Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change. He is a fraud.
the real problem with the sea level concerns is the fact that a substantial portion of the polar ice caps are already floating- and we're to believe that the melting of this ice will raise the sea level (!?)
I don't know what to think about global warming. For every two scientists that say it's happening I see two more that say it is not happening. And that makes me think that we should not be spending billions of dollars to "fight' it. I mean it seems that no one ever talks about the sun. Makes sense that it could get warmer at certain points. Still i have not seen enough data to sway me either way.
Same as the 50s and tobacco. Create confusion. There is plenty of data. Just not in fashion to get a scientistic on tv .......so lets role out a weatherman with no background in it.
Same as the 50s and tobacco. Create confusion. There is plenty of data. Just not in fashion to get a scientist on tv .......so lets role out a POLITITION with no background in it.
Same as tobacco compaines in last 50 years.
Your arguement is crap because it works both ways.
Isn't scientific criticism to state earth has gone through dramatic climate changes in the past before industrialization happened? If it wasn't so, Groenland would be called Whiteland... get a reality check and stop listening to the propaganda.
@pkpapers Solar flares do exist, but they do not last for decades as Coleman fails to mention. Continuous change in temperature for the planet cannot be affected by a solar flare.
@MegaDarb69, not by a solar flare, but by variations in the 22 year solar cycle. If we're entering a new Dalton Minimum (as seems likely), then if history means anything you can expect a general cooling trend.
BTW, the Dalton Minimum lasted about 40-50 years, and was accompanied by short, cool summers and long, brutal winters. The "year without a summer" was in the middle of the Dalton Minimum.
The US government would rather protect the oil company than to stop global warming. The government depends too much on the business of oil. Lack of this business can cause the downfall of this country. It is what made this country so powerful in the firlst place. It now knows that it's limited global supply is nearing it's end. Now the government needs to find/build different sources of energy. Coleman watch the sky like a good meteorlologist and let the government attempt to save itself.
I viewed this to find comfort that global warming doesn't exist, but it didn't serve it's purpose. Viewing this just made it more believable that global warming does exist.
Global warming is not a hoax. I agree with Coleman when it comes to people who are worrying a lot about it. At the same time, I don't agree with Coleman since: people who worry are too lazy to do anything about it. It's not up to the government to pay billions of dollars, it's up to the individuals to change their lifestyles. It's not just global warming, it's pollution. Again, people are just too lazy and it is inconvenient for them. This is where people like Al Gore comes to point it out.
LOL! Coleman says in 20 years he'll look back and laugh at all of this! Obviously he's not a scientist. He's a COMEDIAN! I can't believe I was the only one that caught that. Look at him. In 20 years, he won't be able to laugh. Man! Either Coleman loves to lie, or he's a straight up comedian.
Funny how Coleman talks about how the media keeps nagging about global warming when TheJohnBirchSociety keeps showing proof that the media also says otherwise. Good job TheJohnBirchSociety for including links that goes against what Coleman is falsely protraying.
Play this denier's voice backwards and you'll hear him say that the moon-landing was fake. The hypothesis that solar flares exist is a conspiracy theory. This guy is so patriarchal and oppressive!
@Bullpuma volcano co2 is natural, it is removed from the atmosphere naturally by the trees that have already been cut down...Oops. lumber company. More reason to reduce co2 emission, duh! And many meteorologist agree and dissagree about global warming, so what is your point? Plus, h20 is high heat capacitance. Melting ice caps is too extreme of change. Do your research. Don't know what Heat Capacitance is: ask a MODERN scientist or engineer like me. Not this 70's guy with outdated experience.
@gregjalbert: Tell people don't steal. Politicians hate competition.
Funny how a lot of global warming organizations are created by the PEOPLE and anti global warming politicians are funded by CORPORATIONS. Also, see "Who Killed the Electric Car" and see who is funded by who.
Sorry skdas11, but you don't understand. Most of hitlers scientists did not believe in the Nazi way. They were forced into it. Plus, they were the smartest in the world in that time frame. Albert Einstein was German in that time frame before he became American Citizen in 1940. A lot of German technologies still can't be replicated from then. skdas11, you are complementing IPCC, not putting them down. Calling IPCC a bunch of Einsteins does sound pretty true though.
For all of those agreeing with Coleman and his saying about the theories in the 70's. People WAKE UP! It's 2011 already! Microcomputers were first introduced in the 70's. Most companies with computers back then had the second generation "giant" computers that were not capable of doing much of anything. For crying out loud: I can have a facetime phone conversation, play games, research, facebook and type this message at the same time in a device that fits my pocket.It's dumb to refer to 70's data
Sorry justaman6972. What you say is hogwash. Volcanoes does NOT warm up the planet. That is an extremely shallow view of things. Volcanoes cool down the planet. Volcanoes release heat into the atmosphere that eventually gets radiated into space, which cools down the planet. Also, dust clouds created by volcanoes block sunlight, which in turn cools the planet as well. Look up volcano eruptions. Look up Mount Pinatubo. Look up results of volcanic eruptions.
the ICC are a bunch of bought and paid for liars. Its not science,volcanoes yes that will help warm the planet,but its a natural event. Global warming is hogwash!
hahahah it doesnt matter how much co2 humans add to the atmosphere we have around 0,039% Co2 in the whole atmosphere and the part added by humans is of course even smaller so stfu already in the 70´s they were talking about global cooling and a new ice age
by the way this man isnt protecting corporations, those "scientists" from the IPCC are like hitlers scientist, trying to proove a theory that doesnt make sense just like the race-theory
@skdas11 Wrong. "They" if you mean scientists, did not predict a soon to come global cooling or new Ice age in the 70's. There were no scientific papers to make that claim. There were media reports of it, but no evidence from science. There have been hundreds of peer reviewed papers that give measurable, verified and peer reviewed evidence of AGW. You listen too much to Fox News and Sean Hannity. See: Potholer54 Climate Change
Expel ignorant liar gangster politicians (mostly Republican) that protect corporate polluters and climate catastrophe makers. Americans have been mislead and kept in the dark about climate disruption by corporate media brainwashers working for the oil/automobile/asphalt/concrete/construction industry gangsters. climateprogress . org --- climatecodered . net --- skepticalscience . com -- ucsusa . org Do you really care about future generations?
IT is so big it cannot be brought into perspective by many people. poking holes in one story or another does not matter, because IT will be dismissed if motives are not apparent. motive is not apparent because IT is so big. but once IT is brought into perspective, IT becomes so clear that all of these actions that appear to contradict the motive, actually, all work towards the same motive.
its the same way the USA attacks al quaeda, they don't exist. there were only like a hundred, then when we started a war. now they pop up all over the globe so we can occupy every country and bomb innocent civilians.
@baezalejandro Actually globally rice yield growth is slowing down according to the FAO and corn (a C4 plant) shows no rise in yield with increased CO2.As CO2 continues to change the global climate, both of these variables are subject to change in an unfavorable way for a certain species in a certain region (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011).
@checkyoursources 40% only when counting man made CO2. Also There are many other gases that also contribute to the atmosphere, water vapor is the biggest trapper of heat. that man made 40% accounts for much less than 1% of green house gasses. What gives scientists the idea that a tipping point exists? Why are readings from weather balloons and satellites never cited in reports. Why do so many meteorologists disagree with MAN-MADE global warming.
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
@checkyoursources i hear the sun is not rising in temperature, yet all other planets are rising in temperature. im not saying scientists are lying about the sun, its just that this is very interesting, what does cause them to rise. something is happening. dooo dooo doooooooo!!
@checkyoursources 186billion tons 6billion manmade of CO2. we can cut all the CO2 emissions we want, but under the idea of man-made global warming, we are easily one big volcanic eruption away from disaster. If the sun has a sun spot pointed at us, the few degree raise in average temperature will kill us. if rising temperature was sooo disasterous, then how did those people in the middle ages survive it?
@Bullpuma Only .32 billion tons of CO2 are emitted every year by volcanoes. Every year we emit 35 Billion tons of CO2 through our pollution. I don't know about you, but I'm more worried about the human impact, not the natural one.
@Bullpuma The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest (26 gigatonnes of CO2-EIA) remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
@baezalejandro 8% co2 kills humans. Actually an increase in CO2 increases warming and warming increases CO2. Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010).
@baezalejandro Increased CO2 makes more water vapour, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming.Co2 can drive temps and temps can drive CO2 increase.
CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by 15 gigatonnes per year due to humans.- USGS
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.-USGS
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. -Morner (2002) and EIA
@checkyoursources and i find it hilarious that u would site phytoplankton declines becuz if there was an increase in c02 there would be MORE phytoplankton NOT less, since they need c02 to live and make food JUST LIKE PLANTS!!!
@baezalejandro It's more complicated than that actually. The CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains such as the effects of Co2 on water availability and temps.
@checkyoursources it's May already and we're still having rain and temperatures int he 50's, here in Chicago.
in fact this was one of the worst winters yet. all of lakeshore drive was shut down from the blizzard and miles of cars and buses were abandoned on the highway.
@baezalejandro Sorry to burst your bubble but Chicago is not the entire planet, it covers less than 0.1% of the land surface. One particularly cold season in one small location is not equivalent to global temps being colder. Globally, the last decade was the warmest on modern record with 2010 being a record hot year globally. The average temp for April in Chicago is 40-59 degrees F. May has only just started and is typically between 51-71 degrees F.
@checkyoursources if u really want to stop gobal warming i suggest u destroy the wetlands as they have a much much much greater impact on greenhous gases than humans.
@baezalejandro It's more complicated than that actually. The CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains such as the effects of Co2 on water availability and temps. Read and of these peer reviewed papers to see what I mean (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011).
@mv4455 global warming is due to solar activity! THAT'S IT!
the temperature has fluctuated ALL THE TIME for thousands of years. in fact there was a global cooling scare int eh 70's AND int eh 1600's some of the ports of germany and england were frozen over.
@baezalejandro 1)The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Read: Peterson (2008).
2) The sun hasn't been a primary driver for decades, look up the PMOD data from WRC or read: Meehl (2004) , Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005) , Lockwood 2008, lockwood 2010, Kulmala et al. (2010) Frolich 1998.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
Well Gore is one of them trying to urge people to allow energy tax or carbon tax to become part of daily living. Carbon credits is a failed before implemented plan to tax coal and other fossil fuel power plants to be allowed to pollute. NASA may have nothing to do with it... it's the way in which it's used on the political battlefield is the problem. You deny that Big Oil and GreenPeace both have their goons? We need to go nuclear, problem solved. Both sides of the fence don't like the idea
@shaokem I am for nuclear. The problem is that it is political poison. Everyone remembers Chernobyl and 3 mile island.
The French have been using nuclear for years with no safety issues.
The real answer is thorium - it was originally going to be used rather than nuclear, but the U.S. gov't focused on nuclear so it could use it for nuclear weapons.
Thorium reactors are much safer, has a much shorter half life and are being tested in Russian and I think India.
@TheSnoopy1750 Exactly!!! YAY! We've found common ground! We most def need to go Nuclear! You're right about it being political poison. Problem is too many people need to be educated. Nuclear engineering has made huge leaps since the 1980's. And today it is evolving even faster. It's a shame really, but then again it's the political BS that keeps things like this at bay.
@TheSnoopy1750 A friend of mine drives a Prius... He loves that he's helping to save the world. But then I crushed his utopia by pointing out electricity comes from coal plants which is just another form of fossil fuel. So he's only trading one fossil fuel for another. Also the Prius is a heavy car. You're carrying both the gas motor and the electric motor. Along with a gas tank and all the huge batteries that supply power to the electric motor. Toyota capitalizing on the idea of going green!
@shaokem True - that being said, it does help reduce dependence on foreign oil as the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
I think coal is actually worse for GW than oil, but at least we keep the dollars here.
If not prius cars - what is the solution? Ideally one that reduces greenhouse gases and reduces reliance on foreign oil.
I guess we could just drive tiny economy cars like they do in Europe, with even some bigger cars having 4 cylinders or diesels. I like the 1.6L Mini Coopers.
@TheSnoopy1750 Yeah... I've always driven 4 cylinders. Mainly cause I don't want to spend loads of money on gas. I remember back in 84' my dad bought a brand new Honda CRX-HF. The HF stood for High Fuel economy. Thank thing made 41 mpg!!! FOURTY ONE! That was back in 1984! So how come we still to this day have cars barely breaking 30? BS BS BS!!!
@TheSnoopy1750 Jesus! 5 Bucks! F That! I agree though. I commute to work 4 days a week sometimes 5. I drive about 33 miles one way. Sometimes I stay in town for work. Anywho, I see so many SUVs it's not funny. And 199 out of 200 times you'll see one person in the truck driving to work or where ever.
@shaokem Yep, stupid American way of thinking. They buy a truck to go to Home Depot twice a year.
Maybe have a program share-a-SUV where there are 30 SUVs that can be used in certain situations.
Basically, Americans need to change their way of thinking and get with the program. If everyone replaced their car with one with 70% better mpg, our oil problem would be solved.
If you amortize the cost of the wars over the avg. gallon of gas, i read it was something like $40/gallon.
@TheSnoopy1750 [[Basically, Americans need to change their way of thinking and get with the program. If everyone replaced their car with one with 70% better mpg, our oil problem would be solved.]] Actually if you halted all carbon emissions for 30 years you might reduce less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. So even if it was true there is little anyone can practically do. Thank God it's just another profit scheme by the already richest people in the world.
@TheSnoopy1750 Great comments. This channel TheJohnBirchSociety is interesting because for years the Society was a fringe movement that was rejected by mainstream Republicans, now it is threatening to take over the whole Republican Party. Remember it was Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act into law.
@calamagrostis88 Yes, I know all about the John Birch Society - a bunch of right wing wackjobs that met their fate decades ago, and now a tiny fringe group. Now the crazy Tea Party is trying to assume the role of the Birchers.
i love how TheJohnBirchSociety responded to my posts above. These guys have zero credibility.
I will take the word of 98% of the top climatologists, NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences etc. over these right wing crazies.
@TheSnoopy1750 John Coleman and his facts supported by over 19,000 scientists have little to do with the John Birch Society. And attacking a group does not change that global warming is a big hoax and many have finally caught on to this.
@MayonR 19,000 climatologists? You realize these 19,000 scientists include petroleum engineers, biochemists, meteorologists and others with no expertise in climatology.?
You are so gullible. You fell for the old trick of false equivalency where you think opinions of people with no expertise have equal credibility with experts.
I will continue to believe 98% of top CLIMATOLOGISTS and the top global scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society etc.
@TheSnoopy1750 these are 19,000 scientists who argued against the presented data with the real data. Also you use a very old trick by presenting the best of the cherry picked scientists or say that large organizations speak for all scientist when they have vested political and financial interest. In fact much of the core of the IPCC's data was furiously guarded from scrutiny even involving freedom of information laws. And much of it is purported lost because of inferior record keeping.
@MayonR So EVERY top scientific organization (NASA, NOAA, NAS, RS etc.) believing GW is real as well as a survey of the world's top climatologists isn't convincing?
If 1/2 of the top scientific groups had the view that GW wasn't real, then an argument could be made, but that is not the case.
NONE of the top scientific organizations deny GW. Nor do the vast majority the top climatologists.
The funny part is you're still fighting a battle that was settled years ago. You're in serious denial.
@TheSnoopy1750 [[NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society etc.]]
Did you know that if you are an employee of Coca Cola that you cannot drink a Pepsi product while on shift or even in uniform? In fact you cannot drink any brand that is not a Coca Cola distributed product. I'm pretty sure Pepsi has the same policy.What do you think?
@TheSnoopy1750 [[You are so gullible. You fell for the old trick of false equivalency where you think opinions of people with no expertise have equal credibility with experts.]] (Extremely summarized)3,805 Sct. relating to Earth Sci.,935 Comp and Math,5,812 Phys&Aero,4,822 Chem.,2,965 Bio&Agri.,3,046 Med,10,102 Eng. and General. The longer description outlines why these fields are important. All names and regions are available with further breakdowns of their professions.
@MayonR Unless you can actually cite a credible scientific organization on par with NASA, NOAA, National Academy etc., you should just be quiet as you are just showing your ignorance.
You say the 19,000 (non-climatologist) scientists have "data". Well, if it is so damn convincing, why does EVERY credible science organization believe GW is real?
You are seriously delusional. Just keep on disputing the results of the top experts in GW, not realizing you sound crazy.
@TheSnoopy1750 All the data is based on one source not many. All from the IPCC models from their little weather stations that were placed in urban heated areas which was reported by University of Colorado and in the same institution Dr. William Gray top hurricane researcher has acknowledged that a lot of people make a living of the global warming threat. There are many voices sprinkled in the people who want to just keep their job. Federal agencies telling us it's true doesn't make it so.
@TheSnoopy1750 [Again, you have no support for your views from any top scientific organization nor a statistically meaningful number of top climatologists.] How remedial it would be that I would depend on a magazine to tell me what is true about this world. Superior is to consider all the criticisms. [[Ignoring the top experts while grasping at straws requires a special type of delusion,]] Virtually every pioneer scientist was ostracized by the consensus at the time. Newton?
@TheSnoopy1750 Wow you really are a global warming cheerleader and even a global governance pundit..You-"you should just be quiet as you are just showing your ignorance.". Al Gore-There is no debate". Obama-"It's time to quit fighting and pass this bill". Global Warmists really show off the true political nature of the agenda. Usually anyone with any truth wants to share it to everyone but here we just want to shut up and agree.
@TheSnoopy1750 I'm not into personal attacks when considering different topics, but are you one of those persons that learn everything from Popular mechanics or say that the news didn't tell me about it, it didn't happen kind of people?
@TheSnoopy1750 [[Unless you can actually cite a credible scientific organization on par with NASA, NOAA, National Academy]] Again I make the point that just because an organization endorses a product it does not mean that every qualified individual in that organization agrees with the broad based endorsement. Even in NASA there are notable scientists who flatly deny anthropogenic GW such as Roy Spencer and John Christy.Of course their findings won't appear on the front of the NASA newsletter.
@MayonR The scary part is that everyone knows that climatologists are the absolute experts in climatology and GW, yet you ignore their research and look for any other "scientists" that supports your view.
Do you really not realize how pathetic that is?
Please stop commenting unless you can provide support from a top scientific org. or the vast majority of top climatologists.
Too bad for you that they already have come out in disagreement with your anti-GW stance.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."
I am shocked, just shocked that petroleum scientists and meteorologists (who are NOT climatologists) are the GW doubters given they have a vested interest and no expertise in climatology, respectively.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
@TheSnoopy1750 That's just it, humans play a role... as quoted from your quotes. We (humans) are not the leading role. Actually far from it, though its argued every year we contribute more and more CO2... which will end with becoming more efficient. Then we'll see what happens from then on. Don't you also understand the politics being played here?
@shaokem NASA actually says man is the primary reason - look it up. This article did not give a % that humans play. It is obviously significant - if it were not, climatologists could not measure the impact and say man was a factor with the other factors so huge - sun, natural variations etc.
Bottom line, if you listen to climatologists, they are for carbon emissions standards, IPCC nation standards etc. If man were a tiny factor, then these actions would not be necessary.
@shaokem "Don't you also understand the politics being played here?"
What politics? Because Gore is a believer? Prove there is some liberal conspiracy among NASA and climate scientists if you can. Unless you have solid evidence, you sound like a weirdo conspiracy theorist.
@shaokem So who are you going to trust with scientific analysis? NASA and the world's top climatologists or some random scientists?
I will go with the top experts.
You can question the scientific conclusions all you want, but why do you think NASA and top climatologists are wrong, or in a vast conspiracy? Do you have evidence of either?
Saying they are wrong or making it up with no evidence is ridiculous.
@TheSnoopy1750 I'm not sure I ever said they were wrong. Just as many scientist disagree that GW is man made. And you count them out because? Decaying matter and farts combined release more CO2 than automobiles. The ocean creates tons of CO2. The problem is the political spin on everything. It's a power struggle, and those that want what the ones in power have will use this to increase your dependence. We need to go nuclear!
@shaokem The key is in the article I just listed.
The top climatologists (97%) say it is man made. They are the absolute experts and have looked at the various factors in much greater depth.
What do meteorologists or petroleum engineers know about climatology? Not much, if anything.
Yet GW deniers give these non-experts some credibility when they are not climate experts by any stretch of the imagination. It's like asking an ophthalmologist whether you need heart surgery.
@sparwood8 First, it is 98% of top climatologists - google the June 22, 2010 BBC Report for detail. Second, nowhere close to 99% of people believe in evolution. I am assuming you think the the earth is 6,000 year old - lol.
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."
Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, says "rather than global warming at a rate of 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030.” The cooling trend will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell. TheNewAmericandotcom
@BBoy2Galoo That is why I defer to NASA and top climatologists.
NASA builds complex supercomputer models and they incorporate climate data as well as all natural variations so to isolate the cause of the warming trend. Given the importance of their work, NASA scientists make sure everything is accounted for.
@TheSnoopy1750 LOL, right. NASA, the institution that our government flooded with Nazi scientist after WW2 ended in Operation Paperclip? Point being, the agenda for world control didn't end in WW2, just as it didn't in any era of time before that. Likewise, The Nazi's were defeated, not the ideology. It all boils down to control. That is all global warming is.
@TheSnoopy1750 Right. NASA, the institution that our government flooded with Nazi scientist after WW2 ended in Operation Paperclip? Point being, the agenda for world control didn't end in WW2, just as it didn't in any era of time before that. Likewise, The Nazi's were defeated, not the ideology. It all boils down to control. That is all global warming is.
@TheSnoopy1750 Ok, explain this then:During the Holocene Maximum in 6000 BC and the Medieval warm period of 1500, the carbon output by people and industry was far less than the 20th century, yet temperatures where higher. Machinery wasn't even existent then! Then, after WW2, with the man made fuel burning industry cranking with industrialization, from 1940 through the next 30 years plus, the temperature began to drop. So, using any common sense, warming is in no way related to CO2.
@checkyoursources wrong... man made contributions to greenhouse gases is only 0.28%.
the vast majority is vater vapour. volcanoes, wetlands, and decaying plants dwarf anything man outputs.
and there's nothing wrong with an increase in c02 becuz the more c02 there is the more plants thrive and when plants thrive they balance it out with an increase in oxygen.
@baezalejandro Your source for mans CO2 is not peer reviewed, it's from a blog.
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation) i.e. human emissions upset the balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by 15 gigatonnes per year due to humans.
While high co2 is ok for plants 8% co2 kills a human/high co2 means too hot for many plants.
@shaokem well i dont think he did a lot of investigation. And he did not explain how CO2 dos NOT effect the temperature. I think he is just spraying his propaganda
@HaloGears360innit Coleman is the founder of The Weather Channel. He has spent his life working as a meteorologist. Simply what is happening here is his agenda isn't the same as yours.
@shaokem Coleman's agenda is to expose gore's hoax, and tell us the truth. I have been seeing this kind of hoopla for over 60 years, and I don't buy it. 40 years ago these guys were telling us we were going into another ice age
@HaloGears360innit Al gore got a D in Natural science at Harvard. This guy has forgotten more about climate than gore will ever know. Gore is a con man and you are his patsy
@HaloGears360innit So are going to take the word of a lawyer turned politician over that of a meteoroligist.. who by the say IS a BSc. I wish I were selling cars and you were walking onto my lot
@sparwood8 OPS my mistake. Coleman has no education in the field of climate change, and his degree is in journalism; so before you shoot the flame, consider this kind of an apology
@sparwood8 I am sure people appreciate the apology. Coleman has no science background, but at least you admit that.
I and others don't use Al Gore as a source, but he is more of an advocate. If Gore believed in GW but 98% of the world's top climatologist said GW was not real, I would not believe in GW as climatologists are experts.
These 98%, as well as NASA, NOAA, Nat'l Academy of Sciences etc. say GW is true so I believe them as they are the top scientific groups and they know the most.
@TheSnoopy1750 Ok. I am off to watch a hockey game later today. The whole world can go to hell.. I don't really care about things I have no control over. I insist that this GW is a manufactured crisis, and it is designed to gain power over the people. Let's see what shakes down. I can't change your thinking, and you cannot change mine
@sparwood8 "I don't really care about things I have no control over. I insist that this GW is a manufactured crisis, and it is designed to gain power over the people...I can't change your thinking, and you cannot change mine"
Typical know-nothing. He "insists" there is some vast conspiracy with no proof (of course). Then he decides not to debate the facts as no facts will change his mind. To his credit, at least he admits that he won't consider facts or the views of top experts.
Damn dirty liberals. Your opinions carry no weight. The Grand Dragon of your little cult has recieved a fatal wound to his credibility and has gone in to seclusion. Theres no need to keep up the fight, your viewpoint has been castrated. Of course feel free to continue to sit here and say otherwise, but global warming is a fairy tale.
Schwarzenegger got the cap and trade law passed in California and now he is going to Washinton to do the same. It looks like Arnold may be the antidote to the anti-scientific attitudes that infect the Republican party.
@sparwood8 Al Gore is not a scientist, neither is Chuck Norris or John Coleman. The difference is that Gore is popularizing the findings of the mainstream of climate science, not the fringe of climate deniers. And the climate scientists are telling us that not only is the increasing CO2 causing global warming but it is causing ocean acidification which is potentially even more devestating.
@calamagrostis88 John Coleman has more climate knowledge in his little finger than Gore will ever see. Gore is good at one thing: Promoting himself. He has good looks, charisma, and a strong delivery. That is all it takes to fool most of modern America. AG is nothing but a glorified car salesman. DO you REALLY believe MAN has caused the co2 levels to increase by 50 percent? (Gore's numbers) It's really 3%. Tell me, what percent of the Earth's atmosphere is made of CO2??
@sparwood8 The average atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.0387% by volume, which is double what it was in 1970. So if Gore said 50% he was wrong, it is actually a 100% increase. And most of the CO2 that we have been emitting has not stayed in the atmosphere but has dissolved into the oceans, which is leading to ocean acidification, which is going to devestate our civilization.
@sparwood8 Opps, you are right, it has not doubled, it has increased by about 20% since 1960. But the reason it has not increased much more is because it is being absorbed by the oceans. This has lead to a 30% increase in the acidity of the oceans.
@calamagrostis88 Drug gangs, families breaking apart, kids sleeping aound at age 14-15: Those are far more of a danger to America's future than GW. If the family unit disappears, it will take less than 20 years for us to be a nation of lawless savages
@calamagrostis88 One of Al's findings is that the winters are getting warmer, yet the winters are getting colder. Probably a good time to give up on the whole man made CO2 is creating Global Warming and start calling it Climate change. Which studies show is a normal occurrence over the life time of our planet. Warm periods, and cold periods. It's odd that so many other scientific factors are thrown out the window so that more blame can be cast and political voting pools can be harvested.
On a global basis, we just experienced the hottest decade on record.
Do you really think NASA, NOAA etc. did not account for natural factors in their supercomputer models where they plug in hundreds if not thousands of distinct factors in analyzing the billions of data points?
I hear GW deniers always point out these natural variances - do they really think NASA does not know about these factors? I assure you that they know better than the GW deniers.
@TheSnoopy1750 I could just as easy scour the internet and pull up information that clashes with yours. Thousands of scientists do not believe in GW even more people do not believe the climate changes are caused by man. If since the industrial age we have been emitting CO2 which should only warm the climate, then why has there been cool periods since. We should have been on a steady rise in temps ever since. The only good coming out of this agenda to raise taxes is becoming more efficient.
@TheSnoopy1750 What of the warm periods long ago that had nothing to do with human intervention. These warm periods were a lot warmer than today, yet today we believe it can only be because of humans. I'm not talking 100 years ago, I'm talking 1,000s of years ago. I believe a lot of what's going on is mostly misdirected resources in terms of scientific study. Those who speak out against GW are ushered out of debate, why is that? Science is about debate, its constructive.
@shaokem You realize the top scientists have ice cores going back many thousands of years?
The scientists have looked at all of the natural factors and they say they are not enough to cause the recent warming. Instead, they conclude CO2 etc. is the primary factor.
@shaokem Three others key factors -- including changes in the sun’s irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperature in the tropics etc. -- can also cause slight increases or decreases in the planet's temperature. Overall, the evidence suggests that these effects are not enough to account for the global warming observed since 1880.
There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends. In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.
@shaokem Increased CO2 leading to ocean acidification is even more well understood and will be even more devestating. Switching to sustainable energy sources will have many benefits to our society and our environment. The global warming deniers are afraid of the change.
@calamagrostis88 No, I'm not afraid of productive change, but counter-productive change would be a problem. Becoming more efficient is good. Using GW a political battle ground and enforcing high energy taxes is bad. The main reason everyone is freaking out is because we just so happen to be around while the planets climate is changing. Yes we have to become more efficient, but we don't need it to be politically over-run.
@shaokem It is not counter productive. Even if you refuse to accept the science of global warming think of the other benefits. Less air pollution, fewer oil spills, less drilling in wildlife habitat, less need to protect our oil supplies with military force. Also greater energy efficiency means saving money and more profits. And the governments of our international competitors are funding the research, if we want to remain competitive we need to do the same.
Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change. He is a fraud.
darliegoddess 2 weeks ago
@darliegoddess Way to go to Wikipedia and copy/paste a phrase and pass it off as your own. :)
elvisfan22 2 weeks ago
@darliegoddess I agree, I really don't understand why he gets so much attention...
kariolafsson 17 hours ago
good ol boy spokesman?
DrHolden1 1 month ago in playlist art bell
the real problem with the sea level concerns is the fact that a substantial portion of the polar ice caps are already floating- and we're to believe that the melting of this ice will raise the sea level (!?)
swimmerB0B 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry but Richard A. Muller the lead expert that actually doubted global warming just came out and said he was wrong.
His article was in the Wall Street Journal October 21st - "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism. There were good reasons for doubt, until now".
I guess GW deniers have no support at all now.
TheSnoopy1750 3 months ago
AGW is a SCAM!
yaahme 3 months ago
I don't know what to think about global warming. For every two scientists that say it's happening I see two more that say it is not happening. And that makes me think that we should not be spending billions of dollars to "fight' it. I mean it seems that no one ever talks about the sun. Makes sense that it could get warmer at certain points. Still i have not seen enough data to sway me either way.
akruz52 4 months ago
@akruz52 this is what they want you to think.
Same as the 50s and tobacco. Create confusion. There is plenty of data. Just not in fashion to get a scientistic on tv .......so lets role out a weatherman with no background in it.
Same as tobacco compaines in last 50 years.
Donal277 3 months ago
@Donal277 Idk man all of the data I have seenshows that ther is more of a ocnnection with the heat that the sun emits than carbon emissions.
akruz52 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Donal277 this is what they want you to think.
Same as the 50s and tobacco. Create confusion. There is plenty of data. Just not in fashion to get a scientist on tv .......so lets role out a POLITITION with no background in it.
Same as tobacco compaines in last 50 years.
Your arguement is crap because it works both ways.
oldcratch 2 months ago in playlist the global warming farce
idiot
MrPeregrines 4 months ago in playlist John Coleman slams global warming
"As a scientist" LOL. Good one.
atomicLogic 4 months ago
Just saying "we're all going to do just fine" is not an argument. He offers no data or scientific criticism.
theohmygods 4 months ago
@theohmygods
Isn't scientific criticism to state earth has gone through dramatic climate changes in the past before industrialization happened? If it wasn't so, Groenland would be called Whiteland... get a reality check and stop listening to the propaganda.
SkaffBear 4 months ago
@pkpapers You are right about Coleman being "so patriarchal and oppressive!"
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
@pkpapers Solar flares do exist, but they do not last for decades as Coleman fails to mention. Continuous change in temperature for the planet cannot be affected by a solar flare.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
@MegaDarb69, not by a solar flare, but by variations in the 22 year solar cycle. If we're entering a new Dalton Minimum (as seems likely), then if history means anything you can expect a general cooling trend.
BTW, the Dalton Minimum lasted about 40-50 years, and was accompanied by short, cool summers and long, brutal winters. The "year without a summer" was in the middle of the Dalton Minimum.
ncdave4life 5 months ago
The US government would rather protect the oil company than to stop global warming. The government depends too much on the business of oil. Lack of this business can cause the downfall of this country. It is what made this country so powerful in the firlst place. It now knows that it's limited global supply is nearing it's end. Now the government needs to find/build different sources of energy. Coleman watch the sky like a good meteorlologist and let the government attempt to save itself.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
I viewed this to find comfort that global warming doesn't exist, but it didn't serve it's purpose. Viewing this just made it more believable that global warming does exist.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Global warming is not a hoax. I agree with Coleman when it comes to people who are worrying a lot about it. At the same time, I don't agree with Coleman since: people who worry are too lazy to do anything about it. It's not up to the government to pay billions of dollars, it's up to the individuals to change their lifestyles. It's not just global warming, it's pollution. Again, people are just too lazy and it is inconvenient for them. This is where people like Al Gore comes to point it out.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
LOL! Coleman says in 20 years he'll look back and laugh at all of this! Obviously he's not a scientist. He's a COMEDIAN! I can't believe I was the only one that caught that. Look at him. In 20 years, he won't be able to laugh. Man! Either Coleman loves to lie, or he's a straight up comedian.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Funny how Coleman talks about how the media keeps nagging about global warming when TheJohnBirchSociety keeps showing proof that the media also says otherwise. Good job TheJohnBirchSociety for including links that goes against what Coleman is falsely protraying.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Play this denier's voice backwards and you'll hear him say that the moon-landing was fake. The hypothesis that solar flares exist is a conspiracy theory. This guy is so patriarchal and oppressive!
pkpapers 5 months ago
@Bullpuma volcano co2 is natural, it is removed from the atmosphere naturally by the trees that have already been cut down...Oops. lumber company. More reason to reduce co2 emission, duh! And many meteorologist agree and dissagree about global warming, so what is your point? Plus, h20 is high heat capacitance. Melting ice caps is too extreme of change. Do your research. Don't know what Heat Capacitance is: ask a MODERN scientist or engineer like me. Not this 70's guy with outdated experience.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
@checkyoursources I would say check your sources, but it looks like you already did your research and it's quite accurate.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
@gregjalbert: Tell people don't steal. Politicians hate competition.
Funny how a lot of global warming organizations are created by the PEOPLE and anti global warming politicians are funded by CORPORATIONS. Also, see "Who Killed the Electric Car" and see who is funded by who.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Sorry skdas11, but you don't understand. Most of hitlers scientists did not believe in the Nazi way. They were forced into it. Plus, they were the smartest in the world in that time frame. Albert Einstein was German in that time frame before he became American Citizen in 1940. A lot of German technologies still can't be replicated from then. skdas11, you are complementing IPCC, not putting them down. Calling IPCC a bunch of Einsteins does sound pretty true though.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Sorry deeppurple28, but burning Coleman is not a very nice thing to say.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
For all of those agreeing with Coleman and his saying about the theories in the 70's. People WAKE UP! It's 2011 already! Microcomputers were first introduced in the 70's. Most companies with computers back then had the second generation "giant" computers that were not capable of doing much of anything. For crying out loud: I can have a facetime phone conversation, play games, research, facebook and type this message at the same time in a device that fits my pocket.It's dumb to refer to 70's data
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
Sorry justaman6972. What you say is hogwash. Volcanoes does NOT warm up the planet. That is an extremely shallow view of things. Volcanoes cool down the planet. Volcanoes release heat into the atmosphere that eventually gets radiated into space, which cools down the planet. Also, dust clouds created by volcanoes block sunlight, which in turn cools the planet as well. Look up volcano eruptions. Look up Mount Pinatubo. Look up results of volcanic eruptions.
MegaDarb69 5 months ago
the ICC are a bunch of bought and paid for liars. Its not science,volcanoes yes that will help warm the planet,but its a natural event. Global warming is hogwash!
justaman6972 6 months ago
BURN PLASTIC!
deeppurple28 6 months ago
hahahah it doesnt matter how much co2 humans add to the atmosphere we have around 0,039% Co2 in the whole atmosphere and the part added by humans is of course even smaller so stfu already in the 70´s they were talking about global cooling and a new ice age
by the way this man isnt protecting corporations, those "scientists" from the IPCC are like hitlers scientist, trying to proove a theory that doesnt make sense just like the race-theory
skdas11 6 months ago
@skdas11 Wrong. "They" if you mean scientists, did not predict a soon to come global cooling or new Ice age in the 70's. There were no scientific papers to make that claim. There were media reports of it, but no evidence from science. There have been hundreds of peer reviewed papers that give measurable, verified and peer reviewed evidence of AGW. You listen too much to Fox News and Sean Hannity. See: Potholer54 Climate Change
coolgreyoneabby 6 months ago
Expel ignorant liar gangster politicians (mostly Republican) that protect corporate polluters and climate catastrophe makers. Americans have been mislead and kept in the dark about climate disruption by corporate media brainwashers working for the oil/automobile/asphalt/concrete/construction industry gangsters. climateprogress . org --- climatecodered . net --- skepticalscience . com -- ucsusa . org Do you really care about future generations?
gregjalbert 6 months ago
the more you look, the bigger IT gets
IT is so big it cannot be brought into perspective by many people. poking holes in one story or another does not matter, because IT will be dismissed if motives are not apparent. motive is not apparent because IT is so big. but once IT is brought into perspective, IT becomes so clear that all of these actions that appear to contradict the motive, actually, all work towards the same motive.
IT is THE LIE
Bullpuma 7 months ago
idk what you believe about the NWO. I found a video that totally sums them up completely.
s e a r c h "The Secret Covenant changethecurrent" click on the first vid. creepy
Bullpuma 7 months ago
The stupidest man on Earth this old man! Global warming is real moron!
gisellemartins20 7 months ago
its always the lazy passive people that ask for sources, then don't believe them because its not mainstream.
Bullpuma 7 months ago
its the same way the USA attacks al quaeda, they don't exist. there were only like a hundred, then when we started a war. now they pop up all over the globe so we can occupy every country and bomb innocent civilians.
Bullpuma 7 months ago
Global warming is the biggest joke and legal theft of the working class in the history of the world!!!
grimjoker53 7 months ago
Global warming is the biggest joke and legal theft of the working class in the history of the world!!!
grimjoker53 7 months ago
all the planets are heating up. World government will fail, they might get it for a bit, but it will fall
lennyfloss 7 months ago
amg amg global warming lmao.
All the planets are heating up woohoo
lgndarymeth 7 months ago
@baezalejandro Actually globally rice yield growth is slowing down according to the FAO and corn (a C4 plant) shows no rise in yield with increased CO2.As CO2 continues to change the global climate, both of these variables are subject to change in an unfavorable way for a certain species in a certain region (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011).
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources thats because CO2 increase is not significant in the first place.
Bullpuma 7 months ago
@Bullpuma 40% increase in CO2 in 150 years is very significant.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
@checkyoursources 40% only when counting man made CO2. Also There are many other gases that also contribute to the atmosphere, water vapor is the biggest trapper of heat. that man made 40% accounts for much less than 1% of green house gasses. What gives scientists the idea that a tipping point exists? Why are readings from weather balloons and satellites never cited in reports. Why do so many meteorologists disagree with MAN-MADE global warming.
Bullpuma 7 months ago
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
The opinion of Coleman is not based on evidence.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources i hear the sun is not rising in temperature, yet all other planets are rising in temperature. im not saying scientists are lying about the sun, its just that this is very interesting, what does cause them to rise. something is happening. dooo dooo doooooooo!!
Bullpuma 7 months ago
@checkyoursources 186billion tons 6billion manmade of CO2. we can cut all the CO2 emissions we want, but under the idea of man-made global warming, we are easily one big volcanic eruption away from disaster. If the sun has a sun spot pointed at us, the few degree raise in average temperature will kill us. if rising temperature was sooo disasterous, then how did those people in the middle ages survive it?
Bullpuma 7 months ago
@Bullpuma Only .32 billion tons of CO2 are emitted every year by volcanoes. Every year we emit 35 Billion tons of CO2 through our pollution. I don't know about you, but I'm more worried about the human impact, not the natural one.
TheConormac1 7 months ago
@Bullpuma The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest (26 gigatonnes of CO2-EIA) remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
John Coleman is NOT a scientists. He never received a degree in science. He is a liar.
mv4455 9 months ago
@mv4455 neither is al gore.. LOL
the fact of the matter is that c02 is NOT a pollutant. c02 is like bread to plants so what's wrong with that?
it's one of the basic blocks of life like oxygen, sunlight, and water.
it's become a well known fact that c02 does not create increase in temperate, the opposite is true.
increase in temperature is what creates c02.
baezalejandro 9 months ago
@baezalejandro 8% co2 kills humans. Actually an increase in CO2 increases warming and warming increases CO2. Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
Decline in global phytoplankton (Boyce 2010)
Decline in global net primary production - the amount of carbon absorbed by plants (Zhao 2010).
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources the fast majority of greenhouse gases is WATER VAPOR!
in fact Animals, decaying plants, & volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankinds insignificantly tiny emissions.
natural wetlands completely outdue any manmade contributions.
and if there's an increase in c02 it's a GOOD thing becuz it's like bread to plants, speeding up plant growth.
& there are plenty of scientist who say that temperature is the MAIN drive of c02 in the atmosphere.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro Increased CO2 makes more water vapour, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming.Co2 can drive temps and temps can drive CO2 increase.
CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by 15 gigatonnes per year due to humans.- USGS
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.-USGS
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. -Morner (2002) and EIA
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources oops typo. *vast majority* lol
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@checkyoursources and i find it hilarious that u would site phytoplankton declines becuz if there was an increase in c02 there would be MORE phytoplankton NOT less, since they need c02 to live and make food JUST LIKE PLANTS!!!
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro It's more complicated than that actually. The CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains such as the effects of Co2 on water availability and temps.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources man's contibution to greenhouse gases is only about 0.28%
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro What is your source for this?
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources now we should be trying to stop ACTUAL toxic and nautious pollutants, but carbon dioxide is NOT one of them.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro Negative impacts of global warming fromhuman produced GHG's on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources c02 is a VERY small part of the greenhouse gases. the vast majority of it is water vapor.
in fact volcanoes, animal activity, and decaying plants far outdue anything man can produce.
c02 in and of itself is not a "pollutant" and increase in c02 will only benefit plant growth, so there's nothing wrong with it.
plenty of scientist have confirmed that heat is the primary drive of c02. not the other way around.
the earth was a lot warmer in the past & is in fact cooling.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@checkyoursources it's May already and we're still having rain and temperatures int he 50's, here in Chicago.
in fact this was one of the worst winters yet. all of lakeshore drive was shut down from the blizzard and miles of cars and buses were abandoned on the highway.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro Sorry to burst your bubble but Chicago is not the entire planet, it covers less than 0.1% of the land surface. One particularly cold season in one small location is not equivalent to global temps being colder. Globally, the last decade was the warmest on modern record with 2010 being a record hot year globally. The average temp for April in Chicago is 40-59 degrees F. May has only just started and is typically between 51-71 degrees F.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources well sorry to burst your buble but you have just admitted that there are many VARIABLES when it comes to global warming.
u global warming nuts always site things like the melting of hte ice caps when in fact they have alway and will always melt & grow back.
and no there are plenty of other reports and statistics which site tha the past decade was been getting cooler on a global level.
it's teh freaking Sun spots dude, not c02.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@checkyoursources if u really want to stop gobal warming i suggest u destroy the wetlands as they have a much much much greater impact on greenhous gases than humans.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@checkyoursources regardless c02 contributes to rapid plant growth which is a good thing.
baezalejandro 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baezalejandro It's more complicated than that actually. The CO2 plant food argument rests on a simple logical fallacy--the fallacy of exclusion, which focuses on one cause-and-effect (in this case, more CO2 means more plants) to the exclusion of all other cause-and-effect chains such as the effects of Co2 on water availability and temps. Read and of these peer reviewed papers to see what I mean (Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011).
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@mv4455 global warming is due to solar activity! THAT'S IT!
the temperature has fluctuated ALL THE TIME for thousands of years. in fact there was a global cooling scare int eh 70's AND int eh 1600's some of the ports of germany and england were frozen over.
baezalejandro 9 months ago
@baezalejandro 1)The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. Read: Peterson (2008).
2) The sun hasn't been a primary driver for decades, look up the PMOD data from WRC or read: Meehl (2004) , Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005) , Lockwood 2008, lockwood 2010, Kulmala et al. (2010) Frolich 1998.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
lol my grandpa is the best and yes he is my grandpa i am not lying
chicityjoka 10 months ago
John Coleman speaks here. /watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0 Very Informative.
Bridgmanify 10 months ago
Comment removed
Bridgmanify 10 months ago
Eessh...this isnt even good propaganda
InFromTheVoid 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
Nasa is under investigation for data tampering...
vocalinsanity 11 months ago
Well Gore is one of them trying to urge people to allow energy tax or carbon tax to become part of daily living. Carbon credits is a failed before implemented plan to tax coal and other fossil fuel power plants to be allowed to pollute. NASA may have nothing to do with it... it's the way in which it's used on the political battlefield is the problem. You deny that Big Oil and GreenPeace both have their goons? We need to go nuclear, problem solved. Both sides of the fence don't like the idea
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem I am for nuclear. The problem is that it is political poison. Everyone remembers Chernobyl and 3 mile island.
The French have been using nuclear for years with no safety issues.
The real answer is thorium - it was originally going to be used rather than nuclear, but the U.S. gov't focused on nuclear so it could use it for nuclear weapons.
Thorium reactors are much safer, has a much shorter half life and are being tested in Russian and I think India.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Exactly!!! YAY! We've found common ground! We most def need to go Nuclear! You're right about it being political poison. Problem is too many people need to be educated. Nuclear engineering has made huge leaps since the 1980's. And today it is evolving even faster. It's a shame really, but then again it's the political BS that keeps things like this at bay.
shaokem 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 A friend of mine drives a Prius... He loves that he's helping to save the world. But then I crushed his utopia by pointing out electricity comes from coal plants which is just another form of fossil fuel. So he's only trading one fossil fuel for another. Also the Prius is a heavy car. You're carrying both the gas motor and the electric motor. Along with a gas tank and all the huge batteries that supply power to the electric motor. Toyota capitalizing on the idea of going green!
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem True - that being said, it does help reduce dependence on foreign oil as the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
I think coal is actually worse for GW than oil, but at least we keep the dollars here.
If not prius cars - what is the solution? Ideally one that reduces greenhouse gases and reduces reliance on foreign oil.
I guess we could just drive tiny economy cars like they do in Europe, with even some bigger cars having 4 cylinders or diesels. I like the 1.6L Mini Coopers.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Yeah... I've always driven 4 cylinders. Mainly cause I don't want to spend loads of money on gas. I remember back in 84' my dad bought a brand new Honda CRX-HF. The HF stood for High Fuel economy. Thank thing made 41 mpg!!! FOURTY ONE! That was back in 1984! So how come we still to this day have cars barely breaking 30? BS BS BS!!!
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem HAHA... Thats FORTY ONE!!!
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem I remember those - they also had an Si version with 92 or 105bhp I think.
The problem is that cars weigh so much more now, with airbags, safety zones, navigation etc.
Weight is the enemy of speed and fuel economy. There are a lot of sedans that weigh over 4,000 pounds when they would be 3,300 2 decades ago.
I like the Boxster Spyder - 2800 pounds, 320bhp, 20/30 mpg - no 41 but it has 3.5x the power.
If we got all SUVs off the road, that would be a good start.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Jesus! 5 Bucks! F That! I agree though. I commute to work 4 days a week sometimes 5. I drive about 33 miles one way. Sometimes I stay in town for work. Anywho, I see so many SUVs it's not funny. And 199 out of 200 times you'll see one person in the truck driving to work or where ever.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem Yep, stupid American way of thinking. They buy a truck to go to Home Depot twice a year.
Maybe have a program share-a-SUV where there are 30 SUVs that can be used in certain situations.
Basically, Americans need to change their way of thinking and get with the program. If everyone replaced their car with one with 70% better mpg, our oil problem would be solved.
If you amortize the cost of the wars over the avg. gallon of gas, i read it was something like $40/gallon.
OK, got to go.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 [[Basically, Americans need to change their way of thinking and get with the program. If everyone replaced their car with one with 70% better mpg, our oil problem would be solved.]] Actually if you halted all carbon emissions for 30 years you might reduce less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. So even if it was true there is little anyone can practically do. Thank God it's just another profit scheme by the already richest people in the world.
MayonR 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
For actual article, google:
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Google Climate-change Science by Ed Hiserodt
TheJohnBirchSociety 1 year ago
@TheJohnBirchSociety it may be helpful to note the 30,000 scientists that he was talking about.
Bullpuma 7 months ago
@TheJohnBirchSociety
GET EM
JameoTheLameo1 6 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Great comments. This channel TheJohnBirchSociety is interesting because for years the Society was a fringe movement that was rejected by mainstream Republicans, now it is threatening to take over the whole Republican Party. Remember it was Richard Nixon who signed the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act into law.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Yes, I know all about the John Birch Society - a bunch of right wing wackjobs that met their fate decades ago, and now a tiny fringe group. Now the crazy Tea Party is trying to assume the role of the Birchers.
i love how TheJohnBirchSociety responded to my posts above. These guys have zero credibility.
I will take the word of 98% of the top climatologists, NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences etc. over these right wing crazies.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 John Coleman and his facts supported by over 19,000 scientists have little to do with the John Birch Society. And attacking a group does not change that global warming is a big hoax and many have finally caught on to this.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR 19,000 climatologists? You realize these 19,000 scientists include petroleum engineers, biochemists, meteorologists and others with no expertise in climatology.?
You are so gullible. You fell for the old trick of false equivalency where you think opinions of people with no expertise have equal credibility with experts.
I will continue to believe 98% of top CLIMATOLOGISTS and the top global scientific organizations such as NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society etc.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 these are 19,000 scientists who argued against the presented data with the real data. Also you use a very old trick by presenting the best of the cherry picked scientists or say that large organizations speak for all scientist when they have vested political and financial interest. In fact much of the core of the IPCC's data was furiously guarded from scrutiny even involving freedom of information laws. And much of it is purported lost because of inferior record keeping.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR So EVERY top scientific organization (NASA, NOAA, NAS, RS etc.) believing GW is real as well as a survey of the world's top climatologists isn't convincing?
If 1/2 of the top scientific groups had the view that GW wasn't real, then an argument could be made, but that is not the case.
NONE of the top scientific organizations deny GW. Nor do the vast majority the top climatologists.
The funny part is you're still fighting a battle that was settled years ago. You're in serious denial.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 [[NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society etc.]]
Did you know that if you are an employee of Coca Cola that you cannot drink a Pepsi product while on shift or even in uniform? In fact you cannot drink any brand that is not a Coca Cola distributed product. I'm pretty sure Pepsi has the same policy.What do you think?
MayonR 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 [[You are so gullible. You fell for the old trick of false equivalency where you think opinions of people with no expertise have equal credibility with experts.]] (Extremely summarized)3,805 Sct. relating to Earth Sci.,935 Comp and Math,5,812 Phys&Aero,4,822 Chem.,2,965 Bio&Agri.,3,046 Med,10,102 Eng. and General. The longer description outlines why these fields are important. All names and regions are available with further breakdowns of their professions.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR Unless you can actually cite a credible scientific organization on par with NASA, NOAA, National Academy etc., you should just be quiet as you are just showing your ignorance.
You say the 19,000 (non-climatologist) scientists have "data". Well, if it is so damn convincing, why does EVERY credible science organization believe GW is real?
You are seriously delusional. Just keep on disputing the results of the top experts in GW, not realizing you sound crazy.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 All the data is based on one source not many. All from the IPCC models from their little weather stations that were placed in urban heated areas which was reported by University of Colorado and in the same institution Dr. William Gray top hurricane researcher has acknowledged that a lot of people make a living of the global warming threat. There are many voices sprinkled in the people who want to just keep their job. Federal agencies telling us it's true doesn't make it so.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR Again, you have no support for your views from any top scientific organization nor a statistically meaningful number of top climatologists.
Yet you keep on arguing your anti-GW beliefs.
Ignoring the top experts while grasping at straws requires a special type of delusion, which you clearly have.
Please stop posting your stupid, unsupported beliefs.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 [Again, you have no support for your views from any top scientific organization nor a statistically meaningful number of top climatologists.] How remedial it would be that I would depend on a magazine to tell me what is true about this world. Superior is to consider all the criticisms. [[Ignoring the top experts while grasping at straws requires a special type of delusion,]] Virtually every pioneer scientist was ostracized by the consensus at the time. Newton?
MayonR 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Wow you really are a global warming cheerleader and even a global governance pundit..You-"you should just be quiet as you are just showing your ignorance.". Al Gore-There is no debate". Obama-"It's time to quit fighting and pass this bill". Global Warmists really show off the true political nature of the agenda. Usually anyone with any truth wants to share it to everyone but here we just want to shut up and agree.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR Saying something over and over when EVERY top scientific organization and 98% of top climatologists disagree does NOT make it true.
You are a special kind of stupid.
I am done with your unsubstantiated beliefs. Have a nice life and seek professional help for your delusional tendencies.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 I'm not into personal attacks when considering different topics, but are you one of those persons that learn everything from Popular mechanics or say that the news didn't tell me about it, it didn't happen kind of people?
MayonR 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 [[Unless you can actually cite a credible scientific organization on par with NASA, NOAA, National Academy]] Again I make the point that just because an organization endorses a product it does not mean that every qualified individual in that organization agrees with the broad based endorsement. Even in NASA there are notable scientists who flatly deny anthropogenic GW such as Roy Spencer and John Christy.Of course their findings won't appear on the front of the NASA newsletter.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR The scary part is that everyone knows that climatologists are the absolute experts in climatology and GW, yet you ignore their research and look for any other "scientists" that supports your view.
Do you really not realize how pathetic that is?
Please stop commenting unless you can provide support from a top scientific org. or the vast majority of top climatologists.
Too bad for you that they already have come out in disagreement with your anti-GW stance.
Live with the reality.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem (Continuation)
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem (Continuation)
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem (Continuation)
"Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement."
I am shocked, just shocked that petroleum scientists and meteorologists (who are NOT climatologists) are the GW doubters given they have a vested interest and no expertise in climatology, respectively.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem Jan 19, 2009 CNN
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
CONTINUED...
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 That's just it, humans play a role... as quoted from your quotes. We (humans) are not the leading role. Actually far from it, though its argued every year we contribute more and more CO2... which will end with becoming more efficient. Then we'll see what happens from then on. Don't you also understand the politics being played here?
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem NASA actually says man is the primary reason - look it up. This article did not give a % that humans play. It is obviously significant - if it were not, climatologists could not measure the impact and say man was a factor with the other factors so huge - sun, natural variations etc.
Bottom line, if you listen to climatologists, they are for carbon emissions standards, IPCC nation standards etc. If man were a tiny factor, then these actions would not be necessary.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Man is the only reason that can be augmented. That's about it...
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem "Don't you also understand the politics being played here?"
What politics? Because Gore is a believer? Prove there is some liberal conspiracy among NASA and climate scientists if you can. Unless you have solid evidence, you sound like a weirdo conspiracy theorist.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
If John Coleman is the "expert" they call to prove GW is a "hoax", that speaks volumes about how weak the anti-GW case is.
Coleman has no science background (bachelors in journalism). Even if he was a meteorologist, that is far different than a climatologist.
Weather is not the same as climate. Google the terms if you think they are the same.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem So who are you going to trust with scientific analysis? NASA and the world's top climatologists or some random scientists?
I will go with the top experts.
You can question the scientific conclusions all you want, but why do you think NASA and top climatologists are wrong, or in a vast conspiracy? Do you have evidence of either?
Saying they are wrong or making it up with no evidence is ridiculous.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 I'm not sure I ever said they were wrong. Just as many scientist disagree that GW is man made. And you count them out because? Decaying matter and farts combined release more CO2 than automobiles. The ocean creates tons of CO2. The problem is the political spin on everything. It's a power struggle, and those that want what the ones in power have will use this to increase your dependence. We need to go nuclear!
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem The key is in the article I just listed.
The top climatologists (97%) say it is man made. They are the absolute experts and have looked at the various factors in much greater depth.
What do meteorologists or petroleum engineers know about climatology? Not much, if anything.
Yet GW deniers give these non-experts some credibility when they are not climate experts by any stretch of the imagination. It's like asking an ophthalmologist whether you need heart surgery.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@sparwood8 First, it is 98% of top climatologists - google the June 22, 2010 BBC Report for detail. Second, nowhere close to 99% of people believe in evolution. I am assuming you think the the earth is 6,000 year old - lol.
You just love embarrassing yourself, don't you?
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
NASA website:
NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years A new analysis of global surface temperatures by NASA scientists finds the past year was tied for the second warmest since 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.
"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 NASA is corrupt and is under the control of the Illuminati. Let's see what takes place with this so called climate change.
sparwood8 1 year ago
Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, says "rather than global warming at a rate of 1 degree Fahrenheit per decade, records of past natural cycles indicate there may be global cooling for the first few decades of the 21st century to about 2030.” The cooling trend will likely be followed by “global warming from about 2030 to 2060,” which will then be followed by another cooling spell. TheNewAmericandotcom
TheJohnBirchSociety 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 not the kind of global warming that is created by us. probably the natural global warming itself
BBoy2Galoo 11 months ago
@BBoy2Galoo That is why I defer to NASA and top climatologists.
NASA builds complex supercomputer models and they incorporate climate data as well as all natural variations so to isolate the cause of the warming trend. Given the importance of their work, NASA scientists make sure everything is accounted for.
Their conclusion: Man is the primary factor.
TheSnoopy1750 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 LOL, right. NASA, the institution that our government flooded with Nazi scientist after WW2 ended in Operation Paperclip? Point being, the agenda for world control didn't end in WW2, just as it didn't in any era of time before that. Likewise, The Nazi's were defeated, not the ideology. It all boils down to control. That is all global warming is.
emerson24 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSnoopy1750 Right. NASA, the institution that our government flooded with Nazi scientist after WW2 ended in Operation Paperclip? Point being, the agenda for world control didn't end in WW2, just as it didn't in any era of time before that. Likewise, The Nazi's were defeated, not the ideology. It all boils down to control. That is all global warming is.
emerson24 11 months ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Ok, explain this then:During the Holocene Maximum in 6000 BC and the Medieval warm period of 1500, the carbon output by people and industry was far less than the 20th century, yet temperatures where higher. Machinery wasn't even existent then! Then, after WW2, with the man made fuel burning industry cranking with industrialization, from 1940 through the next 30 years plus, the temperature began to drop. So, using any common sense, warming is in no way related to CO2.
emerson24 11 months ago
@emerson24 Are you denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas?! Odd.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
@checkyoursources wrong... man made contributions to greenhouse gases is only 0.28%.
the vast majority is vater vapour. volcanoes, wetlands, and decaying plants dwarf anything man outputs.
and there's nothing wrong with an increase in c02 becuz the more c02 there is the more plants thrive and when plants thrive they balance it out with an increase in oxygen.
the dominating force is not man it's THE SUN!!!
baezalejandro 8 months ago
@baezalejandro Your source for mans CO2 is not peer reviewed, it's from a blog.
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation) i.e. human emissions upset the balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by 15 gigatonnes per year due to humans.
While high co2 is ok for plants 8% co2 kills a human/high co2 means too hot for many plants.
checkyoursources 8 months ago
Just stick to journalism John. You aint good at other things :-)
HaloGears360innit 1 year ago
@HaloGears360innit.... ummmm, isn't what he's doing here considered journalism?
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem well i dont think he did a lot of investigation. And he did not explain how CO2 dos NOT effect the temperature. I think he is just spraying his propaganda
HaloGears360innit 1 year ago
@HaloGears360innit Coleman is the founder of The Weather Channel. He has spent his life working as a meteorologist. Simply what is happening here is his agenda isn't the same as yours.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem Coleman's agenda is to expose gore's hoax, and tell us the truth. I have been seeing this kind of hoopla for over 60 years, and I don't buy it. 40 years ago these guys were telling us we were going into another ice age
sparwood8 1 year ago
@HaloGears360innit Al gore got a D in Natural science at Harvard. This guy has forgotten more about climate than gore will ever know. Gore is a con man and you are his patsy
sparwood8 1 year ago
@HaloGears360innit So are going to take the word of a lawyer turned politician over that of a meteoroligist.. who by the say IS a BSc. I wish I were selling cars and you were walking onto my lot
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 OPS my mistake. Coleman has no education in the field of climate change, and his degree is in journalism; so before you shoot the flame, consider this kind of an apology
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 I am sure people appreciate the apology. Coleman has no science background, but at least you admit that.
I and others don't use Al Gore as a source, but he is more of an advocate. If Gore believed in GW but 98% of the world's top climatologist said GW was not real, I would not believe in GW as climatologists are experts.
These 98%, as well as NASA, NOAA, Nat'l Academy of Sciences etc. say GW is true so I believe them as they are the top scientific groups and they know the most.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 Ok. I am off to watch a hockey game later today. The whole world can go to hell.. I don't really care about things I have no control over. I insist that this GW is a manufactured crisis, and it is designed to gain power over the people. Let's see what shakes down. I can't change your thinking, and you cannot change mine
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 "I don't really care about things I have no control over. I insist that this GW is a manufactured crisis, and it is designed to gain power over the people...I can't change your thinking, and you cannot change mine"
Typical know-nothing. He "insists" there is some vast conspiracy with no proof (of course). Then he decides not to debate the facts as no facts will change his mind. To his credit, at least he admits that he won't consider facts or the views of top experts.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
Damn dirty liberals. Your opinions carry no weight. The Grand Dragon of your little cult has recieved a fatal wound to his credibility and has gone in to seclusion. Theres no need to keep up the fight, your viewpoint has been castrated. Of course feel free to continue to sit here and say otherwise, but global warming is a fairy tale.
NickLiu25 1 year ago
Schwarzenegger got the cap and trade law passed in California and now he is going to Washinton to do the same. It looks like Arnold may be the antidote to the anti-scientific attitudes that infect the Republican party.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Tell us what it is about Al gore that you think is scientific. He got a D in natural science at Harvard. Go follow this 'expert'
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 Al Gore is not a scientist, neither is Chuck Norris or John Coleman. The difference is that Gore is popularizing the findings of the mainstream of climate science, not the fringe of climate deniers. And the climate scientists are telling us that not only is the increasing CO2 causing global warming but it is causing ocean acidification which is potentially even more devestating.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 John Coleman has more climate knowledge in his little finger than Gore will ever see. Gore is good at one thing: Promoting himself. He has good looks, charisma, and a strong delivery. That is all it takes to fool most of modern America. AG is nothing but a glorified car salesman. DO you REALLY believe MAN has caused the co2 levels to increase by 50 percent? (Gore's numbers) It's really 3%. Tell me, what percent of the Earth's atmosphere is made of CO2??
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 The average atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.0387% by volume, which is double what it was in 1970. So if Gore said 50% he was wrong, it is actually a 100% increase. And most of the CO2 that we have been emitting has not stayed in the atmosphere but has dissolved into the oceans, which is leading to ocean acidification, which is going to devestate our civilization.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 No way it has doubled. People involved in a scam have no problem manipulating data. Eg: Enron
sparwood8 1 year ago
@sparwood8 Opps, you are right, it has not doubled, it has increased by about 20% since 1960. But the reason it has not increased much more is because it is being absorbed by the oceans. This has lead to a 30% increase in the acidity of the oceans.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 Drug gangs, families breaking apart, kids sleeping aound at age 14-15: Those are far more of a danger to America's future than GW. If the family unit disappears, it will take less than 20 years for us to be a nation of lawless savages
sparwood8 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 One of Al's findings is that the winters are getting warmer, yet the winters are getting colder. Probably a good time to give up on the whole man made CO2 is creating Global Warming and start calling it Climate change. Which studies show is a normal occurrence over the life time of our planet. Warm periods, and cold periods. It's odd that so many other scientific factors are thrown out the window so that more blame can be cast and political voting pools can be harvested.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem The idea is GLOBAL WARMING.
On a global basis, we just experienced the hottest decade on record.
Do you really think NASA, NOAA etc. did not account for natural factors in their supercomputer models where they plug in hundreds if not thousands of distinct factors in analyzing the billions of data points?
I hear GW deniers always point out these natural variances - do they really think NASA does not know about these factors? I assure you that they know better than the GW deniers.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 I could just as easy scour the internet and pull up information that clashes with yours. Thousands of scientists do not believe in GW even more people do not believe the climate changes are caused by man. If since the industrial age we have been emitting CO2 which should only warm the climate, then why has there been cool periods since. We should have been on a steady rise in temps ever since. The only good coming out of this agenda to raise taxes is becoming more efficient.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem "I could just as easy scour the internet and pull up information that clashes with yours."
I know you can - the internet is a giant junk pile where you can find support for any bogus belief or theory.
That is why I rely on the top scientific organizations and top climatologists regarding the realities of GW.
Who is more qualified and has more research regarding GW than these respected scientists? Why rely on unreliable sources for information?
Your comment supports my point.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@TheSnoopy1750 What of the warm periods long ago that had nothing to do with human intervention. These warm periods were a lot warmer than today, yet today we believe it can only be because of humans. I'm not talking 100 years ago, I'm talking 1,000s of years ago. I believe a lot of what's going on is mostly misdirected resources in terms of scientific study. Those who speak out against GW are ushered out of debate, why is that? Science is about debate, its constructive.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem You realize the top scientists have ice cores going back many thousands of years?
The scientists have looked at all of the natural factors and they say they are not enough to cause the recent warming. Instead, they conclude CO2 etc. is the primary factor.
continued...
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem Three others key factors -- including changes in the sun’s irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperature in the tropics etc. -- can also cause slight increases or decreases in the planet's temperature. Overall, the evidence suggests that these effects are not enough to account for the global warming observed since 1880.
There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends. In the last decade, global warming has not stopped.
TheSnoopy1750 1 year ago
@shaokem Increased CO2 leading to ocean acidification is even more well understood and will be even more devestating. Switching to sustainable energy sources will have many benefits to our society and our environment. The global warming deniers are afraid of the change.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago
@calamagrostis88 No, I'm not afraid of productive change, but counter-productive change would be a problem. Becoming more efficient is good. Using GW a political battle ground and enforcing high energy taxes is bad. The main reason everyone is freaking out is because we just so happen to be around while the planets climate is changing. Yes we have to become more efficient, but we don't need it to be politically over-run.
shaokem 1 year ago
@shaokem It is not counter productive. Even if you refuse to accept the science of global warming think of the other benefits. Less air pollution, fewer oil spills, less drilling in wildlife habitat, less need to protect our oil supplies with military force. Also greater energy efficiency means saving money and more profits. And the governments of our international competitors are funding the research, if we want to remain competitive we need to do the same.
calamagrostis88 1 year ago