"Co2 is nothing more than a harmeless trace gas."
.
CO2 is a trace gas. Sure. But it is also a SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gas. It is the cause for AGW. As proved and confirmed by every accredited scientific source lecturing and studying climatology and anything related to climatology.
By the way, prove to me that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. I know that every accredited scientific source says so. But why believe them?
The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation has just turned negative and the Pacific decadal oscillation is negative accompanied by La Nina building. Every level of the atmosphere has been cooling and volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing. It will soon be undeniable that the Planet is cooling and that climate drives Co2.
" It will soon be undeniable that the Planet is cooling and that climate drives Co2."
.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG). Natural cycles initiate the release of GHG's. Once the release of these GHG's are initiated a positive feedback creates a warmer atmosphere that in turn releases more GHG's. That is why in a natural(!) cycle GHG's follow temperatures.
However, the release of anthropogenic CO2 is unnatural and additional. We are the initiators. The effect is still the same.
@wimahlers yes and the tail wags the dog. Have you heard of a negative feedback? These are all over the planet. How do you think central heating works through the thermostat? To say that there is only positive feedback at work in the climate is a lie. To say that co2 drives climate is a big lie. Give me some proof to your wacky co2 theory. Please learn that nothing produced by man is unnatural as we are part of nature like it or not and nature controls us.
@wimahlers Scientific Proof ! proof ! Give me proof. Scientifically prove that the Sun did not cause past warming and liberated co2 from the oceans and biosphere. Prove that co2 is nothing more than a trace gas which is a product of warming. Do you honestly expect me to accept that a tiny amount of gas can control the climate? Pull the other one and go get a sense of proportion. The Oceans are cooling and all levels of the atmosphere are cooling. Yet this warming myth continues.
@wimahlers wrote, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas that ITSELF only has a positive feedback."
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. I don't think you understand what a feedback is. The word "feedback" is not a synonym for "effect."
A positive feedback is something which amplifies an effect. E.g., ice-albedo amplifies temperature changes.
A negative feedback is something which reduces an effect. E.g., plant-growth reduces CO2 changes (more CO2 -> more growth -> absorption of CO2 -> less CO2).
@wimahlers wrote, "Exactly. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity."
Wrong, on two counts:
1. Atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on the atmosphere's capacity to hold heat. What it affects is the atmosphere's transparency/opacity to some wavelengths of IR light.
2. That's not amplification. Amplification refers to things that happen (e.g., temperature CHANGES or CO2 changes), not characteristics that simply exist (e.g., transparency or heat capacity).
Indeed you are mostly right. It was a bit sloppy from my part. It bit more precise and specific then... Keep in mind that I discuss the atmosphere and nothing else.
The additional CO2 absorbs heat and re-radiates this back again in a random direction in a spectrum not only overlapping but extending the IR absorption range of water.
Within(!) the atmosphere CO2 is the second largest greenhouse gas. I.e. it is a significant contributor for the greenhouse effect.
"E.g., plant-growth reduces CO2 changes (more CO2 -> more growth -> absorption of CO2 -> less CO2)."
.
Wrong!
With positive and negative feedback you consider the net result. You can also add to your list that more CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. But it is not this CO2 exchange that counts, but it is the net result that counts. It is what we add that counts. And this surplus of CO2 is positive only (from 7 gigatons about 4 additional gigatons a year).
You don't understand what feedback is. Negative feedback is an opposite-direction response to a change in a system, which reduces the magnitude of the change (or, if there are delays in the feedback path, it can cause oscillations).
Positive feedback is a same-direction response, which tends to increase the magnitude of the change.
Example: Higher CO2 level causes more plant growth, which causes more CO2 -> O2 conversion, reducing the CO2 level: a negative feedback.
Negative feedbacks abound in nature, including your own body. E.g., if your body overheats, you sweat in reaction to your elevated body temperature, and your perspiration cools your body: a negative feedback.
"Course corrections" are another example: When you are driving down the road, and your car drifts toward the edge of the road, in reaction to that drift you reflexively nudge the steering wheel toward the center of the road: a negative feedback.
I do understand. But perhaps you have misunderstood me or I did not explain it clearly enough. I was referrring to the net-result. I explain...
Feedbacks in the context of the atmosphere can either raise or lower the avarage global temperature. When they cancel each other out than there is an equilibrium. The atmospheric constant yearly net increase by 4 Gtons of CO2 shifts this equilibrium to a higher avarage temperature.
@wimahlers, H2O is not a feedback, it is a substance. However, *CHANGES* in H2O evaporation & levels are part of several temperature feedback mechanisms.
1. Warmer air holds more water vapor, which blocks some IR wavelengths, so increased water vapor in response to warming causes slightly less IR to escape into space, which causes more warming: a positive feedback.
2. More water evaporation in response to warming causes more water-cycle heat transport away from the earth: a negative feedback.
I can't believe I have said that. But if I did it probably was a semantical typing error while writing.
I believe I said, at least I meant to say, and I expand my answer a little, that atmospheric(!) H2O has (not is!) both a negative as well as a positive feedback. It depends on the time of day (day or night) and the state of the H2O (which, in turn, within the atmosphere, depends on temperature, pressure and pollution/gas-composition).
I am still waiting for the deniers to explain what the natural cause is for the shrinkage of the artic, Greenland and glacier ice, the accidification of the oceans and the cooling of the upper atmosphere while, at the same time, the lower atmosphere is warming.
How do climate change deniers explain all that?
All this is, of course, explained by science!
But how do climate change deniers explain all that?
I really like to know! But deniers are either silent or evasive (or lying).
@wimahlers, there was little human contribution to atmospheric CO2 prior to WWII. But glaciers have been retreating for much longer than that, at least since the end of the Little Ice Age (~150 years ago), and the rate of retreat is, if anything, decreasing, rather than increasing. Likewise, the rate of sea level rise has not increased at all since WWII, and has actually decreased slightly.
So, if global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, how'd it start BEFORE the CO2 rise?
"But glaciers have been retreating for much longer than that ..."
.
Glaciers retreat and grow all the time. That is not the issue.
This retreat and growth is a natural reaction on natural climatelogical and geological variations. That is not the issue either.
The issue is the CURRENT rate of change and the CURRENT most likely cause of this rate of change on a global scale. The scientific consensus is that this cause is UNNATURAL. I.e. human induced.
@wimahlers, there is no such consensus. 31,487 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) have publicly stated their disagreement with the notion! They say, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..." Google "petition project."
@wimahlers, you are wrong, the Petition Project is no farce. It is only "notorious" by those who are embarrassed by it. Every person who signed it did so in ink, on paper, and is a degreed scientist (or engineer in a relevant discipline).
The alarmists did manage to forge a few, to try to embarrass Dr. Robinson, but those names have been removed, long ago. I challenge you to find even one single name on that list who is not a credentialed scientist or engineer.
"you are wrong, the Petition Project is no farce. It is only "notorious" by those who are embarrassed by it"
.
Really? If it is not so embarrassing and if there are more than 30,000 signers and if Coleman - years ago! - used this petition as "proof" for foul play and fraud than why has Coleman still not done what he so loudly promised he would do? Namely, sue Al Gore (or anybody else or any other scientific institution) for fraud.
@wimahlers, I don't know who "Coleman" is or what you're talking about.
What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) who agree with the statement that they signed, in opposition to irrational global warming alarmism. Google "petition project" for the exact wording.
And, BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so).
"What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists"
.
It proves that you have a list. But what does the list prove? Nothing!
And I even ignore the fact that this list contains names like "Geri Halliwell"(Spice Girls) and questionable or unrelated/irrelevant credentials. It is a "Steve list". To understand what a "Steve List" is google "Project Steve".
It's a list of 31,487 American scientists (& engineers in relevant disciplines) who signed the following:
"...There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide... or other greenhouse gasses... cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects..."
Anyway, I don't care about the statement or the signers. It is a "Steve List". It is like "100 scientists against Einstein". I am sorry you waisted your time and energy on signing this petition.
Do something useful. Produce a credible peer reviewed scientific paper having an alternative scientific explanation (meaning: not a wild guess) explaining the current loss of arctic and glacier ice.
@wimahlers, here's a US Geological Survey map showing glacier extent at Glacier Bay, Alaska, in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries:
webcitation*org/64cUlXmSZ
Notice the big deceleration in rate of glacial retreat during the 20th century.
But there was no significant anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 before about the 1930s or 1940s. So if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?
"if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?"
.
Yes? And? Some glaciers are even growing today. So what?
What you are doing is cherry picking and overstating anomalies that all serious scientists are aware of. You cherry pick a specific and desired local event and extend it to a global, non sequitur, conclusion.
I suggest you ask your question to the USGS. You can start here: tinyurl*com/6tq64o5
@wimahlers, your link supports my point. Here's a sample quote: "For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost."
Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions.
In other words, glacial retreat is NOT evidence of CO2-driven anthropogenic warming, because it predates any significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2.
"Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions."
.
Again, read the link carefully. This time all of it. Read where it says 100,000 other glaciers.
Then read my answer. Read where I said that glacier retreat is as common as glacier expand. This was so in the past, it is now and will be in the future.
Anf then understand that this is all taken in consideration and that the current global warming (and its effects) still is different.
"BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so"
.
So, in fact, you did nothing.
Do something and write a scientific paper that proves NOAA, NASA et.al. studying the climate, to be wrong.
I would be delighted if all these scientific institutions are wrong.
As for the consequence of AGW ... that is a bit of a grey area. But the negative consequences (affected coasts, water supply) seem to outperform the positive consequences.
@wimahlers, why would you think that the CURRENT rate of glacial retreat is "unnatural," when it is no greater than the rate of glacial retreat 100 years ago, BEFORE there was any substantial anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2?
"why would you think that the CURRENT rate of glacial retreat is "unnatural,""
.
I don't think that at all. In fact, I have no opinion on the climate whatsoever.
However, I do trust the scientific consenses.
But I am a skeptic. That is, I demand proof for any claim. The scientific community delivers that proof. It is convincing and, importantly, consistent.
@wimahlers, even before Climategate there was nothing resembling a "consensus." Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in early 2007. They found that a bare majority (52%) believe that 20th century warming was human-induced. Since Climategate & another half-decade of temperature plateau, that percentage has surely fallen even more.
"Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in 2007..."
.
Yes, and? Who cares. If it is so controversial than you must be able to provide at least one accredited relevant scientific institution in the world that, at a minimum, confirms your claim of doubt on the core consensus of AGW.
To my knowledge no such scientific institution exist.
This all, of course, ignoring the fact that science is not done by polling.
@wimahlers, what do you mean, "who cares" about the Harris poll of 500 leading American Meteorological & Geophysical scientists? You're they guy who claimed there was a "consensus" of scientific opinion for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Now, when I prove to you that there's no consensus, you say, "who cares?" and "science is not done by polling."
No, proper science is done by people who are open-minded enough to follow the evidence, not ignore it when it challenges their biases.
@wimahlers, there's something close to a consensus that human activity has increased the earth's temperature, at least slightly. By that definition, I am part of the consensus. That's the sort of loose definition that the alarmists use when they're doing polls to support their "consensus" claim.
But the leaders of the Climate Movement are liars, They also claim AGW will have disastrous consequences (which =CAGW), & then they LIE by claiming there's consensus for THAT, which they know is untrue.
" They also claim AGW will have disastrous consequences (which =CAGW), & then they LIE by claiming there's consensus for THAT, which they know is untrue."
.
Who are "they" and what do "they" claim exactly?
Negative consequences are predicted as a consequential cause of AGW. And, given certain uncertainties it seems that the negative consequences outperform any positive consequence.
Alarmists, like Lord Monckton, claim any measurement countering AGW will ruin the economy.
@wimahlers, a "consequential cause?" Is that like the Rahmstorf "non-linear trend line?"
Historically, mankind (and, indeed, the whole ecosystem) has done much, much BETTER in warm periods, and has done the BEST during the WARMEST (a/k/a mildest climate) periods of human history. Cold periods are characterized by famine, disease, and the decline of civilizations.
What's more, increased CO2 is a huge boon for agriculture, and plant growth in general. Google for: Donald Zak tree growth 26%
"Cold periods are characterized by famine, disease, and the decline of civilizations"
.
And hot periods too!
We did not live in the time of dinosaurs. Given our current fysiology we would not do well at the time the dinosaurs were doing well. We are adapted for our current climate. And we will still do well with a minor climate change ... except. Except there is a limit to our fysiology and our eco dependency of food supply. Climate change does have consequences.
@wimahlers, ocean acidification is also a misnomer. The oceans are all alkaline, and, though there's a fair amount of variation in PH from one place to another, there's no chance at all that any major ocean body will ever cease to be alkaline.
Anthropogenic CO2 can, indeed, lower ocean PH slightly, but there's a limit to how much it can do so in the long term. The oceans contain about 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so our ability to affect ocean CO2 content is quite limited.
"Anthropogenic CO2 can, indeed, lower ocean PH slightly, but there's a limit to how much it can do so in the long term. ..."
.
Except ... this slight change can dramatically change the biodiversity of the oceans. Much life, including human life, depends on the relative stability of many factors. Among them the pH level of the oceans.
By the way, the term "accidification" is in this context used to describe the direction(!) of the pH change. It does not(!) imply pH < 0.
@wimahlers, neutral oH is not zero, it is 7.0. The oceans' average PH at the surface is over 8, which is alkaline, but it varies considerably by location and depth. At 1000m depth it averages about 7.3.
There is no evidence that the slight reduction in average pH of the oceans due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels has any adverse effect on biodiversity in the oceans. Google "electric ocean acid test" to learn more.
You are absolutely right. I was somewhere else with my thoughts when I typed it. Acid versus the term accidification was on my mind. I repeat, now correctly:
By the way, the term "accidification" is in this context used to describe the direction(!) of the pH change. It does not(!) imply pH < 7.0.
@wimahlers, Arctic ice measurements were unavailable prior to 1979, so (despite the bogus graphs that some so-called "researchers" like to draw, for hypothesized Arctic ice prior to 1979) we really don't know what Arctic ice extent was before then.
But the 1960s-1970s were a cold period in the 20th century (and climatologists were fretting about the imminent new ice age), so of course ice extent was up a bit. Temps now are more like the 1930s, and ice extent is down. Ain't no thang.
Arctic ice extent is lower now than in 1979, but that's unsurprising, since the northern hemisphere is warmer now than then, and Arctic ice extent is up since its 2007 low.
It is likely that Arctic ice extent was lower during the MWP than now, and perhaps during the warm 1930s, too. According to NASA, of the 6 warmest years on record for the continental USA, only 1 was in this century. 3 were over 75 years ago.
@wimahlers, you've got to stop taking the alarmists' claims at face value. They're liars!
As you can easily verify, in the 1970s the popular press was fretting about in imminent ice age BECAUSE the climatologists were fretting about an imminent ice age.
For example, a quick google or youtube search will find you video footage of climatologist Stephen Schneider’s appearance (May 1978) on a TV show (hosted by Leonard Nimoy, may he live long and prosper) about "The Coming Ice Age."
@wimahlers, see youtube*com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8#t=7m40s
Sample quote (at about 7-1/2 min): "The data shows that average temperatures in the Arctic have fallen dramatically over the last 30 years. In most locations, the drop has been about 2 degrees C. At that rate, the descent to ice age temperatures could take less than 200 years." (Leonard Nimoy narrating, citing the experts, circa 1978)
Oh yes, the ice age scare. Good television. Little science.
In contrast, AGW is a lot of science but little television.
Try to scan for any consensus about an upcomming ice age within just a couple of human generations. It is nonexistent.
Now do the same for AGW (or better: "climate change"). The scientific reality is real. It has consequences. Not all of them positive. In fact, some of them very negative (e.g. as related to our coastal areas).
@wimahlers, if you think Greenland is losing ice, google for "recovery of glacier girl." (268 feet in 50 years is ~64"/yr of ice accumulation.) Moreover, Greenland was much warmer in the MWP than now, w/o major ice sheet loss.
As for Antarctica, even the IPCC T.A.R. admitted: “It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise [from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)] are very unlikely during the 21st century.”
@wimahlers, if you google for "recovery of glacier girl," you will read about an airplane recovered from beneath 268 feet of ice, which had accumulated in just 50 years on the Greenland ice sheet. Besides being an fascinating story in its own right, it is proof that the alarmists who are fret about melting Greenland ice are clueless.
"if you google for "recovery of glacier girl," you will read about an airplane recovered from beneath 268 feet of ice, which had accumulated in just 50 years on the Greenland ice sheet."
.
Accept it didn't.
Ice flows. The plane flowed with the ice. Objects can submerge and reappear depending on the flow of the ice. It is wrong to conclude that the ice pack increased with 268 feet in less than 50 years. Seems to me that you are ignorant on glacier characteristics.
@wimahlers, that's just nonsense. Airplanes don't sink through the ice, and the ice doesn't flow around them. Those airplanes on the Greenland Ice Sheet were buried under snow, which accumulated and compressed into ice for 50 years, totaling 268 FEET OF ICE.
If you don't understand how that works, then why do you believe anything about prehistorical CO2 levels, since that data almost all comes from counting layers in ice cores? The visible layers are caused by seasonal snow accumulations.
" that's just nonsense. Airplanes don't sink through the ice, and the ice doesn't flow around them."
.
It did, does and will do. That is how glaciers move. By the way, the central ice sheet does not move. It is just at the sides. That is why they drill on the central ice sheets.
Anyway, I would love to see the scientific paper that confirms that the Greenland ice sheet is now, on avarage, about 268 feet higher than 50 years ago. Please specify your scientific source(s).
@wimahlers, I would love to see the scientific paper that confirms your belief that airplanes sink through the ice, and the ice flows around them. It's nonsense. It doesn't happen. Even objects denser than ice don't sink through it unless it melts, and airplanes are LESS dense than ice. That's why they float (until they fill with water, and these planes weren't filled with water).
@wimahlers, you said "average," I did not. (And what is an "ice shield?")
The fact is that you're wrong, airplanes do not sink through solid ice, ice does not flow around them, and the reason that "Glacier Girl" was buried under 268 feet of ice after resting for 50 years on the Greenland Ice Sheet is that accumulating snowfall buried it that deep.
@ncdave4life Why did you use the source of the WWII airplane at all if you did not mean or meant that the Greenland ice shield was raised 268 feet?
By admitting this did not happen your source became totally irrelevant. It is therefore wise to quietly drop it and move on.
And you are wrong on one other subject. Glaciers do move. They flow. And everything that is in it or on it flows with this flow. Objects can sink and submerge from glaciers depending on the flow. And they do!
@wimahlers, of course glaciers move & flow. So what? Airplanes (which are less dense than ice) do not sink through them. Glacier Girl is an airplane & was buried under 268 feet of ice on the Greenland Ice sheet. It did not sink through the ice, it was buried under 50 years of snow accumulation.
You seem to think glaciers calving icebergs is some kind of problem, or even evidence of CAGW. It's not. If it didn't happen, then the oceans would be sinking ever lower, because of the ever growing ice.
"Glacier Girl is an airplane & was buried under 268 feet of ice on the Greenland Ice sheet."
.
No need to discuss this item any more. Because you already admitted it is not an argument for, or relevant to, anything that is happening in Greenland related to AGW whatsoever. It is a waste of time.
And why are you talking about icebergs suddenly? Seems irrelevant too. However, what is relevant is the massive decrease of arctic ice volume. 2010 was a record low. Explain that.
@wimahlers, a millennium ago, during the MWP, and for close to 400 years, there was an agricultural community in Greenland, with wooden houses. It is too cold for trees or agriculture there, now, so it was obviously warmer then than now, at least in Greenland. But there's no evidence of dangerous ice sheet melt or substantial sea level rise during the MWP.
I have seen and heard this argument many times. And each time it amazes me that global warming deniers always claim that there is not enough modern equipment to measure the climate correctly and at the same time have the boldest unverified global claims about an event, called MWP, that may or may not have been global.
@wimahlers, we were talking about Greenland, where you fret about the ice sheet melting. Well, have historical data and artifacts PROVING that a wood-using agricultural community existed in Greenland for approximately 400 years, during the Medieval Warm Period. It is too cold there for agriculture or trees there now, so it was obviously warmer then than now.
As for the MWP, there is abundant historical evidence of the MWP in Europe and Asia; indeed, everywhere that we HAVE historical evidence.
"Well, have historical data and artifacts PROVING that a wood-using agricultural community existed in Greenland for approximately 400 years, during the Medieval Warm Period."
.
Yes. But how was it on a global scale? That is the question. The right question. And that is still fiercely debated.
@wimahlers, there's abundant evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was world-wide. E.g., glacial retreat in Switzerland is uncovering human artifacts from the MWP, including an old silver mine.
"there's abundant evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was world-wide."
.
Any consensus on that? If so, specify your soure(s).
Then again, who cares about medieval times. Explain the CURRENT massive loss of arctic sea ice. Can you name a natural cause? If so, specify your soure(s).
@wimahlers, there's no current massive loss of sea ice.
In the Arctic (only!) sea ice is down since measurements began in 1979, but that's unsurprising since the 1970s were unusually cold. The lowest extent of Arctic sea ice was in 2007.
Since we know Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than today, it is likely that Arctic sea ice extent was lower 1000 years ago than today, too. It might have been lower in the balmy 1930s, too, but we'll never know for certain.
@wimahlers "Burning fossil fuels only amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity. CO2 is, after water, the second strongest greenhouse gas."
What!?!
I'm not an expert on this stuff but I do know that methane, for one, is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. There are probably many more. But if you got that wrong (something even I know), why should I believe you have any idea about what you're talking about?
"I'm not an expert on this stuff but I do know that methane, for one, is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. There are probably many more."
.
Methane indeed. And, yes! There probably are more that are stronger than CO2. But not within the atmosphere. Because concentration is a factor too. In fact, that is what the "A" in AGW is all about. The fact that we significantly increase the CO2 within the atmosphere. A gas that is already a significant greenhouse gas.
To see any quotes, such as but not limited to "It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise ... are very unlikely during the 21st century", in context.
It is based on the Vostok deep ice core survey. Another major ice core survey is called EPICA. Vostok and EPICA data are often presented together as they showed the same results. The big picture is long ice ages (glaciations) that last 90,000 years, and briefer warm intervals (interglacial) that last about 12,000 years. We are currently in the Holocene Interglacial, and living in between ice ages.
Al Gore's average monthly electric bill is $1,349 a month, Natural Gas $1,080 per month. This was after installing Solar panels, replacing all the light bulbs with fluorescents. He heats an indoor swimming pool. He flies on chartered planes, an army of SUV's transport him to all of his engagements.
Silver Spring Networks,came to Gores firm, Kleiner Perkins looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of meters
Gore decided to back the Co., in gratitude Silver Spring retained him as corporate adviser
The Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts Gore/Kleiner Perkins
It's a matter of feedback. Earth has numerous negative feedbacks, and AGW requires a massive positive feedback.
Purely looking at CO2 and no other item,s then from 1960 to present should be a .5C warming. Earths atmosphere is more complex than a simple math equation, which is basically what all these models are.
Al Gore being wrong doesn't make these people right.
This video doesn't take into account the fact that CO2 is now being produced by unnatural processes at a rate far higher than it ever was by natural processes, it doesn't give any explanation for why the planet is heating up and it doesn't disprove that the planet is in fact experiencing climate abnormalities.
Maybe the lesson here isn't that Al Gore is wrong, maybe it's that we shouldn't blindly trust "scientists".
There are so many "scientists" involved in this fraud, you must realize there is something else going on. Something below the publicised surface. The progressive redistribution of wealth on a global scale. The grab for power in the one world movement. It's treasonous and fraud.
What could anyone possibly gain from this that isn't beneficial for the entire planet? We're going to have to switch to a different energy source soon anyway, the sooner we the less likely it is that we'll have a massive crisis. That and we've known that CO2 emissions are harmful to the air whether is creates global warming or not.
And I for one would rather use solar or wind power than pay the electric company.
It's not an evil conspiracy if it helps everybody.
@jtucci1991 You got to be young and really don't have an understanding of reality. I have work with solar and wind it is very very very limited. Storage is the main problem You get tons of wind in the winter months but no way to store for the summer months. Look it up I am about 15 miles from the huge windmills I read the reports from the energy company they are unreliable and still must rely on the coal fire power plants
gore can't even read his own data properly! do i laugh because gore is a joke or do i cry because people who believe in AGW want to destroy the American economy???...and they are the ones in power right now
I'm glad we have people like you in the world who enjoy paying for energy they could be harvesting from solar and wind power; we need someone to keep our economy going now that we've shipped all of our industry over to south east Asia.
i've taken many weather and climate classes durring mu stay at college, and the assumption of co2 causing global warming doesn't add up in climactic sense. what no global warming advocate will ever show you is a SR budget for the atmosphere, because if they did it would show their flawed methods of study
Someone like him, with such a high degree of influence over the world should no better than to do this. And even more so, to push on in the face of a huge inside scam just pisses me off. Does he realize the millions of death that would come from the COP treaty - starving the developing nations from necessities when there already in crisis mode. Same with the U.S. - its diabolical and totaly EVIL to do what Al Gore has done and is doing. What an asshole.
The Treaty is non-legally binding and does nothing more than implement a an emissions cap. Considering this- and the fact that most carbon emissions are being produced by large, developed countries- I don't think this treaty is going to cost any lives. As for America, the economies of western Europe rely very little on energy and they're doing fine, maybe we should follow their example
Not to get into all the details, but the COP treaty wasnt signed on-to by any countries so it is now irrelevant what it said.
However it would have been legally binding if it were signed on to - that is what a treaty is - a legally binding document.
This treaty in particular designated the UN as the carbon Governor of the countries signing on - that is legally binding and cannot be voided under any circumstances. The UN would recieve designated taxes or impose sanctions on the country.
note that Gore used a huge scale on that projection so you can't notice that CO2 in fact rises about 800 years BEHIND the temp rise.
And Gore never actually states that temps rise AFTER CO2, he merely states that "when there is more CO2 the temperature gets warmer". Not really an out and out lie.
Ya, I noticed that right away. These guys are all very well versed in legalities, not to mention those that advise them. There is nothing saving him now though. At least not his image. He should go down for life imprisonment like any other huge fraud. People have to stop giving these guys breaks, they ARE the problem in the world.
There is a pro global warming video on YouTube titled, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See," and has 2.6 million hits. I would go there from time to time and post news report snippets of record cold temperatures across the globe. There were many comments by others as well.
A few months ago all comments have been turned off and hidden because they were getting torn to bits. That is the same reason why Al Gore will not debate anyone. That guy is laughing all the way to the bank.
'' The use of fear to acquire power has a rather old provenance, politicians from time immemorial have used that TACTIC, it has ALWAYS been effective''
I was forced to watch this movie in high school. One of my questions is, why is there a short clip of a nuke in the movie? What the hell does a nuclear explosion have to do with "global warming"?
Nuclear explosions create large amounts of CO2, the creation of nuclear bombs is one of many technological advancements that produces large amounts of CO2. Were you paying attention to the movie, or just seething the whole time because it didn't coincide with your beliefs?
-.- While I agree nukes are dangerous, I still don't recall seeing any US citizens running around launching off nukes. So, that still leaves the clip of the nuke irrelevant. Don't believe the CO2 B.S. CO2 has been going up for years, and the global temperature has been declining lately. Ever heard the phrase "Hide the decline."? Look up Climate-gate......
"If we plot a graph of Al Gore's lies vs his CO2 emissions we find an astounding correlation."
.
Oh dear ... Tim Ball, both Fred's and mister Clark all have to go back to school. They really don't understand global warming. Here it is...
CO2 is an amplifier. That is, precession, continental drift and most other cyclic events are, by themselves, not strong enough to create a climate change. It is only when CO2 kicks in for it to count. And humans are now the releaser of CO2.
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
And what a scandal! It's changing so much of our everyday lives. We've ha to give up our oversized cars, and stop driving them more than any other country; we don't have as many factories, our economy is gone because we now only produce green energy...
Oh wait...
None of this has happened...
I guess it's not a very sucessful scandal...
Maybe we liberals should take a hint from the mortgage scandal you guys created, now there was a successful scandal.
@jtucci1991 What planet are you from? Oh wait I see you are uneducated, clueless and brain damage.
Barney Frank mortgage scandal Oh Wait your liberal I forgot you can't handle the truth.
All the Right Left is BS we are dealing with a an exposed HOAX, corrupt Government on both sides of the idle and gullible people that will believe any lie they see on TV.
First of all, it's spelled Global, Brain DamagED and You're; next time you call someone uneducated, you should probably proofread what you wrote.
Second of all, I'm not arguing for any politicians, I understand that Washington is corrupt, Liberal isn't a political affiliation. What I'm trying to tell you, is that if this is some huge conspiracy to provide themselves some sort of gain, they aren't doing a very good job. So far all the change from this has only been beneficial to the people.
1. I never said you couldn't, free country right? I said it destroyed your education argument.
2. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, it has been PROVEN that greenhouse gases greatly effect the temperature of the earth, i.e. the ozone, a greenhouse gas that makes earth habitable. Whether this will create global warming (which has happened in the past by the way so it isn't a myth) depends on it's life span and quantity, CO2 has varying life span but a high and increasing quantity.
@jtucci1991 I have add up my bills maybe you should find out what is stopping the real cures from hitting the market?
There is no way you can beat the cost of electric after 5-10 years you have to replace your batteries. ND did an indepth study on solar and wind. Total cost, repairs and replacement is outragerous. You really should do a lot more research on the subject before you act you like you have a clue.
A lot of what's stopping real cures from hitting the market is a fear of replacing fossil fuel industry. Cars in other countries can get up to 60 MPG on average, motorcycles can get up to 400, they blocked from entering our country by oil lobbyists. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was happening to alternative energy.
@jtucci1991 Yes this is why I get so mad at the big green groups because they have the power to tell the America people the truth but they don't because of why? The big oil companies donated to them. It is sickening to watch Greenpeace cry about Global warming but not tell the American people about real solutions they are nothing but money grubbing losers at the top.
There are several organization and companies out right now that are trying to make solutions, like wind and solar energy, more affordable. Just because a few, like green peace, do nothing but bitch about the problem, doesn't mean that's what they all do.
And this is part of why the government needs to get more involved in the issue like they promised, they have the power to lower the cost for individuals and increase large scale production.
@jtucci1991 But this is why we don't trust the Government they try to pull that anti American communist plan of Cap and Trade that would only tax people to death and make Al Gore a billionaire. That is not a solution.
Well no matter what solution they come up with it's going to involve a tax increase and that's just something America needs to get over, most of the most heavily taxed countries are also the countries with the highest quality of living.
And, cap and trade programs have worked well in the US before, there was one in the North East that decreased nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants.
@jtucci1991 Nope your are complete wrong a real solution will equal no tax increase.
You wait to Nov this idiots in DC are all getting voted out this cap and trade is being toss out the windows in those clowns better start taking care of this country.
jtucci, you are wrong on litteraly every single thing you have written. High taxed socialist countries have a PERMANENT 10% plus unemployment. The science as you call it is debatable because it was politics not science that claimed warming. The main guy, Jones now admits, NO WARMING FOR 15 YEARS. Science has proved it can't be CO2, failure to discard AGW theory was scientific misconduct. They need to be jailed. You need to get the facts, or shutup.
Let me guess, you're an artist? Theres some correlation between creativity and lack of rational thinking. It seems that those with the most creativity are incapable of critical rational cause and effect thought. We need creativity, but just be aware of your place in society, and stay away from the important decision making that requires forethought of longer than 5 minutes.
@jtucci1991 LOL you have not been keeping up with the debate at all. You are 2 months behind it has already been proven that CO2 is NOT harming the earth wake up grow up and face reality.
It's not a debatable thing, it's science. It is a cold hard fact that the earth's temperature would drop about 30 degrees without the Greenhouse gases it contains naturally, they are what hold in heat. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it holds in heat; the more of it there is, the more it will hold in heat; the more we produce it,
@jtucci1991 Whatever we are not hurting the climate with the co2 we are adding. A new study showed that it is NOT changing the climate. So no it is not Proven only gullible greenies still believe the myth.
Science isn't a debatable thing, it is a proven fact that our planet stays warm because of greenhouse gases, it is also a proven fact that CO2 is one of them. If we make more of it, it will insulate the earth more, it's not a difficult concept to understand. And considering the fact that the last time you took a science class was over 30 years ago, I don't think you really have any room to claim you definitively KNOW that it's not true.
This has been flagged as spam show
A congressman just stated on CSPAN that the co2 level's are higher then they where 15,000,000 million years
ago, and that at that time we lost almost all the ice. They state 75 to120 feet of water was added to the ocean.
This is at the door beloved right now. add holes in the Ozone, nuclear fallout in the ice cores. on and on. we
got big problems kids. hugs LUVBUG
Read my blog on Global Warming: globalwarmingtimes.blogspot.com
livingproofof 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444,
.
"Co2 is nothing more than a harmeless trace gas."
.
CO2 is a trace gas. Sure. But it is also a SIGNIFICANT greenhouse gas. It is the cause for AGW. As proved and confirmed by every accredited scientific source lecturing and studying climatology and anything related to climatology.
By the way, prove to me that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. I know that every accredited scientific source says so. But why believe them?
wimahlers 2 months ago
Comment removed
wimahlers 2 months ago
The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation has just turned negative and the Pacific decadal oscillation is negative accompanied by La Nina building. Every level of the atmosphere has been cooling and volcanic and techtonic activity is increasing. It will soon be undeniable that the Planet is cooling and that climate drives Co2.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444,
.
" It will soon be undeniable that the Planet is cooling and that climate drives Co2."
.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG). Natural cycles initiate the release of GHG's. Once the release of these GHG's are initiated a positive feedback creates a warmer atmosphere that in turn releases more GHG's. That is why in a natural(!) cycle GHG's follow temperatures.
However, the release of anthropogenic CO2 is unnatural and additional. We are the initiators. The effect is still the same.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers yes and the tail wags the dog. Have you heard of a negative feedback? These are all over the planet. How do you think central heating works through the thermostat? To say that there is only positive feedback at work in the climate is a lie. To say that co2 drives climate is a big lie. Give me some proof to your wacky co2 theory. Please learn that nothing produced by man is unnatural as we are part of nature like it or not and nature controls us.
david222444 2 months ago
@david222444,
.
"say that there is only positive feedback at work in the climate is a lie"
.
Nobody says that.
That aside, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that ITSELF only has a positive feedback.
Unlike H2O. H2O can have both positive as well as a negative feedback depending on time of day and the specific physical state of the H2O.
Releasing CO2 by means of burning fossil fuel deposits is unnatural. Calling this natural is like calling an A-bomb explosion natural.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers Scientific Proof ! proof ! Give me proof. Scientifically prove that the Sun did not cause past warming and liberated co2 from the oceans and biosphere. Prove that co2 is nothing more than a trace gas which is a product of warming. Do you honestly expect me to accept that a tiny amount of gas can control the climate? Pull the other one and go get a sense of proportion. The Oceans are cooling and all levels of the atmosphere are cooling. Yet this warming myth continues.
david222444 2 months ago
@wimahlers wrote, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas that ITSELF only has a positive feedback."
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. I don't think you understand what a feedback is. The word "feedback" is not a synonym for "effect."
A positive feedback is something which amplifies an effect. E.g., ice-albedo amplifies temperature changes.
A negative feedback is something which reduces an effect. E.g., plant-growth reduces CO2 changes (more CO2 -> more growth -> absorption of CO2 -> less CO2).
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"A positive feedback is something which amplifies an effect."
.
Exactly. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity.
In contrast, as I said before, and I quote myself:
"H2O can have both positive as well as a negative feedback depending on time of day and the specific physical state of the H2O."
And to emphasize:
Burning fossil fuels only amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity. CO2 is, after water, the second strongest greenhouse gas.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers wrote, "Exactly. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity."
Wrong, on two counts:
1. Atmospheric CO2 has a negligible effect on the atmosphere's capacity to hold heat. What it affects is the atmosphere's transparency/opacity to some wavelengths of IR light.
2. That's not amplification. Amplification refers to things that happen (e.g., temperature CHANGES or CO2 changes), not characteristics that simply exist (e.g., transparency or heat capacity).
ncdave4life 2 months ago
It's similar to the difference between a verb and a noun. Movements get amplified, capacity does not.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Wrong ..."
.
Indeed you are mostly right. It was a bit sloppy from my part. It bit more precise and specific then... Keep in mind that I discuss the atmosphere and nothing else.
The additional CO2 absorbs heat and re-radiates this back again in a random direction in a spectrum not only overlapping but extending the IR absorption range of water.
Within(!) the atmosphere CO2 is the second largest greenhouse gas. I.e. it is a significant contributor for the greenhouse effect.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"E.g., plant-growth reduces CO2 changes (more CO2 -> more growth -> absorption of CO2 -> less CO2)."
.
Wrong!
With positive and negative feedback you consider the net result. You can also add to your list that more CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. But it is not this CO2 exchange that counts, but it is the net result that counts. It is what we add that counts. And this surplus of CO2 is positive only (from 7 gigatons about 4 additional gigatons a year).
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers wrote, "Wrong!"
You don't understand what feedback is. Negative feedback is an opposite-direction response to a change in a system, which reduces the magnitude of the change (or, if there are delays in the feedback path, it can cause oscillations).
Positive feedback is a same-direction response, which tends to increase the magnitude of the change.
Example: Higher CO2 level causes more plant growth, which causes more CO2 -> O2 conversion, reducing the CO2 level: a negative feedback.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
Negative feedbacks abound in nature, including your own body. E.g., if your body overheats, you sweat in reaction to your elevated body temperature, and your perspiration cools your body: a negative feedback.
"Course corrections" are another example: When you are driving down the road, and your car drifts toward the edge of the road, in reaction to that drift you reflexively nudge the steering wheel toward the center of the road: a negative feedback.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"You don't understand what feedback is. ..."
.
I do understand. But perhaps you have misunderstood me or I did not explain it clearly enough. I was referrring to the net-result. I explain...
Feedbacks in the context of the atmosphere can either raise or lower the avarage global temperature. When they cancel each other out than there is an equilibrium. The atmospheric constant yearly net increase by 4 Gtons of CO2 shifts this equilibrium to a higher avarage temperature.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, H2O is not a feedback, it is a substance. However, *CHANGES* in H2O evaporation & levels are part of several temperature feedback mechanisms.
1. Warmer air holds more water vapor, which blocks some IR wavelengths, so increased water vapor in response to warming causes slightly less IR to escape into space, which causes more warming: a positive feedback.
2. More water evaporation in response to warming causes more water-cycle heat transport away from the earth: a negative feedback.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"H2O is not a feedback"
.
I can't believe I have said that. But if I did it probably was a semantical typing error while writing.
I believe I said, at least I meant to say, and I expand my answer a little, that atmospheric(!) H2O has (not is!) both a negative as well as a positive feedback. It depends on the time of day (day or night) and the state of the H2O (which, in turn, within the atmosphere, depends on temperature, pressure and pollution/gas-composition).
wimahlers 2 months ago
I am still waiting for the deniers to explain what the natural cause is for the shrinkage of the artic, Greenland and glacier ice, the accidification of the oceans and the cooling of the upper atmosphere while, at the same time, the lower atmosphere is warming.
How do climate change deniers explain all that?
All this is, of course, explained by science!
But how do climate change deniers explain all that?
I really like to know! But deniers are either silent or evasive (or lying).
wimahlers 7 months ago
@wimahlers, there was little human contribution to atmospheric CO2 prior to WWII. But glaciers have been retreating for much longer than that, at least since the end of the Little Ice Age (~150 years ago), and the rate of retreat is, if anything, decreasing, rather than increasing. Likewise, the rate of sea level rise has not increased at all since WWII, and has actually decreased slightly.
So, if global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, how'd it start BEFORE the CO2 rise?
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
,
"But glaciers have been retreating for much longer than that ..."
.
Glaciers retreat and grow all the time. That is not the issue.
This retreat and growth is a natural reaction on natural climatelogical and geological variations. That is not the issue either.
The issue is the CURRENT rate of change and the CURRENT most likely cause of this rate of change on a global scale. The scientific consensus is that this cause is UNNATURAL. I.e. human induced.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, there is no such consensus. 31,487 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) have publicly stated their disagreement with the notion! They say, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..." Google "petition project."
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"31,487 scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) have publicly stated their disagreement".
.
Oh boy! Are you referring again to the notorious online petition? I hope not!
Oh wait, you are!
I suggest you read the criticism on this list as well. The whole petition is a farce.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, you are wrong, the Petition Project is no farce. It is only "notorious" by those who are embarrassed by it. Every person who signed it did so in ink, on paper, and is a degreed scientist (or engineer in a relevant discipline).
The alarmists did manage to forge a few, to try to embarrass Dr. Robinson, but those names have been removed, long ago. I challenge you to find even one single name on that list who is not a credentialed scientist or engineer.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"you are wrong, the Petition Project is no farce. It is only "notorious" by those who are embarrassed by it"
.
Really? If it is not so embarrassing and if there are more than 30,000 signers and if Coleman - years ago! - used this petition as "proof" for foul play and fraud than why has Coleman still not done what he so loudly promised he would do? Namely, sue Al Gore (or anybody else or any other scientific institution) for fraud.
Do something! Be credible!
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, I don't know who "Coleman" is or what you're talking about.
What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists (and engineers in relevant disciplines) who agree with the statement that they signed, in opposition to irrational global warming alarmism. Google "petition project" for the exact wording.
And, BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so).
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"What the Petition Project proves is simply that there are over 31,000 American scientists"
.
It proves that you have a list. But what does the list prove? Nothing!
And I even ignore the fact that this list contains names like "Geri Halliwell"(Spice Girls) and questionable or unrelated/irrelevant credentials. It is a "Steve list". To understand what a "Steve List" is google "Project Steve".
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, Geri Halliwell isn't on the list.
It's a list of 31,487 American scientists (& engineers in relevant disciplines) who signed the following:
"...There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide... or other greenhouse gasses... cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects..."
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Geri Halliwell isn't on the list"
.
She was ... in 2007.
Anyway, I don't care about the statement or the signers. It is a "Steve List". It is like "100 scientists against Einstein". I am sorry you waisted your time and energy on signing this petition.
Do something useful. Produce a credible peer reviewed scientific paper having an alternative scientific explanation (meaning: not a wild guess) explaining the current loss of arctic and glacier ice.
Good luck!
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, here's a US Geological Survey map showing glacier extent at Glacier Bay, Alaska, in the 18th, 19th & 20th centuries:
webcitation*org/64cUlXmSZ
Notice the big deceleration in rate of glacial retreat during the 20th century.
But there was no significant anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 before about the 1930s or 1940s. So if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?
ncdave4life 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"if glacier retreat is caused by anthropogenic CO2, why were these glaciers retreating faster BEFORE that CO2 was produced?"
.
Yes? And? Some glaciers are even growing today. So what?
What you are doing is cherry picking and overstating anomalies that all serious scientists are aware of. You cherry pick a specific and desired local event and extend it to a global, non sequitur, conclusion.
I suggest you ask your question to the USGS. You can start here: tinyurl*com/6tq64o5
wimahlers 1 month ago
@wimahlers, your link supports my point. Here's a sample quote: "For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost."
Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions.
In other words, glacial retreat is NOT evidence of CO2-driven anthropogenic warming, because it predates any significant anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2.
Do you understand?
ncdave4life 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Note that "before 1941" means before substantial anthropogenic CO2 contributions."
.
Again, read the link carefully. This time all of it. Read where it says 100,000 other glaciers.
Then read my answer. Read where I said that glacier retreat is as common as glacier expand. This was so in the past, it is now and will be in the future.
Anf then understand that this is all taken in consideration and that the current global warming (and its effects) still is different.
wimahlers 1 month ago
@ncdave4life Your reasoning...
There have been people in the past that murder. Therefore war genocide is the same as a single murder.
wimahlers 1 month ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"BTW, I did "do something." I signed the petition (and had to identify my credentials to do so"
.
So, in fact, you did nothing.
Do something and write a scientific paper that proves NOAA, NASA et.al. studying the climate, to be wrong.
I would be delighted if all these scientific institutions are wrong.
As for the consequence of AGW ... that is a bit of a grey area. But the negative consequences (affected coasts, water supply) seem to outperform the positive consequences.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, why would you think that the CURRENT rate of glacial retreat is "unnatural," when it is no greater than the rate of glacial retreat 100 years ago, BEFORE there was any substantial anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2?
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"why would you think that the CURRENT rate of glacial retreat is "unnatural,""
.
I don't think that at all. In fact, I have no opinion on the climate whatsoever.
However, I do trust the scientific consenses.
But I am a skeptic. That is, I demand proof for any claim. The scientific community delivers that proof. It is convincing and, importantly, consistent.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, even before Climategate there was nothing resembling a "consensus." Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in early 2007. They found that a bare majority (52%) believe that 20th century warming was human-induced. Since Climategate & another half-decade of temperature plateau, that percentage has surely fallen even more.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Harris polled 500 leading American Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in 2007..."
.
Yes, and? Who cares. If it is so controversial than you must be able to provide at least one accredited relevant scientific institution in the world that, at a minimum, confirms your claim of doubt on the core consensus of AGW.
To my knowledge no such scientific institution exist.
This all, of course, ignoring the fact that science is not done by polling.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, what do you mean, "who cares" about the Harris poll of 500 leading American Meteorological & Geophysical scientists? You're they guy who claimed there was a "consensus" of scientific opinion for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Now, when I prove to you that there's no consensus, you say, "who cares?" and "science is not done by polling."
No, proper science is done by people who are open-minded enough to follow the evidence, not ignore it when it challenges their biases.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"You're they guy who claimed there was a "consensus" of scientific opinion for catastrophic..."
.
No! I did not say that .
I said there is consensus on AGW. It is you who added the term "catastrophic".
Though, the scientific consensus also is that it will most likely be catastrophic for our way of living as we know it if we ignore AGW.
Also understand what consensus means. It does not mean everybody. And understand the core issue for which there is consensus (AGW).
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, there's something close to a consensus that human activity has increased the earth's temperature, at least slightly. By that definition, I am part of the consensus. That's the sort of loose definition that the alarmists use when they're doing polls to support their "consensus" claim.
But the leaders of the Climate Movement are liars, They also claim AGW will have disastrous consequences (which =CAGW), & then they LIE by claiming there's consensus for THAT, which they know is untrue.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
" They also claim AGW will have disastrous consequences (which =CAGW), & then they LIE by claiming there's consensus for THAT, which they know is untrue."
.
Who are "they" and what do "they" claim exactly?
Negative consequences are predicted as a consequential cause of AGW. And, given certain uncertainties it seems that the negative consequences outperform any positive consequence.
Alarmists, like Lord Monckton, claim any measurement countering AGW will ruin the economy.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, a "consequential cause?" Is that like the Rahmstorf "non-linear trend line?"
Historically, mankind (and, indeed, the whole ecosystem) has done much, much BETTER in warm periods, and has done the BEST during the WARMEST (a/k/a mildest climate) periods of human history. Cold periods are characterized by famine, disease, and the decline of civilizations.
What's more, increased CO2 is a huge boon for agriculture, and plant growth in general. Google for: Donald Zak tree growth 26%
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"Cold periods are characterized by famine, disease, and the decline of civilizations"
.
And hot periods too!
We did not live in the time of dinosaurs. Given our current fysiology we would not do well at the time the dinosaurs were doing well. We are adapted for our current climate. And we will still do well with a minor climate change ... except. Except there is a limit to our fysiology and our eco dependency of food supply. Climate change does have consequences.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, ocean acidification is also a misnomer. The oceans are all alkaline, and, though there's a fair amount of variation in PH from one place to another, there's no chance at all that any major ocean body will ever cease to be alkaline.
Anthropogenic CO2 can, indeed, lower ocean PH slightly, but there's a limit to how much it can do so in the long term. The oceans contain about 50x as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so our ability to affect ocean CO2 content is quite limited.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"Anthropogenic CO2 can, indeed, lower ocean PH slightly, but there's a limit to how much it can do so in the long term. ..."
.
Except ... this slight change can dramatically change the biodiversity of the oceans. Much life, including human life, depends on the relative stability of many factors. Among them the pH level of the oceans.
By the way, the term "accidification" is in this context used to describe the direction(!) of the pH change. It does not(!) imply pH < 0.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, neutral oH is not zero, it is 7.0. The oceans' average PH at the surface is over 8, which is alkaline, but it varies considerably by location and depth. At 1000m depth it averages about 7.3.
There is no evidence that the slight reduction in average pH of the oceans due to higher atmospheric CO2 levels has any adverse effect on biodiversity in the oceans. Google "electric ocean acid test" to learn more.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
sorry about the typos
Google for "Chicken Little of the Sea Strikes Again" for another article about the ocean acidification scare.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"neutral oH is not zero, it is 7.0."
.
You are absolutely right. I was somewhere else with my thoughts when I typed it. Acid versus the term accidification was on my mind. I repeat, now correctly:
By the way, the term "accidification" is in this context used to describe the direction(!) of the pH change. It does not(!) imply pH < 7.0.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, Arctic ice measurements were unavailable prior to 1979, so (despite the bogus graphs that some so-called "researchers" like to draw, for hypothesized Arctic ice prior to 1979) we really don't know what Arctic ice extent was before then.
But the 1960s-1970s were a cold period in the 20th century (and climatologists were fretting about the imminent new ice age), so of course ice extent was up a bit. Temps now are more like the 1930s, and ice extent is down. Ain't no thang.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"Arctic ice measurements were unavailable prior to 1979"
.
That does not explain the current melting of the polar cap.
And no! Climatologists were not(!) fretting with an imminent ice age. The popular media was. But popular media is not science.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, polar ice caps aren't melting.
Antarctic ice isn't down at all.
Arctic ice extent is lower now than in 1979, but that's unsurprising, since the northern hemisphere is warmer now than then, and Arctic ice extent is up since its 2007 low.
It is likely that Arctic ice extent was lower during the MWP than now, and perhaps during the warm 1930s, too. According to NASA, of the 6 warmest years on record for the continental USA, only 1 was in this century. 3 were over 75 years ago.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@wimahlers, you've got to stop taking the alarmists' claims at face value. They're liars!
As you can easily verify, in the 1970s the popular press was fretting about in imminent ice age BECAUSE the climatologists were fretting about an imminent ice age.
For example, a quick google or youtube search will find you video footage of climatologist Stephen Schneider’s appearance (May 1978) on a TV show (hosted by Leonard Nimoy, may he live long and prosper) about "The Coming Ice Age."
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@wimahlers, see youtube*com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8#t=7m40s
Sample quote (at about 7-1/2 min): "The data shows that average temperatures in the Arctic have fallen dramatically over the last 30 years. In most locations, the drop has been about 2 degrees C. At that rate, the descent to ice age temperatures could take less than 200 years." (Leonard Nimoy narrating, citing the experts, circa 1978)
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life Your link: watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8.
Oh yes, the ice age scare. Good television. Little science.
In contrast, AGW is a lot of science but little television.
Try to scan for any consensus about an upcomming ice age within just a couple of human generations. It is nonexistent.
Now do the same for AGW (or better: "climate change"). The scientific reality is real. It has consequences. Not all of them positive. In fact, some of them very negative (e.g. as related to our coastal areas).
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, if you think Greenland is losing ice, google for "recovery of glacier girl." (268 feet in 50 years is ~64"/yr of ice accumulation.) Moreover, Greenland was much warmer in the MWP than now, w/o major ice sheet loss.
As for Antarctica, even the IPCC T.A.R. admitted: “It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise [from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)] are very unlikely during the 21st century.”
[IPCC TAR WG1, Executive Summary]
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"if you think Greenland is losing ice, google for "recovery of glacier girl.""
.
I have googled it and I failed to see what this is supposed to proof or deny. Besides, it is not a scientific source. So why should I care?
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, if you google for "recovery of glacier girl," you will read about an airplane recovered from beneath 268 feet of ice, which had accumulated in just 50 years on the Greenland ice sheet. Besides being an fascinating story in its own right, it is proof that the alarmists who are fret about melting Greenland ice are clueless.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"if you google for "recovery of glacier girl," you will read about an airplane recovered from beneath 268 feet of ice, which had accumulated in just 50 years on the Greenland ice sheet."
.
Accept it didn't.
Ice flows. The plane flowed with the ice. Objects can submerge and reappear depending on the flow of the ice. It is wrong to conclude that the ice pack increased with 268 feet in less than 50 years. Seems to me that you are ignorant on glacier characteristics.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, that's just nonsense. Airplanes don't sink through the ice, and the ice doesn't flow around them. Those airplanes on the Greenland Ice Sheet were buried under snow, which accumulated and compressed into ice for 50 years, totaling 268 FEET OF ICE.
If you don't understand how that works, then why do you believe anything about prehistorical CO2 levels, since that data almost all comes from counting layers in ice cores? The visible layers are caused by seasonal snow accumulations.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
" that's just nonsense. Airplanes don't sink through the ice, and the ice doesn't flow around them."
.
It did, does and will do. That is how glaciers move. By the way, the central ice sheet does not move. It is just at the sides. That is why they drill on the central ice sheets.
Anyway, I would love to see the scientific paper that confirms that the Greenland ice sheet is now, on avarage, about 268 feet higher than 50 years ago. Please specify your scientific source(s).
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, I would love to see the scientific paper that confirms your belief that airplanes sink through the ice, and the ice flows around them. It's nonsense. It doesn't happen. Even objects denser than ice don't sink through it unless it melts, and airplanes are LESS dense than ice. That's why they float (until they fill with water, and these planes weren't filled with water).
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
,
"I would love to see the scientific paper that confirms your belief that airplanes sink through the ice, and the ice flows around them."
.
I am sure you would. But there is no reason to do so now. It is a red herring fallacy to do so.
No, it is your claim that this article proves that the Greenland ice shield raised itself on avarage about 168 feet in the last 50 years or so.
That is an extraordinary claim!
It demands extraordinary proof. Please show this proof.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, you said "average," I did not. (And what is an "ice shield?")
The fact is that you're wrong, airplanes do not sink through solid ice, ice does not flow around them, and the reason that "Glacier Girl" was buried under 268 feet of ice after resting for 50 years on the Greenland Ice Sheet is that accumulating snowfall buried it that deep.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life Why did you use the source of the WWII airplane at all if you did not mean or meant that the Greenland ice shield was raised 268 feet?
By admitting this did not happen your source became totally irrelevant. It is therefore wise to quietly drop it and move on.
And you are wrong on one other subject. Glaciers do move. They flow. And everything that is in it or on it flows with this flow. Objects can sink and submerge from glaciers depending on the flow. And they do!
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, of course glaciers move & flow. So what? Airplanes (which are less dense than ice) do not sink through them. Glacier Girl is an airplane & was buried under 268 feet of ice on the Greenland Ice sheet. It did not sink through the ice, it was buried under 50 years of snow accumulation.
You seem to think glaciers calving icebergs is some kind of problem, or even evidence of CAGW. It's not. If it didn't happen, then the oceans would be sinking ever lower, because of the ever growing ice.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"Glacier Girl is an airplane & was buried under 268 feet of ice on the Greenland Ice sheet."
.
No need to discuss this item any more. Because you already admitted it is not an argument for, or relevant to, anything that is happening in Greenland related to AGW whatsoever. It is a waste of time.
And why are you talking about icebergs suddenly? Seems irrelevant too. However, what is relevant is the massive decrease of arctic ice volume. 2010 was a record low. Explain that.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, a millennium ago, during the MWP, and for close to 400 years, there was an agricultural community in Greenland, with wooden houses. It is too cold for trees or agriculture there, now, so it was obviously warmer then than now, at least in Greenland. But there's no evidence of dangerous ice sheet melt or substantial sea level rise during the MWP.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"a millennium ago, during the MWP ..."
.
Stop right there!
I have seen and heard this argument many times. And each time it amazes me that global warming deniers always claim that there is not enough modern equipment to measure the climate correctly and at the same time have the boldest unverified global claims about an event, called MWP, that may or may not have been global.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, we were talking about Greenland, where you fret about the ice sheet melting. Well, have historical data and artifacts PROVING that a wood-using agricultural community existed in Greenland for approximately 400 years, during the Medieval Warm Period. It is too cold there for agriculture or trees there now, so it was obviously warmer then than now.
As for the MWP, there is abundant historical evidence of the MWP in Europe and Asia; indeed, everywhere that we HAVE historical evidence.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"Well, have historical data and artifacts PROVING that a wood-using agricultural community existed in Greenland for approximately 400 years, during the Medieval Warm Period."
.
Yes. But how was it on a global scale? That is the question. The right question. And that is still fiercely debated.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, there's abundant evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was world-wide. E.g., glacial retreat in Switzerland is uncovering human artifacts from the MWP, including an old silver mine.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life,
.
"there's abundant evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was world-wide."
.
Any consensus on that? If so, specify your soure(s).
Then again, who cares about medieval times. Explain the CURRENT massive loss of arctic sea ice. Can you name a natural cause? If so, specify your soure(s).
p.s. I sure hope you do not say "sun".
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers, there's no current massive loss of sea ice.
In the Arctic (only!) sea ice is down since measurements began in 1979, but that's unsurprising since the 1970s were unusually cold. The lowest extent of Arctic sea ice was in 2007.
Since we know Greenland was warmer 1000 years ago than today, it is likely that Arctic sea ice extent was lower 1000 years ago than today, too. It might have been lower in the balmy 1930s, too, but we'll never know for certain.
ncdave4life 2 months ago
@ncdave4life Source(s)?
Or did you really expect that I trust you based on your pretty blue eyes? ... so to speak of.
Here is a google scholar reference with multimple sources discussing the decline of arctic sea ice, see:
tinyurl*com/d92lmzr
E.g.: tinyurl*com/d6h8hmt
As for as I can judge not a single accredited scientific reference agrees with you that the current decline is a natural process.
So where are your verifiable, accredited scientific source(s) supporting your claim it is?
wimahlers 2 months ago
@wimahlers "Burning fossil fuels only amplifies the atmospheric heat capacity. CO2 is, after water, the second strongest greenhouse gas."
What!?!
I'm not an expert on this stuff but I do know that methane, for one, is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. There are probably many more. But if you got that wrong (something even I know), why should I believe you have any idea about what you're talking about?
kpresidente 2 months ago
@kpresidente,
.
"I'm not an expert on this stuff but I do know that methane, for one, is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. There are probably many more."
.
Methane indeed. And, yes! There probably are more that are stronger than CO2. But not within the atmosphere. Because concentration is a factor too. In fact, that is what the "A" in AGW is all about. The fact that we significantly increase the CO2 within the atmosphere. A gas that is already a significant greenhouse gas.
wimahlers 2 months ago
@ncdave4life Continuing my previous reply:
As for sources ... why dont you start here:
tinyurl*com/cb4up5p
(NOAA paleoclimatology: A Paleo Perspective ... on Global Warming)
For NOAA homepage see:
tinyurl*com/c83dzqx
wimahlers 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ncdave4life,
.
"As for Antarctica ..."
.
See: tinyurl*com/d9syvzc
To see any quotes, such as but not limited to "It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise ... are very unlikely during the 21st century", in context.
wimahlers 2 months ago
Can anyone tell me where is the source for this graph so that I can do some research?
earthtojanson 1 year ago
@earthtojanson this is an excerpt from the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW Yes, I know it's from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" but where did they get the chart from?
earthtojanson 1 year ago
@earthtojanson petitionproject (.) org
M4GW 1 year ago
@earthtojanson Yes - search google images - key words: vostok graph
It is based on the Vostok deep ice core survey. Another major ice core survey is called EPICA. Vostok and EPICA data are often presented together as they showed the same results. The big picture is long ice ages (glaciations) that last 90,000 years, and briefer warm intervals (interglacial) that last about 12,000 years. We are currently in the Holocene Interglacial, and living in between ice ages.
chiliwack44 2 months ago
Manbearpig says CO2 time travels, so Fat Boy Al is not wrong. Excelsior!
fishinwflies 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Al Gore's average monthly electric bill is $1,349 a month, Natural Gas $1,080 per month. This was after installing Solar panels, replacing all the light bulbs with fluorescents. He heats an indoor swimming pool. He flies on chartered planes, an army of SUV's transport him to all of his engagements.
ThisWillLeaveaMark 1 year ago
Incomparable video, nail in the coffin. This vid goes to the foundation of their lies and exposes them.
8n4n08 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gores Dual Role: Advocate and Investor
NY Times
Silver Spring Networks,came to Gores firm, Kleiner Perkins looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of meters
Gore decided to back the Co., in gratitude Silver Spring retained him as corporate adviser
The Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts Gore/Kleiner Perkins
AGW profiteering!
Thisawareness 1 year ago
There's only one real threat, here and it's called the power elite!
RandyBful1 1 year ago
He's one of the elite - he lies. Case closed!
RandyBful1 1 year ago
Seriously the Internet has been recommended to be nominated for a Nobel Prize.
Since the guy who claims climate change also claimed he "helped created the interner"
Al Gore should get another Nobel Prize. Am looking forward to his next claim.
unclejay1000 1 year ago
It's a matter of feedback. Earth has numerous negative feedbacks, and AGW requires a massive positive feedback.
Purely looking at CO2 and no other item,s then from 1960 to present should be a .5C warming. Earths atmosphere is more complex than a simple math equation, which is basically what all these models are.
Brantoc 2 years ago
amazing how all the supposed global warming liar scientists are all stepping down their lies have ruined them,screw al gore the biggest liar.
ajack50 2 years ago
Al Gore being wrong doesn't make these people right.
This video doesn't take into account the fact that CO2 is now being produced by unnatural processes at a rate far higher than it ever was by natural processes, it doesn't give any explanation for why the planet is heating up and it doesn't disprove that the planet is in fact experiencing climate abnormalities.
Maybe the lesson here isn't that Al Gore is wrong, maybe it's that we shouldn't blindly trust "scientists".
jtucci1991 2 years ago
There are so many "scientists" involved in this fraud, you must realize there is something else going on. Something below the publicised surface. The progressive redistribution of wealth on a global scale. The grab for power in the one world movement. It's treasonous and fraud.
fishinwflies 2 years ago
What could anyone possibly gain from this that isn't beneficial for the entire planet? We're going to have to switch to a different energy source soon anyway, the sooner we the less likely it is that we'll have a massive crisis. That and we've known that CO2 emissions are harmful to the air whether is creates global warming or not.
And I for one would rather use solar or wind power than pay the electric company.
It's not an evil conspiracy if it helps everybody.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 I have been waiting 30 years for a real home system that workd that doesn't cost 50 grand.
There is no proof we are hurting the planet with CO2.
BruceH59 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 You got to be young and really don't have an understanding of reality. I have work with solar and wind it is very very very limited. Storage is the main problem You get tons of wind in the winter months but no way to store for the summer months. Look it up I am about 15 miles from the huge windmills I read the reports from the energy company they are unreliable and still must rely on the coal fire power plants
BruceH59 2 years ago
maybe global warming would end if al gore would stop letting out hot air
xanafanadu 2 years ago
gore can't even read his own data properly! do i laugh because gore is a joke or do i cry because people who believe in AGW want to destroy the American economy???...and they are the ones in power right now
tonyg0123 2 years ago 3
I'm glad we have people like you in the world who enjoy paying for energy they could be harvesting from solar and wind power; we need someone to keep our economy going now that we've shipped all of our industry over to south east Asia.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
I am shivering here in New York City and do not believe in global warming
mrbb33 2 years ago
i've taken many weather and climate classes durring mu stay at college, and the assumption of co2 causing global warming doesn't add up in climactic sense. what no global warming advocate will ever show you is a SR budget for the atmosphere, because if they did it would show their flawed methods of study
crusaderpat 2 years ago
Someone like him, with such a high degree of influence over the world should no better than to do this. And even more so, to push on in the face of a huge inside scam just pisses me off. Does he realize the millions of death that would come from the COP treaty - starving the developing nations from necessities when there already in crisis mode. Same with the U.S. - its diabolical and totaly EVIL to do what Al Gore has done and is doing. What an asshole.
ptangboy 2 years ago 2
The Treaty is non-legally binding and does nothing more than implement a an emissions cap. Considering this- and the fact that most carbon emissions are being produced by large, developed countries- I don't think this treaty is going to cost any lives. As for America, the economies of western Europe rely very little on energy and they're doing fine, maybe we should follow their example
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 2 month ago I comment on this video?
2 months ago?
A little late to the exposed hoax of Globull warming but you are just another gullible greenie that is clueless and uneducated.
BruceH59 2 years ago
Not to get into all the details, but the COP treaty wasnt signed on-to by any countries so it is now irrelevant what it said.
However it would have been legally binding if it were signed on to - that is what a treaty is - a legally binding document.
This treaty in particular designated the UN as the carbon Governor of the countries signing on - that is legally binding and cannot be voided under any circumstances. The UN would recieve designated taxes or impose sanctions on the country.
ptangboy 2 years ago
The treaty didn't set any emissions limit or enforcement mechanism, that's technically non-binding.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
Shut off AlGoar's O2 supply, problem solved.
TheSaturnV 2 years ago 5
Pause at 0:47 ... then ask yourself: was that graph done by a scientist, or a PR agent?
Wejer3 2 years ago
note that Gore used a huge scale on that projection so you can't notice that CO2 in fact rises about 800 years BEHIND the temp rise.
And Gore never actually states that temps rise AFTER CO2, he merely states that "when there is more CO2 the temperature gets warmer". Not really an out and out lie.
soakupthesunman 2 years ago
Ya, I noticed that right away. These guys are all very well versed in legalities, not to mention those that advise them. There is nothing saving him now though. At least not his image. He should go down for life imprisonment like any other huge fraud. People have to stop giving these guys breaks, they ARE the problem in the world.
ptangboy 2 years ago 5
what an asshole
soakupthesunman 2 years ago
If Gore quit breathing the hoax would end. LOL !
superdave492 2 years ago
Gore & Co are a FRAUD.
Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs 10% owned by Generation Investment Management, Founded & Chaired by Al Gore
'Gore and Blood'
That its nickname.
Formed in spring of '08, with his Goldman Sachs buddy, David Blood, it's listed as GIM, LLP out of London.
obama's connection to the CCX, watch:-
/watch?v=V0cwI23pHzs
PikeSdream 2 years ago 2
There is a pro global warming video on YouTube titled, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See," and has 2.6 million hits. I would go there from time to time and post news report snippets of record cold temperatures across the globe. There were many comments by others as well.
A few months ago all comments have been turned off and hidden because they were getting torn to bits. That is the same reason why Al Gore will not debate anyone. That guy is laughing all the way to the bank.
Entropy56 2 years ago 3
NO, no, no. Al Gore's only source of information is his university professor who's been studying the end of the world since the 50's.
And there's only one thing university grads trust: Their professors.
Screw Al Gore. I'll say it again: Screw Al Gore.
redcollargedeon 2 years ago 4
Thank God!!! Finally someone proves global warming is bull sh**
NA3CL31 2 years ago 4
'' The use of fear to acquire power has a rather old provenance, politicians from time immemorial have used that TACTIC, it has ALWAYS been effective''
Al Gore .... Suspect Nation (3/5)
dumpy484 2 years ago
Notice that you don't see many defenders of global warming actively taking a stand on YouTube? They'd get torn to bits.
Entropy56 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
im here and i will debate you deniers anytime
JizMasterBEE 2 years ago
I looked at your profile. LOL!
Entropy56 2 years ago
Nice, the only other liberal argument was censored.
Now it doesn't matter whether or not he said anything valid because no one will ever be able to see it again.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
Thx 4 posting
Causa10bserver 2 years ago
I was forced to watch this movie in high school. One of my questions is, why is there a short clip of a nuke in the movie? What the hell does a nuclear explosion have to do with "global warming"?
Thenakedstickfigures 2 years ago 3
Nuclear explosions create large amounts of CO2, the creation of nuclear bombs is one of many technological advancements that produces large amounts of CO2. Were you paying attention to the movie, or just seething the whole time because it didn't coincide with your beliefs?
jtucci1991 2 years ago
-.- While I agree nukes are dangerous, I still don't recall seeing any US citizens running around launching off nukes. So, that still leaves the clip of the nuke irrelevant. Don't believe the CO2 B.S. CO2 has been going up for years, and the global temperature has been declining lately. Ever heard the phrase "Hide the decline."? Look up Climate-gate......
Thenakedstickfigures 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure it was just suppose to be symbolic; it's a pretty terrible movie anyway so it doesn't really matter.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
If we plot a graph of Al Gore's lies vs his CO2 emissions we find an astounding correlation.
reprovo 2 years ago 16
@reprovo If only we could get paid per lie...
M4GW 1 year ago
@M4GW If only lol!
reprovo 1 year ago
@reprovo,
.
"If we plot a graph of Al Gore's lies vs his CO2 emissions we find an astounding correlation."
.
Oh dear ... Tim Ball, both Fred's and mister Clark all have to go back to school. They really don't understand global warming. Here it is...
CO2 is an amplifier. That is, precession, continental drift and most other cyclic events are, by themselves, not strong enough to create a climate change. It is only when CO2 kicks in for it to count. And humans are now the releaser of CO2.
wimahlers 7 months ago
al gore is a piece of garbage and a liar just like odumba and most of the libs
ajack50 2 years ago 3
Um, did you spend Bush's presidency under a rock? If the US had a dollar for every lie that moron created, it might balance the debt he put us in.
All politicians are liars.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
The global warming scandal of the century
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
BruceH59 2 years ago 8
And what a scandal! It's changing so much of our everyday lives. We've ha to give up our oversized cars, and stop driving them more than any other country; we don't have as many factories, our economy is gone because we now only produce green energy...
Oh wait...
None of this has happened...
I guess it's not a very sucessful scandal...
Maybe we liberals should take a hint from the mortgage scandal you guys created, now there was a successful scandal.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 What planet are you from? Oh wait I see you are uneducated, clueless and brain damage.
Barney Frank mortgage scandal Oh Wait your liberal I forgot you can't handle the truth.
All the Right Left is BS we are dealing with a an exposed HOAX, corrupt Government on both sides of the idle and gullible people that will believe any lie they see on TV.
BruceH59 2 years ago
First of all, it's spelled Global, Brain DamagED and You're; next time you call someone uneducated, you should probably proofread what you wrote.
Second of all, I'm not arguing for any politicians, I understand that Washington is corrupt, Liberal isn't a political affiliation. What I'm trying to tell you, is that if this is some huge conspiracy to provide themselves some sort of gain, they aren't doing a very good job. So far all the change from this has only been beneficial to the people.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 First off loser I well spell Globull warming anyway I like got it punk.
Second Globull is an exposed HOAX end of story.
BruceH59 2 years ago
Comment removed
jtucci1991 2 years ago
1. I never said you couldn't, free country right? I said it destroyed your education argument.
2. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, it has been PROVEN that greenhouse gases greatly effect the temperature of the earth, i.e. the ozone, a greenhouse gas that makes earth habitable. Whether this will create global warming (which has happened in the past by the way so it isn't a myth) depends on it's life span and quantity, CO2 has varying life span but a high and increasing quantity.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
3. Maybe you should add up your energy bills from those 30 years and see if it still isn't worth it.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 I have add up my bills maybe you should find out what is stopping the real cures from hitting the market?
There is no way you can beat the cost of electric after 5-10 years you have to replace your batteries. ND did an indepth study on solar and wind. Total cost, repairs and replacement is outragerous. You really should do a lot more research on the subject before you act you like you have a clue.
BruceH59 2 years ago
A lot of what's stopping real cures from hitting the market is a fear of replacing fossil fuel industry. Cars in other countries can get up to 60 MPG on average, motorcycles can get up to 400, they blocked from entering our country by oil lobbyists. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing was happening to alternative energy.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 Yes this is why I get so mad at the big green groups because they have the power to tell the America people the truth but they don't because of why? The big oil companies donated to them. It is sickening to watch Greenpeace cry about Global warming but not tell the American people about real solutions they are nothing but money grubbing losers at the top.
BruceH59 2 years ago
There are several organization and companies out right now that are trying to make solutions, like wind and solar energy, more affordable. Just because a few, like green peace, do nothing but bitch about the problem, doesn't mean that's what they all do.
And this is part of why the government needs to get more involved in the issue like they promised, they have the power to lower the cost for individuals and increase large scale production.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 But this is why we don't trust the Government they try to pull that anti American communist plan of Cap and Trade that would only tax people to death and make Al Gore a billionaire. That is not a solution.
BruceH59 2 years ago
Well no matter what solution they come up with it's going to involve a tax increase and that's just something America needs to get over, most of the most heavily taxed countries are also the countries with the highest quality of living.
And, cap and trade programs have worked well in the US before, there was one in the North East that decreased nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants.
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 Nope your are complete wrong a real solution will equal no tax increase.
You wait to Nov this idiots in DC are all getting voted out this cap and trade is being toss out the windows in those clowns better start taking care of this country.
What every idiot wants a tax increase is insane.
You better get used to that idea real quick.
BruceH59 2 years ago
jtucci, you are wrong on litteraly every single thing you have written. High taxed socialist countries have a PERMANENT 10% plus unemployment. The science as you call it is debatable because it was politics not science that claimed warming. The main guy, Jones now admits, NO WARMING FOR 15 YEARS. Science has proved it can't be CO2, failure to discard AGW theory was scientific misconduct. They need to be jailed. You need to get the facts, or shutup.
fishinwflies 2 years ago
@jtucci1991
Let me guess, you're an artist? Theres some correlation between creativity and lack of rational thinking. It seems that those with the most creativity are incapable of critical rational cause and effect thought. We need creativity, but just be aware of your place in society, and stay away from the important decision making that requires forethought of longer than 5 minutes.
jjrglobal 1 year ago
People have no idea, how much technology is being kept hidden from us!
RandyBful1 1 year ago
@jtucci1991 LOL you have not been keeping up with the debate at all. You are 2 months behind it has already been proven that CO2 is NOT harming the earth wake up grow up and face reality.
BruceH59 2 years ago
It's not a debatable thing, it's science. It is a cold hard fact that the earth's temperature would drop about 30 degrees without the Greenhouse gases it contains naturally, they are what hold in heat. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it holds in heat; the more of it there is, the more it will hold in heat; the more we produce it,
jtucci1991 2 years ago
@jtucci1991 Whatever we are not hurting the climate with the co2 we are adding. A new study showed that it is NOT changing the climate. So no it is not Proven only gullible greenies still believe the myth.
BruceH59 2 years ago
Science isn't a debatable thing, it is a proven fact that our planet stays warm because of greenhouse gases, it is also a proven fact that CO2 is one of them. If we make more of it, it will insulate the earth more, it's not a difficult concept to understand. And considering the fact that the last time you took a science class was over 30 years ago, I don't think you really have any room to claim you definitively KNOW that it's not true.
jtucci1991 2 years ago