Interesting. But it appears as a he-said/she-said to me. This is a dispute over facts. How is the viewer to judge? How could anyone really know the truth about global warming unless the individual is taking data themselves and interpreting it themselves? Meanwhile, the weather we're having seems uneventful to me. Can a documentary on DVD or YouTube really be taken as knowledge, from an epistemological stand point? I say lets just wait and see what happens. Enjoy life normally.
of course not. That's why you get multiple opinions.
And, if you wish, you can find degreed physicians that will tell you that HIV does not cause AIDS. It's easy, you can google it.
But the fact is, the vast majority of epidemiologists tell us that HIV is in fact, the causative agent.
Since the consequences of getting this wrong are so catastrophic, I tell my kids to behave in a conservative way, and assume that the mainstream science is correct - even tho we don't know all details.
@Besetho Err, in thermometers.. We've had the warmest years ever in the past decade, and this decade will be even warmer. It is starting to become very serious now. Look up climate change or global warming in wikipedia for evidence. Or at NASA or other serious sources.
@greenman3610 Do you believe the MWP never existed? How about the Hockey Stick graph, do you think it's accurate? Can you tell me what level of evidence it would take for you to consider a change in your position. Or have you decided that the science is now incontrovertible? And any new scientific evidence or deviation from the received wisdom is so likely to be wrong,that it is irrelevant.
I think I know what's in them. Particularly the part where Pat Micheals (skeptic scientist) says you're nuts if you buy into the "cooling since 98" BS
your claim was that the globe was not warming, and you cited Christy's data as proof.
You are shown to be a fake and a liar.
As far as Christy, he is indeed a skeptic, but not about the radiative properties of GHG, and the fact of warming. His numbers are lower than NASA's and others, and he does not anticipate acceleration, and feedbacks, as mainstream science does.
He is an outlier, but you are an out and out liar.
This film suggests the other film denies climate change, which also is not true. The argument is whether it is man made or naturally occurring. Again, unless you agree it's man made, you are a denier of climate change. I know from personal research that solar radiation has been on the rise and not decline. I suggest that all research it themselves. There is data available online. CIMIS weather stations is one. Lookup historical data.
@greenman3610 There is quite a bit of misinformation; especially on YouTube. I chose to review data I had personal knowledge is factual. I reviewed over 30years of data obtained from over 100+ weather stations. One of the factors to calculate ETo rates is Solar Radiation. If you look at these reports; takes maybe 20 minutes, you will see a consistant rise in solar radiation. Few people deny climate change; its people like you that are hell bent on on the "theory" it is man made.
Misinformation will lead to global catastrophe. This warming is scientifically explained by human activities. All the deniers will wake-up in say, 20 years when extreme heat in the summers will reach the 50 degrees celcius....
@frankobjectif No significant warming is explained by human activities.The only scientific "proof" of catastrophic warming is found within primitive useless computer models.The planet is cooling.Phil Jones the disgraced former head of the CRU at UEA admitted the truth.That there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.What is it with you doommongers?I used to believe in this nonsense aswell.It wasn't until the GGWS was aired that i knew it was a scam.why deny reality?
Where are you taking these infos? there is a significant warming since 1998. It is likely that you choose the wrong data. It is a fact and it is obvious... we all acknowledge among the scientist (including me PhD) that the world is warmer now than in the medieval periods. The planet should be cooling but it is not because of GHGs.
@greenman3610Youvemade some reasonable points.However the film shows quite clearly how the climate scare has more to do with political expediency and commercial interests,than any genuine scientific threat to humanity.I accept he has bent some truths, but if all u can manage to "debunk" is contained in your clip,then Durkin has bent much less than Al Gore.You debunked Gore's fallacies aswell?
the case for climate change is not based on anything Al Gore has done, but rather, 150 years of peer reviewed give and take in the legitimate science community. That you think this is even at issue show how shallow your examination of the topic has been.
I report what the leading relevant science organizations around the world have been telling us consistently for 30 years.
I debunk the swindle movie because so many deniers regard it as gospel.
Another good resource covering the basics of environmental science (including water, population, energy, bio-genetics, as well as climate change) is here: bit(dot)ly/sIG4Pp
All of it is important to understand when considering the wiser course for the future.
Global warming has still not been proved that Humans are the largest cause of it. I'm sorry but yes i know it's happening but there nothing much humans can do about it.
I'll just clarify I mean that we have equal or less effect than natural causes on the cause of this warming. I just sure nature has 1 or 2 tricks of correcting it's self and that a global extinction is pretty much needed to sort out the lack of natural selection going on these days
@greenman3610 I sure will take a look. Although I am an engineer trained in some of the fields that are applicable (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics) in climatology studies, it is not my field of expertise. But it is clear to me from reading many of the scientific papers and genuine texts that the naysayers who purport scientific fallacy in concluding that there is a serious man-made climate change problem are way off base. Their motives are very suspect to me.
@greenman3610 I sure will take a look. Although I am an engineer trained in some of the fields that are applicable (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics) in climatology studies, it is not my field of expertise. But it is clear to me from reading many of the scientific papers and genuine texts that the naysayers who purport scientific fallacy in concluding that there is a serious man-made climate change problem are say off base. Their motives are very suspect to me.
@PietPassword - The FOI was to get a handle on how Jones et al derived their results. By hiding the data, they pervert the science. Their models cannot even predict known events and the real data (daily weather data) proves every singe day that the models are wrong. Hell, they even removed both the MWP (which destroys their argument) AND the Little Ice Age which might assist their argument. And here they are, touting openness, transparency and robust science. Rubbish.
I admittedly dont follow the global warming info that is out there. I happened to be watching Veetle and came across that "Global warming swindle" movie. I was thinking wow that's some great data. So i come here to find the entire movie and see comments.. just to be linked here.. and no I'm annoyed lol. Now I need to go and look for a rebuttal to this convincing rebuttal... I still hear things on both sides everyday. ..... and now i have lost interest again.
the strategy, perfected by tobacco companies - fog the issue, confuse the information, till people turn off- and then you have your way for another month, another quarter, another year.
It's the inhuman logic of the financial machine - and in your case, I guess it worked.
@greenman3610 great work on your video. You should post it as a response everywhere GW Swindle is posted on youtube. This decoy debate is a deliberate distraction from the urgent debates we actually need to be having. And the actions we need to be taking.
We gotta prepare for the future. How are we going to protect low-lying populated areas? How can we improve mass transit systems so more people can leave cars at home? What can we do to prevent deforestation... - and encourage reforestation?
anyone who likes this video, or any of my others (there are almost 90) should feel free to post it as a video comment wherever they feel it appropriate.
@Anteater22 - you want to prepare for the future? Build dams! Allow the use of cheap reliable power from coal rather than foisting expensive unreliable power (wind, solar) on the poor countries. You want better mass transit? Make it go from where the people are to where the jobs are, for a cheap price and at times suitable for the travelling public. But put a tax on fuel and mass transit costs rise. Rising seas? Tim Flannery has a house 1 metre above sea level, worried about drowning???
@greenman3610 - sounds like the WWF, Green Peace playbook to me. Big business hand in glove with WWF and Green Peace. After all, those PE panels, solar power stations, wind turbines and desalination plants don't just appear. No links to cyclones and CO2. No links to droughts in Australia to CO2. No links to droughts in the Sudan and CO2. Hiding the decline because it disagrees with the models. Soon the real world data will prove what shysters these AGW shills really are.
@greenman3610 It worked on me too. I have a question. I always try to learn by following a gentle slope of information to the current status of study. ie. For physics I could follow the ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to Hawking ect. My question is: When is the beginning of climate study historically and what is the most current information today? Let's just go with the top 3 research groups. Besides NASA, so I can investigate climate change in my spare time. Love your videos!
@Animeabe - that's what the warmistas want. They will bombard you with "the science is settled", "IPCC uses nothing but peer reviewed papers", "rigorous science" but when you dare to question, what do you get? Demands to curb free speech! Outlawing of desenting voices. Cries of "Denier" (linking questioners to the Holocaust) and "flat earthers" (which was once settled science BTW). And then, they bring in taxes to increase the costs of your way of life. Won't stop climate change tho.
I commented a while ago The Global Warming Swindle here at the tube watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk by tipping about: 1) this video and 2) Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. The result:
"Thanks to negative, ignorant, narrow minded & self-centered individuals here on youtube... comments for this video have been shut off. Commenting here is not a right, it's a privilege. Learn some manners people!! [...]"
@PietPassword What does "hide the decline" in climategate emails means to you? They have selectively used data to show warming and selectively used peer reviewed journals. So? To me this is a froud. And who is funding who? Oil industry like Shell wants to get rid of their main competition, coal industry. Yes I am sure Shell will pay carbon taxes, no you will. Paying taxes to Al Gore - how in the world will that change anything except make them more money.
One word Climategate, scientific fraud, extortion, treats with violence, hide the decline, co2 levels much higher than today with no correlation to rising temperature levels in 400.000 year graph, which shows temp are constatly changing, yes even before humans walked the earth. I used to believe, but rapist Al Gore is a pathological liar. ClimateGate showed what we are up against, conspiracy and One Word Government.
@greenman3610. (part 3) Denial? I accept that the climate is changing, it has always changed. I do not accept that man is the sole (or major) driver in this. Sensible use of water is required but this means building them. No dams = no farms, no food, no manufacturing, no hydro power. All needed by society. Banning dams increases the impact of droughts, increases damage from floods, wastes water needed by society. What's wrong with that? Or are you anti-human?
@greenman3610. (part 2) dams are needed for water security, to prevent flooding. 100% water harvesting is never good. Preventing dams increases hardships during droughts, crops don't grow, animals die, all bad practices. Dams provide hydro power, renewable as long as you don't harvest 100% of the water. The Snowy Hydro Scheme (google it) would never be built today because of environmental impact. Try building Hoover or Grand Coolee today and see how far you get. Dams good. Greens bad.
@greenman3610. No, that's not what I said. A dam was planned in country Victoria (not desert) but Greens prevented go ahead. Floods later inundated major towns in the area. A dam would have prevented this damage and saved water to send to Melbourne. Dams plus water take-off from the Colorado plus irrigation all combined to stop the river flowing. Bad practice. We have the same here with cotton growers. Terrible plant for Australia, too much water needed. Not enough environmental flows.
greenman3610, bad water management is not AGW. If the Colorado stops flowing during a drought, don't blame AGW. There are places where you should not farm without a secure water supply. Here in Australia we are being prevented from building dams due to the Greens not wanting us to flood natural habitat. So who should I blame for water rationing if we are unable to capture and store rain water? So no hydro power. We have uranium but are not no nuke power due the Greens. So we burn coal.
From the days of Uruk to now, the climate has changed many times. Again, which is the "best"? 500 years ago we were in the mini ice age. 1000 years ago we were in the MWP. Which one is "correct"? We live in a 24 hour news cycle. Anything that occured last week is old news. We think massive storms are all new but look back over 200 years and you will see bigger storms, longer droughts, none are AGW. The peublo dwelling Indians suffered a 100 year long drought. No AGW there.
The Colorado stops flowing because WE dammed it! This is not a "global warming" event but 100% water harvesting. Add any natural variation such as a drought and it's "ooooh! Look at the global warming...!"
Great inundation is correct. When the great ice sheets melted, areas like the Black Sea formed in under 100 years. Not as much ice today. People stop listening to alarmists when they "predict" sea level rises of 10cm...100cm.... no wait... 100 metres! So, WHAT is the correct temp?
@greenman3610. That is no answer. Nature decided sea levels in the past. California is desert except on the coastal side of the Rockies. Any greening there is man made. How many is "few" degrees? The last great inundation occurred following the last great ice age about 12000 years ago. Your answer would suggest that the ice age was "normal" and that the change to warmer temperatures was abnormal.
"great inundation"? not talking about Noah here. Nature does not "decide". Nature responds to forcings. California agriculture is dependent on the colorado river, and snow melt from the Sierra's, both of which will decline precipitously under AGW.
You may know that when temps rose 5 degrees in the interglacial, oceans rose some 120 meters. That temp change took some 10,000 years - We will get that warming in the next 100 years under AGW. Do you suppose ice sheets will not respond?
Ok. Let's assume that man made global warming is occurring. Further, let us agree that the CO2 is rising.
Question: What is the global temperature supposed to be?
Question: What is the CO2 concentration supposed to be?
We go around about "getting hotter" but it's been hotter and colder before now. What is the "correct" temperature? Likewise, atmospheric CO2 has been much higher that it is today. What is the "correct" mix? And who decided that mix?
who decided what the "right" sea level is? I kind of like our coastal cities on dry land. You may differ. The last time temps were a couple degrees warmer, ocean levels were many meters higher. We can decide, if that's what we want.
Who decided that the California was a good place to grow food? We are in the process of turning it to heat blasted desert. That may be your preference. I happen to think it's undesirable.
as previous comments have said you can google "global temperature 2000 to 2011" but as apposed to supporting the "deniers" position it generally supports the significant influence man is having on the environment
The contribution to global temperature increases since 1970s is not from Sun Activity...Sun activity has gone down (in disparity to the previous decadel trends where temperatures followed sun activity relatively closely..as some skeptics graphs show when they lead up to the "now period with close correlation"..except their now period is much earlier than the real now eg 1990s vs 2000 - 2011 ..where sun activity and temps diverge
So, given that these minority gases are effective in keeping us warm enough I suppose adding billions of tons of these gases won't probably have any effect on warmth??? Yeah Sure!
Yeah I suppose CO2 doesn't drive climate.its only a small proportion of the atmosphere; its not really relevant along with other minority gases that absorb heat waves and re-transmit approx 50% back to Earth...but hang on why does the Earth environment keep at relatively liveable temperatures compared to many other planets...one of the reasons is that we are kept warm is by the retention of long wave heat by such "minority" gases..which is great and helps stop us freezing, particularly at night
@dmlt12 No dick its because of where the Earthn is positioned. And it does not have you in mind when deciding to freeze over or melt and go lush green. The planet is fine......the people are fucked. The fact that the Earth rotates causing the sun to come up evry day and allowing only 12 hrs for the heat stealing darkness to do its job, keeps us warm at night. If we ratated much slower then yes we would all freeze to death every night.
@buddcinder Then why doesn't 1 side of Venus freeze over despite its' 243 day long rotation?
Oh right, because its' atmosphere is full of crap that keeps heat in.
And then why is that heat-blasted hell Mercury 800 deg F in the day, but drops to -260 deg F during the night, despite having a (compared to Venus) fast rotation of 60 days each?
uhm, well, agricultural emissions are part of the problem. That's because methane is a greenhouse gas. they're just not the whole problem. Sounds like your Dad agrees with the scientific consensus, he just doesn't know it.
Strange thing to say. Presumably, if it were that simple, we could just stop eating meat altogether, - I'm not sure that's necessary, but it might improve a lot of people's health to cut down.
Its sort of like saying, "smoking causes cancer, that's it, and there's nothing we can do about it." When people are irrational, there's not much that's going to reach them, short of some major trauma. Best to educate yourself and figure out how your generation is going to solve this problem.
@greenman3610 At the very most atmosheric CO2 can possibly account for 10% of climate change, which is dominated by the Sun. Get a grip on reality you fucking idiot. You are an alarmist pushing for carbon tax which will result in devastating economic destruction. You are dabbling in danger & you are reckless. You wont stop with the lies until the economy is in tatters. You make me sick!
Completely destroys the man-made-global-warming theory & yet you still continue to lecture people as though man-made CO2 drives climate when clearly it fucking doesn't you lying retarded bastard. Fuck off
@Galv140577 Hahah did you not WATCH the video? How about instead of attacking Greenman you actually try to refute his claims that your movie is merely propaganda. If you have no actual evidence that Greenman is wrong then why the hell should we listen to a damn word you say?
Galv is a troll, but a useful one, since he brings up basic issues that newbies might want to find out more about. If he can manage his anger, he can stay.
95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. The recent "man-made" change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is like a fat person gaining less than half a pound in weight & then saying that the increase in their body fat is going to cook them to death by preventing their body heat from escaping. That's literally how dumb you have to be to believe this pathetic man-made global warming nonsense. IT's obviously the Sun that drives climate. CO2 has never been shown to drive climate at all.
@Galv140577 Science isn't your thing, is it? (1) Different molecules behave differently to IR radiation. Start with wikipedia (tinyurl*com/ycdeae) then go to the cited references and maybe a textbook. CO2 is a more potent GHG than H2O so it ends up that the ratio of net GH forcing (H2O:CO2) is not 20:1, but only 1.5-4:1 (depending where you are).
(2) CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries; H2O for days. CO2 goes up, T goes up, H2O goes up, T goes up, ... Positive feedbacks.
@541iceman My sources tell me that in the last decade the global temperature has dropped by 2 degrees celcius (westinstenv. org), & that atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by 20ppm or 5% (physics. ucsd. edu). So in conclusion atmospheric CO2 does NOT drive climate. The temperature has gone down because of decreased solar activity from 100 sunspots down to 10 (www2. nict. go. jp). In conclusion the Sun is what drives climate.
The Ocean PDO is shifting to 'cool mode' so expect cooling for 20yrs.
@Galv140577 "My sources tell me that in the last decade the global temperature has dropped by 2 degrees celcius (westinstenv. org)". I went to that site and didn't see anything about global temps declining. Care to give a more specific link? Perhaps it is in "Coldest Pacific Northwest April in 36 years" ?
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
Hi greenman love your work. In the movie they claim that an increase in temperature is followed by an increase in CO2 as opposed to rationalist thinking. Can you clarify this fact? for me so I can be a little bit more articulate in my discussions. Thanks
Hi Greenman I like your videos but I think it could be improved by citing your sources more frequently. At 8:46 you extrapolate the Friijs Christiansen graph to show the divergence from solar activity and planetary temperature. What source are you using for that extrapolation to the present? Also could you provide a link to the paper you refer to at 6 mins in which corrects Christy. Is that the one where they found the satellite was a couple of hours behind where they thought it was Thanks H
Wow. I suppose that Wall St. should invest in green tech instead of derivatives. The $16 trillion (and counting) bucks the world's central banks swindled from the American taxpayer could likely bankroll the development of competitive renewable energy sources which would obviate the 'need' for the REAL swindle re the climate change issue: a selectively applied, industrial economy-killing carbon tax...
Right, there's decent arguments for both sides, but what we can all agree on is that green house gases are a natural emission from all living things, k; so if every lining thing in nature purpose is to survive and reproduce then over time population is going to expand and more emission will be released. So what green house believers are saying is that nature has been set up in a way to destroy it self? nature wants us to reproduce until we melt ice caps and eventually drown ourselves, course =/
Use logic and your own mind instead of being a rote animal that just repeats what someone else said. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo. I am so sick and tired of hearing about carbon emissions destroying the planet. This hypothesis of anthropogenic causes has been so thoroughly debunked time and time again, but as with any religion, this one being Gaia, people will not give up faith in it.
@greenman3610 I think you mean nothing "whatsoever" to refute the video. That's two mistakes already, making false assumptions and poor grammar. I'm supposed to trust someone who can't use English properly, and brings up Glenn Beck for no reason to tell me man is causing global warming? If you would take the time to read your own comments section, I've already told you the carbon from fossil fuels was put there by plants who did quite well when CO2 concentrations were much higher than today.
@AndroidPolitician Unlike you, I don't comb YouTube in order to let someone else tell me my opinion on something. If you're too stupid to find both sides of the argument on your own, there's nothing I can do for you.
A herp derp your "side of argument" is based on denying basic scientific facts, literally every attempt at "debunking" climate change has failed miserably.
If you can find a non-failed attempt I'll change my mind.
@AndroidPolitician Listen, fool. You haven't had a single argument of your own. We haven't had a debate. All you've done is post URLs to YouTube videos, either because you are too simple-minded to state the science yourself, or you are trying to divert the dialogue. I could tell right away that you're not worth wasting my time on, and you keep verifying that each time you send one of your inane replies. So, please, take your insanity elsewhere.
Hahaha buddy I'm pretty sure your the guy who chickened out debating how CO2 has been responsible for climate for billions of years after I brought it up.
I don't have to explain it because I'm not a scientist. The point is, science has proven that CO2 has indicated climate for millions of years and your too much of a coward to click the link.
@AndroidPolitician I'm sure a tool like you believes that a trace gas has more to do with climate than the sun, water vapor (the KING of all greenhouse gases), solar wind and cosmic ray interaction, diffferences in the Earth's rotation, among countless other factors. Now shoo, idiot. I'm not feeding the troll anymore.
@AndroidPolitician What do you say to Phil Jones, of the IPCC, who was at the center of the Climategate scandal, saying that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. If your carbon dioxide theory is correct, that's a simple way to test it. CO2 has been rising for the past 15 years but even this guy admitted there's been no warming. I'd like to see what cockamamie excuse you have for that.
"not statistically significant" was true at that time - which did not, btw, mean no warming - it just meant that there was not enough time in that interval for the change to rise above background noise. As of now, Jones has said, it is significant. google
BTW, per Phil Jones, warming since 1995 now “significant”….
and watch
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
global change takes longer than a decade to emerge from background.
@greenman3610 It also means the results are not significant enough to base conclusions on until further data can be gleaned and a statistically significant result can be obtained. Moreover, warming does not prove that CO2 is the cause. The climate is always either warming or cooling. Stop posting URLs and post facts. Nobody is watching the propaganda clips except you. It seems you and AndroidPolitician are the same person. All he does is post URLs.
@greenman3610 Nice straw man argument. No one is claiming it is flying saucers or bigfoot. And, if you really understood physics, you'd realize a trace gas cannot account for such warming as claimed by people like you who don't understand science. It seems you don't understand language that well either, as evidenced by your numerous errors. CO2 only accounts for around 4% of the warming produced by ALL greenhouse gases. Do you have another URL or do you have the cojones to debate facts?
uhm, since none of those canards are facts, I suggest you actually make a statement, cite a source that can be checked, and conduct an argument, instead of merely bloviating. That's what I do in my vids, which I guess, is why you won't watch them.
@greenman3610 You still haven't explained away Climategate, in which email documentation proves there was an agreement amongst those in the scandal to manipulate numbers to produce warming results. Even Phil Jones said temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were likely higher than today. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist at Harvard has also stated her skeptcism regarding the "Hockey-stick" graph that is promulgated by global warming alarmists as evidence of present warming.
Temps during the MWP were still worthy of debate 12 years ago when those emails started. Now we have a number of studies confirming that today is warmer.
You'd have to document the "agreement" you cite. There is no such animal, except in fevered Glenn Beck dreams.
Baliunas is of course, produced one of the most embarrassing studies of the last 15 years on this issue.
@greenman3610 Really? I guess you've been too busy sifting through YouTube videos to appreciate the fact that study was authored by one of today's foremost astrophysicists, and her colleagues, at none other than Harvard University. I suppose your opinions matter more than those of a world-renowned astrophysicist. I agree with you the Baliunas study was embarassing. It was embarassing for climate alarmists such as yourself.
@greenman3610 You've just contradicted yourself twice. Is that why you post URLs instead of facts? You just stated climate change can't rise above background noise in a decade. "It takes decades to observe it in the record." You then said Jones had changed his original argument - but this happened within the matter of just a couple of years. According to your own argument, it couldn't have risen above background noise because there wasn't enough time!
if you measure from 1995 to 2010, when Jones was asked, the rise does not meet the "statistically significant" test. If you add another year, for instance, if you went back from 1994 to 2010, then it's significant. Since a year has passed since he made that statement, and temps have continued to rise, the bar is now met.
@greenman3610 Again, your own argument stated, "It takes decades to observe it in the record." An "s" makes something plural. Did you learn that in third grade? Obviously, you didn't learn grammar that well, as evidenced by your numerous earlier mistakes. And again, you bring up Glenn Beck for no reason. Have you got a thing for him? In any case, two more years does not make it statistically significant, using your own argument. 1994 to 2010 is not "decades" it is little more than one "decade".
This video is full of crap, as are most global warming alarmists. One note for all you global warming geniuses: Where did the carbon in carbon-based fuels come from? It came from the damn atmosphere, you fools. We are putting a fraction of what was ALREADY THERE in the past back into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are plant remains. The plants photosynthesized carbon FROM THE ATMOSPHERE to live, died, and the decayed plants became fossil fuels. The carbon isn't being magically created by humans.
@greenman3610 Again with the URLs. How pathetic of you. You're definitely low on facts and high on links to propaganda. I can find a YouTube video telling me the Earth is flat or that HAARPs waves are controlling the population. But that doesn't mean it's true.
@greenman3610 You know I'm referring to YouTube URLs. Then again, maybe not, your cognition has proven to be a bit slow. I find it amusing that you're authoring videos like this. It's not about being too lazy to watch, it's about not needing to. Why don't you stick to the facts instead of suggesting I go watch a video at every turn? Could it be because your arguments are fallacious or that you can't concisely and pointedly argue your points?
@greenman3610 Why should I listen to you about any scientific matter? What qualifications do you have to be lecturing anyone? You're just a graphic artist. You have no scientific credentials, Pete.
I never assert what "I think', -- I always point to what the leading science groups tell us, and explain it in english - then link to the sources.
Which is why so many scientists, professors and teachers are supporting this series, and using it in their classes around the world, from high school to grad school level.
You should look at the evidence I present and respond to it with something other than bloviating.
@greenman3610 (It's English with a capital "e" and not "english" as you stated.) These videos are totally what you "think". You are cherry-picking facts from alarmists and other extremists. So, your videos inherently have a bias. They're also poorly edited and narrated, if the present one about "The Big Swindle" is any example. Did you forget your rebuttal on why it was okay for Jones to accept 1994-2010 as statistically significant after you said, "It takes decades to observe it in the record."
It is like religon. Why does religon exist? Why did people invent heaven and hell? Hundreds of years ago the christian church controled many places and why? Because it scared people into thinking if they don't live like their book says so they will burn forever in hell. Global warming may be true from the scientific standpoint but governments and the media just take the idea of human made global warming and use it to strike fear and control you. Its actually quite obvious when you think about it
@OoMontageManoO No, hundreds of years ago the Vatican/Catholic Church had controlled many places - not the Christian Church. The Vatican is very powerful - the Christian Church is not. Religion shares nothing in common with global warming & climate issues.
Ok so some of the graphs from the great global warming swindle are distorted. So what? The general idea of the documentary was "its propaganda, its almost like a religon and if there was no human made global warming thousands of people would be out of jobs, which would be bad for the economy. Governments like to keep people in constant fear, its a way of control, dont buy into it" which is perfectly valid. From everything i've seen and read I have to agree with the great global warming swindle.
I think carbon sinks/offsets need more research yeah? Or can someone point me somewhere with comprehensive studies? Its just that in australia theres a lot of talk for carbon offsets and carbon farming and I would like to make an informed choice while voting. thanks
Interesting. But it appears as a he-said/she-said to me. This is a dispute over facts. How is the viewer to judge? How could anyone really know the truth about global warming unless the individual is taking data themselves and interpreting it themselves? Meanwhile, the weather we're having seems uneventful to me. Can a documentary on DVD or YouTube really be taken as knowledge, from an epistemological stand point? I say lets just wait and see what happens. Enjoy life normally.
marce11o 2 days ago
@marce11o
I take it you don't go to like, doctors, or anything. after all, who's to know if they can actually tell anything?
greenman3610 2 days ago
@greenman3610 Not that I don't like them but they are not infallible.
marce11o 2 days ago
@marce11o
of course not. That's why you get multiple opinions.
And, if you wish, you can find degreed physicians that will tell you that HIV does not cause AIDS. It's easy, you can google it.
But the fact is, the vast majority of epidemiologists tell us that HIV is in fact, the causative agent.
Since the consequences of getting this wrong are so catastrophic, I tell my kids to behave in a conservative way, and assume that the mainstream science is correct - even tho we don't know all details.
greenman3610 1 day ago
Deniers of anthropogenic climate change: the lowest common denominators of everyone unworthy of the "skeptic" title.
whiteneptunexyz 1 week ago
The swindle is that the people who are creating the big mess wont be asked to pay for its clean up... because the fuckers will be dead by then!!!
85Funkadelic 1 month ago in playlist Global Warming Denier Debunking
A million thumbs up!
frankobjectif 1 month ago
@frankobjectif
but wait, there's more.
playlist here
view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
greenman3610 1 month ago
@Besetho Err, in thermometers.. We've had the warmest years ever in the past decade, and this decade will be even warmer. It is starting to become very serious now. Look up climate change or global warming in wikipedia for evidence. Or at NASA or other serious sources.
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar
google
nasa key indicators
for a good start
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Thank you!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@greenman3610 Do you believe the MWP never existed? How about the Hockey Stick graph, do you think it's accurate? Can you tell me what level of evidence it would take for you to consider a change in your position. Or have you decided that the science is now incontrovertible? And any new scientific evidence or deviation from the received wisdom is so likely to be wrong,that it is irrelevant.
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 1 month ago
@Besetho
dude. those are my vids.
I think I know what's in them. Particularly the part where Pat Micheals (skeptic scientist) says you're nuts if you buy into the "cooling since 98" BS
greenman3610 1 month ago
@Besetho
now you've switched your story entirely.
when you get it straightened out, let me know.
in the meantime, on the
global cooling nonsense
watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs
watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
greenman3610 1 month ago
@Besetho
your claim was that the globe was not warming, and you cited Christy's data as proof.
You are shown to be a fake and a liar.
As far as Christy, he is indeed a skeptic, but not about the radiative properties of GHG, and the fact of warming. His numbers are lower than NASA's and others, and he does not anticipate acceleration, and feedbacks, as mainstream science does.
He is an outlier, but you are an out and out liar.
greenman3610 1 month ago
This film suggests the other film denies climate change, which also is not true. The argument is whether it is man made or naturally occurring. Again, unless you agree it's man made, you are a denier of climate change. I know from personal research that solar radiation has been on the rise and not decline. I suggest that all research it themselves. There is data available online. CIMIS weather stations is one. Lookup historical data.
Ultra68 1 month ago
@Ultra68
sorry, the current deep solar minimum is well known
watch?v=IQHqgdvXTxE
watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 There is quite a bit of misinformation; especially on YouTube. I chose to review data I had personal knowledge is factual. I reviewed over 30years of data obtained from over 100+ weather stations. One of the factors to calculate ETo rates is Solar Radiation. If you look at these reports; takes maybe 20 minutes, you will see a consistant rise in solar radiation. Few people deny climate change; its people like you that are hell bent on on the "theory" it is man made.
Ultra68 1 month ago
@Ultra68
oh, right.
another armchair solar physicist.
you'll fit right in here - just keep it clean, will ya doc?
greenman3610 1 month ago
Misinformation will lead to global catastrophe. This warming is scientifically explained by human activities. All the deniers will wake-up in say, 20 years when extreme heat in the summers will reach the 50 degrees celcius....
frankobjectif 1 month ago
@frankobjectif No significant warming is explained by human activities.The only scientific "proof" of catastrophic warming is found within primitive useless computer models.The planet is cooling.Phil Jones the disgraced former head of the CRU at UEA admitted the truth.That there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.What is it with you doommongers?I used to believe in this nonsense aswell.It wasn't until the GGWS was aired that i knew it was a scam.why deny reality?
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 1 month ago
@CAMERONisaEUROPHILE
Where are you taking these infos? there is a significant warming since 1998. It is likely that you choose the wrong data. It is a fact and it is obvious... we all acknowledge among the scientist (including me PhD) that the world is warmer now than in the medieval periods. The planet should be cooling but it is not because of GHGs.
frankobjectif 1 month ago
@greenman3610Youvemade some reasonable points.However the film shows quite clearly how the climate scare has more to do with political expediency and commercial interests,than any genuine scientific threat to humanity.I accept he has bent some truths, but if all u can manage to "debunk" is contained in your clip,then Durkin has bent much less than Al Gore.You debunked Gore's fallacies aswell?
CAMERONisaEUROPHILE 1 month ago
@CAMERONisaEUROPHILE
the case for climate change is not based on anything Al Gore has done, but rather, 150 years of peer reviewed give and take in the legitimate science community. That you think this is even at issue show how shallow your examination of the topic has been.
I report what the leading relevant science organizations around the world have been telling us consistently for 30 years.
I debunk the swindle movie because so many deniers regard it as gospel.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 good on you greenman. thanks for the vids. keep them coming
gavhof 1 week ago
@gavhof
will do
stay tuned
greenman3610 6 days ago
Solar activity is much higher now, and not as this video proclaims. Perhaps these idiots should use science
Ultra68 1 month ago
@Besetho
let me make it easier for you.
go here
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
at 5:25, you can here one of the keepers of the UAH data set, John Christy, say
on video, that "the planet is warming about .14 degrees C per decade right now".
this is the hardest of hard facts, much like "apples fall from trees'.
That you have protected yourself from this reality speaks volumes about your seriousness.
best to actually watch the vids before posting so as not to embarrass yourself further.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@Besetho
"cooling since 98" nonsense
watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs
greenman3610 1 month ago
OUTSTANDING. Everything here is spot on. Do you just make these in your spare time?
petepete227 2 months ago
@petepete227
"spare time"?
I do not understand this concept. please explain.
greenman3610 2 months ago
Seems I'm convinced. I will do my best to get an electrical car.
MirageScience 2 months ago
Another good resource covering the basics of environmental science (including water, population, energy, bio-genetics, as well as climate change) is here: bit(dot)ly/sIG4Pp
All of it is important to understand when considering the wiser course for the future.
jimbills 2 months ago
Global warming has still not been proved that Humans are the largest cause of it. I'm sorry but yes i know it's happening but there nothing much humans can do about it.
BenFosterism 2 months ago
I'll just clarify I mean that we have equal or less effect than natural causes on the cause of this warming. I just sure nature has 1 or 2 tricks of correcting it's self and that a global extinction is pretty much needed to sort out the lack of natural selection going on these days
BenFosterism 2 months ago
@BenFosterism
Oh lovely, supporting global extinction. How progressive!
BeBoBli 2 months ago
@BenFosterism please just stfu and go back to fuckin farm animals
Davincidz 2 months ago
@BenFosterism it has been proven that we are producing the c02 that is causing it, so in fact you are wrong in claiming it hasn't been 'proved'.
nice denial attempt though. well done.
andy765gtr 2 months ago
Thank you very much for doing this video.
friedie1jeff 2 months ago
@friedie1jeff
there's a whole lot more, see the playlist
view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610
you're welcome, by the way
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 I sure will take a look. Although I am an engineer trained in some of the fields that are applicable (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics) in climatology studies, it is not my field of expertise. But it is clear to me from reading many of the scientific papers and genuine texts that the naysayers who purport scientific fallacy in concluding that there is a serious man-made climate change problem are way off base. Their motives are very suspect to me.
friedie1jeff 2 months ago
@greenman3610
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 I sure will take a look. Although I am an engineer trained in some of the fields that are applicable (fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, mathematics) in climatology studies, it is not my field of expertise. But it is clear to me from reading many of the scientific papers and genuine texts that the naysayers who purport scientific fallacy in concluding that there is a serious man-made climate change problem are say off base. Their motives are very suspect to me.
friedie1jeff 2 months ago
@greenman3610 Greenman, not able to see the playlist; getting an "invalid parameters" message.
R4t10n4L 2 months ago
@PietPassword - The FOI was to get a handle on how Jones et al derived their results. By hiding the data, they pervert the science. Their models cannot even predict known events and the real data (daily weather data) proves every singe day that the models are wrong. Hell, they even removed both the MWP (which destroys their argument) AND the Little Ice Age which might assist their argument. And here they are, touting openness, transparency and robust science. Rubbish.
snookums01 2 months ago
I admittedly dont follow the global warming info that is out there. I happened to be watching Veetle and came across that "Global warming swindle" movie. I was thinking wow that's some great data. So i come here to find the entire movie and see comments.. just to be linked here.. and no I'm annoyed lol. Now I need to go and look for a rebuttal to this convincing rebuttal... I still hear things on both sides everyday. ..... and now i have lost interest again.
Animeabe 3 months ago
@Animeabe
the strategy, perfected by tobacco companies - fog the issue, confuse the information, till people turn off- and then you have your way for another month, another quarter, another year.
It's the inhuman logic of the financial machine - and in your case, I guess it worked.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 great work on your video. You should post it as a response everywhere GW Swindle is posted on youtube. This decoy debate is a deliberate distraction from the urgent debates we actually need to be having. And the actions we need to be taking.
We gotta prepare for the future. How are we going to protect low-lying populated areas? How can we improve mass transit systems so more people can leave cars at home? What can we do to prevent deforestation... - and encourage reforestation?
Anteater22 3 months ago
@Anteater22
those are all great questions.
anyone who likes this video, or any of my others (there are almost 90) should feel free to post it as a video comment wherever they feel it appropriate.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@Anteater22 - you want to prepare for the future? Build dams! Allow the use of cheap reliable power from coal rather than foisting expensive unreliable power (wind, solar) on the poor countries. You want better mass transit? Make it go from where the people are to where the jobs are, for a cheap price and at times suitable for the travelling public. But put a tax on fuel and mass transit costs rise. Rising seas? Tim Flannery has a house 1 metre above sea level, worried about drowning???
snookums01 2 months ago
@greenman3610 - sounds like the WWF, Green Peace playbook to me. Big business hand in glove with WWF and Green Peace. After all, those PE panels, solar power stations, wind turbines and desalination plants don't just appear. No links to cyclones and CO2. No links to droughts in Australia to CO2. No links to droughts in the Sudan and CO2. Hiding the decline because it disagrees with the models. Soon the real world data will prove what shysters these AGW shills really are.
snookums01 2 months ago
@greenman3610 It worked on me too. I have a question. I always try to learn by following a gentle slope of information to the current status of study. ie. For physics I could follow the ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to Hawking ect. My question is: When is the beginning of climate study historically and what is the most current information today? Let's just go with the top 3 research groups. Besides NASA, so I can investigate climate change in my spare time. Love your videos!
spinynorman1982 2 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
@spinynorman1982
for very good resource google spencer weart's
"discovery of global warming"
also a nice resource is from the national academy - "Origin and Evolution of Earth"
read chapter 3 = "A Habitable Planet"
free to read or download.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610
I may be wrong, it might be a few bucks for the "The Origin" book, but well worth it.
greenman3610 2 months ago
@greenman3610 "Origin and Evolution of Earth" can be found as a free PDF here: bit(dot)ly/w1mN6u
jimbills 2 months ago
@spinynorman1982 Tied with the Weart site (bit(dot)ly/aP0x1w) is 'The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect': bit(dot)ly/5KmTod
It's a very good historical rundown of the science and directly linked to on the American Institute of Physics website.
jimbills 2 months ago
@Animeabe - that's what the warmistas want. They will bombard you with "the science is settled", "IPCC uses nothing but peer reviewed papers", "rigorous science" but when you dare to question, what do you get? Demands to curb free speech! Outlawing of desenting voices. Cries of "Denier" (linking questioners to the Holocaust) and "flat earthers" (which was once settled science BTW). And then, they bring in taxes to increase the costs of your way of life. Won't stop climate change tho.
snookums01 2 months ago
Oops, got too excited a bit too soon, the comment that I send to is here watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ not in the other version.
LOL ;)
Great debunkins anyway!
EgalSust 3 months ago
Here's the original exact comment I send to The Global Warming Swindle watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk
"Full of lies.
Debunked in:
Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”
The Big Swindle Movie by greenman3610 here in the tube."
EgalSust 3 months ago
I commented a while ago The Global Warming Swindle here at the tube watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk by tipping about: 1) this video and 2) Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. The result:
"Thanks to negative, ignorant, narrow minded & self-centered individuals here on youtube... comments for this video have been shut off. Commenting here is not a right, it's a privilege. Learn some manners people!! [...]"
+ all comments deleted.
Lack of arguments, anyone?
EgalSust 3 months ago
@PietPassword What does "hide the decline" in climategate emails means to you? They have selectively used data to show warming and selectively used peer reviewed journals. So? To me this is a froud. And who is funding who? Oil industry like Shell wants to get rid of their main competition, coal industry. Yes I am sure Shell will pay carbon taxes, no you will. Paying taxes to Al Gore - how in the world will that change anything except make them more money.
theendgame984 3 months ago
One word Climategate, scientific fraud, extortion, treats with violence, hide the decline, co2 levels much higher than today with no correlation to rising temperature levels in 400.000 year graph, which shows temp are constatly changing, yes even before humans walked the earth. I used to believe, but rapist Al Gore is a pathological liar. ClimateGate showed what we are up against, conspiracy and One Word Government.
theendgame984 3 months ago
@greenman3610. (part 3) Denial? I accept that the climate is changing, it has always changed. I do not accept that man is the sole (or major) driver in this. Sensible use of water is required but this means building them. No dams = no farms, no food, no manufacturing, no hydro power. All needed by society. Banning dams increases the impact of droughts, increases damage from floods, wastes water needed by society. What's wrong with that? Or are you anti-human?
snookums01 4 months ago
@greenman3610. (part 2) dams are needed for water security, to prevent flooding. 100% water harvesting is never good. Preventing dams increases hardships during droughts, crops don't grow, animals die, all bad practices. Dams provide hydro power, renewable as long as you don't harvest 100% of the water. The Snowy Hydro Scheme (google it) would never be built today because of environmental impact. Try building Hoover or Grand Coolee today and see how far you get. Dams good. Greens bad.
snookums01 4 months ago
@greenman3610. No, that's not what I said. A dam was planned in country Victoria (not desert) but Greens prevented go ahead. Floods later inundated major towns in the area. A dam would have prevented this damage and saved water to send to Melbourne. Dams plus water take-off from the Colorado plus irrigation all combined to stop the river flowing. Bad practice. We have the same here with cotton growers. Terrible plant for Australia, too much water needed. Not enough environmental flows.
snookums01 4 months ago
greenman3610, bad water management is not AGW. If the Colorado stops flowing during a drought, don't blame AGW. There are places where you should not farm without a secure water supply. Here in Australia we are being prevented from building dams due to the Greens not wanting us to flood natural habitat. So who should I blame for water rationing if we are unable to capture and store rain water? So no hydro power. We have uranium but are not no nuke power due the Greens. So we burn coal.
snookums01 4 months ago
@snookums01
so building dams in colorado desert = bad
building dams in Australia desert = good
nasty greens apparently to blame for both. It's amusing to see you contort yourself.
I'm sorry reality is what it is, but the sooner you accept what is, the sooner you can deal with it.
That's why its called "denial".
greenman3610 4 months ago
From the days of Uruk to now, the climate has changed many times. Again, which is the "best"? 500 years ago we were in the mini ice age. 1000 years ago we were in the MWP. Which one is "correct"? We live in a 24 hour news cycle. Anything that occured last week is old news. We think massive storms are all new but look back over 200 years and you will see bigger storms, longer droughts, none are AGW. The peublo dwelling Indians suffered a 100 year long drought. No AGW there.
snookums01 4 months ago
The Colorado stops flowing because WE dammed it! This is not a "global warming" event but 100% water harvesting. Add any natural variation such as a drought and it's "ooooh! Look at the global warming...!"
Great inundation is correct. When the great ice sheets melted, areas like the Black Sea formed in under 100 years. Not as much ice today. People stop listening to alarmists when they "predict" sea level rises of 10cm...100cm.... no wait... 100 metres! So, WHAT is the correct temp?
snookums01 4 months ago
@snookums01
maybe the temp under which civilization has arisen, and on which agriculture has been established.
If you don't care about that, then, no problem.
will pass your assurances along to southwest farmers and ranchers.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610. That is no answer. Nature decided sea levels in the past. California is desert except on the coastal side of the Rockies. Any greening there is man made. How many is "few" degrees? The last great inundation occurred following the last great ice age about 12000 years ago. Your answer would suggest that the ice age was "normal" and that the change to warmer temperatures was abnormal.
snookums01 4 months ago
@snookums01
"great inundation"? not talking about Noah here. Nature does not "decide". Nature responds to forcings. California agriculture is dependent on the colorado river, and snow melt from the Sierra's, both of which will decline precipitously under AGW.
You may know that when temps rose 5 degrees in the interglacial, oceans rose some 120 meters. That temp change took some 10,000 years - We will get that warming in the next 100 years under AGW. Do you suppose ice sheets will not respond?
greenman3610 4 months ago
Ok. Let's assume that man made global warming is occurring. Further, let us agree that the CO2 is rising.
Question: What is the global temperature supposed to be?
Question: What is the CO2 concentration supposed to be?
We go around about "getting hotter" but it's been hotter and colder before now. What is the "correct" temperature? Likewise, atmospheric CO2 has been much higher that it is today. What is the "correct" mix? And who decided that mix?
snookums01 4 months ago
@snookums01
who decided what the "right" sea level is? I kind of like our coastal cities on dry land. You may differ. The last time temps were a couple degrees warmer, ocean levels were many meters higher. We can decide, if that's what we want.
Who decided that the California was a good place to grow food? We are in the process of turning it to heat blasted desert. That may be your preference. I happen to think it's undesirable.
greenman3610 4 months ago
@MrPurpose79
"more co2 in the past "- see here:
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 5 months ago
@MrPurpose79
water vapor canard treated here:
/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
greenman3610 5 months ago
as previous comments have said you can google "global temperature 2000 to 2011" but as apposed to supporting the "deniers" position it generally supports the significant influence man is having on the environment
dmlt12 5 months ago
The contribution to global temperature increases since 1970s is not from Sun Activity...Sun activity has gone down (in disparity to the previous decadel trends where temperatures followed sun activity relatively closely..as some skeptics graphs show when they lead up to the "now period with close correlation"..except their now period is much earlier than the real now eg 1990s vs 2000 - 2011 ..where sun activity and temps diverge
dmlt12 5 months ago
So, given that these minority gases are effective in keeping us warm enough I suppose adding billions of tons of these gases won't probably have any effect on warmth??? Yeah Sure!
dmlt12 5 months ago
Yeah I suppose CO2 doesn't drive climate.its only a small proportion of the atmosphere; its not really relevant along with other minority gases that absorb heat waves and re-transmit approx 50% back to Earth...but hang on why does the Earth environment keep at relatively liveable temperatures compared to many other planets...one of the reasons is that we are kept warm is by the retention of long wave heat by such "minority" gases..which is great and helps stop us freezing, particularly at night
dmlt12 5 months ago
@dmlt12 No dick its because of where the Earthn is positioned. And it does not have you in mind when deciding to freeze over or melt and go lush green. The planet is fine......the people are fucked. The fact that the Earth rotates causing the sun to come up evry day and allowing only 12 hrs for the heat stealing darkness to do its job, keeps us warm at night. If we ratated much slower then yes we would all freeze to death every night.
buddcinder 5 months ago
@buddcinder Then why doesn't 1 side of Venus freeze over despite its' 243 day long rotation?
Oh right, because its' atmosphere is full of crap that keeps heat in.
And then why is that heat-blasted hell Mercury 800 deg F in the day, but drops to -260 deg F during the night, despite having a (compared to Venus) fast rotation of 60 days each?
Oh right, because Mercury has no atmosphere.
Atmosphere matters.
gimmethegepgun 5 months ago
@Galv140577 "CO2 has never been shown to drive climate at all." Then why is Venus hotter than Mercury, but further from the sun?
Bloodbeckon 5 months ago
My dad keeps on parroting fox news saying that cow flatulence is to blame, can you put this in its place?
Cactarpus 5 months ago
@Cactarpus
uhm, well, agricultural emissions are part of the problem. That's because methane is a greenhouse gas. they're just not the whole problem. Sounds like your Dad agrees with the scientific consensus, he just doesn't know it.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 well what he is saying is that cow flatulence is the primary cause and there is nothing that we can do about it.
Cactarpus 5 months ago
@Cactarpus
Strange thing to say. Presumably, if it were that simple, we could just stop eating meat altogether, - I'm not sure that's necessary, but it might improve a lot of people's health to cut down.
Its sort of like saying, "smoking causes cancer, that's it, and there's nothing we can do about it." When people are irrational, there's not much that's going to reach them, short of some major trauma. Best to educate yourself and figure out how your generation is going to solve this problem.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610
it's a hard thing to realize, but a lot of people simply want to live out their lives in a dream world. I don't get it, but I see it everywhere.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 At the very most atmosheric CO2 can possibly account for 10% of climate change, which is dominated by the Sun. Get a grip on reality you fucking idiot. You are an alarmist pushing for carbon tax which will result in devastating economic destruction. You are dabbling in danger & you are reckless. You wont stop with the lies until the economy is in tatters. You make me sick!
Galv140577 5 months ago
This film:
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Completely destroys the man-made-global-warming theory & yet you still continue to lecture people as though man-made CO2 drives climate when clearly it fucking doesn't you lying retarded bastard. Fuck off
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577
Have you seen anyone about those anger issues?
The swindle movie has, of course, become an embarrassment to
all those involved. Perhaps you did not get that memo.
But thanks for bringing up the subject of one of my most popular vids:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Hahah did you not WATCH the video? How about instead of attacking Greenman you actually try to refute his claims that your movie is merely propaganda. If you have no actual evidence that Greenman is wrong then why the hell should we listen to a damn word you say?
cidvisions 5 months ago
@cidvisions
Galv is a troll, but a useful one, since he brings up basic issues that newbies might want to find out more about. If he can manage his anger, he can stay.
greenman3610 5 months ago
95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. The recent "man-made" change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is like a fat person gaining less than half a pound in weight & then saying that the increase in their body fat is going to cook them to death by preventing their body heat from escaping. That's literally how dumb you have to be to believe this pathetic man-made global warming nonsense. IT's obviously the Sun that drives climate. CO2 has never been shown to drive climate at all.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Science isn't your thing, is it? (1) Different molecules behave differently to IR radiation. Start with wikipedia (tinyurl*com/ycdeae) then go to the cited references and maybe a textbook. CO2 is a more potent GHG than H2O so it ends up that the ratio of net GH forcing (H2O:CO2) is not 20:1, but only 1.5-4:1 (depending where you are).
(2) CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries; H2O for days. CO2 goes up, T goes up, H2O goes up, T goes up, ... Positive feedbacks.
541iceman 5 months ago
@541iceman My sources tell me that in the last decade the global temperature has dropped by 2 degrees celcius (westinstenv. org), & that atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by 20ppm or 5% (physics. ucsd. edu). So in conclusion atmospheric CO2 does NOT drive climate. The temperature has gone down because of decreased solar activity from 100 sunspots down to 10 (www2. nict. go. jp). In conclusion the Sun is what drives climate.
The Ocean PDO is shifting to 'cool mode' so expect cooling for 20yrs.
Galv140577 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Galv140577 "My sources tell me that in the last decade the global temperature has dropped by 2 degrees celcius (westinstenv. org)". I went to that site and didn't see anything about global temps declining. Care to give a more specific link? Perhaps it is in "Coldest Pacific Northwest April in 36 years" ?
541iceman 5 months ago
@Galv140577
holy crap. I'm glad I wasn't holding hot coffee!
2 degrees C? That's halfway to an ice age in 10 years?
I think that would have been picked up by a major temp data base. Even leading skeptics agree it is warming - see
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM#t=5m04s
and google
nasa key indicators
you are deeply, deeply misled. no wonder you are angry.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 It's easy to verify my findings, just go on google, do an image search & look up "global temperature 2000 to 2011."
ANYONE can do this & find out what a total fraud you are lol
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Here's global T from 2000 to present: tinyurl com/3ffnbc4.
I used the skeptics' favorite T data set from UAH. Trend is about +0.13 C/decade.
541iceman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 5 months ago
Love this, thanks....put the bullshit artists deniers back in their place and let the rest of us get on with action to reduce the effects.
dmlt12 6 months ago
@dmlt12
stay tuned. more, bigger, and better coming.
greenman3610 6 months ago
Hi greenman love your work. In the movie they claim that an increase in temperature is followed by an increase in CO2 as opposed to rationalist thinking. Can you clarify this fact? for me so I can be a little bit more articulate in my discussions. Thanks
turnerfamilyinozi 6 months ago
@turnerfamilyinozi
this is a famous piece of cherry picked distortion
see
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
greenman3610 6 months ago
Hi Greenman I like your videos but I think it could be improved by citing your sources more frequently. At 8:46 you extrapolate the Friijs Christiansen graph to show the divergence from solar activity and planetary temperature. What source are you using for that extrapolation to the present? Also could you provide a link to the paper you refer to at 6 mins in which corrects Christy. Is that the one where they found the satellite was a couple of hours behind where they thought it was Thanks H
hengistmcstone 6 months ago
Wow. I suppose that Wall St. should invest in green tech instead of derivatives. The $16 trillion (and counting) bucks the world's central banks swindled from the American taxpayer could likely bankroll the development of competitive renewable energy sources which would obviate the 'need' for the REAL swindle re the climate change issue: a selectively applied, industrial economy-killing carbon tax...
MIJVI 6 months ago
Right, there's decent arguments for both sides, but what we can all agree on is that green house gases are a natural emission from all living things, k; so if every lining thing in nature purpose is to survive and reproduce then over time population is going to expand and more emission will be released. So what green house believers are saying is that nature has been set up in a way to destroy it self? nature wants us to reproduce until we melt ice caps and eventually drown ourselves, course =/
JosephStrings 6 months ago
Use logic and your own mind instead of being a rote animal that just repeats what someone else said. "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." -Galileo. I am so sick and tired of hearing about carbon emissions destroying the planet. This hypothesis of anthropogenic causes has been so thoroughly debunked time and time again, but as with any religion, this one being Gaia, people will not give up faith in it.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Please debunk away. I'm waiting.
note: the voices in Glenn Beck's head do not constitute evidence.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Who's talking about Glenn Beck other than you? Moron. lol
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
so you have nothing whatever to refute the video.
as I thought.
thanks again for demonstrating my thesis.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 I think you mean nothing "whatsoever" to refute the video. That's two mistakes already, making false assumptions and poor grammar. I'm supposed to trust someone who can't use English properly, and brings up Glenn Beck for no reason to tell me man is causing global warming? If you would take the time to read your own comments section, I've already told you the carbon from fossil fuels was put there by plants who did quite well when CO2 concentrations were much higher than today.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
"plants like more co2"
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
and
watch?v=xjsvL23Sw9Q
also google
A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself
greenman3610 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Show a single example of this "debunking".
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Unlike you, I don't comb YouTube in order to let someone else tell me my opinion on something. If you're too stupid to find both sides of the argument on your own, there's nothing I can do for you.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
A herp derp your "side of argument" is based on denying basic scientific facts, literally every attempt at "debunking" climate change has failed miserably.
If you can find a non-failed attempt I'll change my mind.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Listen, fool. You haven't had a single argument of your own. We haven't had a debate. All you've done is post URLs to YouTube videos, either because you are too simple-minded to state the science yourself, or you are trying to divert the dialogue. I could tell right away that you're not worth wasting my time on, and you keep verifying that each time you send one of your inane replies. So, please, take your insanity elsewhere.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Hahaha buddy I'm pretty sure your the guy who chickened out debating how CO2 has been responsible for climate for billions of years after I brought it up.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician What are you talking about? You haven't stated anything you've posted a bunch of URLs.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
I don't have to explain it because I'm not a scientist. The point is, science has proven that CO2 has indicated climate for millions of years and your too much of a coward to click the link.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Fuck off.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
:'( <------ you right now.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Sorry, change that to CO2 being responsible for climate for millions of years.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician I'm sure a tool like you believes that a trace gas has more to do with climate than the sun, water vapor (the KING of all greenhouse gases), solar wind and cosmic ray interaction, diffferences in the Earth's rotation, among countless other factors. Now shoo, idiot. I'm not feeding the troll anymore.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician What do you say to Phil Jones, of the IPCC, who was at the center of the Climategate scandal, saying that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. If your carbon dioxide theory is correct, that's a simple way to test it. CO2 has been rising for the past 15 years but even this guy admitted there's been no warming. I'd like to see what cockamamie excuse you have for that.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
"not statistically significant" was true at that time - which did not, btw, mean no warming - it just meant that there was not enough time in that interval for the change to rise above background noise. As of now, Jones has said, it is significant. google
BTW, per Phil Jones, warming since 1995 now “significant”….
and watch
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
global change takes longer than a decade to emerge from background.
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
greenman3610 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@greenman3610 It also means the results are not significant enough to base conclusions on until further data can be gleaned and a statistically significant result can be obtained. Moreover, warming does not prove that CO2 is the cause. The climate is always either warming or cooling. Stop posting URLs and post facts. Nobody is watching the propaganda clips except you. It seems you and AndroidPolitician are the same person. All he does is post URLs.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
"warming does not prove that CO2 is the cause."
it could be flying saucers. It could be bigfoot. But most likely, it's because of the physics we've understood for 150 years.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Nice straw man argument. No one is claiming it is flying saucers or bigfoot. And, if you really understood physics, you'd realize a trace gas cannot account for such warming as claimed by people like you who don't understand science. It seems you don't understand language that well either, as evidenced by your numerous errors. CO2 only accounts for around 4% of the warming produced by ALL greenhouse gases. Do you have another URL or do you have the cojones to debate facts?
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
uhm, since none of those canards are facts, I suggest you actually make a statement, cite a source that can be checked, and conduct an argument, instead of merely bloviating. That's what I do in my vids, which I guess, is why you won't watch them.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You still haven't explained away Climategate, in which email documentation proves there was an agreement amongst those in the scandal to manipulate numbers to produce warming results. Even Phil Jones said temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were likely higher than today. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist at Harvard has also stated her skeptcism regarding the "Hockey-stick" graph that is promulgated by global warming alarmists as evidence of present warming.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
Temps during the MWP were still worthy of debate 12 years ago when those emails started. Now we have a number of studies confirming that today is warmer.
You'd have to document the "agreement" you cite. There is no such animal, except in fevered Glenn Beck dreams.
Baliunas is of course, produced one of the most embarrassing studies of the last 15 years on this issue.
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610
by the way,
climate gate
watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us
watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
watch?v=5WvasALL-hw
greenman3610 7 months ago
Comment removed
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Really? I guess you've been too busy sifting through YouTube videos to appreciate the fact that study was authored by one of today's foremost astrophysicists, and her colleagues, at none other than Harvard University. I suppose your opinions matter more than those of a world-renowned astrophysicist. I agree with you the Baliunas study was embarassing. It was embarassing for climate alarmists such as yourself.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You've just contradicted yourself twice. Is that why you post URLs instead of facts? You just stated climate change can't rise above background noise in a decade. "It takes decades to observe it in the record." You then said Jones had changed his original argument - but this happened within the matter of just a couple of years. According to your own argument, it couldn't have risen above background noise because there wasn't enough time!
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
if you measure from 1995 to 2010, when Jones was asked, the rise does not meet the "statistically significant" test. If you add another year, for instance, if you went back from 1994 to 2010, then it's significant. Since a year has passed since he made that statement, and temps have continued to rise, the bar is now met.
It's not that hard, man.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Again, your own argument stated, "It takes decades to observe it in the record." An "s" makes something plural. Did you learn that in third grade? Obviously, you didn't learn grammar that well, as evidenced by your numerous earlier mistakes. And again, you bring up Glenn Beck for no reason. Have you got a thing for him? In any case, two more years does not make it statistically significant, using your own argument. 1994 to 2010 is not "decades" it is little more than one "decade".
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
This video is full of crap, as are most global warming alarmists. One note for all you global warming geniuses: Where did the carbon in carbon-based fuels come from? It came from the damn atmosphere, you fools. We are putting a fraction of what was ALREADY THERE in the past back into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are plant remains. The plants photosynthesized carbon FROM THE ATMOSPHERE to live, died, and the decayed plants became fossil fuels. The carbon isn't being magically created by humans.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
"Where did the carbon in carbon-based fuels come from? It came from the damn atmosphere, you fool"
Let the record show you passed third grade.
Sorry, more is required.
watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Again with the URLs. How pathetic of you. You're definitely low on facts and high on links to propaganda. I can find a YouTube video telling me the Earth is flat or that HAARPs waves are controlling the population. But that doesn't mean it's true.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
so you dont have an answer to any of facts.
there are copious links to primary sources in all my video descriptions, should anyone care to check them.
I'm certainly not suggesting you do anything as taxing as reading, that's why I make videos. But if you're too
lazy to watch and actually formulate a response, there's not much I can do.
hint - on the internet, all you get is URLs.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 You know I'm referring to YouTube URLs. Then again, maybe not, your cognition has proven to be a bit slow. I find it amusing that you're authoring videos like this. It's not about being too lazy to watch, it's about not needing to. Why don't you stick to the facts instead of suggesting I go watch a video at every turn? Could it be because your arguments are fallacious or that you can't concisely and pointedly argue your points?
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Why should I listen to you about any scientific matter? What qualifications do you have to be lecturing anyone? You're just a graphic artist. You have no scientific credentials, Pete.
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
@AlexanderRozhenko
I never assert what "I think', -- I always point to what the leading science groups tell us, and explain it in english - then link to the sources.
Which is why so many scientists, professors and teachers are supporting this series, and using it in their classes around the world, from high school to grad school level.
You should look at the evidence I present and respond to it with something other than bloviating.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 (It's English with a capital "e" and not "english" as you stated.) These videos are totally what you "think". You are cherry-picking facts from alarmists and other extremists. So, your videos inherently have a bias. They're also poorly edited and narrated, if the present one about "The Big Swindle" is any example. Did you forget your rebuttal on why it was okay for Jones to accept 1994-2010 as statistically significant after you said, "It takes decades to observe it in the record."
AlexanderRozhenko 7 months ago
Al Gore is still a crook.
AngryRantingNerd 7 months ago
@AngryRantingNerd
therefore 150 years of physics is wrong. Harrumph.
denialist logic.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 I don't think I need to say any more.
AngryRantingNerd 7 months ago
It is like religon. Why does religon exist? Why did people invent heaven and hell? Hundreds of years ago the christian church controled many places and why? Because it scared people into thinking if they don't live like their book says so they will burn forever in hell. Global warming may be true from the scientific standpoint but governments and the media just take the idea of human made global warming and use it to strike fear and control you. Its actually quite obvious when you think about it
OoMontageManoO 7 months ago
@OoMontageManoO
so, the fact that it's true, is, like, beside the point for you?
greenman3610 7 months ago
@OoMontageManoO No, hundreds of years ago the Vatican/Catholic Church had controlled many places - not the Christian Church. The Vatican is very powerful - the Christian Church is not. Religion shares nothing in common with global warming & climate issues.
ocf1fan1 7 months ago
Ok so some of the graphs from the great global warming swindle are distorted. So what? The general idea of the documentary was "its propaganda, its almost like a religon and if there was no human made global warming thousands of people would be out of jobs, which would be bad for the economy. Governments like to keep people in constant fear, its a way of control, dont buy into it" which is perfectly valid. From everything i've seen and read I have to agree with the great global warming swindle.
OoMontageManoO 7 months ago
@OoMontageManoO
so, its not like it has to be, "true" true, it just, like, has to make me feel all angry and tingley. That's how I know it's right.
greenman3610 7 months ago
Cheers for these videos.
I think carbon sinks/offsets need more research yeah? Or can someone point me somewhere with comprehensive studies? Its just that in australia theres a lot of talk for carbon offsets and carbon farming and I would like to make an informed choice while voting. thanks
daturkster 8 months ago
@daturkster
google
biochar
greenman3610 8 months ago
What's with the temp/sol