so they put up towers in rainforests and fly around the world to test for some obscure molecule. Yeah, sounds like they are concerned about environmental impact.
It does make you wonder. With so many tens of thousands of careers on the line, and so many billions being spent on what amounts to the first global scientific crusade--WHAT IF some little grad student found something that cast doubt on the entire theory? What chance would there be of that discovery ever seeing the light of day? I do not trust this process. There's an old Rabbinical principal that admonishes us to be very skeptical of a unanimous verdict.
@Cosmoline Don't hold your breath. If there were other factors causing climate change, they would have been discovered by now. Dr. Richard Alley would tell you "it's simple physics".
Speak to Exxon about how much money climate research and results is going to cost it.
It's also good that old Rabbinical principals are not utilized in scientific research. The rabbis would still be arguing over which way is up and does gravity really work.
"Follow the money" as they say. The AGW hoax is paying a lot of bills for these researchers. These people are careerists who know what happens to the skeptics and who gets the grants, invitations and tenure. For gods sake they gave Al Gore a Nobel prize.
Grow the government, the bigger the better and the more power for a few at the top.
The big banks are investing billions in the cap and trade scam.
What happens to skeptics, exactly? Richard Lindzen is a skeptic, and he's still working at MIT and doing research.
So what IS happening to skeptics, exactly?
As for "follow the money", that's an excellent suggestion. The money for the right-wing front groups points back to oil companies like ExxonMobil, which are terrified because people are realizing that burning too much carbon is hurting us.
actually exxon mobil, british petroleum and shell all fund climate change and they all supported copenhagen and they all wanted to get a climate treaty from it. climategate emails reveal how oil companies were in close friendship with the east anglia university and michael mann and other scammers.
but what you are tingting is an 80 iq lie repeater
road tolls in stockolm did nothing but remove few cars in the small city center. its not producing any money in 25 years and CO2 is a life giving gas thats not dangerous.. Its total bullshit.
If CO2 is so "life giving", why don't you volunteer to breathe pure CO2 for a few minutes? Then you can tell us about it. Oops, but you can't! Because you would be dead from CO2 poisoning!
@sakkurae Monckton? Do you mean Chris Walter? Of course you do. Walter is just a tabloid journalist. He likes hearing his inherited title preceding his name. He is definitely not a scientist. He is an even worse politician. He didn't receive a single vote from his peers in 2007.
what the hell, I DONT MEAN ANY CHRIS WALTEr. I MEAN LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON FROM ENGLAND WHO WAS IN MARGARET THATCHERS GOVERNMENT AS AN ADVISOR AND HE SAYS SAME AS INTELLIGENCE SAYS:
global warming is a scam and climatechange has gone on for the last 4.5 billion years !
@sakkurae How did you ever find Ted Talks? If you watch more videos in this channel, you might actually learn something. Maybe not.
Even the speaker, Rachel Pike, can show you how science is conducted. I had never heard of "isoprene" before this. That stuff must have a powerful GHG component. Guess why.
Luckily, isoprene is a minor gas compared to CO2 or CH4.
Continue to drool over C Walter. It's what you do.
I heard this clip on Alex Jones radioshow back last year in December when Alex Jones covered the myth of man made global warming.
Did you know, UNFCCC/climate treaty would have cost 288 billion dollars per year, 2% of usa GDP. It would have also cost 2% on every bank transfer on every normal person who sends money for example to canada or england.
That money would have gone to IMF and worldbank. They will try to male that ttreaty happen this year in COP16 in mexico, november.
fact is, ipcc is a scam. most scientist there do stufy stuff, yea they do, thats part of the scam. probably 95% of scientist like the woman on this video have been conned. they study stuff, very narrowly so they dont see the big picture.ipcc is just a tool for banks to create a communistis system on the planet and rule over everythng.
ANd, when 95% of scientist study real stuff like on this video, then when someone says its all a scam, the 95% scientist respond: no its not! we study hard!
that its funded by rockefeller and rothschild? that they want a global tax with the global warming scam and 1 child policy and a total eco police state like the new audi car advertisement?
i mean you can sum climate change in 3 words:
BIG FUCKKING SCAM
thats all you need to know about climate change. 3 words. not hard to remember
Since the leaked emails are proof of high level interference in the scientific peer review system. None of these comments that quote climate change statistics have any validity.
2.What are you talking about? Major companies are funneling billions into alternative energy research. Ever heard about the hybrid?
3. Screw Al Gore and his carbon tax.
4. Not even remotely close.
5. Bacon tastes amazing.
6. There was no "Medieval Warm Period".
7. Although the sun does play a large role in Earth's climate, solar activity hasn't been rapidly increasing, whereas temperature and carbon dioxide have.
That is a steep slope that we are just now climbing. The infrastructure, and consumer confidence needs to brought up to speed with the technology, because it is there, and has been for some time. Typical commuting habits would make it a viable option for some 85% of the populous.
If the GW community REALLY wants to reduce emissions, why are they not pushing for all the office workers to work from home via the internet? That would eliminate millions of miles driven every year. Or would that hurt the market for all those environmentally friendly vehicles they all seem to so fond of?
The IPCC is a political body with few active scientists relative to it's size. How about the now 30,000+ scientists that have signed a declaration of dissent from the "Gore production" on Global Warming, why isn't this the center piece of this topic? Oh, that's right, the moneys the thing.
The whole 30,000+ scientists thing is a joke. All you have to do, is print out a piece of paper and send it in saying your a scientist. Read some of the names, it's actually pretty funny.
Wrong. The vegetative production is several orders of magnitude higher than the bugs that may result from increased gases. Models have little success outside of short term prediction. We have an over reliance on high resolution temperature measurements, and the mixed bag of interpretation that comes with it. You can't seriously think a 0.2C rise means anything, which is the firmest number I've come across. Ocean studies show this rise, and it's probably the best indicator of shift in the system.
SO you agree that the temp has only gone up a fraction of a degree! Well why doesn't the IPCC publish a big headline like: "The World Temp Has Gone Up 0.6 Degrees"? Because if they did, they would loose millions of dollars in funding! Wake up, the GW headlines are about political gain not a objective search for truth. That's why they use untrustworthy numbers like estimates of historical data that was never actually measured with a thermometer.
1st: the IPCC doesn't publish headlines; newspapers do. If they choose to be sensationalist then it's not the scientists fault.
2nd: These scientists don't get paid more if global warming gets worse. At most they get more money to do research, which, if your correct and they don't care about the science itself would be meaningless.
3rd: When you look at the short time period in which this change has occured, it shows what a serious problem this change is.
OH, so this video about the making of a headline from the IPCC isn't just sensationalism? Scientists do get LESS funding if GW is wrong. You CLAIM fractions of a degree are SERIOUS. And the capitalization somehow pisses you off. Come on, you can make a better argument than that. Or maybe you can't and that's why you are so concerned with my CAPITALIZATION :-)
Did Orwell predict tax on air back in the forties or fifties? Are we getting taxed to breathe? Call me insane when i say that I don't mean this sarcastically... What a wonderful world we live in, and a bright future we are facing...
It's common knowledge that the polar ice caps on mars are melting at the same rate as the ice caps here. If you think that your suv is melting ice on mars, then I guess the climate argument would makes sense to you...
Since when did politicians become so trustworthy? Science doesn't even mean anything anymore because of how politicized it is.
Nice to see dummies making money from scaremongering. Free holidays to Malasia, 100's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, to tell us what? We are fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. Gee thanks climate scientists.
There is stuff we can do about it. Alternative energy sources and conservation. The real problem is what is the probablity of us actually using those solutions to solve the problem. In that case we are most likely screwed.
Can we please stop referring to anthropomorphic global warming as "climate change?" It's akin to calling anti-abortion "pro life." Not only is it ridiculously vague and completely inaccurate (few people are anti-life, and few people would deny that the climate changes), it's obviously a label engineered to portray the argument as if it is more conclusive than it actually is.
China recently used climate modification to induce the earliest snowfall in 23 years. So I guess that's that...
Depends on what you mean. If GW is accurately measuring the climate and publishing the data it's a Bachelor of Science. If you publish a paper explaining why a change is seen, it's a well reasoned conjecture. If you suggest some law should be changed it is political and we all know that is BS :-)
To jasonlajie, Thank You again. I was completely delusional about the 6 years I spent at LaTrobe University (Bundoora Campas) in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia between 1985 and 1991. Can you please inform the Australian education department to refund the AU$20,000 that my parents paid for my delusional education. Also, could you please inform the several hundred students that I have taught , tutored, mentored, that you have decided that based on a capital H, and not a little h,that I am a fraud.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's cuckoo, not "cookoo". Do you really have to insist that you're a bright fellow in spite of all your shortcomings? The video you have named twice now, is one of the funniest on YouTube. Somehow I don't think you posses any sense of humor though, so I won't recommend it to you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No, I meant 'humor' as my English was learned in North America. I tend to mean what I write.
I don't believe your "cookoo" story either, you're just trying to cover-up your stupidity once again with a lie.
You must be one ugly, lonely woman to be trolling your stupidity here with such frequency. Go on believing you're the brightest mind on the internets and that global climate change is just a grand hoax to get us all enslaved with a carbon tax. You are clearly "crazy ; or going crazy".
jasonlajoie: Thank You for allowing me to have my own beliefs. Several years ago I was also called crazy by arrogant and ignorant people, like yourself, because my research and information I became aware of indicated that it was impossible that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddam was in no way connected with 911. Hundreds of thousands of dead woman and children later, we are still paying the price for that mistake.This is not a game so please wake up and stop the personal attacks on me and my family!
I don't guess. The contribution IS worth the effort. What's the old tag line: "The more you know"! What might be insignificant today, could be very valuable in the future.
we must be very careful how we go about changing out ways.. ethonal is a prime example where it got millions in support from the governments here in north america before it was discovered it actually made more carbon then gas.
here where i live they decided to toll a new bridge to modivate people to bus.. its only made people take another route which is 50% longer.. making more carbon in my opinion.
we do need to change, but it wont hurt to be cautious in the years to come.
i`m shocked by this clip and have to ask , what is the carbon footprint of the ipcc? do we really need to do all this research when we can just look at our industrial landscapes to see that what we are doing is wrong and we need to stop it! watch Edward Burtynsky`s vid, in an ideal world that should be enough.
The science is not yet in. It could be happening. In order to be honest, we have to admit though that we are simply not sure if or not earth is warming and if we are in any way responsible.
Blind alarmism by liberal scientists is unsettling the normal consumer and the green lobbies are getting a free ride, while conventional energy industries are loosing growth and jobs. We have to grow, otherwise we cannot afford nuclear power later on, given that there is really such a thing as global warming.
Science is not yet in? you're saying that these scientists have fake diplomas?
The job thing is simply not true, with clean energies come jobs too, or do you think solar panels will magically be made, assembled and put on your roof?
No, but there are political agendas within science. Liberal scientists following the Gore machine and Green lobby, Conservative scientists following Bjorn Lomborg and fossil fuel lobbies.
As Lenin said: Look for the person who will benefit.
The point is to understand that scientific consensa are always based on more general principles of politics and the social sciences.
Government politicians and bureaucrats want to gain power. People respect scientists. So the govt becomes the primary funding source for scientific research. This funding corrupts the scientists who need funding to do research. The funding is given for projects the govt wants.
Power corrupts.
Funding tends to corrupt.
Science has been corrupted by the political process.
All scientific research funding should come from private sources.
Well I wouldn't point that towards the global climate change. there's no money in globabl climate change except to shysters like Gore. Worse it pisses off big oil one of the major funders of gov. in the developed world. I will say government has altered corrupted politicised and censored science. For instance when Clinton fired the surgeon general for denouncing abstinence only sex as as useless and stating that marijuana is no worse than liquor or tabacco. or the DDT BS.
Whatever happened to that ice age? Things have certainly warmed up since then haven't they? How much carbon dioxide and other gasses do the worlds volcanoes produce? Just curious.
If you think we'll put up with Commusnism you SERIOUSLY do not understand humanity. We'll exterminate you, and face the music - music we mostly believe will never be heard. See you're on the wrong team... the future won't be written by the people in now... no matter how much they want it.
everyone does that, nothing, noone works, work is digging or hunter gathering, this wide scale living and nonsensical machinery is pathetic, we need global nuetering, everyone can just fuk and then die.
The global warming we are experiencing is also being experienced on Mercury,Venus and Mars. It is caused by sun spot activity. Don't be fooled by the propaganda discuised as science. The agenda is to impliment a global carbon tax, not to save the planet.
This ^ is propaganda. I'm sorry but clinging to this 'there are those who seek to exploit us in a way I am not ignorant of!" doesn't give you power at all.
Here is a video debunking this claim. Please try to understand you are getting a high off of this conspiracy theory and NONE of the experts agree with you.
So, the idea you present is that some secret global organization wants to make the public have less money (motive?). So they figure the best way to do this is to bribe thousands of the most intelligent people alive to conduct false research so that maybe, a new tax will result from it that they will some how benefit from. Got it.
The global organisation is the united nations - they are not a secret organisation. Rather then spend my weekend debating climate change , I suggest that you watch the documentary " Fall of the republic" A respected Canadian climatologist / university professor explains how he and several THOUSAND of his collegues have been silenced and ridiculed by those with vested interests in convincing the world to impliment a global carbon tax. Then you maybe will get it!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
to: themindminder
Stating, "Yes, I do, do You?", is often what someone says when they have no idea what they're talking about. So I'll have to assume that you have no idea what the Carbon Tax which is correctly called the Carbon Credit really is. The fact that you call it a "Tax" lets those of us who know what it is - know that you do not. Instead of repeating what other idiots are saying, try looking up things on your own. You'll be so much smarter for it:)
To jasonlajoie.I can only dream of being as smart as you.Yes, I have no idea what I am talking about.I will now stop reading, researching and also stop teaching. I will also hand back my PHD.I will now just watch the videos in your favourites such as 'penis addictions' and 'moonwalk'. ThankYou for setting me staight.Also, the fact that it called carbon credit lets those of us who do know what it is(a global tax)know that you are a brainwashed zombie believing everything you are told to believe.
Make any research topic into a green crusade and you get funding to fill planes full of research and get joy rides over the jungle in remote places. All you have to do is write papers to support the new world state derived green religion.
Academics are interested in getting funding for their research. It's not the first time scientists and academics have been used as vehicles for government programs, power, and control.
Agreed, I have gotten two years of graduate school out of climate change related research. However, I haven't made up data or lied, I studied honestly and reported what I found.
With human knowledge doubling every 7 years and each human having only a limited capacity scientists have to specialize. The time of universal geniuses is over. Some topics have become too complex to be understood in depth and entirely by a single person, no matter how smart.
Just another example of how large amounts of money leads to the study of insignificant subjects creating extreme bias in scientific research for the purpose of justifing the money spent.
Science is about the objective search for truth, not about funding. Do you know what kind of a name a scientist could make for him/herself if they could show that global warming wasn't happening?
In addition, there are plenty of groups that are paying big bucks to scientists who are will to say that global warming isn't happening for some cash.
I would recommend you actually learn about the science, because you are way off.
An objective search for truth doesn't start with a decision that the Global Warning exists and then goes on to search for proof. However science funding DOES work this way. How many grants are there to prove that Global Warming exists versus it's disproof? If there was fair funding you might be able to argue that it is objective. But since there is not fair funding of both sides the debate it cannot be objective. The search for truth is not the same as the search for those 15000 paychecks!
A sign of a weak argument is a personal attack. What I know or don't know about the scientific method doesn't have any bearing on the question of bias in scientific community caused by the demands of the funding machine that puts food on the table for resarchers. An unbiased search for truth has nothing to do with getting paid or getting priority for an idea. But when 15000 people so strongly chase such a weak idea with so little evidence, bias MUST be at work.
or..... the idea is not weak? The idea that 15000 very intelligent people thought it worthy to dedicate their entire life to understanding climate change makes it weak? really? I understand that sometimes science can be "trendy" ie. string theory. But when a large number of very smart people agree on something, why is that discarded as them all being biased? is it not simpler/more logical that the idea on which they agree is correct/has some merit? occams razor my friend.
No, it's simpler to suggest that when large numbers of people are getting paid to study a subject, it's less likely they will speak out against the subject that's putting food on thier table. Just because a lot of people agree doesn't make it more correct. When you talk about the number of people who agree, you talk about politics. Truth is not political. Or would you say creationism is more correct because more people believe it than evolution?
You make it seem like these scientists are struggling to make ends meet and the only way they could possibly get the money they desperately need is to create a hoax that is just not reality. Truth is not a majority i agree, but, it is reasonable to say that when a large number of people who have studied a subject tend to one conclusion that idea likely holds some water. If you read my comment, i refer to majority's of the people who study the field, not the general public as you portrayed.
You seem to read too much into my statements. Where did I suggest that someone is doing something dishonest? When so many people agree, yes you have give it some weight. But then again much more scrutiny is also needed. Funding machines notice the numbers and push more for politically correct proof and tend to ignore reasearch that could disprove the idea. This IS bias! Conveinent that your subset of people is the group getting the funding!
Ok, yes scrutiny is important, and there is lots of that in the scientific community i am curious as to why you seem to think that global warming is exempt from the normal rigors of experimental science? Also, if you talk about chasing money as a bias, how many company's would lose tons of money if they were not allowed to damage the environment by their practices. I can guarantee you that this money is greater than the money spent on climate research. Thats the real bias.
Because so very little EVIDENCE is being generated by the GW community. Lots of papers and proposals, but little actual data. And the data being published doesn't indicate a problem. Why would business researchers with a vested interest be less creditable than non-business researchers with a vested interest? Seem to me that not providing proof either way benifits both types of researchers. More funding for all!
There's lots of data, if you look for it tons actually. Also the vested interests you speak of are not equivalent, company's have orders of magnitudes more to lose than climatologists, if a scientists theory is proven wrong, but he still did good research, oh well, they move on it's not like science is running out of things to study. If a company realizes they have to totally change their ways and may lose tons of money, they're screwed. Who has more to lose? big business overwhelmingly so.
OK, where is that data? Just don't tell me it exists. Show me where! You seem to be conflating theoretical profits with accolades for getting it right. Profits don't exist until money changes hands. And researchers who publicly chase bad ideas don't get as much funding in the future. I would suggest that percentage loss by a company is going to be much smaller than the percentage of funding loss for the researcher.
I can't post links here, so please google IPCC and check out their reports, is an easy to read accessible aggregation and review of climate research. How much percentage do you think a company doing incredibly pollutant oil mining in alberta would lose if strict regulations were in place? maybe...all of it? publicly chasing a bad idea does lead to less funding, so why are all the scientists doing it, according to you, with global warming? you contradicted yourself.
The IPCC is a prime example. Lots of reports and papers, little actual raw data in a form that can be easily analyzed. If they are mining it, there must be a buyer. If it costs more to mine, people will pay more so the company looses nothing. Why do you have a conspiracy theory against the poeple in Alberta? I don't see a justification of that. The scientists are doing it because they have funding. There is no contradition unless you jump to a conclusion.
before i waste more time doing research that you seem unable or unwilling to do, will you change your mind if you see this raw data? "the company looses nothing" what? higher tax means less profit, there's a threshold to how expensive something can be before people go to alternatives, less demand and same supply means cheaper prices means even less profit. If you think that taxing a product will not effect the bottom line of the company than, i'm sorry, but thats very erroneous.
When I get the data, understand how it was collected, and can perform my own statistical analysis I will draw my own conclusions and maybe it would change my view. If a tax was applied to just one company maybe so. But since it is applied to all companies the same, all companies raise there prices just the same and nobody has a competative advantage. And the profits are just the same. You seem to think today's company is competing with itself in the future when some law is different.
so, the people who have already done exactly what you want to do... you can do it better? oh wait, they're liars of course.... No commodity or product or anything is truly inelastic. you seem to have forgotten/not know this. If you tax a product, the total profit to be made from that product is decreased, less money for all involved in selling this product. I feel you do not have a solid understanding of the economics of the situation and how taxes affect supply and demand.
I never said I was better or that they where liars. A person can tell a falsehood without knowning it, and that's not a lie. You seem to think I should just believe them because they are scientists. You might want to consider how money is created and extingished before you think about the old guns or butter arguments. You might also want to consider how free people are to change demand when it's something like oil you are talking about. It's the same distance to work every day.
Well, there's a difference between reasonable doubt, and being stubborn. Personally all i can say is i've seen the raw data and the conclusions drawn from it I encourage you to look for it. People don't publsh tables of data however,
Yes I would agree but then again I think the GW are the ones being stubborn. They rarely admit they might just be wrong. I have looked at the data also and draw a different conclusion. Just goes to show there is no PROOF of their theories. And when they don't publish the data they are open to the claim they are hiding something. Especially when there are financial interests involved.
What they publish is a set of specific observations and then they draw conclusions from it. The individual papers published are often on a quite narrow topic, and there are a lot of them(10,000's). I encourage you to seek them out. As for your understanding of the economics of taxation, it is not entirely correct. I also encourage you to look into this field more, these applications are undergraduate stuff, and should be very understandable. That is all.
Yes I agree, that is what they do. But then again after reading literally thousands of those papers and and seeing some of the most wacked out conclusions possible, it only leads me to be MORE skeptical of conclusions. The problem with economics theory is that it almost never matches the real world. Ot was that recent financial melt down predicted by the majority of economists and they just didn't tell us :-)
some economists did predict that eventually the mortgage derivative bubble would burst. But the market is a chaotic system, so determining when is impossible. Anyways, thats my two cents. You seem like a reasonable fellow, so keep up the civil discourse, there's too little of it nowadays.
I agree, I just wish the overwhelming noise from the majority of economists had not drowned out the ones who said a problem was comming. Kind like the overwhelming noise from GW community that just keeps claiming the sky is falling :-)
First; it wasn't an attack, it was a question. Second, determining someones credibility, like his knowledge of the subjectmatter at hand, is very pertitent.
For you to say that the idea is weak, is an example of how little you actually know about the science behind it, and the process of achieving that knowledge. Simple as that.
Strange, you talk about my knowledge and avoid the strength or weakness of the actual theories. Credibility of people is not even on the table. Credibility of the theories IS. Science is not a cult of personality. It is search for truth. But when you first attack, claim it's not, and then attack again, you undermine your own argument. Stick to the facts, and avoid personal attacks. Especially when you have NO idea what my training is. If you think GW is not so weak, say why!
You clearly don't understand how research works do you? They don't go out to try and prove global warming exists, in fact what they are doing is seeing *if* global warming exists. They are performing the exact same observational experiments that one would conduct if they wanted to show that global warming didn't exist.
If they truely hadn't decided already that it exists, they wouldn't be calling for sweeping changes to laws across the planet to avert it. And anybody with even minimal statistical knowledge can use the same set of data to prove both sides. It's not the experiments I question. It;s the conculsions drawn. The burdon of proof is on the researcher to prove there was no bias. But you see very little of that in the climate change debate.
The conclusions reached use the same methods as any other science. One of the purposes of the scientific method and the peer review process is to weed out any bias.
There is no climate debate among scientists anymore. The only ones still debating are the public and our politicians.
The problem is that those same methods can also lead to different conclusions. Bias in experimentation may be weeded out. But the peer review process is just a popularity contests with no check on its own biases. Simply declaring that there is no debate doesn't make it true. Just like declaring climate change is due to humans doesn't make it true. As soon as you stop being a skeptic, you stop being a scientist and you start being someone who justifies funding for one thing over another.
There is a limit to skepticism. Sooner or later you'll have to believe someone, bias or not. Unless, you want to study it yourself before you make an assumption? Or did you want to go over every single detail to make sure it stands before believing? Would you pay your own way in that case?
I'd rather see the data myself and draw my own conclusions. Belief is for religions and proponents of unproven theories. The fact that I would need to pay my own way only makes my point.
but when you see the average t° statistics, and you see the rising values towards the end that surpass every peak ever seen before....what do you conclude? that the earth is cooling?
I conclude that the night time temp is rising about 0.6 degrees in 10 years and the daytime temp has stayed within the normal variability. When both the NASA and NOAA numbers don't show the rise in temp predicted by the various GW theories you must conclude that those theories are wrong. Any GW theory based on greenhouse gases would have to require both temps to change. But that's not what is happening. Don't take someone elses word. Get the data and do it yourself!
from wikipedia about GW: "...These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries..."
why try to contradict the major scientific academia?
So you think truth is something we vote on! I guess you think George Bush was a great president because he won the vote twice. Or maybe the creationists are right because more of them don't believe in evolution.
Try the NOAA and NASA sites they have pretty good data. I never said they lied. I said their conclusions are unproven. Or do you think because everbody is telling the truth as they know their conclusions could NEVER be wrong?
Your numbers sound like they are in the ballpark. Nobody is saying this tiny increase in temp over such a long period is insignificant. What they are saying is that idea that people caused it has an insignificant amount of evidence to back it up. CO2 models predict way more increase than the actually measured (with a thermometer) temp. Yes if you bin your data the way you suggest the rate appears to be going up. Other ways show we are within expected normal distribution.
search "variations of the Earth's surface temperature of the last 140 or 1000 years" in Google, then click on the first link, that's the graph that i'm talking about
Estimates based on data that was not measured with a thermometers are questionable at best. Tree ring models only measure the gwoth of trees. Not the factors that might influance a tree's growth. Ice core samples only measure disolved gasses. Converting that data into estimated temps is speculative at best. It really depends on what you want to prove when you calculate the estimates.
And if different conclusions are reached, then it doesn't pass peer review. The purpose is to follow experiments to see if others can reach the SAME conclusion, so no, it is NOT a problem of the peer review process. It is NOT a popularity contest. The reason we have AGW articles in peer review is because others are following the experiments and data and coming to the SAME CONCLUSIONS.
Whoever explained how peer review worked to you did a terrible job.
The burden of proof is on the researcher to show that their data is accurate and the conclusions are consistent with the observations. Bias has literally no place in a discussion about science.
Those people who research look at the data, make the conclusions and then other scientists view their results and the conclusions made in a process of peer review. The reason that people have made up their minds at this point is because there is overwhelming data showing that the earth is warming.
If bias has no place in a discussion about science, why is there so much analysis of the data to prove bias is not present? And anybody with a clear mind knows that just because conclusions are consistent with observations doesn't make those conclusions right. So where is this overwhelming data? I see a lot of published conclusions but very little published data to back those conclusions up. The best way to hide a falsehood is to not publish the raw data.
That's your opinion. And those estimates of climate growth over the last 1000 years are all based on unproven theories. We only have really accuate MEASUREMENTS for the last 40 or 50 years. And you might want to consider that I melt ice every year without heat. I use salt on my driveway and it works fine with no addition heat! So you have to agree that other things besides heat might be causing the ice caps to melt. And for that matter, so what if the ice caps melt? Life will adapt.
Unproven theories? Denial is not just a river in egypt my friend.
Of course there are things that melt ice other then heat, however unless you can provide a realistic alternative that accounts for the data, then you might as well say santa claus did it.
As for the whole data only being accurate as of late, how about we look at the past 100 years and see what has happened? The temperature has gone up an insane amount? Who knew?
Anyways, life can adapt but not at the rate we're warming the planet.
How about the fact that 50 years ago when they started setting up weather stations, they did it out at the airports that where outside the cities. As the cities grew beyond the airports, one would expect a slight increase in temp due to the effects of all that concrete. So far the predictions of all those theories haven't even come close to the actual measured effects. But if you want to jump to conclusions, yo
so they put up towers in rainforests and fly around the world to test for some obscure molecule. Yeah, sounds like they are concerned about environmental impact.
u2kimbow 11 months ago
She explained what work is behind what the IPCC publishes.
...what science, if any, is behind newspaper headlines however, is a completely different issue altogether.
This talk gives the impression, that newspaper headlines about science can actually be trusted ...which I wish were true.
Check watch?v=beihglYP5KQ for a better view of the science behind headlines.
...or potholer54's videos about climate change, for something more related.
ZarlanTheGreen 1 year ago
this bitch has good boobs and thats about it.
use your mouth for something more useful wink wink
sakkurae 1 year ago
It does make you wonder. With so many tens of thousands of careers on the line, and so many billions being spent on what amounts to the first global scientific crusade--WHAT IF some little grad student found something that cast doubt on the entire theory? What chance would there be of that discovery ever seeing the light of day? I do not trust this process. There's an old Rabbinical principal that admonishes us to be very skeptical of a unanimous verdict.
Cosmoline 2 years ago
@Cosmoline Don't hold your breath. If there were other factors causing climate change, they would have been discovered by now. Dr. Richard Alley would tell you "it's simple physics".
Speak to Exxon about how much money climate research and results is going to cost it.
It's also good that old Rabbinical principals are not utilized in scientific research. The rabbis would still be arguing over which way is up and does gravity really work.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
"Follow the money" as they say. The AGW hoax is paying a lot of bills for these researchers. These people are careerists who know what happens to the skeptics and who gets the grants, invitations and tenure. For gods sake they gave Al Gore a Nobel prize.
Grow the government, the bigger the better and the more power for a few at the top.
The big banks are investing billions in the cap and trade scam.
Follow the money.
DAILEYericCaryUSA 2 years ago
What happens to skeptics, exactly? Richard Lindzen is a skeptic, and he's still working at MIT and doing research.
So what IS happening to skeptics, exactly?
As for "follow the money", that's an excellent suggestion. The money for the right-wing front groups points back to oil companies like ExxonMobil, which are terrified because people are realizing that burning too much carbon is hurting us.
tingtangs 1 year ago
actually exxon mobil, british petroleum and shell all fund climate change and they all supported copenhagen and they all wanted to get a climate treaty from it. climategate emails reveal how oil companies were in close friendship with the east anglia university and michael mann and other scammers.
but what you are tingting is an 80 iq lie repeater
sakkurae 1 year ago
@sakkurae You never read any of the "climategate" emails then. Go read some of them.
8DX 1 year ago
road tolls in stockolm did nothing but remove few cars in the small city center. its not producing any money in 25 years and CO2 is a life giving gas thats not dangerous.. Its total bullshit.
sakkurae 2 years ago
If CO2 is so "life giving", why don't you volunteer to breathe pure CO2 for a few minutes? Then you can tell us about it. Oops, but you can't! Because you would be dead from CO2 poisoning!
tingtangs 1 year ago 2
but truth is, scientist are only scientist, they arent politicians who use scientists to study narrow topics so they dont get the big picture.
and why does paying a carbon tax to world bank help save polar bears? bullcrap. just listen to lord monckton and you get whats happening
sakkurae 2 years ago
@sakkurae Monckton? Do you mean Chris Walter? Of course you do. Walter is just a tabloid journalist. He likes hearing his inherited title preceding his name. He is definitely not a scientist. He is an even worse politician. He didn't receive a single vote from his peers in 2007.
You are too easily impressed.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
I mean Christopher Walter Monckton. 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
sakkurae 1 year ago
@sakkurae Oh! you mean the tabloid journalist, Chris Walter. He adapted the "inflationary period of the universe theory" to his resume.
Is that sham of a title supposed to lend some sort of credibility to his woefully weak arguments?
He is still sucking on the silver spoon that was stuck into his mouth at conception as if it was something else.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
what the hell, I DONT MEAN ANY CHRIS WALTEr. I MEAN LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON FROM ENGLAND WHO WAS IN MARGARET THATCHERS GOVERNMENT AS AN ADVISOR AND HE SAYS SAME AS INTELLIGENCE SAYS:
global warming is a scam and climatechange has gone on for the last 4.5 billion years !
sakkurae 1 year ago
@sakkurae How did you ever find Ted Talks? If you watch more videos in this channel, you might actually learn something. Maybe not.
Even the speaker, Rachel Pike, can show you how science is conducted. I had never heard of "isoprene" before this. That stuff must have a powerful GHG component. Guess why.
Luckily, isoprene is a minor gas compared to CO2 or CH4.
Continue to drool over C Walter. It's what you do.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
I heard this clip on Alex Jones radioshow back last year in December when Alex Jones covered the myth of man made global warming.
Did you know, UNFCCC/climate treaty would have cost 288 billion dollars per year, 2% of usa GDP. It would have also cost 2% on every bank transfer on every normal person who sends money for example to canada or england.
That money would have gone to IMF and worldbank. They will try to male that ttreaty happen this year in COP16 in mexico, november.
sakkurae 1 year ago
he was covering the copenhagen summit. you can see a movie about it in my profile that i made. its comedy.
HITLER WAS BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING. That movie contains mroe truth than any mainstream media garbage..................
sakkurae 1 year ago
Monckton is a fucking moron. He's a right-wing political demagogue who hates science.
tingtangs 1 year ago
fact is, ipcc is a scam. most scientist there do stufy stuff, yea they do, thats part of the scam. probably 95% of scientist like the woman on this video have been conned. they study stuff, very narrowly so they dont see the big picture.ipcc is just a tool for banks to create a communistis system on the planet and rule over everythng.
ANd, when 95% of scientist study real stuff like on this video, then when someone says its all a scam, the 95% scientist respond: no its not! we study hard!
sakkurae 2 years ago
You are a fucking moron. This woman knows more about climate science than a thousand idiots like yourself.
tingtangs 1 year ago
well what is there to know about cliamte change.
that its funded by rockefeller and rothschild? that they want a global tax with the global warming scam and 1 child policy and a total eco police state like the new audi car advertisement?
i mean you can sum climate change in 3 words:
BIG FUCKKING SCAM
thats all you need to know about climate change. 3 words. not hard to remember
sakkurae 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheNEWBobDylan 2 years ago
You should go for it. Try to get an invite to TED. I'm sure you would qualify easily and dazzle the audience with your shining brilliance.
Maybe not.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
Little do you know...
TheNEWBobDylan 1 year ago
Since the leaked emails are proof of high level interference in the scientific peer review system. None of these comments that quote climate change statistics have any validity.
The title of this talk should be changed to:
'The politics behind a climate change headline'
theuntouchaballs 2 years ago 2
She went too fast. The impact would have been greater had she slowed down and further illustrated the topic. Otherwise It was a good speech.
belliebum12 2 years ago 4
There's a time limit.
Supze 2 years ago
She could have gone faster. TED is conducted on a tight schedule and Rachel Pike was allotted only so much time. She can teach me chemistry anytime.
TRUMPHENT 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shut the fuck up!
13visio13 2 years ago
the e-mails got out so gtfo
koneye 2 years ago 3
Why are all the Planets in our Solar System also heating up?
Why has nothing practical been done? Could have had a small fleet of solar power ships generating clouds.
Who trusts Carbon Tax & Trading when it's making Al Gore a Carbon Billionaire?
Isn't the methane produced by cattle contributing as much as all of man's activities? Why aren't we going vegetarian?
Wasn't the planet hotter during the Medieval Warm Period?
Isn't it more to do with Solar Activity affecting the formation of Clouds?
globalbankfraud 2 years ago
Responding to globalbankfraud
1.They're not.
2.What are you talking about? Major companies are funneling billions into alternative energy research. Ever heard about the hybrid?
3. Screw Al Gore and his carbon tax.
4. Not even remotely close.
5. Bacon tastes amazing.
6. There was no "Medieval Warm Period".
7. Although the sun does play a large role in Earth's climate, solar activity hasn't been rapidly increasing, whereas temperature and carbon dioxide have.
Hope that answers your questions :o)
belliebum12 2 years ago
1. Other Planets temps were rising inline with ours - fact.
2. Sorry, nothing 'really effective' has been done..
3. Yeah, f*** Al Gore.
4. Sorry, Cows methane is equivalent to all Man's CO2 from Driving, ie massive impact.
5. You taste good to a crocodile.
6. Don't read Wikipedia - there defo was a 'Medieval Warm Period'! Used to grow grape vines in Northern England.
7. Solar activity has dropped off but so have global temperatures, while CO2 hasn't, draw your own conclusions.
globalbankfraud 2 years ago
she's hot. and smart. and doing important thins. and HOT.
peterbundy84 2 years ago
Why are electric cars not yet introduced???
austpom333 2 years ago
That is a steep slope that we are just now climbing. The infrastructure, and consumer confidence needs to brought up to speed with the technology, because it is there, and has been for some time. Typical commuting habits would make it a viable option for some 85% of the populous.
SSat155 2 years ago
If the GW community REALLY wants to reduce emissions, why are they not pushing for all the office workers to work from home via the internet? That would eliminate millions of miles driven every year. Or would that hurt the market for all those environmentally friendly vehicles they all seem to so fond of?
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
The IPCC is a political body with few active scientists relative to it's size. How about the now 30,000+ scientists that have signed a declaration of dissent from the "Gore production" on Global Warming, why isn't this the center piece of this topic? Oh, that's right, the moneys the thing.
SSat155 2 years ago 3
The whole 30,000+ scientists thing is a joke. All you have to do, is print out a piece of paper and send it in saying your a scientist. Read some of the names, it's actually pretty funny.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
Wrong. The vegetative production is several orders of magnitude higher than the bugs that may result from increased gases. Models have little success outside of short term prediction. We have an over reliance on high resolution temperature measurements, and the mixed bag of interpretation that comes with it. You can't seriously think a 0.2C rise means anything, which is the firmest number I've come across. Ocean studies show this rise, and it's probably the best indicator of shift in the system.
SSat155 2 years ago
(You responded to the wrong post but w/e)
Actually the number is a lot more like .6C according to every major scientific organisation that studies it.
When comparing this number to what we see using historical data for temperatures we see a dramatic increase.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
SO you agree that the temp has only gone up a fraction of a degree! Well why doesn't the IPCC publish a big headline like: "The World Temp Has Gone Up 0.6 Degrees"? Because if they did, they would loose millions of dollars in funding! Wake up, the GW headlines are about political gain not a objective search for truth. That's why they use untrustworthy numbers like estimates of historical data that was never actually measured with a thermometer.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
1st: the IPCC doesn't publish headlines; newspapers do. If they choose to be sensationalist then it's not the scientists fault.
2nd: These scientists don't get paid more if global warming gets worse. At most they get more money to do research, which, if your correct and they don't care about the science itself would be meaningless.
3rd: When you look at the short time period in which this change has occured, it shows what a serious problem this change is.
4th Learn to capitalize correctly.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
OH, so this video about the making of a headline from the IPCC isn't just sensationalism? Scientists do get LESS funding if GW is wrong. You CLAIM fractions of a degree are SERIOUS. And the capitalization somehow pisses you off. Come on, you can make a better argument than that. Or maybe you can't and that's why you are so concerned with my CAPITALIZATION :-)
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Did Orwell predict tax on air back in the forties or fifties? Are we getting taxed to breathe? Call me insane when i say that I don't mean this sarcastically... What a wonderful world we live in, and a bright future we are facing...
DonArsuk84 2 years ago
Comment removed
ShadowShorts 2 years ago
Traffic went down 22% in Stockholm.
How much did the business revenue go down?
I Chicago they banned smoking in Bars, and many Bar owners complained so now they want smoking allowed again.
We need a solution for traffic in Chicago, but I don't think charging extra to go in the city would be useful here.
A simpler solution is to just make the roads that taxpayers have payed for instead of wasting the money on corruption.
BadAssBootie 2 years ago
I really like this channel. All us people with brains and stuff. Gather around and Ehug each other.
Mongo8Bongo 2 years ago 5
lol (squish!)
bentothetenthpower 2 years ago
they dumb down the science too much in the headlines
antaresthewarrior 2 years ago 5
It's so funny to hear us swedes speak English :-)
perqa 2 years ago
they let a PhD student talking about it? more experienced ones refused? (not that she would have nothing to talk about it.)
tomamil 2 years ago
It's common knowledge that the polar ice caps on mars are melting at the same rate as the ice caps here. If you think that your suv is melting ice on mars, then I guess the climate argument would makes sense to you...
Since when did politicians become so trustworthy? Science doesn't even mean anything anymore because of how politicized it is.
garcaro1 2 years ago
this talk reminds me of my little sister whining...
EvanChaim 2 years ago
Interesting, but "where's the beef?"
I suppose we are left to make our own conclusions.
mcgrawtim123 2 years ago 3
Who is paying for all these "studies" and why?
The policies that will be enacted to combat this "threat" will leave many "3rd world" countries in the "3rd world".
If you don't get it, don't worry, you will.
Something else you will be doing is pay a new tax on cars for example, and you know what? You will feel all green and fuzzy inside.
Peace
truefictions 2 years ago
So this is how they come up with their own "propaganda" agenda!
dobberdoss 2 years ago
jasonlajoie
please do not post a message like:
'A smart fellow would know how to spell recomending,it is recommending. etc etc etc
themindminder 2 years ago
Nice to see dummies making money from scaremongering. Free holidays to Malasia, 100's of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, to tell us what? We are fucked and there is nothing we can do about it. Gee thanks climate scientists.
calumlittle 2 years ago
There is stuff we can do about it. Alternative energy sources and conservation. The real problem is what is the probablity of us actually using those solutions to solve the problem. In that case we are most likely screwed.
DodgerRiley 2 years ago 2
Can we please stop referring to anthropomorphic global warming as "climate change?" It's akin to calling anti-abortion "pro life." Not only is it ridiculously vague and completely inaccurate (few people are anti-life, and few people would deny that the climate changes), it's obviously a label engineered to portray the argument as if it is more conclusive than it actually is.
China recently used climate modification to induce the earliest snowfall in 23 years. So I guess that's that...
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago
Global Warming is a BS
TheProdigySupreme 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Proof it or shut up
jimius 2 years ago
Depends on what you mean. If GW is accurately measuring the climate and publishing the data it's a Bachelor of Science. If you publish a paper explaining why a change is seen, it's a well reasoned conjecture. If you suggest some law should be changed it is political and we all know that is BS :-)
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
To jasonlajie, Thank You again. I was completely delusional about the 6 years I spent at LaTrobe University (Bundoora Campas) in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia between 1985 and 1991. Can you please inform the Australian education department to refund the AU$20,000 that my parents paid for my delusional education. Also, could you please inform the several hundred students that I have taught , tutored, mentored, that you have decided that based on a capital H, and not a little h,that I am a fraud.
themindminder 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...why would I waste my time on a paranoid fraud?
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
To jasonlajoie, Stick to watching 'penis addiction' videos and admiring cookoo clocks.
themindminder 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's cuckoo, not "cookoo". Do you really have to insist that you're a bright fellow in spite of all your shortcomings? The video you have named twice now, is one of the funniest on YouTube. Somehow I don't think you posses any sense of humor though, so I won't recommend it to you.
You have been fun:)
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
jasonlajoie (Again)
1) The meaning of cookoo as explained in the urban dictionary is:
Crazy ; or going crazy
this was the pun that you missed.
2) I am not a fellow, I am a woman
3) If 'penis addictions is an indication of your sense of humour (humor???, I think you meant humour) then I thank you for not recomending it to me.
themindminder 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, I meant 'humor' as my English was learned in North America. I tend to mean what I write.
I don't believe your "cookoo" story either, you're just trying to cover-up your stupidity once again with a lie.
You must be one ugly, lonely woman to be trolling your stupidity here with such frequency. Go on believing you're the brightest mind on the internets and that global climate change is just a grand hoax to get us all enslaved with a carbon tax. You are clearly "crazy ; or going crazy".
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
jasonlajoie: Thank You for allowing me to have my own beliefs. Several years ago I was also called crazy by arrogant and ignorant people, like yourself, because my research and information I became aware of indicated that it was impossible that Iraq had WMDs, and that Saddam was in no way connected with 911. Hundreds of thousands of dead woman and children later, we are still paying the price for that mistake.This is not a game so please wake up and stop the personal attacks on me and my family!
themindminder 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No one attacked your family you crazy nut. Stop being retarded on the internets and no one will be able to call you out on it.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
no matter how minute/narrow the field of study is, the contribution, in the end is always worth the effort I guess.
mistershithead 2 years ago 2
I don't guess. The contribution IS worth the effort. What's the old tag line: "The more you know"! What might be insignificant today, could be very valuable in the future.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Comment removed
sickofgod69 2 years ago
we must be very careful how we go about changing out ways.. ethonal is a prime example where it got millions in support from the governments here in north america before it was discovered it actually made more carbon then gas.
here where i live they decided to toll a new bridge to modivate people to bus.. its only made people take another route which is 50% longer.. making more carbon in my opinion.
we do need to change, but it wont hurt to be cautious in the years to come.
lejink 2 years ago
i`m shocked by this clip and have to ask , what is the carbon footprint of the ipcc? do we really need to do all this research when we can just look at our industrial landscapes to see that what we are doing is wrong and we need to stop it! watch Edward Burtynsky`s vid, in an ideal world that should be enough.
darren36pit 2 years ago
The science is not yet in. It could be happening. In order to be honest, we have to admit though that we are simply not sure if or not earth is warming and if we are in any way responsible.
Blind alarmism by liberal scientists is unsettling the normal consumer and the green lobbies are getting a free ride, while conventional energy industries are loosing growth and jobs. We have to grow, otherwise we cannot afford nuclear power later on, given that there is really such a thing as global warming.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Science is not yet in? you're saying that these scientists have fake diplomas?
The job thing is simply not true, with clean energies come jobs too, or do you think solar panels will magically be made, assembled and put on your roof?
GI2K 2 years ago
No, but there are political agendas within science. Liberal scientists following the Gore machine and Green lobby, Conservative scientists following Bjorn Lomborg and fossil fuel lobbies.
As Lenin said: Look for the person who will benefit.
The point is to understand that scientific consensa are always based on more general principles of politics and the social sciences.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bmed19
Are you engaged in some kind of competition to be the greatest ass on YouTube?
You may be winning.
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
i may be an ass, but that dont mean im wrong
bmed19 2 years ago 4
I think you're amusing XD
cheers
ticijev 2 years ago 8
great... waste of time this was.
princeofexcess 2 years ago
Government politicians and bureaucrats want to gain power. People respect scientists. So the govt becomes the primary funding source for scientific research. This funding corrupts the scientists who need funding to do research. The funding is given for projects the govt wants.
Power corrupts.
Funding tends to corrupt.
Science has been corrupted by the political process.
All scientific research funding should come from private sources.
We need a separation of science and state.
freesk8 2 years ago
Well I wouldn't point that towards the global climate change. there's no money in globabl climate change except to shysters like Gore. Worse it pisses off big oil one of the major funders of gov. in the developed world. I will say government has altered corrupted politicised and censored science. For instance when Clinton fired the surgeon general for denouncing abstinence only sex as as useless and stating that marijuana is no worse than liquor or tabacco. or the DDT BS.
ratholin 2 years ago 2
Whatever happened to that ice age? Things have certainly warmed up since then haven't they? How much carbon dioxide and other gasses do the worlds volcanoes produce? Just curious.
briansmobile1 2 years ago 2
It's about .3 gigatonnes which is a little more than one percent of human activity which is 26.4 gigatonnes.
kamijk 2 years ago
Some of you people really need to see the Kary Mullis video on TED.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
If you think we'll put up with Commusnism you SERIOUSLY do not understand humanity. We'll exterminate you, and face the music - music we mostly believe will never be heard. See you're on the wrong team... the future won't be written by the people in now... no matter how much they want it.
Kiddolinfen09 2 years ago
Comment removed
themindminder 2 years ago
Part of Malaysia is part of the island of Borneo.
DSBrekus 2 years ago
Thank You :)
themindminder 2 years ago
everyone does that, nothing, noone works, work is digging or hunter gathering, this wide scale living and nonsensical machinery is pathetic, we need global nuetering, everyone can just fuk and then die.
creten69 2 years ago
"THE DAY THAT CHANGED THE CLIMATE"
with a picture of the sun.... No wonder climate deniers aren't called bat shit crazy. They should be more carful with their headline imo.
newexperiment 2 years ago
The global warming we are experiencing is also being experienced on Mercury,Venus and Mars. It is caused by sun spot activity. Don't be fooled by the propaganda discuised as science. The agenda is to impliment a global carbon tax, not to save the planet.
themindminder 2 years ago
This ^ is propaganda. I'm sorry but clinging to this 'there are those who seek to exploit us in a way I am not ignorant of!" doesn't give you power at all.
Here is a video debunking this claim. Please try to understand you are getting a high off of this conspiracy theory and NONE of the experts agree with you.
watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
newexperiment 2 years ago
So, the idea you present is that some secret global organization wants to make the public have less money (motive?). So they figure the best way to do this is to bribe thousands of the most intelligent people alive to conduct false research so that maybe, a new tax will result from it that they will some how benefit from. Got it.
xhiggy 2 years ago
The global organisation is the united nations - they are not a secret organisation. Rather then spend my weekend debating climate change , I suggest that you watch the documentary " Fall of the republic" A respected Canadian climatologist / university professor explains how he and several THOUSAND of his collegues have been silenced and ridiculed by those with vested interests in convincing the world to impliment a global carbon tax. Then you maybe will get it!!
themindminder 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you even know what the carbon tax is?
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
Yes, I do, do You,?
themindminder 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
to: themindminder
Stating, "Yes, I do, do You?", is often what someone says when they have no idea what they're talking about. So I'll have to assume that you have no idea what the Carbon Tax which is correctly called the Carbon Credit really is. The fact that you call it a "Tax" lets those of us who know what it is - know that you do not. Instead of repeating what other idiots are saying, try looking up things on your own. You'll be so much smarter for it:)
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
To jasonlajoie.I can only dream of being as smart as you.Yes, I have no idea what I am talking about.I will now stop reading, researching and also stop teaching. I will also hand back my PHD.I will now just watch the videos in your favourites such as 'penis addictions' and 'moonwalk'. ThankYou for setting me staight.Also, the fact that it called carbon credit lets those of us who do know what it is(a global tax)know that you are a brainwashed zombie believing everything you are told to believe.
themindminder 2 years ago 4
Lol nice response :)
doford 2 years ago 11
Make any research topic into a green crusade and you get funding to fill planes full of research and get joy rides over the jungle in remote places. All you have to do is write papers to support the new world state derived green religion.
In political terms green is the new red.
stratvic 2 years ago
@stratvic
I'm sorry, but your idea that scientists are in it for money and free trips is absolutely ridiculous. Nobody becomes an academic for the money.
deprofundis442 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol bullshit, pretty much 75 % of academics are in it for the money. I should know, I am one :)
xenniex2 2 years ago
what money :P
xhiggy 2 years ago
Academics are interested in getting funding for their research. It's not the first time scientists and academics have been used as vehicles for government programs, power, and control.
stratvic 2 years ago 2
Agreed, I have gotten two years of graduate school out of climate change related research. However, I haven't made up data or lied, I studied honestly and reported what I found.
adamredwine 2 years ago
id check out her climate ;) lol
penutwi 2 years ago 2
Hawt.
Alaron251 2 years ago
I wouldn't try to match wits with her.
no1saphead 2 years ago
I would, but probably on something she knows nothing about. It would be my only trick.
DerFlo4711 2 years ago
Comment removed
no1saphead 2 years ago
With human knowledge doubling every 7 years and each human having only a limited capacity scientists have to specialize. The time of universal geniuses is over. Some topics have become too complex to be understood in depth and entirely by a single person, no matter how smart.
conoba 2 years ago
The plane is fueled with fairy farts by the way..
SlacktiveAction 2 years ago
Just another example of how large amounts of money leads to the study of insignificant subjects creating extreme bias in scientific research for the purpose of justifing the money spent.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Science is about the objective search for truth, not about funding. Do you know what kind of a name a scientist could make for him/herself if they could show that global warming wasn't happening?
In addition, there are plenty of groups that are paying big bucks to scientists who are will to say that global warming isn't happening for some cash.
I would recommend you actually learn about the science, because you are way off.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
An objective search for truth doesn't start with a decision that the Global Warning exists and then goes on to search for proof. However science funding DOES work this way. How many grants are there to prove that Global Warming exists versus it's disproof? If there was fair funding you might be able to argue that it is objective. But since there is not fair funding of both sides the debate it cannot be objective. The search for truth is not the same as the search for those 15000 paychecks!
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
What kind of nonsense are you spouting? Do you even know anything about scientific methodology?
quathar 2 years ago
A sign of a weak argument is a personal attack. What I know or don't know about the scientific method doesn't have any bearing on the question of bias in scientific community caused by the demands of the funding machine that puts food on the table for resarchers. An unbiased search for truth has nothing to do with getting paid or getting priority for an idea. But when 15000 people so strongly chase such a weak idea with so little evidence, bias MUST be at work.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
or..... the idea is not weak? The idea that 15000 very intelligent people thought it worthy to dedicate their entire life to understanding climate change makes it weak? really? I understand that sometimes science can be "trendy" ie. string theory. But when a large number of very smart people agree on something, why is that discarded as them all being biased? is it not simpler/more logical that the idea on which they agree is correct/has some merit? occams razor my friend.
xhiggy 2 years ago
No, it's simpler to suggest that when large numbers of people are getting paid to study a subject, it's less likely they will speak out against the subject that's putting food on thier table. Just because a lot of people agree doesn't make it more correct. When you talk about the number of people who agree, you talk about politics. Truth is not political. Or would you say creationism is more correct because more people believe it than evolution?
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
You make it seem like these scientists are struggling to make ends meet and the only way they could possibly get the money they desperately need is to create a hoax that is just not reality. Truth is not a majority i agree, but, it is reasonable to say that when a large number of people who have studied a subject tend to one conclusion that idea likely holds some water. If you read my comment, i refer to majority's of the people who study the field, not the general public as you portrayed.
xhiggy 2 years ago
You seem to read too much into my statements. Where did I suggest that someone is doing something dishonest? When so many people agree, yes you have give it some weight. But then again much more scrutiny is also needed. Funding machines notice the numbers and push more for politically correct proof and tend to ignore reasearch that could disprove the idea. This IS bias! Conveinent that your subset of people is the group getting the funding!
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Ok, yes scrutiny is important, and there is lots of that in the scientific community i am curious as to why you seem to think that global warming is exempt from the normal rigors of experimental science? Also, if you talk about chasing money as a bias, how many company's would lose tons of money if they were not allowed to damage the environment by their practices. I can guarantee you that this money is greater than the money spent on climate research. Thats the real bias.
xhiggy 2 years ago
Because so very little EVIDENCE is being generated by the GW community. Lots of papers and proposals, but little actual data. And the data being published doesn't indicate a problem. Why would business researchers with a vested interest be less creditable than non-business researchers with a vested interest? Seem to me that not providing proof either way benifits both types of researchers. More funding for all!
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
There's lots of data, if you look for it tons actually. Also the vested interests you speak of are not equivalent, company's have orders of magnitudes more to lose than climatologists, if a scientists theory is proven wrong, but he still did good research, oh well, they move on it's not like science is running out of things to study. If a company realizes they have to totally change their ways and may lose tons of money, they're screwed. Who has more to lose? big business overwhelmingly so.
xhiggy 2 years ago
OK, where is that data? Just don't tell me it exists. Show me where! You seem to be conflating theoretical profits with accolades for getting it right. Profits don't exist until money changes hands. And researchers who publicly chase bad ideas don't get as much funding in the future. I would suggest that percentage loss by a company is going to be much smaller than the percentage of funding loss for the researcher.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
I can't post links here, so please google IPCC and check out their reports, is an easy to read accessible aggregation and review of climate research. How much percentage do you think a company doing incredibly pollutant oil mining in alberta would lose if strict regulations were in place? maybe...all of it? publicly chasing a bad idea does lead to less funding, so why are all the scientists doing it, according to you, with global warming? you contradicted yourself.
xhiggy 2 years ago
The IPCC is a prime example. Lots of reports and papers, little actual raw data in a form that can be easily analyzed. If they are mining it, there must be a buyer. If it costs more to mine, people will pay more so the company looses nothing. Why do you have a conspiracy theory against the poeple in Alberta? I don't see a justification of that. The scientists are doing it because they have funding. There is no contradition unless you jump to a conclusion.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
before i waste more time doing research that you seem unable or unwilling to do, will you change your mind if you see this raw data? "the company looses nothing" what? higher tax means less profit, there's a threshold to how expensive something can be before people go to alternatives, less demand and same supply means cheaper prices means even less profit. If you think that taxing a product will not effect the bottom line of the company than, i'm sorry, but thats very erroneous.
xhiggy 2 years ago
When I get the data, understand how it was collected, and can perform my own statistical analysis I will draw my own conclusions and maybe it would change my view. If a tax was applied to just one company maybe so. But since it is applied to all companies the same, all companies raise there prices just the same and nobody has a competative advantage. And the profits are just the same. You seem to think today's company is competing with itself in the future when some law is different.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
so, the people who have already done exactly what you want to do... you can do it better? oh wait, they're liars of course.... No commodity or product or anything is truly inelastic. you seem to have forgotten/not know this. If you tax a product, the total profit to be made from that product is decreased, less money for all involved in selling this product. I feel you do not have a solid understanding of the economics of the situation and how taxes affect supply and demand.
xhiggy 2 years ago
I never said I was better or that they where liars. A person can tell a falsehood without knowning it, and that's not a lie. You seem to think I should just believe them because they are scientists. You might want to consider how money is created and extingished before you think about the old guns or butter arguments. You might also want to consider how free people are to change demand when it's something like oil you are talking about. It's the same distance to work every day.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Well, there's a difference between reasonable doubt, and being stubborn. Personally all i can say is i've seen the raw data and the conclusions drawn from it I encourage you to look for it. People don't publsh tables of data however,
xhiggy 2 years ago
Yes I would agree but then again I think the GW are the ones being stubborn. They rarely admit they might just be wrong. I have looked at the data also and draw a different conclusion. Just goes to show there is no PROOF of their theories. And when they don't publish the data they are open to the claim they are hiding something. Especially when there are financial interests involved.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
What they publish is a set of specific observations and then they draw conclusions from it. The individual papers published are often on a quite narrow topic, and there are a lot of them(10,000's). I encourage you to seek them out. As for your understanding of the economics of taxation, it is not entirely correct. I also encourage you to look into this field more, these applications are undergraduate stuff, and should be very understandable. That is all.
xhiggy 2 years ago
Yes I agree, that is what they do. But then again after reading literally thousands of those papers and and seeing some of the most wacked out conclusions possible, it only leads me to be MORE skeptical of conclusions. The problem with economics theory is that it almost never matches the real world. Ot was that recent financial melt down predicted by the majority of economists and they just didn't tell us :-)
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
some economists did predict that eventually the mortgage derivative bubble would burst. But the market is a chaotic system, so determining when is impossible. Anyways, thats my two cents. You seem like a reasonable fellow, so keep up the civil discourse, there's too little of it nowadays.
xhiggy 2 years ago
I agree, I just wish the overwhelming noise from the majority of economists had not drowned out the ones who said a problem was comming. Kind like the overwhelming noise from GW community that just keeps claiming the sky is falling :-)
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
First; it wasn't an attack, it was a question. Second, determining someones credibility, like his knowledge of the subjectmatter at hand, is very pertitent.
For you to say that the idea is weak, is an example of how little you actually know about the science behind it, and the process of achieving that knowledge. Simple as that.
quathar 2 years ago
Strange, you talk about my knowledge and avoid the strength or weakness of the actual theories. Credibility of people is not even on the table. Credibility of the theories IS. Science is not a cult of personality. It is search for truth. But when you first attack, claim it's not, and then attack again, you undermine your own argument. Stick to the facts, and avoid personal attacks. Especially when you have NO idea what my training is. If you think GW is not so weak, say why!
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
You clearly don't understand how research works do you? They don't go out to try and prove global warming exists, in fact what they are doing is seeing *if* global warming exists. They are performing the exact same observational experiments that one would conduct if they wanted to show that global warming didn't exist.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
If they truely hadn't decided already that it exists, they wouldn't be calling for sweeping changes to laws across the planet to avert it. And anybody with even minimal statistical knowledge can use the same set of data to prove both sides. It's not the experiments I question. It;s the conculsions drawn. The burdon of proof is on the researcher to prove there was no bias. But you see very little of that in the climate change debate.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
@beechgrovejoe
The conclusions reached use the same methods as any other science. One of the purposes of the scientific method and the peer review process is to weed out any bias.
There is no climate debate among scientists anymore. The only ones still debating are the public and our politicians.
deprofundis442 2 years ago
The problem is that those same methods can also lead to different conclusions. Bias in experimentation may be weeded out. But the peer review process is just a popularity contests with no check on its own biases. Simply declaring that there is no debate doesn't make it true. Just like declaring climate change is due to humans doesn't make it true. As soon as you stop being a skeptic, you stop being a scientist and you start being someone who justifies funding for one thing over another.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
There is a limit to skepticism. Sooner or later you'll have to believe someone, bias or not. Unless, you want to study it yourself before you make an assumption? Or did you want to go over every single detail to make sure it stands before believing? Would you pay your own way in that case?
zangetsujoo 2 years ago 2
I'd rather see the data myself and draw my own conclusions. Belief is for religions and proponents of unproven theories. The fact that I would need to pay my own way only makes my point.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
but when you see the average t° statistics, and you see the rising values towards the end that surpass every peak ever seen before....what do you conclude? that the earth is cooling?
iurak6868 2 years ago
I conclude that the night time temp is rising about 0.6 degrees in 10 years and the daytime temp has stayed within the normal variability. When both the NASA and NOAA numbers don't show the rise in temp predicted by the various GW theories you must conclude that those theories are wrong. Any GW theory based on greenhouse gases would have to require both temps to change. But that's not what is happening. Don't take someone elses word. Get the data and do it yourself!
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
from wikipedia about GW: "...These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries..."
why try to contradict the major scientific academia?
it reminds me of the efforts of creationist...
iurak6868 2 years ago
So you think truth is something we vote on! I guess you think George Bush was a great president because he won the vote twice. Or maybe the creationists are right because more of them don't believe in evolution.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
I never said that.
and no I did not like what america did with George Bush in office. but this has nothing to do with Bush.
what I'm trying to tell you is that there is a scientific process behind these conclusions, and peer reviewed papers.
Do you have another conclusion to the data?
what is the scientific community missing, that you have found?
iurak6868 2 years ago
ok, let's say you have done the math, (would you please link your raw data).
then why would all these scientist lie to the public?
explain to us YOUR theory then
iurak6868 2 years ago
Try the NOAA and NASA sites they have pretty good data. I never said they lied. I said their conclusions are unproven. Or do you think because everbody is telling the truth as they know their conclusions could NEVER be wrong?
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Comment removed
iurak6868 2 years ago
Since 1905 the average temperature of the planet, then at 14°C, has increased 2.5%, an unusually
rapid rate (a 0.35°C rise). Over the last 25 years, from 1970 to 2005, it went up 4% (or 0.55°C).
Extreme global warming skeptics claim that a 0.74°C increase in global average temperature is
insignificant. On the contrary, "The warming trend over the last 50 years (1955 to 2005) is nearly
twice that for the last 100 years...
iurak6868 2 years ago
Your numbers sound like they are in the ballpark. Nobody is saying this tiny increase in temp over such a long period is insignificant. What they are saying is that idea that people caused it has an insignificant amount of evidence to back it up. CO2 models predict way more increase than the actually measured (with a thermometer) temp. Yes if you bin your data the way you suggest the rate appears to be going up. Other ways show we are within expected normal distribution.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
search "variations of the Earth's surface temperature of the last 140 or 1000 years" in Google, then click on the first link, that's the graph that i'm talking about
iurak6868 2 years ago
Estimates based on data that was not measured with a thermometers are questionable at best. Tree ring models only measure the gwoth of trees. Not the factors that might influance a tree's growth. Ice core samples only measure disolved gasses. Converting that data into estimated temps is speculative at best. It really depends on what you want to prove when you calculate the estimates.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago 2
And if different conclusions are reached, then it doesn't pass peer review. The purpose is to follow experiments to see if others can reach the SAME conclusion, so no, it is NOT a problem of the peer review process. It is NOT a popularity contest. The reason we have AGW articles in peer review is because others are following the experiments and data and coming to the SAME CONCLUSIONS.
Whoever explained how peer review worked to you did a terrible job.
deprofundis442 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on the researcher to show that their data is accurate and the conclusions are consistent with the observations. Bias has literally no place in a discussion about science.
Those people who research look at the data, make the conclusions and then other scientists view their results and the conclusions made in a process of peer review. The reason that people have made up their minds at this point is because there is overwhelming data showing that the earth is warming.
andsoccer16 2 years ago
If bias has no place in a discussion about science, why is there so much analysis of the data to prove bias is not present? And anybody with a clear mind knows that just because conclusions are consistent with observations doesn't make those conclusions right. So where is this overwhelming data? I see a lot of published conclusions but very little published data to back those conclusions up. The best way to hide a falsehood is to not publish the raw data.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
What are you talking about? There is data everywhere showing that the earth is warming, you are just turning a blind eye to it.
You can look at the "hockey stick graph" that shows the increase in temperature over the last 1,000 years.
You can look at climate models that have been shown to be accurate in their predictions
You can look at the northern polar ice cap and see that ice volume has been decreasing significantly over the last 40 years.
And much more that I don't have space to mention
andsoccer16 2 years ago
That's your opinion. And those estimates of climate growth over the last 1000 years are all based on unproven theories. We only have really accuate MEASUREMENTS for the last 40 or 50 years. And you might want to consider that I melt ice every year without heat. I use salt on my driveway and it works fine with no addition heat! So you have to agree that other things besides heat might be causing the ice caps to melt. And for that matter, so what if the ice caps melt? Life will adapt.
beechgrovejoe 2 years ago
Unproven theories? Denial is not just a river in egypt my friend.
Of course there are things that melt ice other then heat, however unless you can provide a realistic alternative that accounts for the data, then you might as well say santa claus did it.
As for the whole data only being accurate as of late, how about we look at the past 100 years and see what has happened? The temperature has gone up an insane amount? Who knew?
Anyways, life can adapt but not at the rate we're warming the planet.
andsoccer16 2 years ago 2
How about the fact that 50 years ago when they started setting up weather stations, they did it out at the airports that where outside the cities. As the cities grew beyond the airports, one would expect a slight increase in temp due to the effects of all that concrete. So far the predictions of all those theories haven't even come close to the actual measured effects. But if you want to jump to conclusions, yo