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...
They have no choice but to force this on you by the year 2014 because it will start to get better all on its own by then. This is a natural process that all the planets in the universe go through and that is why all the planets are warming and not just Earth but they never speak of this because then you would learn the truth that global warming is a new scam to take your money and nothing more. They have had the technology for decades to eliminate oil but the facts are its all about money.
We just discover that there was big deciduous forest, witch are tree with leaves, not even cold enough for conifers in Ellesmere Island, Canada only 2 millions year ago. This island is well beyond the artic circle, that latitude is about 1000 Km north of the northern part of Norway. Let's go back to this warm weather.
You may ask, what about the tropical forest at the equator, 2 millions years ago? Apparently it didn't feel a thing...
The problem is, it is inconvenient that global warming is real, so people will grab at any information that suggests that global warming is not real, no matter how stupid the information is. I fear, that climate change is real, but we will be to stupid and conservative to do what is needed to stop it happening.
Oh, and the "gulf stream shutdown" claim doesn't hold water. A GW-induced circulatory change can only make a region colder by making some other region much hotter in comparison.
Put simply, if the Gulf Stream isn't carrying as much heat from the tropics to Europe, then the tropics will -- by the theory at least -- have not only heating from Global Warming, but also from the heat which used to be transported elsewhere.
The reality of course is the tropics aren't seeing any rising trend at all.
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
@greenman3610, are you genetically incapable of telling the truth? 2010 was the *second* hottest summer since the *1880s* (2003 was the hottest). That's a far cry from the coldest -- or the hottest -- in 1000 years.
Russian Meteorological Center: “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat.”
11000 dead in Moscow.
I guess if you can claim gifts of prophecy about the winter, I can cite actual official sources.
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
"Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. ."
changes in the gulf stream, of course, are one of the predicted consequences of climate change.
One truly has to wonder why Greenman spends his entire life making and posting these videos, and responding like a martyred zealot when anyone challenges his faith with a post here. Global warming truly is the new religion.
Greenman, do you actually wear a robe while posting ... or do you just say a little prayer to Mother Gaia after each post?
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
deniers are quick to say that "science does not depand on consensus", usually right before they produce a list of podiatrists, economists and veterinarians against the science of climate change.
@TomHarrisICSC I had a look at ICSC website and what a load of crap. Nearly all of the climate science claims they make have been disproven. The same old arguments CO2 lags, temp, mars is warming, more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2 etc. YAWN!
yo, ignorant sheeple, you just dont know what lies ahead, cant conprehend the scale of the mutations ... instead of figurint alone what happens and how to go along with it u guys pay attention and tax to old fat penguin-like men...
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
@greenman3610 I will. You explain it so well and I love the humor you add at certain points throughout the videos to emphasize the absurdity of the climate change deniers like in your "Debunking Lord Monckton" videos. Those were very funny additions you added like Monty Python's the Ministry of Silly Walks, Wizard of Oz Latin gobbledygook, the "Model of a Modern Major General" song and Willy Wonka's "Pure Imagination" song. I got quite few chuckles in your mocking of Monckton. LOL!
predictions = models you cant model climate ..show us the evidence ! Cherry pick haha what is the hockey stick . The MET is not respected , certainly not in the UK , its a joke !
this is so fucked, lol We have been cooling for a long time now! not onloy are we NOT warming, we ARE COOLING. have been for about 10 years now. Glen Beck is a genius, to bad so many of you cant see it! we just went through one of the coldest winters ever recorded in the northern hemisphere. and now we continue in it with a summer that just wont come. It is JULY and there is still ski resorts open everywhere that are normally closed months ago. Is that warming? Look at both sides ppl!!
@sdcam101 Ya, climate change. Climates are changing. Go tell your Glenn beck to grab a glass of water and fill it with ice from the north pole. I'm sure he'll be hard pressed to find much OLD ice as its all withered away.
@greenman3610 im the denier? dude u guys dont think the medieval warm period existed. Did u know that the earth goes through completely normal cycles of warm/cold, they go back hundreds of thousands of years and we are in one of the coldest warm periods in history. The last warm period war the medieval warm period when it was so warm that there were NO glaciers in greenland. The vikings used to live where is now covered with 2 miles of ice. and if its co2, then y has mars warmed also? THE SUN!
@sdcam101 "The vikings used to live where is now covered with 2 miles of ice". I'm here to help. Start by googling Greenland ice sheet. The ice sheets in greenland are probably 110,000 years old, minimum.. Those still curious about the "Mars is Warming" canard can view my video "Mars Attacks" watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM As far as "the sun", we are currently in the hottest year on record with the lowest solar minimum in a century. google nasa are sunspots disappearing and noaa 2010 warmest
@greenman3610 fuck that don't put us in the same group as them wankers.
If thats the case your on the team with the global elite that want to take over the world........oh i bet you've got a debunking video about that as well .
I'm not American i'm not a teabagger and it's funny how you bring those people into this mess you've just lost my interest ........shame
I just think it fair to say that this site is no more credible or "scientific" than the climate change deniers it tries to debunk. It does serve the purpose of raising issues about the climate deniers arguments, but in no shape or form can these counter examples as presented be considered definitive.
@mandatum An investigative reporter does not need to be a scientific expert to dig up inconsitencies and misrepresentation and fraud. Neither does this web site. The references here are credible and verifiable. If the denialist web sites were up to the same standard maybe there would be some point to listening to them. Instead when you dig into the denialist's "science" is is misrepresentations, "cherry-picking" (like looking only 2006 onwards), or just plain wrong.
Now let's be fair. This is nothing but a propaganda site. Mr. Greenman is not a scientist, he is a graphic designer involved in the advertising industry. And there is little to no science discussed in these videos. Yes, quite a few appeals to authority, but no real discussion of the science. This site is all about attitude and power posturing. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Many of us know of the extensive links that Goldman Sachs has to the AGW racketeering operation. At the present rebuffed on passing Cap & Trade, the circumnavigational route is being tried by having the EPA declare what plants use as food & what animals exhale a pollutant. The EPA adminstrator has ties to Goldman Sachs. Is that a coincidence?
If U give a damn about them, U would want them to know the TRUTH, & U wouldn't want them 2 B complete slaves to an unelected few banking cartels who are trying to use this fake "global warming" scam (carbon tax) to fund their Global government without audit, without legal recourse.
Did U READ the Copenhagen Treaty? Do U understand that it involves the creation of an unelected few to rule the world, in ways so draconian, that they would have the power 2 choose who shall live or die?
U obviously didn't READ the treaty. Maybe Jones was lying when he said there's been no warming since 1995?
U ignore real evidence & refuse 2 look at the possibility that the people funding/selling the warming scare might not have good motives. Turn your kids over 2 slavery for the sake of a few elite bankers. Don't forget 2 give them their mercury shots & fluoride, compliments of the same scum who push the carbon tax, (2 B paid directly to private banks).
So you didn't read the Copenhagen Treaty. Fine. Urge our leaders to sign on to something you have never read. Smart guy there.
Spare me the pro-vaccine or pro-fluoride propaganda. I'm all full up, and this is part of the reason I don't pay attention to the TV. Instead I READ; bills, package inserts, studies from Harvard, MIT, etc. I also look to whether or not the party promoting stands to profit.
Attempts as personal insults aren't very informative, but hey, if that's all you've got,..
@joygarner You obviously haven't read too many scientific papers on climate, that's for sure. You also didn't read the transcript of the Phil Jones interview.
I just read the entire transcript. None of his explanations work. For 1 thing, the fact that Greenland used 2 B lush farming land, (Medieval Warming Period, lasting 500 hundred years) & now it's covered with ice, & the fact that the IPCC official report completely denied this, (that it was much warmer then) leaves me seriously questioning the veracity of the report & the honesty of those who prepared/edited it. Fact is, unless U support AGW, your "science" is not funded & U R attacked.
I didn't say NONE of Greenland had ice during the MWP. Plant roots & burial grounds in subsequently frozen soil shows that temperatures were 24 °C higher than in the 20th century. A chronology of sea-ice records, shows a peak temp around 1100 ad, a finding confirmed by evidence of agricultural prosperity. I should've said "MUCH of Greenland was farming". How can anyone trust a report on long-term climate trends which discards the MWP altogether?
@joygarner Just to help you a little... The actual thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is right about 10,000 feet. Are you really suggesting that Greenland has developed a 10,000 foot ice sheet since the 1200's?
I am not suggesting anything. I am merely looking at the archeological data and it shows that much of Greenland's ice grew after the MWP. I know you're not suggesting that every square inch of ice coverage in and around Greenland is, and always has been, 10,000 feet thick,...right?
@joygarner How many times do I have to say thing to people? Jones did NOT say there was NO warming. He, in fact, says that there was 0.12C/decade of warming during that period. The time frame for the question makes the warming not rise to the 95% confidence level, but it's "just shy" of it.
IF U delete the MWP, long-term looks 2 B better support for AGW. But, when the MWP comes glaring out, there's a switch back to short-term trends. That doesn't work either, given the last 15 years of temp data. If C02 is the driver, as we have been told, it would be MUCH hotter than it is right now. Instead, there's been no "statistically significant" warming, either short or long term.
@joygarner FYI, in climate 15 years is a short term trend.
If CO2 (and it's CO2, not C02; O as in oxygen, not 0 as in zero) is the driver there is nothing that says it should be warmer now. A doubling of CO2 from preindustrial time should result in warming of about 2.3C. And that's about what we're seeing right now. Problem is there is enough CO2 trapped in the Siberian tundra to double that number again. Netting ~5C warming. >6C is game over.
The theory that Co2 is the driver of higher temps has not been proven. I too would fear higher Co2 if in fact, it had been proven.
We are "seeing" 2.3C higher temps right now? Higher than what? 2.3C higher than the MWP? Nope. 2.3C higher than the last pre-industrial short warming period? Nope. 2.3C higher than 1995? 1998? Nope. Again, 2.3C "higher" than WHAT?
The ice-core data has confirmed that Co2 rises hundreds of years AFTER temp increases, not BEFORE.
@joygarner The theory that CO2 is a driver is basic physics. The only real scientific issues are related to the level of forcing.
The 2.3C is for doubling CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 35% and have seen about a 0.8C increase in global temps. Perfectly in line with what is anticipated.
Ice core data confirms that normally CO2 is a feedback after initial Milankovitch cycle forced changes.
If that's true, we're in luck! Atmospheric Co2 is declining now, while human output increases. Goody right? Or is that bad news 4 U? It doesn't fit the "model" though, b/c increased Co2 was supposed to cause even more severe & rapid releases of Co2 & so on, until the planet explodes into flames.
The objective reality just can't B squeezed or tortured in2 the theory/model 4 taxing the hell out of us all, (& without ever addressing any real pollution problems).
@joygarner We've been in a La Nina cycle for most of the past decade. We're now headed into a new El Nino and all that heat that was sub-surface in the Pacific is going to come bubbling back up. Fasten your seat belts for the next decade of record warm global temps.
@joygarner Are you talking about MOnckton who said he was a member of the House of Lords in England (he isn't), and claims in his VC at the SPPI web site that he is a Nobel Peace prize Laureate (he isn't), who claims he has invented a cure for AIDS, MS, and other diseases (he probably hasn't I'm guessing), is a mathemetician (he isn't). Get the picture. Credible- he isn't.
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
Politics is big-big business, as much as we love our Veterans, war is not a very popular option anymore, families dont like sacrifing loved ones so the polies can OVER-EDUCATE their own, so alternatives are needed, (buy shares in every Co Al Gore buys into, especially the one supported by Gov bonds) - Aussie
''British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases''
Nice cherry picking there. You didn't watch the video did you? Climate temperature goes in decades of which (I think) the 1970s had near to no warming as well. But lo and behold if you look at every decade in one graph since the industrial revolution, what you do get, a line of best fit showing a rise in temperature. Watch the video again and you may see it funnily enough.
I was just pointing out what your 'Church' has stated.The real figure is no warming for 15 years, but because you only have a tiny little mind you might not be able to cope without a meltdown.
If you can't understand what a high school science teacher knows then you have no place to act by any measure as or more intelligent then someone who does.
look at the figures actually for yourself. Google "AP IMPACT: Statisticians Reject Global Cooling" and read whatever article you come across. Also, don't come into this "church of science" thing. Science has no dogma and no irrational, absolute faith so it isn't a religion. anyway that's irrelevant to the debate anyway, we should just be discuss facts, not insulting each other.
It was the "ice age" these SAME "scientists" (Gore & company) were selling when it was getting cooler in the 70's.
Longer-term trends: it makes no sense 2 deny the Medieval Warming Period, which is what the IPCC report did. Archaeological records show most of Greenland was lush farm land. Now it's covered in ice. If the Co2 models were true, (if Co2 was the driver of higher temps) it would be much hotter now than it is. Hence, they "can't explain" the lack of warming, & "it's a travesty".
@joygarner Have you ever looked at Trenberth's entire sentence? Not just the part taken out of context? No? Well, here it is...
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
I read the entire emails & threads. I KNOW the "context". They decided it's still getting warmer, and then set out to prove it (even if the data said otherwise). U decide someone has read only 1 sentence, therefore it was "out of context". This "out of context" theorem is directly off a "talking points" memo 4 pro-AWG believers, listed under "How 2 Talk 2 a Denier". It never suggests ACTUALLY READING the emails 4 yourself, instead, it spoon-feeds AGW believers the "correct" context.
@joygarner But you didn't read the paper. Did you. Again, here is the full text of the email which is exactly what the paper says...
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
@joygarner Are you complaining that AGW believers are getting "spoon fed" accurate information?
Again, here you are confusing temps with energy. He's talking about the complexity of the earth's energy budget.
The point, since you won't read the paper, is this. We can measure how much energy is hitting the earth. We can measure how much is radiating back out to space. From that we know there is warming. That is perfectly clear and simple.
What's complex is that that energy has a lot of places to hide within our complex climate. How that energy moves within the climate is very difficult to track, meaning we get swings in temperature readings on shorter time scales.
Trenberth is lamenting the difficultly of tracking that energy balance and specifically because of the reactions that people like you have to complex information.
@joygarner The "travesty" is their inability to effectively track the warming. Trenberth has written on this topic publicly a number of times and has stated the same in his published papers.
I've read Trenbirth's excuses. So the "assumption" is that there IS warming, in spite of a lack of evidence? It is a travesty.
Thanks 4 bringing that up. Since they have openly admitted they R unable 2 track warming, (which we already knew when they deleted the MWP) then how R we 2 believe what they say about warming? Maybe once they figure out a way 2 effectively track temps, they can write a new report. Problem: By then it'll be human-caused, imminent "ice age" hysteria time again.
Someone has else has answered your queriy on Greenland and the MWP. Watch another one of greenman's videos to find out about the 70s thing ( I don't even follow Gore, I haven't seen any of his films or lectures). Anyway there are papers (again in another greenman video) showing how our models have been correct. Also, you must know that global warming is mediated by global dimming right, the effect of particulates in the atmosphere that reflect light by forming more, but smaller water droplets.
"Our models" are "correct". (As in YOU work for the IPCC?) Then why the "travesty" that you can't explain the lack of warming? Are YOUR models also based upon ignoring the MWP &, the ice-core data which shows Co2 rise lags BEHIND temp increases?
"Correct" would mean something besides predictions which are now found to be factually wrong.
Scientific maxim: If your theory doesnt fit observed reality, it's time to change your theory. This is not what happens with the proponents of AGW.
@joygarner Regarding the "Travesty" and "Lack of warming" comments, I think I posted the intent of these statements before. They very selectively taken out of context. And they were not even secret correspondence in the UAE emails. These were statements from Kevin Trenberth both in emails and in published papers lamenting the complexity of climate and tracking the earth's energy budget. See: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009)
They've admitted it's all to complex for them to understand, & they cannot effectively "track" (locate/prove/evidence) the warming they'd predicted.
If they were previously able to "effectively track" warming, (which is purported to be what led to their conclusion that Co2 is the primary driver of higher temps), what's happened since then? Did they lose all their gear? "Science" dictates that you form a theory based upon objective evidence, not set out 2 prove a theory which contradicts it.
@joygarner@joygarner You're really stuck on this 800 year lag thing, aren't you?
It's really quite simple....
Normal = The earth's orbit, tilt and precession drive initial warming, accounting for about ~1C. That causes the environment to release CO2 that further warms the planet. Normal range for CO2 for the past 650,000 years = 190 to 280 ppm.
In those normal swings we see the earth go from warm to ice age. 190 ppm = ice age. 280 = warm. A swing of ~100 ppm.
@joygarner The man-made version of the same story...
Not normal = Milankovitch cycles are causing slight cooling. Human's dig up millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 and introduce it into the atmosphere. Basic physics dictates that more CO2 causes warming, just as with normal feedbacks. This time we are the forcing (not the planet) and we are starting this forcing at a normally high temp/CO2 period relative to the past 650,000 years. Then similar feedbacks take over.
yes there were but I am saying that 'we as man make mistakes, and so doing try to correct our mistakes often going to far with them, acting blindly, rash and often times without one thought of what happens if we go to far AGAIN" It did quit well for billions of years.....7 ice ages and numerous climate changes within itself you are right it did quit well.....funny how man thinks he is going to stop the world from doing what it has been doing for billions of years
Dr Christy who you claim agrees with the assertion that global warming is man made infact has shown that observed data shows the ipcc report is false it is pure fearmongery designed to further the cause of the globalist fascist political movement .this video would be so laughable if it was'nt so dangerous
Dr phil jones of the university of east anglia has disapeared since the climategate scandal he has run away from any scrutiny rather than face the music
Yes, the South Pole has never been as big and had so much sea ice in recorded history, which as an average cancels out the 'loss' of sea ice in the Arctic.
the inter governmental panel on climate change the ipcc is based at the united nations it is a fascist political movement who have hijacked the cause of genuine environmentalists.
lol 30,000 climatologist are suing Al gore....why because they have facts that dispute global warming....Global warming, Climate change. is all bunk and bogus....it is a plan being used to funnel money to certain people and crash global economies.....A great war is coming, you tree hugging idiots better start learning how to defend what is yours...they wont care that you are on their side...your a mouth to feed that they wont want!
but I am not a denialist, I just dont believe it is being caused by what scientist are claiming.....this happened to our earth 5 times before man was even here and 1 time after man was here....so it is safe to say it will happen again.....and please try not to be disrespectful while a computer is protecting you, grow up and be a man
If you have some sources of info you wish to add, please do so, and you will get a serious response.
Talking about the "30,000 scientists", and "this happened 5 times before" (what happened? mass extinctions?) only provides evidence of the shallow informational base you are working with.
wow you call me ingnorant....but you blindly follow half done studies with no inconclusive evidence, NO studies done in russia, NO studies done on the 70 active volcanos in Alaska right next to the ice caps. The 30,000 scientist are sueing Al Gore bases on his false evidence, 6 not 5 ICE AGES prior to man and 1 ICE AGE after man....seriously kid, think for a minute, its not just ice agees...where I live it has at one point been a desert, inland sea, tropical forrest...it will change again
and so you know son, I am based on thought not thoeries! Have you idiots that follow like sheep ever thought what happens when we shut down all human based none natural carbon emmision? OR do you even care? That Millions will be out of work homeless and unable to feed themselves. How can you justify throwing TRILLIONS of dollars to something that is not conclusive? Yet sit there and call someone else ignorant for questioning it
lol do you even know how they are going to solve the climate crisis? throwing out TRILLIONS? what they propose is investing in renewable energy. we are going to run out of fossil fuels anyways, so why not invest now? do you want to take the risk of NOT taking action now?
The question is not if global warming has happened before, the question is why it is happening now. The consequences are, indeed, dire, and if we can mitigate it we should.
Compare it to someone becoming ill; this happens to billions every year. However, if some kind of food makes people ill, you want to find out the cause and prevent that it happens again. Cause and responsibility make the difference.
Dire if it is true, ffs there has to be some levity to the climate gate scandal. With no doubts our climate are and will change that has been maybe the only inconclusive thing about our worlds history that all science can agree on. But what if they did doctor those numbers and we blindly throw all this money and impose wall these taxes and regulations and then in the end it was all bogus.then what? WE NEED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WITH COMPLETE AND FULL STUDIES DONE.enough of the half ass theories
I have no idea where you get the number "TRILLIONS" from. incase you don't know, we are already wasting trillions of dollars that could otherwise be used to end global poverty on WARS!
you shouldn't be criticizing efforts to curb GHG emissions because of hundreds of millions of starving people. like i said, if you really want to end global poverty, we need to end wars.
war spendings far exceed renewable energy investment spendings and at the same time, wars make our world more of a horrible place.
LOL I am only criticizing on the fact that we cant fix it if we dont know how it is broke, we only have theories.......as for wars, well I dont disagree with you there BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WAR....but to be honest if we do what the copenhagen climate confrence wanted it will only cause more wars.....
and one quick question, how would stopping all wars end global poverty when by and far the impoverished have started thier fair share of wars in the history of mankind? ffs look at somalia, starving and poor killing starving and poor.
what honestly do you think will happen when a country who is already broke spends another few trillion dollars?????
Plus on top of that shuts down all carbon producing concepts, manufacturing, drilling, buring, driving, everything....WE WILL be in a crisis you cant even imagine.
um, few trillion? please tell us where you read this. last time i saw a speech talking about efforts to stop global warming obama was suggesting a 150 billion dollar investment over a 10 year period.
and please dont get me wrong, I AM NOT SAYING dont do anything, I AM SAYING if we do something lets make SURE we are right, what is so wrong with that? Why jump in head first eyes half closed?
@boycow... This is exactly the point of the IPCC's findings. They ARE clear! There is a consensus among scientists in the field. These are very very conservative people in what they present. They are saying it's time to do something NOW!!
@boycow... Because they AREN'T! That's just what Glenn Beck, Lord Monckton, Sen Inhofe and Anthony Watts are telling you. None of which has the slightest idea what the actual research means.
not to mention the discent within thier own community, seriously if it was fact and they could inconclusivly prove it there would be no arguments from thier peers. I am sorry but I have a problem with just doing and hoping....what if trying to cancel out the carbon in the atmosphere does even worse damage, and causes our forrest to start to die? to many questions imo.
also if it is carbon, then why not hydrate a desert with all this "extra" water in our oceans and find out what all that new carbon sucking plantlife will do?
why is it out in left feild? lol seriously, in no way shape of form are we going to stop carbon immisions over night or in the next 20 or 30 years ffs, so if it is so drastic why not act drastic?
and anyway the romans made the aquaduct why cant we do the same for a desert of our choosing, with little to no human life, that has abundent mass........just think of a few hundred thousand square miles of new vegitation?
Well, I would admit that is exactly what Las Vegas is. Problem is, now the Colorado river doesn't even reach the ocean any more. But you can't just pump water from the ocean into the desert and expect it to grow. The ocean is salt water. We've effectively already turned every desert that could be converted with available fresh water into either a populated area or agriculture.
There are ways to sepperate salt from sea water, why would it have to be within the continental united states....if it is a wrold issue i'm sure it should have a global answer besides just blindly following and spending
and its at least an idea to help us "IF" carbon is the issue get some time to transform our economies instead of just killing people based on half assed studies
Criticising scientific studies requires not just understanding, but also a willingness to trust the basic underlying assumptions. Climate change denialism is more in the business of creating distrust of established scientific institutions. That makes arguments that rely on studies less effective, sadly.
but see that is the issue, "willingness to trust the basic underlying assumptions" THIS IS OUR HOME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WE BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING DRASTIC! Think man, we are human, we have been known to make mistakes! In our mistakes take things WAY to far in trying to reverse them with no thought of the new issues that might pop up....our earth depends on CO2, without it our plant life will die...therefore everything dies......i dont want assumptions
"Therefore everything dies" shows that you really do know very little about the subject. If you want to pose questions, why not educate yourself first by reading a textbook? For example Earth's Climate by Ruddiman.
The science that observes climate change is sound; not knowing enough about it is no excuse for distrust. Climatology has as many assumptions as aerodynamics and chemistry. I trust planes not to crash and batteries not to explode as much as I know climate is changing.
yes moron everything dies when it has no plant life......animals need plants to survive, other animals need animals to survive....HELLO L2read If we go to far in our abstract attempt at stopping co2 PLANTS WILL SUFFER....if plant life dies...then what smart fella?
AGAIN L2read.....I have stated over and over that YES our climate is changing only I do not believe in what "science" has claimed is the issue
how is it sound when it is not done in a complete manner? again no studdies in the largest northern cold weather land mass ie russia....NOT ONE study done on the 70 active volcanos and their affect to the ice caps only miles away........PLUS there is science from people in the same feilds the directly conflicts the science you beleive....PLEASE tell me how that is conclusive?
Christensen, J. H., and P. Kuhry (2000), High-resolution regional climate model validation and permafrost simulation for the East European Russian Arctic, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D24), 29,64729,658.
Contains many references to papers about russia and the northern high latitudes in general. Just one example.
Shiraiwa, Muravyev and Yamaguchi (1997) Stratigraphic Features of Firn as Proxy Climate Signals at the Summit Ice Cap of Ushkovsky Volcano, Kamchatka, Russia, Arctic and Alpine Res., Vol. 29, pp. 414-421.
Salamatin, Andrey N.; Murav'yev, Yaroslav D.; Shiraiwa, Takayuki; Matsuoka, Kenichi (2000): Modelling dynamics of glaciers in volcanic craters, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 46, pp. 177-187
Models? You want to tell me it is sound science to force people into bullshit legislation based on models? NO ASSUMPTIONS MEANS NO ASSUMPTIONS.........a model is an assumption sorry fella.....
The word model seems to annoy you. Actually, we rely on models every day. Planetary motion is described by models. Before a bridge is built, its safety is modelled. I rely daily on models to safeguard my life.
The papers I gave you compare models with empirical data and find they are reliable.
You have been unable to find unreliability in climate models. When you are given references where you claimed none existed, you change the subject or resort to shouting. This looks very weak.
and lingula77 tell me "our earth depends on CO2, without it our plant life will die...therefore everything dies......i dont want assumptions" what about this statement is untrue?
@boxingboycow Were there no plantlife before the industrial revolution? Cutting CO2 emissions won't bring life to an end; it did quite well for billions of years without our emissions.
dude there were absolutly no studies done in the largest cold weather northern land mass in this world.......there are absolutly no studies done on the affect the 70 active volcanos in Alaska have on the ice caps that they sit miles from....why not? I'm sorry but that raises to many questions.
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
They have no choice but to force this on you by the year 2014 because it will start to get better all on its own by then. This is a natural process that all the planets in the universe go through and that is why all the planets are warming and not just Earth but they never speak of this because then you would learn the truth that global warming is a new scam to take your money and nothing more. They have had the technology for decades to eliminate oil but the facts are its all about money.
sniper71267 11 months ago
@sniper71267
"all the planets are warming" crock
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
greenman3610 11 months ago 3
Love the ending with "I'm Your Puppet", It says it all...
Man Made god, Not, god Made Man - I wonder what the bible says about Reality when Truth Bites Us In The Ass!!!
stevethul1 1 year ago
WOW! That British newscaster ate that CEI meatpuppet alive! Why can't American journalists act like this?
johnedwards1968 1 year ago 2
@johnedwards1968
inspiring isn't it?
and then you get kind of a queezy feeling about the fake journalism we put up with.
greenman3610 1 year ago
.... Mr Ebell...Ebill..Evil? Can that be a coincidence?
GumbaMasta 1 year ago
Global warming is a good thing!
We just discover that there was big deciduous forest, witch are tree with leaves, not even cold enough for conifers in Ellesmere Island, Canada only 2 millions year ago. This island is well beyond the artic circle, that latitude is about 1000 Km north of the northern part of Norway. Let's go back to this warm weather.
You may ask, what about the tropical forest at the equator, 2 millions years ago? Apparently it didn't feel a thing...
CP Montreal, Canada
brickandfanal 1 year ago
@brickandfanal idiot
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
nice song at the end.. give me the title IoI
elevenby2 1 year ago
The problem is, it is inconvenient that global warming is real, so people will grab at any information that suggests that global warming is not real, no matter how stupid the information is. I fear, that climate change is real, but we will be to stupid and conservative to do what is needed to stop it happening.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
Oh, and the "gulf stream shutdown" claim doesn't hold water. A GW-induced circulatory change can only make a region colder by making some other region much hotter in comparison.
Put simply, if the Gulf Stream isn't carrying as much heat from the tropics to Europe, then the tropics will -- by the theory at least -- have not only heating from Global Warming, but also from the heat which used to be transported elsewhere.
The reality of course is the tropics aren't seeing any rising trend at all.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom "by the theory at least"
which theory? you do realise that the earth isn't a closed system dont you?
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
from the hottest summer, to the coldest winter in 1000 years.
nothing to see here, move on.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610, are you genetically incapable of telling the truth? 2010 was the *second* hottest summer since the *1880s* (2003 was the hottest). That's a far cry from the coldest -- or the hottest -- in 1000 years.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
Russian Meteorological Center: “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat.”
11000 dead in Moscow.
I guess if you can claim gifts of prophecy about the winter, I can cite actual official sources.
for my vids on this summer's heat-
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 1 year ago
Russia is not all of Europe, you nitwit. If you want a source for New Zealand having the worst blizzard in recorded history, visit the site of today's NZ Herald. If you want a source for the prediction of the coldest winter in 1000 years, google "Prime Time Russia".
BTW, last winter was Europe's coldest winter in the last 50 years...but its supposed to be nothing compared to what's coming this year. Korea, China and many other nations also set winter records.
ttowntom 1 year ago
@ttowntom
from your reference:
"Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.
The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. ."
changes in the gulf stream, of course, are one of the predicted consequences of climate change.
thanks for posting.
greenman3610 1 year ago
One truly has to wonder why Greenman spends his entire life making and posting these videos, and responding like a martyred zealot when anyone challenges his faith with a post here. Global warming truly is the new religion.
Greenman, do you actually wear a robe while posting ... or do you just say a little prayer to Mother Gaia after each post?
ttowntom 1 year ago
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC I am sure this is a load of shit, but hopefully it will be a crock of the week soon.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan
it's nonsense from the usual suspects.
deniers are quick to say that "science does not depand on consensus", usually right before they produce a list of podiatrists, economists and veterinarians against the science of climate change.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 LOL true
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan What are you speaking about? We are now at 139 endorsers.
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC Ok tell me 10 names on that list so I can run a search on them and also how many are climatologist? This is going to be classic.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC I had a look at ICSC website and what a load of crap. Nearly all of the climate science claims they make have been disproven. The same old arguments CO2 lags, temp, mars is warming, more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2 etc. YAWN!
Richard482 1 year ago
@Richard482
Bob Carter - "Chief Science Advisor"
That's all you need to do.
greenman3610 1 year ago
yo, ignorant sheeple, you just dont know what lies ahead, cant conprehend the scale of the mutations ... instead of figurint alone what happens and how to go along with it u guys pay attention and tax to old fat penguin-like men...
sergiobrejo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
I love your channel and your videos. Thank you so much for doing what you do. 5***** #FTW
JixYt 1 year ago
@JixYt
just keep telling your friends and neighbors.
thanks!
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I will. You explain it so well and I love the humor you add at certain points throughout the videos to emphasize the absurdity of the climate change deniers like in your "Debunking Lord Monckton" videos. Those were very funny additions you added like Monty Python's the Ministry of Silly Walks, Wizard of Oz Latin gobbledygook, the "Model of a Modern Major General" song and Willy Wonka's "Pure Imagination" song. I got quite few chuckles in your mocking of Monckton. LOL!
JixYt 1 year ago
predictions = models you cant model climate ..show us the evidence ! Cherry pick haha what is the hockey stick . The MET is not respected , certainly not in the UK , its a joke !
klnine 1 year ago
this is so fucked, lol We have been cooling for a long time now! not onloy are we NOT warming, we ARE COOLING. have been for about 10 years now. Glen Beck is a genius, to bad so many of you cant see it! we just went through one of the coldest winters ever recorded in the northern hemisphere. and now we continue in it with a summer that just wont come. It is JULY and there is still ski resorts open everywhere that are normally closed months ago. Is that warming? Look at both sides ppl!!
sdcam101 1 year ago
@sdcam101 ; "we ARE COOLING"
Who do you mean by "we?" Earth has been steadily warming, not cooling. Do try to keep up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
@sdcam101 I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of the heat waves that are pounding the northeast this summer.
colddrake80 1 year ago
@sdcam101 Ya, climate change. Climates are changing. Go tell your Glenn beck to grab a glass of water and fill it with ice from the north pole. I'm sure he'll be hard pressed to find much OLD ice as its all withered away.
Brokoro 1 year ago
@sdcam101
Denial quote of the year.
"Glenn Beck is a genius"
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 im the denier? dude u guys dont think the medieval warm period existed. Did u know that the earth goes through completely normal cycles of warm/cold, they go back hundreds of thousands of years and we are in one of the coldest warm periods in history. The last warm period war the medieval warm period when it was so warm that there were NO glaciers in greenland. The vikings used to live where is now covered with 2 miles of ice. and if its co2, then y has mars warmed also? THE SUN!
sdcam101 1 year ago
greenman3610 1 year ago
@sdcam101 PLEASE DON'T BRING BECK INTO THIS .......its embarrassing
thedevos1981 1 year ago
@thedevos1981
a lot of deniers are embarrassed that they have Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity,
and now, the witch girl, O'Donnell, on their team.
Don't try to hide it! Be Proud!
You are a denier,
.. and a teabagger - at least in spirit..
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 fuck that don't put us in the same group as them wankers.
If thats the case your on the team with the global elite that want to take over the world........oh i bet you've got a debunking video about that as well .
I'm not American i'm not a teabagger and it's funny how you bring those people into this mess you've just lost my interest ........shame
thedevos1981 1 year ago
@thedevos1981
don't worry, Monckton is an honorary tea bagger.
greenman3610 1 year ago
I just think it fair to say that this site is no more credible or "scientific" than the climate change deniers it tries to debunk. It does serve the purpose of raising issues about the climate deniers arguments, but in no shape or form can these counter examples as presented be considered definitive.
mandatum 1 year ago
@mandatum An investigative reporter does not need to be a scientific expert to dig up inconsitencies and misrepresentation and fraud. Neither does this web site. The references here are credible and verifiable. If the denialist web sites were up to the same standard maybe there would be some point to listening to them. Instead when you dig into the denialist's "science" is is misrepresentations, "cherry-picking" (like looking only 2006 onwards), or just plain wrong.
indulis1 1 year ago
Now let's be fair. This is nothing but a propaganda site. Mr. Greenman is not a scientist, he is a graphic designer involved in the advertising industry. And there is little to no science discussed in these videos. Yes, quite a few appeals to authority, but no real discussion of the science. This site is all about attitude and power posturing. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
mandatum 1 year ago
Many of us know of the extensive links that Goldman Sachs has to the AGW racketeering operation. At the present rebuffed on passing Cap & Trade, the circumnavigational route is being tried by having the EPA declare what plants use as food & what animals exhale a pollutant. The EPA adminstrator has ties to Goldman Sachs. Is that a coincidence?
Thisawareness 1 year ago
HOW MUCH are you being PAID to post all of this BS? It must be a great deal. It appears to be your FULL TIME JOB!
joygarner 1 year ago
no pay.
I just have kids, and I give a damn about them.
greenman3610 1 year ago 13
If U give a damn about them, U would want them to know the TRUTH, & U wouldn't want them 2 B complete slaves to an unelected few banking cartels who are trying to use this fake "global warming" scam (carbon tax) to fund their Global government without audit, without legal recourse.
Did U READ the Copenhagen Treaty? Do U understand that it involves the creation of an unelected few to rule the world, in ways so draconian, that they would have the power 2 choose who shall live or die?
joygarner 1 year ago
sounds like you've been listening to monckton and Glenn beck.
If you wish to build your life on lies, I can't help you.
I will have more to say on monckton, soon.
greenman3610 1 year ago
U obviously didn't READ the treaty. Maybe Jones was lying when he said there's been no warming since 1995?
U ignore real evidence & refuse 2 look at the possibility that the people funding/selling the warming scare might not have good motives. Turn your kids over 2 slavery for the sake of a few elite bankers. Don't forget 2 give them their mercury shots & fluoride, compliments of the same scum who push the carbon tax, (2 B paid directly to private banks).
Yeah, trash Monkton & worship Gore.
joygarner 1 year ago
"on't forget 2 give them their mercury shots & fluoride, "
uh oh.
Someone's precious bodily fluids are drying up.
watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
greenman3610 1 year ago
So you didn't read the Copenhagen Treaty. Fine. Urge our leaders to sign on to something you have never read. Smart guy there.
Spare me the pro-vaccine or pro-fluoride propaganda. I'm all full up, and this is part of the reason I don't pay attention to the TV. Instead I READ; bills, package inserts, studies from Harvard, MIT, etc. I also look to whether or not the party promoting stands to profit.
Attempts as personal insults aren't very informative, but hey, if that's all you've got,..
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner You obviously haven't read too many scientific papers on climate, that's for sure. You also didn't read the transcript of the Phil Jones interview.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I just read the entire transcript. None of his explanations work. For 1 thing, the fact that Greenland used 2 B lush farming land, (Medieval Warming Period, lasting 500 hundred years) & now it's covered with ice, & the fact that the IPCC official report completely denied this, (that it was much warmer then) leaves me seriously questioning the veracity of the report & the honesty of those who prepared/edited it. Fact is, unless U support AGW, your "science" is not funded & U R attacked.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner Can you please just answer me this one little question...
If Greenland "used to be lush" why is the ice sheet there currently measured to be about 450,000 years old?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I didn't say NONE of Greenland had ice during the MWP. Plant roots & burial grounds in subsequently frozen soil shows that temperatures were 24 °C higher than in the 20th century. A chronology of sea-ice records, shows a peak temp around 1100 ad, a finding confirmed by evidence of agricultural prosperity. I should've said "MUCH of Greenland was farming". How can anyone trust a report on long-term climate trends which discards the MWP altogether?
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner Just to help you a little... The actual thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is right about 10,000 feet. Are you really suggesting that Greenland has developed a 10,000 foot ice sheet since the 1200's?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I am not suggesting anything. I am merely looking at the archeological data and it shows that much of Greenland's ice grew after the MWP. I know you're not suggesting that every square inch of ice coverage in and around Greenland is, and always has been, 10,000 feet thick,...right?
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner I hope you do realize that there is nothing that suggests that the MWP was anything other than a regional event.
meteo.psu. edu/~mann/sha red/articles/Man netalScience09 .pdf
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@greenman3610 dude i bet u suck cock like a champ u fuckin treehugger!
sdcam101 1 year ago
@sdcam101 Why, when someone cant argue the logic they resort to obvious stupidity....
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
@KrunchyJD
My apologies to those who are offended, but I sometimes leave posts like this up just for illustrative purposes.
Deniers, look in the mirror.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@joygarner How many times do I have to say thing to people? Jones did NOT say there was NO warming. He, in fact, says that there was 0.12C/decade of warming during that period. The time frame for the question makes the warming not rise to the 95% confidence level, but it's "just shy" of it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
IF U delete the MWP, long-term looks 2 B better support for AGW. But, when the MWP comes glaring out, there's a switch back to short-term trends. That doesn't work either, given the last 15 years of temp data. If C02 is the driver, as we have been told, it would be MUCH hotter than it is right now. Instead, there's been no "statistically significant" warming, either short or long term.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner FYI, in climate 15 years is a short term trend.
If CO2 (and it's CO2, not C02; O as in oxygen, not 0 as in zero) is the driver there is nothing that says it should be warmer now. A doubling of CO2 from preindustrial time should result in warming of about 2.3C. And that's about what we're seeing right now. Problem is there is enough CO2 trapped in the Siberian tundra to double that number again. Netting ~5C warming. >6C is game over.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
The theory that Co2 is the driver of higher temps has not been proven. I too would fear higher Co2 if in fact, it had been proven.
We are "seeing" 2.3C higher temps right now? Higher than what? 2.3C higher than the MWP? Nope. 2.3C higher than the last pre-industrial short warming period? Nope. 2.3C higher than 1995? 1998? Nope. Again, 2.3C "higher" than WHAT?
The ice-core data has confirmed that Co2 rises hundreds of years AFTER temp increases, not BEFORE.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner The theory that CO2 is a driver is basic physics. The only real scientific issues are related to the level of forcing.
The 2.3C is for doubling CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 35% and have seen about a 0.8C increase in global temps. Perfectly in line with what is anticipated.
Ice core data confirms that normally CO2 is a feedback after initial Milankovitch cycle forced changes.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
If that's true, we're in luck! Atmospheric Co2 is declining now, while human output increases. Goody right? Or is that bad news 4 U? It doesn't fit the "model" though, b/c increased Co2 was supposed to cause even more severe & rapid releases of Co2 & so on, until the planet explodes into flames.
The objective reality just can't B squeezed or tortured in2 the theory/model 4 taxing the hell out of us all, (& without ever addressing any real pollution problems).
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner And your source for declining atmospheric CO2 is... what?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., the former Colorado State Climatologist, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Mauna Loa observatory,
Wait, I just rechecked and it looks like a retraction was published. You got me there.
Still doesn't explain the lack of warming, which, based upon the IPCC models, predicted much hotter temps by now.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner We've been in a La Nina cycle for most of the past decade. We're now headed into a new El Nino and all that heat that was sub-surface in the Pacific is going to come bubbling back up. Fasten your seat belts for the next decade of record warm global temps.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 6
@joygarner Here's the data I see on rising CO2 levels....
watch?v=k7jvP7BqVi4
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner Are you talking about MOnckton who said he was a member of the House of Lords in England (he isn't), and claims in his VC at the SPPI web site that he is a Nobel Peace prize Laureate (he isn't), who claims he has invented a cure for AIDS, MS, and other diseases (he probably hasn't I'm guessing), is a mathemetician (he isn't). Get the picture. Credible- he isn't.
indulis1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In just FIVE YEARS between 2004-2009 thick perennial arctic sea ice DROPPED 42%. This was discovered by NASA satellite measurements. Reported 7/7/09
Search:
New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
Global Warming is changing our world NOW. CO2 is 35% above levels for 650,000 years. In just 30 years CO2 will be over 450ppm, enough to acidify oceans to the point of stopping the growth of many planktons and corals. They are at the base of the oceans' food chain.
goog2k 1 year ago
Politics is big-big business, as much as we love our Veterans, war is not a very popular option anymore, families dont like sacrifing loved ones so the polies can OVER-EDUCATE their own, so alternatives are needed, (buy shares in every Co Al Gore buys into, especially the one supported by Gov bonds) - Aussie
Radzere 1 year ago
Even the Hadley centre has stated that there has been no warming since 1999.
fudge987654321 1 year ago
''British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases''
fudge987654321 1 year ago
@fudge987654321
Nice cherry picking there. You didn't watch the video did you? Climate temperature goes in decades of which (I think) the 1970s had near to no warming as well. But lo and behold if you look at every decade in one graph since the industrial revolution, what you do get, a line of best fit showing a rise in temperature. Watch the video again and you may see it funnily enough.
dunsedog 1 year ago
I was just pointing out what your 'Church' has stated.The real figure is no warming for 15 years, but because you only have a tiny little mind you might not be able to cope without a meltdown.
fudge987654321 1 year ago
If you can't understand what a high school science teacher knows then you have no place to act by any measure as or more intelligent then someone who does.
LucianUramu 1 year ago
Do you like a bit of chrome in the kitchen?
fudge987654321 1 year ago
look at the figures actually for yourself. Google "AP IMPACT: Statisticians Reject Global Cooling" and read whatever article you come across. Also, don't come into this "church of science" thing. Science has no dogma and no irrational, absolute faith so it isn't a religion. anyway that's irrelevant to the debate anyway, we should just be discuss facts, not insulting each other.
dunsedog 1 year ago
It was the "ice age" these SAME "scientists" (Gore & company) were selling when it was getting cooler in the 70's.
Longer-term trends: it makes no sense 2 deny the Medieval Warming Period, which is what the IPCC report did. Archaeological records show most of Greenland was lush farm land. Now it's covered in ice. If the Co2 models were true, (if Co2 was the driver of higher temps) it would be much hotter now than it is. Hence, they "can't explain" the lack of warming, & "it's a travesty".
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner So, am I to take that as meaning that the Greenland ice sheet formed in the past 800 years?
Just want to be clear.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner Have you ever looked at Trenberth's entire sentence? Not just the part taken out of context? No? Well, here it is...
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I read the entire emails & threads. I KNOW the "context". They decided it's still getting warmer, and then set out to prove it (even if the data said otherwise). U decide someone has read only 1 sentence, therefore it was "out of context". This "out of context" theorem is directly off a "talking points" memo 4 pro-AWG believers, listed under "How 2 Talk 2 a Denier". It never suggests ACTUALLY READING the emails 4 yourself, instead, it spoon-feeds AGW believers the "correct" context.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner But you didn't read the paper. Did you. Again, here is the full text of the email which is exactly what the paper says...
"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner Are you complaining that AGW believers are getting "spoon fed" accurate information?
Again, here you are confusing temps with energy. He's talking about the complexity of the earth's energy budget.
The point, since you won't read the paper, is this. We can measure how much energy is hitting the earth. We can measure how much is radiating back out to space. From that we know there is warming. That is perfectly clear and simple.
[cont]
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner [cont]
What's complex is that that energy has a lot of places to hide within our complex climate. How that energy moves within the climate is very difficult to track, meaning we get swings in temperature readings on shorter time scales.
Trenberth is lamenting the difficultly of tracking that energy balance and specifically because of the reactions that people like you have to complex information.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner The "travesty" is their inability to effectively track the warming. Trenberth has written on this topic publicly a number of times and has stated the same in his published papers.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
I've read Trenbirth's excuses. So the "assumption" is that there IS warming, in spite of a lack of evidence? It is a travesty.
Thanks 4 bringing that up. Since they have openly admitted they R unable 2 track warming, (which we already knew when they deleted the MWP) then how R we 2 believe what they say about warming? Maybe once they figure out a way 2 effectively track temps, they can write a new report. Problem: By then it'll be human-caused, imminent "ice age" hysteria time again.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner You obviously didn't read Trenberth's paper.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner He isn't talking about "temperature." Trenberth is talking about the earth's energy budget. There is a difference.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Someone has else has answered your queriy on Greenland and the MWP. Watch another one of greenman's videos to find out about the 70s thing ( I don't even follow Gore, I haven't seen any of his films or lectures). Anyway there are papers (again in another greenman video) showing how our models have been correct. Also, you must know that global warming is mediated by global dimming right, the effect of particulates in the atmosphere that reflect light by forming more, but smaller water droplets.
dunsedog 1 year ago
"Our models" are "correct". (As in YOU work for the IPCC?) Then why the "travesty" that you can't explain the lack of warming? Are YOUR models also based upon ignoring the MWP &, the ice-core data which shows Co2 rise lags BEHIND temp increases?
"Correct" would mean something besides predictions which are now found to be factually wrong.
Scientific maxim: If your theory doesnt fit observed reality, it's time to change your theory. This is not what happens with the proponents of AGW.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner Regarding the "Travesty" and "Lack of warming" comments, I think I posted the intent of these statements before. They very selectively taken out of context. And they were not even secret correspondence in the UAE emails. These were statements from Kevin Trenberth both in emails and in published papers lamenting the complexity of climate and tracking the earth's energy budget. See: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009)
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
They've admitted it's all to complex for them to understand, & they cannot effectively "track" (locate/prove/evidence) the warming they'd predicted.
If they were previously able to "effectively track" warming, (which is purported to be what led to their conclusion that Co2 is the primary driver of higher temps), what's happened since then? Did they lose all their gear? "Science" dictates that you form a theory based upon objective evidence, not set out 2 prove a theory which contradicts it.
joygarner 1 year ago
@joygarner Again. Over the long term we can track the warming. That's easy. Where the energy moves in the shorter term is what he's talking about.
READ THE PAPER!!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner @joygarner You're really stuck on this 800 year lag thing, aren't you?
It's really quite simple....
Normal = The earth's orbit, tilt and precession drive initial warming, accounting for about ~1C. That causes the environment to release CO2 that further warms the planet. Normal range for CO2 for the past 650,000 years = 190 to 280 ppm.
In those normal swings we see the earth go from warm to ice age. 190 ppm = ice age. 280 = warm. A swing of ~100 ppm.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@joygarner The man-made version of the same story...
Not normal = Milankovitch cycles are causing slight cooling. Human's dig up millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 and introduce it into the atmosphere. Basic physics dictates that more CO2 causes warming, just as with normal feedbacks. This time we are the forcing (not the planet) and we are starting this forcing at a normally high temp/CO2 period relative to the past 650,000 years. Then similar feedbacks take over.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
yes there were but I am saying that 'we as man make mistakes, and so doing try to correct our mistakes often going to far with them, acting blindly, rash and often times without one thought of what happens if we go to far AGAIN" It did quit well for billions of years.....7 ice ages and numerous climate changes within itself you are right it did quit well.....funny how man thinks he is going to stop the world from doing what it has been doing for billions of years
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Dr Christy who you claim agrees with the assertion that global warming is man made infact has shown that observed data shows the ipcc report is false it is pure fearmongery designed to further the cause of the globalist fascist political movement .this video would be so laughable if it was'nt so dangerous
fivedinners 1 year ago
Dr phil jones of the university of east anglia has disapeared since the climategate scandal he has run away from any scrutiny rather than face the music
fivedinners 1 year ago
the university of illinois state that in the last 30 years sea ice on average has remained constant.
fivedinners 1 year ago
Yes, the South Pole has never been as big and had so much sea ice in recorded history, which as an average cancels out the 'loss' of sea ice in the Arctic.
fudge987654321 1 year ago
thank you=)
fivedinners 1 year ago
the ipcc's report has been found to be false when compared with actual observed data.
when dissent is dismissed as conspiracy theory that is fascism not democracy.
fivedinners 1 year ago
the inter governmental panel on climate change the ipcc is based at the united nations it is a fascist political movement who have hijacked the cause of genuine environmentalists.
t
fivedinners 1 year ago
Al gore stands to earn tens of millions if cap and trade goes through.
Mr Gore refuses to debate man made global warming with lord christopher monckton.
fivedinners 1 year ago
maurice strong stands to earn trillions of dollars if carbon tax legislation goes through
fivedinners 1 year ago
lol 30,000 climatologist are suing Al gore....why because they have facts that dispute global warming....Global warming, Climate change. is all bunk and bogus....it is a plan being used to funnel money to certain people and crash global economies.....A great war is coming, you tree hugging idiots better start learning how to defend what is yours...they wont care that you are on their side...your a mouth to feed that they wont want!
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Boycow, are, you, like, the delusional son of Mancow?
Anyway, you get the coveted denialist dunderhead of the week award.
see my vid on the "climatologists"
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
greenman3610 1 year ago
but I am not a denialist, I just dont believe it is being caused by what scientist are claiming.....this happened to our earth 5 times before man was even here and 1 time after man was here....so it is safe to say it will happen again.....and please try not to be disrespectful while a computer is protecting you, grow up and be a man
boxingboycow 1 year ago
your responses show you are based on ignorance.
If you have some sources of info you wish to add, please do so, and you will get a serious response.
Talking about the "30,000 scientists", and "this happened 5 times before" (what happened? mass extinctions?) only provides evidence of the shallow informational base you are working with.
greenman3610 1 year ago
wow you call me ingnorant....but you blindly follow half done studies with no inconclusive evidence, NO studies done in russia, NO studies done on the 70 active volcanos in Alaska right next to the ice caps. The 30,000 scientist are sueing Al Gore bases on his false evidence, 6 not 5 ICE AGES prior to man and 1 ICE AGE after man....seriously kid, think for a minute, its not just ice agees...where I live it has at one point been a desert, inland sea, tropical forrest...it will change again
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Your responses are continuing to show your ignorance. There is no real law suit. Just because you read something on the blogs doesn't make it real.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@boxingboycow "with no inconclusive evidence"? lol! do you even know what that means?
double negative
no inconclusive evidence = 100% conclusive evidence
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
rofl what? inconclusive=conclusive what the fuck school did you go to? Sorry for my error in grammar but damn man
boxingboycow 1 year ago
ok, let's see if I can explain.
inconclusive is the opposite of conclusive
so if there is "no inconclusive evidence", that means that there is no evidence anywhere that is inconclusive.
For example
Q: Is there any inconclusive evidence?
A: No, there is "no inconclusive evidence".
Since there is "no inconclusive evidence" that means that all of the evidence is the opposite of inconclusive, that is, all evidence is conclusive.
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
@ US'sLair,
(My) conclusion: (CONFUSION !) Aussietruckie
Radzere 1 year ago
what?
Unclesamslair 1 year ago
and so you know son, I am based on thought not thoeries! Have you idiots that follow like sheep ever thought what happens when we shut down all human based none natural carbon emmision? OR do you even care? That Millions will be out of work homeless and unable to feed themselves. How can you justify throwing TRILLIONS of dollars to something that is not conclusive? Yet sit there and call someone else ignorant for questioning it
boxingboycow 1 year ago
lol do you even know how they are going to solve the climate crisis? throwing out TRILLIONS? what they propose is investing in renewable energy. we are going to run out of fossil fuels anyways, so why not invest now? do you want to take the risk of NOT taking action now?
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
Yes this mother is going to burn or I'll sue!
fudge987654321 1 year ago
@fudge
F()c#!N hell, they better be, or i'm coming bak !
Radzere 1 year ago
@boxingboycow
The question is not if global warming has happened before, the question is why it is happening now. The consequences are, indeed, dire, and if we can mitigate it we should.
Compare it to someone becoming ill; this happens to billions every year. However, if some kind of food makes people ill, you want to find out the cause and prevent that it happens again. Cause and responsibility make the difference.
Lingula77 1 year ago
Dire if it is true, ffs there has to be some levity to the climate gate scandal. With no doubts our climate are and will change that has been maybe the only inconclusive thing about our worlds history that all science can agree on. But what if they did doctor those numbers and we blindly throw all this money and impose wall these taxes and regulations and then in the end it was all bogus.then what? WE NEED CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WITH COMPLETE AND FULL STUDIES DONE.enough of the half ass theories
boxingboycow 1 year ago
I have no idea where you get the number "TRILLIONS" from. incase you don't know, we are already wasting trillions of dollars that could otherwise be used to end global poverty on WARS!
why don't you say something about wars?
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
@draenei... I'm pretty sure he gets numbers like that from Glenn Beck.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Comment removed
boxingboycow 1 year ago
@boycow... You better go back and check your sources on that one.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
we are not talking about wars! We are talking about killing countries on an economical basis for something we dont even know for sure is true
boxingboycow 1 year ago
you shouldn't be criticizing efforts to curb GHG emissions because of hundreds of millions of starving people. like i said, if you really want to end global poverty, we need to end wars.
war spendings far exceed renewable energy investment spendings and at the same time, wars make our world more of a horrible place.
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
LOL I am only criticizing on the fact that we cant fix it if we dont know how it is broke, we only have theories.......as for wars, well I dont disagree with you there BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WAR....but to be honest if we do what the copenhagen climate confrence wanted it will only cause more wars.....
boxingboycow 1 year ago
and one quick question, how would stopping all wars end global poverty when by and far the impoverished have started thier fair share of wars in the history of mankind? ffs look at somalia, starving and poor killing starving and poor.
boxingboycow 1 year ago
investing in renewable energy killing or nation on an economic basis? what are you talking about.
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
what honestly do you think will happen when a country who is already broke spends another few trillion dollars?????
Plus on top of that shuts down all carbon producing concepts, manufacturing, drilling, buring, driving, everything....WE WILL be in a crisis you cant even imagine.
boxingboycow 1 year ago
um, few trillion? please tell us where you read this. last time i saw a speech talking about efforts to stop global warming obama was suggesting a 150 billion dollar investment over a 10 year period.
DraeneiGirlsHotMuch 1 year ago
and please dont get me wrong, I AM NOT SAYING dont do anything, I AM SAYING if we do something lets make SURE we are right, what is so wrong with that? Why jump in head first eyes half closed?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
@boycow... This is exactly the point of the IPCC's findings. They ARE clear! There is a consensus among scientists in the field. These are very very conservative people in what they present. They are saying it's time to do something NOW!!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
based on half assed studies....HOW IS IT FACT WHEN THE STUDIES...A) are not done B) were not done and C) MIGHT HAVE BEEN DOCTORED
what is this the blind leading the blind
boxingboycow 1 year ago
@boycow... Because they AREN'T! That's just what Glenn Beck, Lord Monckton, Sen Inhofe and Anthony Watts are telling you. None of which has the slightest idea what the actual research means.
They are WRONG!
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
can you prove it? can you prove they are wrong and the sceintist in london who addmited to doctoring numbers or right?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
What doctoring of numbers?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
not to mention the discent within thier own community, seriously if it was fact and they could inconclusivly prove it there would be no arguments from thier peers. I am sorry but I have a problem with just doing and hoping....what if trying to cancel out the carbon in the atmosphere does even worse damage, and causes our forrest to start to die? to many questions imo.
boxingboycow 1 year ago
What dissent? Again, just trumped up BS from the Beck squad.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
also if it is carbon, then why not hydrate a desert with all this "extra" water in our oceans and find out what all that new carbon sucking plantlife will do?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Whoa! Now you're really out in left field! You have no idea what you are even suggesting.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
why is it out in left feild? lol seriously, in no way shape of form are we going to stop carbon immisions over night or in the next 20 or 30 years ffs, so if it is so drastic why not act drastic?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
and anyway the romans made the aquaduct why cant we do the same for a desert of our choosing, with little to no human life, that has abundent mass........just think of a few hundred thousand square miles of new vegitation?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Well, I would admit that is exactly what Las Vegas is. Problem is, now the Colorado river doesn't even reach the ocean any more. But you can't just pump water from the ocean into the desert and expect it to grow. The ocean is salt water. We've effectively already turned every desert that could be converted with available fresh water into either a populated area or agriculture.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
There are ways to sepperate salt from sea water, why would it have to be within the continental united states....if it is a wrold issue i'm sure it should have a global answer besides just blindly following and spending
boxingboycow 1 year ago
and its at least an idea to help us "IF" carbon is the issue get some time to transform our economies instead of just killing people based on half assed studies
boxingboycow 1 year ago
It's not IF anymore. IF was 20 years ago. Where do you get the idea that any of the studies are half assed? Have you read even ONE study?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Criticising scientific studies requires not just understanding, but also a willingness to trust the basic underlying assumptions. Climate change denialism is more in the business of creating distrust of established scientific institutions. That makes arguments that rely on studies less effective, sadly.
Lingula77 1 year ago
but see that is the issue, "willingness to trust the basic underlying assumptions" THIS IS OUR HOME WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WE BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING DRASTIC! Think man, we are human, we have been known to make mistakes! In our mistakes take things WAY to far in trying to reverse them with no thought of the new issues that might pop up....our earth depends on CO2, without it our plant life will die...therefore everything dies......i dont want assumptions
boxingboycow 1 year ago
"Therefore everything dies" shows that you really do know very little about the subject. If you want to pose questions, why not educate yourself first by reading a textbook? For example Earth's Climate by Ruddiman.
The science that observes climate change is sound; not knowing enough about it is no excuse for distrust. Climatology has as many assumptions as aerodynamics and chemistry. I trust planes not to crash and batteries not to explode as much as I know climate is changing.
Lingula77 1 year ago
yes moron everything dies when it has no plant life......animals need plants to survive, other animals need animals to survive....HELLO L2read If we go to far in our abstract attempt at stopping co2 PLANTS WILL SUFFER....if plant life dies...then what smart fella?
AGAIN L2read.....I have stated over and over that YES our climate is changing only I do not believe in what "science" has claimed is the issue
boxingboycow 1 year ago
how is it sound when it is not done in a complete manner? again no studdies in the largest northern cold weather land mass ie russia....NOT ONE study done on the 70 active volcanos and their affect to the ice caps only miles away........PLUS there is science from people in the same feilds the directly conflicts the science you beleive....PLEASE tell me how that is conclusive?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Christensen, J. H., and P. Kuhry (2000), High-resolution regional climate model validation and permafrost simulation for the East European Russian Arctic, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D24), 29,64729,658.
Contains many references to papers about russia and the northern high latitudes in general. Just one example.
Lingula77 1 year ago
Shiraiwa, Muravyev and Yamaguchi (1997) Stratigraphic Features of Firn as Proxy Climate Signals at the Summit Ice Cap of Ushkovsky Volcano, Kamchatka, Russia, Arctic and Alpine Res., Vol. 29, pp. 414-421.
Salamatin, Andrey N.; Murav'yev, Yaroslav D.; Shiraiwa, Takayuki; Matsuoka, Kenichi (2000): Modelling dynamics of glaciers in volcanic craters, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 46, pp. 177-187
Lingula77 1 year ago
Models? You want to tell me it is sound science to force people into bullshit legislation based on models? NO ASSUMPTIONS MEANS NO ASSUMPTIONS.........a model is an assumption sorry fella.....
boxingboycow 1 year ago
The word model seems to annoy you. Actually, we rely on models every day. Planetary motion is described by models. Before a bridge is built, its safety is modelled. I rely daily on models to safeguard my life.
The papers I gave you compare models with empirical data and find they are reliable.
You have been unable to find unreliability in climate models. When you are given references where you claimed none existed, you change the subject or resort to shouting. This looks very weak.
Lingula77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and lingula77 tell me "our earth depends on CO2, without it our plant life will die...therefore everything dies......i dont want assumptions" what about this statement is untrue?
boxingboycow 1 year ago
@boxingboycow Were there no plantlife before the industrial revolution? Cutting CO2 emissions won't bring life to an end; it did quite well for billions of years without our emissions.
DaJonas 1 year ago
@boxingboycow There is no question if CO2 is going to disappear. Since it is constantly produced, this is difficult to the point of being impossible.
Lingula77 1 year ago
dude there were absolutly no studies done in the largest cold weather northern land mass in this world.......there are absolutly no studies done on the affect the 70 active volcanos in Alaska have on the ice caps that they sit miles from....why not? I'm sorry but that raises to many questions.
boxingboycow 1 year ago