He's a Geophysicist! Has little to nothing to do with the Climate. Would be the same as going to a proctologist for a brain tumor. The UN body he sights as evidence is a political body not scientific.
@elliott1tom You are wrong on several levels. Geophysics is the study of the physics of the Earth. This guy studies atmospheric geophysics. So it is completely relevant to AGW. The UN body has several levels: Working Group 1 is climate science, and the other two levels deal with impact and mitigation, they are not attempting to "politicize" it. Another denialist who knows nothing of science.
yea, I'm the subject of the manchurian project except by communists out to rule the world
suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure buddy
lord mockington doesn't explain the science at all, I've already watched him and he just drones on and on with fallacies, incomplete ideas of science and double standards
it's no good
but A+ on sounding like a nutjob THE COMMIES ARE OUT TO GET US RUN FOR THE HILLS THE SKY IS FALLING YOU'RE BRAINWASHED MAAAAAAAN
Climate change is a scam wake up people Climate changes it's a planetary fact if it did'nt change we'd be in big trouble!!! do not pay carbon taxes to FAL Gore and the UN the will just use those funds against u and your family.These climate bozo's can't even call it global warming anymore cause they have not got a clue what is happening they just want to rule every facet of your life from what light bulb u use to what toilet u sit on.there not Green They are Red far left crazies!!!
So, climate change is real and so is HAARP, and the HARRProject has been expanded... which means it must be working. So until we shut down HAARP, we don't know how much about our changing climate, so this means nothing. Increases in natural geo phenomenon started to be seen about the time the HAARP technology was constructed. My guess... HAARP is an significant influencing factor, and common sense tells me that man is not playing a significant role in altering our climate.
This what scientists really know.The science is settled on carbon polution,Please watch this - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul just copy and paste it in search box.
@2wheels88 lord mockington isn't a scientist, please, just go away and let people watch the scientists instead of sensationalists, we're already checking what the scientists know
@noobler9 You're brainwashed by communist's,wake up,i never said he was a scientist i said watch his video where he explains science.Now you may not agree with the science he quotes just as i do not agree with Al gores science quotes, so the truth must lay somewhere in the middle.Personally I'm not going to spend my life letting the Elites and the green/red agenda split and divide the human race down the middle,their are to many real enviro pollution issues to discuss than my exhaling carbon!!!
@BeondaPale system science? is that the science of guesswork?or some social science, sounds like bookmakers to me. Some Climatologists are a disgrace to science. Meterolgists are weather forecasters and they are not very good at it either. Guessing what the climate will be in 50 yrs is fortune telling not science.
@david222444 Science deals with probabilities very often. For example, look at quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, stochastical processes, Brownian movement, etc.
@guimuy Do not try to legitimise outwright fraudulent climatology, propaganda and lies. At present and note present not past or future, our Planet is cooling deeply and abruptly due to the onset of a Grand Solar Minimum. The Pacific Ocean is cooling, La nina is building again this winter, volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing. These are obsevations in the present. In the past siminlar obsevations heralded the Dalton Minimum. Science deals with proving theories.
@tnekkc and from the looks of it you have a conservative problem too. I left the left-right paradigm about the time my stones dropped and I started to think independantly. Republicrat, demoservatives, konservakrats.-..what the fuck ever, they are bowing down tot he same master, and if you take a good look at their actions you will notice they do the same things soeh......perhaps its really a stupid problem. People refuse to think their own thoughts.
At one time the science was quite clear that the sun revolved around the flat earth. .This always happens when science is used by tyrants to keep power and quash dissent.
@deadtoo yes but what disproved that theory, science. It wasn't scientists that were trying to keep the power it was the religious institution, the politicians. The same thing is happening today politicians telling us not to trust what the scientific community says but to trust what they say. The idea that global warming is a hoax is a conspiracy theory that spreads fear while claiming to fight the fear that comes with global warming "alarmism". Ironic isn't it.
We should be taxing the shit out of everyone and innovating to get off this planet. Super long term the only way homo-sapiens will survive is to have the ability to allow the meek to inherit the earth and the smart to go elsewhere. Making test firing of fusion cost millions in kw means we are less likely to come up with a new source of energy. Exploit all energy right now, before the population gets too big and mass murder is the only answer.
Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries representing over 10,000 scientists working in the related field with over 30,000 peer-reviewed papers published in science journals with a nearly 98% consensus among them. That's better than what most doctors give cancer victims.
@phantomscolts2 Take a few moments when posting your argument to correct your spelling and syntax. The errors make it difficult to understand what it is you are actually trying to say.
@TheDuneMan92 Right, and in the 70's we were all going to freeze to death in an ice age. Sounds like you'll buy what ever your told. Do some research, your numbers are a bit out there. 97% of what scientists? I would love to see a list.
@TheDuneMan92 How did you address the 30,000 US scientists exactly? I suppose you are much smarter than all of them, just like your god Al Gore. To me you are just another brainwashed kid, but thanks for showing it so eloquently.
AGW is a just a tax grab for all of you warmers to follow along with. As the actual measured data is gathered it shows a normal warming trend that has happened for a lot longer than man has been here.
@TheDuneMan92 You don't even know how to spell "know"......so don't try and play the smart guy. Further the majority of the free world no longer buys the doom and gloom, based on the science.
All of the vested interests have invested fortunes to indoctrinate the uneducated masses to believe this nonsense. They have done this to make money, not that hard to comprehend is it? If you poor enough money at something you can make a case for taxes, war, genocide, whatever your goals are. Hope the masses wake up to this corruption of the scientific process. Follow the money, you will find who has funded the computer models this cap & trade scam is based on.
I guess there just isn't any money to be made in cleaning up the oceans, or recycling plastics. Sure is a tonne of money in taxing CO2 though, like ten trillion a year to begin with. Anyone that buys this snake oil has not looked at the evidence. It is easy to find, even thought the invested people don't want you to see it. Have another look and be honest with yourself. Start with Henriks 5 part series on my channel, I only have the first one on there but watch them all, very comprehensive.
The climate has always changed, and always will. As for humans being responsible for it all of the sudden, is ridiculous, given that CO2 is a trace gas with an almost immeasurable effect on global temps. Pollution should be our main focus, plastics in our oceans, radiological contamination, things that kill life. Not a trace gas, who's primary effect is to stimulate plant growth, and its warming effect is hard to measure, it is so small. Cap and trade is a scam, believe it or not, it still is.
@TheDuneMan92 ; your statement that the emails uncovered from UA only show a "small" role in the IPCC report is not credible. They covered interface with EVERY SINGLE PARTY involved in creating the official IPCC report on "global warming". 2 state otherwise is 2 lie. I will not change your "religion" of believing that all control over life on this planet should be turned over to a banking cartel, and you shall not convince me that their interests in this issue are sincere. Let's drop it then.
@TheDuneMan92 ; the supposed "investigative bodies" are the very same people who stand to benefit directly from the carbon tax.
Alex Jones certainly is not a "scientist". However, the founder of the weather channel is, and so are the 30K scientists who joined him in claiming FRAUD from the IPCC. BTW: The University of E. Anglia is where the FRAUD was created which resulted in the IPCC Reports.
@TheDuneMan92 ; I read the IPCC leaked emails (the full threads in "context") and also the raw data FRAUDS which showed that the numbers had been intentionally messed with, horribly, and even the algorithms used were INTENTIONALLY illogical for use in calculating global temp changes. Gore doesn't believe what he's selling us, (his personal "carbon footprint" is bigger than a small city) and he owns most of the largest carbon trading markets.
@TheDuneMan92; Exxon SUPPORTS the carbon tax. Just Google "Exxon Supports Carbon Tax". ALL the "big energy" guys support a carbon tax b/c they are all basically exempt & it shuts down potential competition from little people. The "science" to support AGW? FOLLOW THE MONEY. Any scientists who were critical of AGW lost funding, & those who were willing to "fudge" the data in support of AGW theory got billions. The bankers who stand to profit from the tax are the ones who chose who got funded.
@TheDuneMan92; We DO have SERIOUS pollution problems which need to be dealt with. However, we also need ACCURATE information, not just a sales pitch for why major oil, (BP, Royal Dutch Shell, etc.) should get UNLIMITED "carbon credits" & the rest of us should pay a "carbon tax" to an unelected few banking cartels in Europe who would control EVERYTHING from then on. Carbon is not the problem. Plants NEED it & they flourish with MORE of it. They picked carbon b/c it means max CONTROL.
@TheDuneMan92; "straw man" ??? Higher temps melt ice, & this equals more life, which means more Co2. Your statement "no one is claiming" that Co2 is the primary DRIVER of global temps is simply FALSE. The IPCC report, which is relied upon in carbon tax policy, claims EXACTLY that Co2 is the PRIMARY DRIVER of higher temps. Interesting too; during the very period that we did see an increase in Co2, this same report LIED & said it was getting hotter when it was really getting colder.
I guess this f-tard's idea is that "climate change" NEVER occurred before the industrial age. Oh yeah, once it was PROVEN that it was actually getting cooler during the time they lied and said it was getting hotter, they changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
@joygarner If your objection to climate change is that it happened before humans were around, then by that logic it's impossible for humans to affect the climate. Did you ever consider that carbon emissions cause the climate to change in a different way and that some changes to the climate are easier or more difficult to deal with than others?
@LanceDirk ; no, the fact that the earth was much hotter at times when Co2 levels were much lower, is not the only basis for my questioning the so-called "consensus" from the IPCC (which turned out 2 B a complete fraud). I simply do not agree that the Sun plays no role in our climatic shifts, (as the "consensus" would have us believe). Co2 does not drive global warming. We have much bigger REAL pollution issues & the people selling the carbon tax don't care about that. $ & control is their aim.
@joygarner "the earth was much hotter at times when Co2 levels were much lower," irrelevant. "I simply do not agree that the Sun plays no role in our climatic shifts" No one is claiming that.
Your understanding of the science is non-existent. It's a fact that increased CO2 levels contribute to warming the earth, and anyone with a brain can see that just because the sun affects the earth's climate, doesn't mean it's the only thing that could possibly affect it.
@LanceDirk; I understand your point, and it's a good one. Too bad the "consensus" at the IPCC (in their official report) is that the Sun was not the cause of the recent temporary warming period, (about 20 years) which ended around 1998, (after-which it was actually getting colder until just this past year). Their fraud in manipulating the data in order to make it appear that it was getting hotter during a time when it was actually getting colder is pretty bad.
@joygarner That's because Co2 was responsible for that period of climate change. Holy crap. Do you not understand that just because this recent period is the fault of CO2, that doesn't mean anyone is saying that the sun never is responsible?
@LanceDirk, which "period" of "climate change" R U referring too? Ice core studies have now proven that the supposed "correlation" between C02 & temperature is only that; AFTER if gets warm (around 800 years after) Co2 levels increase as a direct result of more life activity. No causal relationship was ever established for the idea, (fraud) that Co2 is the cause of temperature increases. This fraud has been exposed now, no matter the years of brainwashing & lies to support a carbon tax scheme.
@joygarner That may be true but there is proof that industrialization has had a noticeable effect on the amount of CO2 in the air ALSO. and it's been proven that the greenhouse effect is real, meaning increased CO2 levels in the air DOES increase global temperature meaning that humans putting CO2 in the air DOES contribute to climate change even if it's not the only factor.
@LanceDirk ; your statement "it has been proven that -- Co2 levels in the air DOES increase global temperatures" is simply untrue. The geological records clearly show that there is no causal relationship. Increased Co2 is a RESULT of higher temps, not the cause. If you want to pay a carbon tax to an unelected, private, for-profit banking cartel in Europe, (the scamsters who orchestrated this entire fraud) just send them a check now. Leave me out of it.
I did not say that higher temps caused the industrial age. I said that it has been proven that higher temps, (which were higher during the Medieval Warming Period than current) cause more life, which means more Co2 produced. (An average person emits 5 lbs. of Co2 per day just breathing & farting.) It's been proven that higher Co2 levels came long AFTER a rise in temp, not BEFORE. All life forms produce Co2, or they NEED it to produce oxygen, like plants do. Co2 is not poison.
@LanceDirk ; I checked. The chart does not go back 200 years. Google "Global Temperatures 200 years" and also "Global Temperatures 1000 years".
I did notice that Wikipedia has not yet corrected their data concerning the Medieval Warming Period, and they are still citing the scandalized IPCC's chart which has been proven a complete fraud because it seriously lies about the MWP. No serious scientist can deny the evidence of the MWP, but IPCC does this.
@LanceDirk ; Solar cycles; it's interesting that during the exact period that our own Northern polar cap thinned, (during the 80' and 90's) the polar caps on other planets were also liquefying. I guess we need to put a carbon tax on the Martians? Sure, they can send it to JPMorgan, Al Gore, (who outright owns one of the largest carbon trading markets in the world) the IMF & the World Bank owners. If Gore believed the crap he sells us, he would forgo the private jets, houseboat, SUVs, etc.
@joygarner I never disputed your political points. Every issue will have opportunists try to take advantage of it, even if it is a real issue which I believe it is, as do most scientists. All your climate evidence has shown is that humans are not the only thing that affect the climate. I think scientists know this. Co2 is not poison but an imbalance of CO2 is not desirable, and the greenhouse effect is real. You breathe Oxygen, but breathing too high a concentration of that isn't good either.
@LanceDirk ; CO2 levels are currently much lower (almost ten times lower) than they were when dinosaurs walked the earth 150 million years ago. The "greenhouse effect'? FIRST the SUN and then 2nd, CLOUDS are the primary drivers of climate change. The same folks now selling the carbon tax and trade scheme, (who preemptively awarded themselves unlimited "credits" for carbon emissions in their bogus carbon markets) are the ones who previously warned that emissions were the cause of global cooling.
@joygarner "CO2 levels are currently much lower (almost ten times lower) than they were when dinosaurs walked the earth 150 million years ago." Irrelevant "FIRST the SUN and then 2nd, CLOUDS are the primary drivers of climate change. " Irrelevant. "The "greenhouse effect'?" CO2 traps heat that is created when the sun's rays hit the earth, it's real, look it up.
@LanceDirk ; "irrelevant" that Co2 is much lower now than during other periods where life was thriving? What? Those who profit from the carbon lies are telling us that Co2 is currently at "EXTREMELY HIGH" levels & that this will kill us all. Co2 is NOT going to cause the planet to burst into flames buddy. Yes there's a "greenhouse" effect, but they R lying about the nature of it and the role Co2 plays. You ignore reality and the facts because the IPCC report is your religion, faith-based.
@LanceDirk ; on your comment here; I never properly addressed it. I believe humans can & do affect weather & climate. I don't believe that paying a Co2 tax to an unelected cartel of private bankers, (self-appointed rulers of the planet) is the answer 2 REAL pollution problems. I also don't believe the "science" they have promoted 2 support their attempted global take-over of all farming & industry. These same people killed the electric car. THEY pollute like CRAZY. It's just about control.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Environmentalists & anti-nuclear/coal/oil government officials, activists, EPA, etc are JUSTIFIED in any "fanaticism" they show. The pro-nuclear-coal-oil corporate-welfare-loving reverse-socialists are NOT justified in their extremism & religious fanaticism.
The demagoguery and fanaticism by organizations like the FBI & the NSA and the anti-drug-choice DEA & pro-oil-coal-nuclear extremists COMPLETELY destroys ALL credibility these terrorist organizations & corporations have.
What vegan videos? Media is FANATICALLY biased against veganism. Veganism should be mandated by law to prevent the needless torture & murder of animals. Eating meat is 1000X worse than molesting children or smoking cocaine or shooting up with meth. Hence, eating meat should be treated 1000X as harshly.
@jjrglobal Tough shit, asshole. Get used to it. You're just another extremist who wants to use big government to censor politically opinions YOU don't like.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but how did you come to that conclusion from my comment?Thats a stretch even in your schizophrenic demented mind
@jjrglobal Nobody is going to take you seriously on anything - even on issues on which you MIGHT, by pure dumb chance, be right - when you go around being a contrarian to thousands of serious hardworking climate-related scientists, just to spout out your free speech. I can hardly wait to see you humiliated in front of thousands of them at an IPCC & WMO meeting, as GW gets worse and proven even more right.
You are batshit crazy aren't you? Do they let you use the computer during rec time or are you sneaking into the orderly's station to write these comments?
There is a very strong chance, with very strong evidence, compiled in a very convincing way, with almost absolute certainty, most scientists agree, with little room for any doubt, that one can say with a high level accuracy...... that gravity is real
Now, would you say that to a person who doubted gravity? Or would you toss a ball in the air, and say, "check it out"?
Why is it so hard for them to demonstrate it? Why do they have to say, "we're really sure" over and over again?
@LordVigeous666999 That's what computer models prove. AGW is certainly far more complicated to demonstrate, because we are talking about separating the human causation from the rest of the "noise" in the data. But, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Einstein's special theory of relativity: not so simple to prove experimentally either. In fact, it's probably been tested - with super-high-accurate clocks in space shuttles & air planes - only a handful of times.
Relativity has been tested a lot. For instance, if you're on a cart going 5 mph, and throw a ball 3 mph, relative to someone standing still, the ball will move 8mph
So, if a space ship is moving .6C (c= speed of light), and shoots a laser, the laser will be going 1.6C, right? Nope, einstein says it won't. You can test this using the earth. The earth moves around the sun at a good clip, shoot a laser along that path, and shoot a laser at a 90 Degree off that path, and check
To your GW point. You are wrong. Its really easy to test. If green house warming is what we're seeing, and we can measure how much GH gases we're adding, you can do a simple test.
Measure the temp of the planet (however you choose), measure the out going heat radiation, plot X-temp Y-heat escaping, plot the data. You will get a line, because higher temp = more heat escaping. If you do this, you will get a line that slopes up
Then correlate through time, 10 years, 20, 30 50, whatever.
if the slope decrease through time, there is a GH component, and by the change in angle, you can calculate how much of the temp increase was caused by reduction in heat escaping
Seeing as the biggest concern is CO2 causes warming, increases water vapor, which is a powerful GH gas, I suggest a novel idea..... lets check
This takes maybe 3 data sets, 2 graphs, and 15 minutes to prove, or disprove. How come they don't do it?
Unless they have, and they don't like what they see?
As far as models, they don't prove anything. Speaking as someone who has programed in C++, a program only acts on what you give it
You cannot program in the physics you know, and have the program fill in the blanks for you. It doesn't work that way
You can program in what you know, then see how close you got. But these models don't work that way. They are tuned to the temp record, but as soon as they start projecting, they deviate from what we observe, usually way OVER estimating the warming
Hmm, I wonder if that means.... they are telling to models to expect MORE warming from SOMETHING, than is actually taking place....?
Also, that graph I told you about, Temp Vs Heat Escape. That is a value that is programed into all the models currently used, and they all show a line that slopes downward
I wonder.... What do the satellites say that line is ACTUALLY doing?
By george! I think we figured this one out!
Either way, either way, the pt is consensus is not a scientific argument
@LordVigeous666999 I think you made an exaggerated claim. One of the most difficult things in making tests is taking measures. Measure outgoing heat radiation? Earth is so big how could you do that? It also varies in location and other factors. Measure earth's temp? earth varies temperature annually, daily, geographically, chaotically... how could you take a temperature that would make a good candidate for overall temperature?
@LordVigeous666999 Actually the first time Newton presented his idea about gravity the people laughed at him and called him a fool. They even make caricatures making fun of it. Same goes to Darwin and his theory of Evolution. Some are not so lightly treated. They are either imprisoned, tortured, or killed so that they shut up.
I'm not sure what the newton argument is all about, people who believe in global warming are the ones doing the ridiculing, and insulting. So.... Are you saying the skeptics are probably right? Or what?
How do you measure out going radiation? With satellites. You could do it a lot of different ways, you could say, any heat crossing the threshold of this altitude, this is out going
You could say, once the atmosphere is so thin, this is the threshold
Same with temp, you could use right at the surface, 10 ft above, or you could say, anything 1 mile off the surface, or whatever
What you're talking about is a matter of convention. What are you defining as "surface" what are you defining as officially "space", how are you adding, how are you averaging, etc
This is convention. As long as you are consistent throughout, it shouldn't matter, and as far as I'm concerned, lets do every permutation that can be thought of
Temp does vary chaotically, maybe one day there are more clouds than another (more clouds = more white things reflecting sunlight), maybe there is a big rain that pulls a lot of water out of the air (less water vapor = less potent greenhouse effect)
See, this is why you take a lot of measurements, like, lets just say, all of them. A Satellite can measure the temp, at every cubic volume, at every place on earth, and can measure them as often as you want
Whats our limiting factor? Enough hard drives to store all the data points. And a large enough super computer to crunch all the numbers when you go to process it
My guess is, you can take more than enough data points to completely eliminate this chaos, and get a reasonable average. And if I'm wrong on this, then no claim about Global Warming is valid
If thats your stance, I disagree, but will support you. But you have to apply this standard to all sides, and all evidence. Agreed?
@LordVigeous666999 That's why its not easy. Your claim on the satellites capabilities is also overrated. In the past they give wrong measurements because of bugs (It indicates no Global Warming!). Also to be able to see that there is global warming, we must measure constantly and see that it is warming. A single measure would not tell if its increasing. We had to take measurements, maybe decades amount of it, to really see the trend. Could you see the problem?
@LordVigeous666999 "lets do every permutation that can be thought of" That's is very impractical. The permutations you talk about happens to be practically infinite. With finite resources, your venture is impossible.
Now, would you say that to a person who doubted gravity? Or would you toss a ball in the air, and say, "check it out"?
Newtons theory of Gravity was actually accepted when mathematical evidences supported it (like how well it supported Kepler's Laws). It was not actually accepted by such demonstrations.
@LordVigeous666999 And I also imply that demonstrations will not always work. What is obvious to you does not mean its obvious to others. The most important is how will the public act on it. You, the scientist could demonstrate as much as they want but if others does not believe and accept it, that's it, you'll seen as fools.
Things like this takes lots of time, action, dedication, and determination to seek and show the truth. We had to keep on going, no one says it would be easy.
Special equipment? You mean, like satellites ? Like, the satellites that have been already taking these measurements since the 80s? You mean equipment like that?
Coverage? You mean like the temperature readings the satellites have been taking, of the whole world for 30 years? You mean like that kind of coverage?
Money. You mean like the money that has already been spent on building, maintaining, and data collecting, using these satellites for the past 30 years? Like that kind of money?
Manage data, you mean like how they've been storing that data for 30 years?
Errors. You mean like the ones they have corrected by comparing temp stations, weather balloons, and multiple satellites to find? Like those errors?
Honestly, you didn't think about this before shooting off a comment? You seem very determined to FIND a problem, but, I think you'll find its pretty fool proof
The satellites have bugs because they don't find GW? So, anything that disagrees with your pre-determined opinion.... is a bug? How about... no mapflu?
Measure constantly, you mean.... like 30 years? I don't know how often they take data points, but its pretty close to continuous. And I know you can't take one data point and draw a conclusion, which is why I said you need to correlate this through time, to establish a trend
When I said every permutation, I didn't literally mean EVERY permutation, I meant enough, spaced out enough, so that someone can't counter with, "you only measured the surface temp, you should have used the troposphere". So I guess I SHOULD have said, enough permutations so that people don't raise petty points
The newton thing, you completely missed the point, it was to establish, that you don't prove science by saying "we're really really really sure, so believe us", you demonstrate it
The Public. One of the main reasons I bring up this particular approach to the situation, is it is easy to explain to lay people. Everyone understands basic thermodynamics, even if they haven't taken the class..... except you.... apparently
But I don't think thats true either, I think you're TRYING to find a flaw, but, if you just think about it, it will make sense. I believe in you mapflu, lol
@LordVigeous666999 Yes, yes and yes. 1, those old technologies are old. And had been subject to controversies like errors and inaccuracies (so no one would trust them any more). 2, Didn't I say there are errors? I wonder how many people would trust those records now. 3, yeah, but to update or build new ones.
What you wanted here is certainty and finality. You can't do that with old records and equipments because they are ridden with issues. You had to start afresh. Hope you get it.
If we don't trust the satellites, what do we trust?
Digging up ice cores that supposedly reveal the temp 100,000 years ago? A couple 100 temp stations littered across the earth? Weather balloons floated up into the sky? Tide gauges for sea level, which are basically sticks in the water?
If the satellites aren't accurate enough for you, then nothing is. And we may as well just drop the debate altogether. No proving CO2 is the cause, no disproving it either
and besides, I do not argue that the satellites had problems when they first were put up, things like degrading orbits, and things like this
But now, we have used multiple satellites, which are put up in different orbits, at different times, and have been tested against each other, and either A) they are all wrong, and some how all wound up getting the exact same answer (error of .03C) or B) the errors have been corrected, and the satellites are just fine
@LordVigeous666999 From what I know satellites does not actually measure surface temperature (how could they when they are up there). That is where the issue comes. Different people arrive at different conclusions from it.
The weather balloons does not cover up much geography. It might match here but how about there? And you must know that balloons have faults also.
Not to say that the observations is wrong, Its just how we use this observations. Its not easy isn't it?
@LordVigeous666999 There is Global Warming but what we like to do is convince other people; but many people could easily throw it out the window because of our limited knowledge in weather science. Unlike Newtons Law where scientist are able to come up with a Math that was able to prove that it is correct with very little doubt whatsoever. Weather is just a chaotic beast that maybe no human can ever understand.
@LordVigeous666999 Early sat indicates not global warming whatsoever. I choose B for these modern sat. But these things don't easy. As I said the start of this project involved lots of issues and false start ups.
But what we are arguing here is when you say its "easy" and I say its not. Starting a big project like this (its done now I think) is not quite easy as you say it is.
You don't know how sats measure temp? look it up. You might be the only one who argues that sats aren't the MOST accurate measure of global temp we've ever had, and why? Because sats are inconvenient to your pre-determined conclusion, and you need an excuse to ignore the information they provide
The same way you guys used ice cores when they supported your conclusion, but now that they don't, you argue that it only measures at the poles, so it doesn't inform us on the "Global Climate"
Balloon coverage. When voltage meters are tested, do they test them on every circuit in the world? No. Because after you test it 20 or so times, it is reasonable to assume it will work on the 50th too
Balloons do have faults, they are not perfect. But, when you test thermometers vs sats, balloons vs sats, and they all come to approx. the same answer, It is irrational at that point, to assume that every time they've been tested, that their errors all aligned in the exact same way, for every test
Am I saying that this can't happen? Not at all. But the odds are pretty steep against that idea
weather IS chaotic, but, this equation isn't. It relies on basic principles of thermodynamics, if it does not apply, we have to throw thermodynamics out, and start over from scratch
What I'm talking about, is a direct measurement of energy flow out of the earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to inhibit
And it doesn't matter therefore, if CO2 DOES inhibit simple heat transfer, if when in the climate, mechanisms provide a path to circumvent this effect
Either way, it would prove CO2 does NOT inhibit the climates ability to shed heat into space. So having an exact account of exactly how the mechanism works, becomes irrelevant, you still find out if CO2 is a problem or not, which is what we're after
Easy. I did not realize we were debating the semantics of the word easy
I was using it as a relative term. As in, we have scientists looking at glaciers melting to coral reefs, to methods that would allow a reduction in CO2 emission, none of which are relevant to what they are tasked with. They provide us with a 1,000+ page report, most of which, is useless
If these scientist cut to the heart of what we asked them to do, the report would be 20 pages long, and we would have an answer that is clear and concise
These scientists are using the ability to claim "crisis" to get a grant money gravy train, to research anything they want, and I'm personally fed up with it
We gave them a specific task, and less than 50 are looking at what we told them to, they are looking at the big picture, and the other 2400+ scientists are currently finger painting all over their efforts
PS: There are no strong proofs. The only strong evidence exists on the skeptic side
Where the Climate models predict warming, there is currently none, which means they don't understand ALL the natural forcings, they claimed they did. There is no hot spot in the troposphere, which is CO2s finger print. There is now evidence that there is almost no warming of the oceans, they said it must be a lot. There is minimal reduction in outgoing heat radiation, which they say should be reduced drastically if there is a problem
Evidence IS piling up on one side, and it ain't yours
@LordVigeous666999 Well, I believed Global Warming but not that much warming. I believe that average global temperature just raise by a fraction of degrees(very small). Also you only present evidence that support yours, but there are also evidence that support the other side and its piling too. So both sides actually have "evidences" to based their belief on. That makes a quite exciting debate.
@LordVigeous666999 Well scientist are humans too, and we are humans as well and we create disaster. They might be scientist but their actions are not scientific at all.
PS: On my side your the skeptic. It applies to you too. lol
@LordVigeous666999 No. Not semantics but the difficulty of implementing your idea. You say easy. I say no. I jumped from accuracy of measurements, and money and politics... LOL.
WE are not arguing about Global Warming. The truth I believe in global warming. I don't know about you.
@LordVigeous666999 "A direct measurement of energy flow out of the earth" there is the problem. We have no means to make any direct measure of this! What we can do is approximate, assume, guess... and whatnot weather scientist had used.
@LordVigeous666999 Its the coverage. They have not test the satellites accuracy for measuring at other places where balloons are not set up. No matter how many times you check a given area's accuracy, it won't tell anything of the accuracy of measurement at other areas.
One thing the balloons (they use thermometers) are at fault of is that they are affected by the sunlight giving higher readings. Therefore the average reading is higher. This is true no matter how many you take and they know it.
@LordVigeous666999 "Most accurate" is different from "accurate". In the past the "most accurate" means to measuring length is using body parts, now we have systems and tools that make taking them "accurate". See the difference?
Satellites measures radiance not heat. They had to involve some "reversal" calculations, and scientist does not agree yet on how to do the calculations. In short they use indirect means which would be hard to describe as accurate.
I noticed a couple errors in your writing, am I unnerving you? lol
But to your points. First, you didn't argue that they are not the most accurate, so, if sats are still the MOST accurate, they still trump all the other methods
Which removes your basis for arguing. Because, if you don't trust what is the MOST accurate, you can't very well be trusting what is LESS accurate now can you?
So now you're back in that box, where you still can't believe in global warming being caused by man
Because saying you KNOW the cause, is a positive assertion, and seeing as no evidence meets your qualifications, there is no evidence. With no evidence, in science, the default position is the negative assertion, that something is NOT there
Now if you broaden your qualification, the first set you encounter, the most accurate set of evidence, supports that global warming is not driven by CO2, therefore not mans fault
So your belief that man is the cause, is not science based
@LordVigeous666999 As I say I never made any stand about global warming made by man or not. So my arguments does not apply in that situation. Do you want me to take a stand in that direction?
I'm losing patience with this pretty quick man. The standard you've set is bizarre, how do you justify anyone, including yourself, coming to any conclusions at all?
Sat temps aren't reliable, cause we haven't tested every single spot, how do you even know temp is going up? We don't have the globe paved with temp stations? How do you know the temp of the ocean? We haven't tested every spot there, or every depth
How do you even know CO2 is going up? We haven't tested every spot, nor do we have gauges on every factory
Good debate? How?? According to your standard, there is NO valid evidence, how does that make a good debate?
You say you have taken no stance on global warming, but you said "people pretend it doesn't exist". Which, with your standard of evidence, I don't know how you even say that, 'pretend', which implies you know it is, but again, with your standard, how do you say that?
I pride myself in being able to understand other peoples positions, its how I get the most information I can. I pride myself, in leaving no question unanswered, no comment unresponded to
But I don't think I can build a big enough bridge to where you're coming from
If you can't recant, on the sats not being reliable, because they haven't tested them in every single spot, a test which requires infinite data points, which is impossible
We have no basis to talk. The standard you've set, excludes all evidence if applied equally, and it is a standard, I admit right here right now, I cannot reach
It is an absurd standard. I mean, how do you even claim gravity is real? It hasn't been tested everywhere has it? Did you test it on pluto yet? Maybe it works in this galaxy but doesn't work elsewhere
If you can't recant on this standard, I'm out, I'm done
@LordVigeous666999 Well we got too far from our home argument. We are trying to argue if your idea (something about measuring heat transfer) is easy to implement or not.
Great you think about that. Gravity is a phenomenon but there are theories about like Newton's theory (remember all those maths?). Its phenomenon so we can't say it exist or not but we could say it happens or not. Heat, Light, and others are phenomenon too. You can't say heat does not exist, or light does not exist.
@LordVigeous666999 However the theories about gravity, heat, light and other phenomenon we could prove or disprove, wrong or correct. Newton has his theory of Gravity and so does Einstein and other scientist as well. Einstein's theory holds more correctly that Newton's (it got faults) but its still teach at school.
@LordVigeous666999 "Which is impossible" I think you got it. All these proofs we have on any side does not have a 100% accuracy and finality in them. So there is a chance even by little that the measurements are wrong. We could only say: there is a GREAT CERTAINTY that this is this.
@LordVigeous666999 By the way if you pride yourself as such. Why can't you stay track on what we are arguing about? Its was this idea of of yours that was easy to do... just do so and so. And then suddenly out of the blue you sidetracked. Was that something you take on pride too? Was that your way of understanding other people?
@LordVigeous666999 That's the problem we are not 100% or even 90% sure.
That's the nature of materials in a debate. If there is a proof that would make 100% sure that the other side is wrong, there will be nothing to debate. We can't debate on whether a certain basket ball is round or flat for example because we could get an evidence that would say with 100% finality on the answer.
The stand is on whether its man made or not. Not if it exist or not.
@LordVigeous666999 By the way that is not a stance. I had not made it so that we could argue about it. If I had I would given proofs or something to make it hold some water. After all that is a completely different topic from we originally talked about. I think you have a hard time keeping in straight direction. Hope you come back.
@LordVigeous666999 I'm not saying not reliable, its just not as accurate as we hope it to be, but the results is good to a certain degree justifying its limitations. The ocean temp? What a good question. They aren't able to test every spot and depth, so what are the numbers they given us? The numbers do tell us something about the ocean temperature but up to where they are measured, other places can only be deduced/guessed. That are limitations.
@LordVigeous666999 The satellites are the most reliable we have, but we must make conclusions adequate to the limitations they have. Any claims that go way over the data and limitations given is based on some guessing (science has been full of that).
Just like your ocean example. We have limited amount of data, we could still make some conclusions from them but it should be tempered with knowledge that it has limitations or incomplete.
I'm done, I'm not discussing the semantics of the word easy
Nor am I going to discuss the philosophy of, "can we really know anything?"
I am done. I am not going to discuss this with you. This belongs in a philosophy class, not in a science debate. You're arguing like one of those Philosophers of Science, or as I refer to them, morons
I told you in what context I was using the word easy, and you just won't drop it
I get it, ok, I really get it. You can't understand science, you're disconnected from it entirely, you can't understand the physics of how your computer works, your cell phone, all this new technology around you
And someone came along and said, "if you believe in global warming, you're on the side of science". They gave you a boogieman, and said if you buy it, you're smart
@packrat76 And you're an intolerant Nazi. Obviously you get all your values only from the extremely narrow-minded media instead of doing the hard work of actually computing the effects of your actions. Media must be forced to air different opinions. Yes - 2-years of confinement in a box followed by death with no anesthesia for a fully conscious being is worse than 10 minutes of rough sex.
@duck24x Right, let's start by calling me a Nazi. How about calling me a bigot, racist, and oh yeah, the most overused one: uneducated. I get my opinion that having a hamburger isn't even close to molesting an adolescent human being with common sense, not the media. You're the biggest fruitcake I've ever encountered. I'm gonna go eat some form of dead animal now.
@duck24x You're comments prove you are a fruitcake. If you don't want to meat, fine, but don't force me to have a diet identical to yours. I don't tell you what to eat, so mind your own business about what others eat. If you change your mind, you are welcome to come on over and eat my meat.
@duck24x By the way, I don't call everyone that disagrees with me a fruitcake. Your comment was so outrageous and downright nutty, it was only fitting. Really...someone eating meat is worse than molesting an innocent child. Wow!
@packrat76 Yes, you do. You obviously think that the Japanese war crimes - freezing or burning or starving victims then cutting off their limbs before they're dead -and countless other horrific acts - are no big deal, because there's no sexual element to it (not counting the actual acts of rape). Guess we all have different rankings of torture. You'll have to learn to get use to it politically, because I WILL continue fighting to outlaw meat - and let everyone else out of prison until then.
@duck24x I like how you assume now that I think HUMAN war crimes are no big deal because I like to eat meat. You are a nut! Move to another country or start your own and outlaw meat and leave the rest of us that believe in freedom of choice the hell alone. You are a radical that wants to dictate how others live, eat, and breathe. Fight all you want to outlaw meat, and all you'll do is create a black market for meat, like there is a black market for drugs now due to it's illegality. I'm done.
@packrat76 I would not be responsible for others choosing to obey a good law such as a law against the needless breeding & torture & murder of animals for meat.
how do we know that climate change will be catastrophic? the earth has been much warmer and colder in our time and we have survived it very well and in the warmer times we have prospered
That was part of the video description. It doesn't mention how ice made North America a virtual WASTELAND of ice from the north pole to about Central Indiana. It buried forests and swallowed up and killed off many plants and animals.
What a crock this channel is for these videos and these pro-vegan videos. What is this? Al Gore's channel?
Here I thought ForaTv might be worth checking out, until I saw their vegan videos and then this rubbish.
It has taken just three centuries for human growth and rising industrial economies to bring the delicate relationship between ice and humans to a dangerous precipice. Ice carved Earth's landscape to its present state - the sharp Alpine peaks of Europe, the vast Great Lakes of North America, the majestic valleys of Yosemite National Park and the deeply incised fjords of Norway.
The only constant as regards to climate IS change.
The newest boogie man I've heard of, as of yesterday, is that sunspots are going to cause a new ice age.
I am so dam*ed tired of politicians and their pet scientists crying WOLF at every dog that walks by.
mishap00 6 months ago
He's a Geophysicist! Has little to nothing to do with the Climate. Would be the same as going to a proctologist for a brain tumor. The UN body he sights as evidence is a political body not scientific.
elliott1tom 6 months ago
@elliott1tom You are wrong on several levels. Geophysics is the study of the physics of the Earth. This guy studies atmospheric geophysics. So it is completely relevant to AGW. The UN body has several levels: Working Group 1 is climate science, and the other two levels deal with impact and mitigation, they are not attempting to "politicize" it. Another denialist who knows nothing of science.
demdanglibruls 2 months ago
Comment removed
rgnavarro25 7 months ago
yea, I'm the subject of the manchurian project except by communists out to rule the world
suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure buddy
lord mockington doesn't explain the science at all, I've already watched him and he just drones on and on with fallacies, incomplete ideas of science and double standards
it's no good
but A+ on sounding like a nutjob THE COMMIES ARE OUT TO GET US RUN FOR THE HILLS THE SKY IS FALLING YOU'RE BRAINWASHED MAAAAAAAN
noobler9 7 months ago
Climate change is a scam wake up people Climate changes it's a planetary fact if it did'nt change we'd be in big trouble!!! do not pay carbon taxes to FAL Gore and the UN the will just use those funds against u and your family.These climate bozo's can't even call it global warming anymore cause they have not got a clue what is happening they just want to rule every facet of your life from what light bulb u use to what toilet u sit on.there not Green They are Red far left crazies!!!
2wheels88 7 months ago
So, climate change is real and so is HAARP, and the HARRProject has been expanded... which means it must be working. So until we shut down HAARP, we don't know how much about our changing climate, so this means nothing. Increases in natural geo phenomenon started to be seen about the time the HAARP technology was constructed. My guess... HAARP is an significant influencing factor, and common sense tells me that man is not playing a significant role in altering our climate.
RamsesReturns 8 months ago
Great vid.
mrduffy1100 8 months ago
This what scientists really know.The science is settled on carbon polution,Please watch this - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul just copy and paste it in search box.
2wheels88 9 months ago
@2wheels88 lord mockington isn't a scientist, please, just go away and let people watch the scientists instead of sensationalists, we're already checking what the scientists know
noobler9 7 months ago
@noobler9 You're brainwashed by communist's,wake up,i never said he was a scientist i said watch his video where he explains science.Now you may not agree with the science he quotes just as i do not agree with Al gores science quotes, so the truth must lay somewhere in the middle.Personally I'm not going to spend my life letting the Elites and the green/red agenda split and divide the human race down the middle,their are to many real enviro pollution issues to discuss than my exhaling carbon!!!
2wheels88 7 months ago
There is no evidence of man made Global warming. Science is about proof of theory not about probability.
david222444 10 months ago
@david222444
"Science is about proof of theory not about probability."
Never heard of systems science, huh?
Yes or no - Meteorologists are scientists
If your answer is yes, how can your statement be true?? Meteorologists work with probabilities every single day
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale system science? is that the science of guesswork?or some social science, sounds like bookmakers to me. Some Climatologists are a disgrace to science. Meterolgists are weather forecasters and they are not very good at it either. Guessing what the climate will be in 50 yrs is fortune telling not science.
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
"system science? is that the science of guesswork?."
Nope - try reading next time. System science is the study of, yep, SYSTEMS..
Meteorologists (for example) predict with a high degree of certainty what the weather will be like tomorrow given the variables they have to track it
"..they are not very good at it either"
BS - Statistically speaking, meteorologists are usually SPOT ON
Tell ya what, next time YOU want to know the weather - try looking at the moon. Good luck!!
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale yea and if YOU want to change the weather try a rain dance.
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
LOL!! Great response!! Thanks for arguing my side.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@david222444 The next time you want to change the weather try a rain dance. I would suggest you study some thermodynamics.
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
I've never suggested changing the weather.
What about thermodynamics?
Before treading into this particular water, be sure you can swim, boy.
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale your arrogance is showing . think you know it all dont you?
david222444 9 months ago
@david222444
Not all, just more than an obvious BSing clown
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@BeondaPale Go hug a tree then learn some environmental science , physics and biology you brainwashed freak.
david222444 9 months ago
....thought so
BeondaPale 9 months ago
@david222444 Science deals with probabilities very often. For example, look at quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, stochastical processes, Brownian movement, etc.
guimuy 2 months ago
@guimuy Do not try to legitimise outwright fraudulent climatology, propaganda and lies. At present and note present not past or future, our Planet is cooling deeply and abruptly due to the onset of a Grand Solar Minimum. The Pacific Ocean is cooling, La nina is building again this winter, volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing. These are obsevations in the present. In the past siminlar obsevations heralded the Dalton Minimum. Science deals with proving theories.
david222444 1 month ago
We don't have climate problem, we have a liberal problem.
tnekkc 11 months ago
@tnekkc and from the looks of it you have a conservative problem too. I left the left-right paradigm about the time my stones dropped and I started to think independantly. Republicrat, demoservatives, konservakrats.-..what the fuck ever, they are bowing down tot he same master, and if you take a good look at their actions you will notice they do the same things soeh......perhaps its really a stupid problem. People refuse to think their own thoughts.
fucknuaf 11 months ago
At one time the science was quite clear that the sun revolved around the flat earth. .This always happens when science is used by tyrants to keep power and quash dissent.
deadtoo 1 year ago
@deadtoo yes but what disproved that theory, science. It wasn't scientists that were trying to keep the power it was the religious institution, the politicians. The same thing is happening today politicians telling us not to trust what the scientific community says but to trust what they say. The idea that global warming is a hoax is a conspiracy theory that spreads fear while claiming to fight the fear that comes with global warming "alarmism". Ironic isn't it.
philosophizer149 10 months ago
We should be taxing the shit out of everyone and innovating to get off this planet. Super long term the only way homo-sapiens will survive is to have the ability to allow the meek to inherit the earth and the smart to go elsewhere. Making test firing of fusion cost millions in kw means we are less likely to come up with a new source of energy. Exploit all energy right now, before the population gets too big and mass murder is the only answer.
gonadcancervictim 1 year ago
"How Sure Are Scientists About Global Warming?"
Over 550 science organizations in 85 countries representing over 10,000 scientists working in the related field with over 30,000 peer-reviewed papers published in science journals with a nearly 98% consensus among them. That's better than what most doctors give cancer victims.
Desertphile 1 year ago 2
why is the world gripped in a new ice age in 2010, global warming you must be nuts , ginger
bonetti101 1 year ago
@bonetti101 ; "why is the world gripped in a new ice age in 2010"
It's called "winter," shit-for-brains.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@phantomscolts2 Take a few moments when posting your argument to correct your spelling and syntax. The errors make it difficult to understand what it is you are actually trying to say.
gsmullennix 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 Thats funny I knew right away, guess its you.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 Right, and in the 70's we were all going to freeze to death in an ice age. Sounds like you'll buy what ever your told. Do some research, your numbers are a bit out there. 97% of what scientists? I would love to see a list.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 How did you address the 30,000 US scientists exactly? I suppose you are much smarter than all of them, just like your god Al Gore. To me you are just another brainwashed kid, but thanks for showing it so eloquently.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
AGW is a just a tax grab for all of you warmers to follow along with. As the actual measured data is gathered it shows a normal warming trend that has happened for a lot longer than man has been here.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 Also tell that load of crap to the 30,000 on the petition, your the one that looks dumb here.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 AGW is the political movement you putz.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 I know Richard Lindzen quite well.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 You don't even know how to spell "know"......so don't try and play the smart guy. Further the majority of the free world no longer buys the doom and gloom, based on the science.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
All of the vested interests have invested fortunes to indoctrinate the uneducated masses to believe this nonsense. They have done this to make money, not that hard to comprehend is it? If you poor enough money at something you can make a case for taxes, war, genocide, whatever your goals are. Hope the masses wake up to this corruption of the scientific process. Follow the money, you will find who has funded the computer models this cap & trade scam is based on.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
I guess there just isn't any money to be made in cleaning up the oceans, or recycling plastics. Sure is a tonne of money in taxing CO2 though, like ten trillion a year to begin with. Anyone that buys this snake oil has not looked at the evidence. It is easy to find, even thought the invested people don't want you to see it. Have another look and be honest with yourself. Start with Henriks 5 part series on my channel, I only have the first one on there but watch them all, very comprehensive.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
The climate has always changed, and always will. As for humans being responsible for it all of the sudden, is ridiculous, given that CO2 is a trace gas with an almost immeasurable effect on global temps. Pollution should be our main focus, plastics in our oceans, radiological contamination, things that kill life. Not a trace gas, who's primary effect is to stimulate plant growth, and its warming effect is hard to measure, it is so small. Cap and trade is a scam, believe it or not, it still is.
TheKickerboy99 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 ; your statement that the emails uncovered from UA only show a "small" role in the IPCC report is not credible. They covered interface with EVERY SINGLE PARTY involved in creating the official IPCC report on "global warming". 2 state otherwise is 2 lie. I will not change your "religion" of believing that all control over life on this planet should be turned over to a banking cartel, and you shall not convince me that their interests in this issue are sincere. Let's drop it then.
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 ; the supposed "investigative bodies" are the very same people who stand to benefit directly from the carbon tax.
Alex Jones certainly is not a "scientist". However, the founder of the weather channel is, and so are the 30K scientists who joined him in claiming FRAUD from the IPCC. BTW: The University of E. Anglia is where the FRAUD was created which resulted in the IPCC Reports.
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 ; no I did not read them ALL. I read enough to understand the clear directive, the "context".
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92 ; I read the IPCC leaked emails (the full threads in "context") and also the raw data FRAUDS which showed that the numbers had been intentionally messed with, horribly, and even the algorithms used were INTENTIONALLY illogical for use in calculating global temp changes. Gore doesn't believe what he's selling us, (his personal "carbon footprint" is bigger than a small city) and he owns most of the largest carbon trading markets.
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92; Exxon SUPPORTS the carbon tax. Just Google "Exxon Supports Carbon Tax". ALL the "big energy" guys support a carbon tax b/c they are all basically exempt & it shuts down potential competition from little people. The "science" to support AGW? FOLLOW THE MONEY. Any scientists who were critical of AGW lost funding, & those who were willing to "fudge" the data in support of AGW theory got billions. The bankers who stand to profit from the tax are the ones who chose who got funded.
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92; We DO have SERIOUS pollution problems which need to be dealt with. However, we also need ACCURATE information, not just a sales pitch for why major oil, (BP, Royal Dutch Shell, etc.) should get UNLIMITED "carbon credits" & the rest of us should pay a "carbon tax" to an unelected few banking cartels in Europe who would control EVERYTHING from then on. Carbon is not the problem. Plants NEED it & they flourish with MORE of it. They picked carbon b/c it means max CONTROL.
joygarner 1 year ago
@TheDuneMan92; "straw man" ??? Higher temps melt ice, & this equals more life, which means more Co2. Your statement "no one is claiming" that Co2 is the primary DRIVER of global temps is simply FALSE. The IPCC report, which is relied upon in carbon tax policy, claims EXACTLY that Co2 is the PRIMARY DRIVER of higher temps. Interesting too; during the very period that we did see an increase in Co2, this same report LIED & said it was getting hotter when it was really getting colder.
joygarner 1 year ago
"climate change is unequivecal.!"
Weather happens. hahaha
These guys are NOT scientists, they are socialist idiots.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What's the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change? They're just used interchangeably right?
yayyabbyy 1 year ago
I guess this f-tard's idea is that "climate change" NEVER occurred before the industrial age. Oh yeah, once it was PROVEN that it was actually getting cooler during the time they lied and said it was getting hotter, they changed from "global warming" to "climate change".
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner If your objection to climate change is that it happened before humans were around, then by that logic it's impossible for humans to affect the climate. Did you ever consider that carbon emissions cause the climate to change in a different way and that some changes to the climate are easier or more difficult to deal with than others?
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; no, the fact that the earth was much hotter at times when Co2 levels were much lower, is not the only basis for my questioning the so-called "consensus" from the IPCC (which turned out 2 B a complete fraud). I simply do not agree that the Sun plays no role in our climatic shifts, (as the "consensus" would have us believe). Co2 does not drive global warming. We have much bigger REAL pollution issues & the people selling the carbon tax don't care about that. $ & control is their aim.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner "the earth was much hotter at times when Co2 levels were much lower," irrelevant. "I simply do not agree that the Sun plays no role in our climatic shifts" No one is claiming that.
Your understanding of the science is non-existent. It's a fact that increased CO2 levels contribute to warming the earth, and anyone with a brain can see that just because the sun affects the earth's climate, doesn't mean it's the only thing that could possibly affect it.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk; I understand your point, and it's a good one. Too bad the "consensus" at the IPCC (in their official report) is that the Sun was not the cause of the recent temporary warming period, (about 20 years) which ended around 1998, (after-which it was actually getting colder until just this past year). Their fraud in manipulating the data in order to make it appear that it was getting hotter during a time when it was actually getting colder is pretty bad.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner That's because Co2 was responsible for that period of climate change. Holy crap. Do you not understand that just because this recent period is the fault of CO2, that doesn't mean anyone is saying that the sun never is responsible?
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk, which "period" of "climate change" R U referring too? Ice core studies have now proven that the supposed "correlation" between C02 & temperature is only that; AFTER if gets warm (around 800 years after) Co2 levels increase as a direct result of more life activity. No causal relationship was ever established for the idea, (fraud) that Co2 is the cause of temperature increases. This fraud has been exposed now, no matter the years of brainwashing & lies to support a carbon tax scheme.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner That may be true but there is proof that industrialization has had a noticeable effect on the amount of CO2 in the air ALSO. and it's been proven that the greenhouse effect is real, meaning increased CO2 levels in the air DOES increase global temperature meaning that humans putting CO2 in the air DOES contribute to climate change even if it's not the only factor.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; your statement "it has been proven that -- Co2 levels in the air DOES increase global temperatures" is simply untrue. The geological records clearly show that there is no causal relationship. Increased Co2 is a RESULT of higher temps, not the cause. If you want to pay a carbon tax to an unelected, private, for-profit banking cartel in Europe, (the scamsters who orchestrated this entire fraud) just send them a check now. Leave me out of it.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner So the Co2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels is the result of higher temperatures?
LanceDirk 1 year ago
Comment removed
joygarner 1 year ago
I did not say that higher temps caused the industrial age. I said that it has been proven that higher temps, (which were higher during the Medieval Warming Period than current) cause more life, which means more Co2 produced. (An average person emits 5 lbs. of Co2 per day just breathing & farting.) It's been proven that higher Co2 levels came long AFTER a rise in temp, not BEFORE. All life forms produce Co2, or they NEED it to produce oxygen, like plants do. Co2 is not poison.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record(dot)png
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; I checked. The chart does not go back 200 years. Google "Global Temperatures 200 years" and also "Global Temperatures 1000 years".
I did notice that Wikipedia has not yet corrected their data concerning the Medieval Warming Period, and they are still citing the scandalized IPCC's chart which has been proven a complete fraud because it seriously lies about the MWP. No serious scientist can deny the evidence of the MWP, but IPCC does this.
joygarner 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; Solar cycles; it's interesting that during the exact period that our own Northern polar cap thinned, (during the 80' and 90's) the polar caps on other planets were also liquefying. I guess we need to put a carbon tax on the Martians? Sure, they can send it to JPMorgan, Al Gore, (who outright owns one of the largest carbon trading markets in the world) the IMF & the World Bank owners. If Gore believed the crap he sells us, he would forgo the private jets, houseboat, SUVs, etc.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner I never disputed your political points. Every issue will have opportunists try to take advantage of it, even if it is a real issue which I believe it is, as do most scientists. All your climate evidence has shown is that humans are not the only thing that affect the climate. I think scientists know this. Co2 is not poison but an imbalance of CO2 is not desirable, and the greenhouse effect is real. You breathe Oxygen, but breathing too high a concentration of that isn't good either.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; CO2 levels are currently much lower (almost ten times lower) than they were when dinosaurs walked the earth 150 million years ago. The "greenhouse effect'? FIRST the SUN and then 2nd, CLOUDS are the primary drivers of climate change. The same folks now selling the carbon tax and trade scheme, (who preemptively awarded themselves unlimited "credits" for carbon emissions in their bogus carbon markets) are the ones who previously warned that emissions were the cause of global cooling.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner "CO2 levels are currently much lower (almost ten times lower) than they were when dinosaurs walked the earth 150 million years ago." Irrelevant "FIRST the SUN and then 2nd, CLOUDS are the primary drivers of climate change. " Irrelevant. "The "greenhouse effect'?" CO2 traps heat that is created when the sun's rays hit the earth, it's real, look it up.
LanceDirk 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; "irrelevant" that Co2 is much lower now than during other periods where life was thriving? What? Those who profit from the carbon lies are telling us that Co2 is currently at "EXTREMELY HIGH" levels & that this will kill us all. Co2 is NOT going to cause the planet to burst into flames buddy. Yes there's a "greenhouse" effect, but they R lying about the nature of it and the role Co2 plays. You ignore reality and the facts because the IPCC report is your religion, faith-based.
joygarner 1 year ago
@LanceDirk ; on your comment here; I never properly addressed it. I believe humans can & do affect weather & climate. I don't believe that paying a Co2 tax to an unelected cartel of private bankers, (self-appointed rulers of the planet) is the answer 2 REAL pollution problems. I also don't believe the "science" they have promoted 2 support their attempted global take-over of all farming & industry. These same people killed the electric car. THEY pollute like CRAZY. It's just about control.
joygarner 1 year ago
Right before climate gate LOL
lightfdar 1 year ago
Imagine if everyone farted at once.
swankrecords 1 year ago
@swankrecords; Farted at once! I suppose they'll come up with a direct tax for that "privilege" too! HAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA! you're cool. Great input
joygarner 1 year ago
JUST SHOW ME THE DAMN EVIDENCE
TALK IS CHEAP
MirageScience 1 year ago
@MirageScience you see the evidence daily
wizarddragon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
mmmmmmm fruitcake...... tasty
markgg1 1 year ago
How much money was spent on experiments for this idiot to determine unequivocally that climate changes? Really climate changes? No shit Brainiac
jjrglobal 1 year ago
Environmentalists & anti-nuclear/coal/oil government officials, activists, EPA, etc are JUSTIFIED in any "fanaticism" they show. The pro-nuclear-coal-oil corporate-welfare-loving reverse-socialists are NOT justified in their extremism & religious fanaticism.
duck24x 1 year ago
The demagoguery and fanaticism by organizations like the FBI & the NSA and the anti-drug-choice DEA & pro-oil-coal-nuclear extremists COMPLETELY destroys ALL credibility these terrorist organizations & corporations have.
duck24x 1 year ago
What vegan videos? Media is FANATICALLY biased against veganism. Veganism should be mandated by law to prevent the needless torture & murder of animals. Eating meat is 1000X worse than molesting children or smoking cocaine or shooting up with meth. Hence, eating meat should be treated 1000X as harshly.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
You think eating a cheeseburger is worse than molesting kids? You should check in to the nearest mental facility, RIGHT NOW!!!
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Tough shit, asshole. Get used to it. You're just another extremist who wants to use big government to censor politically opinions YOU don't like.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
Nothing could be further from the truth, but how did you come to that conclusion from my comment?Thats a stretch even in your schizophrenic demented mind
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@duck24x
Are you institutionalized right now?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal Nobody is going to take you seriously on anything - even on issues on which you MIGHT, by pure dumb chance, be right - when you go around being a contrarian to thousands of serious hardworking climate-related scientists, just to spout out your free speech. I can hardly wait to see you humiliated in front of thousands of them at an IPCC & WMO meeting, as GW gets worse and proven even more right.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
You are batshit crazy aren't you? Do they let you use the computer during rec time or are you sneaking into the orderly's station to write these comments?
jjrglobal 1 year ago
@jjrglobal LOL! Nah - the orderly agrees with me.
duck24x 1 year ago
There is a very strong chance, with very strong evidence, compiled in a very convincing way, with almost absolute certainty, most scientists agree, with little room for any doubt, that one can say with a high level accuracy...... that gravity is real
Now, would you say that to a person who doubted gravity? Or would you toss a ball in the air, and say, "check it out"?
Why is it so hard for them to demonstrate it? Why do they have to say, "we're really sure" over and over again?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 That's what computer models prove. AGW is certainly far more complicated to demonstrate, because we are talking about separating the human causation from the rest of the "noise" in the data. But, that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
Einstein's special theory of relativity: not so simple to prove experimentally either. In fact, it's probably been tested - with super-high-accurate clocks in space shuttles & air planes - only a handful of times.
duck24x 1 year ago
Relativity has been tested a lot. For instance, if you're on a cart going 5 mph, and throw a ball 3 mph, relative to someone standing still, the ball will move 8mph
So, if a space ship is moving .6C (c= speed of light), and shoots a laser, the laser will be going 1.6C, right? Nope, einstein says it won't. You can test this using the earth. The earth moves around the sun at a good clip, shoot a laser along that path, and shoot a laser at a 90 Degree off that path, and check
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
To your GW point. You are wrong. Its really easy to test. If green house warming is what we're seeing, and we can measure how much GH gases we're adding, you can do a simple test.
Measure the temp of the planet (however you choose), measure the out going heat radiation, plot X-temp Y-heat escaping, plot the data. You will get a line, because higher temp = more heat escaping. If you do this, you will get a line that slopes up
Then correlate through time, 10 years, 20, 30 50, whatever.
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
if the slope decrease through time, there is a GH component, and by the change in angle, you can calculate how much of the temp increase was caused by reduction in heat escaping
Seeing as the biggest concern is CO2 causes warming, increases water vapor, which is a powerful GH gas, I suggest a novel idea..... lets check
This takes maybe 3 data sets, 2 graphs, and 15 minutes to prove, or disprove. How come they don't do it?
Unless they have, and they don't like what they see?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
As far as models, they don't prove anything. Speaking as someone who has programed in C++, a program only acts on what you give it
You cannot program in the physics you know, and have the program fill in the blanks for you. It doesn't work that way
You can program in what you know, then see how close you got. But these models don't work that way. They are tuned to the temp record, but as soon as they start projecting, they deviate from what we observe, usually way OVER estimating the warming
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Hmm, I wonder if that means.... they are telling to models to expect MORE warming from SOMETHING, than is actually taking place....?
Also, that graph I told you about, Temp Vs Heat Escape. That is a value that is programed into all the models currently used, and they all show a line that slopes downward
I wonder.... What do the satellites say that line is ACTUALLY doing?
By george! I think we figured this one out!
Either way, either way, the pt is consensus is not a scientific argument
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 I think you made an exaggerated claim. One of the most difficult things in making tests is taking measures. Measure outgoing heat radiation? Earth is so big how could you do that? It also varies in location and other factors. Measure earth's temp? earth varies temperature annually, daily, geographically, chaotically... how could you take a temperature that would make a good candidate for overall temperature?
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Actually the first time Newton presented his idea about gravity the people laughed at him and called him a fool. They even make caricatures making fun of it. Same goes to Darwin and his theory of Evolution. Some are not so lightly treated. They are either imprisoned, tortured, or killed so that they shut up.
mapflu 1 year ago
I'm not sure what the newton argument is all about, people who believe in global warming are the ones doing the ridiculing, and insulting. So.... Are you saying the skeptics are probably right? Or what?
How do you measure out going radiation? With satellites. You could do it a lot of different ways, you could say, any heat crossing the threshold of this altitude, this is out going
You could say, once the atmosphere is so thin, this is the threshold
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Same with temp, you could use right at the surface, 10 ft above, or you could say, anything 1 mile off the surface, or whatever
What you're talking about is a matter of convention. What are you defining as "surface" what are you defining as officially "space", how are you adding, how are you averaging, etc
This is convention. As long as you are consistent throughout, it shouldn't matter, and as far as I'm concerned, lets do every permutation that can be thought of
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Temp does vary chaotically, maybe one day there are more clouds than another (more clouds = more white things reflecting sunlight), maybe there is a big rain that pulls a lot of water out of the air (less water vapor = less potent greenhouse effect)
See, this is why you take a lot of measurements, like, lets just say, all of them. A Satellite can measure the temp, at every cubic volume, at every place on earth, and can measure them as often as you want
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Whats our limiting factor? Enough hard drives to store all the data points. And a large enough super computer to crunch all the numbers when you go to process it
My guess is, you can take more than enough data points to completely eliminate this chaos, and get a reasonable average. And if I'm wrong on this, then no claim about Global Warming is valid
If thats your stance, I disagree, but will support you. But you have to apply this standard to all sides, and all evidence. Agreed?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 What I said as 'exaggerated' is when you say:
"Its really easy to test."
Obviously you have not considered the technical problems of such test like:
>the need for special equipments
>the coverage of the measurements would require (the whole world)
>the management of the HUGE data acquired
>errors
>money
I have made no stance with my statement. Its just that its not easy as it seems.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 That's why its not easy. Your claim on the satellites capabilities is also overrated. In the past they give wrong measurements because of bugs (It indicates no Global Warming!). Also to be able to see that there is global warming, we must measure constantly and see that it is warming. A single measure would not tell if its increasing. We had to take measurements, maybe decades amount of it, to really see the trend. Could you see the problem?
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 "lets do every permutation that can be thought of" That's is very impractical. The permutations you talk about happens to be practically infinite. With finite resources, your venture is impossible.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 You said this:
Now, would you say that to a person who doubted gravity? Or would you toss a ball in the air, and say, "check it out"?
Newtons theory of Gravity was actually accepted when mathematical evidences supported it (like how well it supported Kepler's Laws). It was not actually accepted by such demonstrations.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 And I also imply that demonstrations will not always work. What is obvious to you does not mean its obvious to others. The most important is how will the public act on it. You, the scientist could demonstrate as much as they want but if others does not believe and accept it, that's it, you'll seen as fools.
Things like this takes lots of time, action, dedication, and determination to seek and show the truth. We had to keep on going, no one says it would be easy.
mapflu 1 year ago
Special equipment? You mean, like satellites ? Like, the satellites that have been already taking these measurements since the 80s? You mean equipment like that?
Coverage? You mean like the temperature readings the satellites have been taking, of the whole world for 30 years? You mean like that kind of coverage?
Money. You mean like the money that has already been spent on building, maintaining, and data collecting, using these satellites for the past 30 years? Like that kind of money?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Manage data, you mean like how they've been storing that data for 30 years?
Errors. You mean like the ones they have corrected by comparing temp stations, weather balloons, and multiple satellites to find? Like those errors?
Honestly, you didn't think about this before shooting off a comment? You seem very determined to FIND a problem, but, I think you'll find its pretty fool proof
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
The satellites have bugs because they don't find GW? So, anything that disagrees with your pre-determined opinion.... is a bug? How about... no mapflu?
Measure constantly, you mean.... like 30 years? I don't know how often they take data points, but its pretty close to continuous. And I know you can't take one data point and draw a conclusion, which is why I said you need to correlate this through time, to establish a trend
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
When I said every permutation, I didn't literally mean EVERY permutation, I meant enough, spaced out enough, so that someone can't counter with, "you only measured the surface temp, you should have used the troposphere". So I guess I SHOULD have said, enough permutations so that people don't raise petty points
The newton thing, you completely missed the point, it was to establish, that you don't prove science by saying "we're really really really sure, so believe us", you demonstrate it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
The Public. One of the main reasons I bring up this particular approach to the situation, is it is easy to explain to lay people. Everyone understands basic thermodynamics, even if they haven't taken the class..... except you.... apparently
But I don't think thats true either, I think you're TRYING to find a flaw, but, if you just think about it, it will make sense. I believe in you mapflu, lol
But seriously, just think about it
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Yes, yes and yes. 1, those old technologies are old. And had been subject to controversies like errors and inaccuracies (so no one would trust them any more). 2, Didn't I say there are errors? I wonder how many people would trust those records now. 3, yeah, but to update or build new ones.
What you wanted here is certainty and finality. You can't do that with old records and equipments because they are ridden with issues. You had to start afresh. Hope you get it.
mapflu 1 year ago
If we don't trust the satellites, what do we trust?
Digging up ice cores that supposedly reveal the temp 100,000 years ago? A couple 100 temp stations littered across the earth? Weather balloons floated up into the sky? Tide gauges for sea level, which are basically sticks in the water?
If the satellites aren't accurate enough for you, then nothing is. And we may as well just drop the debate altogether. No proving CO2 is the cause, no disproving it either
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
and besides, I do not argue that the satellites had problems when they first were put up, things like degrading orbits, and things like this
But now, we have used multiple satellites, which are put up in different orbits, at different times, and have been tested against each other, and either A) they are all wrong, and some how all wound up getting the exact same answer (error of .03C) or B) the errors have been corrected, and the satellites are just fine
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
oh, and they have been tested against ground temperature measurements
and weather balloons sent up to altitude and region that the satellites have been tested against
There is remarkable level of agreement between all of them
So this, our crack pot theory is right, and measurements and observations are wrong argument, holds no water
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 From what I know satellites does not actually measure surface temperature (how could they when they are up there). That is where the issue comes. Different people arrive at different conclusions from it.
The weather balloons does not cover up much geography. It might match here but how about there? And you must know that balloons have faults also.
Not to say that the observations is wrong, Its just how we use this observations. Its not easy isn't it?
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 There is Global Warming but what we like to do is convince other people; but many people could easily throw it out the window because of our limited knowledge in weather science. Unlike Newtons Law where scientist are able to come up with a Math that was able to prove that it is correct with very little doubt whatsoever. Weather is just a chaotic beast that maybe no human can ever understand.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Early sat indicates not global warming whatsoever. I choose B for these modern sat. But these things don't easy. As I said the start of this project involved lots of issues and false start ups.
But what we are arguing here is when you say its "easy" and I say its not. Starting a big project like this (its done now I think) is not quite easy as you say it is.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 That is why scientist keep working on it to find the answer. There are strong proofs but not without ambiguity.
Taking temperature measurements could not prove or disprove how much CO2 affects, it could be by other factors.
You somehow say its "easy" quite carelessly, when its very difficult.
Not to say that I don't believe Global Warming. I do. Its just that some things are not easy to accomplish.
mapflu 1 year ago
You don't know how sats measure temp? look it up. You might be the only one who argues that sats aren't the MOST accurate measure of global temp we've ever had, and why? Because sats are inconvenient to your pre-determined conclusion, and you need an excuse to ignore the information they provide
The same way you guys used ice cores when they supported your conclusion, but now that they don't, you argue that it only measures at the poles, so it doesn't inform us on the "Global Climate"
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Balloon coverage. When voltage meters are tested, do they test them on every circuit in the world? No. Because after you test it 20 or so times, it is reasonable to assume it will work on the 50th too
Balloons do have faults, they are not perfect. But, when you test thermometers vs sats, balloons vs sats, and they all come to approx. the same answer, It is irrational at that point, to assume that every time they've been tested, that their errors all aligned in the exact same way, for every test
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Am I saying that this can't happen? Not at all. But the odds are pretty steep against that idea
weather IS chaotic, but, this equation isn't. It relies on basic principles of thermodynamics, if it does not apply, we have to throw thermodynamics out, and start over from scratch
What I'm talking about, is a direct measurement of energy flow out of the earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to inhibit
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
And it doesn't matter therefore, if CO2 DOES inhibit simple heat transfer, if when in the climate, mechanisms provide a path to circumvent this effect
Either way, it would prove CO2 does NOT inhibit the climates ability to shed heat into space. So having an exact account of exactly how the mechanism works, becomes irrelevant, you still find out if CO2 is a problem or not, which is what we're after
Easy. I did not realize we were debating the semantics of the word easy
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I was using it as a relative term. As in, we have scientists looking at glaciers melting to coral reefs, to methods that would allow a reduction in CO2 emission, none of which are relevant to what they are tasked with. They provide us with a 1,000+ page report, most of which, is useless
If these scientist cut to the heart of what we asked them to do, the report would be 20 pages long, and we would have an answer that is clear and concise
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
These scientists are using the ability to claim "crisis" to get a grant money gravy train, to research anything they want, and I'm personally fed up with it
We gave them a specific task, and less than 50 are looking at what we told them to, they are looking at the big picture, and the other 2400+ scientists are currently finger painting all over their efforts
PS: There are no strong proofs. The only strong evidence exists on the skeptic side
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Where the Climate models predict warming, there is currently none, which means they don't understand ALL the natural forcings, they claimed they did. There is no hot spot in the troposphere, which is CO2s finger print. There is now evidence that there is almost no warming of the oceans, they said it must be a lot. There is minimal reduction in outgoing heat radiation, which they say should be reduced drastically if there is a problem
Evidence IS piling up on one side, and it ain't yours
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Well, I believed Global Warming but not that much warming. I believe that average global temperature just raise by a fraction of degrees(very small). Also you only present evidence that support yours, but there are also evidence that support the other side and its piling too. So both sides actually have "evidences" to based their belief on. That makes a quite exciting debate.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Well scientist are humans too, and we are humans as well and we create disaster. They might be scientist but their actions are not scientific at all.
PS: On my side your the skeptic. It applies to you too. lol
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Well we are long, long way to solving this problem, and many people are not cooperating, or pretend Global Warming does not exist.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 No. Not semantics but the difficulty of implementing your idea. You say easy. I say no. I jumped from accuracy of measurements, and money and politics... LOL.
WE are not arguing about Global Warming. The truth I believe in global warming. I don't know about you.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 "A direct measurement of energy flow out of the earth" there is the problem. We have no means to make any direct measure of this! What we can do is approximate, assume, guess... and whatnot weather scientist had used.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Its the coverage. They have not test the satellites accuracy for measuring at other places where balloons are not set up. No matter how many times you check a given area's accuracy, it won't tell anything of the accuracy of measurement at other areas.
One thing the balloons (they use thermometers) are at fault of is that they are affected by the sunlight giving higher readings. Therefore the average reading is higher. This is true no matter how many you take and they know it.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 "Most accurate" is different from "accurate". In the past the "most accurate" means to measuring length is using body parts, now we have systems and tools that make taking them "accurate". See the difference?
Satellites measures radiance not heat. They had to involve some "reversal" calculations, and scientist does not agree yet on how to do the calculations. In short they use indirect means which would be hard to describe as accurate.
mapflu 1 year ago
I noticed a couple errors in your writing, am I unnerving you? lol
But to your points. First, you didn't argue that they are not the most accurate, so, if sats are still the MOST accurate, they still trump all the other methods
Which removes your basis for arguing. Because, if you don't trust what is the MOST accurate, you can't very well be trusting what is LESS accurate now can you?
So now you're back in that box, where you still can't believe in global warming being caused by man
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Because saying you KNOW the cause, is a positive assertion, and seeing as no evidence meets your qualifications, there is no evidence. With no evidence, in science, the default position is the negative assertion, that something is NOT there
Now if you broaden your qualification, the first set you encounter, the most accurate set of evidence, supports that global warming is not driven by CO2, therefore not mans fault
So your belief that man is the cause, is not science based
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 As I say I never made any stand about global warming made by man or not. So my arguments does not apply in that situation. Do you want me to take a stand in that direction?
mapflu 1 year ago
I'm losing patience with this pretty quick man. The standard you've set is bizarre, how do you justify anyone, including yourself, coming to any conclusions at all?
Sat temps aren't reliable, cause we haven't tested every single spot, how do you even know temp is going up? We don't have the globe paved with temp stations? How do you know the temp of the ocean? We haven't tested every spot there, or every depth
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
How do you even know CO2 is going up? We haven't tested every spot, nor do we have gauges on every factory
Good debate? How?? According to your standard, there is NO valid evidence, how does that make a good debate?
You say you have taken no stance on global warming, but you said "people pretend it doesn't exist". Which, with your standard of evidence, I don't know how you even say that, 'pretend', which implies you know it is, but again, with your standard, how do you say that?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
I pride myself in being able to understand other peoples positions, its how I get the most information I can. I pride myself, in leaving no question unanswered, no comment unresponded to
But I don't think I can build a big enough bridge to where you're coming from
If you can't recant, on the sats not being reliable, because they haven't tested them in every single spot, a test which requires infinite data points, which is impossible
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
We have no basis to talk. The standard you've set, excludes all evidence if applied equally, and it is a standard, I admit right here right now, I cannot reach
It is an absurd standard. I mean, how do you even claim gravity is real? It hasn't been tested everywhere has it? Did you test it on pluto yet? Maybe it works in this galaxy but doesn't work elsewhere
If you can't recant on this standard, I'm out, I'm done
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Well we got too far from our home argument. We are trying to argue if your idea (something about measuring heat transfer) is easy to implement or not.
Great you think about that. Gravity is a phenomenon but there are theories about like Newton's theory (remember all those maths?). Its phenomenon so we can't say it exist or not but we could say it happens or not. Heat, Light, and others are phenomenon too. You can't say heat does not exist, or light does not exist.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 However the theories about gravity, heat, light and other phenomenon we could prove or disprove, wrong or correct. Newton has his theory of Gravity and so does Einstein and other scientist as well. Einstein's theory holds more correctly that Newton's (it got faults) but its still teach at school.
mapflu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LordVigeous666999 "Which is impossible" I think you got it. All these proofs we have on any side does not have a 100% accuracy and finality in them. So there is a chance even by little that the measurements are wrong. We could only say: there is a GREAT CERTAINTY that this is this.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 By the way if you pride yourself as such. Why can't you stay track on what we are arguing about? Its was this idea of of yours that was easy to do... just do so and so. And then suddenly out of the blue you sidetracked. Was that something you take on pride too? Was that your way of understanding other people?
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 That's the problem we are not 100% or even 90% sure.
That's the nature of materials in a debate. If there is a proof that would make 100% sure that the other side is wrong, there will be nothing to debate. We can't debate on whether a certain basket ball is round or flat for example because we could get an evidence that would say with 100% finality on the answer.
The stand is on whether its man made or not. Not if it exist or not.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 By the way that is not a stance. I had not made it so that we could argue about it. If I had I would given proofs or something to make it hold some water. After all that is a completely different topic from we originally talked about. I think you have a hard time keeping in straight direction. Hope you come back.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 I'm not saying not reliable, its just not as accurate as we hope it to be, but the results is good to a certain degree justifying its limitations. The ocean temp? What a good question. They aren't able to test every spot and depth, so what are the numbers they given us? The numbers do tell us something about the ocean temperature but up to where they are measured, other places can only be deduced/guessed. That are limitations.
mapflu 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 The satellites are the most reliable we have, but we must make conclusions adequate to the limitations they have. Any claims that go way over the data and limitations given is based on some guessing (science has been full of that).
Just like your ocean example. We have limited amount of data, we could still make some conclusions from them but it should be tempered with knowledge that it has limitations or incomplete.
mapflu 1 year ago
I'm done, I'm not discussing the semantics of the word easy
Nor am I going to discuss the philosophy of, "can we really know anything?"
I am done. I am not going to discuss this with you. This belongs in a philosophy class, not in a science debate. You're arguing like one of those Philosophers of Science, or as I refer to them, morons
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 Quitter. If this was philosophy your way of argument is way terrible. You keep trying to sway out of topic and mess everything.
mapflu 1 year ago
I told you in what context I was using the word easy, and you just won't drop it
I get it, ok, I really get it. You can't understand science, you're disconnected from it entirely, you can't understand the physics of how your computer works, your cell phone, all this new technology around you
And someone came along and said, "if you believe in global warming, you're on the side of science". They gave you a boogieman, and said if you buy it, you're smart
Its very seductive, I understand
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@duck24x Eating meat is worse than molesting children?? Wow! You are truly a fruitcake!
packrat76 1 year ago
@packrat76 And you're an intolerant Nazi. Obviously you get all your values only from the extremely narrow-minded media instead of doing the hard work of actually computing the effects of your actions. Media must be forced to air different opinions. Yes - 2-years of confinement in a box followed by death with no anesthesia for a fully conscious being is worse than 10 minutes of rough sex.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Right, let's start by calling me a Nazi. How about calling me a bigot, racist, and oh yeah, the most overused one: uneducated. I get my opinion that having a hamburger isn't even close to molesting an adolescent human being with common sense, not the media. You're the biggest fruitcake I've ever encountered. I'm gonna go eat some form of dead animal now.
packrat76 1 year ago
@packrat76 YOU'RE the one wanting to suppress alternate viewpoints by being the first to start calling everyone you disagree with a "fruitcakse".
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x You're comments prove you are a fruitcake. If you don't want to meat, fine, but don't force me to have a diet identical to yours. I don't tell you what to eat, so mind your own business about what others eat. If you change your mind, you are welcome to come on over and eat my meat.
packrat76 1 year ago
@duck24x By the way, I don't call everyone that disagrees with me a fruitcake. Your comment was so outrageous and downright nutty, it was only fitting. Really...someone eating meat is worse than molesting an innocent child. Wow!
packrat76 1 year ago
@packrat76 Yes, you do. You obviously think that the Japanese war crimes - freezing or burning or starving victims then cutting off their limbs before they're dead -and countless other horrific acts - are no big deal, because there's no sexual element to it (not counting the actual acts of rape). Guess we all have different rankings of torture. You'll have to learn to get use to it politically, because I WILL continue fighting to outlaw meat - and let everyone else out of prison until then.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x I like how you assume now that I think HUMAN war crimes are no big deal because I like to eat meat. You are a nut! Move to another country or start your own and outlaw meat and leave the rest of us that believe in freedom of choice the hell alone. You are a radical that wants to dictate how others live, eat, and breathe. Fight all you want to outlaw meat, and all you'll do is create a black market for meat, like there is a black market for drugs now due to it's illegality. I'm done.
packrat76 1 year ago
@packrat76 I would not be responsible for others choosing to obey a good law such as a law against the needless breeding & torture & murder of animals for meat.
duck24x 1 year ago
how do we know that climate change will be catastrophic? the earth has been much warmer and colder in our time and we have survived it very well and in the warmer times we have prospered
manypersons 1 year ago
That was part of the video description. It doesn't mention how ice made North America a virtual WASTELAND of ice from the north pole to about Central Indiana. It buried forests and swallowed up and killed off many plants and animals.
What a crock this channel is for these videos and these pro-vegan videos. What is this? Al Gore's channel?
packrat76 1 year ago
Here I thought ForaTv might be worth checking out, until I saw their vegan videos and then this rubbish.
It has taken just three centuries for human growth and rising industrial economies to bring the delicate relationship between ice and humans to a dangerous precipice. Ice carved Earth's landscape to its present state - the sharp Alpine peaks of Europe, the vast Great Lakes of North America, the majestic valleys of Yosemite National Park and the deeply incised fjords of Norway.
packrat76 1 year ago