@Sourdoughmusk Actually, the warmest year on record is 1998. We've only kept anything close to accurate records for a hundred years, hardly validates your point.
@rolopolo66 No, it hasn't. All 4 data sets used, satellites from UAH and RSS; and the surface stations by HadCRUt3 and GISS; all show a flat line trend (i.e. no discernible trend) since 2001. Note, no "model" is used. Only empirical data. Models have been GROSSLY inaccurate, as Stephen Schwartz pointed out in his 2010 paper concerning temp observations.
@smartalek65 You really can't take a trend from 2001 to now. Climate trends are viewed over decades. Also, if there has been no warming then why have many of the hottest years in the temp record occurred since 2001?
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
CONT'D appear uniquely warm. Use all proxy data, and the Roman and Medieval warm periods BOTH have episodes of warmer climate than current. Herr grunmann also fails to tell us of numerous studies found in the scientific literature that dispute the methods and findings of the "hockey team." CONT'D
CONT'D Herr grunmann then says in his propaganda vid (on medieval warming), that there's now a whole hockey team of subsequent papers that allegedly found the same thing MBH did. The truth is that Mann's last paper, in 2008, showed a warm medieval period and a deeper little ice age than did MBH99. But Mann repeated his "trick" of splicing proxy reconstruction data with the instrument data. As Ljungqvist points out in his paper I referenced earlier, this is the ONLY way current temps CONT'D
Perhaps we should examine Herr grunmann's errors. He says that the "hockey stick" has been upheld by the NAS. False. The NAS report was critical of MBH's methods, and found that the base premise of the graph's use was NOT strongly supported by it's data; and it had a skill validation not significantly different from zero-meaning it's worthless. CON'T
@greenman3610 Ah, the fallback position when called on falsehood: imply the "consensus" and the falsehood that skeptics (at least you use correct terminology this time) are becoming few among scientists. Yes, that's a falsehood. Scientists speaking out against the notion of AGW are growing in number.
@smartalek65 Yes it has. The model the sceptics use doesn't take into account polar warming. When polar warming is factored in, the climate has been warming for the last decade.
@greenman3610 1) Very well, North's statement under oath, that he and his panel essentially agree with Wegman stands.2) As pointed out, the NRC did NOT uphold MBH.3) About half of those "confirming" papers were co-authored by Mann himself, none have escaped valid criticism, and numerous other papers have been published that largely differ with the "hockey team's" notion of a stable climate until recent times.
@greenman3610 And you dig yourself a deeper hole with false ad hominems. In this case, you mistake a withdrawn 2008 paper for the report to the congressional subcommittee in 2006 that North found no fault with. The 2008 paper was withdrawn, contrary to what you wish, for failure to reference background materials, not the questionable methods employed by MBH.
@greenman3610 Essentially, the bottom line from the NRC panel was that they couldn't refute the answer MBH came up with, but due to glaring lack of verifiable proxies and severely questionable statistical methods, they could only confirm MBH back to 1600. Wegman's panel was more blunt, as were other PEER-REVIEWED critiques.
Another instance of greenman's falsehoods is again in the medieval warm period vid, where he touts a 2006 NAS report as having upheld the hockey stick temperature reconstruction. It did no such thing. It said that no confirmation was possible beyond 400 years ago, and it's lead author, Gerald North, stated that his panel agreed with a panel of statisticions who condemned MBH.
"While we did find some of the methods used in Michael E. Mann's original papers to be less cautious than some of our members might have used, we have not found any evidence that his results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers."
@greenman3610 Actually, it's the response of North himself found in the subcommittee's record I'm referring to, not his written reply. Barton asked him if he or his statistician disagreed with the findings or method of Dr. Wegman, and his reply was "No, no we don't." Wegman's panel condemned the methodology of MBH in their report. In fact, the NAS panel's statistician, Peter Bloomfield, said that Wegman's report and the NAS were roughly the same as concerned MBH's methods.
@greenman3610 Excuse me, my device is too sensitive. Your pathetic attempt to psychoanalyze those who disagree also epically fails in light of reality. In practically every case here, at least the abstract is available, and it's obvious what the authors found. To say those you falsely call "deniers" hide behind firewalls to "cherry-pick" science is not only a falsehood, but a hypocritical one in light of your own dismissal of science in your vids.
@greenman3610 The charges you just leveled have repeatedly been proven false. In your medieval warm period vid, you call the MWP "an article of faith," which in several comment threads I've shown to be based on science. In one, I undertook to post as many as I could. You leveled that firewall charge, and another poster and I proved it false time and again by finding the full papers you said were firewalled.
@greenman3610 Is that the best you have? Ljungqvist pointed out the problem with what you're saying in that vid in his PEER-REVIEWED paper last year; (Geografiska annalaer Series A, Physical Geography, vol.92, iss 3, 2010), and the best you've got is referring to that same vid, personal insults, and flippant remarks? No facts? Oops, sorry, the f-word, I forgot how hated those are.
@greenman3610 The only "disengagement with reality" on these threads has been your own. I've referenced dozens of papers-and only scratched the surface!-that demonstrated just how inaccurate that notion of yours is. The medieval warm period (and likely the Roman warm period before it) were warmer-and worldwide- episodes than the current period. Using same methods (i.e. proxies), the conclusion that the world now is warmer than the world then is indefensible.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
CONT'D 3) Spouting pejoratives and implying your opposition are murderers is one of the reasons your side is losing the public debate. 4) Be careful with the meat-eater remarks; I remind you, one of history's greatest villains was a vegetarian.
@mphello 1) The major oil companies, including Chevron and Exxon-Mobil, all invest in "clean" or green energy. An article can be found in USAToday online May 26. Most greenies are aware of this, it's even used in green propaganda; i.e." see? Even the big bad oil giants see it our way." 2) You're answering what I posted 3 months ago, including SCIENCE in peer-reviewed literature that showed NO CRISIS IS IMMINENT. CONT'D
@Greenman: Smartalek strikes me as one of those Big Oil Freepers, scouring the internet looking for science to debunk for the sake of their OIl Investments. There's no arguing with deluded self-interest.
@greenman3610 Incorrect. You've substituted the certainty of SOME scientists for your own judgement based on facts; and worse, you expect others to do the same, then belittle and make snide remarks to and about those who don't. It might come as a shock to you, but about 10 years ago, I was one of you who believed in an imminent climate catastrophe if certain actions weren't taken.
i've also decided to believe the majority of epidemiologists who believe that HIV causes AIDS. You may choose to go out on the internet and find those few who don't. I've decided that my children's health is important enough to be conservative and go with the consensus.
you may also believe the few Phds out there who will claim the earth is 5000 years old, or that they have a perpetual motion machine, or can cure your cancer with quartz crystals.
@greenman3610 As you're entitled to. But you're behavior insofar as climate change goes is more arrogant than you might believe. While in all the other cases, you make those decisions for yourself or those you have a moral obligation to make decisions for. When it comes to climate change, however, you demand others be forced to abide by your beliefs and, indeed, pay with money they earned for the changes you feel are needed, whereas they might (and probably do) disagree. Herr Grunmann CONT'D
CONT'D I, for one, prefer to make my own decisions, and vehemently object to having someone else's forced upon me-whether I agree or not. I looked at the scientific evidence, and I've drawn a conclusion obviously at odds with yours. Human industry may be at the root of some minor part of the observed warming of the last quarter of the 20th century, but it's virtually no chance that it's worth wrecking lives and national economies to do what can be done about that little bit
@greenman3610 Careful, Herr Grunmann. You've just admitted too much. You inadvertantly admitted that oil companies' profits don't wreck lives or economies, at least not as policy; whereas history is rife with examples of policies with allegedly good ends intentionally wrecking lives and economies. You may claim that your end is good (based on dubious science), but don't try to use that as a moral fumigator for what action you advocate wrecks-to the profit of those companies you so despise.
@cthulhu11111111 Let's see, he admitted that big oil profits don't intentionally wreck lives or economies. He bases his claims that we need to end these companies' existence (as far as their production of oil, at least) on dubious science, and he indicates this as a "good" goal-allegedly to save humankind from destruction. Yet, the very policies he advocates plays right into the hands of big oil companies and their profits. Don't tell me that makes no sense.
@smartalek65 You have given ZERO proof how outlawing oil-powered cars, mandating electric-only vehicles powered by solar and wind power, in anyway BENEFITS oil companies and coal companies. Coal companies are much worse than oil companies, and, besides, oil will run out sooner than coal anyway.
Nevertheless, like all deniers, you make up all these unproven and unprovable convoluted conspiracy theories, because it takes ZERO skill, effort, brain, talent or work to do so,
@mphello whereas studying the peer-reviewed climate papers is HARD work. And changing your lifestyle and giving up comforts to make life more bearable for others takes actual hard effort.
But you deniers ramble on with bullshit lies and hoaxes. That's because you deniers are subhuman trash who contribute NOTHING to civilization, or your country. Because you deniers, like all conservatives, don't have the discipline to publish a peer-reviewed science paper.
@mphello wow. such idiotic and extreme words. you push a disgusting anti-freedom agenda. the solution to AGW (whether real or not) is decentralization and the elimination of the Federal Reserve and corporate system that subsidizes consumption and harms savings. the liberal agenda that would supposedly heal the weather is an anti-freedom agenda that would centralize power and only compound any such problem
@Juggalo4Peace Wow! What a shitheaded response: conflating the Federal Reserve and the bankster financial terrorists and all their evils with hardworking environmentalists and climate scientists.
I know the next thing out of your Jew-hating mouth will be some remark against all Jews and zionists in your pathetic AGW-denying effort to lump all jews together with the Fed Reserve.
Typical conservative agenda: refusal to take responsibility for your own action.
@smartalek65 You're the arrogant one, as are all AGW-deniers. Forcing YOUR unnecessarily destructive laws and policies (that make it a crime for people to fight back against the coal fascist industry in states like Kentucky and West Virginia) upon other countries and children and future generations.
@greenman3610 Really? You haven't been offering much in these comment threads that doesn't refer to your own vids which were of questionable factual basis AT BEST, or reference another source that provides someone's opinion. Or, just like here, make a lame and obviously sarcastic personal remark. That's not letting intelligent readers decide-because there's no facts from you on which to base a decision.
I rely on the "opinions" of the National Academy, the US Navy, NASA, and every relevant professional society on the planet. Obviously, you believe you know more, so bravo.
Which reminds me, Herr Grunmann should check his sources. Even the satellite altimetry shows a slowing rate of sea level rise over the last 5 years. He's falling victim to his own propoganda.
@greenman3610 The overall annual average sea level rise (using NASA altimetry) is 2.32 mm/yr. This falls FAR short of the 10mm/yr required to reach the 1 meter rise by the end of the century. Still, the trend (using a 10-year running average, like NASA does) has been slowing, which DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what you're saying, sir. If 5 years is too short (it's actually longer, the altimetry has been downward since 2003), then the decade preceeding it is nearly so. Face the facts, Herr Grunmann.
Even the IPCC wasn't sure whether the altimetry dataset rate of sea level rise was part of an accelerating trend or simply a decadal oscillation. The answer is obviously the latter. Herr Grunmann, you've fallen victim to your own propoganda. The average for the years that altimetry's been available shows that 2.32mm/yr rate of rise, not far off the 1.5-2mm/yr centennial average shown by the tide guage research, which means you're raising another false alarm.
@greenman3610 Crash and burn on that one, Herr Grunmann! Your answers are getting lamer (i.e. no substance). When you can't argue facts, just make a LAME remark, just like that one. LOL! Just face the truth, Herr Grunmann: there is no cause for alarm, our children aren't facing any apocalypse caused by us, and nature is stronger than we are. It's ok, the world won't come to an end just because AGW isn't some imminent doom.
@greenman3610 That the best answer you got? Last time you levelled that charge, I proved you wrong-almost every paper was available in it's entirety. Those that weren't had the abstract available. You need more substance, Herr Grunmann, that blind accusation was lame.
CONT'D First was Kerr (Science 314: 1064, 2006), and he was followed: Meinen et al, GRL 33: L17610, 2006; Schott et al, GRL 33: L21507, 2006; Boyer et al, GRL 34: L16603, 2007. The peer-reviewed literature once again shows this alarm to be completely unfounded, at least in fact. Only on Day After Tomorrow can this happen.
Thermohaline slowdown: This is the famous Atlantic Conveyor Belt that allegedly will shut down due to AGW, sending parts of Europe & N. America into a deep freeze. There was even research that suggested it was happening (Bryden published in Nature in 2005). But, sadly for the alarmists, it wasn't to be. Several subsequent papers said it wa7 a false alarm CONT'D
Hurricanes: This scare is laughable, scientifically. Very recent studies (Wang et al, GRL 37:L07704, 2010; Knutson et al, Nature Geoscience 3: 157-163, 2010) show no global trend in hurricane activity. The latter study (which included alarmists Greg Holland and Kerry Emanuel among it's co-authors) bluntly concludes that no discernible anthropogenic signal exists in the current data.
Disease: This oft-used scare ought to be retired. 3 studies, as always a mere sampling, shows that other factors have MUCH greater impact than climate: Gage et al, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 436-450, 2008; Randolph, Veterinary Parasitology 167: 92-94, 2010; Gething et al, Nature 465: 342-345, 2010. The last one debunks the worn-out malaria outbreak scare.
CONT'D As for birds, numerous studies (for instance, Hitch & Leberg, Conservation Biology 21: 534-539, 2007; Jetz et al, PLoS Biology 5: 1211-1219; Carey, Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 3321-3330, 2009) show a complete lack of evidence that climate change is the threat it's played up to be. The last 2 studies say the more obvious problem is human destruction of habitat.
CONT'D The CAPE project informs us (Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1383-1400, 2006) that the arctic was 4-5 degrees celsius warmer than now, yet the polar bear didn't die out (obviously). As for the frogs, 2 studies (Lips et al, PLoS Biology 6(3): e72, 2008; Rohr et al, PNAS 105: 17436-17441, 2008) find no evidence that climate change is causing their difficulty. CONT'D
Massive extinctions: most alarmists talk generally of extinctions due to AGW, and often mention 3 when pressed on the subject-polar bears, birds, and frogs. We're told these are already being affected. But that's not what the evidence says. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear expert and biologist for the Nanavut government in Canada, says 11 of 13 polar bear populations in Canada are stable or expanding CONT'D
@greenman3610 You forgot already: been there, done that. I served 6 years in the Marines. That was more than 20 years ago, and the Navy doesn't like 'em beyond a certain age. Of course a young nosenbohrer like you wouldn't have any trouble...
CONT'D which goes hand-in-hand with other studies that show some arid areas are greening (Hermann et al, Global Change Biology 15: 394-404, 2005; Piao et al, GRL 32: 10.1029/2004GL021764, 2005). Not exactly the expansion of deserts that alarmists tell us to fear.
Desertification: empirical studies have shown that plants in arid or semi-arid areas have improved water use efficiency in higher c02 environments (Feng, Geochimica et Cosmochemica Acta 63: 1891-1903, 1999; Eklundh & Olssson GRL 30: 10.1029/2002GL016772, 2003; Grunzweig et al, Global Change Biology 9: 791-799, 2003) CONT'D
CONT'D Domingues et al, Nature 453: 1090-1093 (2008). Woppelmann et al, GRL 36: L12607, 6 pp (2009). Wentzel & Schroter JGR 115: C08013, 15 pp (2010). You might notice that 6-8 inches sea level rise in 100 years is easily adapted to by us pesky, troublesome humans. Nowhere near the meters that alarmists rant about that we should be seeing for the doomsday scenario to be rationally considered.
@wstevenschneider Beginning with sea level rise, I'll give a sampling of the papers that supports my viewpoint. Note, in each paper (peer-reviewed!), the rate of sea level rise is between 1.5-2 mm/year, which translates to about 6-8 INCHES per CENTURY. Holgate, GRL 34: L01602, 4 pp (2007). Woppelmann et al, Global & Planetary Change 57: 396-406 (200s). CONT'D
@greenman3610 Gee, now I get it. Naming what you don't want the average Joe/Jane to see=declaration of war. You're real genius, herr grunmann (note sarcasm).
@wstevenschneider I think it VERY telling that alarmists won't admit to the cost of action. It's greater, both in terms of money and environmental impact, than we're being told. Bottom line is that we can allow events to unfold without interference with the VERY SLIGHT risk of causing any problem at all versus taking the extreme actions advocated under the "precautionary principal" and knowingly impoverish the greatest segment of humanity and cause greater environmental damage.
@smartalek65 - Your response is nonsensical. The evidence is opposite your claim as it is _most likely_ that there will be huge and negative impacts if we continue with a "business as usual" model.
Also, why do denialists like to claim that taking action on climate will mean stopping other humanitarian acts? That doesn't really follow.
@wstevenschneider You are incorrect. The risk of "business as usual" is VERY SLIGHT. So far, the models have proven to be WAY off concerning impact of climate change. The IPCC's projected scenario that supposedly justifies "action" has not come even close to materializing. Sea level rise hasn't matched the doomsday scenario, nor has desertification, species extinctions, thermohaline slowdown, massive and more frequent storms...none of it. According to the justifications, we should already CONT"D
CONT'D be seeing all of these, and the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature says no, we aren't observing anything close.
As to your "question" concerning action, it's simple: we only have so many resources with which to act. We can do one thing or another, not both. We either adjust to the changes, as humanity has always done, and continue with that SLIGHT risk, or we act and face the definite negative effects of those actions. Remember: mitigation is EXPENSIVE.
@smartalek65 - I'm sure that since you're so confident you have the verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims? You see, the peer-reviewed literature seems to say otherwise, the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. I'll remain skeptical of your claims unless you can show that the IPCC et al are wrong.
Please also demonstrate proof of your claims regarding humanitarian efforts and costs of mitigation vs. adaptation.
1/3 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. Only one permit has been issued since it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC
@Fashionificationful - I think it's telling how many denialists base their opposition to the science of climate change due to a fear in increase of fuel costs. The costs of inaction >> than costs of action.
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
ht tp ://w w w. skepticalscience. com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html
The Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
ht tp ://w w w. skepticalscience. com/co2-limits-economy.htm
Oh yeah the idiot who believes the sea level is going to rise 3 - 6 feet this century. I guess lies like this makes Climate Scientists feel good. He quotes Churchill, "sometimes we trip over the truth but then we pick ourselves up and carry on like nothing happened". That's a very apt quote for these guys.
That was such obvious propaganda. He presented formula but never showed how radiative tansfer theory, supposedly, indicates human caused global warming.
Try watching again at 3:50 where he starts talking about how science has systematically ruled out one possible natural cause after another.
All of the scientific evidence shows warming due to GHGs (i.e. upper stratospheric cooling while the troposphere warms), we can even detect how the infrared that is being re-emitted back to Earth has been increasing overtime at the same freq that are re-emitted by GHGs while less is escaping.
They know exactly what they are doing and it would be futile to even attempt to talk to someone like him or yourself for that matter.
They pick people for the religion that they believe in this case a flat earth concept. It is impossible to tell someone that has faith in a flat earth that the earth isn't flat. Their faith overcomes all.
When CO2 is at a near all time earth history low and someone is worried about sky rocketing CO2 levels they got issues. It is that simple
I guess you didn't hear him say he was a skeptic until a few years ago.
So, you're theory is that he entered the Navy as a global warming mole, and worked his way up to Admiral with a meteorology Phd, so that he could finally reveal his true evil motives?
I don't care one way or another about him or your beliefs.
Both of you ignore that we are in near lowest levels of CO2 concentration in world history yet at the same time we have problem with to much CO2, this is plain and simply idiotic.
said, "the absolute level of CO2 is not the issue. The issue is the rate of change."
Why?
Even at the highest rate of change I have ever heard of and I know it is a ludicrous figure of +1.4 ppm per year (because we just left the little ice age) it would take 2500 years to get too the planets average CO2 level.
It is an idiotic religious belief.
as another guy put it perfectly Al Gore is your Mohammad.
you have no idea what Richard Alley was saying scientifically and you admitted it in the other thread. Thus he was speaking the gospel.
I call the religion world socialist or world alarmist, but they are really just fear mongers. They are now world socialist rather then national socialist as they were during WWII. They only dropped the nationalist aspect and looking more progressively towards a world vision.
I appreciate Admiral Titleys expertise on the subject of climate change, but his analogy describing the antarctic is a little suspect. he seems to have assumed it had the same tectonic position as 55 million years ago, but back then, the antarctic continent was much closer to the equator of the planet.
@aghoranathi I used to be sceptical that the climate existed but then I found out we were hurting it's feelings with our farts, that we are bad and that we don't deserve the climate. If we lower population numbers by 95% the earth should support life again, as is definitely can not now. Why oh why did you have to start changing climate? I liked you the way you were when we always went to the same places, now you are just so cold, uh, i mean changeable.
@dasjotre I'm not denying the climate changes. I'm skeptical that human activity via co2 has a significant influence on our climate. I should of said "man made climate change is a religion".
@SuperAtheist Are you asserting that deglacial CO2 doesn't have a significant impact on climate as well? If so, you're ignoring "natural" interglacial warming factors. Considering the fact that we are warming 8 times faster than any other average interglacial period, what would you point to as having a causal effect? We are emitting CO2 into our atmosphere 1 million times faster than nature takes it out. Just something to think about.
@SuperAtheist human CO2 output is some 80 times greater than volcanic. CO2 went from ~300ppm to ~380ppm since beginning of industrial age, the fastest change in earth's history. if you don't think that's significant I've got some beach real estate on the moon for sale. interested? comes with mooring rights ;)
@SuperAtheist it's far more accurate to say denial of man made climate change is the religion (a position based on magical thinking, dishonesty and faith). thats unless you have an alternative causative explanation for the warming, and a time machine to peer into the future to guarantee its not going to be harmful.
@SuperAtheist why are you skeptical? skepticism is fantastic, but you are being skeptical about something that has basic physics, tens of thousands of man hours, and hundred of papers to support it. surely skepticism without a solid foundation is merely an ideology or a religion. as much as "deniers" would paint the "believers" as being taken in by religion at least the literature exists to support the case. and it's rare for me to see someone arguing the opposite side that isn't an ideologue.
What is it w/ the deniers, it doesn't matter what you show them, they still oppose any rational thought. More proof that rejecting the scientific models really does threaten out democracy. They think they're patriots, when they just repeat the talking points offered by the filthy rich.
@greenman3610 "Denial is not based on reason. It is evidence of some kind of emotional problem."
so when you deny the Earth's climate is controlled by the sun and not human activity, this is evidence that you, greenman3610, have emotional problems?
well, this explains a lot! Thanks for clearing this up.
Actually the YECs agree with your AGW denialism, why do you think that the states in the USA passing the so-called "Academic Freedom" bills include disputing both AGW and evolution?
There are several thousand peer reviewed papers in climate research backing up that AGW is real, and the science has been understood for over a century.
Where is your credible scientific evidence to the contrary?
It's funny seeing a self described atheist ignoring science in favor of blind faith.
@trollingdipshit OOPS little fucking baby can't handle the FACTS.
Too bad you can't lie on the internet loser, you WILL be exposed for it!
Now perhaps when you change your stance from "lying trolling douche bag" to something more palatable, you won't be insulted as the lying piece of shit that you are ;-D
@watercup123456 when I leave a comment on a YEC youtube channel, I get the same reaction that I'm getting from you. "Man made climate change" is your religion. Stop drinking the kool-aid and start thinking like a scientist without bias!
@retard I AM a scientist who has studied anthropogenic global warming, specifically sea level rise.
Religions have gods and dogma, global warming is a proven fact of reality, like toasters and electricity and radiation; greenhouse gasses make things warmer. 1+1=2.
So what you are telling us all, is that you are denying math, yes? You must be denying math, because you are denying global warming!!
Denying anthropogenic global warming is equivalent to denying addition and subtraction :-D
@watercup123456 Although I sorta agree with you, the mathematician in me has gotta say that denying warming is not equivalent to denying addition and subtraction.
@greenman3610 yeah it's totally a stupid thing to do, but I mean, addition and subtraction is group theory - so you'd be denying even the possibility of objects rotation. And set theory and all sorts of things that are appart from science and evidence.
But yeah, your channel rules, I post your vids on my sceptics' societies wall all the time.
@SuperAtheist I doubt Greenman would deny for a second that the sun is by far the greatest driver of Earth's climate. But that's not the end of the story - the sun is not the *only* driver of Earth's climate. So far, all evidence points to CO2 being another significant driver.
If you're a super atheist then think of it like this: the evidence does not support the "sun-is-the-only-driver-of-climate-change" hypothesis in the same way the evidence does not support the "god exists" hypothesis.
@greenman3610 Could it be that the emotion is based on the fact that they are representing the most lucrative industry known to man, and there is no going back. They very well may accept the real possibility that, the worlds as we've known it will end in a few generations, and they want to ensure their family's wealth up to that point. The quicker the ice melts up north, the closer they are to being able to install oil rigs (the can't with the moving ice). I don't think they're THAT stupid.
@greenman3610 "I actually think it has something to do with faulty toilet training."
ha ha! good one GM. Anyone who disagrees with you has emotional problems and faulty toilet training.
I'd love to see you debate Piers Corbyn. His theory actually made correct predictions about the weather where as the global warmists predicted a mild winter.
@greenman3610 GW is a joy killer. Something like that. It's like a constant critique. I one actually comprehends how we pollute, destroy the original land, kill animals species, change the climate, mine finite resources one will realise we are going to fall short of making it. Try telling that to anybody and they will be pissed of. It's like the constant guilt from killing Jesus. The doubt was about GW peoples agenda: the planet or their peace of mind. We have ~4 billion years here at best.
@tarfpir I have talked to a number of climate deniers and discovered most of them are fundamentalist Christians who hate anything to do with science because scientists believe in evolution. They don't trust scientists as they were brainwashed years ago and there is no convincing them as long as their oil owned news sources lie to them. Throw in the name Al Gore and say it a million times and they have an immediate negative reaction to "climate change" and their brains shut down.
@Sourdoughmusk Actually, the warmest year on record is 1998. We've only kept anything close to accurate records for a hundred years, hardly validates your point.
smartalek65 2 weeks ago
@rolopolo66 No, it hasn't. All 4 data sets used, satellites from UAH and RSS; and the surface stations by HadCRUt3 and GISS; all show a flat line trend (i.e. no discernible trend) since 2001. Note, no "model" is used. Only empirical data. Models have been GROSSLY inaccurate, as Stephen Schwartz pointed out in his 2010 paper concerning temp observations.
smartalek65 4 months ago
@smartalek65 You really can't take a trend from 2001 to now. Climate trends are viewed over decades. Also, if there has been no warming then why have many of the hottest years in the temp record occurred since 2001?
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
CONT'D appear uniquely warm. Use all proxy data, and the Roman and Medieval warm periods BOTH have episodes of warmer climate than current. Herr grunmann also fails to tell us of numerous studies found in the scientific literature that dispute the methods and findings of the "hockey team." CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
CONT'D Herr grunmann then says in his propaganda vid (on medieval warming), that there's now a whole hockey team of subsequent papers that allegedly found the same thing MBH did. The truth is that Mann's last paper, in 2008, showed a warm medieval period and a deeper little ice age than did MBH99. But Mann repeated his "trick" of splicing proxy reconstruction data with the instrument data. As Ljungqvist points out in his paper I referenced earlier, this is the ONLY way current temps CONT'D
smartalek65 6 months ago
Perhaps we should examine Herr grunmann's errors. He says that the "hockey stick" has been upheld by the NAS. False. The NAS report was critical of MBH's methods, and found that the base premise of the graph's use was NOT strongly supported by it's data; and it had a skill validation not significantly different from zero-meaning it's worthless. CON'T
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Ah, the fallback position when called on falsehood: imply the "consensus" and the falsehood that skeptics (at least you use correct terminology this time) are becoming few among scientists. Yes, that's a falsehood. Scientists speaking out against the notion of AGW are growing in number.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 No, the climate hasn't been warming for the last decade.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
I guess I'll just take the experts at their word. Even the few remaining skeptics who actually are scientists.
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
at 5:00
greenman3610 6 months ago
@smartalek65 Yes it has. The model the sceptics use doesn't take into account polar warming. When polar warming is factored in, the climate has been warming for the last decade.
rolopolo66 4 months ago
@greenman3610 1) Very well, North's statement under oath, that he and his panel essentially agree with Wegman stands.2) As pointed out, the NRC did NOT uphold MBH.3) About half of those "confirming" papers were co-authored by Mann himself, none have escaped valid criticism, and numerous other papers have been published that largely differ with the "hockey team's" notion of a stable climate until recent times.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 And you dig yourself a deeper hole with false ad hominems. In this case, you mistake a withdrawn 2008 paper for the report to the congressional subcommittee in 2006 that North found no fault with. The 2008 paper was withdrawn, contrary to what you wish, for failure to reference background materials, not the questionable methods employed by MBH.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
North's statement stands, as does the NAS affirmation of Mann, and the dozens of confirming studies since.
google
nasa key indicators
google
skepticalscience hockey stick
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
and, oh yeah, the globe continues to warm.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Essentially, the bottom line from the NRC panel was that they couldn't refute the answer MBH came up with, but due to glaring lack of verifiable proxies and severely questionable statistical methods, they could only confirm MBH back to 1600. Wegman's panel was more blunt, as were other PEER-REVIEWED critiques.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
wegman's paper of course, has now been withdrawn in shame by the journal that published it.
plagiarism the least of its problems.
google
wegman paper withdrawn
greenman3610 6 months ago
Another instance of greenman's falsehoods is again in the medieval warm period vid, where he touts a 2006 NAS report as having upheld the hockey stick temperature reconstruction. It did no such thing. It said that no confirmation was possible beyond 400 years ago, and it's lead author, Gerald North, stated that his panel agreed with a panel of statisticions who condemned MBH.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
well, you can believe what an anonymous internet poster says about Gerald North, or you can believe what Gerald North says. Google;
Science committee responds to Rep. Joe Barton
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610
"While we did find some of the methods used in Michael E. Mann's original papers to be less cautious than some of our members might have used, we have not found any evidence that his results were incorrect or even out of line with other works published since his original papers."
ooops, reality intrudes again.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Actually, it's the response of North himself found in the subcommittee's record I'm referring to, not his written reply. Barton asked him if he or his statistician disagreed with the findings or method of Dr. Wegman, and his reply was "No, no we don't." Wegman's panel condemned the methodology of MBH in their report. In fact, the NAS panel's statistician, Peter Bloomfield, said that Wegman's report and the NAS were roughly the same as concerned MBH's methods.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Excuse me, my device is too sensitive. Your pathetic attempt to psychoanalyze those who disagree also epically fails in light of reality. In practically every case here, at least the abstract is available, and it's obvious what the authors found. To say those you falsely call "deniers" hide behind firewalls to "cherry-pick" science is not only a falsehood, but a hypocritical one in light of your own dismissal of science in your vids.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Your pathe
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 The charges you just leveled have repeatedly been proven false. In your medieval warm period vid, you call the MWP "an article of faith," which in several comment threads I've shown to be based on science. In one, I undertook to post as many as I could. You leveled that firewall charge, and another poster and I proved it false time and again by finding the full papers you said were firewalled.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Is that the best you have? Ljungqvist pointed out the problem with what you're saying in that vid in his PEER-REVIEWED paper last year; (Geografiska annalaer Series A, Physical Geography, vol.92, iss 3, 2010), and the best you've got is referring to that same vid, personal insults, and flippant remarks? No facts? Oops, sorry, the f-word, I forgot how hated those are.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
the facts are in the videos, not behind firewalls.
when I cite something, I make sure people can access it and read it themselves.
the reason deniers have to capitalize PEER REVIEWED is because they know that they have to selectively misquote or cherry pick actual science.
Like I said, tell it to the Navy.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 That vid you just referenced is inaccurate and out of date. I'be shown that time and again in these comment threads.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
You've shown only your disengagement with reality on these threads, but for anyone interested in more on the "medieval warming" crock -
watch?v=G80mIbF5yEg
and
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 The only "disengagement with reality" on these threads has been your own. I've referenced dozens of papers-and only scratched the surface!-that demonstrated just how inaccurate that notion of yours is. The medieval warm period (and likely the Roman warm period before it) were warmer-and worldwide- episodes than the current period. Using same methods (i.e. proxies), the conclusion that the world now is warmer than the world then is indefensible.
smartalek65 6 months ago
@smartalek65
notify the national academy and the US Navy. let me know when they get back to you.
greenman3610 6 months ago
medieval warm period .... warmer than today with no AGW ... case dismissed.
i LOVE meat
x
hughgallagher 7 months ago
@hughgallagher
medieval warm crock
watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
greenman3610 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
CONT'D 3) Spouting pejoratives and implying your opposition are murderers is one of the reasons your side is losing the public debate. 4) Be careful with the meat-eater remarks; I remind you, one of history's greatest villains was a vegetarian.
smartalek65 7 months ago
@mphello 1) The major oil companies, including Chevron and Exxon-Mobil, all invest in "clean" or green energy. An article can be found in USAToday online May 26. Most greenies are aware of this, it's even used in green propaganda; i.e." see? Even the big bad oil giants see it our way." 2) You're answering what I posted 3 months ago, including SCIENCE in peer-reviewed literature that showed NO CRISIS IS IMMINENT. CONT'D
smartalek65 7 months ago
so the scientific argument for AGW this navy guy makes is the alcohol content of some picture?
briliant
adapaevolved 7 months ago
Wake up, sheeple! Take action against manmade climate change!
Outlaw coal and gas-powered cars!
Manmade-climate change deniers are perpetrating a colossal lie on you!
mphello 7 months ago
Damn, it is hot in New York.
KhmerD0g 7 months ago
@Greenman: Smartalek strikes me as one of those Big Oil Freepers, scouring the internet looking for science to debunk for the sake of their OIl Investments. There's no arguing with deluded self-interest.
Ngaroc 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Incorrect. You've substituted the certainty of SOME scientists for your own judgement based on facts; and worse, you expect others to do the same, then belittle and make snide remarks to and about those who don't. It might come as a shock to you, but about 10 years ago, I was one of you who believed in an imminent climate catastrophe if certain actions weren't taken.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
i've also decided to believe the majority of epidemiologists who believe that HIV causes AIDS. You may choose to go out on the internet and find those few who don't. I've decided that my children's health is important enough to be conservative and go with the consensus.
you may also believe the few Phds out there who will claim the earth is 5000 years old, or that they have a perpetual motion machine, or can cure your cancer with quartz crystals.
I'm simply not that arrogant.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 As you're entitled to. But you're behavior insofar as climate change goes is more arrogant than you might believe. While in all the other cases, you make those decisions for yourself or those you have a moral obligation to make decisions for. When it comes to climate change, however, you demand others be forced to abide by your beliefs and, indeed, pay with money they earned for the changes you feel are needed, whereas they might (and probably do) disagree. Herr Grunmann CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D I, for one, prefer to make my own decisions, and vehemently object to having someone else's forced upon me-whether I agree or not. I looked at the scientific evidence, and I've drawn a conclusion obviously at odds with yours. Human industry may be at the root of some minor part of the observed warming of the last quarter of the 20th century, but it's virtually no chance that it's worth wrecking lives and national economies to do what can be done about that little bit
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
no, we should be wrecking lives and economies to keep the oil companie's profits in the stratosphere.
glad to see you have your priorities straight.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Careful, Herr Grunmann. You've just admitted too much. You inadvertantly admitted that oil companies' profits don't wreck lives or economies, at least not as policy; whereas history is rife with examples of policies with allegedly good ends intentionally wrecking lives and economies. You may claim that your end is good (based on dubious science), but don't try to use that as a moral fumigator for what action you advocate wrecks-to the profit of those companies you so despise.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
that makes no sense whatever.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Which word did you not understand?
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
i dont think it was the individual words, I think it was the bizarre order you wrote them in that made no sense
cthulhu11111111 10 months ago 2
@cthulhu11111111
The therapeutic term is "word salad."
greenman3610 10 months ago
@cthulhu11111111 Let's see, he admitted that big oil profits don't intentionally wreck lives or economies. He bases his claims that we need to end these companies' existence (as far as their production of oil, at least) on dubious science, and he indicates this as a "good" goal-allegedly to save humankind from destruction. Yet, the very policies he advocates plays right into the hands of big oil companies and their profits. Don't tell me that makes no sense.
smartalek65 9 months ago
@smartalek65 You have given ZERO proof how outlawing oil-powered cars, mandating electric-only vehicles powered by solar and wind power, in anyway BENEFITS oil companies and coal companies. Coal companies are much worse than oil companies, and, besides, oil will run out sooner than coal anyway.
Nevertheless, like all deniers, you make up all these unproven and unprovable convoluted conspiracy theories, because it takes ZERO skill, effort, brain, talent or work to do so,
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello whereas studying the peer-reviewed climate papers is HARD work. And changing your lifestyle and giving up comforts to make life more bearable for others takes actual hard effort.
But you deniers ramble on with bullshit lies and hoaxes. That's because you deniers are subhuman trash who contribute NOTHING to civilization, or your country. Because you deniers, like all conservatives, don't have the discipline to publish a peer-reviewed science paper.
mphello 7 months ago
Ten lone lunatics want to destroy the planet and civilization and what remains of the world's broken economy.
Manmade climate change deniers = lone lunatic gunmen.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello wow. such idiotic and extreme words. you push a disgusting anti-freedom agenda. the solution to AGW (whether real or not) is decentralization and the elimination of the Federal Reserve and corporate system that subsidizes consumption and harms savings. the liberal agenda that would supposedly heal the weather is an anti-freedom agenda that would centralize power and only compound any such problem
Juggalo4Peace 7 months ago
@Juggalo4Peace Wow! What a shitheaded response: conflating the Federal Reserve and the bankster financial terrorists and all their evils with hardworking environmentalists and climate scientists.
I know the next thing out of your Jew-hating mouth will be some remark against all Jews and zionists in your pathetic AGW-denying effort to lump all jews together with the Fed Reserve.
Typical conservative agenda: refusal to take responsibility for your own action.
Bet you eat meat.
mphello 7 months ago
@smartalek65 You're the arrogant one, as are all AGW-deniers. Forcing YOUR unnecessarily destructive laws and policies (that make it a crime for people to fight back against the coal fascist industry in states like Kentucky and West Virginia) upon other countries and children and future generations.
mphello 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Really? You haven't been offering much in these comment threads that doesn't refer to your own vids which were of questionable factual basis AT BEST, or reference another source that provides someone's opinion. Or, just like here, make a lame and obviously sarcastic personal remark. That's not letting intelligent readers decide-because there's no facts from you on which to base a decision.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
I rely on the "opinions" of the National Academy, the US Navy, NASA, and every relevant professional society on the planet. Obviously, you believe you know more, so bravo.
google
nasa key indicators
or
colorado sea level
greenman3610 10 months ago
Which reminds me, Herr Grunmann should check his sources. Even the satellite altimetry shows a slowing rate of sea level rise over the last 5 years. He's falling victim to his own propoganda.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
nasa key indicators
or
colorado sea level
5 years is of course, far too short to show a trend, as informed readers will know.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 The overall annual average sea level rise (using NASA altimetry) is 2.32 mm/yr. This falls FAR short of the 10mm/yr required to reach the 1 meter rise by the end of the century. Still, the trend (using a 10-year running average, like NASA does) has been slowing, which DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what you're saying, sir. If 5 years is too short (it's actually longer, the altimetry has been downward since 2003), then the decade preceeding it is nearly so. Face the facts, Herr Grunmann.
smartalek65 10 months ago
Even the IPCC wasn't sure whether the altimetry dataset rate of sea level rise was part of an accelerating trend or simply a decadal oscillation. The answer is obviously the latter. Herr Grunmann, you've fallen victim to your own propoganda. The average for the years that altimetry's been available shows that 2.32mm/yr rate of rise, not far off the 1.5-2mm/yr centennial average shown by the tide guage research, which means you're raising another false alarm.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
again, call the US navy, they need your expertise.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Crash and burn on that one, Herr Grunmann! Your answers are getting lamer (i.e. no substance). When you can't argue facts, just make a LAME remark, just like that one. LOL! Just face the truth, Herr Grunmann: there is no cause for alarm, our children aren't facing any apocalypse caused by us, and nature is stronger than we are. It's ok, the world won't come to an end just because AGW isn't some imminent doom.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
I'm content to let the intelligent reader compare your offerings to mine.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@greenman3610 That the best answer you got? Last time you levelled that charge, I proved you wrong-almost every paper was available in it's entirety. Those that weren't had the abstract available. You need more substance, Herr Grunmann, that blind accusation was lame.
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D First was Kerr (Science 314: 1064, 2006), and he was followed: Meinen et al, GRL 33: L17610, 2006; Schott et al, GRL 33: L21507, 2006; Boyer et al, GRL 34: L16603, 2007. The peer-reviewed literature once again shows this alarm to be completely unfounded, at least in fact. Only on Day After Tomorrow can this happen.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
this posters mode is to refer to studies he knows are safely behind firewalls and claim they support his case.
For actual references on sea level that readers can access, google
nasa key indicators
or
colorado sea level
for a discussion by one of the world's best known oceanographers, published in one of the most prestigious journals, google
rahsmstorf nature sea level
greenman3610 10 months ago
Thermohaline slowdown: This is the famous Atlantic Conveyor Belt that allegedly will shut down due to AGW, sending parts of Europe & N. America into a deep freeze. There was even research that suggested it was happening (Bryden published in Nature in 2005). But, sadly for the alarmists, it wasn't to be. Several subsequent papers said it wa7 a false alarm CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
Hurricanes: This scare is laughable, scientifically. Very recent studies (Wang et al, GRL 37:L07704, 2010; Knutson et al, Nature Geoscience 3: 157-163, 2010) show no global trend in hurricane activity. The latter study (which included alarmists Greg Holland and Kerry Emanuel among it's co-authors) bluntly concludes that no discernible anthropogenic signal exists in the current data.
smartalek65 10 months ago
Disease: This oft-used scare ought to be retired. 3 studies, as always a mere sampling, shows that other factors have MUCH greater impact than climate: Gage et al, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35: 436-450, 2008; Randolph, Veterinary Parasitology 167: 92-94, 2010; Gething et al, Nature 465: 342-345, 2010. The last one debunks the worn-out malaria outbreak scare.
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D As for birds, numerous studies (for instance, Hitch & Leberg, Conservation Biology 21: 534-539, 2007; Jetz et al, PLoS Biology 5: 1211-1219; Carey, Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 3321-3330, 2009) show a complete lack of evidence that climate change is the threat it's played up to be. The last 2 studies say the more obvious problem is human destruction of habitat.
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D The CAPE project informs us (Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 1383-1400, 2006) that the arctic was 4-5 degrees celsius warmer than now, yet the polar bear didn't die out (obviously). As for the frogs, 2 studies (Lips et al, PLoS Biology 6(3): e72, 2008; Rohr et al, PNAS 105: 17436-17441, 2008) find no evidence that climate change is causing their difficulty. CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
Massive extinctions: most alarmists talk generally of extinctions due to AGW, and often mention 3 when pressed on the subject-polar bears, birds, and frogs. We're told these are already being affected. But that's not what the evidence says. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear expert and biologist for the Nanavut government in Canada, says 11 of 13 polar bear populations in Canada are stable or expanding CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
You'll have to forgive Herr Grunmann and I, folks. Not only has he forgotten me, I had forgotten how much he hates being confused with the facts.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@greenman3610 You forgot already: been there, done that. I served 6 years in the Marines. That was more than 20 years ago, and the Navy doesn't like 'em beyond a certain age. Of course a young nosenbohrer like you wouldn't have any trouble...
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D which goes hand-in-hand with other studies that show some arid areas are greening (Hermann et al, Global Change Biology 15: 394-404, 2005; Piao et al, GRL 32: 10.1029/2004GL021764, 2005). Not exactly the expansion of deserts that alarmists tell us to fear.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
contact the US Navy. They have need of your expertise.
greenman3610 10 months ago
Desertification: empirical studies have shown that plants in arid or semi-arid areas have improved water use efficiency in higher c02 environments (Feng, Geochimica et Cosmochemica Acta 63: 1891-1903, 1999; Eklundh & Olssson GRL 30: 10.1029/2002GL016772, 2003; Grunzweig et al, Global Change Biology 9: 791-799, 2003) CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D Domingues et al, Nature 453: 1090-1093 (2008). Woppelmann et al, GRL 36: L12607, 6 pp (2009). Wentzel & Schroter JGR 115: C08013, 15 pp (2010). You might notice that 6-8 inches sea level rise in 100 years is easily adapted to by us pesky, troublesome humans. Nowhere near the meters that alarmists rant about that we should be seeing for the doomsday scenario to be rationally considered.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider Beginning with sea level rise, I'll give a sampling of the papers that supports my viewpoint. Note, in each paper (peer-reviewed!), the rate of sea level rise is between 1.5-2 mm/year, which translates to about 6-8 INCHES per CENTURY. Holgate, GRL 34: L01602, 4 pp (2007). Woppelmann et al, Global & Planetary Change 57: 396-406 (200s). CONT'D
smartalek65 10 months ago
@greenman3610 Gee, now I get it. Naming what you don't want the average Joe/Jane to see=declaration of war. You're real genius, herr grunmann (note sarcasm).
smartalek65 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider I think it VERY telling that alarmists won't admit to the cost of action. It's greater, both in terms of money and environmental impact, than we're being told. Bottom line is that we can allow events to unfold without interference with the VERY SLIGHT risk of causing any problem at all versus taking the extreme actions advocated under the "precautionary principal" and knowingly impoverish the greatest segment of humanity and cause greater environmental damage.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65
because our unending series of oil wars, and the associated slaughter of innocents, has been so great for the economy.
right, you're a real nobel economist, sport.
greenman3610 10 months ago
@smartalek65 - Your response is nonsensical. The evidence is opposite your claim as it is _most likely_ that there will be huge and negative impacts if we continue with a "business as usual" model.
Also, why do denialists like to claim that taking action on climate will mean stopping other humanitarian acts? That doesn't really follow.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
@wstevenschneider You are incorrect. The risk of "business as usual" is VERY SLIGHT. So far, the models have proven to be WAY off concerning impact of climate change. The IPCC's projected scenario that supposedly justifies "action" has not come even close to materializing. Sea level rise hasn't matched the doomsday scenario, nor has desertification, species extinctions, thermohaline slowdown, massive and more frequent storms...none of it. According to the justifications, we should already CONT"D
smartalek65 10 months ago
CONT'D be seeing all of these, and the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature says no, we aren't observing anything close.
As to your "question" concerning action, it's simple: we only have so many resources with which to act. We can do one thing or another, not both. We either adjust to the changes, as humanity has always done, and continue with that SLIGHT risk, or we act and face the definite negative effects of those actions. Remember: mitigation is EXPENSIVE.
smartalek65 10 months ago
@smartalek65 - I'm sure that since you're so confident you have the verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claims? You see, the peer-reviewed literature seems to say otherwise, the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. I'll remain skeptical of your claims unless you can show that the IPCC et al are wrong.
Please also demonstrate proof of your claims regarding humanitarian efforts and costs of mitigation vs. adaptation.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
2/3
Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
. watch?v=bgKr480RYc4 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
.
Fashionificationful 10 months ago
@Fashionificationful - I fail to see how some politician's alleged comments (true or not) undermines the science of climate change.
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
1/3 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. Only one permit has been issued since it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC
Fashionificationful 10 months ago
@Fashionificationful - I think it's telling how many denialists base their opposition to the science of climate change due to a fear in increase of fuel costs. The costs of inaction >> than costs of action.
A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs
ht tp ://w w w. skepticalscience. com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html
The Economic Impacts of Carbon Pricing
ht tp ://w w w. skepticalscience. com/co2-limits-economy.htm
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Oh yeah the idiot who believes the sea level is going to rise 3 - 6 feet this century. I guess lies like this makes Climate Scientists feel good. He quotes Churchill, "sometimes we trip over the truth but then we pick ourselves up and carry on like nothing happened". That's a very apt quote for these guys.
guydecervens 10 months ago
@guydecervens - So you're saying that you have verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence that the climate scientists are wrong?
Amazing, I can't wait to see it in Nature!
*That was sarcasm in case you missed it.*
wstevenschneider 10 months ago
Did the United States ever bother ratifying the Kyoto Protocol now that Dubya's out of office?
zzyzx0788 11 months ago
@zzyzx0788
no
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 *sigh* Jesus christ. How embarassing
zzyzx0788 11 months ago
@zzyzx0788
I know.
On tuesday, a GOP lead committee in congress voted that the world was not warming.
Feel better?
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Goddamit. I hate this country.
zzyzx0788 11 months ago
@zzyzx0788
I love this country, but I am frustrated with those who are trying to run it for their own greed.
greenman3610 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zzyzx0788
said, "Goddamit. I hate this country."
That tells so much about yourself.
OxAO 11 months ago
Can I get that equation on a T-Shirt?
hecateus 11 months ago
@hecateus
now that would be a hot seller.
greenman3610 11 months ago
That was such obvious propaganda. He presented formula but never showed how radiative tansfer theory, supposedly, indicates human caused global warming.
ClaudiusDenk 11 months ago
@ClaudiusDenk
Maybe because that's not what he actually said?
Try watching again at 3:50 where he starts talking about how science has systematically ruled out one possible natural cause after another.
All of the scientific evidence shows warming due to GHGs (i.e. upper stratospheric cooling while the troposphere warms), we can even detect how the infrared that is being re-emitted back to Earth has been increasing overtime at the same freq that are re-emitted by GHGs while less is escaping.
mirt001 11 months ago
@mirt001
This guy is an idiot
He admits the sun changes .1% but some reason omits that. But CO2 has even smaller traces yet that is a IT!
What really gets me is his ignoring of major facts such as CO2 being at a near all time lowest concentration for the last 500 million years.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
obviously you should write to the US Navy and set them straight. Clearly you are more knowledgable.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
pointless they hire people to fit what they are looking for
They hired an admiral that believes the world is flat because that is what they want to believe.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
That's what I'm sayin, man. You've got to set the US Navy straight. Obviously they don't know what they're doing.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
They know exactly what they are doing and it would be futile to even attempt to talk to someone like him or yourself for that matter.
They pick people for the religion that they believe in this case a flat earth concept. It is impossible to tell someone that has faith in a flat earth that the earth isn't flat. Their faith overcomes all.
When CO2 is at a near all time earth history low and someone is worried about sky rocketing CO2 levels they got issues. It is that simple
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
I guess you didn't hear him say he was a skeptic until a few years ago.
So, you're theory is that he entered the Navy as a global warming mole, and worked his way up to Admiral with a meteorology Phd, so that he could finally reveal his true evil motives?
damn, you're good.
greenman3610 11 months ago
Comment removed
OxAO 11 months ago
@greenman3610
I don't care one way or another about him or your beliefs.
Both of you ignore that we are in near lowest levels of CO2 concentration in world history yet at the same time we have problem with to much CO2, this is plain and simply idiotic.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
do you care about making rational sense?
the absolute level of CO2 is not the issue. The issue is the rate of change.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
said, "the absolute level of CO2 is not the issue. The issue is the rate of change."
Why?
Even at the highest rate of change I have ever heard of and I know it is a ludicrous figure of +1.4 ppm per year (because we just left the little ice age) it would take 2500 years to get too the planets average CO2 level.
It is an idiotic religious belief.
as another guy put it perfectly Al Gore is your Mohammad.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
why?
Because when co2 changes rapidly in the fossil record, bad things happen, like extinction events.
see here -
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
suggest also you watch Richard Alley's presentation to the American Geophysical Union, "The Biggest control knob", to pick up some basics.
Unless you've decided that the AGU is part of a global religious mohammedan plot, as well.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Yeah I seen that video before it is ridiculous. on a number of accounts.
which have pointed out SOME of them on that thread months ago.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
right.
Mohammedan plot,...etc
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
you have no idea what Richard Alley was saying scientifically and you admitted it in the other thread. Thus he was speaking the gospel.
I call the religion world socialist or world alarmist, but they are really just fear mongers. They are now world socialist rather then national socialist as they were during WWII. They only dropped the nationalist aspect and looking more progressively towards a world vision.
OxAO 11 months ago
@OxAO
thanks. as always, informative, citation and info packed.
greenman3610 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610
Richard Alley said there is a drop of CO2 from 4500 ppm to 4000 ppm and that caused the glaciation or the Ordovician Ice Age.
Is Richard alley one of the gospel readers?
OxAO 11 months ago
I appreciate Admiral Titleys expertise on the subject of climate change, but his analogy describing the antarctic is a little suspect. he seems to have assumed it had the same tectonic position as 55 million years ago, but back then, the antarctic continent was much closer to the equator of the planet.
7othestars 11 months ago
@7othestars
sorry, untrue.
just google
paleocene globe
for an image, and watch
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
see
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610
Ah, my mistake.
7othestars 10 months ago
Hahaha, his name is TITley, climate change cannot be true then!
...
daddyleon 11 months ago
Note his full address appears at right, if you want more than the excerpt that greenman put in this clip:
v=7udNMqRmqV8&
floundericiousWA 11 months ago
He is a great speaker. Thanks for posting this, Peter!
ClimateSightful 11 months ago 2
@ClimateSightful
I really like his low key style.
greenman3610 11 months ago
Love the Blood Alcohol level anaology there too. :-)
Astrostevo 11 months ago
I was sceptical about the idea of anthropogenic climate change being too convenient for to the eugenics agenda.
aghoranathi 11 months ago
@aghoranathi I used to be sceptical that the climate existed but then I found out we were hurting it's feelings with our farts, that we are bad and that we don't deserve the climate. If we lower population numbers by 95% the earth should support life again, as is definitely can not now. Why oh why did you have to start changing climate? I liked you the way you were when we always went to the same places, now you are just so cold, uh, i mean changeable.
aghoranathi 11 months ago
I like the alcohol analogy! Remember too, that in many states .04% is legally impaired when operating a motor vehicle....;)--
nickschor 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
alternate title:
"US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly an atheist but now I'm a young Earth creationist!"
climate change is a religion! Say anything against its dogma and you're a DENIER.
greenman3610 is a true believe!
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist climate change is an observed fact, denying it makes you a denier but more importantly it makes you look stupid.
dasjotre 11 months ago
@dasjotre I'm not denying the climate changes. I'm skeptical that human activity via co2 has a significant influence on our climate. I should of said "man made climate change is a religion".
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist Are you asserting that deglacial CO2 doesn't have a significant impact on climate as well? If so, you're ignoring "natural" interglacial warming factors. Considering the fact that we are warming 8 times faster than any other average interglacial period, what would you point to as having a causal effect? We are emitting CO2 into our atmosphere 1 million times faster than nature takes it out. Just something to think about.
dwolfcoach 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist human CO2 output is some 80 times greater than volcanic. CO2 went from ~300ppm to ~380ppm since beginning of industrial age, the fastest change in earth's history. if you don't think that's significant I've got some beach real estate on the moon for sale. interested? comes with mooring rights ;)
dasjotre 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist it's far more accurate to say denial of man made climate change is the religion (a position based on magical thinking, dishonesty and faith). thats unless you have an alternative causative explanation for the warming, and a time machine to peer into the future to guarantee its not going to be harmful.
andy765gtr 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist why are you skeptical? skepticism is fantastic, but you are being skeptical about something that has basic physics, tens of thousands of man hours, and hundred of papers to support it. surely skepticism without a solid foundation is merely an ideology or a religion. as much as "deniers" would paint the "believers" as being taken in by religion at least the literature exists to support the case. and it's rare for me to see someone arguing the opposite side that isn't an ideologue.
batteries76 11 months ago
The lecture is great .
But the sound is horrible , I can barely make it out.
gaglamesh731 11 months ago
What is it w/ the deniers, it doesn't matter what you show them, they still oppose any rational thought. More proof that rejecting the scientific models really does threaten out democracy. They think they're patriots, when they just repeat the talking points offered by the filthy rich.
dwolfcoach 11 months ago 3
@dwolfcoach
Denial is not based on reason. It is evidence of some kind of emotional problem.
greenman3610 11 months ago 4
@greenman3610 "Denial is not based on reason. It is evidence of some kind of emotional problem."
so when you deny the Earth's climate is controlled by the sun and not human activity, this is evidence that you, greenman3610, have emotional problems?
well, this explains a lot! Thanks for clearing this up.
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@loser Stop trolling asswipe. You know there are many more factors than just the sun controlling climate, and human activity is one of these factors.
And if you don't know that then that is sad and pathetic :-D
watercup123456 11 months ago
@watercup123456 what's sad are people who resort to insults and have nothing of importance to say. They truly are losers.
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist You are an idiot.
bindlessMoredom 11 months ago
@bindlessMoredom young Earth creationists agree with you.
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist
Actually the YECs agree with your AGW denialism, why do you think that the states in the USA passing the so-called "Academic Freedom" bills include disputing both AGW and evolution?
There are several thousand peer reviewed papers in climate research backing up that AGW is real, and the science has been understood for over a century.
Where is your credible scientific evidence to the contrary?
It's funny seeing a self described atheist ignoring science in favor of blind faith.
mirt001 11 months ago
@trollingdipshit OOPS little fucking baby can't handle the FACTS.
Too bad you can't lie on the internet loser, you WILL be exposed for it!
Now perhaps when you change your stance from "lying trolling douche bag" to something more palatable, you won't be insulted as the lying piece of shit that you are ;-D
watercup123456 11 months ago
@watercup123456 when I leave a comment on a YEC youtube channel, I get the same reaction that I'm getting from you. "Man made climate change" is your religion. Stop drinking the kool-aid and start thinking like a scientist without bias!
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@retard I AM a scientist who has studied anthropogenic global warming, specifically sea level rise.
Religions have gods and dogma, global warming is a proven fact of reality, like toasters and electricity and radiation; greenhouse gasses make things warmer. 1+1=2.
So what you are telling us all, is that you are denying math, yes? You must be denying math, because you are denying global warming!!
Denying anthropogenic global warming is equivalent to denying addition and subtraction :-D
watercup123456 11 months ago
@watercup123456 Although I sorta agree with you, the mathematician in me has gotta say that denying warming is not equivalent to denying addition and subtraction.
jacobromu 11 months ago
@jacobromu
but it is denying the entire edifice of modern physics.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 yeah it's totally a stupid thing to do, but I mean, addition and subtraction is group theory - so you'd be denying even the possibility of objects rotation. And set theory and all sorts of things that are appart from science and evidence.
But yeah, your channel rules, I post your vids on my sceptics' societies wall all the time.
jacobromu 11 months ago
@jacobromu
You rule, as well, dude!
thanks for using them the way they are meant to be used!
greenman3610 11 months ago
@SuperAtheist I doubt Greenman would deny for a second that the sun is by far the greatest driver of Earth's climate. But that's not the end of the story - the sun is not the *only* driver of Earth's climate. So far, all evidence points to CO2 being another significant driver.
If you're a super atheist then think of it like this: the evidence does not support the "sun-is-the-only-driver-of-climate-change" hypothesis in the same way the evidence does not support the "god exists" hypothesis.
Squagnut 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Could it be that the emotion is based on the fact that they are representing the most lucrative industry known to man, and there is no going back. They very well may accept the real possibility that, the worlds as we've known it will end in a few generations, and they want to ensure their family's wealth up to that point. The quicker the ice melts up north, the closer they are to being able to install oil rigs (the can't with the moving ice). I don't think they're THAT stupid.
tarfpir 11 months ago 2
@tarfpir
It could be that. But I actually think it has something to do with faulty toilet training.
greenman3610 11 months ago 2
@greenman3610 "I actually think it has something to do with faulty toilet training."
ha ha! good one GM. Anyone who disagrees with you has emotional problems and faulty toilet training.
I'd love to see you debate Piers Corbyn. His theory actually made correct predictions about the weather where as the global warmists predicted a mild winter.
SuperAtheist 11 months ago
@greenman3610 GW is a joy killer. Something like that. It's like a constant critique. I one actually comprehends how we pollute, destroy the original land, kill animals species, change the climate, mine finite resources one will realise we are going to fall short of making it. Try telling that to anybody and they will be pissed of. It's like the constant guilt from killing Jesus. The doubt was about GW peoples agenda: the planet or their peace of mind. We have ~4 billion years here at best.
FrekeOne 11 months ago
@tarfpir
How long did it take until there was a consensus in the media/populace that smoking was bad for you? It wasn't hard to look at the facts then either.
bicsc7 11 months ago
@tarfpir I have talked to a number of climate deniers and discovered most of them are fundamentalist Christians who hate anything to do with science because scientists believe in evolution. They don't trust scientists as they were brainwashed years ago and there is no convincing them as long as their oil owned news sources lie to them. Throw in the name Al Gore and say it a million times and they have an immediate negative reaction to "climate change" and their brains shut down.
Quixote1818 11 months ago
@greenman3610 True, can an ego be inflamed? Egotism-itis?
dwolfcoach 11 months ago