@percussim "The essence of this presentation is testing the hypothesis that man made CO2 is causing global warming."--
Besides that AGW is much more than a hypothesis - If you want to prove a scientific theory wrong, you have to do research which results finally falsify the theory. But Bob Carter isn't doing that. He talks to audiences of laymen, using arguments from which he probably knows that they are invalid and manipulative. Hence the essence of it is merely propaganda, not science.
@percussim [...] But the temperature of the last decades even has exceeded the temp. maxima of the MWP, so it becomes obvious even to laymen that this argument is void. So if you still want to sell it to your audience, you either have to manipulate the curve (many others do that instead), or you simply have to cut the part which disproves your point. Some "skeptics" like Carter prefer that, since leaving out facts appears less dishonest than intentional manipulation, in case of exposure.
@percussim I guess you refer to my comment. See, the point is that (self-proclaimed) skeptics use the argument that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than nowaday, and that without manmade CO2. This argument is already destroyed by the fact that the MWP wasn't a global event. But you still can sell it to a gullible audience who doesn't know that. [...]
My understanding of his work in this subject is more media related. I didn't want to watch past his rubbishing mmcc lntro. maybe l'll watch it when I've got more tolerance |
It's intersting that the chart ends at 2000. Perhaps Bob didn't like to show us the increasing temperature after 2000 which exceeded that of the MWP already in 2005. Well, it would have destroyed your previous "it's cooling since 1998" myth, wouldn't it Bob?
Anyway, the MWP wasn't a global event. It only happened in parts of the NH, including Europe and the North Atlantic.
Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005. The "fact" that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false because the temp's from the model came from inside cities, in areas which the temps have never come from before. 2005 through 2009 experienced slight temp decreases each year. But you probably got your data from the IPCC, which used data from 2 sources involved in climate gate. "Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory.
@pringenb "Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005."--
The total heat content of the earth, which actually is relevant, is still increasing at an accelerated rate. Stagnations in atmospheric temperature increase mostly are due to energy transfers between atmosphere and oceans.
----
References:
"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950", Murphy et al., 2009
"Earth's Global Energy Budget", Trenberth et al., 2009
@pringenb "2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false"
No. Take a look at the datasets of leading reasearch organisations / institutes and you will see that your assumption is wrong. You probably made that up yourself, did you?
"But you probably got your data from the IPCC"--
No. I always get my data from first hand sources which I can name (see previous comment).
"Climategate" is mereley fiction. Hence, same as all other GW deniers, you will not be able to back up your ridiculous claim. I bet you haven't even read a single one of those "climategate" emails, except for some mined quotes you got from a blog, or Fox News perhaps.
""Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory."--
Now you're just being silly. Global warming is observable and measurable, and even staunch "skeptics" any longer deny that.
Bob tries to rebut AGW by presenting a short term trend, how pathetic. But the present time already made a fool out of poor Bob: 2005, where the chart ends, became the hottest year on record, only to be exeeded by 2010 five years later.
It also shows, that Bob doesn't know the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming not only refers to atmospheric temperatures, but to the total heat content.
"I'm testing a hypothesis" ..at 4:50. He's either a fool or a liar. Would checking nine years of data out of 150 be the first test one would devise? If the hypothesis is "does adding CO2 cause warming?" then the simple first test is to go to the longest combined data set he can find,as well as explore fundamental chemistry and physics. The real hypothesis he is testing is "Is this a tame audience?" Yup...
3/3 John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants. watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
1/3 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. Only one permit has been issued since it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC
Not every publication is reliable, thought an old guy would know that. There are people with motivations you do not understand. Have read them, they are bought and payed for, they have shown no evidence of any dangerous warming, the data does not support panic. Don't know how to be more blunt than that.
Do you know how Cap & Trade was originally formulated? Who came up with the idea? No, not likely.
Carbon tax is another option although it is probably less viable.
However it is accomplished, atmospheric polluting should be ending or taxed heavily. It will be an adjustment to the business model that will shift us to sustainable living. Business-as-usual is not sustainable. Supporting unsustainable energy policies is irrational.
@Kickingboy. Try a mind experiment; take Gore out of the picture and what are you left with. You are still left with the overwhelming science; the science that has convinced EVERY respected scientific institution to conclude that we humans are indeed warming the planet. Gore has nothing to do with the science. He has been telling us what the experts have been saying for over 30 years. He may be a fun punching bag for silly deniers but that's all you fools can do, offer baseless babble.
Maybe your unwillingness to learn is because you are an adolescent, sure that you know what your're talking about, unable or unwilling to think critically.
@ReduceGHGs Well if 43 is an adolescent, you got me. I think rather that you are the kid, it seems most warmers are. When you get older you will understand.
I have read what they have said, keeping in mind they are government funded. David Suzuki also receives money from "big oil" Do you plan to answer my question ever?
The climate is changing, it always has, people and animals die because of it. CO2 does not effect it enough to take the blame for climate change. What part of this are you having trouble with?
Who's equation? The results to YOUR equation are set. It doesn't compute given the biased sources you use but you don't care do you? Those results are all that matters.
No, that's now how the real world works. Denial of the overwhelming evidence because you don't WANT the facts to be true just isn't living in the real world. Try taking that approach when the doc tells you you're sick and need an operation. "You're wrong Doc. I know I'm okay because that what I want!"
@ReduceGHGs You don't read very well do you. It is your side the facts don't support. I want there to be a crisis, and there are many, plastic in the ocean is a problem, a real one. Maybe you should change your name. Here's a question for you, do you know by percentage, what the largest to the smallest GHG's are?
The problem is that you don't read. Again, have you read ONE book about how humans have affected the biosphere? No? Why not? And you try to tell me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about? LOL!
.
Here's a classic for you to start on. It's a bit technical but try it anyway. Silent Spring.
@ReduceGHGs Yes Rachel's book had many side effects you are apparently unaware of. How about the millions that died of malaria as a result of the ban on ddt's? Now that they have started using them again, people are not dying from malaria by the millions. Besides we are talking about this latest scare CO2, and what do you think the repercussions of a CO2 tax will be? I can tell you for free what some of them will be, they are not good for anyone but the those invested in the scam.
@Kickingboy. You read it? I'm surprised AND skeptical.
You post as if chemicals with harmful, long lasting side effects were the only answer. Yea, I've heard the critics of a mindful approach to tampering with the biosphere. Foolish. Now that we understand that mindless dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere has consequences we need to change course.
.
You deniers keep using the word "scam". That's an easy yet unsupportable accusation.
Read what NAS and AAAS have to say. Why scam yourself?
@ReduceGHGs My question is (in case you forgot) what are the greenhouse gases, and where does CO2 fall into them, as a percentage of contribution. I'll give you a hint, Water vapour is about 95% of the effect, CO2 is very near the least of them.
I dont' feel obligated to answer your questions. As I recall, you are the silly denier that presented corporate hacks as sources while rejecting highly respected scientific institutions.
And thanks for the CO2/Water Vapour comment. Very informed! :-P Hint... I'm taking notes.
The people on the list are some of the best in the field of climate. See below, search the following, tell me how the science is wrong. Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part
David Archibald - Global Warming & Sunspots explained
David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
That's one way not to get a reply, don't click on reply.
David Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies.
Has the Swindle swindled you? That crud has been debunked.
David Evans, one of those "free market supporters", is an electrical engineer. Who cares what he thinks about climate change? You? Because he says what you want to hear right?
Man, you are sick with denial. It just doesn't matter to you what credible experts say. Get real.
@ReduceGHGs Every time a warmer has tried to debate the issue, they lose. The facts don't support panic, in fact they show CO2's contribution to warming to be quit benign. Climate change is a very real, but very normal thing our planet does. CO2 is a trace gas, that we have increased by a minute amount. The measured data says our warming is at the same rate as any other time in our history, so where do you get the panic? Are you a self loather? Perhaps you just need some attention.
Like I said before, I rely on credible scientific institutions like NAS and AAAS. There are many others too and they all say about the same thing. The fools you gave me were industry flunkies with NO credibility.
.
Thanks for your analysis of CO2. Have you convinced yourself that you know what you're talking about? If so, send your iron-clad study to NASA, NOAA, SOCC, NCAR, AGU, AAAS, NAS, and the others. Show them where they got it wrong. Amusing at best.
@ReduceGHGs My info comes from the IPCC's own conclusions, if you were able to look at the actual data, and understand it, you would then understand what I am saying. The IPCC's data says that a doubling of CO2, "may cause" a 3-4 degree rise in Earth temps. We have increased CO2 from 365ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years. So 15ppm, to double it would bring it to 760ppm. This would take over 1000 years at the rate we are going. Face it, it is a scam.
@ReduceGHGs They concluded things that were proven false every time they conclude something. The problem I think you are having, is differentiating between government organizations and scientific ones. Who supplies the funding, and what outcome they are looking for. When one looks at the numbers they provide, and check them against the source, the statements made to cause panic have no foundation. So show me why we should panic, I will if you can.
Proven false? What tha? Show me the respected studies and/or opinions that support that claim.
As for funding, is it your opinion that we should only trust the few corporate hacks that carry the vested interest flags. Why is it that We The People (governments) fund such research? At least two reasons: First, it isn't profitable for private industry to do it. Second, it is in the public's long-term interest that we understand the effects we have on our environment.
Google: The greening of the North: climate change shrinking tundra, says study
Google: Scientists map human vulnerability to climate change
Google: Increased flooding driven by climate change: study
.
Now that you have found new respect for the IPCC and what all the other respected scientific institutions have been saying, read and learn about the many effects climate change will cause.
.
Or, remain in transparent denial. That would be silly now wouldn't it?
bob carter has NEVER completed about how humans affect climate. I asked. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment. He's a marine geologist.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical thinking because We The Reasonable think you to be delusional.
But, maybe start with learning.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
@ReduceGHGs Trying to read your paragraph is like trying to prove AGW, very difficult at best. Maybe you are the one that requires a little learning. Oh and on your previous comment, about the petition being "debunked" how can you say that when 30,000 people are on it, that think you are delusional. The 30,000 scientists on it make up most of the US's scientific body. Try to understand science does not support your position.
What would know about proving AGW? Really. How does your education, training and experience help you?
Thet 30k people you talk about is corporate propaganda. Do some research about the Oregon Petition (The Petition Project) and learn what it was all about. I asked one of its authors (he was running for Senate last year here in Oregon) if he had any studies to back up his position. Like bob carter, he had no studies.
AGW science is well established. Research NAS & AAAS.
Now that we have the data, we can see the establishment is lying. It's very difficult to imagine the establishment lying about something so large unless we understand the motive. What on earth is the motive? These people can do science, but they choose not to. Why?
Why can't naysayers produce ONE respected study or scientific body that concludes that we humans are NOT altering the climate?
.
Because there are none. Any criticle thinker would ask "Now why is that?" Those in denial don't want to go there. Those that are vested interests, like the ones paying for many of carter's speaking events, don't care. They are only interested propagating the propaganda caring not for the well being of our future generations. That's sad AND immoral.
My opinion is based on the best science available supported by imperical evidence. As a denier, on what do you rely? What? Have you no studies, evidence, or respected support? Sounds like you base your opinion on faith. Looks like it is YOU who is "religious" in your denials.
If your opinion were based on the best science available, not the doctored and made up "evidence" of global warming alarmists, you would recognize that it's a hoax.
Again, there's no point in offering respected support. If I cite anyone (even 33,000 scientists who signed a petition) that disagrees with you, suddenly they're not "respected". There's no way to argue with that, just as there's no way to argue with any other religious fanatic.
You site the long since debunked Oregon Petition for support. Research it. It was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago. No credible scientific body agrees with it. But, if you ask CEI, EXXON, and The Chamber Of Commerce, maybe they will. Go figure.
So what Falwell said about 9-11 was meaningless? How can his followers respect him if what he says is meaningless? Faith alone, huh?
You not understanding the science doesn't translate to the experts being wrong. Get real.
bob carter is a corportate paid hack with no studies to back up his opinions. He is a marine geologist that has studied past climates but has nothing, no study, about how humans affect today's or tomorrow's climate, NOTHING. So who cares what he thinks?
.
If you want to know what the experts have been saying for years try the following site and visit the institutions' web sites for verification and more information.
Todays and tomorrow's "climate"? That's called weather, not climate.
The personal attack on BC aside,we can't observe future climate until it arrives, thus understanding paleoclimate is extremely important to understanding future climate. While the anthropogenic component may not have been present in paleoclimate, the natural mechanisms that were at play will continue to play a role and need to be understood to the fullest extent if we are to understand CC in all its complexity
So we have nothing to tell us what the future may hold? That means, in a simplified example, if you dump excessive toxins in a river do you think that in the future the fish may die?
Yes, natural mechanisms have, do, and will be what dominates climate. It is NOT necessary to fully understand them. Science doesn't work that way. We rarely FULLY understand anything.
With climate, we know enough now to understand that humans are deteriorating habitability.
@ReduceGHGs Are you suggesting that it is not important to understand CC to the "fullest extent possible"? Partial knowledge is enough?
We understand something about human impacts, but not to the fullest extent possible. Hence scientist continue to study to the tune of billions of dollars in research grants. How human impacts and natural variability will act, interact and counteract is of EXTREME importance to policy making. Or do you not want to understand them any better than we already do?
If you have a good grasp of climate science you may well want to dive into carter's argument. Have a look at ONE critique of carter's work. There are others.
Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
.
Are you saying we need to FULLY understand something BEFORE we take any actions? I guess then it would follow that we shouldn't bother to treat cancer patients because we don't fully understand cancer? Maybe cancer is promoted by grant recipients.
Why make that assumption? Good policy is based on good science, especially when the proposed policies are so narrowly focused and costly. Your argument sounds more politically-based or religious. Do you respect for science or just dogma?
As for Carter, he is a side-show. One of many scientists, albeit not a climate expert, who weigh in. They abound on all facets to this issue. And considering the complexity of climate science, many have a useful perspective.
My argument is that we should pay attention to what the respected experts and conclusions. It is a fact that EVERY respected scientific institution and study takes us, generally, to the same conclusion; we humans by altering the composition of the atmosphere are altering climate. This negatively affects habitability.
.
Label it dogma, political, propaganda, or whatever maybe because you don't like these facts but it's the truth.
I don't like or dislike facts. They are what they are. But in science, facts often require an asterisk.
Statements by institutions are written by select few, not polls of members, but I grant you there is overwhelming institutional support for AGW (with varying degrees of caveats)
We are negatively impacting the atm thru many mechanisms related to co2, including emissions, deforestation, land use, etc.
The facts are as I stated. ALL respected studies and institutions find generally the same. No, I bet you don't like these facts because you can't get around them.
.
The studies find that global warming is occurring mainly due human caused greenhouse gas emissions and clearing the land (deforestation). This is not dogma. But yes, it will take policy changes to deal with it. How else? Let the "free market" do it? Sorry, that's business as usual. No thanks.
@ReduceGHGs I don't want to get around facts. I want to integrate the facts so I may understand a very complex subject as best I can, so then I can decide what policy decisions to support. I even stated in my last response that we are negatively impacting the atm. For me, first the science, then the politicalal inclination.
When did I say let the free market deal with it? You don't seem interested in anyone's views but your own. I see that alot on youtube. You're part of a large crowd.
Perhaps I just here the same old thing over and over again. "We don't need government making policy changes to deal with a problem that we really are sure actually exists." This is delusional as it ignores the state of the science and the cultural realities.
.
So apparently you agree that humans are degrading our only habitat. That's good. That means you've come to accept that carter is wrong. Next, come to realize that only through policy changes can we overcome CC. Enjoy.
@ReduceGHGs It's been a while since I actually watched this video. But I think he made some challenging assertions that are worthy of discussion. CC has obviously become a hot-button political issue. Yes, I agree that humans impact the env and yes CO2 results in some level of warming. But there are unanswered questions and uncertainties that have the potential to turn the science on its head. So I intend to view policies very critically in as sober a manner as possible before I offer support
One thing I strongly advise everyone considering this issue; utilize critical thinking. This involves understanding your limitations (training and experience) and considering sources of information. With that foundation we find the most credible sources we can and make up our mind. With this issue, there's no credible doubt that the vested interests propagate disinformation to retain business-as-usual.
I totally agree with that statement, although I apply its cautionary message to both sides of this issue. Because inherent in that messge is that we should also be skeptical of sources whose goal is political and seek to control CO2 emissions whether or not emissions reduction will be an effective weapon against CC.
After many years of consideration I don't find that there are two CREDIBLE sides to consider. The naysayers have no studies and no respected bodies of support.
It isn't political to control CO2 emissions. It is necessary as CO2 pollution is the main cause of the problem.
.
I don't speak of politics. I speak of the need to change policies.
So, no the only vested interests I reference are the ones that continue to fund a disinformation campaign; oil, gas, coal, etc. See the vid.
@ReduceGHGs You automatically assume that controlling CO2 emissions would be successful. Yet estimates of future warming rely on estimates of feedbacks that rely on many assumptions and uncertainties, esp re clouds. Spencer has published studies indicating that natural cloud changes might drive climate more than CO2. A pretty important finding to policy makers, you’d think.
I don't totally throw my lot in with Spencer yet, but there are questions as to whether CO2 reductions will make sense.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions. I DO NOT assume that emission reductions will be successful. It may be too late. And yes, there are uncertainties especially with feedbacks.
Spencer, board member of the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by oil and gas companies to help launder their profits and advance their policy agenda. Spencer devotes significant time aiding the agenda of such corporations. True story.
Rely on only credible sources. NASA, SOCC, NOAA, NAS, etc
Spencer is also a distinguished scientist who gets funding for his research from NOAA and NASA. Much of his work is peer-reviewed and published. He may have an assoc with Marshall, but I’ve not seen any indication that he is a hack. Until and unless his work is thoroughly discredited, I will not impugn him simply for being assoc w/Marshall.
Spencer's association with GMI makes him suspect as their motives are clear. He also advocates Intelligent Design over evolution. Think the ID has a solid foundation in science? Lets get real. Know about Spencer and the DCI Group?
I'll not be a sucker for vested interest propaganda that Spencer helps spread.
Why cling to him when there are so many good reliable sources available? Sounds like you have a predisposition and just WANT to believe them.
@ReduceGHGs haha, I forgot about his ID beliefs. Well he's a scientist and religious. I guess he finds solace in ID. Religion is a funny thing. I don't subscribe, but many do. It's not a good reason to discredit people out of hand though. Some very intelligent people are religious.
I don't cling to Spencer, but find his research interesting and reasonably convincing. I'll let his work stand on its own merits. You should look more at the science and less at the person.
I have no predisposition, just a healthy dose of skepticism. Most scientists do (or should). As I said, I try to look at ALL the evidence to the extent I have time to do so. I read works on both sides of the issue.
Without question, if we continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere by emitting more and more carbon, temps will continue to warm, habitability of the land will deteriorate and the oceans will continue to increase in acidity. (Read about ocean acidification, an UGLY cenerio is unfolding.)
.
Business as usual with the advise of Christy, Ball, Carter, Spencer, or the other discredited naysayers, or alter our behavior for sustainability as per best sources. Pretty simple.
Sorry, as I've said, I have many years of reading and considering this issue. I'll not chase remote skeptics, debate as a layman their credibility, all while those that I communicate with choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence and credible opinions. It's a waste of my time. Besides, I've been there and done that.
@Nmber6. Good books that paint the picture very well. There's plenty of references to studies. Hansen is well respected. Friedman is a wonderful writer that puts this complex issue in terms most can understand. Silent Spring was a good read but some of it was too technical for me. Crimes Against Nature by RFK Jr. is worth the read too.
ALWAYS consider the credibility and motives of sources.
The layman should be cautious about determining the "merits" of scientific arguments.
You deniers like to say crud about Hansen but he is in fact VERY well respected.
I know who his w/cheney appointed supervisor was. His wife begged Obama not to replace him. That fool played the tune the "republicons" wanted him to play. I emailed him and asked if he had ANY studies to back up his position. Believe it or not he did reply and, as expected, he had no studies for support.
So talk is cheap. Where's the beef? A political appointee? LOL! Same old story.
This is like telling atheists, "You deniers like to say crud bout Jerry Falwell, but he is in fact VERY well respected." Would you expect the atheist to suddenly say, "OMG, you're right! There IS a God, because Jerry Falwell is *respected* (by people who think like him)."?
RFK JR. wrote a good book that you will not benefit from.
You ignorant farwell placed blame for the 9-11 attacks.
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
If I can parse your statement, he's not *my* Falwell. And you make my point for me.
I'm supposed to believe someone because he's respected... by *you*, and presumably by some unidentified others. Like it or not, Falwell is respected by many unidentified others (not me).
Falwell must be right about his blame for 9/11, since he's *respected*, by your logic.
And his blame for 9/11 is no different than those currently blaming the political right for the Tucson massacre.
Rely on what the experts have been saying for years. If you have better, more reliable information please send me a link.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
No, wiki is not a source but it is an accurate site when it comes to position statements. The fact that you haven't read what the probable consequences will be is not my fault.
And yes, the past has climate and weather patterns as does the present and future.
It's all about you, isn't it? You don't respect Falwell, so other people's respect for him is irrelevant. But, you respect Hansen, so other people's respect for Hansen is relevant... in your mind.
Climate is long-term. 10 years, 25 years, 100 years... that's not climate. That's weather.
Your lack of respect for Hansen is irrelevant. Those that understand the crisis we face and know of his history and work find him to be a very valuable source of honest information.
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between climate and weather.
Try reading about The Anthropocene Epoch to get an idea of the larger picture.
Those who understand Christianity and the crisis of faith and know of Falwell's history and work find him a very valuable source of honest information. See? The phrase is meaningless. I've lived too long and see too many "experts" turn out to be crooks and fools, instead of scientists. The Anthropocene Epoch *IS MADE UP*.
Believe it or not, I had an email conversation with carter. He is a marine geologist having written many papers about ancient climates. He has NEVER completed a study relating to how humans are or will be affecting climate. So why do some care what he thinks? Vested interests want business as usual. People in denial or those that are uninformed often like what he says because it’s comforting.
No, but he, or scientists like him have a perspective and a scientific expertise that is useful that contributes much to the science of CC. I'm not talking about Carter personally. You seem to have a hard on for him. But others like him.
You can try to characterize and denigrate those who don't buy into your hoax all you like. Doesn't change reality.
The biggest detriment to your argument are those who keep predicting what global warming will cause, and when something contrary to it happens, find a way to use that as a predictor of global warming. Sounds more like grifters than scientists.
drkstrong it is amazing how you can deduce that Carter's argument is in error because of possible confounding factors such as El Nino, etc. .... and the arbitrary time periods chosen .... I agree. However, have the decency to appy those same stringent criteria to the global warming fanatics and their aritrary time charts and climate forcers.
Test 1: False test. He is assuming (incorrectly) that the only factor affecting that temperature graph is CO2 concentration. If you go back to the lat 19th century there were rises and drops largely due to El Nino/La Nina. Those cycles still happen today so you can have a short cooling trend on the GW warming trend and it will look flat for a while. He starts his graph in 1998 (2nd warmest year) & stops it before 2005, the warmest year. If he had the full graph it would show a warming trend
On the contrary, he points out where other factors affect the temperature graph; location of the measurement equipment, for example, and the location of artificial heat sources nearby.
@Hiraghm The problem with the critisism by Watt of the measurement equipment is that the oceans are warming too where there are no heat sources.
I was at an AMS meeting where NOAA presented 2 analyses of the sites that Watt critisized & the ones that he has rated A. The 2 analyses gave the identical result. This puts the myth of poor measuring sites to bed once & for all. The secret is in the way that the analysis is done, it alienates any suspect sites & automatically corrects them. It works
bob carter is a corporate hack, a marine geologist (studies PAST climates), and has NEVER produced a study to back up his claims. He's been extensively DEBUNKED. So who cares with this guy thinks? Well, those in denial and the vested interests sure. Those of us that are informed know better. Try reading what the experts say.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
This bozo is NOT an expert in the study of how humans have affected climate. Ask him. He's a marine geologists and has studied past climates. He has NEVER completed a study on how humans affect climate.
Read what the experts have been saying for over 30 years. This is established science.
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
Also, try reading this recent book written by NASA's James Hansen.
@qsteveens He can however tell you whether today's climate is unusual and show us the tricks that so called scientists use to fool people. He does that rather well.
How can he tell us if today's climate is "unusual" or not if he hasn't completed a study? I don't care if is appears to be convincing; that's not that hard when you know so much more than those in the audience. Again, all the respected studies and institutions concur that humans are affecting the climate.
The science is solid. bob carter should stick to his field, marine geology/ancient climates.
I understand who is speaking. I've had a conversation with him. His is NOT an expert in how humans have influenced the climate but he talked you into thinking he is.
Try reading a critique by from those that have a grasp of the issue. It is unlikely you do.
Google Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
@qsteveens " Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air"
Another error from Andrew Ash that anyone can check using NOAA data
"1998 was the warmest year on record in the last 150 years."
using rural records i.e. not contaminated by UHI there has been no significant warming for 50 years and Ash is trying to make a climate statement based on an El Nino event.
(remove spaces) If Monbiot (moonbat to us climate realists) needs to change Lord Monckton's writings to suit his agenda, then it shows how low warmists will stoop to peddle AGW. Pack of liars, right @Nightversionn?
I enjoy Bob Carters opinions. I will always believe him long before I believe any Government who seek to use the AGW alternative to generate new taxes dressed-up in a carbon emission disguise.
Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 & acid H+ ions are up +30%.
Sigourney Weaver narrates "ACID TEST: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification."
This NRDC documentary explores CO2 ocean acidification, which may soon challenge marine life on a scale not seen for tens of millions of years. The film originally aired on Discovery Planet Green.
On YouTube:
ACID TEST:
/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
&
'Avatar' Sigourney Weaver: Saving our Oceans - Earth Day 2010
I suppose we could use the "homogenized" data from CRU--that's unverifiable because they've LOST the base data and refuse to show how they've "homogenized" it. Or we could try the other three databases, but they're worse--many of them relied on the CRU database. But what really burns AGW is the fact that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and we've not hit any "tipping point", or the oceans would be evaporated and the atmosphere would soup. It isn't; hence AGW has severe problems.
"The world we created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them." (Albert Einstein)
Please accept the obvious: 6.8billion people do make a change to earths climate!
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
9 of last 10 years were the HOTTEST on record. 2009 = 2nd HOTTEST on record & solar irradiance is at 35 year low Search: Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Graphs See: Ranking (Top 10 Warmest Years) The latest on YouTube: It's so Cold, there can't be Global Warming /watch?v=sAvqabAPIr4&feature=sub 50% of arctic sea ice & mountain glaciers have disappeared in just 30 years. Plants, animals & insects are all migrating north Search: Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
patpilotglider: I'm afraid that almost everything you say is myth. I'm sure you are sincere in your list but you have clearly been brainwashed. I don't have any vested interest either way. I just want some truthful science, but nearly everything on your list is simply not true, or unsubstantiated. PLEASE do some research away from the conventional media so you gain a more balanced view. Thank you.
As a matter of fact I have studied this question for 40 years and I have spent time in countries where they do brainwash people. So I am very well able to tell when I have been fed BS.
wow "cased closed" are you serious! spoken like a true BELIEVER, if you don't like bob why not listen to the hundreds of other scientists or are they all corrupted by oil company's? your a complete ignoramus. No one should believe in ether side of the argument look at the evidence listen to experts like Willem de Lange, a New Zealand oceanographer and climate scientist who I know has more integrity in his little finger than the entire IPCC. DO NOT BELIEVE RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF
Paid? And warming alarmist are paid by politicians via tax payer money. This might be a surprise to you but most people work for money... Your reply screams ignorance. You possess neither the knowledge or nor the williness to understand both sides of an argument. Your reply shows you are a lazy and dull witted...
Of course the real scientist are paid by evil taxes. (not much im shure..!)
Of course mr.lobby-bobby get paid privately by big OIL-corporations (very much im shure...!) They need lobbypeople for exactly tendentious lobby-jobs we can see HERE in this video obviously.
please do you OWN research
instead of believing a well known OIL-lobbyist like lobby-bobby in the junkscience jam here. Please!
And Sorry, but much more YOUR objection shows what a incredible naive person you are.
Maybe the real propaganda is that Bob receives funding from oil companies - but really doesn't? Anyone can create a rubbish review and dump it on the web.
Bob Carter's and Lord Christopher Monckton's science makes perfect sense without even having to compare it to the fudged figures of the IPCC.
Al Gore is linked to oil...so is the Economist that heads the IPCC
IN fact "Big Oil",the Saudis,OPEC,and anyone involved wit oil/energy is at the Copenhegan meeting
Like Dell Chemical played both sides of the Freon Debate as the Freon patent was to expire and they had a new procucr lined up, so to is "Big Oil" (Exxon,GE,Shell,BPChevton) playing both sides and running the AGW and Peak Oil scare while offering their Nuclear,Biofuels,Geothermal,Soalr,wind,,wave kinetic tech...lol
Do you even proof read what you're typing archangel, or just guess at the keys and leave it at that?
The oil companies don't care about carbon taxes as they'll just pass the extra costs back onto the consumers - YOU!
The Copenhagen Treaty and the AGW scare tactics are just an excuse to form a global government to remove your sovereignty and basic rights. This is not about big oil but the politics of global control of resources, mostly money funnelled to the poor countries.
Don't have the patientce to Spellheck or proofread.
It's not iIncreaing Txes some dumbasses think will discorage less flying and car ussage that's the problem...it's that it was done before and what was caused the Global Economic BUbble to burst in the first place and now they want to do it again that's the stupidity
People like to blame the Mortgage Dirivatives, but if people wasn't paying so much for gas to get to work and food to live on they would have paid their mortgafge
And because the cost of Flying and driving was so expensivefrom the taces on Gas and Jet fuel people did travel less and theus the Airline Layoffs making the people unable to pay their mortgage, buy food,buy Consumer goods
And because people spend less or nothing when they are unemployed Stores like Walmart ,Sears,and others that sell consumer goods loose business and Layoff meaning more people taht can't pay their mortgage, buy food,buy consumer goods,travel
Listening to parliament yesterday I was sickened by listening to Greg Combet and others rolling out their climate change legislation. Do these closet Marxists really think they are changing the world for better or are they deliberately destroying industry in Australia? Or are they, as in the case of Malcolm Turnbull, just following orders from the global bankers and commodity trading firms like Goldman Sachs who will be raking in billions in the new global carbon trade?
Yes,Yes...didn't Australia have "it's Hottest Summer" last year that just recently was attributed to Natural Climate Variability by legitamate Scientist (over "Climate Experts")despite all the,legislation to "Combat AGW"?
Come to think of it, is there anywhere in the world were government regulkation and taxation actually changed the local tempature,Ecology, or Climate?...lol
exactly and if it was made global it would sent wide spread poverty into all 3rd world countries and the financial amrkets of the world all come crashing back down, and no assistance to the third world would be possible.
It's impossible to say that with an infinite rise of a greenhouse gas there will be no disastrous effects, but he is right in his assertion (based on his data anyways) that there is nothing unusual about what is happening right now. That of course doesn't mean that we're not the cause of it or that it won't be harmful.
Human carbon emissions are 100 times the amount of all the active volcanoes on the planet; what else is there? If carbon is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases cause global warming, how is it a scam? Since when does science have a motive for a scam? Sometimes certain scientists do because they want to make a name for themselves, but 95% of them? Since when has science become a religion? Does global cooling explain the melting ice caps?
@percussim "The essence of this presentation is testing the hypothesis that man made CO2 is causing global warming."--
Besides that AGW is much more than a hypothesis - If you want to prove a scientific theory wrong, you have to do research which results finally falsify the theory. But Bob Carter isn't doing that. He talks to audiences of laymen, using arguments from which he probably knows that they are invalid and manipulative. Hence the essence of it is merely propaganda, not science.
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
@percussim [...] But the temperature of the last decades even has exceeded the temp. maxima of the MWP, so it becomes obvious even to laymen that this argument is void. So if you still want to sell it to your audience, you either have to manipulate the curve (many others do that instead), or you simply have to cut the part which disproves your point. Some "skeptics" like Carter prefer that, since leaving out facts appears less dishonest than intentional manipulation, in case of exposure.
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
@percussim I guess you refer to my comment. See, the point is that (self-proclaimed) skeptics use the argument that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than nowaday, and that without manmade CO2. This argument is already destroyed by the fact that the MWP wasn't a global event. But you still can sell it to a gullible audience who doesn't know that. [...]
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
My understanding of his work in this subject is more media related. I didn't want to watch past his rubbishing mmcc lntro. maybe l'll watch it when I've got more tolerance |
dmlt12 7 months ago
-> "Test 2" (is todays gl. warming...):
It's intersting that the chart ends at 2000. Perhaps Bob didn't like to show us the increasing temperature after 2000 which exceeded that of the MWP already in 2005. Well, it would have destroyed your previous "it's cooling since 1998" myth, wouldn't it Bob?
Anyway, the MWP wasn't a global event. It only happened in parts of the NH, including Europe and the North Atlantic.
MaluronLurette 7 months ago
@MaluronLurette
Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005. The "fact" that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false because the temp's from the model came from inside cities, in areas which the temps have never come from before. 2005 through 2009 experienced slight temp decreases each year. But you probably got your data from the IPCC, which used data from 2 sources involved in climate gate. "Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory.
pringenb 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Bushvision
@pringenb "Too bad that the global temperatures have DECREASED since 2005."--
The total heat content of the earth, which actually is relevant, is still increasing at an accelerated rate. Stagnations in atmospheric temperature increase mostly are due to energy transfers between atmosphere and oceans.
----
References:
"An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950", Murphy et al., 2009
"Earth's Global Energy Budget", Trenberth et al., 2009
NASA/GISS dataset, NOAA, MPI.
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
@pringenb "2010 was one of the warmest years on record was proven false"
No. Take a look at the datasets of leading reasearch organisations / institutes and you will see that your assumption is wrong. You probably made that up yourself, did you?
"But you probably got your data from the IPCC"--
No. I always get my data from first hand sources which I can name (see previous comment).
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
@pringenb "climate gate"--
"Climategate" is mereley fiction. Hence, same as all other GW deniers, you will not be able to back up your ridiculous claim. I bet you haven't even read a single one of those "climategate" emails, except for some mined quotes you got from a blog, or Fox News perhaps.
""Global Warming" is turning into a laughable theory."--
Now you're just being silly. Global warming is observable and measurable, and even staunch "skeptics" any longer deny that.
MaluronLurette 4 months ago
-> "Test 1" (has global temperature warmed):
Bob tries to rebut AGW by presenting a short term trend, how pathetic. But the present time already made a fool out of poor Bob: 2005, where the chart ends, became the hottest year on record, only to be exeeded by 2010 five years later.
It also shows, that Bob doesn't know the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming not only refers to atmospheric temperatures, but to the total heat content.
MaluronLurette 7 months ago
"I'm testing a hypothesis" ..at 4:50. He's either a fool or a liar. Would checking nine years of data out of 150 be the first test one would devise? If the hypothesis is "does adding CO2 cause warming?" then the simple first test is to go to the longest combined data set he can find,as well as explore fundamental chemistry and physics. The real hypothesis he is testing is "Is this a tame audience?" Yup...
Plangentry 7 months ago
3/3 John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants. watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
ThunderheadNebula 10 months ago
2/3
Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
. watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
ThunderheadNebula 10 months ago
1/3 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. Only one permit has been issued since it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC
ThunderheadNebula 10 months ago
Not every publication is reliable, thought an old guy would know that. There are people with motivations you do not understand. Have read them, they are bought and payed for, they have shown no evidence of any dangerous warming, the data does not support panic. Don't know how to be more blunt than that.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
Why do you think the Cap and Tax plan is getting so much push back?
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
Do you know how Cap & Trade was originally formulated? Who came up with the idea? No, not likely.
Carbon tax is another option although it is probably less viable.
However it is accomplished, atmospheric polluting should be ending or taxed heavily. It will be an adjustment to the business model that will shift us to sustainable living. Business-as-usual is not sustainable. Supporting unsustainable energy policies is irrational.
Corp. hack bob carter doesn't care.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs That was the most long winded way to say nothing of any value I've seen here in a while, you are an idiot.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
I do believe you are the one promoting the interests of corporations, namely Al Gore's lol.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@Kickingboy. Try a mind experiment; take Gore out of the picture and what are you left with. You are still left with the overwhelming science; the science that has convinced EVERY respected scientific institution to conclude that we humans are indeed warming the planet. Gore has nothing to do with the science. He has been telling us what the experts have been saying for over 30 years. He may be a fun punching bag for silly deniers but that's all you fools can do, offer baseless babble.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs That would be true if it wasn't a bunch of crap, lol... news flash the planet hasn't warmed any amount out of normal.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickingBoy
.
Maybe your unwillingness to learn is because you are an adolescent, sure that you know what your're talking about, unable or unwilling to think critically.
You'll probably grow out of it. Good luck.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Well if 43 is an adolescent, you got me. I think rather that you are the kid, it seems most warmers are. When you get older you will understand.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickedBoy .
43? Wow. I'm sorry you haven't learned how to think critically by now.
Rely on the experts. Read what AAAS and NAS have been saying for years.
Good luck man.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@Reducedbrainsize You are a puppet of a lie, you should be embarrassed by your naivete.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
Comment removed
Sugardaddy501 11 months ago
I have read what they have said, keeping in mind they are government funded. David Suzuki also receives money from "big oil" Do you plan to answer my question ever?
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
The climate is changing, it always has, people and animals die because of it. CO2 does not effect it enough to take the blame for climate change. What part of this are you having trouble with?
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@Kickingboy.
No kidding climate changes naturally. We learned that ing 6th grade didn't we?
Why is it that you continue to post like you understand this better then the experts that have the education and training.
Have you ever read a book about how humans affect the biosphere? Not likely.
I could suggest several but I think you would rather just demonstrate how little you know than take the effort to learn something.
Silly kid.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs I am aware of the many ways we damage our environment. CO2 does not fit into that equation. It seems you are the silly one here.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@Kickingboy
.
Who's equation? The results to YOUR equation are set. It doesn't compute given the biased sources you use but you don't care do you? Those results are all that matters.
No, that's now how the real world works. Denial of the overwhelming evidence because you don't WANT the facts to be true just isn't living in the real world. Try taking that approach when the doc tells you you're sick and need an operation. "You're wrong Doc. I know I'm okay because that what I want!"
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs You don't read very well do you. It is your side the facts don't support. I want there to be a crisis, and there are many, plastic in the ocean is a problem, a real one. Maybe you should change your name. Here's a question for you, do you know by percentage, what the largest to the smallest GHG's are?
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@Kickingboy
.
The problem is that you don't read. Again, have you read ONE book about how humans have affected the biosphere? No? Why not? And you try to tell me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about? LOL!
.
Here's a classic for you to start on. It's a bit technical but try it anyway. Silent Spring.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs The green house gases, you don't know what they are do you? I recommend you change your name.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
I recommend that you do some reading. Want me to suggest another book? Or, do you just want to come up with answers out of thin air?
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Yes Rachel's book had many side effects you are apparently unaware of. How about the millions that died of malaria as a result of the ban on ddt's? Now that they have started using them again, people are not dying from malaria by the millions. Besides we are talking about this latest scare CO2, and what do you think the repercussions of a CO2 tax will be? I can tell you for free what some of them will be, they are not good for anyone but the those invested in the scam.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@Kickingboy. You read it? I'm surprised AND skeptical.
You post as if chemicals with harmful, long lasting side effects were the only answer. Yea, I've heard the critics of a mindful approach to tampering with the biosphere. Foolish. Now that we understand that mindless dumping of GHGs into the atmosphere has consequences we need to change course.
.
You deniers keep using the word "scam". That's an easy yet unsupportable accusation.
Read what NAS and AAAS have to say. Why scam yourself?
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs My question is (in case you forgot) what are the greenhouse gases, and where does CO2 fall into them, as a percentage of contribution. I'll give you a hint, Water vapour is about 95% of the effect, CO2 is very near the least of them.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
I dont' feel obligated to answer your questions. As I recall, you are the silly denier that presented corporate hacks as sources while rejecting highly respected scientific institutions.
And thanks for the CO2/Water Vapour comment. Very informed! :-P Hint... I'm taking notes.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
The people on the list are some of the best in the field of climate. See below, search the following, tell me how the science is wrong. Climate Change - Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part
David Archibald - Global Warming & Sunspots explained
David Evans - Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming
Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1
Al Gore Debates Global Warming
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
That's one way not to get a reply, don't click on reply.
David Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies.
Has the Swindle swindled you? That crud has been debunked.
David Evans, one of those "free market supporters", is an electrical engineer. Who cares what he thinks about climate change? You? Because he says what you want to hear right?
Man, you are sick with denial. It just doesn't matter to you what credible experts say. Get real.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Who is your credible expert? I'm can't wait for this.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Every time a warmer has tried to debate the issue, they lose. The facts don't support panic, in fact they show CO2's contribution to warming to be quit benign. Climate change is a very real, but very normal thing our planet does. CO2 is a trace gas, that we have increased by a minute amount. The measured data says our warming is at the same rate as any other time in our history, so where do you get the panic? Are you a self loather? Perhaps you just need some attention.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
Like I said before, I rely on credible scientific institutions like NAS and AAAS. There are many others too and they all say about the same thing. The fools you gave me were industry flunkies with NO credibility.
.
Thanks for your analysis of CO2. Have you convinced yourself that you know what you're talking about? If so, send your iron-clad study to NASA, NOAA, SOCC, NCAR, AGU, AAAS, NAS, and the others. Show them where they got it wrong. Amusing at best.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs My info comes from the IPCC's own conclusions, if you were able to look at the actual data, and understand it, you would then understand what I am saying. The IPCC's data says that a doubling of CO2, "may cause" a 3-4 degree rise in Earth temps. We have increased CO2 from 365ppm to 380ppm in the last 150 years. So 15ppm, to double it would bring it to 760ppm. This would take over 1000 years at the rate we are going. Face it, it is a scam.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
Showing respect for the IPCC? Great! That's progress.
What did they conclude (FOUR times in a row) about global climate change?
The "scam" is the one you are playing on yourself.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs They concluded things that were proven false every time they conclude something. The problem I think you are having, is differentiating between government organizations and scientific ones. Who supplies the funding, and what outcome they are looking for. When one looks at the numbers they provide, and check them against the source, the statements made to cause panic have no foundation. So show me why we should panic, I will if you can.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
Proven false? What tha? Show me the respected studies and/or opinions that support that claim.
As for funding, is it your opinion that we should only trust the few corporate hacks that carry the vested interest flags. Why is it that We The People (governments) fund such research? At least two reasons: First, it isn't profitable for private industry to do it. Second, it is in the public's long-term interest that we understand the effects we have on our environment.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
@Kickingboy
.
Google: The greening of the North: climate change shrinking tundra, says study
Google: Scientists map human vulnerability to climate change
Google: Increased flooding driven by climate change: study
.
Now that you have found new respect for the IPCC and what all the other respected scientific institutions have been saying, read and learn about the many effects climate change will cause.
.
Or, remain in transparent denial. That would be silly now wouldn't it?
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
bob carter has NEVER completed about how humans affect climate. I asked. He studies ANCIENT climates using marine sediment. He's a marine geologist.
So, in the face of have NO respected studies or scientific institutions to support then naysaying position maybe you deniers should get a grip on reality, try some critical thinking because We The Reasonable think you to be delusional.
But, maybe start with learning.
Google: Island-scale study reveals climate-change effects
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Trying to read your paragraph is like trying to prove AGW, very difficult at best. Maybe you are the one that requires a little learning. Oh and on your previous comment, about the petition being "debunked" how can you say that when 30,000 people are on it, that think you are delusional. The 30,000 scientists on it make up most of the US's scientific body. Try to understand science does not support your position.
TheKickerboy99 11 months ago
@TheKickerboy99 .
What would know about proving AGW? Really. How does your education, training and experience help you?
Thet 30k people you talk about is corporate propaganda. Do some research about the Oregon Petition (The Petition Project) and learn what it was all about. I asked one of its authors (he was running for Senate last year here in Oregon) if he had any studies to back up his position. Like bob carter, he had no studies.
AGW science is well established. Research NAS & AAAS.
ReduceGHGs 11 months ago
He is soooo embarrasing to him self.
olavilha 1 year ago
You do not have to demonstrate that warming is outside of the historical range for the warming to be dangerous. You have to prove it is dangerous.
jfraas1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every year 2,500,000 people die of car exhaust. And car exhaust is destroying the nature! We know how to stop it!
youtube.com/watch?v=sHw7XSz2OGI
Stop the global warming !!!
MediaCryptix 1 year ago
we need people like Prof Carter to be more vocal about the issue to keep the issue open for debate!
alexhamster1134 1 year ago 4
Now that we have the data, we can see the establishment is lying. It's very difficult to imagine the establishment lying about something so large unless we understand the motive. What on earth is the motive? These people can do science, but they choose not to. Why?
cryosun 1 year ago
@cryosun
The world's oldest motivations... money and power.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
Why can't naysayers produce ONE respected study or scientific body that concludes that we humans are NOT altering the climate?
.
Because there are none. Any criticle thinker would ask "Now why is that?" Those in denial don't want to go there. Those that are vested interests, like the ones paying for many of carter's speaking events, don't care. They are only interested propagating the propaganda caring not for the well being of our future generations. That's sad AND immoral.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
As soon as any scientist disagrees with your religious beliefs, he's suddenly "not respected".
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm .
My opinion is based on the best science available supported by imperical evidence. As a denier, on what do you rely? What? Have you no studies, evidence, or respected support? Sounds like you base your opinion on faith. Looks like it is YOU who is "religious" in your denials.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
If your opinion were based on the best science available, not the doctored and made up "evidence" of global warming alarmists, you would recognize that it's a hoax.
Again, there's no point in offering respected support. If I cite anyone (even 33,000 scientists who signed a petition) that disagrees with you, suddenly they're not "respected". There's no way to argue with that, just as there's no way to argue with any other religious fanatic.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm .
You site the long since debunked Oregon Petition for support. Research it. It was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago. No credible scientific body agrees with it. But, if you ask CEI, EXXON, and The Chamber Of Commerce, maybe they will. Go figure.
So what Falwell said about 9-11 was meaningless? How can his followers respect him if what he says is meaningless? Faith alone, huh?
You not understanding the science doesn't translate to the experts being wrong. Get real.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
Here's my opinion on the subject - see the climate change film
EvolvingCaveman 1 year ago
bob carter is a corportate paid hack with no studies to back up his opinions. He is a marine geologist that has studied past climates but has nothing, no study, about how humans affect today's or tomorrow's climate, NOTHING. So who cares what he thinks?
.
If you want to know what the experts have been saying for years try the following site and visit the institutions' web sites for verification and more information.
.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wiki
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
Todays and tomorrow's "climate"? That's called weather, not climate.
The personal attack on BC aside,we can't observe future climate until it arrives, thus understanding paleoclimate is extremely important to understanding future climate. While the anthropogenic component may not have been present in paleoclimate, the natural mechanisms that were at play will continue to play a role and need to be understood to the fullest extent if we are to understand CC in all its complexity
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6
So we have nothing to tell us what the future may hold? That means, in a simplified example, if you dump excessive toxins in a river do you think that in the future the fish may die?
Yes, natural mechanisms have, do, and will be what dominates climate. It is NOT necessary to fully understand them. Science doesn't work that way. We rarely FULLY understand anything.
With climate, we know enough now to understand that humans are deteriorating habitability.
CC has no studies.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Are you suggesting that it is not important to understand CC to the "fullest extent possible"? Partial knowledge is enough?
We understand something about human impacts, but not to the fullest extent possible. Hence scientist continue to study to the tune of billions of dollars in research grants. How human impacts and natural variability will act, interact and counteract is of EXTREME importance to policy making. Or do you not want to understand them any better than we already do?
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
If you have a good grasp of climate science you may well want to dive into carter's argument. Have a look at ONE critique of carter's work. There are others.
Google: Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
.
Are you saying we need to FULLY understand something BEFORE we take any actions? I guess then it would follow that we shouldn't bother to treat cancer patients because we don't fully understand cancer? Maybe cancer is promoted by grant recipients.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
Why make that assumption? Good policy is based on good science, especially when the proposed policies are so narrowly focused and costly. Your argument sounds more politically-based or religious. Do you respect for science or just dogma?
As for Carter, he is a side-show. One of many scientists, albeit not a climate expert, who weigh in. They abound on all facets to this issue. And considering the complexity of climate science, many have a useful perspective.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
My argument is that we should pay attention to what the respected experts and conclusions. It is a fact that EVERY respected scientific institution and study takes us, generally, to the same conclusion; we humans by altering the composition of the atmosphere are altering climate. This negatively affects habitability.
.
Label it dogma, political, propaganda, or whatever maybe because you don't like these facts but it's the truth.
.
Yes, carter is a circus side show.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Let me try to take this apart.
I don't like or dislike facts. They are what they are. But in science, facts often require an asterisk.
Statements by institutions are written by select few, not polls of members, but I grant you there is overwhelming institutional support for AGW (with varying degrees of caveats)
We are negatively impacting the atm thru many mechanisms related to co2, including emissions, deforestation, land use, etc.
There is no room in policy making for dogma.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
The facts are as I stated. ALL respected studies and institutions find generally the same. No, I bet you don't like these facts because you can't get around them.
.
The studies find that global warming is occurring mainly due human caused greenhouse gas emissions and clearing the land (deforestation). This is not dogma. But yes, it will take policy changes to deal with it. How else? Let the "free market" do it? Sorry, that's business as usual. No thanks.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs I don't want to get around facts. I want to integrate the facts so I may understand a very complex subject as best I can, so then I can decide what policy decisions to support. I even stated in my last response that we are negatively impacting the atm. For me, first the science, then the politicalal inclination.
When did I say let the free market deal with it? You don't seem interested in anyone's views but your own. I see that alot on youtube. You're part of a large crowd.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
Perhaps I just here the same old thing over and over again. "We don't need government making policy changes to deal with a problem that we really are sure actually exists." This is delusional as it ignores the state of the science and the cultural realities.
.
So apparently you agree that humans are degrading our only habitat. That's good. That means you've come to accept that carter is wrong. Next, come to realize that only through policy changes can we overcome CC. Enjoy.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs It's been a while since I actually watched this video. But I think he made some challenging assertions that are worthy of discussion. CC has obviously become a hot-button political issue. Yes, I agree that humans impact the env and yes CO2 results in some level of warming. But there are unanswered questions and uncertainties that have the potential to turn the science on its head. So I intend to view policies very critically in as sober a manner as possible before I offer support
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
One thing I strongly advise everyone considering this issue; utilize critical thinking. This involves understanding your limitations (training and experience) and considering sources of information. With that foundation we find the most credible sources we can and make up our mind. With this issue, there's no credible doubt that the vested interests propagate disinformation to retain business-as-usual.
.
Here's a good short film.
.
Google: The Denial Machine Video
.
See ya!
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
I totally agree with that statement, although I apply its cautionary message to both sides of this issue. Because inherent in that messge is that we should also be skeptical of sources whose goal is political and seek to control CO2 emissions whether or not emissions reduction will be an effective weapon against CC.
Vested interests can be commercial or political.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
After many years of consideration I don't find that there are two CREDIBLE sides to consider. The naysayers have no studies and no respected bodies of support.
It isn't political to control CO2 emissions. It is necessary as CO2 pollution is the main cause of the problem.
.
I don't speak of politics. I speak of the need to change policies.
So, no the only vested interests I reference are the ones that continue to fund a disinformation campaign; oil, gas, coal, etc. See the vid.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs You automatically assume that controlling CO2 emissions would be successful. Yet estimates of future warming rely on estimates of feedbacks that rely on many assumptions and uncertainties, esp re clouds. Spencer has published studies indicating that natural cloud changes might drive climate more than CO2. A pretty important finding to policy makers, you’d think.
I don't totally throw my lot in with Spencer yet, but there are questions as to whether CO2 reductions will make sense.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6
.
I recommend not jumping to conclusions. I DO NOT assume that emission reductions will be successful. It may be too late. And yes, there are uncertainties especially with feedbacks.
Spencer, board member of the George C. Marshall Institute is funded by oil and gas companies to help launder their profits and advance their policy agenda. Spencer devotes significant time aiding the agenda of such corporations. True story.
Rely on only credible sources. NASA, SOCC, NOAA, NAS, etc
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
Spencer is also a distinguished scientist who gets funding for his research from NOAA and NASA. Much of his work is peer-reviewed and published. He may have an assoc with Marshall, but I’ve not seen any indication that he is a hack. Until and unless his work is thoroughly discredited, I will not impugn him simply for being assoc w/Marshall.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
Spencer's association with GMI makes him suspect as their motives are clear. He also advocates Intelligent Design over evolution. Think the ID has a solid foundation in science? Lets get real. Know about Spencer and the DCI Group?
I'll not be a sucker for vested interest propaganda that Spencer helps spread.
Why cling to him when there are so many good reliable sources available? Sounds like you have a predisposition and just WANT to believe them.
You can do better.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs haha, I forgot about his ID beliefs. Well he's a scientist and religious. I guess he finds solace in ID. Religion is a funny thing. I don't subscribe, but many do. It's not a good reason to discredit people out of hand though. Some very intelligent people are religious.
I don't cling to Spencer, but find his research interesting and reasonably convincing. I'll let his work stand on its own merits. You should look more at the science and less at the person.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
I have no predisposition, just a healthy dose of skepticism. Most scientists do (or should). As I said, I try to look at ALL the evidence to the extent I have time to do so. I read works on both sides of the issue.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
Without question, if we continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere by emitting more and more carbon, temps will continue to warm, habitability of the land will deteriorate and the oceans will continue to increase in acidity. (Read about ocean acidification, an UGLY cenerio is unfolding.)
.
Business as usual with the advise of Christy, Ball, Carter, Spencer, or the other discredited naysayers, or alter our behavior for sustainability as per best sources. Pretty simple.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
I have read about ocean acidity, and it is troubling, and that may be a hard one to get around in terms of policies that do not reduce CO2.
You might want to check out Roger Pielke Sr.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
Sorry, as I've said, I have many years of reading and considering this issue. I'll not chase remote skeptics, debate as a layman their credibility, all while those that I communicate with choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence and credible opinions. It's a waste of my time. Besides, I've been there and done that.
.
Good books about this (there are many others)
The Carbon Age
Hot, Flat, And Crowded
Storms Of My Grandchildren
.
I'm out-a-here.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
Thomas Friedman is not a scientist!
Hansen has no credibilty. he's an alarmist of the highest order.
The Carbon Age I am not familiar with. Maybe I'll look at it.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@Nmber6. Good books that paint the picture very well. There's plenty of references to studies. Hansen is well respected. Friedman is a wonderful writer that puts this complex issue in terms most can understand. Silent Spring was a good read but some of it was too technical for me. Crimes Against Nature by RFK Jr. is worth the read too.
ALWAYS consider the credibility and motives of sources.
The layman should be cautious about determining the "merits" of scientific arguments.
See ya!
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs Not only is Hansen not well respected, his own former supervisor said what he was pushing was a lie.
MrOTLChamp 1 year ago
@MrOTLChamp .
You deniers like to say crud about Hansen but he is in fact VERY well respected.
I know who his w/cheney appointed supervisor was. His wife begged Obama not to replace him. That fool played the tune the "republicons" wanted him to play. I emailed him and asked if he had ANY studies to back up his position. Believe it or not he did reply and, as expected, he had no studies for support.
So talk is cheap. Where's the beef? A political appointee? LOL! Same old story.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
This is like telling atheists, "You deniers like to say crud bout Jerry Falwell, but he is in fact VERY well respected." Would you expect the atheist to suddenly say, "OMG, you're right! There IS a God, because Jerry Falwell is *respected* (by people who think like him)."?
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
"Crimes against Nature" by RFK, Jr? A biography of the Kennedy clan, is it?
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm .
RFK JR. wrote a good book that you will not benefit from.
You ignorant farwell placed blame for the 9-11 attacks.
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
He's a stupid fool.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
If I can parse your statement, he's not *my* Falwell. And you make my point for me.
I'm supposed to believe someone because he's respected... by *you*, and presumably by some unidentified others. Like it or not, Falwell is respected by many unidentified others (not me).
Falwell must be right about his blame for 9/11, since he's *respected*, by your logic.
And his blame for 9/11 is no different than those currently blaming the political right for the Tucson massacre.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm .
I have no respect for falwell.
Rely on what the experts have been saying for years. If you have better, more reliable information please send me a link.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
No, wiki is not a source but it is an accurate site when it comes to position statements. The fact that you haven't read what the probable consequences will be is not my fault.
And yes, the past has climate and weather patterns as does the present and future.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
And I have no respect for Hansen.
It's all about you, isn't it? You don't respect Falwell, so other people's respect for him is irrelevant. But, you respect Hansen, so other people's respect for Hansen is relevant... in your mind.
Climate is long-term. 10 years, 25 years, 100 years... that's not climate. That's weather.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm .
Your lack of respect for Hansen is irrelevant. Those that understand the crisis we face and know of his history and work find him to be a very valuable source of honest information.
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between climate and weather.
Try reading about The Anthropocene Epoch to get an idea of the larger picture.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
Your respect for Hansen is irrelevant.
Those who understand Christianity and the crisis of faith and know of Falwell's history and work find him a very valuable source of honest information. See? The phrase is meaningless. I've lived too long and see too many "experts" turn out to be crooks and fools, instead of scientists. The Anthropocene Epoch *IS MADE UP*.
There is no crisis.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Nmber6 .
Believe it or not, I had an email conversation with carter. He is a marine geologist having written many papers about ancient climates. He has NEVER completed a study relating to how humans are or will be affecting climate. So why do some care what he thinks? Vested interests want business as usual. People in denial or those that are uninformed often like what he says because it’s comforting.
.
I prefer critical thinking from credible sources.
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
No, but he, or scientists like him have a perspective and a scientific expertise that is useful that contributes much to the science of CC. I'm not talking about Carter personally. You seem to have a hard on for him. But others like him.
Nmber6 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
I prefer doing my own critical thinking.
You can try to characterize and denigrate those who don't buy into your hoax all you like. Doesn't change reality.
The biggest detriment to your argument are those who keep predicting what global warming will cause, and when something contrary to it happens, find a way to use that as a predictor of global warming. Sounds more like grifters than scientists.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
drkstrong it is amazing how you can deduce that Carter's argument is in error because of possible confounding factors such as El Nino, etc. .... and the arbitrary time periods chosen .... I agree. However, have the decency to appy those same stringent criteria to the global warming fanatics and their aritrary time charts and climate forcers.
ReduceGHG's you are just plain STUPID!!
100287481 1 year ago 5
Test 1: False test. He is assuming (incorrectly) that the only factor affecting that temperature graph is CO2 concentration. If you go back to the lat 19th century there were rises and drops largely due to El Nino/La Nina. Those cycles still happen today so you can have a short cooling trend on the GW warming trend and it will look flat for a while. He starts his graph in 1998 (2nd warmest year) & stops it before 2005, the warmest year. If he had the full graph it would show a warming trend
drkstrong 1 year ago
@drkstrong
On the contrary, he points out where other factors affect the temperature graph; location of the measurement equipment, for example, and the location of artificial heat sources nearby.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm The problem with the critisism by Watt of the measurement equipment is that the oceans are warming too where there are no heat sources.
I was at an AMS meeting where NOAA presented 2 analyses of the sites that Watt critisized & the ones that he has rated A. The 2 analyses gave the identical result. This puts the myth of poor measuring sites to bed once & for all. The secret is in the way that the analysis is done, it alienates any suspect sites & automatically corrects them. It works
drkstrong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How come you only comment on AGW videos ?
People, search for "Keith Strong nasa pictures" on google
and the first link will show you the pictures of the fat ass
of this NASA scum.
You can also find his email address at nasa and lockheed martin.
This man's job is debunking the anti-global-warming videos.
He works for Illuminati, his goal is depopulation of Earth.
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
@ValarMorgoth Addressed to @drkstrong
ValarMorgoth 1 year ago
bob carter is a corporate hack, a marine geologist (studies PAST climates), and has NEVER produced a study to back up his claims. He's been extensively DEBUNKED. So who cares with this guy thinks? Well, those in denial and the vested interests sure. Those of us that are informed know better. Try reading what the experts say.
Google: Scientific Opinion On Climate Change Wikipedia
ReduceGHGs 1 year ago
@ReduceGHGs
"PAST climates"... ah, so you're another one of these people who can't tell "climate" from "weather".
Hiraghm 1 year ago
Wow look at this Al Gore's favourite zoomed to the last 15,000 years.(remove spaces)
w ww. palisad. com /co2/slides/img7. gif
look at CO2 going up like a rocket for ~8000 years and the temperature going vvvvvvvvvvvvv
down
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
This bozo is NOT an expert in the study of how humans have affected climate. Ask him. He's a marine geologists and has studied past climates. He has NEVER completed a study on how humans affect climate.
Read what the experts have been saying for over 30 years. This is established science.
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wikipedia
Also, try reading this recent book written by NASA's James Hansen.
Storms Of My Grandchildren
qsteveens 1 year ago
@qsteveens He can however tell you whether today's climate is unusual and show us the tricks that so called scientists use to fool people. He does that rather well.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OvoidCranium
How can he tell us if today's climate is "unusual" or not if he hasn't completed a study? I don't care if is appears to be convincing; that's not that hard when you know so much more than those in the audience. Again, all the respected studies and institutions concur that humans are affecting the climate.
The science is solid. bob carter should stick to his field, marine geology/ancient climates.
qsteveens 1 year ago
@qsteveens "How can he tell us if today's climate is "unusual" or not if he hasn't completed a study?"
I take it then that you didn't understand the video, did you actually watch it?
I found his excellent explanation rather easy to follow so why are you having such difficulty?
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
@OvoidCranium
I understand who is speaking. I've had a conversation with him. His is NOT an expert in how humans have influenced the climate but he talked you into thinking he is.
Try reading a critique by from those that have a grasp of the issue. It is unlikely you do.
Google Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air
qsteveens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qsteveens "Google Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air"
I have already seen that piece of rubbish. Refering to satellites not showing significant warming.
" However, it has recently become clear that this was a result of data and analysis errors"
Wrong! what was corrected was that the satellites showed a slight cooling. Carter based his comment on post correction data.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
@qsteveens "I understand who is speaking."
It's not a question of who is saying it Carter points it out but what is being said that you don't comprehend.
So instead you worry about who not the science but attack the man and repeat the mantra.
He got that right too.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 7
@qsteveens " Refuting claims that climate forecasts are all up in the air"
Another error from Andrew Ash that anyone can check using NOAA data
"1998 was the warmest year on record in the last 150 years."
using rural records i.e. not contaminated by UHI there has been no significant warming for 50 years and Ash is trying to make a climate statement based on an El Nino event.
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
@OvoidCranium Oops "there has been no significant warming for 50 years "
Make that 60 years
OvoidCranium 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Warmist George Monbiot needs to lie to be credible. Compare paragraphs on these 2 sites containing "praised them to the warming skies".
`
climaterealists. com/?id=5843
`
sppiblog. org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last-2
`
(remove spaces) If Monbiot (moonbat to us climate realists) needs to change Lord Monckton's writings to suit his agenda, then it shows how low warmists will stoop to peddle AGW. Pack of liars, right @Nightversionn?
MrOllyK 1 year ago
I enjoy Bob Carters opinions. I will always believe him long before I believe any Government who seek to use the AGW alternative to generate new taxes dressed-up in a carbon emission disguise.
aus2045 1 year ago 2
Ocean pH has already dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 & acid H+ ions are up +30%.
Sigourney Weaver narrates "ACID TEST: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification."
This NRDC documentary explores CO2 ocean acidification, which may soon challenge marine life on a scale not seen for tens of millions of years. The film originally aired on Discovery Planet Green.
On YouTube:
ACID TEST:
/watch?v=5cqCvcX7buo
&
'Avatar' Sigourney Weaver: Saving our Oceans - Earth Day 2010
/watch?v=PGrCprVcHpQ
goog2k 1 year ago
WHAT COOLING? LOL!!!
March was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for February = 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY = the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
HOT OFF THE PRESS - 4/10/10
See the latest delightful YouTube from greenman3610
Debunking LORD MONCKTON Part 1
/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
goog2k 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT COOLING??? LOL!!!
MARCH was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.
UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.
Global temperatures for FEBRUARY were 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.
Global Temperatures for JANUARY were the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.
LOL!!
goog2k 1 year ago
I suppose we could use the "homogenized" data from CRU--that's unverifiable because they've LOST the base data and refuse to show how they've "homogenized" it. Or we could try the other three databases, but they're worse--many of them relied on the CRU database. But what really burns AGW is the fact that CO2 has been many times higher in the past and we've not hit any "tipping point", or the oceans would be evaporated and the atmosphere would soup. It isn't; hence AGW has severe problems.
Rockyspoon09 1 year ago 2
He cherry picks his so called 'data', and uses charts which are very old and inaccurate.
Some of the other charts are just misrepresented.
Charlesincharge42 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The world we created today as a result of our thinking thus far has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them." (Albert Einstein)
Please accept the obvious: 6.8billion people do make a change to earths climate!
guldisloo11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 the thickness of arctic ice has DROPPED 42%.
This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Duh??
goog2k 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goog2k
@Nightversionn
global warmists
like paidTROLLgoog2kOILNightversionn
accuse others of conspiring to make money
all the while hiding their ties to BIG OIL
WHOA
Spitfiremacx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
goog2k 2 years ago
Comment removed
goog2k 2 years ago
patpilotglider: I'm afraid that almost everything you say is myth. I'm sure you are sincere in your list but you have clearly been brainwashed. I don't have any vested interest either way. I just want some truthful science, but nearly everything on your list is simply not true, or unsubstantiated. PLEASE do some research away from the conventional media so you gain a more balanced view. Thank you.
fingerhorn4 2 years ago 3
@fingerhorn4
As a matter of fact I have studied this question for 40 years and I have spent time in countries where they do brainwash people. So I am very well able to tell when I have been fed BS.
patpilotglider 1 year ago
its obvbious oily propaganda, just research the facts you fools
aerobique 2 years ago
Traits of the ignorant and reactionary:
lack of respect for others, accusatory, paranoia, inflexible, inability to focus on specifics of an argument, fearful.
Traits of the open-minded:
willingness to listen to and consider opposing views, respectful, resilient, flexible, happy.
arthroscope 2 years ago
Propaganda, Carter is member of a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including OIL companies.
aerobique 2 years ago
-case closed-
aerobique 2 years ago
wow "cased closed" are you serious! spoken like a true BELIEVER, if you don't like bob why not listen to the hundreds of other scientists or are they all corrupted by oil company's? your a complete ignoramus. No one should believe in ether side of the argument look at the evidence listen to experts like Willem de Lange, a New Zealand oceanographer and climate scientist who I know has more integrity in his little finger than the entire IPCC. DO NOT BELIEVE RESEARCH FOR YOURSELF
glennimmortal 2 years ago
Paid? And warming alarmist are paid by politicians via tax payer money. This might be a surprise to you but most people work for money... Your reply screams ignorance. You possess neither the knowledge or nor the williness to understand both sides of an argument. Your reply shows you are a lazy and dull witted...
nlpjohn 2 years ago
oh man..
Of course the real scientist are paid by evil taxes. (not much im shure..!)
Of course mr.lobby-bobby get paid privately by big OIL-corporations (very much im shure...!) They need lobbypeople for exactly tendentious lobby-jobs we can see HERE in this video obviously.
please do you OWN research
instead of believing a well known OIL-lobbyist like lobby-bobby in the junkscience jam here. Please!
And Sorry, but much more YOUR objection shows what a incredible naive person you are.
aerobique 2 years ago
Maybe the real propaganda is that Bob receives funding from oil companies - but really doesn't? Anyone can create a rubbish review and dump it on the web.
Bob Carter's and Lord Christopher Monckton's science makes perfect sense without even having to compare it to the fudged figures of the IPCC.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Pfft,
Al Gore is linked to oil...so is the Economist that heads the IPCC
IN fact "Big Oil",the Saudis,OPEC,and anyone involved wit oil/energy is at the Copenhegan meeting
Like Dell Chemical played both sides of the Freon Debate as the Freon patent was to expire and they had a new procucr lined up, so to is "Big Oil" (Exxon,GE,Shell,BPChevton) playing both sides and running the AGW and Peak Oil scare while offering their Nuclear,Biofuels,Geothermal,Soalr,wind,,wave kinetic tech...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago 3
Do you even proof read what you're typing archangel, or just guess at the keys and leave it at that?
The oil companies don't care about carbon taxes as they'll just pass the extra costs back onto the consumers - YOU!
The Copenhagen Treaty and the AGW scare tactics are just an excuse to form a global government to remove your sovereignty and basic rights. This is not about big oil but the politics of global control of resources, mostly money funnelled to the poor countries.
MrOllyK 2 years ago 2
Don't have the patientce to Spellheck or proofread.
It's not iIncreaing Txes some dumbasses think will discorage less flying and car ussage that's the problem...it's that it was done before and what was caused the Global Economic BUbble to burst in the first place and now they want to do it again that's the stupidity
People like to blame the Mortgage Dirivatives, but if people wasn't paying so much for gas to get to work and food to live on they would have paid their mortgafge
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
And because the cost of Flying and driving was so expensivefrom the taces on Gas and Jet fuel people did travel less and theus the Airline Layoffs making the people unable to pay their mortgage, buy food,buy Consumer goods
And because people spend less or nothing when they are unemployed Stores like Walmart ,Sears,and others that sell consumer goods loose business and Layoff meaning more people taht can't pay their mortgage, buy food,buy consumer goods,travel
The power to tax is to destroy
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming -
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
This has become a lot worse than we ever thought it could, and "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance" shows us why.
NEW truth - just out!
Global Warming - SEE "Lord Christopher Monckton: From Global Warming to Global Governance"
A MUST see . . .
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
Listening to parliament yesterday I was sickened by listening to Greg Combet and others rolling out their climate change legislation. Do these closet Marxists really think they are changing the world for better or are they deliberately destroying industry in Australia? Or are they, as in the case of Malcolm Turnbull, just following orders from the global bankers and commodity trading firms like Goldman Sachs who will be raking in billions in the new global carbon trade?
GoCo77 2 years ago
Yes,Yes...didn't Australia have "it's Hottest Summer" last year that just recently was attributed to Natural Climate Variability by legitamate Scientist (over "Climate Experts")despite all the,legislation to "Combat AGW"?
Come to think of it, is there anywhere in the world were government regulkation and taxation actually changed the local tempature,Ecology, or Climate?...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago 3
exactly and if it was made global it would sent wide spread poverty into all 3rd world countries and the financial amrkets of the world all come crashing back down, and no assistance to the third world would be possible.
sluterry 2 years ago
Good Vid. Straight to the point.
DickChambers69 2 years ago
"Not Evil Just Wrong" is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see. It reveals the true human cost of Global Warming hysteria.
Will be Released -
OCTOBER 18th 2009 8 pm EST
h t t p : / / w w w? . noteviljustwrong . com
c02Pirate 2 years ago
It's impossible to say that with an infinite rise of a greenhouse gas there will be no disastrous effects, but he is right in his assertion (based on his data anyways) that there is nothing unusual about what is happening right now. That of course doesn't mean that we're not the cause of it or that it won't be harmful.
dhinge 2 years ago
dhinge,
I think you must also put things into perspective.
C02 is a very minor trace gas, presently it makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere.
Of this 0.038% the total human contribution is less than 4%.
So lets just take 4%
4% of 0.038% = 0.00152% - this is completely insignificant. Natures contribution dwarfs our emission by 96%.
Also C02's warming effects are logarithmic and at only 20ppm see's almost 50% of its total warming potential.
AGW is a scam.
c02Pirate 2 years ago
Human carbon emissions are 100 times the amount of all the active volcanoes on the planet; what else is there? If carbon is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases cause global warming, how is it a scam? Since when does science have a motive for a scam? Sometimes certain scientists do because they want to make a name for themselves, but 95% of them? Since when has science become a religion? Does global cooling explain the melting ice caps?
dhinge 2 years ago
"Human carbon emissions are 100 times? the amount of all the active volcanoes"
Volcanoes are only 1 of many naturally occurring sources of C02.
For a list of natural sources...
Google - natural sources of C02.
You must realize that human emissions of C02 very very small in comparison to naturally occurring C02 and account for only 3%
It all about the numbers...
here is site showing the numbers involved.
(remove spaces)
w w w . geocraft . com / WVFossils / greenhouse_data . h t m l
c02Pirate 2 years ago