The fossil fuels formed from the 65% of life which died with the dinosaurs. Burning all fossil fuels will increase life on earth, but not present the natural ice ages we had in the Jurassic.
All the fossil fuels weather is only carbohydrates. Plants convert carbon dioxide back into carbohydrates. Meanwhile nuclear power makes plutonium and toxic death.
Guess who made up global warming? Toxic nuclear power. Who have played the world for idiots.
High school biology teaches that the limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide in the air. In the last 200 years free carbon dioxide has not increased for life on earth has increased March 20 percent
The earth is not cooling! If yoo take a trend line over 3 years it would show in that period the earth appears to be cooling but overall the earth is still warming up. "Lord" mock tonne rots peoples brains, he is a joke!!
@benaberry The Pacific is cooling , the atmosphere is cooling, therefore the Planet is cooling. Now let's have some Atmospheric co2 enrichment as it benefits all life on the planet and no effect on the climate.
@benaberry Evidence that man has warmed the planet? There is no evidence. Deal with the present You cannot predict the future. The past indicates that co2 is a product of warming caused by the Sun.
So your evidence that man is not causing warming is 1 second, 1 minute, 1day of information?? Then you refer back to history. Science makes predictions based on trends, the trend is the earth is warming...........what evidence could you possibly have to appose that without another trend?
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
@david222444 What kind of idiot would still be saying that "it's the sun" after the data has clearly showed the opposite for around 25 years? What kind of idiot would claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Oh, that's right, it's youtube. Silly me. To paraprase Homer Simpson: "Stupid youtube... be more funny!"
@ExperienceCounts2 And what kind of idiot would think that a trace gas heavier than air could effect the climate, let alone drive it? After 30 odd years of this fairytale there is still no scientific proof to the hairbrained theory. Idiot indeed? You are the lunatic .
@david222444 Okay. so I'm a lunatic who has sided with all the evidence and hard data. That still leaves you not only with no evidence but you're apparently not even aware of the last 25 years of data you are claiming supports you. Oh yeah, and you're the one who thinks that climate change due to human caused CO2 emissions has only been discussed for 30 years. Try almost 60 years. I may be a lunatic but at least I don't buy into world wide conspiracy theories.
@ExperienceCounts2 Proof? Evidence of past warming caused by an active Sun! Co2 is a harmless gas, heavier than air which is found in trace amounts in the Atmosphere. To think that this gas can drive the Climate is madness. Yes you are all lunatics in the Eco Dunce camp.
@david222444 Amazing what willful ignorance can do. For 25 years solar activity has remained almost flat while temperatures rapidly increase and the best you have is "well it happened in the past"? That's not an argument, that's an apology for a lame conspiracy theory. How can you even trust scientific data about the past when you claim it's all bullshit today? Where is the dividing line? What year did it magically change?
@ExperienceCounts2 Co2 cannot raise the earths temperature and there is no proof that it has in the past or will in the future. The insanity in your arguament is astounding. The Pacific is cooling and every level of the atmosphere is cooling yet you persist on this ignorant assumption that a gas which is in minute amounts in the atmosphere can control the climate. Get real. The greenhouse effect only lives in climate models it is not real.
@david222444 I can't help but notice that you're still not citing any evidence. You also appear to be too scared to answer a simple question about your own personal opinion. That leads me to believe you're just a troll. Until you man up and answer me directly (as a non-troll would) I'll leave it at this: you are claiming that basic laws of physics don't work yet you have ZERO evidence to back your claims up. Until you present some evidence, your claims are bullshit.
@JonThm tsk tsk....tell us all genius how diminishing plant biomass worldwide is able to metabolise increasing CO2 worldwide? I mean,next you'll be suggesting that the more sugar we all eat, the less diabetes we'll see or the moreclothing I put on the colder I will get
Man has not altered the level of carbon dioxide in the air/that is controlled by photosynthesis. He has increased life on earth by stimulating plant growth
Photosynthesis has ensured there for the last 650,000 years the level of carbon dioxide in the air has been totally under the control of green plants. Man can increase life on earth, he can not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air
Trees are less effective at sinking carbon dioxide and grass is and. Deforestation it increases carbon sinks around the world. CO2 has been at 2ppm fall last 200 years
@HollyLimbo Man has not altered the level of carbon dioxide in the air/that is controlled by photosynthesis. He has increased life on earth by stimulating plant growth
@JonThm : Deforestation means less photosynthesis. The absorbed carbon is mostly in stems (which are 45% carbon on a dry basis) - with less forest, less carbon is stored. I confirm once again you are retardred
Harvard University agrees that global carbon Dr. Levels had not altered in 200 years. Only local, transient changes over cities in the rush hour is possible. And that has no effect on the world climate. No matter how stupid you are.
@nigelelsass local variations in carbon dioxide or possible. But the global average of carbon dioxide has not shifted in two centuries. It county are due to photosynthesis. Recharge yourself. Even a high school student knows that.
@JonThm : Measurements CONFIRM youb are totally retarded. Also decrease in atmospheric O2 concentrations confirm you are making lies and you are retarded
@HollyLimbo : Atmoshperic "O2", not CO2 - you must have misread my quote - YES I was talking about dioxygen - and as CO2 increase from combustion, O2 proportionally decreases - peace.
@HollyLimbo : It´s ok - John TM is a retard or "wannabe retard" - who had a car accident who severely damaged his brain - he gets his money out of flooding board with repeated simple messages which are off course 100% wrong
@HollyLimbo I think they get that one from "Captain Underpants Battles The Ice Monsters Vol IIIX". Either that or that other scholarly reference work frequently cited by the anti-science crowd: "Daddy Drinks Because You Cry".
@judomagyar Those extrapolations are an assortment of mathematical models, designed to predict future climate. They had better have noise in them; they'd be poor models if they didn't account for short-term variability.
@greenman3610 I don't need to write a paper. Ho about some grade school math?
Data from between 2003 and 2008 shows an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers melting per year. Total ice on Greenland is 2.85 million cubic kilometers.
This means if this melting trend continues, all of the Greenland ice will melt in 14,5 thousand years.
because paleo history shows that ice sheets disintegrate in a non-linear manner. There is evidence that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose as much as 8 feet in 50 years, and as recently as 14000 years ago, receding ice sheets caused sea level to rise about a meter every 20 years.
Considering that the forcing we are currently applying is hundreds, if not thousands of times greater than the orbital factors in play back then, caution seems warranted.
demonstrating obvious ignorance of how climate models work, and insisting that "grade school math" is all one needs to be a climate expert, make it clear how ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand for deniers.
@greenman3610 If the forcing WE are applying was indeed a hundred times greater, and using your 1meter/20years, we would have 5meter/year sea level rise today. DO WE?
You see, I am not using grade school math to prove or disprove that CO2 drives climate change.
I am using grade school math to point out how baseless is your assumption that We are applying hundreds of times the forcing. For that, basic math is enough.
again, you make straw man assumptions based on ignorance. It took 5000 years for the ice sheets to critically destabilize under orbital forcing. We are applying a much greater forcing, over a much shorter period of time. We cannot predict ice sheet stability, due to the many unknown, but clearly non-linear, factors involved - but we see melting at an accelerating rate. The US Navy's assumption for business as usual is 1 to 2 meters rise this century.
@nigelelsass this is my Ph.D. area. Sheffield University are resetting steam plasmas doing nuclear fusion today. Are you still having trouble sitting upright in a chair without falling off?
@JonThm : Then this has NO implications as this technology is so distant in the future - and so little replicability - that it will NEVER become cost-effective compared to others which are already cost effective or can become cost effective. In clear text: YOU ARE WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY WHILE PROVIDING NO BENEFITS. I hope this is clear. PS: only a retard or liar would pretend to be a PhD and assume CO2 levels unchanged since the begin of our industrial revolution: which are you? retard or liar?
Scientists conducting tests on tree remnants on Greenland have concluded that the ice in the Arctic about 5000 years ago was approx. half of what it is today.
The rills on the ocean floor north of Greenland are proof that there was open water in that area at one time.
Wooden sailing ships operating in the Arctic in 1905 (google Roald Amundsen) show that the Arctic was relatively ice free a hundred years ago.
In conclusion, there is more ice in the Arctic now then a hundred years ago.
there was less ice in the arctic ocean up to about 5000 years ago, due to some orbital factors that are no longer in effect.
as far as Roald Admundsen, if you had bothered to learn about it, you would know that he spent 2 winters frozen in the ice as he made his way thru the northwest passage.
In conclusion, you are a perfect example of an incurious climate denier, who has read a few paragraphs on Glenn Beck's site, and considers himself an expert.
What we need is a few really nasty volcanoes to erupt around the northern world (northern hemisphere in particular) so that the dust will cool the climate and bring back the equilibrium that everyone wants. Either that or a good limited nuclear war. I do think the former is preferable to the latter. I feel sorry for the people who live at the foot of the volcanoes, though. But then there will be fewer people to burn fossil fuel. But then there might be to little vegetation to help out either.
@cpetterborg : "You can trust the Americans to try everything until they try the right thing" - W.Churchill.
Well it looks like nothing has changed and Americans are ready to give some lip service and do some cosmetic measures instead of taking the problem a the source: fossil fuel emissions which increase atmospheric carbon concentrations. Seriously - I have the question - why is it you always cannot face the truth see the challenge for what it is and solve it???
@JonThm : MORONS are idiots who against all facts pretend that CO2 concentrations have not changed - the only thing which has no changed over 200 years is your brain.
I recently contacted my MP (UK parliament) regarding AGW. He readily acknowledged the problem and said that ' this government is committed to being the greenest ever'. He is Richard Ottaway.
At least the truth is being recognised by influential people.
greenman your a personal hero of mine. Please don't be discouraged by ignorant fake 'skeptics'.
@widebody123 there is nothing special about being the greenest government ever in the UK (considering the past Governments green credentials) & there's nothing particularly 'green' about this Conservative government in the UK. They have just slashed support for the solar power industry & they are funelling huge amounts of money into new coal & nuke power. They're a total sell-out of the 'green' movement.
The only way we'll ever get a Green Government is by voting for the Green Party.
@JonThm : It must be nice to be paid by lobbies to spread lies on every single video like you do. Is it the only occupation you could find after your accident?
@nigelelsass I am paid a private nobody. I am the Air PH D students interested in truth. I have no big research contract for nuclear power like you do
@JonThm : Why the fuck would I advocate an expensive and dangerous solution - in fact the most expensive ever created to boil water??? The future of nuclear is a dead-end. Anybody who has half a brain can see that (PS: OBVIOUSLY, YOUR "YOU ARE PART OF THE NUCLEAR LOBBY IS ANOTHER OF YOUR_ SCRIPTED ANSWERS) - Do you ever produce non-scripted answers???? Troll
I saw that Joe Bastardi video you showed and he showed the "expansion" of Antarctic sea ice. Then I remembered your old video "Ice Area vs. Volume" and I'm sure the Volume of the Antarctic ice, as with the Arctic ice, I mean where can I get the VOLUME measurements of BOTH poles. I think this should be a useful attack against skeptics. I fell for Bastardi's deception in September 2010 about sea ice and believed he was right until I started to watch your videos last November. Keep up the good work
@JonThm The rate of growth of vegetation from increased CO2 > rate of growth in CO2 emissions from mechanization + rate of harvest of wood products + clearing of vegetation for urban development and animal husbandry?
@JonThm There's a reason why they call it "high school biology" - because it misses out or oversimplifies the bits that are covered in more advanced courses. You might want to research why the Western Slope of Siberia is now outgassing methane (that's a form of carbon, of course.)
High school biology teaches that the level of carbon dioxide in the air is controlled exclusively five photosynthesis. Man is additional carbon dioxide has created extra life on earth. No possible effect on the weather. That is a nuclear lie
I've finally been able to watch this video. The message is disturbing, but clear. We're starting to move in a greener, more sustainable direction, but we're still moving too slowly. I just hope we're not too late.
The even national interests are my supervisor are tied up in the phantom science of climate change. There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide due to man, following the effect of photosynthesis.
Greenman, just reposted this one to my blog Decarbonise SA under the title "Its time to ask yourself: What are you more afraid of?". Thanks as always. BTW if I had as many clowns attacking me as you do I would know I was making a great difference. Keep it up.
The video makes it clear that the models don't predict the drop without allowing for the increase in CO2. But it also indicates that the models are off, significantly. Is it possible that the assumption of it being due to CO2 is incorrect? Of course it is.
@robhoneycutt "She clearly states that when they remove CO2 from the models the ice doesn't melt."
Yes, that's what I said (no drop without the co2 increase)--re-read please. Why must the underlying assumption remain unquestioned, even when it's shown to be in error by a large factor?
@aerobique oxygen is the waste gas of plants. Animals evolved to metabolise oxygen and carbohydrates and excrete carbon dioxide in the breath. You are a plant parasite. We all are. Free carbon dioxide in the air has not changed since it fell after the little ice age
I really admire your video greenman, and I hope we can chnage our ways. However I have come to the conclusion that the people that have the most influence in this world, the people that decide what will happen next, are people that are only interested in the next quarters profits. It is too dificult to them to change the way they extract oil, coal, aluminum out of the ground.
@541iceman Well, his string of wild speculations where he describes the end of the world could have been cut... as could all his moaning about losing the election. He could have specified where he spliced two records together, and could have included and described the scales he was using (he does not even properly label his scales, meaning that they could literally be anything). On another graph, his resolution actually changes part way through
@KittJT2 I looked all through the video you sent me to; I saw one graph of CO2 (Mauna Loa series starting 1957) that didn't have axes, but we got them later. I didn't see any moaning about losing an election, or speculation about the end of the world.
I get it that you don't like Al Gore, but there's nothing in this video that is misleading. He is talking to the public, not scientists.
@greenman3610 If you are talking about me, if you read the entire conversation we've been having, you would realize that I am not a "climate denier," and simply have a low opinion of Al Gore. If you are not referring to me, disregard.
@541iceman Right, I should have been more specific there. The film entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" is what I was referring to. The video I posted is a 10 minute exerpt from it, but I am talking about the film peoper. And the techniues he uses ARE reasonable to use with scientists. They know what he has done, they know the underlying research, so their view of his presentation would be from a different perspective than that of the general public.
@541iceman Don't waste your time, if you are well versed in the science then you will only get frustrated. He exaggerates predictions, uses graphs (which if you are a scientist, you know can be powerful tools) that are assembled in very deceptive ways, exaggerates claims, mocks the opposing position, and as I have said, includes segments which are completely unnecessary; a few minutes with a bunch of "if this and this and this happened, here's what would flood" and of course the "I lost segment"
@KittJT2 You've yet to show us where Gore is using "graphically misleading representations." And again, you ignored my point that Gore first started presenting information to congress on climate change way back in 1976. That doesn't square with your notion that somehow this is just the result of his failed presidential campaign.
I'm going to make this clear. I have not said that the underlying information is incorrect. Infact, I agree that it IS largely accurate. I have only critisized Al Gore's methodology, and his use of graphically misleading representations to make money off of a serious issue in the wake of his failed attempt at the presidency.
Also 'robhoneycutt,' I am curious as to how you think I am 'running.' If posters remain civil, I will continue assisting them.
@KittJT2 You've yet to show us where Gore is using "graphically misleading representations." And again, you ignored my point that Gore first started presenting information to congress on climate change way back in 1976. That doesn't square with your notion that somehow this is just the result of his failed presidential campaign.
@KittJT2 Okay, to ask the question a different way: What material do you think Gore should include in his presentations to make them more "balanced" ?
@TimTheObserver In higher elevations, the weather in Antarctica is below freezing all the time so it doesn't melt, even with the warming. Couple that with higher than normal rates of precipitation and you've got a buildup in the middle of Antarctica that is outpacing coastal melting.
@TimTheObserver In higher elevations, the weather in Antarctica is below freezing all the time so it doesn't melt, even with the warming. Couple that with higher than normal rates of precipitation and you've got a buildup in the middle of Antarctica that is outpacing coastal melting.
I was rather under the impression that you shouldn't draw conclusion about climate for periods less than about 15 years. Two drops close together could very easily be noise. However the 15 year trend shows ice-levels are dropping; It's not clear whether the trend is linear or accelerating. Unfortunately by the time that is clear we might already be past the point of no return.
If the Arctic could be ice free for a few months of the year by mid century, then the ocean will need to release its heat before it can freeze over again.
The Arctic Circle contains a massive amount of carbon store in the permafrost.
Has anyone researched the potential warming effect on the Arctic Circle by an icefree Arctic over certain time-frames?
I've now realized that some people are never going to acknowledge the growing amount of data that indicates the ice is declining. They are going to deny this and the scientific community's consensus that man made global warming is happening, even as it gets more obvious.
It doesn't matter if NOAA, NASA, NSIDC and others keep piling on the evidence. Remember, many of these people can't be convinced with all the evidence in the world. We need to just ignore them and work to minimize the damage.
Plants have converted all mankind's carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No possible effect on the weather. No matter how mentally defective you are
Any high school biology teacher will confirm that plants take in all the available carbon dioxide from the air, according to biology is carbon cycle. The world knows that carbon dioxide can't rise outside of an ice age
Harvard University put on record that there has been no increase in global carbon dioxide for 200 years. This is what is taught in high school biology. Local increases have no effect on the weather. No matter how mentally deficient you are.
Gas powered Trucks, trains, and factories are here to stay. All you Liberals will end up doing is legislate the government to Raise the Price of Gas and Electricity (IE Cap and Tax) and give the government more power. IE the Authority to say who can have power and how much. If you really want to make a difference Than start telling people who have to many kids to stop breeding. You Liberals are dumb as shit. You want to force your ideas on others.
Why should they listen to you, when (1) babymaking feels good (2) the government pays benefits per child (3) religion tells people that babies are gifts from God?
You're going to have to "force your ideas on others" if you hope to have any impact worth having.
Many average 'climate deniers' are doing so because several prominent climate change proponents are simply talking out of their ass. One that immediately comes to mind is al gore. He misrepresents the issue so seriously that one can't help but disagree with his position. Help people to realize that his 'activism' was simply an attempt at fame and fortune in the wake of his presidential defeat.
@Desertphile No need to resort to name calling, it just makes you look unintelligent. As for your challenge, its unbelievably easy. Dr. Wallace Broecker is physicist, geologist, climate scientist, and lo and behold, a climate change proponent.
@Desertphile I'm sure most scientists oppose climate change, but If by 'opposes climate change' you mean 'is a climate change skeptic', I'm not sure where you get that from. Broecker recognized and named the oceanic conveyor belt, and studied its effects on climate change. He has been (in spite of fierce opposition) warning of sudden climate change for 40 years, and has been working on ways of preventing carbon from entering the atmostphere. I cannot say much more than simply "You are wrong."
@KittJT2 ; You claimed there are scientists who are climate change proponents. I stated the fact that nearly 100% of the world's scientists oppose climate change, and I asked you to name just one scientist who is a climate change proponent; you named Broecker, who is not a climate change proponent: he opposes climate change like every other educated, sane human being does. I cannot say much more other than simply "You are wrong."
@Desertphile You do understand that saying somebody is a climate change proponent does not mean that they wish it to happen, simply that they support the theory. Every scientific theory has proponents and skeptics. Proponents support the theory, skeptics do not. Wether they oppose it or not is inconsequential to the science. However, excluding your lack of understanding of terminology, I cannot see how else you would think you are correct.
@KittJT2 ; Then you should be intelligent enough to write "science proponent" instead of "climate change proponent." Only homicidal sociopaths are proponents of climate change. If you wish to be understood, you should make an effort to use the proper words.
@KittJT2 Can you tell us where Al Gore misrepresents climate change? Also, you might note that Gore has been talking about climate chance since the 1970's, long before he was ever VP. When he first became a congressman he held the first congressional hearings on climate change. Why? Because scientists, even then, were saying this is a big looming problem.
@superduperjew His infamous hockey stick graph. And I am not denying that the global temperature has warmed. I am however a skeptic, and don't get swept up with the hype of the issues.
@superduperjew *sigh* Ok it works like this. He was presenting the information in a manner to 'educate' people about the issue. However, from cropped records, to undeclared splice points, from unspecified and unproportioned baselines, to x values having multiple y values, all the way to grevious error or fraud, his 'educational' video is made to appeal to alarmists. Wether or not his underlying position is valid or not, his methods are despicable.
@KittJT2 His methods are despicable? Are you kidding? Do you understand the complexity of the work that Mann and others are doing? You're obviously only reading one highly biased side of the story.
Next time someone sits on the toilet? Try thinking of what your doing to the air! hahahaha You crazy people! Carbon tax is a scam!
BeantownJim 1 month ago
The fossil fuels formed from the 65% of life which died with the dinosaurs. Burning all fossil fuels will increase life on earth, but not present the natural ice ages we had in the Jurassic.
All the fossil fuels weather is only carbohydrates. Plants convert carbon dioxide back into carbohydrates. Meanwhile nuclear power makes plutonium and toxic death.
Guess who made up global warming? Toxic nuclear power. Who have played the world for idiots.
JonThm 2 months ago
High school biology teaches that the limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide in the air. In the last 200 years free carbon dioxide has not increased for life on earth has increased March 20 percent
JonThm 2 months ago
Yea Yea so what? the Sun caused past warming and now the Planet is cooling get over it.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444
The earth is not cooling! If yoo take a trend line over 3 years it would show in that period the earth appears to be cooling but overall the earth is still warming up. "Lord" mock tonne rots peoples brains, he is a joke!!
benaberry 2 months ago
@benaberry The Pacific is cooling , the atmosphere is cooling, therefore the Planet is cooling. Now let's have some Atmospheric co2 enrichment as it benefits all life on the planet and no effect on the climate.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444
Over what period of time are you referring to? From what year to what year? I dont believe there is evidence to prove your claim.
benaberry 2 months ago
@benaberry Evidence that man has warmed the planet? There is no evidence. Deal with the present You cannot predict the future. The past indicates that co2 is a product of warming caused by the Sun.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444
So your evidence that man is not causing warming is 1 second, 1 minute, 1day of information?? Then you refer back to history. Science makes predictions based on trends, the trend is the earth is warming...........what evidence could you possibly have to appose that without another trend?
benaberry 2 months ago
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benaberry you're wasting your time with this one. He is a shill. As soon as you corner him he will just change the subject. He will never produce any supporting evidence for his ridiculous statements. Eventually he will just ignore you and continue to post garbage.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
@david222444 What kind of idiot would still be saying that "it's the sun" after the data has clearly showed the opposite for around 25 years? What kind of idiot would claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Oh, that's right, it's youtube. Silly me. To paraprase Homer Simpson: "Stupid youtube... be more funny!"
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 And what kind of idiot would think that a trace gas heavier than air could effect the climate, let alone drive it? After 30 odd years of this fairytale there is still no scientific proof to the hairbrained theory. Idiot indeed? You are the lunatic .
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444 Okay. so I'm a lunatic who has sided with all the evidence and hard data. That still leaves you not only with no evidence but you're apparently not even aware of the last 25 years of data you are claiming supports you. Oh yeah, and you're the one who thinks that climate change due to human caused CO2 emissions has only been discussed for 30 years. Try almost 60 years. I may be a lunatic but at least I don't buy into world wide conspiracy theories.
ExperienceCounts2 2 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Proof? Evidence of past warming caused by an active Sun! Co2 is a harmless gas, heavier than air which is found in trace amounts in the Atmosphere. To think that this gas can drive the Climate is madness. Yes you are all lunatics in the Eco Dunce camp.
david222444 1 month ago
@david222444 Amazing what willful ignorance can do. For 25 years solar activity has remained almost flat while temperatures rapidly increase and the best you have is "well it happened in the past"? That's not an argument, that's an apology for a lame conspiracy theory. How can you even trust scientific data about the past when you claim it's all bullshit today? Where is the dividing line? What year did it magically change?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Co2 cannot raise the earths temperature and there is no proof that it has in the past or will in the future. The insanity in your arguament is astounding. The Pacific is cooling and every level of the atmosphere is cooling yet you persist on this ignorant assumption that a gas which is in minute amounts in the atmosphere can control the climate. Get real. The greenhouse effect only lives in climate models it is not real.
david222444 1 month ago
@david222444 I can't help but notice that you're still not citing any evidence. You also appear to be too scared to answer a simple question about your own personal opinion. That leads me to believe you're just a troll. Until you man up and answer me directly (as a non-troll would) I'll leave it at this: you are claiming that basic laws of physics don't work yet you have ZERO evidence to back your claims up. Until you present some evidence, your claims are bullshit.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Plants have metabolised all man is additional carbon dioxide. Which is 0.0000 or once a 5% a day. To create new life on earth
JonThm 2 months ago
@JonThm tsk tsk....tell us all genius how diminishing plant biomass worldwide is able to metabolise increasing CO2 worldwide? I mean,next you'll be suggesting that the more sugar we all eat, the less diabetes we'll see or the moreclothing I put on the colder I will get
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
Man has not altered the level of carbon dioxide in the air/that is controlled by photosynthesis. He has increased life on earth by stimulating plant growth
JonThm 3 months ago
@JonThm DOOOOOOOOFUS ! Here's another one who should have stayed awake during science class.
realitylover3 3 months ago 7
Photosynthesis has ensured there for the last 650,000 years the level of carbon dioxide in the air has been totally under the control of green plants. Man can increase life on earth, he can not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air
JonThm 3 months ago
Trees are less effective at sinking carbon dioxide and grass is and. Deforestation it increases carbon sinks around the world. CO2 has been at 2ppm fall last 200 years
JonThm 3 months ago
@JonThm Could you reword that please ? I don't understand the grammar.
HollyLimbo 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HollyLimbo Man has not altered the level of carbon dioxide in the air/that is controlled by photosynthesis. He has increased life on earth by stimulating plant growth
JonThm 3 months ago
The light at the end of the tunnel is an illusion. catastrophic climate change is beyond the tipping point.
We have modified our atmosphere such that, the weather that we are experiencing, will probably become more and more extreme.
Catastrophic climate change is accelerating, and is probably beyond our control.
The amount of heat trapping green greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere is increasing every year.
Like it or not we are one of the endangered species!
Human life on earth could be
ronnaneil 3 months ago
The global average carbon dioxide level can not increase disinfect of photosynthesis
JonThm 3 months ago
@JonThm : Deforestation means less photosynthesis. The absorbed carbon is mostly in stems (which are 45% carbon on a dry basis) - with less forest, less carbon is stored. I confirm once again you are retardred
nigelelsass 3 months ago
Two things of real concern:
1): Both models AND observation show an exponential decrease
2): Hansen brings up the positive feedbacks that may accelerate other warming/changing processes.
Will our oceans heat up more rapidly? Will flooding around the world become more commonplace?
Will colateral damage start to stack up, (crop failures, droughts, food stress in the wealthier nations.
Very sobering!
nickschor1 3 months ago
Harvard University agrees that global carbon Dr. Levels had not altered in 200 years. Only local, transient changes over cities in the rush hour is possible. And that has no effect on the world climate. No matter how stupid you are.
JonThm 4 months ago
The 380 ppm measured at Mauna Loa say you are a stupid retard or liar.
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass local variations in carbon dioxide or possible. But the global average of carbon dioxide has not shifted in two centuries. It county are due to photosynthesis. Recharge yourself. Even a high school student knows that.
JonThm 3 months ago
@JonThm : Measurements CONFIRM youb are totally retarded. Also decrease in atmospheric O2 concentrations confirm you are making lies and you are retarded
nigelelsass 3 months ago
@nigelelsass Could you please tell us where you found the information that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are decreasing ?
HollyLimbo 3 months ago
@HollyLimbo : Atmoshperic "O2", not CO2 - you must have misread my quote - YES I was talking about dioxygen - and as CO2 increase from combustion, O2 proportionally decreases - peace.
nigelelsass 3 months ago
@nigelelsass Sorry, that's my dyslexia kicking in. I thought you were being a Jon Thm, glad I was polite...!
HollyLimbo 3 months ago
@HollyLimbo : It´s ok - John TM is a retard or "wannabe retard" - who had a car accident who severely damaged his brain - he gets his money out of flooding board with repeated simple messages which are off course 100% wrong
nigelelsass 3 months ago
@HollyLimbo I think they get that one from "Captain Underpants Battles The Ice Monsters Vol IIIX". Either that or that other scholarly reference work frequently cited by the anti-science crowd: "Daddy Drinks Because You Cry".
ExperienceCounts2 3 months ago
Sheffield University is checking on how a steam plasma is do nuclear fusion from regular water. Producing massive power and no plutonium
JonThm 4 months ago
here he is again Hansen @5:30 ! Talking about a certain critical tipping point.
Really?
How do we know what that tipping point is?
Explain!
judomagyar 4 months ago
My favorite is the extrapolation at 3:30
If I did that at the lab, I would loose my job an would be ridiculed (with good reason)
Anyone with EXCEL can fit and extrapolate any number of curves from that data.
Also, it is extremely deceptive, that, future projections are presented with a "noise" on them to suggest that they are somehow real!? JEEZ....
Bravo Dr. Srtoeve! She has a future in advertising or politics. Thanks, Peter! a good one...
judomagyar 4 months ago
@judomagyar Those extrapolations are an assortment of mathematical models, designed to predict future climate. They had better have noise in them; they'd be poor models if they didn't account for short-term variability.
GeneralBolas 4 months ago
@judomagyar
write your paper and refute her. When it's published, we can discuss here.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 I don't need to write a paper. Ho about some grade school math?
Data from between 2003 and 2008 shows an average trend of 195 cubic kilometers melting per year. Total ice on Greenland is 2.85 million cubic kilometers.
This means if this melting trend continues, all of the Greenland ice will melt in 14,5 thousand years.
So, why is the urgency?
judomagyar 3 months ago
@judomagyar
because paleo history shows that ice sheets disintegrate in a non-linear manner. There is evidence that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose as much as 8 feet in 50 years, and as recently as 14000 years ago, receding ice sheets caused sea level to rise about a meter every 20 years.
Considering that the forcing we are currently applying is hundreds, if not thousands of times greater than the orbital factors in play back then, caution seems warranted.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610
demonstrating obvious ignorance of how climate models work, and insisting that "grade school math" is all one needs to be a climate expert, make it clear how ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand for deniers.
thanks for making the example.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610
yet another straw man from you...
judomagyar 3 months ago
@greenman3610 If the forcing WE are applying was indeed a hundred times greater, and using your 1meter/20years, we would have 5meter/year sea level rise today. DO WE?
You see, I am not using grade school math to prove or disprove that CO2 drives climate change.
I am using grade school math to point out how baseless is your assumption that We are applying hundreds of times the forcing. For that, basic math is enough.
judomagyar 3 months ago
@judomagyar
again, you make straw man assumptions based on ignorance. It took 5000 years for the ice sheets to critically destabilize under orbital forcing. We are applying a much greater forcing, over a much shorter period of time. We cannot predict ice sheet stability, due to the many unknown, but clearly non-linear, factors involved - but we see melting at an accelerating rate. The US Navy's assumption for business as usual is 1 to 2 meters rise this century.
greenman3610 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 Peter, you wrote"insisting that "grade school math" is all one needs to be a climate expert"
I never insisted that you need grade school math to be an expert.
You misstated what I said, then you attached it as is I said that.
This my friend id a straw-man.
judomagyar 3 months ago
Carbon dioxide static for last 200 years
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm : TROLL: Do you ever have comments which differ from your 20 standard ones??? TROLL TROLL
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass this is my Ph.D. area. Sheffield University are resetting steam plasmas doing nuclear fusion today. Are you still having trouble sitting upright in a chair without falling off?
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm : Then this has NO implications as this technology is so distant in the future - and so little replicability - that it will NEVER become cost-effective compared to others which are already cost effective or can become cost effective. In clear text: YOU ARE WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY WHILE PROVIDING NO BENEFITS. I hope this is clear. PS: only a retard or liar would pretend to be a PhD and assume CO2 levels unchanged since the begin of our industrial revolution: which are you? retard or liar?
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@JonThm : Only your BRAIN has been static for the last 200 years. How is lobbying money for retard working for you?
nigelelsass 4 months ago
Scientists conducting tests on tree remnants on Greenland have concluded that the ice in the Arctic about 5000 years ago was approx. half of what it is today.
The rills on the ocean floor north of Greenland are proof that there was open water in that area at one time.
Wooden sailing ships operating in the Arctic in 1905 (google Roald Amundsen) show that the Arctic was relatively ice free a hundred years ago.
In conclusion, there is more ice in the Arctic now then a hundred years ago.
patioperson 4 months ago
@patioperson
there was less ice in the arctic ocean up to about 5000 years ago, due to some orbital factors that are no longer in effect.
as far as Roald Admundsen, if you had bothered to learn about it, you would know that he spent 2 winters frozen in the ice as he made his way thru the northwest passage.
In conclusion, you are a perfect example of an incurious climate denier, who has read a few paragraphs on Glenn Beck's site, and considers himself an expert.
greenman3610 4 months ago 17
@patioperson Your ignorance is amazing to see. I just want to know if you are serious?
thesparitan 4 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
What we need is a few really nasty volcanoes to erupt around the northern world (northern hemisphere in particular) so that the dust will cool the climate and bring back the equilibrium that everyone wants. Either that or a good limited nuclear war. I do think the former is preferable to the latter. I feel sorry for the people who live at the foot of the volcanoes, though. But then there will be fewer people to burn fossil fuel. But then there might be to little vegetation to help out either.
cpetterborg 4 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
@cpetterborg : "You can trust the Americans to try everything until they try the right thing" - W.Churchill.
Well it looks like nothing has changed and Americans are ready to give some lip service and do some cosmetic measures instead of taking the problem a the source: fossil fuel emissions which increase atmospheric carbon concentrations. Seriously - I have the question - why is it you always cannot face the truth see the challenge for what it is and solve it???
nigelelsass 4 months ago
Only morons are paid stooges to nuclear power ignore photosynthesis capping free carbon dioxide in the global air
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm : MORONS are idiots who against all facts pretend that CO2 concentrations have not changed - the only thing which has no changed over 200 years is your brain.
nigelelsass 4 months ago
I recently contacted my MP (UK parliament) regarding AGW. He readily acknowledged the problem and said that ' this government is committed to being the greenest ever'. He is Richard Ottaway.
At least the truth is being recognised by influential people.
greenman your a personal hero of mine. Please don't be discouraged by ignorant fake 'skeptics'.
widebody123 4 months ago
@widebody123
thanks for your kind words, and don't worry - I find ignorant fake "skeptics" most amusing.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@widebody123: Seconded. I've learned a lot from these informative (and entertaining) videos. Please keep up the good work, greenman3610.
Gnesta100 3 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
@Gnesta100
no worries, mate. new one coming soon.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@widebody123 there is nothing special about being the greenest government ever in the UK (considering the past Governments green credentials) & there's nothing particularly 'green' about this Conservative government in the UK. They have just slashed support for the solar power industry & they are funelling huge amounts of money into new coal & nuke power. They're a total sell-out of the 'green' movement.
The only way we'll ever get a Green Government is by voting for the Green Party.
ejbh3160 2 months ago
Photosynthesis continues until the global 2ppm-level for last two centuries average for carbon dioxide falls below 2ppm
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm : It must be nice to be paid by lobbies to spread lies on every single video like you do. Is it the only occupation you could find after your accident?
nigelelsass 4 months ago
@nigelelsass I am paid a private nobody. I am the Air PH D students interested in truth. I have no big research contract for nuclear power like you do
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm : Why the fuck would I advocate an expensive and dangerous solution - in fact the most expensive ever created to boil water??? The future of nuclear is a dead-end. Anybody who has half a brain can see that (PS: OBVIOUSLY, YOUR "YOU ARE PART OF THE NUCLEAR LOBBY IS ANOTHER OF YOUR_ SCRIPTED ANSWERS) - Do you ever produce non-scripted answers???? Troll
nigelelsass 4 months ago
I saw that Joe Bastardi video you showed and he showed the "expansion" of Antarctic sea ice. Then I remembered your old video "Ice Area vs. Volume" and I'm sure the Volume of the Antarctic ice, as with the Arctic ice, I mean where can I get the VOLUME measurements of BOTH poles. I think this should be a useful attack against skeptics. I fell for Bastardi's deception in September 2010 about sea ice and believed he was right until I started to watch your videos last November. Keep up the good work
metsfreak4life 4 months ago
@metsfreak4life
cryosphere today has the graph for global area, that is clearly down. will discuss in upcoming vid.
greenman3610 4 months ago
Google: Science News Arctic ice floes said thinnest in years
ReduceGHGs 4 months ago
High school biology predicts that green plants or sink all the additional carbon dioxide man has released. To support more life on earth.
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm
You're an idiot.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 4 months ago
@JonThm The rate of growth of vegetation from increased CO2 > rate of growth in CO2 emissions from mechanization + rate of harvest of wood products + clearing of vegetation for urban development and animal husbandry?
Proof?
technatezin 4 months ago
@JonThm There's a reason why they call it "high school biology" - because it misses out or oversimplifies the bits that are covered in more advanced courses. You might want to research why the Western Slope of Siberia is now outgassing methane (that's a form of carbon, of course.)
HollyLimbo 4 months ago
meanwhile all of the republican candidates deny global warming.
How can people be so ignorant?
TomValedro 4 months ago
@TomValedro Not quite true; Jon Huntsman accepts the science. He's presently polling at 1%.
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman Well, looks grim still.
TomValedro 4 months ago
High school biology teaches that the level of carbon dioxide in the air is controlled exclusively five photosynthesis. Man is additional carbon dioxide has created extra life on earth. No possible effect on the weather. That is a nuclear lie
JonThm 4 months ago
I've finally been able to watch this video. The message is disturbing, but clear. We're starting to move in a greener, more sustainable direction, but we're still moving too slowly. I just hope we're not too late.
wstevenschneider 4 months ago
The even national interests are my supervisor are tied up in the phantom science of climate change. There has been no increase in free carbon dioxide due to man, following the effect of photosynthesis.
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm You lack any kind of understanding pertaining to the agenda you employ.
superduperjew 4 months ago
Greenman, just reposted this one to my blog Decarbonise SA under the title "Its time to ask yourself: What are you more afraid of?". Thanks as always. BTW if I had as many clowns attacking me as you do I would know I was making a great difference. Keep it up.
BenThinkClimate 4 months ago
@BenThinkClimate
I must be doing something right. thanks.
greenman3610 4 months ago
The video makes it clear that the models don't predict the drop without allowing for the increase in CO2. But it also indicates that the models are off, significantly. Is it possible that the assumption of it being due to CO2 is incorrect? Of course it is.
codehead1 4 months ago
@codehead1 Did you not watch the video? She clearly states that when they remove CO2 from the models the ice doesn't melt.
robhoneycutt 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "She clearly states that when they remove CO2 from the models the ice doesn't melt."
Yes, that's what I said (no drop without the co2 increase)--re-read please. Why must the underlying assumption remain unquestioned, even when it's shown to be in error by a large factor?
codehead1 4 months ago
Holy shit we are fucked. I can imagine it now 'Earth doomed, point of no return reached'
EclecticSceptic 4 months ago
Green plants convert carbon dioxide into life. There has been no increase in this gas since the ending of the little ice age
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm
_
"Green plants convert carbon dioxide into life. "
oxigen?
well, huge parts of the oceans already lost 25%+ of its oxigen due to co2 (ocean acidification)
i wonder why so many people look for.. ugh anyway.
aerobique 4 months ago
@aerobique oxygen is the waste gas of plants. Animals evolved to metabolise oxygen and carbohydrates and excrete carbon dioxide in the breath. You are a plant parasite. We all are. Free carbon dioxide in the air has not changed since it fell after the little ice age
JonThm 4 months ago
@JonThm
lol?, ..dude, there is a reason you wont ever get the phd
aerobique 4 months ago
I really admire your video greenman, and I hope we can chnage our ways. However I have come to the conclusion that the people that have the most influence in this world, the people that decide what will happen next, are people that are only interested in the next quarters profits. It is too dificult to them to change the way they extract oil, coal, aluminum out of the ground.
tmiddled 4 months ago 3
@tmiddled
well, we can either watch it go to hell for our children and their children, or we can do something.
This is what I do so I can face them 20 years from now.
greenman3610 4 months ago 7
@greenman3610 Respect.
EclecticSceptic 4 months ago
Manbearpig !!!!
SuperErickelrojo 4 months ago
One word. Scary.
HydrogenAlpha 4 months ago
I think Joe Bastardi confused a snow globe with a crystal ball. Better luck for next year's "prediction", Joe.
bannor99 4 months ago 3
Excellent work as always brother.
Amatsuhira 4 months ago
@541iceman Well, his string of wild speculations where he describes the end of the world could have been cut... as could all his moaning about losing the election. He could have specified where he spliced two records together, and could have included and described the scales he was using (he does not even properly label his scales, meaning that they could literally be anything). On another graph, his resolution actually changes part way through
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 I looked all through the video you sent me to; I saw one graph of CO2 (Mauna Loa series starting 1957) that didn't have axes, but we got them later. I didn't see any moaning about losing an election, or speculation about the end of the world.
I get it that you don't like Al Gore, but there's nothing in this video that is misleading. He is talking to the public, not scientists.
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman
dissing al gore is another way climate deniers admit "I got nuthin"
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610 If you are talking about me, if you read the entire conversation we've been having, you would realize that I am not a "climate denier," and simply have a low opinion of Al Gore. If you are not referring to me, disregard.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@541iceman Right, I should have been more specific there. The film entitled "The Inconvenient Truth" is what I was referring to. The video I posted is a 10 minute exerpt from it, but I am talking about the film peoper. And the techniues he uses ARE reasonable to use with scientists. They know what he has done, they know the underlying research, so their view of his presentation would be from a different perspective than that of the general public.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 Well, you know, I've never seen "An Inconvenient truth". As a scientist, it's not where I go for science.
However, I do know, from talking to scientists and the public, that the requirements for presentation are totally different.
541iceman 4 months ago
@541iceman Don't waste your time, if you are well versed in the science then you will only get frustrated. He exaggerates predictions, uses graphs (which if you are a scientist, you know can be powerful tools) that are assembled in very deceptive ways, exaggerates claims, mocks the opposing position, and as I have said, includes segments which are completely unnecessary; a few minutes with a bunch of "if this and this and this happened, here's what would flood" and of course the "I lost segment"
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 Just to be clear, one data point does not invalidate the whole presentation.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KittJT2 You've yet to show us where Gore is using "graphically misleading representations." And again, you ignored my point that Gore first started presenting information to congress on climate change way back in 1976. That doesn't square with your notion that somehow this is just the result of his failed presidential campaign.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
I'm going to make this clear. I have not said that the underlying information is incorrect. Infact, I agree that it IS largely accurate. I have only critisized Al Gore's methodology, and his use of graphically misleading representations to make money off of a serious issue in the wake of his failed attempt at the presidency.
Also 'robhoneycutt,' I am curious as to how you think I am 'running.' If posters remain civil, I will continue assisting them.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 You've yet to show us where Gore is using "graphically misleading representations." And again, you ignored my point that Gore first started presenting information to congress on climate change way back in 1976. That doesn't square with your notion that somehow this is just the result of his failed presidential campaign.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@KittJT2 Okay, to ask the question a different way: What material do you think Gore should include in his presentations to make them more "balanced" ?
541iceman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimTheObserver In higher elevations, the weather in Antarctica is below freezing all the time so it doesn't melt, even with the warming. Couple that with higher than normal rates of precipitation and you've got a buildup in the middle of Antarctica that is outpacing coastal melting.
kamijk 5 months ago
@TimTheObserver In higher elevations, the weather in Antarctica is below freezing all the time so it doesn't melt, even with the warming. Couple that with higher than normal rates of precipitation and you've got a buildup in the middle of Antarctica that is outpacing coastal melting.
kamijk 5 months ago
does the number of species we are losing in the arctic even compare to the number we lose to deforestation in the rainforest?
1000 > 1 or
10000 > 1 or
100000 > 1
wwickeddogg 5 months ago
@wwickeddogg
the two problems are directly related. google
amazon drought 2011
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610 People are intentionally destroying the rainforest to plant crops to support more humans to produce more carbon dioxide.
wwickeddogg 4 months ago
I was rather under the impression that you shouldn't draw conclusion about climate for periods less than about 15 years. Two drops close together could very easily be noise. However the 15 year trend shows ice-levels are dropping; It's not clear whether the trend is linear or accelerating. Unfortunately by the time that is clear we might already be past the point of no return.
kayosiiii 5 months ago
If the Arctic could be ice free for a few months of the year by mid century, then the ocean will need to release its heat before it can freeze over again.
The Arctic Circle contains a massive amount of carbon store in the permafrost.
Has anyone researched the potential warming effect on the Arctic Circle by an icefree Arctic over certain time-frames?
CrashTestPlanet 5 months ago
I've now realized that some people are never going to acknowledge the growing amount of data that indicates the ice is declining. They are going to deny this and the scientific community's consensus that man made global warming is happening, even as it gets more obvious.
It doesn't matter if NOAA, NASA, NSIDC and others keep piling on the evidence. Remember, many of these people can't be convinced with all the evidence in the world. We need to just ignore them and work to minimize the damage.
thementalenvironment 5 months ago
@thementalenvironment You're too right, unfortunately :(
Greed is just too powerful.
superduperjew 5 months ago
The world climate has been cooling all this millennia
JonThm 5 months ago
@JonThm You're so far in denial it's sickening.
superduperjew 5 months ago
PLEASE visit C02now.org
LOOK at the records, and how high C02 is now. Please, do yourself a favor.
superduperjew 5 months ago
Comment removed
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
Plants have converted all mankind's carbon dioxide into new life on earth. No possible effect on the weather. No matter how mentally defective you are
JonThm 5 months ago
Global warming was nuclear fiction. That ended 13 years ago. As any rational person realises.
JonThm 5 months ago
Any high school biology teacher will confirm that plants take in all the available carbon dioxide from the air, according to biology is carbon cycle. The world knows that carbon dioxide can't rise outside of an ice age
JonThm 5 months ago
Harvard University put on record that there has been no increase in global carbon dioxide for 200 years. This is what is taught in high school biology. Local increases have no effect on the weather. No matter how mentally deficient you are.
JonThm 5 months ago
There is no climate tipping point.
MrCoffeeFiend 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCoffeeFiend Who told you this?
superduperjew 5 months ago
@KittJT2 Tell us what numbers he makes up.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
GG earth. :( oh well. we had a good run.
baxizach 5 months ago
Dr. Julienne Stroeve: "There's really no place else on the planet right now that is changing as fast as the arctic..."
WRONG. There is drastic, dramatic change occurring in densely populated areas as well...but people avert their eyes.
Check out witsendnj blog or youtube for photos and links to research.
Trees are dying everywhere, not from climate change, but from other emissions from burning fuel that create invisible, toxic ozone.
How is your garden growing?
witsendnj 5 months ago
@Halo3PKpooner "i simply dont [sic] believe humans have anything to do with climate change."
You may not be able to understand the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that Human activity is the primary cause of climate change, then.
To bad, because it is fairly straightforward - ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
SafetyKap 5 months ago
Comment removed
SafetyKap 5 months ago
Comment removed
SafetyKap 5 months ago
Wow. Julianne Strove could read MY time series, any time she wanted to!
outsidemendham 5 months ago
Gas powered Trucks, trains, and factories are here to stay. All you Liberals will end up doing is legislate the government to Raise the Price of Gas and Electricity (IE Cap and Tax) and give the government more power. IE the Authority to say who can have power and how much. If you really want to make a difference Than start telling people who have to many kids to stop breeding. You Liberals are dumb as shit. You want to force your ideas on others.
Budguy68 5 months ago
@Budguy68 ,
Why should they listen to you, when (1) babymaking feels good (2) the government pays benefits per child (3) religion tells people that babies are gifts from God?
You're going to have to "force your ideas on others" if you hope to have any impact worth having.
rg0057 5 months ago
@Budguy68 Relax, you'll live longer.
SafetyKap 5 months ago
Many average 'climate deniers' are doing so because several prominent climate change proponents are simply talking out of their ass. One that immediately comes to mind is al gore. He misrepresents the issue so seriously that one can't help but disagree with his position. Help people to realize that his 'activism' was simply an attempt at fame and fortune in the wake of his presidential defeat.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 ; Okay, I give up: name just one scientist who is a climate change proponent, Shit-for-brains
Desertphile 5 months ago
@KittJT2 ; Okay, I give up: name just one scientist who is a climate change proponent, Shit-for-brains
Desertphile 5 months ago
@Desertphile No need to resort to name calling, it just makes you look unintelligent. As for your challenge, its unbelievably easy. Dr. Wallace Broecker is physicist, geologist, climate scientist, and lo and behold, a climate change proponent.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 ; Broecker opposes climate change, idiot.
Desertphile 4 months ago
@Desertphile I'm sure most scientists oppose climate change, but If by 'opposes climate change' you mean 'is a climate change skeptic', I'm not sure where you get that from. Broecker recognized and named the oceanic conveyor belt, and studied its effects on climate change. He has been (in spite of fierce opposition) warning of sudden climate change for 40 years, and has been working on ways of preventing carbon from entering the atmostphere. I cannot say much more than simply "You are wrong."
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 ; You claimed there are scientists who are climate change proponents. I stated the fact that nearly 100% of the world's scientists oppose climate change, and I asked you to name just one scientist who is a climate change proponent; you named Broecker, who is not a climate change proponent: he opposes climate change like every other educated, sane human being does. I cannot say much more other than simply "You are wrong."
Desertphile 4 months ago
@Desertphile You do understand that saying somebody is a climate change proponent does not mean that they wish it to happen, simply that they support the theory. Every scientific theory has proponents and skeptics. Proponents support the theory, skeptics do not. Wether they oppose it or not is inconsequential to the science. However, excluding your lack of understanding of terminology, I cannot see how else you would think you are correct.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 ; Then you should be intelligent enough to write "science proponent" instead of "climate change proponent." Only homicidal sociopaths are proponents of climate change. If you wish to be understood, you should make an effort to use the proper words.
Desertphile 4 months ago
@Desertphile It is not my fault you do not understand scientific vernacular.
KittJT2 4 months ago
@KittJT2 ; It is your fault for falsely asserting there are scientists who are proponents of climate change: that's slander.
Desertphile 4 months ago
@KittJT2 Can you tell us where Al Gore misrepresents climate change? Also, you might note that Gore has been talking about climate chance since the 1970's, long before he was ever VP. When he first became a congressman he held the first congressional hearings on climate change. Why? Because scientists, even then, were saying this is a big looming problem.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt He makes up his numbers.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 Which numbers are made up? Mr. Denier.
superduperjew 5 months ago
@superduperjew His infamous hockey stick graph. And I am not denying that the global temperature has warmed. I am however a skeptic, and don't get swept up with the hype of the issues.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 newscientist(DOT)com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong(DOT)html
It's a myth that the 'hockey stick' graph was wrong.
superduperjew 5 months ago
@superduperjew *sigh* Ok it works like this. He was presenting the information in a manner to 'educate' people about the issue. However, from cropped records, to undeclared splice points, from unspecified and unproportioned baselines, to x values having multiple y values, all the way to grevious error or fraud, his 'educational' video is made to appeal to alarmists. Wether or not his underlying position is valid or not, his methods are despicable.
KittJT2 5 months ago
@KittJT2 *sigh* lmao.
It doesn't work like that :)
There's no conspiracy.
superduperjew 5 months ago
@KittJT2 His methods are despicable? Are you kidding? Do you understand the complexity of the work that Mann and others are doing? You're obviously only reading one highly biased side of the story.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago