climate change pushers say that the co2 in the higher atmosphere is THE problem and we should solve. just like all other models, it doesn't work because co2 is the heaviest gas in the atmosphere. otherwise, all the plants would live on the edge of space.
you can get endless amounts of research funds if you are trying to solve a problem that can not exist.
attributing world increase in agriculture yields solely to increased CO2 levels is as ridiculous as saying environmentalists don't care about poor people. GMO, fertilizers and pesticides are the real reason that yields are increasing. Great work by people like Norman Bourlaug is the reason billions of people have not died in the last 50 years.
Maybe you should stick to IT instead of trying to be a proper skeptic.
@Xwowplaya ? have you ever had a greenhouse? They actually have CO2 generators you can buy and they do increase yields. Pretty simple really more C02 equals more robust plants. Is this the only reason for increases? No of course not but you can't just dismiss it. The amount humans add to the total of CO2 in our atmosphere is insignificant to cause any type of real climate change. This whole episode of scientific history will be as ridiculous as the Global Cooling concerns of the 70's.
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
1/2 Obama stop offshore drilling until 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 Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
Are you going to make a "The Case Against world oil running out" at some point? I feel that nobody wants to talk about it because it is too depressing... It would be great to have you put some clarity to this subject. I am referring to what you said at 21st minute.
haha stef does one video unrelated to his usual stuff and than this, people he does not claim to be an expert and btw those videos fiadrhi have no sourcing just some dude saying random shit that Idk is true. And to say Stef is trying to prop up a "political ideology" is so fundamentally retarded that it shows the writer had no idea what the word politics means. Good job guys.
I'm pretty sure that you are sincere, but why don't you take your own advice and look into the real evidence then, and don't pick a team... Read AR4 and educate yourself.
If you feel you really have a bombshell disproof of global warming in 20 minutes, then I suggest you put your ideas into the form of a paper and publish it in a respectable peer reviewed journal. Please don't tell me the journal will reject your paper for ideological reasons. That is bullshit. It will be rejected because it is based on the sort of nonsense I exposed in my first comment.
@fiandrhi If the "scholars" can reject the basic fundamental that the state is a violence, which really is self evident if you move away all the bs, than how can say, "If you feel you really have a bombshell disproof of global warming in 20 minutes, then I suggest you put your ideas into the form of a paper and publish it in a respectable peer reviewed journal"
Dont you see that, that is not an argument it is just a statement!
fps0chris, your cherished ideological political views are independent of and irrelevant to reality. AGW is real regardless of how strongly you feel about government.
Yes, what I said is a statement. It's also a challenge, a challenge to join the rest of the empirical and rational world on a level playing field, which is not a field of half-truth, cherry picking, and obfuscation, but of evidence and reason. That you can't is itself a statement, a statement of the utter falsity of your view.
@fiandrhi did i ever say AGW didnt exist? how did u infer that? YOu think that I have an ideological position because I believe in peoples rights to make this own decisions absent from violence.
btw how is that at all a come back, u basically just try to slander me and call it an argument.
If you think global warming is a problem that you fix it! Why do I have to be forced at gunpoint to fund Global Warming.
Your misunderstanding of the anarchist viewpoint is so wrong I just honestly Idk.
@fps0chris, I called something an argument? Where did I do that?
I didn't say anything about your being forced at gunpoint to fund anything, or even propose a solution to global warming that involved taxing you. If you are hearing that you must be taxed, it is your own brain telling you that.
Last, if you feel you are living in a tyranny of taxation, flee to one of the world's many tax havens.
I made it 2:41 minutes into this video. Why did I stop? Two reasons. First, he appeals to us not to be "sports fans" and to drop the sports fan mentality and then immediately engages in political rhetoric. Second, he says that warming is attributable to solar irradience. This claim hasn't withstood the test of time in the PR lit. Solar irradience has declined, in fact, as warming has increased. Misinformation and political ideology make this video not worth my time. (cont'd next comment).
Also, one of the Koch brothers founded the CATO institute... and you wanna complain about "money influencing scientific results that are in favor of climate change"? That's a laugh. He's that sports fan you're talking about. Irony.
@fps0chris The sports analogy is not my argument. That's his. I'm ridiculing that argument like you are. The Koch brothers are not only the "sports fan"... they're the team owners.
@fps0chris What do you mean by "unbiased"? Is anything outside the CATO institute "biased" to you? If it's not supported by some bullshit libertarian idealist... you can't even consider it?
"read 1984 if you have any doubts at how this is achieved"
George Orwell wasn't particularly anti-statist... he was a socialist after all. Not a free market capitalist (like many interpret).
And science already knows hurricanes are in a down-trend... it's that the ones that do come about-- will be more powerful. It's not making the case that there will be "more of them". Jesus Christ.
I can't finish the rest. Just lots of blatant misinterpretations.
@fps0chris by "proving your point" I meant being intellectually dishonest and attempting to find small things that assert your opinion. Why dont u make a video that counters this or atleast adresses key issues presented. Jesus christ what is wrong with u people.
@fps0chris Haha.. I know he didn't. But most of these libertarian fools thinks he's anything anti-"big goburment". He's not a free market capitalist. He was a democratic socialist through and through. Face the facts, jack.
climate change (global climate disruption..) is even worse than "we" officially have been told from the "conservative" IPCC. What they conclude is basically a best case scenario.
Fact is that co2 is the/our no1 control knob. Since industrialisation co2 has increased about 36% now. Houston we have a problem.
stef i support your channel but you are in nearly every point absolutely wrong here and swallowed the anti-environmental propaganda completely- and it is an important issue man
Environmentalist do care about people. They also care about the earth and species too. If you think about it, natural resources and species (eco systems) such as bees are essential to our life cycle. We depend on it and without it other species will die off. Where are you getting your sources from?
Yeah right dipshit. There are 15 million children who die from preventable causes each year in countries shut out from international free trade and capitalism. You socialist environmentalist morons are going to save the planet by reducing Carbon emissions, which might kill at most 150,000 people each year (at best an exaggerated figure by Green groups)? You megalomaniacs don't care about poor people in third world countries.
Your points on urbanization and change in land use were valid imo, but do you have any peer reviewed article on the CO2 v crop productivity to back what you're saying?
Stef, some of your facts appear to be fallacies here. e.g. CO2 levels rising with global crop yields is suspiciously specious . Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Many other factors are also responsible for increasing crop yields - CO2 is not the driving one.
Check out the 'pirates vs global warming' correlation that all good Pastafarians preach for a clearer example of this fallacy ;-)
nice speech but what is the point? It doesn't take any science to understand that pissing in your own pond is not a good idea... are you suggesting corporations should just keep dumping shit in the air? If there is a conspiracy its a conspiracy to do nothing...
the real issue is. is it ok for industry to put up a smoke stack and dump shit in the air. the answer of course is no and global warming is just the diversion
nice speech but what is the point? It doesn't take any science to understand that pissing in your own pond is not a good idea... are you suggesting corporations should just keep dumping shit in the air? If there is a conspiracy its a conspiracy to do nothing...
the real issue is. is it ok for industry to put up a smoke stack and dump shit in the air. the answer of course is no and global warming is just the diversion
If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide references...otherwise how can anyone judge whether you or the people that produced your sources aren't simply making stuff up?
If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide references...otherwise how can anyone judge whether you or the people that produced your sources aren't simply making stuff up?
What is the scientific proof that "governments are the worst polluters" of all?
If you mean that most governments, as a result of endless industry lobbying, pollute worst of all precisely because they allow coal-oil-gas industries and ignorant consumers to do whatever the hell they want with no thought to the consequences, then yes - in that sense - gov'ts are the worst polluters.
@GnomesAmok It is a fact that there were an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears back in the 60's vs an estimated 25,000 now. Most populations of polar bears are increasing.
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.
@GnomesAmok --you know nothing about empirical or forensic evidence on any scientific topic. You deny the dysgenic effect of race-mixing, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of it. You are just a media drone Gnomes----stop attacking people on this posts you bully. WHISTLER: this invective spewing dilettante loves to surf youtube and attack those he harbors hate for, usually people he mistakingly views as "right wing". Don't pay attention to his puerile, media driven dogma.
Wrong. "Dysgenic", yeah right, give me a SHRED of evidence that isn't fabricated, that isn't from some bullshit site, for the purposes of legitimizing your irrational beliefs. You are the one that harbors hate, and everyone knows. They should put your kind up for Neo-Nuremberg trials for all the Neo-Nazi's, you ARE fascist, you ARE far right wing - you're denial makes it all the more obvious. Have a nice day, you delusional fuckwit.
@GnomesAmok --more ad hominems and viriolic dogma from youtube's premier liberal pothead Gnomes. Sorry but most of the scientific community accentuates the importance of race/genetics. Read the works of Dr. William Shockley, Dr. Craig Ventor, Dr. James Watson, Dr. William Pierce. Prof Glayde Whitney, etc. I know, they are all "racists", right? Gnomes, everyone has seen your postings on myriad videos--it's clear all you do is attack and offer no empirical evidence or sources. Go watch televitz.
Humans use industry, a consequence of this industry is certain of our inventions give off harmful chemicals like greenhouse gases that are harmful to the environment.
What would you expect to happen?
That we would just be around forever, never causing any damage to our planet when we all know everything humans touch turns to shit? Landfills, toxins, poisons, diseases... all human made.
@konshoff It's ENTIRELY the fault of SUBHUMAN SHITHEADS who ALWAYS vote ONLY Demopub or Republicrat who allow big corporations & big corporate-welfare-loving CEOs get away with DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT! The Demopublican party dictatorship illegally & undemocratically silences Greens, Socialists, Communists & Libertarians in the USA.
Why is it that all these so-called "anti-big-government" free-market anti-environmental capitalists - who don't care how much of OTHER people's (i.e POOR people's & nations') property they destroy with pollution - NEVER take a stand to free the millions of prisoners held hostage in USA & China over smoking pot or looking at pornography or any activity which harms NObody?
Asshole anti-environmental bigots still love blaming and attacking the weakest cultural groups - i.e. hippies - the same way the Nazis blame & attack Jews.
Hey you might want to redo this video. I was buying your argument wholesale until you said Greenland was once Green. The Vikings named Iceland and Greenland in such a way that any competitors would land on the shitty island.
4. Sigh - so CO2 improves plant growth, but that's not the whole story.
a). It can also lead to outbreaks of weeds, insects and plant diseases
b). Many other things have led to improved crop yields over time. Plant breeding, improved tilling & fertilizing regimes etc. The simplistic, unsourced graph is, of course, deliberately misleading.
5. Polar bears - outright lie. Of the 19 subpopulations, 1 is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. The status of the other 7 is unknown.
6. Sea levels rose about 55mm from 1994-2009. (Ref:ht tp://sealevel.colorado.e du/)
7. Urban heat island - yes they do adjust for it, and they have performed analyses excluding data from urban stations. The rising temperature trends remain.
8. The temperature of the lower troposphere is warming. That is where we live! It's where the 'greenhouse effect' is greatest.
9. In the free market if your predictions don't work out you may get paid very well. You are called an "economist".
10. The earth's temperature IS largely explained by changes to solar irradiance - BUT only until the late 20th century. None of these "natural variability" exponents can explain why temps have risen since the 1970s. The sun cannot explain it. Carbon gases do.
11. Censorship & peer review. See my mirror video 'climate change censorship'. Also Mann & Jones have each been exonerated from the most serious charges leveled at them. Though Jones was criticized for not releasing some of his data.
12. "Hide the decline" did not refer to hiding a decline in temperatures. It was about proxy tree ring data that diverged from rising temperature data. Don't you check anything at all?
13. Global warming did not stop, it's till warming - at the rate of about 0.12C per decade. The sun has been in the 'dimming' phase of its 11 yr cycle over the past several years, so the temp increase has eased. But the sun is entering its 'brightening' phase, and we'll have record high temps in 2010-12
2. "Warming" of other planets is not due to the sun - e.g. Mars due to shifting dust, Pluto is moving from apoapsis to periapsis etc. Accurate direct measurements of solar irradiance from Earth show the sun has been cooling since ~1985.
3. Oceanic outgassing of CO2 acts as an amplifier. The situation is now different from the 800 year lag 240,000 years ago. Isotope studies show the 'new' CO2 is from fossil fuels, not the ocean.
There cannot be a capitalist marketplace without state intervention to maintain the playing field. When Libertarian ideologues fail to grasp such complexities, their advocacy looks extremely immature.
BTW ... the video is slick disinformation. I hope the smug SOB gets his comeuppance someday.
@Surhotchaperchlorome. OK, so you're not a neo-con. What word best describes someone who believes the market is the answer to all the planet's ills?
Stefan may not be a neo-con, but if he believes only unpaid researchers can be believed, he is not a deep thinker. He has swallowed every denier argument without checking them. I've debunked the first few here, and I posted a video reply that debunks two - if he approves it! A few minutes research would have shown him the polar bear claim is a lie.
@Surhotchaperchlorome. Have a look at greenman3610's channel. It also debunks climate denier myths.
Is 'anarcho capitalism' the same as laissez faire? Apparently it gives you license to use the word 'violent' in a new way. It seems you can now slip 'violent' into any sentence provided it is in rough proximity to the word 'statism' - another new word. Whether you include or remove the word 'violent' - the meaning of the sentence remains exactly the same!
Monckton wannabe. You have never heard of Milutin Milankovitch.
The huge amount of money goes to the bank executives in the form of bonuses, not the climate research community.
You are an abject supporter of the state. It's the state of the global banking entities. Their transgressions don't even make a follicle on your nose twitch. Let a university publish some science and you have a heart attack.
Good to see the truth about global warming on here, no doubt this will annoy the climate change scammers. Why do you think our fascist governments are so keen to censor the internet?
Hi Stef - Like olgamaslivets said below - Mabe attribuiting increases in crop production since 1950's to just CO2 increases isn't quite right.
However, I've done a bit of reading up on this subject as well, and since the whole GW thing hasn't been based on science, then it's very likely the whole story is a load of bollox.
That's not to say "the debate is over." I think a debate, although likely to be quite short, would do no harm... I meant an honest debate.
Corbettreport had lord Chris Monkton interviews. ref Copenhagen etc. Quite good.
In another interview, Chris Monkton makes a fair bit of sense i.e. talks rationally about the pseudo science etc. and then talks about his religion etc.
It just means he is capable of doublethink - lots of people are. It doesn't however, mean that every word that comes out of his mouth is rubbish though.
We must appreciate that. If someone is wrong about something, doesn't mean they are wrong about everything
Hi Trumphent - I think you mean Chris Walter is Chris Monckton? (Monckton just being a family title or something?)
Do you mean that cos he wasn't voted for (liked) in UK that he is therefore likely to be an asshole?
Take a look at who they did vote for.
I know he isn't a scientist, so he wouldn't have peer reviewed research works etc. I don't think that's really relevant if he has an understanding of science/scientific method etc.
excuse me, are you serious to say on 05:00 that "1% increase in CO2 resulted in an 8% increase in crop yields"? isn't it the other way round?
if you study econometrics, they teach a concept of endogenity: i.e. it's not always right to look into one direction of the process. which in this case is: CO2 levels rose (for whatever reasons, sun, human, et al), the temperature rose (+simply human agriculture technology have advanced) and, yes, the yields have increased. disagree?
why would anyone want to "invent global" warming? (the listed reasons of governments liking power and scientists needing smth to research make me laugh)
shit like this upsets me. we have assholes out here who only care about the bottom line. they see the green revolution as something that is not profitable for the status quo. these are the same assholes who think we should shift over to natural gas--another finite fuel..when we're fighting for fresh h20 and having a merry old time dealing with 10 billion man planet you'll all look back and say..fuck maybe we should've done something
I have been going to the same beach for 50 years (Rye Melbourne Australia), the water level there is the same as when i was young so it makes me wonder how water is rising around the pacific islands and not here? or are the the islands perhaps sinking?
@ conchman: I agree!!!! I recall watching Al Gore's award wining propaganda my 2nd year in College for one of my environmental courses, sad how my classmates, and to a certain agree my self got "brainwashed " with such skewed information. What's really said is that that we PAID this institution to help perpetuate this lie. If there's a way my classmates should sue my educational institution ( not for the money, although that would be a bonus! More so on principle)
Well done--read Report From Iron Mountain--global warming is the perfect wasteful and government power enhancing tool. People buy it because they think they are being enlightened in "saving the planet" (completly egotistic to begin with) and this movement has recruited all the "earth day" hippies and now PC college students of the present. Looks grim for free thinking and "free" living. Stupidity is on the march- there is not much we can do to stop it and the worst part is that $ is the key.
Is there a relation between Co2 and crop levels aside from correlations? Was the data controlled for new hybrids that produce higher yields, better farming methods, GMOs?
And the polar bear populations, were records actually tracked in the 1940s, and since hunting was banned in the 60s wouldn't that account for population increase?
Now I am lazy and don't want to trudge through the sources for these(you should have cite numbers) but these are basic statistic factors to be included in the video
May I have your betz puhleeze..who will bet THEIR own money on Man Made Global warming..winner getz a breakfast cerial bowl made out of the skull of a REAL Polar Bear...oo too much?
In ice core samples, how do they determine the age of the ice and the age of the gas in the ice samples. I looked at the paper linked, but it only showed some equation that was used to compensate for this age difference.
Anyone who took chemistry in high school knows that carbon is a natural element on earth that cycles form rock to ocean to air. And thus, knows that carbon is not a man-made pollutant.
@bb44332211 Even if you NEVER took chemistry in high school, one would know that man never invented/created ANY of the atoms on this planet out of nothing. That's really stupid to bring that up. The issue is what arrangements humans CHOOSE to make with those atoms. Yes - humans DO produce CO2 & other GHGs and CHOOSE how much to produce of them
Brilliantly put. This information is not unique to this video it has been published far and wide. It is about time truth and purity overcame ignorance and lies.
its complicated issue, but i strongly believe climate change is caused by deforestation and not how many diesel cars are highway, i have worked East of Ethiopia in 1985-87, the place was had big jungle and very cold to tropical temprature, but when i visited this year, all jungle is gone due to charcoal logging, and know its hot & sandy as Sahara desert all year, due to dforestation.
This makes me doubt climate change. But the frustrating thing is that one person tells you one thing and the other tells you something else. Without studying the whole thing yourself in an unbiased way (which is pretty much impossible), it seems to run down to a question of trust.
@StephHuegi Forget what "somebody tells you". Go read the original reports & peer-reviewed research journals from the IPCC, WMO, NASA, etc. Better still, do your OWN computations of heat exchange between the sun & the earth & space.
I wouldn't accuse you of having pre-decided conclusions Stefan. But it's interesting to note that if global warming were a serious and urgent threat to the survival of the species, this would have serious ramifications for your free-market anarchy principles. Because then the only solution would be some kind of rational social planning, and every man for himself wouldn't work. Out of curiosity if your survey of the evidence had concluded differently would you have acknowledged this?
If global warming were a serious and urgent threat to the survival of the species, then we would have to get rid of government as quickly as possible, because governments of the worst polluters of all..
The worst polluters (again hypothesising that global warming were happening and man-made, I'm unsure myself) are the heavy industries. Surely some kind of regulation of industry would be necessary, because there is often a strong profit incentive not to limit CO2 emissions.
I'm anti-government in general, and I appreciate the cyclical violence of the state: but I don't see how they are the worst polluters...
What the hell sort of Randian nonsense is this crap?
"... the governments are the worst polluters of all ... "
If you are pro-pollution anti-government there's a wonderful little free market paradise called Somalia which you'll find ideally suited to your John Galt dreams.
No taxes. No regulations. No restrictions on firearms. No government. Rugged Individualism is the rule, not the exception.
Somalia is a tribal society, not an anarchist one. They are most certainly not anarcho-capitalists seeing as how they have no concept of the non-aggression principle (i.e. Somalian pirates). Tribalism and Capitalism are incompatible.
I don`t get Stefbot responce. If Goverment were "the worst polluters of all" why would they be advocating for CO2 Emisions cuts? And if we get rid of governments, wouldn`t we still need "some kind of rational social planning" to get acceptable CO2 emision levels?
You are right, This videos is biased and stupid. He doesnt even say where the examples and facts come from...
So in conlusion the person in this video is just after the money. The money that will be spent helping future generation instead of going down his wallet...
The technique here is to throw as much against the wall as possible, (overwhelmingly unsourced and uncited) and hope no one will have the time or patience to rebut.
It's a technique was pioneered by the tobacco industry, and helped them to destroy millions of human lives over several decades after the science was clear on tobacco effects.
Anyone that wants to see well sourced and knowledgable facts on these and many other canards, google
@greenman3610 Well said! This is why I am trying to do calculations on my own - to force myself not to be lazy. It's not just a matter of checking sources, but adding up all the variables, to see how they amplify or compete against each other.
Anthrogenic-Global-Warming was the perfect tool for globalizing international laws that could have limited individual freedom of people everywhere.
But CLIMATEGATE has put an end to those political maneuvers.
To scientists, Truth is determined by funding and data manipulation. Before postmodernism, scientists believed in Empirical truth. But in this postmodern age, no one truth is more true that another, and truth is seen as subjective, relative, and depending on the observer.
Global Warming is an easy target because the warming or cooling effect is quite arguable, and despite strong evidence both for an against it, science is based around arguments. That does not, however, discredit environmental protection and efforts to lower GHGs: Deforestation, pollution, dirty energy, use of non-renewable resources, farming that relies on oil (for machinery but overwhelmingly for fertilizer), automobiles, etc. all are negative for human health and for the biosphere as a whole.
I agree with all your points there lyckarock, and would just want to add that as for your first point, the whole global warming hype has taken all attention away from the more pressing things you mentioned.
I don't care about the planet warming .1Celcius when I can't eat tuna more than twice a week because I will be ingesting too much mercury as a result of heavy metal ocean pollution.
Or that I can no-longer drink water straight from most rivers because they are toxic. Priorities anyone?
A huge thing you forgot to mention also is that while the governments are telling us to cut down on our carbon outputs etc, they are at the same time continually perpetuating these wars which must have a HUGE carbon footprint.
WE dont need to save the polar bears.YOU save the polar bears, fly out there, set up camp, bring food for them...then pray they don't rip you apart, once they lose their fear of humans..in the mean time pleez don't justify the theft of money to look after WILD cuddly wuddly bears.
The Carbon emission trading is the sole purpose. it is another bone 4 investment bankers
I see the whole derivative market speculation just on that, shit lot of corruption from state and us to pay that tax so crooks at goldman sachs can play their games. And the whole scam is based on trading tons of co2 floating freely in the atmosphere on wall street. This is the most fucking ridiculous stuff ever! Soon they will put a device on your car to tax you for driving. violence of state has no limits
@konshoff HOW the F do you blame the real serious issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) into massive financial fraud? The criminal treasonous corruption & stealing by Goldman Sachs & hundreds of other investment firms or whatever it is they do has absolutely ZERO to do with AGW. It's ENTIRELY the fault of SUBHUMAN SHITHEADS who ALWAYS vote ONLY Demopub or Republicrat ...
also many ask why the coal? Well that is a very easy answer - it is cheapest. The water is absolutely cleanest but I believe we have already put the dams everywhere possible - check Lake Powell - how is that one doing?! talking about environmental fuck up. Nuclear - the best what we have in terms of power generation capacity - expensive to built - cheap to run , waste - huge problem. If you have cheap carbons like now - to build that would be a company disaster - very bad business strategy
There is probably still some misconception about the "green tech." I believe. Electrical car is an awesome thing indeed; but we wouldn't get the pollutants off the air coz one needs to generate the power and most comes from coal. solar panels: average household runs on cc.8000kwh annually - at price around $0.1227kwh depends where you live in USA that's roughly 1000$. to accommodate that you need to invest around 15k to run a house so we are looking at cc. 15 years of return. anybody loan?
For us working in research on the climate, it's important that we keep manipulating our data. We get funding from governments if we keep convincing people that man-made global warming is true and urgent. Let us have our funding. And let us cover up the truth and manipulate our data.
We don't REALLY trust Goverments and we don't really believe Man Made Global warming is the truth..so what are we gonna do about it? If we did trust goverments and believed in MMGW..well what can we do then? Just Imagine.
@DecassyJake It would probably create a global government structure that will finance itself and its corrupt supporters using the brand new carbon trading derivatives market
Hmm..I sniff the last(?) fantasy escape plan for Gov types..The truth will out, It's such horse hocky that it could not possibly stand, when the Dollar..finally collapses...?
if Copenhagen goes through the price of gas will double, the price of food will double. do you want $10 a gallon gas? Do you know what that will do to the economy? All this so the Goldman Sachs and Al gore's bosses can reap trillions in a global taxation government scam and look like saviors at the same time! Wake up public schooled educated brainwashed idiots! Listen to what you are saying. Carbon is not a pollutant . Carbon is the foundation of all Life.
what you warming alarmist are saying is Life is a pollutant. You brainwashed to have a hatred for life and humanity. Think about the massive perversion of reality that is programmed into your feeble mind. Learn some history. After the end of the Cold War the globalist decided they needed a new threat to keep the masses in a herd mentality in order to keep positions of power and what better scam then to turn life itself into a threat!. They believed people are stupid enough. Prove them wrong
You must be a retard. Read slowly maybe even a dumbass like you can understand. Plants can breathe nothing but gaseous carbon and live. Animals and humans can eat the plants and live. Its called the life cycle. Understand? Or are u still stupid? Enough with the government is here to love you. The government hates you understand? They manipulate you, use you exploit you then kill you. You are blind. you have been brainwashed with rhetoric crap. No one loves you.
See godseye this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. If you want to teach someone or convince them your facts are correct, you can't insult them and condescend to them in the same paragraph. Otherwise your typing is futile. They will only react and fight you even if you are right.
I understand you may be frusterated and angry, but attacking someone with ad hominems etc. loses you the debate.
Be calm, consistant and rational. Empathise with those you try to convince, then they listen.
People who believe in climate alarm-ism are the new religious zealots. The IPCC refuse to release their data. The alarmist are taking believing in faith and irrationality . Grow up and learn science . Climate warmism is the gateway to a communist style global government. Do you want police to put gps in your car? The police to track all your activity? The police to tax you for breathing? using energy? All this based on lies and faith . Grow up and Wake up and learn Science!
Just want to point ou there godseyeview, its best not to make an argument from authority "Grow up and Wake up and learn Science!" like that. People will only become offended and close off.
Also, we have a personal gps with us every day: mobile/cellular phones. They ALL can be tracked by emergency services police etc. to within 2 metres in some cases. Police use it on people all the time to catch them.
Second, we are already taxed for our use of energy, and it is increasing every year.
I've never been a sports fan but I was an ardent believer of global warming. Those who don't believe it have done nothing but insult me in comment exchanges, as if this would make me open my mind to what they had to say. Your presentation has me really doubting global warming for the first time ever. My only wondering now is why our glaciers here in the Alps seem to be melting/crumbling away if it's in fact not getting any warmer?
omg, you start your video by encouraging an openess to facts and healthy skepticism . . . then your FIRST ARGUMENT is a character attack on scientists funded through government grants.
Future tip: Realize when your argument voices the fears of a fringe group (anarchists in this case) or prepare to be rejected out of hand by mainstream viewers.
Climate change and political climate change, there is a difference.
Realjhad 7 months ago
climate change pushers say that the co2 in the higher atmosphere is THE problem and we should solve. just like all other models, it doesn't work because co2 is the heaviest gas in the atmosphere. otherwise, all the plants would live on the edge of space.
you can get endless amounts of research funds if you are trying to solve a problem that can not exist.
kmica2008 8 months ago
日本人の皆さん、自分の頭で考えてみましょう。
furaijinYT 8 months ago
@furaijinYT Japanese people, consider yourself in the head?
NordenzurZukunft 8 months ago
attributing world increase in agriculture yields solely to increased CO2 levels is as ridiculous as saying environmentalists don't care about poor people. GMO, fertilizers and pesticides are the real reason that yields are increasing. Great work by people like Norman Bourlaug is the reason billions of people have not died in the last 50 years.
Maybe you should stick to IT instead of trying to be a proper skeptic.
Xwowplaya 9 months ago
@Xwowplaya ? have you ever had a greenhouse? They actually have CO2 generators you can buy and they do increase yields. Pretty simple really more C02 equals more robust plants. Is this the only reason for increases? No of course not but you can't just dismiss it. The amount humans add to the total of CO2 in our atmosphere is insignificant to cause any type of real climate change. This whole episode of scientific history will be as ridiculous as the Global Cooling concerns of the 70's.
123chargeit 3 months ago
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
Gracelandification 10 months ago
2/2 watch?v=bgKr480RYc4 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
Gracelandification 10 months ago
1/2 Obama stop offshore drilling until 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 Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
.
Allen West 2012
Gracelandification 10 months ago
Are you going to make a "The Case Against world oil running out" at some point? I feel that nobody wants to talk about it because it is too depressing... It would be great to have you put some clarity to this subject. I am referring to what you said at 21st minute.
pentelesoikoon 1 year ago
haha stef does one video unrelated to his usual stuff and than this, people he does not claim to be an expert and btw those videos fiadrhi have no sourcing just some dude saying random shit that Idk is true. And to say Stef is trying to prop up a "political ideology" is so fundamentally retarded that it shows the writer had no idea what the word politics means. Good job guys.
fps0chris 1 year ago
I'm pretty sure that you are sincere, but why don't you take your own advice and look into the real evidence then, and don't pick a team... Read AR4 and educate yourself.
AmbientSmiley 1 year ago
For an explosion of the myth that there is global warming on other planets, see:
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
For a debunking of the solar irradiance myth, see:
watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20
fiandrhi 1 year ago
If you feel you really have a bombshell disproof of global warming in 20 minutes, then I suggest you put your ideas into the form of a paper and publish it in a respectable peer reviewed journal. Please don't tell me the journal will reject your paper for ideological reasons. That is bullshit. It will be rejected because it is based on the sort of nonsense I exposed in my first comment.
fiandrhi 1 year ago
@fiandrhi is that an arguement?
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fiandrhi If the "scholars" can reject the basic fundamental that the state is a violence, which really is self evident if you move away all the bs, than how can say, "If you feel you really have a bombshell disproof of global warming in 20 minutes, then I suggest you put your ideas into the form of a paper and publish it in a respectable peer reviewed journal"
Dont you see that, that is not an argument it is just a statement!
fps0chris 1 year ago
fps0chris, your cherished ideological political views are independent of and irrelevant to reality. AGW is real regardless of how strongly you feel about government.
Yes, what I said is a statement. It's also a challenge, a challenge to join the rest of the empirical and rational world on a level playing field, which is not a field of half-truth, cherry picking, and obfuscation, but of evidence and reason. That you can't is itself a statement, a statement of the utter falsity of your view.
fiandrhi 1 year ago
@fiandrhi did i ever say AGW didnt exist? how did u infer that? YOu think that I have an ideological position because I believe in peoples rights to make this own decisions absent from violence.
btw how is that at all a come back, u basically just try to slander me and call it an argument.
If you think global warming is a problem that you fix it! Why do I have to be forced at gunpoint to fund Global Warming.
Your misunderstanding of the anarchist viewpoint is so wrong I just honestly Idk.
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris, I called something an argument? Where did I do that?
I didn't say anything about your being forced at gunpoint to fund anything, or even propose a solution to global warming that involved taxing you. If you are hearing that you must be taxed, it is your own brain telling you that.
Last, if you feel you are living in a tyranny of taxation, flee to one of the world's many tax havens.
fiandrhi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fiandrhi Ok I apologize for refering to you as a statist, o wait
"Last, if you feel you are living in a tyranny of taxation, flee to one of the world's many tax havens."
This is my cue to leave, you obviosly have no
fps0chris 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fiandrhi Ok I apologize for refering to you as a statist, o wait
"Last, if you feel you are living in a tyranny of taxation, flee to one of the world's many tax havens."
This is my cue to leave, *facepalm*
fps0chris 1 year ago
I made it 2:41 minutes into this video. Why did I stop? Two reasons. First, he appeals to us not to be "sports fans" and to drop the sports fan mentality and then immediately engages in political rhetoric. Second, he says that warming is attributable to solar irradience. This claim hasn't withstood the test of time in the PR lit. Solar irradience has declined, in fact, as warming has increased. Misinformation and political ideology make this video not worth my time. (cont'd next comment).
fiandrhi 1 year ago
Also, one of the Koch brothers founded the CATO institute... and you wanna complain about "money influencing scientific results that are in favor of climate change"? That's a laugh. He's that sports fan you're talking about. Irony.
donnyforte2 1 year ago
@donnyforte2 u call that an arguement? u r just pickin and choosing stuff to prove ur point, whos the sports fan now?
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris The sports analogy is not my argument. That's his. I'm ridiculing that argument like you are. The Koch brothers are not only the "sports fan"... they're the team owners.
donnyforte2 1 year ago
@donnyforte2 show me some unbiased articles that u seem to be aware of then please.
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris What do you mean by "unbiased"? Is anything outside the CATO institute "biased" to you? If it's not supported by some bullshit libertarian idealist... you can't even consider it?
donnyforte2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@donnyforte2 do u think im defending the CATO institute?!
fps0chris 1 year ago
"read 1984 if you have any doubts at how this is achieved"
George Orwell wasn't particularly anti-statist... he was a socialist after all. Not a free market capitalist (like many interpret).
And science already knows hurricanes are in a down-trend... it's that the ones that do come about-- will be more powerful. It's not making the case that there will be "more of them". Jesus Christ.
I can't finish the rest. Just lots of blatant misinterpretations.
donnyforte2 1 year ago
@donnyforte2 he didnt assert that Orwell was a capitalist, u just made that up
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris by "proving your point" I meant being intellectually dishonest and attempting to find small things that assert your opinion. Why dont u make a video that counters this or atleast adresses key issues presented. Jesus christ what is wrong with u people.
fps0chris 1 year ago
@fps0chris Haha.. I know he didn't. But most of these libertarian fools thinks he's anything anti-"big goburment". He's not a free market capitalist. He was a democratic socialist through and through. Face the facts, jack.
donnyforte2 1 year ago
very nice presentation.
pointyhead1 1 year ago
Very nice with the powerpoint format! More of that please!
thumbs up
syncro16se 1 year ago
climate change (global climate disruption..) is even worse than "we" officially have been told from the "conservative" IPCC. What they conclude is basically a best case scenario.
Fact is that co2 is the/our no1 control knob. Since industrialisation co2 has increased about 36% now. Houston we have a problem.
aerobique 1 year ago
stef i support your channel but you are in nearly every point absolutely wrong here and swallowed the anti-environmental propaganda completely- and it is an important issue man
aerobique 1 year ago
Environmentalist do care about people. They also care about the earth and species too. If you think about it, natural resources and species (eco systems) such as bees are essential to our life cycle. We depend on it and without it other species will die off. Where are you getting your sources from?
Kaorean 1 year ago
@Kaorean
Yeah right dipshit. There are 15 million children who die from preventable causes each year in countries shut out from international free trade and capitalism. You socialist environmentalist morons are going to save the planet by reducing Carbon emissions, which might kill at most 150,000 people each year (at best an exaggerated figure by Green groups)? You megalomaniacs don't care about poor people in third world countries.
LogicalFlawDetector 3 months ago
Your points on urbanization and change in land use were valid imo, but do you have any peer reviewed article on the CO2 v crop productivity to back what you're saying?
f0b0m 1 year ago
What is sustainable 21:22?
cypress1337 1 year ago
Stef, some of your facts appear to be fallacies here. e.g. CO2 levels rising with global crop yields is suspiciously specious . Remember that correlation does not equal causation. Many other factors are also responsible for increasing crop yields - CO2 is not the driving one.
Check out the 'pirates vs global warming' correlation that all good Pastafarians preach for a clearer example of this fallacy ;-)
DuskTredder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
nice speech but what is the point? It doesn't take any science to understand that pissing in your own pond is not a good idea... are you suggesting corporations should just keep dumping shit in the air? If there is a conspiracy its a conspiracy to do nothing...
the real issue is. is it ok for industry to put up a smoke stack and dump shit in the air. the answer of course is no and global warming is just the diversion
meonyou43 1 year ago
nice speech but what is the point? It doesn't take any science to understand that pissing in your own pond is not a good idea... are you suggesting corporations should just keep dumping shit in the air? If there is a conspiracy its a conspiracy to do nothing...
the real issue is. is it ok for industry to put up a smoke stack and dump shit in the air. the answer of course is no and global warming is just the diversion
meonyou43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide references...otherwise how can anyone judge whether you or the people that produced your sources aren't simply making stuff up?
mattmegarry 1 year ago
If you want to be taken seriously you need to provide references...otherwise how can anyone judge whether you or the people that produced your sources aren't simply making stuff up?
mattmegarry 1 year ago
@mattmegarry Next time, take the 2 seconds it takes to READ THE DESCRIPTION BELOW THE VIDEO before you post!
leitermann 1 year ago
What is the scientific proof that "governments are the worst polluters" of all?
If you mean that most governments, as a result of endless industry lobbying, pollute worst of all precisely because they allow coal-oil-gas industries and ignorant consumers to do whatever the hell they want with no thought to the consequences, then yes - in that sense - gov'ts are the worst polluters.
duck24x 1 year ago
There are only 20,000 polar bears left in the world. Population increased four fold? I used to think this guy was smart.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok It is a fact that there were an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears back in the 60's vs an estimated 25,000 now. Most populations of polar bears are increasing.
whistler2255 1 year ago
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok Believe me, it won't happen! Sea ice is at normal levels. What you have read is propaganda.
whistler2255 1 year ago
@whistler2255
Sorry jackass, but no, I dont believe YOU, I believe SCIENCE.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok --you know nothing about empirical or forensic evidence on any scientific topic. You deny the dysgenic effect of race-mixing, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of it. You are just a media drone Gnomes----stop attacking people on this posts you bully. WHISTLER: this invective spewing dilettante loves to surf youtube and attack those he harbors hate for, usually people he mistakingly views as "right wing". Don't pay attention to his puerile, media driven dogma.
Gravelandart 1 year ago
@Gravelandart
Wrong. "Dysgenic", yeah right, give me a SHRED of evidence that isn't fabricated, that isn't from some bullshit site, for the purposes of legitimizing your irrational beliefs. You are the one that harbors hate, and everyone knows. They should put your kind up for Neo-Nuremberg trials for all the Neo-Nazi's, you ARE fascist, you ARE far right wing - you're denial makes it all the more obvious. Have a nice day, you delusional fuckwit.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok --more ad hominems and viriolic dogma from youtube's premier liberal pothead Gnomes. Sorry but most of the scientific community accentuates the importance of race/genetics. Read the works of Dr. William Shockley, Dr. Craig Ventor, Dr. James Watson, Dr. William Pierce. Prof Glayde Whitney, etc. I know, they are all "racists", right? Gnomes, everyone has seen your postings on myriad videos--it's clear all you do is attack and offer no empirical evidence or sources. Go watch televitz.
Gravelandart 1 year ago
Humans use industry, a consequence of this industry is certain of our inventions give off harmful chemicals like greenhouse gases that are harmful to the environment.
What would you expect to happen?
That we would just be around forever, never causing any damage to our planet when we all know everything humans touch turns to shit? Landfills, toxins, poisons, diseases... all human made.
Cmon now people. Use your minds.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@konshoff It's ENTIRELY the fault of SUBHUMAN SHITHEADS who ALWAYS vote ONLY Demopub or Republicrat who allow big corporations & big corporate-welfare-loving CEOs get away with DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT! The Demopublican party dictatorship illegally & undemocratically silences Greens, Socialists, Communists & Libertarians in the USA.
duck24x 1 year ago
Why is it that all these so-called "anti-big-government" free-market anti-environmental capitalists - who don't care how much of OTHER people's (i.e POOR people's & nations') property they destroy with pollution - NEVER take a stand to free the millions of prisoners held hostage in USA & China over smoking pot or looking at pornography or any activity which harms NObody?
duck24x 1 year ago
Asshole anti-environmental bigots still love blaming and attacking the weakest cultural groups - i.e. hippies - the same way the Nazis blame & attack Jews.
duck24x 1 year ago
Hey you might want to redo this video. I was buying your argument wholesale until you said Greenland was once Green. The Vikings named Iceland and Greenland in such a way that any competitors would land on the shitty island.
stefanbatts 1 year ago
4. Sigh - so CO2 improves plant growth, but that's not the whole story.
a). It can also lead to outbreaks of weeds, insects and plant diseases
b). Many other things have led to improved crop yields over time. Plant breeding, improved tilling & fertilizing regimes etc. The simplistic, unsourced graph is, of course, deliberately misleading.
5. Polar bears - outright lie. Of the 19 subpopulations, 1 is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. The status of the other 7 is unknown.
cristop5 1 year ago
cristop5 cont'd
6. Sea levels rose about 55mm from 1994-2009. (Ref:ht tp://sealevel.colorado.e du/)
7. Urban heat island - yes they do adjust for it, and they have performed analyses excluding data from urban stations. The rising temperature trends remain.
8. The temperature of the lower troposphere is warming. That is where we live! It's where the 'greenhouse effect' is greatest.
9. In the free market if your predictions don't work out you may get paid very well. You are called an "economist".
cristop5 1 year ago
cont'd
10. The earth's temperature IS largely explained by changes to solar irradiance - BUT only until the late 20th century. None of these "natural variability" exponents can explain why temps have risen since the 1970s. The sun cannot explain it. Carbon gases do.
11. Censorship & peer review. See my mirror video 'climate change censorship'. Also Mann & Jones have each been exonerated from the most serious charges leveled at them. Though Jones was criticized for not releasing some of his data.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
12. "Hide the decline" did not refer to hiding a decline in temperatures. It was about proxy tree ring data that diverged from rising temperature data. Don't you check anything at all?
13. Global warming did not stop, it's till warming - at the rate of about 0.12C per decade. The sun has been in the 'dimming' phase of its 11 yr cycle over the past several years, so the temp increase has eased. But the sun is entering its 'brightening' phase, and we'll have record high temps in 2010-12
cristop5 1 year ago
This is largely myths.
1. Extreme events - correct.
2. "Warming" of other planets is not due to the sun - e.g. Mars due to shifting dust, Pluto is moving from apoapsis to periapsis etc. Accurate direct measurements of solar irradiance from Earth show the sun has been cooling since ~1985.
3. Oceanic outgassing of CO2 acts as an amplifier. The situation is now different from the 800 year lag 240,000 years ago. Isotope studies show the 'new' CO2 is from fossil fuels, not the ocean.
cristop5 1 year ago
I know a very outstanding way to abolish this issue:
1. Smash the state.
2. Let the market decide.
Thank you very much.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
There cannot be a capitalist marketplace without state intervention to maintain the playing field. When Libertarian ideologues fail to grasp such complexities, their advocacy looks extremely immature.
BTW ... the video is slick disinformation. I hope the smug SOB gets his comeuppance someday.
substanti8 1 year ago
@substanti8
=P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@substanti8
First part: disagreed.
Second part: agreed.
...I just reminded myself of that game show...was it called celebrity squares?
Hm.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@substanti8
PS: I see you're a subscriber of potholer54, yes?
He's awesome.
I showed him this video.
He notes that the stuff about the planets warming was already addressed and debunked in his climate change series.
I showed the playlist of P.H'er's videos to Stefan in the comment section.
No response thus far.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
Q. How many neo-cons does it take to change a light globe?
A. None. If it needed to be changed the market already did it.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
I'm not a neo-con and neither is Stefan.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome. OK, so you're not a neo-con. What word best describes someone who believes the market is the answer to all the planet's ills?
Stefan may not be a neo-con, but if he believes only unpaid researchers can be believed, he is not a deep thinker. He has swallowed every denier argument without checking them. I've debunked the first few here, and I posted a video reply that debunks two - if he approves it! A few minutes research would have shown him the polar bear claim is a lie.
cristop5 1 year ago
@cristop5
I'm an anarcho capitalist. :P
So is Stefan, last time I checked.
I also linked him to a playlist about Climate Change from Potholer54.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome. Have a look at greenman3610's channel. It also debunks climate denier myths.
Is 'anarcho capitalism' the same as laissez faire? Apparently it gives you license to use the word 'violent' in a new way. It seems you can now slip 'violent' into any sentence provided it is in rough proximity to the word 'statism' - another new word. Whether you include or remove the word 'violent' - the meaning of the sentence remains exactly the same!
Might I suggest 'violent redundancy'?
cristop5 1 year ago
/potholer54#g/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8
("Climate Change")
I showed this video to potholer54 and I want you to see his playlist on the subject.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
Seems like this guy gets all his science from blogs and Time magazine. *sigh*
I also love how he starts off with some pretty wild speculation and conjecture, and THEN puts in a plea for unbiased science only.
On a side note...you know who doesn't put fluoride in their drinking water? Great Britain. Gross.
Eldeecue 1 year ago
@Eldeecue
Water fluoridation is horrible. It's the only instance of involuntary mass medication, because everyone must drink water.
Don't be misled by the shallow intellect of many fluoridation opponents (e.g., conspiracy nuts). There's real science against it too:
Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation
watch?v=FGcQqgBRTIQ
fluoridealert. org/professionals. statement.html
substanti8 1 year ago
I'd fight the real war we can have a say in
such as floride... chemtrials and lack of care for our health fight the obvious wars we can win or see first
zensunraw 1 year ago
Everybody hide! Stef is a conspiracy theorist! He doesn't believe the government's always working in our best interest!
VyseLegend 1 year ago
Hasn't the world been cooling for the last 10 years?
45a14 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL
recabarrennahuel 1 year ago
Monckton wannabe. You have never heard of Milutin Milankovitch.
The huge amount of money goes to the bank executives in the form of bonuses, not the climate research community.
You are an abject supporter of the state. It's the state of the global banking entities. Their transgressions don't even make a follicle on your nose twitch. Let a university publish some science and you have a heart attack.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
Good to see the truth about global warming on here, no doubt this will annoy the climate change scammers. Why do you think our fascist governments are so keen to censor the internet?
canedintotnes 2 years ago
Hi Stef - Like olgamaslivets said below - Mabe attribuiting increases in crop production since 1950's to just CO2 increases isn't quite right.
However, I've done a bit of reading up on this subject as well, and since the whole GW thing hasn't been based on science, then it's very likely the whole story is a load of bollox.
That's not to say "the debate is over." I think a debate, although likely to be quite short, would do no harm... I meant an honest debate.
Great vid - Thanks very much.
zalida100 2 years ago
Corbettreport had lord Chris Monkton interviews. ref Copenhagen etc. Quite good.
In another interview, Chris Monkton makes a fair bit of sense i.e. talks rationally about the pseudo science etc. and then talks about his religion etc.
It just means he is capable of doublethink - lots of people are. It doesn't however, mean that every word that comes out of his mouth is rubbish though.
We must appreciate that. If someone is wrong about something, doesn't mean they are wrong about everything
zalida100 2 years ago
@zalida100 Chris Walter is the exception to your rule.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago
@trumphent - I dont know who Chris Walter is, but you may be right.
(It's not really a rule. Just a repeated observation. I'm quite happy for it to be refuted under peer review)
Cheers
zalida100 2 years ago
@zalida100 I've included in this post the entire body of peer reviewed research done by Walter/Monckton.
Walter, aka Monckton is not a scientist. He is a tabloid journalist. He is a gadfly attention seeker.
He is so well liked and trusted at home in the UK that no one dared vote for him in his race for a seat in the House of Lords.
All of Walter's peer reviewed climate science research works are included in this post.
TRUMPHENT 2 years ago 2
Hi Trumphent - I think you mean Chris Walter is Chris Monckton? (Monckton just being a family title or something?)
Do you mean that cos he wasn't voted for (liked) in UK that he is therefore likely to be an asshole?
Take a look at who they did vote for.
I know he isn't a scientist, so he wouldn't have peer reviewed research works etc. I don't think that's really relevant if he has an understanding of science/scientific method etc.
Do you mean he is talking bollox?
Cheers4now
zalida100 2 years ago
to author:
excuse me, are you serious to say on 05:00 that "1% increase in CO2 resulted in an 8% increase in crop yields"? isn't it the other way round?
if you study econometrics, they teach a concept of endogenity: i.e. it's not always right to look into one direction of the process. which in this case is: CO2 levels rose (for whatever reasons, sun, human, et al), the temperature rose (+simply human agriculture technology have advanced) and, yes, the yields have increased. disagree?
olgamaslivets 2 years ago 2
sorry, guys, i sill don't get it...
why would anyone want to "invent global" warming? (the listed reasons of governments liking power and scientists needing smth to research make me laugh)
olgamaslivets 2 years ago 2
Gee, I wonder if it could be money. Using your crititcal thinking skill on these issues could be helpful. Just saying
daizee106 2 years ago
@olgamaslivets y does that make u laugh?
fps0chris 1 year ago
@olgamaslivets or was that a joke I missed lol
fps0chris 1 year ago
@olgamaslivets you have much to learn...
Jessmaestro69 1 year ago
shit like this upsets me. we have assholes out here who only care about the bottom line. they see the green revolution as something that is not profitable for the status quo. these are the same assholes who think we should shift over to natural gas--another finite fuel..when we're fighting for fresh h20 and having a merry old time dealing with 10 billion man planet you'll all look back and say..fuck maybe we should've done something
SearchAndBuild 2 years ago
I have been going to the same beach for 50 years (Rye Melbourne Australia), the water level there is the same as when i was young so it makes me wonder how water is rising around the pacific islands and not here? or are the the islands perhaps sinking?
kanchogrant 2 years ago
Subscribe!
Learned a lot here, thanks for the all the videos.
GiANtTWiNkY 2 years ago
@ conchman: I agree!!!! I recall watching Al Gore's award wining propaganda my 2nd year in College for one of my environmental courses, sad how my classmates, and to a certain agree my self got "brainwashed " with such skewed information. What's really said is that that we PAID this institution to help perpetuate this lie. If there's a way my classmates should sue my educational institution ( not for the money, although that would be a bonus! More so on principle)
lucifadore8 2 years ago
the grant argument is no better then the oil argument...you should assume people are honest until their actions prove otherwise
capemall 2 years ago 2
governments stage terror to increase their power. 9/11.
jeepndesert 2 years ago
What a great video! Hats off. This should be shown in schools!
conchman 2 years ago
Thank you once again Stef for a wonderful presentation.
Best wishes and regards.
bethechange2009 2 years ago
Well done--read Report From Iron Mountain--global warming is the perfect wasteful and government power enhancing tool. People buy it because they think they are being enlightened in "saving the planet" (completly egotistic to begin with) and this movement has recruited all the "earth day" hippies and now PC college students of the present. Looks grim for free thinking and "free" living. Stupidity is on the march- there is not much we can do to stop it and the worst part is that $ is the key.
allgoraro 2 years ago
Wow, awesome presentation!
ShinyChuck 2 years ago
I suggest you re-title this excellent video.
Rather than "True News: The Case Against Climate Change", it should be "True News: The Case Against Man-Made Climate Change".
ShinyChuck 2 years ago
Is there a relation between Co2 and crop levels aside from correlations? Was the data controlled for new hybrids that produce higher yields, better farming methods, GMOs?
And the polar bear populations, were records actually tracked in the 1940s, and since hunting was banned in the 60s wouldn't that account for population increase?
Now I am lazy and don't want to trudge through the sources for these(you should have cite numbers) but these are basic statistic factors to be included in the video
ThePintsizeslasher 2 years ago
Fumu? LoL Thanks
siggyboss 2 years ago
The polar bears will enslave us and force us to work in their seal mines.
These are facts!
dannyvsscience 2 years ago
May I have your betz puhleeze..who will bet THEIR own money on Man Made Global warming..winner getz a breakfast cerial bowl made out of the skull of a REAL Polar Bear...oo too much?
DecassyJake 2 years ago
In ice core samples, how do they determine the age of the ice and the age of the gas in the ice samples. I looked at the paper linked, but it only showed some equation that was used to compensate for this age difference.
helical4 2 years ago
research carbon dating.
shaokem 2 years ago
The look at the isotopes of carbon and oxygen found in the air bubbles. Scientists also look at sediments, tree rings etc.
wolfheinl 2 years ago
Great video! 5*... I'll share with family/friends
shaokem 2 years ago
Comment removed
bb44332211 2 years ago
Great! :)
TilveranNavarre 2 years ago
Why i haven't heard this data from any national media?It's just a shame.
KladionicaCity 2 years ago 2
Anyone who took chemistry in high school knows that carbon is a natural element on earth that cycles form rock to ocean to air. And thus, knows that carbon is not a man-made pollutant.
bb44332211 2 years ago
@bb44332211 Even if you NEVER took chemistry in high school, one would know that man never invented/created ANY of the atoms on this planet out of nothing. That's really stupid to bring that up. The issue is what arrangements humans CHOOSE to make with those atoms. Yes - humans DO produce CO2 & other GHGs and CHOOSE how much to produce of them
duck24x 1 year ago
Brilliantly put. This information is not unique to this video it has been published far and wide. It is about time truth and purity overcame ignorance and lies.
jameswoods2001 2 years ago
its complicated issue, but i strongly believe climate change is caused by deforestation and not how many diesel cars are highway, i have worked East of Ethiopia in 1985-87, the place was had big jungle and very cold to tropical temprature, but when i visited this year, all jungle is gone due to charcoal logging, and know its hot & sandy as Sahara desert all year, due to dforestation.
GuidoBuschwald 2 years ago
This makes me doubt climate change. But the frustrating thing is that one person tells you one thing and the other tells you something else. Without studying the whole thing yourself in an unbiased way (which is pretty much impossible), it seems to run down to a question of trust.
StephHuegi 2 years ago
@StephHuegi Forget what "somebody tells you". Go read the original reports & peer-reviewed research journals from the IPCC, WMO, NASA, etc. Better still, do your OWN computations of heat exchange between the sun & the earth & space.
duck24x 1 year ago
please do not allow climategate to continue, watch and sign please...watch?v=BQ8eyulU4_I
this is bad science, STOP THE FUNDING
Isawanangel1X 2 years ago
I wouldn't accuse you of having pre-decided conclusions Stefan. But it's interesting to note that if global warming were a serious and urgent threat to the survival of the species, this would have serious ramifications for your free-market anarchy principles. Because then the only solution would be some kind of rational social planning, and every man for himself wouldn't work. Out of curiosity if your survey of the evidence had concluded differently would you have acknowledged this?
Jack.
Jacko86plus5 2 years ago 2
If global warming were a serious and urgent threat to the survival of the species, then we would have to get rid of government as quickly as possible, because governments of the worst polluters of all..
stefbot 2 years ago
The worst polluters (again hypothesising that global warming were happening and man-made, I'm unsure myself) are the heavy industries. Surely some kind of regulation of industry would be necessary, because there is often a strong profit incentive not to limit CO2 emissions.
I'm anti-government in general, and I appreciate the cyclical violence of the state: but I don't see how they are the worst polluters...
Jacko86plus5 2 years ago
@Jacko86plus5
Look up the Carbon emissions per dollar of GDP in western societies. Compare that to state controlled societies. You will find your evidence.
LogicalFlawDetector 4 months ago
What the hell sort of Randian nonsense is this crap?
"... the governments are the worst polluters of all ... "
If you are pro-pollution anti-government there's a wonderful little free market paradise called Somalia which you'll find ideally suited to your John Galt dreams.
No taxes. No regulations. No restrictions on firearms. No government. Rugged Individualism is the rule, not the exception.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Somalia is not enjoying a free market. No one is.
corruptiblelogistics 2 years ago
Somalia is a tribal society, not an anarchist one. They are most certainly not anarcho-capitalists seeing as how they have no concept of the non-aggression principle (i.e. Somalian pirates). Tribalism and Capitalism are incompatible.
Hatesfury08 2 years ago
I don`t get Stefbot responce. If Goverment were "the worst polluters of all" why would they be advocating for CO2 Emisions cuts? And if we get rid of governments, wouldn`t we still need "some kind of rational social planning" to get acceptable CO2 emision levels?
recabarrennahuel 2 years ago
You are right, This videos is biased and stupid. He doesnt even say where the examples and facts come from...
So in conlusion the person in this video is just after the money. The money that will be spent helping future generation instead of going down his wallet...
Easy..
TheBlueDMD 1 year ago
lol nice troll
KraljevicPavle 1 year ago
@TheBlueDMD
He says it thoroughout and at the end of video...
zbigniewzapora 1 year ago
@Jacko86plus5 Anytime the solution offered is some kind of government planning, you can bet it will be worse than the supposed problem
CorrosionX3 2 years ago
The technique here is to throw as much against the wall as possible, (overwhelmingly unsourced and uncited) and hope no one will have the time or patience to rebut.
It's a technique was pioneered by the tobacco industry, and helped them to destroy millions of human lives over several decades after the science was clear on tobacco effects.
Anyone that wants to see well sourced and knowledgable facts on these and many other canards, google
climate denial crock of the week
cheers.
greenman3610 2 years ago 2
Actually, all of my sources are linked to the right, for your convenience...
stefbot 2 years ago 2
@greenman3610 Well said! This is why I am trying to do calculations on my own - to force myself not to be lazy. It's not just a matter of checking sources, but adding up all the variables, to see how they amplify or compete against each other.
duck24x 1 year ago
Anthrogenic-Global-Warming was the perfect tool for globalizing international laws that could have limited individual freedom of people everywhere.
But CLIMATEGATE has put an end to those political maneuvers.
To scientists, Truth is determined by funding and data manipulation. Before postmodernism, scientists believed in Empirical truth. But in this postmodern age, no one truth is more true that another, and truth is seen as subjective, relative, and depending on the observer.
bb44332211 2 years ago
What a great load of anti-science BS.
See the creationists for a similar quality of BS.
dmathew1024 2 years ago
Global Warming is an easy target because the warming or cooling effect is quite arguable, and despite strong evidence both for an against it, science is based around arguments. That does not, however, discredit environmental protection and efforts to lower GHGs: Deforestation, pollution, dirty energy, use of non-renewable resources, farming that relies on oil (for machinery but overwhelmingly for fertilizer), automobiles, etc. all are negative for human health and for the biosphere as a whole.
lyckarock 2 years ago
I agree with all your points there lyckarock, and would just want to add that as for your first point, the whole global warming hype has taken all attention away from the more pressing things you mentioned.
I don't care about the planet warming .1Celcius when I can't eat tuna more than twice a week because I will be ingesting too much mercury as a result of heavy metal ocean pollution.
Or that I can no-longer drink water straight from most rivers because they are toxic. Priorities anyone?
corruptiblelogistics 2 years ago
The federal government has plenty of tricks and created theories to justify power grabs, increased control, and moves to socialism.
CaptainBubblePhD 2 years ago
A huge thing you forgot to mention also is that while the governments are telling us to cut down on our carbon outputs etc, they are at the same time continually perpetuating these wars which must have a HUGE carbon footprint.
sharperguy 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
CaptainBubblePhD 2 years ago
Polar bears don't want us in sight
astrospliff 2 years ago
We need to save the polar bears.
CaptainBubblePhD 2 years ago
WE dont need to save the polar bears.YOU save the polar bears, fly out there, set up camp, bring food for them...then pray they don't rip you apart, once they lose their fear of humans..in the mean time pleez don't justify the theft of money to look after WILD cuddly wuddly bears.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
The Carbon emission trading is the sole purpose. it is another bone 4 investment bankers
I see the whole derivative market speculation just on that, shit lot of corruption from state and us to pay that tax so crooks at goldman sachs can play their games. And the whole scam is based on trading tons of co2 floating freely in the atmosphere on wall street. This is the most fucking ridiculous stuff ever! Soon they will put a device on your car to tax you for driving. violence of state has no limits
konshoff 2 years ago 5
@konshoff HOW the F do you blame the real serious issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) into massive financial fraud? The criminal treasonous corruption & stealing by Goldman Sachs & hundreds of other investment firms or whatever it is they do has absolutely ZERO to do with AGW. It's ENTIRELY the fault of SUBHUMAN SHITHEADS who ALWAYS vote ONLY Demopub or Republicrat ...
duck24x 1 year ago
also many ask why the coal? Well that is a very easy answer - it is cheapest. The water is absolutely cleanest but I believe we have already put the dams everywhere possible - check Lake Powell - how is that one doing?! talking about environmental fuck up. Nuclear - the best what we have in terms of power generation capacity - expensive to built - cheap to run , waste - huge problem. If you have cheap carbons like now - to build that would be a company disaster - very bad business strategy
konshoff 2 years ago 3
There is probably still some misconception about the "green tech." I believe. Electrical car is an awesome thing indeed; but we wouldn't get the pollutants off the air coz one needs to generate the power and most comes from coal. solar panels: average household runs on cc.8000kwh annually - at price around $0.1227kwh depends where you live in USA that's roughly 1000$. to accommodate that you need to invest around 15k to run a house so we are looking at cc. 15 years of return. anybody loan?
konshoff 2 years ago 2
For us working in research on the climate, it's important that we keep manipulating our data. We get funding from governments if we keep convincing people that man-made global warming is true and urgent. Let us have our funding. And let us cover up the truth and manipulate our data.
CaptainBubblePhD 2 years ago
We don't REALLY trust Goverments and we don't really believe Man Made Global warming is the truth..so what are we gonna do about it? If we did trust goverments and believed in MMGW..well what can we do then? Just Imagine.
DecassyJake 2 years ago
@DecassyJake It would probably create a global government structure that will finance itself and its corrupt supporters using the brand new carbon trading derivatives market
CorrosionX3 2 years ago
Hmm..I sniff the last(?) fantasy escape plan for Gov types..The truth will out, It's such horse hocky that it could not possibly stand, when the Dollar..finally collapses...?
DecassyJake 2 years ago
if Copenhagen goes through the price of gas will double, the price of food will double. do you want $10 a gallon gas? Do you know what that will do to the economy? All this so the Goldman Sachs and Al gore's bosses can reap trillions in a global taxation government scam and look like saviors at the same time! Wake up public schooled educated brainwashed idiots! Listen to what you are saying. Carbon is not a pollutant . Carbon is the foundation of all Life.
godseyeview 2 years ago 2
what you warming alarmist are saying is Life is a pollutant. You brainwashed to have a hatred for life and humanity. Think about the massive perversion of reality that is programmed into your feeble mind. Learn some history. After the end of the Cold War the globalist decided they needed a new threat to keep the masses in a herd mentality in order to keep positions of power and what better scam then to turn life itself into a threat!. They believed people are stupid enough. Prove them wrong
godseyeview 2 years ago
@godseyeview
"Carbon is the foundation of all Life."
So? What's your point?
Are you saying we could all consume nothing but pure carbon and live? Are you saying that we could all breathe nothing but gaseous carbon and live?
Enough with the NWO, secret cabal, 'everyone is blind to The TRUTH but me', rhetoric and crap.
'THEY' aren't coming to get you.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago
@GeeKayKayGee
You must be a retard. Read slowly maybe even a dumbass like you can understand. Plants can breathe nothing but gaseous carbon and live. Animals and humans can eat the plants and live. Its called the life cycle. Understand? Or are u still stupid? Enough with the government is here to love you. The government hates you understand? They manipulate you, use you exploit you then kill you. You are blind. you have been brainwashed with rhetoric crap. No one loves you.
godseyeview 2 years ago
See godseye this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. If you want to teach someone or convince them your facts are correct, you can't insult them and condescend to them in the same paragraph. Otherwise your typing is futile. They will only react and fight you even if you are right.
I understand you may be frusterated and angry, but attacking someone with ad hominems etc. loses you the debate.
Be calm, consistant and rational. Empathise with those you try to convince, then they listen.
corruptiblelogistics 2 years ago 3
It's ok godseyeview, I forgive you for your unwarranted, unjustifiable, unreasonable personal attack.
You're young, you're immature, you're searching for some group you can join and feel a part of just as many others like you do.
Take care and best of luck in growing up to be a rational, thinking, being.
GeeKayKayGee 2 years ago 2
@GeeKayKayGee Not yet, they need global treaties and absolute power to tax and regulate to do that first.
CorrosionX3 2 years ago
People who believe in climate alarm-ism are the new religious zealots. The IPCC refuse to release their data. The alarmist are taking believing in faith and irrationality . Grow up and learn science . Climate warmism is the gateway to a communist style global government. Do you want police to put gps in your car? The police to track all your activity? The police to tax you for breathing? using energy? All this based on lies and faith . Grow up and Wake up and learn Science!
godseyeview 2 years ago
Just want to point ou there godseyeview, its best not to make an argument from authority "Grow up and Wake up and learn Science!" like that. People will only become offended and close off.
Also, we have a personal gps with us every day: mobile/cellular phones. They ALL can be tracked by emergency services police etc. to within 2 metres in some cases. Police use it on people all the time to catch them.
Second, we are already taxed for our use of energy, and it is increasing every year.
corruptiblelogistics 2 years ago
so ice doesn't really melts fast everywhere?
TempletonIII 2 years ago
I've never been a sports fan but I was an ardent believer of global warming. Those who don't believe it have done nothing but insult me in comment exchanges, as if this would make me open my mind to what they had to say. Your presentation has me really doubting global warming for the first time ever. My only wondering now is why our glaciers here in the Alps seem to be melting/crumbling away if it's in fact not getting any warmer?
jasonlajoie 2 years ago
omg, you start your video by encouraging an openess to facts and healthy skepticism . . . then your FIRST ARGUMENT is a character attack on scientists funded through government grants.
Future tip: Realize when your argument voices the fears of a fringe group (anarchists in this case) or prepare to be rejected out of hand by mainstream viewers.
MercifulMing 2 years ago
It's not a character attack if they themselves say they are hiding bad data and making stuff up.
stefbot 2 years ago