no, one degree is very important. it will submerge all our cities and kill us all. Us global warmers know everything and know exactly what is going on... because they told us. They told us everything we need to know. We know because we are god. Humans are God and our science is more perfect that God. We know eveything. That one degree makes me freak out and night and soil my already used panties.
I have little time, with all the bunny skinning I have to do, to argue insignificant points with mamby-pampy, commie, liberal, enviro-natsi, pinheads. Pardon me, I have a burst vein to clean up after.
So, IlluminatiSeer, you say they've caught the hackers who broke into climate scientists' emails? Good. Send them to prison for 50 years. The guy who broke into Sarah Palin's emails was ridiculously and unjustly convicted, even though her emails proved her guilty of terrorism and criminal fraud.
No hackers found, just your average whistle blower. Be nice to send ol' Sarah up the river, be nice not having to cringe every time I hear her harpy voice.
@yamahaeleven Even I sometimes get annoyed by the stupid remarks about Sarah Palin, such as "not having enough experience". There IS no "experience" needed in politics. All politics IS is pushing for whatever the FUCK laws one wants. That said, given Palin's support of multibillion dollar bailouts & murdering wolves, I have no pity for her.
@yamahaeleven Yes. In spite of all the bad things I can say about politicians, and that others can say even worse things (yes - I know most probably know even MORE bad things, in greater subtlety & complexity than *I* do - which shows just how bad politicians are), I know have to "give credit" (where credit's due) for politicians having to deal with ALL issues, not just the single issues many of their constituents demand of them.
@yamahaeleven That said, there is no excuse for politicians deliberately voting on the wrong/bad/evil/stupid side of an issue which patently OBVIOUSLY has an easy right answer: e.g. legalize pot. Deciding whether to go to war with North Korea is a hard difficult issue. Giving away billions in tax breaks & deregulating banking & commodities industries, & doing so repeatedly after so many disaster = a good reason to assassinate said politician.
O level geography explains all, warmer wet air, meeting cold air means more snow. We get more wet air as the world in general gets warmer! So it's hardly out of pattern at all. Whats typically expected when complex systems change are increasingly violent events like now! Right now, severe heat-waves and bush fires in Aussie this summer, while Israels having its greatest winter swimming condition but running out of fresh-water!
Given that CO2 levels have increased by a third since the industrial revolution, one would think that without some sort of mass culling we could simply try shifting our dependence on fossil fuels to greener alternatives and changing our lifestyles to that end to reduce it by a similar amount. But no, that sounds too much like common sense!
Every human activity changes our environment, and thus is unacceptable to strident Marxists, opps, I meant environmentalists. Culling humans is the remedy advocated by the misanthropic. Neither camp wants any sort of technological solution that gives us large amounts of power for cheap, they either want us all dead or become nice quiet monks, or serfs grubbing in the mud.
Bloody cold in London here today. The Eurostar is screwed, the airports aren't working, and the whole of Northern Europe is in chaos 'cause of snow, ice, blizzards etc. I'm sick of watching TV, reading the paper, talking to work colleagues, having to be on my guard against the 250 different ways I'm likely to be being brainwashed from. 911, War Against, Terrorism, swine flu, now this bullshit.
"Weather isn't climate..." except when it gets hot, according to Global Warming Alarmists! Hilarious to read the comments from bed-wetting eco-pansies on this video, almost as fun as baiting trolls.
They're just so into the personal self-image fraud of being pantomime caring sharing goodie-goodies, they're totally uninterested in the truth. The Russians confirmed the other day that The British Meteorological Office had tampered with The Russians climate data. Why isn't this story being covered by the BBC, Fox News, CBS etc?
They are all uptight wearing their hemp rags while shivering in a little solar powered shack. Pathetic comes to mind.
I wouldn't be so pissed off if they'd just keep to themselves, rather than trying to convince the third world they should be happy staying destitute plowing fields with their fingernails. Guys like Bono should just sing, not try to push poor folks around.
Yeah, I agree. Also: This global warming thing is a blank cheque charter for governments and big business to screw everyone. Because of the CO2 hysteria, in Britain they're now undertaking a massive nuclear power-plant building programme. Pardon me, but have they forgotten in The Ukraine there's an area the size of France that's completely uninhabitable because of The Chernobyl disaster? How environmentally friendly is that? It's all a big multi-£$£$£$£$ scam.
I don't have a big issue with nukes, Chernobyl was just a big pile of graphite on the floor, most plants are a bit more advanced now. It just seems like there is tons of political baggage being piled up on the whole affair, from the right and left!
Green freaks suck no group pushes there views upon people so much,people are gonna drive trucks people are gonna travel not everyone can fuckin walk to work you stupid hippys some people have commutes
Would you please make some more videos? I agree with 99% of what you say in most of your videos and it's a shame you haven't made a new one in a year.
Blaming the atheists? The political group with the highest percentage of atheists is the libertarians and generally they are as against global warming as you are.
When i was small i remember my parents told me to eat my greens now i know why ! the Greeens hate Co2 like Kriptonite the very thing that makes plants green.
Man made Global Warming ,the Earth is flat,Y2K its all the same !! Bull Shit!! and annoying hearing about any of it. the olny people i know that believe it anymore , the greens and the media!!
global warming disrupts weather patterns and pressure low and highs will carry into places where they normally shouldnt be there for snow in sydney, only dense headed individuals think that global warming just makes the earth hotter, it shifts global weather patterns
You speak truth. Not only is that true, but as of a few weeks ago, it was FINALY looked into by the green community that the average yearly temperature of the world is below normal since the 1930's and has been dropping for the past oh... i don't know TEN YEARS?!
Fuck the green kooks. They are a threat to national security. The time will come when they will have to be liquidated. There is no other course for them. They are to much of a problem to be allowed to exist. This is not bullshit I speak. These green fuckers must be turned red. Thats the only way.
In the last century, the left failed to destroy capitalism. Now, it is using the idea that humans cause global warming to try again. At least, in the previous century they used force, and this time they only use smoke and mirrors: 0.04% of the atmosphere (CO2) has more greenhouse effect than the remaining 99.96%.
global warming eh? lol what fuckin bullshit. it was just on abc news that it snowed in sydney this afternoon.
the last time it snowed in sydney was 1836. meaning that IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SNOW IN SYDNEY.
so why did it snow? arent we supposed to be experiencing record heat? ha ha so much for global warming. if anything we're headed for another mini ice age due to reduced solar output.
but of course when a heat wave comes through in america, 50 fuckin news shows get on with "enviroMENTAL" experts saying global warming will destroy the world. But when it snows in fucking sydney i don't hear about it.
This guy is right. They are blaming earth's natural chaotic behavior on the human race in order to gain political power. Its crap and people BELIEVE it!!
Global warming is a big scam! Al Gore is an elitist and he made billions on this Global Warming bullshit. The earth is growing, it happens everyday. People need to stop and wake up! Right on my warrior brother! More people need to be like us, awakened to common sense. I write about alot of things brother. Love and highest vibrations!
No. This is not an environmentalist invention. I lived in Northwest Alaska four years - and the ice is melting a month early. The sea ice has thinned to a wafer. You need to talk to the people who are affected by this directly.
this is funny shit! global warming is just an insanity! i just wanna bitchslap who ever started this crap! i mean it has only went up a half a dgree in the past one hundred years! now these environmentalists are making people afraid! they also say itll hurt the environment to dig for oil, its a fucking wasteland were they wanna dig. theres oil out there just waiting for us and the mentally liberal democratic congress wont let us! yamahaeleven im glad i heard about someone like you.
I actually watched this entire thing. This guy blasts out at everybody. Seriously, he doesn't have a point. Those wanting us off of oil are wanting some sci fi fucked up way to come up with energy and advance and this guy promotes archaic oil ways to continue to destroy America. America is about advancement and the revolution of ideas and this guy thinks we are living in the stone age?
Archaic oil only because most environmentalists have their heads in the sand regarding nuclear power of any kind, even fusion. Even if we went on a crash building program of nuclear power and alternatives, we still would need every gallon of oil we can get our hands on. Not a single "alternative" energy source is ready for primetime, we need to keep our economy humming along to have enough resources to get all the new sources ready in time.
You have the concept, and that is we need to start preparing, thats the answer I am looking for. I am all for nuclear energy, its actually when contained properly a clean energy with a very hazardous but very manageable waste. People think fuming towers when they see a nuke plant, the fumes are just steam, from the rods boiling the water. The retention ponds are hazardous, but are contained, the radioactive waste is storable and contained. Go nukes. But in the meantime, lets work on all of it.
Indeed, we must work on everything, but global warming alarmists would rather destroy the economy that gives us the resources to do just that. They really do hate modern civilization.
It's not about destroying the economy it's about control. Those with control are getting very shaky right now, because people are realising that their so called governments have been poisoning them with vaccines and fluoride and drugs to make them stupid while they implement their new world order. The backlash has just begun, they need to herd us into militarized zero movement zones so they can remain safe while they carry out their extermination policies.
I also have to say whatever happened to the idea of a "free market"? It looks like Honda has a cheap hybrid coming out this year that is going to sell gang busters, but these ignorant people want to continue to destroy our economy by following archaic ideas of not advancing and putting more propaganda out instead of actually making a change. The solution is right in front of them, but they want to destroy everything just to hold their false ideals to the end.
I agree uthlibrashun. Even if there wasn't global warming, these people are happy to feed at the trough of $4 a gallon of gas to the end, just to be different or whatever thier agenda is. They don't want clean renewable resources, because some how that makes them look tough. Well, welcome to $5 a gallon gas as predicted by the end of this year. They are going to destroy this country. They are hellbent on it.
uthlibrashun: It's also sad that there is a media scourge in our country that pumps out propaganda to angry disgruntled people to fill their heads with lies, just so they can feel like they are bucking an imaginary system. Seriously? Global Warming doesn't exist? Search Glenn Beck global warming and he even admits its occuring. With just lies as to the reason why for his cheerleading money, but nobody says its not occuring except people who fell for the propaganda.
I don't doubt global warming in the least, nor do I doubt we have some hand in what is happening. People do this bit about it not being human-caused. Point being whether it is or isn't caused by humans, don't ignore the fact that we are shitting where we eat anyways and making things worse then they already are. "Global warming isn't a political issue, its the greatest moral challenge mankind has ever faced." You don't have to convince me. I am just saying there are many other reasons too.
My point is that rather than make an honest effort to better things environmentally regardless of your thoughts global warming, so many times I catch people who just say whatever and then don't give a fuck like nothing could be done. Thats the problem with our country, we've become fat, happy, lazy and ultimately careless. Honestly, whats the point in trying to defend us being lazy and not energy-progressive? I mean next time make a positive video about doing something considerate.
Let me try this one more time(wont post), oil imports- 32% mid-east(20% saudi alone), 22% canada, 16% mexico, 30% other. $/barrel as of 5/11/08, $115.11. Mid-east daily exports to US, 2,486,000 b/d. B/D x $115.11= $286,163,460 daily to mid-east. Cost of AK-47 or SKS in mideast, $50-$300, AKs able to purchase, (worst case w/ lots of ammo too, $500), 572,000 AKs/day, you get the idea. U.A.E. and Oman weren't on the list either, I'm pretty sure we import from them too.
Unfortunately, Youtube doesn't allow links here in the comments, so I can't point you in the direction of relevant references. Only Al Gore and his followers say there isn't contrary evidence when, in fact, there is considerable evidence for global cooling over the last decade, and numerous faults and issues with the models used to predict future warming. We can hardly cover the faulty economic arguments they make, they aren't even wrong.
Is there any good reason to not experiment with being able to eventually switch to clean energy and technology though? Just for sake that smog obviously isn't healthy, and I like the waters I surf and fish to be clean (the elizabeth river is fucking filthy). I'd sure as hell like to not send any more money to the middle east if I can help it, let them farm dust... p.s. McCain 2008 (he has decent environmental policies too).
Clean energy, good. Non CO2 emitting energy, impossible. Do the math. Only a very small part of our energy comes from the middle east, most comes from Canada and Mexico.
Second largest imports of oil come from Saudi Arabia, according to EIA(government site). My greatest concern lies in renewable resources... Continued dependence on oil is naive at best. Besides oil, general industrial pollution could stand some reform. What exactly is it you defend on those 2 points? Why argue any advantages of clean energy? Time spent encouraging change for those reasons seems time well spent!
You're a one dumb skeptic/secularist/atheist if I ever saw one. The denial of climate change bears great resemblance to the denial of evolution. What's that? The NAS and AAAS (the most prestigious science organizations in the US) are saying GW is happening and humans are the most likely cause? They stake their reputations on this matter? 900+ peer reviewed articles ALL agree that climate change is happening? Them dumb scientists with their 'facts' don't matter nothin' to me!
So now you're playing the 'Evil Huge Conspiracy' card? Them dumb scientists perpetrate this stanic lie for money? You better get a tinfoil hat cause science organizations from other countries say similar stuff. Or maybe they are wrong and you know more about climatology (one of the most complex fields of science in existence)? Don't worry climatology has enough demand for smart people to keep them working even if the evil conspiracy of climate change didn't exist.
At my rate of consumption, 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide, .07 tons of methane, and 3.2 giga btu for the extra hot air produced. Per day. Not including the carbon put out by my 4.4 liter, 284 hp V8 while driving in circles looking for a good dealer.
I saw the other day, that this summer should be significantly cooler because of some elnina current. I guess the ice age is beginning. Better run to walmart and stock up on clearance blankets!
jffryfnt la ninas are indeed not ice ages, but they are a good example of far more powerful drivers of the global climate than CO2 which the computer modellers and "consensus" climatologists completely fail to understand.
It may or may not be the start of the next "little ice age" (c.f. the last Maunder Minimum) but it's certainly another nail in the coffin of the CO2-causes-dangerous- and-accelerated-warming hysteria.
Interesting, isn't it, how much more powerful La Nina is than CO2?
global warming is real, but isnt the biggest problem, because 1 degrees in the antartic in 60 years really wont do much. oh and guess what, the ice glaicers that are melting actually falling off, thats always friggen happened throughout history!
Also, most of the world's glaciers are in Antarctica where they are growing. And what about all the glaciers that are growing in other parts of the world.
In any case glaciers that are retreating have been doing so since the 19th century at least - meaning that their melting is nothing to do with the refuted CO2 hypothesis.
I'm curious, you claim you're a scientist...when did you give up? When did you give up the scientific institution? When did you give up the integrity of scientific journalism? Because it's quite apparent, when you claim the the CO2 THEORY, has been refuted, and not ONE single journal nor article has been published with veritable data, claiming as such. I suggest you watch your political ideologicalizations. Yeah I made that word up. But that's what you're doing.
jffryfnt - you're just spouting pointless self-opinionated garbage here. If you claim to be a scientists - which I doubt - prove it by getting back on topic and discussing the science itself rather than the credentials of those you happen to disagree with.
Plenty of scientific articles in peer reviewed journals challenge the CO2 dogma. You've seen them posted in a number of threads over the last few months. Stop being dishonest!
Man you don't can't even tell the difference between a scientifically peer-reviewed article and stuff published from think tanks and advocacies. You, in particular, derive scientific information from some foundation. And how is it dogma with so much supporting evidence? I find that ironic, don't you? No of course not, sorry.
Jffryfnt - you ask how the CO2 dogma is a dogma "with so much supporting evidence". The answer is that there isn't any supporting evidence. For example graphs of solar variability correlate far better with recorded temperatures than graphs of C02 in the atmosphere.
What I find ironic, is that you claim all this supporting evidence and yet can't point me to a single data set that proves anthropogenic global warming. Case dismissed. QED. Crawl back into your church of global warming
You see? This is why it is imperative to actually have a minute bit of understanding of the system before you can argue it. For instance, you say: "graphs of solar variability correlate far better with recorded temperatures than graphs of C02 in the atmosphere," does nothing to disprove CO2 forcing whatsoever. What it means is that CO2 is hardly the sole driver. You're deriving too much information out of that little observation and claim it as a 'smoking gun'. It's not a layman's argument.
jffryfnt - which bit of disproof do you not understand? If CO2 has not been shown to drive climate in the past, and if you admit it is only one of a number of drivers, then what's the big deal about all the global warming alarmism hysteria? Temperatures have risen very little over the 20th century and even the IPCC admits that up to half of that very little rise was driven by solar variability. Take into account other factors that they do not consider (like water vapour) and CO2 is acquitted.
Imperative #1: Know the system first before arguing it's aspects.
Co2 has been shown to influence climate in the past. Co2 is a GHG. The forcing effect is contingent on it's atmospheric concentration.
Imperative #2: Water vapor is a feedback, it is not a climate forcer. That doesn't mean that it's not a GHG mind you.
Imperative #3: More factors than you will ever care to comprehend are considered. It's ironic, because due to chaotic nature, it is the uncertainty that is the cause of concern.
jffryfnt - correction: CO2 has NOT been shown to influence climate in the past.
You are completely mistaken about water vapour - it is a major fact of our atmosphere and what scientists consider to be an essential component of the climate system. It is not a "feedback" LOL Let me know the next time a feedback rains on you! ROTFL.
Fewer factors than even you understand have been considered by the IPCC reports. Most importantly water vapour THE major GHG is not accounted for.
meaning that their melting is nothing to do with the refuted CO2 hypothesis-->think of that all on your own or do you care to reference that information.
So who gives a fuck what religious fundamentalist believe. I'm pro-life. Democrats want to save the O-zone but allow abortion. HOW FUCKIN TWISTED IS THAT. Save our childrens future..... HOW ABOUT GIVING THEM A FUTURE INSTEAD OF VACUMING THIER FREAKIN HEADS OUT. IF YOUR PRO CHOICE GOO LOOK UP ABORTION PHOTOS ON GOOGLE.
JohnFGrant - you keep oscillating between sounding reasonable and then unreasonable. If you are genuinely worried about the very low risk of dangerous global warming in the next century, then you need to study the subject. You need to read widely, a good starting point is climate rationalist websites and books. For example, try Bjorn Lomborg's new book "Cool It!" which rationally calculates the costs and benefits of reducing CO2 emissions and concludes there are far better things to do.
jffryfnt - correction - Lomborg is a reputable and much respected source for what policy should be applied in relation to environmental matters.
It's no news that a small minority of Antarctica has been warming - the great majority (East Antarctica) has been cooling. Net ice balance has increased. Similarly, ice in the Arctic sea has rebounded to the levels of the 1960s.
So, jffryfnt, climate scientists can make economic pronouncements, yet economists can't tell them they are full of it? Over stepping one's professional realm clearly does not apply to climate scientists, as they have all the intuition needed to guide the economy of the entire world.
Tell me one climate scientist that has made ANY economic 'pronouncement' concerning climate change, other than endorsing efficiency? They do the science, it's up to policy makers from there. The IPCC does just that, summarizes the science for the policy makers. I know minilemur will just jump on that one because he thinks the IPCC is corrupt. Probably because he knows just how easily ones mind can become corrupted. Too bad for him, the IPCC summarizes profound amounts of EVIDENCE.
jffryfnt - you hotheads are so funny! If Hansen hasn't made any economic pronouncements then the pope isn't a catholic and bears don't shit in the woods.
You're completely wronmg about the IPCC too - and obviously haven't actually read their scientific reports. If you did you would understand how the summaries for policy makers do not accurately represent what the scientific evidence is saying. These summaries are written by a small gang of "true believers".
So your whole basis is on the summary for policy makers....um, that's it???
So that means, you're committing the same fallacy, am I wrong?
You completely ignore the science. You only position is in the politics. And you think because you read a politically charged blog about climate science that all of a sudden you're an authority?!
This is why, real scientists do real science. The public doesn't do science; they're ignorant as a whole towards science. This isn't politics.
jffryfnt - correction again - you misunderstand/misrepresent my argument.
Far from ignoring the science, I am stating that a close reading of the actual IPCC scientific reports shows that the science is not consistent with the summary for policy makers which is written by a small coterie of politicians and bureaucrats.
Additionally, there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that contradicts some of the conclusions of the IPCC working groups.
Ask Bjorn yourself, he doesn't contend that climate change is happening and that we're the blame, but I think he's incredibly short-sighted.
Furthermore, as far as Antartica goes, you need to learn more about the hydrologic cycle. And furthermore, about the Arctic ice rebounded (in one season!!!!) to that of the 1960s is outright misinformation. It's winter in the north, hello?! Fact of the matter is, the Arctic ice is FAR thinner, and will likely be open water in summer in coming years.
jffryfnt - correction - I know a heck of a lot more about the hydrological cycle than you do. That's because I've been reading the science whereas you just parrot what you hear in the mass media.
I love your point about it's winter in the Arctic hello! I might reply - when the sea ice shrinks - it's summer in the Arctic hello! In other words, sea ice comes and goes with the seasons - so what?
Yeah I'm a parrot-->Graduated summa cum laude Paul Smiths College, associates in ecology, transferred to Cornell University, majored in Earth System science, concentrated in biogeochemical systems and ecological systems, honors, distinguished in research. These are my credentials on the subject. I believe in full disclosure. But you don't, you're a hunter, you hunt for what's convenient to your own personal ideology. It's quite apparent. Too bad not many people are smart enough to pick up on it.
jffryfnt - well I guess your Paul Smiths College trumps my first class degree from Cambridge University! LOL
You can't have learnt much in your college education if you believe that the strength of a logical argument is based on the credentials and perceived authority of the debater, rather than on the quality of the evidence and argument presented.
As for me, I reject the scientific validity of your ad hominem attacks.
I are am a collidge drop out, and an armchair economist. I am a big fan of science, but I check anything that smacks of religion. Science is never certainty, once it claims certainty over "hey, this is what we currently think," it isn't science anymore, and becomes mere dogma.
yamahaeleven - you're right, and you obviously understand more about scientific methodology than jffryfnt who probably got indoctrinated with one particular dogmatic view while he was at college. There's often a confirmation bias amongst those climatologists who are addicted to computer models which have never been validated against actually observed evidence.
Unfortunately, that often seems to be the case. I strongly suggest both of you look up the blog "overcoming bias," one of the best blogs I've seen. I want to make something clear here, there is evolution, but their are many theories of how it works, all of them will be proven wrong, but it doesn't mean there isn't evolution. There is "climate change" but the theory of CAGW is wrong, which doesn't mean there isn't global warming or climate change. CAGW alarmists have clearly forgotten this.
I'm sorry...my life isn't dictated from so called knowledge that can be gleaned from blogs.
Glad that it has done so much more for yourself.
And for you to say that AGW is wrong? And what's with this little qualifier of the C before AGW? Fact of the matter is, it is the uncertainty of AGW that is the greatest threat. The better we can constrain this uncertainty the better we all are. Because then we have a better idea of what we can expect.
You say that because you don't like what I have to say. It's hardly dogma if it's based on evidence and observations. It would be different if you, still believed in something in spite of the evidence and observations. That's dogma. Unfortunately for you, your claim that I'm merely being dogmatic lacks any evidence against my claims whatsoever. Your ignorant presuppositions are nothing more than an attack mechanism, and your feeble attempts at using fallacies of logic is dubious at best.
No scientist ever claims certainty in anything, only religion does that. Even the 'law' of gravity, to this day not disproved, is still being tested. NASA has satellites in space trying to disprove it, because we know very little about it. With AGW, the best available evidence tells us something is happening, and the only viable explanation is increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That's the best that science can tell us right now, and it's based on evidence, a lot of it.
Correction - jffryfnt - you can't point to even a single data set that provides unambiguous evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have caused significant global warming.
Why do I have to do the work for you? It seems you have no problem finding so-called information. Why don't you open up your mind a little and keep looking. Go to world climate report, realclimate, Science, Nature, Nature Climate Change, NSF, Royal Society, AGW, AIP, Newscientist, NASA, NOAA, US DOE, USGS, any National Academy, or any other HIGHLY respected sources, not highly vested think tanks and advocacies. There are books on Earth system science and atmospheric radiation, check it out.
jffryfnt - aha! Caught you out! You claim there is a data set but can't point me towards it.
By contrast my mind is open - I used to accept the CO2 dogma. Then I read about it, and realised that the science is completely unsettled with ever increasing challenge and debate.
There are indeed books on climatology I could recommend you to, e.g. by respected scientists, Gray, Kininmonth, Avery and Singer, Essex and McKitrick, Michaels, and may others. Also try World Climate Report website.
Yep...I love how you conveniently ignored the later part of my education there. And you used it to an advantage in an argument. Ignore what might prove to be significant and aim on the 'weaker' part of it. Nice way to rationalize it isnt it?
I stated my credentials because in SCIENCE, you have to have some in order for others to give you recognition as to some sort of semblance that you might know what you're talking about. Clearly, if I had a degree in economics, I'd be out of my area of study.
Correction jffryfnt - you obviously missed my sarcasm. I was satirising your puerile attempts to bolster empty arguments by reference to your "qualifications".
You obviously learnt very little in your "scientific" education if you believe that science progresses through "recognition" of "credentials". Let me explain: science progresses through observation, hypothesis, testing and experiment, peer review, replication of experiments, not through authoritative pronouncements by bureaucrats.
I means that I know something about the topic at hand and I hold a degree that is highly relevant: The study of Earth systems. You don't get grants if you don't have credentials. If you don't get grants you can't do the scientific research. I'm authored on scientifically peer-reviewed articles. Now you want to tell me about the scientific process?
jffryfnt - yes I want to tell you about the scientific review process. So I'll start with a catechism:
Do you understand how utterly different the IPCC "peer review" process is compared to the "peer review" process operated by the learned journals?
Secondly, do you understand how climatology has been corrupted, so that to get grants you have to say the politrically correct things - that's not science that's dogma.
Thirdly, do you understand how peer review has failed in Science re Mann et al?
IPCC reports are based on already existing peer-reviewed articles. It's a synthesis, like we scientists like to call 'reviews'.
Climatology corrupted? Politically correct? Present facts, not rhetoric.
And you really can't see how much the Mann et al paper has contributed to science? It caused a flurry of follow up studies of the data and methods. People conveniently confuse that with it being refuted. Hardly son, there's now more papers that back it up, only refined and better.
jffryfnt - wrong - you've clearly only read sacred texts from one side: the Church of Global warming.
It beggars belief that you are trying to defend the Mann et al paper as contributing to science when it clearly wasn't peer reviewed before publication since the data took months to be supplied. The follow up studies you refer to showed that the authors were guilty of flawed methodologies.
The only papers that back it up are by the same small group of authors! Even the IPCC has discarded it!
Wow, you're completely indifferent to science aren't you. You've never really read into the follow up studies since Mann et al. The IPCC didn't discard it at all, they used more recent evidence, and I'm sorry but it is consistent with Mann et al. You are explicit evidence that the public is dumb and can be easily dissuaded with misinformation.
Jffryfnt - correction: you suggest that I am indifferent to science, whereas in fact I am not and you seem to be.
You falsely claim I haven't read the folow up studies, and, in fact, I have.
The IPCC did discard it: it was featured 6 times (count them!) in the TAR and only once (hidden away in a spaghetti of lines) in the 4AR. These spaghetti of further proxy data have also been criticised by eminent statisticians for elementary statistical mistakes in their methodology.
These aren't 'follow up' studies. The mistakes found be 'eminent statisticians' doesn't exactly negate the science now does it? (which people are you referring to anyway?) But you prefer to think it does. Do you think that one apple falling from the tree means they all fell at once??? That's your use of logic I hope you know.
jffryfnt - correction - the Briffa and Osborne studies use much the same data sets as Mann et al. and commit the same kind of elementary statistical errors. For example, the IPCC hockey stick graphs stick together two completely different data sets (proxy data and weather station data) to come up with an absurdity. In fact proxy data have way undershot temperature data in the 20th century. Indeed Briffa et al. censor one of their own data sets at ~1950 because it shows too much cooling.
jffryfnt you clearly haven't understood the difference between the IPCC peer review process and the real thing.
In real peer review objections raised by peer reviewers have to be addressed before the article is published. This is documented as not happening in the IPCC process, where a number of expert reviewers have pointed out that there views were not taken into account by the lead authors. Some have had to resign. Changes have been made to agreed texts without consultation. etc. etc.
You'll find that in any discipline of science. But how you let it deter you from the real observations and evidence? By claiming what you say you think it completely refutes all the evidence and observations to date?
You don't even care to realize just how credible the IPCC really is, at the Hadley Center, UK. You want the truth, stop shopping around for your ideological conveniences. Are you really so stupid that slight evidence of a less than full peer review completely rescinds the science?
jffryfnt - correction: the real obervations and evidence contradict the IPCC models in many ways: no "global" warming shown by rural waether stations, no net warming at the poles, no significant warming of the troposphere. No significant warming since 1998 in any data set.
And what on earth do you mean by "slight evidence of a less than full peer review" re the Mann study? I love the way you describe NO PEER REVIEW as slightly less than! LOL
jffrfnt - stop posting stupid stuff involving personal attacks and get back to topic. Just answer the many points that have already been made before showing that CO2 cannot be responsible for the mild global re-warming we have seen int he 20th century and which has stopped since 1998.
jffrfnt and minilemur, there is a fascinating paper out recently that discusses an error in one of the key formulas used by GCM's. It is peer reviewed and authored by a former member of the IPCC. When I figure out a way to get a link into the comments, I'll do so such that you guys can give it a look.
Yeah this is a high impact journal here; I surely wonder if they actually use the peer-review process, and the paper makes a lot of statements with no references to back it up. In the abstract it states: "Simulation results show that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global average optical depth kept close to this critical value." What's the mechanism that does this? An explanation of this I would be hard pressed to find in this paper.
jffryfnt - why don't you exercise the same skepticism about the global warming models - not one of which has ever been validated by observed evidence.
If we could observe the changes we wouldn't need the models (it would also probably be too late) that's why we use models in science.
You make out these people who have spent a significant amount of their lives putting together the parameters and you (being a climatologists???) know that they have no value. I believe they have some value don't you? What would they need to say for you to use them?
JohnFGrant - what the models would need to say would be some sort of prediction for the next 5 years that could actually be tested and then found to be correct 5 years from now.
We have actually had this experiment with the sad models of the climate modellers who have wasted their lives (unfortunately) on them. And the experiment conducted over the last 15 years has shown that their models are woefully inaccurate. End of debate. Case dismissed. Computer models cannot predict the future.
The great news is computing capability is on an exponential improment curve so the excellent work carried out over the last years - which do show AGW with a 90% certainty (IPPC) will only be better. It's heartening that you will also be convinced in 3-5 years.
JohnFgRant - sad new for you I'm afraid. In 3 -5 years time when there has been little or no further warming (continuing the trend since 1998 with no warming for the last 9 years) or possible a slight decline in temperatures, you're going to have to admit you were unnecessarily alarmed about global warming.
Unfortunately computing power isn't the problem with the computer models - the problem is the lack of understanding of how the climate actually works! Even the IPCC admits that.
JohnFGrant - we climate rationalists don't claim to have time machines - it's you alarmists who are making the computer-generated mickey mouse projections of what will happen. As it happens, observed temperature trends and previous solar and stochastic cycles indicate falling temperatures in the next few years are at least as likely as rising temperatures.
Why don't you get real and apply the same sarcasm to authors of the the IPCC Summary or Al Gore - can you borrow their time machine?
As always you switch between sounding reasonable and opinionated pseudo-scientific drivel. IPPC admit they are not absolutely certain because that's how REAL scientists talk - by making statements of certainty of future events (as you have done) is not.
As I've said before I hope you're right, I would not be sad!!!!! It's just that your data is so contrived and you are so difficult to talk to, it almost becomes personal I want to prove you wrong. When I want climate change to a falsehood my family would then be safe. The risks are just too great not to take the safe path on this issue, we must assume that the huge number of climatologists that are 90% this is happening may be right and act accordingly.
Prediction is how life is run, from crossing the road, playing the stock markets (and getting it wrong) to predicting a changing climate. Using the historical precedent methodology for a changing climate works so long as only "natural systems" (sun & orbital cycles etc). But we are pumping gigatonnes of climate forcing chemicals into the atmosphere, this has never happened before.
We must play this one safely because of the risks.
A discussion is good thing, but you sound SO angry, it polarises it. This is the most complex topic ever, I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT but from a risk management point there is presently too much uncertainty in the data not to plan for the worst (even if it costs). I have life insurance, it costs me $100/month, I hope my family never have to claim on it (I'd be dead!). But I have to have it just in case - I could do with that $100 but the balance of have it now Vs cash probs if I were dead force my hand.
I felt the anger justified as the whole deal seemed to be accepted hook line and sinker, and that a bit of vitriol was required to jump-start some real thinking. You are referring to the precautionary principle which is deadly dangerous as it rarely takes into account opportunity loss. When risk is being assessed, that should be evaluated as well. In this case of global warming alarmism, it is being neglected, to our true peril.
Actually, the precautionary principle doesn't apply here at all. You're making an assumption that it is. Fact of the matter is, faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, which has policy implications, which automatically makes it 'politicized science' because we all reside of different belief 'systems', and it will impact everyone regardless...you make the fatal assumption that it is all politics in the first place. So where do you go from there? Learn of objective thought, that's all.
jffryfnt - correction you are mistaken. There is no evidence of dangerous global warming as a result of human CO2 emissions. There is no evidence that the impact of the mild and pleasant global re-warming we have seen (driven by the sun)will be harmful rather than beneficial on balance. It's cold that kills, so the milder winters are a boon to people, plants and animals. It is quite clearly all eco-politics that is driving the ludicrous alarmism.
Krinner, G., Magand, O., Simmonds, I., Genthon, C., Dufresne, J.-L., 2007. Simulated Antarctic precipitation and surface mass balance at the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Climate Dynamics, 28, 215-230.
Krinner et al. calculate that the current rate of surface mass balance increase in Antarctica "would lead to a cumulated sea level decrease of about 6 cm." the next 100 years.
Anybody that knows anything about weather and climates knows that precipitation increases with warming temperatures, an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle. And...doesn't ANYONE find anything hypocritical about the references he's using? Something to do with models??? Hello???
jffryfnt - the models that Krinner et al use are very different from the GCMs that the IPCC uses. The Krinner models don't contain the large number of assumed parameters that the GCMs do. So nothing hypocritical in being reassured by a linear model based on observed trends, and everything hypocritical about being alarmist about GCMs which produce accelerated trends out of observed linear trends.
Assumed parameters? Obviously you don't understand the nature of these models do you? Despite the assumptions, or rather 'parameterizations', these can actually reproduce REAL events in Earth history with a KNOWN perturbation. Then these models are 'spun up' to replicate REAL conditions. Then they add a forcing mechanism...CO2, and temperatures rise. All things being equal, CO2 has the potential to FORCE climate. We've seen it in the cores and we can certainly do it now.
jffryfnt - obviously you haven't the faintest idea of what is going on in those computer models - you just blindly believe in them like some kind of religious faith.
The computer models can only ever be made to match observed reality retrospectively - not one of their predictions has ever been validated against observed temperature (or other climate) trends. The only way they can make them fit is by adding fresh parameters and fresh assumptions. The forcing mechanism is just made up. RIRO.
And another thing jffryfnt - you claim that "we've seen [CO2 forcing] in the ice cores. This is totally unscientific rubbish.
The ice cores show that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by on average 800 years. By what magical mechanism are you claiming that something that will happen 800 years in the future can affect what is happening now?
How do you explain that temperatures in the ice core record go up (way above today's by the way) then go down - just as CO2 is rising. No correlation.
I said cores, I did NOT specifically state ICE cores.
Get this straight: Ice cores show that CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE ICE AGES. Get it yet??
Perhaps even a SLIGHT understanding of Earth science will illuminate you to why you don't see an absolute perfect correlation with CO2 and temperature. Perhaps it's because it is indeed a system where other factors play in as well.
no, one degree is very important. it will submerge all our cities and kill us all. Us global warmers know everything and know exactly what is going on... because they told us. They told us everything we need to know. We know because we are god. Humans are God and our science is more perfect that God. We know eveything. That one degree makes me freak out and night and soil my already used panties.
Signed - global warming bed-wetter.
realscience1 1 year ago
@realscience1
I have little time, with all the bunny skinning I have to do, to argue insignificant points with mamby-pampy, commie, liberal, enviro-natsi, pinheads. Pardon me, I have a burst vein to clean up after.
yamahaeleven 1 year ago
i wouldn't call it bullshit because there is no proof of denying it, but there's neither proof, but.....why go against atheist?
rockerravers 1 year ago
So, IlluminatiSeer, you say they've caught the hackers who broke into climate scientists' emails? Good. Send them to prison for 50 years. The guy who broke into Sarah Palin's emails was ridiculously and unjustly convicted, even though her emails proved her guilty of terrorism and criminal fraud.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
No hackers found, just your average whistle blower. Be nice to send ol' Sarah up the river, be nice not having to cringe every time I hear her harpy voice.
yamahaeleven 1 year ago
@yamahaeleven Even I sometimes get annoyed by the stupid remarks about Sarah Palin, such as "not having enough experience". There IS no "experience" needed in politics. All politics IS is pushing for whatever the FUCK laws one wants. That said, given Palin's support of multibillion dollar bailouts & murdering wolves, I have no pity for her.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x
Remarkable how little competence is required of politicians from any "side."
yamahaeleven 1 year ago
@yamahaeleven Yes. In spite of all the bad things I can say about politicians, and that others can say even worse things (yes - I know most probably know even MORE bad things, in greater subtlety & complexity than *I* do - which shows just how bad politicians are), I know have to "give credit" (where credit's due) for politicians having to deal with ALL issues, not just the single issues many of their constituents demand of them.
duck24x 1 year ago
@yamahaeleven That said, there is no excuse for politicians deliberately voting on the wrong/bad/evil/stupid side of an issue which patently OBVIOUSLY has an easy right answer: e.g. legalize pot. Deciding whether to go to war with North Korea is a hard difficult issue. Giving away billions in tax breaks & deregulating banking & commodities industries, & doing so repeatedly after so many disaster = a good reason to assassinate said politician.
duck24x 1 year ago
O level geography explains all, warmer wet air, meeting cold air means more snow. We get more wet air as the world in general gets warmer! So it's hardly out of pattern at all. Whats typically expected when complex systems change are increasingly violent events like now! Right now, severe heat-waves and bush fires in Aussie this summer, while Israels having its greatest winter swimming condition but running out of fresh-water!
danielnz1 2 years ago
Given that CO2 levels have increased by a third since the industrial revolution, one would think that without some sort of mass culling we could simply try shifting our dependence on fossil fuels to greener alternatives and changing our lifestyles to that end to reduce it by a similar amount. But no, that sounds too much like common sense!
danielnz1 2 years ago
Every human activity changes our environment, and thus is unacceptable to strident Marxists, opps, I meant environmentalists. Culling humans is the remedy advocated by the misanthropic. Neither camp wants any sort of technological solution that gives us large amounts of power for cheap, they either want us all dead or become nice quiet monks, or serfs grubbing in the mud.
yamahaeleven 2 years ago
Bloody cold in London here today. The Eurostar is screwed, the airports aren't working, and the whole of Northern Europe is in chaos 'cause of snow, ice, blizzards etc. I'm sick of watching TV, reading the paper, talking to work colleagues, having to be on my guard against the 250 different ways I'm likely to be being brainwashed from. 911, War Against, Terrorism, swine flu, now this bullshit.
xwsftassell 2 years ago
"Weather isn't climate..." except when it gets hot, according to Global Warming Alarmists! Hilarious to read the comments from bed-wetting eco-pansies on this video, almost as fun as baiting trolls.
yamahaeleven 2 years ago
They're just so into the personal self-image fraud of being pantomime caring sharing goodie-goodies, they're totally uninterested in the truth. The Russians confirmed the other day that The British Meteorological Office had tampered with The Russians climate data. Why isn't this story being covered by the BBC, Fox News, CBS etc?
xwsftassell 2 years ago
They are all uptight wearing their hemp rags while shivering in a little solar powered shack. Pathetic comes to mind.
I wouldn't be so pissed off if they'd just keep to themselves, rather than trying to convince the third world they should be happy staying destitute plowing fields with their fingernails. Guys like Bono should just sing, not try to push poor folks around.
yamahaeleven 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree. Also: This global warming thing is a blank cheque charter for governments and big business to screw everyone. Because of the CO2 hysteria, in Britain they're now undertaking a massive nuclear power-plant building programme. Pardon me, but have they forgotten in The Ukraine there's an area the size of France that's completely uninhabitable because of The Chernobyl disaster? How environmentally friendly is that? It's all a big multi-£$£$£$£$ scam.
xwsftassell 2 years ago
I don't have a big issue with nukes, Chernobyl was just a big pile of graphite on the floor, most plants are a bit more advanced now. It just seems like there is tons of political baggage being piled up on the whole affair, from the right and left!
yamahaeleven 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you for real?! You sound like you have down syndrome!
carnagespiderman1 2 years ago
^^
haha this
How is the submarining fuck can someone actually deny global warming.
I'm almost sure this guy is at least autistic.
His caregivers left him in the woods.
cssaddict17 2 years ago
Has anybody ever thought that if we dont give a shit about earth, earth wont give a shit about us...
MexicanSlugger31 2 years ago
What makes you think it does already?
yamahaeleven 2 years ago
what the fuck you on about you prick? the earth has a brain and can think can it? the earth has feelings? you moron
keithybabes 2 years ago
Green freaks suck no group pushes there views upon people so much,people are gonna drive trucks people are gonna travel not everyone can fuckin walk to work you stupid hippys some people have commutes
Chevy55713 2 years ago
Would you please make some more videos? I agree with 99% of what you say in most of your videos and it's a shame you haven't made a new one in a year.
videoguy604 3 years ago
the planet has been warming forever its just getting to warm
GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE!!
cooljoe411 3 years ago
Ehhh, I'll call that an exaggeration.
comeontrytopkme 3 years ago
Blaming the atheists? The political group with the highest percentage of atheists is the libertarians and generally they are as against global warming as you are.
n1krobe 3 years ago
No blame to the atheists, just chiding some of them for falling for this Tom Foolery called global warming.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
Oh dear! I'm sorry to say this, but this guy must be totally crazy!!
Achird1 3 years ago
When i was small i remember my parents told me to eat my greens now i know why ! the Greeens hate Co2 like Kriptonite the very thing that makes plants green.
Man made Global Warming ,the Earth is flat,Y2K its all the same !! Bull Shit!! and annoying hearing about any of it. the olny people i know that believe it anymore , the greens and the media!!
virgogreg 3 years ago 2
I agree with you it's incredible that this deeply flawed theory has been accepted by so many
mickdaniels1 3 years ago
It can't even be called a theory anymore, every model has completely failed to predict actual climate. Junk science at its best/worst.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
global warming disrupts weather patterns and pressure low and highs will carry into places where they normally shouldnt be there for snow in sydney, only dense headed individuals think that global warming just makes the earth hotter, it shifts global weather patterns
robotdrawer 3 years ago
now that it is cooling these jerk offs are blaming co2 for that too!
dancethanightaway 3 years ago
You speak truth. Not only is that true, but as of a few weeks ago, it was FINALY looked into by the green community that the average yearly temperature of the world is below normal since the 1930's and has been dropping for the past oh... i don't know TEN YEARS?!
boombox695 3 years ago
i wanna see you when you cry :)))) ooo god ooo god ooo god:)
we'll see.
kafka66wagner 3 years ago
you're a fucking dumbass!!
PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS11
maplemanz 3 years ago
woooooooo!
thass right. lol
APEEEEEx3 3 years ago
Fuck the green kooks. They are a threat to national security. The time will come when they will have to be liquidated. There is no other course for them. They are to much of a problem to be allowed to exist. This is not bullshit I speak. These green fuckers must be turned red. Thats the only way.
skitman1944 3 years ago
Thank you yamahaeleven!!!!
In the last century, the left failed to destroy capitalism. Now, it is using the idea that humans cause global warming to try again. At least, in the previous century they used force, and this time they only use smoke and mirrors: 0.04% of the atmosphere (CO2) has more greenhouse effect than the remaining 99.96%.
selti1 3 years ago
global warming eh? lol what fuckin bullshit. it was just on abc news that it snowed in sydney this afternoon.
the last time it snowed in sydney was 1836. meaning that IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SNOW IN SYDNEY.
so why did it snow? arent we supposed to be experiencing record heat? ha ha so much for global warming. if anything we're headed for another mini ice age due to reduced solar output.
ighfee 3 years ago
but of course when a heat wave comes through in america, 50 fuckin news shows get on with "enviroMENTAL" experts saying global warming will destroy the world. But when it snows in fucking sydney i don't hear about it.
tedtheshed 3 years ago
This guy is right. They are blaming earth's natural chaotic behavior on the human race in order to gain political power. Its crap and people BELIEVE it!!
Thag20 3 years ago
Global warming is a big scam! Al Gore is an elitist and he made billions on this Global Warming bullshit. The earth is growing, it happens everyday. People need to stop and wake up! Right on my warrior brother! More people need to be like us, awakened to common sense. I write about alot of things brother. Love and highest vibrations!
All is well.
spiritprofessor 3 years ago
Atleast present yourself as intelligent when you are criticizing someone.
sbmillionair 3 years ago
huh, what?
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
No. This is not an environmentalist invention. I lived in Northwest Alaska four years - and the ice is melting a month early. The sea ice has thinned to a wafer. You need to talk to the people who are affected by this directly.
-- Paul
hamiltonpaul73 3 years ago
Sorry Paul, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to destroy the world economy over.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
this is funny shit! global warming is just an insanity! i just wanna bitchslap who ever started this crap! i mean it has only went up a half a dgree in the past one hundred years! now these environmentalists are making people afraid! they also say itll hurt the environment to dig for oil, its a fucking wasteland were they wanna dig. theres oil out there just waiting for us and the mentally liberal democratic congress wont let us! yamahaeleven im glad i heard about someone like you.
vivalapresley 3 years ago
I actually watched this entire thing. This guy blasts out at everybody. Seriously, he doesn't have a point. Those wanting us off of oil are wanting some sci fi fucked up way to come up with energy and advance and this guy promotes archaic oil ways to continue to destroy America. America is about advancement and the revolution of ideas and this guy thinks we are living in the stone age?
marvisinsane 3 years ago
Archaic oil only because most environmentalists have their heads in the sand regarding nuclear power of any kind, even fusion. Even if we went on a crash building program of nuclear power and alternatives, we still would need every gallon of oil we can get our hands on. Not a single "alternative" energy source is ready for primetime, we need to keep our economy humming along to have enough resources to get all the new sources ready in time.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
You have the concept, and that is we need to start preparing, thats the answer I am looking for. I am all for nuclear energy, its actually when contained properly a clean energy with a very hazardous but very manageable waste. People think fuming towers when they see a nuke plant, the fumes are just steam, from the rods boiling the water. The retention ponds are hazardous, but are contained, the radioactive waste is storable and contained. Go nukes. But in the meantime, lets work on all of it.
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
Indeed, we must work on everything, but global warming alarmists would rather destroy the economy that gives us the resources to do just that. They really do hate modern civilization.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
It's not about destroying the economy it's about control. Those with control are getting very shaky right now, because people are realising that their so called governments have been poisoning them with vaccines and fluoride and drugs to make them stupid while they implement their new world order. The backlash has just begun, they need to herd us into militarized zero movement zones so they can remain safe while they carry out their extermination policies.
psychoMothers 3 years ago
I also have to say whatever happened to the idea of a "free market"? It looks like Honda has a cheap hybrid coming out this year that is going to sell gang busters, but these ignorant people want to continue to destroy our economy by following archaic ideas of not advancing and putting more propaganda out instead of actually making a change. The solution is right in front of them, but they want to destroy everything just to hold their false ideals to the end.
marvisinsane 3 years ago
I agree uthlibrashun. Even if there wasn't global warming, these people are happy to feed at the trough of $4 a gallon of gas to the end, just to be different or whatever thier agenda is. They don't want clean renewable resources, because some how that makes them look tough. Well, welcome to $5 a gallon gas as predicted by the end of this year. They are going to destroy this country. They are hellbent on it.
marvisinsane 3 years ago
uthlibrashun: It's also sad that there is a media scourge in our country that pumps out propaganda to angry disgruntled people to fill their heads with lies, just so they can feel like they are bucking an imaginary system. Seriously? Global Warming doesn't exist? Search Glenn Beck global warming and he even admits its occuring. With just lies as to the reason why for his cheerleading money, but nobody says its not occuring except people who fell for the propaganda.
marvisinsane 3 years ago
I don't doubt global warming in the least, nor do I doubt we have some hand in what is happening. People do this bit about it not being human-caused. Point being whether it is or isn't caused by humans, don't ignore the fact that we are shitting where we eat anyways and making things worse then they already are. "Global warming isn't a political issue, its the greatest moral challenge mankind has ever faced." You don't have to convince me. I am just saying there are many other reasons too.
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
My point is that rather than make an honest effort to better things environmentally regardless of your thoughts global warming, so many times I catch people who just say whatever and then don't give a fuck like nothing could be done. Thats the problem with our country, we've become fat, happy, lazy and ultimately careless. Honestly, whats the point in trying to defend us being lazy and not energy-progressive? I mean next time make a positive video about doing something considerate.
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
Just call everything Al Gore and I guess you win your argument.
Do a google search for global warming hoax and all you find is youtube video's from people like you and propaganda.
Do a search for global warming and you get research articles. Again, there is no doubt global warming is occuring.
marvisinsane 3 years ago
Let me try this one more time(wont post), oil imports- 32% mid-east(20% saudi alone), 22% canada, 16% mexico, 30% other. $/barrel as of 5/11/08, $115.11. Mid-east daily exports to US, 2,486,000 b/d. B/D x $115.11= $286,163,460 daily to mid-east. Cost of AK-47 or SKS in mideast, $50-$300, AKs able to purchase, (worst case w/ lots of ammo too, $500), 572,000 AKs/day, you get the idea. U.A.E. and Oman weren't on the list either, I'm pretty sure we import from them too.
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
fortunately for us, they mostly use them to shoot each other.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
There isn't any contrary evidence. This is a guy on Youtube. Not a scientist.
marvisinsane 3 years ago
Unfortunately, Youtube doesn't allow links here in the comments, so I can't point you in the direction of relevant references. Only Al Gore and his followers say there isn't contrary evidence when, in fact, there is considerable evidence for global cooling over the last decade, and numerous faults and issues with the models used to predict future warming. We can hardly cover the faulty economic arguments they make, they aren't even wrong.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
Is there any good reason to not experiment with being able to eventually switch to clean energy and technology though? Just for sake that smog obviously isn't healthy, and I like the waters I surf and fish to be clean (the elizabeth river is fucking filthy). I'd sure as hell like to not send any more money to the middle east if I can help it, let them farm dust... p.s. McCain 2008 (he has decent environmental policies too).
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
Clean energy, good. Non CO2 emitting energy, impossible. Do the math. Only a very small part of our energy comes from the middle east, most comes from Canada and Mexico.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
Second largest imports of oil come from Saudi Arabia, according to EIA(government site). My greatest concern lies in renewable resources... Continued dependence on oil is naive at best. Besides oil, general industrial pollution could stand some reform. What exactly is it you defend on those 2 points? Why argue any advantages of clean energy? Time spent encouraging change for those reasons seems time well spent!
uthlibrashun 3 years ago
Blu-Ray and HD DVD are behind the times already, downloads will be the next content delivery format, my good person.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
You're a one dumb skeptic/secularist/atheist if I ever saw one. The denial of climate change bears great resemblance to the denial of evolution. What's that? The NAS and AAAS (the most prestigious science organizations in the US) are saying GW is happening and humans are the most likely cause? They stake their reputations on this matter? 900+ peer reviewed articles ALL agree that climate change is happening? Them dumb scientists with their 'facts' don't matter nothin' to me!
Jacnas 3 years ago
All will be unemployed within ten years
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
So now you're playing the 'Evil Huge Conspiracy' card? Them dumb scientists perpetrate this stanic lie for money? You better get a tinfoil hat cause science organizations from other countries say similar stuff. Or maybe they are wrong and you know more about climatology (one of the most complex fields of science in existence)? Don't worry climatology has enough demand for smart people to keep them working even if the evil conspiracy of climate change didn't exist.
Jacnas 3 years ago
I wonder...how much C02 is emitted from your pot smoking habit.
McSwan0709 3 years ago
At my rate of consumption, 1.2 tons of carbon dioxide, .07 tons of methane, and 3.2 giga btu for the extra hot air produced. Per day. Not including the carbon put out by my 4.4 liter, 284 hp V8 while driving in circles looking for a good dealer.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
I saw the other day, that this summer should be significantly cooler because of some elnina current. I guess the ice age is beginning. Better run to walmart and stock up on clearance blankets!
loveualatte 3 years ago
Personally, I'm going to get a pallet of super sleds!
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
agree man that is all liberal bullshit man
grinddeathday182 3 years ago
no it's not, it's science.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
la ninas are not ice ages, one can only wonder how you confused the two.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt la ninas are indeed not ice ages, but they are a good example of far more powerful drivers of the global climate than CO2 which the computer modellers and "consensus" climatologists completely fail to understand.
It may or may not be the start of the next "little ice age" (c.f. the last Maunder Minimum) but it's certainly another nail in the coffin of the CO2-causes-dangerous- and-accelerated-warming hysteria.
Interesting, isn't it, how much more powerful La Nina is than CO2?
minilemur 3 years ago
i complety agree with you thank you
apta216 3 years ago
entirely my pleasure.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
global warming is real, but isnt the biggest problem, because 1 degrees in the antartic in 60 years really wont do much. oh and guess what, the ice glaicers that are melting actually falling off, thats always friggen happened throughout history!
NejiKusa 3 years ago
Also, most of the world's glaciers are in Antarctica where they are growing. And what about all the glaciers that are growing in other parts of the world.
In any case glaciers that are retreating have been doing so since the 19th century at least - meaning that their melting is nothing to do with the refuted CO2 hypothesis.
minilemur 3 years ago
I'm curious, you claim you're a scientist...when did you give up? When did you give up the scientific institution? When did you give up the integrity of scientific journalism? Because it's quite apparent, when you claim the the CO2 THEORY, has been refuted, and not ONE single journal nor article has been published with veritable data, claiming as such. I suggest you watch your political ideologicalizations. Yeah I made that word up. But that's what you're doing.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - you're just spouting pointless self-opinionated garbage here. If you claim to be a scientists - which I doubt - prove it by getting back on topic and discussing the science itself rather than the credentials of those you happen to disagree with.
Plenty of scientific articles in peer reviewed journals challenge the CO2 dogma. You've seen them posted in a number of threads over the last few months. Stop being dishonest!
minilemur 3 years ago
Man you don't can't even tell the difference between a scientifically peer-reviewed article and stuff published from think tanks and advocacies. You, in particular, derive scientific information from some foundation. And how is it dogma with so much supporting evidence? I find that ironic, don't you? No of course not, sorry.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Jffryfnt - you ask how the CO2 dogma is a dogma "with so much supporting evidence". The answer is that there isn't any supporting evidence. For example graphs of solar variability correlate far better with recorded temperatures than graphs of C02 in the atmosphere.
What I find ironic, is that you claim all this supporting evidence and yet can't point me to a single data set that proves anthropogenic global warming. Case dismissed. QED. Crawl back into your church of global warming
minilemur 3 years ago
You see? This is why it is imperative to actually have a minute bit of understanding of the system before you can argue it. For instance, you say: "graphs of solar variability correlate far better with recorded temperatures than graphs of C02 in the atmosphere," does nothing to disprove CO2 forcing whatsoever. What it means is that CO2 is hardly the sole driver. You're deriving too much information out of that little observation and claim it as a 'smoking gun'. It's not a layman's argument.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - which bit of disproof do you not understand? If CO2 has not been shown to drive climate in the past, and if you admit it is only one of a number of drivers, then what's the big deal about all the global warming alarmism hysteria? Temperatures have risen very little over the 20th century and even the IPCC admits that up to half of that very little rise was driven by solar variability. Take into account other factors that they do not consider (like water vapour) and CO2 is acquitted.
minilemur 3 years ago
Imperative #1: Know the system first before arguing it's aspects.
Co2 has been shown to influence climate in the past. Co2 is a GHG. The forcing effect is contingent on it's atmospheric concentration.
Imperative #2: Water vapor is a feedback, it is not a climate forcer. That doesn't mean that it's not a GHG mind you.
Imperative #3: More factors than you will ever care to comprehend are considered. It's ironic, because due to chaotic nature, it is the uncertainty that is the cause of concern.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - correction: CO2 has NOT been shown to influence climate in the past.
You are completely mistaken about water vapour - it is a major fact of our atmosphere and what scientists consider to be an essential component of the climate system. It is not a "feedback" LOL Let me know the next time a feedback rains on you! ROTFL.
Fewer factors than even you understand have been considered by the IPCC reports. Most importantly water vapour THE major GHG is not accounted for.
minilemur 3 years ago
meaning that their melting is nothing to do with the refuted CO2 hypothesis-->think of that all on your own or do you care to reference that information.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
hahah i like you man! global warming is a hoax just like how bush was elected the first time! bahahha
Th3Ch3m157 4 years ago
So who gives a fuck what religious fundamentalist believe. I'm pro-life. Democrats want to save the O-zone but allow abortion. HOW FUCKIN TWISTED IS THAT. Save our childrens future..... HOW ABOUT GIVING THEM A FUTURE INSTEAD OF VACUMING THIER FREAKIN HEADS OUT. IF YOUR PRO CHOICE GOO LOOK UP ABORTION PHOTOS ON GOOGLE.
rrgdpg 4 years ago
JohnFGrant - you keep oscillating between sounding reasonable and then unreasonable. If you are genuinely worried about the very low risk of dangerous global warming in the next century, then you need to study the subject. You need to read widely, a good starting point is climate rationalist websites and books. For example, try Bjorn Lomborg's new book "Cool It!" which rationally calculates the costs and benefits of reducing CO2 emissions and concludes there are far better things to do.
minilemur 4 years ago
Bjorn is NOT a reputable source for information on CLIMATE science, by the way. He's an ECONOMIST.
Oh did you hear, Antarctica just lost a piece of itself recently. Now what could that be from, eh?
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - correction - Lomborg is a reputable and much respected source for what policy should be applied in relation to environmental matters.
It's no news that a small minority of Antarctica has been warming - the great majority (East Antarctica) has been cooling. Net ice balance has increased. Similarly, ice in the Arctic sea has rebounded to the levels of the 1960s.
minilemur 4 years ago
So, jffryfnt, climate scientists can make economic pronouncements, yet economists can't tell them they are full of it? Over stepping one's professional realm clearly does not apply to climate scientists, as they have all the intuition needed to guide the economy of the entire world.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
Tell me one climate scientist that has made ANY economic 'pronouncement' concerning climate change, other than endorsing efficiency? They do the science, it's up to policy makers from there. The IPCC does just that, summarizes the science for the policy makers. I know minilemur will just jump on that one because he thinks the IPCC is corrupt. Probably because he knows just how easily ones mind can become corrupted. Too bad for him, the IPCC summarizes profound amounts of EVIDENCE.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - you hotheads are so funny! If Hansen hasn't made any economic pronouncements then the pope isn't a catholic and bears don't shit in the woods.
You're completely wronmg about the IPCC too - and obviously haven't actually read their scientific reports. If you did you would understand how the summaries for policy makers do not accurately represent what the scientific evidence is saying. These summaries are written by a small gang of "true believers".
minilemur 3 years ago
So your whole basis is on the summary for policy makers....um, that's it???
So that means, you're committing the same fallacy, am I wrong?
You completely ignore the science. You only position is in the politics. And you think because you read a politically charged blog about climate science that all of a sudden you're an authority?!
This is why, real scientists do real science. The public doesn't do science; they're ignorant as a whole towards science. This isn't politics.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - correction again - you misunderstand/misrepresent my argument.
Far from ignoring the science, I am stating that a close reading of the actual IPCC scientific reports shows that the science is not consistent with the summary for policy makers which is written by a small coterie of politicians and bureaucrats.
Additionally, there is a substantial body of scientific evidence that contradicts some of the conclusions of the IPCC working groups.
The science is complex and unsettled.
minilemur 3 years ago
Ask Bjorn yourself, he doesn't contend that climate change is happening and that we're the blame, but I think he's incredibly short-sighted.
Furthermore, as far as Antartica goes, you need to learn more about the hydrologic cycle. And furthermore, about the Arctic ice rebounded (in one season!!!!) to that of the 1960s is outright misinformation. It's winter in the north, hello?! Fact of the matter is, the Arctic ice is FAR thinner, and will likely be open water in summer in coming years.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - correction - I know a heck of a lot more about the hydrological cycle than you do. That's because I've been reading the science whereas you just parrot what you hear in the mass media.
I love your point about it's winter in the Arctic hello! I might reply - when the sea ice shrinks - it's summer in the Arctic hello! In other words, sea ice comes and goes with the seasons - so what?
minilemur 3 years ago
Yeah I'm a parrot-->Graduated summa cum laude Paul Smiths College, associates in ecology, transferred to Cornell University, majored in Earth System science, concentrated in biogeochemical systems and ecological systems, honors, distinguished in research. These are my credentials on the subject. I believe in full disclosure. But you don't, you're a hunter, you hunt for what's convenient to your own personal ideology. It's quite apparent. Too bad not many people are smart enough to pick up on it.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - well I guess your Paul Smiths College trumps my first class degree from Cambridge University! LOL
You can't have learnt much in your college education if you believe that the strength of a logical argument is based on the credentials and perceived authority of the debater, rather than on the quality of the evidence and argument presented.
As for me, I reject the scientific validity of your ad hominem attacks.
minilemur 3 years ago
I are am a collidge drop out, and an armchair economist. I am a big fan of science, but I check anything that smacks of religion. Science is never certainty, once it claims certainty over "hey, this is what we currently think," it isn't science anymore, and becomes mere dogma.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
yamahaeleven - you're right, and you obviously understand more about scientific methodology than jffryfnt who probably got indoctrinated with one particular dogmatic view while he was at college. There's often a confirmation bias amongst those climatologists who are addicted to computer models which have never been validated against actually observed evidence.
minilemur 3 years ago
Unfortunately, that often seems to be the case. I strongly suggest both of you look up the blog "overcoming bias," one of the best blogs I've seen. I want to make something clear here, there is evolution, but their are many theories of how it works, all of them will be proven wrong, but it doesn't mean there isn't evolution. There is "climate change" but the theory of CAGW is wrong, which doesn't mean there isn't global warming or climate change. CAGW alarmists have clearly forgotten this.
yamahaeleven 3 years ago
I'm sorry...my life isn't dictated from so called knowledge that can be gleaned from blogs.
Glad that it has done so much more for yourself.
And for you to say that AGW is wrong? And what's with this little qualifier of the C before AGW? Fact of the matter is, it is the uncertainty of AGW that is the greatest threat. The better we can constrain this uncertainty the better we all are. Because then we have a better idea of what we can expect.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
what...?
NejiKusa 3 years ago
You say that because you don't like what I have to say. It's hardly dogma if it's based on evidence and observations. It would be different if you, still believed in something in spite of the evidence and observations. That's dogma. Unfortunately for you, your claim that I'm merely being dogmatic lacks any evidence against my claims whatsoever. Your ignorant presuppositions are nothing more than an attack mechanism, and your feeble attempts at using fallacies of logic is dubious at best.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
No scientist ever claims certainty in anything, only religion does that. Even the 'law' of gravity, to this day not disproved, is still being tested. NASA has satellites in space trying to disprove it, because we know very little about it. With AGW, the best available evidence tells us something is happening, and the only viable explanation is increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That's the best that science can tell us right now, and it's based on evidence, a lot of it.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Correction - jffryfnt - you can't point to even a single data set that provides unambiguous evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have caused significant global warming.
minilemur 3 years ago
Why do I have to do the work for you? It seems you have no problem finding so-called information. Why don't you open up your mind a little and keep looking. Go to world climate report, realclimate, Science, Nature, Nature Climate Change, NSF, Royal Society, AGW, AIP, Newscientist, NASA, NOAA, US DOE, USGS, any National Academy, or any other HIGHLY respected sources, not highly vested think tanks and advocacies. There are books on Earth system science and atmospheric radiation, check it out.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - aha! Caught you out! You claim there is a data set but can't point me towards it.
By contrast my mind is open - I used to accept the CO2 dogma. Then I read about it, and realised that the science is completely unsettled with ever increasing challenge and debate.
There are indeed books on climatology I could recommend you to, e.g. by respected scientists, Gray, Kininmonth, Avery and Singer, Essex and McKitrick, Michaels, and may others. Also try World Climate Report website.
minilemur 3 years ago
Yep...I love how you conveniently ignored the later part of my education there. And you used it to an advantage in an argument. Ignore what might prove to be significant and aim on the 'weaker' part of it. Nice way to rationalize it isnt it?
I stated my credentials because in SCIENCE, you have to have some in order for others to give you recognition as to some sort of semblance that you might know what you're talking about. Clearly, if I had a degree in economics, I'd be out of my area of study.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Correction jffryfnt - you obviously missed my sarcasm. I was satirising your puerile attempts to bolster empty arguments by reference to your "qualifications".
You obviously learnt very little in your "scientific" education if you believe that science progresses through "recognition" of "credentials". Let me explain: science progresses through observation, hypothesis, testing and experiment, peer review, replication of experiments, not through authoritative pronouncements by bureaucrats.
minilemur 3 years ago
I means that I know something about the topic at hand and I hold a degree that is highly relevant: The study of Earth systems. You don't get grants if you don't have credentials. If you don't get grants you can't do the scientific research. I'm authored on scientifically peer-reviewed articles. Now you want to tell me about the scientific process?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - yes I want to tell you about the scientific review process. So I'll start with a catechism:
Do you understand how utterly different the IPCC "peer review" process is compared to the "peer review" process operated by the learned journals?
Secondly, do you understand how climatology has been corrupted, so that to get grants you have to say the politrically correct things - that's not science that's dogma.
Thirdly, do you understand how peer review has failed in Science re Mann et al?
minilemur 3 years ago
IPCC reports are based on already existing peer-reviewed articles. It's a synthesis, like we scientists like to call 'reviews'.
Climatology corrupted? Politically correct? Present facts, not rhetoric.
And you really can't see how much the Mann et al paper has contributed to science? It caused a flurry of follow up studies of the data and methods. People conveniently confuse that with it being refuted. Hardly son, there's now more papers that back it up, only refined and better.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Scientific scrutiny is a good thing indeed.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - wrong - you've clearly only read sacred texts from one side: the Church of Global warming.
It beggars belief that you are trying to defend the Mann et al paper as contributing to science when it clearly wasn't peer reviewed before publication since the data took months to be supplied. The follow up studies you refer to showed that the authors were guilty of flawed methodologies.
The only papers that back it up are by the same small group of authors! Even the IPCC has discarded it!
minilemur 3 years ago
Wow, you're completely indifferent to science aren't you. You've never really read into the follow up studies since Mann et al. The IPCC didn't discard it at all, they used more recent evidence, and I'm sorry but it is consistent with Mann et al. You are explicit evidence that the public is dumb and can be easily dissuaded with misinformation.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
Jffryfnt - correction: you suggest that I am indifferent to science, whereas in fact I am not and you seem to be.
You falsely claim I haven't read the folow up studies, and, in fact, I have.
The IPCC did discard it: it was featured 6 times (count them!) in the TAR and only once (hidden away in a spaghetti of lines) in the 4AR. These spaghetti of further proxy data have also been criticised by eminent statisticians for elementary statistical mistakes in their methodology.
minilemur 3 years ago
These aren't 'follow up' studies. The mistakes found be 'eminent statisticians' doesn't exactly negate the science now does it? (which people are you referring to anyway?) But you prefer to think it does. Do you think that one apple falling from the tree means they all fell at once??? That's your use of logic I hope you know.
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - correction - the Briffa and Osborne studies use much the same data sets as Mann et al. and commit the same kind of elementary statistical errors. For example, the IPCC hockey stick graphs stick together two completely different data sets (proxy data and weather station data) to come up with an absurdity. In fact proxy data have way undershot temperature data in the 20th century. Indeed Briffa et al. censor one of their own data sets at ~1950 because it shows too much cooling.
minilemur 3 years ago
God bless you too
loveualatte 3 years ago
jffryfnt you clearly haven't understood the difference between the IPCC peer review process and the real thing.
In real peer review objections raised by peer reviewers have to be addressed before the article is published. This is documented as not happening in the IPCC process, where a number of expert reviewers have pointed out that there views were not taken into account by the lead authors. Some have had to resign. Changes have been made to agreed texts without consultation. etc. etc.
minilemur 3 years ago
You'll find that in any discipline of science. But how you let it deter you from the real observations and evidence? By claiming what you say you think it completely refutes all the evidence and observations to date?
You don't even care to realize just how credible the IPCC really is, at the Hadley Center, UK. You want the truth, stop shopping around for your ideological conveniences. Are you really so stupid that slight evidence of a less than full peer review completely rescinds the science?
jffryfnt 3 years ago
jffryfnt - correction: the real obervations and evidence contradict the IPCC models in many ways: no "global" warming shown by rural waether stations, no net warming at the poles, no significant warming of the troposphere. No significant warming since 1998 in any data set.
And what on earth do you mean by "slight evidence of a less than full peer review" re the Mann study? I love the way you describe NO PEER REVIEW as slightly less than! LOL
minilemur 3 years ago
The giant Irish elk on the left and the woolly mammoth were killed by global warming...12000 years ago, booya
poiliopizzuy 4 years ago
Tasty, with a side of Saber Tooth Tiger.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
shut your noise up you fat fuck n send a letter to the people your complaining about
eddylon1983 4 years ago
eddylon - what a rude and stupid comment you have posted.
minilemur 4 years ago
Congrats on being another sucker to the bullshit... LMAO
rrgdpg 4 years ago
jffrfnt - stop posting stupid stuff involving personal attacks and get back to topic. Just answer the many points that have already been made before showing that CO2 cannot be responsible for the mild global re-warming we have seen int he 20th century and which has stopped since 1998.
minilemur 4 years ago
jffrfnt and minilemur, there is a fascinating paper out recently that discusses an error in one of the key formulas used by GCM's. It is peer reviewed and authored by a former member of the IPCC. When I figure out a way to get a link into the comments, I'll do so such that you guys can give it a look.
Hey, I'll post the link on my channel page.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
You'll find it in my channel description, seems to be one of the few places they allow links here on YouTube.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
yes yamahaeleven - it's another nail in the coffin of the CO2 dogma.
minilemur 4 years ago
Why don't you read it first, eh??
Yeah this is a high impact journal here; I surely wonder if they actually use the peer-review process, and the paper makes a lot of statements with no references to back it up. In the abstract it states: "Simulation results show that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global average optical depth kept close to this critical value." What's the mechanism that does this? An explanation of this I would be hard pressed to find in this paper.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - why don't you exercise the same skepticism about the global warming models - not one of which has ever been validated by observed evidence.
minilemur 4 years ago
If we could observe the changes we wouldn't need the models (it would also probably be too late) that's why we use models in science.
You make out these people who have spent a significant amount of their lives putting together the parameters and you (being a climatologists???) know that they have no value. I believe they have some value don't you? What would they need to say for you to use them?
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
JohnFGrant - what the models would need to say would be some sort of prediction for the next 5 years that could actually be tested and then found to be correct 5 years from now.
We have actually had this experiment with the sad models of the climate modellers who have wasted their lives (unfortunately) on them. And the experiment conducted over the last 15 years has shown that their models are woefully inaccurate. End of debate. Case dismissed. Computer models cannot predict the future.
minilemur 4 years ago
The great news is computing capability is on an exponential improment curve so the excellent work carried out over the last years - which do show AGW with a 90% certainty (IPPC) will only be better. It's heartening that you will also be convinced in 3-5 years.
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
JohnFgRant - sad new for you I'm afraid. In 3 -5 years time when there has been little or no further warming (continuing the trend since 1998 with no warming for the last 9 years) or possible a slight decline in temperatures, you're going to have to admit you were unnecessarily alarmed about global warming.
Unfortunately computing power isn't the problem with the computer models - the problem is the lack of understanding of how the climate actually works! Even the IPCC admits that.
minilemur 4 years ago
Please can I borrow your Time Machine?
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
JohnFGrant - we climate rationalists don't claim to have time machines - it's you alarmists who are making the computer-generated mickey mouse projections of what will happen. As it happens, observed temperature trends and previous solar and stochastic cycles indicate falling temperatures in the next few years are at least as likely as rising temperatures.
Why don't you get real and apply the same sarcasm to authors of the the IPCC Summary or Al Gore - can you borrow their time machine?
minilemur 4 years ago
As always you switch between sounding reasonable and opinionated pseudo-scientific drivel. IPPC admit they are not absolutely certain because that's how REAL scientists talk - by making statements of certainty of future events (as you have done) is not.
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
As I've said before I hope you're right, I would not be sad!!!!! It's just that your data is so contrived and you are so difficult to talk to, it almost becomes personal I want to prove you wrong. When I want climate change to a falsehood my family would then be safe. The risks are just too great not to take the safe path on this issue, we must assume that the huge number of climatologists that are 90% this is happening may be right and act accordingly.
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
Prediction is how life is run, from crossing the road, playing the stock markets (and getting it wrong) to predicting a changing climate. Using the historical precedent methodology for a changing climate works so long as only "natural systems" (sun & orbital cycles etc). But we are pumping gigatonnes of climate forcing chemicals into the atmosphere, this has never happened before.
We must play this one safely because of the risks.
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
I'll never wash this part of the screen again.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
JohnFGrant and minilemur, I am encouraged by the quality of your arguments. This is exactly what I was hoping would happen when making this video!
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
A discussion is good thing, but you sound SO angry, it polarises it. This is the most complex topic ever, I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT but from a risk management point there is presently too much uncertainty in the data not to plan for the worst (even if it costs). I have life insurance, it costs me $100/month, I hope my family never have to claim on it (I'd be dead!). But I have to have it just in case - I could do with that $100 but the balance of have it now Vs cash probs if I were dead force my hand.
JohnFGrant 4 years ago
I felt the anger justified as the whole deal seemed to be accepted hook line and sinker, and that a bit of vitriol was required to jump-start some real thinking. You are referring to the precautionary principle which is deadly dangerous as it rarely takes into account opportunity loss. When risk is being assessed, that should be evaluated as well. In this case of global warming alarmism, it is being neglected, to our true peril.
yamahaeleven 4 years ago
Actually, the precautionary principle doesn't apply here at all. You're making an assumption that it is. Fact of the matter is, faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, which has policy implications, which automatically makes it 'politicized science' because we all reside of different belief 'systems', and it will impact everyone regardless...you make the fatal assumption that it is all politics in the first place. So where do you go from there? Learn of objective thought, that's all.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - correction you are mistaken. There is no evidence of dangerous global warming as a result of human CO2 emissions. There is no evidence that the impact of the mild and pleasant global re-warming we have seen (driven by the sun)will be harmful rather than beneficial on balance. It's cold that kills, so the milder winters are a boon to people, plants and animals. It is quite clearly all eco-politics that is driving the ludicrous alarmism.
minilemur 4 years ago
Krinner, G., Magand, O., Simmonds, I., Genthon, C., Dufresne, J.-L., 2007. Simulated Antarctic precipitation and surface mass balance at the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Climate Dynamics, 28, 215-230.
Krinner et al. calculate that the current rate of surface mass balance increase in Antarctica "would lead to a cumulated sea level decrease of about 6 cm." the next 100 years.
minilemur 4 years ago
Anybody that knows anything about weather and climates knows that precipitation increases with warming temperatures, an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle. And...doesn't ANYONE find anything hypocritical about the references he's using? Something to do with models??? Hello???
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - the models that Krinner et al use are very different from the GCMs that the IPCC uses. The Krinner models don't contain the large number of assumed parameters that the GCMs do. So nothing hypocritical in being reassured by a linear model based on observed trends, and everything hypocritical about being alarmist about GCMs which produce accelerated trends out of observed linear trends.
minilemur 4 years ago
Assumed parameters? Obviously you don't understand the nature of these models do you? Despite the assumptions, or rather 'parameterizations', these can actually reproduce REAL events in Earth history with a KNOWN perturbation. Then these models are 'spun up' to replicate REAL conditions. Then they add a forcing mechanism...CO2, and temperatures rise. All things being equal, CO2 has the potential to FORCE climate. We've seen it in the cores and we can certainly do it now.
jffryfnt 4 years ago
jffryfnt - obviously you haven't the faintest idea of what is going on in those computer models - you just blindly believe in them like some kind of religious faith.
The computer models can only ever be made to match observed reality retrospectively - not one of their predictions has ever been validated against observed temperature (or other climate) trends. The only way they can make them fit is by adding fresh parameters and fresh assumptions. The forcing mechanism is just made up. RIRO.
minilemur 4 years ago
And another thing jffryfnt - you claim that "we've seen [CO2 forcing] in the ice cores. This is totally unscientific rubbish.
The ice cores show that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by on average 800 years. By what magical mechanism are you claiming that something that will happen 800 years in the future can affect what is happening now?
How do you explain that temperatures in the ice core record go up (way above today's by the way) then go down - just as CO2 is rising. No correlation.
minilemur 4 years ago
I said cores, I did NOT specifically state ICE cores.
Get this straight: Ice cores show that CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE ICE AGES. Get it yet??
Perhaps even a SLIGHT understanding of Earth science will illuminate you to why you don't see an absolute perfect correlation with CO2 and temperature. Perhaps it's because it is indeed a system where other factors play in as well.