@j0hnwi11iams This, sir, is a woeful distortion of what climate skeptics are saying. We're saying that you're ignoring the scientific proxy studies that show the opposite of what alarmists say. The studies showing greater temperature ranges for the last millenium are numerous and don't show any significant correlation with co2 levels.
The Earth has been cycling between warming and cooling since bacteria started reproducing on this planet. These same scientists that are NOW saying global warming said it was global cooling in the 70's and were predicting we would have a glacier ice sheet down to the Dakotas by the year 2000. We have barely gotten out of the little Ice Age that started in the 1300's. This is all a mute point, Mans effect on the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who gets to steer.
@cupera1 Wow. I guess the fact that warming and cooling have been occurring since Earthly processes began is totally over the head of scientists and completely make the quantum mechanics that the greenhouse effect and global warming is based off of obsolete right? And thank god you mentioned the 70s, even though the cooling was due to an increase in aerosols, a completely different thing from the greenhouse effect, I was about to start believing. try paying attention to science, not propaganda.
it is NOT A GAME, while climate change is real, it is a natural occurrence, and has nothing to do with humans.
you however ARE playing a game, you and your ilk are the ones to be feared as you all will eventually go to ANY lengths to ENFORCE your manipulation of the world.
You talk down about creationism, you blast anyone who doesnt buy anthropogenic global warming. you wonder why people chafe at such BS when you my friend are part of a HUGE money making religion. honestly, if al gore thought parts of new york are going to be under water soon, why the hell did he buy a flat there? or what about his 9mil flat in Montecito CA? I guess he figures the sea level will only rise on one coast or the other. the term "sheep" is tossed around alot these days....
Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports—including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.
Conversily, the similarity between the creationist nuts and the climate alarmists is that they both use questionable interpretations to try and get the government to force peaceful individuals into doing something they don't want to: teach creation in schools and steal some of the fairly earned product of their labour. Where the climate legislation has been heading is a lot scarier than teaching creation in schools. Ya, that's right, I know your game.
But you have to admit that mixing the data types (using proxies in the past and instruments now) and representing them as being the same is very dishonest.
I agree that we should be concerned about warming. The world has always, and will always, change. We will have to live through an ice age one day, if we are lucky enough to survive as a species that long.
However, questioning the cause of warming is nothing like questioning the evidence of evolution. Not even close. If anything, I would say your dismissal of any evidence against CO2 caused warming is more creationist-like in it's inhibition of the advancement of science.
If I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't have posted a video proving that fact.
You tried so desperately to tie warming skeptics to creationists. Well, you pretty much fumbled around there rolling your eyes because you knew yourself that it was a feeble attempt at getting your point on some kind of footing, so why did you even try it?
When the warmers manipulated the data, the cat was out of the bag. Give it up or continue to be the idiot that time will prove you are.
Do you people have ZERO logical/critical thinking ability? You people meaning AGCC drones. Please take some time to think through the results of the EXTREMELY dramatic efforts being recommended to battle the CO2 boogeyman. Kindly explain to me what happens when you are successful in sending us back to living as nomads where the only CO2 produced by humans comes from the air we exhale. What then? THE CLIMATE WILL STILL CHANGE!!! It will be better for us all to learn to adapt to climate change.
You stress that we must do something, which would be cap and trade. Unfortunately for you those nations that have the best environmental policy, and I mean heavy metals, solvents etc. are those countries that are wealthy and consume a lot of coal and oil. Cap and trade is going to severely weaken the industry in this country. Businesses will not have the same fiscal freedom and need to use their resources to get things done cheaper, cutting corners, creating greater REAL pollution
PS...I had Micheal Mann as a professor when he was at UVA. Those senior scientists who were tenured, ie geophysicists who have been studying climate for decades, warned of this hysteria. They pointed out that these young so called scientists such as Mann are looking at there data with extreme bias because all their research money come from environmental policy groups, funding sources not looking for objective interpretations but a story that will push there agenda.
Thank you for your excellent appraisal of (creationist style) climate change deniers tactics.
Other tactics I'd include are; Manipulation of data (Martin Durkin), barefaced lies (Christopher Monckton), political extremism (James Inhofe), bizarre self publicity (Alex Jones), theft (CRU emails), muddying the waters on behalf of the oil and coal industry (the Heartland Institute) ...
I am a scientist and understand the science behind AGW. I am also very aware of the shit passed off as proof by the right wing media that it is some kind of hoax. The ignore the vast body of evidence and focus all their attention on the flaws. I am skeptical of anything the right wing has to say.
Please tell me how an increase in carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. or how paying A tax to Al gore and Marty Straum to fund their plans for A world government will help AGW if in fact it is real. I am not A scientist, but to my understanding Carbon Dioxide is A foundation of what we call our atmosphere. Isn't this the same as trying to outlaw DiHydrogen Monoxide?
What about "He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. " did you not understand?
Perfectly :- it's spin recent warming can simply be explained in terms of recent rise in solar activity and Kevin Trenberth's worry about recent lack of it can be explained by more recent decrease in solar act. Then again it might smly be Bond cycle tha aught to be peaking about now. Time will tell.
@gerjanp Spoken like a true creationist. What about the IR absorbtion properties of CO2 we have known about since 1824? If you claim that the sun is responsible for the observed warming then what is counteracting the known forcing from increased CO2? If you claim CO2 is not forcing the climate then you will have to re-write modern physics, starting with spectral analysis and working your way through to the quantum mechanical description of radiative energy transfer via photons.
No, what AGW skeptics are saying is we are not willing to lose MORE of our liberties MORE of our $ to support this hypothesis. I find it very telling how often AGW alarmist bring up creationism. You seem to have made a religion out of AGW. Cap&Trade is a colossal power grab of epic proportions and AGWers are naive.
Cap & Trade was the attempt to make it more appealing to capitalists by invoking the market in the solution. Unfortunately a simple tax would have worked better. Cap and Trade is a boondoggle and a giveaway to wall street speculators.
I'm sorry but tree ring size from strip bark bristlecone pines is NOT a temperature proxy and it in effect due to the weighting given them are the sole "proxy" Michael Mann used. It's not just imperfect it's false because they showed cooling rather than the recent warming. Your attempt at comparison with creationist argument fools no-one but yourself.
Let me ask you something do you wake up and worry everyday that you may die? Clearly, you have no idea when you are going to die, so why worry about that every second. This is a typical human response, worrying about the unknown. There are several things we don't know and we get along just fine. Because the proxies have problems that doesn't mean we should panic. I would rather not be sure then go on false data based on imperfect proxies, which you clearly admit have problems.
If by "panic" you mean take useful and meaningful action in a responsible timeframe, then perhaps panic is called for. A halfhearted measure is just as ineffective as doing nothing at all.
If AGW is even real, we are already dead. Our global society has become so dependent on fossil fuels that removing them so quickly would kill millions, if not billions of people & send several million more below the poverty line. Thousands of people are already dying from starvation due to the biofuels scam. I don't see the panic of an increase in a few tenths of a degree. Clearly, the past century has shown us cloud feedback is neg. If not, Revelle would have been right in 1957 & global...
That is if you are correct, and the past year has been very promising for skeptics starting with Lindzen's paper to climate gate and now the Phil Jone's confessions. But like I said even if AGW is real then both solution kill billions of people. The UN says we are going to burn 468 ppm in the next 100yrs and increase warming by 7degrees. To even stop the temp from going up 1 degree when need to use absolutely 0 fossil fuels from 33 years. The math makes it impossible to stop AGW, if it is real.
Yeah just attack the messenger and call him a creationist, that will discredit him, all your doing is insulting him and that's childish. Exactly, eliminate the proxies because they are wrong!
If the proxies aren't perfect then how can we say the science is settled? Clearing anthropogenic CC isn't proven if you admit the proxies aren't perfect and there are some PROBLEMS!
Clearly if we wait for perfection we will die first. It is a matter of probability and how we gamble on our future. Deniers are all in when it comes to maintaining the status quo.
Because ignorant people misinterpret it to mean monolithic and monotonic warming everywhere on the planet, which is not true. First you complain that it is misleading, then complain that we changed the term. There is no satisfying idiots.
CO2 levels were up to 20x higher in the past, such as the Devonian period (400Mya), which declined rapidly in the Carboniferous (300Mya) due to the huge forests sucking it in, gained again in the Triassic and Jurassic where life clearly thrived - WITHOUT EVER HAVING A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE!!
Where do you think all that carbon came from that we're burning? From the atmosphere! I'm not a climate change denier, I'm an AGW denier - huge difference!
Yeah, and the earth was a big molten ball of rock. We are not talking about the stability of the earth, life, or even humans, for that matter. We are talking about the survival of civilization. The earth has been remarkably stable over the past 10000 years and that is no coincidence.
Earth was not a molten ball in the Jurassic. No coincidence? Earth suffers a large ice age every 150000 years, which means we're due for one, and you should already know this.
Besides, 10000 years of limited geological activity is a blip in time. However, I see your reply and your vid don't match. You've completely missed your own point, and mine, that CO2 is not a poison and AGW is almost unmeasurable.
First you say the issue isn't about stability, then you do. WTF??
Talking about previous variations in the environment is kind of meaningless when one considers the fact that civilization has evolved in a very stable climate, and that is no coincidence. In 5,000,000,000 years the earth will be eaten by the Sun, so why bother?
Stable climate?? Man has had to endure and evolve through 8 deep ice ages in the last million years up to now, and we're due for another.
No coincidence? The climate isn't stable, we didn't make it so or otherwise. WTF do you mean it's no coincidence? God??
As the Earth gets 10% warmer every 1Bny, We've probably got 1/2Bn until it gets too hot to live here. How do you propose we move 20-60Bn people to another planet?
Plus, just like most of the US media, HTTW ignores acres of ecological data. Acidification of oceans due to sudden increased CO2 dissolution - is - a definite problem. We're already observing the bleaching of coral, and the change in ecosystems - and on land: permafrost melt, season duration, species distribution...
HTTW is a product of the media - making people think there's some polar paradigm between "Alarmists" and "Deniers." This dualistic attitude is itself a huge problem.
The data is imperfect and it's only a couple of tenths of a degree. We should be concerned but not alarmed. If there was a 2 degree jump in line or following CO2 levels then I might start to call for sending all of my tax money to the UN but the Copenhagen treaty failed for a reason.
You don't have to be a genius to know that the UN is infested with unelected suits with communist roots. People are rightly very wary of them.
this video is retarded... conflating creationism with global warming SKEPTICS is a total straw man. I'm sorry that the facts interfere with your religion.
I said they use the same tactics. Denial stems from a fear of the truth. It rejects all evidence as imperfect but never questions it's own assertions.
exactly! finally you said something that made sense. this is what i've said about the people denying these emails all along. they're more black and white than the science. they are proven to exist. yet people keep denying them. scientists fear that if they admit this truth, all scientists are going to look like corrupt asses. it's not so. there were alot of scientists who did try to tell the truth but were blackballed. so the evidence that damns scientists also saves them. wow, the irony!
ok moron.... if a proxy diverges significantly from instrumental records almost 30% of the time... it is not reliable to project temperatures before 1850. Thats called basic science.
The scientist in those emails knew it screwed up there bogus claims that there was no little ice age or mid-evil warm period. Both of which we have historical accounts of.
wizkid2000 - "if a proxy diverges significantly" - assuming that this is true(out of your mouth, it is not credible), this is why there are other proxies. Or didn't you bother to notice?
Still, you didn't bother to try to understand the point he was trying make.
However if you throw out the tree rings and use the other proxies you see a huge Medieval Warming period and this strongly suggests that the warming we are seeing today is NOT statistically significant from warming that we observed in the past. I don't understand how these aren't reasonable scientific questions. I am agnostic towards global warming and am still trying to learn more about it. You sound like a Global Warming evangelist with his head in a hole. Would love a response. Thanks.
If we know tree ring data is wrong today, then how can we trust it was right for the past 1000 years? I think that is a perfectly fair scientific question. Also, if tree ring data is used we see little to no Medieval Warming period suggesting that current warming is statistically significant and something to worry about.
As I had, there are problems with proxies and our understanding of them gets refined over time. That does not mean we throw away evidence, it means we must learn how to get many different stories and get all of them to corroborate.
I don't disagree that our knowledge of the evidence gets better over time and I by no means think we should "throw out" proxy data. Only proxy data that we know doesn't work. Clearly tree ring data is subject to unknown variables that cause them to be unreliable. Google "the divergence problem" for peer reviewed articles on the subject.
Science should never be dogma. Sorry to break it to you but you sound like their number one evangeliser in this video.
John I don't know who these "climate change deniers" are that you speak of but the sensible people i know realize that there is climate change and has been since time began (6000 years or so) but man had had NOTHING to do with it. Part of the lie here on the left is that first they were screaming about global warming but when temperatures went down it became climate change and now those e-mails prove those scientists were just lying.
The first supposed email clue: look up any programmer and the word 'trick' -- that word is used to describe a computational method that is handily more clever and more efficient than methods you were using before. "Hey ryan, lemme show you this trick to get this done."
second email: the guy was expressing his own *personal *doubts that he had already publicly disclosed in another journal entire. That email wasn't even secretive.
You have shown complete disregard to context. In the emails, the word "trick" was used in the same paragraph with the same frame of reference as "hide". The term "trick" used for programers refers to an easier way to solve a problem. What you've determined as similar are two completely different meanings of the word trick. Context is always relevant.
even if the evolutionist loons are correct (and they're not), it only makes my point even further. first it was global warming but its been colder the last few years so they changed it to climate change. only climate change has been happening since the earth began so our pollutants can't be creating climate change. and the e-mails do prove it was all a hoax.
The emails only show some flawed individuals, not that "the whole thing was a hoax". Denying evolution puts you into a special category - You depend almost entirely on science yet you know nothing about science.
the scientists that made up the global warming lie are "flawed individuals". God works through science and nature. he is in all things. Global warming is a lie and climate change occurs in nature with or without us. The amount of time this has been happening is irrelevant to this conversation.
Might want to add a couple zeros to argue when time began. I think its more like 6 billion years, not 6 thousand. But I agree, the world's climate has been continuously changing ever since its inception.
Ice cores have shown a very chaotic climate until the past 10,000 years, coincidentally the time at which civilization began. It can be argued that the planet's climate became stable and with that stability came the opportunity for agriculture which requires predictable seasons. Saying that the climate has varied in the past is such idiotic hand waving.
What indication is there that the proxies that are being arbitrarily chopped off at 1960 or 1980 (depending on the personal preference of the CRU scientist) are reliable, ever? Because they overlap for some time with actual temperature data?
What reason do you have to believe it is ever reliable?
Compare that to evolutionary research, where there are multiple methods of verifying the same age, and where there is no "divergence paradox".
@j0hnwi11iams, it has nothing to do with "creationists". Instead of defending your religion, use the scientific method like Lord Christopher Monckton (look him up) or numerous scientists that state very clearly that there is no evidence for man-made warming. I'm not in favor of polution, but CO2 has no effect on global warming. Mars also warmed up due to the sun, and now both Mars and the Earth are cooling down. Plenty of videos on my channel, also watch?v=2AD6S22JGmg .
To say that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere is sheer denial. We know for a fact that CO2 traps heat. It is a question of how much. We have built models based on our theories to predict what will happen. We have looked at the forensic evidence to see if it is having some significant effect now. The science presents a very significant probability that our civilization is threatened by climate change.
The term "Deniers" was purposly coined in order to compare with Holocaust deniers, and this is a very low form of comparison. Second, watch what *scientists* say, look for "Man-made climate change atheists: COP15 is political church" (a Russia Today report on youtube) and the videos on my Favorites, including "The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9".
@TubaBoy71, I said (3 times now) that junkScience[.]com cherry picks and quote mines like crazy and URLs are not provided (you do the same).
Interested in the special olympics? Not surprising as things have to be continually repeated for you due to your reading disability and/or a lack of memory retention.
So you're saying 700 "scientists" represent the over whelming majority of world wide? China has many 10s of millions alone.
You are the poster boy for the special olympics, I knew if I badgered you enough that I would indeed make a liar out of yourself. So how much did it cost for you to read the journal you so honestly tried to dimiss and twist what it ment?
Since I am dealing with a half wit, please tell me what other science you know of where ONLY those who agree with the methodology used and BELIEVE inthe same outcome are allowed to do peer review.
Which is why you have explained NOTHING and tried to spin everything in your favor with NOTHING to back it up. If you were a boxer you name would fall inbetween Bambi and Barney the dinosaur with Glass Joe being several leaps and bounds a head of you.
@TubaBoy71, ah back to your old friend Ad Hominems. When you're not desperately grasping at straws you're name calling as it's what you do worst.
At least Bambi/Barney/Glass Joe would have addressed my calling you (4 times now) on your apparent offer to spar. But not you, and that my little buddy puts you in solitary league far below them.
@TubaBoy71 it's obvious to even the most retarded that I've treated you like a dog that desperately wants to hump my leg, gets kneed hard in the gut, but returns for more.
Based on all the private PM's, other's are finding my pwning of you very entertaining. Apparently you're a well known troll in these circles.
As I said before (3rd time) your 3rd article was the only freely available one.
Nothing is stopping you from submitting a rebutal to a reputable journal, except a lost cause.
LOL I quoted staight from the first article which I did not pay for and found via a simple name search on Bing, Yahoo, and google.Based on private PM's? Are you trying to say that you are stoping others from correcting me? You have shown 0 and I have at least shown via peer reviewed journals that the science of man made global warming is indeed not even close to being settled. You still have not answered the freedom of information acts in either case! Yet U act like this science needs protected.
@Tubaboy71, the first article only displays the abstract. It's no good, without the full article and context.
No, I'm saying others have email me to say you're a complete troll. Thought that was obvious.
You ignore, my questions from the very first posts (which I've recently quoted), or any points that I pwn you on, hoping I won't notice. I noticed each time.
700 "scientists" does not compare to 10s of millions. Again I refer you to the video Ty1Bo6GmPqM . Don't play mute this time.
The correct term is "cracker". A hacker is someone that makes things work in new ways. A cracker is someone that causes trouble.
Do you think it's OK for someone to open your snail mail? That's a felony.
Question is what does cracked cherry picked quoted mined emails prove? That all universities world wide and 50 years of climate research is a fraud. Hardly.
Did you hear the rumor? HTWW emails have been cracked and there's loads of debunking coming down.
Geez, you don't have to be so upset. I thought you would be glad to hear from me again. Some people consider accounts private so so I think it is wrong but hey whatever so long long as someone can make a point, right? Sorry, I won't go any further with this you are in a grumpy mood. Happy Hollidays : )
@John38235133, you're beginning to sound like a broken record, and it's been months.
The price paid for being on a social site like youtube is that you can lose some of your annoymity. It boils down to what you yourself volunteer out to the internet and so I have no sympathy for anyone beating this dead horse of a topic.
Take care Johnny, maybe one day we'll chat about something else.
@HowTheWorldWorks, I'm wondering why you haven't deleted, J0hnWi11iams video posts, text posts and blocked him yet, as you've done with 1000s of others. I guess you don't feel threatened by those that do direct video uploads, as compared to those that use video authoring software.
@TubaBoy71, thanks for both thumbs downing my comment and responding within minutes to a post directed at HTWW.
How did you know HTWW would not respond back?
I've been internet posting since the 1990, but was first ever censored/blocked by HTWW, but have since been spammed and proactively blocked by one of HTWW rabid supporters, BigBoss686. That's a grand total of 2 internet fascists experiences.
@ZangaroZen No problem! Glad I could help! Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW. You and your kind think that just because more of you get a corn cob up your ass about something that it makes it OK to pile on. You start getting piled on back you whine!
@TubaBoy71, isn't obvious? You said "Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW". You're scared that HTWW will censor and block you if you step out of the drone line.
It has nothing to do with me.
Why did I have to explain to you the fucktard obvious?
Nope. I actually do not really try to offend people who I like. I have been "edited" by others and have yet to be edited by him. You on the other hand have this complex where you are telling me what I mean and think which pretty well describes someone I really do not like, but then again that is about all you lil bitches are good for is spinning things. Only part is its not even good enough spin to turn a hampster wheel.
@TubaBoy71, HTWW will not "edit" you as long as you're in lock step with him.
The rest of your "hamster wheel" post is nonsense.
The dialog thread is all here. I responded to you first, and in doing so posed a number of questions first (ie sentences ending with "?"), of which you've not answered any yet. I on the other hand addressed all your posts.
Answer all my past questions (better late then never) and then we'll talk EPA.
@ZangaroZen Actually no you havent answered anything. If information is asked for under the fredom of information act and what is requested is not provided it is BAD. This is science not a business. Your science in this is trying to "save the world" not patient an idea to make billions or redistibute billions of dollars..Oh wait!
@TubaBoy71, FIA does not allow open access to everything, as I said before. FIA request on military aspects for example could very well be denied under many existing exceptions. The requester then has the option of submitting an appeal. You do realize that I've already mentioned all this?
@TubaBoy71, what should have been self-evident was explained twice to you, and using an extreme example, ie the military, should have nailed the point home. Guess not, as you're saying "this has nothing to do with the military". It's an example to illustrate FIA has many loop hole exceptions, but a denial can be appealed (3rd time explaining this).
If you were an engineer you'd realize I don't sound anything like a lawyer. However your mentor and global warming expert, HTWW, is a lawyer.
Of course the right wing would be against teaching scientists communication skills. They don't want intelligent people competing against right wing think tanks like the competitive enterprise institute who hire impressionable youth like Lee Doren.
That is not about communication skills at all. Its about using propaganda to win over people when the science is not there to back it up. More than half of the alarmists are part of a global goverance movement. That is why they use propaganda and redifine what peer reviewing actually is.
Show me a climate model that is actually acurate within the the reason of the tenths of degrees they are whining about.. Also it is known that the Earth has had 1900+ ppm of CO2 which is more CO2 in the atmosphere than if we exhausted all of our fossil fuels. Back then the Earth supported life and it was about 4C warmer.
The ice record shows that the past 10,000 years have been extremely stable. It is very likely that the earth established some number of negative feedback loops to stabilize the climate. That does not mean that these loops will stay negative if we push the climate, in fact, most of the climate history has been very chaotic with many positive feedback loops. The question is not whether the planet will sustain life, it will. The question is whether the planet will support civilization.
No its not. Any idiot knows the world changes. So tell us all how CO2 from millions of years ago is going to react differently now all of the sudden? Best excuse I have heard so far is that it is "man made" with no other explaination LOL.
If you are referring to the medieval warming period, that was due to natural cyclical variations, not due to persistent accumulation of CO2. Don't you get it? We are trying to figure out what will happen BEFORE it happens. If we wait until there is absolutely no uncertainty, especially trying to convince deniers for whom no amount of evidence and theory will suffice, it will already be too late. If we tip the climate past it's stability, we are likely to end up with climate chaos.
Putting the politics into the mix how about they figure this out with full peer reviews and not hatchet jobs the alarmists use? They have a few decades to get it right before they become global statists.
Only thing retarded around here is you. So tell me "Mr. I own 20 patents" how global warming actually works with a model that actually works. Since it does not exist (a working model) and the "science" bastardizes the known, you are left with doing all the work yourself!
The models are out there, and if by "work" you mean perfect, then you prove my point once again. Science is a process of refinement, we never hold science up as perfection.
They do not work, thus your point is not proven. Science is about pulling resources and ideas together to find out the facts. Science is not locking people out, hiding information and not allowing debate. If you do you science correctly it becomes a VERY solid process..
@Tubaboy71, you say several "tenths of degrees". Do you realize that's an average over a few years and at the poles it's much higher?
You say "Show me a climate model that is actually acurate". Do you realize climate models accurately explain the past, but their inaccuracies now reflect an incomplete understanding on the many ways man is effecting the environment?
You say "Any idiot knows the world changes". Do you realize the world is changing 1000s of times faster then ever before?
@Tubaboy71, you say "putting the politics into the mix how about they figure this out with full peer reviews and not hatchet jobs the alarmists use? They have a few decades to get it right"
Don't you know that global warming research has already been ongoing for many decades?
Politics has nothing to do with scientific fact and concensus, however deniers reply on vested interests like the oil industry for support.
@tubaboy71, you say "Science is about pulling resources and ideas together to find out the facts. Science is not locking people out, hiding information and not allowing debate."
Which locked out people? Those that cherry pick and quote mine emails claiming they have "real facts and research"? Respected scientific journals don't publish nonsense rebutals.
Provide a link to a respected scientific journal published study that concludes climate change is non-existant and/or is not man made.
Going of what you just said you just went from point A to point D while ignoring points C and B. Judging from what they tried to BASTARDIZE and refuse to show lends me to see why you would leave those points out.
/watch?v=iXAMjsiAwEM LOL talk about the game...gotta "win" science
@tubaboy71, you say "science is 100% politically motivated". LOL. That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time.
The reality is, science is EVIDENCE motivated, and as such scientist peer review each other to ensure they don't screw up, publish nonsense and loss face. But you seem to think peer review requires an impossible 100% concensus, when the reality is a select few experts double check a paper for errors before publication in a reputable scientific journal.
@tubaboy71, what do you think would happen if nonsense was published in a reputable scientific journal? The authors would be quickly called on their errors in a rebutal published in a reputable scientific journal.
Again I ask "Provide a link to a respected scientific journal published study that concludes climate change is non-existant and/or is not man made".
As well you didn't answer any of my questions.
As for iXAMjsiAwEM, it's just some guy bitching about wording.
Stick with the program ass hat. THIS SCIENCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. Simple fact you do not see it as such should disqualify you from having any common sense.
"Lamberth finds EPA in contempt for e-document purge"
◦Jul 25, 2003
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth this week held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt for destroying electronic documents in violation of a court order issued as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request"
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.
"Which leaves researchers free to withhold information selectively from critics, as when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
Is this science? Shall I go on? Show me something real that says it is a huge concensus that man made global warming is the actual cause of All climate change.
@TubaBoy71, you're going to go on with what? An unscientific opinion here and there, a quote mined reference, cherry picking isolated examples. It's a waste of time to trade such examples back and forth.
Once again if the published science is wrong, then it would be quickly refutted in reputable journals. I've asked you 4 times now to produce such a link and you won't because you can't.
The concensus in reputable scientific journals is that man is causing global warming.
I have PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC AND ACTUAL REAL PEER REVIEWED SOURCES. You are also ignoring the fact the CRU was being selective with who peer reviewed their work. If someone was going to try to find faults in their science they wouldn't use them to do peer reviews. Funny thing is that you are trying to say that is science!
@TubaBoy71, are you too inconsiderate to provide a URL? How to get the exact physical volume is useless.
I took a look at the first page of GeoJournal article, as it won't let me look at the full article (without being a member?) and it boils down to the author complaining that the general public consumption documentary is not scientific enough. It's a documentary not a scientific paper.
My request was for a scientific paper refuted by another scientific paper.
Here's what I said 11 minutes and one comment ago:
"I suspect you used a BS shill site like junkscience[.]com (run by FoxNews) and quoted some of their cherry picked and quote mined "sources" which conveniently omit links."
Did you catch the URL? junkscience[.]com
If you're going to accuse someone of being a "bigger idiot" make sure you don't epically pwn yourself in the process.
@ZangaroZen AHH yes Fox news now runs a climate science department. What is happening here is you have no answer so now you re demonizing it. LOL So are you just saying those scientists are paid hitmen for Fox news?
@TubaBoy71, did you bother reading the 2 sources you provided?
I suspect you used a BS shill site like junkscience[.]com (run by FoxNews) and quoted some of their cherry picked and quote mined "sources" which conveniently omit links.
Progress in Physical Geography requires a paid subscription to view articles, so that reference is worthless.
Any more sources?
Again the request was a rebutal of a published paper both in reputable scientific journal(s). Now requested 6 times.
Only BULLSHIT here is between your ears. You are now using the strawman arguement of either being poor, stupid or "these peer reviewed papers do not meet up to my standards" which for some reason works for you or you at least want it too. LOL. Nothing off of here is from junk science.
@TubaBoy71, ignoring your ad homiems, both your article references were listed on junkscience[.]com (ie URL).
Provide me a URL to a global warming paper that refutes another global warming paper with both being published in reputable scientific journal(s) (8 time request).
As for "peer reviewed paper standards" it includes the fact that the paper is available for READING. Sorry I don't trust a shill like HTWW to interpret sources and tell me what ever suits his vested/job interests.
@ZangaroZen oh please you stupid cunt. You have provided NOTHING and even gave fucking excuses to why publically funded climate science institutions shouldn't release the info we paid for. This is not the military and it is not top secret...at least it shouldn't be. FUNNIEST part in all of this EVERY dumb fuck in here that supports warming alarmists does not have nor give a shread of concern if their science believe is correct. How do you check it if they don't release it?
Please sir with all of your immense input to this please tell us what is and is not allowed to be released. EPA was already found in contempt. Raw data is fine but they also must release how they make their data work. Yanno like actual equations, and why they did this to achieve that. You must be worried that there is something damning to this because you have givin no real excuse LOL. Never been to junk science until now and 2 of the journals I listed were rebutals to other works of alarmists
@TubaBoy71, a cherry picked source that has lost their data doesn't amount to anything but poor backups, and at worse the study has to be redone. Why not move onto studies that have their data published? Answer: like most rabid deniers you have little else to cling to.
You lack science knowledge don't you?
Reputable scientific papers describe their methods ("how they make their data work").
A memory lapse? I already told you 2 of your articles are listed on junkscience[.]com (ie URL).
@tubeBoy71, by the way here's the URL cfa[.]harvard[.]edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soonetal01CR[.]pdf
You finally got a full article, even though it's not refutting another global warming article published in a reputable scientific journal which is what I asked for (9th time). The idea being able to compare 2 competing articles not one. But I'll humor you.
If increases in CO2 are not causing modern day global warming then two things must be true:
1) Something unknown is suppressing the well-understood greenhouse effect (and doing so during massive increases in greenhouse gases).
2) Something unknown is causing the warming that mirrors the greenhouse effect.
So we can accept what we know to be true (anthropogenic global warming) or we accept two unknowns. (Powell, 2010)
TheMrSirCharles 7 months ago
LOL !
The American liberal, 1% smarter than American creationists.
eric144144 9 months ago
Only an idiot would say all the proxies say the same thing. You, Sir, are an idiot.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@pointyhead1 No, it's worse than an idiot, Pointy. he's being a poseur ...pretending he knows about proxies.
Anyone who took a look at them would never say such rot.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
@j0hnwi11iams This, sir, is a woeful distortion of what climate skeptics are saying. We're saying that you're ignoring the scientific proxy studies that show the opposite of what alarmists say. The studies showing greater temperature ranges for the last millenium are numerous and don't show any significant correlation with co2 levels.
smartalek65 1 year ago
The Earth has been cycling between warming and cooling since bacteria started reproducing on this planet. These same scientists that are NOW saying global warming said it was global cooling in the 70's and were predicting we would have a glacier ice sheet down to the Dakotas by the year 2000. We have barely gotten out of the little Ice Age that started in the 1300's. This is all a mute point, Mans effect on the planet is like two fleas on a dog arguing over who gets to steer.
cupera1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cupera1 Wow. I guess the fact that warming and cooling have been occurring since Earthly processes began is totally over the head of scientists and completely make the quantum mechanics that the greenhouse effect and global warming is based off of obsolete right? And thank god you mentioned the 70s, even though the cooling was due to an increase in aerosols, a completely different thing from the greenhouse effect, I was about to start believing. try paying attention to science, not propaganda.
WaxItYourself 1 year ago
it is NOT A GAME, while climate change is real, it is a natural occurrence, and has nothing to do with humans.
you however ARE playing a game, you and your ilk are the ones to be feared as you all will eventually go to ANY lengths to ENFORCE your manipulation of the world.
you people are frightening.
oscarmacaroni 1 year ago
You talk down about creationism, you blast anyone who doesnt buy anthropogenic global warming. you wonder why people chafe at such BS when you my friend are part of a HUGE money making religion. honestly, if al gore thought parts of new york are going to be under water soon, why the hell did he buy a flat there? or what about his 9mil flat in Montecito CA? I guess he figures the sea level will only rise on one coast or the other. the term "sheep" is tossed around alot these days....
hoosherdaddy 1 year ago
As Newsweek put it recently,
Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports—including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
Conversily, the similarity between the creationist nuts and the climate alarmists is that they both use questionable interpretations to try and get the government to force peaceful individuals into doing something they don't want to: teach creation in schools and steal some of the fairly earned product of their labour. Where the climate legislation has been heading is a lot scarier than teaching creation in schools. Ya, that's right, I know your game.
00dfm00 1 year ago
But you have to admit that mixing the data types (using proxies in the past and instruments now) and representing them as being the same is very dishonest.
LanceVader 1 year ago
I agree that we should be concerned about warming. The world has always, and will always, change. We will have to live through an ice age one day, if we are lucky enough to survive as a species that long.
However, questioning the cause of warming is nothing like questioning the evidence of evolution. Not even close. If anything, I would say your dismissal of any evidence against CO2 caused warming is more creationist-like in it's inhibition of the advancement of science.
beeecraft 1 year ago
They still should have report the lack of correspondence within the paper. Scientific integrity! At least in the supplemental?
beeecraft 1 year ago
If I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't have posted a video proving that fact.
You tried so desperately to tie warming skeptics to creationists. Well, you pretty much fumbled around there rolling your eyes because you knew yourself that it was a feeble attempt at getting your point on some kind of footing, so why did you even try it?
When the warmers manipulated the data, the cat was out of the bag. Give it up or continue to be the idiot that time will prove you are.
kg4boe 1 year ago
Do you people have ZERO logical/critical thinking ability? You people meaning AGCC drones. Please take some time to think through the results of the EXTREMELY dramatic efforts being recommended to battle the CO2 boogeyman. Kindly explain to me what happens when you are successful in sending us back to living as nomads where the only CO2 produced by humans comes from the air we exhale. What then? THE CLIMATE WILL STILL CHANGE!!! It will be better for us all to learn to adapt to climate change.
AVSteve 1 year ago
You stress that we must do something, which would be cap and trade. Unfortunately for you those nations that have the best environmental policy, and I mean heavy metals, solvents etc. are those countries that are wealthy and consume a lot of coal and oil. Cap and trade is going to severely weaken the industry in this country. Businesses will not have the same fiscal freedom and need to use their resources to get things done cheaper, cutting corners, creating greater REAL pollution
kwotedude 1 year ago
PS...I had Micheal Mann as a professor when he was at UVA. Those senior scientists who were tenured, ie geophysicists who have been studying climate for decades, warned of this hysteria. They pointed out that these young so called scientists such as Mann are looking at there data with extreme bias because all their research money come from environmental policy groups, funding sources not looking for objective interpretations but a story that will push there agenda.
kwotedude 1 year ago
If you want free thinking people to consider that there is a threat posed by the climate then you need to show strong evidence for why that is so.
Adopting the usual alarmist ad hominem tactics will not suffice I'm afraid.
The truth is simple and unambiguous.
The temperature datasets have been adjusted and manipulated to such a degree that it is all but impossible to derive any meaningful trend.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that the climate presents us with a threat.
starfiregps 1 year ago
Thank you for your excellent appraisal of (creationist style) climate change deniers tactics.
Other tactics I'd include are; Manipulation of data (Martin Durkin), barefaced lies (Christopher Monckton), political extremism (James Inhofe), bizarre self publicity (Alex Jones), theft (CRU emails), muddying the waters on behalf of the oil and coal industry (the Heartland Institute) ...
I could go on and on.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Hey John I see two things that aren't quite right in your profile.
You call yourself a skeptic and an atheist, well if you believe in anthropogenic warming you are neither.
gerjanp 1 year ago
I am a scientist and understand the science behind AGW. I am also very aware of the shit passed off as proof by the right wing media that it is some kind of hoax. The ignore the vast body of evidence and focus all their attention on the flaws. I am skeptical of anything the right wing has to say.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
"I am a scientist"
The how is you say in your profile that you are an engineer at Cisco?
I'm sorry but computer science doesn't quite cut it I'm afraid.
gerjanp 1 year ago
I majored in electrical engineering and physics, far better qualifications than any of the idiot lawyers.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I majored in electrical engineering and physics, far better qualifications than any of the idiot lawyers."
i agre wrt to lawyers but how is it that I don't see you do any better.
My major physics (condensed matter) and electronics and in math it was control theory as well as nursing.
"Too late to act on any of it."
Of course the name of this game is "scare them into doing what I say without checking if it is reasonable."
gerjanp 1 year ago
Please tell me how an increase in carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. or how paying A tax to Al gore and Marty Straum to fund their plans for A world government will help AGW if in fact it is real. I am not A scientist, but to my understanding Carbon Dioxide is A foundation of what we call our atmosphere. Isn't this the same as trying to outlaw DiHydrogen Monoxide?
Drumvain 1 year ago
here we go remove the spaces:
ww w. nature. com/ news/ 2010/ 100215/ full/ news. 2010. 71. html
He does misrepresent Doug Keenan but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
gerjanp 1 year ago
What about "He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. " did you not understand?
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
"did you not understand?"
Perfectly :- it's spin recent warming can simply be explained in terms of recent rise in solar activity and Kevin Trenberth's worry about recent lack of it can be explained by more recent decrease in solar act. Then again it might smly be Bond cycle tha aught to be peaking about now. Time will tell.
gerjanp 1 year ago
Yeah, time will clarify all uncertainty. Too late to act on any of it.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
@gerjanp Spoken like a true creationist. What about the IR absorbtion properties of CO2 we have known about since 1824? If you claim that the sun is responsible for the observed warming then what is counteracting the known forcing from increased CO2? If you claim CO2 is not forcing the climate then you will have to re-write modern physics, starting with spectral analysis and working your way through to the quantum mechanical description of radiative energy transfer via photons.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
No, what AGW skeptics are saying is we are not willing to lose MORE of our liberties MORE of our $ to support this hypothesis. I find it very telling how often AGW alarmist bring up creationism. You seem to have made a religion out of AGW. Cap&Trade is a colossal power grab of epic proportions and AGWers are naive.
321moe 1 year ago
Cap & Trade was the attempt to make it more appealing to capitalists by invoking the market in the solution. Unfortunately a simple tax would have worked better. Cap and Trade is a boondoggle and a giveaway to wall street speculators.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Neither will do anything to stop "Global Warming". Both will punish an already pummeled US consumer.
The earth 'might' be warming for a period, get over it. It beats the hell out of cooling.
321moe 1 year ago
I'm sorry but tree ring size from strip bark bristlecone pines is NOT a temperature proxy and it in effect due to the weighting given them are the sole "proxy" Michael Mann used. It's not just imperfect it's false because they showed cooling rather than the recent warming. Your attempt at comparison with creationist argument fools no-one but yourself.
gerjanp 1 year ago
Let me ask you something do you wake up and worry everyday that you may die? Clearly, you have no idea when you are going to die, so why worry about that every second. This is a typical human response, worrying about the unknown. There are several things we don't know and we get along just fine. Because the proxies have problems that doesn't mean we should panic. I would rather not be sure then go on false data based on imperfect proxies, which you clearly admit have problems.
MAJ061785 1 year ago
If by "panic" you mean take useful and meaningful action in a responsible timeframe, then perhaps panic is called for. A halfhearted measure is just as ineffective as doing nothing at all.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
If AGW is even real, we are already dead. Our global society has become so dependent on fossil fuels that removing them so quickly would kill millions, if not billions of people & send several million more below the poverty line. Thousands of people are already dying from starvation due to the biofuels scam. I don't see the panic of an increase in a few tenths of a degree. Clearly, the past century has shown us cloud feedback is neg. If not, Revelle would have been right in 1957 & global...
MAJ061785 1 year ago
MAYBE we are already dead. That does not mean we should go out with a whimper.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
That is if you are correct, and the past year has been very promising for skeptics starting with Lindzen's paper to climate gate and now the Phil Jone's confessions. But like I said even if AGW is real then both solution kill billions of people. The UN says we are going to burn 468 ppm in the next 100yrs and increase warming by 7degrees. To even stop the temp from going up 1 degree when need to use absolutely 0 fossil fuels from 33 years. The math makes it impossible to stop AGW, if it is real.
MAJ061785 1 year ago
...temperatures would have gone up 5 to 7 degrees from a 30% increase in CO2.
MAJ061785 1 year ago
Yeah just attack the messenger and call him a creationist, that will discredit him, all your doing is insulting him and that's childish. Exactly, eliminate the proxies because they are wrong!
If the proxies aren't perfect then how can we say the science is settled? Clearing anthropogenic CC isn't proven if you admit the proxies aren't perfect and there are some PROBLEMS!
MAJ061785 1 year ago
Clearly if we wait for perfection we will die first. It is a matter of probability and how we gamble on our future. Deniers are all in when it comes to maintaining the status quo.
j0hnwi11iams 1 year ago
Talking about honesty? So, after Climategate, we're talking about "global climate change" and not "global warming"?
manoman0 2 years ago
Because ignorant people misinterpret it to mean monolithic and monotonic warming everywhere on the planet, which is not true. First you complain that it is misleading, then complain that we changed the term. There is no satisfying idiots.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams: It's an honour to be called "idiot" by a follower of the religion of global warming. Thank you!
manoman0 2 years ago
I'm glad you like it because as we find out more and more about climate change that moniker is going to stick.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Amen!
manoman0 2 years ago
You're a follower of the Church Of Global Warming. Wasted 1 min of my life.
manoman0 2 years ago
why does this bozo have an office chair with a seatbelt??
carpedatum 2 years ago
it's a bag
Woobaka 2 years ago
You wasted your time on this vid, wi11iams.
CO2 levels were up to 20x higher in the past, such as the Devonian period (400Mya), which declined rapidly in the Carboniferous (300Mya) due to the huge forests sucking it in, gained again in the Triassic and Jurassic where life clearly thrived - WITHOUT EVER HAVING A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE!!
Where do you think all that carbon came from that we're burning? From the atmosphere! I'm not a climate change denier, I'm an AGW denier - huge difference!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Yeah, and the earth was a big molten ball of rock. We are not talking about the stability of the earth, life, or even humans, for that matter. We are talking about the survival of civilization. The earth has been remarkably stable over the past 10000 years and that is no coincidence.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
wi11iams..
Earth was not a molten ball in the Jurassic. No coincidence? Earth suffers a large ice age every 150000 years, which means we're due for one, and you should already know this.
Besides, 10000 years of limited geological activity is a blip in time. However, I see your reply and your vid don't match. You've completely missed your own point, and mine, that CO2 is not a poison and AGW is almost unmeasurable.
First you say the issue isn't about stability, then you do. WTF??
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Talking about previous variations in the environment is kind of meaningless when one considers the fact that civilization has evolved in a very stable climate, and that is no coincidence. In 5,000,000,000 years the earth will be eaten by the Sun, so why bother?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
wi11iams..
Stable climate?? Man has had to endure and evolve through 8 deep ice ages in the last million years up to now, and we're due for another.
No coincidence? The climate isn't stable, we didn't make it so or otherwise. WTF do you mean it's no coincidence? God??
As the Earth gets 10% warmer every 1Bny, We've probably got 1/2Bn until it gets too hot to live here. How do you propose we move 20-60Bn people to another planet?
Just let the poorer ones fry.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Man as a species, NOT mankind as a civilization.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Plus, just like most of the US media, HTTW ignores acres of ecological data. Acidification of oceans due to sudden increased CO2 dissolution - is - a definite problem. We're already observing the bleaching of coral, and the change in ecosystems - and on land: permafrost melt, season duration, species distribution...
HTTW is a product of the media - making people think there's some polar paradigm between "Alarmists" and "Deniers." This dualistic attitude is itself a huge problem.
abyssquick 2 years ago
The data is imperfect and it's only a couple of tenths of a degree. We should be concerned but not alarmed. If there was a 2 degree jump in line or following CO2 levels then I might start to call for sending all of my tax money to the UN but the Copenhagen treaty failed for a reason.
You don't have to be a genius to know that the UN is infested with unelected suits with communist roots. People are rightly very wary of them.
vidmanx0 2 years ago
....and for the record, I'm an atheist that doesn't believe in creationism.
vidmanx0 2 years ago
Politics is notoriously short sighted. The only thing more short sighted is Wall Street.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
this video is retarded... conflating creationism with global warming SKEPTICS is a total straw man. I'm sorry that the facts interfere with your religion.
I don't mean to be harsh... but damn get a clue!
wizkid2000 2 years ago
I said they use the same tactics. Denial stems from a fear of the truth. It rejects all evidence as imperfect but never questions it's own assertions.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
exactly! finally you said something that made sense. this is what i've said about the people denying these emails all along. they're more black and white than the science. they are proven to exist. yet people keep denying them. scientists fear that if they admit this truth, all scientists are going to look like corrupt asses. it's not so. there were alot of scientists who did try to tell the truth but were blackballed. so the evidence that damns scientists also saves them. wow, the irony!
fieldzee09 2 years ago
Typical extremist behavior -- Your ideology has gotten in the way of actually understanding the point he was trying to make.
TippyCando 2 years ago
ok moron.... if a proxy diverges significantly from instrumental records almost 30% of the time... it is not reliable to project temperatures before 1850. Thats called basic science.
The scientist in those emails knew it screwed up there bogus claims that there was no little ice age or mid-evil warm period. Both of which we have historical accounts of.
I swear you people are like religious fanatics.
wizkid2000 2 years ago
wizkid2000 - "if a proxy diverges significantly" - assuming that this is true(out of your mouth, it is not credible), this is why there are other proxies. Or didn't you bother to notice?
Still, you didn't bother to try to understand the point he was trying make.
TippyCando 2 years ago
Using the term deniers is degrading to you John.
JMBSM61 2 years ago
A denier does not exercise enough skepticism on his own beliefs. Deniers are degrading to themselves.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
However if you throw out the tree rings and use the other proxies you see a huge Medieval Warming period and this strongly suggests that the warming we are seeing today is NOT statistically significant from warming that we observed in the past. I don't understand how these aren't reasonable scientific questions. I am agnostic towards global warming and am still trying to learn more about it. You sound like a Global Warming evangelist with his head in a hole. Would love a response. Thanks.
tobyw87 2 years ago 2
If we know tree ring data is wrong today, then how can we trust it was right for the past 1000 years? I think that is a perfectly fair scientific question. Also, if tree ring data is used we see little to no Medieval Warming period suggesting that current warming is statistically significant and something to worry about.
tobyw87 2 years ago
As I had, there are problems with proxies and our understanding of them gets refined over time. That does not mean we throw away evidence, it means we must learn how to get many different stories and get all of them to corroborate.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I don't disagree that our knowledge of the evidence gets better over time and I by no means think we should "throw out" proxy data. Only proxy data that we know doesn't work. Clearly tree ring data is subject to unknown variables that cause them to be unreliable. Google "the divergence problem" for peer reviewed articles on the subject.
Science should never be dogma. Sorry to break it to you but you sound like their number one evangeliser in this video.
tobyw87 2 years ago
John I don't know who these "climate change deniers" are that you speak of but the sensible people i know realize that there is climate change and has been since time began (6000 years or so) but man had had NOTHING to do with it. Part of the lie here on the left is that first they were screaming about global warming but when temperatures went down it became climate change and now those e-mails prove those scientists were just lying.
alancook01 2 years ago
The emails do not prove they're lying.
The first supposed email clue: look up any programmer and the word 'trick' -- that word is used to describe a computational method that is handily more clever and more efficient than methods you were using before. "Hey ryan, lemme show you this trick to get this done."
second email: the guy was expressing his own *personal *doubts that he had already publicly disclosed in another journal entire. That email wasn't even secretive.
onlyAerik 2 years ago
onlyAerik it sure looks to me like you're the denier lol
alancook01 2 years ago
You have shown complete disregard to context. In the emails, the word "trick" was used in the same paragraph with the same frame of reference as "hide". The term "trick" used for programers refers to an easier way to solve a problem. What you've determined as similar are two completely different meanings of the word trick. Context is always relevant.
CDubSD 2 years ago 2
If you think the earth is only 6000 years old, we need to work on that first, because climate science is based on the same methodology.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
even if the evolutionist loons are correct (and they're not), it only makes my point even further. first it was global warming but its been colder the last few years so they changed it to climate change. only climate change has been happening since the earth began so our pollutants can't be creating climate change. and the e-mails do prove it was all a hoax.
alancook01 2 years ago
The emails only show some flawed individuals, not that "the whole thing was a hoax". Denying evolution puts you into a special category - You depend almost entirely on science yet you know nothing about science.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
the scientists that made up the global warming lie are "flawed individuals". God works through science and nature. he is in all things. Global warming is a lie and climate change occurs in nature with or without us. The amount of time this has been happening is irrelevant to this conversation.
alancook01 2 years ago
Might want to add a couple zeros to argue when time began. I think its more like 6 billion years, not 6 thousand. But I agree, the world's climate has been continuously changing ever since its inception.
CDubSD 2 years ago
Ice cores have shown a very chaotic climate until the past 10,000 years, coincidentally the time at which civilization began. It can be argued that the planet's climate became stable and with that stability came the opportunity for agriculture which requires predictable seasons. Saying that the climate has varied in the past is such idiotic hand waving.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
how did civilization begin 10,000 years ago when everyone sane knows the earth is only 6000 years old???
alancook01 2 years ago
What indication is there that the proxies that are being arbitrarily chopped off at 1960 or 1980 (depending on the personal preference of the CRU scientist) are reliable, ever? Because they overlap for some time with actual temperature data?
What reason do you have to believe it is ever reliable?
Compare that to evolutionary research, where there are multiple methods of verifying the same age, and where there is no "divergence paradox".
anti0918 2 years ago
So if proxies are "not perfect", you pay your carbon tax, not me.
johnnyone9 2 years ago
Defector.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams, it has nothing to do with "creationists". Instead of defending your religion, use the scientific method like Lord Christopher Monckton (look him up) or numerous scientists that state very clearly that there is no evidence for man-made warming. I'm not in favor of polution, but CO2 has no effect on global warming. Mars also warmed up due to the sun, and now both Mars and the Earth are cooling down. Plenty of videos on my channel, also watch?v=2AD6S22JGmg .
johnnyone9 2 years ago
To say that CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere is sheer denial. We know for a fact that CO2 traps heat. It is a question of how much. We have built models based on our theories to predict what will happen. We have looked at the forensic evidence to see if it is having some significant effect now. The science presents a very significant probability that our civilization is threatened by climate change.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The term "Deniers" was purposly coined in order to compare with Holocaust deniers, and this is a very low form of comparison. Second, watch what *scientists* say, look for "Man-made climate change atheists: COP15 is political church" (a Russia Today report on youtube) and the videos on my Favorites, including "The Great Global Warming Swindle, part 1 of 9".
johnnyone9 2 years ago 2
j0hnwi11iams probably denies the holocaust. he seems to pick up every wacky notion he finds.
alancook01 2 years ago
Quite the opposite.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Holocaust deniers use the same tactics as creationists and climate change deniers, so it is not an unfair analogy.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report
The science has, quite simply, gone awry
U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk Consensus in 2008 &
2009
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, I said (3 times now) that junkScience[.]com cherry picks and quote mines like crazy and URLs are not provided (you do the same).
Interested in the special olympics? Not surprising as things have to be continually repeated for you due to your reading disability and/or a lack of memory retention.
So you're saying 700 "scientists" represent the over whelming majority of world wide? China has many 10s of millions alone.
Watch Ty1Bo6GmPqM
Are you asking to spar?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
You are the poster boy for the special olympics, I knew if I badgered you enough that I would indeed make a liar out of yourself. So how much did it cost for you to read the journal you so honestly tried to dimiss and twist what it ment?
Since I am dealing with a half wit, please tell me what other science you know of where ONLY those who agree with the methodology used and BELIEVE inthe same outcome are allowed to do peer review.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Which is why you have explained NOTHING and tried to spin everything in your favor with NOTHING to back it up. If you were a boxer you name would fall inbetween Bambi and Barney the dinosaur with Glass Joe being several leaps and bounds a head of you.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, ah back to your old friend Ad Hominems. When you're not desperately grasping at straws you're name calling as it's what you do worst.
At least Bambi/Barney/Glass Joe would have addressed my calling you (4 times now) on your apparent offer to spar. But not you, and that my little buddy puts you in solitary league far below them.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71 it's obvious to even the most retarded that I've treated you like a dog that desperately wants to hump my leg, gets kneed hard in the gut, but returns for more.
Based on all the private PM's, other's are finding my pwning of you very entertaining. Apparently you're a well known troll in these circles.
As I said before (3rd time) your 3rd article was the only freely available one.
Nothing is stopping you from submitting a rebutal to a reputable journal, except a lost cause.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
LOL I quoted staight from the first article which I did not pay for and found via a simple name search on Bing, Yahoo, and google.Based on private PM's? Are you trying to say that you are stoping others from correcting me? You have shown 0 and I have at least shown via peer reviewed journals that the science of man made global warming is indeed not even close to being settled. You still have not answered the freedom of information acts in either case! Yet U act like this science needs protected.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@Tubaboy71, the first article only displays the abstract. It's no good, without the full article and context.
No, I'm saying others have email me to say you're a complete troll. Thought that was obvious.
You ignore, my questions from the very first posts (which I've recently quoted), or any points that I pwn you on, hoping I won't notice. I noticed each time.
700 "scientists" does not compare to 10s of millions. Again I refer you to the video Ty1Bo6GmPqM . Don't play mute this time.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Also your "concensus" is not made up of MILLIONS of anytype of scientists. Fact is I do not think you understand what the word dissent means.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
I am just curious, do you think it was fine for the hackers to have done what they did?
john38235133 2 years ago
@John38235133, you again?
The correct term is "cracker". A hacker is someone that makes things work in new ways. A cracker is someone that causes trouble.
Do you think it's OK for someone to open your snail mail? That's a felony.
Question is what does cracked cherry picked quoted mined emails prove? That all universities world wide and 50 years of climate research is a fraud. Hardly.
Did you hear the rumor? HTWW emails have been cracked and there's loads of debunking coming down.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I think it is wrong to post anything that is private to someone for everyone to see, do you agree?
john38235133 2 years ago
@John38235133, what is this a weak attempt at getting an agreement on your tired old pet topic? Surely you're smarter then that?
Is it wrong to post anything that's public information? No. Non. Nada. Nein. Sorry I don't speak any other languages. Do you get the point?
If you have an issue with some of your public information being posted for all to see, then the obvious solution is DON'T POST IT PUBLICALLY.
Are we done? Or will this non-issue rear it's ugly head yet again?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Geez, you don't have to be so upset. I thought you would be glad to hear from me again. Some people consider accounts private so so I think it is wrong but hey whatever so long long as someone can make a point, right? Sorry, I won't go any further with this you are in a grumpy mood. Happy Hollidays : )
john38235133 2 years ago
@John38235133, you're beginning to sound like a broken record, and it's been months.
The price paid for being on a social site like youtube is that you can lose some of your annoymity. It boils down to what you yourself volunteer out to the internet and so I have no sympathy for anyone beating this dead horse of a topic.
Take care Johnny, maybe one day we'll chat about something else.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I almost wonder if you just make videos against me no matter what I say...lol.
BTW: I support evolution and carbon dating, etc.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
@HowTheWorldWorks, I'm wondering why you haven't deleted, J0hnWi11iams video posts, text posts and blocked him yet, as you've done with 1000s of others. I guess you don't feel threatened by those that do direct video uploads, as compared to those that use video authoring software.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I have been blocked and deleted from MANY left wing text posts...LMAO
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, thanks for both thumbs downing my comment and responding within minutes to a post directed at HTWW.
How did you know HTWW would not respond back?
I've been internet posting since the 1990, but was first ever censored/blocked by HTWW, but have since been spammed and proactively blocked by one of HTWW rabid supporters, BigBoss686. That's a grand total of 2 internet fascists experiences.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen No problem! Glad I could help! Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW. You and your kind think that just because more of you get a corn cob up your ass about something that it makes it OK to pile on. You start getting piled on back you whine!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, you say "Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW". Said like a scared drone.
The rest of your post is idiotic nonsense.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Scared of what? Are you threatening to give me a tongue lashing you brute?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, isn't obvious? You said "Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW". You're scared that HTWW will censor and block you if you step out of the drone line.
It has nothing to do with me.
Why did I have to explain to you the fucktard obvious?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen AHHH so by me wishing to offend you only makes what you say correct?LOL
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, do you have a reading disability? Your comment is pure nonsense.
To repeat I said "It has nothing to do with me".
Feel free to try and offend me all you want as I've yet to censor or block anyone, let along 1000s like your mentor HTWW.
To repeat you said "Only person I hope to not offend is HTWW". You're scared that HTWW will censor and block you if you step out of the drone line.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Nope. I actually do not really try to offend people who I like. I have been "edited" by others and have yet to be edited by him. You on the other hand have this complex where you are telling me what I mean and think which pretty well describes someone I really do not like, but then again that is about all you lil bitches are good for is spinning things. Only part is its not even good enough spin to turn a hampster wheel.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, HTWW will not "edit" you as long as you're in lock step with him.
The rest of your "hamster wheel" post is nonsense.
The dialog thread is all here. I responded to you first, and in doing so posed a number of questions first (ie sentences ending with "?"), of which you've not answered any yet. I on the other hand addressed all your posts.
Answer all my past questions (better late then never) and then we'll talk EPA.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen Actually no you havent answered anything. If information is asked for under the fredom of information act and what is requested is not provided it is BAD. This is science not a business. Your science in this is trying to "save the world" not patient an idea to make billions or redistibute billions of dollars..Oh wait!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, FIA does not allow open access to everything, as I said before. FIA request on military aspects for example could very well be denied under many existing exceptions. The requester then has the option of submitting an appeal. You do realize that I've already mentioned all this?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with the military...are you now saying your dumb ass is a lawyer?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, what should have been self-evident was explained twice to you, and using an extreme example, ie the military, should have nailed the point home. Guess not, as you're saying "this has nothing to do with the military". It's an example to illustrate FIA has many loop hole exceptions, but a denial can be appealed (3rd time explaining this).
If you were an engineer you'd realize I don't sound anything like a lawyer. However your mentor and global warming expert, HTWW, is a lawyer.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
egads, what is the video containing common sense discussion doing on youtube?
milowent 2 years ago
/watch?v=iXAMjsiAwEM name of the game?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Of course the right wing would be against teaching scientists communication skills. They don't want intelligent people competing against right wing think tanks like the competitive enterprise institute who hire impressionable youth like Lee Doren.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
That is not about communication skills at all. Its about using propaganda to win over people when the science is not there to back it up. More than half of the alarmists are part of a global goverance movement. That is why they use propaganda and redifine what peer reviewing actually is.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Show me a climate model that is actually acurate within the the reason of the tenths of degrees they are whining about.. Also it is known that the Earth has had 1900+ ppm of CO2 which is more CO2 in the atmosphere than if we exhausted all of our fossil fuels. Back then the Earth supported life and it was about 4C warmer.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
The ice record shows that the past 10,000 years have been extremely stable. It is very likely that the earth established some number of negative feedback loops to stabilize the climate. That does not mean that these loops will stay negative if we push the climate, in fact, most of the climate history has been very chaotic with many positive feedback loops. The question is not whether the planet will sustain life, it will. The question is whether the planet will support civilization.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Ahh you mean like elitists who built homes in bad places in regards to water?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
That's a pretty sick attitude.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
No its not. Any idiot knows the world changes. So tell us all how CO2 from millions of years ago is going to react differently now all of the sudden? Best excuse I have heard so far is that it is "man made" with no other explaination LOL.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
You are also forgeting a known decade that Mann had to give the title of warmest decade back too. LOL And it was before you were born Johnnie
tubaboy71 2 years ago
If you are referring to the medieval warming period, that was due to natural cyclical variations, not due to persistent accumulation of CO2. Don't you get it? We are trying to figure out what will happen BEFORE it happens. If we wait until there is absolutely no uncertainty, especially trying to convince deniers for whom no amount of evidence and theory will suffice, it will already be too late. If we tip the climate past it's stability, we are likely to end up with climate chaos.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Putting the politics into the mix how about they figure this out with full peer reviews and not hatchet jobs the alarmists use? They have a few decades to get it right before they become global statists.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Right. The necessities for acting on what we know about climate change violates your ideology. Your ideology is retarded.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Only thing retarded around here is you. So tell me "Mr. I own 20 patents" how global warming actually works with a model that actually works. Since it does not exist (a working model) and the "science" bastardizes the known, you are left with doing all the work yourself!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
The models are out there, and if by "work" you mean perfect, then you prove my point once again. Science is a process of refinement, we never hold science up as perfection.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
They do not work, thus your point is not proven. Science is about pulling resources and ideas together to find out the facts. Science is not locking people out, hiding information and not allowing debate. If you do you science correctly it becomes a VERY solid process..
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@Tubaboy71, you say several "tenths of degrees". Do you realize that's an average over a few years and at the poles it's much higher?
You say "Show me a climate model that is actually acurate". Do you realize climate models accurately explain the past, but their inaccuracies now reflect an incomplete understanding on the many ways man is effecting the environment?
You say "Any idiot knows the world changes". Do you realize the world is changing 1000s of times faster then ever before?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@Tubaboy71, you say "putting the politics into the mix how about they figure this out with full peer reviews and not hatchet jobs the alarmists use? They have a few decades to get it right"
Don't you know that global warming research has already been ongoing for many decades?
Politics has nothing to do with scientific fact and concensus, however deniers reply on vested interests like the oil industry for support.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@tubaboy71, you say "Science is about pulling resources and ideas together to find out the facts. Science is not locking people out, hiding information and not allowing debate."
Which locked out people? Those that cherry pick and quote mine emails claiming they have "real facts and research"? Respected scientific journals don't publish nonsense rebutals.
Provide a link to a respected scientific journal published study that concludes climate change is non-existant and/or is not man made.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
The science is 100% politically motivated
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Was higher in the 1930-1940's....
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Going of what you just said you just went from point A to point D while ignoring points C and B. Judging from what they tried to BASTARDIZE and refuse to show lends me to see why you would leave those points out.
/watch?v=iXAMjsiAwEM LOL talk about the game...gotta "win" science
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@tubaboy71, you say "science is 100% politically motivated". LOL. That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a long time.
The reality is, science is EVIDENCE motivated, and as such scientist peer review each other to ensure they don't screw up, publish nonsense and loss face. But you seem to think peer review requires an impossible 100% concensus, when the reality is a select few experts double check a paper for errors before publication in a reputable scientific journal.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@tubaboy71, what do you think would happen if nonsense was published in a reputable scientific journal? The authors would be quickly called on their errors in a rebutal published in a reputable scientific journal.
Again I ask "Provide a link to a respected scientific journal published study that concludes climate change is non-existant and/or is not man made".
As well you didn't answer any of my questions.
As for iXAMjsiAwEM, it's just some guy bitching about wording.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Stick with the program ass hat. THIS SCIENCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. Simple fact you do not see it as such should disqualify you from having any common sense.
"Lamberth finds EPA in contempt for e-document purge"
◦Jul 25, 2003
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth this week held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt for destroying electronic documents in violation of a court order issued as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request"
tubaboy71 2 years ago
WSJ-The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg
The global-warming scandal is bigger than one email leak.
"Which leaves researchers free to withhold information selectively from critics, as when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."
tubaboy71 2 years ago
Is this science? Shall I go on? Show me something real that says it is a huge concensus that man made global warming is the actual cause of All climate change.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, you're going to go on with what? An unscientific opinion here and there, a quote mined reference, cherry picking isolated examples. It's a waste of time to trade such examples back and forth.
Once again if the published science is wrong, then it would be quickly refutted in reputable journals. I've asked you 4 times now to produce such a link and you won't because you can't.
The concensus in reputable scientific journals is that man is causing global warming.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I have PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC AND ACTUAL REAL PEER REVIEWED SOURCES. You are also ignoring the fact the CRU was being selective with who peer reviewed their work. If someone was going to try to find faults in their science they wouldn't use them to do peer reviews. Funny thing is that you are trying to say that is science!
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"Progress in Physical Geography 27,3 (2003) pp. 448455 Global warming
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge
MA 02138, USA
tubaboy71 2 years ago
"An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction "
GeoJournal (2007) 70:1114
DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9129-9
Roy W. Spencer
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, fine you provided two titles, now provide the URL links so I can go check them out.
I hope these are you're very best reputable scientific journal examples.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen Ok now you are too fucking stupid to do a fucking search?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, are you too inconsiderate to provide a URL? How to get the exact physical volume is useless.
I took a look at the first page of GeoJournal article, as it won't let me look at the full article (without being a member?) and it boils down to the author complaining that the general public consumption documentary is not scientific enough. It's a documentary not a scientific paper.
My request was for a scientific paper refuted by another scientific paper.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Does youtube allow urls? NO. For some idiot who has been on the internet since 1990 you are an even bigger idiot.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, you have a short memory retention.
Here's what I said 11 minutes and one comment ago:
"I suspect you used a BS shill site like junkscience[.]com (run by FoxNews) and quoted some of their cherry picked and quote mined "sources" which conveniently omit links."
Did you catch the URL? junkscience[.]com
If you're going to accuse someone of being a "bigger idiot" make sure you don't epically pwn yourself in the process.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen AHH yes Fox news now runs a climate science department. What is happening here is you have no answer so now you re demonizing it. LOL So are you just saying those scientists are paid hitmen for Fox news?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, did you bother reading the 2 sources you provided?
I suspect you used a BS shill site like junkscience[.]com (run by FoxNews) and quoted some of their cherry picked and quote mined "sources" which conveniently omit links.
Progress in Physical Geography requires a paid subscription to view articles, so that reference is worthless.
Any more sources?
Again the request was a rebutal of a published paper both in reputable scientific journal(s). Now requested 6 times.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Only BULLSHIT here is between your ears. You are now using the strawman arguement of either being poor, stupid or "these peer reviewed papers do not meet up to my standards" which for some reason works for you or you at least want it too. LOL. Nothing off of here is from junk science.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, ignoring your ad homiems, both your article references were listed on junkscience[.]com (ie URL).
Provide me a URL to a global warming paper that refutes another global warming paper with both being published in reputable scientific journal(s) (8 time request).
As for "peer reviewed paper standards" it includes the fact that the paper is available for READING. Sorry I don't trust a shill like HTWW to interpret sources and tell me what ever suits his vested/job interests.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen oh please you stupid cunt. You have provided NOTHING and even gave fucking excuses to why publically funded climate science institutions shouldn't release the info we paid for. This is not the military and it is not top secret...at least it shouldn't be. FUNNIEST part in all of this EVERY dumb fuck in here that supports warming alarmists does not have nor give a shread of concern if their science believe is correct. How do you check it if they don't release it?
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, more ad hominems and nonsensical verbosity.
The reality (3rd time) is FIA doesn't cover everything (FIA on your IQ?), there are exceptions, but a denial can be appealed to a binding decision.
I've already explained (2nd time) why raw data is most always a scientific publishing requirement.
What about you? How does quote mining and cherry picking text in emails or through junkscience[.]com support science?
When will CEI/HTWW get published in a reputable scientific journal?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Please sir with all of your immense input to this please tell us what is and is not allowed to be released. EPA was already found in contempt. Raw data is fine but they also must release how they make their data work. Yanno like actual equations, and why they did this to achieve that. You must be worried that there is something damning to this because you have givin no real excuse LOL. Never been to junk science until now and 2 of the journals I listed were rebutals to other works of alarmists
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@TubaBoy71, a cherry picked source that has lost their data doesn't amount to anything but poor backups, and at worse the study has to be redone. Why not move onto studies that have their data published? Answer: like most rabid deniers you have little else to cling to.
You lack science knowledge don't you?
Reputable scientific papers describe their methods ("how they make their data work").
A memory lapse? I already told you 2 of your articles are listed on junkscience[.]com (ie URL).
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
REPLY COMMENT
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al. (2003)
Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
tubaboy71 2 years ago
@tubeBoy71, by the way here's the URL cfa[.]harvard[.]edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soonetal01CR[.]pdf
You finally got a full article, even though it's not refutting another global warming article published in a reputable scientific journal which is what I asked for (9th time). The idea being able to compare 2 competing articles not one. But I'll humor you.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen I must say you are the only idiot in over 2 months who couldnt find a cited journal......
tubaboy71 2 years ago