Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
I love your clips greenman. Just out of curiousity, is there any way in which we could measure el ninos/la ninas going back hundreds of years. If we have what do they say. If not, would it be possible that changes in the ELSO (el nino osciliation) could be causing the warming as opposed to CO2, or the chance that maybe increased CO2 triggers bigger el ninos. Just something I want to throw out there. Keep up the good work!!!
oscillations are just that - oscillations. they go up and come down. there is evidence that ocean heat is increased, so each el nino has a bigger sink to draw on.
instrumental records uniformly show warming over the last 150 years, and reconstructions are pretty clear that temps are higher now than they have been in 2000 years or so.
We know why temps have varied in the past, and we know none of those drivers are now active, leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer.
@greenman3610 thanks it just would have been awesome if we could chronicle every single el nino over the last hundred of years but yes there is ample evidence what caused these warm waters in the past is most liekly not causing them now. and I expect the next el nino to occur in the fall of 2012 coinciding with what the mayans considered to be the end of the world as we know it. itll be very interesting to see what happens there and what happens years from now when skeptics finally accept AGW
@greenman3610 like fuck leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer what about the suns output. You must have invested in a solar company Mr bullshitman oh a Mr greenman
@vmgqie "like fuck leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer what about the suns output. You must have invested in a solar company Mr bullshitman oh a Mr greenman"
Trolling is a personal hobby of yours. Keep it up, you are making a great case for a link between insanity and denialism
The counterargument to current global cooling is (correctly) based on people cherry picking 1998 as a starting point for their trend analysis. Yet Greenman cherry picks a few months of warmth to claim that warmING is still happening. There's been no warming trend for the past decade.
I am communicating the mainstream position endorsed by every mainstream scientific group on the planet. The planet is warming unequivocally, and the evidence comes not just from human measurements,but also from changes in natural systems that are consistent with warming.
@greenman3610 has anyone been convinced that was once a denier by your videos? After talking to these people I cannot see how they could ever accept evidence of any kind.
@PissedFechtmeister Actually that is just a lie, greenman didn't cherry pick a few years, he showed a 20 year trend line, which would be more accurate then a 10 year trend line or starting at 1998. If you accept statistics, and many deniers don't, then you would have to conclude that if the 10 year trend line shows no significant warming but the 20 year trend line does, then the logical position is to accept that we are warming.
Its very basic logic, surprised you cannot follow it.
LOL. Was this sarcasm, Greenman? You say "Even our most distinguished journalists have been taken in...", then you show a reporter from Fox News. LOL. Am I the only one who finds humor in this or is this intentionally added and I'm a little slow on the draw? Either way, it's funny.
you're the one denying science. scientists have explanations for all the former warming and cooling. but when they tell you this one is manmade you claim they're wrong.
the evil part of me sort of wants the climate system to run away out of control, just to see the faces on the idiots who say there's no global warming. But then you have to consider all the people who will die from drought and starvation, and who will be displaced. Then i start to feel bad.
could happen. I'm personally not counting on it. But weather is hugely variable, and I wouldn't say it's impossible. What I am counting on is increasing temperatures and droughts in sub-saharan africa and potentially more flooding in the american south (as has been occurring recently)
Yes, it is hugely variable and the effects of global warming (assuming humans are causing a significant amount) can't be predicted. For all we know, it will be good for the environment in the long run. For all we know, we could be averting an ice age or ameliorating the effects of one. Judging by the lack of correlation to green house gas output and warming, humans are doing next to nothing to effect global temperatures.
I said weather is variable. However, the general global climate trends are pretty easy to predict. They've been predicted for the past half century. And humans have done/are doing much more than "next to nothing" to affect global temperatures. We've single-handedly increased CO2 levels by about 40%. This has serious effects on climate. And you say the correlation between GHG's and warming is lacking. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Do a bit more research.
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux Easy to predict? Like how scientists were predicting an ice age about 40 years ago? Furthermore, it's been discovered that the ocean, as it warms, gives off a great deal of CO2, which helps explain why, in the much warmer ancient past, the earth was warmer with much more CO2. Much of the causation is backward, here. Furthermore, CO2 accounts for only .038% of earth's atmosphere. It has much much less of a warming effect than, for example, methane.
"Like how scientists were predicting an ice age about 40 years ago?"
Check out greenman3610's video "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"
"CO2 accounts for only .038% of earth's atmosphere. It has much much less of a warming effect than, for example, methane."
CO2 still has a significant effect on climate. As for methane, it's already being found that in the waters north of Siberia, methane is bubbling up from the ocean-bottom. This is caused by the increasing ocean temps.
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux Lastly, warming was at a greater rate prior to humans producing significant amounts of green house gases, which suggests that after humans started producing green house gases, the rate of warming decreased, which might even lead one to conclude humans have somehow been slowing global warming. ha ha
"warming was at a greater rate prior to humans producing significant amounts of green house gases"
No it wasn't. Sure there was a bit of a stand-still in the rise around the forties and fifties, but variability like this is to be expected. The rate of warming increase in the past few decades has been greater than it was, say, in the twenties .
I wonder how many American oil and fuel companies work along side Global Warming disproof groups in order to spread propaganda making people feel less inclined to "Go Green"?
Latest one I've heard was that there's no global warming, but global cooling....
And if its not oil companies working with these groups in order to spread false propaganda then who is?
And why are so many average American citizens believing such unproven information?
Unless people are inclined to change their energy usage,
@ariesmajor To answer that question read a book called Merchnats of Doubt. The hard back version is out with the authors working on the improved paper edition at the moment. The book has a website if your interested
find: The worlds ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August summer season, according to NOAAs National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. World-wide records began in 1880.
This video does nothing but argue that the parameters of the models reviewed by the IPCC don't sufficiently account for internal variability such as the flattening of the PDO cycle and its effect on climate.
Kinda funny you argued against climate change here and it doesn't appear you realize it.
I don't think you understood what I said. The reason that this trend is important is because it proves what many serious skeptics have been saying for some time that there is a huge gap in knowledge right now regarding internal variability. Yes Southern Oscillation is important but the way the numbers crunch don't work out to the temperature trends we see with out a larger contribution from the flattening PDO cycle.
I'm sorry greenman3610 where in what you wanted me to read does it confirm that PDO does not act as an long term external driver of ENSO activity. Like maybe why la Nina seemed to drag on so long.
"The Southern Oscillation (el nino) and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change"
By the way, you are 6 months behind on La Nina, that officially ended in april. We've been in a developing el nino since mid summer, which is why the last few months have been very warm globally, 2009 will end up warmer than 08, and '10 will most likely be very warm.
Greenman3610 I found a paper that will make what I was trying to express much more clear.
"find evidence for a significant change in the temperature series around 1997, corroborated with evidence of a coincident oceanographic regime-shift. We use the trends between these significant change points to generate a forecast of future global temperature under specific assumptions. "
Hey Pseudo, I though I sent you off on a quest to find a peer reviewed study based on actual measurements to support the warmers favorite Crock of a long CO2 residence time of 50 -200 years. I see you've returned with no such evidence. It's OK. I understand. It was a fool's errand, after all as NO SUCH STUDY EXISTS! Without a long residence time, CO2 simply can't accumulate as a result of atmospheric additions until such additions are stupendously, impossibly large. How inconvenient
Jimbo1490, I don't trust your figures or anything you post.
When FFs are burned this dilutes atmospheric heavy carbon with light fossil carbon altering the 13C/12C ratio.
There is a strong correspondence between FF combustion rates [CDIAC]; the 13C/12C ratio [Keeling et al, 2005]; increasing atmos CO2 [Keeling and Whorf, 2005]; and the decline in atmos O2 [Manning et al., 1997]
This indicates the EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR DECEITFUL CLAIM.
Your claims are UNSUPPORTED BY THE SCIENCE and BOGUS!
Keeling, CDIAC, et al show that the present atmosphere is at -7.5 to -7.8 per mil PDB. This is NOWHERE NEAR the expected -11 per mil if all the rise in CO2 was due to fossil fuel burning. You have to read the 'hard' numbers in those studies not trust the summary and abstract pages for your info. No mass balance study shows the atmosphere is 21% fossil carbon. Such a study does not exist. Keeling used "land use and biotic changes" to boost his numbers but still got -8 per mil (~5% fossil)
There is no mass balance study that supports the IPCC's assertion that "all or nealy all" of the atmospheric CO2 increase of the last ~100 years is due to fossil fuel burning. This translates to 21% fossil CO2, BTW. The best anyone has come up with is ~5% and ~3% is more typical. This also proves the SHORT(~5 years) residence time of atmospheric CO2, refuting the IPCC's contrived long residence time of "50-200 years", another AGW cornerstone.
Though not admitted by AGW proponents, it has been cooling since 1998. Everyone should be willing to admit this, and to furthermore admit that this cooling trend is not long enough to be 'statistically significant'. Similarly it should be admitted that the warming from ~1979-1998 was also too short to be statistically significant. Both of these shorter trends are superimposed on a much older and more gradual warming trend which has continued, and predates significant CO2 emissions by >100 years.
The video shows Pat Micheals, leading denier, assuring us that it has continued to warm since 98. Likewise, if you look at the video "creepy at the epa", you'll see denier hero John Christy affirm the same.
The "cooling since 98" is a canard based on cherry picking.
2005, per NASA, was the hottest year. 2007, tied with 98 for second. We've had la nina cooling since then, and 2008 still was warmer than any year before 98, probably going back 2000 years. Where's this cooling?
Remember that they (NASA) have had to retract this assessment of 2005 as 'hottest' TWICE in favor of the more widely accepted and better supported (by a greater variety of historical temp records) year of 1936. Yes if you rely primarily on NASA/GISS data (as NASA/GISS does) then it's 2005. But the arctic was indeed warmer than now in the mid 1930's.
The 1930s canard, (actually its 1934) relates to a data problem with temps from the contiguous US. The record temp in this area, 1.6% of global surface, is, in the adjusted dataset, warmer by a fraction smaller than the margin of error.
The global numbers remain unchanged. 2005 in the NASA record.I really thought this canard was so bogus that no one believed it any more, obviously I'll have to do a vid on it.
google:
skeptical science 1934 is the hottest year on record
No part of the contiguous US is within the arctic circle. The artctic was definitely warmer in the 1930's than today, or in 2005. NASA has twice retracted the 2005 assertion in favor of 1934. They are currently re-asserting 2005. But the fact is both years are in close contention as hottest on record. This fact alone is injurious to the AGW hypothesis since it predates significant anthropogenic CO2 releases by a couple of decades. There goes that darn temp increase leading CO2 increase again!
Humans are stubborn bastards, we'll adapt to the changes - with massive casualties granted, but we WILL survive it - I'm more worried about mid-term/long-term effects on the food chain - Even if you deny the GW trends, you can't deny the acidifying effect that CO2 has on ocean life - an entire chunk of the oceanic food chain, every creature that uses a shell, is being literally dissolved by this - that's just one example, who knows what kind of massive ecological upheavals we'll see?
'You have to wonder if the Heartland nstitute will ever have Dr. Michaels back for a lecture'
Sure they will. He's been caught dissembling repeatedly, yet he keeps on coming back like a bad smell.
I don't understand how he or any of the other scientifically qualified deniers sleep at night. If you look at the science news, and have children or grandchildren, it's very worrying.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions at some stage.
Do not feel ashamed, there's a lot of pseudo-science out there and the liars who disseminate it don't want you to read the science! Because when someone does go to the references and they compare it with whatever WUWT; icecrap; Beck; Singer; Avery or other denialist claims, it's soon clear they were being dishonest.
I think TRRA is a troll, the sheer amount of misundertanding and purposeful ignorance is just too great for anyone that is truely interested in debunking Global Warming. When s/he doesn't understand basic chemistry and is convinced that CO2 is not produced in burning fossil fuels in light of numerous sources and scientific evidence we are just speaking from two completely difference frames of reference.
If what TRAA were correct about coal powered electricity producing CO [as opposed to CO2], then:
Local physicians would be constantly overwhelmed with complaints of flu or food poisoning and violent headaches. The local area around coal plants would be strewn with dead people with bright pink / cherry-red nails. I suspect the local authorities would spot the connection.
'coal-fired power plants remain unregulated and account for about 40 percent of U.S. mercury emissions, the largest single source. Power plants generate about 48 tons of mercury pollution a year, roughly the same as a decade ago.'
"EPA should issue strong mercury standards for power plants that reduce mercury pollution from 48 tons today to about 5 tons, or a 90 percent reduction."
Problem with claiming that all coal burning plants emmit Murcury is that if you don't use coal that contains murcury then it won't potentially release Murcary....not all coal is made the same and US has the good stufff
The shit they burn in China and India is high in SUlfer and other VOCs and they were to cheap as to put in Scrubbers and filters and/or bake the coal into "coke" which is a clean burning vesion of coal used for smelting metal as it doesn't add carbon risiduals(burns clean)
The CO2 is from the air intakes as you need to concentrate air to allow for enough oxygen to gen a high tempature combustion that limits fly ash......no Co2 is "created" without a Catalyst converter that converts the Carbon gunk that touches air and turns into Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide...which is what that stupid " Co2 sequestering" would involve(creating Co2 to store....how moronic)
Nuclear Plants use cement whose componets come from coal fly ash and oil dirrivatives(Oil Tech)
besides the Cement andUranium requiring "fiossil fuel" tech, the container is steel plastics with Steel being smelted by petro-coke or coke,and plastics mostly comming from oil, moving parts require greese(oil)
Solar Furnace Tech has potential, as does Hrdrokenetic, and gravity mottion
BP Pickens is no longer in our face cause his 2000 Windmills can only power 100,000 homes not the Entire US, and it would take 11 trillion dollars to upgrade the US National grid to link his windmills to it
Solar panels are no better then Windmills in that their output on a sunny day can't surrently match how many houses a coal plant can service for 3x less the cost to build the Solar panel fields...which might enroch on "sacred land" or displace wildlife (Environuts always complaining about something
Worse yet, the Wind doesn't always blow and there are cloudy days and night when there is no sun to collect power from
Nuclear is Safer now, but I still like Geothermal and Hydrokenitic more
What about the Geneva conference? And which models are getting worse? Everything I've seen on recent models have shown improvements as more factors are able to be modeled at higher resolutions. IF a model is given less accurate information why would people continue to use it? Wouldn't they work to improve it?
Oh, the Predictions vs the CLimate Models are fine
The Predictions and Climate models vs Real World data and Weather/Climate changes and weather or not any part of the CO2 ppm rise is conclusively linked to humans and whether or not CO2 is a driving force and not just a passanger reacting to tempature rise is what needs to be tested, verified,and Falsified(looking for all other possible explainationas)
The Democrats passed Cap and Trade...so why are we still warming?...lol
1) it has, there's no other valid candidate that explains the rising trend, this has been studied for decades
2) because passing legislation isn't magic =P
3) how does mortgage rates relate to anything in regards to the science
4) corn ethanol isn't really much of a "green" alternative to begin with dunno why you brought it up, I think it did more environmental damage than any good that proponents would hope that it did.
2) And more importantly won't work cause it isn't the Co2, and Humans are not responsible for the 100ppm , as in 500 trillion tons in a 5000 trillion ton atmosphere or 100/1000000 or 100 molocules of co2 for 1 million molocules of air think estimates is Humans made 1.2 trillion in 150 years? (1/500 of 100/1000000)
3)Thinks it's a government meldling in everything argument...don't confuse the politics and Media sensationalism for Science..ever
1) Eienstien's one....We are overdue the deteration of the EM field is Measurable
2) Dont confuse politics and media sensationalism for Science nor confuse the Envirnut Political Activist posing as "climate Experts" and encuraging government regulation/litigation/internvention on "evil oil" for Scientists
The Scientist are collecting data to verify and test James Henson's models and predictions against the real word to see if they match
2a) And what is ou solution to the suppised Correlation of CO2 to AGT?
Your Answer determines which camp you are really in
2b) It is accepted that James Hensons Climate Models based on limitedland data vs his Predictions seem free of errors
Where the Political Activist posing as "Climate Experts" see this as proof "It's Humans Fault' and are demanding Government litigation and taxation and even banning oil/coal the Real Scientist have moved on with their funding to test and Verify
1-2) Educate the public rather than spreading moronic misinformation like "it's not happening" and let the public make educated decisions, stop subsidizing oil companies and utterly failed propositions like corn ethanol and fund research and the best solutions based on geological location
3) I'm quite aware that products rely on oil or oil derivatives and other such organic materials, it still doesn't address why you bothered bringing up the idiocy of corn ethanol.
3) the political Activist want us "off oil" because of the Stupidity that is Gasoline and Desiel not realizing Solar panels,Windmills, and Geothermal plants have parts made from,made with or made of oil and coal or their dirrivatives
YOur computer has 17 different kinds of plastics made from oil,your car 37.
YOu nylon/polyester clothes are made from oil while if you have cotton the fertilizer is made from oil/coal byproducts
Commercial food is made with fertilizer from natural gas off oil
Pfft Commercia foodcrops is fertilized with a fertilizer derived from Natural gas which is in turn a run off product of Natural Gasoline (along with Propane and Butane( that comes from distilling and hydrocleaning oil
It's why they say Natural gas is "Produce" in the US, but fail to mention it's produced off oil...lol
What's your point? Most people just want solutions that use the options and resources that we have more efficiently and overall more environmentally friendly. Considering most of the pollution doesn't come from any of the products you previously mentioned they do seem rather moot points don't you think?
When we are finallly on Exxon/Shell/BP/GE Windpower and driving GM Volts with Exxon Batteries their are still going to be people bitching about the High cost of commercial electricity and the cost of recharging at the CHevron/SHell/BP/76/Exxon Station
Alternatively on Solar and fuel cell cars the High cost of elecricity and water(When water comes valuable commodity)
There are people if they were sat upon a mountain of gol that would complain their feet aren't touching the floor
2) Fuel cell cars are again another example of stupidity to try and pander to the oil companies, I'm not sure why you bring up this example either since we get most of our hydrogen from natural gas instead of water because it's more energy intensive to get it from fresh water than from natural gas.
3) Why you keep bringing up the worst examples and professing you know about the future is just another depth of stupidity
"The Democrats passed Cap and Trade...so why are we still warming?..."Hold on a second and I'll tell you all the things wrong with that statement.
Buring things makes CO2, we can measure that. There is no 'conclusive' proof for anything. We put gigatons of CO2 into the atmo and at the same time ppm goes up with no other known natural source.
Cap and Trade has not passed and even if it had been we only limit the damage, we will continue to warm but not as fast.
No it doesn't make Co2, but there is a measurable amount of co2 that is processed fthrough the combustion system related to the Co2 that was in the air as well as in cutters like Enthonol which is made by fermentation
Its 68gram of Co2 a mile for modern small cars like the Jetta and 378 grams of co2 a mile for the larger engine "gas guzzlers" ...not 20 gallons of Co2 to a gallon of gas as some political enviromental activist posing as Scientist and/or "climate experts" claim
You could have 68g of CO2 within a gallon.. they are two different measurements, one mass, one volume. But I am assuming that you mean that the amount of CO2 released in cars is overestimated?
Though its a bit of a strawman, power plants are the biggest producers and really they need to be changed first, because even if everyone went to electric cars, the power comes from burning coal mostly.
Mythbusters showed the Co2 wasn't as buch as claimed
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs&feature
Powerplants emmit Co2 eh? Can you please show me exactly where in this "how Coal fired plants work" video where the burning coal ever touches the air to oxidize into CO?
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Like cars, Powerplants don't create CO2, they just exaust only the CO2 that came in with the Air intake..in the hndreds of Kilogram range...not the claimed 25 tons of Co2 from 1 ton of coal
Ok, I don't much about coal power production but burning hydrocarbons produces CO2... its just a chemical reaction. I mean, sure, I guess every chemist could be wrong but that seems unlikely.
The video you linked, at 2:25, explicitly says that air is blown with the coal powder into the boiler where its combusted to produce heat.
No one disputes that burning coal produces CO2. Not even the people that make the power plants.
Did you mis the part at 2:25 were the super heated coal is being injected into water,not air thus no oxidation into Carbon Monoxide
It's Liberal Environut Edumacation that Co2 can oxidize in a Combustion chamber considering the primary result is Heat from the fire consuming a majority of the oxygen being let in and the Carbon to produce the Heat and force that is harnest from combustion punk technology
The combustion happens in a boiler, a large furnace and then heats the water that is in PIPES in the boiler. You really think putting things in water makes them burn? Watch the video and listen another 30 seconds, they explicitly say that the water is in pipes.
As for the other video, he just demonstrated combustion. It generates heat. I guess I'm missing your point there.
It's a closed system and the smothering Carbon gunk is water injected so it never touches the air so it never can turn to Carbon Monoxide (or as liberal Political environut misinforms "CO2")
More specifically watch to 5:00 and right after % billion spent on protecting the Enviroment since 1971 the Scrubber that uses water injection with lime to create a slurry that caputes the bulk of the Black ash is mentioned
And as an aside, if you look up the chemical reaction for burning a fossil fuel you get (original on wiki): CxHy+O2+N2 -> Heat+CO2+H2O+N2 assuming no nitrogen oxidation. This is basic chemistry. Burning things containing carbon, in oxygen, produces CO2. There is CO2 created in the process not just left overs from the air. Though if you prove chemistry wrong I hear the Nobel commity gives you a million dollars.
Actually that Chemical Theory Environut Physist like to pull out of their ass is easily disproven by burning a piece of coal in an enclosed space without the filtration technology and reading the spectrometer and tempature gauge
It's HEAT,and Force,Carbon Monoxide,Carbon Soot,Volitile other chemicals
Again Combustion tuens Carbon and Oxygen into Exthothermal heat and force we used
Filtrations systems before 1991 had Catalyst converters that turned CO into CO2 but are no longer used
FInd me a US Coal plant that still has Plumes of Black Smoke and rains black ash for miles
The Political Environuts want you to think people like me protesting the Black Smoke towers in the 70's never hjappened and all the shit still getting past the Closed water injection, Water scrubbing, charcoal injection filtration,Voc recovery,and Bag filtration
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Fucken snot nose enviromentalist wannabes are barking up the wrong tree if they are trying to Scare people
They aren't... because...*drumroll* Envronuts passed laws saying they couldn't spew pollutants like that anymore because it made the world dirtier than we wanted it to be. So, people saw a problem and worked to fix it. That doesn't mean that new information that reveals new problems should be ignored.
Oh, I've freed animals from captivity, and cut a few fences to sabatoge a few powerplants in my time...lol (former "Environut" days)
Most effective form of Protesting was getting thousands of people to agree to go off grid if the plants didn't clean up their act...that what is what worked, not a bunch of dumassed motherfucken politicians in DC that has fucked up the intent of Medicare,Social Security,Welfare and everything else they have touched and turned to shit (soon Healthcare)
The plume of mercury may not be visible to the human eye. That doesn't mean it isn't there. That invisible mercury has poisoned many waterways and rendered fish unsafe to eat.
Again, where along the powerplant line does the Mercury get past water filtration,charcoal filtration,bag filtration,and chemical filtration in a modern post 1970's Coal fired plant?
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Stop pretending protesters liike me never changed the COal Industries standards and we are still living with Black Smoke towers raining ash for miles and creating 3 legged frogs and giving children blacklung cause it's utter bullshit
"The largest part of the flue gas from most fossil fuel combustion is uncombusted nitrogen. The next largest part of the flue gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) which can be as much as 10 to 15 volume percent or more of the flue gas." So yea, guess those scrubbers aren't yet designed to remove CO2.
10%- 15% of volume, not 25 tonnes of Co2 to 1 ton of COal as claimed which would be 2500% of gasses released..well, more matter comming out then going in anyway
An considering compressed Co2 is $10 a pressurised pound and used for arc weilding, gas lasers,carbonating soda,decaffinating coffee,and running pistons and gears in machines like soda Machines(Co2 punk technology) I personally think it's wasteful to went a valuable resouurse
So... I guess chemistry books are all in the Global Warming Cults back pockets. For instance, balanced formula for propane combustion : C3H8 + 5 O2 -> 3CO2 + 4H2O. So in a perfect world you get CO2 and water no matter what. Please tell me how this is wrong because every chemist assumes this is true and a lot test it out. Of course in the real world you get CO2 and water and other pollutants because they use air not pure oxy. The converters convert the CO, it doesn't negate the original CO2.
Chemical theory isn't a observed fact and they still need to actually burn a piece of coal in a enclosed enviroment with all the meters to prove Co2 is a major byproduct and not Heat and force...lol
Perfect combustion Chemical Theory wise= Heat,CO2,and water but in high tempature furnaces all it produces is heat and force with no fly ash and less then 14% oxygen (as in all the Carbon was consumed by the fire)
Go test it then and submit a paper... I mean, come on, you say "(as in all the Carbon was consumed by the fire)". Thats a lie. 'Force' doesn't even exist in a chemical reaction either, carbon doesn't just disappear, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
And you think that chemists don't know how chemical reactions work. Wow, almost as bad as a creationist. You are alone in your island of ignorance there.
As someone that protested and marched agaist the Black smoke towers it really poisses me off that half ass enviromentalist wannabes can't understand the white smoke omming out of the Coal fired powerplants is not the black low haning smoke of before the 70's that rained soot for miles and when the wind shifted comunitys got coal dust all over them like a snow storm
Post 1970's US coal plants have water injection,bag filters and,Voc reclaiming tech
Lesgislation,regulations,and fines and taxation that will raise the cost of living and doing business as well as the cost of all products and services related to Oil and Coal tech (Including Solar panels,Windmills,Geothermal plants and all other alternative power whose parts are made of or need oil/coal), will" slow the warming"
Compared to what?
Follow tempature readings back to the last ICE AGE 100,000 years ago and it's a steady rise from then to now...humans aren't doing jack shit
Ah, I love it when someone has the answer to thier questions within the same comment. Yep, the earth has been warming at a GRADUAL pace since the last ice age, because if it hadn't we'd still be in an ice age. If that pace had continued it it might have taken thousands of years to get to the temp we are worried about getting to in less than a hundred.
Its the sudden, trend breaking, unnatural warming that we are worried about.
"Climate... Denialism..."??? I've never denied Earth had a climate.
Nice title. BTW, if El Nino, a single water current, has such a massive effect on global temperature, how can you say anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit? Clearly, many things can alter the climate.
Oh, and, "One warm year == we're all gonna die." That's some science there, yessiree...
Um....last I saw the debate was always about the rising trend and why it was and is occurring. Now it's just over the resulting effects as far as professionals are concerned.
Not one warm year. Not 100 warm years. It's +1000 warmer years
If we stop CO2 emissions now, we are COMMITTED to ADDITIONAL warming. The inertia in the system and the positive feedbacks, ARE and WILL cause natural outgassing from melting permafrosts & etc. Causing extra warming and etc
We aren't all going to die from AGW. But an unknown number in the third-world will
Is that morally acceptable?
Remember, it's our emissions that will be the cause
I find it ironic that the same people who for years used 1998 as proof of global warming and fought against those who said it was due to a large El Nino have now embraced the El Nino argument to demonstrate that temperatures are still rising.
People that are serious about the debate made that argument where? AGW has been under discussion since before the 70's and el ninos and la ninas are known to have an affect on surface temperatures but do not have a long term temperature trend
Greenman has collected scientific facts and presented them in a format that appeals to Joe Plummer. Bravo!
By the way, this years aug and sept arctic ice extent is the 3rd worst ever. I just can't stomach people that claim it is growing.
We are at something like 530,000 square miles less ice than the average from 15 years ago. This area is now absorbing heat at a higher rate than when it was covered by ice. This is not good.
I like the new tack the denialists are taking: we can't trust science because of the motivation of the scientists. Motivation is the weakest form of argumentation, and is generally considered a logical fallacy. If we can't trust the scientists because of their motivation, then we can't trust those questioning them for the same reason.
I've been trying to put my finger on exactly what is wrong with 'dark forces' arguments for ages. They're in very wide currency in every field of research, knowledge and inquiry. I've come close to getting to the core reason but never explicitly stated it.
And right there you've summarized it in your final sentence. Nicely put!
sounds like Christo is a paid shill for AGW. The ice extent grew this year in the Artic, Why not try using real data from a real non grant receiving study. Still there is no model that works, therefore science about AGW has proven itself wrong, Back to the drawing board whiners.
No it didn't. I would at least expect you to back up your claims.
I also like the new tack of the deniers: we can't trust any scientific studies, because the scientists have certain motivations. Motivation is the weakest form of argumentation and is generally considered a logical fallacy. If the scientists arguments can't be taken seriously because of some motivation, than either can those arguing against them for the same reason.
It extended on one side and melted on the other, but the ratio of melting is much higher than what was gained on the other. In conclusion, it ididn't grow.
Yeah, if anyone disagrees with you, they must be being paid and part of a big conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be because I heard both sides of the argument and decided that I trusted scientists over politicians and lay people. I was a denier at one point, but eventually the evidence and science became overwhelming.
If we don't act NOW, do you know what we are going to get? Geo-engineering! I'll take reduced co2 emissions over Geo-engineering any day of the week!
The desperation of climate change deniers is actually rather sad. They seem like they must believe that nothing is amiss so they can continue their extravagant lifestyles.
I agree we can all live decent lives without destroying the planet.
However, in my opinion, it is the destructive lifestyles which are contributing to climate change and the need for massive change in how things are done (food production, pollution, trade, transportation, energy, etc) is apparent.
They don't want to admit that the way they live is a problem, and that therefore they must change what they're doing to avert disaster.
If dealing with warming meant that we had to degrade people's standard of living, we should give up now, because you'll never convince people to do that. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, as greenman states above. We can continue our, "extravagant lifestyles," in ways that don't contribute to warming.
What disturbs me more is that you consider a high standard of living to be a bad thing. Shouldn't we want everyone to have a high standard of living?
maybe I don't understand well enough - can you give an example of an extravagant lifestyle that you think contributes to global warming and therefore must end?
I agree that it only makes sense to live within our means, and that living beyond our means brings with it problems in the long run, although none that I'm thinking of have to do with global warming.
But think about it this way: if our quality of life continues to rise, things that are now extravagant will soon be ordinary.
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
I love your clips greenman. Just out of curiousity, is there any way in which we could measure el ninos/la ninas going back hundreds of years. If we have what do they say. If not, would it be possible that changes in the ELSO (el nino osciliation) could be causing the warming as opposed to CO2, or the chance that maybe increased CO2 triggers bigger el ninos. Just something I want to throw out there. Keep up the good work!!!
Mike
metsfreak4life 1 year ago
@metsfreak4life
oscillations are just that - oscillations. they go up and come down. there is evidence that ocean heat is increased, so each el nino has a bigger sink to draw on.
instrumental records uniformly show warming over the last 150 years, and reconstructions are pretty clear that temps are higher now than they have been in 2000 years or so.
We know why temps have varied in the past, and we know none of those drivers are now active, leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 thanks it just would have been awesome if we could chronicle every single el nino over the last hundred of years but yes there is ample evidence what caused these warm waters in the past is most liekly not causing them now. and I expect the next el nino to occur in the fall of 2012 coinciding with what the mayans considered to be the end of the world as we know it. itll be very interesting to see what happens there and what happens years from now when skeptics finally accept AGW
metsfreak4life 1 year ago
@metsfreak4life
I'm not looking for quetzalcoatl to show up in 2012, but with another el nino, and potentially a peak solar cycle, it could be a hot year indeed.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 like fuck leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer what about the suns output. You must have invested in a solar company Mr bullshitman oh a Mr greenman
vmgqie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vmgqie "like fuck leaving greenhouse gases as the only answer what about the suns output. You must have invested in a solar company Mr bullshitman oh a Mr greenman"
Trolling is a personal hobby of yours. Keep it up, you are making a great case for a link between insanity and denialism
thesparitan 2 days ago
Have you revised & updated this one recently, Greenman?
Astrostevo 1 year ago
@Astrostevo
not exactly, but if you take a look at some of the more recent ones, I continue to expand on more of the same developments.
greenman3610 1 year ago
The counterargument to current global cooling is (correctly) based on people cherry picking 1998 as a starting point for their trend analysis. Yet Greenman cherry picks a few months of warmth to claim that warmING is still happening. There's been no warming trend for the past decade.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister
I am communicating the mainstream position endorsed by every mainstream scientific group on the planet. The planet is warming unequivocally, and the evidence comes not just from human measurements,but also from changes in natural systems that are consistent with warming.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 has anyone been convinced that was once a denier by your videos? After talking to these people I cannot see how they could ever accept evidence of any kind.
thesparitan 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PissedFechtmeister Actually that is just a lie, greenman didn't cherry pick a few years, he showed a 20 year trend line, which would be more accurate then a 10 year trend line or starting at 1998. If you accept statistics, and many deniers don't, then you would have to conclude that if the 10 year trend line shows no significant warming but the 20 year trend line does, then the logical position is to accept that we are warming.
Its very basic logic, surprised you cannot follow it.
thesparitan 2 days ago
LOL. Was this sarcasm, Greenman? You say "Even our most distinguished journalists have been taken in...", then you show a reporter from Fox News. LOL. Am I the only one who finds humor in this or is this intentionally added and I'm a little slow on the draw? Either way, it's funny.
Ripley747 1 year ago
@Ripley747
I confess - it was sarcasm.
greenman3610 1 year ago
"El Nino is expected to strengthen and last through Northern Hemisphere winter 2009-10"
ROLF
HAHAHAHAHA
zlatanskye 1 year ago
We've had global warming and cooling periods in the past. Or do you deny science?
AcePilot2009 2 years ago
you're the one denying science. scientists have explanations for all the former warming and cooling. but when they tell you this one is manmade you claim they're wrong.
treeplanter99 2 years ago
But what's important is what's causing it now
Richard482 2 years ago
Michaels doesn't even deny that humans cause global warming.
He just denies that it's negative.
When even the few skeptical scientists, won't deny the basic premise, what is that called?
Gimmie a C! Gimme an O! Gimmie an N-S-E-N-S-U-S!!!!!
seltian 2 years ago
the evil part of me sort of wants the climate system to run away out of control, just to see the faces on the idiots who say there's no global warming. But then you have to consider all the people who will die from drought and starvation, and who will be displaced. Then i start to feel bad.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
I'm counting on more record cold winters like the one in China last year.
namordecai 1 year ago
could happen. I'm personally not counting on it. But weather is hugely variable, and I wouldn't say it's impossible. What I am counting on is increasing temperatures and droughts in sub-saharan africa and potentially more flooding in the american south (as has been occurring recently)
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
Yes, it is hugely variable and the effects of global warming (assuming humans are causing a significant amount) can't be predicted. For all we know, it will be good for the environment in the long run. For all we know, we could be averting an ice age or ameliorating the effects of one. Judging by the lack of correlation to green house gas output and warming, humans are doing next to nothing to effect global temperatures.
namordecai 1 year ago
I said weather is variable. However, the general global climate trends are pretty easy to predict. They've been predicted for the past half century. And humans have done/are doing much more than "next to nothing" to affect global temperatures. We've single-handedly increased CO2 levels by about 40%. This has serious effects on climate. And you say the correlation between GHG's and warming is lacking. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Do a bit more research.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux Easy to predict? Like how scientists were predicting an ice age about 40 years ago? Furthermore, it's been discovered that the ocean, as it warms, gives off a great deal of CO2, which helps explain why, in the much warmer ancient past, the earth was warmer with much more CO2. Much of the causation is backward, here. Furthermore, CO2 accounts for only .038% of earth's atmosphere. It has much much less of a warming effect than, for example, methane.
namordecai 1 year ago
"Like how scientists were predicting an ice age about 40 years ago?"
Check out greenman3610's video "In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"
"CO2 accounts for only .038% of earth's atmosphere. It has much much less of a warming effect than, for example, methane."
CO2 still has a significant effect on climate. As for methane, it's already being found that in the waters north of Siberia, methane is bubbling up from the ocean-bottom. This is caused by the increasing ocean temps.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
@ScientiaVeritasEtLux Lastly, warming was at a greater rate prior to humans producing significant amounts of green house gases, which suggests that after humans started producing green house gases, the rate of warming decreased, which might even lead one to conclude humans have somehow been slowing global warming. ha ha
namordecai 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"warming was at a greater rate prior to humans producing significant amounts of green house gases"
No it wasn't. Sure there was a bit of a stand-still in the rise around the forties and fifties, but variability like this is to be expected. The rate of warming increase in the past few decades has been greater than it was, say, in the twenties .
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 1 year ago
I wonder how many American oil and fuel companies work along side Global Warming disproof groups in order to spread propaganda making people feel less inclined to "Go Green"?
Latest one I've heard was that there's no global warming, but global cooling....
And if its not oil companies working with these groups in order to spread false propaganda then who is?
And why are so many average American citizens believing such unproven information?
Unless people are inclined to change their energy usage,
ariesmajor 2 years ago
500 word limit sucks btw,
Unless people are inclined to change their energy usage on a mass scale, I honestly don't see these warming trends ever going away.
And in places like Las Vegas where its a mass tourist center in the summer, temperatures reaching 115+ degrees can be devastating to peoples health.
What makes me curious is who started the "Global Warming does not exist!" hearsay anyway?
ariesmajor 2 years ago
that's a heck of an interesting story, which I will be telling one day before long.
greenman3610 2 years ago
@ariesmajor To answer that question read a book called Merchnats of Doubt. The hard back version is out with the authors working on the improved paper edition at the moment. The book has a website if your interested
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482
awesome book. highly recommended.
for a quick intro you can google
george monbiot, climate, tobacco
greenman3610 1 year ago
Well done, thanks.
ThorGoLucky 2 years ago
search: "noaa ocean temp records"
find: The worlds ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August summer season, according to NOAAs National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. World-wide records began in 1880.
check it out ;-)
citizenschallengeYT 2 years ago
This video does nothing but argue that the parameters of the models reviewed by the IPCC don't sufficiently account for internal variability such as the flattening of the PDO cycle and its effect on climate.
Kinda funny you argued against climate change here and it doesn't appear you realize it.
EasyEs 2 years ago
problem with your thinking is that the PDO cycle does not have the magnitude of global effect that el nino has, at least according to NASA
"The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change"
google
NASA temperature 2008
greenman3610 2 years ago
I don't think you understood what I said. The reason that this trend is important is because it proves what many serious skeptics have been saying for some time that there is a huge gap in knowledge right now regarding internal variability. Yes Southern Oscillation is important but the way the numbers crunch don't work out to the temperature trends we see with out a larger contribution from the flattening PDO cycle.
Who in NASA said this.
EasyEs 2 years ago
google
NASA temperature 2008
The distilled summary of the best minds at NASA in their annual posting.
They say you're wrong. Glenn Beck says you're right.
I'll stick with NASA.
greenman3610 2 years ago
I'm sorry greenman3610 where in what you wanted me to read does it confirm that PDO does not act as an long term external driver of ENSO activity. Like maybe why la Nina seemed to drag on so long.
EasyEs 2 years ago
from
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
bottom para:
"The Southern Oscillation (el nino) and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change"
By the way, you are 6 months behind on La Nina, that officially ended in april. We've been in a developing el nino since mid summer, which is why the last few months have been very warm globally, 2009 will end up warmer than 08, and '10 will most likely be very warm.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Right and ENSO is belived to be strongly influenced by what again? Perhaps PDO phase shifts.
Lets just leave it there okay. I don't think you are grasping what I am saying. Or I am not being clear, what ever the case lets let it go for now...
I am well aware that La Nina ended btw.
EasyEs 2 years ago
At least you tried !!!
interesting read BTW.
BloggStandard 2 years ago
Greenman3610 I found a paper that will make what I was trying to express much more clear.
"find evidence for a significant change in the temperature series around 1997, corroborated with evidence of a coincident oceanographic regime-shift. We use the trends between these significant change points to generate a forecast of future global temperature under specific assumptions. "
Cheers
EasyEs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
greenman - 'The distilled summary of the best minds at NASA in their annual posting.
They say you're wrong. Glenn Beck says you're right.
I'll stick with NASA.'
Ouch! The truth sometimes hurts!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
pseudotruth:
IF you had actually read the literature cited by jimbo1490, you might have a clue what he is saying.
Pleaes do so as you became a part of this discussion. You won't look quit so foolish then.
Sigurdur2 2 years ago
Yet more unsourced claims from jimbo1490.
Unsourced = lies!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
I hate fox news.
curingaging00 2 years ago
{Google]
What happened to Global Warming? BBC News
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Where can I view these maps presented at 0:34-1:24. Have there been any updates in the past few months?
underpantssquirrel 2 years ago
google:
ncdc State of the Climate Global Analysis
greenman3610 2 years ago
[Google] Polyakov Composite Arctic Basin
My, look how warm it was in the 1930's!
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Hey Pseudo, I though I sent you off on a quest to find a peer reviewed study based on actual measurements to support the warmers favorite Crock of a long CO2 residence time of 50 -200 years. I see you've returned with no such evidence. It's OK. I understand. It was a fool's errand, after all as NO SUCH STUDY EXISTS! Without a long residence time, CO2 simply can't accumulate as a result of atmospheric additions until such additions are stupendously, impossibly large. How inconvenient
jimbo1490 2 years ago
jimbo1490
'Without a long residence time, CO2 simply can't accumulate as a result of atmospheric additions'
If what you say is true, then explain why fossil CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. How inconvenient.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Pseudo, The truth is IT'S NOT!
We can quite easily determine the origin of atmospheric CO2, which you may or may not know. The isotopic mass-balance analysis proves its provenance.
100%fossil carbon = -26 per mil PDB
Virgin atmosphere = -7.0 per mil PDB
Atmosphere w/21% fossil CO2 = -11per mil
(expected If all or nearly all of the recent CO2 rise were due to fossil fuels emissions)
Our atmosphere TODAY = -7.8 per mil
(equivalent to ~3% fossil content)
The discrepancy is VERY LARGE!
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Jimbo1490, I don't trust your figures or anything you post.
When FFs are burned this dilutes atmospheric heavy carbon with light fossil carbon altering the 13C/12C ratio.
There is a strong correspondence between FF combustion rates [CDIAC]; the 13C/12C ratio [Keeling et al, 2005]; increasing atmos CO2 [Keeling and Whorf, 2005]; and the decline in atmos O2 [Manning et al., 1997]
This indicates the EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR DECEITFUL CLAIM.
Your claims are UNSUPPORTED BY THE SCIENCE and BOGUS!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Keeling, CDIAC, et al show that the present atmosphere is at -7.5 to -7.8 per mil PDB. This is NOWHERE NEAR the expected -11 per mil if all the rise in CO2 was due to fossil fuel burning. You have to read the 'hard' numbers in those studies not trust the summary and abstract pages for your info. No mass balance study shows the atmosphere is 21% fossil carbon. Such a study does not exist. Keeling used "land use and biotic changes" to boost his numbers but still got -8 per mil (~5% fossil)
jimbo1490 2 years ago
jimbo1490
'No mass balance study shows the atmosphere is 21% fossil carbon. Such a study does not exist.' - Hardly surprising, because this is a strawman!
An atmosphere of 10% level of CO2 [I know this isn't carbon] is potentially fatal to humans.
Get back to me when you stop posting gibberish & lies!
If you are going to just invent your own facts, there's no point in continuing this any further!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
the 500 word limit enforces a stark brevity.
There is no mass balance study that supports the IPCC's assertion that "all or nealy all" of the atmospheric CO2 increase of the last ~100 years is due to fossil fuel burning. This translates to 21% fossil CO2, BTW. The best anyone has come up with is ~5% and ~3% is more typical. This also proves the SHORT(~5 years) residence time of atmospheric CO2, refuting the IPCC's contrived long residence time of "50-200 years", another AGW cornerstone.
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Though not admitted by AGW proponents, it has been cooling since 1998. Everyone should be willing to admit this, and to furthermore admit that this cooling trend is not long enough to be 'statistically significant'. Similarly it should be admitted that the warming from ~1979-1998 was also too short to be statistically significant. Both of these shorter trends are superimposed on a much older and more gradual warming trend which has continued, and predates significant CO2 emissions by >100 years.
jimbo1490 2 years ago
The video shows Pat Micheals, leading denier, assuring us that it has continued to warm since 98. Likewise, if you look at the video "creepy at the epa", you'll see denier hero John Christy affirm the same.
The "cooling since 98" is a canard based on cherry picking.
2005, per NASA, was the hottest year. 2007, tied with 98 for second. We've had la nina cooling since then, and 2008 still was warmer than any year before 98, probably going back 2000 years. Where's this cooling?
greenman3610 2 years ago
Remember that they (NASA) have had to retract this assessment of 2005 as 'hottest' TWICE in favor of the more widely accepted and better supported (by a greater variety of historical temp records) year of 1936. Yes if you rely primarily on NASA/GISS data (as NASA/GISS does) then it's 2005. But the arctic was indeed warmer than now in the mid 1930's.
jimbo1490 2 years ago
The 1930s canard, (actually its 1934) relates to a data problem with temps from the contiguous US. The record temp in this area, 1.6% of global surface, is, in the adjusted dataset, warmer by a fraction smaller than the margin of error.
The global numbers remain unchanged. 2005 in the NASA record.I really thought this canard was so bogus that no one believed it any more, obviously I'll have to do a vid on it.
google:
skeptical science 1934 is the hottest year on record
greenman3610 2 years ago
No part of the contiguous US is within the arctic circle. The artctic was definitely warmer in the 1930's than today, or in 2005. NASA has twice retracted the 2005 assertion in favor of 1934. They are currently re-asserting 2005. But the fact is both years are in close contention as hottest on record. This fact alone is injurious to the AGW hypothesis since it predates significant anthropogenic CO2 releases by a couple of decades. There goes that darn temp increase leading CO2 increase again!
jimbo1490 2 years ago
Once again, the jimbo1490 troll is being dishonest.
According to 'Global annual ranked HadCRUT3' [google], 1934 doesn't even feature in the top 50 warmest years.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Humans are stubborn bastards, we'll adapt to the changes - with massive casualties granted, but we WILL survive it - I'm more worried about mid-term/long-term effects on the food chain - Even if you deny the GW trends, you can't deny the acidifying effect that CO2 has on ocean life - an entire chunk of the oceanic food chain, every creature that uses a shell, is being literally dissolved by this - that's just one example, who knows what kind of massive ecological upheavals we'll see?
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
You have to wonder if the Heartland nstitute will ever have Dr. Michaels back for a lecture :-;
☺
upsilon054 2 years ago
upsilon054
'You have to wonder if the Heartland nstitute will ever have Dr. Michaels back for a lecture'
Sure they will. He's been caught dissembling repeatedly, yet he keeps on coming back like a bad smell.
I don't understand how he or any of the other scientifically qualified deniers sleep at night. If you look at the science news, and have children or grandchildren, it's very worrying.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were repercussions at some stage.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I feel ashamed for doubting the validity of the global warming argument.
Ombrenuit 2 years ago
Ombrenuit
Do not feel ashamed, there's a lot of pseudo-science out there and the liars who disseminate it don't want you to read the science! Because when someone does go to the references and they compare it with whatever WUWT; icecrap; Beck; Singer; Avery or other denialist claims, it's soon clear they were being dishonest.
Just look at greenman's latest video.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Look who's talking!
uboat21 2 years ago
You should not.
uboat21 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Perhaps humanity needs a change of heart. Check out youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation...
WilliamTarkovsky 2 years ago
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I like to naively imagine that some people really want to debate the issues :)
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
I think TRRA is a troll, the sheer amount of misundertanding and purposeful ignorance is just too great for anyone that is truely interested in debunking Global Warming. When s/he doesn't understand basic chemistry and is convinced that CO2 is not produced in burning fossil fuels in light of numerous sources and scientific evidence we are just speaking from two completely difference frames of reference.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
"I think TRRA is a troll"
ya think?
As long as he/she/it watches his/her/its language, he/she/it can post. But I don't advise trying to reason with him/her/it.
greenman3610 2 years ago
FierceFirefight
'I think TRRA is a troll' - me too!
If what TRAA were correct about coal powered electricity producing CO [as opposed to CO2], then:
Local physicians would be constantly overwhelmed with complaints of flu or food poisoning and violent headaches. The local area around coal plants would be strewn with dead people with bright pink / cherry-red nails. I suspect the local authorities would spot the connection.
TRRA is a coal troll.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
TRRA
IFRs offer many solutions
The end of dual-use reprocessing. No 'ambiguous' facilities that aid & conceal proliferation
IFR R/A waste ~ 100 years storage, not 100ky
~ 50ky of generation - vastly more than Fossil-fuels & conventional nuclear. Probably far more than enough to get fusion working
~ 700 years of generation from R/A waste & warheads alone
Much reduced transport of fuel - increased security
Inherently safest design. Much safer than modern reactors which are much safer than before
pseudotruth 2 years ago
From WAPO Dec 2003
'Report Cites 10 States' Mercury Pollution'
'coal-fired power plants remain unregulated and account for about 40 percent of U.S. mercury emissions, the largest single source. Power plants generate about 48 tons of mercury pollution a year, roughly the same as a decade ago.'
"EPA should issue strong mercury standards for power plants that reduce mercury pollution from 48 tons today to about 5 tons, or a 90 percent reduction."
Your claims of 1970s remain ludicrous!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Problem with claiming that all coal burning plants emmit Murcury is that if you don't use coal that contains murcury then it won't potentially release Murcary....not all coal is made the same and US has the good stufff
The shit they burn in China and India is high in SUlfer and other VOCs and they were to cheap as to put in Scrubbers and filters and/or bake the coal into "coke" which is a clean burning vesion of coal used for smelting metal as it doesn't add carbon risiduals(burns clean)
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
TRRA
I'm not concerned about the smoke and ash from coal plants of yesteryear.
My concern is the CO2 that's still being emitted.
We need to close all coal plants and we need to do it as early as possible. We must leave as much coal in the ground as we can.
To achieve this, we need maximum energy efficiency and replacement for base-load.
I don't like nuclear, but I can see no alternative. We need lots of nuclear and to replace those with IFRs when they become commercial.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
The CO2 is from the air intakes as you need to concentrate air to allow for enough oxygen to gen a high tempature combustion that limits fly ash......no Co2 is "created" without a Catalyst converter that converts the Carbon gunk that touches air and turns into Carbon Monoxide into Carbon Dioxide...which is what that stupid " Co2 sequestering" would involve(creating Co2 to store....how moronic)
Nuclear Plants use cement whose componets come from coal fly ash and oil dirrivatives(Oil Tech)
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
besides the Cement andUranium requiring "fiossil fuel" tech, the container is steel plastics with Steel being smelted by petro-coke or coke,and plastics mostly comming from oil, moving parts require greese(oil)
Solar Furnace Tech has potential, as does Hrdrokenetic, and gravity mottion
BP Pickens is no longer in our face cause his 2000 Windmills can only power 100,000 homes not the Entire US, and it would take 11 trillion dollars to upgrade the US National grid to link his windmills to it
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Solar panels are no better then Windmills in that their output on a sunny day can't surrently match how many houses a coal plant can service for 3x less the cost to build the Solar panel fields...which might enroch on "sacred land" or displace wildlife (Environuts always complaining about something
Worse yet, the Wind doesn't always blow and there are cloudy days and night when there is no sun to collect power from
Nuclear is Safer now, but I still like Geothermal and Hydrokenitic more
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
greenman:
Thank you for your efforts to tell the truth.
It is nice to be able to consult a source that is not just a puppet of behind the scenes money.
Your hard work is appreciated.
PFWoody488 2 years ago
Thanks man, good work. Keep it up man
DrDrHansZarkov 2 years ago
Another great video. Thank you!!!
terraalert 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why are my comments being blocked?!!
wasneeplus 2 years ago
We need more volcanoes going off
metalorg 2 years ago
Lies, damned lies and American morons. Honest to God, I stopped after the base line 1961 - 1990 graph.
The models were wrong and are getting worse. Look up the recent Geneva conference
eric144144 2 years ago
What about the Geneva conference? And which models are getting worse? Everything I've seen on recent models have shown improvements as more factors are able to be modeled at higher resolutions. IF a model is given less accurate information why would people continue to use it? Wouldn't they work to improve it?
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Oh, the Predictions vs the CLimate Models are fine
The Predictions and Climate models vs Real World data and Weather/Climate changes and weather or not any part of the CO2 ppm rise is conclusively linked to humans and whether or not CO2 is a driving force and not just a passanger reacting to tempature rise is what needs to be tested, verified,and Falsified(looking for all other possible explainationas)
The Democrats passed Cap and Trade...so why are we still warming?...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
1) it has, there's no other valid candidate that explains the rising trend, this has been studied for decades
2) because passing legislation isn't magic =P
3) how does mortgage rates relate to anything in regards to the science
4) corn ethanol isn't really much of a "green" alternative to begin with dunno why you brought it up, I think it did more environmental damage than any good that proponents would hope that it did.
garith21 2 years ago
1) Polar shiftTheory
2) And more importantly won't work cause it isn't the Co2, and Humans are not responsible for the 100ppm , as in 500 trillion tons in a 5000 trillion ton atmosphere or 100/1000000 or 100 molocules of co2 for 1 million molocules of air think estimates is Humans made 1.2 trillion in 150 years? (1/500 of 100/1000000)
3)Thinks it's a government meldling in everything argument...don't confuse the politics and Media sensationalism for Science..ever
4)We live in the "Oil Age"
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
1) you mean the pseudo scientific version or the version where it won't have a difference in effect for a few thousand years?
2) This is relevant to AGW how? Just because politicians are stupid doesn't invalidate the science
3) refer to 2
4) this is again relevant how? You brought up the worst kind of "alternative fuel", it's just another example of politicians doing stupid things
garith21 2 years ago
1) Eienstien's one....We are overdue the deteration of the EM field is Measurable
2) Dont confuse politics and media sensationalism for Science nor confuse the Envirnut Political Activist posing as "climate Experts" and encuraging government regulation/litigation/internvention on "evil oil" for Scientists
The Scientist are collecting data to verify and test James Henson's models and predictions against the real word to see if they match
3) All technology is reliant on oil
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
1) So the one that won't have any new effect for a few thousand years
2a) That would be your field not mine
2b) Yet it's accepted because of the evidence and the predictions he made that you wouldn't expect otherwise
3) again how is this at all relevant to your bringing up of ethanol as a bizarre and stupid segway.
garith21 2 years ago
2a) And what is ou solution to the suppised Correlation of CO2 to AGT?
Your Answer determines which camp you are really in
2b) It is accepted that James Hensons Climate Models based on limitedland data vs his Predictions seem free of errors
Where the Political Activist posing as "Climate Experts" see this as proof "It's Humans Fault' and are demanding Government litigation and taxation and even banning oil/coal the Real Scientist have moved on with their funding to test and Verify
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
1-2) Educate the public rather than spreading moronic misinformation like "it's not happening" and let the public make educated decisions, stop subsidizing oil companies and utterly failed propositions like corn ethanol and fund research and the best solutions based on geological location
3) I'm quite aware that products rely on oil or oil derivatives and other such organic materials, it still doesn't address why you bothered bringing up the idiocy of corn ethanol.
garith21 2 years ago
3) the political Activist want us "off oil" because of the Stupidity that is Gasoline and Desiel not realizing Solar panels,Windmills, and Geothermal plants have parts made from,made with or made of oil and coal or their dirrivatives
YOur computer has 17 different kinds of plastics made from oil,your car 37.
YOu nylon/polyester clothes are made from oil while if you have cotton the fertilizer is made from oil/coal byproducts
Commercial food is made with fertilizer from natural gas off oil
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Pfft Commercia foodcrops is fertilized with a fertilizer derived from Natural gas which is in turn a run off product of Natural Gasoline (along with Propane and Butane( that comes from distilling and hydrocleaning oil
It's why they say Natural gas is "Produce" in the US, but fail to mention it's produced off oil...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
What's your point? Most people just want solutions that use the options and resources that we have more efficiently and overall more environmentally friendly. Considering most of the pollution doesn't come from any of the products you previously mentioned they do seem rather moot points don't you think?
garith21 2 years ago
My point?
When we are finallly on Exxon/Shell/BP/GE Windpower and driving GM Volts with Exxon Batteries their are still going to be people bitching about the High cost of commercial electricity and the cost of recharging at the CHevron/SHell/BP/76/Exxon Station
Alternatively on Solar and fuel cell cars the High cost of elecricity and water(When water comes valuable commodity)
There are people if they were sat upon a mountain of gol that would complain their feet aren't touching the floor
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
1) thank you oh seer of the future
2) Fuel cell cars are again another example of stupidity to try and pander to the oil companies, I'm not sure why you bring up this example either since we get most of our hydrogen from natural gas instead of water because it's more energy intensive to get it from fresh water than from natural gas.
3) Why you keep bringing up the worst examples and professing you know about the future is just another depth of stupidity
garith21 2 years ago
"The Democrats passed Cap and Trade...so why are we still warming?..."Hold on a second and I'll tell you all the things wrong with that statement.
Buring things makes CO2, we can measure that. There is no 'conclusive' proof for anything. We put gigatons of CO2 into the atmo and at the same time ppm goes up with no other known natural source.
Cap and Trade has not passed and even if it had been we only limit the damage, we will continue to warm but not as fast.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
No it doesn't make Co2, but there is a measurable amount of co2 that is processed fthrough the combustion system related to the Co2 that was in the air as well as in cutters like Enthonol which is made by fermentation
Its 68gram of Co2 a mile for modern small cars like the Jetta and 378 grams of co2 a mile for the larger engine "gas guzzlers" ...not 20 gallons of Co2 to a gallon of gas as some political enviromental activist posing as Scientist and/or "climate experts" claim
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
You could have 68g of CO2 within a gallon.. they are two different measurements, one mass, one volume. But I am assuming that you mean that the amount of CO2 released in cars is overestimated?
Though its a bit of a strawman, power plants are the biggest producers and really they need to be changed first, because even if everyone went to electric cars, the power comes from burning coal mostly.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Mythbusters showed the Co2 wasn't as buch as claimed
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs&feature
Powerplants emmit Co2 eh? Can you please show me exactly where in this "how Coal fired plants work" video where the burning coal ever touches the air to oxidize into CO?
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Like cars, Powerplants don't create CO2, they just exaust only the CO2 that came in with the Air intake..in the hndreds of Kilogram range...not the claimed 25 tons of Co2 from 1 ton of coal
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Ok, I don't much about coal power production but burning hydrocarbons produces CO2... its just a chemical reaction. I mean, sure, I guess every chemist could be wrong but that seems unlikely.
The video you linked, at 2:25, explicitly says that air is blown with the coal powder into the boiler where its combusted to produce heat.
No one disputes that burning coal produces CO2. Not even the people that make the power plants.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Did you mis the part at 2:25 were the super heated coal is being injected into water,not air thus no oxidation into Carbon Monoxide
It's Liberal Environut Edumacation that Co2 can oxidize in a Combustion chamber considering the primary result is Heat from the fire consuming a majority of the oxygen being let in and the Carbon to produce the Heat and force that is harnest from combustion punk technology
It's basic Cheemistry
watch?v=3Lwdm1Dlw2Y&feature
2:10 t0 4:15 and 6:30 to 6:50
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
The combustion happens in a boiler, a large furnace and then heats the water that is in PIPES in the boiler. You really think putting things in water makes them burn? Watch the video and listen another 30 seconds, they explicitly say that the water is in pipes.
As for the other video, he just demonstrated combustion. It generates heat. I guess I'm missing your point there.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
My point?
It's a closed system and the smothering Carbon gunk is water injected so it never touches the air so it never can turn to Carbon Monoxide (or as liberal Political environut misinforms "CO2")
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
More specifically watch to 5:00 and right after % billion spent on protecting the Enviroment since 1971 the Scrubber that uses water injection with lime to create a slurry that caputes the bulk of the Black ash is mentioned
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Black ash isn't CO2..
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
And as an aside, if you look up the chemical reaction for burning a fossil fuel you get (original on wiki): CxHy+O2+N2 -> Heat+CO2+H2O+N2 assuming no nitrogen oxidation. This is basic chemistry. Burning things containing carbon, in oxygen, produces CO2. There is CO2 created in the process not just left overs from the air. Though if you prove chemistry wrong I hear the Nobel commity gives you a million dollars.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Actually that Chemical Theory Environut Physist like to pull out of their ass is easily disproven by burning a piece of coal in an enclosed space without the filtration technology and reading the spectrometer and tempature gauge
It's HEAT,and Force,Carbon Monoxide,Carbon Soot,Volitile other chemicals
Again Combustion tuens Carbon and Oxygen into Exthothermal heat and force we used
Filtrations systems before 1991 had Catalyst converters that turned CO into CO2 but are no longer used
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
TRAA
You forgot the mercury! Oh! I suppose you include Hg under 'Volitile other chemicals'
Sounds innocuous, doesn't it!
Next you're going to say that Hg is beneficial!
pseudotruth 2 years ago
FInd me a US Coal plant that still has Plumes of Black Smoke and rains black ash for miles
The Political Environuts want you to think people like me protesting the Black Smoke towers in the 70's never hjappened and all the shit still getting past the Closed water injection, Water scrubbing, charcoal injection filtration,Voc recovery,and Bag filtration
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Fucken snot nose enviromentalist wannabes are barking up the wrong tree if they are trying to Scare people
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
They aren't... because...*drumroll* Envronuts passed laws saying they couldn't spew pollutants like that anymore because it made the world dirtier than we wanted it to be. So, people saw a problem and worked to fix it. That doesn't mean that new information that reveals new problems should be ignored.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Oh, I've freed animals from captivity, and cut a few fences to sabatoge a few powerplants in my time...lol (former "Environut" days)
Most effective form of Protesting was getting thousands of people to agree to go off grid if the plants didn't clean up their act...that what is what worked, not a bunch of dumassed motherfucken politicians in DC that has fucked up the intent of Medicare,Social Security,Welfare and everything else they have touched and turned to shit (soon Healthcare)
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
TRAA
The plume of mercury may not be visible to the human eye. That doesn't mean it isn't there. That invisible mercury has poisoned many waterways and rendered fish unsafe to eat.
Yum-yum!
Coal troll.
pseudotruth 2 years ago
Again, where along the powerplant line does the Mercury get past water filtration,charcoal filtration,bag filtration,and chemical filtration in a modern post 1970's Coal fired plant?
watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc&feature
Stop pretending protesters liike me never changed the COal Industries standards and we are still living with Black Smoke towers raining ash for miles and creating 3 legged frogs and giving children blacklung cause it's utter bullshit
As I said before I,m a HydroKinetic avocate
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
"The largest part of the flue gas from most fossil fuel combustion is uncombusted nitrogen. The next largest part of the flue gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) which can be as much as 10 to 15 volume percent or more of the flue gas." So yea, guess those scrubbers aren't yet designed to remove CO2.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
10%- 15% of volume, not 25 tonnes of Co2 to 1 ton of COal as claimed which would be 2500% of gasses released..well, more matter comming out then going in anyway
An considering compressed Co2 is $10 a pressurised pound and used for arc weilding, gas lasers,carbonating soda,decaffinating coffee,and running pistons and gears in machines like soda Machines(Co2 punk technology) I personally think it's wasteful to went a valuable resouurse
And at 2500F? Co2 burns as a "clean fuel" itself
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
So... I guess chemistry books are all in the Global Warming Cults back pockets. For instance, balanced formula for propane combustion : C3H8 + 5 O2 -> 3CO2 + 4H2O. So in a perfect world you get CO2 and water no matter what. Please tell me how this is wrong because every chemist assumes this is true and a lot test it out. Of course in the real world you get CO2 and water and other pollutants because they use air not pure oxy. The converters convert the CO, it doesn't negate the original CO2.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
When you ASSumes you make a ASS of yourself
Chemical theory isn't a observed fact and they still need to actually burn a piece of coal in a enclosed enviroment with all the meters to prove Co2 is a major byproduct and not Heat and force...lol
Perfect combustion Chemical Theory wise= Heat,CO2,and water but in high tempature furnaces all it produces is heat and force with no fly ash and less then 14% oxygen (as in all the Carbon was consumed by the fire)
What I say is testable in the lab
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Go test it then and submit a paper... I mean, come on, you say "(as in all the Carbon was consumed by the fire)". Thats a lie. 'Force' doesn't even exist in a chemical reaction either, carbon doesn't just disappear, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
And you think that chemists don't know how chemical reactions work. Wow, almost as bad as a creationist. You are alone in your island of ignorance there.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
Combustion is a Exothermic reaction that creates heat and force
It's basic Cheemistry
watch?v=3Lwdm1Dlw2Y&feature
2:10 t0 4:15 and 6:30 to 6:50
heh,heh
I like the bombs the bombs that go boom...no "force" in that?...lol
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
As someone that protested and marched agaist the Black smoke towers it really poisses me off that half ass enviromentalist wannabes can't understand the white smoke omming out of the Coal fired powerplants is not the black low haning smoke of before the 70's that rained soot for miles and when the wind shifted comunitys got coal dust all over them like a snow storm
Post 1970's US coal plants have water injection,bag filters and,Voc reclaiming tech
US Cars now have Emission control boxes
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Lesgislation,regulations,and fines and taxation that will raise the cost of living and doing business as well as the cost of all products and services related to Oil and Coal tech (Including Solar panels,Windmills,Geothermal plants and all other alternative power whose parts are made of or need oil/coal), will" slow the warming"
Compared to what?
Follow tempature readings back to the last ICE AGE 100,000 years ago and it's a steady rise from then to now...humans aren't doing jack shit
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
Ah, I love it when someone has the answer to thier questions within the same comment. Yep, the earth has been warming at a GRADUAL pace since the last ice age, because if it hadn't we'd still be in an ice age. If that pace had continued it it might have taken thousands of years to get to the temp we are worried about getting to in less than a hundred.
Its the sudden, trend breaking, unnatural warming that we are worried about.
FierceFirefight 2 years ago
great video! I love how they guy admits it himself!
doorman360 2 years ago
"Climate... Denialism..."??? I've never denied Earth had a climate.
Nice title. BTW, if El Nino, a single water current, has such a massive effect on global temperature, how can you say anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit? Clearly, many things can alter the climate.
Oh, and, "One warm year == we're all gonna die." That's some science there, yessiree...
somercet1 2 years ago
"Clearly, many things can alter the climate."
Exactly. One of them is greenhouse gases like CO2.
And its not me that says it, it is the established science, like gravity, evolution, relativity etc. Check around.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Um....last I saw the debate was always about the rising trend and why it was and is occurring. Now it's just over the resulting effects as far as professionals are concerned.
garith21 2 years ago
somercet1
'if El Nino.., a massive effect on global temperature, how can you say anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit?'
El Nino is a redistribution of heat from the ocean to the surface waters and atmosphere, which causes warming.
The greenhouse effect, boosted by anthropogenic CO2 increases the heat trapped by the atmosphere, hence leading to increased temperatures.
See the difference?
pseudotruth 2 years ago
somercet1
"One warm year we're all gonna die"
Not one warm year. Not 100 warm years. It's +1000 warmer years
If we stop CO2 emissions now, we are COMMITTED to ADDITIONAL warming. The inertia in the system and the positive feedbacks, ARE and WILL cause natural outgassing from melting permafrosts & etc. Causing extra warming and etc
We aren't all going to die from AGW. But an unknown number in the third-world will
Is that morally acceptable?
Remember, it's our emissions that will be the cause
pseudotruth 2 years ago
I find it ironic that the same people who for years used 1998 as proof of global warming and fought against those who said it was due to a large El Nino have now embraced the El Nino argument to demonstrate that temperatures are still rising.
crackatoa 2 years ago
People that are serious about the debate made that argument where? AGW has been under discussion since before the 70's and el ninos and la ninas are known to have an affect on surface temperatures but do not have a long term temperature trend
garith21 2 years ago
You really should lower the music colume compared to the speech.. its kinda hard to hear what you are saying...
sp4zzer 2 years ago
Comment removed
pseudotruth 2 years ago
I find your videos very informative and educational. Thank you for all the work you have put into educating people on the facts of global warming.
MrYoungblood1976 2 years ago
"You are a putz."
Evidence of a powerful intellect.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Greenman has collected scientific facts and presented them in a format that appeals to Joe Plummer. Bravo!
By the way, this years aug and sept arctic ice extent is the 3rd worst ever. I just can't stomach people that claim it is growing.
We are at something like 530,000 square miles less ice than the average from 15 years ago. This area is now absorbing heat at a higher rate than when it was covered by ice. This is not good.
petwir 2 years ago
Hello! Are you really going to get your facts from a cartoonist and a devotee of a failed American politician?
Loki431 2 years ago
I like the new tack the denialists are taking: we can't trust science because of the motivation of the scientists. Motivation is the weakest form of argumentation, and is generally considered a logical fallacy. If we can't trust the scientists because of their motivation, then we can't trust those questioning them for the same reason.
phthenry 2 years ago
I've been trying to put my finger on exactly what is wrong with 'dark forces' arguments for ages. They're in very wide currency in every field of research, knowledge and inquiry. I've come close to getting to the core reason but never explicitly stated it.
And right there you've summarized it in your final sentence. Nicely put!
lystellion 2 years ago
sounds like Christo is a paid shill for AGW. The ice extent grew this year in the Artic, Why not try using real data from a real non grant receiving study. Still there is no model that works, therefore science about AGW has proven itself wrong, Back to the drawing board whiners.
lgbluray 2 years ago
>>The ice extent grew this year in the Artic,
No it didn't. I would at least expect you to back up your claims.
I also like the new tack of the deniers: we can't trust any scientific studies, because the scientists have certain motivations. Motivation is the weakest form of argumentation and is generally considered a logical fallacy. If the scientists arguments can't be taken seriously because of some motivation, than either can those arguing against them for the same reason.
phthenry 2 years ago
It extended on one side and melted on the other, but the ratio of melting is much higher than what was gained on the other. In conclusion, it ididn't grow.
truvelocity 2 years ago
"the ice extent grew"
not according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
If you go to their site, google "nsidc", you will see that current ice extent is well below the average range for 1979-2000.
It's perfectly clear, if you are willing to look.
greenman3610 2 years ago
Yeah, if anyone disagrees with you, they must be being paid and part of a big conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be because I heard both sides of the argument and decided that I trusted scientists over politicians and lay people. I was a denier at one point, but eventually the evidence and science became overwhelming.
If we don't act NOW, do you know what we are going to get? Geo-engineering! I'll take reduced co2 emissions over Geo-engineering any day of the week!
christo930 2 years ago
Peter's the MAN!!! That video was devistating!! I'm so glad you're on our side!!
MondoLeStraka 2 years ago
the rest of you are going to have to wait. I have actual work to do.
I cant just sit in moms basement and worry about the world like some of you warmies.
msqtube 2 years ago
Love the last clip of Michaels,
"Global warming is real...and people have something to do with it...now GET OVER IT!"
I wonder what inane logic followed so that he wouldn't be booted from the room.
UWrosesdawg 2 years ago
Fantastic job, those clips of Pat Michaels are amazing! "Now get over it!!" :)
rileannas 2 years ago
Excellent video - as usual.
The desperation of climate change deniers is actually rather sad. They seem like they must believe that nothing is amiss so they can continue their extravagant lifestyles.
proudfootz 2 years ago
It really isn't about their lifestyles. We can all live decent lives without destroying the planet.
They hate the very idea that there is something other than themselves that they should be concerned about.
A psychology student could have a field day following up on some of the postings here.
greenman3610 2 years ago
I agree we can all live decent lives without destroying the planet.
However, in my opinion, it is the destructive lifestyles which are contributing to climate change and the need for massive change in how things are done (food production, pollution, trade, transportation, energy, etc) is apparent.
They don't want to admit that the way they live is a problem, and that therefore they must change what they're doing to avert disaster.
proudfootz 2 years ago
If dealing with warming meant that we had to degrade people's standard of living, we should give up now, because you'll never convince people to do that. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, as greenman states above. We can continue our, "extravagant lifestyles," in ways that don't contribute to warming.
What disturbs me more is that you consider a high standard of living to be a bad thing. Shouldn't we want everyone to have a high standard of living?
mrdowns 2 years ago
mrdow -
I never said a 'high' standard of living was bad, nor did I say anything about 'degrading' people's standards of living.
But it only makes sense to live within our means. The wasteful and destructive behavior indulged in by many people is just plain stupid.
So let's just say I think stupid behavior must change.
proudfootz 2 years ago
maybe I don't understand well enough - can you give an example of an extravagant lifestyle that you think contributes to global warming and therefore must end?
I agree that it only makes sense to live within our means, and that living beyond our means brings with it problems in the long run, although none that I'm thinking of have to do with global warming.
But think about it this way: if our quality of life continues to rise, things that are now extravagant will soon be ordinary.
mrdowns 2 years ago