taxing the CO2 emissions is like prescribing antibiotics for a wart.
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate is negligible. Galactic radiation seeds cloud formation; amount cloud cover determines amount energy received to surface.
How much of galactic radiation gets close to earth is determined by the the Heliosphere.
How "thick" the heliosphere is determined by the sun's magnetic activity..
VOLUME 81, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 30 NOVEMBER 1998
During the last solar cycle Earths cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earths temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earths climate.
Bit of a red herring there, and I'm unable to find many supporting articles. They may well be right, but their main contention is sensible enough and does not contradict the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
It makes good sense that ionising radiation should seed clouds, and clouds affect temperature, so the two variables they've identified would have strong effects.
I apologise for jumping the gun, 'galactic radiation' sounded like the kind of babble often used by anti-science folks.
How many climate researchers have you had sex with, in person, over the past year?
You have all the ear marks of a sophist. You speak in cliches, back up nothing you say with empirical data, make irrelevant associations, & avoid the crucial questions by asking more irrelevant questions that only steer the conversation around fallacious paradigms (like talking in person to a climate researcher) that YOU ALONE form as the only acceptable model of argument.
@JmkLcAeJsm I started to read the 'Stern report' & immediately began to chuckle over the blatant use of 'cliches' & ambiguous terms flowing from the onset.
I'll tell you what:You watch on google video;"The Great Global Warming Swindle",
I,as time permits, will read the entire 'Stern Report' & explain in lucid & incontrovertible terms why it's a bunch of balderdash.
Also perhaps,in the meantime,you'd explain why privately owned banks should receive the 'money' for carbon credits.
@JmkLcAe Great!Though I disagree with Potholer's conclusions on many things,he's a great debater.I'll watch it.I'm still reading the stern report.
I'm not talking about 'carbon credits' per se. I'm talking about a motive for a scam.If private bankers are going to end up with the money for the credits - who will they pay off,with the Trillions they control,to lie,falsify data,etc.
It's a clear & present motive for a scam in view of record cold temps.The means to pull it off is there as well.
In spite the fact that you can not pronounce the name of Dr. Miskolczi; did you read his 40 page paper.n Miskolczi threw sand in the machinery of the old paradigm.
Warning to Americans: having a British accent does not make you smarter. it just sound like you know what you are talking about.
Yes I read it, it was a critique of a theory of temperature known as 'grey body' theory. It has nothing to do with the micro, individual electron valence interraction based models of climate change that researchers actually use.
I prefer measurements instead of "models of climate change that researchers actually use".
I particularly like the 20 years of data that Dr. Lindzen used to show that the climate sensitivity is far less than any of the values that are used by those climate models. He showed that there can not be a runaway greenhouse warming.
2) I'd like to see how well the model, based on the Miskolczi principle, will predict the climate fluctuations.
Do you want me to go work out the photon absorbtion affects in different atoms of CO2? And then correspond them with incoming and outgoing IR radiation to see if model matches prediction? I get scientists to do that shit for me, coz I'm a lazy economist.
Dr Miskolczi doesn't propose a new model, merely critiques an obsolete one that was used to measure irradiance and other other properties of large bodies as a whole.
Please, forgive me for my partiality to measurements instead of models and politically charged psychobabble. I am just a technocrat engineer who writes software that actually solve real life problems.
I think, we should concentrate on problems that we can do something about. Explaining the importance of the Hubbert curve and the coming Post Peak Oil world economy to the general public. That will happen whatever the CO2 concentration or the global temperature will be.
How many climate researchers have you had sex with, in person, over the past year?
You have all the ear marks of a sophist. You speak in cliches, back up nothing you say with empirical data, make irrelevant associations, & avoid the crucial questions by asking more irrelevant questions that only steer the conversation around fallacious paradigms (like talking in person to a climate researcher) that YOU ALONE form as the only acceptable model of argument.
So, if the author of this video was so well advanced in critical thinking, why does he support privately owned banks being the creators and sellers of carbon credits rather than the people's government themselves.
For example, why not buy carbon credits from the United States, instead of privately owned banks (owned by oil barons)? Why should the wealthiest people in the world be the recipients of the money paid for carbon credits?
So, what happened to critical thinking regarding this matter?
Who thinks that? I don't think that. I advocate a $60 per tonne carbon tax to be levied on all imports of fossil fuel, and an equivalent tax on livestock.
@JmkLcAeJsm Have you researched who is going to collect the carbon taxes?
Still, the norther hemisphere has just gone through the coldest mean average temperatures in any 12 month period ever recorded. This fact alone is great food more even more critical thought.
But the FACT that the carbon taxes would be collected by private international bankers is the most nefarious link to what is an obvious scam. Even Al Gore will make billions. Anyone want to discuss motives for a scam?
I refer you to the two charts I presented in the video which explain that any warming effect will occurr in conjunction with all the other climate drivers, which means that unseasonably cold weather will certainly still occurr.
And if you think that your governments are run by private international bankers, you're living in a bizarre fantasy world and would do well to learn about real politics.
@JmkLcAe Carbon credits are being set up,as you read this now, to be collected by privately owned banks and investment firms-NOT THE U.S.If you don't realize that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank,then Sir,you are living in a fantasy It is a FACT.
Now, you want to explain snow falling for the 1st time EVER in southern California last winter, & record cold in Florida this winter, based on two charts bereft of empirical data, then you Sir, are most definitely living in a fantasy.
No, you don't understand a fundamental concept of statistics. The point is not that 'everywhere will get warmer all the time'. The point is that 'the average termperature will trend upwards.' Not even increase year on year, but trend up.
And I'm sick of this bullcrap about the Fed. The Fed has its charter from the US government. It's legally obliged to follow the governments instructions.
@JmkLcAeJsm Trends do not set record cold temperatures. Your graph shows a mean average rise in trends. This couldn't produce RECORD COLD temperatures. Do you know what the word 'RECORD' means?
The Federal Reserve is autonomous regarding monetary policy and is unregulated by the government.
Bedsides, you miss the point: PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS will receive the money for carbon credits - NOT ANY GOVERNMENT.
The problem with the Fed is precisely that it is politically controlled. The UK's bank of england works because it is independent.
I don't give a fuck about carbon credits. They're a stupid idea, but better than nothing.
And if the temperature variance is also increasing then it's entirely possible that we'll see colder winters than ever before. Variance, fyi, is the root of the standard deviation, which is a measure of spread.
@JmkLcAeJsm The Fed IS independent. I'm beginning to believe you're a pure propagandist.
You don't 'give a fuck about carbon credits' anymore than the Fed Res.(creator & seller of carbon credits) cares about the environment.
The private creditors of carbon credits are the wealthiest people in the world who are buying off scientists & politicians to promote the global warming scam. The motives for such a scam are all too conspicuous!
There is no empirical data proving CO2 based global warming.
What's more fascinating is the only 'theories' out there are those promulgated by those promoting themselves as 'caring' for the environment. Yes, 'sheep in wolves clothing' the children of the father of lies.
You're a liar through and through. The FACT you have no proof linking CO2 & that you play dumb regarding the TRUTH of the private banking agenda reveals that you are totally full of shit.
"Variance is the root of standard deviation" <--- A total line of oxymoronic vacuous stupidity.
@JmkLcAeJsm Wow!Now you want to begin an actual conversation!Kudos to U.
The terms 'standard' & 'deviation' together are oxymoronic & to use with the word 'variance' is only an empty redundancy that has no substance.
For example: What does the phrase 'Climate Change' actually mean? It is meaningless & vacuous, unless perhaps you are referring to winter-spring-summer-&fall.
There is no evidence of higher average temperatures associated with CO2 ---> a life giving gas. Put up or shut up!
You've just disqualified yourself from this argument. The fact that you can't even be bothered to google 'standard deviation' and find out that it's a commonly used statistical measure of variance in a sample, and probably don't know or care what any of that means, is inexcusable. Sorry.
It proves that you're:
1. Ignorant of very, very, very basic science.
2. Unwilling or unable to look into things and prefer to just conjecture.
@JmkLcAeJsm Nice cop out.I didn't think you had it in you from the start.Not only have YOU FAILED to say anything substantive, like; PROOF, you also merely speak in cliches & call it 'science'.
Firstly, anything, right now regarding global climate, that has deviated from anything 'standard' is that the planet is cooler then ever before recorded.The ice caps are returning to mean averages, just as they are on Mars & the moons of Jupiter. So, you really think you represent anything scientific?
Awesome job! utubekookdetector is the biggest nutjob on YouTube, next to howtheworldworks. And you're right, his whole agenda is attention. His videos have no value whatsoever and are the epitome of the uninformed. You have no idea how close your monkey image throughout the video resembles the kook. 5 Stars!
Yes, "scientists" who speak out against climate change tend to be funded by oil companies. "friendsofscience(dot)com" for example.
It's frustrating because time and again I hear people saying things like "You just believe in climate change because you're trusting some scientist without even being skeptical at all," and then they latch on to some website without any skepticism of the motives behind it.
Have you ever stopped to consider the possible motives behind those who are promoting this doomsday scenario? If scientists can create a worldwide panic, they get billions of dollars in government grants. If politicians can cause mass hysteria, they get to pass the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. More importantly, they get control over every aspect of industry and even our daily lives. Obama gets to fulfill his campaign promise of putting the coal industry out of business.
Yeah, they're lying for money. That's why you see Hansenn driving around in his Escalade w. all that bling. Control? Not really. Policy makers take the predictions of scientists into consideration (sometimes), but they do not put them in control. This is the weakest conspiracy theory out there.
Your comment would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
You obviously don't understand science at all. You have no idea what "peer reviewed" means or what such a system does. You've probably never heard an actual scientist speak or looked into how their careers work. Yeah, people decide to pursue science doing the most mentally challenging work for hardly any money so they can invent an elaborate ploy to con the government into giving them a few extra dollars?
There is NO credible evidence that CO2 has any effect on global climate! Yes, CO2 levels have increased. Yes, global temperatures have risen slightly more than 1/2 of one degree over the last hundred years with a cooling trend over the last ten years. However, the two events are unrelated. Global warming, AND COOLING can be directly linked to fluctuations in SOLAR RADIATION. It makes as much sense to blame global climate change on the increased number of house cats!
A correlation/whole body approach is not appropriate.
If one examines the absorbtion of EM radiation by carbon based gases, and uses the results to extrapolate for the entire atmosphere, one finds that global temperatures will increase by at least 2 degrees if the level of atmospheric CO2 and equivalents rises from 400 to 550 pars per million.
of all the climate gasses there is about 3% of it which is CO2 and 3% of that again is human made... not to mention the fact that climate does better during times of warming than in cooling and the fact that top climatologists in the international geological conference held in my country, Norway, last september claims that the earth has cooled down for several years now and the poles are back to 1980 levels of size really does not help your case.
Could you answer me these few questions... If I were to put 10lbs of NH3 into my garden, it would change the chemistry of the garden, probably killing most of the plants. Would we agree on that? If I put 100lbs of H2SO4 into my swimming pool, it would change the chemistry to some degree. Would we agree on that?
So, if I released 6 trillion tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere over 200 years... you're saying no effect? Or if you concede it would have some affect, what would it be?
You have a strange notion of what credible evidence is. We have a physical model which predicts the effect. Solar radiation fluctuations have not followed the global temperature changes (no matter how often you put it in caps).
Why, do you suppose, have global temperatures been dropping for the last decade, when CO2 levels have continued to increase? Your "physical model" is full of philosophical crap. Are we supposed to accept your "evidence" as credible even though the facts do not support your hypotheses?
Philosophical crap? Are we now looking to philosophers? The average temperatures have risen over the past decade. Deniers like yourself are skewing the data by focussing on the peak of '98. I guarantee we will surpass that peak within the next five years.
3:12: You're right to worry. I can't count the number of times I've seen idiots commenting on news stories about cool temperatures (usually short-term cold snaps) with a defiant 'Ha! Well, there goes that global warming theory!'
This - coupled with the media's obsession with the unbacked phrase "forcing scientists to rethink climate change" every time these annual cold snaps happen - is one of my pet gripes.
I've said this to you so many times it's becoming a cliche... great vid, as usual!
I'm personally more concerned about degradation of nature (forests, marshes) and poisonous pollution more than CO2 itself. Smog is a horrible experience I hope everyone will agree on that. Tax cuts for low emission or any other way to reward people is good. Referring to people's greed always has effects.
You'll often hear "this would cripple our economy!", but if you let people keep more of their money and only "punish" consumption of more damaging sources of energy, I don't think it would harm the economy....especially if we drastically cut taxes and spending on the whole.
But when you have the EPA wanting to tax cow farts, that's a bit of a retarded plan.
taxing the CO2 emissions is like prescribing antibiotics for a wart.
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate is negligible. Galactic radiation seeds cloud formation; amount cloud cover determines amount energy received to surface.
How much of galactic radiation gets close to earth is determined by the the Heliosphere.
How "thick" the heliosphere is determined by the sun's magnetic activity..
See Svensmark, Shaviv.
judomagyar 2 years ago
I've literally never heard such a lot of utter bollocks. 'Galactic radiation'?? What the heck sort of engineer are you?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
VOLUME 81, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 30 NOVEMBER 1998
During the last solar cycle Earths cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earths temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earths climate.
judomagyar 2 years ago
Bit of a red herring there, and I'm unable to find many supporting articles. They may well be right, but their main contention is sensible enough and does not contradict the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
It makes good sense that ionising radiation should seed clouds, and clouds affect temperature, so the two variables they've identified would have strong effects.
I apologise for jumping the gun, 'galactic radiation' sounded like the kind of babble often used by anti-science folks.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm There are some decent rebuttals to the cosmic ray hypothesis on Real Climate
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
"What the heck sort of engineer are you? "
I studied microchip manufacturing.
judomagyar 2 years ago
How many climate researchers have you had sex with, in person, over the past year?
You have all the ear marks of a sophist. You speak in cliches, back up nothing you say with empirical data, make irrelevant associations, & avoid the crucial questions by asking more irrelevant questions that only steer the conversation around fallacious paradigms (like talking in person to a climate researcher) that YOU ALONE form as the only acceptable model of argument.
FACTS ---> Put up or shut up!
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Ok, so how many papers on climate change in reputable scientific journals have you read? Have you read the Stern report?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm I started to read the 'Stern report' & immediately began to chuckle over the blatant use of 'cliches' & ambiguous terms flowing from the onset.
I'll tell you what:You watch on google video;"The Great Global Warming Swindle",
I,as time permits, will read the entire 'Stern Report' & explain in lucid & incontrovertible terms why it's a bunch of balderdash.
Also perhaps,in the meantime,you'd explain why privately owned banks should receive the 'money' for carbon credits.
Peace.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
I have no interest in the carbon credits debate. I don't support carbon credits. Drop it.
I've seen the video, It's been adequately debunked by Potholer54 on his channel so you can go and watch those bad boys.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAe Great!Though I disagree with Potholer's conclusions on many things,he's a great debater.I'll watch it.I'm still reading the stern report.
I'm not talking about 'carbon credits' per se. I'm talking about a motive for a scam.If private bankers are going to end up with the money for the credits - who will they pay off,with the Trillions they control,to lie,falsify data,etc.
It's a clear & present motive for a scam in view of record cold temps.The means to pull it off is there as well.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
In spite the fact that you can not pronounce the name of Dr. Miskolczi; did you read his 40 page paper.n Miskolczi threw sand in the machinery of the old paradigm.
Warning to Americans: having a British accent does not make you smarter. it just sound like you know what you are talking about.
judomagyar 2 years ago
Yes I read it, it was a critique of a theory of temperature known as 'grey body' theory. It has nothing to do with the micro, individual electron valence interraction based models of climate change that researchers actually use.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
I prefer measurements instead of "models of climate change that researchers actually use".
I particularly like the 20 years of data that Dr. Lindzen used to show that the climate sensitivity is far less than any of the values that are used by those climate models. He showed that there can not be a runaway greenhouse warming.
2) I'd like to see how well the model, based on the Miskolczi principle, will predict the climate fluctuations.
Go ELTE!
I fit a least square line
judomagyar 2 years ago
Do you want me to go work out the photon absorbtion affects in different atoms of CO2? And then correspond them with incoming and outgoing IR radiation to see if model matches prediction? I get scientists to do that shit for me, coz I'm a lazy economist.
Dr Miskolczi doesn't propose a new model, merely critiques an obsolete one that was used to measure irradiance and other other properties of large bodies as a whole.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm
Please, forgive me for my partiality to measurements instead of models and politically charged psychobabble. I am just a technocrat engineer who writes software that actually solve real life problems.
I think, we should concentrate on problems that we can do something about. Explaining the importance of the Hubbert curve and the coming Post Peak Oil world economy to the general public. That will happen whatever the CO2 concentration or the global temperature will be.
judomagyar 2 years ago
An engineer ought to know a bit of physics, so you know what photon absorbtion is, and you know it ain't 'politically charged psychobabble'.
I think we should too, which is why I don't advocate daft schemes like massive public investment in so called 'green energy'.
I advocate for a $70 per tonne carbon tax to replace VAT and sales taxes.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago 2
Robert Muir-Wood was not very happy about Stern misusing his analysis.
Why should everyone read all 700 pages?
I'd like to see the possible effect on world economy of more and more scarce fossil fuels. I think, the Iraq war is a precursor of what is coming.
Also, a study that investigates what happens if we are entering a cooling period? Climate refugees from Canada, Scandinavia, etc...
judomagyar 2 years ago
They shouldn't, they should read the abstract.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
How many climate researchers have you had sex with, in person, over the past year?
You have all the ear marks of a sophist. You speak in cliches, back up nothing you say with empirical data, make irrelevant associations, & avoid the crucial questions by asking more irrelevant questions that only steer the conversation around fallacious paradigms (like talking in person to a climate researcher) that YOU ALONE form as the only acceptable model of argument.
FACTS ---> Put up or shut up!
TroddinSod 2 years ago
So, if the author of this video was so well advanced in critical thinking, why does he support privately owned banks being the creators and sellers of carbon credits rather than the people's government themselves.
For example, why not buy carbon credits from the United States, instead of privately owned banks (owned by oil barons)? Why should the wealthiest people in the world be the recipients of the money paid for carbon credits?
So, what happened to critical thinking regarding this matter?
TroddinSod 2 years ago
Who thinks that? I don't think that. I advocate a $60 per tonne carbon tax to be levied on all imports of fossil fuel, and an equivalent tax on livestock.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Have you researched who is going to collect the carbon taxes?
Still, the norther hemisphere has just gone through the coldest mean average temperatures in any 12 month period ever recorded. This fact alone is great food more even more critical thought.
But the FACT that the carbon taxes would be collected by private international bankers is the most nefarious link to what is an obvious scam. Even Al Gore will make billions. Anyone want to discuss motives for a scam?
TroddinSod 2 years ago
I assume in the US the IRS will collect them.
I refer you to the two charts I presented in the video which explain that any warming effect will occurr in conjunction with all the other climate drivers, which means that unseasonably cold weather will certainly still occurr.
And if you think that your governments are run by private international bankers, you're living in a bizarre fantasy world and would do well to learn about real politics.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAe Carbon credits are being set up,as you read this now, to be collected by privately owned banks and investment firms-NOT THE U.S.If you don't realize that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank,then Sir,you are living in a fantasy It is a FACT.
Now, you want to explain snow falling for the 1st time EVER in southern California last winter, & record cold in Florida this winter, based on two charts bereft of empirical data, then you Sir, are most definitely living in a fantasy.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
No, you don't understand a fundamental concept of statistics. The point is not that 'everywhere will get warmer all the time'. The point is that 'the average termperature will trend upwards.' Not even increase year on year, but trend up.
And I'm sick of this bullcrap about the Fed. The Fed has its charter from the US government. It's legally obliged to follow the governments instructions.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Trends do not set record cold temperatures. Your graph shows a mean average rise in trends. This couldn't produce RECORD COLD temperatures. Do you know what the word 'RECORD' means?
The Federal Reserve is autonomous regarding monetary policy and is unregulated by the government.
Bedsides, you miss the point: PRIVATELY OWNED BANKS will receive the money for carbon credits - NOT ANY GOVERNMENT.
You are seriously deluded.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
The problem with the Fed is precisely that it is politically controlled. The UK's bank of england works because it is independent.
I don't give a fuck about carbon credits. They're a stupid idea, but better than nothing.
And if the temperature variance is also increasing then it's entirely possible that we'll see colder winters than ever before. Variance, fyi, is the root of the standard deviation, which is a measure of spread.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm The Fed IS independent. I'm beginning to believe you're a pure propagandist.
You don't 'give a fuck about carbon credits' anymore than the Fed Res.(creator & seller of carbon credits) cares about the environment.
The private creditors of carbon credits are the wealthiest people in the world who are buying off scientists & politicians to promote the global warming scam. The motives for such a scam are all too conspicuous!
There is no empirical data proving CO2 based global warming.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
It's fascinating seeing how the global warming conspiracy theorists have evolved their accusations.
First it was academics colluding to obtain research funding by spreading scare stories.
Then it was governments pulling the strings to expand government involvement in the economy.
Now, apparently, it's private banks colluding to profit from carbon credits.
When people start coming round to the idea of a carbon tax, it'll be something else again.
Whereas the empirical data has stayed the same
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
What's more fascinating is the only 'theories' out there are those promulgated by those promoting themselves as 'caring' for the environment. Yes, 'sheep in wolves clothing' the children of the father of lies.
You're a liar through and through. The FACT you have no proof linking CO2 & that you play dumb regarding the TRUTH of the private banking agenda reveals that you are totally full of shit.
"Variance is the root of standard deviation" <--- A total line of oxymoronic vacuous stupidity.
TroddinSod 2 years ago
'A total line of oxymoronic vacuous stupidity.'
Why oxymoronic? Why vacuous?
And what, for you, would qualify as proof linking CO2 and temperature increases?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Wow!Now you want to begin an actual conversation!Kudos to U.
The terms 'standard' & 'deviation' together are oxymoronic & to use with the word 'variance' is only an empty redundancy that has no substance.
For example: What does the phrase 'Climate Change' actually mean? It is meaningless & vacuous, unless perhaps you are referring to winter-spring-summer-&fall.
There is no evidence of higher average temperatures associated with CO2 ---> a life giving gas. Put up or shut up!
TroddinSod 2 years ago
You've just disqualified yourself from this argument. The fact that you can't even be bothered to google 'standard deviation' and find out that it's a commonly used statistical measure of variance in a sample, and probably don't know or care what any of that means, is inexcusable. Sorry.
It proves that you're:
1. Ignorant of very, very, very basic science.
2. Unwilling or unable to look into things and prefer to just conjecture.
You fail.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
@JmkLcAeJsm Nice cop out.I didn't think you had it in you from the start.Not only have YOU FAILED to say anything substantive, like; PROOF, you also merely speak in cliches & call it 'science'.
Firstly, anything, right now regarding global climate, that has deviated from anything 'standard' is that the planet is cooler then ever before recorded.The ice caps are returning to mean averages, just as they are on Mars & the moons of Jupiter. So, you really think you represent anything scientific?
TroddinSod 2 years ago
How many climate researchers have you talked to, in person, over the past year?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Awesome job! utubekookdetector is the biggest nutjob on YouTube, next to howtheworldworks. And you're right, his whole agenda is attention. His videos have no value whatsoever and are the epitome of the uninformed. You have no idea how close your monkey image throughout the video resembles the kook. 5 Stars!
mccainisthrough 2 years ago
Hmm...we need more videos like this on youtube. There's a disturbing amount of support for anti climate change advocates here.
noodles321321 2 years ago
Great video.
Yes, "scientists" who speak out against climate change tend to be funded by oil companies. "friendsofscience(dot)com" for example.
It's frustrating because time and again I hear people saying things like "You just believe in climate change because you're trusting some scientist without even being skeptical at all," and then they latch on to some website without any skepticism of the motives behind it.
ubergossen 2 years ago
Have you ever stopped to consider the possible motives behind those who are promoting this doomsday scenario? If scientists can create a worldwide panic, they get billions of dollars in government grants. If politicians can cause mass hysteria, they get to pass the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. More importantly, they get control over every aspect of industry and even our daily lives. Obama gets to fulfill his campaign promise of putting the coal industry out of business.
voiceofintelligence 2 years ago
Yeah, they're lying for money. That's why you see Hansenn driving around in his Escalade w. all that bling. Control? Not really. Policy makers take the predictions of scientists into consideration (sometimes), but they do not put them in control. This is the weakest conspiracy theory out there.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Your comment would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
You obviously don't understand science at all. You have no idea what "peer reviewed" means or what such a system does. You've probably never heard an actual scientist speak or looked into how their careers work. Yeah, people decide to pursue science doing the most mentally challenging work for hardly any money so they can invent an elaborate ploy to con the government into giving them a few extra dollars?
Sorry, but you're an idiot.
ubergossen 2 years ago
There is NO credible evidence that CO2 has any effect on global climate! Yes, CO2 levels have increased. Yes, global temperatures have risen slightly more than 1/2 of one degree over the last hundred years with a cooling trend over the last ten years. However, the two events are unrelated. Global warming, AND COOLING can be directly linked to fluctuations in SOLAR RADIATION. It makes as much sense to blame global climate change on the increased number of house cats!
voiceofintelligence 2 years ago
A correlation/whole body approach is not appropriate.
If one examines the absorbtion of EM radiation by carbon based gases, and uses the results to extrapolate for the entire atmosphere, one finds that global temperatures will increase by at least 2 degrees if the level of atmospheric CO2 and equivalents rises from 400 to 550 pars per million.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
no, there is a DEFINITE correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. there is also a very convincing mechanism linking the two.
however, there could be an overlooked third factor which is influencing both CO2 levels and temperature.
it is true solar radiation probably does also have an effect as there is a correlation between it and global temperature
simplynutter08 2 years ago 2
Yes, and CO2 levels add increases on top of any action by other forces, an absolutely crucial point in this video.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
yes, i was replying to 'voiceofignorance'
simplynutter08 2 years ago
of all the climate gasses there is about 3% of it which is CO2 and 3% of that again is human made... not to mention the fact that climate does better during times of warming than in cooling and the fact that top climatologists in the international geological conference held in my country, Norway, last september claims that the earth has cooled down for several years now and the poles are back to 1980 levels of size really does not help your case.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
Could you answer me these few questions... If I were to put 10lbs of NH3 into my garden, it would change the chemistry of the garden, probably killing most of the plants. Would we agree on that? If I put 100lbs of H2SO4 into my swimming pool, it would change the chemistry to some degree. Would we agree on that?
So, if I released 6 trillion tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere over 200 years... you're saying no effect? Or if you concede it would have some affect, what would it be?
CO2Junkie 2 years ago 2
You have a strange notion of what credible evidence is. We have a physical model which predicts the effect. Solar radiation fluctuations have not followed the global temperature changes (no matter how often you put it in caps).
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
Why, do you suppose, have global temperatures been dropping for the last decade, when CO2 levels have continued to increase? Your "physical model" is full of philosophical crap. Are we supposed to accept your "evidence" as credible even though the facts do not support your hypotheses?
voiceofintelligence 2 years ago
Philosophical crap? Are we now looking to philosophers? The average temperatures have risen over the past decade. Deniers like yourself are skewing the data by focussing on the peak of '98. I guarantee we will surpass that peak within the next five years.
Maxdwolf 2 years ago
LOL
cooIbreeze 2 years ago
3:12: You're right to worry. I can't count the number of times I've seen idiots commenting on news stories about cool temperatures (usually short-term cold snaps) with a defiant 'Ha! Well, there goes that global warming theory!'
This - coupled with the media's obsession with the unbacked phrase "forcing scientists to rethink climate change" every time these annual cold snaps happen - is one of my pet gripes.
I've said this to you so many times it's becoming a cliche... great vid, as usual!
Rissoleking 2 years ago
I'm personally more concerned about degradation of nature (forests, marshes) and poisonous pollution more than CO2 itself. Smog is a horrible experience I hope everyone will agree on that. Tax cuts for low emission or any other way to reward people is good. Referring to people's greed always has effects.
EnhancedNightmare 2 years ago
This video is damned sexy. Just thought I'd let you know.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
Income tax reduction + carbon tax
Nice, I like it.
That's one of the better ideas I've heard.
You'll often hear "this would cripple our economy!", but if you let people keep more of their money and only "punish" consumption of more damaging sources of energy, I don't think it would harm the economy....especially if we drastically cut taxes and spending on the whole.
But when you have the EPA wanting to tax cow farts, that's a bit of a retarded plan.
Technology will solve all!
Morrakiu 2 years ago
Hey JmkLcAeJsm,
Have you come across "How the World Works" in your Youtube travels? He's pretty typical of the conservatives of which you speak. Here's an example:
watch?v=rvPVAhbPi2s
Hope you have a strong stomach.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
Everyone knows this guy here... unfortunately.
EnhancedNightmare 2 years ago
Yeah, he's a worry. Should be on FOX.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
I find that the basis of their denial of "the global warming conspiracy" is based on their view of it as part of the liberal agenda.
aderek79 2 years ago
nice video. you have a habit of saying long words that i don't understand. it's alright though.
anglaismoyen 2 years ago
I'm happy to explain anything via pm if you'd rather not draw puerile and judgemental comments from your fellow viewers!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
nah, it's ok. i'm only young and not yet fully learned in climatology and statistics. plenty of time yet.. thanks anyway.
anglaismoyen 2 years ago