I'd really like to see more evidence of the 30,000 scientists and what they are scientists in. Coleman himself has no education in the field of climates. Also, to what the other guy was saying, water vapor is also a green house gas.
@nightdriver True. Perhaps if he were we wouldn't have such problems with misinformation. =P The difference between Coleman and Gore, both non-scientists, is that one is generally supported by peer-reviewed literature and the other doesn’t. To make an analogy, its okay if I make claims about heart disease which are supported by most scientists. If I’m making claims that aren’t, though, I’m going to need some solid, peer-reviewed research of my own (and probably some credentials) to support them.
@37712 It's regretful that we couldn't continue this talk, but I understand. I'll just part by saying that Al Gore isn't a scientist, and therefore cannot be a disgrace to science as he has doesn't contribute to the literature on climate change. He's nothing more than a spokesperson for an issue that arose from scientific inquiry. However, he isn't the worst spokesperson AGW could have, as, while he does make mistakes, he oftentimes isn't in error (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth had few errors).
@jaykulls I'd even go one further and say that, in scientific issues where there is a clear consensus of evidence and among scientists, you don't even have opposing sides. In political matters, it's appropriate to do that. In scientific ones, which aren't a matter of opinion, the news shouldn't give equal weight to mainstream scientists and skeptics when skeptics are a very small minority and have little to no evidence in their favor.
@37712 Can't you just look at this video and see how bogus it is? In any balanced interview, you would have one guy for and one against. Then an impartial interviewer. Not an interviewer who has an opinion and the guy he has invited on the show, who agrees with him completely. The old guy isn't even finishing his sentences before the little monkey man is jumping up and down in agreement.
@37712 Just from looking at that page, I don't think it's reliable. Their temperature reconstruction contains no sources and doesn't have a vertical axis scale. I can't find any peer reviewed research published by them. One of them claims to be "one of the top 10 climate scientists in the world for 4 decades." One appears to be a local weather forecaster. They don't even have wikipedia pages. I can't see how such a "famous" "climate scientist" would have never published in his field.
@37712Also, the “scientists” on the page misunderstand Milanovitch cycles. As I mentioned previously, the earth’s tilt and orbit are out of phase. The last time this happened, an interglacial lasted 30,000 years as a result. As this was without added CO2 from rapid emissions increases. These people are just trend chasing and repeating misinformation rather than doing real science.
@37712 The link you offered is just common debunked myths thin on actual science. The Heat Island effect isn’t an issue, as proven by analyses including the Berkley paper I referenced above. They just making guesses based on trends. They provide no physical mechanism for their 100yr long cycles. Whether or not it’s true, there has to a physical cause that drives cycles. They cite cold periods as times of low solar activity. However, TSI started decreasing in the 60s. Despite this, it warmed.
@37712 As for the numbers on CO2 increase, read the entirety of the report on the NOAA’s website. It gave an explanation of how we know that nature’s emissions aren’t increasing (due to changes in % of certain carbon isotopes), and raw data for its observatories can be found in other parts of the website.
@Biofoolz sorry for the late reply but as I had said for some reason youtube does not tell me when you reply to my comments, don't know why. unfortunately i will have to end our debate mainly because of my the amount of time this debate is taking away from my work and my studies. sorry.
@37712 It isn’t true that we haven’t seen warming in the past 200 years. The recent Berkley paper (soon to be published) by Muller et al. confirmed the surface temperature record (news.bbcimg.co.u k/media/images/56197000/gif/_56197115_climate_change_624gr.gif), but this isn’t new knowledge by any measure. We have seen definitive warming since the 1800s. If you don’t believe it, use a resource like woodfortrees.o rg to plot a trend.
@37712 You’re also wrong about scientists not comparing past climate change. Paleo records provide lots of information on climate sensitivity, and many papers have been published on them. That entire video was based on that whole idea. Google “Paleoclimate Implications for human-Made Climate Change (Hansen and Sato) if you don’t believe me. You’re just making stuff up.
@37712 Our pollution levels are not decreasing. While we’ve made progress on aerosol emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase: esrl.noaa.g ov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
@37712 Here's some of the references you requested:
Determination of different sources of CO2 (from NOAA): htt p: //tin yu rl.c om/3k2hxw5
More CO2 measurement info: htt p: //tin yu rl .c om/3fc5qyh
The AGU link I posted previously (in case you can't find it): htt p: //tin yu rl.c om/ybng2vu
As for runaway warming, you're right that it would seem to be impossible. Watch the aGU video, as it explains the carbon cycle. This link also is helpful: htt p: //sks. to/runaway
@Biofoolz good links and video, full of good and decent info although I dough ill be able to retain all of it =/.
here is my main point and argument regarding global warming being real or not, as stated by the IPCC we have only had and average of .6 C degree increase in the past 100 years, that alone can hardly be considered climate change or global warming, and is is not going to get any worse. at least not because of
@Biofoolz us humans and that is because of the fact that we are currently on a fast decline on the amount of pollution that we emit, not because we want to, but because cant, we already passed peak oil in 1947and since then production has been declining at a steady rate of 9% per year. next in line for pollution is coal optimistically predicted to peak in 2025 note that i said optimistically. next is natural gas not yet properly estimated for peak but produces considerably less pollution. also
@Biofoolz if you do the math for the past 200 years to present day regarding average temperature we have not even had an increase in temperature so there fore we can not even state that global warming is happening or will happen, the fact that polar ice caps are melting is just part of a normal cycle of the earths atmosphere. I would like you to take a look at this link regarding a more broad view of climate change and tell me what you think.
@37712 Polar bears didn't just appear on the scene 200 years ago. They developed over hundreds of thousands of years and SURVIVED. Now they are seriously threatened. You might want to pull your head out of the sand or even better yet, your ass.
@Biofoolz also you never included a link of where you got your numbers of how many gigatons of co2 are produced and absorbed, can you please include it I wish to read it.
@37712 Funnily enough, the orbital changes can be answered by the same AGU link I posted earlier (please watch it--I swear it's both interesting and beneficial :P). If you'd rather a text source than a video, search "Milankovitch Cycles" on Wikipedia for starters. You don't really need a scientific paper to understand them. They aren't really new research, and you can probably find a good explanation in a textbook or on a reliable science website.
@37712 If you watch that video of Richard Alley at the AGU (and I recommend it--it's really interesting), it will answer the "why does CO2 lag temperature" question in more detail. If nothing else, though, visit this link: htt p ://sks .t o/lag <- That website explains this and other climate myths in a factual and unbiased manner.
As for your question about the physical explanation for the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, that's something I don't know much about. I'll try to find out, though.
@Biofoolz logycaly if temperature releases co2 and co2 increases temperature then it would be a never ending cycle and we would already be dead, but this does not happen therefore there must be a different force responsible for increases in temperature.
can you please include link to the research where you quote co2 release and absorption of land and vegetation, and also where you get the data for orbital changes effect on co2.
@37712 CO2 traps and re-emit at the wavelength of infrared light (heat), but lets light through. This has been known since about the 1850s (google "John Tyndall"). It's not just based on theory or models. It has and can be measured.
CO2 lagged temperature in the past because it acted as a feedback. Orbital changes triggered warming, which made the oceans release some of their CO2 (kinda like how a soda become less fizzy in the heat, but a bit more complicated). The extra CO2 amplified warming.
@37712 Nature and the oceans both emit and absorb CO2. Land and vegetation currently emit 439 gigatons of CO2 each year, but they absorb 450 gigatons. The oceans emit 332 gigatons, but absorb 338. So, the net result is that nature pulls 17 gigatons out of the air. The problem is that human emissions throw this cycle out of balance. We emit 29 gigatons per year, meaning atmospheric levels are increasing.
This graphic explains carbon emissions nicely: ht tp : //ti ny u rl. c om/66zl7g5
Also, discussion of climate science in an unbiased manner can be found on sites like Skeptical Science. If you're more interested, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that can be read online. But really, a wikipedia entry isn't a bad place to start. Climate science is really interesting once you get past all the disinformation.
@247FreedomOps@37712 No. CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and vegetation as part of a global cycle. Without human emissions, nature would be absorbing just a bit more than it emits. However, human emissions cause this cycle to til, and more CO2 is being released than can be stored. CO2 levels are well measured from locations like Mauna Loa.
If either of you is interested in CO2 and its effects, this video is interesting: ww w. agu. o rg /meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.sht ml
@37712 My apologies if I misunderstood/misstated your point. My "paranoia" comment was related to the post in which you implied a government/media conspiracy. We can stick purely to the science rather than the integrity of different groups of you like.
To give a more complete answer on the lifespan on CO2, the time varies. Some gets pulled out of the atmosphere, into oceans within ~30 yrs, some in as little as 5 yrs, but a portion can remain for thousands--much longer than GGs like water vapor.
@Biofoolz I never implied a government media conspiracy just stated the point that you should not believe everything the media and government tell you... or anyone else for that matter. you should always question everything even the status quo. how much or what percent of CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans, live organisms and atmosphere in general? and how much of it remains to make any impact on the atmosphere? and how do you know that CO2 can remain for thousands of years in the atmosphere?
@Biofoolz co2 does not get stored it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and organisms for example a plant to produce oxygen, co2 does not get stored. it is also my understanding by comparing charts that co2 does not increase temperature, when comparing temperature and co2 releases in to the atmosphere on an equal time frame you will notice that temperature rises first and then co2 follows. ps: for some reason youtube is not alerting me of your replies =/
Plants, Trees, Grass, etc use CO2 to create Oxygen. If there was too much CO2 wouldn't there be too much Oxygen. This is nothing more than a total scam to implement Carbon Tax. Now China is selling Eugenic Abortions as Carbon Credits. Why do people feel the need to support these wealthy elite Globalist bent on world domination?
@37712 You also don't seem to understand the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere. After it reaches the atmosphere, it can stay there on a timescale of thousands of years. Beyond that, there's an energy imbalance in the earth, meaning there is warming "in the pipeline" that we have yet to see but will see regardless of how we react. So we've already committed to quite a bit of warming (due to our GG emissions) even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases now. Please educate yourself.
@Biofoolz I am not denying your claim and I don't understand what makes you think or what qualifies you to tell me that I am suffering general paranoia. neither am I attacking you. If anything provide me with your sources so that I may read them, as I am always trying to educate myself on every subject I can. since you seem to be more informed about the subject then please tell me what causes the carbon to stay in the atmosphere for so long, because i suspect that if that was the case
@37712 You can't just deny facts I present. There were only 7 papers presented during that time. Global cooling would have happened as a result of aerosol levels in he atmosphere, but due to the Montreal Accord and other factors aerosol emissions were reduced and their cooling effect less pronounced. If you don't believe me, read some of those papers you believe support your point. You appear to be exhibiting a severe example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as well as general paranoia.
@37712 From 1965 to 1979, there were 7 papers published predicting global cooling. 42 papers were published during that time that predicted warming. And those cooling papers were based on a prediction of high aerosol levels in the future (aerosols cause cooling). Aerosol emissions dropped in the time following, though. So your point is completely wrong. Even the scientists that predicted cooling did so for reasons that are now irrelevant.
@Biofoolz my point is not wrong because my point is about not believing everything that the government in conjunction with the media want you to believe. the global freezing situation was from the 1950's to the 1980's and much more research was made in to the subject than just those 7 papers. then they got hyped up by the media, and again it was government and government funded institutions who where supporting the global freezing point, it was the private institutions who where against it.
When scientists receive government funding, they are required to tell the public what the government wants the public to hear, and nothing else. So their research has to be geared to validate the claims of the powers that be. To legitimatize propaganda, in other words. Otherwise, they lose the funding.
That is the condition for receiving government money.
@jaykulls they just fear to challenge the status quo established by the government, the UN, several polotical parties, and the media which has been feeding this lie to the world. for them it's like tring to say that the world is round when the church and its people say that the world is flat. Therefore, they just play it on the safe side in the impossible event that global warming might have some validation.
@37712 So why is there not a single credible organisation that rejects it? Climate change scepticism is akin to crop circle believers or moon landing skeptics.
@jaykulls I just answered your question with my previous comment so why are you asking again, and where are you getting your information to validate your skepticism claims or is this just your opinion.
@37712 I looked into all the skeptics claims and all their stupid videos. They guy in this video blows some air out and then says, "see, harmless". Someone should lock him in an airtight room and ask him how harmless co2 is.
@37712 This guy isn't even a scientist. He is an ankor that does the wheather. And to say scientists are afraid to go up against the status quo is just so stupid it can't be put into words.
@jaykulls I never said scientists where afraid to go against the status quo I said scientific organizations, an entire organization would rather stay neutral than to have to deal with political and social problems for taking a position in the argument, and yes he is just a weather man but can you say the same thing for all the other 30k + scientists. by the way there are several scientific organisation and institutions that openly call global warming a hoax. Google it! get ur facts straight.
@jaykulls sorry for some reason you tube did not warn me about your last reply before you said "I rest my case". I had a hard time choosing a good quality reputable institution among several which openly state that global warming is a hoax. Good reputable institutions would be George Marshall Institute, Global Climate Coalition, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Greening Earth Society, among many many others, as I said Google it get your facts straight.
@37712 G.M Institute also reject the belief that passive smoking is a health hazard and that cfc's effect the ozone layer. Global Climate Coalition no longer exists and was a product of oil companies. The Oregon Institude use Pre 2000 data and have been so debunked it's not funny. Tell me, what do you think happens to the billions of tonnes of carbon we dig out of ground then burn?
@jaykulls they obviously release CO2, but how does this make a difference on the argument. you are telling me something I already know. tell me something why should we believe the same story again and again, back in 1970 government and government supported institutions where saying that there was going to be a global cooling and that the planet was freezing now they are saying there is global warming. if anything for the past 100 yrs the planet has increased an average of 1 degree.
@jaykulls and as i said before there are several reputable organisations/institutions denying GW. I did not present you to the best of them but you can look them up online, if you so wish.
@37712 You actually did present the best of them. And it took you two weeks to find them. All you need to do is look at the record of temperatures presented publicly ever day. (no conspiracy there) and you will see an obvious warming trend. Their is far too much real evidence anyway, ie; melting ice caps, rising oceans etc..
@jaykulls as i have said in my previous comment I did not know you had replied so don't make stuff up. second it did not take me 2 weeks not even one day to find these organizations, it took me about 3 min or 4 Google searched to find them. third the planet is in constant change it will not have big ice caps forever and it did not have big ice cams several years ago that is normal climate change and it is part of our planets climate cycle.
@37712 It took thousands of millions of years for all the oil and coal to be formed. What, and you think you can release all of that in 200 years while cutting down whole rainforests, with no effect on the atmosphere at all? You and all the other skeptics don't believe it, not because you can't add up but because it suits you not to.
@jaykulls I think you got me all wrong I am only neutral to this argument I am not really in favor or against it. truth is both sides have presented evidence, the side in favor of GW has presented faulty and manipulated data several times, therefore one can safely assume they cannot be trusted, as for the other side their data only concludes that no significant change will occur or has occurred. Second, I don't see how it suits us best to deny something as important as GW if it was real.
@jaykulls third, carbon is one of the most natural and important substances in the universe and it is very easily diluted and broken down by the atmosphere and the environment. fourth have we really crossed the line where we can no longer challenge the argument so you try to stereotype the people who deny it by calling them skeptics as if they where crazy, if so than this debate of ours is no longer constructive for us.
@jaykulls lastly, human race has already crossed peak oil in 1970, and we are nearing the end of the worlds oil supplies, therefore we no longer have to worry much about the argument since oil is the main pollutant followed by coal (optimistically peak coal is estimated for 2025), and natural gas. whether GW is real or not, we have already passed through the worse, and nothing happened, and according to the data nothing will happen earth will continue its natural temperature cycles.
@37712 I may as well be arguing with a creationist. So where does the co2 go? You don't seem to be able to answer that question, although I expect the answer to be pretty funny.
@jaykulls just so you know I am an Atheist, and as I said co2 gets used up and absorbed by the environment in different ways by plants, water, and other materials and forms of life, this is a question that even middle school kids can answer, so why are you asking this? are you sure you are in the right position to even argue about global warming being real maybe you should do more research on the subject, not just watch some you tube videos.
@jaykulls again you just seem to be incapable of challenging my arguments but you keep challenging me, why is that? you are leading me to believe that you are running out of ideas to support your argument.
@jaykulls if my statement or response is wrong in any way then why don't you present me with the right information or proof of the contrary like i have done with your arguments. second, you already know where CO2 goes it does not stay in the atmosphere forever and if it did we would have already be dead because of the massive amounts of co2 released in to the atmosphere each year.
@37712 Ok, fare enough. The problem with presenting my argument, is that it relies on the information from the scientists who have actually done all the research. I've been following the topic for years and have become pretty tired of peoples futile attemps to discredit something that is probably the greatest challenge mankind has faced. All the people you quote were proven to be unscrupulous, using old data and outright lies. The only losers are oil and coal, they have to lie because it is true
@37712 I should also point out that youtube is not really the right forum to discuss such a lengthy issue. I should also point out that youtube is a mecca for disinformation. The main argument seems to be that the scientists are worried about their jobs and funding. This is rubbish. They would be getting the funding, no matter their conclusions. The fact is we are pumping more Co2 into the air than the enviroment can deal with. 3% more per annum.
@jaykulls research by some of those scientist you say have done all the research has been shown to be faulty some of that faulty research is even quoted on this video, will you deny that as well? using old data is not the wrong thing to do in fact using as much data as possible from as far back to present day would be the best, as you would be able to compare it to present data, and that is what they did. I agree that oil and carbon CO. are the losers here as we have already crossed peak oil
@jaykulls and we will be crossing peak coal very soon as I have previously stated. I have not quoted any people in specific but if you are referring to the organisations i do not see how you can call them unscrupulous if their research has been true and not manipulated. I understand that youtube is not the place for this but it stated here =/ not much i can do. the main argument was never about funding, I have only mention the issue about funding once in one of my first replies some time ago.
@jaykulls I am sorry to say this but the government does in fact pressure and remove funding to institutions which do not express or share their same view in any subject, a good example of this is when scientists mention divine intervention on their work as a way to express their concern about the incredible complexity of a cell and how it could occur in nature, scientists have been know to be fired for including such a frase in their research. were are you getting your data regarding the 3%
@jaykulls fourth you supposedly obvious warming trend is nothing more than a lie in the past 100 years the world has only increased less than one degree Celsius 0.6 degrees to be exact how is that any change at all if anything that 0.6 degree change is nothing more than a data error. again, why should we believe the same story from the same people who have been wrong in the past.
most research supporting global warming is in fact based and supported by bad data and/or bad science a good example are the reports produced by the IPCC while on the other hand research denying global warming by private institutions has yet to be proven wrong in any way, shape or form. why is it that private institutions are the ones providing the data? well that is because government has and will continue to cut funding to any and all programs or institutions opposing GW this is a known fact.
while on the other hand if you support GW the government will open up billions of dollars in funding, and they get to choose in which programs will their funding be allocated. I would also like you to note that the government has been known to pressure reputable institutions which they have been funding to fire those employees who do not support or state publicly they views against GW or the institution will risk loosing government funding.
@37712 That is just bullshit. And people who claim devine intervention are trying a theory that is about as stupid as believing in the easter bunny. My advice to you is to find out what science is and how it works. Any theory always has it's sceptics within the scientific community, ie; other scientists. When results are published, they get peer reviewed. If an idea gos against or cant include all the observable data. It gets laughed out of town by, yes, other scientists. Not the case hear.
@jaykulls as I said I am an atheist therefore i agree with you regarding the dumb logic behind their theory but that was only to to give you another example of gov. cutting funding and pressuring institutions which do not express their same views on subjects of their interests, again this is a known fact, but in any case this is not the main point of our debate. in you last sentence you basically summarized very well, regarding the fact that data slightly supporting GW is from only resent
@jaykulls years while data opposing GW dates back from 400,000 years of recorded temperature to present day. in any case it is obviously the logical decision to compare what is the normal behavior of the earth's temperature and so when you compare them you will see that there has been no change what so ever regarding temperature rising and falling. scientist supporting GW do not compare their resent data with historical data to compare and see what would be normal fluctuations in temperature.
@37712 No. Can kids really make it through school without knowing this shit? All these sceptic "scientists" are fucking freaks. Lord Monkton was caught flat out making shit up. Look this up, "Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1".
@37712 I don't see how this guy you are talking about is relevant to our debate he is not even a scientist and I have never heard of him in my entire life, there fore his opinion and his input is invalid, but the issue here is that you are trying to stereotype again, you are trying to include all who oppose GW in the same group as this guy even if they do have valid input, research and proper academic achievements.
I just want to mention that the guy on the left says, "It's just like water vapor!" Maybe he doesn't realize that water vapor is considered one of the top Greenhouse gases. And it's not just CO2- other compounds too. We've been burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years, but not at this rate of consumption. I'd listen to this more if the men were both better informed of the other side. The best way to have a good argument is to understand the opposing one.
@beancube2010 they killed electric cars because they were an epic failure 13 years ago... but if you've been following, they've brought them back and a little better this time.
mate, using a name like this on youtube shows how predictable some of you right wing dumb cunts are, make fun of the name all you like cause it always seems to distract you from any decent rebuttal from the point I was making. You are promoting a man who is a glorified PR rep for ExxonMobil who's work is heavily disputed in every peer reviewed publication. Good luck to Coleman in suing Al Gore for um..not debating him? shit, & here I was thinking you had a right to refuse to talk to someone...
Anyone who makes up their mind before they see the issue or the evidence at hand, is a fucking idiot. And you are a fucking idiot. Go find a fire, and die in it.
@burnzorz I didn't make up up my mind before seeing the evidence. You're really mad, bro and you're only tempting me to think the opposite of what you believe.
GOOGLE> WHEN THIS IS OVER and BY GOD IT WILL BE says JOhn Joseph O'Brien :-) WHEN IT'S OVER I WILL NEVER EVER HAVE TO CATCH AND EXPOSE A GANG OF SATANIC HOMOSEXUAL GOD HATING POLITICIANS HIDING BEHIND FAKE NAMES ON THE INTERNET EVER AGAIN FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE says JOHN JOSEPH O'BRIEN :-)
/\
GOOGLE > BET GOD ON "IT" says John Joseph O'Brien :-)
@StevenBee2I would love to know how you came to that conclusion, it's well known that anything that's anti-global warming doesn't get pubicised because media outlets want to keep the myth alive. 30 000 actual scientists say global warming is not happening,
@TheBlackRose1991 You would love to know how I came to what conclusion? That Fox News has no credibility? There is overwhelming evidence that show this as plainly obvious. You can easily find this information for yourself and, if after reviewing this evidence you still trust Fox News, there is absolutely nothing I can possibly say to deter your stance, so why bother?
@StevenBee2the scientists who say it is, as research into the names on the reports from places like the EU will tell you; the most qualifications most of these scientists have is "GCSE" in science, and they are paid off by the governments to say what they want.
@TheBlackRose1991 What an absurd idea. Every scientist in the world is paid off by their individual governments throughout time to keep the Great Global Warming Conspiracy going, and the only ones who know the real truth are a handful of agricultural, medical, and computer scientists in the US who watch Fox News. I have no idea what you're talking about saying that only unqualified scientists say it's true.Most trade schools (even some in the US) have diploma programs including global warming
@APerson79 I not once said all scientists are paid off. But it's well known that things like research grants and the sorts are hung above their heads. Almost like hanging a treat above a dog's head and saying, beg. I have done countless hours of research about the global warming debate and I have heard the evidence from both sides. Al Gore's research has more holes in it than swiss cheese :D but in all honesty, I fail to believe global warming is man made.
global warming was an excuse both to make a new global religion and put ridiculuos taxes on the rainwater light bulbs and cows flatuluence. In fact if the logic of global warming theory is to be belived they could put a tax on our breathing and may well try to before its all said and done.
I used to be in charge of a carbon offsetting programme for a major UK distribution company in the mid-2000s. After a couple of years, the board found out the whole scheme we were part of (supposedly planting trees in Bolivia) was non-existent & fired me for ‘incompetence’.
However, they had to pay for my silence with 2 years’ salary and a fantastic reference as they didn’t want the bad PR to get out. From what I hear on the grapevine, I think most offsetting schemes are like this...
This petition John Coleman made is over 12 years old. Many of those who signed it has died by old age, but they are still on the list. Most of the signers were doctors, dentist's, engineers or had other proffesions that wasn't relevant for the subject. Also, if 31000 American(!) "scientists" says it's a hoax, doesn't mean that the rest of the world does so. You can't just listen to what one nation says! I'm not saying that Global Warming is real, but Global Climate Change is!
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
Goreleony's plans of vast wealth on a long worked on scam look a little more bleak these days. He should work more in Europe where this type of scam is easier to pull off. Would not try it in S America though, I here they call environmentalists water melons there (green on the outside, red in the middle)!
Global temperature at its warmest ever, NASA scientist says
The global temperature this year reached its warmest on record based on a 12-month rolling average, James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said yesterday.
What are people contesting here? The world is warming up. There is no debate about that. It is having, and will have huge negative impacts on our planet. The ONLY question that anyone can argue is whether we can do anything about it.
John Coleman should talk to old Geo Prof. Bob Carter. Any youtubers that are interested should search YT for Bob Carter part 1, you may learn a lot of truths.
@aus2045 and a great place to start at ww w.logicalscience.c o m/skeptics/bobcarter.html this man is a fraud with a huge conflict of interest. Mate you need to dig a little deeper for fucks sake you spew out lines like that without even taking the time to realise the man you are promoting is a member of Institute for Public Affairs. They get their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry.
Deep cores suggest the Antarctic has a much more dynamic history than previously suspected — one that could signal an abrupt shrinkage of its ice sheets at some unknown greenhouse gas threshold, possibly starting in this century.
Scientists have discovered a fast-moving deep ocean current with the volume of 40 Amazon Rivers near Antarctica that will help researchers monitor the impacts of climate change on the world's oceans.
all i know is al gore and bill gates are not scientists or weathermen.. they are extremely rich though... and they have a lot of influence...... and they are spreading propaganda..
man made global warning is a proven hoax.. all this talk about carbon is nonsense.. dont fall for the lie.. they are using it to try and unite the world in the NWO.. but just like 9/11 people will keep on believing what the "officals" tell us... regardless of what other experts there are.. other scientists or eyewitnesses.. just ignore all the evidence...
The biggest threat to mankind is the thinking behind so called AGW .when 2500 scientists say yes and 31000 scientists say no what does that tell us about our so called democracy?
Viewers should consider the basic dishonesty of this video. There is no lawsuit, only a handful of scientists who doublt global warming, not 30,000- a number pulled out of the air. Look at the tags: shadow government bilderberg group cia exposed skull & bones whistleblower constitution police state september 11 terrorist attack usama bin laden george bush caught lying world trade center wtc 7 new world order rockefeller family rothschild dynasty. Conspiracies everywhere! OMG!
I'd really like to see more evidence of the 30,000 scientists and what they are scientists in. Coleman himself has no education in the field of climates. Also, to what the other guy was saying, water vapor is also a green house gas.
mrnevernice 1 month ago
This has been debunked.
darliegoddess 1 month ago
@darliegoddess
What?
Nonpeon 1 month ago
I love that they put 30 "." 000 instead of 30 "," 000. So funny.
turbojb 2 months ago
Note: "doesn't" should have been "isn't."
Biofoolz 2 months ago
@nightdriver True. Perhaps if he were we wouldn't have such problems with misinformation. =P The difference between Coleman and Gore, both non-scientists, is that one is generally supported by peer-reviewed literature and the other doesn’t. To make an analogy, its okay if I make claims about heart disease which are supported by most scientists. If I’m making claims that aren’t, though, I’m going to need some solid, peer-reviewed research of my own (and probably some credentials) to support them.
Biofoolz 2 months ago
LOL at the host saying CO2 is no different from "basic water vapor." Someone needs to retake a high school chemistry course.
Biofoolz 3 months ago
@37712 It's regretful that we couldn't continue this talk, but I understand. I'll just part by saying that Al Gore isn't a scientist, and therefore cannot be a disgrace to science as he has doesn't contribute to the literature on climate change. He's nothing more than a spokesperson for an issue that arose from scientific inquiry. However, he isn't the worst spokesperson AGW could have, as, while he does make mistakes, he oftentimes isn't in error (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth had few errors).
Biofoolz 3 months ago
@Biofoolz John Coleman isn't a scientist either.
nightdriver 2 months ago
@jaykulls I'd even go one further and say that, in scientific issues where there is a clear consensus of evidence and among scientists, you don't even have opposing sides. In political matters, it's appropriate to do that. In scientific ones, which aren't a matter of opinion, the news shouldn't give equal weight to mainstream scientists and skeptics when skeptics are a very small minority and have little to no evidence in their favor.
Biofoolz 3 months ago
The debate is over.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls this guy is no different from Al Gore they both share the same reputation and they are both a disgrace to science in general.
37712 3 months ago
@37712 Can't you just look at this video and see how bogus it is? In any balanced interview, you would have one guy for and one against. Then an impartial interviewer. Not an interviewer who has an opinion and the guy he has invited on the show, who agrees with him completely. The old guy isn't even finishing his sentences before the little monkey man is jumping up and down in agreement.
jaykulls 3 months ago
@37712 Just from looking at that page, I don't think it's reliable. Their temperature reconstruction contains no sources and doesn't have a vertical axis scale. I can't find any peer reviewed research published by them. One of them claims to be "one of the top 10 climate scientists in the world for 4 decades." One appears to be a local weather forecaster. They don't even have wikipedia pages. I can't see how such a "famous" "climate scientist" would have never published in his field.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712Also, the “scientists” on the page misunderstand Milanovitch cycles. As I mentioned previously, the earth’s tilt and orbit are out of phase. The last time this happened, an interglacial lasted 30,000 years as a result. As this was without added CO2 from rapid emissions increases. These people are just trend chasing and repeating misinformation rather than doing real science.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 The link you offered is just common debunked myths thin on actual science. The Heat Island effect isn’t an issue, as proven by analyses including the Berkley paper I referenced above. They just making guesses based on trends. They provide no physical mechanism for their 100yr long cycles. Whether or not it’s true, there has to a physical cause that drives cycles. They cite cold periods as times of low solar activity. However, TSI started decreasing in the 60s. Despite this, it warmed.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 As for the numbers on CO2 increase, read the entirety of the report on the NOAA’s website. It gave an explanation of how we know that nature’s emissions aren’t increasing (due to changes in % of certain carbon isotopes), and raw data for its observatories can be found in other parts of the website.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@Biofoolz sorry for the late reply but as I had said for some reason youtube does not tell me when you reply to my comments, don't know why. unfortunately i will have to end our debate mainly because of my the amount of time this debate is taking away from my work and my studies. sorry.
37712 3 months ago
@37712 It isn’t true that we haven’t seen warming in the past 200 years. The recent Berkley paper (soon to be published) by Muller et al. confirmed the surface temperature record (news.bbcimg.co.u k/media/images/56197000/gif/_56197115_climate_change_624gr.gif), but this isn’t new knowledge by any measure. We have seen definitive warming since the 1800s. If you don’t believe it, use a resource like woodfortrees.o rg to plot a trend.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 You’re also wrong about scientists not comparing past climate change. Paleo records provide lots of information on climate sensitivity, and many papers have been published on them. That entire video was based on that whole idea. Google “Paleoclimate Implications for human-Made Climate Change (Hansen and Sato) if you don’t believe me. You’re just making stuff up.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 Our pollution levels are not decreasing. While we’ve made progress on aerosol emissions, atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase: esrl.noaa.g ov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 Here's some of the references you requested:
Determination of different sources of CO2 (from NOAA): htt p: //tin yu rl.c om/3k2hxw5
More CO2 measurement info: htt p: //tin yu rl .c om/3fc5qyh
The AGU link I posted previously (in case you can't find it): htt p: //tin yu rl.c om/ybng2vu
As for runaway warming, you're right that it would seem to be impossible. Watch the aGU video, as it explains the carbon cycle. This link also is helpful: htt p: //sks. to/runaway
Biofoolz 4 months ago
Comment removed
37712 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Biofoolz good links and video, full of good and decent info although I dough ill be able to retain all of it =/.
here is my main point and argument regarding global warming being real or not, as stated by the IPCC we have only had and average of .6 C degree increase in the past 100 years, that alone can hardly be considered climate change or global warming, and is is not going to get any worse. at least not because of
37712 4 months ago
@Biofoolz us humans and that is because of the fact that we are currently on a fast decline on the amount of pollution that we emit, not because we want to, but because cant, we already passed peak oil in 1947and since then production has been declining at a steady rate of 9% per year. next in line for pollution is coal optimistically predicted to peak in 2025 note that i said optimistically. next is natural gas not yet properly estimated for peak but produces considerably less pollution. also
37712 4 months ago
Comment removed
37712 4 months ago
@Biofoolz if you do the math for the past 200 years to present day regarding average temperature we have not even had an increase in temperature so there fore we can not even state that global warming is happening or will happen, the fact that polar ice caps are melting is just part of a normal cycle of the earths atmosphere. I would like you to take a look at this link regarding a more broad view of climate change and tell me what you think.
longrangeweather.c om/global_temperatures.h tm
37712 4 months ago
@37712 Normal cycle huh! Tell that to the polar bears who are drowning.
blabblab1212 1 week ago
@37712 Polar bears didn't just appear on the scene 200 years ago. They developed over hundreds of thousands of years and SURVIVED. Now they are seriously threatened. You might want to pull your head out of the sand or even better yet, your ass.
blabblab1212 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blabblab1212 If anyone would like a clear understanding of the e-mails released. Google: John Costello, Climategate.
MrOTLChamp 4 days ago
@Biofoolz also you never included a link of where you got your numbers of how many gigatons of co2 are produced and absorbed, can you please include it I wish to read it.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 Funnily enough, the orbital changes can be answered by the same AGU link I posted earlier (please watch it--I swear it's both interesting and beneficial :P). If you'd rather a text source than a video, search "Milankovitch Cycles" on Wikipedia for starters. You don't really need a scientific paper to understand them. They aren't really new research, and you can probably find a good explanation in a textbook or on a reliable science website.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 If you watch that video of Richard Alley at the AGU (and I recommend it--it's really interesting), it will answer the "why does CO2 lag temperature" question in more detail. If nothing else, though, visit this link: htt p ://sks .t o/lag <- That website explains this and other climate myths in a factual and unbiased manner.
As for your question about the physical explanation for the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere, that's something I don't know much about. I'll try to find out, though.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@Biofoolz logycaly if temperature releases co2 and co2 increases temperature then it would be a never ending cycle and we would already be dead, but this does not happen therefore there must be a different force responsible for increases in temperature.
can you please include link to the research where you quote co2 release and absorption of land and vegetation, and also where you get the data for orbital changes effect on co2.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 CO2 traps and re-emit at the wavelength of infrared light (heat), but lets light through. This has been known since about the 1850s (google "John Tyndall"). It's not just based on theory or models. It has and can be measured.
CO2 lagged temperature in the past because it acted as a feedback. Orbital changes triggered warming, which made the oceans release some of their CO2 (kinda like how a soda become less fizzy in the heat, but a bit more complicated). The extra CO2 amplified warming.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 Nature and the oceans both emit and absorb CO2. Land and vegetation currently emit 439 gigatons of CO2 each year, but they absorb 450 gigatons. The oceans emit 332 gigatons, but absorb 338. So, the net result is that nature pulls 17 gigatons out of the air. The problem is that human emissions throw this cycle out of balance. We emit 29 gigatons per year, meaning atmospheric levels are increasing.
This graphic explains carbon emissions nicely: ht tp : //ti ny u rl. c om/66zl7g5
Biofoolz 4 months ago
* that should have been "tilt" rather than "til."
Also, discussion of climate science in an unbiased manner can be found on sites like Skeptical Science. If you're more interested, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers that can be read online. But really, a wikipedia entry isn't a bad place to start. Climate science is really interesting once you get past all the disinformation.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@247FreedomOps @37712 No. CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and vegetation as part of a global cycle. Without human emissions, nature would be absorbing just a bit more than it emits. However, human emissions cause this cycle to til, and more CO2 is being released than can be stored. CO2 levels are well measured from locations like Mauna Loa.
If either of you is interested in CO2 and its effects, this video is interesting: ww w. agu. o rg /meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.sht ml
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 My apologies if I misunderstood/misstated your point. My "paranoia" comment was related to the post in which you implied a government/media conspiracy. We can stick purely to the science rather than the integrity of different groups of you like.
To give a more complete answer on the lifespan on CO2, the time varies. Some gets pulled out of the atmosphere, into oceans within ~30 yrs, some in as little as 5 yrs, but a portion can remain for thousands--much longer than GGs like water vapor.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@Biofoolz I never implied a government media conspiracy just stated the point that you should not believe everything the media and government tell you... or anyone else for that matter. you should always question everything even the status quo. how much or what percent of CO2 gets absorbed by the oceans, live organisms and atmosphere in general? and how much of it remains to make any impact on the atmosphere? and how do you know that CO2 can remain for thousands of years in the atmosphere?
37712 4 months ago
@Biofoolz co2 does not get stored it gets absorbed by the atmosphere and organisms for example a plant to produce oxygen, co2 does not get stored. it is also my understanding by comparing charts that co2 does not increase temperature, when comparing temperature and co2 releases in to the atmosphere on an equal time frame you will notice that temperature rises first and then co2 follows. ps: for some reason youtube is not alerting me of your replies =/
37712 4 months ago
Plants, Trees, Grass, etc use CO2 to create Oxygen. If there was too much CO2 wouldn't there be too much Oxygen. This is nothing more than a total scam to implement Carbon Tax. Now China is selling Eugenic Abortions as Carbon Credits. Why do people feel the need to support these wealthy elite Globalist bent on world domination?
247FreedomOps 4 months ago
@37712 You also don't seem to understand the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere. After it reaches the atmosphere, it can stay there on a timescale of thousands of years. Beyond that, there's an energy imbalance in the earth, meaning there is warming "in the pipeline" that we have yet to see but will see regardless of how we react. So we've already committed to quite a bit of warming (due to our GG emissions) even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases now. Please educate yourself.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@Biofoolz I am not denying your claim and I don't understand what makes you think or what qualifies you to tell me that I am suffering general paranoia. neither am I attacking you. If anything provide me with your sources so that I may read them, as I am always trying to educate myself on every subject I can. since you seem to be more informed about the subject then please tell me what causes the carbon to stay in the atmosphere for so long, because i suspect that if that was the case
37712 4 months ago
@Biofoolz then we would already be dead by the massive amounts of co2 released in to the atmosphere each year.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 You can't just deny facts I present. There were only 7 papers presented during that time. Global cooling would have happened as a result of aerosol levels in he atmosphere, but due to the Montreal Accord and other factors aerosol emissions were reduced and their cooling effect less pronounced. If you don't believe me, read some of those papers you believe support your point. You appear to be exhibiting a severe example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as well as general paranoia.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@37712 From 1965 to 1979, there were 7 papers published predicting global cooling. 42 papers were published during that time that predicted warming. And those cooling papers were based on a prediction of high aerosol levels in the future (aerosols cause cooling). Aerosol emissions dropped in the time following, though. So your point is completely wrong. Even the scientists that predicted cooling did so for reasons that are now irrelevant.
Biofoolz 4 months ago
@Biofoolz my point is not wrong because my point is about not believing everything that the government in conjunction with the media want you to believe. the global freezing situation was from the 1950's to the 1980's and much more research was made in to the subject than just those 7 papers. then they got hyped up by the media, and again it was government and government funded institutions who where supporting the global freezing point, it was the private institutions who where against it.
37712 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People please save America and yourself, vote RON PAUL 2012!!
xingwei12 5 months ago
Fox is not real news, seconded
Nightversionn 5 months ago
When scientists receive government funding, they are required to tell the public what the government wants the public to hear, and nothing else. So their research has to be geared to validate the claims of the powers that be. To legitimatize propaganda, in other words. Otherwise, they lose the funding.
That is the condition for receiving government money.
DaveGibbagglers 6 months ago 4
@DaveGibbagglers NO, that is not how science works.
jaykulls 4 months ago
"Whatever is put on Fox News is not real news."
- Family Guy
MrLightningEagle 7 months ago 6
@MrLightningEagle haha you musta been thumbs upped by a bunch of 14 year olds since that's the main demographic of that show
KilowattBeats 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrLightningEagle 7 months ago
Not one single scientific organisation rejects global warming. Some scientists believe in creationism, think about it.
jaykulls 7 months ago
@jaykulls they just fear to challenge the status quo established by the government, the UN, several polotical parties, and the media which has been feeding this lie to the world. for them it's like tring to say that the world is round when the church and its people say that the world is flat. Therefore, they just play it on the safe side in the impossible event that global warming might have some validation.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 So why is there not a single credible organisation that rejects it? Climate change scepticism is akin to crop circle believers or moon landing skeptics.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls I just answered your question with my previous comment so why are you asking again, and where are you getting your information to validate your skepticism claims or is this just your opinion.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 I looked into all the skeptics claims and all their stupid videos. They guy in this video blows some air out and then says, "see, harmless". Someone should lock him in an airtight room and ask him how harmless co2 is.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@37712 This guy isn't even a scientist. He is an ankor that does the wheather. And to say scientists are afraid to go up against the status quo is just so stupid it can't be put into words.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls I never said scientists where afraid to go against the status quo I said scientific organizations, an entire organization would rather stay neutral than to have to deal with political and social problems for taking a position in the argument, and yes he is just a weather man but can you say the same thing for all the other 30k + scientists. by the way there are several scientific organisation and institutions that openly call global warming a hoax. Google it! get ur facts straight.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 Name one.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@37712 I rest my case.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls sorry for some reason you tube did not warn me about your last reply before you said "I rest my case". I had a hard time choosing a good quality reputable institution among several which openly state that global warming is a hoax. Good reputable institutions would be George Marshall Institute, Global Climate Coalition, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Greening Earth Society, among many many others, as I said Google it get your facts straight.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 G.M Institute also reject the belief that passive smoking is a health hazard and that cfc's effect the ozone layer. Global Climate Coalition no longer exists and was a product of oil companies. The Oregon Institude use Pre 2000 data and have been so debunked it's not funny. Tell me, what do you think happens to the billions of tonnes of carbon we dig out of ground then burn?
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls they obviously release CO2, but how does this make a difference on the argument. you are telling me something I already know. tell me something why should we believe the same story again and again, back in 1970 government and government supported institutions where saying that there was going to be a global cooling and that the planet was freezing now they are saying there is global warming. if anything for the past 100 yrs the planet has increased an average of 1 degree.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls and as i said before there are several reputable organisations/institutions denying GW. I did not present you to the best of them but you can look them up online, if you so wish.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 You actually did present the best of them. And it took you two weeks to find them. All you need to do is look at the record of temperatures presented publicly ever day. (no conspiracy there) and you will see an obvious warming trend. Their is far too much real evidence anyway, ie; melting ice caps, rising oceans etc..
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls as i have said in my previous comment I did not know you had replied so don't make stuff up. second it did not take me 2 weeks not even one day to find these organizations, it took me about 3 min or 4 Google searched to find them. third the planet is in constant change it will not have big ice caps forever and it did not have big ice cams several years ago that is normal climate change and it is part of our planets climate cycle.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 It took thousands of millions of years for all the oil and coal to be formed. What, and you think you can release all of that in 200 years while cutting down whole rainforests, with no effect on the atmosphere at all? You and all the other skeptics don't believe it, not because you can't add up but because it suits you not to.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls I think you got me all wrong I am only neutral to this argument I am not really in favor or against it. truth is both sides have presented evidence, the side in favor of GW has presented faulty and manipulated data several times, therefore one can safely assume they cannot be trusted, as for the other side their data only concludes that no significant change will occur or has occurred. Second, I don't see how it suits us best to deny something as important as GW if it was real.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls third, carbon is one of the most natural and important substances in the universe and it is very easily diluted and broken down by the atmosphere and the environment. fourth have we really crossed the line where we can no longer challenge the argument so you try to stereotype the people who deny it by calling them skeptics as if they where crazy, if so than this debate of ours is no longer constructive for us.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls lastly, human race has already crossed peak oil in 1970, and we are nearing the end of the worlds oil supplies, therefore we no longer have to worry much about the argument since oil is the main pollutant followed by coal (optimistically peak coal is estimated for 2025), and natural gas. whether GW is real or not, we have already passed through the worse, and nothing happened, and according to the data nothing will happen earth will continue its natural temperature cycles.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 I may as well be arguing with a creationist. So where does the co2 go? You don't seem to be able to answer that question, although I expect the answer to be pretty funny.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls just so you know I am an Atheist, and as I said co2 gets used up and absorbed by the environment in different ways by plants, water, and other materials and forms of life, this is a question that even middle school kids can answer, so why are you asking this? are you sure you are in the right position to even argue about global warming being real maybe you should do more research on the subject, not just watch some you tube videos.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls again you just seem to be incapable of challenging my arguments but you keep challenging me, why is that? you are leading me to believe that you are running out of ideas to support your argument.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 Well. I can't use any science in my argument as you reject it all. WHERE DOES THE CARBON DIOXIDE GO?????????????????????
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls if my statement or response is wrong in any way then why don't you present me with the right information or proof of the contrary like i have done with your arguments. second, you already know where CO2 goes it does not stay in the atmosphere forever and if it did we would have already be dead because of the massive amounts of co2 released in to the atmosphere each year.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 Ok, fare enough. The problem with presenting my argument, is that it relies on the information from the scientists who have actually done all the research. I've been following the topic for years and have become pretty tired of peoples futile attemps to discredit something that is probably the greatest challenge mankind has faced. All the people you quote were proven to be unscrupulous, using old data and outright lies. The only losers are oil and coal, they have to lie because it is true
jaykulls 4 months ago
@37712 I should also point out that youtube is not really the right forum to discuss such a lengthy issue. I should also point out that youtube is a mecca for disinformation. The main argument seems to be that the scientists are worried about their jobs and funding. This is rubbish. They would be getting the funding, no matter their conclusions. The fact is we are pumping more Co2 into the air than the enviroment can deal with. 3% more per annum.
jaykulls 4 months ago
Comment removed
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls research by some of those scientist you say have done all the research has been shown to be faulty some of that faulty research is even quoted on this video, will you deny that as well? using old data is not the wrong thing to do in fact using as much data as possible from as far back to present day would be the best, as you would be able to compare it to present data, and that is what they did. I agree that oil and carbon CO. are the losers here as we have already crossed peak oil
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls and we will be crossing peak coal very soon as I have previously stated. I have not quoted any people in specific but if you are referring to the organisations i do not see how you can call them unscrupulous if their research has been true and not manipulated. I understand that youtube is not the place for this but it stated here =/ not much i can do. the main argument was never about funding, I have only mention the issue about funding once in one of my first replies some time ago.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls I am sorry to say this but the government does in fact pressure and remove funding to institutions which do not express or share their same view in any subject, a good example of this is when scientists mention divine intervention on their work as a way to express their concern about the incredible complexity of a cell and how it could occur in nature, scientists have been know to be fired for including such a frase in their research. were are you getting your data regarding the 3%
37712 4 months ago
Comment removed
37712 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaykulls fourth you supposedly obvious warming trend is nothing more than a lie in the past 100 years the world has only increased less than one degree Celsius 0.6 degrees to be exact how is that any change at all if anything that 0.6 degree change is nothing more than a data error. again, why should we believe the same story from the same people who have been wrong in the past.
37712 4 months ago
most research supporting global warming is in fact based and supported by bad data and/or bad science a good example are the reports produced by the IPCC while on the other hand research denying global warming by private institutions has yet to be proven wrong in any way, shape or form. why is it that private institutions are the ones providing the data? well that is because government has and will continue to cut funding to any and all programs or institutions opposing GW this is a known fact.
37712 4 months ago
while on the other hand if you support GW the government will open up billions of dollars in funding, and they get to choose in which programs will their funding be allocated. I would also like you to note that the government has been known to pressure reputable institutions which they have been funding to fire those employees who do not support or state publicly they views against GW or the institution will risk loosing government funding.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 That is just bullshit. And people who claim devine intervention are trying a theory that is about as stupid as believing in the easter bunny. My advice to you is to find out what science is and how it works. Any theory always has it's sceptics within the scientific community, ie; other scientists. When results are published, they get peer reviewed. If an idea gos against or cant include all the observable data. It gets laughed out of town by, yes, other scientists. Not the case hear.
jaykulls 4 months ago
@jaykulls as I said I am an atheist therefore i agree with you regarding the dumb logic behind their theory but that was only to to give you another example of gov. cutting funding and pressuring institutions which do not express their same views on subjects of their interests, again this is a known fact, but in any case this is not the main point of our debate. in you last sentence you basically summarized very well, regarding the fact that data slightly supporting GW is from only resent
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls years while data opposing GW dates back from 400,000 years of recorded temperature to present day. in any case it is obviously the logical decision to compare what is the normal behavior of the earth's temperature and so when you compare them you will see that there has been no change what so ever regarding temperature rising and falling. scientist supporting GW do not compare their resent data with historical data to compare and see what would be normal fluctuations in temperature.
37712 4 months ago
@jaykulls there fore they only have a small amount of data to try and formulate an accurate theory.
37712 4 months ago
@37712 No. Can kids really make it through school without knowing this shit? All these sceptic "scientists" are fucking freaks. Lord Monkton was caught flat out making shit up. Look this up, "Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1".
jaykulls 4 months ago
@37712 I don't see how this guy you are talking about is relevant to our debate he is not even a scientist and I have never heard of him in my entire life, there fore his opinion and his input is invalid, but the issue here is that you are trying to stereotype again, you are trying to include all who oppose GW in the same group as this guy even if they do have valid input, research and proper academic achievements.
37712 3 months ago
Oh, wait was this a joke video...
Haha... Sorry fir taking this seriously everyone.
I disregard my last comment.
mailstamps 8 months ago
I just want to mention that the guy on the left says, "It's just like water vapor!" Maybe he doesn't realize that water vapor is considered one of the top Greenhouse gases. And it's not just CO2- other compounds too. We've been burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years, but not at this rate of consumption. I'd listen to this more if the men were both better informed of the other side. The best way to have a good argument is to understand the opposing one.
mailstamps 8 months ago
Fox News is a joke. As long as it is Islam, they would burn down their own homes.
beancube2010 10 months ago
If global warming is real why would they kill electric cars?
If global warming is not real why would the weather change so drastically?
We all know global warming is not a science yet, where are people who studying Sun spots who know how much heat it sends lately?
Should the upper layers of the atmosphere be damaged by CO2 instead of shielding radiation and heat instead?
beancube2010 10 months ago
@beancube2010 they killed electric cars because they were an epic failure 13 years ago... but if you've been following, they've brought them back and a little better this time.
shred5 8 months ago
@beancube2010
WOW OK YOUR 1 STEP AWAY.
The planets are heating up.
WOW OUR CARS ARE HEATING PLUTO UP? YEAH OF COURSE
lgndarymeth 8 months ago
Climate change is a fact but not the fault of humans.
atchisrj1 10 months ago
@atchisrj1 Is it the fault of the universe? We should blame gods instead, right?
beancube2010 10 months ago
mate, using a name like this on youtube shows how predictable some of you right wing dumb cunts are, make fun of the name all you like cause it always seems to distract you from any decent rebuttal from the point I was making. You are promoting a man who is a glorified PR rep for ExxonMobil who's work is heavily disputed in every peer reviewed publication. Good luck to Coleman in suing Al Gore for um..not debating him? shit, & here I was thinking you had a right to refuse to talk to someone...
massivefuckwitt 10 months ago
This proves Global Warming. Fox lies.
Truth118 11 months ago
@Truth118
Anyone who makes up their mind before they see the issue or the evidence at hand, is a fucking idiot. And you are a fucking idiot. Go find a fire, and die in it.
burnzorz 10 months ago
@burnzorz I didn't make up up my mind before seeing the evidence. You're really mad, bro and you're only tempting me to think the opposite of what you believe.
Truth118 10 months ago
@Truth118
trolled softly.
burnzorz 10 months ago
This is great! Follow the money.... problem-reaction-solution.. Carbon tax based on fear propaganda!
markerf16 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOOGLE> WHEN THIS IS OVER and BY GOD IT WILL BE says JOhn Joseph O'Brien :-) WHEN IT'S OVER I WILL NEVER EVER HAVE TO CATCH AND EXPOSE A GANG OF SATANIC HOMOSEXUAL GOD HATING POLITICIANS HIDING BEHIND FAKE NAMES ON THE INTERNET EVER AGAIN FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE says JOHN JOSEPH O'BRIEN :-)
/\
GOOGLE > BET GOD ON "IT" says John Joseph O'Brien :-)
\/
FUCK YOU AL GORE says John Joseph O'Brien
TKTRV 11 months ago
I thought this shit has been debunked?
There is no 30,000 "scientists".
Moreover, where's the sue?
watch greenman, he copiously documented and debunk this lie.
Fox lies!
kazearaki 11 months ago
I love this man.
PrinceMio49 1 year ago
"Fox is the only cable network that will put us on the air". They just lost all credibility... global warming has to be true.
StevenBee2 1 year ago
@StevenBee2I would love to know how you came to that conclusion, it's well known that anything that's anti-global warming doesn't get pubicised because media outlets want to keep the myth alive. 30 000 actual scientists say global warming is not happening,
TheBlackRose1991 1 year ago
@TheBlackRose1991 You would love to know how I came to what conclusion? That Fox News has no credibility? There is overwhelming evidence that show this as plainly obvious. You can easily find this information for yourself and, if after reviewing this evidence you still trust Fox News, there is absolutely nothing I can possibly say to deter your stance, so why bother?
APerson79 1 year ago
@StevenBee2the scientists who say it is, as research into the names on the reports from places like the EU will tell you; the most qualifications most of these scientists have is "GCSE" in science, and they are paid off by the governments to say what they want.
TheBlackRose1991 1 year ago
@TheBlackRose1991 What an absurd idea. Every scientist in the world is paid off by their individual governments throughout time to keep the Great Global Warming Conspiracy going, and the only ones who know the real truth are a handful of agricultural, medical, and computer scientists in the US who watch Fox News. I have no idea what you're talking about saying that only unqualified scientists say it's true.Most trade schools (even some in the US) have diploma programs including global warming
APerson79 1 year ago
@APerson79 I not once said all scientists are paid off. But it's well known that things like research grants and the sorts are hung above their heads. Almost like hanging a treat above a dog's head and saying, beg. I have done countless hours of research about the global warming debate and I have heard the evidence from both sides. Al Gore's research has more holes in it than swiss cheese :D but in all honesty, I fail to believe global warming is man made.
TheBlackRose1991 1 year ago
red eye is fukin sh it it is awful i hope this guy gets stomach cancer
but atleast they brodcasted this
benoitdidnotdoit 1 year ago
global warming was an excuse both to make a new global religion and put ridiculuos taxes on the rainwater light bulbs and cows flatuluence. In fact if the logic of global warming theory is to be belived they could put a tax on our breathing and may well try to before its all said and done.
crusader855 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
ssmaxx 1 year ago
Wow... that corporate propaganda to a new level.
TheHumanCannon 1 year ago
That's why the poles are melting! Oh Fox News! That's all I need to know.
blabblab1212 1 year ago
I used to be in charge of a carbon offsetting programme for a major UK distribution company in the mid-2000s. After a couple of years, the board found out the whole scheme we were part of (supposedly planting trees in Bolivia) was non-existent & fired me for ‘incompetence’.
However, they had to pay for my silence with 2 years’ salary and a fantastic reference as they didn’t want the bad PR to get out. From what I hear on the grapevine, I think most offsetting schemes are like this...
SuperTruth77 1 year ago
How about we just reduce our emissions for the fun of it and to maybe save a little money?
theravendemon 1 year ago 7
@theravendemon good call!
tdavies456 1 year ago
All I have to say is Fox News enough said...
mt51784 1 year ago
Nightversionn ... after the sea level rises 4 feet, then Gort will come ...
stephenstiles2 1 year ago
Climate change news for serious people...
.
Satellite Beach plans to be ready for rising sea levels
.
Samsons Island's roads could be swamped and stormwater ponds overflowing by 2100 if sea level rises 4 feet or higher, according to a recent study.
.
Melbourne Florida Today
Florida
4 September 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
These people are crackpots. That's why no one wants to talk to them.
jarmbru 1 year ago
This Man is Mean Ignorant and Silly!! (THUMBS UP)!
...and the fox guy is a total fag....
BreadStoneburn 1 year ago
@BreadStoneburn Couldn't agree more:)
comicozy87 1 year ago
also most of the scientists arn't even climatologists, they include sciences that have nothing to do with agw.
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
This petition John Coleman made is over 12 years old. Many of those who signed it has died by old age, but they are still on the list. Most of the signers were doctors, dentist's, engineers or had other proffesions that wasn't relevant for the subject. Also, if 31000 American(!) "scientists" says it's a hoax, doesn't mean that the rest of the world does so. You can't just listen to what one nation says! I'm not saying that Global Warming is real, but Global Climate Change is!
GoSiv1 1 year ago
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
Chrisfre 1 year ago
Goreleony's plans of vast wealth on a long worked on scam look a little more bleak these days. He should work more in Europe where this type of scam is easier to pull off. Would not try it in S America though, I here they call environmentalists water melons there (green on the outside, red in the middle)!
vincentkjones1 1 year ago
Global temperature at its warmest ever, NASA scientist says
The global temperature this year reached its warmest on record based on a 12-month rolling average, James Hansen, the top climate change scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said yesterday.
BLOOMBERG NEWS
June 3, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
What are people contesting here? The world is warming up. There is no debate about that. It is having, and will have huge negative impacts on our planet. The ONLY question that anyone can argue is whether we can do anything about it.
Jantles 1 year ago
@Jantles
totaly agree with u
Cunelito 1 year ago
I'm still waiting for the next ICE AGE that I was taught in the 70's and 80's ???
svagrod 1 year ago
John Coleman should talk to old Geo Prof. Bob Carter. Any youtubers that are interested should search YT for Bob Carter part 1, you may learn a lot of truths.
aus2045 1 year ago
@aus2045 and a great place to start at ww w.logicalscience.c o m/skeptics/bobcarter.html this man is a fraud with a huge conflict of interest. Mate you need to dig a little deeper for fucks sake you spew out lines like that without even taking the time to realise the man you are promoting is a member of Institute for Public Affairs. They get their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry.
massivefuckwitt 10 months ago
@massivefuckwitt ,,, I think any credability in your argument went away once I read your Name. It says it all really.
aus2045 10 months ago
test
nickschor 1 year ago
Climate science in the news
'''Geologists find troubling signs'''
Deep cores suggest the Antarctic has a much more dynamic history than previously suspected — one that could signal an abrupt shrinkage of its ice sheets at some unknown greenhouse gas threshold, possibly starting in this century.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
April 20, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
Climate change in the news
Deep ocean current off Antarctica found
Scientists have discovered a fast-moving deep ocean current with the volume of 40 Amazon Rivers near Antarctica that will help researchers monitor the impacts of climate change on the world's oceans.
REUTERS
April 26, 2010
Nightversionn 1 year ago
You just know that no respectable scientist would appear on a intellect-depraved show like "Red Eye".
frankystein12 1 year ago
another conspiracy debunked...
the earth is NOT ROUND, goggle it !! ITS ALL A LIE.
The earth is DONUT shaped , the most STABLE SHAPE in the universe.
Castorios 1 year ago
fuck fox news
matiashakala 1 year ago
basic chemistry- 200 plus years of pollution has impacted our
climate
sfisherboy 1 year ago
@sfisherboy Yea, and the Cow jumped over the Moon !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
when have 6 billion people been on the planet?
what we did in the past is very different
fighting with a gun wont kill the human race... nuke's and dirty bombs can
if we r wrong,,we leave the planet in better shape for our children
y did bush shut nasa up about global warming?
martind586 1 year ago
all i know is al gore and bill gates are not scientists or weathermen.. they are extremely rich though... and they have a lot of influence...... and they are spreading propaganda..
natruto 2 years ago
man made global warning is a proven hoax.. all this talk about carbon is nonsense.. dont fall for the lie.. they are using it to try and unite the world in the NWO.. but just like 9/11 people will keep on believing what the "officals" tell us... regardless of what other experts there are.. other scientists or eyewitnesses.. just ignore all the evidence...
natruto 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The biggest threat to mankind is the thinking behind so called AGW .when 2500 scientists say yes and 31000 scientists say no what does that tell us about our so called democracy?
This may alarmingly be the bigger issue at stake.
monicabrsgooglemail 2 years ago
Viewers should consider the basic dishonesty of this video. There is no lawsuit, only a handful of scientists who doublt global warming, not 30,000- a number pulled out of the air. Look at the tags: shadow government bilderberg group cia exposed skull & bones whistleblower constitution police state september 11 terrorist attack usama bin laden george bush caught lying world trade center wtc 7 new world order rockefeller family rothschild dynasty. Conspiracies everywhere! OMG!
sanphaka04 2 years ago
the newsguy atleast really dosent seem to know what hes talking about.
Uuuuurk 2 years ago
The obvious bias in Fox News and misinterpretation of science is mind-numbing.
cheeseylemon 2 years ago