Peter Gleick: Climate change is happening

[mangankids]

This is a speech you would give to a completely uninformed rube. The more you learn about climate science, the less likely you are to believe scumbags like Peter Gleick and Michael Mann.

[mangankids]

Hey, Gleick! I deny that water vapor multiplies the meager warming of the doubling of co2 by three times. You are a propagandist and a criminal. Seppuku for you!

[SulliedMind]

Fraud.

[MasqueChosen]

I'm so tired of listening the the gibberish these people keep spewing forth - at least this one has been shown up for what he is

[korchw]

There is no statistically valid causal link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and earth's mean temperature over time. Climate researchers rely on models in lieu of such statistical evidence. However these models are demonstrably flawed (Lindzen and Choi), and can in fact be shown to predict the opposite of what the measured data show.

[cbrtxus]

Does this fellow really think that those of us who question the claims of looming catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) don't know that climate changes? Climate has always changed. Evidence of past changes is not evidence that human caused the slight warming since the late 1970's which he claims was "mostly" caused by human CO2 emissions. Why does he believe that natural forces that caused previous warming period could not be mostly responsible for the recent warming as well?

[jhkrischel]

Here's the real question - what is his falsifiable hypothesis statement? He talks about all kinds of lines of evidence, but doesn't offer up a single possible observation that could possibly make him change his mind. Warm weather? Global warming. Cold weather? Global warming.

Heads I win, tails you lose isn't science, it's religion.

[BrucePSMF]

There's something about this guy that I just instinctively trust. I'm sure he's a very ethical type of scientist.

[317system]

Just look at this Watermelon (green outside and red inside). None is listening to this BS anymore and he's very angry. Look how he bring up our rights issues, but really he wants green dictatorship and climate justice 100bil a year for Africa. You going to prison.

[sydneydoc]

We all know climate is changing.

What is the evidence that MAN has caused climate change ... of course we all know there is no such evidence, just a very shonky theory.

[imallpissedoff]

When I look at "Dr." Gleick, it's like starring into the face of madness..or, actually, the face of any liberal, communist, atheist, or evolutionist. They're all so absolutely convinced they're right in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They mock and deride any and all dissension from their foolish beliefs while hypocritically preaching tolerance.

[shiftyd100]

@imallpissedoff Don't remember Pol Pot or Stalin preaching tolerance. Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with tolerance. Religion sometimes preaches tolerance but you have been mocking and deriding anyone who disagrees with you on anything from climate change to evolution. I agree with you on climate change but the evolution debate is not comparable. Greens worship Gaia they're not atheists.

[thegoodlocust]

@imallpissedoff I'm an atheist. Evolution is clearly the best hypothesis available right now. Global warming/climate change is completely different since the CO2/temp correlation is extremely poor which is why they keep on inventing excuses to explain away its lack of explanatory and predictive power (e.g. sulfates).

[space4099]

@thegoodlocust However you might have noticed, or not, but plants do not lie and growing zones have been modified to accommodate southern plants migration north. In other words, trees, shrubs and other plants that never grew past a given zone limit have been growing and thriving hundreds of miles north of their native ranges. So if you do not believe these people that go look at your local plant life or just ask a gardener.

[thegoodlocust]

@space4099 "Never" grew is an awfully long time. I do agree that the planet has warmed - since the Little Ice Age (LIA) ended in the late 1800's.

Our sunspot records, actual observed records instead of worthless proxy data, show the sun increasing in activity up until about 1940-1950. All of that early warming was from the sun waking up after the LIA.

Since then we have cooling from 1940-1980, warming from 1980-2000 and it has been stagnant ever since.

This is all natural.

[space4099]

@thegoodlocust Repeat never grew, to cold to grow there, not present in any way, no evidence the plants had grow there period. Also, I thought the same thing at one time about the sun spot stuff so I talked to a friend who is an astronomer at Columbia in New York. To sum it all up he said that even though the suns radiance changes with the solar cycle the amount of heat difference is negligible. I will not argue with you on this further plants and nature have no agenda.

[thegoodlocust]

@space4099 Again, the Little Ice Age lasted over 3 centuries. The plants up in that area would've long since died in that area from the cold. Hell, the trees up there are already stunted and barely surviving. Every state has new plants growing in there that "never" grew there before - it is called migration.

As for radiance/heat, your astronomer friend was referring to the 11 year solar cycle - not long term solar minimums like during the Little Ice Age.

Global warming is natural.

[space4099]

@thegoodlocust Non native warm climate species that are surviving 2 and 3 zones further north despite the 11 year cycle of the sun, is this normal to you. Even during the suns lowest activity, the winters are not cold enough to kill them off as they once did. Little ice age has nothing to do with now. That period coincided with the shut down of the warm gulf stream allowing Europe to freeze. Also, there is a massive die off of cool climate species because they hate high summer temps.

[thegoodlocust]

@space4099 The Little Ice Age has everything to do with if you understand the principle of hysteresis and how it relates to the climate. This is why 11 year cycles aren't as important as multi-century long solar minimums like the Maunder Minimum.

Additionally, species migration is very common. States are constantly fighting against non-native plants coming in - it has nothing to do with "climate change."

Quite simply, the world has been slowly warming as it recovered from the LIA.

[thegoodlocust]

@space4099 The fact of the matter is that you were given a little bit of knowledge, you think you know far more than you do, and you've been running scared based on a few facts you don't understand and conclusions based on those non-contextualized facts.

Fear is an easy way to motivate people.

[randomxnp]

@space4099 "Little ice age has nothing to do with now. That period coincided with the shut down of the warm gulf stream"

Where on Earth did you get that from? What do you think can block off the Gulf Stream - did Atlantis rise again?

[InCMPunkWeTrust]

booo

[imallpissedoff]

I believe in climate change. The climate changes all the time. Once upon a time, the earth was warm, then, without the existence of CFC's, SUV's, R-12, the internal combustion engine, the Industrial Revolution...the Earth got colder. The Ice Age!

Then, without the aforementioned "causes", the Earth warmed back up, again. All by itself.

Imagine that.

[imallpissedoff]

Lol. This crazy loon got caught with his environmentally neutral, recycled hemp pants down.

Really Peter, forging documents. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You climate change cult members are absolutely hilarious! XD XD

Meanwhile, Al Gore leaves his energy sucking mansion to jump in his gas guzzling jet to fly to his ozone destroying boat, and nothing is said to His Most Fat Flatulent holiness because he bought some of his own fraudulent carbon credits.

[ReadABookAndLearn]

@servicebroker...you are an idiot. You need to do some research if you can't understand how things can become more acidic. Are you fucking kidding me!? I can't respond to someone with such basic misunderstandings, and such a narrow view. EVERYTHING I discussed is public knowledge. It's no secret. I've seen peer reviewed papers and studies,and it all says exactly what I said. It's not like I make things up the way you and/or your sources do. This info is a result of decades of experiments & data.

[Dodger481]

@ReadABookAndLearn

You can't make something more acidic that is not acidic to begin with. The oceans are basic using the standard PH scale. Look it up.

[kasuha]

@Dodger481 You can make alcaline things more acidic the same way you can make cold things warmer. If you have block of ice, you just warm it up, you don't start with uncooling it.

Yes, "more acidic" has certain level of PR in it as people are afraid of acids. But technically it is correct.

[Dodger481]

@kasuha

I'm not disputing your premise simply the terminology. The oceans would be less basic not more acidic. Sonething that is already a base can not become more acidic.

[cbrtxus]

@Dodger481, that is correct. The oceans are really a buffer system that favors a particular pH given a particular temperature. Generally speaking, if we warm a buffered solution, the pH will drop slightly.  The oceans can never become "acidified" which means to become acidic. They can only become slightly less alkaline. "Acidification" is a term that is used because of its propaganda value. "Acidify" is scary. "Slightly less alkaline" isn't as scary.

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn You are the one lacking in research. Perhaps you should read a book and learn?

I am the one who studied ocean geochemistry (albeit only briefly, as it is dull). The ocean is not acidic. It is basic. It cannot get more acidic when it is not acidic in the first place.

What you say is public knowledge. That does not mean that it is correct. I've seen a litmus paper. That trumps any other paper: in science experimental results are king.

[ReadABookAndLearn]

@randomxnp If you did study that,you should clearly understand that all aqueous solutions can be rated on the PH scale,and number from 1 to 14 that is determined based on the concentration of dissolved hydronium ions. 7 is neutral...pure water. The lower the number,the more acidic the liquid,and the higher,the less acidic. Measurements for seawater has been more refined,such as the PHf or PHsws versions,which take into account the many variables in ocean water that can make an...

[cbrtxus]

@ReadABookAndLearn, actually anything that has a pH of less than 7 is acidic and more than 7 is alkaline. Moving pH from (as an example), from 8.0 towards 7.0 isn't making it more acidic. It is making it less alkaline. You would have to move the pH from (as another example) from 7.0 down to be making it more acidic. It has to be acidic to start with to become more acidic. It can't be alkaline and become more acidic while remaining alkaline.

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn Lowering a pH that is 7 or less makes it more acidic. Lowering a pH that is greater than 7 makes it less basic. The water is not acidic either in current, recent or foreseeable conditions (even under the most ridiculous assumptions). Therefore it can never be more acidic.

[ReadABookAndLearn]

@randomxnp ...accurate measurement more difficult. However,there is a measurable change that has been detected. There is ocean acidification that is occurring. The ocean is a massive carbon sink...which you should know. The increased acidity may be beginning to have an effect animals who build shells,but that research needs more in depth study. If I'm wrong,I apologize. These are all things that I've read in recent years.

[thegoodlocust]

@ReadABookAndLearn The idea that an "acidity increase," based on proxy measurements of the Little Ice Age, is going to adversely affect life that evolved under CO2 levels much MUCH higher than they currently are is patently ridiculous.

Use your brain.

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn Since the water is becoming less alkaline/basic and are not acidic this is a misrepresentation. There is no evidence that earlier far higher concentrations of carbon dioxide harmed test formation. Note that most animal tests are aragonite, which is metastable under conditions in the ocean and so more soluble than calcite. If solubility was critical to test building then I suspect the animals would have evolved to deposit calcite rather than aragonite.

[D13fledermause]

He likes good and credible evidence? Forging memos is credible?

[randomxnp]

Of course Gleick is also the one who gave a bad review on Amazon to a book he did not like ("The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert") thus harming the earnings of the author. Fair comment though, of course; that is Gleick's opinion.

Only Gleick had not even read the book. His criticisms had no bearing on what the book actually said.

Good for he chairman of a committee on scientific integrity.

[Dodger481]

One thing is for sure, Climate science is not a science. It is a religion. When you are willing to commite wire fraud and fake documents to discredit opposing points of view, you have lost all credibility. Time to get rid of the peter gleicks and get real scientists back in the forfront.

[soomeno]

@Dodger481 Are you talking about "Climate-gate" ?? IF thats the case, take the time to read it from the source. But, there are fraucd..

[Dodger481]

@soomeno

Peter Gleick the climate ethicist.

[RichardBaguley]

Hogwash. CAGW is discredited. He and The Team are lying junk scientists.

Now, we know he's a criminal, too, so why believe anything he says.

[JumpySticks]

So it's a communiction problem. right? Common folks just cannot understand something so complex...but you do, right. When in doubt, just make it up, right?

Good Luck in the future Peter. Looks like you've got something real to worry about now.

[runner056]

The man who races alone and finishes second.

Peter you are almost as funny as you look like!!!

Thanx for all the laughs!

[randomxnp]

Wow. The man is also a crook. Identity theft is a rising crime which is very personal and often very scary for the victim. That is the man who seems to want us to trust him.

Oh, and he is so clever he actually claims he committed this crime to validate a really obvious fake. Anyone who actually understands the sceptic position would immediately recognise the fake. Gleick seemingly didn't. Ergo he does not understand sceptics' positions.

[shiftyd100]

So Peter got yourself a lawyer yet? I must say you've given us "deniers" a lot of laughs over the past week and it looks like its only going get to more entertaining when the court case begins. Nice own goal there buddy.

[randomxnp]

Apparently Gleick thinks it is "incredibly offensive" to disagree with him. Look on the RealClimate blog (2-2-2012) for details, but he libelled someone with those words.

It seems that Mr Gleick is incredibly self-regarding.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Look, I have been a little harsh. However this is a perfect example of a little knowledge as a dangerous thing, the same as the internet education problem. It is very clear that you don't really understand evolution or ideas about the origin of life. You can't even choose how you are defining life, and you have hopelessly mistaken the definition of evolution. These are basics you need to know, that you have to come across on the internet.

[shiftyd100]

@randomxnp The internet's a double edged coin. I'm a cagw sceptic but I didn't finish high school. Hansen, Mann, Trenberth et al are a tad better qualified. I believe I can disregard their theory for one simple reason. Basically if the water vapour feedback was as they say then any warming, man made or not, would have caused "run away global warming". It would have happened already. If I'm wrong please correct me. If I'm right then a little knowledge can still beat a whole truckload of bullsh

[randomxnp]

@shiftyd100 Indeed it is, and it seems you have honed the one edge to your advantage, where some might cut themselves with the other. You have come out with the idea that positive feedback is associated with unstable systems, which is correct.

Positive feedback in temperature is essential for AGW to be enough to be dangerous. The evidence that 20th century temperature change is man-made is that before industrialisation temperature was stable (allegedly). Hmmmmmmm. You see a flaw?

[shiftyd100]

@randomxnp I have heard Hansen say that this feedback effect could cause the seas to boil. That doesn't exactly imply stability. Obviously temperature wasn't as stable before 1850 as they say it was but it was stable enough for us to evolve and create a civilization. The only setbacks have been caused by cold. If warming (any source) = more water vapour, more water vapour = more warming, then anytime it was warmer than present the "tipping point" should have been reached. 

[randomxnp]

@shiftyd100 don't forget to call him "$1.6m Hansen".

As for Freeman Dyson - you have a very fine point. Sometimes I think in their little self-affirming clique they forget how eminent are some of the people, especially physicists, who disagree with them. They believe their own "more than 97%", forgetting that was 75 people. Out of more than 3000 respondents to the survey. Of whom they only counted 77. All of whom rely on climate panic for prestige and funding.

[shiftyd100]

@randomxnp Pete just compared Freeman Dyson to a creationist. Self-regarding to say the least. I wonder if he'd have the guts to publicly debate one of the scientists he ridicules. I've noticed it's very easy to find a scientist who'll argue evolution with a creationist yet alarmists rarely debate sceptics. I've never seen a creationist win a debate, the few climate debates I've seen the voting has gone to the sceptics.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Spontaneous generation happens all the time. Mix chemicals, they spontaneously generate other chemicals. So what had you in mind for spontaneous generation?

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Where is the gap in logic? Its great strength is that the logic is impecable, and makes it inevitable. Why is it noit scientific?

Spontaneous generation of what, precisely?

Yoiu are proof of spontaneous generation. How do you exist without it?

"Illogical, unreasonable. unteachable it seems" it seems you are, but I have holpe even for the most closed-minded.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 100% spontaneous generation certainly does exist. It is witnessed regularly in laboratories, and there is much astronomical evidence for it too. So spontaneous generation of what does not happen?

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 What doesn't pass the scientific method and why? It was something that interested me, so I studied broadly well beyhond palaeobiology (which I studied under world-renowned scientists). All that I saw constituted very sound science.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 No-one taught you lies. You were just not bright enough, or else too closed-minded, to understand. Your professor listened to reason,. You just were not giving it, if your arguments here are anything to go by. You simply don't understand the scientific method or the terms you use

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 What was incoherent? 500 characters is not ideal, but every post made sense if you understood what evolutionary biology is about.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Define spontaneous generation. What are you talking about generation of?

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 There is a huge body of evidence for evolution. Study it for real. Read the bits written by the people who actually understand the meaning of the term, not by the religious fundamentalists who have no idea. The evidence is in zoology, in microbiology, in biochemistry, in genetics, in palaeobiology (one of my fields), in embriology and many more fields. It is all consistent. Not one fossil out of place. It is true, and you have been lied to.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 hahahhaha

Because you don't understand what I say, evolution is a hoax? Surely your great internet education can't have left you lacking somehow, so that can't be why you don't understand.

Where is the paradox?

What laws of nature say that nature does not create life?

Spontaneous generation of what is impossible? We know that spontaneous generation of complex organic molecules happens; it is frequently observed.

What makes you think your laws are correct?

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Or rather I should say it is not an inviolate law, nor was it intended to relate to the situation we are discussing. Biogenesis is an idea that denies the spontaneous generation theories of such things as flies and microbes. Complex organisms.

That is not what is under discussion.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 By the way "biogenesis" is not a law.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 You need to define life. If you just mean self-replication, then evolution has no bearing on the origin of this. If you mean the more complete definition (MERRING for example) then evolution is a perfectly valid expanation for this.

Once self-replicating molecules exist evolution occurs, of necessity. That this brings about, in stages, gains in efficiency of use of the environment for self-replication. The factors in any definition of life aid self-replication.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 As for abiogensis, the fact that it is not observed fits exactly with what we expect of evolution. It is indeed a weak piece of supporting evidence, being one obv ious prediction of evolutionary theory. This is because anything which has undergone many generations of evolutionary pressure in an environment is so much better adapted to that environment that any new reproducing molecule could not compete.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Evolution does not have any bearing on how self-replication came to be in the first place. Evolution is a process by which self-replication leads to a trend towards greater efficiency in self-replication within the extant environment. Nothing else.

That you continue to mistakenly claim otherwise simply proclaims your ignorance of evolution, and the limitations of your method of education, naive acceptance of information available on the internet.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 If you use the meaning of spontaneous implied by abiogenesis then spntaneous generation has occured at least once, otherwise life would not exist. The evidence is the existence of life - evidence which obviates faith.

I never said it occured more than once, although it almost certainly has. I indicated that it might involve more than one event or process.

Which laws of nature say theat spontaneous generation is impossible?

I am not religious.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Hahahaha "You can't even understand a few simple definitions." then you make a completely erroneous definition of evolution. Indeed over some period of time (not at some point - it was probably not a single event, depending on definition of "life") non-life became life. That was abiogensis. The process of development from that over the subsequent 4 billion years is evolution.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 The internet is useless for educating yourself. There is a lot of information, but most of it is wrong, errors and lies. You need to be educated to make efective use of the information.

You have learnt nothing about evolution. Otherwise you would not confuse abiogenesis and evolution. I suspect you have learnt nothing because you don't know enough to separate the facts from the lies, distortions and errors. Many writing that information don't know themselves.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Sorry, but Google is not a great way to educate yourself. I'll stick with my way, of years of study and learning to understand, then reading, original research papers, after also learning the techniques, ideas and philosophical basis of the sciences.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Why would I need to look it up? I have a degree in Earth Sciences. I also know that evolution and abiogenesis are separate issues. Not knowing how abiogensis occured (there are many reasonable ideas) does nothing to invalidate evolution. You are simply using a logical fallacy.

No scientist believes that the laws of nature were different. What was different was the environment. Nothing to do with faith - there is a huge body of evidence for this.

[randomxnp]

@disquisition73 Evolution is a fact. It has been tested over and again, makes testable predictions which are born out, it is backed by evidence. That is why it differs from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming which has never been tested, makes few specific predictions (none of which happen) and is backed by no evidence.

Many people tell me there is so much evidence. I asked each one what that evidence is. None can tell me.Can Dr Gleick satisfy me, a science graduate.

[stee229]

People still believe in Global Warming?

[nashkita77]

@stee229 Poeple still believe in a god or gods.

[EricS0072]

KnightBiologist: "The climate denial arguments have many parallels with the creationist arguments, except that they are better funded."

Both of those points are flat out baloney. Take the trillions of taxpayer $ that have bankrolled the environut movement. And alleged creationist parallels are their latest effort to put up a diversion and smokescreen... in what has been, with "Hide the Decline" and many other examples, a leftist political campaign of deceptions and manipulations.

[GuitarNoob101]

@EricS0072 "Climategate" is a total joke. Go read the e-mails in their full context and then take your head out of your ass. You've been spoon-fed mined quotes to feed a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

[randomxnp]

@GuitarNoob101 You clearly have not read the emails, or else you have no idea at all about how science should happen. They were far from a joke.

The emails where, in themselves, a terrible indictment of the climate "scientists" and their "science". The data leaked was even more shocking. Unlike you I actually have a degree in sciences, and it is from a top university.

[GuitarNoob101]

@randomxnp Sounds like you're arguing that:

1.) I'm unqualified because I don't have a science degree (ad hominem fallacy), and

2.) You're qualified because you do have a science degree from a "top university" (argument from authority)

What bull. I guess you need a science degree to know what science is, right? I applaud you arguing against Creationists, but comparing Creationism to climate change is just idiotic, and makes me question your understanding of science.

(continued)

[randomxnp]

@GuitarNoob101 Nope. I am arguing that because you have no science degree you have no reason to know how science should (and sound science does) proceed. If you show you do know, then I am happy to give you credit. However saying that the emails were just taken out of context suggests that either you are just repeating what you have read or that you have no idea how science should proceed. Those emails were not taken out of context: they were damning.

[TexasPropwash]

@randomxnp Did you download the e-mails and read them yourself? Put in their orginal intended context they are not daming. Some of e-mail released in the second round were in the first round of releases.

[TexasPropwash]

@TexasPropwash wikileaks (dot) org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Uni­t_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_­1996-2009

[randomxnp]

@TexasPropwash Context for "hide the decline" was it proved proxies invalid.Illegally deleting emails - to prevent others from knowing their corruption. Attacking outsiders - not to allow anyone to challenge their bad science. Corruption of peer review - silence other views.

Read Climate audit blog for 25 November last year for a couple of bits of context beyond the scope of 500 characters. That is a small part of the "context".

Put in context they were more damning, not less.

[randomxnp]

@TexasPropwash Context for "hide the decline" was it proved proxies invalid.Illegally deleting emails - to prevent others from knowing their corruption. Attacking outsiders - not to allow anyone to challenge their bad science. Corruption of peer review - silence other views.

Read Climate audit blog for 25 November last year for a couple of bits of context beyond the scope of 500 characters. That is a small part of the "context".

Put in context they were more damning, not less.

[DBCooper77002]

As if the video itself were not a huge joke, Peter Gleick then impersonated a member of the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute in order to steal internal memos. Because the documents didn't make the Institute look bad, he published them along with a completely fabricated document that he wrote himself! This from a (probably former) chairman of the AGU scientific ethics committee!

This garbage video is just a peek at the low-life, self-proclaimed "climate scientists."

[randomxnp]

@TexasPropwash As for the second set of leaks: what does it matter that some were repeats? Of course they were, the second set, as well as new corruption, showed context. It proved that your claim "Put in their orginal intended context they are not daming [sic]" is a lie. In context most were more damning. You repeating the lie does not make it so.

[GuitarNoob101]

@randomxnp (part 2/2)

I can't continue an adequate debate with 500-character limits. I would suggest you check out Potholer54's detailed and WELL SOURCED series on climate change, found at the following link (added to youtube(dot)com:

user/potholer54?feature=g-u-u#­p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8

As well as his video on Climategate, specifically:

/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature=c­hannel_video_title

After that, if you still want to discuss/debate, I will be happy to.

[TheSilverpotato]

@EricS0072 trillions?

[randomxnp]

@EricS0072 Indeed the idea of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" has more in common with creationism. It is not only unscientific but anti-scientific. There is no evidence. There are no testable predictions, or rather when reality does not fit one prediction they wheel out another. It has true believers who demand harsh punishment for heretics (including death) and who make vast sums from indulgences. Believers are unwilling to debate,a nd demand that others just have faith.

[krapptacular]

We all know the tons of co2 we pump into the air. It would have to change it over time.

[KnightBiologist]

I'm glad to see that the Nat'l Center for Science Education is taking this on. This video is classroom appropriate, concise, informative, and I'll be glad to use it in my environmental science class. The climate denial arguments have many parallels with the creationist arguments, except that they are better funded. We've got our work cut out for us.

[EricS0072]

"but you climate denial nuts try"

ndrthrd, while you are quick to insult me, and contradict some of my points, you give no evidence at all to back your positions. It's not so just because you say it's so. And this isn't a game of pushing Like & Dislike buttons. There's serious & costly consequences to the cap & trade type proposals that the leftists, like the bearded professor here, try to foist upon the rest of us.

[servicebroker]

I love the double speak "CO2 has not been demonstrated to not be a cause of warming" duhh. Who's in denial, where is evidence that CO2, from man (you can't even tell if the CO2 in the air is man made (3%) or natural (97%) most of the additional is out gassing from the naturally warming oceans. It's so sad that people who genuinely care about the environment have such poor critical thinking skills and cannot spot a fallacious argument. Protest real pollution not CO2 plant food.

[foxlake02]

@servicebroker You have been listening to batshit crazy Bachman haven't you? CO2 is not a poison like cyanide but the balance with other gasses are the issue. Hell, you can poison yourself with water but that doesn't mean you don't need it.

[Illjord]

@servicebroker Actually, from what I recently saw in Sci. Am. the CO2 in the atmosphere can be said to be man made because man made CO2 is a different isotope. So yeah, it's man caused. But even if you don't credit that source, you do admit that the oceans are warming. Warming oceans represents a HUGE store of energy and is definitely indicative of a trend.

[randomxnp]

@Illjord The oceans are not warming. They are remaining the same temperature. The suggestion of warming oceans was simply speculation as to where the "missing" heat had gone over the last 15 years, but turned out to be incorrect.

[marsCubed]

@servicebroker That is a stupid argument based on junk from known far-right oil corp 'libertarian' liars. Human activity now produces more than 100 times more CO2 than the world's volcanim.. LOOK IT UP.

That was The previous largest source of CO2.

Oceans are at CO2 saturation due to absorbing rising levels of CO2.

You repeat oil lobby propaganda from far right swindler sites & think you know something. You seem a conditioned GOP idiot.

watch?v=GX3sKcunkiQ

[randomxnp]

@marsCubed Nope. You are just repeating an error given by a climate hysteric. That is not the truth. That is because you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no "oil lobby". The oil companies pay far more money to climate "scientists" inducing panic than to sceptics. That is without the vast majority of money in the issue, the billions from governments and supra-governmental institutions. If money is distorting research, look to the other side of the debate.

[ReadABookAndLearn]

@servicebroker So, the oceans are "naturally" warming,and they are "out gassing"? Well,they ARE warming...due to a warming atmosphere. They are ABSORBING CO2,which is causing them to become more acidic. We know where the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere come from. There are three "types" of carbon. So we CAN tell that it is not from volcanoes or any other "natural" cause. If it was natural,CO2 levels would increase,while O2 (oxygen) remains steady. This is NOT what we see...

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn The oceans aren't warming. Ooops

Oh and are you serious when you say "O2 levels are decreasing as the CO2 increases because the O2 becomes CO2 when we add the C (carbon) to it when we burn coal,oil and natural gas"? that is very funny. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn "...causing them to become more acidic."

The oceans are alkaline. How can they become "more acidic" if they are not acidic in the first place?

How does a 1 kg/cubic-metre atmosphere (shc 1kj/kg/degree) warm a 1 tonne/cubic-metre ocean (4kj/kg/degree)?

The change or otherwise in 18% of the atmospheric volume that is oxygen by around 0.01% of atmospheric volume would not be detectable. That is if there were no gas cycles or equilibrium.

[ReadABookAndLearn]

@servicebroker O2 levels are decreasing as the CO2 increases because the O2 becomes CO2 when we add the C (carbon) to it when we burn coal,oil and natural gas. We are able to precisely measure atmospheric CO2 levels going back hundreds of thousands of years. They have been between 180ppm during ice ages and 280ppm in the warm periods between ice ages. The temp and sea levels mirror the rises and falls in CO2 quite accurately. We are now at about 400ppm,and temps are rising.WOW

[randomxnp]

@ReadABookAndLearn "O2 levels are decreasing as the CO2 increases because the O2 becomes CO2 when we add the C (carbon) to it when we burn coal,oil and natural gas."

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have seen in 16 years of internet debate. And I started by debating creationists, as a geophysicist. Well done.

[EricS0072]

Two points: 1. current temperatures are not unusual (the hockey stick graph fully debunked), and 2. CO2 has only been demonstrated to be a result (and not a cause) of warming.

In other words: there is nothing wrong with the climate, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. We don't need some bearded super-intellectual scientist to give us his liberal spin on a trumped up "science."

[ndrthrdr1]

@EricS0072 The hockey stick graph has not been debunked, and CO2 has not been demonstrated to not be a cause of warming. There is something very wrong with the climate, and CO2 has a great deal to do with it. The data keeps piling up, and the extinctions continue to accelerate. Your denial of the facts doesn't change the facts.

Odd how several Dislikes show up immediately on these NCSE videos. They are quickly drowned out by those who understand the science, but you climate denial nuts try.

[randomxnp]

@ndrthrdr1 The hockey stick has been debunked. Had you read the most recent emails leaked from the UEA's CRU you would know that even those in the climate clique think it was very bad science. One of them put random data in and got a hockey stick out, just like those outside the clique who debunked it. There is a book called The Hockey Stick Illusion. Read it.

A friend of mine did an archaeology degree. Being born in Greenland he was interested in the farms under permafrost. MWP

[V0lk]

@EricS0072 I can not believe how stupid you are. Oh well, learn to swim.

[georgehapplegate]

"Climate change denial" as used to describe "anthropogenic global warming" skeptics is doublespeak. The only ones truly denying climate change are people like Mr Gleick who deny that climate changes naturally. The argument is not about whether the climate is changing - that is a straw man. The argument is about whether fossil fuels have a provable and measurable (not just plausible) impact. That proof has not come.

[LutzDerLurch]

@georgehapplegate Prove has come. Proper science has been done that CO2 is causing warming, CO2 has been released and is released in enourmous amounts by man and that the additional CO2 in the air is from burning fossil fuel

[servicebroker]

Peter have a look at what the real scientist in Canada say.

v=hDKSkBrI-TM

Professor Ian Clark testifies at the Canadian Senate Hearing - December 15, 2011

[shiftyd100]

@servicebroker Thanks for the link to that video. I think that's the most concise, logical and irrefutable demolition of the cagw myth I've ever seen. Unfortunately I'm already a "denier" but it was helpful to have a summary like that.

Good luck getting Pete to watch it though, ideology seems to be more important than facts with him.

[schizrade]

He keeps saying "we" except he is NOT a climatologist. He is an angry, bitter water guy. Look up his twitter feed for his real views on those around him.

[mangankids]

We have finally found a bigger asshole than Joe Romm. Wait, is that even possible?

[xjboy550]

So Mr Gleick has now decided to up his abuse and formalise his arrogant and childish insults by getting a a free ride off NCSE's well lets at least hope he actually reads some of the stuff they put out instead of b%ll s^itting his way through reviews like last time !

[joeiacovino]

I really like his easy way of speaking. I am very happy to see this initiative from NCSE. Bravo.