate, since the partial pressure of CO2 is so low, about 35 Pa, compared to atmospheric pressure of 101,325 Pa.
xp19375 2 years ago
Of course the changing of the sea temperature effect on global temperature is far more complex then the amount of CO2 it creates. Other then more CO2, rising sea temperature = increased evaporation = more water vapor in the air (its self a green house gas) = more cloud cover (reflecting sunlight and lowering global temp). I do not know the full effect of rising sea temp, but I can say it certainly complex.
Loathomar 2 years ago
Oh stop the bullshit already! It's a political POWER PLAY to impose restrictions on industry and to give politicians power over industrialists by selling them "carbon credits." This is a load of fucking horse shit!
StinkingHombre 2 years ago 4
no scientific debate?
Ralativity - still a THEORY
Big Bang - THEORY
Gravity - THEORY
Global Man Made limate Change - FACT?!?!?!?
Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit, Einstein would bitchslap these fucking turds for even SUGGESTING there can be absolutely NO opposing theory/thoughts in a fucking scientific debate, that's why it's SCIENCE assholes....there has to be a debate amongst the community an OPEN HONEST DEBATE!
But not for Barry and Co, fucking tax us to obivion
alwaysending 2 years ago
there is no such thing as fact...yet you don't deny gravity, your third theory there...right? Apples still fall...the earth is heating up...not sure if its man made...may be natural
caisto5 2 years ago
you're absolutely right. you can't deny facts right?
well get the facts straight on "man made" global warming. Because it's not only a FACT that the earth is NOT warming up, the sea levels are NOT rising, and the # of polar bears on earth is GROWING....but that the "scientists" that created the studies LIED about the data to make it APPEAR that the earth is doing these things, and it's not.
Its also a FACT that plants CONSUME Carbon Dioxide and that's a POSITIVE for earth.
alwaysending 2 years ago 3
When was the last debate on Relativity, Big Ban or Gravity? The title "THEORY" does not mean there is a scientific debate about something. In the scientific field, the is always room for a new theory, but you need to have a look of fact to back it up. The opposing theories Relativity, Big Ban or Gravity have no facts backing them up, but AGW is a bit more debated... I mean over 95% of the scientist have the view of AGW, but that does leave under 5% to disagree, but that way it was "real debate"
Loathomar 2 years ago
LMFAO!
95% of scientists agree with Man Made Global Warming?
95% of scientists can't agree on ANYTHING, there are literally THOUSANDS of scientists that are refuting all of these claims, not to mention the emails actually show that those so called "scientists" cooked the books and LIED about the data, making that NOTHING close to a scientific reason.
The "facts" you speak of in this "debate" have been debunked by the "scientists" that wrote them.
alwaysending 2 years ago
The other's that "agree" with this do so since they are pressured to do so, as they will loose their jobs, grant money, and standing in the scientific community for opposing man made global warming. This is EXACTLY the same thing that's been happening for decades with the "intelligent design" & "evolution" theories. The "decenters" have been completely silenced and lost jobs, etc.
And you're going to tell me that there should be NO debate on these things? WOW! How open and scientific of you!
alwaysending 2 years ago
No, I am saying the scientific community is in general agreement as the last poll of earth scientist showed a 95% agreement that AGW is occurring. There is some who still question it,that would be the 5%. But 5% of an opposing view is not a real debate. 75/25 is a real debate, 90/10 is very questionable to be called a real debate, 95/5 is not a real debate.
As for "intelligent design", show me a scientific test to show god, and it can be a scientific theory. "God did it" /= scientific theory.
Loathomar 2 years ago
I don't know of a 95% agreement of ANYTHING in the science community, but I'll bite....granted the "poll" was given by the people who have been CAUGHT lying on emails so I don't know how much you could possibly TRUST what they say, but I digress.....liberals aren't the "smartest" people in the world.
There's enough evidence for intelligent design to show that no one can possibly explain how/why we are here and why things are the way they are.....tell me about your primordial ooze theories
alwaysending 2 years ago
Abiogenesis should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. There are several theories of the how life on Earth non of which can be proven at the start of life occurred at one point in the past and likely did not leave physical evidence. The problem with "intelligent design", which is basically "god did it" is everything can be explained this way. Gravity = god did it, Big Band = god did it, ect. But saying "god did it" can't be tested.
Loathomar 2 years ago
so please enlighten me on these abiogenesis theories.....tell me one that simply explains where the FIRST living cell came from.
According to your statements, that shouldn't be so hard for an elitest of your status to conjure up.
You can test, and there are all kinds of tests currently ran with science to prove intelligent design. You can test for intelligent design just as you can test for anything else. The problem is that that arguement is ostricized by the people such as yourself.
alwaysending 2 years ago
First, how does one test for the God? I mean scientifically. If you have a good scientific test for God, I and the entire world would love to hear it.
As for the most common theories of abiogenesis I would need 10 boxes to explain it, but it you can wiki abiogenesis, you can get some idea.
Loathomar 2 years ago
Very brief
1 The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere (methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent)
2 This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3 These compounds accumulated in a "soup".
4 By further transformation, more complex organic polymers— and ultimately life
Loathomar 2 years ago
you can't create a "simple organic compund" from something that wasn't FIRST organic no?
If so, then why isn't this taking place now? Why aren't there new species growing out of these "soups" today? Wouldn't the "soups" have EVOLVED to produce MORE results ars time went on, not less? Just as there are now MORE humans on earth than when we 1st started, not less....we can procreate.
alwaysending 2 years ago
Yes, you can create a "simple organic compound" from non organic. You should really look up the meaning of words before using them.
Organic compound - Substance whose molecules contain one or more carbon atoms (excluding carbonates, cyanides, carbides, and a few others. Many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever, material or structural, to any substance found in living organisms. But "organic compounds" are generally, the building blocks of life.
Loathomar 2 years ago
where di the CARBON MOLECULES come from? you can simply choose to keep running around the questions all you want, it's painfully obvious that I've asked ONE simple questiion, SHOW ME PROOF OF WHERE THE FIRST CARBON LIVING MOLECULE CAME FROM to which you cannot reply. You have to have what? FAITH in your believes right? You weren't there, there weren't scientists there were there? So its FAITH, the SAME as Intelligent Design, expect mine's more plausable than a fucking OOZE! LOL
alwaysending 2 years ago
Where did the carbon come from? And if what you JUST STATED is true, then what you are saying is everything is made out of carbon, therefore Carbon cannot possibly be a Man-Made Global Warming problem right?!?!?! Everything on earth, INCLUDING the atmosphere, the Sun, Stars, Planets, etc, etc are made of Carbon.....does Venus have Man Made Global Warming too!?!?!?
alwaysending 2 years ago
dont forget, Yoda was in exile on the Earth before he went to Degobah. While here, he used the force to forge matter into life thus making the planet a better hiding spot from the evil Empire. But Underestimate his powers he did, for he mistakingly produced giant T-Rexes which continually tried to eat him. Thus, Yoda had to use his remaining pod fuel to leave and ended up stuck on Degobah. Meanwhile, the Empire discovered that Yoda had been on Earth, so they attacked the planet with a CO2 ray.
joejohnson043 2 years ago
Ok, but I don't need to read your science fiction "humpbacking on crystals" theories....I mean comeon, its HARDER to believe the shit that some of these "theories" have than it is to believe in Intelligent Design.
Furthermore, if I can just "wiki" those hypothesis, can you not do the same for theories of Intelligent Design? I would need eternity to explain it, thank God I will have that one day :)
alwaysending 2 years ago
I did read the wiki on Intelligent Design, please read the segment titled "Defining science". Then you will understand my objection to it. I have no problem with anyone believe the idea of Intelligent Design, but the fact of the matter is that it fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method and their for, is not a scientific theory.
You know you really suck at this argument.
Loathomar 2 years ago
"You know you really suck at this argument"
Ohhh wouldn't expect any less rhetoric from a liberal. All BS no substance.
Can we get off the Wiki thing for HALF a secoind....Wiki is edited by ANYONE/EVERYONE in the world. That's line listening to that game in elementary school "telephone" for your life's questions, just plain retarded.
Now I UNDERSTAND very clearly that there are ALOT of ppl against these ideas, but the complete DISREGARD for other theories only proves how scared you are
alwaysending 2 years ago
No we can't get off the wiki thing, go read the "Defining science", if you don't like reading off wiki, the source is sited, click on the link and go there. The idea of "intelligent Design" is fine, but it is not a scientific theory.
No one is against the idea of "intelligent Design", they are just against the idea of "intelligent Design" as a scientific theory as it fail to meet the requirements of becoming a scientific theory. Read the definition of the scientific method and scientific theory
Loathomar 2 years ago
Science by nature is limited in what it can explain. What it can be reproducible and predictable can be said to become fact. Something that can be measured can be theorized. One time events are theories as they cant be reproduced and hence are not facts. Evolution is fine as scientific theory given they constraints they operate under. Science does not prove truth...only provides an explanation of material things given its constraints it operates under.
killefer762 2 years ago 5
That is true, well said.
Loathomar 2 years ago
might as well start defining abc... Well A goes before B, and B goes before C, And well you C texas goes before every thing. Everythiang
xxrazaxx 2 years ago
Of course, you should remember that from the Bush days....I remember it from TODAY, the BO days....that if I didn't vote for him I MUST be a racists....
thats the SAME arguement as what you're putting up here and NO LESS rediculous.
Just because some "politically correct" pussies refuse to DEBATE at ALL doesn't make my process any less REAL or PLAUSABLE than yours..
You're a book burner huh? Just because YOU dont like it you just completely rule it out of life?
HOW SCIENTIFIC of u
alwaysending 2 years ago
I am not a scientist, but I do understand the basic principle of scientist. I understand the basic of most scientific fields as I studied them in college. You seem to have fail to understand truly basic chem, which is just sad. Really, you should read some chem and bio books before trying to talk about this. You level of ignorance is disheartening.
Loathomar 2 years ago
several thousand?
yeah Gibbs you piece of shit, they were basing their theories off of the data that was in those emails, that was MADE UP you fat, dumb fuck
alwaysending 2 years ago 2
The Polar bear numbers are increasing.
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
Gibbs has to be borderline retarded.
dmaul7 2 years ago 5
Don't insult innocent retarded kids by comparing Doctor Gibbels to them!
StinkingHombre 2 years ago
The ocean and volcanoes produce MUCH more C02 than humans...but these leeches can't figure out how to tax volcanoes so they blame humans. Oh, and there is this star called the "sun" very close to our planet which just might account for warming...
LawyerScumGhost 2 years ago
The temperature outside right now is cooling very rapidly. If this trend continues, we'll have another Ice Age.
xp19375 2 years ago
These e-mails just punched the official hole in the bottom of the cap and trade boat. It ain't gonna happen... We all just put money in the bank, and saved many of the third world poor...
jeffsnyder73 2 years ago
I wonder how long it will be before they start calling it 'global cooling' and trying to pass a new energy tax? That's what they called it in the 70's.
maximusdecimus888 2 years ago
And there has never been any REAL scientific basis supporting it! dumbasses!
captquest1 2 years ago 2
The best arguments I've heard is that we started putting out forest fires very well recently. This offsets millions of tons of co2 put up by man.
-The real data shows that we are cooling and have cooled for ten yrs.
-We are currently at 350ppm co2 but plants really thrive in1800-2200ppm co2.
-The cool/warm cycles match up to the sunspot activity better than co2.
-Stolen Emails tell the whole story. I've read them.
-Esso,Exxon,Shell funded Mike Mann and his friends.
Mann made GW is real!
buddcinder 2 years ago
- The real data shows no real global temperature change over the past 10 years, though it you measure from the peck in '98 you can make it look like global cooling. This would be great if it weren't for the 12 solar activity cycle, for which we are currently at the bottom of right now. Global temperatures are always in a cycle going up and down with solar activity, global warming offset the cool, but we will still get the warming in the next two years.
Loathomar 2 years ago
"-We are currently at 350ppm co2 but plants really thrive in1800-2200ppm co2." That is not relivent to global warming.
"-The cool/warm cycles match up to the sunspot activity better than co2." The equation 2A+B=C, C might follow A better then B, C is still equal to 2A+B=C. Solar activity is FAR more important the green house gases. All the CO2 in the world will not heat the planet without the sun, but greenhouse gas do also effect global temperatures.
Loathomar 2 years ago
The US forest service does not put out natural forest unless they threaten homes. But Amazon deforestation releases an estimated 400 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, which is 1.4% of man made CO2. The reforestation of places could be an effect sink for CO2. But to equal out the 28 billion tons of CO2 we would need to save about 2-3 million km² of forest per year between 1/5 and 1/3 the total area of the US.
Loathomar 2 years ago
I'm starting to doubt global warming.
merrimac290 2 years ago
More thousands of scientists argue against it. And have started lawsuits!
buddcinder 2 years ago
Gibbs you are as dumb as your stupid boss
cicsasus 2 years ago 3
Climategate 101
(How to pervert the Scientific process for political purposes.)
AGW from the CRU:
Peer reviewing each others work!
Collusion!
Controlling the IPCC data!
Not releasing basic data!
Stopping skeptic's science papers from being published!
WOW!
This is really bad for the warmers.
FreeAgain2 2 years ago
Gibbs is just a puppet like Obama. This is all about power. What a joke these people are.
quizerry 2 years ago
Phil Jones Has resigned! But lets go to Copenhagen. Death to the CRU, but lets sign the treason treaty.
fiducialpoint 2 years ago
Does this guy read the news much?
Scorpio598 2 years ago
I saw a funny picture the other day. Two cavemen sitting in a cave. One of them says, there are no cars, cities, no c02 emissions, no pollution, yet we only live 30 years.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Moron.
glenwoodfin 2 years ago
Major Garret shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to do peer review research at the university level and what the dumb hacked emails "prove," which is nothing.
jensen1901 2 years ago
how can you stand up for people who were conspiring to cook data, ruin careers and defraud tax payers jensen1901?
snappa52 2 years ago 2
Because I am not a paralyzed Fox News viewing dittohead. I am a citizen of the world who knows the science and reads things other than the Drudge Report. Global warming is real.
jensen1901 2 years ago
I would be embarrassed to admit that...whats else do you believe the earth is flat? lol
killefer762 2 years ago
There are 141 nations and their representative hundreds of thousands of scientists who agree with me. But you've got Fox News on your side (and the oil companies). Oh, and you also have China and Croatia.
jensen1901 2 years ago
Actually even China is coming around. Increasingly it is only Republicans in the US who think GW is not real. Look at some sat photos on the NASA website my frend. The pictures don't lie. Glaciers are melting--and fast. The data doesn't lie.
jensen1901 2 years ago
Same thing is happening on Mars, is that Man's fault too?
blite13 2 years ago
That's a good point, actually, blite13. But don't you think it's better we err on the side of caution and TRY do do something just in case? If you are right, I'll give you $50,000 in 20 years. If you are wrong, we all die.
jensen1901 2 years ago
It's better to get to the truth of the matter, we are getting the wool pulled over our eyes. I want the TRUTH so we can make an informed decision. Err on caution is recipe for disaster and to give governments and the UN the power to tell us what that truth is=NAHHHHHH. Screw that, we deserve better and these con artists need to be held accountable. They are not God's, they are human just like us, I think, we all need to be informed with TRUTH instead of lies and we need to hold them accountable.
blite13 2 years ago 2
They are not "con artists." They are scientists. Science is evolving and changing all the time. Maybe if you kept an open mind you'd see the truth. Do some real reserach. I'm willing to admit that the case for GW might be over stated, but you should also open your eyes to the possibility it could be very real.
jensen1901 2 years ago
I have my mind open and history has taught me that Globalists take advantage of ALL situations, real or madeup. This is another case, they have spun a NATURAL occurence into a profit driven agenda. One to make you and me feel guilty for being a Human Being so we will willingly give up rights and pay more tax. My mind is open, I see scientists being bought off, ones who are making false claims...to blow off these emails..have you read them?
blite13 2 years ago
i thought climate change was real now that we are in a cooling cycle? the globe isnt warming, hasnt been warming for 12 years
snappa52 2 years ago
That's like saying "well it snowed yesterday so i guess there is no global warming!" Doesn't work that way. You have to look at data over a much longer period. Centuries or even milllenia. Ice cores from the arctic help.
jensen1901 2 years ago
It's been PROVEN that the earth was much warmer a 1000 yrs ago. Plus, as soon as scientists, from the University that was leading this agenda, are fudging numbers and seeing other scientists who say G W isn't true......there has to be questions answered, we deserve the truth and I will not accept the word of it from people who get paid by the government for climate studies. I want independent people, not someone who is enticed to rule a certain way. To not do this is very irresponsible.
blite13 2 years ago
Yes the earth was warmer at various points throughout the earth's history. But we also didn't have massive cities with 5 million people in low lying costal areas 10,000 years ago. You are getting played by the spin from the right wing media if you are reading too much into the dumb emails. They prove nothing except that academics talk freely and you have no idea what data they were actually talking about-would you trust a oil lobby funded study on GW? A university study? What source is best?
jensen1901 2 years ago
Like I wrote, it's happening on Mars too, is that Man's fault? How can we stop Nature from taking it's course? And why do WE NEED TO BE TAXED for it? Just the fact that we are being used on this subject for the powerful to get more power. We are not being told the truth and the emails confirm that, it's not acceptable, so questions need to be answered.
blite13 2 years ago
you personally are not going to be taxed on it! Turn off the fox news dude.
jensen1901 2 years ago
May not be personally taxed, but it will make it's way to every single one of us and you know that is true. More I read your writing, the more I see an agenda.
blite13 2 years ago
My only fucking agenda is to try (not like it will work) to counteract the stupid bs I see on Fox everyday. It makes me want to cry because they over simplify everything.
jensen1901 2 years ago
doesnt it strike you as odd that the green leadership also has a huge stake in oil? or a bit strange that the green leadership flies everywhere? i thought airplanes were the greatest transgressors? gore is a majority shareholder in standard oil. rockefeller is the godfather of the oil industry yet he funds all of the green movements at the same time. it seems like someone is setting us up for another derivatives bubble under the guise of a carbon trading system
snappa52 2 years ago
GW is a very complex issue and it is not black and white. Not total BS or 100% true. I urge you to keep an open mind and to please make up your own mind and do real research. That is all. Goodnight.
jensen1901 2 years ago
obama even said that the energy companies will pass on the tax to the consumer. you are playing semantic games now
snappa52 2 years ago
1000 years ago, not 10,000, don't start posting disinfo or I will think you have an agenda.
blite13 2 years ago
we also didn't have massive cities with 5 million people in low lying coastal areas 1000 years ago, either.
jensen1901 2 years ago
EXACTLY, the Earth did not have big cities with tons of people in them driving around, yet, the temperature was higher = BINGO.
blite13 2 years ago 2
You are missing my point. I already said that the Earth has been warmer at various points. But that doesn't mean that humans aren't part of the current problem and that we shouldn't try to curb emmissions.
jensen1901 2 years ago
Well duhhh, less pollution the better, you would have to be a moron to not want that. We have lot's of Humans, you one of these guys who want to cull the herd? Of course there will be waste and pollution, we aren't that advanced yet apparently. But to make this into a Human problem, with UN and Governments that can't be trusted telling us that it's real bad.....Mars buddy, emails buddy, not trust buddy....I'm not that easy.
blite13 2 years ago
Oh and don't forget 30,000 scientists from around the world that don't agree with the G W story..so take what you will from that.
blite13 2 years ago 3