While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
Researchers say climate change is changing Pacific Northwest forest structure as well
, A new study by forest researchers suggests some types of trees will lose ground to other species as climate change raises temperatures and tweaks precipitation patterns.
Bravo!! The CNN weatherman clapping after the video exposing Al Gore lying about humans causing global temperature change. What a crock of shit. I'm talking to you Gore.
@mojoidol He is only a meteorologist though, he deals with day to day changes unlike a climatologist. Yes, Gore's film did have some inaccurate points in it, however that doesn't mean the whole theory is put into dispute. The words and actions of Al Gore do not determine scientific fact, scientific papers do
@david222444 Well there is not a single paper which proves or disproves AGW. However, there are thousands of papers in respectable scientific journals which lend evidence to increased warming (over 95% of papers on the subject are agreement with the consensus)
@Nightversionn You have NOT done any research at all! CO2 Precedes heating. Heating is always in lieu in Sunspot activity. Sunspot activity is extremely accurately definable by C14 quantities produced. The CO2 levels rise from the sea on a five year lag because of sea convection.
Al Gores film has been removed from British schools by court order because it is too far from fact. The AGW argument is over. Get over it.
@TheGamanic The warmists don't listen. They don't need to. They are funded by Governments. Their meetings are all ideologues upon ideologues. Facts do not add up. What they preach is always proven to be lies but like zombies, they just come out of the woodwork and start all over again.
@m1aws You could level the exact same claims at "deniers". They are ideologically driven and in many cases also driven by financial incentives (fossil fuel companies etc). When their claims are refuted by actual scientists, they mindlessly scream "CONSPIRACY!", because that's seems to be the most logical conclusion in their mind; that they, despite being woefully ignorant of science, are better informed than those who have spent their whole lives in the area
@TheGamanic Here is the irony. I believe in GW but the real science proves CO2 is the symptom not the illness. I have my own money. The fossil fuel companies are set to make a lot of money from this AGW thing. It's the public who pay the taxes. Most AGW "scientists" are proven faudsters, banksters and liars.
There is nobody more "green" than me. My home would surprise you.
Yes. I've read all the relevant papers. I know the science. AGW is a fraud.
@m1aws "CO2 is the symptom not the illness"- From what scientific paper did you get this information? "
"The fossil fuel companies are set to make a lot of money from this AGW thing"- Anything that they might get through various taxes would be dwarfed by their loss of revenues, hence why fossil fuel companies put big pressure on governments to do nothing (and why Durban has more or less failed). If the FF companies really wanted to push through this "green agenda", and have all this...
@m1aws cont. control over the government, why aren't they pushing for tougher regulations on emissions? Because it is not in their interest. Unfortunately FF companies have been shown numerous times to be funding anti-AGW groups, pouring millions in to "murky the waters" and make the public believe there is a genuine controversy among scientists, much in the same way that creationists do.
"It's the public who pay the taxes"- I assume you are talking about "carbon taxes"; you don't have..
@m1aws cont. to agree with them in order to agree that AGW is real, you realise. Just making sure.
"Most AGW "scientists" are proven faudsters, banksters and liars"- A substantial claim that lacks any evidence. But of course, all those guys who studied their entire lives in academia are all frauds...
@Nightversionn Hot summer of 2011 ROFLMAO. Summer has sucked in the UK as it has been every year for at least 10 years now. The summers of the 90's were much hotter. Dunno who you are but your spreading lies
It's o.k, just pay your carbon taxes to the Rothschild's climate exchange, and they will save the planet!! they have learnt how to control the temperature of a entire plant to a tolerance of +-0.1 degree, great they will save us!! This is a scam that will bring down humanity, even more effective scam than thier paper money, backed by nothing scam.
@Nightversionn Only rothschild gimps make posts like yours, by the way I will take scientists word over a anti -human, eugenics fan, that trolls this video comments page. I see you are sticking to the "global warming" hoax, why not hedge your bets and go with "climate denier" that way you can blame man made C02 for a cooling or warning effect?
@rivercarper01 I'm just a US citizen exercising my right to post and not be cyber-bullied by you deniers who have been stalking and cyber-bulling me for a few years now on youtube. I've read your pre-canned denier posts by the thousands with all your denier sock accounts. Give it a rest will you
@Nightversionn Whatever, you started on me mate, so dont make out im am bullying you! im done with this debate so dont bother replying, just remember, your on the loosing team!!
@rivercarper01 There is no team, there is no "debate" it's just happening and we should be cutting our co2 emissions sooner rather than later. Does that make sense?
Low-lying Pacific islands consider building 'floating platforms.'
.
It's the stuff of science fiction films and futuristic novels, but the realities of climate change have forced the government in the low-lying Pacific archipelago of Kiribati to consider building "floating islands" as rising sea levels threaten to engulf the nation.
Projections about global warming are about as accurate as you local weather forecast. And proof that CO2 contributed by man is fueling global warming are easily refuted. Do any of you really think about what people like Al Gore state as fact? Do you read the research, or are you content to listen to politicians tell you the truth, because if politicians are the experts, we are definitely in trouble.
You stop thinking about anything other than how to convince others of your skewed point of view.
You mindlessly copy and paste the most alarming bullshit you can mine off the internet.
This leads to a massive loss in personal intelligence as you eventually become unable to break away from the paradigm that you have been programmed with.
Communities face battle to keep rising seas at bay if budgets slashed
.
Coast protection work along Suffolk’s shores may fall victim to deep public spending cuts – leaving people to repair their own defences to guard against storm surges and rising sea levels
Conservationists around Great Lakes plan for climate change
.
The long-term forecast for the Chicago area calls for more wild rains, hailstorms and flooding. Throughout the Great Lakes region, residents can also expect warmer year-round temperatures, more frequent heat waves, lower lake levels and thinner lake ice.
There's no GLOBAL WARMING. I mean 1 degree in 100 years? They can't measure before that. In addition, there is evidence of hotter times. Unfortunately they couldn't measure the temperature then. Even though the globe may be 1 degree hotter as this time, it cannot definitely be a result of CO2 emissions. For scientists to pervade this message which is fallible and controvertible, they should be ashamed. It's all business.
US cities are going beyond efforts to mitigate climate change with lower greenhouse gas emissions...
...As extreme weather continues to sweep the nation and Americans struggle to deal with heat waves and flooding, Holland says many are convinced they need to act. "We're already seeing consequences of climate change," he says, "and those will only intensify."
Glaciers are growing in Spain, Himalayas, Alaska, Norway, Canada, California, Washington, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan and Iceland.
You better tell those glaciers not to grow because global warming propaganda says they are to shrink
If you haven’t seen it watch “The Obama Deception HQ Full Length Version” now on youtube and (if you like it) please RE-POST to every youtube video you can find the time to. :) We need real change and it starts with getting the truth out there. Bachmann, Perry and Romney would just be more of the same..
As Earth's climate warms up, Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Tetons are likely to experience large fires more frequently, according to a new study.
Within just a few decades, big fires may become as much as 10 times more common than they have been in the last 10,000 years.
It's all political. Have you studied United Nations Agenda 21 and how it's being implemented in the US? Search YouTube for "How your community is implementing AGENDA 21" The lady with long, white hair is a liberal speaking to a conservative group.
Come on people, AL Gore possesses the intellectual capacity of a DILDO.His sci-fi comedy horror movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is riddled with over 35 scientific inaccuracies. Let's be honest, he is a failed politician who has never really amounted to anything in his life. He avoids debates with any reasonably informed scientist who opposes his viewpoint on the issue, whilst simultaneously slagging them off in the process. If you're so convinced of you're own argument, what is there to fear!
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste it is completely safe NO Fukushima here. It is very cheap to produce so if you care about the cost of your energy you will want this.
See website "Star Scientific Limited"
blog "The Big PIcture by Andrew Horvath"
youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
what? yes it does cause stronger hurricanes! global warming is just the release of gases that trapped the suns rays and heat from escaping the earth and therefore warm it up......hurricanes get power from warm oceans, that why hurricanes get bigger when moving over ocean.......it's always amazing to see that people dont believe in global warming....and even if its not true then we will still run out of oil and gas regarless......WE WILL RUN OUT OF FOSSILS FUELS....that a fact....
Al Gore is not a scientist he is a politician (salesman who stands to temporarily gain a big bank cheque. He is a lier and a heartless evil person who is in the same party as George Bush Junior and Senior Bill & Hillary Clinton and Obama. Watch the video called 'global warming or global governance'. Al Gore's electricity bill is over $1500. per month. How's that for a carbon foot print.
if you watch cnn and you believe what they say there freaking idiots okay CNN talks about celebrity's and all kinds of other bullshit they dont talk about our money that got stolen from us they dont talk about the hard truth of the world cause its the news media television shit people are glued on ... people should start reading more and stop believe what other people say and whatever caused katrina is fked up
So there are 2 things global warming will do. it'l heat up the planet and then it'l send us into an ice age. if you have taken grade 9 geography then you should know how this works. if not then you're stupid. If you don't stop screwing with the planet now then well be in another ice age lasting millions of years. if you wanna know how this happens google it cause i'm not explaining it to stupid high school drop outs.
@legomaker447 What you call "screwing with the planet" the rest of us 7 billion people call "living on it." Stop crying so hard woman. The planet will be alright.
people still believe this global warming bullshit???? Wake the fuck up!!!!! There is other shit going in the world, don't waste your time on this "distraction."
@thevaheman This isn't a distraction. So what about other things in the world, we aren't ignoring them and focusing on Climate change. Climate change is real, "weather" you want to admit it or not. If you don't believe it I don't care. If it isn't true then it is good anyway with trying to break our need for foreign oil. This, what Al Gore is doing, is good no matter how you look at it.
@failurbanik We do a lot of things that effect the climate. One, deforestation which increases erosion & flooding and less oxygen entering the atmosphere. Two, the way humans change terrain can cause loss of biodiversity. Three, the way that humans hunt animals to extinction. Four, burning fossil fuels(mainly coal) releases dangerous toxins into the air, which is very radioactive to animals.
@failurbanik What are you even talking about? You said "how do we (insects to the climate) affect the earth", and I answered that. Then you just went on about the Sun. What?
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. Global warming is a lie
Anybody who says, debate is over, means they don't want debate for truth to come out. The fact is in science the debate is never over. This Al Gore should be in prison for coning the American people for his financial gain.
Such a misrepresentation of the judgment by CNN is appalling. The judgment actually supported most of the movie as being accurate according to the best of scientific knowledge. And that's why they only requested that the movie be presented with a warning notice.
The judge also ruled that a balanced approach only means "fairness", not equality and compared deniers with believers in "the moon being made of green cheese"... therefore making the deniers' point of view not fair.
The predicted incredible costs of fixing an appx. 1.8% rise in temperature over the last 100 years..far outweighs the benefits we are MAY derive from a yet to be determined solution.
that is notwithstanding the incredible economic erosion this solution is likely to cause..
And hey.."What about that incredible threat of the Ozone Holes?...have we solved that "End of the World" Scenario?..not according to NASA (17% growth in the last 10 years).
a) Every single science book that was used, is used and will be used, without exception, contains "scientific inaccuracies".
b) AGW is a scientific fact. Therefore not a controversy. Even though it is presented as such.
c) All scientific studies do show that more extreme weather will be a result of AGW. Though, true, you cannot, and never can, attribute a single weather event to AGW, Kathrine or otherwise. By the way, the extreme heats outweighs the extreme colds in the past decades.
Who benefits... (true), however, they didn't really know much in 1970, just that if we kept on mess'n with mother nature, something bad would happen!
No matter what, CO2 is still an infrared absorber. It will take some time to really see it in the weather, though, as it will still take some time to finish off the ice caps.
Solution is science, not denial.
Solution is in very cheap and robotically made RE by companies that own the dirt to dig and who hires the many installers. like BP
CO2 levels would HAVE TO go up AFTER increased temps, because of more plants and more animals, but then it leveled out due to natural cycles. When the world had like 10x, it did not have ice caps and there were mass extinctions, therefore any "scientist" that dispute these facts are quite more traitorous that one who would dispute that 295 + 96 isn't 391 (that is ppm at the year 1900 and 2011)
Can some of you not see you have been brainwashed? As far back as the seventies they said there was only 50 years of fuel left... The amout the word uses has gone up so technically we should run out this decade... global warming.... erm in the seventies they were convinced we was going to have an ice age.... all this is political lies to make money, and clog the minds of the gullable to hide other things from the public. When ever there is a scare just think for ten seconds.... "who benafits"
Google: Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills
The British judge said of the film: "It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" and agreed that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judge said said the film could be included in *science classes*, so long as 9 specific errors in the 100 minute film were corrected with an accompaning Guidance Note.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo And one of the 9 false things was CO2 makes temperatures increase. When the truth is that temperature controls the CO2 levels. And with increasing CO2 levels ice will melt easier but methane has a greater effect, and the movie might point that out, but there was no correlation of increased methane and temp, although we know its 20x more potent then CO2
Re: methane "is 20x more potent then CO2", but doesn't corrolate with temps.
CO2 has a greater total impact due to its greater concentrations.
Re: "one of the 9 false things was CO2 makes temperatures increase. When the truth is that temperature controls the CO2 levels."
That's false. There wasn't one of the judges 9 corrections to Gore's movie. The closest item to that was the point that the historical temp and CO2 graphs don't match perfectly - but that's not the same thing.
If you'd read the ruling, you'd know that the judge repeatly affirmed the consensus (CO2 is driving temps):
"As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out... climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”)... These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists"
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Right and CO2 does little harm, in fact its in the carbon cycle, now a real problem is the toxic sludge and shit being thrown in to the Oceans. I have taken Chem I do know that both temps and CO2 influence each other both ways, but temps have a stronger influence over CO2. CO2 and pollution from the Northeast US dumping over greenland will melt the Ice faster with higher ppm. Im not a denier or a nondenier, just what al gore stands for is a scam
did this guy actually watch al gore's movie? because no where in it did he say hurricane katrina was caused by global warming. i've worked in radio/tv, and weather men are just entertainers like the rest of us. he's just reading from a script as nothing is unscripted in tv or radio. this opinion is the producers, not his.
Your snowfall explanation mirrors that of the hurricane explanation, for which there will be more powerful hurricanes. Al Gore's lead scientist came up with this, but then had to resign from Al Gore's team because he did science and discovered that his theory was WRONG! Yet, Gore and the IPCC still ran with this, even though science was practiced, and the theory was proven wrong.
@PainTrain87 That's a nice fabrication around the scientist being forced to resign or having any direct relationship with Gore at all. Seems you know little about what has actually been said about hurricanes so why would I expect you to understand how more moisture in the air can lead to increased snow fall.
@rugbyguy59 So tell me a little about climategate. Why are scientists adding temperature to the temperature records to hide "blips" that reflect cooling? Why are alarmists saying they will keep literature from being peer reviewed, and from being put into the IPCC reports? WHY are they saying that they will withhold information, that reflects global cooling, from the IPCC reports? Seems that if these scientists want to work together and are practicing science, they would include everything.
@PainTrain87 And you talk of "practising science" & you still don't know what that email was about? A key step in scientific thinking is to investigate with an open mind. Anyone who doesn't understand what those words meant simply hasn't bothered to do even a minute amount of reading. They substituted the instrumental records for proxy data when the proxy data didn't reflect the actual trend. The methodology was fully explained in the paper. Some hide, they told everyone what and why they did it
@PainTrain87 "Why are alarmists saying they will keep literature from being peer reviewed, and from being put into the IPCC reports?"
Because they are pissed that a couple of particularly egregious article got published. In private we all say we'll do more than what we actually do. Did they keep anything out? No both papers are in the IPCC report. What they did do was look at the evidence and publish a paper that exposed the errors in the first. In other words they practiced good science.
@rugbyguy59 Seems to me your brain has been overly washed in global warming propaganda. You've been brainwashed beyond the point of realizing your own disillusionment. There is evidence of global cooling, but you are unwilling to accept it and believe that your precious "science" you have clung to all of this time may have been slightly falsified to skew weak data in order to easily persuade weak minded people like yourself.
@PainTrain87 So where is this evidence? Which set of data should I access to view the sustained downturn? The last decade warmed at a near identical rate to the previous 35.
Even look at the satellite data set put out by the contrarians Christie and Spencer of the UAH, it shows the warming as the others do. The only way to get cooling is by cherry picking.
@rugbyguy59 Are you replying to yourself now? You know, that doesn't justify anything that you have said or add credibility to your sources. You can't add yourself as a source. Hahaha, this is truly becoming a pathetic show of the state of your alarmist denial.
@PainTrain87 If you read the post moron, you'll see I was correcting the wording. I replied to myself because I wanted the second to be tied to the first.. How desperate are you???
@rugbyguy59 You are willing to abandon your set of data? But...I thought your data was correct? Why are you now willing to abandon your data set if it is fact and purely based on truthful science? Are you beginning to realize that maybe there is a problem with this debunked theory of yours? Why would someone who thinks that the theory of global warming is backed up so well by the data set that they use, be willing to abandon it? Lots of doubt is being raised by your very own comments.
@PainTrain87 Abandoning my data? I'm asking you what data set you use to generate your claim that the earth is cooling. If you are going top make that claim you need to point to a reference or data source. Instead you're thrashing around trying to imply I'm changing when all you're really doing is demonstrating you have no evidence whatsoever for cooling. You just read it somewhere.
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
@JoeJohn90 Dont be such a dishonest moron - China already is so far ahead of USA in developing efficient biofuels (not the bullshit ethanol from corn that the US subsidises), installation of renewable energy systems & use of electric vehicles.
You (and fundamentalist fuckwits such as John Shimkus) are traitors - your lies are going to destroy the USAs competitiveness
@wildcrazygoats Regional weather is just that, regional. Global Temperatures have been going up, due to the US's continued outpouring of CO2 and lack of green technologies implementation, like India and China are doing. They are shining examples of great stewardship. Fascist capitalist USA needs to cut Global Warming causing emissions via Carbon taxes to reverse this and begin the cool down processes
and chrysanthemums experience longer stems and larger, longer-lasting, more colorful flowers with yields increasing up to 15 percent. Rice, wheat, pbarley, oats, and rye perform yield increases ranging from 64 percent. Potatoes and sweet potatoes produce as much as 75 percent more. Legumes, including peas, beans, and soybeans, show increases to 46 percent. The effects of CO1 on trees, which cover one-third of Earth's land mass, may be even more dramatic. According to MSU's forestry
@tintedproductions In closed controlled environments increased CO2 does lead to more growth. However the world is not a controlled environment and the earth and plants are very sensitive to a variety of effects beyond CO2 content in the air. There is likely to be increased evaporation leading to drier soil and more erratic precipitation patterns overall. While there are some positive effects of increased CO2 on the balance the negatives far outweigh the positives.
@tintedproductions And during the times of dinosaurs the sun was weaker than it is now. The atmosphere needed higher CO2 content to provide a livable environment
Water vapour is a feedback not a forcing like other greenhouse gases. Methane and N2O are more powerful GHGs but they are much less prevalent and block narrower sets of IR wavelengths. Methane also breaks down relatively quickly into CO2. CO2 is the key. CO2's radiative forcing is 1.46 W/m2, Methane's is .48 W/m2, and N2O's is .15 W/m2
Look up CRU email leak. You'll find OBVIOUS proof that top UN scientists are manipulating data, and contorting it to better suit their own agendas.
According to NASA, between 1940 and 1970, the Earth cooled .18 degrees F. This drop in temperature occurred during a slight INCREASE in CO2. In a leaked CRU email, written to Phil Jones in Sept. 2009, you can see a bald-faced attempt to manipulate data from this era:
@tintedproductions The temperature drop was due to aerosols. It is well understood and present in all the data sets. There is no need to cover anything up.
The coverup is well documented, and there is no need to cite mined data sets.
Also - I'll be maintaining my carbon footprint the size of texas until the day I die. So do whatever you want, you little queer. In the end it just doesn't fucking matter.
Natural earth processes ALWAYS override human interference.
@tintedproductions Been there, done that. You still think the so called climate gate has any real importance? The scientists were cleared by four different enquiries. There were no mined data sets, but there are a lot of mined quotes to try and make something appear from nothing, but you've failed.
I hope you keep your carbon footprint high and then you can pay a carbon tax through your teeth.
@tintedproductions Actually I've convinced many people. People who are willing to discuss science. Strangely many young American men don't often fit into that category. Too busy being macho and exercising their freedom to be uninformed.
Any proof of those natural influences? Strange how the sun is slightly cooler since 1950 but the global temperature is much warmer. Of course another natural process is at work. The greenhouse effect. Only unnatural part is we're supplying the CO2.
"So, if we could reduce the ocean blipby, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean-but we'd still ahve to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately...It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip""
By reversing, or moderating, the cooling "blips" of the 1940s, these charlatans could further lobotomize the record, making the following 1970-1998 rise in temp, which totaled .34degF, sig.
humans have made a mess of the environment, true. humans have caused the extinction of many animal species, true. Al Gores truth is mostly lies, true.
Royal Society, September 2010: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." from "Climate change: a summary of the science" (royalsociety org)
There are two irrefutable facts that EcoFascists have no response for:
1) Why has the earth been cooling over the past 10 years?; and
2) The what about the eruptions of Pinatubo and Kilauea that spewed more carbon and particulates in the atmosphere than the entirety of the industrial revolution?
@Dayversion It's neither global warming or global freezing. It's climate change. The climate around the world is different, but it will change... it is changing.
The consequences are colder winters, warmer summers, perhaps more natural dissasters from hurricanes, tornados etc.
The judge didn't ban it. The scientific errors were minor if they were in fact errors at all. (News flash: The judge isn't a scientist, let alone a climate scientist) Gore never said Katrina was caused by Global Warming he used footage as an illustration.
This weather twit, like the weather twit who owns the weather channel, should stop pretending they understand climate science.
@narutocaprirequest2 Uuum... I'm Canadian. I've never watched FOX news except clips that show how pathetic it is. And watching FOX news would likely make me agree with this video. But I'm not fooled by this stupidity because I don't rely on news for my science information, I go directly to the science and read things for myself. So in other words I do my own research.
So now that you have been shown to be completely wrong please tell everyone what you know that the best scientists don't.
@KalConduitman No real scientist questions it is warming or that we are to blame for most of it, especially in the last 30 years. Not Carter, not Lintzen, not Christie, not Michaels. There is debate over climate sensitivity (how much a doubling of CO2 will add), but not the basic question. Well except amongst absolute deniers.
@rugbyguy59 I think it is obvious that you are the denier. There are plenty of accredited scientists, with more credentials than some of the alarmist scientists, that have provided evidence against the global warming theory. As it stands now, the majority of the evidence on this issue is not in favor of the global warming theory at all. And if we are to practice true science, than we would go back to the drawing board and figure out what exactly is wrong with this theory.
@PainTrain87 So what you're saying is that 42 national scientific associations, numerous discipline based associations, and 97% of publishing climate scientists are ignoring the majority of evidence as they agree with the IPCC consensus? Sure. Nice try.
Name one scientist with "more credentials" that is against the theory and actually has evidence that can stand up to skeptical scrutiny. The current theory works very well. There are details to work out but the basic science is solid.
@rugbyguy59 That is absolutely what I am saying. The IPCC is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. It is a government driven organization. Plenty of scientists have said that the "consensus" is not really a consensus &that they only agree with what they have written. They could only get their names off of the list when they threatened to sue. Tell me something...why did the majority of warming occur in the early half of last century when the majority of CO2 has been released since then?
@PainTrain87 How evil of governments to work together to examine a potential international crisis. The IPCC was put together to examine and assess the scientific evidence on climate change. The consensus is best illustrated not by what the IPCC says but by how well it is supported. 32 National Science Acads, dozens of science orgs, 97% of publishing climate scientists support the IPCC's findings. No organization dissents from it. A few individual scientists dissent but the consensus is strong
@rugbyguy59 Numerous scientists have come out against the IPCC. A few individual scientists? How about 10s of 1000s. Remember, consensus is not science. Science is when scientists work to disprove theories, and when they fail to disprove the theory, that theory only grows stronger. However, what the majority of the scientists are doing is trying to prove the theory, which any scientist knows cannot be done, because theories cannot be proven, ONLY disproven. And you say they practice science, HA!
@PainTrain87 If you had a bad skin rash you'd go to a geologist to have it diagnosed? I prefer to listen to those who specialize in this topic.
If you're referring to that petition understand that even a bachelor of science could sign it and there was no verification of credentials. The 31000 number represents less than .3 (that's point 3) percent of those qualified to sign it. Hardly a significant number
They are testing hypothesis through experimentation. No one is trying to prove "the theory"
Furthermore, the IPCC makes changes to the writings from scientists. There are three steps in the publsihing phase where government agents edit the scientific writings so that was ends up being written isn't actually what the scientists have written in the first place. That is why scientists have come out against the IPCC and threatened to sue them because what was written in the end wasn't what they actually wrote, or accurate to what they believed. Why haven't you educated yourself about this?
@PainTrain87 Unlike you I have educated myself. The IPCC does not change the writings of scientists. The national government appointees do have a say in the wording of the summaries for policy makers but have no voice in the working groups. And what proves your supposition, that this invalidates the science, incorrect is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations endorse the IPCC findings.
Who has threatened to sue the IPCC? Let's have an actual name here.
@rugbyguy59 Actually, the IPCC does change the scientific writings. Go to the IPCC website and you will see that there are 3 different steps in the editing/publishing phase after the scientists have written the paper, where these government officials will change what has been written by the scientists. If a scientists wrote "a small minority", and the government official changes it to "the large majority", then how does this not change the meaning entirely. Educate yourself on this, please.
@PainTrain87 "If a scientists wrote "a small minority", and the government official changes it to "the large majority", then how does this not change the meaning entirely."
Only a complete conspiracy theory moron could suggest such a change could be made without all scientists speaking out. As I said the officials do have a part in the third stage but what you say is completely moronic not to mention totally unsupported.
@rugbyguy59 I'm glad you're agreeing with me. Changing the writings does change the meaning. I don't know where you are getting your "data" but it must be from somewhere that is only trying to prove the THEORY of global warming, instead of practicing science. Why do they try to stop debate instead of encourage it? These are professional scientists right? Sorry, climategate affirmed the meltdown of the global warming theory &the alarmists know it. Like you, they are embarrassed about being duped.
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. Al Gore's film was "broadly accurate" according to an expert witness called when an attempt was made through the courts to prevent the film being shown in schools.
checkyoursources 2 weeks ago
The debate is over.
If you still are clinging to AGW I don't even know what to say to you.
Just don't you DARE mock religious people for believing "fairy tales".
AshtonPhoto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If we taxed carbon sufficiently, then carbon free options of energy would become cheaper. Simple as that.
Nightversionn 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Continued thanks to Gore for the work he is doing to raise awareness.
Ignore the haters!
Nightversionn 1 month ago
The meteorolist is awesome. Right on dude!
BarefootArizona 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate news for those interested...
.
Researchers say climate change is changing Pacific Northwest forest structure as well
, A new study by forest researchers suggests some types of trees will lose ground to other species as climate change raises temperatures and tweaks precipitation patterns.
.
Portland Oregonian, Oregon
4 November 2011
Nightversionn 2 months ago
Al Gore's just a sockpuppet, albeit one that stated categorically that the Earth's core is at "serveral million degrees" ;-)
His handlers must have had a MAJOR hand-forehead interface at that gem! :-D
LOL The bloke's a total fuck-wit parroting what he has been told to say by his owners, clearly to generate MORE tax revenues
Anyone who thinks ManBearPig thought this up and put it all into motion unassisted is demonstrably as dumb as a box of rocks
HTH Understanding ;-)
Peace ...
bluesman979 3 months ago
@bluesman979
ManBearPig is from South Park.
NickyAmerica 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Arctic sea ice level hits record low
.
The Arctic sea ice has reached a record historical low point on Sept. 8th, since satellite observations began in 1972.
Global warming is melting the Arctic ice cap in a much higher speed than scientists had predicted, despite a rainy and cold summer.
.
IBS 13 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
Bravo!! The CNN weatherman clapping after the video exposing Al Gore lying about humans causing global temperature change. What a crock of shit. I'm talking to you Gore.
mojoidol 4 months ago 2
@mojoidol He is only a meteorologist though, he deals with day to day changes unlike a climatologist. Yes, Gore's film did have some inaccurate points in it, however that doesn't mean the whole theory is put into dispute. The words and actions of Al Gore do not determine scientific fact, scientific papers do
TheGamanic 2 months ago
@TheGamanic The whole theory has never been proven! Show me a paper with proof of AGW.
david222444 1 month ago
@david222444 Well there is not a single paper which proves or disproves AGW. However, there are thousands of papers in respectable scientific journals which lend evidence to increased warming (over 95% of papers on the subject are agreement with the consensus)
TheGamanic 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News..
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn
"Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books"
ABSOLUTELY WRONG
The Central England Temperature (CET) record (which goes back to 1659) belies what you say
FACT IS you have to go back to the 1970s to find a colder UK summer that *wasn’t* induced by volcanic erruption
Now WHY would someone state the exact opposite of the facts like that ?
UNLESS they were part of an agenda based on LIES
HTH Helps educate re Nightversionn's presumably deliberate deception ;-)
bluesman979 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn You have NOT done any research at all! CO2 Precedes heating. Heating is always in lieu in Sunspot activity. Sunspot activity is extremely accurately definable by C14 quantities produced. The CO2 levels rise from the sea on a five year lag because of sea convection.
Al Gores film has been removed from British schools by court order because it is too far from fact. The AGW argument is over. Get over it.
m1aws 3 months ago 2
@m1aws Yes it is over. In favour of global warming. For "skeptics" have thrown everything at it, but it has still stood its ground.
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic The warmists don't listen. They don't need to. They are funded by Governments. Their meetings are all ideologues upon ideologues. Facts do not add up. What they preach is always proven to be lies but like zombies, they just come out of the woodwork and start all over again.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws You could level the exact same claims at "deniers". They are ideologically driven and in many cases also driven by financial incentives (fossil fuel companies etc). When their claims are refuted by actual scientists, they mindlessly scream "CONSPIRACY!", because that's seems to be the most logical conclusion in their mind; that they, despite being woefully ignorant of science, are better informed than those who have spent their whole lives in the area
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic Here is the irony. I believe in GW but the real science proves CO2 is the symptom not the illness. I have my own money. The fossil fuel companies are set to make a lot of money from this AGW thing. It's the public who pay the taxes. Most AGW "scientists" are proven faudsters, banksters and liars.
There is nobody more "green" than me. My home would surprise you.
Yes. I've read all the relevant papers. I know the science. AGW is a fraud.
m1aws 1 month ago
@m1aws "CO2 is the symptom not the illness"- From what scientific paper did you get this information? "
"The fossil fuel companies are set to make a lot of money from this AGW thing"- Anything that they might get through various taxes would be dwarfed by their loss of revenues, hence why fossil fuel companies put big pressure on governments to do nothing (and why Durban has more or less failed). If the FF companies really wanted to push through this "green agenda", and have all this...
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@m1aws cont. control over the government, why aren't they pushing for tougher regulations on emissions? Because it is not in their interest. Unfortunately FF companies have been shown numerous times to be funding anti-AGW groups, pouring millions in to "murky the waters" and make the public believe there is a genuine controversy among scientists, much in the same way that creationists do.
"It's the public who pay the taxes"- I assume you are talking about "carbon taxes"; you don't have..
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@m1aws cont. to agree with them in order to agree that AGW is real, you realise. Just making sure.
"Most AGW "scientists" are proven faudsters, banksters and liars"- A substantial claim that lacks any evidence. But of course, all those guys who studied their entire lives in academia are all frauds...
TheGamanic 1 month ago
@TheGamanic The Gov'ts want to tax you. That is why Thatcher funded the ipcc. Grants do not come to those who deny its existence.
FF industries would love their resources made a higher value. More money for less fuel.
So Pachauri is not a bankster. What planet are you from? Read his bio. It's a Ponzi scheme!
Fraudsters:
Jones -backed a known program cheat to give the "hockey stick".
Hansens climate work, always wrong.
Mann's tree ring data.
No Arctic ice by 2013? It's nominal right now!
etc.
m1aws 1 month ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn Hot summer of 2011 ROFLMAO. Summer has sucked in the UK as it has been every year for at least 10 years now. The summers of the 90's were much hotter. Dunno who you are but your spreading lies
mazk1985 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mazk1985 Why don't you write a letter to the editor of climate central? duh?
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn
That is a pile of crap i have ever read on you tube do some research please nuff said.
MrJambo198614 4 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Hot summer of 2011 rewrites record books
.
In the future, this summer of heat and drought could look downright cool.
By 2050, record high temperatures could outpace record lows 20 to one. By the end of the century, the ratio could jump to 100 to one.
.
Climate Central
12 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
It's o.k, just pay your carbon taxes to the Rothschild's climate exchange, and they will save the planet!! they have learnt how to control the temperature of a entire plant to a tolerance of +-0.1 degree, great they will save us!! This is a scam that will bring down humanity, even more effective scam than thier paper money, backed by nothing scam.
rivercarper01 4 months ago
@rivercarper01 only oil industry trolls make posts like this. By the way, I will take scientists over the word of a global warming denier on youtube
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn Only rothschild gimps make posts like yours, by the way I will take scientists word over a anti -human, eugenics fan, that trolls this video comments page. I see you are sticking to the "global warming" hoax, why not hedge your bets and go with "climate denier" that way you can blame man made C02 for a cooling or warning effect?
rivercarper01 4 months ago
@rivercarper01 I'm just a US citizen exercising my right to post and not be cyber-bullied by you deniers who have been stalking and cyber-bulling me for a few years now on youtube. I've read your pre-canned denier posts by the thousands with all your denier sock accounts. Give it a rest will you
Nightversionn 4 months ago
@Nightversionn Whatever, you started on me mate, so dont make out im am bullying you! im done with this debate so dont bother replying, just remember, your on the loosing team!!
rivercarper01 4 months ago
@rivercarper01 Well, that's why I post, I have a right to speak on this issue, even if the oil troll lobby doesn't like it
Nightversionn 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rivercarper01 There is no team, there is no "debate" it's just happening and we should be cutting our co2 emissions sooner rather than later. Does that make sense?
Nightversionn 4 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Low-lying Pacific islands consider building 'floating platforms.'
.
It's the stuff of science fiction films and futuristic novels, but the realities of climate change have forced the government in the low-lying Pacific archipelago of Kiribati to consider building "floating islands" as rising sea levels threaten to engulf the nation.
.
London Daily Telegraph United Kingdom
7 September 2011
Nightversionn 4 months ago
Projections about global warming are about as accurate as you local weather forecast. And proof that CO2 contributed by man is fueling global warming are easily refuted. Do any of you really think about what people like Al Gore state as fact? Do you read the research, or are you content to listen to politicians tell you the truth, because if politicians are the experts, we are definitely in trouble.
maryfay53 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Global warming set to kill a third of all plants and animals, scientists warn
.
A THIRD of all plants and animals will die out if global warming continues as it is.
Its impact has been underestimated and, while species will survive as a whole, up to 84% of variations could be extinct by 2080.
This will lead to “a massive loss in biodiversity”, found the Climate Research Centre in Frankfurt, Germany.
.
Daily Mirror United Kingdom
27/08/2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
@Nightversionn What is forcing you to plaster your propaganda everywhere?
LastCynicStanding 4 months ago
@Nightversionn
Evidence / impacts of brainwashing series:
You stop thinking about anything other than how to convince others of your skewed point of view.
You mindlessly copy and paste the most alarming bullshit you can mine off the internet.
This leads to a massive loss in personal intelligence as you eventually become unable to break away from the paradigm that you have been programmed with.
ME
05/09/2011
.
LastCynicStanding 4 months ago
Global warming is real. Its just not manmade :D But what prevents us from making some extra bucks off it, right Al Gore? :D
Ca12nag3 5 months ago
2500 years from now people might have to face this terrible global warming...I think I'll put that on the back burner.
79goldmaster1 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Communities face battle to keep rising seas at bay if budgets slashed
.
Coast protection work along Suffolk’s shores may fall victim to deep public spending cuts – leaving people to repair their own defences to guard against storm surges and rising sea levels
.
East Anglian Daily Times United Kingdom
10 May 2010
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Conservationists around Great Lakes plan for climate change
.
The long-term forecast for the Chicago area calls for more wild rains, hailstorms and flooding. Throughout the Great Lakes region, residents can also expect warmer year-round temperatures, more frequent heat waves, lower lake levels and thinner lake ice.
.
Chicago Tribune, Illinois
28 August 2011
Nightversionn 5 months ago
There's no GLOBAL WARMING. I mean 1 degree in 100 years? They can't measure before that. In addition, there is evidence of hotter times. Unfortunately they couldn't measure the temperature then. Even though the globe may be 1 degree hotter as this time, it cannot definitely be a result of CO2 emissions. For scientists to pervade this message which is fallible and controvertible, they should be ashamed. It's all business.
CALICOTV301 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
US cities try to adapt to climate change
USA Today - Wendy Koch - 3 days ago
.
US cities are going beyond efforts to mitigate climate change with lower greenhouse gas emissions...
...As extreme weather continues to sweep the nation and Americans struggle to deal with heat waves and flooding, Holland says many are convinced they need to act. "We're already seeing consequences of climate change," he says, "and those will only intensify."
Nightversionn 5 months ago
Glaciers are growing in Spain, Himalayas, Alaska, Norway, Canada, California, Washington, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Pakistan and Iceland.
You better tell those glaciers not to grow because global warming propaganda says they are to shrink
DaveGibbagglers 5 months ago
@DaveGibbagglers There are far more glaciers that are shrinking. There is a net loss.
Maxdwolf 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you haven’t seen it watch “The Obama Deception HQ Full Length Version” now on youtube and (if you like it) please RE-POST to every youtube video you can find the time to. :) We need real change and it starts with getting the truth out there. Bachmann, Perry and Romney would just be more of the same..
R.P. 2012
stopcorporatemedia 5 months ago
Evidence / impacts of climate change series:
.
Climate change to spawn more wildfires
.
As Earth's climate warms up, Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Tetons are likely to experience large fires more frequently, according to a new study.
Within just a few decades, big fires may become as much as 10 times more common than they have been in the last 10,000 years.
Discovery Channel
26 July 2011
Nightversionn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's all political. Have you studied United Nations Agenda 21 and how it's being implemented in the US? Search YouTube for "How your community is implementing AGENDA 21" The lady with long, white hair is a liberal speaking to a conservative group.
vechorik 5 months ago
@Nightversionn blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, =BULLSHIT...
heknowsitall 5 months ago
Al Gore is a FRAUD !!! How many times and ways does it need to be said......He is a SNAKE OIL SALESMAN!!! Wake up MORONS!!!!!
MrTtillub 6 months ago
Come on people, AL Gore possesses the intellectual capacity of a DILDO.His sci-fi comedy horror movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is riddled with over 35 scientific inaccuracies. Let's be honest, he is a failed politician who has never really amounted to anything in his life. He avoids debates with any reasonably informed scientist who opposes his viewpoint on the issue, whilst simultaneously slagging them off in the process. If you're so convinced of you're own argument, what is there to fear!
MegaPostman77 6 months ago
@MegaPostman77 Dildos serve a purpose. Al Gore does not...:-)
heknowsitall 5 months ago
All around the world governments are imposing a carbon tax. But Star Scientific's Muon Catalysed Fusion produces NO CO2 so therefore NO CARBON TAX. Also NO Nuclear Fission waste it is completely safe NO Fukushima here. It is very cheap to produce so if you care about the cost of your energy you will want this.
See website "Star Scientific Limited"
blog "The Big PIcture by Andrew Horvath"
youtube video "In the Footsteps of Fusion" + youtube channel
2110kop 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming is fake bottom line
SawedShotgun 6 months ago
what? yes it does cause stronger hurricanes! global warming is just the release of gases that trapped the suns rays and heat from escaping the earth and therefore warm it up......hurricanes get power from warm oceans, that why hurricanes get bigger when moving over ocean.......it's always amazing to see that people dont believe in global warming....and even if its not true then we will still run out of oil and gas regarless......WE WILL RUN OUT OF FOSSILS FUELS....that a fact....
HurryingFever1 6 months ago
@HurryingFever1 "regardless" = "regarless"
HurryingFever1 6 months ago
Al Gore is not a scientist he is a politician (salesman who stands to temporarily gain a big bank cheque. He is a lier and a heartless evil person who is in the same party as George Bush Junior and Senior Bill & Hillary Clinton and Obama. Watch the video called 'global warming or global governance'. Al Gore's electricity bill is over $1500. per month. How's that for a carbon foot print.
CTR831 6 months ago
if you watch cnn and you believe what they say there freaking idiots okay CNN talks about celebrity's and all kinds of other bullshit they dont talk about our money that got stolen from us they dont talk about the hard truth of the world cause its the news media television shit people are glued on ... people should start reading more and stop believe what other people say and whatever caused katrina is fked up
xkyutelaogrlx 6 months ago
a decent Judge
captkirkconnell 7 months ago
Right, Katrina wasn't caused by Global Warming, it was caused by HAARP
MontagesnMore 7 months ago
@MontagesnMore and the worst part is that HAARP is just beginning
Alox9 6 months ago
Watch these two videos and learn something about the criminal son of a bitch (SOB) Al Gore:
/watch?v=7AkZpHlNSGA
/watch?v=DaT1vF4zefY
x2436ab 7 months ago
So there are 2 things global warming will do. it'l heat up the planet and then it'l send us into an ice age. if you have taken grade 9 geography then you should know how this works. if not then you're stupid. If you don't stop screwing with the planet now then well be in another ice age lasting millions of years. if you wanna know how this happens google it cause i'm not explaining it to stupid high school drop outs.
legomaker447 7 months ago
@legomaker447 What you call "screwing with the planet" the rest of us 7 billion people call "living on it." Stop crying so hard woman. The planet will be alright.
cano21 6 months ago
@cano21 really???? i'm not even gonna waste my time explaining all the things that are wrong with that statement, and there are so many.
legomaker447 5 months ago
@legomaker447 yea Global warming and illegal immigrants who lit up forest fires -they are all one in the same.
Here's an idea-why don't you go control the Earth's termperture and I will instead hope that our nation gets an immigration policy...
heknowsitall 5 months ago
people still believe this global warming bullshit???? Wake the fuck up!!!!! There is other shit going in the world, don't waste your time on this "distraction."
thevaheman 8 months ago
@thevaheman This isn't a distraction. So what about other things in the world, we aren't ignoring them and focusing on Climate change. Climate change is real, "weather" you want to admit it or not. If you don't believe it I don't care. If it isn't true then it is good anyway with trying to break our need for foreign oil. This, what Al Gore is doing, is good no matter how you look at it.
visini14 8 months ago
@visini14 ok how do we (insects to the climate) affect the earth
failurbanik 7 months ago
@failurbanik We do a lot of things that effect the climate. One, deforestation which increases erosion & flooding and less oxygen entering the atmosphere. Two, the way humans change terrain can cause loss of biodiversity. Three, the way that humans hunt animals to extinction. Four, burning fossil fuels(mainly coal) releases dangerous toxins into the air, which is very radioactive to animals.
visini14 7 months ago
@visini14 and the sun the giant ball of nucluear energy where all of our light and heat comes from has nothing to do with it i guess
missed the part where they say that the sun gives us heat and it cools and warms
failurbanik 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@failurbanik What are you even talking about? You said "how do we (insects to the climate) affect the earth", and I answered that. Then you just went on about the Sun. What?
visini14 7 months ago
@visini14 Al Gore has admitted that he was wrong. google it
thevaheman 7 months ago
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. Global warming is a lie
morrison2791 8 months ago
@morrison2791 How is it a Lie?
visini14 8 months ago
Global Warming = warmer oceans. Warmer oceans = more powerful storms. There is no debate over this. What the fuck is the guy in the video smoking?
emantabrizi 8 months ago
@emantabrizi I guess he doesn't know how Hurricanes are formed.
visini14 8 months ago
Anybody who says, debate is over, means they don't want debate for truth to come out. The fact is in science the debate is never over. This Al Gore should be in prison for coning the American people for his financial gain.
qw2589 8 months ago
Carbon dioxide in concentrations less that 40,000 ppm is not toxic to humans nor animals.
Greenhouse workers are continually exposed to minute traces of CO2 in the range of 1000 to 2000 ppm and are quite healthy.
100,000 ppm, for the math challenged is one percent.
Your breath is more than that.
Should 2000 ppm CO2 be bothering you, then you'd best buy an oxygen generator because your lungs are fucked.
That'd not meant to be sarcastic, that's a medical wakeup call.
patioperson 8 months ago
Such a misrepresentation of the judgment by CNN is appalling. The judgment actually supported most of the movie as being accurate according to the best of scientific knowledge. And that's why they only requested that the movie be presented with a warning notice.
The judge also ruled that a balanced approach only means "fairness", not equality and compared deniers with believers in "the moon being made of green cheese"... therefore making the deniers' point of view not fair.
nickst0ne 9 months ago
global warming doesn't cause the destruction of humanity: now go breath some CO2 and return when you haven't DIED! (RETARD!)
foxsux6000 10 months ago
can you say HAARP
baddadada100 10 months ago
The predicted incredible costs of fixing an appx. 1.8% rise in temperature over the last 100 years..far outweighs the benefits we are MAY derive from a yet to be determined solution.
that is notwithstanding the incredible economic erosion this solution is likely to cause..
And hey.."What about that incredible threat of the Ozone Holes?...have we solved that "End of the World" Scenario?..not according to NASA (17% growth in the last 10 years).
Last major headline on this one was around 2005.
zeroceiling 11 months ago
a) Every single science book that was used, is used and will be used, without exception, contains "scientific inaccuracies".
b) AGW is a scientific fact. Therefore not a controversy. Even though it is presented as such.
c) All scientific studies do show that more extreme weather will be a result of AGW. Though, true, you cannot, and never can, attribute a single weather event to AGW, Kathrine or otherwise. By the way, the extreme heats outweighs the extreme colds in the past decades.
wimahlers 11 months ago
Correction:
Kathrine = Katrina
wimahlers 11 months ago
@wimahlers AGW is not a scientific fact if it can be proven wrong. Are you familiar with the scientific method?
drpepper69ification 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drpepper69ification,
.
You:"AGW is not a scientific fact if
Me: Yes it is! It is proved and I can show you the prove.
You: it can be proven wrong.
Me: Indeed, that is one of the fundaments of science.
You: Are you familiar with the scientific method?
Me: Yes!
"
wimahlers 8 months ago
@ deniers,
Who benefits... (true), however, they didn't really know much in 1970, just that if we kept on mess'n with mother nature, something bad would happen!
No matter what, CO2 is still an infrared absorber. It will take some time to really see it in the weather, though, as it will still take some time to finish off the ice caps.
Solution is science, not denial.
Solution is in very cheap and robotically made RE by companies that own the dirt to dig and who hires the many installers. like BP
fireofenergy 11 months ago
Does NOT mean he lied... Critics suck anyhow...
CO2 levels would HAVE TO go up AFTER increased temps, because of more plants and more animals, but then it leveled out due to natural cycles. When the world had like 10x, it did not have ice caps and there were mass extinctions, therefore any "scientist" that dispute these facts are quite more traitorous that one who would dispute that 295 + 96 isn't 391 (that is ppm at the year 1900 and 2011)
fireofenergy 11 months ago
Can some of you not see you have been brainwashed? As far back as the seventies they said there was only 50 years of fuel left... The amout the word uses has gone up so technically we should run out this decade... global warming.... erm in the seventies they were convinced we was going to have an ice age.... all this is political lies to make money, and clog the minds of the gullable to hide other things from the public. When ever there is a scare just think for ten seconds.... "who benafits"
atomicnortherner 11 months ago
Take your kids out of school. All they teach is lies...
150133 11 months ago
Did you get the full story here?
Google: Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills
The British judge said of the film: "It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" and agreed that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judge said said the film could be included in *science classes*, so long as 9 specific errors in the 100 minute film were corrected with an accompaning Guidance Note.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo And one of the 9 false things was CO2 makes temperatures increase. When the truth is that temperature controls the CO2 levels. And with increasing CO2 levels ice will melt easier but methane has a greater effect, and the movie might point that out, but there was no correlation of increased methane and temp, although we know its 20x more potent then CO2
Lesrevil08 11 months ago
@Lesrevil08
Re: methane "is 20x more potent then CO2", but doesn't corrolate with temps.
CO2 has a greater total impact due to its greater concentrations.
Re: "one of the 9 false things was CO2 makes temperatures increase. When the truth is that temperature controls the CO2 levels."
That's false. There wasn't one of the judges 9 corrections to Gore's movie. The closest item to that was the point that the historical temp and CO2 graphs don't match perfectly - but that's not the same thing.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 11 months ago
(cont)
If you'd read the ruling, you'd know that the judge repeatly affirmed the consensus (CO2 is driving temps):
"As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out... climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”)... These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists"
VeryEvilPettingZoo 11 months ago
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Right and CO2 does little harm, in fact its in the carbon cycle, now a real problem is the toxic sludge and shit being thrown in to the Oceans. I have taken Chem I do know that both temps and CO2 influence each other both ways, but temps have a stronger influence over CO2. CO2 and pollution from the Northeast US dumping over greenland will melt the Ice faster with higher ppm. Im not a denier or a nondenier, just what al gore stands for is a scam
Lesrevil08 11 months ago
did this guy actually watch al gore's movie? because no where in it did he say hurricane katrina was caused by global warming. i've worked in radio/tv, and weather men are just entertainers like the rest of us. he's just reading from a script as nothing is unscripted in tv or radio. this opinion is the producers, not his.
mwhearn1 1 year ago
@mwhearn1 thats cus there mindless fucking zombies, I wish someone would hack their TelePrompter and frikken give the world some real news!
TheTrueJBV3737 1 year ago
Overheard in the CNN Newsroom just before this video was shot:
"Please slow down, professor. You’ve been researching this topic for a decade. I’ve been researching it since lunchtime.”
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
Overheard in the CNN Newsroom just before this video was shot:
"Please slow down, professor. You’ve been researching this topic for a decade. I’ve been researching it since lunchtime.”
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
You're all brainwashed faggots.
Be your own fucking man! Don't try to control other humans.
tintedproductions 1 year ago
Your snowfall explanation mirrors that of the hurricane explanation, for which there will be more powerful hurricanes. Al Gore's lead scientist came up with this, but then had to resign from Al Gore's team because he did science and discovered that his theory was WRONG! Yet, Gore and the IPCC still ran with this, even though science was practiced, and the theory was proven wrong.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 That's a nice fabrication around the scientist being forced to resign or having any direct relationship with Gore at all. Seems you know little about what has actually been said about hurricanes so why would I expect you to understand how more moisture in the air can lead to increased snow fall.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 So tell me a little about climategate. Why are scientists adding temperature to the temperature records to hide "blips" that reflect cooling? Why are alarmists saying they will keep literature from being peer reviewed, and from being put into the IPCC reports? WHY are they saying that they will withhold information, that reflects global cooling, from the IPCC reports? Seems that if these scientists want to work together and are practicing science, they would include everything.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 And you talk of "practising science" & you still don't know what that email was about? A key step in scientific thinking is to investigate with an open mind. Anyone who doesn't understand what those words meant simply hasn't bothered to do even a minute amount of reading. They substituted the instrumental records for proxy data when the proxy data didn't reflect the actual trend. The methodology was fully explained in the paper. Some hide, they told everyone what and why they did it
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 "Why are alarmists saying they will keep literature from being peer reviewed, and from being put into the IPCC reports?"
Because they are pissed that a couple of particularly egregious article got published. In private we all say we'll do more than what we actually do. Did they keep anything out? No both papers are in the IPCC report. What they did do was look at the evidence and publish a paper that exposed the errors in the first. In other words they practiced good science.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 "WHY are they saying that they will withhold information, that reflects global cooling, from the IPCC reports? "
They didn't. There is no evidence of global cooling.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Seems to me your brain has been overly washed in global warming propaganda. You've been brainwashed beyond the point of realizing your own disillusionment. There is evidence of global cooling, but you are unwilling to accept it and believe that your precious "science" you have clung to all of this time may have been slightly falsified to skew weak data in order to easily persuade weak minded people like yourself.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 So where is this evidence? Which set of data should I access to view the sustained downturn? The last decade warmed at a near identical rate to the previous 35.
Even look at the satellite data set put out by the contrarians Christie and Spencer of the UAH, it shows the warming as the others do. The only way to get cooling is by cherry picking.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Should read last decade warmed at the same rate as the previous 35 YEARS.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Are you replying to yourself now? You know, that doesn't justify anything that you have said or add credibility to your sources. You can't add yourself as a source. Hahaha, this is truly becoming a pathetic show of the state of your alarmist denial.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 If you read the post moron, you'll see I was correcting the wording. I replied to myself because I wanted the second to be tied to the first.. How desperate are you???
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 You are willing to abandon your set of data? But...I thought your data was correct? Why are you now willing to abandon your data set if it is fact and purely based on truthful science? Are you beginning to realize that maybe there is a problem with this debunked theory of yours? Why would someone who thinks that the theory of global warming is backed up so well by the data set that they use, be willing to abandon it? Lots of doubt is being raised by your very own comments.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 Abandoning my data? I'm asking you what data set you use to generate your claim that the earth is cooling. If you are going top make that claim you need to point to a reference or data source. Instead you're thrashing around trying to imply I'm changing when all you're really doing is demonstrating you have no evidence whatsoever for cooling. You just read it somewhere.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rugbyguy59 So, are you going to answer my questions about CO2 and the glaciers, or are you just going to ignore them?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 So, are you going to answer my questions about CO2 and glaciers, or are you just going to continue to ignore them?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
Al Gore's climate scientists have found that CO2 emissions from the US are the sole cause for Global Warming and that carbon taxes implemented on the US, will stop Global Warming. China and India's CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90 Dont be such a dishonest moron - China already is so far ahead of USA in developing efficient biofuels (not the bullshit ethanol from corn that the US subsidises), installation of renewable energy systems & use of electric vehicles.
You (and fundamentalist fuckwits such as John Shimkus) are traitors - your lies are going to destroy the USAs competitiveness
wildcrazygoats 1 year ago
@wildcrazygoats Regional weather is just that, regional. Global Temperatures have been going up, due to the US's continued outpouring of CO2 and lack of green technologies implementation, like India and China are doing. They are shining examples of great stewardship. Fascist capitalist USA needs to cut Global Warming causing emissions via Carbon taxes to reverse this and begin the cool down processes
JoeJohn90 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
Carbon dioxide comprises 38/1000ths of the earth's atmosphere, and of that amount, a mere 3 percent is generated by mankind.
CO2 emissions created by human activity account for .116 percent of the greenhouse effect.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age (150 years ago) the amount of CO2 has increased 35 percent, well within historical norms.
According to a study done by Sylvan H. Wittwer, a Michigan State University professor, a tripling of CO2 would lead to roses, carnations,
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions Actually an increase of 35% normally takes 5 to 20 thousand years. (Tripati 2009)
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
and chrysanthemums experience longer stems and larger, longer-lasting, more colorful flowers with yields increasing up to 15 percent. Rice, wheat, pbarley, oats, and rye perform yield increases ranging from 64 percent. Potatoes and sweet potatoes produce as much as 75 percent more. Legumes, including peas, beans, and soybeans, show increases to 46 percent. The effects of CO1 on trees, which cover one-third of Earth's land mass, may be even more dramatic. According to MSU's forestry
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions In closed controlled environments increased CO2 does lead to more growth. However the world is not a controlled environment and the earth and plants are very sensitive to a variety of effects beyond CO2 content in the air. There is likely to be increased evaporation leading to drier soil and more erratic precipitation patterns overall. While there are some positive effects of increased CO2 on the balance the negatives far outweigh the positives.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
Department, trees have been raised to maturity in months instead of years when the seedlings were reaised in a tripled CO2 environment.
During the times of Dinosaurs, CO2 levels were 6 times greater than today - a time when anthropogenic global warming could NOT have been the cause.
CO2 is always referred to as the 'greenhouse gas', and as a 'pollutant',
interesting, since water vapor comprises 95 percent of the greenhouse effect..
Methane and nitrus oxide, the 3 and 4 primary
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions And during the times of dinosaurs the sun was weaker than it is now. The atmosphere needed higher CO2 content to provide a livable environment
Water vapour is a feedback not a forcing like other greenhouse gases. Methane and N2O are more powerful GHGs but they are much less prevalent and block narrower sets of IR wavelengths. Methane also breaks down relatively quickly into CO2. CO2 is the key. CO2's radiative forcing is 1.46 W/m2, Methane's is .48 W/m2, and N2O's is .15 W/m2
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
sources of the greenhouse effect behind CO2 are 20x and 310x (respectively) more capable of retaining the sun's heat than CO2.
Carbon Dioxide is a designer pollutant, and a VERY puny player in the 'greenhouse gas' game.
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
Look up CRU email leak. You'll find OBVIOUS proof that top UN scientists are manipulating data, and contorting it to better suit their own agendas.
According to NASA, between 1940 and 1970, the Earth cooled .18 degrees F. This drop in temperature occurred during a slight INCREASE in CO2. In a leaked CRU email, written to Phil Jones in Sept. 2009, you can see a bald-faced attempt to manipulate data from this era:
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions The temperature drop was due to aerosols. It is well understood and present in all the data sets. There is no need to cover anything up.
There was no email that said any such thing.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
look up CRU email leak, or 'Climate Gate'.
The coverup is well documented, and there is no need to cite mined data sets.
Also - I'll be maintaining my carbon footprint the size of texas until the day I die. So do whatever you want, you little queer. In the end it just doesn't fucking matter.
Natural earth processes ALWAYS override human interference.
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions Been there, done that. You still think the so called climate gate has any real importance? The scientists were cleared by four different enquiries. There were no mined data sets, but there are a lot of mined quotes to try and make something appear from nothing, but you've failed.
I hope you keep your carbon footprint high and then you can pay a carbon tax through your teeth.
You have any proof of those natural influences?
I expose your errors and all you have is insults?
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
Yep, ya little fuck! You convince no one and get nowhere! =)
tintedproductions 1 year ago
@tintedproductions Actually I've convinced many people. People who are willing to discuss science. Strangely many young American men don't often fit into that category. Too busy being macho and exercising their freedom to be uninformed.
Any proof of those natural influences? Strange how the sun is slightly cooler since 1950 but the global temperature is much warmer. Of course another natural process is at work. The greenhouse effect. Only unnatural part is we're supplying the CO2.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@JoeJohn90
"So, if we could reduce the ocean blipby, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean-but we'd still ahve to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately...It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip""
By reversing, or moderating, the cooling "blips" of the 1940s, these charlatans could further lobotomize the record, making the following 1970-1998 rise in temp, which totaled .34degF, sig.
tintedproductions 1 year ago
WOW! CNN, I'm impressed. Uh ... does the weather guy still have a job?
chevick 1 year ago 8
people who actually believe we are going to kill the planet are willing steaks on the globalists table.
JFAINTER88 1 year ago 6
humans have made a mess of the environment, true. humans have caused the extinction of many animal species, true. Al Gores truth is mostly lies, true.
daisycutterz 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@daisycutterz you are contradicting yourself...
camalionix 1 year ago
bet that weatherman was fired right as Obama got elected
jakeupstudios 1 year ago
Royal Society, September 2010: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." from "Climate change: a summary of the science" (royalsociety org)
Astatorr 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Astatorr WRONG! Answer this:
There are two irrefutable facts that EcoFascists have no response for:
1) Why has the earth been cooling over the past 10 years?; and
2) The what about the eruptions of Pinatubo and Kilauea that spewed more carbon and particulates in the atmosphere than the entirety of the industrial revolution?
Leftists are Laughable!
Slave2Reason 1 year ago
Al Gore is a fraud.
glenwoodfin 1 year ago
Global Freezing
2010 Scotland’s coldest winter since 1914
The average temperatures in January and December were the coldest in Scotland since 1914 - the year that data was first logged.
Dayversion 1 year ago
@Dayversion It's neither global warming or global freezing. It's climate change. The climate around the world is different, but it will change... it is changing.
The consequences are colder winters, warmer summers, perhaps more natural dissasters from hurricanes, tornados etc.
simonwedege 1 year ago
The judge didn't ban it. The scientific errors were minor if they were in fact errors at all. (News flash: The judge isn't a scientist, let alone a climate scientist) Gore never said Katrina was caused by Global Warming he used footage as an illustration.
This weather twit, like the weather twit who owns the weather channel, should stop pretending they understand climate science.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59
shut the fuck up and wake up you dumb down American stop watching fox news and do your own research for god sake lol
narutocaprirequest2 1 year ago
@narutocaprirequest2 Uuum... I'm Canadian. I've never watched FOX news except clips that show how pathetic it is. And watching FOX news would likely make me agree with this video. But I'm not fooled by this stupidity because I don't rely on news for my science information, I go directly to the science and read things for myself. So in other words I do my own research.
So now that you have been shown to be completely wrong please tell everyone what you know that the best scientists don't.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rugbyguy59 No Global warming is a scientific question mark
KalConduitman 1 year ago
@KalConduitman No real scientist questions it is warming or that we are to blame for most of it, especially in the last 30 years. Not Carter, not Lintzen, not Christie, not Michaels. There is debate over climate sensitivity (how much a doubling of CO2 will add), but not the basic question. Well except amongst absolute deniers.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I think it is obvious that you are the denier. There are plenty of accredited scientists, with more credentials than some of the alarmist scientists, that have provided evidence against the global warming theory. As it stands now, the majority of the evidence on this issue is not in favor of the global warming theory at all. And if we are to practice true science, than we would go back to the drawing board and figure out what exactly is wrong with this theory.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 So what you're saying is that 42 national scientific associations, numerous discipline based associations, and 97% of publishing climate scientists are ignoring the majority of evidence as they agree with the IPCC consensus? Sure. Nice try.
Name one scientist with "more credentials" that is against the theory and actually has evidence that can stand up to skeptical scrutiny. The current theory works very well. There are details to work out but the basic science is solid.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 That is absolutely what I am saying. The IPCC is the intergovernmental panel on climate change. It is a government driven organization. Plenty of scientists have said that the "consensus" is not really a consensus &that they only agree with what they have written. They could only get their names off of the list when they threatened to sue. Tell me something...why did the majority of warming occur in the early half of last century when the majority of CO2 has been released since then?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 How evil of governments to work together to examine a potential international crisis. The IPCC was put together to examine and assess the scientific evidence on climate change. The consensus is best illustrated not by what the IPCC says but by how well it is supported. 32 National Science Acads, dozens of science orgs, 97% of publishing climate scientists support the IPCC's findings. No organization dissents from it. A few individual scientists dissent but the consensus is strong
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
@rugbyguy59 Numerous scientists have come out against the IPCC. A few individual scientists? How about 10s of 1000s. Remember, consensus is not science. Science is when scientists work to disprove theories, and when they fail to disprove the theory, that theory only grows stronger. However, what the majority of the scientists are doing is trying to prove the theory, which any scientist knows cannot be done, because theories cannot be proven, ONLY disproven. And you say they practice science, HA!
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 If you had a bad skin rash you'd go to a geologist to have it diagnosed? I prefer to listen to those who specialize in this topic.
If you're referring to that petition understand that even a bachelor of science could sign it and there was no verification of credentials. The 31000 number represents less than .3 (that's point 3) percent of those qualified to sign it. Hardly a significant number
They are testing hypothesis through experimentation. No one is trying to prove "the theory"
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
Furthermore, the IPCC makes changes to the writings from scientists. There are three steps in the publsihing phase where government agents edit the scientific writings so that was ends up being written isn't actually what the scientists have written in the first place. That is why scientists have come out against the IPCC and threatened to sue them because what was written in the end wasn't what they actually wrote, or accurate to what they believed. Why haven't you educated yourself about this?
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 Unlike you I have educated myself. The IPCC does not change the writings of scientists. The national government appointees do have a say in the wording of the summaries for policy makers but have no voice in the working groups. And what proves your supposition, that this invalidates the science, incorrect is that the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations endorse the IPCC findings.
Who has threatened to sue the IPCC? Let's have an actual name here.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 Actually, the IPCC does change the scientific writings. Go to the IPCC website and you will see that there are 3 different steps in the editing/publishing phase after the scientists have written the paper, where these government officials will change what has been written by the scientists. If a scientists wrote "a small minority", and the government official changes it to "the large majority", then how does this not change the meaning entirely. Educate yourself on this, please.
PainTrain87 1 year ago
@PainTrain87 "If a scientists wrote "a small minority", and the government official changes it to "the large majority", then how does this not change the meaning entirely."
Only a complete conspiracy theory moron could suggest such a change could be made without all scientists speaking out. As I said the officials do have a part in the third stage but what you say is completely moronic not to mention totally unsupported.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
@rugbyguy59 I'm glad you're agreeing with me. Changing the writings does change the meaning. I don't know where you are getting your "data" but it must be from somewhere that is only trying to prove the THEORY of global warming, instead of practicing science. Why do they try to stop debate instead of encourage it? These are professional scientists right? Sorry, climategate affirmed the meltdown of the global warming theory &the alarmists know it. Like you, they are embarrassed about being duped.
PainTrain87 1 year ago