This whole video could be a textbook case for the lack of scientific method. Genuine scientists do not present data or their ideas in this manner. Science does not choose sides like this guy does, it simply changes it's theories according to the data. Even if what this video is saying is true,.. it is being presented in a "Fox News" manner which makes me distrust it.
I liked everything in the vid until the end when he tried to deny that the video is propaganda. I mean even if its good propaganda (which I think this is) it still presents itself in this way. The narrator should have left out that last part out.
It's easy, if you watch Fox news you're not interested in facts, so you'll be a climate change denier. Why are you trying to educate the Fox news crowd? They're stupid enough to shill for oil billionaires who want to destroy the middle class and create a system of slavery for them to live out their miserable lives in.
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...
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen
@greenman3610 Just remember scientists recommended crazy things like alchemy and bleeding oh and Cane Toads be imported to Australia Hmmm Maybe Science gets it wrong sometimes. What about aspartemine in Diet Coke scientific cancer causer which the scientists still maintain is harmless. Maybe Lindzen is right time will tell.
well, this ball has been in play for 150 years, and we've been pretty sure about this since the 50s.
If there is another explanation, then we have to come up with a whole new theory as to, for instance, why our heat seeking missiles have been shooting straight for 60 years, and why industrial co2 lasers work the way they do. You'd need to basically overturn much of our understanding of physics, astronomy, and cosmology as well.
@greenman3610 One other thing Greenman in Australia our cheif climate scientific advisor made the claim a few years ago that the Dams which supply our main cities will run dry and never fill up again. The govt embarked on construction of huge desal plants. Guess what Greenman the rains returned and our dams have recovered some over 100 % full. He also said that the ski feilds wouldnt see snow again, wrong. Greenman I am skeptical of the science!
as I recall, your country was covered in floods the size of France and Germany combined, with catastrophic flooding in some places, drought and dust storms in others.
crop failures in Australia, along with other grain producing countries, have contributed to record high global food prices.
specific predictions by individuals are often wrong, but the generic predicitions, supported in the literature, of increased extreme events, continues to be borne out.
@zoltanapril42 You missrepresent my position, I believe it is healty to question science, especially the fuzzy science of Global warming, oh sorry climate change. As Lindzen quite clearly explains the temperature predictions are built on computer models which rely on human assumptions. Oh if there is a linear relationship between warming and C02 how does science explain the observation of the past 10 years? The temperature has decreased.
As soon as someone demands for violent barbaric punishments against ANYONE, especially ones who are proving or trying to prove a scientific fact, they INSTANTLY loose all credibility from a rational point of view. Unfortunately many people still believe nut heads like "Rush" "Glen Beck"
@guydecervens - Here you go. It wasn't just a yes. Phil qualifies his answer properly, so you are misquoting.
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
@wstevenschneider Phil 'qualifies' nothing. He tried to lessen the import of his admission that there has been no global warming since 1995 and indeed a reduction since 2002. It doesn't matter how small the decline has been because it breaks the bedwetters theory that global warming is linked to the rise CO2, which has risen continually since 1995. If I am misquoting him could you quote where he says there has been global warming since 1995 please?
"Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." - Phil
"could you quote where he says there has been global warming since 1995 please?" - guy
"I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." - Phil ^
@guydecervens Also, since it was calculated from 1995 to 2009 (the present at the time of the interview) the trend wasn't statistically significant. It's 2011 now, do you suppose that the observed trend is not longer statistically significant? Starting from 1994 to 2009 it _is_ statistically significant. This demonstrates that your claim is nothing but a cherry pick.
Perhaps you don't understand statistical significance? If you knew how that was determined maybe you'd stop wetting your bed.
@guydecervens "there has been no global warming since 1995 and indeed a reduction since 2002."
The dips or "declines" as you call them are small. AGW doesn't override natural variability, it amplifies it in some instances and reduces it in others. The long-term trend of the average global temperatures continues to climb.
@guydecervens For one it's not, "YES". It's "Yes, but......a few sentences." It's called quote mining and its misrepresenting a persons speech or writing by leaving out certain portions of what the person stated to misrepresent what the person meant.
@facelessone86 So when Phil Jones said there had bee 'no statistically-significant global warming' since 1995 he really meant there had been? I can't see how I misquoted him or quote mined him.
BBC interviewer: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
Phil Jones; "YES" In fact I have heard many IPCC 'scientists' admit there has been no warming since 1995 and indeed, as Jones also admits, a slight decline since 2003.
@greenman3610 Has anyone ever called you a denier because you seem to be denying what Phil Jones said; "no statistically-significant global" since 1995.
@guydecervens Well you just quote mined again. If it is statistically insignificant from the date 1995 will you be willing to agree that it has been significant from the date 1994?
@wstevenschneider The video quote Phil correctly in that he said there has been no global warming since 1995 but then it goes on to waffle about what Phil 'believes' is the cause of it; AGW obviously! I'm sticking to the actualy facts here (sorry about that) and by facts I mean the actual global temperature, which Phil reluctantly admits has not risen. Even Phil can't DENY that fact.
@guydecervens - Oh yeah, presenting the actual facts is now waffling. Hilarious, since the only waffling going on here is your response.
Sorry, but what Greenman did was present the facts, honestly. I think I'll go with Phil's actual response and not the denialist's cherry picked, manipulated to say something else interpretation of part of Phil's response.
since you deliberately misquote what phil jones said, you either do not understand what "statistically significant" means, or you simply hope to continue to lie to yourself and others.
@yaimavol and if deniers had any sort of scientific understanding, firstly they wouldn't be deniers but they certainly wouldn't claim that scientists are all in cahoots in some sort of government conspiracy, they wouldn't mistake weather for climate, they would know the difference between oil-funded blogs and peer reviewed publications, they wouldn't feel the need to type in caps (making their argument true)...and the list goes on... ignorance is bliss & bloody frustrating.
@uknowispeaksense you're vastly over-simplifying the position of many that understand the globe has been warming, but they don't buy the carbon angle as the catalyst, and they sure as hell don't believe politicians can do anything about it. Their solution is a massive tax hike -- which tells you everything you need to know. This is a swindle like we've never seen in history. Do I deny Barbara Boxer can control the climate on this planet? You bet your ass!
@yaimavol I have had many conversations with AGW deniers and I can tell you that I am yet to meet one who actually understands how science as a process works. They think Wikipedia is a legitimate source of information and believe so-called scientists employed by Exxonmobil, the Marshall Institute etc present unbiased statistically sound scientific studies in their non- peer reviewed industry publications. They do think that if they have an unusually cold day in their hometown that AGW is false.
@yaimavol cont. I have also found that the vast majority are from the USA and think that whatever applies to the US in terms of carbon tax etc applies everywhere in the world. I for one don't believe politicians cando anyhting about it directly but if they were to listen to what the real scientists are saying and not CNN, ABC or Fox then they might be able to. The other option is to let the selfish, lazy, ignorant, greedy peopleto keep consuming and polluting the Earth. Finally that CO2 is a
@yaimavol cont. catalyst is well established in the unbiased, statistically sound, peer reviewed literature. To believe otherwise IS ignorant, ill-informed and thougtless anddemonstrates clearly the lack of scientific understanding and worse, a heavy reliance on media ignorance and sensationalism.
@uknowispeaksense over 700 scientists have dissented from the IPCC position, which means AGW is a THEORY and not a fact. I might add it is a theory backed up by computer models, ignoring a lot of time-tested forecasting methods (solar and lunar) of the kind that Piers Corbyn uses for his forecasts. He predicted a bitter cold winter this year, when all the AGW guys predicted otherwise. Which one was right? The BBC won't even interview Mr. Corbyn. What are they afraid of?
@yaimavol please tell me what the definition of a scientific theory is?you do understand that scientific theory is different to everyday layperson 'theory'? Gravity is just a theory. Evolution by sexual selection is just a theory. Albert Einstein's relativity is just a theory. As for "700 scientists" what sort of scientists? Why would you ask a weatherman about climate modelling? Why would you rely on the popular media for accurate information? Do you know the diff between weather and climate?
@uknowispeaksense to specify, we are talking about the AGW theory of carbon induced global warming. If the planet is warming then temps have to rise, which is what the whole Climategate scandal was about. Corbyn is predicting a mini-Ice Age in the next 25 years, and I'm going with him. The NOAA winter forecast for my area was totally wrong, but these guys can predict the average temps by 2050 -- right. You wouldn't be one of those AGW folks too arrogant to admit you might be wrong?
@yaimavol What is Corbyn saying will be the cause of this mini ice age and what is his definition of a mini ice age i.e will it be localised, global, how long will it last? I'm only asking because I've never read any of Corbyn's stuff in any peer reviewed journal and I don't look to blogs or popular media for information because it isn't subject to rigorous scientific testing. You still haven't told me your definition of scientific theory or what sort of scientists your "700" are. Link?
@yaimavol cont. I should warn you though, if you are talking about the 700 scientists in the Senate report, I am ready to educate you about that report and the stature of the 'so-called' scientists in it. The problem with using the word 'scientist' is the same as the label 'tradesman'. I wouldn't get a plumber to rewire my house just as I wouldn't get an industrial chemist, geologist, meteorologist, geographer or astronaut to comment on AGW.
@uknow US Navy reporting 70 trillion cf of new Arctic Ice since 09. Antarctic ice has been expanding in the aggregate since 1980. There is no crisis. We've got a pole shift and violent solar flares going on, and you are worried about an element that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. Dude, turn on your critical thinking and wake the f___ up!
@yaimavol "US Navy reporting 70 trillion cf of new Arctic Ice since 09"
The source of that claim comes from tinyurl (dot) com / 68e2czk
That site used the U.S. Navy PIPS which is a computer prediction model to predict ice edge extent and edge thickness, it's not so good in the middle. Another model, PIOMAS, interpolates between recorded data sets, and shows a record low. The actual data collected by the NSIDC agreed with PIOMAS, showing a record low for Arctic ice in 2010.
"The NOAA winter forecast for my area was totally wrong"
Weather is not climate. One is subject to local noise, while the other is the overall outcome. It's like saying that since someone can't predict a roll of a dice very well, then they can't claim the overall average of many rolls of dice.
"all the AGW guys predicted otherwise."
Climatologists did no such prediction. They don't make any claims of weather, only long term global trends.
@smartmusicfreak Google NOAA 2011 winter forecast and you will see that they absolutely do make weather predictions. Why am i have to do all the research for you warmers? Aren't you supposed to be the ones who know everything about what scientists are doing and saying?
A winter national forecast is not climate. Like I said, climate is the long term global trends. For example, the record hot summer in Russia was weather, not climate. The 1998 ENSO was weather, not climate. Northern Atlantic winter storms are weather, not climate.
In fact, NOAA is still developing their climate division, which won't be in operation until late next winter. So thus, NOAA doesn't make climate predictions.
"what caused the warming period of the 30's -- the last time the Northwest Passage was open?"
1) The first time the Northwest Passage was open in human history was in 2008, before that, you needed a special fortified ice boat to travel through.
2) The temperatures of the 1930s and 1940s were caused by a combination of increased solar output, reduced volcanic activity, and a weak enhanced greenhouse effect.
@smartmusicfreak go back and read your comment. You said climatologists don't make weather predictions. Then, what the hell is NOAA doing making a 2011 winter forecast? They were flat dead busted wrong. If they are predicting the global temperatures will be 2 degrees warmer by 2050 is that a climate prediction, and given their inaccuracy so far, what proof do you have they are right?
climate change science has predicted since the 1950s that it was going to get warmer, notably, The president's committee on the environment 1965, the National Academy in 1979, James Hansen in 1981 and 88.
@greenman3610 Which scientist predicted greehouse carbon was going to warm the planet in the 50's? That decade was smack dab in the 30 year cooling cycle that ended in the late 70's. We've just completed a 30 year warming cycle which ended in 2007, which means it's going to get very cold again in the next 25 years -- as Piers Corbyn has been predicting.
@greenman3610 I've looked at all the evidence, and I've also researched the globalist movement and the tactics they use to accomplish their objectives. This is a classic NWO operation from start to finish. The very fact that warmers are having to explain why it's bitterly cold this winter is a naked admission that many factors influence the climate of this planet. If we were cooling rapidly, would you be out here telling us to drive SUV's and buy wood-burning stoves to heat the planet up?
the very fact that we have to keep explaining it is due to the poor quality of scientific education and the well funded denialist PR movement, which was patterned on the very successful tobacco industry model.
@greenman3610 no, it's because too many of us know what's going on. I've talked to too many credible people in the intel community that have told me we have fantastic technology (ie... free energy devices) but the elites will not allow this to be revealed. Tesla was talking about free energy 70 years ago, until everything he was working on was classified. Wake up -- you are being scammed and used for an agenda that has nothing to do with the planet. It's all about control/manipulation.
@greenman3610 No, a free energy device would work as a home-based generator that offers unlimited power, never needs recharging or fuel. This would, however, take the entire nation off the grid, and they would lose control of us. Wind turbines are clunky and terribly inefficient, but they keep you on the grid, so that is the alternative they offer up. This is what clear-thinking people see through. My friend, don't be a sheeple.
@greenman3610 Tesla built the Pierce Arrow electric car that was superior to anything on the road 80 years ago, and we are just now trying to get an electric car to compete with gasoline? How does that happen? You need to stop talking so much and start asking questions about how the world really works.
the way it works is oil companies spend an incredible amount of money on sophisticated pr propoganda to mislead people like yourself.
They are spending almost nothing on new energy, and are trying to manage the situation so that they can squeeze every last drop of oil out of their holdings, the future be damned.
@greenman3610 do a Youtube search Canada Admits Alien Technology -- you will see the Canadian Minster of Defense divulge the US has advanced alien technology and they are using it in their black projects. We have no idea what our government has developed with our tax dollars, but energy production is certainly on the list.
@greenman3610 I'd like to thank greenman for exemplifying the warmer mindset for all to see: totaly closed, impervious to logic, reason and common sense, and armed with nothing resembling real scientific proof that his position is accurate. For these reasons, we the American people utter a resounding NO to the $ 850 billion he wants us to fork over for the same he is perpetuating. He might have to actually get his own checkbook out and put his money where his mouth is.
@greenman3610 You first, my friend. When you prove your conspiracy theory that big oil is funding a propaganda wing to discredit AGW, I'll offer up support for my theory. Unless, of course, you want to have it both ways by bashing conspiracy theory and believing whole-heartedly at the same time.
@greenman3610 As I've said, conservatives do not deny temperature fluctations. They deny that Barbara Boxer can do anything about it with an $ 850 billion carbon tax. The confirmed pole shift has made AGW completely irrelevant. There are now fears of a complete magnetic field reversal, which could trigger a new Ice Age. This thing is a real threat, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. Carbon can now resume it's rightful place as an elemental building block of life again.
@yaimavol I'm sorry to tell you that you're describing the denialists to a T - they've raised spin-doctoring to an art form. Y'know $850 billion sounds like a lot of money until you realize that's only 2 years oil imports by America. Pres. Carter had set the nation on the path 30+ yrs ago - the US would have been a much better, wealthier place if not for that warm sunshine the Hollywood cowboy kept blowing up the collective sphincter.
@yaimavol There are a couple of driving forces behind this winter's weather - a warm Arctic ( in which we've seen one of the lowest sea-ice extents on record ) and a La Nina cycle.
@yaimavol navy report. reference? ice expanding since 1980. reference? pole shift. reference? solar flares. reference? I do nothing other than think critically because there is nothing I would like more in the world than for the science to be wrong. But please provide references for your claims. As for a compound making up less than 1% having an adverse effect, 4kg of botulinum is enough to kill the entire human population of the world. Sometimes small amounts of things have massive effects.
@yaimavol okay, this is my last post and you willsee why by the end.
Antarctic Ice Ozone Hole - googled it and read the first 10 links. Every single one says while ice has grown marginally, this is despite global warming and ecah one then goes on to say that as the hole heals completely itwll actually exaccerbate global warming.
Tampa- Yes there is a magnetic pole wobble as there always is but how you are trying to link this to climate is beyond me? There is no mention of any link anywhere.
Ice has grown 100K sq km per decade since the 80's -- and this is due to the Ozone Hole -- right. That is total b.s. without a shred of evidence to prove it. They were desperate to explain how ice could expand when the planet was supposed to be warming. Does that explanation remotely make scientific sense to you?
@yaimavol cont. US Navy Arctic Ice - Blogs,blogs and more blogs and from the usual sources. Couldn't find any actual data, just lots of references to data. Sorry but if you can't do better...My advice, actually read the things you refer to. It might wake you up to the fact that AGW is very real. Good luck friend.
If you don't understand how a pole shift can impact the climate -- c'mon. Scientists are not just worried about that -- they are worried we are actually reversing polarity on the planet. We've got animal die offs going on all over the globe. Something is causing it, and it's not carbon. I believe our magnetic field could be in serious jeaopardy, but you're not hearing much from scientists on this. They're too busy fighting climate change to worry about de-speciation of the planet.
@yaimavol poles shift all the time on a geological timescale. Got a reference for worried scientists? Despeciation has more to do with deforestation, overexploitation and destruction of habitat generally than a magnetic pole shift. If the poles do shift some birds might bein trouble but i'dbe moreworried about pilots getting lost. But well done on shifting me away from the original questions for which you have still failed to produce credible references.
@uknowispeaksense since Jan we've seen flocks of birds, fish by the thousands, octopus, buffalo, and cows turn up mysteriously dead all over the world. Something is going on, and the scientific community tried to tell us it was New Year's fireworks. You put way too much faith in these folks.
Google animal deaths. This second hit is an updated list of mysterious animal deaths around the world.
Sorry to inform you AGW is dead. The money guys closed down the Chicago carbon exchange. NOBODY of importance went to Mexico this year. Strange isn't it -- if they really believed we were in imminent peril for the planet -- Obama nor any Democrat leader can be bothered to show up at the meeting. The New World Order moved on to plan B and you are holding the bag.
@yaimavol cont. My botulinum reference: Snipe et al (1928) Studies on Botulinus Toxin: 3. Acid Precipitation of Botulinus Toxin, The Journal of Infectious Diseases (University of Chicago Press) 43(2) 152-160.
Weather is not climate. This is a salient point to grasp. The argument LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI puts forward here is one that I used to use. I still don’t accept the apocalyptic notions of some, but it is clear that humans are affecting climate. Why, I wonder, do those like LBC feels they need to shout down the truth (a quick check shows that everything LBC types needs to be screamed in caps and posted several times).
@greenman3610 NOAA's OCT 2010 winter forecast for my region was totally wrong. Piers Corbyn was right. He is predicting we are heading into a mini Ice Age over the next 25 years. Hmmmm.... should I believe Corbyn or NOAA?
9:04 "What makes an civilisation turn away from science and critical thinking" - in my opinion it's people like St. Cyril (from a few millenia ago) or, in a more modern guise, ignorant pricks like Rush Limbaugh. Good video, keep 'em coming.
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
What makes society turn away from science reason and stability? Good question but you must ask the climate scientist why they have done this. I don't know.
To keep ahead of the propaganda, do you own research and refuse to be dictated to. The truth may be out there or it may still be waiting to be discovered. Remember that scientists are not infallible and that many of these scientists were the ones bemoaning the coming ice-age during the 1970's. Scientists do not accept they question
Only 7 scientific papers in the 70's suggested a very gradual return to an ice age. 44 papers suggested AGW due to CO2. Some of the media ran with the ice age story for a few weeks and then it was forgotten until the 90's when the denial industry started the lie "All the scientists in the 70's were predicting an ice age".
You guys are in hysterics about "death trains" and yet totally ignore the very real threats that are being hurled at scientist at this moment. Like the A.G of Virginia filing another contetntless brief against Michael Mann. The first one got thrown out for being a fishing expedition.
Then we got the very real death threats that geophysicist have received. The threats of law suits and the attempted breaking and entering at the University of Vancouver.
All "deniers" are 100% confident the climate has warmed since the LIA. There is evidence that the warming from 1850 to 1950 was not human caused. We can explain warming since 1950 by solar forcing.
Trend selection by climate scientists is of major concern and the sceptics are the ones that emphasize this.
Predictions of sea level rise from assumptions that are contrary to observed data are fantasy. Sea level rise because of various problems cannot be accurately measured thus modelled
Scientific journals and peer review are a recent concept and all real advances were not in journals or peer reviewed e.g. Newton's gravitation, Mendeleev's periodic table, Einstein's special relativity. They published all their data, reasoning and conclusions and tried (successfully) to defend them. Climate scientists of the "Hockey stick" ilk have failed with the all data and the reasoning, i.e. their computer programmes at least.
Selected inadequate data needs to be carefully re-examined
Einstein's Special Relativity was published in a peer reviewed journal. That journal was is called Annalen der Physik and has been a scientific journal since the 18th century.
@kaimanawaggs If, as you say, all these "data, reasoning and conclusions" haven't been made public, how do you know they're wrong? How were you able to spot all these errors in climate science while climate scientists themselves all failed? And would you say that semiconductor electronics or molecular genetics are not "real advances"? Enquiring minds want to know!
What the fuck is "climate denier" supposed to mean, "anthropogenic global warming denier" would be more appropriate, and even still that term has been designed to associate these people with "holocaust deniers". come on people this is so obvious.
"Climate denier" does a good job, as you say, of picking up on the "holocaust denier" element - as the video notes the neo-nazi group makes a good representation.
I actually like "denialist" - which also has an alliterative resonance with "nihilist", of which I think there is a significant element in the anti science community, which includes Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, and other right wing extremists.
@rivercarper01 OK, so the Nazi SCIENTISTS that were pushing the Lie that if you had blond hair and blue eyes you were superior to all other races, were people who dissagreed with that "anti-science types"? ....think what you are saying man!!!
I wouldn't count Albert Einstein as an "anti science" type.
No, the people like you who refuse to look at the facts, and instead choose to believe the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sarah Palins of the world, are the anti science types.
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
@greenman3610 I don't know what "godless muslim socialist" has to do with science. Is this just a (weak) attempt at an ad hominem attack? It is weak for a few reasons:
- I know that some of the scientists on the REgister list believe in God, although some are undoubtedly agnostic or atheist
- some on our list are left wing
- the polar ice is growing in the southern hemisphere, and that is where 90% of the ice is.
your grasp of what is important in the issue is weak, as is your sense of humor.
Northern polar sea ice has long been predicted to be one of the first indicators - due to polar amplification. That is what we are now seeing.
Southern polar sea ice is insignificant compared to southern ice sheets, which are known to be shrinking faster than expected. Southern sea ice disappears almost completely in summer, which makes minor fluctuations in its extent a moot issue from (cont)..
@greenman3610 It is a shame people like greenman3610 feel it is necessary to attack the messanger, not just the message.
In the BBC film "Planet Earth", they say the Antarctic surface area doubles in winter due to sea ice. I checked the stats and in Sep '08, Antarctic sea ice peaked at 18.5 million square kilometers (and has been increasing at 1% per decade since 1979) and the min is about 1 million. Do you have the numbers for the Arctic to compare?
@greenman3610 I would hardly call doubling the surface area of the Antartic continent a "minor fluctuation in the antarctic". You said, "Southern polar sea ice is insignificant compared to southern ice sheets" Could you give us the numbers to compare the amount of sea ice in both northern and southern polar regions, please? Also, the amount they fluctuate each year. Then we can judge if your assertions are correct.
@greenman3610 Greenman asserts: "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change." I asked you to substantiate that with actual numbers. I do not think you can because what you have said is incorrect. Take a look at the diagrams on the NSIDC site and one can easily see that Attenborough from the BBC series is right - the size of Antarctica does pretty well double due to sea ice in their winter.
Attenborough, of course, also gets it that climate change is a threat, and has said so repeatedly.
I know it's work to do more than look at the pictures, but if you actually read the faq I directed you to, it will explain why the wintertime doubling of southern sea ice is irrelevant.
But far be it from me to push you out of your comfort zone.
Interested readers, again, will have their questions answered by googling
@greenman3610 Interesting that Greeman does not answer the question that naturally arises when he claims "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change."
"...even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature."
@greenman3610 Numbers, we need numbers to see if your claim that " "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change." is true. We can see for ourselves if it is if you gives us the data. I think Sir Davaid Attenborough is proabbly correct when he says that the Antarctic doubles in size in the winter due to the massive sea ice change.
Good for a laugh!! It's true there are no ads in science journals. That's because they are subsidised with massive amounts of money. The 'conservative Economist' as a source of cutting edge science is a joke. I'm 100% confident that he's paid to say that etc.
I was watching for that woodcut - I don't know if you know, but it was a fake, 19th century I think. You may know that anyway - it hasn't appeared yet.
China and India are polluting like crazy and they aren't even mentioned in the solution for our carbon sins. Saint Gore and the others should kill themselves to walk the walk, instead of the talk which by their carbon producing ways means its a bunch of shit.
@Theylivewesleep1984 : Typical American view of things... if they are just one hypocrit, then it must invalidate the whole thing... did you just invalidate your whole country by assuming that if one person is partly wrong, then anything or anybody related should also be?
I enjoy fbing your videos...it usually starts with my denialist friends flinging mud and using Beck soundbites rather than debunking scientists' claims with cold hard facts (that'd be because they don't have any).
I think the biggest problem is the sheer lack of the most basic understanding of science. Their certainty in what they choose to believe, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, is mind-boggling. What are we, going through the Dark Ages again??!
I enjoy fbing your videos...it usually starts with my denialist friends flinging mud and using Beck soundbites rather than debunking scientists' claims with cold hard facts (that'd be because they don't have any).
I think the biggest problem is the sheer lack of the most basic understanding of science. Their certainty in what they choose to believe, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, is mind-boggling. What are we, going through the Dark Ages again??!
This whole video could be a textbook case for the lack of scientific method. Genuine scientists do not present data or their ideas in this manner. Science does not choose sides like this guy does, it simply changes it's theories according to the data. Even if what this video is saying is true,.. it is being presented in a "Fox News" manner which makes me distrust it.
zibtor 1 month ago
I liked everything in the vid until the end when he tried to deny that the video is propaganda. I mean even if its good propaganda (which I think this is) it still presents itself in this way. The narrator should have left out that last part out.
MattacksRC 2 months ago
It's easy, if you watch Fox news you're not interested in facts, so you'll be a climate change denier. Why are you trying to educate the Fox news crowd? They're stupid enough to shill for oil billionaires who want to destroy the middle class and create a system of slavery for them to live out their miserable lives in.
monkeybass01 2 months ago
As a non scientist he should keep his mouth shut.
david222444 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 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
zoltanapril42 8 months ago
@zoltanapril42
right. that old crank who says cigarettes are not nearly so dangerous as crazy left wing doctors want you to think.
yeah, him.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Just remember scientists recommended crazy things like alchemy and bleeding oh and Cane Toads be imported to Australia Hmmm Maybe Science gets it wrong sometimes. What about aspartemine in Diet Coke scientific cancer causer which the scientists still maintain is harmless. Maybe Lindzen is right time will tell.
zoltanapril42 8 months ago
@zoltanapril42
well, this ball has been in play for 150 years, and we've been pretty sure about this since the 50s.
If there is another explanation, then we have to come up with a whole new theory as to, for instance, why our heat seeking missiles have been shooting straight for 60 years, and why industrial co2 lasers work the way they do. You'd need to basically overturn much of our understanding of physics, astronomy, and cosmology as well.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 One other thing Greenman in Australia our cheif climate scientific advisor made the claim a few years ago that the Dams which supply our main cities will run dry and never fill up again. The govt embarked on construction of huge desal plants. Guess what Greenman the rains returned and our dams have recovered some over 100 % full. He also said that the ski feilds wouldnt see snow again, wrong. Greenman I am skeptical of the science!
zoltanapril42 8 months ago
@zoltanapril42
as I recall, your country was covered in floods the size of France and Germany combined, with catastrophic flooding in some places, drought and dust storms in others.
crop failures in Australia, along with other grain producing countries, have contributed to record high global food prices.
specific predictions by individuals are often wrong, but the generic predicitions, supported in the literature, of increased extreme events, continues to be borne out.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@zoltanapril42 You missrepresent my position, I believe it is healty to question science, especially the fuzzy science of Global warming, oh sorry climate change. As Lindzen quite clearly explains the temperature predictions are built on computer models which rely on human assumptions. Oh if there is a linear relationship between warming and C02 how does science explain the observation of the past 10 years? The temperature has decreased.
zoltanapril42 8 months ago
@zoltanapril42 El Nino. La Nina.
Look it up.
IKillBabyKittensLOL 6 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
@zoltanapril42
so you think cigarettes don't cause cancer? OK
unassumption 2 months ago
@unassumption
google
Addiction Incorporated – the Tobacco Funded Roots of Climate Denial
greenman3610 2 months ago
As soon as someone demands for violent barbaric punishments against ANYONE, especially ones who are proving or trying to prove a scientific fact, they INSTANTLY loose all credibility from a rational point of view. Unfortunately many people still believe nut heads like "Rush" "Glen Beck"
curingaging00 9 months ago
@curingaging00
toss your "idols" albore, and of course jimmi cattah's goofy grin on the pile,
I think their lardiness outweigh both "rush" AND "beck" combined
whodathunkit1960 3 months ago
Awesome again Peter, thank you
Asimovsfuture 9 months ago
@greenman3610 - I had to re-read your statement a few times before I saw the difference. Mentioned at 4:34 in the video. Awesome.
"climate deniers see honesty, integrity, and simplicity as weaknesses to be exploited."
Yeah, I've seen that.
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
BBC interviewer: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
Phil Jones; "YES"
What part of that is misquoted?
guydecervens 11 months ago
@guydecervens - Here you go. It wasn't just a yes. Phil qualifies his answer properly, so you are misquoting.
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
@wstevenschneider Phil 'qualifies' nothing. He tried to lessen the import of his admission that there has been no global warming since 1995 and indeed a reduction since 2002. It doesn't matter how small the decline has been because it breaks the bedwetters theory that global warming is linked to the rise CO2, which has risen continually since 1995. If I am misquoting him could you quote where he says there has been global warming since 1995 please?
guydecervens 9 months ago
@guydecervens "Phil 'qualifies' nothing." - guy
Yes he does.
"Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." - Phil
"could you quote where he says there has been global warming since 1995 please?" - guy
"I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." - Phil ^
^^^^
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@guydecervens Also, since it was calculated from 1995 to 2009 (the present at the time of the interview) the trend wasn't statistically significant. It's 2011 now, do you suppose that the observed trend is not longer statistically significant? Starting from 1994 to 2009 it _is_ statistically significant. This demonstrates that your claim is nothing but a cherry pick.
Perhaps you don't understand statistical significance? If you knew how that was determined maybe you'd stop wetting your bed.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@guydecervens "there has been no global warming since 1995 and indeed a reduction since 2002."
The dips or "declines" as you call them are small. AGW doesn't override natural variability, it amplifies it in some instances and reduces it in others. The long-term trend of the average global temperatures continues to climb.
I think it's your claim that is breaking down.
wstevenschneider 9 months ago
@guydecervens For one it's not, "YES". It's "Yes, but......a few sentences." It's called quote mining and its misrepresenting a persons speech or writing by leaving out certain portions of what the person stated to misrepresent what the person meant.
facelessone86 9 months ago
@facelessone86 So when Phil Jones said there had bee 'no statistically-significant global warming' since 1995 he really meant there had been? I can't see how I misquoted him or quote mined him.
BBC interviewer: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
Phil Jones; "YES" In fact I have heard many IPCC 'scientists' admit there has been no warming since 1995 and indeed, as Jones also admits, a slight decline since 2003.
guydecervens 9 months ago
@guydecervens
and people ask why I call them "deniers".
greenman3610 9 months ago
@greenman3610 Has anyone ever called you a denier because you seem to be denying what Phil Jones said; "no statistically-significant global" since 1995.
guydecervens 9 months ago
@guydecervens Well you just quote mined again. If it is statistically insignificant from the date 1995 will you be willing to agree that it has been significant from the date 1994?
facelessone86 9 months ago
BBC interviewer; "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
Phil Jones; "YES"
Google "Q&A: Professor Phil Jones" for more
guydecervens 11 months ago
@guydecervens
obviously, you did not watch the video.
greenman3610 11 months ago
The 'no global warming since 1995" is a quote from Phil Jone's recorded interview with the BBC. It's on record. Deny that you nut!
guydecervens 11 months ago
@guydecervens - You obviously didn't watch the video. Phil Jones was misquoted.
See also ht tp ://sks. to/1995
and "The Fake Scandal of Climategate" series of articles.
ht tp ://w w w. skepticalscience. com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
@wstevenschneider The video quote Phil correctly in that he said there has been no global warming since 1995 but then it goes on to waffle about what Phil 'believes' is the cause of it; AGW obviously! I'm sticking to the actualy facts here (sorry about that) and by facts I mean the actual global temperature, which Phil reluctantly admits has not risen. Even Phil can't DENY that fact.
guydecervens 11 months ago
@guydecervens - Oh yeah, presenting the actual facts is now waffling. Hilarious, since the only waffling going on here is your response.
Sorry, but what Greenman did was present the facts, honestly. I think I'll go with Phil's actual response and not the denialist's cherry picked, manipulated to say something else interpretation of part of Phil's response.
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
@guydecervens
since you deliberately misquote what phil jones said, you either do not understand what "statistically significant" means, or you simply hope to continue to lie to yourself and others.
greenman3610 11 months ago
@guydecervens
obviously, neither you, nor the commenter above watched the video, where I take this talking point apart.
greenman3610 11 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
Comment removed
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
Hmmm, UFO conspiracies or the vast weight of climate science. Which should I put my trust in?
zpike3 1 year ago
google piers corbyn
BassGoesBoom1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BassGoesBoom1 "google piers corbyn"
tinyurl (dot) com / 65jcoj3
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
Nature does nuclear fusion from molecular hydrogen -life water
JonThm 1 year ago
If this guy was confident in his position, he wouldn't be trying so desperately to dismiss dissenters as ignorant and thoughtless.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol and if deniers had any sort of scientific understanding, firstly they wouldn't be deniers but they certainly wouldn't claim that scientists are all in cahoots in some sort of government conspiracy, they wouldn't mistake weather for climate, they would know the difference between oil-funded blogs and peer reviewed publications, they wouldn't feel the need to type in caps (making their argument true)...and the list goes on... ignorance is bliss & bloody frustrating.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense you're vastly over-simplifying the position of many that understand the globe has been warming, but they don't buy the carbon angle as the catalyst, and they sure as hell don't believe politicians can do anything about it. Their solution is a massive tax hike -- which tells you everything you need to know. This is a swindle like we've never seen in history. Do I deny Barbara Boxer can control the climate on this planet? You bet your ass!
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol I have had many conversations with AGW deniers and I can tell you that I am yet to meet one who actually understands how science as a process works. They think Wikipedia is a legitimate source of information and believe so-called scientists employed by Exxonmobil, the Marshall Institute etc present unbiased statistically sound scientific studies in their non- peer reviewed industry publications. They do think that if they have an unusually cold day in their hometown that AGW is false.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@yaimavol cont. I have also found that the vast majority are from the USA and think that whatever applies to the US in terms of carbon tax etc applies everywhere in the world. I for one don't believe politicians cando anyhting about it directly but if they were to listen to what the real scientists are saying and not CNN, ABC or Fox then they might be able to. The other option is to let the selfish, lazy, ignorant, greedy peopleto keep consuming and polluting the Earth. Finally that CO2 is a
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@yaimavol cont. catalyst is well established in the unbiased, statistically sound, peer reviewed literature. To believe otherwise IS ignorant, ill-informed and thougtless anddemonstrates clearly the lack of scientific understanding and worse, a heavy reliance on media ignorance and sensationalism.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense over 700 scientists have dissented from the IPCC position, which means AGW is a THEORY and not a fact. I might add it is a theory backed up by computer models, ignoring a lot of time-tested forecasting methods (solar and lunar) of the kind that Piers Corbyn uses for his forecasts. He predicted a bitter cold winter this year, when all the AGW guys predicted otherwise. Which one was right? The BBC won't even interview Mr. Corbyn. What are they afraid of?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol please tell me what the definition of a scientific theory is?you do understand that scientific theory is different to everyday layperson 'theory'? Gravity is just a theory. Evolution by sexual selection is just a theory. Albert Einstein's relativity is just a theory. As for "700 scientists" what sort of scientists? Why would you ask a weatherman about climate modelling? Why would you rely on the popular media for accurate information? Do you know the diff between weather and climate?
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense to specify, we are talking about the AGW theory of carbon induced global warming. If the planet is warming then temps have to rise, which is what the whole Climategate scandal was about. Corbyn is predicting a mini-Ice Age in the next 25 years, and I'm going with him. The NOAA winter forecast for my area was totally wrong, but these guys can predict the average temps by 2050 -- right. You wouldn't be one of those AGW folks too arrogant to admit you might be wrong?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol What is Corbyn saying will be the cause of this mini ice age and what is his definition of a mini ice age i.e will it be localised, global, how long will it last? I'm only asking because I've never read any of Corbyn's stuff in any peer reviewed journal and I don't look to blogs or popular media for information because it isn't subject to rigorous scientific testing. You still haven't told me your definition of scientific theory or what sort of scientists your "700" are. Link?
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@yaimavol cont. I should warn you though, if you are talking about the 700 scientists in the Senate report, I am ready to educate you about that report and the stature of the 'so-called' scientists in it. The problem with using the word 'scientist' is the same as the label 'tradesman'. I wouldn't get a plumber to rewire my house just as I wouldn't get an industrial chemist, geologist, meteorologist, geographer or astronaut to comment on AGW.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknow US Navy reporting 70 trillion cf of new Arctic Ice since 09. Antarctic ice has been expanding in the aggregate since 1980. There is no crisis. We've got a pole shift and violent solar flares going on, and you are worried about an element that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. Dude, turn on your critical thinking and wake the f___ up!
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol "US Navy reporting 70 trillion cf of new Arctic Ice since 09"
The source of that claim comes from tinyurl (dot) com / 68e2czk
That site used the U.S. Navy PIPS which is a computer prediction model to predict ice edge extent and edge thickness, it's not so good in the middle. Another model, PIOMAS, interpolates between recorded data sets, and shows a record low. The actual data collected by the NSIDC agreed with PIOMAS, showing a record low for Arctic ice in 2010.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
"The NOAA winter forecast for my area was totally wrong"
Weather is not climate. One is subject to local noise, while the other is the overall outcome. It's like saying that since someone can't predict a roll of a dice very well, then they can't claim the overall average of many rolls of dice.
"all the AGW guys predicted otherwise."
Climatologists did no such prediction. They don't make any claims of weather, only long term global trends.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@smartmusicfreak Google NOAA 2011 winter forecast and you will see that they absolutely do make weather predictions. Why am i have to do all the research for you warmers? Aren't you supposed to be the ones who know everything about what scientists are doing and saying?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol "NOAA 2011 winter forecast "
A winter national forecast is not climate. Like I said, climate is the long term global trends. For example, the record hot summer in Russia was weather, not climate. The 1998 ENSO was weather, not climate. Northern Atlantic winter storms are weather, not climate.
In fact, NOAA is still developing their climate division, which won't be in operation until late next winter. So thus, NOAA doesn't make climate predictions.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"what caused the warming period of the 30's -- the last time the Northwest Passage was open?"
1) The first time the Northwest Passage was open in human history was in 2008, before that, you needed a special fortified ice boat to travel through.
2) The temperatures of the 1930s and 1940s were caused by a combination of increased solar output, reduced volcanic activity, and a weak enhanced greenhouse effect.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@smartmusicfreak go back and read your comment. You said climatologists don't make weather predictions. Then, what the hell is NOAA doing making a 2011 winter forecast? They were flat dead busted wrong. If they are predicting the global temperatures will be 2 degrees warmer by 2050 is that a climate prediction, and given their inaccuracy so far, what proof do you have they are right?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
climate change science has predicted since the 1950s that it was going to get warmer, notably, The president's committee on the environment 1965, the National Academy in 1979, James Hansen in 1981 and 88.
Well, it's gotten warmer.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Which scientist predicted greehouse carbon was going to warm the planet in the 50's? That decade was smack dab in the 30 year cooling cycle that ended in the late 70's. We've just completed a 30 year warming cycle which ended in 2007, which means it's going to get very cold again in the next 25 years -- as Piers Corbyn has been predicting.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
you really should watch the videos:
watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
watch?v=sdALFnlwV_o
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I've looked at all the evidence, and I've also researched the globalist movement and the tactics they use to accomplish their objectives. This is a classic NWO operation from start to finish. The very fact that warmers are having to explain why it's bitterly cold this winter is a naked admission that many factors influence the climate of this planet. If we were cooling rapidly, would you be out here telling us to drive SUV's and buy wood-burning stoves to heat the planet up?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
the very fact that we have to keep explaining it is due to the poor quality of scientific education and the well funded denialist PR movement, which was patterned on the very successful tobacco industry model.
I see you are doing your part.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 no, it's because too many of us know what's going on. I've talked to too many credible people in the intel community that have told me we have fantastic technology (ie... free energy devices) but the elites will not allow this to be revealed. Tesla was talking about free energy 70 years ago, until everything he was working on was classified. Wake up -- you are being scammed and used for an agenda that has nothing to do with the planet. It's all about control/manipulation.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
"free energy devices"
they're called wind turbines.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 No, a free energy device would work as a home-based generator that offers unlimited power, never needs recharging or fuel. This would, however, take the entire nation off the grid, and they would lose control of us. Wind turbines are clunky and terribly inefficient, but they keep you on the grid, so that is the alternative they offer up. This is what clear-thinking people see through. My friend, don't be a sheeple.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
can I have my own flying saucer, too?
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Tesla built the Pierce Arrow electric car that was superior to anything on the road 80 years ago, and we are just now trying to get an electric car to compete with gasoline? How does that happen? You need to stop talking so much and start asking questions about how the world really works.
yaimavol 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yaimavol "You need to stop talking so much and start asking questions about how the world really works."
Either that, or you need to stop taking your science from sci-fi magazines.
The "Pierce Arrow" was a literary fabrication, sort of like the many myths that sprang up around Johnny Appleseed, or George Washington.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@yaimavol
the way it works is oil companies spend an incredible amount of money on sophisticated pr propoganda to mislead people like yourself.
They are spending almost nothing on new energy, and are trying to manage the situation so that they can squeeze every last drop of oil out of their holdings, the future be damned.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 do a Youtube search Canada Admits Alien Technology -- you will see the Canadian Minster of Defense divulge the US has advanced alien technology and they are using it in their black projects. We have no idea what our government has developed with our tax dollars, but energy production is certainly on the list.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
get back to me when you get one of those babies fired up.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I'd like to thank greenman for exemplifying the warmer mindset for all to see: totaly closed, impervious to logic, reason and common sense, and armed with nothing resembling real scientific proof that his position is accurate. For these reasons, we the American people utter a resounding NO to the $ 850 billion he wants us to fork over for the same he is perpetuating. He might have to actually get his own checkbook out and put his money where his mouth is.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
It's great to know you've costed out the flying saucer solution.
I can't wait to hear more details.
OH, that's right, the great global conspiracy has them locked up? Oh crap.....
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 You first, my friend. When you prove your conspiracy theory that big oil is funding a propaganda wing to discredit AGW, I'll offer up support for my theory. Unless, of course, you want to have it both ways by bashing conspiracy theory and believing whole-heartedly at the same time.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
this is so copiously documented, you've got to be kidding, right?
see "The American denial of Global warming"
watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
watch oil billionaire David Koch give a pep talk to Palin-addled tea party activists
watch?v=vnm0f6Zwhd0
including very active denialist groups like Americans for Prosperity
sorry, we have video tape.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 As I've said, conservatives do not deny temperature fluctations. They deny that Barbara Boxer can do anything about it with an $ 850 billion carbon tax. The confirmed pole shift has made AGW completely irrelevant. There are now fears of a complete magnetic field reversal, which could trigger a new Ice Age. This thing is a real threat, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. Carbon can now resume it's rightful place as an elemental building block of life again.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol
there's a movie you'd really like.
it's called 2012.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@yaimavol I'm sorry to tell you that you're describing the denialists to a T - they've raised spin-doctoring to an art form. Y'know $850 billion sounds like a lot of money until you realize that's only 2 years oil imports by America. Pres. Carter had set the nation on the path 30+ yrs ago - the US would have been a much better, wealthier place if not for that warm sunshine the Hollywood cowboy kept blowing up the collective sphincter.
R4t10n4L 1 year ago
@yaimavol There are a couple of driving forces behind this winter's weather - a warm Arctic ( in which we've seen one of the lowest sea-ice extents on record ) and a La Nina cycle.
R4t10n4L 1 year ago
@R4t10n4L Okay, so what caused the warming period of the late 1930's -- the last time the Northwest Passage melted wide open?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol - "Okay...1930's...the last time the Northwest Passage melted wide open?"
It didn't melt "wide open". Pockets here and there melted open.
ht tp ://sks. to/arcticcycle
Start with the "Basic" tab, move up to the "Intermediate" tab.
wstevenschneider 11 months ago
@yaimavol "making a 2011 winter forecast?"
1) A winter forecast is not a climate prediction, it is a weather prediction.
2) NOAA's prediction did not cover the globe, only the US, or at the most, the North Hemisphere.
3) NOAA doesn't even have a functioning climatology department, it does weather.
Climate predictions are global multi-decadal trends. NOAA's winter forecast are neither.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
"Which scientist predicted greehouse carbon was going to warm the planet in the 50's?"
The very first hit on a search of climate articles in the 1950's
"Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate" G.N Plass 1956
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@yaimavol navy report. reference? ice expanding since 1980. reference? pole shift. reference? solar flares. reference? I do nothing other than think critically because there is nothing I would like more in the world than for the science to be wrong. But please provide references for your claims. As for a compound making up less than 1% having an adverse effect, 4kg of botulinum is enough to kill the entire human population of the world. Sometimes small amounts of things have massive effects.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense YT won't let me post links, but you can Google these topics...
Antarctic Ice Ozone Hole -- details ice sheets growing there for the past 40 years
Tampa Airport Pole Shift -- they've had to re-number their runways at the airport
US Navy Arctic Ice -- the US Navy's data on ice sheets
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol okay, this is my last post and you willsee why by the end.
Antarctic Ice Ozone Hole - googled it and read the first 10 links. Every single one says while ice has grown marginally, this is despite global warming and ecah one then goes on to say that as the hole heals completely itwll actually exaccerbate global warming.
Tampa- Yes there is a magnetic pole wobble as there always is but how you are trying to link this to climate is beyond me? There is no mention of any link anywhere.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
Ice has grown 100K sq km per decade since the 80's -- and this is due to the Ozone Hole -- right. That is total b.s. without a shred of evidence to prove it. They were desperate to explain how ice could expand when the planet was supposed to be warming. Does that explanation remotely make scientific sense to you?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol cont. US Navy Arctic Ice - Blogs,blogs and more blogs and from the usual sources. Couldn't find any actual data, just lots of references to data. Sorry but if you can't do better...My advice, actually read the things you refer to. It might wake you up to the fact that AGW is very real. Good luck friend.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
If you don't understand how a pole shift can impact the climate -- c'mon. Scientists are not just worried about that -- they are worried we are actually reversing polarity on the planet. We've got animal die offs going on all over the globe. Something is causing it, and it's not carbon. I believe our magnetic field could be in serious jeaopardy, but you're not hearing much from scientists on this. They're too busy fighting climate change to worry about de-speciation of the planet.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol poles shift all the time on a geological timescale. Got a reference for worried scientists? Despeciation has more to do with deforestation, overexploitation and destruction of habitat generally than a magnetic pole shift. If the poles do shift some birds might bein trouble but i'dbe moreworried about pilots getting lost. But well done on shifting me away from the original questions for which you have still failed to produce credible references.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense well i'll offer up a question to you -- what caused the warming period of the 30's -- the last time the Northwest Passage was open?
yaimavol 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense since Jan we've seen flocks of birds, fish by the thousands, octopus, buffalo, and cows turn up mysteriously dead all over the world. Something is going on, and the scientific community tried to tell us it was New Year's fireworks. You put way too much faith in these folks.
yaimavol 1 year ago
@yaimavol references?
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
Google animal deaths. This second hit is an updated list of mysterious animal deaths around the world.
Sorry to inform you AGW is dead. The money guys closed down the Chicago carbon exchange. NOBODY of importance went to Mexico this year. Strange isn't it -- if they really believed we were in imminent peril for the planet -- Obama nor any Democrat leader can be bothered to show up at the meeting. The New World Order moved on to plan B and you are holding the bag.
yaimavol 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yaimavol The New World Order???? Wuuuahahahahahaha. Sorry dude. Definately my last response to you....New World Order....pffffttttttt.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
@uknowispeaksense
for best reference on US Navy, try Admiral David Titley, Chief Oceanographer of US Navy:
watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM
greenman3610 1 year ago
@yaimavol cont. My botulinum reference: Snipe et al (1928) Studies on Botulinus Toxin: 3. Acid Precipitation of Botulinus Toxin, The Journal of Infectious Diseases (University of Chicago Press) 43(2) 152-160.
uknowispeaksense 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperRicecrackers 1 year ago
@SuperRicecrackers
for a walk thru history with one of the greatest scienitsts
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
for explanation and reference to key papers on global warming:
watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o
greenman3610 1 year ago
flat earth was a a forgery made in the 19th century, dumbass. You used a forgery to support another forgery, beautiful.
Nachtjager 1 year ago
One of your best IMHO. I don't know how I missed it earlier.
seeqer66 1 year ago
@seeqer66
I like it too.
greenman3610 1 year ago
GREENMAN YOU ARE A BAD JOKE OF A PROPAGANDIST
IDIOTS LIKE YOU IN U.K. METRO PREDICTED A WARM WET WINTER
PIERS CORBYN USING SUN DATA PREDICTED A TRAGIC WINTER.
SOOOOOO
IF YOU CANNOT PREDICT 5 MONTHS INTO FUTURE....
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME ABOUT A LONGER TIME LINE...FOOL
LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI 1 year ago
@LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI
Please document any weather predictions made in this series.
Weather, is, of course, not climate.
Curious readers can google my blog postings on recent weather events-
White Christmas in Southeast. Heatwave in Hudson Bay.
Today’s NOAA Image: Cold Continents/Warm Arctic continues
be advised. spamming comments will get you blocked.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 ; @LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI
Weather is not climate. This is a salient point to grasp. The argument LIBSBANKRUPTEDCALI puts forward here is one that I used to use. I still don’t accept the apocalyptic notions of some, but it is clear that humans are affecting climate. Why, I wonder, do those like LBC feels they need to shout down the truth (a quick check shows that everything LBC types needs to be screamed in caps and posted several times).
Blackmark52 1 year ago
@Blackmark52
Because caps make it true.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 NOAA's OCT 2010 winter forecast for my region was totally wrong. Piers Corbyn was right. He is predicting we are heading into a mini Ice Age over the next 25 years. Hmmmm.... should I believe Corbyn or NOAA?
yaimavol 1 year ago
the worst president because he didnt start a war?
Heteroz 1 year ago
VERY Well Said.
eddiequest4 1 year ago
9:04 "What makes an civilisation turn away from science and critical thinking" - in my opinion it's people like St. Cyril (from a few millenia ago) or, in a more modern guise, ignorant pricks like Rush Limbaugh. Good video, keep 'em coming.
Gazzar 1 year ago
@Gazzar
will do.
tell yer friends and neighbors.
greenman3610 1 year ago
As a point of interest for future reference, greenman; the Daily Mail here in the UK can also legitimately be referred to as the "Daily Fail"...
Gazzar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But Millions are spend in supressing that information,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Join the revolution!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News from today, Oct 5, 2010: "Europe facing coldest winter in 1,000 years."
Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere (which is now approaching summer, not wintter) New Zealand just had a six-day blizzard, the "worst in living memory", according to several NZ papers.
To those snake-oil salesman who blame cold on global warming, this defies basic physics. If a circulation pattern slows to make a region colder, some *other* region must get even hotter to compensate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
OMG! Doesn't Richard Lindzen sort of look like TeaMaster1978! (With a haircut and beard trim of course.) LOL!
mjh012363 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm reminded of the scare stories we were taught in school in the early 1970s. Then we were told the world's oceans would be "fished out" within 30 years, that "acid rain" meant the death of most tree species within our own lifetimes, and that all the world's oil would be entirely gone by the year 2000. That pollution was leading to global **cooling**.
Guess how all those turned out.
My favorite is Carson's "Silent Spring", that claimed pesticides meant the deaths of all the world's birds.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Con't
What makes society turn away from science reason and stability? Good question but you must ask the climate scientist why they have done this. I don't know.
To keep ahead of the propaganda, do you own research and refuse to be dictated to. The truth may be out there or it may still be waiting to be discovered. Remember that scientists are not infallible and that many of these scientists were the ones bemoaning the coming ice-age during the 1970's. Scientists do not accept they question
kaimanawaggs 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
Only 7 scientific papers in the 70's suggested a very gradual return to an ice age. 44 papers suggested AGW due to CO2. Some of the media ran with the ice age story for a few weeks and then it was forgotten until the 90's when the denial industry started the lie "All the scientists in the 70's were predicting an ice age".
You've been conned again.
grawillers 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
"70s ice age crock"
watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M
greenman3610 1 year ago
Con't
The activities of Hansen Romm 10:10 WWF etc are nice? Nuremburg trials, death trains, we know where you live, exploding unbelievers?
Scientific American is a quality peer reviewed journal? You cannot have it both ways.
Stolen e-mails or inadvertently released or whistle-blown after being prepared for FoI release?
The desire to return to the medieval period is the desire of the green/climate scientist. Without energy there is no modern civilisation.
kaimanawaggs 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
You guys are in hysterics about "death trains" and yet totally ignore the very real threats that are being hurled at scientist at this moment. Like the A.G of Virginia filing another contetntless brief against Michael Mann. The first one got thrown out for being a fishing expedition.
Then we got the very real death threats that geophysicist have received. The threats of law suits and the attempted breaking and entering at the University of Vancouver.
Trent1492 1 year ago
Con't
All "deniers" are 100% confident the climate has warmed since the LIA. There is evidence that the warming from 1850 to 1950 was not human caused. We can explain warming since 1950 by solar forcing.
Trend selection by climate scientists is of major concern and the sceptics are the ones that emphasize this.
Predictions of sea level rise from assumptions that are contrary to observed data are fantasy. Sea level rise because of various problems cannot be accurately measured thus modelled
kaimanawaggs 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
You have made the claim that the Sun accounts for the present warming. That is false and has been falsified multiple times.
1. Is that we can track the sun's output and see no increase in the total solar irradiance.
2. We can make the prediction that days should warm faster than night if warming is solar induced. We have found just the opposite.
3. We can make the prediction that the Stratosphere should heat up first. Again we find the opposite.
There is plenty more...
Trent1492 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
You have claimed that Seal Level rise can not measured? Have you told the tide gauges and NASA scientist this news?
Trent1492 1 year ago
Scientific journals and peer review are a recent concept and all real advances were not in journals or peer reviewed e.g. Newton's gravitation, Mendeleev's periodic table, Einstein's special relativity. They published all their data, reasoning and conclusions and tried (successfully) to defend them. Climate scientists of the "Hockey stick" ilk have failed with the all data and the reasoning, i.e. their computer programmes at least.
Selected inadequate data needs to be carefully re-examined
kaimanawaggs 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
Einstein's Special Relativity was published in a peer reviewed journal. That journal was is called Annalen der Physik and has been a scientific journal since the 18th century.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs
Has anyone mentioned to you that that the Hockey Stick has been replicated again and again using different techniques and proxies? I am guessing not.
Trent1492 1 year ago
@kaimanawaggs If, as you say, all these "data, reasoning and conclusions" haven't been made public, how do you know they're wrong? How were you able to spot all these errors in climate science while climate scientists themselves all failed? And would you say that semiconductor electronics or molecular genetics are not "real advances"? Enquiring minds want to know!
RedGreenInBlue 1 year ago
Hats off to you greenman. I admire your patience!
Bridgmanify 1 year ago
@Bridgmanify
I get so much more than I give.
greenman3610 1 year ago
What the fuck is "climate denier" supposed to mean, "anthropogenic global warming denier" would be more appropriate, and even still that term has been designed to associate these people with "holocaust deniers". come on people this is so obvious.
rivercarper01 1 year ago
@rivercarper01
Sometimes I just say "the anti science types".
"Climate denier" does a good job, as you say, of picking up on the "holocaust denier" element - as the video notes the neo-nazi group makes a good representation.
I actually like "denialist" - which also has an alliterative resonance with "nihilist", of which I think there is a significant element in the anti science community, which includes Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, and other right wing extremists.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@rivercarper01 OK, so the Nazi SCIENTISTS that were pushing the Lie that if you had blond hair and blue eyes you were superior to all other races, were people who dissagreed with that "anti-science types"? ....think what you are saying man!!!
rivercarper01 1 year ago
@rivercarper01
I wouldn't count Albert Einstein as an "anti science" type.
No, the people like you who refuse to look at the facts, and instead choose to believe the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Sarah Palins of the world, are the anti science types.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Please see the Climate Scientists' Register that the International Climate Science Coalition have created & has been endorsed by 137 climate experts since June 2010:
tinyurl[dot]com/2es3rqx
The Register states:
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."
Tom Harris
ICSC
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
I guess the godless muslim socialist polar ice did not read that petition.
It seems to still be crashing.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I don't know what "godless muslim socialist" has to do with science. Is this just a (weak) attempt at an ad hominem attack? It is weak for a few reasons:
- I know that some of the scientists on the REgister list believe in God, although some are undoubtedly agnostic or atheist
- some on our list are left wing
- the polar ice is growing in the southern hemisphere, and that is where 90% of the ice is.
Tom Harris
ClimateScienceInternational[dot]org
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
your grasp of what is important in the issue is weak, as is your sense of humor.
Northern polar sea ice has long been predicted to be one of the first indicators - due to polar amplification. That is what we are now seeing.
Southern polar sea ice is insignificant compared to southern ice sheets, which are known to be shrinking faster than expected. Southern sea ice disappears almost completely in summer, which makes minor fluctuations in its extent a moot issue from (cont)..
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 It is a shame people like greenman3610 feel it is necessary to attack the messanger, not just the message.
In the BBC film "Planet Earth", they say the Antarctic surface area doubles in winter due to sea ice. I checked the stats and in Sep '08, Antarctic sea ice peaked at 18.5 million square kilometers (and has been increasing at 1% per decade since 1979) and the min is about 1 million. Do you have the numbers for the Arctic to compare?
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
For the best, most credible discussion, anyone interested can go to the sea ice FAQ at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
google
nsidc arcticseaicenews faq
Key point: "Unlike Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice disappears almost completely during the summer, and has since scientists have studied it."
ie - losing arctic summer ice as we are has much greater effect on planetary albedo than minor fluctuations in the antarctic.
Actual info from actual experts.
That's my bias.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 I would hardly call doubling the surface area of the Antartic continent a "minor fluctuation in the antarctic". You said, "Southern polar sea ice is insignificant compared to southern ice sheets" Could you give us the numbers to compare the amount of sea ice in both northern and southern polar regions, please? Also, the amount they fluctuate each year. Then we can judge if your assertions are correct.
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
You're stuck asking the irrelevant question.
first of all,
none of this is about me or "my assertions".
I point viewers to real information from real scientists.
Read the NSIDC faq, and all your questions should be answered,
particularly, see
"Is wintertime Antarctic sea ice increasing or decreasing?"
bottom line -
Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Greenman asserts: "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change." I asked you to substantiate that with actual numbers. I do not think you can because what you have said is incorrect. Take a look at the diagrams on the NSIDC site and one can easily see that Attenborough from the BBC series is right - the size of Antarctica does pretty well double due to sea ice in their winter.
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
Attenborough, of course, also gets it that climate change is a threat, and has said so repeatedly.
I know it's work to do more than look at the pictures, but if you actually read the faq I directed you to, it will explain why the wintertime doubling of southern sea ice is irrelevant.
But far be it from me to push you out of your comfort zone.
Interested readers, again, will have their questions answered by googling
nsidc arcticseaicenews faq
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Interesting that Greeman does not answer the question that naturally arises when he claims "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change."
I don't think he really knows.
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
Per NSIDC:
"...even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature."
more at nsidc, google
nsidc arcticseaicenews faq
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Numbers, we need numbers to see if your claim that " "Southern sea ice change is minor, variable, and irrelevant compared to northern sea ice change." is true. We can see for ourselves if it is if you gives us the data. I think Sir Davaid Attenborough is proabbly correct when he says that the Antarctic doubles in size in the winter due to the massive sea ice change.
TomHarrisICSC 1 year ago
@TomHarrisICSC
a climate perspective - as there is very little change in albedo occurring.
The albedo change is one of the major feedbacks that northern polar ice loss is contributing to the warming process.
Your notion that northern and southern sea ice are somehow equivalent, indicates you have not studied, and do not understand the relevant issues.
I'll be doing another wrap up on the sea ice season, and I'll explain it there.
greenman3610 1 year ago
Good for a laugh!! It's true there are no ads in science journals. That's because they are subsidised with massive amounts of money. The 'conservative Economist' as a source of cutting edge science is a joke. I'm 100% confident that he's paid to say that etc.
I was watching for that woodcut - I don't know if you know, but it was a fake, 19th century I think. You may know that anyway - it hasn't appeared yet.
rerevisionist 1 year ago
China and India are polluting like crazy and they aren't even mentioned in the solution for our carbon sins. Saint Gore and the others should kill themselves to walk the walk, instead of the talk which by their carbon producing ways means its a bunch of shit.
Theylivewesleep1984 1 year ago
@Theylivewesleep1984 : Typical American view of things... if they are just one hypocrit, then it must invalidate the whole thing... did you just invalidate your whole country by assuming that if one person is partly wrong, then anything or anybody related should also be?
nigelelsass 1 year ago
I enjoy fbing your videos...it usually starts with my denialist friends flinging mud and using Beck soundbites rather than debunking scientists' claims with cold hard facts (that'd be because they don't have any).
I think the biggest problem is the sheer lack of the most basic understanding of science. Their certainty in what they choose to believe, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, is mind-boggling. What are we, going through the Dark Ages again??!
Thanks, Greenman!
gobbycoot 1 year ago
I enjoy fbing your videos...it usually starts with my denialist friends flinging mud and using Beck soundbites rather than debunking scientists' claims with cold hard facts (that'd be because they don't have any).
I think the biggest problem is the sheer lack of the most basic understanding of science. Their certainty in what they choose to believe, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, is mind-boggling. What are we, going through the Dark Ages again??!
Thanks, Greenman!
gobbycoot 1 year ago
should have answered it's a trend with significance value of X%. but that would have been taken apart too ...
ArynSing 1 year ago
This video has been completely rebutted, Google - Rebuttal to "Flogging the Scientists"
populartechnology 1 year ago