I't hard for meteorologists to predict short term trends because weather is pretty random. but for the long term you can see a trend with anomalies of course. up until a year or so the deniers thought it was all BS because 1998 had been the warmest year and following years became cooler. but the last couple years have shown that 1998 was an anomaly. There is a trend and maybe it is not all a result of humans but not trying to reduce CO2 etc. is like saying why should we do our part.
CO2 is what plants breath in. If you want to CO2 enrich an indoor garden you need a ppm of 1500. Doing so would mean you have to raise the temp so the plants can breath in that CO2. This is like putting plants on steroids and they would be huge and harvest would be also. If there is to much CO2 in the atmosphere right now, then why are the plants not so much bigger than times when CO2 was at acceptable levels?
now wait a minute, if climit tempetures stay the same during 1940s and 1980s and corban dixide increase during that time, what facters cause the tempeture to stay the same during that time?
, temps stayed the same or cooled slightly from the 40s till about 76. The reasons are several, first, greenhouse warming was less of a factor 70 years ago, since CO2 was lower, and natural fluctuations could easily erase the effect. Moreover, adding a years worth of co2 is a very slight effect, and only becomes evident over time, as the warmth makes its way slowly thru the deep ocean.
The warming we are seeing now, actually started some 40 years ago, due to the lag
The anti-environmental GW-denying Sarah-Palin-loving christian conservatards have always been the believers in "end of days".
Anti-Climate-change and anti-nuclear anti-fossil-fuel soldiers like Greenpeace and Ralph Nader, Ingrid Newkirk, Michael Ruppert are the ones who fight for the continuation of our species and other species.
The only alarmist extremist delusional doomsday scenarios are the ones that say taking an aggressive stand now to end nuclear power and factory farming, reduce world overpopulation, fight climate change, and transition to a sustainable post-oil and post-coal world will "cause" economic devastation, when, in fact, it is the only thing that will prevent colossal economic devastation.
AGW-deniers and pro-nuke-heads need to be rounded up, have all their property confiscated, and forced to clean up messes like Fukushima and Chernobyl and to rebuild homes for people destroyed by rising sea levels. AGW-deniers and nuke-heads are guilty of treason and crimes against humanity. After being made to clean up the disasters they support, put them in prison for life for acts of terrorism against the United States and its national security.
To be fair, I know heaps of Christians that really care about climate change. The right-wing Denialist Creationist seems threatened by climate change because it implies an old earth. The problem with Creationists is they can't read their own bible! Early Genesis is a theological polemic written against the backstory of the Babylonian Creation myth, the Enuma Elish. Sydney Anglican ministers always run a compare and contrast on the Enuma Elish when teaching Genesis.
@mphello Another thing to consider is that many climate activists — even heads of Climate departments like Dr Barry Brook — are saddened by Fukishima but basically still support nuclear power as the only economical way off fossil fuels. Killing nukes off because of Fukishima is like killing airlines because of the Hindenberg. New Gen4 nukes eat nuclear waste, and could run the world for 500 years without mining another gram of uranium just eating today's waste!
Science is really no Mystery, it Gathers Data and try to best understand the results, Predict what will happen in another experiment - Test and see if they predicted what would happen. This is continuous cycle. You cant learn everything from one experiment. Any wrong data will be filtered out in time as it is a self correcting process. Either your data adds up, or it don't. It doesn't pick sides. Science Enlightens, Opens the mind and presents us with information for understanding.
1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes to Nixon in 72, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years.
There is no doubt that people were talking about global cooling in the 70s. The globe was cooling. Stephen Schneider co-wrote a paper about it. But by the mid seventies, it was clear what the actual evidence was saying, and had been saying all along - that the theory, which was pretty much defined by the 1950s, was correct.
Hence the conspiracy theory, like most conspiracy theories, is simply nonsense.
@greenman3610 AHH progress!!! Now to the AGW THEORY is now the current talked about thing. The calls for shutting down the world economy and killing of a couple of billion people to get a .001% temp change is nuts. Proposed solutions like +20% permanent unemployment, no private car or home, one child per family to achieve the necessary reductions in CO2 is crazy. It's not about saving the planet but controlling you life because the eco elites can run you life better than you can.
I went to college in the 70s and we were told that by the year 2000, the world would be out of fossil fuel and 20% of the earth population would be dead from pollution.
That came out of a text book, "The limits of growth"
That professor is now semi retired and now only teaches one class, "How to be gay". The course description says he take students to a gay bar. I wonder if he still has a VW microbus.
I never could learn the syntax to write software, but I could always to the logic better than the software engineers, and draw the flow charts for them.
@greenman3610 Denmark has the population of north Dakota and most of there wind turbines are in the north Atlantic and are massive compared to the biggest in America. I went on a cruse over there last year seen and heard them first hand very loud. And Iowa is natural gas and ethanol very few wind turbines till you get to the bottom of the state snow and ice are not good for them
wind turbines just performed very well during the recent blizzard in Texas, while many conventional plants were knocked off line by snow and ice. Denmark is an industrial economy that Forbes magazine ranked as the best place in the world to do business, above the US, two years in a row. They are competing with us very well. In addition, Germany also gets substantial power from wind, close to 10 percent, and is the number one or two exporter in the world.
@greenman3610 your an idiot are you that stupid when it comes to business. It's not just the miners it's a hole service industry the coal does not go miners to power plant. And wind turbine power is a joke you could cover the whole state of California in wind turbines and still not make half the power of one nuclear plant
Denmark now gets 20 percent of its power from wind. Iowa got about 15 in 2009. Deniers long for the good old days of the 19th century, but we are moving on.
I don't think we can build nuclear plants as fast as we would like, given the high cost. Nor do I think we could get ratepayers to accept the necessary rate increases that would be required to build them.
I'll be covering the pros and cons in an upcoming vid.
@greenman3610 the rate payer would have to pay the rate or else the rate payer will not get his energy. as carbon energy is taken out of the market, supply of energy is reduced. decrease in supply means an increase in price. it won't be fun. people's qualities of life will be seriously harmed. but it has to be done because if it isn't then we are all dead. I believe that for the most part nuclear would be cheapest noncarbon energy in long run. course short run is all the time we have left.
well, that's not exactly how it works. energy demand is much more elastic than people realize. Raise the price and the big users cut back, get more efficient, do more with less - smaller users find that harder right now, so the burden falls on them. Utilities then go into a death spiral, rates up, revenue down. It happened in the late 70s and 80s.
Here's where renewables like wind can help - the upfront cost can be lower, and lead times shorter for better planning. new vid on this soon
@greenman3610 there you go twisting truths again. That is s blatant LIE. Where did you even get those numbers. Coal is the number 1 power source in America. Wind turbines produce less than 5% of power consumed. All so they have to run at peak power for 12 years straight to produce the power it took to make the turbines. So if you really want to be green stick with clean coal you LIER
"bogus comparison...those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation...81,000 coal jobs counted...are only miners...figure excludes those who haul...as well as those who work in coal power plants...
@greenman3610 article continued...SourceWatch...estimate that "the coal industry directly provides an approximate total of 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs in the U.S."...wind provides only about 2 percent of America's electricity. Coal provides half. If it really took that many people to provide so little wind energy, it would never become competitive with fossil fuels."
so if every US coal worker became a wind worker, energy output would be reduced by (50% - 4%) = 46%?
@greenman3610 Not an option, I know, I'm convinced. carbon fuel industry will die either when we run out or before we run out. Civilization may be doomed already. carbon energy must be killed ASAP well before it's used up in order to not wipe out all existance. I'm not convinced that transition to carbon free economy could be so pain free or that wind etc. is more competitive. If we could do more with less then we could do even better with more. efficiency may let us do 70% with 60% but not 110%
@greenman3610 Why are liberals raising hell over digging ditches, need by the wind turbines, for the cables that distribute power to the nearby cities, sincef its they (liberals) that want all this green energy. I'll tell ya...it because they want to protect a dumd little gopher that dwells there! What kinda hell are libs going to raise when it comes time for all those battery powered autos, to replace those god awful polluting batteries. Coal production is down because BIG BRO Little "o" (Obama
@greenman3610 Why are liberals raising hell over digging ditches, needed by the wind turbines, for the cables that distribute power to the nearby cities, sincef its they (liberals) that want all this green energy. I'll tell ya...it because they want to protect a dumd little gopher that dwells there! What kinda hell are libs going to raise when it comes time for all those battery powered autos, to replace those god awful polluting batteries.Coal production is down because BIG BRO Little "o" Obama
Lies lies and some more twisted facts to make the lies look better. If you still believe this garbage your a idiot. The biggest and one of the only company pushing climate change is GE the company with the most to gain from climate legislation. GE GLOBAL GREEN BANK they would make billions buying and selling carbon credits. And those billions come from you and me. It's a well thought out well financed with celebrity inducements pyramid scam. The top people are making money off pawns like the pe
@greenman3610 If true, I suspect it's because it takes many times the quantity of wind turbine workers to produce a smaller quantity of energy relative to a greater quantity of energy produced by a smaller number of coal workers, & because wind energy may be more subsidized by tax $ per unit energy output than is coal energy. Implying that going green is win-win-win 4 everyone long term & short term gives conservatives reason to believe theyre being lied to. Saving Earth requires short term pain
Really good chronicling of the history of the science. Scientific consensus takes a while but there has been strong scientific consensus on the effect of climate change for a while. The 'climate skeptics' seem to exclusively non-scientists or scientists with strong connections with industry and interest groups. An interesting book to read : Merchants of Doubt - Natalie Orestes and Erik Conway...
I think there are a large swathe of people out there for whom the ideas are just too confronting..
@greenman3610 : It is an amazingly comprehensive book in its detective work - a little depressing - but very illuminating on how anti-science, pro-industry think tanks and scientists work. Every time someone comes out against the overwhelming evidence of climate change, I have to ask - what is this person's motive in not confronting something so important an issue? Uncovering the motives is sometimes the most interesting part of conversations with skeptics (if they can be rational, that is).
I thought gm made up the quote @0:25 since he refused to reveal its source, but I stand corrected. iceman541(Ice Area vs Volume crock) found the source was Peterson etal(2008)"The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus",p.1326.
But now gm refuses repeated requests to confirm that.
At the Ice Area crock he says "I always cite a source when I make a statement".
Really good chronicling of the history of the science. Scientific consensus takes a while but there has been strong scientific consensus on the effect of climate change for a while. The 'climate skeptics' seem to exclusively non-scientists or scientists with strong connections with industry and interest groups. An interesting book to read : Merchants of Doubt - Natalie Orestes and Erik Conway...
I think there are a large swathe of people out there for whom the ideas are just too confronting...
Well, I lived it. And I remember it. So you can label your videos anyway you want to trick people into watching them. But you are wrong, The news was ALL about the coming ice age back then. And whenever the socialists get whacked by the facts, they come up with some other impending doom that they think will stop Human progress. have a nice day.
@0:25 you build your 1st strawman with the undocumented quote:“in the 70s, deniers will tell you, that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming"(said-imminent) with the verbal emphasis on ALL.
you then ask “But is it really true?”
1st question to you is: Is it really true that deniers(plural) said “ALL climate scientists believed”?
You used quote marks, indicating an exact quote. Give us the names & sources for these denier quotes please. Otherwise it's a strawman.
Did the search. Found Watt’s video. NO MENTION of “ALL climate scientists” that you QUOTE. Also found SkepticalScience, but NO QUOTES there. Wiki? Nope.
Just admit it. You have NO denier names/sources for your DIRECT QUOTE, do you? Using a direct quote when you just made it up is more than deceptive. It’s an out-and-out LIE. Pure propaganda learned from the best, AL Gore!
Caught red-handed, and only 30sec into it.
You were right about one thing. Didn't take long to prove you wrong.
@3:32 you quote Pres. Johnson(1965) and say “but a few scientists WERE LOOKING at global temperature data” and then you show a NASA graph with temp data THROUGH 2007!
So just how DID those scientists in 1965 know the temps 43 years into the FUTURE? Time machine? Nostradamus? LOL
Actually the temp anomaly for 1964 was the lowest since 1929. Scientists IN THE REAL WORLD in 1965 were looking at a 30yr trendline of a DECREASE in temp of 0.1C/century, NOT the RISE that your graph shows!
@4:09 Stephen Schneider tries to deny his personal involvement in the global cooling scare but he does say “other SCIENTISTS say that could trigger an ice age”. Get that? Not just the popular media, but other SCIENTISTS!
Then @5:44 the 1975 NAS report which said “we DO NOT have a good QUANTATATIVE understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course”
What about those CO2 issues “WELL RESOLVED in the early 50s”? NOT!
CONGRATULATIONS on getting the gist of NAS report it right “The onset of(COOLING) .. there is a finite possibility that a SERIOUS WORLDWIDE COOLING could befall the earth within the next 100 years”
The NAS report “is a model of ambiguity” ONLY if you are futilely looking for it to support the current CAGW belief. It accurately reflected that climate science was just a budding field with many uncertainties & 30 yrs of cooling.
Notice the NAS said NATURAL warming and NATURAL COOLING.
@7:28 you say “by the MID 70s a couple of things HAD HAPPENED to clarify our situation, #1 Global temperatures BEGAN A SUSTAINED RISE” and then you AGAIN show the NASA temp anom graph w/temps out to 2007!, even HIGHLIGHTING temps to the MID 90s!
Your statement is FALSE! ’74= -.08, ‘75= -.05, ’76= -.16
NO case could have been made in the mid70s for “a sustained rise”!
And how DID those temps from the mid-70s to the mid-90s “CLARIFY” the situation WHEN THEY HADN’T EVEN HAPPENED YET?!
Finally @8:37 you deliver the supposed coup de grace - the 2008 study by Thomas Peterson(of climategate shame) & William Connolley(who personally altered 5000+ Wiki CC pages). Sorry denial of history.
This selective use of papers and ignoring other evidence FAILS to change the fact that by the mid70s, the CONSENSUS of the BEST climate scientists warned of global COOLING.
Here are some REAL direct quotes on the true state of climate science in the 70s:
“The western world’s LEADING CLIMATOLOGISTS have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change.”
“50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, has enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century”
“The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era”[1600-1850]
“Since the late 1960s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various CLIMATIC, METEOROLOGICAL, and GEOLOGICAL periodicals, CONSISTENTLY following one of two themes – a global climatic change was underway – This climatic change would cause worldwide agricultural failures in the 1970s”
“The researchers of the CLIMAP group (CLImatic MAPing) hypothesize that a change FROM an interglacial TO glacial time period could take place in less than 200 years”
“SCIENTISTS are CONFIDENT that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow”
“Figure 3 shows that the most dangerous effect of the GLOBAL COOLING trend has been a change in atmospheric circulation and rainfall”
“The University of Wisconsin was the first ACCREDITED academic center to forecast that a MAJOR climatic change WAS UNDERWAY”
“The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime that existed from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally, called the neo-boreal or “Little Ice Age”.”
“During the last neo-boreal era great segments of the world population were DECIMATED”
“A limited number of people within the United States are involved in climatological research . .
RAND Corp .. Scripps Institute .. Univ of Arizona .. NCAR .. Univ of Wisconsin .. Princeton .. MIT”
“the mix of approaches (Wisconsin, Scripps, RAND, NCAR) and the scientific personalities pursuing them prevented a clear expression of what the RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES were agreeing on”
“To resolve these issues,the PRINCIPAL investigators representing the various research approaches convened in San Diego in April 1974”
“For two days they argued, discussed, and defended their approaches to climatic forecasting and the impact of climatic change. By the end of the second day a CONSENSUS was reached on the following fundamental issues:A global climatic change IS TAKING place, We will not soon return to the climate patterns of the recent past” [agricul optimum]
“LEADERS in CLIMATOLOGY and economics ARE IN AGREEMENT that a climatic change IS TAKING PLACE”
Yes, in 1974 the CONSENSUS of the BEST climate scientists, after 30 years of COOLING, was that we would not return to the recent agricultural optimum, but would see COOLING to climate conditions of the neo-boreal Little Ice Age.
Source for those DIRECT QUOTES? A 1974 United States Central Intelligence Agency Report:A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems
YES IT IS REALLY TRUE, the LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DID warn of global COOLING & a return to conditions of the Little Ice Age.
It was NOT just the popular media. As can be seen from the CIA report, the media accurately reported what the CONSENSUS of the BEST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS were thinking at that time.
The 1974 CIA report documents this historical FACT. The current CAGW believers are the actual DENIERS, of history, because their previous COOLING alarmism now embarrasses them.
@RealOldOne2 : Your nit-picking bores me. The 'quote' was what actually what is called a paraphrase, generally used to describe conversations with crazy climate deniers rather than a specific quote that you'll find on the internet somewhere. What GM is debunking is popular thoughts in climate scepticism. Can you comment intelligibly on the topic rather than quibble on a single point of semantics please? The important question is : do *you* think scientists said an ice age was coming in the 70's?
@chrstophr Not nit-picking to point out glaring errors.
Nice try but you don't use quote marks when you paraphrase someone! Quote marks mean you are QUOTING someone.
Iceman541 found it, w/quote marks & all. Why won't gm acknowledge it?
To answer your question, yes. And I don't just *think* scientists in the 70s said it, I know that they said it. But not ALL of them. That is a strawman so that gm could knock it down.
Do YOU believe that in the 70s scientists said an ice age was coming?
@RealOldOne2 There is no incorrect attribution of the quote- for me this makes it a virtual paraphrase of your stereotype climate sceptic. Forget the quotes, they're a boring side point that makes it look like you don't want to actually engage. Which scientists wrote *peer*reviewed* reports and what was the result of them saying it? Incidentally, no, the consensus scientific view in peer review journals was overwhelmingly predicting global warming, not cooling.
Now it’s a “virtual paraphrase”? LOL. Nope, if it was truly a paraphrase, gm would have said so. Instead he sent me to a host of websites. If he now claims it is a paraphrase, everyone will see thru that ruse, especially after iceman541 found the exact quote from the same paper that gm closed his video with.
“no incorrect attribution”? You’re living in la-la land! Gm refuses to admit his source, now that it is found. He is in DENIAL. Why?
(Got here from your comment on one of gm's more recent videos)
Your point of argument is a boring sidepoint. The point most of us are interested in is whether there was a consensus in the 70s, not whether gm was being deceptive by using quotation marks around a phrase he has no good source for.
Your reference to a CIA report is interesting, but the CIA is neither popular media nor peer-reviewed science. Ultimately, it's a much weaker source than gm's count of peer-reviewed papers.
No, it's not a boring sidepoint. It's the foundational strawman that gm bases the whole crock on. I don’t believe that anyone ever said that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. I will stand corrected if gm provides the source. Also I told iceman why it matters over at the Heatwave2011 video.
Have you read the CIA document?
It was ‘real-time’ peer review. And the CONSENSUS of the PRINCIPAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS of the day was for global cooling.
"No, it's not a boring sidepoint. It's the foundational strawman that gm bases the whole crock on. I don’t believe that anyone ever said that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming."
I think that gm oversimplified and exaggerated the opposition's position, though I bet that claims to that effect have been made by amateur Internet climate-change deniers. So what? Replace the offending quote with something about consensus and the rest of the argument still applies.
Yes, AND mis-represented in order to create his strawman.
“rest of the argument still applies”
No, many other misrepresentations that I pointed out. Refute THEM.
How about @1:10 where he refs that respected scientific? peer-reviewed? journal Popular Mechanics circa 1953 to prove that “by the early 1950s, the issues were WELL RESOLVED”
Really? NAS, NSF, NOAA, NASA didn’t even have a climate focus. But Popular Mechanics had "resolved" climate issues?
It was ‘real-time’ peer review. And the CONSENSUS of the PRINCIPAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS of the day was for global cooling."
No, I haven't read it, and I honestly don't really intend to. I'll take your word for it that it suggests what you say. I'm not really an expert at reading and interpreting such things, and I don't want to take time to become one.
So, real-time CIA study versus 2008 AMS retrospective study. You think the former trumps the latter?
Please take the time to read it: tinyurl(dot)com/yds3ynt
I'm sure you'll do just fine. It's written ABOUT the climate science of the day, but you don't have to be a scientist to understand it.
"trumps the latter?"
Yes absolutely, I believe a contemporaneous historical record from a neutral, non-biased source, over a subjective analysis & categorization 40 yrs after the fact by a biased author(s) about a subject that has been so politicized since then.
@RealOldOne2 I really have a hard time believing this video has you so up in arms as to spend days commenting on it. The phrase you're talking about where Peter says, "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought that an ice age was coming."
1) I have run into deniers saying exactly that on MANY occasions.
2) Can you not read the tone of Peter's voice? He's merely using a bit of hyperbole (a very small amount), and you're getting all twisted up in your undies over it.
Haha. Not at all, just amused because our cluelessblowhard friend backed himself into a corner, trapped by his own words and now he stonewalls.
So every once in a while I remind him that he is not living up to his claim that he ALWAYS provides a source for his statements, in case he's ready to honor his word.
It IS such a minor thing, that I'm bewildered that he won't just admit that he made a mistake and correct it. True SCIENCE corrects its mistakes. Religion doesn't
@RealOldOne2 If attributable sources are THAT important for you how about you find out who wrote that 1974 CIA report and who the "prominent climate scientists" were?
I provided the SOURCE DOCUMENT for my 70s global cooling consensus claim.
We are STILL WAITING for I'macluelessblowhard3610 to produce his SOURCE document! After all he ALWAYS cites a source. Actually, iceman found that it was Peterson2008, we're just waiting for gm to admit it.
And airandfingers nailed it when he pointed out that gm SAID 'believed'(from Peterson) while the graphic had 'thought'.
Tell us rob, why gm SAID 'believed' if Peterson wasn't the source?
@RealOldOne2 So, you believe a draft report from a non-scientific agency that has no named author, discusses a group of no named "experts" over just looking at the published literature of the day?
Look, you don't even need to take Peterson's word for the state of science in the 1970s. If you were truly skeptical (you're not) you would take the time to try to recreate his work. Hey, maybe he's missing a lot of published research! You'd get a lot of press if you could show Peterson in error.
@RealOldOne2 But we all know that's not what you want to do. You don't want to be skeptical. You're a fake skeptic. If you were skeptical and checked Peterson's results you might find that Peterson is correct, and then where would you be? You'd have scored a point for the other side. You'd have to hide your own research or admit Peterson was correct.
But for REAL skeptics that would not be a problem because the only thing that matters is accuracy and contributing to a search for the truth.
@chrstophr The BAMS study “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientist Consensus” that gm quoted from can be found at tinyurl(dot)com/4c5hfh2
Page 1326 says: “Just think how far we’ve come!” Henley said. “Back in the 1970s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”
So is this Henley a denier, as gm says? Actually, no he’s not. He’s your typical pro-AGW alarmist. What’s the evidence for that? You just have to go back to the original source document where the BAMS paper got it.
Where did gm point to Henley? I see his reference to the BAMS paper, and I see the similarity between the two quotes, but I don't see gm pointing to that as his reference for the quote.
I'm guessing you posted this before gm responded to you, but the fact that gm didn't immediately come back to this as his source seems to indicate that it wasn't his source.
I'm inclined to agree that this was a paraphrase, if an unclear one. I wouldn't say there's conclusive evidence either way.
He didn't. 541iceman found the quote. You do know Henley was a fictional character?
"similarity"
There are only two minor differences. 1)using '70s' in place of '1970s' & 2) leaving out 'the' w/o using an ellipsis to indicate word(s) were left out of a direct quote.
"paraphrase"
No for 2 reasons:
1)Gm pointed me to 5 false sources, he didn't say it was a paraphrase.
2)You don't use quote marks in a paraphrase.
Gm can resolve this, but he continues to stonewall.
@airandfingers THANKS! You just added compelling evidence that the source of I'macluelessblowhard3610's quote WAS INDEED the Peterson etal quote from the fictional character Henley(who, by the way, was a warmist, NOT a denier) from Crichton's novel.
In his video, Peter SAID:"Because in the 70s, deniers will tell you, ALL climate scientists BELIEVED"
So he wasn't reading from the screen quote(thought), he was obviously reading from Peterson quote(believed)!
The Henley quote came from Michael Crichton’s NOVEL – State of Fear p.315-6
Read it yourself at: tinyurl(dot)com/465b5zv
Not only was the person gm quoted NOT a denier, he was a FICTIONAL character! & Henley didn’t say it “in the 70s” as gm claims, but in 2004 when this FICTIONAL person was created. So gm’s strawman quote is just typical propaganda.
Peer-reviewed? Yeah, evidence from a FICTIONAL source! How did THAT get thru the authors & all those "PEER REVIEWERS"? PAL review! LOL!
While you may see failing to cite a source as a “quibble”, to a scientist it is more important. A scientist MUST provide SOURCE data for published results so that it can be checked & reproduced. Failing to do so is cause to disregard those results.
Gm’s repeated refusal to cite his quote source is either: 1)he didn’t have one(my 1st thought) 2)he mis-used his source & doesn’t want to reveal it b/c it can expose him(current evidence) or 3)some other source(I'm still waiting).
So Gm didn’t make up the quote. Michael Crichton did when he wrote his NOVEL. Gm just used it as a strawman to falsely attribute it to a “denier”, and then fabricate this lame video in attempt to knock it down. Gm is just your typical propagandist, using a fictitious character, false statements, etc. When confronted with the truth, he is not even honest enough to admit it!
He claims to correct his mistakes. Let’s see if he removes this FICTION from this video. Not holding my breath.
Gm’s antics are remarkably similar to that of RealClimate when they mis-directed, ignored & revised in attempt to recover from mis-using source data which was requested.
You can read about that incident at: bit(dot)/hoNAaQ
Of course when you’re promoting advocacy/alarmism as gm does, it doesn’t matter b/c the ends justify the means. They say we MUST save the planet & if we don’t alarm, people won’t pay attention to those few TENTHS of a degree temp change.
@1:10 you say “by the early 1950s the issues[CO2 GHG warming] were WELL RESOLVED”
by referencing that respected scientific journal Popular Mechanics! Peer-reviewed?LOL
More scientific evidence from Frank Capra’s 1958 Bell Telephone Science Hour! Melt the polar ice caps! by showing natural glacier calving? ps. no mountains in the Arctic ice cap. Miami, 150 feet underwater? Peer reviewed? Capra: It's NOT a Wonderful Life in Miami under 150ft of water. But then he was wrong wasn’t he?
@Skymanfoob Yes, because of course you were so up on the scientific literature of the day, weren't you? I've looked back through the literature, & more than 80% of it predicted WARMING, about 15% were predicting NO CHANGE & barely 5% of papers were predicting COOLING. Still, I notice that whenever the Denialists get whacked by the facts, they drag out lies about socialism & grand conspiracy theories. Now, go & adjust that tin-foil hat of yours, I think its cutting off circulation to your brain.
Awesome video....Im surprised I never saw this before....Anyway be ready for a tsunami of deniers....Ill be posting this on the Fox News boards....lol
Perhaps unrelated, but in addition to appreciating your well-sourced breakdown of climate science and the denier machine, I also appreciate your vocabulary. I have picked up two really great words from your vids: "avuncular" and "canard".
Teachers like to think of themselves as intellectuals, whereas they mostly repeat things others have taught them, good or bad (usually dated).
Teachers children carry on.
In the next decade, stats will show that the first 21th century decade have been the coldest in average since a long time, but never mind, you'll have moved to other pursuits then...
Sorry for any grammar or lexical mistakes, I'm not an English teacher, just your average Frenchman.
Climate science is the least exact of all sciences. "Oh, global warming can cause marked climate differences by the year WXYZ." So in that sense, then alarmists can blame any anomaly on global warming and they can say. "I told you so."
@greenman3610 After 1956, temperatures have actually subsequently cooled for the next 20 years. If you can keep saying that eventually the world is going to get warmer without having to make exact projections, you are bound to be right some day. I can say that there's going to be a volcanic eruption blocking out the sun in the next 100,000 years and I'm bound to be right. I can also say that we'd have a major hurricane hitting the US in the next 20 years and I'm bound to be right.
@greenman3610 Small correction, Peter, it's Gilbert, not Gordon, Plass. When I first saw the error, I thought it was a denialist posting. I know YOU will welcome (and accept) the correction. :)
@greenman3610 "in 1956, Gordon Plass said it was going to get warmer.It got warmer."
Yep, some 20 years later.
My Grand-Mother always told me that I would eventually marry a girl and have children.
Guess what ? She was right...
Let's make an educated prevision : in less than 60 years from now, you'll be dead and cold as a door handle, yet temperatures shall have nothing to do with it.
Well, the President's commission on environment got it right in 1965, Wally Broeker got it right in '75, the National Academy got it right in 79, Hansen in 81, and 88 --- and they've all predicted the warming that has in fact occurred.
By your reasoning, it could just as easily have cooled or stayed static. It didn't.
When we look for a reason, the GHG forcing works elegantly. If you don't like that, you have to come up with alternative ways of explaining 3 billion years of history.
@9rexun1 "The vid is clear, concise and very easy to understand. Even a southern Republican politician could understand it!" Notwithstanding a Northern Democrat !
In the seventies one scientific journal saying there was a bit of cooling over the decade was taken by the media to mean that we were going into an ice age even though the journal went on to say that this would likely change. the cooling was due to sulfur dioxide which blocks sunlight while CO2 holds in heat. guess which one we started scrubbing out of coal plants exaust because it also causes acid rain lol.
deniers will only be convinced when it is too late, same with peak oil. Typical human stupidity. Scientists and engineers can put men on the moon and send probes to Mars and beyond but they know shit about what is going on here on earth. In other words, I refuse to believe when it is inconvenient to do so. So did the church 500 years ago when Galileo showed that we were going around the sun and not the other way around. There were a lot of denyers back then also, usually the ignorant ....
@claudelebel55 .... usually the ignorant. They know practically nothing. They don't even bother to look at the data but boy are they full of opinions. Everything that bothers them is a plot...... plain dumb, Palin style stupidity.
Every kind of doomsday scenario was big in 1970s, not just greenhouse, but also ice age, overpopulation, resource depletion, oil running out, famine, you name it. Yesterday's doomsday scenarios are always good a laugh.
Global warming? global cooling? Stephen Schneider can do the study either way. His particulates study was designed to undermine the case for SST (a now forgotten aeronoutics project). So its not just that he was "wrong"; He was producing politicized science even back then.
So I Binged the 1965 LBJ Advisory Committee Report and got the "signifigant findings", Talks about pollution, CO2, smog, water pollution, and even rasing taxes on polluters, but nothing about temperature either way in the significant findings. So why bring up something that doesn't advance your argument(that there was a near consensus that temperatures would rise)? I can't find the text of that report, but seems to me they would find Florida being 150 feet underwater to be "significant"
@greenman3610 That helped not at all. Please direct me to the text of that 1965 Committee report where they predict rising global temperatures. Or if its not there, please explain why this article was advanced to show that there is has been a long consensus. When you quote a source, that source should be able to be referenced to show why it was mentioned. I think most people online know what a hyperlink is. The year is 2010.
Yeah, yeah. I note you are quick to resort to abusive terms like 'Denier' and 'Bullshit'. I only hope you make anough money out of this ridiculous scam to pay off your conscience after promoting this poisonous, alarmist ideology.
There is no longer any consensus. The corruption has been exposed, and you are performing an excellent dying fly routine!
It's time to deal with real environmental issues. Forget more taxation.
@soupdragon42 So how are you going to make the multi-billion dollar coal, oil and natural gas companies switch to renewable or fail to other companies? It's not like they have thousands of lobbyists or anything
@vargulf19 Coal energy can be produced relatively cleanly with modern power stations, but unfortunately the corporate interests that have taken over the environmental movement are happy to switch energy production, in line with the production of goods, to India and China, where the power stations are still very dirty, but labour is of course very cheap. We need to look at the big picture.
@soupdragon42 what other term is there to be used? You deny it, you aren't sceptical. If you were sceptical you would be open to either the pro or negative side to be true. You are however steadfast in one camp. I think you'll find most scientists pushing AGW are truly sceptical and would love nothing more then to be proven wrong where as you are pushing a side that lines up with your political view point. There is still, as there has been, a consensus.
In the 70s there was a consensus that an ice age was imminent, although some 'deniers' argued against this. There was a consensus about global warming, but this is fast evaporating in the light of the data manipulation.
End Time anxiety is a facet of the human psyche, and not just for religious nuts.
@CHSoarer So you, by implication, are right? How could you possibly be wrong? All tenuous hypotheses are proven beyond reasonable doubt when it suits your ideology it seems.
Let's hope we don't get anymore volcanic eruptions anytime soon, because they can pump out more CO2 in a few minutes than mankind does in many years.
Another disproved myth put forward by the tin foil hat wearing science denial squad. Do 20 seconds of googleing into how much CO2 has been put out by man in recent times and how much has been put out by volcanos and you'll see the flaws in your post.
@mikea3071 is gravity the 'crock' for next week or how about we need oxygen to breath or plants use Co2 to live? I'm sure you'll disprove that with a video with beavis and butthead or some other smarmy comment!
Respond to this video... Sir, you simply say things aren't true or call them non stories or simply make up lies and spread dis information like calling admission of the Scientists to the FACTS THEY MADE UP THE DATA as a "NON STORY". I mean in your world does gravity exist or do you have a video to disprove that too? utter nonsense!
watch and wake up(prefix with (h tee tee pee colon slash slash. w w w ) .greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
nice try... From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Man you might as well title the video why I hate, the GOP, the war, and love bruce lee & Disco. DO you ever take into account ANY facts other then scare vids. I mean the data gathering often consists of trolling buckets behind boats, weather stations at varying elevations ie. mono loa, weather stations with sensors in parking lots next to cars starting! Your vids are a fear mongering joke. I understand you to quote steve Schneider "nobody likes to be wrong". Soylent GREEN its people AHHH!
Look, I'm not trying to make a heated debate here, but your videos leave out many questions, and you have a habbit of cherry-picking instances where climate skeptics went astray. For instance you don't mention that less than 3% of Co2 is manmade. You don't mention that Al Gore has refused debates with skeptics with every opportunity. We have the 9 fundamental errors with An Inconvenient truth, and it concerns me how you focus on Swindle without mentioning the errors in Gore's documentary.
3 percent every year, and after a hundred years, you are starting to add up.
CO2 is up almost 40 percent from pre-industrial levels, and isotopic analysis shows that this is man made.
Why should Al Gore debate anyone? What would that prove?
The debate has been going on in the scientific literature for 150 years, and is available for anyone to read. The verdict is, warming is real, we're doing it, the consequences are dire.
as to the "9 errors" - the judge in that case ruled that the film was "broadly accurate", that the basic facts of global warming are solid science, that the IPCC was the highest scientific authority on the matter, and that the film should be included in the UK school curriculum.
I don't know what more Gore could have asked for in that decision - which anyone can read by googling
I love how you use the word "denier", as if you're comparing people with alternative views as Holocaust deniers. Using such denegrating language doesn't exactly support your message. It's just ad hominem attacking that strays from the evidence, and it damages your credibility.
I't hard for meteorologists to predict short term trends because weather is pretty random. but for the long term you can see a trend with anomalies of course. up until a year or so the deniers thought it was all BS because 1998 had been the warmest year and following years became cooler. but the last couple years have shown that 1998 was an anomaly. There is a trend and maybe it is not all a result of humans but not trying to reduce CO2 etc. is like saying why should we do our part.
daveni2 1 day ago
In 2040 they will deny that they ever said there was man made global warming in the 90s and 2000's
jimmi161 1 month ago
CO2 is what plants breath in. If you want to CO2 enrich an indoor garden you need a ppm of 1500. Doing so would mean you have to raise the temp so the plants can breath in that CO2. This is like putting plants on steroids and they would be huge and harvest would be also. If there is to much CO2 in the atmosphere right now, then why are the plants not so much bigger than times when CO2 was at acceptable levels?
flowmaster45 3 months ago
now wait a minute, if climit tempetures stay the same during 1940s and 1980s and corban dixide increase during that time, what facters cause the tempeture to stay the same during that time?
abarrathemaster 7 months ago
@abarrathemaster
, temps stayed the same or cooled slightly from the 40s till about 76. The reasons are several, first, greenhouse warming was less of a factor 70 years ago, since CO2 was lower, and natural fluctuations could easily erase the effect. Moreover, adding a years worth of co2 is a very slight effect, and only becomes evident over time, as the warmth makes its way slowly thru the deep ocean.
The warming we are seeing now, actually started some 40 years ago, due to the lag
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610
during the 80s and 90s, temps rose rather abruptly -- see NASA's graph by googling
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 7 months ago
Absolutely awesome job Peter and I hope you'll continue this great work!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
The anti-environmental GW-denying Sarah-Palin-loving christian conservatards have always been the believers in "end of days".
Anti-Climate-change and anti-nuclear anti-fossil-fuel soldiers like Greenpeace and Ralph Nader, Ingrid Newkirk, Michael Ruppert are the ones who fight for the continuation of our species and other species.
mphello 7 months ago
The only alarmist extremist delusional doomsday scenarios are the ones that say taking an aggressive stand now to end nuclear power and factory farming, reduce world overpopulation, fight climate change, and transition to a sustainable post-oil and post-coal world will "cause" economic devastation, when, in fact, it is the only thing that will prevent colossal economic devastation.
mphello 7 months ago
CIA reports are NOT peer-reviewed articles IN CLIMATOLOGY!
mphello 7 months ago
AGW-deniers and pro-nuke-heads need to be rounded up, have all their property confiscated, and forced to clean up messes like Fukushima and Chernobyl and to rebuild homes for people destroyed by rising sea levels. AGW-deniers and nuke-heads are guilty of treason and crimes against humanity. After being made to clean up the disasters they support, put them in prison for life for acts of terrorism against the United States and its national security.
mphello 7 months ago
@mphello Hi mate,
To be fair, I know heaps of Christians that really care about climate change. The right-wing Denialist Creationist seems threatened by climate change because it implies an old earth. The problem with Creationists is they can't read their own bible! Early Genesis is a theological polemic written against the backstory of the Babylonian Creation myth, the Enuma Elish. Sydney Anglican ministers always run a compare and contrast on the Enuma Elish when teaching Genesis.
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
@mphello Another thing to consider is that many climate activists — even heads of Climate departments like Dr Barry Brook — are saddened by Fukishima but basically still support nuclear power as the only economical way off fossil fuels. Killing nukes off because of Fukishima is like killing airlines because of the Hindenberg. New Gen4 nukes eat nuclear waste, and could run the world for 500 years without mining another gram of uranium just eating today's waste!
TheEclipsenow 7 months ago
Science is really no Mystery, it Gathers Data and try to best understand the results, Predict what will happen in another experiment - Test and see if they predicted what would happen. This is continuous cycle. You cant learn everything from one experiment. Any wrong data will be filtered out in time as it is a self correcting process. Either your data adds up, or it don't. It doesn't pick sides. Science Enlightens, Opens the mind and presents us with information for understanding.
Mtwanahukkaloogie 8 months ago
from real climate scientists... must watch!
watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8
better'n disco
bernzeppi 8 months ago
I love to see these people try to wiggle out of evidence that disagree with them
thesparitan 11 months ago
1972 – Kukla-Mathews publishes about the end of the current inter glacial. Also writes to Nixon in 72, specifically warning about global cooling.
1973 – First Climate office started in Feb 1973 (Panel on the Present Inter Glacial). This was after a meeting of prominent climatologists, and apparently there was consensus about cooling. Especially as the NOAA, NWS and ICAS were involved.
1978 -Carter signs Climate Program Act due to a number of SEVERE WINTER experiences the preceding years.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1
There is no doubt that people were talking about global cooling in the 70s. The globe was cooling. Stephen Schneider co-wrote a paper about it. But by the mid seventies, it was clear what the actual evidence was saying, and had been saying all along - that the theory, which was pretty much defined by the 1950s, was correct.
Hence the conspiracy theory, like most conspiracy theories, is simply nonsense.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 AHH progress!!! Now to the AGW THEORY is now the current talked about thing. The calls for shutting down the world economy and killing of a couple of billion people to get a .001% temp change is nuts. Proposed solutions like +20% permanent unemployment, no private car or home, one child per family to achieve the necessary reductions in CO2 is crazy. It's not about saving the planet but controlling you life because the eco elites can run you life better than you can.
cupera1 11 months ago
@cupera1 what the fu...? Did you even watch the video??
vicweb1978 11 months ago
Subscribing!
omgitsmikegravel 11 months ago
I went to college in the 70s and we were told that by the year 2000, the world would be out of fossil fuel and 20% of the earth population would be dead from pollution.
That came out of a text book, "The limits of growth"
That professor is now semi retired and now only teaches one class, "How to be gay". The course description says he take students to a gay bar. I wonder if he still has a VW microbus.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@tnekkc
denier reasoning.
"I had a gay professor, therefore the laws of physics do not apply"
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
You may have inferred what I did not imply.
I never could learn the syntax to write software, but I could always to the logic better than the software engineers, and draw the flow charts for them.
tnekkc 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Denmark has the population of north Dakota and most of there wind turbines are in the north Atlantic and are massive compared to the biggest in America. I went on a cruse over there last year seen and heard them first hand very loud. And Iowa is natural gas and ethanol very few wind turbines till you get to the bottom of the state snow and ice are not good for them
dieseldudee 1 year ago
@dieseldudee
wind turbines just performed very well during the recent blizzard in Texas, while many conventional plants were knocked off line by snow and ice. Denmark is an industrial economy that Forbes magazine ranked as the best place in the world to do business, above the US, two years in a row. They are competing with us very well. In addition, Germany also gets substantial power from wind, close to 10 percent, and is the number one or two exporter in the world.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 your an idiot are you that stupid when it comes to business. It's not just the miners it's a hole service industry the coal does not go miners to power plant. And wind turbine power is a joke you could cover the whole state of California in wind turbines and still not make half the power of one nuclear plant
dieseldudee 1 year ago
@dieseldudee
your claim is again, poorly sourced.
Denmark now gets 20 percent of its power from wind. Iowa got about 15 in 2009. Deniers long for the good old days of the 19th century, but we are moving on.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 you're not anti-nuclear power are you?
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
I don't think we can build nuclear plants as fast as we would like, given the high cost. Nor do I think we could get ratepayers to accept the necessary rate increases that would be required to build them.
I'll be covering the pros and cons in an upcoming vid.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 the rate payer would have to pay the rate or else the rate payer will not get his energy. as carbon energy is taken out of the market, supply of energy is reduced. decrease in supply means an increase in price. it won't be fun. people's qualities of life will be seriously harmed. but it has to be done because if it isn't then we are all dead. I believe that for the most part nuclear would be cheapest noncarbon energy in long run. course short run is all the time we have left.
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
well, that's not exactly how it works. energy demand is much more elastic than people realize. Raise the price and the big users cut back, get more efficient, do more with less - smaller users find that harder right now, so the burden falls on them. Utilities then go into a death spiral, rates up, revenue down. It happened in the late 70s and 80s.
Here's where renewables like wind can help - the upfront cost can be lower, and lead times shorter for better planning. new vid on this soon
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 there you go twisting truths again. That is s blatant LIE. Where did you even get those numbers. Coal is the number 1 power source in America. Wind turbines produce less than 5% of power consumed. All so they have to run at peak power for 12 years straight to produce the power it took to make the turbines. So if you really want to be green stick with clean coal you LIER
dieseldudee 1 year ago
@dieseldudee
readers can decide who is misinformed. google
Coal mining jobs versus wind power jobs
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
csmonitor. com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0131/does-wind-power-really-provide-more-jobs-than-coal
"bogus comparison...those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation...81,000 coal jobs counted...are only miners...figure excludes those who haul...as well as those who work in coal power plants...
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
that's right. there are more people working in wind than are mining coal.
What is so hard to understand?
When Henry Ford got started, there were a lot of people making buggy whips.
I think they were happier building cars, just as coal miners would be happier working above ground.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 article continued...SourceWatch...estimate that "the coal industry directly provides an approximate total of 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs in the U.S."...wind provides only about 2 percent of America's electricity. Coal provides half. If it really took that many people to provide so little wind energy, it would never become competitive with fossil fuels."
so if every US coal worker became a wind worker, energy output would be reduced by (50% - 4%) = 46%?
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
Take a look at any graph of coal mining employment, which is steadily dropping. Coal is a dead industry.
Wind is growing at a fantastic rate because it works, and its competitive.
In fact,
The "200 year coal supply" is a myth. google
usgs peak coal powder river basin
and read.
Going to renewables is not even an option. We'll need to do it if we want to maintain civilization.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Not an option, I know, I'm convinced. carbon fuel industry will die either when we run out or before we run out. Civilization may be doomed already. carbon energy must be killed ASAP well before it's used up in order to not wipe out all existance. I'm not convinced that transition to carbon free economy could be so pain free or that wind etc. is more competitive. If we could do more with less then we could do even better with more. efficiency may let us do 70% with 60% but not 110%
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
will be doing a vid on efficiency.
you'll be amazed.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@greenman3610 I'm sorry I am a AGW denier so can you stop using evidence and sound logic because it hurts my brain, thanks for your understanding.
thesparitan 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Why are liberals raising hell over digging ditches, need by the wind turbines, for the cables that distribute power to the nearby cities, sincef its they (liberals) that want all this green energy. I'll tell ya...it because they want to protect a dumd little gopher that dwells there! What kinda hell are libs going to raise when it comes time for all those battery powered autos, to replace those god awful polluting batteries. Coal production is down because BIG BRO Little "o" (Obama
mnsout 11 months ago
@greenman3610 Why are liberals raising hell over digging ditches, needed by the wind turbines, for the cables that distribute power to the nearby cities, sincef its they (liberals) that want all this green energy. I'll tell ya...it because they want to protect a dumd little gopher that dwells there! What kinda hell are libs going to raise when it comes time for all those battery powered autos, to replace those god awful polluting batteries.Coal production is down because BIG BRO Little "o" Obama
mnsout 11 months ago
Lies lies and some more twisted facts to make the lies look better. If you still believe this garbage your a idiot. The biggest and one of the only company pushing climate change is GE the company with the most to gain from climate legislation. GE GLOBAL GREEN BANK they would make billions buying and selling carbon credits. And those billions come from you and me. It's a well thought out well financed with celebrity inducements pyramid scam. The top people are making money off pawns like the pe
dieseldudee 1 year ago
@dieseldudee
right now, more people have jobs building wind turbines than digging for coal in the US.
Deniers pine for the 19th century, but we aren't going back to that, sorry.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 If true, I suspect it's because it takes many times the quantity of wind turbine workers to produce a smaller quantity of energy relative to a greater quantity of energy produced by a smaller number of coal workers, & because wind energy may be more subsidized by tax $ per unit energy output than is coal energy. Implying that going green is win-win-win 4 everyone long term & short term gives conservatives reason to believe theyre being lied to. Saving Earth requires short term pain
jffryh 11 months ago
Really good chronicling of the history of the science. Scientific consensus takes a while but there has been strong scientific consensus on the effect of climate change for a while. The 'climate skeptics' seem to exclusively non-scientists or scientists with strong connections with industry and interest groups. An interesting book to read : Merchants of Doubt - Natalie Orestes and Erik Conway...
I think there are a large swathe of people out there for whom the ideas are just too confronting..
chrstophr 1 year ago
@chrstophr
Oreskes book is very good.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 : It is an amazingly comprehensive book in its detective work - a little depressing - but very illuminating on how anti-science, pro-industry think tanks and scientists work. Every time someone comes out against the overwhelming evidence of climate change, I have to ask - what is this person's motive in not confronting something so important an issue? Uncovering the motives is sometimes the most interesting part of conversations with skeptics (if they can be rational, that is).
chrstophr 1 year ago
@chrstophr "Really good chronicling"
Really? Read my comments that show his blunders.
I thought gm made up the quote @0:25 since he refused to reveal its source, but I stand corrected. iceman541(Ice Area vs Volume crock) found the source was Peterson etal(2008)"The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus",p.1326.
But now gm refuses repeated requests to confirm that.
At the Ice Area crock he says "I always cite a source when I make a statement".
What's up? Why the stonewalling now?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
Really good chronicling of the history of the science. Scientific consensus takes a while but there has been strong scientific consensus on the effect of climate change for a while. The 'climate skeptics' seem to exclusively non-scientists or scientists with strong connections with industry and interest groups. An interesting book to read : Merchants of Doubt - Natalie Orestes and Erik Conway...
I think there are a large swathe of people out there for whom the ideas are just too confronting...
chrstophr 1 year ago
We are now in to the age are promised global cooling
JonThm 1 year ago
Crap its getting colder.
Bristow42 1 year ago
Well, I lived it. And I remember it. So you can label your videos anyway you want to trick people into watching them. But you are wrong, The news was ALL about the coming ice age back then. And whenever the socialists get whacked by the facts, they come up with some other impending doom that they think will stop Human progress. have a nice day.
Skymanfoob 1 year ago
@Skymanfoob
Well, I'm guessing you weren't watching the technical literature at the time. That's what is documented here.
If you wish to go with the idea that mass media is reality, be my guest. I'm presenting facts, that's what this series is about.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
@0:25 you build your 1st strawman with the undocumented quote:“in the 70s, deniers will tell you, that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming"(said-imminent) with the verbal emphasis on ALL.
you then ask “But is it really true?”
1st question to you is: Is it really true that deniers(plural) said “ALL climate scientists believed”?
You used quote marks, indicating an exact quote. Give us the names & sources for these denier quotes please. Otherwise it's a strawman.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
You and skymanfoob above should get together to discuss.
otherwise, just google
watts, 70s ice age
it won't take long
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Did the search. Found Watt’s video. NO MENTION of “ALL climate scientists” that you QUOTE. Also found SkepticalScience, but NO QUOTES there. Wiki? Nope.
Just admit it. You have NO denier names/sources for your DIRECT QUOTE, do you? Using a direct quote when you just made it up is more than deceptive. It’s an out-and-out LIE. Pure propaganda learned from the best, AL Gore!
Caught red-handed, and only 30sec into it.
You were right about one thing. Didn't take long to prove you wrong.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2
I'm used to doing people's work for them
watch?v=2uYSby1G1gU
Tim Ball -
at 1:40 "Back in the seventies the consensus was we were heading to another ice age"
here's more.
tinyurl [dot] com /36bk6uj
watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
tinyurl [dot] com /2aaqvgx
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I checked all those references.
#1) Sorry, “consensus” is NOT “ALL”! btw, he was right about consensus.
#2) Sorry, “ALMOST” is NOT “ALL”!
#3) Sorry, again “ALMOST” is NOT “ALL”! Good video that proves you wrong though!
#4) Sorry, nothing close to “ALL” there!
Nope, NONE of those references are the source of your quote!
Come on, quit the rope-a-dope and give us the denier names & sources for your DIRECT QUOTES . . .
or just admit that you MADE UP your QUOTE!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
@3:02 you ref. Pres. Johnson’s 1965 PSAC. So what did the special subpanel on CO2 tell us in this report about the effects of CO2 on climate?
“The POSSIBILITY of climatic change”
“Even today[1965], we CANNOT make a USEFUL prediction concerning the MAGNITUDE or NATURE of the POSSIBLE climatic effects” No certainty there!
All they really KNEW was that CO2 in the atmosphere was rising.
But wait a minute. I thought the CO2 warming issues were “WELL RESOLVED” in the early 50s!?! LOL
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
@3:32 you quote Pres. Johnson(1965) and say “but a few scientists WERE LOOKING at global temperature data” and then you show a NASA graph with temp data THROUGH 2007!
So just how DID those scientists in 1965 know the temps 43 years into the FUTURE? Time machine? Nostradamus? LOL
Actually the temp anomaly for 1964 was the lowest since 1929. Scientists IN THE REAL WORLD in 1965 were looking at a 30yr trendline of a DECREASE in temp of 0.1C/century, NOT the RISE that your graph shows!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
Comment removed
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
@4:09 Stephen Schneider tries to deny his personal involvement in the global cooling scare but he does say “other SCIENTISTS say that could trigger an ice age”. Get that? Not just the popular media, but other SCIENTISTS!
Then @5:44 the 1975 NAS report which said “we DO NOT have a good QUANTATATIVE understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course”
What about those CO2 issues “WELL RESOLVED in the early 50s”? NOT!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
CONGRATULATIONS on getting the gist of NAS report it right “The onset of(COOLING) .. there is a finite possibility that a SERIOUS WORLDWIDE COOLING could befall the earth within the next 100 years”
The NAS report “is a model of ambiguity” ONLY if you are futilely looking for it to support the current CAGW belief. It accurately reflected that climate science was just a budding field with many uncertainties & 30 yrs of cooling.
Notice the NAS said NATURAL warming and NATURAL COOLING.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
@7:28 you say “by the MID 70s a couple of things HAD HAPPENED to clarify our situation, #1 Global temperatures BEGAN A SUSTAINED RISE” and then you AGAIN show the NASA temp anom graph w/temps out to 2007!, even HIGHLIGHTING temps to the MID 90s!
Your statement is FALSE! ’74= -.08, ‘75= -.05, ’76= -.16
NO case could have been made in the mid70s for “a sustained rise”!
And how DID those temps from the mid-70s to the mid-90s “CLARIFY” the situation WHEN THEY HADN’T EVEN HAPPENED YET?!
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
Finally @8:37 you deliver the supposed coup de grace - the 2008 study by Thomas Peterson(of climategate shame) & William Connolley(who personally altered 5000+ Wiki CC pages). Sorry denial of history.
This selective use of papers and ignoring other evidence FAILS to change the fact that by the mid70s, the CONSENSUS of the BEST climate scientists warned of global COOLING.
Here are some REAL direct quotes on the true state of climate science in the 70s:
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG 1974
“The western world’s LEADING CLIMATOLOGISTS have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change.”
“50 of the last 60 years the Earth has, on the average, has enjoyed the best agricultural climate since the eleventh century”
“The world is returning to the type of climate which has existed over the last 400 years. That is, the abnormal climate of agricultural-optimum is being replaced by a normal climate of the neo-boreal era”[1600-1850]
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG '74
“Since the late 1960s, a number of foreboding climatic predictions has appeared in various CLIMATIC, METEOROLOGICAL, and GEOLOGICAL periodicals, CONSISTENTLY following one of two themes – a global climatic change was underway – This climatic change would cause worldwide agricultural failures in the 1970s”
“The researchers of the CLIMAP group (CLImatic MAPing) hypothesize that a change FROM an interglacial TO glacial time period could take place in less than 200 years”
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG ‘74
“SCIENTISTS are CONFIDENT that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow”
“Figure 3 shows that the most dangerous effect of the GLOBAL COOLING trend has been a change in atmospheric circulation and rainfall”
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG ‘74
“The University of Wisconsin was the first ACCREDITED academic center to forecast that a MAJOR climatic change WAS UNDERWAY”
“The Wisconsin forecast suggests that the world is returning to the climatic regime that existed from the 1600s to the 1850s, normally, called the neo-boreal or “Little Ice Age”.”
“During the last neo-boreal era great segments of the world population were DECIMATED”
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG ‘74
“A limited number of people within the United States are involved in climatological research . .
RAND Corp .. Scripps Institute .. Univ of Arizona .. NCAR .. Univ of Wisconsin .. Princeton .. MIT”
“the mix of approaches (Wisconsin, Scripps, RAND, NCAR) and the scientific personalities pursuing them prevented a clear expression of what the RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES were agreeing on”
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
AUG ‘74
“To resolve these issues,the PRINCIPAL investigators representing the various research approaches convened in San Diego in April 1974”
“For two days they argued, discussed, and defended their approaches to climatic forecasting and the impact of climatic change. By the end of the second day a CONSENSUS was reached on the following fundamental issues:A global climatic change IS TAKING place, We will not soon return to the climate patterns of the recent past” [agricul optimum]
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
“LEADERS in CLIMATOLOGY and economics ARE IN AGREEMENT that a climatic change IS TAKING PLACE”
Yes, in 1974 the CONSENSUS of the BEST climate scientists, after 30 years of COOLING, was that we would not return to the recent agricultural optimum, but would see COOLING to climate conditions of the neo-boreal Little Ice Age.
Source for those DIRECT QUOTES? A 1974 United States Central Intelligence Agency Report:A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@greenman3610
YES IT IS REALLY TRUE, the LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DID warn of global COOLING & a return to conditions of the Little Ice Age.
It was NOT just the popular media. As can be seen from the CIA report, the media accurately reported what the CONSENSUS of the BEST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS were thinking at that time.
The 1974 CIA report documents this historical FACT. The current CAGW believers are the actual DENIERS, of history, because their previous COOLING alarmism now embarrasses them.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 : Your nit-picking bores me. The 'quote' was what actually what is called a paraphrase, generally used to describe conversations with crazy climate deniers rather than a specific quote that you'll find on the internet somewhere. What GM is debunking is popular thoughts in climate scepticism. Can you comment intelligibly on the topic rather than quibble on a single point of semantics please? The important question is : do *you* think scientists said an ice age was coming in the 70's?
chrstophr 1 year ago
@chrstophr Not nit-picking to point out glaring errors.
Nice try but you don't use quote marks when you paraphrase someone! Quote marks mean you are QUOTING someone.
Iceman541 found it, w/quote marks & all. Why won't gm acknowledge it?
To answer your question, yes. And I don't just *think* scientists in the 70s said it, I know that they said it. But not ALL of them. That is a strawman so that gm could knock it down.
Do YOU believe that in the 70s scientists said an ice age was coming?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 There is no incorrect attribution of the quote- for me this makes it a virtual paraphrase of your stereotype climate sceptic. Forget the quotes, they're a boring side point that makes it look like you don't want to actually engage. Which scientists wrote *peer*reviewed* reports and what was the result of them saying it? Incidentally, no, the consensus scientific view in peer review journals was overwhelmingly predicting global warming, not cooling.
chrstophr 1 year ago
@chrstophr
Now it’s a “virtual paraphrase”? LOL. Nope, if it was truly a paraphrase, gm would have said so. Instead he sent me to a host of websites. If he now claims it is a paraphrase, everyone will see thru that ruse, especially after iceman541 found the exact quote from the same paper that gm closed his video with.
“no incorrect attribution”? You’re living in la-la land! Gm refuses to admit his source, now that it is found. He is in DENIAL. Why?
The quote is NOT a “boring sidepoint”
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@RealOldOne2
(Got here from your comment on one of gm's more recent videos)
Your point of argument is a boring sidepoint. The point most of us are interested in is whether there was a consensus in the 70s, not whether gm was being deceptive by using quotation marks around a phrase he has no good source for.
Your reference to a CIA report is interesting, but the CIA is neither popular media nor peer-reviewed science. Ultimately, it's a much weaker source than gm's count of peer-reviewed papers.
airandfingers 5 months ago
@airandfingers "boring sidepoint"
No, it's not a boring sidepoint. It's the foundational strawman that gm bases the whole crock on. I don’t believe that anyone ever said that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming. I will stand corrected if gm provides the source. Also I told iceman why it matters over at the Heatwave2011 video.
Have you read the CIA document?
It was ‘real-time’ peer review. And the CONSENSUS of the PRINCIPAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS of the day was for global cooling.
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2
"No, it's not a boring sidepoint. It's the foundational strawman that gm bases the whole crock on. I don’t believe that anyone ever said that ALL climate scientists believed an ice age was coming."
I think that gm oversimplified and exaggerated the opposition's position, though I bet that claims to that effect have been made by amateur Internet climate-change deniers. So what? Replace the offending quote with something about consensus and the rest of the argument still applies.
airandfingers 5 months ago
@airandfingers “oversimplified and exaggerated”
Yes, AND mis-represented in order to create his strawman.
“rest of the argument still applies”
No, many other misrepresentations that I pointed out. Refute THEM.
How about @1:10 where he refs that respected scientific? peer-reviewed? journal Popular Mechanics circa 1953 to prove that “by the early 1950s, the issues were WELL RESOLVED”
Really? NAS, NSF, NOAA, NASA didn’t even have a climate focus. But Popular Mechanics had "resolved" climate issues?
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2
"Have you read the CIA document?
It was ‘real-time’ peer review. And the CONSENSUS of the PRINCIPAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS of the day was for global cooling."
No, I haven't read it, and I honestly don't really intend to. I'll take your word for it that it suggests what you say. I'm not really an expert at reading and interpreting such things, and I don't want to take time to become one.
So, real-time CIA study versus 2008 AMS retrospective study. You think the former trumps the latter?
airandfingers 5 months ago
@airandfingers "don't really intend to"
Please take the time to read it: tinyurl(dot)com/yds3ynt
I'm sure you'll do just fine. It's written ABOUT the climate science of the day, but you don't have to be a scientist to understand it.
"trumps the latter?"
Yes absolutely, I believe a contemporaneous historical record from a neutral, non-biased source, over a subjective analysis & categorization 40 yrs after the fact by a biased author(s) about a subject that has been so politicized since then.
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2 I really have a hard time believing this video has you so up in arms as to spend days commenting on it. The phrase you're talking about where Peter says, "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought that an ice age was coming."
1) I have run into deniers saying exactly that on MANY occasions.
2) Can you not read the tone of Peter's voice? He's merely using a bit of hyperbole (a very small amount), and you're getting all twisted up in your undies over it.
Priceless.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt "twisted up"
Haha. Not at all, just amused because our cluelessblowhard friend backed himself into a corner, trapped by his own words and now he stonewalls.
So every once in a while I remind him that he is not living up to his claim that he ALWAYS provides a source for his statements, in case he's ready to honor his word.
It IS such a minor thing, that I'm bewildered that he won't just admit that he made a mistake and correct it. True SCIENCE corrects its mistakes. Religion doesn't
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2 If attributable sources are THAT important for you how about you find out who wrote that 1974 CIA report and who the "prominent climate scientists" were?
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@robhoneycutt Nice try, but FAIL.
I provided the SOURCE DOCUMENT for my 70s global cooling consensus claim.
We are STILL WAITING for I'macluelessblowhard3610 to produce his SOURCE document! After all he ALWAYS cites a source. Actually, iceman found that it was Peterson2008, we're just waiting for gm to admit it.
And airandfingers nailed it when he pointed out that gm SAID 'believed'(from Peterson) while the graphic had 'thought'.
Tell us rob, why gm SAID 'believed' if Peterson wasn't the source?
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2 The only failure is your capacity to comprehend.
The problem with your "source" is that it is attributable to no one.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt You didn't answer my question:
Why did gm SAY 'believed' if Peterson wasn't the source?
Come on, tell us.
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2 So, you believe a draft report from a non-scientific agency that has no named author, discusses a group of no named "experts" over just looking at the published literature of the day?
Look, you don't even need to take Peterson's word for the state of science in the 1970s. If you were truly skeptical (you're not) you would take the time to try to recreate his work. Hey, maybe he's missing a lot of published research! You'd get a lot of press if you could show Peterson in error.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2 But we all know that's not what you want to do. You don't want to be skeptical. You're a fake skeptic. If you were skeptical and checked Peterson's results you might find that Peterson is correct, and then where would you be? You'd have scored a point for the other side. You'd have to hide your own research or admit Peterson was correct.
But for REAL skeptics that would not be a problem because the only thing that matters is accuracy and contributing to a search for the truth.
robhoneycutt 5 months ago
@chrstophr The BAMS study “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientist Consensus” that gm quoted from can be found at tinyurl(dot)com/4c5hfh2
Page 1326 says: “Just think how far we’ve come!” Henley said. “Back in the 1970s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming”
So is this Henley a denier, as gm says? Actually, no he’s not. He’s your typical pro-AGW alarmist. What’s the evidence for that? You just have to go back to the original source document where the BAMS paper got it.
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@RealOldOne2
Where did gm point to Henley? I see his reference to the BAMS paper, and I see the similarity between the two quotes, but I don't see gm pointing to that as his reference for the quote.
I'm guessing you posted this before gm responded to you, but the fact that gm didn't immediately come back to this as his source seems to indicate that it wasn't his source.
I'm inclined to agree that this was a paraphrase, if an unclear one. I wouldn't say there's conclusive evidence either way.
airandfingers 5 months ago
@airandfingers "point to Henley?"
He didn't. 541iceman found the quote. You do know Henley was a fictional character?
"similarity"
There are only two minor differences. 1)using '70s' in place of '1970s' & 2) leaving out 'the' w/o using an ellipsis to indicate word(s) were left out of a direct quote.
"paraphrase"
No for 2 reasons:
1)Gm pointed me to 5 false sources, he didn't say it was a paraphrase.
2)You don't use quote marks in a paraphrase.
Gm can resolve this, but he continues to stonewall.
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@RealOldOne2
Henley: "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming."
This vid: "In the 70's, all climate scientists thought an ice age was coming."
Two more differences: "Back" is removed, and "believed" changed to "thought".
Four minor differences => similarity. Hardly compelling evidence of direct attribution.
2) see watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q#t=4m31s - a smart man's defense of his use of quotation marks to summarize opposing arguments without a direct quote.
airandfingers 5 months ago
@airandfingers THANKS! You just added compelling evidence that the source of I'macluelessblowhard3610's quote WAS INDEED the Peterson etal quote from the fictional character Henley(who, by the way, was a warmist, NOT a denier) from Crichton's novel.
In his video, Peter SAID:"Because in the 70s, deniers will tell you, ALL climate scientists BELIEVED"
So he wasn't reading from the screen quote(thought), he was obviously reading from Peterson quote(believed)!
Congratulations, a gold star to you!
RealOldOne2 5 months ago
@chrstophr
The Henley quote came from Michael Crichton’s NOVEL – State of Fear p.315-6
Read it yourself at: tinyurl(dot)com/465b5zv
Not only was the person gm quoted NOT a denier, he was a FICTIONAL character! & Henley didn’t say it “in the 70s” as gm claims, but in 2004 when this FICTIONAL person was created. So gm’s strawman quote is just typical propaganda.
Peer-reviewed? Yeah, evidence from a FICTIONAL source! How did THAT get thru the authors & all those "PEER REVIEWERS"? PAL review! LOL!
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@chrstophr
While you may see failing to cite a source as a “quibble”, to a scientist it is more important. A scientist MUST provide SOURCE data for published results so that it can be checked & reproduced. Failing to do so is cause to disregard those results.
Gm’s repeated refusal to cite his quote source is either: 1)he didn’t have one(my 1st thought) 2)he mis-used his source & doesn’t want to reveal it b/c it can expose him(current evidence) or 3)some other source(I'm still waiting).
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@chrstophr
So Gm didn’t make up the quote. Michael Crichton did when he wrote his NOVEL. Gm just used it as a strawman to falsely attribute it to a “denier”, and then fabricate this lame video in attempt to knock it down. Gm is just your typical propagandist, using a fictitious character, false statements, etc. When confronted with the truth, he is not even honest enough to admit it!
He claims to correct his mistakes. Let’s see if he removes this FICTION from this video. Not holding my breath.
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@chrstophr
Gm’s antics are remarkably similar to that of RealClimate when they mis-directed, ignored & revised in attempt to recover from mis-using source data which was requested.
You can read about that incident at: bit(dot)/hoNAaQ
Of course when you’re promoting advocacy/alarmism as gm does, it doesn’t matter b/c the ends justify the means. They say we MUST save the planet & if we don’t alarm, people won’t pay attention to those few TENTHS of a degree temp change.
Quit being duped.
RealOldOne2 11 months ago
@greenman3610
@1:10 you say “by the early 1950s the issues[CO2 GHG warming] were WELL RESOLVED”
by referencing that respected scientific journal Popular Mechanics! Peer-reviewed?LOL
More scientific evidence from Frank Capra’s 1958 Bell Telephone Science Hour! Melt the polar ice caps! by showing natural glacier calving? ps. no mountains in the Arctic ice cap. Miami, 150 feet underwater? Peer reviewed? Capra: It's NOT a Wonderful Life in Miami under 150ft of water. But then he was wrong wasn’t he?
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@Skymanfoob Yes, because of course you were so up on the scientific literature of the day, weren't you? I've looked back through the literature, & more than 80% of it predicted WARMING, about 15% were predicting NO CHANGE & barely 5% of papers were predicting COOLING. Still, I notice that whenever the Denialists get whacked by the facts, they drag out lies about socialism & grand conspiracy theories. Now, go & adjust that tin-foil hat of yours, I think its cutting off circulation to your brain.
MrHicks091 1 year ago
Awesome video....Im surprised I never saw this before....Anyway be ready for a tsunami of deniers....Ill be posting this on the Fox News boards....lol
Dt0x75 1 year ago
@Dt0x75
welcome to all.
thanks for posting the link, hope you'll come back for more - there are
many awesome take-downs here.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I got verbally assaulted by Fox News viewers this morning for this link....hahaha
Dt0x75 1 year ago
@Dt0x75
hey man, you took one for the team!
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610
I'm curious if they actually watched it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 lol as my email to you will show....Ive been taking a lot for the team recently...lol....I love being an "Eco Nazi"....lol
Dt0x75 1 year ago
LOVE THIS VIDS!
jamirosmajicrocks 1 year ago
Perhaps unrelated, but in addition to appreciating your well-sourced breakdown of climate science and the denier machine, I also appreciate your vocabulary. I have picked up two really great words from your vids: "avuncular" and "canard".
Keep up the good work!
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004
My Mom was once an English teacher.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Now that explains the rest....
Teachers like to think of themselves as intellectuals, whereas they mostly repeat things others have taught them, good or bad (usually dated).
Teachers children carry on.
In the next decade, stats will show that the first 21th century decade have been the coldest in average since a long time, but never mind, you'll have moved to other pursuits then...
Sorry for any grammar or lexical mistakes, I'm not an English teacher, just your average Frenchman.
061369317 1 year ago
Climate science is the least exact of all sciences. "Oh, global warming can cause marked climate differences by the year WXYZ." So in that sense, then alarmists can blame any anomaly on global warming and they can say. "I told you so."
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
Well in 1956, Gordon Plass said it was going to get warmer.
It got warmer.
In 1975, Wally Broeker said it was going to get warmer.
It got warmer.
In 1988, James Hansen said it was going to get warmer,
and it's gotten warmer.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 After 1956, temperatures have actually subsequently cooled for the next 20 years. If you can keep saying that eventually the world is going to get warmer without having to make exact projections, you are bound to be right some day. I can say that there's going to be a volcanic eruption blocking out the sun in the next 100,000 years and I'm bound to be right. I can also say that we'd have a major hurricane hitting the US in the next 20 years and I'm bound to be right.
mrdrfez 1 year ago
@mrdrfez
you could not be more in error.
anyone interested google
nasa key indicators
google
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Small correction, Peter, it's Gilbert, not Gordon, Plass. When I first saw the error, I thought it was a denialist posting. I know YOU will welcome (and accept) the correction. :)
fiandrhi 1 year ago
@fiandrhi
got it.
anyway, he had it right in 1955
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 "in 1956, Gordon Plass said it was going to get warmer.It got warmer."
Yep, some 20 years later.
My Grand-Mother always told me that I would eventually marry a girl and have children.
Guess what ? She was right...
Let's make an educated prevision : in less than 60 years from now, you'll be dead and cold as a door handle, yet temperatures shall have nothing to do with it.
061369317 1 year ago
@061369317
Well, the President's commission on environment got it right in 1965, Wally Broeker got it right in '75, the National Academy got it right in 79, Hansen in 81, and 88 --- and they've all predicted the warming that has in fact occurred.
By your reasoning, it could just as easily have cooled or stayed static. It didn't.
When we look for a reason, the GHG forcing works elegantly. If you don't like that, you have to come up with alternative ways of explaining 3 billion years of history.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Great! The vid is clear, concise and very easy to understand. Even a southern Republican politician could understand it!
9rexun1 1 year ago
@9rexun1
I guess we've got some commenters here dumber than a southern republican.
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 "I guess we've got some commenters here dumber than a southern republican"
Could they be Northern Democrats ?
061369317 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@9rexun1 "The vid is clear, concise and very easy to understand. Even a southern Republican politician could understand it!" Notwithstanding a Northern Democrat !
061369317 1 year ago
In the seventies one scientific journal saying there was a bit of cooling over the decade was taken by the media to mean that we were going into an ice age even though the journal went on to say that this would likely change. the cooling was due to sulfur dioxide which blocks sunlight while CO2 holds in heat. guess which one we started scrubbing out of coal plants exaust because it also causes acid rain lol.
Prontest 1 year ago
deniers will only be convinced when it is too late, same with peak oil. Typical human stupidity. Scientists and engineers can put men on the moon and send probes to Mars and beyond but they know shit about what is going on here on earth. In other words, I refuse to believe when it is inconvenient to do so. So did the church 500 years ago when Galileo showed that we were going around the sun and not the other way around. There were a lot of denyers back then also, usually the ignorant ....
claudelebel55 1 year ago
@claudelebel55 .... usually the ignorant. They know practically nothing. They don't even bother to look at the data but boy are they full of opinions. Everything that bothers them is a plot...... plain dumb, Palin style stupidity.
claudelebel55 1 year ago
Every kind of doomsday scenario was big in 1970s, not just greenhouse, but also ice age, overpopulation, resource depletion, oil running out, famine, you name it. Yesterday's doomsday scenarios are always good a laugh.
Global warming? global cooling? Stephen Schneider can do the study either way. His particulates study was designed to undermine the case for SST (a now forgotten aeronoutics project). So its not just that he was "wrong"; He was producing politicized science even back then.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner
It's all a plot.
Those scientists are all a bunch of scheming liars.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Stephen Schneider, the AGW believer's favorite "climatologist" whose PhD is in........wait for it..........mechanical engineering.
kauffner 1 year ago
@kauffner
you forgot "and plasma physics"
Climate denier reasoning.
This scientist's degree proves there is no global warming.
Our currencies here are citation and fact. Do you have any to add?
greenman3610 1 year ago
So I Binged the 1965 LBJ Advisory Committee Report and got the "signifigant findings", Talks about pollution, CO2, smog, water pollution, and even rasing taxes on polluters, but nothing about temperature either way in the significant findings. So why bring up something that doesn't advance your argument(that there was a near consensus that temperatures would rise)? I can't find the text of that report, but seems to me they would find Florida being 150 feet underwater to be "significant"
timmyp34 1 year ago
@timmyp34
for more on this google
The Long Consensus On Climate Change
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 That helped not at all. Please direct me to the text of that 1965 Committee report where they predict rising global temperatures. Or if its not there, please explain why this article was advanced to show that there is has been a long consensus. When you quote a source, that source should be able to be referenced to show why it was mentioned. I think most people online know what a hyperlink is. The year is 2010.
timmyp34 1 year ago
Yeah, yeah. I note you are quick to resort to abusive terms like 'Denier' and 'Bullshit'. I only hope you make anough money out of this ridiculous scam to pay off your conscience after promoting this poisonous, alarmist ideology.
There is no longer any consensus. The corruption has been exposed, and you are performing an excellent dying fly routine!
It's time to deal with real environmental issues. Forget more taxation.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 So how are you going to make the multi-billion dollar coal, oil and natural gas companies switch to renewable or fail to other companies? It's not like they have thousands of lobbyists or anything
vargulf19 1 year ago
@vargulf19 Coal energy can be produced relatively cleanly with modern power stations, but unfortunately the corporate interests that have taken over the environmental movement are happy to switch energy production, in line with the production of goods, to India and China, where the power stations are still very dirty, but labour is of course very cheap. We need to look at the big picture.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 Exactly, and the greatest way to kill two birds with one stone, is with Nuclear, Wind, and Solar.
vargulf19 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 what other term is there to be used? You deny it, you aren't sceptical. If you were sceptical you would be open to either the pro or negative side to be true. You are however steadfast in one camp. I think you'll find most scientists pushing AGW are truly sceptical and would love nothing more then to be proven wrong where as you are pushing a side that lines up with your political view point. There is still, as there has been, a consensus.
CHSoarer 1 year ago
In the 70s there was a consensus that an ice age was imminent, although some 'deniers' argued against this. There was a consensus about global warming, but this is fast evaporating in the light of the data manipulation.
End Time anxiety is a facet of the human psyche, and not just for religious nuts.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42 Your first paragraph is complete bullshit
antipyrene 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
you didn't watch the video, did you?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
Wrong on all counts. Didn't watch the video or look into it yourself did you? They've known since the 1800's greenhouse heats the earth.
CHSoarer 1 year ago
@CHSoarer So you, by implication, are right? How could you possibly be wrong? All tenuous hypotheses are proven beyond reasonable doubt when it suits your ideology it seems.
Let's hope we don't get anymore volcanic eruptions anytime soon, because they can pump out more CO2 in a few minutes than mankind does in many years.
soupdragon42 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
the volcano canard can be easily debunked by checking the US Geological Survey - google
Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview
"Human activities..release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes "
see my video
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
greenman3610 1 year ago
@soupdragon42
Another disproved myth put forward by the tin foil hat wearing science denial squad. Do 20 seconds of googleing into how much CO2 has been put out by man in recent times and how much has been put out by volcanos and you'll see the flaws in your post.
CHSoarer 1 year ago
Another inconveneint truth... opednews.com/Diary/Professor-Emeritus-Hal-Lew-by-Saman-Mohammadi-101010-168.html
M4GW 1 year ago
Thank you for your Crock of the Week series Peter - they are very well done and very much appreciated.
mikea3071 1 year ago
@mikea3071
thanks!
greenman3610 1 year ago
@mikea3071 is gravity the 'crock' for next week or how about we need oxygen to breath or plants use Co2 to live? I'm sure you'll disprove that with a video with beavis and butthead or some other smarmy comment!
M4GW 1 year ago
Respond to this video... Sir, you simply say things aren't true or call them non stories or simply make up lies and spread dis information like calling admission of the Scientists to the FACTS THEY MADE UP THE DATA as a "NON STORY". I mean in your world does gravity exist or do you have a video to disprove that too? utter nonsense!
watch and wake up(prefix with (h tee tee pee colon slash slash. w w w ) .greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
M4GW 1 year ago
Thank you for your Crock of the Week series Peter - they are very well done and very much appreciated.
mikea3071 1 year ago
@mikea3071
thanks!
now this is spam I can believe in!
greenman3610 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter
my responses to this out-of-context non-story are some of my most
entertaining vids:
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
I'm sure you'll enjoy the Beavis and Butthead references.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Man you might as well title the video why I hate, the GOP, the war, and love bruce lee & Disco. DO you ever take into account ANY facts other then scare vids. I mean the data gathering often consists of trolling buckets behind boats, weather stations at varying elevations ie. mono loa, weather stations with sensors in parking lots next to cars starting! Your vids are a fear mongering joke. I understand you to quote steve Schneider "nobody likes to be wrong". Soylent GREEN its people AHHH!
kiffter 1 year ago
@kiffter
I take it that you love the GOP and the war.
re weather stations in parking lots, that is treated here:
watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
greenman3610 1 year ago
Look, I'm not trying to make a heated debate here, but your videos leave out many questions, and you have a habbit of cherry-picking instances where climate skeptics went astray. For instance you don't mention that less than 3% of Co2 is manmade. You don't mention that Al Gore has refused debates with skeptics with every opportunity. We have the 9 fundamental errors with An Inconvenient truth, and it concerns me how you focus on Swindle without mentioning the errors in Gore's documentary.
camreeno360 1 year ago
@camreeno360
3 percent every year, and after a hundred years, you are starting to add up.
CO2 is up almost 40 percent from pre-industrial levels, and isotopic analysis shows that this is man made.
Why should Al Gore debate anyone? What would that prove?
The debate has been going on in the scientific literature for 150 years, and is available for anyone to read. The verdict is, warming is real, we're doing it, the consequences are dire.
(continued)
greenman3610 1 year ago
@camreeno360
as to the "9 errors" - the judge in that case ruled that the film was "broadly accurate", that the basic facts of global warming are solid science, that the IPCC was the highest scientific authority on the matter, and that the film should be included in the UK school curriculum.
I don't know what more Gore could have asked for in that decision - which anyone can read by googling
dimmock vs the secretary of state
greenman3610 1 year ago
@camreeno360
a little more clarification on the "3 percent".
Oceans, forests and soils put out a lot of CO2. They also absorb almost exactly what they put out year after year.
It is the human input that is new, having been dug out of the earth.
That's why its the man added carbon that is having an effect.
I treated this in a video here
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
greenman3610 1 year ago
I love how you use the word "denier", as if you're comparing people with alternative views as Holocaust deniers. Using such denegrating language doesn't exactly support your message. It's just ad hominem attacking that strays from the evidence, and it damages your credibility.
camreeno360 1 year ago