Glad to know you have someone with a BA in Mathematics as a "scientist" signing the petition against global warming. What a joke. (Not bashing math, just making a point.)
yup. scientists were wrong about the brontosaurus, but what changed their minds? evidence, the evidence made it look like the brontosaurus was real, until evidence (the comparison to the other two skeletons) exposed this as false.
right now the evidence looks like global warming is real, so where is your evidence that it is not? can you compare it to something that we know exists? can you find flaws in the theory that prove it imposible? can you provide any contrary evidence at all?
I love how you use dinosaurs to segway into climate science. You could do that with anything. "They're as real as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Holocaust! There's no scientific consensus on anything, but there's lots of neo-Nazis who claim the Holocaust never happened!"
Or, "They're as real as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or your mom's lady-like graces. There's no scientific consensus on anything, but lots of people have called your mom a slut."
"Consensus doesn't mean truth... in fact there is a 30,000 person consensus stating that global warming is false"?
Anyone else see the irony? Plus, that petition he was talking about... it was an online petition, open to the public which included signatures from great scientists such as... Micky Mouse, Donald Duck, Elvis and John Lennon. FAIL.
I'm slightly skeptical about human induced global warming myself; but this video is misleading.
How can you state that scientific consenses does not equal truth, yet in the next breath you claim that over 30,000 scientist do not believe in man made global warming; implying that since all these scientists say its not true, it must not really be true.
Even though I do believe in the human influence over the global warming, I also believe that the best course of action is de-regulating the industry and ending all subsidies. The government involvement is counter-productive and should stop.
Apparently this isn't a parody... o_0 Santa isn't real (insert tears). Because scientists change their theories when presented new facts we can't believe anything they say? Seriously? So the earth is flat, panadol is magic and arsenic is wonderful as a beauty treatment.
Scientific consensus does not equal truth, in fact scientific consensus agrees with my point of view, so you see, it's the truth. Thanks for citing a document signed by the prominent Dr. Mickey Mouse.
This petition your refering too has signatures from Donald Duck and Elvis Presley on it. I didn't know either of those two were actual scientists. Damn you are a moron.
@sacrament182 well seeing as how this is the guy who sang at rick perry's super-summer-fun-time-jambery-prayer-lets-all-suck-each-others-dick-a-thon, or NAMBLA for short, im quite certain its real.
haha ....I like the bit about dissing "scientific consensus" ....then, you turnaround in the next sentence using the 30,000 petition bit. You're a hypocritical and infantile fool!
Ah yes the Great Brontosaurus Conspiracy. Luckily it has been nipped in the bud thereby preventing compulsory Brontosaurus Service for all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 30.
Poor guy. He lives in a fantasy world where he feels his pitiful education matches every highly intelligent scientist who has spent their lives in the field. He needs to grow up. Religion is becoming an embarrassment to humanity.
Are you fucking kidding me with this? You clearly didn't check your fucking facts you twat. The "scientific consensus" you speak of was an ONLINE questionnaire and does not accurately represent the scientific community. Do you know how I know this?? Because I checked the facts and I am a fucking scientist.
I take it "illuminatitv" doesn't know how to research - Brontosaurus; Elmer Riggs had published a paper in the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum which argued that Brontosaurus was not different enough from Apatosaurus to warrant its own classification - So 1903 was the end of 'Brontosaurus' genus and the bones found in 1877. HOW DO YOU GET MORE THAN 100 YEARS? I make it 26 years?
Either you're ignorant of facts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Why do you appeal to scientists' opinions when you say that scientific consensus means nothing? Did the irony of that surpass you? To me it was mind-blowingly ironic...
Great video ! Simply, FACT - the sun causes global warming. FACT - All the planets are warming in our solar system - FACT - Man does not cause global warming.
All global warming droids: Stop equating "global warming", "global climate change", and "man made global warming." These are 3 different things. ONLY one of the three is in question, i.e., "man made global warming." The other two are historical fact, and have come and gone repeatedly. Even if you believe that man's activities are influencing climate, the scientific data proves man's contribution to natural warming is so slight that it must be teased out of the empirical data statistically.
@snit33 "scientific data proves man's contribution to natural warming is so slight" peer reviewed studies please. here's a history lesson: the difference between an ice age and a warm period is 5-8oC. this typically takes thousands of years to occur and is due to a variety of factors such as solar activity etc. even organisms have changed the climate, in the past plants removed so much CO2 it led to global cooling.
The brontosaurus analogy sucks because this ain't no trivial error mixing the parts of two actual monsters . The AGW monsters are in fact merely myths .
'30,000 scientists' or 0.3% of scientists with degrees in america along. furthermore we have NO WAY of verifying if the people on that list really are scientists and saying scientists like that automatically makes you an expert in climatology is astoundingly ignorant. its like saying 'my gp is a doctor which means he must be qualified to perform brain surgery'
@AussiePolitics just like we can't verify the raw data that EA and the IPCC scientist used to make these claims, they refuse to release and now say they lost it. How do you disprove AGW, science is proving and disproving
@ppiaseck are you really so ignorant as to believe the only evidence for climate change comes from the IPCC??? go type climate change into any of the peer reviewed journals - nature and science are a good place to start. you get over 120,000 published papers. how many can you find that provide evidence supporting your position?
The brontosaurus was only recognised as 'real' for a few years before the mistake was corrected. A 'century' is nowhere near that. Stop flat out lying about the actual history of it to get your point across.
@ivolol Unfortunately christians cannot put forward their argument without lying. That fact was actually mentioned in the Judge's summing up in the Dover - kitzmuller trial, which decided that I.D was not science.
What scientific consensus has ever believed that the brontosaurus? I think you mean that as late as 1989 the US Postal service used a stamp of the brontosaurus, but even by 1903 scientists had reclassified the brontosaurus as an Apatosaurus. Scientific consensus does not mean truth, because science doesn't claim absolutely truth. It just means that it's the best explanation that fits all the facts.
Those who agree with Molotov, may I ask you a couple of questions? Can you explain the mechanism described by scientists through which increased carbon dioxide heats the earth? And, if so, can you explain how increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere would NOT lead to an increase in the global mean temperature?
Science is about making heeps of money off of people who are less educated than you by scaring them about a fake problem and then coming up with a fake solution.
Sometimes we also come upon truth, if we cant hide it, then it will come out.
Addicted? It's part of the fabric of our current existence. It's not something any of us should be ashamed of no more then we should be ashamed of being human, we've always exploited our environment to one degree or another. When the earth tires of us it will toss out a trump card. Until then it's about managing economies built on hydrocarbons and maintaining commerce at the highest levels (full employment) as best we can. Those without will remain so, to bring them up to 2kw/person/24/7 w
despite whether you believe in climate change or not the fact that the world's countries are addicted to oil is a problem. especially when we by most projestions are halfway through the global oil reserve. either we push forward green technology or we start putting bumper stickers on our bikes.
@intrepidorator Who? Like Monckton? Also not a climatologist! Most of the scientists in the field that is relevant here agree that global warming is caused by humans, there is no way around that.
@intrepidorator A petition? Let's see, the first one of these things I went to had almost ZERO climatologists on it and the second had names like Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, John Lennon, Elvis Presley and some of the Spice Girls on it.
I think you'd have to be a moron to trust something that.
@idontcare80 Wrong.. again, There were over 900 PHD's that signed the petition, but thats not what the link went to. it went to evidence that proves that the "warmers" are being misguided. I would hope that you would want to know the TRUTH instead of the "warmer" hysteria. But I may have overestimated you.
@intrepidorator ooops my mistake, there were 9000 PHD's that signed the petition. I now challenge you to find a list of even 100 climatologists that believe in man made global warming. Yes it is a challenge, find a petition or a list, or anything that names even 100 PHD's who believe that the slight warming that we have been experiencing has been caused by man. Just 100 names, I challenge you.
@intrepidorator ...dermatologists are qualified to make any kind of decision about climate change? Also, why don't you people understand that the most powerful corporations in the world have EVERYTHING to lose if consumers suddenly come to the realization that their products could be extremely damaging to our way of life? These are multi BILLION dollar corporations and you don't think they have the power or the will to hire a few shills? If not, then you are nothing other than insane.
@idontcare80 Where is the list, where are your names, I will save you time, I have never seen a list of PHD's that support the man made warming claims. You should just admit that you can not find even 100 climatologists that believe in man made global warming. The problem with the "warmers" is that they believe what the lame left media tells them without question. My policy is to research myself. That is why I don't believe in man made global warming, because I have done research. you should too
@intrepidorator OHHHHHH NOOOOO... A LIST OF DERMATOLOGISTS SAYS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!! Then, to add to that, some guy on YouTube has done RESEARCH!!! Freaking RESEARCH!!!! What am I going to do??? I just don't know where to turn now, I'm at my wits end, my whole world is crumbling around me! I'll just have to go search for every thread of right-wing nonsense and except it as truth. All the dentists and gynecologists are right, there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming!!!
@idontcare80 hmmm.. no list of anyone that has the courage to come out and say that it exists.. An intelligent person would understand what this means. You have been duped by the lame left media, you're just not smart enough to see it. I hope that you will someday stop believing the lies. research for yourself. Don't take my word for it. I can only point you in the right direction. Don't take the "warmers" word for it either, I have done my own research, you should too.
@intrepidorator So this is your final proof? A list of dentists and cartoon characters?
What kind of research would I do? Look into why Mickey Mouse thinks anthropogenic global warming is not happening? Why not just read what ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have to say about the matter?
How about this: You keep reading what the oil companies and Mickey Mouse have to say about this and I will keep listening to the climatologists. Thx bai!!
@idontcare80 first of all, there are no cartoon characters on the list. The list of petition signers is on the right side of the link that I provided. look at it.. do you see Mickey Mouse.. no you do not.. secondly, your attempt to belittle the SCIENTISTS that signed the petition shows that you have no evidence on your side of the debate. Thirdly.. you can not provide a petition of SCIENTISTS that support the hoax of man made global warming. Not 9000 PHD's, not 900 PHD's, not 90 PHD's, your done
There were cartoon characters on the list, they removed them once they came to the attention of the people that had organized the petition.
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
There are MANY scientists that understand the problem of global warming, there just isn't a convenient little list of them. The reason why there isn't a list is because REAL scientists use something called SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to make their points.
@idontcare80 The earth isnt still covered in ice because of the natural cycles in climate. Your too stupid to see that you just made my point. Did man made global warming end the last ice age or cause the medieval warming period? The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. There is no evidence that shows this warming period is even as warm as the period 1000 years ago. .. By the way.. I know alot about the environment and Im not a climatologist. All you need is curiosity to see
@intrepidorator Ok, so what was it that caused the Earth to warm? What was the mechanism? What causes the cycles? It isn't freaking magic!
Geez I hate arguing with people like you, we already went over the medieval warm period! It was caused by an abnormally high solar maximum! Recently the sun just went through an abnormally LOW solar minimum YET THE EARTH STILL WARMED. This is going to get very tiresome if you just keep forgetting the facts that are presented to you.
@intrepidorator It takes a hell of a lot more than just curiosity to get a PhD in climate science. You don't know even remotely as much as you think you do.
@idontcare80 I know exactly how much I know. i understand my education level and my IQ. You are clearly unable to understand that a person with a PHD in psychology is just as intelligent as a person with a PHD in climatology. I am just as capable of reading a research paper on the subject as the PHD in climatology is. I hope that you can begin to understand.
@intrepidorator Ok then, would you go to a dentists to have heart surgery? A gynecologist to be treated for lung cancer? An engineer to get a root canal? You're talking nonsense here.
So back to the facts. What was the mechanism that caused the Earth to warm when it was almost completely covered in ice?
@idontcare80 No sir... you are using a lame strawman argument.. I would go to a heart surgeon for his advice on many things beside heart surgery. Are you so stupid to believe that a person who is intelligent enough to have a PHD is engineering isn't smart enough to understand a research paper on the climate. Your argument is so foolish that anyone can see through it.
@intrepidorator I'm not misrepresenting your position at all, you are actually saying that you would rather get advice about climate science from a medical doctor rather than a climate scientist! Are you stupid enough to believe that makes any sense at all?
What research paper? Are you talking about the propaganda that was attached to your petition? How obvious a deception is that? That's like McDonald's releasing a "paper" that claims how good their food is for you and you buying into it!
@idontcare80 You're wrong again. MANY climatologists disagree with the hoax of man made global warming. just because thousands of other intelligent people haven't been fooled (like you have) is no reason to doubt the MANY climatologists that aren't being fooled. I hope that you will begin to understand that there is NO evidence of man being the cause for the minor warming.. Remember what the "warmers" were predicting 20 years ago? Why didn't those cataclysmic predictions occur? Cause its a hoax.
@idontcare80 Michael Asten; First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.
Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.
@intrepidorator You can pretend to understand the "science" of what you're presenting all you want, it's not going to change my mind. You want to know why it wont change my mind? Because, honestly, I don't really give a shit if global warming is a hoax or not. Fossil fuel consumption is a problem, whether it's because of the many kinds of pollution that is released when we burn fossil fuels (mercury, NOx, SO2, etc) or because of it's complete lack of sustainability. I will always side ...
@intrepidorator ...with those who seek to better the health of everyone and those who seek sustainable forms of energy.
Seriously, wouldn't you rather see future generations benefit from our decision to move toward sustainable forms of energy rather than take the risk of dealing with a possibly harmful change in climate? I really do want to know what would be so harmful about reducing fossil fuel usage. What are the horrors that await us if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be a hoax?
@idontcare80 either we switch slowly now or we are screwed when we run out of oil. no amount of drilling in alaska will change the fact that america has less then 1% of the worlds oil, and uses 30% of the worlds exported oil.
@intrepidorator Do you even know what PhD means? Only 0.1% of the people that signed that petition have a background in climatology, that's one TENTH of a percent! If you include all of the signers that have a background in climate change science it's only 0.5%, one half off a percent! The scientists that understand the problem of global warming don't need some neat little list with their names on it because they have the science to back them up! What makes you think dentists or...
Thanks bud I forgot CO2 is plant food . Hey look the same old crap on here about deforestaion you ass holes been talking about this bull shit for the last 30 years and the forest down their is bigger then ever STOP TELLING THE people more crap we have had it with you greener types, all you trolls what is EUGENICS your a bunch of mad sicenest If it all gos to hell Ill be a comeing for you nut jobs !2 years in. You can guest the rest
@RoflmaoAtSheepeople Your comment is barely intelligible, but from what I can make out you're saying that the rain forests in South America are bigger than ever. That's completely wrong. The rain forests "down there" are shrinking faster than ever and are smaller than they've ever been during human history. In the US, some forests are growing in size but the total forest land area is no where near what is was before humans began logging. Get your facts straight.
@idontcare80 Im sure that you are being taught that in school nowadays, but the truth is that loggers more than replace every tree cut down. Its more like a (cut 1 tree down plant 2) ratio.
@intrepidorator Where did you hear that nonsense? The ONLY places where there is any significant forest recovery are in Europe and the US. Absolutely no law exists anywhere stating that trees have to be replaced if they are cut down except in places where erosion can cause serious problems.
@intrepidorator SOME logging companies are replacing trees in VERY limited areas. Trees are not replaced in the vast majority of logging that takes place. Some logging companies even practice sustainable logging, but that is also VERY limited and the wood from those operations is VERY expensive.
In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.
Retards trashing science need to communicate their brilliant insights to the public using smoke signals. Don't argue that BS over the internet - that much intense hypocrisy might crash the system.
Molotov, Here is a VERY informative scientific website done totally for creationists explaining the fraud that is Evolution.
creation.com A large team of scientists both assembled and support the books and information on this website, I hope anyone interested in science will take a close look at this.
@darknesssapphire Try this site petition project dot org. Over 30,000 scientists studied all available data and came to the conclusion that no evidence exists to suggest that man affects the climate. You should research both sides and then decide. I did and that is why I am now a skeptic.
The debate is over...global temperature is a non sequitur concept. It makes no sense. if the equator goes down by 25 degrees and the poles go up by 25 degrees, there is NO global warming, but ALL species on earth die... the concept of a global average temperature has no meaningful application in the real world. Localized weather events can have a measurable impact, but they cannot be controlled. control lies with the sun. 2010-2011 winter was brutal on earth and mars, CO2 can't be the cause.
On the oil you realy need to get out in the feld more.the SUN drives the weather not cow farts ,you know they just want tax and cap the money thats all they want and guys like you to see it they way.They are bull shiting you and many more Its all about the money.
Not 500 squ miles of wind mills to power new york city,Thats 500 by 500 squ miles just 1% that is needed Wake up!
@jhdeans What's real science by your definition? Those 30,000 scientists all have science degrees, the same qualification as those scientists you wish to believe are more correct.
This is a project of CFACT, a front for ExxonMobil, Monsanto, and the like. Pro pesticide, pro deforestation, pro anything that's largely polluting industry and requires tons of money and K street lobbyists to get their agenda through without the vast majority of people knowing what's going on.
Check out the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow on ExxonSecrets. It's tied to people who pervade throughout the Exxon, Koch Industries web of groups who are paid to say this crap.
@Grassrootbeer <= Conspiracy theorist. The federal funding for global warming grants exceeds 2 billion dollars a year. No grants no jobs for the scientists you chose to believe in but only the other side could possibly be bought and paid for?
Alot of the supporters of global warming don't understand why the dramatic increase in temperatures did not occur as predicted by their computer models. The reason is that the computers could not predict the cooling effect of clouds. This seems ridiculous to me. Of course if the temperatures rise, the oceans will evaporate and the evaporated water will form clouds. These clouds reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. Common sense to people but the computers couldn't predict it.
Global warming is a bunch of crap.The Government is full of shit The sun drives the weather not man! And carbon dioxide is food for plants.How many more times do we have to see their lies Its all a sham for money the same old thing.Dam money
@RoflmaoAtSheepeople So you believe that the carbon cycle can absorb the excess carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere. If this is true then why is the C12 in the atmosphere increasing?
@doulos1981 Scientists have always known that a warming trend in the climate causes elevated carbon dioxide. Not the other way around. Ice core samples PROVE that the temperatures got warmer before the co2 increases throughout the history of the world. This PROVES that increased co2 is a result of a warming phase, not the cause of it.
@intrepidorator This may be semantics, but CO2 does not cause warming. CO2 is an insulator like in your house. It traps heat. The sun is the primary energy source. During earth's cycles increased heat from the sun can trigger the release of more CO2 and other green house gases. What happens when you turn up the heat and then increase you insulation? This means that human beings dumping billions of metric tons into the atmosphere will probably do something.
@doulos1981 Sure, but the increase in co2 comes from the increase in organic material in the oceans. Not from the minuscule amount that humans produce. It is the natural cycles that we are seeing. You will see a dramatic increase in the solar activity over the next 2 years, so I predict an increase in temperature.
@intrepidorator According to NASA the hottest years on record have been 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997, 1995, 1990, 1991, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1996, and 1987. It will be difficult to beat the hottest year on record in the following year. Second, we put out 36 billion metric tons of CO2 of compared to the 750 billion metric tons by nature. It is small, but it accumulates over time.
@doulos1981 Actually it's the NOAA that keeps the temperature record. Interestingly there is a peer reviewed paper by scientists at the NOAA that concludes the temperature data is "unquantifiable". This paper has not been disproven. With regard to CO2 "accumulating", there have been more than 32 studies of the life of CO2 and none place it above 15 years. It doesn't accumulate that much, at least not in significant levels. After all if it never degraded then why so little CO2 in the air?
@jeepndd I pulled up had three different entities with different rankings: Met Office Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute. The biggest difference is where 1998 fell in their lists: 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. They all agreed on 2010 being the hottest year. Everything else you said requires more research. Could you cite the paper?
@doulos1981 Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.
I hope that this helps you put the climate into perspective.
@doulos1981 The warmest time on record is the medeival warming period. It was warmer then thanit is now. The earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. There is no evidence that the minuscule amount of carbon put out by humans effects the climate in any way. It is mere conjecture, and anyone that tells you different is trying to scare you. The earth will warm further, then it will cool for a time. It is the way nature works.
@doulos1981 The real numbers are that CO2 is compared with total gasses in the atmosphere 0.38%. Of that mankinds contribution of CO2 compared to all other gasses including naturally emitted CO2 is 0.000067%. If we use the UN IPCC numbers. Also as to accumulating CO2 I am aware of 32 studies of the life of CO2 in the atmosphere and the longest life demonstrated was 15 years. You'll have to forgive me but the idea that 0.000067% is significant in anyway I find laughable.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Well, if we accept the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report on climate change, the holy grail of AGW'ers, then mankind's contribution of total carbon dioxide produced each year is two percent overall. Given that carbon dioxide makes up about thirty eight thousands of one percent of all gasses in the atmosphere then two percent of that is sixty seven millions of one percent. Are you saying the International Panel on Climate Change is lying?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Fact, the atmosphere has a CO2 content of approximately .038 percent. Fact mankinds contribution to this is 2%. 2% of .038% is .000067%. Try it on a calculator and you'll see it's fact.
@jeepndd how about you get a calculator and work out how much CO2 emissions are going up each year in the atmopshere. its going up by the same amount as 60% of human emissions.
@doulos1981 Yes but it isn't a significant insulator. It is fifth on the list of gasses with insulating capability and water vapor far out strips it. Since you mentioned the house anology, to blame man made CO2 for global warming is like blaming the nails in a house for it being to warm inside.
@intrepidorator Actually, it could be both. Warming could cause elevated carbon dioxide levels (due to mostly carbon feed back), and carbon dioxide could increase warming (green house effect). It is not "PROVED" that there is a one sided correlation yet.
@stopislamophobia There are many studies that show no causaul effect of co2. It is merely an ignorant belief held by psuedoscientists like Al Gore and Charles Manson.
@intrepidorator And likewise, they have no definitive correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide levels other than historical analysis. Such is the nature of the field of science friend. climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
@stopislamophobia So you are saying that except for what happened in the past there is no evidence of the warming trend occuring before the rise in temperatures. Well Ill agree there is no evidence except for the facts. We all know that the temps are slowly rising, but nowhere near at the rate predicted by the "warmers" the reason that the computer models were inaccurate was because they couldn't compensate for the cooling effects of clouds. I will assume that you understand the water cycle.
@intrepidorator There is NOTHING that says warming causes a CO2 increase in the atmosphere. What would be the mechanism? Magic trees that release CO2 when it gets warmer? How dumb is that?
@idontcare80 I will try and explain this so you can understand.. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, most often caused by solar activity. The evidence clearly shows (through ice core samples) that the temps go up BEFORE the co2 increase. Therefore the co2 has never caused the temp increase. It has never happened. The co2 increase occurs do to the dramatic increase in decaying organic material in the oceans. I hope that this helps you understand.
@intrepidorator The sun just went through a deep solar minimum and all the while the Earth KEPT WARMING. Explain that. We are able to measure CO2 vs temperature IN REAL TIME RIGHT NOW and the warming is following the CO2 increase.
Brontosaurus... um, this error was corrected more than a century ago... have you ever bought a new book? Search PubMed?
burlapshire 1 week ago
Glad to know you have someone with a BA in Mathematics as a "scientist" signing the petition against global warming. What a joke. (Not bashing math, just making a point.)
zmaster1908 1 week ago
full of shit
95699451 3 weeks ago
yup. scientists were wrong about the brontosaurus, but what changed their minds? evidence, the evidence made it look like the brontosaurus was real, until evidence (the comparison to the other two skeletons) exposed this as false.
right now the evidence looks like global warming is real, so where is your evidence that it is not? can you compare it to something that we know exists? can you find flaws in the theory that prove it imposible? can you provide any contrary evidence at all?
panda0100 3 weeks ago
I love how you use dinosaurs to segway into climate science. You could do that with anything. "They're as real as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the Holocaust! There's no scientific consensus on anything, but there's lots of neo-Nazis who claim the Holocaust never happened!"
Or, "They're as real as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or your mom's lady-like graces. There's no scientific consensus on anything, but lots of people have called your mom a slut."
I'd say more, but out of characters.
jlotus100 1 month ago
@DeeAnn2010b wow the fact that you attack people for one error kind of shows you're too ignorant to go after the point and the evidence they present.
AussiePolitics 1 month ago
Hold on a minute... did he just say...
"Consensus doesn't mean truth... in fact there is a 30,000 person consensus stating that global warming is false"?
Anyone else see the irony? Plus, that petition he was talking about... it was an online petition, open to the public which included signatures from great scientists such as... Micky Mouse, Donald Duck, Elvis and John Lennon. FAIL.
I'm slightly skeptical about human induced global warming myself; but this video is misleading.
koolanator 1 month ago
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
Cyb3rstorm 1 month ago
there's no way that this guy is serious
groovysean 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WTF, there's no tooth fairy?
terrycookie 3 months ago
WTF, there's no tooth fairy?
terrycookie 3 months ago
@terrycookie Don't listen to him! Can he prove there is no Tooth Fairy! He is one of those "Atoothfairyists" lol
fake2 2 months ago
How can you state that scientific consenses does not equal truth, yet in the next breath you claim that over 30,000 scientist do not believe in man made global warming; implying that since all these scientists say its not true, it must not really be true.
Jack529Teal 3 months ago
Even though I do believe in the human influence over the global warming, I also believe that the best course of action is de-regulating the industry and ending all subsidies. The government involvement is counter-productive and should stop.
webon60 3 months ago
It's all good until 3:05.
alttaab 4 months ago
Apparently this isn't a parody... o_0 Santa isn't real (insert tears). Because scientists change their theories when presented new facts we can't believe anything they say? Seriously? So the earth is flat, panadol is magic and arsenic is wonderful as a beauty treatment.
Shamiterrific 5 months ago
Brontosaurus - mith as God.
maiabruno 5 months ago
@maiabruno lol i love how you cant spell myth and your insulting Christians and i bet you think were dumb
DeJay17Revolution 4 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution
we're*
nanoday1 2 months ago
Wow. This is pathetic even by YouTube standards.
ClumsyRoot 5 months ago 3
Scientific consensus does not equal truth, in fact scientific consensus agrees with my point of view, so you see, it's the truth. Thanks for citing a document signed by the prominent Dr. Mickey Mouse.
aleksandur 6 months ago
"What a bunch of scientists think isn't necessarily what's true."
"I'm right because a bunch of scientists think so."
ReptoidBoffin 6 months ago
mind explaining how exactly the Brontosaurus didn't exist?
the only thing I came up with is we should called it by a differant name, not that he doesn't exist.
it's like saying "Canda doesn't exists, you are suppose to spell it with a K"
the animal did exist, you just need to call it by a differant name, with respect to the first scientiest that reported about it (and named it).
eyallev 6 months ago
Wow so 188 people believe the Brontosaurus was real? What does that say about them?
jrc99us 6 months ago
This petition your refering too has signatures from Donald Duck and Elvis Presley on it. I didn't know either of those two were actual scientists. Damn you are a moron.
colitisscope 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Must be a troll.
mchitti 7 months ago
The person that made this video might believe in the following:
1) Dinosaurs were actually demons made by Satan to fight in Armageddon. God sent a meteor to take them out, to save us.
2) Dinosaurs don't exist anymore because they were too fat to fit on Noah's arc.
3) "Scientists" have a consensus agreement with the this video (all 38 thousand of them).
Well Brontosaurus aside, I know one that scientists DO have a CONSENSUS on - YOU, SIR, ARE AN IDIOT.
Eriance 7 months ago 15
@Eriance I think its cute...you know how you put words in his mouth
DeJay17Revolution 4 months ago
Had to see this fail.
kenshin304 7 months ago
I'm actually trying to figure out if this is a parody or real
sacrament182 7 months ago 39
@sacrament182 well seeing as how this is the guy who sang at rick perry's super-summer-fun-time-jambery-prayer-lets-all-suck-each-others-dick-a-thon, or NAMBLA for short, im quite certain its real.
whatthefuck386 6 months ago
@sacrament182 you're not the only one man.
Voodooray007 5 months ago
....and seriously, what does 100 year old dinosaur taxonomy have to do with climate change research? Painfully stupid.
dstachon2002 7 months ago
haha ....I like the bit about dissing "scientific consensus" ....then, you turnaround in the next sentence using the 30,000 petition bit. You're a hypocritical and infantile fool!
dstachon2002 7 months ago
172 viewers are real scared of the truth.
GlennRoxWyo 7 months ago
Ah yes the Great Brontosaurus Conspiracy. Luckily it has been nipped in the bud thereby preventing compulsory Brontosaurus Service for all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 30.
pilgrimpater 7 months ago
Edward Current watch out ....
yourfullofsheite 7 months ago
Poor guy. He lives in a fantasy world where he feels his pitiful education matches every highly intelligent scientist who has spent their lives in the field. He needs to grow up. Religion is becoming an embarrassment to humanity.
JabberCT 7 months ago 2
What a tool.
pigdog82414 7 months ago 2
Are you fucking kidding me with this? You clearly didn't check your fucking facts you twat. The "scientific consensus" you speak of was an ONLINE questionnaire and does not accurately represent the scientific community. Do you know how I know this?? Because I checked the facts and I am a fucking scientist.
Amc0203 7 months ago 3
I take it "illuminatitv" doesn't know how to research - Brontosaurus; Elmer Riggs had published a paper in the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum which argued that Brontosaurus was not different enough from Apatosaurus to warrant its own classification - So 1903 was the end of 'Brontosaurus' genus and the bones found in 1877. HOW DO YOU GET MORE THAN 100 YEARS? I make it 26 years?
BaroqueJazzPlays 7 months ago
Either you're ignorant of facts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting facts.
Why do you appeal to scientists' opinions when you say that scientific consensus means nothing? Did the irony of that surpass you? To me it was mind-blowingly ironic...
Norwification 8 months ago
Can't prove a negative.
gmurphy222222 8 months ago
Gravity isn't real. Prove me wrong.
IntrepidStranger 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The atmosphere is a greenhouse gas and we are all addicted to it. It should be banned.
midkanzan 8 months ago
no no no! ... he can't be right! we must hang him or shot him as terrorist he is interfering with my beliefs!
shyawnlinmonk 8 months ago
Great video ! Simply, FACT - the sun causes global warming. FACT - All the planets are warming in our solar system - FACT - Man does not cause global warming.
ReddingPatriots 8 months ago
All global warming droids: Stop equating "global warming", "global climate change", and "man made global warming." These are 3 different things. ONLY one of the three is in question, i.e., "man made global warming." The other two are historical fact, and have come and gone repeatedly. Even if you believe that man's activities are influencing climate, the scientific data proves man's contribution to natural warming is so slight that it must be teased out of the empirical data statistically.
snit33 8 months ago
@snit33 "scientific data proves man's contribution to natural warming is so slight" peer reviewed studies please. here's a history lesson: the difference between an ice age and a warm period is 5-8oC. this typically takes thousands of years to occur and is due to a variety of factors such as solar activity etc. even organisms have changed the climate, in the past plants removed so much CO2 it led to global cooling.
AussiePolitics 8 months ago 2
The brontosaurus analogy sucks because this ain't no trivial error mixing the parts of two actual monsters . The AGW monsters are in fact merely myths .
CoSyBob 8 months ago
Oh, I would love a Project Steve with the global warning theme.
Some reading before talking
myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/research/global/easterbrook_climate-cycle-evidence.pdf
YivenDoc 8 months ago
Comment removed
YivenDoc 8 months ago
Global warming? Please check out greenman3610 on climate.
PaperNun 8 months ago 3
'30,000 scientists' or 0.3% of scientists with degrees in america along. furthermore we have NO WAY of verifying if the people on that list really are scientists and saying scientists like that automatically makes you an expert in climatology is astoundingly ignorant. its like saying 'my gp is a doctor which means he must be qualified to perform brain surgery'
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
@AussiePolitics just like we can't verify the raw data that EA and the IPCC scientist used to make these claims, they refuse to release and now say they lost it. How do you disprove AGW, science is proving and disproving
ppiaseck 8 months ago
@ppiaseck are you really so ignorant as to believe the only evidence for climate change comes from the IPCC??? go type climate change into any of the peer reviewed journals - nature and science are a good place to start. you get over 120,000 published papers. how many can you find that provide evidence supporting your position?
AussiePolitics 8 months ago 2
whoever claims that scientists stop testing theories at some point is either ignorant or lying.
AussiePolitics 9 months ago
The power... OF PETITIONS! Lawl, I don't know, what is this guy? An idiot?
mothersday123 9 months ago
What an idiot.
benxander 9 months ago
Good job twisting logic around your little Christian finger.
ShadowGunner82 9 months ago
If this is a troll... 10/10. I mad.
blee072 9 months ago
The brontosaurus was only recognised as 'real' for a few years before the mistake was corrected. A 'century' is nowhere near that. Stop flat out lying about the actual history of it to get your point across.
ivolol 9 months ago
@ivolol Unfortunately christians cannot put forward their argument without lying. That fact was actually mentioned in the Judge's summing up in the Dover - kitzmuller trial, which decided that I.D was not science.
HonestMan395 9 months ago
Even the link he posts claims that the brontosaurus was disproven by the early 20th century. What a chump!
ExSaint1379 9 months ago
What scientific consensus has ever believed that the brontosaurus? I think you mean that as late as 1989 the US Postal service used a stamp of the brontosaurus, but even by 1903 scientists had reclassified the brontosaurus as an Apatosaurus. Scientific consensus does not mean truth, because science doesn't claim absolutely truth. It just means that it's the best explanation that fits all the facts.
This guy is an idiot beyond belief.
ExSaint1379 9 months ago
Those who agree with Molotov, may I ask you a couple of questions? Can you explain the mechanism described by scientists through which increased carbon dioxide heats the earth? And, if so, can you explain how increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere would NOT lead to an increase in the global mean temperature?
stingernick 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is this a troll video?
terribletrench 9 months ago
Science is about making heeps of money off of people who are less educated than you by scaring them about a fake problem and then coming up with a fake solution.
Sometimes we also come upon truth, if we cant hide it, then it will come out.
XCritonX 9 months ago
Addicted? It's part of the fabric of our current existence. It's not something any of us should be ashamed of no more then we should be ashamed of being human, we've always exploited our environment to one degree or another. When the earth tires of us it will toss out a trump card. Until then it's about managing economies built on hydrocarbons and maintaining commerce at the highest levels (full employment) as best we can. Those without will remain so, to bring them up to 2kw/person/24/7 w
ea32da32 9 months ago
despite whether you believe in climate change or not the fact that the world's countries are addicted to oil is a problem. especially when we by most projestions are halfway through the global oil reserve. either we push forward green technology or we start putting bumper stickers on our bikes.
Mrihateseagulls 9 months ago
Wow, there's some serious stupid going on here.
falcoperegrinus82 10 months ago
I have only one thing to say, fuck you
angrywhenroused 10 months ago
This guy needs to get a tinfoil hat to go with his bat shit crazy conspiracies.
EricTheNihilist 10 months ago
this is parodies right no way this guy can actually believe the spew he is spouting does he
johndebbra 10 months ago
remember when the earth was flat?
brainslurper 10 months ago
3w(dot)theaustralian(dot)com(dot)au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
intrepidorator 10 months ago
Comment removed
idontcare80 10 months ago
Comment removed
idontcare80 10 months ago
Comment removed
idontcare80 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Who? Like Monckton? Also not a climatologist! Most of the scientists in the field that is relevant here agree that global warming is caused by humans, there is no way around that.
idontcare80 10 months ago
I will send you a link with more accurate information 3w(dot)petitionproject(dot)org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150(dot)pdf
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator A petition? Let's see, the first one of these things I went to had almost ZERO climatologists on it and the second had names like Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, John Lennon, Elvis Presley and some of the Spice Girls on it.
I think you'd have to be a moron to trust something that.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 Wrong.. again, There were over 900 PHD's that signed the petition, but thats not what the link went to. it went to evidence that proves that the "warmers" are being misguided. I would hope that you would want to know the TRUTH instead of the "warmer" hysteria. But I may have overestimated you.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator ooops my mistake, there were 9000 PHD's that signed the petition. I now challenge you to find a list of even 100 climatologists that believe in man made global warming. Yes it is a challenge, find a petition or a list, or anything that names even 100 PHD's who believe that the slight warming that we have been experiencing has been caused by man. Just 100 names, I challenge you.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator ...dermatologists are qualified to make any kind of decision about climate change? Also, why don't you people understand that the most powerful corporations in the world have EVERYTHING to lose if consumers suddenly come to the realization that their products could be extremely damaging to our way of life? These are multi BILLION dollar corporations and you don't think they have the power or the will to hire a few shills? If not, then you are nothing other than insane.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 Where is the list, where are your names, I will save you time, I have never seen a list of PHD's that support the man made warming claims. You should just admit that you can not find even 100 climatologists that believe in man made global warming. The problem with the "warmers" is that they believe what the lame left media tells them without question. My policy is to research myself. That is why I don't believe in man made global warming, because I have done research. you should too
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator OHHHHHH NOOOOO... A LIST OF DERMATOLOGISTS SAYS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!!! Then, to add to that, some guy on YouTube has done RESEARCH!!! Freaking RESEARCH!!!! What am I going to do??? I just don't know where to turn now, I'm at my wits end, my whole world is crumbling around me! I'll just have to go search for every thread of right-wing nonsense and except it as truth. All the dentists and gynecologists are right, there is no such thing as anthropogenic global warming!!!
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 lol *accept
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 hmmm.. no list of anyone that has the courage to come out and say that it exists.. An intelligent person would understand what this means. You have been duped by the lame left media, you're just not smart enough to see it. I hope that you will someday stop believing the lies. research for yourself. Don't take my word for it. I can only point you in the right direction. Don't take the "warmers" word for it either, I have done my own research, you should too.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator So this is your final proof? A list of dentists and cartoon characters?
What kind of research would I do? Look into why Mickey Mouse thinks anthropogenic global warming is not happening? Why not just read what ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have to say about the matter?
How about this: You keep reading what the oil companies and Mickey Mouse have to say about this and I will keep listening to the climatologists. Thx bai!!
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 first of all, there are no cartoon characters on the list. The list of petition signers is on the right side of the link that I provided. look at it.. do you see Mickey Mouse.. no you do not.. secondly, your attempt to belittle the SCIENTISTS that signed the petition shows that you have no evidence on your side of the debate. Thirdly.. you can not provide a petition of SCIENTISTS that support the hoax of man made global warming. Not 9000 PHD's, not 900 PHD's, not 90 PHD's, your done
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Google: Snowball Earth
Why isn't the Earth still covered in ice?
There were cartoon characters on the list, they removed them once they came to the attention of the people that had organized the petition.
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
There are MANY scientists that understand the problem of global warming, there just isn't a convenient little list of them. The reason why there isn't a list is because REAL scientists use something called SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to make their points.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 The earth isnt still covered in ice because of the natural cycles in climate. Your too stupid to see that you just made my point. Did man made global warming end the last ice age or cause the medieval warming period? The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling. There is no evidence that shows this warming period is even as warm as the period 1000 years ago. .. By the way.. I know alot about the environment and Im not a climatologist. All you need is curiosity to see
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Ok, so what was it that caused the Earth to warm? What was the mechanism? What causes the cycles? It isn't freaking magic!
Geez I hate arguing with people like you, we already went over the medieval warm period! It was caused by an abnormally high solar maximum! Recently the sun just went through an abnormally LOW solar minimum YET THE EARTH STILL WARMED. This is going to get very tiresome if you just keep forgetting the facts that are presented to you.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@intrepidorator It takes a hell of a lot more than just curiosity to get a PhD in climate science. You don't know even remotely as much as you think you do.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 I know exactly how much I know. i understand my education level and my IQ. You are clearly unable to understand that a person with a PHD in psychology is just as intelligent as a person with a PHD in climatology. I am just as capable of reading a research paper on the subject as the PHD in climatology is. I hope that you can begin to understand.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Ok then, would you go to a dentists to have heart surgery? A gynecologist to be treated for lung cancer? An engineer to get a root canal? You're talking nonsense here.
So back to the facts. What was the mechanism that caused the Earth to warm when it was almost completely covered in ice?
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 No sir... you are using a lame strawman argument.. I would go to a heart surgeon for his advice on many things beside heart surgery. Are you so stupid to believe that a person who is intelligent enough to have a PHD is engineering isn't smart enough to understand a research paper on the climate. Your argument is so foolish that anyone can see through it.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator I'm not misrepresenting your position at all, you are actually saying that you would rather get advice about climate science from a medical doctor rather than a climate scientist! Are you stupid enough to believe that makes any sense at all?
What research paper? Are you talking about the propaganda that was attached to your petition? How obvious a deception is that? That's like McDonald's releasing a "paper" that claims how good their food is for you and you buying into it!
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 You're wrong again. MANY climatologists disagree with the hoax of man made global warming. just because thousands of other intelligent people haven't been fooled (like you have) is no reason to doubt the MANY climatologists that aren't being fooled. I hope that you will begin to understand that there is NO evidence of man being the cause for the minor warming.. Remember what the "warmers" were predicting 20 years ago? Why didn't those cataclysmic predictions occur? Cause its a hoax.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@idontcare80 Michael Asten; First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days.
Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 first dropped in association with the cooling, then rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator You can pretend to understand the "science" of what you're presenting all you want, it's not going to change my mind. You want to know why it wont change my mind? Because, honestly, I don't really give a shit if global warming is a hoax or not. Fossil fuel consumption is a problem, whether it's because of the many kinds of pollution that is released when we burn fossil fuels (mercury, NOx, SO2, etc) or because of it's complete lack of sustainability. I will always side ...
idontcare80 10 months ago 7
@intrepidorator ...with those who seek to better the health of everyone and those who seek sustainable forms of energy.
Seriously, wouldn't you rather see future generations benefit from our decision to move toward sustainable forms of energy rather than take the risk of dealing with a possibly harmful change in climate? I really do want to know what would be so harmful about reducing fossil fuel usage. What are the horrors that await us if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be a hoax?
idontcare80 10 months ago 2
@idontcare80 either we switch slowly now or we are screwed when we run out of oil. no amount of drilling in alaska will change the fact that america has less then 1% of the worlds oil, and uses 30% of the worlds exported oil.
brainslurper 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@intrepidorator Also, you STILL haven't answered my question about Snowball Earth!
idontcare80 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Do you even know what PhD means? Only 0.1% of the people that signed that petition have a background in climatology, that's one TENTH of a percent! If you include all of the signers that have a background in climate change science it's only 0.5%, one half off a percent! The scientists that understand the problem of global warming don't need some neat little list with their names on it because they have the science to back them up! What makes you think dentists or...
idontcare80 10 months ago
hahahahaha
will this guy reply to the pwnage video made about this?
or have we all missed the point and is the guy in the video actualy doing this as a joke?
if he is being serious then he really needs some medical help
BGDPPL 10 months ago
@TheDrunkenCabDriver This is fuck'n hilarious, he didn't even skip a beat! Is this satire?
globalist1789 11 months ago
@TheDrunkenCabDriver
I think you complete missed his point. Never once did he say I believe so because of 30,000 scientist. So good job on your point!
RetardedCinema 11 months ago
this is laughable.
andrewmanford 11 months ago
Thanks bud I forgot CO2 is plant food . Hey look the same old crap on here about deforestaion you ass holes been talking about this bull shit for the last 30 years and the forest down their is bigger then ever STOP TELLING THE people more crap we have had it with you greener types, all you trolls what is EUGENICS your a bunch of mad sicenest If it all gos to hell Ill be a comeing for you nut jobs !2 years in. You can guest the rest
RoflmaoAtSheepeople 11 months ago
@RoflmaoAtSheepeople Your comment is barely intelligible, but from what I can make out you're saying that the rain forests in South America are bigger than ever. That's completely wrong. The rain forests "down there" are shrinking faster than ever and are smaller than they've ever been during human history. In the US, some forests are growing in size but the total forest land area is no where near what is was before humans began logging. Get your facts straight.
idontcare80 11 months ago
@idontcare80 Im sure that you are being taught that in school nowadays, but the truth is that loggers more than replace every tree cut down. Its more like a (cut 1 tree down plant 2) ratio.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator Where did you hear that nonsense? The ONLY places where there is any significant forest recovery are in Europe and the US. Absolutely no law exists anywhere stating that trees have to be replaced if they are cut down except in places where erosion can cause serious problems.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 Logging companies are planting trees on their own. not because of any law. I hope this helps you understand.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator SOME logging companies are replacing trees in VERY limited areas. Trees are not replaced in the vast majority of logging that takes place. Some logging companies even practice sustainable logging, but that is also VERY limited and the wood from those operations is VERY expensive.
idontcare80 10 months ago
In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.
IONIESKYE 11 months ago
Retards trashing science need to communicate their brilliant insights to the public using smoke signals. Don't argue that BS over the internet - that much intense hypocrisy might crash the system.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 11 months ago
Re: "petition project"
Ah, the Oregon Institute Petition. I encourage everyone to learn its infamous history.
Re: Over 30,000 scientists studied all available data..."
All? You don't know that. Also, the petition has no controls - claim a BS degree (or veterinarian/nurse/etc) and presto - you're another "scientist"
Re: "and came to the conclusion that no evidence exists to suggest that man affects the climate"
*No* evidence? They all concluded that? Not even a teeny tiny bit of evidence?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 11 months ago
This video is horrible. You have to be nieve as fuck to listen to this guy or Al Gore.
aaronzvz 11 months ago
@aaronzvz Nieve? I think you mean to say naive.
Arceumon 11 months ago
How does this person have so many thumbs up?
Hoggie6000 11 months ago
Molotov, Here is a VERY informative scientific website done totally for creationists explaining the fraud that is Evolution.
creation.com A large team of scientists both assembled and support the books and information on this website, I hope anyone interested in science will take a close look at this.
darknesssapphire 11 months ago
@darknesssapphire Try this site petition project dot org. Over 30,000 scientists studied all available data and came to the conclusion that no evidence exists to suggest that man affects the climate. You should research both sides and then decide. I did and that is why I am now a skeptic.
jeepndd 11 months ago
The debate is over...global temperature is a non sequitur concept. It makes no sense. if the equator goes down by 25 degrees and the poles go up by 25 degrees, there is NO global warming, but ALL species on earth die... the concept of a global average temperature has no meaningful application in the real world. Localized weather events can have a measurable impact, but they cannot be controlled. control lies with the sun. 2010-2011 winter was brutal on earth and mars, CO2 can't be the cause.
FreedomClause 11 months ago
On the oil you realy need to get out in the feld more.the SUN drives the weather not cow farts ,you know they just want tax and cap the money thats all they want and guys like you to see it they way.They are bull shiting you and many more Its all about the money.
Not 500 squ miles of wind mills to power new york city,Thats 500 by 500 squ miles just 1% that is needed Wake up!
RoflmaoAtSheepeople 11 months ago
Funded by exxon mobil... hmm I wonder what their motives are
jrosenwinkel 11 months ago
If it's settled it isn't science.
jeepndd 11 months ago
@jhdeans What's real science by your definition? Those 30,000 scientists all have science degrees, the same qualification as those scientists you wish to believe are more correct.
jeepndd 11 months ago
FUNDED BY EXXON MOBIL.
elsnerUSA 11 months ago
@elsnerUSA <= Conspiracy theorist.
jeepndd 11 months ago
This is a project of CFACT, a front for ExxonMobil, Monsanto, and the like. Pro pesticide, pro deforestation, pro anything that's largely polluting industry and requires tons of money and K street lobbyists to get their agenda through without the vast majority of people knowing what's going on.
Check out the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow on ExxonSecrets. It's tied to people who pervade throughout the Exxon, Koch Industries web of groups who are paid to say this crap.
Grassrootbeer 11 months ago
@Grassrootbeer <= Conspiracy theorist. The federal funding for global warming grants exceeds 2 billion dollars a year. No grants no jobs for the scientists you chose to believe in but only the other side could possibly be bought and paid for?
jeepndd 11 months ago
Alot of the supporters of global warming don't understand why the dramatic increase in temperatures did not occur as predicted by their computer models. The reason is that the computers could not predict the cooling effect of clouds. This seems ridiculous to me. Of course if the temperatures rise, the oceans will evaporate and the evaporated water will form clouds. These clouds reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. Common sense to people but the computers couldn't predict it.
intrepidorator 11 months ago
Comment removed
intrepidorator 11 months ago
I was heartbroken to learn that the Brontosoros isn't real.
Global warming, not so much.
sirhcskoorb 11 months ago
Global warming is a bunch of crap.The Government is full of shit The sun drives the weather not man! And carbon dioxide is food for plants.How many more times do we have to see their lies Its all a sham for money the same old thing.Dam money
RoflmaoAtSheepeople 11 months ago
@RoflmaoAtSheepeople So you believe that the carbon cycle can absorb the excess carbon that we are putting into the atmosphere. If this is true then why is the C12 in the atmosphere increasing?
doulos1981 11 months ago
@doulos1981 Scientists have always known that a warming trend in the climate causes elevated carbon dioxide. Not the other way around. Ice core samples PROVE that the temperatures got warmer before the co2 increases throughout the history of the world. This PROVES that increased co2 is a result of a warming phase, not the cause of it.
intrepidorator 11 months ago 2
@intrepidorator This may be semantics, but CO2 does not cause warming. CO2 is an insulator like in your house. It traps heat. The sun is the primary energy source. During earth's cycles increased heat from the sun can trigger the release of more CO2 and other green house gases. What happens when you turn up the heat and then increase you insulation? This means that human beings dumping billions of metric tons into the atmosphere will probably do something.
doulos1981 11 months ago
@doulos1981 Sure, but the increase in co2 comes from the increase in organic material in the oceans. Not from the minuscule amount that humans produce. It is the natural cycles that we are seeing. You will see a dramatic increase in the solar activity over the next 2 years, so I predict an increase in temperature.
intrepidorator 11 months ago
@intrepidorator According to NASA the hottest years on record have been 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997, 1995, 1990, 1991, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1996, and 1987. It will be difficult to beat the hottest year on record in the following year. Second, we put out 36 billion metric tons of CO2 of compared to the 750 billion metric tons by nature. It is small, but it accumulates over time.
doulos1981 11 months ago
@doulos1981 Actually it's the NOAA that keeps the temperature record. Interestingly there is a peer reviewed paper by scientists at the NOAA that concludes the temperature data is "unquantifiable". This paper has not been disproven. With regard to CO2 "accumulating", there have been more than 32 studies of the life of CO2 and none place it above 15 years. It doesn't accumulate that much, at least not in significant levels. After all if it never degraded then why so little CO2 in the air?
jeepndd 11 months ago
@jeepndd I pulled up had three different entities with different rankings: Met Office Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute. The biggest difference is where 1998 fell in their lists: 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. They all agreed on 2010 being the hottest year. Everything else you said requires more research. Could you cite the paper?
doulos1981 11 months ago
@doulos1981 Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.
I hope that this helps you put the climate into perspective.
intrepidorator 11 months ago
@doulos1981 As you likely know Youtube doesn't allow URLs. I'm sure you can figure this out. cdiac dot ornl dot gov slash epubs slash ndp slash ushcn slash ndp019 dot html
jeepndd 11 months ago
@doulos1981 The warmest time on record is the medeival warming period. It was warmer then thanit is now. The earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. There is no evidence that the minuscule amount of carbon put out by humans effects the climate in any way. It is mere conjecture, and anyone that tells you different is trying to scare you. The earth will warm further, then it will cool for a time. It is the way nature works.
intrepidorator 11 months ago
@doulos1981 The real numbers are that CO2 is compared with total gasses in the atmosphere 0.38%. Of that mankinds contribution of CO2 compared to all other gasses including naturally emitted CO2 is 0.000067%. If we use the UN IPCC numbers. Also as to accumulating CO2 I am aware of 32 studies of the life of CO2 in the atmosphere and the longest life demonstrated was 15 years. You'll have to forgive me but the idea that 0.000067% is significant in anyway I find laughable.
jeepndd 11 months ago
@jeepndd
Re: "Of that mankinds contribution of CO2 compared to all other gasses including naturally emitted CO2 is 0.000067%."
You don't know what you're talking about. That sentence is complete bull.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 11 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Well, if we accept the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report on climate change, the holy grail of AGW'ers, then mankind's contribution of total carbon dioxide produced each year is two percent overall. Given that carbon dioxide makes up about thirty eight thousands of one percent of all gasses in the atmosphere then two percent of that is sixty seven millions of one percent. Are you saying the International Panel on Climate Change is lying?
jeepndd 9 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Fact, the atmosphere has a CO2 content of approximately .038 percent. Fact mankinds contribution to this is 2%. 2% of .038% is .000067%. Try it on a calculator and you'll see it's fact.
jeepndd 7 months ago
@jeepndd how about you get a calculator and work out how much CO2 emissions are going up each year in the atmopshere. its going up by the same amount as 60% of human emissions.
AussiePolitics 7 months ago
@doulos1981 Yes but it isn't a significant insulator. It is fifth on the list of gasses with insulating capability and water vapor far out strips it. Since you mentioned the house anology, to blame man made CO2 for global warming is like blaming the nails in a house for it being to warm inside.
jeepndd 11 months ago
@intrepidorator Actually, it could be both. Warming could cause elevated carbon dioxide levels (due to mostly carbon feed back), and carbon dioxide could increase warming (green house effect). It is not "PROVED" that there is a one sided correlation yet.
stopislamophobia 10 months ago
@stopislamophobia There are many studies that show no causaul effect of co2. It is merely an ignorant belief held by psuedoscientists like Al Gore and Charles Manson.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator And likewise, they have no definitive correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide levels other than historical analysis. Such is the nature of the field of science friend. climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
stopislamophobia 10 months ago
@stopislamophobia So you are saying that except for what happened in the past there is no evidence of the warming trend occuring before the rise in temperatures. Well Ill agree there is no evidence except for the facts. We all know that the temps are slowly rising, but nowhere near at the rate predicted by the "warmers" the reason that the computer models were inaccurate was because they couldn't compensate for the cooling effects of clouds. I will assume that you understand the water cycle.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator I'll take that assumption about the water cycle as a compliment :+).
stopislamophobia 10 months ago
@stopislamophobia of course..
intrepidorator 10 months ago
hey Molotov, those glasses really make you look smarter...
stopislamophobia 10 months ago
@intrepidorator There is NOTHING that says warming causes a CO2 increase in the atmosphere. What would be the mechanism? Magic trees that release CO2 when it gets warmer? How dumb is that?
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 I will try and explain this so you can understand.. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, most often caused by solar activity. The evidence clearly shows (through ice core samples) that the temps go up BEFORE the co2 increase. Therefore the co2 has never caused the temp increase. It has never happened. The co2 increase occurs do to the dramatic increase in decaying organic material in the oceans. I hope that this helps you understand.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator The sun just went through a deep solar minimum and all the while the Earth KEPT WARMING. Explain that. We are able to measure CO2 vs temperature IN REAL TIME RIGHT NOW and the warming is following the CO2 increase.
idontcare80 10 months ago
@idontcare80 umm no. the facts dont seem to back up your propaganda. Ice core samples ALWAYS show an increase in temp before an increase in co2.
intrepidorator 10 months ago
@intrepidorator If you say so, it still doesn't explain why the temperature increase is following the CO2 as we are CURRENTLY witnessing it.
idontcare80 10 months ago