(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Already on the decline, will global warming hasten demise of big trees?
.
Already on the decline worldwide, big trees face a dire future due to habitat fragmentation, selective harvesting by loggers, exotic invaders, and the effects of climate change, warns an article published this week in New Scientist magazine.
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Scientists warn on damage to peatlands
.
Scientists have warned that damaged UK peatlands – areas formed over thousands of years from dead and decaying plants in waterlogged conditions – are a significant source of carbon dioxide.
Dr Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.
Part 27 of 27: The above is ubiquitous. It is initially debated @the post doctoral level. A kind soul dumbs it down to college graduate level. Another kind soul dumbs it down to HS graduate level. Another soul dumbs it down for HS students. Others dumb it down so my 7 yr old grandson understands it. There is no excuse for not knowing the abv facts. Not ignorance, not laziness, NOTHING
@MISTERWHITE111 I agree with most of what you've said here, but why post it all in the comment section of some obscure video? Make your own video detailing these points like other great youtubers have done such as Greenman3610 and Potholer54
Prt 26 of 27: The only reason that oil /coal compete w/ alternatives is b/c your tax dollars subsidize them. Your tax dollars have subsidized nearly ALL the oil infrastructure for 100 yrs. Dick Cheney stated in 2001 to the media, “Americans pay $3 per gallon at the pump for a $15 gallon of gas”. Cheney understated that figure (it doesn’t include the $3 Trillion spent in Iraq); the point is clear
Prt 25 of 27 : But most Americans, b/c of their inferior intelligence, drive as they feel they are ENTITLED to drive .. and waste as much oil as they possibly can. They feel that if their politicians can’t keep the prices down at the pump, all they have to do is lie about the politician and get him voted out of office
Prt 24 of 27: The economy is in the tank b/c Americans spend too much on energy. If Americans drove the way they were TAUGHT to drive, their gas cost would be 1/3 of what it is and NOT A SINGLE DROP OF IMPORTED OIL WOUL D BE NEEDED.
Prt 23 of 27: Oil is the most expensive source of fuel POSSIBLE. Coal is the next most expensive. Nat Gas is the 3rd &, operationally, NG is 2.5 TIMES as expensive operationally as nuclear power. ALL of them are many times as expensive as clean sources such as ocean current (can provide 100 times as much energy as Americans use), geothermal (can provide a billion times as much as Americans can use)
Prt 22 of 27: Fossil fuels are contributing to the approach of a tipping point. But let’s assume for a moment the LUDICROUS position that fossil fuels BENEFIT the environment. IT is STILL ridiculous to use fossil fuels because it is necessary to burn 100 barrels of oil to get 15 barrels of energy from the burning (15% efficient). A barrel of oil is RIDICULOUSLY expensive
Prt 21 of 27: The hockey stick reconstructions have been derived by over a DOZEN separate studies using different datasets. All are similar. This led to a major published report in the Journal Nature which AFFIRMED the Hockey Stick Conclusions. But the hockey stick curve is simply unnecessary b/c there are 1000’s of different supporting studies & NONE that are contrary. NONE
Prt 20 of 27: I suppose if the scientists had been interested in the average American understanding their private e-mails, they would have made sure that no word in the e-mail was longer than a single syllable. If you can’t understand the content of the e-mails, you have NO FRICKING BUSINESS commenting on those e-mails.
Prt 19 of 27: But we can see the wisdom in scientists keeping their e-mails private. 60% of Americans have been UNABLE to read the batch of e-mails that were leaked & ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THEM. It is ASTOUNDING that Americans are so scientifically illiterate that they can’t even understand the contents of those e-mails.
Prt 18 of 27: A thing I find comical is that there are so many illiterate Americans SQUEALING that scientists are hiding their private e-mails. WTF? Do YOU keep your e-mails private? Do you? Is it because you are hiding some great conspiracy? Of COURSE IT ISN’T.
Prt 17 of 27: Then there is the criminal who was paid to steal private e-mails & post them worldwide but was too dishonest to post them in context or using his name. Then there are liars like the guy who posted this & other videos & “Ignoramus speaks out” who is probably paid to post lies & who knows he is lying. Yes, they have committed fraud
Prt 16 of 27: Who are those that conspire to commit fraud. Let’s list them: The Koch Brothers (oil company barons) who have created a $trillion propaganda machine composed of a 1000 disinformation manufacturers like the Cato Inst. & the AEI. Then, there are the liars at the massive right wing media giants
Prt 15 of 27: The other 1000 e-mails were so innocuous they couldn’t even be doctored by the criminals to appear to construe fraud. All 5 impartial panels & FACTCHECK reviewed every one of the e-mails & found no fraud, they found no evidence of any non-scientific manipulation of data. They found all the claims of hiding data were lies since all the data is readily available on the net & 3,000 scientists use the data
Prt 14 of 27: W/o manipulation, data is simply NOT USEFUL. It CANT be comprehended. If “manipulated data” concerns you, you DAMN WELL better stay off bridges, out of buildings, off aircraft, off roadways, b/c each of those was designed & built using “manipulated data”. Do not use anything that has a weld or a bolt if you don’t trust “manipulated data”
Prt 13 of 27: They understand what “manipulating data” means. During the Gulf War, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles hit targets in Baghdad launched from the VLS tubes of LA Class subs. The data used by NAVSEA for targeting was “manipulated data”. I know because I MANIPULATED the data & gave it to NAVSEA. That “manipulated data” yielded an accurate strike fired from 1000 miles away
Prt 12 of 27: Now … people who have actually done science at a level of a 4th grader or above understand the way scientists speak. So anyone with a 4th grade education can read the authentic e-mails & KNOW WITHOUT RESERVATION that there is no fraud being committed (except by the oil company funded deniers who stole & doctored the e-mails)
Prt 11 of 27: 5 independent scientific bodies reviewed ALL 1073 and found not one shred of fraud, not a single instance of hiding or unethical manipulation of data. Subsequently, Penn State University, FACTCHECK, and most recently oil company funded Muir Russell have reviewed the data & found COMPLETE AGREEMENT with findings deniers have claimed as false
Prt 10 of 27: Despite the liars’ claims (they are liars), there is no GW fraud by scientists. There is MASSIVE fraud on the part of the oil company funded denier movement. 1073 e-mails were stolen by paid criminals too cowardly to use their names. Less than 100 were released to the web. Every single one of those e-mails was either doctored or presented without context
Prt 9 of 27: CO2 is an AMPLIFIER of warming. Temps start to rise which releases CO2. The release of CO2 increases warming. The increased warming increases the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. People who have made it as far as the 4th grade understand this concept. It is called a feedback cycle. It is REAL
Prt 8 of 27: A population choke point occurred in which there were barely enough reproductive proto-humans to keep the species alive. Less than 2000 individuals remained. All current humans were traced by DNA back to a single female (140,00 YA) and to a single male (90,000 YA)
Prt 7 of 27: Yes, temperatures were warmer in the past. Because of those warmer temperatures, 99.99% of all species that have occupied the Earth have died out. 1,000,000 years ago, proto-humans nearly died out because of the change in worldwide temps. Current extinctions are being tracked w/ ALL OF THEM being caused by human interference. Many species are extinct because of warming
Prt 6 of 27: The sun was particularly inactive in 2010, yet the temperatures were the warmest since physical records have been kept. This corresponds completely to the overwhelming research that the sun variance is not the driver that is causing the current warming trend. All the temps in the 21st century were higher than any other global temp prior to the anomalous 1998
Prt 5 of 27: Each of these years, 1998 to 2010 are warmer than all the other years prior to1998 going back as far as has been measured. All observed evidence reveals that detrimental effects are compounding. Desertification, dead zones in the seas, ice mass lost, albedo dropping like a rock
Prt 4 of 27: All evidence points to a warmer, less habitable climate. 2010 & 2005 are tied as the warmest years since temp records were kept (131 years). 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 & 2007 are statistically tied as the 3rd warmest years on record. 2010, even being the warmest on record, had 2 conditions that, had they been absent, would’ve made 2010 far warmer, a truly hot year (La Nina & an inactive sun)
Prt 3 of 27: Only 0.0007% of these 10,000,000 scientists have approached the science of global warming from a position of denial. They cant be called skeptics; they don’t approach science w/ skepticism. The difference btw skepticism & denialism is complete. They are polar opposites. For ex., no skeptic –NOT ONE- believes that climate science is rigged. Only deniers propagate that urban legend
Prt 2 of 27: There are 10,000,000 scientists in the world. 99.9993% have approached the science of global warming from a position of skepticism. ALL of those 99.9993% have been convinced by the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that GW is a fact & that mankind has made a contribution to that warming. There is a slight difference of opinion on the significance of that contribution
Prt 1 of 27: This is a summation of facts re: climate change (global warming). If you don’t understand any of this COMPLETELY, then you simply aren’t sufficiently educated to function effectively in the 21st cent. Every policy debate centers ENTIRELY on issues REQUIRING a 21st cent education, if you don’t have it, you shouldn’t be permitted within 1000’ of a polling booth. These facts CAN’T be disputed
@MISTERWHITE111 That's a LOT of defending going on there!You sound like any other fundamentalist whose ship ship is clearly sinking!!! You sound like Poor old George Monbiot!
Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974
Remember back when the Earth was cooling before, due to a small solar reduction... Earth Day was created amid warnings of a new Ice Age.
”The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
I remember when Time magazine wrote an article in 1972 a future ice age. I also remember when Scientific American wrote in June 1959 about man made CO2 causing catastrophic warming. But neither of these is scientific journals. The peer reviewed journals were either predicting warming in the 1970's or did not predict anything. Your problem is that you are relying on the Koch Brothers think tanks and haven'[t figured out that everything you got is wrong.
@MISTERWHITE111 Maybe you're too young and inexperienced to remember the scientists pleading with Congress during that cooling period to do something. Or the CIA report predicting massive crop failure, population displacement (things that actually happened in the 1970s).
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, April 1970.
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
“By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, 1970.
Denis Hayes .. w/ his history degree? ~~GUFFAW~~ Africa isnt in famine? Please tell that to Sudan. Hell, tell the people of Ga & Tex there really isn't a drought. My global temp data stands. The highest global temps in 131 yrs. BTW .. I had more physics by age 10 than youll have on your deathbed. Its now happy hour. If you can find some way to actually make your arguments competitive & not just a regurgitation of Koch talking points been proven false, let me know
Let us PRAY that it is warmer today than it was 131 years ago, during the Little Ice Age.
All you're trying to do is dodge the FACT that our expensive satellites (and I am one of the guys who built them) have shown us exactly what is driving Earth temperatures. The same thing that always has.
@MISTERWHITE111 Once again, you are babbling nonsense. You say the name Dennis Hayes and ramble about African famine... but those things have nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Thanks to expensive satellites, we are closely monitoring solar energy output and can definitively see exactly WHY CO2 has been unable to cause global warming since 2005.
The Sun, the actual driving force, simply stopped warming up.
ROARS WITH LAUGHTER!! You brought up historian Hayes, NOT ME. You brought up the claim that there is no famine, I proved you wrong. Thanks to expensive satelittes, there is nearly universal agreement that the recent ACCELERATION in warming is NOT DUE TO solar variance. Your claim that warming stopped in 2005 is simply laughable as I have already documented that 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 are among the warmest in the last 131 years
Let's summarize - you cling to 20 year old quotes from guys who used to believe in the crap - and whose eyes have been opened.
They are bailing out of government-controlled institutions that are corrupting the science in order to convince a gullible public that massive new taxation and wealth redistribution is "necessary" to "save the planet".
Well, "useful idiots" once were told it was "necessary" to rip the beating heart out of a human chest to make the sun rise and save the planet...
"In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work." - Hal Lewis
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. " - Hal Lewis
The emails of Mann and his colleagues reveal quite a lot of scheming to manipulate the data and results as well as fight off Freedom of Information Act demands to access them.
I get it now ... youre a liar who knows NOTHING abt science. No scheming, data treated the way all data is treated. Youd know this if youd ever studied even the most elementary of statistics. You remind me of the imbeciles who say that b/c a pollster didn't ask them their opinion on a particular survey, the poll is invalid. Mann did the exact right thing in ignoring the FOIA by people who merely wanted to tie up research hours & had no interest in actually using the data
Aren't you the MORON who insisted Mann's data was always available? Yeah.
Mann and his buddies concealed their data and methods from peer review as well as they could get away with. They were FORCED to do what real scientists are obligated to do.
I am the knowledgble one who knows that the data is available to all who need it. Hey dumbshit ... there are currently 3,000 scientists who have been using the data since 1998. IF you knew ANYTHING about science, you know that science requires REPLICATION of data. The raw data is on line for anyone to use. IF you knew how to GOOGLE, you could access it too. My GOD you are stupid.
What should be done is to get a professor in logic to use your posts as examples of logical fallacies. HAve his student take the posts you have made here today including your misuse of the e-mails you have posted, and as an assignment, find as many fallacies as the students can find. If they find 30, they get an "A". Find 28, they get a "B" and so on. You have committed every one of them.
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! - Phil Jones on witholding data
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. - Keven Trenberth
Incidentally, this demonstrates their FAILURE to account for solar changes. The Earth was cooling since 2005 because the Sun simply stopped warming. What idiots.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. - Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results)
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. - Nick McKay, on modifying data
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites.... best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people. - Mann (notorious for concealing code and data)
NOAA greenhouse gas index shows increase in climate-warming gases
,
A greenhouse gas emissions report card issued this week by a group of Boulder scientists shows the world is failing to stem the increase of climate-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Mikhail Gorbachev - he's the Communist who created Green Cross International to orchestrate this global takeover of nations' wealth in the name of "fighting climate change".
They can't stop Nature from doing what it does any more than the Aztec priests could actually make the Sun rise with human sacrifice...
There has been no warming of the planet since 2005.
2010 contained an interesting aberration, a three month long El Nino effect that spread previously-warmed water over the ocean's surface to raise the average heat measurements from space. Meaning, lots more heat energy was escaping into space.
This basic thermodynamic principle resulted in greater cooling of the oceans and the rest of the year was well below record temperatures.
@Oddessuss It's amazing how badly the political institutions want an excuse to suck up our money and play their wealth redistribution games (global Communism).
IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts
@Oddessuss Are you trying to say something? "Go read blah blah blah" is not a way to present information for consideration.
And, yes, it is a money-sucking con job up to the highest levels. Mikhail Gorbachev created and directs Green Cross International to handle the global propaganda coordination. The UN's IPCC is a group of political hacks intentionally misrepresenting the science to create an excuse for global wealth redistribution - meaning plundering the USA.
@Oddessuss If all you can do is call people names, you're gonna lose big time in the credibility department.
Were you unaware of Mikhail Gorbachev's activities? You should look into that. He has taken 'redistribution of wealth' global, with the "Green" movement.
@VerumJusticia Seriously dude why do you keep mentioning Al fucking Gore. Hes a polician , and I dont give him too much credit. like i said JUST READ A FUCKING SCIENCE JOURNAL You are insane BTW communist conspiricy for fucks sake grow a brain.
Please don't ever stop posting. I love laughing at drooliong imbeciles like you who can't even make an intelligent claim. Now that the 3 Stooges are dead, I need to get my entertainment from morons like you.
So .... Gorbachev has joined the US military, 99.9999% of all scientists and most economists in understanding the irrefutable fact of gobal warming. I will be willing to bet that you can find Gorbechev stating that drinking water is a good thing, too. Do you even TRY to think before you post? EVER?
"Against global warming"? what the $#%@$ does that mean. Actually, there are no scientists that do not agree with the conclusions that climate is warming. Maybe what you are trying to say is that there are 3200 scientists (out of 10,000,000 in the world) who think that man's contribution is minimal or that global warming has gone too far to be reversed. That is a teeny tiny percentage of the whole.
Since we've had about five years of cooling, we know a great many theories promoting CO2 as the "forcing agent" have been dead wrong.
So, what has been causing the warming and cooling?
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade" - NASA
Then...
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
AGW is real. Throw your best argument at me, I will refute it with easy. If believing in AGW is so idiotic, you guys should have no problem disproving it.
@Tactic11 Have you ever taken a basic logic class? We don't have to disprove it. Proving a negative is illogical. You warmists are making the assertion that AGW is happening, so the burden of proof is on you.
Here's one for you.. I wonder if anyone is posting "the speed of light is..." "Come its real, prove me wrong!"
The fact that you have to post something so pathetic is proof enough. In real science you dont see lame arguments like this.
By the way, AGW is the old term, you need to switch to climate change. If you use AGW, then you can't explain the that there has been no waming since 2005. In fact, cooling.
@Nightverslonn "In real science you dont see lame arguments like this" - In real science, we don't have deniers. They tend to not make it far in the scientific field, because well, they aren't the brightest people I have found.
It is true there has been no warming of the air since 2005, despite 2009 being the second warmest year on global record and the fact that ocean temperature keeps rising at a consistent rate really tells me the warming hasn't stopped.
@Nightverslonn If you look at any graphing of temperatures, you will see a trend where the graph has VERY steep increases in slope and decreases in slope. If you cherry pick any 5 years, you can get any trend you want. What we want (well I should say scientists) is something of statistical significance. These 6 years are not that, and the trend with these years is not significant cooling, nor a cooling trend, just slightly cooler years than 2005.
@Nightverslonn "As part of the study, the researchers also analyzed the use of these two terms on political think tank websites, finding that liberals and conservatives used different terms. Conservative think tanks tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal think tanks call it climate change."
Well I am certainly no conservative by today's standards, I change the terms around liberally. Some days I will to it as climate change, some days global warming, some AGW.
@Nightverslonn "That latter switch was championed by the GOP’s spinmaster, Frank Luntz, who, as it turns out, also championed switching from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ in 2003."
There is no context needed for this, as it explains itself. Both terms are in fact interchangeable, despite what republican spinmasters want you to think. Frank Luntz writes talking points for the republican parties so they will all say the same crap, making it seem more believable.
@Nightverslonn I'd say the terms global warming and climate change have slightly different meanings depending on the context. Climate change can account for outliers better, but the term itself isn't specific. It only deals with change, not the exact problem. I like the term(s) Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming better because they denote a more specific meaning.
Really all it is is semantics, to distract from the true topic at large.
@Nightverslonn The term "The Big Bang" would denote a large explosion, with a bang, something audible. In fact, the whole term is a misnomer. There was neither a bang (sound), nor an explosion. People still accept the term, even though it technically isn't accurate of what truly happened.
If you know nothing of science, the term "Theory of Evolution" would confuse you. A person would merely think that it was a simple theory, not backed by anything. It is completely different in nature.
Man caused global warming is a hoax. I knew it from the moment Al Gore's dumbass wanted back in the spotlight after getting his ass kicked by Bush in the election. Its a natural cycle any idiot should know that.
all this assholes they live on this earth to how in the world they can deny what is happening round of us. Any body who is against the global warming specially among scientists they don't have right to call them self scientists. those mother fucker like in the dark ages religious leaders try to convince people you can communicate with god only through them. Are those assholes trying to represent OIL CORPORATIONS over human kind.
Which mother fucker gave Christy scientists degree? He has sub human mentality. His brain is not big enough to comprehend how our inner space is functioning who is the fuck he is to give his opinion. I'm hoping when there are massive problems and deaths start round the glob any body lost loved one make sure they sue this sun of bitch.
@MrOTLChamp Tell me what has color to do with existing facts? If you have education give me one fact to make global warming wrong, do you have enough understanding how global warming works? Do you know how our inner space functions? Do you know what exactly carbon dioxide does to our inner space? If you have just little clue what is happening round of us give your best shot. Let me see what color has to do with your brain capacity.
@Levon9404 the existing facts goes like this..The hockey stick temp graph created by Mann, was a fake. E-mails at the HadleyCRU, expose more fraud and missrepresentations of science. Satellites from the NOAA were reading 10-15 degrees higher than actual temps and those were averaged in creating the "hottest decade ever recorded" And the list goes on. So in short...to believe everything you hear would be ignorant at best. Do some research, you will see enough fraud to NOT believe everything
@MrOTLChamp Okay I see where you 're coming from but. Why are you taking other peoples words if you 're smart enough do your own research, you will see where the truth will take you. If you have common sense you should notice by now something is happening with our weather pattern. Those scientists which are against global warming they cannot possibly argue sun is getting hotter or we have unusual more volcanic activities because non of them will be correct.
@Levon9404 I've done some research and what I see is NOT warming over the last decade. Infact by what we are able to see(only what they let us see) there is no warming. And knowing that the sun is going to sleep for a while(solar minimum) we will see a decline in global temps. When these temps go down..So will the CO2, as it will be absorbed much faster back into the oceans. Also, the temps over the last million years have a pattern. And the next phase of the pattern is dramatic cooling.
@MrOTLChamp If you look things more realistically, you will notice summers are becoming hotter & winters becoming colder that trend will continue on as long as we are keep dumping carbon dioxide in the air! Think about our moon the side is facing toward sun is +220 C. the side is away from sun blow 0 -270 C. Because we have oceans temperature will fluctuate from hot to cold & wise a verse. trust me is not because sun is cooling down. it doesn't matter how much sun cool down.
@Levon9404 Actually, where I'm at (southern California) summers have been cooling, as well as winters. Infact the local mtns have already seen snow this month, and it's not even Halloween. The levels of CO2 can be doubled and still only about a .6 degree C is expected. which basically is nothing. Certainly not catastrophic. We were far warmer during the MWP than today, which not only shows the "hockeystick" is BS, but adds to the question as to why it was faked.
@MrOTLChamp I live southern California to. I agree with you here weather was mild but you have to calculate over changes though out the earth. If you remember in state of Texas they had the longest counting hot days ever. Just pay attention how fast weather changes from ho to cold and back. Like about 20 years ago I start to checked the weather changes yearly basis just last 10 years it start to fluctuate like that. And it getting worst.
@Levon9404 I don't see where you are comming from. The climate has always changed. Keep in mind when they say things like Texas not having that many hot days in a row. The recorded data is very limited at best. They didn't even start keeping daily records until the mid 1800's and even then it was only in a few places on earth. It really doesn't mean anything. Texas has gone through many droughts thoughout it's history, and will continue to do so. And now they are getting snow again.
@MrOTLChamp You know we have hot & cold currents year round over all changes it shouldn't pass more than 5 degree Fahr. from cold to hot & wise verse when you have right mixtures of gases within atmosphere & it took more than week to go that kind of changes. Just pay attention how fast now day temperatures changes 25 to 30 degrees within 3 days. The whole reason that happen because our atmosphere it is lot thinner over the lands because of carbon dioxide than over the oceans.
@MrOTLChamp Oceans constantly consuming carbon dioxide replacing with oxygen. You know water made of oxygen & hydrogen when sun break them part oxygen becomes gas again. You should know better than that we are poisoning our oceans drinking water & ground. It is getting to the point our oceans having hard time to replace carbon dioxide fast enough. Year over year we going to see more and more severe weather, summers & winters will be unbearable nothing will grow any more because of it.
@Levon9404 You have no idea what you're talking about. The highest change in temperature was in Montana, going from -54 to +49, that was in 1972. highest ever recorded in the US was in California in 1913, highest in Africa 1922, Canada 1903. You need to go do some research. A change of 25-30 deg in 3 days happens all the time. Look it up.
" summers & winters will be unbearable nothing will grow any more because of it." Where did you get that nonsense?
@MrOTLChamp Okay lets presume you right & I'm wrong. Can you explain why is that so many people suffering with skin cancer. Do you realize just 200 mile into the space suns heat reaches +220 degrees C. What do you think hold back that +220 degree to reach our earth's surface & all our atmosphere made of gas, think about that. There is no spacial layer within our atmosphere to hold back that kind of pressure. You know that our moon get all that +220 C. degrees.
@Levon9404 What does that have to do with the hypothesis of CO2 causing catastrophic changes to our climate? Skin cancer has nothing to do with CO2. Yes, gases in our atmosphere help protect us from radiation. Things like water vapor from our oceans help keep the planet cool, as well as warm. That's why the moon get so hot as well as so cold. And deserts work the same way. A lack of water vapor allows it to get hot during the day and cold at night.
@MrOTLChamp Do you know living creature are the weakest form of energy exists within universe weaker the energy easier to destroy that energy. Because of it there is no life form over other planets.
@Levon9404 Where are you going with this? Do you just make things up, or what? I think you should go back and read what you write. It's almost funny. Except, it shows our public school system has completely failed you. I think your parents should sue.
12 hours: 83°F, Granville, ND, Feb. 21, 1918, from–33°F to 50°F from early morning to late afternoon.
15 minutes: 42°F, Fort Assiniboine, MT, Jan. 19, 1892, from–5°F to 37°F.
7 minutes: 34°F, Kipp, MT, Dec. 1, 1896; observer also reported that a total rise of 80°F occurred in a few hours and that 30 in of snow disappeared in one-half day.
2 minutes: 49°F, Spearfish, SD, Jan. 22, 1943, from–4°F at 7:30 A.M ., to 45°F at 7:32 A.M
@MrOTLChamp If you can explain me what our atmosphere does for our earth surface, beside supplying oxygen for living creatures. I will agree with you carbon dioxide is not harmful for our atmosphere. But if you cannot then all that data is useless the one you provided. You cannot spend more money than what you are depositing into the bank if you do it will bounce your account. This is what is happening within atmosphere we depositing more CO/2 than nature can process.
@Levon9404 You keep contradicting yourself. First you say the summers are getting hotter and the winters are getting colder. Then you turn around and agree that we are having cooler summers and cooler winters.
Then, you say CO2 is not harmful for our atmosphere, and you claim that the oceans can't take in as much CO2 as we are putting in to the air, as if it was bad. Plants need CO2 and even though CO2 is about 400ppms, it is still in the lower 10% from it's average, naturally.
@MrOTLChamp Soon I will add another video clips about global warming I would encourage you watch that it will be ready within month. You will find out truly what CO/2 does to our environment & to us. You have no idea how fragile it is life form. Another thing I never contradicted to my self. If CO/2 was that good people won't die from carbon monoxide poisoning think what you saying. How poison can be good for you, it is good for oil & coil companies they are making billions of profits.
@Levon9404 You are so uneducated about what you're saying, it's really sad. CO2 is not carbon monoxide, It's carbon dioxide. There's a huge difference. Plants love carbon dioxide.
I wish you well, in trying to get back to school...You really need it.
@MrOTLChamp If you are that educated tell me what is the differents between carbon dioxide & carbon monoxide her we will find out truly what you know!!
@Levon9404 Theres no way I can type it all out here, it would literally take forever. However, you can google each one, and get all the information you need.
I recomend you do prior to creating a video to save you some embarrassment.
@MrOTLChamp The answer is very simple both molecules carbon based. Both of them represent dead particles. their difference is not that much. All my video clips founded on the existing facts & evidence. I never will embarrassed my self say something I'm not aware of.
@Levon9404 Summers are about the same here maybe a few degrees hotten and winter a little colder not much. Its not caused from us tho its a natural cycle.
@lovebigboobs29 So far only problem we are causing only in the lower part of our inner space. Lets see what kind of problem is that. Current scientists still don't know how molecules are functioning within our inner space. First time you will find out how CO/2 harming our environment. The only reason we don't have +220 on the surface of the earth because of our atmosphere. Just imagine this someone with torch blasting the concrete wall that wall 10 feet thick you won't feel any heat right.
@lovebigboobs29 But for some apparent reason you took big sledge hammer & destroying that wall thinner get that wall more you going to feel the heat this is exactly what we are doing destroying our atmosphere. Its our atmosphere holding all that heat just look into the sky see if you can find anything to block the suns heat except our atmosphere. Like all humans seating in the big pot of water which is hanging over the fire it is matter of time it will kill all life form.
@lovebigboobs29 I don't work for Al Gore or any body. I'm an amateur scientist I put 32 years of my life into research. If problem wasn't serious I wouldn't bother even go to youtube. The way you & I live on this earth the same way big oil & coil CEO's live on this planet. They cannot be so blind put the profits before their own life. I promise you soon you will find out how we are damaging our atmosphere I will give very detail explanations.
@MrOTLChamp Suns effect it won be that much. Sun so far haven't change much & changes it won't be that drastic it will take millions of years until earth will notice changes from sun.
@MrOTLChamp I'm not talking about solar flares. Solar flares happened because of another reason I have good explanation for that to. I was talking about just suns normal function.
WHOA .... you are a raging moron. FACT: NAtional Academy of Science affrimed in a major 2006 report in "Nature" that the Hockey stick graph was valid. FACT: not a single e-mail exposed fraud. PROVEN by 5 separate independent investigations & followed up by FACTCHECK You were lied to. You sucked it in and begged for more. If YOUactually did some research, you would realize that you have been duped by people laughing at your stupidity. NOAA's temps have been verified
@MISTERWHITE111 Idiot. The hockey stick hasn't been proven as fact, because it was created from the bristlecone pine which is not affected by weather. Therefore it can't be used to create a temperature graph. Dumbass. Now quit coming on here making a bunch of false accusations like you actually know what you're talking about.
Look .. I get that you are a drooling imbecile (although I will never understand why you are proud of that fact). I realize that Scientific American is too far above your reading level which means that the Journal Nature is way above your head. Maybe you can get your mommy to read the article to you and explain why the hockey stick does not rely on bristlecone. Too bad your IQ isn't 50 points higher, you wouldn't be operating with such ridiculous AND ALREADY PROVEN FALSE claims
ROARS WITH LAUGHTER!!! "false accusations"?? Umm YOU"RE the one who referred to the "E-mails @ CRU, expose more fraud @ missrepresentations of science". A week after the stolen e-mails were leaked, it was shown that the leaked e-mails were doctored @ falsified and misquoted CRU. So, a 2 years later, youre STILL squealing abt things you got 100% WRONG. If THAT isn't proof of stupidity, I don't know what is. I DOknow what Iam talking abt, YOU DON'T
@MISTERWHITE111 "A week after the stolen e-mails were leaked, it was shown that the leaked e-mails were doctored @ falsified and misquoted " LMAO You idiots make up so much BS, I bet you can taste it.
As far as the hockey stick goes. He knew it was BS, and thats why he refused to show his data for over three years! His tree proxy is what created the stick, then he changed to the instrument records to create the blade of the stick. loser.
Proof that youre a moron beyond salvage. The facts are ubiquitous. That you don't seem to be up to speed is expected of some drooling imbecile who continues to screech about "climategate". If you don't trust people withan edcuation, then find the proof at FACTCHECK. Mann derived the hockey stick. As I IDENTIFIED, "Nature" reported research that RECREATED the hockey stick using an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of data. Mann's data has ALWAYS been available ON FRICKING LINE.
@MISTERWHITE111 I think AmericaSpeaksOut summed it up pretty good. Maybe you should consider reading it? By they way idiot, the e-mails were not changed. They are as written, and confirmed by Phil Jones.
@MrOTLChamp WHich is it? Are you a liar or simply writing about things you haven't botthered to check out. The e-mails were changed. Both the originals and the doctored versions HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE since one week after the DOCTORED e-mails were released. There simply is no excuse for your ignorance.
I see 2 possibilities here ... youre someone who actually might understand science but choose to lie abt this. or ... you are someone with no knowledge of science whatsoever. The quotes you posted below WOULD ONLY be posted by one or the other. You mean theHal Lewis who wrote: “The bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of manmade gasses. mainly CO2, and that warming could conceivably approximate the climate at the time of the dinos”
Maybe its the Hal Lewis who wrote: " No one knows how much humans can warm the planet — the science is complicated. It might be a degree or two (Celsius) per century " Or maybe the one who wrote: "How much HAVE people warmed the planet, again no one knows" Or maybe: "I used to think that Phoenix was unbearably hot, but Indians lived there' You REALLY want to cite someone who confuses local and global?
That is exactly the point. You may consider your azz thoroughly kicked. Global temps have been shown CONCLUSIVELY to follow CO2 accumulations and NOPT solar cycles. Is it too mucgh trouble for you to ACTUALLY READ THE RESEARCH?
You are incapable of scientific discussion so you resort to name calling.
This is how it goes when we try to discuss fact and reason with lefties. They eventually melt down and go into emotional rants. * yawn * Been there, seen it all before.
I can't resist kicking you 1 more time while youre down: that '10 ties '05 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record the 3rd warmest year ('09)is so close to '98, '02, '03, '06, '07, with the max diffy btw the yrs being a mere .03°C, that all 6 yrs virtually tied. Certainly, it is interesting that '10 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet
It's no surprise that 2010 got a bump in its "average surface temperature"... but if you understood basic physics you would realize this was COOLING the planet. If you don't understand, I'll explain it.
NOAA - Powerful effects of El Nino made March, April, May 2010 warmest on record.
Maybe it’s the Hal Lewis that wrote: “Can anything be done in the long run to slow it down? The only option is to decrease the amount of waste gases deposited in the atmosphere. That would require global; cooperation now to avert something far in the future
Yes, it appears way back last century, before Mr. Lewis became aware of the scam and the corruption it caused, he too believed in the mistaken science propagated by the APS.
He is, like Ivar Giaever, one of the prominent scientists who has learned enough to reject what was formerly believed.
Maybe it is the Hal Lewis who wrote: “ It seems likely but not certain, that the sea level will rise accordingly, conceivably by several feet or more. We are doing this to ourselves “
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Already on the decline, will global warming hasten demise of big trees?
.
Already on the decline worldwide, big trees face a dire future due to habitat fragmentation, selective harvesting by loggers, exotic invaders, and the effects of climate change, warns an article published this week in New Scientist magazine.
.
Mongabay
27 January 2012
Nightversionn 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No hockey stick in the 4th UN report. See watch?v=vys9wUl3rZ0
Medieval Warm Period. See watch?v=3AzimS2D7WA
MrBallbagbob 5 days ago
Gore has 200,000,000 reasons as to why he is still a 'believer'.
frolly1000 2 weeks ago
@frolly1000
he is billionaire.. so its 1,000,000,000 reasons
IFrancyISantosI 5 days ago
The louder they shout the less they say.
Famine is caused by a lack of democracy, not a lack of food.
AshtonPhoto 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More evidence/impacts of climate change series..
(Please read article before the denier with all the sock puppet accounts censors it)..
.
Scientists warn on damage to peatlands
.
Scientists have warned that damaged UK peatlands – areas formed over thousands of years from dead and decaying plants in waterlogged conditions – are a significant source of carbon dioxide.
.
London Financial Times, United Kingdom
5 January 2012
Nightversionn 3 weeks ago
Dr Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action
The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.
RandomVersion 4 weeks ago
Fox News actually aired this?
AHrudyNowYaSudy 1 month ago 2
"There is no smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for the warming that does occur"
Wait... Weren't you saying that there is NO WARMING just a couple of years ago? Now you're saying there is warming but it's not caused by us?...
Isn't this a bit like saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, she seduced me!"
TheResidentSkeptic 1 month ago
@TheResidentSkeptic
Talking to 'skeptics' is like talking to a wall. They can't say that the sky is blue, let alone make any sense in a complex debate like this.
AshtonPhoto 3 weeks ago
MISTERWHITE111 That's a LOT of defending going on there!You sound like any other fundamentalist whose ship ship is clearly sinking!!!
itsanillusion100 1 month ago
Part 27 of 27: The above is ubiquitous. It is initially debated @the post doctoral level. A kind soul dumbs it down to college graduate level. Another kind soul dumbs it down to HS graduate level. Another soul dumbs it down for HS students. Others dumb it down so my 7 yr old grandson understands it. There is no excuse for not knowing the abv facts. Not ignorance, not laziness, NOTHING
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 I agree with most of what you've said here, but why post it all in the comment section of some obscure video? Make your own video detailing these points like other great youtubers have done such as Greenman3610 and Potholer54
TheResidentSkeptic 3 weeks ago
@TheResidentSkeptic
I'll put it on my to do list.
MISTERWHITE111 4 days ago
Prt 26 of 27: The only reason that oil /coal compete w/ alternatives is b/c your tax dollars subsidize them. Your tax dollars have subsidized nearly ALL the oil infrastructure for 100 yrs. Dick Cheney stated in 2001 to the media, “Americans pay $3 per gallon at the pump for a $15 gallon of gas”. Cheney understated that figure (it doesn’t include the $3 Trillion spent in Iraq); the point is clear
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 25 of 27 : But most Americans, b/c of their inferior intelligence, drive as they feel they are ENTITLED to drive .. and waste as much oil as they possibly can. They feel that if their politicians can’t keep the prices down at the pump, all they have to do is lie about the politician and get him voted out of office
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 24 of 27: The economy is in the tank b/c Americans spend too much on energy. If Americans drove the way they were TAUGHT to drive, their gas cost would be 1/3 of what it is and NOT A SINGLE DROP OF IMPORTED OIL WOUL D BE NEEDED.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 23 of 27: Oil is the most expensive source of fuel POSSIBLE. Coal is the next most expensive. Nat Gas is the 3rd &, operationally, NG is 2.5 TIMES as expensive operationally as nuclear power. ALL of them are many times as expensive as clean sources such as ocean current (can provide 100 times as much energy as Americans use), geothermal (can provide a billion times as much as Americans can use)
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 22 of 27: Fossil fuels are contributing to the approach of a tipping point. But let’s assume for a moment the LUDICROUS position that fossil fuels BENEFIT the environment. IT is STILL ridiculous to use fossil fuels because it is necessary to burn 100 barrels of oil to get 15 barrels of energy from the burning (15% efficient). A barrel of oil is RIDICULOUSLY expensive
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 21 of 27: The hockey stick reconstructions have been derived by over a DOZEN separate studies using different datasets. All are similar. This led to a major published report in the Journal Nature which AFFIRMED the Hockey Stick Conclusions. But the hockey stick curve is simply unnecessary b/c there are 1000’s of different supporting studies & NONE that are contrary. NONE
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 20 of 27: I suppose if the scientists had been interested in the average American understanding their private e-mails, they would have made sure that no word in the e-mail was longer than a single syllable. If you can’t understand the content of the e-mails, you have NO FRICKING BUSINESS commenting on those e-mails.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 19 of 27: But we can see the wisdom in scientists keeping their e-mails private. 60% of Americans have been UNABLE to read the batch of e-mails that were leaked & ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THEM. It is ASTOUNDING that Americans are so scientifically illiterate that they can’t even understand the contents of those e-mails.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 18 of 27: A thing I find comical is that there are so many illiterate Americans SQUEALING that scientists are hiding their private e-mails. WTF? Do YOU keep your e-mails private? Do you? Is it because you are hiding some great conspiracy? Of COURSE IT ISN’T.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 17 of 27: Then there is the criminal who was paid to steal private e-mails & post them worldwide but was too dishonest to post them in context or using his name. Then there are liars like the guy who posted this & other videos & “Ignoramus speaks out” who is probably paid to post lies & who knows he is lying. Yes, they have committed fraud
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 16 of 27: Who are those that conspire to commit fraud. Let’s list them: The Koch Brothers (oil company barons) who have created a $trillion propaganda machine composed of a 1000 disinformation manufacturers like the Cato Inst. & the AEI. Then, there are the liars at the massive right wing media giants
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 15 of 27: The other 1000 e-mails were so innocuous they couldn’t even be doctored by the criminals to appear to construe fraud. All 5 impartial panels & FACTCHECK reviewed every one of the e-mails & found no fraud, they found no evidence of any non-scientific manipulation of data. They found all the claims of hiding data were lies since all the data is readily available on the net & 3,000 scientists use the data
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 14 of 27: W/o manipulation, data is simply NOT USEFUL. It CANT be comprehended. If “manipulated data” concerns you, you DAMN WELL better stay off bridges, out of buildings, off aircraft, off roadways, b/c each of those was designed & built using “manipulated data”. Do not use anything that has a weld or a bolt if you don’t trust “manipulated data”
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 13 of 27: They understand what “manipulating data” means. During the Gulf War, Tomahawk Cruise Missiles hit targets in Baghdad launched from the VLS tubes of LA Class subs. The data used by NAVSEA for targeting was “manipulated data”. I know because I MANIPULATED the data & gave it to NAVSEA. That “manipulated data” yielded an accurate strike fired from 1000 miles away
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 12 of 27: Now … people who have actually done science at a level of a 4th grader or above understand the way scientists speak. So anyone with a 4th grade education can read the authentic e-mails & KNOW WITHOUT RESERVATION that there is no fraud being committed (except by the oil company funded deniers who stole & doctored the e-mails)
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 11 of 27: 5 independent scientific bodies reviewed ALL 1073 and found not one shred of fraud, not a single instance of hiding or unethical manipulation of data. Subsequently, Penn State University, FACTCHECK, and most recently oil company funded Muir Russell have reviewed the data & found COMPLETE AGREEMENT with findings deniers have claimed as false
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 10 of 27: Despite the liars’ claims (they are liars), there is no GW fraud by scientists. There is MASSIVE fraud on the part of the oil company funded denier movement. 1073 e-mails were stolen by paid criminals too cowardly to use their names. Less than 100 were released to the web. Every single one of those e-mails was either doctored or presented without context
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 9 of 27: CO2 is an AMPLIFIER of warming. Temps start to rise which releases CO2. The release of CO2 increases warming. The increased warming increases the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. People who have made it as far as the 4th grade understand this concept. It is called a feedback cycle. It is REAL
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 8 of 27: A population choke point occurred in which there were barely enough reproductive proto-humans to keep the species alive. Less than 2000 individuals remained. All current humans were traced by DNA back to a single female (140,00 YA) and to a single male (90,000 YA)
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 7 of 27: Yes, temperatures were warmer in the past. Because of those warmer temperatures, 99.99% of all species that have occupied the Earth have died out. 1,000,000 years ago, proto-humans nearly died out because of the change in worldwide temps. Current extinctions are being tracked w/ ALL OF THEM being caused by human interference. Many species are extinct because of warming
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 6 of 27: The sun was particularly inactive in 2010, yet the temperatures were the warmest since physical records have been kept. This corresponds completely to the overwhelming research that the sun variance is not the driver that is causing the current warming trend. All the temps in the 21st century were higher than any other global temp prior to the anomalous 1998
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 5 of 27: Each of these years, 1998 to 2010 are warmer than all the other years prior to1998 going back as far as has been measured. All observed evidence reveals that detrimental effects are compounding. Desertification, dead zones in the seas, ice mass lost, albedo dropping like a rock
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 4 of 27: All evidence points to a warmer, less habitable climate. 2010 & 2005 are tied as the warmest years since temp records were kept (131 years). 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 & 2007 are statistically tied as the 3rd warmest years on record. 2010, even being the warmest on record, had 2 conditions that, had they been absent, would’ve made 2010 far warmer, a truly hot year (La Nina & an inactive sun)
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 3 of 27: Only 0.0007% of these 10,000,000 scientists have approached the science of global warming from a position of denial. They cant be called skeptics; they don’t approach science w/ skepticism. The difference btw skepticism & denialism is complete. They are polar opposites. For ex., no skeptic –NOT ONE- believes that climate science is rigged. Only deniers propagate that urban legend
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 2 of 27: There are 10,000,000 scientists in the world. 99.9993% have approached the science of global warming from a position of skepticism. ALL of those 99.9993% have been convinced by the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that GW is a fact & that mankind has made a contribution to that warming. There is a slight difference of opinion on the significance of that contribution
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Prt 1 of 27: This is a summation of facts re: climate change (global warming). If you don’t understand any of this COMPLETELY, then you simply aren’t sufficiently educated to function effectively in the 21st cent. Every policy debate centers ENTIRELY on issues REQUIRING a 21st cent education, if you don’t have it, you shouldn’t be permitted within 1000’ of a polling booth. These facts CAN’T be disputed
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MISTERWHITE111 That's a LOT of defending going on there!You sound like any other fundamentalist whose ship ship is clearly sinking!!! You sound like Poor old George Monbiot!
itsanillusion100 1 month ago
Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 By the way, those massive crop failures did happen. Russia was hardest hit.
Not surprisingly, recent cooling has had a similar effect.
Mexico loses 80-100% of crops to freeze, US prices to skyrocket
digitaljournal*com/article/303583
35 zoo animals freeze to death in northern Mexico - coldest winter in 60 years (2/5/2011)
msnbc*msn*com/id/41440956/ns/weather/
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Remember back when the Earth was cooling before, due to a small solar reduction... Earth Day was created amid warnings of a new Ice Age.
”The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I remember when Time magazine wrote an article in 1972 a future ice age. I also remember when Scientific American wrote in June 1959 about man made CO2 causing catastrophic warming. But neither of these is scientific journals. The peer reviewed journals were either predicting warming in the 1970's or did not predict anything. Your problem is that you are relying on the Koch Brothers think tanks and haven'[t figured out that everything you got is wrong.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Maybe you're too young and inexperienced to remember the scientists pleading with Congress during that cooling period to do something. Or the CIA report predicting massive crop failure, population displacement (things that actually happened in the 1970s).
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, April 1970.
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
“By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, 1970.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Denis Hayes .. w/ his history degree? ~~GUFFAW~~ Africa isnt in famine? Please tell that to Sudan. Hell, tell the people of Ga & Tex there really isn't a drought. My global temp data stands. The highest global temps in 131 yrs. BTW .. I had more physics by age 10 than youll have on your deathbed. Its now happy hour. If you can find some way to actually make your arguments competitive & not just a regurgitation of Koch talking points been proven false, let me know
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
Let us PRAY that it is warmer today than it was 131 years ago, during the Little Ice Age.
All you're trying to do is dodge the FACT that our expensive satellites (and I am one of the guys who built them) have shown us exactly what is driving Earth temperatures. The same thing that always has.
It's the Sun.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Once again, you are babbling nonsense. You say the name Dennis Hayes and ramble about African famine... but those things have nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Thanks to expensive satellites, we are closely monitoring solar energy output and can definitively see exactly WHY CO2 has been unable to cause global warming since 2005.
The Sun, the actual driving force, simply stopped warming up.
Cause and Effect, right in front of our noses.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
ROARS WITH LAUGHTER!! You brought up historian Hayes, NOT ME. You brought up the claim that there is no famine, I proved you wrong. Thanks to expensive satelittes, there is nearly universal agreement that the recent ACCELERATION in warming is NOT DUE TO solar variance. Your claim that warming stopped in 2005 is simply laughable as I have already documented that 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 are among the warmest in the last 131 years
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
Let's summarize - you cling to 20 year old quotes from guys who used to believe in the crap - and whose eyes have been opened.
They are bailing out of government-controlled institutions that are corrupting the science in order to convince a gullible public that massive new taxation and wealth redistribution is "necessary" to "save the planet".
Well, "useful idiots" once were told it was "necessary" to rip the beating heart out of a human chest to make the sun rise and save the planet...
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
"In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work." - Hal Lewis
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. " - Hal Lewis
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
The emails of Mann and his colleagues reveal quite a lot of scheming to manipulate the data and results as well as fight off Freedom of Information Act demands to access them.
examiner*com/climate-change-in-national/climategate-climate-center-s-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
Mann, as we know, received a huge "stimulus" check from our tax dollars for his part in the scheme.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I get it now ... youre a liar who knows NOTHING abt science. No scheming, data treated the way all data is treated. Youd know this if youd ever studied even the most elementary of statistics. You remind me of the imbeciles who say that b/c a pollster didn't ask them their opinion on a particular survey, the poll is invalid. Mann did the exact right thing in ignoring the FOIA by people who merely wanted to tie up research hours & had no interest in actually using the data
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Blah blah blah...
Aren't you the MORON who insisted Mann's data was always available? Yeah.
Mann and his buddies concealed their data and methods from peer review as well as they could get away with. They were FORCED to do what real scientists are obligated to do.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I am the knowledgble one who knows that the data is available to all who need it. Hey dumbshit ... there are currently 3,000 scientists who have been using the data since 1998. IF you knew ANYTHING about science, you know that science requires REPLICATION of data. The raw data is on line for anyone to use. IF you knew how to GOOGLE, you could access it too. My GOD you are stupid.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
You are babbling incoherently again.
Try to make sense. People are watching.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
What should be done is to get a professor in logic to use your posts as examples of logical fallacies. HAve his student take the posts you have made here today including your misuse of the e-mails you have posted, and as an assignment, find as many fallacies as the students can find. If they find 30, they get an "A". Find 28, they get a "B" and so on. You have committed every one of them.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! - Phil Jones on witholding data
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. - Keven Trenberth
Incidentally, this demonstrates their FAILURE to account for solar changes. The Earth was cooling since 2005 because the Sun simply stopped warming. What idiots.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. - Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results)
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. - Nick McKay, on modifying data
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites.... best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people. - Mann (notorious for concealing code and data)
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Why was there a warming bump during the 1990s? The solar minimum was not as low as the preceding or following.
Why has there been global cooling since 2005? The Sun's energy output stopped increasing.
Have a look.
ACRIM Satellite data shows recent solar cooling
acrim*com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Climate news:
.
NOAA greenhouse gas index shows increase in climate-warming gases
,
A greenhouse gas emissions report card issued this week by a group of Boulder scientists shows the world is failing to stem the increase of climate-warming gases in the atmosphere.
. Boulder Daily Camera, Colorado
12 November 2011
Nightversionn 2 months ago
Mikhail Gorbachev - he's the Communist who created Green Cross International to orchestrate this global takeover of nations' wealth in the name of "fighting climate change".
They can't stop Nature from doing what it does any more than the Aztec priests could actually make the Sun rise with human sacrifice...
But they can sure steal a lot of loot!
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
There has been no warming of the planet since 2005.
2010 contained an interesting aberration, a three month long El Nino effect that spread previously-warmed water over the ocean's surface to raise the average heat measurements from space. Meaning, lots more heat energy was escaping into space.
This basic thermodynamic principle resulted in greater cooling of the oceans and the rest of the year was well below record temperatures.
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
With global warming having stopped six years ago... all the alarmists have to fall back on is the term "climate change".
But don't worry, the Sun is beginning to increase its energy output again. In a few years, the term "global warming" may come back into vogue.
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
Another scientist comes out against climate change. Thats about 4 against, and 500 scientists called steve for.
Steves win
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@Oddessuss It's amazing how badly the political institutions want an excuse to suck up our money and play their wealth redistribution games (global Communism).
IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts
warwickhughes*com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
@VerumJusticia yep its all a goverment sucking money con job. yep and the fossil fuel industry are the good guys ;)
Forget the fucking politics, go read a scientific journal article on the issue.
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@Oddessuss Are you trying to say something? "Go read blah blah blah" is not a way to present information for consideration.
And, yes, it is a money-sucking con job up to the highest levels. Mikhail Gorbachev created and directs Green Cross International to handle the global propaganda coordination. The UN's IPCC is a group of political hacks intentionally misrepresenting the science to create an excuse for global wealth redistribution - meaning plundering the USA.
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
@VerumJusticia Like I said stop grandstanding you scientifically illiterate wanker.
Go read a science journal article
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@Oddessuss If all you can do is call people names, you're gonna lose big time in the credibility department.
Were you unaware of Mikhail Gorbachev's activities? You should look into that. He has taken 'redistribution of wealth' global, with the "Green" movement.
Green. It's the new Red.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 "you're gonna lose big time in the credibility department." dont really care to be honest. i call stupid stupid.
green is communist ... dude you cant sink any lower in credibility. name calling is nothing compare to the crap you are spewing.
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@Oddessuss The "Green" movement is spearheaded by Mikhail Gorbachev, Communist Mastermind.
Also:
Al Gore - Co-founder of National Religious Center for the Environment. Using religion to push the "carbon cult" so he can profit
nrpe*org/whatisthepartnership/board_intro01.htm
The Green Agenda - Club of Rome, Gorbachev, Soros, Gore. Seizing global Communist control under the guise of the 'gaia' religion
green-agenda*com/science.html
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
@VerumJusticia Seriously dude why do you keep mentioning Al fucking Gore. Hes a polician , and I dont give him too much credit. like i said JUST READ A FUCKING SCIENCE JOURNAL You are insane BTW communist conspiricy for fucks sake grow a brain.
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@VerumJusticia
Please don't ever stop posting. I love laughing at drooliong imbeciles like you who can't even make an intelligent claim. Now that the 3 Stooges are dead, I need to get my entertainment from morons like you.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
So .... Gorbachev has joined the US military, 99.9999% of all scientists and most economists in understanding the irrefutable fact of gobal warming. I will be willing to bet that you can find Gorbechev stating that drinking water is a good thing, too. Do you even TRY to think before you post? EVER?
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 >> Global warming has been an irrefutable fact for the last 18,000 years.
Did we cause it? Not really.
Heck, we've had cooling since 2005. All it took was a slight reduction in solar energy output to stop that "man-made" global warming.
Don't worry - the Sun is starting to increase its energy output again. In a few years, we might be able to cry about "man-made" global warming again.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@Oddessuss - Actually, there are over 3,200 scientist who have come out against global warming.
MrJohn330 2 months ago
@MrJohn330 still more scientists called steve ;)
Oddessuss 2 months ago
@MrJohn330
"Against global warming"? what the $#%@$ does that mean. Actually, there are no scientists that do not agree with the conclusions that climate is warming. Maybe what you are trying to say is that there are 3200 scientists (out of 10,000,000 in the world) who think that man's contribution is minimal or that global warming has gone too far to be reversed. That is a teeny tiny percentage of the whole.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
So, the Sun stopped warming up and the Earth has been cooling since 2005.
"Green" taxes seem to work splendidly! LOL!!
VerumJusticia 2 months ago
Since we've had about five years of cooling, we know a great many theories promoting CO2 as the "forcing agent" have been dead wrong.
So, what has been causing the warming and cooling?
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade" - NASA
Then...
NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth's Upper Atmosphere (2009)
nasa*gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No year since 2005 has been warmer than 2005, disproving theories that rising CO2 has been "forcing" global warming.
Top warmest years in descending order:
1998 0.52
2005 0.48
2003 0.46
2002 0.46
2004 0.43
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Comment removed
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
AGW is real. Throw your best argument at me, I will refute it with easy. If believing in AGW is so idiotic, you guys should have no problem disproving it.
Tactic11 3 months ago
@Tactic11 Have you ever taken a basic logic class? We don't have to disprove it. Proving a negative is illogical. You warmists are making the assertion that AGW is happening, so the burden of proof is on you.
8thRRFS 3 months ago
@8thRRFS Already been proven, make your claims :).
Tactic11 3 months ago
@Tactic11
Here's one for you.. I wonder if anyone is posting "the speed of light is..." "Come its real, prove me wrong!"
The fact that you have to post something so pathetic is proof enough. In real science you dont see lame arguments like this.
By the way, AGW is the old term, you need to switch to climate change. If you use AGW, then you can't explain the that there has been no waming since 2005. In fact, cooling.
But climate change can explain it all
Nightverslonn 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn "In real science you dont see lame arguments like this" - In real science, we don't have deniers. They tend to not make it far in the scientific field, because well, they aren't the brightest people I have found.
It is true there has been no warming of the air since 2005, despite 2009 being the second warmest year on global record and the fact that ocean temperature keeps rising at a consistent rate really tells me the warming hasn't stopped.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn If you look at any graphing of temperatures, you will see a trend where the graph has VERY steep increases in slope and decreases in slope. If you cherry pick any 5 years, you can get any trend you want. What we want (well I should say scientists) is something of statistical significance. These 6 years are not that, and the trend with these years is not significant cooling, nor a cooling trend, just slightly cooler years than 2005.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn "As part of the study, the researchers also analyzed the use of these two terms on political think tank websites, finding that liberals and conservatives used different terms. Conservative think tanks tend to call the phenomenon global warming, while liberal think tanks call it climate change."
Well I am certainly no conservative by today's standards, I change the terms around liberally. Some days I will to it as climate change, some days global warming, some AGW.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn "That latter switch was championed by the GOP’s spinmaster, Frank Luntz, who, as it turns out, also championed switching from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ in 2003."
There is no context needed for this, as it explains itself. Both terms are in fact interchangeable, despite what republican spinmasters want you to think. Frank Luntz writes talking points for the republican parties so they will all say the same crap, making it seem more believable.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn I'd say the terms global warming and climate change have slightly different meanings depending on the context. Climate change can account for outliers better, but the term itself isn't specific. It only deals with change, not the exact problem. I like the term(s) Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming better because they denote a more specific meaning.
Really all it is is semantics, to distract from the true topic at large.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn The term "The Big Bang" would denote a large explosion, with a bang, something audible. In fact, the whole term is a misnomer. There was neither a bang (sound), nor an explosion. People still accept the term, even though it technically isn't accurate of what truly happened.
If you know nothing of science, the term "Theory of Evolution" would confuse you. A person would merely think that it was a simple theory, not backed by anything. It is completely different in nature.
Tactic11 2 months ago
@Nightverslonn That is just my input on the whole topic of the terms :).
Tactic11 2 months ago
Man caused global warming is a hoax. I knew it from the moment Al Gore's dumbass wanted back in the spotlight after getting his ass kicked by Bush in the election. Its a natural cycle any idiot should know that.
lovebigboobs29 3 months ago
all this assholes they live on this earth to how in the world they can deny what is happening round of us. Any body who is against the global warming specially among scientists they don't have right to call them self scientists. those mother fucker like in the dark ages religious leaders try to convince people you can communicate with god only through them. Are those assholes trying to represent OIL CORPORATIONS over human kind.
Levon9404 3 months ago
Which mother fucker gave Christy scientists degree? He has sub human mentality. His brain is not big enough to comprehend how our inner space is functioning who is the fuck he is to give his opinion. I'm hoping when there are massive problems and deaths start round the glob any body lost loved one make sure they sue this sun of bitch.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Bet I can guess your color and graduate level.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Tell me what has color to do with existing facts? If you have education give me one fact to make global warming wrong, do you have enough understanding how global warming works? Do you know how our inner space functions? Do you know what exactly carbon dioxide does to our inner space? If you have just little clue what is happening round of us give your best shot. Let me see what color has to do with your brain capacity.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 the existing facts goes like this..The hockey stick temp graph created by Mann, was a fake. E-mails at the HadleyCRU, expose more fraud and missrepresentations of science. Satellites from the NOAA were reading 10-15 degrees higher than actual temps and those were averaged in creating the "hottest decade ever recorded" And the list goes on. So in short...to believe everything you hear would be ignorant at best. Do some research, you will see enough fraud to NOT believe everything
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Okay I see where you 're coming from but. Why are you taking other peoples words if you 're smart enough do your own research, you will see where the truth will take you. If you have common sense you should notice by now something is happening with our weather pattern. Those scientists which are against global warming they cannot possibly argue sun is getting hotter or we have unusual more volcanic activities because non of them will be correct.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 I've done some research and what I see is NOT warming over the last decade. Infact by what we are able to see(only what they let us see) there is no warming. And knowing that the sun is going to sleep for a while(solar minimum) we will see a decline in global temps. When these temps go down..So will the CO2, as it will be absorbed much faster back into the oceans. Also, the temps over the last million years have a pattern. And the next phase of the pattern is dramatic cooling.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp If you look things more realistically, you will notice summers are becoming hotter & winters becoming colder that trend will continue on as long as we are keep dumping carbon dioxide in the air! Think about our moon the side is facing toward sun is +220 C. the side is away from sun blow 0 -270 C. Because we have oceans temperature will fluctuate from hot to cold & wise a verse. trust me is not because sun is cooling down. it doesn't matter how much sun cool down.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Actually, where I'm at (southern California) summers have been cooling, as well as winters. Infact the local mtns have already seen snow this month, and it's not even Halloween. The levels of CO2 can be doubled and still only about a .6 degree C is expected. which basically is nothing. Certainly not catastrophic. We were far warmer during the MWP than today, which not only shows the "hockeystick" is BS, but adds to the question as to why it was faked.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I live southern California to. I agree with you here weather was mild but you have to calculate over changes though out the earth. If you remember in state of Texas they had the longest counting hot days ever. Just pay attention how fast weather changes from ho to cold and back. Like about 20 years ago I start to checked the weather changes yearly basis just last 10 years it start to fluctuate like that. And it getting worst.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 I don't see where you are comming from. The climate has always changed. Keep in mind when they say things like Texas not having that many hot days in a row. The recorded data is very limited at best. They didn't even start keeping daily records until the mid 1800's and even then it was only in a few places on earth. It really doesn't mean anything. Texas has gone through many droughts thoughout it's history, and will continue to do so. And now they are getting snow again.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp You know we have hot & cold currents year round over all changes it shouldn't pass more than 5 degree Fahr. from cold to hot & wise verse when you have right mixtures of gases within atmosphere & it took more than week to go that kind of changes. Just pay attention how fast now day temperatures changes 25 to 30 degrees within 3 days. The whole reason that happen because our atmosphere it is lot thinner over the lands because of carbon dioxide than over the oceans.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Oceans constantly consuming carbon dioxide replacing with oxygen. You know water made of oxygen & hydrogen when sun break them part oxygen becomes gas again. You should know better than that we are poisoning our oceans drinking water & ground. It is getting to the point our oceans having hard time to replace carbon dioxide fast enough. Year over year we going to see more and more severe weather, summers & winters will be unbearable nothing will grow any more because of it.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 You have no idea what you're talking about. The highest change in temperature was in Montana, going from -54 to +49, that was in 1972. highest ever recorded in the US was in California in 1913, highest in Africa 1922, Canada 1903. You need to go do some research. A change of 25-30 deg in 3 days happens all the time. Look it up.
" summers & winters will be unbearable nothing will grow any more because of it." Where did you get that nonsense?
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Okay lets presume you right & I'm wrong. Can you explain why is that so many people suffering with skin cancer. Do you realize just 200 mile into the space suns heat reaches +220 degrees C. What do you think hold back that +220 degree to reach our earth's surface & all our atmosphere made of gas, think about that. There is no spacial layer within our atmosphere to hold back that kind of pressure. You know that our moon get all that +220 C. degrees.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 What does that have to do with the hypothesis of CO2 causing catastrophic changes to our climate? Skin cancer has nothing to do with CO2. Yes, gases in our atmosphere help protect us from radiation. Things like water vapor from our oceans help keep the planet cool, as well as warm. That's why the moon get so hot as well as so cold. And deserts work the same way. A lack of water vapor allows it to get hot during the day and cold at night.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Do you know living creature are the weakest form of energy exists within universe weaker the energy easier to destroy that energy. Because of it there is no life form over other planets.
Levon9404 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Levon9404 Where are you going with this? Do you just make things up, or what? I think you should go back and read what you write. It's almost funny. Except, it shows our public school system has completely failed you. I think your parents should sue.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Here, notice what years.
12 hours: 83°F, Granville, ND, Feb. 21, 1918, from–33°F to 50°F from early morning to late afternoon.
15 minutes: 42°F, Fort Assiniboine, MT, Jan. 19, 1892, from–5°F to 37°F.
7 minutes: 34°F, Kipp, MT, Dec. 1, 1896; observer also reported that a total rise of 80°F occurred in a few hours and that 30 in of snow disappeared in one-half day.
2 minutes: 49°F, Spearfish, SD, Jan. 22, 1943, from–4°F at 7:30 A.M ., to 45°F at 7:32 A.M
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp If you can explain me what our atmosphere does for our earth surface, beside supplying oxygen for living creatures. I will agree with you carbon dioxide is not harmful for our atmosphere. But if you cannot then all that data is useless the one you provided. You cannot spend more money than what you are depositing into the bank if you do it will bounce your account. This is what is happening within atmosphere we depositing more CO/2 than nature can process.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 You keep contradicting yourself. First you say the summers are getting hotter and the winters are getting colder. Then you turn around and agree that we are having cooler summers and cooler winters.
Then, you say CO2 is not harmful for our atmosphere, and you claim that the oceans can't take in as much CO2 as we are putting in to the air, as if it was bad. Plants need CO2 and even though CO2 is about 400ppms, it is still in the lower 10% from it's average, naturally.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Soon I will add another video clips about global warming I would encourage you watch that it will be ready within month. You will find out truly what CO/2 does to our environment & to us. You have no idea how fragile it is life form. Another thing I never contradicted to my self. If CO/2 was that good people won't die from carbon monoxide poisoning think what you saying. How poison can be good for you, it is good for oil & coil companies they are making billions of profits.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 You are so uneducated about what you're saying, it's really sad. CO2 is not carbon monoxide, It's carbon dioxide. There's a huge difference. Plants love carbon dioxide.
I wish you well, in trying to get back to school...You really need it.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp If you are that educated tell me what is the differents between carbon dioxide & carbon monoxide her we will find out truly what you know!!
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Theres no way I can type it all out here, it would literally take forever. However, you can google each one, and get all the information you need.
I recomend you do prior to creating a video to save you some embarrassment.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp The answer is very simple both molecules carbon based. Both of them represent dead particles. their difference is not that much. All my video clips founded on the existing facts & evidence. I never will embarrassed my self say something I'm not aware of.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Summers are about the same here maybe a few degrees hotten and winter a little colder not much. Its not caused from us tho its a natural cycle.
lovebigboobs29 3 months ago
@lovebigboobs29 So far only problem we are causing only in the lower part of our inner space. Lets see what kind of problem is that. Current scientists still don't know how molecules are functioning within our inner space. First time you will find out how CO/2 harming our environment. The only reason we don't have +220 on the surface of the earth because of our atmosphere. Just imagine this someone with torch blasting the concrete wall that wall 10 feet thick you won't feel any heat right.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@lovebigboobs29 But for some apparent reason you took big sledge hammer & destroying that wall thinner get that wall more you going to feel the heat this is exactly what we are doing destroying our atmosphere. Its our atmosphere holding all that heat just look into the sky see if you can find anything to block the suns heat except our atmosphere. Like all humans seating in the big pot of water which is hanging over the fire it is matter of time it will kill all life form.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 No we aren't causing any damage and the sun wont kill all life. We aren't destroying anything.
lovebigboobs29 3 months ago
@lovebigboobs29 I don't work for Al Gore or any body. I'm an amateur scientist I put 32 years of my life into research. If problem wasn't serious I wouldn't bother even go to youtube. The way you & I live on this earth the same way big oil & coil CEO's live on this planet. They cannot be so blind put the profits before their own life. I promise you soon you will find out how we are damaging our atmosphere I will give very detail explanations.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 Yeah sure. The environment will be fine. I am not concerned.
lovebigboobs29 3 months ago
@Levon9404 I waiting with bated breath.
8thRRFS 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8thRRFS Trust me you will hear things it will surprise you. And out how truly our atmosphere is functioning.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@lovebigboobs29 where have I heard this line before?
cesar333 3 months ago
@cesar333 I don't know maybe from a sane person. Someone with brains whom doesn't fall for idiotic crap.
lovebigboobs29 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp Suns effect it won be that much. Sun so far haven't change much & changes it won't be that drastic it will take millions of years until earth will notice changes from sun.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@Levon9404 " it will take millions of years until earth will notice changes from sun."
Hardly, the MWP was going through some very busy solar activity and it was affected almost immediately.
MrOTLChamp 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp I'm not talking about solar flares. Solar flares happened because of another reason I have good explanation for that to. I was talking about just suns normal function.
Levon9404 3 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
WHOA .... you are a raging moron. FACT: NAtional Academy of Science affrimed in a major 2006 report in "Nature" that the Hockey stick graph was valid. FACT: not a single e-mail exposed fraud. PROVEN by 5 separate independent investigations & followed up by FACTCHECK You were lied to. You sucked it in and begged for more. If YOUactually did some research, you would realize that you have been duped by people laughing at your stupidity. NOAA's temps have been verified
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Idiot. The hockey stick hasn't been proven as fact, because it was created from the bristlecone pine which is not affected by weather. Therefore it can't be used to create a temperature graph. Dumbass. Now quit coming on here making a bunch of false accusations like you actually know what you're talking about.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Look .. I get that you are a drooling imbecile (although I will never understand why you are proud of that fact). I realize that Scientific American is too far above your reading level which means that the Journal Nature is way above your head. Maybe you can get your mommy to read the article to you and explain why the hockey stick does not rely on bristlecone. Too bad your IQ isn't 50 points higher, you wouldn't be operating with such ridiculous AND ALREADY PROVEN FALSE claims
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
ROARS WITH LAUGHTER!!! "false accusations"?? Umm YOU"RE the one who referred to the "E-mails @ CRU, expose more fraud @ missrepresentations of science". A week after the stolen e-mails were leaked, it was shown that the leaked e-mails were doctored @ falsified and misquoted CRU. So, a 2 years later, youre STILL squealing abt things you got 100% WRONG. If THAT isn't proof of stupidity, I don't know what is. I DOknow what Iam talking abt, YOU DON'T
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 "A week after the stolen e-mails were leaked, it was shown that the leaked e-mails were doctored @ falsified and misquoted " LMAO You idiots make up so much BS, I bet you can taste it.
As far as the hockey stick goes. He knew it was BS, and thats why he refused to show his data for over three years! His tree proxy is what created the stick, then he changed to the instrument records to create the blade of the stick. loser.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp
Proof that youre a moron beyond salvage. The facts are ubiquitous. That you don't seem to be up to speed is expected of some drooling imbecile who continues to screech about "climategate". If you don't trust people withan edcuation, then find the proof at FACTCHECK. Mann derived the hockey stick. As I IDENTIFIED, "Nature" reported research that RECREATED the hockey stick using an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT set of data. Mann's data has ALWAYS been available ON FRICKING LINE.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 I think AmericaSpeaksOut summed it up pretty good. Maybe you should consider reading it? By they way idiot, the e-mails were not changed. They are as written, and confirmed by Phil Jones.
MrOTLChamp 2 months ago
@MrOTLChamp WHich is it? Are you a liar or simply writing about things you haven't botthered to check out. The e-mails were changed. Both the originals and the doctored versions HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE since one week after the DOCTORED e-mails were released. There simply is no excuse for your ignorance.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 The Emails reflect the "work" that the schemers did.
They even comment on the lack of solar warming that the team complained about by 2008.
Michael Mann was paid handsomely to make true global temperature history disappear.
Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half A Million In Stimulus Money. Rewarded for his part in climate-gate scheme
friskaliberal*wordpress*com/2010/01/14/climate-gate-scientist-michael-mann-award-half-a-million-in-stimulus-money/
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 As we know, Michael Mann was just one of many using their positions to push an agenda rather than propagate Truth.
IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts
warwickhughes*com/icecore/zjmar07*pdf
IPCC's Ben Santer Admits Fraud - Deleted Sections of IPCC Report that did not meet Policymaker's Agenda
larouchepac*com/node/12823
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Scientists are angry at the climate corruption.
Hal Lewis Resigns From The American Physical Society. Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the "warming" scam
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society. Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
George Soros Leadership Position in American Physical Society
aps*org/publications/apsnews/199708/soros.cfm
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I see 2 possibilities here ... youre someone who actually might understand science but choose to lie abt this. or ... you are someone with no knowledge of science whatsoever. The quotes you posted below WOULD ONLY be posted by one or the other. You mean theHal Lewis who wrote: “The bottom line is that the earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of manmade gasses. mainly CO2, and that warming could conceivably approximate the climate at the time of the dinos”
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Maybe its the Hal Lewis who wrote: " No one knows how much humans can warm the planet — the science is complicated. It might be a degree or two (Celsius) per century " Or maybe the one who wrote: "How much HAVE people warmed the planet, again no one knows" Or maybe: "I used to think that Phoenix was unbearably hot, but Indians lived there' You REALLY want to cite someone who confuses local and global?
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
"How much HAVE people warmed the planet, again no one knows" - Hal Lewis
That is exactly the point.
But we do know what the Sun is doing to the planet. Global temperature tracks solar changes very closely.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
That is exactly the point. You may consider your azz thoroughly kicked. Global temps have been shown CONCLUSIVELY to follow CO2 accumulations and NOPT solar cycles. Is it too mucgh trouble for you to ACTUALLY READ THE RESEARCH?
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
You may consider yourself completely pwned.
Global temps directly follow solar energy, not CO2.
All that CO2 has been completely unable to cause warming since 2005, when the Sun's energy input decreased just a little.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I have kicked the living shit out of you here. I view you the way every person who has ever met you views you, as a highly illiterate fool.
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
You are incapable of scientific discussion so you resort to name calling.
This is how it goes when we try to discuss fact and reason with lefties. They eventually melt down and go into emotional rants. * yawn * Been there, seen it all before.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
I can't resist kicking you 1 more time while youre down: that '10 ties '05 as the warmest year in the 131-year instrumental record the 3rd warmest year ('09)is so close to '98, '02, '03, '06, '07, with the max diffy btw the yrs being a mere .03°C, that all 6 yrs virtually tied. Certainly, it is interesting that '10 was so warm despite the presence of a La Niña and a remarkably inactive sun, two factors that have a cooling influence on the planet
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
It's no surprise that 2010 got a bump in its "average surface temperature"... but if you understood basic physics you would realize this was COOLING the planet. If you don't understand, I'll explain it.
NOAA - Powerful effects of El Nino made March, April, May 2010 warmest on record.
Rest of year was below record
noaanews*noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats_sup.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 Aside from the El Nino aberration in 2010, the years in order from warmer to cooler were:
2005
2006
2007
2008
CO2 could not cause any warming since 2005. That's because the Sun is the control knob.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111 The American Physical Society is only one of the government institutions that has corrupted the science to pursue the carbon cash.
IPCC Scientist Contributions were changed to be consistent with the 'Summary for Policymakers' rather than adjust the summary to fit the facts
warwickhughes*com/icecore/zjmar07*pdf
IPCC's Ben Santer Admits Fraud - Deleted Sections of IPCC Report that did not meet Policymaker's Agenda
larouchepac*com/node/12823
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
Scientist anger at the corruption of the IPCC is well known.
Scientists (many who worked on IPCC report data) Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
epw*senate*gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Maybe it’s the Hal Lewis that wrote: “Can anything be done in the long run to slow it down? The only option is to decrease the amount of waste gases deposited in the atmosphere. That would require global; cooperation now to avert something far in the future
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago
@MISTERWHITE111
Yes, it appears way back last century, before Mr. Lewis became aware of the scam and the corruption it caused, he too believed in the mistaken science propagated by the APS.
He is, like Ivar Giaever, one of the prominent scientists who has learned enough to reject what was formerly believed.
AmericaSpeakOut1 2 months ago
Maybe it is the Hal Lewis who wrote: “ It seems likely but not certain, that the sea level will rise accordingly, conceivably by several feet or more. We are doing this to ourselves “
MISTERWHITE111 2 months ago