(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Advocacy campaign takes aim at on-air climate skeptics
.
A new campaign aimed at exposing television weathercasters who present discredited climate science information to viewers has sparked a growing storm within the meteorological community.
@wildwolf51972 Not safe. Just not significantly carcinogenic. 90% confidence intervals, which is what the FDA resorted to to coerce the alternate hypothesis they desired, produce correlational results at best.
@wildwolf51972 Do you know what you're talking about? He didn't say safe, he said not as dangerous and couldn't be proven so they fudged the number. Think logically about how much second hand smoke you might get from being near a smoker, think in terms of a draw on a cigarette, then how much time you might spend around said person, at about 10% for it not going through a filter, then think in those terms how long to go through the equivolent of 1 pack, by my reconing while unplesent, few months
Very sad to see Crichton, who normally is so good at interpreting and understanding science, to be so wrong on this. I can't imagine why he ended up in such a misguided place... and just before he died. I love most of his books and it is sad that this was his last legacy.
He is right about sensationalism... but that has nothing to do with the well established and understood consequences of anthropogenic global warming.
I don't like the tactic of journalists: "J: ¿Hey do you believe that A is B?" "M: No, actually I think that A..." (Interrupts him) "J: So you are against B?" "M: No, I believe that..." (interrupts him again) "J: Ahá... that means you are a right winger?" - interrupting people not allowing them to answer your questions is a tipical dirty yellow strategy...
How can Chrichton say Gore was wrong about Kilimonjaro? If you have eyeballs, you can see that it's lost most of its ice cap over the last century. Moron.
@paulinator61 it may have lost its ice, but does the science empirically point to the culprit being uncle sam driving his SUV? NO. at best, man-made global warming is a dogmatic belief based on consensus, not conclusive data
Are Americans really to stupid to see the Freemasons at work?. WTF peeps if you want to understand Politics you have understand it from an Esoteric view.
Micheal Crichton was too intelligent and rational a soul to not see global warming for what it was...A means of imposing global government and banking derivatives for profit based on pseudoscience. Only now after his death and the proof that researchers were forging data have we finally beaten back these claims.
The Earth was here long before us and we have not the power to destroy this 4 Billion year old planet...Only ourselves.
Believing in an untestable hypothesis is called faith not science.This statement is based on grade school level knowledge of the scientific method. In the dark ages fortunes were made on faith in the form of indulgences. Al Gore will make those fortunes made in the dark ages look like a pittance. His net worth will certainly go into 10 figures maybe 11. If all it takes is borrowing and promoting an untestable hypothesis to become the richest man in the world,we are still in the dark ages.
I don't care if you have 10000 scientists. If they say the earth is flat and not round they are wrong. It doesn't take a group of overpaid idiots to make facts. Facts are a reality weather we want to believe it or not. Albert Einstein was not a league of extraordinary scientists, he was one man. He proved his science, and that's why its fact.
@jfxcoll Your still an idiot. Global warming is a bunch of bs. It is based on a computer model, and not all the computer models predict a 'greenhouse effect.' No one is going to buy it. In my biology class in college we had to prove to our teacher that it was a waste of time learning about things that aren't true. There were 14 students and 12 of us agreed it is not an issue based on the facts we found. Go suck a cock.
Go and do some research check out LLnL and other national labs studies. CO2 is a problem all right but its not the only pressure we put on the environment
Get this straight, Crichton is not trying to prove that Global Warming is not happening. What he is doing is trying to say that the data and evidence relating to Global Warming is not concrete enough to make a definite conclusion as many people are doing now. His point of view isn't just specific to Global Warming either, it is the same with his views on Genetics. He doesn't want people to 'believe' in an 'unfounded' theory like Global Warming.
Al Gore was sued by 30,000 SCIENTISTS for fraud. They state: "Global Warming is at best a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Scientific evidence shows that the temperature of the earth correlates with the amount of sun activity. The amount of solar bursts and sun spots directly affect the temperature of the earth."
@jfxcoll Your a complete fool. Yes, Al Gore was voicing the opinion of many scientists. One thing you don't realize is, this is OPINION not FACT. I don't care how you twist up and rally your opinions, facts will be there weather you accept them or not. Michael Crichton was a researcher, and if the data he found in his investigations showed that global warming was true, he would have been saying much different things. Fact is, science has become corrupt by money like any other group of people.
@Electric2000 I work with these scientists your talking about. 30,000 SCIENTISTS my ass no such law suit saw the light of day. It would get laughed out of court!
Look up LLnL site /str/Com1096.htm
"We have shown that the burning of fossil fuel that increases atmospheric carbon dioxide and causes warming globally "
"...there is strong consensus within the scientific community that the data suggest a human origin for the global warming that is currently being observed."
@jfxcoll Crichton was a great writer and he liked Al Gore. Al Gore used bogus facts and his movie was'nt a documentary it was just a power point presentation
@mrzack888 Is there any evidence for your claim? I highly doubt it. For the sake of intellectual integrity on youtube you should try to back up your statements.
someone has already posted a video. I know exactly which apartment they are in filming this from, based on the landmarks. This is about 12 blocks from where I live.
this instant, as I type this, there is a massive hail storm in the city I live in, the warmest in Canada, coastal, with no rise in the sea level. It is late spring. During the winter, it rarely drops below 10 degrees celsius, roughly 65 fahrenheit. I know this is cold by Californian standards, but one province east of us, in the winter it can drop to 50-70 below zero. I grew up in that province BTW. So, where is the warming, as it hails on the warmest city in Canada in late spring?
The ocean is the main repository of CO2. Real science shows that when the earth gets too hot, the ocean releases CO2 to cool it, which we have seen for more than 50 years now, cooling. The sun is number 1, the ocean is the number 2 driver of global temperatures. We cannot compete with rotting vegetation. Temperature changes in the deep ocean take 200-300 years to change the mean temperature of the planet. This is all fact, research it, but first turn off FOX news.
all that aside, the concentration of nitrogen is higher at roughly 22% of the air we breathe, than is the oxygen content, between 12 and 16%. So, are we nitrogen breathers? CO2 concentrations are even higher and we breathe that in too. Oxygen at much higher levels becomes toxic to a human at extended intervals of exposure.
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure, but a broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Anything in concentrations that disrupt human life is a pollutant.
Nah - I'm as right-wing as you are. I just like to point out the holes in some of the things people are saying re AGW. For example, you recently suggested people watch Martin Durkins 'Great Global Warming Swindle'. You are probably unaware that it has been debunked (watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE). Some of the scientists interviewed even threatened legal action because they were quoted out of context. For a well reasoned appraisal of the real issues raised by Durkin try watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM
if you can find a chart that dates back before the 1800s, and look back at least 10,000 years if not more, you will see global warming has happend over and over throughout the history of our planet at the same rate it is now if not worse.
if you can find a chart that dates back before the 1800s, and look back at least 10,000 years if not more, you will see global warming has happend over and over throughout the history of our planet at the same rate it is now if not worse.
LOL, Charlie Rose is just lost. In this interview he is simply not picking up what Crichton is laying down. Its actually kind of funny watching all of Crichton's comments fly over that old geezers head. Crichton is speaking in a scientific, logical sense, while Rose is still stuck in this black.white bubble of politics. Moron.
so... Crichton knows nothing, but we should listen to Al Gore ... I understand ...
Crichton was educated as a scientist - Al Gore is a political hack who is famous because of his father ... Maurice Strong pulls Al';s strings on this one... anything the IPCC is connected with is pure BS ... CO2 in the Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ... ... lookout , GHG, the Sky is Falling!!!
@hdsrvc Your right there Brother. Dont they still have an Indictment pending on Maurice Strong? Didnt his ass Flee justice to China where they couldn't Extridite him?
And i am DAMNED Proud to be a Global Warming Athiest!
"Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ..."
There are currently more than 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution there were 280ppm.
If you doubt that anything as 'dilute' as 380ppm can have any effect - do us all a favour and lock yourself in your car with a hosepipe from the exhaust. That is carbon monoxide (CO). By just 200ppm, you'd be dead.
@Herecomesthefatlady - Co3 is what the car emits. Carbon Monoxide is different from Carbon Dioxide which is different from Carbon Trioxide. CO2 is a compound, while CO3 is ionic emission.
I don't know where you get your info from but please check it. Vehicle emissions include HC, CO, CO2, O2 and NOx. There may be a little CO3 but as you say, it is an ionic emission and is unstable. People who die of vehicle emission poisoning do so of CO which has a greater affinity to red blood cells than O2.
@Herecomesthefatlady - people that die of vehicle emissions die of asphxiation, not C02 posioning. Where do you get your information. THe difference between you and me, is I actually research topics, while you just copy and paste from wikipedia or some other unreliable source.
Sigh. I said Carbon Monoxide dufus. Asphyxiation is what exactly? It is the inability to get oxygen to the vital organs. Carbon monoxide is the agent that prevents oxygen from reaching the vital organs. If you don't agree, just do some of this research you claim to do. But make sure you post a link to the page that says that people who die of asphyxiation don't die because of carbon monoxide.
@Herecomesthefatlady - you just contradicted yourself. How is a prevention of oxygen getting to the vital tissues considered CO2 poisoning? CO2 poisoning and asphyxiation are not the same thing. If you go under water, where there is no breathable oxygen, are you drowning(asphxiation essentially) or are you dyng from CO2 poisoning? There is tonnes and tonnes of CO2 in the ocean and all bodies of water.
For the third time - I have said nothing whatsoever about CO2 poisoning. I don't even know if there is such a thing. I was talking about carbon MONoxide.
A point of clarification in case you don't know the symbols for elements as per the periodic table. CO is carbon monoxide. CO2 is carbon dioxide. O is oxygen.
@Herecomesthefatlady - i posted earlier the difference between the elements. Clearly you do not read the comments you troll. You are arguing with yourself at this point.
My point was made in response to a comment that read "CO2 in the Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ... lookout , GHG, the Sky is Falling!!!"
It is a common myth that small amounts of additional CO2 is harmless. My point is that small amounts of anything can be terribly harmful - as in carbon monoxide (CO). It takes less than 200ppm in the air to render someone unconscious, inflict irreversible brain damage and then kill them.
Why do people criticize Crichton for being a sci-fi writer? He just does that for schticks and giggles. He's had a career spanning 40 years ranging from being a doctor to directing movies. This is the guy that wrote the F'ING ANDROMEDA STRAIN!
@nikolosvalakis2 I don't think he did it for giggles. Crichton used the story to try to make a point. It was his way of sharing his research and views. Charlie Rose is just lost as fullclip16117 points out. He's not able to understand anything outside the politics of the moment it seems.
watch Michael Durkin's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' ... The IPCC is worthless, except to Maurice Strong, who will make trillions off of this hoax...
Sorry, but you have been swindled by the Swindle! Here's an interesting article about it.
Google... Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
I recommend reliance on credible sources like AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NOAA and many others. They ALL find that in fact HUMANS are warming the planet. NONE say otherwise.
Or, just rely on some si fi writer to spew out science FICTION. If you're in denial, it must be music to your ears. But that's living a delusion isn't it?
And for you fools that think some si fi writer has a clue, you must be in denial. There are many good sources out there but gravitating to this bozo is a clear symptom. Its almost as bad as listening to john coleman as if HE had a clue. His training was in JOURNALISM! Or, there's bob carter that is a paid corporate hack with no study to back up his opinions.
Research what AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NOAA, and many other well respected institutions have concluded.
Lets, for the sake of discussion, remove the IPCC and all the work they've done from any consideration.
What are you left with? Many, many studies spanning the globe and 30 years of research. Many scientific institutions that have consided that humans are degrading our only habitat. Global warming is ONE of the symptoms.
Just for fun, try reading one of the first studies by the NAS. It's on-line.
3,000 scientist and head of weather channel are suing Al Gore and his university scientist that lied about the fraud they call global warming due to carbon dioxide. Look it up Climate gate you retard. John Holdren is a psychopath and our science czar he co wrote a book in 1979 called ecoscience in the book it has there plan in it to depopulate the globe through vaccines and poisons in the food and water. In the book it says they are planning to bankrupt the globe through global warming fraud.
Read what I wrote first then study it instead of trying to bring up other bunk crap Wiki lol no I study the facts! First study my post about John Holdren not Coleman? Your not smart.
Your opinion of Holdren is adolescent. Perhaps you prefer the "scientific" opinion of michael crichton?
John Holdren is well respected and understood before many that overpopulation was a core problem. Too bad that too few listened. Obama and Clinton recognized Holdren as talented. Did anyone make use use of crichton or coleman? No, they BOTH deal with fiction. bush/cheney would have prefered them. LOL!
ReduceGHC a insider do not listen to this scum. ReduceGHC is playing devils advocate and he will not stop. He is Cointelpro/infraguard misinformation producer. I mean why come to video or writers youtube video he doesn't like and bash them and people that enjoy its because hes paid to start crap Cointelpro/infraguard all the way. Pure scum and I will not comment back to what ever ReduceGHG puts.
No reason is hearing you say its good idea to depopulate the earth your a eugenicist plain and simple. John Holdren was caught with over 30 other scientist in emails three months ago talking openly about how globlal warming is fake and they even went as far as they were cooking the books to. Study Climategate ReduceGHG lol and you may wake up, but go headed try and comment back you will look stupid. And it better be real info against Climategate, its hard when the emails you can read anyone can
If you had a clue about sustainability you'd understand that population levels we have now are not sustainable given our sources of energy. Or, perhaps you think it's OK to continue to mindlessly increase the population despite the fact that resources are being depleted? Ever read a book about this? No, not likely.
Maybe its you kind or reasoning. Lets call it Populationgate! LOL
32,000 scientists -(9,000 with PHD's) singed a document directly disagreeing with AGW.
IPCC panel is NOT made entirely of scientists,20% roughly.Of which 50 directly control the 4 main data sets that are used in these computer models.They refused under FOI requests to release the Data!!!
IPCC reviewed the many, many studies that had already been done. Don't you deniers think its a bit odd that ALL our historically reliable scientific institutions basically agree on this issue? They concur that HUMANS are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. Sure, you can poke away at the edge but its a symptom of denial.
Try reading about the Anthropocene Epoch and why it is being considered.
32,000 scientists? What, are you kidding? That's the old Oregon Petition and it was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago.
The IPCC's main job was to review scientific studies that had aready been completed.
And as for models, they are helpful but are a small percentage of the science behind anthropogenic warming. The science goes back over 30 years and its GLOBAL.
And what is as irrational as a deniers position is anyone thinking that michael crichton has a clue about global warming. Maybe he came up with his opinion thinking about a si fi book or something. They are science fiction alright.
Rely on experts from NOAA, AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NASA, NAS, and many others.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Would ANYONE be so foolish as to think that Crichton has ANYTHING meaningful to contribute? It is amazing, sad, and true that some gullible people do.
The fact is that all of our historically reliable scientific institutions basically concur on the core issue. HUMANS are warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearning the land.
If you think not then send me a link to the evidence. Just believing you are right doesn't cut it. Rely on the experts at NASA, AAAS, NAS, etc.
You are presenting a false choice. You can believe that the earth has warmed over the last century, and that CO2 is one of a few greenhouse gasses that man has increased in the atmosphere is in part responsible, and also say you don't think that we will warm anywhere near the amount predicted by the models reviewed by the IPCC.
The fact is that the data does not support the position that our climate is dominated by positive feedback.
"...also say you don't think that we will warm anywhere near the amount predicted by the models reviewed by the IPCC. "
NO. I did not say that.
Again, read what the experts from NASA, AAAS, NAS and other respected institutions say. Crichton is clueless. He was a si fi writer and the "science" he speaks of is fiction.
OH man, I was speaking as in a person can say that, as in any person...
Lets see what they do say. IPCC-
A number of diagnostic tests have been proposedbut few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed
Let me guess... Feedback in the models needs improvement for better sensitivity? What understanding wouldn't benefit from improved modeling? Models are a useful tool but they are by no means the foundation of climate science.
The experts: American Geophysical Union
"AGU reaffirms the position statement approved by AGU Council in 2007. This statement is based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor."
No you got it 100% wrong. Climate sensitivity refers to the amount of amplification assumed by the climate system for a very small amount of warming by CO2. Ie >75% of the warming modeled for the 21st century.
So climate sensitivity is the foundation for why we care about CO2 at all in the context of global warming..
So the AGU statement doesn't matter because it doesn't deal with anything to do with the mechanism that are supposed to do this.
Nor do I delude myself into thinking I have a better grasp of the science than the professionals.
I recommend you research what these people and the institutions they work for have been saying for years. It's simple, if you can read. AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NAS, and many others have been saying about the same thing. And again, if you think that they are wrong, great! I hope they are. But until better evidence is available, take it easy, take it from them.
I have read many of these things and I don't see evidence for the main propositions that our climate is dominated by processes that amplify small amounts of warming into huge runaway greenhouse effects.
Nor do I see them saying they belive that is a proven point.
They say clearly that the 20th century has warmed and that CO2 and methane plus land use changes from man have had a impact over the second half of the 20th century.
I find the naysayers' positions to be uninformed and often irrational.
Hopefully public pressure will encourage sufficient changes in laws, policy, and trade practices to curb the more dire effects of GW. I have my doubts but I have my hopes as well.
Yep, some regional temps are up 10 degrees while others much less. I guess a global average is something commoners like myself can easily grasp.
I think effects like ocean acidification and the reduction in fresh water supplies are more worrysome. This tinkering with mother nature may well bite us from many fronts.
I wouldn't worry about ocean acidification. I am not sure how this one got started but the science is very solid in that it will not work out the way people think.
Explaining it would take lots of room but in summery that isn't how ocean chemistry works
Think about the past with CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM, the oceans were teeming with life. Life adapts and recent science indicates very quickly.
Acidification: no, I'll rely on the experts. I recommend you read more about it. Its pretty straight forward as the oceans absorb CO2. The consequences are not good as the base of a major food chain is jepordized.
Life adapts, sure. But there are times when it can't. Humans adapt but I would prefer they suffer as little as possible.
I have that book I will get around to reading it..I have a few ahead of it.
Uh the experts don't say that as far as I know.
Richardson and Gibbons (2008):
no observed declines in the abundance of calcifiers with lowering pH have yet been reportedthe role of pH in structuring zooplankton communities in the North Sea and further afield at present is tenuous.
The danger threshold is 6000ppm.. I would accept that perhaps that is wrong..
Google...New Study Details Ocean Acidification in the Caribbean
"Previous NOAA studies have shown that a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans place in the atmosphere each year ends up being dissolved into the ocean. The result is the ocean becomes more acidic, making it harder for corals, clams, oysters, and other marine life to build their skeletons or shells."
As for this claim they are hypothesizing what will happen,and the study i pointed out gathered actual data on the subject and found out that the answer isn't clear and many factors are in play.
Look I don't want to say I am right you are wrong. My point of engaging in this debate is such that to prove there is a robust debate and that in no way is the science settled.
You may turn out to be right...I am at this point convinced that you are not.
There's no credible debate over the core issue among those that are actively working in the research; HUMANS are warming the planet. This is settled science. Among the less informed the debate rages on and is propagated by vested interests.
I rely on the best science I can find. If they are wrong, fine. Although you state it, you haven't demonstrated that anything I've said is wrong. I'm open to being corrected. I welcome it.
The CO2 we put in the air today warms us less then the stuff in the 1950s. It is a logarithmic effect. From 280ppm to 400ppm has the ability to warm the earth 1C roughly. From 400PPM to 700ppm is only about .4C.
This isn't in disagreement.
Where there is no consensus is if this .4C warming will be amplified by feedback processes.
That is the question that matters. These organizations don't deal with this in their statements.
What is more important is the established fact that humans are degrading the only habitat we have to sustain ourselves. Global warming IS the core issue on this blog. From a much broader perspective GW is ONE symptom of degradation. This is occurring because our societies are unsustainable in the long run.
I recommend not missing the forest for the trees. But sure, the warming may accelerate due to feedbacks making the problem worse.
Yes it is my core issue. 1 to 1.5C warming and cooling is very common and isn't new to nature. Assuming that where we are now or were at the beginning of the 20th century is the ideal temperature for nature is absurd.
I worry about the environment, I work very hard to preserve wetlands where I live (Nova Scotia). And I am very very worried that we will lose sight of real problems in trying to solve what I feel is a non existent one.
You apparently thing the warming is very common. ALL the historically reliable scientific institutions that have studied the issue think it isn't. So who am I to believe? Trick question. It is hard for me to understand how you think you know better. Puzzling.
Wetlands - we've lot about 95% of what we had. There were considered "waste land" without value; a crime against nature and a disservice to ourselves and our future generations. (RFK Jr's book Crimes Against Nature, good book)
That isn't true, slight warming episodes are very common in many proxies. Mann and Briffa in no way represent the scientific communities view on this matter.
What I think you should do is be very honest when you research things. I am a scientist and you have to be very careful about group think, and drawing conclusions from small amounts of data.
Also the words Peer Review mean very little in the context of proved science, all it means is it passes a standard to be printed. That's all...
It isn't true? What? What all the institutions have concluded? What makes your opinion more reliable? Where is you evidence?
You MAY work as a "scientist" at the ripe age of 29 but I doubt that you have anything to do with the climate sciences.
Again, why is your opinion of more value? If you don't work in the climate sciences and have no study to back up your opinion, I recommend you use your assumed reasoning skills to come to a rational conclusion. For now, you are highly suspect.
No the problem is that you read far to much into their statements then is actually beings said.
I am a scientist and I know climatologist and I have developed qualitative and quantitative methods of integrating artic biostratigraphy with other forms of data including paleoclimate data.
Right now I do geophysical modeling. My specialty is integrating different data sets from various collection methodologies.
You however didn't answer the question. What makes your opinion more reliable?
I find it entirely unlikely; a professional scientist, one with an analysis that debunks what all the credible institutions have concluded, one with a name I recognize, and one that is posting here on this remote YouTube blog.
No my opinion is not that I am more qualified then experts it is that I feel the experts who say that we will not warm at a catastrophic rate make a better case.
It is my feeling that you believe these people don't exist or are totally unfamiliar with their work.
Credible institutions are not saying that the climate is doomed. They are saying that in large part the earth has warmed and Co2 is in part responsible. They are not speaking about the reliability of the models.
My warning bell went of right away with climate change when the scientist who supported it all claimed that they should be trusted on the basis of peer review. At the same time allowed to withhold raw data.
Peer Review is the first step to proving a hypothesis, it gets it out there for other people to see. If other scientist can replicate the results from the raw data then confidence in the theory grows. ..
In many area's Climate change fails independent replication.
because it HASN'T been proven. Overall ice cover is unchanged. If the raw data that proves the case is so convincing, why did Hansen, Mann, Jones et al not take care enough to ensure it did not go missing (read: shredded, burned, destroyed)? Why do they have to rig the "peer review" process?
Maybe you should said that right wing bullshit to the people that live in those areas and the polar bears that drown because the ice is melting...get a fucking clue and stop parrotting the same stupid conservative nonsense...do some homework asshole....
@freein2339 I agree with Zil2112....Right wing lmao!!! I used to be an Anarchist-Communist, have an MA in Environmental Politics! But you know better? If you lost the temper, nastiness inside of you.....
Exactly...you have your head in the sand and you refuse to deal with the truth..Climate change or global warming is a fact..Now are people trying to make millions or better said billions off it...yes...But the facts are very clear..just like the inside job of 911...
@freein2339 Better my head stuck n the sand than up my own arse like yourself! it is not scientific fact at all ;) And please dont bring 911 into this unless you want to bring in PNAC, decline of US hegemony and why exactly theres a need for a global warming scam, etc...now jog on!
I'll bring whatevet I want to bring into the discussion..f you don't like it ..don't read it and shut the fuck up..The changes in climate are facts and the crooks are out there to collect on that fact...That's old news you idiot but in the meantime the climate is still changing and the earth is getting warmer , the ice caps are melting , etc etc...Tell you what , go to Alaska and talk to the people that have lived their for thousands of years not the right wing "Palinites" but normal people
@freein2339 Idiot? You global warming supporters love using that eugenical term, i wonder why that is ;) "The changes in climate are facts and the crooks are out there to collect on that fact", thats been exactly my point!!! And actually we are not getting warmer at all! "the ice caps are melting" as they always have done in the past and do every year to a degree....you know the Vikings used to farm on Greenland which is now near impossible with permafrost? As for right-wing...
If you don't think global warming is not a problem then go to the regions where it has been must affected and convince them that your "theory" is correct...and save a few polar bears while you're at it.....idiot...
@freein2339 Polar bears......who's populationhas actually increased in recent years...not decreased? Who can swim 20+ miles and you have the cheek to call me 'idiot' bye bye
SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.
Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.
In Hudson Bay, Canada, the site of the most southerly polar bears, a study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.
@freein2339 Er....for starters you are talking about one specific survey taken in one particular area..........i think it's you that needs to do their own research!
In their search for food, polar bears are also having to roam further south, rummaging in the dustbins of Canadian homes. Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the explorer who has been to the North Pole seven times, said he had noticed a deterioration in the bears ice habitat since his first expedition in 1975.
Each year there was more water than the time before, he said. We used amphibious sledges for the first time in 1986
Not sure how true this is but it's worth researchimg...try it you might like it...idiot..
"The 340 residents of Newtok, Alaska will soon be among the first climate refugees in the United States. Global warming has battered the tiny coastal town: As average yearly temperatures rise, coastal ice shelves melt as does the permafrost on which the town sits.
The Ninglick River has overtaken the town as the ground level simultaneously sinks. As a result, the towns scattered buildings are connected by a network of boardwalks across the mud. With the forces of nature arrayed against them, the townspeople have now voted to relocate their town to a new site nine miles inland, on higher ground by the river.
@freein2339 the only idiot as you keep putting it in Eugenical terminology is you! 'first climate refugees' you dont know if this true..pffff.....you dont know anything from the sounds of it except what you read to suit you predjudices and arrogant views!
Ignoring the truth is not the way to learn wisdom...or use common sense...grow up little one and stop acring like an idiot...thus ended the lesson....
Predominant carbon sinks are the oceans. Why can't they take mere extra 5% of carbon? Could it be that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow the temperature change and not the other way around?
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Advocacy campaign takes aim at on-air climate skeptics
.
A new campaign aimed at exposing television weathercasters who present discredited climate science information to viewers has sparked a growing storm within the meteorological community.
.
Climate Central
27 January 2012
Nightversionn 3 weeks ago
This Guy is full of Shit he even thinks second hand smoke is safe
wildwolf51972 7 months ago
@wildwolf51972 Not safe. Just not significantly carcinogenic. 90% confidence intervals, which is what the FDA resorted to to coerce the alternate hypothesis they desired, produce correlational results at best.
ndzapruder 6 months ago
@wildwolf51972 Do you know what you're talking about? He didn't say safe, he said not as dangerous and couldn't be proven so they fudged the number. Think logically about how much second hand smoke you might get from being near a smoker, think in terms of a draw on a cigarette, then how much time you might spend around said person, at about 10% for it not going through a filter, then think in those terms how long to go through the equivolent of 1 pack, by my reconing while unplesent, few months
Dawnphyre 6 months ago in playlist Global Warming
Very sad to see Crichton, who normally is so good at interpreting and understanding science, to be so wrong on this. I can't imagine why he ended up in such a misguided place... and just before he died. I love most of his books and it is sad that this was his last legacy.
He is right about sensationalism... but that has nothing to do with the well established and understood consequences of anthropogenic global warming.
Pandonodrim 7 months ago
I don't like the tactic of journalists: "J: ¿Hey do you believe that A is B?" "M: No, actually I think that A..." (Interrupts him) "J: So you are against B?" "M: No, I believe that..." (interrupts him again) "J: Ahá... that means you are a right winger?" - interrupting people not allowing them to answer your questions is a tipical dirty yellow strategy...
MGGoblin 7 months ago
Poor Charlie Rose. And to think I used to enjoy his interviews. M.C. was the man!
kwas5101 7 months ago
How can Chrichton say Gore was wrong about Kilimonjaro? If you have eyeballs, you can see that it's lost most of its ice cap over the last century. Moron.
paulinator61 9 months ago
@paulinator61 And I suppose you think that the ice is reduced because of global warming?
henkvanderlaak 9 months ago in playlist Crichton
@paulinator61 it may have lost its ice, but does the science empirically point to the culprit being uncle sam driving his SUV? NO. at best, man-made global warming is a dogmatic belief based on consensus, not conclusive data
lovellespice 8 months ago in playlist Global Warming
i love how interviewers invite great men into their shows and then never let them finish a complete sentence. very professional. :|
Ozzzobee 9 months ago
@Ozzzobee Charlie Rose would interrupt Jesus Christ if given the opportunity.
mjn76 5 months ago
Charlie Rose is usually so smooth and poised in his interviews. What happened?!
7beers 10 months ago
Charlie Rose, God Bless his simple heart, is doing the best he can.
CARDUELIS999 11 months ago
As time passes, Crichton looks more correct, and Rose looks more like a liberal windbag.
DexterHaven49 11 months ago
@DexterHaven49 Not a liberal windbag, just a journalist way outside of his depth discussing a scientific matter.
GorterPoss 9 months ago
ColDest winter new record set all over the world and the Globull warming nuts still trying to find gullible followers LMAO
BruceH59 1 year ago
America Means Lucifer:
Are Americans really to stupid to see the Freemasons at work?. WTF peeps if you want to understand Politics you have understand it from an Esoteric view.
WarDogLRS 1 year ago
Micheal Crichton was too intelligent and rational a soul to not see global warming for what it was...A means of imposing global government and banking derivatives for profit based on pseudoscience. Only now after his death and the proof that researchers were forging data have we finally beaten back these claims.
The Earth was here long before us and we have not the power to destroy this 4 Billion year old planet...Only ourselves.
You are and always will be my hero sir.
Science > Dogma
JohnnyMac2237 1 year ago 17
Believing in an untestable hypothesis is called faith not science.This statement is based on grade school level knowledge of the scientific method. In the dark ages fortunes were made on faith in the form of indulgences. Al Gore will make those fortunes made in the dark ages look like a pittance. His net worth will certainly go into 10 figures maybe 11. If all it takes is borrowing and promoting an untestable hypothesis to become the richest man in the world,we are still in the dark ages.
youngeek 1 year ago
I don't care if you have 10000 scientists. If they say the earth is flat and not round they are wrong. It doesn't take a group of overpaid idiots to make facts. Facts are a reality weather we want to believe it or not. Albert Einstein was not a league of extraordinary scientists, he was one man. He proved his science, and that's why its fact.
Electric2000 1 year ago 5
.science daily dot com
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Your still an idiot. Global warming is a bunch of bs. It is based on a computer model, and not all the computer models predict a 'greenhouse effect.' No one is going to buy it. In my biology class in college we had to prove to our teacher that it was a waste of time learning about things that aren't true. There were 14 students and 12 of us agreed it is not an issue based on the facts we found. Go suck a cock.
Electric2000 1 year ago 2
rodale institute
Ocean level, temperature rising at higher than expected rates
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Are you sure you're not just expressing rank prejudice?
GorterPoss 1 year ago
Go and do some research check out LLnL and other national labs studies. CO2 is a problem all right but its not the only pressure we put on the environment
jfxcoll 1 year ago
Get this straight, Crichton is not trying to prove that Global Warming is not happening. What he is doing is trying to say that the data and evidence relating to Global Warming is not concrete enough to make a definite conclusion as many people are doing now. His point of view isn't just specific to Global Warming either, it is the same with his views on Genetics. He doesn't want people to 'believe' in an 'unfounded' theory like Global Warming.
LiouTao 1 year ago
Charlie Rose show made me take it down. I don't know why they didn't find the other two parts.
jkevinmccon 1 year ago 3
2:16 "....i am!"
man that was awkward.
devianaut 1 year ago
where the heck is part 1?! maybe i'm blind... :( i can't seem to find it.
devianaut 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This moron was trying to sell book. now he's dead, this was 2007. Al gore doesn't have an opinion he voices the opinion of many scientists
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll
Al Gore was sued by 30,000 SCIENTISTS for fraud. They state: "Global Warming is at best a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Scientific evidence shows that the temperature of the earth correlates with the amount of sun activity. The amount of solar bursts and sun spots directly affect the temperature of the earth."
angryamerican 1 year ago
@angryamerican absolute bull
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Gore is a perv!
jkevinmccon 1 year ago 12
@jkevinmccon publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2001/NR-01-07-01.html
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Your a complete fool. Yes, Al Gore was voicing the opinion of many scientists. One thing you don't realize is, this is OPINION not FACT. I don't care how you twist up and rally your opinions, facts will be there weather you accept them or not. Michael Crichton was a researcher, and if the data he found in his investigations showed that global warming was true, he would have been saying much different things. Fact is, science has become corrupt by money like any other group of people.
Electric2000 1 year ago
@Electric2000 I work with these scientists your talking about. 30,000 SCIENTISTS my ass no such law suit saw the light of day. It would get laughed out of court!
Look up LLnL site /str/Com1096.htm
"We have shown that the burning of fossil fuel that increases atmospheric carbon dioxide and causes warming globally "
"...there is strong consensus within the scientific community that the data suggest a human origin for the global warming that is currently being observed."
jfxcoll 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Crichton was a great writer and he liked Al Gore. Al Gore used bogus facts and his movie was'nt a documentary it was just a power point presentation
holypsychopath 1 year ago
@jfxcoll Chrichton was murdered. given cancer on purpose. he spoke the truth. Gore is a liar, new world order puppet.
mrzack888 1 year ago
@mrzack888 Is there any evidence for your claim? I highly doubt it. For the sake of intellectual integrity on youtube you should try to back up your statements.
GorterPoss 1 year ago
@jfxcoll He could have wrote Jurassic Park 3 and sold more books
BorgKing001 10 months ago
someone has already posted a video. I know exactly which apartment they are in filming this from, based on the landmarks. This is about 12 blocks from where I live.
watch?v=DrAHBM5smro
UBER069 1 year ago
they have mis-tagged it as being in late march.
UBER069 1 year ago
this instant, as I type this, there is a massive hail storm in the city I live in, the warmest in Canada, coastal, with no rise in the sea level. It is late spring. During the winter, it rarely drops below 10 degrees celsius, roughly 65 fahrenheit. I know this is cold by Californian standards, but one province east of us, in the winter it can drop to 50-70 below zero. I grew up in that province BTW. So, where is the warming, as it hails on the warmest city in Canada in late spring?
UBER069 1 year ago
The ocean is the main repository of CO2. Real science shows that when the earth gets too hot, the ocean releases CO2 to cool it, which we have seen for more than 50 years now, cooling. The sun is number 1, the ocean is the number 2 driver of global temperatures. We cannot compete with rotting vegetation. Temperature changes in the deep ocean take 200-300 years to change the mean temperature of the planet. This is all fact, research it, but first turn off FOX news.
UBER069 1 year ago
all that aside, the concentration of nitrogen is higher at roughly 22% of the air we breathe, than is the oxygen content, between 12 and 16%. So, are we nitrogen breathers? CO2 concentrations are even higher and we breathe that in too. Oxygen at much higher levels becomes toxic to a human at extended intervals of exposure.
UBER069 1 year ago
why is there no part 1?
UBER069 1 year ago
Hey, Fatso - CO is poison - CO2 is not - just ask the trees ... fool ...
hdsrvc 1 year ago
@hdsrvc
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure, but a broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Anything in concentrations that disrupt human life is a pollutant.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
people who disagree with you should die, eh? Typical liberal ...
hdsrvc 1 year ago
@hdsrvc
Nah - I'm as right-wing as you are. I just like to point out the holes in some of the things people are saying re AGW. For example, you recently suggested people watch Martin Durkins 'Great Global Warming Swindle'. You are probably unaware that it has been debunked (watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE). Some of the scientists interviewed even threatened legal action because they were quoted out of context. For a well reasoned appraisal of the real issues raised by Durkin try watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Where is Part 1???
costatropicalgranada 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you can find a chart that dates back before the 1800s, and look back at least 10,000 years if not more, you will see global warming has happend over and over throughout the history of our planet at the same rate it is now if not worse.
jsmontelius 1 year ago
if you can find a chart that dates back before the 1800s, and look back at least 10,000 years if not more, you will see global warming has happend over and over throughout the history of our planet at the same rate it is now if not worse.
jsmontelius 1 year ago
He's WRONG !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
jtom94 1 year ago
LOL, Charlie Rose is just lost. In this interview he is simply not picking up what Crichton is laying down. Its actually kind of funny watching all of Crichton's comments fly over that old geezers head. Crichton is speaking in a scientific, logical sense, while Rose is still stuck in this black.white bubble of politics. Moron.
fullclip16117 1 year ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
@fullclip16117
"Crichton is speaking in a scientific, logical sense"
That's hilarious! Thanks for the laugh!
Remembermylai 1 year ago
@fullclip16117 he's also a bit of a suck
claudelebel55 1 year ago
so... Crichton knows nothing, but we should listen to Al Gore ... I understand ...
Crichton was educated as a scientist - Al Gore is a political hack who is famous because of his father ... Maurice Strong pulls Al';s strings on this one... anything the IPCC is connected with is pure BS ... CO2 in the Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ... ... lookout , GHG, the Sky is Falling!!!
hdsrvc 2 years ago 2
@hdsrvc Your right there Brother. Dont they still have an Indictment pending on Maurice Strong? Didnt his ass Flee justice to China where they couldn't Extridite him?
And i am DAMNED Proud to be a Global Warming Athiest!
LordBicen 1 year ago
@hdsrvc
"Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ..."
There are currently more than 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution there were 280ppm.
If you doubt that anything as 'dilute' as 380ppm can have any effect - do us all a favour and lock yourself in your car with a hosepipe from the exhaust. That is carbon monoxide (CO). By just 200ppm, you'd be dead.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady - Co3 is what the car emits. Carbon Monoxide is different from Carbon Dioxide which is different from Carbon Trioxide. CO2 is a compound, while CO3 is ionic emission.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069
I don't know where you get your info from but please check it. Vehicle emissions include HC, CO, CO2, O2 and NOx. There may be a little CO3 but as you say, it is an ionic emission and is unstable. People who die of vehicle emission poisoning do so of CO which has a greater affinity to red blood cells than O2.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady - people that die of vehicle emissions die of asphxiation, not C02 posioning. Where do you get your information. THe difference between you and me, is I actually research topics, while you just copy and paste from wikipedia or some other unreliable source.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069
Sigh. I said Carbon Monoxide dufus. Asphyxiation is what exactly? It is the inability to get oxygen to the vital organs. Carbon monoxide is the agent that prevents oxygen from reaching the vital organs. If you don't agree, just do some of this research you claim to do. But make sure you post a link to the page that says that people who die of asphyxiation don't die because of carbon monoxide.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady - you just contradicted yourself. How is a prevention of oxygen getting to the vital tissues considered CO2 poisoning? CO2 poisoning and asphyxiation are not the same thing. If you go under water, where there is no breathable oxygen, are you drowning(asphxiation essentially) or are you dyng from CO2 poisoning? There is tonnes and tonnes of CO2 in the ocean and all bodies of water.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069
For the third time - I have said nothing whatsoever about CO2 poisoning. I don't even know if there is such a thing. I was talking about carbon MONoxide.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@UBER069
A point of clarification in case you don't know the symbols for elements as per the periodic table. CO is carbon monoxide. CO2 is carbon dioxide. O is oxygen.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@Herecomesthefatlady - i posted earlier the difference between the elements. Clearly you do not read the comments you troll. You are arguing with yourself at this point.
UBER069 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UBER069
" i posted earlier the difference between the elements."
Bollocks.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
@UBER069
My point was made in response to a comment that read "CO2 in the Greenhouse is measured in parts per million, and humans produce only a small part of that ... lookout , GHG, the Sky is Falling!!!"
It is a common myth that small amounts of additional CO2 is harmless. My point is that small amounts of anything can be terribly harmful - as in carbon monoxide (CO). It takes less than 200ppm in the air to render someone unconscious, inflict irreversible brain damage and then kill them.
Herecomesthefatlady 1 year ago
Why do people criticize Crichton for being a sci-fi writer? He just does that for schticks and giggles. He's had a career spanning 40 years ranging from being a doctor to directing movies. This is the guy that wrote the F'ING ANDROMEDA STRAIN!
nikolosvalakis2 2 years ago 5
@nikolosvalakis2 I don't think he did it for giggles. Crichton used the story to try to make a point. It was his way of sharing his research and views. Charlie Rose is just lost as fullclip16117 points out. He's not able to understand anything outside the politics of the moment it seems.
bapbap24 1 year ago
Martin Durkin, sorry
hdsrvc 2 years ago
watch Michael Durkin's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' ... The IPCC is worthless, except to Maurice Strong, who will make trillions off of this hoax...
hdsrvc 2 years ago
Sorry, but you have been swindled by the Swindle! Here's an interesting article about it.
Google... Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
I recommend reliance on credible sources like AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NOAA and many others. They ALL find that in fact HUMANS are warming the planet. NONE say otherwise.
Or, just rely on some si fi writer to spew out science FICTION. If you're in denial, it must be music to your ears. But that's living a delusion isn't it?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
And for you fools that think some si fi writer has a clue, you must be in denial. There are many good sources out there but gravitating to this bozo is a clear symptom. Its almost as bad as listening to john coleman as if HE had a clue. His training was in JOURNALISM! Or, there's bob carter that is a paid corporate hack with no study to back up his opinions.
Research what AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NOAA, and many other well respected institutions have concluded.
This vid is Science FICTION!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@ReduceGHGs
you a racist murdering religious crank if you support this ipcc scam
surf4490 2 years ago
Lets, for the sake of discussion, remove the IPCC and all the work they've done from any consideration.
What are you left with? Many, many studies spanning the globe and 30 years of research. Many scientific institutions that have consided that humans are degrading our only habitat. Global warming is ONE of the symptoms.
Just for fun, try reading one of the first studies by the NAS. It's on-line.
Google... The Charney Report 1979
FMI try UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
This is why Michael Crichton had a heart attack because he was speaking out against the Global warming fraud. And yes the Global elites took him out.
goodtimesinknox 2 years ago
does anyone really think crichton the si fi writer knew anything about global warming?
hey, how about john coleman! he's about as clueless!
you deniers are pathetic. try reading what the professionals have been saying for years. its a done deal.
psteveens 2 years ago
3,000 scientist and head of weather channel are suing Al Gore and his university scientist that lied about the fraud they call global warming due to carbon dioxide. Look it up Climate gate you retard. John Holdren is a psychopath and our science czar he co wrote a book in 1979 called ecoscience in the book it has there plan in it to depopulate the globe through vaccines and poisons in the food and water. In the book it says they are planning to bankrupt the globe through global warming fraud.
goodtimesinknox 2 years ago
BS
why are you so gullible
who cares what coleman thinks
he has a degree in Journalism, big deal
plan to depopulate the globe with vaccines?
Man, you do have it bad don't you?
Try reading what the experts have been saying for years, but I bet you only read the propaganda that fits your predisposition don't you?
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Read what I wrote first then study it instead of trying to bring up other bunk crap Wiki lol no I study the facts! First study my post about John Holdren not Coleman? Your not smart.
goodtimesinknox 2 years ago
Your opinion of Holdren is adolescent. Perhaps you prefer the "scientific" opinion of michael crichton?
John Holdren is well respected and understood before many that overpopulation was a core problem. Too bad that too few listened. Obama and Clinton recognized Holdren as talented. Did anyone make use use of crichton or coleman? No, they BOTH deal with fiction. bush/cheney would have prefered them. LOL!
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
ReduceGHC a insider do not listen to this scum. ReduceGHC is playing devils advocate and he will not stop. He is Cointelpro/infraguard misinformation producer. I mean why come to video or writers youtube video he doesn't like and bash them and people that enjoy its because hes paid to start crap Cointelpro/infraguard all the way. Pure scum and I will not comment back to what ever ReduceGHG puts.
goodtimesinknox 2 years ago
Scum? That's the best you can do is resort to name calling?
Search for reasonable argument. So far it is clear you have none.
As far as "Climategate" went, you aren't too informed about that either are you?
Read what The American Geophysical Union has to say about it and avoid the glen beck-like hype.
Google... AGU Statement Regarding the Recent Release of E-mails Hacked
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
or, you can just toss all reason and listen to some si fi writer tell you what he thinks about it.
That's about as reasonable as listening to the clueless john coleman.
learn what the real experts think.
Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
No reason is hearing you say its good idea to depopulate the earth your a eugenicist plain and simple. John Holdren was caught with over 30 other scientist in emails three months ago talking openly about how globlal warming is fake and they even went as far as they were cooking the books to. Study Climategate ReduceGHG lol and you may wake up, but go headed try and comment back you will look stupid. And it better be real info against Climategate, its hard when the emails you can read anyone can
goodtimesinknox 2 years ago
Depopulate?
If you had a clue about sustainability you'd understand that population levels we have now are not sustainable given our sources of energy. Or, perhaps you think it's OK to continue to mindlessly increase the population despite the fact that resources are being depleted? Ever read a book about this? No, not likely.
Maybe its you kind or reasoning. Lets call it Populationgate! LOL
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
@goodtimesinknox
32,000 scientists -(9,000 with PHD's) singed a document directly disagreeing with AGW.
IPCC panel is NOT made entirely of scientists,20% roughly.Of which 50 directly control the 4 main data sets that are used in these computer models.They refused under FOI requests to release the Data!!!
AceDude944 2 years ago
30k scientists = debunked Oregon Petition
old news
IPCC reviewed the many, many studies that had already been done. Don't you deniers think its a bit odd that ALL our historically reliable scientific institutions basically agree on this issue? They concur that HUMANS are warming the planet and the consequences are not good. Sure, you can poke away at the edge but its a symptom of denial.
Try reading about the Anthropocene Epoch and why it is being considered.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
32,000 scientists? What, are you kidding? That's the old Oregon Petition and it was debunked as corporate propaganda years ago.
The IPCC's main job was to review scientific studies that had aready been completed.
And as for models, they are helpful but are a small percentage of the science behind anthropogenic warming. The science goes back over 30 years and its GLOBAL.
Read what a respected institutions says.
Google... NAS Global Warming 2008 Edition
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Charlie Rose is the biggest dick in the world!
archemedes314 2 years ago 2
Yes, he is quite the knob.
holomage 2 years ago
Kyoto was a fraud and didn't do a thing except making people pay for air.
CIAagent11 2 years ago
And what is as irrational as a deniers position is anyone thinking that michael crichton has a clue about global warming. Maybe he came up with his opinion thinking about a si fi book or something. They are science fiction alright.
Rely on experts from NOAA, AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NASA, NAS, and many others.
FMI... UCSUSA(dot)org
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Would ANYONE be so foolish as to think that Crichton has ANYTHING meaningful to contribute? It is amazing, sad, and true that some gullible people do.
The fact is that all of our historically reliable scientific institutions basically concur on the core issue. HUMANS are warming the planet mostly by burning fossil fuels and clearning the land.
If you think not then send me a link to the evidence. Just believing you are right doesn't cut it. Rely on the experts at NASA, AAAS, NAS, etc.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
You are presenting a false choice. You can believe that the earth has warmed over the last century, and that CO2 is one of a few greenhouse gasses that man has increased in the atmosphere is in part responsible, and also say you don't think that we will warm anywhere near the amount predicted by the models reviewed by the IPCC.
The fact is that the data does not support the position that our climate is dominated by positive feedback.
This man understands that, you don't.
EasyEs 2 years ago
"...also say you don't think that we will warm anywhere near the amount predicted by the models reviewed by the IPCC. "
NO. I did not say that.
Again, read what the experts from NASA, AAAS, NAS and other respected institutions say. Crichton is clueless. He was a si fi writer and the "science" he speaks of is fiction.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
OH man, I was speaking as in a person can say that, as in any person...
Lets see what they do say. IPCC-
A number of diagnostic tests have been proposedbut few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed
EasyEs 2 years ago
and is there a point you would like to make, sorry, but I'm missing it
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Let me guess... Feedback in the models needs improvement for better sensitivity? What understanding wouldn't benefit from improved modeling? Models are a useful tool but they are by no means the foundation of climate science.
The experts: American Geophysical Union
"AGU reaffirms the position statement approved by AGU Council in 2007. This statement is based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor."
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
No you got it 100% wrong. Climate sensitivity refers to the amount of amplification assumed by the climate system for a very small amount of warming by CO2. Ie >75% of the warming modeled for the 21st century.
So climate sensitivity is the foundation for why we care about CO2 at all in the context of global warming..
So the AGU statement doesn't matter because it doesn't deal with anything to do with the mechanism that are supposed to do this.
EasyEs 2 years ago
The AGU position doesn't matter?
Sorry, but I the odds are very good that they understand climate sensitivity, feedback loops, and the role of CO2 a bit better than most.
So, reasonably, I'll stick with them and what all the other institutions have been saying.
If you think they got it wrong and want to argure the science with them I suggest you send them a note and see if your position warrants review.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Not when it refers to our understanding of feedback mechanisms and internal variability it doesn't.
They say they don't understand it and their models vs real world data suggest they don't.
They say it in the statement I gave.. Are you capable of reading? Seriously are you?
EasyEs 2 years ago
no, you're understanding is just too deep for me.
I'll climb out and scrape off my shoes.
have a good one
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Download the report, AR4 WG1, read section 9. Re read the paragraph I gave you...
take it easy..
EasyEs 2 years ago
no interest in reading it.
Nor do I delude myself into thinking I have a better grasp of the science than the professionals.
I recommend you research what these people and the institutions they work for have been saying for years. It's simple, if you can read. AAAS, SOCC, AGU, NAS, and many others have been saying about the same thing. And again, if you think that they are wrong, great! I hope they are. But until better evidence is available, take it easy, take it from them.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I have read many of these things and I don't see evidence for the main propositions that our climate is dominated by processes that amplify small amounts of warming into huge runaway greenhouse effects.
Nor do I see them saying they belive that is a proven point.
They say clearly that the 20th century has warmed and that CO2 and methane plus land use changes from man have had a impact over the second half of the 20th century.
I believe that as well.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Great! We agree on the core issue.
I find the naysayers' positions to be uninformed and often irrational.
Hopefully public pressure will encourage sufficient changes in laws, policy, and trade practices to curb the more dire effects of GW. I have my doubts but I have my hopes as well.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
We do agree and people who disagree on this basic premise are wrong in my opinion.
That said global temperature average is not a very useful term because it is nearly impossible to accurately measure.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Yep, some regional temps are up 10 degrees while others much less. I guess a global average is something commoners like myself can easily grasp.
I think effects like ocean acidification and the reduction in fresh water supplies are more worrysome. This tinkering with mother nature may well bite us from many fronts.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I wouldn't worry about ocean acidification. I am not sure how this one got started but the science is very solid in that it will not work out the way people think.
Explaining it would take lots of room but in summery that isn't how ocean chemistry works
Think about the past with CO2 levels in the thousands of PPM, the oceans were teeming with life. Life adapts and recent science indicates very quickly.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Acidification: no, I'll rely on the experts. I recommend you read more about it. Its pretty straight forward as the oceans absorb CO2. The consequences are not good as the base of a major food chain is jepordized.
Life adapts, sure. But there are times when it can't. Humans adapt but I would prefer they suffer as little as possible.
Read this recent book.
Hot, Flat, And Crowded.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
I have that book I will get around to reading it..I have a few ahead of it.
Uh the experts don't say that as far as I know.
Richardson and Gibbons (2008):
no observed declines in the abundance of calcifiers with lowering pH have yet been reportedthe role of pH in structuring zooplankton communities in the North Sea and further afield at present is tenuous.
The danger threshold is 6000ppm.. I would accept that perhaps that is wrong..
EasyEs 2 years ago
Google...New Study Details Ocean Acidification in the Caribbean
"Previous NOAA studies have shown that a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans place in the atmosphere each year ends up being dissolved into the ocean. The result is the ocean becomes more acidic, making it harder for corals, clams, oysters, and other marine life to build their skeletons or shells."
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
As for this claim they are hypothesizing what will happen,and the study i pointed out gathered actual data on the subject and found out that the answer isn't clear and many factors are in play.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Look I don't want to say I am right you are wrong. My point of engaging in this debate is such that to prove there is a robust debate and that in no way is the science settled.
You may turn out to be right...I am at this point convinced that you are not.
EasyEs 2 years ago
There's no credible debate over the core issue among those that are actively working in the research; HUMANS are warming the planet. This is settled science. Among the less informed the debate rages on and is propagated by vested interests.
I rely on the best science I can find. If they are wrong, fine. Although you state it, you haven't demonstrated that anything I've said is wrong. I'm open to being corrected. I welcome it.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
No but the core issue is not that.
The CO2 we put in the air today warms us less then the stuff in the 1950s. It is a logarithmic effect. From 280ppm to 400ppm has the ability to warm the earth 1C roughly. From 400PPM to 700ppm is only about .4C.
This isn't in disagreement.
Where there is no consensus is if this .4C warming will be amplified by feedback processes.
That is the question that matters. These organizations don't deal with this in their statements.
EasyEs 2 years ago
That (.4C) seems to be YOUR core issue.
What is more important is the established fact that humans are degrading the only habitat we have to sustain ourselves. Global warming IS the core issue on this blog. From a much broader perspective GW is ONE symptom of degradation. This is occurring because our societies are unsustainable in the long run.
I recommend not missing the forest for the trees. But sure, the warming may accelerate due to feedbacks making the problem worse.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Yes it is my core issue. 1 to 1.5C warming and cooling is very common and isn't new to nature. Assuming that where we are now or were at the beginning of the 20th century is the ideal temperature for nature is absurd.
I worry about the environment, I work very hard to preserve wetlands where I live (Nova Scotia). And I am very very worried that we will lose sight of real problems in trying to solve what I feel is a non existent one.
EasyEs 2 years ago
You apparently thing the warming is very common. ALL the historically reliable scientific institutions that have studied the issue think it isn't. So who am I to believe? Trick question. It is hard for me to understand how you think you know better. Puzzling.
Wetlands - we've lot about 95% of what we had. There were considered "waste land" without value; a crime against nature and a disservice to ourselves and our future generations. (RFK Jr's book Crimes Against Nature, good book)
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
That isn't true, slight warming episodes are very common in many proxies. Mann and Briffa in no way represent the scientific communities view on this matter.
What I think you should do is be very honest when you research things. I am a scientist and you have to be very careful about group think, and drawing conclusions from small amounts of data.
Also the words Peer Review mean very little in the context of proved science, all it means is it passes a standard to be printed. That's all...
EasyEs 2 years ago
It isn't true? What? What all the institutions have concluded? What makes your opinion more reliable? Where is you evidence?
You MAY work as a "scientist" at the ripe age of 29 but I doubt that you have anything to do with the climate sciences.
Again, why is your opinion of more value? If you don't work in the climate sciences and have no study to back up your opinion, I recommend you use your assumed reasoning skills to come to a rational conclusion. For now, you are highly suspect.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
No the problem is that you read far to much into their statements then is actually beings said.
I am a scientist and I know climatologist and I have developed qualitative and quantitative methods of integrating artic biostratigraphy with other forms of data including paleoclimate data.
Right now I do geophysical modeling. My specialty is integrating different data sets from various collection methodologies.
EasyEs 2 years ago
You have developed a credible analysis?
IF, IF, IF that were true why not publish?
You however didn't answer the question. What makes your opinion more reliable?
I find it entirely unlikely; a professional scientist, one with an analysis that debunks what all the credible institutions have concluded, one with a name I recognize, and one that is posting here on this remote YouTube blog.
BS No sale.
Honesty is a valued quality.
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
No my opinion is not that I am more qualified then experts it is that I feel the experts who say that we will not warm at a catastrophic rate make a better case.
It is my feeling that you believe these people don't exist or are totally unfamiliar with their work.
Credible institutions are not saying that the climate is doomed. They are saying that in large part the earth has warmed and Co2 is in part responsible. They are not speaking about the reliability of the models.
EasyEs 2 years ago
My warning bell went of right away with climate change when the scientist who supported it all claimed that they should be trusted on the basis of peer review. At the same time allowed to withhold raw data.
Peer Review is the first step to proving a hypothesis, it gets it out there for other people to see. If other scientist can replicate the results from the raw data then confidence in the theory grows. ..
In many area's Climate change fails independent replication.
EasyEs 2 years ago
@EasyEs But isn't the climate a non-linear chaotic system? How reliable are the predictions you speak of?
GorterPoss 2 years ago
reliable is not likely the best description
without better evidence, contrived works better
ReduceGHGs 2 years ago
Not very, they replicate surface temperatures okay in the past..not so much for the future and not at all for the upper atmosphere.
EasyEs 2 years ago
Global warming or climate change has been proven by the environmental changes in the north and south poles...why ignore it..??
freein2339 2 years ago
because it HASN'T been proven. Overall ice cover is unchanged. If the raw data that proves the case is so convincing, why did Hansen, Mann, Jones et al not take care enough to ensure it did not go missing (read: shredded, burned, destroyed)? Why do they have to rig the "peer review" process?
You, sir, are an idiot.
Zil2112 2 years ago
Maybe you should said that right wing bullshit to the people that live in those areas and the polar bears that drown because the ice is melting...get a fucking clue and stop parrotting the same stupid conservative nonsense...do some homework asshole....
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 I agree with Zil2112....Right wing lmao!!! I used to be an Anarchist-Communist, have an MA in Environmental Politics! But you know better? If you lost the temper, nastiness inside of you.....
dmj481 2 years ago
That only proves that you are as dumb as he is...do the research and stop ignoring the truth...
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 whatever YOU say!
dmj481 2 years ago 2
no problem....
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 I didnt say there was not a problem ;)
dmj481 2 years ago 2
Exactly...you have your head in the sand and you refuse to deal with the truth..Climate change or global warming is a fact..Now are people trying to make millions or better said billions off it...yes...But the facts are very clear..just like the inside job of 911...
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 Better my head stuck n the sand than up my own arse like yourself! it is not scientific fact at all ;) And please dont bring 911 into this unless you want to bring in PNAC, decline of US hegemony and why exactly theres a need for a global warming scam, etc...now jog on!
dmj481 2 years ago 2
I'll bring whatevet I want to bring into the discussion..f you don't like it ..don't read it and shut the fuck up..The changes in climate are facts and the crooks are out there to collect on that fact...That's old news you idiot but in the meantime the climate is still changing and the earth is getting warmer , the ice caps are melting , etc etc...Tell you what , go to Alaska and talk to the people that have lived their for thousands of years not the right wing "Palinites" but normal people
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 Idiot? You global warming supporters love using that eugenical term, i wonder why that is ;) "The changes in climate are facts and the crooks are out there to collect on that fact", thats been exactly my point!!! And actually we are not getting warmer at all! "the ice caps are melting" as they always have done in the past and do every year to a degree....you know the Vikings used to farm on Greenland which is now near impossible with permafrost? As for right-wing...
dmj481 2 years ago 2
you obviously don't listen to anyone and didn't read what i posted....maybe that was remember ;)
dmj481 2 years ago 2
If you don't think global warming is not a problem then go to the regions where it has been must affected and convince them that your "theory" is correct...and save a few polar bears while you're at it.....idiot...
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 Polar bears......who's populationhas actually increased in recent years...not decreased? Who can swim 20+ miles and you have the cheek to call me 'idiot' bye bye
dmj481 2 years ago 2
SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.
freein2339 2 years ago
Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 Yer...adapted to swim in your words 60+ miles.....grow a brain!
dmj481 2 years ago 2
In Hudson Bay, Canada, the site of the most southerly polar bears, a study by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 Er....for starters you are talking about one specific survey taken in one particular area..........i think it's you that needs to do their own research!
dmj481 2 years ago 2
In their search for food, polar bears are also having to roam further south, rummaging in the dustbins of Canadian homes. Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the explorer who has been to the North Pole seven times, said he had noticed a deterioration in the bears ice habitat since his first expedition in 1975.
Each year there was more water than the time before, he said. We used amphibious sledges for the first time in 1986
freein2339 2 years ago
Not sure how true this is but it's worth researchimg...try it you might like it...idiot..
"The 340 residents of Newtok, Alaska will soon be among the first climate refugees in the United States. Global warming has battered the tiny coastal town: As average yearly temperatures rise, coastal ice shelves melt as does the permafrost on which the town sits.
freein2339 2 years ago
The Ninglick River has overtaken the town as the ground level simultaneously sinks. As a result, the towns scattered buildings are connected by a network of boardwalks across the mud. With the forces of nature arrayed against them, the townspeople have now voted to relocate their town to a new site nine miles inland, on higher ground by the river.
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 the only idiot as you keep putting it in Eugenical terminology is you! 'first climate refugees' you dont know if this true..pffff.....you dont know anything from the sounds of it except what you read to suit you predjudices and arrogant views!
dmj481 2 years ago 2
Ignoring the truth is not the way to learn wisdom...or use common sense...grow up little one and stop acring like an idiot...thus ended the lesson....
freein2339 2 years ago
@freein2339 pot, kettle, black! You 'ended' lol the lesson with your arrogance, inability to debate and aggressiveness!
dmj481 2 years ago
The good thing is that people are not afraid anymore, to speak out against the scam. The emails are the beginning of the end of AGW.
conchman 2 years ago 4
I'm glad that people are starting to wake up to this, the greatest con job in the history of mankind.
yajneslo 2 years ago 6
...and now we have the hacked emails exposing the fraud of "global warming". Google "Hacked emails" + "Global Warming".
ednraleigh 2 years ago 4
Thats one tough interviewer, No bs
FeilimW 2 years ago
Predominant carbon sinks are the oceans. Why can't they take mere extra 5% of carbon? Could it be that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow the temperature change and not the other way around?
zefvor 2 years ago 3