Constant references to "Al Gore" this, "Al Gore" that reveal that the people making the references are ignoring the total body of science. Gore is just a volunteer spokesman. He doesn't "own" the issue.
But Gore was instrumental in blocking Reagan from de-funding the CO2 measurement project of Charles Keeling. He's done good, despite his reputation of repeating the prognosis too much. Many people screen out bad news if they get inundated with it, but what else can be done, with so much apathy?
How can someone NOT understand that global warming is happening. Sun light comes from the sun to the earth. It hits the earth and is reflected out in the atmosphere again. CO2 holds the heat after it reflects on the earth. that means the more CO2 you get, the more heat will be contained. Its so fucking simple.
@gulbirk Your comment is an example of a disconnect between climate change believers and skeptics. Throwing aside what the people on tv say, we KNOW how the greenhouse effect works. The reason people are skeptical of global warming is because the problem IS NOT as simple as earth + CO2 = hot. The evidence isn't clear, especially when looking at the temp records for the last 800,000 years, the earth IS SUPPOSED to be getting hotter right now. I am just not certain that it's a big problem.
@PirateOfTheInternet The earth IS getting hotter right now, if you ask any serious scientists. In fact, its been getting hotter for quite some time. Of course the problem is not that simple. There are many variables taken into account when they make statements of what causes temperature increase. And greenhouse gasses are one of those variables, and its the only hypothesis that can stand critisism. All others have been debunked.
@phantomscolts2 You're mostly right, but global warming as they say (lying) doesn't exist. The problem however, the secret version you submit is the one they want YOU to pay for while focusing on toilet paper rations. Why pay for it or be an activist if the solution can't exist yet? Should we plant some trees maybe? The only good thing that came from this is we now know who's a fool and who's not. When I start a business I'll make the most money off Al Gore's followers by comparison.
FOX is owned by an oil sheik. As property of the oil business, they cannot admit the climate change as that would take away profits from their masters. It's really that simple.
This guy was doing a good job on warming potentially leading to more snow, Glenn Beck is an idiot, a couple storms don't prove anything either way...., but then he talks about manipulating temperature??? After demonstrating some ability to read and understand science he then completely fails by accusing someone of doing something they never did.
Electric cars can be recharged with house solar panels. get electric cars out on the street, it wont take long ( it is already happening ) and now that the demand is starting, problems of recharging and development will be overcome very quickly.
People talk with authority about climate change trying to influence others but they themselves have little scientific knowledge. Instead of thinking for themselves and trying to debunk all the theories flying around, they simply preach what the authorities they believe to be correct say.
This is insanity. Please listen to real scientific minds.
If you believe climate change is (mostly) human induced via greenhouse gases, I beg you to challenge me. I know the science ;)
global warming's natural... so is global cooling. the question we must ask: are humans accelerating the effect to the point where is it irrecoverable?
second, just because you see snow storms does not mean the earth is not in a stage of global warming... call it "the calm before the storm" if you like
@KidsSayNoobALot Truth is climate change is real. It has always been real since the planet was conceived. But is it induced by humans?
Let's look at the theory: humans produce CO2 which thickens the greenhouse gases preventing heat from escaping. ummm.
Well, whats the source of the heat? The Sun, right? So if greenhouse gases hold infrared heat in, then it also prevents some from coming in. It's like insulation on a home. Heats up during summer day, cools at night. Insulation keeps it stable.
@mattyelle1 Yes, it's real. And humans fear this. So they make a huge issue out of it. Most people don't care about the scientific arguments you and I give. My question was it is induced enough by humans for it to be irrecoverable (at least within the short span of human life)?
Volcanoes spew out a lot of shit. Food for thought ;)
@KidsSayNoobALot Good point. CO2 levels have been higher many times throughout history when massive volcanoes erupted. Yet most animals and plants have survived...in fact have flourished. We are 6 billion people now! never has this been achieved. (cont...)
@KidsSayNoobALot ...A little CO2 has barely affected climate change. In fact, I would argue it hasn't changed it at all. Sun spots are the culprit. They regulate the Sun's magnetic field which affects ours. Less spots means weaker magnetic field therefore less clouds. This allows more heat to come in :)
Instead of panicking for global warming, I would worry more about exploiting our resources. That's how societies fall. Let's not allow this World society to fall.
@mattyelle1 The trouble for you is there is no correlation between the sun's magnetic field and changes in temperature. Some people though they saw a connection but it broke down 30 years ago.
But we should also worry about over exploiting our resources.
@rugbyguy59 Oh yes there is a correlation. As explained earlier, the sun's magnetic field is what regulates clouds. Clouds prevent some heat from reaching the Earth's surface. Weaker magnetic field = less clouds. This means more radiation reaching us at the bottom.
Food for though: Greenhouse gases are 80+% water vapour, less than 10% CO2 and the remaining is other gases. Humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 on the planet. Main CO2 sources: Ocean, Forests (dying trees), Fires, Volcanoes..
@mattyelle1 Do you have a paper to back this up? Is it Svendmark (1998)? His theory was tested against observable phenomena. 1) To be the cause there would have to be a long term positive trend but (Lockwood 2001) found no trend. 2) Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend. The University of New Hampshire's measurements since mid century show no trend. 3) Cosmic Rays must be seeding clouds. 5 recent studies show minor effects at best. That theory has not held up
@mattyelle1Re: Food for thought. H20 vapour is a feedback not a forcing like CO2. CO2 is the key greenhouse gas. Human activity has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% since 1850. The sea and forests absorb more CO2 than they emit. Volcanoes are currently emitting very little CO2 compared to man. They have been a big factor in the past but not in the past 200 yrs. Don't conflate the normal carbon cycle with digging up fossil fuels and burning them.
@rugbyguy59 carbon (CO2) is the same coming from fossil fuels as coming from animals and plants.
Yes ocean and forest do absorb much of the CO2, but it doesn't change the fact that they output some in the atmosphere...just like us. The difference is that our output is insignificant.
The real problem is deforestation. This is having a terrible effect on the planet. The amazon is 10% gone. This could be having an effect on the heightened CO2 level. Besides, as the planet heats CO2 heightens.
@mattyelle1 Carbon in CO2 comes in two isotopes, C12 and C13. CO2 from fossil fuels has a lower C13/12 ratio than what we see in the atmosphere. The ratio in the atmosphere is changing exactly as we would expect if the rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. The change in the ratio of the atmosphere correlates to the amount of fossil fuel we have burned. That's how we know it is us.
@rugbyguy59 The change in carbon isotope ratio is interesting. You say it has been increasing (closer to C13 I'm assuming), can you tell me by how much? As interesting as all this is, the percentage of increase is very important.
Historically, CO2 levels have increased with temperature increases. It gets warmer due to the Sun, then CO2 goes up. This is a natural ecosystem reaction as more CO2 supports more plants especially nearer to the poles.
@rugbyguy59 Regarding the Sun: true, the Sun's heat output has barely changed since 1970. But it is NOT IRRELEVANT TO RECENT GLOBAL WARMING. Please, consider this...
Although the Sun outputs the same heat, it's magnetic field has weakened. Scientists quantify the Sun's magnetic field by measuring the Sun spots' intensity. The intensity has lowered during global warming (less spots). This has caused less clouds in the atm allowing more radiation to reach the Earth's surface.
@mattyelle1 Is there a paper to back that up. Sounds like Svensmark's cosmic ray theory. But the correlation thought to exist broke down in 1991. (Laut 2003) Yu (2000) found a six month lag developed after 1991 and the correlation was gone by 1994. Krivova (2003) said less than 15% of overall warming can be attributed to solar flux.
Lockwood (2007) found the trend in CR is opposite to that required to cause warming.
There might be a role in cloud formation but no explanation for temp.
@mattyelle1 The forests and oceans are part of the natural carbon cycle. Plants breath CO2 in and animals breathe it out. Land, plants, and oceans emit it and absorb it. It basically balances out. But why has CO2 concentration been increasing? The rate it's increasing is about half the rate we have been pumping it out. Luckily nature has been absorbing half of it. Most of it by forests and ocean.
Yes deforestation is a significant problem. It is one of man's effects that scientist account for.
@rugbyguy59 I disagree. History shows that CO2 goes up with temperature and not the opposite. This is because as the poles begin to melt (as a result of the Sun), more CO2 is required to accommodate new plants. Also, if greenhouse gases are increased, less radiation is allowed to enter and hit the ground. At night, more infrared (which is the same as radiation just different intensity) is kept in hence regulating heat throughout a full day. Greenhouse gases = insulation. Just like a comfy home.
@mattyelle1 Two issues here. 1st you're right about CO2 following temp but don't get its meaning. 2nd CO2 doesn't block incoming radiation. It'll probably take me a few posts for this.
CO2 does follow temp. The earth goes through Milankovitch cycles that change it's orbit and/or tilt. These begin and end big natural swings in temp. But they don't explain it all. The sun starts the warming which creates more CO2. The added CO2 then magnifies the warming. It's a greenhouse gas after all. (cont)
@mattyelle1 The CO2 follows pattern was predicted by Hanson before it was observed. Scientists use that information to see how powerful the CO2 effect is. Without the CO2 the amount of warming would be much less. Of course you can bypass the sun and just go straight to the warming by CO2 by emitting large quantities of CO2. That can be done by massive volcanic activity (which has occurred) or by burning gigatonnes of fossil fuels.
@mattyelle1 Second point. GHGs don't block incoming radiation. The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2 - 4 μm. It goes right through GHGs. It hits the earth and is absorbed or reflected. If reflected it goes right back out. If absorbed it will be radiated as infrared heat in the range 4 - 100 μm. It is at these frequencies that GHGs trap radiation. The comfy home lets the heat in but doesn't let it out so easily.
@rugbyguy59 Sorry, but this is false. It is known as top of atmosphere albedo and its the Earth atmosphere's reflectance. The TOA albedo reflects 6% radiation and the atmosphere captures an additional 16% of radiation heat. Clouds reflect 20% and absorb 3%. The absorbed heat is then radiated back into space and Earth at night.
Only 21% is radiated from the ground and 15% is absorbed be the atm. If GHG goes up, the TOA albedo goes up.
@mattyelle1This doesn't falsify what I said. I said a lot is reflected. Yes, some is absorbed but this energy gets reradiated as IR energy. Which is what GHGs absorb. But 51% not 21%reaches and is absorbed by the earth and reradiated as long wave IR .
This is not evidence that increased GHGs raises albedo effects or that it does so more than warming effects. It just says there is an effect.
Have you done any research into how the greenhouse effect works? You seem to have an odd vision of it.
@rugbyguy59 I never said 21% is absorbed by the Earth...you are correct it's 51%. Of this 51%, 7% is released via conductive (and convective) heat in the elevating air and 23% is released as latent heat through the evaporation of water. What is reflected back up as radiating infrared is 21% of which 15% is actually absorbed.
If you understand GHG at the molecular level, you know it's gas particles absorbing energy via radiation. More gas, then more energy absorbed AND reflected..Sun or infrared
@mattyelle1 U of Michigan. Hopwood and Cohen: Who even say AGW is not proven explain GHE as: "Shorter-wavelength solar radiation from the sun passes through Earth's atmosphere, then is absorbed by the surface of the Earth, causing it to warm. Part of the absorbed energy is then reradiated back to the atmosphere as long wave infared radiation. Little of this long wave radiation escapes back into space; the radiation cannot pass through the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
@rugbyguy59 Yes, I have done research into the greenhouse effect. I use to believe it was in fact human induced and I was all for reducing CO2. But after applying my scientific knowledge to the documents supporting human induced GW, I started to notice various inconsistencies. You see, I'm an engineer and part of my job is studying and designing closed-systems similar to that of the planet. Our contribution is insignificant. Higher temp: due to Sun. Higher GHG: natural reaction to stabilize temp
@mattyelle1 I'm sure you meant GHE was enhanced by humans. The GHE is natural and without it there would be no life on earth. Now you may be an engineer but your position is untenable. The whole basis of the GHE is it traps more energy than it loses. There are numerous studies that show the sun has had a limited effect this century and a likely nonexistent one post 1980. The magical stabilizing process is refuted by the ice core record. Have you been listening to Lintzen?
@rugbyguy59 No I haven't been listening to Lindzen. I can think for myself lol. I'm all over the place on both sides of the spectrum.
Hopwood and Cohen?! Seriously, you have to go over their work again...it's full of scientific flaws: umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
They don't back up their theories with science. Rather, they state GHE as being one thing then show stats of rising CO2 levels and temp. Look at their pie graph! It ignores water vapor (80% GHG)! From ABCnews lol
@mattyelle1 They don't cite a lot of papers because you don't need to cite common knowledge. I've been studying this issue for about 15 years and as a high school social studies/science teacher I've been reading and teaching about the greenhouse effect for three decades. Quite frankly I've never heard anyone try and describe the greenhouse effect like you do. If you want to overturn 150yrs of science you'll need evidence.
They don't show water vapour because H2O V is a feedback not a forcing.
@rugbyguy59 Can you clarify: "H2O vapor is a feedback not a forcing..."
To understand the ecosystem, one has to understand the fundamental principles of heat transfer (radiation, conduction and convection), the physics of photons (light, infrared) and chemistry.
By considering a heightened effect of GHG on raising temperature, you are ignoring the radiation that is reflected & absorbed by the same GHG particles on the way in. If it's light or infrared, doesn't matter cuz particles reflect both
@mattyelle1 A forcing can change current conditions without outside influences. A feedback is a response.
The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is in direct relation to the current temperature. Try to add extra H2O to the atmosphere and it condenses and falls. If something warms the atmosphere, ie CO2, the warmer air will evaporate more water. Of course greenhouse properties of water vapour will add more heating (positive feedback)
On the other hand CO2 can be added and cause warming on its own.
@mattyelle1 Ecosystem? Are you sure you're an engineer? Ecosystems have to adapt to climate. Climate is not an ecosystem.
Yes one has to understand all of those things to understand the heat balance of the earth. That is why I listen to the people who are experts in the field that studies how all those things combine to work, climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, and others. They overwhelmingly agree on AGW.
The few who disagree simply don't present a coherent rebuttal.
@mattyelle1 Since you are presenting a rather unique interpretation of the GHE you'll need to provide some evidence that the absorption and reflection of the rays coming in is equal to or greater than the absorption and reflection of the rays going out. GHGs do respond differently to visible light and IR.
Any description, by a reasonably reputable source, that matches your own please. Your last source described TOA albedo it made no case that it would out grow the GHE.
@rugbyguy59 But I want you to think about something else here...
Where does life flourish best on Earth? Around the equator where it's the warmest.
If the temperature of the planet goes up, the equator will remain habitable as long as water is not evaporated instantly. This happens at 100C. Meanwhile, life will flourish further North and South where most of the potentially habitable land mass is ice desserts.
But again, with larger GHG Earth in fact protects daytime from more harmful rays.
@mattyelle1 How good is the farming or the soil fertility around the equator? How fertile is the soil in the tundra regions? Not very. What may potentially happen is some of your most fertile and productive regions of the planet may turn into deserts or be flooded. This will leave us trying to farm much less productive areas of the world.
There are lots of studies on the pros and cons of warming and extra CO2, the results are overwhelmingly negative
Its not all about global warming its also about people wanting to move forward and away from fossil fuels to new better cleaner more peaceful technology.
@austpom333 carbon tax is not the way to do it. Tax the poor consumers, but allow the rich capitalists to buy carbon credits...ummmm, if you go out of work, how will you heat your home?
Can't afford electricity. Burning fuels creates CO2. Burning wood creates more. You simply can't under carbon law.
Solution would have been abolishing Globalization and start by creating more products at home to reduce pollution by transportation.
@mattyelle1 carbon tax was mad, governments are now doing the wright thing they are funding development of electrical based transport and restricting the use of fossil fuel cars. Its rely very simple - develop battery power storage. develop and place electric cars in the hands of grass roots. restrict phase out fossil fuel cars. Move on to motorcycles and trucks.
@austpom333 Yup I entirely agree. How can you blame and charge the consumer when we have no options as to what to buy? Instead of letting the rich corps buy our carbon credits we pay so they may pollute, why not tax them directly and create incentives to create sustainable energy?
I need a vehicle to move large things around...I'm left with the only choice of buying a polluting pickup...as much as I hate it :S
@mattyelle1 Exactly - we dont have any option other than to buy a fossil fuel engine. Governments need to sponser and resurch electric engine batteries. Electric engines wont just come about without a big world wide government push.
@austpom333 Good point. We want to be free from fossil fuel. self-sustainability can give countries around the globe freedom from Americans.
But this doesn't change the fact that carbon tax is a global tax used to setup a global government. It's criminal in the sense that it will create a ponzi scheme, create a larger gap of rich and poor, and will put many small businesses out of business. Also, politicians driving this tax are quickly becoming millionaires as they have insider information.
We just had the worst heat wave of the century here in Finland yet no-one is saying that it's because od climate change. One year is not enouh to draw conclusions. Same goes for having a snowstorm.
However, once climate change gets worse, heatwaves here will be more common and we're all ready noticed the change in winter weather over the years here. In my childhood, there was often snow at the time of my birthday in November, nowadays most of the winter is just wet and slushy -.-'
And you call this free thinking? OMG and I gave you friendship. Sorry man, I run to reject you. You want believe in warming? Ok, but don't use this low level of videos which have the solely purpose of NEVER debating.
You free thinker? Or you a thinker you are free....
I find it amusing to see a story on a show that's name is "Psycho Talk" go on defending Al Gore's psychopathy. Note to liberals: You may polarize political points of view with great success but when it comes to publicly defending personality disorders of that magnitude you only reveal your lack of intellect, which isn't always as obvious as your lack of substance or common sense. ( I'm trying to help you here ).
@solemnfox I'm a liberal and I don't give a shit about Al Gore. Conservatives are only concerned with him because (like Glenn Beck) they don't actually know anything about global climate change and would prefer to attack the person instead. Al Gore is NOT a scientist.
human caused global warming is a hoax set up to enforce the carbon tax and carbon emissions trading. human produce 6million tons of carbon dioxid per year plants produce 210million tons. maybe we should get rid of plant yo morrons. ever heard of the medieval warming period it was on average 7 degrees warmer than it is now. its all natural people... wake up sheep!!!!!
problem #2 1.3 degrees in 100 years OMFG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
I love how environmentalists rag on religion so much and love to point out all of the ridiculous elements in the bible like talking snakes and Noahs ark. Then come out and say that if we drive cars we will all perish in hellfire. Why is it that such a small proportion of people actually think for themselves?
And there was "massive evidence" for holes in the ozone layer that were going to burn me up when I was a kid. Before that there was "massive evidence" acid rain was going to burn through my roof an burn me up in my bed. Before that plastic bags were going to encircle the earth and there was "massive evidence" for that. In the 1970's news week said we were headed for an Ice Age and I'm sure they had "massive evidence" as well.
Like I said, there will be those who wish to insight hysteria for there own agenda.
And yes. The earth is entering a cosmic cold spell so to speak, this does happens. So it should be cooling, but with the influence of global warming it is not. It may well balance out, but when the earth enters a warming pattern, and it will. The effects could be much more dramatic.
It is not something to just dismiss as a hoax. Just keep an open mind and do the research on both sides.
Basically the only barrier between Liberals and Conservatives (at least those who find the urge to argue with strangers on the internet) is this. Each side wants to think they are smarter than the other. A comment like "the earth is entering a cosmic cold spell so to speak this does happen" Is complete bullS*&^ and you know it. I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I just know by common sense that Global Warming is not an extraordinary threat to humanity.
I did not say it was an immediate threat, only that it should not be dismissed. This is the difference between us. I have done the research.
You, who even admits to not haveing done any research, claims that the earth does not go into cosmic warming and cooling trends. That is where you show your ignorance.
It is a fact. Have you ever heard of the little ice age. It is clear you do not have any education on this subject and are talking out your ass.
The brilliant Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch had explained how our world warms and cools on roughly 100,000-year cycles due to its slowly changing position relative to the Sun. Milankovitch’s theory suggested Earth should be just beginning to head into its next ice age cycle.
I am only takeing physics as my major so take it for what its worth, but I am quite sure that the CO2 greenhouse effect is a lie. Sure, it is a greenhouse gas, but the effect that it is made out to have is blown out of proportion. I am not trolling, and would be glad to be shown wrong.
What global warming? Where I live in the States, its been unusually cold. Its snowed more and the winter has been much much longer. We should protect the enviroment and the air we all share, however making up lies and bullshit (the inconvenient truth) isn't right either.
@DavieDave59 Thats nice. I guess you just made it known that you do not know the difference between weather and climate. 2009 was the second hottest year on record.
I live in south eastern Canada and we had a lot less snow than normal. All the snow we had went further south to America . In fact global temperatures were over all higher the days that America and Europe had colder than normal temperatures. Also the robins showed up a month early in my back yard. Normally they show up in late march but this year they were out there in February. Could this have had anything to do with there winter home getting frozen??? Any thoughts?
I suggest you go watch Greenman3610 or Potholer54.
Remember always carry a 'Boloney Detection Kit' when reading such articles. Don't truely believe everything that is up on the internet, not even the guys I mentioned above.
(I suggest you do a search on what the boloney detection kit is also).
Glenn Back is a scientific ignoramus. He is totally wrong in what he thinks.
On the other hand he just coincidentally happened to be right about CO2 not being the driving force behind climate change. He is still a dumb political whore, in spite of the fact that, we are at the end of the warming trend and at the beginning of the next cooling period.
Global warming is real, but the media has made it out to be something that everyone needs to actually be concerned with and it just isn't. The media frenzy over global warming isn't based on science. Scientists are concerned about global warming killing off the last of the polar bears and rising ocean levels 2" to 12" over the next hundred years.
The last guy seems very responsible about his reporting of global warming.
Don't know what he's saying. But global warming is fake. it's not going to happen any time soon. so why even mention it? it's a senseless and useless topic.
I know the skeptics might have some questions about the spherical nature of the globe, or indeed about the existence of other countries outside Jesus-land, but there are rumours that it is actually 105-110 degrees Fahrenheit RIGHT NOW in parts of South America, Australia and Africa.
Right now while there is snow on the ground in DC! Can you believe it?
there is no such thing as "man made "global warming.medeveil warming period was the hottest its ever been not last ten years.just another way to scare people to al gores bs ideas,that he will bank a fortune on.just be glad cap and trade bill is dead
Funny. I live in Ottawa (for those of you who don't know, that's the canadian capital) and we've had above seasonal temperatures for most of the winter and very little snow.
The jetstream is fucked up this winter and is dipping down further south than usual; that's all there is to it.
I've only wathed the first minute and i'm about to throw up....
"Al Gore's theories"????
Snow in DC means global warming is false???
Why is it so hard to convince americans that there is a lot more to the world than their own back yard. I hear similar arguments in defence of global warming and they all make me sick
That's nice Dylan. However, you forgot the part about Phil Jones, the chief advisor to the IPCC, heaqd of the CRU who provides all this info himself has admitted that the Earth has been cooling for the past fifteen years. Not significantly, but cooling none the less. He has also said that there is not any concensus on these theories, that the data is not sourced at this point and finally, that it is not the hottest the Earth has ever been. And this guy is on your side Dylan, what's up with that?
He actually said there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 at the 95% confidence level. There is a big difference between that statement and the one you wrote.
The Mail Online Headline? Not exactly the same as quoting from the interview itself!
There is a big difference. Saying "there is no warming" means just that, there is no warming. Saying "there is no statistically significant warming" means there very well could be warming (or cooling, or no change), but there is not enough data to reduce the error in the apparent trend.
Maybe you don't follow current news, let me educate: Last September an insider whistleblower from "THE" university driving AGW released emails, data and climate modeling programs. Well the data was falsified, the emails were a call for 24 AGW scientists to delete emails/information AND the climate modeling software was full of bugs. Since then laws suits are forthcoming from the good scientist whose good data did not show AGW. That includes heads of departments in USA universities and NASA. .
1. Each additional part per million has a slightly less strong warming effect than the previous because the wavelengths that they alone absorb become more scarce. This means that CO2 itself causes 1C of warming and we have to figure out how the climate system reacts to changes in temperature before blaming CO2
2. Although the pacific decadal oscillation is decadal (PDO) those cycles vary. Over the last thirty years the PDO has been warm. In the thirty years of cooling before that it was cold. Before then when the earth was warming the PDO was warm.
True. But volcanoes also dump a lot of volcanic aerosols nto the atmosphere which cause climate cooling, outweighing the input of CO2. So large volcanic eruptions will cool the climate, not heat it up.
In addition, volcanic eruptions of that magnitude are very rare, as opposed to the very recent and consistent anthropogenic CO2 input.
Sigh. Right wing, left wing, they are both servants to who funds their campaigns, THE BANKS! I guarantee the banks will be profiting from and pushing Global Warming.
There is NO LAW forcing the media to tell the truth! They are not legally bound to tell the truth but they are legally bound to increase the profits of the corporations that own them.
HAHAHA, omg, why exactly are there still people living in the US ? You know you can travel, right ? Holy shit and that is on television ? Politicians, too ? Gnahahaha, srsy, what the fuck ?
My grandpa did the weather for WCCO for 45 years. He doesn't say it's global warming so much as it is a sick weather system. Also he doesn't believe man could fix it, rather that it will fix itself, eventually.
I trust him. He is 86 now and has zero ulterior motive.
He's right, it's not strictly global "warming" - although there is a global warming trend - it's more global climate change, or global "weirding" as I've heard it put by others. As temperatures in general rise, weather patterns will change. They will probably settle down into new stable patterns eventually, but whether humanity will survive the resulting food shortages, storms, and flooding remains to be seen.
Have you heard of HAARP. HAARP is a large antenna array with 7 large complexes spread over the planet. HAARP is a communication system that works by first heating the upper atmosphere then bounces radio waves that can reach around the world or can be directed through the earth. When they heat several hundred sq. miles of atmosphere above these facilities it does change weather patterns. One facility is in Alaska and is top secret.
Its actually been a very unseasonably warm winter here in Phoenix Arizona, sure its a desert and all that jazz but the weather down here has been down right freakish.
Well it's been freakishly cold here in GA, so I guess they cancel each other out. Neither case is evidence either way on the topic. We're all becoming weather/climate hypochondriacs these days.
Lol. They are some of the first tv-people I've seen who actually seem to know, exactly what they are talking about, with regards to science. They can has teh win!
It is settled science that CO2 itself causes about 1C of warming. The warming predicted by the IPCC assumes strong positive feedbacks in the climate system. That really doesn't make much sense. If climate was dominated by positive feedback then we already would have run off of a figurative cliff in climate.
I decided to take a really long think about while abandoning any bias which I may have. Everyday we are bombarded with news about global warming being very very bad and I had ever read. The thing that really got me was the lack of evidence for global warming.
I don't really care about either. It's all ill-informed, strawman idiocy and name calling and I'd rather not have an otherwise good channel puking up this kind of over politicized, pseudo-scientific bullshit.
Regarding the content: both sides are wrong - there is some climate shift but it's not anthroprogenic on the global scale but this is all beside the point.
Wait, not only do you not care about the guy in the vid, but you also dont care about the content regarding global warming? Well, I have to ask, why on earth did you click on this video? It has "global warming"' right in the title!
I clicked on it b/c I click on all of my subscription videos to see what's up. I have an expectation of my subscriptions and this was not what I would have expected from FFreeThinker2 thus my original comment. I know and understand both sides of the current argument and I do not need to hear it from this big headed noise machine of powerful ignorance and did not expect something like this to be posted here.
"I clicked on it b/c I click on all of my subscription videos to see what's up".
Yeah, that doesnt change the fact you knew the subject matter before clicking on it, then complained about the subject matter. Not arguing man, I just dont get it.
I didn't complain about the subject matter. I complained about the fact that this channel posted something so partisan, political and not very freethinker-like. The comment was meant for the channel owner.
Also the title of the video doesn't say exactly who is doing the psycho talk. I was interested in seeing what FT2 had to say.
But what I don't get is why you care about my comment in the first place. You've clearly intentionally misrepresented my comment in your mind. So what's your angle?
Wait a minute, now I have an angle? I asked you why would you focus on the specific people over the CONTENT & you responded saying you "don't really care about either. It's all ill-informed, strawman idiocy"... ok, whats ill informed? What strawman? It being cold in the NE neither refutes/confirms global warming. If you dont care about this, whyd you click on it? Its obvious the vid was posted do to this content, its not anyones fault but ur own that u chose to focus on partisan bs.
also, dont get your panties in a bunch. the same way you have the right to post a comment criticizing the motives for a videp is the same way I have the right to post a response comment on something that makes no sense to me.
There's the angle... I'm not discussing the arguments of global warming any further.
Also I never said anything about you not being allowed to respond and I just explained the rest to you. If it didn't sink in then I don't know what to tell you.
Al Gore's film is actually full of distorted interpretations of simulations and downright fabricated evidence. This theory is horse shit.
ianw19 2 weeks ago
you have some great stuff here
simysimss 1 month ago
very interesting thanks
MrJonkelp 1 month ago
really informative and interesting
samjenkinssam 1 month ago
Constant references to "Al Gore" this, "Al Gore" that reveal that the people making the references are ignoring the total body of science. Gore is just a volunteer spokesman. He doesn't "own" the issue.
But Gore was instrumental in blocking Reagan from de-funding the CO2 measurement project of Charles Keeling. He's done good, despite his reputation of repeating the prognosis too much. Many people screen out bad news if they get inundated with it, but what else can be done, with so much apathy?
Antithropocentric 1 month ago
love the video really good
chrispikeyp 1 month ago
What do these muppets not understand? Global warming leads to extremes of weather
daverigby23 4 months ago
How can someone NOT understand that global warming is happening. Sun light comes from the sun to the earth. It hits the earth and is reflected out in the atmosphere again. CO2 holds the heat after it reflects on the earth. that means the more CO2 you get, the more heat will be contained. Its so fucking simple.
gulbirk 9 months ago
@gulbirk lol u still believe the garbage "scientests" are feeding you? your going to get a darwin award when you die
FloppyTrout 7 months ago
@gulbirk Your comment is an example of a disconnect between climate change believers and skeptics. Throwing aside what the people on tv say, we KNOW how the greenhouse effect works. The reason people are skeptical of global warming is because the problem IS NOT as simple as earth + CO2 = hot. The evidence isn't clear, especially when looking at the temp records for the last 800,000 years, the earth IS SUPPOSED to be getting hotter right now. I am just not certain that it's a big problem.
PirateOfTheInternet 3 months ago
@PirateOfTheInternet The earth IS getting hotter right now, if you ask any serious scientists. In fact, its been getting hotter for quite some time. Of course the problem is not that simple. There are many variables taken into account when they make statements of what causes temperature increase. And greenhouse gasses are one of those variables, and its the only hypothesis that can stand critisism. All others have been debunked.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@phantomscolts2 And yet there's so much to go around here on earth, maybe more people should bring their minds back to it?
solemnfox 10 months ago
@phantomscolts2 You're mostly right, but global warming as they say (lying) doesn't exist. The problem however, the secret version you submit is the one they want YOU to pay for while focusing on toilet paper rations. Why pay for it or be an activist if the solution can't exist yet? Should we plant some trees maybe? The only good thing that came from this is we now know who's a fool and who's not. When I start a business I'll make the most money off Al Gore's followers by comparison.
solemnfox 11 months ago
There is very little evidence for man cause global warming, that's just a fact.
Southparker100000000 1 year ago
just watch. when the oceans flood the land the conservatives will change their story. idiots.
LobarRobotic 1 year ago
FOX is owned by an oil sheik. As property of the oil business, they cannot admit the climate change as that would take away profits from their masters. It's really that simple.
mandolinroad 1 year ago
global warming is for fags
ExNihiloJimmy 1 year ago
Global Warming is real! Some Global warming starts as Global cooling.
carnypimp 1 year ago
I love this guy! Bit surprised I haven't seen him before.
3rkid2 1 year ago
This guy was doing a good job on warming potentially leading to more snow, Glenn Beck is an idiot, a couple storms don't prove anything either way...., but then he talks about manipulating temperature??? After demonstrating some ability to read and understand science he then completely fails by accusing someone of doing something they never did.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Ugh, these guys don't understand climate change at all.
porterwake 1 year ago
Electric cars can be recharged with house solar panels. get electric cars out on the street, it wont take long ( it is already happening ) and now that the demand is starting, problems of recharging and development will be overcome very quickly.
austpom333 1 year ago
People talk with authority about climate change trying to influence others but they themselves have little scientific knowledge. Instead of thinking for themselves and trying to debunk all the theories flying around, they simply preach what the authorities they believe to be correct say.
This is insanity. Please listen to real scientific minds.
If you believe climate change is (mostly) human induced via greenhouse gases, I beg you to challenge me. I know the science ;)
mattyelle1 1 year ago
Everytime Ed Shultz speaks the air gets hotter.
jerthemessiah 1 year ago
Global warming, climate change, global climate disruption is all a big crock.
It is a power grab, nothing more, nothing less.
If fossil fuels were going to kill us, we would ban them, NOT tax them. Think about it.
poopstreek 1 year ago
Fucking idiots, global warming isn't just the WARMING of the Globe,
It's the unpredictability of the weather.
they should change the term global warming to climate change
teddyterrorist 1 year ago
@teddyterrorist the weather has always been unpredictable and the climate has always been changing.
jerthemessiah 1 year ago
global warming's natural... so is global cooling. the question we must ask: are humans accelerating the effect to the point where is it irrecoverable?
second, just because you see snow storms does not mean the earth is not in a stage of global warming... call it "the calm before the storm" if you like
KidsSayNoobALot 1 year ago
@KidsSayNoobALot Truth is climate change is real. It has always been real since the planet was conceived. But is it induced by humans?
Let's look at the theory: humans produce CO2 which thickens the greenhouse gases preventing heat from escaping. ummm.
Well, whats the source of the heat? The Sun, right? So if greenhouse gases hold infrared heat in, then it also prevents some from coming in. It's like insulation on a home. Heats up during summer day, cools at night. Insulation keeps it stable.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Yes, it's real. And humans fear this. So they make a huge issue out of it. Most people don't care about the scientific arguments you and I give. My question was it is induced enough by humans for it to be irrecoverable (at least within the short span of human life)?
Volcanoes spew out a lot of shit. Food for thought ;)
KidsSayNoobALot 1 year ago
@KidsSayNoobALot Good point. CO2 levels have been higher many times throughout history when massive volcanoes erupted. Yet most animals and plants have survived...in fact have flourished. We are 6 billion people now! never has this been achieved. (cont...)
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@KidsSayNoobALot ...A little CO2 has barely affected climate change. In fact, I would argue it hasn't changed it at all. Sun spots are the culprit. They regulate the Sun's magnetic field which affects ours. Less spots means weaker magnetic field therefore less clouds. This allows more heat to come in :)
Instead of panicking for global warming, I would worry more about exploiting our resources. That's how societies fall. Let's not allow this World society to fall.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 The trouble for you is there is no correlation between the sun's magnetic field and changes in temperature. Some people though they saw a connection but it broke down 30 years ago.
But we should also worry about over exploiting our resources.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Oh yes there is a correlation. As explained earlier, the sun's magnetic field is what regulates clouds. Clouds prevent some heat from reaching the Earth's surface. Weaker magnetic field = less clouds. This means more radiation reaching us at the bottom.
Food for though: Greenhouse gases are 80+% water vapour, less than 10% CO2 and the remaining is other gases. Humans contribute less than 1% of all CO2 on the planet. Main CO2 sources: Ocean, Forests (dying trees), Fires, Volcanoes..
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Do you have a paper to back this up? Is it Svendmark (1998)? His theory was tested against observable phenomena. 1) To be the cause there would have to be a long term positive trend but (Lockwood 2001) found no trend. 2) Galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth must have a long-term negative trend. The University of New Hampshire's measurements since mid century show no trend. 3) Cosmic Rays must be seeding clouds. 5 recent studies show minor effects at best. That theory has not held up
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1Re: Food for thought. H20 vapour is a feedback not a forcing like CO2. CO2 is the key greenhouse gas. Human activity has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% since 1850. The sea and forests absorb more CO2 than they emit. Volcanoes are currently emitting very little CO2 compared to man. They have been a big factor in the past but not in the past 200 yrs. Don't conflate the normal carbon cycle with digging up fossil fuels and burning them.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 carbon (CO2) is the same coming from fossil fuels as coming from animals and plants.
Yes ocean and forest do absorb much of the CO2, but it doesn't change the fact that they output some in the atmosphere...just like us. The difference is that our output is insignificant.
The real problem is deforestation. This is having a terrible effect on the planet. The amazon is 10% gone. This could be having an effect on the heightened CO2 level. Besides, as the planet heats CO2 heightens.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Carbon in CO2 comes in two isotopes, C12 and C13. CO2 from fossil fuels has a lower C13/12 ratio than what we see in the atmosphere. The ratio in the atmosphere is changing exactly as we would expect if the rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. The change in the ratio of the atmosphere correlates to the amount of fossil fuel we have burned. That's how we know it is us.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 The change in carbon isotope ratio is interesting. You say it has been increasing (closer to C13 I'm assuming), can you tell me by how much? As interesting as all this is, the percentage of increase is very important.
Historically, CO2 levels have increased with temperature increases. It gets warmer due to the Sun, then CO2 goes up. This is a natural ecosystem reaction as more CO2 supports more plants especially nearer to the poles.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 for the information on Carbon go to skeptical science dot (com) and then search out the human fingerprint for global warming page.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Regarding the Sun: true, the Sun's heat output has barely changed since 1970. But it is NOT IRRELEVANT TO RECENT GLOBAL WARMING. Please, consider this...
Although the Sun outputs the same heat, it's magnetic field has weakened. Scientists quantify the Sun's magnetic field by measuring the Sun spots' intensity. The intensity has lowered during global warming (less spots). This has caused less clouds in the atm allowing more radiation to reach the Earth's surface.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Is there a paper to back that up. Sounds like Svensmark's cosmic ray theory. But the correlation thought to exist broke down in 1991. (Laut 2003) Yu (2000) found a six month lag developed after 1991 and the correlation was gone by 1994. Krivova (2003) said less than 15% of overall warming can be attributed to solar flux.
Lockwood (2007) found the trend in CR is opposite to that required to cause warming.
There might be a role in cloud formation but no explanation for temp.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 The forests and oceans are part of the natural carbon cycle. Plants breath CO2 in and animals breathe it out. Land, plants, and oceans emit it and absorb it. It basically balances out. But why has CO2 concentration been increasing? The rate it's increasing is about half the rate we have been pumping it out. Luckily nature has been absorbing half of it. Most of it by forests and ocean.
Yes deforestation is a significant problem. It is one of man's effects that scientist account for.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I disagree. History shows that CO2 goes up with temperature and not the opposite. This is because as the poles begin to melt (as a result of the Sun), more CO2 is required to accommodate new plants. Also, if greenhouse gases are increased, less radiation is allowed to enter and hit the ground. At night, more infrared (which is the same as radiation just different intensity) is kept in hence regulating heat throughout a full day. Greenhouse gases = insulation. Just like a comfy home.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Two issues here. 1st you're right about CO2 following temp but don't get its meaning. 2nd CO2 doesn't block incoming radiation. It'll probably take me a few posts for this.
CO2 does follow temp. The earth goes through Milankovitch cycles that change it's orbit and/or tilt. These begin and end big natural swings in temp. But they don't explain it all. The sun starts the warming which creates more CO2. The added CO2 then magnifies the warming. It's a greenhouse gas after all. (cont)
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 The CO2 follows pattern was predicted by Hanson before it was observed. Scientists use that information to see how powerful the CO2 effect is. Without the CO2 the amount of warming would be much less. Of course you can bypass the sun and just go straight to the warming by CO2 by emitting large quantities of CO2. That can be done by massive volcanic activity (which has occurred) or by burning gigatonnes of fossil fuels.
(cont)
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Second point. GHGs don't block incoming radiation. The incoming radiation from the Sun is mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths, largely in the range 0.2 - 4 μm. It goes right through GHGs. It hits the earth and is absorbed or reflected. If reflected it goes right back out. If absorbed it will be radiated as infrared heat in the range 4 - 100 μm. It is at these frequencies that GHGs trap radiation. The comfy home lets the heat in but doesn't let it out so easily.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Sorry, but this is false. It is known as top of atmosphere albedo and its the Earth atmosphere's reflectance. The TOA albedo reflects 6% radiation and the atmosphere captures an additional 16% of radiation heat. Clouds reflect 20% and absorb 3%. The absorbed heat is then radiated back into space and Earth at night.
Only 21% is radiated from the ground and 15% is absorbed be the atm. If GHG goes up, the TOA albedo goes up.
source: marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1This doesn't falsify what I said. I said a lot is reflected. Yes, some is absorbed but this energy gets reradiated as IR energy. Which is what GHGs absorb. But 51% not 21%reaches and is absorbed by the earth and reradiated as long wave IR .
This is not evidence that increased GHGs raises albedo effects or that it does so more than warming effects. It just says there is an effect.
Have you done any research into how the greenhouse effect works? You seem to have an odd vision of it.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I never said 21% is absorbed by the Earth...you are correct it's 51%. Of this 51%, 7% is released via conductive (and convective) heat in the elevating air and 23% is released as latent heat through the evaporation of water. What is reflected back up as radiating infrared is 21% of which 15% is actually absorbed.
If you understand GHG at the molecular level, you know it's gas particles absorbing energy via radiation. More gas, then more energy absorbed AND reflected..Sun or infrared
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 U of Michigan. Hopwood and Cohen: Who even say AGW is not proven explain GHE as: "Shorter-wavelength solar radiation from the sun passes through Earth's atmosphere, then is absorbed by the surface of the Earth, causing it to warm. Part of the absorbed energy is then reradiated back to the atmosphere as long wave infared radiation. Little of this long wave radiation escapes back into space; the radiation cannot pass through the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Yes, I have done research into the greenhouse effect. I use to believe it was in fact human induced and I was all for reducing CO2. But after applying my scientific knowledge to the documents supporting human induced GW, I started to notice various inconsistencies. You see, I'm an engineer and part of my job is studying and designing closed-systems similar to that of the planet. Our contribution is insignificant. Higher temp: due to Sun. Higher GHG: natural reaction to stabilize temp
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 I'm sure you meant GHE was enhanced by humans. The GHE is natural and without it there would be no life on earth. Now you may be an engineer but your position is untenable. The whole basis of the GHE is it traps more energy than it loses. There are numerous studies that show the sun has had a limited effect this century and a likely nonexistent one post 1980. The magical stabilizing process is refuted by the ice core record. Have you been listening to Lintzen?
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 No I haven't been listening to Lindzen. I can think for myself lol. I'm all over the place on both sides of the spectrum.
Hopwood and Cohen?! Seriously, you have to go over their work again...it's full of scientific flaws: umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
They don't back up their theories with science. Rather, they state GHE as being one thing then show stats of rising CO2 levels and temp. Look at their pie graph! It ignores water vapor (80% GHG)! From ABCnews lol
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 They don't cite a lot of papers because you don't need to cite common knowledge. I've been studying this issue for about 15 years and as a high school social studies/science teacher I've been reading and teaching about the greenhouse effect for three decades. Quite frankly I've never heard anyone try and describe the greenhouse effect like you do. If you want to overturn 150yrs of science you'll need evidence.
They don't show water vapour because H2O V is a feedback not a forcing.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Can you clarify: "H2O vapor is a feedback not a forcing..."
To understand the ecosystem, one has to understand the fundamental principles of heat transfer (radiation, conduction and convection), the physics of photons (light, infrared) and chemistry.
By considering a heightened effect of GHG on raising temperature, you are ignoring the radiation that is reflected & absorbed by the same GHG particles on the way in. If it's light or infrared, doesn't matter cuz particles reflect both
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 A forcing can change current conditions without outside influences. A feedback is a response.
The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is in direct relation to the current temperature. Try to add extra H2O to the atmosphere and it condenses and falls. If something warms the atmosphere, ie CO2, the warmer air will evaporate more water. Of course greenhouse properties of water vapour will add more heating (positive feedback)
On the other hand CO2 can be added and cause warming on its own.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Ecosystem? Are you sure you're an engineer? Ecosystems have to adapt to climate. Climate is not an ecosystem.
Yes one has to understand all of those things to understand the heat balance of the earth. That is why I listen to the people who are experts in the field that studies how all those things combine to work, climatologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, and others. They overwhelmingly agree on AGW.
The few who disagree simply don't present a coherent rebuttal.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Since you are presenting a rather unique interpretation of the GHE you'll need to provide some evidence that the absorption and reflection of the rays coming in is equal to or greater than the absorption and reflection of the rays going out. GHGs do respond differently to visible light and IR.
Any description, by a reasonably reputable source, that matches your own please. Your last source described TOA albedo it made no case that it would out grow the GHE.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 But I want you to think about something else here...
Where does life flourish best on Earth? Around the equator where it's the warmest.
If the temperature of the planet goes up, the equator will remain habitable as long as water is not evaporated instantly. This happens at 100C. Meanwhile, life will flourish further North and South where most of the potentially habitable land mass is ice desserts.
But again, with larger GHG Earth in fact protects daytime from more harmful rays.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 How good is the farming or the soil fertility around the equator? How fertile is the soil in the tundra regions? Not very. What may potentially happen is some of your most fertile and productive regions of the planet may turn into deserts or be flooded. This will leave us trying to farm much less productive areas of the world.
There are lots of studies on the pros and cons of warming and extra CO2, the results are overwhelmingly negative
O3 protects us from harmful rays Co2 doesn't
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Its not all about global warming its also about people wanting to move forward and away from fossil fuels to new better cleaner more peaceful technology.
austpom333 1 year ago
@austpom333 carbon tax is not the way to do it. Tax the poor consumers, but allow the rich capitalists to buy carbon credits...ummmm, if you go out of work, how will you heat your home?
Can't afford electricity. Burning fuels creates CO2. Burning wood creates more. You simply can't under carbon law.
Solution would have been abolishing Globalization and start by creating more products at home to reduce pollution by transportation.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 carbon tax was mad, governments are now doing the wright thing they are funding development of electrical based transport and restricting the use of fossil fuel cars. Its rely very simple - develop battery power storage. develop and place electric cars in the hands of grass roots. restrict phase out fossil fuel cars. Move on to motorcycles and trucks.
austpom333 1 year ago
@austpom333 Yup I entirely agree. How can you blame and charge the consumer when we have no options as to what to buy? Instead of letting the rich corps buy our carbon credits we pay so they may pollute, why not tax them directly and create incentives to create sustainable energy?
I need a vehicle to move large things around...I'm left with the only choice of buying a polluting pickup...as much as I hate it :S
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Exactly - we dont have any option other than to buy a fossil fuel engine. Governments need to sponser and resurch electric engine batteries. Electric engines wont just come about without a big world wide government push.
austpom333 1 year ago
@austpom333 Good point. We want to be free from fossil fuel. self-sustainability can give countries around the globe freedom from Americans.
But this doesn't change the fact that carbon tax is a global tax used to setup a global government. It's criminal in the sense that it will create a ponzi scheme, create a larger gap of rich and poor, and will put many small businesses out of business. Also, politicians driving this tax are quickly becoming millionaires as they have insider information.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
LOL Glenn Beck drew a penis on his blackboard instead of a thermometer.
EclecticSceptic 1 year ago
So what are all these right wing truth deniers saying now that the summer of 2010 is officially the hottest on record?
LockeXIII 1 year ago
We just had the worst heat wave of the century here in Finland yet no-one is saying that it's because od climate change. One year is not enouh to draw conclusions. Same goes for having a snowstorm.
However, once climate change gets worse, heatwaves here will be more common and we're all ready noticed the change in winter weather over the years here. In my childhood, there was often snow at the time of my birthday in November, nowadays most of the winter is just wet and slushy -.-'
pienipaha 1 year ago
And you call this free thinking? OMG and I gave you friendship. Sorry man, I run to reject you. You want believe in warming? Ok, but don't use this low level of videos which have the solely purpose of NEVER debating.
You free thinker? Or you a thinker you are free....
fabbio8888 1 year ago
I find it amusing to see a story on a show that's name is "Psycho Talk" go on defending Al Gore's psychopathy. Note to liberals: You may polarize political points of view with great success but when it comes to publicly defending personality disorders of that magnitude you only reveal your lack of intellect, which isn't always as obvious as your lack of substance or common sense. ( I'm trying to help you here ).
solemnfox 1 year ago
@solemnfox I'm a liberal and I don't give a shit about Al Gore. Conservatives are only concerned with him because (like Glenn Beck) they don't actually know anything about global climate change and would prefer to attack the person instead. Al Gore is NOT a scientist.
VesusSheist 1 year ago
human caused global warming is a hoax set up to enforce the carbon tax and carbon emissions trading. human produce 6million tons of carbon dioxid per year plants produce 210million tons. maybe we should get rid of plant yo morrons. ever heard of the medieval warming period it was on average 7 degrees warmer than it is now. its all natural people... wake up sheep!!!!!
infoassassin84 1 year ago
@infoassassin84 Wow, looks like someone can parrot Alex Jones talking points. Good thing we have you here.
VesusSheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infoassassin84
What evidence to you have for this?
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The use of props, the angry journalists that shout at each other over science - that just simply doesn't happen in Britain. lol
EllyMcCormack 1 year ago
The use of props, the angry journalists that shout at each other over science - that just simply doesn't happen in Britain. lol
EllyMcCormack 1 year ago
3:50
problem #1 Data Set is form the UN!
problem #2 1.3 degrees in 100 years OMFG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!
I love how environmentalists rag on religion so much and love to point out all of the ridiculous elements in the bible like talking snakes and Noahs ark. Then come out and say that if we drive cars we will all perish in hellfire. Why is it that such a small proportion of people actually think for themselves?
rcl151 1 year ago
@rcl151
Maybe because unlike the bible bullshit, there is massive evidence to support global worming.
It is a FACT, that Carbon dioxide is a green house gas. What do you not get about that?
I am sure there are those out there that will try to instill hysteria in hopes of making a profit.
There will always be. But that does nothing to discount that global warming is happening.
The rate on the other hand is debatable.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly
And there was "massive evidence" for holes in the ozone layer that were going to burn me up when I was a kid. Before that there was "massive evidence" acid rain was going to burn through my roof an burn me up in my bed. Before that plastic bags were going to encircle the earth and there was "massive evidence" for that. In the 1970's news week said we were headed for an Ice Age and I'm sure they had "massive evidence" as well.
rcl151 1 year ago
@rcl151
Like I said, there will be those who wish to insight hysteria for there own agenda.
And yes. The earth is entering a cosmic cold spell so to speak, this does happens. So it should be cooling, but with the influence of global warming it is not. It may well balance out, but when the earth enters a warming pattern, and it will. The effects could be much more dramatic.
It is not something to just dismiss as a hoax. Just keep an open mind and do the research on both sides.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@4me2cclearly
Basically the only barrier between Liberals and Conservatives (at least those who find the urge to argue with strangers on the internet) is this. Each side wants to think they are smarter than the other. A comment like "the earth is entering a cosmic cold spell so to speak this does happen" Is complete bullS*&^ and you know it. I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I just know by common sense that Global Warming is not an extraordinary threat to humanity.
rcl151 1 year ago
@rcl151
I did not say it was an immediate threat, only that it should not be dismissed. This is the difference between us. I have done the research.
You, who even admits to not haveing done any research, claims that the earth does not go into cosmic warming and cooling trends. That is where you show your ignorance.
It is a fact. Have you ever heard of the little ice age. It is clear you do not have any education on this subject and are talking out your ass.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
@rcl151
The brilliant Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch had explained how our world warms and cools on roughly 100,000-year cycles due to its slowly changing position relative to the Sun. Milankovitch’s theory suggested Earth should be just beginning to head into its next ice age cycle.
4me2cclearly 1 year ago
I am only takeing physics as my major so take it for what its worth, but I am quite sure that the CO2 greenhouse effect is a lie. Sure, it is a greenhouse gas, but the effect that it is made out to have is blown out of proportion. I am not trolling, and would be glad to be shown wrong.
thebest3oo 1 year ago
What global warming? Where I live in the States, its been unusually cold. Its snowed more and the winter has been much much longer. We should protect the enviroment and the air we all share, however making up lies and bullshit (the inconvenient truth) isn't right either.
DavieDave59 1 year ago
@DavieDave59 Thats nice. I guess you just made it known that you do not know the difference between weather and climate. 2009 was the second hottest year on record.
Tartrus1 1 year ago
what is this nonsense,is this fox
kevrs2 1 year ago
I live in south eastern Canada and we had a lot less snow than normal. All the snow we had went further south to America . In fact global temperatures were over all higher the days that America and Europe had colder than normal temperatures. Also the robins showed up a month early in my back yard. Normally they show up in late march but this year they were out there in February. Could this have had anything to do with there winter home getting frozen??? Any thoughts?
Lesouder5555Nature 1 year ago
@mountaindweller44
I suggest you go watch Greenman3610 or Potholer54.
Remember always carry a 'Boloney Detection Kit' when reading such articles. Don't truely believe everything that is up on the internet, not even the guys I mentioned above.
(I suggest you do a search on what the boloney detection kit is also).
Have fun with what you find.
DearestyouXII 1 year ago
yeah, weather guys,, we uh know you can say it Wet Hers...
bumphilosopher 1 year ago
Glenn Back is a scientific ignoramus. He is totally wrong in what he thinks.
On the other hand he just coincidentally happened to be right about CO2 not being the driving force behind climate change. He is still a dumb political whore, in spite of the fact that, we are at the end of the warming trend and at the beginning of the next cooling period.
judomagyar 1 year ago
jesus god, this reporter guy is an asshole
Zachdudeio2 1 year ago
Global warming rules. I hate polar bears.
Pepsi FTW
shatwood 2 years ago
Global warming is real, but the media has made it out to be something that everyone needs to actually be concerned with and it just isn't. The media frenzy over global warming isn't based on science. Scientists are concerned about global warming killing off the last of the polar bears and rising ocean levels 2" to 12" over the next hundred years.
The last guy seems very responsible about his reporting of global warming.
ryanp123456 2 years ago
Google - GREENLAND HOCKEY STICKS . The first link will show you what some don't want you to know.
uboat21 2 years ago
Don't know what he's saying. But global warming is fake. it's not going to happen any time soon. so why even mention it? it's a senseless and useless topic.
Indieguy2 2 years ago
Sure... New data... Gravimetry... Antarctica continually losing mass...
terroil 2 years ago
"Carbon credit" DERIVATIVES do nothing for the environment.
The "Dutch addendum"
Raw date proves COOLING FOR AT LEAST 10YRS
NASA admits faulty data
University of Illinois WITH RAW DATA PROOF
The UN "science" center and 2000+ "Hide the decline emails.
Data not collected from Rural areas for almost 40% of planet.
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS going on right now.
"Ice age" to "global warming" to "climate change" BS!
Who came up with the "carbon credit" IMF scam anyway? It wasn't Shill Gore.
bigc028282 2 years ago
Been sleepin, bigc? LOL
terroil 2 years ago
Funny how the entire soler system is warming... but you wont hear that from the bought and paid for media....(this inclkudes fox)
NYredwhiteandblue 2 years ago
I know the skeptics might have some questions about the spherical nature of the globe, or indeed about the existence of other countries outside Jesus-land, but there are rumours that it is actually 105-110 degrees Fahrenheit RIGHT NOW in parts of South America, Australia and Africa.
Right now while there is snow on the ground in DC! Can you believe it?
Crazy!
CBlargh 2 years ago
He he...retreat in an orderly fashion and whatever you do, don't start running!
scudlington 2 years ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNED!!!!
RagingConflagration 2 years ago
there is no such thing as "man made "global warming.medeveil warming period was the hottest its ever been not last ten years.just another way to scare people to al gores bs ideas,that he will bank a fortune on.just be glad cap and trade bill is dead
midasman68 2 years ago
More snow on the ground, more heat from the sun is radiated back out to space. That is how the earth stays in balance.
weslingm 2 years ago
@weslongm
Wrong, it would impossible to recover from an ice age if that were the case.
nakedapedude 2 years ago
Funny. I live in Ottawa (for those of you who don't know, that's the canadian capital) and we've had above seasonal temperatures for most of the winter and very little snow.
The jetstream is fucked up this winter and is dipping down further south than usual; that's all there is to it.
ISDP1337 2 years ago
I've only wathed the first minute and i'm about to throw up....
"Al Gore's theories"????
Snow in DC means global warming is false???
Why is it so hard to convince americans that there is a lot more to the world than their own back yard. I hear similar arguments in defence of global warming and they all make me sick
thedork01 2 years ago
@thedork01: the problem is not that americans are idiots. American idiots are somehow more vocal than other idiots... fox news, im looking at you.
Evilanious 2 years ago
That's nice Dylan. However, you forgot the part about Phil Jones, the chief advisor to the IPCC, heaqd of the CRU who provides all this info himself has admitted that the Earth has been cooling for the past fifteen years. Not significantly, but cooling none the less. He has also said that there is not any concensus on these theories, that the data is not sourced at this point and finally, that it is not the hottest the Earth has ever been. And this guy is on your side Dylan, what's up with that?
sforest76 2 years ago
watch?v=oiRK5by62KQ
sforest76 2 years ago
Check
sforest76 2 years ago
Do me a favour can we please stop this global warming BS.
roland20002000 2 years ago
Why don't these guys ask Phil Jones who says:
"There has been no global warming since 1995"?
Atom299 2 years ago
He doesn't say that. You haven't read the interview with him very clearly.
Webofscience 2 years ago
That's strange since I copied and pasted it here.
Maybe there's something wrong with my computer.
Atom299 2 years ago
Well you didn't do a very job.
He actually said there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 at the 95% confidence level. There is a big difference between that statement and the one you wrote.
Webofscience 2 years ago
The Mail Online Headline (copy and paste)
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995"
I think you're splitting hairs here. There's no big difference.
If it's not "statistically significant" then it's insignificant and a 95% confidence is virtually as high as you'll ever get.
Atom299 2 years ago
The Mail Online Headline? Not exactly the same as quoting from the interview itself!
There is a big difference. Saying "there is no warming" means just that, there is no warming. Saying "there is no statistically significant warming" means there very well could be warming (or cooling, or no change), but there is not enough data to reduce the error in the apparent trend.
Webofscience 2 years ago
You're really on thin ice here (if you'll pardon the pun).
If you really want to know about warming do this test for yourself.
Global Warming US Cities Getting Warmer
/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
You'll see there's been no increase at all in average temps in the US for 111 years (other than in urban heat islands)
Atom299 2 years ago
Maybe you don't follow current news, let me educate: Last September an insider whistleblower from "THE" university driving AGW released emails, data and climate modeling programs. Well the data was falsified, the emails were a call for 24 AGW scientists to delete emails/information AND the climate modeling software was full of bugs. Since then laws suits are forthcoming from the good scientist whose good data did not show AGW. That includes heads of departments in USA universities and NASA. .
weslingm 2 years ago
2:35 video next to another video in video in video much?
xqyzii 2 years ago
1. Each additional part per million has a slightly less strong warming effect than the previous because the wavelengths that they alone absorb become more scarce. This means that CO2 itself causes 1C of warming and we have to figure out how the climate system reacts to changes in temperature before blaming CO2
Scoforever 2 years ago
2. Although the pacific decadal oscillation is decadal (PDO) those cycles vary. Over the last thirty years the PDO has been warm. In the thirty years of cooling before that it was cold. Before then when the earth was warming the PDO was warm.
3. I didn't understand your point for 3.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Oh thats total bullshit i watched glenn beck he was making fun of that dude dumbass
waltoglesby 2 years ago
fox news is full of retards seriously.
tbcslayer 2 years ago
just 1 volcano can cause more co2 then man has ever made, i think we should make volcanos illegal
giddygiddy85 2 years ago
True. But volcanoes also dump a lot of volcanic aerosols nto the atmosphere which cause climate cooling, outweighing the input of CO2. So large volcanic eruptions will cool the climate, not heat it up.
In addition, volcanic eruptions of that magnitude are very rare, as opposed to the very recent and consistent anthropogenic CO2 input.
Webofscience 2 years ago
Sigh. Right wing, left wing, they are both servants to who funds their campaigns, THE BANKS! I guarantee the banks will be profiting from and pushing Global Warming.
There is NO LAW forcing the media to tell the truth! They are not legally bound to tell the truth but they are legally bound to increase the profits of the corporations that own them.
SIGH!
Glenn Beck sucks especially.
AlphaWaste 2 years ago
And yet, I live in Toronto, and you know what we dont have? Yeah... snow.
RomeoCo 2 years ago
HAHAHA, omg, why exactly are there still people living in the US ? You know you can travel, right ? Holy shit and that is on television ? Politicians, too ? Gnahahaha, srsy, what the fuck ?
V0r4xiz 2 years ago
My grandpa did the weather for WCCO for 45 years. He doesn't say it's global warming so much as it is a sick weather system. Also he doesn't believe man could fix it, rather that it will fix itself, eventually.
I trust him. He is 86 now and has zero ulterior motive.
iversonmatthew 2 years ago
He's right, it's not strictly global "warming" - although there is a global warming trend - it's more global climate change, or global "weirding" as I've heard it put by others. As temperatures in general rise, weather patterns will change. They will probably settle down into new stable patterns eventually, but whether humanity will survive the resulting food shortages, storms, and flooding remains to be seen.
endergt 2 years ago
Have you heard of HAARP. HAARP is a large antenna array with 7 large complexes spread over the planet. HAARP is a communication system that works by first heating the upper atmosphere then bounces radio waves that can reach around the world or can be directed through the earth. When they heat several hundred sq. miles of atmosphere above these facilities it does change weather patterns. One facility is in Alaska and is top secret.
weslingm 2 years ago
This news guy is so unprofessional! Lets call a spade and SPADE! Warm we are NOT! I want the Data and the computer models ALL OF THEM released!
Oceanno69 2 years ago
al gore movie full of factual info ??????j? google " judge demands warning on 11 al gore untruths"
JOOGAL1111 2 years ago
I find that annoying amongst other sceptics.
Scoforever 2 years ago
1. The greenhouse effect has a diminishing return.
2. That's an argument from ignorance. We also know about the pacific decadal oscillation.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Its actually been a very unseasonably warm winter here in Phoenix Arizona, sure its a desert and all that jazz but the weather down here has been down right freakish.
These guys are such idiots.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
Well it's been freakishly cold here in GA, so I guess they cancel each other out. Neither case is evidence either way on the topic. We're all becoming weather/climate hypochondriacs these days.
cano21 2 years ago
Lol. They are some of the first tv-people I've seen who actually seem to know, exactly what they are talking about, with regards to science. They can has teh win!
Faergen 2 years ago
It is settled science that CO2 itself causes about 1C of warming. The warming predicted by the IPCC assumes strong positive feedbacks in the climate system. That really doesn't make much sense. If climate was dominated by positive feedback then we already would have run off of a figurative cliff in climate.
Scoforever 2 years ago
I decided to take a really long think about while abandoning any bias which I may have. Everyday we are bombarded with news about global warming being very very bad and I had ever read. The thing that really got me was the lack of evidence for global warming.
Scoforever 2 years ago
@Scoforever
Do you mean there is no evidence for global warming other than the increase in average global temperatures?
nakedapedude 2 years ago
Pure argument from ignorance. Always be a sceptic.
Scoforever 2 years ago
GLENN GOT SCHOOLED!
Maximatum99 2 years ago
FOX "news" isn't news
it's a propaganda channel feeding you baseless bullshit claims on a wide variety of topics
soepvorkje 2 years ago
HOW CAN THERE STILL BE A RECESSION WHEN ONE MAN WINS A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE LOTTERY! Obviously if planes can fly, gravity MUST be false!
Stonehawk 2 years ago 2
good analogy.
speccwolf 2 years ago
PWN!
harminniemouse 2 years ago
Kinda disappointed that this so-called "Freethinker" channel would degenerate into posting pseudo-political talking heads.
1 star
I subbed to these channels to get away from idiots like the star of this video.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
@ZombieX13
well, are you paying attention to the "star" of this video, or the content he provided on global warming?
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
I don't really care about either. It's all ill-informed, strawman idiocy and name calling and I'd rather not have an otherwise good channel puking up this kind of over politicized, pseudo-scientific bullshit.
Regarding the content: both sides are wrong - there is some climate shift but it's not anthroprogenic on the global scale but this is all beside the point.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
Wait, not only do you not care about the guy in the vid, but you also dont care about the content regarding global warming? Well, I have to ask, why on earth did you click on this video? It has "global warming"' right in the title!
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
I clicked on it b/c I click on all of my subscription videos to see what's up. I have an expectation of my subscriptions and this was not what I would have expected from FFreeThinker2 thus my original comment. I know and understand both sides of the current argument and I do not need to hear it from this big headed noise machine of powerful ignorance and did not expect something like this to be posted here.
ZombieX13 2 years ago
"I clicked on it b/c I click on all of my subscription videos to see what's up".
Yeah, that doesnt change the fact you knew the subject matter before clicking on it, then complained about the subject matter. Not arguing man, I just dont get it.
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
I didn't complain about the subject matter. I complained about the fact that this channel posted something so partisan, political and not very freethinker-like. The comment was meant for the channel owner.
Also the title of the video doesn't say exactly who is doing the psycho talk. I was interested in seeing what FT2 had to say.
But what I don't get is why you care about my comment in the first place. You've clearly intentionally misrepresented my comment in your mind. So what's your angle?
ZombieX13 2 years ago
Wait a minute, now I have an angle? I asked you why would you focus on the specific people over the CONTENT & you responded saying you "don't really care about either. It's all ill-informed, strawman idiocy"... ok, whats ill informed? What strawman? It being cold in the NE neither refutes/confirms global warming. If you dont care about this, whyd you click on it? Its obvious the vid was posted do to this content, its not anyones fault but ur own that u chose to focus on partisan bs.
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
(cont)
also, dont get your panties in a bunch. the same way you have the right to post a comment criticizing the motives for a videp is the same way I have the right to post a response comment on something that makes no sense to me.
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
There's the angle... I'm not discussing the arguments of global warming any further.
Also I never said anything about you not being allowed to respond and I just explained the rest to you. If it didn't sink in then I don't know what to tell you.
Good day
ZombieX13 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm not discussing the arguments of global warming any further"
Any further? LOL, when DID you discuss them? Point in the air & say "abgle", then claim victory & walk away. But... we can all do that.
Laters.
Key2daUnderground 2 years ago
This is why I love being a liberal. :D
MrSarcasm2 2 years ago 2
what a pretensious prick, global warming or not.