Al Gore and David Suzuki lie about co2. It is 600% less effect then claimed.

[jaymzbeesez]

Polar Bears survive just fine and enjoy the warmer temperatures? Reading people's ignorant comments on this clip is outrageous! If you don't think this silver-spooned Thatcheteer is a complete nut-job, check out his ludicrous comments on AIDS. If his kid got AIDS from tainted blood at a hospital would he really be suggesting they quarantine his child forever? I'm just grateful he's no real threat and that most and people can see he's a hack. I'd love to see him and David Suzuki debate!

[sumstuff46]

Fuck co2, Methane will be the new culprit

[sumstuff46]

David Suzuki IS a fraud, paid by the rich corps, i emailed him several times in the past several years about chemtrailing (geo-engineering) and got no reply, he also believes in global warming fraud, Suzuki is a DIVERSION, the Canadians think he is a Science GOD, sad :(

[MikeSchinkel]

Who'd I rather believe regarding global warning? 3146 degreed earth scientists (bit.ly 9ESmFl), or a conservative politician (bit.ly mX1WIc) with no science background and a history of being controversial? Oh yeah, must be the latter because that's who Sarah Palin believes.

Morons.

[mastakur]

hm dunno I have masters in Antropology(myths and religion) but ok mb I don't know .

[themusmag]

i've given this careful consideration with a rational mind and have concluded....... this bloke is a fucking clown

[Albertkallal]

You're going to have to explain to everybody here in an intelligent fashion what it was that was stated in this video that you disagree with, else you just here to make ad Hominem attacks. Worse it's always been my experience that someone who is intellectually bankrupt is usually left wing socialist coming here with a propaganda and agenda and thus avoids any intelligent debate when they've lost the argument. In other words you have nothing to state what was wrong in this video or stated then?

[myjizzureye]

@Albertkallal The guy claimed to be a science adviser for Thatcher, he was not, he claimed to have published peer reviewed papers, he has not, he has made the statement that he has cured aids, MS and cancer......take a wild guess if you think those things have a basis in fact....

[MikeSchinkel]

@Albertkallal Seems you are the pot calling the kettle black in terms of ad hominem attacks. If you want civil debate, you might want to try leading by example.

[anderwan]

@Albertkallal As long as you have this idea in your head that everyone who understands the science is a left wingnut, you're not going to believe the science; you're oversensitized & judging by association.

Anyway, the Vatican, John McCain, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem to trust the scientists on this, so it's not the left wingnuts. Who's nuttier?

He says he's a lord, with the Parly seal on his papers..he's not. He's been made a fool of numerously by his own words..

[Albertkallal]

@anderwan Actually I just saying these people are dishonest and throwing out good science in the name of an agenda. Even more funny is you trying to tell me that McCain is somehow conservative or even any different than Obama (he is probably worse). And then the laughable command about the Vatican which is so corrupt and rotten to the core right now that they are likely worse to run the country than if Obama and McCain were to win the next election as running mates.

[Albertkallal]

@anderwan As for Monckton's title of Lord? Sorry that is his rightful title.

[jeffms2]

@themusmag So you're stupid!

[iwantliberty1]

The models are broken, the data has been altered and not gathered correctly. It never was about the science. For the first time in history politicians can claim that only they can save the world. Only the Pharaohs and Kings of yore claimed that divine ability. Of course, as the Algoracle said, some will get rich, but that's Ok. Indeed.

[GuerillaReporter]

Garbage in = garbage out!!

[OneMove33]

...what did he do to his head?

[Blackgeoff1]

CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. Water vapour is the principal greenhouse gas. Global warming is related to solar activity; the world is not currently warming. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants gow. Human activity contributes little to the CO2 content - though CO2 paranoia is a great spawning ground for new industries and more taxes. Gore and Suzuki are phonies.

[AtomSmash3r]

@Blackgeoff1 Water vapour is the principal greenhouse gas but water vapour is the principle feedback mechanism that magnifies the heating effect of CO2, global average humidity levels are a function of global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures. So small increases in surface temperature due to CO2 are magnified, as they cause more evaporation and higher water vapour levels.

[uknowispeaksense]

@Blackgeoff1 actually, in situ field trials simulating higher CO2 along with expected altered rainfall patterns and increased temperature have shown increased nitrification in the soil, increased susceptibility to pests, decreased fertility and decreased yields in 5 of the 6 most important food crops. Simplistic "more CO2=better plants" is childish rubbish and has been demonstrated time and time again to only work in controlled chamber experiments, not the real world. educate yourself.

[mr230889]

holy shit that guy's eyes are fucking scary

[fredkeys]

@oropherfelegund I'm sorry there's been a bit of a mistake here. You've got me confused with someone who gives a f**k what you think.

[fredkeys]

"The truth is global warming isn't a problem." He's right, for the planet, for nature it's absolutely not a problem. Been there, done that, recovered after a few billion years. As for homo sapiens? Well, we're screwed. Especially with people like him peddling this pseudo-science. And why do they do it? Simple....no money in eco-politics, so why bother. Lets keep the gravy train running and fuck the consequences.

Is it going tits-up? Ask the Bangladeshis, or the Brazilians...

[Albertkallal]

Why not lookup up what % of the air is co2? Then ask of nature co2 what % is mans? Then ask why in the past we have higher levels of co2 and colder temperatures. And then ask in the past how we had lower co2 levels and higher temperatures then today? The fish and polar bears survived just fine. Man's co2 is not a problem and is not driving temperatures as claimed by the fraudsters at the IPCC. This winter seen cold temperatures in Europe and Pacific hurricanes are at a 30 year low.

[myjizzureye]

@Albertkallal Oh and the sheer spastic level of "what % is it" is mind boggling. What % of your blood needs to be snake venom to kill you. Water is a naturally occurring element that we all need to live but if you drink 10 liters it will kill you.

[matferreira133]

@Albertkallal you are a complete and total idiot

[Albertkallal]

Some real science and math based refuting words but as always your best shot is ad hominem. Climate gate 2.0 emails show even MORE disgusting behavior by these clowns than the first batch. And most damming is ZERO complaints from your side as to these so called "scientists" behavior as being ok. Even corrupt banking community tossed Madof under the bus but you folks cannot do the same with Gore. These fraudsters must start correcting their errors to restore some once of respect.

[matferreira133]

@Albertkallal we just saw our first snow in montreal CANADA, december 8th, in case you didn't know, that's not normal

[TheRightOffensive]

@matferreira133 It isn't normal. Actually, it's not typical but it is 'normal'. It's the same in Alberta where we are standing outside, nearing the middle of January, at +10 and not a snowflake to be found. But this isn't from Global Warming and not even 'Global Warming Alarmists' say that either. This is (x-number of factors) and here is the thing: It is 'normal' we do meet 'extremes' one way or the other. In the same way last winter was BRUTAL in Southern Alberta.

[oropherfelegund]

@fredkeys Ok, first, I think Homo Sapiens are more than capable of handling a minor change in temperature. Second, the people that started this whole idea are the ones peddling pseudo-science, and they did it quick enough to ingrain this idea of global warming into the common mind before any checks could be made. Third, no money in eco-politics? Are you serious? After this thing blew out of control, movies were made and sold, and the shelves are stocked with overpriced "eco friendly" crap.

[mastakur]

@fredkeys dude he is a lord ! ha you have no idea the knowege people like can get is far beyond mainstreamsience

[myjizzureye]

@mastakur Um....you do know what a lord is right........because I dont think you know what that word means....

[MrApplewine]

This video explains the core of the error as I've heard it explained so far in books as well.

[metalkillsbunnys]

38 people just stuck their head in a barrel of gasoline and wont listen to reason

[shackle5]

Al Gore is utterly, utterly corrupt.

[ReasonGuysCopyright]

@shackle5 even so... does his being corrupt, make global warming false?

If I supported a political candidate, and then you found out that I killed 10,000 people and raped hundreds, would that make the political candidate I support, and wrong choice?

To say yes, is to proclaim a fallacy as factual.

[poomanonfire]

Global warming denialists are like a mix between conspiracists and creationists. They like pretending they know more than mainstream people and they like ignoring or distorting science.

[Albertkallal]

So you are the one that going to pick and choose the authority we listen to then? Since when did you become the all seeing all knowing authority and judge on this subject? So you are just here to help us pick the authority YOU want us to submit to. Is that authority a place with stained glass or an institution with white lab coats? So if you agree with an authority we are submit to it and if you don’t agree with that authority we don’t submit to that authority? Your hypocrisy is well noted.

[poomanonfire]

@Albertkallal Yes I am the one who decides what authority we listen to. No if only it was that easy. I guess the authority you would rather listen to when it comes to scientific matters is politicians. I'd rather listen to people who dedicate their life to finding objective truth rather than people who dedicate their life to being elected.

[Albertkallal]

It was not CRU, IPCC, NASA that found mistake for the warmest year in North America but a blogger. NONE of supposed peer reviewed Organizations corrected the IPPC claim in the Himalayan fiasco where the ice melt was not due to co2. I had to go to a conservative blog by Lord Monckton to find 30+ errors in Al Gore’s movie of which the science community you asking me to blind accept HAS NOT pointed out the errors. These people are choosing political correctness over Objective truth and science.

[poomanonfire]

@Albertkallal Scientists aren't asking you to do anything. They just publish their results. Its easy for people to look for conservative blogs that distorts research so that they can reinforce their own comfortable idea. This way people can choose what they learn. Its not easy for the same people to view blogs that gives evidence agaist what they want to believe. All the time I see people spouting myths on blogs about GW when there are videos of those myths being rebutted.

[Albertkallal]

Yes their science is being used to set government policy. And I am taking about gross errors in Gore’s movie that the science community refuses to correct. Fraudulent science such as the hockey stick graph was used by EVERY SINGLE government to justify increased business taxes and more socialist control of people and regulation of policy by a new carbon tax system. So their biased research is being used to set government policies and also provide MORE funding for their research.

[poomanonfire]

@Albertkallal Oh ok if you are talking about the policy makers then I don't care. In fact my old chemistry teacher in college was complaining about carbon tax saying it wont make a difference because he still has to drive the same distance to work. Ive never watched Gore's movie and I don't know much about him only that Americans think he invented GW. Maybe that's why you are so skeptical of GW because you only hear the evidence from a politician.

[prikhod]

@poomanonfire: Your cause is dead... deal with it, eco-fascist!

[poomanonfire]

@prikhod Obvious troll.

[prikhod]

@poomanonfire: google "global warming poll gallup" #1 result. As I said, your fraudulent cause is DEAD, deal with it, eco-fascist!

[poomanonfire]

@prikhod Oh wow you are serious. Enjoy your perceived superiority over us mainstream people. 

[anarchore]

That Bronfman funded stooge David Suzuki was on CBC radio again today with his climate change CO2 BS... like the DOA song says, "the only thing green is the colour of their money"

[cindyns1]

stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabr­aham/

[cindyns1]

That Damn English man better come to the far north in Canada and see the bloody hell that is happening. a polictican and Michael Coren oh wonderful, the ice melting, the glacier is almost gone, the wild life is suffering and the water is raising. 1% of the world's animals like the Polar bears and the seals yeah ok let man command the balance of nature. i see the destruction not just read who i think knows "more then anyone else in the world. give me a break you moron

[anarchore]

@cindyns1 the Polar bears and seals will be fine. Stop buying the emotional hype. Suzuki has Bronfmans sitting on the board of his foundation, need I say more?

[JuttSant]

Real sad. Keep using your lizard brains and carrying on. May you one day no longer seek out this type of rubbish. May you all one day be enlightened with the truth. May you one day be a brother, and abandon your role as cynic of the truth in all its forms. God bless you brothers and sisters.

[spernoadversa]

Has anyone looked at the " hockey stick graph "? If you see the temperatures from 1980 - 2004 , there seems to be a huge increase in global temperatures. This is obviously false. There is no way you can tell me that temperatures throughout the centuries have never been higher than today. I think saying that this decade's temperatures are the highest ever is a very weak argument.

[trbbb]

[citations missing]

[illuminated775]

that dudes eyes look fake wtf

[Albertkallal]

I love the intellectual comments from the lefts and the intellectually bankrupt socialists here. Is that your best rebuttal to this issue? I am not one bit surprised that all you can come up with is an personal ad hominem attack comment devoid of any reason or logic or science. I was hoping you would comment on the actual content of the video but I guess that beyond your mental capacity. . And you wonder why public support for this global warming BS is falling to a all time low.

[illuminated775]

@Albertkallal i no enough i didnt feel like commenting further on something that cleary is a crock a shit so keep your intellectual comments to your self i dont have to talk like a professor to know as much our more than you p.s his eyes are wierd looking deal with it jesus your bored the earth is going to do what it needs to if that means getting rid of us thats what it will do

[Albertkallal]

You green whack jobs are always asking us to talk about the science and the data. When we post science that dont agree with you and with socialists like Al Gores who pushing for carbon taxes to take money away from people and redistribution that wealth in grand socialist fashion, you now drop all method of reason and intellect and the best comment you have for AGW and this science is about how his eyes look funny? Comments devoid of any reason explains why your side is loosing the AGW debate.

[NormaJe4n]

"his eyes are wierd looking "

Well, there you have it. His eyes are weird-looking, therefore global warming is real, and we`re all going to die. Or in other terms: IF this guys eyes are weird-looking, global warming is real, and we`re all going to die (if P, then Q, P Q). The shape of science in a post-teachers-knew-what-they-w­ere-doing-world. Case closed...;o)

[MSH786]

hahahaha! that's exactly what i was thinking

[TormentedStatue]

climate change is retarded tell me why all the planets are warming its because the medieval warming period and solar flare activity. we are barely doing anything to the warming of the planet and there wil be another ice age its a fact cant change it and you cant debunk what I said because its true but we still need to change our ways and stop polluting and be better people and treat eachother with respect and love ^^

[ty1on77]

Professor Lemur Eyes is on the take.

[ChristiansMustLearn]

calm down. relax. theres no reasonable scientist including non-believers like Richard Lindzen who deny a longer warming trend thats been going on for over 300 years and had increased sharply in 60's - 90's approx.

Yes it has remained steady or decreased since 95 but the broader trend over the past 100 yrs is warming.

[ChristiansMustLearn]

all that sounds like science that is unsettled to some extent when taken alongside othe recent climate gate emails. I dont believe public policy affecting the lives of BILLIONS of people should rely on shaky politically directed science.

[Albertkallal]

The current weather is not unusual at all historically. Global cooling occurred from 1945 to 1975 with massive amounts of CO2 increasing. If you remove urban heat effect from the temperature data you again dont see a warming trend as claimed. Just three days Dr. Phil Jones head of the CRU stated that theres been no statistical warming since 1995! Most climate research has been a litany of manipulated data and biased reporting to secure funding. Just read up on climate gate.

[Albertkallal]

The whole crux of this debate is all around mans CO2 diving the current world temperatures. And temperatures are not increasing right now. If your are aware of the climate gate emails, Dr. Phil Jones the head of that world climate research center actually admitted three days ago that the medieval warming period was likely global, and was likely as warm or warmer then it is today. In other words the weather we see is not unusual and the science does not show that were causing this warm weather

[AmpegV4]

I am in Ottawa too as a matter of fact. When I was a boy, I can remember skating on the outdoor rinks, EVERY night from December until about March. It was bitterly cold all the time and that kind of weather was perfect for hockey. So I specifically remember that. NOW, try and get an outdoor rink happening for any length of time...it not even worth the cities money putting up the board anymore because they are never open !! I can not stand the people that deny that this is happening, STUPID!

[ChristiansMustLearn]

no one is denying the warming what we question is the cause.We're saying that carbon wasnt present for any other significant warming in world history as the driver and therefore question why there's been a rush to blame carbon now. Thats it. Period. Yes carbon does trap heat as do several other gases but the greatest green house trap is water itself. why not the rush to ban water? We're also questioning why certain elements in finance and governments r pushing the anti CO2 agenda. Thats it.

[ChristiansMustLearn]

@black11235813 but because there is warming it doesnt necessarily mean that carbon is the culprit and neither does it prove that carbon is responsible to the degree that the East Anglia/ World Bank/ UN/ IMF/ Goldman Sachs cult would like to portray

[videocruzer]

info wars being shut down because of the information.

find out what you can before its turned off

[Skydancer365]

P.S. Lord Monckton doesn't know what he's talking about!

[Albertkallal]

Actually the study that Lord Monckton quotes is extremely significant. In fact I think that study pretty much puts the nail in the numbers that the IPCC are claiming to are way out of whack. Co2 output is simply not a problem we have to worry about, this new study by Litzen from MIT is going to put a big hole in the numbers of AGW.

[Skydancer365]

Oh yes, mention David Suzuki and all your buddies "know" that it's wrong!

[STEVEDIGIBOYtv]

Because his salary is paid by corporations? or because it is still ok to hunt and kill polar bears for $750.?

You are the ignorant afraid one ridiculing video posts for a hobby.

[Pomme843]

His argumentation seems full of holes to me. But here's a thought. Let's say human made global warming is a lie, and that a few degrees warming is not too harmful for Earth's life. Let's say we contrary to this fact lower co2 emissions to, say, 30% of level 1990 and let the West pay the 3rd world for any environmental damage ever done to it, because we don't know that lowering emissions don't provide benefits. So what? Will it really hurt anyone? Look up Gro Harlem Brundtland, Føre var

[Albertkallal]

We didn't need a tax on lead to remove it from gasoline. We didn't a taxes on dioxides for pulp mills to remove it from water discharging. Copenhagen was not science but only pigs at the trough tying to divide up money. The last thing economy needs is more socialism + taxes. Why give billions of Dollars and lose even more manufacturing jobs for a lie? Al Gore is on the Board of Directors of a carbon trading company. You also mention the video is full of holes, what holes are you talking about?

[Pomme843]

@Albertkallal Okay, "full" is an exag., but he gently skips all the compelling theories concerning glacial melting causing recused reflection of radiation and so on. All his figures are on the other extreme of UN, warmer is probably not better than stability for the climate, and I don't see why radiation escape would be proportionate with reduced warming. If the UN reckons a 1% Earth emission, and it's actually a 6% escape, then the overall radiation escape is 94%, right? Am I missing something?

[Albertkallal]

We seen global cooling for st eight years now and last year less ice melted than the year before (that means ice is growing). With record cold weather this year all the numbers point to less ice will melt again. In 1814 an British Admiral noted unexpected melting of ice in northern areas which allowed navigation and opening of new trade routes. We are seeing ice recover and there absolutely nothing unusual about the ice melt. In Greenland they used to grow crops were we now see permafrost.

[Albertkallal]

Also you mention he doesn't speak about ice, he most certainly does speak about ice in this interview and I shall post that part. However, the debate and point here is that Gore and Suzuki claims as to how co2 traps energy is shown to be wrong. In other words they're lying and deceitful. For the last eight years we see global cooling, yet we see co2 continuing to increase, and neither of these bozos have an explanation for this halt in warming.

[Albertkallal]

No claim of an equal increase in outgoing radiation is being made (that not a reasonable claim). If that was claim how could there be any warming if the outgoing radiation increased at the same amount as the increase? The Statement of claim is that if temperatures increase, there will be an increase in outgoing radiation. Nothing more of an claim is being made here. This is a simple statement being made. This statement is important because measuring outgoing radiation increase shows co2 not bad.

[Pomme843]

@Albertkallal Fossil fuel combustion is anyhow quite pollutive, and although alot of people undeniably profit from the green trend, and the whole thing may be a scare, as the lord puts it, not cutting emissions seems like a morbid 5-bullet russian roulette because there's just too much on stake here. I also think the assumed crisis would be a good opportunity to rearrange global econimic dynamics that holds people down(, although this debate should not get too ideological.) Good talking to you.

[MHuwCarr]

A little point to bare in mind. When politicians pretend to be scientists - be skeptical. I prefer the opinion of scientists to political spin-doctors like this one. Take a look at this guy's credentials and you'll see this for what it is!

[Albertkallal]

You bet my spider sense turns on when people in purple smocks or in this case white smocks say trust me and make an act of blind faith. The leaked CRU emails most certainly show we can't trust these pigs at the trough. As for credentials? Who is the scumbag Al Gore? And why does Al Gore get such a free go pass jail card for lying so much? The leaked CRU emails shows that those Scientists and Al Gore are truly birds of feather. Lord Monckton is quoting work by Litzen from MIT if your wondering.

[callilax]

Talking about conflict of interest, this guy is a politician who's arguing against public spending towards climate change issues. I can find at least three major flaws in his argument. First, earth atmosphere works like a thermo kettle. Heat is kept in hence not released when Earth gets warmer. It is this particular property that provides the environment to support life in the first place. If Earth looses heat like he claims Earth would look very much like Mars right now.

[Albertkallal]

Learn to listen. Monckton said if the surface temperature of the earth increases, then outgoing radiation also will increase. The only logical answer here is yes. Somehow this logic escapes you? Why would not the outgoing radiation increase in response to an increase in surface temperatures? The Litzen study correlated increase in surface temperatures to that of outgoing radiation measured by a satellite in orbit. The result shows 6 times more energy escaping then claimed by the IPCC.

[Albertkallal]

Remember, even assuming a gas trapping more heat and causing the earth's surface to rise, there will STILL be a rise in outgoing radiation. So with increasing surface temperatures, that's going to cause a corresponding increase in outgoing radiation, it might not be a one to one ratio, but there will still be an increase. Any other reasoning here is not logical on your part. So with increased surface temperatures, there is increased outgoing radiation.

[callilax]

Assuming 10 units of heat are reflected by Earth, 8 units are usually absorbed by CO2 and 2 units escapes. Now with more CO2, 9 units are absorbed which means the amount that leaves is 1 unit. The other 1 unit that is absorbed is responsible for the additional heating of the Earth. However, whatever the case is, the additional heating released into space cannot be more than that 1 unit just because of conservation of energy. So in the end, the total energy escaped cannot be more than 2 units.

[Albertkallal]

Who the hell is claiming it is more then 1 unit? What was stated CLEARLY here is that increased temperatures are going to result in an increase of outgoing radiation. No CLAIM was made it was going to be 1 to 1. It is a rather simple statement that increasing temperatures results in increasing outgoing radiation. For some bizarre and unknown reason you can't seem to grasp this simple grade school concept. If you can't admit this is the case then you can't possible understand anything said here.

[callilax]

Also, that 1 additional unit of heating cannot be perfectly emitted because it is transformed into other forms such as melting glacier. It also cannot be perfectly emitted because of "specific heat capacity" which means heat is absorbed without increase in temperature but the breaking of chemical bonds. So less than 2 units actually escapes. Politician's understanding of physics is often limited. If you assume scientific results can be false, then the MIT one can be false as well.

[callilax]

It's also funny how this politician talks about fundamental physics without understanding the conservation of energy himself.

[Albertkallal]

So you still going to stand here an not agree that increasing temperatures will not result in increasing outgoing radiation of energy? Why is this simple grade school concept so difficult for you to grasp and understand here? What part of this don't you understand? It quite a simple concept but again you fail to grasp this. Can you not grasp this simple concept? If you can't grasp this simple concept then how can you understand anything said here?

[callilax]

What I am saying is simple. Let's make the total emitted from Earth surface A. So A is what the earth usually sends out into atmosphere. Now, part of A is absorbed by the atmosphere (B) and the other part goes into the outer space (C). So I just described greenhouse effect and C is what is the focus of the debate here. Now, additional absorption (D) due to CO2 makes the NEW total absorbed amount by the atmosphere E which is basically B + D.

[jmcanuck3300]

@callilax Your math is fine, but the point is missed I think. My take of the video is that with CO2 concentrations increasing, earth's temperature will warm (I do not see he tape arguing against that). The issue the chap in the video seems to argue is that the IPCC models assume that radiation into space does not increase but declines with global warming. This will overstate global warming (which is what the video states).

[Albertkallal]

The problem is he didn't miss the point. If that person smart enough to outline the math as done, they also smart enough to understand what's being stated in the video. Just like the climate-gate leaked emails, we see that people like this are lying scum bags. So that person knows 100% what is being stated, and despite me having corrected and explain this to him several times, the person came back and continue to post the same garbage. This person does not seek nor care about the truth.

[callilax]

Where does D come from? This is the key question. D does not come from additional input because there is none (input from sun remains the same). It can only come from part of C. The new amount that gets into outerspace is now G which is less than C (C=D+G). Now, the D is used to heat up Earth more and part of which gets re-emitted as heat into the outerspace as H. So at this point what we see in outerspace is G+H. If you dont get this you need to learn more math.

[Albertkallal]

We all get your simple grade 2 school math. No disagreeing here. What we don't get is your public lying about what's being stated in the video. Again no one's making the claim that the increase in outgoing radiation is equal to that the increased temperatures. In fact if that was the claim, then how would you get an increase in the earth's temperature then? Again please simple answer the question of will we not see an increase in outgoing radiation? (again not an equal increase). This is simple!

[callilax]

Now, if C=D+G, the only case G+H>C(as you and the politician claims to be the case) is if H is greater than D. This first of all is impossible because even 100% efficient thermal transfer would only make D=H. H cannot be greater than D because it comes from D.

[Albertkallal]

No he not claiming the outgoing increase is equal. (are you being that stupid or what?). What is it about people like you to refuse to read and then answer simple question. If the earth temperature increases, then do you agree we will see an increase in outgoing radiation? Again NO ONE HERE EVER was claiming the increased outgoing is equal to the increase in earth's temperature. The claim in an increase (not equal) So again, why not just answer yes or no to this question? Please answer yes or no

[callilax]

Now, H cannot even be equal to D because no system of heat transfer is 100% efficient. This is because heat is used not only to increase surface temperature but also breaking chemical bonds. This is responsible for specific heat and melting and boiling points of materials. Since part of D is used to do these things among other things, the amount that eventually increases surface temperature and emits as H makes H less than D. Therefore, G+H can ONLY be < C, never greater.

[callilax]

By the way, I was expecting a better counter from you. It is apparent that all you can do is insult those who doesn't agree with you. But since I was school number 1 in physics and math contests you will need a lot of more than this to actually insult me. Maybe you should get someone to translate for you what I just said. Maybe you should ask your politician friend.

[Albertkallal]

Again you can't be this stupid. The video is not claiming that there will be an equal increase in outgoing radiation. In fact that's a ridiculous claim and anybody with a functioning brain would not make such a claim. For you to stand here and misrepresent what's being claimed here makes you a public lying spin person just like Al Gore who lies in public all the time. Why are you standing here and lying about the claim of an equally increase in outgoing radiation? No one made that claim!

[callilax]

Secondly, he actually said "a little bit of warming is good for life on Earth". That's such a subjective non-scientific point of view. Climate change is causing glacier to melt which is the habitat for numerous land and marine organisms including the polar bears.

[Albertkallal]

Right, so Warming being harmful is not subjective, but warming being good is subjective? In past history Man has always benefited from warming as compared to cooling in terms of prosperity and the ability to grow food. Furthermore the medieval warm period was warmer than it is now. So past history actually supports warmer being better. So why then are current temperatures any kind of Historic problem?

[callilax]

Really? Warmer is good for humans? Check again. China, one of the largest food producers in the world is experiencing warmer winters and more flooding in the summer which means more flooded farm lands and more pests to survive through the winter. Warmer doesn't mean better.

[callilax]

Thirdly, he claims that people like Al Gore are making money off the scare of global warming. True. But reality is that admitting the consequences of climate change would adversely affect the practice of so many other industries that produce carbon emissions. So which is the stronger driving force? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he has friends that belong in the latter category.

[1ToNJaB]

If global warming isnt the prob, what about localized smog in cities. I can see it, taste and even touch it.... there for it is real. It might not harm the Earth too bad, but it is harming humans in the city.

[gambitrocks]

I didn't know or think about the unintended consequences. Thanks for clearing that up.

I really wish that the world could be in better shape today.

[gambitrocks]

I don't get it, the global warming issue has done positive things. It's making people more alert and environmentally friendly. We should do everything possible to reduce pollution whether these e-mails are real or not.

[yavanna1969]

It all comes down to money. They want to start a world goverment based on this scam and a new carbon tax which will effectively milk us for yet more dosh. Where will the dosh go - allegedly to the poorer countries which effectively means the banks will be able to get their payments for 3rd world debts. Who wins? Its a continuation of a control system. What we need is honest science putting our resources where it is needed most. Hope that helps. Hard to fit it all into this tiny box :)

[TIGDIF]

no one is saying that we should not stop raping the earth, but these people are using a natural cycle of the Earth and making billions upon billions of $£$£$£$ from it and make everyones life a lot more stressfull and nearly half of your wage would go to the Banksters. . .a per usual.

[Tiberiusduck]

Dr. David Suzuki A.K.A. Dr. Doom

is Canada's Biggest Douche Bag !!!

[brwnipoints]

@Tiberiusduck he and Maurice Strong are bigger discraces to Canada than Justin Bieber!

[Tiberiusduck]

@brwnipoints TOUCHE !!!!!!!! : ) HAHAHAH

[TheSkepticThinker]

Of course, if science actually showed us that the current IPCC projections of climate sensitivity are off by 600%, then this would be very good news for planet Earth. Unfortunately, reality is not like this.

Unfortunately, the scientific paper presented here has been solidly debunked by climate scientists, including fierce critisism by Dr. Lindzen's long time ally Dr. Roy Spencer. Google "Lindzen and Choi" for all the gory details, including a (deliberate?) falsification of a formula.

[Albertkallal]

I don't know what study you're talking about, but we're talking about the correlation of increased surface temperatures, and then the increased in outgoing radiation measured by the satellite. There is absolutely zero, I repeat zero disagreement in those numbers given by the satellite data and the correlation between an increase in surface temperatures and that increased energy and radiation measured by the satellite. NO, NO NO, this Information has not been debunked and is not under dispute.

[WinterBot7877]

The main problem is that Monckton presents Lindzen's work in the video as if it were the gospel truth, when in fact it is highly disputed and Lindzen's position is a minority one. The average viewer is completely unaware of this, and thinks that the global warming story is a hoax and Al Gore must be a liar- which is Monckton's intention. This is political warfare disguised as science.

[thatstheguy07]

highly disputed by who, the goofs spewing the global warming lies? that whole camp? lol

[WinterBot7877]

Just check your facts first. Monckton is a politician with a program. Lindzen's 2009 paper was proven to be wrong within days of his announcing it. He used the wrong data and got completely the wrong results, but that doesn't bother Monckton.

[DavidRaulPeterson]

Although this man appears to know what he's talking about he hasn't a clue- the charcteristic emission level is not 'in space' and he seems to be forgeting the basic 'greenhouse effect' -with a hotter earth, more longwave radiation will be emitted from the earths surface but as there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere these longwaves will be reflected back towards the earth leading to more warming. Simple. Don't be fooled by his pompus manner, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Albertkallal]

Sorry he knows exactly what he is talking about and the Litzen study from MIT he quotes is right on the money. Also you should learn to read and improve your comprehension. He NEVER EVER CLAIMS that less long waves will be reflected back to earth. (please tell at what time line he says that?). He said that with any surface warming and an increase in earth tempature MORE energy will escape into outer space and you cant deny that (but, the IPCC does!).

[DavidRaulPeterson]

I have read a large amount on this field as i have recently completed a docterate on climate physics. Saying things like you can't deny that is pointless and i find the whole debating over whos 'lying' and whos 'more right' a waste of time. It is known that climate models are very inaccurate due to problems of trying to represent a vast miriad of interrelating factors over a global scale. Nobody can deny, however,

[DavidRaulPeterson]

that climate change is occuring (key point being the correlation between temperature and CO2), but there are masses of uncertainties and if you look at the huge amount of studies that all conflict/contradict you can see the complexity of the issue and the reason i find the title of this video a problem. I just don't think that the depiciton of climate change as anything other that an extremely important issue is in anyone's best interests. No offence intended.

[Albertkallal]

I asked you cite a what timeline in this video where he states or ignored the greenhouse effect? Youve come back with a bunch of stuff thats completely to unanswerable to the question I asked. When people start a discussion like youre doing right now, I have to think that youre either completely ignorant, or you have no desire to have a real debate and seek the truth. To redeem yourself here you have to answer this question and point out where he ignored the greenhouse effect. Please answer.

[Albertkallal]

If you not interested in a discussion of whos more right, then why are you coming into the discussion here and telling me that hes making incorrect statements? You going to stand here and have one set of rules apply to what he says, and then that same set of rules is not going to apply to you? If your rule is to point out what you see wrong here, then the same rules are going to be applied to you. So dont make a FALSE claim that he ignores the greenhouse effect unless you can back that up.

[order9066]

5 stars!