I was camping in Northern Alaska, when a kodiak bear came to my site. As he rushed me, I picked up my shot gun. The kodiak just swiped it away. He then knocked me over and jumped on me. I closed my eyes in terror.
When I opened them again, I saw Bill Nye the bear's mouth open with one hand, all five fingers spread in his maw. With his other hand he punched into the bear's chest and ripped his fuckin' heart out. He handed me his bow tie and simply said, "Science. Respect." and walked away.
In 1988, Michael Mann (if you don't know who he is your opinion on Climate Change is worthless) forecast that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be submerged by 2008. Nuff said.
EVERYONE will be wealthy enough to overcome? Lol we depend on fossil fuels and other limited resources. Billionaires are lobbying against the transition to smarter alternatives because they will go bankrupt. The world will not be more wealthy because these transitions will never happen. And the earth has only so much to give. Things will remain the same. Talk about no evidence or study in support of a bullshit claim.
The closure of the free market IPN follows years of controversy about Exxon funding, alleged links to the tobacco industry and contested claims about Aids and the pesticide DDT.
Lindzen is a master of his field. He demolished and humiliated Bill Nye in this. Nye's comments on the Gulf Stream were, in fact, wrong. Nye simply engaged in vague remarks and scare tactics about how "dangerous" the world would become with a slight temperature increase. And his examples, as Dr. Lindzen pointed out, were vacuous.
Global warming Science is flawed. The good ol' days before the industrial revolution was actually an
anomalous period of time. Ever hear of the midevil warm period. 4+ degress higher than today. The earlier 19th centurty's temperatures were depressed by a string of violent valconoes. Katmai,Santa María,Krakatoa,Tambora. All within a hundred years. All having an immediate effect on temperatures & long lasting consquences. The first model that takes this into account is the first I'll consider
@aravenidiot Your argument would work if it weren't for things like the removed polar ice cores which show contrary to your point over a period of over 160,000 years... pesky ice cores.
@wizardsbane It's not a poiint of view, It's history. Do a search on midevil warm period. Do a search on the top five valcanoes in recent history. I'm all for cleaning up pollution but the suedo science being used to stiffle our economy is just wrong. Here's another search for you, look up the reports of the coming ice age that were plastered all over the world in the seventies.
@aravenidiot Hahaha, you know nothing of what you speak. Do you even realize that we now have accurate records of temperatures from millions upon millions of years ago? Your local examples are nothing. Temperature records clearly show a level of temperature change this planet hasn't seen in millions of years. Get out of Alex Jone's ass, if Global Warming was actually affecting our economy, the fatcats wouldn't always get away with environmental disasters.
Why don't you get that published in a chemistry or climate research journal? Oh yeah, because you don't know shit about chemistry, physics or mathemetics. You're a damn conspiracy theorist monkey who couldn't pass a high school chemistry test.
@porterwake There's been plenty of articles published on the false pretenses of global warming, I honestly understand the concerns and I'd love to see something done about pollution but some of the best answers to carbon emmisions are being stiffled by these same "eco-activists" France gets over 80% of their electric from nuclear power. These activist protest everytime a new nuke plant is proposed. And you have absolutely no idea who you are talking to.
Eco-activists have nothing to do with it. I stick to the actual research and science, not appeal to the hippies like your ignorant political ass. I'm a chemist and I have colleagues who do this kind of work, I read the peer reviewed research literature, not the garbage posted on political websites and Yahoo! news. Yeah I have no idea what I'm talking about. Scientific illiterate hacks like yourself can check out.
@porterwake Actaul temperature data starts in 1659. Before that, we only have written accounts and the ice cores. The ice cores have known to be off by as much as 30 degrees over a season but, I'll give you, trends are measurable. Among the most recent observations, especially satelites, data is only available since 1967. The satelites show that the stratosphere is Cooling. Mainstream science say this is due to concerntrations of greenhouse gasses, ..Cont..
@porterwake It's the only way to get the data to fit their models. Carbon dioxide is not limited to the troposphere and Methan doesn't go through catalysis until it is exposed to uv radiation. Water vapor in clouds reflect light, So shouldn't the stratosphere be warming @ an almost equal level? Venus's atsmophere is actually warmer above twenty thousand feet, Isn't that the prime model for run away greenhouse? But, as I said, I'm all for reducing pollution, just don't take my job.
Carbon dioxide does not cause positive feedback once it leaks out of the atmosphere - The gas is not an organohalogen or a chlorofluorocarbon - CO2 does not deplete the ozone layer
AIG was bailed out to pay the NUMBER ONE BENEFICIARY GOLDMAN SACHS. Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs, became Treasury Secretary and then sells $500 million Goldman stock TAX FREE. Paulson then pushed the AIG bailout to cover Goldman Sachs Credit Default Swaps (bets against the housing market) bought from AIG. watch?v=-hhPvas-Q8Y&feature=channel_video_title
With each passing year, these old segments just get more embarrassing. Hey look, footage of crumbling glaciers, flooded cities, and arid land with a bovine skeleton... propaganda much? Fortunately most people saw right through it.
Listen, global warming is obviously a scam perpetrated by the Jews, who staged 9/11 as a distraction to get attention onto muslims. If you can't see this you're blind. Bill Nye is in on it. C02 doesn't actually exist, there's no proof. In the BIBLE it says that our lord created our perfect world so thats good enough for me. There's no such thing as dinosaurs. Corporations are people. I can't wait to vote for Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry.
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
The problem I have is this is all based on temperature change. The average temperature of Earth was higher in the past at various times. The philosophy of uniformitarianism postulates that because temperatures were higher in the past they will be higher in the future. This seems to be the case. Why would temperatures not rise if they have risen in the past? Wouldn't higher temperature in the past have the same effect on the oceans in the past as higher temperatures in the present have now?
Climate deniers also ignore the implications of ICE CORES......saying the sun simply causes the CO2 rise......it's bullshit and unscientific. Research more...i tell them...
@AceofDlamonds By ice cores i'm assuming you are referring to the data Al Gore provides in his movie? Funny thing is about that is he shows the correlation but never puts the CO2 graph and temperature graph on top of each other directly. Why? Because while they do correlate nicely, you'll find that the temperature changes occur a few hundred years BEFORE the CO2 changes. This means that temperature causes CO2 to change, not the other way around. Look it up; it's a fact.
If it's so blatantly obvious and simple as that, then why are all the major deniers associates of oil companies and the fact that every major international scientific group supports ongoing, man-influenced climate change? Stop saying it's a conspiracy unless you can refute the major studies directly.
I'm not talking directly about anything Al Gore puts in his slideshows either......I've never seen em, just observations by known scientists.
There is so much more to it than that. I am not saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't possible; I believe that we don't have enough evidence right now to determine whether is or isn't. I originally assumed it was real, but when one side says "the science is settled," "the debate is over," completely disregards the other side's legitimate arguments, shuns them, attacks them, says if these people don't disagree tan nobody should, this is what made the red flags go up...
...(cont.) that is not science, and no the scientific way. Then I did research about the IPCC and found disturbing information about how they operate. First of all, many of it's members are not scientists, there a lot of politicians and activists involved in the process. Also, the IPCC is a government body, meaning no matter what goes down, the final conclusions will be politically driven, not scientifically driven. many of the scientists leave the IPCC because their...
...(cont.) point of view is ignored, and they disagree with the conclusions. Also, there are more "skeptics" than is given credit. And since when is it wrong to be skeptical in science? Since when does one scientific point of view get so much backlash and get compared to holocaust deniers? There are also accounts of scientists that don't necessarily agree with anthropogenic climate change, but go along with it anyway because it makes their lives much easier if they accept..
...(cont.) it. Scientists are competing for funds from the gov't. So if you include global warming threats in your research then you are much more likely to get funding. If one's area becomes an area for concern, then their research becomes more important and one then acquires the money they desire. That is just as realistic if not more than saying skeptics are getting paid by the oil companies. There is some pretty hard scientific evidence that suggests agw may not be a prob
AGW not a serious problem? Even if you don't believe it is going to be as bad as SOME scientists try to make it, are you denying that it is a real problem at all? Noticeable trends are visible.....especially from the Industrial Age, to now. Small spikes from volcanic/bolide events may occur from time to time but tracing the carbon dioxide levels, while not a perfect science, is telling us something now. To act now. You can't just dismiss scientists as "paid off" all t time.
No, you're right, one can't dismiss scientists as paid off all the time, and that goes for both sides. I don't believe you can simply isolate one component (CO2) and label it as the culprit. I also don't believe in a global gov't making policies for every country to abide by, especially if these are no elections. The carbon tax would be useless, it would not produce the desired results on our climate and it is just a way for gov't to gain more revenue.
I don't believe in telling you what believe, so take from it what you will, but in my opinion this is an informative (yet rather lengthy) video without much bias.
The link won't post but the youtube title is: Climate I: Is The Debate Over?
If it involves the sun as a primary source, which I'm sure it will, it's not a great debate starter. For one thing, samples from the air have been tested that has been linked to fossil fuel burning. The fuels ARE accumulating....and enough of it makes an inevitable green house effect.
No, it doesn't delve too much about the sun's involvement, it deals more with the radiative forcing and the feedback/balancing loops among other topics
@jiveturkeyusa The Earth's climate has indeed changed in the past, but not at this alarming rate (barring catastrophic asteroid impacts and the like). While 1.3 degrees per hundred years may sound very slow, you must remember that Earth's overall climate is generally measured in tens of thousands-millions of years, not hundreds. And yes, global warming probably will have the same effect as it has in past times, but at a much faster rate, which wouldd cause a lot more environmental chaos.
Water expands when it is heated and contracts when cooled becoming denser until it reaches 4 degrees C at which point it then starts to become less dense again until it freezes. That is why ice is less dense than water
so hows the economy doing now? well enough to save global catastrophe? Wonder how greece, spain, and the United states would do, let alone the third world....
bill nye is mistaken when he says the oceans will expand because things expand when they are heated. That is a true statement, but not when talking about water which expands when it is frozen
@tsharpmac420 Google my ass, he isn't saying the water molecules will expand through heat, he is saying that because of the effects of warming on ocean currents shorelines will expand onto land.
@tsharpmac420 It is not my, the scientific communities, or Bill Nye's fault that you are too fucking stupid to undertsand there are two different definitions for expansion. Water will "expand" in the sense that it will creep closer onto shorelines, not physically grow apart.
@thewarriorsrok hey douche bag quit being fucking retarded and listen to what he says.. he says the ocean will actually get bigger when it gets warmer because warm things expand. He is saying the water molecules will move apart when they are heated and the ocean will expand, if he was not speaking about that then why did he use the word THINGS, implying ALL THINGS, expand when the are heated
@thewarriorsrok your calling me retarded, when your the dumb fuck that cant understand that their are two differnt deffintions for expansion and that he uses the wrong one, look at his fucking body language the whole video when he speaks he looks larry right in the face except after that line he looks down and away from larry and the camera because hes calling bullshit on himself....
@tsharpmac420 Nigger if you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" then you aren't in any position to discuss science. For fucks sake nigger, there's even a spell check on YouTube now, so whats your lazy nigger excuse? Forget Bill Nye, because even if global warming is liberal bullshit we should treat it like it is the result of human activity anyway. We don't have another planet for stupid nig-nogs like you to destroy, so we can't even RISK fucking it up, you nigger.
@thewarriorsrok i like you're desperate ad hominem attack, your just pissed because you got schooled by a nigger with really poor grammar, suck my big fat nigger dick bitch
@thewarriorsrok That's an interesting comment. Al Gore Jr. (not to be confused with Al Gore Sr., who actually ran a tobacco plantation with share croppers, and also as Senator filibustered to keep segregation as the law of the land in Tennessee) just this week claimed that global warming skeptics are the same moral plane as racists. So where does that put you?
we need to focus on the moon.. its leaving orbit at an alarming rate of almost a centimeter a year... in 1 million years the earth will almost lose waves and spin control.
@ZShogan I was talking about the SAP. It's true other inquiries looked into the emails and they don't help the case for remarks like
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
This guy seems to be talking out of his ass. Look up the "Younger Dryas" to see the effect of fresh water on the thermohaline circulation and how that can dramatically reduce temperatures in the norther latitudes. And I fail to see how most of northern Europe, England, and America, and Asia being covered in glaciers would be a small economic impact. I think people living in most of the worlds major cities might have something to say about that when they are scraped from the map by ice sheets.
Couldn't Bill Nye do the world a favor and also make more money for himself by simply getting a role in Star Trek movies as a Vulcan? He's halfway there already. It would be a real easy job for the makeup artists.
I've done this experiment myself. The shear force of the wind cannot drive water currents. Water is much too massive. Although it would be more correct to state that the two forces are interrelated, the water having far greater mass than the atmosphere is the far greater influence. Water moves for the same reason as air moves - differences in temperature and pressure, and that is the only force big enough to influence the entire water-air complex. Lindzen is the one that is wrong.
I resent Lindzen's claim that informed thought is "scare tactics". Humanity can afford to do the right thing. Clearly, it is his side that is scaring the world with their economic fraught.
i see the arguments for both sides. but really if you just look at Venus you can see how an atmosphere with higher levels of CO2 can really fuck you over.
I think it's unfair that they had Bill Nye, a smart man but not an expert that specializes in climate change, debate an atmospheric physicist. There's plenty of articles that refute Lindzen's claims.
I like how they show weather that has nothing to do with global warming. Believe it or not, we actually used to get hurricanes that flooded areas and got snowstorms before we emitted greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Right, so the occurrence of hurricanes and other extreme weather in and of itself is not evidence of climate change. An increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events however, could be. Well, guess what. That's what we're seeing:
the sad part is that the global warming concern has become like a witch hunt, all of the factors that drive opinions in a modified direction. As a scientist you get more grant money for proving global warming being man made, if you're out to prove against you're villified and everyone calls you a hack. This is very dangerous especially considering other dangerous gases and emissions that need the attention Co2 is getting.
AGW theory has the support of a strong majority of scientists in every field except economic geology. If the climatologists were frauds they would be stealing grant money from other scientists who would oppose them.
You haven't actually cited any evidence of this conspiracy.
Most measures for controlling CO2 will also eliminate many other pollutants such as mercury, black carbon, and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
FantasticBob In "climategate" the "skeptics" are counting on you to draw conclusions from statements taken out of context. If you really look at the emails you will find that they indicate no conspiracy. If you want to discuss specific emails, I'm game. Check out: factcheckorg "Climategate" and "Some Climategate Conclusions" watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg watch?v=orPLXSwQNMc watch?v=orPLXSwQNMc watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4 watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
@Rovinpiper Funny you changed my mention of "bias" to "conspiracy." I didn't say conspiracy, I said bias. I'm well familiar with the climategate investigation. They only addressed the science (with predictable conclusions), not the emails. They never explained to the public how such biased scientists were working in the organization, nor what remedial action was taken (there was none).
They're only gonna dig themselves in deeper, the public will lose all respect for scientists, like politicians.
Let's get into specifics then. What's the evidence of bias?
Conspiracy was the term that I used in my original email to which you replied, you changed the term, not me. I said "conspiracy" because only a conspiracy could explain how the scientific community could be as wrong as the skeptics say.
A thorough look at "climategate" shows that:
1) Peer-review works.
2) Skeptic work was not excluded.
3) The AGW denial movement is desperate and has no regard for the truth.
@Rovinpiper This is a surreal argument. The evidence of bias is obviously the emails in question. The documented attempts to keep certain scientists & publishers out of IPCC reports. Applying mathematical tricks to get error bars to show a heating trend where the raw data showed none. The failure of the investigation to even address the emails directly.
As for being desperate, everyone knows which direction the wind is blowing. Watch GW proponents as they totally lose the public.
@Rovinpiper So all you do is dodge questions. Seems typical. I quoted the emails saying they wanted to keep certain scientists out of the report & boycott other publications, but you want to deflect, misrepresent, & play games with links.
Sensenbrenner: "Did the panel interview any of the critics of the CRU data?"
Graumlich: "No. That wasn’t our charge."
Sensenbrenner: "Was there any analysis of the actual emails or the biases that they exposed?"
You've taken one comment out of an entire interview which relates to only one of at least five inquiries in an attempt to say that none of them addressed the emails. And I've already pointed out to you proof that Penn State's inquiry did address the emails.
I don't use IPCC as a source. I'm using scientists who would be able to tell if the IPCC was at odds with the state of climate science.
The idea of one paper remaking the face of a field of science overnight is an exaggeration. Changes are far more gradual than they appear to an outside observer.
My figure comes from Doran and Zimmerman, 2009. It was published in Vol 90 number 3 of EOS.
IPCC full of schmuck scientists who have investments in green energy or are paid by investors of green energy. Don't you fools get it, who is that moron woman, Richard Lindzen brought a discussion based on science and that woman says it's false. Someone tell that woman not to drive her car and stay home, since she is so concerned about global warming, you hypocrite schmuck.
The IPCC conclusions have the support of about 97% of climate scientists. They also have the support of the solid majority of scientists in every other field except "economic" geology. The most prestigious scientific organizations (AAAS, NAS, The Royal Society) have issued unprecedented statements of concern about global warming. Even major oil companies and automobile manufacturers are calling for carbon emissions restrictions.
@Rovinpiper Why are you not mentioning that 1/3rd of all IPCC papers are NOT peer reviewed! 1/3rd of papers is a huge ammount in scientific research, the 1/3rd of the papers that are not peer reviewed, may be the very papers that conclude their biased views. Also in science it takes only 1 paper to discredit 97% of scientists. Should I talk about climategate and IPCC fraud? where the hell do you even get 97% of the climate scientists work for IPCC, that is complete lie.
Yes, let's talk about climategate. First read the factcheck(dot)org and politifact articles ("Climategate", "Some Climategate Conclusions", and "Inhofe claims that emails 'debunk science behind climate change").
@Rovinpiper Hey dummy your the one that challenged me, present a scientific argument or shut your mouth. That's right you don't even know how the structure of carbon dioxide looks like, yet your talking as if you researched this issue for years based on science. Tell me one scientific fact to back up your statements
Here's 4 fact-filled videos for you concerning "Climategate".
There have been half a dozen scientific inquiries into this manufactured scandal. They have found that no fraud was committed, and neither the public, nor policy-makers were misled about the science.
@Rovinpiper What the hell are wrong with the global warming frauds. I did not ask for some propaganda video, I asked you for a scientific evidence of global warming, scientific evidence which signifies the relationship between Carbon dioxide, especially man-made and temperature increases. You can't even name one, because your a fraud, your a dupe, you repeat what you hear without actually knowing what the hell your talking about.
No, I carefully research my subject matter, then I make my statements, being careful always to confine those statements to things that can be supported by a credible source.
You on the other hand, repeat preposterous allegations without even taken the very rudimentary precaution of verifying your information against a fact-checking website.
If you look on agwobserver(dot)wordpress(dot)com you will find a page called: "Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties". These establish that carbon dioxide will trap heat. It's well established that light enters the atmosphere in higher wavelength forms, is absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted as infrared. Isotopic studies confirm that the atmosphere is enriched with CO2 from fossil fuels. Global mean temperature is increasing.
@Rovinpiper What you are missing is that H2O is the greatest of the greenhouse gasses, and Co2 is one of the least. A new study released in April/May shows that Co2 acts as a cooling agent, not a warming agent compared to H2O. Also, what you are missing is the conveyor belt affect that moves heat to space. Always new discoveries coming out. What the public is now learning is that science is a constantly finding new info. Don't Panic!
1) Water vapor is an important GHG, but in this issue that is a canard: watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs.
2) Even the most vehement of expert skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer admit that CO2 increases temperature. If you are going to use a paper give a citation.
3) CO2 prevents the normal transfer of heat into space. I'm missing nothing. Scientists have been warning us about global warming for decades and we've done virtually nothing about it.
Notice how they play propaganda clips while professor Lindzen is talking but not while the others are talking so that the sheep can't absorb what he's saying.
If there is such a thing as weather modification technology, it wouldn't be able to control temperature. The only way it could perhaps make a place colder is by blocking out the sun for extended periods using overcast clouds etc. But in order for that to make a difference it would have to be done all over the world. It would be impossible.
Theoretically we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. The wikipedia page on Carbon Capture and Sequestration would be a great place to start learning about these technologies.
It seems like we need some basic definitions for this discussion. If anyone has better ones feel free to share them.
Consensus: General agreement or accord.
Correlation: In statistics a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables. (Note that the relationship does not have to be perfect.)
Driver: Something which causes a physical change in a system. (Note that it does not have to be the sole, or most important determinant of the systems physical state.)
People, come on! Computer-models reside in the virtual world. They are told what to think from the offset. This paves the way for enormous bias in determing various aspects of climate change. Computer-models are only as accurate as the assumptions that get programmed into them; they make projections based on those assumptions. This does constitute EMPIRICIAL PROOF! However, CM are a very useful scientific tool in assisiting scientists, but nothing beyond this!
Lindzen is a more reliably authority on matters of climate than Nye, because Lindzen is an expert in the field and Nye isn't.
As for some ill-defined "consensus" being more authoritative than Lindzen...
I can only repeat that the fact that "consensus" is even being invoked is proof that there is no empirical evidence. If there were, people would be invoking that instead of consensus. Consensus is only invoked when the evidence is absent.
@Gwynne66 Lindzen is in the extreme minority, and his position on climate change is in opposition to the positions of every notable scientific body in the world that has adopted an official position on this topic - and many have. While it is better to rely on a single expert than a single layman, it is still the case that such experts, too, can be wrong and ideologically or financially invested. The safest way to go on topics like these is to look at large scale reports, like those of the NAS.
Actually, it only takes one person to be right. Remember, not that long ago, the consensus was that continents didn't drift. Then Alfred Wegener came along and showed that they did. The "consensus" rejected his view only they were wrong. There are so many examples of the consensus being wrong that I'm shocked people still think that consensus views mean anything.
Science isn't done by committee. What the board of the NAS votes to believe is irrelevant.
@Gwynne66 The consensus on global climate change arose out of decades of research under intense scrutiny of the public and political bodies around the globe. Besides, there have been literally hundreds of thousands of cases in which the lone scientist was wrong, versus perhaps a few dozen in which they were right. Unless you, personally, have the expertise required to judge the evidence presented, going with the loner over the consensus is not rational EVEN IF he later turns out to be right.
The consensus on climate change arose, as all consensus does, from a political movement - not a scientific one. The problem is that there is no actual evidence to support the idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of the warming we've seen since the 1850s and plenty of evidence that contradicts this idea.
Sounds to me like you view science as completely useless. You say that any consensus is simply the result of politics. You say that the conclusions of the majority of experts is unrelated to the evidence, and only an expert can understand another expert's conclusions. That makes them completely useless to policymakers and the public.
So let's go into the science then. We are agreed that the Earth is warming, CO2 concentration is rising, and CO2 is correlated with temp in the past, yes?
I see from your last post that you agree that greenhouse gases do indeed trap heat and result in the warming of the atmosphere. So that means that our only disagreement is in the sensitivity of Earth to an increase in carbon dioxide.
No, I do not view science as useless. Quite the opposite. It is political machinations I view as useless. For example, the political machinations being used to make the untenable hypothesis of AGW not only palatable to the general public but to use it as a political tool to engage in social engineering.
The earth is warming, CO2 levels are is rising. But, no, CO2 doesn't correlate with warming. It isn't a driver of temperature on Earth. Venus? Yes. Earth, No.
How can you say that climate sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2 is 1 C and then turn around and say that CO2 is not a driver of temperature on Earth?
"How can you say that climate sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2 is 1 C and then turn around and say that CO2 is not a driver of temperature on Earth?"
I didn't say it wasn't a driver. I said it wasn't the *primary* driver. Increasing CO2 levels will likely increase global temperature... just not to any extent that we'd really notice. Changes in land use are much more likely to have a bigger effect than CO2.
@Gwynne66 Worldwide scientific consensus generally does not arise out of politics, since the politics around the globe are rather discordant. Aside from that, many of the countries involved, some of which are oil states, have every reason not to endorse this consensus. It throws a massive wrench into the agendas they have.
"Worldwide scientific consensus generally does not arise out of politics"
Don't be ridiculous. Consensus is an exclusively political concept. Consensus is used when there is an absence of evidence. Where evidence exists, consensus is irrelevant. There's no consensus that Earth is the third planet from the sun because there is evidence that it is. Anyone who believes otherwise can be shown the evidence. The AGW hypothesis has no supporting evidence - hence the "consensus".
@Gwynne66 There IS a consensus that the earth is the third planet from the sun. We don't talk about it, because there are no third-planet contrarians to whom we need to point this out. A consensus in science just means that there is little or no significant debate around an issue because there is agreement. A consensus arises because more and more experts become convinced by the increasingly stronger evidence. Is the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution theory politically motivated?
BTW, what evidence are you referring to? More than 95% of the experts disagree with you on this point. We've pretty much excluded volcanoes (even though Ian Plimer may tell you otherwise), the sun (ever so popular still), cosmic rays, and the analyses compensate for the urban heat island effect, different methods of measurement, and any known yearly, decadal and multidecadal oscillations. What do you think is the best candidate cause for this warming?
What's the best candidate for the warming? It can't be anthropogenic CO2 because there isn't enough correlation between CO2 and temps to conclude that the former is the primary driver of the latter. Sure, some tool will cherry pick certain a period where there appears to be a correlation (1970s-1998) and blissfully ignore all the other data but that's not science, that's politics.
Personally, I suspect it is a combination of factors where no single one is the "primary" driver.
@Gwynne66 I'm not sure how you can even claim this. There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature IF you take into account other factors like solar irradiance, volcanoes, aerosols, interdecadal oscillations, el nino, etc. This is also true for paleodata, and it is backed up by lab experiments with CO2. See, for example, Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk (just google that for the video - it's an interesting paleoclimate talk).
@Gwynne66 The best explanation IS anthropogenic GHG emissions. I don't think even Lindzen would disagree with that much, though he might quibble about the percentages.
@Gwynne66 And to add, the climate change community generally finds Lindzen's work on climate sensitivity to be utterly unconvincing. This issue cannot be judged on one or two papers because we're talking about a complex system that we do not fully understand. The issue is one of the preponderance of evidence.
I'm not aware of his work on climate sensitivity. But the physics of CO2 are well enough known that the sensitivity to a doubling in CO2 is around 1.0C. In order to arrive at the ludicrous 3C-5C figures touted by the AGW alarmists, you have to imagine that unlike just about everywhere else in the universe subject to the laws of conservation of energy, there is a positive feedback system at work... a feedback system none of the AGW folk can quantify or even articulate.
@Gwynne66 the 1 degree figure does not take into account positive feedbacks. The 3 degree figure is based on a very wide range of evidence from modeling, observation, and paleoclimate evidence. The distributions are asymmetrically fat tailed, so there is a lot of uncertainty, but the bigger tail is in the direction of MORE warming than the mean estimate, not less. Since we already know of positive feedbacks, one would have to posit a strong negative feedback, which is not supported by the data.
@Gwynne66 Finally, note that continental drift, when first proposed, was lacking as a theory; the mechanism was not known (and a completely wrong one was posited). Scientists were right to question its validity. This is not analogous to climate change. There have been thousands of studies by thousands of scientists, not just a few. Lindzen is an outlier. It's silly to go with him over all others, particularly since the justifications he gives for his views have already been found lacking.
Yet that is exactly what you're claiming. You're saying that because some questionable studies claim that 97% of "experts" have a certain opinion that this opinion must have more weight that it normally would.
Then you make this vague claim about the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the consensus quite oblivious to the fact that if there actually were any empirical evidence to support the claim that there would be no need to invoke this "consensus".
There is a need to invoke this consensus because vested interests with large amounts of media power are doing everything in their power to discredit scientists and confuse the public.
If you are certain that Anderegg (2010) and Kendall (2009) are so far off the mark why have you not responded with a study that shows the actual level of support for AGW?
I think that you know that any such study will not support your position. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
If there were any actual evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, all the spin in the world wouldn't change that. The problem is that there is no such evidence... only speculation and "consensus". And, no, it is never necessary to invoke consensus when talking about science.
Why haven't I cited a study? Because such a study can only focus on opinions. As I keep saying, opinion is irrelevant... what matters is evidence - or in the case of AGW, the lack of it.
You keep saying that opinion is meaningless, yet Hofsteder has given five lines of evidence supported by more than 10 separate papers and you have ignored this to argue incorrectly that the papers that I mentioned only examined groups of supporters of AGW theory.
What empirical evidence would convince you that the warming observed since the 1970s is due largely to CO2? Your hypothesis must be made falsifiable after all.
Hofsteder has only given evidence of the opinions of people. As I keep saying, that's worthless.
Let's have evidence to support the claim that the warming since the 1850s (the warming didn't start in the 70s and neither did the physical properties of CO2 magically change at that time) is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2. It simply can't be and anyone who looks honestly and objectively at the evidence we do have will be forced to admit this.
I was camping in Northern Alaska, when a kodiak bear came to my site. As he rushed me, I picked up my shot gun. The kodiak just swiped it away. He then knocked me over and jumped on me. I closed my eyes in terror.
When I opened them again, I saw Bill Nye the bear's mouth open with one hand, all five fingers spread in his maw. With his other hand he punched into the bear's chest and ripped his fuckin' heart out. He handed me his bow tie and simply said, "Science. Respect." and walked away.
Pelcurus 1 day ago
In 1988, Michael Mann (if you don't know who he is your opinion on Climate Change is worthless) forecast that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be submerged by 2008. Nuff said.
timeweston 2 days ago
Lindzen's a fucking idiot XD
kelownatechkid 3 days ago
Lindzen is the only one on there with worldclass recognition as an expert, the rest are at best fear mongerors and at worst charlatans
BillDaBurgerEater 3 days ago
Don't argue with my childhood hero, dude.
MeenyMcSweeny 5 days ago
* Im going to out argue all in hopes of a thumbs up ! *
FatCorporateCat 1 week ago
EVERYONE will be wealthy enough to overcome? Lol we depend on fossil fuels and other limited resources. Billionaires are lobbying against the transition to smarter alternatives because they will go bankrupt. The world will not be more wealthy because these transitions will never happen. And the earth has only so much to give. Things will remain the same. Talk about no evidence or study in support of a bullshit claim.
TriviumCrusader17 3 weeks ago
And now Julian Morris's IPN has shut its doors.
The closure of the free market IPN follows years of controversy about Exxon funding, alleged links to the tobacco industry and contested claims about Aids and the pesticide DDT.
Who would you trust?
TugsN 4 weeks ago
Hmmm. 98% climate scientists verses a spokesman for IPN "bringing down barriers to enterprise and trade"
TugsN 4 weeks ago
"We'll all be wealthy enough to overcome" not if the Republicans have their way...
claybfx 1 month ago
I did not have a white Christmas because of global warming
dragunov143643 1 month ago
Global warming is fake F-A-K-E
Marylandterps27 1 month ago
As you can see it isn't snowing in Vancouver Canada anymore because of global warming.
LtTackleberry 1 month ago
Morrin and Lindzen are making straw man argument after straw man argument. That is the problem.
porterwake 1 month ago
Lindzen is a master of his field. He demolished and humiliated Bill Nye in this. Nye's comments on the Gulf Stream were, in fact, wrong. Nye simply engaged in vague remarks and scare tactics about how "dangerous" the world would become with a slight temperature increase. And his examples, as Dr. Lindzen pointed out, were vacuous.
robtul12 1 month ago 2
Bill Nye is right.
Ziakalyan 1 month ago
Bill Nye obviously is right. Like be less stupid
Graaaady 1 month ago
Global warming Science is flawed. The good ol' days before the industrial revolution was actually an
anomalous period of time. Ever hear of the midevil warm period. 4+ degress higher than today. The earlier 19th centurty's temperatures were depressed by a string of violent valconoes. Katmai,Santa María,Krakatoa,Tambora. All within a hundred years. All having an immediate effect on temperatures & long lasting consquences. The first model that takes this into account is the first I'll consider
aravenidiot 2 months ago
@aravenidiot Your argument would work if it weren't for things like the removed polar ice cores which show contrary to your point over a period of over 160,000 years... pesky ice cores.
wizardsbane 1 month ago
@wizardsbane It's not a poiint of view, It's history. Do a search on midevil warm period. Do a search on the top five valcanoes in recent history. I'm all for cleaning up pollution but the suedo science being used to stiffle our economy is just wrong. Here's another search for you, look up the reports of the coming ice age that were plastered all over the world in the seventies.
aravenidiot 1 month ago
@aravenidiot Hahaha, you know nothing of what you speak. Do you even realize that we now have accurate records of temperatures from millions upon millions of years ago? Your local examples are nothing. Temperature records clearly show a level of temperature change this planet hasn't seen in millions of years. Get out of Alex Jone's ass, if Global Warming was actually affecting our economy, the fatcats wouldn't always get away with environmental disasters.
wizardsbane 4 weeks ago
@aravenidiot
Wow.
Graaaady 1 month ago
@aravenidiot
Why don't you get that published in a chemistry or climate research journal? Oh yeah, because you don't know shit about chemistry, physics or mathemetics. You're a damn conspiracy theorist monkey who couldn't pass a high school chemistry test.
porterwake 1 month ago
@porterwake There's been plenty of articles published on the false pretenses of global warming, I honestly understand the concerns and I'd love to see something done about pollution but some of the best answers to carbon emmisions are being stiffled by these same "eco-activists" France gets over 80% of their electric from nuclear power. These activist protest everytime a new nuke plant is proposed. And you have absolutely no idea who you are talking to.
aravenidiot 1 month ago
@aravenidiot
Eco-activists have nothing to do with it. I stick to the actual research and science, not appeal to the hippies like your ignorant political ass. I'm a chemist and I have colleagues who do this kind of work, I read the peer reviewed research literature, not the garbage posted on political websites and Yahoo! news. Yeah I have no idea what I'm talking about. Scientific illiterate hacks like yourself can check out.
porterwake 1 month ago
@porterwake Actaul temperature data starts in 1659. Before that, we only have written accounts and the ice cores. The ice cores have known to be off by as much as 30 degrees over a season but, I'll give you, trends are measurable. Among the most recent observations, especially satelites, data is only available since 1967. The satelites show that the stratosphere is Cooling. Mainstream science say this is due to concerntrations of greenhouse gasses, ..Cont..
aravenidiot 3 weeks ago
@porterwake It's the only way to get the data to fit their models. Carbon dioxide is not limited to the troposphere and Methan doesn't go through catalysis until it is exposed to uv radiation. Water vapor in clouds reflect light, So shouldn't the stratosphere be warming @ an almost equal level? Venus's atsmophere is actually warmer above twenty thousand feet, Isn't that the prime model for run away greenhouse? But, as I said, I'm all for reducing pollution, just don't take my job.
aravenidiot 3 weeks ago
Ask Bill about valconoes, he'll tell you they are a product of mining operations... LOL... I'm not joking.
aravenidiot 2 months ago
Bill Nye is debating you. Your argument is invalid.
vvhoopie 2 months ago
@theawesomemanman
Carbon dioxide does not cause positive feedback once it leaks out of the atmosphere - The gas is not an organohalogen or a chlorofluorocarbon - CO2 does not deplete the ozone layer
harrykcin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AIG was bailed out to pay the NUMBER ONE BENEFICIARY GOLDMAN SACHS. Hank Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs, became Treasury Secretary and then sells $500 million Goldman stock TAX FREE. Paulson then pushed the AIG bailout to cover Goldman Sachs Credit Default Swaps (bets against the housing market) bought from AIG. watch?v=-hhPvas-Q8Y&feature=channel_video_title
TruthSeekingMissiles 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lindzen would be a great Bond villain. He talks so...slowly...and...in...a... sinister...manner,...Mr....Bond...
cwp2104 3 months ago
Comment removed
cwp2104 3 months ago
With each passing year, these old segments just get more embarrassing. Hey look, footage of crumbling glaciers, flooded cities, and arid land with a bovine skeleton... propaganda much? Fortunately most people saw right through it.
coulie27 3 months ago
Listen, global warming is obviously a scam perpetrated by the Jews, who staged 9/11 as a distraction to get attention onto muslims. If you can't see this you're blind. Bill Nye is in on it. C02 doesn't actually exist, there's no proof. In the BIBLE it says that our lord created our perfect world so thats good enough for me. There's no such thing as dinosaurs. Corporations are people. I can't wait to vote for Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry.
misterbarbister 3 months ago
Comment removed
misterbarbister 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CARL SAGAN - "Almost no one attempts to educate themselves on the basics of science and technology, yet our society is based on these. TV takes up far too much of our time and is apparently much more attractive to most of us than the beauty and wonder of science. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." - CARL SAGAN
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
You heard the man, in the future every country will be super rich, so we`ll just buy our way out of climate change. Bam, problem solved
misterbarbister 4 months ago
The problem I have is this is all based on temperature change. The average temperature of Earth was higher in the past at various times. The philosophy of uniformitarianism postulates that because temperatures were higher in the past they will be higher in the future. This seems to be the case. Why would temperatures not rise if they have risen in the past? Wouldn't higher temperature in the past have the same effect on the oceans in the past as higher temperatures in the present have now?
jiveturkeyusa 4 months ago
@jiveturkeyusa
Climate deniers also ignore the implications of ICE CORES......saying the sun simply causes the CO2 rise......it's bullshit and unscientific. Research more...i tell them...
AceofDlamonds 4 months ago
@AceofDlamonds By ice cores i'm assuming you are referring to the data Al Gore provides in his movie? Funny thing is about that is he shows the correlation but never puts the CO2 graph and temperature graph on top of each other directly. Why? Because while they do correlate nicely, you'll find that the temperature changes occur a few hundred years BEFORE the CO2 changes. This means that temperature causes CO2 to change, not the other way around. Look it up; it's a fact.
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@bostonsportsfan109
If it's so blatantly obvious and simple as that, then why are all the major deniers associates of oil companies and the fact that every major international scientific group supports ongoing, man-influenced climate change? Stop saying it's a conspiracy unless you can refute the major studies directly.
I'm not talking directly about anything Al Gore puts in his slideshows either......I've never seen em, just observations by known scientists.
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
There is so much more to it than that. I am not saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't possible; I believe that we don't have enough evidence right now to determine whether is or isn't. I originally assumed it was real, but when one side says "the science is settled," "the debate is over," completely disregards the other side's legitimate arguments, shuns them, attacks them, says if these people don't disagree tan nobody should, this is what made the red flags go up...
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
...(cont.) that is not science, and no the scientific way. Then I did research about the IPCC and found disturbing information about how they operate. First of all, many of it's members are not scientists, there a lot of politicians and activists involved in the process. Also, the IPCC is a government body, meaning no matter what goes down, the final conclusions will be politically driven, not scientifically driven. many of the scientists leave the IPCC because their...
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
...(cont.) point of view is ignored, and they disagree with the conclusions. Also, there are more "skeptics" than is given credit. And since when is it wrong to be skeptical in science? Since when does one scientific point of view get so much backlash and get compared to holocaust deniers? There are also accounts of scientists that don't necessarily agree with anthropogenic climate change, but go along with it anyway because it makes their lives much easier if they accept..
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
...(cont.) it. Scientists are competing for funds from the gov't. So if you include global warming threats in your research then you are much more likely to get funding. If one's area becomes an area for concern, then their research becomes more important and one then acquires the money they desire. That is just as realistic if not more than saying skeptics are getting paid by the oil companies. There is some pretty hard scientific evidence that suggests agw may not be a prob
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@bostonsportsfan109
AGW not a serious problem? Even if you don't believe it is going to be as bad as SOME scientists try to make it, are you denying that it is a real problem at all? Noticeable trends are visible.....especially from the Industrial Age, to now. Small spikes from volcanic/bolide events may occur from time to time but tracing the carbon dioxide levels, while not a perfect science, is telling us something now. To act now. You can't just dismiss scientists as "paid off" all t time.
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
No, you're right, one can't dismiss scientists as paid off all the time, and that goes for both sides. I don't believe you can simply isolate one component (CO2) and label it as the culprit. I also don't believe in a global gov't making policies for every country to abide by, especially if these are no elections. The carbon tax would be useless, it would not produce the desired results on our climate and it is just a way for gov't to gain more revenue.
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
Comment removed
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
Comment removed
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
I don't believe in telling you what believe, so take from it what you will, but in my opinion this is an informative (yet rather lengthy) video without much bias.
The link won't post but the youtube title is: Climate I: Is The Debate Over?
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@bostonsportsfan109
If it involves the sun as a primary source, which I'm sure it will, it's not a great debate starter. For one thing, samples from the air have been tested that has been linked to fossil fuel burning. The fuels ARE accumulating....and enough of it makes an inevitable green house effect.
AceofDlamonds 2 months ago
@AceofDlamonds
No, it doesn't delve too much about the sun's involvement, it deals more with the radiative forcing and the feedback/balancing loops among other topics
bostonsportsfan109 2 months ago
@jiveturkeyusa The Earth's climate has indeed changed in the past, but not at this alarming rate (barring catastrophic asteroid impacts and the like). While 1.3 degrees per hundred years may sound very slow, you must remember that Earth's overall climate is generally measured in tens of thousands-millions of years, not hundreds. And yes, global warming probably will have the same effect as it has in past times, but at a much faster rate, which wouldd cause a lot more environmental chaos.
dinodude36 4 months ago
@dinodude36 Well said my friend.
acs197 4 months ago
wtf r u worried about.. we will run out of greenhouse emiiting resoruces soon before all your bullshit statements occur.
DJUNIT001 4 months ago
@DJUNIT001 <<<-------- bullshit statement
mrucker967 4 months ago
@mrucker967 <<<-------- an actual piece of shit
DJUNIT001 4 months ago
Bill nye wins
wmupilot89 5 months ago
Water expands when it is heated and contracts when cooled becoming denser until it reaches 4 degrees C at which point it then starts to become less dense again until it freezes. That is why ice is less dense than water
Yokomo99 5 months ago
so hows the economy doing now? well enough to save global catastrophe? Wonder how greece, spain, and the United states would do, let alone the third world....
Howells13 5 months ago
So, how is that going for you with all the money you saved by ignoring climate change? Where did you put your first millions?
thedirtman00 5 months ago
Thumbs up if you like Polar Bears
TheAcademyOfficial 5 months ago
this can't be Bill Nye.... where's the funny sound effects?
RollOnToVictory 5 months ago
bill nye is mistaken when he says the oceans will expand because things expand when they are heated. That is a true statement, but not when talking about water which expands when it is frozen
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@tsharpmac420 Nigga you just went full retard.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok GOOGLE IT
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@tsharpmac420 Google my ass, he isn't saying the water molecules will expand through heat, he is saying that because of the effects of warming on ocean currents shorelines will expand onto land.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok this is exactly what he says "the ocean will get bigger when things get warmer they expand"
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok that is tru for every thing except water
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@tsharpmac420 It is not my, the scientific communities, or Bill Nye's fault that you are too fucking stupid to undertsand there are two different definitions for expansion. Water will "expand" in the sense that it will creep closer onto shorelines, not physically grow apart.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok hey douche bag quit being fucking retarded and listen to what he says.. he says the ocean will actually get bigger when it gets warmer because warm things expand. He is saying the water molecules will move apart when they are heated and the ocean will expand, if he was not speaking about that then why did he use the word THINGS, implying ALL THINGS, expand when the are heated
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok your calling me retarded, when your the dumb fuck that cant understand that their are two differnt deffintions for expansion and that he uses the wrong one, look at his fucking body language the whole video when he speaks he looks larry right in the face except after that line he looks down and away from larry and the camera because hes calling bullshit on himself....
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@tsharpmac420 Nigger if you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" then you aren't in any position to discuss science. For fucks sake nigger, there's even a spell check on YouTube now, so whats your lazy nigger excuse? Forget Bill Nye, because even if global warming is liberal bullshit we should treat it like it is the result of human activity anyway. We don't have another planet for stupid nig-nogs like you to destroy, so we can't even RISK fucking it up, you nigger.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok "so whats your lazy nigger excuse?" Im a lazy nigger
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok i like how you changed the subject after you got fucking schooled, fucking dumb pussy
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@tsharpmac420 Nigger you couldn't "school" a fucking bowl of jell-o. Go read a grammar, a science, and a history textbook (don't steal them, nigger).
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok i like you're desperate ad hominem attack, your just pissed because you got schooled by a nigger with really poor grammar, suck my big fat nigger dick bitch
tsharpmac420 5 months ago
@thewarriorsrok That's an interesting comment. Al Gore Jr. (not to be confused with Al Gore Sr., who actually ran a tobacco plantation with share croppers, and also as Senator filibustered to keep segregation as the law of the land in Tennessee) just this week claimed that global warming skeptics are the same moral plane as racists. So where does that put you?
papertigero 5 months ago
@papertigero I don't give a tall glass of fuck about what Al Gore Fuck-face said.
thewarriorsrok 5 months ago
@papertigero ad hominem dumb ass
joezeto187 5 months ago
we need to focus on the moon.. its leaving orbit at an alarming rate of almost a centimeter a year... in 1 million years the earth will almost lose waves and spin control.
Marlockie 6 months ago
@Marlockie Stfu.
Imqood 6 months ago
@Marlockie Indeed. The loss of the moon is a proven fact. The science is overwhelming.
Goohuman 5 months ago
@Goohuman well least someone got the comment.
Marlockie 5 months ago
@ZShogan I was talking about the SAP. It's true other inquiries looked into the emails and they don't help the case for remarks like
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
This guy seems to be talking out of his ass. Look up the "Younger Dryas" to see the effect of fresh water on the thermohaline circulation and how that can dramatically reduce temperatures in the norther latitudes. And I fail to see how most of northern Europe, England, and America, and Asia being covered in glaciers would be a small economic impact. I think people living in most of the worlds major cities might have something to say about that when they are scraped from the map by ice sheets.
brockunc 6 months ago
Fact-The sea levels are not risng due to global warming but the obesity population in the world is getting bigger, the continents are sinking!
demonic41700 6 months ago
@demonic41700 I concur
Fenixx117 6 months ago
Couldn't Bill Nye do the world a favor and also make more money for himself by simply getting a role in Star Trek movies as a Vulcan? He's halfway there already. It would be a real easy job for the makeup artists.
Thopter 6 months ago
I've done this experiment myself. The shear force of the wind cannot drive water currents. Water is much too massive. Although it would be more correct to state that the two forces are interrelated, the water having far greater mass than the atmosphere is the far greater influence. Water moves for the same reason as air moves - differences in temperature and pressure, and that is the only force big enough to influence the entire water-air complex. Lindzen is the one that is wrong.
thedirtman00 6 months ago
I resent Lindzen's claim that informed thought is "scare tactics". Humanity can afford to do the right thing. Clearly, it is his side that is scaring the world with their economic fraught.
thedirtman00 6 months ago
The guy with the Bow Tie was made to look out of his depth by lindzen, calm and considered answers to alarmist seem to be what is required.
Thanks Lindzen
zoltanapril42 6 months ago
Comment removed
demonic41700 6 months ago
@demonic41700 Show some respect, cunt. That's Bill Nye the Science Guy.
OminousLatinUsername 6 months ago
@demonic41700 If you were there you wouldn't say shit.
theUSER101 6 months ago
@demonic41700 Fuck you Blake lol you got on my account XD
demonic41700 6 months ago
@demonic41700
the fuck up
T1memaster2 4 months ago
i see the arguments for both sides. but really if you just look at Venus you can see how an atmosphere with higher levels of CO2 can really fuck you over.
more CO2 = warmer global temp.
aPpLeJuIcE37RainLucy 7 months ago
I think it's unfair that they had Bill Nye, a smart man but not an expert that specializes in climate change, debate an atmospheric physicist. There's plenty of articles that refute Lindzen's claims.
crocop60 7 months ago
Lindzen killed bill Nye and that dumb slut
Niksa123456789 7 months ago
Extra ones? How many should be culled Herr Bill?
j033l0w 7 months ago
I like how they show weather that has nothing to do with global warming. Believe it or not, we actually used to get hurricanes that flooded areas and got snowstorms before we emitted greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
mikejackey 8 months ago
mikejackey
Right, so the occurrence of hurricanes and other extreme weather in and of itself is not evidence of climate change. An increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather events however, could be. Well, guess what. That's what we're seeing:
watch?v=xhCY-3XnqS0
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
the sad part is that the global warming concern has become like a witch hunt, all of the factors that drive opinions in a modified direction. As a scientist you get more grant money for proving global warming being man made, if you're out to prove against you're villified and everyone calls you a hack. This is very dangerous especially considering other dangerous gases and emissions that need the attention Co2 is getting.
raymith2012 8 months ago
raymith
AGW theory has the support of a strong majority of scientists in every field except economic geology. If the climatologists were frauds they would be stealing grant money from other scientists who would oppose them.
You haven't actually cited any evidence of this conspiracy.
Most measures for controlling CO2 will also eliminate many other pollutants such as mercury, black carbon, and oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
@Rovinpiper Check out the climategate emails if you want to see evidence of bias. But then again you don't sound like you're interested in evidence.
FantasticBob7000 7 months ago
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
@Rovinpiper Funny you changed my mention of "bias" to "conspiracy." I didn't say conspiracy, I said bias. I'm well familiar with the climategate investigation. They only addressed the science (with predictable conclusions), not the emails. They never explained to the public how such biased scientists were working in the organization, nor what remedial action was taken (there was none).
They're only gonna dig themselves in deeper, the public will lose all respect for scientists, like politicians.
FantasticBob7000 7 months ago
Bob
Let's get into specifics then. What's the evidence of bias?
Conspiracy was the term that I used in my original email to which you replied, you changed the term, not me. I said "conspiracy" because only a conspiracy could explain how the scientific community could be as wrong as the skeptics say.
A thorough look at "climategate" shows that:
1) Peer-review works.
2) Skeptic work was not excluded.
3) The AGW denial movement is desperate and has no regard for the truth.
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
@Rovinpiper This is a surreal argument. The evidence of bias is obviously the emails in question. The documented attempts to keep certain scientists & publishers out of IPCC reports. Applying mathematical tricks to get error bars to show a heating trend where the raw data showed none. The failure of the investigation to even address the emails directly.
As for being desperate, everyone knows which direction the wind is blowing. Watch GW proponents as they totally lose the public.
FantasticBob7000 7 months ago
Bob
As far as keeping certain scientists and their work out of the IPCC that did not happen:
watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_389143&v=eJFZ88EH6i4
Your claim that increases in temperature were fabricated is completely unfounded. It is addressed here:
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
The investigations did directly address the emails. Look on page 3 of PSU's RA-10 Inquiry Report: Case of Dr. Michael E. Mann.
Don't just swallow what the denier blogosphere says, read the original source.
Rovinpiper 7 months ago
@Rovinpiper So all you do is dodge questions. Seems typical. I quoted the emails saying they wanted to keep certain scientists out of the report & boycott other publications, but you want to deflect, misrepresent, & play games with links.
Sensenbrenner: "Did the panel interview any of the critics of the CRU data?"
Graumlich: "No. That wasn’t our charge."
Sensenbrenner: "Was there any analysis of the actual emails or the biases that they exposed?"
Graumlich: "That was not part of our charge..."
FantasticBob7000 6 months ago
@FantasticBob
You've taken one comment out of an entire interview which relates to only one of at least five inquiries in an attempt to say that none of them addressed the emails. And I've already pointed out to you proof that Penn State's inquiry did address the emails.
Rovinpiper 6 months ago
No just trying to troll
rushone2010 8 months ago
You guys are all fag. all of you... everysingle one of you arguing like a bunch of fags. your a bunch of fags.
rushone2010 8 months ago
@rushone2010 lmao ure a fag
AniIAIinA 8 months ago
I don't use IPCC as a source. I'm using scientists who would be able to tell if the IPCC was at odds with the state of climate science.
The idea of one paper remaking the face of a field of science overnight is an exaggeration. Changes are far more gradual than they appear to an outside observer.
My figure comes from Doran and Zimmerman, 2009. It was published in Vol 90 number 3 of EOS.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
IPCC full of schmuck scientists who have investments in green energy or are paid by investors of green energy. Don't you fools get it, who is that moron woman, Richard Lindzen brought a discussion based on science and that woman says it's false. Someone tell that woman not to drive her car and stay home, since she is so concerned about global warming, you hypocrite schmuck.
qw2589 8 months ago
qw2589
The IPCC conclusions have the support of about 97% of climate scientists. They also have the support of the solid majority of scientists in every other field except "economic" geology. The most prestigious scientific organizations (AAAS, NAS, The Royal Society) have issued unprecedented statements of concern about global warming. Even major oil companies and automobile manufacturers are calling for carbon emissions restrictions.
Why are you still arguing?
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper Why are you not mentioning that 1/3rd of all IPCC papers are NOT peer reviewed! 1/3rd of papers is a huge ammount in scientific research, the 1/3rd of the papers that are not peer reviewed, may be the very papers that conclude their biased views. Also in science it takes only 1 paper to discredit 97% of scientists. Should I talk about climategate and IPCC fraud? where the hell do you even get 97% of the climate scientists work for IPCC, that is complete lie.
qw2589 8 months ago
qw2589
Yes, let's talk about climategate. First read the factcheck(dot)org and politifact articles ("Climategate", "Some Climategate Conclusions", and "Inhofe claims that emails 'debunk science behind climate change").
Then we can talk about it.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper Hey dummy your the one that challenged me, present a scientific argument or shut your mouth. That's right you don't even know how the structure of carbon dioxide looks like, yet your talking as if you researched this issue for years based on science. Tell me one scientific fact to back up your statements
qw2589 8 months ago
qw2589
Here's 4 fact-filled videos for you concerning "Climategate".
There have been half a dozen scientific inquiries into this manufactured scandal. They have found that no fraud was committed, and neither the public, nor policy-makers were misled about the science.
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper What the hell are wrong with the global warming frauds. I did not ask for some propaganda video, I asked you for a scientific evidence of global warming, scientific evidence which signifies the relationship between Carbon dioxide, especially man-made and temperature increases. You can't even name one, because your a fraud, your a dupe, you repeat what you hear without actually knowing what the hell your talking about.
qw2589 8 months ago
qw
No, I carefully research my subject matter, then I make my statements, being careful always to confine those statements to things that can be supported by a credible source.
You on the other hand, repeat preposterous allegations without even taken the very rudimentary precaution of verifying your information against a fact-checking website.
You are the dupe.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
qw2589
If you look on agwobserver(dot)wordpress(dot)com you will find a page called: "Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties". These establish that carbon dioxide will trap heat. It's well established that light enters the atmosphere in higher wavelength forms, is absorbed by the Earth and re-emitted as infrared. Isotopic studies confirm that the atmosphere is enriched with CO2 from fossil fuels. Global mean temperature is increasing.
What else do you need?
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Rovinpiper What you are missing is that H2O is the greatest of the greenhouse gasses, and Co2 is one of the least. A new study released in April/May shows that Co2 acts as a cooling agent, not a warming agent compared to H2O. Also, what you are missing is the conveyor belt affect that moves heat to space. Always new discoveries coming out. What the public is now learning is that science is a constantly finding new info. Don't Panic!
Alvin691 8 months ago
Alvin
1) Water vapor is an important GHG, but in this issue that is a canard: watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs.
2) Even the most vehement of expert skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer admit that CO2 increases temperature. If you are going to use a paper give a citation.
3) CO2 prevents the normal transfer of heat into space. I'm missing nothing. Scientists have been warning us about global warming for decades and we've done virtually nothing about it.
Panic!
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
@Alvin691 "A new study released in April/May shows that Co2 acts as a cooling agent, not a warming agent compared to H2O"
Can you point me to that study?
roont 7 months ago
the Morris guy is a fucking idiot
Yakiller69 8 months ago
Notice how they play propaganda clips while professor Lindzen is talking but not while the others are talking so that the sheep can't absorb what he's saying.
93msinclair 9 months ago
Aww man i swear as that guy was talking i dozed off in my own little world, hes soooo fukin boring he made me lose consintration lol
abcman 9 months ago
or put some water on the sun
dickinson1027 9 months ago
Why don't we just use weather modification technology to make it colder?
dickinson1027 9 months ago
@dickinson1027
If there is such a thing as weather modification technology, it wouldn't be able to control temperature. The only way it could perhaps make a place colder is by blocking out the sun for extended periods using overcast clouds etc. But in order for that to make a difference it would have to be done all over the world. It would be impossible.
HDaviator 9 months ago
@HDaviator Why can't we decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the air?
dickinson1027 9 months ago
dickinson
Theoretically we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. The wikipedia page on Carbon Capture and Sequestration would be a great place to start learning about these technologies.
Rovinpiper 8 months ago
"and that's bad, why" - lol, i love larry king!
dickinson1027 9 months ago
Did Julian Morris just say (in other words) we will be able to buy our way out of our problem in the future?
Dr8tereo 9 months ago
None of you are convincing each other
iFreNZyTM 9 months ago
It seems like we need some basic definitions for this discussion. If anyone has better ones feel free to share them.
Consensus: General agreement or accord.
Correlation: In statistics a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables. (Note that the relationship does not have to be perfect.)
Driver: Something which causes a physical change in a system. (Note that it does not have to be the sole, or most important determinant of the systems physical state.)
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
People, come on! Computer-models reside in the virtual world. They are told what to think from the offset. This paves the way for enormous bias in determing various aspects of climate change. Computer-models are only as accurate as the assumptions that get programmed into them; they make projections based on those assumptions. This does constitute EMPIRICIAL PROOF! However, CM are a very useful scientific tool in assisiting scientists, but nothing beyond this!
MegaPostman77 9 months ago
@Hofsteder
Lindzen is a more reliably authority on matters of climate than Nye, because Lindzen is an expert in the field and Nye isn't.
As for some ill-defined "consensus" being more authoritative than Lindzen...
I can only repeat that the fact that "consensus" is even being invoked is proof that there is no empirical evidence. If there were, people would be invoking that instead of consensus. Consensus is only invoked when the evidence is absent.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
Gwynne
"Lindzen is a more reliably (sic) authority on matters of climate than Nye, because Lindzen is an expert in the field and Nye isn't."
You value authority but not expert opinion? What's the difference?
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
@Rovinpiper
No, I value evidence and understanding of that evidence. Lindzen has both, Nye has neither.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 Lindzen is in the extreme minority, and his position on climate change is in opposition to the positions of every notable scientific body in the world that has adopted an official position on this topic - and many have. While it is better to rely on a single expert than a single layman, it is still the case that such experts, too, can be wrong and ideologically or financially invested. The safest way to go on topics like these is to look at large scale reports, like those of the NAS.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@werecow2003
Actually, it only takes one person to be right. Remember, not that long ago, the consensus was that continents didn't drift. Then Alfred Wegener came along and showed that they did. The "consensus" rejected his view only they were wrong. There are so many examples of the consensus being wrong that I'm shocked people still think that consensus views mean anything.
Science isn't done by committee. What the board of the NAS votes to believe is irrelevant.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 The consensus on global climate change arose out of decades of research under intense scrutiny of the public and political bodies around the globe. Besides, there have been literally hundreds of thousands of cases in which the lone scientist was wrong, versus perhaps a few dozen in which they were right. Unless you, personally, have the expertise required to judge the evidence presented, going with the loner over the consensus is not rational EVEN IF he later turns out to be right.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@werecow2003
The consensus on climate change arose, as all consensus does, from a political movement - not a scientific one. The problem is that there is no actual evidence to support the idea that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of the warming we've seen since the 1850s and plenty of evidence that contradicts this idea.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
Gwynne
Sounds to me like you view science as completely useless. You say that any consensus is simply the result of politics. You say that the conclusions of the majority of experts is unrelated to the evidence, and only an expert can understand another expert's conclusions. That makes them completely useless to policymakers and the public.
So let's go into the science then. We are agreed that the Earth is warming, CO2 concentration is rising, and CO2 is correlated with temp in the past, yes?
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
Gwynne,
I see from your last post that you agree that greenhouse gases do indeed trap heat and result in the warming of the atmosphere. So that means that our only disagreement is in the sensitivity of Earth to an increase in carbon dioxide.
Is that right?
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
@Rovinpiper
No, I do not view science as useless. Quite the opposite. It is political machinations I view as useless. For example, the political machinations being used to make the untenable hypothesis of AGW not only palatable to the general public but to use it as a political tool to engage in social engineering.
The earth is warming, CO2 levels are is rising. But, no, CO2 doesn't correlate with warming. It isn't a driver of temperature on Earth. Venus? Yes. Earth, No.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
Gwynne
How can you say that climate sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2 is 1 C and then turn around and say that CO2 is not a driver of temperature on Earth?
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rovinpiper
"How can you say that climate sensitivity of the Earth to a doubling of CO2 is 1 C and then turn around and say that CO2 is not a driver of temperature on Earth?"
I didn't say it wasn't a driver. I said it wasn't the *primary* driver. Increasing CO2 levels will likely increase global temperature... just not to any extent that we'd really notice. Changes in land use are much more likely to have a bigger effect than CO2.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 Worldwide scientific consensus generally does not arise out of politics, since the politics around the globe are rather discordant. Aside from that, many of the countries involved, some of which are oil states, have every reason not to endorse this consensus. It throws a massive wrench into the agendas they have.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@werecow2003
"Worldwide scientific consensus generally does not arise out of politics"
Don't be ridiculous. Consensus is an exclusively political concept. Consensus is used when there is an absence of evidence. Where evidence exists, consensus is irrelevant. There's no consensus that Earth is the third planet from the sun because there is evidence that it is. Anyone who believes otherwise can be shown the evidence. The AGW hypothesis has no supporting evidence - hence the "consensus".
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 There IS a consensus that the earth is the third planet from the sun. We don't talk about it, because there are no third-planet contrarians to whom we need to point this out. A consensus in science just means that there is little or no significant debate around an issue because there is agreement. A consensus arises because more and more experts become convinced by the increasingly stronger evidence. Is the consensus on plate tectonics or evolution theory politically motivated?
werecow2003 9 months ago
BTW, what evidence are you referring to? More than 95% of the experts disagree with you on this point. We've pretty much excluded volcanoes (even though Ian Plimer may tell you otherwise), the sun (ever so popular still), cosmic rays, and the analyses compensate for the urban heat island effect, different methods of measurement, and any known yearly, decadal and multidecadal oscillations. What do you think is the best candidate cause for this warming?
werecow2003 9 months ago
@werecow2003
What's the best candidate for the warming? It can't be anthropogenic CO2 because there isn't enough correlation between CO2 and temps to conclude that the former is the primary driver of the latter. Sure, some tool will cherry pick certain a period where there appears to be a correlation (1970s-1998) and blissfully ignore all the other data but that's not science, that's politics.
Personally, I suspect it is a combination of factors where no single one is the "primary" driver.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 I'm not sure how you can even claim this. There is a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature IF you take into account other factors like solar irradiance, volcanoes, aerosols, interdecadal oscillations, el nino, etc. This is also true for paleodata, and it is backed up by lab experiments with CO2. See, for example, Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk (just google that for the video - it's an interesting paleoclimate talk).
werecow2003 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 The best explanation IS anthropogenic GHG emissions. I don't think even Lindzen would disagree with that much, though he might quibble about the percentages.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 And to add, the climate change community generally finds Lindzen's work on climate sensitivity to be utterly unconvincing. This issue cannot be judged on one or two papers because we're talking about a complex system that we do not fully understand. The issue is one of the preponderance of evidence.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@werecow2003
I'm not aware of his work on climate sensitivity. But the physics of CO2 are well enough known that the sensitivity to a doubling in CO2 is around 1.0C. In order to arrive at the ludicrous 3C-5C figures touted by the AGW alarmists, you have to imagine that unlike just about everywhere else in the universe subject to the laws of conservation of energy, there is a positive feedback system at work... a feedback system none of the AGW folk can quantify or even articulate.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 the 1 degree figure does not take into account positive feedbacks. The 3 degree figure is based on a very wide range of evidence from modeling, observation, and paleoclimate evidence. The distributions are asymmetrically fat tailed, so there is a lot of uncertainty, but the bigger tail is in the direction of MORE warming than the mean estimate, not less. Since we already know of positive feedbacks, one would have to posit a strong negative feedback, which is not supported by the data.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@Gwynne66 Finally, note that continental drift, when first proposed, was lacking as a theory; the mechanism was not known (and a completely wrong one was posited). Scientists were right to question its validity. This is not analogous to climate change. There have been thousands of studies by thousands of scientists, not just a few. Lindzen is an outlier. It's silly to go with him over all others, particularly since the justifications he gives for his views have already been found lacking.
werecow2003 9 months ago
@Hofsteder
Yet that is exactly what you're claiming. You're saying that because some questionable studies claim that 97% of "experts" have a certain opinion that this opinion must have more weight that it normally would.
Then you make this vague claim about the strength of the empirical evidence supporting the consensus quite oblivious to the fact that if there actually were any empirical evidence to support the claim that there would be no need to invoke this "consensus".
Oh the irony!
Gwynne66 9 months ago
Gwynne
There is a need to invoke this consensus because vested interests with large amounts of media power are doing everything in their power to discredit scientists and confuse the public.
If you are certain that Anderegg (2010) and Kendall (2009) are so far off the mark why have you not responded with a study that shows the actual level of support for AGW?
I think that you know that any such study will not support your position. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
@Rovinpiper
If there were any actual evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, all the spin in the world wouldn't change that. The problem is that there is no such evidence... only speculation and "consensus". And, no, it is never necessary to invoke consensus when talking about science.
Why haven't I cited a study? Because such a study can only focus on opinions. As I keep saying, opinion is irrelevant... what matters is evidence - or in the case of AGW, the lack of it.
Gwynne66 9 months ago
Gwynne
You keep saying that opinion is meaningless, yet Hofsteder has given five lines of evidence supported by more than 10 separate papers and you have ignored this to argue incorrectly that the papers that I mentioned only examined groups of supporters of AGW theory.
What empirical evidence would convince you that the warming observed since the 1970s is due largely to CO2? Your hypothesis must be made falsifiable after all.
Rovinpiper 9 months ago
@Rovinpiper
Hofsteder has only given evidence of the opinions of people. As I keep saying, that's worthless.
Let's have evidence to support the claim that the warming since the 1850s (the warming didn't start in the 70s and neither did the physical properties of CO2 magically change at that time) is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2. It simply can't be and anyone who looks honestly and objectively at the evidence we do have will be forced to admit this.
Gwynne66 9 months ago