And the correct answer is b). The oceans emit more CO2 when they warm, and absorb CO2 when they cool. There have never been more polar bears since the 1960, sea-levels are not rising faster than normal, but remain at a state of 15 mm per decade, since last ice-age. Warming decrease the temp. diff. polar-equator, which gives less hurricanes.
After 150 years of research, we sit with data of temperature and CO2 for the last 500 million years. Examinig these data, we find a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature. Wich one?
CO2 increase gives:
a) temperature rise
b) temperature decline
c) no temperature change
d) any of the above
And the correct answer is d). A CO2 rise can cause both warming, cooling and stasis in temperature. CO2 does not drive climate. Never has, never will be.
Piers is a Guru. The way he confidently challenges anyone from the global warming jamboree to come foreward and present evidence for CO2 driving climate over 20, 100, 1000 and several 100 000 years here is a classic. I came to the same conclusion individually.
Look at the other guy. Bet he didn't make it through 5th grade science. His totally ludricus claim that CO2 will kill off the amazon forest, and then his petty protest that more CO2 is a good thing for plants. Let's hear it for Piers!
Piers Corbyn should be knighted. It is now approaching 2012 and temps are still declining from the 1998 high, yet CO2 levels have skyrocketed since then by a FACTOR of 10 or more.
Climate change has in fact disappeared from media.
It should not have disappered from the media. The media has been promoting the idea of AGW for decades now, and its about time they admitted that they have made a mistake. This scam needs to be exposed both in the newspapers and on TV.
@1000frolly The first reports in that vein are beginning to appear, I have seen one. But media is a business nothing more and they need crisis to sell product. Obviously the more market share they have the higher they can charge for advertising space. It's normal for them to drop a subject once it is proven false. They have no credibility to lose in my opinion.
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
@1000frolly Piers said that Europe will be frozen again this year and he is right, its 3 Feb 2012 and Global Warming is proven false...what will they do as Glaciers grow ...hahahahahah dam this is fun.
@remcovanek2 Survey of Climate Scientists by Bray and von Storch 2010. "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
@tickertapes The Met office deals in current weather patterns (Short Range)and is very useful for daily forecasts extending to about 3-4 days ahead. What Piers Corbyn and his team do is very different. They study solar radiation in respect to the position of the moon and are Long Range. Working together as a team they are ideal. I believe the IPCC scientists and apparatchiks should be prosecuted.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
I am not a scientist and i am in limbo at the moment regarding what i believe are the true facts on the matter. However, it is an absolute disgrace that this is typical of the the majority of these debates! a scientist vs a person who has a political axe to grind and who cannot actually debate the facts! why on earth was he put on this debate. He clearly knows nothing and just spouts about corbyn not being in the scientific consenseus of his era. have we learned nothing from history!
LOL most of the global warming frauds don't even know what the hell CO2 is, they have no idea about it's role and structure in the environment. They just know CO2 is baaaaad, because some schmuck politician told them. Go tell that average schmuck, they will say ban dihydogen monoxide lol.
@qw2589 Wow shocking that common people annoyed by a douchebag would mistake scientific names... you should write for Jay Leno.
All reputable scientists not funded by Big Oil agree on the human-caused global warming. Fake debates brought to you by Rupert Murdoch doesn't change a thing but it does calm the nerves of denialist morons.
@MEpianist Your such a moron, Is Pier Corbyn The Weather guy, world famous 100% weather predictor funded by big oil? is Richard Lindzon of MIT funded by big oil, are 30,000 scientists with 8000 of them with PhD's funded by big oil. Your a moron with an IQ of less than 80, why don't you give me a scientific fact of global warming, tell me the "fact"
@qw2589 Richard Lindzen is from the "Annapolis Center," an Exxon Mobil project.
Pat Michaels is from the "George C. Marshall Institute," also Exxon, and Cato with Big Oil ties.
I noticed that you disown Richard Muller now, since he confirms the general fact of anthropogenic warming.
Who's left? You overstate your case because it's really only a few hacks. I'm not counting local loudmouths and idiots on television -- there's plenty of them in my country that don't believe in evolution too.
@MEpianist Who is left, how about 30,000 scientists. 8000 of whom have PhDs. You still did not provide a scientific evidence for global warming. Dont spread propaganda. The facts are you cannot explain the Medieval Warming periods of the 10th century, or the Little Ice Age, or the direct correlation between sunspot activity and temperature variations on ALL planets, most of which have NO CO2 whatsoever. The CO2 produced by humans is in single digit percentage of all CO2 in atmosphere.
@CammieSpectrum Carbon trading, with emphasis on the CAP, might be a decent start... but as in Enron's invented market, it would probably end up being economically wasteful --- better just to cap it. If your point is that Exxon supports the scientific consensus, just, no...
@MEpianist I just meant that people think that people such as Piers corybn are funded by exxon or BP...etc.....but that is a weird argument since BP has pro GW ADs & Exxon's CEo is open about being pro MMGW and Carbon Offsets. so there is something inconsistent in saying MMGW de -emphasizers are all fudned by big oil....and science is not determined by consensus, but by prediction, like Piers Corbyn
The climate fraudsters will never engage any forum that cannot control. They did once and got their asses handed to them.
Science is evidence based not opinion based. CO2 is a friggen trace gas simply because green things love to eat it.; it has nothing to do with climate.
I think it's telling that the AGW crowd can only produce a political hack like Ackers to "debate" Corbyn on this Issue. He's a trained monkey, trained to scare a stupid public into excepting a repressive(and dictatorial/NWO) "solution" to a non-existent problem.
Listen to his histrionics about how we're "approaching tipping points" where it will then be too late to act. This kind of rhetoric is designed to scare you into NOT THINKING about the absurdity of his "argument".
@fxtrader92 That's because the thousands of scientists - 97% of the experts - are busy doing science and realise that debating people like PIers is a waste of time as they have decidedly closed their minds against facts.
@LOOKALANKA6 Lookalanka believes every website that uses the word debunk. He thinks 911 is official true, he thinks vaccinations are safe LMFAO, does he know they contain mercury,OMG he gets better. Basically he thinks anything that is called a conspiracy is not true, he is a great example of how brainwashed some people are... I reckon he watches way too much tv
Nobody debates that current climate change is not an urgent issue.
Relatively speaking DOES CO2 effect climate change or is it overwhelmingly caused by solar activity?
Is Carbon Tax just a new Tax, implemented by opportunists who care nothing for the environmentalist cause, that will do nothing to counteract solar activity but will only serve to boost tax revenue?
CO2 increases plant growth? Sort of Yes but mostly No - Google it, as it eventually inhibits nitrate absorption i.e. growth.
@iamgabrielf Yeah, great at convincing people of nonsense. Unfortunately the facts don't change, and 97% and more of climatologists agree that we face catastrophic human-induced climate change. What are you doing to help?
@iamgabrielf Except in the mountains of evidence written up in the thousands of scientific papers in Nature, Science and many other scientific journals. Sigh. We need all hands on deck for this major challenge - I do hope you'll stop mucking around in the nonsense soon and start being part of the solution.
@topologyrob, your side has been completely discredited by the East Anglia University fiasco. Your popularity diminishes day by day. Yet you ask me to help. Ha! You remind me of those lonely fools who sit in sports stadiums with religious signs and colored wigs. Your group diminishes day by day. The majority has never accept your theory, for it is a theory, and today it's even less popular. So go waste someone else's time. You bore me.
@iamgabrielf The only trouble with that argument is that "climategate" has been completely destroyed by the evidence - it is now very obvious that the crime was a desperate attempt by big carbon to sow confusion before Copenhagen. It was a dirty trick that has done damage to scientist's careers, but it has not damaged the science one iota. The consensus continues to grow - it is now at least 98%. Do you really think you know better than the world's best climate scientists?
@topologyrob, you fling the 98% as if we believe anything you type. You're wasting your time. We don't believe you. We have no reason to believe anything you type. I don't know if you've noticed, but your great savior St. Al of Gore is nowhere to be seen. There is a reason for that. Nobody talks about him or his claims anymore. It's old news. It's out the window. We've caught you people lying so many times that you're a joke. You stubborn ppl are funny. So thanks for the laughs.
@iamgabrielf You don't have to believe me, this is plain documented fact. See this scientific study for evidence:
Anderegga et al 2010, Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Al Gore has nothing to do with this. It's just the evidence. Do you have any reliable evidence to support your accusation of lying? I don't mean newspaper articles or blogs.
@topologyrob, Captain Gory has nothing to do with it? The laughs just keep on coming. I remember the day when a little movie called "An Incovenient Truth" was the toast of the greenies. After lies were disclosed, it seems your captain is nowhere to be found.
@iamgabrielf Al Gore has nothing to do with the scientific consensus. He only communicates it. He's not an expert, but he has been effective at fairly accurately communicating what the science says (and there you go with accusations of lies again - evidence?). Meanwhile, the evidence keeps piling higher and higher and scientists are surer than ever that we need to get on with moving to a clean energy future very urgently.
@topologyrob, dude, you're rowing a sinking ship. Get back to reality. You've lost the argument. The consensus is not 97%; nowhere near. I have to laugh because you live in a sound chamber. You ppl agree with one another, but the average person on the streets is tired of you. Al Gore was completely discredited. If not, where is he? Why is he no longer your front man? Why are you hiding him? Is it because we no longer believe him? You're barking at the moon, Dorothy. You're barking at the moon.
@iamgabrielf On the contrary, the scientific consensus is indeed at least 97% (as substantiated in the paper I cited, which you can freely read - it examines the published scientific literature, which is what counts in science).
Al Gore is not part of the equation at all. Scientists don't particularly care about him. You can crow all you like about public opinion, but that won't change the facts, which is what the scientific evidence establishes. And it's clear - AGW is very real.
@topologyrob, I know I'm wasting my time with you, but it's just too tempting. The so called scientific consensus was completely discredited by East Anglia University. Now, you may think that climategate itself is discredited, but public opinion once damaged is very hard to rebuild. You guys are on your last breath. You need to fight climate change through regulation because the little public support you once had is now gone.
@iamgabrielf Why do you say "so called" consensus? How do you account for the facts documented in the paper I cited? Have you got evidence that there are not 97% plus of the experts who agree that AGW is very real and very urgent?
Why do you think you know better than the experts? do you do your own heart surgery too?
@iamgabrielf Also, how exactly did the East Anglia stolen emails event have any negative effect on the actual scientific consensus or the quality of the science? How was it anything other than a criminal attempt by big carbon to sow fake doubt, just like they tried with smoking's link with lung cancer (and failed, but it bought them time)? How do you deal with the evidence presented in Naomi Oreske's carefully researched book "Merchants of Doubt"? Why do you think you know more than the experts?
@topologyrob, I know the climate crowd is paying ppl to come online and repeat discredited theories. Let us take for a moment that all your discredited nonsense is true. What would you do to fix it? And, more importantly, who would profit from it?
@iamgabrielf Well, this does seem to be the case with an orchestrated "cyberbullying" campaign, including the use of automated commenting software, by fossil-fuel interests (Clive Hamilton writes about it on the ABC Drum site). How do you know a similar action is taking place from "the climate crowd"?
What would I do to fix it? I'm no expert, but it seems that pricing carbon can do a great deal in various models. Who would profit? Obviously young people mostly, as they have a chance to.(cont..
@iamgabrielf ...live in a less volatile future. More immediately, I suppose you could make a case that climate researchers could benefit by receiving more research funding, that's true. But the same fact is true about medical research and other areas of human benefit, and we don't conclude that medicine is all a hoax. Other beneficiaries could include alternative energy developers and companies. Not governments so much, as the carbon price would be simply moving money around, not into government
@iamgabrielf Groan, I feel a Soros conspiracy theory coming on... (forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but the conversation has pointed in that direction. And those conspiracy theories hold about as much water as the idea that the US government carried out 9/11).
@topologyrob, Phil Jones, you might know him from his "hide the decline" email glory, was interviewed by the BBC on February 12, 2011 where he was asked, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" He replied, "Yes." He was also asked if the Yamal tree ring (hockey stick) data was reliable. He replied that he was using a trick (hiding data) that proved tree ring proxies were inconsistent with actual temp measurements = unreliable
@iamgabrielf, I'm not an expert of the glorious, magnificent, masterful, wise and untouchable 97% calibur. So I don't know what that all means, Bubba, but that sounds pretty bad.
@iamgabrielf Both of those facts are true (except the meaning of the word "trick"). Why do you reckon neither has made any difference to climate science? What do you think "hide the decline" means? What do you think statistic significance involves in this case?
@topologyrob, one more thing. A little FYI. Ahem. Ahem. (clearing my throat). I just wanted to leave you with one little tidbit of reality, "Nobody's green at 6 dollars a gallon."
@topologyrob, I wasn't talking about you, Dorothy. I was talking about the average person who believes you. When they wake up to the cold reality that your policies are making their life less affordable, they will be much, much less green than you. Oh, and say, "Hi" to the wizard for me.
@iamgabrielf It will be much harder to afford everything if the global average temperature rises by 2 degrees. It will be much harder to survive at all.
@topologyrob It will be much harder to afford everything if the global average fuel price goes up by 2 dollars. It will be much harder to survive at all.
@iamgabrielf That's going to happen with peak oil anyway, which is another reason it's crucial and urgent we move to alternative energies. It's obvious. But when the climate radically changes, species die. What makes you think humans will make it when comparable changes in the past wiped out huge numbers of species?
We need to avert this. The facts are clear, however hard to face.
@topologyrob, you've won me over. Now that I see that your plan is to avert the extinction of species, well, I'm on board. Good thing to have you on our planet. What would the West Texas singing cockroach do without you? You are the savior of all species. With that plan I can get on board.
I know you're trying really hard to sound professional and scientific, but your so called science is a joke. Just check out the satellite readings of Richard Lindzen from MIT. The planet's cooling, Dorothy.
@iamgabrielf You may laugh, but this is deadly serious, and it's what the top experts say. How exactly is the science a joke? Why would you risk your life on marginal, totally discredited writings (by people like the maverick, politically motivated Lindzen)?
@iamgabrielf Well, that was just my opinion, but there's good evidence supporting this idea documented throughout "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway. He's certainly very marginal - why would you pay attention to the tiny handful who basically fall outside the scientific process, ignoring what climatology says? Do you do that in other areas of knowledge? Do you invest only in the absolutely highest-risk stocks for example?
3:40 John Ackers - "Well, I'm not a climate scientist"... then wtf are you and what are you doing claiming that you know exactly what's going on in a field that you are not an expert in?!?
Piers Corbyn is talking absolute rubbish here. It is all spin and nonsense to claim that Gordon Brown is an economic genius. Who conjured up our deficit? The Met Office? If there is a "Gravy Train" out there then I for one must have slipped off of it. Stick to what you know Piers and save us all from these pseudo-religious flakes who are trying to convince the world that we are all going to fry - or drown - or is it freeze? Those 'experts' aren't quite sure, but we are all doomed anyway.
Ok it has now been more than one year and the climate change scaremongering just gets shriller by the minute. No tipping point reached yet and the world did not end. And btw from what I have seen Corbyn has predicted the harsh winter and snow storms of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and not building that extra runway at Heathrow airport is being singled out as a major reasons why the Christmas snow storm of 2010 had such a catastrophic effect on that airport! P.S. Gordon Brown is not a economic genious
at 1:34 he say the authors on that contributed to the ipcc reports are in complete agreement, this is wrong, john christy was a lead author and he completely dissagrees
Aside from the humour of these cult members, there are some very, very serious implications to policy being formed around this cult. It is effectively the death of everything the human race has achieved.
Technology and science are the only real reasons humans can consider themselves above other species and these religious/political nut cases are trying to say no to science and yes to personal profit and tyranny in their absolute forms.
If people cannot see the lunacy of this, we're in trouble.
co2 is heavy in which it falls toward the ground yet a green house gas must go up into the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas retaining heat,yet co2 falls down to the ground and plants grow on the ground,now im stating fact if you dont look at all facts you are not a scientist even if u have a degree,fact your brain splits water using the splitting and combining of water for creating energy like a fuel cell,yet doctors will say we dont know why the brain works and what its doing
Bloody typical, a green fruitcake who isnt a scientist telling Piers who is a scientist that he is wrong, this just shows how bloody stupid this new green religion is, Ackers is crackers & needs hanging by his knackers.
Piers Corbyn is a bullshit artist. In typical News Corp fashion, the person they bring on to debate him is some no-name idiot, making Corbyn look smart. They're too afraid to bring on a legit climate scientist like James Hansen, because Corbyn would just get toasted. Hansen could simply point to openly available data from NASA, NOAA, etc; and cite the various studies (Anderegg et al, 2010; Doran et al, 2009; others) which find that over 90% of climate scientists reject Corbyn's conclusions.
@RobertEletto Piers predicted the russian heatwave, the Pakistani floods, the cold winters we are having as well as others, Meanwhile other corporations didnt, the Met office in the UK was one of those, this is despite of having a £30 million computer system & the £170 million per year thrown at them for "running costs", its also strange how the chairman of the Met office is on the board of directors in carbon credit companies etc but thats kept quiet for some strange reason.
@no1froggy Great, but you completely evaded my points. Go read the studies I cited; I can cite more if necessary. You can choose to believe that >90% of qualified scientists are part of some carbon trading conspiracy, or you can choose to believe that <10% of qualified scientists are part of some fossil fuel industry conspiracy, or maybe you can just wait a few decades and see what happens as more and more energy is trapped in the Earth system.
As we transition from solar cycle 24 to SC25, the most relevant weather predictor known to man would be the Average Magnetic Planetary Index (AP Index). For the past few years the AP Index has been low and solar scientists predictions of record cold weather and winter storms are being manifested today. Unfortunately, dire global cooling predictions based of SC activities could mean substantial problems in the coming years. Hope they're wrong.
The vast majority of scientists... oh wait most of these scientists are not climatologists... CRAP! I have personally met scientists on both sides of this argument and I can tell you 3 things.
One: the scientists I have met against warming tend to give me numbers and data
Two:the ones for warming tend not to have numbers but will point to weather events
Three: the amount of profit to gain in global warming should make you sceptic. What do the nay sayers have going for them? Basically nothing.
@TheDumMan How did he bash him? They just kept saying complete opposite opinions until the program ran out of time. Neither of them even raised their voice.
@dddave999 Studies have proved that CO2 raises at the same time temperature raises... so there must be a link between the too. And... temperature are actually rising.
This guy is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. He is specified on the short term forecast... his scientific opinion does not have much value here because it's the mid term and long term effect that are problematic. In this matter we don't really care if it's sunny or rainy tomorrow...
@Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre This guy predicts weather months ahead of time using a couple thousand years of data. If you actually took the time to read about his theories you would know this. He predicts major weather events with 85% accuracy. So far "global warming" has been a bust on the whole predicting the weather thing. Also I'd like to note that you are correct that temp and CO2 are linked... oh wait... it was warmer in the past with less CO2 in the air?! Drat guess you're wrong.
@Dethfal well the fact that you have real in europe (or wherever you are) does not mean that weather gets colder. We also have warmer temparature during summer all over the glove. Just watch the issues that they meet in Japan and China.
If the climate does not change why is the gulf stream heading south?
@Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre because like every other current in the air or sea it fluctuates through out history and even through out the seasons in its location. The gulf stream is the product of the Coriolis effect, winds, and uneven heating of the sun. You can keep spouting off the drivel and talking points that global warmers indoctrinate our youth with or actually look at the data for your self.
@ToGarifalo I'm calling you one now. And same for everyone else suckered in by this anti-science spin campaign of misinformation. First time for everything I guess. You're more scared of paying "socialist" taxes than rationally examining the facts. Because anyone who does that later could only conclude that there is no global hoax (apart from the one you've fallen for). It's probably happening, we're probably making it worse. You probably don't know better than the world's scientific consensus.
@1maanjannu His fuller sentence was .... Gordon brown is a genius on economics and has probably saved the uk economy.... etc etc
What part of my comment did you not understand or found invalid before you wet yourself trying to score a point. I knew what i meant, I'm not sure you bothered to try,
@gug1970 The part where you SEEMED to disregard points of piers from a sideline comment he made about browns economic understanding. Nothing more.
Sorry about the ill mannered lingo towards you from mine lack of trying to understand what you meant. I'll keep in mind this kind of situations for not happening in the future. Thank you for that :)
Please google: "wikipedia list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
The supposed "unanimous consensus" is absolute bullshit. Water vapor is approximately 95-100x the greenhouse gas CO2 is. Temperatures have been increasing ever since the end of the Little Ice Age (again, google). There is massive disputes over the validity and accuracy of the "ice core data", and there are disputes over where ice is dec. and inc. at various locations around the world.
There is NOT ONE scientific body on the planet, national or international that holds a dissenting opinion on climate change. There IS a climate hoax going on. It's the systematic attack on legitimate climate science funded by those with a monetary interest in stalling it (big oil). And the "know all" climate deniers have gobbled that up, hook, line and sinker. Even stupider is they've convinced that it's actually the scientists spreading misinformation for money. Stupidity reaches new levels.
@ToGarifalo don't be a fool. You think the world's climate scientists are all in cahoots and its just a big scam to make money for immoral scientists, but the anti-science propaganda that Big Oil put out is all real and has no hidden agenda? Climate change is happening and we are causing. That much is almost certain.
The greenies should be concentrating on GLOBAL POLLUTION which is caused by man .. corporations respectively. Global Warming is a big fart blown out the Ass of the greedy lying globalist elitist cabal. The sun is to blame for global weather changes not carbon emissions.
Yes, thats because if the global temperatures go down, the climate alarmists can still say "see? thats the result of all that carbon!" but they couldn't do that if it was called global warming. Remember, they think we are all thick as shit.
The greenies should be concentrating on GLOBAL POLLUTION which is caused by man .. corporations respectively. Global Warming is a big fart blown out the Ass of the greedy lying globalist elitist cabal. The sun is to blame for global weather changes not carbon emissions.
@TheDumMan I dunno about that. I watched a few other videos of his and I must say I find him pretty unconvincing! He won't even allow his "science" to be reviewed by his peers apparently. Sorry about the slur to your name. :)
@TheDumMan You alias is pretty accurate mate. Piers did absolutely nothing apart from yelling out "there's no evidence, let's have a debate", when the reality is there's mountains of evidence and it's been debated for decades.
@vicweb1978 where are you getting the "it's been debated for decades" part? last 3 decades ago as far as my memory is concerned, scientists were arguing of an impending ice age. oh boy, you have a very short span in reality i'd say.
Corbyn will not go to the conference, his excuse is he is not a scientist but is the lead cheerleader and pied piper for something he knows nothing about.
Consensus of scientific opinion does not necessarily mean fact. In fact, such a statement is highly unscientific and should be disregarded as proof. History clearly shows us that consensus of scientific opinion changes over time as new evidence are being brought forward by the "maverick" scientists, who dare to challenge the widespread opinions, though risking credibility, status and career.
MAN-MADE global warming is a scam of the New World Order banking mafia. They want One World Government and one world currency issued by IMF banking mafia. They try to use this scam as an excuse to enslave the world and establish One World Government. This is freemasonic NWO.
You can see him laughting and if you slow it you can see a hidden fraun by the right window... Also second no they would not because they wont make money then.
By this I mean the govement is manipulated by banks... and the banks dont want you to know that its a ploy because then the banks cant use this to make a tax which makes money. Its a scam... hard to see though but it is.
the rain forest is disappearing because you are cutting it them down! it is predicted by solar flares, the majority does not always are correct remember people got killed because they said the world was round and not flat...
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence
Global Climate Change is real, just as doorknobs are real.
If half the world started arguing over the existence of doorknobs, would you agree with them? The "science shows" that temperatures have increased vastly during the summer and decreased vastly during the winter.
You are a doorknob, yes there is climate change. But the climate is getting colder, no global warming is currently happening. Also Co2 levels get higher only after a warming trend happens, Co2 rising is an after effect of warming trends. GLOBAL WARMING IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!
The crucial point, it seems to me, is not whether the climate is warming or cooling per se. The point is whether or not climate change is a consequence of HUMAN action. IF it turns out that there is no correlation between human activity and climate change, whatever form that change takes, then any policy undertaken to redress that change is by definition a waste of time, since the change will presumably continue regardless.
alarmists are going down in numbers! notice we're not being told the bull shit as much. why is this? because there has been no warming in the past 10 years
GW pop quiz, part II:
Global warming leads to:
a) Polar bears becoming extinct
b) More CO2 in the air
c) Global sea-level rise
d) More hurricanes
And the correct answer is b). The oceans emit more CO2 when they warm, and absorb CO2 when they cool. There have never been more polar bears since the 1960, sea-levels are not rising faster than normal, but remain at a state of 15 mm per decade, since last ice-age. Warming decrease the temp. diff. polar-equator, which gives less hurricanes.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
Global warming pop quiz, part 1:
After 150 years of research, we sit with data of temperature and CO2 for the last 500 million years. Examinig these data, we find a clear correlation between CO2 and temperature. Wich one?
CO2 increase gives:
a) temperature rise
b) temperature decline
c) no temperature change
d) any of the above
And the correct answer is d). A CO2 rise can cause both warming, cooling and stasis in temperature. CO2 does not drive climate. Never has, never will be.
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
Piers is a Guru. The way he confidently challenges anyone from the global warming jamboree to come foreward and present evidence for CO2 driving climate over 20, 100, 1000 and several 100 000 years here is a classic. I came to the same conclusion individually.
Look at the other guy. Bet he didn't make it through 5th grade science. His totally ludricus claim that CO2 will kill off the amazon forest, and then his petty protest that more CO2 is a good thing for plants. Let's hear it for Piers!
darkhairedguy 3 months ago
Piers Corbyn should be knighted. It is now approaching 2012 and temps are still declining from the 1998 high, yet CO2 levels have skyrocketed since then by a FACTOR of 10 or more.
Climate change has in fact disappeared from media.
BTsmoke 3 months ago
@BTsmoke
It should not have disappered from the media. The media has been promoting the idea of AGW for decades now, and its about time they admitted that they have made a mistake. This scam needs to be exposed both in the newspapers and on TV.
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly The first reports in that vein are beginning to appear, I have seen one. But media is a business nothing more and they need crisis to sell product. Obviously the more market share they have the higher they can charge for advertising space. It's normal for them to drop a subject once it is proven false. They have no credibility to lose in my opinion.
BTsmoke 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
sceptic10 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
sceptic10 4 months ago
GW Believers never show any graphs or charts, or are willing to discuss any data presented. I wonder why…. Hhhhmmmm. I got it it is because Al GORE SAD SO!!!
sceptic10 4 months ago
AGW bealivers never have any charts or graphs witg them... I wonder why! hhhhmmmmm
sceptic10 4 months ago
Comment removed
gliksmar77 4 months ago
Piers has no peer reviewed scientific articles on climate change. He ignores the scientists who do have. Piers has no credibility.
remcovanek2 4 months ago
@remcovanek2 Piers does have scientific evidence - go check for yourself.
ArchytypeNet 4 months ago
@remcovanek2
Whaaaaat!
You must be a real idiot to say this bull.
Consider these two facts; Piers can predict the climate using solar magnetic methods (Because it is THE SUN that really drives our climate)
The IPCCs models have failed miserably to predict ANYTHING! (using CO2 -which only drives formerly normal folk insane)
1000frolly 1 month ago
@1000frolly Piers said that Europe will be frozen again this year and he is right, its 3 Feb 2012 and Global Warming is proven false...what will they do as Glaciers grow ...hahahahahah dam this is fun.
BTsmoke 4 weeks ago
@remcovanek2 Survey of Climate Scientists by Bray and von Storch 2010. "Most scientists disagree with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. This survey certainly shows no consensus on the science behind the global warming scare.
When asked questions scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty. Majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change"
1000frolly 1 month ago
Time for the Met office to be shut down. A waste of tax payers money!
tickertapes 5 months ago
@tickertapes The Met office deals in current weather patterns (Short Range)and is very useful for daily forecasts extending to about 3-4 days ahead. What Piers Corbyn and his team do is very different. They study solar radiation in respect to the position of the moon and are Long Range. Working together as a team they are ideal. I believe the IPCC scientists and apparatchiks should be prosecuted.
BTsmoke 3 months ago
Right off the bat, "Climate temps have been declining for the last seven years." He's a liar.
Zlibservacratican 5 months ago
Piers is so right.
MMrandomdude12 5 months ago
Let's bring about economic and social disaster today, so we can HOPEFULLY prevent it from happening tomorrow. What?
flyoverjoe 5 months ago
I heart Piers:)
CammieSpectrum 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
Is it possible to be a left winger and be against Climate Change, because I am a Libertarian Socialist and a skeptic.
23lFrench 7 months ago
Comment removed
gliksmar77 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@23lFrench - I'm a human being, and you'll have to lobby the sun about Climate Change.
gliksmar77 4 months ago
Scientific Consensus is an Oxymoron; for Science is Defined by Prediction, not Consensus, for this would then be Faith
CammieSpectrum 7 months ago
I am not a scientist and i am in limbo at the moment regarding what i believe are the true facts on the matter. However, it is an absolute disgrace that this is typical of the the majority of these debates! a scientist vs a person who has a political axe to grind and who cannot actually debate the facts! why on earth was he put on this debate. He clearly knows nothing and just spouts about corbyn not being in the scientific consenseus of his era. have we learned nothing from history!
lalalady4216 7 months ago
If that was a boxing match the ref would have stopped the contest after 2 minutes
aussiedon8 9 months ago
If anyone here wants to learn about the science behind climate change check out Potholer54's series starting with this one
watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
Drkstrong:
watch?v=NX6OnGEEphw&feature=channel_video_title
FreshAirScentOfPine
watch?v=QL3ED6aXrks&feature=related
And Greenman3610:
watch?v=l0JsdSDa_bM&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 9 months ago
LOL most of the global warming frauds don't even know what the hell CO2 is, they have no idea about it's role and structure in the environment. They just know CO2 is baaaaad, because some schmuck politician told them. Go tell that average schmuck, they will say ban dihydogen monoxide lol.
qw2589 9 months ago
@qw2589 Wow shocking that common people annoyed by a douchebag would mistake scientific names... you should write for Jay Leno.
All reputable scientists not funded by Big Oil agree on the human-caused global warming. Fake debates brought to you by Rupert Murdoch doesn't change a thing but it does calm the nerves of denialist morons.
MEpianist 8 months ago
@MEpianist Your such a moron, Is Pier Corbyn The Weather guy, world famous 100% weather predictor funded by big oil? is Richard Lindzon of MIT funded by big oil, are 30,000 scientists with 8000 of them with PhD's funded by big oil. Your a moron with an IQ of less than 80, why don't you give me a scientific fact of global warming, tell me the "fact"
qw2589 8 months ago
@qw2589 Richard Lindzen is from the "Annapolis Center," an Exxon Mobil project.
Pat Michaels is from the "George C. Marshall Institute," also Exxon, and Cato with Big Oil ties.
I noticed that you disown Richard Muller now, since he confirms the general fact of anthropogenic warming.
Who's left? You overstate your case because it's really only a few hacks. I'm not counting local loudmouths and idiots on television -- there's plenty of them in my country that don't believe in evolution too.
MEpianist 8 months ago
@MEpianist Who is left, how about 30,000 scientists. 8000 of whom have PhDs. You still did not provide a scientific evidence for global warming. Dont spread propaganda. The facts are you cannot explain the Medieval Warming periods of the 10th century, or the Little Ice Age, or the direct correlation between sunspot activity and temperature variations on ALL planets, most of which have NO CO2 whatsoever. The CO2 produced by humans is in single digit percentage of all CO2 in atmosphere.
qw2589 8 months ago
@MEpianist but Exxon's CEO supports Carbon Trading
CammieSpectrum 7 months ago
@CammieSpectrum Carbon trading, with emphasis on the CAP, might be a decent start... but as in Enron's invented market, it would probably end up being economically wasteful --- better just to cap it. If your point is that Exxon supports the scientific consensus, just, no...
MEpianist 7 months ago
@MEpianist I just meant that people think that people such as Piers corybn are funded by exxon or BP...etc.....but that is a weird argument since BP has pro GW ADs & Exxon's CEo is open about being pro MMGW and Carbon Offsets. so there is something inconsistent in saying MMGW de -emphasizers are all fudned by big oil....and science is not determined by consensus, but by prediction, like Piers Corbyn
CammieSpectrum 7 months ago
It is ridiculous that CO2 is good for plants? WOW
mixmastermeeks 10 months ago
The climate fraudsters will never engage any forum that cannot control. They did once and got their asses handed to them.
Science is evidence based not opinion based. CO2 is a friggen trace gas simply because green things love to eat it.; it has nothing to do with climate.
MrSirGareth 10 months ago
I think it's telling that the AGW crowd can only produce a political hack like Ackers to "debate" Corbyn on this Issue. He's a trained monkey, trained to scare a stupid public into excepting a repressive(and dictatorial/NWO) "solution" to a non-existent problem.
Listen to his histrionics about how we're "approaching tipping points" where it will then be too late to act. This kind of rhetoric is designed to scare you into NOT THINKING about the absurdity of his "argument".
fxtrader92 11 months ago
@fxtrader92 That's because the thousands of scientists - 97% of the experts - are busy doing science and realise that debating people like PIers is a waste of time as they have decidedly closed their minds against facts.
topologyrob 10 months ago
COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU THINK YOUR HARD ENOUGH !
crisisofconsciousnes 1 year ago
@crisisofconsciousnes
Lol i already had a go at you and DESTROYED you. You then went on blocking me like a little bitch. LOLOL
By the way, i left you a good comment on your homepage.
You obviously know that i demolished you to embarrassment otherwise you wouldn't have blocked me. Lol i fucking destroyed all of your arguments.
Thanks.
LOOKALANKA6 1 year ago
@LOOKALANKA6 Lookalanka believes every website that uses the word debunk. He thinks 911 is official true, he thinks vaccinations are safe LMFAO, does he know they contain mercury,OMG he gets better. Basically he thinks anything that is called a conspiracy is not true, he is a great example of how brainwashed some people are... I reckon he watches way too much tv
crisisofconsciousnes 1 year ago
@crisisofconsciousnes
"He thinks 911 is official true"
Tsk tsk tsk...what happened to YOU saying you don't KNOW what happened on 911? LOL FUCKING OWNED.
"Basically he thinks anything that is called a conspiracy is not true"
Yeah, every conspiracy you think is true. The difference is that i have science on my side.
Mercury? Hmm..
h t t p : / / w w w . sciencebasedmedicine . org / ? p = 9
And you KNOW that i destroyed you in the debate we had. YOU KNOW IT.
LOOKALANKA6 1 year ago
That's one mad-looking meteorologist I'd propose to any weather channel!
darwincity 1 year ago
we will pay the heaviest price ever if we listen to this stupid fascist/nazi prime minister and his looney croonies.
tucays1 1 year ago
Nobody debates that current climate change is not an urgent issue.
Relatively speaking DOES CO2 effect climate change or is it overwhelmingly caused by solar activity?
Is Carbon Tax just a new Tax, implemented by opportunists who care nothing for the environmentalist cause, that will do nothing to counteract solar activity but will only serve to boost tax revenue?
CO2 increases plant growth? Sort of Yes but mostly No - Google it, as it eventually inhibits nitrate absorption i.e. growth.
ncacace 1 year ago
Wow! Cobyn is a great debater. He took apart Ackers. Great job, Piers!
iamgabrielf 1 year ago
@iamgabrielf Yeah, great at convincing people of nonsense. Unfortunately the facts don't change, and 97% and more of climatologists agree that we face catastrophic human-induced climate change. What are you doing to help?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, What am I doing to help? I'm asking climate change advocates to prove their science. A simple thing they are unable to produce.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Except in the mountains of evidence written up in the thousands of scientific papers in Nature, Science and many other scientific journals. Sigh. We need all hands on deck for this major challenge - I do hope you'll stop mucking around in the nonsense soon and start being part of the solution.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, your side has been completely discredited by the East Anglia University fiasco. Your popularity diminishes day by day. Yet you ask me to help. Ha! You remind me of those lonely fools who sit in sports stadiums with religious signs and colored wigs. Your group diminishes day by day. The majority has never accept your theory, for it is a theory, and today it's even less popular. So go waste someone else's time. You bore me.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf The only trouble with that argument is that "climategate" has been completely destroyed by the evidence - it is now very obvious that the crime was a desperate attempt by big carbon to sow confusion before Copenhagen. It was a dirty trick that has done damage to scientist's careers, but it has not damaged the science one iota. The consensus continues to grow - it is now at least 98%. Do you really think you know better than the world's best climate scientists?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, you fling the 98% as if we believe anything you type. You're wasting your time. We don't believe you. We have no reason to believe anything you type. I don't know if you've noticed, but your great savior St. Al of Gore is nowhere to be seen. There is a reason for that. Nobody talks about him or his claims anymore. It's old news. It's out the window. We've caught you people lying so many times that you're a joke. You stubborn ppl are funny. So thanks for the laughs.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf You don't have to believe me, this is plain documented fact. See this scientific study for evidence:
Anderegga et al 2010, Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Al Gore has nothing to do with this. It's just the evidence. Do you have any reliable evidence to support your accusation of lying? I don't mean newspaper articles or blogs.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, Captain Gory has nothing to do with it? The laughs just keep on coming. I remember the day when a little movie called "An Incovenient Truth" was the toast of the greenies. After lies were disclosed, it seems your captain is nowhere to be found.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Al Gore has nothing to do with the scientific consensus. He only communicates it. He's not an expert, but he has been effective at fairly accurately communicating what the science says (and there you go with accusations of lies again - evidence?). Meanwhile, the evidence keeps piling higher and higher and scientists are surer than ever that we need to get on with moving to a clean energy future very urgently.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, dude, you're rowing a sinking ship. Get back to reality. You've lost the argument. The consensus is not 97%; nowhere near. I have to laugh because you live in a sound chamber. You ppl agree with one another, but the average person on the streets is tired of you. Al Gore was completely discredited. If not, where is he? Why is he no longer your front man? Why are you hiding him? Is it because we no longer believe him? You're barking at the moon, Dorothy. You're barking at the moon.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf On the contrary, the scientific consensus is indeed at least 97% (as substantiated in the paper I cited, which you can freely read - it examines the published scientific literature, which is what counts in science).
Al Gore is not part of the equation at all. Scientists don't particularly care about him. You can crow all you like about public opinion, but that won't change the facts, which is what the scientific evidence establishes. And it's clear - AGW is very real.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, I know I'm wasting my time with you, but it's just too tempting. The so called scientific consensus was completely discredited by East Anglia University. Now, you may think that climategate itself is discredited, but public opinion once damaged is very hard to rebuild. You guys are on your last breath. You need to fight climate change through regulation because the little public support you once had is now gone.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Why do you say "so called" consensus? How do you account for the facts documented in the paper I cited? Have you got evidence that there are not 97% plus of the experts who agree that AGW is very real and very urgent?
Why do you think you know better than the experts? do you do your own heart surgery too?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Also, how exactly did the East Anglia stolen emails event have any negative effect on the actual scientific consensus or the quality of the science? How was it anything other than a criminal attempt by big carbon to sow fake doubt, just like they tried with smoking's link with lung cancer (and failed, but it bought them time)? How do you deal with the evidence presented in Naomi Oreske's carefully researched book "Merchants of Doubt"? Why do you think you know more than the experts?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, I know the climate crowd is paying ppl to come online and repeat discredited theories. Let us take for a moment that all your discredited nonsense is true. What would you do to fix it? And, more importantly, who would profit from it?
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Well, this does seem to be the case with an orchestrated "cyberbullying" campaign, including the use of automated commenting software, by fossil-fuel interests (Clive Hamilton writes about it on the ABC Drum site). How do you know a similar action is taking place from "the climate crowd"?
What would I do to fix it? I'm no expert, but it seems that pricing carbon can do a great deal in various models. Who would profit? Obviously young people mostly, as they have a chance to.(cont..
topologyrob 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf ...live in a less volatile future. More immediately, I suppose you could make a case that climate researchers could benefit by receiving more research funding, that's true. But the same fact is true about medical research and other areas of human benefit, and we don't conclude that medicine is all a hoax. Other beneficiaries could include alternative energy developers and companies. Not governments so much, as the carbon price would be simply moving money around, not into government
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, spare me the platitudes. Name a corporation that will profit from implementing the carbon tax!
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Groan, I feel a Soros conspiracy theory coming on... (forgive me if I jump to conclusions, but the conversation has pointed in that direction. And those conspiracy theories hold about as much water as the idea that the US government carried out 9/11).
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, are you implying that no corporations will profit from the carbon tax?
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf No of course I'm not.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, then name one. Why are you so afraid to do name one?
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf I don't think I'll play your little game. Well, maybe after you answer some of my questions.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, since you're unwilling to play. I guess I'll play alone. Let's try Halliburton to start.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@topologyrob, Phil Jones, you might know him from his "hide the decline" email glory, was interviewed by the BBC on February 12, 2011 where he was asked, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?" He replied, "Yes." He was also asked if the Yamal tree ring (hockey stick) data was reliable. He replied that he was using a trick (hiding data) that proved tree ring proxies were inconsistent with actual temp measurements = unreliable
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf, I'm not an expert of the glorious, magnificent, masterful, wise and untouchable 97% calibur. So I don't know what that all means, Bubba, but that sounds pretty bad.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Both of those facts are true (except the meaning of the word "trick"). Why do you reckon neither has made any difference to climate science? What do you think "hide the decline" means? What do you think statistic significance involves in this case?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, one more thing. A little FYI. Ahem. Ahem. (clearing my throat). I just wanted to leave you with one little tidbit of reality, "Nobody's green at 6 dollars a gallon."
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf We don't talk in terms of gallons in Oz, and anyway I ride a bike.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, I wasn't talking about you, Dorothy. I was talking about the average person who believes you. When they wake up to the cold reality that your policies are making their life less affordable, they will be much, much less green than you. Oh, and say, "Hi" to the wizard for me.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf It will be much harder to afford everything if the global average temperature rises by 2 degrees. It will be much harder to survive at all.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob It will be much harder to afford everything if the global average fuel price goes up by 2 dollars. It will be much harder to survive at all.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf That's going to happen with peak oil anyway, which is another reason it's crucial and urgent we move to alternative energies. It's obvious. But when the climate radically changes, species die. What makes you think humans will make it when comparable changes in the past wiped out huge numbers of species?
We need to avert this. The facts are clear, however hard to face.
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, you've won me over. Now that I see that your plan is to avert the extinction of species, well, I'm on board. Good thing to have you on our planet. What would the West Texas singing cockroach do without you? You are the savior of all species. With that plan I can get on board.
I know you're trying really hard to sound professional and scientific, but your so called science is a joke. Just check out the satellite readings of Richard Lindzen from MIT. The planet's cooling, Dorothy.
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf You may laugh, but this is deadly serious, and it's what the top experts say. How exactly is the science a joke? Why would you risk your life on marginal, totally discredited writings (by people like the maverick, politically motivated Lindzen)?
topologyrob 10 months ago
@topologyrob, prove Lindzen is politically motivated?
iamgabrielf 10 months ago
@iamgabrielf Well, that was just my opinion, but there's good evidence supporting this idea documented throughout "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes and Conway. He's certainly very marginal - why would you pay attention to the tiny handful who basically fall outside the scientific process, ignoring what climatology says? Do you do that in other areas of knowledge? Do you invest only in the absolutely highest-risk stocks for example?
topologyrob 10 months ago
John Ackers for fucking retard of the century along with Al Gore and all the Carbon Tax fuckers at the UN.
mysticphoebos 1 year ago
3:40 John Ackers - "Well, I'm not a climate scientist"... then wtf are you and what are you doing claiming that you know exactly what's going on in a field that you are not an expert in?!?
Spetsop 1 year ago
Piers Corbyn is talking absolute rubbish here. It is all spin and nonsense to claim that Gordon Brown is an economic genius. Who conjured up our deficit? The Met Office? If there is a "Gravy Train" out there then I for one must have slipped off of it. Stick to what you know Piers and save us all from these pseudo-religious flakes who are trying to convince the world that we are all going to fry - or drown - or is it freeze? Those 'experts' aren't quite sure, but we are all doomed anyway.
DigbyCaballero 1 year ago
John Ackers has a small brain. Piers Corbyn's brain is bulging out of his skull.
K20ej88 1 year ago 2
John Ackers " I'm not a climate scientist "
then WTF are you doing debating climate change with a scientist ?
We know what your doing... your getting paid and proving Piers point, your on the gravy train.
glennsss 1 year ago
"Gordon Brown is probably an economic genius"
If only!
mangoswiss 1 year ago
Ok it has now been more than one year and the climate change scaremongering just gets shriller by the minute. No tipping point reached yet and the world did not end. And btw from what I have seen Corbyn has predicted the harsh winter and snow storms of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and not building that extra runway at Heathrow airport is being singled out as a major reasons why the Christmas snow storm of 2010 had such a catastrophic effect on that airport! P.S. Gordon Brown is not a economic genious
runarolsen 1 year ago
at 1:34 he say the authors on that contributed to the ipcc reports are in complete agreement, this is wrong, john christy was a lead author and he completely dissagrees
KiwiTomCrawford 1 year ago 2
Aside from the humour of these cult members, there are some very, very serious implications to policy being formed around this cult. It is effectively the death of everything the human race has achieved.
Technology and science are the only real reasons humans can consider themselves above other species and these religious/political nut cases are trying to say no to science and yes to personal profit and tyranny in their absolute forms.
If people cannot see the lunacy of this, we're in trouble.
kierono2 1 year ago
I love it! More evidence supporting the idiocy of the climatard astrology cult.
Scientist - take part in an active discussion using mathematics, logic, reason and hypothetico-deductive method.
Climatard -my groups bigger than your group
Scientist -That doesn't support the AGW hypothesis.
Climatard -lots of people say it does, there is a "consensus".
climatard reasoning akin to = All the people in the world agree 2+2=5 apart from one who agrees it is 4 whos correct? Ill let you decide!
kierono2 1 year ago
piers for the win !
theScienceOfFear2012 1 year ago
@theScienceOfFear2012 While humanity loses, tempted into nonsense.
topologyrob 10 months ago
co2 is heavy in which it falls toward the ground yet a green house gas must go up into the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas retaining heat,yet co2 falls down to the ground and plants grow on the ground,now im stating fact if you dont look at all facts you are not a scientist even if u have a degree,fact your brain splits water using the splitting and combining of water for creating energy like a fuel cell,yet doctors will say we dont know why the brain works and what its doing
imatelly 1 year ago
If your NOT a climate scientist , STOP ALARMING LIES, Shut the fuck up. Chicken Hawk
LostFREEDOM 1 year ago
YES !!! The Goblal warming scam is junk science to spin TAX CORRUPTION scam
LostFREEDOM 1 year ago
GO Corbyn!!!
Enough of the CO2 propanganda
nickav1 1 year ago
Bloody typical, a green fruitcake who isnt a scientist telling Piers who is a scientist that he is wrong, this just shows how bloody stupid this new green religion is, Ackers is crackers & needs hanging by his knackers.
no1froggy 1 year ago 7
Piers Corbyn is a LEGEND The Global Warming extremists are FRAUDSTERS.
TheShockmister 1 year ago 10
Tell it like it is Piers!!!
TheSOTTReport 1 year ago 3
because like every other current in the air or sea it fluctuates through out history and even through out the seasons in its location.
Dethfal 1 year ago
Piers Corbyn is a bullshit artist. In typical News Corp fashion, the person they bring on to debate him is some no-name idiot, making Corbyn look smart. They're too afraid to bring on a legit climate scientist like James Hansen, because Corbyn would just get toasted. Hansen could simply point to openly available data from NASA, NOAA, etc; and cite the various studies (Anderegg et al, 2010; Doran et al, 2009; others) which find that over 90% of climate scientists reject Corbyn's conclusions.
RobertEletto 1 year ago
@RobertEletto Piers predicted the russian heatwave, the Pakistani floods, the cold winters we are having as well as others, Meanwhile other corporations didnt, the Met office in the UK was one of those, this is despite of having a £30 million computer system & the £170 million per year thrown at them for "running costs", its also strange how the chairman of the Met office is on the board of directors in carbon credit companies etc but thats kept quiet for some strange reason.
no1froggy 1 year ago 2
@no1froggy Great, but you completely evaded my points. Go read the studies I cited; I can cite more if necessary. You can choose to believe that >90% of qualified scientists are part of some carbon trading conspiracy, or you can choose to believe that <10% of qualified scientists are part of some fossil fuel industry conspiracy, or maybe you can just wait a few decades and see what happens as more and more energy is trapped in the Earth system.
RobertEletto 1 year ago
As we transition from solar cycle 24 to SC25, the most relevant weather predictor known to man would be the Average Magnetic Planetary Index (AP Index). For the past few years the AP Index has been low and solar scientists predictions of record cold weather and winter storms are being manifested today. Unfortunately, dire global cooling predictions based of SC activities could mean substantial problems in the coming years. Hope they're wrong.
focusenergy 1 year ago
The vast majority of scientists... oh wait most of these scientists are not climatologists... CRAP! I have personally met scientists on both sides of this argument and I can tell you 3 things.
One: the scientists I have met against warming tend to give me numbers and data
Two:the ones for warming tend not to have numbers but will point to weather events
Three: the amount of profit to gain in global warming should make you sceptic. What do the nay sayers have going for them? Basically nothing.
Dethfal 1 year ago 3
@Dethfal Yeah, with climatologists, it's a consensus of over 97% according to three peer-reviewed papers I'm aware of.
topologyrob 10 months ago
The whole global warming debate is brilliantly summarized in less than one minute here:
3:09: Piers Corbyn: "I challenge Mr Ackers to come to our conference with credible scientific evidence......"
3:42 John Ackers: "I'm not a climate scientist"
Case closed.
zamkam 1 year ago 3
I 'predict' (by not using Al Gores weather models)we will see some "piers corbyn was right" videos popping up very soon.
Ignorance is strength
war is peace
cooling is warming
hey George Orwell must be rolling in his grave!!
looselyfinglebottom 1 year ago
ackers argument is that the majority of scientists believe manmade global warming is an existential threat. classic bandwagon sophistry
shroomingnewman 1 year ago
ITS THE JEWS THE GODDAMNJEWS ARE DOING THIS THEY WANT TO ARETIICIALLY FLOOD THE POOR PALESTINEENS.
grimaces 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go Piers Corbyn! This whole AGW schtick is a total crock of shite. The fact that we're all being robbed by these shysters is the real killer of it.
Bzakey3 1 year ago
CO2 is not a problem. However calling Gordon Brown an "economic genius" is alarming.
Cholmeleian 1 year ago 2
@Cholmeleian I fell out of my chair....sheesh what a shocking thing to say
whatevadotbiteme 1 year ago
@TheDumMan How did he bash him? They just kept saying complete opposite opinions until the program ran out of time. Neither of them even raised their voice.
hayxx045 1 year ago
Lovelock is right.
remcovanek2 1 year ago
@dddave999 Studies have proved that CO2 raises at the same time temperature raises... so there must be a link between the too. And... temperature are actually rising.
This guy is a meteorologist, not a climatologist. He is specified on the short term forecast... his scientific opinion does not have much value here because it's the mid term and long term effect that are problematic. In this matter we don't really care if it's sunny or rainy tomorrow...
Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre 1 year ago
@Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre This guy predicts weather months ahead of time using a couple thousand years of data. If you actually took the time to read about his theories you would know this. He predicts major weather events with 85% accuracy. So far "global warming" has been a bust on the whole predicting the weather thing. Also I'd like to note that you are correct that temp and CO2 are linked... oh wait... it was warmer in the past with less CO2 in the air?! Drat guess you're wrong.
Dethfal 1 year ago
@Dethfal well the fact that you have real in europe (or wherever you are) does not mean that weather gets colder. We also have warmer temparature during summer all over the glove. Just watch the issues that they meet in Japan and China.
If the climate does not change why is the gulf stream heading south?
Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre 1 year ago
@Pierrrrrrrrrrrrrrre because like every other current in the air or sea it fluctuates through out history and even through out the seasons in its location. The gulf stream is the product of the Coriolis effect, winds, and uneven heating of the sun. You can keep spouting off the drivel and talking points that global warmers indoctrinate our youth with or actually look at the data for your self.
Dethfal 1 year ago
@Dethfal weather's not climate. I'm a sceptic about weathermen like Corbyn (though his brother was ok on McLibel)
topologyrob 10 months ago
@ToGarifalo I'm calling you one now. And same for everyone else suckered in by this anti-science spin campaign of misinformation. First time for everything I guess. You're more scared of paying "socialist" taxes than rationally examining the facts. Because anyone who does that later could only conclude that there is no global hoax (apart from the one you've fallen for). It's probably happening, we're probably making it worse. You probably don't know better than the world's scientific consensus.
vicweb1978 1 year ago
I was with him right up to the point where he said Gordon Brown is a genius.
Facepalm !
gug1970 1 year ago
gug1970 "Genius on ECONOMICS."
Try to listen the sentences in full dimwit...
1maanjannu 1 year ago
@1maanjannu do try and control yourself, idiot.
gug1970 1 year ago
@1maanjannu His fuller sentence was .... Gordon brown is a genius on economics and has probably saved the uk economy.... etc etc
What part of my comment did you not understand or found invalid before you wet yourself trying to score a point. I knew what i meant, I'm not sure you bothered to try,
gug1970 1 year ago
@gug1970 The part where you SEEMED to disregard points of piers from a sideline comment he made about browns economic understanding. Nothing more.
Sorry about the ill mannered lingo towards you from mine lack of trying to understand what you meant. I'll keep in mind this kind of situations for not happening in the future. Thank you for that :)
1maanjannu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please google: "wikipedia list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"
The supposed "unanimous consensus" is absolute bullshit. Water vapor is approximately 95-100x the greenhouse gas CO2 is. Temperatures have been increasing ever since the end of the Little Ice Age (again, google). There is massive disputes over the validity and accuracy of the "ice core data", and there are disputes over where ice is dec. and inc. at various locations around the world.
jimih64 1 year ago
There is NOT ONE scientific body on the planet, national or international that holds a dissenting opinion on climate change. There IS a climate hoax going on. It's the systematic attack on legitimate climate science funded by those with a monetary interest in stalling it (big oil). And the "know all" climate deniers have gobbled that up, hook, line and sinker. Even stupider is they've convinced that it's actually the scientists spreading misinformation for money. Stupidity reaches new levels.
vicweb1978 1 year ago
@ToGarifalo don't be a fool. You think the world's climate scientists are all in cahoots and its just a big scam to make money for immoral scientists, but the anti-science propaganda that Big Oil put out is all real and has no hidden agenda? Climate change is happening and we are causing. That much is almost certain.
vicweb1978 1 year ago
The greenies should be concentrating on GLOBAL POLLUTION which is caused by man .. corporations respectively. Global Warming is a big fart blown out the Ass of the greedy lying globalist elitist cabal. The sun is to blame for global weather changes not carbon emissions.
ilovemymum777 1 year ago
What happened to the term" Global Warming" Now its changed to "Climate Change?
ilovemymum777 1 year ago
@ilovemymum777
Yes, thats because if the global temperatures go down, the climate alarmists can still say "see? thats the result of all that carbon!" but they couldn't do that if it was called global warming. Remember, they think we are all thick as shit.
CokeSupply 1 year ago
The greenies should be concentrating on GLOBAL POLLUTION which is caused by man .. corporations respectively. Global Warming is a big fart blown out the Ass of the greedy lying globalist elitist cabal. The sun is to blame for global weather changes not carbon emissions.
ilovemymum777 1 year ago
@TheDumMan I dunno about that. I watched a few other videos of his and I must say I find him pretty unconvincing! He won't even allow his "science" to be reviewed by his peers apparently. Sorry about the slur to your name. :)
vicweb1978 1 year ago
@TheDumMan You alias is pretty accurate mate. Piers did absolutely nothing apart from yelling out "there's no evidence, let's have a debate", when the reality is there's mountains of evidence and it's been debated for decades.
vicweb1978 1 year ago
@vicweb1978 where are you getting the "it's been debated for decades" part? last 3 decades ago as far as my memory is concerned, scientists were arguing of an impending ice age. oh boy, you have a very short span in reality i'd say.
BryanLim14 1 year ago
Corbyn will not go to the conference, his excuse is he is not a scientist but is the lead cheerleader and pied piper for something he knows nothing about.
northpal2 1 year ago
Corbyn is a quack.
Mechness 1 year ago
SKY T.V. AWFUL,AWFUL PEOPLE!
ODINSMAGICSTAFF 1 year ago
Consensus of scientific opinion does not necessarily mean fact. In fact, such a statement is highly unscientific and should be disregarded as proof. History clearly shows us that consensus of scientific opinion changes over time as new evidence are being brought forward by the "maverick" scientists, who dare to challenge the widespread opinions, though risking credibility, status and career.
psilocyberspaceman 1 year ago 2
Piers is an ideologically fed non scientist with a credibility of 0%.
remcovanek2 1 year ago
MAN-MADE global warming is a scam of the New World Order banking mafia. They want One World Government and one world currency issued by IMF banking mafia. They try to use this scam as an excuse to enslave the world and establish One World Government. This is freemasonic NWO.
mac9876ab 1 year ago 2
@Niightversionn
V
rowania 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can see him laughting and if you slow it you can see a hidden fraun by the right window... Also second no they would not because they wont make money then.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago
By this I mean the govement is manipulated by banks... and the banks dont want you to know that its a ploy because then the banks cant use this to make a tax which makes money. Its a scam... hard to see though but it is.
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
TheaDragonSpirit 1 year ago
the rain forest is disappearing because you are cutting it them down! it is predicted by solar flares, the majority does not always are correct remember people got killed because they said the world was round and not flat...
sircesare 1 year ago
fear controls people.
LogInForPaper 1 year ago 2
Global warming is the biggest and most genious scam in the history of mankind.
RomeoSOF2 1 year ago 2
@RomeoSOF2
Fluoride imo.
rowania 1 year ago
Ackers isn't even a scientist!!!
CosmicCannonBall 2 years ago
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence
fingers1572 2 years ago
Global Climate Change is real, just as doorknobs are real.
If half the world started arguing over the existence of doorknobs, would you agree with them? The "science shows" that temperatures have increased vastly during the summer and decreased vastly during the winter.
PerfectedHostility 2 years ago
@PerfectedHostility
You are a doorknob, yes there is climate change. But the climate is getting colder, no global warming is currently happening. Also Co2 levels get higher only after a warming trend happens, Co2 rising is an after effect of warming trends. GLOBAL WARMING IS A MONEY MAKING SCAM!!
kdubkelly 2 years ago 11
The crucial point, it seems to me, is not whether the climate is warming or cooling per se. The point is whether or not climate change is a consequence of HUMAN action. IF it turns out that there is no correlation between human activity and climate change, whatever form that change takes, then any policy undertaken to redress that change is by definition a waste of time, since the change will presumably continue regardless.
HugoNewman 2 years ago
alarmists are going down in numbers! notice we're not being told the bull shit as much. why is this? because there has been no warming in the past 10 years
tippman2k01 2 years ago 8
Go PIers!!!!
hadenough101 2 years ago 35