See evidence "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 7/9" youtube com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc&feature=related
@1:50 & 2:49 Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Sun's warmth releases extra planetary CO2 which adds atmospheric warmth. SUN INITIATES WARMING process! Then@8:12 & 8:35 its also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago!
Al Gore should be up for comic awards...he is just too funny with this global warming nonsense. Tiny percentages of trace gasses are responsible for a rise in global temperature that's barely measurable...HA! "The ice has stories to tell us". Stories about lil bubbles of atmosphere. These same nuts were screaming abpout COOLING back in the 70's!
the carbon tax is only being pushed because nato currently need funding..nato always brings up the issue of funding and everytime they want money congresshave to sign for it and its a long process..the carbon tax will give nato full funding...do a bit of research on it..its a scam people...wake up b4 they implement it and we are stuck with it
Neukom, R. et al. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Climate Dynamics 37: 35-51.
2 degrees Celsius...increase in global temperatures has become synonymous with "dangerous climate change". Lobbyists haggle over it, scientists build models around it and Greens wring their hands over it. So it is dispiriting to learn, with the next round of UN negotiations under way in Durban, South Africa, that many climatologists feel it is a target we are almost certain to miss’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228412.900-durban-summit-must-accept-degrees-of-responsibility.html
Numerous posts on where is the credible proof to explain climate variation?
Well there is such proof but no one wants to listen. The results demonstrate an unassailable correlation with historic climate data and because the data can be calculated, the future climate patterns can also be calculated, a forecast for the next two decades is shown and we are in for a long cold spell in the Northern hemisphere.
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
"But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with sky temperature data. That data is unfortunately wanting, and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking, although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes, and burying heat at depth, where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later, and so we should know about it."
"I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking."
The science is settled Mmmm? Christ knows what it would be like if they were up in the air still about it *o)
AT 1m:13s in Al gore says that the CO2 trapped by falling snow tells the scientists how much was in the atmosphere, true but very misleading. What he tells us, in and of itself does not tell us the cause of any increase of CO2 concentration, only a snap shot of what it was - and the core samples they test are usually from the polar regions where snow is common.
You can not make the link between the CO2 level trapped by snow in the ice and the fact the it was the CO2 that caused the warming.
Re: "You can not make the link between the CO2 level trapped by snow in the ice and the fact the it was the CO2 that caused the warming"
Scientific conclusions consider the *many* links among all the relevant phenomenon. In that sense, what you wrote was absolutely correct. If ice cores were ALL we had, it would definitely, by itself, not establish that CO2 increases cause global warming.
But ice cores are not all we have. Ex: The greenhouse effect is predicted by basic physics.
That made as much sense as smugly saying "A plummeting airplane whose wings just fell off in flight is predicted to crash, but hasn't actually crashed yet ~ Oops".
I'd find a sharper wit from the retarded guy next door.
Growing ice mass ~ dropping sea levels ~ temperatures stalled ~ No warming in the dendrological record etc etc etc ~ I think its your wings that are falling off.
.
Put the guy next door on PottyPoo your way below his level.
You've been posting your anti-global warming drivel on YT for years, and have your ass handed to you every single day, and still haven't learned the basic facts (much less shown the wisdom to shut up). If that doesn't define "dumber than a bag of hammers", then I don't know what does.
3 of your 4 "facts" are simply wrong, and the correct one (sea levels dropped in 2010) usually happens after an El Nino year (it's a short term decrease on the long term increasing trend). BFD
I never post to you, nor read your posts, because I believe that like most of the "active" YouTube global warming deniers, you're, technically, a moron, and so it's quite pointless. Please never post to me again.
Oooooohhhh a fairy facepalm ~ trouble is my touchy friend when I see your moronic posts banging on about sfa getting self voted up I see Red ~ a Red Cabbage ~ goodbye (_)(_)
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
‘their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records...study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter…Blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has repeatedly claimed that temperature data is unreliable’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn21074-sceptical-climate-scientists-concede-earth-has-warmed.html
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginn/ing of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppmto 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with (complete) support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
No co2 does not drive the climate, the climate drives co2. The sun caused the past warming and unfortunately as the Sun now enters a Grand Minimum , we are now cooling abruptly. History shows that warming precedes entry into ice ages.
Re: "No co2 does not drive the climate, the climate drives co2"
In the past, temp changes weren't *initiated* by CO2, but CO2 still influenced them. (No one claimed that CO2 is the ONLY thing that can change surface temps.) The point is that human CO2 is causing the warming THIS time.
Re: "The sun caused the past warming.."
That's wrong.
Re: "...the Sun now enters a Grand Minimum , we are now cooling abruptly."
We *might* be entering such a period, but our CO2 will offset it.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Who said co2 influenced temperature? Do you have experimental proof of this? How can a symptom offset a cause? Your thinking is warped. It always was and always will be the Sun. The Climate is the dictator you are the slave.
Re: "Who said co2 influenced temperature? Do you have experimental proof of this?"
Try any chemistry text book. That CO2 absorbs IR light, and the consequent greenhouse effect, aren't in any scientific dispute whatsoever. You clearly don't know the anything about this topic. Being ignorant is fine; we're all ignorant about almost everything. But being ignorant while thinking you can judge it better than the scientists is the height of foolishness. The scientists say it's our doing
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Do not be so arrogant. Can you tell me what does not absorb IR light? You could not be more wrong, I have a degree in earth and environmental science / biology. The Scientist you pick say its our doing, there are many who say its natural. You clearly have not put any thought into the subject but are content to be told what to think. Ignorance and foolishness seem to be your own domain not mine. The greenhouse theory is merely speculation. The Sun caused the past warming.
It's not being arrogant to point out that basically everything you posted was simply wrong. It's not about ego, it's about respecting the truth.
Re: "Can you tell me what does not absorb IR light?"
Um.. how about the 99% of the Earth's atmosphere that's composed of N2 and O2? Unlike CO2, those di-atomic molecules don't have vibrational modes producing moments excitable by EM radiation in the IR spectrum.
Re: "You could not be more wrong, I have a degree in earth and environmental science / biology."
If you studied science, and didn't learn that FACTS MATTER, and that just because you blather some nonsense, that doesn't make it true, then your degree isn't worth shit. Don't try to impress with a degree while making terribly basic physics/chemistry mistakes (especially since you might be running into someone who knows more than you. FYI: my credentials on this are better than yours)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You have your reasons to believe as you do, and they're valid enough for an intelligent person. Buuut I'm not gonna take the opinion of someone who formed his own by looking into the research of strangers as opposed to someone who's currently interning in Hawaii doing this research himself.
Re: "The Scientist you pick say its our doing, there are many who say its natural."
The number of credible climatologsts who claim the recent warming is natural is miniscule. A recent survey (Doran 2009 EOS) of actively publishing American climatologists had 97% agreeing that humans are a significant cause of the recent warming.
Re: "You clearly have not put any thought into the subject but are content to be told what to think. Ignorance and foolishness seem to be your own domain not mine.
Oh sweet irony!
Re: "The greenhouse theory is merely speculation."
Which podunk college gave you a science degree?
Re: "The Sun caused the past warming"
As I said, that's false. Past major climate changes were from the Earth's orbital and rotational variations (Milankovitch cycles). (Maunder&Dalton mins were minor.)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo did you not pay attention... the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists, the ones who study it for a living, and not listen to Al Gore who personally has millions invested in so called "Green Technologies." You have been propagandized without even realizing it. Effective.
Re:"did you not pay attention.. the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists, the ones who study it for a living"
What bullshit! You fools mouth off despite your 100% ignorance. Need I cite climatologist surveys? Abstract reviews? NAS & its G8+5 counterparts? AAAS? NASA? NOAA? Etc
Re:"did you not pay attention.. the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists"
I seriously wonder about jokers like you. Do you think you really know the facts? Have you any clue how ignorant you are?
Click "All Comment", then search for my comments. Learn before you speak, moron.
I have waited for 6 months for a skeptic of AGW to state a more likely explanation than anthropogenic global warming for the majority of warming since the 1970's and no scientific reply as yet, just ad hominems and a non sequitur, odd no?
Infowars.com: Nightly News Inaugural Broadcast with Alex Jones: Tonight we explore Their secular saint, Prophet Al GORE, has become a very rich man off his global warming “science.” more lies from Emperor Al Gore whose wealth has swell to excess of $100 Million from his "Cap and Trade song and dance" The lying hypocrisy of it is just too much for an honest person to bear.
"To be honest, I’m not sure I’d characterize myself as an environmentalist now. While I got into global warming out of scientific curiosity, my continued interest and all the hours I spend on it are more out of concern for humanity than nature. I’m a Christian and a strong aspect of my faith is social conscience – hating injustice and caring for the poor."
So the guy who tries to rubbish sceptics believes in Fairy stories ~ who would have guessed it.
‘Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published…by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase…problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
A vast Majority of Climatologist know that it is always temperature that drives CO2 levels, not the other way around. It has been proven and confessed by Climatologist dependent on Government Grant Money to draw the conclusions that the Government wants to hear or else they will find themselves collecting Welfare for the rest of their career.
Re; "A vast Majority of Climatologist know that it is always temperature that drives CO2 levels, not the other way around."
Wrong. Climatologists know that each impacts the other. Prior major climate changes didn't arise because CO2 increased first. That's true, but so what? NO ONE CLAIMED OTHERWISE! What the lag issue indicates is that the *INITIAL* driver of prior climate changes wasn't CO2. Again - who said otherwise? That does NOT show that CO2 increases didn't increase temps.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Al Gore said otherwise. The basic idea is that IN THE PAST, and I know you've already admitted to this, temperature drives CO2 up. That's the ONLY correlation the two have. When it comes to us producing CO2, the effects on temperature are negligible. If everyone completely stopped using cars, the effects on the planet's temperature would be negligible. Mind you, I simply heard this come from a student at Stanford who majors in geoscience.
I forget exactly how he phrased it, but he might have been mistaken. He's not a scientist. It doesn't change anything if Gore makes a mistake - the warnings about AGW are coming from the scientists.
Re: "The basic idea is that IN THE PAST, and I know you've already admitted to this, temperature drives CO2 up."
What I admitted was that CO2 wasn't the INITIAL prior cause of major temp changes. Both the record & physics tell us that CO2 drives temps too.
Ex: For small changes, w/o thier mutual influence, let a DT change in temp causes a DC change in CO2 via DC ~= aDT, and a DC change in CO2 cause a DT change in temps via DT=bDC. Then including their mutual influence, a DT change causes a DC change of DC ~= a(DT+bDC), so DC ~= (a/(1-ab))DT = kDT. So when the record shows DC ~= kDT, it doesn't mean that k=a and b=0. Via physics we know that b isn't 0.
They're highly correlated, but that doesn't say how they influence one another. Historically, temps changed ahead of CO2, but doesn't mean that, ONCE that change got going, CO2 wasn't causing more increases/decreses in temps (additional to whatever outside causes initiated the temp changes) as temps caused that increase/decrease in CO2. In fact, from physics we know that CO2 changes were causing changes in temps.
Re: "When it comes to us producing CO2, the effects on temperature are negligible. If everyone completely stopped using cars, the effects on the planet's temperature would be negligible."
1) The human sources of atmospheric CO2 are more than from just driving cars.
2) There's a long delay for the CO2 we emit to leave the atmosphere, so temps won't quickly drop if we cut our CO2 emissions.
3) It's the year after year cumulative effect of emissions that causes the CO2 problem, hence GW.
4) Regarding our changing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations having a neglibible effect on temps - that's not what the scientists are saying. We'll eventually (by the end of this century) double CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels, and the prediction is that the warming that will cause will be about 3C (some predictions are much higher). That's FAR from negligible in its human impact. For comparison, the temp change from the last glacial period (ice age) is about 5C.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo (cont'd) The predictions you've mentioned are but a few of many predictions. Others say temperature will be dropping sooner than rising. Yes, we have an effect on temperature. The simple fact that we lay entire cities with asphalt and concrete heats the earth, but reflective wheat fields also cool it. We cannot possibly know the net effects our emissions have, but it's becoming increasingly known clear that they're not NEARLY as reverse-correlated as Al Gore suggests.
Re: " It has been proven and confessed by Climatologist dependent on Government Grant Money to draw the conclusions that the Government wants to hear or else they will find themselves collecting Welfare for the rest of their career."
If a million people repeat the same nonsense, it's still nonsense. The sources you're listening to are crap. A billion people believe in astrology. Your comment here is simply wrong, and worse, it proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo So I assume that would mean what the majority of scientists believe if that's what he learned, despite being a global warming fanatic in the past. He's pretty convinced, and I'm pretty sure he knows more than I or anyone on here does about the subject, meaning he knows why. I still want everyone to use hybrid cars and such, because I simply don't like smog.
Re: "He's pretty convinced, and I'm pretty sure he knows more than I or anyone on here does about the subject, meaning he knows why."
If "he" there refers to your Stanford source majoring in Geoscience, then I don't accept that. I don't know anything about his knowledge other than what you just said. If for you, this issue is decided by the views of the properly credentialed, then you must accept that humans are causing global warming, as that's the view of planet's climatologists.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo His opinion opinion comes from a textbook and a professor, both of which were informed/are/written by highly credible sources. I doubt your opinion is more credible. No, we DO NOT know the net effects our emissions have on temperature. No credible scientist claims to know such a thing. Otherwise, they'd have reason and this whole debate would be settled, but it's not. You speak as if you think all scientists believe as you do. They do not...
Re: " His opinion opinion comes from a textbook and a professor, both of which were informed/are/written by highly credible sources. I doubt your opinion is more credible."
My "opinion" comes fromt he IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the National Academies of Sciences. I'm afraid I'm not dumping them for "but my friend, who's a geoscience major, says...".
Re: "No, we DO NOT know the net effects our emissions have on temperature."
Sorry, that's false. Knowledge claims are never 100% certain.
According to the last IPCC report, it's at least 90% likely that most of the warming since the mid 20th century is due to human greenhouse gases. Scientific knowledge always has error bars, but that doesn't imply that "we don't know."
Re: "No credible scientist claims to know such a thing. Otherwise, they'd have reason and this whole debate would be settled, but it's not."
There essentially is no debate among climatologists about whether humans are causing warming. You've been misled.
Big Oil and others, along with their political allies (the republican party in the USA, Fox "News", etc), whether out of ideological or financial interests, are working hard (spending big money) to CONFUSE the public on this - including the lie (which you've seemed to have bought) that AGW is uncertain among climatlogists. It isn't. The extents and details are still being improved on, but the basic reality is not in doubt among the planet's *climatologists*.
For instance, check out the resume of the man who made THIS vid (this piece of deception & propoganda crap), Steven Milloy, at wikipedia or sourcewatch.
Re: "You speak as if you think all scientists believe as you do. They do not"
Not all - true. Not "all scientists" agree about anything. But almost all climatologists do agree with me. The IPCC, climatologist surveys, the peer-reviewed literature, and the positions of the planet's esteemed scientific orgs, all point to the same thing!
@VeryEvilPettingZoo *sigh*. I dare you to link me to a statement coming from a representative of any of those organizations definitively claiming that a significant amount of climate change is caused by humans.
Again, we DO NOT know the net effects. No credible scientist claims to know this. Again, link me to a single credible scientist that does have evidence of the significant reverse correlation you cling to.
Re: "I dare you to link me to a statement coming from a representative of any of those organizations definitively claiming that a significant amount of climate change is caused by humans."
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM pdf page 10. Footnote #6 on page 3 gives their definition of "very likely" = at least 90% likely.
Don't like the IPCC? OK, how about the AAAS (one of the two main scientific associations in the USA).
Here's the 2007 AAAS statement: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
Don't like the IPCC or the AAAS? OK, how about the National Academy of Science? Let's throw in their counterparts from the world's largeest economies, the so called G8+5. They've all signed several joint statements
From the 2005 "Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change": "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". That was signed by the USA's National Academy of Science, as well its counterparts in the "the G8+5" (UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Russia, China, etc.).
The 2007 version from the joint science academies says "Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
By the 2009 version, they don't even bother explicitly making that point. It's implicit throughout their statement and they just assume that it's already understood. (Ex: "... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, ..." and such)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo It is true that they are presenting ideas that don't have sources to back them up, and that could be an issue for their credibility factors, but predictions are worked on by looking at every scrap of data that one can collect from things such as ice core samples. Both sides can be debated, but those who say that carbondioxide and temperature do not go hand-in-hand need to check their stats again. We are assisting the natural change in climate, but not causing it all.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You know what, nevermind. Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, considering events from last year where a significant amount of temperature data was royally fudged in favor of global warming activists and certain political powers (which is why I'm inclined to believe private studies). There is almost nothing we can do about the climate change, and even those organizations will attest to that.
Re: "You know what, nevermind. Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, considering events from last year where ..." ... conspiracy nonsense ... "(which is why I'm inclined to believe private studies)."
You're being played for a fool by propagandists like Steven Milloy. For starters, AAAS isn't a government org. The IPCC has used thousands of scientist VOLUNTEERS. Etc
The scientists are all lying - except those paid by Big Oil?
Re: "Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, ... "
Exactly. ACCUSSATIONS are easy. There's ZERO evidence of any scientific misconduct - despite all the *astonishing* things I'm sure you've heard & read to the contrary. It's all bullshit made up to convince suckers of exactly what you're saying here. I'm not surprised that they try it, but I'm amazied that it works. How can you not see through their obvious attempts to smear the scientists?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Zero evidence? And you're calling ME the sucker? I'm surprised you find your own sources to be ANY more credible or corrupt than my own. I highly, HIGHLY doubt you've gone and done your research to the point of actually picking up a few textbooks and analyzing these things yourself. Then, and ONLY then could you say you make such a ridiculous claim. (cont'd)
Re: "Zero evidence? And you're calling ME the sucker?"
Yes - you're a sucker. It's this simple: the likely consequences of scientific findings threaten to reduce the profit margins of Big Oil, Industry, and other huge multinationals - and so of course they spend big money funding PR firms, free-market think tanks, lobbyists, science BS "institutes", etc, and their political pawns (in the USA, the republicans) to mislead and confuse the public (aka suckers). "Doubt is our product"
Re: " I'm surprised you find your own sources to be ANY more credible or corrupt than my own."
Let's see - my sources are the vast VAST majority of peer-reviewed literature on the subject, the position of the planet's esteemeed scientific bodies, and the position of the overwhelming majority of the planet's climatologists. Sounds like a bunch of scientific scoundrels to me!! I'm sure your sources are much more credible about this scientific issue.
Re: " I highly, HIGHLY doubt you've gone and done your research to the point of actually picking up a few textbooks and analyzing these things yourself."
You're wrong there too.
Re: "Then, and ONLY then could you say you make such a ridiculous claim."
My claim is ridiculous? Deniers have spread all maner of lies to discredit the scientists, and it's always proven to be bullshit. Sorry, but that's how it is. Accusations are easy - only a sucker buys into meritless accusations.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo A certain climatologist (meaning he actually IS capable of analyzing these sort of things) by the name of Keenan (from what I remember) who happens to be a global warming denier found that your beloved IPCC actually did fudge quite a few numbers. From the areas where this occurred one infers that those locations were chosen specifically so there'd be less of a chance of discovering this "misconduct". I wonder what else the IPCC is doing?
Re: "A certain climatologist (meaning he actually IS capable of analyzing these sort of things) by the name of Keenan (from what I remember) ... found ..."
Keenan isn't a climatologist. He's a former wall street trader who wrote an anti-global warming op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.
FYI: The WSJ is the denier's prime spot for publication. They say things there that would be laughed at in the halls of science, but sound convincing to the scientifically ignorant public.
Re: "... Keenan ... found that your beloved IPCC actually did fudge quite a few numbers."
Fudge? Really? People who know how to think clearly know there's a difference between "dispute", "revealed an error", and "revealed a *fudging*".
Deniers usually DO jump from "dispute" (which rarely hold up anyhow) to "fudge" - because they're dishonest people. Their goal is to serve the interests of multinationals by discrediting scientists, NOT to seek the truth or a balanced perspective.
Re: "From the areas where this occurred one infers that those locations were chosen specifically so there'd be less of a chance of discovering this "misconduct". I wonder what else the IPCC is doing?"
Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. A Wall Street trader "caught" the IPCC "fudging" the data huh? Very compelling!
As you're in a wondering mood, why not ponder why it is that you so easily accept some wall street trader's accusation, but dismiss the views of thousands of SCIENTISTS
@VeryEvilPettingZoo And I wonder how accurate such a survey would be? Everyone has an incentive to misinform the public, but to believe so strongly one way or the other would be buying into a conspiracy, so recently I've stayed out of this as each has extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. So I've recently stayed out of it. It wasn't until that friend of mine, whom I trust (I honestly don't care if you don't), decided to do this for a living that I decided to pick a side.
Re: "Everyone has an incentive to misinform the public..."
Really? Out of curiousity, just which hair-brained conspiracy theory to you attribute the vast VAST majority of the planet's climatologists? Why are they, and the planet's esteemed scientific orgs, and the peer reviewed literature, all conspiring to mislead the public? Is it a secret socialist/commie/NWO/Jewish/Illuminati/alien plot? A scam for scientists to get rich? Which Flat-Earth type nonsense have you bought into?
Re: " It wasn't until that friend of mine, whom I trust (I honestly don't care if you don't), decided to do this for a living that I decided to pick a side."
You're free to your ignorant and stupid opinion. You're free to "choose a side". Me - I'm listening to the planet's scientists who study the subject. I'm curious - did you choose the Big Tobacco "side" about there being no danger to smoking? If not, why not?
(FYI: Big Tobacco and denier orgs are have EXTENSIVE connections.)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo It's funny how only now that you believe I won't answer back that you decide to directly insult me. A true man of integrity, you are.
I don't believe for a second you've actually bothered studying climatology intensely before forming an opinion. I don't believe for a second that you actually looked up how those surveys were taken before believing them (considering even in this liberal city of mine, professors tell me there is absolutely NO consensus among the uninvested)...
Re: "I don't believe for a second you've actually bothered studying climatology intensely before forming an opinion."
I've never studied it *intensely* (but I bet I've studied more of it than your friend has), but my "opinion" doesn't count for squat. I'm no fool: just as I wouldn't walk into a room of brain surgeons and presume to start lecturing them about brain surgury, so too I listen to the planet's climatologists to learn about climatology. I listen to those who KNOW.
Re: "I don't believe for a second that you actually looked up how those surveys were taken before believing them"
Sorry, you're wrong - I looked it up and read it before ever citing it. I'm careful. The internet is brimming with fools who declare "facts" w/o knowing WTF they're talking about. I don't. I check things out. I actually CARE about the truth, not your childish "sides". Of course, you're free to believe whatever you like. Of course, you're also free to be constantly wrong.
Re: "It's funny how only now that you believe I won't answer back that you decide to directly insult me. A true man of integrity, you are."
I've been away for a few days. And do I seem like someone who's afraid of a confrontation? My rage is really directed at the greedy selfish (and let's be frank, given their active efforts to cause harm to humanity for their own financial gain, EVIL) bastards who are conning the public. I'm annoyed at you for being so gullible, but I HATE them.
Re: "...considering even in this liberal city of mine, professors tell me there is absolutely NO consensus among the uninvested..."
If so, then your professors are wrong. (And I'm guessing those aren't science professors.) The people who are uninvested and knoweldgable (despite the BS I'm sure you've heard and believed) are the climatologists, and it's a simple fact that the vast VAST majority of them hold that humans are a major, and likely THE major, cause of the recent warming.
Fabrication of evidence to push political incentives. Is that such a foreign concept for you? The fact remains that the evidence was fudged, and I've yet to hear an answer to those accusations besides "Oh, the guy works for Wall Street, derrrp", as if that's supposed to mean anything.
Again, I don't care whether or not you believe my friend. I know him. I trust him. And I guarantee that he's put more thought into this than you. I'm not calling you an idiot, however.
Re: "Fabrication of evidence to push political incentives. Is that such a foreign concept for you?"
The concept is clear. The suggestion that globally, for decades, with no obvious motivation for it, that the planet's couple thousands of climatologists have been doing that is nothing short of comical.
By contrast, the influence campaigns of monied & ideological interests (via lobbyists, think tanks, BS websites, etc), amounting to over $100 million annually, is a simple fact.
Re: "The fact remains that the evidence was fudged, ..."
There's no such "fact" that's been presented. All there is you telling me what some dude alledged. BFD. Some denier idiot says that everyday. 99% of the time what they're saying is simply flat out nonsense, but occationally they've made reasonable criticisms, and even, rarely, found some mistakes. But deniers, being scumbags, will then hyperbolically elevate that into discoveries of lies, coverups, conspiracies, and "fudging".
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Wow, you're so full of shit, it's really unbelievable. I almost want to believe you put the actual time and effort to claim to know as much as you say you do, despite the fact that you're more about "mathematics, physics, and computers". You believe strangers. I don't. Period. Someone I know, uncorrupted, that is actually getting a degree in earth sciences, from Stanford, no less, who's written papers on this exact topic, and is currently researching them says different...
Re: "You believe strangers. I don't. Period. Someone I know, uncorrupted, that is actually getting a degree in earth sciences, from Stanford, no less, who's written papers on this exact topic, and is currently researching them says different"
Yes, as I've cited to you, I believe strangers about this scientific matter - strangers at the AAAS, the IPCC, the National Academy of Science (and its counterparts in the scientific powerhouse nations). You keep citing your undergrad friend.
He's talked to experts, face to face, and he says different. Yes, I guarantee he's looked into this more than you have. I haven't, either. It's about trust. I don't trust you. I don't trust organizations that get paid to find facts by those that already know which facts they want to see. That's the end of it.
Let's see ... every credible scientific organization on the planet agrees that human carbon emissions are creating a climate crisis. But no ... YOU know better, and you're NOT the one who is totally full of shit.
Are you getting professional help for your mental disorder?
Creditible science organizations have made trillions out of "green energy research" as they call it.
Trillions.
If you were a big trusted person, you could easily then just go along and lie to everyone, and I bet they will believe you. Same goes for these organizations. These organizations show us graphs and "facts" and the funny part is, if you look closely, you see a different pattern.
If you think that thousands upon thousands of research scientists study for years getting a Ph.D. and then work in field research TO GET RICH, then you are a certifiable conspiratorial LUNATIC.
Where the fuck did you get the idea of communists?
Give me, one piece of HARD evidence that we are responsible for CO2 levels, causing global warming.
Tell me, right now. Instead of talking about communists, and conspiracies, give me the facts, right here, right now. HARD evidence, not suggestions, but HARD evidence. Dont ask me to give you the evidence before you do.
@PrairieDogged Where the fuck did you get the idea of communists?
Give me, one piece of HARD evidence that we are responsible for CO2 levels, causing global warming.
Tell me, right now. Instead of talking about communists, and conspiracies, give me the facts, right here, right now. HARD evidence, not suggestions, but HARD evidence. Dont ask me to give you the evidence before you do.
Re: "I don't care whether or not you believe my friend. I know him. I trust him. And I guarantee that he's put more thought into this than you"
My money says your guarantee failed, but there's no way to be sure - and it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not saying the rational thing is to take my word for it over his. I'm saying the rational thing is to listen to those who KNOW: I've CITED you the IPCC, the AAAS, the NATIONAL academies science of the largest economies on Earth (the G8+5).
The guy's one of the smartest and most capable people I've ever met, going to Stanford and interning in Hawaii, etc etc. To you that won't mean a thing, but to me, it certainly does. We've gone into long discussions about these things, and he agrees the best place to be is on the fence. And so I choose not to buy into any of this garbage any more. I thought maybe someone would listen, but we might as well be arguing about abortion.
Re: "The guy's one of the smartest and most capable people I've ever met, going to Stanford and interning in... . To you that won't mean a thing, but to me, it certainly does."
It would mean more if he graduated. And more if he had a PhD. And more if he were then a publishing research scientist for years afterwards. And more if all that were in climatology specifically. And more if his view agreed with a couple thousand similar experts.
Non-scientist deniers like you say things that are so astonishingly ignorant that I often can't tell at first if they're just trolls pulling my leg or "for real". For your sake, I hope you're a troll.
If you're for real, then you should know that your "research" ("Hey, since I read lots of denier propaganda and blogs, I'm a frickin encyclopedia of truth and knowledge!") is a joke.
The FACT is, as was obvious from the start, that "climategate" amounted to 100% absolutely nothing.
I am probably more a scientist than you, diploma or not.
I am not denying that the climate is changing.
I do however think that this change is not anthropogenic (caused by human activity)
I don't know what is more unreliable the scientists doing the research over at the UN or the data they work with. If you could provide me with a reading or a link or something that could enlighten me that would be greatly appreciated.
Re: "I don't think climate gate is a laughing matter"
It's not a laughing matter; it's a complete non-issue. The FACT is, as was obvious from the start, that "climategate" amounted to 100% absolutely nothing. Get informed.
Re: "I am probably more a scientist than you, diploma or not."
?
Re: "I do however think that this change is not anthropogenic"
You have your opinions about scientific realities. That's fine. Me, I'll listen to the climatologists to learn about the climate.
@inb4patch A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming. e.g. "the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years" (Murphy 2009).
An 800 year lag in temp vs CO2 fits well with the cycle of boreal forests growing faster due to increased temps, then producing increased CO2 via decomposition. It may be the Q10 metabolic rule is the real driver here
LIES-Remember how Ross Perot said NAFTA and GATT was going to create a "Giant Sucking Sound" and all US JOBS will be gone-Al (the Gangster) GORE laughed at Ross Perot-But do you see any JOBS left in America Now-Don't Get Fooled Again-Vote for RON PAUL or starve in a FEMA Prison Camp.
If I didn't know the background of the crook behind this video I'd think it was satire. Climate deniers in the media clearly think their audiences are morons. Unfortunately I tend to agree.
When to move species struggling with climate change
.
As climate changes make native habitats unlivable to plants and animals, these species have two choices: Leave or go extinct.
Now, researchers are offering guidance on when conservationists should undertake the last-ditch strategy of transplanting struggling species to new habitats.
UK newspaper coverage is skewed against renewable energy
.
More than half of the coverage of renewable energy solutions in the mainstream British press is negative, according to Britain's the Public Interest Research Centre.
Cape Cod's shape constantly changing, for good and bad
.
Cape Cod could be entering a new era of change. Human-caused global warming is expected to ratchet up the intensity of coastal storms, making dramatic erosion more likely.
In addition, the rate of sea level rise has tripled in the past century, from 1 to 3 millimeters per year.
Good news! The Royal Dutch meteorological Institute, KNMI, just reported: The upper layers of the ocean did not warm up in the past 8 years despite the higher CO2 emision during this period! Therefore the global temperature did not rise. No increase of melting from land or sea-ice at all. They wrote that this was against the expectation and tried to explain what happened with all the extra energy during this period. Mostly reflection of the heat into space and storage in the deap ocean.
Thank you comrade Gore for jetting around the world warning the world of the dangers of the US's fascist CO2 emissions causing Global Warming that is going to burn the planet up unless we implement carbon taxes on the fascist USA to begin the cool down cycle and save the world. China is a sterling example of environmental stewardship, human rights, and adopting green technologies to save the planet.
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
The notion that humankind has changed the world is not new.
Over a century ago, terms such as the Anthropozoic, Psychozoic, and Noosphere were conceived to denote the idea of humans as a new global forcing agent.
its videos like this that confuse people further, if these so called 'climate scientist' think they have a valid argument against global warming then they should submit a paper to be peer reviewed! Not spout their crap to the public who don't know any better.
TheVeryMuchSoShow: I think you're just nuts. Yeah, Al Gore wants to SCREW everyone but the people spending BILLIONS to stop ANYTHING being done to get us OFF oil, THEY are to be believed and followed! That's your choices. CON-serv-Artists, lobbied by oil and farmers, came up with MTBE(poison), then Corn Whiskey as gas, raising costs of gas & food. PLUS- it gets much LESS gas mileage, so you have to use MORE! A TRIPLE screwing! Vote SOLAR & Wind! Less poison=lower healthcare costs!=lower Gov!
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011
Check out wikipedia or sourcewatch to see the wonderful lawyer, lobbyist, Fox "News", faux-organization, in-bed-with-Big-Tobacco, resume of Big-Biz-apologist and public science-distorter Steven Milloy... the man who runs junkscience(dot)com.
Even without knowing his background, if you can't instantly detect that this video is garbage, then you're dumber than a bag of hammers - and so probably a conservative - and so probably beyond hope anyway.
Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?
Only one side in the public debate about global warming has "blind faith"... and it ain't the side that's supporting the planet's climatologists. (I say public debate there basically is no scientific debate on the central points, as it's so firmly established.)
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?"
Ah, more logical falicies...This time argumentum ad verecundiam.
I do understand the scientific method!!! For example, I can understand why Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph is bogus. BTW, he is one of those climatologists you folks have "blind faith" in, correct?
Sounds like any climatologist that disagrees with your experts must not be educated, ouch!
Re: "Ah, more logical falicies...This time argumentum ad verecundiam."
It's typical of the uneducated to use terms you don't understand. I asked a QUESTION ("Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?"). The question implicitly contained an ASSERTION. The ASSERTION was that climatologists are legitimate authorities about climatology.
Questions and assertions are NOT arguments, hence no fallacy can be committed!!!
Furthermore, "argumentum ad verecundiam" is mainly *false* authority. Climatologists ARE credible authorities about climatology - that was my very assertion. Even *if* I had made the argument that "You should accept AGW because that's what planet's climatologists tell us" - and so had entered into a realm where committing a fallacy was even possible - I STILL wouldn't have committed the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.
This has been flagged as spam show
Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk
SMDLightEvolution 1 week ago
why wasnt the debate btwn climatologists? why would anyone takes al gores word for it, he is not a scientist. this video is monstrously biased
TheWenaus 1 week ago
New Clean Renewable Source Of Energy.
truthiseverall 2 weeks ago
Nuclear power major global warming to scare the stupid-like our Al
JonThm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CASE CLOSED! "MANMADE" GLOBAL WARMING FALSE!
See evidence "Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 7/9" youtube com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc&feature=related
@1:50 & 2:49 Scientist ADMITS ice core data proves TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 INCREASES & is CAUSED BY THE EARTH's ORBIT AROUND THE SUN. Sun's warmth releases extra planetary CO2 which adds atmospheric warmth. SUN INITIATES WARMING process! Then@8:12 & 8:35 its also admitted HIGHER CO2 levels DURING THE JURRASIC PERIOD 55 million yrs ago!
shawso7 2 weeks ago
i have no idea if global warming is man made or not...but i do know Al Gore is a hypocrtical moron.
funcpl2741054 2 weeks ago
The natural climate started cooling in 1998. Over the last time anyone be cared about Al Gore
JonThm 3 weeks ago
Al Gore should be up for comic awards...he is just too funny with this global warming nonsense. Tiny percentages of trace gasses are responsible for a rise in global temperature that's barely measurable...HA! "The ice has stories to tell us". Stories about lil bubbles of atmosphere. These same nuts were screaming abpout COOLING back in the 70's!
GrandFunker 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is nothing but misinformation
Plenty things could happen
I could win the lotto, i never do
Thinking i could win the lotto should i spend the money now?
Well i could win the lotto so shouldn't i count on it happening? Of course not!!!
None of this is based on proven science.
It is all hypothetical.
Since when do we make disicions based on hypothetical scenarios.
We are better and smarter than this!
We need to look at the people who claim these things, and why they are claiming them.
tiffcomp 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the carbon tax is only being pushed because nato currently need funding..nato always brings up the issue of funding and everytime they want money congresshave to sign for it and its a long process..the carbon tax will give nato full funding...do a bit of research on it..its a scam people...wake up b4 they implement it and we are stuck with it
chopin999 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neukom, R. et al. Multiproxy summer and winter surface air temperature field reconstructions for southern South America covering the past centuries. Climate Dynamics 37: 35-51.
PrairleDogged 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 degrees Celsius...increase in global temperatures has become synonymous with "dangerous climate change". Lobbyists haggle over it, scientists build models around it and Greens wring their hands over it. So it is dispiriting to learn, with the next round of UN negotiations under way in Durban, South Africa, that many climatologists feel it is a target we are almost certain to miss’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228412.900-durban-summit-must-accept-degrees-of-responsibility.html
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
Comment removed
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Numerous posts on where is the credible proof to explain climate variation?
Well there is such proof but no one wants to listen. The results demonstrate an unassailable correlation with historic climate data and because the data can be calculated, the future climate patterns can also be calculated, a forecast for the next two decades is shown and we are in for a long cold spell in the Northern hemisphere.
Google Solarchords and see for yourself.
howardsway782 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study See BBC news 21/10/2011 The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
checkyoursources 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Beware the ides of March!
‘Huge rise in emissions as world economy de-greens
More CO2 was emitted in 2010 than in previous years, according to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center… the biggest jump on record…the rise follows falls in both the price of coal and average winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere'
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.000-huge-rise-in-emissions-as-world-economy-degreens.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
‘Playing the climate blame game
global warming caused the 2010 Russian heatwave could bring closer the day when climate victims can sue oil firms…found that there is an 80 per cent chance that the temperature record would not have occurred without climate change…extreme events like the heatwave, most of the impact comes from crossing a threshold. Doing so is made much more likely by climate change’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/mg21228384.200-playing-the-climate-blame-game.html
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
Trenberth
"But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with sky temperature data. That data is unfortunately wanting, and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking, although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes, and burying heat at depth, where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later, and so we should know about it."
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
October 14, 2009:
Tom Wigley
Kevin,
"I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking."
The science is settled Mmmm? Christ knows what it would be like if they were up in the air still about it *o)
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1912 : Global Warming – Ice Caps Shrinking And Thinning – Animals Migrating North – Winters Getting Mild And Short
West Gippsland Gazette Warragul, Vic., Tuesday 19 March 1912.
OMG they must have thought the sky was falling in then too ~ I wonder who they scammed with that little snippet of 'crap yer panties' news?
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
AT 1m:13s in Al gore says that the CO2 trapped by falling snow tells the scientists how much was in the atmosphere, true but very misleading. What he tells us, in and of itself does not tell us the cause of any increase of CO2 concentration, only a snap shot of what it was - and the core samples they test are usually from the polar regions where snow is common.
You can not make the link between the CO2 level trapped by snow in the ice and the fact the it was the CO2 that caused the warming.
ArchytypeNet 3 months ago
@ArchytypeNet
Re: "You can not make the link between the CO2 level trapped by snow in the ice and the fact the it was the CO2 that caused the warming"
Scientific conclusions consider the *many* links among all the relevant phenomenon. In that sense, what you wrote was absolutely correct. If ice cores were ALL we had, it would definitely, by itself, not establish that CO2 increases cause global warming.
But ice cores are not all we have. Ex: The greenhouse effect is predicted by basic physics.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
"The greenhouse effect is predicted by basic physics."
Predicted but not manifested in the case of CAGW ~ Oops
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
@PrairleDogged
That made as much sense as smugly saying "A plummeting airplane whose wings just fell off in flight is predicted to crash, but hasn't actually crashed yet ~ Oops".
I'd find a sharper wit from the retarded guy next door.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Growing ice mass ~ dropping sea levels ~ temperatures stalled ~ No warming in the dendrological record etc etc etc ~ I think its your wings that are falling off.
.
Put the guy next door on PottyPoo your way below his level.
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
@PrairleDogged
You've been posting your anti-global warming drivel on YT for years, and have your ass handed to you every single day, and still haven't learned the basic facts (much less shown the wisdom to shut up). If that doesn't define "dumber than a bag of hammers", then I don't know what does.
3 of your 4 "facts" are simply wrong, and the correct one (sea levels dropped in 2010) usually happens after an El Nino year (it's a short term decrease on the long term increasing trend). BFD
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
I never post to you, nor read your posts, because I believe that like most of the "active" YouTube global warming deniers, you're, technically, a moron, and so it's quite pointless. Please never post to me again.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZzzzzz
Oooooohhhh a fairy facepalm ~ trouble is my touchy friend when I see your moronic posts banging on about sfa getting self voted up I see Red ~ a Red Cabbage ~ goodbye (_)(_)
PrairleDogged 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How climate change deniers spread confusion and misinformation, as they used to in the tobacco industry and the cancer it caused
watch?v=B4j5IzhEmXQ
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed
‘their scepticism about climate change has reanalysed two centuries' worth of global temperature records...study largely confirms previous ones: it finds strong evidence that Earth is getting hotter…Blogger Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That has repeatedly claimed that temperature data is unreliable’
w ww.newscientist.c om/article/dn21074-sceptical-climate-scientists-concede-earth-has-warmed.html
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Studies of the Earth’s past climate tells us whenever co2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginn/ing of the industrial age in the 19th century, co2 levels have increased from 280ppmto 380ppm…while many factors affect our planet’s climate. There is overwhelming evidence that co2 is the prime cause of the recent warming’
NewScientist
Volume 212
No 2835
Page 37
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon Taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon Taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon Taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes. Carbon taxes.
DaveGibbagglers 3 months ago
Comment removed
GWfarce 4 months ago
Fundamental flaw, the layers are NOT year by year, but rather period of warm and cold.
opticfire 4 months ago
Proffesor Singer is the same person who argued that there was no direct link between smoking and cancer arguing for the tobacco industries
and now arguing for oil industries
izaccy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with (complete) support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 4 months ago
No co2 does not drive the climate, the climate drives co2. The sun caused the past warming and unfortunately as the Sun now enters a Grand Minimum , we are now cooling abruptly. History shows that warming precedes entry into ice ages.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444
Re: "No co2 does not drive the climate, the climate drives co2"
In the past, temp changes weren't *initiated* by CO2, but CO2 still influenced them. (No one claimed that CO2 is the ONLY thing that can change surface temps.) The point is that human CO2 is causing the warming THIS time.
Re: "The sun caused the past warming.."
That's wrong.
Re: "...the Sun now enters a Grand Minimum , we are now cooling abruptly."
We *might* be entering such a period, but our CO2 will offset it.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 3
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Who said co2 influenced temperature? Do you have experimental proof of this? How can a symptom offset a cause? Your thinking is warped. It always was and always will be the Sun. The Climate is the dictator you are the slave.
david222444 4 months ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@david22244
Re: "Who said co2 influenced temperature? Do you have experimental proof of this?"
Try any chemistry text book. That CO2 absorbs IR light, and the consequent greenhouse effect, aren't in any scientific dispute whatsoever. You clearly don't know the anything about this topic. Being ignorant is fine; we're all ignorant about almost everything. But being ignorant while thinking you can judge it better than the scientists is the height of foolishness. The scientists say it's our doing
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Do not be so arrogant. Can you tell me what does not absorb IR light? You could not be more wrong, I have a degree in earth and environmental science / biology. The Scientist you pick say its our doing, there are many who say its natural. You clearly have not put any thought into the subject but are content to be told what to think. Ignorance and foolishness seem to be your own domain not mine. The greenhouse theory is merely speculation. The Sun caused the past warming.
david222444 4 months ago
@david222444
Re: "Do not be so arrogant."
It's not being arrogant to point out that basically everything you posted was simply wrong. It's not about ego, it's about respecting the truth.
Re: "Can you tell me what does not absorb IR light?"
Um.. how about the 99% of the Earth's atmosphere that's composed of N2 and O2? Unlike CO2, those di-atomic molecules don't have vibrational modes producing moments excitable by EM radiation in the IR spectrum.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@david222444
Re: "You could not be more wrong, I have a degree in earth and environmental science / biology."
If you studied science, and didn't learn that FACTS MATTER, and that just because you blather some nonsense, that doesn't make it true, then your degree isn't worth shit. Don't try to impress with a degree while making terribly basic physics/chemistry mistakes (especially since you might be running into someone who knows more than you. FYI: my credentials on this are better than yours)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You have your reasons to believe as you do, and they're valid enough for an intelligent person. Buuut I'm not gonna take the opinion of someone who formed his own by looking into the research of strangers as opposed to someone who's currently interning in Hawaii doing this research himself.
Adios.
Liberum69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@david222444
Re: "The Scientist you pick say its our doing, there are many who say its natural."
The number of credible climatologsts who claim the recent warming is natural is miniscule. A recent survey (Doran 2009 EOS) of actively publishing American climatologists had 97% agreeing that humans are a significant cause of the recent warming.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@david222444
Re: "You clearly have not put any thought into the subject but are content to be told what to think. Ignorance and foolishness seem to be your own domain not mine.
Oh sweet irony!
Re: "The greenhouse theory is merely speculation."
Which podunk college gave you a science degree?
Re: "The Sun caused the past warming"
As I said, that's false. Past major climate changes were from the Earth's orbital and rotational variations (Milankovitch cycles). (Maunder&Dalton mins were minor.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Your arrogance is astonishing. I connot discuss science with an ignorant asshole. Go read a comic book.
david222444 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo did you not pay attention... the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists, the ones who study it for a living, and not listen to Al Gore who personally has millions invested in so called "Green Technologies." You have been propagandized without even realizing it. Effective.
joebobahead 3 months ago
@joebobahead
Re:"did you not pay attention.. the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists, the ones who study it for a living"
What bullshit! You fools mouth off despite your 100% ignorance. Need I cite climatologist surveys? Abstract reviews? NAS & its G8+5 counterparts? AAAS? NASA? NOAA? Etc
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
@joebobahead
Re:"did you not pay attention.. the scientists say exactly the opposite of what you're stating. It is a fact that a very small number of actual climatologists actually believe in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Maybe try actually watching the video and listening to the actual scientists"
I seriously wonder about jokers like you. Do you think you really know the facts? Have you any clue how ignorant you are?
Click "All Comment", then search for my comments. Learn before you speak, moron.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 months ago
Wow, sounds like Al Gore is a liar. Too bad, he had so much money invested in it, I hate to see him lose it all.
beazgod 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have waited for 6 months for a skeptic of AGW to state a more likely explanation than anthropogenic global warming for the majority of warming since the 1970's and no scientific reply as yet, just ad hominems and a non sequitur, odd no?
checkyoursources 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Infowars.com: Nightly News Inaugural Broadcast with Alex Jones: Tonight we explore Their secular saint, Prophet Al GORE, has become a very rich man off his global warming “science.” more lies from Emperor Al Gore whose wealth has swell to excess of $100 Million from his "Cap and Trade song and dance" The lying hypocrisy of it is just too much for an honest person to bear.
exposetruthwolf 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John Cook aka Mr skepticalscience :-
"To be honest, I’m not sure I’d characterize myself as an environmentalist now. While I got into global warming out of scientific curiosity, my continued interest and all the hours I spend on it are more out of concern for humanity than nature. I’m a Christian and a strong aspect of my faith is social conscience – hating injustice and caring for the poor."
So the guy who tries to rubbish sceptics believes in Fairy stories ~ who would have guessed it.
PrairleDogged 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘Journal editor resigns over 'problematic' climate paper
The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published…by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase…problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published’
w ww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackadderthe4
'A Dessler has just had a paper printed in 'Geophysical Review Letters' addressing Spencer et al's paper AND claims by Lindzen.
Here is a summary:
watch?v=C2ngavUkmis
Skeptical Science has a great page on the subject too'
Reposted from
Herecomesthefatlady
blackadderthe4 4 months ago
A vast Majority of Climatologist know that it is always temperature that drives CO2 levels, not the other way around. It has been proven and confessed by Climatologist dependent on Government Grant Money to draw the conclusions that the Government wants to hear or else they will find themselves collecting Welfare for the rest of their career.
edmund129 5 months ago
@edmund129
Re; "A vast Majority of Climatologist know that it is always temperature that drives CO2 levels, not the other way around."
Wrong. Climatologists know that each impacts the other. Prior major climate changes didn't arise because CO2 increased first. That's true, but so what? NO ONE CLAIMED OTHERWISE! What the lag issue indicates is that the *INITIAL* driver of prior climate changes wasn't CO2. Again - who said otherwise? That does NOT show that CO2 increases didn't increase temps.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Al Gore said otherwise. The basic idea is that IN THE PAST, and I know you've already admitted to this, temperature drives CO2 up. That's the ONLY correlation the two have. When it comes to us producing CO2, the effects on temperature are negligible. If everyone completely stopped using cars, the effects on the planet's temperature would be negligible. Mind you, I simply heard this come from a student at Stanford who majors in geoscience.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "Al Gore said otherwise."
I forget exactly how he phrased it, but he might have been mistaken. He's not a scientist. It doesn't change anything if Gore makes a mistake - the warnings about AGW are coming from the scientists.
Re: "The basic idea is that IN THE PAST, and I know you've already admitted to this, temperature drives CO2 up."
What I admitted was that CO2 wasn't the INITIAL prior cause of major temp changes. Both the record & physics tell us that CO2 drives temps too.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont)
Re: "That's the ONLY correlation the two have."
You can't infer that from the record.
Ex: For small changes, w/o thier mutual influence, let a DT change in temp causes a DC change in CO2 via DC ~= aDT, and a DC change in CO2 cause a DT change in temps via DT=bDC. Then including their mutual influence, a DT change causes a DC change of DC ~= a(DT+bDC), so DC ~= (a/(1-ab))DT = kDT. So when the record shows DC ~= kDT, it doesn't mean that k=a and b=0. Via physics we know that b isn't 0.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
(cont)
Re: "That's the ONLY correlation the two have."
They're highly correlated, but that doesn't say how they influence one another. Historically, temps changed ahead of CO2, but doesn't mean that, ONCE that change got going, CO2 wasn't causing more increases/decreses in temps (additional to whatever outside causes initiated the temp changes) as temps caused that increase/decrease in CO2. In fact, from physics we know that CO2 changes were causing changes in temps.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
(cont)
Re: "When it comes to us producing CO2, the effects on temperature are negligible. If everyone completely stopped using cars, the effects on the planet's temperature would be negligible."
1) The human sources of atmospheric CO2 are more than from just driving cars.
2) There's a long delay for the CO2 we emit to leave the atmosphere, so temps won't quickly drop if we cut our CO2 emissions.
3) It's the year after year cumulative effect of emissions that causes the CO2 problem, hence GW.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
(cont)
4) Regarding our changing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations having a neglibible effect on temps - that's not what the scientists are saying. We'll eventually (by the end of this century) double CO2 from its pre-Industrial levels, and the prediction is that the warming that will cause will be about 3C (some predictions are much higher). That's FAR from negligible in its human impact. For comparison, the temp change from the last glacial period (ice age) is about 5C.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo (cont'd) The predictions you've mentioned are but a few of many predictions. Others say temperature will be dropping sooner than rising. Yes, we have an effect on temperature. The simple fact that we lay entire cities with asphalt and concrete heats the earth, but reflective wheat fields also cool it. We cannot possibly know the net effects our emissions have, but it's becoming increasingly known clear that they're not NEARLY as reverse-correlated as Al Gore suggests.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@edmund129
Re: " It has been proven and confessed by Climatologist dependent on Government Grant Money to draw the conclusions that the Government wants to hear or else they will find themselves collecting Welfare for the rest of their career."
If a million people repeat the same nonsense, it's still nonsense. The sources you're listening to are crap. A billion people believe in astrology. Your comment here is simply wrong, and worse, it proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 5 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo So I assume that would mean what the majority of scientists believe if that's what he learned, despite being a global warming fanatic in the past. He's pretty convinced, and I'm pretty sure he knows more than I or anyone on here does about the subject, meaning he knows why. I still want everyone to use hybrid cars and such, because I simply don't like smog.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "He's pretty convinced, and I'm pretty sure he knows more than I or anyone on here does about the subject, meaning he knows why."
If "he" there refers to your Stanford source majoring in Geoscience, then I don't accept that. I don't know anything about his knowledge other than what you just said. If for you, this issue is decided by the views of the properly credentialed, then you must accept that humans are causing global warming, as that's the view of planet's climatologists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo His opinion opinion comes from a textbook and a professor, both of which were informed/are/written by highly credible sources. I doubt your opinion is more credible. No, we DO NOT know the net effects our emissions have on temperature. No credible scientist claims to know such a thing. Otherwise, they'd have reason and this whole debate would be settled, but it's not. You speak as if you think all scientists believe as you do. They do not...
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: " His opinion opinion comes from a textbook and a professor, both of which were informed/are/written by highly credible sources. I doubt your opinion is more credible."
My "opinion" comes fromt he IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the National Academies of Sciences. I'm afraid I'm not dumping them for "but my friend, who's a geoscience major, says...".
Re: "No, we DO NOT know the net effects our emissions have on temperature."
Sorry, that's false. Knowledge claims are never 100% certain.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
(cont)
According to the last IPCC report, it's at least 90% likely that most of the warming since the mid 20th century is due to human greenhouse gases. Scientific knowledge always has error bars, but that doesn't imply that "we don't know."
Re: "No credible scientist claims to know such a thing. Otherwise, they'd have reason and this whole debate would be settled, but it's not."
There essentially is no debate among climatologists about whether humans are causing warming. You've been misled.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
(cont)
Big Oil and others, along with their political allies (the republican party in the USA, Fox "News", etc), whether out of ideological or financial interests, are working hard (spending big money) to CONFUSE the public on this - including the lie (which you've seemed to have bought) that AGW is uncertain among climatlogists. It isn't. The extents and details are still being improved on, but the basic reality is not in doubt among the planet's *climatologists*.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
(cont)
For instance, check out the resume of the man who made THIS vid (this piece of deception & propoganda crap), Steven Milloy, at wikipedia or sourcewatch.
Re: "You speak as if you think all scientists believe as you do. They do not"
Not all - true. Not "all scientists" agree about anything. But almost all climatologists do agree with me. The IPCC, climatologist surveys, the peer-reviewed literature, and the positions of the planet's esteemed scientific orgs, all point to the same thing!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
@VeryEvilPettingZoo *sigh*. I dare you to link me to a statement coming from a representative of any of those organizations definitively claiming that a significant amount of climate change is caused by humans.
Again, we DO NOT know the net effects. No credible scientist claims to know this. Again, link me to a single credible scientist that does have evidence of the significant reverse correlation you cling to.
Liberum69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Liberum69
Re: "I dare you to link me to a statement coming from a representative of any of those organizations definitively claiming that a significant amount of climate change is caused by humans."
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM pdf page 10. Footnote #6 on page 3 gives their definition of "very likely" = at least 90% likely.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
(cont)
Don't like the IPCC? OK, how about the AAAS (one of the two main scientific associations in the USA).
Here's the 2007 AAAS statement: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
Don't like the IPCC or the AAAS? OK, how about the National Academy of Science? Let's throw in their counterparts from the world's largeest economies, the so called G8+5. They've all signed several joint statements
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 3
(cont)
From the 2005 "Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change": "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities". That was signed by the USA's National Academy of Science, as well its counterparts in the "the G8+5" (UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Russia, China, etc.).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 3
(cont)
The 2007 version from the joint science academies says "Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 3
By the 2009 version, they don't even bother explicitly making that point. It's implicit throughout their statement and they just assume that it's already understood. (Ex: "... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, ..." and such)
I could go on and on.
Consider your "dare" satisfied.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 7
@VeryEvilPettingZoo It is true that they are presenting ideas that don't have sources to back them up, and that could be an issue for their credibility factors, but predictions are worked on by looking at every scrap of data that one can collect from things such as ice core samples. Both sides can be debated, but those who say that carbondioxide and temperature do not go hand-in-hand need to check their stats again. We are assisting the natural change in climate, but not causing it all.
helenofargos 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo You know what, nevermind. Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, considering events from last year where a significant amount of temperature data was royally fudged in favor of global warming activists and certain political powers (which is why I'm inclined to believe private studies). There is almost nothing we can do about the climate change, and even those organizations will attest to that.
Liberum69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Liberum69
Re: "You know what, nevermind. Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, considering events from last year where ..." ... conspiracy nonsense ... "(which is why I'm inclined to believe private studies)."
You're being played for a fool by propagandists like Steven Milloy. For starters, AAAS isn't a government org. The IPCC has used thousands of scientist VOLUNTEERS. Etc
The scientists are all lying - except those paid by Big Oil?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
Re: "Every government funded organization can easily be accused of corruption and fudging the data, ... "
Exactly. ACCUSSATIONS are easy. There's ZERO evidence of any scientific misconduct - despite all the *astonishing* things I'm sure you've heard & read to the contrary. It's all bullshit made up to convince suckers of exactly what you're saying here. I'm not surprised that they try it, but I'm amazied that it works. How can you not see through their obvious attempts to smear the scientists?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 8
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Zero evidence? And you're calling ME the sucker? I'm surprised you find your own sources to be ANY more credible or corrupt than my own. I highly, HIGHLY doubt you've gone and done your research to the point of actually picking up a few textbooks and analyzing these things yourself. Then, and ONLY then could you say you make such a ridiculous claim. (cont'd)
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "Zero evidence? And you're calling ME the sucker?"
Yes - you're a sucker. It's this simple: the likely consequences of scientific findings threaten to reduce the profit margins of Big Oil, Industry, and other huge multinationals - and so of course they spend big money funding PR firms, free-market think tanks, lobbyists, science BS "institutes", etc, and their political pawns (in the USA, the republicans) to mislead and confuse the public (aka suckers). "Doubt is our product"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: " I'm surprised you find your own sources to be ANY more credible or corrupt than my own."
Let's see - my sources are the vast VAST majority of peer-reviewed literature on the subject, the position of the planet's esteemeed scientific bodies, and the position of the overwhelming majority of the planet's climatologists. Sounds like a bunch of scientific scoundrels to me!! I'm sure your sources are much more credible about this scientific issue.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: " I highly, HIGHLY doubt you've gone and done your research to the point of actually picking up a few textbooks and analyzing these things yourself."
You're wrong there too.
Re: "Then, and ONLY then could you say you make such a ridiculous claim."
My claim is ridiculous? Deniers have spread all maner of lies to discredit the scientists, and it's always proven to be bullshit. Sorry, but that's how it is. Accusations are easy - only a sucker buys into meritless accusations.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo A certain climatologist (meaning he actually IS capable of analyzing these sort of things) by the name of Keenan (from what I remember) who happens to be a global warming denier found that your beloved IPCC actually did fudge quite a few numbers. From the areas where this occurred one infers that those locations were chosen specifically so there'd be less of a chance of discovering this "misconduct". I wonder what else the IPCC is doing?
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "A certain climatologist (meaning he actually IS capable of analyzing these sort of things) by the name of Keenan (from what I remember) ... found ..."
Keenan isn't a climatologist. He's a former wall street trader who wrote an anti-global warming op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.
FYI: The WSJ is the denier's prime spot for publication. They say things there that would be laughed at in the halls of science, but sound convincing to the scientifically ignorant public.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "... Keenan ... found that your beloved IPCC actually did fudge quite a few numbers."
Fudge? Really? People who know how to think clearly know there's a difference between "dispute", "revealed an error", and "revealed a *fudging*".
Deniers usually DO jump from "dispute" (which rarely hold up anyhow) to "fudge" - because they're dishonest people. Their goal is to serve the interests of multinationals by discrediting scientists, NOT to seek the truth or a balanced perspective.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "From the areas where this occurred one infers that those locations were chosen specifically so there'd be less of a chance of discovering this "misconduct". I wonder what else the IPCC is doing?"
Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. A Wall Street trader "caught" the IPCC "fudging" the data huh? Very compelling!
As you're in a wondering mood, why not ponder why it is that you so easily accept some wall street trader's accusation, but dismiss the views of thousands of SCIENTISTS
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo And I wonder how accurate such a survey would be? Everyone has an incentive to misinform the public, but to believe so strongly one way or the other would be buying into a conspiracy, so recently I've stayed out of this as each has extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. So I've recently stayed out of it. It wasn't until that friend of mine, whom I trust (I honestly don't care if you don't), decided to do this for a living that I decided to pick a side.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "Everyone has an incentive to misinform the public..."
Really? Out of curiousity, just which hair-brained conspiracy theory to you attribute the vast VAST majority of the planet's climatologists? Why are they, and the planet's esteemed scientific orgs, and the peer reviewed literature, all conspiring to mislead the public? Is it a secret socialist/commie/NWO/Jewish/Illuminati/alien plot? A scam for scientists to get rich? Which Flat-Earth type nonsense have you bought into?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: " It wasn't until that friend of mine, whom I trust (I honestly don't care if you don't), decided to do this for a living that I decided to pick a side."
You're free to your ignorant and stupid opinion. You're free to "choose a side". Me - I'm listening to the planet's scientists who study the subject. I'm curious - did you choose the Big Tobacco "side" about there being no danger to smoking? If not, why not?
(FYI: Big Tobacco and denier orgs are have EXTENSIVE connections.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo It's funny how only now that you believe I won't answer back that you decide to directly insult me. A true man of integrity, you are.
I don't believe for a second you've actually bothered studying climatology intensely before forming an opinion. I don't believe for a second that you actually looked up how those surveys were taken before believing them (considering even in this liberal city of mine, professors tell me there is absolutely NO consensus among the uninvested)...
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "I don't believe for a second you've actually bothered studying climatology intensely before forming an opinion."
I've never studied it *intensely* (but I bet I've studied more of it than your friend has), but my "opinion" doesn't count for squat. I'm no fool: just as I wouldn't walk into a room of brain surgeons and presume to start lecturing them about brain surgury, so too I listen to the planet's climatologists to learn about climatology. I listen to those who KNOW.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "I don't believe for a second that you actually looked up how those surveys were taken before believing them"
Sorry, you're wrong - I looked it up and read it before ever citing it. I'm careful. The internet is brimming with fools who declare "facts" w/o knowing WTF they're talking about. I don't. I check things out. I actually CARE about the truth, not your childish "sides". Of course, you're free to believe whatever you like. Of course, you're also free to be constantly wrong.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "It's funny how only now that you believe I won't answer back that you decide to directly insult me. A true man of integrity, you are."
I've been away for a few days. And do I seem like someone who's afraid of a confrontation? My rage is really directed at the greedy selfish (and let's be frank, given their active efforts to cause harm to humanity for their own financial gain, EVIL) bastards who are conning the public. I'm annoyed at you for being so gullible, but I HATE them.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "...considering even in this liberal city of mine, professors tell me there is absolutely NO consensus among the uninvested..."
If so, then your professors are wrong. (And I'm guessing those aren't science professors.) The people who are uninvested and knoweldgable (despite the BS I'm sure you've heard and believed) are the climatologists, and it's a simple fact that the vast VAST majority of them hold that humans are a major, and likely THE major, cause of the recent warming.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
Fabrication of evidence to push political incentives. Is that such a foreign concept for you? The fact remains that the evidence was fudged, and I've yet to hear an answer to those accusations besides "Oh, the guy works for Wall Street, derrrp", as if that's supposed to mean anything.
Again, I don't care whether or not you believe my friend. I know him. I trust him. And I guarantee that he's put more thought into this than you. I'm not calling you an idiot, however.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "Fabrication of evidence to push political incentives. Is that such a foreign concept for you?"
The concept is clear. The suggestion that globally, for decades, with no obvious motivation for it, that the planet's couple thousands of climatologists have been doing that is nothing short of comical.
By contrast, the influence campaigns of monied & ideological interests (via lobbyists, think tanks, BS websites, etc), amounting to over $100 million annually, is a simple fact.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
@Liberum69
Re: "The fact remains that the evidence was fudged, ..."
There's no such "fact" that's been presented. All there is you telling me what some dude alledged. BFD. Some denier idiot says that everyday. 99% of the time what they're saying is simply flat out nonsense, but occationally they've made reasonable criticisms, and even, rarely, found some mistakes. But deniers, being scumbags, will then hyperbolically elevate that into discoveries of lies, coverups, conspiracies, and "fudging".
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Wow, you're so full of shit, it's really unbelievable. I almost want to believe you put the actual time and effort to claim to know as much as you say you do, despite the fact that you're more about "mathematics, physics, and computers". You believe strangers. I don't. Period. Someone I know, uncorrupted, that is actually getting a degree in earth sciences, from Stanford, no less, who's written papers on this exact topic, and is currently researching them says different...
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "You believe strangers. I don't. Period. Someone I know, uncorrupted, that is actually getting a degree in earth sciences, from Stanford, no less, who's written papers on this exact topic, and is currently researching them says different"
Yes, as I've cited to you, I believe strangers about this scientific matter - strangers at the AAAS, the IPCC, the National Academy of Science (and its counterparts in the scientific powerhouse nations). You keep citing your undergrad friend.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago 2
He's talked to experts, face to face, and he says different. Yes, I guarantee he's looked into this more than you have. I haven't, either. It's about trust. I don't trust you. I don't trust organizations that get paid to find facts by those that already know which facts they want to see. That's the end of it.
Liberum69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Liberum69
Let's see ... every credible scientific organization on the planet agrees that human carbon emissions are creating a climate crisis. But no ... YOU know better, and you're NOT the one who is totally full of shit.
Are you getting professional help for your mental disorder?
PrairieDogged 4 months ago
@PrairieDogged
Creditible science organizations have made trillions out of "green energy research" as they call it.
Trillions.
If you were a big trusted person, you could easily then just go along and lie to everyone, and I bet they will believe you. Same goes for these organizations. These organizations show us graphs and "facts" and the funny part is, if you look closely, you see a different pattern.
Caron dioxide cannot explain climate change. period.
RainfulPhenix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RainfulPhenix
"have made trillions out of research"
ROFLMAO ... trillions?
TRILLIONS???
If you think that thousands upon thousands of research scientists study for years getting a Ph.D. and then work in field research TO GET RICH, then you are a certifiable conspiratorial LUNATIC.
Better check for Communists under your bed !!!!!
PrairieDogged 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairieDogged
Where the fuck did you get the idea of communists?
Give me, one piece of HARD evidence that we are responsible for CO2 levels, causing global warming.
Tell me, right now. Instead of talking about communists, and conspiracies, give me the facts, right here, right now. HARD evidence, not suggestions, but HARD evidence. Dont ask me to give you the evidence before you do.
We will see.
You cannot even grasp the simplest of ideas.
RainfulPhenix 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrairieDogged Where the fuck did you get the idea of communists?
Give me, one piece of HARD evidence that we are responsible for CO2 levels, causing global warming.
Tell me, right now. Instead of talking about communists, and conspiracies, give me the facts, right here, right now. HARD evidence, not suggestions, but HARD evidence. Dont ask me to give you the evidence before you do.
We will see.
You cannot even grasp the simplest of ideas.
RainfulPhenix 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "I don't care whether or not you believe my friend. I know him. I trust him. And I guarantee that he's put more thought into this than you"
My money says your guarantee failed, but there's no way to be sure - and it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not saying the rational thing is to take my word for it over his. I'm saying the rational thing is to listen to those who KNOW: I've CITED you the IPCC, the AAAS, the NATIONAL academies science of the largest economies on Earth (the G8+5).
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
The guy's one of the smartest and most capable people I've ever met, going to Stanford and interning in Hawaii, etc etc. To you that won't mean a thing, but to me, it certainly does. We've gone into long discussions about these things, and he agrees the best place to be is on the fence. And so I choose not to buy into any of this garbage any more. I thought maybe someone would listen, but we might as well be arguing about abortion.
Good day, sir.
Liberum69 4 months ago
@Liberum69
Re: "The guy's one of the smartest and most capable people I've ever met, going to Stanford and interning in... . To you that won't mean a thing, but to me, it certainly does."
It would mean more if he graduated. And more if he had a PhD. And more if he were then a publishing research scientist for years afterwards. And more if all that were in climatology specifically. And more if his view agreed with a couple thousand similar experts.
I'm listening to the planet's climatologists.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
Wow dude, if I'm reading correctly you've never heard of Climate Gate.
You know.. where those government paid scientists tried to delete data to get
answers that lined up with their theory.. get informed.
inb4patch 2 months ago
@inb4patch
Non-scientist deniers like you say things that are so astonishingly ignorant that I often can't tell at first if they're just trolls pulling my leg or "for real". For your sake, I hope you're a troll.
If you're for real, then you should know that your "research" ("Hey, since I read lots of denier propaganda and blogs, I'm a frickin encyclopedia of truth and knowledge!") is a joke.
The FACT is, as was obvious from the start, that "climategate" amounted to 100% absolutely nothing.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo
I don't think climate gate is a laughing matter.
I am probably more a scientist than you, diploma or not.
I am not denying that the climate is changing.
I do however think that this change is not anthropogenic (caused by human activity)
I don't know what is more unreliable the scientists doing the research over at the UN or the data they work with. If you could provide me with a reading or a link or something that could enlighten me that would be greatly appreciated.
inb4patch 2 months ago
@inb4patch
Re: "I don't think climate gate is a laughing matter"
It's not a laughing matter; it's a complete non-issue. The FACT is, as was obvious from the start, that "climategate" amounted to 100% absolutely nothing. Get informed.
Re: "I am probably more a scientist than you, diploma or not."
?
Re: "I do however think that this change is not anthropogenic"
You have your opinions about scientific realities. That's fine. Me, I'll listen to the climatologists to learn about the climate.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
(cont)
Re: "I don't know what is more unreliable the scientists doing the research over at the UN or the data they work with."
What's apparent is that you don't know much at all about this. (For starters, the UN doesn't do research on this.)
Re: "If you could provide me with a reading or a link or something that could enlighten me that would be greatly appreciated."
The IPCC reports summarize the published literature. They go over it all - in summary and in detail.
Start w/ IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM
VeryEvilPettingZoo 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@inb4patch A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming. e.g. "the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years" (Murphy 2009).
checkyoursources 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@inb4patch
'climategate emails 2.0' debunked here
watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo
blackadderthe4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An 800 year lag in temp vs CO2 fits well with the cycle of boreal forests growing faster due to increased temps, then producing increased CO2 via decomposition. It may be the Q10 metabolic rule is the real driver here
WaterfrontConsultant 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIES-Remember how Ross Perot said NAFTA and GATT was going to create a "Giant Sucking Sound" and all US JOBS will be gone-Al (the Gangster) GORE laughed at Ross Perot-But do you see any JOBS left in America Now-Don't Get Fooled Again-Vote for RON PAUL or starve in a FEMA Prison Camp.
exposetruthwolf 5 months ago
If I didn't know the background of the crook behind this video I'd think it was satire. Climate deniers in the media clearly think their audiences are morons. Unfortunately I tend to agree.
Gzeebo 5 months ago
This video is idiotic, There is lag between temperature rise and CO2 emissions. It is not instantaneous like simply turning up your thermostat.
HenryTheHoover32 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series…
.
When to move species struggling with climate change
.
As climate changes make native habitats unlivable to plants and animals, these species have two choices: Leave or go extinct.
Now, researchers are offering guidance on when conservationists should undertake the last-ditch strategy of transplanting struggling species to new habitats.
.
LiveScience
25 July 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago in playlist ACF - Al Gore
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series: .
UK newspaper coverage is skewed against renewable energy
.
More than half of the coverage of renewable energy solutions in the mainstream British press is negative, according to Britain's the Public Interest Research Centre.
.
London Guardian United Kingdom
Opinion, 5 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
China's nuclear power plans unfazed by Fukushima disaster
.
In the wake of the Fukushima meltdowns, some nations are looking to move away from nuclear power.
But not China, which is proceeding with plans to build 36 reactors over the next decade.
Now some experts are questioning whether China can safely operate a host of nuclear plants.
.
Yale Environment 360 8 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:.
.
Studies: How whales, fish might adapt to warming ocean
.
Two new science studies provide a glimpse of how some important Pacific Ocean sea creatures could adapt to a changing climate.
.
Voice of America
6 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Cape Cod's shape constantly changing, for good and bad
.
Cape Cod could be entering a new era of change. Human-caused global warming is expected to ratchet up the intensity of coastal storms, making dramatic erosion more likely.
In addition, the rate of sea level rise has tripled in the past century, from 1 to 3 millimeters per year.
.
Cape Cod Times Massachusetts
6 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago in playlist global warming
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Good news! The Royal Dutch meteorological Institute, KNMI, just reported: The upper layers of the ocean did not warm up in the past 8 years despite the higher CO2 emision during this period! Therefore the global temperature did not rise. No increase of melting from land or sea-ice at all. They wrote that this was against the expectation and tried to explain what happened with all the extra energy during this period. Mostly reflection of the heat into space and storage in the deap ocean.
poes3000 5 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Thank you comrade Gore for jetting around the world warning the world of the dangers of the US's fascist CO2 emissions causing Global Warming that is going to burn the planet up unless we implement carbon taxes on the fascist USA to begin the cool down cycle and save the world. China is a sterling example of environmental stewardship, human rights, and adopting green technologies to save the planet.
JoeJohn90 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A new study in the peer-reviewed science journal "Remote Sensing" has found that United Nations computer models may be incorrect in overstating the amount of global warming that will occur in the future. James M. Taylor says it would be wise for the media, elected officials and climate scientists to recognize the “huge discrepancy” between global warming predictors and NASA’s satellite data.
vechorik 6 months ago
Evidence/impacts of climate change series:
.
The new world of the Anthropocene
.
The notion that humankind has changed the world is not new.
Over a century ago, terms such as the Anthropozoic, Psychozoic, and Noosphere were conceived to denote the idea of humans as a new global forcing agent.
Environmental Science & Technology (1 April 2010)
Nightversionn 6 months ago
Comment removed
Nightversionn 6 months ago
key terms / concepts
.
ANTHROPOCENE
HUMAN KIND HAS CHANGED THE WORLD
PSYCHOZOIC
NOOSPHERE
HUMANS AS NEW GLOBAL FORCING AGENT
Nightversionn 6 months ago
its videos like this that confuse people further, if these so called 'climate scientist' think they have a valid argument against global warming then they should submit a paper to be peer reviewed! Not spout their crap to the public who don't know any better.
dvarblo 6 months ago 11
@dvarblo Um, what makes you think they haven't?
Liberum69 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming is a myth and unfortunately has become a religion in that it is forced upon kids in school as "fact".
It is only a hustle by globalists (like Gore) and is used as a vehicle for the enactment of Marxist control and tax schemes.
dgl1962 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google "Vulture Accident"
.
I bet that poor bird wishes he had flown over a Coal Fired Power Station !!!
PrairleDogged 6 months ago
TheVeryMuchSoShow: I think you're just nuts. Yeah, Al Gore wants to SCREW everyone but the people spending BILLIONS to stop ANYTHING being done to get us OFF oil, THEY are to be believed and followed! That's your choices. CON-serv-Artists, lobbied by oil and farmers, came up with MTBE(poison), then Corn Whiskey as gas, raising costs of gas & food. PLUS- it gets much LESS gas mileage, so you have to use MORE! A TRIPLE screwing! Vote SOLAR & Wind! Less poison=lower healthcare costs!=lower Gov!
hangthesobs 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998" WMO 2011
checkyoursources 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
junk-Steven-Milloy-scumbag-dot-com
Check out wikipedia or sourcewatch to see the wonderful lawyer, lobbyist, Fox "News", faux-organization, in-bed-with-Big-Tobacco, resume of Big-Biz-apologist and public science-distorter Steven Milloy... the man who runs junkscience(dot)com.
Even without knowing his background, if you can't instantly detect that this video is garbage, then you're dumber than a bag of hammers - and so probably a conservative - and so probably beyond hope anyway.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago 17
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "then you're dumber than a bag of hammers - and so probably a conservative - and so probably beyond hope anyway"
ROTFLMAO...At least I'm educated enough to understand the scientific method. Not to mention that the Goreacle's movie contains 9 factual errors!!!
I'll take education over "blind faith"...No matter how you want to phrase it every time. Good luck with your world view.
ajmo7298 6 months ago
@ajmo7298
Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?
Only one side in the public debate about global warming has "blind faith"... and it ain't the side that's supporting the planet's climatologists. (I say public debate there basically is no scientific debate on the central points, as it's so firmly established.)
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo "Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?"
Ah, more logical falicies...This time argumentum ad verecundiam.
I do understand the scientific method!!! For example, I can understand why Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph is bogus. BTW, he is one of those climatologists you folks have "blind faith" in, correct?
Sounds like any climatologist that disagrees with your experts must not be educated, ouch!
ajmo7298 6 months ago
@ajmo7298
Re: "Ah, more logical falicies...This time argumentum ad verecundiam."
It's typical of the uneducated to use terms you don't understand. I asked a QUESTION ("Are you educated enough to understand that the planet's climatologists know more about climatology than you do?"). The question implicitly contained an ASSERTION. The ASSERTION was that climatologists are legitimate authorities about climatology.
Questions and assertions are NOT arguments, hence no fallacy can be committed!!!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
(cont)
Furthermore, "argumentum ad verecundiam" is mainly *false* authority. Climatologists ARE credible authorities about climatology - that was my very assertion. Even *if* I had made the argument that "You should accept AGW because that's what planet's climatologists tell us" - and so had entered into a realm where committing a fallacy was even possible - I STILL wouldn't have committed the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago
Comment removed
VeryEvilPettingZoo 6 months ago