Heartland Institute out of touch with America

[MrTranscend1]

smog deniers never talk about ocean ph, toxic smog or big oil spills.. they actually support the people they think are going to get them.. they don't want a tax but pay 4$ a gallon in gas.. they don't want cap and trade and yet ignore all the dead in oil wars.. they never offer a better message of alternative energy.. smog deniers are fools.. !!!

[achtung07]

Who would have guessed, having watched this ill informed propaganda, that there has been no warming since 1998. The planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees since 2007 wiping out the net increase of 0.6 degrees across the 20th century. Read Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Frederick Singer, Nils Axel Morner, Syun Ichi Akasofu, John Christy.

These people probably listen to Albert Gore. Now that is a joke

[keithmlarsen]

I think you mean "Heartland institute out of touch with inner city New Yorkers!"

[keithmlarsen]

This is so pathetic- So scientists are meeting down the street who are "skeptical" of the IPCC's reports, so we'll go to the "real world" (new york city) and prove them wrong by talking to non-scientists in front of cameras. This is a plague on intelligent thought everywhere. There is nothing of value in this video-

[ciwhitten]

This is like one of those Jay Leno man-on-the-street interview bits. Except, I'm not sure the creator intends this to be funny.

[1Mehring1]

The way to combat a scientific argument is to refute it scientifically, not canvas people on what they've understood from a politically motivated media.

That 'global warmers' argue by populist demagogy rather than answering the science has raised a serious question mark in the mind of this writer where previously none existed.

The next question, then, is "what political interests are served by promoting a global warming fantasy?"

[TRUMPHENT]

@1Mehring1 Fantasy? The fantasy would be that CO2 has no radiative forcing, it isn't acidic in rain or ocean water

It would be fantastic if CO2 if it weren't a polyatomic molecule. That make it transparent to infrared. Oops CO2, by definition is polyatomic.

Another fantastic fantasy would be that Global Warming didn't involved sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting ice sheets.

The biggest GW fantasy would be no corporate assassination of the science.

[1Mehring1]

@TRUMPHENT

While you clearly want to lambast your readers with scientific sounding hyperbole, your post is as irrational as it is evasive of the political issue I'm raising.

You demonstrate no causal relationship between the molecular structure of CO2and anything, while your asertion that it has caused a net decrease in the ice sheets is untrue; that it could do, as yet unproven.

Is that the best you can do?

[TRUMPHENT]

With only 500 characters allotted in a YT reply, one has to choose words carefully. V. Ramanathan showed that any polyatomic gas molecule has a measurable and distinct radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Heck, he proved that CFC11 is 10K stronger than CO2's radiative forcing. Per molecule.

I wish the Heartland Institute would do man/worman interviews in the street. They don't and for good reason.

Good luck and fortune building your own little fantasy universe.

[glennimmortal]

exactly all the have shown here is the depth of main stream media penetration.

[tantpwei]

Manmade global warming is a concrete scientific fact with tons of data around the world.

Just search wikipedia - "scientific oppinion on climate change" to see what the scientists say; or just search the statement of any meterological society of any major countries around the world, or any reputable scientific organization. It is a scientific fact and there is OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on this around the world. AGW is FACT!

[parisenavril]

NYC full of NBC &liberal hypocrites...listen up uninformed people who spoke on this clip keep listening to al gore and NBC to find the facts. do your own reading and research like the unbiased Heartland Institute. u might be surprised. b logical we only have recorded history of temps for 150 or so years. weather has extremes. GLOBAL WARMING NO SHIT SHERLOCK 2 words GRAND CANNON-it was under water 10's or 100's of Mil yrs ago. use your college education divide 150 by 100 MIL= insignificant

[zx7bike]

1+1=3

[Darvas73]

You are making an excellent argument against anthropogenic global warming by showing these brain washed geniuses with their "real" facts and opinions.

[Deeraise]

the "real facts" and "real opinoin" huh? You're a brilliant one. The average dunce on the street doesn't know anything about global warming beyond what NBC news tells them at night. I'd say with the arctic and antarctic ice-caps growing, a declining average global temperature, historical record of multiple warming and cooling periods over the centuries and thousands of scientists agreeing that the sun variations play the pivotal role in climate change, you're the one living in the twilight zone.

[whoo689]

Not that George Carlin's an expert, but he did a very brilliant and hilarious segment where he mocked the environmentalist movement and their idea that man can destroy the Earth in just 100 or so years, a planet that has lasted billions of years. It was great, esp. considering Carlin was pretty liberal himself. Environuts should really give it a try.

Not to mention the "green" solutions proposed by them would have a very devastating impact on developing countries' economic growth.

[Tapecutter59]

Yes Carlin was brilliant, obviously way above your head though, you missed the central point of Carlin's monologue that can be summed up by the quote "The planet's not going anywhere, WE ARE!". (Carlin's emphasises). - Listen to it again watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA

So riddle me this whoo689, if you can't comprehend the underlying truths in a classic stand up routine what makes you think you understand the complexities of science, politics and economics?

[whoo689]

I said the pretty much the SAME thing! Of course I got what he meant. How was it "above my head"? Lol.  Yeah, right.

[whoo689]

All the people who deny anthropogenic global warming are not "shills" for the energy companies. Sure, a small portion are, but there are plenty of other academics and experts who doubt it. Of course, you never hear about them in the mainstream media, which is obviously biased TOWARDS the theory. Most media is sensationalist anyway, and if the sensationalism matches their views, they'll talk about just one side all the time. There have been petitions where countless academics doubted it.

[whoo689]

If you were trying to "debunk" the institute's conference, this is a really silly way to do it. I mean, come on! The average man on the street isn't an expert on this shit. Why does it matter what he/she thinks about it? At least the Heartland Institute people have degrees or some form of academic training and expertise.

[whoo689]

Plus, the head of the weather channel even says it's a hoax. I don't know if it's on youtube, but there's a video where he was in front of a green screen of a graph comparing warming in history to solar sunspot periods (something to that effect), and the graph lines for BOTH matched almost perfectly! The lines for CO2 emissions in the atmosphere didn't correlate very well.

Global warming's a scam. Nature produces far more pollution from things like volcanoes, too. No one's banning those.

[2annoyed2]

Elizabeth Donahue (in this video) came into one of the global warming presentations in NY. She didn't attend the entire presentation and stood up to speak only long enough to spout her angry distain for those of us at the conference. I wish instead, that she would have stayed to discuss her opinion - as everyone at the conference was open to the debate. Instead of interviewing scientists with the valid and correct information, she poled people who are clearly misguided. Its unfortunate.

[anoniab]

Why is it that no matter how much CO2 we produced in the past, and despite the huge efforts we have made to reduce our output, Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall have not changed? Why is it that in the very season we burn so much fuel (to keep warm & clear massive amounts of snow from runways, highways, etc) we don't even begin to put a dent in winter's bitter temps? (this last winter up to -40 below in some states)

[stephen53847]

the term "global warming" is a reference to a slight change in the otherwise fragile balance of the earth's temperature. It doesn't mean that we all have great weather; it means that our grandchildren have to learn new ways to live. Ultimately, it also means the slow march of a new ice age beckons for all...

[anoniab]

Actually the earth's temperature is well moderated by opposing seasons in the Northern and Southern hemispheres caused by the tilt of the earth. Apparently though our orbit wobbles from time to time and that can cause either more heating or more cold - they have abandoned real science to blame a miniscule amout of CO2 for the change. I don't know if you are correct about another ice age, but we are definitely getting cooler. I hope they don't turn that into another political agenda.

[ejbh3160]

FFS there you go again.. "miniscule amount of CO2".. wake up buddy.. 26 BILLION tons every single year & climbing (hopefully not too fast at the moment due to economic factors) Thats 26 BILLION with a B!

All volcanoes on this planet only put out on average 21 MILLION tons.. thats Million with an M! ..& That includes ALL eruptions!!

Whatsmore billions of us want to eat MEAT & methane is a MAJOR factor!

Intensive meat farming creates MORE greenhouse gasses than ALL our energy & transport COMBINED!

[anoniab]

CO2 is only .03% of the entire atmosphere. Have you calculated how much the other gases weigh?

[ejbh3160]

look.. methane is MORE of a problem than CO2 but try telling that to a meat eater!

Intensive meat farming around this planet produces much more greenhouse effect than all our energy production AND transport combined!

But ON TOP OF THAT we've push the CO2 on the planet for 300ppm up to 368+ in less than 100 years! That's the difference between an ice age & a temperate time. so whats the effect going to be UPWARDS? Are you prepared to 'gamble' with the entire planets future for your selfish WANTS?

[anoniab]

"Are you prepared to 'gamble' with the entire planets future for your selfish WANTS?"

What "wants"? (That's a question better suited to Al Gore) I've never been in a plane, I walk most of the time. My furnace is set at 67 and I have to wear 3 layers to keep warm; in the summer I have the A/C on 80. I also don't eat much meat and I conserve water by flushing the "desert way." I never water my lawn. Am I doing enough yet? When does Al get to conserve? He's got at least 4 places to live.

[ejbh3160]

well I'm much the same on that front & have been for decades.. (assuming you aren't just BS'ing me still)

But.. assuming you DO take that much 'care' over the environment.. well done! So why the big arguments all the time?

What the heck has what Al Gore does, got to do with what YOU do anyway? I personally don't care what Al says or does.. I do this because I UNDERSTAND the issues & even IF you are conscientious not everyone IS.

So should the planet be 'gambled' so THEY can consume endless JUNK?

[ejbh3160]

"temperature is well moderated by opposing seasons in the Northern and Southern hemispheres caused by the tilt of the earth"

when we look at 'average' temperatures in the North & 'average' temps in the South we find that the AVERAGE has gone up in BOTH at the same time! We get warmer winters & wetter summers in the UK now & patterns have changed just about everywhere.

The Earths wobble isn't "from time to time" its a very slow process a bit like a spinning top.. no effect on relativity to sun

[anoniab]

"The Earths wobble isn't "from time to time"

I'm not talking about it spinning on its axis

"its a very slow process a bit like a spinning top"

The earth spins about 1,038 miles per hour

[ejbh3160]

silly bugger the WOBBLE is a slow process... its called the 'precession of the Equinoxes'... look it up...

Really dude you DO need to THINK before you type.

[ejbh3160]

In reply to the first question... Because in the past there weren't nearly 7 BILLION of us all wanting a high-tech 'abundant' life-styles...

2nd.. the seasons HAVE changed in most places.. (even if YOU haven't noticed) definitely changed already here in Europe! Thousands died from heat in France a couple of years ago FFS! How many dead will 'prove' it to you??

Mankind puts 26 BILLION tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere that 'nature' had already 'created' & 'sequestered' MILLIONS of years ago!

[anoniab]

I'm not going to bother clicking reply to ejbh3160 who apparently cannot carry on a decent conversation w/o getting nasty.

For those who are willing to check it out, some places are actually colder; it is not getting hotter all over. There has been a cooling trend over the last 8-10 years.

Also in regards to el nina making last summer cooler: What does that do to the theory that CO2 drives climate?

I also want to point out once more that the instruments are being placed near/on heat islands.

[ejbh3160]

You have no idea as usual...

you need to go and study this subject for a few years before thinking you know it..

I wasn't getting nasty... I was getting frustrated with you repeating the same BS about 'averages'... because global averages are on the rise! End of!

The el Nina thing WAS predicted & it proves NOTHING about greehouse gasses!

Now if you would like to PROVE that the heating on this planet is NOT man made... please feel free!!! The Energy cartels will pay you BILLIONS if you CAN!

[anoniab]

Even the recent UN IPCC report attributes well over 50% percent of temperature change of the last 130 years to changes in just one band of the incoming of solar energy spectrum. This amount is now increased by the adjustment due to error recently discovered in the modern record. Long term the Milankovitch Effect (Sun/Earth relationships) explain approximately 75% of temperature change.

[ejbh3160]

I'm not 'assuming' anything friend..

Which 'other' sources of fresh water might you be thinking of??

How fools like you can join in & argue that it's a 'good' thing to lose the glaciers on this planet.. well it just plain amazes me people can be so dumb.. oh well don't talk to me about 'basic' models please.. we've been labouring under the most 'basic' model invented by man.. More.. more.. more & then endless 'growth' without ANY negative consequences?? Please.. grow a brain then try again.

[anoniab]

The loss of the glaciers will be beneficial Check out the "repeat photography of Muir glacier" 63 years later: "In 2004, trees and shrubs grow thickly in the foreground, where in 1941 there was only bare rock."

And then go research the volcanoes of Greenland and Antarctica and see how that lines up with the ice melting. I feel truly sorry that all these people have forgoteen their basic grade school education as to what drives weather.

[ejbh3160]

you're a fool... its official.

And once the glaciers are ALL gone... then were do we get our fresh water from?? Where do the trees that bloomed so well for a short while get their water??

As for volcanoes.. LOL!

Volcanoes emit about 21 MILLION tonnes of CO2 every year on average!

Mankind emits 21 BILLION tonnes of CO2!

Go figure Einstein!

[Coldwarwinner]

"And once the glaciers are ALL gone... then were do we get our fresh water from??"

Same place we get 90% of it right now, ground water.

[ejbh3160]

another fool... and where exactly does 90% of the ground water come from?? And please don't say 'rain' because most rain ends up in rivers and then ultimately out at sea. & so salty again. The cycle of rain sea & ground water is used by man to capacity already seriously affecting levels of water that take CENTURIES to build up.

The fresh water in glaciers represents the majority of the fresh water available to us in melt each year.

eg The monsoon in India is dependent on glacier melt etc etc

[Coldwarwinner]

You're assuming that there are no negative feedbacks in the system and that once glaciers are gone no other source of water will feed the aquifers. That is a very basic model and one that has neither scientific nor observational backing.

[anoniab]

ejbh3160-I wasn't talking about the CO2 the volcanoes produce - I was talking about the HEAT from volcanic activity under the ice. 100 in Chicago will not melt ice in Greenland or Antarctica.

[ejbh3160]

you are a prime example of the sort of stupidity we're faced with...

Climate science is a very complex science... in fact ecology is perhaps the MOST difficult science of all... because of its complexity...

You have ZERO idea about this & your seriously dumb arguments about +100 here & -100 there are irrelevant... because if the AVERAGE temperature has gone UP in BOTH regions that will show up on our models! And guess what?... IT DOES!

Now I've really had it with you.

Bye!

[anoniab]

The averages need to be questioned when the instruments are being placed where they are exposed to heat from jet engines, etc. You cannot ignore heat generated from other sources like volcanoes either.

[ejbh3160]

you are a fool who isn't listening... like millions of others you simply dont WANT to hear the truth... I've been looking into this for over 20 years buddy.

I've given the volcanic figures above & as the term 'average' suggests... those temps are taken into account... now please don't bother me anymore... your argumnets are childishly naiive & show a total LACK of understanding of basic science.

[anoniab]

It is you that are blind. Plants don't grow in the "global average" temp; they go by actual temps. Try getting tomatoes to grow at the global average of approx 60 degrees; it's not going to happen. They don't germinate without an actual temp of approx 72. Nothing grows or functions by averages. The earth doesn't have a "global temp" because the temp is not uniform all over.

[ejbh3160]

you really ARE a bloody fool.

why don't you just get off that high horse about averages... yeah yeah you're really clever aren't you... FFS you're just using SOPHISTRY!

if where you live the average temperature has been 20degrees for the last 5 thousand years & now its gone up to 22 degrees since 200 years ago.. you can see there's an increase in the AVERAGE!!

use that effing BRAIN in your head!

If averages are going up everywhere then you CAN say that temperatures are RISING across the planet!

[anoniab]

Furthermore, no amount of legislation and spending will change the climate. We are all carbon based life forms and due to the cycle of life; we will all eventually be "sequestered" or recycled by burial. The planet is not in peril. The world is not coming to an end. Our planet is wonderfully balanced; when we have summer in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere is having winter - and 100 degrees in one place will never melt ice in Antartica where it's

-50 to -100 below zero.

[ejbh3160]

Furthermore if the temperatures were FALLING somewhere else while they were RISING here.. then the average would stay the same but the winters are getting warmer & the summers Hotter!.. that aint an 'average' thats the SAME...

Now FFS grow a brain will you!

[anoniab]

What you are missing:

1. Some places could use warming

2. If Minnesotans, Iowans, etc. had milder winters it would drive the average up.

3. It would not affect people in Africa or South America.

[ejbh3160]

You haven't understood a word!

You've gone off on your 'averages BS again.. the point is the effing averages are going up in Minnesota Africa Asia S.America.. ummm ALL OVER THE PLANET! EVEN Antarctica & the Arctic! Are you stupid or something?

They've even got all sorts of amazing technology where they can put it all together in one place.. its called a computer!!

Then they can put in past data & look at ice cores & see even further back in relation to now!

Now FFS leave me alone will you!!

[2annoyed2]

ejbh3160 - I find it difficult to believe you've been an ecologist for 30+ yrs and its clear where you get the majority of your data.... because truth be known, the "green" organizations have funneled far more $ into this "global warming" hysteria than any energy supplier. The basic fact is: Climate Changes!!! and thank God, or humans wouldn't be living on this planet... we came AFTER the warming started. The human impact (if ANY) on climate is as natural and acceptable as the impact of trees

[ejbh3160]

Good grief..

Firstly you could say this change will be 'natural' as human beings evolved here.. but to suggest mankind is having no an effect is like saying you can endlessly pollute a lake with toxins & all the fish will somehow survive.

Its just stupidity.

But to suggest that the 'Greens' have funneled more money than energy cartels into propaganda is just wrong buddy.

Energy cartels have been 'defining environmental truth' for decades! Why do you think Peak Oil is such a big deal to them?

[anoniab]

Did you check out the repeat photos of the Muir glacier 63 years later? "In 2004, trees and shrubs grow thickly in the foreground, where in 1941 there was only bare rock."

[anoniab]

How can there be global warming w/o a global temp? All temps are local. An average is not a temp. You can have 100 in Chicago and -100 in Antarctica on the same day and get an average of 0, or you can have both places reading 0 on the same day. In both cases, the average would be 0, which would tell you nothing about reality. Does your thermostat run on the global avg? If not, then neither does the planet.

[ejbh3160]

For goodness sakes try to use that brain..

Global temps are based on averages in each and every country since records began.. the models covering the entire planet clearly show average global temperatures are rising & quite noticably is some areas.. just coz you don't live in one of those areas don't think it won't come to you eventually.. because the way things are going IT WILL!

All the models predict a 'tipping point' where there is a massive change. Sadly not many are likely to survive THAT

[anoniab]

ejbh3160-"Global temps are based on averages"

Again, that makes it an average, not a temp. Does your thermostat run on the global average? Do you check the global average before deciding whether to put a coat on before going out? No, you check the local temp; no, the average is irrelevant as to whether you wear a coat - and it's likewise irrelevant to the planet.

By the way, we have "climate change" 4 times/yr.

[ejbh3160]

thats just (poor) sophistry from a fool with nowhere else to turn...

If the 'average' is RISING then one can ASSUME that the temperatures ARE rising... and when the averages everywhere are rising.. well shock horror it means the temperatures everywhere are rising...

you are just showing everyone how stupid you are now anoniab...

&... Actually when I'm going on holiday I ALWAYS check the 'average' temperature at my destination...

You people really need to grow a brain.

[anoniab]

They don't need to change at the top to be rising and it wouldn't show in the averages. All it would have to do is not get quite as cold. Would you call going from

-51 below to -50below "warming"? Even if it went from -51 to -41, what drastic consequences is that going to have? Do the math: You can actually have 100 in Chicago and -100below in Antarctica at the same time and get an avg of 0 or you can have both places at 0 - the avg remains the same and tells you nothing about what reality is.

[ejbh3160]

FFS you've got this bee in yr bonnet about 'averages' & you dont even UNDERSTAND it!

'Average' temperatures are RISING!

They are 'based' on REAL data! It means if the temperature in ONE area 'on average' was 10 degrees & now it's 'on average'12 degrees & the same pattern is being repeated ALL OVER the planet, that's called a RISE!

Quite frankly I've had it arguing with you. You obviously don't know the first thing about it & you need to grasp the science behind what I'm saying.

Have a good life!

[anoniab]

"if the temperature in ONE area 'on average' was 10 degrees & now it's 'on average'12 degrees"

What you don't realize is how many different combinations of numbers can end up with those averages.

[bmcosti]

So did you interview any of the scientists, economists, legislators, or public policy experts that were at the conference, or just these random people on the street?

[Coldwarwinner]

Al Gore and his scientists were invited to the conference, but they declined the invitation. Same exact thing happened with almost every media outlet. Apparenly they've chosen to collect facts about global warming out on the street from laymen.

[anoniab]

Coldwarwinner-"Al Gore and his scientists were invited to the conference, but they declined the invitation."

Very true. I believe he was invited both in 2008 as well.

[bsacr]

Please drop the alarmism.

Sure anthropogenic CO2 has an impact (so BTW do land use and aerosols) but it's all very minor stuff.

Fact: the mean upper ocean temperature has been decreasing for about 5 years.

Fact: the IPCC's computer models have ~zero predictive skill on multi-decadal time frames.

These sceptics are doing what proper scientists ought to do: talking up where AGW theory doesn't work.

Science in action!

"Dissent is the native activity of the scientist..."

Bronowski

[justtex1975]

"...all very minor stuff..." Precisely.

"Fact: the mean upper oce..." True. Also, water temp is highly relative to soluble co2 concentration.

"...Fact: the IPCC's comp..." Correct. Model accuracy always diminish, profoundly, over time.

"...doing what proper scientists ought..." Exactly. Nullius in verba (On no-one's word) was the past credo. Scientist should revere the phrase.

Also, undoubtedly, in time, without distraction, emotional input/impacts, science is always self correcting.

[Grassrootbeer]

Have you ever dug into names like Fred Singer or Patrick Michaels, who were two of the very few actually credentialed scientists at the conference?  Singer was involved in the oh-so-similar denial of cigarette smoking and cancer, and now the same PR Firm that paid him to defend the tobacco industry is paying him to do the same with climate change. And when was the last time he released a peer-reviewed study?

This is realism. Please drop the interference and join the people in the real world.

[stopglobalwarming08]

denier convention = COMEDY HOUR

hahahhahahaha

[rileannas]

Fantastic video. It gives me hope to see that the skeptical Youtube commenters do not necessarily represent public opinion accurately. Polls show that the majority of the public is aware of this issue and wants the government to do more.

People who visit every climate change video on Youtube to write the most controversial, scathing, and scientifically inaccurate comments they can think of are not as numerous as they may seem.

Keep up hope.

[electrorocket]

Well 2008 was the coolest year in 10 years

The Arctic ice grew this winter faster than ever recorded since 1979, over 30% since last year

Antarctic ice is greater than it has been since 1979

the world record warmest year that Nasa has data for is still 1934

sea level has been rising for 20,000 years

these people are just spouting the crap they hear in the MSM, and the filmakers just edit out anyone they don't agree with

YOU wake the fuck up, as you so eloquently put it, moron

[shesapainter]

The zombies don't want to wake up. I admire those like you who keep trying. Good job!

[ejbh3160]

2008 was an el-nina year and it was predicted that there would be a 'drop' in temperatures for that one year. The overall trend is still very much UP!

This year will be one of the hottest on record!

Come back in December & 'deny' it.

[electrorocket]

yeah, it was also predicted we would have no arctic ice caps this year, yet they grew 30% last year, 7% the year before, and have gone longer into the spring than ever recorded before rising above 0C. So far it have been many low temperature and snow records set for this spring, including Illinois and Arizona.

[ejbh3160]

Like I said last year was an el-nina year so it was predicted.

You have to look at data from more than TWO years friend!

Come back in December! We will see.

In the UK averages are already UP this year & we're about to be hit by a 'heat-wave'... apparently.

Come back in December (or probably more like January next year when the figures are all in).

All you've done is say that CLIMATE CHANGE is already affecting you!

Average temps in the USA have risen nearly 2degrees in the last century alone!

[maganz]

Leftist is the historical lag of the inquisition, always already assuming their correctness. And via the witch hunt that they call political commitment, they try to prove that their adversaries are either stupid or evil by social exorcism, instead of addressing their arguments. It's of no consequence that them that their own arguments fall into the category of sophistical refutations. What counts for bullshitters is not the truth, but the impressions that they get away with among themselves.

[tHoM0r]

rofl.

[maganz]

What about listening to their arguments instead of just assuming that what the media has told the sheeple is the truth? You don't realize it but your and your are in fact committing a severe logical fallacy here, by assuming that you can dismiss an argument without listening to it, and withouth saying anything of relevance against it. And you can't reject arguments just by appealing to the popular sheeple opinion of the day. The sheeple has been wrong before.

[ejbh3160]

so what makes you think YOU are so right?? Who's to say YOU aren't one of those 'sheeple' just following the 'deniers' propaganda instead?

The 'deniers' have had the lime-light for the past 40 years! But independent climate scientists have known this was coming for all that time!

& now the public know too..

But of course we all know that big oil, coal, nuke & other polluters are throwing BIllions at PR excercises to cast 'doubt' into people's minds! Seems you've bought it hook line & sinker!!

[maganz]

It is very sad that the political class with their endless manipulation and bullshitting has managed to corrupt their supporters so terribly that people today are unable to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant rejections. A democracy or a civilization can not survive the reduction over everybody to a state of utter and total stupidity. If you don't understand that it you want to reject an argument, you need to listen to it first, then there is no hope.

[ejbh3160]

oh pleeeeas!!

WTF are you on about?

For a start I have been an ecologist for 30 years now! I DO understand the issues & the science.

What's so gob-smacking about YOUR attitude is that I very much doubt if you've read the scientific reports that have shown scientists & politicians alike, that MMGW is very much REAL!

FFS we dump 25 BILLION TONNES of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR!

All the volcanoes on Earth only produce 21 Million tonnes pa (data from US geological society)!

Use your brain!

[anoniab]

ejbh3160-What drives weather? Basic grade school science:

1. Distance of earth from the sun

2. Tilt of the earth on its axis which affects the angle and intensity of the suns rays - this creates our seasons (Latitude determines what climatic zone one lives in)

3. Orbit of the earth around the sun

4. Rotation of the earth which makes for warming by day and cooling by night - this is what creates our winds and jet streams.

[ejbh3160]

good grief... yes.. but your point is??

That (& more) is what 'drives' it.. ie where the 'energy' comes from... but what is it 'driving'??

If you change the mixture of gasses you change density of gasses... chemistry in relation to heating/cooling effect... reaction to solar radiation and feedback effect on climate!

Its an incredibly complex system & recent models are only giving 'glimpses' of whats really going on. Everytime we add another factor we hadn't included it all changes again!

[anoniab]

ejbh3160-CO2 is only responsible for

3.8% of the atmosphere and recent models have been wrong. CO2 is rising while temps have fallen. None, I repeat, none of them predicted that.

[ejbh3160]

anoniab

you are full of it dude.

you are simply ignoring the facts!

There was a dip in temps last year... Because it was an El Nina year (look it up)... it WAS EXPECTED fool!

The trend is still very much UPWARDS! But you'll see...

You and your alter-ego here need to wake up to the genuine FACTS & NOT the propaganda that is put out by fosil fuel Corporations to 'justify' their GREED!!

Its simply UNSUSTAINABLE (as we SHOULD have noticed by now with the collapse of that system of endless 'growth')

[anoniab]

(Correction; that should be .038%)

[BeHereNow21]

The problem is that you wonät find real facts by asking people on the streets, because they will essentially tell you what media tells them. And media is not a reliable source for facts!

[Grassrootbeer]

Apparently they have the right idea though, facts or no facts.

[frankodelic]

desmogblog ROCKS!

Thanks for cutting through the crap and shining light on the truth. Keep up the great work!

[frankodelic]

denial-palooza... love it!!! lol... :)