"that's tax payer money, if we don't take it from them people will just waste it on their own families instead of it being put to good use by liberals"... AWESOME!
haha, global warming what a funny joke. No statistically signifigant warming in 15 years now, all the warming predictions have been wrong. It's time to wake up there is no global warming.
@Dodger481 also interesting that you use a claim based on a Jones interview with the BBC from 2010, but you keep using that despite the fact that Jones himself published an analysis one year later that showed indeed significant warming (95%CL).
Al Gore. What a joke. Buy a carbon credit from Als house of environmental protection. Buy one credit, get one free. Buy bulk pack of carbon credits, start your own factory? Planning on making a big mess? Buy Als crazy bonus package of carbon credits. Buy enough, get a nobel prize. If you bought a carbon credit, you are an idiot. No excuses.
In the 70s, they said we were heading for another ice age.
Check out youtube.com/user/ta7king for a simple but scientific explanation. Watch all the videos, and then make up your mind! The video course is for school children, so it should be easy enough for anyone to understand B - )
I had a great idea. In order to find out whether or not scientists REALLY believe man-made global warming is real or not, governments around the world should pull all funding from its research. Scientists should be required to fund the research on their own, or raise the money from private donations. Something tells me there'll be a lot less believers, and politicians/celebrities pushing this nonsense. How could it hurt? If its real we cant really do anything anyway. If not, then problem solved.
Unlike the Unified Theory of Evolution where 99% of biologists agree, anthropogenic global warming has many dissenters. There is general agreement on data that the earth is in a warming stage but stark disagreement on whether this is caused by mankind. Natural global warming deniers seem to be more politically motivated than anything else. This video is spot on target. Good post!
@FaganRoberts actually the concecus on AGW and Evolution are very comparable as long you ask within the field. once you include just all scinetists regardless of their feld, wich scienece deniers like to do.. you get alot people that disagree in both cases. but similar is also that those that opose the concencus do merely try to poke a hole in an accpeted theory and do never publish an alternative hypothesis that can be tested, in both AGW and Evolution.
@Aanthanur If you'll look at the varied scientists who study and are experts in the field of climatology you'll find that most of them are split on AGW. The great consensus among them is that we are in a slight global warming trend, particularly since the Little Ice Age of the Late Medieval period and of course, climate changes all the time. The unfalsifiable hypothesis is that it can be attributed to mankind. Therein the controversy lies. And in the faith of those who believe it anthropogenic.
@FaganRoberts nonsense. the concencus is that there is a Climate Change in recent decades and that it is do to the risining CO² levels do to the industrialization.
Also is AGW not a unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is actually already considered a theory and not a hypothesis anymore, and surely it never was a unfalsifiable hypothesis.
and a concencus far above 90% is in no way split. As soon anyone discovers a Natural cause that explains the current warming, AGW is falsified.
@Aanthanur Current sunspot cycles that are increasing even planets like Mar's climate. The fact we are still coming out of the last ice age, of which over 6 ice ages having happened in the past. After we peak our global temp. we will go back into the next ice age of the well documented cyclic global temperature change.
@Psychodegu the sun is not more active, actually less active.
what is your source? we are not coming out of an ice age, we are in an interglacial phase, and our CO2 output is making sure we are not heading towards another glaciation period.
@Aanthanur I just gave you 2 reasons for an increase in global temperature independent of CO2, that I have read in science journal publications. Asking me to show a source when your spouting off a lot of stuff and assuring us with "consensus" isn't showing any sources either. I'm not spending hours of my time tracking science papers that show alternate reasons or factors to global temperature change.
@Aanthanur I don't know if I'm copying you links and adding dots to the correct locations, but I'm not getting any web pages. Or if I do it is just a text document of data, with no idea of units or collection method or anything, basically useless.
@Aanthanur Also keep in mind some of these ice ages were happening before most of the Carbon was sequestered as oil or coal. So at some point the fossil fuels didn't exist to decrease the available C02 and yet we still had ice ages. Kinda sounds like BS that you think even burning a little bit of the worlds fossil fuel could stop the next ice age.
@Psychodegu there are several reasons for ice ages and glaciation periods. your simplistic view on this science tells me that you do not understand even the basics of it.
you do not even know what an ice age is and what a glaciation period and interglacial periods are. why should i listen to you instead of the climate scientists?
@Aanthanur That kinda the point since were still in the interglacial period, we could expect the temperatures to be increasing until its zenith, then then we start toward the next ice age. Since we know we are in the warming interglacial period, it would be silly not to expect temperatures to be increasing, also sea level rising is also linked to the interglacial period.
@Psychodegu we are not in a natural warming period. what drove the temperature average on the levels we have is actually the CO2 imbalance coming from burning fossil fuels. Non of the natural factor can account for the rise in temperatures. You must either think climatologists are dumb or conspired across the world. i think thy are neither of the two.
There are scientists to this day that dispute the theory of evolution, the kinetic-molecular theory, cell theory etc. However, that doesn't take away from the validity of those theories and the overall consensus in academia. As a scientist, I would never assert with 100% certainty that man-made Global Warming exists. I simply believe that until significant evidence for another explanation is found, we should not be so foolish to dismiss Global Warming simply on political grounds.
99% of scientists agree on man-made Global Warming. People like to argue that Global Warming is just a "theory." But, if you actually know anything about science or the scientific process, you'll know that theories in science are assertions that are backed my volumes and volumes of empirical evidence and observations. Theories in science are the closest thing to the "truth". Therefore, in my opinion, disputing man-made Global Warming is synonymous to disputing the theory of relativity.
At worst the melting of all the ice caps mean at most a 30ft sea level increase...
sure it will be hot and a lot of Florida will be underwater, but its their own fault for buying that land there and will scream for FEMA to buy them a new house.
@gimmethegepgun they best start moving inland then, why should I have to pay for their lack of foresight.
Personally I think a Vienna like Manhattan would be fun, and its not like land reclamation couldn't compensate if people really didn't want their expensive real estate under water.
I have no sympothy for people who build their damn houses in flood plains though, only reason they do it is because FEMA keeps paying their ludicrous flood insurance.
@Dethreid Lack of foresight for building in natural harbors, near the ocean, etc, which allow for trade and food, which brought society to where it is today?
You don't seem to understand that most of these places ARE NOT in flood plains. They are simply near the ocean, and in general are perfectly safe from water.
Granted, I have no sympathy for the flood plains issue either, but that's not global warming related.
@gimmethegepgun I thought the science was proven that they will indeed flood, so we are warning them at a minimum of 20 years in advance, if they can't move their asses by then...no sympathy.
I suppose they aren't 'flood plains' in the strict definition though.
@Dethreid Thing is, it's still an extremely large portion of the population that needs to be relocated if that rise happens, along with many of the major industrial, commercial, etc etc stuff that is also contained within those cities.
And remember, 10% of the world's population right now is 700 million people. That's more than double the population of the US.
The belief of global warming is true. But the warming is not from carbon emmision. It is from hells fires when those the love the creation and not the creator are thrown our of heaven. They'll just think is a bad case of global warming.
And secondly. Even if yr right, and Global Warming IS a myth. That doesn't change the fact that there is a limited amount of oil in the earth for us to use. Which means that it's going to run out, and where going to have to find an alternative source of fuel sooner or later anyway. So we'll still need a new fuel source when we pass peak oil in about 10 years from now. So even if yr right, yr still wrong. Oil is not an endless resource
Firstly. The problem with the Global Warming skeptics is that they want us to believe that it's possible to dump 30 million metric tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, year after year after year. And that nothings gona happen as a result? That it wont have any bad effects at all? I find that more than a little hard to swallow. It sounds completely ridiculous to me...
@130cookies I agree. Never approach an argument about AGW about how much money it will cost and the moral basis. I am a senior citizen therefore the effects of AGW are not a problem for me. I agree with woman in this sense that continued use of fossil fuel will destroy the planet we know even though planet earth will go on with different lifeforms.
Also, if you say that I just proved myself wrong here or whatever, I would like to bring up a study which was financed by the Koch brothers (long time opponents of the global warming theory, and assholes in general, but that is beside the point). In the end, the study did in fact find out that global warming is in fact happening.
Okay, already, at 0:06 I have issues with this. 95% of the environmental scientists around the world believe in global warming. You might site that there is still that 5%, but it wouldnt be that hard to find some of them willing to take a bribe from a a large corporation or the like. At the same time, it would be equally easy to bribe scientists to be on the side of supporting the global warming theory, but not 95% of them.
I agree with this video. It is correct. Not just becaise I say so. I am often wrong. But only when I want to be. People who drink water die. Therefore no matter what the scientists say, you must drink beer.Beer can not cause global warming if itis drunk within the state it was not made. Even if they can not prove global warming is not happening. Liberals are stupid. But I am not a liberal. No liberal has ever proven anything that wasn't later disproved. Liberals often contradict themselves too.
@bernzeppi Please, Al Gore is a hypocrite and full of crap. Science and Geological History has clearly shown versions of science other than Al Gore's.
@bernzeppi Conspiracy or not the idea that Co2 is killing our planet is bullshit. Anyone whose taken a standard biology class knows that all plants and trees need Co2 to breathe so that they can produce Oxygen for us to breathe in return. Just because science falls in lines with his ideas doesn't mean they are 100% correct. According to Al Gore the snow melting on my front lawn means the death of us all. He isn't a very green person either.He's a hypocrite and a moron.
@bernzeppi I did, in my Science biology class I learned that cells in humans, animals, and plants need either oxygen or carbon dioxide. So it is a very valid arguement. Let me ask you this, if global warming isn't only natural, then tell me, how do you think the Ice Age ended? Here's a hint, the ice didn't suddenly decide it was tired of freezing the earth and just pack up and leave....
@bernzeppi Al Gore is an issue, a valid one. He is a con-man exaggerating natural enviromental problems so that he can get rich off it. I have yet to see any phsyical experiments that prove that Co2 destroys our atomosphere. But let's say for that sake of our arguement that it does. Then why is the only depleted portion of the atomosphere over Anartica, one of the most dormant places on Earth, why is it not over Asia, or South America?
@bernzeppi So wait, Co2 has nothing to do with Ozone depletion but it's the main issue? Get your damn story straight, or are childish insults all you have for rebuttal rather than facts?
@CyberTechWolf That's right... heres a fact sheet on ozone
depleteion.
theozonehole . com/fact . htm
Excerpt:
"The ozone hole is a completely different phenomenon to global warming, however there are links between them. The ozone hole is caused by ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere, which have been produced by industry, for example CFCs."
@bernzeppi Scratch my previous comment. I have not seen one single phsyical experiment that proves that chemicals like that destroy our atomosphere. People have been burning fires for thousands of years using things like oil, gas, and other flamable materials. There are just too many incosistancies for me to beleive it.
Meaning, this free chlorine atom sticks around and breaks up ozone as a catalyst. It also takes an extremely long time for this chlorine to get attached to another molecule on a more permanent basis, thus removing it from the catalytic cycle.
In short, free chlorine fucks up ozone royally and is produced by CFC in the atmosphere.
lol I'm a Liberal and I found this funny. people need to chill. if you disagree with the other side then just be the bigger man... and make fun of them amongst your liberal friends
this is complete and utter bullcrap. 98% of all climate scientists agree with global warming and 90% of all scientists do (from wikipedia). There has been a proven increase in overall global temperature and in extreme weather events. Taking a little comic style that was used to expose the errors in the economic system has been twisted and turned against actual science. This makes me sick.
@budliite your joking right? the majority of all the climate scientists who contribute to the ipcc reports are part of universities and research universities. They don't just do climate research many of them do other research, believe it or not most of them are specialist oceanographers, meteorologists, geophysicists and geochemists. They don't need funding from the ipcc, there is enough money out there as it is.
You are mistaken. Pachauri also gets paid $0, just like all other IPCC staff. He also submitted himself, voluntarily, to be audited by the accounting firm KPMG. Their report showed that his finances were spotless and there was no conflict of interest.
guardian (*) co (*) uk/environment/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-cleared-financial-dealings
In 2003, KPMG was investigated by the U.S. attorneys' office for accounting fraud. KPMG has agreed to pay $456 Million to avoid an indictment from the US Department of Justice.
KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it's wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990's. KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.
6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.
6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.
Pauchauri makes about ₤40k a year from his job, a salary far below what he could earn with a CV like his. He was selected as the IPCC chairman (a role in which, again, he earns absolutely nothing) because he was a conservative and he wasn't as outspoken as other scientists on global warming. Do you have any EVIDENCE that he's actually corrupt like Willie Soon, Chris Monckton, or Pat Michaels are? Or is he guilty until proven innocent?
@Slartman2 >> none of the IPCC authors get paid a dime
Michael Mann was the guy who crafted the "hockey stick" graph for the IPCC. He sure got paid off for his part.
Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half A Million In Stimulus Money. Author of "hockey stick" graph rewarded for his part in climate-gate scheme
Mankind is certainly creating "climate change". For example, deforesting the Amazon to produce Green BioFuels is creating a new desert. So, we should have 100% consensus on that rather distorted framing of the issue.
That's an entirely separate issue from planetary temperature, which is controlled by the Sun.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 a good 90% of climatologists from a good majority of industrialized nations accept that not only is climate change a reality but it is caused mostly by humans.
@VerumJusticia Science is the majority rules. The ideas shared by 97% of the scientific community (yes it is 97%. Im not sure how reliable that is but if you can find me another group of people who conforms that then i will believe you) over rule the ideas shared by the 3% minority. That doesnt mean to say that the 3% is prohibited from doing research and finding enough evidence to convince everyone and make them the majority. That is what galileo did after all.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The IDEAS of the majority "rule" in that more people believe them to be correct. Scientists have no power to "rule" over other scientists.
without CO2 every plant on the planet would die, planets use CO2 to produc oxygen, in the entire history of the planet earth has cooled and warmed many times, this is a nature cycle, the whole "globel warming" or "climatic change" is a ponzie scheme.
@DesRaven Is there evidence of the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle? Is there evidence to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature? Is there a reason for a 150ppm increase in CO2 in the past 150 years, whereas it took 100k years (100,000) for the rise of just 120ppm millions of years ago? This includes the fall of 120ppm.
@Tactic11 >> Is there evidence of the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle?
Sure there is. We launched some very expensive satellites to get it.
The Sun's output has declined a very tiny amount since 2003, from about 1362 w/m2 to 1360.5 w/m2. That's why no year since 2005 has been warmer than 2005 despite rising CO2, which is a tiny trace gas at 0.038% in the atmosphere.
Sure - the Leftist calls itself a 'liberal' as camouflage. Leftists constantly relabel themselves, change their rallying color (Red to Green), to whatever is convenient to manipulate public perception in their favor.
"Liberal" used to mean someone who stood for individual Liberty.
When the Bush Admin tried to put our nation on the course to clean, renewable Hydrogen as the mainstream fuel, the "global warming" crowd went ballistic to stop it.
They can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen.
If Bush was allowed to fix the "problem", they would lose the cash flow to buy their lavish mansions (al Gore) and pour our cash into their Party coffers.
This video is really sad. I just hope one day people will one day be able to differenciate between propaganda and facts. In the mean time I have lost all hope for humanity.
@RealFreak69 It's hard not to lose hope for humanity. The monumental injustice is that the propaganda is winning. Entire groups of people are willingly believing spin and lies from puppetmasters. Confusion on the issue means we're not doing anything, and we're about to get blasted by the twin forces of peak oil (first) and climate change (second). We have to change course - but we won't until it's too late to avoid devastating economic and social upheaval. We are blind fools - zombies of media.
This is such a straw man. Global warming will not end the world and no one has ever argued that. But the polar ice caps are melting and this will result in flooding and endangering the wildlife that live there. But will also create furtile land and end droughts in other areas. It is not entirally human caused but we do impact it. Even so renewable energy sources need to be incouraged before oil prices get too high.
Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration - Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Scheme He Is Now Pushing Through Congress - On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
And man, hydrogen is insanely expensive and is a fuel carrier - not a fuel source. It requires a source like methane (or biofuels). It is decades away from being viable. Jay Leno can afford it, though.
@jimbills Hydrogen is running cars and buses on the streets today. Even Jay Leno drives a Hydrogen car. As you SHOULD know, the economy of scale is what makes it even cheaper.
It is viable right now and has been in use as a vehicle fuel for a good, long time.
Ford E450 Shuttle buses powered by Quantum hydrogen injectors
@jimbills Geothermal and other sustainable electric sources provide the energy to produce Hydrogen fuel. And, they won't run out for ... well, the entire existence of the human species most likely.
It is far better to burn Hydrogen fuel, which starts as pure water and returns to pure water, than to burn up our food supplies and destroy ecosystems for the "green" agenda.
Bush had made real progress on converting our nation to Hydrogen. We have H-fuel stations in major cities and H-powered cars and buses running around. Even Jay Leno drives one.
This is the real reason Democrats went ballistic, trotted out Gore's movie then used their control of our "green" tax dollars to derail Hydrogen and finance their own investments in environmentally devastating BioFuels: They can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen!
@AmericaSpeakOut1@AmericaSpeakOut1 Okay, man. When in doubt, resort to rhetoric. You're keenly attuned to the conservative blogosphere. I personally think it's created a cartoonish view of reality for you, and I don't understand why anyone would prefer to live like that, but have at it. Put on that shining armor of truth, justice, and hand-picked factoids handed down from corporate-funded think tanks and repeated ad nauseum on Beck, Limbaugh, and the GWPF and go kick some commie arse! Yeah!
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I can totally find your "sources" by simple internet searches, and I can track their original source and where they end up. It's all spin designed to reinforce a particular worldview. I'd ask you to step out of that box and look at the world from other perspectives. Study the actual data on AGW, and look at it from the perspective that it 'might' actually be real. But you're totally convinced that you see the world accurately, so okay.
@jimbills Yes, it's easy to find the sources of these FACTS.
I urge you to open your mind and consider actually DOING what the "green" folks claim they want. However, they are the ones who actively try to prevent us from becoming energy independent - and from converting to sustainable, carbon-free Hydrogen fuel.
Obama Cuts Hydrogen Research Funds - Beneficiary is Ethanol
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Did you actually read the 'thetruthaboutcars' article? Obama cut funding for hydrogen research from $169 million to $69 million because it can't be implemented as efficiently short-term as ethanol - which is clearly true, unless you assume that we can replace the entire nation's infrastructure and vehicle fleet on a dime (which in reality would take decades and cost trillions). Cutting a research budget from $169 mill to $69 mill is hardly killing the tech as a long-term goal.
@jimbills The claim that Hydrogen can't be implemented as efficiently short-term is just smoke and mirrors. Hydrogen is already in use as a motor fuel and is THE ONLY fuel that can replace petroleum.
Ethanol is about the most environmentally devastating "alternative" the Left can inflict upon us - and it destroys our food supplies and water resources.
Hydrogen works - right now. They are fighting to stop clean Hydrogen - to enrich themselves via biofuels and carbon offsets.
@jimbills "unless you assume that we can replace the entire nation's infrastructure and vehicle fleet on a dime (which in reality would take decades and cost trillions)"
The Bush plan was a 12 year transition, with private corporations putting their own money into developing the infrastructure and vehicles. Shell, GM, Chevron, Toyota, Ford, Boeing and many others got on board.
That's when Democrats trotted out Al Gore's movie and frantically derailed Hydrogen in favor of destructive Biofuels.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 How do you only look at a handful of facts and ignore all the contradictory facts? It must be exhausting. I don't understand why you'd want to. On AGW (assuming it's real, and it is), what we decide as a society will affect humanity for countless generations, and the politics of the day won't count for piss in the Pacific. Healthy skepticism is always good - but then there are people who still question the theory of gravity (let alone evolutionary theory).
@jimbills There are people who don't realize the Sun has been the driving force for Earth temperature change all along. It still is. That's why there has been no warming since 2005 - the Sun's energy output stopped increasing. You can see the raw data from the SORCE satellite at:
SORCE satellite data plot - combined Total Solar Irradiance
@jimbills What the SORCE satellite revealed about recent temperature change (or lack thereof) tracks nicely with historical records on solar forced warming and cooling. This is common knowledge...
Solar Variation - shows sun driving Medieval Climate Optimum, Little Ice Age, Recent warming
@jimbills As for R&D, the Bush Plan opened up hundreds of geothermal sites to generate electricity to produce Hydrogen. Also, the "Isopentane" geothermal systems were developed that don't require a geological hot-spot. Our nation WAS on the track to clean, abundant energy...
Proof the systems can scale up:
Idaho geothermal power plant goes online. Self-contained isopentane unit to generate 13 megawatts.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I have nothing against moving to a wholly renewable energy source, and you have shown zero indication that Obama or the Democrats have taken hydrogen or geothermal off the table. To say that hydrogen can be implemented as easily and large-scale as ethanol RIGHT NOW is simply ludicrous. And no, hydrogen is not the only solution - you fail to account for electric and next-gen hybrid cars. That solution would also be much cheaper than conversion to a hydrogen economy...
@jimbills Battery-electric is not going to replace petroleum - takes way too long to "fuel" the car. Hydrogen can be fueled right at the pump by the driver and is every day.
A whole LOT of money and effort is being put into ecologically devastating biofuels, destroying rain forests, filling the pockets of the carbon-tax crowd.
If Bush's plan were followed, the conversion to Hydrogen would be nearly complete now.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You're treating the AGW issue as if it's a liberal vs. conservative thing or as an argument to be won as if we're in high school debate class. That's the great shame of this. I despair for humanity given its amazing propensity for self-deception and inability to distinguish a fake problem (R vs. D) from a major and consequential problem (AGW). We're just monkeys on a beach flinging rocks at each other while the tide rushes in. Pointless.
@jimbills I find it strange that you see it as a liberal vs conservative thing. This is about science and seeking the facts to determine whether what we are told is true or not. The greatest motivator for lying (and worse) in human history is the opportunity for amoral people to get their hands on someone else's money.
Al Gore is already buying lavish, energy-wasting mansions with his cut of the take.
@jimbills It is not a matter of political bias to point out that GW Bush put our nation on the path to a clean, carbon-free replacement for petroleum. He got the willing cooperation of energy and manufacturing companies who put their own money into developing infrastructure and vehicles, thereby minimizing the burden on the taxpayer. We now have H-fuel stations and vehicles running around, thanks to his work.
Democrats' focus is carbon taxation and wealth redistribution, not clean energy.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ...The 'no warming since 2005' is also complete spin - 2010 TIED with 2005 for the warmest year on record during a solar minimum (which should result in much lower temps, and hasn't, and doesn't address CO2 buildup in the atmosphere). 9 of the 10 past years have been the hottest since the 19th century. A natural fluctuation away from the solar minimum WILL result in higher temps, and then folks like you will be choking for an explanation.
@jimbills 2010 tied for surface temperature readings due to the El Nino - for a three month period. The rest of the year was colder than average. That was just the spread of previously warmed water over the surface - which if you understand physics allowed more heat to radiate into space and COOL the oceans.
Ocean levels fell 6mm in 2010 as oceans cooled and contracted.
@jimbills So, we have no warming since 2005 (and El Nino skewed the "average" for 2010) due to - drumroll - reduced solar forcing. We also know why the rather alarming cooling period ended around 1980 and thawing resumed:
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade" - NASA
@Undergroundhiphop1 How does the reduction in solar forcing, as demonstrated by the SORCE satellite, relate to the fact that there has been no global warming since 2005?
Ocean levels fell 6mm in 2010. What two influences during 2010 allowed oceans to cool and contract?
@Undergroundhiphop1 You really won't get that here - sorry. The good folks that oppose even the basic idea that man might have some influence over the climate view the topic as a purely political issue. The actual science is never really addressed. When it is, it's to attack scientists - whom they see as furthering a global scam to bilk money (via science grants, carbon taxes, etc.) You would be viewed by such idealogues as just a pawn in that scheme.
@jimbills Of course man influences climate. Wiping out the Amazon Rain Forest to produce "Green" fuels (literally burning up food supplies in the gas tank) is having a TREMENDOUS effect on climate. The "Green" folks are creating a new Sahara-style desert out of the formerly lush rain forest.
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Ah, finally! An actual topic only mildly infused with rhetoric. So, the desertification of the Amazon is only due to George Soros and his ilk out to make a buck on biofuels? It has nothing to do with the cattle industry, the lumber industry, or the major droughts the area has had the past few years? No doubt the drought at least was caused by George Soros's big head sucking all the air out of Brazil. But yes, stripping the Amazon for biofuels makes zero sense long term....
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ..As far as biofuels, I agree that they are a shell game (with the possible exception of algal). And some people like Soros are making a lot of money from it. But in your worldview, biofuels exist because of greed and liberals. In my worldview, biofuels exist primarily as a means of offsetting trade deficits from importing oil. They aren't so much a green issue as an energy security issue. Example: Bush and ethanol. Peak oil is here, and we're grasping at straws to put it off.
The people pushing BioFuels intentionally squashed Bush's progress on converting our nation to Hydrogen as our main fuel and Geothermal to produce the electricity to produce the Hydrogen. Obama went out of his way to drive American oil producers out of the Gulf and invited PetroBras (Brazil, Soros investment) to come take our oil off the Lousiana coast.
Their goal is to make the USA more dependent on foreign oil by disrupting our own ability to mass-produce reliable alternatives.
@jimbills The folks pushing environmentally devastating BioFuels also worked frantically to derail Bush's work to convert the nation to Hydrogen, generated by Geothermal electricity. Obama chased US oil drillers out of the Gulf and invited PetroBras (Brazil, Soros investment) to come take our oil off the coast of Louisiana.
The GOAL of the 'green' folks is to destroy our energy self-sufficiency.
Fuck me this is idiotic. TAKE IT DOWN MORON - you are being JAWDROPPINGLY irresponsible, and read some books on the subject, oh and look up 'straw man argument', and 'peer reviewed evidence'...
The real problem for scientists who work on the taxpayer rolls, as do their institutions, is that they want to keep their jobs. A few have had enough...
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the "warming" scam
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure. stop destroying our world for your oil profit.
@myco578 Unfortunately, government-funded "scientific" organizations are being paid taxpayer dollars to play politics rather than stick to the science.
For example:
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society
Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
"that's tax payer money, if we don't take it from them people will just waste it on their own families instead of it being put to good use by liberals"... AWESOME!
getrichardmason 5 days ago in playlist xtranormal file
This has been flagged as spam show
A congressman just stated on CSPAN that the co2 level's are higher then they where 15,000,000 million years
ago, and that at that time we lost almost all the ice. They state 75 to120 feet of water was added to the ocean.
This is at the door beloved right now. add holes in the Ozone, on and on. we
got big problems kids. hugs LUVBUG
Read my blog on Global Warming: globalwarmingtimes.blogspot.com
livingproofof 1 week ago
haha, global warming what a funny joke. No statistically signifigant warming in 15 years now, all the warming predictions have been wrong. It's time to wake up there is no global warming.
Dodger481 2 weeks ago
@Dodger481 actually, the current observed temperatures are still well within the IPCC AR4 projections.
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
@Dodger481 also interesting that you use a claim based on a Jones interview with the BBC from 2010, but you keep using that despite the fact that Jones himself published an analysis one year later that showed indeed significant warming (95%CL).
Aanthanur 2 weeks ago
Al Gore. What a joke. Buy a carbon credit from Als house of environmental protection. Buy one credit, get one free. Buy bulk pack of carbon credits, start your own factory? Planning on making a big mess? Buy Als crazy bonus package of carbon credits. Buy enough, get a nobel prize. If you bought a carbon credit, you are an idiot. No excuses.
In the 70s, they said we were heading for another ice age.
rb2112002 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quality LED lightbulbs (UK Only):
It Should Not Cost The Earth To Save The Planet. Go To www_lightevolution.co.uk
SMDLightEvolution 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out youtube.com/user/ta7king for a simple but scientific explanation. Watch all the videos, and then make up your mind! The video course is for school children, so it should be easy enough for anyone to understand B - )
ta7king 1 month ago
I had a great idea. In order to find out whether or not scientists REALLY believe man-made global warming is real or not, governments around the world should pull all funding from its research. Scientists should be required to fund the research on their own, or raise the money from private donations. Something tells me there'll be a lot less believers, and politicians/celebrities pushing this nonsense. How could it hurt? If its real we cant really do anything anyway. If not, then problem solved.
THEORIGINALEXSCAPER 1 month ago
Unlike the Unified Theory of Evolution where 99% of biologists agree, anthropogenic global warming has many dissenters. There is general agreement on data that the earth is in a warming stage but stark disagreement on whether this is caused by mankind. Natural global warming deniers seem to be more politically motivated than anything else. This video is spot on target. Good post!
FaganRoberts 1 month ago
@FaganRoberts actually the concecus on AGW and Evolution are very comparable as long you ask within the field. once you include just all scinetists regardless of their feld, wich scienece deniers like to do.. you get alot people that disagree in both cases. but similar is also that those that opose the concencus do merely try to poke a hole in an accpeted theory and do never publish an alternative hypothesis that can be tested, in both AGW and Evolution.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur If you'll look at the varied scientists who study and are experts in the field of climatology you'll find that most of them are split on AGW. The great consensus among them is that we are in a slight global warming trend, particularly since the Little Ice Age of the Late Medieval period and of course, climate changes all the time. The unfalsifiable hypothesis is that it can be attributed to mankind. Therein the controversy lies. And in the faith of those who believe it anthropogenic.
FaganRoberts 1 month ago
@FaganRoberts nonsense. the concencus is that there is a Climate Change in recent decades and that it is do to the risining CO² levels do to the industrialization.
Also is AGW not a unfalsifiable hypothesis, it is actually already considered a theory and not a hypothesis anymore, and surely it never was a unfalsifiable hypothesis.
and a concencus far above 90% is in no way split. As soon anyone discovers a Natural cause that explains the current warming, AGW is falsified.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Current sunspot cycles that are increasing even planets like Mar's climate. The fact we are still coming out of the last ice age, of which over 6 ice ages having happened in the past. After we peak our global temp. we will go back into the next ice age of the well documented cyclic global temperature change.
Psychodegu 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu the sun is not more active, actually less active.
what is your source? we are not coming out of an ice age, we are in an interglacial phase, and our CO2 output is making sure we are not heading towards another glaciation period.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur I just gave you 2 reasons for an increase in global temperature independent of CO2, that I have read in science journal publications. Asking me to show a source when your spouting off a lot of stuff and assuring us with "consensus" isn't showing any sources either. I'm not spending hours of my time tracking science papers that show alternate reasons or factors to global temperature change.
Psychodegu 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu i can easely show you a source for that concencus
pnas org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 full pdf+html
can you pls cite your science papers that claim that the current sunspot cycle is causeing the warming pls?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur I don't know if I'm copying you links and adding dots to the correct locations, but I'm not getting any web pages. Or if I do it is just a text document of data, with no idea of units or collection method or anything, basically useless.
Psychodegu 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu solarscience msfc nasa gov/greenwch shtml
here you will find all you need. so where is your data that made you conclude it is the sun and that the sun is currently more active?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu solarscience msfc nasa gov/greenwch/spot_num txt
here is the NASA sunspot data, can you show me that alleged increase in sunspot cycle that cause the warming pls?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur Also keep in mind some of these ice ages were happening before most of the Carbon was sequestered as oil or coal. So at some point the fossil fuels didn't exist to decrease the available C02 and yet we still had ice ages. Kinda sounds like BS that you think even burning a little bit of the worlds fossil fuel could stop the next ice age.
Psychodegu 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu there are several reasons for ice ages and glaciation periods. your simplistic view on this science tells me that you do not understand even the basics of it.
you do not even know what an ice age is and what a glaciation period and interglacial periods are. why should i listen to you instead of the climate scientists?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu don't you think that the current ice age, the Quaternary glaciation, would have to end before we talk about the next ice age?
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
@Aanthanur That kinda the point since were still in the interglacial period, we could expect the temperatures to be increasing until its zenith, then then we start toward the next ice age. Since we know we are in the warming interglacial period, it would be silly not to expect temperatures to be increasing, also sea level rising is also linked to the interglacial period.
Psychodegu 3 weeks ago
@Psychodegu we are not in a natural warming period. what drove the temperature average on the levels we have is actually the CO2 imbalance coming from burning fossil fuels. Non of the natural factor can account for the rise in temperatures. You must either think climatologists are dumb or conspired across the world. i think thy are neither of the two.
Aanthanur 3 weeks ago
There are scientists to this day that dispute the theory of evolution, the kinetic-molecular theory, cell theory etc. However, that doesn't take away from the validity of those theories and the overall consensus in academia. As a scientist, I would never assert with 100% certainty that man-made Global Warming exists. I simply believe that until significant evidence for another explanation is found, we should not be so foolish to dismiss Global Warming simply on political grounds.
SniperCat30 1 month ago
99% of scientists agree on man-made Global Warming. People like to argue that Global Warming is just a "theory." But, if you actually know anything about science or the scientific process, you'll know that theories in science are assertions that are backed my volumes and volumes of empirical evidence and observations. Theories in science are the closest thing to the "truth". Therefore, in my opinion, disputing man-made Global Warming is synonymous to disputing the theory of relativity.
SniperCat30 1 month ago
@SniperCat30 Wrong it is 97% and that came from asking only 79 scientist.
busguy100 1 month ago
@SniperCat30 No, it's more like 60%. And of those terms as the IPCC scientists, it's probably only 60% are scientists ......
Connykol 1 month ago
Wow the maker of this movie must be retarded.
godsentyes 1 month ago
@godsentyes I'll mount your head on my wall!
hYperion093 1 month ago
This video is bullshit from both sides
skisheavenly 1 month ago
The scientist that deny AGW are wierdo right wing religio nutcases
skisheavenly 1 month ago
At worst the melting of all the ice caps mean at most a 30ft sea level increase...
sure it will be hot and a lot of Florida will be underwater, but its their own fault for buying that land there and will scream for FEMA to buy them a new house.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid 10% of the world's population lives in areas that are less than 30ft above sea level.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@gimmethegepgun they best start moving inland then, why should I have to pay for their lack of foresight.
Personally I think a Vienna like Manhattan would be fun, and its not like land reclamation couldn't compensate if people really didn't want their expensive real estate under water.
I have no sympothy for people who build their damn houses in flood plains though, only reason they do it is because FEMA keeps paying their ludicrous flood insurance.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid Lack of foresight for building in natural harbors, near the ocean, etc, which allow for trade and food, which brought society to where it is today?
You don't seem to understand that most of these places ARE NOT in flood plains. They are simply near the ocean, and in general are perfectly safe from water.
Granted, I have no sympathy for the flood plains issue either, but that's not global warming related.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@gimmethegepgun I thought the science was proven that they will indeed flood, so we are warning them at a minimum of 20 years in advance, if they can't move their asses by then...no sympathy.
I suppose they aren't 'flood plains' in the strict definition though.
Dethreid 1 month ago
@Dethreid Thing is, it's still an extremely large portion of the population that needs to be relocated if that rise happens, along with many of the major industrial, commercial, etc etc stuff that is also contained within those cities.
And remember, 10% of the world's population right now is 700 million people. That's more than double the population of the US.
gimmethegepgun 1 month ago
@Dethreid Try 130 feet you idiot
skisheavenly 1 month ago
@skisheavenly actually, you were correct in that I mistakenly said that if ALL the ice melted.
If that happened it would result in 200+ feet increases.
But the amount of warming that would be required to melt the entirety of Antarctica would be impossible not even in 1000 years.
so at worst in 100 years we see 30 feet increase is what I meant.
Dethreid 1 month ago
The belief of global warming is true. But the warming is not from carbon emmision. It is from hells fires when those the love the creation and not the creator are thrown our of heaven. They'll just think is a bad case of global warming.
tock101 2 months ago
And secondly. Even if yr right, and Global Warming IS a myth. That doesn't change the fact that there is a limited amount of oil in the earth for us to use. Which means that it's going to run out, and where going to have to find an alternative source of fuel sooner or later anyway. So we'll still need a new fuel source when we pass peak oil in about 10 years from now. So even if yr right, yr still wrong. Oil is not an endless resource
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
Firstly. The problem with the Global Warming skeptics is that they want us to believe that it's possible to dump 30 million metric tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year, year after year after year. And that nothings gona happen as a result? That it wont have any bad effects at all? I find that more than a little hard to swallow. It sounds completely ridiculous to me...
MartianManhunter187 2 months ago
I feel like slapping the woman. I believe Global Warming is true, but shes just being an ass.
130cookies 2 months ago
@130cookies I agree. Never approach an argument about AGW about how much money it will cost and the moral basis. I am a senior citizen therefore the effects of AGW are not a problem for me. I agree with woman in this sense that continued use of fossil fuel will destroy the planet we know even though planet earth will go on with different lifeforms.
skisheavenly 1 month ago
I heard that global warming was somehow connected to the Sun.
That would seem to make sense while at the same time explaining the global warming on other planets.
I went outside the other day and, MAN... the sun sure felt warm to me!
...just food for thought.
MrSpinward 2 months ago
@MrSpinward The answer to your question is NO
skisheavenly 1 month ago
Yes... you have arrived at fucknuckle central!
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@nibblerseven @Slartman2 @Uristenzor The channel ar pure trolling. Don't Waste your time on this troll.
Culturealimprovement 2 months ago
(cont.)
Also, if you say that I just proved myself wrong here or whatever, I would like to bring up a study which was financed by the Koch brothers (long time opponents of the global warming theory, and assholes in general, but that is beside the point). In the end, the study did in fact find out that global warming is in fact happening.
nibblerseven 2 months ago
Okay, already, at 0:06 I have issues with this. 95% of the environmental scientists around the world believe in global warming. You might site that there is still that 5%, but it wouldnt be that hard to find some of them willing to take a bribe from a a large corporation or the like. At the same time, it would be equally easy to bribe scientists to be on the side of supporting the global warming theory, but not 95% of them.
nibblerseven 2 months ago
ok if you need more tornados just dont give a fuck about global warming..
Uristenzor 2 months ago
I agree with this video. It is correct. Not just becaise I say so. I am often wrong. But only when I want to be. People who drink water die. Therefore no matter what the scientists say, you must drink beer.Beer can not cause global warming if itis drunk within the state it was not made. Even if they can not prove global warming is not happening. Liberals are stupid. But I am not a liberal. No liberal has ever proven anything that wasn't later disproved. Liberals often contradict themselves too.
sydneybb2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is such a bad piece of dialogue. Only deniers are as dumb as the 'liberal' is portrayed. Education anyone?
bernzeppi 3 months ago 5
@bernzeppi Please, Al Gore is a hypocrite and full of crap. Science and Geological History has clearly shown versions of science other than Al Gore's.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf No they haven't.
Science and data have only supported his view.
Witness 13 of the last 15 years are the hottest on record.
Witness direct measurement of blocked IR in the CO2 band from satellites.
and a host of other things.
Your Gore conspiracy theories are pathetic.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi Conspiracy or not the idea that Co2 is killing our planet is bullshit. Anyone whose taken a standard biology class knows that all plants and trees need Co2 to breathe so that they can produce Oxygen for us to breathe in return. Just because science falls in lines with his ideas doesn't mean they are 100% correct. According to Al Gore the snow melting on my front lawn means the death of us all. He isn't a very green person either.He's a hypocrite and a moron.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Who said CO2 is killing the planet?
It is causing global warming... it will cause sea level rise that is already eating into our coastlines.
You can't get insurance for seaside properties anymore.
CO2 is plant food is such a boneheaded uneducated argument.
Get an education
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi I did, in my Science biology class I learned that cells in humans, animals, and plants need either oxygen or carbon dioxide. So it is a very valid arguement. Let me ask you this, if global warming isn't only natural, then tell me, how do you think the Ice Age ended? Here's a hint, the ice didn't suddenly decide it was tired of freezing the earth and just pack up and leave....
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@bernzeppi I should be more elaborate. I believe in Global Warming as a natural event, I just don't believe in Al Gore's version of Global Warming.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Your elaboration is appreciated.
It clearly shows you are not abreast of the evidence that supports anthropogenic CO2 causing global warming.
New techniques, same results:
bbc . co . uk/news/science-environment-15373071
before you open your big buffoon mouth, get a handle on the issues
news . bbc . co . uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286 . stm
And forget Al Gore... he is not the issue
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi Al Gore is an issue, a valid one. He is a con-man exaggerating natural enviromental problems so that he can get rich off it. I have yet to see any phsyical experiments that prove that Co2 destroys our atomosphere. But let's say for that sake of our arguement that it does. Then why is the only depleted portion of the atomosphere over Anartica, one of the most dormant places on Earth, why is it not over Asia, or South America?
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Ozone depletion is has nothing to do with CO2.
You are an idiot!
Have you been told that before?
If not you need to know... you're a 12 year old or an old fogey who never went to school.
Al Gore is NOT the issue, CO2 emissions is.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@bernzeppi So wait, Co2 has nothing to do with Ozone depletion but it's the main issue? Get your damn story straight, or are childish insults all you have for rebuttal rather than facts?
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf That's right... heres a fact sheet on ozone
depleteion.
theozonehole . com/fact . htm
Excerpt:
"The ozone hole is a completely different phenomenon to global warming, however there are links between them. The ozone hole is caused by ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere, which have been produced by industry, for example CFCs."
Read it!
Now fuck off... you are full of nonsense.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
Comment removed
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@bernzeppi Scratch my previous comment. I have not seen one single phsyical experiment that proves that chemicals like that destroy our atomosphere. People have been burning fires for thousands of years using things like oil, gas, and other flamable materials. There are just too many incosistancies for me to beleive it.
CyberTechWolf 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf You can't even spell.
Fuck off.
Get an education before you continue making an ass of yourself.
bernzeppi 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf CFC decays into a free Cl atom.
Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
Then, ClO + O3 -> Cl + 2O2.
Meaning, this free chlorine atom sticks around and breaks up ozone as a catalyst. It also takes an extremely long time for this chlorine to get attached to another molecule on a more permanent basis, thus removing it from the catalytic cycle.
In short, free chlorine fucks up ozone royally and is produced by CFC in the atmosphere.
gimmethegepgun 2 months ago
@CyberTechWolf Really, all you'd have to do to find experiments showing this stuff is actually LOOK UP CFCs.
gimmethegepgun 2 months ago
watch?v=0VMpes8EyIw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
bernzeppi 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If anyone wants realible videos on climate change, watch Potholer54s videos.
IonianGarden 3 months ago
Why not just have an actual debate, or conversation with another person instead of making all these stupid animations. >.<
Arguing with yourself doesn't make you right.
mybroisawizz 3 months ago
@mybroisawizz
That's the beauty of straw men, you can always be right if you invent your own opponents
Slartman2 3 months ago
lol I'm a Liberal and I found this funny. people need to chill. if you disagree with the other side then just be the bigger man... and make fun of them amongst your liberal friends
CStheoneandonly 3 months ago
This is hysterical. Wikipedia says scientists vote on the laws of physics. Look up Dr. Lindzen and practice reading.
getgene 3 months ago
this is complete and utter bullcrap. 98% of all climate scientists agree with global warming and 90% of all scientists do (from wikipedia). There has been a proven increase in overall global temperature and in extreme weather events. Taking a little comic style that was used to expose the errors in the economic system has been twisted and turned against actual science. This makes me sick.
Richs2387 3 months ago
@Richs2387
``98% of all climate scientists agree with global warming``
But if the IPCC are funding these 98% Climatologist`s checks,what would u expect them to say.
budliite 3 months ago
@budliite your joking right? the majority of all the climate scientists who contribute to the ipcc reports are part of universities and research universities. They don't just do climate research many of them do other research, believe it or not most of them are specialist oceanographers, meteorologists, geophysicists and geochemists. They don't need funding from the ipcc, there is enough money out there as it is.
Richs2387 3 months ago
@Richs2387
"your joking right? "
No
" the majority of all the climate scientists who contribute to the ipcc reports are part of universities and research universities"
And they do these reports for free?
budliite 3 months ago
@budliite
Actually, none of the IPCC authors get paid a dime
Slartman2 3 months ago
@Slartman2 The IPCC generates a lot of revenue for certain people...
UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'
TERI pays Pachauri's salary, benefits from his IPCC decisions
timesonline*co*uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
Pachauri's Lucrative World of Climate Change
thenewamerican*com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/2683-pachauris-lucrative-world-of-climate-change
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
You are mistaken. Pachauri also gets paid $0, just like all other IPCC staff. He also submitted himself, voluntarily, to be audited by the accounting firm KPMG. Their report showed that his finances were spotless and there was no conflict of interest.
guardian (*) co (*) uk/environment/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-cleared-financial-dealings
Slartman2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slartman2
"Pachauri also gets paid $0, just like all other IPCC"
I like to know how u know none of them don't get paid through grants and incentives?
Or would that be assumptions?
Would it b safe to say u believe a climatologist not agreeing with MMGW is funded by oil companies?
budliite 3 months ago
One other question.
When Maurice strong attended the first meeting at the UN for climate change in 88,why did he drag Edmond Rothschild along?
budliite 3 months ago
@Slartman2 Pachauri "reviewed" by:
In 2003, KPMG was investigated by the U.S. attorneys' office for accounting fraud. KPMG has agreed to pay $456 Million to avoid an indictment from the US Department of Justice.
KPMG admitted to setting up fake tax shelters for it's wealthiest clients, which helped them evade paying $2.5 Billion in tax dollars throughout the 1990's. KMPG was accused with the obstruction of justice as investigators tried to piece together the facts of the accounting scandal.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@Slartman2 Funny, it wasn't an audit at all...
6.1.1 This report is based on information provided to us by TERI, Dr. Pachauri and his tax counsel,Mr. Ashok Khurana (M/s A.K. Khurana & Associates, Chartered Accountants). Work done by us was as considered necessary at the given point in time. Third party evidence has not been verified. We have relied on both oral and documentary evidence.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@Slartman2
6.1.3 Our work constituted limited review, and the scope of our work was significantly different from that of an audit and cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the same level of assurance as an audit.
You got taken, hook line and sinker.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
Pauchauri makes about ₤40k a year from his job, a salary far below what he could earn with a CV like his. He was selected as the IPCC chairman (a role in which, again, he earns absolutely nothing) because he was a conservative and he wasn't as outspoken as other scientists on global warming. Do you have any EVIDENCE that he's actually corrupt like Willie Soon, Chris Monckton, or Pat Michaels are? Or is he guilty until proven innocent?
Slartman2 2 months ago
@Slartman2 So, what Pachauri is doing is setting up the systems and getting himself and his buddies in a position to reap the rewards. Not unlike:
Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration. Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money
examiner*com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining
On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
freerepublic*com/focus/f-news/2214213/posts
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1
None of those links work.
Slartman2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slartman2 >> none of the IPCC authors get paid a dime
Michael Mann was the guy who crafted the "hockey stick" graph for the IPCC. He sure got paid off for his part.
Climate-Gate Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half A Million In Stimulus Money. Author of "hockey stick" graph rewarded for his part in climate-gate scheme
friskaliberal*wordpress*com/2010/01/14/climate-gate-scientist-michael-mann-award-half-a-million-in-stimulus-money/
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
This 97% climatologists agreeing on MMGW.
Anyone know if theses climatologists were working for the IPCC in this so called survey?
budliite 3 months ago
@budliite
The reason I'm asking is because I thought I'd read somewhere this number comes from 75 of 77 climatologists working for the IPCC agreeing on MMGW.
budliite 3 months ago
Mankind is certainly creating "climate change". For example, deforesting the Amazon to produce Green BioFuels is creating a new desert. So, we should have 100% consensus on that rather distorted framing of the issue.
That's an entirely separate issue from planetary temperature, which is controlled by the Sun.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 a good 90% of climatologists from a good majority of industrialized nations accept that not only is climate change a reality but it is caused mostly by humans.
myco578 3 months ago
paid up scientists lol
russ9356 3 months ago
About 96% - 97% of scientists believe humans are contributing to global warming. Im afraid the majority rules.
noblered5 3 months ago
@noblered5 Majority rules? Tell that to Galileo.
If science ever became "majority rules", you should be afraid. Very. But it hasn't.
Naomi Oreskes claims consensus on AGW. Review of published scientists shows less than half endorse it, greater number reject it.
97% claim is false.
dailytech*com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
VerumJusticia 3 months ago
@VerumJusticia Science is the majority rules. The ideas shared by 97% of the scientific community (yes it is 97%. Im not sure how reliable that is but if you can find me another group of people who conforms that then i will believe you) over rule the ideas shared by the 3% minority. That doesnt mean to say that the 3% is prohibited from doing research and finding enough evidence to convince everyone and make them the majority. That is what galileo did after all.
noblered5 3 months ago
@noblered5 >> Science is the majority rules.
No. Any attempt to "rule" in science is counter-scientific. Scientists are getting angry at being ruled by those with an agenda.
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society. Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
climatedepot*com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 The IDEAS of the majority "rule" in that more people believe them to be correct. Scientists have no power to "rule" over other scientists.
noblered5 3 months ago
Comment removed
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
without CO2 every plant on the planet would die, planets use CO2 to produc oxygen, in the entire history of the planet earth has cooled and warmed many times, this is a nature cycle, the whole "globel warming" or "climatic change" is a ponzie scheme.
DesRaven 3 months ago
@DesRaven Is there evidence of the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle? Is there evidence to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature? Is there a reason for a 150ppm increase in CO2 in the past 150 years, whereas it took 100k years (100,000) for the rise of just 120ppm millions of years ago? This includes the fall of 120ppm.
Tactic11 3 months ago
@Tactic11 >> Is there evidence of the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle?
Sure there is. We launched some very expensive satellites to get it.
The Sun's output has declined a very tiny amount since 2003, from about 1362 w/m2 to 1360.5 w/m2. That's why no year since 2005 has been warmer than 2005 despite rising CO2, which is a tiny trace gas at 0.038% in the atmosphere.
All those claims about CO2 are proven... wrong.
VerumJusticia 3 months ago
It seems to me the recent years of cooling have done substantial damage to food supplies, caused power outages...
Aren't we pumping out enough CO2??
VerumJusticia 3 months ago
Sure - the Leftist calls itself a 'liberal' as camouflage. Leftists constantly relabel themselves, change their rallying color (Red to Green), to whatever is convenient to manipulate public perception in their favor.
"Liberal" used to mean someone who stood for individual Liberty.
Not since Leftists co-opted the word.
AmericaSpeakOut1 3 months ago
this is full of so many logical fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. For starters, the liberal is a complete strawman
krazjazzfan 3 months ago
Yeah, cuz he and his cronies (Obama, Soros, Gorbachev) are sure fucking the rest of us!
They are pillaging the treasury and running off with the loot.
Tar and Feathers, anyone?
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Fuck Al Gore!!!
popshotizbeast 4 months ago
"It's different this time..."
xD
nyanxrawr 4 months ago
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
-Darth Vader
kutless45 4 months ago
When the Bush Admin tried to put our nation on the course to clean, renewable Hydrogen as the mainstream fuel, the "global warming" crowd went ballistic to stop it.
They can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen.
If Bush was allowed to fix the "problem", they would lose the cash flow to buy their lavish mansions (al Gore) and pour our cash into their Party coffers.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
This video is really sad. I just hope one day people will one day be able to differenciate between propaganda and facts. In the mean time I have lost all hope for humanity.
RealFreak69 4 months ago
@RealFreak69 It's hard not to lose hope for humanity. The monumental injustice is that the propaganda is winning. Entire groups of people are willingly believing spin and lies from puppetmasters. Confusion on the issue means we're not doing anything, and we're about to get blasted by the twin forces of peak oil (first) and climate change (second). We have to change course - but we won't until it's too late to avoid devastating economic and social upheaval. We are blind fools - zombies of media.
jimbills 4 months ago
This is such a straw man. Global warming will not end the world and no one has ever argued that. But the polar ice caps are melting and this will result in flooding and endangering the wildlife that live there. But will also create furtile land and end droughts in other areas. It is not entirally human caused but we do impact it. Even so renewable energy sources need to be incouraged before oil prices get too high.
mancno1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Ook, Al Gore, ook! Aak, aak, George Soros ook Obama aak!! Fling.
Pointless.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills Ha ha! Are you trying out for a role in the next Planet of the Apes movie?
Well, you seem to have had a melt-down. Come back if you're interested in exploring what these schemers are doing. There's so much more to see!
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration - Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
examiner. com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining
Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Scheme He Is Now Pushing Through Congress - On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
freerepublic. com/focus/f-news/2214213/posts
Think About It
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Obama camp closely linked with corn ethanol. Tom Daschle on board of directors of three ethanol companies.
Industry endorsed by candidate has provided some of his top advisers
msnbc .msn.com/id/25324195/
Obama Cuts Hydrogen Research Funds - Beneficiary is Ethanol
thetruthaboutcars. com/2009/05/obama-cuts-hydrogen-research-funds/
Al Gore is among those making bank off destroying our food supplies, rain forests and ecosystems to "go green".
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
And man, hydrogen is insanely expensive and is a fuel carrier - not a fuel source. It requires a source like methane (or biofuels). It is decades away from being viable. Jay Leno can afford it, though.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills Hydrogen is running cars and buses on the streets today. Even Jay Leno drives a Hydrogen car. As you SHOULD know, the economy of scale is what makes it even cheaper.
It is viable right now and has been in use as a vehicle fuel for a good, long time.
Ford E450 Shuttle buses powered by Quantum hydrogen injectors
autobloggreen. com/2007/01/25/ford-e450-shuttle-buses-powered-by-quantum-hydrogen-injectors/
There are plenty more.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills Geothermal and other sustainable electric sources provide the energy to produce Hydrogen fuel. And, they won't run out for ... well, the entire existence of the human species most likely.
It is far better to burn Hydrogen fuel, which starts as pure water and returns to pure water, than to burn up our food supplies and destroy ecosystems for the "green" agenda.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Bush had made real progress on converting our nation to Hydrogen. We have H-fuel stations in major cities and H-powered cars and buses running around. Even Jay Leno drives one.
This is the real reason Democrats went ballistic, trotted out Gore's movie then used their control of our "green" tax dollars to derail Hydrogen and finance their own investments in environmentally devastating BioFuels: They can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen!
Democrats derailed our clean energy progress.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 @AmericaSpeakOut1 Okay, man. When in doubt, resort to rhetoric. You're keenly attuned to the conservative blogosphere. I personally think it's created a cartoonish view of reality for you, and I don't understand why anyone would prefer to live like that, but have at it. Put on that shining armor of truth, justice, and hand-picked factoids handed down from corporate-funded think tanks and repeated ad nauseum on Beck, Limbaugh, and the GWPF and go kick some commie arse! Yeah!
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills Whoa, hold on there. If you doubt anything I'm saying, just ask for details. I will happily provide them.
This is about forming a worldview based on facts. If you have any intellectual curiosity, please ask for them.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I can totally find your "sources" by simple internet searches, and I can track their original source and where they end up. It's all spin designed to reinforce a particular worldview. I'd ask you to step out of that box and look at the world from other perspectives. Study the actual data on AGW, and look at it from the perspective that it 'might' actually be real. But you're totally convinced that you see the world accurately, so okay.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills Yes, it's easy to find the sources of these FACTS.
I urge you to open your mind and consider actually DOING what the "green" folks claim they want. However, they are the ones who actively try to prevent us from becoming energy independent - and from converting to sustainable, carbon-free Hydrogen fuel.
Obama Cuts Hydrogen Research Funds - Beneficiary is Ethanol
thetruthaboutcars. com/2009/05/obama-cuts-hydrogen-research-funds/
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Did you actually read the 'thetruthaboutcars' article? Obama cut funding for hydrogen research from $169 million to $69 million because it can't be implemented as efficiently short-term as ethanol - which is clearly true, unless you assume that we can replace the entire nation's infrastructure and vehicle fleet on a dime (which in reality would take decades and cost trillions). Cutting a research budget from $169 mill to $69 mill is hardly killing the tech as a long-term goal.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills The claim that Hydrogen can't be implemented as efficiently short-term is just smoke and mirrors. Hydrogen is already in use as a motor fuel and is THE ONLY fuel that can replace petroleum.
Ethanol is about the most environmentally devastating "alternative" the Left can inflict upon us - and it destroys our food supplies and water resources.
Hydrogen works - right now. They are fighting to stop clean Hydrogen - to enrich themselves via biofuels and carbon offsets.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills "unless you assume that we can replace the entire nation's infrastructure and vehicle fleet on a dime (which in reality would take decades and cost trillions)"
The Bush plan was a 12 year transition, with private corporations putting their own money into developing the infrastructure and vehicles. Shell, GM, Chevron, Toyota, Ford, Boeing and many others got on board.
That's when Democrats trotted out Al Gore's movie and frantically derailed Hydrogen in favor of destructive Biofuels.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 How do you only look at a handful of facts and ignore all the contradictory facts? It must be exhausting. I don't understand why you'd want to. On AGW (assuming it's real, and it is), what we decide as a society will affect humanity for countless generations, and the politics of the day won't count for piss in the Pacific. Healthy skepticism is always good - but then there are people who still question the theory of gravity (let alone evolutionary theory).
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills There are people who don't realize the Sun has been the driving force for Earth temperature change all along. It still is. That's why there has been no warming since 2005 - the Sun's energy output stopped increasing. You can see the raw data from the SORCE satellite at:
SORCE satellite data plot - combined Total Solar Irradiance
lasp. colorado. edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimbills What the SORCE satellite revealed about recent temperature change (or lack thereof) tracks nicely with historical records on solar forced warming and cooling. This is common knowledge...
Solar Variation - shows sun driving Medieval Climate Optimum, Little Ice Age, Recent warming
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Solar_variation
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills As for R&D, the Bush Plan opened up hundreds of geothermal sites to generate electricity to produce Hydrogen. Also, the "Isopentane" geothermal systems were developed that don't require a geological hot-spot. Our nation WAS on the track to clean, abundant energy...
Proof the systems can scale up:
Idaho geothermal power plant goes online. Self-contained isopentane unit to generate 13 megawatts.
homelandsecuritynewswire. com/idaho-geothermal-power-plant-goes-online
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 I have nothing against moving to a wholly renewable energy source, and you have shown zero indication that Obama or the Democrats have taken hydrogen or geothermal off the table. To say that hydrogen can be implemented as easily and large-scale as ethanol RIGHT NOW is simply ludicrous. And no, hydrogen is not the only solution - you fail to account for electric and next-gen hybrid cars. That solution would also be much cheaper than conversion to a hydrogen economy...
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills Battery-electric is not going to replace petroleum - takes way too long to "fuel" the car. Hydrogen can be fueled right at the pump by the driver and is every day.
A whole LOT of money and effort is being put into ecologically devastating biofuels, destroying rain forests, filling the pockets of the carbon-tax crowd.
If Bush's plan were followed, the conversion to Hydrogen would be nearly complete now.
But they can't carbon-tax the Hydrogen...
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 You're treating the AGW issue as if it's a liberal vs. conservative thing or as an argument to be won as if we're in high school debate class. That's the great shame of this. I despair for humanity given its amazing propensity for self-deception and inability to distinguish a fake problem (R vs. D) from a major and consequential problem (AGW). We're just monkeys on a beach flinging rocks at each other while the tide rushes in. Pointless.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills I find it strange that you see it as a liberal vs conservative thing. This is about science and seeking the facts to determine whether what we are told is true or not. The greatest motivator for lying (and worse) in human history is the opportunity for amoral people to get their hands on someone else's money.
Al Gore is already buying lavish, energy-wasting mansions with his cut of the take.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills It is not a matter of political bias to point out that GW Bush put our nation on the path to a clean, carbon-free replacement for petroleum. He got the willing cooperation of energy and manufacturing companies who put their own money into developing infrastructure and vehicles, thereby minimizing the burden on the taxpayer. We now have H-fuel stations and vehicles running around, thanks to his work.
Democrats' focus is carbon taxation and wealth redistribution, not clean energy.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ...The 'no warming since 2005' is also complete spin - 2010 TIED with 2005 for the warmest year on record during a solar minimum (which should result in much lower temps, and hasn't, and doesn't address CO2 buildup in the atmosphere). 9 of the 10 past years have been the hottest since the 19th century. A natural fluctuation away from the solar minimum WILL result in higher temps, and then folks like you will be choking for an explanation.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills 2010 tied for surface temperature readings due to the El Nino - for a three month period. The rest of the year was colder than average. That was just the spread of previously warmed water over the surface - which if you understand physics allowed more heat to radiate into space and COOL the oceans.
Ocean levels fell 6mm in 2010 as oceans cooled and contracted.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills So, we have no warming since 2005 (and El Nino skewed the "average" for 2010) due to - drumroll - reduced solar forcing. We also know why the rather alarming cooling period ended around 1980 and thawing resumed:
"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade" - NASA
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
What the Democrats/Communists frantically derailed... our chance at clean, abundant energy!
Bush Administration Refines Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives (2004)
america. gov/st/washfile-english/2004/March/20040304165626CMretroP0.794903.html
Obama Cuts Hydrogen Research Funds - Beneficiary is Ethanol
thetruthaboutcars. com/2009/05/obama-cuts-hydrogen-research-funds/
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@Undergroundhiphop1 How does the reduction in solar forcing, as demonstrated by the SORCE satellite, relate to the fact that there has been no global warming since 2005?
Ocean levels fell 6mm in 2010. What two influences during 2010 allowed oceans to cool and contract?
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@Undergroundhiphop1 You really won't get that here - sorry. The good folks that oppose even the basic idea that man might have some influence over the climate view the topic as a purely political issue. The actual science is never really addressed. When it is, it's to attack scientists - whom they see as furthering a global scam to bilk money (via science grants, carbon taxes, etc.) You would be viewed by such idealogues as just a pawn in that scheme.
jimbills 5 months ago
@jimbills Of course man influences climate. Wiping out the Amazon Rain Forest to produce "Green" fuels (literally burning up food supplies in the gas tank) is having a TREMENDOUS effect on climate. The "Green" folks are creating a new Sahara-style desert out of the formerly lush rain forest.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 Ah, finally! An actual topic only mildly infused with rhetoric. So, the desertification of the Amazon is only due to George Soros and his ilk out to make a buck on biofuels? It has nothing to do with the cattle industry, the lumber industry, or the major droughts the area has had the past few years? No doubt the drought at least was caused by George Soros's big head sucking all the air out of Brazil. But yes, stripping the Amazon for biofuels makes zero sense long term....
jimbills 4 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 ..As far as biofuels, I agree that they are a shell game (with the possible exception of algal). And some people like Soros are making a lot of money from it. But in your worldview, biofuels exist because of greed and liberals. In my worldview, biofuels exist primarily as a means of offsetting trade deficits from importing oil. They aren't so much a green issue as an energy security issue. Example: Bush and ethanol. Peak oil is here, and we're grasping at straws to put it off.
jimbills 4 months ago
@jimbills No!
The people pushing BioFuels intentionally squashed Bush's progress on converting our nation to Hydrogen as our main fuel and Geothermal to produce the electricity to produce the Hydrogen. Obama went out of his way to drive American oil producers out of the Gulf and invited PetroBras (Brazil, Soros investment) to come take our oil off the Lousiana coast.
Their goal is to make the USA more dependent on foreign oil by disrupting our own ability to mass-produce reliable alternatives.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
@jimbills The folks pushing environmentally devastating BioFuels also worked frantically to derail Bush's work to convert the nation to Hydrogen, generated by Geothermal electricity. Obama chased US oil drillers out of the Gulf and invited PetroBras (Brazil, Soros investment) to come take our oil off the coast of Louisiana.
The GOAL of the 'green' folks is to destroy our energy self-sufficiency.
AmericaSpeakOut1 4 months ago
Fuck me this is idiotic. TAKE IT DOWN MORON - you are being JAWDROPPINGLY irresponsible, and read some books on the subject, oh and look up 'straw man argument', and 'peer reviewed evidence'...
StunnedByStupidity 5 months ago
beautiful
bill4long 5 months ago
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society
Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
climatedepot. com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago
The real problem for scientists who work on the taxpayer rolls, as do their institutions, is that they want to keep their jobs. A few have had enough...
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Climate Science completely corrupted by money from joining the "warming" scam
thegwpf. org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago
97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure. stop destroying our world for your oil profit.
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 Not really.
Naomi Oreskes claims consensus on AGW. Review of published scientists shows less than half endorse it, greater number reject it.
97% claim is false.
dailytech. com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Naomi's falsehood came from the nature of the "study" - that had very few respondents.
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago
@AmericaSpeakOut1 here are more complete polls then the one you provided citing the exact opposite
sciencedaily. com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
wikipedia. org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
thats not even including all the world scientific organizations that endorse human caused global warming like NASA the EPA the U.N. etc.
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 Unfortunately, government-funded "scientific" organizations are being paid taxpayer dollars to play politics rather than stick to the science.
For example:
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever resigns from American Physical Society
Disgusted over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears
\climatedepot. com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
AmericaSpeakOut1 5 months ago