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. (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!.
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."
Although I do believe that we are infact causing our planet to warm, I do not believe that carbon is the cause. If someone was to show me the temperature graph of the 400,000 years you show here. Then ask me what the levels of carbon would be, I would draw a similar graph as it is well known that heat creates carbon. The only proof that Al Gore or anyone has shown us that carbon is creating global warming is evidence of the warming. That is not proof that carbon is creating the problem.
They won't care until they are effected directly there is way to much drama surrounding this by the media & fake exxon science. Facebook is now converting to coal energy!!
I hope the earth floods in enough time so we can go on. Mercury Acid waters very scary.
spare me the rubbish. we know u can do better than that. The us secret government has had zero emission technologies and antigravity devices for more than half a century and now u r talking about dirty coal, inefficient and costly solar panels. come on be serious u need to show real leadership; have guts to tell your citizens the truth about UFOs and what you have learned and do away polluting technologies once and for all. u must know u cant keep the truth away from the people forever
How does shipping the West's industries which has envronmental & human rights laws to countries that have little to no Environmental or HR laws help stop Global Cooling/Warming/Lukewarm etc?
China the leading abuser of Human Rights & the Environment is shipping their slave labor made junk back to the west which contain Toxic chemicals that are making us sick & dying!
Go to INFORMATIONLIBERATION website for a great expose of Al Fraud & the Marxist Warmist-mongers
Search for "chemtrails", "Dont talk about the weather", "Endgame HQ". There's a secret program that is poisoning us. I recorded it myself (my chan). We need you to wake others ASAP!
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
you symbolize what is killing this planet. Your arguments are so far fetched, yet I'm sure you can convince those that are not lucky enough to have an education.
Your arguments are of course based 100% on selfishness and short sightedness. Sure...YOU may not suffer...but our children will.
So the past tsunamis, hurricanes, sinking of tropical islands etc were fictional right? ALL part of the conspiracy right? Damn...those Hollywood effects in New Orleans were goood!
tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and as far as we know they have nothing to do with climet change.
"The science is indisputable" this doesn't sound so different from what Bush said about WMD. If we didn't act, there could be a mushroom cloud on the horizon.
People do not understand that the financial elite are setting up a world system where each continent produces certain staples for massive agribusiness companies, which will become little more than feudal overlords. They are creating a world with no nation-states, only corporations regulated by private central banks which regiment whole populations. They want a vastly reduced world population and very limited industrialism. This is more or less a return to the 1700s and prior.
Cap and Trade is the last nail in what has been a cynical 50-year-long intentional destrucition of the United States. As a policy it will literally destroy what is left of US industry and commit mass genocide on a scale unheard of, inasmuchas the US will be no longer able to support its population. The dollar will wither and die and is dying. Those solar panels, of course, are produced in factories which burn carbon, however the actual intent is not to reduce carbon but to reduce humans.
Global Warming is a globalist hoax to collapse the United States quickly and shift its industries over to China. China is being set up by the globalists to be manufacturer for the entire planet. Ever notice why China is not beholden to those same carbon stipulations? If China were to impose the same regulations on carbon that the stupid US is proposing, it would genocidally crush its population. If the US accepts Cap and Trade, it will destroy its economy and depopulate itself.
Global Warming is an evil population reduction plan. It is a fictional crisis which was created by the Club of Rome in their 1972 book, Limits to Growth. The intention is to crush industrial civilization and place a Tax on all Carbon Expeller, ie. HUMAN Beings. It is a Tax on Human Life.
Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.
Its a smart move plain and simple your country is in economic melt down and you are the world leader in producing C02 and in the near future an energy crisis and he has solved one problem with another. wish my country could do the same bloody idiots.
Although I believe that climate change is occuring as a result of CO2 emmissions, I should add that there is not unanimous agreement in the scientific community regarding it.
There is never 100% agreement among scientists on anything. Hell, some fools still believe the US didn't land on the moon. And as with the tobacco companies, corporate think tanks now fund individuals to protect their interests and maintain business as usual.
But review what our historically reliable scientific institutions have concluded. They ALL basically agree that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land.
I don't think Chatt's argument is that a change in environmental policy from the united states alone will solve the problem of climate change. Rather that a US. change in policy in tandem with changes in policy on a global scale will help reduce the impact of CO2.
Solar cycles is an alternative explanation of why the temperatures are rising. But the theory has not even nearly the same kinda of evidence pointing to it as CO2 emissions has. you'r right that on youtube there is debate whether its the one thing or the other causing global warming, but in the scientific community there is no debate.. its the CO2 causing global warming..
Assuming that as you argue that ALL scientists agree that the Earth is undergoing global warming and that they ALL agree it is due entirely to CO2 is true.
What percentage of CO2 do you think is man made? What percentage do you think comes from the U.S.?
And What percentage reduction do you think is needed to reverse global warming?
By "solar cycles" do you mean the earth's orbital variations or do you mean the solar output? Its complex but the earth's orbital variations and its "wobbles" are responsible for most of the major climate swings.
But now, we humans are moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere at a rate of 1,000,000 years of stored carbon EVERY YEAR. It is not sustainable and continues to alter the composition of the air and seas. Look up ocean acidification.
Underestimated by $2 Trillion I don't think so! The Economic Stimulus is costing $787 billion in order to stablise the economy. The economy needs to stablise in order to start reducing the deficit. Obama plans to half the deficit left by Bush. Which brings me back to my original point. Bush inherited an economy in good shape under Clinton. Bad economic management under the Bush adminstration has resulted in a huge global financial crises. Of course you conveniently forget that fact!
The subprime mortage crises flourished under Bushs economic policies. Wall Street was so deregulated that NINJAs (no income, no job, no assets) could get huge loans and on top of that we Greenspan was a regulator who didn't believe in regulation! Obama plans to half Bushs government decifit by the end of his first term. Bush screwed up royal on the economy. Yet all you can do is bitch and complain about Obama. Your pathetic!
yeah sure, QUADRUPLING a defecit (in 6 months) that took over 200 years for our country to accumulate is most definately what we'd call "ACTING RESPONSIBLY" eh ? ...
baaahhhhh ,,, ,, baaaahhhhhh
Having to admit your crack financial team's projections for that defecit were UNDERESTIMATED BY 2 TRILLION DOLLARS is what we'd call "responsible" and "competent" too right ??
This dipshit just can't bring himself to admit it ... its ALL ABOUT A CARBON TAX ... more ingenious ways to bilk YOU for YOUR hard earned money ... 1/2 way through the 2009 'hurricane season' and they FINALLY found one they could name ... welcome aboard "BILL" these fear merchant mutts will be dropping your name alot this next week....
On this issue of tax and government spending I would like to refresh your memory on the 8 previous years under Bush. The US went from running $559 billion surplus under Clinton. To record government decificts under Bush. By the end of his term the US was in a deep recession with growing unemployment , huge bailouts on Wall Street and huge foreign debts. Lets put Cap and Trade into perspective the money is pocket change compared to money spent going to Iraq since 2003.
LOL ... hey doof, lets refresh your memory (like it should really be necessary considering its recent history) that Barack O'BlahBlah QUADRUPLED the defecit in first 6 months in office. Clintoon is ancient history and you're forgetting its expensive to fight a WAR ! I know, I know, we could have saved a bundle if we'd just shipped out C-130's filled with white surrender flags ... me, I like breathing non-radioactive air.
p.s. Hussein's defecit projection was underestimated by 2 BILLION !
Obama needed to increase the government deficit in order to stimulate the economy and prevent it going into even deeper recession. Wall Street could not alone bring the economy out of this downturn. A cost of 8 years of bad economic policies
The Iraq War lacked direction from day one. They went in thinking it was going to be easy and pulled troops out of Afghanistan! So after Bush the US was fighting two high cost wars. Plus they let North Korea and Iran off the hook pursuing nuclear weapons!
Haa ha ha .. a "stimulus" is one thing but this dickhead QUADRUPLED the defecit which it took over 200 years to achieve ! ! ha ahaaaa ha ha ha
p.s. unemployment under Bush went down to 4.5%.. O'BlahBlah said HIS wouldn't exceed 8% and now we're at 10%; they fucked up their defecit projection and added another 2 TRILLION just this week ! ha ha .. The dipshit is done ,, put a fucking fork in him for christsakes !
Why are you so obsessed with Bush? Do you understand that Bush's wrecking of the economy was a high-arching pitch for Obama to finish the job? They're on the same team. Yes, Bush helped wreck the economy. Obama is NOT trying to fix it. He's exploiting it in order to "fundamentally change the way America works". Do you at least get that? Be honest.
I am obsessed with Bush because he massively stuffed up the economy, a fact some people fail to recognise. Obamas stimulus package and wider policies for changes is a step in the right direction. Problems like health care, energy, climate change and the economy needs to addressed today not just delayed to burden future generations. I do believe these initiatives will lead to some significant change in US, and others not so much. Obama is at least attempting to address these issues.
He's attempting to centrally control these issues from his office. America was founded on the principal of individual freedom. Not centrally run industry. His 'solutions' are plans to prolong and exploit Bush's wreckage. It's not about fixing problems in a free American society. It is about 'fundamentally changing' the way the country works. The constitutional system of government may have died long ago but Obama intends to bury it.
It's PARTLY Bush's fault but Obama has spent WAY more than 4 billion dollars. He's not trying to fix the economy, they have the same goal. To tear down the US economy and bring it to a one world government.
You really need to do your homework if you think that's the case. You need to understand what he will change, how and, why. Blindly supporting popular leaders, historically has not been a good move. Not for Bush, and not for Obama. They are working together toward the same goals. Iraq is one phase, energy will be another. Same train, same track.
No! I´m not brainwashed butr you must be sicked and damadged in your head and a srew lose! I´ve reading about this changers and it´s warming and when it´s to late the american peoples have teache of learn!
How's that "change" doing for you? Obama promised 'transparency" . More troops to Afghanistan. Guantanamo remains opened. Obama renewed the Warrentless Wiretap Program. Obamas official birth records -SEALED His Occidental College records -SEALED Columbia College records -SEALED Harvard College records -SEALED College Thesis -SEALED Harvard Law Review articles -SEALED Indonesia Adoption records -SEALED Passport file -SEALED Where's the change & transparency???
Agree, but lets not leave out the FED and all of their transparency. It is all a joke and obama should be in prison for all the lies to americans he has told.
WAKE UP EVERYONE Ron Paul is the only hope. I know that he may be perfect but he can not possibly be any worse.
everythin in usa now is a challenge an survival an fear lol..first ben laden ..then saddam..now its epidemics an climate changes ...security an fear thats the key of control...its always bad an there is always a threat ...that what brought usa down...fear....good luck believing ur superiors
lol yeah like obama said famine is caused by climate changes hehehe not jewish bankers ...not english bankers...an guess what ...they blame it on pple ...as if all of us owns major corporations ...how come he is talkin about polution an his friends r the same bankers who cause famine an polution...u think ur cigarette will destroy the planet...but not the nukes they have...wake up stupids they just wanna fine u on even the air u breath...an pple r to blame not major corps...this is hilarius
this is so much crap......the Mayans suffered thru 100 years of on and off drought.....where was their carbon production.....cap and rape....another Madoff ponzi scam....we have oil....Spain lost thru their Green Jobs scam....i wish him well but like Carter this will fail....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mars has a ice cap. A few years ago that ice cap was melting. The Sun was very active and causing Mars South pole and Earth's North pole to melt and get smaller. That 11 year solar activity cycle in over and the Sun has calmed down. Mars S.pole and Earth's N.pole ice cap's are now getting Thicker. The Planet is Cooling. There is no Globalwarming Warming. Al Gore forgot to tell Obama this. He should listen to NASA. PS, Al says to "invest in carbon craps" google LaRouchePac Home
One cap is warming, the other is cooling. It wasn't melting because of the sun, though, it was melting (or so scientists believe--they're not sure) because dust storms are decreasing atmospheric albedo.
You realize if AGW was caused by the sun we couldn't have had a 30 year warming trend? Like you said, the sun has 11 year cycles.
if the ice caps melt in five years there will be no targets in 2020 as we will be in an ice age in 2015. greed distroys our world and our leaders dont lead the fob us off with targets that will not save the planet they will just make it look like something is being done when the ice caps are melting now not next year not in 2020 there wont be governments in 2020 if you dont pull your fingers out of your ass holes.
what a bunch of bull crap. the world need hard fast action not bull crap like we will have targets we will aim to reduce by this amount by this time. the time is now the time we dont have you and all the other governments are wasteing. you are supposed to be our leaders and you have the power to stop this NOW. not tomorrow not by 2020 NOW. we are sick of your crud we need hard action now. in 5 years the ice caps may not be there. be a real leader and dont fob it off with targets give us action
In the form of man they amongst us, but only to sight were they as are men. Serpent-headed when the glamour was lifted but appearing to man as men among men. Crept they into the Councils, taking forms that were like unto men. Slaying by their arts the chiefs of the kingdoms, taking their form and ruling o'er man. Only by magic could they be discovered. Only by sound could their faces be seen. Sought they from the Kingdom of shadows to destroy man and rule in his place.
If you log onto Google Scholar and type in these titles you will get peer reviewed and scientific articles. These are just a couple. search for more. at least you'll see the science isn't settled.
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet
by: Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box and Glen Lesins (2004)
Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica
by. J.B. Anderson and J. T. Andrews (1999)
At least read the abstracts if not the whole thing.
New scientist Oct 2nd, 2008 said global CO2 was at 0.00037%: This is my PhD area. Plants take in CO2, adn excrete O2 - we breathe in the waste of plants!
Jon, with all due respect, you are wrong. Anyone reading this can do a quick search in google for "current co2 levels" and see how wrong you are. I advise you to do the same.
The current global concentration of co2 in our atmosphere averages 387ppm, or 0.0387%
Go back and check your New Scientist issue. I think you'll you are misquoting them.
And yes, plants absorb co2 and release o2. This is not news. Do you have a point to make, or are you content to simply repeat this well known fact?
Higher levels are nearer IC engines. New Scientist published teh figure on Oct 2nd, 2008. Plants take in CO2, so peg the gas levle: More CO2 emissions, more life - not higher CO2 levels in the air.
If by "has never had a stable climate" you mean "has periodical changes that play out over thousands or tens of thousands of years", then yes of course.
What's your point, exactly? That because the climate undergoes natural changes on a geological timescale of thousands of years, then the warming trend over the last 100-150 years must also be natural?
Would you also argue that because bushfires can occur naturally, no bushfire could be started by a person?
Or perhaps you're one of those people who looks at the so-called Medieval Warm Period (which may have been local variance rather than a global phenomenon) and the subsequent 'Little Ice Age', and then concludes that any such natural variance somehow automatically nullifies all evidence that increased greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere leads to an increase in average global temps.
It's a strange kind of logic that suggests that if change can occur naturally, then it can *only* occur naturally.
We know that co2 levels rise as temps increase. However we also know that co2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it traps heat reflected from the earth's surface.
When people try to deny the effects of co2 by saying "But co2 levels are affected by temperatures, therefore co2 levels can't affect temperatures!", they're employing more weird logic (or deliberate denial) by claiming that it can't work both ways.
Here's an analogy that might help illustrate the point
Imagine a study found that as unemployment in cities climbed, the amount of drug use in those communities increased. Then suppose researchers said "We've also found that if you increase the amount of drug use in cities, the unemployment level rises."
Would anyone say "That can't be right, as it has been shown that unemployment levels increase drug use, not the other way round"
The point is that one doesn't necessarily invalidate the other
So it's the fact that it goes both ways (higher temps = more co2, more co2 = more heat trapped by the atmosphere) that gives us even more cause for concern.
If we drive up average global temps through co2 emissions, and then the warmer climate causes the oceans to release more co2, and the forests too (due to dying, decomposing vegetation), thus compounding the problem... well, then we'll find ourselves in a sticky situation.
err... Is that the point you're attempting to make with the breathing comment? Do you think they're going to tax the co2 content in people's exhalations?
"The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." That's the real reality .
(Removed my last comment as it was needlessly insulting)
So you're into conspiracies. I should have guessed.
The funny thing about you guys is that if the gov denied that climate change was a problem, you'd be all over it. But because the gov acknowledges it's a problem, you see it as automatically false.
re: The Club of Rome. Pointing out that people unite when faced with a common problem seems reasonable to me. Wanting people to unite to tackle these problems also strikes me as reasonable.
As I have Said . Climate change is nothing more than scaremongering by the Elite controlled media in order to impose global taxation and Centralisation of power .
And the bit you omitted from your quote, the bit that came between "..would fit the bill" and "All these dangers..." was
"In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes."
Which is in fact a fair point and not the sinister machinations you'd like to portray it as.
And what the polar bears pictured on floating ice sheets and the NFL , Disney, Nat geo and Madonna saying " look at the drowning polar bear they are dying " What are these machinations?
Yeah you stink buddy. I tell you what watch Climate change -is Co2 the cause . I am in agreement with that video .I advise all to do the same . Leave your Debunking Rhetoric on that page.
heh... I love how at no point in your comments here did you present or construct any kind of argument... just those little snippets you've gleaned from somewhere (probably from other youtube comments), offered without any context.
It's clear that your understanding of the issues is poor indeed.
But hey, keep an eye out for those chemtrails. Keep fretting about that fluoride. And say Hi to the Reptilians for me!!
Your second link is to the "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a film notorious for making false claims, including the outlandish claim that "volcanoes produce more CO2", which is so hopelessly wrong you have to wonder if it was a case of deliberate deception. (In fact, annual co2 emissions due to human activity are 100-150 times greater than those due to volcanoes)
As a starting point, search wikipedia for Great Global Warming Swindle, read the section under Reception and criticism.
Your final two links concern the fact that rising temps lead to greater co2 levels. As I explained to mmtot above, this is well-known. But it's a logical flaw to argue that this means co2 can't affect temps. In fact, the graphs in the PDF you linked to show temps following a spike fell much more slowly than they rose, quite possibly due to the increased co2 in the atmosphere. Bear in mind too that those graphs cover periods of over 10,000 years, with no human activity driving co2 levels higher.
Really? Are you saying that because higher temps lead to more co2, this somehow means that co2 *cannot* have an effect on temps. Is that what you're suggesting?
How does that logic work? How does the former automatically preclude the latter? It isn't an either/or situation, you know.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
heating water causes it to emit vapour. does that mean increasing vapour amount will increase water temperature? is that what you are suggesting? course this is your logic.
you would support me with the scientific data if you knew what you are talking about.
Imagine a study found that as unemployment in cities climbed, the amount of drug use in those cities increased. Then suppose researchers said "We've also found that if you increase the amount of drug use in cities, the unemployment level rises."
Would you say "That's impossible, as it has already been shown that unemployment levels increase drug use!"
Because that's exactly the kind of logic you're displaying at the moment.
As for scientific data... first off, you do understand how the greenhouse effect works, right? You are aware that co2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane.
Or do you not even accept that? Perhaps you're one of these clowns who seems to think the term "greenhouse effect" describes a non-existent phenomenon.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you make me laugh. what the fuck has sociology to do with metheorology?
no i am not a clown. where is your convincing data about co2 causing GW? numbers, statistics, measurements. i dont want hypothetic theories, propaganda, media manipulated images, rhetoric brainwashing. there is no inependent science behind this scum. no reason to give corporation elites power over co2 emision controll, to give them rule global economy. i dont want us to become more slaves than we are now. end. god bless
"what the fuck has sociology to do with metheorology "
It was an analogy, doofus. One that neatly shows your lack of logic. The fact is that saying "But higher temps lead to higher levels of co2" does NOT invalidate the argument that co2 levels can affect temps
This site puts it simply:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
I suggest you brush up on the history of the science:
i made an analogy with water and vapour that has more to do with metheoroly.
great! hypothetic theories, propaganda. thats exactly what i wanted from you. but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming
Your analogy was broken. My analogy illustrated the logical flaw in making the assumption that if A affects B then it is impossible for B to have an effect on A.
Let me ask you again: Do you think that because higher temps lead to more co2 in the atmosphere it is therefore impossible for co2 to affect temps?
"but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming "
Huh? The link you posted says nothing of the sort. Did you even read it?
"but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming " tis is based on your links. it is obvious. nobody has to prove that.
Yeah, way to dodge the question dude. It's pretty obvious that you've finally started to grasp the point I made yesterday when I said: "Your final two links concern the fact that rising temps lead to greater co2 levels. This is well-known. But it's a logical flaw to argue that this means co2 can't affect temps"
...at least I hope you have. Because if you haven't then I might as well be talking to a lump of wood.
Poor wee dzonybazuka84. Its alright, Yes yes, there there.. There's no scientific proof linking rising levels of CO2 to global warming, oil will last forever, and there really is an Easter Bunny. Its alright, don't you worry, just put the light out and go back to sleep...
there is possibly a link between CO2 levels and temperature. When ever temperature increases, then CO2 increases. In other words CO2 follows temperature. There is about an 800 year lag that some climatologists have discovered. Whenever temp rises, which is natural, (it is actually on a 1,500 year cycle that started 40,000 years ago) then CO2 rises after temperature. It is only speculated that CO2 causes a rise in temp.
Huburtus Fisher and his reasearch team from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported, "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years." in other words, CO2 changes are caused by tmperature changes. (Taylor, G., 2003,)Taylor is an Oregon State Climatologist. Also, Nicolas Caillon reported in Science in 2003. "This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.
It is extremely significant. It goes to show that the earth warms and cools naturally. When it warms, more CO2 is expelled from the oceans. Thus, a rise in CO2 levels is caused by the warming of the Earth which is a natural cycle. It happens every 1,500 years or so. The Roman Warming Period, The Medieval Warming Period, and the Modern Warming Period. Unless the Romans were driving around in SUV's, then i doubt that they caused global warming. Do you understand now?
I know all this. Im saying its insignificant because this doesnt mean we can lean back and blame the nature for climate changes. It only means that nature has its cycles. This does NOT remove our responsibility for the climate changes. In the future we will regardless of this, have to do alot better. Even if this stuff turn out to be true we cant disregard the thousands of climate experts also telling us were pumping too much pollution into the atmosphere / nature.
"thousands of climate experts?" you are now a hypocrite. Al Gore, the mainstream media, and Hollywood do not count as scientists. The climate "experts" on the IPCC are people employed by the UN to research the warming and how we are responsible. Basically, the UN pays these people to for things the UN wants to hear. And if they don't come to the conclusion the we are the cause of the warming, then they change the report. This happened to the IPCC's Climate Change report in 1996. Trust them?
But the "test results," data, and numbers are the science. So therefore, the science is obviously still in need of discussion. Just so you know, no one will disagree that littering, pollution, mine seepage, etc. are bad things. But try to read between the lines when a world government (UN), attempts to invoke economic changes that would not be readily accepted by any country. That is why they try to pull the wool over our eyes with outlandish claims.
Conspiracy hunting never led to anything intelligent. And thats a fact.
UN a world government.. pfffff get real.
And if environmental changes have to wait in line behind economical concerns... well then were right were we are today. Its cheaper to dump the rubbish in the river in stead of recycling or safely dispose of it. So... if economics come first, were fucked arent we.
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. (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.
bootylicification 1 year ago
2/2 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
watch?v=bgKr480RYc4
bootylicification 1 year 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
bootylicification 1 year ago
My response to this vid.
watch?v=Ei_gq7Z8yX4
VonHelton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate Change is a Hoax!!
uarecheap 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate Change is a Hoax!!
uarecheap 1 year ago
fuck you obama u ain't doing shit in 2010 dam jew making promises and shit fuck you!
fizwizx 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
Although I do believe that we are infact causing our planet to warm, I do not believe that carbon is the cause. If someone was to show me the temperature graph of the 400,000 years you show here. Then ask me what the levels of carbon would be, I would draw a similar graph as it is well known that heat creates carbon. The only proof that Al Gore or anyone has shown us that carbon is creating global warming is evidence of the warming. That is not proof that carbon is creating the problem.
ianmill1 1 year ago
turd
beadwindow2010 1 year ago
Turd
beadwindow2010 1 year ago
CC is nuclear lies. So how much did nuclear power pay you Barak?
JonThm 1 year ago
LOL! Obama is a fucktard!
talllikelurchis 1 year ago
They won't care until they are effected directly there is way to much drama surrounding this by the media & fake exxon science. Facebook is now converting to coal energy!!
I hope the earth floods in enough time so we can go on. Mercury Acid waters very scary.
maribasque 1 year ago
blah .. blah .. blah
mmm .. mmm ..mmmmm
Barack Hussein O'BlahBlah
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
Will you really? Oh my, do they really think we will buy this shit?
redfoxonstilts 2 years ago
you faill..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
giertta 2 years ago
asshole!
Morrantiel 2 years ago
total BULLCRAP ! .. But I guess thats why they call him Barack O'BlahBlah .. ..
blah ... blah
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
Comment removed
Reaper006900 2 years ago
spare me the rubbish. we know u can do better than that. The us secret government has had zero emission technologies and antigravity devices for more than half a century and now u r talking about dirty coal, inefficient and costly solar panels. come on be serious u need to show real leadership; have guts to tell your citizens the truth about UFOs and what you have learned and do away polluting technologies once and for all. u must know u cant keep the truth away from the people forever
kuvceebxab1 2 years ago
How does shipping the West's industries which has envronmental & human rights laws to countries that have little to no Environmental or HR laws help stop Global Cooling/Warming/Lukewarm etc?
China the leading abuser of Human Rights & the Environment is shipping their slave labor made junk back to the west which contain Toxic chemicals that are making us sick & dying!
Go to INFORMATIONLIBERATION website for a great expose of Al Fraud & the Marxist Warmist-mongers
Thisawareness 2 years ago
Each nation that builds 1 million new solar powered BERM houses in 2010, will be the nation that succeeds in 2012.
We must cut world population growth by 60% in 2011, to save the environment.
China has done the best in reducing population growth.
For that reason, its economy is the best.
Youtube: paul8kangas
paul8kangas 2 years ago
fuck obama illuminati puppet
ArtiePiscano 2 years ago
Search:
Global Climate Scam
Then:
Sign the Petition Stop Al Gore!
scree123 2 years ago
Apparently the FEDS haven't been reading the HARRY READ ME file. Or the CRU emails. Global Warming is a farce.
TweezerAddict 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search for "chemtrails", "Dont talk about the weather", "Endgame HQ". There's a secret program that is poisoning us. I recorded it myself (my chan). We need you to wake others ASAP!
TrutherD1 2 years ago
When the Fed promises to create jobs I think of Al Gore and NAFTA.
Watch his debate vs. Ross Perot. He was right, Gore was wrong. I don't trust the President to create jobs.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
I like to reduce the Bamsters emissions...
Stuff a cork in his mouth. God I am SO sick and tired of him.
Why can't he be more like a normal person and figure out for themselves that the sun warms the planet and it's in constant flux???
Fuck the sheeple... they can move to Cuba... its not underwater as he claimed it was.
the82spartans 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.
There were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - just as Dr. Hans Blix said; But, the Republican media machine didn't want us to hear that.
And, there is NO dangerous climate change caused by human carbon dioxide - just as the "independent scientists" are now trying to tell us! But, the Democrat media machine doesn't want us to hear that.
We are made to run from one boogieman to the next, as each political party achieves its own agendas for themselves & their money mates.
BOB CARTER
weallknowitstrue 2 years ago
thats funny! its a youtube video on youtube?
maxwillson 2 years ago
Anonymous White person,
you symbolize what is killing this planet. Your arguments are so far fetched, yet I'm sure you can convince those that are not lucky enough to have an education.
Your arguments are of course based 100% on selfishness and short sightedness. Sure...YOU may not suffer...but our children will.
So the past tsunamis, hurricanes, sinking of tropical islands etc were fictional right? ALL part of the conspiracy right? Damn...those Hollywood effects in New Orleans were goood!
XavierEveraert 2 years ago
What if I don't want any children; do I still have to care? You said it yourself; I won't suffer.
DungeonsNRabbits 2 years ago
ya fuck chillie willies
OrganicThumb420 2 years ago
tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and as far as we know they have nothing to do with climet change.
"The science is indisputable" this doesn't sound so different from what Bush said about WMD. If we didn't act, there could be a mushroom cloud on the horizon.
cheezycam 2 years ago
It's all hogwash, all they have is doomsday scenarios that may or may not happen and it would take a Milena for those effects to take place.
Wath this, skip to 6:00 and watch till 7:25
/watch?v=o2Wy9199EuA
Please get back to me and tell me what you think about that video.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
Believe it or not many Hurricanes have wiped out cities going back to the early 1900's.
chewbaca1989 2 years ago
no chewbaca hurricanes are new and shit homie, i am from the hood and i can tel u this shit is new esse. break yo self
OrganicThumb420 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1 - /watch?v=CNNRfiwiZ2A
Part 2 - /watch?v=E_v-iEN0caM
Climate change is proven false!!!
axis4peace 2 years ago
Freakin BS!
luciferianswillfall 2 years ago
People do not understand that the financial elite are setting up a world system where each continent produces certain staples for massive agribusiness companies, which will become little more than feudal overlords. They are creating a world with no nation-states, only corporations regulated by private central banks which regiment whole populations. They want a vastly reduced world population and very limited industrialism. This is more or less a return to the 1700s and prior.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Cap and Trade is the last nail in what has been a cynical 50-year-long intentional destrucition of the United States. As a policy it will literally destroy what is left of US industry and commit mass genocide on a scale unheard of, inasmuchas the US will be no longer able to support its population. The dollar will wither and die and is dying. Those solar panels, of course, are produced in factories which burn carbon, however the actual intent is not to reduce carbon but to reduce humans.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Global Warming is a globalist hoax to collapse the United States quickly and shift its industries over to China. China is being set up by the globalists to be manufacturer for the entire planet. Ever notice why China is not beholden to those same carbon stipulations? If China were to impose the same regulations on carbon that the stupid US is proposing, it would genocidally crush its population. If the US accepts Cap and Trade, it will destroy its economy and depopulate itself.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
"Seek truth not abroad; turn back into thyself for in the inner man dwells the truth."
-St Augustine.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
what about Kuwait and saudiarabia they are all big oil nations..!!
giertta 2 years ago
Global Warming is an evil population reduction plan. It is a fictional crisis which was created by the Club of Rome in their 1972 book, Limits to Growth. The intention is to crush industrial civilization and place a Tax on all Carbon Expeller, ie. HUMAN Beings. It is a Tax on Human Life.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
What about the fears that YOU are taking advantage from?
deejay216 2 years ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 2 years ago
Its a smart move plain and simple your country is in economic melt down and you are the world leader in producing C02 and in the near future an energy crisis and he has solved one problem with another. wish my country could do the same bloody idiots.
Dimitri4001 2 years ago
Although I believe that climate change is occuring as a result of CO2 emmissions, I should add that there is not unanimous agreement in the scientific community regarding it.
CountingChocula 2 years ago
There is never 100% agreement among scientists on anything. Hell, some fools still believe the US didn't land on the moon. And as with the tobacco companies, corporate think tanks now fund individuals to protect their interests and maintain business as usual.
But review what our historically reliable scientific institutions have concluded. They ALL basically agree that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and clearing the land.
Case closed.
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
There is never such a thing as "unanimous agreement" regarding anything in the scientific community.
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
Comment removed
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
I don't think Chatt's argument is that a change in environmental policy from the united states alone will solve the problem of climate change. Rather that a US. change in policy in tandem with changes in policy on a global scale will help reduce the impact of CO2.
CountingChocula 2 years ago
Solar Cycles, not CO2, determine our climate (both the warming and the cooling cycles.)
esj8341 2 years ago
Solar cycles is an alternative explanation of why the temperatures are rising. But the theory has not even nearly the same kinda of evidence pointing to it as CO2 emissions has. you'r right that on youtube there is debate whether its the one thing or the other causing global warming, but in the scientific community there is no debate.. its the CO2 causing global warming..
LuckyChatt 2 years ago
Chatt,
Assuming that as you argue that ALL scientists agree that the Earth is undergoing global warming and that they ALL agree it is due entirely to CO2 is true.
What percentage of CO2 do you think is man made? What percentage do you think comes from the U.S.?
And What percentage reduction do you think is needed to reverse global warming?
esj8341 2 years ago
By "solar cycles" do you mean the earth's orbital variations or do you mean the solar output? Its complex but the earth's orbital variations and its "wobbles" are responsible for most of the major climate swings.
But now, we humans are moving carbon from the earth to the atmosphere at a rate of 1,000,000 years of stored carbon EVERY YEAR. It is not sustainable and continues to alter the composition of the air and seas. Look up ocean acidification.
FMI google... NAS Global Warming
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
search/check out 'climate chains' on youtube.
it is a compelling view on Obama's cap and trade plan.
All pain no gain!
danchad79 2 years ago
Underestimated by $2 Trillion I don't think so! The Economic Stimulus is costing $787 billion in order to stablise the economy. The economy needs to stablise in order to start reducing the deficit. Obama plans to half the deficit left by Bush. Which brings me back to my original point. Bush inherited an economy in good shape under Clinton. Bad economic management under the Bush adminstration has resulted in a huge global financial crises. Of course you conveniently forget that fact!
4duff5 2 years ago
4duff5's prior user name was
4Duhhhhhhhhh
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
Clearly you have no understanding of economics!
The subprime mortage crises flourished under Bushs economic policies. Wall Street was so deregulated that NINJAs (no income, no job, no assets) could get huge loans and on top of that we Greenspan was a regulator who didn't believe in regulation! Obama plans to half Bushs government decifit by the end of his first term. Bush screwed up royal on the economy. Yet all you can do is bitch and complain about Obama. Your pathetic!
4duff5 2 years ago
Yeah, and we had Barney Frank telling us 1 1/2 years ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were A-OK
bahhhhhh,,, baaahhhhhhhh
by the way Einstein ... its "you're" not "your" .. didn't your libdink teachers teach you that 'your' is possessive ?? duhhhhhh5
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
I bet you blame everything on Obama! The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, climate change and the state of the economy!
For me I want politicans that act responsibly on these issues. It sounds like all you want to do is find someone to hate!
4duff5 2 years ago
yeah sure, QUADRUPLING a defecit (in 6 months) that took over 200 years for our country to accumulate is most definately what we'd call "ACTING RESPONSIBLY" eh ? ...
baaahhhhh ,,, ,, baaaahhhhhh
Having to admit your crack financial team's projections for that defecit were UNDERESTIMATED BY 2 TRILLION DOLLARS is what we'd call "responsible" and "competent" too right ??
bahhhhhhh,, ,,, baaaahhhhhhh,,, baaaahhhh
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
This dipshit just can't bring himself to admit it ... its ALL ABOUT A CARBON TAX ... more ingenious ways to bilk YOU for YOUR hard earned money ... 1/2 way through the 2009 'hurricane season' and they FINALLY found one they could name ... welcome aboard "BILL" these fear merchant mutts will be dropping your name alot this next week....
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
On this issue of tax and government spending I would like to refresh your memory on the 8 previous years under Bush. The US went from running $559 billion surplus under Clinton. To record government decificts under Bush. By the end of his term the US was in a deep recession with growing unemployment , huge bailouts on Wall Street and huge foreign debts. Lets put Cap and Trade into perspective the money is pocket change compared to money spent going to Iraq since 2003.
4duff5 2 years ago
LOL ... hey doof, lets refresh your memory (like it should really be necessary considering its recent history) that Barack O'BlahBlah QUADRUPLED the defecit in first 6 months in office. Clintoon is ancient history and you're forgetting its expensive to fight a WAR ! I know, I know, we could have saved a bundle if we'd just shipped out C-130's filled with white surrender flags ... me, I like breathing non-radioactive air.
p.s. Hussein's defecit projection was underestimated by 2 BILLION !
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
Obama needed to increase the government deficit in order to stimulate the economy and prevent it going into even deeper recession. Wall Street could not alone bring the economy out of this downturn. A cost of 8 years of bad economic policies
The Iraq War lacked direction from day one. They went in thinking it was going to be easy and pulled troops out of Afghanistan! So after Bush the US was fighting two high cost wars. Plus they let North Korea and Iran off the hook pursuing nuclear weapons!
4duff5 2 years ago
Haa ha ha .. a "stimulus" is one thing but this dickhead QUADRUPLED the defecit which it took over 200 years to achieve ! ! ha ahaaaa ha ha ha
p.s. unemployment under Bush went down to 4.5%.. O'BlahBlah said HIS wouldn't exceed 8% and now we're at 10%; they fucked up their defecit projection and added another 2 TRILLION just this week ! ha ha .. The dipshit is done ,, put a fucking fork in him for christsakes !
roscoe85cj 2 years ago
Why are you so obsessed with Bush? Do you understand that Bush's wrecking of the economy was a high-arching pitch for Obama to finish the job? They're on the same team. Yes, Bush helped wreck the economy. Obama is NOT trying to fix it. He's exploiting it in order to "fundamentally change the way America works". Do you at least get that? Be honest.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
I am obsessed with Bush because he massively stuffed up the economy, a fact some people fail to recognise. Obamas stimulus package and wider policies for changes is a step in the right direction. Problems like health care, energy, climate change and the economy needs to addressed today not just delayed to burden future generations. I do believe these initiatives will lead to some significant change in US, and others not so much. Obama is at least attempting to address these issues.
4duff5 2 years ago
He's attempting to centrally control these issues from his office. America was founded on the principal of individual freedom. Not centrally run industry. His 'solutions' are plans to prolong and exploit Bush's wreckage. It's not about fixing problems in a free American society. It is about 'fundamentally changing' the way the country works. The constitutional system of government may have died long ago but Obama intends to bury it.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZEG8704 2 years ago
It's PARTLY Bush's fault but Obama has spent WAY more than 4 billion dollars. He's not trying to fix the economy, they have the same goal. To tear down the US economy and bring it to a one world government.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZEG8704 2 years ago
Yes but the same people are still pulling Obama's strings. It's part of the same operation.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZEG8704 2 years ago
You really need to do your homework if you think that's the case. You need to understand what he will change, how and, why. Blindly supporting popular leaders, historically has not been a good move. Not for Bush, and not for Obama. They are working together toward the same goals. Iraq is one phase, energy will be another. Same train, same track.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
Yes, I know but I don´t know but peoples in Sweden friends and so on are trusting on hem I mean and I´ll hope it to.
ZEG8704 2 years ago
OK, Remember that word HOPE.
bootlegpreacher 2 years ago
climate change BS the earth is cooling down not heating up, you know nothing, your brainwash hahahaha
SpiderDroid2 2 years ago
No! I´m not brainwashed butr you must be sicked and damadged in your head and a srew lose! I´ve reading about this changers and it´s warming and when it´s to late the american peoples have teache of learn!
ZEG8704 2 years ago
angryamerican 2 years ago
Agree, but lets not leave out the FED and all of their transparency. It is all a joke and obama should be in prison for all the lies to americans he has told.
WAKE UP EVERYONE Ron Paul is the only hope. I know that he may be perfect but he can not possibly be any worse.
hatchls1 2 years ago
everythin in usa now is a challenge an survival an fear lol..first ben laden ..then saddam..now its epidemics an climate changes ...security an fear thats the key of control...its always bad an there is always a threat ...that what brought usa down...fear....good luck believing ur superiors
underoath115 2 years ago
lol yeah like obama said famine is caused by climate changes hehehe not jewish bankers ...not english bankers...an guess what ...they blame it on pple ...as if all of us owns major corporations ...how come he is talkin about polution an his friends r the same bankers who cause famine an polution...u think ur cigarette will destroy the planet...but not the nukes they have...wake up stupids they just wanna fine u on even the air u breath...an pple r to blame not major corps...this is hilarius
underoath115 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have the frickin' politicians measured how much HOT AIR they generate? Maybe that's what they are mistaking for "global warming"
CircusMaximus09 2 years ago
this is so much crap......the Mayans suffered thru 100 years of on and off drought.....where was their carbon production.....cap and rape....another Madoff ponzi scam....we have oil....Spain lost thru their Green Jobs scam....i wish him well but like Carter this will fail....
timray99 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OBAMA, take geography 101 please
kybuRz101 2 years ago
That is so good that Obama tell the whoe USA and world about the warning of the climate changes! :-)
ZEG8704 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mars has a ice cap. A few years ago that ice cap was melting. The Sun was very active and causing Mars South pole and Earth's North pole to melt and get smaller. That 11 year solar activity cycle in over and the Sun has calmed down. Mars S.pole and Earth's N.pole ice cap's are now getting Thicker. The Planet is Cooling. There is no Globalwarming Warming. Al Gore forgot to tell Obama this. He should listen to NASA. PS, Al says to "invest in carbon craps" google LaRouchePac Home
gkgreger 2 years ago
One cap is warming, the other is cooling. It wasn't melting because of the sun, though, it was melting (or so scientists believe--they're not sure) because dust storms are decreasing atmospheric albedo.
You realize if AGW was caused by the sun we couldn't have had a 30 year warming trend? Like you said, the sun has 11 year cycles.
DeusExMachina7709 2 years ago
Comment removed
gkgreger 2 years ago
Comment removed
gkgreger 2 years ago
if the ice caps melt in five years there will be no targets in 2020 as we will be in an ice age in 2015. greed distroys our world and our leaders dont lead the fob us off with targets that will not save the planet they will just make it look like something is being done when the ice caps are melting now not next year not in 2020 there wont be governments in 2020 if you dont pull your fingers out of your ass holes.
mastainventa 2 years ago
what a bunch of bull crap. the world need hard fast action not bull crap like we will have targets we will aim to reduce by this amount by this time. the time is now the time we dont have you and all the other governments are wasteing. you are supposed to be our leaders and you have the power to stop this NOW. not tomorrow not by 2020 NOW. we are sick of your crud we need hard action now. in 5 years the ice caps may not be there. be a real leader and dont fob it off with targets give us action
mastainventa 2 years ago
teched246 2 years ago
Comment removed
imconfusednow 2 years ago
Obama's comments shock me.
They are riddled with scientific inaccuracies and unjust statements.
"The science is beyond dispute" that is purely oppinion.
The seas have not risen significant amounts (about 2cm) there is no trend in droughts and hurricanes are not increasing in intensity.
imconfusednow 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my campaign to help raise awareness...it get's a little messy :D
"douchebag pie"
copy and paste this URL;
watch?v=7gPfQEnnuUk
Filmapprentice 2 years ago
interesting how he claims it will create jobs. the government can't create jobs, it can only reallocate them.
uzernamezallgone 2 years ago
Comment removed
PainTrain87 2 years ago
HAARP mutha fuckas look it up
funkyallband 2 years ago
GW and 'Climate Change' are ficiton from nuclear power. Designed to kill!
JonThm 2 years ago
First.. try making sentences that make sense. Then voice an opinion.
Janusha 2 years ago 4
If you log onto Google Scholar and type in these titles you will get peer reviewed and scientific articles. These are just a couple. search for more. at least you'll see the science isn't settled.
Global Warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet
by: Petr Chylek, Jason E. Box and Glen Lesins (2004)
Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica
by. J.B. Anderson and J. T. Andrews (1999)
At least read the abstracts if not the whole thing.
howardfine 2 years ago
Blagoavich? lmao!
Miketothejones 2 years ago
LMFAO i know eh lol
memeltu2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear stooge!
JonThm 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The world is cooling, as CO2 emissions go up! More CO2 please!
JonThm 2 years ago
New scientist Oct 2nd, 2008 said global CO2 was at 0.00037%: This is my PhD area. Plants take in CO2, adn excrete O2 - we breathe in the waste of plants!
JonThm 2 years ago
Jon, with all due respect, you are wrong. Anyone reading this can do a quick search in google for "current co2 levels" and see how wrong you are. I advise you to do the same.
The current global concentration of co2 in our atmosphere averages 387ppm, or 0.0387%
Go back and check your New Scientist issue. I think you'll you are misquoting them.
And yes, plants absorb co2 and release o2. This is not news. Do you have a point to make, or are you content to simply repeat this well known fact?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
Higher levels are nearer IC engines. New Scientist published teh figure on Oct 2nd, 2008. Plants take in CO2, so peg the gas levle: More CO2 emissions, more life - not higher CO2 levels in the air.
JonThm 2 years ago
You refuse to do a google search for "current co2 levels". You refuse to go back and check that figure you keep misquoting from New Scientist.
All you do is keep repeating yourself, regurgitating the same incorrect figure and the same ill-informed snippets like "More co2 = more life"
That's not a discussion, I'm afraid.
I wish you well in the future.
PS. I suggest you search the New Scientist site for the article: "Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production"
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
I trust the data from new sceintist in 2008: THey also say the wordl is cooling. Go outside, see for yourself!
JonThm 2 years ago
I'm not asking you not to trust them.
I'm asking you to go back and check that you read it correctly, as there is no way they would have said co2 concentrations were 3.7ppm (0.00037%).
You won't double-check it. You won't do a google search. You won't search the New Scientist site.
May I ask why not?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
The GLOBAL CO2 level is pegged at 0.00037% by green plants, that take the gas in during the day! More CO2, more life - were you asleap for biology?
JonThm 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but you are babbling. Get your figures right, construct an argument, and try again.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
New Scietist Oct 2nd 2008: The world climate has been cooling since 2005. My experience in India, Hong Kong, California, Moriscious, the UK ...
JonThm 2 years ago
You do know the earth has never had a stable climate right ?
mmtot 2 years ago
If by "has never had a stable climate" you mean "has periodical changes that play out over thousands or tens of thousands of years", then yes of course.
What's your point, exactly? That because the climate undergoes natural changes on a geological timescale of thousands of years, then the warming trend over the last 100-150 years must also be natural?
Would you also argue that because bushfires can occur naturally, no bushfire could be started by a person?
Or are you just making conversation?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
Or perhaps you're one of those people who looks at the so-called Medieval Warm Period (which may have been local variance rather than a global phenomenon) and the subsequent 'Little Ice Age', and then concludes that any such natural variance somehow automatically nullifies all evidence that increased greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere leads to an increase in average global temps.
It's a strange kind of logic that suggests that if change can occur naturally, then it can *only* occur naturally.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
And what do you say to those who see that as our climate changes the Co2 levels vary as a result ?
mmtot 2 years ago
We know that co2 levels rise as temps increase. However we also know that co2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it traps heat reflected from the earth's surface.
When people try to deny the effects of co2 by saying "But co2 levels are affected by temperatures, therefore co2 levels can't affect temperatures!", they're employing more weird logic (or deliberate denial) by claiming that it can't work both ways.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
Here's an analogy that might help illustrate the point
Imagine a study found that as unemployment in cities climbed, the amount of drug use in those communities increased. Then suppose researchers said "We've also found that if you increase the amount of drug use in cities, the unemployment level rises."
Would anyone say "That can't be right, as it has been shown that unemployment levels increase drug use, not the other way round"
The point is that one doesn't necessarily invalidate the other
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
So it's the fact that it goes both ways (higher temps = more co2, more co2 = more heat trapped by the atmosphere) that gives us even more cause for concern.
If we drive up average global temps through co2 emissions, and then the warmer climate causes the oceans to release more co2, and the forests too (due to dying, decomposing vegetation), thus compounding the problem... well, then we'll find ourselves in a sticky situation.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
What do Air breathing creatures Exhale?
mmtot 2 years ago
co2, amongst other things.
Do you actually have a point you're trying to make here?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
If they tax the carbon cycle . We are finished .
mmtot 2 years ago
err... Is that the point you're attempting to make with the breathing comment? Do you think they're going to tax the co2 content in people's exhalations?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
"The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." That's the real reality .
mmtot 2 years ago
Comment removed
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
(Removed my last comment as it was needlessly insulting)
So you're into conspiracies. I should have guessed.
The funny thing about you guys is that if the gov denied that climate change was a problem, you'd be all over it. But because the gov acknowledges it's a problem, you see it as automatically false.
re: The Club of Rome. Pointing out that people unite when faced with a common problem seems reasonable to me. Wanting people to unite to tackle these problems also strikes me as reasonable.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago
As I have Said . Climate change is nothing more than scaremongering by the Elite controlled media in order to impose global taxation and Centralisation of power .
mmtot 2 years ago
And the bit you omitted from your quote, the bit that came between "..would fit the bill" and "All these dangers..." was
"In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes."
Which is in fact a fair point and not the sinister machinations you'd like to portray it as.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
And what the polar bears pictured on floating ice sheets and the NFL , Disney, Nat geo and Madonna saying " look at the drowning polar bear they are dying " What are these machinations?
mmtot 2 years ago
That sounds like people focussing on a very small part of a much bigger issue.
However, rising temperatures would certainly be a threat to the polar bears' habitat, so I'm not quite sure what your issue is there.
Seems to me that you're just throwing shit out in the hope that something sticks.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
Yeah you stink buddy. I tell you what watch Climate change -is Co2 the cause . I am in agreement with that video .I advise all to do the same . Leave your Debunking Rhetoric on that page.
mmtot 2 years ago
heh... I love how at no point in your comments here did you present or construct any kind of argument... just those little snippets you've gleaned from somewhere (probably from other youtube comments), offered without any context.
It's clear that your understanding of the issues is poor indeed.
But hey, keep an eye out for those chemtrails. Keep fretting about that fluoride. And say Hi to the Reptilians for me!!
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 3
yeah keep drinking your fluoride and eating your mercury buddy .Send me a FEMA Postcard.
mmtot 2 years ago
ihatebuzzwords please have a look at another part of the story about GW:
watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U&feature=related
watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME
icecap . us / images / uploads / CO2, Temperaturesandiceages-f . pdf
motls . blogspot . com / 2006/07 / carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice . html
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
Yes, I've seen those before:
Your first link is to a presentation by Bob Carter, a man with a track record for missing (or ignoring) data that doesn't support his view:
Here's an taste of some of the things he gets wrong:
csiro. au/news/Climate-forecasts-article-response. html
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
Your second link is to the "The Great Global Warming Swindle", a film notorious for making false claims, including the outlandish claim that "volcanoes produce more CO2", which is so hopelessly wrong you have to wonder if it was a case of deliberate deception. (In fact, annual co2 emissions due to human activity are 100-150 times greater than those due to volcanoes)
As a starting point, search wikipedia for Great Global Warming Swindle, read the section under Reception and criticism.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 2
Your final two links concern the fact that rising temps lead to greater co2 levels. As I explained to mmtot above, this is well-known. But it's a logical flaw to argue that this means co2 can't affect temps. In fact, the graphs in the PDF you linked to show temps following a spike fell much more slowly than they rose, quite possibly due to the increased co2 in the atmosphere. Bear in mind too that those graphs cover periods of over 10,000 years, with no human activity driving co2 levels higher.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 3
"this is well-known. But it's a logical flaw to argue that this means co2 can't affect temps."
sounds a "bit" stupid. give ma some scienntific data about this
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
Really? Are you saying that because higher temps lead to more co2, this somehow means that co2 *cannot* have an effect on temps. Is that what you're suggesting?
How does that logic work? How does the former automatically preclude the latter? It isn't an either/or situation, you know.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
heating water causes it to emit vapour. does that mean increasing vapour amount will increase water temperature? is that what you are suggesting? course this is your logic.
you would support me with the scientific data if you knew what you are talking about.
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
Oh man, another simpleton.
Look, here's the analogy I gave earlier:
Imagine a study found that as unemployment in cities climbed, the amount of drug use in those cities increased. Then suppose researchers said "We've also found that if you increase the amount of drug use in cities, the unemployment level rises."
Would you say "That's impossible, as it has already been shown that unemployment levels increase drug use!"
Because that's exactly the kind of logic you're displaying at the moment.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 8
As for scientific data... first off, you do understand how the greenhouse effect works, right? You are aware that co2 is a greenhouse gas, as is methane.
Or do you not even accept that? Perhaps you're one of these clowns who seems to think the term "greenhouse effect" describes a non-existent phenomenon.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you make me laugh. what the fuck has sociology to do with metheorology?
no i am not a clown. where is your convincing data about co2 causing GW? numbers, statistics, measurements. i dont want hypothetic theories, propaganda, media manipulated images, rhetoric brainwashing. there is no inependent science behind this scum. no reason to give corporation elites power over co2 emision controll, to give them rule global economy. i dont want us to become more slaves than we are now. end. god bless
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
"what the fuck has sociology to do with metheorology "
It was an analogy, doofus. One that neatly shows your lack of logic. The fact is that saying "But higher temps lead to higher levels of co2" does NOT invalidate the argument that co2 levels can affect temps
This site puts it simply:
skepticalscience. com/co2-lags-temperature. htm
I suggest you brush up on the history of the science:
aip. org/history/climate/co2. htm
Then check out the IPCC report:
ipcc-wg1. ucar. edu/wg1/wg1-report. html
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 7
i made an analogy with water and vapour that has more to do with metheoroly.
great! hypothetic theories, propaganda. thats exactly what i wanted from you. but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming
environmentalresearchweb. org/cws/article/opinion/35820
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
Your analogy was broken. My analogy illustrated the logical flaw in making the assumption that if A affects B then it is impossible for B to have an effect on A.
Let me ask you again: Do you think that because higher temps lead to more co2 in the atmosphere it is therefore impossible for co2 to affect temps?
"but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming "
Huh? The link you posted says nothing of the sort. Did you even read it?
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 4
why are you asking stupid questions?
"but this shows co2 as a minor greenhouse gass( 5% man made?) has a litle(relatively nothing) to do with warming " tis is based on your links. it is obvious. nobody has to prove that.
my link shows how basicless ipcc raport is.
yes ive read it. have you?
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
"why are you asking stupid questions?"
Yeah, way to dodge the question dude. It's pretty obvious that you've finally started to grasp the point I made yesterday when I said: "Your final two links concern the fact that rising temps lead to greater co2 levels. This is well-known. But it's a logical flaw to argue that this means co2 can't affect temps"
...at least I hope you have. Because if you haven't then I might as well be talking to a lump of wood.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 3
well here is a handy site that "proves" there is no credible science behind man made global warming propaganda:
globalwarmingquestions. googlepages. com/ar4beef
SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE READ IT "CAREFULY" AND STOP WEASTING MY TIME YOU FUCKING MORON
dzonybazuka84 2 years ago
You're a real sadcase, aren't you. What's the deal with "proves". Did you put that word in quotes because it only proves in your mind or what?
Did you check out:
skepticalscience. com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere. htm
from the site I linked to? No, of course you didn't. You decided you'd throw a temper tantrum instead.
ihatebuzzwords 2 years ago 6
Poor wee dzonybazuka84. Its alright, Yes yes, there there.. There's no scientific proof linking rising levels of CO2 to global warming, oil will last forever, and there really is an Easter Bunny. Its alright, don't you worry, just put the light out and go back to sleep...
iCloche 2 years ago 7
Do you think CO2 is driving climate change?
PainTrain87 2 years ago
there is possibly a link between CO2 levels and temperature. When ever temperature increases, then CO2 increases. In other words CO2 follows temperature. There is about an 800 year lag that some climatologists have discovered. Whenever temp rises, which is natural, (it is actually on a 1,500 year cycle that started 40,000 years ago) then CO2 rises after temperature. It is only speculated that CO2 causes a rise in temp.
howardfine 2 years ago
"some climatologists have discovered" Thats a reliable source isnt it.
I propose you do whatever it is you do and let the rest of us worry about the future.
Janusha 2 years ago
Huburtus Fisher and his reasearch team from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography reported, "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years." in other words, CO2 changes are caused by tmperature changes. (Taylor, G., 2003,)Taylor is an Oregon State Climatologist. Also, Nicolas Caillon reported in Science in 2003. "This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.
howardfine 2 years ago
and ? dont you see the insignificance of this ?
Does that mean we can keep going like we have done up til now then. With increased speed. Now with India and China added.... Think not.
Janusha 2 years ago
It is extremely significant. It goes to show that the earth warms and cools naturally. When it warms, more CO2 is expelled from the oceans. Thus, a rise in CO2 levels is caused by the warming of the Earth which is a natural cycle. It happens every 1,500 years or so. The Roman Warming Period, The Medieval Warming Period, and the Modern Warming Period. Unless the Romans were driving around in SUV's, then i doubt that they caused global warming. Do you understand now?
howardfine 2 years ago
I know all this. Im saying its insignificant because this doesnt mean we can lean back and blame the nature for climate changes. It only means that nature has its cycles. This does NOT remove our responsibility for the climate changes. In the future we will regardless of this, have to do alot better. Even if this stuff turn out to be true we cant disregard the thousands of climate experts also telling us were pumping too much pollution into the atmosphere / nature.
Janusha 2 years ago
"thousands of climate experts?" you are now a hypocrite. Al Gore, the mainstream media, and Hollywood do not count as scientists. The climate "experts" on the IPCC are people employed by the UN to research the warming and how we are responsible. Basically, the UN pays these people to for things the UN wants to hear. And if they don't come to the conclusion the we are the cause of the warming, then they change the report. This happened to the IPCC's Climate Change report in 1996. Trust them?
howardfine 2 years ago
ok.. then you spend your time arguing the test results while the rest of us tries to live more healthy and clean and be more nice to the environment.
Janusha 2 years ago
But the "test results," data, and numbers are the science. So therefore, the science is obviously still in need of discussion. Just so you know, no one will disagree that littering, pollution, mine seepage, etc. are bad things. But try to read between the lines when a world government (UN), attempts to invoke economic changes that would not be readily accepted by any country. That is why they try to pull the wool over our eyes with outlandish claims.
howardfine 2 years ago
Conspiracy hunting never led to anything intelligent. And thats a fact.
UN a world government.. pfffff get real.
And if environmental changes have to wait in line behind economical concerns... well then were right were we are today. Its cheaper to dump the rubbish in the river in stead of recycling or safely dispose of it. So... if economics come first, were fucked arent we.
Janusha 2 years ago