The global population is beyond that which can be sustained by pre-industrialised methods. If you buy this global warming hoax you are supporting The Club of Rome, Bilderburg, UN & other megalomaniac organisations and wealthy individual's agenda's to KULL the human population.
BY SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX, YOU ARE HELPING WEALTHY CRIMINAL BANKERS TO FIRST TAKE YOUR MONEY, THEN TAKE YOUR LIFE.
"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.“
„We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
„No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.“
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
The world is naturally warming. It has nothing to do with humans polluting the earth. These politicians try to trick the society by saying that pollution effects the o-zone, when the pollution turns into a water state when it reaches a certain height and falls back to earth. It's simple science.
If you ever want to shut up the global warming scam artists just quote textbooks that show the promoters of this scam contradicting themselfs over & over. "Its cooling too much we have to sterilise people, Its heating too much we have to tax them into poverty". These scam artist scientists promoting global warming regard the hard working people who pay for their research grants as inferior as they are working too hard to disprove their scams, but their lies betray their true motivation MONEY
@emikochan13 You can see the blatant contradiction if you get a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology" It clearly warns of a looming ice age and puts forward a case for forced sterilisation to control population. Holdren is considered the leading US scientist in the field of climate change and is the advisor to the Obama administration on climate change.
It seems we are going through a natural cycle, we are probably accelerating it, but nature will ultimately win, perhaps we will go extinct like the dinosaurs.
@Estimew You have some sort of evidence showing that glaciers are growing globally? That's wonderful, that's even better than winning the lottery! Governments, oil companies, coal companies and climate scientists will pay you a fortune for that evidence! You could easily get $100,000,000 from Exxon or BP for that evidence. Assuming of course that your evidence can a) be verified and b) prove that the global climate isn't warming. It is verifiable, isn't it?
Does anyone else get the idea that the anti-science types are never going to respond to my questions? ;) They can't cite a paper that was fudged or that used fudged data. They don't know enough about climate science to say what would convince them AGW theory is correct, all they know is what they were told to recite by the anti-science (and usually young earth creationist) websites.
They have to shout a lot because they've got zip for theories or data (you know, real science).
@ExperienceCounts2 Time will tell because the biggest emitters of CO2 China Us etc, are either not in a position to or have no intention of reducing emissions. We will see if sea levels rise or the planet overheats and then when it doesnt these scientist reputation will be in the toilet where it belongs. Answer me this - Do you know what a fossil is?
@ChrisPCrunchy What do you mean "we will see" if sea levels rise? We've been seeing it for years, it is happening. They're rising almost twice as fast as the IPCC projections. You do realize that the poles are warming even faster that the rest of the planet, don't you? You do realize the oceans are becoming much more acidic due to excess CO2, don't you? Are you denying those facts or just ignorant of them? I'd be happy to point you to some of the science. Now answer my question.
@ExperienceCounts2 Sea levels are not rising where I am. When I go to the boat ramp at high tide the water is at the same place seasonally adjusted, allowing for lunar cycles, as it has always been. I question methodology again. For example if sea levels were measure in Hawaii's oldest island Kauai you would find they are rapidly rising, but if you analise this properly you will find the tectonic plate the island is on is slipping down off an underlying volcanic plateau.
@ChrisPCrunchy You're citing regional anecdotes as if they compare to global measurements. Do you know what global means? How science replaces anecdotal evidence with concrete measurements and observations? Isn't that a wonderful thing, to find the objective truth rather than relying on someone saying "Well gee, the boat ramp hasn't moved"? Do you not know what global mean sea level is? Try looking up colorado.edu. MSL has risen almost 2 1/4" just since '93.
@ExperienceCounts2 OH so I see now, My part of the world is totally disconnected from the rest of the globe. The pacific ocean isnt at the same level at selected parts of the world and personal observations count for nothing, we all have to take your word for it. If the ice caps melting is causing any rises in sea level then the suns activity is the cause. So you wont answer my question as to whether you know what a fossil is, tell me are we reaching some thermal tipping point damaging all life?
@ChrisPCrunchy Oh come on, you're starting to sound completely disingenuous. Do you really not know what the word "global" means? Do you really not know what MSL means, Do you really think anyone reading this doesn't notice that you're ignoring my simple questions? You can't give us your personal opinion? You can't even cite one scientific paper or data set that is based on "faked" data? If you answer either of those questions directly then I will answer your (rhetorical) question.
People don't seem to realize that this is a natural process. 50 million years ago co2 levels were a thousand times greater and much greater before that. Think about it on the bright side. All of the arctic areas would become nice and habitable not to mention all of the resources that would be available in those areas.
@alienodio You have to be joking, right? You do realize there is almost no topsoil and that there are deserts that get more rain than the Arctic, don't you? You can't grow food without topsoil and fresh water, and if the permafrost is melting you cannot build a house on it either. Have you ever been to Siberia or the Arctic Circle? I've been to both and I can assure you that land becoming instantly habitable is pure fantasy that only big energy apologists put forth.
@ExperienceCounts2 i live in the arctic circle so good for you. apparently you can only see the short term changes, i never said it would happen instantly. i never said anything about growing food. also i know it doesnt rain in the arctic! its too f$*ing cold... its called snow. anyway the change in temperature and lack of ice would change currents and which would change the weather. good try
@alienodio So you aren't joking? You're posting a response to a bit of observational science with completely unsubstantiated claims that "lack of ice would change currents" and "it doesn't rain in the Arctic"? For one thing, it does rain in the Arctic. When I crossed the Arctic circle riding solo it was 70F with occasional light showers. Are you able to cite even one piece of hard evidence to support your claims of gentle warming and current changes?
@ExperienceCounts2 So ur telling me im wrong for saying, if all the ice melted and the planet warmed, currents woudlnt change?? Also, stop making stupid assumptions. you said it doesnt rain much in the arctic, so i joking said cause its snow. Not, it doesnt rain in the arctic. I think i wouldn know that it rains HERE. So either you have short term memory loss or you are too stupid to realize that i would know something as trivial as that. Go read up on ocean currents then tell me im wrong.
ah yes, but the problem is that this time it is not caused naturally and our grandiose western civiliation has grown to survive in the current climate, huge swarthes of habital land lost under the seas, expansion of deserts, possibility of triggering an ice age, we would survive no doubt, but our civilization would not
@animesis I definately understant where you are coming from but i dont see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon, so i would like to think that we as a civilization would evolve with the change. this might be a stretch, but we need to rethink the way we run this world. The way things are, change is almost impossible. Businesses are too big to fail. People are set in their ways.If everything collapsed we could build everything better. Think about how much sunk costs affect decisions..
@alienodio I think there is no reason to worry. Things always work out one way or another. change is a good thing. if nothing changed where would we be today.
what a wonderfully well thought out reply! i wish there were more like you on youtube :p
Have you ever read any of Jared Diamonds "Collapse" a magnificent book, he would argue that the bigger the business the more epic the fail would be, his book does portray well how fragile society can be, giving numerous examples of failed ones, and causes, well worth a quick browse!
Anti-science types have no clue how science works and they also have no idea how people work. What scientist wouldn't want to be rich and world famous by exposing the global conspiracy? Not one Russia, China, India, Germany, Mexico, Canada, France, USA and many more... none want to be the famous guy that exposed the corruption? Really? Compare that to the corruption by Fred Singer in both his pro-tobacco and anti-AGW marketing campaigns. Science is testable. Citing factoids is not science.
Heard of the University of East Anglia EXPOSED! There are numerous scientists that dispute these global warming theories, none get the media exposure required to present their facts. Nations like Russia, China, India, Germany, Mexico, Canada, France, USA show their opinion by simply not implementing any sort of Carbon trading or tax that would harm their economies. If competing nations decide to commit economic suicide by going along with the scam it is to their advantage not to expose it.
@ChrisPCrunchy Are you still crying about your little "climategate" that fizzled so badly when 3 independent investigations found no wrong doing? If you're going to continue crying about it then how about we - yes, cut to the chase again: Cite just one published science paper that had doctored data or analysis in it. If you can't cite a specific paper that was faked or that relied on faked data then I'm calling you on your b.s. Global conspiracy theories are not science.
If you ever want to shut up the anti-science types, ask them a simple question: "In your own personal opinion, what sort of data or study would climate scientists have to provide/perform to convince you that AGW theory is correct?". They're all experts on Greenland and Europe and the LIA and the MWP, but when you give them carte blanche to specify exactly what it would take to convince them, they suddenly clam up. I've been asking that question for years now, not one has ever answered it.
@ExperienceCounts2 I would be convinced if scientists could prove that their funding doesnt come from a source that is pro global warming. This scam is all about money. Trading carbon credits & permits to keep poluting NOT STOP POLLUTING! Its a lie and a very profitable one at that. Look at the recent solar flare that extended millions of miles into space. The sun is going through an active cycle as it has all through history, only difference now is that it is an opportunity to scam some money.
@ChrisPCrunchy I'm sorry but a "global conspiracy theory" does not substitute for evidence and logic. You lump together politics, economics and science. The global conspiracy theory fails to explain why scientists in communist/socialist countries come to the same conclusion using the same data. Conspiracy theory fails to explain how results can be replicated independently, even by the anti-science types behind Berkely Earth Surface Temperature project.
@ExperienceCounts2 So even though the Sun is going through a Solar Maximum event & hugh solar flares are being emitted during this period of maximum solar activity. Even though the frozen CO2 caps on Mars are receeding, it is solely as trace gas that makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, of which humans are responsible for 0.28% of the 0.039%. Even though 1 medium sized volcanic eruption releases similar amounts of greenhouse gasses we are to believe it is us humans that are solely responsible?
@ChrisPCrunchy Your cut/past from wacko websites makes you more credible than 400+ published science papers... how exactly? Since you can make shit up and erect straw man arguments far faster than I can type, let's cut to the chase: In your own personal opinion, what _specific_ evidence or study would climate scientists have to provide/perform to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW is correct? Completely blue sky, just your personal opinion.
Yes Lets cut to the chase, How much scientific research funding is spent investigating Non Human sources of global warming? How much has been spent discrediting scientists that dispute the Human induced warming theories? Why do you assume I have not done diligent research? Why do you attack the person not the evidence? I have not personally attack you or your motivations. It’s an indisputable fact that the Sun has a far bigger effect on global climate than a tiny trace gas in the atmosphere.
@ChrisPCrunchy Why won't you respond to my question? It's a simple question but there you are, in public, trying to change the subject back to your global conspiracy theory. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question. All I asked for was for your personal opinion: What specific data or analysis would scientists have to provide to you to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Can you not answer that simple question about your opinion?
@ChrisPCrunchy How many different techniques will you use to avoid responding to my very simple questions? In your own personal opinion, what evidence would scientists have to provide to you to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW correct? What scientific paper do you feel was compromised by faked data? You say the data is faked, I'd be more than happy to believe you. All you have to do is cite the specific paper or data set that was faked. Are those unreasonable requests?
@ExperienceCounts2 I told you. I would be convinced if scientists could prove that their funding doesnt come from a source that is pro global warming or a source that wouldnt get some advantage (financial, political, directly or indirectly) from the implimentation of carbon taxation or trading. You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age.Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971.
@ChrisPCrunchy But you're not answering the question, are you? Responding to a question about your personal opinion with a demand that some imaginary organization prove a negative (which everyone who has taken Logic 101 knows is completely impossible) is not an answer to the question. In your own personal opinion, what science (data, relationship, study or measurements or whatever hard data or logic you need) would scientists have to produce to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
@ExperienceCounts2 I personally have seen conflicting scientfic conclusions drawn on numerous studies & numerous topics. In fact it would be the exception to find a conclusion on any topic that was not disputed or had methods & conclusions questioned in some way. So if you are saying that all reputable scientists have come to the same conclusion then the question of funding is very valid. How much funding is being expended on the opposing view because you cannot find the truth without looking.
@ChrisPCrunchy Wow, you've seen science at work, scientists getting things wrong and admitting to it in public and accepting the theory that proves itself most likely correct? That's amazing. What would be even more amazing is if you actually responded to my question: In your own personal opinion, what specific data or study would scientists have to provide in order to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
@Meurglys33 They know this full well, see the videos on this very chanel "Monster eruption on the sun" & "Sneaky Sun Storm" Yet this site makes no link between this video & the others that give clear evidence of increased solar activity. Nobody can deny something as obvious as increased solar activity, it is clearly observable & there are clear cycles that can be tracked back through ice core samples.
There is nothing like a fictitious human made catastrophe to prove research funding.
@ChrisPCrunchy "Nobody can deny something as obvious as increased solar activity"
Well said. Sadly, there are no such increase. It would have been the perfect culprit. Because we can do fuck all about the sun. But, it's not the sun. People who want to do nothing however will continue to pretend it's the sun. Who can blame them? Future generations I guess. And they probably will.
@Meurglys33 You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age. Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971. Had we been taxed or fooled into the destruction of our economy back then how many people would be starving or in poverty now? Our children will thank us for not being fooled by these self interested so called experts who are pushing the agenda of the new world order psychopaths.
@ChrisPCrunchy "You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age."
Yeah? Maybe you're too old and you start forgetting stuff? Because they never predicted an ice age. The predominant hypothesis in the 70s was that the planet would warm. There are some excellent videos on youtube debunking the 70s ice age myth. I suggest you watch them and refresh your memory. Might as well watch those debunking the "it's the sun" myth while you're at it.
@Meurglys33 Thats funny because I have a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology" It clearly warns of a looming ice age and puts forward a case for forced sterilisation to control population. I can scan it and send you a copy if you would like as long as you stop spreading outright lies in your troll comments on the internet.
@Meurglys33 In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent the coming new ice age; today its the immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-&-trade legislation to control carbon emissions to save the planet from global warming.The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent climate catastrophes.
@Meurglys33 If you're interested in the topic and not one of the trolls that just wish to argue and lie:
Google "Dr Sami Solanki solar activity and ice core samples"
If you know what a fossil is( the preserved remains or traces of animals & plants, from the remote past) you will realise that those organisms had originally extracted the carbon from the earths atmosphere. Higher levels of carbon didnt cause thermal disaster back then, it helped life grow. We are just returning that carbon.
have i got a surprise for you! bark! yeah! it's new beneful healthy fiesta!got to love protein for muscles and omega rich nutrition for that shiny coat. everything healthy can taste so good!!!
If we try hard then maaaybe we can warm the planet up in next 1000 years so greenland returns to pre 1300 climate. You know, so its GREEN LAND again like it was before the last medieval mini ice age.
What? You didnt know whole Europe was almost tropical before mini ice age 600 years ago? Didnt Al Gore tell you that? He was probly too busy getting rich on ecomorons.
@rasz Actually you're a fucking moron. The Vikings named it 'Greenland' because they dreamed of it as a mythical land of green and fertile pastures. When they arrived they were surprised that it was rocky and icy.
@BeondaPale Actually the ice core temperature reading show much higher temperatures than today. Wine grew in England, in Northern Europe grain crops only found in southern Europe grew just fine, grain that can't be grown today because it's to cold.
Something ended the last ice age and since then the temperature have risen almost 10 degrees Celsius.
In periods between the last two ice ages ice cores reveal half of the ice sheet on Greenland was gone and summer ice on the North Pole was gone.
@BeondaPale For ice core temperature results look up Greenland ice sheet ice core and Antarctic Vostock ice core like Petit et al. Nature 399. I thought everybody knew this but apparently not. The ice records are the only true indicators with minimal noise and uncertainty unlike dendrology based research. Ice cores show us that the last 350-400 years temperature have dropped about 1.5 C which is a lot and temperature have started to level off and rice a tiny bit. Look it up.
@BeondaPale The natural connection between CO2 and temperature is very well defined. As the ice core samples definitively prove, is that CO2 lag behind temperature change by some 400-600 years throughout the ice cores. In other words the natural connection is temperature drives the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and NOT the opposite way around.
See studies by Fischer et al. Science, vol 283, p. 1712.
The study proves CO2 can continues to rise for several hundred years with falling temps!
"CO2 lag behind temperature change by some 400-600 years throughout the ice cores. In other words the natural connection is temperature drives the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and NOT the opposite way around."
ORDINARILY this is true - but the physical properties of CO2 as a holder and emmiter of infrared energy can not be denied.
Surely you are not saying that CO2 CAN'T drive climate, are you?
@BeondaPale You wanted scientific evidence and you got it, now you're questioning the scientist?
i didn't make the claim that CO2 emitted would immediately warm the planet the global warming people did, but the research says something completely different. With 400-600 years of continual higher CO2 concentration and falling temperature do not match the claims of CO2 as temperature driver.
You do know that the scientific studies I have given you are part of the material used in the IPCC reports.
@BeondaPale Then the guess work starts up again with quote, "Unless other factors come into play". What fucking factors are those because all we seem to hear is CO2! Now you're just guessing and reaching for straws that simply isn't there. You argument is so fucking stupid you do not even realize your "Unless other factors come into play" bullshit would in fact disprove the whole CO2 theory because if those factors come into play then they could do so today and could be the cause of temps rising
@BeondaPale That's complete nonsense you're now turning to. Those other factors could in fact according to your own account be responsible for any kind of temperature change we see and then your entire theory about CO2 is dead in the water. Result is that your argument are getting so thin you're merely resorting to the appeal to authority logical fallacy now and you've run out of logic and science and most likely getting tired of getting caught lying again and again.
@BeondaPale You really couldn't sink any lower in your use of argument there could you. So you asked me for studies supporting general knowledge anyone should know, then you lied about knowing those studies were used by the IPCC and the arrogance would never stop when you paraded these other factors around like the holy grail and and asked what they were you just responded READ in the most arrogant and stupid way ever. How is read an answer when neither volcanoes nor orbital var explain anything
@BeondaPale actually you don't know because you asked for some studies supporting the statements. If you had known about the studies then there would be no need to ask for them and since studies about the Vostock ice cores are in fact used in the IPCC report you should know them and NOT have to ask for them. Making you a liar.
@BeondaPale The scientific evidence for CO2 as driving the climate simply isn't there in the studies I have given you. Further more it's a scientific fact that the energy absorbed by CO2 is very specific to a given range of wavelength and the amount of energy absorbed is not sufficient to account for the about 10 degrees Celsius temperature rise since the last ice age as we see in the ice core samples. The natural climate changes are far more powerful and unexplained.
@BeondaPale You seem to have a problem with simple arguments. My statement was that the falling CO2 concentration can NOT explain why the last ice age ended nor can the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or the rise of it since the last ice age explain the about 10 degree Celsius rice in temperature since the end of the last ice age.
Further more the temperature drop from 350-400 years ago until today with ricing CO2 concentration do in fact NOT support the CO2 hypothesis.
@BeondaPale Quote, "Logically therefore CO2 is not the ONLY cause of the rise seen since the end of the last ice age.". Now you're proving that you haven't read the Vostock studies nor have you understood the conclusion the scientist makes. The explicitly state that CO2 can NOT account for the cause of the end of the last ice age simply because temperatures started to rice with falling CO2 concentration and did so for hundreds of years. CO2 kept falling and temperatures rose.
@BeondaPale I really have to ask you if you have scientific data showing you that 400-600 years of continuously higher CO2 concentration combined with falling temperature in several cases and the reverse effect where CO2 continuous to fall and temperatures start to rice for hundreds of years puts a rather larger ding into the hypothesis of CO2 as the wild raging climate driver. 600 years of higher CO2 and the temperature just drops and drops. if you do any kind of statistical analysis it fails!
The statement "CO2 lags temperature" simply does not tell the whole story.
as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. In short, CO2 acts as a positive feedback
@BeondaPale and then you're WRONG again. You're making CO2 out to have some kind of multiple personality disorder. What we observe from the ice cores is very clear and definitive. At the point of severe climate change as you will see of you bothered finding the Vostock ice core data on a graphical representation, it's very clear when temperature peaks like 350-400 years ago CO2 continues to rise even though temperatures fall 1.5-2 C.
Your bullshit about CO2 must cause further warming is debunked
Not me - just about every climate scientist in the world
Tell ya what - WRITE A PAPER, then HAVE IT PEER REVIEWED. Then and only then will you reign supreme and prove all those scientists wrong. Because right now, your fighting against the opinion of every single last established scientific institution on the planet
You can't look at a graph and conclude that the WELL KNOWN physical properties of a gas are wrong.
@BeondaPale NO the scientist do in fact NOT have an answer for the 400-600 year CO2 lag neither can they explain why CO2 concentrations continue to rise when temperature have peaked and starts to go down and fall for these 400-600 years. You're making CO2 out to be able to sometimes warm and sometimes cool.
If the hypothesis about CO2 as climate driver is true then temperature can NOT peak and then fall for 400-600 years when CO2 concentration continues to go up, then temperatures should go up!
@BeondaPale About 10,000 years ago when temperatures bottomed out and started to rise again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continue to fall for centuries! hundreds of years with rising temperatures and falling CO2. Finally with a lag of 400-600 years CO2 concentration started to go back up.Your statement "CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming" is clearly NOT observed in the scientific data or else temperatures COULDN'T fall for 400-600 with rising CO2..right!
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
@BeondaPale Now you're contradicting yourself and the scientists again and you have in fact created an infinite warming loop. Well done. You said CO2 wasn't the cause of the temperatures starting to rise ending the last ice age. Then suddenly while CO2 concentration is still going down temperatures rise and rise for 400-600 years before CO2 goes up. We do not see the accelerated temperature rise in an exponential way when CO2 went back up like you're describing it to do so. But it didn't!
@BeondaPale You have in fact created in infinite warming loop and rising temperatures behaving in an exponential way with your extremely oversimplified explanation that do not in anyway relate to the actual scientific data have have. According to you CO2 amplifies warming in such a way that it shouldn't be possible to see temperature peak then fall for 400-600 years with ever rising CO2 concentration as we see in the ice cores.If more CO2 causes warming then the 400 years of cooling can't happen
"You have in fact created in infinite warming loop and rising temperatures behaving in an exponential way"
Nope, there are limiting factors contained within Milankovich cycles. As I said before, Youtube is not conducive to great amounts of detail. Read the papers for the detail. But you aren't really about the science. You're about POLEMICS and misleading people
@BeondaPale There you go again, pulling out Milankovich like it had any scientific value at all. Here's a quick question for you since your so keen on climate scientist opinion, is Milankovich highly regarded and accepted as the explanation of climate change and used by any of the leading climate scientist writing the IPCC findings at all? The answer is NO. When you run out of logic or science you simply resort to lying and making stuff up.
"is Milankovich highly regarded and accepted as the explanation of climate change and used by any of the leading climate scientist writing the IPCC findings at all? The answer is NO."
Yeah? That must be why Richard Alley from Penn State can be seen talking about it HERE:
@BeondaPale You're contradicting yourself yet again and you're to pig headed, ignorant and arrogant to even realize that. The very same climate scientists you refer to for you CO2 theory gives a thumb down to Milankovich. Your argument is basically that we have to trust these climate scientist regarding CO2 but forget everything else.
Well is doesn't work like that, and logic tells us it's pure nonsense. You're in bed with the CO2 crowd meaning Milankovich do not explain anything.
"you're to [sic] pig headed, ignorant and arrogant to even realize that. The very same climate scientists you refer to for you CO2 theory gives a thumb down to Milankovich"
No they don't - they say that the CURRENT statistically significant warming can not be explained by Milankovich cycles
Here AGAIN is Dr Richard Alley of Penn State is explaining this very thing to an intentionally ignorant BSer like yourself
@BeondaPale It's completely bullshit to start to use the argument that I have to read something that I have already read and further more read the critic of by the very climate scientist you regard as all knowing. They disregard Milankovich because it lacks the scientific backing by data and because the uncertainty surrounding the theory is to great. The people you regard as know it all's say NO but you keep hammering away when cornered. I have read about Milankovich and it's not it.
@BeondaPale Both sun spots and Milnkovicv cycles are not regarded as hypotheses with the scientific data backing needed to make them valid. Further more the exact same climate scientist you cling to for CO2 argument fail them both.
You have yet to explain how temperatures can continue to drop for 400-600 years with rising CO2 concentration which shouldn't be possible at all according to your own CO2 arguments because you said higher CO2 will increase warming but we see something completely else
"Both sun spots and Milnkovicv cycles are not regarded as hypotheses with the scientific data backing needed to make them valid"
No such thing as sun spots or the Milankovich Cycles either, huh? Deny gravity and relativity next - also fairly lacking in data. ...see where that gets you
Good luck!!
"You have yet to explain..."
Nope, YOU have failed to ACCEPT the most logical explanation available which is backed by a lot of science - big difference
@BeondaPale The same climate scientists you rely on for CO2 theory says Milankovich and sun spots are NOT part of what they regard as climate science. It's not even part of your beloved IPCC as explanatory theories.
It makes absolutely no sense at all that according to you we have to trust them 100% on CO2 but disregard everything they say on Milankovich simply because you're out of arguments and can't explain something extremely simple. They say NO to Milankovich meaning you also have to!
@BeondaPale Well now you have moved from a science based viewpoint to merely guesswork. The climate scientist can actually not explain the cause of any of the natural climate changes we see throughout history but can only conclude that CO2 is not it.
We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change. It might be but then you have just explained why we see climate change today and dis proven CO2!
"Well now you have moved from a science based viewpoint to merely guesswork."
Not me, sir SCIENTIST. and it's EDUCATED guesswork called "hypotheses"
"We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change."
Ever heard of "Milankovitch cycles"? Are you saying these cycles have not been studied?
@BeondaPale Yes you moved from scientific based stance to gues work when you stated quote, "given the right planetary, orbital and solar conditions.". The statistical uncertainty surrounding these alternative hypotheses are in fact so great that science CAN'T move the idea from hypothesis to theory which has to be supported by peer review scientific evidence.
Milankovitch cycles are such hypothesis, and it might very well be correct, but the scientific data to support it to theory ISN'T there.
@BeondaPale Bacause there's a correlation "or as you call it" best fit, doesn't necessarily explain anything. I have seen correlation between sun spot and the Dow Jones Index.
If Milankovich is driving climate then you're contradicting the CO2 climate change crowd and you can't in fact have it both ways. Either Milankovich is in or CO2 is out. If Milankovich is true then all that bullshit about CO2 is gone because then you have explained why those 600 years of temps falling with ricing CO2!
@BeondaPale If the CO2 crowd is correct then their negative assessment on Milankovich have to stand true. It's that simple. According to you the IPCC crowd is wrong on Milankovich meaning they also could be wrong on CO2 and it's effect on global climate change. If Milankovich is true then you have explained why the observed 400-6000 years of falling temperatures can occur with rising CO2 concentration but then the CO2 theory goes out the window.
@BeondaPale Further more you do not even realize that if yo state Milankovitch cycles to be the actual cause of natural climate change then the theory of CO2 as the wild climate driver goes out the window. The huge natural climate changes observed throughout history in the ice core data dwarfs any effect CO2 has on the environment. Then the cycles have to account for these 400-600 years of severe climate change with falling and rising temps without CO2 being able to effect it in any part!
"The climate scientist can actually not explain the cause of any of the natural climate changes we see throughout history but can only conclude that CO2 is not it."
This is a false statement
"We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change. "
This is a partially true, partially false statement
@BeondaPale Quote, "This is a false statement" this a contradiction of the climate scientist and is in fact nothing more than a LIE! It is a lie because the original cause of the climate change that started the ice age and ended it again is NOT KNOWN. How fucking hard is that to understand. We know it wasn't CO2 because CO2 lags temperature change with 400-600 years. In other words climate start to change, warming ended the last ice age and then almost 600 years later CO2 starts to rise!
@BeondaPale I don't have to, the scientist have already written what needs to be written and the evidence is right there for all to see. With rising CO2 concentration is should NOT be possible to see temperatures peak and then fall for 400-600 years before CO2 concentration peaks and goes down following the temps down until the temps bottom out and start to rise again and CO2 continues to fall for 400-600 years! That simply can't happen if rising CO2 means temps must go up as you claim!It can't
@BeondaPale If CO2 was the CAUSE of the climate change that ended the last ice age and made temperature rise by about 10 degrees Celsius then we would observe CO2 rising BEFORE and DURING the period temperature starts to rise. It's pure LOGIC and you do not seem to get it. A lower CO2 concentration can by definition NOT account for rising temperature because then you have just destroyed your beloved "CO2 drives climate change" hypothesis. It's that simple..
@BeondaPale Quote, "This is a partially true, partially false statement" is a complete LIE. There's NO peer review and scientifically accepted theory based on scientific data that conclusively explain climate change from the perspective of planetary position, orbital conditions etc. DONE. There is NONE. There are people making all kinds of theories out there about Sun spots etc. but they can't actually explain or model the historic climate change we see. Making your statement a LIE.
@BeondaPale Bullshit... you just LIE and manipulate everything huh. What a bunch of retarded bullshit about conclusively huh. Well you seem to completely misunderstand in the most retarded way that conclusive evidence in fact are needed to support a theory just like we need conclusive evidence for the theory of gravity or theory of evolution. Science is not a constant but the scientific data have to conclusively explain the present theories.
@BeondaPale How pathetic can your arguments get before you realize you sound utterly moronic and you should better stop the bullshit.
You are lying again and again and I have just proves it to you. You even start the bullshit about something not needing to be conclusively proves because science is never done, and that's so stupid it's unbelievable. We all know science needs to conclusively prove their hypothesis before it can be elevated into a theory and conclusively proven by several peers.
Again, they NOT my arguments - they are arguments of people much much better trained than you or I, using equations you can't grasp and they are arguments opposed by some guy named "squirrel" on Youtube.
You are free to CALL me pathetic for seeing through your political BS. And I am free to laugh at your sorry ass for doing so.
@BeondaPale We know that the Sun must be the primary cause of the climate on earth because take away the Sun and the earth would be just slightly warmer than 0 degrees Kelvin given the fact that the Earth it self radiates a small amount of heat. Given the temperature reading from the ice cores and the cyclic nature seen in statistical analysis the Sun have to play and obvious part in climate change on Earth but it's NOT understood what exactly happens and why because the system is so complex.
@BeondaPale What ended the last ice age? Actually scientist have absolutely no idea why. The only thing we conclusively can say that it wasn't CO2 that ended the ice age because CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continued to fall for several hundred years as temperature started to clime. They call it natural climate changes but the cause of those are unknown.
I am trying to find the study of rock and ice drillings on the Greenland ice sheet confirming the melt in periods between ice ages.
@BeondaPale Here's a bit about the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) from ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2010, I am also trying to find the exact study from NEEM.
Quote, "Eemian interglacial period, about 115,000 to 130,000 years ago, when temperatures on Earth were warmer by as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit than they are today."
"During the Eemian period, for example, the Greenland ice sheet was much smaller, and global sea levels were about 15 feet higher than they are today".
"when temperatures on Earth were warmer by as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit ... and global sea levels were about 15 feet higher than they are today".
So if true, would you agree that a rise in 5 degrees Fahrenheit globally today ( which if you convert it to Celsius is less that the IPCC estimates of 3 degres Celsius due to AGW) that it could result in global sea levels about 15 feet higher than they are today?
@BeondaPale I really can't see the need for you to add "if true". It's scientific research and you could look it up if you bothered. The scientist have actually answered that question as far as I remember and said that the overall climatic conditions at that time are not well enough understood to make the exact correlation but it would be a rough estimate.
You seem to completely miss the point that the CO2 concentration back then were lower than today yet the temperature was much higher!
"I really can't see the need for you to add "if true"."
All science is "if true" until it is verified - the study to pointed to is only one, demonstrating the need for further study, hence "if true" - Or do you have other studies verifying the results of this one?
Can you answer the question now? "You seem to completely miss the point... "
No sir - YOU do - in the past, CO2 has amplified warming. When it rises by itself, the temp WILL rise as a result
@BeondaPale See now you begin to LIE out of pure spite. First of all the ice core research is NOT the only one backing this conclusion about higher temperature. That's a outright LIE. Please stop lying because it makes you look even more stupid.
Next you said that you knew the studies to be a part of the IPCC report data collection and that turned out to be a lie as well and now you make another LIE claiming it to be a one hit wonder which its NOT.
You are free to call me an idiot and a liar or whatever else strikes your fancy until you turn a stunning shade of green. When you are finished jumping up and down and screaming, the facts will still be the facts, Mr Squirrel
@BeondaPale Well you are by definition a liar because you lie. You even manage to lie about such obvious things that it makes you look ridiculous especially when you begin to say something like there's only one study supporting the findings on Eemian interglacial period which demonstrates you have NOT read any of the studies on ice core samples.NONE.
You have the fucking nerve to talk to anyone about the facts and when presented with the facts you just start to lie you fucking manipulating cunt
@rasz Most scientists agree on the subject. Your view is of no importance to me. It's almost like "Blah, blah, blah" to my ears... Whatever Europe was before, I'm sure scientists has already put into the equation. They are not stupid, you know.
@rasz Why are you people obsessed with Al Gore? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Al Gore has never written a scientific paper. Al Gore is a washed up politician who wrote a book a decade ago. You anti-science types keep going on and on about him. It's almost as if you don't want people to look at the science. Since you cite the pre-1300 climate data then you have to accept the sources for that are accurate, which means you definitely don't want people to look at the science.
@rasz Actually they called it greenland when it was discovered just so they could pawn it off on the next people who come. You should read more about it.
Greenland and Iceland should swap names.
stefanorr34 1 month ago
quick everyone throw some ice cubes at it
gotneedles 2 months ago
BOTTOM LINE:
The global population is beyond that which can be sustained by pre-industrialised methods. If you buy this global warming hoax you are supporting The Club of Rome, Bilderburg, UN & other megalomaniac organisations and wealthy individual's agenda's to KULL the human population.
BY SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX, YOU ARE HELPING WEALTHY CRIMINAL BANKERS TO FIRST TAKE YOUR MONEY, THEN TAKE YOUR LIFE.
That is the agenda at work here.
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHO DO THEY WANT TO KULL?????
"One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.“
Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.“
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
„We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.“
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
„We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
„No matter if the science of global warming is all phony, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.“
-Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
ChrisPCrunchy 3 months ago
but ice liquey...
tavit111 4 months ago
Damn nature! You scary!
Prealia 4 months ago
The world is naturally warming. It has nothing to do with humans polluting the earth. These politicians try to trick the society by saying that pollution effects the o-zone, when the pollution turns into a water state when it reaches a certain height and falls back to earth. It's simple science.
zac14001 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Actually scientist have absolutely no idea why."
Well, they are stuying it
Google: "Climate 'Flickering' Ended Last Ice Age In North Atlantic Region"
CO2 events are rare - We humans are one on the only major CO2 events known - possibly the only one
BeondaPale 4 months ago
yup, we're doomed...
streetkingz14 4 months ago
um that is because it is moving into the ocean not global warming. global warming is fake.
USAmilitarypower 4 months ago
@USAmilitarypower Are you completely retarded? Do you even know what a glacier is?
emikochan13 4 months ago in playlist More videos from newscientistvideo
If you ever want to shut up the global warming scam artists just quote textbooks that show the promoters of this scam contradicting themselfs over & over. "Its cooling too much we have to sterilise people, Its heating too much we have to tax them into poverty". These scam artist scientists promoting global warming regard the hard working people who pay for their research grants as inferior as they are working too hard to disprove their scams, but their lies betray their true motivation MONEY
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy [citation needed]
emikochan13 4 months ago in playlist More videos from newscientistvideo
This has been flagged as spam show
@emikochan13 You can see the blatant contradiction if you get a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology" It clearly warns of a looming ice age and puts forward a case for forced sterilisation to control population. Holdren is considered the leading US scientist in the field of climate change and is the advisor to the Obama administration on climate change.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you love light sci-fi then please visit my blog at amillionmonkeys.blog.com
ShangoRaiden 4 months ago
It seems we are going through a natural cycle, we are probably accelerating it, but nature will ultimately win, perhaps we will go extinct like the dinosaurs.
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 4 months ago
OMG it's the end of the world!
Nightbreed121 4 months ago
I love global warming <3
wordey123 4 months ago
@Estimew You have some sort of evidence showing that glaciers are growing globally? That's wonderful, that's even better than winning the lottery! Governments, oil companies, coal companies and climate scientists will pay you a fortune for that evidence! You could easily get $100,000,000 from Exxon or BP for that evidence. Assuming of course that your evidence can a) be verified and b) prove that the global climate isn't warming. It is verifiable, isn't it?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
Does anyone else get the idea that the anti-science types are never going to respond to my questions? ;) They can't cite a paper that was fudged or that used fudged data. They don't know enough about climate science to say what would convince them AGW theory is correct, all they know is what they were told to recite by the anti-science (and usually young earth creationist) websites.
They have to shout a lot because they've got zip for theories or data (you know, real science).
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Time will tell because the biggest emitters of CO2 China Us etc, are either not in a position to or have no intention of reducing emissions. We will see if sea levels rise or the planet overheats and then when it doesnt these scientist reputation will be in the toilet where it belongs. Answer me this - Do you know what a fossil is?
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy What do you mean "we will see" if sea levels rise? We've been seeing it for years, it is happening. They're rising almost twice as fast as the IPCC projections. You do realize that the poles are warming even faster that the rest of the planet, don't you? You do realize the oceans are becoming much more acidic due to excess CO2, don't you? Are you denying those facts or just ignorant of them? I'd be happy to point you to some of the science. Now answer my question.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Sea levels are not rising where I am. When I go to the boat ramp at high tide the water is at the same place seasonally adjusted, allowing for lunar cycles, as it has always been. I question methodology again. For example if sea levels were measure in Hawaii's oldest island Kauai you would find they are rapidly rising, but if you analise this properly you will find the tectonic plate the island is on is slipping down off an underlying volcanic plateau.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy You're citing regional anecdotes as if they compare to global measurements. Do you know what global means? How science replaces anecdotal evidence with concrete measurements and observations? Isn't that a wonderful thing, to find the objective truth rather than relying on someone saying "Well gee, the boat ramp hasn't moved"? Do you not know what global mean sea level is? Try looking up colorado.edu. MSL has risen almost 2 1/4" just since '93.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 OH so I see now, My part of the world is totally disconnected from the rest of the globe. The pacific ocean isnt at the same level at selected parts of the world and personal observations count for nothing, we all have to take your word for it. If the ice caps melting is causing any rises in sea level then the suns activity is the cause. So you wont answer my question as to whether you know what a fossil is, tell me are we reaching some thermal tipping point damaging all life?
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy "If the ice caps melting is causing any rises in sea level then the suns activity is the cause."
That's some properly retarded reasoning you have there.
"tell me are we reaching some thermal tipping point damaging all life"
Impossible to say for certain. That doesn't mean we should just try it and see what happens though.
ImMichaelTaylor 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy Oh come on, you're starting to sound completely disingenuous. Do you really not know what the word "global" means? Do you really not know what MSL means, Do you really think anyone reading this doesn't notice that you're ignoring my simple questions? You can't give us your personal opinion? You can't even cite one scientific paper or data set that is based on "faked" data? If you answer either of those questions directly then I will answer your (rhetorical) question.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
People don't seem to realize that this is a natural process. 50 million years ago co2 levels were a thousand times greater and much greater before that. Think about it on the bright side. All of the arctic areas would become nice and habitable not to mention all of the resources that would be available in those areas.
alienodio 4 months ago
@alienodio You have to be joking, right? You do realize there is almost no topsoil and that there are deserts that get more rain than the Arctic, don't you? You can't grow food without topsoil and fresh water, and if the permafrost is melting you cannot build a house on it either. Have you ever been to Siberia or the Arctic Circle? I've been to both and I can assure you that land becoming instantly habitable is pure fantasy that only big energy apologists put forth.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 i live in the arctic circle so good for you. apparently you can only see the short term changes, i never said it would happen instantly. i never said anything about growing food. also i know it doesnt rain in the arctic! its too f$*ing cold... its called snow. anyway the change in temperature and lack of ice would change currents and which would change the weather. good try
alienodio 4 months ago
@alienodio So you aren't joking? You're posting a response to a bit of observational science with completely unsubstantiated claims that "lack of ice would change currents" and "it doesn't rain in the Arctic"? For one thing, it does rain in the Arctic. When I crossed the Arctic circle riding solo it was 70F with occasional light showers. Are you able to cite even one piece of hard evidence to support your claims of gentle warming and current changes?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 So ur telling me im wrong for saying, if all the ice melted and the planet warmed, currents woudlnt change?? Also, stop making stupid assumptions. you said it doesnt rain much in the arctic, so i joking said cause its snow. Not, it doesnt rain in the arctic. I think i wouldn know that it rains HERE. So either you have short term memory loss or you are too stupid to realize that i would know something as trivial as that. Go read up on ocean currents then tell me im wrong.
alienodio 4 months ago
@alienodio
ah yes, but the problem is that this time it is not caused naturally and our grandiose western civiliation has grown to survive in the current climate, huge swarthes of habital land lost under the seas, expansion of deserts, possibility of triggering an ice age, we would survive no doubt, but our civilization would not
animesis 4 months ago
@animesis I definately understant where you are coming from but i dont see us getting off fossil fuels anytime soon, so i would like to think that we as a civilization would evolve with the change. this might be a stretch, but we need to rethink the way we run this world. The way things are, change is almost impossible. Businesses are too big to fail. People are set in their ways.If everything collapsed we could build everything better. Think about how much sunk costs affect decisions..
alienodio 4 months ago
@alienodio I think there is no reason to worry. Things always work out one way or another. change is a good thing. if nothing changed where would we be today.
alienodio 4 months ago
@alienodio
what a wonderfully well thought out reply! i wish there were more like you on youtube :p
Have you ever read any of Jared Diamonds "Collapse" a magnificent book, he would argue that the bigger the business the more epic the fail would be, his book does portray well how fragile society can be, giving numerous examples of failed ones, and causes, well worth a quick browse!
animesis 4 months ago
@animesis ha glad you think so. Ill check out the book thanks.
alienodio 4 months ago
amillionmonkeys.blog.com take a dip into the world of science and philosophy.
ShangoRaiden 4 months ago
Anti-science types have no clue how science works and they also have no idea how people work. What scientist wouldn't want to be rich and world famous by exposing the global conspiracy? Not one Russia, China, India, Germany, Mexico, Canada, France, USA and many more... none want to be the famous guy that exposed the corruption? Really? Compare that to the corruption by Fred Singer in both his pro-tobacco and anti-AGW marketing campaigns. Science is testable. Citing factoids is not science.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
Heard of the University of East Anglia EXPOSED! There are numerous scientists that dispute these global warming theories, none get the media exposure required to present their facts. Nations like Russia, China, India, Germany, Mexico, Canada, France, USA show their opinion by simply not implementing any sort of Carbon trading or tax that would harm their economies. If competing nations decide to commit economic suicide by going along with the scam it is to their advantage not to expose it.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy Are you still crying about your little "climategate" that fizzled so badly when 3 independent investigations found no wrong doing? If you're going to continue crying about it then how about we - yes, cut to the chase again: Cite just one published science paper that had doctored data or analysis in it. If you can't cite a specific paper that was faked or that relied on faked data then I'm calling you on your b.s. Global conspiracy theories are not science.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
Mummy...
Jerkix 4 months ago
If you ever want to shut up the anti-science types, ask them a simple question: "In your own personal opinion, what sort of data or study would climate scientists have to provide/perform to convince you that AGW theory is correct?". They're all experts on Greenland and Europe and the LIA and the MWP, but when you give them carte blanche to specify exactly what it would take to convince them, they suddenly clam up. I've been asking that question for years now, not one has ever answered it.
ExperienceCounts2 5 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 I would be convinced if scientists could prove that their funding doesnt come from a source that is pro global warming. This scam is all about money. Trading carbon credits & permits to keep poluting NOT STOP POLLUTING! Its a lie and a very profitable one at that. Look at the recent solar flare that extended millions of miles into space. The sun is going through an active cycle as it has all through history, only difference now is that it is an opportunity to scam some money.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy I'm sorry but a "global conspiracy theory" does not substitute for evidence and logic. You lump together politics, economics and science. The global conspiracy theory fails to explain why scientists in communist/socialist countries come to the same conclusion using the same data. Conspiracy theory fails to explain how results can be replicated independently, even by the anti-science types behind Berkely Earth Surface Temperature project.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 So even though the Sun is going through a Solar Maximum event & hugh solar flares are being emitted during this period of maximum solar activity. Even though the frozen CO2 caps on Mars are receeding, it is solely as trace gas that makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, of which humans are responsible for 0.28% of the 0.039%. Even though 1 medium sized volcanic eruption releases similar amounts of greenhouse gasses we are to believe it is us humans that are solely responsible?
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy Your cut/past from wacko websites makes you more credible than 400+ published science papers... how exactly? Since you can make shit up and erect straw man arguments far faster than I can type, let's cut to the chase: In your own personal opinion, what _specific_ evidence or study would climate scientists have to provide/perform to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW is correct? Completely blue sky, just your personal opinion.
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
Yes Lets cut to the chase, How much scientific research funding is spent investigating Non Human sources of global warming? How much has been spent discrediting scientists that dispute the Human induced warming theories? Why do you assume I have not done diligent research? Why do you attack the person not the evidence? I have not personally attack you or your motivations. It’s an indisputable fact that the Sun has a far bigger effect on global climate than a tiny trace gas in the atmosphere.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy Why won't you respond to my question? It's a simple question but there you are, in public, trying to change the subject back to your global conspiracy theory. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question. All I asked for was for your personal opinion: What specific data or analysis would scientists have to provide to you to convince you that AGW theory is correct? Can you not answer that simple question about your opinion?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Why wont you respond to my far simpler question, Do yuo know what a fossil is????
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy How many different techniques will you use to avoid responding to my very simple questions? In your own personal opinion, what evidence would scientists have to provide to you to convince you that the scientific theory of AGW correct? What scientific paper do you feel was compromised by faked data? You say the data is faked, I'd be more than happy to believe you. All you have to do is cite the specific paper or data set that was faked. Are those unreasonable requests?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 I told you. I would be convinced if scientists could prove that their funding doesnt come from a source that is pro global warming or a source that wouldnt get some advantage (financial, political, directly or indirectly) from the implimentation of carbon taxation or trading. You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age.Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy But you're not answering the question, are you? Responding to a question about your personal opinion with a demand that some imaginary organization prove a negative (which everyone who has taken Logic 101 knows is completely impossible) is not an answer to the question. In your own personal opinion, what science (data, relationship, study or measurements or whatever hard data or logic you need) would scientists have to produce to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ExperienceCounts2 I personally have seen conflicting scientfic conclusions drawn on numerous studies & numerous topics. In fact it would be the exception to find a conclusion on any topic that was not disputed or had methods & conclusions questioned in some way. So if you are saying that all reputable scientists have come to the same conclusion then the question of funding is very valid. How much funding is being expended on the opposing view because you cannot find the truth without looking.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy Wow, you've seen science at work, scientists getting things wrong and admitting to it in public and accepting the theory that proves itself most likely correct? That's amazing. What would be even more amazing is if you actually responded to my question: In your own personal opinion, what specific data or study would scientists have to provide in order to convince you that AGW theory is correct?
ExperienceCounts2 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy "The sun is going through an active cycle as it has all through history,"
So it's the sun? How come no one thought of this...
Meurglys33 4 months ago
@Meurglys33 They know this full well, see the videos on this very chanel "Monster eruption on the sun" & "Sneaky Sun Storm" Yet this site makes no link between this video & the others that give clear evidence of increased solar activity. Nobody can deny something as obvious as increased solar activity, it is clearly observable & there are clear cycles that can be tracked back through ice core samples.
There is nothing like a fictitious human made catastrophe to prove research funding.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy "Nobody can deny something as obvious as increased solar activity"
Well said. Sadly, there are no such increase. It would have been the perfect culprit. Because we can do fuck all about the sun. But, it's not the sun. People who want to do nothing however will continue to pretend it's the sun. Who can blame them? Future generations I guess. And they probably will.
Meurglys33 4 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@Meurglys33 You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age. Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971. Had we been taxed or fooled into the destruction of our economy back then how many people would be starving or in poverty now? Our children will thank us for not being fooled by these self interested so called experts who are pushing the agenda of the new world order psychopaths.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@ChrisPCrunchy "You see I am much older than you & I remember the 70s when scientists were warning of a looming Ice Age."
Yeah? Maybe you're too old and you start forgetting stuff? Because they never predicted an ice age. The predominant hypothesis in the 70s was that the planet would warm. There are some excellent videos on youtube debunking the 70s ice age myth. I suggest you watch them and refresh your memory. Might as well watch those debunking the "it's the sun" myth while you're at it.
Meurglys33 4 months ago
@Meurglys33 Thats funny because I have a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled "Global Ecology" It clearly warns of a looming ice age and puts forward a case for forced sterilisation to control population. I can scan it and send you a copy if you would like as long as you stop spreading outright lies in your troll comments on the internet.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@Meurglys33 In the 1970s, Holdren's theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent the coming new ice age; today its the immediate passage of the Obama administration's proposed cap-&-trade legislation to control carbon emissions to save the planet from global warming.The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent climate catastrophes.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@Meurglys33 If you're interested in the topic and not one of the trolls that just wish to argue and lie:
Google "Dr Sami Solanki solar activity and ice core samples"
If you know what a fossil is( the preserved remains or traces of animals & plants, from the remote past) you will realise that those organisms had originally extracted the carbon from the earths atmosphere. Higher levels of carbon didnt cause thermal disaster back then, it helped life grow. We are just returning that carbon.
ChrisPCrunchy 4 months ago
@academicroach probably, but a whole load of us will die first. thats what happened last time.
GetThePun 5 months ago
amillionmonkeys.blog.com come on, you must curious, even a little bit.
ShangoRaiden 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
have i got a surprise for you! bark! yeah! it's new beneful healthy fiesta!got to love protein for muscles and omega rich nutrition for that shiny coat. everything healthy can taste so good!!!
Relmart 5 months ago
O pointy birds, o pointy pointy,
Anoint my head, anointy-nointy.
It's going to be a bitch to put that thing back together. I think Al Gore can do it.
rollsthepaul 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
EclecticSceptic 5 months ago
yeah and?
piersremus 5 months ago
If we try hard then maaaybe we can warm the planet up in next 1000 years so greenland returns to pre 1300 climate. You know, so its GREEN LAND again like it was before the last medieval mini ice age.
What? You didnt know whole Europe was almost tropical before mini ice age 600 years ago? Didnt Al Gore tell you that? He was probly too busy getting rich on ecomorons.
rasz 5 months ago 3
@rasz You're right, your hyper witty put-down refutes anthropogenic climate change entirely.
EclecticSceptic 5 months ago
@rasz Actually you're a fucking moron. The Vikings named it 'Greenland' because they dreamed of it as a mythical land of green and fertile pastures. When they arrived they were surprised that it was rocky and icy.
EclecticSceptic 5 months ago 3
@rasz
"Europe was almost tropical before mini ice age 600 years ago"
You people are hilarious
BeondaPale 5 months ago 30
@BeondaPale Actually the ice core temperature reading show much higher temperatures than today. Wine grew in England, in Northern Europe grain crops only found in southern Europe grew just fine, grain that can't be grown today because it's to cold.
Something ended the last ice age and since then the temperature have risen almost 10 degrees Celsius.
In periods between the last two ice ages ice cores reveal half of the ice sheet on Greenland was gone and summer ice on the North Pole was gone.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago in playlist More videos from newscientistvideo
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"Actually the ice core temperature reading show much higher temperatures than today."
According to what study
"Something ended the last ice age"
WHAT ended the last ice age? What do scientists think?
"In periods between the last two ice ages ice cores reveal half of the ice sheet on Greenland was gone and summer ice on the North Pole was gone."
According to what study or studies?
Are you suggesting we should just take your word for all this? Cite your sources.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale For ice core temperature results look up Greenland ice sheet ice core and Antarctic Vostock ice core like Petit et al. Nature 399. I thought everybody knew this but apparently not. The ice records are the only true indicators with minimal noise and uncertainty unlike dendrology based research. Ice cores show us that the last 350-400 years temperature have dropped about 1.5 C which is a lot and temperature have started to level off and rice a tiny bit. Look it up.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale The natural connection between CO2 and temperature is very well defined. As the ice core samples definitively prove, is that CO2 lag behind temperature change by some 400-600 years throughout the ice cores. In other words the natural connection is temperature drives the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and NOT the opposite way around.
See studies by Fischer et al. Science, vol 283, p. 1712.
The study proves CO2 can continues to rise for several hundred years with falling temps!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"CO2 lag behind temperature change by some 400-600 years throughout the ice cores. In other words the natural connection is temperature drives the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and NOT the opposite way around."
ORDINARILY this is true - but the physical properties of CO2 as a holder and emmiter of infrared energy can not be denied.
Surely you are not saying that CO2 CAN'T drive climate, are you?
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale You wanted scientific evidence and you got it, now you're questioning the scientist?
i didn't make the claim that CO2 emitted would immediately warm the planet the global warming people did, but the research says something completely different. With 400-600 years of continual higher CO2 concentration and falling temperature do not match the claims of CO2 as temperature driver.
You do know that the scientific studies I have given you are part of the material used in the IPCC reports.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"you wanted scientific evidence and you got it, now you're questioning the scientist?"
No sir, i'm questioning YOUR conclusions
"but the research says something completely different. "
No it does not, sir
"With 400-600 years of continual higher CO2 concentration and falling temperature do not match the claims of CO2 as temperature driver."
...Unless other factors come into play.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Then the guess work starts up again with quote, "Unless other factors come into play". What fucking factors are those because all we seem to hear is CO2! Now you're just guessing and reaching for straws that simply isn't there. You argument is so fucking stupid you do not even realize your "Unless other factors come into play" bullshit would in fact disprove the whole CO2 theory because if those factors come into play then they could do so today and could be the cause of temps rising
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
a 500 character comment limit is hardly a place to discuss "other factors in depth - May I sugest:
The jurnal "science"
NASA
NOAA
The National Accademy Of Science
The AAAS
And many many many many others.
In these places your total BS (regardless of just how angry that BS is) would be dismantled quickly
Good luck!!
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale That's complete nonsense you're now turning to. Those other factors could in fact according to your own account be responsible for any kind of temperature change we see and then your entire theory about CO2 is dead in the water. Result is that your argument are getting so thin you're merely resorting to the appeal to authority logical fallacy now and you've run out of logic and science and most likely getting tired of getting caught lying again and again.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"that's complete nonsense you're now turning to."
OF COURSE it is - it MUST be.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"if those factors come into play then they could do so today and could be the cause of temps rising"
They COULD but are not currently coming into play to the extent needed to avoid the rise caused by the additional CO2
This is an EXCEEDINGLY simple concept to grasp
BeondaPale 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"What (expletive) factors are those because all we seem to hear is CO2!"
Here's a novel idea -- READ!! Read about solar variation, orbital variations, vulcanism, even biological factors.
the lowly bacteria changed our world, but we can't?
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale You really couldn't sink any lower in your use of argument there could you. So you asked me for studies supporting general knowledge anyone should know, then you lied about knowing those studies were used by the IPCC and the arrogance would never stop when you paraded these other factors around like the holy grail and and asked what they were you just responded READ in the most arrogant and stupid way ever. How is read an answer when neither volcanoes nor orbital var explain anything
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"You do know that the scientific studies I have given you are part of the material used in the IPCC reports."
Yes I do. I also know that you are misrepresenting the conclusions those studies came to
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale actually you don't know because you asked for some studies supporting the statements. If you had known about the studies then there would be no need to ask for them and since studies about the Vostock ice cores are in fact used in the IPCC report you should know them and NOT have to ask for them. Making you a liar.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale The scientific evidence for CO2 as driving the climate simply isn't there in the studies I have given you. Further more it's a scientific fact that the energy absorbed by CO2 is very specific to a given range of wavelength and the amount of energy absorbed is not sufficient to account for the about 10 degrees Celsius temperature rise since the last ice age as we see in the ice core samples. The natural climate changes are far more powerful and unexplained.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"the amount of energy absorbed is not sufficient to account for the about 10 degrees Celsius temperature rise since the last ice age"
Nor should it.
QUESTION: has it been 170 years since the end of the last ice age?
ANSWER: No.
Logically therefore CO2 is not the ONLY cause of the rise seen since the end of the last ice age. This does NOT discount CO2 as a feedback mechanism
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale You seem to have a problem with simple arguments. My statement was that the falling CO2 concentration can NOT explain why the last ice age ended nor can the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or the rise of it since the last ice age explain the about 10 degree Celsius rice in temperature since the end of the last ice age.
Further more the temperature drop from 350-400 years ago until today with ricing CO2 concentration do in fact NOT support the CO2 hypothesis.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Quote, "Logically therefore CO2 is not the ONLY cause of the rise seen since the end of the last ice age.". Now you're proving that you haven't read the Vostock studies nor have you understood the conclusion the scientist makes. The explicitly state that CO2 can NOT account for the cause of the end of the last ice age simply because temperatures started to rice with falling CO2 concentration and did so for hundreds of years. CO2 kept falling and temperatures rose.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale I really have to ask you if you have scientific data showing you that 400-600 years of continuously higher CO2 concentration combined with falling temperature in several cases and the reverse effect where CO2 continuous to fall and temperatures start to rice for hundreds of years puts a rather larger ding into the hypothesis of CO2 as the wild raging climate driver. 600 years of higher CO2 and the temperature just drops and drops. if you do any kind of statistical analysis it fails!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
The statement "CO2 lags temperature" simply does not tell the whole story.
as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. In short, CO2 acts as a positive feedback
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale and then you're WRONG again. You're making CO2 out to have some kind of multiple personality disorder. What we observe from the ice cores is very clear and definitive. At the point of severe climate change as you will see of you bothered finding the Vostock ice core data on a graphical representation, it's very clear when temperature peaks like 350-400 years ago CO2 continues to rise even though temperatures fall 1.5-2 C.
Your bullshit about CO2 must cause further warming is debunked
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"and then you're WRONG again."
Not me - just about every climate scientist in the world
Tell ya what - WRITE A PAPER, then HAVE IT PEER REVIEWED. Then and only then will you reign supreme and prove all those scientists wrong. Because right now, your fighting against the opinion of every single last established scientific institution on the planet
You can't look at a graph and conclude that the WELL KNOWN physical properties of a gas are wrong.
Sorry about reality
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale NO the scientist do in fact NOT have an answer for the 400-600 year CO2 lag neither can they explain why CO2 concentrations continue to rise when temperature have peaked and starts to go down and fall for these 400-600 years. You're making CO2 out to be able to sometimes warm and sometimes cool.
If the hypothesis about CO2 as climate driver is true then temperature can NOT peak and then fall for 400-600 years when CO2 concentration continues to go up, then temperatures should go up!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeondaPale About 10,000 years ago when temperatures bottomed out and started to rise again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continue to fall for centuries! hundreds of years with rising temperatures and falling CO2. Finally with a lag of 400-600 years CO2 concentration started to go back up.Your statement "CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming" is clearly NOT observed in the scientific data or else temperatures COULDN'T fall for 400-600 with rising CO2..right!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
It's really very simple:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Now you're contradicting yourself and the scientists again and you have in fact created an infinite warming loop. Well done. You said CO2 wasn't the cause of the temperatures starting to rise ending the last ice age. Then suddenly while CO2 concentration is still going down temperatures rise and rise for 400-600 years before CO2 goes up. We do not see the accelerated temperature rise in an exponential way when CO2 went back up like you're describing it to do so. But it didn't!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale You have in fact created in infinite warming loop and rising temperatures behaving in an exponential way with your extremely oversimplified explanation that do not in anyway relate to the actual scientific data have have. According to you CO2 amplifies warming in such a way that it shouldn't be possible to see temperature peak then fall for 400-600 years with ever rising CO2 concentration as we see in the ice cores.If more CO2 causes warming then the 400 years of cooling can't happen
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"You have in fact created in infinite warming loop and rising temperatures behaving in an exponential way"
Nope, there are limiting factors contained within Milankovich cycles. As I said before, Youtube is not conducive to great amounts of detail. Read the papers for the detail. But you aren't really about the science. You're about POLEMICS and misleading people
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale There you go again, pulling out Milankovich like it had any scientific value at all. Here's a quick question for you since your so keen on climate scientist opinion, is Milankovich highly regarded and accepted as the explanation of climate change and used by any of the leading climate scientist writing the IPCC findings at all? The answer is NO. When you run out of logic or science you simply resort to lying and making stuff up.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"is Milankovich highly regarded and accepted as the explanation of climate change and used by any of the leading climate scientist writing the IPCC findings at all? The answer is NO."
Yeah? That must be why Richard Alley from Penn State can be seen talking about it HERE:
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
You are a clown
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale You're contradicting yourself yet again and you're to pig headed, ignorant and arrogant to even realize that. The very same climate scientists you refer to for you CO2 theory gives a thumb down to Milankovich. Your argument is basically that we have to trust these climate scientist regarding CO2 but forget everything else.
Well is doesn't work like that, and logic tells us it's pure nonsense. You're in bed with the CO2 crowd meaning Milankovich do not explain anything.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"you're to [sic] pig headed, ignorant and arrogant to even realize that. The very same climate scientists you refer to for you CO2 theory gives a thumb down to Milankovich"
No they don't - they say that the CURRENT statistically significant warming can not be explained by Milankovich cycles
Here AGAIN is Dr Richard Alley of Penn State is explaining this very thing to an intentionally ignorant BSer like yourself
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale It's completely bullshit to start to use the argument that I have to read something that I have already read and further more read the critic of by the very climate scientist you regard as all knowing. They disregard Milankovich because it lacks the scientific backing by data and because the uncertainty surrounding the theory is to great. The people you regard as know it all's say NO but you keep hammering away when cornered. I have read about Milankovich and it's not it.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Both sun spots and Milnkovicv cycles are not regarded as hypotheses with the scientific data backing needed to make them valid. Further more the exact same climate scientist you cling to for CO2 argument fail them both.
You have yet to explain how temperatures can continue to drop for 400-600 years with rising CO2 concentration which shouldn't be possible at all according to your own CO2 arguments because you said higher CO2 will increase warming but we see something completely else
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"Both sun spots and Milnkovicv cycles are not regarded as hypotheses with the scientific data backing needed to make them valid"
No such thing as sun spots or the Milankovich Cycles either, huh? Deny gravity and relativity next - also fairly lacking in data. ...see where that gets you
Good luck!!
"You have yet to explain..."
Nope, YOU have failed to ACCEPT the most logical explanation available which is backed by a lot of science - big difference
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale The same climate scientists you rely on for CO2 theory says Milankovich and sun spots are NOT part of what they regard as climate science. It's not even part of your beloved IPCC as explanatory theories.
It makes absolutely no sense at all that according to you we have to trust them 100% on CO2 but disregard everything they say on Milankovich simply because you're out of arguments and can't explain something extremely simple. They say NO to Milankovich meaning you also have to!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"The same climate scientists you rely on for CO2 theory says Milankovich and sun spots are NOT part of what they regard as climate science"
If they have said this, then you will have some sort of quote or work WHERE they have said this.nI doubt. I'll be waiting - in vain.
"They say NO to Milankovich meaning you also have to!"
Untrue, what climate scientist DO say is that Milankovich cycles take thousands of years and can not explain the CURRENT warming trend.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"The study proves CO2 can continues to rise for several hundred years with falling temps! "
...given the right planetary, orbital and solar conditions. Do such conditions currently exist?
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Well now you have moved from a science based viewpoint to merely guesswork. The climate scientist can actually not explain the cause of any of the natural climate changes we see throughout history but can only conclude that CO2 is not it.
We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change. It might be but then you have just explained why we see climate change today and dis proven CO2!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"Well now you have moved from a science based viewpoint to merely guesswork."
Not me, sir SCIENTIST. and it's EDUCATED guesswork called "hypotheses"
"We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change."
Ever heard of "Milankovitch cycles"? Are you saying these cycles have not been studied?
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Yes you moved from scientific based stance to gues work when you stated quote, "given the right planetary, orbital and solar conditions.". The statistical uncertainty surrounding these alternative hypotheses are in fact so great that science CAN'T move the idea from hypothesis to theory which has to be supported by peer review scientific evidence.
Milankovitch cycles are such hypothesis, and it might very well be correct, but the scientific data to support it to theory ISN'T there.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"Milankovitch cycles are such hypothesis, and it might very well be correct, but the scientific data to support it to theory ISN'T there."
BS - it does have problems but it is the current best fit and it's supported by a LOT of evidence in geology and astronomy
Have an alternate hypothesis? Here's an idea - OFFER IT
The angry anonymous dude on youtube who thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong just isn't doing it
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Bacause there's a correlation "or as you call it" best fit, doesn't necessarily explain anything. I have seen correlation between sun spot and the Dow Jones Index.
If Milankovich is driving climate then you're contradicting the CO2 climate change crowd and you can't in fact have it both ways. Either Milankovich is in or CO2 is out. If Milankovich is true then all that bullshit about CO2 is gone because then you have explained why those 600 years of temps falling with ricing CO2!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale If the CO2 crowd is correct then their negative assessment on Milankovich have to stand true. It's that simple. According to you the IPCC crowd is wrong on Milankovich meaning they also could be wrong on CO2 and it's effect on global climate change. If Milankovich is true then you have explained why the observed 400-6000 years of falling temperatures can occur with rising CO2 concentration but then the CO2 theory goes out the window.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"If the CO2 crowd is correct then their negative assessment on Milankovich have to stand true. It's that simple"
Please point to where one can find this negative assessment
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Further more you do not even realize that if yo state Milankovitch cycles to be the actual cause of natural climate change then the theory of CO2 as the wild climate driver goes out the window. The huge natural climate changes observed throughout history in the ice core data dwarfs any effect CO2 has on the environment. Then the cycles have to account for these 400-600 years of severe climate change with falling and rising temps without CO2 being able to effect it in any part!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"The climate scientist can actually not explain the cause of any of the natural climate changes we see throughout history but can only conclude that CO2 is not it."
This is a false statement
"We have no confirmed theories supported by scientific peer review data saying planetary position or orbital conditions are the cause of climate change. "
This is a partially true, partially false statement
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Quote, "This is a false statement" this a contradiction of the climate scientist and is in fact nothing more than a LIE! It is a lie because the original cause of the climate change that started the ice age and ended it again is NOT KNOWN. How fucking hard is that to understand. We know it wasn't CO2 because CO2 lags temperature change with 400-600 years. In other words climate start to change, warming ended the last ice age and then almost 600 years later CO2 starts to rise!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
Write that paper and prove all those evil scientist wrong
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale I don't have to, the scientist have already written what needs to be written and the evidence is right there for all to see. With rising CO2 concentration is should NOT be possible to see temperatures peak and then fall for 400-600 years before CO2 concentration peaks and goes down following the temps down until the temps bottom out and start to rise again and CO2 continues to fall for 400-600 years! That simply can't happen if rising CO2 means temps must go up as you claim!It can't
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"I don't have to, the scientist have already written what needs to be written and the evidence is right there for all to see."
Then the whole of the scientific world is behind you then, right?? CO2 can't drive temps!!! HURAY!!! Crisis averted!!!
Whoops, there is still the small matter of convincing the scientific world that your version of reality is correct.
Get to work.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale If CO2 was the CAUSE of the climate change that ended the last ice age and made temperature rise by about 10 degrees Celsius then we would observe CO2 rising BEFORE and DURING the period temperature starts to rise. It's pure LOGIC and you do not seem to get it. A lower CO2 concentration can by definition NOT account for rising temperature because then you have just destroyed your beloved "CO2 drives climate change" hypothesis. It's that simple..
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Quote, "This is a partially true, partially false statement" is a complete LIE. There's NO peer review and scientifically accepted theory based on scientific data that conclusively explain climate change from the perspective of planetary position, orbital conditions etc. DONE. There is NONE. There are people making all kinds of theories out there about Sun spots etc. but they can't actually explain or model the historic climate change we see. Making your statement a LIE.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"conclusively explain climate"
There's your problem - science is NEVER "DONE"
"Making your statement a LIE."
Nope, try again
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Bullshit... you just LIE and manipulate everything huh. What a bunch of retarded bullshit about conclusively huh. Well you seem to completely misunderstand in the most retarded way that conclusive evidence in fact are needed to support a theory just like we need conclusive evidence for the theory of gravity or theory of evolution. Science is not a constant but the scientific data have to conclusively explain the present theories.
Which still makes your statement a fucking LIE.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
YOU misinterpreting science does not make ME a liar
Sorry again
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale How pathetic can your arguments get before you realize you sound utterly moronic and you should better stop the bullshit.
You are lying again and again and I have just proves it to you. You even start the bullshit about something not needing to be conclusively proves because science is never done, and that's so stupid it's unbelievable. We all know science needs to conclusively prove their hypothesis before it can be elevated into a theory and conclusively proven by several peers.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"How pathetic can your arguments get..."
Again, they NOT my arguments - they are arguments of people much much better trained than you or I, using equations you can't grasp and they are arguments opposed by some guy named "squirrel" on Youtube.
You are free to CALL me pathetic for seeing through your political BS. And I am free to laugh at your sorry ass for doing so.
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale We know that the Sun must be the primary cause of the climate on earth because take away the Sun and the earth would be just slightly warmer than 0 degrees Kelvin given the fact that the Earth it self radiates a small amount of heat. Given the temperature reading from the ice cores and the cyclic nature seen in statistical analysis the Sun have to play and obvious part in climate change on Earth but it's NOT understood what exactly happens and why because the system is so complex.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"We know that the Sun must be the primary cause of the climate on earth "
This is an ABSOLUTE GIVEN
"but it's NOT understood what exactly happens"
Name an single instance ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE where it is "understood what exactly happens"
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale What ended the last ice age? Actually scientist have absolutely no idea why. The only thing we conclusively can say that it wasn't CO2 that ended the ice age because CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continued to fall for several hundred years as temperature started to clime. They call it natural climate changes but the cause of those are unknown.
I am trying to find the study of rock and ice drillings on the Greenland ice sheet confirming the melt in periods between ice ages.
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Here's a bit about the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) from ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2010, I am also trying to find the exact study from NEEM.
Quote, "Eemian interglacial period, about 115,000 to 130,000 years ago, when temperatures on Earth were warmer by as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit than they are today."
"During the Eemian period, for example, the Greenland ice sheet was much smaller, and global sea levels were about 15 feet higher than they are today".
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"when temperatures on Earth were warmer by as much as 5 degrees Fahrenheit ... and global sea levels were about 15 feet higher than they are today".
So if true, would you agree that a rise in 5 degrees Fahrenheit globally today ( which if you convert it to Celsius is less that the IPCC estimates of 3 degres Celsius due to AGW) that it could result in global sea levels about 15 feet higher than they are today?
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale I really can't see the need for you to add "if true". It's scientific research and you could look it up if you bothered. The scientist have actually answered that question as far as I remember and said that the overall climatic conditions at that time are not well enough understood to make the exact correlation but it would be a rough estimate.
You seem to completely miss the point that the CO2 concentration back then were lower than today yet the temperature was much higher!
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
"I really can't see the need for you to add "if true"."
All science is "if true" until it is verified - the study to pointed to is only one, demonstrating the need for further study, hence "if true" - Or do you have other studies verifying the results of this one?
Can you answer the question now? "You seem to completely miss the point... "
No sir - YOU do - in the past, CO2 has amplified warming. When it rises by itself, the temp WILL rise as a result
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale See now you begin to LIE out of pure spite. First of all the ice core research is NOT the only one backing this conclusion about higher temperature. That's a outright LIE. Please stop lying because it makes you look even more stupid.
Next you said that you knew the studies to be a part of the IPCC report data collection and that turned out to be a lie as well and now you make another LIE claiming it to be a one hit wonder which its NOT.
and NO when CO2 goes up temps do NOT just rise
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
@SquirrelFromGradLife
You are free to call me an idiot and a liar or whatever else strikes your fancy until you turn a stunning shade of green. When you are finished jumping up and down and screaming, the facts will still be the facts, Mr Squirrel
...Sorry about that
BeondaPale 4 months ago
@BeondaPale Well you are by definition a liar because you lie. You even manage to lie about such obvious things that it makes you look ridiculous especially when you begin to say something like there's only one study supporting the findings on Eemian interglacial period which demonstrates you have NOT read any of the studies on ice core samples.NONE.
You have the fucking nerve to talk to anyone about the facts and when presented with the facts you just start to lie you fucking manipulating cunt
SquirrelFromGradLife 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rasz
"You didnt know whole Europe was almost tropical before mini ice age 600 years ago?"
= Goebbels' Law - If your gonna lie, lie BIG
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@rasz Most scientists agree on the subject. Your view is of no importance to me. It's almost like "Blah, blah, blah" to my ears... Whatever Europe was before, I'm sure scientists has already put into the equation. They are not stupid, you know.
HKragh 5 months ago
@rasz Why are you people obsessed with Al Gore? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Al Gore has never written a scientific paper. Al Gore is a washed up politician who wrote a book a decade ago. You anti-science types keep going on and on about him. It's almost as if you don't want people to look at the science. Since you cite the pre-1300 climate data then you have to accept the sources for that are accurate, which means you definitely don't want people to look at the science.
ExperienceCounts2 5 months ago
@rasz Actually they called it greenland when it was discovered just so they could pawn it off on the next people who come. You should read more about it.
madjimms 4 months ago
@rasz The temperature is increasing at too high of a rate.
madjimms 4 months ago
@rasz
*maximum facepalm*
LucianUramu 4 months ago
I've seen bigger glacier break-ups.
robopoet 5 months ago
whoa that is how i always imagined the mountains of madness xD
anu606 5 months ago