I don't understand how the earth could end by warming unless you get into a temp increase into a range closer to about 9 celsius and above and stay they for over a year. In order to have this nature would have to do most of the work but global cooling is for more dangerous and we could casue it ie nuclear winter (ex 1816, a year without a summer, google it) and would kill off the crops.
i guess you were sleeping during the news program about how the ice in the north pole will be 100% melted by september
and i guess the depletion of the ozone, melting of the polar ice caps, endangerment of polar bears and other such animals, emmission of greenhouse gases, and rising world temperature is "beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."
How much did they say sea level would rise by this?
Google this "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" it is from NASA and has something to say about the other factors at hard at work melting away your north pole.
And you will love this.
The increased open water should produce more cloud cover which will block the suns radiation and cool things down again.
Here what NASA said about this in the NASA See... above. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
Now stopglobalwarming08 and singingshortie use send message to point me what you mean by tipping point and singi... if it on the news it should have an article so please send the web address.
Do this and you may here back from me in 6 month or some other time.
first of all, it is MISLEADING to say NASA said this...no, this is just 1 of the many news releases from NASA....
& it really doesn't "discredit" manmade global warming...
"The results suggest NOT ALL the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not APPEAR to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.
"Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.
...We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
You can send website address through send message. Do it. I been trying to look were you find this out and have not been find it. All I find is someone who is shouting out the sky is falling and something wrong with him. So please just send me some web addresses in a message not a comment.
the IPCC is the biggest peer-reviewed scientific consensus ever taken to tackle global warming! they gathered the leading scientists from around the world...they are even more certain than before (at least 90%) certain of man-made global warming! there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science...so this is pretty much as close as youre gonna get to 100% certainty!
NASA GISS has 2005 for the warmest year, and 2007 tied 1998..
The Oregon petition got 32000 people to sign it and it has 9000 PHds rejecting man-made global warming. This ends any idea of an consensus. People had to threaten legal action against the IPCC to get there names off. Not many people have peer-reviewed the IPCC and some who have pointed out that the IPCC didn't prove there case.
You do know that most people who don't believe in your scam are not paid by the Fossil Fuel Industry's and if I could get the paid for this I would.
Are tiny planet global temp are driven by the sun and will always be. As sun activity increases so to the temps and then CO2. Is it not arrogant that something so small can have such a big impact when we have such more powerful factors out their like the sun, clouds, water vapor, and nature CO2, N2O, and CH4? Then you ask me to put faith in a barely understood science for MULTI-TRILLION dollars policies that would very little and not stop nature form just changing global temp anyways.
dude, numerous scientists like the Royal Society (brittain's premier scientific academy)have already discredited the sun....
it is arrogant to think we know more than the credible scientists
there is overwhelming scientific consensus based upon peer-reviewed science from around the world....all coming to the same conclusion, gw is man-made....
wow overemotional statements made by young ignorant teenage girls. That's what I whant temper decisions about things. Give me a break, &I don't mean tell me to take five. Water vapor, solar flare, volcanoes, ant hills, geysers, and a whole littany of other things put what man puts into to the atmoshpere to shame when it comes to volume of co2 alone let alone methane. To say we are the problem is to be utterly so arrogant it's impossible. think of a chiuahuah fucking an Elephant. does it hurt?;-)
Feel good for change bs . totally not informative. what does trampling on flowers have to do with the earth hurting or anyting? tell me how there is really a link between, ooh thtat's right you can't because there is none . Get Educated ;-)
oh yeah...i TOTALLY need education. cuz i'm just sooo stupid. you know what, it was supposed to be funny. not informative. and if you don't understand that, then YOU'RE the one with the problem. i realize that there wasn't really any information or factual evidence in this video. that's probably because we didn't make it for that. WE MADE IT BECAUSE WE WERE EFFING BORED. IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO BE INFORMED, WATCH THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL ASSHOLE
really if you had such a valid arguement you would not resorting to name calling . you just invalidated your whole arguement. and the discovery channel being entertainment is not a valid source of information. At least here I can filter the truth.
It is real but most of what the alamist are saying is junk and alot of the theory about manmade global warming just junk and looking at the past there is nothing wrong with global temperatures.
Here there are. It will take over 4 hours to go watch them all and some are not just one video but 1 out of 4 or you can go on believe in models that don't even put water vapor as a factor.
Man-made global warming is back up things like progaganda(ex polar bear population is up 400%), a political movement industry(the global cooling guys of the 70's didn't have this), when ask to defend there position in a debate the alarmist just keep saying the mantra(That sounds like very strong SCIENCE and Gore is very good at this) and lets not forget junkscience like feedback(water vapor has not been doing this).
I am talking about how the alarmist but with science you could at best prove that man make a slightly or very small impact on global temperature. It is kind of hard to get this to come out of people mouth who know this because if you go aganist man-made global warming doctine your labled, find it hard to get grant money, blackmail, falsely accused of being paid for by big oil, threatened, and subject to a host of other political and other nonscienific to stop your voice from speaking up.
anyway, the polar bear thing is not that simple, & your statement is not true...
the global cooling in the 70's thing is also a myth...it cant be compared to the overwhelming support and evidence we have for man-made global warming...besides the global cooling was partly because of aerosols..this info can be found on the net
Al Gore is just the "spokesperson", his sources are credible scientists
The polar bear population is going up and you can check that out. Even with this "overwhelming support" at best you can prove that man is slightly or has a VERY small effect on global temperatures and we will not kill are self like those climate models(that don't take in to acount the effects of WATER VAPOR) say. The debate is not over and silencing is not science because we don't understand the science(it TRUE). At best we have increased global temperatures by .1 celsius. I don't trust the UN.
The reason the debate has stoped is because the people pushing global warming will not debate. Why don't you do some research into all the greenhouse gas like the big one water vapor and look into just what is the influnce of nature compared to man. I being to look into who is pushing this aganda so you might hear from that soon
here...from Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
"Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things."
In the 70s the polar bear population was about 5000 now it around 25000. Right now the polar bear population is going up and if were going down you wouldn't be able to find polar bears.
"The most-studied bear population, in the Western Hudson Bay in Canada, dropped 22 percent from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 in 2004, the proposal by Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service said.
...based on environmental factors and observed patterns of population trends for some populations, it is likely that most populations will exhibit declines in the future."
I believe it 2 polar bear population or species growing growing more than the 2 shrunking and the other 16 are stable. So in all in all the polar bear population is doing fine today and growing.
first of all, i'm not sure if your info is correct...but in any case....read this from an EXPERT!
"The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears — the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview."
Do you really want me to start pulling quotes from alarmist. Here is a taste of what you might read.
Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
go right ahead...& those quotes don't prove anything...maybe he was trying to say that they have to warn of the dangers or else people wont care/listen etc?
as for the other quote, maybe he was trying to make the point that we are overconsuming, we need to stop using oil, gas, coal, we need to change our ways, or else we are in danger of global warming?
& the disasters are happening now! they were right!
do you want me to post all the BS the Fossil Fuel Industry dishes out!?
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC
The first quote was pointing and with the one above it was pointing out with being scientifically unsound they would not of gotten there results and the second is about the type of people who made up the IPCC and the alot of the UN.
"Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was ALREADY an issue that was founded on SCIENTIFIC information."
"There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the condition of polar bears."
save money on gas by bottling up farts lol
in0sanity 1 year ago
A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing.
Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
8.The best strategy to pursue is "no regrets."
I know I copied these from
aproundtab letps30info globalwarmup
manwihthat 3 years ago
dude, you sound like you are repesting the CRAP, the Fossil Fuel puts out!
the cost of NOT acting on gw, is not just financial(which is wayyyy more if we dont act), but puts all life at risk!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
..repeating...(i mean)
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
Who fell for the conspiracy theories the green movement put out?
manwihthat 3 years ago
not sure what you are talking about, but all the major scientist institutions conclude global warming is man-made...
have you heard of the Tobacco Industry's disinformation campaign, similar to exxon's disnformation campaign? how many ppl fell for that?
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
I don't understand how the earth could end by warming unless you get into a temp increase into a range closer to about 9 celsius and above and stay they for over a year. In order to have this nature would have to do most of the work but global cooling is for more dangerous and we could casue it ie nuclear winter (ex 1816, a year without a summer, google it) and would kill off the crops.
manwihthat 3 years ago
i guess you were sleeping during the news program about how the ice in the north pole will be 100% melted by september
and i guess the depletion of the ozone, melting of the polar ice caps, endangerment of polar bears and other such animals, emmission of greenhouse gases, and rising world temperature is "beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."
yeah right. BS.
get a life.
singingshortie 3 years ago
Who said this and who is their Source?
How much did they say sea level would rise by this?
Google this "NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face" it is from NASA and has something to say about the other factors at hard at work melting away your north pole.
And you will love this.
The increased open water should produce more cloud cover which will block the suns radiation and cool things down again.
manwihthat 3 years ago
dude, what is gonna stop the earth from roasting, along with its dangerous consequences, once we pass "tipping points"...
maybe you need to ask someone like Dr James Hansen
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
i got cho back!
hahaha you are totally right
don't listen to him
singingshortie 3 years ago
hahaha! cool! thanks!
i got yours too!
:D
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
Here what NASA said about this in the NASA See... above. "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
Now stopglobalwarming08 and singingshortie use send message to point me what you mean by tipping point and singi... if it on the news it should have an article so please send the web address.
Do this and you may here back from me in 6 month or some other time.
manwihthat 3 years ago
first of all, it is MISLEADING to say NASA said this...no, this is just 1 of the many news releases from NASA....
& it really doesn't "discredit" manmade global warming...
"The results suggest NOT ALL the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
mongabay
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
& also, i AM NOT 100% SURE, but james morison MAY not be from NASA...you have to research it yourself
James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
also, james morison said this...
"Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not APPEAR to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.
NASA jpl
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
tipping points, see ya manwiththat...
"Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.
...We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
abcnews
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
cont'd on tipping points...
"Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer."
abcnews
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
exactly.
does that sound good to you, manwihthat?
singingshortie 3 years ago
You can send website address through send message. Do it. I been trying to look were you find this out and have not been find it. All I find is someone who is shouting out the sky is falling and something wrong with him. So please just send me some web addresses in a message not a comment.
manwihthat 3 years ago
what exactly do you want??!
(((( sigh ))))
jus do a google of the info i posted!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
globalwarming08--lnfao u are one dumbed down bag of crap
TurdsOFTheInternet 2 years ago
more like U, U DUMB PUNK, trouble making PUNK
stopglobalwarming08 2 years ago
hehehe =]
singingshortie 3 years ago
:D hhhahahha!
its all good!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
you're an ignorant idiot
don't even try to convince me global warming doesn't exist
you are utterly WRONG and you need a wake up call
so go post that load of crap on another video
singingshortie 3 years ago
Here are 8 Arguments Against Global Warming
Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate.
Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend in 23 year(Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend).
Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
manwihthat 3 years ago
total BS!
the IPCC is the biggest peer-reviewed scientific consensus ever taken to tackle global warming! they gathered the leading scientists from around the world...they are even more certain than before (at least 90%) certain of man-made global warming! there is no such thing as 100% certainty in science...so this is pretty much as close as youre gonna get to 100% certainty!
NASA GISS has 2005 for the warmest year, and 2007 tied 1998..
what the IPCC has predicted is coming true today!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
The Oregon petition got 32000 people to sign it and it has 9000 PHds rejecting man-made global warming. This ends any idea of an consensus. People had to threaten legal action against the IPCC to get there names off. Not many people have peer-reviewed the IPCC and some who have pointed out that the IPCC didn't prove there case.
You do know that most people who don't believe in your scam are not paid by the Fossil Fuel Industry's and if I could get the paid for this I would.
manwihthat 3 years ago
you really need to research that so called "petition" better!!
find out what the National Academy of Sciences had to say about it & why!
who are the ppl threatening to sue the IPCC? what a JOKE!
on the other hand, there has been many times that reputable scientists have been wanting to get off the list of deniers....
the IPCC is the largest PEER-REVIEWDED scientific consensus! what the heck are you talking about!?
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
who are the "some", i bet i recognize their names...
if thats true, it shows you how effective the Fossil Fuel Industry's disinformation is!
how can SCIENCE be a scam?
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
Are tiny planet global temp are driven by the sun and will always be. As sun activity increases so to the temps and then CO2. Is it not arrogant that something so small can have such a big impact when we have such more powerful factors out their like the sun, clouds, water vapor, and nature CO2, N2O, and CH4? Then you ask me to put faith in a barely understood science for MULTI-TRILLION dollars policies that would very little and not stop nature form just changing global temp anyways.
manwihthat 3 years ago
dude, numerous scientists like the Royal Society (brittain's premier scientific academy)have already discredited the sun....
it is arrogant to think we know more than the credible scientists
there is overwhelming scientific consensus based upon peer-reviewed science from around the world....all coming to the same conclusion, gw is man-made....
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
wow overemotional statements made by young ignorant teenage girls. That's what I whant temper decisions about things. Give me a break, &I don't mean tell me to take five. Water vapor, solar flare, volcanoes, ant hills, geysers, and a whole littany of other things put what man puts into to the atmoshpere to shame when it comes to volume of co2 alone let alone methane. To say we are the problem is to be utterly so arrogant it's impossible. think of a chiuahuah fucking an Elephant. does it hurt?;-)
circusboy90210 3 years ago
Feel good for change bs . totally not informative. what does trampling on flowers have to do with the earth hurting or anyting? tell me how there is really a link between, ooh thtat's right you can't because there is none . Get Educated ;-)
circusboy90210 3 years ago
oh yeah...i TOTALLY need education. cuz i'm just sooo stupid. you know what, it was supposed to be funny. not informative. and if you don't understand that, then YOU'RE the one with the problem. i realize that there wasn't really any information or factual evidence in this video. that's probably because we didn't make it for that. WE MADE IT BECAUSE WE WERE EFFING BORED. IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO BE INFORMED, WATCH THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL ASSHOLE
singingshortie 3 years ago
really if you had such a valid arguement you would not resorting to name calling . you just invalidated your whole arguement. and the discovery channel being entertainment is not a valid source of information. At least here I can filter the truth.
circusboy90210 3 years ago
aahhahahahh audrey i love you
"cows are tipped"
KIERAxLOVE 3 years ago
why THANK YOU!
singingshortie 3 years ago
It is real but most of what the alamist are saying is junk and alot of the theory about manmade global warming just junk and looking at the past there is nothing wrong with global temperatures.
manwihthat 3 years ago
HAHA whatever you say
singingshortie 3 years ago
I can send you some videos to prove my points and more.
manwihthat 3 years ago
it's okay. i'm good.
btw...global warming IS manmade. just fyi.
kaythanks =]
singingshortie 3 years ago
Here there are. It will take over 4 hours to go watch them all and some are not just one video but 1 out of 4 or you can go on believe in models that don't even put water vapor as a factor.
hpWa7VW-OME
Hqu1YQUOAZs
fr5O1HsTVgA
_YJRYRhX5e4
q2u_5rh2drQ
xOi1Pnm4m0U
fr5O1HsTVgA
q1vSMCyc6J0
manwihthat 3 years ago
hahaha glad you folks can see through the Fossil Fuel Industry's CRAP!
man-made global warming is backed up by this thing called SCIENCE!
thanks for the vid!
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
Man-made global warming is back up things like progaganda(ex polar bear population is up 400%), a political movement industry(the global cooling guys of the 70's didn't have this), when ask to defend there position in a debate the alarmist just keep saying the mantra(That sounds like very strong SCIENCE and Gore is very good at this) and lets not forget junkscience like feedback(water vapor has not been doing this).
manwihthat 3 years ago
I am talking about how the alarmist but with science you could at best prove that man make a slightly or very small impact on global temperature. It is kind of hard to get this to come out of people mouth who know this because if you go aganist man-made global warming doctine your labled, find it hard to get grant money, blackmail, falsely accused of being paid for by big oil, threatened, and subject to a host of other political and other nonscienific to stop your voice from speaking up.
manwihthat 3 years ago
huh? i dont even understand your question/post?
anyway, the polar bear thing is not that simple, & your statement is not true...
the global cooling in the 70's thing is also a myth...it cant be compared to the overwhelming support and evidence we have for man-made global warming...besides the global cooling was partly because of aerosols..this info can be found on the net
Al Gore is just the "spokesperson", his sources are credible scientists
the debate among the scientific community is over
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
The polar bear population is going up and you can check that out. Even with this "overwhelming support" at best you can prove that man is slightly or has a VERY small effect on global temperatures and we will not kill are self like those climate models(that don't take in to acount the effects of WATER VAPOR) say. The debate is not over and silencing is not science because we don't understand the science(it TRUE). At best we have increased global temperatures by .1 celsius. I don't trust the UN.
manwihthat 3 years ago
The reason the debate has stoped is because the people pushing global warming will not debate. Why don't you do some research into all the greenhouse gas like the big one water vapor and look into just what is the influnce of nature compared to man. I being to look into who is pushing this aganda so you might hear from that soon
manwihthat 3 years ago
where do you get your info??
here...from Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.
"Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things."
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
In the 70s the polar bear population was about 5000 now it around 25000. Right now the polar bear population is going up and if were going down you wouldn't be able to find polar bears.
manwihthat 3 years ago
dude, do you know more than Dr. Andrew Derocher?
basically, you cannot compare population growth caused by harvest controls
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
more on declining polar bear populations...
"The most-studied bear population, in the Western Hudson Bay in Canada, dropped 22 percent from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 in 2004, the proposal by Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service said.
...based on environmental factors and observed patterns of population trends for some populations, it is likely that most populations will exhibit declines in the future."
planetark
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
I believe it 2 polar bear population or species growing growing more than the 2 shrunking and the other 16 are stable. So in all in all the polar bear population is doing fine today and growing.
manwihthat 3 years ago
first of all, i'm not sure if your info is correct...but in any case....read this from an EXPERT!
"The point is that you cannot simply summarize the status of polar bears — the information lies in the individual populations. You cannot put the various time periods together into a simplistic overview."
Dr. Andrew Derocher
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
Do you really want me to start pulling quotes from alarmist. Here is a taste of what you might read.
Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.
Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
manwihthat 3 years ago
go right ahead...& those quotes don't prove anything...maybe he was trying to say that they have to warn of the dangers or else people wont care/listen etc?
as for the other quote, maybe he was trying to make the point that we are overconsuming, we need to stop using oil, gas, coal, we need to change our ways, or else we are in danger of global warming?
& the disasters are happening now! they were right!
do you want me to post all the BS the Fossil Fuel Industry dishes out!?
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC
The first quote was pointing and with the one above it was pointing out with being scientifically unsound they would not of gotten there results and the second is about the type of people who made up the IPCC and the alot of the UN.
manwihthat 3 years ago
well you go believe the Fossil Fuel Industry's BS! its your choice!
what do you think their motivation is? hmmm
where is the denier's peer-reviewed science? that has not been discrefited?
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
discredited
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
more on polar bears...
"Look at the messengers: lobby groups for big business say there is no problem. Yes, conservation groups moved the issue forward for listing under the Endangered Species Act but this was ALREADY an issue that was founded on SCIENTIFIC information."
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago
regarding polar bears...
"There is, however, very strong evidence for a decline in Western Hudson Bay and the Southern Beaufort Sea based on quantitative studies. More recently, scientists working in the Southern Hudson Bay have reported a major decline in the condition of polar bears."
Dr. Andrew Derocher
stopglobalwarming08 3 years ago