@rousgalarce, "where is the evidence?" is not the right question to ask. The real question is what MOTIVATES people to IGNORE all the evidence that's been presented so far.
How much clearer do you need it to be? It's just like the evidence for evolution that gets ignored over and over and over and over for most of the same reasons (economic greed and religious faith in human omnipotence).
@rousgalarce Greenhouse gases heat the earth. Look up greenhouse effect. Humans emissions of greenhouse gases dwarf that of other natural systems (volcanoes): watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
He "crushes" skeptics' arguments? Horsesqueeze! He's absolutely out of his league and getting thoroughly owned on his comment sections in those vids. He doesn't even understand skeptical points.
@RealOldOne2 Yes, I monitored that debate. He was WAYYYY out of his league there. Then again, I'm not a scientist (although I had Physics for my science at Ohio State), and I have no problem pointing out his scientific shortcomings. I suspect I'll be banned at some point. Of course, we CAN laugh at his many faux-pas. LOL.
@RealOldOne2 If you read the comment section of his "Solar Schmolar" vid, you'll see he pulled the same ridiculous tactic on me. Had some real fun there. AGW proponents seem to make a habit out of making a mockery of scientific inquiry by trying underhanded methods to silence critics. So, I'm not surprised there.
Anyone who thinks that crooks like Blair, Brown, Obama, Gore etc. care about the planet or are trying to protect us from big busines, is completely deluded.
Enron and BP pushed Gore into signing the Kyoto protocol. The oil companies are pushing AGW because they will make billions from carbon credits.
Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britains richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming
What you need to do is rate the crooks, liars and scumbags. If we all get together and support the lesser evils, then they will eventually crowd out the opposition. So then we ratchet up the pressure and crowd them out, etc.
But you have to have the courage and tenacity to keep on fighting and not give up and collapse into a mass of sniveling, whining, human flesh.
U.N. scientists show repeated conversations about skewing and hiding data actually showing an 11 year trend in global cooling, proving the entire man-made global warming idea was just one big scam to implement global carbon taxes on the world's population
The reason I debate them is because it provides the impetus for brushing up on my knowledge. I'm also compiling a list of the various arguments and web sites that talk about them.
@Rhine0Cowboy - First off, Peter is not a Climate Scientist him self. He admits to only two years of self training with no Climate Science background.
Lord Mockton is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. You don't get this title without a science background.
Lord Mockton uses scientific facts that you can then research yourself, if you wish.
Code, the thing here is Peter is not trying to produce his own science. He is acting as a medium, to convey the scientific information in a manner that can be digested by the masses, who perhaps do not have the time to do their own research, or do not know where to get reliable information.
"3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" - So you believe in hereditary importance? Oh dear, and who is chief science advisor to SPPI? Willie Soon, need I say more?
Peter isn't attempting to do his own science little miss greenslime. He conveys it. I'm glad that we both agree that Monckton is a clown however. In my opinion, if someone refers to Monckton, they lose the debate.
Monckton is vastly more intelligent than Sinclair. He was a senior adviser to the British government. Only a half wit would fall for Greenaman's daft strawman videos.
Monckton is behaving like a clown because he is making a lot of money from stupid Americans. He is a celebrity on the lecture circuit and elsewhere. He himself isn't that dumb.
For a "dumb" person, Peter Sinclair does a remarkably good of conveying what the science says to the layman.
For someone who isn't that dumb, Monckton does a remarkably good job at creating junk-science that a physics undergrad could debunk.
Let me level with you, Monckton is very good at appearing intelligent. His upper class accent, combined with his pretentious hereditary titles and his presentation of complexities his audiences do not fully understand, is lethal.
Track record of intelligent behaviour at the highest level? Such as???
He was economic adviser to a British government that made a lot of bad economic decisions. By my book, that doesn't go down in his favour.
I also find it quite insulting you'd say I know nothing about science. By all means, if you wish to turn this into a debate about science, go for it and we will judge on the outcome.
Of course I'm not an economist, but being from the UK I know the civil unrest the Thatcher era caused.
Missy green slime, I do not get my scientific information from the media. I like original source material.
Since when did this become about American politics? Either AGW is happening or it is not. If you say it is not, I would like proof. If you provide me with 'proof', don't assume I will not check it, and its source.
Oh, and when and where did you debate Sinclair? Verification is good.
@Woobaka You prove the proposition that AGW is dangerous. I regartd the IPCC process to be completekly corrupt by the way. You will have to prove it from source material.
My position is that I haven't a clue. but neither does anyone else. I believe the media is grossly biased. The BBC because they are under the strong influence of the British government and the Guardian and Independent because they are being sponsored by Shell (like the CRU) to promote carbon trading.
google Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
also google IETA angry Mermaid
I regard the Guardian as a nasty right wing neocon rag.
MissGreenslime, are you the poster called Eric144144 under a different name, after being banned from greenmans channel for abusive behaviour? You sound very, very similar.
I see, you're eric144144. You were not subjected to outrageous abuse. I think you ought to step back and take a long hard look at it. The minute you were confronted with evidence you became abusive. You made no attempts to counter evidence, you were just abusive. You are clearly harbouring hard feelings towards greenman for banning you, but you know what? Anyone else would have banned you long before he did. He was extremely tolerant.
OMG you have a science degree? Really? Oh wait, so do I. Yes I know about science, yes I know how to access peer-reviewed literature, and no I do not get my information from the telly.
You are vastly over-inflating yourself based on you having a degree. Millions of people have degrees, get over it.
I do not know where to start because there is so much evidence eric, why don't we start with you rejecting one piece of the theory for AGW, and I'll start there.
Currently studying towards a PhD in the area of ecology/conservation biology eric. I suppose from your comments that YOU understand it, ever so well. To do so, you would have to be a climate scientist yourself. You see, this is the great thing about peer-review. It is reviewed by the people who know the subject very well, who understand the intricacies.
You don't have a clue about climate physics, do you ?
You are the self inflating ego, not me. I said I was miles ahead of Greenman which is true.
I don't debate science because LIKE YOU, I am not qualified to know if what I am reading is correct. I got my degree when 5-10% qualified, not 40% by the way. I started a phd too. Dropped out pretty quickly.
Kindly explain to me which relativistc Schrodinger equation in quantum field theory can be complexly conjugated using the Ricci Tensor, so that it can be applied to General Relativity.
With a physics degree and an understanding that, assumedly from your own words, exceeds that of everyone here, that should be easy!
I very specifically said said that I wasn't qualified to comment on the science. Wookba claimed that he read primary, peer reviewed sources. He was lying.
A lot of men get very uppity because they are smarter than their mothers and the boys down the pub.
I was lying? LYING? You have some strange definition of lying I have to say. You are a terrible, terrible, troll eric, and you genuinely bring shame to our country scotland.
Evidence that climate change is already causing ecosystem disturbance:
Hughes, 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15(2): 56-61
Evidence of the increasing severity of droughts & floods linked to warming:
Dai et al. 2004. A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5: 1117-1130
These boys have no idea whether what they see is caused by global warming or not. I am talking about evidence that the temperature will be dangerous to human civilisation, atmospheric physics evidence.
Hey physics degree boy, why don't you answer vanderbilt's question? It was after right down your street, pure physics, no climate science.
Oh, and they are fairly confident that warming is the cause in those papers. If you don't think flooding and droughts are dangerous, I reckon you need your head checked.
I haveno idea of the answer, but I bet I could google questions for him.
They are basing their assessment on IPCC atmospheric physics to say that it is caused by AGW. I am asking tou to prove that it is correct by providing sources.
I have asked real climate scientists and the chief BBC environment correspondent and they can't answer either.
Scientists like the Piekle family, Mike Hulme and associates profess belief but write like sceptics 95% of the time. Very amusing.
Oh, but I thought you were asking me for evidence that it was dangerous? Eric, stop being so damn lazy and give me something specific that you disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and give you the entire history of evidence for AGW. You can find that yourself easily. There is no one definitve piece of proof, there are several lines of evidence that all tie together and tell a coherent story. Now get off your ass, do some research, and stop objecting like a mindless troll.
I asked you for evidence that it was dangerous (that temperatures would rise by a dangerous amount).
There is no direct evidence as you just admitted. The IPCC process is one in which clever people (politicians) corral very stupid and ambitious people (scientists) like sheep into saying what is required of them.
You are terribly twisting my words here. I said there was no one definitive piece of proof, i.e. there is no one study titled 'The theory of Global Warming' that is our supposed bible. There are several lines of evidence, that all add up, tell the same story, all point to a warming planet, warming would not be good, CO2 causes warming, humans produce CO2. And so on.
To be making your assertions, you can surely think of one thing to object to?
You have literally no idea whether any of the evidence is true or not. I do not think scientists are trustworthy individuals in the modern competitive academic environment.
I actually taught in a college science dept for 13 years and recently went to a Russell group university for a course . What a nasty mess the education system is in.
My focus is on the politics.I am right about that because the evidence is there from mainstream sources and Friends of the Earth.
Eric, come on. Listen to yourself. Are you going to pick one part of the science you disagree with, or not? Otherwise I'm through listening to your ridiculous bullshit. (No, this doesn't mean you won).
I find it interesting that someone who considers science a religion would take a science degree. Or is "even if I understood the basics of the physics" an admission that you lied about your education?
If you believe we cannot trust any science because peer-review is not perfect, I hope you will also consider this the next time you think about consulting your doctor when you are ill.
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
And who is Paul Vaughan? What did he find? I assume if he went public you would know, oh diligent researcher.
Once again, several sceptics do get funding, and do publish research. Infact, on the subject of peer review, the recent publication by Lindzen & Choi (2009) which a lot of noise has been made about, is turning out to be a nice example of when peer-review failed. If you dare step into contrary realms, check the recent posts at realclimate.
Yes Lindzen got funding from MIT. He seems to be an exception. Realclimate is a politically motivated and funded den of iniquity run by Hansens/Scmidt with the mysterious Tamino who works for - who ?
To summarise my view.
Climate science and media reporting are corrupt because there are trillions of dollars at stake for big business and banks.
Sort of an unwise business move wouldn't you say, given that if it is a fraud, and we don't really need to reduce CO2 emissions, then it will certainly be found out when we see no shift from fossil fuels and they continue to reap the profits from carbon trading?
Eric, you have swallowed, hook line and sinker, exactly what big oil wants people to think. Do you really think they want any threat to their profits from oil production? Do you believe carbon trading could match those profits?
Greenpeace even has a website that "exposes" donations of Exxon/Esso to various U.S. think-tanks. What Greenpeace does not expose, is that its own funding comes from extremely right-wing sources -- take a look at these donations to Greenpeace USA and the very conservative, reactionary people behind them.
No doubt this is why so many of the policies and programmes of "environmentalism" are so close to those of neofascist political parties. As the British National Party
Margaret Thatcher put global warming on the world stage at the UN in 1989. She also created the Hadley Centre. She wanted to replace coal with oil, gas and nuclear.
Her husband was a director of Britoil.
Blair and Brown have continued UK leadership of AGW. Blair pushed through Kyoto, Brown orchestrated Copenhagen.
Also Eric, consider this. Sceptics get to publish, right? (Or are they in the conspiracy, and just a diversion?) Sceptics workin in climate science, know about climate science, right? If there are fundamental flaws in the physics used, wouldn't these guys be publishing sharp, to the point, rebuttals of it? You see, thats the thing - when peer-review does fail, the science gets presented to the masses, who are often much quicker at indicating flaws.
That is how it works, not just in science, but in everything. Science is owned by government / big business. They choose what is researched, Newspaper owners decide what is published.
For example, if you are intelligent, you will never become a journalist these days.
Give me more credit than that Eric, I'm not a naive little boy. I know you do not get funding if what you wish to research is of little importance, or there is no incentive for the grant-giver. God knows, I have written funding applications before. Not my idea of fun.
On the issue of incentive... wouldn't it be great if AGW was disproven, and we could save huge sums of money that would otherwise go into mitigation and prevention?
Climate peer review is completely corrupt. Wegman and climategate show that conclusively.
R. Horton, editor of the The Lancet-
We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Completely corrupt? Right. Please explain how so many sceptics get their work published then.
Peer-review has its shortcoming, like everything else. It's the worst system for publishing science except for everything else that has been tried. In other words, it's far better than nothing. But climategate shows it's corrupt?? C'mon eric, I gave even you more credit than that. Except for the journal "Climate Research", which I hope you know the story of, what other instances are there?
Tell me Eric, how have they corrupted the temperature record. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all.
And you continue to bleet about it all being orchestrated by big oil. Are you aware of leaked memos that outline a campaign to spread confusion and doubt about AGW, that you have clearly fallen victim to? Probably not.
Read Climate Audit yourself to read about the corruption.
The leaked emails are no doubt a figment of your imagination. However the IETA is real. Ask Friends of the Earth. The Enron story is real (Washington Post).
I use primary sources such as scientific journals that implement a peer-review system. But I suppose you're going to tell me that's all corrupt too, right? Oh wait, sceptics get their work published too. You're a conspiracy theorist, come on, drop the charade.
I am asking you for one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that the earth's temperature is increasing to such a level that it requires the human race to cut its co2 output.
That sounds like we need a new category. Instead of Godwin's law, we'll call it "Woobaka's law!" :)
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Monckton approaches 1 and they commit the 'Reductio Ad Monckterum" fallacy and lose the argument.
He was not science advisor to Thatcher. He was an economic advisor. His education is in classics and journalism. "Science advisor" is just one of the frauds he incites about himself. Member of the house of lords is another.
Are you from the UK codematrix? Because a lot of the working classes here still harbour very hard feelings towards the conservative party because of the poll tax system that was implemented by Thatcher. And who was economic advisor??
I can't believe the fraud known as Peter Sinclair, is speaking anywhere. He is completely wrong about the Climate in almost all respects.
HE will not debate the fact's about climate gate. He will disregard these most critical FACTS in one way or another. He must if he is to convince you of his lies.
Peter Sinclair is a fraud, do not trust him, EVER.
Peter Sinclair merely conveys current scientific thinking and quotes from major scientific institutions like NASA and NOAA. If he's wrong, the these institutions are wrong. And the majority of scientists in the world are wrong.
I stumbled on his youtube page a few weeks ago. He's a breath of fresh air in this argument. Finally someone coherently explains in full detail why the most popular denier rhetoric is wrong.
I'd like to take a look at this. I was under the impression we're seeing temperatures today that at hotter than the mwp.
I'm talking about average global temperature here now. The only thing I've read remotely resembling what you're speaking of has to do with isolated areas...
I'm also under the impression that we aren't sure what caused the MWP. Is that still the general consensus? Did you find out what caused it?
Simply ignores it? You cite 40 REGIONAL anomalies, all occuring within a broad 600-700 year period. You fail to cite any decent global temperature reconstructions that support your argument. You are simply ignoring how little temporal and spatial consistency your argument holds.
First you demand evidence, then you demand more detailed evidence... Now you say, its not a global temperature reconstruction, therefore it doesn't show the MWP or the LIA...
Even though the authors of those papers specifically state that it is the MWP and/or LIA...
If I only had 2 or 3 sources, then it would likely be a regional anomaly. But with 40 different studies, all over the world, all at the same time PROVE there was a GLOBAL MWP...
You make global reconstruction out to be a trivial detail... it's kind of a big one. And lets be fair here, it wasn't 40 regional anomalies, you cited 2 or 3 sources for the same regions quite often.
You could look at the global temperature reconstruction to be 1000+ redional anomlies, all put into a coherent timeline in the one study.
Yes, and generally, they all tell the same story. They all tell that story through different mechanisms. If you are attacking the validity of the global reconstructions, how the hell do you consider that your evidence means anything?
Keep in mind the 'reconstructions' you are referring to are only isolated to the Northern Hemisphere.
They are not global themselves... Even the Antarctic Ice Cores are (regional).
There is NO WAY to globally reconstruct temperature without referring to studies done in regions... In your attempt to destroy my bridge, you've accidentally burned your own...
Mann's reconstruction is based on less than four 'regions'. I've cited FORTY... Of which you have ignored 39...
Blizzards in europe. Read up on the Arctic Oscillation. Conversely, Alaska is recording record highs is it not? Northern Canda. Washington State. All experiencing warmer than usual. This is why it's important to look at it GLOBALLY. How many times have we been over this, really?
I don't know where you get the idea that they are only referring to the NH. Do you really think they are that stupid? A hemispheric reconstruction is referred to as a hemispheric reconstruction. There is more uncertainty about the SH reconstructions, because there are less SH proxies currently. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?
Mann et al. 2009. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the little ice age and medieval climate anomaly. Science, 326: 1256
If you have access to this article, you have access to the supporting online material. There's a nice diagram of the spatial distribution of the proxies used. I think you'll find that every one of the areas you cited, is included in the study. The supporting material goes into great detail, explaining what they done and how they done it.
Really? Vostock and Dome Concordia show that temperature is lower than any time in 500ky? Vostock captures several ice ages in it's records. Dome Concordia stretched back 32ky, and captures the last ice age. Why are you bullshitting?
I didn't say 'ice ages' I said past 500,000 years...
IF co2 is 30% higher than at anytime during those 500,000 years, why is the temperature NOT higher than the maximum temperatures in the past 500,000 years?....
I see, so it changed from temperatures cooler than at any time in the past 500,000 years, to temperatures not exceeding the maximum in the past 500,000 years? Funkyflorist, do you realise there have been multiple ice ages in the past 500,000 years?
If you could point me to a source which shows a resolution good enough to accurately see the past 50 years in the Vostock record I'd appreciate it. (This is not spoon feeding, it's called substantiating your assertions.)
The current temperature is lower than any *maximum* in the past 500,000 years. Not 'at anytime' please excuse me.
As for the sources; I will let you find any vostok / dome concordia data you like. I've seen 4 different graphs, ALL of which show the same thing; CO2 is 30% higher than in the past, methane is 120% higher than in the past.
But temperature has not reflected that increase...
FF, I appreciate your humbleness here, I really do. It makes a very nice difference compared to the last guy. I can't find any data that shows a good enough resolution that would allow us to see the past 50 years in Vostock clearly. So could you do me a favour here and show me yours, it is late and I am rather sleepy.
Assuming you are correct however, I can only personally speculate at a) solar activity and b) lag in temperature response due to thermal inertia of oceans.
It's also important to note that natural temperatures (before mankind played any part) fall well below the peaks also, strongly suggesting that natural forcings were stronger during these past peaks. If natural forcings were identical to what they were at any one of these past peaks, what would we get?
As for Lindzen and Choi, there is nothing published yet, but I know for a fact that there are rebuttals in the pipeline. He didn't use the correct models. His analysis of the satellite data went against crucial advice from the data provider. Additionally, Lindzen is a self confessed contrarian by nature. He relishes going against the flow. This is a MIT scientist who rejects evolution and rejects smoking causing cancer. I may be wrong, but you might be able to add HIV causing AIDS to that list.
I did talk about the science, with a little ad hominem to taste. It was hardly a bad ad hominem either, it was more of a comment in Lindzens nature.
There's a paper by Trenberth et al submitted for publication that tackles Lindzen & Choi, you can get the gist of it via the recent posts at realclimate.
It's very general to say the science is not settled is it not? In a way, no science is ever settled, for we know what we know through science only through evidence. But it's a heck of a lot better than ignorance. So in what parts of the science are there large enough uncertainties to be concerned about? And don't just say the whole thing, I mean uncertainties as in there's still as strong debate in the literature.
You should be careful with realclimate ,org. It is moderated heavily and does not allow dissent or open discussion on the issues.
Climateaudit ,org is more open and they allow dissent and conversation from any side.
I've recently learned that Mann's data has been refuted by an analysis done by Briffa et al reconstruction, a study of rural trees and urban thermometers show a decline...
It's moderated heavily because of abusive comments. I see plenty of questioning comments on the boards which are answered in turn. So if your idea of no open discussion is that they get replied to and corrected, then I'm afraid you're right.
Not to mention I (nor any sensible person should) use realclimate as a primary source. I find it useful as a guide, from where to begin researching. I'd be interested to see this Briffa et al you are referring to.
You should be careful with Climateaudit (dot) org. It allows practically any uneducated fool to say practically anything they want with no refutation or moderation.
Realclimate (dot) org tries to weed out the nutcases and absurdity and provides counter arguments so it's more reliable.
Realclimate has always systematically prevented open arguments. Besides, according to you, if it is not a peer-reviewed study, it is only opinion and does not count as science anyway...
Now to talk about the science;
Even if everything the IPCC and Al Gore claims to be true, we would need to stop ALL CARBON EMISSIONS (that includes burning wood) for 20 years world-wide to prevent just 1 degree C of cooling...
Sadly, the opposite of the opposite is true. Real climate has great discussions. Climate audit has junk.
I admit, I don't have a clue what to do about it tho. In fact, I don't really even think about it. For me, this is just an academic debate.
Are you saying that you've decided whether or not to believe in AGW based on the fact that it will be hard to solve and you're afraid to try? I guess I prefer to base my beliefs on facts, not feelings.
Where did you get this information that if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, we wouldn't see any effect of it for 100 years? That sounds completely contrary to anything I've ever read (or heard), and I've read a lot. I haven't even seen any "skeptics" making that claim (and I've seen a lot!)
And even if it were true, what does it have to do with whether or not AGW is happening? Are you saying I should base my beliefs on my fears instead of facts?
Harm de Blij himself says: "after anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere are brought under control, 'climate change will be with us for at least another century'
WILL BE WITH US. Not "won't see any effect!" Two VERY different things. Besides, he says "after ... brought under control", NOT "stopped tomorrow".
Slick cherry pick there, you also butchered his quotation;
Editor; "even if we stop emanating gases that warm the planet tomorrow, climate change will still be with us for about a hundred years" He said he wrote back to the editor saying; "After 2 billion years of it that's very encouraging."
watch?v=A1CS6H8wrpc
Lemme guess, you'll say we can't go by opinions by individuals right?
I donated $200 to World Vision for Haiti. What have YOU done?
But of course I suspect you don't want to define the MWP because you can't. It appears you just want to throw out talking points, not actually debate. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm not.
I've had the pleasure to hear him [de Blij] lecture.
Considering that he thinks man is only contributing about 1 C degree of warming, and that he has cited eruptions and meteor impacts that HAVE nearly wiped out mankind, we don't have to worry about co2...
Are you saying science is a BELIEF system? No of course not...
Well, your beliefs are up to you, if you WANT to base them on fears, go right ahead...
I just think we have BIGGER problems than trying to tax or regulate or trade 1/2000 of the atmosphere...
Short List of problems; Federal Budget, Chinese Neo-Imperialism, Yellowstone Eruption, Potential Global Ice-Age, Middle-Eastern Nuclear Proliferation, HIV / AIDS control, Malaria control, etc.
@Funky I'm asking if you think I should believe in it based on my fears because I DON'T think it's a belief system. But you seem to be promoting the idea that, since it's going to be hard to overcome, we shouldn't believe in it. THAT'S a belief system! If that's not what you're saying, then why inject that into the debate?
greenman couldn't crush a flea .Debate lord Monckton and see how you go you bragging piece of shit
vmgqie 3 weeks ago
what a dreamer you are greenman , pure fantasy wind and solar what a joke. What do you think we are all gullible idiots to believe your shit
vmgqie 3 weeks ago
where is the evidence that co2 (humans contirbution to total co2) is causing or driving the global climate to change?
why dont you debate jonova?
rousgalarce 8 months ago
@rousgalarce, "where is the evidence?" is not the right question to ask. The real question is what MOTIVATES people to IGNORE all the evidence that's been presented so far.
How much clearer do you need it to be? It's just like the evidence for evolution that gets ignored over and over and over and over for most of the same reasons (economic greed and religious faith in human omnipotence).
4aSteadyStateEconomy 1 week ago
where is the evidence that co2 (humans contirbution to total co2) is causing or driving the global climate to change?
rousgalarce 8 months ago
@rousgalarce Greenhouse gases heat the earth. Look up greenhouse effect. Humans emissions of greenhouse gases dwarf that of other natural systems (volcanoes): watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
Bellantoni 7 months ago
Greenman, you rule!! Keep up the good work, my friend!!
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
My sincere apologies to Peter.
Apparently my posts were rejected because I tried to use a URL and anything close to a URL (like replacing the . with a _ )
Debate on.
Thanks for pointing that out to me Peter!
My bad.
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 One of the more amusing aspects of that vid is that he ripped off an old country song for it's title. LOL!
smartalek65 1 year ago
Comment removed
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
He "crushes" skeptics' arguments? Horsesqueeze! He's absolutely out of his league and getting thoroughly owned on his comment sections in those vids. He doesn't even understand skeptical points.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Comment removed
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes, I monitored that debate. He was WAYYYY out of his league there. Then again, I'm not a scientist (although I had Physics for my science at Ohio State), and I have no problem pointing out his scientific shortcomings. I suspect I'll be banned at some point. Of course, we CAN laugh at his many faux-pas. LOL.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Comment removed
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
@RealOldOne2 If you read the comment section of his "Solar Schmolar" vid, you'll see he pulled the same ridiculous tactic on me. Had some real fun there. AGW proponents seem to make a habit out of making a mockery of scientific inquiry by trying underhanded methods to silence critics. So, I'm not surprised there.
smartalek65 1 year ago
Comment removed
RealOldOne2 1 year ago
Ok, Peter Sinclair, debate Dr. Lindzen or Lord Monckton. I will attend!
judomagyar 1 year ago
OK, grunnmann!
Here is some counterbalance to your BS.
search for: On Climate, Comedy, Copyrights, and Cinematography
Posted on July 30, 2009 by Anthony Watts
And have fun!
judomagyar 1 year ago
I always wondered what greenman looked like
thebutler89 1 year ago 7
@thebutler89 He looks like a peedo and sounds like a castrato... just what I expected.
guydecervens 10 months ago
@thebutler89 His voice is a dead ringer for Brandon Iron's.
terracottapie 5 months ago
@StraightTalkProwess
How YOU Google "the great flying spaghetti monster is going to take over the world and make us all slaves".
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Anyone who thinks that crooks like Blair, Brown, Obama, Gore etc. care about the planet or are trying to protect us from big busines, is completely deluded.
Enron and BP pushed Gore into signing the Kyoto protocol. The oil companies are pushing AGW because they will make billions from carbon credits.
Carbon credits bring Lakshmi Mittal £1bn bonanza
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britains richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
You continue to politicize it eric. Please, show me proof that AGW is a fraud. After all, it should be easy to show if it is all fabricated.
Or are you claiming this is an even bigger conspiracy than that? Are you, eric, the only one not in on it?
Hey eric, I can see you.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@MissGreenslime
What you need to do is rate the crooks, liars and scumbags. If we all get together and support the lesser evils, then they will eventually crowd out the opposition. So then we ratchet up the pressure and crowd them out, etc.
But you have to have the courage and tenacity to keep on fighting and not give up and collapse into a mass of sniveling, whining, human flesh.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
He looks normal but behaves like a very creepy little slimeball.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
U.N. scientists show repeated conversations about skewing and hiding data actually showing an 11 year trend in global cooling, proving the entire man-made global warming idea was just one big scam to implement global carbon taxes on the world's population
codematrix 2 years ago
OH really? Please share the source of this information with the rest of us codematrix.
Woobaka 2 years ago
matrix do some research on christopher monckton bona fide wacko.
glenn beck has nothing compared to this guy
treeplanter99 2 years ago
see real climate for a rebuttal of lindzen and choi
treeplanter99 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@treeplanter99
btw: Even Roy Spencer (a "skeptic") has criticized the Lindzen Choi study :)
tinyurl (dot) com / ykxh8tf
Skydancer365 2 years ago
woobaka why would anyone debate such an idiot its a waste of time that doesn't advance the cause one bit
treeplanter99 2 years ago
I think it would do well to put an end to his verbal diarrhoea, or at least the credibility of it.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@treeplanter99
The reason I debate them is because it provides the impetus for brushing up on my knowledge. I'm also compiling a list of the various arguments and web sites that talk about them.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Debate Lord Monkton you dick!
codematrix 2 years ago
I would love to see Monckton debate a climate scientist. He has absolutely no scientific background, and it shows in his work.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka - no science background??? Are you kidding me? He was PM Thatcher's Science advisor. What the hell are you talking about. Stop spreading BS.
codematrix 2 years ago
You're so well trained you don't even understand the words you are typing.
Being a science advisor to a PM is a political occupation. It does not mean you do research, publish papers or have studied any scientific subject.
ex. Bush appointed a man at NASA who proceeded to censor science where it got uncomfortably close to contradicting his favourite religion.
What went on in your head when you figured a science advisor must be some scientifically trained person?
Rhine0Cowboy 2 years ago
@Rhine0Cowboy - First off, Peter is not a Climate Scientist him self. He admits to only two years of self training with no Climate Science background.
Lord Mockton is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. You don't get this title without a science background.
Lord Mockton uses scientific facts that you can then research yourself, if you wish.
Pete is a troll and a selfserving lier.
codematrix 2 years ago
Code, the thing here is Peter is not trying to produce his own science. He is acting as a medium, to convey the scientific information in a manner that can be digested by the masses, who perhaps do not have the time to do their own research, or do not know where to get reliable information.
"3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" - So you believe in hereditary importance? Oh dear, and who is chief science advisor to SPPI? Willie Soon, need I say more?
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Monckton is 10 X smarter than Sinclair and about 1,000 X smarter when it comes to science.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Is that so. Perhaps you would like to explain to me why Monckton thinks the Earth is black. Because that's what his special brand of science does.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Monckton is capable of doing professional level climate science mathematics. I doubt that Peter Sinclair could do mathematics to save his life.
Monckton is an extreme right wing clown, so is Peter Sinclair (Gore supporter) and his videos are silly drivel.
Monckton is smarter.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Peter isn't attempting to do his own science little miss greenslime. He conveys it. I'm glad that we both agree that Monckton is a clown however. In my opinion, if someone refers to Monckton, they lose the debate.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Monckton is vastly more intelligent than Sinclair. He was a senior adviser to the British government. Only a half wit would fall for Greenaman's daft strawman videos.
Monckton is behaving like a clown because he is making a lot of money from stupid Americans. He is a celebrity on the lecture circuit and elsewhere. He himself isn't that dumb.
Peter Sinclair really is that dumb.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
For a "dumb" person, Peter Sinclair does a remarkably good of conveying what the science says to the layman.
For someone who isn't that dumb, Monckton does a remarkably good job at creating junk-science that a physics undergrad could debunk.
Let me level with you, Monckton is very good at appearing intelligent. His upper class accent, combined with his pretentious hereditary titles and his presentation of complexities his audiences do not fully understand, is lethal.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Monckton has a track record of intelligent behaviour at the highest level. Sinclair has a track record of producing videos for morons.
You don't know anything about science.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Track record of intelligent behaviour at the highest level? Such as???
He was economic adviser to a British government that made a lot of bad economic decisions. By my book, that doesn't go down in his favour.
I also find it quite insulting you'd say I know nothing about science. By all means, if you wish to turn this into a debate about science, go for it and we will judge on the outcome.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
You have no idea whether what you see on the television about science is true.
Monckton was a senior economic adviser to the British government . I don't suppose youu are an economist as well as a scientist ?
I have debated with Sinclair. He is just a daft boy who wants to sneeer at people he regards as less intelligent (right wing).
I think Obama is a bigger and more dangerous idiot than Bush and that's saying something. If he wasn't a crook, he wouldn't be president.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Of course I'm not an economist, but being from the UK I know the civil unrest the Thatcher era caused.
Missy green slime, I do not get my scientific information from the media. I like original source material.
Since when did this become about American politics? Either AGW is happening or it is not. If you say it is not, I would like proof. If you provide me with 'proof', don't assume I will not check it, and its source.
Oh, and when and where did you debate Sinclair? Verification is good.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka You prove the proposition that AGW is dangerous. I regartd the IPCC process to be completekly corrupt by the way. You will have to prove it from source material.
Good luck with that.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
So you accept AGW, but reject it's anything to worry about? Is this your position? I think it's imperative to establish this first.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
My position is that I haven't a clue. but neither does anyone else. I believe the media is grossly biased. The BBC because they are under the strong influence of the British government and the Guardian and Independent because they are being sponsored by Shell (like the CRU) to promote carbon trading.
google Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
also google IETA angry Mermaid
I regard the Guardian as a nasty right wing neocon rag.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
MissGreenslime, are you the poster called Eric144144 under a different name, after being banned from greenmans channel for abusive behaviour? You sound very, very similar.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I'd still like to know when and where you debated Sinclair by the way.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I debated Sinclair online on his channel before I deliberately abused him when he threatened to ban me. He is genuinely stupid.
I was banned for swearing which is what I always do when subjected to outrageous abuse. It isa form of irony.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I see, you're eric144144. You were not subjected to outrageous abuse. I think you ought to step back and take a long hard look at it. The minute you were confronted with evidence you became abusive. You made no attempts to counter evidence, you were just abusive. You are clearly harbouring hard feelings towards greenman for banning you, but you know what? Anyone else would have banned you long before he did. He was extremely tolerant.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I have a maths/physics degree. My knowledge is miles ahead of his and anyone else debating at that time.
You don't have the slightest idea about science but you believe what you see on the telly.
I asked you to prove agw and you have no idea where to start, do you ?
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
OMG you have a science degree? Really? Oh wait, so do I. Yes I know about science, yes I know how to access peer-reviewed literature, and no I do not get my information from the telly.
You are vastly over-inflating yourself based on you having a degree. Millions of people have degrees, get over it.
I do not know where to start because there is so much evidence eric, why don't we start with you rejecting one piece of the theory for AGW, and I'll start there.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
So, you understand peer reviewed climate science, do you ?
What are your exact qualifications ?
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Currently studying towards a PhD in the area of ecology/conservation biology eric. I suppose from your comments that YOU understand it, ever so well. To do so, you would have to be a climate scientist yourself. You see, this is the great thing about peer-review. It is reviewed by the people who know the subject very well, who understand the intricacies.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
You don't have a clue about climate physics, do you ?
You are the self inflating ego, not me. I said I was miles ahead of Greenman which is true.
I don't debate science because LIKE YOU, I am not qualified to know if what I am reading is correct. I got my degree when 5-10% qualified, not 40% by the way. I started a phd too. Dropped out pretty quickly.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I ask you to offer your explanation for warming since 1970, and you say "You don't have a clue about climate physics, do you ?"
You are a pure ad hominem machine eric, I applaud greenman for banning you.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I asked you to prove agw is dangerous. The onus is on the proposer of the theory. You haven't done that.
You abused me. I replied exactly in kind.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Hey Greenslime,
Kindly explain to me which relativistc Schrodinger equation in quantum field theory can be complexly conjugated using the Ricci Tensor, so that it can be applied to General Relativity.
With a physics degree and an understanding that, assumedly from your own words, exceeds that of everyone here, that should be easy!
Thanks!
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
@vanderbilt887
I very specifically said said that I wasn't qualified to comment on the science. Wookba claimed that he read primary, peer reviewed sources. He was lying.
A lot of men get very uppity because they are smarter than their mothers and the boys down the pub.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I was lying? LYING? You have some strange definition of lying I have to say. You are a terrible, terrible, troll eric, and you genuinely bring shame to our country scotland.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Evidence that climate change is already causing ecosystem disturbance:
Hughes, 2000. Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15(2): 56-61
Evidence of the increasing severity of droughts & floods linked to warming:
Dai et al. 2004. A global dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870-2002: Relationship with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 5: 1117-1130
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
These boys have no idea whether what they see is caused by global warming or not. I am talking about evidence that the temperature will be dangerous to human civilisation, atmospheric physics evidence.
The kind of stuff climategate wide boys work on.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Hey physics degree boy, why don't you answer vanderbilt's question? It was after right down your street, pure physics, no climate science.
Oh, and they are fairly confident that warming is the cause in those papers. If you don't think flooding and droughts are dangerous, I reckon you need your head checked.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I haveno idea of the answer, but I bet I could google questions for him.
They are basing their assessment on IPCC atmospheric physics to say that it is caused by AGW. I am asking tou to prove that it is correct by providing sources.
I have asked real climate scientists and the chief BBC environment correspondent and they can't answer either.
Scientists like the Piekle family, Mike Hulme and associates profess belief but write like sceptics 95% of the time. Very amusing.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Oh, but I thought you were asking me for evidence that it was dangerous? Eric, stop being so damn lazy and give me something specific that you disagree with. I'm not going to sit here and give you the entire history of evidence for AGW. You can find that yourself easily. There is no one definitve piece of proof, there are several lines of evidence that all tie together and tell a coherent story. Now get off your ass, do some research, and stop objecting like a mindless troll.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Once again, you are being abusive.
I asked you for evidence that it was dangerous (that temperatures would rise by a dangerous amount).
There is no direct evidence as you just admitted. The IPCC process is one in which clever people (politicians) corral very stupid and ambitious people (scientists) like sheep into saying what is required of them.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Eric, you're a fine one to talk about abuse.
You are terribly twisting my words here. I said there was no one definitive piece of proof, i.e. there is no one study titled 'The theory of Global Warming' that is our supposed bible. There are several lines of evidence, that all add up, tell the same story, all point to a warming planet, warming would not be good, CO2 causes warming, humans produce CO2. And so on.
To be making your assertions, you can surely think of one thing to object to?
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
You have literally no idea whether any of the evidence is true or not. I do not think scientists are trustworthy individuals in the modern competitive academic environment.
I actually taught in a college science dept for 13 years and recently went to a Russell group university for a course . What a nasty mess the education system is in.
My focus is on the politics.I am right about that because the evidence is there from mainstream sources and Friends of the Earth.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Eric, come on. Listen to yourself. Are you going to pick one part of the science you disagree with, or not? Otherwise I'm through listening to your ridiculous bullshit. (No, this doesn't mean you won).
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Like you, I wouldn't have a clue whether the paper was correct or not, even if I understood the basics of the physics.
It is a matter of faith, a geek religion. The saddest religion in history
Remember, I am not the pathetic, silly wee boy who lied about understanding the science. You are.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I find it interesting that someone who considers science a religion would take a science degree. Or is "even if I understood the basics of the physics" an admission that you lied about your education?
If you believe we cannot trust any science because peer-review is not perfect, I hope you will also consider this the next time you think about consulting your doctor when you are ill.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Paul Vaughn
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
And who is Paul Vaughan? What did he find? I assume if he went public you would know, oh diligent researcher.
Once again, several sceptics do get funding, and do publish research. Infact, on the subject of peer review, the recent publication by Lindzen & Choi (2009) which a lot of noise has been made about, is turning out to be a nice example of when peer-review failed. If you dare step into contrary realms, check the recent posts at realclimate.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Yes Lindzen got funding from MIT. He seems to be an exception. Realclimate is a politically motivated and funded den of iniquity run by Hansens/Scmidt with the mysterious Tamino who works for - who ?
To summarise my view.
Climate science and media reporting are corrupt because there are trillions of dollars at stake for big business and banks.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Sort of an unwise business move wouldn't you say, given that if it is a fraud, and we don't really need to reduce CO2 emissions, then it will certainly be found out when we see no shift from fossil fuels and they continue to reap the profits from carbon trading?
Eric, you have swallowed, hook line and sinker, exactly what big oil wants people to think. Do you really think they want any threat to their profits from oil production? Do you believe carbon trading could match those profits?
Woobaka 2 years ago
Scratch "match those profits", more like compensate for the losses.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
How can I have swallowed anything that wasn't on the numpty news ?
The facts are ther for anyone (even a total numpty) to see. Oil companies are promoting global warming. Friends of the Earth know.
There will be no shift from fossil fuels apart from in Britain. Look at Kyoto. Fossil fuel consumption rose apart from Eastern Europe .
How did that happen ? Carbon offsets. The Germans torpedoed the EU climate conference. Mobniot squealed with rage. How ? Carbon offsets.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
So... you only get your information from the numpty news? Or could you have swallowed it from other sources?
exposeexxon (dot) com
Have a browse.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Apologies, that should be exxposeexxon (two x's).
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Greenpeace even has a website that "exposes" donations of Exxon/Esso to various U.S. think-tanks. What Greenpeace does not expose, is that its own funding comes from extremely right-wing sources -- take a look at these donations to Greenpeace USA and the very conservative, reactionary people behind them.
No doubt this is why so many of the policies and programmes of "environmentalism" are so close to those of neofascist political parties. As the British National Party
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Eric... I hate to ask you for proof of all this. But for once, can you direct me to a source please.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I am a million miles ahead of you. Exxon executives wouldn't be caught signing cheques by Greenpeace dopeheads.
Yanks fund loonies, because yanks are loonies. Nothing to do with agw.
The CEI is an irrelevance compared with banking controlled environmental group the EDF which has a turnover of $100 million a year !
If it isn't on the telly or in the Neocon Guardian, it isn't corporate propaganda, is it ?
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Margaret Thatcher put global warming on the world stage at the UN in 1989. She also created the Hadley Centre. She wanted to replace coal with oil, gas and nuclear.
Her husband was a director of Britoil.
Blair and Brown have continued UK leadership of AGW. Blair pushed through Kyoto, Brown orchestrated Copenhagen.
Post industrial Britain, that is.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Also Eric, consider this. Sceptics get to publish, right? (Or are they in the conspiracy, and just a diversion?) Sceptics workin in climate science, know about climate science, right? If there are fundamental flaws in the physics used, wouldn't these guys be publishing sharp, to the point, rebuttals of it? You see, thats the thing - when peer-review does fail, the science gets presented to the masses, who are often much quicker at indicating flaws.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
That is how it works, not just in science, but in everything. Science is owned by government / big business. They choose what is researched, Newspaper owners decide what is published.
For example, if you are intelligent, you will never become a journalist these days.
Noam Chomsky vs Andrew Marr on Youtube
watch?v=u1LU4obkBmw
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Give me more credit than that Eric, I'm not a naive little boy. I know you do not get funding if what you wish to research is of little importance, or there is no incentive for the grant-giver. God knows, I have written funding applications before. Not my idea of fun.
On the issue of incentive... wouldn't it be great if AGW was disproven, and we could save huge sums of money that would otherwise go into mitigation and prevention?
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I was replying to your qualifications. You are not qualified to understand climate science. I have no idea what caused warming since 1970.
I do know that the temperature record from NASA GISS and the CRU is corrupt/ criminal.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I'm not qualified to conduct climate science, and I may not understand the intricacies. This is why we have peer-review.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Climate peer review is completely corrupt. Wegman and climategate show that conclusively.
R. Horton, editor of the The Lancet-
We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Lancet urges China to tackle scientific fraud
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Completely corrupt? Right. Please explain how so many sceptics get their work published then.
Peer-review has its shortcoming, like everything else. It's the worst system for publishing science except for everything else that has been tried. In other words, it's far better than nothing. But climategate shows it's corrupt?? C'mon eric, I gave even you more credit than that. Except for the journal "Climate Research", which I hope you know the story of, what other instances are there?
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Climate science peer review is totally corrupt where it matters, the temperature record. Schmidt, Jones and Mann are no better than chip shop hoodies.
We have only seen a tiny fraction of their correspondence and that is more than enough.
They are serial offenders. Wegman,, Briffa, Yamal and so forth.
Mick Taylor was paid by Shell to promote emissions trading and set his research agenda. That is totally damning.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Tell me Eric, how have they corrupted the temperature record. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all.
And you continue to bleet about it all being orchestrated by big oil. Are you aware of leaked memos that outline a campaign to spread confusion and doubt about AGW, that you have clearly fallen victim to? Probably not.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Read Climate Audit yourself to read about the corruption.
The leaked emails are no doubt a figment of your imagination. However the IETA is real. Ask Friends of the Earth. The Enron story is real (Washington Post).
tinyurl /yabzfrk
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Please refelect on the fact that you don't know anything about climate science. Monckton does know a lot about climate science, right or wrong.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Err, eric. Have you notced the hypocricy in your argument here? Monckton has no science education, never mind climate science.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
All you have done here is abuse Monckton because you think he is right wing, just like Greenman.
I am a lot more left wing than you and now you have no reason to debate. You are totally lost. No idea about science, no idea about politics.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Excuse me? I have abused Monckton because his science is absolute trash.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I have shown tyou the political evidence but you are so totally brainwashed, you cannot even acknowledge its existence.
What primary sources do you use ?
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
I use primary sources such as scientific journals that implement a peer-review system. But I suppose you're going to tell me that's all corrupt too, right? Oh wait, sceptics get their work published too. You're a conspiracy theorist, come on, drop the charade.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka
Climategate showed that a bunch of little crooks grossly manipulated the peer review process.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Comment removed
vanderbilt887 2 years ago
@Woobaka
I am asking you for one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that the earth's temperature is increasing to such a level that it requires the human race to cut its co2 output.
MissGreenslime 2 years ago
Eric, ok, lets start with there is no other current explanation for warming observed since 1970. Please offer me your explanation.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Additionally, are you privvy to some informnation regarding Peter Sinclair and Christopher Monckton I am not aware of, such as IQ scores?
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka:
That sounds like we need a new category. Instead of Godwin's law, we'll call it "Woobaka's law!" :)
It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a mention of Monckton approaches 1 and they commit the 'Reductio Ad Monckterum" fallacy and lose the argument.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Haha! Quality, that made my day :). It's also quite fitting considering Monckton's continual breaches of Godwin's law.
Woobaka 2 years ago
He was not science advisor to Thatcher. He was an economic advisor. His education is in classics and journalism. "Science advisor" is just one of the frauds he incites about himself. Member of the house of lords is another.
Are you from the UK codematrix? Because a lot of the working classes here still harbour very hard feelings towards the conservative party because of the poll tax system that was implemented by Thatcher. And who was economic advisor??
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Woobaka - either you're lying, missleading or plain stupid.
codematrix 2 years ago
codematrix, you forgot the last option. 'You're wrong'.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I can't believe the fraud known as Peter Sinclair, is speaking anywhere. He is completely wrong about the Climate in almost all respects.
HE will not debate the fact's about climate gate. He will disregard these most critical FACTS in one way or another. He must if he is to convince you of his lies.
Peter Sinclair is a fraud, do not trust him, EVER.
putittogether 2 years ago
Peter Sinclair merely conveys current scientific thinking and quotes from major scientific institutions like NASA and NOAA. If he's wrong, the these institutions are wrong. And the majority of scientists in the world are wrong.
meercatdotcom 2 years ago 2
@putittogether
I've watched all of Greenman's videos and haven't seen anything he's said that was wrong. Tell us what he's said that's wrong.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
I stumbled on his youtube page a few weeks ago. He's a breath of fresh air in this argument. Finally someone coherently explains in full detail why the most popular denier rhetoric is wrong.
LoryLandskipper 2 years ago
@LoryLandskipper
He is delusional, and on the contrary, he simply ignores facts regarding the Mediaevil Warm Period.
I cited 40 different sources from all over the world that assert that the MWP was real, global and warmer than today, he simply ignores it.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
I'd like to take a look at this. I was under the impression we're seeing temperatures today that at hotter than the mwp.
I'm talking about average global temperature here now. The only thing I've read remotely resembling what you're speaking of has to do with isolated areas...
I'm also under the impression that we aren't sure what caused the MWP. Is that still the general consensus? Did you find out what caused it?
LoryLandskipper 2 years ago
Simply ignores it? You cite 40 REGIONAL anomalies, all occuring within a broad 600-700 year period. You fail to cite any decent global temperature reconstructions that support your argument. You are simply ignoring how little temporal and spatial consistency your argument holds.
Woobaka 2 years ago
First you demand evidence, then you demand more detailed evidence... Now you say, its not a global temperature reconstruction, therefore it doesn't show the MWP or the LIA...
Even though the authors of those papers specifically state that it is the MWP and/or LIA...
If I only had 2 or 3 sources, then it would likely be a regional anomaly. But with 40 different studies, all over the world, all at the same time PROVE there was a GLOBAL MWP...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
You make global reconstruction out to be a trivial detail... it's kind of a big one. And lets be fair here, it wasn't 40 regional anomalies, you cited 2 or 3 sources for the same regions quite often.
You could look at the global temperature reconstruction to be 1000+ redional anomlies, all put into a coherent timeline in the one study.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Do you compare apples to oranges? Many of the studies go from oceans, to cave samples, to archeological information.
To construct a GLOBAL reconstruction would be fool-hardy and nigh impossible.
Even Mann's data isn't global (Northern Hemisphere). Do we then say it doesn't count because it wasn't a 'global reconstruction'?
The fact you try to ignore a hand full of sources from South Africa and New Zealand proves nothing.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Yes, and generally, they all tell the same story. They all tell that story through different mechanisms. If you are attacking the validity of the global reconstructions, how the hell do you consider that your evidence means anything?
Woobaka 2 years ago
Keep in mind the 'reconstructions' you are referring to are only isolated to the Northern Hemisphere.
They are not global themselves... Even the Antarctic Ice Cores are (regional).
There is NO WAY to globally reconstruct temperature without referring to studies done in regions... In your attempt to destroy my bridge, you've accidentally burned your own...
Mann's reconstruction is based on less than four 'regions'. I've cited FORTY... Of which you have ignored 39...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Blizzards in europe. Read up on the Arctic Oscillation. Conversely, Alaska is recording record highs is it not? Northern Canda. Washington State. All experiencing warmer than usual. This is why it's important to look at it GLOBALLY. How many times have we been over this, really?
Woobaka 2 years ago
I don't know where you get the idea that they are only referring to the NH. Do you really think they are that stupid? A hemispheric reconstruction is referred to as a hemispheric reconstruction. There is more uncertainty about the SH reconstructions, because there are less SH proxies currently. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?
Woobaka 2 years ago
Um... Maybe its from their own chart that says "Northern Hemisphere" on the top...
Look up Mann's original reconstruction... Do I need to spoon feed you again?
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Clearly, that is a NH reconstruction. Mann's original is not the only.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Mann et al. 2009. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the little ice age and medieval climate anomaly. Science, 326: 1256
If you have access to this article, you have access to the supporting online material. There's a nice diagram of the spatial distribution of the proxies used. I think you'll find that every one of the areas you cited, is included in the study. The supporting material goes into great detail, explaining what they done and how they done it.
Woobaka 2 years ago
@Funky
Define "Medieval Global Warm Period" (and Little Ice Age if you wish). Then explain why it's relevant.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
No evidence will convince you because you've already made up your mind.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
I can say the same about you.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Very well, show me the data...
Tell me why the Vostok and Dome Concordia Ice Core samples show that temperature is
"LOWER THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST 500,000 YEARS".
Explain to me how an increase in Global Mean Temperature will cause warmer and/or colder and/or wetter and/or drier weather.
(if not, then the blizzards in Europe disprove it)
Show how Lindzen & Choi (2009) got their study wrong...
Explain to me how a 1 degree C increase in temperature over the next 100 years will harm us.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Really? Vostock and Dome Concordia show that temperature is lower than any time in 500ky? Vostock captures several ice ages in it's records. Dome Concordia stretched back 32ky, and captures the last ice age. Why are you bullshitting?
Woobaka 2 years ago
No Bullshit... In fact the same data shows that CO2 is 30% higher than at any time in the past 500,000 years, and methane 130% higher...
Yet the temperature data from the same sources DOES NOT GO UP.
Why are you calling into question their science?
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Eh? So temperature right now are colder than the ice ages. Got ya.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I didn't say 'ice ages' I said past 500,000 years...
IF co2 is 30% higher than at anytime during those 500,000 years, why is the temperature NOT higher than the maximum temperatures in the past 500,000 years?....
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
I see, so it changed from temperatures cooler than at any time in the past 500,000 years, to temperatures not exceeding the maximum in the past 500,000 years? Funkyflorist, do you realise there have been multiple ice ages in the past 500,000 years?
If you could point me to a source which shows a resolution good enough to accurately see the past 50 years in the Vostock record I'd appreciate it. (This is not spoon feeding, it's called substantiating your assertions.)
Woobaka 2 years ago
Please excuse me, I misspoken;
The current temperature is lower than any *maximum* in the past 500,000 years. Not 'at anytime' please excuse me.
As for the sources; I will let you find any vostok / dome concordia data you like. I've seen 4 different graphs, ALL of which show the same thing; CO2 is 30% higher than in the past, methane is 120% higher than in the past.
But temperature has not reflected that increase...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
FF, I appreciate your humbleness here, I really do. It makes a very nice difference compared to the last guy. I can't find any data that shows a good enough resolution that would allow us to see the past 50 years in Vostock clearly. So could you do me a favour here and show me yours, it is late and I am rather sleepy.
Assuming you are correct however, I can only personally speculate at a) solar activity and b) lag in temperature response due to thermal inertia of oceans.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I'll research into this more later, for now, I'm quits for the night.
Woobaka 2 years ago
It's also important to note that natural temperatures (before mankind played any part) fall well below the peaks also, strongly suggesting that natural forcings were stronger during these past peaks. If natural forcings were identical to what they were at any one of these past peaks, what would we get?
Woobaka 2 years ago
As for Lindzen and Choi, there is nothing published yet, but I know for a fact that there are rebuttals in the pipeline. He didn't use the correct models. His analysis of the satellite data went against crucial advice from the data provider. Additionally, Lindzen is a self confessed contrarian by nature. He relishes going against the flow. This is a MIT scientist who rejects evolution and rejects smoking causing cancer. I may be wrong, but you might be able to add HIV causing AIDS to that list.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I was with you until you attacked Lindzen...
(Insert ad hominen explanation #4 here)
TALK ABOUT THE SCIENCE...
The Hadley Center also conducted similar measurements, they did not find the Anthropogenic Hot Spot shown in the IPCC predictions...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
I did talk about the science, with a little ad hominem to taste. It was hardly a bad ad hominem either, it was more of a comment in Lindzens nature.
There's a paper by Trenberth et al submitted for publication that tackles Lindzen & Choi, you can get the gist of it via the recent posts at realclimate.
Woobaka 2 years ago
I will quote from that summarized abstract...
"...this episode underlines the danger in reading too much into single papers..."
But the rebuttal also proves one assertion; The science is not settled.
It would be foolish to jump to policy decisions when there is still uncertainty about the science...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
It's very general to say the science is not settled is it not? In a way, no science is ever settled, for we know what we know through science only through evidence. But it's a heck of a lot better than ignorance. So in what parts of the science are there large enough uncertainties to be concerned about? And don't just say the whole thing, I mean uncertainties as in there's still as strong debate in the literature.
Woobaka 2 years ago
You should be careful with realclimate ,org. It is moderated heavily and does not allow dissent or open discussion on the issues.
Climateaudit ,org is more open and they allow dissent and conversation from any side.
I've recently learned that Mann's data has been refuted by an analysis done by Briffa et al reconstruction, a study of rural trees and urban thermometers show a decline...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
It's moderated heavily because of abusive comments. I see plenty of questioning comments on the boards which are answered in turn. So if your idea of no open discussion is that they get replied to and corrected, then I'm afraid you're right.
Not to mention I (nor any sensible person should) use realclimate as a primary source. I find it useful as a guide, from where to begin researching. I'd be interested to see this Briffa et al you are referring to.
Woobaka 2 years ago
Funky,
You should be careful with Climateaudit (dot) org. It allows practically any uneducated fool to say practically anything they want with no refutation or moderation.
Realclimate (dot) org tries to weed out the nutcases and absurdity and provides counter arguments so it's more reliable.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Sadly the opposite is true.
Realclimate has always systematically prevented open arguments. Besides, according to you, if it is not a peer-reviewed study, it is only opinion and does not count as science anyway...
Now to talk about the science;
Even if everything the IPCC and Al Gore claims to be true, we would need to stop ALL CARBON EMISSIONS (that includes burning wood) for 20 years world-wide to prevent just 1 degree C of cooling...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
Funky:
Sadly, the opposite of the opposite is true. Real climate has great discussions. Climate audit has junk.
I admit, I don't have a clue what to do about it tho. In fact, I don't really even think about it. For me, this is just an academic debate.
Are you saying that you've decided whether or not to believe in AGW based on the fact that it will be hard to solve and you're afraid to try? I guess I prefer to base my beliefs on facts, not feelings.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
I am talking about the science and the facts, are you prepared to stop all co2 emissions world-wide for 20 years?
Even if we stopped all emissions TOMORROW, we wouldn't see any effect of it for 100 years...
You may banter all you like, but you did not address the science I mentioned regarding the prevention of 1 degree C of CO2...
Do you know how much energy and resources it takes for you to make ONE COMMENT on youtube?!!? You're probably killing a polar bear for each post!
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky:
Where did you get this information that if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, we wouldn't see any effect of it for 100 years? That sounds completely contrary to anything I've ever read (or heard), and I've read a lot. I haven't even seen any "skeptics" making that claim (and I've seen a lot!)
And even if it were true, what does it have to do with whether or not AGW is happening? Are you saying I should base my beliefs on my fears instead of facts?
Skydancer365 2 years ago
It is well recognized information, not only with studies with the Waxman-Markey bill, as well as the IPCC and the Dept. of Energy...
Many Geographers know this as well (Harm de Blij)
I'm not surprised that you don't know it.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky
You're wrong.
Harm de Blij himself says: "after anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere are brought under control, 'climate change will be with us for at least another century'
WILL BE WITH US. Not "won't see any effect!" Two VERY different things. Besides, he says "after ... brought under control", NOT "stopped tomorrow".
Skydancer365 2 years ago
/golf clap
Where's the citation for your source? oops
Slick cherry pick there, you also butchered his quotation;
Editor; "even if we stop emanating gases that warm the planet tomorrow, climate change will still be with us for about a hundred years" He said he wrote back to the editor saying; "After 2 billion years of it that's very encouraging."
watch?v=A1CS6H8wrpc
Lemme guess, you'll say we can't go by opinions by individuals right?
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky
Of course, Blij always says things in the exact same words and he's never said it more than once. Riiiiight!
Oops, forgot to include my citation on the last post. Here it is:
deblij (dot) net / opinion (dot) asp
But you STILL haven't addressed the issue. He said "WILL BE WITH US", YOU said, "WON'T SEE ANY EFFECT". VERY Different!
Skydancer365 2 years ago
You know what, I think people are more important than 1/2000 of the atmosphere.
People are dying in Haiti and you're still bickering about this?!? Get a reality check.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky
I donated $200 to World Vision for Haiti. What have YOU done?
But of course I suspect you don't want to define the MWP because you can't. It appears you just want to throw out talking points, not actually debate. I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm not.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Its pretty obvious;
Mediaevil = A historical era
Warm = Increases in relative temperature
Period = A specific amount of time that can extend generally for any specified amount of time.
Are we debating Engrish now?
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky
lol! Very funny!
Ok, now try defining it in a way that allows for scientific debate.
In particular, I'd like to know precisely what temperature differences constitute a "warm period", over what period of time, and why it's relevant.
Skydancer365 2 years ago
@Funky:
Oh yeah, also, what degree of certainty for historical temperature reconstructions is relevant?
Skydancer365 2 years ago
I've had the pleasure to hear him [de Blij] lecture.
Considering that he thinks man is only contributing about 1 C degree of warming, and that he has cited eruptions and meteor impacts that HAVE nearly wiped out mankind, we don't have to worry about co2...
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky
Once again: Are you saying I should base my beliefs on my fears?
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Interesting Philosophical question...
Are you saying science is a BELIEF system? No of course not...
Well, your beliefs are up to you, if you WANT to base them on fears, go right ahead...
I just think we have BIGGER problems than trying to tax or regulate or trade 1/2000 of the atmosphere...
Short List of problems; Federal Budget, Chinese Neo-Imperialism, Yellowstone Eruption, Potential Global Ice-Age, Middle-Eastern Nuclear Proliferation, HIV / AIDS control, Malaria control, etc.
Funkyflorist 2 years ago
@Funky I'm asking if you think I should believe in it based on my fears because I DON'T think it's a belief system. But you seem to be promoting the idea that, since it's going to be hard to overcome, we shouldn't believe in it. THAT'S a belief system! If that's not what you're saying, then why inject that into the debate?
Skydancer365 2 years ago
Notice how almost no AGW deniers are here. They all run and hide when the light of truth is shone on the