HowTheWorks Dude I hate to burst your bubble but scientist around the world have shone tangible evidence of the existence of man-made climate change occurring, even very conservative run European governments are accepting the theory of global warming and guys such as Lindzen only criticize evidence discovered by others and do not launch expeditions of their own to find their own tangible evidence to prove their theory
@spearfisherman308 Sorry but you are wrong .. there is no evidence ... you are repeating propaganda as if that were the only way to get a good environmental citizen high ... Try fighting for real environmental issues instead of this cap tax trade boondoggle .. which will make some rich very rich .. and political leaders more powerful ... You dont realize what you are fighting for!
@kagiso3741 guess who is making billions of dollars every day we don't act upon climate change. It is you who is eating up corporate propaganda and who is fighting for their interest.
Tenure. Even if you defend creationism, you would still have a job if you have tenure. If being not fired is some indication of academic legibility, you should be supporting creationism as well, as there are lots of creationists with tenure. I am a global warming alarmism skeptic.
@darthcurtin83 Um, do you know that the MIT meteorology department, full of countless luminaries as bright as Lindzen, basically ACCEPT the science behind Global Warming? Are they any LESS credible?
This guy is basicly telling that NOAA NAS NASA and IPCC and all those scientists are wrong. We can't afford to believe 1 guy, we can't have this AGW wrong. At least try to be open minded and don't just choose the easy way. It's an experiment and the entire world and all his population are in it. If people promote inaction and or delaying action it will perhaps costs suffering and deaths. Google the Pakistan floods, you really want to gamble on the fact it won't happen again and more often?
A hero of independent thought & the search for Truth.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
There are the 'technologically elite' not people like bill gates or the google brothers, rich bezos, etc, but people who funded them and funded the 90's dot bomb era. They were the ones who got paid first and made their billions. Then they got their money and got out quickly, these people are so disconnected from reality that they live in a star trek world where the only way to 'technical advancements' is through destruction. It is a subconcious issue with them, they dont even realize it.
So whats their 'next pet project' considering that they have money to throw around? In their mind there has to be a way to manipulate the climate, because doing that requires huge amounts to technology. Technological innovation means theres money to be mined. So these technologically 'elite' think that they are the driving force to technological innovation. Arrogance breeds arrogance.
Oh yeah, these same type of people helped fund youtube too.
One more note on the funding issue, there are government grants that exist to help pay for incubating companies involved in new technologies. Thats how amazon got its start, thats partially how google got its start. So the government money is there, however these companies somehow make it their moral obligation to meddle in politics with a leftist bend. Thats where it becomes troubling.
@ThunderAppeal "In their mind there has to be a way to manipulate the climate"
Even if it were possible their interest is not in manipulating the Earth's climate, large masses of air, but rather the political climate. In other words they wish to manipulate large masses of people; although large masses of Hot Air are involved in this.
When most of the Earth's food crops first appeared 2 million years ago , there was twice the co2 in the atmosphere as today . In fact there has been times in the Earth's resent geological past when co2 levels have been 10 times as great as today . No problem then , no problem now .
@awish4truth Most of our food is based on grain, only bred in the last 15000 years.
I would be interested to see what evidence there is that CO2 levels were as high as today as recently as 2 million years ago. My understanding was that CO2 was last at modern levels 15 million years ago (Tripati et al 2009 - "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years") when sea levels were 30 metres higher and temperature was several degrees warmer.
Ernst-Georg Beck of Germany has studied thousands of C02 gas readings made by scientists from between 1812-1960 which may indicate that atmospheric c02 has been in the 300 to 400+ parts per million in the 1800's and recently in the 1940's showing much more fluctuation than the static non changing 280 PPM the IPCC says was the static number for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Hell a Wikipedia articles even says it stayed the same for 20 million years! Not reality.
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
The problem with Lindzen is that he has damaged his own credibility with the publication of his paper in '09 with Choi. This paper has been roundly criticized by both AGW proponents and skeptics for both it's methodology and conclusions. The paper claimed to prove that IPCC models about feedbacks were incorrect, but in fact when corrected, they support IPCC findings, as far as I can tell. It does reduce the weight I give LIndzen's skepticism.
So, the planet will only warm by half a degree in 25 yrs because the feedback assumptions were off. I don't think he's a denier. I think this is how he makes his money.
I didn't write the following, all credits to the original poster. GW is the key to the new Global Warming Alternative Energy Monopoly that will ensure continuing energy enslavement to global corporations.
"Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green
GIMs founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs.They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson,
former co-head of GSAM pan-European research;and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations & Hank Paulson former Secretary of the Treasury under George W Bush & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Influence peddling & Global warming profiteering & promotion of GW. Can we say RICO?"
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
I do not "admit" to anything of the sort. Likewise I'm aware of some nefarious practices from advocates of this theory - such as putting the names of scientists that do not support their theoryies on their reports, misrepresenting, hiding or falsifying data, and the like.
I think it also approriate to note, as so many scientists who critique this theory are dismissed as "working for oil companies", that many of those who champion the theory profit themselves from their stance, and handily.
I hope you aren't claiming that human activity is responsible for Milankovitch cycles. I'm certainly not trying to "explain away" recurring long range pattern variances in the earth's generally elliptical orbit, and their cumulative effect on climate - but you must be well aware that they are not responsible for the seasons, and if you're not I'd seriously doubt your expertise in any other climate-related matters.
thank u very much for the information through the video sir......global warmin can only be stopped if there is proper awareness n education among the peoplee about the fact that this is real....n this video definately helps to the cause that i am working on that is to "CREATE AWARENESS N EDUCATE PEOPLE TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING"....thank you very much
even AGW advocates are forced to admit that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect (as Dr. Cruel said @95%) comes from water vapor. CO2 is a relatively minor GG, and the human contribution of CO2 is yet again a small portion (@5%) of that. Unless they can prove that human-generated CO2 is somehow "different" and has a magnified effect, the theoretical foundations of AGW get very shaky, very quickly upon even cursory examination.
And the earth's wobble has an effect too. But the fundamental, primary cause for seasonal temperature fluctuation on the earth is the orientation of the earth's tilt as the earth rotates.
Likewise, atmospheric water has a preponderant effect on the cumulative radiative forcing factor of the atmosphere. In regards the differential between Rf factors for CO2 and H2O, might I remind that CO2 prevalence are measured in ppm, while ater vapour is measured in percentage (up to 4%).
So the little smile is appropriate, after all. Claiming that anthropomorphic global warming is a serious effect (transcending, say, expected variances) is a bit like claiming that the earth's fluctuating distance from the sun is more important than the earth's tilt. It's the sort of thing you can only get away with only if the people you're talking to are ignorant of the actual science involved.
Earth's eliptical eccentricity is only about 0.017. Play with the numbers if you like.
That's not what I said. An adjective like "serious" has its own problems because it has inherent bias - ie, HOW serious? or, how is serious itself defined? Serious isn't defined and/or precise like standard deviation.
Furthermore, merely because a factor isn't "serious" doesn't mean that it can't contribute to future seriousness. I think of these things conceptually a bit more like the moonshot problem, where, over time, a relatively small error or variance compounds into a "serious" factor.
And on such semantic contructions can scams like anthropomorphic global warming be built.
Terms like "serious" certainly have inexact meanings. So also "negligible". So also "hogwash". Using the term "bad science" to describe the anthopomorphic global warming theory also employs a biased term.
And yet, legitimate and real meaning is still conveyed - in the same way common sense trumps Derrida's deconstructionism.
I suggest you reconsider the concept of proportion. Therein lies the key.
Oxygen as well as the moon affect life on the earth. Oxygen, however, has a much, much stronger affect.
The primary reason for the climate phenomenon known as seasons on the earth (such as the tendency for snow to appear during some months and not others) is the earth's relational tilt with repect to the sun . Orbital eccentriciy has a negligible influence by comparison. This isn't an issue of controversy.
Write up as many posts as you care to about it. It won't change the empirical facts.
The tilt of the earth on its axis whilst in orbit, and not the distance from the earth to the sun, is what causes the variations in Earth's temperature known as "seasons".
For a cite to the 95% water vapour figure, see S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
Your advice is quite sound, however. I'd suggest you follow it.
Given that water vapor is responsible for at least 95% of the actual warming due to atmospheric conditions, I would think it would rate above CO2 levels. I might also remind that the earth's orbit and tilt seems to have a big effect on climate change each year - or so empirical evidence would annually have us believe.
Really, it's amazing how much bad science has to be absorbed to make anthropomorphic global warming seem reasonable. You'd be surprised.
This is one seriously brilliant video that everyone should share with their Algore-following friends and acquaintences. Dr. Lindzen exposes the truth of the global climate's current state with hard facts, raw data, and empirical truths of science. How on earth man-made global warming hoaxers continue to circle the wagons around their universe of deceit and lies remains absolutely beyond my intellectual honesty. Outstanding video and one undeniably informative hour of education.
I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to say where he works and who his associates are. There's some global warming crazies who would probably try to harass him for being a "traitor to the planet" or some shit like that.
Ah. Big Oil is trying to surpress anthropomorphic global warming, just like the US government tried to surpress the evidence for a "population bomb", and the Big Car companies tried to surpress technology for more efficient cars. And so on.
I've heard it all before. I've also seen these eco-scams dropped and forgotten when they become too ridiculous to support any longer. Like how we're meant to forget the earlier "Ice Age" theory (which was also "surpressed" by Big Oil).
You sir, are an idiot. Not that you would be honest but I am willing to bet you did not watch this video and you think that that Climategate emails dont mean anything.
Your sarcasm radar apparently is entirely on the fritz.
That said, if you think I actually believe the anthropomorphic global warming theory is true, you'd be entirely correct in calling me an idiot (or worse).
As for the "Climaquiddick" e-mails, I am not surprised by them in the least. As I remarked, this is not the first ecoscam "disaster" I've managed to stubbornly survive through. Much like the polar bears, I seem to be impervious to even the most earnest scaremongering.
Fari enough. Let me spell it out in plain English.
Environmentalist activists don't care about science. Most of them are socialists, and hate the developed world - because it's developed. So hearing that they'd lie, cheat and steal to press a bogus claim for profit, after having see them do the same for the last three decades or so, is not at all shocking to me. Not at all.
Environmentalism is a very profitable business. Expect more of the same, regardless of how outrageous it gets.
Please. Calling someone an idiot because you think they support the latest eco-nutter theory is nothing to apologize for. The reason these lunatics have been getting away with increasing levels of absurdity is because the public has been too polite with them.
Not that I like being insulted, mind. But I hope you understand that, in this case, I heartily approve. ( :
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
"The second change that took place the average temperatures were much higher than we know today, approximately 10 C higher which would have made the carbon dioxide levels would certainly have played a part although the paleoclimate data do not match theoretical predictions."
Its not peer reviewed, but if true why don't we talk about this? Its not like we are killing the planet even if we raise the temp 5 degrees C.
You need to realize the earth's climate is a large highly complex system with multiple feedbacks. Raising the *ave*temp 5 degrees will change entirely how it functions.
We have one earth. You are advocating to play what is essentially russian roulette with everyone's future?
@wonderweasel The Earth will be fine. It humans that will be affected. Raising the temperature will do nothing to the earth. The Earth has already been ten degrees hotter in the past and has been much colder with ice ages. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions I'm fine with that. But if you want to do it by taxing the middle and poor class I AM NOT OK with that. Combustion is what humans do. Plant more trees.
@Orionx26 - I never suggested anything about taxing structure this is entirely your creation.
My concern is the consequences to human life as we continue to run out this global warming experiment. Raise the global ave temp 5 degrees will not be without consequences.
@Orionx26 you are vasty oversimplifying the problem so that is consistent with your personal world view. This is called denial. We are talking about massive changes to the earth as we known it. The plugging your ears and yelling "la la la la" will do nothing to alter this reality.
Trying to argue that man is creating too much CO2 is much the same as that we are consuming too much O2. It's a red herring that organic pollution is causing global warming. The sun is the primary source of heat and it has not been accounted for in any of the pro AGW studies. Also what about the arguement that volcanoes product more C02 that we do? Science should attempt to disprove a hypothesis before it is called theory, this sounds more like political dogma.
@wonderweasel Two people above you have excellent points. How about sun alterations? How about the fact that there was MUCH MUCH more CO2 on the planet before plants started to use it for photosynthesis? Its CO2 for gods sakes... How horrible could it possible be? Is the heat capacity for N2 and O2 higher than CO2? That makes a difference. Pollution due to volcanoes??? Come on now...
@Orionx26 - The sun, Co2 and water vapour are among the major components affecting climate. Solar input has remained relatively constant over the last few decades, but we have been seeing increases in temperature due to the increases in C02.
Try viewing: watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
---
Also
Volcanos: about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually
Fossil fuel: 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003 alone
water vapor far outranks CO2 as such a factor. its has higher specific heat, absorbs over a spectrum many times larger than CO2 or even methane. the latter two are slightly higher than O2 and N2 but not enough at 1%, or even 5% of the atmosphere to do what is being attributed to them. CO2 absorbs about the same spectrum as O3, which is small. regardless, in any gas the avg kinetic energy will be transferred to all gas molecules as entropy will spread it out. human CO2 too is insignificant.
I don't understand this whole debate we have now. To my knowledge, global warming is a part of earth's natural cycle, just like ice ages. The only debate that remains is how much humans are involved, not if it's actually true.
The peer review system is now irrelevant and a joke. It has suffered damage that will likely not be repaired for generations. Who can we thank? People like you and climategate.
Bullshit. This guy is arguing against positive feedback. We know for a fact that trapped greenhouse gases are released due to warming. We know for a fact that melting polar caps reflect less sunlight. Water vapor we have every reason to believe is saturated already. This asshole just spreads FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt). Volcanoes send up particles which are eventually cleared from the atmosphere as dust and rain.
what do you mean ' greenhouse gasses'?? CO2 mixes with O2 and N2 it doesnt 'trap' and it certainly isnt a glass ceiling like in a greenhouse that lets radiation in but keeps air contained. Hot O2&N2 rise through CO2 just fine. CO2 is barely heavier molecule, that's it, that's all that it can do to 'increase atmospheric heat capacity', is be slightly bigger. It mixes, IT DOESNT MAKE SOLID LAYERS FUCK DAMMIT!
"we know for a fact" CO2 is not Maxwell's demon. it blocks the Sun = from both sides.
I hate to break it to you, but the earth doesn't lose energy through convection. It loses energy through radiation, and CO2 absorbs certain infrared frequencies.
well Im glad to break it to you.. so does every other molecule in the atmosphere.. and they can only get so excited.. its called ionization energy.. and the heat carrying capacity of every molecule has a limit, CO2 is lower on that scale than even O2 and N2, which are far more prevalent.. remember any of that from general chem? this isnt even chess its fucking checkers! you're dismissed.
that is correct however that no serious and scientific criticism of Lindzen's major points has been made, nitpicking of irrelevancies notwithstanding.
For anyone in the trillion dollar CO2 tax camp and gore's "I wanna be a billionaire scam artist too"' fan club, to talk of financial conflict of interests, is more contemptible and disingenuous as well as delusional than if Hank Paulson swore under oath that he was the second coming of Mother Theresa.
I am amazed at these kids. They do not realize that if we force ourselves to use this expensive energy it costs more. It will cause starving and food shortages. Just because something is cleaner and greener does not make it economically feasible. Ideas of a perfect world with everything pristine are impossible. Nature itself is dirty. One volcanic eruption puts more pollution into the atmosphere then man has period.
2) Lindzen conflict of interest: tinyurl . com / y9wvm8r
Lindzen claims his research is not funded by oil interests but forgets to mention:
"Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
I've watched it. It is a straw man argument. He talks about two emails, and says "the skeptics harp on about those two emails; is that the best they've got?" He also goes on about the word "trick" -- pure straw man. The word "trick" by itself is not the problem, but the context, kind and *purpose* of the trick hinted at. There are actually DOZENS of emails clearly suggestive of serious misconduct, and the source code (which Potholer doesn't mention) is even more incriminating than the emails.
If you've read the code, you'll know it is in IDL and Fortran, and you will know it is shit, and you're just asking disingenuous questions to show how much of a snide git you are. If you haven't read the code, why should I do your homework for you? If you were genuinely interested, you'd have looked at the stuff long ago. It's been available for three weeks now, after all.
@73elephants - Asking for the lines numbers was actually a sincere question. I knew most of the programming was Fortran but I did not know any was IDL - thank you. Again I don't claim to be an expert on the programs used, but I do have statistical and programming experience. I would sincerely like to peruse the code you find reprehensible. And no I haven't perused any code yet, this is why I wanted to start with what you find objectionable and work my way out.
Ahahaha, I love it. The best you nuts have is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. Yeah, let's just forget all the data that points to climate change--and I'm not talking about sensationalized claims, but actual data--and pretend it doesn't exist so our corporate masters can continue shitting up the environment so future generations will suffer. Brilliant fucking strategy, geniuses. What a bunch of shills. Get an education, THEN have an opinion, nutbags.
Ha, a thumbs-down. That tickles me to the bone! For as much as you authoritarian morons bleat about the founding fathers, you apparently don't give a damn about what they actually said about people like you. Only a wingnut could be capable of such brazen hypocrisy.
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
this whole Climategate thing isn't a conspiracy theory, it's proven fact. They fudged the number, mislead the public, and kept peer reviewing out of the picture.
and is your "educated" opinion fact? the word of god?
Ha! You have a name for it? Again, you don't even have the relevant information, yet you feel compelled to hold an opinion about it! This was just leaked to the public what, a week ago? The facts are not in, yet you seem to know the outcome. You're charging them with conspiracy without a shred of evidence on your side. Let's see the emails, THEN decide, m'kay? Education ought to come before opinions, folks.
i have a name for it? The Guardian has a name for it, i didn't make that one up. The e-mails were picked up b various news agencies and the CRU confirmed the authenticity. Now if you are paranoid about a big conspiracy, then i find it absolutely hilarious that you believe in global warming in the first place
Uh, you're the only one insisting on a conspiracy, brainiac.
The bottom line is this: anyone who thinks these emails will somehow invalidate climate change science A) doesn't know a thing about how science works and therefore B) cannot be taken seriously on the issue.
The integrity of science is based on the practice of openness and peer review. A few questionable letters from a single institution does not negate the same or similar conclusions reached independently elsewhere.
presimianproduct. Extraodinary how wilfully ignorant, conformist, boring, incurious, reactionary and logical fallacy sodden many of these silly grossly immature and indoctrinted alleged students are. Embarrassing and laughable, as you are presimianproduct. Toodle ooh poops.
I'll be doing my own investigation into global warming next month. I'm going to test the melting time of ice cubes in margaritas at my test facility in Key Largo, FL. I will be fudging my numbers to prolong my stay. So, please DO NOT LEAK THIS COMMENT!
Proff Monckton says the Earth will warm up by only 1 deg F this century, that oceans will rise by 8 inches,they usually rise by about 12 inches.Look at the Have your Say on Daily Express UK,read comments,one has copied and pasted Proff Moncktons papers on climate change.Intresting reading. The british scientista involved in this fraud should be sacked and Goverments get down to the business of sorting out the mess they have created running down their own countries. Polititions are dispicable!
So you think the sea level rises by 12 inches every hundred years. Where did you get that from, the bible?
Where do you imagine all the pollution goes, up jesus' magic shitter?
Your childish ignorance and gullibility have no effect on the facts your untrustworthy nature combined with your lack of education make you completely unfit to comment.
At least his opinion is informed. This is the second time I've seen this comment from you. Are you under the idiotic impression that truth is relative? Buddy, have you really thought that one throught?
truth is truth, and will always prevail over bad science and bullshit. and over 1,000 e-mails isn't just a few letters. these e-mails prove that the doctors involved with the research manipulated the data to achieve an economic or political end.
The Guardian is a British newspaper, not a person.
and yeah, i have thought this through, the science that these guys in the CRU pushed has always been contested by their peers who have proven that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.
Yeah, because they can make SO much more money faking results for grants than they can by shilling for 100-billion-dollar industries year after year. Note the sarcasm.
I never mentioned anything about The Guardian, guy. Are you reminding yourself?
Obviously, the only studies you've read on it are from skeptics who have an agenda; y'know, like the guy in this video, who is known to have been on Big Oil's payroll. They have a vested interest in bad science, sparky. The emails prove nothing.
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
All a SCAM,the British scientists involved in this cover up have all stood down,but they should be sacked,thank god for the russian hackers.Proff Monckton,a top British scientist says its all a scam,that since 1995 the earth has not warmed & since 2001 it has been cooling down,that vikings were breeding cattle on Greenland thousands of year ago.Goverments are dispicable,it is all a TAX grabbing exersize to get them out of the mess they got themselves into!
HBSchool is right, the science requires conjecture about the future. That's what makes things falsifiable. and the principles can still be tested in a lab.
One of the claims by Global Warming Doomsdayers is that you'd have "climate refugees" moving from the coast as a result of rising oceans, and how that would be a big problem for inland areas.
Then I read about the number of "tax refugees" moving inland out of California and New York already.
It's pretty ironic that blue states are responsible for inland migration that is clearly not catastrophic.And Nevada advertising for them is just hilarious,
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That'd be california the place ronnie retard and the arnoldater destroyed. You don't even know what you're talking about you fucking halfwit hillbilly.
Anyone notice the fuzz (ammount of allowable play) in the graphs the climategateists use is larger than the amount of temp change? Seems like an artificial way to drive up their lie simply due to the fact they claim the data can be off as with the result. You can almost draw a straight line through the fuzz.
What a shock that folks whose job depends on there being a climate change problem found that there is a climate change problem. Quick everyone lets give them all of our money to solve this thing before the Earth bursts into flames.
A bigger problem is Global Photon Change (GPC) where the Northern hemisphere is getting darker and colder. It used to be called Global Photon Depletion (GPD), until it was discovered that the Southern hemisphere is getting lighter and warmer. If this isn't stopped in time, the entire Northern hemisphere will be a dark, lifeless, frozen wasteland in 10 years. While the South will be a burnt, lifeless, wasteland.
But I have a solution.
...It involves something I sell called "Photon Credits"...
Wow what a great idea, can I buy Photon Credits on credit? Please sign me up for your life long plan. By the way I heard the wasteland would only take 5 years maybe less.
Yeah, because it couldn't have been the case that scientists collected data and made theories based on it. No, it just had to be a conspiracy in which the evil scientists thought there ought to be global warming, so they just made everything up.
Fantastic failure, fella. You clearly have no understanding of how science works. Why don't you try actually figuring it out before holding an opinion and making ignorant comments like this? Is that really so hard for you people?
So, global warming, let's see: "The Greatest Threat to Life on Earth"
Greenhouse gasses
CO2 = bad
Methane = worse
These two gases are produced primarily by living beings. This then must lead to the conclusion that; the greatest threat to life on earth is..... Life on Earth!
Now let's see, how do we solve this problem, hmmm?
Did Lee really watch this whole video and not get that Richard Lindzen actually accepts that global warming is real? Because watching his other videos it seems like he thinks that global warming is a lie.
How did you get the impression LIndzen actually accepts (man made) global warming is real? Set the time to 52:04 where he says after all the previous analysis "so where does this leave us?" On the screen it reads in red letters "What we see is that the very foundation of global warming alarm (namely postive feedback) is wrong."
He dismisses the models used to calculate how much the earth will warm in the future. He calls them unscientific. Same goes for the doom scenarios.
He does agree however that the earth has warmed over the last century and that there is "clear evidence" that humans have an influence on the climate.
He says there is no way to determine the magnitude of global warming, the effects of it or the impact of humans on it and that therefore there is no reason for alarm.
@honestann to address your first point ( a very valid one, I might add) maybe I'm wrong but perhaps the curtailing of the hot air/increased CO2 levels could be drastically reduced if the global warming nutball whackjobs would stop wasting oxygen and just shut the hell up....that would reduce the problem by about 75%.....what a concept, huh?
Yup. Even better perhaps, they should sleep far longer every day, since humans exhale far less CO2 when they're asleep. Or they could just stop breathing altogether.
The Global Warming debate never should have gotten this far. The data collection method used was so flawed, that no conclusion could have been reasonably drawn from it. Now there's fraud involved. Which not only taints every project those "Scientists" were involved with, but the entire Peer Review process, as well. It's time to prosecute. Not only for the hoax, but for the damage done to scientific integrity. These people have done more to damage science than the Inquisition. Unforgivable.
Even if the planet was warming, so frigging what? We'd just farm in Canada and build dikes around the big cities. Most ecos hate humanity, anyway, so why would they want a planet conducive to our life? The earth weighs 6x10^24 tons and has survived countless meteorite impacts and Rosie O'Donnell, man can do nothing that would 'kill' the planet.
it snowed today...in Texas, it hasnt gotten to 60 degrees all day (i know because i was there), where was global warming when i wanted it!?!?!? *sniffle*
If it's not ok for a scientist to NEED data that further promotes climate change, is it ok for another scientist to NEED data that denies climate change?
If you go outside right now and you feel cold....then that is the end of the global warming aurgement right there.
If you are silencing people and doing everything you can to smear them for refusing to believe we are cuasing the earth's warming, then you are not a scientist....but a fear monger.
If you look at the temperatures decreasing and see the top 'scientists' admitting it and trying to hide it....its the end of the global warming right there
I appreciate your efforts every time you make an vid to call BS. Keep up the good work. These deniers of what is now known to be true are just wanting to tear down America any way they can. And AGW is a loo loo of a way to do it. They be hatin'. Mostly they are not free people and it drives them nuts that we are. So they want to drag us down to their level. Thank God we have guns. That alone scares the bejeebus out of 'em so they'll stay home and hurl insults at us. Stay, sheep, stay! Good boy.
Just because someone has a Ph.D does not mean they wont lie to get what they want. They only had other scientist who agreed with them peer-review their work, so thats worthless. I am so sick of this if you dont have a degree in whatever or published paper so you cant judge or say a word crap!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Regardless of whether or not data was destroyed or altered in this case, the fact of the matter is that human induced global warming is a proven fact. There have been thousands of peer reviewed journals across many unrelated scientific institutions on this issue. There is a near 100% consensus. Anyone who denies human induced global warming is rejecting the scientific method.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@HTWW. Congratulations genius, I suppose the entire scientific community consisting of thousands of scientists colluded over the past several years in a conspiracy to generate the illusion of human induced global warming. Dumbarse. Lawyers are not qualified (or trustworthy!) to analyse scientific data.
Lindzen is a contrarian crank, who insists that tobacco is not nearly so harmful as all those crazy doctors say it is.
He cannot even convince one of the few remaining credentialed scientists in the denier camp, Dr Roy Spencer.
google
roy spencer lindzen choi
quote:
"Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, ... and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors conclusions."
You got that tobacco B.S. from an old Newsweek article that didn't even quote the context, and nevertheless it would be irrelevant to the statistically insignificant data genius.
Most of your videos make similar irrelevant arguments to the actual data and science.
It is pathetic.
When you actually tried to debate, Chris Horner embarrassed you.
Your argument at the end about "trends" demonstrated you're just an Al Gore apprentice.
Chris Horner got his ass kicked, in spite of lying to my face, and he knows it, no amount of video editing can change the fact. Tell him I said hi, and ready to go anytime, this time, don't run away.
meanwhile, in typical fashion, you insult and denigrate, but offer no fact or citation to counter mine.
Perhaps you should watch my vids more often, you might at least learn something about how to cite a source.
HowTheWorks Dude I hate to burst your bubble but scientist around the world have shone tangible evidence of the existence of man-made climate change occurring, even very conservative run European governments are accepting the theory of global warming and guys such as Lindzen only criticize evidence discovered by others and do not launch expeditions of their own to find their own tangible evidence to prove their theory
spearfisherman308 9 months ago
@spearfisherman308 "conservative run European governments" lmao
reallysecretusername 7 months ago
@spearfisherman308 Sorry but you are wrong .. there is no evidence ... you are repeating propaganda as if that were the only way to get a good environmental citizen high ... Try fighting for real environmental issues instead of this cap tax trade boondoggle .. which will make some rich very rich .. and political leaders more powerful ... You dont realize what you are fighting for!
kagiso3741 6 months ago
@kagiso3741 guess who is making billions of dollars every day we don't act upon climate change. It is you who is eating up corporate propaganda and who is fighting for their interest.
StarcrossedPacific 6 months ago
@darthcurtin83
Tenure. Even if you defend creationism, you would still have a job if you have tenure. If being not fired is some indication of academic legibility, you should be supporting creationism as well, as there are lots of creationists with tenure. I am a global warming alarmism skeptic.
LogicalFlawDetector 11 months ago
@darthcurtin83 Um, do you know that the MIT meteorology department, full of countless luminaries as bright as Lindzen, basically ACCEPT the science behind Global Warming? Are they any LESS credible?
TheStigsIndianCousin 1 year ago
Smug little fukheads. They will all be embarrassed by the time they grow some genitalia.
ecp73 1 year ago
This guy is basicly telling that NOAA NAS NASA and IPCC and all those scientists are wrong. We can't afford to believe 1 guy, we can't have this AGW wrong. At least try to be open minded and don't just choose the easy way. It's an experiment and the entire world and all his population are in it. If people promote inaction and or delaying action it will perhaps costs suffering and deaths. Google the Pakistan floods, you really want to gamble on the fact it won't happen again and more often?
cypress1337 1 year ago
@cypress1337
Google the 1931 China flood. Google Julius Caesar's description of the area which is now Holland, completely underwater.
I guess according to you it's a good idea to cut your own throat because you hear someone walking down the hall.
XKS99 1 year ago
@cypress1337
this isnt just one random phd guy. hes was a harvard and is now an MIT professor on the subject matter.
evoneal 1 year ago
A hero of independent thought & the search for Truth.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
Giordano Bruno
glebedigital 1 year ago 2
There are the 'technologically elite' not people like bill gates or the google brothers, rich bezos, etc, but people who funded them and funded the 90's dot bomb era. They were the ones who got paid first and made their billions. Then they got their money and got out quickly, these people are so disconnected from reality that they live in a star trek world where the only way to 'technical advancements' is through destruction. It is a subconcious issue with them, they dont even realize it.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
So whats their 'next pet project' considering that they have money to throw around? In their mind there has to be a way to manipulate the climate, because doing that requires huge amounts to technology. Technological innovation means theres money to be mined. So these technologically 'elite' think that they are the driving force to technological innovation. Arrogance breeds arrogance.
Oh yeah, these same type of people helped fund youtube too.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
One more note on the funding issue, there are government grants that exist to help pay for incubating companies involved in new technologies. Thats how amazon got its start, thats partially how google got its start. So the government money is there, however these companies somehow make it their moral obligation to meddle in politics with a leftist bend. Thats where it becomes troubling.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThunderAppeal "In their mind there has to be a way to manipulate the climate"
Even if it were possible their interest is not in manipulating the Earth's climate, large masses of air, but rather the political climate. In other words they wish to manipulate large masses of people; although large masses of Hot Air are involved in this.
"these same type of people helped fund youtube"
Q.E.D.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 1 year ago
When most of the Earth's food crops first appeared 2 million years ago , there was twice the co2 in the atmosphere as today . In fact there has been times in the Earth's resent geological past when co2 levels have been 10 times as great as today . No problem then , no problem now .
awish4truth 1 year ago 12
@awish4truth Most of our food is based on grain, only bred in the last 15000 years.
I would be interested to see what evidence there is that CO2 levels were as high as today as recently as 2 million years ago. My understanding was that CO2 was last at modern levels 15 million years ago (Tripati et al 2009 - "Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years") when sea levels were 30 metres higher and temperature was several degrees warmer.
Mechness 1 year ago
@awish4truth
Ernst-Georg Beck of Germany has studied thousands of C02 gas readings made by scientists from between 1812-1960 which may indicate that atmospheric c02 has been in the 300 to 400+ parts per million in the 1800's and recently in the 1940's showing much more fluctuation than the static non changing 280 PPM the IPCC says was the static number for the past hundreds of thousands of years. Hell a Wikipedia articles even says it stayed the same for 20 million years! Not reality.
GarfoyleZanderfield 5 months ago
The polar bears are melting, the glaciers are drowning, the oceans are flooding......
JAIJAI0 1 year ago
@JAIJAI0 LOL
JanLeonard91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win
RichLOAguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
NASANAZIRACE 1 year ago
The problem with Lindzen is that he has damaged his own credibility with the publication of his paper in '09 with Choi. This paper has been roundly criticized by both AGW proponents and skeptics for both it's methodology and conclusions. The paper claimed to prove that IPCC models about feedbacks were incorrect, but in fact when corrected, they support IPCC findings, as far as I can tell. It does reduce the weight I give LIndzen's skepticism.
glennd7962 1 year ago
could you specify?
dinkolino2 1 year ago
@glennd7962
So, the planet will only warm by half a degree in 25 yrs because the feedback assumptions were off. I don't think he's a denier. I think this is how he makes his money.
jerbiebarb 1 year ago
your a climate change shill
Doversreturn 1 year ago
We seem to be making progress for sanity.
Check out the Audi "Green Police" SuperBowl commercial.
bofors7715 1 year ago
Got to admit that Seigmund is one dynamic fellow. I would have liked to have been there.
JuanVoyce 1 year ago
I didn't write the following, all credits to the original poster. GW is the key to the new Global Warming Alternative Energy Monopoly that will ensure continuing energy enslavement to global corporations.
"Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green
drreedindeed 1 year ago
GIMs founding partners are studded with officials from Goldman Sachs.They include David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM); Mark Ferguson,
former co-head of GSAM pan-European research;and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations & Hank Paulson former Secretary of the Treasury under George W Bush & a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Influence peddling & Global warming profiteering & promotion of GW. Can we say RICO?"
drreedindeed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FOUND THIS:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
Human-caused global warming easily overwhelms much-hyped "cold snap"
February 5, 2010
"The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record."
To see the graph of the "UAH Globally Averaged Satellite-Based Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere, 1979-2010"
Search:
Hottest January in UAH satellite record
goog2k 1 year ago
Can this presentation possibly be any more boring?
JuanVoyce 2 years ago
The polar bears are drowning!
The glaciers are melting!
The coast is flooding!
We're all gonna die!!!!
Is that better? More interesting than science and facts?
drreedindeed 1 year ago
....not to discount your logic Mr. Reed......but the prospect of paying Al Gore to ski at his new compound in Tampa is intriguing.
mikeynomad 1 year ago
I do not "admit" to anything of the sort. Likewise I'm aware of some nefarious practices from advocates of this theory - such as putting the names of scientists that do not support their theoryies on their reports, misrepresenting, hiding or falsifying data, and the like.
I think it also approriate to note, as so many scientists who critique this theory are dismissed as "working for oil companies", that many of those who champion the theory profit themselves from their stance, and handily.
DrCruel 2 years ago
Or Dr. Richard Lindzen, and the many learned critiics of the global anthropomorphic climate theory that agree with him?
DrCruel 2 years ago
I hope you aren't claiming that human activity is responsible for Milankovitch cycles. I'm certainly not trying to "explain away" recurring long range pattern variances in the earth's generally elliptical orbit, and their cumulative effect on climate - but you must be well aware that they are not responsible for the seasons, and if you're not I'd seriously doubt your expertise in any other climate-related matters.
DrCruel 2 years ago
thank u very much for the information through the video sir......global warmin can only be stopped if there is proper awareness n education among the peoplee about the fact that this is real....n this video definately helps to the cause that i am working on that is to "CREATE AWARENESS N EDUCATE PEOPLE TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING"....thank you very much
shaan2286 2 years ago
even AGW advocates are forced to admit that the vast majority of the greenhouse effect (as Dr. Cruel said @95%) comes from water vapor. CO2 is a relatively minor GG, and the human contribution of CO2 is yet again a small portion (@5%) of that. Unless they can prove that human-generated CO2 is somehow "different" and has a magnified effect, the theoretical foundations of AGW get very shaky, very quickly upon even cursory examination.
gergenheimer 2 years ago
@DrCruel
Eccentricity as well as our elliptical orbit (and its effect on our distance from earth) are both factors in our seasons.
Very simplistically put, eccentricity is responsible for two of them; our orbit is responsible for the other two.
Again, simplistically put!!! Don't ream me out cuz I didn't want to post 15 packed comments in a row....
:-)
bushonomics 2 years ago
And the earth's wobble has an effect too. But the fundamental, primary cause for seasonal temperature fluctuation on the earth is the orientation of the earth's tilt as the earth rotates.
Likewise, atmospheric water has a preponderant effect on the cumulative radiative forcing factor of the atmosphere. In regards the differential between Rf factors for CO2 and H2O, might I remind that CO2 prevalence are measured in ppm, while ater vapour is measured in percentage (up to 4%).
DrCruel 2 years ago
So the little smile is appropriate, after all. Claiming that anthropomorphic global warming is a serious effect (transcending, say, expected variances) is a bit like claiming that the earth's fluctuating distance from the sun is more important than the earth's tilt. It's the sort of thing you can only get away with only if the people you're talking to are ignorant of the actual science involved.
Earth's eliptical eccentricity is only about 0.017. Play with the numbers if you like.
DrCruel 2 years ago
That's not what I said. An adjective like "serious" has its own problems because it has inherent bias - ie, HOW serious? or, how is serious itself defined? Serious isn't defined and/or precise like standard deviation.
Furthermore, merely because a factor isn't "serious" doesn't mean that it can't contribute to future seriousness. I think of these things conceptually a bit more like the moonshot problem, where, over time, a relatively small error or variance compounds into a "serious" factor.
bushonomics 2 years ago
And on such semantic contructions can scams like anthropomorphic global warming be built.
Terms like "serious" certainly have inexact meanings. So also "negligible". So also "hogwash". Using the term "bad science" to describe the anthopomorphic global warming theory also employs a biased term.
And yet, legitimate and real meaning is still conveyed - in the same way common sense trumps Derrida's deconstructionism.
I suggest you reconsider the concept of proportion. Therein lies the key.
DrCruel 2 years ago
Oxygen as well as the moon affect life on the earth. Oxygen, however, has a much, much stronger affect.
The primary reason for the climate phenomenon known as seasons on the earth (such as the tendency for snow to appear during some months and not others) is the earth's relational tilt with repect to the sun . Orbital eccentriciy has a negligible influence by comparison. This isn't an issue of controversy.
Write up as many posts as you care to about it. It won't change the empirical facts.
DrCruel 2 years ago
The tilt of the earth on its axis whilst in orbit, and not the distance from the earth to the sun, is what causes the variations in Earth's temperature known as "seasons".
For a cite to the 95% water vapour figure, see S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models, Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
Your advice is quite sound, however. I'd suggest you follow it.
DrCruel 2 years ago
Given that water vapor is responsible for at least 95% of the actual warming due to atmospheric conditions, I would think it would rate above CO2 levels. I might also remind that the earth's orbit and tilt seems to have a big effect on climate change each year - or so empirical evidence would annually have us believe.
Really, it's amazing how much bad science has to be absorbed to make anthropomorphic global warming seem reasonable. You'd be surprised.
DrCruel 2 years ago
This is one seriously brilliant video that everyone should share with their Algore-following friends and acquaintences. Dr. Lindzen exposes the truth of the global climate's current state with hard facts, raw data, and empirical truths of science. How on earth man-made global warming hoaxers continue to circle the wagons around their universe of deceit and lies remains absolutely beyond my intellectual honesty. Outstanding video and one undeniably informative hour of education.
Jockolantern 2 years ago
cant seem to find a guy who isnt a coward
AmmberSexyy 2 years ago
I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to say where he works and who his associates are. There's some global warming crazies who would probably try to harass him for being a "traitor to the planet" or some shit like that.
nonantianarchist 2 years ago 2
Ah. Big Oil is trying to surpress anthropomorphic global warming, just like the US government tried to surpress the evidence for a "population bomb", and the Big Car companies tried to surpress technology for more efficient cars. And so on.
I've heard it all before. I've also seen these eco-scams dropped and forgotten when they become too ridiculous to support any longer. Like how we're meant to forget the earlier "Ice Age" theory (which was also "surpressed" by Big Oil).
Bull twaddle.
DrCruel 2 years ago
You sir, are an idiot. Not that you would be honest but I am willing to bet you did not watch this video and you think that that Climategate emails dont mean anything.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
Your sarcasm radar apparently is entirely on the fritz.
That said, if you think I actually believe the anthropomorphic global warming theory is true, you'd be entirely correct in calling me an idiot (or worse).
As for the "Climaquiddick" e-mails, I am not surprised by them in the least. As I remarked, this is not the first ecoscam "disaster" I've managed to stubbornly survive through. Much like the polar bears, I seem to be impervious to even the most earnest scaremongering.
DrCruel 2 years ago 2
@DrCruel I honestly have no idea what the fuck your talking about.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
Fari enough. Let me spell it out in plain English.
Environmentalist activists don't care about science. Most of them are socialists, and hate the developed world - because it's developed. So hearing that they'd lie, cheat and steal to press a bogus claim for profit, after having see them do the same for the last three decades or so, is not at all shocking to me. Not at all.
Environmentalism is a very profitable business. Expect more of the same, regardless of how outrageous it gets.
DrCruel 2 years ago
I see, I missed your sarcasm from the original comment that I posted to you. Not sure how I missed it. We actually agree. My apologizes.
MrBoredatwork 2 years ago
Please. Calling someone an idiot because you think they support the latest eco-nutter theory is nothing to apologize for. The reason these lunatics have been getting away with increasing levels of absurdity is because the public has been too polite with them.
Not that I like being insulted, mind. But I hope you understand that, in this case, I heartily approve. ( :
DrCruel 2 years ago
5 STARS!
mainestategop 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
gmakepiece 2 years ago
"The second change that took place the average temperatures were much higher than we know today, approximately 10 C higher which would have made the carbon dioxide levels would certainly have played a part although the paleoclimate data do not match theoretical predictions."
Its not peer reviewed, but if true why don't we talk about this? Its not like we are killing the planet even if we raise the temp 5 degrees C.
Orionx26 2 years ago
You need to realize the earth's climate is a large highly complex system with multiple feedbacks. Raising the *ave*temp 5 degrees will change entirely how it functions.
We have one earth. You are advocating to play what is essentially russian roulette with everyone's future?
wonderweasel 2 years ago
@wonderweasel The Earth will be fine. It humans that will be affected. Raising the temperature will do nothing to the earth. The Earth has already been ten degrees hotter in the past and has been much colder with ice ages. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions I'm fine with that. But if you want to do it by taxing the middle and poor class I AM NOT OK with that. Combustion is what humans do. Plant more trees.
Orionx26 2 years ago
@Orionx26 - I never suggested anything about taxing structure this is entirely your creation.
My concern is the consequences to human life as we continue to run out this global warming experiment. Raise the global ave temp 5 degrees will not be without consequences.
wonderweasel 2 years ago
@wonderweasel The consequences have been felt by the earth before. Everything will be fine. Its CO2 its fine. Just don't live next to the ocean.
Orionx26 2 years ago
@Orionx26 you are vasty oversimplifying the problem so that is consistent with your personal world view. This is called denial. We are talking about massive changes to the earth as we known it. The plugging your ears and yelling "la la la la" will do nothing to alter this reality.
wonderweasel 2 years ago
Trying to argue that man is creating too much CO2 is much the same as that we are consuming too much O2. It's a red herring that organic pollution is causing global warming. The sun is the primary source of heat and it has not been accounted for in any of the pro AGW studies. Also what about the arguement that volcanoes product more C02 that we do? Science should attempt to disprove a hypothesis before it is called theory, this sounds more like political dogma.
OzoneTX 2 years ago
@wonderweasel Two people above you have excellent points. How about sun alterations? How about the fact that there was MUCH MUCH more CO2 on the planet before plants started to use it for photosynthesis? Its CO2 for gods sakes... How horrible could it possible be? Is the heat capacity for N2 and O2 higher than CO2? That makes a difference. Pollution due to volcanoes??? Come on now...
Orionx26 2 years ago
@Orionx26 - The sun, Co2 and water vapour are among the major components affecting climate. Solar input has remained relatively constant over the last few decades, but we have been seeing increases in temperature due to the increases in C02.
Try viewing: watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
---
Also
Volcanos: about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually
Fossil fuel: 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003 alone
- Volcanos = 0.7% of fossil fuel emissions
Source: USGS
wonderweasel 2 years ago
water vapor far outranks CO2 as such a factor. its has higher specific heat, absorbs over a spectrum many times larger than CO2 or even methane. the latter two are slightly higher than O2 and N2 but not enough at 1%, or even 5% of the atmosphere to do what is being attributed to them. CO2 absorbs about the same spectrum as O3, which is small. regardless, in any gas the avg kinetic energy will be transferred to all gas molecules as entropy will spread it out. human CO2 too is insignificant.
midnight9wanderer 2 years ago 3
@midnight9wanderer ...agree and water vapour doesn't appear in the climate models..go figure !
klnine 1 year ago
I don't understand this whole debate we have now. To my knowledge, global warming is a part of earth's natural cycle, just like ice ages. The only debate that remains is how much humans are involved, not if it's actually true.
mrsoultwister 2 years ago 4
@mrsoultwister We are in the middle of an interglacial period.
schizrade 1 year ago
And this little presentation was peer reviewed by WHOM?
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
The peer review system is now irrelevant and a joke. It has suffered damage that will likely not be repaired for generations. Who can we thank? People like you and climategate.
girzwald3 2 years ago
Bullshit. This guy is arguing against positive feedback. We know for a fact that trapped greenhouse gases are released due to warming. We know for a fact that melting polar caps reflect less sunlight. Water vapor we have every reason to believe is saturated already. This asshole just spreads FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt). Volcanoes send up particles which are eventually cleared from the atmosphere as dust and rain.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams So whats you point?
Orionx26 2 years ago
what do you mean ' greenhouse gasses'?? CO2 mixes with O2 and N2 it doesnt 'trap' and it certainly isnt a glass ceiling like in a greenhouse that lets radiation in but keeps air contained. Hot O2&N2 rise through CO2 just fine. CO2 is barely heavier molecule, that's it, that's all that it can do to 'increase atmospheric heat capacity', is be slightly bigger. It mixes, IT DOESNT MAKE SOLID LAYERS FUCK DAMMIT!
"we know for a fact" CO2 is not Maxwell's demon. it blocks the Sun = from both sides.
midnight9wanderer 2 years ago
I hate to break it to you, but the earth doesn't lose energy through convection. It loses energy through radiation, and CO2 absorbs certain infrared frequencies.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
well Im glad to break it to you.. so does every other molecule in the atmosphere.. and they can only get so excited.. its called ionization energy.. and the heat carrying capacity of every molecule has a limit, CO2 is lower on that scale than even O2 and N2, which are far more prevalent.. remember any of that from general chem? this isnt even chess its fucking checkers! you're dismissed.
midnight9wanderer 2 years ago
CO2 will not have a significant effect on the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
clearly you are typing too fast Boreal..
that is correct however that no serious and scientific criticism of Lindzen's major points has been made, nitpicking of irrelevancies notwithstanding.
For anyone in the trillion dollar CO2 tax camp and gore's "I wanna be a billionaire scam artist too"' fan club, to talk of financial conflict of interests, is more contemptible and disingenuous as well as delusional than if Hank Paulson swore under oath that he was the second coming of Mother Theresa.
midnight9wanderer 2 years ago 3
I love Dr Lindzen but the audio is really hard to hear. I hope there is some kind of transcript. Thank you HowTheWorldWorks, good work!
limey36 2 years ago 4
I am amazed at these kids. They do not realize that if we force ourselves to use this expensive energy it costs more. It will cause starving and food shortages. Just because something is cleaner and greener does not make it economically feasible. Ideas of a perfect world with everything pristine are impossible. Nature itself is dirty. One volcanic eruption puts more pollution into the atmosphere then man has period.
jrnault77 2 years ago 5
1) Lindzen debunked: tinyurl . com / yo5and
2) Lindzen conflict of interest: tinyurl . com / y9wvm8r
Lindzen claims his research is not funded by oil interests but forgets to mention:
"Lindzen charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
skehanselloutwhore 2 years ago 2
@skehanselloutwhore
There isn't one conflict of interest or even one thing that debunks one think Lindzen said. You're a religious zealot. End of story.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
@Howtheworldworks
I "think" you meant to type "thing".
re debunking: obviously you are afraid of letting people judge for themselves by following the link I provided.
re conflict of interest: again I will let people judge for themselves, whether the facts and the link I provided show any proof of that.
You're a liar and a pseudo-intellectual propagandist. End of story.
skehanselloutwhore 2 years ago
@skehanselloutwhore
You didn't address one thing I said, not cite one piece of evidence disputing one thing Lindzen said.
Like I said, you're a religious Zealot.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Hi, I just wanted to say hi, so...
Hi.
AbartsWorld 2 years ago
watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg ("Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails" by Potholer54)
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 4
I've watched it. It is a straw man argument. He talks about two emails, and says "the skeptics harp on about those two emails; is that the best they've got?" He also goes on about the word "trick" -- pure straw man. The word "trick" by itself is not the problem, but the context, kind and *purpose* of the trick hinted at. There are actually DOZENS of emails clearly suggestive of serious misconduct, and the source code (which Potholer doesn't mention) is even more incriminating than the emails.
73elephants 2 years ago
@73elephants - so if I am to read you correctly you have gone through the source code line by line and can confirm this conspiracy??
wonderweasel 2 years ago
I have read enough of the code to know that it is shit. I would never trust such crap code to produce any reliable results.
73elephants 2 years ago
Would it be possible for you to provide some of these lines, or tell me the line number and file name so I can confirm for myself?
Also can you tell me the programming language?
wonderweasel 2 years ago
If you've read the code, you'll know it is in IDL and Fortran, and you will know it is shit, and you're just asking disingenuous questions to show how much of a snide git you are. If you haven't read the code, why should I do your homework for you? If you were genuinely interested, you'd have looked at the stuff long ago. It's been available for three weeks now, after all.
73elephants 2 years ago
@73elephants - Asking for the lines numbers was actually a sincere question. I knew most of the programming was Fortran but I did not know any was IDL - thank you. Again I don't claim to be an expert on the programs used, but I do have statistical and programming experience. I would sincerely like to peruse the code you find reprehensible. And no I haven't perused any code yet, this is why I wanted to start with what you find objectionable and work my way out.
Thank you.
wonderweasel 2 years ago
Ahahaha, I love it. The best you nuts have is conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. Yeah, let's just forget all the data that points to climate change--and I'm not talking about sensationalized claims, but actual data--and pretend it doesn't exist so our corporate masters can continue shitting up the environment so future generations will suffer. Brilliant fucking strategy, geniuses. What a bunch of shills. Get an education, THEN have an opinion, nutbags.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
postsimianproduct:
Backed into a corner and then you have to attack?
rkoliver1 2 years ago
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
Ha, a thumbs-down. That tickles me to the bone! For as much as you authoritarian morons bleat about the founding fathers, you apparently don't give a damn about what they actually said about people like you. Only a wingnut could be capable of such brazen hypocrisy.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
gmakepiece 2 years ago
this whole Climategate thing isn't a conspiracy theory, it's proven fact. They fudged the number, mislead the public, and kept peer reviewing out of the picture.
and is your "educated" opinion fact? the word of god?
mizzlehotch777 2 years ago
Ha! You have a name for it? Again, you don't even have the relevant information, yet you feel compelled to hold an opinion about it! This was just leaked to the public what, a week ago? The facts are not in, yet you seem to know the outcome. You're charging them with conspiracy without a shred of evidence on your side. Let's see the emails, THEN decide, m'kay? Education ought to come before opinions, folks.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
i have a name for it? The Guardian has a name for it, i didn't make that one up. The e-mails were picked up b various news agencies and the CRU confirmed the authenticity. Now if you are paranoid about a big conspiracy, then i find it absolutely hilarious that you believe in global warming in the first place
mizzlehotch777 2 years ago
Uh, you're the only one insisting on a conspiracy, brainiac.
The bottom line is this: anyone who thinks these emails will somehow invalidate climate change science A) doesn't know a thing about how science works and therefore B) cannot be taken seriously on the issue.
The integrity of science is based on the practice of openness and peer review. A few questionable letters from a single institution does not negate the same or similar conclusions reached independently elsewhere.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
Gawd man, you never fail to amaze me.. thanks for this.
leonheart00 2 years ago
apparently it doesn't take much.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
presimianproduct. Extraodinary how wilfully ignorant, conformist, boring, incurious, reactionary and logical fallacy sodden many of these silly grossly immature and indoctrinted alleged students are. Embarrassing and laughable, as you are presimianproduct. Toodle ooh poops.
gmakepiece 2 years ago
I'll be doing my own investigation into global warming next month. I'm going to test the melting time of ice cubes in margaritas at my test facility in Key Largo, FL. I will be fudging my numbers to prolong my stay. So, please DO NOT LEAK THIS COMMENT!
ojiisan1945 2 years ago 6
Proff Monckton says the Earth will warm up by only 1 deg F this century, that oceans will rise by 8 inches,they usually rise by about 12 inches.Look at the Have your Say on Daily Express UK,read comments,one has copied and pasted Proff Moncktons papers on climate change.Intresting reading. The british scientista involved in this fraud should be sacked and Goverments get down to the business of sorting out the mess they have created running down their own countries. Polititions are dispicable!
marthaBot 2 years ago
So you think the sea level rises by 12 inches every hundred years. Where did you get that from, the bible?
Where do you imagine all the pollution goes, up jesus' magic shitter?
Your childish ignorance and gullibility have no effect on the facts your untrustworthy nature combined with your lack of education make you completely unfit to comment.
nilbud 2 years ago
and your opinion is god given truth?
mizzlehotch777 2 years ago
At least his opinion is informed. This is the second time I've seen this comment from you. Are you under the idiotic impression that truth is relative? Buddy, have you really thought that one throught?
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
truth is truth, and will always prevail over bad science and bullshit. and over 1,000 e-mails isn't just a few letters. these e-mails prove that the doctors involved with the research manipulated the data to achieve an economic or political end.
The Guardian is a British newspaper, not a person.
and yeah, i have thought this through, the science that these guys in the CRU pushed has always been contested by their peers who have proven that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.
mizzlehotch777 2 years ago
Yeah, because they can make SO much more money faking results for grants than they can by shilling for 100-billion-dollar industries year after year. Note the sarcasm.
I never mentioned anything about The Guardian, guy. Are you reminding yourself?
Obviously, the only studies you've read on it are from skeptics who have an agenda; y'know, like the guy in this video, who is known to have been on Big Oil's payroll. They have a vested interest in bad science, sparky. The emails prove nothing.
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
gmakepiece 2 years ago
It's not an opinion. Distinguishing between fact and opinion is a necessary life skill. If you think you can wing it you've made a grave error.
nilbud 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zombietime com climateaudit org eco imperialism com climatedepot com wattsupwiththat com greenhellblog com nipccreport org greenspirit com junkscience com Andrew Bolt blog Herald Sun Tim Blair blog Daily Telegraph Lord Monckton James Delingpole blog zombietime com PJTV com michellemalkin com dissectleft blogspot com lookingingattheleft com biggovernment com ANY P.J O'Rourke steynonline com Liberty & Tyranny Mark Levin The Capitalist Manifesto Andrew Bernstein Richard Lindzen Steve McIntyre
gmakepiece 2 years ago
All a SCAM,the British scientists involved in this cover up have all stood down,but they should be sacked,thank god for the russian hackers.Proff Monckton,a top British scientist says its all a scam,that since 1995 the earth has not warmed & since 2001 it has been cooling down,that vikings were breeding cattle on Greenland thousands of year ago.Goverments are dispicable,it is all a TAX grabbing exersize to get them out of the mess they got themselves into!
marthaBot 2 years ago
HBSchool is right, the science requires conjecture about the future. That's what makes things falsifiable. and the principles can still be tested in a lab.
I can't even begin to explain a stupid you sound.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
SHADDAP hippy! hahahaha
TheFilexican 2 years ago
You know, something just occurred to me.
One of the claims by Global Warming Doomsdayers is that you'd have "climate refugees" moving from the coast as a result of rising oceans, and how that would be a big problem for inland areas.
Then I read about the number of "tax refugees" moving inland out of California and New York already.
It's pretty ironic that blue states are responsible for inland migration that is clearly not catastrophic.And Nevada advertising for them is just hilarious,
IRONMANAustralia 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That'd be california the place ronnie retard and the arnoldater destroyed. You don't even know what you're talking about you fucking halfwit hillbilly.
nilbud 2 years ago
Anyone notice the fuzz (ammount of allowable play) in the graphs the climategateists use is larger than the amount of temp change? Seems like an artificial way to drive up their lie simply due to the fact they claim the data can be off as with the result. You can almost draw a straight line through the fuzz.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
What a shock that folks whose job depends on there being a climate change problem found that there is a climate change problem. Quick everyone lets give them all of our money to solve this thing before the Earth bursts into flames.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
A bigger problem is Global Photon Change (GPC) where the Northern hemisphere is getting darker and colder. It used to be called Global Photon Depletion (GPD), until it was discovered that the Southern hemisphere is getting lighter and warmer. If this isn't stopped in time, the entire Northern hemisphere will be a dark, lifeless, frozen wasteland in 10 years. While the South will be a burnt, lifeless, wasteland.
But I have a solution.
...It involves something I sell called "Photon Credits"...
ravenslaves 2 years ago 5
Wow what a great idea, can I buy Photon Credits on credit? Please sign me up for your life long plan. By the way I heard the wasteland would only take 5 years maybe less.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
Fantastic Comment.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
Yeah, because it couldn't have been the case that scientists collected data and made theories based on it. No, it just had to be a conspiracy in which the evil scientists thought there ought to be global warming, so they just made everything up.
Fantastic failure, fella. You clearly have no understanding of how science works. Why don't you try actually figuring it out before holding an opinion and making ignorant comments like this? Is that really so hard for you people?
postsimianproduct 2 years ago
So, global warming, let's see: "The Greatest Threat to Life on Earth"
Greenhouse gasses
CO2 = bad
Methane = worse
These two gases are produced primarily by living beings. This then must lead to the conclusion that; the greatest threat to life on earth is..... Life on Earth!
Now let's see, how do we solve this problem, hmmm?
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago 2
Your logic is sound. We have met the enemy and he is us.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago 4
*see The Day the Earth Stood Still*
HeIljumper 2 years ago
klaatu barada nikto....bitches :-D
mizzlehotch777 2 years ago 2
Did Lee really watch this whole video and not get that Richard Lindzen actually accepts that global warming is real? Because watching his other videos it seems like he thinks that global warming is a lie.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
How did you get the impression LIndzen actually accepts (man made) global warming is real? Set the time to 52:04 where he says after all the previous analysis "so where does this leave us?" On the screen it reads in red letters "What we see is that the very foundation of global warming alarm (namely postive feedback) is wrong."
AFrightfulDream 2 years ago
He dismisses the models used to calculate how much the earth will warm in the future. He calls them unscientific. Same goes for the doom scenarios.
He does agree however that the earth has warmed over the last century and that there is "clear evidence" that humans have an influence on the climate.
He says there is no way to determine the magnitude of global warming, the effects of it or the impact of humans on it and that therefore there is no reason for alarm.
TimesEyes 2 years ago
Did he put up these powerpoint slides online anywhere? I can't read some of them in the video and would like to.
lectricklightbulb 2 years ago
I'm a Biologist, not a Meteorologist, and I can only understand about 60% of what this guy is saying.
Any chance for a more simplified version, or perhaps one with better audio? I have a lot of difficulty making out what he's saying.
BTW, I'm really curious as to what potholer54's response to this and the emails will be.
FlowCell 2 years ago
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1,024 2,048 4,096 8,192 16,384 32,768 65,536 131,072 262,144 524,288 1,048,576
power by number. Or death by a million cuts.
1 person sells a tomato for $1.00 the next person for $2.00 & so on.
community is the key to the path that leads.
If you want to see the Matrix, Grow a tomato plant.
& taste what is truly free.
Yepp thats right.. =-O
It's an Illusion.
oicub2 2 years ago
1: higher temperatures cause CO2 increase, not the reverse.
2: temps have fallen the past 10 years while CO2 continues to rise.
3: periods of much warmer/cooler weather (and higher/lower CO2) have existed over 20,000+ years.
4: planets warm/cool together, which means warming/cooling is primarily caused by the sun.
We need 100% separation of science and state.
Government funded science == propaganda.
Plants absorb CO2 and emit O2.
Hang climate totalitarians.
End lies & pollution.
honestann 2 years ago 6
#1 is half true, it's a positive feedback loop.
#2 weird, I guess you're right than.. unless ofc, there's a trick to that?
#3 is true, in fact, longer than that :D
4# again, no shit. that doesn't contradict what anyone is saying.
ArcaneKarma 2 years ago
@honestann to address your first point ( a very valid one, I might add) maybe I'm wrong but perhaps the curtailing of the hot air/increased CO2 levels could be drastically reduced if the global warming nutball whackjobs would stop wasting oxygen and just shut the hell up....that would reduce the problem by about 75%.....what a concept, huh?
sort187 2 years ago 3
Yup. Even better perhaps, they should sleep far longer every day, since humans exhale far less CO2 when they're asleep. Or they could just stop breathing altogether.
honestann 2 years ago
"We need 100% separation of science and state."
A breath of fresh air! You, sir, are full of win.
NotThat3 2 years ago
@NotThat3 god i hate those smug kids... in the Q and A part
DannysCam 2 years ago
Yes indeed, cause science has become a religion.
girzwald3 2 years ago
This is the dumbest shit I ever read. You deserve an award.
HBSchool 2 years ago
Hahaha, Richard Lindzen pwned Bill Nye the Science Guy a few years ago in a global warming debate.
bsharker 2 years ago 3
kind of like your videos:D
jvforever72 2 years ago
The Global Warming debate never should have gotten this far. The data collection method used was so flawed, that no conclusion could have been reasonably drawn from it. Now there's fraud involved. Which not only taints every project those "Scientists" were involved with, but the entire Peer Review process, as well. It's time to prosecute. Not only for the hoax, but for the damage done to scientific integrity. These people have done more to damage science than the Inquisition. Unforgivable.
ravenslaves 2 years ago 10
Even if the planet was warming, so frigging what? We'd just farm in Canada and build dikes around the big cities. Most ecos hate humanity, anyway, so why would they want a planet conducive to our life? The earth weighs 6x10^24 tons and has survived countless meteorite impacts and Rosie O'Donnell, man can do nothing that would 'kill' the planet.
xychr0 2 years ago 12
They've wised up to that argument. So now they say "life as we know it"
Oh no, the planet could change. And I mean, humans are completely incapable of adapting!
girzwald3 2 years ago
it snowed today...in Texas, it hasnt gotten to 60 degrees all day (i know because i was there), where was global warming when i wanted it!?!?!? *sniffle*
AbstractLife13 2 years ago
If it's not ok for a scientist to NEED data that further promotes climate change, is it ok for another scientist to NEED data that denies climate change?
ToTheConquered 2 years ago
People should also research 'Club of rome' and their part in this global cooling/warming fear.
ViciousAnimus 2 years ago 2
The coughing is so fucking annoying! Shut the fuck up you cunts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
oblivion292 2 years ago
Well said squirrel.
Mournbalde 2 years ago
lol
KyleClarkUSA 2 years ago
If you go outside right now and you feel cold....then that is the end of the global warming aurgement right there.
If you are silencing people and doing everything you can to smear them for refusing to believe we are cuasing the earth's warming, then you are not a scientist....but a fear monger.
THEsquirrel3d 2 years ago
If you look at the temperatures decreasing and see the top 'scientists' admitting it and trying to hide it....its the end of the global warming right there
fuggsakes 2 years ago 4
After Climargate carbonistas can no longer appeal to the scientific consensus or even the peer reviewed literature as proof of global warming.
These were bogus claims before and they are even more bogus now.
behaack 2 years ago
I appreciate your efforts every time you make an vid to call BS. Keep up the good work. These deniers of what is now known to be true are just wanting to tear down America any way they can. And AGW is a loo loo of a way to do it. They be hatin'. Mostly they are not free people and it drives them nuts that we are. So they want to drag us down to their level. Thank God we have guns. That alone scares the bejeebus out of 'em so they'll stay home and hurl insults at us. Stay, sheep, stay! Good boy.
CmonMan101 2 years ago
Conquered/Ecowhatever
Just because someone has a Ph.D does not mean they wont lie to get what they want. They only had other scientist who agreed with them peer-review their work, so thats worthless. I am so sick of this if you dont have a degree in whatever or published paper so you cant judge or say a word crap!
A LIE is a LIE is a LIE
Mournbalde 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Regardless of whether or not data was destroyed or altered in this case, the fact of the matter is that human induced global warming is a proven fact. There have been thousands of peer reviewed journals across many unrelated scientific institutions on this issue. There is a near 100% consensus. Anyone who denies human induced global warming is rejecting the scientific method.
EconomicImperialist 2 years ago
@EconomicImperialist
Genius, the emails themselves demonstrate that the peer-review process was corrupted.
You just proved you didn't even watch the data.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@HTWW. Congratulations genius, I suppose the entire scientific community consisting of thousands of scientists colluded over the past several years in a conspiracy to generate the illusion of human induced global warming. Dumbarse. Lawyers are not qualified (or trustworthy!) to analyse scientific data.
EconomicImperialist 2 years ago
@EconomicImperialist
Genius, look, if you're not going to watch the video, but purport to comment about it, you're not going to be commenting.
Lindzen isn't a Lawyer, and you evidently haven't followed the news for the last 10 years.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Lindzen is a contrarian crank, who insists that tobacco is not nearly so harmful as all those crazy doctors say it is.
He cannot even convince one of the few remaining credentialed scientists in the denier camp, Dr Roy Spencer.
google
roy spencer lindzen choi
quote:
"Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, ... and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors conclusions."
greenman3610 2 years ago
@greenman3610
You got that tobacco B.S. from an old Newsweek article that didn't even quote the context, and nevertheless it would be irrelevant to the statistically insignificant data genius.
Most of your videos make similar irrelevant arguments to the actual data and science.
It is pathetic.
When you actually tried to debate, Chris Horner embarrassed you.
Your argument at the end about "trends" demonstrated you're just an Al Gore apprentice.
HowTheWorldWorks 2 years ago
Chris Horner got his ass kicked, in spite of lying to my face, and he knows it, no amount of video editing can change the fact. Tell him I said hi, and ready to go anytime, this time, don't run away.
meanwhile, in typical fashion, you insult and denigrate, but offer no fact or citation to counter mine.
Perhaps you should watch my vids more often, you might at least learn something about how to cite a source.
It's called research.
greenman3610 2 years ago