Funny how Canada just announced it is withdrawing from the Kyoto accord-maybe being closer to the polar icecap than many countries,they noticed what is happening-or rather NOT HAPPENING. Such as : no massive melting,no huge sea rise,no decline in polar bear population [increase in fact] and just perhaps they thought jobs are more important than pleasing alarmists like Gore?
Michael Mann really KNOWS he is NOT as smart as he would like to be. He is a mediocre professor at a state university that used to have a great football coach. Einstein never bothered to get mad at his detractors. Einstein never tried to keep his critics from publishing. Michael Mann does both because he knows his critics are right. Michael Mann is a POSER, a FAKE, and a CHEATER. He knows it. It can't be a fun job....
they did not used the last 20 years data because the tree rings were not reliable, so they inserted the instrumental data which has increased dramatically since 1970. Anyway, if you look to more record of past climate, you will see that global warming is real and can not be explained by natural variability.
@frankobjectif Michael Mann is to science what Jerry Sandusky is to coaching.
The science of global warming is "settled" the way child custody is "settled" by kidnapping. We are going into another ice age and we need all the greenhouse gases we can get in our atmosphere. Buy and SUV and increase your carbon footprint!
@Skeptic121 : You should maybe read the scientific articles instead of watching propanganda on TV. A lot of scientist are working really hard on that issue such as Mann.
If you read articles in science and nature you'll find that indeed we were supposed to be into another ice age, but recent warming caused by GHGs has reversed this natural cooling. Temperatures since ~ 20th century are above the average of the last 2000 years, which should not be the case because of astronomical forcing.
GOOD. GREAT! Hallelujah! I am DAMN GLAD we have global warming instead of an ICE AGE. An ICE AGE means MY OWN HOUSE will be under the ICE. I can live with a few dead polar bears. And a few flooded Pacific Islands. BRING IT ON
Very likely not many. We all survived during the little ice age in the 1800s. What will happen with the emission of tons of CO2 is incredible heat, drying in some areas such as the mediterranean and africa while other parts will benefit of more pronounced precipitation. That we are very likely certain that will happen. When I went to the arctic in 2010, they used air conditioners for the first time in their history... Everyone on earth should be aware of the possible consequences.
@frankobjectif Not the Little Ice Age, the REAL Ice Age. The one with a mile of ice over Canada. Americans walking across the frozen Rio Grande into Mexico.
@frankobjectif The world is not warming "too fast." Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to alter the temperature of the globe.
The warming was not a "consequence of our actions" - it was a recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) which ended in 1850. The LIA was caused by low solar activity.
The warmth since it has ended has increased crop productivity and reduced deaths.
That is what we gonna see. Let's talk about that topic in say,... 10 years. And if you are still skeptic about this global anthropogenic warming, it is bad.
The warming we are experiencing is warmer than the medieval period and it will continue to rise much more.
@frankobjectif Why is it bad if I'm still a skeptic at that point? You think I was always a skeptic? Of course not, I bought into it until i looked at the evidence rather than the spin.
There has been no statistically significant warming since 95-98. I fully expect this lack of warming to continue and if it doesn't I'll have to re-evaluate my beliefs. That's about 15 years of no warming, while this current scare is essentially based on warming from 1977-98 - a mere 20 years.
heh! 2010 was the warmest year recorded in the arctic... I was in the high arctic in june and I can tell you that 25 degrees celcius is something really odd. Local people had never seen temperatures as up as that since ever. I don't know where you got your data, maybe in a cereal box?
@frankobjectif lol, I already told you that Fort Yukon's temp record was 100 degrees F in 1915. "Warmest year on record" is a constantly shifting thing as well. GISS has consistently lowered the temperatures in the past - specifically the very hot decade of the 30's.
And I try to rely on the satellite data records since they show zero bias unlike the surface station records. FYI, we've only had those records since the late 70's.
It was indeed hot in the 30s in the arctic. This decade was the onset of the unprecedented warming people are actually experiencing in the arctic since at least 2000 years. Our paleo-records confirm it.Taking only one year is not a suitable way. Furthermore this is only for one location and weather changes greatly from place to place. It is strange that sea ice is thinner than ever and this is confirmed by local people that have been living there for thousands of years.
@frankobjectif Actually it was not the onset of "unprecedented warming" because the climate was cooling from 1945 to 1977. It was simply a warm decade from increased solar activity following the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Look at the sunspot numbers from 1850 and onwards.
The proxy records, using tree rings and other hokum, is not a reliable way to measure global temperatures from 100+ years ago. Calling thing unprecedented based on flimsy evidence is silly.
@frankobjectif Oh, and I'm pretty sure there aren't people alive that have lived for 1000's of years. Some people in the arctic may have been told second or third hand what their father/grandfathers were saying, which would put such accounts smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age.
Why do you focus on such accounts while ignoring paintings and records of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?
@frankobjectif Oh, and sea ice hasn't been getting "thinner and thinner" it goes in annual cycles, and is more affected by the wind than the temperature. On average the extent has gone down a bit, it melts in the summer and refreezes in the winter, but it isn't a straight line down like you seem to think
The fact that Antarctica's ice is growing over most of the continent stands in stark contrast and puts even more doubt on the hypothesis of AGW.
@frankobjectif Wow, an AGW alarmist who admits there was a Little Ice Age. Follow the logic now, if you can. We had the LIA and then the Earth started to warm up again. So, the warming trend you've been seeing over the last hundred years is the natural effect of coming out of an ice age, NOT because there are a few more smokestacks and cow farts.
@TXKafir Awesome post. Al Gore & the other globalists were counting on the ignorance of the masses to push through their carbon credit trading scam. We're not that stupid, eh? Knowledge is power. :)
The global warming swindle is over. Now maybe we can move on to less sexy, but more real problems like the monstrous amount of trash created by importing Chinese crap in ridiculous packaging. And for those former global warming statists that will miss being able to control other people's behavior, how about stiff tariffs on imports from off-shored global corporate polluters?
AGW is dead, warmers. It is dead last on anyone's list of concerns about the future. Cap n'Tax will never happen, Kyoto is dead and Copenhagen was a joke. Put a fork in yourself. You're done.
@WarEagle8055 Except for Australians who tanks to Al Gore get a new tax called "The Carbon Tax" ....... These people fudging numbers need to be shot.. IN THE FACE.
So, from my understanding, no decline was hidden. Michael Mann was using tree ring data to model the world climate throughout time. However, we have only very recently had the tools to measure this sort of data directly, and when directly measured climate data was compared with the tree ring data, the tree ring data was shown to be an underestimate of actual data. So he just adjusted the tree ring data to match the observable data, so that a usable climate model could be made.
@uranrising Sure they do. Until the idea of manmade GW is no longer supported by govts, plenty of cash will be made available to businesses who engage in research. So there's plenty of money to be had by those investors.
But it says nothing about whether the idea is valid or not.
@GoblinKnightLeo The investors site [IIGCC] says "The IIGCC brings investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy"
I read that as internatuonal investors accepting that some c.c. is man-made..
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011.
The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
The hot hair bullshit from Gore and this douche is effecting our planet. Gore can KMA until he sells his private jet and tears down this 25,000 SQUARE FOOT home in TN. Until then Al Gore? STFU
The real tragedy of the climategate scandal isn't even that the frauds like Mann and Jones and their gang of crooks are still employed leeching tax dollars to continue the scam. It's that the public is so ignorant of history and or science and of the news for their entire life times that they think climategate is the only example of fraud to peddle the magic CO2 religion. Those of use who made it past 7th grade science have seen the scam from the beginning and can't believe ANYONE bought it.
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
Not too long ago, the Commies were pushing the "hole in the Ozone layer" scare. Haven't heard about the hole in the ozone since "global warming" became the new scare and new religion of non-thinkers. I liked the Al Gore in jail picture. If that comes to pass, there's one hole I can think of that will be bigger when he gets out than when he goes in. Say hi to Bubba, OwlBore. I hope you're convicted of treason, Tennessee Trash........
@lisabob22 the is no such thing as man made climate change !!! it is all a big lie , not just climategate , but wekie - leeks also shows the cover-up too !!!!!
Love the video. A question for the AGW "scientists", what is the appropriate temperature of the earth? Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Has it ever been colder than it is now? What effects will increased cloud cover from increased water vapor have with global temperatures?
@87boilers Earth has been hotter at least 7 degrees , has been colder , ice covered 2/3 of US and northern Europe, The climate primitive climate models cannot handle water vapour (inc clouds ) its too complex . Which is weird because if you ever went in a green house , as i used to do , the first thing you notice is ...humidity ! Yes the predominant greenhouse gas is water vapour , which they cant model so they ignore. For info on the model go look at "the devils kitchen uk , happy reading
Love the video. A question for the AGW "scientists", what is the appropriate temperature of the earth? Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Has it ever been colder than it is now? What effects will increased cloud cover from increased water vapor have with global temperatures?
Brilliant video! It's impossible that humans could have ANY effect on climate whatsoever. I mean after all, there are only six billion of us burning fossil fuels at rates millions of times faster than they're being produced. I say milk every resource the planet has with no thought for the morrow! Sure it's irresponsible and unsustainable but who cares?!
global warming is nothing but an excuse for cap and trade anyone who thinks differently is mentaly not equiped to make a rational decision for themselves and should be commited
@OregonOutlaw2000 I would say anyone who thinks that man made global warming is real, should have cap and trade imposed on them personally and no one else
Hilarious!!!! It's just too bad that the communists' new home, the "global warming" hysteria movement, have created such disasterous economic calamity that if we westerners don't wake up and smell the coffee, our world market competitors will beat us in every economic competition from here forward.
To NOT 'hide the decline' - that woud be the REAL conspiracy. Although skillfully put together, and entertaining, this clip is the lowest common denominator of denialist misinformtion. By removng tree ring data, they got rid of data that is known to be bad. You really want that included?
The inquiries are in - theres no substance to Climategate, no conspiracy involving ALL the worlds science bodies. You can put you tin foil hat away. The real debate these days is over climate sensitivity
@grisza77 You miss the point. Its not up to me to debate the science - we have much more clever professional minds on the topic - and 97.4% of them would say "Yes, we humans are the culprit, and we have to do something, fast". I would not be so ignorant as to say they are all wrong, and Glenn Beck is right.
Where I live, about 20% of people are deniers - and they are overwhelmingly right wing and Christian. So its clear that denialism is political issue - not a science issue.
@garlicbreds political? of course - this is the Left trying to push its economical agenda using arguments such us "97.4% of scientists agree that put_your_issue_here". That's not only untrue but also an utter bullshit used here and there to justify just about anything.
@grisza77 Nope! Its neither left nor right, just inconvenient scientific fact. The 97% figure is a genuine study (and since confirmed by more accurate studies). Not just any scientists - CLIMATE scientists who have published, etc etc. Yes you really should look at the study in more detail (its even better in detail) to see exactly what it measured. Character limits on youtube do not do it justice. You dont like the 97% figure because it completely wipes your arguments.
@garlicbreds define "climate scientist" last time I looked it included social sciences loonies and such. Once again - you're hitting the same drum over and over again. I'll try your trick with the capital letters: NOONE is denying changes in climate.
@garlicbreds Taking a skewed sample: "Scientists that have been published" and calling that a genuine study is ridiculous. In other words, the sample used is not an unbiased sample. You cannot come up with a 97% truth based on a biased sample.
If you go to downtown Green Bay and ask 100 ppl what their favorite NFL team is, you cannot present the answer: "97% of NFL fans prefer the Packers."
Getting published these days is more likely if you prove what the $ intended you to prove.
@garlicbreds 97% is a figure arrived at by those so called 97%. Far more scientist do not believe in AGW than do. In the general population More people believe in ghosts. In the real science, there has been no warming since 1998. Even the proponents know they are in trouble and after being caught faking data are changing the name to climate disruption. The fraud involved in the AGW field is huge.
@garlicbreds No, the scientists do not agree. Moreover no science based on models ist any good in predicting the reality. Models are just too simple to mirror the real life. And yet the policies are being made based on such science. Is it not enough that our economies are being run based on contadictory teories?
Even if one takes your stance - OK - what good are Kioto and other policies in reducing CO2? That is other tjhan shifting (and multiplying) its output to the Third World?
@grisza77 "scientists do not agree" - Oh, really! What percentage of climate scientists do not agree? (the 97% figure comes from Prof Orekses - watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0 ) FYI the main debate amongst real scientists is not about AGW, but has moved to climate sensitivity.
And you might want to look at "This Years Model" - watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
"what good are Kyoto and other policies" - Ah! It appears your objections are also policy related. You cannot bare to see progressives calling shots!
@grisza77 count geologists in, and yes of course, if you'd have read my previous posts you would know that i do deny the thing being anything else but politics. While we're at missing the point... . Science will have it course and in a few decades will probably have a good explanation to the change in climate. The tragedy of the thing is that science only has approximations and policies based on such approximations are nothing less than power takeover.
@coolster OK, than maybe you can explain to me why, in the past 5 years, I have had to use a portable heater in my bedroom between September through March? Oh, I forgot to tell you, I LIVE IN HAWAI'I!! Global warming? My dying O'kole!!! It drops to around 55 degrees at night. It' NOT SUPPOSEDTO DO THAT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Global warming. You bleeping idiots!!! =Stefan=
Lol, your not terribly informed about Global warming if you think the overall surface tempature of the earth is going to change dramatically enough for humans to feel a difference within such a short time period... And a dramatic change of tempature is like.. a few degrees + as a mean surface temperature which dramatically effects many environments, but most humans probably wouldn't tell the difference... When Ice caps melt and flood hawaii, in honesty probably after you die tho, ppl will regret
@coolster I seriously doubt if I would regret flooding of the Hawaii. Plus I do not have doubts that we can do nothing to decrease (or increase for that matter) the mean global temperature.
@coolster Maybe I'd be more convinced if you spelled temperature properly. But, as that idiot in the White House said "Too much information causes confusion". You obviously ascribe to that doctrine. Hey, here's an idea. Do some research, yourself. Or are you afraid of what you'll find. Oh, by the way, what do think about the last survey of the Antarctic(Last year) where the ice was 3 meters more than estimated??? When people tell you your drunk, you better lie down. =Stefan=
@chengloki You have completely misunderstood what is expected from global warming. Your cooler local temperatures are not replicated in the heatwave in Australia (or wherever).
Judging from your other posts, it seems that you go through a process of simplification and polarisation which impedes your ability to understand the world in a sophistocated way.
@AnonymousWhitePerson thought you shot JFK who did less than Lord Gore of climate gate !
I suggest we use some obsolete Italian rifle ..like a er a chicano , and a magic bullet , Hits Gore in the head (no damage ) ! passes through his chest hits Bush in ass (leaves him brainless) then stops in mid air and hits Obama in mid air and pushes his faggot as back and to the left !
@AnonymousWhitePerson And let's hope Al Gore has lots of "dates" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with his bunkies, "Bruno" and "Mad Dog", as he serves his time in the Big House!
@AnonymousWhitePerson Yeah, RIGHT! Al Gore is a GLOBALIST PLAYER WITH ILLUMINATI BLOOD and a HIGH-DEGREE FREEMASON. He is NOT going to jail! His BUDDIES and COCONSPIATORS will see to that!
@vanderbilt887 you are a fool Michael Mann was investigated by his own school which get millions in grants to research global warming. It should have had a outside source do the investigation.
Who cares about global climate trends? Its the weather you actually get that matters not trend lines on some scientists spreadsheet. Its 5 weeks from mid-summers day and here in England its so cold that I have the central heating on, spring was 6 weeks late, last winter saw record breaking snowfalls and low temperatures its been like this for 3 years in a row.
If the global trend is so frequently and thoroughly negated by local weather conditions does the trend actually matter?
@grisza77 I have tried to post the source and I keep getting error messages. Just google NASA Second warmest year on record; end of the warmest decade
@nevermindedness nah, you tell me. I know the correlation is no existent (temperature and CO2 levels rise and drop independently, with other factors playing - most probably - major role in climate changes) - this is you trying to prove otherwise.
@grisza77 Very briefly: During the first half of the 20th Century, both the rise in CO2 and the increase in solar intensity followed global temperature rise pretty well. But from about 1945 to about 1975, temperatures in the northern hemisphere dipped.
@grisza77 Neither the increasing solar intensity nor rising levels of CO2 followed that dip in temperatures. (It is difficult for me to understand how the sun could heat one hemisphere but not the other. Perhaps you can answer that.) Temperatures began to rise again about 1976. Since that time, total solar irradiance has dropped and CO2 concentrations have risen.
@nevermindedness Let me rephrase part of that last post. (It is difficult for me to understand how the sun could increase heat intensity in one hemisphere, but not the other. Perhaps you can answer that.) Google "temperature change for three latitude bands" and compare the southern and northern hemisphere temp changes since 1910.
The problem in discussions with GW alarmists is they try to present modelling results as facts which is never accurate and is not scientific at all. What happened to the good 'ole probability?
With models you are never able to say "the facts are", you may only say "there is a probability that the facts are".
@grisza77 Climate models are thoroughly checked by hindcasting. Obviously, models must be validated against observations to ensure reliability. No one would deny that models are only an approximation and they are not expected to be 100% accurate.
@grisza77 Through hindcasting, models have reliably shown what portion sources of radiative forcing account for the current warming. All models fail to predict the last century of warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. If any scientist had successfully created a model that was thoroughly checked through hindcasting that accurately illustrated the recent warming without the rise in CO2, the skeptics would be trumpeting it everywhere.
@grisza77 But no climate scientist has been able to put together a model which accounts for warming solely by natural forcings, which is part of the reason skeptics complain about climate modeling - it does not fit their preconceived notions.
@nevermindedness you have validatem my point of view. The discussion is not about if there is warming or if there isn't. The science is in constant discussion on the subject and this is good (opposite to "everyone agrees" bullshit pushed by alarmists).
@grisza77 The thing is that GW became political and financial issue. And here we come to the two points:
1. we are being forced to finance the huge overhaul of economics.
2. we are not sure whether there is any (unnatural) warming, if it is of any danger, or if we can do anything about it (that one we're rather sure about - we can't).
Are you really willing to pay for that? I'm not and I will vote out anyone who forces me to.
In other words: let the scientists argue about GW like they did about cooling, ozone layer and other disasters to be. And let's not give it too much attention. Who cares about global warming? At least it'll be warmer in Poland (even if the last winter was the coldest since the eighties)
@grisza77 There was never really an argument about cooling. Only the northern hemisphere was cooling due to the highly efficient reflective properties of sulfate aerosols produced during explosive industrial growth in the northern hemisphere subsequent to WW2. Significant amounts of solar radiation was reflected by these sulfate aerosols, this causing hemispheric cooling. The southern hemisphere, for the most part, continued to experience warming.
@nevermindedness OK, can we just leave those arguments to the scientists and keep them away form policymaking? Quae sunt caesaris, caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo. I believe science is in disagreement on the subject, if you wish to believe otherwise - fine. I just don't wan't to pay for nonsense, counterproductive "CO2 limits" policies like Kioto.
@grisza77 There was also very little debate over the consequences of ozone depletion by CFC aerosols. The chemistry was well understood, and the protective properties of ozone were never questioned. At only about 2 parts per million (far less than CO2 concentration), ozone blocks nearly 99% of solar UV radiation and is all that stands in the way of destruction of life on this planet by that UV radiation, which is extremely destabilizing at molecular and atomic levels.
Alarmists are somewhat resembling Seventh Day Adventists - the end of the world never came but they believe anyway. How many scientific mispredictions must be made for you to stop trying to impose rubbish, corrupt policies on me?
@grisza77 I never said we are doomed. I have never said what I believe will result from AGW. And from what I am getting, you don't know enough about the science to know whether a statement is a scientific misrepresentation or not. I have not tried to impose any policies on you. I have just tried to present in extremely brief fashion (this is a terrible venue to hold these type discussions) some of the science involved in the topic of AGW.
@nevermindedness OK - I don't know about science - be it your, selfrighteous way. Just bear in mind that there are other reasons for avoiding discussion and riddiculing than the lack of knowledge.
To sum up: you decided to lecture me and the other readers on the subject of your choice even if noone asked for it or needed it and while everyone was either poking fun or discussing political issues. And you're suprised someone is riddiculing you? Great. Peace be upon you preacher.
@grisza77 I probably would have been content to have made my first post and left it at that had you not told me to shut up. And then you arrogantly and pretentiously implied you knew the science better than the "trained scientists [that] propagate this kooky religion." That was too much for me to just let go. So that is why I decided to "lecture" you (specifically you, the other readers are bystanders).
@nevermindedness Good. Now try and learn statistics - you will be able to judge available data by yorself. For now you;re just preaching others' preach to the people who are fed up with it. Either that or just let go.
@grisza77 Look, we know the globe is warming, we know solar intensity has decreased since 1960, we know water vapor is not the cause, we are fairly certain that cosmic rays only amount to very fine tuning, we know that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, and we know there has been a significant increase in atmospheric CO2.due to human activities.
@nevermindedness@nevermindedness well, you might know that. As far as I'm aware the science is in discussion about these points. And I perceive discussion to be a good thing - scientifical one. And I do despise "scientists agree" stance. Real scientists never agree - if they were anywhere there would be no point to that particular branch of science (mathematics being an exception).
Adcd to that the fact, that whatever we do we will not significantly reduce CO2 emmisions - whether they matter or not. Are you really willing to finance AlGore's villa? You seem to mind financing energy giants villas - how does AlGore differ?
@grisza77 The AGW hypotheses have been around since Fourier in the 1820s, Tyndall in the 1850s, and Arrhenius in the 1890s. As the evidence has accumulated, the hypotheses developed into theories, which have withstood scientific test after scientific test, while the confidence that scientists place in it has steadily grown stronger. It has grown from an idea that people laughed at to one that an extremely large majority of the scientific community supports.
@nevermindedness look the cliches like "large majority of scientific community supports" are a texbook examples of propaganda - I've been fed that under commies I will withstand it now. That's bullshit. Large majority of scientific community in XV century supported the goecentric views. The science is about impertinence and boldness not about patting each others arms.
@grisza77 You have not offered any scientific ideas, only obstinacy. You are not a skeptic in that you do not express scientific doubt in the AGW theory. You are a denialist because you refuse to rationally debate the science, but instead regurgitate pat denialist propagandistic crap. You have totally turned your mind off to the science and are totally immersed in confirmation bias. Therefore, there is no reason to continue this conversation.
@nevermindedness you're wrong. I do not deny GW - i just don't care and/or have a dose of healthy scepticism - that's something alarmist utterly fail to understand. Neither do I have the necessary knowledge nor the will to discuss climate or geological science (well, I do have knowledge to discuss bogus statistics but do not care enough).
@grisza77 It is not skepticism if you deny the theory without understanding the science. Earlier you made one easily refuted statement about the science. Since then, you shied away from any discussion of the science and have made one statement after another from the script of the denialist camp.
@nevermindedness Goddamit! Cut that crap! Noone is denying anything - can it be said more plainly than "neither do I have the necessary knowledge nor the will to discuss climate or geological science"? It is political issue not scientifical!!!! Is that really that hard to understand? How many days more will it take you to process that?
@nevermindedness I'm just mimicking your style: "as a geologist", "science community supports" - is that scientific discussion? Give me a break. Here yourself:
As a Nobel prize laureate and a representant of majority of common sensed people I say global cooling is going to freeze us within ten years - save the planet!
@nevermindedness Hi - I admire your patience. I wonder how many people think like grisza77? And I wonder what it would take to convince them? I suspect it is not possible - see monbiot's article on "The Unpersuadables" - monbiot dot com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/
Readers should know that your posts reflect a modern and accurate summary of the science, and are presented with restraint, sound logic and humility. A pleasure to read.
@garlicbreds Thanks for the complements, g. And yes, it does take patience.
You assume too much - you assume grisa77 thinks. I believe he has swallowed the denier propaganda as gospel and that's as far as his thought process has progressed on the subject. He appears incapable of discussing the science of the subject. He made it clear that to him "It is a political issue not scientifical [sic]," Too bad there are so many that only know the politics. Thanks for the link to the monbiot article.
@grisza77 There is certainly disagreement among scientists over the details, such as the amount of moisture in the tropical tropopause, or the role played by thermohaline circulation in hurricane formation, but there is universal agreement that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, that human activity has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and virtually complete agreement that this has caused an imbalance in energy entering versus energy leaving the top of the troposphere.
@nevermindedness Even if this is right we are unable to do anything about it. You wish to believe some of the scientists, I trust the other side more - that's fine. When will you understand that this is not a discussion on whether there is GW or not?
Once again - what the heck entitles your side to impose crap policies on me? I'm getting tired of asking this simple question in answer to your endless rants on science. Answer the question or rant on for yourself.
@grisza77 We also know that we don't have a lot of time before we start running out of fossil fuels, we know that we are financing terrorists with purchases of fossil fuels, and there is a risk that any reasonable person would realize that we could be altering our climate for hundreds, possibly thousands of years to come. We are rapidly developing alternative energy that is inevitably going to be our dominant sources in the future. Why do you fight to hang on to dirty fuel that aids our enemies?
@nevermindedness well we were supposed to run out of fossil fuels in nineties. I do not take that fearmongering ecobullshit seriously - the boy cried wolfes once too many.
I don't fight I just do the resonable thing. Alternative - sure let it develop, but in the market economy so that could be financially and energetically efficient.
@grisza77 As a geologist that once worked in the petroleum industry, I know how reserves have been manipulated and I know that the decline in the giant oil fields is significant. If you think the International Energy Administration are fearmongering ecobullshitters when they say that the decline rate is almost double what they had originally estimated and that they estimate peak oil by 2020 at the latest, then I must believe that you will simply not listen to reason.
@nevermindedness look, as a psychologist, I know that the scientists are a bunch of dependent, out of touch bullshitters. Especially the ones who do not exist outside of the universities. And the last thing a reasonable people should do is to trust the scientists with creating policies.
Reality is demanding - more or less. I might be that we're running out of oil - but not that fast as predicted and oil is not the only fossil fuel known to man. But what does it have to do with economical overhaul? Once we run out of oil other sources of energy will become economically efficient - why speed up that process?
@grisza77 Your anti-science attitude fits with your stubborn refusal to debate the science. You don't believe AGW but you really don't scientifically know why you don't believe it. You have just decided you don't like it, so you refuse to consider even the possibility that it might have some validity. A perfect description of a closed mind.
@nevermindedness But I do have the knowledge to discuss merits of policies like Kioto protocol or Cap&Trade. And what I know is that we're spending billions on unefficient programs leading to nothing but creating value out of the emissions - you can now sell and buy limits - another bubble to move fiat money around.
@grisza77 Even big oil has admitted that fossil fuels are causing global warming and are making strides to replace it with alternative energy sources. To me, it's a pretty strong indication something is going on when those who fought against anthropogenic global warming the hardest are now admitting they have had a hand in altering global climate.
@nevermindedness well, the big oil is making huge money out of state dotations to the "alternative sources of energy". They would be stupid if they weren't saying that.
Take the politics and dotations out and I will agree with yyopu, with the huge money in the way there's no way I could trust these guys. My money.
@grisza77 This "huge amount of money" you say oil companies are making from state donations is a tiny pittance compared to the tens of trillions of dollars they will leave in the ground from oil not recovered if fossil fuel use is discontinued before it is developed.
@grisza77 So the strong monetary incentive has been to deny AGW. Despite this huge monetary incentive, they were finally convinced by their own scientists about the effects of fossil fuel derived greenhouse gases and AGW.
HIDE THE MISINFORMATION. HIDE FOX NEWS.
frankobjectif 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012.
AlpineMusicSchool 4 weeks ago
Funny how Canada just announced it is withdrawing from the Kyoto accord-maybe being closer to the polar icecap than many countries,they noticed what is happening-or rather NOT HAPPENING. Such as : no massive melting,no huge sea rise,no decline in polar bear population [increase in fact] and just perhaps they thought jobs are more important than pleasing alarmists like Gore?
muskratist 1 month ago
Michael Mann really KNOWS he is NOT as smart as he would like to be. He is a mediocre professor at a state university that used to have a great football coach. Einstein never bothered to get mad at his detractors. Einstein never tried to keep his critics from publishing. Michael Mann does both because he knows his critics are right. Michael Mann is a POSER, a FAKE, and a CHEATER. He knows it. It can't be a fun job....
Skeptic121 1 month ago 2
@Skeptic121
they did not used the last 20 years data because the tree rings were not reliable, so they inserted the instrumental data which has increased dramatically since 1970. Anyway, if you look to more record of past climate, you will see that global warming is real and can not be explained by natural variability.
frankobjectif 2 weeks ago
@frankobjectif Michael Mann is to science what Jerry Sandusky is to coaching.
The science of global warming is "settled" the way child custody is "settled" by kidnapping. We are going into another ice age and we need all the greenhouse gases we can get in our atmosphere. Buy and SUV and increase your carbon footprint!
Skeptic121 2 weeks ago
@Skeptic121 : You should maybe read the scientific articles instead of watching propanganda on TV. A lot of scientist are working really hard on that issue such as Mann.
If you read articles in science and nature you'll find that indeed we were supposed to be into another ice age, but recent warming caused by GHGs has reversed this natural cooling. Temperatures since ~ 20th century are above the average of the last 2000 years, which should not be the case because of astronomical forcing.
frankobjectif 2 weeks ago
@frankobjectif
GOOD. GREAT! Hallelujah! I am DAMN GLAD we have global warming instead of an ICE AGE. An ICE AGE means MY OWN HOUSE will be under the ICE. I can live with a few dead polar bears. And a few flooded Pacific Islands. BRING IT ON
Skeptic121 2 weeks ago
@Skeptic121
and likely several millions death
frankobjectif 2 weeks ago
@frankobjectif How many will die in an ice age?
Skeptic121 2 weeks ago
@Skeptic121
Very likely not many. We all survived during the little ice age in the 1800s. What will happen with the emission of tons of CO2 is incredible heat, drying in some areas such as the mediterranean and africa while other parts will benefit of more pronounced precipitation. That we are very likely certain that will happen. When I went to the arctic in 2010, they used air conditioners for the first time in their history... Everyone on earth should be aware of the possible consequences.
frankobjectif 2 weeks ago
@frankobjectif Not the Little Ice Age, the REAL Ice Age. The one with a mile of ice over Canada. Americans walking across the frozen Rio Grande into Mexico.
Skeptic121 2 weeks ago
@Skeptic121
REAL ice age will not happen until many thousand years...
frankobjectif 2 weeks ago
@frankobjectif Wow for the first time ever eh? Odd how Fort Yukon recorded its highest temperature in 1915 - and it was a 100 degrees.
As for people not dying in a Little Ice Age - look up the annual numbers of deaths due to cold. It is high - much higher than heat-related deaths.
thegoodlocust 2 weeks ago
@thegoodlocust
In any case, this is not a reason to let the world warm too fast that we will not be able to control the consequences of our actions
frankobjectif 1 week ago
@frankobjectif The world is not warming "too fast." Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to alter the temperature of the globe.
The warming was not a "consequence of our actions" - it was a recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) which ended in 1850. The LIA was caused by low solar activity.
The warmth since it has ended has increased crop productivity and reduced deaths.
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@thegoodlocust
That is what we gonna see. Let's talk about that topic in say,... 10 years. And if you are still skeptic about this global anthropogenic warming, it is bad.
The warming we are experiencing is warmer than the medieval period and it will continue to rise much more.
frankobjectif 1 week ago
@frankobjectif Why is it bad if I'm still a skeptic at that point? You think I was always a skeptic? Of course not, I bought into it until i looked at the evidence rather than the spin.
There has been no statistically significant warming since 95-98. I fully expect this lack of warming to continue and if it doesn't I'll have to re-evaluate my beliefs. That's about 15 years of no warming, while this current scare is essentially based on warming from 1977-98 - a mere 20 years.
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@thegoodlocust
heh! 2010 was the warmest year recorded in the arctic... I was in the high arctic in june and I can tell you that 25 degrees celcius is something really odd. Local people had never seen temperatures as up as that since ever. I don't know where you got your data, maybe in a cereal box?
frankobjectif 1 week ago
@frankobjectif lol, I already told you that Fort Yukon's temp record was 100 degrees F in 1915. "Warmest year on record" is a constantly shifting thing as well. GISS has consistently lowered the temperatures in the past - specifically the very hot decade of the 30's.
And I try to rely on the satellite data records since they show zero bias unlike the surface station records. FYI, we've only had those records since the late 70's.
You really need to do your homework more.
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@thegoodlocust
It was indeed hot in the 30s in the arctic. This decade was the onset of the unprecedented warming people are actually experiencing in the arctic since at least 2000 years. Our paleo-records confirm it.Taking only one year is not a suitable way. Furthermore this is only for one location and weather changes greatly from place to place. It is strange that sea ice is thinner than ever and this is confirmed by local people that have been living there for thousands of years.
frankobjectif 1 week ago
@frankobjectif Actually it was not the onset of "unprecedented warming" because the climate was cooling from 1945 to 1977. It was simply a warm decade from increased solar activity following the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Look at the sunspot numbers from 1850 and onwards.
The proxy records, using tree rings and other hokum, is not a reliable way to measure global temperatures from 100+ years ago. Calling thing unprecedented based on flimsy evidence is silly.
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@frankobjectif Oh, and I'm pretty sure there aren't people alive that have lived for 1000's of years. Some people in the arctic may have been told second or third hand what their father/grandfathers were saying, which would put such accounts smack dab in the middle of the Little Ice Age.
Why do you focus on such accounts while ignoring paintings and records of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@frankobjectif Oh, and sea ice hasn't been getting "thinner and thinner" it goes in annual cycles, and is more affected by the wind than the temperature. On average the extent has gone down a bit, it melts in the summer and refreezes in the winter, but it isn't a straight line down like you seem to think
The fact that Antarctica's ice is growing over most of the continent stands in stark contrast and puts even more doubt on the hypothesis of AGW.
thegoodlocust 1 week ago
@frankobjectif Wow, an AGW alarmist who admits there was a Little Ice Age. Follow the logic now, if you can. We had the LIA and then the Earth started to warm up again. So, the warming trend you've been seeing over the last hundred years is the natural effect of coming out of an ice age, NOT because there are a few more smokestacks and cow farts.
TXKafir 6 days ago
@TXKafir Awesome post. Al Gore & the other globalists were counting on the ignorance of the masses to push through their carbon credit trading scam. We're not that stupid, eh? Knowledge is power. :)
Booofrthefirst 4 days ago
@frankobjectif Because science lets you switch data sources if it calls your theory into question.
cheeseburger12 1 week ago
Another snake-oil salesman on the run.
Kill0Your0TV 1 month ago
Hey, for another bit of musical satire on this debate, try an Australian group's "Denial Tango" at /watch?v=TrURLJ6Vlsg Cheers!
ASHaustralia 1 month ago
Papa Gore said this winter is going to be cold because One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish, Global warming.
ArJuna22 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The global warming swindle is over. Now maybe we can move on to less sexy, but more real problems like the monstrous amount of trash created by importing Chinese crap in ridiculous packaging. And for those former global warming statists that will miss being able to control other people's behavior, how about stiff tariffs on imports from off-shored global corporate polluters?
teerexness 2 months ago
Comment removed
teerexness 2 months ago
AGW is dead, warmers. It is dead last on anyone's list of concerns about the future. Cap n'Tax will never happen, Kyoto is dead and Copenhagen was a joke. Put a fork in yourself. You're done.
WarEagle8055 2 months ago 10
@WarEagle8055 Except for Australians who tanks to Al Gore get a new tax called "The Carbon Tax" ....... These people fudging numbers need to be shot.. IN THE FACE.
VyperMk1 1 month ago
So, from my understanding, no decline was hidden. Michael Mann was using tree ring data to model the world climate throughout time. However, we have only very recently had the tools to measure this sort of data directly, and when directly measured climate data was compared with the tree ring data, the tree ring data was shown to be an underestimate of actual data. So he just adjusted the tree ring data to match the observable data, so that a usable climate model could be made.
Clcrook13 2 months ago 2
See the website of International Investors group on Climate Change. IIGCC.
uranrising 3 months ago
It seems that international investors take climate change seriously.
uranrising 3 months ago
@uranrising Sure they do. Until the idea of manmade GW is no longer supported by govts, plenty of cash will be made available to businesses who engage in research. So there's plenty of money to be had by those investors.
But it says nothing about whether the idea is valid or not.
GoblinKnightLeo 3 months ago
@GoblinKnightLeo The investors site [IIGCC] says "The IIGCC brings investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy"
I read that as internatuonal investors accepting that some c.c. is man-made..
uranrising 3 months ago
The funny thing is Mann threatened to sue over this original video but now it's still going viral all over the internet.
Even funnier is Al Gore comparing alarmist "deniers" to racists and moon hoax believers. His legacy is toast.
FantasticBob7000 4 months ago
@FantasticBob7000 Mann will never sue to remove the video, if he did all details of his research would be exposed in court
busguy100 2 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011.
The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
checkyoursources 7 months ago
The hot hair bullshit from Gore and this douche is effecting our planet. Gore can KMA until he sells his private jet and tears down this 25,000 SQUARE FOOT home in TN. Until then Al Gore? STFU
TheLiberalssuc 7 months ago
How is global warming a scam for corporations when if the government actually enforced climate laws it would severely hurt them grow up people
nibbers97 8 months ago
@nibbers97 They will only "hurt them" on the SURFACE. KEEP RESEARCHING and you will learn that these corporations will actually PROFIT FROM THEM.
Lurking99 8 months ago
Mann is going to prison. He will love it as he is a homo.
Jerricho68 8 months ago
Indictment coming for fraudster Michael Mann.
Jerricho68 8 months ago
Some funny shit!!!!!!!
fknstr 10 months ago
@umhalil
Bush-Cheney should be put to death.
AnonymousWhitePerson 10 months ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson why !!!!!!!!!!!!!
karp1941 9 months ago
@umhalil.
The world is drowning in a sea of lies.
AnonymousWhitePerson 10 months ago
Ha ha...good one. Brrrr....'scuse me - gotta go turn up the heat. :D
nameofthepen 10 months ago
The real tragedy of the climategate scandal isn't even that the frauds like Mann and Jones and their gang of crooks are still employed leeching tax dollars to continue the scam. It's that the public is so ignorant of history and or science and of the news for their entire life times that they think climategate is the only example of fraud to peddle the magic CO2 religion. Those of use who made it past 7th grade science have seen the scam from the beginning and can't believe ANYONE bought it.
wrjamescom 10 months ago
Holy shit. How fucking stupid do you have to be to interpret the chart at 0:45 as a downward trend? DUH. I DRAW ARROW DOWN!
xbrandxblandx 10 months ago
@xbrandxblandx
It's down from a peak
Down from a peak which stripe-me-pink just happened to coincide with an increase in solar radiation.
Well well who'd a thought eh?
wkbfutewc 10 months ago
John R. Christy has been accused of recanting his position that climate change is neither Anthropogenic nor Catastrophic, but he didn’t. He used two independent data sets, weather balloon and satellite for his findings. (see links in my about me) Later he only stated that there was some anthropogenic impact that could not be predicted 100 years out, but that what we’re doing was good for the plants.
Gracelandification 11 months ago
2/2 watch?v=bgKr480RYc4 Obama's Former Green Jobs Czar and Communist, Van Jones
Admits Left is 'PRETENDING' Need for Regulations in Green Movement
Gracelandification 11 months ago
1 /2 Obama stop offshore drilling until it was reinstated. This could cause a $5 a gallon increase, because we would grow dependent upon foreign nations we are not allies with in order to provide our oil. Cap and Trade (American Power Act) would increase gas prices increase by $2.58 a gallon according to George C. Marshall Institute& taxes on the average household up to $3200 according to the RNC Foreign countries price gouge w/ gas prices to $10/gal!.
.
Allen West 2012
Gracelandification 11 months ago
Ya your all fucking stupid
fucktard435345345353 1 year ago
@fucktard435345345353 your the fucking idiot.
Sugardaddy501 11 months ago
@Sugardaddy501 care to elaborate?
fucktard435345345353 11 months ago
@fucktard435345345353 No need to you showed it for me.
Sugardaddy501 11 months ago
@Sugardaddy501 how so?
fucktard435345345353 11 months ago
@fucktard435345345353 Lol...I love when people use YOUR when they call people stupid.
Ian7570 11 months ago
Not too long ago, the Commies were pushing the "hole in the Ozone layer" scare. Haven't heard about the hole in the ozone since "global warming" became the new scare and new religion of non-thinkers. I liked the Al Gore in jail picture. If that comes to pass, there's one hole I can think of that will be bigger when he gets out than when he goes in. Say hi to Bubba, OwlBore. I hope you're convicted of treason, Tennessee Trash........
karmabites1 1 year ago
algore is a joke.
Dukeoftruth 1 year ago
too bad almost all the scientific evidence supports the majority of scientists who warn us about the dangers of global man made climate change
lisabob22 1 year ago
@lisabob22 LOL Keep telling yourself that.
brscth 1 year ago
@lisabob22 the is no such thing as man made climate change !!! it is all a big lie , not just climategate , but wekie - leeks also shows the cover-up too !!!!!
karp1941 1 year ago
shouldn't we just let mother nature do her thing? maybe its her way of telling us to get the frick off her planet! :P (George Carlin reference)
DeltaDude7996 1 year ago
does the maker of this song have any testosterone in his system? repulsive character
thebookofcreation 1 year ago
well guys, Al Gore says that this summer is going to be hotter than ANY other time of year.
sabertoothedlime 1 year ago 13
Love the video. A question for the AGW "scientists", what is the appropriate temperature of the earth? Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Has it ever been colder than it is now? What effects will increased cloud cover from increased water vapor have with global temperatures?
87boilers 1 year ago
@87boilers Earth has been hotter at least 7 degrees , has been colder , ice covered 2/3 of US and northern Europe, The climate primitive climate models cannot handle water vapour (inc clouds ) its too complex . Which is weird because if you ever went in a green house , as i used to do , the first thing you notice is ...humidity ! Yes the predominant greenhouse gas is water vapour , which they cant model so they ignore. For info on the model go look at "the devils kitchen uk , happy reading
klnine 1 year ago
Love the video. A question for the AGW "scientists", what is the appropriate temperature of the earth? Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Has it ever been colder than it is now? What effects will increased cloud cover from increased water vapor have with global temperatures?
87boilers 1 year ago
Brilliant song
largejack1000 1 year ago
making up data the hard old way,
going to prison for a long long stay,
laurelbush 1 year ago
Brilliant video! It's impossible that humans could have ANY effect on climate whatsoever. I mean after all, there are only six billion of us burning fossil fuels at rates millions of times faster than they're being produced. I say milk every resource the planet has with no thought for the morrow! Sure it's irresponsible and unsustainable but who cares?!
tophershow 1 year ago
Comment removed
FOR87884 1 year ago
Has never anyone wondered about the inflationary distribuition of academic titles?
manoman0 1 year ago
God bless Mike Mann.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
@vanderbilt887 Liberals don't believe in any God. Except the one they masturbate to in front of the mirror.
drdst17 1 year ago
@drdst17
O really? God bless Mann anyway.
All fucking republicans must fucking hang.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago
funny we havnt heard nothin from al gore lately lol
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000 he's chasing his frozen hockey stick =D.
manoman0 1 year ago
global warming is nothing but an excuse for cap and trade anyone who thinks differently is mentaly not equiped to make a rational decision for themselves and should be commited
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago 23
@OregonOutlaw2000 I would say anyone who thinks that man made global warming is real, should have cap and trade imposed on them personally and no one else
samuils 9 months ago
@OregonOutlaw2000 I agree what a bunch of crap... Now the e.p.a. is shuving it down our throats this country is realy going down hill fast.
OregonOutlaw2000 9 months ago
Hilarious!!!! It's just too bad that the communists' new home, the "global warming" hysteria movement, have created such disasterous economic calamity that if we westerners don't wake up and smell the coffee, our world market competitors will beat us in every economic competition from here forward.
They are laughing at us.
skarke1 1 year ago
To NOT 'hide the decline' - that woud be the REAL conspiracy. Although skillfully put together, and entertaining, this clip is the lowest common denominator of denialist misinformtion. By removng tree ring data, they got rid of data that is known to be bad. You really want that included?
The inquiries are in - theres no substance to Climategate, no conspiracy involving ALL the worlds science bodies. You can put you tin foil hat away. The real debate these days is over climate sensitivity
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds and about whether the humans are able to influence climate or not... .
Is it common in your place to seriously debate with the satire? Such an attitude is called "absolute out of touch" in mine.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 You miss the point. Its not up to me to debate the science - we have much more clever professional minds on the topic - and 97.4% of them would say "Yes, we humans are the culprit, and we have to do something, fast". I would not be so ignorant as to say they are all wrong, and Glenn Beck is right.
Where I live, about 20% of people are deniers - and they are overwhelmingly right wing and Christian. So its clear that denialism is political issue - not a science issue.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds political? of course - this is the Left trying to push its economical agenda using arguments such us "97.4% of scientists agree that put_your_issue_here". That's not only untrue but also an utter bullshit used here and there to justify just about anything.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Nope! Its neither left nor right, just inconvenient scientific fact. The 97% figure is a genuine study (and since confirmed by more accurate studies). Not just any scientists - CLIMATE scientists who have published, etc etc. Yes you really should look at the study in more detail (its even better in detail) to see exactly what it measured. Character limits on youtube do not do it justice. You dont like the 97% figure because it completely wipes your arguments.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds define "climate scientist" last time I looked it included social sciences loonies and such. Once again - you're hitting the same drum over and over again. I'll try your trick with the capital letters: NOONE is denying changes in climate.
grisza77 1 year ago
@garlicbreds and one more thing - why is it you do not eat poop? Those billions of flies can't possibly be wrong?
You're a perfect example of bringing up a social proof as an evidence of truth. ...which means you're 20yo at most.
grisza77 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Taking a skewed sample: "Scientists that have been published" and calling that a genuine study is ridiculous. In other words, the sample used is not an unbiased sample. You cannot come up with a 97% truth based on a biased sample.
If you go to downtown Green Bay and ask 100 ppl what their favorite NFL team is, you cannot present the answer: "97% of NFL fans prefer the Packers."
Getting published these days is more likely if you prove what the $ intended you to prove.
Kilmarley 1 year ago
@garlicbreds 97% is a figure arrived at by those so called 97%. Far more scientist do not believe in AGW than do. In the general population More people believe in ghosts. In the real science, there has been no warming since 1998. Even the proponents know they are in trouble and after being caught faking data are changing the name to climate disruption. The fraud involved in the AGW field is huge.
fishinwflies 1 year ago
@garlicbreds No, the scientists do not agree. Moreover no science based on models ist any good in predicting the reality. Models are just too simple to mirror the real life. And yet the policies are being made based on such science. Is it not enough that our economies are being run based on contadictory teories?
Even if one takes your stance - OK - what good are Kioto and other policies in reducing CO2? That is other tjhan shifting (and multiplying) its output to the Third World?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 "scientists do not agree" - Oh, really! What percentage of climate scientists do not agree? (the 97% figure comes from Prof Orekses - watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0 ) FYI the main debate amongst real scientists is not about AGW, but has moved to climate sensitivity.
And you might want to look at "This Years Model" - watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
"what good are Kyoto and other policies" - Ah! It appears your objections are also policy related. You cannot bare to see progressives calling shots!
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@grisza77 count geologists in, and yes of course, if you'd have read my previous posts you would know that i do deny the thing being anything else but politics. While we're at missing the point... . Science will have it course and in a few decades will probably have a good explanation to the change in climate. The tragedy of the thing is that science only has approximations and policies based on such approximations are nothing less than power takeover.
grisza77 1 year ago
Everybody cares about fraud Sir.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
lol, conservatives
coolster 1 year ago
@coolster OK, than maybe you can explain to me why, in the past 5 years, I have had to use a portable heater in my bedroom between September through March? Oh, I forgot to tell you, I LIVE IN HAWAI'I!! Global warming? My dying O'kole!!! It drops to around 55 degrees at night. It' NOT SUPPOSEDTO DO THAT HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Global warming. You bleeping idiots!!! =Stefan=
chengloki 1 year ago
Lol, your not terribly informed about Global warming if you think the overall surface tempature of the earth is going to change dramatically enough for humans to feel a difference within such a short time period... And a dramatic change of tempature is like.. a few degrees + as a mean surface temperature which dramatically effects many environments, but most humans probably wouldn't tell the difference... When Ice caps melt and flood hawaii, in honesty probably after you die tho, ppl will regret
coolster 1 year ago
@coolster I seriously doubt if I would regret flooding of the Hawaii. Plus I do not have doubts that we can do nothing to decrease (or increase for that matter) the mean global temperature.
grisza77 1 year ago
@coolster Maybe I'd be more convinced if you spelled temperature properly. But, as that idiot in the White House said "Too much information causes confusion". You obviously ascribe to that doctrine. Hey, here's an idea. Do some research, yourself. Or are you afraid of what you'll find. Oh, by the way, what do think about the last survey of the Antarctic(Last year) where the ice was 3 meters more than estimated??? When people tell you your drunk, you better lie down. =Stefan=
chengloki 1 year ago
@chengloki You have completely misunderstood what is expected from global warming. Your cooler local temperatures are not replicated in the heatwave in Australia (or wherever).
Judging from your other posts, it seems that you go through a process of simplification and polarisation which impedes your ability to understand the world in a sophistocated way.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
as a leading geologist and geo historian i think this is brilliant
klnine 1 year ago
AGW = Population Control and World Government
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Comment removed
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago
Hopefully Al Gore will soon be a Jail Bird for committing Perjury in front of a Senate Committee.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago 12
@AnonymousWhitePerson thought you shot JFK who did less than Lord Gore of climate gate !
I suggest we use some obsolete Italian rifle ..like a er a chicano , and a magic bullet , Hits Gore in the head (no damage ) ! passes through his chest hits Bush in ass (leaves him brainless) then stops in mid air and hits Obama in mid air and pushes his faggot as back and to the left !
Any problems with that scenario ? haha
klnine 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson And let's hope Al Gore has lots of "dates" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with his bunkies, "Bruno" and "Mad Dog", as he serves his time in the Big House!
starguy2718 1 year ago
@AnonymousWhitePerson Yeah, RIGHT! Al Gore is a GLOBALIST PLAYER WITH ILLUMINATI BLOOD and a HIGH-DEGREE FREEMASON. He is NOT going to jail! His BUDDIES and COCONSPIATORS will see to that!
Lurking99 8 months ago
@Lurking99,
Al Gore has prospered by 98 million for peddling this Global Warming Hoax.
AnonymousWhitePerson 7 months ago
Truer Jingles like this were seldom spake.
AnonymousWhitePerson 1 year ago 2
The future will look upon the creator of this video and its admirers as among the biggest idiots in history.
Just for the record (I guess no one really cares anyway), Michael Mann has been cleared of all BS charges by PSU.
vanderbilt887 1 year ago 2
@vanderbilt887 you are a fool Michael Mann was investigated by his own school which get millions in grants to research global warming. It should have had a outside source do the investigation.
busguy100 1 year ago
Who cares about global climate trends? Its the weather you actually get that matters not trend lines on some scientists spreadsheet. Its 5 weeks from mid-summers day and here in England its so cold that I have the central heating on, spring was 6 weeks late, last winter saw record breaking snowfalls and low temperatures its been like this for 3 years in a row.
If the global trend is so frequently and thoroughly negated by local weather conditions does the trend actually matter?
AlanTTT3 1 year ago
Actually, 2009 was the second hottest year on record.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness source?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 I have tried to post the source and I keep getting error messages. Just google NASA Second warmest year on record; end of the warmest decade
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness right, now to the CO2 - how does it correlate with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Just google CO2 versus temperature.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness nah, you tell me. I know the correlation is no existent (temperature and CO2 levels rise and drop independently, with other factors playing - most probably - major role in climate changes) - this is you trying to prove otherwise.
tbc
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Very briefly: During the first half of the 20th Century, both the rise in CO2 and the increase in solar intensity followed global temperature rise pretty well. But from about 1945 to about 1975, temperatures in the northern hemisphere dipped.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@grisza77 Neither the increasing solar intensity nor rising levels of CO2 followed that dip in temperatures. (It is difficult for me to understand how the sun could heat one hemisphere but not the other. Perhaps you can answer that.) Temperatures began to rise again about 1976. Since that time, total solar irradiance has dropped and CO2 concentrations have risen.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness Let me rephrase part of that last post. (It is difficult for me to understand how the sun could increase heat intensity in one hemisphere, but not the other. Perhaps you can answer that.) Google "temperature change for three latitude bands" and compare the southern and northern hemisphere temp changes since 1910.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness
The problem in discussions with GW alarmists is they try to present modelling results as facts which is never accurate and is not scientific at all. What happened to the good 'ole probability?
With models you are never able to say "the facts are", you may only say "there is a probability that the facts are".
tbc
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Climate models are thoroughly checked by hindcasting. Obviously, models must be validated against observations to ensure reliability. No one would deny that models are only an approximation and they are not expected to be 100% accurate.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@grisza77 Through hindcasting, models have reliably shown what portion sources of radiative forcing account for the current warming. All models fail to predict the last century of warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. If any scientist had successfully created a model that was thoroughly checked through hindcasting that accurately illustrated the recent warming without the rise in CO2, the skeptics would be trumpeting it everywhere.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@grisza77 But no climate scientist has been able to put together a model which accounts for warming solely by natural forcings, which is part of the reason skeptics complain about climate modeling - it does not fit their preconceived notions.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness you have validatem my point of view. The discussion is not about if there is warming or if there isn't. The science is in constant discussion on the subject and this is good (opposite to "everyone agrees" bullshit pushed by alarmists).
.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 The thing is that GW became political and financial issue. And here we come to the two points:
1. we are being forced to finance the huge overhaul of economics.
2. we are not sure whether there is any (unnatural) warming, if it is of any danger, or if we can do anything about it (that one we're rather sure about - we can't).
Are you really willing to pay for that? I'm not and I will vote out anyone who forces me to.
grisza77 1 year ago
In other words: let the scientists argue about GW like they did about cooling, ozone layer and other disasters to be. And let's not give it too much attention. Who cares about global warming? At least it'll be warmer in Poland (even if the last winter was the coldest since the eighties)
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 There was never really an argument about cooling. Only the northern hemisphere was cooling due to the highly efficient reflective properties of sulfate aerosols produced during explosive industrial growth in the northern hemisphere subsequent to WW2. Significant amounts of solar radiation was reflected by these sulfate aerosols, this causing hemispheric cooling. The southern hemisphere, for the most part, continued to experience warming.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness OK, can we just leave those arguments to the scientists and keep them away form policymaking? Quae sunt caesaris, caesari; et quae sunt Dei, Deo. I believe science is in disagreement on the subject, if you wish to believe otherwise - fine. I just don't wan't to pay for nonsense, counterproductive "CO2 limits" policies like Kioto.
Which part of that don't you understand?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 There was also very little debate over the consequences of ozone depletion by CFC aerosols. The chemistry was well understood, and the protective properties of ozone were never questioned. At only about 2 parts per million (far less than CO2 concentration), ozone blocks nearly 99% of solar UV radiation and is all that stands in the way of destruction of life on this planet by that UV radiation, which is extremely destabilizing at molecular and atomic levels.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness OK, we're doomed. Why care then?
Alarmists are somewhat resembling Seventh Day Adventists - the end of the world never came but they believe anyway. How many scientific mispredictions must be made for you to stop trying to impose rubbish, corrupt policies on me?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 I never said we are doomed. I have never said what I believe will result from AGW. And from what I am getting, you don't know enough about the science to know whether a statement is a scientific misrepresentation or not. I have not tried to impose any policies on you. I have just tried to present in extremely brief fashion (this is a terrible venue to hold these type discussions) some of the science involved in the topic of AGW.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness OK - I don't know about science - be it your, selfrighteous way. Just bear in mind that there are other reasons for avoiding discussion and riddiculing than the lack of knowledge.
To sum up: you decided to lecture me and the other readers on the subject of your choice even if noone asked for it or needed it and while everyone was either poking fun or discussing political issues. And you're suprised someone is riddiculing you? Great. Peace be upon you preacher.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 I probably would have been content to have made my first post and left it at that had you not told me to shut up. And then you arrogantly and pretentiously implied you knew the science better than the "trained scientists [that] propagate this kooky religion." That was too much for me to just let go. So that is why I decided to "lecture" you (specifically you, the other readers are bystanders).
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness Good. Now try and learn statistics - you will be able to judge available data by yorself. For now you;re just preaching others' preach to the people who are fed up with it. Either that or just let go.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Look, we know the globe is warming, we know solar intensity has decreased since 1960, we know water vapor is not the cause, we are fairly certain that cosmic rays only amount to very fine tuning, we know that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, and we know there has been a significant increase in atmospheric CO2.due to human activities.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness @nevermindedness well, you might know that. As far as I'm aware the science is in discussion about these points. And I perceive discussion to be a good thing - scientifical one. And I do despise "scientists agree" stance. Real scientists never agree - if they were anywhere there would be no point to that particular branch of science (mathematics being an exception).
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77
Adcd to that the fact, that whatever we do we will not significantly reduce CO2 emmisions - whether they matter or not. Are you really willing to finance AlGore's villa? You seem to mind financing energy giants villas - how does AlGore differ?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 The AGW hypotheses have been around since Fourier in the 1820s, Tyndall in the 1850s, and Arrhenius in the 1890s. As the evidence has accumulated, the hypotheses developed into theories, which have withstood scientific test after scientific test, while the confidence that scientists place in it has steadily grown stronger. It has grown from an idea that people laughed at to one that an extremely large majority of the scientific community supports.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness look the cliches like "large majority of scientific community supports" are a texbook examples of propaganda - I've been fed that under commies I will withstand it now. That's bullshit. Large majority of scientific community in XV century supported the goecentric views. The science is about impertinence and boldness not about patting each others arms.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 another cliche: Acht und achtzig Professoren und Vaterland, Du bist verloren. The conformism of "scientific community" isknown for ages.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 You have not offered any scientific ideas, only obstinacy. You are not a skeptic in that you do not express scientific doubt in the AGW theory. You are a denialist because you refuse to rationally debate the science, but instead regurgitate pat denialist propagandistic crap. You have totally turned your mind off to the science and are totally immersed in confirmation bias. Therefore, there is no reason to continue this conversation.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness you're wrong. I do not deny GW - i just don't care and/or have a dose of healthy scepticism - that's something alarmist utterly fail to understand. Neither do I have the necessary knowledge nor the will to discuss climate or geological science (well, I do have knowledge to discuss bogus statistics but do not care enough).
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 It is not skepticism if you deny the theory without understanding the science. Earlier you made one easily refuted statement about the science. Since then, you shied away from any discussion of the science and have made one statement after another from the script of the denialist camp.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness Goddamit! Cut that crap! Noone is denying anything - can it be said more plainly than "neither do I have the necessary knowledge nor the will to discuss climate or geological science"? It is political issue not scientifical!!!! Is that really that hard to understand? How many days more will it take you to process that?
grisza77 1 year ago
@nevermindedness I'm just mimicking your style: "as a geologist", "science community supports" - is that scientific discussion? Give me a break. Here yourself:
As a Nobel prize laureate and a representant of majority of common sensed people I say global cooling is going to freeze us within ten years - save the planet!
grisza77 1 year ago
@nevermindedness Hi - I admire your patience. I wonder how many people think like grisza77? And I wonder what it would take to convince them? I suspect it is not possible - see monbiot's article on "The Unpersuadables" - monbiot dot com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/
Readers should know that your posts reflect a modern and accurate summary of the science, and are presented with restraint, sound logic and humility. A pleasure to read.
garlicbreds 1 year ago
@garlicbreds Thanks for the complements, g. And yes, it does take patience.
You assume too much - you assume grisa77 thinks. I believe he has swallowed the denier propaganda as gospel and that's as far as his thought process has progressed on the subject. He appears incapable of discussing the science of the subject. He made it clear that to him "It is a political issue not scientifical [sic]," Too bad there are so many that only know the politics. Thanks for the link to the monbiot article.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@grisza77 There is certainly disagreement among scientists over the details, such as the amount of moisture in the tropical tropopause, or the role played by thermohaline circulation in hurricane formation, but there is universal agreement that CO2 is an absorber of IR radiation, that human activity has increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and virtually complete agreement that this has caused an imbalance in energy entering versus energy leaving the top of the troposphere.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness Even if this is right we are unable to do anything about it. You wish to believe some of the scientists, I trust the other side more - that's fine. When will you understand that this is not a discussion on whether there is GW or not?
Once again - what the heck entitles your side to impose crap policies on me? I'm getting tired of asking this simple question in answer to your endless rants on science. Answer the question or rant on for yourself.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 We also know that we don't have a lot of time before we start running out of fossil fuels, we know that we are financing terrorists with purchases of fossil fuels, and there is a risk that any reasonable person would realize that we could be altering our climate for hundreds, possibly thousands of years to come. We are rapidly developing alternative energy that is inevitably going to be our dominant sources in the future. Why do you fight to hang on to dirty fuel that aids our enemies?
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness well we were supposed to run out of fossil fuels in nineties. I do not take that fearmongering ecobullshit seriously - the boy cried wolfes once too many.
I don't fight I just do the resonable thing. Alternative - sure let it develop, but in the market economy so that could be financially and energetically efficient.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 As a geologist that once worked in the petroleum industry, I know how reserves have been manipulated and I know that the decline in the giant oil fields is significant. If you think the International Energy Administration are fearmongering ecobullshitters when they say that the decline rate is almost double what they had originally estimated and that they estimate peak oil by 2020 at the latest, then I must believe that you will simply not listen to reason.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness look, as a psychologist, I know that the scientists are a bunch of dependent, out of touch bullshitters. Especially the ones who do not exist outside of the universities. And the last thing a reasonable people should do is to trust the scientists with creating policies.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77
Reality is demanding - more or less. I might be that we're running out of oil - but not that fast as predicted and oil is not the only fossil fuel known to man. But what does it have to do with economical overhaul? Once we run out of oil other sources of energy will become economically efficient - why speed up that process?
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Your anti-science attitude fits with your stubborn refusal to debate the science. You don't believe AGW but you really don't scientifically know why you don't believe it. You have just decided you don't like it, so you refuse to consider even the possibility that it might have some validity. A perfect description of a closed mind.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness But I do have the knowledge to discuss merits of policies like Kioto protocol or Cap&Trade. And what I know is that we're spending billions on unefficient programs leading to nothing but creating value out of the emissions - you can now sell and buy limits - another bubble to move fiat money around.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 Even big oil has admitted that fossil fuels are causing global warming and are making strides to replace it with alternative energy sources. To me, it's a pretty strong indication something is going on when those who fought against anthropogenic global warming the hardest are now admitting they have had a hand in altering global climate.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@nevermindedness well, the big oil is making huge money out of state dotations to the "alternative sources of energy". They would be stupid if they weren't saying that.
Take the politics and dotations out and I will agree with yyopu, with the huge money in the way there's no way I could trust these guys. My money.
grisza77 1 year ago
@grisza77 This "huge amount of money" you say oil companies are making from state donations is a tiny pittance compared to the tens of trillions of dollars they will leave in the ground from oil not recovered if fossil fuel use is discontinued before it is developed.
nevermindedness 1 year ago
@grisza77 So the strong monetary incentive has been to deny AGW. Despite this huge monetary incentive, they were finally convinced by their own scientists about the effects of fossil fuel derived greenhouse gases and AGW.
nevermindedness 1 year ago